Sutcliffe be so quick sighted as by him self and his Inquisitors, having (for any thing I can learn) but the same grounds her Majesties Commissioners had, to find out that which men of so great wisdom and circumspection, with so great means as they had of commandment over all that might bring any light unto that matter, could not find out: And whether this dealing of his be not some charge of want in them either of wisdom in not finding it out, or of fidelity in not once calling me to th'answer of it. Moreover, Arthington being compact in this conspiracy with Hacket and Copinger, if there were any hand of mine in that wretched practise, in all likelihood Arthington must needs be privy unto it: he is a man alive let him be examined, and a man also whom I never spake too, nor caused to be spoken with in my life. His reasons to induce his reader to think his accusations to be true are (so far as I remember) these: The first is touching our mutual conference by letters, which is already answered: Another, my concurrence with Copinger ⟨image 8⟩in fasting. I confess that, as there was just cause of humbling my self in fasting, in feeling the displeasure of her excellent Majesty and others in great authority under her, so did I sometimes bestow my self in that exercise. But that I did it the same day that Copinger and his complices, or at the least with any notice either given to him of my fasting, or received from him of his fasting, I utterly deny as a thing most untrue. A third reason is, that Hacket and his fellows commended me at the cross in Cheap above the writers of our age: I acknowledge their great folly in that commendation or madness rather, who am scarce worthy to bear the books after many that have lived, and yet do live in this age, yea & in this Church of our land. But Mr D. Sut. report herein is not upright, for although I was not present, yet I heard of divers (and therein refer my self to the remembrance of those that were standers by) that their excessive praise was of Thomas Cartwright, that had been sometimes when he first wrote in the cause of the Discipline of the Church, but not of him as he now was, for that (as was said) he was faine away from his former love. Lastly, that Mr Cartwright (sayeth he) was a meddler in those matters and well understood them, it appeareth by a letter of Jo.
Sutcliffe bee so quicke sighted as by him selfe and his Inquisitours, hauing (for anie thing I can learne) but the same groundes her Maiesties Commissioners had, to finde out that which men of so great wisedome and circumspection, with so great meanes as they had of commaundement ouer all that might bring anie light vnto that matter, could not finde out: And whether this dealing of his bee not some charge of want in them either of wisedome in not finding it out, or of fidelitie in not once calling me to th'answere of it. Moreouer, Arthington being compacte in this conspiracie with Hacket and Copinger, if there were anie hande of mine in that wretched practise, in all likelihoode Arthington must needes be priuie vnto it: he is a man aliue let him be examined, and a man also whom I neuer spake too, nor caused to be spoken with in my life. His reasons to induce his reader to thinke his accusations to be true are (so farre as I remember) these: The first is touching our mutuall conference by letters, which is alreadie aunswered: Another, my concurrance wtih Copinger ⟨image 8⟩in fasting. I confesse that, as there was iust cause of humbling my self in fasting, in feeling the displeasure of her excellent Maiestie and others in great authoritie vnder her, so did I sometimes bestowe my selfe in that exercise. But that I did it the same day that Copinger and his complices, or at the least with anie notice either giuen to him of my fasting, or receiued from him of his fasting, I vtterly denie as a thing most vntrue. A third reason is, that Hacket and his fellowes commended me at the crosse in Cheape aboue the writers of our age: I acknowledge their great follie in that commendation or madnesse rather, who am scarce woorthie to beare the bookes after many that haue liued, and yet doo liue in this age, yea & in this Church of our lande. But Mr D. Sut. report herein is not vpright, for although I was not present, yet I heard of diuers (and therein referre my selfe to the remembrance of those that were standers by) that their excessiue praise was of Thomas Cortwright, that had bene sometimes when he first wrote in the cause of the Discipline of the Church, but not of him as he now was, for that (as was saied) he was faine away from his former loue. Lastly, that Mr Cartwright (saieth he) was a medler in those matters and well vnderstood them, it appeareth by a letter of Io.
