AN ANSWER TO A CERTAIN LIBEL SUPPLICATORIE, OR RATHER Defamatory, and also to certain Calumnious Articles, and Interrogatories, both printed and scattered in secret corners, to the slander of the Ecclesiastical state, and put forth under the name and title of a Petition directed to her Majesty:  
Wherein not only the frivolous discourse of the Petitioner is refuted, but also the accusation against the DISCIPLINARIANS his clients justified, and the slanderous cavils at the present government disciphred by Matthew Sutcliffe.  
These dreamers defile the flesh, and despise government, and speak evil of them that are in authority.  Jude vers. 8. 
Etsi loqui nesciant, tacere tamen non possunt.  Hierom. Neither can they well speak, nor wisely hold their peace. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They pretend and seek the reward of Phinees zeal, but do the works of Zimri. 
Imprinted at London by the DEPUTIES of CHRISTOPHER BARKER, Printer to the QVEENES' most excellent MAJESTY. 1592.   

TO THE HONOURABLE SIR EDMUND ANDERSON, LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF HER majesties covert OF COMMON PLEAS.  
ALthough (my good Lord) I cannot without grief remember the dangerous and hurtful effects of the late stirs which certain factious persons have made, both in the Church, and common wealth about the new consistorial government; yet seeing diseases cannot be well cured, unless they be made known; nor well known, unless the patient declare them: I could not refrain from uttering them, being one of that Church and state, that hath so long suffered them, yea though not I only, but all others whom they concern, should of importune shamefastness conceal them: yet would they not, being so great be concealed. It is well known what scandal thereof hath grown to religion, divers wicked persons are thereby confirmed in their atheism: weak christians are either driven back to popery, or discouraged from coming forward to embrace religion: the Seminaries abroad are replenished with many towardly scholars seeking that abroad, which they despair to find at home: sects & evil opinions grow up, like noisome weeds in divers corners; those that should and would repress them, are by domestical stirs of secret enemies thuarted & hindered: The Papists take thereby encouragement, and hope for innovation. 
1 De schism. lib. 3. quo bello Catholici indies plures, constantiorésque in fide sunt facti, saith he, speaking of his false Catholics, and Roman perverse taith.   in his book, as he calleth it, of schism, doth brag, That through these contentions the Romanistes daily multiplied among us, and grew more resolute. they also from these domestical brawls made by some against our Church do draw an argument to harden men's hearts against religion, and the authors of religion. both 
2 In lib de cansis cur catholisis, etc.  Vlenbergue, and Rosse in their seditious treatises against us, do much insist upon that point: and it is a common objection made by the enemy, yea a matter not lightly feared of friends.  
For learning hath lost almost all reputation, while these unlearned and unwise confistorians declaim against learning, and seek no further divinity, than Caluins and Bezaes' and junius his glosses and commentaries, and without ground of learning and arts, as it were with unwashen feet, enter into the lords sanctuary. while the fathers and ancient writers of the Church are despised, and every man taketh upon him to interpret scriptures after his own foolish conceit, and forceth them to serve their own changeable humours: they run into divers dangerous opinions. I report me to the strange doctrine of 
2 Theologia sacra.  Fenner and his Master T.C. in their new book of consistorial divinity. of the law, gospel, sacraments, and ecclesiastical government, there is scarce any point delivered without error, but those are faults of a lighter mark in respect, of points concerning the divine essence, and the Trinity, whereof they talk strangely. In the 
3 Theologia sacra lib. 1.  divine nature they confound essence, and person; and divide the persons of the Trinity into two members; and make the son together with the holy ghost to proceed from the father: where all religion saith, that he is borne of the father, which is the characteristical difference of that person. further they affirm that the holy ghost proceedeth from the father, 
4 Ibidem.  without mentioning the son. they teach also that hatred as it is attributed to God is the essence of God. And while they would commend their fond preaching, and disgrace the scriptures: john Penrie 
5 In his supplicat.  one of the great disciplinarian prophets, either like a dolt, or (if he defend it) a blasphemous heretic Maketh Christ to be the word preached, therein destroying Christ's eternal essence, and divinity. in 
6 The book was offered to the parliament by common consent of this faction: that it might throughout England be recented.  their Communion book they have taken out two articles of the Creed; namely that of Christ's burial, and Christ's descending into hell; and added a new Article: viz. of their new fantastical discipline: a compendious and short way to erect their new kingdom. for articles of our Creed are rather to be believed, then to be disputed of. In their Creed also, they make Christ to be borne of the virgin according to the flesh, dividing Christ into two parsons with Nestorius. lastly (for here I mean not to speak of all) they forget A petition in their brave paraphrase of the Lords prayer. which matters are very shameful, and yet not to be denied. for their own worthless books convince them.  
While they have refused the old order of preaching, and followed the style of Bezaes' vain, and verbal sermons, whereof I, and many others that have heard, and read them are witnesses; their expositions be either verbal, or fantastical, or both. their prayers for the most part are disordered fancies, yea some times malicious invectives, full rather of words than devotion; conceived without study, and uttered without judgement: which kind of 
1 Matth. 6.7.  verbal babbling Christ condemneth as heathenish.  
To leave matters of the Church, we see how schools are decayed, and how both learning and rewards of learning are daily diminished: and all this while these unworthy fellows first think that all learning is contained in Caluins' institutions, and Bezaes' opuscula, and secondly measure every man's merits by their own foot, and allow no more to others, than they suppose they deserve themselves, taking away all hope of honour or reward, by making the ignorant judge of the merit of learning, and talking of certain strange positions of forty pound pensions. as if forty, or a hundred pounds yearly were the uttermost reward, that learning could deserve: and every other sort of men were worthy of most high rewards, and preferment. the number of scholars decreasing in both the Universities doth declare how much men are discouraged; and examples of this sacrilegious discipline otherwhere received, do show what further wrack is to be feared hereafter.  
The governors both of Church and schools are contemned: I would I might not say discouraged. they are made marks for licentious youths armed with malice to shoot their bolts against. the laws are not only contemned, but most boldly oppugned: yea with such confidency, that law is now accounted disorder, and faction and tumult, termed 
2 Petition to her Majesty.  reformation: and libelers in evil time called reformers. what resteth for them to work, but that all wise, and learned men being put from government, the silly sots which these call elders, and certain famous authors of popular faction should be placed in the highest offices, or else that laws being not executed, or judges crossed in executing of justice, the contumacious might live as they list: wherein they seek nothing, but that either the foreign enemy may oppress us, or else inward tumult, and disorder consume us.  
But I doubt not but her Majesty, and all those that bear office under her, will take speedy order. that it is not already taken, many do wonder, some do complain. but the clemency of her majesties times, and her benign nature doth afford us answer. she will not have any complain, that in this case, any are punished, but such as are obstinate, heinous, and notorious disturbers of the state. because they were not at the first known for such, she would not have them punished for such. beside this, the height of the style, and the loud brags they made of their discipline, made many believe, they did it either of simplicity, or zeal, or error. few suspected the greediness of some, and malice and ambition of others: their notorious hypocrisy could not of long time be discovered. but now their lewdness is apparent, and their false visage is dismasked. let them therefore beware, that they abuse not the clemency of the times, or hope for continuance of undeserved favour.  
The vanity of their brags, and weakness of their cause is evident to all, that are not either wilfully blinded, or naturally ignorant. All the demonstrations of their discipline are discifred, and stand confuted. they do not so much as go about to defend them. their whole plots of false discipline lie razed. they cannot say a word for them: in this late petition wherein they had occasion to show their skill, they have not so much as answered one argument brought by us against them. 
The defence of Bezamade for his Aldermen most weak, and simple.  as in a desperate cause they have entreated Beza to say somewhat. wherein we may see that their forces are spent to the last man. yea so spent, that they have no hope of recovery. for what saith he good man? he telleth us a long tale of his Genevian devices, but neither doth he answer our arguments, nor bringeth scripture, fathers, or reason for his cause. unless we believe him on his bare word, the controversy is at an end. call you this answering? this is rather the plain overthrow of his cause. for while he went about to answer, he hath confirmed our cause saying nothing either for himself, or against us, but what he in his old age dreameth. where was T.C. that valiant champion of discipline all this while? where was W. Tr. W. Ch. D. Sp. could not one of them speak for their cause, but they must send to Geneva for a speaker? it is too great, and notable a confession of the weakness of their cause.  
As for him, or (that I mistake not) them that made the petition lately printed, and pretended to be presented to her Majesty on the behalf of the Puritans; they do not deserve the name of speakers: unless it be among Puritans; where every one that can prate, is said to speak. For what say they for their cause? their only reason is, because Caluin, Beza, Daneus, Carpentier, Golart, Perot, Tavergues, Pollan, Sneccan, and a number of other authors (of whose names and gests we should never have heard, if these men had not in this cause brought their names to light) do speak somewhat for their consistory, that therefore we are to like of it. A goodly reason: yet such a one, as I think they will not admit against their discipline. For albeit Master R. M.B.M.G. M.A. M.H. M.D. M.W. and infinite other learned, and good preachers among us, (yea such, as one of them is to be vaed against many of these ignorant and presumptuous disciplinarians) do like of the present government: yet are they not therewith satisfied. nay, albeit all the ancient Fathers, and acts of Counsels do like of the authority & government of Bishops: yet are these fellows still contending against it. That the same was established by most learned and godly men, that in Q. Mary's time gave their lives for the testimony of the truth, they little weigh: nay, they neither care for them, nor their authority.  
With what face then can they allege Golart, Pollan, Sneccan, and a number of birds of like feather, and men neither wise nor learned, nor that have ground of antiquity or reason; seeing they renounce not only the authority of our men more learned than they, but of our Martyrs more holy men than they: yea and all the writings of the Fathers, and acts of Counsels speaking of the authority and state of Bishops, and such a government as we have? In times past they were wont to tell us of certain laws established by God himself; and made vaunt, that they would prove their discipline out of God's word. Why then are they now mute? why are not these laws, and this word brought forth? why are they silent in bringing forth these mighty reasons? when all is come to all, must we rest on Golart, Pollan, Tavergues and Sneccans, & three or four odd companion's idle conceits? there can nothing be devised more absurd, nor senseless.  
Therefore having nothing to say in defence of their cause, now in a desperate rage they begin to revel not only at Bishops, but also at Laws and judges, and the ordinary trials of this Realm. The drift of the petition is to show, that john Udall was wrongfully condemned. they insinuate therein, that the judges were either corrupted, or blinded, and that the evidence was wrested. They say in plain terms, that judges have no skill to deal with such fellows as john Udall: another kind of man percase, than he is taken to be. Is he trow you any of Hackets or Coppingers consorts? to bring Bishops into hatred, they have after their petition collected divers Articles, and by them and by certain calumnious interrogatories have gone about to bring them in disgrace with the multitude: that if they cannot have their desire of their celestial consistory; they may be yet revenged of such, as they take to be the hinderers of their purposes.  
Whose malice to encounter, as before I have answered their cavils against the ecclesiastical government of our Church to the utter disgrace of the Consistory: so now having other occasions to print a discourse against Bellarmine, and foreign adversaries of our Church, I have thought good to recreate myself with this more easy labour, and to answer their cavils at our proceed in law, together with such authorities as they bring for the proof of their consistory, to the final discovery of their unbridled malice: that all seeing the nakedness of their cause may join together to extirpate the relics of those, that have been causers of these stirs.  
Against this my purpose, I do understand, that divers exceptions are taken. First, those that favour the consistorial discipline, do say I withstand a noble work of reformation; and therefore cannot like of my doings. but unto these this whole treatise shall make answer: for thereby it shall appear, that their whole course tendeth rather to confusion, and disorder of Church and state, then to reformation of either: and therefore seeing they do declare themselves open enemies both unto the present state, and to me in this cause, I do not regard what they like, or dislike. no doubt, but that open enemies will like that best, which for the State is worst, and greatly praise that, which tendeth to the hurt thereof.  
Others there are, that condemn all those discourses, that are written of both sides concerning this argument, which albeit they would seem to be friends: yet in deed are enemies, as well as the other. For no more is he an enemy that oppugneth us in plain field, than he that treacherously seeketh to discourage such as are forward in maintaining the State at home. and albeit they would colour their malice with pretence of detestation of contention among friends: yet do they us wrong, to account them that oppugn the state, friends; or attribute the cause of contention to us, that only defend the State against contentious, and malcontent persons, such as would ruinated the same. for not those that defend, but those that begin the brawl are contentious. Were it not think you a ridiculous thing for a man to say, that valiant men that fight for their country, are contentious; and a point of treachery to discourage them? why then should not the like be thought of those that condemn them that writ in defence of the present government, of religion, and learning, in like degree, as if they had writ against the same? These men are sorry that any should stop the breach against such, as seek to enter to make spoil, and therefore, as secret enemies, or weak persons, that neither understand matters of State, nor reason, are to be contemned, if not reproved.  
A last sort there is, that percase mislike the sharpness of my style. but they must consider, that in this discourse I deal not against men of learning, or gravity, or such as desire to learn, or find out truth: but against ignorant, wilful, and seditious Libelers, that seek partly by falsehood, and partly by disgrace of some bad persons unworthy of their places to discredit the whole ecclesiastical state: against whom no sharpness of style can be sufficient. but I did respect rather what became me to speak, than what they deserved to hear.  
This discourse I present to your Lordship, a man well acquainted with the humours of the men, and weakness of their cause, & a judge most skilful in law. Unto whom should we seek for resolution in law, and redress of wrong, rather than to him that beareth so honourable a charge in matters of justice? under your name I would it should come to the hands, and view of all other reverend judges, learned Lawyers, and well affected subjects. We desire nothing more, than that matters may be examined according to justice, and doubt not, but if that may be obtained, that the controversy will be ended, and the calumnious mouths of factious persons stopped. for seeing the platformers have neither support of truth, nor law; what man will doubt, but that they are to be repressed aswell by justice, as by disputation and discourse?  
That is the means to end all our complaints, the remedy of our common griefs, if the perturbers of our State at home were first calmed, I would not doubt, but foreign adversaries would soon be daunted, and the minds of friends united, to the joy of all that love the truth of God's religion, and seek the long continuance of her majesties peaceable reign, and the flourishing state of the Church.  
Accept therefore I beseech you, my good Lord, this my good will, which I testify unto you in this Treatise. Due it is to you, being so forward and upright in matters of justice, and was expected at my hands being specially touched in the petition which I answer, I make your Lordship and all the learned, yea all indifferent men judges. judge therefore according to justice and truth. There is no reason I should require favour in this cause, further than my simple skill, and unsufficient handling of matters for want of time, and being oppressed with other business shall require favour.  
The Lord send peace to his Church, and heap upon you, and all others that love his truth, all heavenly graces, that by your means enjoying the benefits of true religion, justice and peace, we may consent in one truth, and jointly in his holy Church glorify Christ jesus the Prince of peace.  
In London the 20 of December. Your Lordships in all duty, and hearty affection, MATHEW SUTCLIFFE.   

The Preface wherein both the argument of the discourse ensuing is delivered, and certain general faults of the petition, touched.  
I Had once well hoped, that either the authority of the Magistrate could have commanded, or the terror of the common enemy, that so violently doth assail the whole Church at this time, would have enforced the contentious to make an end of their brawls: and if neither reverence of superiors, nor respect of common profit could put them to silence; yet did I imagine, seeing they have nothing to say, that discretion, and common sense would make them to hold their peace. how much my expectation was deceived this petition which I have here undertaken to answer, doth declare. for without respect to laws, or common profit, yea or common reason, the author thereof hath put forth himself to speak. a man as you shall see without reverence to superiors, or conscience in reporting of laws, or iudgementin matters divine or human, and most unable to speak, or write in this, or other argument.  
To go no further, this his petition shall make proof of my words. for neither is there art in his style, nor wit, or sharpness in his arguments, nor is there any decency observed in the discourse: nor doth the treatise agree with the title, nor the parts thereof with themselves. the style is like john Bells song of Coventrie, the sentences hang together like lenten deames: first, he kneeleth on his knee, then asketh pardon, afterward telleth of all good subjects, how they desire peace (and yet notwithstanding he telleth of many that increase contention,) than he talketh of writing of books, of general counsels, and a new kind of disputing by writing: matters that neither have coherence among themselves, nor with his general purpose. having made this absurd entrance, he proceedeth more absurdly. his arguments are all drawn from authority, of late writers: a weak kind of reasoning, and good for nothing: yet as if he had said very much stoutly doth he revel at Bishops, judges, laws; and quarrelth against the state: afterward he gathereth certain notes of his own discipline, which unless you receive of his bare word, you stop all his glorious proceeding: last of all he layeth down certain articles, and interrogatories. It should seem he hath been either a petty fogger in law, or a clerk in some office: or hath been furnished with these matters by some odd clerk, or petty fogger. nothing is more simple, nor clerkly, nor worse beseeming men of learning. there is in his writing no good course of words, no good frame of sentences, no sufficient proofs, no order nor sequence of parts.  
His arguments yet are worse than his style. to prove the consistory and his new conceits of discipline, he allegeth first, that the government of Bishops is not so exquisite, but that somewhat may be amended. as if it followed because men do not their duties, or because there are imperfections in men, and in proceed, or want of some law: that the state were to be overturned, and a new uncouth and unruly government by Churchaldermen to be embraced: or else, as if a man should say, we were to be governed by the laws of Turks or jews, because of the faults of the common laws. nay rather let laws stand, and such Turkish and barbarous conceits of general innovation be corrected, and faults of laws amended.  
Secondly he bringeth in a pack of authorities against Romish bishops: as if either the ancient Bishops of Rome, or the late Bishops that preach the Gospel, were to be measured by the wickedness, and tyranny of the late Romish Bishops: or government were to be taken away, because it hath been abused. thirdly he produceth the opinions of Caluin, Beza, and a pack of others: most of them unlearned and unknown, as if it were reason to follow them against all antiquity; or as if the government of the Church stood upon opinion, not upon scripture, and ancient laws, and customs. Before times these fellows told us of a discipline commanded in scriptures; this fellow telleth us of certain fancies of Caluin, Beza, and certain obscure authors newly brought out of corners into light. and yet can he not show, that any of these whom he hath alleged, do in all points consent with our platformers. to prove that his partisans offend not against law, he allegeth divers of their opinions: as if it were an excuse for heretics to say, they believe well in some few points. what punishment then do they deserve that offend both in the opinions alleged, and divers others concealed? finally to prove that his fellows offending against law, are not to be punished, he showeth that Bishops also offend against Law: as if the offence of one, were to be an excuse for another, or as if a man offend in any small point of law, and that not of malice, it were lawful for these fellows to overthrow all laws, and that of selfewill, and malicious purpose.  
There is no decorum observed in the whole discourse, the petition is supposed to be made by the author kneeling before her Majesty. yet doth he often speak to others, and quarrel and dispute with those that are absent, as if a man making his petition to her Majesty, should suddenly rise up, and quarrel with by standers. which not only is a point of absurdity, but of the authors old frenzy.  
Secondly what is more unseemly, then before the chief governor to plead as doth the petitioner; that all his government is lewd, & antichristian, and that his laws are devoid of reason, and that judgements given are unjust, and aught to be reversed, and most odiously to rail on the state and governors?  
Thirdly seeing this petition is directed to her Majesty, to what end is the same put in print? belike the man's purpose is, that so much as the Queen by wisdom shall deny, the people by force, and fury shall establish. which in deed is his drift. for the same was never presented to her Majesty, but only to the people.  
Fourthly, nothing is more absurd, then to handle matters of controversy by way of supplication. seeing he disputeth, he should rather have come in schools, then in court; and before lawyers, than courtiers.  
Lastly a very undecent thing it seemeth to me, that a man not conversant in study of divinity should teach divines, that a disordered companion should controllgovernors, and laws: that a man lately distracted of his wit should teach law and order, neither knowing order, nor law. which course if it may be suffered: it is but folly to study divinity or law, or to maintain government; and a bad encouragement for judges to do justice, seeing every ignorant & disordered companion shall take on him to control them and to teach law, & to govern as it were by revelation, inspiration, and fancy. what should be the cause that this base fellow should come forth, I know not: unless this be it, that all that were wise foreseeing and eschewing the danger, this bedlam writer that neither foresaw, nor saw any thing, being armed with divers collections of others, should say something, if for nothing else, yet to make show, that they can say somewhat.  
The treatise answereth not to the title. for where he promiseth therein to deliver a means how to compound matters; in the whole treatise he doth with all his force endeavour to enkindle wars, he raileth on goveruours and laws, controlleth judges, and goeth about to reverse judgements, and would if he could; overthrow all the ecclesiastical state: which savoureth rather of a humour to fight, then to compound. and yet is not he the man that must be the leader of these consistorial warriors, being but a ragazzo fit for nothing but to carry baggage.  
In this his book he fighteth no more against us, then against himself. he saith he will neither speak to overthrow Bishops, nor to erect consistories: yet doth he his uttermost malice against Bishops, and speaketh what he can for Consistories: and yet nothing to purpose. he professeth he knoweth not whether part hath better ground, wherein like a simple fellow, he not only confesseth he speaketh of matters he understandeth not, but also cotrarieth himself in denying that he professeth. in the very first entrance he saith, that all her majesties loving subjects, that love religion, honour her Majesty, and do desire the good of the Realm, do hearty bewail the contention of our Church: wherein he pronounceth sentence against himself, and his consorts, as neither loving her Majesty, religion nor the state. for seeking to inflame this contention by scurrilous libels, and interrogatories, how can it be surmised, that they do bewail, this contention? do men bewail, that which they do? or do men seek peace, that against good men throw out their bolts, even bitter and slanderous words?  
Besides the former, the libeler hath also these faults. most foully he abuseth scriptures: most shamefully he allegeth authors, most ignorantly he talketh of law, and maliciously reveleth at the ecclesiastical state. in the first page he abuseth three places of scripture. the 
1 Proverb. 31.  wise man saith, open thy mouth for the dumb etc. by this place he would justify his babbling in this treatise. but nothing is more impertinent to his purpose, than this sentence. for the wise man would have innocents, that cannot speak for themselves defended by order, and justice, by such as can speak. neither may we think, that it was his meaning, that every seditious person should gape and rail against Laws and Governors for doing justice, or that malefactors should be defended against law, and judges. how can then this place agree to his purpose, seeing those men whom the libeler defendeth are not innocentes (for they were condemned for felony, and tried according to the laws of England) neither were they mute, when they reveled against governors, nor was john Udall condemned, but for speaking too much: nor is this busy behaviour of this companion any way allowed, nor sedition or libeling priutledged?  
The Prophet saith further, 
Psal. 115.  that because he believed: therefore he spoke. which the libeler turneth answer, and would draw to this his treatise. but it fitteth not. for this petition is no answer, but rather a railing libel, or challenge, neither proceedeth it of faith, but of a foolish disordered conceit of a distempered brain, not yet well seasoned, since the authors last bedlam fits. and if this be his belief, then is his faith built upon fancy, and upon that which himself confesseth, he knoweth not.  
Neither doth it appertain to his purpose, that the Prophet saith, that for Zion's sake he will not hold his peace. for it is not the cause of Zion, 
Isai. 62.  nor any good cause, but sedition, faction, fancy, conceit, and opinion, that by him is here defended: & that to the great scandal of all the watchmen of Zion, yea of althat pray for the peace of jerusalem. in the end of his articles against Bishops, as if he were ravished in an ecstasy he exclaimeth: how long Lord holy and true? and saith, come Lord jesus. which sentences make much against him. for all good men desire, that God would try the cause and that he in judgement would visit the perturbers of this Church, which if once it shall please him to determine to do, then shall he and such vipers as he, that fret the bowels of the Church which nourisheth them, be discovered, punished, & rooted out. these may serve you for a taste. the rest of his forgeries, and forcing of authors shallbe touched, as they shall offer themselves in their place.  
Neither may we think, that he that maketh so little conscience to abuse, or dally with the scriptures of God, hath used more religion in handling the writings of men. for example; to prove the aldermen, of his Church, & their proceed, he hath alleged Luther, Zuinglius, Melancthon, and many others that are contrary to these men in their discipline, and never knew such aldermen, as he speaketh of. neither doth Caluin, nor Beza join with him in his several points of discipline. therefore doth he allege them in gross, and abuseth his readers with a show of names. the like abuse shall appear in his quotations of law, which he by forging and lying maketh to speak contrary to law.  
Little doth he understand of law, he neither knoweth what proceeding of office meaneth, nor what is law in ministering of oaths, against which he argueth: neither any one point of common, civil, or Canon law, of which he so much standeth. but whatsoever his knowledge is in law, his malice in railing against the state is singular: all which points as they are touched here in a generality, so hereafter shall be more particularly laid open, and most of his misallegations, falsifications, malicious slanders, weak proofs, and proceed answered, not that either the author, whose insufficiency is notorious, nor the discourse, the weakness whereof is too too pitiful, deserveth any answer: but least that the simplicity of the ignorant, who is easily misled with these great shows might be abused, or justice be by opinions controlled. herein also all men may understand the weakness of the cause of the Consistory, the boldness, malice, and falsehood of the Consistorians, and such as contend for it, and how fit it were, that such as are altogether uncapable of reason, should be governed, if not enforced by laws.  
The author whatsoever he pretendeth for colour, proposeth to himself to prove diverse things: First, that the Ecclesiastical government of the Church of England is to be changed. for that doth he mean by reformed. Secondly, That an Eldership should be established among us, as being a government used in the ancient Church, and commanded to be continued in all ages. and to the end that his reasons may be weighed, he craveth disputation by advised writing. Thirdly, he maintaineth, that the disciplinarian faction hath not offended against the statute of 23. Eliz. c. 2, and that john Vdal was unjustly condemned. Fourthly, he would declare, That the consistorial patrons are unjustly slandered with desire of innovation, and their doctrine with disloyalty or disorder, and endeavoureth to excuse himself for not declaring himself, nor setting his name to his petition.  
Lastly, by divers Articles, and questions, he goeth about to bring the Ecclesiastical state into envy and hatred; That while men are busy in examining their faults, his clients of the new disguised discipline may escape in the dark, and without danger undermine the estate.  
To meet therefore with his malice, and to encounter him in all his turns, I do purpose by God's grace to show; First, that the government of the Church of England is most conformable to the practice of the government, both under the law, and the gospel, and hath testimony of scriptures, confirmation of antiquity, and was never gainsaid, but of late days, when factious companions, and clouters, and tinkers, and merchants, and men of occcupation aspired to Church government; and that the cavils and proofs brought by the petitioner against it, are fond and foolish:  
Secondly, that the novelty, vanity, injustice, and inconveniences of the new government are such, as cannot stand with any good, or well ordered state, wherein also the insufficient pleading of the petitioner for the Consistory shall be refuted: thirdly, that john Udall was justly condemned, and that the platformers are justly charged not only with breach of divers laws, very penal, but also with sedition and faction; and therefore are most mercifully dealt withal, that they are neither in greater number, nor in other quality punished; the vain glosses, that are set upon their facts, and opinions shall be there also wiped away. in the last part of this treatise, such accusations, as the libellor hath brought to disgrace the Ecclesiastical government, and which he hath set down in malicious Articles, and interrogatories shall be answered; neither do I mean therein to omit any speech, that shall seem any way pertinent to purpose: being loath, he should say, he was not answered.  
Wherein if you see no colour, or show of reason for this new-found platforms; or proof of his accusation: consider than I pray you first, what indignity hath been offered by this libellor to the Church of God, to her Majesty and her laws, to the Ecclesiastical state, and such as live in obedience of laws: and secondly what they deserve, that have offered this indignity unto so many and honourable persons, and brought this scandal into the Church of God. the common 
1 Rescius i● ministromach.  adversary maketh profit of those shameless slanders, which those uncivil, and unlettered authors of the Admonition have uttered against the Church: the adversary triumpheth to see this contention: disordered companions take occasion of contumacy, and rebellion: when will the governors use like diligence, to repress them?  
If then you love religion, her Majesty, and the state: you will not suffer such notorious revellors at laws and governors: if you be desirous of truth; you will no more be abused with vain gloss. H. Nicholas hath painted his book with quotations, as full as T.C. he useth the same style, and seemeth to have the same erroneous spirit.  
He saith as well as T.C. that for Zion's sake, 
2 In euangel. regni.  he will not hold his peace. and yet neither of both speaketh to purpose, nor to the edifying, but rather the pulling down of God's Church. and therefore seeing both the authors and their dealings have been tried: let them be both dealt with all, and esteemed according to their deserts.  
It may be these fellows looked for answer of her Majesty: and to say sooth, the Magistrate were most fit to shape answers for such disordered petitions. but in the mean while it may please them to accept of my answer. they are no such high persons, but meaner men than her Majesty may answer them, & reason it is seeing they put their petition in print, they should also receive a printed answer: and seeing they challenge me, they should hear my answer. And let them not think, but that howsoever their malice is repressed by law; their fond assertions and cavils shallbe refuted by reason.  
That truth may appear; I have done my endeavour. God is my witness, I seek for nothing but truth and peace. there roasteth then nothing, but that truth be embraced, and law maintained. for little availeth it to know either, if by faction, & mutiny laws may be broken, & truth oppressed. to make truth and justice known, it belonged to us: to defend the same belongeth to Magistrates; to wish the same to all. read therefore and judge, and seek the maintenance of justice, and truth, without which neither Church, nor state can be well governed.   

AN ANSWER TO A Certain calumnious Petition, and also to certain Articles, and Questions of the Consistorian faction.  

CAP. I. Wherein is declared, that the authority and state of Bishops, as it is used in England is lawful: and the Petitioners cavils brought to the contrary, answered.  
Almighty God when he gave Magistrates and Laws unto his Church, appointed first and next under the sovereign Magistrate, one high Priest to have the 
1 Deut. 17. levit. 13. exod. 28. nom. 3. & 4.  superintendence of the affairs of the church, and under him 
2 1. Chron. 24. & 25.  divers heads of their divisions, that things might be done in order. And lest we might suppose, that this was but a ceremonial constitution; under the Law of nature the chiefty of the Priesthood over all his, was first in Noah, then in Sem, then in Abraham, then in Isac and jacob, afterward in the 12 patriarchs, which for many years governed their whole families both in matters divine, and human. If equality of ministers had been so profitable, no doubt, God would have used that order in his Church.  
The Law ceremonial ceasing, our Saviour ruled his Church as sovereign Bishop of our souls: he adjoined no fellow aldermen to himself.  
Departing this world he gave commission to his disciples, within those places where they remained, to govern the church. So we read that they did excommunicate alone, that they did ordain ministers alone, yea, and did by superior authority order both the affairs and goods of the church. Paul did excommunicate 
3 1. Timoth. 1.  Alexander and Hymenaeus: Peter as Beza confesseth by the sword of excommunication struck Ananias and Saphyra alone. 
Beza adverse. Erast.  Paul ordained Timothy and Titus: and Timothy and Titus ordained other ministers. The Apostle Paul prescribeth orders and laws to Timothy and Titus, and their churches; the popular government which our platformers commend, was not so much as in time of persecution used.  
This was the practice of the Apostles successors likewise. Saint john writeth to the bishop of Ephesus, to the bishop of Smyrna, and likewise to the several Bishops of other Churches. to them he giveth directions, them he reprehendeth for bearing with the wicked: which if they had had no authority above other Ministers, had been very unfitting.  
All Ecclesiastical stories writing of that argument give witness that several Bishops succeeded the Apostles at Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, jerusalem, Antioch, & other famous Churches. Saint Jerome and divers other ancient writers testify, that Mark ruled Alexandria as Bishop, which happened in Saint john's time.  
All counsels give pre-eminence to Bishops over other Ministers: and to the counsels, the fathers subscribe. by infinite testimonies whereof it may appear, that excommunication, ordination, and the government of the Church next under the prince, did belong to Bishops. the words I have set down heretofore in my English book written against this counterfeit new discipline. Saint Jerome hath a most pregnant place for excommunication, 
jeronym. adverse. vigilant.  where he wondereth that no one Bishop could be found to excommunicate Vigilantius. and if all the government of the Church was committed to Bishops; no doubt but that they disposed of these matters also.  
When in our times religion began to be reform: the chief learned men that then lived, and took pains therein, 
In histor & Apologia confess. August.  protested in their public writings, to the intent that all posterity should know it, that if Bishops would embrace religion, they would most willingly submit themselves to their episcopal jurisdiction, accounting in most godly, and expedient for the Church. Melancthon useth many speeches to that purpose, fearing that if the authority of bishops were rejected, a greater tyranny would succeed. and Caluine likewise to Sadolete protesteth, that he misliketh not Episcopal authority.  
Neither can any thing be devised more absurd, than that equality of ministers, which is brought in to overthrow Bishops. for no government can be without superiority: neither can any thing be well ordered, where there is no special care in some one. it is against all law, all practice, yea against all reason.  
Therefore even the malcontent disciplinarians, that take away the name, give notwithstanding the authority of Bishops, to their rulers of Synods: in whom if the same were (as they say) unlawful, no reason it should be continued any little time. And further upon the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denying superiority to Bishops over ministers, they do notwithstanding give an unbridled, and absolute authority to the Consistories.  
These arguments, and others which I have set down, stand unanswered. that which is said against bishops, may be most easily, and hath often been answered: neither doth this unlettered fellow bring either new arguments, or confirm the old. nay, he leaveth all arguments which his fellows have brought out of scriptures: therein showing good judgement. for in deed it is absurd to think, that bishops may be overthrown by scriptures, upon which their authority is built. I wonder with what face after so many proofs brought in this cause, he durst go about without arguments to overthrow that, which hath such ground upon scriptures, laws, reasons. only for a show he hath brought a number of names of 
* Pag. 10. & 11.  counsels, fathers, Churches, and late writers: but when the matter shall come to trial, it shall be found, that they do all forsake him in this cause: and that both they, and infinite more than these speak against him. I answer therefore first generally, that it is no good argument that in this cause is drawn from Daneau, Tavergues, Perot, Chauneton, Carpentier, or other of their faction. Secondly that these counsels, and fathers, and Churches, and learned men which he quoteth, have not oppugned Bishops, or their government.  
The canons of the Apostles are placed in forefront of this array against Bishops, 
Can. 6. etc. 80.  not that they speak against them, but for that it pleaseth the petitioner to make some show in the entrance of his matter, of apostolical authority. in the sixth Canon there is no mention made of Episcopal jurisdiction: so that it may appear that he looked not on the place. It may be, he meant the seventh Canon (for there both Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are forbidden to meddle with worldly affairs) and in the 80 Canon, Bishops & Priests are charged, not to intrude themselves into public charges. But neither place maketh one word against the superiority of Bishops over Ministers, nor their authority in ordination; excommunication, and other Ecclesiastical matters, for which they are alleged. nay, contrariwise, they give ordination 
1 Can. 2. & 36  of Ministers to Bishops, and plainly distinguish 
2 c. 1. & 2. & 40.  Bishops, and priests, giving to Bishops both superiority over priests, and also the 
3 c. 40. & 41.  disposing of the affairs of the Church. that Bishops in the primitive Church were excluded from civil charges, the reason was, for that the Emperors were yet heathen: and therefore without danger of impiety, none could deal in office under them and in those times, the offices about collection of the Emperor's rents were 
4 ff. de decurionib.  burdensome, and dishonourable. and therefore no marvel if Bishops might not bear them: last of all, they were subject to accounts. yet howsoever it was, the Canons forbidden not Bishops to sustain a charge imposed upon them, but ambitiously to seek such charges. generally, secular matters were not forbidden Bishops, as may appear in the same Canons. 
5 c. 41.  so that neither do these places make against our bishops under Christian princes in common wealths, wherein they are subjects, as well as others; and by their authority help their calling, yea and the whole ministery under them, and no way hurt it: neither do they fit the petitionners purpose. For Bishops by their episcopal office do claim no civil authority. nor doth it follow, because Bishops may not bear certain civil offices, that therefore they are not to exercise episcopal authority: as the petitionner doth insinuate.  
Next to the Apostles Canons, as they are called, he citeth the 6 counsel of Carthage. 19 c. but there do not appear any Canons to have been made in that counsel, so wide is the man from his mark. commonly his fellows use to allege the 4 counsel, and 18, and 19 Canon: yet do not these canons fit their turn. for nothing is there spoken against the office of Bishops either in ordination, or contentious jurisdiction: only Bishops are forbidden to take on them the execution of testaments (which notwithstanding hath 
1 Concil. Chalced. c. 3.  exceptions) and to be common quarrelers in law: which no man thinketh convenient. neither canon maketh any thing to the purpose. were not this man without discretion he would never allege this counsel against Bishops, that so 
2 c. 3.27 31.55.68.  diversly confirmeth the authority of them, and condemneth such 
3 c. 57 & 67.  libelers, and raylors as the authors of this petition.  
Neither doth the counsel of Chalcedon decree any thing against the state of Bishops. the Canons alleged only forbid them, as the puritan Ministers, whereof some are graziers, some farmers, some malsters, do use to do, to hire grounds, which paid rend and tribute to the Emperor; or to deal in civil affairs, or warfare; lest thereby they should neglect their ministery. a pregnant place against divers of these counterfeit hypocrites; that shaking of their ministery, and disdeining the base account of it, trade in usury, merchandise, fermes, and other such like occupations, giving over themselves to serve mammon. This counsel maketh nothing for the cause of Puritans; for it establisheth the authority of Bishops and Archbishops, and condemneth such malicious and factious persons, as they are, that by 
1 c. 17.  calumnious accusations conspire the hurt, or disgrace of their bishops.  
The Petitioner doth also allege the 6 counsel of Constantinople: yet do we not in the books of counsels find any of that number; nor in any counsel holden at Constantinople any thing against the authority, or dignity of bishops: it may be he mistook the 6 counsel of Constantinople for the 6 synod: yet doth not that speak against bishops, but rather enacteth divers 
2 Synod. 6. ca 9 & 10.  cannons against usury; a practice which Th. Cartw. and W. Ch. and others might do well not to use: and for the dignity of bishops many 
3 Synod. 6. c. 31. & 36. & 37.  places.  
To let us further understand his ignorance, he quoteth the 3 counsel of Turon, whereas there were never but two there, & in neither of them any word sounding against the authority of bishops. perhaps he meant by names of counsels to face down simple men: or thinketh it no sin for the glory of the consistory to lie. I beseech him to show us where this 3 counsel of Turon may be found, and then he shall have further answer.  
Beside the new third counsel of Turon, he hath devised a new counsel also of Macra: which course if he hold on, I perceive we shall have a new book of counsels, to frame a new consistory withal. to put the blame from himself, he putteth it on Illyricus: as true a quoter of texts almost, as ever was Th. Cartwr. his scholar. but suppose that which 
1 Catal. test. veritat. pag. 121.  Illyricus hath of this counsel were true; yet can not the words of the counsel be interpreted against bishops. for suppose that a bishop may not be a King, or Prince, and that the callings be distinct: yet may he have episcopal jurisdiction, against which that counsel is alleged.  
To help his array of counsels, he bringeth in a supply of Fathers. but very unlike it is, that they should speak against counsels, being divers of them chief doers in divers counsels; and therefore let him take heed least while he mustereth the names of Fathers against bishops, the men themselves do not all fight against him. That Cyprian is contrary to his allegation, it is notorious: for he establisheth the dignity of bishops, and utterly ruinateth the cause of the new come gentlemen called Churchaldermen. He subjecteth the whole 
2 Lib. 1. ep. 3.  brotherhood to the bishop; and saith, that the same obedience is according to the commandments of God. The same authority is confirmed by the letters of the clergy of Rome to Cyprian. Post Fabiani 
3 Lib. 2. ep. 7.  excessum (say they) non est constitutus à nobis episcopus, qui omnia ista moderetur. He giveth to bishops the 
4 Lib. 3. ep. 9  succession of the Apostles; and from no 
5 Lib. 4. ep. 9 & lib. 1. ep. 3.  other root doth he suppose heresies and schisms to spring, then from contempt of the authority of Bishops. So shameless is this Libeler to allege Cyprian against bishops, that in the places above named, yea, and in the 
6 Lib. 3. ep. 10.  places by him quoted doth confirm their authority. For albeit Cyprian doth say, that from his first entrance into his charge he had determined to do nothing, but by the consent of the people, and counsel of his Clergy: yet doth it not make against his superiority: nay it confirmeth it rather. For with us Bishops may do nothing without law, which is a most certain consent: nay, good Princes rule by counsel and Laws, and yet they will not deny, but that Princes in all places, and Bishops with us have a superior authority over those that are committed to them. And Cyprian in that self same Epistle writing to the priests and Deacons useth these words, I 
1 Horror, & mando.  exhort and command: yea further, he prescribed, what was to be done both concerning the poor, and confessors: and 
2 Vice mea fungamini circagerenda, quae religiosa administratio deposcit.  made a deputation to others, that were to govern in his absence: as much, or rather more than bishops may with us take upon them to do. Likewise in the 14 Epistle of his third book alleged also against bishops, there are found manifest arguments for their authority. For he reprehendeth the presumption of certain Ministers too rash in reconciling those that had fallen, and declareth unto them, that the Bishop is 
3 Ep. 14. episcopus ipsis praepositus.  set over them, and that their place is under the bishop, of which 
4 Loci sui immemores.  they were unmindful: & that the bishop's duty was to 
5  instructi à praepositis faciant omnia.  instruct them, and their duty to obey him. It is evident, that this author was not much acquainted with Cyprian, that allegeth him thus contrary to his meaning, & which is most childish and absurd, quoteth the 27 epistle of Cyprians 3 book, where there are only 15 epistles there.  
In 
6 Lib. 1. ep. 9  another place Cyprian reprehendeth a certain minister being appointed garden to orphans, & executor of a testament. but how the same may be drawn to make against the estate of bishops, I understand not: for bishops among us desire no such matter as that which Cyprian condemneth: neither came it ever in Cyprians meaning to condemn the authority of Bishops, as it is used in this Realm. If he speak against any, it is especially against T. C. for albeit he be a Minister, as he saith himself, yet refused he not the execution of his brother Stubbes his will, no nor refuseth the government of his Hospital: and therefore this fellow seemeth unwise thus deeply to launch his dear brother T.C. whose purchases and purloynings he hath taken on him to defend; where in the mean while the state of Bishops, for any thing Cyprian saith, standeth inviolable, nay, in the same place their jurisdiction is confirmed: for Cyprian being a Bishop, taketh on him to reform Ministers, and giveth bishop's 
1 Episcopi antecessores nostri censuerunt etc. & sacerdotum decretum.  authority to make ecclesiastical laws: which pierceth the Churchaldermen that long for superiority, to the very heart. Finally, he taketh on him to punish disorders: than which authority, what can be greater?  

2 Dist. 10. c. quoniam idem.  Gratian also extolleth Bishops above Princes: so far is he from speaking against Bishops, or their authority. so that to allege Gratian for proof, is as much as to use corrosives for pleasant medicines. Neither doth it take away, or diminish the authority, and state of Bishops, that by the Canons they may not encroach upon the Prince's authority in Civil causes: for we say, that the vocation of Magistracy, and ministery is distinct, and that Bishops in England do not in respect they are ministers, meddle with Civil causes, but as they are subjects, and are commanded. Wherein they do not show themselves busy in encroachments in taking on them charges imposed, but should show themselves disloyal persons, at least no good subjects, if they should refuse them, the consistorial faction contrariwise doth encroach both upon Ecclesiastical and Civil governors, having authority from neither; and intrude themselves where no man sendeth for them, or admitteth them.  
After Cyprian, Tertullians' 
3 De jeiunio.  book of fasting is by force drawn in by the imperious Consistorials for evidence against Bishops: which I cannot but wonder at, seeing they condemn both fasting in Lent, & other fasts which he alloweth, and the degree & state of bishops, which he commendeth in his book 
1 Lib. de baptism.  of baptism, where he giveth the chiefty, and prerogative of Priesthood to Bishops, expelling out the impudent Aldermen that now are crept in, I know not by what strange concetie, into Churchgoverment. In the book of fasting there is not so much as the office of bishops mentioned; much less any speech against them. there is order taken for their allowance, which the sacrilegious consistorials, that have ruinated the Church in all places where they come do deny them. In the same place Tertullian doth construe the place 1. Timoth. 5.17. against these men: for he only understandeth by Elders that rule well, Bishops and Priests, and not these new Aldermen, which albeit they be mute in pulpits, yet are they mouthy enough in Consistories.  
The opinion of Augustine concerning the estate of bishops is sufficiently known: for he thrusteth them among heretics, that deny their superiority. In which crowd let this Libeler, and his fellow T. C. go pack out of the Church together, with Aerius their ringleader, and an old master of an hospital, and a famous heretic. himself was also a bishop, and governed his clergy and church with as great power, as now do our bishops: neither doth he in either of the places 
2 De opere monach. c. 16. & de civit. der lib. 19 c. 19  quoted say any thing against them. He condemneth not the state of bishops, but their worldliness: and not the dignity of bishops, but such as sought honour, and would not endure labour: which negligence we do not defend in any. neither was he so scrupulous in distinguishing civil, and ecclesiastial causes, as these seem to be. for in his book de opere Monachorum alleged by this Petitioner, he doth declare that he dealt himself in civil causes, notwithstanding he was a bishop; and that he hoped God would reward him for it.  
Neither is there in 
3 In Tit. & ad Ocean.  Hieroms whole works any word sounding to the disgrace of bishops. Hierome maketh the terms of Bishops and Priests common in the Apostles time; but that bishops and priests should now be equal in power and dignity, he never concluded: nay he saith, that the superiority of bishops is an Apostolical 
1 Ep. 85.  tradition, and borrowed of the analogy betwixt the Law and the Gospel, and confesseth that it began in the Apostles time: accordingly he useth Damasus Bishop of Rome, and all bishops with great respect.  
The authority and credit of Ambrose both with the Emperor, and people, and his jurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes was far greater, then that which our Bishops have. Is it then think you likely, that a bishop would speak against Bishops? nay, he is said himself, to have exercised the Church censures against the Emperor, and giveth ordination to Bishops, and calleth them the Apostles successors.  
The place of Ambrose commonly alleged 
2 Ep. 33.  against Bishops civil jurisdiction maketh nothing against the state of Bishops: for in England no Bishop hath civil jurisdiction, as he is a Bishop, but as he hath it by commission. which to refuse were not only a weakening, but a denial of loyalty: neither doth Ambrose forbid any to take civil jurisdiction, but to follow worldly cares, and to give over their ministery, and as divers of this faction have done, to throw off the robes of the ministery, and to run in their leather jerkins after worldly gain and pleasure. That Ambrose esteemed highly the office of bishops, is apparent: for he 
3 In eph 4.  saith, that those that are now called bishops, succeed in the charge, and place of government of the Apostles.  
