Tract 4.

March 1589

Note: There are no page numbers in the ‘Introduction’ to the original, just the page heading: ‘The Epistle to the terrible Priests’. The main part, headed ‘Hay any work for Cooper’, has page numbers.

 

Hay any work for Cooper:

Or a brief 'Pistle directed by Way of an
hublication to the reverend Bishops, counselling
them, if they will needs be barrelled up for fear of smelling
in the nostrils of her Majesty and the State, that they would
use the advice of reverend Martin, for the providing of their
Cooper. Because the reverend T.C. (by which mystical
letters is understood either the bouncing Par-
son of East Meon, or Tom Coakes his
Chaplain) to be an unskil-
ful and a beceitful
tubtrimmer.

 

Wherein worthy Martin quits himself like a man,
I warrant you, in the modest defence of himself and his
learned 'Pistles, and makes the Cooper's hoops
to fly off, and the Bishop's Tubs to
leak out of all cry.
 

Penned and compiled by Martin the Metropolitan.

Printed in Europe, not far from some

of the Bouncing Priests.

 

 

A man of Worship, to the men of Wor-
ship, that is, Martin Marprelate gentleman,
Primate, and Metropolitan of all the Martins wher-
soever. To the John of all the sir Johns, and to the rest of the
terrible priests: faith have among you once again my clergy
masters.

 

O Brethren, there is such a deal of love grown of late I perceive, between you and me, that although I would be negligent in sending my 'Pistles unto you, yet I see you cannot forget me. I thought you to be very kind when you sent your Pursuivants about the country to seek for me. But now that you yourselves have taken the pains to write, this is out of all cry. Why, it passes to think what loving and careful brethren I have, who although I cannot be gotten to tell them where I am, because I love not the air of the Clink or Gatehouse in this cold time of winter, and by reason of my business in 'Pistlemaking will, notwithstanding, make it known unto the world that they have a month's mind towards me. Now truly brethren, I find you kind. Why, you do not know what a pleasure you have done me. My worship's books were unknown to many before you allowed T.C. to admonish the people of England to take heed, that if they loved you, they would make much of their prelates, and the chief of the clergy. Now, many seek after my books more than ever they did. Again, some knew not that our brother John of Fulham was so good unto the porter of his gate as to make the poor blind honest soul to be a dumb minister. Many did not know, either that Amen is as much as by my faith, and so that our Saviour Christ ever swore by his faith; or that bowling and eating of the Sabbath are of the same nature that Bb. may as lawfully make blind guides as David might eat of the Shew bread; or that father Thomas tubtrimmer of Winchester, good old student, is a master of Arts of 45 years standing. Many I say, (ii) were ignorant of these things, and many other pretty toys, until you wrote this pretty book. Besides, whatsoever you overpass in my writings and did not gainsay, that I hope will be judged to be true. And so John a' Bridges his treason out of the 448 page of his book, you grant to be true. Yourselves you deny not to be petty popes. The B. of sir Davids in Wales, you deny not to have two wives, with an hundred other things which you do not gainsay, so that the reader may judge that I am true of my word and use not to lie like Bb. And this has greatly commended my worship's good dealing. But in your confutation of my book you have shewed reverend Martin to be truepenny indeed, for you have confirmed rather than confuted him. So that, brethren, the pleasure which you have done unto me is out of all scotch and notch. And should not I again be as ready to pleasure you? Nay, then I should be as ungrateful towards my good brethren as John of Cant. is to Thomas Cartwright. The which John, although he has been greatly favoured by the said Thomas, in that Thomas has now these many years let him alone and said nothing unto him, for not answering his books, yet is not ashamed to make a secret comparison, between himself and Thomas Cartwright. As who say, John of Lambeth were as learned as Thomas Cartwright. What say you old dean John a' Bridges, have not you shewed yourself thankful unto her Majesty in overthrowing her supremacy in the 448 page of your book. I will lay on load on your skincoat for this gear anon.

    And I will have my pennyworth's of all of you brethren ere I have done with you, for these pains which your T.C has taken with me. This is the puritans’ craft, in procuring me to be confuted, I know. I'll be even with them, too. A crafty whore's sons, brethren Bb. Did you think, because the puritan's T.C. did set John of Cant. at a non plus, (iii) and gave him the overthrow, that therefore your T.C., alias Thomas Cooper bishop of Winchester, or Thomas Cooke¹ his Chaplain, could set me at a non plus. Simple fellows, methinks he should not.

    I guess your T.C. to be Thomas Cooper (but I do not peremptorily affirm it) because the modest old student of 52 years standing sets Winchester after Lincoln and Rochester in the contents of his book, which blasphemy would not have been tolerated by them that saw and allowed the book, unless mistress Cooper's husband had been the author of it.

    Secondly, because this T.C., the author of this book, is a bishop and therefore Thomas Cooper. He is a Bishop because he reckons himself charged, amongst others, with those crimes whereof none are accused but bishops alone, page 101, line 26. Ha! old Martin! yet I see you have it in you, you will enter into the bowels of the cause in hand I perceive. Nay, if you will commend me, I will give you more reasons yet. The style and the phrase is very like her husband’s, that was sometimes wont to write unto doctor Day of Wells. You see, I can do it indeed. Again, none would be so gross-headed as to gather, because my reverence tells Dean John that he shall have twenty fists about his ears more then his own (whereby I meant indeed, that many would write against him by reason of his 'bomination learning, which otherwise never meant to take pen [in] hand) that I threatened him with blows, and to deal by Stafford law². Whereas that was far from my meaning and could by no means be gathered out of my words, but only by him that pronounced Eulojin for Eulogein in the pulpit: and by him whom a papist made to believe that the Greek word Eulogein, that is to give thanks, signifies to make a cross in the forehead. Py hy hy hy! I cannot but laugh, Py hy hy hy! I cannot but laugh to think that an old soaking (iv) student in this learned age is not ashamed to be so impudent as to presume to deal with a papist, when he has no grue³ in his pocket. But I promise you Sir, it is no shame to be a L. bishop if a man could, though he were as unlearned as John of Gloucester or William of Litchfield. And I tell you true, our brother Westchester, had as leave play twenty nobles in a night at Primero⁴ on the cards, as trouble himself with any pulpit labour, and yet he thinks himself to be a sufficient bishop. What a bishop, such a card player? A bishop play 20 nobles⁵ in a night? Why, a round threepence serves the turn to make good sport 3 or 4 nights amongst honest neighbours. And take heed of it brother Westchester, it is an unlawful game if you will believe me. For, in winter it is no matter to take a little sport, for an odd cast brace of 20 nobles, when the weather is foul that men cannot go abroad to bowls or to shoot? What, would you have men take no recreation? Yea, but it is an old said saw, enough is as good as a feast. And recreations must not be made a trade and an occupation, ka master Martin Marprelate. I tell you true brother mine, though I have as good a gift in 'pistle making as you have at primero, and far more delight than you can have at your cards, for the love I bear to my brethren, yet I dare not use this sport but as a recreation, not making any trade thereof. And cards I tell you, though they be without horns yet they are parlous beasts. Be they lawful or unlawful take heed of them for all that. For you cannot use them but you must needs say your brother T.C. his Amen, that is, swear by your faith many a time in the night. Well, I will never stand argling⁶ the matter any more with you. If you will leave your card playing so it is, if you will not, trust to it, it will be the worse for you.

    I must go simply and plainly to work with my brethren that have published T.C. Whosoever have (v) published that book, they have so hooped the bishops tubs that they have made them to smell far more odious than ever they did, even in the nostrils of all men. The book is of 252 pages. The drift thereof is to confute certain printed and published libels. You bestow not full 50 pages in the answer of anything that ever was published in print. The rest are bestowed to maintain the belly and to confute; what think you? Even the slanderous inventions of your own brains for the most part. As that it is not lawful for her Majesty to allot any lands unto the maintenance of the minister, or the minister to live upon lands for this purpose allotted unto him, but is to content himself with a small pension, and so small as he have nothing to leave for his wife and children after him (for whom he is not to be careful, but to rest on God's providence) and is to require no more but food and raiment, that in poverty he might be answerable unto our Saviour Christ and his apostles. In the confutation of these points, and the scriptures corruptly applied to prove them, there is bestowed above an 100 pages of this book, that is, from the 149 unto the end. Well T.C., whosoever you are, and whosoever Martin is, neither you nor any man or woman in England shall know while you live, suspect and trouble as many as you will, and therefore save your money in seeking for him, for it may be he is nearer you than you are aware of. But whosoever you are, I say you shew yourself to be a most notorious wicked slanderer, in fathering these things upon those whom they call puritans, which never any, enjoying common sense, would affirm. And bring me him, or set down his name and his reasons, that holds any of the former points confuted in your book, and I will prove him to be utterly bereaved of his wits, and his confuter to be either stark mad, or a stark enemy to all religion, yea to her Majesty and the state of this kingdom. No, no, T.C., (vi) puritans hold no such points. It were well for bishops that their adversaries were thus sottish. They might then justly incense her Majesty and the state against them, if they were of this mind. These objections, in the confutation whereof you have bestowed so much time, are so far from having any puritan to be their author, as whosoever reads the book, were he as blockheaded as Thomas of Winchester himself, he may easily know them to be objections only invented by the author of the book himself. For although he be an impudent wretch, yet dares he not set them down as writings of any other, for then he would have described the author and the book by some adient⁷.

    The puritans indeed, hold it unlawful for a minister to have such temporal revenues, as whereby ten ministers might be well maintained, unless the said revenues come unto him by inheritance.

    They hold it also unlawful for any state to bestow the livings of many ministers upon one alone, especially when there is such want of minister's livings.

    They hold it unlawful for any minister to be Lord over his brethren. And they hold it unlawful for any state to tolerate such under their government. Because it is unlawful for states to tolerate men in those places whereinto the word has forbidden them to enter.

    They affirm that our Saviour Christ, has forbidden all ministers to be Lords, Luke 22:25. And the Apostle Peter shews them to be none of God's ministers, which are Lords over God's heritage, as you Bishops are and would be accounted. These things T.C., you should have confuted and not troubled yourself to execute the fruits of your own brains as an enemy to the state. And in these points I do challenge you T.C., and you Dean John, and you John Whitgift, and you doctor Cousins, and you doctor Capcase (Copcoat I think (vii) your name be) and as many else as have or dare write in the defence of the established church government. If you cannot confute my former assertions, you do but in vain think to maintain yourselves by slanders, in fathering upon the puritans the offspring of your own blockheads. And assure yourselves, I will so besoop⁸ you if you cannot defend yourselves in these points as all the world shall cry shame upon you. You think prettily to escape the point of your Antichristian callings by giving out that puritans hold it unlawful for her Majesty to leave any lands for the use of the ministers maintenance. I cannot but commend you, for I promise you, you can shift of an heinous accusation very prettily.

