Note:Original marginal notes and additional explanatory notes by the ed. have been placed as endnotes. Original margin notes are in italics.
Oh read over Dr. John Bridges, for it is worthy work:
§ Or an epitome of the
first Book, of that right Worshipful vo-
lume, written against the Puritans, in the defence of
the noble clergy, by as worshipful a priest, John Bridges,
Presbyter, Priest or elder, doctor of Devility, and Dean of
Sarum. Wherein the arguments of the puritans are
wisely prevented, that when they come to an-
swer Mr. Doctor, they must needs
say something that has
Compiled for the behoof and overthrow ofthe unpreaching Parsons, Vicars, and Curates,
that have learnt their Catechisms, and are past grace:
By the reverend and worthy Martin Marprelate
gentleman, and dedicated by a second Epistle
to the Terrible Priests.
In this Epitome, the foresaid Vicars, etc. are very in-
sufficiently furnished, with notable inability of most vin-
cible reasons, to answer the cavil
of the puritans.
And lest Mr. Doctor should think that no man can write without
sense but himself, the senseless titles of the several pages, and
the handling of the matter throughout the Epitome, shew plainly
that beeetleheaded ignorance must not live and die with him alone.
Printed on the other hand of some of the Priests.
¶ Martin Marprelate gentleman, pri-England. To all the Clergy masters whereso-
mate, and Metropolitan of all the Martins in
ever, says as follows.
WHy, my clergy masters, is it even so with your terribleness? May not a poor gentleman signify his good will unto you by a letter, but presently you must put yourselves to the pains and charges of calling four bishops together, John Canterbury, John London, Thomas Winchester, William of Lincoln, and posting over city and country for poor Martin? Why, his meaning in writing unto you was not that you should take the pains to seek for him. Did you think that he did not know where he was himself? Or did you think him to have been clean lost, that you sought so diligently for him? I thank you brethren, I can be well, though you do not send to know how I do. My mind towards you, you shall from time to time understand by my 'pistles. As now, where you must know that I think not well of your dealing with my worship and those that have had of my books in their custody. I'll make you rue that dealing of yours, unless you leave it. I may do it, for you have broken the conditions of peace between us. I can do it, for you see how I am favoured of all estates (the puritans only excepted). I have been entertained at the Court, every man talks of my worship. Many would gladly receive my books, if they could tell where to find them. I hope these Courtiers will one day see the cause tried between me and you. I have many sons abroad that will solicit my suite. My desire is to have the matter tried, whether your places ought to be tolerated in any Christian commonwealth. I say they ought not. And I say John Canterbury and all, ought to be out of his place. Every Archbishop is a petty Pope, so is every Lord bishop. You are, all the pack of you, either hirelings or wolves. If you dare answer my reasons, let me see it done. Otherwise, I trow, my friends and sons will see you one day deposed.
The Puritans are angry with me, I mean the puritan preachers. And why? Because I am too open. Because I jest. I jested because I deal against a worshipful jester, Dr. Bridges, whose writings and sermons tend to no other end than to make men laugh. I did think that Martin should not have been blamed of the puritans for telling the truth openly. For may I not say that John of Canterbury is a petty pope, seeing he is so? You must then bear with my ingramness1. I am plain, I must needs call a spade a spade, a Pope a Pope. I speak not against him as he is a Councillor, but as he is an archbishop, and so Pope of Lambeth. What! will the Puritans seek to keep out the Pope of Rome, and maintain the Pope at Lambeth? Because you will do this, I will tell the bishops how they shall deal with you. Let them say that the hottest of you has made Martin, and that the rest of you were consenting thereunto, and so go to one magistrate and say, Lo! such and such of our puritans have, under the name of Martin, written against your laws. And so call you in and put you to your oaths whether you made Martin or no. By this means Mr. Wigginton, or such as will refuse to take an oath against the law of the land, will presently be found to have made Martin by the bishops, because he cannot be gotten to swear that he made him not. And here is a device to find a hole in the coat of some of you puritans. In like sort, to find the printer, put every man to his oath, and find means that Schilders of Middleborough shall be sworn too, so that if any refuse to swear then he may be thought to be the printer. But bishops, let your fatherhoods tell me one thing. May you put men to their oath against law? Is there any law to force men to accuse themselves? No! therefore look what this dealing will procure at the length: even a plain praemunire upon your backs, for urging an oath contrary to statute, which is a piece of the foreign power banished by statute.
For the rest that will needs have my books, and cannot keep them close, I care not how the bishops deal with such open fellows. And bishops, I would I could make this year 1588 to be the wonderful year, by removing you all out of England. Martin has told the truth, you cannot deny it, that some of you do invidiously detain true men's goods, as John of London. And some have accounted the preaching of the word to be heresy, as John of Canterbury, etc. All of you are in an unlawful calling, and no better than a brood of petty Popes. It will be but folly for you to persecute the Courtier Martin until you have cleared yourselves (which you can never do) of the crimes he has laid to your charge. Alas, poor bishops, you would fain be hidden in a net, I perceive. I will grow to a point with you. Have but a free disputation with the puritans for the unlawfulness of your place, and if you be not overthrown I will come in and do unto you what you think good. For then I will say that you are no Popes. There was the Demonstration of Discipline, published together with my Epistles, which is a book wherein you are challenged by the puritans to adventure your bishoprics against their lives in disputation. You have gotten a good excuse to be deaf at that challenge, under colour of seeking for Martin. Your dealing therein is but to hold my dish while I spill my pottage. You defend your legs against Martin's strokes, while the puritans by their Demonstration, crush the very brain of your bishopdoms. Answer that book and give the puritans the overthrow by disputation, or else I see that Martin has undone you. Be packing bishops and keep in the pursuivants2, or if you will needs send them abroad to molest good men, then pay them their wages and let them not pull it out of poor men's throats like greedy dogs, as they do. You strive in vain, you are laid open already. Friars and monks were not so bad; they lived in the dark. You shut your eyes, lest you should see the light. Archbishop Titus, and Timothy, will never maintain your popish callings. I have pulled off your vizard3, look to yourselves, for my sons will not see their father thus persecuted at your hands. I will work your woe and overthrow, I hope. And you are already clean spoiled, unless you will grant the puritans a free disputation, and leave your persecuting.
Either from country or Court,
Mr. Martin Marprelate, will do you hurt.
Is good enough for bishops I can tell,
And I do much marvel,
If I have not given them such a spell,
As answer it how they cannot tell.
Doctor Bridges up and down,
Writes after this fashion.
1. A very portable book, a horse may carry it if he be not too weak.
The Epitome of the first book of thisworthy volume, written by my brother Sa-
rum, Dean John, Sic fœliciter incipit.
THe whole volume of Mr. Dean's contains in it 16 books, besides a large preface and an Epistle to the Reader. The Epistle and the preface are not above 8 sheets of paper, and very little under 7. You may see when men have a gift in writing, how easy it is for them to daub paper. The complete work (very briefly comprehended in a portable book, if your horse be not too weak, of an hundred threescore and twelve sheets of good Demi paper) is a confutation of The Learned Discourse of Ecclesiastical Government. This learned discourse is a book allowed by all the Puritan preachers in the land, who would have all the remnants and relics of Antichrist banished out of the Church and not so much as a Lord bishop (no, not his grace himself), dumb minister (no, not dumb John of London himself), nonresident, archdeacon, abbey lubber4, or any such loiterer, tolerated in our ministry. Insomuch as if this stronghold of theirs be overthrown, Hoe! then all the fat is run to the fire with the puritans. And therefore, has not the learned and prudent Mr. Dean dealt very valiantly (how wisely let John Cant. cast his cards and consider) in assaulting this sort of our precise brethren, which he has so shaken with good vincible reasons, very notably out of reason, that it has not one stone in the foundation more than it had.
Trust me, truly, he has given the cause such a swipe with his brick, and so lambskinned the same, that the cause will be the warmer a good while for it. The reasons that moved him to take these pains was that at the first coming out of the
2. Challenged for his sermon. - A smooth style.
Learned Discourse, the Dr., in a sermon of his at Paul's Cross5, did not only confute a great part of this book, but by his said learned sermon made many of the puritans relent and distrust their own cause. What cannot a smooth tongue and a scholar-like wit bring to pass?6 Some other of the puritans indeed, being more untoward to learn than the rest, stood stiff in their former opinions concerning the government of bishops, (notwithstanding this sermon of Mr. doctor's) and challenged him for his sermon, offered him the disputation (yea, and the non plus7 too, or else I am deceived). Here Mr. Dean promised them a large confutation of the Learned Discourse, which in this book he has now performed, wherein he has behaved himself very scholar-like. His style is as smooth as a crabtree8 cudgel. The reader cannot choose but have as great delight therein as a Jack-an-apes9 has in a whip. He has so thumped the cause with cross blows that the puritans are like to have a good and a sound cause of it as long as they live. In this one thing I dare prefer him before any that ever wrote: to wit, that there be not 3 whole periods for every page in the book that is not graced with a very fair and visible solecism.10 O most excellent and surpassing eloquence! He speaks everything so fitly to the purpose that he never touches the matter in question. A rare gift in a learned writer. He has used such variety of learning that very often he has translated out of one man's writing 6 or 7 pages together. Note here a new-found manner of bookmaking. And which is more strange, he brings those testimonies for his purpose, whose very words, translated and set down by him, are as flat against the purpose whereto he brings them as fire in quality is contrary to water. Had not he a right use of his wits think you, while they were thus bestowed, not to stand long in this place of those qualities in him whereof before I have made some mention to his praise in the former Epistle? Whatsoever might be for
3. How Mr.Dr. played my L. of Winchester's fool in his sermon.
the ornament and furthering of an honest cause, he has in this book so defied them all, that elsewhere you are to seek for them, for here they are not to be found. Wherein he has very wisely and prudently observed the decorum of the cause in hand. Like lips, like Lettice, as it is in the proverb. The goodness and honesty of the matter he handled required such good and honest proofs as he brought. Let those that handle honest and godly causes labour to bring good proofs and a clear style. Presbyter John defended our Church government which is full of corruptions, and therefore the style and the proofs must be of the same nature that the cause is. The priest leaves not so much as the title of the Discourse unexamined. The title, forsooth, is A Learned Discourse, etc. A saucy title, but what says the learned Bridges unto it. O! you know he is good at a stale jest, ever since he played my Lord of Winchester's fool in his sermon at Sir Mary's Church in Cambridge11, and therefore he jests at the title. I us, the puritans have nothing to do with that sermon, why should they hit their brother in the teeth therewith? He has made their betters to laugh at him for his sermon since that time. And why should he not? For his grace will allow him. Because he is content that bishops should be Lords, he has subscribed, wears a corner cap and a tippet, and would gladly come to the honour to wear that which might make him a lord spiritual12. And if it were a shaven crown, or a coxcomb, which his grace his articles would enjoin him to wear, what hurt could that do unto him?
