October 1588 A.D. Marprelate Tract 1—“Oh read over Dr. John Bridges—the Epistle”
October
1588 A.D. Marprelate
Tract 1—“Oh read over Dr. John Bridges—the Epistle”
Lewis, John D. “OH READ OVER Dr. JOHN BRIDGES—THE
EPISTLE.” Anglican History. Oct 1588. http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/tract1m.htm. Accessed 1 Sept 2014.
Tract 1.
OH READ OVER
Dr. JOHN BRIDGES - THE EPISTLE
October 1588
Oh read over Dr. John Bridges, for it is a 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
been spoken.
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
been spoken.
Compiled for the behoof and overthrow of
the Parsons, Vicars, and Curates that have learnt
their Catechisms and are past grace. By the reverend
and worthy Martin Marprelate, gentleman, and
dedicated to the Convocation House.
the Parsons, Vicars, and Curates that have learnt
their Catechisms and are past grace. By the reverend
and worthy Martin Marprelate, gentleman, and
dedicated to the Convocation House.
The Epitome is not yet published, but it shall be
when
the Bishops are at convenient leisure to view the same.
In the meantime, let them be content with
this learned Epistle.
the Bishops are at convenient leisure to view the same.
In the meantime, let them be content with
this learned Epistle.
Printed overseas, in Europe, Within two fur-
longs of a Bouncing Priest, at the cost and charges
of Mr Marprelate, gentleman.
longs of a Bouncing Priest, at the cost and charges
of Mr Marprelate, gentleman.
� To the right puissant and terrible
Priests, my clergy masters of the Convocation
House, whether vicars general, worshipful Paltripo-
litans or any other of the holy league of subscription: this work I recom-
mend unto them with all my heart, with a desire to see them all so
provided for one day, as I would wish, which I promise them
shall not be at all to their hurt.
Priests, my clergy masters of the Convocation
House, whether vicars general, worshipful Paltripo-
litans or any other of the holy league of subscription: this work I recom-
mend unto them with all my heart, with a desire to see them all so
provided for one day, as I would wish, which I promise them
shall not be at all to their hurt.
RIght poisoned, persecuting and terrible priests, the
theme of my Epistle, unto your venerable masterdoms is of two parts (and the
Epitome of our brother Bridges his book, shall come out speedily). First, most
pitifully complaining, Martin Marprelate etc. Secondly, may it please your good
worships etc.
Most
pitifully complaining therefore, you are to understand that Dr. Bridges has
written in your defence a most senseless book and I cannot very often at one
breath come to a full point when I read the same.
Again,
may it please you to give me leave to play the dunce for the nonce as well as
he; otherwise, dealing with master doctor's book, I cannot keep decorum
personæ. And may it please you, if I be too absurd in any place (either in
this Epistle or that Epitome), to ride to Sarum and thank his Deanship for it,
because I could not deal with his book commendably, according to order, unless
I should be sometimes tediously dunsticall and absurd. For I have heard some
clergymen say that Mr.Bridges was a very patch and a dunce when he was in
Cambridge. And some say, saving your reverences that are bishops, that he is as
very a knave and enemy unto the sincerity of religion as any popish prelate in
Rome. But the patch can do the cause of sincerity no hurt. Nay, he has in this
book wonderfully graced the same by writing against it. For I have heard some
say that whosoever will read his book shall as evidently see the goodness of
the cause of reformation, and the poor, poor, poor [2] nakedness
of your government, as almost in reading all master Cartwright's works. This
was a very great oversight in his grace of Canterbury, to suffer such a book to
come out. For besides that an archbishop is very weakly defended by mass1 Dean, he has also
by this means provoked many to write against his gracious fatherhood, who
perhaps never meant to take pen in hand. And brother Bridges, mark what Martin
tells you, you will shortly I hope have twenty fists about your ears more than
your own. Take heed of writing against Puritans while you live. Yet they say
that his grace would not have the book to be published, and if you mark you
shall not find seen and allowed in the title of the book. Well fare old mother
experience, yet the burnt child dreads the fire. His grace will carry to his
grave, I warrant you, the blows which Mr.Cartwright gave him in this cause, and
therefore no marvel, though he was loath to have any other so banged as he
himself was, to his woe. Others say that John Canterbury oversaw every proof.
If he did, then he oversaw many a foul solecism, many a senseless period, and
far more slanders. Slanders my friends? I think so. For what will you say if
our brother Bridges and our cousin Cosins, with many others, have had their
grace of the bishop ad practicandum in Flanders? How could their
government stand unless they should slander their brethren and make her Majesty
believe that the Church government prescribed in the word would overthrow her
regiment if it were received in our Church, and that the seekers of reformation
are a sort of malcontents, and enemies unto the state.
Item:
may it please your worthy worships to receive this courteously to favour at my
hand, without choler or laughing. For my Lord of Winchester is very choleric
and peevish, so are his betters at Lambeth, and Dr.Cosins has a very good grace
in jesting, and I would he had a little more grace and a handful or two more of
learning, against [3] he answer the Abstract next. Nay, believe me, it
is enough for him to answer the Counterpoison. And I am not one of the
malicious sectaries whereof John of London spoke the last Lent, 1588, in his
letters written to the Archdeacon of Essex, to forbid public fasts. Ha, ha,
Dr.Copycat! Are you there? Why do not you answer the confutation of your sermon
at Paul's Cross? It is a shame for your grace, John of Canterbury, that
Cartwright's books have been now a dozen years almost unanswered. You first
provoked him to write and you first have received the foil. If you can answer
those books why do you suffer the puritans to insult and rejoice at your
silence? If you cannot, why are you an archbishop. He has proved the calling to
be unlawful and Antichristian. You dare not stand to the defence of it. Now,
most pitifully complaining, Mr.Marprelate desires you either to answer what has
been written against the gracelessness of your archbishopric, or to give over
the same and to be a means that no bishop in the land be a Lord any more. I
hope one day her Majesty will either see that the Lord bishops prove their
calling lawful by the word, or as John of London prophesied saying, Come down
you bishops from your thousands, and content you with your hundreds, let your
diet be priestlike and not princelike, etc., quoth John Elmar in his Harborow
of Faithful Subjects. But I pray you, Bishop John, dissolve this one question
to your brother Martin: If this prophecy of yours came to pass in your days,
who shall be Bishop of London? And will you not swear, as commonly you do, like
a lewd swag, and say, By my faith, by my faith my masters, this gear2 goes hard with us.
Now may it please your grace with the rest of your worships, to procure that
the puritans may one day have a free disputation with you about the
controversies of the Church, and if you be not set at a flat non plus,
and quite overthrown, I'll be a Lord bishop myself! Look to yourselves, I think
you have not long to reign, Amen. And take heed brethren, [4] of your
reverend and learned brother Martin Marprelate. For he means in these reasons
following, I can tell you, to prove that you ought not to be maintained by the
authority of the Magistrate in any Christian commonwealth. Martin is a shrewd
fellow, and reasons thus: Those that are petty popes and petty Antichrists
ought not to be maintained in any Christian commonwealth. But every Lord bishop
in England, as for example John of Canterbury, John of London, John Exeter,
John Rochester, Thomas of Winchester, the Bishop of Lincoln, of Worcester, of
Peterborough, and to be brief, all the bishops in England, Wales and Ireland,
are petty popes and petty Antichrists. Therefore no Lord bishop *(now I pray
you, good Martin, speak out if ever you did speak out, that her Majesty and the
council may hear you3 ) is to be
tolerated in any Christian commonwealth. And therefore neither John of
Canterbury, John of London etc. are to be tolerated in any Christian
commonwealth. What say you now brother Bridges, is it good writing against
puritans. Can you deny any part of your learned brother Martin his syllogism.
We deny your minor Mr. Marprelate say the bishops and their associates. Yea, my
learned masters, are you good at that? What do you brethren? Say me that again?
Do you deny my minor? And that be all you can say to deny Lord bishops to be
petty popes.4 Turn me loose to
the priests in that point, for I am old suersbie at the proof of such matters,
I'll presently mar the fashion of their Lordships.
They
are petty popes and petty Antichrists whosoever usurp the authority of pastors
over them, who by the ordinance of God are to be under no pastors. For none but
Antichristian popes and popelings ever claimed this authority unto themselves,
especially when it was gainsaid and accounted Antichristian generally by the
most Churches in the world. But our Lord bishops usurp authority over those
who, by the ordinance of God, are [5] to be under no pastors, and that
in such an age as wherein this authority is gainsaid and accounted
Antichristian generally by all the Churches in the world for the most part.
Therefore our Lord bishops, what say you man? Our Lord bishops (I say), as John
of Canterbury, Thomas of Winchester (I will spare John of London for this time
for it may be he is at bowls and it is pity to trouble my good brother lest he
should swear too bad)5 , my reverend
prelate of Litchfield, with the rest of that swinish rabble, are petty
Antichrists, petty popes, proud prelates, intolerable withstanders of reform-
ation, enemies of the gospel and most covetous wretched priests. This is a
pretty matter that standers by must be so busy in other men's games. Why,
sauceboxes, must you be prattling? You are as mannerly as bishops in meddling
with that you have nothing to do, as they do in taking upon them civil offices.
I think for any manners either they or you have, that you were brought up in Bridewell.
But it is well that since you last interrupted me (for now this is the second
time), you seem to have learnt your Cato de moribus, in that you keep
yourselves on the margin. Would you be answered? Then you must know that I have
set down nothing but the truth in the conclusion, and the syllogisms are my
own; I may do what I will with them, and thus hold you content. But what say
you my horned masters of the Convocation House? You deny my minor again I know.
And thus I prove it. First:
That our Prelates usurp their authority
They
usurp their authority who violently and unlawfully retain those under their
government that both would and ought (if they might) to shake off that yoke
wherewith they are kept under. But our Lord bishops retain such (namely other
pastors), and unlawfully under their yoke, who both would and ought to reject
the same. For all the pastors in the land that deserve the names of pastors,
are against their will under the bishops' [6] jurisdictions. And they
are unlawfully detained by them because no pastor can be lawfully kept under
the pastoral (I mean not the civil) authority of any one man. Therefore our
bishops and proud, popish, presumptuous, profane, paltry, pestilent and
pernicious prelates, Bishop of Hereford and all, are first usurpers, to begin
the matter withal. Secondly:
Our Prelates claim this authority over those who by the
ordinance of God are to be under no pastors.
That
is, they claim pastoral authority over other ministers and pastors who by the
ordinance of God are appointed to be pastors and shepherds to feed others, and
not sheep or such as are to have shepherds by whom they are to be fed and
overseen; which authority the bishops claim unto them-selves. For they say that
they are pastors of all the pastors within their diocese. And take this of Mr.
Marprelate's word, that there is no pastor of pastors but he is a pope. For who
but a pope will claim this authority.
Thirdly:
This authority of our Lord bishops. in England is accounted Antichristian
of the most Churches in the world.
As
of the Helvetian6 , the Scottish,
French, Bohemian, and the Churches of the Low Countries, the Churches of
Polonia7 , Denmark, within
the dominions of the Count Palatine, of the Churches in Saxony, and Swevia,8 etc., which you
shall see evidently proved in the Harmony of the Confessions of all those
Churches, section the eleventh. Which Harmony was translated and printed by
that puritan Cambridge printer Thomas Thomas. And although the book came out by
public authority yet, by your leave, the bishops have called them in as things
against their state. And trust me, his grace will owe that puritan printer as
good a turn as he paid unto Robert Waldegrave for his sauciness in printing my
friend and dear brother Diotrephes his Dialogue. Well friend Thomas, I warn you
before hand, look to yourself.