    A true man brings unanswerable witnesses against a robber by the highway side, and desires the judge that the law may proceed against him. O no my Lord! says the thief, In any case let not me be dealt with. For these my accusers have given out that you are a drunkard, or they have committed treason against the state. Therefore I pray you, believe my slander against them that they may be executed, so when I come to my trial I shall be sure to have no accusers. A very pretty way to escape, if a man could tell how to bring the matter about. Now, brethren bishops, your manner of dealing is even the very same. The puritans say truly that all Lord bishops are petty Antichrists, and therefore that the magistrates ought to thrust you out of the commonwealth. Now of all loves say the bishops, let not our places be called in question, but rather credit our slanders against the puritans, whereby, if men would believe us when we lie, we would bear the world in hand that these our accusers are malcontents and sottish men, holding it unlawful for the magistrate to allot any lands for the ministers portion and unlawful for the minister to provide for his family. And therefore you must not give ear to the (viii) accusations of any such men against us. And so we shall be sure to be acquitted. But brethren, do you think to be thus cleared? Why, the puritans hold no such points as you lay to their charge. Though they did, as they do not, yet that were no sufficient reason why you, being petty popes, should be maintained in a christian commonwealth. Answer the reasons

that I brought against you, otherwise come off you bishops, leave your thousands, and content yourselves with your
hundreds, says John of London. So that you do plainly see that your Cooper T.C. is but a deceitful
workman, and if you commit the hooping of your bishoprics unto him, they will so
leak in a short space as they shall be able to keep never a Lord bishop in
them. And this may serve for an answer unto the latter part
of your book, by way of an Interim, until
More work for COOPER⁹
be published.

 

 

Hay any work for Cooper.

ANd now reverend T.C., I am come to your epistle to the reader, but first you and I must go out alone into the plain fields, and there we will try it out, even by plain syllogisms, and that I know bishops cannot abide to hear of.

The reverend T.C. to the reader, page 1.

    I draw great danger upon myself, in defending our bishops and others the chief of the clergy of the church of England. Their adversaries are very eager, the saints in heaven have felt of their tongues, for when they speak of Paul, Peter, Mary, etc. whom others justly call saints, they in derision call them sir Peter, sir Paul, sir Mary.

Reverend Martin.

    Alas, poor reverend T.C., be not afraid. Here be none but friends, man. I hope you are a good fellow and a true subject. Yea, but I defend the bishops of the church of England, says he. Then indeed I marvel not, though your conscience accuse you, and you are sure to be as well favouredly thwacked for your labour as ever you were in your life. Your conscience I say, must needs make you fear in defending them. For they are petty popes and petty Antichrists as I have proved, because they are pastors of pastors, etc. You have not answered my reasons, and therefore swaddled you shall be for your pains, and yet if you will yield I will spare you. You cannot be a good and a sound subject and defend the hierarchy of Lord bishops to be lawful, as I will shew anon. Concerning Sir Paul, I have him not at all in my writings. And therefore the reader must know that there is a Canterbury trick once to patch up an accusation with a lie or two.

    Sir Peter was the oversight of the printer, who omitted this marginal note, viz. He was not Saint Peter which had a lawful superior authority over the [2.] universal body of the church. And therefore the priest whereof Dean John speaks was Sir Peter.

    And, good reverend T.C., I pray you tell me, what kin was Saint Mary Overies¹⁰, to Mary the Virgin. In my book learning, the one was some popish trull¹¹, and the other the blessed virgin. But will you have all those who are saints indeed, called saints? Why then, why do you not call saint Abraham, saint Sarah, saint Jeremiah. If John of Canterbury should marry, tell me good T.C. do you not think that he would not make choice of a godly woman. I hope a' would. And T.C., though you are learned, yet you go beyond your books if you said the contrary. Being a godly woman, then she were a saint and so by your rule, her name being Mary, you would have her called saint Mary Canterbury. But I promise you, did his grace what he could, I would call her sir Mary Canterbury as long as he professed himself to be a priest. And this I might do lawfully, for he being sir John, why should not his wife be sir Mary. And why not sir Mary Overies as well as sir Mary Canterbury? I hope John of Canterbury whom I know, (though I know no great good in him) to be as honest a man as Mr.Overies was, whom I did not know. Neither is there any reason why you T.C. should hold Mr.Overies and his Mary, because they are within the diocese of Winchester, to be more honest than Mr.Canterbury and his wife. Nay, there is more reason why Mr.Canterbury and his wife, dwelling at Lambeth, should be thought the honester of the two, than Overies and his wife, because they dwell o' the bank's side¹². But good Tom tubtrimmer, tell me what you mean by the chief of the clergy in the Church of England? John Canterbury, I am sure. Why, good T.C., this speech is either blasphemous or traitorous, or by your own confession an evident proof that John of Canterbury is [3.] Lord over his brethren. He that is chief of the clergy is chief of God's heritage, and that is Jesus Christ only; and so to make the pope of Canterbury chief of God's heritage, in this sense, is blasphemous. If you mean by clergy, as Dean John does, page 443 of his book, both the people and ministers of the Church of England, in this sense her Majesty is chief of the clergy in the Church of England, and so your speech is traitorous. Lastly, if by clergy you mean the ministers of the Church of England, none in this sense can be chief of the clergy, but a petty pope. For our Saviour Christ flatly forbids any to be chief of the clergy in this sense, Luke 22:26. And none ever claimed this unto himself but a petty pope. Therefore T.C. you are either by your own speech a blasphemer or a traitor, or else John of Cant. is a petty pope. Here is good spoonmeat for a Cooper. Take heed of writing against Martin, if you love your case.

Reverend T.C. page 2. Epistle.

    But I fear them not while I go about to maintain the dignity of priests.

Reverend Martin.

    Well fare a good heart yet! stand to your tackling, and get the high commission to send abroad the pursuivants, and I warrant you, you will do something. Alas good priests, that their dignity is like to fall to the ground. It is pity it should be so, they are such notable pulpit men. There is a neighbour of ours, an honest priest, who was sometimes (simple as he now stands) a vice in a play, for want of a better, his name is Gliberie of Hawstead in Essex, he goes much to the pulpit. On a time, I think it was the last May, he went up with a full resolution to do his business with great commendation. But see the fortune of it. A boy in the Church, hearing either the summer Lord with his May game, or Robin Hood with [4.] his Morris dance going by the Church, out goes the boy. Good Gliberie, though he were in the pulpit, yet had a mind to his old companions abroad (a company of merry grigs¹³ you must think them to be, as merry as a vice on a stage) seeing the boy going out, finished his matter presently with John of London's Amen, saying, Ha! ye faith boy, are they there, then ha with you, and so came down and among them he goes. Were it not then pity that the dignity of such a priest should decay. And I would gentle T.C. that you would take the pains to write a treatise against the boy with the red cap, which put this Gliberie out of his matter at another time. For Gliberie, being in the pulpit, so fastened his eyes upon a boy with a red cap that he was clean dashed out of countenance, insomuch that no note could be heard from him at that time, but this: Take away red cap there, take away red cap there; it had been better that he had never been born, he has marred such a sermon this day, as it is wonderful to think. The Queen and the Council might well have heard it for a good sermon, and so came down. An admonition to the people of England, to take heed of boys with red caps, which make them set light by the dignity of their priests, would do good in this time, brother T.C. you know well.

Reverend T.C.

    The cause why we are so spited is because we do endeavour to maintain the laws which her Majesty and the whole state of the Realm have allowed, and do not admit a new platform of government, devised I know not by whom.¹⁴

Reverend Martin.

    Why T.C., say Eulojin for Eulogein as often as you will, and I will never spite you, or the Bishop of Winchester either for the matter. But do you think our Church government, to be good and lawful, because [5.] her Majesty and the state, who maintain the reformed religion allows the same? Why, the Lord do not allow it, therefore it cannot be lawful. And it is the fault of such wretches as you bishops are that her Majesty and the state allows the same. For you should have otherwise instructed them. They know you not yet so thoroughly as I do. So that if I can prove that the Lord dislikes our Church government, your endeavours to maintain the same shew that thereby you cannot choose but be traitors to God and his word, whatsoever you are to her Majesty and the State. Now T.C. look to yourself, for I will presently make all the hoops of your bishoprics fly asunder.          Therefore

Our Church government is an unlawful Church government, and

not allowed in the sight of God.

Because

    That church government is an unlawful church government, the offices and officers whereof the civil magistrate may lawfully abolish out of the church. Mark my craft in reasoning, brother T.C., I say the offices and officers for I grant that the magistrate may thrust the officers of a lawful church government out of the church if they be Diotripheses, Mar-elms, Whitgifts, Simon Maguses, Coopers, Pernes, Kenolds, or any such like Judases, (though the most of these must be packing, offices and all) but their offices must stand, that the same may be supplied by honester men. But the offices of Archbishops and bishops, and therefore the officers much more, may be lawfully abolished out of the church by her Majesty and our State. And truly this were brave weather to turn them out. It is pity to keep them in any longer. And that would do me good at the heart, to see John of London and the rest of his brethren so discharged of his business as he might freely run in his cassock and hose after his bowl, or flourish with his two [6.] hand sword. O, 'tis a sweet trunchfiddle!

    But the offices of Archbishops and bishops may be lawfully abolished out of the church by her Majesty, and the state. As I hope one day they shall be. Therefore (mark now T.C. and carry me this conclusion to John o' Lambeth for his breakfast) our church government by Arch. and bishops, is an unlawful church government. You see brother Cooper, that I am very courteous in my minor, for I desire therein no more offices to be thrust out of the church at one time but Archb. and Bishops. As for Deans Archdeacons and Chancellors, I hope they will be so kind unto my Lord's grace as not to stay, if his worship and the rest of the noble clergy Lords were turned out to grass. I will presently prove both major and minor¹⁵ of this syllogism. And hold my cloak there somebody, that I may go roundly to work. For I shall so bumfeg the Cooper, as he had been better to have hooped half the tubs in Winchester than write against my worship's 'pistles.

    No civil magistrate may lawfully either maim or deform the body of Christ, which is the church. But whosoever do abolish any lawful church officer out of the church government, he do either maim or deform the church. Therefore T.C., no civil magistrate, no prince, no state, may without sin abolish any lawful officer, together with his office, out of the government of the church, and per consequentia the offices of Archbishops and Lord bishops, which her Majesty may without sin lawfully abolish out of the church, are no lawful church officers, and therefore also, the church government practised by John Whitgift, John Mar-elm, Richard Peterborough, William of Lincoln, Edmond of Worcester, yea, and by that old stealecounter mass priest, John o' Gloucester, with the rest of his brethren, is to be presently thrust out of the church. And methinks this gear [7.] cottons indeed my masters. And I told you T.C. that you should be thumped for defending bishops. Take heed of me while you live. The minor of my last syllogism, that whosoever do abolish the office of any lawful church officer out of the church, he either maims or deforms the church, I can prove with a wet finger: Because every lawful Church officer, even by reason of his office, is a member of the body of Christ Jesus, which is the church, and being a member of the body, if the magistrate do displace him by abolishing his office, and leaves the place thereof void, then the magistrate maims the body. If he put another office unto an officer instead thereof, he deforms the same, because the magistrate has neither the skill nor the commission to make the members of the body of Christ. Because he cannot tell to what use the members of his making might serve in the church. Do you think T.C. that the magistrate may make an eye for the visible body of the church. (For you must understand that we all this while speak of the visible body.) Can he make a foot or a hand for that body? I pray you in what place of the body would you have them placed? If our Saviour Christ has left behind him a perfect body, surely he has left therein no place or no use for members of the magistrate's making and invention; if an unperfect and maimed body, I am well assured that the magistrate is not able to perfect that which he left unfinished. But I hope T.C. that you will not be so mad and wicked as to say that our Saviour Christ left behind him here on earth an unperfect and maimed body. If not, then where shall these offices, namely these members invented by the magistrate be placed therein.

