See Edition 1559, p. 215. Ed. 1563, p. 901. Ed. 1570, p. 1567. Ed. 1576, p. 1336. Ed. 1583, p. 1397. Ed. 1597, p. 1270. Ed. 1684, vol.iii. p. 11 - ED.
The Council Book says: "August xvj. 1553. Bradforde and Vernon, two sedicious preachers, committed to the charge of the lieutenant of the Tower ... Theodore Basil, alias Thomas Becon, another sediciouse preacher, committed also to the Lieutenant's charge of the Toure."
Foxe, from the Council Book, prints this name "Vernon" at p. 392. But in the Episcopal Registers of London he is invariably called "Veron." He is said to have been a Frenchman, "Senonois" i. e. of Sens. He was ordained priest by Ridley August 24th, 1551 (Ridley Register, fol. 320), as "Johannes Veroneus, Senon, dioc." He was admitted rector of St. Alphage, London Wall, January 3d, 1552 ("Johannes Veroneus, clericus, "Ridley Register, fol. 316): he was deprived under Mary in 1554 (his successor being appointed June 8th, "per legitimam deprivationem Johannis Veron. clerici conjugati," Bonner Reg. fol. 453.) He was presented by Elizabeth to the prebend of Mora in St. Paul's November 8th, 1559 (Newcourt), to the rectory of St. Martin Ludgate March 8th, 1560 ("Johannes Veron, sacræ Theologiæ Professor," Grindal Reg. fol. 113, 131: Newcourt misprints his name in this instance as "Heron"), and to the vicarage of St. Sepulchre's October 21st, 1560 ("Johannes Veron, clericus," Grindal Reg. fol. 117). Strype calls him "a Frenchman by birth, but a learned Protestant" (Mem. iii. chap. 5), and "one of the eminentest preachers at this time, and a writer:" he states that he preached at Paul's Cross before the mayor and aldermen September 17th, 1559, and that "he died April 9th, 1563, and was buried the next day after, being Easter Even." (Annals, i. chaps. 16, 34). See the Index to Machyn's Diary for several curious allusions to Veron. A list of his works will be found in Lowndes's Bibliographical Manual.
Amb. de Sacram. lib. iv. cap. 4.
In the Cambridge MS. this answer is attributed to Cole, and the following argument from Ambrose to Weston.
Idem, lib. iv cap. 5.
"Fit sanguis, id est, ostenditur sanguis. Ex hoc responso orta sunt sibila." (Cambridge MS.)
The Cambridge MS. here adds, "West. Are ye not weary? Cran. No, sir."
"' Marcus Constantius' was the fictitious name under which Gardiner published his 'Confutatio Cavillationum,' etc. The following is his translation: 'Cibum illum, ex quo sanguis et carnes nostræ per mutationem nutriuntur, postquam per verbum precationis fuerit ab eodem benedictus, edocti sumus esse carnem et sanguinem illius Jesu, qui pro nobis fuit incarnatus.' Peter Martyr's complaint against it is, that the clause 'Ex quo, etc., nutriuntur,' is transposed, to avoid the inference which may be drawn from the original expression of Justin, ' that the bread and wine, after consecration as well as before, nourish our bodies by the ordinary process of digestion.'" - "Gardyner Confutat." object. 151; Peter Martyr, "De Eucharist." p. 311. Jenkyns, p. 60. - ED
See Cranmer's translation of Emissene, vol. ii. p. 323; also the original, among the authorities in the Appendix: from a comparison of which it will appear that the charge of corruption was unfounded. See Jenkyns. - ED.
The original fully justifies Cranmer's assertion; it is strange that Weston, in the very act of charging another with false quotation, should himself be so audacious as to substitute "merito continge" for "mente continge." See Jenkyns. - ED.
"Demoure," in all the old editions, means "sojourn," from demoror. See Todd's Johnson.