Now I wonder what our brethren will say to this, that their book is scoffed at, at the first dash. I am sure their noses can abide no jest. What say they, man, do you make any question of that? I warrant you they will affirm that the author of the Learned Discourse, and 500 green heads more that are on their side, within 2 syllogisms, would set the Dean of
4. Black Ox has trodden on his grace's foot. - State of the question
Sarum at a flat non plus, and answer his whole work in a threepenny book. Are they so good at disputing and writing indeed? I hope his Canterburyness will look to this gear and suffer them to have liberty neither to write nor to dispute. The Black Ox has trodden on his foot, he has had some trial by woeful experience, what small credit and less gain there is to be had, either in writing or disputing with these fellows.
To the matter. The state of the whole controversy between my brethren bishops, and my brethren the puritans, and so between this worthy doctor and these discoursers, is: Whether the external government of the Church of Christ be a thing so prescribed by the Lord in the New Testament as it is not lawful for any man to alter the same, any more than it was lawful to alter the form of regiment prescribed under the law in the Old Testament. And see whether, if there be any government in the Church (as necessarily there must be, or else all confusion will ensue), the same must be by those offices and officers alone, and by no other, which the Lord has set down and limited in his word. Or else, whether man may alter these offices and officers at his will and pleasure and make new offices and officers, as he may in the civil governments. The puritans say that these offices and officers, which our Saviour Christ and his Apostles did ordain, are unchangeable, and that it is not lawful for any prince to alter them; no, not though the circumstances of times, places and persons, should seem in regard of convenience to enforce him thereunto. The Doctor, with all the Lordly priests in the land, hold the contrary, and swear it to be lawful for the magistrate to ordain what government he will in the Church. Yea, that the Church governors, contrary to the flat commandment of our Saviour Christ, Luke 22:25-26, may be Lords, and that the Church government prescribed by our Saviour Christ, and enjoined by the Apostle, was not immutable, as the
5. Ministers of the Old Testament. - Ministers of the New Testament.
regiment under the law was. Insomuch as in the opinion of Mr. Bridges and the rest of the clergy, Paul was deceived, Ephesians the 4:13, in saying that pastors and doctors were to continue in the Church until we all meet together, that is, unto the end of the world. Here then is the puritan's Aye, for the permanency of this government, and Mr. Doctor's No. Our brethren (for so of his mere courtesy it pleases Mr. Dean to call them, whom men commonly call puritans and precisians) to make their party good, propound the cause by a like example after this sort.
The sacrifices of the old law (after the building of the Temple) were to be offered 13* only at Jerusalem, by a Levite of the line of Aaron 14* only, unless a prophet extraordinarily ordained it otherwise, as 15* Elijah did. And the said sacrifices were to be consumed and burned only 16* by a fire proceeding from the Lord. Briefly, none were to meddle with the tabernacle, or anything belonging to the service of God, but the sons 17* of Levi whom the Lord appointed for his own service. So that if any sacrifice were offered out of Jerusalem, by any other than a son of Aaron, consumed by any 18* strange fire, or any service about the Tabernacle 19* performed by a stranger, not appointed by the Lord, then an horrible breach of God's ordinance was committed, and punished very memorably by the Lord in 20* Uzza, 21* Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and the two hundred and fifty captains of the Congregation, who not being of the sons of Aaron, would needs offer incense before the Lord.
In like sort, Christ Jesus ordained that when there should be any ministers in his Church they should be able to gather together 22* the saints, and that these in their proper and limited places should be either pastors or doctors. In like sort, he ordained that some should 23* bear rule and oversee the flock with the minister, and they should be Elders; that the over-
6. What offices and officers the Church is to be governed by.
sight of the Church treasury and the care for the maintenance of the poor should be committed 24*unto Deacons, under which also the widows and Church servants are contained. He further ordained that before these officers should be instituted, and as it were invested into their offices, there should be had due examination of their 25* fitness to execute the same, and their unreprovable 26* life. And that their ordination should be 27* by imposition of hands, with fasting and prayer. And by these 4 officers (say our brethren), Pastors, Doctors, Elders and Deacons, God has appointed that all matters of the Church, should be decided and determined. For these officers only (and none else) must have to do with the preaching of the word, administering the sacraments, making of ministers, excommunicating and administering of all other Church censures and punishments. But as for civil government, punishment and censures, they must not meddle with them, because these things only belong to the civil magistrate, whose office is not to be usurped by any of the former. Thus our brethren set down the whole state of the controversy, and thus by Scripture they confirm their Aye, and overthrow Mr. Doctor's No. Parlous fellows I assure you, for believe me, it would put a man to his trumps to answer these things soundly by Scripture again. Well, Mr. Dean, on the other side, very stoutly proves his No, page 5428 of his, by a convex axiom to begin withal in this manner:
If this Church government, by pastors, doctors, elders and deacons, be necessary, then the Church in some age and place either had this government or has laboured for it.29 A most true and tried truth. What then, brother Sarum, do you assume from this true government? Nay, soft there ka mass Dean, I trow the puritans will not drive me to make syllogisms30 in this book. That is no part of my intent, for if I had thought they would drive me to such pinches, I would not
7. Mr.Dr's prudence, in omitting that which he cannot prove
have meddled with them. Nay, by their leave, if the assumption or proposition be either more than I can prove, or be against myself, I will omit them. Pardon me I pray you, my masters, I will set down nothing against myself. I have brought in a true proposition, and that is enough for one man, I think. Let me see what you can say to that.31 My assumption shall be brought forth at leisure. Is the wind at that door with you, brother Dean. I perceive you will be of the surer side, howsoever it goes. But brethren, what then say you to Mr. Dean's reason? Your answer, I know, may be of 3 sorts. First, you may say that the reason is popish. Secondly, you may demand whether it be Midsummer Moon with him or no, because he brings in a cover proposition and assumes nothing. Can you blame him in so doing, for the assumption must have been either affirmative or negative. Now if he had assumed affirmatively, he had overthrown himself; If negatively, then you, brethren, would have denied the assumption, which Mr. Dean would never have been able to prove. So a man might put himself to a peck32 of troubles indeed. And this is a point for your learning, closely to pass by that wherewith a man shall have no honesty to deal. Thirdly, you may grant the proposition to be very true (to what end then did Sarum bring it in) because Geneva, and other the Helvetian Churches have this government, and you Labor for it. Silly fellows, can you say no more than, Upon them again Mr. Dean, with your second reason thus concluded, page 55, with 4 good substantial terms. No government is an uniform prescript that cannot be altered, but that which God in his word prescribes to be such. But the Lord has not prescribed the Church government to be such, as all things appertaining thereunto is an uniform prescript that cannot be altered. Therefore the Church government is not an uniform prescript which cannot be altered.33
8. What offices and officers the Church is to be governed by.
You know not how I love you for your wit and learning sake, brother John (as for your godliness, I might carry it in mine eye, and see never a it the worse) notwithstanding methinks your syllogism should have four terms. 1 The Church government. 2 All things belonging to a Church government. 3 An uniform prescript, etc. 4 A government prescribed in the word.
And ten to one, brother, you never dreamt to have met with your brother Martin when you wrote this volume. Well, seeing we are now come together, let me about this point of Church government familiarly spur a question unto you. Tell me then, without dissimulation, what the bishops and you mean when the question is concerning Church government, to run by and by into the controversy of things appertaining to Church government which for the most part are indifferent, and not set down in the word, but left to the discretion of the Church. As though there were no difference between the questions.34 By what and how many offices and officers, the Church is to be governed? In what causes is it lawful for Church governors to employ themselves; whether it be lawful for one of them to meddle with the office of another? Or for one to do that action wherein the whole Church should be an agent? Whether they may be magistrates and church governors both at one time? As though (I say) there were no difference between these questions which are grounded upon the certain prescript rule of the word that cannot be changed, and other questions, which although they belong to the service of God and the outward government of the Church, yet depend not upon anything prescribed and exactly set down in the word, but upon the grounds of what, in regard of the changeable circumstances of time and place, may be most comely, most decent, most orderly, and best belonging to edification. Of this latter sort are these points: whether it
9. Dean o' Lincoln (sometimes unlearned John Whitgift) his question
be most convenient that prayer should begin at 8 or 9 of the clock, whether the sermon should continue an hour or an hour and an half, whether the pulpit should be of wood or of stone, etc. Concerning which, the word has expressly set down nothing, but commanded that all of them should be squared according unto the rule, let all things be done honestly, by order, and to edification.35
Now, reason with one of our corrupt bishops, or any other that defend their corruptions, and say that our Church government is wicked and unlawful because it is not expressly set down in the word. They will, by and by, demand whether anything belonging to the service of God be lawful, but that whereof there is express mention made in the word, and whether anything belonging to Church causes be changeable. As whether it may be lawful for the minister to preach in his gown, whereas there is no express mention that our Saviour Christ and his Apostles did so? Or whether it may not be lawful for the Church of Geneva to begin his sermon at 8 of the clock, whereas it may be the Church of Helvetia begins at 9 or at 10. So the worshipful Dean of Lincoln (sometimes unlearned John Whitgift) not being able to deny but that the ministers ought to be chosen by voice, demands whether women, forsooth, were not to have a voice in their election or no? And thus all the pack of them run from the matter in controversy unto the question of things indifferent; by this means thinking they may blear the eyes of men if they can bring any cavil, though never so impertinent to the matter. As who say, all men were so ignorant, unlearned, and blinded with the world, as nonresidents and Bb. are. I'll besire them to leave this order, or else they are like to hear of it. And I'll besire36 you, presbyter Bridges, not to bring four terms in your syllogism