    Would you have the natural eyes put out (as your brethren the bishops have done in the Church of England ever since John of Canterbury urged his wretched subscription) and unnatural, squint goggled eyes put in their [8.] stead, when the body cannot see with any eyes but with the natural eyes thereof. Displace them howsoever you may seem, to help the matter by putting others in their stead, yet the body shall be still blind and maimed. What say you T.C., may the Magistrate cut off the true and natural legs and hands of the body of Christ, under a pretence to put wooden in their stead. I hope you will not say that he may. How then comes it to pass T.C. that you hold John of Canterbury his office, and John Mar-elm's to be true and natural members of the body, that is, true officers of the church, and yet hold it lawful for her Majesty to displace them out of the church. I cannot tell brother, what you hold in this point. Methinks I have disturbed your senses. Do you think that the magistrate may displace the true members of the body of Christ, and place wooden in their stead. Why, this is to hold it lawful for the magistrate to massacre the body. Do you think he may not? Then may not her Majesty displace John of Canterbury's office out of our church. If she may not displace his office, then either he by virtue of his office is a lawful Pope above all civil magistrates, or else the Church government is so prescribed in the word as it is not lawful for the magistrate to alter the same. But John of Canterbury, as the puritans themselves confess, is no Pope.¹⁶ Then either the church government is so prescribed in the word as it may not be altered, or else the magistrate may abolish a lawful church government, and place another instead thereof. If the Church government be so prescribed in the word as it cannot be altered, then either our government is the same which was therein prescribed, or our Church government is a false Church government. If ours be the same which is mentioned in the word, then Paul and Peter were either no true Church governors, or else Paul and Peter, and the rest of Church governors in their time, were [9.] Lords; for all our Church governors are Lords. But Paul and Peter, etc. were no Lords, and yet true church governors. Therefore, our Church government is not that which is prescribed in the word, and therefore a false and unlawful church government. If you think that the magistrate may displace the lawful offices of the body, then as I said before, you hold it lawful for the magistrate to maim or deform the body. Because whatsoever he pulls in the room of the true and right members must needs be a deformity, and what place soever he leaves unfurnished of a member, must needs be a maim. And this is the only and sole office of Christ only, to place and displace the members of his body, to wit, the officers of his Church. He may lawfully do it, so cannot man. And therefore the sots (of which number you T.C., and you John Whitgift, and you Dean John, and you Dr. Cosins, and you Dr. Copcot, with the rest of the ignorant and wretched defenders of our corrupt church government are to be accounted) which think that the offices of pastors, doctors, elders and deacons, or the most of them, may be as well now wanting in the Church as the offices of Apostles, prophets and Evangelists, do notably bewray¹⁷ their vile ignorance, but the cause they do not hurt. For the beasts do not consider that the offices of Apostles, Evangelists and Prophets, were removed out of the church not by man but by the Lord, because he in his wisdom did not see any use of such members in his body after the time of the first planting of the Church.¹⁸ I say they were removed by the Lord himself and not by man, because, partly the gifts wherewith they were endued, partly the largeness of their commission, with certain other essential properties to them belonging, were by him abrogated and taken away, which no man could do. Again, the Apostolical, Evangelical and prophetical callings, were either [10.] lawfully or unlawfully abolished out of the Church. If lawfully, then they were abolished by the Lord, and therefore they are neither to be called back until he shews it to be his pleasure that it should be so, neither can the church be truly said to be maimed for want of them, because he which could best tell what members were fit for his Church did abolish them. If unlawfully, then those callings may be lawfully called back again into the church, and the church without them is maimed, that is, wants some members. For if their callings were injuriously abrogated they are as injuriously kept out of the church, and being members of the church, the church is maimed without, unless the Lord has shewed that the time of their service in the body is expired. But they are not injuriously kept out (for so her Majesty should be said to injure the church, unless she would see Apostles, prophets and Evangelists planted therein) neither can the church be said to be maimed for want of them, because the Lord by taking them away has declared, that now there can be no use of them in the body, therefore the Lord abrogated them. Therefore also they may be wanting, and the church neither maimed nor deformed thereby. Whereas the keeping out of either of the former offices of pastors, doctors, elders and deacons is a maiming of the church, the placing of others in their stead, a deforming. Now reverend T.C., I beseech you entreat mistress Cooper to write to Mr. Dr. Day, sometime of Magdalene¹⁹, that he may procure Dr. Cooper to know of him that was the last Thomas of Lincoln; whether the now B. of Winchester be not persuaded that reverend Martin has sufficiently proved it to be unlawful for the civil magistrate to abolish any lawful church officer out of the church. Because it is unlawful for him to maim or deform the body of Christ by displacing the members thereof. But it may be, your Cooper’s [11.] noddle, profane T.C., doubts, (for I know you to be as ignorant in these points as John Whitgift or dean John themselves.)

Whether a lawful Church officer, in regard of his office, be a member of the body of Christ, which is the Church.

    Therefore, look Rom. 12, v. 4, 5, etc., and there you shall see that whosoever has an office in the body is a member of the body. There also you shall see that he that teaches, which is the Doctor, he that exhorts, which is the Pastor, he that rules, which is the Elder, he that distributes, which is the Deacon (as for him that shews mercy that is there spoken off, he is but a church servant, and no church officer.) There, I say, you shall also see that these 4 offices, of Pastors, Doctors, Elders and Deacons, are members of the body, and 1. Cor. 12:8, and 28, you shall see that God has ordained them. Out of all which hitherto I have spoken T.C., I come upon you and your bishoprics, with 4 or 5 (yea, half a dozen and need be) such dry soups²⁰, as John of London with his two-hand sword never gave the like. For they answer your whole profane book. First, that the platform of government by Pastors, Doctors, Elders and deacons, which you say was devised you know not by whom, is the invention of our Saviour Christ. For God ordained them says the apostle, 1. Cor. 12:8, 28. And therefore, unless you will shew yourself either to be a blasphemer, by terming Jesus Christ to be you cannot tell whom, or else to be ignorant who is Jesus Christ, you must needs acknowledge the platform of government which you say was invented by you know not whom, to have Christ Jesus for the author thereof.

    Secondly, that the word of God teaches that of necessity, the government by Pastors, doctors, elders, etc. ought to be in every Church which is neither maimed nor deformed.²¹ Because that Church must needs be maimed [12.] which wants those members which the Lord has appointed to be therein, unless the Lord himself has, by taking those members away, shewed that now his body is to have no use of them. But as has been said, God has ordained pastors, doctors, elders and deacons to be in his Church, proved out of Rom. 12:6, 7, 8, 1. Cor.12: 8, 28, Ephe.4: 12. And he has not taken these officers away out of his church, because the Church has continual need of them. As of Pastors to feed with the word of wisdom; of the Doctors, to feed with the word of knowledge; and both to build up his body in the unity of faith; of Elders, to watch and oversee men's manners; of Deacons to look unto the poor, and church treasury. Therefore, where these 4 officers are wanting, there the Church is imperfect in her regiment.

    Thirdly, that this government cannot be inconvenient for any State or kingdom.²² For is it inconvenient for a State or kingdom to have the body of Christ perfect therein?

    Fourthly, that every christian magistrate is bound to receive this government by Pastors, Doctors, Elders and deacons into the church within his dominions, whatsoever inconvenience may be likely to follow the receiving of it, because no likelihood of inconvenience ought to induce the magistrate willingly to permit the church under his government to be maimed or deformed.

    Fifthly, that the government of the church by Lord Archbishops and bishops is a government of deformed and unshapen members, serving for no good use in the church of God. Because it is not the government by pastors, doctors elders and deacons, which as I have shewed are now the only true membes, that is the only true officers, of the visible body.

    Sixthly and lastly. That they who defend this false and bastardly government of Archbishops and bishops, and [13.] withstand this true and natural government of the church by Pastors, Doctors, Elders and deacons, are likely in a while to become Mar-prince, Mar-state, Mar-law, Mar-magistrate, Mar-commonwealth. As for Mar-church, and Mar-religion, they have long since proved themselves to be.

    These six points do necessarily follow of that which before I have set down, namely that it is not lawful for any to abolish or alter the true and lawful government of the church, because it is not lawful for them to maim or deform the body of the church.

    And I challenge you T.C., and you Dean John, and you John Whitgift, and you Dr. Cosins, and you Dr. Copcot, and all the rest that will or dare defend our established Church government, to be tried with me in a judgement of life and death, at any bar in England in this point.          Namely:

That you must needs be not only traitors to God and
his word, but also enemies unto her Majesty and
the land, in defending the established Church
government to be lawful.

    You see the accusation which I lay to your charge, and here follows the proof of it. They that defend that the prince and state may bid God to battle against them, they are not only traitors against God and his word, but also enemies to the prince and state. I think John of Gloucester himself will not be so senseless as to deny this.

    But our Archbishops and bishops, which hold it lawful for her Majesty and the state to retain this established form of government, and to keep out the government by pastors, doctors, elders and deacons, which was appointed by Christ, whom you profane T.C. call, You know not whom, hold it lawful for her Majesty and the state to bid God to battle against them. Because they bid the Lord to battle against them which maim and deform [14.] the body of Christ, viz. the church. And they as was declared, maim and deform the body of the church, which keep out the lawful offices appointed by the Lord to be members thereof, and in their stead place other wooden members of the invention of man. Therefore you T.C., and you Dean John, and you John Whitgift, and you the rest of the beastly defenders of the corrupt church government, are not only traitors to God and his word, but enemies to her Majesty and the state. Like you any of these nuts, John Canterbury? I am not disposed to jest in this serious matter. I am called Martin Marprelate. There be many that greatly dislike of my doings. I may have my wants, I know, for I am a man, but my course I know to be ordinary and lawful. I saw the cause of Christ's government, and of the Bishop's Antichristian dealing, to be hidden. The most part of men could not be gotten to read anything written in the defence of the one and against the other. I bethought me, therefore, of a way whereby men might be drawn to do both, perceiving the humours of men in these times (especially of those that are in any place) to be given to mirth. I took that course. I might lawfully do it. Aye, for jesting is lawful by circumstances, even in the greatest matters. The circumstances of time, place and persons urged me thereunto. I never profaned the word in any jest. Other mirth I used as a covert, wherein I would bring the truth into light. The Lord being the author both of mirth and gravity, is it not lawful in itself, for the truth to use either of these ways when the circumstances do make it lawful?

    My purpose was and is to do good. I know I have done no harm, howsoever some may judge Martin to mar all. They are very weak ones that so think. In that which I have written I know undoubtedly that I have done the Lord and the state of this kingdom great service, because I have in some sort discovered the greatest enemies [15.] thereof. And by so much the most pestilent enemies, because they wound God's religion and corrupt the state with Atheism and looseness, and so call for God's vengeance upon us all, even under the colour of religion. I affirm them to be the greatest enemies that now our state has, for if it were not for them, the truth should have more free passage herein than now it has. All states thereby would be amended, and so we should not be subject unto God's displeasure, as now we are by reason of them.

