torial powers of the high commissioners, procured, about this time, a special royal proclamation against the books and pamphlets which were being issued from the puritans' press. This edict bears date February 13th, 1588-9, and is styled a "Proclamation against Seditious and Schismatical Books and Libells," etc. These are denounced, "as bringing in a monstrous and apparent dangerous innovation of all manner of ecclesiastical government now in use; and to the abridging, or rather to the overthrow of her highness' lawful prerogative, allowed by God's law and established by the laws of the realm. In consequence whereof, her highness minding to provide some good and speedy remedy to withstand such notable, dangerous and ungodly attempts," we are told, "doth will and straitly charge and command, that all persons whatsoever, within her majesty's realms and dominions who have, or hereafter shall have any of the said seditious books, pamphlets, libells, or writings, do presently after, with convenient speed, bring or deliver up the same, to the intent they may be utterly defaced, or otherwise used."

This proclamation was aimed, not simply at Penry's acknowledged writings, but at other pamphlets, offensive to the hierarchy, which had been secretly printed and scattered over the kingdom, and which were eagerly caught up and read by the people, and found their way even into the

Strype's Whitgift, 11. 42; 111. 216-18.

reason

court itself. The most obnoxious of these, though the most popular among the masses, were a series of tracts which exposed the foibles, vices and crimes of some of the prelates, and libelled their characters without mercy, generally known as the "Marprelate Tracts." The author of these sharp and effective pasquinades, who styled himself "Martin Marprelate," could not be detected by all the diligence of the archbishop and the interested zeal of the persecuting prelates. John Udal, John Field, Job Throgmorton, Giles Wiggington, John Penry, and several other puritans, were, at different times, charged with the authorship. For some -it is difficult to say what-there was finally manifested a very persistent determination to fix the authorship of these tracts, or the chief authorship, on John Penry. Thus Nash, the author of several anti-Martin Marprelate tracts charges Penry with it; and Sir George Paule, in his life of Whitgift, repeats the charge: "The author and penners of some of these libels were John Penry and John Udal." Strype habitually speaks of Penry as "the author of Martin Marprelate " - as "this Penry, surnamed Marprelate" -"John Penry, the chief author of the Marprelate tracts," etc.; and so does Heylyn, the bitter hater of the puritans; and Collier, the high church historian; and even Hume, and Hallam follow suit.* Penry suffered at the time, personally, and

* Strype's Annals, vol. 111. pt. 11., pp. 71, 94, 95, 99, and 102. Heylyn (Hist. Presb., lib. ix. § 31) calls Penry" one of the chief

in his character has suffered ever since, from these charges. Yet, there does not exist, and there never did, one particle of evidence that he wrote a line. of one of the Marprelate tracts, had anything to do with these publications, or even knew the author, or approved of these saucy libels.* John Penry

penners of those scurrilous libels which have passed under the name of Martin Mar-Prelate." See R. Hooper's Works, 1. 64; 238, notes.

In the introduction to Petheram's reprint of the Marprelate tracts, we are told: "The authors of Martin Mar-Prelate were never discovered; it is, however, probable that John Penry, the hot-headed Welchman,' as his enemies called him, was the author. He confessedly wrote several works on behalf of the puritan cause, and in 1593 suffered death for them."- An Epistle, etc. Intr. p. IV.

One is tempted to ask: how does it follow, that because Penry "confessedly wrote several works on behalf of the puritan cause," he, therefore, wrote the Marprelate tracts? It might be just as well argued, that any other prominent puritan writer was the author of these tracts. It will be seen, in the sequel, that Penry did not suffer death for any published works his own or another'sand that no attempt was made in court to convict him of writing or publishing any of the Marprelate tracts.

Hallam says: "The authors of Martin Marprelate were never fully discovered; but Penry seems not to deny his concern in it." Constitutional Hist., vol. 1. p. 206, note. Lond. 1846. Erase from the above sentence the words fully and not, and it will be the exact truth. Mr. Hallam's representation on a preceding page (205) also needs correction. He says, Penry was tried some time after for another pamphlet," etc. A pamphlet is a small unbound book, stitched. Penry was tried and condemned for a private manuscript which was found in his study - -never published, and never seen by any living persons but the writer, before its seizure by the pursuivants.

*Waddington says, that "the secret council [of Puritan Reformers] at Fawsley were called upon to decide with respect to the

was indeed a zealous nonconformist, strongly opposed to English prelacy; first, because it interfered with his favorite scheme of evangelizing Wales; and secondly, because it was utterly at variance with the spirit and letter of the New Testament, the Christian's guide to church order and discipline. He had published several treatises, petitions, etc., to which he affixed his own name, some of which were printed on the self-same press from which Martin's pungent, exasperating epistles were issued.

As somebody of ability, and of profound dislike of the prelatic system must have written the Marprelate tracts, and nobody could tell who, somebody guessed that it must have been John Penry! This is all, positively all, that the prelates and pursuivants of Penry's day, and the long line of historical writers since, ever had on which to build their charges against Penry. Opposed to this guess-work and prejudicial assertion, we have the stubborn fact, that the style of Martin is totally unlike Penry's. Martin's is sharp, witty, rollicking; while Penry's is grave, earnest, persuasive. Martin, though he often reasons

establishment and management of a press, and that some were of opinion that the most effective publications, under existing circumstances, would be those which, with keenness and severity, should expose the pride, luxury and oppression of their adversaries. Penry was not of this number. He would not,' he said, 'feed the humors of the busy bodies, who, increasing themselves still unto more ungodliness, think nothing so well spoken or written as that which is satirical, and bitingly done against lord bishops.' ” — Life of Penry, 22–23.

soberly and earnestly enough, yet allows himself in personal abuse; lampooning the bishops without stint, and exposing with a zest their personal defects, their inconsistences, their vices and crimes. But this is quite unlike Penry's writings. He opposes and denounces prelacy, but not the prelates personally. I recall but a single exception: Whitgift he pronounces "one of the dishonorablest creatures under heaven." He fought the prelates, simply because they were the upholders and representatives of an establishment which smothered free speech, muzzled the press, and would neither preach the gospel to the masses themselves, nor allow anybody to do it, unless dressed in their uniform and sworn to their shibboleth.

*

Add to all this, the fact that Penry's intimate friends, and those best acquainted with his sentiments and his literary labors, declared unhesitatingly their conviction that he had nothing to do with the Marprelate tracts; and the argument is still further strengthened. Thus the Rev. Giles Wigginton, a friend of Penry, when on examination before the high commissioners, being asked: "Is Mr. Penry, then, the author of 'Demonstration' or of Martin Mar-Prelate'?" Replied: "I think he is not. I think you are greatly deceived in charging him with it." Job Throgmor

* See ante, p. 132, note.

† Hopkins, 111. 261. Mr. Hopkins has given a full and clear account of this Marprelate controversy and of the "wandering press" on which the Marprelate tracts and Penry's books were printed. Hist. Puritans, vol. 111. chaps. 6 and 7.