Chrysostome taketh to himself the power of excommunication: yieldeth to bishops the power of ordaining 
4 In 1. Tim 4. & epist. Paul. ad Philip. & homil. ad pop. Antioch.  ministers, over whom he giveth them authority: himself was a bishop of great power and authority: he condemneth certain heretics, which would not yield the due titles to bishops, but called them only 
5 In Psal. 13. reverentia tua, dignitas tua, and such like terms condemned by Chrysostome.  reverend and worshipful, even like to the platformers. what shame then have these fellows, that blush not to make either so holy a bishop contrary to himself, or manifestly to belie him, and slander him? wherefore let the words of Chrysostem against bishops be brought forth if he bring them not, 
Hom. 2. in epist. ad Phil.  every man will take him for a plain false coiner of authorities, which now is in part apparent. he saith that the names of bishops and priests were all one: but that all bishops and priests should have equal authority, he saith not, nor ever thought.  
That Gregory the great is alleged against bishops, is a matter most miraculous, for in his time the bishops of Rome were come to extraordinary greatness, & encroached not only upon their neighbours, but also upon most christian Churches: so far was he from condemneth the state of bishops. in the preface to his dialogues, if they be his, (as is most unlike) he reprehendeth those that waxed old in worldly desires: which neither in bishops, nor other is to be allowed against episcopal authority he saith nothing: the power of bishops over priests every wherein his epistles he commendeth.  
The quotation out of Hillary maketh nothing to the purpole. he reprehendeth Constantius the Emperor for advancing bishops above the degree of bishops: but that maketh for bishops, and not against them. for he disalloweth not the state, but the Emperors too much forwardness in giving Arrian bishops too much honour and credit.  
The Libeler hath a strange sight in 
1 Ep. 67.  Synesius, if he think that he spoke any thing against bishops. percase he had on his 
2 Those dreams that pass through horny doors, as Homer feigneth, are untrue: for horn is not trans. parent.  horn spectacles when he read them; without such sight nothing is to be found in Synesius against our cause. If he would have made any conclusion out of him, he would have acknowledged so much himself.  
He allegeth with like judgement Nazianzen his oration adversus Maximum: yet in all his works is there not any such oration found. there is an oration of such matters, as Gregory did against Maximus, but concerning the superiority of bishops, there is nothing therein, least of all any thing against bishops: neither is it like, he would speak against bishops, himself being a bishop, & allowing the state of bishops. he governed with authority: his 
1 Cum auctoritate hic praesidemus, & haec multis ex vobis tamquam lege sancimus. Nazianz. in orat. de modest. in disputat. servanda.  words were observed, as laws in the church: he saith, 
2 Ibidem.  there is order while bishop's command, and others are ruled. of such as these fellows are, that will neither observe order nor rule, he complaineth, and commendeth that which they despise. only he speaketh against ambitious seeking the greatest bishoprics, and highest places, wishing that the principality should be removed, rather than such inconveniences admitted. Origene 
3 In Esaiam hom. 6.  giveth most ample titles, & authority to bishops, even in the same place where he is supposed to speak against them: only he would not have them insult, nor tyrannize over the people, which the bishops of England neither do, nor can do according to laws: but the Aldemen of the consistory whose word is proof, and will law, and against whose wrongs there is no sufficient remedy by appeal, they do properly tyrannife, yea & oligarchize: and therefore against such cruel tyrants Origen declaymeth, and we have good cause to speak.  
Bernarde 
4 De consid. ad Eugen. lib. 2.  speaketh against the Pope for claiming sovereignty in both sword, which no bishop in England claimeth, neither doth any bishop by his episcopal authority exercise the material sword, as the Pope doth: and therefore as Bernard's reasons are good against the Pope: so are they not to be used against our bishops. neither was it ever Bernard's meaning, to condemn the prerogative of bishops, allowing the same in so many of his epistles and writings, and commending so highly the bishop of Rome notwithstanding his infinite abuses. he 
5 Serm. 66. in Cantic. non est mirum si ordinibus ecclesie deirahunt, si mandatis non obediunt.  bitterly inveigheth against those heretics which for their apish imitation of the Apostles, called themselves apostolics, because they condemned prelacy; and therefore calleth them Stultissimos, & obstinatissimos.  
Thus the man, or at least his partakers have sought every corner of the Fathers, and yet find nothing against the prerogative of bishops. therefore is he glad to fly to the practice of late churches, & late writers: but the conclusion which he draweth from them is most weak. for admit that in Geneva & in France, & Flaunders, and other churches they have not bishops of such quality in all respects as we have, no more have other churches such Elders as they of Geneva have. it is sufficient, that we have such bishops, as in time passed they had at jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, Sevil, & throughout the world, before that the cornercreeping Aldermen crept out of the slime of fond men's invention: & that the bishops in reformed churches of Almaigne, have episcopal authority over other ministers in ordination of ministers, & correction of manners. so that they are to be blamed, that digress from all antiquity, yea and later churches: not we that agree with all former times, and the almains. for both they, & the Danes, albeit some of them mislike the names, and most of them have taken away the livings of bishops: yet retain still their authority and office in their superintendents, & general superintendents; and had done better, if also they had retained the livings & rewards of learning, & stipends of ministers. wherefore let the libeler cease to object unto us the Helvetian, and Dutch, and Danish churches: for they differ farther from the Genevians, then from us: and the petitioner himself 
1 Pag. 10.  confesseth, that they have authority, though not so much.  
Of late writers I know none of name that hath condemned our bishops. even the chief authors of this innovation, Caluin, and Beza, as may appear by their letters which are to be shown, speak every where honourably of them. Zanchus greatly extolleth that order. only Beza (as some say) hath written a foolish 
2 Entitled, The judgement of a learned man beyond the sea.  pelting discourse, wherein he would prove our bishops to proceed of men, as if himself were a bishop of God. and Daneau in that point consenteth with him taking himself also to be a bishop of God. and yet the Genevians, when through weakness of body, sickness, and age, he could not execute the ministery, shut this bishop of God from his living, and forced him through want to departed out of their City. Bullinger, and Gualther, and diverse learned men of Suitzerland, and Germany have by letters and writings allowed our bishops. yea, 
1 Histori. confess. August.  Melancthon, Camerarius, & Sturmius wished to God they had such in their Countries. neither did any of these that are named by the libeler, ever speak against other, then papistical bishops. let the world then judge, what honesty or shame was in this companion, that allegeth Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Caluin, Beza, Bullinger, Zanchus, Erastus, Gualther, and Monster, against our bishops, whereof some never spoke of them, others never spoke of them but with reverence, and none against them. and 
2 In divers of his letters to be showed.  Beza complaineth of some, that drew his words uttered against popish bishops, against our bishops. If therefore the libeler do not bring forth some other places then these he hath quoted, there is no cause, but that every man should take him for a forger of false writings, and an abuser of his reader. But suppose Beza, or Daneau, or some other of that sort should write their pleasures in private letters, or in their imperious, & paltry pamphlets, who would not be ashamed to oppose these two, or all their heady followers to Ignatius, Dionysius, Chrysostome, Augustine, Ambrose, Hierome, and all antiquity: yea to most writers of late times?  
And if these men that patronize the consistory which cannot stand with bishops (for in deed there is no agreement in government betwixt the rustical fauni, and the muses: between learned men, and men of occupation, between clowns and scholars) if these I say do not speak against bishops, we may not think that bishop jewel, orbishop Elmar: or bishop Bollingham, or others that have written in defence of the state, have uttered any thing that soundeth to their disgrace. 
1 In his Apology.  Bishop jewel expressly defendeth the degree of bishops, above priests: and good reason. for it is the public doctrine of this Church, and those that go against it, make this Church to revoke a part of their public confession, and do more harm by their secret treachery, than ever did Harding by his open enmity. neither can there be a greater scandal, or dishonour offered to religion, or the state, then that we should now alter the public confession of faith made by our Church. jewel saith that the office of prince, and bishop is distinct, and no man denieth it. for no man by the office of bishop challengeth, as doth the pope, sovereignty of both swords. but if any conclude, because bishops & civil officers are distinct, that a bishop shall do no civil office: he will conclude, that he may not look to his house, nor do the office of a subject nor fight for his country, which is a nice point of puritanism, and little better than treachery: and by the same reason should ministers be excluded both from government of colleges, and hospitals, and all offices in the universities, whereto our puritanes ambitiously aspire, & are as great canuasers as any, notwithstanding their ministery, or puritanism.  
Neither can master Nowel's words be stretched against bishops. for what if Christ would not receive riches, or dominion of the devil: may not a minister receive a benefit of a Prince? or because Christ forbade them to rule as Princes, may they do no offices of good subjects, but live like traitors, or like puritanes, that live in open contempt of laws? if than the petitioner had any conscience, he would not allege Mr. Nowell against bishops, whose authority he maintaineth against Dorman, and whose resolution for this present government is sufficiently known,  
Master Bilson distinguisheth betwixt apostolical government, and princely government, but he taketh not thereby away apostolical superiority over ministers, as these manglers of scriptures do, that to build up one seat of the consistory have hewn diverse scriptures in pieces, and racked men's words against their meaning neither in word, nor conceit did he ever oppugn the present government.  
Bishop Elmar sometime, before he came abroad into the world, supposed the livings of bishops to be too great. he knew not then the malice of men, nor the state of things. now he confesseth therein his oversight. is it not lawful for him to amend his error, especially seeing some men think it lawful from knowledge to fall into puritanism, and from a right course to run into error? yet do we not use the benefit of their doubling let them double as much as they will, so they double not with God.  
The like is to be said of bishop Bollingham, who if he erred in speaking against bishops Rochets, (for against the state I see not where he speaketh) yet did he the same away by repentance but we stand not on men's opinions, nor pamphlets, nor private writings. we would once the names of Caluin, and Beza, and others were laid aside, and the cause were examined by scripture, and antiquity, which is not partial. this T. Cartw. did once profess. but now he hath forgotten himself would he come back again to his old hint, he should soon see his own error. if he strive against himself: no marvel it is, if he strive with others. but if he come abroad, he must come better furnished with scriptures and reasons.  
Not content to allege some, the libeler ere he pass will needs belie others, and among them 
1 in his defence of the prince's supremacy.  Doctor Bridges. it may be the consistory hath given him a dispensation to lie. for he saith, that Doctor Bridges doth justify Aerius opinion. whereas contrariwise he saith, that albeit Hierome, and others did hold that a bishop and priest was one: yet was no Aerian. whereby it appeareth, that he confesseth Aerius to be an heretic, and denieth others to be Aerians.  
He shamefully likewise belieth my lord of Canterbury: 
2 Pag. 654. lin. 54.  whom he falsely quoteth & maketh to confess elders. for such elders, as these men would have, never entered into his conceit: only he confesseth that there were ministers in the beginning of the Church, that lived in community with bishops: which now that the number of Christians is so increased were not requisite. for than should there be infinite non-residents. that he never imagined, there ought to be elders of the Genevian making, his reasons brought against them do declare.  
Neither did the author of the admonition made against the drunken surfeit of Martin's puritanism set down any words, that import that there was an Eldership under the law, as the libeler affirmeth. the words are contrary, why then should he imagine that the author's meaning was contrary to his words? it was saith he, first so set down. admit it were. must all compositers errors be allowed for text? I perceive these fellows are angry when a man would correct a fault. and therefore I fear he will not amend his fault in lying. but I have heard saith he, that that book was subscribed by the bishop of Canterbury, Lincoln, and London. as if any thing were more common than untruth in the mouths of puritanes. and therefore no marvel if he have heard a leasing.  
The author of the remonstrance without any supposal saith plainly, 
Pag. 166.  that there never were any Church consistory. and therefore what fondness is it to suppose him to say, that which he denieth? but admit he should say, if it were in the law and Gospel, that it were to be continued: yet doth it not follow, that it was in the law or after. for of supposals no direct assertion can be made, unless that which is supposed be granted. neither can any man enforce any such conclusion, as the libeler imagineth. nay he shall sooner press the little wit he hath out of his brains, then gain such a conclusion. for the assumption, viz. that the Genevian Aldermanshippe began under the law, and was practised under thè Gospel, is but a frantic conceit in this discrasied man's brain. neither my lord of Canterbury saith it, nor any of our side, that I know. Why doth not the man therefore prove it? the reason is evident; for that untruth cannot be proved. let him therefore press what he can out of the assertions aforesaid: he shall sooner wring vergis out of a flint, then wring his Consistory out of scriptures.  
But (saith he) one Matthew Sutcliffe controlleth both. whereunto if he durst have set to his name, I might have answered, that one W. St. and his promptors are deceived. Now I must answer, that one certain worthless libeler mistaketh: for neither is it true which he avoweth, That I protest there was never any such government by elders under the Gospel (yea and such arguments have I set down, that Th. Cartwr. and all the faction have taken term to answer) neither do I control others, that have travailed before me in the same argument. for all of us agree, that there was never any Genevian Eldership in the world before the erection of it at Geneva, and that the Eldership, that was in time past, was composed of Bishops, or of priests assistant to the Bishops, which were Ministers of the word and sacraments: and such, as in part in our cathedral Churches yet continue. The third untruth is, That he saith, I suppose if there were Elders under the Gospel, they were not now necessary, 
Pag. 213.  which the author of the remonstrance affirmeth. For I do not speak of Elders, but generally of government; & conclude most strongly against the platformers, That they may not have their discipline. and why? forsooth because first, it was never found in scriptures, nor practise; and secondly, because divers orders are found in scripture for external government, which now are out of use. so that both the antecedent being false, and consequent nought, it is not possible the conclusion should be good. but what should I talk of antecedent and consequent with this companion, that understandeth neither Logic, nor terms of reason? The fourth lie is, that I deface foreign Churches, writing against the Eldership in Latin, & make the rent of our Church deeper. For I speak in the defence of the state, to salve those wounds, which these fellows have made, & to piece the rents of our church. I never speak of foreign churches but honourably, neither am I curious in other men's states neither do I deal with Beza, but as with a grave and learned man in this point mistaken, & destitute in this cause both of wisedomect learning: although I have been badly requited at his hands again. which course if Beza, & others would have taken, these contentions that have troubled our Church, would never have grown to this height. but they would be writing, & talking against us, yea censuring us with their consistorial presumption. and yet did we not deal against their churches. For that I wrote against the presbytery, I did it in respect, that the same was obtruded to our church, by a certain unlearned, & bold Italian. that I wrote in Latin, the cause was the Italians and Bezaes' dealing for their presbytery in Latin: and also to let others understand, that our cause is such, as we are able well to defend against Beza, and all consistorials whatsoever. and therefore, seeing we mean not to obtrude our government to them, and so profess in our books, let them keep their consistory to themselves, and make much of it, that it fall not to the ground. for it is in very weak case: & Bezaes' simple discourse doth yield it no comfort. If any do come forth to reply, I do protest, it is he that maketh the stir, and not I and therefore for common ease it were best for all to keep silence. but if they mean to prate of the glory of the consistory, which our platformers esteem as an idol: they must expect an answer and let not Beza think, that his fond disputes against us in his late three half penny pamphlet shall pass for oracles.  
To return to the libeler, I answer, that neither is it true, that we handle the matter doubtfully (for we are all resolved in our positions against them) nor that they hold their opinions resolutely. for neither concerning the institution, parts, authority, nor office of their consistory do any two of them agree: neither doth it seem probable that ever they will agree. they are at such contention among themselves. for neither do they know, what they would have, nor wherefore. Secondly I say, that this argument is most simple, and misshaped. for suppose that two or three should handle the cause of the Church simply: it were no reason, for the ignorance, and simple dealing of two or three, that the Church should be overturned, and that new laws and lordings should come in place. yet this is his wise conclusion, because all do not agree in all points, that the matter must be called in question, and bishops be displaced, that certain coat cards in short jerkins may come in place to rule all, either by their divine inspiration, or else according as Th. Cartw. the oracle of discipline shall determine. which reason if it were admitted, then howsoever we retain the present government, yet shall we for ever be discharged of the consistory: the patrons whereof contrary one another most absurdly in infinite places, & writ most irresolutely, and strangely. Lastly, to bring the ecclesiastical state into question, He allegeth first, that our laws expect a further reformation; & that such as have written against papists, & puritans, have found imperfections in our government. Which if he mean in the frame of our discipline, or in respect, that we have bishops, or want consistories; he is abused. they neither expect such a reformation, nor avow any such thing. by a certain statute of K. Henry 8, power was given to 32 persons to gather into one body such laws ecclesiastical, as were neither repugnant to the laws of the realm, nor prerogative royal. That they had (as the petitioner saith) authority to correct good laws, or to make new laws, is the first untruth. The second un truth is, That D. Cranmer & other learned men did collect the laws into one book. for the book that came forth with the title of Correctio legum Angliae, was gathered not by D. Cranmer but by D. Haddon. and that very simply; & without judgement, insomuch as all men of judgement disliked it, & afterward himself also was ashamed of it. nay contrary to the authority given him by statute, he took upon him not to gather laws together, but to gather a pack of new fancies together, and to make new laws coontrarie to the Ecclesiastical laws of the realm, yea contrary to equity and reason; as I shall justify, if any will challenge me for it. The laws of nursing of children, and marriages will verify all that I say; yea, and his own testimony given of it. Last of all, the law whereby this collection of laws was authorized, is now repealed, and not necessary. For albeit all do not: yet some know what is law. but suppose ecclesiastical laws that are in force should begathered together, doth it therefore follow, that ecclesiastical laws must be all changed? howsoever it is, let not the aldermen brag of these laws, for therein the authority of Bishops is confirmed, & churchaldermen not so much as mentioned: they must therefore look in some other place. for in this book, their Consistorial conceits are not to be found.  
In the book of Common prayer there is a Commination prescribed to be used, until an order of discipline practised in the primitive Church should be restored. But what maketh that for the establishment of the consistorial discipline, which was neither in the primity Church, nor in the cogitation of the authors of that book? the meaning of the book is only, that the commination there mentioned, should be used until such time, as in the time of Lent offenders might be brought to humble themselves, as they did in the primitive Church, and that more favour might be given to the execution of ecclesiastical laws, which is that discipline which they desire, & these fellows withstand; and therefore hereafter I think will not call for discipline. for if the same were once executed, then would not every contentious person degorge his malice against law, nor libelers and schismatics be suffered to declaim against the state, nor every unlearned mate be suffered to preach false doctrine, and revel at all antiquity.  
Neither doth it follow, because in the ordination of ministers it is said, take thou authority to preach the word of God, that every Minister is appointed a preacher, and that none are to be appointed Ministers, but such as can preach, which is that they desire, And this libeler affirmeth. for the exception which doth abridge the law, is 
1 This practice is condemned by the law, incivile est. ff. de legebus.  cautelously, and maliciously left out, wherein he showeth that his cause cannot stand, but by forging and forcing. the words are, Take thou authority to preach, where thou shalt be so appointed. These fellows disdain appointment, & would run before they be sent: but unless many had more learning, and discretion: it were better, that some of those that take on them to preach, were set to read: and such as run so fast, were made to sit still.  
In Flaunders according to the rules of this discipline, they would needs at the first have every one to preach: but when they saw the great inconvenience that came of it, they put them to read Caluins homilies on job. but suppose that in the point of discipline of Lent, or in the number, and qualities of preachers, we have not that we desire; doth it therefore follow, that the Ecclesiastical state must be ruinated, and all laws abolished, that the confusion of the Consistory, & barbarism of this new discipline may triumph over the church? In France and Scotland they want much of that discipline they desire: nay the Ministers want means poor men to maintain themselves, and their families, yea & the Church wanteth sufficient, and learned ministers, and is glad to use the ministery of boys, and unlearned youths, wanting all things save boldness: yet they will not say, that for these disorders, or want of their desires, it is reason, that the ministery, and their aldermen should be changed, and all overthrown.  
The 
2 1. Eliz. 2.  Statutes give power to her Majesty. and her ecclesiastical commissioners, to appoint orders for the ornaments of the Church: doth it therefore follow that surplice, and other ceremonies are to be abolished? By like reason a man may conclude, that all laws are intended to be taken away, because the prince and parliament have authority so to do. a reason well beseeming such senseless fellows, as understand no reason. for neither is the consequent good a posse adesse; nor if the conclusion were granted, would this man obtain his desire concerning his consistorial discipline. for albeit alteration be made in the ministers apparel: yet may the same be made, the state standing, and the consistory falling to dust. so that if he look for no other alteration, then that which is intended by our laws, he & his consistory may go, and consider upon some better reasons. In the mean while he saith, that some of our chief defenders of religion against the papists confess, That divers abuses in ceremonies, and discipline were tolerated among us, the church yielding to the infirmity of the weak, which were to be altered, when people grew to riper knowledge. Wherein as in other things, he dealeth falsely. for neither is it true, that 
1 Fulke retent. pag. 98.  Doctor Fulke saith, That our ceremonies, or discipline is to be altered; nor is he, though a most learned man, one of our chief defenders. But suppose it were granted, that he then thought that some alteration in ceremonies and discipline were to be admitted, doth it therefore follow, that the church must be spoiled, bishops and ecclesiastical persons put from their charges, and a sort of hungry cormorants brought into government? again, suppose this one man in his youth were of some strange conceit concerning the everlasting blessed consistory: yet doth not one make a number. where then be the rest? forsooth in the intention of the libeler, that is now hatching of new heresies, 
Can. 20.  and fooleries. But saith he, the bishops confess in their canons, that non residency is a filthy thing, and divers confess, that lay men should not meddle with excommunication, and that divers lewd, and unlearned Ministers have entered into the Church: which were it supposed to be true, yet addeth nothing to the cause of the consistory. for we deny not that men be men, & that there be faults in the execution of laws. therefore such as offend are to be punished, & not, as this discrasied disputor would conclude, all laws to be abolished, & a new government to be erected. in the law we deny, that there is either impiety, or abuse: in men we do not deny. nay we wish that such as give scandal were removed, that by their defaults the common cause might not be hurt. if the consistorial faction could clear themseluelues of impiety, & abuse in their government, it would be better for them. but they must think, that there are faults among them, aswell as among others, & that they are no angels, but men, yea, and many very odd men; and men made of very strange humours.  
Master D. Cousin confesseth, that the punishment of adultery is too mild: and others be of his opinion. for we do not say, that every point of law is so perfect, or that things can be so stable, that there can be nothing added, or detracted. if they should say so of their consistory, as some men doubteth not: they should but make a great leasing as is evident by the particulars of their government. what then will the libeler conclude of this our opinion? doth he think that his consistorial discipline must come in place? if he do; he is abused, for the imperfections, impieties, & injustice thereof is to to notorious.  
That in the consecration of bishops the pastoral staff & laying on of the bible is commanded by law to be used, is one of the libelers lewd untruths. for no such thing is found in the book of ordaining of ministers. neither doth any other law command any such matter. but suppose it were commanded, & the same were omitted: were it reason as this libeler avoweth, because the archbishop, unto whose discretion many things are referred by law, omitteth some ceremony, that therefore every contentious companion should break all orders? let this be put among the conclusions of discipline, or rather disorder. for such in deed is this discipline. a scholar would rather have concluded: that he ought to be forced to observe law, than that others, because he breaketh law in one point, should take occasion to break law in all. to conclude his unsavoury tale against the ecclesiastical government, he saith, that a 
1 Advertisement to the Church of England. etc.  learned man & friend to the bishops noteth as abuses, their urging of subscription, their oaths ex officio, & their excommunication for trifles, and easy silencing of ministers: wherein he saith not amiss, concerning the gentleman's learning. for in deed he is both grave, & learned: & now understandeth, and hath learned, that neither in subscription, nor examination of parties upon their oaths, ecclesiastical judges do any thing against either laws of God, or men, or reason; nor that any is excommunicate for trifles, or minister silenced, but for good cause, and by his own default: nor that subscription is a new devise, being used in most ancient counsels, and with great rigour exacted at Geneva, and in all France: which I would also have the libeler to learn, and also to speak the truth and to deal honestly. for no man is excommunicate in ecclesiastical courts, but for 
1 Quo minor culpa, co maior contumacia. Beza adverse. Erast.  contumacy: neither is any put to silence, but such as show themselves rebellious. but what if some abuse were, would not reason require that the abuse should rather be taken away, then that there should be made a dangerous innovation in state? these things considered, I refer to every man's judgement, what manner of disputor this fellow is, that either speaketh no truth, or else allegeth such matters, as make not to the purpose. that the fathers, or counsels, yea or late writers of name speak against such Bishops, as we have, is untrue: that some malcontents have declaimed against the state, is not denied: that there are abuses in execution of law, & therefore our laws to be abolished, and the consistory to be established, doth not follow.  
Wherefore unless the author, & his partakers have better supply of reasons, than he hath brought here; there is no cause he should desire conference, or disputation. If he desire to show his skill in writing, why doth he not take those books that have been written in this argument, in hand, and confute them from point to point? why doth not T. Cartw. answer in the defence of his consistory? If he say that imprisonment hath hitherto been an hindrance unto him: yet will not that excuse serve the rest, that were never in prison. why do not W. Tr. Will. Ch. D. Sp. and others confirm their demonstrations of discipline, wherein all their reasons stand confuted? having so much work to do, why should he desire more? belike this petition was made to brag men down. but if he think he can do it, he deceiveth himself. for as far, as her Majesty, and laws will permit; they shall find a number ready in all sorts to encounter them. but the libelers meaning is not to dispute, as I think. for no man hath worse grace in disputing, nor more simple faculty in writing. by hiding his head he seemeth rather to be ready to fly, than fight. his talk therefore of advised writings is idle. for both T. Cartw. and he hath written many things unadvisedly. and both fly the hammering of their cause. only his purpose is to slander the state by libels, & to lurk in corners, & to have all ecclesiastical laws, and government left without defence, so that every man might speak against them without either fear of punishment, or controlment: which neither is good nor commendable. for it would be most absurd, if 3, or 4 difformed platformers should be suffered to dispute in schools, that her majesties authority is unlawful, that our laws and government is wicked, that the state is to be changed.  
As for the course that Doctor Rainolaes' used against Hart, it was lawful, he being thereto authorized, & percase fitting for him: & might better be suffered being in points of religion resolved, then in government doubted of. yet was it long, and without effect. but this course of private conference by writing which the libeler desireth in this cause is lewd, being against her Majesty, the laws, and state: it would be a way to rebellion: it would make more contention: it would be infinite tedious, and to no purpose. the godly and Christian Emperors of Rome were of a contrary mind, to this libeler. for in diverse express laws, they upon great penalties forbidden any, to call in question the confession of faith of the Church, 
1 Cod. de sum. trinit. & fid. cath.  forbidding, ut nemode capublicè contendere audeat. neither doth the 
2 Admonit. de de lib. concord.  author of the admonition to the Churches of Saxonye allow any such course, as the libeler desireth. nay his desire is, that matters may be discussed in some synod of learned men. what shame then is it to devise lewd means to trouble the Church, and falsely to impute them to those, that never used them, nor thought them convenient? the libeler therefore may do well hereafter to leave to the wisdom of her Majesty and the rest of the governors of the Church & common wealth, the composing of matters: which is best wrought by good laws, and sharp punishment, that such as will not be answered with reason, may like dizards be corrected with rods. wherein if he think himself dealt withal unjustly: let him come forth when he will, either in advised, or unadvised writing, his cause shallbe proved wicked, and his consorts facts avowed punishable.   

CAP. II. That there never was any government by Church aldermen, or supposed Ecclesiastical Consistory, either under the law, or in the Apostles times, or after, nor can without great injury to the Church of England, to the Magistrates, and others be admitted.  
ALthough this position hath been so fully 
1 In the book de presbyterio.  proved, that neither T. Cartw. nor his scholars, nor the whole pack of our adversaries have as yet made answer: yet because the book where the discourse is contained, is in latin, which percase thou understandest not, & the arguments lie dispersed, so that without difficulty they cannot be gathered; I will here make a brief of them. So shalt thou see what a clear truth this wise disputer thinketh to batter with vain show of men's opinions, and be better resolved of the notorious vanity of the consistorial discipline.  
That the jews had no mere ecclesiastical consistory distinct from the benches that handled civil causes, these reasons may ascerteine us. First, there is no place of scripture where the institution of it may be found. Those judges that are mentioned Exod. 18, & Deut. 17, are of an other sort: for they heard all civil causes, yea causes of blood, & inflicted civil punishments upon offenders. Those that are found in the 11 of Numbers were of the prince's counsel. And other sorts of Collegiat Elders and judges are none found. Let them show them if they can. the place of Leviticus toucheth only priests in particular, and matters concerning their only office.  
Further there appeareth no commission to have been given to any bench of judges to determine ecclesiastical causes severally, neither are there any laws prescribed in God's word to direct them by: so that, if any judged in such causes they proceeded both without authority and also direction: which were very absurd to think. for if God had appointed any such order of judges, he would no doubt have given them authority and directions.  
There appeareth not the  step of any act of any such ecclesiastical consistory through the whole scriptures or stories of the jews. there is no memory found of them in the time of Moses: nothing under the judges or kings or in the decay of the jewish state, not so much as the Sanedrin that condemned Christ to death is any precedent of the ecclesiastical consistory, whatsoever Beza can say to the contrary. for it was the only remainder of the jewish policy, & succeeded in the place of the counsel Numbers 11, and of the judges appointed Deut. 17, as is apparent by examination of the authority, and acts of it.  
All that authority which this ecclesiastical consistory is supposed to have, was either in thepriests or princes. The princes in the time of Moses, of the judges, & kings made laws, and gave sovereign directions. The priests judged of things clean & unclean, & executed, & caused all ecclesiastical orders to be observed. 
2. Chron. 19 & exod. 18.  The priests & Levites appointed by the prince judged of right & wrong, & consecrated others to the functions of priesthood. where was then the ecclesiastical chimerical consistory all this while? or how could it be supposed that others would encroach upon the priestsoffice being debarred by God's law, & not being mentioned in scripture or histories?  
Neither are the ecclesiastical consistories commended for well doing, nor dispraised for evil doing, neither is there any memorial of their doings, nor record of their names, nor note of their succession, nor being in the whole scriptures.  
Nay not so much as the Rabbins, or the histories of Philo, or josep. make any mention either of their names, life, acts, death, or any thing concerning them: which were wondrous strange, if any such extravagant commanders had been. for howsoever it fareth with others: the acts of governors cannot lie hidden.  
To be short nothing can be more absurd, then that such odd companions as these aldermen are, should control Princes, and judge of religion, being most of them without the function of priesthood, or knowledge of divinity, or good letters.  
The same reasons may also persuade us, that there were no such church governors in the Apostles times, or after. There appeareth first no institution of them: Secondly, no laws whereby they are to govern: Thirdly no act of theirs: Fourthly no commendation or reproof of their persons, or doings; Fiftly, their authority was invested in the Apostles by our Saviour, to whom also the keys were given, and not to these false aldermen, that come in rather like burners of houses, than governors of Churches with counterfeit keys: Sixtly, in the whole story of the Acts of the Apostles there is not the least suspicion of them, neither do they stand upon any thing, but false interpretations of 3, or 4 places of scripture: Nor to conclude can any thing be more unlikely, then that our Saviour Christ jesus the wisdom of God, having given the keys of jurisdiction, and knowledge to his Apostles, and their successors, would take the same from them, and hang them at the elbows of men without authority, knowledge or discretion: such as the Church Aldermen are for the most part.  
In the times succeeding next to the Apostles, all histories, counsels, fathers, give witness to the government by bishops, in time of persecution: and after the time of persecution by bishops, under the sovereign direction of Christian Princes. Neither for 1540 years did ever this foolish conceit come in any men's heads, that merchants, men of occupation, mustered sellers, and tinkers, were men sufficient for the government of Churches. Then which nothing can be devised more absurd, nor inconvenient. It is the high way to all heresies. for when matters be decided by voices of men that never knew Scriptures; Fathers, nor tongues, how is it possible that they should teach truth? or continue in truth, or meet with errors? this is the principal cause of the multitude of heresies in the low Countries.  
The same also would be a Seminary for schism. for when all parishes, and ministers, and Consistories have equal jurisdiction, as these fellows teach that they ought to have, who shall remedy contentions that fall out? the synod? a mere conceit. for what need they to care for the synod, or the censures thereof, that by no law are subject to synods? All learning would decay: for who should need to study, if a Tailor coming warm from the shopboard be a man fit to govern the church? or who can have any courage to study where this sacrilegious discipline that hath made havoc of all the revenues of the church, is placed; and the stipends that are allotted to learded men shall be arbitrary, and may be taken away at the discretion of a sort of ignorant marmarchants, clowns, and men of occupation?  
Fourthly, where there is no law prescribed, how can the judges be kept in temper? even now, notwithstanding all laws and penalties that may be devised, partiality, favour, hatred and other affections bear sway. How much would they sway more, if the Consistory should come in place, which is ruled only by will, and plurality of voices, and not restrained but by pretence of God word, which every man useth to construe to his own profit. Down would the prince's revenues fall, and the Realm be left without means of defence, and made unable to resist the enemy. If any man think that the spoil of the church should come to the prince's hands, he abuseth himself. The spoils of other places do teach us, what would fall out: yea, our own experience may herein sufficiently instruct us. For albeit in the overthrow of Abbeys the Prince had some share: yet are not now the Princes of this land able to maintain that force that in time passed they were, when great numbers of both horsemen & footmen were maintained at the charge of religious houses, the revenues whereof now are wholly employed, & yet scarce able percase to buy some one mean gentlewoman a verdugal: so lewdly are they spent, & so great is the pride & waste of men. the reason of it is this, that what they spent them in maintaining of men, the same is now spent in velvets, silks & glittering coats. Suppose then that the church goods should come to spoil: do you think they would be better spent? it should seem no: for all is now spent in surfeit & excess, that in time past was spent in maintaining of men. And I know where, in certain manors taken from bishops, thousands of men were maintained: the revenues of all which do not now buy petticoats for my mistress the owner's wife, and her maidens, & not a man of all their tenants scarce able to do her Majesty service at his own charge, they are so fined & skinned.  
All those that live by learning, should be turned along to pick salads; whereby Popery having no resistance, would find easy entrance, and those that are best able, being discouraged for want of means, make least resistance.  
Unto all these points the Libeler saith but little: only upon one point he standeth, that the hot pursuers of their pretended reformation have some inducements to think, that there hath been in the world some such consistory as he imagineth, but where, or when, he knoweth no certainty: nay he knoweth not what manner of beast the same is. His proofs they be so weak, that I marvel he was not ashamed to make muster of them: scriptures he bringeth none. Aworld to see, how those that in oppugning our state were so copious in allegations of scriptures, to maintain their Aldermen, and Discipline, do not so much as endeavour to bring any scripture, or by reason drawn thence to confirm their cause. The Fathers, as himself confesseth, speak obscurely. his chief help is in Caluin, junius, Beza, Dancau, yea and such obscure companion's as Bertrand de loques, Bastinge, Charpentier, du Pleurre, Golart, jacomot, Pollan, and a rabble of others not worth the naming. But if the consent of half a score base writers, and of bad alloy be so forcible, as to persuade the good liking of the consistory; what reason have we to stand in defence of our government by bishops, which hath the consent of so many general counsels, so many Fathers, so many ages, yea so many learned men also of our time as these be, and as well learned, and godly as the other; divers of whose piety hath passed fiery trials, and been sealed with their blood, namely Bishop Cranmer, bishop Ridley, bishop Latimer, bishop Farrar, master Philpot, and master Bradford, and many more martyrs that lived in good liking of our state, and defended bishops: whereas few of these that are alleged condemned our Bishops, and none of the ancient Fathers allow such an Eldership, as these seek for? Add hereunto the learned men now living in England comparable to the best, and far exceeding these Bastinges, Loquians, Golarts, Perots', and such obscure, and unlearned, and unwise authors. Who will not, I say, rather give credit to such consent, then to a few overweening late writers, especially seeing all the Fathers join with us against them?  
Ignatius speaketh of an eldership of ministers of the word, men subject to the Bishop, conversant in the ministration of sacraments: of these aldermen, that albeit they meddle neither with word, nor sacraments, and are base begotten, and misshapen creatures, yet take on them to depose Princes, & throw out their Bishops at pleasure, he never heard any ynkeling, nor speaketh one word of them. To his Eldership 
1 Epist. ad Trallen. & Magnes.  Ignatius maketh the Bishop superior: these give to the Consist orie power to depose the Minister: yea and accordingly we understand that in France they have thrust out many poor men, which either have perished for want, or languished for poverty: and all, because they were so senseless, as not to understand that Clowns are evil judges of the merits of learned men, and accord not with scholars, nor schools.  
They allege also 
1 Apol. c. 39 & libr. de baptism.  Tertullian to the same purpose: but his words fit not their turn: for he talketh of elders that managed the word, and fed with doctrine, and meaneth a synod of bishops: or assembly of the ministers of the word (for those are called precedents) and such precedents as dealt with the administration of sacraments. Of these new aldermen which starting from their occupations, and stalls, run rashly into church government, in Tertullians' time there was no news heard. That the Elders he talketh of were ministers of the word, & administered the sacraments of baptism, is apparent in his book of baptism. so that alleging that book, the Libeler doth nothing, but turn the point of Tertullian against his motley, 
2 Tertul. de baptis. & de coron. milit.  and party-natured aldermen. For in in him the word Presbyteri signifieth always ministers of the word, subject to the bishop, & never any men of trade or occupation usurping Church-government, and challenging equal power with bishops: as in the places above mentioned is evident.  
The places of Cyprian make no more for his purpose, than those before alleged out of Tertullian, & Ignatius. In the 5 epistle of his second book he declareth how he and his Colleagues had ordained Aurelius a reader: but that by Colleagues is meant bishops, is apparent, for that bishops did only ordain. Secondly, for that priests were not Colleagues to bishops; but subject to them. Thirdly, for that priests of one church had not to do in another, but bishops had. Fourthly because he never heard of, nor knew any temporary profane churchaldermen, which were not ministers of the word and sacraments. Lastly, for that he writeth to the elders supposed to be aldermen of the new creation, not to join with him, but to declare what he had done. he would have done otherwise, if priests had been his Colleagues.  
In another place he saith, he purposeth to do nothing without the counsel of his Clergy, and consent of his people: but that maketh nothing for the consistory. for in all laws with us the consent of the people is adjoined; yet have we no aldermen: 〈…〉 the Consistory doth things without consent of the people, albeit the same consisteth of aldermen, And Cyprian, albeit he would not then do; yet sometimes did, and might do things by his own authority.  
Thirdly, it is one thing, to have the counsel of men; another, to be joined in commisson with them. for the Prince hath a counsel, but no joint nor equal governors. Lastly these elders were ministers of the word, such as residing now in Cathedral churches, were then living in cities about bishops.  
Unto the words of Cyprian in his 18, and 22 epistle of his third book, we will then yield answer, when we find any of that number: for there are but 15 epistles in that book. But this is an ordinary fault of this fellow, to quote counsels, books, orations, and epistles that never were in the world.  
He allegeth also the 5 & 9 epistle of Cyprians fourth book: but in the 5 there is nothing, but the name of Elder without the thing: in the 9 there is neither the name, nor any note of the supposed elders; but contrariwise divers reasons to show the government of the church to have been always committed to the bishop, and the union of the same to be placed in consent of bishops, not in supposed consistories. That Cyprian knew no elder but ministers of the word, these reasons do declare: First, for that not only Deacons which were under elders, but Readers also did deal in the word, and were accounted among the clergy, which was not communicated to men of occupation: Secondly, for that such elders as he speaketh of, dealt in sacraments, and in the word: for he 
1 Lib. 3. cp. 10.  reprehendeth certain for administering the sacraments to certain, that had not declared sufficient signs of repentance: Thirdly, for that they had 
2  sportulis iisdem cum presbyteris honorentur. lib. 4. epist. 5.  wages: four, for that they were not deposed at pleasure, nor were temporary: which is a quality incident to the newfoundland aldermen.  
Augustine never so much as dreamt of Lay or temporary, 
3 De verb. Domini in Mat. ser. 19  or occupation aldermen: nay, himself diligently observeth the distinction of the ministers of the word conversant about the word and sacraments, into bishops, Priests, Deacons. 
1 De cor. & great. cap. 11.  He calleth the censures of the Church, 
2 Lib. de paenit. medic. cap. 2. & 3.  Episcopale judicium: and affirment, that the keys were to be used by Prelates; which can no way be drawn to be understood of Lay aldermen. This being considered, the libeler saith his Aldermen are in these authors mentioned, but obscurely: but he had said far more truly, if he had said neither obscurely, nor in any sort. for darkness is not more obscure, than the steps of these surmised fellows, and nothing more clear, then that they are not there.  
To illustrate the former Father's obscurity, he bringeth others, which as he supposeth speak clearly. The first is Ambrose: but nothing doth he speak to the Libelers content. For he speaketh of a counsel of Elders, that were ministers of the word, and assistant to the bishop, whom he also calleth vicarios Dei, & antistites, which cannot be understood of these base, and unlettered aldermen whose hands with gain, and other vanities are polluted; & whose ignorance maketh them uncapable of ecclesiastical function. Those elders which Ambrose speaketh of assisted the bishop with counsel: these are not counsellors, but controllers, & governors, with voices equal to the bishop. His elders were in cathedral churches only: these are in every 
3 So our platformers would have it, albeit the Genevians practise be far divers.  paltry village. Those were men learned: these are ignorant merchants, artificers, and clowns for the most part. Nothing can be more repugnant than Ambrose, and the Disciplinarians. Ambrose 
4 Lib. 8. cp. 64.  showeth that excommunication belonged to bishops: these put the keys into the hands of strange elders, yet very young in God's church, & good for nothing, but to oppress the ministery, and learning. such elders as Ambrose speaketh of were derived from the jews: but such Aldermen as these have devised, the jews had none. Ambrose his elders were not temporary, nor all of counsel: these are. Ambrose complaineth that the Bishop and his Clerks did not live in common, as in time 
5 Inter Can. Syluestri.  past; yet such was the greediness of bishops, that it was necessary to divide the church goods: and such was the negligence of priests, that they were sent out of cities to dwell in the country, which now is observed, and that which Ambrose complained of, restored: viz. that certain of the chief of the ministry should be assistant to the bishop. what then would these fellows have more? would they have all the ministers of a diocese to live in one city, and to join in hearing of all matters? This would be a beginning of singular non residence, & cause of great trouble & confusion; & not a means to do justice, but to hinder justice.  
After Ambrose succeed Hierome a man most unfit to speak for the new eldership. for if that be true which he saith, that bishops & elders in the primitive church were all one; then away go the aldermen that are no bishops: which reason did so stick to Bezaes' fingers 
1 De presbyter adverse. Erast. Epist. ad Heliod.  disputing against Erastus for the eldership, that he could no way lay it down handsomely without the ruin of his cause. Again, if in Hieroms time all Clerks did feed with the word, much more did priests. Neither doth it make for these men's cause, that he saith, that as the jews: so the Christians had a Counsel in every cathedral church, (for that is his meaning) for that was of ministers, and is observed in our cathedral churches, and utterly overthroweth the presumption of these unlearned aldermen, that with unwashen feet tread in the sanctuary, & with filthy hands, & leaden heads handle matters of religion, faith & churchgovernment, without colour or title taking the keys out of the successors of the apostles hands.  
Possidonius 
2 In vit. August.  & Socrates, albeit they are said to speak of the consistory, and that plainly: 
3 Lib. 5. cap. 21.  yet clearly overthrow the same: for neither of them ever understood or heard of any temporary lay elders, such as are lately raised from the dunghill to the highest tribunal of the church. Nor do they speak of others, than such as lived in community with the bishops in their cathedral churches, & such as we have in our church. of which also the canon 
4 Dist. 95. c. ecce. & 15. q. 7. si quid.  law maketh mention, declaring their office to consist in preaching & administering the sacraments: so that I cannot but wonder with what visage that libeler could allege the colleges of ministers of the word assistant to bishops in their Cathedral churches, to prove Elderships in every village assistant to every minister, and consisting of profane, and unlearned men, and neither having salary, nor salt of discretion, nor continuance, as the other had.  
Of these allegations therefore this conclusion may be drawn out, that in counsels, Fathers, and antiquity, there is not any argument or conjecture found of all that Discipline, which these new-fangled platformers desire.  
Nay, there is not any proof for the same in the new writers: only I except the Genevians and their followers, that have shamefully applied scriptures to their Disciplinarian dreams. The churches of Saxony, Wittenberg, Nuremberg, Strausborgh, Ausburg, Frankeforde, Hamborgh, and other places of Germany, (the county Palatine except) likewise the churches of Zuricke, Berne, Basill, & other true christian churches in Zuitzerland, & Denmark, Sueveland, Pomerany, Poland, and Hungary, and all the learned men that governed those churches, both in their doctrine, and practise, are against the discipline of the new Consistories.  
Moreover, those that speak for the Consistories, are not all of one opinion. In the state of Geneva there is but one consistory. there are not many that agree about the proof, parts, office, or laws of it. In Geneva they do not allow their consistory power to make, or disannul laws. In France they give that power to synods. The consistorial discipline in France was at first received of a few, and that not for evidence of Scripture, or proof, or reason, but by suffrages of the Nobility and Gentry (whereof some too well liked the sacrilegious doctrine) and by the earnest labour of Beza desirous to conform other churches to that of Geneva, most of the learned ministers dissenting from him, and disallowing his absurd discipline, and not yielding before the Princes to whom they served, constrained them. What reason then hath any to plead for the consistorial government which is unknown to all antiquity, and repugnant to Apostolical practice, and the most flourishing Churches in Europe, and was received with grudge of learned men, and only resteth upon the conceit of Caluin, Beza, Daneau, and some half score of blind writers, as john Baptista that ignorant Italian, and Sneccan, and Bertrand de Loques, and Olevian, and Robert Stephen, a better Printer than divine, and Perot, and the Plurre, and I know not whom, neither of mark nor quality? especially seeing so many pregnant reasons are brought against the translation of it from the jews, and establishment of it among Christians, as none have answered, and this libeler thinketh it most wisdom, to pass over with silence.  
If this be a good argument, that Daneau, Bertrand de Loques, Bastingius, junius, Piscator, Olevian, Caluin, Beza, Sneccan, and john Baptista d'Aureli think so: how good will this reason be, that all the fathers of all ages have been of a contrary judgement, and divers godly Martyrs, and learned men in our Church, and other reformed Churches in Germany, Zuitzerland, Denmark, induced with better reasons, have thought otherwise? Besides all this, it shall appear that those authors which the libeler allegeth never believed, that either in time passed there was a consistory of party coluored Aldermen, like to that this libeler desireth. or that such a one now ought to be placed in every Church. That Zuinglius should teach or believe that Christ did institute such Aldermen in his Church, as these do fancy I can no where find. Neither is it likely that he should teach that abroad, which he never delivered to his own Citizens at home.  