    Now let me deal with these that are in authority. I do make it known unto them that our bishops are the greatest enemies which we have. For they do not only go about but they have long since fully persuaded our state that they may lawfully procure the Lord to take the sword in hand against the state. If this be true, have I not said truly that they are the greatest enemies which our state has. The papists work no such effect, for they are not trusted. The Atheists have not infected our whole state; these have. The attempts of our foreign enemies may be pernicious, but they are men as we are. But that God, which when our bishops have and do make our prince and our governors, to wage war, who is able to stand against him?

    Well, to the point: many have put her Majesty, the parliament and council in mind that the church officers now among us are not such as the Lord allows of, because they are not of his own ordaining. They have shewed that this fault is to be amended or the Lord's hand to be looked for. The bishops, on the other side, have cried out upon them that have thus dutifully moved the state. They, with a loud voice, gave out that the magistrate may lawfully maintain that church government which best fits our estate, as living in the time of peace. What do they else herein, but say that the magistrate, in time of peace, may maim and deform the body of Christ, his [16.] church. That Christ has left the government of his own house unperfect, and left the same to the discretion of the magistrate, whereas Moses, before whom in this point of government the Lord Christ is justly preferred, Heb. 3:6, made the government of the legal polity so perfect as he left not any part thereof to the discretion of the magistrate. Can they deny church officers to be members of the church. They are refuted by the express text, 1. Cor. 12. Will they affirm Christ to have left behind him an unperfect body of his church, wanting members at the least wise, having such members as were only permanent at the magistrate's pleasure. Why, Moses the servant otherwise governed the house in his time, and the son is commended in this point for wisdom and faithfulness before him, Heb. 3:6. Either then, that commendation of the son before the servant is a false testimony, or the son ordained a permanent government in his church. If permanent, not to be changed. What then, do they that hold it may be changed at the magistrate's pleasure, but advise the magistrate by his positive laws to proclaim that it is his will that if there shall be a church within his dominions, he will maim and deform the same. He will ordain therein what members he thinks good. He will make it known that Christ, under his government, shall be made less faithful than Moses was. That he has left the placing of members in his body unto the magistrate. O cursed beasts, that bring this guilt upon our estate. Repent, caitiffs²³, while you have time. You shall not have it, I fear, when you will. And look, you that are in authority, to the equity of the controversy between our wicked bishops and those who would have the disorders of our Church amended. Take heed you be not carried away with slanders. Christ's government is neither Mar-prince, Mar-state, Mar-law nor Mar-magistrate. The living God, [17.] whose cause is pleaded for, will be revenged of you if you give ear unto this slander, contrary to so many testimonies as are brought out of his word, to prove the contrary. He denounces his wrath against all you that think it lawful for you to maim or deform his church; he accounts his Church maimed when those offices are therein placed, which he has not appointed to be members thereof; he also testifies that there be no members of his appointment in the Church, but such as he himself has named in his word, and those that he has named, man must not displace, for so he should put the body out of joint. Now our bishops, holding the contrary, and bearing you in hand that you may practise the contrary, do they not drive you to provoke the Lord to anger against your own souls? And are they not your enemies? They hold the contrary I say, for they say that her Majesty may alter this government now established, and thereby they shew either this government to be unlawful, or that the magistrate may presume to place those members in God’s Church which the Lord never mentioned in his word. And I beseech you, mark how the case stands between these wretches, and those whom they call puritans.

  1  The puritans (falsely so called) shew it to be unlawful for the magistrate to go about to make any members for the body of Christ.

  2  They hold all officers of the Church to be members of the body, Rom. 12:6, 1. Cor. 12:8, 28.

  3  And therefore they hold the altering or the abolishing of the offices of church government to be the altering and abolishing of the members of the Church.

  4  The altering and abolishing of which members they hold to be unlawful, because it must needs be a maim unto the body.

  5  They hold Christ Jesus to have set down as exact [18.] and as unchangeable a church government as ever Moses did. Heb. 3:6.

    These and such like are the points they hold, let their cause be tried, and if they hold any other points in effect but these, let them be hanged, every man of them.

    Now I demand, whether they that hold the contrary in these points and cause the State to practise the contrary, be not outrageous wicked men and dangerous enemies of the state. It cannot be denied but they are, because the contrary practise of any the former points is a way to work the ruin of the state.

    Now our Bishops hold the contrary unto them all, save the 3 and 2 points, whereunto it may be they will yield and cause our estate to practise the contrary, whence at the length, our destruction is like to proceed.               For:

  1  They deny Christ Jesus to have set down as exact and as unchangeable a form of church government as Moses did. For they say that the magistrate may change the church government established by Christ, so could he not do that prescribed by Moses.

  2  In holding all offices of the Church to be members of the body, (for if they be not members, what should they do in the body) they hold it lawful for the magistrate to attempt the making of new members for that body.

  3  The altering or abolishing of these members by the magistrates, they hold to be lawful. And therefore the maiming or deforming.

    Now you wretches (Archb. and L.Bishops I mean) you Mar-state, Mar-law, Mar-prince, Mar-magistrate, Mar-commonwealth, Mar-church, and Mar-religion. Are you able, for your lives, to answer any part of the former syllogism, whereby you are concluded to be the greatest enemies unto her Majesty and the State? You dare not attempt it I know. For you cannot deny but they who hold it and defend it lawful, (yea, enforce the [19.] magistrate) to maim or deform the body of Christ, are utter enemies unto that magistrate and that state wherein this disorder is practised. You cannot deny yourselves to do this unto our magistrate and State, because you bear them in hand that a lawful church government may consist of those offices which the magistrate may abolish out of the church without sin, and so, that the magistrate may lawfully cut off the members of Christ from his body, and so may lawfully massacre the body. You are then the men by whom our estate is most likely to be overthrown, you are those that shall answer for our blood which the Spaniards, or any other enemies, are like to spill, without the Lord’s great mercy. You are the persecutors of your brethren, (if you may be accounted brethren) you and your hirelings are not only the wound, but the very plague and pestilence of our church. You are those who maim, deform, vex, persecute, grieve, and wound the church, which keep the same in captivity and darkness, defend the blind leaders of the blind, slander, revile and deform Christ's holy government, that such broken and wooden members as you are may be still maintained, to have the rooms of the true and natural members of the body. Tell me I pray, whether the true and natural members of the body may be lawfully cut off by the magistrate. If you should say they may, I know no man would abide the speech. What? May the magistrate cut off the true and natural members of the body of Christ? O impudency! not to be tolerated. But our magistrate, that is her Majesty, and our state, may lawfully, by your own confession, cut you off, that is displace you and your offices out of our church. Deny this if you dare, then indeed it shall appear that John of Canterbury means to be a Pope indeed, and to have the sovereignty over the civil magistrate. Then will you shew yourself indeed to be Mar-prince, Mar-law and Mar-state. [20.] Now if the magistrate may displace you, as he may, then you are not the true members. Then you are (as indeed you ought) to be thrust out, unless the magistrate would incur the wrath of God for maiming and deforming the body of the church by joining unnatural members thereunto.

    Answer but this reason of mine, and then hang those that seek reformation if ever again they speak of it. If you do not, I will give you little quiet. I fear you not. If the magistrate will be so overseen as to believe that because you, which are the maim of the church, are spoken against, therefore they, namely our prince and state, which are God's lieutenants, shall be in like sort dealt with, this credulity will be the magistrates sin. But I know their wisdom to be such as they will not. For what reason is this which you, profane T.C., have used page 103.

    The sinful, the unlawful, the broken, unnatural, false and bastardly governors of the church, to wit archb. and bishops, which abuse even their false offices, are spoken against. Therefore the true, natural and lawful, and just governors of the commonwealth, shall be likewise shortly misliked. Ah! senseless and undutiful beasts that dare compare yourselves with our true magistrates, which are the ordinances of God, with yourselves, that is, with Archbishops and bishops, which as yourselves confess (I will by and by prove this) are the ordinances of the Devil.

    I know I am disliked of many which are your enemies, that is of many which you call puritans. It is their weakness, I am threatened to be hanged by you. What though I were hanged, do you think your cause shall be the better. For the day that you hang Martin, assure yourselves there will 20 Martins spring in my place. I mean not now, you gross beasts, of any commotion, as profane T.C., like a senseless wretch not able to [21.] understand an English phrase, has given out upon that which he calls the threatening of fists. Assure yourselves, I will prove Marprelate ere I have done with you. I am alone. No man under heaven is privy, or has been privy unto my writings against you. I used the advice of none therein. You have and do suspect divers, as master Paggett, master Wiggington, master Udall, and master Penry, etc., to make Martin. If they cannot clear themselves their silliness is pitiful, and they are worthy to bear Martin's punishment. Well, once again, answer my reasons, both of your Antichristian places in my first epistle unto you, and these now used against you. Otherwise the wisdom of the magistrate must needs smell what you are. And call you to a reckoning for deceiving them so long, making them to suffer the church of Christ under their government to be maimed and deformed.

    Your reasons for the defence of your hierarchy and the keeping out of Christ's government, used by this profane T.C., are already answered. They shew what profane beasts you are. I will here repeat them. But here first the reader is to know what answer this T.C. makes unto the syllogisms whereby I prove all L.bishops to be petty popes and petty Antichrists. I assure you, no other than this, he flatly denies the conclusion, whereas he might (if he had any learning in him, or had read anything) know that every dunstical logician gives this for an inviolable precept, that the conclusion is not to be denied. For that must needs be true if the major and minor be true. He in omitting the major and minor, because he was not able to answer thereby, grants the conclusion to be true. His answer unto the conclusion is that all lord Bb. were not petty popes because, page 74, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, were not petty Popes. They were not petty popes because they were not reprobates. As though, you block you, every petty pope and petty [22.] Antichrist were a reprobate. Why! no man can deny Gregory the great to be a petty Pope, and a petty and petty Antichrist, for he was the next immediate pope before Boniface the first, that known Antichrist; and yet this Gregory left behind him undoubted testimonies of a chosen child of God. So might they, and yet be petty Popes in respect of their office. Profane T.C., his 1 and 2 reasons for the lawfulness of our church government: And what though good men gave their consent unto our church government, or writing unto bishops, gave them their lordly titles? Are their offices therefore lawful, then so is the pope’s office. For Erasmus was a good man you cannot deny, and yet he both allowed of the pope's office since his calling, and writing unto him gave him his titles. So did Luther, since his calling also, for he dedicated his book of Christian Liberty unto pope Leo the tenth. The book and his Epistle unto the Pope are both in English. Here I would with the magistrate, to mark what good reasons you are able to afford for your hierarchy.

