believed that a great part of what he said was fact, and might all have been no more than what every one would naturally look for in the productions of such men in times of so fierce religious animosity, and unsettled faith. Martin Marprelate was a new assailant in an old struggle, armed with new weapons; no one, indeed, according to his own admission, yet knew their efficacy, but he came to prove them; these were to be jesting, and ribaldry, and plain lying; as the Author of 'Pappe with a Hatchet' says to the indifferent reader,' They have scattered divers libels, all so taunting and slanderous, as it is hard to iudge, whether their lyes exceed their bitternesse, or their bitternesse their fables.' Such, then, it seemed, were now to be the means-means worthy of the cause-by which the Church of England, her orders, her worship, and her rulers, were to be overthrown, and the entrance so long looked for at last gained for the 'holy discipline,' the platform of Geneva, the outwardly sanctimonious and meek and unassuming, the really insolent and prying and tyrannical politico-presbyterian model.

There had been, from about the year 1580, an almost unceasing flow of Puritan tracts from the press, such for example as the Abstract of Acts and Canons, &c.,' the Counterpoyson,' the Dialogue concerning the Strife of our Churche, The Demonstration of Discipline' (by Udall), and many others, upwards of forty of which may be found collected together in a volume published by Waldegrave, the chief Puritan printer, with the curious title, A parte of a Register, contayninge sundrie 'memorable matters, written by divers godly and learned in our ' time,' &c. __ Dr. John Bridges (elected in 1603 Bishop of Oxford), then Dean of Sarum, in 1587, wrote a large 4to of 1401 pages, in which he answered the objections contained in these publications, and established (to his own satisfaction we mean) the excellence of the government of the reformed Church of England. The title of his book is (though long, it seems necessary to give it entire), A Defence of the Government established in the Churche of England for ecclesiastical matContayning an aunswere unto a Treatise called, The Learned Discourse of Ecclesiastical Government, otherwise 'intituled, A briefe and plaine declaration concerning the de'sires of all the faithful ministers that have, and do seeke for 'the discipline and reformation of the Church of Englande. Comprehending likewise an aunswere to the arguments in a 'treatise named the iudgement of a most reverend and learned 'man from beyond the seas,&c. Aunswering also to the argumentes ' of Calvine, Beza, and Danæus, with other our reverend learned 'brethren, besides Cœnalis and Bodinus, both for the regiment

'ters.

6

of women, and in defence of her Maiestie, and of all other Christian Princes supreme gouernment in ecclesiastical causes, ' against the Tetrarchie that our brethren would erect in euery particular congregation, of doctors, pastors, gouernors, and deacons, with their seuerall and ioynt authoritie in elections, 'excommunications, synodall constitutions and other ecclesiasticall matters. Aunswered by John Bridges, Deane of Sarum. 'Come and see. Take it up and read. 'Joh. i. 36. Aug. lib. conf. viii. ca. 12.

at London. Printed for John Windet, for Thomas Chard, 1587.' It was against this book in particular that Martin Marprelate professed to direct his Epistle and Epitome; in the first page of the Epitome, he gives a true enough account of it (in a bibliographical way): The whole volume of M. Deanes, containeth in it, 16 bookes, besides a large preface, and an epistle to the 'reader. The epistle and the preface are not aboue 8. sheets of ́ paper, and very little vnder 7. You may see when men haue a gift in writing, howe easie it is for them to daube paper. The compleat worke, very briefely comprehended in a portable booke, if your horse be not too weake, of an hundred threescore and twelue sheets, of good demie paper, is a confutation,' &c.