[7] And now brethren bishops,
if you will not believe me I will set down the very words of the French
Confession, contained page 359 of the Harmony. We believe (says the confession,
art 30) that all true pastors in what place soever they be placed, have the
same and equal authority among themselves, given unto them under Jesus Christ
the only head and the chief alone, universal bishop, and that therefore it is
not lawful for any Church to challenge unto itself dominion or sovereignty over
any other. What an horrible heresy is this, will some say. Why, gentle Martin,
is it possible that these words of the French Confession should be true? Is it
possible that there ought to be an equality between his Grace and the Dean of
Sarum, or some other hedge priest? Martin says it ought be so. Why then Martin,
if it should be so, how will the bishops satisfy the reader in this point?9 Alas, simple
fellow, whatsoever you are, I perceive you do not mark the words of the
confession. My good brethren have long since taken order for this gear. For the
confession does not say that all pastors, but that all true pastors, and all pastors
that are under Jesus Christ, are of equal authority. So that all men see that
my brethren which are neither true pastors nor, I fear me, under Jesus Christ,
are not to be of equal authority. And because this does not touch them I will
end this whole learned discourse with the words of Pope Gregory unto John,
Bishop of Constantinople (for I have read something in my days), which words
you shall find in our own English Confession, written by a bishop, page 361 of
the Harmony. The Pope's words be these, He is also the king of pride, he is
Lucifer, which prefers himself before his brethren, he has forsaken the faith,
and is the forerunner of Antichrist.10 And have not I
quitted myself like a man and dealt very valiantly in proving that my learned
brethren the Lord bishops ought not to be in any Christian commonwealth because
they are petty popes and petty Antichrists. But what [8] do you say if,
by this lusty syllogism of my own making, I prove them popes once more for
recreation's sake.
Whosoever
therefore claim unto themselves pastoral authority over those Christians with
whom they cannot possibly, at any time altogether, in the same congregation
sanctify the Sabbath: they are usurping prelates, popes and petty Antichrists.
For did you ever hear of any but of popes and dumb ministers that would
challenge the authority of pastors over these Christians, unto whom they could
not possibly on the Sabbath discharge the duty of pastors. But our Lord bishops
challenge unto themselves pastoral authority over them unto whom they cannot
possibly, on the Sabbath discharge the duty of pastors, viz. over people
inhabiting divers shires distant asunder, with whom, gathered together on the
Sabbath, they cannot by order of nature perform any duty of pastors.11 Therefore all the
Lord bishops in England, Ireland and Wales (and for the goodwill I bear to the
reverend brethren I will speak as loud as ever I can), all our Lord bishops I
say, are petty popes and petty usurping Antichrists, and I think if they will
still continue to be so, that they will breed young popes and Antichrists. Per
consequens, neither they nor their brood are to be tolerated in any
Christian commonwealth, quoth Martin Marprelate. There is my judgment of you,
brethren, make the most of it. I hope it will never be worth a bishopric unto
you. Reply when you dare, you shall have as good as you bring. And if you dare
but dispute with my worship in these points, I doubt not but you should be sent
home by weeping cross. I would with you, my venerable masters, for all that to
answer my reasons, or out of doubt you will prove petty Antichrists. Your corner
caps and tippets will do nothing in this point.
Most
pitifully complaining, Martin Marprelate unto your honourable masterships, that
certain thieves, having stolen from dyers in Thames Street as much cloth [9]
as came to 30 pound, did hide the said cloth in Fulham, which is a place within
the territories of the Lord dumb John, who by occupation is Lord Bish. of
London. The thieves were apprehended, the cloth came within your clutches, Don
John of London, and all is fish that comes to the net with your good Honour.
The thieves being taken, the dyers came to challenge their cloth. John London,
the bishop, said it was his own, because it was taken within his own Lordship.
But says he, if the cloth be yours, let the law go upon the thieves and then I'll
talk farther with you. Well, one or two of the thieves were executed and at
their deaths confessed that to be the cloth which the bishop had, but the dyers
could not get their cloth, nor cannot unto this day; no, though one of their
honours wrote unto him to restore the cloth unto the poor men. What reason were
it he should give them their own, as though he could not tell how to put it
unto good uses as well as the right owners. It is very good blue, and so would
serve well for the liveries of his men, and it was good green, fit to make
quishions12 and coverings for
tables. Brother London, you were best to make restitution, it is plain theft
and horrible oppression. Boner would have blushed to have been taken with the
like fact. The popish sort, your brethren, will commend this unto posterity by
writing, assure yourself. The dyers names are Baughin13 , Swan and Price;
they dwell at the Old Swan in Thames Street. I warrant you Martin will be found
no liar, he brings in nothing without testimony.14 And therefore I
have set down the men's names and the places of their abode that you of this
conspiration15 house may find out
this slander of truth against the Lord of good London. It was not therefore for
nothing (John of London, I perceive) that Mistress Lawson, the shrew at Paul's
gate and enemy to all dumb dogs and tyrannical prelates in the land, bade you
throw down yourself at her Majesty's feet, acknowledging yourself to be
unsavoury [10] salt, and to crave pardon of her highness because you had
so long deceived her and her people. You might well enough crave pardon for
your theft, for Martin will stand to it that the detaining of the men's cloth
is plain theft.
Riddle
me a riddle! What is that! His grace threatened to send Mistress Lawson to
Bridewell because she shewed the good father, Dr. Perne, a way how to get his
name out of the Book of Martyrs, where the turncoat is canonised for burning
Bucer's bones. Dame Lawson answered that she was an honest citizen's wife, a
man well known, and therefore bade his grace an he would send his uncle Shorie
thither. Ha, ha, ha! Now good your grace, you shall have small gains in
meddling with Margaret Lawson, I can tell you. For if she be cited before Tarquinius
Superbus, Dr.Stanhope, she will desire him to deal as favourably with her
in that cause as he would with Mistress Blackwell. Tse tse tse! Will it never
be better with you, Mistress Lawson.
Sohow,
brother Bridges! When will you answer the book intituled, An Answer to Bridges
his Slanders. Nay, I think you had more need to gather a benevolence among the
clergy to pay Charde toward the printing of your book, or else labour to his
grace to get him another protection. For men will give no money for your book
unless it be to stop mustard pots, as your brother Cosin's answer to the
Abstract did. You have been a worthy writer, as they say, of a long time. Your
first book was a proper interlude, called Gammer Gurton's Needle16 . But I think that
this trifle, which shews the author to have had some wit and invention in him,
was none of your doing, because your books seem to proceed from the brains of a
woodcock, as having neither wit nor learning. Secondly, you have, to your
mediocrity, written against the Papists, and since that time you have written a
sheet in rhyme, of all the names attributed unto the Lord in the Bible. A
worthy monument. What! Has the [11] hedge priest, my brother, written
any more? O yes, I cry him mercy, he has written this great volume which now I
have in hand against his brethren. The qualities of this book are many, Mr.Dean
shews himself to be very skilful in the learning of ob and Sol,
if ever you read old Fa-Briccat upon Aristotle. Mr.Dean's manner of writing,
and his, are not much unlike. Doctor Terence of Oxford, and this Doctor, may be
near of kindred for their learning. There be periods in this learned book of
great reason, though altogether without sense. I will give you a proof or two.
Page 441: And although (says the Doctor) Paul afterward, 1.Cor.1.14
mentioning this Crispus, terms him not there, the archgovernor of the Jews'
Synagogue, yet as it farther appears, Acts 18.17, by Sosthenes, who was long
before a faithful Christian, and as some allege out of Eusebius lib. 1.cap.13,
he was also one of the 72 Disciples chosen by Christ,17
Fleering,
jeering, leering: there is at all no sense in this period. For the words (yet
afterward) unto the end, Mr.Dean's mind was so set upon by a bishopric that he
brought nothing concerning Crispus to answer the word (yet). Therefore I will
help my reverend brother to make the sentence in this sort. And although, etc..
Yet afterward my learned brother, Dr.Young Bish. of Rochester, having the
presentation of a benefice in his hand, presented himself thereunto, even of
mere goodwill. I, John of Rochester, present John Young, quoth the bishop. Now
judge you, good readers, whether Martin says not true, that there is too much
cozenage18 nowadays among the
clergymen.
This
sentence following of Mr.Dean's has as good sense as the former. Page 655. The
D. cites these words out of the learned Discourse, God grant that instead of
ordinary forms of prayer, we may have preaching in all places. And instead
of Amen, God forbid, say I, quoth the Doctor, with another prayer to the
contrary [12] (now mark my masters, whether you can find any sense in
this contrary prayer, for I assure you reverend Martin can find none), If it
be his good will not so much (good Lord) to punish us, that this our brethren's
prayer should be granted.19 If this be a
senseless kind of writing I would there were never a Lord bishop in England.
And
learned brother Bridges, a man might almost run himself out of breath before he
could come to a full point in many places in your book. Page 69. line 3,
speaking of the extraordinary gifts in the Apostles time, you have this sweet
learning: Yea, some of them have for a great part of the time, continued
even till our times, and yet continue, as the operation of great works, or if
they mean miracles, which were not ordinary no not in that extraordinary time,
and as the hypocrites had them, so might and had divers of the papists, and yet
their cause never the better, and the like may we say of the gift of speaking
with tongues which have not been with study before learned, as Anthony, etc.20 and divers also
among the ancient fathers, and some among the papists, and some among us, have
not been destitute of the gifts of prophesying, and much more may I say this of
the gift of healing, for none of those gifts or graces given then or since, or
yet to men infer the grace of God's election to be of necessity to salvation.
Here
is a good matter delivered in as good grammatical words. But what say you if
Mr.Do. can prove that Peter was prince of the Apostles? That is popery (quoth
Martin) to begin withal. Nay, but what say you if he proves that one priest
among the residue may have a lawful superior authority over the universal body
of the Church. Is not this plain treason? Is forsooth, if a puritan had written
it. But Mass Dean of Sarum, that wrote these things21 , is a man that
favours bishops, a nonresident one that will not stick to play a game at cards
and swear by his troth22 , and therefore he
may write against the puritans what he will. His grace of [13]
Canterbury will give a very Catholic exposition thereof. This gear maintains
the crown of Canterbury, and what matter is it though he write for the
maintenance thereof all the treason in the world. It will never come unto her
Majesty's ear, as my friend Tertullus in the poor Dialogue that the bishops
lately burned has set down. His grace is able to salve the matter well enough.
Yea, my brother Bridges himself can answer this point, for he has written
otherwise, page 288 line 26, in these words: Neither is all government taken
away from all, though a moderate superior government be given of all to some,
and not yet of all in all the Church to one, but to one over some in several
and particular Churches. The Dean will say that concerning the superiority
of bishops, this is the meaning. As concerning the treason written page 448, it
may be the fox, Dr.Perne, who helped him as they say, to make this worthy
volume, was the author of it.
Now
brethren, if any of you that are of the Convocation House would know how I can
prove Mr.Dean to have written flat treason, page 448, as I have before set
down, draw near and with your patience I will prove it so that Mr.Dean will
stand to his own words, which I care not if they be set down: page 448 line 3.
Thus you shall read: Does S.Peter then forbid that any one elder should have
and exercise any superior government over the clergy, understanding the
clergy in this sense, if he does not but allow it, and himself practised it23 : then howsoever
both the name, both of governing and clergy may be abused, the matter is clear,
that one priest or elder among the residue, may have a superior authority over
the clergy, that is, over all the universal body of the church, in every
particular or several congregation, and so not only over the people, but also
over the whole order of ministers.24
Would
your worships know how I can shew and convince my brother Bridges to have set
down flat treason in the former words? Then have at you
Dean: 1. It is [14] treason to
affirm her Majesty to be an infidel or not to be contained in the body of the
Church. 2. It is treason25 to say that one
priest or elder may have a lawful superior authority over her Majesty. Take
your spectacles then, and spell your own words and you shall find that you have
affirmed either of these 2 points. For you affirm that a priest may have a
lawful superior authority over the universal body of the Church. And you dare
not deny her Majesty to be contained within the universal body of the Church.