10. John Elmar, the B. of London his book.
again, for an37 you do it shall cost me the setting on. My brethren the puritans in this place, it may be, would grant your syllogism to have but 3 terms in it, and so would say that the words (all things) in the assumption may be taken ambiguous. For if thereby your worship means, all things appertaining to the circumstances of the outward service of God, as the hours of prayers, the number of communicants in one congregation, etc., as you set down your meaning to be, page 56 sect. 3, then they say your assumption is nothing to the matter in question. The question my masters? Why, what a question is that? Did not I warn you 'aforehand, that Mr. Dean had made a vow not to meddle with the question. But if say they, you mean the Church officers and their subjects, concerning which the controversy is instituted, then we deny the assumption.
And I warrant you brethren, he proves the assumption by 2 reasons, page 55.38 First, Christ is the owner and governor of his house, which is the Church, concerning the inward and spiritual government of the heart. Therefore he has not prescribed the outward government thereof. Surely, brother John, I marvel upon what topic place this reason is grounded, for scripture is not the foundation (you know) of the established government you defend, as though (will Mr.Bridges say) you are ignorant, brother Martin, whence I drew this argument. You would make the world believe that you know not that I reasoned as my brother London did in his Harborough of Faithful Subjects.39 I tell you, I drew my argument from that place whence he drew his, which you shall find set down, page 42 of his book (for I am sure, Mr. Marprelate, your book has the pages set down in it, although the printed book has them not). O, I remember well indeed brother Sarum, the place you mean, and I remember that John Elmar's reason is very like yours. For (says
11. Paul has gone beyond his commission, says John of London.
Elmar), The scripture meddles with no civil policy, any farther than to teach obedience; therefore it teaches not what persons should bear rule. And again, page 44, The minister's office is over the soul; therefore a minister must not reprehend disorders in the civil state. Page 47, Paul's commission is to teach obedience; therefore he has nothing to do to call for a redress of matters in civil policy. Yea, in this 47 page, line 19, John of London has these words, which to his commendation I will set down as follows.
And this being a great matter of policy (says he) as it is the greatest (for it contains the whole), it cannot be within the compass of Paul's commission; and so it follows that Paul in this place meant no such matter as they gather, or if he did, he did it without the compass of his commission, etc.
Now truly brother Bridges, I thank you heartily for putting me in mind of this point. I hope my brother London cannot be offended with us for quoting him for our authority. I see now it is no marvel, though Paul be put to silence within the diocese of London, for I perceive there is an old grudge between my Lord and him. Yet I commend your fatherhood better than his Lordship in this point, for in the 57 page of your book, you allow Paul a larger commission where you say, that the word of God is able to make the civil government perfect: yea, and that the perfection of the civil government must be out of the word, and in the word inclusively. But for all this, you must give me leave to doubt how this reason of yours follows. Christ has prescribed the inward government, therefore he has not prescribed the outward. It may be your second reason will make the matter more clear unto me, which is the same page, and thus framed. We are his Church if we hold fast the confidence of our hope unto the end. Therefore there is no external
12. Bellarmine's opinion, and the Mr. Dr. all one in this point.
government of the Church set down in the word.40 This reason, to omit what ground it has in the word, is very plausible even in nature is it not, think you? All man is a man though he go naked. Therefore by master dean's reason, the Lord has ordained no covering for his nakedness. Again, a man is a man if he be once born, though he never eat meat, therefore it is not the ordinance of God he should eat meat. Let our cavilling brethren go see now what may be brought to reproach the credit of such enforceable proofs. Mr. Doc. doubtless will stand to his tackle whatsoever they bring. If they should be so ignorant as to deny the consequent of both these reasons they must stay until Mr. Dean has read over his predicables41 and predicaments with friar Titleman's rules, De inveniendis mediis, viz. until he has gotten a bishopric, before he prove either of them. And it may be then too, that he will prove what they deny, as master Canterbury has proved that which master Cartwright confuted.
In the meantime, mark how stoutly Mr. Dean goes forward. And although, page 56,42 he meet by the way with his own sweet friend Bellarmine,43 a popish writer's distinction of agreeable, and not contrary, to the word (the papists affirming all their traditions to be agreeable and none of them contrary to the word) yet his answer, page 57,44 to the place of Paul, 2 Tim. 3:7, is as good and as canonical as any of the former reasons, concluded thus: The place of scripture which does not deny but that civil government, which must be inclusively according to the word, may be elsewhere prescribed than in the word, that place also does not forbid the Church government to be fetched from some other fountain, than the prescription of the word.45 But this place, 2 Tim. 3: 7, does not deny but that civil government, being a government not prescribed in the word, may be learned elsewhere than out of the word, and yet be
13. William Woodcock's divinity. - Peter and Paul confuted.
according to the word. Also it does not deny but that the church government may be a church government according to the word, which is not therein prescribed.
It is a hard matter I tell you, to conceive all the wisdom of this syllogism. For if you mark the proposition very well, you shall therein find the errors (as Mr. doctor accounts them) of Peter and Paul, very notably overthrown. The one of them calls 46* the civil government, a human ordinance, the other 47* affirms our Saviour Christ to have ordained every minister and Church officer that were at any time to be in the Church, and to have tied the ministry unto two ordinary functions, of pastors and doctors. But his worship, lighting upon William Woodcock's divinity, puts in the propositions, both that the Church government is an ordinance of man, invented and ordained by man, and also that there may be as many sorts of ministers in the Church (if the magistrate will have it so) as there be degrees of civil officers in a commonwealth. For the Church government is no more prescribed in the word (says the Dean) than the civil government is.
You may see then, how heady and perverse these our brethren are, that had rather stick unto a poor fisherman and tentmaker, Peter and Paul, in a matter of truth, than embrace the manifest falsehood of so plain an untruth with a fat Dean and all the brave spiritual Lords in the land. Well fare our clergymen yet, (who being like the priest whereof John of London makes mention of in his foresaid book, page 32 line 3, that swore by his priesthood that if the Trinity were not in his portess48, he would not believe it) will allow of nothing but that which is in the B. of Canterbury's Articles, be it never so often read in Paul's writings.49
14. His grace is able now to make the puritans to stoop, I warrant you.
And I trow Mr. doctor's reasons following will make the puritans stoop unto his grace, and leave their peevishness and running beyond their commission, after the example of Paul, in speaking against any established government. Yea, and a government established by act of parliament. I think my L. of London gave Paul enough, as we heard before, for meddling with state matters. And his grace admonishes the puritan preachers often enough that howsoever they have truth of their side, yet they must not run beyond a law, and without law, if they do, though they have Peter and Paul to speak for them. Yet by your leave, he has in his hand that which will tame them and all their fautors50, if the abusing of the High Commission and an whole popedom be able to do it. But all this while we go not on forward with you brother Sarum. Therefore, in the next page,51 let us hear how you fetch your brethren over the coals with your next reason, whereof trust me, I know not, almost though it were to gain a bishopric, how I should make a good syllogism, but I will do my best after this manner.
It suffices that such orders as are not prescribed in the word as things necessary to salvation, be they civil or ecclesiastical, be only folded up within those that are prescribed; and to make them as things expedient to edification, order and comeliness, for obedience sake, although they be none of those things that appertain to any necessity of our salvation, or to any absolute necessity of our obedience. But such is the Church government as it is not prescribed in the word as necessary to salvation, or of any absolute necessity of our obedience. Therefore it is sufficient that the Church government be only folded up within the things prescribed in the word and be of the nature of the things that only belong to edification, order and comeliness.
15. William Woodcock's divinity.
I was never so afraid in my life that I should not come to an end till I had been windless. Do you not see how I pant? Our brethren now are to come to their answer. Concerning, necessary to salvation, then say they, we would know, brother Bridges, and thrice learned brother Bridges, we would know what you mean. Whether such a necessity, as without which men cannot be saved. I mean even the same (says Mr. Dean) as it appears page 60, line 21, 22 of my book. Then we reply that nothing is of this necessity but only justifying faith, and we deny the sacraments to be of this necessity. For the youth on the gallows 52* was saved without them. And we think moreover, that your impiety and ignorance (Mr. Dean) to be outrageous and intolerable (say they) in that you go about to teach the Holy Ghost what he shall prescribe in the word, because by this proposition of yours nothing should be prescribed therein concerning the sacraments, for they are not there prescribed as things necessary to salvation in such sort as men cannot be saved without them.