Aretius 
1 In 1. Cor. 12  speaketh of certain elders in his Commentaries, but whatsoever they were, he thinketh that they ought to have no use under the Christian Magistrate: And therefore by this testimony these fellows cannot win any vantage. That they were not like the disciplinarian Aldermen, it may appear, for that during the times of persecution, they supplied the magistrates office, and dealt in all causes of the first Christians, as he thinketh. Of such elders as Aretius speaketh of, it may be that Illyricus had some such like conceit: But far were they both from the opinion of them of Geneva, concerning their lordly consistory, that climbeth up above princes.  
Out of 
1 In 1. Cor. 12.  Hemingius there cannot any such fancy be gathered, as this of my young masters the Church aldermen. writing upon the 1. Corinth. 12. he doth interpret the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinances of ecclesiastical discipline. which amounteth nothing to the account of these fellows; yea he alloweth the 
2 Syntagm. Heming.  prerogative and authority of Bishops above other ministers, which can bear no sway among these lordly commanders.  
The place of 
3 In 1. Cor. 12.  Hyperius maketh not to purpose. for albeit he be produced by the libeler as a witness for the eldership, yet doth he testify against it. for he saith not, that any such aldermen, as these conceive, were joined with the Bishop in government, and equal authority, but that Bishops used the advise of ancient and grave men, not these rough hewn aldermen, that are neither wise nor grave, but rather grievous to God's Church: But most of all do I wonder what reason the libeler had to cite 
4 De reformand. abusib. ad Imperatorem.  Bucer, who in the place quoted, doth not so much as mention any elders, much less teach their office, quality and continuance: but contrariwise he showeth, that if there were no other difference betwixt the Papists and him, he would easily yield to bishops their titles, and dignities, and wisheth that metropolitans, and other bishops would return to the observance of ancient Canons.  
And so far was Bullinger from favouring any such new pack of aldermen as these would have, that he 
5 In libr. erast. de excom. in fine.  yielded his approbation to the opinion of Erastus, that denied both the presbytery, and presbyterial censures.  
Zegedin another of this man's witnesses doth say much against him concerning the 
6 Loc. Com. pag. 202.  superiority of bishops, and new device of doctors, and other points. But where he speaketh any one word for the consistorial governors, the place cannot yet be found. what should I stand long in tracing out the notorious falsehood of this forger of false quotations in every paticuler? By these already examined you may understand, how honestly he dealeth in the rest, and by this also, that it is known, that the Churches of 
1 Only in the Palsgraves' dition they say there is some haunt of the eldership to be found.  Germany, Denmark, and Zuitzerland, do all repel the eldership: yea, when certain factious companions coming from Geneva, would have made some stir in the ecclesiastical government at Zuricke,, Gualther resisted them, and the magistrates sent them out of their city to place their consistories in some other quarter, in remotis.  
Likewise doth he report untruth concerning M. Nowell, M. Fulke, and M. Whytaker. M. Nowell speaketh some what concerning elders, but that he meant the temporary aldermen, that sprung up first at Geneva, and now use to come from the merchants stall, and work-house, into the Church to order matters of faith and doctrine, it cannot be surmised.  
Neither hath the libeler any reason to build his fancies upon M. Fulkes opinions. for in the confutation of the notes of the Rhemish Testament, he doth defend the government of the Church of England, as now it is: & albeit he was sometime of other mind; yet did he afterward retract his former sayings. And when john Field contrary to his mind did publish the pamphlet called the learned discourse, he was offended with him, and if he had lived, would have confuted the same himself. Neither do I believe that M. Raynolds being so well conversant in counsels and fathers, doth admit an eldership contrary to the sayings, and practise of both.  
M. Whitaker is a man of too great judgement, to believe the unlettered, & improbable devise of the consistory: And well is it kowen, that he hath taught both publicly, and privately against it. Neither is it likely, that he hath now greater reasons to move him, since he married in the tribe of those that favour these conceits then before, so that when all is come to all, the authors of this discipline are 20, or 30, foreign authors, and half a score English perfumed with the smoke of Geneva, and well read in Caluins' Institutions. And the grounds of it are not scripture, nor antiquity, nor reason, but conceit and foolish fancy, and the authority of such as deserve no credit speaking in their own cause. If the libeler think otherwise, let him (or else because he is but a man of a weak brain and small learning) let any of the faction drawfoorth Caluins, and Bezaes' reasons: nay let either Beza himself, or any of them answer that which hath been set forth against their opinions already, and confirm Caluins and Bezaes' weak and evil shapen reasons: and then will the vanity of all the new platform, and also of these allegations appear.  
To prove the continuance of the government by Elders, he falsifieth also divers authors, as Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Capito, Melancthon, Bullinger, and maketh lies upon Fulke, and Reynoldes: for I think master Raynoldes holdeth no such fancy: And I am assured that Fulke retracted his opinion, so that his only reason also for the continuance of the Eldership, is because Miconius & Micronius, and Caluin, Beza, & Daneau, and Calueton, Colladon, Tavergues, Perot, jacomot, Duple, Golart, Pollan, peril, Henry, & others never heard of in this horizon believe the continuance of the consistorial government, that we must renounce scriptures, fathers, and all antiquity: which is neither a good, nor learned kind of reasoning yet for any thing I can see, it is not only the best, but also the only reason he useth. deny the new fancies that they have devised, & embraced at Geneva, you mar the frame of their consistory. why we should credit them against scriptures, fathers, stories, there can be alleged no cause. Much less is there reason we should believe Peter Carpenter a known Apostata from religion, or Bodin a man better conversant in policy, then in divinity, and whose religion was all popery. yet if we should, I do not find any thing in either that soundeth to the honour of the Alderman's cause. For 
1 Adverse. Fr. portum.  Carpenter. the matter is evident for he most bitterly inveigheth against them of Geneva; and not very doubtful in 
1 Bodini methodus historiae. c. 6.  Bodin. For the words alleged out of Bodin his method of histories concern the Aldermen nothing; He speaketh of the censure of Bishops. and did never imagine, nor could conceive, that the censures of the Church were put in the hands of profane men. Illa pontificum censura (saith he) nihil maius, aut divinius cogitari potuit. Secondly, he doth not commend the men he speaketh of, but the censures, for that they were so strictly executed. Which commendation, if magistrates were as willing to execute the censures of ecclesiastical judges with us, as at Geneva they are, would no doubt work like effects with us, as with them. And if the magistrate should not favour them, they would do little good in any place. Thirdly, he commendeth the same censure, not as the institution of Christ, or as a necessary policy for the Church, but as a very good politic and civil order devised by men, to keep the common sort in awe. But what if Bodin should say somewhat of matters he understood not, his authority is very weak in this case, being neither good in divinity, nor excellent in policy, and neither understanding the state of Geneva, nor our country: and therefore no fit man to make us here in England new laws.  
In the Harmony of Confessions, there are certain words inserted, sounding much to the commendation of the Eldership. Neither is it to be marveled, if they of Geneva that collected them together, made the words to sound as favourably, as might be for their own state and government: but that all the churches, or most of them, yea or any, save the disciples of the Genevian eldership, consent in one harmony of praises of that form of discipline, cannot be proved. No, although the authors with 
2 See the notes in the latter end of the harmony.  notorious falsifications, wresting, and forgery, draw the sentences of the confessions from their purpose, to speak for the presbyterial government. Wherefore, unless the petitioner can justify this kind of practice, there is not so much credit won by the vain names of Carpenter, Bodin, and the confessions of Churches, as there is lost by forgery, falsifications, and gross leasings.  
To strengthen the weak joints of this discrasied reason drawn from authority: he saith, Frist, that the consistorial government is also received of the Churches of Helvetia, the low countries, Milan, Poland, and Hungary: Secondly, that it is under the Turk, & among the papists: wherein he showeth, either singular malice in lying wilfully, or presumptuous ignorance in speaking of matters he understood not. For it is well known, that the churches of Helvetia neither have Genevian elders, nor excommunication: And that the churches of the low countries (to speak nothing of France nor Scotland) live in great confusion, & disorder: a matter rather to move us to refuse the consistory, then to embrace it. And likewise it is evident, that in Milan, & Hungary, there is no visible church, but of those that profess popery. And albeit there be some few elders among the papists of France, Germany, and Hungary, yet do they not show themselves, nor have they any allowance, or thanks for being there. But what manner of conclusion is this: That because among papists and Turks Elders are received, that we must also receive them? There are also Anabaptists, Arrians, and I know not how many heresies among the Turks & papists, which no reason requireth us to embrace. Popery likewise is professed under the Turk: not only this consistorial discipline. So that nothing can be more absurd then to conclude, that therefore we are to admit the Consistory, because it is crept in, in Turkey, and among the papists. Likewise, it is a vain brag, to say, That in the Church of Geneva, Scotland, France, there be thousands, and ten thousands of the best divines of the world. I would the number of them were greater, and their learning more excellent than it is; I do not envy their numbers, nor excellency. but the reward of learning taken away, and the great decay that hath happened of late time in those churches, doth both teach us what is now, and what we are to fear; and that when the reckonnig of good divines is made, it will come far short of thousands: much shorter of ten thousands. The ignorance & want of ministers in France, & other consistorial places is too too lamentable, & such is the blessing of this country, that one corner of England is able to match them all, either in number, or quality of learned men, albeit we do not reason from our own authority.  
The conclusion therefore that this bedlam discourser maketh, is too too foppish: viz. that Caluin, and Beza, and Tavergues, and Chaweton, and Perot, and I know not who are more likely to find out the truth, than the author of the remonstrance, and myself. for no man standeth upon the authority of us two, though the simpler of us in this cause, feareth not T. Cartw. nor W. Trau. no nor Beza their patriarch, nor all their brags.  
Neither do I desire any man to believe me, because I say so (this is only the conclusion of the platformers, that beside the authority of men, can say nothing for themselves) But seeing the interpretations of the consistorial faction are fond, fantastical, singular, and contrary to scriptures, to the jews histories, to all the fathers, and counsels, yea contrary to all reason, & good concluding, & agree badly among themselves, and finally stand upon the fooleries of the Genevians & their stupid followers, & upon their falsehood, forgery, false allegations, & abusing of scriptures: I do think and avow, that neither divinity, nor humane reason will permit any man, any longer to be abused by them, or to give credit to those that use them. Wherefore considering the weak grounds which the consistorial government standeth upon, and the forgery, falsehood, and impudency whereby it is supported, and the disorder and confusion it would work in the church, in learning, in laws, in her majesties authority, in her revenues, in every man's private right beside, if it were received: and lastly the seditious, & lewd courses that some men have taken to establish the same: If some have been punished; it cannot be denied, but that they have well deserved it, yea that they have deserved more punishment, and less favour. For never was matter preferred with worse course. which I do not speak, for that I would have either the disciplinarians faults, or penalties aggravated. (for the faults are grievous enough already, and the punishment I refer to our superiors:) but lest any should surmise they are wronged, or that the laws are rigorous, or that the proceed of her Majesty, and officers against them are injurious. For further declaration whereof, I have thought good, not only to answer the vain cavils of the petitioner against the proceed of judges, and their sentence pronounced against udal, but also to maintain and justify their upright and good dealing therein. It may seem strange, that law should not have strength sufficient to defend itself against the malice of these men. But seeing the vigour thereof is either dulled, or abated, and men suffered to declaim against judges & laws; let us assay, whether with reason & argument we can defend law: A matter albeit hard, where the readers are such, as repugn against law, and are led forth without reason, yet very easy to be effected, where those that shall judge, understand both law, and reason, upon confidence therefore of indifferent, discrete, and wise men's judgement, I commend this chapter following to thy reading.   

CAP. 3. That the proceeding against john Udall was just and lawful, and that the plat formers are justly charged with breach of divers laws, and guilty of faction, sedition, and divers other crimes, notwithstanding the exceptions in that behalf brought by the petitioner, or others, against the laws, and judges.  
I Would not have thought, that any had been so lewd, as publicly to condemn judges of injustice; or so foolish, as to oppose themselves against the execution of justice, had not this lewd libel declared the platformers to be of a strange humour, and malcontent, both with judges, and laws. By these I do see, that it sorteth well, that men that desire innovation should speak against laws, & that such as do live in disorder, and are void of reason should speak against justice, & reason. john Udall, a man utterly unlearned, and very factious was, as you have heard, condemned upon the statute of 23 Eliz. 2, And for divers other disorders mentioned in the indictment: That it was justly, & equally done, the greatness of the offence, being faction, and sedition; the sincere and upright dealing of those honourable persons, that then were judges; the allowance of others the most reverend and learned judges in the land, resolving on the case; the indifferency of the jury; the clemency of her majesties government; the witnesses, and proofs; the favour offered to the prisoner; the obstinacy of the party, the testimony of all that was present, can declare. Against all these, a certain quidam libeler, lately distracted of his wits, and yet not well recovered, taketh on him to argue boldly, malapertly, yea & very loosely, and foolishly. But his malapert, & saucy dealing I leave to governors to be considered; his lose and foolish dispute, I doubt not to make manifest to all that shall read this discourse.  
His first exception against the sentence pronounced against udal is, For that he defamed not her Majesty, which the law provided for, but Bishops that are no part of her majesties body politic, nor any of the three estates of this realm. wherein he doth not only deny things true, and affirm things false: but also talk of law, like a stranger ignorant in law, and allege an impertinent, and not concludent matter. That he defamed her Majesty appeared at the time of his trial by his writings, and out of his seditious sermons, and speeches proved by divers witnesses: and cannot now be called in question, seeing he that speaketh against her majesties supreme government in ecclesiastical causes, her laws, her proceed, and all those ecclesiastical officers which rule under her, as john Udall and his fellows use to do, diffameth her Majesty. yea and that much more, then if he should touch her private person. for that concerneth her government, and therein is she touched especially as a prince, and her princely authority & majesty disgraced. And therefore, seeing that is the common case of all the puritan faction: all they that writ for their pure government against this state, are diffamers of her majesties princely dignity.  
Secondly, he denieth the Bishops to be one of the three estates of Parliament, and the Clergy to be one of the three estates of the Realm; contrary to the reckonning of this Realm, and common speech, and acts of parliament, whose common style is the Lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of the realm, contrary to the use of the French, from whence we had the 
1 I assembly destroys estates. viz. le elergè, la noblesse, & cominautè.  word, and which call the parliament the assemble of the three estates: and contrary to the reckonning of all Christendom, that divide the realm into the ecclesiastical state, nobility, & commons; yea contrary to Christianity. For who will reckon the estate without mention of religion, but such as seek nothing but their cause and profit without consideration of religion? in the acts of parliament made at Edingburgh anno 1584., these words are often repeated. His majesty and the three estates. And again: Our sovereign Lord and his three estates in this present parliament. The heathens reckoned but two estates, to wit,, the 
2 Senatum & plebem.  nobility, and commons. Christians ever reckoned the ecclesiastical state one. neither doth any lawyer say contrary. 
2 P. anno 36, & 37. h. 8. f. 60.  In a certain report of judge Dyer, we read, that one certain lawyer is of opinion (for reason he bringeth none) that the parliament consisteth of three parts, the Prince, the Lords, the commons: but we reason of the parliament considered as a body of itself beside the prince: as it is in common speech considered. for so we say, the king in his parliament assembled at Westminster, or the king to the parliament, or parliament to the king. In which kinds of speech, if you make the king a part of the parliament, you make the prince to treat with himself, which cannot be. Besides that, you jumble the lords spiritual & temporal together & make but one state of them, which is contrary to common speech. Last of all, you make the prince that is head, equal with the parts, and make others as good as him: which is the endeavour of this libeler. and therefore I say, that the prince is head of that body that consisteth of three estates, viz. the lords spiritual & temporal, & commons: which concurring make laws to bind the realm neither is it true, that the bishops by law may be excluded out of parliament. For in all parliaments ordinarily their assent is set down in terms. What is done, or what hath been done in 
1 jewel. def. of the Apol.  fact, I will not say. So the 
2 Certain statutes have been made by the king, lords spiritual, and commons: others by the king, lords spiritual and temporal.  lords or commons may also be excluded, but we reason of law. And if the bishops may be excluded, then may the nobility be excluded also. For the lords consist part of bishops, part of temporal lords: & both have equal right. That the bishops cannot be excluded by right, appeareth by the 
3 Throughout all statutes.  laws and customs of this land. Sometime they departed because they would not be at judgement of life or member, which they supposed to be contrary to canons, or because they would not decree contrary to canons; but that was their wilfulness. that they were put out, as the libeler holdeth, cannot be proved. Neither jewel, nor Bilson, nor any lawyer will say it: wherefore that I have said, that they are one of the states of parliament, I prove by the general terms of statutes, by common speech, by original of the phrase, by orders of other nations, by common account of Christians, and the libeler hath said nothing to the contrary. For both in Dyers report, & 
4 11. H 7.27. & 7. H. 7.14.  also in other cases, under Lords, are comprised both the Clergy, and Nobility: which all the learned make two estates, how soever some seem to make of two one. And contrary to the report of the argument made by judge Dyer all the learned do reckon. For he maketh the prince one of the three estates, which of all other is made the head of them.  
He affirmeth that many laws were made, the bishops either being neglected, or not called to counsel: but he erreth. For it doth not appear, that ever any parliament was assum●● 〈…〉 were called: and present, until they either went out willingly, which they did sometimes where matters of life and death were handled; or left their voices by proxy with temporal lords, sitting still & saying nothing. yea all lawyers can tell him, that where there are more bishops than other barons in the upper house, no act can pass against all their voices: And that some acts have passed by the assent of the Lords spiritual & commons; and many ancient acts without any voice, or assent of the commons; & yet should the libeler reckon absurdly, if he should deny the lords or commons, to be among the estates of the land, which some call Ordines regni.  
In all this discourse of bodies politic, the libeler talketh neither like politic, lawyer, nor divine. for seeking the trouble of the state, and overthrow of the ministry; little doth he seem to understand what belongeth to policy: and neither yielding to her majesties prerogative, nor well defining what bodies politic are, nor how they are made, nor what right they have: and going about to dissolve laws, & call judges to render account to private persons, and to traduce trials, and judgements orderly passed, can it be surmised that he understandeth any one point of law, and who will imagine, that he understandeth any divinity, that saith, that bishops have only authority from men? for albeit, they be called externally by men, yet have they authority also from 
1 Matth. 28. & ephe. 4. & rom. 13.  God. doth he not understand, that not only ministers, but also inferior magistrates have power both from God and men? if he have not learned so much, the Apostle will teach him, that there is no power but of God: and Apostolical writings declare that the power of preaching & of administering the keys is from God; & that as Bishops and ministers have power, and an external calling given them by men, so they have a warrant also for that calling in God's word, in which God now speaketh to us; and that these two are not contraries to have a calling from God, and another calling from men. And therefore, where he chargeth us to speak contraries, he is much abused. The error was in his own unstaid and blunt head, that could not pierce into this distinction.  
But suppose there had been no error in all this discourse: yet is it absurd, because it is not to purpose. for be there two general bodies in the Realm or more: and be it, that the bishops are part of the politic body of her Majesty or not: yet if john Udall, and his fellows have defamed her Majesty, they are to be punished, and among the rest this fellow: which had been greatly to be wished: for than had he not wearied the reader with his frivolous discourse.  
That they have defamed her Majesty, the libeler proveth by way of objection. wherein though his skill be little: yet I grant the conclusion. neither can he with all his skill answer that little objection, which himself hath made. what then need we use many words to overcome him, that like a frantic disputer hath wounded himself, and made such an objection, as he cannot assoil?  
His second exception brought against Vdals' condemnation is, for that he wrote not advisedly. which if it were as concludent as true: I would yield he had reason. for most true it is, that he wrote not advisedly. Nay it is a common fault of this faction, that neither writeth advisedly, nor soberly. But it is no excuse for Vdals' offence. for albeit he wrote not advisedly, that is, discreetly: yet did he writ advisedly, that is, of set purpose, those things that tend to the disgrace of her majesties government. He wrote also maliciously, and uttered in his books, and sermons seditious matters. And it is not only his fault, but of divers other of that sort. which three points although he goeth about to clear, yet doth he nothing, but tell us a long fable of his new discipline, enter larded with contumelious speeches, part against king H. the 8, and William Rufus, and part against the present government, filling up the measure of the factious consistorials iniquity.  
But before he cometh to the matter, he goeth about to prove, that for words spoken of simplicity no man is to be punished: And showeth great eloquence in that which no man, I think, sure I for my part mean not to deny. He telleth us a tale of Carmichell of Scotland, that was compelled to burn his bill, for that he said in his sleep the devil take away the priests: which concerneth the matter in question nothing, but that he would have a glance at the clergy, whom in disdain the factious sort call priests, when as the name of priests is the best title whereby their elders claim their inheritance. Another tale he telleth in disgrace of king H. the 8, of famous memory: whom he chargeth with great injustice for causing the execution of Burder the Merchant that dwelled at the crown. for these are a kind of curs that bite quick, and dead. A third tale he telleth of William Rufus, whom he chargeth with favouring judaisme, and forcing some to rinegue Christianity: which is a little more than can be proved, and much more than wisdom required to be uttered; tending to the slander of Christian religion. this praeludium made, he falleth to his matter, and goeth about to prove, that he wrote not advisedly to diffame her Majesty  
To prove this he saith, 
Pag. 19  that john Udall and his companions only seek to have the corruption of the time redressed, and write against ignorant, unlearned, negligent, presumptuous ministers, against the remnants of popery and Idolatry, and against enormous corruptions: wherein he avoweth they have done nothing, but as the prophets of old time did, that exclaimed against dumb dogs, greedy dogs, and the high places, and as in time of popery some did, which inveighed against popish bishops: and affirmeth that they would write so much against their father, if he were a bishop, or non resident: matters most absurd and false. for neither have these lewd and lose companions such a commission as had the Prophets, nor is the ecclesiastical state to be compared with the idolatrous and wicked priests, or popish bishops. Neither have the same followed the steps of Prophets, or any prophetical persons. God's Prophets they speak nothing but truth: these are still telling us prodigious, and false tales of their consistory, and counterfeit discipline. The Prophets never ray led against authority, nor governors, these rail against ecclesiastical, & civil governors, and all that withstand them. the prophets showed not themselves unnatural to their parents, these profess unkindness. they did not assemble in seditious sort, nor go about to make new laws for the Church, as these did. They never by wicked conspiracy went about to establsh any new fancies, as did Wigginton, Hacket, Coppinger, Cartw. Udall, and all that were acquainted with that action. They never declaymed against others, being most guilty themselves, as these fellows do, which being most negligent and lose in labouring, most unlearned and ignorant, full of new fooleries, do notwithstanding inveigh against others so bitterly, that as this wise fellow professeth, they will not spare their father: no nor mother: and why? forsooth because they are of those which S. Paul speaketh of, and telleth us, that they are without 
1 2. Tim. 3.3.  natural affection.  
This defence therefore is unsufficient: first, for that it is false: for they do otherwise then they profess: And secondly, for that they confess in this treatise at unawares, that they diffame her majesties government, affirming the same to be full of enormous corruptions, and to have in it relics of Idolatry, and impiety, and to maintain a wicked and unsufficient 
2 The ministry of England is better without comparison, then that of France, Scotland, or Dutchland.  ministery: imitating therein, as underhand they insinuate, the wicked kings of Israel, and cruel tyrants that persecuted the Church. And lastly for that he avoucheth, that in those times, no man was accounted a diffamer of princes, that spoke against the ecclesiastical laws and state: which cannot be proved.  
To justify his companions doings, he telleth us further, a long discourse, how they pray for her Majesty, how they pay subsidy, how they fought for her Majesty when the Spaniards were here. And how some whom England shall remember while it is England, ventured as far as any. which is no more than the papists profess, nor than jews & Pagans do: which yield all duties to princes, & fight when as the Puritans played the cowards, & few showed themselves, for I know diverse that being there, saw very few puritanes armed to maintain this brag. But so dainty and nice they are, that they exclaim if they be not highly rewarded for every little duty: yea, for fight for themselves & their country: and plainly profess, that without their desires for discipline, they mean to withdraw all duty. And therefore this is but a vain brag of praying, preaching four times a day, and I know not what. for their tumultuous praying, and prating in those times did rather discourage, then encourage any: and was rather the beginning of tumult, than any encouragement. and he that preached four times a day, had much idle talk, and made many unsavoury discourses. But suppose some few of these men showed themselves loyal, and were so venturous as to come to Tilberie, or rail against the spaniards; yet others, as it may well be surmised, were framing supplications, and providing horse and arms, to come to present them all in arms. Then did Martin frame his seditious libels; then others preached seditious sermons, all tending to the weakening of those that willingly offered themselves in that service. And Martin signior professeth that when the enemy was ready to assail us abroad, there were a hundred thousand hands ready to subscribe the supplication of puritanes at home: which saith he, in good policy, (we being in fear of outward force) might not be denied, nor discouraged. Then which there can be no greater argument of their disloyal proceed.  
Where they are charged with railing against the prince's government, they excuse it saying, that therein they meant no more malice to her Majesty, than the godly prophets, that under Ezekiah and josiah reproved the abuses of the Church. which is a point, which must be read with great patience. for who can else endure to hear them compare themselves to the prophets, their doings to the doing of the prophets, the comparison being so unlike? God's prophets were humble, meek, peaceable, and possessed with God's spirit. These are proud, disdainful, contentious, and driven with other spirits. They never spoke against the state, nor condemned the calling of priests, nor said that the laws were antichristian and devilish: these stand especially on these points, & abuse the governors, and rail against laws, and this fellow as malepertly, as the best.  
He would further make the world believe, that his clients seek only for reformation, and doth every where dub them with names of seekers of reformation. But great difference there is betwixt pretence and performance. jacke Straw and Wat Tyler, and Kett of Norfolk, and all rebels pretend reformation as well as these, but the courses, and deeds of both tend to nothing but disorder, & confusion. the prince they would abase, the Church they would spoil, the ecclesiastical state they seek to abolish: learning and rewards in all places where they come, they take away. Moreover he goein about to prove, that bishops may be hated for their doctrine: and first, for that they impugn that, which heretofore they have taught. but neither is his comlequent good, nor antecedent true. for albeit that bishop Elmar spoke sometimes against the excess of bishops livings, as he then imagined, not knowing in what state they stood, yet did he never condemn the degree and dignity of bishops. nor did bishop Bollingham, as it should seem speak against the manners of others then papistical bishops: assuredly against the degree of bishops he never spoke. Neither are the opinions of one or two, to be ascribed to all: but if they which speak contrary to themselves, deserve hatred, what doth Tho. Cartw. deserve, that in many things speaketh he knoweth not what, in some things contrary to himselselfe, as in election of ministers, power of the presbytery, and divers points? And what doth the Libeler deserve that confesseth he talketh he knoweth not what, contrarying his whole discourse?  
Another reason he bringeth to prove that bishops may justly be hated, and that is because they confess (saith he) infinite abuses to be in the church. But the ground of the reason is false: for no bishop did ever confess so much. nor doth it follow, because some one speaketh untruth, that all the clergy of England should be maligned, and hated.  
Thirdly, he thinketh them worthy of hate, for that having taught that a bishop & priest is all one by God's word: they now teach; that all that hold so, be heretics. But he doth us wrong for charging us to say, that a bishop, & priest is all one by God's word: the word Episcopus & presbyter in scriptures is commonly used for one: but we speak english, & call those that rule bishops, and others priests: which distinction we find plainly in scriptures: and therefore hold the teachers of equality to be Aerians, & confounders of government, & to be justly condemned not only by Epiphanius, but also by Augustine, yea & by the consent of all the fathers, that distinguish priests into 2 sorts, giving the name of bishop to those that rule, and priest to the second that are ruled. And therefore most senseless is their reason, that because they have all one name, will conclude of it equality of all ministers. For magistrates, teachers, subjects have all one name, and yet are divided into divers degrees. In vain therefore doth the libeler bring proofs that the words presbyter & episcopus are commonly taken for one, for that notwithstanding there may be difference of degrees. howsoever they will answer this objection: yet is it apparent, that the same overthroweth, as I said, their consistorial aldermen. Away then with the new church aldermen, & those heretics that maintain them: for albeit Epiphanius erred in accounting them heretics that prayed not for the dead, yet is the same no reason to show he erred in this, which not only Augustine maintaineth, but all the Fathers also. & not only they; but the four general counsels, which this land approveth: so that by the laws of England they are heretics, that hold the equality of ministers. what shameless dealing them was this, for the libeler to allege the Syriake interpreter, or Chrysostome, or Ambrose, or Theodoret, when no one speaketh for equality, every one defendeth degrees in the ministers of the word? but the word cashisha saith he, comprehendeth both bishop & priest, what then? so doth a living creature comprise men & beasts: yet are not both equal in dignity neither doth it help him, that the order of priesthood compriseth both bishops & priests: for it doth not take away the dignity of some above others: what needed then so many names of Wicleffe, Marsilius of Padua, Luther, Bullinger, jewel, Melancthon, & others that speak as we do? or Caluin & his fellows that speaketh against all antiquity? or what needed this companion to muster so many names either of protestant churches, seeing they were not of Caluins' opinion, or of papists: seeing we do not follow Bellarmin, Stapleton, or papists, but antiquity that speaketh as we do? Neither doth it follow, 
Chrysost. Hierom. Augustin. in 4. ad Ephes.  that the ecclesiastical state is to be maliced for teaching that Pastor and Doctor are all one: for so hath all antiquity taught: and their interpretation by all antiquity is confirmed. Neither is it material what Caluin, Beza, Daneau, Bertrand de loques, Villiers, and other say to the contrary, seeing they talk contrary to antiquity, reason, and all practice. Finally, their own practice and divers reasons stand against Doctors, which neither the libeler, nor his mates make any haste to answer.  
The exposition of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Math. 20.25.  is most absurdly forced by these companion's to make against superior degrees in the ministry, for that the apostles notwithstanding Christ's prohibition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were superior to other degrees of ministers. And very absurd it were, if Christ should suffer tyrants to oppress the people, and forbidden lawful authority to the ministers: by which also would fall the authority of the consistory, and ministers live without controlment. And therefore as long as these fellows interpret against all scripture, antiquity, and reason; yea and themselves too: it skilleth not what they say against superior degrees: Against which Luther, Zuinglius, Melancthon, Caluin, Bullinger and the rest are most perversely alleged. They say, and so likewise jewel, Sadeel, Bridges, Bilson, whitaker's and others say, that bishops, as bishops may not take upon them the rule of kingdoms, nor rule with force like Princes. But who is so simple as to conclude hereof, that one minister may not rule another, as these fellows do? But suppose some of our learned men should interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, otherwise than Caluin hath done, must all the clergy suffer for one man's not yeeelding to Caluins' fancy? Or because some deny that sovereign princes may be excommunicate defending therein the sovereignty of princes, against the rebellious Papists and Puritans, must therefore the Ecclesiastical state be dissolved? nothing is more absurd. for herein as the adversaries deserve punishment: so our men deserve special commendation, in confuting the seditious doctrine of factious persons.  
They also consent flatly with the Papists in denying the prince's supremacy in making laws, judging of ecclesiastical matters, or appointing others to judge them, & divers other points. neither can the libeler sever their opinions from them: for first it is false that he saith, that the Papists exempt their clergy in civil causes from the prince's jurisdiction; or that the consistorials do give authority to the prince to deal with their consistories & pastors in ecclesiastical causes, so long as they judge they have done well themselves. for they take the dealing therein from the prince, and give power of deposition to their eldership. And as the consistorials say, that the prince may enforce their consistories making wicked decrees, to make better, (which taking the judgement of those matters from princes, I see not how they can well do) so the papists will have the prince not only to reform ministers, but the pope himself also. Si Papa sit incorrigibilis, Imperator potest procedere contra ipsum saith 
1 Heruaeus. de potest. papae c. 13.  Heruey: papa potest accusaricoram Imperatore, saith 
2 Zabarel lib. de schism. & council.  Zabarel. The papists confess, that princes may make laws with the advise of the pope, as these confess he may with the advise of the consistory. They confess that the prince may take order where the Pope is incorrigible, as these say, where their pastors are wicked and ungodly: & therefore the libeler doth nothing but fable, where he would sever the consistorials from papists. but what should we look for other at his hands, seeing he is not ashamed to say, that the consistorials will subscribe to the apology of the church of England, and the articles of religion authorized and published by parliament, which deny the degrees of the ministry, and oppugn them which are confirmed both by the apology, and by articles of religion professed in this church? Lastly, they take exception against us, for that we teach that the best 
1 All the ancient Fathers, and of late writers, Melancthon, Luther, and of others the best  writers are against the eldership, as if it were not proved by such authors & arguments, as these fellows as yet delay to answer. As for Daneau, and certain petty companion's defenders thereof, their authority is of no weight speaking against such antiquity, and consent, and reason.  
The Libeler would also have the ecclesiastical state made odious for their misgovernment: a very malicious and insufficient course. for suppose that 3, or 4 should do against law, is it reason that law should be taken away? or that many should suffer for a few men's faults? how much more unreasonable is it, that the same should be oppressed, for supposed misgovernment? That articles are ministered to parties convented in law, and subscription required to laws, is most consonant to laws: neither is any thing in the laws of England, or the statute 25. Henr. 8.19. there to the contrary. The Libeler seemeth not to understand himself nor others, when he talketh of bishops devising articles, and subscriptions, and publishing them in their own names: for there can not be devised a more absurd kind of speech. Subscriptions are required of others, and not published; and articles are objected as private means to bolt out truth, & not as laws to be practised. A course usual in all courts of chancery, exchequer, & starrechamber: but what reason had this fellow to object to bishops that which they do not, when Th. Cartw. and his 
2 At Warwick, Cambridge, London etc. the acts thereof are evidence sufficient.  fellows contrary to the statutes and laws of the Realm, assembled in secret manner, made laws, and subscribed them, and published them among themselves, and yet are not punished for it?  
They say, that bishops appointing special prayers upon occasion of the invasion of the Spaniards, and other special causes, do contrary to that which they require in others: but they mistake. for those offend not, that in every point of the Communion book observe not strict order, which the book in some case alloweth: but such malicious fellows, as of maliciousness refuse it, and contemptuously oppugn it. Neither is the use of special prayers upon occasion, contrary to the use of the book of common prayer subscribed unto with exclusion of all other orders of common prayers: for both may stand together. Neither did Bishops any thing in this behalf without her majesties special commandment: But these fellows are of those, that allow not her majesties godly orders, nor any thing done by Governors nor any prayers but fond, lose, vain, and absurd babbling orisons of Puritans: and seem to be sorry, that any should pray against the Spaniards.  
They think also, and the Libeler affirmeth, that it is as lawful for contentious persons to refuse the surplice, as for Bishops not to use pastoral staves. But it is most absurd so to say, the use of the surplice being confirmed by law, the use of the pastoral staves not being required by law, or custom: But were pastoral staves enjoined by law, is this a good reason, because Bishops offend, that every lawless companion should pass without controlment?  
That Cawdry was punished by order of law is apparent for that the statute doth authorize the high Commissioners to proceed according to their Commission. If any fault were therein committed, it was that he was used with so 
1 His cause was almost two years in handling, his conformity continually being expected.  much lenity: Never was any more obstinate, nor could any man have more favour especially without desert. for neither had he learning, nor other good quality, nor was any more factious.  
That felonies were examined before the high Commissioners Ec-Ecclesiasticall, is a vain cavil. neither doth it follow, because upon examinations of matters, felonious libels are found out, that they proceed to the cognition and determining of felonies. Neither do the Ecclesiastical judges contrary to law either in citations, or ministering oaths in causes ex officio, or punishing lewd & factious perturbers of the state. If this fellow do maintain the contrary: let him leave his idle quotations, and set down the words of law, & enforce them by argument to his purpose. Otherwise all men may see he goeth about rather to calumniate good men: then to justify any accusation against his adversaries. If he prove nothing, let him be ashamed to call his factious companion's seekers of reformation: their libels and frivolous pamphlets, books of reformation: and cease to impugn her majesties laws, & sentence of judges against john Udall, whose fact no man can defend, but such as maintain sedition, & faction: nor praise, but such as are enamoured of senseless & unlearned hypocrites: & let him cease to charge the Bishops with seeking his life. for they are not his parties: nay next to her Majesty he is to thank some Bishops for his life. for if they had been as he saith, nay, if some had not entreated for him, percase he had been hanged, & all this controversy taken up and ended. If he cease not, percase the world will think that Udall deserved rather more severity, then is now showed to him: and that the libelers bold demeanour may procure him to have justice for his foolish prating, rather than favour for any witty reasoning.  
Hitherto all the Libelers dispute is without sequel. for admit some one or more should teach falsely, or do against law: yet is it no reason, that every base companion should with open mouth rail against her majesties government and Laws, and call them Antichristian, and speak against the whole clergy, yea against judges, and all that favour the present government. Let those that have taught falsely be refuted, and those that have done lewdly be punished. That the state should be dissolved for the misgovernment of particulars, no reason will admit.  
That the platformers offer their lives to prove their discipline, (which the libeler allegeth to excuse them) is a senseless reason. for no traitors, nor felons deal in any cause that they undertake, but they offer and venture their lives for it: yea, and jacke Straw & Hacket offered their lives, to prove their reformation; whereas these fellows contrariwise, are very loath to lose lives, lands, or goods for their discipline, and lose nothing but with much grumbling and repining, and come far behind the jesuits and Papists in that point. And so simple is their proof, that if they be wise, they will not venture any thing upon it: for the demonstrations of discipline stand confuted without reply, and all their presbyterial imaginations rest beaten without answer: neither is any argument in all T. C. his great confused Chaos of replies left untouched. His multiplicity of words we leave to factious Puritans that speak ordinarily without sense or matter, to play withal.  
To excuse his fellows silence, the Libeler pretendeth want of liberty, & Printers; which cannot justly be alleged: for how can they want printers, having Waldgrave in Scotland, and others at Geneva, Middleburg & Leyden at commandment, beside their private presses? Or how can they pretend want of liberty, seeing none have been long imprisoned, and many came never in prison? That which the libeler here inserteth again of other churches, whom he would have us to conform ourselves unto, he would never have mentioned, if he had understood the grounds of his own discipline. for themselves say, that all 
1 Discipline de l'esglise Francoise.  Churches be equal, and it is apparent that every christian realm and Church is to be governed by her own laws: but these be the fellows that would translate the Popedom to Geneva, and have us fetch laws from new Rome. Seeing then that john Udall and his companion's have maintained a lewd and fond government never heard of in antiquity, and by wicked forgery and lies have gone about to disgrace the present state and the governors, and have railed against her Majesty and laws; and that the Libelers defence is most frivolous, it can not be denied, that they have written maliciously to diffame her Majesty: And good is were, they had stayed in writing: but they would not be ruled. for T. Cartw. joh. Udall, and others were acquainted, but too well with Hackets conspiracy.  
His third exception against john Vdals' condemnation, is for that he wrote not against her majesties person. But the same is very frivolous, for the Majesty of a prince consisteth in his power, laws, government, and not in his particular person, or private qualities or behaviour. Neither are the papists punished for speaking against her person, but speaking against her supremacy and laws. Therefore seeing he confesseth he wrote against her laws and government, he must also confess, that he offended against the statute that made it felony to write malicious, & defamatory matters against her Majesty. The preamble declareth as much, for that the same pretendeth, that certain persons evil affected to her Majesty should be suppressed: In which number these that would disannul her government, and would bring her in subjection to Hackets prophets, or the prophetical consistory are especially to be reckoned, & it was the special meaning of the parliament that the malapartness both of papists, & puritans should be repressed: as some there present in parliament do witness. Neither is it material, that penal laws are of strict interpretation, for expound it as strict as you wil it cannot be, but those that diffame her Majesty any way, either in person or government must fall within the compass of the statute. That which is brought of the statute of 13. Eliz. c. 1. and 1. & 2. of Mary. 3. is idle talk, and concludeth nothing. neither is it true, that those that account her majesties religion, & laws heretical, and schismatical are without the compass of the statute, that maketh it treason to call her Majesty schismatic, & heretic. fond likewise it is, that he talketh of stealing of horses, and contrary to his purpose: Seeing he maintaineth a company of asses, that would encroach upon her majesties government, & steal away the hearts of her people.  
But saith he, her Majesty is a body politic in fiction. which is untrue, for she is in truth a politic body: That is hath a resemblance of a body truly. But were she not a politic body at all, should it be lawful to diffame her laws, and government? This exception therefore is beside the law. for be she body politic or no, if her Majesty be defamed, then is an offence committed against that statute.  
Again he objecteth, that if it be a diffamation of her Majesty, to speak against her ecclesiastical laws, they should also diffame her Majesty that speak against the eldership. which is an argument like to the resolutions of the eldership, that is, senseless, & foppish. for admit her Majesty tolerate the french Church, yet doth she not confirm their french laws, no more than they of Geneva confirmed the orders of the English Church at Geneva: nor do other confirm contrary religions which for some occasions they tolerate; so that, to speak against the absurd government of that 
1 In king Edward's days the Churches of strangers were subject to their superintendents: in this Queen's time to the bishops of Canterbury and London: against whom while unkindly they spurn, they show themselves ungrateful, not only unmindful of her majesties benefits.  company, that contrary to law and covenant have exempted themselves from the bishop's government, and erected synods, is to speak in defence of her majesties laws, and not against them: whereas these fellows offend in direct oppugning all her majesties ecclesiastical government.  
Sixtly, he inferreth, because it is not treason to kill bishops, or other subjects, nor felony to write or to speak against bishop's government, that therefore her Majesty is not defamed, when they are defamed. A reason rather to kill the libelers cause, when all men see his malice, and ignorance, then to hurt others. for no man saith her Majesty is defamed, because libels are written against bishops, or others, but because the same libels do touch her majesties government, & laws: and that not in one or two points, but in the very whole body & government ecclesiastical of her majesty, and that in most disordered manner: and that the authors thereof are therefore punished for perturbing the state, not for their fond opinions of discipline. Neither doth the libelers frivolous talk of politic members, or of diffaming the Dukes of Saxony or high Almain pertain to this purpose. The seditious books of the disciplinarian faction have been intended against her majesty, & nor the Dukes of Saxony, or kings of Denmark, albeit they touch them in some sort, that maintain the superiotity of bishops also.  
He saith also, that the intention of the parliament, was not to protect bishops: as if they meant not to maintain the laws & state. But admit it be true: yet it maketh neither hot nor cold to this purpose. for these seditious fellows are not condemned for speaking against bishops, but for that arguing against them, and the ecclesiastical state, they proceed in such violent sort, that they neither spare her majesties honour, nor her government in ecclesiastical causes. that the meaning of the parliament was to repress the malice of puritanes is most certain. for it was expressly mentioned at the time of making the act by divers of the house. and therefore justly are they to be punished by that statute.  
Further he taketh exception to certain canons in use, as he supposeth, as that women may not sue their husbands for adultery, etc. & that spiritual kindred hindereth marriage, & others concerning excommunication & fasting: & therefore concludeth, that if it be lawful for some to find faults with them, & yet do not diffame her majesty, that I. Vd. defamed not her majesty. but both his reason is nought, & his judgement in law simple: for albeit men are not accounted diffamers of her majesty, that reprehend some law with modesty, yet can no man call her majesties government antichristian, nor rail against her laws & government as idolatrous, & superstitious, without diffamation of her majesty. Nor is the sufferance of some men, that deal modestly, a cloak to cover seditious people that deal factiously, & maliciously. The laws & canons which he mentioneth are utterly mistaken. Behold I pray you the man's simple skill. first saith he there is a 
2 32. q.r.c. apud.  law, that women should not sue their husbands for adultery. But in the place he quoteth there is no such matter, nay which is worse, Gratian whom he quoteth, hath no authority of law. In that place there is mention made, that the woman shall not accuse her husband for adultery to have him put to death: which this wizard understood not, but thought them to be forbidden to sue their husbands for adultery. But the 
1 Gloss. ibid.  gloss telleth him, that the contrary of that is law, and the practice of ecclesiastical courts is contrary, and so hath always been: and many at this day do sue their husbands in causes of divorce, for adultery.  
The 2. 
2 24. q. 2. c. vlt.  Canon which he citeth, and affirmeth to be contrary to God's law, is that heretics after their death should be excommunicate. But first it doth not appear that it is law with us. for as I have already told him, Gratian is no law. So that I cannot but wonder what blockish conceit came into this man's distempered brain, to talk of canon law, that knoweth not what is law. Besides it doth not appear that this was practised before the statute of 25. H. 8, 19 lastly the same is not contrary to God's word. for to the memory of wicked heretics, such as Arrius, Eutyches, Nestorius, Macedonius, Paulus of Samosata, we say Anathema. And if the libeler say not so, he is a loser companion, than I took him for.  
The 3. Canon that he 
3 30. q. 3. c. pitatium.  affirmeth to be contrary to God's law, and not to ours, is that spiritual kindred shall hinder marriage. But both is the same direct contrary to our laws, that only respect the degrees of consanguinity, & affinity, & such like as are mentioned in Leuit. & not to God's law where they list to use it, we allow no degrees of kindred to hinder marriage, but such as are noted in Leviticus. Nor is it an offence against God's law for some civil or domestical cause, other than degrees of kindred to forbid marriage for some time with some persons. And therefore they of 
4 Ordonances de Geneve.  Geneva, albeit they account the marriage of cousin's germane lawful, yet think them not convenient. He allegeth also certain canons, that enjoin Clerks to fast 7 whole weeks before Easter, & forbidden them to fast on thursday. But that they were usually observed in England before that statute, he showeth not. Neither doth he rightly quote the places. So that if these malcontent disciplinarians mean to speak hereafter against ecclesiastical laws: they must send us forth some wiser man, than this libeler to speak in their cause, for he is but a simple fellow to dispute, and understandeth just nothing in law, and very little in honesty. That in king Henry, and king Edward's days order was taken, for the collection together of laws in use, is granted: but that they meant to correct laws in use, which this libeler doth insinuate, or did confess, that there be infinite corruptions in ecclesiastical laws, which he affirmeth, cannot be proved. I will not longer stand upon this point, for that I have spoken of it already, and the same is beside the libelers purpose; which should prove that Udall and his consorts offend not against the statute of Eliz. 23. above mentioned. But his reasons are all too weak. for either stand they upon false grounds, or else are they misshapen, and evil featured.  
That which he saith of Wickleffe, Suinderby, tindal, Hooper, Barnes, Latimer, and others whom he chargeth with speaking against the state of the Church, and common wealth, is utterly untrue. let the places be showed, and their words set down. For in these that already are brought forth, there is no such matter contained: they do not call our laws antichristian, nor disgrace the government of the prince, nor condemn the superiority of bishops: nor rail at the preachers of the Gospel, and governors of Christ's church. they never framed libels nor invectives against the state. nor ever sought to have a new found government established in the church. and albeit they inveigh against the manners of men, and corruptions of those times, yet shall you not find any, that hath written in Martin's satirical and doogeon style: nor that sought to have either Church or state turned upside-down, or committed to the direction of the common sort. compare them with these late rhymers, libelers, and firebrands of sedition: you shall see a wonderful difference.  