Therefore to help you to spell your conclusion you have written treason, if you
will be as good as your writing. Your learned friend Martin (for no brother
Mr.Dean, if you be a traitor) would not mistake you, and therefore say what you
can for yourself. You mean not that this priest shall be over all the Church,
do you? But how shall we know that? Forsooth, because you say that this
superiority must be in every particular or several congregations. Is this your
answer brother John? Why, what sense is there in these words? One priest may
have a superior authority over the universal body of the Church in every
particular or several congregations? The universal body of the Church is now
become a particular or several congregations with you? And in good earnest Dean
John, tell me how many orders of ministers be there in a particular
congregation? For there must be orders of ministers in the congregation where
you mean this bouncing priest should have his superiority; and because this
cannot be in several and particular congregations, therefore you cannot mean by
these words, 'over the universal body of the Church', any other thing than the
whole Church militant. But you would mend your answer? And say that this
superior must be an English priest and no foreigner. As for example, his grace
of Canterbury is an English priest.26 Do you mean then,
that his grace should be this superior priest, who by Sir Peter's allowance may
have a lawful superior [15] authority over the universal body of the
Church?27 Truly, I do not
mean so. And good now, do not abuse his grace's worship in this sort by making
him a pope. Be it you mean this high priest should be no stranger, yet your
treason is as great or greater. For you will have her Majesty to be subject
unto her own subject and servant. And if it be treason to say that the Pope, who
has princes and cardinals for his servants, being far better than were John
with his Canterburyness, may have a lawful superior authority over her Majesty,
as one being contained within the universal body of the Church, is it not much
more traitorous to say that an English vassal may have this authority over his
Sovereign. And brother John, did Sir Peter himself indeed practise this
authority?28 Why, what a priest
was he? Did he allow others to have this authority. Truly this is more than
ever I knew till now. Yet notwithstanding, I think he never wore corner cap and
tippet in all his life, nor yet ever subscribed to my Lord of Canterbury his
articles. Now the question is, whom Sir Peter himself now allows to be this
bouncing priest? the Pope of Rome, yea or no? No, in no case, for that is
against the statute. For will my brother Bridges say that the Pope may have a
lawful superior authority over his grace of Canterbury? I'll never believe him
though he say so. Neither will I say that his grace is an Infidel (nor yet
swear that he is much better), and therefore Mr.Dean means not that the Pope
should be this high Priest. No, brother Martin (quoth Mr.Dean), you say true. I
mean not that the Pope is this priest of Sir Peter. And if I have many reasons
why I should deny him this authority.29 First he is a
massmonger, that is a professed idolater. 2. He wears
a triple crown, so does not my Lord of
Canterbury. 3. He has his seat in Romish Babylon,
in Rome, within Italy. You know the number 666, in the Revelation, signifies Latenios,
that is the man of Rome, or Ecclesia Italica, the Italian church. Lastly,
[16] he must have men to kiss his toes and must be carried upon men's
shoulders and must have princes and kings to attend upon him, which shews his
horrible pride. Sir Peter's universal priest, and mine, shall be no such
priest, I trow30 , ka Mass Doctor.
No shall not Doctor John, I con you thank. Then your universal
priest: 1. must be no
idolater, 2. must be no proud priest, and have never a
triple crown (and yet I hope he may wear as brave a satin gown as my Lord of
Winchester wears, and be as choleric as he), 3. he must
have his seat out of Italy, as for fashion sake at Lambeth, Hippo, etc., but
at Rome in no case. If I should examine these properties I think some of them,
if not all, have been accidents unto English priests. For how many bishops are
there in England which have not either said mass or helped the priest to say
mass or been present at it? As for the triple crown, Pope Joan the English
harlot has won it. So did Urban the 5, an Englishman. And concerning pride, I
hope that our bishops now living have, to their mediocrity, taken order that
some popes may be inferior unto them, as for example, his Canterburyness, etc.
And I cannot see how the planting of the chair in Rome, any more than
Canterbury, can make a pope, seeing that Clement the 5, John 22, Benedict 12
and all other popes from the year 1306 unto 1375 sat not in Rome but for the
most part at Avignon in France. But notwithstanding all this, out of your
meaning mass Dr., such a simple ingram31 man as I am in
these points of universal superior priests, I find three differences between my
Lord of Peterborough, or any other our high priests in England, and the Pope's
holiness, and 3 impediments to hinder the Pope from being Sir Peter's high
priest and yours, viz. his idolatry, 2. his triple crown, 3. his seat at Rome.
But if Hildebrand, Pope of Rome, had been a professor of the truth (as his
grace Doctor turncoats (Perne I should say) scholar is), had worn no triple
crown, had been Archbishop of [17] Canterbury (and I think we have had
Hildebrands there ere now), then he might by the judgement of the learned
Bridges and the allowance of that Peter which himself practised that authority,
have a lawful superior authority over the universal body of the Church. And
what a worthy Canterbury Pope had this been, to be called my Lord's grease?
Thus you see brother Bridges, Mr.Marprelate an please him is able to make a
younger brother of you. He has before proved that if ever you be Archb. of
Canterbury (for you wrote this foul heap against the holy Discipline of Christ
(as Whitgift did the like), in hope to be the next Pope of Lambeth that then
you shall be a petty pope and a petty Antichrist. Nay, he has proved you to
have deserved a caudle32 of hempseed and a
plaster of neckweed33 , as well as some
of your brethren the papists. And now brother Bridges, once again, is it good
writing against the Puritans? Take me at my word, unless you answer the former
point of Antichristianism and this of treason, I will never write again to my
brethren bishops but as to usurpers and Antichrists, and I shall take you for
no better than an enemy to her Majesty's supremacy. And because you have taken
upon you to defend Lord bishops, though you be as very a sot as ever lived
(outcept dumb John of London again) yet you shall answer my reasons, or else I
will to course34 you as you were
never coursed since you were a Simoniacal Dean. You shall not deal with my
worship as John with his Canterburyness did with Thomas Cartwright, which John
left the cause you defend in the plain field, and for shame threw down his
weapons with a desperate purpose to run away and leave the cause, as he like a
coward has done. For this dozen year we never saw anything of his in print for
the defence of his cause, and poor Mr.Cartwright does content himself with the
victory which the other will not (though indeed he has by his silence) seem to
grant. But I will not be this used [18] at your hands, for unless you
answer me, or confess (and that in print) that all Lord bishops in England,
Wales, Ireland, yea, and Scotland too, are petty popes and plain usurpers and
petty Antichrists, I'll kindle such a fire in the holes of these sores as shall
never be quenched as long as there is a Lord bishop in England.35 And who but the
worthy Martin can do so valiantly. Page 560, master Dean brings in Aretius to
prove that kneeling at the communion is not offensive. And how is the argument
concluded, think you? Forsooth, even thus: Aretius says that in Berne they
receive the communion sitting or standing. Therefore, says my brother Bridges,
kneeling at the communion is not unlawful. I marvel whether he was not hatched
in a goose nest, that would thus conclude. In
another place,36 page 266 or
thereabouts, he proves that one man may have two spiritual livings, because the
puritans themselves say that one charge may have two ministers, to wit a pastor
and a doctor. And these be some of the good proofs whereby our established
government is upheld.
It
would make a man laugh to see how many tricks the Doctor has to cozen the silly
puritans in his book. He can, now and then, without any noise, allege an author
clean against himself, and I warrant you, wipe his mouth cleanly and look
another way, as though it had not been he.37 I have laughed as
though I had been tickled, to see with what sleight38 he can throw in a
popish reason, and who saw him? And with what art he can convey himself from
the question and go to another matter? It is wonderful to think, but what would
not a Dean do to get a bishopric? In this one point, for sparing labour he is
to be admired, that he has set down under his own name those things which (to
speak as I think) he never wrote himself. So let the puritans answer when they
will, he has so much of other men's helps, and such contrarieties in this book
that when they bring one [19] thing against him out of his own writings
he will bring another place out of the said book flat contrary to that, and say
that the latter is his and not the former. For the former, it may be, was some
other friend's, not so fully seen in the cause as presbyter John Bridges was.
The reason of these contrarieties was very expedient. Because many had a hand
in the work, every man wrote his own mind and mass doctor joined the whole
together.
Now,
forasmuch as he has played the worthy workman, I will bestow an Epitaph upon
his grave when he dies, which is thus:
Here lies John Bridges, a worthy Presbyter he
was.
But
what if he be a Bishop before he die? What brethren? Do you not think that I
have two strings to my bow, is us have I, and thus I sing, if he chance to be a
bishop:
Here lies John Bridges, late Bishop, friend to
the Papa.
I
care not an I now leave mass Dean's worship and be eloquent once in my days.
Yet brother Bridges, a word or two more with you ere we depart. I pray you,
where may a man buy such another gelding and borrow such another hundred
pounds, as you bestowed upon your good patron, Sir Edward Horsey, for his good
word in helping you to your deanery? Go to, go to! I perceive you will prove a
goose. Deal closelier39 for shame, the
next time. Must I needs come to the knowledge of these things? What if I should
report abroad that clergymen come unto their promotions by Simony? Have not you
given me just cause? I think Simony be the bishop's lackey. Tarleton took him
not long since, in Don John of London's cellar.
Well,
now to my eloquence, for I can do it I tell you. Who made the porter of his
gate a dumb minister? Dumb John of London. Who abuses her Majesty's subjects in
urging them to subscribe contrary to law? John of London. Who abuses the High
Commission as much as any? John London (and Dr.Stanhope too). Who [20]
bound an Essex minister in 200.l to wear the surplice on Easter day last? John
London. Who has cut down the elms at Fulham? John London. Who is a carnal
defender of the breach of the Sabbath in all the places of his abode? John
London. Who forbids men to humble themselves in fasting and prayer before the
Lord, and then can say unto the preachers, now you were best to tell the people
that we forbid fasts? John London.40 Who goes to bowls
upon the Sabbath? Dumb dunsticall John of good London has done all this. I will
for this time leave this figure and tell your venerable masterdoms a tale worth
the hearing. I had it at the second hand. If he that told it me added anything
I do not commend him, but I forgive him. The matter is this: A man dying in
Fulham made one of the Bishop of London's men his executor. The man had
bequeathed certain legacies unto a poor shepherd in the town. The shepherd
could get nothing of the bishop's man and therefore made his move unto a
gentleman of Fulham that belongs to the Court of Requests. The gentleman's name
is Mr.Madox. The poor man's case came to be tried in the Court of Requests. The
bishop's man desired his master's help. Dumb John wrote to the Masters of
Requests to this effect, and I think these were his words:
My
Masters of the Requests, the bearer hereof being my man, has a cause before
you. Inasmuch as I understand how the matter stands, I pray you let my man be
discharged the court, and I will see an agreement made. Fare you well. The letter came to
Mr.Dr.Dale; he answered it in this sort:
My
Lord of London, this man delivered your letter, I pray you give him his dinner
on Christmas day for his labour, and fare you well.
Dumb John, not speeding
this way, sent for the said Mr.Madox. He came, some rough words passed on both
sides, Presbyter John said master Madox was very [21] saucy, especially
seeing he knew before whom he spoke, namely the Lord of Fulham41 . Whereunto the
gentleman answered that he had been a poor freeholder in Fulham before Don John
came to be Lord there, hoping also to be so when he and all his brood (my Lady
his daughter and all) should be gone. At the hearing of this speech, the wasp
got my brother by the nose, which made him in his rage to affirm that he would
be Lord of Fulham as long as he lived, in despite of all England. Nay, softly
there, quoth Mr.Madox, except her Majesty, I pray you that is my meaning, ka
dumb John, and I tell you Madox that you are but a Jack to use me so. Master
Madox replying, said that indeed his name was John, and if every John were a
Jack, he was content to be a Jack (there he hit my Lord over the thumbs). The
bishop, growing in choler, said that master Madox his name did shew what he was,
for says he, your name is mad Ox, which declares you to an unruly and mad
beast. Mr.Madox answered again that the bishop's name, if it were descanted
upon, did most significantly shew his qualities. For said he, you are called
Elmar, but you may be better called mar-elm, for you have marred all the elms
in Fulham, having cut them all down. This far is my worthy story, as worthy to
be printed as any part of Dean John's book, I am sure.
