well managed, and some of the anecdotes new and interesting; as for instance, that which tells us how the students at Cambridge if they 'haue a coate or cloake that is turned they say [it] is Pearnd.'1 So far as the typographical evidence can determine the question of its origin, the Dialogue came from Waldegrave's press. It is a small 12mo, sig. A-D in fours, without date, place, or printer's name. The type appears to be that used in M. Some in his coulers, and the absence of his name from the title-page would indicate that it was printed by Waldegrave before he became established in Scotland. The reference to him in the Dialogue is interesting, and may be regarded as authoritative. It also supplies us with one indication of its date. It must have been written later than April 1589. The style of Martin's attack, making the Episcopal apologists by logical inference decry one another, is fairly imitated. For example, Martin in his EPISTLE 3 takes Whitgift to task for authorising the Apocrypha to be included in the edition of the Bible issued under his hand. In the Admonition to the People we have this reply: All learned men haue from the beginning given to the Apocrypha authoritie, next to the Canonicall Scriptures. And therefore such giddie heads, as seeke to deface them [by excluding the Apocrypha] are to be bridled.* These words are really part of Whitgift's own defence, contributed to the Admonition, though in the Dialogue they are ascribed to Bishop Cooper of Winchester. But Whitgift had authorised the publication of the attack on Bellarmine by Whittaker, in which the latter shows the uncanonical character of the Apocrypha. This is how the situation thus created is treated in the Dialogue: Puritane: Why sir, in the 49. page of the same book, the Bishop of Winchester saith the Bishop of Canterbury is a giddy 3 M. 37, f. 103; see also MINERALLS, § 26, f. 12. head and to be brideled, because he authorised Doctor Whittaker his readinges against Bellarmina wherein the Apocripha is defaced.' Similarly Whitgift supports the validity of the baptism of infants by women, which Robert Some, writing against Penry, repudiates. So 'Puritane' continues: 'And M. Doctor Some one of their affinitie nowe, and a nonresident, he calls the Archbishop of Canterbury An Absurd Heretike because he holds baptisme administered by weomen, to be the seale of God's couenante: page 3. of his booke against Master Penri, and many like things I could cite to you of their dissenting on[e] from another.1 But these dialectical points are reproductions of Martin's adroit logic-play, and the Dialogue is, in this respect, akin to the broadside known as the MINERALLS. 2. In the year 1589 or in 1590-it is difficult now to determine which- -a small quarto tract of 83 pp. was published in the interests of the reformers, bearing the title, A Petition directed to her most Excellent Maiestie, wherein is delivered (1) A meane howe to compound the ciuill dissension in the Church of England. (2) A proofe that they who write for Reformation doe not offend against the stat. of 23. Eliz. c, and therefore till matters be compounded, deserve more favour. Herevnto is annexed: Some opinions of such a sue for Reformation: By vvhich it may appeare how vniustlie they are slaundered by the Bishops, &c. pag. 53. Togither with the Authours Epistle to the Reader. pag. 58. Also: Certayne Articles wherein is discouered the negligence of the Bishops, their Officials, Fauorers, and Followers, in performance of sundrie Ecclesiasticall Statutes, Lawes and Ordinancies, Royall and Episcopall, published for the gouernment of the Church of Englande, pag. 60. Lastlie: Certayue Questions on Interrogatories drawen by a fauorer of Reformation, wherein he desireth to be resolued by the Prelates, pag. 74. It affords no hint of its origin, being entirely anonymous. But it would be most interesting to know its author, for it is in our judgment the ablest 1 Sig. C 2. contribution to the controversy between the two sections of Protestants, conformist and reforming, which so far had appeared. It has excellencies not possessed by the keen and eloquent contributions of Cartwright, much as they outshone the dogged attack of Whitgift. It has none of the reckless wit of Martin, but as a plea is more proportioned and of wider outlook. Its erudition, legal and ecclesiastical, is immense; its forensic acuteness unfailing. And with all its strength it is perfectly urbane; its admirable temper, amidst the dust and heat and irritability of the ecclesiastical warfare of the time, is not the least of its distinctions. Its author was a layman, and almost certainly an eminent lawyer, but a man especially well-read in the ecclesiastical literature called into being by the European reformation. A wisely and competently edited edition of this work would be a material contribution to the politico-ecclesiastical controversy of our own day. One or two of its notable features may be mentioned. The writer, despite the fair weather assurances of the Bishops, thinks the holding of a conference to consider questions of church reform would be justified. He shows that the laws themselves anticipate revision. A