Further saith he, some find fault with the forfeiture of traitors lands, some with the short return of writs, others with pluralities of fermes, and engrossing of Manors, others with racking of rents, and divers other laws and customs. admit they did: yet is not the fact of one, an excuse for the offence of others. we live by laws, not by examples. But it cannot be showed, that any ever so raged with malice against laws as the Martinists did, and do. those percase spoke against some one or two laws, and that modestly submitting themselves to the controlment of their superiors: they railed not against governors, nor lanced them with malicious libels, nor sought innovation, but redress of things disordered. to all these examples therefore of Wickleffe, Suinderby, Hooper, Barnes, Latimer, and those that have found fault with some abuses in law; I answer first, that it is one thing to desire the reformation of some one abuse, and another to desire the subversion both of all ecclesiastical governors, and laws, which cannot be without a dangerous innovation of state; & secondly, that the course of the proceeding of those that have spoken against men's manners, and some one law, is far different from these men's doings and writings, that strive for the new kingdom of the Consistory: lastly that Wickleffe, Suinderby, Tyndal, Barnes, Hooper, Latimer, spoke against the corruptions of papistical Bishops, both in doctrine and manners: yet never did they seek for a new consistorial government, nor did they libel against the governors, the laws, the state.  
This is but the Consistorian style lately found out, and practised by lewd lozel's, and satirical backebiters of good men. for which, if no other punishment be laid on them, yet they shall surely answer at the last dreadful day, if they repent and amend not.  
Further it is a shameful course, though greatly pleasing these men's humours, to take that which good men spoke against pompous and tyrannical Bishops that governed at pleasure, and gave over preaching altogether: and to apply the same against Bishop's, that neither so excel in wealth, but that many base scrivanoes, and merchants, yea shoemakers and tailors surpass them; nor in power, but that mean companions abuse them; & are not popish tyrants, but preachers of the gospel. If the libeler had had any modesty, he would not thus have abused men's writings: nor if he had intended any other matter, then to make libels, would he have drawn out certain rhymes out of Pierce Ploughman, & Chaucer, men far excelling him in all modesty and humanity. for albeit they rimed against wicked bishops, yet do they speak more civilly of them, than he doth of godly and learned men, whom with rhyme doggerel, and dogged railing, and many slanderous reports, and that in the presence of a prince, he goeth about maliciously to disgrace. Not that he would teach them any good: For he sendeth them to the devil to learn. Learn saith he of the devil: of which Master, the libeler hath learned all his railing, and shameful slandering; and from him hath he borrowed all his malice. Therefore I say not as he saith, learn of the devil; but learn not of him: he is a raylour, and slaunderour, and so are all libelers, and revellers, the right disciples of Satan.  
That these books pass with this approbation, Seen and allowed, it followeth not, that all things therein contained are allowed: but that they are allowed to be printed, as having nothing in the opinion of him that allowed them contrary to state. and rather, because we should reap some profit by that which is good; then lose the good for the bad: or alallow that is evil because it is joined with that which is good.  
Neither are the consistorial libelers punished, for speaking against civil offices in bishops, or faults in them, albeit it be an uncivil part to disgrace honest men in rhymes and railing discourses, and sermons, and to reprehend with such vehemency that, which they cannot disprove: but because they bring in many pernicious doctrines, and overturn all government, and deface the prince's regiment, and bring in infinite lewd novelties, and that by railing, reveling, & faction. And therefore, if any suffer any punishment, it is not for seeking reformation, but for deforming and diffaming, the frame of this Church government, and common wealth, and that in shameful sort. Neither doth this libeler desire any thing more, than that learned men should be set aside, that such sorry hines as himself might enter in place: A man fit to be scourged in Bedlam, then placed in Church government.  
Neither is there any shelter for the libelers cause, under the names of my Lord of Canterbury, Master Nowell, Master Rainoldes, & M. Bancroft: their opinions & manners being so contrary, same was M, Bancroft from calling her Majesty a pope, He reprehendeth Martin, for his rash assertion, implying that she is a pope. All these men defend; the other oppugn the state: the one by good means seek disorders to be reform, the other by all injurious and unlawful means, yea at length by conspiracy, sought to overturn the state. And therefore, as the one deserveth praise, so the libelers clients deserve punishment. And nought it is that he can say for them, their fault is so foul, and his wit so simple.  
They do I say, deserve punishment: first, for diffaming her Majesty, and next, for plotting and working of rebellion. And that is gathered by their doctrine, which doth clearly show their meaning. for how should a man gather a man's meaning, but by his words? Listen then first, what goodman, saith a patriarch of this seditious congregation. All men (
1 p. 73.74.77.  saith he) Counsellors, noblemen, inferior Magistrates, and people are bound, and charged to see the laws of God kept, and to suppress, and resist idolatry by force. Again: If the 
2 p. 196.  Magistrates shall refuse to put massmongers, and false preachers to death, the people in seeing it performed, do show that zeal of God which was in Phinees, destroying the adulterous; and in the Israelites against the Beniamites. Further (
3 p. 4.  saith he) to teach that it is not lawful in any case to resist the superior powers, but rather to submit ourselves to punishment, is a dangerous doctrine, taught by some by God's permission, for the punishment of our sins. He 
4 p. 63.43.59.72.  affirmeth also, that it is not sufficient for subjects not to obey wicked commandments of their princes, but that they must withstand them also in doing the contrary, every man in his vocation and office: And 
1 P. 3. & 35.  that it is the office of Counsellors to bridle the affections of Princes and governors. And 
2 Goodm. p. 99  that it is lawful to kill wicked kings and tyrants. with him did he consent that made the book of Obedience in Queen Mary's time. Queen Marie saith he 
3 P. 99 & 113. & good m.p. 180. & 184. & 185.  ought to be put to death, as being a tyrant, a monster, a cruel beast. And if (saith he) neither the inferior Magistrate, nor the greatest part of the people will do their office (viz. in punishing, deposing, or killing of Princes) than the Minister must excommunicate such a king. And again: 
4 obed. p. 110.  By the word of God in such a defection (or rebellion) a private man having some special inward motion, may kill a tyrant. Whittingham that made a preface to Goodman's book, affirmeth; That this doctrine was commended by the most learned in those parts: which were Caluine, Beza, and certain English men. The same doctrine, or disobedience rather against princes was taughr by 
5 De iure regni.  Buchanan. 
6 Knox. appell. p. 28. & 30.  Knox saith, that the nobility and commonalty ought to reform religion, and in that case may remove from honours, and punish. Unto these accorded Hottoman in his Francogallia, and Beza de iure Magistratuum in subditos, vindiciae contra tyrannos, Vrsinus, and the rest of the great patrons of the consistorial discipline.  
Secondly, the proceed of the Consistorials, both in Scotland and England declare the same. In Scotland the roads first of Ruthuen, then of Sterling, where forcing the king, for safeguard of his honour and life, to take himself to the Castle; they deposed Bishops, and erected Consistories. In England they sent about their factors into every shire to procure subscriptions to their new-fangled discipline, they set up Consistories and Synods, and watched the time of the Spanish invasion, to begin their faites; and but that they saw themselves two weak, would have by force (as many reasons make us suspect) executed their purpose. yea notwithstanding their weakness, Hacket, Coppinger, and Wigginton, with whom Th. Cartwright did communicate by divers letters, went about to raise a tumult, and to set up their discipline, which they called their new kingdom. for which their new king was hanged, drawn, and quartered, and Coppinger according to the puritan style, made away himself.  
Thirdly, these men have many marks of faction in their doings; their nightly meetings, secret whisperings, open invectives against laws, and governors, glorious pretences of reformation, mutual intelligence, new names, secret confederacies, subscriptions, and such like, do mark them out for mutinous, and rebellious companions.  
Fourthly, the precedents of the Anabaptists, do teach us what an unbridled thing the people is, where they take the sword to work reformation with: And that if the Anabaptists which condemn wars, went about by force to establish their heresies, that much more these factious mates, compounded of divers sorts of heretics and schismatics, & rebellious persons, putting such glory in arms, would assuredly have made a great stir, if they had not been repressed.  
Fiftly, their threatening words, which God would not suffer them to conceal, did bewray their wicked purposes. Martin threateneth force against those that maintain the state. The author of the demonstration denounceth great troubles toward, if they may not have their will; and sayeth, That the discipline shall come in by a way, that shall make all our hearts to ache. And another of Martin's 
1 Mart. se●.  whelps, braggeth of a hundred thousand hands, and threateneth that they will strike a great stroke in the setting up of discipline. And therefore, seeing both by their doctrine, and words, and deeds they do declare themselves, and their meaning; In vain doth this lunatic scribe babble, that they intend no rebellion. What should I believe words, when we may see deeds to the contrary? yea, facts openly maintained in writing.  
Add hereunto the drift of T. Cartwrights', Penries', Martin's books, to move a dislike in men's minds of the present government, and nothing will appear more notorious than the bad meaning of these mutinous libelers.  
But saith the libeler, Whereas the adversaries do take as a principle: that whosoever writeth to work a discontentment in the minds of the subjects do intend rebellion, that is a most untrue assertion, and sophistical paralogism. so little doth he understand, either what is untruth, or what is a paralogism. for the truth of the assertion, I have already clearly demonstrated: and well doth it appear, that he understood not his Logic terms, 
Arist. elench. 1.  that maketh one proposition a paralogism. for a paralogism is a sophistical syllogism, consisting of divers propositions. but this assertion is neither syllogism, nor sophistical assertion, containing a very plain truth, which now themselves have justified by their actions, and always politics have taken it as an undoubted truth. for no man writeth to move men's minds to discontentment with the present government, but hatcheth in his own mind the seeds of rebellion. First, the papists wrote divers seditious pamphlets against religion, and the state: afterward, they put on arms and rebelled. So first came forth Martin and divers pamphlets of like argument, afterward rose up king Hacket the great emperor of the disciplinarian faction, and his prophets. the only fault was, that their patriarchs were not ready to follow them, or could not follow them, for the multitude of boys that gaped and gazed upon them.  
Secondly, he saith: they writ in an humble, loyal, and dutiful sort. Of which let Cartwrightes, martin's, & Penries' books bear witness. for pride and spite, and disloyalty, I never read books that matched them.  
thirdly, He would defend his clients with the example of Christ, that discovered many abuses, and Peter that struck off Malchus his ear a servant, or pursuivant (as he saith) of the high priests. Percase he would have his companion's to cut off the pursiuants and the Queen's messengers ears, yea and head too, if they could. So little can he contain himself, that in the defence of force and rebellion, he doth nothing but breath force and rebellion; And is still talking of killing and cutting. But the case is unlike. for Christ never spoke against the laws; these say that we have an antichristian government. Christ condemneth not the office of priests: these condemn the office of Bishops, and the ecclesiastical state. Christ sought not to erect any new Consistory, or government in despite of governors; these do nothing else. Peter struck off Malchus ear, which Christ healed: these would cut men's throats for to have their consistory, and so leave them. In fine, these neither are like Christ, nor Peter, nor good Christians: but rail, revel, conspire, and raise mutinies. They do not speak to the governors, where they may have redress of disorders: but mutter in the ears of the people, as if they meant to renew a new massacre, or make the 
1 Vespres Siciliennes. Mach. Histor. Fiorent. lib. 1.  Sicilian evensong. which was evidently declared by that blasphemous wretch Hacket. Neither may it excuse them, (which the libeler allegeth.) That the burgesses of Parliament are thither sent by all the people, which cannot understand what to desire, unless they be taught before. For if they meant only to obtain it by parliament, and not by force and faction of the people, it had been sufficient to teach her Majesty, or the parliament: or any one burgess. for so laws are framed. And as those that speak against the laws, and civil government in every place before the people, cannot avoid the name of rebels, albeit the same be afterward motioned in parliament: no more can these excuse themselves of disloyalty in all places declaiming against the present regiment. albeit they would have the same altered by parliament.  
Further, he saith, that if they pretended rebellion, than they would rise up and reform things themselves, rather than write books to that purpose. As if it were not madness to rise before they had prepared the people's minds to rebellion. Nay first a side must be made, and then matters must be executed. So that it appeareth that his complices did take the direct way to rebellion, and that this course could not be taken before that men were moved to discontentment by villeinous books, like those of Martin, and his whelps.  
Fiftly, he commendeth his clients for teaching true obedienee, and that with greater Zeal and sincerity than the bishops. But the vanity of this objection appeareth, by the general doctrine of their chief patriarchs. for killing of princes, raising of force, and rebellion, is simple proof of true obedience. And albeit these latter do not so directly teach it, yet Fenner whom 
1 He calleth his doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caelestis Canaan.  T. C. doth highly magnify, doth allow inferior Magistrates to bridle, and depose princes, and giveth authority to the people to reform religion. from which opinions not only all bishops, but all good subjects are very far.  
Sixtly, he 
2 2 Pag. q. 43.  that ever his consorts either by writing, words or acts, went about to make any stirs for the bringing in of their new discipline. This man will percase deny that the sun giveth light at noon day, if it make for the cause of the consistory: for the sun is not more clear, than the lewd practices of these sectaries. Their doctrine doth wholly tend unto trouble and rebellion. 
3 De iure magistratuum in subditos.  Beza in his book of the power of magistrates, doth arm the subjects against the princes in these causes. The author of the book which is entitled Vindiciae contra tyrannos, whom many affirm to be Beza or Hotoman, doth give power to the subjects, not only to resist, but also to depose, and kill the prince if he oppugn Gods laws and religion: whereof they make their discipline a glorious part. That this was the opinion of them of Geneva, is apparent by the words of 
4 In an Epistle sent from Die p. hist. scotl.  Knox: who not only allowed the doctrine, but put it in fragrant practice in Scotland. Neither may we think that our platformers have dissented from their masters. Fenner in his book of divinity, which Th. Cartw. so well liketh, that he calleth the doctrine of it, the undubitable rules of heavenly Canaan, 
5 Theolog. Fen p. 186.  saith that in every common wealth there ought to be by the law of God certain Ephori or magistrates which ought to have, as in Sparta they had, authority not only to overrule, but also to depose the prince. According to their doctrine, they have proceeded in writing, speaking, doing. Martin most shamefully raileth at the present government, and wisheth 
1 Epitome of Martin.  that the parliament would bring in the eldership, notwithstanding her majesties resisting it, viz. by a rebellion. They made diverse meetings: they inveyghed against the state in their public and private speeches; in the end, they procured throughout the Realm certain subscriptions: themselves bragged of a hundred thousand hands: In plain terms they talked of 
2 Wight.  massacring of their adversaries. And Snape in one of his letters sayeth, what will you say, if we ovethrowe the Bishops, and that government in one day? Their further malice appeareth in the Epistle before their lewd demonstrations of discipline. when all things were ready, out starts Hackets two prophets to move the people to rebellion, that what they could not have by entreaty, they might win by treason and rebellion. That they intended the delivery of certain factious persons committed to prison, and to erect the presbyteries, and to suppress the governors and laws, their letters, examinations, and writings do declare. And yet forsooth this ignorant fellow holdeth, that they never went about to move any stir, or rebellion: percase he thought these matters had not been known.  
Seventhly he objecteth further, that if his clientes intend rebellion, than the laws also, and bishops do intend rebellion: for that they expect likewise further reformation. But the case is unlike: Good men desire reformation of manners by execution of good laws, and supply of imperfections: They stand for the state, they withstand all innovations, they proceed orderly. These fellows contrariwise seek the overthrow of infinite laws, of infinite officers: and that by reveling and disorder: they seek the establishment of an uncouth and unknown government by faction and conspiracy, odious to all states, and good men. Neither can he shroud his clients under master Nowel's authority. for they want much of his learning and honesty, and far diverse is that eldership, he meaneth, from this pack of elders, that they desire.  
Neither because printers sell popish books, by which some are moved to discontentment, doth it follow that therefore it is lawful to move discontentment. for neither may they sell them but to men known and licensed without punishment: nor are all popish books of one sort. As for Doctor Percy I think he doth not set forth new laws, nor new common wealths, but for ease and introduction of students doth gather a sum of all laws in force. but the libelers furious mates would burn them and utterly overthrow law, that we might depend upon the variable oracles of the presbytery, which he seeketh to erect.  
Eightly he addeth, that many do maintain papists and traitors, and yet do not move discontentment, unto which I am content that he maketh his clients like. for I do not know any in England that hath procured the discharge of more recusants (and that not gratis) or more helped them, then certain capital and principal puritanes. The libeler knoweth whom I mean. The exception is frivolous and false for neither are they to be allowed that maintain papists, nor puritanes: or that procure their discharge. Nor may we think, but that they that maintain them, mean no good to the state: and therefore let the gentle dunce advise hereafter what he sayeth, and not disgrace his best friends, nor lie to no purpose, nor benefit of his cause. And finally let him not say, our arguments are nought, unless he reply better, hitherto he hath sweat and said nothing; yea and when he hath sweat out all his wit, yet can he not answer any one title of our reasons. The reason that he setteth down is his own reason, and is senseless in deed, and proceedeth from a man void of wisdom, learning and honesty, But the same set down in good terms will make him in deed ashamed, but not as he saith to answer it, but because he cannot answer it. No, though he profess to speak for the innocent. He should have said, in the cause of the dumb, for so are the words of T. C. his master's text. But his clients they have spoken too much, and wish themselves, they had been dumb. Now albeit they be not mute, yet he taketh them to be innocent, and that in his opinion. Is not this a worthy fellow think you, that opposeth his fond and lose opinion against the evidence of witnesses, verdict of the jury, sentence of the judge? But what should we look for other at these men's hands, whose brave consistory, and all their learning standeth on 3 or 4 men's opinions? But let us hear what he bringeth to answer our objections, and for discharge of his clients that stand at the bar.  
He saith, that Martin where he threateneth, that Doctor Bridges shall have xx fists about his ears, meaneth that many shall write against him: A goodly comment: As if puritanes wrote with fists, rather than fingers: which may very well be; for their writing is seditious, rude and uncivil. To prove that Martin meaneth so, he allegeth first, that Martin is no Atheist nor papist. But there is great doubt of papism, and flat proof of atheism. for who scoffeth at religion but Atheists, and perverteth scriptures in scorn, but such as believe no God? Secondly he saith, xx is too few to make a rebellion. But the patch might understand that one is enough to begin a mutiny: And that if D. Bridges shall have xx fists against him, their meaning is, that others shall have many more about them. for I think their quarrel is not only against D. Bridges. In the end the libeler seeing his cause desperate, saith that hanging is too good for Martin. which I yield unto, and assign the libeler for his pains, to be the executioner. And thus the noble Martin, viz. I. Penry, I. Vd. I. F. all johns, and I. Thr. that all concurred in making of Martin, must by sentence of the libeler, if they had any evil purpose, go to the gibbet to feed Ravens.  
That which is said of a hundred thousand hands, he answereth, that it is meant of a subscription to a supplication: which if it were granted, yet would the same be very strange, if not rebellious. for what is such a supplication, but a conjuration, or at least 
1 Armatae preces.  armed prayers? But saith he, Martin doth not there exhort to rebellion. neither do we charge him with it: but we say, that he speaketh seditiously, and that he insinuateth that puritans, if they should not have their supplication granted, would either have gone away discontent, or taken part with the enemy, and that the pack of puritans intend rebellion. for that appeareth, First by confession of Martin, that insinuateth they had many ready to maintain that cause, and next by those vagrant rogues that came down into all shires with bills craving subscription, which is nothing but the beginning of a conjuration. for never did so many join but in rebellion; nor can such a number confederate themselves without danger to the state. And if the Prince were not exceeding clement, she would teach them the pain of subscriptions, and confederation for to obtain alteration of State: especially when Martin threateneth, that so many would strike a great stroke; which is very true. for so many, and less too, being well armed and governed, are able to fight with any prince in the world. Neither will it serve, that he sayeth, that the speech is Tropological: for it is rather Diabolical, and traitorous.  
The words of 
2 Vindiciae con. tyrannos.  junius Brutus, that for the eldership saith it is lawful to move stirs, are disclaimed by the Libeler: but little knoweth he who is the author of that book. for it was made either by Beza, or Hotoman, and containeth nothing, but consistorial doctrine. Neither do I think, that he will disclaim T. C. that meaneth to fight so stoutly, that if every hair of his head were a life, he would afford them all in defence of his platform: Nor of Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham, and the Genevians, without whom this cause cannot stand. Therefore if the Libeler renounce rebellion, and the doctrine of it, he must also renounce the nurse of rebellion, the Consistory, and all his dear darlings, upon whose bare names, as it were upon empty barrels, he buildeth his consistorial barriquades and bulwarks.  
Where they threaten troubles, if they may not have the discipline, the Libeler answereth, that thereby they mean scholastical troubles, while both parts writ concerning discipline: but that cannot be the meaning of the author. for he meant troubles that would ensue, and not which already were. But the contention about discipline in writing before that time was at the hottest. Neither is there any other sense to be drawn out of the words, but that great, and bloody stirs would be about discipline, if the same might not otherwise be obtained. finally, it is the common proceeding of the consistory, that without wrack and force did never enter, either at Geneva, or in France, or Scotland. Whereunto Th. C. in the conventicle or synod in Warwickshire, as is supposed, laid a good foundation. for there the discipline was set down: there subscription and promise was made, that all ministers should advance it by all their power. No doubt they meant as well force, as fair means: for therein they have never been scrupulous.  
He answereth also in defence of the Scottish ministers: but he saith nothing of the Road of Ruthuen and sterling, and concealeth most dangerous matters, wandering from the purpose in a generality of words. He did not remember that 
1 A noble precedent of consistorial excommunication.  Galloway at Saint johnston cursed both the men that should take part with the King, and their horses and spears: and how james Gibson used the King very homely: and how john Cooper refused to obey the King. And how Andrew Meluin used very tart speeches toward him: and yet obstinately refused to acknowledge himself bound to answer his contempt. these matters the petitioner either understood not, or would not call to remembrance. he also seemeth to be ignorant, how upon such like insolent behaviour, the King tendering certain articles to the Scottish Preachers: as first, that they should yield their obedience to the King: secondly, that they should not pretend Privilege: thirdly, that they should not meddle in matters of State: four, that they should not publicly revile his Majesty: that they never yielded to subscribe. A notorious argument of singular insolency in them, if it be as is reported, and simplicity in the petitioner, that going about to clear his cause, giveth occasion of further matter against it.  
Where we allege, that Brutus junius, a consistorial writer, or to speak more plainly, Hotoman, or Beza saith that the people of themselves may set up God's service, and abrogate superstition, and that it is lawful for the people by force of arms to resist the Prince, if he hinder the building of the Church: (which these men take specially to consist in the eldership) And where also we set down many traitorous speeches out of Goodman, Gilby, Martin, T.C. and others, the Libeler answereth: first, that these authors wrote against tyrants, and enemies of religion, as if the pretence of religion were sufficient to arm the subjects to depose the prince. wherein is declared, that these men accounting those that stop the eldership enemies of religion, hold that such princes as hinder the eldership may be deposed also: which is an answer evil beseeming a man professing allegiance to her Majesty, and pretending to be of the best sort of subjects.  
Secondly, he saith that the same speeches are alleged by the Papists to condemn our doctrine: but that answer maketh much against the Puritans and not us: for we condemn both that practice and that doctrine, and those that have given such a scandal to the Church. They embrace it, and therefore are condemned as perturbers of the State. And albeit now they altar their hint, and teach obedience changing faith with time, yet that was their opinion once, and I doubt not will be, as oft as time serveth.  
Thirdly he answereth, that the doctrine of the consistory dependeth not on two, or three: which we do not affirm in this cause: for we say that these opinions are generally embraced of that faction, and of the chiefest of them, and that the same is so joined with the consistory, that without the same it can not be maintained. for if the prince be chief governor of the church, the consistory hath no place: and if the consistory have place, away goeth the prince's authority in ecclesiastical causes.  
Lastly he giveth out, that our English bishops, as well as the consistorial faction have rebelled against princes. which answer first is not concludent: for the offence of one, is no protection for others: secondly, it is false. The petitioner ought to have showed who these rebels be: and where their rebellion is defended by bishops, such as now we have. If he cannot show them, we must tell him, that where he talketh of five hundred traitors, that maintain the present ecclesiastical government, he is out of reason, and account, and doth nothing but rail, as well beseemeth his libeling humour. The state and jurisdiction of bishops now in England dependeth externally on the Prince: to him they are subject, and from him they receive law: finally, they think it unlawful to rebel against him: condemning all rebellious practices, to pull down his authority, and to bring them under. but the proud and insolent Consistory claimeth power above princes, and rendereth in Ecclesiastical matters account to none but God, as they profess, the same acknowledgeth it felse subject to none, and prescribeth laws to Princes, yea, teacheth and putteth in practice rebellion against them: and therefore when there is speech of loyalty and obedience, let the Libeler henceforth take heed, how he compareth the most, factious, and suspicious government to Princes that ever was, to our ecclesiastical governors, which in their doctrine, and life cannot be noted of any disloyalty. And finally let him hold his peace, and thank God for the prince's clemency. For it is not the innocency of his Clients, nor the eloquence of the advocate, that can clear the disciplinarians from faction. In such bad causes, repentance, and submission is best defence, the next is silence. And therefore wisely did he pass over that offence for which john Udall was convicted, and condemned. Only this fault he committeth herein, that forgetting how before he had promised to answer for him, now he leaveth him to answer for himself, and like a man that had lost both memory and wit, runneth out into an idle discourse of oaths Ex Officio, and an invective against judges, and furiously railing at the State, calleth such as speak in defence of it, Traitors, and Rebels.  
To terrify the judges, he citeth certain Texts of scriptures ill fitting his purpose. For neither as he sayeth, are his consorts Saints, nor do they suffer for holiness, nor are they put to death, howsoever they deserve it. That sentence of 
1 james 1.  james rather belongeth to them: If any man deemeth himself to be religious, and refaineth not his tongue, but seduceth his heart, his religion is in vain: or that rather, Woe be to 
2 Matth. 23.  you Scribes and Pharisees, ye hypocrites, ye are like to whited sepulchres, fair without, and within full of bones of dead men, and all filthiness. And albeit john Udall had the name unwothy to be a Preacher: yet never any worse deserved it, being every way unsufficient; nor took a more factious course.  
This fellow braggeth he was no murderer: yet if he had proceeded further, I know what would have followed. So arrogant he is, that he imagineth all fools, but such as like his fancies. But if the 
3 Pag. 49.  judges have so little skill in condemning such a Minister as john Udall: why doth not this great Clerk show it? this is impudency to condemn such reverend learned men of ignorance, and to show no reason. Besides this, in law there ought to be no respect of persons. How then can there be such difference betwixt ministers and others, if ministers offend as well as others? Either this man meaneth to challenge immunity, or else he meaneth, if ever he be a judge, to respect persons. Some have painted justice blind, but this man would have them judge with spectacles.  
His accusation against such, as speak in defence of the state will never be proved. he racketh and teareth their sayings, as a man lying without conscience and shame, yet will they not reach to his purpose. Concerning master Dalton, whom he accuseth as the Bishop's factor, it is an easy matter to answer. he hath more honesty, learning, and law, then is to be found in all the Puritans distempered brains. The cause he defended was not the Bishops, but of religion, learning, and the Church.  
He chargeth the Bishops, that they writ in a certain 
1 Admon. a g. M. M. p. 252.  book, that it is not lawful to bestow such livings upon lay men, as are appointed by law to preachers of the word. But neither do the Bishops say it, nor is that book that is quoted the Bishops, nor is it likely that so grave men had so little to do, as to busy themselves with the answering of such a vain Libel as Martin and Martin's barking sons. But whose-soever the saying is, it is justifiable. for if the livings be appointed by law to preachers, what law is it to infringe law? that the Queen doth keep the temporalties of Bishops in her hands during the vacation; is by law, not against law. So likewise it is lawful to hold some Ecclesiastical livings that be appropried.  
As for Wiclefs words against the excess of his times, they are evil extended against the want of ours, and are void of reason: for what reason is it, that for the default of one, a succession should be spoiled, as he would have it?  
But saith he, who would not think the superfluities of Bishops living better bestowed upon such a man as Sir Francis Walsingham, that right honourable Chancellor, and benefactor of the Church and Country, then upon any Bishop. Wherein he doth wrong to the memory of that good knight, and in needless discourse bringeth his name in question. To his supposal I answer, that there be very wise men, that think the livings of Bishop's better as they are, and I think he would so say, if he were alive, and were asked the question. for no man was more desirous than he, of true honour: neither is any thing more dishonourable, then to rise by the spoils of the Church, that he pretendeth to love: nor to take that to himself, which was given to other uses. Neither do we read of any, that hath risen by the spoils of the Church, that hath long prospered, or enjoyed them: nor have the Papists any thing to object against us more, than sacrilege and spoil of the Church. As for the superfluities of bishops, there is order taken. Take four of the best bishops in England, and there will be found eight knights, every one whereof shall far overmatch them in revenues. Take eight bishops next in living to the greatest, and there will be found two hundredth esquires; every of which shall overpass them. divers yeomen, clowns, and merchants do far excel the rest. Why then should any envy to men of learning and quality, the estate and living of knights, esquires, yeomen and clowns?  
It will be said, these have it by inheritance; but why should it not, as well be lawful to have it, and win it by industry, as by inheritance? But I am glad I know why all this while the petitioner barketh so loud. He would have great men fall to spoiling, that he might light upon some reversion, or like a dog gather up crumbs under the table, when men shall riot with Church's rapines. well, for his good will, when churches come to be spoiled, let him out of the belfray take a rope for his pains.  
He belieth Doctor Bridges shamefully: for he maketh him to say, that a Priest may have a moderate lordly jurisdiction over all the lords allotment: where in truth he doth not so much as mention Lordly jurisdiction, but superiority: and that over the Clergy in several Congregations, and not in the whole Church. Therefore let him make proof how this superiority, or maintaining of Churchlivings in their proper state can be drawn to prove, that such as defend the state, diffame the Queen, or seek to move insurrection: If not, let him remember that both he forgeth, and runneth from his purpose, like a babbling discourser wandering in a sea of words without compass of style, or discretion.  
Likewise he fableth that Doctor Bancroft writeth, that her Majesty is a petty Pope, which is a graceless or shameless assertion, or both: for who would not be ashamed, but these swelling minds, that think they may speak what they list, to ascribe that to Master Bancroft, that he reprehendeth in Martin? His words are plain, his minor (
1 Pag. 68  saith he, meaning Martin) viz. that her Majesty is a petty Pope, may thus be proved.  
If the Libeler hold on this course of lying, he will prove many strange and wondrous matters, especially among the Disciplinarians, whose consistories is built on lies. But, if they diffame her Majesty, that hold her to be a petty Pope, as the Libeler by many great words, and unnecessary proofs in a matter confessed avoweth: then is Martin and his partakers felonious diffamers of her Majesty: for he holdeth, that whosoever taketh on him the authority in causes ecclesiastical, which the Pope had, is a petty Pope, as before is said. But that authority the whole parliament giveth to her Majesty. May it therefore please the Libeler to bark against the Parliament, or else against Martin. Against Master Bancroft, that neither thought it, nor wrote it, nor spoke it, but reprehendeth it in the person of Martin, there is no cause for him to declaim. all this libeling notwithstanding the petitioner calleth his consorts our brethren. but if his brotherhood consist in such scurrilous railing, let him seek other brethren. The brotherhood and fellowship of Christians is known by love: The badge of puritanism is unnatural, and unkind, and unbrotherly dealing. And therefore I doubt, whether they be brethren or no, both considering their heretical opinions, and also their uncharitable and unchristian railing. And yet I say notwithstanding all this unnatural dealing, that the bishops so much as they might, yea too too much have dealt remissly against such contumatious, and worthless disturbers of the Church. And that not for any thing which appeareth in this accusers wtitings, wherein they see nothing but velliacry, and presumption, and vanity; but in respect of their own mild natures, Christian affection, and desire of peace: which these fellows scorned.  
In the end he concludeth, that considering the doubtfulness of these controversies, he trusteth her Majesty will take some good order for the peaceable debating of them. having I say revelde at full both against ecclesiastical, and civil jurisdiction, and that before so mighty a prince, whose presence he ought more to have reverenced: having also at such time as he was to speak to her Majesty talked against all decorum with by standers, yea with those that were absent, now as it were before his death, he cometh home to himself, and prayeth her Majesty to take some good course for the peaceable ordering of these controversies, as if all her former laws, all her care, all her proceed were not to be valued in one hair: And as if railing and accusing deserved favour, or his dispute credit, or his insolency, pardon. I doubt not buther Majesty of her wisdom seethe the impudency of the man, the weakness of the cause, the wrong done to others, but especially to herself, her government, and her lawes-that others may see it, I have lightly framed this answer, lest the fool should enter into conceit of his wit, and others be abused by his malice: not in many words. for what should I stand about that, wherein is nothing but pride, ignorance and choler? Now because, by alleging their opinions, he would make the world believe, that his clients are slandered: I will show, that he 
1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  smootheth some things that are hard, and concealeth many things that are worse, and therefore, that he and his clients are to be taken as they are. The words I have set down, and by them my answer. read with judgement, judge with equity, show equity to truth.  
Observations upon certain opinions commonly holden by the puritanes and collected by the said author of the petition: with answers to their petitions, and desires joined with the foresaid opinions.  
The words of the petitioner.  
TO the end it may appear how unjustly the seekers of reformation are slandered by the bishops, 
Petitioner.  and others: I have thought good briefly & truly to deliver the opinions of such as sue for reformation, which I have gathered out of their books, and seen in their practice, and heard in conference which I had with them.  
Neither hath the man delivered his consorts opinions truly, 
Answer.  nor was it sufficient, if he had meant to clear them from slander, to deliver some part of their opinions, unless he had also delivered their whole doctrine concerning their consistorial discipline. for what excuse may it be for an heretic, to believe well in some points: or for lewd men to do something well? But this general doctrine of theirs, neither doth he, nor durst he deliver: it was somewhat too hot and saucy. The sovereignty of the aldermen in making laws, judging and excommunicating princes, dissolving the laws of the land, taking away her majesties prerogative in pardoning offences, and depriving her of the argument she hath to show her clemency in, in diminishing her revenues, he concealeth: Neither doth he reveal unto us those mystical rules, whereby the consistorial faction doth overthrow the parliament, the apology and faith of this Church, the Universities, and many private men's interest: Likewise hath he passed over in goodly glozing words, and not once mentioned other dangerous points. That therefore which he wanteth, to the intent (that we may have a perfect draft of the alestond of this new brewed discipline,) I purpose to set down, and to declare unto you, both their doctrine, and their practice. So that you may perceive that they are vainly termed seekers, and sewers for reformation: And that the cause we defend, is not the cause of bishops, whom we leave to defend their doings themselves; but the cause of God, of religion, of our country, of the prince, of learning, of the whole ministery, against factious mates, and heretical schismatics, and enemies of the ministry, & learning, that in these dangerous times, go about to make an uproar in their country, and a spoil of the rewards of learning. If then that which is best in all these men's devices be nought worth: how little is the rest thereof to be valued? sure if that which themselves confess, be not sufferable, the rest must needs be untolerable. which if the petitioner know not, he is but a novice in his own cause, and knoweth little, or nothing: if he knew, he is very impudent, that dare defend such manner of persons.  
They openly profess and acknowledge that they be sinful men. 
Petitioner.   
A great matter: 
Answer.  for albeit they should neither profess nor confess so much, yet would the same appear but too too evidently. In doctrine, their lewd & heretical opinions: In manners, their pride, malice, cruelty, covetousness, usury, gluttony, and chamber cheer, which they call fasting, and colour with terms of godly exercises, do notoriously convince them. neither do I yet tell all for other matters I have thought good to keep for an ariere banquet: for that I would not have the libeler surfeit: which he would percase do, if too much were set before him at once.  
They call not themselves puritanes. 
Petitioner.   
Untruth. 
Answer.  for both Martin, & this petitioner calleth his 
1 Pag. 83.  consorts puritanes: yea, and others more honest men, then either of the two (which we are rather to believe then the petitioner) call them so, and that rightly: for commonly they appropriate unto themselves, the name of the saints, of godly brethren, and such like, and account and call others that be not of their faction 
2 Martin's hay any work, and his minerals.  profane. They esteem also the 
3 T. C.  eldership, a pure government, and other corrupt, and T. Cartw. calleth his cause, the cause of sincerity. why then are they not justly called puritanes? percase they will answer, that they are impure, & filthy fellows. which in deed is true. for their purity neither consisteth in life, nor doctrine, (for none therein can be less pure: unless it be in bare conceit) but in outward shows, false semblant, vain protestations of reformation, gogling of eyes, and painted hypocrisy. this excuse therefore, that they do not call themselves puritanes, were it true, yet is it unsufficient, seeing they take upon themselves to be more pure than others, as did the puritanes of old time. for we may not think that the Cathari, or Novatians accounted themselves without sin: but were called puritanes, for severing themselves from others, which they accounted less pure than themselves.  
They do absolutely yield and subscribe to the Articles of Christian faith, 
Petitioner.  and doctrine professed in the Church of England. And therefore offend not against the statute made 23. of Elizabeth, c. 12. concerning that purpose.  
This is a palpable untruth: 
Answer.  for both do they put out certain articles, and add others unto the Apostles Creed. And T. C. and Fenner confound person and essence in the Deity, and make the son to proceed from God the Father. The article concerning bishops, and homilies, and Ecclesiastical government they utterly deny, and therefore are both schismatics, and heretics, and offend against that statute most directly, and deny it shamefully, and cavil most absurdly. for where the Parliament calleth all the book, and the points therein contained, Articles of Religion: These subscribe only to the Articles of Faith, and Sacraments: Expounding faith strictly, and discharging themselves easily, and expounding statutes contrary to the opinion of judges. Call you this consistorial interpretation?  
They give to her Majesty all that power, 
Petitioner.  that is recognized to be in her highness by the oath of supremacy, as it is by her Majesty expounded, and therefore be no traitors.  
How can this be, 
Answer.  seeing they deny her power to nominate bishops; to make ecclesiastical laws; to determine ecclesiastical causes, or to delegate others to hear and determine them: and take away the last appeal, and cognition from her, and give her not any tenths, or subsidies? how I say may this be, seeing they take away both her ecclesiastical authority, and her revenues, and give this power partly to Elderships, partly to Synods, partly to Deacons, new found creatures? And therefore, albeit they take the oath of supremacy: yet they deny her supreme power, under colour of the interpretation of the injunction, which abridgeth not her power in cases expressed. Beware therefore Libeler, and touch this string no more: for it soundeth but badly in all loyal subjects ears.  
They profess all obedience to the Lords of the counsel, 
Petitioner.  the judges and civil Magistrates, and therefore be not anabaptists.  
He saith, they profess all obedience: 
Answer.  but if he would have excused his clients; he should have said, they perform it; for the jesuits do in terms profess obedience, yet none more factious. this is a point that doth nearly touch his cause, and would have required more diligence in clearing of it. For whatsoever they profess in this petition, both their doctrine and behaviour is contrary. They set the subjects against the prince, as hath been showed, and have wilfully oppugned all her majesties ecclesiastical laws: they use her with bitter terms. Martin saith, her Majesty is 
1 Epist. p. 10. & 53.  seduced, and that God 
2 Hay any work.  alloweth not her government, and that she biddeth 
1 Ibidem.  battle to God; They teach, that Ministers ought 
2 Regist. p. 48.  not to obey the prince, when he prescribeth ceremonies, and fashions of apparel. They accuse her majesty, either of ignorance being abused, or unthankfulness to God, and negligence 
3 Motion with submission. pap. 41.  in her duty. They resemble her to 
4 Gilbie.  jeroboam; Achab, jehoram, and other wicked princes. They that wrote the 
5 2. Admonit.  Admonition accuse the high court of parliament of iniquity; & affirm, that it shall be easier for Sodom and Gomorrha, than that court, and calleth the Lords, politic Machiauels. Penrie accuseth 
6 Supplication.  them, of betraying God, and his kingdom, and prophesieth of the Spaniards to come and waste the land. They affirm, That our counsel 
7 Epistle before reformation no enemy.  may truly be said to delight in injury and violent oppression of God's saints: And that the Lords cannot possibly be said to deal in 
8 Ibidem.  matters of justice: They charge them with maintenance of impiety, and say that with 
9 Ibidem.  Pilate they crucify Christ. They affirm, that the Magistrates, and Ministers have walked hand in hand in the contempt of true religion. They call, the judges wicked lawyers, and Atheists. Upon ecclesiastical 
10 Vdals' dialogue, and Martin's Epist.  governors they rail most impudently, calling them robbers, wolves, simoniakes, persecutors, and such like. And therefore if they be not accounted Anabaptists, they have the more wrong, seeing in all disobedience, and uncivil reproaches they pass the Anabaptists. This is the only difference, that anabaptists revel against all Magistrates; these against such especially, as withstand their rebellious designments,  
They hold it lawful before Magistrates, 
Petitioner.  to take an oath, so it be not taken in vain, or in matters unknown to them.  
So likewise the jesuits, 
Answer.  and Rhemistes do thinde it lawful: yet to accuse their fellows, or to hurt themselves, they think it unlawful to take oaths. and say, That such oaths 
11 Annotat. Rhemens'. in act. 23.  that are so taken do not bind, and must be broken upon pain of damnation: which is also the case of puritans. for either they refuse to swear, or to answer concerning their brethren, as they call them; And what a vain oath is, that themselves will also judge, overthrowing the ordinary proceed of law, and best means of trial. yea divers of them have very small regard of their oaths, as the records of their answers will testify: for either they answer untruth, or else refuse to answer so far as law bindeth them, yea albeit the matter be declared unto them. The authors of this book, they have forsworn the telling of all truth.  
They seek not to pull down the courts of justice, 
Petitioner.  etc. only they would have bislops and ecclesiastical persons shut out from them.  
Yet if the eldership did shine in his glory, 
Answer.  all the courts of justice might pull down their seats. For if that the consistory may orderal matters contrary to the law of God & wherein is breach of charity, what shall be left for other courts? Herein therefore they show not only singular presumption in themselves, but also great malice against other. Themselves would intermeddle in all causes: Ecclesiastical persons they cannot suffer in any: yet are bishops a principal part of the court of parliament, & star-chamber, & by the governors of this realmethought fittest, and by no law debarred to be there, unless it be by the laws of the consistory made for the extinguishment of religion, & learning. Whereas contrariwise, the new churchaldermen have no warrant of law, but overthrow all laws, and her majesties prerogative: And yet would be admitted in 
1 Declaration of certain acts, made anno 1584. and in a certain pamphlet spread abroad by them.  parliament, & consulted with in courts of justice, & seek that all men should depend upon them here, as upon Beza at Geneva: & endeavour to suppress men of learning & gravity authorized by law: that certain worthless men, under pretence of authority from Christ may tread down laws, & rule as they list. At Geneva they pretended first religion, but they overthrew civil magistrates in the end, and expulsed the Bishops of Geneva, which were governors of that state.  
They deny not that matters of testaments and marriages, 
Petitioner.  may be determined by civilians, or temporal lawyers.  
It skilleth not greatly what they affirm, or deny, 
Answer.  using to do both very impudently. The laws of this land have thought fittest, that both matters of marriages, and wills, and also causes of benefices, of tithes and slander, and other ecclesiastical controversies, should be handled in ecclesiastical courts. The privileges of the Church princes bind themselves to observe, and the statute of Magna Carta confirmeth. What shameless men than are these, that would overthrow so ancient courts of justice, so ancient laws, and give cognition of matters to those that have no skill, nor law to decide them by; And of a certain state to make a most uncertain and wavering state, and to overthrow the most excellent study of the civil laws, yea civility itself; to bring in barbarism? But let them settle themselves, they are men fit to part a booty taken by force, then to divide the offices of government. every man let him go to his occupation, clowns to the plough, merchants to their shops, Clerks & scribes to their pen & inkhorn, and this petitioner to Bedlam. As for the jurisdiction of bishops, it is not only confirmed by law, but by antiquity, & reason. whereas the whole frame of discipline standeth upon a few men's fancies, neither wise, nor learned, and is repugnant to law, and orderly government, yea to God's word.  
They teach that the ministery nor people ought to make any general reformation. 
Petitioner.   
Mark I pray you, 
Answer.  how nicely he minceth at matrers. He will not say that either Ministers or others shall by force, or other means of their own authority, make a general reformation: but that they may every man in their several parishes make a reformation, he will not deny. so the envy he would a little decline, but his hope of rebellion he would not lose. but all cometh to one reckonning. for whether this reformation, or rather rebellion be made all at once, or in divers particular places at several times, all cometh to this pass, that private men shall disannul laws, and erect new orders, and rule as lords, and neither prince, nor law bear sway: so that were it as this man setteth it down, yet were it too too bad. But I will show that the consistorial doctrine, yea and proceeding is far otherwise. Noblemen, saith 
1 Histor. Scotl. appellat. Knox.  Knox, aught to reform Religion, if the king will not. the same power he giveth to the 
2 Histor. Scotl. pag. 49. 50.  commonalty. If the Prince will not yield to his 
3 Knox appellac. p. 28. 30.  nobles and people: he armeth them with power to depose him. Nay saith he further, If princes be tyrants. 
4 Knox to Engl. and Scotland pag. 78.  against God, and his truth, their subjects are freed from their oaths of obedience.  
With him accordeth 
5 De iure regni.  Buchanan: he saith the people is more excellent than the king, and hath right to bestow the crown at pleasure: and may make such laws, as it pleaseth them: that the people may arraign the king, and that Ministers may excommnnicate him, In which case most wretched is the king, and the people most puissant. He saith further, That albeit Saint Paul commanded obedience to tyrants: yet it was in respect of the times, and people that were weak, and not able to take arms.  
The same doctrine is maintained by 
6 De iure magistrate.  Beza, by 
7 Francogal.  Hottoman, and others; and it is the sweet reformed doctrine (as they call it) of the perturbers of our state. 
8 Goodman's book.  Goodman soundeth the trumpet of sedition to the nobility and people, 
9 Theolog. sacr.  against the prince: and holdeth, That if princes will not reform religion, yet others might reform it themselves. The same argument is handled in that traitorous dialogue, which Ghylbic published. And Th. Cartw. although he denieth it, as it should seem, hath taught this mystery of disciplive to his scholar Fenner, that there are certain Ephori, that aught to have authority above the Prince, which not only may control him, but also settle matters which he neglecteth.  
And according to this doctrine they proceeded first at Geneva, shutting their gates against the Bishop, their prince, and seizing his revenues, and altering the state: and afterward in France, & Scotland; which example was as good, as a law to those that here admire them of Geneva. Privately they whispered in men's ears, & in country parishes prepared the multitude to sedition: In the end, at Warwick they set down laws, and every man bound himself by promise, and subscription, to the advancing, defence, and exercise of them. Th. Cartw. 