Item:
may it please you that are Lord bishops, to shew your brother Martin how you
can escape the danger of a praemunire, seeing you urge her Majesty's subjects
to subscribe, clean contrary to the Statute 13 Elizabeth. What have you to shew
for yourselves, for I tell you, I heard some say that for urging subscription you
were all within the praemunire insomuch that you have been driven closely to
buy your pardons. You have forfeited all that you have unto her Majesty and
your persons are void of her Majesty's protection. You know the danger of a
praemunire I trow? Well, but tell me what [22] you have to shew for
yourselves? Her Majesty's prerogative? Have you? Then I hope you have it under
seal. No, I warrant you, her Majesty is too wise for that. For it shall never
be said that she ever authorised such ungodly proceedings to the dishonour of
God and the wounding of the consciences of her best subjects. Seeing you have
nothing to shew that it is her Majesty's will, why should any man subscribe
contrary to statute? Forsooth, men must believe such honest creatures as you are
on your words? Must they? As though you would not lie. Yes, yes, bishops will
lie like dogs. They were never yet well beaten for their lying.
May
it please your honourable worships to let worthy Martin understand why your
Canterburyness, and the rest of the Lord Bishops, favour papists and recusants
rather than puritans. For if a puritan preacher, having a recusant in his
parish and shall go about to deal with the recusant for not coming to Church,
Sir, will the recusant say, you and I will answer the matter before his grace
(or other the High Commissioners, as Lord bishops, civilians42 (I mean) popish
doctors of the bawdy courts). And as soon as the matter is made known unto my
Lord, the preacher is sure to go by the worst and the recusant to carry all the
honesty. Yea, the preacher shall be a busy envious fellow, one that does not
observe the book and conform himself according unto order, and perhaps go home
by beggars bush for any benefice he has to live upon. For it may be the bishops
will be so good unto him as to deprive him for not subscribing. As for the
recusant, he is known to be a man that must have the liberty of his conscience.
Is this good dealing brethren. And is it good dealing that poor men should be
so troubled to the chancellor's court that they are even weary of their lives
for such horrible oppression as there reigns. I tell you, Dr. Stanhope (for all
you are so proud), a praemunire will take you by the back one day, for
oppressing and tyrannising over [23] her Majesty's subjects as you do.
Does
your grace remember what the Jesuit at Newgate said of you, namely that my Lord
of Canterbury should surely be a cardinal if ever popery did come again into England,
(yea, and that a brave cardinal too). What a knave was this Jesuit? Believe me,
I would not say thus much of my Lord of Canterbury for a thousand pound, lest a
Scandalum magnatum should be had against me. But well fare him that said
thought is free.
Pitifully
complaining, is there any reason (my Lord's grace) why knave Thackwell the
printer, which printed popish and traitorous Welsh books in Wales, should have
more favour at your graceless hands than poor Waldegrave, who never printed
book against you that contains either treason or impiety. Thackwell is at
liberty to walk where he will, and permitted to make the most he could of his
press and letters, whereas Robert Waldegrave dares not shew his face for the
bloodthirsty desire you have for his life, only for printing of books which
touch the bishop's mitres. You know that Waldegrave's printing press and
letters were taken away. His press, being timber, was sawn and hewed in pieces,
the ironwork battered and made unserviceable, his letters melted, with cases
and other tools defaced (by John Woolfe, alias Machiavelli, Beadle of the
Stationers, and most tormenting executioner of Waldegrave's goods), and he
himself utterly deprived for ever printing again, having a wife and six small
children. Will this monstrous cruelty never be revenged, think you? When
Waldegrave's goods was to be spoiled and defaced there were some printers that
rather than all the goods should be spoiled offered money for it, towards the
relief of the man's wife and children, but this could not be obtained, and yet
popish Thackwell, though he printed popish and traitorous books, may have the
favour to make money of his press and letters. And reason [24] too, for
Waldegrave's profession overthrows the popedom of Lambeth, but Thackwel's
popery maintains the same. And now that Waldegrave has neither press nor
letters, his grace may dine and sup the quieter. But look to it brother
Canterbury, certainly without your repentance, I fear me you shall be *
Hildebrand43 indeed. Waldegrave
has left house and home by reason of your unnatural tyranny, having left behind
him a poor wife and six orphans, without anything to relieve them. (For the
husband you have bereaved both of his trade and goods.) Be you assured that the
cry of these will one day prevail against you unless you desist from
persecuting. And good your grace, I do now remember myself of another printer44 that had press and
letter in a place called Charterhouse, in London (in Anno 1587, near about the
time of the Scottish Queen's death). Intelligence was given unto your good
grace of the same, by some of the Stationers of London. It was made known unto
you what work was in hand, what letter the book was on, what volume, viz. in 80
in half sheets, what workmen wrought on the same, namely I.C., the Earl of
Arundel's man and three of his servants, with their several names, what liberality
was bestowed on those workmen, and by whom, etc.. Your grace gave the
Stationers the hearing of this matter, but to this day the parties were never
called in coram45 for it. But yet,
by your leave my Lord, upon this information unto your honourable worship, the
Stationers had news that it was made known unto the printers what was done unto
your good grace and presently, instead of the work which was in hand, there was
other appointed, as they say, authorised by your Lordship.46 I will not say it
was your own doing, but by your sleeve, thought is free. And my good Lord (nay,
you shall be none of my Lord but Mr.Whitgift, and you will) are you partial or
no in all your actions, tell me? Yes you are? I will stand to it?47 Did you get a
decree in the High [25] Court of Starchamber only for Waldegrave? If it
be in general (and you not partial) why fetch you not that printing press and
letters out of Charterhouse and destroy them, as you did Waldegrave's? Why did
you not apprehend the parties, why? Because it was popery at the least that was
printed in Charterhouse, and that maintains the crown of Canterbury? And what
is more tolerable than popery? Did not your grace of late erect a new printer,
contrary to the foresaid decree? One Thomas Orwine (who sometimes wrought popish
books in corners, namely Jesus Psalter, Our Lady's Psalter, etc.), with
condition he should print no such seditious books as Waldegrave has done? Why
my Lord? Waldegrave never printed anything against the state but only against
the usurped state of your Paltripolitanship and your pope holy brethren, the
Lord bishops and your Antichristian swinish rabble, being intolerable
withstanders of reformation, enemies of the gospel and most covetous, wretched
and popish priests.48
Now
most pitifully complaining, Martin Marprelate: That the papists will needs make
us believe that our good John of Canterbury, and they, are at no great jar in
religion. For Reynolds the papist at Rheims, in his book against Mr.Whitaker's,
commends the works written by his grace for the defence of the corruption in
our Church, against T.Cartwright, and says that the said John Cant. has many
things in him which evidently shew a catholic persuasion. Alas, my masters,
shall we loose our metropolitan in this sort. Yet the note is a good note, that
we may take heed the Spaniards steal him not away, it were not amiss if her
Majesty knew of it. We need not fear (if we can keep him) the Spaniards and our
other popish enemies, because our metropolitan's religion and theirs differ not
much. In the article of Christ's descending into hell they jump in one right
pat, and in the maintenance of the hierarchy of bishops, and ascribing the [26]
name of priest unto them that are ministers of the gospel. I know not whether
my next tale will be acceptable unto his grace or not, but have it among you my
masters: Mr.Wiggington the pastor of Sidborough, is a man not altogether
unknown unto you, and I think his worshipful grace got little or nothing by
meddling with him, although he has deprived him. My tale is of his deprivation,
which was after this sort. The good quiet people of Sidborough, being troubled
for certain years with the said Wiggington, and many of them being infected by
him with the true knowledge of the gospel by the word preached (which is an
heresy that his grace does mortally abhor and persecute), at length grew in
disliking with their pastor because the severe man did urge nothing but
obedience unto the Gospel. Well, they came to his grace to find a remedy
hereof, desiring him that Wiggington might be deprived. His grace could find no
law to deprive him, no, although the pastor defied the Archb. to his face and
would give him no better title than John Whitgift. Such bugs words being in
these days accounted no less than high treason against a Paltripolitan, though
since that time I think his grace has been well inured to bear the name of Pope
of Lambeth, John Cant. the Prelate of Lambeth, with divers other titles agreeable
to his function. Well, Sidborough men proceeded against their pastor. His grace
would not deprive him because he could find no law to warrant him therein, and
he will do little contrary to law for fear of a praemunire, unless it be at a
dead lift to deprive a puritan preacher. Then indeed he will do against law,
against God and against his own conscience, rather than that heresy of
preaching should prevail. One man of Sidborough, whose name is Atkinson, was
very eager among the rest to have his pastor deprived, and because his grace
would not hear them but departed away, this Atkinson desired his grace to
resolve him and his neighbours of one point which something troubled [27]
them, and that was whether his grace or Wiggington were of the devil. For,
quoth he, you are so contrary, the one from the other, that both of you cannot
possibly be of God. If he be of God, it is certain you are of the devil, and so
cannot long stand, for he will be your overthrow. Amen. If you are of God, then
he is of the devil, as we think him to be, and so he being of the devil, will
not you deprive him? Why should you suffer such a one to trouble the Church.
Now if he be of God, why is your course so contrary to his? And rather, why do
you not follow him, that we may do so too? Truly, if you do not deprive him we
will think him to be of God and go home with him with gentler good will towards
him than we came hither with hatred, and look you for a fall. His grace,
hearing this northern logic, was moved on the sudden, you must think, promised
to deprive Wiggington, and so he did. This Atkinson, this winter 1587, came up
to London, being as it seemed afflicted in conscience for this fact, desired
Wiggington to pardon him and offered to kneel before her Majesty that Wiggington
might be restored again to his place, and to stand to the truth hereof to his
grace's teeth. The man is yet alive, he may be sent for if you think that
Mr.Martin has reported an untruth. No, I warrant you, you shall not take me to
have fraught my book with lies and slanders, as John Whitgift and the Dean of
Sarum did theirs. I speak not of things by hearsay, as of reports, but I bring
my witnesses to prove my matters.
May
it please you to yield unto a suite that I have to your worships. I pray you
send Wiggington home unto his charge again. I can tell you it was a foul
oversight in his grace to send for him out of the North, to London, that he
might outface him at his own door. He would do his Canterburyness less hurt if
he were at his charge than now he does. Let the Templars have Mr.Travers, their
preacher, restored again unto them, he is now at [28] leisure to work
your priesthood a woe, I hope. If such another book as the Ecclesiast.
Discipline was dropped out of his budget it were as good for the bishops to lie
a day and a night in little ease in the Counter. He is an odd fellow in
following an argument and you know he has a smooth tongue, either in Latin or
English. And if my Lord of Winchester understood either Greek or Hebrew, as
they say he has no great skill in neither, I would pray your priestdoms to tell
me which is the better scholar, Walter Travers, or Thomas Cooper. Will you not
send Mr.Wyborne to Northampton, that he may see some fruits of the seed he
sowed there 16 or 18 years ago. That old man, Wyborne, has more good learning
in him, and more fit gifts for the ministry in his little toe, than many braces49 of our Lord
bishops. Restore him to preaching again for shame. Mr.Paget shall be welcome to
Devonshire, he is more fit to teach men than boys. I marvel with what face a
man that had done so much good in the Church as he did among a rude people,
could be deprived.
Briefly,
may it please you to let the Gospel have a free course and restore unto their
former liberty in preaching all the preachers that you have put to silence, and
this far is my first suit.50
My
2 suit is a most earnest request unto you that are the hinderers of the
publishing of the confutation of the Rheimish Testament51 by M.Cartwright.