    Thirdly, says profane T.C. page 75, All Churches have not the government of Pastors and Doctors: but Saxony and Denmark, have L. bishops. You are a great State man undoubtedly T.C., that understand the state of other Churches so well. But herein the impudency of a proud fool appears egregiously. As though the testimony of a silly Schoolmaster, being also as unlearned as a man of that trade and profession can be with any honesty, would be believed against known experience. Yea, but Saxony and Denmark have Superintendents. What then? ergo L. Archb. and bishops? I deny it. Though other Churches had L. Archb. and Bb. this proves nothing else but that other Churches are maimed and have their imperfections. Your reason is this, other good Churches are deformed, therefore ours must needs be so too. The kings son is lame, therefore the [23.] children of no subjects must go upright. And these be all the good reasons which you can bring for the government of Archb. and bishops, against the government of Christ. You reason thus: It must not be admitted into this kingdom, because then Civilians²⁴ shall not be able to live in that estimation and wealth wherein they now do. Carnal and senseless beasts who are not ashamed to prefer the outward estate of men before the glory of Christ's kingdom. Here again, let the magistrate and other readers consider whether it be not time that such brutish men should be looked unto. Which reason thus. The body of Christ which is the church, must needs be maimed and deformed in this commonwealth because otherwise civilians should not be able to live. Why you enemies to the state, you traitors to God and his word, you Mar-prince, Mar-law, Mar-magistrate, Mar-church, and Mar-commonwealth, do you not know that the world should rather go a begging than that the glory of god by maiming his church, should be defaced? Who can abide this indignity. The prince and state must procure god to wrath against them by continuing the deformity of his church, and it may not be otherwise because the civilians else must fall to decay. I will tell you what, you monstrous and ungodly bishops, though I had no fear of God before my eyes and had no hope of a better life, yet the love that I owe as a natural man unto her Majesty and the state would enforce me to write against you. Her Majesty and this kingdom, (whom the Lord bless, with his mighty hand, I unfeignedly beseech) must endanger themselves under the peril of God's heavy wrath, rather than the maim of our church government must be healed, for we had rather it should be so, say our bishops, than we should be thrust out, for if we should be thrust out the study of the civil law must needs go to wrack. Well, if I had lived sometimes a citizen in that old and ancient [24.] (though heathenish) Rome, and had heard king Desotarus, Caesar, yea, or Pompei himself give out this speech, namely, that the city and empire of Rome must needs be brought subject unto some danger because otherwise Catilina, Lentulus, Cethegus, with other of the nobility, could not tell how to live, but must needs go a begging, I would surely, in the love I ought to the safety of that state, have called him that had used such a speech, in judicium capitis²⁵, whosoever he had been, and I would not have doubted to have given him the overthrow. And shall I, being a christian, English subject, abide to hear a wicked crew of ungodly bishops, with their hangers-on and parasites, affirm that our Queen and our State must needs be subject unto the greatest danger that may be, viz. the wrath of God, for deforming his Church; and that Gods Church must needs be maimed and deformed among us, because otherwise a few Civilians shall not be able to live. Shall I hear and see these things professed and published, and in the love I owe unto God's religion and her Majesty, say nothing. I cannot, I will not, I may not be silent at this speech, come what will come of it. The love of a christian Church, prince and state, shall, I trust, work more in me than the love of a heathen Empire and state should do. Now judge, good reader, who is more tolerable in a commonwealth, Martin that would have the enemies of her Majesty removed thence, or our bishops which would have her life and the whole kingdom's prosperity hazarded, rather than a few Civilians should want maintenance. But I pray you tell me T.C., why should the government of Christ impoverish Civilians? Because says he, pag. 77, the Canon law by which they live, must be altered, if that were admitted. Yea, but Civilians live by the court of Admiralty, and other courts as well as by the Arches²⁶; viz. also the probates of Testaments, the controversies of tithes, matrimony, and [25.] many other causes, which you bishops, Mar-state, do usurpingly take from the civil magistrate, would be a means of Civilians’ maintenance. But are not you ashamed to profess your whole government to be a government ruled by the Pope’s Canon laws, which are banished by statute out of this kingdom? This notably shews that you are Mar-prince and Mar-state. For how dare you retain these laws, unless by virtue of them you mean either to enforce the supremacy of the prince to go again to Rome, or to come to Lambeth. It is treason by Statute for any subject in this land to proceed doctor of the Canon law, and dare you profess your church government to be ruled by that law. As though one statute might not refer all matters of the Canon law unto the temporal and common law of this Realm, and is this all you can say, T.C.

2    Yes says he, the government of Christ, would bring in the judicial law of Moses. As much as is moral of that law, or of the equity of it, would be brought in. And do you gainsay it. But, you sodden-headed ass you, the most part of that law is abrogated. Some part thereof is in force among us, as the punishment of a murderer by death, and presumptuous obstinate theft by death, etc.

3    Her Majesty's prerogative in ecclesiastical causes should not be a whit diminished, but rather greatly strengthened by Christ's government. And no law should be altered, but such as were contrary to the law of God and against the profit of the commonwealth; and therefore there can be no danger in altering these.

4    The minister's maintenance by tithe, no puritan denies to be unlawful. For Martin (good Mr. Parson) you must understand, do account no Brownist to be a puritan, nor yet a sottish Cooperist.

5    The inconvenience which you shew of the government, which is that men would not be ruled by it, is answered 'afore. And I pray you, why should they not be better [26.] obedient unto God's law if the same also were established by the law of the land, than to the Pope's law and his canons. You think that all men are like yourselves, that is, like bishops such as cannot choose but break the laws and good orders of God and her Majesty.

7    The laws of England have been made when there was never a bishop in the Parliament, as in the first year of her Majesty. And this reason, as all the rest, may serve to maintain popery as well as the hierarchy of Bb.

8    The government of the church of Christ is no popular government, but it is Monarchical in regard of our head, Christ; Aristocratical in the Eldership; and Democratical in the people. Such is the civil government of our kingdom: Monarchical in her Majesty's person; Aristocratical in the higher house of Parliament, or rather in the Council table; Democratical in the body of the commons of the lower house of Parliament. Therefore, profane T.C., this government seeks no popularity to be brought into the Church, much less intends the alteration of the civil state; that is but your slander, of which you make an occupation. And I will surely pay you for it. I must be brief now, but More Work for Cooper shall examine you slanders. They are nothing else but proofs that as by your own confessions you are bishops of the Devil, so you are enemies unto the state. For by these slanders you go about to blind our state, that they may never see a perfect regiment of the Church in our days. I say, that by your own confession you are bishops of the Devil. I will prove it thus: You confess that your lordly government were not lawful and tolerable in this commonwealth if her Majesty and the state of the land did disclaim the same. Tell me, do you not confess this. Deny it if you dare. For will you say, that you ought lawfully to be here in our commonwealth, whether her Majesty and the Council will or no. Is this the [27.] thanks that her Majesty shall have for tolerating you in her kingdom all this while, that now you will say that you and your places stand not in this kingdom by her courtesy, but you have as good right unto your places as she has unto her kingdom. And by this means your offices stand not by her good liking, and the good liking of the state, as do the offices of our L. high Chancellor, high Treasurer, and high Steward of England, but your offices ought to stand, and to be in force, in spite of her Majesty, the Parliament, Council, and every man else, unless they would do you injury. So that I know, aye, you dare not deny but that your offices were unlawful in our commonwealth if her Majesty, the Parliament, and the Council would have them abolished. If you grant this, then you do not hold your offices as from God, but as from man. Her Majesty, she holds her office and her kingdom as from God, and is beholden for the same unto no prince nor state under heaven. Your case is otherwise, for you hold your offices as from her Majesty, and not from God. For otherwise, you need not to be any more beholden unto her Majesty for the same in regard of right, than she is bound to be beholden unto other states in regard of her right. And so you, in regard of your Lordly superiority, are not the bishops of god, but as Jerome says, the bishops of man. And this the most of you confess to be true, and you see how dangerous it would be for you, to affirm the contrary: namely, that you hold your offices as from god. Well sir, if you say that you are the bishops of man. Then tell me whether you like of Dean John his book. O yes, says T.C.,²⁷ For his grace did peruse that book, and we know the sufficiency of it to be such as the Puritans are not able to answer it. Well then, whatsoever is in this book is authentical. It is so, says T.C., otherwise, his grace would not have allowed it. What say you then to the [28.] 140 page of that book, where he says, (answering the treatise of the bishop of God, the bishop of Man, and the bishop of the Devil) that there is no bishop of man at all, but every B. must be either the Bishop of God or the Bishop of the Devil. He also affirms none to be the bishop of god, but he which has warrant, both inclusively and also expressly, in god's word. Now you Bishops of the Devil, what say you now, are you spited of the Puritans because you, like good subjects, defend the laws of her Majesty, or else because, like incarnate Devils, you are bishops of the Devil, as you yourselves confess.²⁸

    Here again, let the Magistrate once more consider what pestilent and dangerous beasts these wretches are unto the civil state. For, either by their own confession they are the Bishops of the Devil (and so by that means will be the undoing of the state if they be continued therein), or else their places ought to be in this commonwealth whether her Majesty and our state will or no, because they are not (as they say) the bishops of man, that is, they have not their superiority and their Lordly callings over their brethren by human constitution, as my L.L. Chancellor, Treasurer, and other honourable personages have, but by divine ordinance. Yea, and their callings they hold (as you have heard) not only to be inclusively, but also expressly in the word. What shift will they use to avoid this point? Are they the Bishops of men, that is, hold they their jurisdiction as from men. No! says Dean Bridges, No! says John of Canterbury and the rest of them, (for all of them allow this book of John Bridges) for then we are the bishops of the devil, we cannot avoid it. Are they then the bishops of God, that is, have they such a calling as the Apostles, Evangelists, etc. had; that is, such a calling as ought lawfully to be in a christian commonwealth (unless the magistrate would injure the Church, yea, maim, deform and make a monster of the [29.] Church) whether the magistrate will or no. We have say they, for our callings are not only inclusively, but also expressly in the word. So that by Dean Bridges his confession, and the approbation of John Canterbury, either our bishops are bishops of the devil or their callings cannot be defended lawful, without flat and plain treason, in overthrowing her Majesty's supremacy. And so Dean Bridges has written, and John Whitgift has approved and allowed flat treason to be published.

    Is Martin to be blamed for finding out and discovering traitors? Is he to be blamed for crying out against the Bb. of the Devil. If he be, then indeed, have I offended in writing against bishops? If not, whether is the better subject, Martin or our bishops. Whether I be favoured or no, I will not cease, in the love I owe to her Majesty, to write against traitors, to write against the Devil's bishops. Our bishops are such by their own confession. For they protest themselves to be bishops of the Devil. If they should hold the preeminence to be from man, If they hold it otherwise than from man, they are traitors. And until this beast Doctor Bridges wrote this book, they never as yet dare presume to claim their Lordships any otherwise lawful than from her Majesty. Yea, and Dr .Bridges, about the 60 page, says the same. But they care not what contrariety they have in their writings, what treason they hold, as long as they are persuaded that no man shall be tolerated to write against them. I have once already shewed treason to be in this book of the Dean of Sarum, page. 448. I shew the like now to be page 340, because Dean Bridges dare not answer me. They have turned unto me in his stead a beast whom, by the length of his ears, I guess to be his brother, that is an ass of the same kind. But I will be answered of the Dean himself in this and the former point of treason, or else his cloister shall smoke for it. And thus, profane T.C., you [30.] perceive what a good subject you are, in defending the established government. Thus also I have answered all your book in the matters of the lawfulness of the government by Pastors, Doctors, Elders and Deacons, and the unlawfulness of our bastardly Church government by archbishops and bishops, where also the reader may see that if ever there was a church rightly governed, that is a church without maim or deformity, the same was governed by Pastors, Doctors, elders and deacons.