1 In his answers on his oath.  being examined upon his oath confesseth, That so much of their discipline as concerned the order of preaching & assemblies, they meant to put in practice. Last of all, by Coppingers extraordinary calling, they had meant to have done some strange feat, if God had not wrong the sword out of such desperate fellows hands. Seeing then this is their common doctrine, and practise, & that divers assemblies have been made to this end; in vain doth the libeler go about to clear his consorts of conspiracy, of unlawful practices, routs and revels, made for the obtaining of their conceited government.  
They detest all such as diffame her Majesty. 
Petitioner.   
Here the Petitioner renounceth, 
Answer.  and defieth all his consorts, the most notorious diffamers of her Majesty, that ever wrote or spoke in our times, the jesuits and their partisans only except. for they do not only diffame her ecclesiastical laws, but also her parliament, her judges, her religion, her justice; Her majesties government of the Church (saith 
2 Supplicat. to the parliament.  one) is traitorous to the majesty of our saviour jesus Christ. another calleth the government Antichristian, 
3 1. Admonit. pag. 25.  and devilish; A 
4 Hay any work.  third calleth it, false, unlawful, and bastardly: generally, they revel at it, as if we lived not in Christ's church, but in the confusion of Babel. Penrie saith, 
5 Supplicat. to the parliament.  That we are never the better for the reformation we have by her Majesty. What speeches they utter against her majesty, her parliament, and judges, before I have noted. Yea, T. Cartw. used so uncivil a term in regard of such a prince, that I would be ashamed to utter it, if their rude and shameful dealing might otherwise be discovered: He saith, the Archbishop is a bawd to all manner of sins in princes; you may yourself collect the sequel of so lewd terms: loyalty will not suffer me to say what it is. Against laws they bitterly declaim, one saith, 
6 Penry supplicat. to the parliawent.  Impiety is suffered to bear sway against the majesty of God, and that by law and authority. The 
7 Epist. before reformat. no enemy.  judges are called Atheists. Nether do they spare our religion. For Gilby saith, We have mixed the religion of Christ, and Antichrist together, and the say our Sacraments are wickedly profaned and mangled. to make a some of many particulars, 
8 2. Admonit. pag. 42.  not the papists have spoken against her Majesty, and her religion, and laws, and our communion book, and prayers more wickedly than these. Wherein, if the petitioner hold that her Majesty is not defamed, he is very ignorant. for true honour consisteth specially in the maintenance of true religion: if he confess that these are diffamatory speeches: let him not only in words detest them and his fellows, but also in fact leave them, otherwise all goodmen will detest both him and them, and in the end, some will punish them both, as diffamers of her Majesty, and the state.  
They say Princes are to submit themselves to excommunication, 
Petitioner.  and censures of the Church.  
If they say so, they maintain an opinion very prejudicial to princes, and not justifiable by any scripture, 
Answer.  nor holden by any, but by the papal, and puritan factions; which thereof have made their profit. for thereby the Popes have raised up themselves, and thrown princes down upon the ground, & opened ways to many rebellions. Neither is it to be doubted, but that they will also follow their steps, that so stiffly hold the same opinions: and that against all reason. for there is no precedent of it in the new, or old testament. That Azarias went out of the temple, was not by the sentence of the judge, nor for matter, wherefore men be cast out of heaven. Ambrose pronounced no sentence against Theodosius, whatsoever the Canonists say contrary. neither standeth excommunication of princes upon any good ground. for seeing sovereign princes have no superior judges upon earth, who should excommunicate them deserving to be so used? Those therefore that abase the prince under the becks of a pack of clowns, and clowters' called churchaldermen, are not to be suffered to pass without controlment.  
They maintain, that a Magistrate excommunicate, 
Petitioner.  aught to be obeyed, and honoured in all points of subjection.  
They maintain they know not what. for if he that is, excommunicate, is thrown out of heaven, 
Answer.  and made the slave of Satan, as 
1 Adverse. Erast.  Beza roundly teacheth, what reason have Christians to obey him that is Satan's slave? Or how can the same that is the slave of Satan, and no member of the Church, be supreme governor of a christian common wealth? And if, as Buchanan saith, He do not deserve to live upon the earth, that is by excommunication cast into hell, How can he be thought worthy to enjoy the greatest honours that are upon earth? This is also contrary to our laws, that deny action, or benefit of common law to persons excommunicate; and it is one of those heresies for which 
2 Beno Cardin. in vita Gregor. 7.  Gregory the seventh was deposed, that excommunicating the Emperor, he did notwithstanding disspence with those that kept him company. Neither skilleth it, that the Canons will have obedience given by the wives to the husband, by the servants to the Master, notwithstanding any excommunication against them. for that right is the interest of nature, which remaineth, when civil bonds are dissolved. That all civil bonds are dissolved, or at least suspended by excommunication, the canonists do agree. And those that say the Prince is to be excommunicate, confess also, that their subjects are assoiled from their obedience. And it is the practife of papists, and doctrine of Goodman, and followeth necessarily upon the common assertions of puritans, howsoever for a time to cover the shame of their opinions, they are now content to lay down the premises without conclusion, and to separate the conclusion from the premises; bad logicians, worse subjects, most insolent commanders. Simple princes they are therefore, that will voluntarily submit themselves to their government: and presumptuous subjects that dare require such things at the prince's hands.  
Their suit is, 
Petitioner.  that the Church maybe ruled by Christ's officers, laws, and orders.  
Away then must the churchaldermen pack, 
Answer.  for they are not Christ's officers: & the supposed holy discipline must departed, for it is but T. C. conceit, and two or three other threadbare witted companions. Away likewise must this forger be packing, that without authority maketh out new commissions, and new laws.  
Their desire is, that every congregation etc. might have one, 
Petitioner.  or two sufficient teachers etc. faithfully labouring in the word of God, or doctrine.  
If their congregations be as great as shires: 
Answer.  too would be too little for every such congregation; and besides that, the course that is already taken for preachers is better, than they can devise any. For now in divers shires there be hundreds of preachers distinguished in parishes. If every parish be a sufficient congregation, as in deed it is, how shall two be maintained in every parish, where as now not every tenth parish with the living that belongeth to the Church, is able to maintain one preacher? Doth he think men will enlarge their living? If he do; he doth but dream. And as for the devices of him that cogged us forth the motion with submission, sounding an alarm to the sacrilegious spoil of the Church: they would be the overthrow rather of learning, than the maintenance of the ministery. for other great birds gape for that pray. As for these poor daws, when they have made way for others, they may go pick worms, for any part they can get thereof themselves. when Abbeys were overthrown, 
1 That appeareth by the preface of the statute concerning that point.  erecting of schools, hospitals, and colleges of preachers was pretended but whither the spoil went we do well understand, and do not think, that there will be other provision now, then was then, or that men will in spoiling Bee more religious now, than some were then.  
They would have assisting elders, 
Petitioner.  etc. that should not encroach on the magistrates authority, and they would have the most honest and sufficient men together for the poor, and keep the treasure of the Church.  
The treasury of the Church would be so thin, 
Answer.  if this devise of elders, and lay deacons should take place, that they should not need to take any care for the keeping of the treasury. At Geneva, and in the reformed Churches of France, as they call them, the treasury is all but one poor alms box. They need not fear robbing: why then should any that favoureth the Church, like of their beggarly devise, or of assisting elders & proctor's for the poor, that are but new conceits calculated by a glass of wine, unknown to scriptures, fathers, and antiquity, and borne out with sacing: and savour of nought but sacrilege? Neither can his aldermen, nor lay deacons be proved, nor do they abstain from encroaching upon the magistrate: nor will any such men as he supposeth take on them the base function of lay deacons: and therefore all these desires are nothing, but a farthel of foolery.  
They would have old helpers so qualified, 
Petitioner.  as the Apostle commandeth, 1. Tim. 5.  
Do they know what they would have? 
Answer.  Let them show either commandment in scripture, or practise in the primitive Church, or Church of Geneva, of their old widows: and then I would hope they had some care, or knowledge what they desired. if they cannot, than I would pray some young helpers to help us away with such old fablers.  
They would have all these ordained in such manner, 
Petitioner.  and by such persons, as the word of God, practise of the primitive Church, and modern Churches doth warrant.  
What if these modern Churches neither agree among themselves, 
Answer.  nor with the word of God, nor primitive Church, will you not then confess that you require things not coherent: and that cannot stand together? Look where you find any lawless counterfeit lay elders in the ancient Church, or where any ordained but the bishop: look whether at Geneva there be consistories in every parish, and what authority they have: And see whether Scotland doth not condemn imposition of hands, and divers orders which Geneva alloweth. All these devices cannot stand together. and therefore if you had learned any thing in law: you might well understand, that forasmuch as you allege things contrary: your libel and petitions are to be rejected.  
They desire synods particular, provincial, and national, 
Petitioner.  and moderators of them.  
They must show better reasons, 
Answer.  or else no man will regard their desires. Ecumenical synods, and synods of diverse nations they exclude, and ridiculously distinguish particular from provincial synods, and make particoloured synods, and a mash of laws fit for sick horses, than men: And by the same they go about to overthrow the ancient government of the Church, the laws of the Realm, the prerogative, and revenues of the Crown: and to say all in one word, both religion and learning.  
They would, 
Petitioner.  that the party grieved might appeal from the particular congregation, or synod, at the first instance to the magistrate.  
This seemeth to me a point, that will hardly be proved: 
Answer.  for the common received opinion is contrary. Beza doth flatly deny it, and others exclude the prince from all judgement, yea, and office in ecclesiastical causes. This fellow therefore is the only singular doctor of discipline, that giveth cognition of appeals from synods to the prince. But mark I pray you the ridiculous ignorance of this simple fellow. first he would have the appeal from the synod, or particular congregation in the first instance: And yet every man may see that the first instance was, where the cause was first begun, that is, in the parish or consistory, and not before the synod: Secondly he will not say, that any man may appeal in the last instance, for that were too much, as he thinketh: so that still running on in the disloyal tunes of puritanes, he taketh from the prince the last cognition, and giveth it to his synods.  
They desire that such people, 
Petitioner.  as be already capable, and willing to live as becometh Churches of Christ, might live as they be commanded by Christ.  
If every man might live as he list, 
Answer.  so he coloured his pretence with God's word and Christ's commandment, there would neither papist, nor other heretic be repressed. for every man maketh religion and Christ's commandment a cover for his pretences. But gladly would I, he should answer me this question; whither he doth think that none do live as becometh Churches of Christ, but such as have his dogbolt devices of elders; and their doltish government? if he answer so, as here he seemeth, then must I tell him, that there can be no greater slander of this state, or of her Majesty, and the government. If not, what doth he tell us here of people capable, and willing to live as becometh the Churches of Christ, as if the people of England were neither capable, nor willing so to live? Again, let him tell me in good sooth, whither he doth believe, that the consistory, and new discipline thereto belonging was in deed commanded by Christ: and if he believe it, let him show the place, and the words of the commandment, and declare what father ever so thought. if he believe it, and cannot bring forth any place, but wrested: he will be taken for a man building his faith on sand: and shall be had forth for a forger, and deviser of strange novelties, and condemned in amends for making leasings of his consistory.  
They profess and protest this reformation to be most agreeable to scriptures, 
Petitioner.  to learned writers, yea commanded by Christ, and not prejudicial to the state, if they may be heard.  
But we look for proof, 
Answer.  not for protestations, the vanity whereof is too too apparent in the puritanes: proofs must carry away the matters, and not brags. But proofs can they bring none, for we have showed that both scriptures, and fathers are against them: and nothing can they say to the contrary, yet have they been heard to the weariness of all their readers, & scorn of their discipline, and shame of their actions. neither is it to be presumed, that they can speak better than they have written, nor will perform more, than they have done, or any part of that they have promised. they have none that taketh part with them in this cause, but the Genevians and their followers. whether these be to be heard against all antiquity, let all men judge. and therefore if they be wise, let them take heed, that their cause come not in hearing: for then both the novelty, fondness, and injustice of it, of every reasonable man will be condemned.  
This is the some of their professed opinions, and reformation. 
Petitioner.   
No reformation by your leave: neither any perfect somme: 
Answer.  for there wanteth a good part of all. for the chief point that they desire, is that bishops livings, & cathedral churches may come to division, that these hungry hines that have spent their wits, & wealth in vanity, may now be relieved with sacrilege.  
Next to this, they desire that certain factious mates under the name of elders may have the disposing of all ecclesiastical matters, that when the first spoils of churches are spent, they may by their elderly wisdom command, & work the sack of the Nobility also. They would also, if they durst speak it, crave that the Prince, Parliament, Counsel, & judges would give over their charges in ecclesiastical matters, that their synods & consistories, & people might either rule as they list, or live as they list. A small point in these men's conceits: may it therefore at these men's requests please her Majesty and all officers to give up their estate, that these new lords may rule?  
Fourthly they desire that all laws that make against them, being abrogated, their word may be accounted good law: and that all law may proceed out of their divine breasts. and good reason: for like young Popillions they say, that they judge in Christ's seat, and sit as Christ's vicar's, and that their sentence is Christ's sentence: and yet is the same no more but the conceit of four, or siue beetleheaded Clowns, or Merchants guided by one blind man that never looked out of schools, called by them, pastor, & precedent of the consistory.  
Fiftly, they seek the overthrow of the state, of religion, of learning: they would make the prince subject to themselves, and dispose of her revenues and crown.  
Lastly, they desire that all arts, and study of divinity ceasing, only men would profess discipline, which is that divine state, as they think, which Plato speaketh of in his utopicall common wealth: and these are their opinions for government. Their opinions for doctrine are also divers, & very dangerous to the state, & heretical in respect of christian faith, as before I have in part noted. put both together: there is no man either wise or learned, or loyal to the State, that will either yield to grant them their desires, or else to hear them motioned being so unreasonable. Neither is it true, that he saith, that men do intolerably slander his consorts. their words bear witness, their writings and doings convince them, neither shall they ever be able to clear themselves. I have not alleged any thing without reason: why then do they not clear their devices accused of falsehood, imperfection, and notorious injustice? why did not this author, if he meant good dealing, set his name to his book? how can he excuse himself, either for his libeling, or slandering? his excuse is most wicked: marvel not, saith he, good reader, that I do not affix my name to this my Treatise: it is not known who was the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. As if that epistle were to be compared to this Libel, or the author thereof to this railer: nothing is more contrary. It is well known, that that epistle was written by the spirit of God: this doggerel treatise is known to be devised by Satan the sour of contention, and lewd opinions, among brethren. The writer of that epistle is not known; yet no man doubteth of the authority of it. The writer of this Libel is well known; I would he so well knew himself. His bedlam fits also, and helpers he had in his writing, are known. A child may see that in the whole there is neither wit, nor learning, nor ought but frivolous railing, and libeling, and slandering, and therefore no man giveth any credit or commendation to it. But this it pleased him to allege, because Th. Cartwright allegeth the same excuse for not putting his name to his first reply. Let them therefore be put both together, for they are birds both of one plumage and quality: and percase if they writ books whereto they dare not affix their names, may have their ears affixed, where they would be ashamed.  
He allegeth further, that no indifferent well-willer may scarcely be heard to speak the truth, charging her Majesty, and the governors not only with notorious injustice, but also with resistance to the truth: and that most untruly, and disloyally. for her Majesty hath but too much heard them speak, albeit against truth: yea, against her dignity and government, and suffered their legendical tales of their elderships: of which if they were not ashamed, they would not fly the light like owls, nor walk abroad in libels in the night, like night walkers, & other evil disposed persons: nor would they send us forth such frantic & lunatic persons, as this author, that barketh at every shadow: yea, at shadows in moonshine, to speak for this glorious cause, as they call it. nor would he desire men to hide him, as Rahab did hide God's servants, wherein he doth shamefully abuse this whole State, comparing the same to jericho, and the Magistrates to the wicked Canaanites, accounting only those that are of his faction for God's servants. Would we suffer such contumelious speeches, yet all posterity will cry shame on these raylors, & I doubt not but the Magistrates will consider of them. In the mean while, let him understand, that this example fitteth him not: for Rahab did hide no libelers nor railers against the state: nor are the women he frequenteth so honest as Rahab: nor is it a seemly matter for such a brave challenger to make a brag, & so to run away: nor decency for him that preferreth a supplication to the Queen, & that kneeleth before her Majesty, to hide himself & his name: nor can it stand together, that a man should kneel before her Majesty, and yet conceal his name and person.  
He promiseth when his appearance shall be found more profitable, than his concealment, that he will come forth, and try himself a proper man: but he had best come forth in time, lest if, as he saith, he be in concealment, some one or other beg him of the Queen: for to her belong both concealments, and the custody of Idiots. He braggeth, that he williustifie his words in such manner and form, as he hath written them: but goodman, he neither understandeth what he hath written, nor hath furniture nor stuff in him for so hard an encounter. for he holdeth more of Luna, than Mars, and is rather lunatical, then martial. It is not long since his Bedlam fits left him. Of Logic he hath no taste, nor yet of Divinity: why then should he like a desperate sot, or like a man without arms, or order of war venture into so dangerous a battle? His good masters are quite fled out of the field, and all their new disciplinarian devices are vanished away like clouds, and only remain in certain idle men's brains, who may in time percase digest them: and therefore if this sentence nubecula est, citò transibit, please him; let him write it upon the door of the consistory: for like a cloud it hath been lift up, and like a cloud it hath been tossed with contrary opinions, and like a cloud it is almost vanished away.  
And thus much concerning the petition. Now let us consider his Articles and Questions: not that they contain any new matter, (for both his petition, articles, and interrogatories proceed from the same malice, and tend to one end, and contain the same odious accusations against the State) but for that we mean not to leave unto these men any shadow, or pretence for their cause. If the same things be often repeated; blame him that so often objected the same, not them that answer their calumnious and vain objections. accusations are often odious: defence of orders and laws cannot but favourably be esteemed.   

WHEREIN IS CONTAINED AN ANSWER TO CERTAIN Articles and Questions annexed to the foresaid Petition, wherein the Libeler hath spread divers slanders against Ecclesiastical governors, and their proceed.  
The Title to the Articles.  
Certain Articles, wherein is discovered the negligence of the Bishops, their Officials, Favourers, and Followers, in performance of sundry Ecclesiastical Statutes, Laws, and Ordinances royal, and Episcopal, published for the government of the Church of England.  
Answer. THE Libelers purpose was in pretence only to defend. but I perceive, albeit beside his purpose, now he meaneth to strike, and offend; and that in treason, and in the dark, when no man can strike him again. A common trick of Libelers, that devise what reproach they can against such as they hate, and publish them, & then renounce them. So this fellow goeth about to bring bishops in disgrace; then all those Ministers that live in obedience of Laws. But he meaneth not to stand to the matter, for he concealeth his name. Well, let us see what he saith against Bishops, and other Ministers and ecclesiastical persons. Much (it should seem) he cannot say: for he is ignorant what are Ecclesiastical laws, and by what authority they stand; and calleth them Ordinances royal, and Episcopal, when it is evident, that there is no law in England, but Royal; and that no bishop may make any ordinance, or Law.  
Article 1 By the statute 25. H. 8.14. it is accounted by the Parliament against equity & due order of justice, to bring any man in danger of his life, name, goods, or lands, by any entrapping Interrogatories, without verdict, witness, presentment, or confession etc. for making, printing, or dispersing of seditious books, & sundry other grievous crimes. etc.  
Answer. Neither is the statute truly reported, nor is it proved, that the bishops or their officers proceed contrary unto it, or other law concerning that point, as this false accuser pretendeth. For the first, it is evident: for that which the statute decreeth concerning heresy, this accuser transferreth to printing & writing seditious books: as if it were to be presumed, that as innocents by that statute were delivered from traps of heresy; so such seditious offenders & libelers were protected by law against, law: whereas there is no mention, nor intendment of any such matter in that statute. The second appeareth, for that the Accuser doth not once charge the high commissioners, at which he aimeth, with breach of this statute. He knew very well, v t there is nothing in their proceed contrary to this statute. For they do not, as this libeler surmiseth, minister captious interrogatories. Secondly, they do proceed to punishment against none, but convicted by lawful witnesses, evidence or confession; neither otherwise, then by warrant of their commission: which I would gladly see the libeler whether he dare to oppugn. That which is set in the side, Of oath ex officio, pertaineth not to this matter: for in this statute there is no word concerning any oath. And therefore he that put the same there, did like him, struck a fair blow, but touched not his adversary.  
Article 2 All men are bailable, that are not prohibited by law to be bailed. 2. West. c. 15.  
Answer. These words are not found in the place quoted, nor any of such nature; no, nor in any other place. Percase the Libeler meaneth as well to forge new laws, as new religion. If he meaneth the statute made at West. 1. Ed. 3. c. 15. yet is there no such matter. for there we find rather, who are not to be bailed, then who are to be bailed, which is to be gathered out of the statutes & common laws: against which if he will charge the honourable persons of the high commission to have proceeded, why doth he not note the fact and time, & other circumstances? If he think that either those that are taken by the writ de excommunicato capiendo, or such as are committed by the high commissioners ecclesiastical for contempts, are bailable, he neither understandeth law, nor statute: for law auctoriseth both. And if it should not, then would penalties be frustratory, and offenders be rather protected by law, then by law punished.  
Article 3 No official nor other officer should take any more, than three pence for the seal of a Citation: else they forfeit double costs, etc.  
Answer. Why do you not sue them upon the statute, if they take more? you might make a goodly gain in promoting of matters against them: but you will not; your proofs are so slender. That Officials & others do take more than they ought for seals of processes, I know not: if they do, I defend them not. But sure I am, that no officers take less. To let others pass, I know certain Pettifoggers and Scribes like the forgers of these articles, that by taking are grown to wealth: and a Scribe, that for signing and sealing a letter, hath had not three pence, but three pounds, and a good gelding for expedition: neither is any thing more usual, than the bribery & extortion, and cousinage of these companions, that are most busy in watching, and accusing of others. Let them therefore take heed, that they may be able to clear themselves: and for ecclesiastical officers that have taken more than ordinary, spare them not. In this taking world, it were good, that takers of all sorts were looked unto.  
Article 4 No foreign constitutions etc. have any force in our state. 25. H. 8. cap. 19 yet the Bishops in their consistories practise Romish and Imperial constitutions.  
Answer. In these few words many great faults are committed. first, he iumbleth Romish, & Imperial constitutions together, as if the same were both one, or as if the law of the Pandects were called Constitutions. secondly, he calleth her majesties laws, foreign laws; making this realm & crown to depend upon foreign power, which is derogatory to her highness authority, and contrary to practise of Law. For whencesoever any law is derived, yet is it the law of that country, where it is practised. The laws of the Romans for the most part were borrowed of the Athenians, and Spartans': yet were it absurd to call the laws of the twelve tables, the Laws of the Greeks'.  
Thirdly, ignorantly he supposeth, that the statute condemneth foreign laws; yet doth it not speak of any foreign laws, but only of the ecclesiastical laws of England: the equity whereof is so apparent, that if twelve Consistories, and so many Scribes and Proctors should all join their heads together, yet could they not devise any one law so equal, as the worst of these, that are in use. and those that have gone about to make other Laws, and correct the old, have committed such errors, as their friends may be greatly ashamed in their behalf. The Ordinances of Geneva, and articles of French discipline, and that pelf that ours call Holy Discipline, shall testify this to be true, as by particulars I will show, when need is. Lastly, they charge the Bishops for putting in ure foreign Constitutions, and yet cannot name one. 
1 In their meetings at Warwick, Cambridge, Oxford: especially, when the new discipline was upon forging.  But if the Bishops offend, that execute her majesties Laws; how will this Accuser answer for his Clients, that have in secret conventicles enacted, and also practised Canons, and Laws directly contrary to her majesties Laws, and Prerogative, and therefore are to suffer imprisonment, and pay fine at her majesties pleasure, by the same statute they allege against us.  
Article 5 Such Canons and Constitutions only as be not repugnant to the Laws, Statutes, and Customs of this Realm, aught to be put in practice. 25. H. 8. c. 19 But the bishops give sentence in infinite matters, which would be otherwise ruled by the Common Laws.  
Answer. If the Bishops or other Ecclesiastical officers should deal either contrary to Law, or without warrant of Law, they could not escape punishment, having so many spiteful eyes to watch over them: neither (if they should attemptit) would the reverend judges which are to grant prohibitions in that case, permit it. If they do against the laws of the Realm, why are not the laws named, and men charged, and the fact noted? This silence of the babbling accuser is their sufficient discharge: and his vain discourse void of reasons, a condemnation of his babbling.  
Article. 6 The Bishops have reckoned such men as have been ordained ministers in reformed Churches, to be lay men.  
Answer. All have not so reckoned them. yet if they had, they had not done it without cause. for they themselves say, the bond is only mutual betwixt the minister, & that particular congregation whereof he is made minister: and that one congregation cannot appoint ministers for another. and our laws allow none, but made after our orders. Why then do not new made ministers pack away to their makers? Why do they run away from their congregations like recreant soldiers from their stations? Here they have no calling. Both popish priests, and they alike may well be accounted with us to have no calling, being both by their own doctrine, and by the statute of 13. Eliz. c. 12. debarred from the ministery: and for their hatred to the Church, most unworthy of any ecclesiastical function, or to live in the Church which with all their might and malice they have oppugned.  
Article. 7 The law requireth a subscription to articles of religion only that concern the confession of true faith and doctrine of sacraments. 13. Eliz. c. 12. The bishops urge a subscription to the books of homilies and divers ceremonial and transitory matters, neither concerning faith nor sacraments.  
Answer. The statute requireth subscription to the book of articles, and every article therein contained. among the rest, to the doctrine concerning our ecclesiastical regiment, & Homilies. that is clear by the words of the statute, that mentioneth the book, and all the articles therein contained, and by interpretation of the most learned lawyers. And if it were not so, them would it follow, that a great part of that book which the parliament meant to confirm, is void. which were to evert laws by cavils (as these do) not to interpret law. Neither doth it help the platformers, that the title of the book is, Articles concerning faith and sacraments. For things are denominated of the greatest part: and in our account, matters of government are directed by the word of God, which is the ground of faith, Neither would it be taken, if any papist should take exception to any article in that book, and not subscribe, for that it appertaineth not to faith, nor sacraments. Besides the allowance of laws and statutes, the Bishops for this subscription that is required unto three articles, have sufficient warrant. In vain therefore would the articulators oppugn laws by law: and disloyally do they spurn at her majesties authority, yea in cases, wherein they cannot take any just exceptions, bluntly subscribing to all the fond discipline of Geneva, to the which we can take so many sufficient exceptions. But if it be such a fault to make men subscribe to laws, whereunto every man is supposed to yield his consent in parliament, and whereto every one ought to obey: what punishment doth T.C. and his bold companions deserve, that subscribed to canons & constitutions, made in a corner, & directly overthrowing her majesties supremacy, & ecclesiastical laws, & a great part of the laws of the realm, if they were received? And if subscription be so heinous a matter, why is it required at Geneva & in France to most simple orders, not for government, but for the utter debasing, impoverishing, and overthrow of the ministry: as too late now the ministers themselves there begin to feel? why should it, I say, be more lawful there, then with us?  
Article 8 If the bishops publish any Canons, or orders to be practised without the royal assent of her Maeistie, they should be fined and imprisoned. 25. H. 8. c. 19 yet notwithstanding this statute, they publish subscriptions in their provinces, and articles in their Dioceses without any assent of her Highness.  
Answer. The end of this article is to have the bishops imprisoned and fined according to the rules of puritan charity. But the means and proofs, whereby the articulators endeavour to effect it, are all too weak. For they can neither prove, that they have published Canons, constitutions, and provincial ordinances without the prince's assent, nor that they have done any thing therein against law. nay albeit in their subscriptions they require nothing but obedience to law: yet did they not require them without special warrant. But (saith the accuser) they publish new subscriptions & articles. Goodly stuff. As if either subscriptions or articles were canons, or constitutions, or ordinances: or else such as minister private articles about matters in civil courts, could be said to make new laws. It appeareth the man is but a novice in law, that knew not what is law. That he err not, let him understand, that the ordinances of discipline made by T.C. and his fellows, were made contrary to this statute. And therefore if they desire justice to be done: let the law be executed upon offenders, and let innocents be no more wronged.  
Article. 9 Ecclesiastical officers extort from schoolmasters sometime 7. s. sometime more, and make them subscribe: both contrary to law.  
Answer. If they take 7. s. for a licence, it is not much. I know a petifogger, yea a Scrivano, that for writing a licence hath taken 7. li. let them therefore both be punished together according to the several qualities of their offence: and let all takers and extortioners answer for their extortions. I defend them not: I excuse them not: I favour them not. As for subscription of schoolmasters, how can it be misliked, seeing it is only for confirmation of law, & exacted of them, lest they should instill discontentment, & schismatical & heretical opinions into their scholars minds: 
Done at Geneva. Ordon de l'esehole de Geneva.  as but too many factious and puritan schoolmasters have done to the great prejudice of this Church, and state? the more have they to answer for, that have suffered them: and more care ought men to have, that such nurseries of rebellion be not suffered. But what reason hath this pettifogger, or the scrivano his suggestor to condemn subscriptions, seeing both of them win more by scribbling, and subscribing, than any ecclesiastical person I know in England.  
Article. 10 By the great charter none may be imprisoned, but by the lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the law of the land.  
Answer. By the laws of the great charter the privileges of the church, & state ecclesiastical, are with most pregnant terms confirmed, and yet this faction without regard either of charters, or laws, or honour of the prince that is sworn to maintain them, or of the reputation of the realm, that standeth most in maintenance of God's church & religion, goeth about to overthrow both the ecclesiastical state, and all the customs, rights, & privileges of the church, if then he think it not lawful to infringe the laws of Magna Charta, what presumption is this, that he & his companions directly oppugn them? on the contrary side, he cannot charge any justly with the breach of laws. let him if he can name any, that hath imprisoned any contrary to the laws of Magnacharta. if he cannot, why doth he speak of imprisonment to no purpose? If he affirm any such matter of bishops, he doth them wrong. For they imprison none by authority Episcopal. If he speak against the high Commissioners in causes ecclesiastical, he is to understand, that divers of them being of the most honourable persons, and judges in the land, they will not do any thing against law. Nor do they commit any, but contumacious offenders, whom no law may spare. That they punish men for not swearing vainly, is a vain lie. To say, that an oath offered by a magistrate is vain, is both disloyalty, and Anabaptistry. But all this rigour is clemency, in respect of the consistorial proceed. For there men are censured by opinion, and ministers disgraced upon suspicion, and Caluine put a syndicke and divers chief men of Geneva to their oath, to answer whether they had been dancing at widow Baltazars' house: and after that removed divers of them from their places. he that liketh these orders, must needs commend ours.  
Article. 11 By the common law, a man shall not be examined upon his oath in matters that sound to his reproach. Crompton. 182.  
Answer. Cromptons' word is no measure of law. The contrary hereof is law, by the opinion of the most learned judges in England. It is the practice of the court of Chancery: in the court of the council of the marches, & principality of Wales: in the court of Starrechamber: whereas the parties are examined upon their oaths, upon perjuries, forgeries, and many other misdemeanours. Suppose it be at the instance of parties, which notwithstanding is not always: yet it appeareth, that oaths to discover things reproachful to a man's self, be lawful and very common, and most necessary: And a simple lawyer was he, that understood not so much. Likewise in other courts of record at Westminster, the judges by corporal oath examine any person, whom they have cause to suspect to have dealt lewdly about any writ, return, entry of rule, & such like matters. By the statute of inquisition 
1 Stat. de Exon. de Inquisit. super Coronat.  upon Coroners, the enquirors shall make the Bailiffs swear that they shall conceal nothing; no, though it be penal to them. Masters of ships are to be put to answer on their oaths, upon the statute of money. 9 Edw. 3. c. 9 Whether they have committed any fraud. So likewise, they that are charged upon the statute 
2 8. Edw. 4. c. 2.  of liveries, must answer the bill upon their oath, though the matter be penal. The same is apparent by the statute of wines. 24. H. 8. c. 2. of bankrupts. 34. H. 8. c. 4. by the statute of supremacy: by the statute of Fugitives. 13. Eliz. c. 3.  
In appeals at the Common law, the defendant before battle is driven to 
3 Stanf. Pleas of the crown. lib. 3. c. 14.  swear. A juror departing from his company, was examined on his oath, whether he had talked with the defendant. yet if he had confessed it, the same had been penal. M. 34. Edw. 3. fol. 3. In an action of formedon, covin being found by oath in the defendant, he was punished by the judges discretion. T. 7. H. 4. fol. 19  
The oath of supremacy may be given 
4 5. Eliz. c. 1.  Ex officio by any Ordinary to a Clerk; the refusal whereof is very penal. In the register, in the title, Consultation, divers cases are found, where the judges ecclesiastical proceeding ex officio is allowed. Why then may not ecclesiastical commissioners proceed Ex officio, and minister oaths? For that which this accuser saith, that for matters of felony, they examine men upon their oaths; is false. For with these cases they do not meddle. If the articulator can prove they do, why doth he not declare it, seeing he may thereby procure them that hurt, which he desireth.  
Article 12 No man should be cited to a spiritual court, to depose therein as witness. For this is extortion, and tort to the party. Fitz. just. ofp. p. 172. Cromp. 219.  
Answer. Neither is any cited ad iurandum, or to depose, but ad testificandum; which neither the author of the Articles, nor any else can deny to be lawful. For neither is this libeler, nor any man to be credited without an oath. Somewhat this smatterer hath heard, but he cannot cite it right. For both the Register, and Fitzherbert the author of this opinion doth allow oaths in causes testamentary, and matrimonial. And it is the common practice, and ever was in all causes and courts: And himself confesseth so much in the next accusation. But the objection he cannot hit. When he objecteth right, he shall have his answer more at full. Now it is sufficient to say, that which every lawyer that knoweth any law, can tell him: that seeing by the laws of England, many causes are heard in Ecclesiastical courts, which cannot be decided without witnesses, the calling of witnesses is necessary.  
Article 13 No Bishop ought to appoint a man to appear before him to take an oath ex Officio, saving in matters of marriages and wills.  
Answer. Many ways the ignorance of this man, that would gladly show his skill in law, appeareth. For we say not in terms of law, that a man taketh an oath ex officio; but that the judge proceeding sometime Ex Officio, sometime otherwise, doth minister an oath to the party. Again, the bishop doth not appoint men to appear before him, but calleth them by process of law. But these are but errors in terms. A grosser fault it is, that he mistaketh law. For not whatsoever Fitzherbert setteth down, is law; in this case especially of prohibition. For nothing is more ordinary, then to reverse prohibitions by consultations. The meaning of the words of Fitzherbert, or rather of the Register, whence he drew his writ, was: That men should not be called into ecclesiastical courts to confirm any contract concerning goods or chattels by oath: by which means, the ecclesiastical court encroached upon other courts. Only causes Matrimonial and Testamentary in that case (for to other it cannot be extended) were excepted. That in matter of Tithes, and other causes men answered upon their oaths, is evident; for that the 
1 Art. Cler. 9 Edw. 2. c. 12.  King's tenants as well as others, answered before Ordinaries, and were by them also excommunicate for their contumacy. In matters of Tithes, the 
2 27. H. 8.  contemners of the ecclesiastical process by statute are condemned, and may be forced to obey. And in another statute it is decreed, That the 
3 32. H. 8.  Ordinary may convent such, as withhold Tithes, according to to the laws ecclesiastical. Likewise the ecclesiastical judge may by statute proceed against those that 
4 Eliz. c. 2.  violate the laws concerning uniformity of Common prayer. yea, Fitzherbert 
5 Nou. Nature. breu. fol. 63.  granteth, that an ecclesiastical judge may exact a caution iuratorie, before he deliver a man that is in prison, upon the writ De excommunicato capiendo. False it is therefore, that this bold and blind bayard saith; That bishops boldly presume against law. Nay, he and his companions boldly presume, both against law, and common humanity. for both do they run into felonies and treasons, and also speak against laws, and defend their doings, and rail against others, that gently put them in mind of their faults.  
Article 14 Morning and Evening prayer should be read every day throughout the year, but are not.  
Answer. How knoweth he, that Morning and Evening prayer is not said? If he had frequented Churches so diligently, as he ought to have done, he might have understood the contrary. But where it is not said; I think he liketh us not the worse for that. For no sort of men (I except not the jesuits) do more bitterly rail against our book, and order of Common prayer, than his consorts do. And yet this will I prove, that the worst of those prayers are more Christianlike, than their extemporal prayers made of broken sighs and sentences for the most part, and full fraught with malice and other passions; To say nothing of confusion. But suppose prayers were not said every day. let him show where they are so commanded. For the Communion book commandeth them not so peremptorily to be read, as the accuser anoweth, but alloweth the Curate to omit them, when he is let either with private study, or other necessary business: which exception he hath quite forgotten, and left out. as for Prayers, they be in most places used, and would be more, if they were not by these contentious fellows despised.  
Article 15 The Curate must tolle a Bell: yet doth not he, but the Sexton.  
Answer. A bloody fault; and great pity that the Presbytery with their bells and babbles were not admitted (if for nothing else) yet to take order, that bells might be tolled. The preface to the Communion book, doth only will the Curate to do it, or to appoint one to do it. And so it is in most places: And if he did it not, yet is he not in fault, but the parishioners, that against his will, appoint a Sexton that is not at his commandment. This Article tendeth (as all the practices of puritanes do) to the disgrace of the Ministry, whom they would put to all base offices; and yet you my masters of the ministery both see them, and suffer them to abuse you, and your function.  
Article 18 The people are to answer the Priest, and to say, Amen: Yet doth the Clerk answer alone in most places.  
Answer. If this Accuser had good matter, he would not spare, that taketh such pains to find a knot in a rush, & picketh quarrels where no cause is. For both it is false, which he saith, that the people answereth not; and were it true, yet is it not the bishops or others fault, but the people's that will not attend the prayers, and say Amen. Percase some are fantastical persons, and condemn our form of prayers: some are phrenetical and understand not: more fit to be prayed for, then to pray.  
Article 17 Where there is singing, there the lessons should be sung in a plain tune, etc.  
Answer. Nothing doth more displease the puritans, than church-musicke, and singing: yet this accuser is offended with not singing, which he affirmeth to be no small peccadillio. So neither singing nor saying pleaseth them. What then is best for them? Forsooth, silence. That any doth offend in this point, when he is put to it, he will not be able to justify.  
Article 18 The names of the Communicants before they receive, should be signified to the Curate: yet this is not regarded in most places.  
Answer. That is not the curates fault, but rather of those, that should signify it, if any be. Let the Communicants therefore signify their names. The curates (to please his mastership) shall be always ready to open their ears. which notwithstanding, will not make for the libelers advantage. for if his name be brought, he will be undoubtedly repelled, for an uncharitable person, unfit to communicate among Christians.  
Article 19 Notorious lewd persons be admitted to the Communion: yet should the Curate repel such.  
Answer. If they do repel such, as it is notorious: then is this libeler a notorious liar. yea, a liar and slanderer in print. But he percase counteth those men notorious offenders, which any one suspecteth. Which if it were true, then are most putitans notorious lewd persons, that are commonly suspected for such; and not without cause. For further answer I say, that such as by sentence of the judge are pronounced culpable, which are in deed notorious offenders, are repelled; and that to repel others, were a course full of disorder and injustice. And lastly, that hereafter such notorious railing puritans, as do slander religion, shall be better looked unto, and be repelled, both from the Communion, and all honest men's society, being enemies of learning, and scandals of religion.  
Article 20 The Minister should use the ornaments appointed by King Edward.  
Answer. And doth he not so? If any do otherwise, it is of the factious sort, that deserveth punishment. But (saith the libeler) the Clerk doth also wear a surplice. As if it followed, because the Clerk weareth a surplice; that the Minister doth not. All like, as if a man should conclude, because Giles Wiggington hath some little wit, that this libeler hath none. The meaning of the law is, that such ornaments shall be used, as were appointed by king Edward, where other order should not be taken. For later laws abridge the former. If then the accuser can show, that laws are not herein observed, he shall do us great favour to name the offenders.  
Article 21 In Cathedral Churches the Communion should be ministredevery Sunday at the least.  
Answer. If often Communions be commendable, then is our Church to be preferred before that of Geneva, that communicates only quarterly. Better therefore it were for malice to keep silence, then to say that, which is nothing. Let him (if he can) detect those that are culpable.  
Article 22 The Godfathers do not their duty, neither do Bishops urge them.  
Answer. Let him show that Bishops may do it by law, and then reprove them for not doing their duty. If it be left to the conscience of Godfathers, to do their duties, why should the Bishops be charged with other men's faults? Forsooth, this libeler meaneth to lay all faults on the Bishop's backs. I would to God for my part, there were no faults, but in Bishops, so far am I from envying any man's purity. But this purity (I fear) is but hypocrisy. For many puritans mislike Godfathers: and are very impure in life and conversation.  
Article 23 Bishops are commanded to confirm children, yet few do it.  
Answer. The puritans commonly deride Confirmation, albeit a most ancient and Christian ceremony. This fellow chargeth Bishops with a great fault for omitting it. How will these agree? Nay, how will this companion verify his assertion being most untrue? But if any bishops do not confirm children, it is because certain factious persons have persuaded the people to refuse it, and that very wickedly, not only fantastically.  
Article 24 Curates do not instruct servants, and youth upon holidays.  
Answer. Causeless doth this accuser bark against Curates, seeing he cannot charge any particular. If he can, let him call him before his superiors. The exercise is good and godly; neither doth any account it tyranny to instruct the ignorant: But sure, great presumption it is, for young puritans publicly to examine grave and discreet men, that know more than themselves, and indiscretion to use examination, as the disciplinarians would have it used.  
Article 25 None should be admitted to the Communion that cannot say the Catechism. Therefore Curates should examine communicants, and seelude them that be wanting in knowledge.  
Answer. Can you show any Curates that have not done their duty herein? If you can; carry them before the Ordinary: they crave no favour. In the mean while learn this lesson of me. Show not your cankered malice against good Ministers. There is none but liveth as well as puritans, nor any so base, that may of a Pettifogger, or Scrivano be contemned: nor any that is more ignorant in their Catechism, then puritans: that never enter deeper, than the paraphrase of their Creed, and pater noster,  
Article 26 Banes should be asked three several Sundays in the open Church, yet the Bishops dispense with banes.  
Answer. In the book it is Sundays and Holy days: this is therefore his first error. The second is, that he misliketh dispensations. for both by law and customs of this Church, and for good causes are they granted. Neither doth the affirmative without the negative in any law, take away a custom that may stand with the law: as in this case, The law will have banes three several days proclaimed. That no dispensation be granted, the law hath not. Wherefore, seeing dispensations are confirmed by law, and not taken away by this Rubric; let the accuser hold his peace, and cease to proclaim his own folly, and to work the bane of his cause; and finally, while he would show skill in law, to prove himself devoid of law, and reason.  
Article 27 The party presented to the Bishop, should wear a plain Albe: yet this garment is not used.  
Answer. In the book of ordering Ministers there is no such garment appointed. And if it were, yet were it no such disorder, as this charitable man maketh it, that would have the bishops thrust out of their livings, yea out of the Church, for committing it. But suppose Deacons should wear an Albe; how is the neglect of it ascribed to Bishops, and not rather to the party that knoweth not his duty, or of new curiosity, that can abide none apparel, but of the Genevian fashion? would this libeler were a yellow cote, it would become him better than an Albe.  
Article 28 The Deacon by part of his office, aught to search for the poor, sick, and impotent of the parish, and intimate their estates to the Curate. But now the office is accounted mere spiritual.  
Answer. He ought only to do it, where he is so appointed which clause this accuser meaning no good truth, cautelously left out. That he should only attend the poor and sick, cannot be proved either by scriptures or fathers. In Geneva the Deaconship is turned into a vain office of Proctorship for the poor, managed by men of base trades. Why then doth he accuse others, that is guilty himself?  
Article. 29 The Deacon must read the Gospel in the day of his ordination, putting on a tunicle: but this vesture is scarcely known at this day.  
Answer. The book of ordaining of ministers, printed Anno 1559. and confirmed by parliament, hath no such matter. And therefore unless he can show his author for his tunicle, let him wear the tunicle together with his four elbowed jacket himself. But admit some piece of apparel were omitted in deacons: yet is the fault not great, nor to be ascribed to any, but to those that commit the same.  
Article. 30 The bishops at the ordination of ministers, do tell them the weight of their charges, and what labour they ought to take: yet most of them are never resident.  
Answer. If they labour not as they should do, let them be punished. If they be absent for lawful causes, and at times: why are they more blamed than the skittish puritanes, that notwithstanding their charge, are like malcontent and mutinous persons still wandering up and down to places where they have nought to do, rather to trouble the state, then to edify the Church: and rather hinder others labours by spreading of false doctrine, and novelties, then help by teaching faith and manners?  
Article. 31 The law would have them give themselves to their function: yet many attend civil and worldly affairs.  
Answer. If civil and ecclesiastical causes be so repugnant, as is pretended, why do ministers govern their families or colleges: or what hath T. Cartw. to meddle with the charge of his hospital, a matter mere civil, and wherein he hath done more good, then in ecclesiastical causes? For he hath bestirred himself so, that what by rewards, what by avails of his hospital, and pinching those that are committed to his charge, and what by buying and selling, the man is grown fat and rich. Of his ministry we see no fruit, but contention and trouble. Percase he will say he is no minister. But why then doth he meddle with the ministers office? like to him are his followers, men very stirring and busy in all matters of state, howsoever this man misliketh them therein. Contrariwise for subjects to execute the commandments of the prince, and to see their ministery also discharged, is commendable, and not only allowable. The laws of God and the land allow it. Wherefore then should he maliciously condemn that, which he cannot disprove?  
Article. 32 Bishops only excommunicate and suspend: yet by the book of ordering ministers every one is to administer the discipline of Christ: And Christ hath given the keys equally.  
Answer. The law is misreported and misinterpreted. For the words are, that ministers should minister discipline as this Church hath received it: and so they do. And by discipline is admonition public, and private, and preaching, and executing the ordinaries sentence, understood. That every minister by law should excommunicate or suspend others equally, cannot be proved. the keys were given to the Church: yet every one doth not use them equally. the priests of the law were all partakers of the priesthood: yet might not all, do all things. All were not judges, nor governors, nor looked to all things. But these fellows would have an Anabaptistical equality brought in: that such as have no merit to mount higher, may bring down others lower, & make them equal to themselves. Both the words and practice of the law make against the libeler. beside all this, it would be infinitely inconvenient and absurd, if such arms, as the Church censures, were put in every cockebrayned fellows handling; and such odd fellows, as the puritanes are, made governors of the Church, equal with the best.  