"I heard saye (writes Haggarde) of one in Gravesende Barge, belyke some pilgryme of Goddes churche, that the poore menne of that country which in dede were very poore, before the repayre of our Englishmen thether, are now become jolye fellowes. And by what meanes think you? By letting out their cotages in the townes to our countrymen. Who because they be glad to have them, use no debating of the matter, as we do, but bidde them aske and have." - Displaying of the Protestantes, fol. 117 verso.
The acts of this Convocation are briefly given in the Bonner Register, fol. 339-341. It opened on Tuesday, April 3d, 1554, and was on Friday, May 25th, prorogued to the 5th of October ensuing, being the Friday following St. Michael's day.
This Royal summons of the Convocation is in the Bonner Register folio 337 verso: it is dated "London, decimo-quinto die Marcii, anno Regni primo." It is remarkable, that at folio 323, where Mary's reign commences, the anti-papal style of the Sovereign is inscribed in the title of the Register.
It may be well, as this statement does not come immediately from Bishop Bonner himself, to support his opinion from Mr. Gibbings's 'Roman Forgeries and Falsifications; or an Examination of counterfeit and corrupted Records,' p. 63 (Dublin, 1842).
"Nothwithstanding the usual exaggeration of the Virgin Mary's power and privileges, there is a class of human beings, by whom she is confessedly surpassed. - 'Gabriel Biel super Canonem Missæ, et Discipulus Serm. III. ex Catholicorum omnium Doctorum communi consensu, statuit Sacerdotem sanctissimâ et immaculatâ Virgine matre majorem atque digniorem: quia illa semel tantum filium sacro meruit in utero portare; iste vero quotidiè, imo in casibus a jure expressis, in Gloss. c. "consuluit," De celebr. Miss. et a Soto in 4. dist. 13. q. 2. Navar. in c. 25. n. 87. et alii) bis, et in Die Nativitatis ter, poterit consecrare.' (Jos. Geldolph. a Ryckel Justa Funeb. animab. fidel. defunct. persolv. p. 404, Lovan. 1634.)"
{Pratt substitutes 'angel' for 'aungels' in the text.} The Latin of Ambrose reads "angelum."
{Cattley/Pratt alters the text to the 1563 version.} The conference between Ridley and Bourn is given according to the text of 1563, which seems the most correct and genuine: many verbal alterations occur in the subsequent editions, some of them much for the worse.
Augustine de Utilitate Credendi, cap. 1, vol. viii. page 45. Benedict. - ED.
The following entry in the Council Book is printed in Haynes's Burghley State Papers, p. 160: "July 23d, 1553. A letter to Sir Thomas Cheney and to Sir John Gayge to receive into the Tower of London, as prysoners to be safely kept, the Marquess of Northampton, the Lord Robert Dudley, and Doctor Ridley." Foxe, however, states at p. 537 that they were actually put in the Tower July 26th.
{Cattley/Pratt alters the text to 'then do they not affirm what ye take, but what they meant".} This is the reading in the first edition; subsequent editions read, "then do they affirm what ye take, but not what they meant." The double sense of the word "take" occasions some obscurity in this passage: it is used literally in the line before, "ye take their words;" but at the end of the paragraph it is used for "understand," "ye take my words," i. e. "understand;" and this seems to be the sense in which it is here used - "they do not affirm what ye take," i. e. understand, "but what they meant," i. e. you and they employ the same words in different senses.
This is not true; but the accuracy of his translation is rather doubtful. See Jenkyns, note, page 64. - ED.
Much the same sentiment occurs in a letter to Œcolampadius, dated April 8th, 1529. See Epist. Collect. tom. i. col. 1048.
{Cattley/Pratt substitues 'when was he?' for 'whom was he'.} All the editions except those of 1563 and 1570 read "whom was he?" an evident corruption.
"Johannes Trithemius, Abbas Spanheimensis, Ord. S. Bened. anno 1500 claruit, pluribus scriptis editis celebris. Imprimis nomen meruit insigni opere de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, ad sua tempora deducto, et Basiliæ 1494, primum; postea et Col. Agrip. 1581 divulgato." Hallervordii spicilegium de hist. Lat. as included in Supplementa et observat. ad Vossium cum præf. I. A. Fabricii. (Hamburgi, 1709, page 746.) The work of Vossius may itself also be consulted, page 644, Edit. 1651. Upon "Bertram," Mr. Gibbings' Preface (pp. 44 to 47) to An exact reprint of the Roman Index Expurgatorius (Dublin, 1837) will well repay a reference. - ED.