May it be published. A reasonable request, the granting whereof I dare assure
you would be most acceptable unto all that fear God, and news of woeful sequel
unto the papists. For shall I tell you what I heard once, from the mouth of a
man of great learning and deep judgement, who saw some part of Master
Cartwright's answer to the said Rheimish and traitorous Raffodie? His judgement
was this, that Mr.Cartwright had dealt so soundly against the papists that for
the answering and confuting of the adversary, that one work would be sufficient
alone. He [29] farther added that the adversary was confuted by strange
and unknown reasons that would set them at their wits end, when they see
themselves assailed with such weapons, whereof they never once dreamt that they
should be struck at. And will your grace, or any else that are the hinderers of
the publishing of this work, still bereave the Church of so worthy a jewel,
nay, so strong an armour against the enemy. If you deny me this request I will
not threaten you, but my brother Bridges and John Whitgift's books shall smoke
for this gear. I'll have my pennyworth's of them for it.
Now
may it please you to examine, my worthiness, your brother Martin, and see
whether I said not true in the story of Byles Wiggington, where I have set down
that the preaching of the word is an heresy which his grace does mortally abhor
and persecute. I can prove it without doubt. And first that he persecutes the
preaching of the word (whether it be an heresy or not), both in the preacher
and the hearer. The articles of subscription, the silencing of so many learned
and worthy preachers, do evidently shew, and if you doubt hereof let my worship
understand thereof and in my next treatise I shall prove the matter to be clear
with a witness, and I hope to your final commendations, that will deny such a
clear point. On the other side, that he accounts preaching to be an heresy, I
am now to insist on the proof of that point. But first, you must know that he
did not account simple preaching to be an heresy, but to hold that preaching is
the only ordinary means to salvation, this he accounts as an heresy, this he
mortally condemned. The case thus stood: John Penry the Welshman (I think his
grace and my brother London would be better acquainted with him and they could
tell how), about the beginning of Lent 1587, offered a supplication and a book
to the Parliament, entreating that some order might be taken for calling his
country unto the knowledge of God. For [30] his bold attempt he was
called before his grace, with others of the High Commission, as Thomas of
Winchester, John London, etc.. After that his grace had eased his stomach in
calling him boy, knave, varlet, slanderer, libeller, lewd boy, lewd slanderer,
etc. (this is true, for I have seen the notes of their conference), at the length
a point of his book began to be examined, where nonresidents are thought
intolerable. Here the Lord of good London asked Mr.Penry what he could say
against that kind of cattle. Answer was made that they were odious in the sight
of God and man because, as much as in them lie, they bereave the people over
whom they thrust themselves of the ordinary means of salvation, which was the
word preached. John London demanded whether preaching was the only means to
salvation? Penry answered that it was the only ordinary means, although the
Lord was not so tied unto it but that he could extraordinarily use other means.
That preaching was the only ordinary means, he confirmed it by those places of
scripture, Rom. 10:14, I.Cor. 1:21, Ephes.1:13. This point being a long time
canvassed, at the length his worship of Winchester rose up and mildly after his
manner, burst forth into these words: I assure you my Lords, it is an execrable
heresy. An heresy (quoth John Penry), I thank God that ever I knew that heresy.
It is such an heresy that I will, by the grace of God, sooner leave my life
than I will leave it. What, Sir (quoth the Archb.), I tell you it is an heresy,
and you shall recant it as an heresy? Nay, (quoth Penry), never so long as I
live, God willing. I will leave this story for shame, I am weary to hear your
grace so absurd. What say you to this gear, my masters of the Convocation
House? We shall have shortly a good religion in England among the bishops, if
Paul be said of them to write an heresy. I have heard some say that his grace
will speak against his own conscience? It is true. The proof whereof shall be
his [31] dealing, says another Welshman, one Mr.Evans. An honourable
personage, Ambrose Dudley, now Earl of Warwick (and long may he be so, to the
glory of God, the good of his Church and the comfort of all his), in the
singular love he bore to the town of Warwick, would have placed Mr.Evans there.
To the end that master Evans might be received with a favourable subscription,
etc., he offered the subscription which the statute requires, whereunto men may
subscribe with a good conscience. The Earl sent him with his letter to his
gracelessness of Cant. thinking to obtain so small a courtesy at his hands. And
I am sure, if he be Ambrose Dudley, the noble Earl of Warwick, (whose famous
exploits, both in peace and war, this whole land has cause to remember with
thankfulness), that he is able to requite your kindness, Mr.John Cant. O! Said
his grace to Mr.Evans, I know you to be worthy a better place than Warwick is,
and I would very gladly gratify my Lord, but surely there is a Lord in heaven
whom I fear, and therefore I cannot admit you without subscription.52 Thus the man, with
his poor patron, the Earl of Warwick, were rejected by your grace and the poor
earl to this day knows not how to find the favour at your hands that the man
may be placed there. I tell you true, John Canter., if I were a nobleman and a
counsellor too, I should be sick of the spleen. Nay, I could not bear this at
your hands, to be used of a priest thus, contrary to the law of God and this
land. It is no marvel, though, his honour could not obtain this small suit at
your graceless hands, for I have heard your own men say that you will not be
beholden to never a nobleman in this land, for you were the 2 person, etc..
Nay, your own self spoke proudly, yea, and that like a pope, whenas a worthy
knight was a suitor unto your holiness for one of God's dear children (whom you
have kept and do keep in prison), for his liberty. You answered him he should
lie there still, unless he would put in sureties upon such bonds [32] as
never the like were heard of. And said further that you are the 2 person in the
land, and never a nobleman nor counsellor in this land should release him. Only
her Majesty may release him, and that you were sure she would not. Do you think
this to be he (I pray you) that was sometime doctor Perne's boy and carried his
cloakbag after him? Believe me he has leapt lustily.53 And do not you
know that after it is full sea there follows an ebb? Remember your brother
Haman? Do you think there is never a Mordecai to step to our gracious Hester
for preserving the lives of her faithfullest and best subjects, whom you so
mortally hate and bitterly persecute? I hope you have not long to reign. Amen.
And you, Mr. Bishop of Worcester, how dealt you with master Evans in the same
case? Do you think that I do not know your knavery? You could by law require no
other subscription of master Evans than he offered, and yet forsooth, you would
not receive it at his hands unless he would also enter into a bond to observe
the Book of Common Prayer in every point. Will law permit you to play the
tyrant in this sort, bishop? I shall see the praemunire on the bones of you one
day for these pranks. And the massmonger, your neighbour the Bishop of
Gloucester, thinks to go free because in his sermon at Paul's Cross, preached
1586, in the Parliament time, he affirmed that beef and brewis54 had made him a
papist. But this will not serve his turn. Would you know what he did? Why, he
convented an honest draper of Gloucester, one Singleton, and urged him, being a
layman, to subscribe unto the book. The man, affirming that no such thing could
be required of him by law, denied to subscribe. Upon his denial the bishop sent
him to prison. Is it even so, you old popish priest? Dare you imprison laymen
for not subscribing? It were not good for your corner cap that her Majesty knew
her subjects to be thus dealt with. And if this be ever made known unto her, I
hope to see you in for a bird55 . But brother
Winchester, you of all [33] other men are most wretched, for you openly,
in the audience of many hundreds at Sir Mary Overies56 church, the last
lent, 1587, pronounced that men might find fault, if they were disposed to
quarrel, as well with the Scripture as with the Book of Common Prayer. Who
could hear this comparison without trembling.57 But lest you
should think that he has not as good a gift in speaking against his conscience
as my Lord of Cant. is endued with, you are to understand that both in that
sermon of his and in another which he preached at the court the same Lent, he
protested before God and the congregation where he stood that there was not in
the world at this day, nay, there had not been since the Apostles time, such a
flourishing estate of a Church as we have now in England.58 Is it any marvel
that we have so many swine, dumb dogs, nonresidents with their journeymen the
hedge priests, so many lewd livers, as thieves, murderers, adulterers,
drunkards, cormorants, rascals, so many ignorant and atheistical dolts, so many
covetous popish bishops in our ministry, and so many and so monstrous
corruptions in our Church, and yet likely to have no redress. Seeing our
impudent, shameless, and wainscot-faced bishops, like beasts, contrary to the
knowledge of all men and against their own consciences dare, in the ears of her
Majesty, affirm all to be well, where there is nothing but sores and blisters,
yea, where the grief is even deadly at the heart. Nay, says my Lord of
Winchester (like a monstrous hypocrite, for he is a very dunce, not able to
defend an argument, but till he come to the pinch he will cog59 and face it out,
for his face is made of seasoned wainscot and will lie as fast as a dog can
trot). I have said it, I do say it, and I have said it. And, say I, you shall
one day answer it (without repentance), for abusing the Church of God and her
Majesty in this sort. I would wish you to leave this villainy, and the rest of
your devilish practises against God his saints, lest you answer it where your
peevish and choleric [34] simplicity will not excuse you. I am ashamed
to think that the Church of England should have these wretches for the eyes
thereof, that would have the people content themselves with bare reading only,
and hold that they may be saved thereby ordinarily. But this is true of our
bishops, and they are afraid that anything should be published abroad whereby
the common people should learn that the only way to salvation is by the word
preached. There was, the last summer, a little catechism, made by Mr.Davison
and printed by Waldegrave, but before he could print it, it must be authorised
by the bishops, either Cante. or London. He went to Cant. to have it licensed,
his grace committed it to doctor Neverbegood (Wood), he read it over in half a
year, the book is a great one of two sheets of paper. In one place of the book
the means of salvation was attributed to the word preached, and what did he,
think you? He blotted out the word (preached) and would not have that word
printed, so ascribing the way to work men's salvation to the word read. Thus
they do to suppress the truth and to keep men in ignorance. John Cant. was the
first father of this horrible error in our Church, for he has defended it in
print, and now, as you have heard, accounts the contrary to be heresy. And
popish Goodman, Abbot of Westminster, preaching upon 12.Rom.1, said that so much
preaching, as in some places we have, is an unreasonable service of God.
Scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites that will neither enter in ourselves nor
suffer those that will to enter into heaven.
May
it please your Priestdoms to understand that doctor Cottington, Archdeacon of
Surrey, being belike bankrupt in his own country, comes to Kingston-upon-Thames
of mere goodwill that he bears to the town (I should say, to userer Harvey's
good cheer and money bags), being out at the heels with all other userers, and
knowing him to be a professed adversary to Mr.Udall, (a notable preacher of the
Gospel and vehement [35] reprover of sin), takes the advantage of their
controversy, and hoping to borrow some of the userer's money, sets himself most
vehemently against Mr.Udall, to do whatsoever Harvey the userer will have him,
and takes the help of his journeyman, doctor Hone, the veriest coxcomb that
ever wore velvet cap, and an ancient foe to Mr.Udall, because (indeed) he is
popish dolt, and (to make up a mess) Steven Chatfield, the vicar of Kingston,
as very a bankrupt and dunce as Doc. Cottington (although he have consumed all
the money he gathered to build a College at Kingston), must come and be
resident there that Mr.Udall may have his mouth stopped. And why? Forsooth,
because your friend Mr.Harvey would have it so. For, says Harvey, he rails in
his sermons. Is that true? Does he rail when he reproves you (and such
notorious varlets as you are) for your usery, for your oppressing of the poor,
for buying the houses over their heads that love the gospel, and the Lord his
faithful minister? (Mr.Udall). And are not you a monstrous atheist, a belly
God, a carnal, wicked wretch and what not. Mr.Chatfield, you think I see not
your knavery? Is us do I. You cannot dance so cunningly in a net but I can spy
you out. Shall I tell you why you sew pillows under Harvey's elbows? Why man,
it is because you would borrow an 100 pound of him? Go to, you ass and take in
Mr.Udall again, (for Harvey I can tell is as crafty a knave as you, he will not
lend his money to such bankrupts as Duns Cottington and you are). And you do
not restore M.Udall again to preach, I will so lay open your vileness that I
will make the very stones in Kingston streets shall smell of your knaveries.