Article. 33 The Bishops Chapplaynes, and Doctors, use not private admonition in their Cures.  
Answer. Many things the libeler affirmeth, and proveth nothing: So that it should seem, he taketh pleasure in talking, and calumniating. But suppose they did not follow the course of puritanes in private and parlour admonitions, & paraphrases: is not the office of the minister public, & not private? must (he as these puritanes do) creep into women's closerts, or must he put his feet under every merchant man's table, & their shrive them? such admonitions, as the office of ministers and laws require, they do use. The course of puritanes in their private exercises and paraphrases, they take neither to be commanded by law, nor to be suffered in reason for the manifold abuses of it. and much more credit were it for the puritanes, if they had never begun their table sermons, nor secret conference, and catechizations of other men's wives, and daughters.  
Article. 34 The bishops admit not preachers to preach without licence, and make unpreaching ministers, and ordain ministers without Cure, and preach out of Apocrypha against law.  
Answer. Neither do they herein against law, nor reason. For albeit ministers have by their ordination power to announce the word by reading: yet is it not fit, that every one should expond it, but such as have learning. & that is known by long experience, and must be testified by writing. And good it were that many that take upon them to preach, were turned back to read. For they mar and abuse many good texts of scripture, & fill the people's ears with novelties, and want discretion to profit them either in faith or manners. Secondly, they make none unpreaching ministers, but give every one licence to announce the word by reading, and private admonition, albeit not by public exposition. Neither (if they should make ministers such only as can break the word aright and are answerable to Saint Paul's rules) should they find many such among the conceited sort, that preach not God's word, but their own conceits. Thirdly, it is not unfit nor against law, that men learned should be made ministers, though presently they have no cures: nor doth the book of making ministers condemn it. For albeit the word congregation be used: yet nameth it no special congregation. Finally it is not usual for any to choose texts out of the Apocryphal Scriptures. yet if any do so, the offence is not great, seeing for manners they are to be read, and having confirmation of Canonical scriptures, are to be received. That which he saith of bishops, that they take away letters of orders upon every supposed misdemeanour, is untrue. For neither do they offer it, nor may they do it by law.  
Article. 35 Seldom do bishops at the time of their consecration use Copes: and never use they pastoral staves: yet both required by law.  
Answer. Neither Copes nor pastoral staves are by law enjoined to be used. The book of ordering ministers printed Anno 1559. shall witness with me that I say truth. yet in mine opinion, it were not amiss to use pastoral staves, if for none other cause, yet to beat such barking curs as this, which without reason baull at laws and antiquity: (and if they had might) would bite also.  
Article. 36 There be many Churches in England, that have scarce had 12. sermons in 12. years.  
Answer. The cause why in some places, there are so few sermons preached is, for that the living is appropried, and that such as have it, have no care of men's souls. let the articulator therefore article against them, and not impute their faults to the clergy, that cannot do withal. if among the clergy he knoweth any that do not their duty, or that preach not their sermons, why doth he not name them, that order may be taken, that sermons may be had according to law? If he can name none, why doth he mention many? And if there be any default herein, why doth he deface the state, and not rather blame those greedy persons, that by taking away the livings of Churches, are cause of this disorder? Wherefore to answer him, let him this understand, that there are more learned Preachers, and Sermons preached in England (proportion for proportion) then either in France, or Scotland; howsoever the same seem to him to be reformed.  
Article 37 Erasmus paraphrasis should be had in all Churches.  
Answer. Accuse them that have it not. There is none more guilty, than the brotherhood of Puritans, that condemn all good learning, and care for none other books, than the Geneva Bible, Caluins' institutions, and Bezaes' Comments: excepting always Caluins' Commentaries on job, and Martyrs common places in English; Nor have other cause to like of Erasmus paraphrasis, but that now all their exercises be nothing but light and fantastical paraphrases: except always some heavy and malicious invectives.  
Article 38 Ecclesiastical persons should not play at unlawful games, as Cards, Dice, etc. but they offend more, than any other that pretend conformity.  
Answer. I told you, that this Revellors' purpose was rather to rail, then amend any matter. Why doth he not name these gamesters and unlawful games? and prove that such games as are used, are unlawful? nay when he hath proved what he can, I do think that honest recreations that some ministers use, are more commendable, than the sabothes exercises of most puritans.  
Article. 39 Non residents should distribute the 40. part of their living to the poor of the parish, which they do not. Likewise they should maintain scholars.  
Answer. I know none more hardhearted, than the Puritans: nor more bountiful than the Clergy to the poor. As for Pettifoggers, and Scribes, they do skin the poor, and help them not. Nothing therefore could be more unseasonable, than this accusation. For albeit the ministery (by the spoils of Patrons and greedy Gulls, and wicked vexations of Puritans) are almost now the poorest of the parish: yet are they not sparing to give every man according to his faculty. And as for some bishops, it shallbe proved, that they are as ready to maintain and prefer learned scholars, as the Puritans to impoverish them and spoil them: the rest let them answer for themselves. Blush therefore you sacrilegious Church-robbing Puritan the ruinors of all churches, and shame to talk of liberality, and maynetenance of scholars. For by your barking, and by your spoils, and by your crying out against the reward of learning, and by that poverty and contempt, you have brought the ministery into: you have almost overthrown the ministry in Scotland, religion in France, & would overthrow both in England. And what should we else look for at their hands, seeing in racking of Rents, exteremitie of dealing, usury, and unlawful practices of gain, and Turkish and inhuman cruelty, divers of these zelatours of puritanism pass both Turks and Heathen?  
Article. 40 The Queen's Injunctions are not read quarterly, as they should be.  
Answer. They are read as oft as need is: and if any negligence be committed, it is by the Puritans, that bring all laws into contempt: sure they are contemned more by them, than any. for they openly impugn them, not only neglect them. But admit they should be read very often: yet would not the Puritans hear them, nor obey them. For they neither respect her Majesty nor her laws; but in despite of both, seek to establish a new government, and new Injunctions. for which if they do not shortly reform themselves, there will be such penance enjoined them, that they will better remember Injunctions all their life long.  
Article. 41 Holidays should be spent in godly exercises. Bishops bestow them profanely in playing at Bowls, hearing Comedies, and Tragedies.  
Answer. Very unlikely it is, that such fellows as this, should teach Bishops how to bestow their time, seeing there is none bestoweth these days worse, than the hypocritical sect of Puritans, that in slandering, factious declaiming against laws and governors, in chambering and chambering exercises, yea and in worse matters do bestow their time in corners, doing things which you may conceive, I may not utter: and therefore these are profane and wicked hypocrites. As for honest exercises, why may they not be used upon holy days, so it be not in times of serving God? Wherefore unless the Libeler can show both better law and reason against bowls and other exercises well used, and show cause why Tragedies may not be heard; his accusation will rather seem to proceed from malice, than other cause: and he will be taken for a profane senseless hypocrite, that is offended with bowling, and exercises of learning, and yet thinketh it lawful to make an occupation of lying, slandering, and defacing of good men; and alloweth the secret and parlour conferences of his fellow Puritan, and many other bad practices: whereof some are comical, others tragical; and most of their discipline fabulous, or a comical fable.  
Article. 42 The Bishops be not without superstitious paintings in their chambers; and divers Churches have them not abolished.  
Article 22 To condemn the historical and civil use of painting, is uncivil, and savoureth of turcism. Other uses of painting, bishops have none: neither is there now any superstitious use of paintings in church windows; but those that are (if they displease the Libeler) he may have down at pleasure, when he will set new glass in their place. The paintings that do more harm, are in apparel, ruffs; yea women's faces, and their furniture: wherein I would the Puritans did not commit both Idolatry and other folly. Wherefore seeing he is in the way (as he pretendeth) of Reformation, let these abuses of pricking pride, & painting be removed: & also let him take heed that superstitiously he do not make an idol of his discipline, that both out of church and common wealth is to be abolished.  
Article 43 The wives of Ministers and Deacons should be allowed by the Ordinary, and two justices of peace. But many forward Chapleyns' regard not this.  
Answer. In disdain this scornful wretch calleth learned Ministers, Chapleins', sparing neither his adversaries, nor friends the Puritans, that are for the most part trencher Chapleins': nor others. But what such lewd mouthed Libelers and enemies of the ministery professed do call honest men, it is not material. I know none marrieth, but such as have allowance sufficient of their choice. If they have not, let the offenders be corrected, and not innocents be disgraced for others offence. why they should be called forward, I know not; seeing none is so forward in marrying as the Puritan sort: of whom I know none that hath the gift of continency. but would they cease to disgrace others, I could for my part be content they should use their liberty. provided always, they make not too great post haste, nor without regard and consideration of their future wives qualities, leap into sudden mischief.  
Article 44 The clergy people go not in their habits, and square caps.  
Answer. What do the Puritan people? forsooth they square it out for the most part in new fashioned & conceited apparel, & are all clad in Satin, & velvet, and costly apparel, and brave it like people of a new government. some for humility sake go in flat caps: others go like clowns in russet cloaks, & well they may: for their religion is a russet religion, good for none but russet coats, & such as favour popular government, & fitting none but our rustical platformers, whose manners are rude & uncivil. that men go not more orderly, this faction is cause, which maketh war against the ministry, and by all means seeketh to offer them scorn.  
Article 45 The Bishop's Officials allow none to be absent from their own parish, unless they will pay a Mark for a licence: yet law suffereth men to hear Sermons other where.  
Answer. Law restraineth men to their own parishes, but lust would be gadding abroad to see what is done elsewhere. for which if any officials grant licence contrary to law, there is law to correct them. but why this man should be so offended with taking money for licences, I see no cause, seeing his dear friends, yea himself too, useth more taking then giving; and considering that Pettifoggers, & Scrivanoes, such as the authors of this book seem to be, live by taking, & take without licence, and contrary both to licence, and law, and have won more by taking, than others by long service: and for all their pretended hypocrisy will neither spend nor lose commodity for their puritan cause. why men should not be suffered to frequent factious sermons, there be divers causes: it is the way to faction, sects, heresy, and tumults, and divers other disorders.  
Article. 46 Songs in Churches should be distinct, and modest.  
Answer. So they are: but the Libelers ears were percase so out of tune, that he could not judge, when he heard them. for how can his ears be in tune, whose wits not long since were in so great discord? In the opinion of all wise men that can judge, and have skill, our church music is distinct, modest and grave, and far passing the discordant tunes of Puritans.  
Article 47 None of the Queen's subjects should call one another heretic, nor schismatic: but we are so called, and Puritans too, by certain Libelers.  
Answer. Yea and that very justly too, if you maintain this Libel, and your new book of prayers, and their most seditious and heretical pamphlets of T. C. and others: neither are they Libelers in so calling you: nor doth the Injunction protect factious mates, but quiet and good subjects, such as you will not show yourselves to be, railing and reveling at Laws, and governors in most shameful sort. and therefore disdain not to be called by your names; nor wonder, if you be beaten with your own weapons.  
Article 48 Bishops and their Chapleyns' seldom make a leg at the name of jesus, unless it be at the reading of the Gospel, nor remember jesus, but when they lustily swear by jesus.  
Answer. All Puritans utterly mislike this bowing at the name of jesus: this semypuritan, and demychristian misliketh the omitting of it, therein condemning all his companions, as contumacious lawbreakers, and not proving any matter against his adversaries, for which both one and other have cause to mislike him: but especially for lying, and slandering of Governors: wherein he showeth his full malice, and choler in charging them, and want of matter in convincing them. The Puritans speak nothing without protesting: do you not call that swearing? no, it is forswearing. for when they protest deepest, then commonly they dissemble most, and perform least: yea, many of these seem with the Priscilianites to have little regard of oaths, as appeareth by their examinations. If he knew any of his adversaries, that offendeth in swearing, I doubt not, but they should hear it.  
Article 49 The Queen accounteth them good subjects that acknowledge her Majesty to be sole supreme governor over all her subject in all her Dominions. The Bishops do not.  
Answer. If nothing else were to be respected, but this point: then were all lesuites, and Seminary men, and other traitors good subjects. for they doubt not to give her the title of sole supreme Governor over all her subjects: but that she hath authority to make Ecclesiastical laws, and judge in Ecclesiastical causes, and to appoint judges, and officers to judge therein, & that no other hath power over her Majesty; neither jesuits nor Puritans will confess. therefore unless they acknowledge all the rest of her majesties prerogatives, and show more obedience to Laws, than hitherto they have done: they can not so easily scape the notes of disloyalty.  
Article. 50 The Bishops have not punished offenders against Injunctions, but are only careful to urge subscriptions, oaths ex officio. etc.  
Answer. If the Bishops have not done their duties, why dost not thou make thyself party, and accuse them? they stand upon their defence: why comest thou not forth in thy likeness to charge them? In the mean while take this answer, that offences must first be known, and then punished: and secondly, that bishops have suffered as few known offences to escape unpunished, as any other officers: thirdly, that those offences that tend to the overthrow of the State, are most narrowly looked unto: and lastly, that he is a lewd mate, that doth pick quarrels with others for not executing those Laws, which himself doth mislike. As concerning their urging of subscriptions, and conventing those that are disobedient to law, the Bishops have offended in nothing more, then that they have not been more peremptory in urging them. no State nor Governors ever suffered such notorious disloyalty so long unpunished.  
Article. 51 Bishops take extraordinarily for licences to preach contrary to their own advertisements: of licentious Preachers no licence is required.  
Answer. Show who they be that take so much, and who these licentious Preachers be, or else men will esteem thee a licentious Libeler. for mine own part, I know none more licentious than thyself, and thy consorts which with all impunity speak against Laws, and take to themselves liberty both to live, and believe as they list: and for taking, surpass all other takers, taking both from Church and Schools what they can: yea, sparing neither friend, nor other: men of wonderful large conscience.  
Article 52 Many are absent from their cures without lawful cause.  
Answer. Show that, and thou mayest have remedy against them: yet take heed thou dealest not too curiously in this matter, for fear thou offendest thy dear brethren of the fraternity of deformation. for none do more willingly discontinue from their charge, nor have less or more unsufficient cause. Others have lawful business: these to alter Laws, to stir the people, and maintain faction, wander about, and neither regard flock, nor Law.  
Article. 53 Ecclesiastical persons do not wear in journeying cloaks with sleeves.  
Answer. The reason of this is, the contempt of Puritans, and scorn offered by them to those that obey laws. for while they break laws themselves, and scorn obedience in others, these points have been slackly observed of divers. yet is not the matter capital: for when ministers go most undecently, yet do they not come near the flatcapped, short cloaked, russet clothed, and leather breeched brood of Puritans.  
Article. 54 The household servants of Bishops be not of so good life, as they should be.  
Answer. No more is this Libeler. but in what house can you find them more orderly? nay, can you find them in any Puritans house so orderly? this I dare avow, that the lewdest man they keep, is more honest and discreet than this Libeler or his companion's, and hath more government of his tongue, and actions.  
Article 55 Bishops make blind Porters, and outworn servitors Ministers.  
Answer. They that did it, are therefore greatly too blame, and therefore spare them not, but let their names be known. more blind and absurd fellows than the Disciplinarian sort, I know none. they are also both outworn and forlorn: for all the stuff they had devised in service of the consistory, is now past and spent, and T. C. liveth now all by speculation: except always some little gain he hath by interest.  
Article 56 Bishops should not as they do, grant Presentations, and Aduowsons' of livings before they be void.  
Answer. The man towards his end, speaketh over. He saith, Bishops grant Presentations; yet was it never heard, that a bishop as ordinary did grant a presentation: for that is the office of the patron to the bishop, not the bishop to the clerk. neither do bishops grant advowsons of Churches, for they are nought in law, if they grant them. I would to God that all men did so'well bestow their livings as some bishops do, and I think that the worst bishop doth bestow them better, than many of the best lay patrons. if they did their duty herein, there would not be such buying and selling, as there is, and so many learned men destitute of living. it is not the bishops, but the wicked generation of sacrilegious church-robbers, that sell advowsons, yea and would sell both Church and soil if they might, and next to these such petit incornifistibulat pettifoggers, and scrivanoes, as the chief authors of this libel, that must have bribes under hand to help to procure the patron's favour.  
Article. 57 The book of Martyrs should be in Cathedral Churches, and in Deans and in prehendaries houses, but is not.  
Answer. How know you that it is not? were you ever there? if you were it should seem you came thither for a spy, most unworthy to tread in their houses, or Cathedral Churches, which you would so willingly spoil. but were you there or not; first it is false, that by law the book of Martyrs should be in such houses: for the Canons are not law. next, that they are not there: lastly that they should be in Churches.  
Article. 58 Chancellors, Commissaries, and Officials, should be learned in the ecclesiastical law: but are utterly ignorant.  
Answer. I know none, but may put both thee, and thy consorts to school, howsoever you take yourselves to be learned, but if any unlearned Official come in place without merit, I will give thee leave to seize upon him, and take him out of his place, to be thy companion. two fellows utterly ignorant together.  
Article. 59 Unpreaching Prelates should teach children to write, etc. but yet the parishioners are burdened to find schoolmasters for these matters.  
Answer. The office of inferior curates which he aimeth at, God wots, is a simple prelacy such prelacy God send to this libeler, and his companions, and yet would it be too good for him, being neither so honest, nor learned as most of them. the fault he noteth in them is, that they teach not children: yet are none bound to teach without wages. neither can he charge any for not teaching, that hath competent wages allowed. what wise man than was he, to allege that for law, wherein is neither law, nor truth?  
Article. 60 The election of Church wardens by the ministers, and people, and the admonitions which they should use to offenders are omitted, and accounted seditious, and schismatical.  
Answer. All this is false. for the election continueth, & I doubt not But they do admonish unruly persons, & I know none that accounteth it seditious, or schismatical. but if you suppose to prove your popular election of bishops, & ministers, & your supposed aldermen, & their office by the election of churchwardens: you are wide as far east and west. the churchwardens deal with small matters, these iniambe upon the prince, and tread down his authority: those are under the minister, these control both ministers and princes, and therefore to elect such would be seditious and schismatical, of which he that showeth himself a patron, is both a schismatical and seditious person.  
Article. 61 The bishops keep non residents about them, though by law confessed to be odious, and spoken against in parliament.  
Answer. Many things have been spoken of, & against in parliament which have been there rejected as ridiculous, among other things the new puritan communion book & consistorial discipline. as for nonresidence there is no reason it should be spoken against, seeing no man defendeth it, and laws already made condemn it. for nonresidence is simply condemned, and only for certain causes allowed. for the priests of the law had their turns, and the bishops of old time had their times of absence, and the disciplinarians dispense also with long absence of their ministers why should they then be so rigorous to other, being so liberal to themselves, or why do they accuse bishops for maintaining nonresidence, that maintain it not, liking it in themselves that offend in it?  
Article. 62 No man should have above two benefices at once not distant above 26. miles, yet many have 3, or 4, scattered an hundred miles one from another.  
Answer. First that is false in the Queen's chapplaines. for they may have more than two, if it please her Majesty to bestow them upon them. neither do I require any greater argument of the libelers disloyalty toward her her Majesty, than this, that he is still pinching at her prerogative. secondly it is not to be proved, that others have more benefices than two with cure: if they have, all but those they can keep do fall void: lastly all this which he draweth out of the Canons is to no purpose, for they have no strength of law.  
Article 63 The bishops say that excommunication is a civil discommuning, and company with excommunicate persons, and if our Prelates were examined: then were they excommunicate, and worse than publicans and heathen.  
Answer. Mark I pray you the intemperate fury of this base companion, the honourable Prelates of this land, reverend for their learning, years, gravity & place, this crablouse swain, and paltry parasite scornfully calleth jolly prelate's, and in changing scorn into railing calleth them excommunicate persons, yea worse than publicans and heathen: into such a strain of madness is he entered. look Allen, Stapleton, & other traitors discourses, yet shall you find no such. scornful, nor spiteful speeches. and wherefore doth he so revile them? forsooth because he supposeth they offend against canons. yet neither doth he prove any fault, nor can he show that those canons are law, nor can he excuse his consorts, that notoriously contemn all excommunications: nor finally can he disprove the common distinction of excommunication; that one sort is ecclesiastical the other civil, and therefore as a furious for railing without learning or wit, against men of so high place, he is rather to be corrected in Bedlam then refuted with long discourse. I doubt not but the consistory itself will be ashamed of such kind of dealing; and all other reasonable men condemn it. why the disciplinarians should talk of excommunication, there is no reason. forthey commit the same into profane men's hands, and are therein worse than heathen, that never committed such holy things into so base men's hands.  
This is the sum of all those articles, that he hath gathered against the ecclesiastical state: a plain justification of all their doings. for if he could have said more against them, he would not have spared: and charging them with matters either trifling, or else utterly untrue, declareth them to be innocent, himself to be malicious, and furious. for the sum of all is nothing but a pack of unruly words, as Chapplaines, Priests, jolly Prelates, hangs-by, excommunicate persons, worse than heathen and publicans, licentious preachers, extortioners, bribers and such like. I could requite him with better, and as bitter terms: but to answer his articles; I will only return him but these few articles following.  

A BRIEF COLLECTION OF DIVERS heretical, and strange opinions, lewd practices, and fond fancies and devices, which certain factious, and light headed persons have lately coloured, and advanced with glorious titles of discipline, and reformation; set down in form of Articles.  
TH. Cartw. doth call the rules of his new discipline, the 
1 In the Epistbefore Fenners new divinity.  Axioms, or irrefragable principles of heavenly Canaan. whereby he would in sinuate, that they are without doubt to be received. and yet can he not show, that ever the eldership, or the strange government thereof was practised in Canaan, unless it were of the Canaanites, and enemies of God's Church, to the rooting out of God's people, and overthrow of the ministery.  
2 The disciplinarians hold, that the government of the Eldership is Christ's kingdom, and that they, that withstand the same, are enemies to Christ, to religion, and to Christ's kingome; and apply these words of the Gospel; 
2 Th. Cartw. in a certain table.  Those mine enemies that would not have me to reign over them, bring them, and slay them before me. Aplaine evidence, that if with entreaty they cannot, they mean by wars and bloodshed to set up their kingdom. and yet William Hacket their first king, was crowned in Cheapside with an hempen coronet, or diadem: and his guard, and followers dipersed.  
3 They teach, That the Church is only to be governed by Christ's laws, And yet are they not able to bring forth one word for proof of their consistory, or the parts of it, or the office of every several part of it, or any part of their government: and seem to rest only upon men's bare conceits, and fancies, contrary both to scriptures, equity, and reason.  
4 They profess great loyalty in terms: yet doubt not to say, that the simplest Consistory they have, may give the prince to Satan.  
5 They take from the magistrate, power to make ecclesiastical laws for the government of the Church: and yet at Geneva they have no ecclesiastical laws, but made by the magistrates.  
6 That authority which statutes give to princes, In calling and assembling of Synods, and appointing ecclesiastical commissioners to hear, and determine Ecclesiastical matters, and appointing delegates to repress wrongs offered in Ecclesiastical courts, they take away and deny the supremacy of the prince very presumptuously.  
7 They overthrow her majesties revenues: and dissolve the office of first fruits and tenths.  
8 They deny her all authority to nominate Bishops, or other officers of the Church: and utterly take away her right of patronage in all ecclesiastical livings.  
9 They dissolve all ecclesiastical laws, and all those statutes, that concern Bishops, or other Ministers, or other ecclesiastical livings, person, or cause.  
10 They deny that her Majesty may pardon, and grant life to any offender, 
Fenneri Theologia.  whom Moses law commandeth to be put to death, and bind her to the observance of Moses judicial laws.  
11 They seek the ruin and overthrow of the whole ecclesiastical estate, by abasing the Ministers of the Church beneath all others, and laying infinite burdens upon them, and taking away all rewards of learning, a point, which you my masters of the university are to look unto.  
12 By overthrowing of the Ecclesiastical state, they do deprive her Majesty of many thousands of able and most willing men to do her service, and make way to inward faction, and foreign invasion, and all manner of heresies, and disorders.  
13 They teach, 
Th' Cartw. reply.  that all magistrates are to lick the dust of the feet of the Eldership,  
14 They go about to bring in foreign laws, and foreign and uncouth governors.  
15 They teach that in every common wealth well governed, 
Fenners holy divinity.  there ought some magistrates to be appointed, to depose and overrule princes, if they do not their duties, like the Spartain Ephori.  
16 They teach that the prince may not determine any weighty matter, 
Ibidem.  without the assembly of the estates.  
17 They deprave the ecclesiastical government, 
Martin.  and religion of this Church, and call it antichristian, and devilish.  
18 They traduce the public justice of this land, 
Martin, and Epist. before reformat. no enemy.  and rail against the parliament, the lords, the judges, the laws, and whatsoever misliketh them,  
19 They have confederated themselves together, 
That is evident by their subscriptions.  for the over. throwing of the ecclesiastical laws, and state, and have subscribed certain articles for the establishment of new laws, and government.  
20 Cartwright, and Egerton, seem to have had intelligence with Copinger, one of Hackets prophets: as for Wigginton, it is apparent that he was a chief slirrer in that action.  
21 Being convented for divers misdemeanours, they refuse the ordinary trials of law.  
22 In the Universities, by bringing in the study of Ramus writings, a man ignorant in Logic, and arts, and fantastical in all actions, they have almost overthrown all good learning; by studying of naked comments, all sound divinity.  
23 In living lewdly themselves, 
Rescij in ministromach. & Sanderus de schismate, & Rosseus.  and by infamous libels disgracing the ministery, they have given advantage to the enemy, and brought religion into contempt.  
24 They are but made instruments by some persons to work the spoil of the Church, whereof they are like to have small part.  
25 In all places where this discipline is settled, they have overthrown the authority of the Magistrate, the state of the Church, and universities.  
26 Nay by divers strange positions, they go about to bring in divers heresies.  
27 They have in their lewd 
1 In their new Communion book.  paraphrase upon the Creed, taken out two Articles out of the Creed, viz. that of Christ's burial, and of his descending into hell, and have added a new Article of their discipline.  
28 They affirm, that hatred as it is an attribute in God, 
2 Fenner Theolog. lib. 1.  is the essence of God: and teach very badly, of the essence and persons.  
29 Penrie holdeth, that Christ jesus is the word preached.  
30 They do generally believe, that the word read, is but a dead letter, and no ordinary means to engender faith: which is the opinion of the 
3 Bozius in libr. de signis ecclesiae.  papists.  
31 Martin doth scoff at the holy virgin Saint Mary, and Saint Peter, and calleth them Sir Peter, and Sir Mary in scorn. and maketh a scoff both at government, and religion.  
32 In leaving the study of fathers and ancient writers, and school learning, all the puritans are become verbal divines, without soundmatter.  
33 To prove their devices, they have offered great violence to the holy scriptures, expounding them contrary both to ancient fathers, and histories, and common reason: as namely their common places alleged out of the 18. of Matthew 1. Timothy 5. Romans 12.1. Corinthians 12. Ephesians 4. upon the false interpretation of nine or ten places all their devices do stand.  
34 Themselves do not agree, either in the exposition of these places, or in their rules concerning the presbytery.  
35 Some interpret the words, If thy brother offend against thee, of private offences, others of public offences, others of both.  
36 The Elders that are mentioned in the 14 of the Acts, some expound Ministers of the word, others churchaldermen.  
37 The words Dic Ecclesiae, some expound of the Consistory, others of the Synod, others of the conferences.  
38 Themselves confess, that they are not resolved in many points. I have set down otherwhere infinite matters, which they can never resolve.  
39 Themselves do many ways contrary to their discipline. they condemn the reading of Apocrypha in the Church, yet do they allow verbal sermons, wherein often times fall out strange doctrines, and many uncharitable discourses. which no man is so senseless, I think, as to prefer before the Apocryphal scriptures, that are read in the Church. They interpret Caluins' Catechism, and other such like books, which they cannot show to be canonical.  
40 They teach, that he that beareth not the Church, is to be accounted a heathen, and publican, yet do they not so accept him, when the Synod judgeth contrary to the Consistory.  
41 They say, that every Church hath equal right, yet the parishes about Geneva have no Consistories, nor doctors, nor execution of discipline, but depend upon them of the city of Geneva.  
42 They say, no man may enter the ministery without lawful calling: yet have Th. C. and Wat. Tr. and divers of this sort, here taken upon them the ministery without lawful calling, and intruded into others charges, to the great disturbance of God's Church.  
43 In Bishops and other ministers of this Church, they condemn the mingling of matters civil and ecclesiastical, and account the same unlawful, yet do none meddle with matters of state, more than this faction, yea divers of them do deal in base trades.  
44 Here they condemn civil honours in ecclesiastical persons, yet is Beza one of the chief men, both for revenues, and honour in the kingdom of Geneva: and our puritanes receive his letters like Apollo's Oracles.  
45 At Geneva and in all this new government, lay men intrude into church government, and are made aldermen and Deacons.  
46 They condemn the authority of Bishops here, yet do they give their consistories twice so large authority. for here Bishops can do nothing but according to law; there as oft as it shall please the Consistory, without law or colour, they may turn out all their Ministers, and pastors to seek pasture other where.  
47 Here they teach that Doctors, and pastors are distinct officers: yet at Geneva, Beza is both pastor, and doctor. and others have sustained both offices.  
48 All of them do hold, 
Fruitful sermon.  that widows and deacons are members of Christ's body, as they stick not to avow; and yet in no churches have they widows, nor ecclesiastical deacons, but only certain counterfeit almesgatherers, that are good for nothing, but to stand with a box at the Church door: wherein the living, and hope of many poor pastors in divers places consisteth.  
49 In the disciplinarian kingdom, the Ministers commonly live in extreme contempt, and poverty, so that few of worth take on them the calling. which if order be not taken, will be the ruin of religion.  
50 By the ordinances of Geneva, only the Ministers life in their visitations is looked unto, and no article set down for inquiry of others conversation: so that it appeareth, that this discipline is nothing, but a devise for the abasing, and overthrow, and treading under feet of the ministery of the Gospel.  
51 There is no means given to the ministers to maintain themselves, much less their wives and children. awake therefore you my masters of the Church. your enemies seek your ruin.  
52 All matters wherein is breach of charity, the Consistories do take upon them to order: and to moderate rigorous dealing in law. this toucheth your freehold, my masters, that study the common laws.  
53 They take on them to moderate likewise all rigorous dealing in private contracts: which concerneth all merchants, and men of trade very nearly.  
54 They take upon them to appoint what rewards shall be given to learning, and how long they shall enjoy them: and yet you my masters of the University do favour these conceits, which are the ruin of yourselves, and your succession.  
55 They give the managing of Church goods, into the hands of men of occupation, and make the Ministers to depend on their devotion. a matter not to encourage, but to discourage all men of learning.  
56 In the rules of French discipline, it is enacted by the Synodical assembly, that no Minister shall possess lands, houses, or tithes: wherein they declare, that Ministers must live on alms, and their wives and children be turned on begging. what man then hath not good cause to detest this odious discipline, that doth not only overthrow the ministery, but the marriage of Ministers also by a necessary consequent?  
57 Finally, to shut up all in one Article, these men if they be not looked into, will overthrow religion, her majesties authority, the honour of the state, the rewards of learning, the study of arts, and divinity, both the universities, the hope of virtue, the laws of England, and many private men's interests: I would say, the Church also, but that every man is desirous, that the same may he ruinated. but let them that seek the spoils of others, take heed that they be not afterward made a spoil themselves. It is a common saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and oftentimes the spoilers are spoiled.  
If I should prosecute the whole course of their proceed, and lay it down in Articles, as the Libeler hath begun, I should but weary you with needless repetitions, as the Libeler hath done already. this is sufficient, to show unto you, that we want not Articles against these fellows, whensoever their cause shall come to audience: yea, Articles material, and concludent, and far unlike to the frivolous, and ridiculous Articles devised by the Libeler. His Articles have no sequel: judge I pray you, and consider of them. all of them tend to this end, to show that some of the Ecclesiastical state have offended against laws in small trifles, and are to be punished, which were it granted, yet doth it not follow, that a new government is to be embraced, and the state altered, which is his principal desire and seeking. Contrariwise, our Articles do show, that both their government is unjust and disordered, and their opinions lewd, and fantastical, and their practices seditious, and therefore neither to be tolerated: which is that, which not only we desire, but the peaceable maintenance of the state requireth and enforceth. And I doubt not, but all those that give themselves to the study of laws, or other learning, or favour the state, considering these matters will hereafter discern, who they are that would overthrow her majesties laws; and that not in vain, divers have gone about to withstand their lewd proceed.  
Having made an end of his Articles he declareth, That his purpose was only to redeem her majesties laws from captivity of the clergy. But he abuseth first his reader (for his whole book declareth that his purpose was rather to overthrow laws, then to establish them) & secondly the whole ministery of of the Church, whom he chargeth with suppressing of laws, when all men know, that their only desire is that laws may be executed. He would also make them more base and odious; and yet nothing can be more contemptible, & miserable, than they have made the whole ministery, by their odious practices. For wealth and riches, merchants, artificers, & husbandmen commonly go beyond them. Few leave any thing behind them. they pay four times more to her majesty than any state of men, that are most charged, & pay it most willingly. They are wronged of every man. what would these men have more, unless they seek their lives? how than did he not shame to say, that the clergy keepeth her majesties laws in captivity? or how shamed he not to speak of captivity, seeing not they, but the Lords of the consistory keep laws, ministers, subjects, yea princes in captivity? Travers in his book against Bridges, doth vaunt, that they had already brought divers princes under their yoke, and excommunicated them. They say as the Pope said, that they have power to give over all princes to satan: to bring in their constitutions, they would overthrow all laws. their only will against all laws must prevail. He further calleth the Clergy, carnal worldlings. He I say, whose works are fleshly, & whofe consorts are swollen with surfeit, and whose portion is in this world, calleth others, carnal worldlings, and as if he were in a bedlam fit, crieth out in his lunatic style: O England England, how long wilt thou endure these carnal worldlings? A strange matter, that such presumptuous companions should either dare, or daring be suffered, to rail against the whole ministery, or that any that is in the ministery, or toward it, should favour this faction, that bendeth all their force against learned men and Ministers: or finally, that any should either imagine, that these men did intend reformation; or endure to hear such lewd companions, to call themselves authors of reformation. can malicious libeling, seditious practices, counterfeit hypocrisy, notorious cruelty exceeding pride and vanity stand with reformation? no, no. and therefore let this libeler, that desireth to have faithful true English hearted men to examine these things, obtain his purpose. and let them examine, both the ecclesiastical state, and these hypocritical pretenders of reformation, what bribe's they have taken, what extortion they have committed, what tenants they have racked, what they have purchased, what they have spent in riot, what lands they have received from their ancestors, what they have left to their successors, what offices they have borne, what wrongs they have done; & I doubt not, but all the factious sort will soon repent them of this course. especially when it shall be showed, that their hearts are scarce English, that misliking all English laws, embrace a pack of outlandish vanities, & that they seek nothing, but the desolation both of church & country, & the overthrow of her majesties laws, & honour, and the confusion of the universities, and all men of learning.  
And thus much sufficeth to have answered concerning the petitioners articles: resteth now that I answer also his interogatories, and questions, that he may be the better satisfied, and you may the better conceive of the man's ignorance and malice. If divers things be again repeated: and rubbed over, blame not me, but blame the babbling fellow, that drew me to it. seeing he objecteth, I could do no less, than answer. you that have heard his demands with patience, hear I pray you, my answer, he calleth himself Putcase: under the name of Putcase, you shall hear the sum of his demands, and questions.   

CERTAIN questions AND INTERROgatories, 
Putcase.  drawn by a favourer of reformation, etc. Wherein he desireth to be resolved: which the Printer hath thought good here to annex.  
THe course is very odious, and not to be suffered. 
Answer.  for if every lewd questioner might frame cases against religion, or laws, neither shall religion, nor law maintain due credit. And if every libeler might lawfully make demands, sounding to the infamy of governors and magistrates, and their doings be traduced by infamous interrogatories: it would work in short time great hatred and confusion. His first fault therefore is this, that he frameth an articulate infamous libel. A second fault it is, that such lewd and shameful practices are notwithstanding said to be drawn by a favourer of reformation: as if there were no difference betwixt slandering and reforming. A third fault he committeth, in affirming these questions, to be annexed by the Printer. But the greatest fault is, that such shameful libels are commonly sold, and the authors passed over without punishment.  
Quaere, first, whether justice Wray did not affirm, 
Putcase. Quaest. 1.  that men should incur no penalty for opinions which they held doubtingly: and whether a man may not without breach of law, make Quaerees and doubts: whether I may not be a Putcase.  
I have inquired of those, 
Answer.  that were present at the time when these words are pretended to be spoken: and they do assure me, that he never uttered any such words. which I have no reason to doubt of. for it is not probable, that so reverend and learned a judge should maintain or deliver so strange an assertion. for in matters fundamental of faith, to doubt is heresy, as all divines do agree. And in external matters the Apostle saith, that whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. And who would not detest him, that would make a doubt, whether these disciplinarians be impious and flagitious fellows that affirm it to be lawful to make doubts and questions in those cases? The very Pagans were far more reasonable than this impious Putcase. For the Athenians banished 
1 Cic. de nature. Deor.  Protagoras, for doubting whether there were a God or no. As for matters of state, I doubt not, but whosoever shall doubt and make a question, and not categorically affirm, that her Majesty hath right to her crown, and is supreme Governor within her dominions in all causes, and over all persons, is a rank traitor. Let therefore Pierce Putcase look to it a little better, and clear himself of doubting and questioning, lest he be taken for a traitor out of doubt. To come to the matter in question: it is also evident, that whosoever doth make questions, to the diffamation either of the government or governors, or of private persons living in obedience of laws, he is to be punished as a libeler. And therefore I would wish the man to shut up himself in a case, & to take heed that he be not taken abroad. For he will be in a very bad case, for his libeling and putting of cases, if ever his reveling against her Majesty, her ecclesiastical laws, her officers, and many other good men shall come in scanning.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 2.  whether the form of prayers & administration of sacraments, attire of ministers, & other ceremonies in England, do more agree to the Apostolical and primitive order, or to the use of the Romish church, & whether popish orders be more seemly than the Apostolic?  
The questioner supposeth, that I will answer that, 
Answer.  which maketh for his purpose, not doubting but to cut us down with the next blow. But in vain doth he feed himself with his own conceit. For I answer, and will show, that our liturgy and ceremonies agree nearer to the liturgy and ceremonies of the primitive Church, then to the popish orders. And that is apparent, first in quality: for that we have purged out all idolatry & superstition, & false doctrine, in which the papists do most differ from the ancient Church. Secondly, in form. For as the jews had readings of the law, & certain hymns and prayers interposed: so no doubt the Apostles kept the reading of scriptures, with prayers interposed: which form we keep. the papists keep not. The papists read no scriptures, and have other forms of prayers. Thirdly, in the language, for as in ancient time, so now we use our mother tongue. Nay, further, we come nearer in our forms to the primitive church, than the consistorial orders. For they have no set reading of scrptures nor form of liturgy, as they had in the times of the first fathers, and are so unlike them, that they have abolished all the orders of the ancient Church. They have no set prayers, but leave all to the discretion of their speaker, as they call him: who conceiveth prayers either so confused that they are not understood, or so uncharitable, that a true Christian may not say Amen. Contrariwise, ancient counsels decreed, that no prayers should be said in the church, but such as first should by common authority be allowed. And albeit, apparel is a matter indifferent, yet in public liturgy, we come nearer to the Apostolic Church: whereas the puritanes have abolished all Apostolic orders, as they have abolished all Apostolic government. To the last part of the question, whether popish ceremonies be more decent than Apostolical: I answer, that where they are contrary, there the Apostolic is more decent. But I deny, that either the new consistorial government, or the ceremonies by the same appointed, are Apostolical: or that our ceremonies are papistical. Nay I say, that their new orders are not Apostolical, but fantastical, and that our government is Apostolical. neither shall they ever be able to prove the contrary.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 3.  whether our rites and ceremonies do not give offence to the papists: and whether indifferent things causing offence ought not by Paul's doctrine, to be removed out of the Church?  
Whether they give offence to the papists or no, 
Answer.  we are not to respect, nor to omit ancient and Apostolic orders to please them. To good men the use of our ceremonies cannot give just offence. Nay rather, the confusion of the new government, and absurdity in the new liturgy giveth offence. for it confirmeth the papists in their opinion, and offendeth all that are coming forward to join with us. For they see not how that can be the Church that refuseth all ancient government and ceremonies, and is nothing but a bundle of novelties. And therefore in vain is the latter part of the question propounded, whether matters that give offence be by S. Paul's doctrine to be removed? for we deny that our ceremonies do give offence.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 4.  whether the square cap, surplice etc. condemned in general by the Queen's Injunctions, bishops articles, and doctrine of England, and other Churches, misliked by Bullinger, Alasco, Bucer, Pilkington, Bale, and other learned men, be decent and comely for a preacher: and being uncomely, whether they should not be abolished out of the Church?  
First it is denied, 
Answer.  that the attire of ministers in England now, is condemned by the Queen's injunctions, or bishops articles, or doctrine of England. A shameless man was he, that affirmed it so impudently, and so to be credited accordingly. for the contrary is evident, both by doctrine of the Church, and law of the realm. And never shall this bold bayardlike Putcase prove them, either to be monuments of popery, or defiled with idolatry: let him begin when he wil What other Churches mislike in themselves, we do not curiously inquire. if they were not too curious, they would no more meddle with us, than we do with them. At least, they would remember, that all Churches are equal, if they say true. As for the learned men that are named, and others, they may speak what they please of Popish apparel: it concerneth us nothing. But that they have condemned the apparel of ministers now used in England, it cannot be showed of the most learned. Nay, the opinions of Bullinger, Bucer, Gualther, and others are to be showed to the contrary. Of the rest, the authority is not so great, as may weigh down the orders of our Church without reason. Finally, what is seemly, what not, neither Beza nor his followers, are any judges in matters concerning our Church. In this Church this apparel is thought decent: and therefore let the new-fangled Disciplinarians wear their Flatcaps, and Russet cloaks, and go disguise like good fellows, that come from the Cart, or from the market, and so content themselves. Why we should refuse our ancient orders, or follow them in their new fooleries, as yet, we see no reason.  
Quaere, if Majors, Bailiffs, Stage players, and others, 
Putcase. Quest. 5.  may not as well be forced to subscribe to the Bishops three Articles, by the statute of 1. Elizab. c. 1. as Ministers, seeing the Statute urged by Doctor Bridges to that purpose, doth reach to them as well as Ministers?  
This is a Question put to disgrace subscription, 
Answer.  by a man that neither alloweth the Queen's supremacy, nor Communion book, nor Articles of religion. And therefore he iumbleth bishops, majors, & stage-players together, setting forth his folly as it were on a stage: for which if he had his desert, he would be brought to play a part on another kind of stage. Why ministers (& not these) should subscribe the reason is, for that they teach others, & must be known to be sound of religion: the others teach not. And the same is confirmed by divers laws and practice of all Churches: neither doth Doctor Bridges give the least occasion, for him to ground his doubt upon him. Surely a Stageplayer may easily show more wit and modesty, than this piled Putcase.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 6.  whether Bishops upon occasion prescribing certain prayers to be said, besides the prayers in the Communion book, do not offend against their own Articles, and the Statute of public Prayer: and ought not therefore to deal more mercifully with their brethren offending in like quality?  
A profound question: 
Answer.  & yet of no man asked, but of those that sin of malice. for who knoweth not, that the statute of public prayer provideth against the malicious contemners of the Communion book, such as the Papists & Puritans are: who think they can conceive extemporal prayers far passing the reach of that book, and bring in new Liturgies; and not against such as allow that book, defend it and use it, and only add some Prayers, according to the diversity of occasions and times, being also authorized thereto by her Majesty, and doing the same according to Law. But this wicked fellow is loath that any should pray for the Queen, or against the Spaniards: else would he not condemn it. 
Putcase. Quest. 7.   
Whether are not the Questions and Answers at the baptizing of Infants in the Communion book, like to the questions of the Marcionites, that baptised the quick for the dead, 
Chrysost. in 1. Corinth. 15.  one answering from under the bed, where the dead lay.  
The last Interrogatory was for the Communion book, 
Answer.  this is against it: of so contrary pieces this work is wrought. But if the Putcase that framed this question mean to prove any thing, he must show some better reason. For there is not like reason in answering for Infants & for dead men. Those are to be baptised, these not: those have saith in habit, these are passed. Neither is it strange, if he that undertaketh for the child's education, doth answer for it. The Ceremony is ancient, and not lightly to be esteemed, unless like to these new-fangled Innovators we mean to bid war to all Antiquity, and plainly with them to run into manifold new heresies.  
Quaere, whether with safe conscience, 
Putcase. Quest. 8.  a man may subscribe to the Communion book, that it containeth nothing contrary to scriptures, seeing the translation of the Psalms differeth from the truth of the Hebrew, in 200 places or more?  
It is out of question, 
Answer.  that the Consistorian faction denieth not to subscribe to that book, because of the faults in the translation of Psalms, but for other matters which they would hide under this goodly gloss: for by the like reason they might deny to subscribe to the Bible, seeing the Genevian Bible doth differ much from the original text: yet they use and embrace it, and have none other divinity, than the Genevian phrase. Further, I say, that it is not the meaning of those that require subscription, to confirm either errors of translation, or of the print: and therefore they do but cavil without cause, and object this without ground. But suppose, the intendment of subscription were strictly to tie men to the words of that book, (whether they were well couched or not:) yet will it not fall out in reckoning, that there are more faults in the translation of the Psalms, then in the Genevian Bible. Whether there be or no, this Putcase cannot tell: for he understandeth not the tongue, neither shall his companions ever be able to justify either two hundred, or one fault contrary to the analogy of faith.  
Quaere, whether it be agreeable to God's word or law, 
Putcase. Quest. 9  to punish Libelers with return of Libels, Ribaldry etc. and whether Martin offending in libeling, they offend not, that made the Almond for Parrot, Martin's months mind etc.  
