I thinke this Court to be necessarie for the state of this Church and Realme: and if there be abuses in it, either in the law it selfe, or in the persons, I wish it were reformed. But the whole order of the Court is not therefore to be condemned, no more than it is of other Courts, which cannot be missed, and yet haue abuses in them. I confesse my selfe to haue little experience in such matters, and therefore I will speake the lesse thereof.
As I do mislike that there should be any time forbidden to marry in (for that can haue no good meaning) or any dispensations for boyes to keepe benefices, or excommunications and absolutions for money, for one man to be absolued for another, and if there be any other such like abuse: so do I vtterly condemne your vnseemely and vnchristian termes, as filthie quauemire, poysoned plash of al abhominatiōs, filthie Court, especi∣ally cōsidering wherof they be spoken, to whom, and by whom: they argue a scolding nature, & a stomack boyling with contempt of lawes* 1.1 & superiors. Neither can I suffer you to slaunder not that Court, but this Church, with manifest vntruthes, as you do when you say that banners, belles, and making of crosses, be allowed to be vsed in the gangweeke, and that the Archbishops court hath full power to dispence in all causes, wherin the Pope was wont to dispence: which both be most vntrue. I thinke in dispensations this Court goeth no further, than the lawes of the Realme do permit.
Agreeable to this spirit is your cōtemtuous speach, vsed to both the Archbishops, mē to be reuerēced not only in the respect of their yeres and authoritie, but of their singular wisdome, grauitie, learning, and sound religion also. Howbeit you reuerence them, as you do all other