Now, if a man ask Mr.Cottington why Mr.Udall is put to silence? Forsooth, says
he, for not favouring the Church government present. Doc.Hone (Cottington's
journeyman, a popish Dr. of the bawdy court), says by his troth, for making
such variance in the town. Mr.Chatfield seems to sorry for it, etc., but what
cause was alleged why [36] Mr.Udall must preach no longer? Surely this
only, that he had not my Lord of Winchester's licence under seal to shew. And
because this was thought not to be sufficient to satisfy the people, Hone, the
bawdy Doctor, charged him to be a sectary, a schismatic, yea, he affirmed
plainly that the Gospel out of his mouth was blasphemy. Popish Hone, do you say
so? Do you? You are a knave I tell you. By the same token, your friend
Chatfield spent thirteen score pounds in distributing briefs for a gathering
towards the erecting of a College at Kingston upon Thames.
Wohohow,
brother London! Do you remember Thomas Allen and Richard Alworth, merchants of
London, being executors to George Allen, sometimes your grocer, but now
deceased, who came unto you on Easter Wednesday last, being at your masterdoms
palace in London, having been often to speak with you before and could not, yet
now they met with you. Who told you they were executors unto one George Allen
(sometimes) your grocer, and among other his debts we find you indebted unto
him in the sum of 19 pound and upward, desiring you to let them have the money,
for that they were to dispose of it according to that trust he reposed in them.
You answered them sweetly (after you had paused a while), in this manner: You
are rascals, you are villains, you are arrant knaves. I owe you naught. I have
a general quittance to shew.60 Sir (said they),
shew us your discharge and we are satisfied. No (quoth he), I will shew you
none. Go sue me, go sue me! Then, said one of the merchants, do you thus use us
for asking our due? We would you should know we are no such vile persons. Don
John of London (hearing their answer), cried out, saying: Hence, away!
Citizens? Nay, you are rascals, you are worse than wicked mammon (so lifting up
both his hands and flinging them down again, said), You are thieves, you are
cozeners. Take that for a bishop's blessing, and so get you hence.61 But when they
would have answered, his men [37] thrust them out of the doors. But
shortly after, he perceived they went about to bring the matter to farther
trial. He sent a messenger unto them confessing the debt, but they cannot get
their money to this day. What reason is it they should have their money? Has he
not bestowed his liberality already on them? Can they not be satisfied with the
blessing of this brave bouncing priest? But brethren bishops, I pray you tell
me? Has not your brother London a notable brazen face to use these men so for
their own? I told you, Martin will be proved no liar in that he says that
bishops are cogging and cozening knaves. This priest went to buffets with his
son in law for a bloody nose, well fare all good tokens. The last Lent there
came a commandment from his grace into Paul's Churchyard that no Bible should
be bound without the Apocrypha. Monstrous and ungodly wretches, that to
maintain their own outrageous proceedings thus mingle heaven and earth
together, and would make the spirit of God to be the author of profane books. I
am hardly drawn to a merry vein from such weighty matters.
But
you see my worshipful priests of this crew to whom I write, what a perilous
fellow Mr.Marprelate is. He understands of all your knavery, and it maybe he
keeps a register of them. Unless you amend, they shall all come into the light
one day. And your brethren bishops, take this warning from me. If you do not
leave your persecuting of godly Christians and good subjects that seek to live
uprightly in the fear of God and the obedience of her Majesty, all your dealing
shall be made known unto the world. And I'se be sure to make you an example to
all posterity. You see, I have taken some pains with you already, and I will
owe you a better turn and pay it you with advantage, at the least thirteen to
the dozen, unless you observe these conditions of peace which I draw between me
and you. For I assure you, I make not your doings known for any malice I bear [38]
unto you, but the hurt that you do unto God's Church. Leave you your wickedness
and I'll leave the revealing of your knaveries.
�Conditions of Peace to be
inviolably kept for
ever, between the reverend and worthy master Martin Marprelate, gentleman,
on the one party, and the reverend fathers his brethren, the Lord bishops of this land.
ever, between the reverend and worthy master Martin Marprelate, gentleman,
on the one party, and the reverend fathers his brethren, the Lord bishops of this land.
1 IN
primis, the said Lord bishops must promise and observe, without fraud or
collusion, and that as much as in them lies, they labour to promote the
preaching of the word in every part of this land.
2 That
hereafter they admit none unto the ministry but such as shall be known both for
their godliness and learning to be fit for the ministry, and not these neither
without cure, unless they be College ministers of either of the Universities,
and in no case they suffer any to be nonresidents. And that they suffer
Mr.Cartwright's answer to the Rheimish Testament to be published.
3 That
neither they nor their servants, viz. their archdeacons, chancellors, nor any
other of the High Commission which serve their vile affections, urge any to
subscribe contrary to the statute 13 Eliza., and that they suspend or silence
none but such as either for their false doctrine or evil life shall shew
themselves to be unworthy the places of ministers, so that none be suspended or
licensed either for speaking (when their text gives them occasion), against the
corruptions of the Church, for refusing to wear the surplice, cap, tippet,
etc., or omitting the corruptions of the Book of Common Prayer, as churching of
women, the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, etc.
4 That
none be molested by them or any their aforesaid servants, for this my book, for
not kneeling at the communion, or for resorting on the Sabbath (if they have
not preachers of their own) to hear the word preached and [39] to
receive the Sacraments.
5 Lastly,
that never hereafter they profane excommunication, as they have done, by
excommunicating alone in their chambers, and that for trifles, yea, before
men's causes be heard. That they never forbid public fasts, molest either
preacher or hearer for being present at such assemblies. Briefly, that they
never slander the cause of reformation or the furtherers thereof in terming the
cause by the name of Anabaptistry, schism, etc., and the men puritans and
enemies to the state.
These
be the conditions which you, brethren bishops, shall be bound to keep
inviolably on your behalf. And I, your brother Martin, on the other side, do
faithfully promise, upon the performance of the premisses by you, never to make
any more of your knavery known unto the world. And howbeit that I have before
threatened my brother Bridges in the cause of his superior priest and your
Antichristian callings. Notwithstanding, I will write no more of your dealings
unless you violate the former conditions. The conditions, you see, are so
reasonable. I might bind you to give over your places which are Antichristian,
but I do not, lest men should think me to quarrel and seek occasions for the
nonce to fall out with my brethren. Therefore I require no more but such things
as all the world will think you unworthy to live if you grant them not. And
this I do the rather because you should not, according to your old fashion, say
that my worship does for malice lay open your infirmities. Nay, I have
published not one of your secret faults, what you have not blushed to commit in
the face of the sun, and in the justifying whereof you yet stand, these things
only have I published. The best servants of God, I know, have their
infirmities, but none of them will stand in the maintenance of their
corruptions as you do, and that to the dishonour of God and the ruin of his
Church. You must either amend or shortly you will bring our church to ruin. [40]
Therefore, it is time that your dealings were better looked unto.
You
will go about, I know, to prove my book to be a libel, but I have prevented you
of that advantage in law, both in bringing in nothing but matters of fact,
which may easily be proved if you dare deny them, and also in setting my name
to my book. Well, I offer you peace upon the former conditions, if you will
keep them. But if you violate them either in whole or in part (for why should
you break any one of them), then your learned brother Martin does proclaim open
war against you, and intends to work your woe 2 manner of ways as follows:
First, I will watch you at every half turn, and whatsoever you do amiss I will
presently publish it. You shall not call one honest man before you but I will
get his examination (and you think I shall know nothing of the oppression of
your tenants by your bribery, etc.), and publish it, if you deal not according
to the former conditions. To this purpose I will place a young Martin in every
diocese, which may take notice of your practises. Do you think that you shall
be suffered any longer to break the law of God and to tyrannise over his
people, her Majesty's subjects, and no man tell you of it? No, I warrant you.
And rather than I will be disappointed of my purpose, I will place a Martin in
every parish. In part of Suffolk and Essex I think I were best to have 2 in a
parish. I hope in time they shall be as worthy Martins as their father is,
every one of them able to mar a prelate. Mark what will be the issue of these
things, if you still keep your old bias. I know you would not have your
dealings so known unto the world as I and my sons will blaze them. Secondly,
all the books that I have in store already, of your doings, shall be published
upon the breach of the former covenants, or any of them. Here I know, some will
demand what these books are, because, says one, I warrant you there will be old
sport. I hope old father Palinode,62 Dr.Perne, shall be
in there by the week's. Why! My [41] masters of the clergy, did you
never hear of my books indeed? So then, you never heard of good sport in your
life. The catalogue of their names and the arguments of some are as follows As
for my book named Epistomastix, I make no mention thereof at this time.63 First my Paradoxes,
2. my Dialogues, 3. my Miscelanea, 4. my Varia leciones,
5. Martins dream, 6. of the lives and doings of English popes, 7.
my Itinerarium, or visitations, 8. my Lambethisms. In my Paradoxes
shall be handled some points which the common sort have not greatly considered
of, as 1. That our prelates, if they professed popery could not do so much hurt
unto God's Church as now they do. 2. That the Devil is not better practised in
bowling and swearing than John of London is, with other like points. What shall
be handled in my 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, books you shall know when you read them.
My
Itinerarium shall be a book of no great profit, either to the Church or
commonwealth, and yet had need to be in folio, or else judge you by this that
follows. I mean to make a survey into all the dioceses in this land, that I may
keep a visitation among my clergymen. I would with them to keep good rule and
to amend their manners against I come. For I shall paint them in their colours
if I find anything amiss. In this book I will note all their memorable pranks.
As for example, if I find any priest to have done as Sir Geoffrey Jones of
Warwickshire did, that must be set down in my visitations, and I think I had
need to have many scribes and many reams of paper for this purpose. The said
Sir Geoffrey Jones committed a part very well beseeming his priesthood, which
was after this manner. Sir Geoffrey, once in an alehouse (I do desire the
reader to bear with me, though according to Mr.Bridges his fashion, I write false
English in this sentence), whereunto he resorted for his morning draught,
either because his hostess would have him pay the old score before he should
run any [42] further, or the new, or else because the gamesters, his
companions, won all his money at trey trip64 , took such
unkindness at the alehouse that he swore he would never go again into it.
Although this rash vow of the good priest was made to the great loss of the
alewife, who by means of Sir Geoffrey was wont to have good utterance for her
ale, yet I think the tap had great quietness and ease thereby, which could not
be quiet so much as an hour in the day as long as Sir Geoffrey resorted unto
the house. How sweet it was, poor Sir Jones felt the discommodity of his rash
vow. Then alas, he was in a woe case, as you know, for his stomach could not be
at all strengthened with the drink he got abroad. But better were a man not to
feel his discommodity than not to be able to redress the same. Therefore at
length Sir Geoffrey bethought him of a feat whereby he might both visit the
alestand and also keep his oath. And so he hired a man to carry him upon his
back to the alehouse. By this means he did not go, but was carried thither,
whereunto he made a vow never to go. I doubt not in my visitation but to get a
hundred of these stratagems, especially if I travel near where any of the
vicars of hell are, as in Surrey, Northampton, and Oxfordshires. And I would
with the pursuivants65 and the
Stationers, with the Woolfe their beadle, not to be so ready to molest honest
men. And Stationers, I would with you not to be so frank with your bribes as
you were to Thomas Draper. I can tell you, his grace had need to provide a bag
full of items for you, if you he be so liberal. Were you so foolish (or so
malicious against Waldegrave), to give that knave Draper five pounds to betray
him into your wretched hands. He brought you to Kingston-upon-Thames, with
pursuivants to take him, where he should be a printing books in a tinker's
house, (yourselves being disguised, so that Waldegrave might not know you, for
of citizens you were become ruffians). There you were to seek that could not be
found, and many such journeys may you make. But when you came to [43]
London, you laid Thomas Draper in the Counter for cozenage. O, well bowled!
When John of London throws his bowl, he will run after it and cry, rub, rub,
rub, and say the devil go with you. But what think you shall be handled in my Lambethisms?