6

But, by far, the greater part of these two tracts is employed in abusing Whitgift, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Aylmer, Bishop of London Oh! read over D. John Bridges, for it is a 'worthy worke,' is the head-line of the titles of both of them; but in the first page of the Epistle, after mentioning that seen and allowed by the Archbishop' is not to be found in the Dean's Defence, Martin passes on to claim the victory for Cartwright, in his old controversy with Whitgift, about the Admonition to the Parliament;' because, his two last books, viz., his Second Replie,' and the rest of the Second Replie,' had not been answered. This was a boast of victory which the authors of the tracts against Martin Marprelate quickly and frequently refused to acknowledge: for example, in one of them, Ile ribroste my brother Martin a litle, for obiecting to my Lord Archbishop, the not answering of his bookes. Therefore, first, would I know of 'sweete M. sauce malapert, whether he would have the care of 'the commonwealth, and forseing consultation of domestical and forreine affairs, resigned to the retorting of T. C., his irreverent railings. Next, what such equall proportion his mastership finds in their places, that the grauity and widness of the

This John Windet, dwelling at the signe of the Crosse Keyes neere Powles Wharffe,' was the printer, and probably the publisher, of the first edition of the four books, and of the fifth book of the Ecclesiastical Polity.

one, should stoupe his attention so low, as the iangling lenity ' of the other.-As there is nothing more vnseemely, then to auns were the froward, so there is nothing more profitable then 'scilence to such as are prouokt.'-Almond for a Parratt, sign. D. 2. Rev. To return, however, to the Epistle. Immediately after this claiming of the victory for Cartwright, Martin proceeds to attack Aylmer, and the Bishops of Winchester, Exeter, and Rochester. Presently he returns to Dr. Bridges' book, again, not without constant digressions, until, at last, after a few pages, he fairly gives the matter up, plainly confesses that he is weary of him, and says, 'I care not an I now leave masse Deane's worship and be eloquent once in my dayes:' well, nowe, to 'mine eloquence;' and this eloquence is displayed to the end of the book, in telling scurrilous stories about Bishops Aylmer, and Cooper of Winchester, and the Archbishop. The same account, in as many words, is equally applicable to the second tract, the Epitome.

John Elmar, Ailmer, or Aylmer, (his name is spelt indifferently in books of his own time), then Bishop of London, comes in for, even more than Whitgift, Martin's abuse, at least, in the early tracts: most probably as having been an active member of the High Commission Court. In the year 1554, he was Archdeacon of Stowe, and one of the six who, in the Convocation of that year, refused to subscribe certain propositions offer: by the prolocutor, Weston, Dean of Westminster, and engaged, afterwards, in the disputation which was allowed to be held upon them. A full account of this disputation was printed the same year, at Basil, (a most rare volume,) entitled, "The trew report of the dysputacyon had and begonne in the conuocacyon hows at London among the clargye there assembled the xviij. daye ' of October, in the yeare of our lord M.D.LIIII.' There is no name attached, but it purports in the beginning to have been done by one that was present thereat,' and John Philpot, at that time Archdeacon of Winchester, afterwards burnt in Smithfield causa religionis, acknowledged, upon his examination, in 1555, that he had been the author of it. Philpot reports largely enough his own share, and we need scarcely say that the whole is to be received with very considerable caution, coming, as it does, from a violent partisan who, according to his own admission, would not conform to the usual orders and decency of the house, but studied to provoke those who were in authority over him, by refusing to appear in the long gown and typpet,' which all the others wore; saying, I had rather be absent alltogether.

* The very accurate and careful Le Neve, in his 'Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglic.,' gives us Aylmer' as the orthography.

However, in this disputation, Archdeacon Elmar (as he is there called) took some part, and seems to have said what he did say, learnedly and with moderation. He was shortly afterwards deprived, and fled to the Continent. In 1559 he wrote and published a work against John Knox's First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstruous Regiment of Women.' This was called, An Harborowe for faithfull and trewe Srbiectes, agaynst the late blowne Blaste, concerninge the Government of Wemen; wherin he confuted all such reasons as a straunger of late hath made in that behalfe, with a briefe exhortation to Obedience. Anno M.D.lix. At Strasborowe the 26. of Aprill.' (4to) Aylmer had been, for some time, among the refugees, and foreign protestants; and, whatever his opinions might have been before his absence, it is quite clear that in 1559 they were not according to what he must have believed as Bishop of London, in 1589. It is ill printing sometimes, and the Bishop would gladly have forgotten his early contest with Knox: not, indeed, the intention and object with which he wrote against him, (for people were much moved by the Scotchman's abominable arguments, and Elizabeth wanted a defender, and himself a bishopric,) but the reasoning which he had used, and the admissions which he had made. Martin Marprelate, however, had unluckily too good a memory: Quoth honest John Elmar in his Harboro,' is a favourite reference with him, and not unfairly we must own. For example, take his very first appeal to John of London: I hope one day her Maiestie will either see that the L. Bb. prooue their calling law full by the 'word, or as Iohn of London prophesied saying, Come downe bishopps from your thousands, and content you with your hun'dreds, let your diet be pristlike and not princelik, &c. quoth 'John Elmar in Harborow of faithful subiects. But I But I pray you B. John dissolue this one question to your brother Martin: if 'this prophesie of yours come to passe in your dayes, who shall 'be B. of London ?-Epistle, p. 3. Compare Harborowe, sign. 0.4.