Whatsoever those did, that answered Martin's ribauldry-bookes, 
Answer.  they did it of their own heads, without either knowledge or allowance of their superiors: and therefore let them answer themselves. and I doubt not but they will answer reason; for it is nothing so great a fault to answer, as to make challenge. And further they will say, their books be very honest and civil in respect of Martin's Atheistical Libels. For he raileth against laws, against governors, and against men in authority: they revel only against Martin and his barking curs, and according to their reach do speak for the laws. He wickedly sporteth with religion and matters of State: these only play with Martin's dizardry, and his dizardlike companions. If this Questioner reply and ask, why are they not called in? it may be answered, that if he will make himself party, & show any thing in them against religion or law, they will be called in: yea & some of them have been called in, and others of a more biting style and nature have been stayed. If he can show no such thing, it will be thought, that this kind of vain (considering the intolerable pride & haughtiness of that faction) is fittest to answer such scurrilous Puritans. and so fit it seemed to me, that if some had not thought otherwise, I would also have commended this Petition, with the Articles and Interogatories annexed, to their answering. for such biting stuff is to be answered by those that will rebite again. First then I answer, that the books which were written against Martin, are more tolerable & witty, then Martin, although they were not allowed. secondly, that it is as absurd for Libelers to complain of libeling, as dogs that bite, of biting: those that go to wars in this sort, must look for blows again. And lastly, that not only Martin's mad devices, but also this sycophants writings are against law, yea, against common humanity.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 10.  of Math. Sutcliffe (who is always carping at master Cartwrightes purchase) why master 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 Rent, wasting of Woods, and such like Stratagems wax rich and purchase great Lordships for their posterity?  
Seeing you ask of me this question, 
Answer.  I take myself bound to answer you, especially having undertaken to answer many other questions, as impertinent and bad as this. Pleaseth it then master Putcase to understand, that I do not carp always, no nor once at master Cartwrights' purchase. Let him purchase and buy at pleasure: I hinder him not, I envy him not. Only thus much I must tell him, as I did once, that Tho. Cartwright, a man that hath more Lands of his own in possession, than any Bishop that I know, and that fareth daintily every day, and feedeth fair and fat, and lieth as soft as any tenderling of that brood, and hath won much wealth in short time, and will leave more to his posterity, than any Bishop: should cry out either of persecution, or of excess of Bishop's livings: whose poverty I might, but I will not disclose. Secondly, that he is a most happy man, that with selling a cottage and so much ground as would scarce graze three goslings, worth at the uttermost but twenty Nobles yearly, can purchase two or three hundred marks land: and gladly would I learn that secret. Thirdly, that seeing he hath such authority with a pack of Sots that follow him, that every word of his should be deemed good law: there is no reason, why he should complain of the superiority that is in our governors, and yet continue his bitter invectives against the State. As long as he repenteth not himself, of the wrong that he hath offered to the church, nor renounceth his fond conceits of discipline, nor forbeareth to maintain a confederacy to revel against all such as are well affected to the State; he must look not only to be carped at, but also to be lanced, if he be not otherwise dealt withal, If he keep himself private, and seek not to advance himself by pillage of the Church, I for my part will let him alone: neither shall his Friar-like begging, nor his covetous dealing with his Hospital, nor his disloyal dealing with his good friends, nor his Usury, nor any other matters be touched or carped at. To the question therefore I answer, that it is neither lawful for Tho. Cartwright, nor for Bishops to wax rich and purchase by Extortion, and Bribery, no, nor Usury, nor Friponnerie, nor by any unlawful practice. And therefore if he know any Bishops that he can charge with Simony, Bribery, Extortion, Racking of Rents, Wasting of woods, etc. let him name them: I defend them not. Only thus much I say, that for one whom he can prove guilty among his adversaries, there will be found twenty among his friends most guilty, viz. Pillars of the people, Raveners of the poor, and Spoilers of their country: and among these, certain Quidammet companions, living all by scraping of quills, that have by force and fraud won great wealth: besides other Pettifoggers and parasites, that have purchased more, than any bishop in England: and yet not so much as this Putcase, for he may percase purchase to himself a gibbet, for reveling at laws and governors: at least he may purchase shame for abusing men of honour so shamefully.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 11.  whether the Bishops that affirm it is unlawful to give livings (appointed to Ministers) to Lay men: and Doctor Bridges affirming, that a Priest is Lord of her Majesty: or Doctor Bancroft, that affirmeth her Majesty to be a Petit-Pope, do not diffame her Majesty, and be not therefore Felons? 
Answer.   
The slanderous and shameless reports and opinions of the Puritans concerning the things touched in this question, I have refelled before. Now it will be sufficient to say, that this Sycophant belieth these good men: and if he be not therefore a Felon, yet is he a lying companion: and unless he use the matter better, he will neither clear himself of Felony nor Treason. For he and his companions are most guilty in those crimes, which he would impute to others. They teach that things once 
1 Complaint of the commonalty. c. 6.  consecrate to God for the service of the church, belong to him for ever. Appropriations & the spoil of Abbey lands, they call 
2 Admonit. p. 33.  sacrilege. Unto the revenues of the church they challenge immunity, & impositions laid upon them, they call 
3 Eccles. disciple. p. 87.  impiety & barbarism. Martin saith, that they which challenge ecclesiastical superiority, such as the Queen hath, are Petie-popes': & all of them do teach, that Princes are subject to the jurisdiction of the Consistory, which things how they may be taught by good subjects, I do think, our platformers will take some large time to declare.  
Quaere, whether those that say, 
Putcase. Quaest. 12.  the oath of supremacy importeth that her Majesty may devise what government she pleaseth, be not malicious persons: and those that yield to the oath with the exposition, good subjects.  
Who be malicious persons, 
Answer.  and who be good or disloyal subjects, appeareth in part, by this treatise: but especially by the disloyal and malicious treatises and practices of Puritans: and therefore this is a vain and doltish question. The Injunctions surmisse those to be malicious, which think that a Popedom is attributed to her Majesty by the word of supremacy: such are the Papists, and the Puritan hypocrites. for both do hold, that we do and may aswell give unto her authority to preach & minister the sacraments, as the points of her supremacy. The law reputeth none for good subjects, but those that acknowledge the several points of her majesties supremacy, as power to make ecclesiastical laws, to appoint ecclesiastical Commissioners, & so forth, which the Puritans deny: and therefore by law and the Injunctions they are reputed malicious persons. That any man did say, her Majesty might simply do as she list in government of the church, is not probable, nor ever did she desire it, nor can the Libeler prove it. Only she desireth, that according to the laws of God and the Realm, as she and the learned judges do interpret them, and as the words do signify, she may rule the Church. This they do deny, and do attribute this power to the factious Consistory: and therefore are factious Puritans.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 13.  whether the Archbishops of Canterbury should not rather be called Popes, then Primates of all England, seeing that a Cardinal gave them the name of Primate, as master Lambert saith, and a Pope assigned them the name of Popes?  
Hear I must also ask the Putcase a question or two: viz. 
Answer.  why Tho. Cartwright is not called Tho. Wheelewright, seeing he would turn all round as a wheel: and why W. Staw. is not called john Daw? like reason is in both. Names are given, some by Law, some gotten by use. And therefore seeing Archbishopsare called Primates, ever since before the council of Carthage: great absurdity it is to dispute, whether the Archbishop should be so called or no. And far was master Lambert from his reckoning, when he imagined the Cardinal Hugo to be author of that name. Neither can he show, that the Archbishop was ever called Pope by Vrban, before the factious Puritans in their railing vain devised that name for him in scorn. But whatsoever was given sometime, or now is in scorn cast on him, he renounceth the name Pope for the abuse of it, and is far from claiming the Papal authority. If he had the authority either of the Pope, or of a mean Bishop, yet durst not every Sycophant play with his name and style, neither would such base fellows so shamefully abuse him. He ruleth by laws: he deriveth his authority from her Majesty: he can do no man wrong: he is utter enemy to all papal authority. Contrariwise, the Lords of the consistory take on them like Popes to judge in Christ's seat, to be Christ's vicar's, to control and excommunicate Princes, to dissolve States, to give law to Kings, to throw to hell: and no man may once speak against them where they rule, without danger of their liberty and life. These therefore are pope's in deed: and seeing they are so, why may they not be called also Popes, seeing they are dubbed with this name by divers?  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 14.  if Wickleffe, Luther, Caluin etc. were now alive, and should speak against the Lordship of Bishops, as they do in their writings, to which prison the Bishops would send them: and whether do books seen and allowed, contain matters of Felony, and diffamatory to the Queen?  
Quaere also, 
Answer.  if the sky should fall, where would be best catching of woodcocks? both questions are alike. For as the sky will not fall in haste, so would not these learned men mentioned in this question ever open their mouths against godly men, or the state & degree of bishops. That is only proper to the foulemouthed puritanes. They speak against the tyranny and vanities of popish bishops with whom our puritanes do not much meddle, but rather treacherously strike good soldiers that fight against them. Our puritanes declaim against holy bishops of times past, and preachers of the holy Gospel, such as those learned men never condemned. Let the libeler (if he can) bring forth one place, which is not meant of papistical bishops. And therefore let them go to the Fleet themselves, as mutinous companions: the fellowship of those learned men they cannot have. whose books although they be allowed for diverse good things found in them, yet can it be no warrant for the platformers high styled declamations, nor any justification for that which is evil. For there can be nothing more unlike, than bishop Latimers' book, and Cartwrightes replies defacing the bishops. Neither are the words seen and allowed sufficient to warrant seditious writings. For sometimes printers are too bold, sometime the authors, sometime the correctors: and it cannot be denied but in Wickleffes books there be faults. Chaucer and Reynold the Fox are allowed to be printed, and many books more, for the good they have, not that any part of the lewdness of them is allowed. And therefore let the Putcase leave pleading of seen and allowed, seeing we can neither see his consorts much, nor allow them, nor approve whatsoever by their favourers is printed, though it be with seen and allowed.  
Quaere, why papists should find more favour, 
Putcase. Quaest. 15.  them the seekers of reformation, and why they should not be condemned as felons, for their abominable doctrine?  
If all should be punished, 
Answer.  that maintain abominable doctrine, it would go very hard with the puritanes, whose heretical and lewd opinions are very many and very abominable. The particulars I have in part touched before, and shall (if need be) lay them down more amply elsewhere. Let not therefore this Putcase repine at her majesties clemency, wherein her special honour consisteth: & seeing they enjoy it & live by it themselves, let them not envy it to others. That papists are more favoured than puritanes, is a bold and impudent assertion. for it is well known that divers of them have been executed, some as traitors, some as felons, others have paid for it as recusants: whereas none of this faction have been punished in like degree, save Hacket: albe it they deny her majesties supremacy, & many of them refuse to come to church. If there be any that have favoured papists, let them sustain the shame of it. for the ecclesiastical state hath been most diligent to suppress them, whereas contrariwise by entreaty, favour & means made by puritanes, & by some one, that hath his finger in this petition, many have been dismissed. First therefore, I answer, that it is untrue, that papists find favour more than puritanes. Secondly, that the favour which is procured for them, proceeded specially from puritanes and their favourers. Thirdly, that neither of them both deserveth favour. Fourthly, that seeing her majesties pleasure is, to show them favour for their lives, they are not to repine at it, nor malepertly to traduce her doings. Lastly that the puritanes in terms do more maliciously oppugn her majesties proceed & ecclesiastical laws, than the most treacherous papists that are fled for the same out of the land. And that therefore they are to quiet themselves, and not to stir in this their bad cause. for the more it is opened, the worse it savoureth.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 16.  if the bishops proceed against men per ordinem inquisitionis, do not resemble the papal order in the time of cruelty?  
Nothing is less like, 
Answer.  for the judges now proceed by authority of her Majesty, and according to her laws, and yet are abused by every base fellow. In times past they proceeded by other authority, and by orders from the Popes, & then no man durst abuse them. These punish according to the Queen's laws: those according to their directions. Neither is the inquisition, which we have, derived from the pope, but used of all nations, contrariwise the inquisition of the consistory is like to the Spanish inquisition, & the papal proceeding. For as in the Spanish inquisition, so in the consistory a man is called, knoweth no accuser, and whether he confess or not, he is sure to abide the order of the consistory, and what they command, the civil judge performeth. And therefore if all must away, whatsoever is borrowed from the pope, away must the consistory go, and their excommunication of princes, and their absolute tyranny.  
Quaere, if Christ were before the bishops, & should answer, 
Putcase. Quaest. 17.  being demanded of his doctrine, I spoke openly etc. Ask them that heard me, whether he should be committed, as M. Bambridge, M. johnson, and other godly ministers?  
This question touching johnson and Bambridge concerneth the ecclesiastical state nothing at all. 
Answer.  For their cause was heard and ended at Cambridge, before the Vicechanceller and his assistants: so that it should seem to be a case put beside the cause in handling. But in the same we may see, that these fellows mean no less to overthrow the state, privileges, and jurisdiction of the Universities: then of the bishops. Mark it therefore you my masters of the Universities: These fellows whom you foster in your bosoms, mean to touch your freehold also, neither can they conceal their malice against all men of learning. To answer this absurd question, I say that I cannot choose but wonder, that any should be so blasphemous and wicked, as to compare Christ jesus the son of God, unto johnson, a factious companion, and a wicked heretic. Out of Cambridge he was expulsed, for his mutinous Sermon, and other lewd behaviour. From thence he went to Middleborough, a retreat of such kind of fellows. There he declined into Barrowisme, wherein he now continueth, having augmented his opinions with many new fancies of his own. Bambridge a man somewhat wiser than johnson, yet neither to be compared with Christ, nor any very discreet or modest Christian. Christ never declaimed against the state of priests, nor did he spread new doctrines, nor did he spurn against governors. These have done all these things, and it is the common practice of all such as be of this sort. Christ did not refuse to answer directly, and confessed, that he was the son of God. These stand not upon their innocency, but upon terms of law. Neither doth the example of our Saviour fit them. For he being asked of his doctrine in general, could not otherwise answer then in general: These refuse to answer in particular points, which he did never: and therefore justly were committed. A matter justifiable both by the laws of God, & also the laws civil, canon, and common. If being to answer in the Star Chamber or Chancery unto certain articles, they should answer, That they delivered nothing but publicly, and will the examiner to ask them that heard and saw, they would be sent to other places to advise upon the matter. Further I say, it will not fall out in proof, that those men which have been convented before the high Commissioners in causes ecclesiastical, are either godly or wise, or ministers: & therefore false it is, that he affirmeth them to be godly ministers, and very scandalous to the state, whom he setteth forth as a state persecuting Christ jesus: whereas in deed these men by defacing the Church, and the governors thereof, by teaching of erroneous doctrine, and by raising of stirs about a new government, which was never heard of in Christ's Church, do show themselves enemies of Christ, of his Church, and of his Gospel: and therefore together with johnson of whom themselves are now ashamed, to be cast out of the Church, unless they show more signs of amendment.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 18.  if by the judicial laws, by the Court in Chancery or Star Chamber, any man be forced to swear, before he know the cause, (at least in general) whereunto he is to take his oath.  
Suppose a man should grant so much, 
Answer.  albeit the use be not always so: what will he conclude? That the high commissioners proceed contrary to law? His purpose is so to do, but his argument will not so conclude, unless he show, that they do not also declare in general the sum of the matter, to which every one is to answer. But that he cannot do: and therefore I return him back to his prompters, to frame his case better, and do reject him as alleging matters not concludent. In the mean while, let him understand thus much, that the proceeding of Ecclesiastical courts in exacting of oaths, is not only confirmed by all laws, but also by the practice of Geneva, the patriarchal sea of puritans.  
Quaere, whether Bishops be not bound to confirm children, 
Putcase. Quest. 19  aswell as Ministers to marry with a Ring? And whether may not popish young men, not being confirmed, refuse the Communion?  
He would conclude, 
Answer.  that because Bishops neglect some part of their duty, it is lawful for his consorts to break all laws. but the sequel is nought. That children are not confirmed, the fault is in parents that bring them not, & of these seducers that preach against confirmation, & not in Bishops. And therefore, if any refuse to receive the Communion, it is no reason he should receive benefit by his own negligence, but rather be punished for both faults. In that he joineth popish young men together with fantastical young Ministers, which refuse to marry with the Ring, he doth not amiss: for they do both consent in oppugning the state: and therefore are both to be punished: neither will the pleading of the Bishop's negligence (if any be) serve either of them.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 20.  whether an Ecclesiastical judge may punish Bristol for writing, that our Communion book is an apish imitation of the Mass-book: seeing the statute giveth only that authority to justices of peace? and whether Bristol depraving the Communion book, may be deprived of all his spiritual promotions for his first offence? etc. Item, whether the law doth not favour the puritan, as much as the papist.  
The case is absurdly put: 
Answer.  for it supposeth matters unprobable, as that Bristol should have certain spiritual promotions in England, & had only offended in speaking against the Communion book: whereas the man did wilfully fly out of his country for his mislike of the state, and practised divers treasons, and for the same being apprehended & committed to prison, died there. Only this thing is herein commendable, that puritans & papists are very fitly joined together in this case. Both deny the supremacy alike, both deprave the government-alike, both rail against our Communion book alike: and therefore (that all may be alike) both deserve to be used alike. To the question I answer, That the law accepteth not of persons, but whether Th. Cartwright, or Penrie, or Bristol, or Allen, or any other offend, it doth decree them to be punished, if they be caught. Neither have they wrong that are deprived of their ecclesiastical livings for their first offence in depraving the Communion book. For the statute doth not only authorize civil judges to proceed civilly, but also ecclesiastical judges to proceed to deprivation according to ecclesiastical laws. But this companion either did not read the statute, or would not report it. for then his falsehood should have appeared, and his calumniation in leaving a proviso out of the statute, should have been reproved. Concerning the Communion book, I say, it is not material what either Bristol, or this Putcase saith of it, being both enemies of the state, and lying without reason and conscience. The puritans have gone about to reform it: but their new book is such, as they may be greatly ashamed of it, being full of false doctrine, and favouring a fond and lose government, and fraught with most vain discourses and verbal speeches.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 21.  whether adultery is to be punished by the Ordinary, seeing the punishment thereof, without any saving to the spiritual court, is given by statute to justices of peace: and whether a man may be punished, by two corporal or pecuniary punishments, in two several Courts, for one and the same cause.  
The putcase trieth himself to be a very proper fellow, 
Answer.  to become a proctor & speaker in the behalf of adulterers, & fornicators. Percase it concerneth him nearer than I am aware of: but let him against the next time understand the case better, that he speaketh in. For it is a shame for a proctor, in these cases, not to understand the difference betwixt adultery & fornication; and also to say, that the law giveth the punishment of adultery to justices only. for in that statute, there is not so much as mention of adultery, but of bastardy. And how bastards may be gotten in lawful wedlock, he will hardly define, considering the Common law, which saith, that all children borne in matrimony, the husband being Intra quatuor maria, are lawful. For my part, so that adultery and fomication be punished severely, I do not care. That the statute doth not hinder the ecclesiastical judges proceeding it is evident: for that there is no clause to annul his course, neither is it the intendment of the statute to favour such lewd persons. But (saith he) it is no reason that one should be punished both in the ecclesiastical & civil courts for one fault. wherein he doth not only contrary us, but Th. Cartwright also, who giveth the cognition of felonies and treasons to his new consistory, and would have offenders herein, to acknowldge their faults there also: which is directly contrary to the statute laws. To answer his question, I deny that offenders, which are for incontinency convented, are twice punished for one fault. for both the Ecclesiastical and civil court, make up their full punishment. Neither do they against law, that for reasonable causes, the party consenting, do commute the penance. This I wots, if the ecclesiastical judges would deal, as some justices of peace have done in this case, that fornication & such matters should for the most part pass without examination, or controlment.  
Quaere, if any Ordinaries have contrived, promulgued, 
Putcase. Quest. 22.  and published Articles in his own name, without assent of her majestic under seal, and enforced her highness subjects to subscribe unto the same? and for not subscribing, have suspended or deprived them? & whether an Ordinary thus doing, 
25. H. 8. c. 19 1. Eliz. c. 1.  may not be imprisoned and fined at the Queen's pleasure.  
If the Putcase would have made any inquiry, 
Answer.  whether Th. Cartwright & his fellows have offended against the statute, prohibiting the making of ecclesiastical Canons, he might have found it out easily. For the acts are every where extant, & their doings known. And yet are they not fined, nor all of them imprisoned for it. Neither do the ecclesiastical Ordinaries refuse to be punished, if they can be convicted of any such notorious offence. The subscriptions, which have been required, were no new laws, as these fellows conceive, but confirmations and allowances of the old & yet nothing hath been herein done, but by allowance. As for the proceedings used against the Consistorialls, they have been most mild and gentle, not for denial of subscription (as this man pretendeth) but for other factious, seditious, and lewd behaviour objected to them, and remaining in record. whose cause let him move as oft as he will: yet shall he never have honour by it.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 23.24, & 25.  whether an Ordinary may cite a man to appear before him in his court, to depose as witness? etc. Item, whether a man shall be examined by oath, of any thing that soundeth to his reproach? etc. Item whether if an Ordinary cite men Ex officio, to swear to accuse themselves, in causes neither Matrimonial, nor Testamentary, a prohibition will lie against him or not? Item whether the cause depending in the Star chamber, the ecclesiastial judges should not cease their proceed? And last of all, whether the judges and wisest lawyers do not condemn the proceed of prelate's?  
To most of this I have already spoken, 
Answer.  and doubt not, but thereby there appeareth neither reason, nor honesty, nor law, nor ought else save malice, in this demaundants questions. Yet thus much I answer further; First, that if the judge could not call witnesses before him, there would be no trial nor proof in matters of doubt. Secondly, that in divers criminal causes, both God's laws, and the laws of this realm do require, that the party answer upon his oath. Thirdly, that there lieth no prohibition: for that the Ordinary dealeth in causes orderly, and according to warrant of law. Neither is it reason that the Ecclesiastical judges should cease doing of justice, against all the perturbers of this Church, because there was sometimes one matter depending in the star-chamber against some few of them. For where the ecclesiastical judge is prohibited to proceed in one cause, yet doth he notwithstanding proceed in others of like nature concerning other parties. Much rather then ought they to proceed, not being prohibited, and in cases that are diverse especially now, that the cotumacious dealing of the Puritans, is by the judgement of the reverend judges and most sufficient layers in England, condemned, and the cause now dismissed the court, and divers consultations brought, after prohibitions granted out of some courts in that cause. Neither do I think, that either master Cook, a man too learned not to know, and two wise to favour such perturbers of the state, as the sear, or any judge or learned lawyer, will condemn the proceed of ecclesiastical courts in these cases, as being contrary to law. The writ in the Register, which seemeth to give leave to Ordinaries to swear men in causes Testamentary and Matrimonial is proved to be misconstrued by Fitzherbert. For otherwise that writ should be contrary to infinite other laws. Upon this error, what marvel is it, if Crompton, a man of no judgement, hath been deceived, seeing Fitzherbert hath also mistaken such matters. Neither is it marvel, that lawyers speaking for their clients, do speak otherwise then law. For never before this time was it heard, that the pleading of lawyers should be accounted to be law, further than they bring law and reason out of law. To make a somme therefore of these matters: Master Cook, who now for his manifold good parts, is made her majesties Solicitor, shall yield no thanks to this Libeler, for bringing his name in question to be a favourer of malcontents, and an enemy to the Ecclesiastical state. Neither shall any credit you hereafter, for this your notorious belying the judges. For it is well known, that the judges have resolutely both condemned the disloyal practices of this sort of men, and also allowed the proceed of the Ecclesiastical courts. Nor shall any allow your malice, that with false reports go about to enkindle a disliking among judges. And therefore unless you set down the state of the controversy better, and reason more sufficiently, both yourself as an ignorant Putcase, and your cause as repugnant to law, will be condemned.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 26.  if the high Commissioners for Ecclesiastical causes may cite men Ex officio, to accuse themselves in matters neither Testamentary nor Matrimonial, and may commit the Queen's subjects to prison, especially for refusing to take the oath? And whether they ought not to take bail? and whether the writ De homine replegiando, doth not lie in that case? Item what satisfaction Doctor Cousin, Doctor Stanhoppe, and Doctor Bancrofte will make to those, that are so wrongfully imprisoned? Item whether for that matter, they may keep men in prison without calling them to answer? and finally, whether they deserve not like punishment therefore themselves?  
Here is great noise, 
Answer.  little wool: many words, little wit: much malice, little or no reason. For the high Commissioners, they be (many of them) men of great honour, and such as will do no wrong to any: nor will proceed without sufficient warrant. If they have passed the limits of their Commission, why is not remedy of law sought? For satisfaction to these doughty demands, I answer; First, that no man is called to accuse himself but to answer accusations objected by others, Secondly, that they have power to call offenders before them, and to examine them, and that their jurisdiction were vain, if they might not punish the contumacious. Thirdly, that if such, as are committed to prison for contempt, might be bailed, there were then no means to punish a contempt: and that offenders put in prison for contempt, are not bailable. Fourthly, that the writ De homine replegiando, is not in this case grauntable, as all lawyers can tell him, Fiftly, that they may deal in many causes besides Matrimonial and Testamentary. Sixtly, that the learned men there mentioned have great wrong to be thus contumeliously abused by this libeler, they having done wrong to no man. Seventhly, that men committed for disobedience, are not to be released but upon their conformity: And finally, that such libelers as take upon them to rail at judges, and to oppugn lawful proceed, are to have their mouths muzzeled up, and their malice repressed.  
Quaere, Whether any Ecclesiastical judge hath convented, 
Putcase. Quest. 27.  examined, and committed any for matters felonious, touching the Queen's crown and dignity? And whether these practices do not instanter, instantius, and instantissimè, crave the Praemunire?  
That his companions are in case of Praemunire, 
Answer.  it is out of question, for that they have contrary to the prerogative of the crown, brought in foreign laws, and foreign jurisdiction of more than papal Elders, and made divers Ecclesiastical constitutions, contrary to the laws of the realm. Nay it were to be wished, that they had only offended against the statute of Provisors. But their denial of the supremacy, is a further point. What then doth that crave? Let him speak in his Proctor's style. It craveth consideration, and the perturbers of the state crave a wiser Proctor. As for Ecclesiastical judges, it is well known, that they do not deal in matters of felony: their acts are clear: if any man doubt, they will refolue him.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 28.  whether any may be imprisoned without warrant of law, etc.  
Can this libeler show any warrant, 
Answer.  he hath to accuse men unjustly? If not, why doth he proceed in accusing, and is so slow in proving? If any be imprisoned unlawfully, the law is open. Neither needeth he to tell us of Sir john Markeham, in this case. For that which Sir john Markeham saith, we acknowledge. for it maketh nothing for the libelers cause.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 29.  whether it be not less danger to blaspheme the name of God, then to speak against a Lord Bishop? And whether more Ministers have not been deprived within this seven years for ceremonies of men, then for drunkenness, whoredom, etc.  
If it were so dangerous to speak against bishops, 
Answer.  as this fellow pretendeth, they would not be so reviled, nor reveled at by such revellers as this. The comparison which he maketh is odious. More be punished for abusing the Consistory, then for abusing the name of God: & more do these consistorials strive about the authority of their seat, then about God's honour. But what then? because some of them offend, will they have all Consistories abolished? And therefore let him cease to talk of Bishops, and look bakeward home to the Consistory, that it be well swept and garnished. To the second I answer, that none are deprived for ceremonies, but such as be rebellious against laws, and with no admonitions will be reform: which contumacy is a most odious crime: and further I say, that the offences which come to the cognition of ecclesiastical judges, are as strictly there dealt withal, as in any other of her majesties courts.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 30.  why the Ministers may not refuse to wear a Surplice, as a Bishop to use a Pastoral staff?  
Because the one is commanded by Law, 
Answer.  the other is not. The rubric, whereby they would prove the Pastoral staff, concerneth only orders, and ornaments to be used in Sacraments and service of the Church, and none other matters. but suppose both were commanded: yet is it no plea for offenders to say, because judges offend in some things, that they may offend in others: which is the course of these men. Belike these are the times, wherein offenders call judges to answer, and felons give sentence against their superiors.  
Quaere, whether seekers of reformation suffer for religion, 
Putcase. Quest. 31.  and conscience in matters of discipline: seeing their life is offered them by bishops if they will recant their opinion? And whether the Popishbishops persecuted any that differed from them in external form, and ceremonies?  
As Papists do make treason religion: so it may be, 
Answer.  that these schismatics for their misdemeanours would be accounted religious. Otherwise it is evident, that neither Papists nor Puritans suffer for religion in England. And therefore evil doth it seem, that they seek reformation, or deserve to be called seekers of reformation: and well doth it appear, that they have a bad religion and conscience, that colour their lewdness with religion, and lie without conscience.  
As for persecution, it is a term ill applied to the proceed of our Bishops, and lewdly are they compared with traitorous papists, against whom they stand in continual warfare. For neither do they convent any but for transgressing the laws; nor do they impose punishments, but upon the rebellious, & those very easy punishments which in time of popery were death, even for denial of the least ceremony. which this Putcase not understanding, he showeth himself to babble of matters, that he understandeth not. That bishops did offer life to udal (for I know none but him, and Hacket, and a traitor in Suffolk condemned about these matters) it is absurd to affirm. For not they, but others condemned him.  
Neither is it in their power to grant life, nor in their wisdom to offer that which they cannot grant. And if they should be so remiss, as to be means to her Majesty for them, yet would it argue their clemency, in going about to procure their lives, that seek the bishop's overthrow: nay, that most factiously go about to overthrow the Church, the state, and the rewards of learned men.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 33.  whether he that publisheth books with long premeditation, doth publish the same with a malicious intent?  
True, 
Answer.  if they be malicious books, such as this libel is, and such as the Demonstration of discipline, and Martin's ribaldry was. Neither is the case alike of a Sergeant arguing against the truth in his Client's cause, and of these that with out fee argue against both truth and state. For it is well known he doth it for his fee, and taketh heed how he offendeth against law: but these leaving the case, do argue or rather rail against the person, yea against law and honesty.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 33.  whether ecclesiastical judges do not give sentence contrary to the common laws, and statutes of the realm? and whether prohibitions do not lie in such cases.  
No doubt, 
Answer.  there lieth a prohibition, if they proceed contrary to law. But men learned will take heed they do not: and especially seeing they have such Canarian birds as this looking upon their doings, and watching for the spoil. But let them take heed, for in wars the spoiler is often spoiled, and those that dig pits for the innocent, fall into them themselves.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 34.  whether hishops are not in praemunire, or at lest desere to be imprisoned and fined for practising popish and civil laws in their courts: seeing all foreign authority is banished, and those canons and constitutions provincial and synodal only authorized, that have been made in England?  
Little doth this dolt know, 
Answer.  what the praemunire meaneth. If he did, he would not so often flourish with the sword, and do no hurt. Those incur the praemunire, which draw the Queen's Subjects into foreign courts out of the Queen's courts, & seek to defeat judgements given in the Queen's courts. Likewise he is ignorant, what laws are practised in the ecclesiastical courts. For there are no laws practised there, but the Queen's laws: viz. such canons as were practised in England before the making of the Act. 25. Hen. 8. ca 19, and not (as this fondling saith) such canons as were made in England. Good it were therefore, that some of his company would either admonish him, or premonish him hereafter to leave babbling of matters which he knoweth not. For it is either plain impudency, or lunacy so to wrangle.  
Quaere, whether the bishops, or the consistory, 
Putcase. Quaest. 35.  encroach more upon the civil magistrate?  
That is a matter most easily answered. For the bishops, 
Answer.  albeit they deal in testamentary causes, tithes & marriages: and have Baronies, and sometimes deal as justices of peace: yet all this authority they have under the prince, and from him they derive it. Contrariwise the consistory draweth no authority from the prince, but contendeth with the prince about supreme authority. It giveth law to the prince: it doth chastise and judge the prince: under colour of the breach of God's law, it doth encroach upon all causes, and controlleth all that are subjects to God's law, whereof the same doth take itself to be judge. It chooseth and deposeth all officers of the Church, nay it deposeth princes, if the fautors of it say true. These therefore be the fellows that encroach, nay that tread down princes, and (as Th. Cartwright sayeth) make princes to lick the dust of their feet. As for that which this Putcase allegeth, that the Archbishop giveth the prince dispensations under his hand and seal, it is a fable. Let him show any of these licences so granted. But (sayeth he) the law saith, he may. well, then let him quarrel with the law, and not with the Archbishop, who challengeth nothing, as these do, but by the princes grant: Besides, that law was made to exclude all foreign jurisdiction, which these men would gladly bring in. That which the libeler saith of excommunication for money, is a lewd calumniation long since answered. Forwel it is known, that no man is excommunicated for money, but for disobedience to the judges decree and sentence. And as those that will not yield to the civil judges sentence even in the smallest matters, are compelled by imprisoment; so those that refuse to obey the ecclesiastical judge, are compelled by ecclesiastical censures. For they themselves do interpret these words, He that will not hear the Church, etc. to be understood both of great, and small matters.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 37.  if Moses under the law, and Timothee and others under the Gospel, needed to have a form of government of the Church prescribed to them by the Lord, whether it be likely that the Lord would commit the Church to M. Whitg. M. Cooper, M. Bancroft, and others, to frame a government for it, at their pleasures?  
The Lord doth not commit his Church to be governed by any at their pleasures: 
Answer.  lest of all to the aldermen and new consistories, things like toodestooles the last night risen out of the ground, and ruling all things without rain or restraint of reason. It might have pleased this libeler in naming these men to use other names, if not for authority they bear, yet for common civilities sake. but he will perchance show, that he neither respecteth authority nor civility, but meaneth to revel at all that resist his fancy, and that injuriously. for neither these excellent men, nor others do hold it lawful to frame a fond new government at pleasure: nor doth any of them doubt, but that the government of the Church of England, is Apostolical, and that the government by elders, is both new, and fantastical.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quaest. 36.  if john at Stile should grant there was a government by elders in the primitive, Apostolical, and best Church, and should call the same government a popedom and tyranny, whether this did not rankly smell of detestable atheism.  
If john at Stile should say as much as this libeler hath said in his libel, 
Answer.  he might percase change his style, and be called john at Gibbet. for these be matters worthy Gibbets. but concerning this matter, I think john at Stile will not say that there was ever such a pack of Churchaldermen, as this faction useth in their Consistories. And if he should say so, he should say untruth. neither were the Elders in the primitive Church or after, other than Apostles, and ministers of the word. All the ancient Fathers were ignorant of this new government: yet was it not Atheism in them to say it, as this wicked and hypocritical Atheist avoweth: nor are these Atheists that impugn the fond Consistory, or that affirm that the new government is tyranny; nay, which is worse, that it is mere foolery: but those that wrist God's word, and lie shamefully to prove it. For what more sottish, & senseless government can there be, then to make clowns judges of learning, religion, and controversies of divinity? or more absurd then to refuse that government, that ever was in the church?  
Quaere whether the Churches in scotlan, France, 
Putcase. Quest. 38.  the low countries, Hungary, Poland, Bohemia, Saxony, Helvetia, and the County Palatine of Rhine, and whether Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Melancthon, Bucer, Caluin, Zanchus, Martyr, & infinite other the most excellent divines in all the world commending the continuance of the Eldership, be all anabaptists, Puritans, rebellious Traitors, Marstates, Marlawes, Marprinces, and Maralles, and D. Bancroft, M. Sutcliffe etc., the only good subjects in all the world?  
As we do not willingly condemn other churches in their government: 
Answer.  so we think Beza and others might have done more wisely & discreetly, not so rashly to have censured ours, especially pronouncing without hearing both parties, and sitting judge in his own cause, and speaking neither good divinity, nor good law, nor good reason. yet we say, if any of these above named should in this state go about to place the eldership so contrary to a monarchical regiment, he should have done therein no good office, nor discharged the ductie of a wise man. this I say further, that this libeler doth make most shameful lies, where he nameth many churches, and many learned men, as favourers of the new Eldership; whereas in truth they never knew what it meant. It is not in saxony, Bohemia, Polande, Hungary, nor in many places in the low countries, and where it is, the same continueth with small profit, and much displeasure. The county Palatine of Rhine hath after many stirs conditionally received it. Helvetia never had it. neither Oecolampadius nor Zuinglius, nor Melancthon ever knew it, nor I think the rest. What a shameless fellow than was this, thus impudently to lie? nay, Saxony hath superintendents, and so sometimes had scotlan, and Tossane they say, is general superintendant of all the Palsgraves' dominions, concerning Church causes: and the Churches of Strangers in England in King Edward's days had superintendents, & Melancthon, and Zanchus liked our bishops. and therefore none of these are like to our factious Puritans. And as for Doctor Bancroft and myself, they cannot say, but that we are good subjects, nor note us with any disloyalty. But beside us, the least of thousands; there are infinite more good subjects, and learned men (of which number the Puritans are none) all which stand against the factious government of the Elderships, & maintain the ancient apostolical orders of the Church. That the best Divines in the world should hold with the Eldership, is a fancy: for all the ancient Fathers were ignorant of it, and the godly martyrs of our land in Queen Mary's time refused it, & beside them infinite learned men: all which hold with bishops, which these condemn. choose you therefore whether you will follow all antiquity, or Th. Cartwright, Giles Wigg. john Penry. Tavergius. Caluetus, and such tagrag fellows, percase great favourers of the churchaldermen, but neither wise nor learned.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 39  whether the Kings of France and scotlan, the princes of Condè, and Orange, the duke of Saxony, the county palatine of Rhine, the States of the low countries, many other Dukes, Princes, Marquesses, Earls, Barons, and other christian and noble potentates, who have maintained, favoured and preferred the Ministers that stand for reformation: and whether here in England, the right honourable sir Nicolas Bacon Lord keeper, the Earls of Bedford, Warwick, and Leycester, Sir Francis Walsingham, Sir Amias Paulet, Sir Walter Mildemay, and other right noble Lords, counsellors, Counts, and Countesses would have countenanced and protected the Ministers that seek reformation, if they had perceived them to be enemies to the Queen and state, worse than papists, and miscreants? and whether our Prelates be more trusty to her Majesty, and provident to avoid danger, than these excellent personages were?  
This argument for the consistory is drawn from the opinion of courtiers, & men of war; 
Bellipotentes sunt magis quàm sapientipotentes. Ennius' apud Cicer. 2. divinat.  & therefore seemeth to me strange in divinity, howsoever it is approved as good in the consistory that dependeth on opinion, and is turned as the clouds with the wind. If the same were any thing worth, then might the heresy of Arrius, yea, Paganism be confirmed also to be as good religion, as the consistorian discipline. for many Emperors, Kings, noble men, dukes, counts, countesses, captains, yea, whole States have embraced Paganism, and condemned Christian religion, and favoured idolatrous priests, and persecuted christians. Constantius and all his court for the most part, & most of his dominions embraced Arianisme. And what wonder if divers noble men and women embraced this fantastical Discipline? for whom would not the demure countenance, & sober sighs, and out drawn speech of these hypocrites abuse? wherefore let this libeler ground himself upon these men's courtly favour, & muster an army ready to fight for discipline: let him have his captains & officers, his marshals, lieutenants, ensigns, sergeants, corporals, drummers and mischiefs: and let him make his aldermen gunner's: for if they could look with one eye, they would prove most excellent in that faculty, shooting so well at random about interpretation of scriptures, & having so long lain battering down our State. I say, all these men's opinions without authority of Scripture weigh not one pepper grain. He is a simple man that will die in that religion, that most of these favourers of Discipline which this man hath named, did: and most simple, that will think the consistorian faction good, because some here mentioned favoured it. for some had one respect, some another, and were men of strange Divinity for the most part, which I could justify by particulars, but I will not trouble the rest of those that are dead, nor disgrace those that are alive. Let them be as good as they are supposed, yet do I believe one Father in matters of Divinity before them all.  
Besides that, divers men here named, never favoured the Consistory: as the last French kings, the Dukes of Saxony, & other Christian potentates: neither did the Frenchmen contend for the Consistory, which came to be afterward established, but for religion. And well it is known, that both the Earl of Leycester, and Sir Francis Walsingham in their latter times renounced these men, confessing that they had been greatly abused by their hypocrisy. Neither do I think that Sir Nicholas Bacon, Sir Walter Mildemay, and such noble counsellors would favour factious fellows; or suppose these whom the Libeler defendeth, to be good subjects. Nay, one of them hath spoken most earnestly in open Parliament against them, and their Elderships; so that this argument that standeth on such false assertions and weak authority, cannot be good. If this argument be sufficient to prove them good subjects, albeit they deny her majesties supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes, and slander her government, than Papists and traitors may by the same be proved to be good subjects: for great Princes, states, and potentates favour their cause.  
The Bishops, and other ministers that live in obedience of Law cannot with those faults be charged, and therefore are wronged to be matched with these mutinous mates, that with multitude and power, rather than reason, seek to prevail. Yet have they against them all the ancient fathers, all counsels, all learned men of time past, yea all antiquity, yea, & many learned men of our time, with whom neither for number, nor authority are these fellows to be compared.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 40.  whether a Minister ought not to admonish the mightiest Prince of his duty, refuse to administer the sacrament unto him, if he be a notorious offender, and pronounce him to be no member of Christ in the communion of saints, if he continue obstinate in open crimes? and whether under the Law David, and other princes were not subject to ceremonial expiations, and the spiritual power of Priests and Prophets? and whether Ambrose did well in using like authority towards an Emperor? and lastly, whether Zanchus, Caluin, Bucer, Nowell, jewel, Bilson, and Bridges approving the like, be traitors, Popes and tyrants?  
If a minister may do all these services against a prince, 
Answer.  what should any need to desire the Eldership? forsooth belike one is too few to suppress a prince's authority. for this cause it is not fitting, that any such power should be granted either to ministers, or to consistories: for that which is alleged, viz. that ministers may admonish princes; maketh nothing for the consistory, nor excommunication of princes by ministers. for betwixt public and general admonitions, and excommunication, there is no small difference. every minister may use that according to his place and calling, but it were somewhat too saucy a matter, for every hot braynd fellow to use this, especially against princes: neither did either the priests excommunicate David, nor Ambrose pronounce sentence against Theodosius, he did only exclude him from his own communion: nor do I find where any of these learned men ever did make the sovereign prince subject to a cock braynd fellows curse. If he were subject, than were he no sovereign prince: & then should every minister control the prince: which is absurd, & repugnant to state. but as this fellow doth insinuate, David was subject to ceremonial expiations: admit it were so; yet great difference there is between these expiations voluntarily undertaken, and excommunication violently pronounced, as learned men have showed. There is no other means whereby the 
1 Machiavelli histor. fiorent. lib. 1.  Popes grew great at the first, then by excommunication: shall we then recall again the Papal tyranny? shall we establish the instrument of so many rebellions? shall we admit such foolish conditional sentences, which all Laws condemn? As for Nowell, Bilson, Bridges, and others writing against papists, they do not simply avow such excommunication of princes, as these would have, but prove that other bishops may proceed therein, as far as the bishops of Rome, and that with them they have equal authority.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 41.  why there may not be under a Christian Magistrate, Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, and Widows, aswell as Parsons, Lecturers, Schoolmasters, Churchwardens, Collectors for the poor, and Hospital women, seeing these do, and may execute in authority and power, the whole form of Church government desired, though their practice thereof is infinitely corrupted, against the Canons of the Apostles, to the danger of the Church, and dishonour of the Realm?  
First it is false, 
Answer.  that they may execute the same authority that the Eldership may. Who would not be ashamed to affirm, that our Churchwardens may excommunicate any person, or that any with us beside the Prince and parliament, might make Laws and orders, but he that shameth of nothing? But suppose they do some things which the aldermen do: yet were it no reason, because these do somewhat by law, that we should admit a government contrary to laws, to state, to her majesties prerogative, to all scriptures, fathers, antiquity, yea to sense & reason. That which he saith, that the offices of our churchwardens, and hospital men are corrupt to the danger of the church, and dishonour of the real me, is nothing but a sound of great words without reason: for neither are the offices so corrupt as he pretendeth, nor is there in them danger, or disgrace. nay the worst of our churchwardens are as honest, wise and learned, as his churchaldermen, & as fit to govern as they. yea and our collectors be as good as his deacons: and that hospitals be not corrupt, T.C. will look, that is a master of an hospital, and a man void of all corruption, and good dealing.  
Quaere, whether the Ecclesiastical high commission be not in effect an Eldership, wherein some govern with Ministers, 
Putcase. Quest. 42.  who by profession are temporal Lawyers, Civilians, mere lay men? and whether this government consisting of spiritual and temporal persons, be a meddley, and lynsey wolsey discipline, as the Remonstrance calleth the Eldership, which is now desired?  
Nothing is more repugnant, 
Answer.  nor with less reason compared together, than the high commission, & eldership. If I did not tell them so much, yet me thinketh, that their continual declaiming against the high commission, as proceeding contrary to laws, might teach them so much. for if they be so like, as this fellow now recanting his railing against the high commission pretendeth, why should not we take exceptions against the imperious aldermanship of the church, as these do against the high commission? especially seeing that the high commission dealeth only by authority from the prince, and is limited with laws, and is subject to the prince's commandment, and dealeth only in extraordinary cognitions, and may be revoked, and cassed as the prince shall think meet: And where only Ecclesiastical persons meddle with the censures. whereas contrariwise the imperious churchaldermen claim no commission from the prince: nay, they challenge the power and vicarage of Christ jesus, and superiority over all princes, and deal in small and great causes: yea, clowns, and dolts dispute of religion, and throw out excommunications, and rule all without law or reason, by the only instinct of their unclean spirit, or rather changeable fancy: and therefore the Remonstrance saith well, that it is a lynsey wolsey, and motley discipline patched together by men of motley jerkins, & consisting of contrary pieces, jumbling both Church and common wealth together, while ministers are sent abroad to beg for their living, and artificers and clowns rule like Lords in the Consistory, prescribing Laws to princes: so that if the Libeler desire this goodly gallimafrey of discipline, he is more fit to wear a motley cote with an addition of hawks bells, then to govern a Church, or any part of the common wealth.  
Quaere, 
Putcase. Quest. 43.  if the sole government of a bishop in a diocese be sufficient and most agreeable to God's word, why is there an ecclesiastical commission standing of many persons civil, and Ecclesiastical? or if an Ecclesiastical commission be needful in a Realm, why not in a Province? If in a Province, why not in a Diocese? If in a Diocese, why not in a deanery? If in a deanery, why not in a Parish? Lastly, why might there not without absurdity, and breach of true uniformity, be planted in some places already capable, a Consistory, or Commission of Elders, though the like cannot be accomplished in all, seeing there be new Ecclesiastical Commissions erected, Deans and Chapters broken music, and Organs in some places, not in other?  
To these three questions, 
Answer.  which are the very crisis of the Put case dreaming fury, I answer first, that seeing the prince by the laws of God is sovereign governor in all causes within her dominions, that beside the ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops within their several Diocese, it is very requisite that there should be a superior authority to assist them, and to strengthen them, and to supply that which is wanting, and in case they do not their duties, to correct them: secondly, that as the Prince is one, so there aught to be but one supreme authority, although by that authority her Majesty may appoint divers Commissioners: and yet nothing cometh thereby to the Eldership that claimeth authority not from the prince, but from God, and would altogether break the union of her government, while every consistory would rule the congregation under it, as best pleaseth my lords the church aldermen.  
