A second manuduction, for Mr. Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former, in an…

But John Claydon (saith Mr. R.) a martyr of Christ was otherwise minded, when he witnessed, that the Bishops licence to preach the word of God was the true character of the beast. Which testimony is found in deed in the book of martyrs, p. 588. But 1. It is not John Cleydon's, but found in a book whereof he was the owner but not the author: for he could neither write nor read. 2. Whosoever was the author, the meaning was, that in regard of the conditions required by those Bishops, & the persons that usually obtained their approbation, licences might be held as a note of one that followed the beast of Rome: though those conditions being removed, there was no such wickedness in the bare licence. This meaning may be gathered out of the answer of William Thorp, who may probably be judged the author of that treatise wherein this testimony was found. For concerning the Bishops licence, he rendereth a just reason why the godly preachers in those days did not seek them p. 492. In this his speech to the archbishop. Sir, as touching your letters of licence, or other Bishops, which ye say we should have to witness that we were able to be sent for to preach: we know well, that neither you sir, nor any other Bishop of this land, vvill grant to us any such letters of licence, but if we should oblige us to you, & to other Bishops by unlawful oaths, not to pass the bounds & terms which ye sir with other Bishops vvil limit to us. And since in this matter your terms be some too large & some too strait: we dare not oblige us thus to be bound to you for to keep the terms which you vvill limit, as you do to friars & such other preachers.

But Iohn Claydon (sayth Mr. R.) a martyr of Christ vvas othervvise minded, vvhen he vvitnessed, that the Byshops licence to preach the vvord of God vvas the true character of the beast. Which testimonie is found in deed in the book of martyrs, p. 588. But 1. It is not Iohn Cleydons, but found in a book wherof hee was the owner but not the author: for hee could neyther write nor read. 2. Whosoever was the author, the meaning was, that in regard of the conditions required by those Byshops, & the persons that usually obteyned their approbation, licences might be helde as a note of one that followed the beast of Rome: though those conditions beeing removed, ther was no such wickednesse in the bare licence. This meaning may bee gathered out of the answer of William Thorp, whoe may probablie be judged the author of that treatise wherin this testimonie was found. For concerning the Byshops licence, hee rendereth a iust reason why the godly preachers in those days did not seeke them p. 492. In this his speach to the archbyshop. Sir, as touching your letters of licence, or other Byshops, vvhich yee say vvee should have to vvitnesse that vvee vvere able to bee sent for to preach: vvee knovv vvel, that neyther yovv sir, nor any other Byshop of this land, vvill grant to us any such letters of licence, but if vvee should oblige us to yovv, & to other Byshops by unlavvfull othes, not to passe the bounds & termes vvhich yee sir vvith other Byshops vvil limit to us. And since in this matter your termes bee some too large & some too strait: vvee dare not oblige us thus to bee bounde to you for to keepe the termes vvhich yovv vvill limit, as yovv doe to friers & such other preachers.