you

There can be no doubt, let it be excused and disguised as much as it may, that the leading men among the reformers of the sixteenth century were wonderfully pliable. The circumstances in which they were placed may be allowed to have been various enough, and yet we are utterly at a loss many times to offer any reasons which might honestly have induced them to act as we know they did act: sometimes advocating one doctrine, at others another: now exclaiming against certain practices and customs as unchristian and to be detested (to use mild phrases); now, clean contrary, finding out all at once, that they might not only lawfully be submitted to, but rigorously enforced:-now, for years it may be, whilst hope of gain remained from plundering some hospital, or college, or endowed cathedral, professing

hatred of Catholic truth, and pushing to their furthest limits the wild theories of Luther, and Bucer, and Calvin: now, when about to lay down their heads upon the block, and whilst being disrobed upon the fatal scaffold, a time when men usually are driven to speak the truth, declaring that they died in the true faith of the Church of Rome, and confessing, and joining in the solemn offices which are proper for those who are appointed to die.' Having already slightly alluded to it, let us take more particularly, yet very briefly, the question of the Vestments. Bishop Hooper's case is the best known, from his after-sufferings, and readers of the common books called Ecclesiastical Histories of England, or Histories of the Reformation, from the prominence which has been given to that case, naturally suppose that he was a rare exception; and as regards him, the sternness with which he met his dreadful death, almost makes us forget his conduct when he accepted his Bishopric, productive as it was of most unhappy consequences. But the exiles during Queen Mary's time thought as he did: whilst they were at Strasburg, or Zurich, or Frankfort, or Geneva, they could exclaim nearly as loudly as even their hosts could, against the sacerdotal robes, and holy apparel which for ages had been used in their own Church of England. Pilkington of Durham spoke softly when he merely ranked them among 'unprofitable ceremonies;' Jewel did not hesitate to say that they were 'the relics of the Amorites.' But when the times changed, and sees were offered them, then their objections became less violent: they could listen to the disgraceful advice of Peter Martyr, that they should consent to wear the vestments, but speak and preach against them:' and even wondered that men who had been taught by them, who were their disciples brought up at their own feet, should not also forget their arguments and abuse, and see that the habits and kneeling were simply things indifferent,' and to dispute about them, raising great troubles in trifles.' They were growing old also, and we may suppose wiser; they had had enough of trouble, and had gained their end: they now desired to rest, and to live quietly, and that the laws should be observed: and who

* That is, the exiles and Hooper said equally hard words about the habits. Because it appears to be somewhat doubtful whether the objections of the latter did not lie against the surplice more particularly, because it was rather an Aaronical than a Popish garment. Neal, Vol. I. p. 46, tells us that he declined his offered bishopric 'for two reasons. 1. Because of the form of the oath, which he called foul and im'pious. 2. By reason of the Aaronical habits.' But he soon found other arguments against them, not more forcible, but more likely at the time to be listened to. Such as that (we quote again from Neal) They were the inventions of Antichrist, and were 'introduced into the Church,' not by Moses and Aaron, but in the corruptest ages of Christianity. That they had been abused to superstition and idolatry, and to use 'them was to symbolize with Antichrist, &c.' Here the exiles fully agreed with him.