A very full account of this writer and his times is given in Zeigelbaver's "Historia Rei literariæ Ord. S. Bened." (Aug. Vind. 1754), tom. iii. from p. 217 to p. 333. On the particular work of Trithemius referred to, it is remarked: - "His itidem diebus inchoavit (T.) laboriosum opus de viris illustribus Ordinis S. B. in quatuor libros divisum, quorum priores duos an. 1492 perfecit, posteriores sequenti anno complevit, ut habet Chronicon Spanhemense. Opus tamen necdum typis in lucem prolatum fuisse anno 1507 memorat ipse in epistola ad Rogerium Sicambrum." (p. 255.)
Tertullian contra Marcion, lib. iv. cap. 40. - ED.
Gelasius de duabus nat. in Christo, vol. v. page 475, in the Bibliotheca Patrum (Paris, 1575), where however the words are "et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini." - ED.
Origen in Matthæum; tom. xi. ¶ 14, vol. iii. p. 499. Paris, 1740. - ED.
"But" is wanting in the first edition.
"Eat life, drink life." [Sermo 131, De verbis Evang. Joh. vi. ¶ 1, tom. v. edit. Benedict. - ED.
July 23d, which was the eighth Sunday after Trinity by Nicolas's Tables, when the Gospel for the day would be Matt. vii. 15-21.
See a note of Jenkyns upon this subject. - ED.
Appendix:The title of the little volume alluded to is, "Catechismus brevis, Christianæ disciplinæ summam continens, omnibus Ludimagistris auth. Regiâ commendatus: huic Catechismo adjuncti sunt Articuli de quibus in ultima Synodo Londinensi A. D. 1552, &c. &c. 8vo. Lond. 1553." This Catechism is generally considered to be the production of Poynet, bishop of Winchester. Strype, however, says, "It was certainly writ by Alexander Noel, as I find by comparing Noel's Catechism and this together." See the matter again referred to in Cranmer's Disputation at Oxford, p. 468 of this volume, and in Ridley's Disputation, p. 487. The following passage of a letter from Sir John Cheke to Bullinger, dated Greenwich, June 7th, 1553 (Zurich Letters, Parker Soc. 1846, No. 71), decides the point of the authorship: "Besides this, he [Edward VI.] has lately recommended to the schools by his authority the Catechism of John Bishop of Winchester, and has published the Articles of the Synod of London." Weston evidently alludes to the latter part of the title-page, respecting the Articles. This book was printed in Latin by Wolfe, and in English by Day, at the same time. Copies "are very rare. They could only be circulated from May 20th to July 6th, of 1553. During the reign of Mary all that fell into the hands of the various commissioners, visitors, and bishops, were burnt. Beloe, in his Anecdotes of Literature, mentions this work (vol. iii. 22), and says of it, ' it is a very rare little book, concerning which Heylin very truly says, that it is so hard to come by, that scarce one scholar in five hundred hath ever heard of it, and hardly one of a thousand has ever seen it.'" (See more in Dr. Lamb's Historical Account of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 6, Cambridge, 1829.) There are copies of it in the Public Library at Cambridge, and elsewhere; and the Parker Society has reprinted it among the "Documents of Edward VI." Dr. Lamb thinks that the publication of neither part can be said to have had the sanction of Convocation, strictly speaking. Dr. Cardwell ("Acta Synodalia") disputes Dr. Lamb's view, and thinks that the Articles had.
Lib. iii. ¶ 16 - ED.
{Cattley/Pratt adds, in the text: 'which is to be believed under pain of damnation'.} In all the editions except the first this passage stops at the word "faith."
[See Extravag. Comm. lib. i. tit. 8. Corpus Juris Canonici, tom. ii. p. 394. Paris, 1687. - ED.]