    Whau, whau! but where have I been all this while. Ten to one among some of these puritans. Why Martin? Why Martin, I say, have you forgotten yourself? Where have you been? Why man, I ha' been a seeking for a Salmon's nest, and I ha' found a whole crew, either of ecclesiastical traitors or of bishops of the Devil, of broken and maimed members of the church. Never wink on me good fellow, for I will speak the truth, let the puritans do what they can. I say then that they are broken members, and I say John of Canterbury if he be a member of the church, I say he is a broken member, and that Thomas of Winchester is a choleric member. Yea, and I ha' found that profane T.C. is afraid lest her Majesty should give Bishops’ livings away from them, and therefore shuts his book with this position, viz. That it is not lawful to bestow such livings upon lay men, as are appointed by God's law upon ministers. But hereof More Work for Cooper shall learnedly dispute.

Reverend T.C. Admonition, page 1, 2, 3.

    We use the Ministers most vile now-a-days. God will punish us for it, as he did those which abused his prophets.

Reverend Martin.

    Look to it T.C. then. For out of your own mouth shall you be judged, you unrighteous servant. Our bishops are they which abuse the ministers. Our bishops were [31.] never good ministers as yet, and therefore they are not to be compared with the prophets.

Reverend T.C., Page 4.

    Some men will say that I do great injury to the prophets and apostles, in comparing our Bishops unto them, but we may be happy if we may have tolerable ministers in this perilous age.

Reverend Martin.

    I hope T.C. that you do not mean to serve the church with worse than we have. What! worse than John of Canterbury? worse than Tom Tubtrimmer of Winchester? worse than the vicars of Hell, sir Jeffrey Jones, the parson of Mickleham, etc. I pray you, rather than we should have a change from evil to worse, let us have the evil still. But I care not if I abide the venture of the change. Therefore, get John with his Canterburiness removed, etc. (whom you acknowledge to be evil) and I do not doubt, if worse come in their stead, but the devil will soon fetch them away, and so we shall be quickly rid, both of evil and worse. But good T.C., is it possible to find worse than we have. I do not marvel though you call me libeller, when you dare abuse the Prophets far worse than in calling them libellers. For I tell you true, you could not have anyway so stained their good names, as you have done, in comparing them to our bishops. Call me libeller as often as you will, I do not greatly care, but and you love me, never liken me to our bishops of the devil. For I cannot abide to be compared unto those. For by your own comparison, in the 9 page, they are just Balaam's up and down.

Reverend T.C. page 8, 9, 10.

    Though our bishops be as evil as Judas, the false apostles, and Balaam, yet because they have sometimes brought unto us God's message, we must think no otherwise of them than of God's messengers. For God [32.] will not suffer devilish and Antichristian persons to be the chief restorers of his gospel.

Reverend Martin.

    First T.C., I have truly gathered your argument, though you name neither Judas nor the false apostles. Prove it otherwise. Then have you, reverend Martin, proved yourself a liar. Now secondly then, seeing it is so, I pray you good honest T.C., desire our Judases (who was also one of the first Apostles) not to sell their master for money, and desire our false Apostles (who preached no false doctrine for the most part) not to insult our poor Paul, and desire our good Balaams, not to follow the wages of unrighteousness. The counsel is good. For Judas, though one of the first publishers of the gospel (so were not our bishops in our time) yet hung himself. The false apostles had their reward, I doubt not. And Balaam, as soon as ever the Israelites took him, was justly executed for his wickedness. The forced blessing wherewith he blessed them saved him not.

Reverend T.C., page 10, 11, 12, 13.

    Many conjectural speeches are abroad of bishops, as that they are covetous, give not to the poor, hinder reformation, Simoniacs, etc. but the chief governors ought to take heed that they give no credit to any such things. I trust never any of them, committed idolatry as Aaron did.

Reverend Martin.

    Yea, I beseech you that are in authority in any case, not to believe any truth against our bishops. For these puritans (although the bishops grant themselves to be as evil as Balaam) could never yet prove the good fathers to have committed idolatry, as Aaron did. And as long as they be no worse than Balaam was, there is no reason why they should be disliked. You know this is a troublesome world, men cannot come unto any mere [33.] living without friends. And it is no reason why a man should trouble his friend and give him nothing. A hundred pounds and a gelding is yet better than nothing. To bowl but seven days in a week is a very tolerable recreation. You must know that John of London has sometimes preached (as this profane T.C. has given out, to his no small commendation) thrice in a year at Paul's Cross. A sore labour, it is reason that he should bestow the rest of the year in maintaining his health by recreation, and providing for his family. Give him leave but to creep out the government of the Church, to swear like a swag, to persecute, and to take some small ten in the hundred, and truly he will be loath ever to commit idolatry as Aaron did. I hope, though Judas sold his master, yet that it cannot be proved since his calling, that ever he committed idolatry.

Reverend T.C., page 16, 17.

    Though bishops should offend, as Noah did in drunkenness, yet good children should cover their father's faults. For natural children, though they suffer injuries at their father's hands, yet they take their grief very mildly.

Reverend Martin.

    Bishop Westphaling. But what then? Parson Gravat parson of sir John Pulchres in London (one of dumb John's boozing mates) will be drunk but once a week. But what then? good children should take links in a cold morning and light them at his nose, to see if by that means some part of the fire that has so flashed his sweet face might be taken away. This were their duty, says T.C., and not to cry Red nose, red nose! But T.C., what if a man should find him lying in the kennel, whether should he take him up (all to be mired like a swine) in the sight of the people, and carry him home on his back, or fling a coverlet on him, and let him there take his rest until his legs would be advised by him to carry him home. But [34.] methinks brother T.C., you defend the bishops but evilfavouredly in these points. For you do as though a thief should say to a true man, I must needs have your purse, you must bear with me, it is my nature, I must needs play the thief. But yet you deal uncharitably with me, if you blaze it abroad. For though I make an occupation of theft, yet charity would cover it. So say you, though our bishops make a trade of persecuting and depriving God's ministers, though they make a trade of continuing in Antichristian callings, yet charity would have their faults covered, and have them mildly dealt with. As though T.C., there were no difference betwixt those that fall by infirmity into some one sin, not making it their trade, and not defending the same to be lawful, and our bishops which continue in an Antichristian calling and occupation. And defend they may do so, but will they leave, think you, if they be mildly and gently dealt with. Then good John of Canterbury, I pray you leave your persecuting. Good John of Canterbury leave your Popedom. Good father John of London, be no more a bishop of the Devil, be no more a traitor to God and his word. And good sweet boys, all of you, become honest men. Maim and deform the church no longer. Sweet fathers now, make not a trade of persecuting. Gentle fathers keep the people in ignorance no longer. Good fathers now, maintain the dumb ministry no longer. Be the destruction of the Church no longer, good sweet babes now. Leave your nonresidency, and your other sins, sweet Popes now, and suffer the truth to have free passage. Lo! T.C., now I have mildly dealt with the good fathers, I will now expect a while to see whether they will amend by fair means, if not, let them not say but they have been warned.

Reverend T.C. from the 20 to 30.

    Though the bishops be faulty, yet they are not to be excused that find fault with them for sinister ends. And the prince and magistrates is to take heed that by their [35.] suggestions, they be not brought to put down L. bishops, to take away their livings, and put them to their pensions. For the putting of them to their pensions would discourage young students from the study of divinity

Reverend Martin.

    I thought you were afraid to loose your livings by the courtier Martin’s means. But brethren fear it not, I would not have any true minister in the land want a sufficient living. But good souls, I commend you yet, that are not so bashful, but you will shew your grief. Is it the treading under foot of the glory of God that you fear, good men. No no, say they, we could reasonably well bear that loss. But we die if you diminish the allowance of our kitchen. Let us be assured of that, and our Lordly callings, and we do not greatly care how other matters go. I will, when More Work is published, help those good young students unto a means to live, though they have none of your Bishopdoms, if they will be ruled by me.

Reverend T.C., page 35, 36.

    There have been within these few weeks 3 or 4 pamphlets published in print, against bishops. The author of them calls himself Martin, etc.

R. Martin.

    But good Tom Tubtrimmer, if there have been 3 or 4 published, why does bishop Cooper name one only, why does he not confute all? Why does he invent objections of his own, seeing he had 3 books more to confute, or 2 at least, than he has touched. Nay, why does he not confute one of them thoroughly, seeing therein his Bishopdom was reasonably caperclawed²⁹. I have only published a ‘Pistle, and a ‘Pitomie, wherein also I grant that I did reasonably ‘Pistle them. Therefore T.C., you begin with a lie, in that you say that I have published either 3 or 4 books. [36.]

Reverend T.C., page 38.

    ‘His grace never felt blow as yet, etc.’ What! is he past feeling, will you tell me that, T.C., he sleeps belike in the top of the roost. I would not be so well thwacked for the popedom of Canterbury as he has borne, poor man. He was never able to make good syllogism since, I am sure. He allowed Dr. Bridges his book, quoth T.C.. I pray you, what got he by that but a testimony against himself, that either he has allowed treason, or confessed himself to be the bishop of the Devil.

    T.C., page 38: ‘He that reads his grace his answer, and Mr. Cartwright’s reply, shall see which is the better learned of the two.’ So he shall indeed T.C., and he were very simple which could not discern that. And there is so much answered already, as you say, that his grace dare answer no more for shame. And T.C., you yourselves grant T. Cartwright to be learned, so did I never think John Whitgift to be. What comparison can you make between them? But Thomas Cartwright, shall I say that you made this book against me, because T.C. is set to it. Well take heed of it, if I find it to be your doing I will so besoop you, as you never banged John Whitgift better in your life. I see here that they have quarrelled with you, Walter Travers, John Penry, Thomas Sparke, Giles Wiggington, Master Davison, etc. Nay, it is no matter, you are e’en well served, this will teach you, I trow, to become my chaplains. For if you were my chaplains once, I trow, John Whitgift nor any of his, durst not once say black to your eyes. And if I had your learning Thomas Cartwright, I would make them all to smoke. But though I were as very an Asses head as John Catercap is, yet I could deal well enough with clergy man, yea with old Winken de word, Dr. Prime himself. And I'll bepistle you, Dr. Prime, when I am at more leisure, though indeed I tell you true that as yet I do [37.] disdain to deal with a contemptible trencher³⁰ chaplain, such as you, Dr. Bancroft, and Chaplain Duport are. But I shall be with you all three to bring one day, you shall never ‘scape my fingers, if I take you but once in hand. You see how I have dealt with Dean John, your entertainment shall be alike. But Thomas Cartwright, you are T.C. so is Tom Cooper too. The distinction then, between you both, shall be this: he shall be profane T.C. because he calls Christ Jesus, by whom the government by Pastors, Doctors, Elders and Deacons was commanded, to be he knows not whom: and you shall be simple T.C.

    Concerning Mistress Lawson, profane T.C.. Is it not lawful for her to go to Lambeth by water, to accompany a preacher’s wife, going also (as commonly godly matrons in London do) with her man: No says T.C., I do not like this in women.³¹ Tush man, Thomas Lawson is not Thomas Cooper, he has no such cause to doubt of Dame Lawson’s going without her husband, as the bishop of Winchester has had of dame Cooper’s gadding. But More Work for Cooper will say more for Mistress Lawson.