But if you meant not this necessity, then we would know if you can tell yourself what you would have, (forsooth brethren, a bishopric he would have, and all such troublesome fellows as you are, banished the land). Hoe! You mean such a necessity as every Church is not bound to observe the same order upon their obedience. For example, you mean that every Church or several congregations in Europe, professing the truth, is not bound to have their Church covered with lead, as the monastery of Sarum is. For they may lawfully have it covered with slate or tile. You mean that they are not bound, every one of them, to have a sermon upon the Wednesday, for they may lawfully have it upon any other day in the week.53 That every Church is not bound to have a pulpit 4 foot high, for they may without sin have one lower or higher, if
16. A proposition set from Rome and like to breed a Jesuit.
expediency and edification require the same. That is even my meaning indeed, and so I would, page 59 (says Mr. Dean). That these things should be urged no otherwise than Paul do urge them: that is, not placing the perfection of religion in them, or making them orders necessary for the building, but rather for the ornaments of the building, and so squaring them all according unto the rule: Let all be done honestly and by good order. Is this your meaning (Mr. doctor), you have spun a fair thread. Can you tell your brother Marprelate, with all your learning, how to decline what is Latin for a goose. Why, this every one of your brethren himself will grant to be true, and they never denied it at any time. But this is not the question. For it is neither concerning Church officer, office, or any part of Church government, whereof the question is instituted, but it is concerning matter of circumstance. Yet, (brother John) what do you mean by these contrarieties in this point. For you have heard, page 59, you mean by things, necessary to salvation, matters of indifference; and page 60, line 21/22, you mean an absolute necessity, without which men cannot be saved. Do you think that you can answer men by saying that you indeed wrote page 59, but Dr. Perne wrote page 60, the which you had no leisure to oversee. This is a pretty answer, is it not think you? Let me take you again in such a prank, and I'll course54 you as you were better to be seeking Gammer Gurton's needle, than come within my fingers. And learned Mr. doctor, say the puritans, we will give you leave to take either of these 2 necessities to be your meaning. If you mean, as page 59 be necessary to salvation, then they deny the assumption. And yet they will have one course more at the proposition before they go, because it came from Rome and will bring forth a Jesuit, unless betimes it be had to the house of correction. They say then that you still join with Bellarmine. For in the state of
17. Mr.Doctor's collection out of popish writers.
the question concerning tradition, he has the same cavil, cap. 3, lib.2, against Calvin, Luther and Kemnitius, which you have concerning comeliness, and order in this place, against your brethren. What a saucy fellow was that Bellarmine, that must needs publish his work for the Pope, one just year before you published yours for the Archbishop? Could he not keep it in until both your books might be published together. For now these puritans do shake you very shrewdly for borrowing popish stuff from Bellarmine, and overthrowing her Majesty's supremacy, whereas I am persuaded that although Bellarmine had never written, yet the master that taught him would in time have fully instructed you in all these points that are forged upon his anvil. And although (as I think) he saved you a great deal of study, yet I pray you let Dr. Perne write unto him that he may know his fault, and you be certified when he writes again, that both your books may come forth together.
Now if in your assumption (say our brethren), if you mean by necessity to salvation, that without which men cannot be saved, as before, it is true that the Church government is not of this necessity, for in that sense, as was said, the sacraments are not necessary to salvation, or of any absolute necessity unto our obedience. Nay, to be no traitor, no idolater, no whoremonger, is not of that absolute necessity to salvation, but that he may be saved which has been (so that now he be none) sometimes an idolater, etc. If you mean that other necessity, whereby all they that will have any government in the Church are bound to have that only, and none else, which God has prescribed in the word, or else transgress that inviolable prescript ordinance of God, concerning the government of his Church. Then they deny the assumption. Here is a pretty matter, that one poor syllogism must be thus handled. I would his worship knew who they
18. Anything in religion may be altered, by the bishop's divinity.
were that thus deal with him. I hope it should not be long ere Watson the Pursuivant (as unnatural a fourfaced knave as ever was in that office) should trudge for them. They shall be met with one day I doubt not.
Mr. Dean, page 58,55 shews very wisely that men must warily take heed how they build (for the Bb. have these 30 years so built that they are almost come to dig at the foundation of the Church) lest belike men should, by building after the manner of the Apostles, overthrow the Monastery of Sarum.56 And that were pity, seeing from thence these natural reasons following have issued.
Everything that is prescribed in the word, contains in it the perfection of religion. But the Church government does not contain in it the perfection of religion. Therefore the Church government is not prescribed in the word. No, brother John, nor baptism neither: For baptism does not contain the perfection of religion in it, and therefore as you may wisely conclude, it is not prescribed in the word. We may alter what we will now, so that the part which we alter contain not the perfection of religion in it, and be agreeable unto my L. of Cant. articles. For they must be altered in no case. And what reason is it that the Lord's Supper should be received under both kinds, if the civil magistrate and the Church will otherwise ordain. For no sacrament contains in it the perfection of religion, and therefore by Mr. Dean's proposition, the celebration thereof is not prescribed in the word. A man might keep good stir in the pulpit, or in writing, having but this ground allowed him. And I think of such a preacher as this should be, John of London spoke in his foresaid book, page 49, line 2, where he describes his preacher after this manner: that he should be no milksop, no white-livered gentleman, that for the frowning and cloudy countenance of every man in authority, will leave his flock and cry 'Pecassi'57. And again, in this page, When they come to
19. John Elmar, the B. of London's preacher with quarter blows.
handigrips58, they must not only flourish, but they must know their quarter strokes, and the way how to defend their head, etc.59 Such a preacher I say as this, would quickly with his quarter strokes overturn all religion, and with very good reason if Dean John's proposition be true, that everything which is prescribed in the word, contains in it the perfection of religion.
Will you have any more of these blows brethren, then touch them again parson John, with the second reason in this page. Everything that is prescribed in the word is of the substance of the building. The church government is not of the substance of the building. Therefore it is not prescribed in the word. Nothing but paralogisms60, Sir Bridges. Do you not know before whom you speak? You think now that you play my L. of Winchester's fool, do you? Or that you are in the monastery of Sarum among your roaring quiristers.61 I would advise you, learn this of me: That the Church government is a substantial point of religion, and therefore of the substance of the building. That it is a substantial point, it appears, because it is included within the commandment which our Saviour Christ gave unto his Apostles62 when he sent them to build his Church, commanding them, not only to teach and baptise all nations (which are the things that you think only to be substantial unto the building. Nay, wicked bishops will not acknowledge preaching to be of the substance of the building) but also to teach them to observe whatsoever he commanded them. Now he 63* ordained, he commanded, that the church should be governed by these 4 offices, or else the Apostles would never 64* have observed them and prescribed them unto the Church. Was there nothing wanting unto the building in Crete while they wanted Elders there. If there was not, why should Titus stay there to ordain Elders in every city?65 If there was, what a dunce are you to deny the
20. Archbishop Titus controlled by Paul in his own diocese.
Church government to be of the substance of the building. Paul says in that place, Tit.1:5, that he appointed that Titus should ordain Elders there. Paul, belike in this place did appoint these things to be ordained, which were not of the substance of the building. You were best to say that Paul had nothing to do with Church government but to teach obedience, and therefore went beyond his commission in meddling with these matters. Archbishop Titus, belike whereof you speak now, should be all the doer in Church matters. Yet I am glad of one thing, that Paul was so bold as to command Archbishop Titus, and to enjoin him what he should do in his own diocese.66 I say, in his own diocese, for Mr. Dr. proves anon that Titus was Archbishop of Crete. Now if Titus, who I doubt not was as good an Archbishop as his grace of Canterbury (if ever he was any as he was not) and might every day in the week, go cheek by jowl with his grace, did yet suffer himself in his own diocese, to be commanded by Paul, and presumed to do nothing but that which Paul commanded him to do, then I see no reason why Paul should not bear a little more sway in Canterbury diocese than he does.67 And I see no reason why his grace should presume to do things so flat contrary to Paul's mind as he does. Whereas he ought to do nothing but by Paul's commandment, his grace shall one day answer me this point or very narrowly escape me a scouring. And you, Dean John, go forward, I am content to let you pass my fingers at this time
If I were saved (says the Dr. page 6068) without this government, then it is not necessary to salvation. But many were saved without this government that our brethren would have: therefore it is not necessary to salvation. John of London with his two-hand sword, could have quitted himself no better than this. Our brethren grant all this brother
21. A lie may be dispensed with, as well as Mr.Dr's faculty of two benefices.
John, because you mean by necessity to salvation, such a necessity, as without which men cannot be saved. The next reason is for the golden pen. Either necessary, or unnecessary: But not necessary to salvation. Ergo, unnecessary. Thus Mr. Doc. carries away the matter very clearly. Only he strains a little courtesy with the Learned Discourse, in putting necessary to salvation, for appertaining to salvation. You know he that can, with a guilty conscience, have a faculty for two livings, may as well be dispensed with, for a lie or two. And I wisse69 these fellows need not to be so precise of swearing by faith and troth, and straining out a small lie for a benefit; they commit grosser sins many times. And thus Mr. Do. has overthrown their whole building in general. Now he comes to the spoiling of every particular part thereof.
But before I come to these points, I care not, inasmuch as there has been often mention made of my L. of London's book between our brother Bridges and me, if I set down some part of my judgement, concerning that book.
O but Mr. Martin, will my brother Bridges say, Will you meddle with that book which Mr. Elmar wrote in the defence of her Majesty's government. So you will give me and the Bb. just cause to say that you are a seditious fellow, and one that dislikes of her Majesty's government. And by this means you will incense many against you that otherwise could not but favour your worthiness and learning. I would they durst say, even any B. of them all, say that I dislike her Majesty's government. I would make poor Bb. of them or I had done with them, if they should slander me in this sort.70 And they dare but raise up this slander against me, I will persecute the whole generation of them, and make them weary of slandering while they live. Shall they deal with me as you do (brother Bridges think you) with Daneus in your book, whom
22. The bishops dealing with Mr.Beza and Danæus.
you bring as an enemy to her Majesty's government: whereas he by name, and in manifest words, commends and praises very highly her Majesty's regiment above all others. Or will they deal with me, as they have done with Mr. Beza? Mr. Beza, cap. 44 of his Confessions, written in Latin, says that he dislikes their judgements, who think it unlawful for women to bear rule.71 This book is translated into English, but it has all this point left out in the English copy, to the end they may (as it is reported) bear her majesty in hand that Mr. Beza is against her
regiment, and so, that her majesty may be brought in detestation of the Church government which Mr. Beza favours, as being a Church government that cannot stand with the civil government of women. What say you to this gear, Bb., have you dealt well with Mr. Beza? Deal thus with me an you dare, if you will say that you had no such intent as to slander Mr. Beza, in leaving out the said point. Then I say that you are enemies unto her Majesty's government, in that you will wipe out of a printed and a translated book, that which was written in her defence, especially suffering the rest of the book to be printed.
