the to be credited with its authorship. Though it has all the faults of the literary attack on Martin organised on behalf of the prelates, and has little or nothing to say on the substance of the controversy, yet no one can read it carefully without perceiving that it is superior as a writing to Pappe with an Hatchet. John Petheram found internal evidence in favour of Nash as the author very strong.' Judging solely by its literary style we might agree in this judgment. But there are some verbal indications that the author, who on the title-page, indeed, says, 'Rimarum sumplenus,' is the same that wrote Rythmes against Martin Marre-Prelate (A Whip for an Ape). An Almond for a Parrat is better furnished than Pappe with the names of the London 'seekers after Reformation' who were subject of common gossip; those concerned in the printing of the Martinist tracts, as well as the chief ministerial representatives of Puritanism and Separatism throughout the country. He can talk familiarly of CliffeCuthbert Cliffe he calls him-the cobbler of Battle Bridge, Margaret Lawson of St. Paul's Gate (the 'shrew' Martin calls her), Newman, 'the souter' [= cobbler]; he must have seen the evidence of Simms and Thomlyn after the seizure at Manchester, and the stratagem of pretending to print 'Accidences'; he rattles away familiarly about Paget (though he, too, stumbles over the ambiguous word lame), 'Cooper of Pauls Chain,' Cartwright, Travers, Wigginton of Sedburgh, Udall, and others. Especially he deals at length with Penry, and his particulars about that remarkable young man would be of distinct value, if we knew accurately how to discriminate between what is true and what is the product of the writer's invention. Much that is his invention we have no difficulty in classifying. The illegitimate birth and the abandoned babe in the church porch, and many things else, are no doubt the product of the writer's unprincipled imagination. But there may be a foundation of truth in the University gossip that Penry on reaching Cambridge was 'as arrant a Papist as ever came out Wales'; that in those early days he was an innovator, that is, had an original mind; that he be-rimed 'Doctour Perne for his new statutes'; that by conversing with some Frenchmen, ' of a Papist hee became a Brownist.' We are quite sure we are led by unbridled invention, however, when we go on to read how afterwards from a Brownist hee fell to be an Anabaptist' and 'a malo in peius from an Anabaptist to be that infamous Martin,' He ascribes to him the authorship of THE PROTESTATYON, Udall's Demonstration, the Supplication, Th' Appellation, THESES, THE JUST CENSURE, and M. Some in his Coulers; a list which indicates the mixture of truth and falsehood which marks the whole tract.1 2 (c) The beginning of July Nash again appears with a strong Anti-Martinist pamphlet bearing the title, The First Parte of Pasquils Apologie Wherein he renders a reason to his friendes of his long silence: and gallops the fielde with the Treatise of Reformation lately written by a fugitive, John Penri. Printed where I was and where I will be readie by the helpe of God and my Muse to send you the May-game of Martinisme for an intermedium betweene the first and seconde part of the Apologie. Anno Dom. 1590. As a matter of fact, this work of Nash's has only a very slight connection with the Marprelate writings, and its contents need not, therefore, detain us. But it is interesting to note that he has to defend himself at some length for his depreciatory reference to Savonarola in his previous pamphlet. But his instructions no doubt were to attack, in his own way, Penry's fresh protest against charging the reformers with being enemies to the State. Incidentally he indicates the official dislike to Plaine Percevall and his efforts at peacemaking. His own references to the Episcopate are marked by excessive humbleness. 'My labours in this peece of seruice will be the lesse, because the byshop of my soule, my L. Archb. of Cant., strook off the head of the serpent.' 'What a reuerend regard ought euerie one of vs to haue of the Bishops of Jesus Christ, which are and 1 For reference to Penry see pp. 39-45 (ed. Petheram). I have not observed any reference to this pamphlet in the later contemporary contributions to this controversy. 2 Sig. A 4 vers. 3 Sig. B 1. 4 Sig. B 3 vers. haue beene the very hands whereby God hath deliuered his truth vnto us.'1 (d) It is evident that the coarse indecency of some of the earlier pamphlets, written at Bancroft's instigation, was shocking the better class among those who supported the established order. Burleigh, who suppressed the plays, can hardly have looked with complacency on the loose pages of Mar-Martine, and Pappe, and An Almond. In the last pamphlet Nash has greatly mended his manners. Following it there appeared a sermon by Richard Harvey, A Theologicall Discourse of the Lamb of God. . . with a detection of old and new Barbarisme, now called Martinisme. Nash writing two years later, and embittered by his long quarrel with the Harvey brothers, refers to Richard Harvey as having taken upon himself in his blundring Persiual to play the Iacke of both sides twixt Martin and vs,' and 'presently after dribbled forth another fooles bolt, a booke I should say, which he christened The Lambe of God.'2 Without contributing anything material, either to the cause of peace or enlightenment, Harvey's sermon scarcely deserves Nash's contemptuous description. The theological discourse proper ends at p. 73. Then begins the 'detection of the old and new Barbarisme now called Martinisme.' 'Bot there remayneth yet a monstrous and a craftie antichristian practisser, not already touched to the quick, one and his mate compounded of many contraries, to breede the more confusion in simple vulgar wits, who like Pasauantius is content to be ridiculous himself, so that his enuie in any sort make poore Lysetus contemptible.' 'This is the groundworke and postulate of Cartwrightisme and Martinisme... they teach other men their duties, but thinke not on their own duties, they proue, if we must doe as God biddeth vs, they will not do as God biddeth them.' 'O merciful God, seeing it is thy soueraigne maiesties most gracious and apparent worde, not to touch thine annoynted, or doe thy Prophets any harme, Psal. 105, v. 15, either 4 1 Sig. C 1 vers. 2 Strange News, Sig. 2, quoted by Petheram, 3 Op. cit., 119. 4 Ibid. 121. ,1 execute thy will, and poure out thy vengeance vpon such wicked ones, as seeke both to touch thine annoynted and hurt thy Prophets, or els shorten the day of thy second comming.' 'If I should continua similitudine resemble [this race of Reformers] to the Vipers broode, that kill their owne damme which bred and brought them up to life, I am sure you that know the vse of this kind of simile, and the manners of this people against their mother the Church that first bred them, will say I speake trueth.' 2 These quotations will indicate the attitude of the writer to the Martinists. 1 Strange News, Sig. 2, quoted by Petheram, 140, 141. R CHAPTER V ANCILLARY LITERATURE, MARTINIST AND ANTI-MARTINIST 1. THE only additional publication following heartily the lines laid down by Martin Marprelate which has come down to us is A Dialogue Wherein is laide open the tyrannicall dealing of L. Bishopps against Gods children: with certaine points of doctrine, wherein they approove themselues (according to D. Bridges his judgement) to be truely the Bishops of the Diuell. This sprightly piece is commonly assigned to Waldegrave's press, and were it not that Waldegrave had resolved not to meddle further with Martinism, we might have no difficulty in accepting the common view. For the Dialogue is quite sufficiently Martinist to come within Waldegrave's self-prohibition. But it is not from Martin's pen. The touchstone whereby we try the pseudo-Martinist pamphlets is not their wit; although the real Martin found no equal in his own controversy. The real test is the serious religious purpose, definitely expressed and unmistakable, which characterises all the genuine productions. And here the Dialogue comes short. It takes up the points made popular by Martin, including the dialectical sword-play mentioned in the titlepage, whereby poor old Bridges is made to characterise the Bishops as Bishops of the diuell.' It gives us abundance of characteristic stories of the prelates, and is well acquainted with the course of the controversy. Its references to the Marprelate writings are, however, not what the writer of them would himself make. The dialogue is |