    From whomsoever Charde had his protection, his Face is glad of it, for otherwise he knows not how to get a printer for the established government, because the books will not sell.

    Touching the Praemunire³², let the Libeller and his, do what he dare. Why brethren, what wisdom is this in you to dare your betters? Do you not know that I can find you my mind by a ‘Pistle, and then prove you to be petty Popes and enemies to the State. And how can you mend yourselves. It is certain you are in a praemunire. If her Majesty will give me leave to have the law, I will be bound to bring 10000 pounds into her coffers upon that bargain. And therefore, foolish men, dare your [38.] betters no more. And here I pray you mark how I have made the bishops to pull in their horns. For whereas in this place they had printed the word dare, they bethought themselves that they had to deal with my worship, which am favoured at the Court, and being afraid of me, they pasted the word can upon the word dare, and so, where before they bad me and mine do what we durst, now they bid us do what we can, hoping thereby to have a friend in a corner, who would not suffer us to do what we ought and durst, and so our ability should not be according unto their demerit. Mark now, ye bishops of the Devil, whether you be not afraid of me. I will see you jolled³³ with the Praemunire one day

    The like thing you shall find in the 135 page. For there, having said that they will not deny the discipline to have been in the Apostles’ time, they have now pasted there upon that, That is not yet proved. So that although their consciences do tell them that the discipline was there, yet they will bear the world in hand, that that is not yet proved. Here you see that if this patch T.C. had not used two patches to cover his patchery, the bishops would have accounted him to be as very a patch as Dean John.

    Aye, but these knave puritans are more unmannerly before his grace, than the recusants are, and therefore the recusants have more favour. I cannot blame them, for we ought to have no popes. The papists like the Archiepiscopal Pall, and therefore reverence a petty Pope therein. And though the recusant come not to hear the sermons, yet he is an informer very often, upon other men’s information.

    His grace denies that ever he heard of any such matter, as that the Jesuit should say he would become a brave Cardinal, if popery should come again. I know T.C. that long since he is past shame and a notorious liar, otherwise how durst he deny this, seeing Cliffe, an honest [39.] and a godly cobbler, devilling³⁴ at Battle Bridge, did justify this before his grace his teeth.³⁵ Yea, and will justify the same again if he be called. So will Atkinson too. Send for them if he dare. Ministers of the Gospel ought to be called priests,³⁶ says his grace, what say you by that? Then good sir John ‘o Cant. when will you say Mass at our house. His grace is also persuaded that there ought to be a Lordly superiority among ministers. So was Judas persuaded to sell his master. If you would have these things proved, profane T.C. refers you to his grace his answer to simple T.C., and to doctor Bridges. That is, if you would learn any honesty you must go to the stews³⁷, or if you would have a good savour, you must go to the sink for it. Why, you unsavoury snuff, do you think that men know not Dr. Bridges and John Whitgift. Yea, but his grace also firmly believes that Christ in soul descended into Hell. This is the 3 point of his catholic persuasion; but tell him from me that he shall never be saved by this belief, and my finger in his mouth. Let him tell what our Saviour Christ should do if he did not harrow Hell. Where you say Mr. Young had only the dealing with Thackwel, the popish printer, without his grace’s privity, you lie in your throat. Mr. Yong himself brought him to his grace, who ordered the matter as it is set down in my ‘Pistle. But did not I say truly of you, that you can cog, face and lie as fast as a dog can trot, and that you have a right seasoned wainscot face of your own, chwarnt you, your forehead is hard as horn.³⁸

    Concerning Waldegrave, it's no matter how you deal with him, he's a foolish fellow to suffer you to spoil his press and letters. An I had been my worship's printer, I'd 'a kept him from your clutches. And yet it is pity to belie the devil, and therefore you shall not belie him and go scot free. As for the press that Waldegrave sold, he did it by order, viz. he sold it to an allowed printer, I.C., one [40.] of his own company, with the knowledge of his Warden, Henry Denham, etc. And call you this favour, in releasing him after long imprisonment? But I will give you a precedent of great favour indeed, wherein you may see what an ungrateful fellow Waldegrave is to his grace, who has been so good unto him from time [to] time. There being a controversy between another printer and Waldegrave (all matters of printing being committed by the L.L. of the Council to his grace) Waldegrave made one of his company his friend (who could do much with his grace) to deal for him, who broke the matter to his worship, being at Croydon³⁹ in his orchard. So soon as the party named Waldegrave, he sweetly answered him, saying, if it had been any of the company save him, he would have granted the suite, but in no case to Waldegrave. Well, Waldegrave obtained the R.H. Lord Treasurer's letter in his behalf to his grace, who when he had read it, said, I will answer my L. Treasurer. With that, Waldegrave entreated for his favourable letter to the Wardens of his company, which in the end, through Dr. Cosins, he obtained (though late) yet went home at night thinking to deliver it in the morning; but before he was ready, the Wardens were with him, and arrested him with a pursuivant upon his grace's commandment, Waldegrave telling them there was a letter from his grace, which he received late the last night at Croydon, who answered, they knew it well enough, but this is his pleasure now, so they carried Waldegrave to prison, and in this his grace was so good unto him as to help him with an hundred marks over the shoulders.⁴⁰ If this be your favour, God keep me from you, ka Mr. Marprelate. Bishops have justly received according to their deserts, having found greater favour at my worship's hands than ever they deserved, being notorious, disobedient and godless persons, unthrifty spenders and consumers of the fruits, not of their own labours, [41.] (as you say Waldegrave was) but of the possessions of the church. Persons that have violated their faith to god, his church, her majesty, and this whole kingdom, and wittingly bring us all without the great mercy of god to our undoing, so that our wives, children and servants have cause to curse all L. Bb. Lo! T.C., you see that I have a good gift in imitation, and methinks I have brought your words into a marvellous good sense, whereas before, in the cause of Waldegrave, they were ilfavouredly wrested. And as for his wife and children, they have just cause to curse John of London, and John of Canterbury, for their tyrannising over him, by imprisoning and spoiling his goods, and vexing his poor wife and children with continual rifling his house with their pursuivants, who in November last, violently rushed into his house, breaking through the main wall thereof after midnight, taking away his goods, for some of the pursuivants sold his books up and down the streets, to watchmen and others. Ah! you Antichristian prelates, when will you make an end of defending your tyranny by the blood and rapine of her majesty's subjects? You have been the consumers of the fruits of Waldegrave's labours, for have you not sent him so often to prison that it seemed you made a common occupation thereof? For as soon as any book is printed in the defence of Christ's holy discipline, or for the detecting of your Antichristian dealings, but your ravening pursuivants fly city and country to seek for Waldegrave, as though he were bound by statute unto you,⁴¹ either to make known who printed seditious books against my Lord's face, or to go to prison himself, and threatened with the rack. And are you not ashamed to say that he ever violated his faith? You know well enough that he is neither Archb. nor L.B. The case thus stood after he had remained a long time in prison. Not that time when Hartwell, his grace's secretary, wished that his grace might never eat bit of bread after he [42.] released him. Nor at that time when you, profane T.C., told him that all puritans had traitorous hearts. Nor at that time Waldegrave told his grace that he was worse than Bonner in regard of the time. Nor that time when he was strangely released by one the Lord of good London's Swans. Neither was it at that time when his grace (good, conscionable, noble man) violated his promise, in that he told the wardens of the Stationers that if Waldegrave would come quietly to him, and cease printing of seditious books, he would pardon what was past, and the wardens promised his wife that if he were committed, they would lie at his grace's gate till he were released, and for all this, yet he was committed to the White Lion, where he lay six weeks. Nor it was not at that time when his grace allowed Watson the pursuivant to take of Waldegrave a 3 shillings 4 pence for carrying of him to the White Lion. But it was that time when his grace kept him 20 weeks together in the White Lion for printing the Complaint of the Commonality, the Practice of Prelates, A Learned Man's Judgment, etc. Means being used for his liberty, his friend who was bound for him told him his liberty was obtained in manner following: You must be bound, says he, in a 100 pounds, to print no more books hereafter but such as shall be authorised by her Majesty or his grace, or such as were before lawfully authorised. Whereunto he answered, that it was not possible for him to contain himself within the compass of that bond, neither should his consent ever go to the same⁴² (the same will Dr. Cosins witness (that maidenly Doctor who sits cheek by jowl with you) if he will speak a truth, which words Waldegrave uttered to him, going in the old Palace at Westminster with his keeper before he was released) yet he would gladly have his liberty if he might lawfully. For said he, I being a poor workman to my company, cannot possibly observe it. For many books heretofore printed, had [43.] cum privilegio, and yet were never authorised. And again, that it were but a folly for him to sue to her Majesty, the office were very base and unfit for her. And he might be well assured that Caiaphas of Cant. would never authorise anything for his behoof. And so it fell out. And thus Martin has proved you in this, as in all other things, to be liars. And what is it that you Bb. and your hangers-on will not say by Waldegrave, whom you would hang if you could. I will be brief in the rest, but so as readers may perceive that T.C. was heard to lie by commission.