To return to John of London's foresaid book. I say although he has therein spoken against bishops, even our bishops now living, and so against himself, as being now a B., yet that his book is a carnal and unlearned book, smelling altogether of earth, without rime and without reason. And that his speaking against bishops therein was but a snare to catch a bishopric, as it now appears. The particular sentences and marginal notes shall be set down, and where I set any note upon your book, there shall be an 'm' for difference sake, added therunto. We will begin with your own words unto the Bb., that is unto yourself and your brethren, page 23.72
Oh they may thank God73 (say you) that they have this time to breath them, and bethink them of their
23. The bishop of London, against protestant bishops.
naughty and hellish cruelty, and to call daily and hourly for pardon and forgiveness, for let them think that if they be not punished in this life nor repent, God accounts their deeds so vile and their faults so heinous that no temporal pains be enough for such offences, and therefore reserves them to eternal damnation.74 Oh howl and wail you priests and prelates, not for the danger you stand in of loosing your bishoprics and benefices, your pride and your pomp, your dignities and honours, your riches and wealth, but for that hell has opened her mouth wide and gapes to swallow you for the shedding of so much innocent blood, for murdering so many martyrs (though this be true in our bishops, yet let me instead thereof say, for imprisoning so many innocents and murdering the souls of so many in ignorance) and spoiling Christ’s church of so many glistering and glorious ornaments, commended of all for their learning and dis-commended of none for their living.75 Now, lest any man should think that he writes these things to popish bishops you are to know that he wrote them unto such as were bishops in the reign of her majesty, unto bishops professing the gospel in name, but in deed denying the power thereof. And in the next page, line 10,76 he has these words against those bishops, and now against himself.
But Christ, knowing the bounds of his office, would not meddle with external policies, translating of realms, and depriving of true inheritors. No, when he was desired to be arbiter between two brethren,77 he asked not how the plea stood, but who made him an officer? Divines (methinks) should by this example, not give themselves too much the bridle and too large a scope to meddle with matters of policy,78 as this is, whereupon depends either the welfare or ill-fare of the realm. If these two offices, I mean ecclesiastical and civil, be so jumbled together as it may be lawful for both parties to meddle in both functions,79 here can
24. John Elmar, the B. of London his prophesy.
be no quiet, nor well ordered commonwealth.
Thus the reader may see what a pattern of hypocrisy this wicked bishop, since he wrote this book, has shewed himself to be, in taking upon him not only that calling which in his own judgement is unlawful, but also in joining those two offices together, the coupling whereof he confesses to be joined as well with the most vile disorder, as with the dangerous disquietness of the commonwealth. And yet he has not here left off speaking against bishops. Therefore, as before in the Epistle has been touched, he deals more roundly with them, page 103, than before, in these words: Come off you bishops,80 away with your superfluities, yield up your thousands, be content with your hundreds, as they be in other reformed Churches where be as great learned men as you are. Let your portion be priestlike, and not princelike. Let the Queen have the rest of your temporalities81 and other lands, to maintain these wars which you procured, and your mistress82 left her, and with the rest to build and found schools throughout the realm83, that every parish Church may have his preacher, every city his superintendent84, to live honestly and not pompously, which will never be, unless your lands be dispersed and bestowed upon many, which now feed and fatten but one. Remember that Abimelech, when David in his banishment would have dined with him, kept such hospitality that he had no bread in his house to give him but the shew bread.85 Where was all his superfluity to keep your pretenced hospitality? For that is the cause you allege, why you must have thousands, as though you were commanded keep hospitality, rather with a thousand than with a hundred. I would our countryman Wyckliffe's book which he wrote, De Ecclesia, were in print, and there should you see that your wrenches and cavilations be nothing worth.86
25. John of London, John of Exeter, and Thomas Winchester, hypocrites
Hitherto you see that this Balaam, who has, I fear me, received the wages of unrighteousness, spoken in general, as well against the callings of bishops and their usurping of civil offices, as against their pride, pomp and superfluity. Must not he, think you, have either a most feared or a most guilty conscience, that can find of his heart to continue in that calling. Yea, and in the abuse of that calling, which his own conscience, if he would but awake it, tells him to be unlawful? The Lord give him repentance, if he belongs unto him, or speedily rid his Church of such a scourge. And may not all the former speeches be fitly applied unto him? Is without doubt. But the next he may be thought to have written to himself, which he has set down, page 34:87 As if you should say, my L. Lubber of London is a tyrant, ergo he is no Bishop. I warrant you though he granted you the antecedent, which he can hardly deny, yet he would deny the consequent, or else he would call for wily Watson to help him.88 Here brother London, you have crossed yourself over the custard once in your days. I think you would have spent 3 of the best elms which you have cut down in Fulham, and 3 pence halfpenny besides, that I had never met with your book. But unless you and John of Exeter, with Thomas Winchester, who have been in times past hypocrites, as you have been, leave off to hinder the word and vex godly men, I will make you to be noble and famous bishops for ever. And might not a man well judge you three to be the desperate Dicks, which you brother London, page 29, affirm to be good bishops in England. For to allude unto your own words, page 28, 29: Whereas other bishops in the land, for the most, (only John Canterbury excepted) lest they should one day answer for their proceedings unto her majesty and gain the evil will of the noblemen and gentlemen that favour the sincerity of the gospel, will not seem to be such dealers as you 3 are, though they serve at an inch
26. John of London against bishops, and so against himself.
in their place to maintain his grace's pride and cruelty, to stay the course of the gospel, and to fetch in men within the compass of subscription. Yet are they those, for the most part, that will imprison none and trouble very few unless it be for fear that if they should tolerate too much, they should have a check of their worshipful Paltripolitan. But you three, like furious and senseless brute beasts, dread no peril, look no farther than your feet, spare none, but with tooth and nail cry out, down with that side that favours the gospel so. Fetch them up with pursuivants to the Gatehouse, to the Fleet, to the Marshalsea, to the Clink, to Newgate, to the Counter89 with them. It makes no matter with you (I follow your own words, brother London) so you may shew yourselves (in shew, though not in truth) obedient subjects to the Queen and disobedient traitors to God and the realm. Thus far I have followed your words, howbeit I think you are not well pleased with me because you mean not to stand to anything you have written. Nay, you hold it unlawful now for a preacher, as far as the two tables of the law do reach, to speak against bishops, much less any ungodly statute. And yet you say, page 49, line 7: That preachers must not be afraid to rebuke the proudest, yea, Kings and Queens, so far forth as the two tables of the law do reach. As we see in Samuel, Nathan, Elias, John Baptist, and many others. They may not stoop to every man's beck, and study to please man more than God. Thus far are your words, and they are as far from your practice as you are from the imitation of these godly examples which you have brought. I see a bishopric has cooled your courage, for in those days that you wrote this book you would have our parliament to overrule her majesty, and not to yield an inch unto her of their privileges. Your words I will set down.
27. Parliament men are to resist their Kings or Queens.
In like manner (say you, page 5390) if the parliament use their privileges the king can ordain nothing without them.91 If he do, it is his fault in usurping it, and their folly in permitting it. Wherefore in my judgement, those that in king Henry the 8 days would not grant him that his proclamations should have the force of a statute, were good fathers of their country and worthy of commendation in defending their liberty, etc.
I assure you brother John, you have spoken many things worthy the noting, and I would our parliament men would mark this action done in King Henry the 8 days, and follow it in bringing in reformation and putting down lord Bishops, with all other points of superstition. They may, in your judgment, not only do anything against their King's or Queen's mind that is behoovfull92 to the honour of god, and the good of the commonwealth, but even withstand the proceedings of their sovereign.
But methinks you have a palpable error in the 48, 49, and 50 page of your book,93 which is that women are uncapable of the ministry, not in regard of their sex, but of certain wants and imperfections in their sex, viz., their want of learning and courage, so that if a woman should be brought up in learning and trained in disputations, and were not milder in nature than men (of all which wants in women you speak, page 48) but knew their quarter stroke (which knowledge you require in the minister, page 49) then by your reason they might preach in your diocese. Whosoever will read your 50 and 51 pages, shall find this to be your judgment.
Besides all this, the reader shall find such earthly and carnal stuff in all these pages that you must needs give this judgment of the whole book: surely flesh, even a lump of mere flesh, writ it. For there you shall see the Englishman preferred before other people only because he feeds upon (and has in his possession plenty of sheep
28. John of London's railing speeches.
Oxen, he calves (I keep John Elmar's words), conies, fish, and whereas other nations feed upon roots, raw herbs, oil, grapes, etc.94 In this last place, against the French King, he rails and outrages in this wise: That Turkish Valesius, that French tyrant. Is he a king or a devil, a Christian or a Lucifer, that by his cursed confederacy with the Turk.95 Page 113, line 4: O wicked caitiff and firebrand of hell, And line 8: O foolish Germans, which conspire not together with the rest of christian princes, to pull out such a traitor to God and his kingdom, by the ears out of France, and hang him against the Sun a' drying.
The discreet reader of that which has been spoken, may apparently see the undiscreet brutishness that was in you, even then, when you were best worthy to be accounted of. And thereby may gather what you are now, when you have bidden farewell not only unto the sincerity of religion, which then you seemed to embrace, but even unto all humanity and civil behaviour. And yet you do not thus leave the French king, but in this page 113, line 13, you say that the devil has none of his side now, but him to maintain both the spiritual and the temporal Antichrist. In the same page, Wherefore seeing he has forsaken God, like an Apostate, and sold himself to the devil, etc. And line 27, 28: Proud Holophernes. Oh blessed is that man that looses his life against such a Termagant. Again, page 114, line 2: but this Julian the Apostate, is named a devil's name, Christianissimus. Line 3: And like a traitorous Saracen is Christ's enemy. Here he leaves the French king, and here I leave his book.