Truly this, I will there make a comparison of John Whitgift's Canterburyness
with John Bridges his Lambethisms. To speak in plain English, I will there set
down the flowers of errors, popish and others, wherewith those two worthy men
have stuffed the books which they have written against the cause of
reformation, in the defence of the government of bishops. I have in this book,
as you shall see, gathered some flowers out of John of London's book, but my
Lambethisms shall be done otherwise I trow.
And
now, if it may please you of the Convocation House to hear of any of the former
books, then break the league which I offer to make with you. But if you would
have my friendship, as I seek yours, then let me see that you persecute no
more, and especially that you trouble none for this book of mine. For this must
be an especial article of our agreement, as you know. And Dean John, for your
part you must play the fool no more in the pulpit. We will end this matter with
a pretty story of a certain mischance that befell a bishop's corner cap, as
follows. Old doctor Turner (I mean not Dr.Perne, the old turner) had a dog full
of good qualities. Dr.Turner, having invited a bishop to his table in dinner
while, called his dog and told him that the bishop did sweat (you must think he
laboured hard over his trencher). The dog flies at the bishop and took off his
corner cap (he thought belike it had been a cheese cake), and so away goes the
dog with it to his master. Truly, my masters of the clergy, I would never wear
corner cap again, seeing dogs run away with them. And here ends the story.
May
it please you that are of this house to tell me the cause, when you have
leisure, why so many opinions and [44] errors are risen in our Church
concerning the ministry, and the joining with preaching and unpreaching
ministers. To tell you my opinion in your ear, I think it to be want of
preaching and I think your worships to have here the cause of all this stir.
Some puritans hold readers for no ministers, some hold you, our worthy bishops,
for little better then fair parchment readers, and say that you have no
learning. Now whether readers be ministers or no, and whether our bishops be
learned or no, I would with you brethren bishops and you brethren puritans, to
make no great controversy, but rather labour that all evil ministers may be
turned out of the Church, and so I hope there should be a speedy end of all
those questions between you. For then I doubt not but that Lord bishops,
whereat the puritans so repine66 , should be in a
fair reckoning within short space, even the next to the door save the dog. And
I see that you bishops are well towards this promotion already. And truly,
though the puritans should never so much repine at the matter, yet I tell you
true, I am glad that you are so esteemed amongst men. And for my own part I
think, my masters, that many of you our Lord bishops and clergymen are men very
notorious for their learning and preaching. And hereof, under bendicite67 between you and
me, (the puritans may stand aside now), I will bring you some instances. First,
his grace and my Lord of Winchester have been very notable clerks, ever since
Mr. doctor Sparks set them at a non plus (some of their honours
being present), in the conference between him and Mr.Travers on the puritans
side, and the two Archbishops and the Bishop of Winchester on the other side.
Dr.Sparks' argument was drawn from the corruption of the translation of the 28
verse of the 105 Psalm, in the Book of Common Prayer, and the contrariety of
the translations allowed by the Bishops themselves. For in the book of Common
Prayer you shall read thus: And they were not obedient unto his word, (which [45]
is a plain corruption of the text). In other privileged English translations it
is, And they were not disobedient unto his word, which is according to the
verity of the original68 . By the way, ere I
go any further, I would know with what conscience either my brother Cant. or
any else of our bishops can urge men to allow such palpable corruption by
subscribing unto things mere contrary to the word. Here also I would shew, by
the way, and I would have all my sons to note, that their uncle Canterbury's
drift in urging subscription is not the unity of the church (as he would
pretend), but the maintenance of his own pride and corruption, which should
soon come to the ground if the word had free passage. And therefore he proves
the same by stopping the mouths of the sincere preachers thereof. For if the
unity of the Church had been his end, why has not he amended this fault in all
the books that have been printed since that time, which now is not so little as
3 years, in which time many thousand of Books of Common Prayer have been
printed. If he had other business in hand than the amending of the Book of
Common Prayer, why had he not, nay, why does he not, leave urging of
subscription until that be amended? Can he and his hirelings have time to
imprison and deprive men because they will not sin by approving lies upon the
holy ghost (which things they cannot, nor could not choose but commit,
whosoever will or have subscribed unto the book and Articles). And can he have
no time in 3 or 4 years to correct most gross and ungodly faults in the print,
whereof the putting out of one syllable, even three letters (dis) would have
amended this place. But it lies not in his grace to amend the corruptions of
the book. Belike it lies in him to do nothing but sin, and to compel men
against their consciences to sin, or else to bring extreme misery upon them. If
it lay not in him, yet he might have acquainted the Parliament (for there was a
Parliament since the time he knew this fault) with the [46] corruptions
of the book. And I will come nearer home to him than so, in the Article
concerning the government, whereunto men are urged to subscribe. You must (say
the Articles) protest that there is nothing in the ministry of the Church of
England that is not according to the word, or to such like effect they speak. I
say that I cannot subscribe unto this article because, contrary to the express
commandment of our Saviour Christ and the examples of his Apostles, there be
Lords in the ministry, or such as would be accounted ministers will also be
called and accounted Lords, and bear civil offices. The words of Christ are
those: The kings of the Gentiles reign over them, and they that bear rule over
them are called gracious Lords, but you shall not be so, Luk. 22:25,26. I say
that out of this place it is manifest that it is utterly unlawful for a
minister to be a Lord, that for any Lord bishop to be in the ministry, and
therefore I cannot subscribe unto that Article which would have me justify this
to be lawful. Now I will cease this point because I doubt not but the Articles
of subscription will be shortly so made out of fashion that the bishops will be
ashamed of them themselves, and if no other will take them in hand, I'll turn
one of my own breed unto them, either Martin senior, or some of his brethren.
To
go forward, his Lordship of Winchester is a great clerk, for he has translated
his dictionary, called Coopers Dictionary, verbatim out of Robert Stephanus his
Thesaurus, and ill favoured too, they say. But what do I speak of our bishops
learning as long as Bishop Overton, Bishop Bickley, Bishop Middleton, the Dean
of Westminster, doctor Cole, Dr.Bell, with many others, are living. I doubt me
whether all the famous dunces be dead. And if you would have an example of an
excellent pulpit man indeed, go no further than the Bishop of Gloucester, now
living, and in him you shall find a plain instance of such a one as I mean. On
a time he, preaching [47] at Worcester before he was bishop, upon Sir
John's day, as he traversed his matter and discoursed upon many points, he came
at the length unto the very pith of his whole sermon, contained in the
distinction of the name of John, which he then, shewing all his learning at
once, full learnedly handled after this manner: John, John, the grace of God,
the grace of God, the grace of God. Gracious John, not graceless John, but
gracious John. John, holy John, holy John, not John full of holes, but holy
John. If he shewed not himself learned in this sermon then has he been a dunce
all his life. In the same sermon, two several Johns, the father and the son,
that had been both recusants, being brought publicly to confess their faults,
this worthy doctor, by reason that the young man having been poisoned beyond
the seas with popery was more obstinate than his father, and by all likelihood
he was the cause of his father's perverseness. With a vehement exclamation,
able to pierce a cobweb, called on the father aloud in this pathetical and
persuading sort: Old John, old John, be not led away by the Siren sounds and
enticements of young John. If young John will go to the devil, the devil go
with him. The puritans, it may be, will here object that this worthy man was
endued with these famous gifts before he was bishop, whereas since that time,
say they, he is not able to say boo to a goose. You weigh this man belike my
masters, according to the rest of our bishops. But I assure you, it is not so
with him. For the last Lent in a sermon he made in Gloucester town, he shewed
himself to be the man that he was before. For he did in open pulpit confirm the
truth of his text to be authentical, being the prophesy of Isaiah, out of the
Book of Common Prayer, which otherwise would (it is to be feared) have proved
Apocrypha. His text was, A child is borne unto us, which after he sweetly
repeated very often as before, to the great destruction and admiration of the
hearers, saying: A child is borne, a child is borne, a child is born [48]
unto us, this (says he) is proved you know, where in that worthy verse of the
book of Common Prayer. Your honourable true and only son. Afterward, repeating
the same words again: A child is borne unto us, a child is borne unto us. Here,
says he, I might take occasion to commend that worthy verse in our Litany where
this is made very manifest, that the prophet here speaks. By thy Nativity and
circumcision! What, should I prosecute the condemnation of this man, as though
other our bishops and pulpit men have not as commendable gifts as he.
And
once again to you brother Bridges, you have set down a slanting reason in the
75 page of your book, against the continuance of the government which the
Puritans labour for, and I find the same syllogism concluded in no mood.
Therefore, what if I was ashamed to put it down? But seeing it is your will to
lay on the puritans with it as it is, put your corner cap a little near a toe
side, that we may see your parti-coloured beard, and with what a manly
countenance you give your brethren this scouring. And I hope this will please
you, my clergy masters, as well as if I told you how our brother Bridges played
my Lord of Winchester's fool in Sir Mary's pulpit in Cambridge, but no word of
that. Now to my reason.
Some
kind of ministry ordained by the Lord was temporary (says he) as for example,
the Mosaical priesthood and the ministry of apostles, prophets, etc. But the
ministry of pastors, doctors, elders and deacons, was ordained by the Lord,
therefore it was temporary.
Alack,
alack! Dean John, what have you done now? The puritans will be O the bones of
you too bad for this kind of arguing, and they will reason after this
sort: 1 Some man in the land (say they)
wears a wooden dagger and a coxcomb, as for example his grace of Canterbury's
fool, doctor Perne's cousin and yours. You, presbyter John Catercap, are some
man in the land. Therefore, by this reason, you wear a wooden dagger and a [49]
coxcomb. 2 Some presbyter, priest or elder
in the English ministry is called the vicar of Hell. As for example one about
Oxford, another near Northampton, and the parson of Mickleham in Surrey. But
the dean of Sarum, John Catercap, is some priest in the English ministry. Ergo,
he is the vicar of Hell. 3 Some presbyter,
priest or elder, preaching at Paul's Cross, 1587, told a tale of a leaden
shoeinghorn, and spoke of Catechising. And preaching at the Court on another
time, thrust his hand into his pocket and drew out a piece of sarcenet69, saying, Behold, a
relique of Mary's smock; and thrusting his hand into the other pocket, drew out
either a linen or a woollen rag, saying, behold a relique of Joseph's breeches.
But, quoth he, there is no reason why Mary's smock should be of sarcenet,
seeing Joseph's breeches were not of silk. This priest, being lately demanded
whether he should be bishop of Ely, answered that he had now no great hope to
Bishop of Ely, and therefore, quoth he, I may say well enough, Eli, Eli, lamma
sabacthani. Eli, Eli, why hast thou forsaken me, alluding very blasphemously
unto the words which our Saviour Christ spoke in his greatest agony upon the
cross. The same priest, calling before him one Mr.Benison, a preacher, and
would have urged him to take his oath, to answer to such articles as he would
propound against him, who answered saying, brother bishop, I will not swear,
except I know to what? With that the priest fell sick of the spleen and began
to swear by his faith. Quoth Benison, a bishop should preach faith and no not
swear by it. This priest being in his melancholic mood, sent him to the Clink70, where he lay till her
Majesty was made privy of his tyranny, and then released to the priests woe. As
for example, the Bishop of London did all those things and more too. For lying
at his house at Haddam in Essex, upon the Sabbath day (wanting his bowling
mates), took his servants and went a haymaking, the godly ministers round about
being exercised (though [50] against his commandment) in fasting and
prayer. But you John Catercap, are some presbyter, priest or Elder. Therefore
you profaned the word and ministry in this
sort. 4 Some presbyter, priest or elder in
the land is accused (and even now the matter is in trial before his grace and
his brethren) to have two wives, and to marry his brother unto a woman upon her
death bed, she being past recovery. As for example, the Bishop of Sir David's
in Wales, is this priest, as they say. But you presbyter John are some priest.
Therefore you have committed all these unnatural parts. 5
Some priest, preaching at the funeral of one who died, not only being condemned
by the Law of God and of the land for attempting matters against her Majesty's
person and the state, but also died an obstinate and professed papist and
without any repentance for her enterprises against her Majesty and the state,
prayed that his soul and the souls of all the rest there present, might be with
the soul of the unrepentant papist departed. As for example, the Bishop of
Lincoln did this at Peterborough, August.2, 1587. But you are some priest.