    I will stand to it, that his grace accounts the preaching of the word, being the only ordinary means of salvation to be an heresy,⁴³ and do mortally persecute the same.⁴⁴ His appellation to the obedient clergy shall stand him in no stead when More Work for Cooper is published. And there I will pay you for abusing Mr. Wiggington and Master Davison,⁴⁵ whose good names can take no stain from a bishops chops. If his grace rejected Master Evans for want of conformity, why is the quare impedit⁴⁶ gotten against the bishop of Worcester by the noble Earl of Warwick, his patron. I hope he will see both the quare impedit and the praemunire too, brought upon the bones of father Edmond of Worcester. It is a common brag⁴⁷ with his grace his parasites, and with himself, that he is the second person in the land. More Work shall pay his grace for commending the Apocrypha, a profane and lying story in many places,⁴⁸ to be unseperably joined with the holy word of God. You grant Dr. Spark to have set his grace and yourself T.C. at a non plus,⁴⁹ for the Septuagint is contrary to the Hebrew, and therefore, you maintain contrary translations and require men to approve both. Martin has marred Richard Patrick's market, for otherwise he was in good hope to have a benefice at his grace his hand, and to be made a minstrel. Shameless and impudent wretches that dare deny John of Cant. [44.] to have been at any time under Dr. Perne but as a fellow of the house where he was master, whereas all the world knows him to have been a poor scholar in that house, yea, and his grace has often confessed that he, being there a poor scholar, was so poor as he had not a napkin to wipe his mouth, but when he had gotten some fat meat of o' the fellow's table, would go to the skrine⁵⁰ and first wipe his mouth on the one side and then o' the other, because he wanted a napkin. Judge you whether this be not a meaner state than to carry a cloakbag, which is not spoken to upbraid any man's poverty but to pull the pride of God's enemy an ace lower. Although we cannot believe Dr. Perne in the pulpit, yet in this point we will not refuse his testimony. I am glad, John of London, you will not deny but you have the dyers cloth. Make restitution then. You made the porter of your gate a minister, John, and you might do it lawfully.⁵¹ Why so I pray you. Why man, because he was almost blind, and at Paddington, being a small people, he could not starve as many souls as his master does, which has a great charge.⁵² I hope Mr. Madox will think scorn to ask John of London forgiveness. The substance of the tale is true. I told you that I had it at the second hand. Are you not ashamed to deny the elms to be cut down at Fulham? Why, her majesty's taker took them from John of London. And simple fellows, are you not able to discern between a pleasant frump given you by a counsellor, and a speech used in good earnest. Alas poor John o' London, do you think that Mr. Vice-chamberlain spoke as he thought. Then it is time to beg you for a swag. And so it is, if you think we will believe the turncoat Dr. Perne, speaking unto us in his own name, who like an Apostate has out of the pulpit told so many untruths. And as it is as lawful to bowl, o' the Sabbath⁵³ as it is to eat, and for you to make dumb [45.] ministers as it was for David to eat of the Shew bread, page 110, or for the Maccabees to fight on the Sabbath, or for Moses to grant a bill of divorcement? I perceive these men will have the good divinity, if it be to be gotten for money.⁵⁴ Yea, and our Saviour Christ swore by his faith very often. How so, good John. I never heard that before. Why, says T.C., he said, Amen, Amen, very often, and Amen is as much as, By my faith, page 62. Horrible and blasphemous beasts, where will your madness grow in a while, if you be not restrained. Mr. Allen the grocer⁵⁵ is paid all save 10 pound. For the use of that, the executors have John o' London's blessing. And I think they are reasonably well served. If the tale of Benison⁵⁶ be not true, why was John of London allotted by the council to pay him (I think) 40 pounds for his false imprisonment. John of London is not dumb, because he preaches sometimes thrice a year at Paul's Cross. Then we shall never make our money of it I see. But I pray you T.C., how can you excuse his blasphemy of Eli, Eli, lamma sabach thani.⁵⁷ There have been 2 outrageous facts amongst others, committed in the world by those that profess true religion, the one was the betraying of our Saviour by Judas, an apostle, the other was the horrible mocking of his agony and bitter passion by John Elmar, a bishop, in this speech. If he had been in some reformed Churches the blasphemer would have hardly escaped with his life. And is it true, sweet boy indeed? Has Leicestershire so embraced the Gospel without contention, and that by Dumb John's means? Little do you know what you have done now. How if Martin be a Leicestershire man, have not you then set out the praise of your own bane? For Martin, I am sure, has wrought your Caiaphas Chair more wrack and misery than all the whole land beside. And therefore, you see, a man may be so mad sometimes, that he may praise he cannot tell what. The [46.] bishop of Rochester in presenting himself to a parsonage,⁵⁸ did no more than law allowed him. And do so again good John of Rochester, and it will be for your credit. For these puritans would find fault I think, with John of Cant. (if he believing that Christ in soul went to Hell) should hold it unlawful for a man to pray unto Christ being in hell. And sweet John of Cant., if ever you praise in your life for anybodies' souls, now pray for your brother Dr. Squire and Tarleton's⁵⁹ souls. They were honest fellows, though I think dean John's ears be longer. For why good sweet John, may not your worship do this, as well as William of Lincoln might pray,⁶⁰ that our souls should be with the souls of professed traitorous papists.

    The good B. of Winchester did not protest that at sir Mary Overies, which was laid to his charge, but he spake some things that way. Well, brother Winchester, you confess the most part⁶¹ and we will believe the rest for your sake without witness. The B. of Winchester never said that it was an heresy to hold that the preaching of the word was the only ordinary means to salvation,⁶² but inasmuch as Penry held that the effect of salvation could not be wrought by the word read, he said that was not far from heresy. Why, brother Cooper, what is this else but open confession. For John Penry, as appears in his writings, holds the word read to be no ordinary means of salvation at all. This I know you will account an heresy, otherwise your case is damnable, that causes the people to content themselves with reading, and hold that they may ordinarily be saved thereby. Yea but T. of Winchester disputed a Master of Arts 45 year ago in divinity.⁶³ Here is an old lad once. I hope that disputation was very cholericly performed. And he did once as pretty a thing as that came to. For once, preaching at Canter. he was disposed to note out T.C., I mean simple T.C., in his sermon. His part he played after this sort: He noted 4 great hindrances⁶⁴ of the [47.] gospel in his sermon. 1: Carnal security. 2: Heathenish gentility. 3: Obstinate papistry, 4: says he, When I look in his forehead I find T.C. written therein, which I cannot otherwise interpret than thankless curiosity, thankless for the benefits already received and more curious than needs in vain and needless questions. The old student did not know himself to be T.C. when he thus spoke, and this is that thankless curiosity that has answered Martin. Yea, and he saw Martin's picture drawn when he was a young man. I perceive then he was not blind, as the old porter of Paddington whom John of London bedeaconed and beminstrelled. Hecian of Winchester himself was the painter. Midas of Cant. the judge. The one of the 2 women, called Ignorance, was the goodwife of Bath, Dr. Culpable, warden of New College; the other, called Jealous Suspicion, was that for John of Exeter. Then came in Winken de Word, alias Dr. Prime, calumniator. This Winken and his L. of Winchester, drew Innocency, to wit, Martin Marprelate gentleman, by the hair of the head. Then followed Dolus fraus insidiæ⁶⁵, to wit, Dr. Perne, Dr. Kenold and Dr. Cosins. The treader was Cankered Malice, his eyes were fiery, his face thin and withered, pined away with melancholy, and this was Dr. Copcoat. Then followed Doleful Repentance, that is, dean John, repenting that ever he had written in the Bb. behalf, because his grace is not as good as his word. T.C., consider this picture until we meet again. Now my business calls me away, I am travelling towards Banbury, for I hear say that there has been old ado. For bakers' daughters would have knights whether they would or no. I will learn the truth hereof, and so I will post to Solihull, and visiting some parts of Stafford, Warwick, and Northampton shires I will make a journey back again to Norfolk and Suffolk. I have a register at Bury, and by that time my visitors will be come out of Cornwall, Devon and Hampshire. And now fare you well, good profane T.C. I [48.] cannot now meddle with the long period which you have in the 33, 34 pag. of your book, it is but 38 lines. You are longer winded than Dean John is, I see, though he has longer periods than that which I set down. Whereas you do complain that the livings of our bishops are so small that some of their children are like to go a begging. There is a present remedy for that. For to what end else is John of Cant. unmarried but to provide for the bishop's children who shall be poorly left. Though indeed, I never said in my life that there was ever any great familiarity (though I know there was some acquaintance) between mistress Toye and John Whitgift. And I'll befie 'em, I'll befie 'em that will say so of me. And wherefore is Richard of Peterborough unmarried but to provide for other men's children. O, now I remember me, he has also a charge to provide for his hostess and cousin of Sibson. The petticoat which he bestowed upon her within this six months was not the best in England, the token was not unmeet for her state. Farewell, farewell, farewell old Martin, and keep you out of their hands for all that. For you are a shrewd fellow, you will one day overthrow them, Amen. And then you swear by your faith, quoth John of London.

 

Martin the Metropolitan to John the Metropolitan
says, Nemo confidat nimium secundis.

 

Martin to his troubled sons says,
Nemo desperet meliora lapsus.

 

Anglia Martinis disce favere tuis.

 

Faults escaped

Title, line ten, read, Chaplain has shewed himself in his late Admonition to the
people of England to be, etc. Epistle, page third, read Eulogein for Enlogeni.
Bear with the rest of the faults.

 | Back to Top |

 

1. or Thomas Coakes, see title page. (ed.)

2. Stafford law: prob. equivalent to lynch law. (ed.)

3. grue: possibly the herb, ‘rue’? (ed.)

4. A popular card game for gambling. (ed.)

5. noble: a gold coin with face value of 6s. 8d. or 10s. (ed.)

6. argling: arguing. (ed.)

7. meaning unknown. (ed.)

8. meaning unknown. see fn. 17. (ed.)

9. ‘More Work for Cooper’, despite many references was never published. (ed.)

10. Saint Mary Overies, the present Southwark Cathedral; the area was formerly part of the diocese of Winchester. John Harvard is buried there. (ed.)

11. trull: prostitute. (ed.)

12. The south bank of the Thames opposite the City of London was and is known as Bankside or South Bank-a low commercial area of brothels, taverns and theatres. Chaucer’s ‘Tabard’ and Shakespeare’s ‘Globe’ were in the immediate vicinity. (ed.)

13. grigs: crickets, ie, lively people. (ed.)

14. You may hereby perceive that T.C. is a bishop

15. ie, the major and minor premisses of a syllogism. (ed.)

16. Puritans confess John Cant. to be no Pope.

17. bewray: betray. (ed.)

18. The apostles chose none instead of James, being beheaded, as they did in stead of Judas, Act.1, which they would have done if the apostolical calling had been permanent.

19. Magdalene College, Oxford. (ed.)

20. dry soup: appears to mean ‘blows’, but ‘in the soup’ not known before 1889. cf besoop, fn.8. (ed.)

21. This T.Cooper gainsays pag. 2 of his Epistle

22. T.Cooper says it too, pag. second, Epist.

23. caitiff: a base, mean, despicable wretch-a villain. (ed.)

24. Civilians: civil lawyers practising in the ecclesiastical courts. (ed.)

25. judicium capitis: (L) ‘a capital judgement’. (ed.)

26. Court of Arches: the court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, still in existence and used for prosecuting breaches of Canon Law. (ed.)

27. T.C.38.

28. Dean John, lib.4, page 340, line 7.

29. caperclawed: caper (L) = goat, but also pickling herbs. Pickled? (ed.)

30. trencher: orig. a cutting knife, hence the board on which food is prepared, hence ‘to lick the trencher’ = toady. I think the latter meaning is intended. (ed.)

31. Qui pergit quod vult dicere quæ non vult audiet.

32. T.C. pag.40. Præmunire: The Statute of Præmunire (1353) created the offence of resorting to a foreign court, particularly to that of the Pope in Rome. (ed.)

33. jolled: hit over the head (cf, jowled). (ed.)

34. devilling: the work of an errand boy or apprentice in the printing trade; here applied to a cobbler. (ed.)

35. page.41.

36. page 46. page.44.

37. stews: brothels. (ed.)

38. The original text is: " you have a right seasoned wainscot face of ti nowne, chwarnt tee, ti vorehead zaze hard as horn." This appears to be an attempt to set down dialect phonetically. There are other, less contrived examples in the text. (ed.)

39. Addison Palace, Croydon, South London, then the country house of the Abp of Canterbury, now the home of the Royal School of Church Music. (ed.)

40. A new revenge for an old grudge.

41. O the greatness of his grace's favour.

42. Whereby it may appear he swore not to his friend.

43. page. 46.

44. page.47.

45. page.47.

46. ‘why does he hinder?’ ie, a demand for an explanation. (ed.)

47. page.48, 49.

48. 2 Esdras 14:21-37,etc.

49. page.50.

50. not known, poss. ‘screen’. (ed.)

51. page.51, 52, 53, 54.

52. page.55, 56.

53. page 57, 58.

54. page 62.

55. page 58.

56. page 59.

57. page 6, 61, 62.

58. page 63.

59. Tarleton, a well-known Elizabethan actor. (ed.)

60. page 63, 64.

61. page 14, 65. 66.etc.

62. page 71.

63. page 72, 75.

64. text: Hidraes. (ed.)

65. Lat. ‘deceit, fraud and treachery’. (ed.)