Now I entreat the reader to consider these things that I have set down out of his book, and judge whether such things as he wrote could proceed from a religious heart; and whether the book be not an offspring proceeding from a lump of earthly flesh. This book is almost all the tokens of Christianity that ever he shewed.
29. John of London's tyranny.
Since the time he became bishop he has been a continual oppressor of the Church of God. His practises against God and his saints was the only cause why I have taken this pains with his book, and he shall be more beholden unto me unless he leave his tyranny.
But now, alas, alas, brother Bridges, I had forgotten you, all this while my brother London and I were so busy that we scarce thought of you. Why could not you put me in mind that you stayed all the while. But it is no matter, we will make the quicker dispatch of our business. You shall see, I will be the more favourable to you. And let me see how roundly you overturn these puritans, for you are now to overthrow the several parts of their discipline. Our brethren say that our Saviour Christ ordained an holy ministry of men for the building of his Church, and prove the saying by the place of Paul, Ephe. 4: 11, 12. Your mastership, 3 manner of ways shew the place they allege to make nothing for their purpose. First, say you, Paul speaks of divers functions, therefore nothing of ecclesiastical government. This reason, brethren, is a very sound one, if you should deny it then indeed I must think you not to be altogether so leaden-headed as your brother Bridges. For do you think that a man entreating of the Mayor of London, the two Sheriffs and their offices, speaks by and by of some part of the order and government of the city of London, or of some of the governors of the city? As though my Lord Mayor and the two Sheriffs were now become to be any of the governors of the city of London, or their offices any part of that government. Who sees not by this example the folly of our precise brethren's reason evidently declared. The Apostle (say they) speaks of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, doctors, and their functions (for this Mr. Dr. confesses) therefore he speaks of some ecclesiastical governors, and of some part of ecclesiastical
30. A cozening trick of a bishop.
government. Apostles, prophets, pastors and doctors are church governors with them, and their office a part of ecclesiastical government. Let them learn, let them learn, simple signs as they are, that the apostle speaks in this place of ecclesiastical functions and not of any part of ecclesiastical government. For so Mr. Dr. in this 61 page, compare line 17 with line 22, teaches us to speak English, making an ecclesiastical function to be a thing altogether differing in nature from every part of ecclesiastical government. A very proper and pleasant distinction.
In the second place, this testimony brought in by our brethren, is proved to make nothing to their purpose, by two reasons. And what 'bomination vmbertie96 of reasons here be, to proceed forth one head and yet every one sauce,97 as it is true, that my good brother Overton, the B. of Litchfield and Coventry, sold his Chancellorship at one time unto two several men: to wit, to Dr. Beacon and the good Chancellor, Mr. Zachary Babington.98 Well, parson Bridges, his 1 reason is after this sort. That place which shews gifts and functions to be ordained in the Church, to the building up of the body of Christ in the unity of the faith and knowledge, makes nothing to prove that there is an ecclesiastical government prescribed in the word. You say even true parson John, for what has the functions of pastors, doctors, apostles, etc. to do with Church government. A pretty matter, every beggarly apostle, pastor, doctor, or evangelist that cannot spend, no I am sure, not 40 marks yearly, by all the spiritual living he has in his hand, must now be a Church governor with our brethren, and their offices be a part of Church government. Why brethren, what mean you by this place you have brought? Did you think that the Apostle, by those functions and those persons spoken of, Ephes. 4: 12, means that any of them functions
31. Of ecclesiastical government and governors.
should be a Lordlike function, or any of the persons Lord. You say he does not. No, does not? Then out of your own, grant he speaks nothing of ecclesiastical government and governors, because every ecclesiastical governor must needs be a Lord, and so ecclesiastical government, a lordly government. If this be not true, ask my brother Bridges. For should God ordain great men and great Lords to be rulers in commonwealths, over whom he has not so great care as he has for his Church, and ordain none but beggarly fellows (not able to spend 200 marks by the year, nay, nor 20 neither) to bear rule in his Church?
I grant, indeed, that you, brethren puritans, say the truth as it ought to be, that bishops or ministers ought not to be Lords in any wise, either as ministers or as civil magistrates. Thus, indeed, it ought to be, I and my brethren the Bb. do grant unto you, and you know we would it were so. But you know also that our laws will have Church governors to be Lords. And what! should our Bishops (good noble men) refuse that which the law would have them to take? Get you the law to be against their lordly callings and see whether they will not give over their Lord bishopdoms whensoever law compels them. And whensoever they give over, they shall have no cause to thank such envious brethren as you are. Howsoever it be, you see the Apostle, speaking of all sorts of ministers, by your own confession speaks nothing of any Lord, or Lordly government among them all and therefore speaks nothing of Church government. Again, all those functions whereof the Apostle makes any mention, (as my brother Bridges has well noted) are ordained to the building of the body of Christ in the unity of faith and knowledge. Now I would any puritan of you all durst say that our Church governors, that is, our venerable and worshipful Lord bishops, are ordained of God for the building of his body, which I
32. A syllogism concluded in Perncanterburikenold.
know you will say to be done by preaching? As though L. bishops, being civil governors, should preach. Were it meet (I pray you) to see Steven Gardiner, being then of the Privy Council, in the pulpit? Councillors now must have something to do with pulpit matters, must they, I pray you? Will you allow that civil governors should be ordinary preachers in your new platform of a reformed Church? I know you will not. And what reason is it then, that you should require Bb. to be ordinary preachers, seeing every bishop is a civil governor. I tell you true, I am so far from thinking that bishops ought to be ordinary preachers, seeing they are civil governors, that I hold it a sin for them to preach ordinarily. And brethren, you do not well therefore, in urging civil governors to preach, especially seeing yourselves, in your platforms, are against this point. And because it shall be seen that I deal uprightly between you and the P.P.prelates. I will set down my reason, and answer it when you can. It shall be concluded I warrant you in mood and figure99. But indeed I have invented a new mood of mine own (for I have been a great schoolman in my days) which contains in it a great mystery. The mystery I will expound, it may be, in a book for the purpose. In the mean time, if you resort to my son Martin senior, that worthy wight, he it may be, shall be able to unfold the secrecy thereof. This is the syllogism, the mood answers unto Celarent, elder daughter to Barbara100, and I will have it called, Perncanterburikenolde.
No civil magistrate can be an ordinary
preacher without sin.
Every Lord Bishop is a civil magistrate. Therefore
No Lord Bishop can be an ordinary preacher without sin.
33. No good order where ministers are civil magistrates, says John London
What say you now brethren, would you have civil governors (such as our Bishops are) to preach? I hope not. For although I cannot deny but some of our bishops are very great break-pulpits, and have as marvellous raw gifts in preaching, as any that ever came to Paul's wharf, yet surely I cannot see what warrant you have to urge civil officers to preach. Wherefore also, you do not well in crying out against civil governors because they preach not, as though their function were an ecclesiastical function, or as though you would have any to preach who had not an ecclesiastical function. If you demand then, whether bishops be Ecclesiastical or civil governors, they themselves say both; and I say, brethren, that for the stopping of your mouths, and other causes, I would counsel them, if they would be ruled by me, to be neither n'other. Now if you demand again, whether Bishops sin in being ministers, seeing they are civil officers; or in bearing civil offices, seeing they are ministers, I have already shewed that civil officers must be no ministers. And my brother London has long since affirmed it to be dangerous for the commonwealth, that ministers should be civil governors; and therefore brethren, to answer this question of yours, you are to know that I am fully of your brother London's mind, who says, page 24 line 19 of his Harborough: These 2 offices, I mean the ecclesiastical and civil, be so jumbled together as it may be lawful for both parties to meddle in both functions, there can be no quiet, nor any well ordered commonwealth. Now brethren, you must not think the worse of this learned man's judgement because he is a Bishop himself. For even since he has joined these 2 offices together he has proved his own saying to be true for his part, in that his whole endeavour has been, ever since he was Bishop, that we should have no quiet nor any well ordered church or
34. Dean John's prayer against the preaching of the word.
commonwealth. I hope by this time you see it plain that Bishops sin, both because they are civil governors, and being civil governors, because they are bishops.
Your 2 reason is, page 61 line 39, Paul speaks of these gifts and of this building, and of the orders and ends thereof: therefore he speaks nothing of ecclesiastical government. This is to put home, I trow, and overthrows the puritans out of all ease. It is altogether as good a reason as an old man yielded sometimes to sir Thomas More, concerning the cause of Goodwin Sands and the stopping of Sandwich haven, which was that Tenterden's steeple was the cause of Goodwin Sands101. Mr.Dr's 2 reason to shew that the place of Paul makes nothing for ecclesiastical government, is after this sort: Paul in reckoning up these gifts, refers all to the unity in doctrine of faith, and to the holy conversation of life. Ergo he makes no mention of Ecclesiastical order of government.
That were a pitiful hearing indeed sir, that the Apostle should speak of ecclesiastical government and speak not a word of any lordlike government. That the Apostle should make any mention of ecclesiastical governors, and not name a Lord among them all. Fie, fie, this were too bad, and my Lord of Canterbury would never abide such scripture.