Ergo, you made such a prayer. 6 Some priest
in the land lately made, or very shortly means to make, as they say, an old
acquaintance of his own, Richard Patrick, clothier of Worcester, of the reading
ministry. As for example, his grace of Canterbury is this priest. But you
brother Sarum are some priest, as well as he. Ergo, you have thrust a bankrupt
clothier in the ministry. 7 Some priest,
having given a man (whose wife had played the harlot) leave to marry another,
desiring the man long after he had been married to another woman, to shew him
his letters of divorcement, with promise to deliver them again. But having
received them, they are retained of him most injuriously unto this day, and he
troubles the man for having two wives. As for example, the Bishop of Sir Asaf
is this priest. But you dean Catercap are some priest, Ergo you do men such
open injury. 8 Some men that [51]
break the law of God are traitors to her Majesty, as for example, the Jesuits.
But all our bishops are some men that break the law of God, because they
continue in unlawful callings. Ergo, by your reason they are traitors to her
Majesty. But I deny your argument, for there may be many breaches of the law of
God whereof they may be guilty and yet no
traitors. 9 Some men that will not have
their Lordships and their callings examined by the word, are limbs of
Antichrist, as for example the Pope and his Cardinals. But our Lord bishops are
some men which will not have their lordships and their callings tried by the
word. Therefore they are limbs of
Antichrist. 10 Some men would play the
turncoat, with the Bishop of Gloucester, Dr.Kenold, Dr.Perne (I will let
Dr.Goodman, Abbot of West. alone now). But all the Lord bishops, and you
brother catercap are some men. Ergo, you would become papists
again. 11 Some men dare not dispute with
their adversaries lest their ungodly callings should be overthrown and they
compelled to walk more orderly. But our bishops are some men. Ergo, they dare
not dispute lest their ungodly callings and places should be
overthrown. 12 Some men are thieves and foul
murderers before God, as for example all nonresidents. Every Lord bishop is a
nonresident. Ergo, he is a thief and a foul murderer before
God. 13 Some men are become apostates from
their ministry, sinners against their own consciences, persecutors of their
brethren, sacrilegious Church robbers, withstanders of the known truth for
their own filthy lucre's sake, and are afraid lest the gospel and the holy
discipline thereof should be received in every place. But our bishops are some
men. Therefore (by your reason Mr. doctor) they are become apostates from their
ministry, sinners against their own consciences, persecutors of their brethren,
sacrilegious Church robbers and withstanders of the known truth,
etc. 14 Some priest is a pope, as for
example, that priest which is Bishop of [52] Rome is a Pope. But his
grace of Canterbury is some priest. Therefore Mr.Bridges, by your manner of
reasoning, he is a pope. You may see what harm you have done by dealing so
loosely. I know not what I shall say to these puritans reasons. They must needs
be good if yours be sound. Admit their syllogisms offended in form, as yours
do, yet the common people, and especially dame Lawson and the gentlewoman whose
man demanded of her when she sat at the Bishop of London's fire, Why mistress,
will you sit by Caiaphas his fire? will find an unhappy truth in many of these
conclusions, whenas yours is most false. And many of their propositions are
tried truths, having many eye and ear witnesses living.
Men
when commonly they dedicate books unto any, enter into commendations of those
unto whom they write. But I care not an I owe you, my clergy masters, a
commendations and pay you when you better deserve it. Instead thereof, I will
give you some good counsel and advice which, if you follow, I assure you it
will be the better for you.
First
I would advise you as before I have said, to set at liberty all the preachers
that you have restrained from preaching, otherwise it shall be the worse for
you. My reason is this: The people are altogether discontented for want of
teachers. Some of them already run into corners and more are like, because you
keep the means of knowledge from them. Running into corners will breed
Anabaptistry, Anabaptistry will alienate the hearts of the subjects from their
lawful governor, and you are the cause hereof. And will not her Majesty then,
think you, require the hearts of her subjects at your hands, when she shall
understand that they are alienated (as God forbid they should) from her by your
means? Yes, I warrant you. And if they should put up a supplication unto her
highness that their preachers might be restored unto them, I doubt not but they
should be heard. I can tell [53] you, she tends the estate of her people
and will not discourage their hearts in casting of their suits to maintain your
pride and covetousness. You were then better to set the preachers at liberty
than to suffer your cruelty and evil dealing to be made known unto her. For so
they shall be sure, I doubt not, to prevail in their suit and you to go by the
worse. And try if her Majesty be not shortly moved in this suit. To it my
masters roundly, you that mean to deal herein, and on my life you set the
prelates in such a quandary as they shall not know where to stand. Now
Mr.Prelates, I will give you some more counsel, follow it. Repent, clergymen,
and especially bishops, preach faith bishops, and swear no more by it, give
over your Lordly callings, reform your families and your children. They are the
pattern of looseness. Withstand not the known truth no longer. You have seduced
her Majesty and her people. Pray her Majesty to forgive you, and the Lord first
to put away your sins. Your government is Antichristian, deceive the Lord no
longer thereby. You will grow from evil to worse unless betimes you return. You
are now worse then you were 29 years ago. Write no more against the cause of
reformation. Your ungodliness is made more manifest by your writings. And
because you cannot answer what has been written against you, yield unto the
truth. If you should write, deal syllogistically. For you shame yourselves when
you use any continued speech, because your style is so rude and barbarous. Rail
no more in the pulpit against good men, you do more hurt to yourselves and your
own desperate cause in one of your railing sermons than you could in speaking
for reformation. For every man that has any light of religion in him will
examine your grounds, which being found ridiculous (as they are) will be
decided and your cause made odious. Abuse not the High Commission as you do,
against the best subjects. The commission itself was ordained for very
good purposes, but it [54] is most horribly abused by you and turned
clean contrary to the end wherefore it was ordained. Help the poor people to
the means of their salvation that perish in their ignorance, make restitution
unto your tenants and such as from whom you have wrongfully extorted anything.
Usurp no longer the authority of making of ministers and excommunication. Let
poor men be no more molested in your ungodly courts. Study more than you do and
preach oftener. Favour nonresidents and papists no longer, labour to cleanse
the ministry of the swarms of ignorant guides wherewith it has been defiled.
Make conscience of breaking the Sabbath by bowling and tabling. Be ringleaders
of profaneness no longer unto the people. Take no more bribes. Leave your
Simony. Favour learning more than you do, and especially godly learning.
Stretch your credit, if you have any, to the furtherance of the gospel. You
have joined the profanation of the magistracy to the corruption of the
ministry. Leave this sin. All in a word, become good Christians and so you
shall become good subjects and leave your tyranny. And I would advise you, let
me hear no more of your evil dealing.
Given at my Castle between two Wales, neither four days from
penniless bench nor yet at the
West end of Shrovetide, but the fourteenth year at the least of the age of Charing
Cross, within a year of Midsummer, between twelve and twelve
of the clock. Anno pontificatus vestri Quinto,
and I hope ultimo of all
English Popes.
West end of Shrovetide, but the fourteenth year at the least of the age of Charing
Cross, within a year of Midsummer, between twelve and twelve
of the clock. Anno pontificatus vestri Quinto,
and I hope ultimo of all
English Popes.
By your learned and worthy brother,
Martin Marprelate.
Martin Marprelate.
Note: Endnotes in italics are
marginal notes from the original; all others are editors notes.
1.
Master Dean, abbreviated to mass Dean, alluding to his �popish� theology.
2. gear: a
variety of meanings, as 'apparel', 'stuff', 'equipment'. In the present context
it appears to mean 'argument'.
3. What
malapart knaves are these that cannot be content to stand by and hear but they
must teach a gentleman how to speak
4. Look
the doctor's book, pag.107, line 20, and page 113 line 13.
5. Mr.Marprelate,
you put more than the question in the conclusion of your syllogism.
6. Swiss.
7. Poland.
8. Sweden.
9 As a
dead life well fare a good gloss.
10. Put
the case that my Lord of Canterbury is such a one.
11. Why
Martin, what do you mean? Certainly an* you take that course but a while you will
set your good brethren at their wits end. *Note: �an� = �and�, used as conj. means �if�.
12.
quishions: cushions.
13. Baughin:
poss. Vaughan?
14. My
book shall come with a witness before the High Commission.
15.
conspiration: a pun on Convocation.
16. Publ.
1575, attrib. to John Still, Bp of Bath and Wells.
17. Sosthenes,
and not Crispus, was one of the 72 Disciples
18.
cozenage: cheating, duping, defrauding, also: 'cozen', to cheat, dupe, defraud.
19. These
be the Dean's own words.
20. Whoa,
whoa! Dean, take your breath and then to it again.
21. Both
these points are set down, page 448, line 3.
22. troth:
faithfulness, loyalty, 'by his word'.
23. I
commend you, you good Dr. for your good English tongue.
24. Clear,
quoth he, yea, who will make any question thereof.
25. Look
Stat.13 Elizabeth.
26. A
good example
27. Sir
Peter never allowed this
28. Here
be those that can be barbarous as well as mass Dean
29. His
grace shall never get me to swear against my conscience.
30. trow: to
believe or think.
31. ingram:
unlettered.
32. caudle:
a warm spiced drink, with wine or ale, given to the sick. However, the
following phrase suggeststhat 'a caudle of hempseed' refers to 'hanging', see
Shkspre, Henry VI.
33.
neckweed: hemp rope, hence 'hanging'
34. course:
to pursue, to chase, (dogs chasing game by sight not smell, particularly
hares).
35. Ha!
Priest, I'll bang you, or I'll never trust me.
36. My
brother Bridges Now reasons in good earnest for nonresidents.
37. What
a crafty knave is mass Dean.
38.
dexterity - 'sleight of hand'.
39. ie: more
closely.
40. I'll
make you weary of it dumb John, except you leave persecuting.
41. ie:
the Bishop of London, whose residence is Fulham Palace.
42.
seevillains: civilians, meaning practioners of the civil law, from the spelling
possibly a play on �see�, ie diocese - a diocesan
villain?
43. A
firebrand indeed.
44. More
knavery.
45. coram: Latin
prep: before, ie: 'before a judge'
46. Is
not he a very pope indeed that thus hides popery and knavery.
47. It
may be you hindered her Majesty of many thousands of pounds.
48. This
is no knavery my Lord.
49. brace, ie.
pair.
50. Except
persecuting Greenefielde.
51. the
Douai Bible, publ. at Rheims, NT 1582, OT 1609-10, the standard RC bible in
English to the 20th century.
52. A
Monstrous hypocrite.
53. Is
not this ambitious wretch at the highest, think you.
54. brewis: dial.
broth.
55. 'in for
a bird' - 'in prison for poaching a bird', ie: 'in prison'?
56. St, Mary
Overy, a large Medieval curch by London Bridge, now Southwark Cathedral.
57. O
blasphemous wretch.
58. A
flattering hypocrite.
59. cog:
deceive, trick, manipulate
60. Can
Bishop face, cog, lie, and cozen or no, think you.
61. Dumb
John of London's blessing.
62.
palinode: a recantation, hence, 'one who recants'.
63. My
Epitome is ready.
64. trey
trip: a card game, named after a card with three pips (Fr: trez =
three).
65.
pursuivant: lit., 'a pursuer', a sort of police force, (In this context, not a
herald.)
66. repine:
'to be fretfully discontented'.
67.
benedicite: Latin: blessing, ie: peace.
68. The
sense of Ps.105:28 requires the BCP version. All modern and many ancient
versions agree. The Heb. is the opposite, but makes no sense. It is the
Egyptians who are 'not obedient' and bring the plagues on themselves.
69.
sarcenet: Saracen's net - a fine cloth, from the east.
70. Clink: a prison, in
Southwark.
Comments
Post a Comment