commission of inquiry was appointed in the days of Henry, and continued in the time of Edward, whose labours were collected in the well-known book, Reformatio Legum. But the laws scheduled remain in their corruption. The Book of Common Prayer anticipates revision, since its Commination is only to continue till an order of Discipline practised in the primitive Church be restored.' The law in the ordination service assumes that all ministers are preachers; but the Bishops, for one that can preach, make twenty that can not. The law assumes that the 'ornaments' of Edward's time should only continue till order were taken by the Queen and ecclesiastical commissioners. The inoperative canons, the state of the ministry as confessed by the Bishops, their admissions in controversy, all point to the same conclusion. Many who now support the state of the bishops spoke against it when they were nearest to God, that is in miserie and anguish of soule.' Aylmer's Harborowe is quoted at length; and there are pertinent quotations from Bullingham and Bridges. The civil lordship of the Bishops is against the judgment of authorities, Continental and English; among the latter are Bishop Jewel, Dean Howell, and Dr. Bilson. Very apt are the quotations of the Bishops themselves against the Papists. With the ease of a practised advocate, he tears to shreds the charges of 'treason and felonie' brought against the reformers because, in speaking against the Bishops, they in reality spoke against the Queen. His elucidation of the statute is only too convincing. The Bishops are not a 'body politic,' and parliamentary precedent shows that laws can be enacted without their presence or co-operation. The right to excommunicate a prince is treated with equal learning and discretion. Moreover a full list of instances are adduced where writers have written, some against the laws of the realm, and some also against the Church and its government, who were never esteemed defamers of their princes. Among the latter are Wiclif, Swinderby, 'Piers Plowman,' Chaucer (the verses quoted are from the pseudo-Chaucerian Plowman's Tale), Tindall, Hooper, Barnes, 'Father' Latimer, and others. The puerile interpretation of Martin's figurative threat of fists about Dean Bridges' ears-it was, of course, a threat that other writers would attack the Dean-is effectively dealt with. The writer defends the 'seekers after reformation' generally; among them 'Martin,' Cartwright, Udall, and others, though they differ in many points. Especially does he protest against the false issues raised by the prelates. He warmly takes Bancroft to task for his unscrupulous advocacy and his servility towards the Queen. Bancroft assigns to the Queen all the authority and preeminence that formerly appertained to the Pope. If, he says, a man can defame by foolish flatteries, then Bancroft is the most notorious defamer of the Queen. The nearest approach to warmth of feeling is perhaps where the writer refers to the brutality with which Whitgift and Bancroft persecute John Udall. that the Seekers after Reformation' He says greatly complaine that the B[ishops] should be so vnnaturall as to seeke the life of a right godly and faithfull Preacher of the Gospell, I meane Maister Udall, to whom life was offred if hee would but take his o[a]th that he did not make a booke, whereof he was supposed to bee authour. A rare example, that a man should bee knowen standing at a barre, shackled in bolts (but quære quo iure) and coupled with a murtherer; whose conscience was thought so faithfull and sound by the Judge him selfe, that he would not swear falslie to gaine his life (p. 25). Many interesting and important points in constitutional law expounded by this learned writer cannot be even briefly touched upon here. Nor can we more than indicate the variety and minuteness of his references to authorities, ecclesiastical, political, legal, and literary. 3. It was the close of the year 1592 before an answer appeared to the Petition. It was written by Matthew Sutcliffe, who gave it the title, An Answere to a Certaine Libel supplicatorie, or rather Diffamatory, and also to certaine Calumnious Articles and Interrogatories, both printed and scattered in secret corners, to the slaunder of the Ecclesiasticall state, and put forth under the name and title of a Petition directed to her Maiestie. Wherein not onely the frivolous discourse of the Petitioners is refuted but also the accusation against the Disciplinarians his clyents justified, and the slaunderous cavils at the present gouernement deciphered by Matthew Sutcliffe. The title-page is enriched with quotations not only in English and Latin, but also in Hebrew, as an outward sign of the author's erudition. There is no Hebrew in the learned Petition. The Answere is a thoroughgoing defence of the entire prelatical policy, justifying everything. Sutcliffe can defend the Bishop of London, in his denunciation of the pride and covetousness of Bishops, written in the days of his poverty and exile in the too notorious Harborowe : Bishop Elmar some time, before he came abroad into the world, supposed the liuings of bishops to bee too great. hee knew not |