But in good sadness (say the puritans), presbyter John Bridges, will this place of Paul prove no part of this government which you oppugn? Will it not prove that God has ordained pastors, and doctors, to continue in his Church unto the world's end? No, forsooth, will it not, quoth the Dean. And I am so far from thinking that God has ordained your preaching pastors, and doctors, to continue always in his Church, that I have made a prayer, page 655 line 28 of my book,102 (as my brother Martin you know has noted already) that we might never see that day in England, wherein
35. Dean John cozens his brethren with popish reasons.
preaching might be had in all places. His grace of Canterbury (I tell you) has condemned the preaching of the word (as being the only ordinary means to salvation) to be an heresy. This scripture of Paul, that God has appointed preaching pastors, to continue in his Church unto the world's end is a chief ground of the former heresy. I will allow of no such scripture I trow, as may impeach the opinion which my L. of Canterb. conceived of the preaching of the word.
You see therefore, my friends, that Mr. Dean in this point, will have nothing to do with you, or Paul's testimony. And you are not ignorant I am sure, how soon all Lords would be out of the ministry if we had none in England but the pastors spoken of by Paul, and therefore Mr. doctor has prayed against this order. Yea, and he has brought such a reason against this your platform of government as is just Secundum usum Sarum103. For indeed it is popish, and therefore you might smell it a far off. If the Lord (says he page 62) had thought this government needful for his Church, then he would not have suffered his Church to be without the same. But he suffered his Church of a long time to be without this government. Ergo he thought it not needful.
Ah! Craft, craft, craft and subtlety, that can in jest deceive his brethren with a popish reason in this sort. But my masters, you must not think that our brother Sarum brings this in good earnest, but only to try whether you be so simple as you cannot know a popish reason when you see it. And to this purpose, I think that both his worship and John Whitgift's grace have brought in their writings many things that are palpably popish, that they might try, whether of knowledge or of peevish and choleric rashness, you speak against their government. Now if so be that you could not discern their popish reasons (whereof indeed you shall find great store, every third reason I warrant you, in all their books)
36. The bishops have no better warrant for themselves, than the Pope.
then they would have this advantage against you, that you were not able to know truth from popery. For (might they say) we brought in popish reasons of purpose. But silly fellows, their sail is so small in all kind of learning that they cannot know a popish reason, especially if we can face it out with a brag that we have old and new writers of our side. Now brethren, you must not then mislike your brother Bridges' purpose in bringing in this popish syllogism. This I speak to the end you should not cry out (as some of you have done) that our bishops have no better warrant for themselves than the pope has, for their government. I grant indeed, that if you should take Mr. Dean at the worst you might say that he might herein reason as well for the Mass as he does for the established government. As for example, he might thus argue: If the Lord had thought the Mass to have been a false worship of him, then he would not have suffered it so long to have continued, where any weak one should be endangered of being enforced to be present thereat. But he suffered it to continue a long time, etc. Therefore he thought it not to be a false worship. I say you must not mistake Mr. doctor in this sort, but know that he dealt after the manner of the schools, wherein it is lawful (as Thomas Cartwright who has been professor of divinity both in Cambridge and in Geneva, knows well enough) for men to argue pró and contrá, as well with, as against the truth, and all is to try out the truth, which is only the sole meaning that Mr. Dr. has not at all thought of. But I pray you, let us pass from hence unto the 64 page, where you shall find the calling of an Archbishop most notably proved, out of our brethren's own words. Our brethren (ka, the cloister master of Sarum) affirm that Paul and Barnabas ordained presbyters, priests or elders (for thus Mr. Dr. to his neverlasting fame, has full often in his book, translated the
37. Titus neither Archbishop, nor yet Dean of Sarum.
Greek word presbyteros) at Derbe, Iconium and Lystra. Ergo, some of these priests or elders, were ordained over whole towns, some over regions. And what could be more aptly spoken to the purpose, or more fitly prove an Archiepiscopal calling? But the reason following, proves it yet more evident, and that is the example of Archbishop Titus, whom the Dr. of devility in this 65 page affirms to have been Arch. of Crete.104 Nay, good Mr. Dr., not many Archbishops in the person of Titus I pray you. Titus was an Evangelist, therefore no Archbishop. Yea, says he, Titus was a very Archbishop, and there is plain scripture to prove it, which is the subscription of the Epistle to Titus. Whoops! papist! say the puritans, Is that become scripture with you? Why, Mr. Beza has long since proved this to be no scripture, but an uncertain and false guess, added by some Scholastic. You know also that your brother Turrian the Jesuit, bringing in this for Scripture, was soundly confuted by Mr. Sadel, and dare you Dean John, bring this in for Scripture? Yes that I dare (says he) and prove Titus to have been an Archbishop, even by this reason:105 Because Paul gave him the authority to be the ordinary of all the Bishops in Crete. And this I prove because Crete, where my Lord Archbishop Titus his grace, was Primate and Paltripolitan, had many famous cities in it. This is my very reason, page 65 line 21, and I'll stand to it.
Now Mr.Vicars, parsons and curates, if ever I heard better proof in my life, I would all dumb dogs were whipped out of the Church. Now truly, this is sport alone. But brother parson Bridges, I pray you tell me, was there canonical obedience sworn to Archbishop Titus? What else, man! Did they call him my Lord's grace too? Do you doubt of it? Did his gentleman usher go bareheaded before him? As though he could not be as popelike and pontifical as my Lord of
38. The bishop's horses work miracles.
Canterbury. But I hope a poor hedge priest106 might have his letters of orders of him, though he would give no bribes unto his Secretary, cook, butler, etc. Might he so goodman noddy? Then how should his men, I pray you, be able to live? As though bishops should give their men any wages? Their blessing I trow will serve their men instead of wages.
In page 66, Mr. doctor demands a question, and that is, Whether one man might not have divers of these offices and gifts which were in the Apostles time. Indeed brother parson, we read of never an Apostle that was a nonresident, but of one Judas, one Simon Magus, and one Diotrephes in all that time. The reason belike was that men wrought miracles in those days, which gift the noble Lords of our clergy, have now bestowed upon their horses. For in the Apostles time a horse usually carried not above one or two men at the most, whereas you know that Master Dr. Humphry, and Dr. Matthew, had two horses between them that never carried under 14 men,107 whensoever their masters were on their backs108. And our bishops are so expert in adorning horse with those miraculous gifts that they are no sooner on their horses' backs than presently the horse whereon they ride is able to carry as many as either of the 2 former, besides their boots? 2 or 3 pair of trulling square dice, and so many pair of cards.
Parson Bridges, page 68, says there are more gifts and callings than 4, pastors, doctors, elders and deacons remaining, because says he, page 69: the gifts of doing miracles, prophesy, the gifts of healing, divers among the papists have and do enjoy, and especially the gift of tongues, not attained unto by study, had divers of them, As Anthony, etc. Anthony among the papists, had the gift of tongues without study. Now what a goodyear was that Anthony? The god of the pigs trow you? Indeed, master Dr. quotes no author for his warrant, he is read you
39. Mr.Dr. found Anthony in Hodge's breeches.
know in the Legend of lies.109 There it is, what have the puritans to do where he found it? Let them answer to it. What if he found it in Hodge his breeches, seeking for Gammer Gurton's needle? Is the reason worse than the rest of his book, because it is without authority.
As for the matter contained in the 70, 71, 72 pages, Mr. Dr. confirms it by the authority of a puritan writer, which wrote (as he says) A fruitful sermon upon the 1. Cor. 12, printed by Robert Waldegrave, 1584. A sermon upon the 1. Cor. 12 printed by Robert Waldegrave, say our brethren, why there was never any sermon upon that text printed by Robert Waldegrave. Mr. Dr. belike means the sermon upon Rom. 12. Tush! brethren, what should you tell us of Mr. Dr's meaning, he means the sermon upon 1. Cor. 12. If you do not believe me, look the 255 page of his book and there you shall see the sermon upon 1. Cor. 12 twice cited. Mr. Dr., if he were more beetleheaded than he is, could not possible miss so often in the naming of the sermon upon Rom. 12 which is so commonly known. It may be indeed, you never saw any sermon extant upon that text, but I warrant you Dean John knows the way to Salisbury, so do not many thousands of you puritans. Why, you never saw the Syriac Testament translated by Junius (for that which is abroad, was done by Tremelius alone) but Mr. Dr. has quoted Junius his Syriac Testament. Why then may he not as well find a sermon upon 1. Cor. 12 printed by Robert Waldegrave, as a Syriac Testament of Junius his translation? Now, say the puritans, what a notorious block is this Dean, who inasmuch as he has heard that Mr. Tremelius, and Mr. Junius were joined together in the translation of the Bible, thinks therefore that Junius translated the Syriac Testament, which was done by Tremelius only.
40. Mr.Dr's reason in defence of Antichrist, against Christ's government.
For shame my masters, deal more charitably and bear with the infirmities of your brethren. I grant indeed it was Mr. Dr's oversight in naming Junius his Syriac Testament, and the sermon upon 1. Cor. 12 instead of Rom. 12. But what then, should you therefore take him up for it as though he were the veriest ass in a country. Learned men may easily commit such oversights, especially quoting authors upon other men's reports, as Mr. Dr. has done. But it is no marvel that you deal thus with Mr. Dean, when you dare abuse Antichrist and say, as the author of the Learned Discourse has done, that this government of yours continued in the Church until Antichrist brought in all kind of false doctrine and confusion.110 Nay, Whoa there, masters mine, quoth Mr. Dean, for these be his own words, take my reason with you, you slander Antichrist. For
If your government had continued in the Church until all kind of false doctrine came in, it had been exercised without interruption until this day111 (especially until the year 1587 wherein you made this book) For I doubt me whether all kind of false doctrine has been yet sown. But your government has been interrupted long since. Therefore you slander Antichrist.