As for the gradation of the libeler, if he had understood any logic, he might have learned, that no kind of argument is more faulty by this reason a man might thus conclude against the libeler, that if he will libel against authority, he will not spare the counsel, if they withstand him; if not the counsel, neither will he spare the prince: if he contemn all human laws, he will not greatly esteem God's laws; if he care not for God's law, then will he not in the end care for God himself. likewise if the Sanedrin was at jerusalem, then in other cities; if in cities, then in boroughs, & so in villages: and if the consistory be required in parishes, then in villages, if in villages, then in hamlets; if in hamlets, then in houses; if in houses then in the kitchen, where the cook is chief moderator which follow as well as his reasons. many do think that one high commission is enough & too much for all England: what then would they think, if they should see in every parish high commissioners? yea what if there were but such commissioners as the aldermen of the consistonie be, that claim a most absolute & high commission from God, planted in every parish? it would then be time to run into some other country à remotis. for it would be hard living. in England. thirdly, I say that there is no place in England capable of the aldermanshippe, but such as is very capable of faction, and disloyalty: and that his reason drawn from organs, and broken music is very weak. for albeit there is broken music in some places, and not in other: yet can there be no elderships in any place. for if any should be placed, the music of that company compared with other places would sound like a pair of broken organs, not only like broken music. and that government would break both Church and common wealth in pieces, & bring all out of tune. they have done it already in places where they be settled: and were unknown to all antiquity, and therefore, what reason have we to make trial of that, which is like to prove so dangerous?  
Thus you have heard all those contumelious cases, questions, and demands, which this railing Putcase in his malicious fury hath thought good to propound, not only to disgrace, & hurt the ecclesiastical state; but also to overthrow law, and government. if the course be lawful, and honest, who may not as well propound questions to the dishonour of any state, or noble parsonage in the land? there is no man of so rare merit, nor so honourable, but might, if this course were suffered, be brought into envy, & hatred. and if I should follow him in this course, good Lord, what shameful and ridiculous matters do the public and private actions of these factious persons offer to men's view? all which albeit they deserve to hear: yet it is not for me to speak; neither do grave men desire to know. I will only for requital frame certain interrogatories concerning the cause, & those persons which are principal agents in this cause; that seeing how open they lie themselves, they may hereafter deal more modestly with others. if they follow this course I do assure them, that for every one they have propounded to us: there will be by some or other, twenty propounded to them. in the mean while let them content themselves with these, and blame not me: for I do but answer, and follow them. seeing they have begun to come into this kind of field they must have patience to stand to the hazard of wars: if they would have dealt civilly with me, they should not have overcome me in courtesy.   

CERTAIN questions PROPOUNDED to the Putcase and his adherents; wherein diverse well affected to the state desire to be resolved.  
QVaere, whether he that maketh doubt of the principles of our Christian faith, be not by the opinion of the ancient fathers an haeretike; and whether the laws do not condemn him for a traitor, that maketh doubt of her majesties right to the crown: and for a contumacious, and rebellious person, that maketh question, whether he ought to obey such laws as her Majesty, and the whole parliament, and wisest men of England have thought to be godly and convenient? and lastly in what case the Putcase, and his fellows are, that in broad speeches openly, and in printed books directly oppugn them; and by calumnious questions pinch at them?  
2 Quaere, whether those that would overthrow not only the privileges, and liberties of the Church of England, but also the whole ecclesiastical state, their jurisdiction, and livings, seek not the overthrow of Magna charta, and infinite statutes, and of a great part of the common laws of this Realive, and seek the dishonour of her Majesty and the state by requiring at her hands things that tend to the violating of her oath taken at the time of her coronation, and the overthrow of the rewards of learning? and whether such as are chief doers in these causes, are longer to be suffered to proce do in their presumption?  
3 And because the Putcase maketh mention of that reverend judge Sir Christopher Wray late lord chief justice of England, let him also answer, whether he did nor both in his opinion, as a judge, and in bitter reams, as a man in utter dislike of these men's obstinacy, coudemne those that obstinately refused before ecclesiastical judges to take their oaths, or to declare being examined, matins concerning themselves, or others, so far as then concerned had life or member? and whether the reverend, & learned judge and lawyers of England, have not resolved the proceed of ecclesiastical courts to be lawful; and disallowed the notorious contumacy of those men, that refused notwithstanding upon their own vain conceits to answer?  
4. Quaere, whether the book of Fenner, that is entitled sacra Theologia, and came forth with the Pythagorical allowance of T. C. contain not strange divinity? and whether it be likely, that the resolutions of the consistory should bemore learned then the positions of two such omniscient divines?  
5 Quaere, whether it be not reason to make T.C. recant those dangerous opinions he hath published in that book, and whether those that made the new communion book are not to be called in question for publishing of new confessions offaith, and new doctrine?  
6 Let also great inquiry be made, by what law or title the churchaldermen do claim so large authority both in ecclesiastical and domestical matters, as lately they have taken upon them in some churches?  
k Quaere, what is become of the acts and memorial of the consistory, that is supposed to have been both in the Church of God under the law, and under the Gospel? and what may be the reason, that so famous men should neither have their names, nor doings mentioned in any history, holy, or profane, or other writing?  
Quaere, whether such as suffer their children to die without baptism, because the time of the assembly of the congregation cometh not between their birth, and death, are not guilty of contempt of baptism? and whether they that teach this doctrine be found christians: that rather than they will break a consistorial rule, will suffer christians children to depart without the badge, and mark of christianity?  
9 Quaere, whether they that call those scriptures, which are commonly called Apocryphal, lies and fables, do therein declare themselves to have the judgement of learned men, or modesty of civil persons. seeing the fathers of old time, and divers learned men of our times also do honour them next after the Canonical scriptures? 
1 Zanch. confess.  and whether T.C. would not take it in evil part to have his voluminous replies called lies and fables: which notwithstanding are far inferior to the worst part of the Apocryphal scriptures?  
10 Quaere, whether the consistorial constitutions do not bring into use the judicial laws of Moses: as for example that of retaliation, of capital punishments of adultery, and blasphemy, and whether felonies, that were by Moses law punished civilly, may not be punished with death? and whether that the consistorial faction doth not deny her Majesty power to pardon offenders, that by Moses judicial laws are to be punished with death?  
11 Quaere, how it happeneth, that the disciplinarians shame not to speak against Bishops, which themselves deny not to have been ever in the Church since the Apostles times, and which we offer to prove to have authority by the word of God, seeing they commend a fond, and new found government, that hath neither authority of law, nor confirmation by ancient practice: the laws whereof are most absurd and unreasonable?  
12 Quaere, by what authority they interpre the words, Dic Ecclesiae: and presbyteriqui bene praesunt, etc. and the words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 12.28. & Ephes. 4.10. & Rom. 12. contratrarie to all the ancient fathers, to histories, to themselves, yea contrary to the text itself, and common reason?  
13. Quaere, why Ministersshould not be forced as well to subscribe to the government of the church of England, as the ministers of France to the French discipline, they of Geneva to the ordinances of Geneva: these being so lately invented, and established, and having so notorious exceptions against them, and being no way to be compared to the orders of our Church, for authority, antiquity, or other good condition or quality?  
14 Quaere, whether the Consistory decreeing and proceeding contrary to the discipline of France, and Geneva, and their new Zion is to be allowed, or obeyed? and whether every act of the Consistory be law to bind the rest of that congregation? and if it be, than what certainty can be in that government? and whether that government be not worse than papal, seeing the Popes proceed according to their own laws: these fellows will not be bound by any laws, either of their own, or others?  
15 Quaere, if the Consistories sentence be the sentence of the Church, whereunto every one is to obey, and he that obeyeth not to be holden as a heathen, and publican, how it chanceth, that the Synod sometimes is so bold, as to reverse the Consistories sentence, and not to hold the disobedient, as a publican and sinner?  
16 Quaere, if by the words, It shall not be so with you, all power of ordination, judgement, making, and executing of orders, deposing of ministers, and such like authority be taken from Bishops, by what reason the ministers of the new discipline in their new Consistories, and Synods take on them so peremptorily to put in and out, and to make laws, and to determine most absolutely, and imperiously?  
17 Quaere, what time of the year, and under what sign the resolutions of the Consistory are most ripe? viz. whether when the sun entereth into Aries, or Capricorn, or in harvest time, or midsummer moon? and whether a madman that hath Lucida interualla, as one of the authors of the petition hath, be a sound man to make a pillar of the Consistory, and what order is to be taken for such men, when Luna is predominant in their heads?  
18 Quaere, whether it be a matter tolerable and beseeming wise governors, that clowns, and men of occupation, should determine matters of religion, or that idiots should judge of law, and govern all matters ecclesiastical; and by what rule of divinity it may be surmised, that an ignorant man being chosen an Elder, should suddenly be endued with new graces, and as Th. Cartw. the great disciplinarian patriarch faith, become a new man, as if he were new parboiled in Peleus his tub?  
19 When the Consistory consisteth of 13 good men and true, whereof six look one way, and seven another, Quaere, why the odd voice should make the sentence of seven, to be the determination of the Church? and whether this be not an odd discipline, where one odd man maketh a determination to be called the Church's determination?  
20 Quaere, by what law Doctors, Pastors, and Deacons make one corporation, seeing in no place of scripture they are mentioned together, nor by any authority or commission are linked together?  
21 Quaere, by what authority the Ministers of foreign churches take on them to prescribe forms of discipline, and new laws unto our Church, seeing they teach, that all churches have equal power? and whether this be not a foundation to a new popedom?  
22 Quaere, whether all the errors of Barrowisme do not follow, and may be concluded of Th. Cartw. Wat. Tr. and Dud. Fenners positions? and whether this sort of men is fit to deal with those sectaries, and ought not rather to be driven to make a public recantation of their foul opinions?  
23 Quaere, in case a mustered seller, or chandeller should be chosen a churchalderman, and thought worthy to judge of the highest matters of religion, who should all that while furnish the common wealth with mustered, and candles? and whether that their sentences would not savour rank of mustered, and tallow: and how many candlesellers or men of occupation, they find to have been present in Synods of old time, at the debating of points of religion?  
24 Quaere, whether the disciplinarians do not flatly deny the principal points of her majesties supremacy, and take from her power to ordain rites, and orders, for the church, to nominate Bishops, to appoint Ecclesiastical commissioners, and to delegate learned men to hear the last appeal from the Ecclesiastical courts, to call Synods, and other authority given to the prince by the laws of England; and endeavour to bring in foreign laws, and jurisdiction repugnant to the statutes of supremacy, and her majesties prerogative, and the laws and liberties both of the Church, and all her majesties subjects?  
25 Quaere, if the establishment of the consistorial discipline in the Church of England, would not overthrow infinite statutes, most of the Common laws, divers courts of justice, the two Universities, and inns of court, and finally the whole state? and whether the Universities in places where this discipline is entered, be not decayed, and the state shaken, notwithstanding that the power thereof by divers laws contrary to the rules of discipline is abridged?  
26 Quaere, how many sound divines or learned men there are, that have been bred in the places where this discipline is received? and whether they have not parted the Church goods among themselves where they were masters, as the soldiers parted Christ's coat, giving some little portion back again of the whole, lest they should live all together without religion?  
27 Quaere, whether it be likely, for the vain hope of a hundred pounds pension, depending on the uncertain pleasures of merchants, men of occupation, and husbandmen, that young men of towardness will give themselves to the study of divinity? and what brave youths are made ministers within the disciplinarians jurisdiction?  
28 Quaere, how the spoils of the Church which these men have made in all places where they rule, are bestowed? and what portion thereof is come to the maintenance of learned men, or learning?  
29 Quaere, what commodities her majesty doth receive now by renthes, subsidies, first fruits, patronages, lapses, custodies of bishops temporalities, and how much the same amounteth unto: likewise, what services she hath now by the Ecclesiastical state, and their followers? and whether she should not lose both great revenues, and make many faithful servitors unable to serve her, if this inkepot discipline, should come in place? and if any man say, that the same should be bestowed upon noblemen, and knights, and gentlemen that should succeed in the place of others, let inquire be made, whether some puritan dame do not spend in apparel, more than the revenues of divers cathedral churches? and whether it would fall out, that the revenues of the Church would be wasted vainly, which now maintain many able men to do the prince service?  
30 Quaere, whether in all places where the factious disciplinarians have set foot in this Church, they have not set the people against their pastors, and divided the people among themselves, and hardened men's hearts, and made them without natural affection, and lifted up their followers in pride and vanity, and made the people far worse than before, and sought nothing but their own profit and advancement?  
31 Quaere, whether it be not a dangerous point to this Church, and state, that we are so much urged by some to imitate the course held for reformation by them of Geneva, and Scotland heretofore: considering the dangerousness of their plats, and the effects that followed upon them, and the unsound divinity whereupon they are grounded?  
32 Quaere, by what point of discipline they of Geneva expulsed their Bishop and liege Lord, and right County of Geneva? and what revenues of the Church they seized into their hands, and what portion they allowed back again to the poor ministery? and whether it be not capital in that state, to speak for the estate of Bishops? which points cleared, it will appear, what reason they had first at Geneva to inveigh, and declaim against the state of Bishops.  
Quaere, whether the peremptory dealings of the ministers of Geneva, and some others adhering unto them, and the greedy sacrilege of their abettors, and followers, and the utter subversion of the ecclesiastical state, which this antischolastical, and fantastical discipline doth every where work, have not greatly hindered the reformation of religion in France, and other places, and is not still likely to hinder the same, unless the same be newly recocted, and reform?  
34 Quaere, whether the disciplinarians do not deliver doctrine as dangerous to princes, as Rosse, Sanders, Allen, and other papists: namely concerning excommunication, & deposing, and murdering of princes that withstand the religion and reformation, which each of them respectively desireth?  
35 Quaere, whether 
1 History of the Church of Scotland. pag. 213.  Knox said truly of Caluin, and certain other Ministers then residing at Geneva? and if he report their doctrine truly, whether they hold a sound point of doctrine, teaching, That it is lawful for subjects to reform religion, when princes will not: yea rather than fail, even by force of arms?  
36 Quaere, 
2 Ibidem, pag. 217. 234. 256, & 258. etc.  whether john Knox and other his adherents, grounding themselves upon the foresaid opinions concerning violent reformation, did not by private motion without any authority put in practise a strange manner of reformation in Scotland? and whether our disciplinarians do not intend such a practice in England? and if they do, whether they think, that this course of theirs, and these their rules of discipline, will stand with God's word, or good orders?  
37 Quaere, whether Beza was not the author, or amplifier, or publisher of the book entitled, De iure magistratuum in subditos, a book which overthroweth in effect all the authority of Christian kings, and magistrates; and whether the doctrine therein contained, be agreeable to the rules of that discipline, which they have so greatly urged? the same question is demanded likewise of the book called, Vindiciae contra tyrannos; a book containing no less pernicious matter against the authority of princes, than the former.  
38 Quaere, 
3 Epist. to Goodman's book.  whether Master Whittingham that affirmed, that the doctrine of Goodman's book printed at Geneva in queen Mary's time against the regiment of women, and for exciting the subjects to take arms against their sovereign princes in some cases, was approved to be good, and godly by the chiefest men of learning, that then were in the city: said therein either truly, or Christianlike, or scholarlike?  
39 Quaere, whether the English disciplinarians, that were at Geneva in Queen Mary's time, according to the said 
1 Goodman pag. 73. 74. & sequ. and book of Obedi. pag. 99 103.  doctrine then there allowed of, taught not, that the nobility of England ought to reform religion by force of arms, and rather than fail, to put the Queen then 
2 Goodman pag. 99 114. 115. & sequen.  reigning to death, and whether this point of doctrine, be one of the principles of their new discipline, and disciplinarian kingdom, holden of most, and professed of those, that live in free cities, and states not subject to kingly regiment?  
40 Quaere, whether the said disciplinarian ministers and faction, did not hold it lawful according to the said 
3 Goodman. pag. 196. 87. 34. 35 185. 180, 184. etc.  Genevian doctrine, That if the noble men and other inferior Magistrates for fear should refuse to reform religion, as is mentioned, the rest of the people might do it in that case themselves, and whether this be one of the axioms of Th. Cartwrightes heavenly Canaan, and a decision of their disciplinarian Synods.  
41 Quaere, whether the said disciplinarians have not taught publicly in books, rather than there should be no reformation, such as they wished, that any private man having forsooth, some extraordinary motion or calling (like that percase of Hacket) might imbrue his hands with the blood of his 
4 Goodman pag. 115. 199. 200. of obedience pag. 116. 110.  sovereign, according to the examples of Phinehes, Ahud, and such like?  
42 Quaere, whether the reasons alleged by Knox and Wollocke against their governor, and prince, were sufficient in law for the subjects to depose a prince, 
5 Histor. of the Church of Scotland pag. 272. 278.  or a regent lawfully appointed, as they and others their followers did depose the Queen regent of Scotland? and whether their allegations, and doings are catholic rules of discipline for all times, and all Churches?  
43 Quaere, whether by the laws of their new disciplinarian kingdom, it be not as lawful to depose a king from his seat and crown for dealing in causes ecclesiastical (which they intend and affirm not to belong unto him) as it was for them of Geneva to depose their Bishop, which was also their liege Lord, and prince, from his temporal right and living for 
1 Caluin to Sadolete.  dealing in causes temporal: albeit he was by right of succession the temporal Lord, and owner of that city and territory?  
45 Quaere, whether the doctrine contained in a 
2 Declaration, anno 1582.  Declaration printed in Scotland, why certain persons mere subjects, repaired to the king at Ruthuen (one reason of that forcible repair being, for that the king took upon him to deal in causes ecclesiastical) be agreeable to the catholic doctrine of their discipline?  
46 Quaere, whether the practices of certain ministers in Scotland, for the setting up of their presbyteries by their own authority, as they are described in the acts of parliament held there, Anno 1584., and published in print, are justifiable by God's word, and to be held for general rules of discipline, to be practised in all Churches?  
47 Quaere, whether that be true, that is reported in the Chronicles of Scotland, which were perused and corrected by Master Randal, Master Killigrew, and Doctor Hammond) concerning an other repair made to the king of Scors at 
3 Chronicle pag. 446, & sequent.  Sterling: and whether the proclamation there mentioned, and the actions which then happened be agreeable to the doctrine of the disciplinarian kingdom, taught every where, or else be but extraordinary and local, and only there to be put in practice, where there is good opportunity offered?  
48 Quaere, whether in France, & other where, they do not contrary to their opinions for violent reformation of religigion, by noble men, by the people, or private persons, taught for 30. years and upwards, teach now, that it is utterly unlawful for any subject, under any pretence of any extraordinary calling, so much as once to lift up a hand against the prince, be he tyrant, idolater, heretic, or whatsoever? and whether all the rest of the rules of this discipline, may not as well be varied by time, as this point is? and what manner of disciplinarian faith this is, that is so inconstant and variable, and teacheth sometime obedience, and sometime rebellion, and like the Chameleon, changeth hair so often?  
49 Quaere, whether the wise authors of this petition do not show themselves to be of the disciplinarian humour in this behalf, when they think it a sufficient answer in the behalf of Beza, Hotoman, Buchanan, and others that published the doctrine of stirring the subjects against their princes, to say, they writ so against popish kings, and such as they judged tyrants: as if it were lawful for subjects to rebel against such as they account tyrants, and popish kings? and of T.C. let it be inquired, whether he allow this for one of his cananitish laws of his celestial consistory?  
50 Quaere, whether 
1 Conspiracy for discipline, and examinations taken in the Star Chamber, published.  T. Cartw. and certain ministers here his disciples, have not entered into the very same course for setting up the discipline in England, which you shall perceive by the said declaration, by the acts of parliament in Scotland, Anno 1584., and by the English Chronicle, that the ministers of Scotland took for the establishing of theirs?  
51 Quaere, whether T. Cartw. and his fellows have not assembled in synods and conventicles, 
2 Examinations in the star chamber, and their own confessions.  & there enacted and decreed certain rules, and orders contrary to her majesties laws, and subscribed them, and procured others to subscribe them, and by all means possible gone about to put the same in practice, and to discredit and disgrace the laws of her majesty, and ancient government of the Church?  
Quaere, whether in their said 
3 Disciplina sacra.  orders, which they call holy discipline, all authority in Church causes is not taken from the Christian magistrate, and given to their assemblies, in so much, that the magistrate is not so much as mentioned when they talk of their new government? and how the sufferance of these proceedings may stand with the majesty of a prince, or with good government?  
53 Quaere, whether they do not 
1 T.C. pag. 162 & 163 & 417. & discourse. of eccl. discip. pag. 148. 174.  hold, that the authority which they challenge to their elderships, and synods, by their said platforms of discipline, is neither increased, nor diminished, whether the prince be Christian, or heathen; and teach not that the authority of a Christian, and heathen prince is all one in ecclesiastical causes?  
54 Quaere, 
2 That is in part evident by their confessions in the Star chamber.  whether Cartwright and his adherentes have not put the greatest part of their discipline in practice without her majesties consent, and authority? and without the said authority have not both made secret meetings, and established divers orders, and broached new opinions all contrary to the doctrine, confession, and government of the Church of England?  
55 Quaere, by what presumption he durst do these things, and why he is not to be brought publicly to submit himself for his faults?  
56 Quaere, whether the same seditious proceed be not condemned in certain acts made in the parliament holden Anno 1584., at Edinburgh?  
57 Quaere, 
3 In his examinations in the Star chamber.  whether Th. Cartwright swore truly in the Star chamber, when he affirmed on his oath, that he never affirmed or allowed, that in every Monarchy there ought to be certain magistrates, like the Spartaine Ephori, with authority to depose the king, etc. seeing the same point is in Fenners book of divinity, which one Th. Cartwr. in his Epistle printed before the book doth highly commend, as a profound piece of divinity, and heavenly axioms, and doctrine? and whether if some other had so sworn, they should not have been accounted perjured persons? and whether by the rules of discipline, it be lawful for the edification of the consistory to swear falsely?  
58 Quaere, 
4 Examinations in the Star chamber published.  whether have not T.C. and his fellows confessed on their oaths, that notwithstanding all the care that hath been taken for the perfecting of their platforms of discipline, they are not yet resolved upon divers points? and whether they did wisely to subscribe such orders, or dutifully to animate certain gentlemen of mean understanding in divinity, to present such a confused platform of government to the parliament, that it might be confirmed, and received throughout the whole Realm? and finally whether wisdom will permit men to dissolve a state already settled, and to embrace a government whereupon the authors themselves are not yet resolved, nor I think never will be, and wherein others see notorious absurdities, imperfections, and injustice?  
59 Quaere, 
1 Ibid.  whether T.C. and his companions do not say upon their oaths, that they meant to have been suitors to her Majesty, and the parliament, for the approbation, and receiving of their draft of discipline before mentioned, and subscribed unto by them, as a perfect plat of Church government commanded by God's word, do not utterly disclaim by a most necessary implication her Majesty to have any pre-eminence and authority in ecclesiastical causes, by the word of God, seeing they do not give any authority in their perfect platform to the civil magistrate, but yield all that power to their synods, classes, and consistories?  
60 Quaere, whether Cartwr. and some of his fellows, and followers, were not acquainted with the conspiracy of Hacket, 
1 Conspiracy for reformation.  Coppinger, and Arthington, and whether they knew not, that these fellows, or some of them pretended to have an extraordinary calling, which moved them to attempt matters which might prove very dangerous to themselves? whether also they knew not, that the actions which they purposed to attempt by virtue of their calling did tend to their deliverance out of prison, and to the advancing of the holy cause, as they termed it? and thereupon at Coppingers' motion did hold a puritan fast wherein prayers were made to this effect, that God would give success to all such means, as should be attempted for the deliverance of the Saints of God, and for the setting up of their discipline? and whether T. Cartw. and the wiser sort of them, did not understand whereto the foresaid allobrogicall, and outlandish propositions of extraordinary callings did tend? and finally whether all these points being such as in part have, and may fully be proved against them, they have not been mercifully dealt withal, and far above their deserts, that they have not hitherto been called therefore in question?  
61 Quaere, whether Cartw. and his fellows challenging to their eldership authority to excommunicate princes, are not like to prove as dangerous subjects, as , Parsons, or Card. Allen are in maintaining the pope's excommunication of her Majesty? and whether it is not likely considering the inconstancy of their discipline, and resolutions, that although some of them pretend now to hold, that excommunication doth not take away civil subjection, they will notwithstanding for their advantage teach contrary to their present resolutions?  
62 Quaere, whether some one of the reformed 
1 Buchanan de iure regniapud Scot pag. 70.  brotherhood have not maintained in books printed, that princes standing excommunicate, may be put to death? and that when princes will not reform religion, subjects ought to do it, and that saint 
2 Buchan ibid. pag. 56. 57  Paul's precepts of obedience to tyrants bind no further, then until such time as the people is strong enough to resist, & be able to master them by force of arms?  
63 Quaere, whether Sanders, Rosse, Allen, and other papists, do not in the behalf of popery maintain the very same points of rebellion, together with Goodman, Whittingham, Knox, and their teachers Beza, Hotoman, Buchanan? and whether both factions have not made princes subject to the people, and popular fury, and taught the same doctrine of the beginning of the authority of princes? the papists seeking to erect their papacy, the disciplinarians endeavouring to set up their papal presbytery?  
64 Quaere, whether some of the doctors of this new discipline do not mislike with the titles of civil honour given to princes, as that of majesty, highness, grace, and such like, 
Buchan. de iure regni.  and with the title of Lord given to Noblemen? and whether this point of discipline doth not show, that these fellows mean to deal with Lords in time, as well as now they are busy with bishops?  
65 Quaere of master Egerton the renowned paraphrast at the Black Friars, whether it be agreed upon in any of their synoddicall assemblies, that it shall not be lawful for her Majesty, or the princes of this Realm, hereafter to go to the Parliament with such honourable attendance, as heretofore they have used the first day that it is holden, in that he did write to his brother Fen, as misliking the same, and said, 
2 eager. to Fen.  that she went thither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, with great ostentation and pomp. which words Saint Paul useth, condemning the vanity of 
3 Acts 25.23.  Agryppa, and Beronice?  
66 Quaere, why Ecclesiastical judges may not proceed in causes ex officio, to examine men upon their oaths, aswell as 
4 Caluins' epistles fol. pag 64.  Caluin did at Geneva, who put the chief men of the town to their oaths, whether they had danced, or no in widow Balthazars house?  
67 Quaere, whether it be not as lawful for every consistory to depose a civil magistrate from his place, as it was for 
5 Ibidem.  Caluin to cause one of the sindickes of Geneva for dancing privately in the widow Balthazars house, to be deposed? and if dancing be so punished, whether greater offences in princes shall not be more deeply punished?  
68 Quaere, whether that godly and zealous man of God, as they call him, Giles Wigginton, was not 
6 Conspiracy for discipline.  acquainted with Copingers' pretence of extraordinary calling, and confirmed him in it? whether he brought not Hacket first acquainted with Copinger and Arthington, and justified unto them Hackets pretended torments? and whether he was not acquainted with their cries made in the streets, and did not under his hand set down certain reasons to prove, that upon occasion men of extraordinary callings might cry up and down the streets? and whether also he made not certain rhymes, and caused them to be printed, and sent them abroad a little before Copingers, & Arthingtons' proclamation, wherein is contained, That a country clown should teach a prince to wear a crown? And whether Hacket was not that clown? and whether Hacket, Copinger, and Arthington were not with him in the counter the morning before they began to rise? and whether these practices and seditious rimeries be sufferable by the laws of the Consistory?  
69 Quaere, whether Hacket in sundry of his examinations confessed not, that the godly and zealous preacher of discipline Gi. 
1 Conspiracy for discipline.  Wigginton affirmed, That if the Magistrates governed not well, the people might draw themselves together to see a reformation made? whether Hacket casting some doubts, and as it should seem mentioning her Majesty, Wigginton answered not thus: you speak of a Queen of a may-game? whether Hacket also affirmed not, that if Wigginton were well sifted, he would declare matter of treason, which if the rest of his fellows had not been in time revealed, would have cost a number of innocent men their blood? and finally, whether these be holy practices for the glory of their discipline?  
17 Quaere, whether Pet. Wen. writ not a letter to Copinger dated the 25. of januarie 1590. wherein he taketh notice, That Copinger was labouring about matters of importance, and prayeth that God would direct his labours both in matter and manner, and willeth him to use good advice, and then saith as josuah said sometime, but in a far diverse course: be bold and of good courage, fear not to be discouraged? And whether he be not to be dealt withal, as an abettor to the soresaid treasonable practices, for the glorious cause of pretended sincerity?  
17 Quaere, whether Io. Thr. was not well acquainted with Hacket, Copinger, and Arthingtons' intentes, in that Copinger writ thus unto him: My own dear 
2 Note the brotherhood of puritans, whereto it tendeth.  brother, myself and my two brethrens, who lately were together with you in Knightrider street (he meaneth Hacket, and Arthington) do much desire conference with you. the business is the Lords own, and he doth deal in it himself in a strange, & extraordinary manner in poor, and simple creatures. much is done since you saw us, which you would rejoice to hear of: Likewise let it be inquired, whether he be not an abettor, and concelour of their treacherous practices? and whether he holdeth that he ought not in conscience to reveal his dear brethren's treasons?  
72 Quaere, whether the said Io. Thr. did not write a letter with his own hand to Copinger dated the 18 of the fist 
1 This is the new absurd consistorian style.  month (he meaneth as I suppose May) which was little more than six weeks before the outrage committed by the new disciplinarian prophets? and whether in the same letter devised as may be suspected in answer of Copingers' letter, He rejoiceth not, that Copinger would 
2 All this is in his own letter to be shown under his hand writing.  vouchsafe to call him brother: and saith, that at his being at London he heard some buzzes abroad of a sole, and singular course, and wisheth that all that bear good will to the holy cause in that perilous age, would take both their eyes in their hands, and be sure of their gounde, and warrant, before they stirred to put matters in execution. and proceedeth in these words: I know my good broiher that the greatest works of the Lord are wrought by the weakest instruments, etc. and therefore were it not for my sins, and unworthiness, I could easily persuade myself in regard of my weakness, that the Lord might effect something by me, etc. but this work that you speak of (howsoever the instrument be compassed with weakness) must sure be wrought by a more 
3 A sanctified puritan.  sanctified heart, than myself can yet boast of. and therefore though in affection, and goodwill I join, yet I resign the honour of the work to those that the Lord hath more thereto enabled, etc. Salute good Giles with many thanks, whose debtor I am in the Lord. blessing upon Zion, confusion upon Babel: Quaere, I say these things considered, whether the writer was not accessary to the said conspiracy, and a principal man in encouraging the actors which he calleth brethren in their wicked courses? and whether all his Libels, and scoffs published under the name of Martin, as namely his theses, protestations, dialogues, arguments, laying men out in their colours, and all his doings tending to the advancement of the holy cause, as they call it, did not tend wholly to an insurrection? and whether he liveth not under merciful governors, that call not the man to answer for his manifold lewd demeanours, and treacheries?  
73 Item, because the Petitioner standeth so much upon Vdals' innocency, refusing presumptuously, as it should seem, any manner of favour; let him also answer, whether the said john Udall was not acquainted with Hackets, Copingers, and Arthingtons' conspiracy, seeing that Copinger a little before his outrage writ unto him, that now the Lord had enabled him to fight, to vanquish, and overcome: that there was a Fast towards, in regard of the afflicted Saints in general: that he assured himself, that God would bless the actors in that cause: that there were divers out of prison lying hid, that in this great work were hammering their heads, etc. that the same persons hoped in short time to be brought forth into the sight of Vdals' brethren, and their own enemies: that their presence would daunt the enemies: that God would use base men in this work, lest men should boast in the arm of flesh: that Udall and his fellows in prison should cheer up their hearts, for that the day of their redemption was at hand; and that Udall and his fellow prisoners should pray, that the hand of the Lord might be strengthened in them, whom he had appointed to take part with them: quaere I say, whether john Udall be a loyal subject, that never revealed this practice, and be not guilty of far more, than ever was laid to his charge?  
74 Quaere, whether the Petitioner hath not greatly hurt the cause of his client Udall, in giving occasion to mention matters forgotten, and almost forgiven? and whether taking part with such fellows, himself is not an abettor of felony?  
75 Quaere, whether Th. Cartwr. and master Eg. did not receive letters from the conspirators concerning their designments, and did not also conceal the same, and whether the said master Eg. did not will the said Copinger to take heed, that he did not by his extraordinary calling, hinder the great cause in hand, and say, that himself being an ordinary minister, could not judge of Copingers extraordinany calling, and therefore would be loath to quench the spirit in him? and whether these paraphrases of discipline stand with loyalty, and good divinity?  
76 Quaere, whether T. C. and other disciplinarian teachers did not allow the scornful, and wicked Libels of Martin, and also certain seditious dialogues, and invectives against the State: and whether their disciplinarian rules will bear them out in it?  
77 Quaere, whether any is received, or suffered to continue in the ministery at Geneva, or other places governed like Geneva, that make any scruple to subscribe, or that speak against the orders of the church? and whether certain were not banished for speaking against wafer cakes there used in the Communion, and against Usury? and why factious persons should be more tolerated here, then there?  
78 Quaere, whether it be a good course to suffer such as do give probable suspicions of discontentment with the present government, to continue governors of houses in Universities, and to teach schools, and to live in the church, which like vipers they seek to ruinated?  
79 Quaere, whether to procure a learned ministery, it be a good course to take away the rewards of learning: or at least to hazard them?  
80 Quaere, how many of the ministers of the reformed churches have been able to leave so much to their wives, as to maintain them from beggary, and whether any man of worth can endure that indignity? and whether divers for want of maintenance have not fled the country of their habitation?  
81 Quaere, of Pierce Putcase whether a pretended godly brother, as you would say W. St. who is a piece of the putcase himself, may by the laws of this new kingdom, like a thief or murderer, lie in wait by the high way side, with a caliver ready charged, to kill his own natural brother, for that he is not sufficiently reform, and whether this be a sanctified course to win a brother to this melancholic reformation?  
82 Let also this question be asked of the same man, whether a disciplinarian brother, whose wives misgovernment made the poor man run horn wood, may notwithstanding be chosen an alderman, considering that Daneau a noble founder of this kingdom, doth in his Isagogicall instructions hold, that all the precepts that Saint Paul giveth of bishops, 1. Tim. 3. do belong to the Church aldermen also, and that it is required that such bishops be chosen as can govern their house well? and whether it is likely that he that hath no good head in governing his own house, should have a good judgement in governing of the Church?  
83 Item, Quaere because he asketh me certain questions of Th. Cartw. by what mystery, or science, a man may sell a coat and 3, or 4, acres of land, and purchase therewith 3, or 4, good lordships, and yet maintain a great family, and far well, and keep a pedant to teach his daughters Hebrew?  
84 Quaere also, whether a learned sister that understandeth some Greek, and Hebrew, may not in a parlour, at a table's end paraphrase upon a text of scripture, according to the puritan style, and whether it be not time for scholars to turn their books, when such paraphrastes take on them to abuse scriptures?  
85 Quaere, whether a trencher paraphrast, I mean these that degorge discipline at full tables, and upon full stomachs at their benefactors tables, are among those callings that saint Paul mentioneth Ephes. 4. and not being, how they dare presume to handle God's word, or rather to abuse holy scriptures in that sort?  
86 Item, whether certain sanctified brethren attained unto 24, carrats of perfection in discipline, may notwithstanding practise the jews trade, and take 10. in the hundred, or more if they can get it?  
87 Quaere, whether a man may grow to that extremity of burning zeal, that every spring and fall, he shall renew like a serpent that casts her skin, as it happened to a certain holy brother at Ipswich, not many years since? and whether such a fellow be a fit man for a precedent of a consistory?  
88 Quaere, whether as in Italy, and other places of popery, desperate wicked men run into the order of Theatins, or Capussins, so certain desperate bankeruptes and lose livers, as Bar. Fl. and others have not suddenly run into puritanism? and whether this alteration be not ab extremo in extremum, by such men as will never come into medium?  
89 Quaere, why it should be more lawful for ignorant men of base trades, and occupations to take upon them the decision of matters of religion, and government of the Church, than it is for Giles Wig. to become a malster, and others of this sect to become graziers, and wiredrawers, and such like?  
90 Quaere, whether a godly brother rather than by selling his living he should overthrow his house, 
1 The doubt of Th. Sa. of Yorkshire.  may not by the laws of discipline break bond, and promise, and suffer his sureties to lie by it? and in case the synod should determine, that he should pay some part, whether godly brethren, or profane men should first be paid, or else for avoiding of controversy none at all?  
91 Quaere, of john Penry, whether if Moses laws have such continuance as they hold in this new kingdom, a bastard that is excluded out of the sanctuary, may notwithstanding intrude without calling into the ministry?  
92 Quaere, of those that make brags of T. Cartw. great work against the Rhemists, whether there be not many points therein contained contrary to all the fathers, to the faith of this church, and all good Divinity? and why if all be clear with him, he dare not suffer the same to abide the censures of learned men? and lastly, why any should wonder that such things should not be published, considering what dangerous effects do follow printing of heretical, and schismatical books?  
93 Quaere, if a certain consistorial precedent at Middleburg, when a merchant did pursue a certain servant of his in law for wasting his goods, did not threaten to excommunicate him, if he would not desist his pursuit, and let fall his action, and whether the consistory may serve for a sanctuanie for bad men and bankruptes, if they profess reformation? and whether this manner of discipline dissolve not civil contracts, and hinder justice?  
94 Quaere, whether that the Churchaldermen do not sometimes meddle in domestical matters betwixt man and wife, and hinder the father's correction of his servants, or children? & whether this be not a way to dissolve the bonds of nature, that giveth authority in this case? and whether the discipline that useth this practice be not uncivil and unnatural?  
To conclude, Quaere if the Putcase had not done his clients, and their cause more good by silence, then by this weak, and calumnious speaking?  
It were an easy matter to frame infinite Questions of like sort: but these may suffice, to let the Libeler see his own folly in charging others, when himself, and his fellows lie so open. beside that, I would not weary thee, nor disfurnish myself of new matter against the next encounter. let him article, and play the Putcase as oft as he will, he must not think he shall walk up and down without answer, or controlment. in the mean while, 
Pag. 83.  because he appealeth to judges, and craveth justice, to them we are also content to submit our cause, and do also instantly crave justice. judge we beseech you, all to whom the execution of justice is committed, whether it be fitting, that such as declaim against the ancient government of the Church, ever known to be in the Church since Christ's time, against the authority and pre-eminence of her Majesty, against the laws of the realm, against the proceed of judges, and take on them to control, and reverse the sentences of judges, and seek the trouble of the realm, and maintenance of lewd factions, destitute of all ground: and speak for a government never heard of, but of late, nor that hath confirmation of scriptures, or fathers: judge I say, whether such intolerable pride, arrogancy, and disloyalty, and those that defend these treacherous dealings, and opinions in books printed in corners, and without names, are longer to be suffered? the inconveniences that may grow of these courses, I need not to declare unto you, that are men of judgement, and experience: the weakness of their cause I have sufficiently declared. Why should you doubt to do justice in so clear a cause, and against such factious persons? For their doings have no defence, nor their doctrine support, beside the bare opinions of Caluin, & Beza, & their followers. they have not so much as any ground of reason: no scripture, no father, no history, no law, nor example of good government: nay they have both scriptures, fathers, histories, law, and reason against them most evidently, and clearly and therefore I say again, let justice be done. if any of the ecclesiastical state have done against law, let them be punished: let not religion, and learning suffer for the sins of particulars: the innocent, let them not be disgraced for others offences: nor let malice, and faction, and sacrilege prevail against law, and government. that which is now their case, may be likewise yours. if you respect not the cause of men: yet consider that it is the cause of religion, learning, and government: and so proceed as you may declare yourselves to be men careful of the advancement of religion, and learning, and the maintenance of a peaceable government. and God so belsse you, as you show yourselves studious of religion, learning, peace, and justice.     

❧ An Advertisement to the Reader.  
WHereas in the former discourse somewhat hath been said in answer of the Petitioners lewd calumniations concerning the trial of john Vdal, and the judgement not long since pronounced against him, which he pretendeth to be disorderly and injurious, it may be that such as list to cavil at such things as they mislike, will take exceptions against the same, as if I meant to abase the high authority of judges, or make the proceed of the highest courts of justice an argument for the rude populace to dispute of, or to subject the ordinary trials of law to the controlment, or at least canuases of private persons. Lest any should either in this behalf except against me, or enter into any such conceit of me, I thought good expressly here to advertise thee, that both my words and meaning are contrary.  
Concerning matters of common justice betwixt party and party, I know that no judgement is reversed but by writ of error, and that in matters concerning the Crown, the verdicts of jurors and sentences of judges for the Queen are final, and that the law doth intend, that judges and jurors will proceed with that indifferency and equity, that it will not have their doings controlled nor examined by private persons. Neither is it any part of my meaning to call any law in question, or control the doings of so honourable persons as in that fact sat judges. Nay this is the thing which I do so much reprehend in the Petitioner and his faction, that most saucily and arrogantly they take upon them to examine the doings of Princes, the acts of Parliament, the sentences of judges, the verdicts of juries, and all records of justice. Neither is there any companion among them so base, but he taketh to himself liberty to censure and control Princes, Parliaments, judges, Laws, yea whatsoever, and whomsoever. Among others, the author of the Petition hath behaved himself as presumptuously and proudly, as the best. Ignorance belike maketh him bold: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the rather for that it is joined with impudency. What through presumption, and what through impudency he hath taken upon him contrary to the jurors verdict and judges sentence, to prove that Udall offended not against that statute of 23. Eliz. cap. 2. whereupon he was condemned.  
This notorious impudency and presumption, I thought good to lay open before men's eyes: and therefore having undertaken to answer others of the man's bold assertions and forged accusations of the ecclesiastical state; I thought it not amiss withal to touch his bold demeanour against judges, and presumptuous censure of their proceed. Not that I meant to make private men judges of their superiors, but that you may see the boldness of them that spare none that are not of their humours, and revel both at the Clergy and judges.  
If the proceed of magistrates were not justifiable, yet is this course which these men have taken very lewd and offensive. How much more offensive than will it seem, when it appeareth that the judges have proceeded according to law, and done not only justice, but showed great mercy and favour to the party? And how wisely doth this man seem to have pleaded for his client, when I think himself will not deny, but that he liveth rather by mercy, than demerit? that he was most favourably dealt withal, all that were by will witness, and himself I think will not deny: if he should, very many arguments would convince him.  
For first, whereas divers seditious Sermons might have been objected against him, he was only indited for his seditious practices in making and publishing the book of Demonstration of Discipline, as they lewdly call it.  
Secondly, whereas Chatfield could have spoken divers things very material against him, yet was he not forced to come to testify.  
Thirdly, being by divers witnesses, and great evidence, sufficient to induce any jury to pass against him, convinced, yet had he this favour, to be asked, for satisfying the jury, and clearing himself, if he would take it either upon his conscience, yea or credit, that he was not the author of that book, and might percase have escaped, if he durst have denied so plain a matter. Seeing he would neither affirm upon his conscience, nor credit, his innocency, what reason should the jury have had, to take that upon their conscience, which the party himself would not take either upon his conscience, or credit?  
Lastly, although the sentence of law be passed upon him, yet is the execution of law differred. Wherein if he do not acknowledge himself favourably dealt withal, all men will acknowledge, that he deserveth little favour.  
The objections and exceptions brought by the Libeler, are most false, and frivolous. He saith, that there is no offence in writing that book, committed against the statute of 23. Eliz. cap. 2. Wherein he crosseth the sentence of the judges, and most wise men of this land: and speaketh most evident untruth. For if railing against her majesties Ecclesiastical laws, and government, and seeking the subversion of it, be no offence, these fellows challenge to themselves great impunity and licence.  
He avoweth, that it was not proved that one man made the book, and the Epistle before the book, which is not material: for if he writ the words contained in the inditement, than was the inditement truly found. Besides, the same is untruth: for it is absurd to surmise, where a man publisheth a book, that another setteth to the Epistle. and he that made the Epistle, doth in terms avow the book. Neither skilleth it, that some have thought that Penry had his hand in it, for that doth not hinder, but that Vdal might also be a doer in it. But what need we other argument to prove this withal, than that udal would not disavow either Epistle, or book? or what need any dispute about the difference of the Epistle, and book, seeing the inditement compriseth both under the name of book, and both do follow the title?  
That which he saith, that he was convicted for the Epistle, and the evidence brought for the book, is untrue: for the evidence was brought for both. And very improbable it were, that any should be condemned for matter without the inditement, or that there should in the inditement be made a difference betwixt the book and the Epistle.  
These things considered, let all men judge whether it be likely, that john udal should be condemned guiltless? and whether the bare affirmation of a man lying desperately, should be taken against the deposition of witnesses, records of the Court, verdict of the jury, and sentence of so grave and religious a Bench, especially the man being so guilty, and the case so plain? His very friends condemned him, and his own conscience accused him. 
Chatfields' deposition.  Chatfield deposeth, that he saw papers in Vdals' Study, containing libellous matter, which himself wished Vdal to make away: and confesseth, that Vdal said to him in choler, that the Bishops had best to take heed how they stopped his mouth, for if they did, he would fall on writing, and give them such a blow, as they never had in their lives. Which blow could not be understood, but of that whereof he was convicted. In his Sermons he fell often upon the argument of his book, which considered, with other circumstances, may show him guilty: yea, and so guilty, that being demanded by the Bench, he could not deny it: no, though he might have saved his life by the denial, and renunciation of the book.  
Seeing then all this notwithstanding, the man's innocency is in a book (publicly diwlgued) defended against such notorious evidence, and upright proceed; who doth not see, that I have reason to detest the notorious presumption of such censors? If any deserve blame, not they that speak in defence of justice, but those that traduce it are to be blamed. That therefore which was well meant, without injury to any, receive with favour: and if in this matter thou wilt show signs of displeasure, let not the innocent, but such as presumptuously reprehend, and by faction seek to overthrow law, and justice, feel it.   

Faults escaped.  
IN the Epist. dedicat. pag. 5. lin. 7. read, valued. pag. 13. l. 16. aldermen. pag. 18. l. 22. never was. pag. 20. l. 5. wisdom and learning. pag. 22. l. 1. contrary. pag. 25. l. 1. themselves. line 11. doubt not. pag. 31. l. 17. learned. line. 18. deal mar. pag. 82. line. 27. bring him under. pag. 84. l. 18. say it, nor. pag. 85. l. 2. worthy councillor. pag. 92. l. 28. think. pag. 95. l. 23. now denieth it. pag. 107. l. 20. reproaches. pag. 134. l. 33. they are nought in law after their death or session, if they. pag. 141. in margin, read Rescius. page 155. l. 5. that there is no reason, that Th. Cartwright. pag. 167. l 22. too wise. pag. 167. l. 23. as these are. pag. 181. l. 4. as good fellows, as his deacons. pag. 90. l. 20. sin, but.