They slander him indeed, John o' Sarum, if they say that he brought in all kind of false doctrine. And you have never proved proposition better in your life than you have proved this. For any man that will read your book, or John Whitgift's, will say that Antichrist brought not in all kind of false doctrine. If he had, your book I am sure, had not been sold for 7. shillings as it is. In the 78 page, Mr. Dr. shews that the office of Archbishops, and Lord bishops are in nature pastoral, though in dignity they are of another office and ministry. And what say you to that brethren? Even this say they: In dignity they are popes, in office proud prelates, and in ministry, plain dumb dogs for the most part. This is proved, has
41. L.Bb. in dignity popes, in office proud prelates, etc.
been proved, and will be proved, to the proudest of the Bishops teeth, if they do dispute with us in these points. I would with you, my puritan masters, to keep you well while you are well. It may be you shall answer this sauciness of yours, to offer disputation to my lord's grace, before the High Commissioners. Master Dr. has confuted all the pack of you. In the 82 page, by a tale or 2 of a fox-tail, and another of the ass laden with sponges, page 83. From the 90 page to the end of the book, he goes so readily to work about the office of the civil magistrate that I marvel that men will not say that he deserves to be cased in a good motley cloakbag for his labour. In the 93 page, he proves that no man ought to direct the magistrate in anything. For, says he, brethren I go plainly and simply to work,112 he that directs he governs. Alas the day brother (cloister master) do the puritans say indeed, that the magistrate should be directed by any within his own dominions. Belike then if they should find a magistrate out of his way, they would go about to direct him, would they? And that in his own dominions too? Why brother Bridges, can this stand with the duty of a good subject? Why? He that directs he governs. I perceive it is time that such fellows were looked unto. We should never have done with them I perceive, if we should still stand answering their absurd fancies. By this time I hope, they see their folly. They have been sufficiently confuted or else let Andrew ambo113 judge between you, he is an indifferent man. From the 99 page unto the 130, just 31 pages, at which game o' the cards, Dr. Redman, Archdeacon of Canterbury, is very good, besides his rare skill in juggling. And to the end of this book they agree with you in anything that lawfully belongs to the office of the civil magistrate.
How say you now Mr. country parsons and vicars. Are you not by this this time able to withstand the cavils of the
42. All beetleheaded ignorance, lies not in Mr.Docto
puritans. Do you not see upon what good ground our Church government and my L. of Canterbury's chair is built? I would you did else. And let the learned reader judge whether other men cannot play the ignorant sots as well as you brother Bridges. Tush, Tush, I would not have you claim all the skill in barbarisms and solecisms unto yourself. Other men can behave themselves with commendations that way as well as you, though indeed not so naturally, I grant. Farewell sweet Doctor, and make much of the courtier Martin.
Errata, or faults escaped.
1 Wheresoever the prelates are called my Lords, either in the epistle to the Convocation House or in this Epitome, take that for a fault, because they are none of Mr. Martin's Lords, neither shall any priest of them all be my Lord. For I tell you true, I think foul scorn they should be my Lords, or the Lords of any of my sons.
2 There is nothing spoken at all of that notable hypocrite Scambler, Bishop of Norwich. Take it for a great fault, but unless he leave his close dealing against the truth, I'll bestow a whole book of him. And let the rest of you hypocrites take heed of persecuting.
3 But the greatest fault of all is that I could say against our ungodly priests, but unless they mend, I shall fully amend this fault, and I can do it with a small warning. And I would devise them not to persecute men for my worship's book as they do.
| Back to Top |
1. ingramness: lack of grammar, unlettered. (ed.)
2. pursuer, ie, police force. (ed.)
3. visor, mask. (ed.)
4. lubber: lout. (ed.)
5. Paul’s Cross: a popular meeting place, for preaching public sermons, outside St Paul’s Cathedral, London. (ed.)
6. Ah brother dean that you are such a doer.
7. non plus: a state in which no more can be said or done. (ed.)
8. crab-apple tree, ie, knotted and gnarled. (ed.)
9. lit. Jack of the apes, a pet monkey, a naughty child. (ed.)
10. solecism: a violation of the rules of grammar. (ed.)
11. St Mary the Great, the University Church of Cambridge. (ed.)
12. ie: a bishop. (ed.)
15. 2.Chron.6:5. Numb.3:3. Levit. 8:9.
16. I.King.28:32. Levit.9:24.
23. Acts 20:17,28 and 14:23, 1 Tim.5:17, Titus 1:5, Rom.12:8
24. Acts 6:6. Rom. 12:8, Phil.1:1, 1.Tim. 3:8.
25. 1.Tim.5:22 and 3:10,
27. Titus 1:6,7. 1.Tim.3:8 and 5:11. Acts.14:23 and 6:6. 2.Tim.1:6.
28. Page 54.
29. A very fit reason to prove the mutability of the Church government.
30. despite this disclaimer, syllogistic argument forms a large part of this pamphlet. In logic, a syllogism is a valid inference involving two propositions (or premisses) each containing a common middle term, with a conclusion which necessarily results from the premisses. The rules for constructing a true syllogism, and the classification of the variety of syllogisms, formed a major part of medieval logic courses. (ed.)
31. Now good doctor send me the measure of your head, that I may provide you a good nightcap.
32. peck: a dry measure of two gallons or a quarter bushel. (ed.)
33. Page 55.
34. The bishops wonted manner in this controversy, to run from the consi-deration of those things that are moral unto things indifferent.
35. 1.Cor.14: 40.
36. besire: OE prefix be- used as an intensive, ie, ‘desire strongly’ (cf besotted). (ed.)
37. ‘an’ or ‘and’ used as conj. conditional =‘if’. Quite common. (ed.)
38. Page 55.
39. The bishop of London's book.
41. Predicables: in Logic, ‘that which may be affirmed’, from L. prædicabilis. Predicament: ‘that which is asserted - any of the ten ‘categories’ of Aristotle. (ed.)
43. Roberto Bellarmine (1542-1621), Cardinal, Jesuit, and latterly saint. (ed.)
44. Page 57.
45. Your consequent is false master Dean.
46. 1.Peter 2:13,
47. Ephes.4:12, Rom. 12:8, 1.Cor.12:28.
48. portess: presumably a carrying case of some sort, a small ‘portmanteau’? (L. portare, to carry). (ed.)
49. Another course at you brother London.
50. fautors: partisans, abettors, party. (ed.)
51. Page 57.
52. Luke 23.43.
53. Mr. Dean, my friend is not so precise, as he thinks it necess-ary for them to have a sermon upon the Sabbath.
54. to course: ie ‘chase’ (ed.)
55. Page 58.
56. There was no ‘Monastery of Sarum’ at the time. Marprelate is referring to the associates of the Dean. (ed.)
57. cf, L. peccavi, ‘I have sinned’? (ed.)
58. handigrips: hand-to-hand combat. (ed.)
59. John Elmar, you must know, was very good with a two-hand sword in his youth.
60. paralogism: (Logic),a fallacious syllogism, an error in reasoning. (ed.)
61. quiristers: from quire, ie, choristers. (ed.)
63. Rom.12:6, 1 Cor. 12:9,28, Act.15:6, Ephes.4:12,
64. Act..6:6, and 14:23, 1 Cor.23:1, Tim.5:17, Jam.5:14.
66. Paul commands Archbishop Titus in his own diocese.
67. A worthy note.
68. Page 60.
69. wisse = wis, usually ‘I wis’, meaning ‘I know’, from iwis = certainly. (ed.)
70. Here is an indecorum personae in this speech, I know, for the D. should not give me this warning. But you know my purpose is to play the dunce, after his example.
71. A horrible part and an ungodly. Confer the English with the Latin copy
73. The Prelates have time of repentance
74. Note you prelates.
75. The Queen deceived by her churchmen.
78. Spiritual men should not meddle with policies.
79. Mark this well you that are state men. m
80. Advice to the bishops.
81. Bishops lands.
82. presumably referring to Q. Mary. (ed.)
83. Will you be content Bishop is shall be so now? m
84. In any case, let there be one minister above the rest of his brethren. m
86. And I would my Epistomastix were in print, there should you see that would not like you. m
88. Does he mean Watson the pursuivant, trow you m
89. a list of London prisons. (ed.)
90. Page 53, line 19.
91. The parliament resisted King Henry the 8.
92. behoovfull: advantageous. (ed.)
93. Women capable of the ministry in regard of their sex by the bishop of London's judgment.
94. Page 110 and 111. Yea, we have such plenty of calves in England that we have calves to our Bishops.
95. Page 112, line 27.
96. vmbertie: not known, poss. from ‘umber’, ie, ‘shadowy abomination of reasons’? (ed.)
97. orig. text ‘sause’ or ‘fause’, poss.: ‘false’? (ed.)
98. You see that cozenage is likely within a while to be the steward of my brother Litchfield's house.
99. mood: (Logic) part of the Aristotelian system for classifying syllogisms. The ‘mood’ depends on the form of the premisses. Figure: the numerous ‘moods’ are grouped into ‘figures’ depending on the role of the middle term in each premiss. (ed.)
100. Celarent and Barbara: Two of the ‘moods’ of Aristotelian logic, the names are mnemonic, with the vowels giving the form of the syllogism. (ed.)
101. Goodwin Sands: a shallow bank in the North Sea, at the mouth of the River Thames, exposed at low tide and dangerous to shipping. The port of Sanwich was silting up in the 16th century, it is now completely abandoned. The steeple of Tenterden (Kent) parish church has nothing to do with anything! (ed.)
102. In the Epistle to the terrible Priests.
103. ‘according to the usage of Sarum’ (Salisbury)-a phrase more commonly used of the pre-Reformation Sarum Missal. (ed.)
104. But truly I think brother Bridges that Titus was neither Archbishop nor Dean of Sarum.
105. The reason of Archbishop Titus is no popish reason.
106. hedge priest: a priest serving the banned Roman Catholic remnant. (ed.)
107. Or so many Simoniacal promotions.
108. ie, Dr Humphry and Dr Matthew had fourteen benefices between them. (ed.)
109. There is a book of this name, which the Mr. doctor made as they say.
110. For Antichrist, and against the government of Christ.
111. This is the Dr's reason in very deed.
112. Simply I'll be sworn you go so simply to work
113. Doctor Perne