The tenor of this commission we have here adjoined: -- "Edmundus, etc. Dilecto nobis in Christo, magistro Wilhelmo Roper, in legibus baccalaureo salutem, gratiam, et benedictionem. Du tuâ sanâ doctrinâ, conscientiæ puritate, et circumspectionis industriâ plurimum confidentes, ad evocandum et evocari faciendum coram te in judicio, quibuscunque die et loco congruis et opportunis, arbitrio tuo limitandis, Johannem Draper presbyterum, nuper rectorem ecclesiæ parochialis de Rayleigh, nostræ Londoniens. diocœsis et jurisdictionis, et quandam Johannem Gold, quam alias dictus Johannes contra sacros canones constitutionesque et ordinationes laudabiles sanctæ matris ecclesiæ catholicæ temerè et de facto duxit in uxorem; causamque et negotium illius pretensi et illegitimi matrimonii cum suis annexis, connexis, quibuscunque, audiendum et examinandum: eosdem quoque delinquentes juxta juris exigentiam ab invicem divortiandum et separandum, atque ut de cætero seorsum et separatim vivant nulloque modo invicem cohabitent, aut carnale commercium habeant, mandandum et, sub pœna juris, monendum et jubendum, necnon pœnitentiam salutarem et condignam dictæ Johannæ Gold, propter sua delicta et excessus in hâc parte ac jurisdictione, juxtà qualitatem eorundem, prout discretioni tuæ melius videbitur expedire, injungendum et imponendum; ceteraque omnia et singula in præmissis, aut ea necessaria seu quomodolibet requisita, faciendum, exercendum, exerquendum, et expediendum, vices nostras committimus, ac plenam in Domino, tenore præsentium, concedimus potestatem, cujuslibet legitimæ coertionis ecclesiasticæ quam, decreveris in hâc parte, assumpto tibi in actorum scribum in præmissis quocumque notario fideli, et idoneo: mandantes, quatenus de omni eo quod in præmissis et circa ea feceritis, sigillum officialitatis, etc.; in cujus rei, etc." See Edition 1563, page 931. - ED.
The letter in question was perhaps actually sent, and the prisoners given up to Sir John Williams, "March 10th;" but the following is the minute of the Council Book on the subject: "At Westminster the viij day of Marche ano 1553 [1554]. A Letter to the Livetenaunte of the Towere to deliver to Sr John Williames the bodies of the late Archbishope of Canterbury, Doctor Ridley, and Mr. Lattymer, to be by him convaied to Oxeford." This extract from the Book at the Privy Council Office, Whitehall, will be also found in Harl. MSS. Num. 643, fol 20 b, whence it is printed in the Archæologia, vol. xviii. p. 177.
This portion of Foxe's history has been excellently illustrated in "The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, D, D. collected and arranged by the Rev. H. Jenkyns," (vol. iv. pp. 4 to 66), who says: "There still exists, in manuscript, the official report" (of this disputation) "from Weston the prolocutor to Bonner, in the Harl. MSS. 3642. Also short notes of the chief arguments, in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 340, art. 13; and some longer notes in the public library of the same university, Kk. 5. 14." - ED.
Foxe here says "April," though higher up he has said that orders for their removal had been given by the Council a month before. A letter from Lever to Bullinger, dated Geneva April 11th, 1554, says: "Alius tamen, qui a Londo (sic) decessit 13 die Martii, hodie hic mihi retulit, quod in seditione per Voyetum [Wyat] concitatâ nulli sacrifici, &c. ... Atque præterea asseverabat se pro certo audivisse Cranmerum Cantuariensem episcopum, Ridleum Londinensem episcopum, Latimerum concionatorem celeberrimum, et Halesium jurisperitum pium, omnes hos pariter traductos a Londino ad Oxoniam fuisse, ut ibi a dominis doctoribus illius academiæ condemnati hæreseos igni (sic) comburerentur." (Reformation Letters, Parker Society, 1846, No. 77.) We may safely say, with Ridley himself, in a letter to Grindall (infrà, vol. vii. p. 434), that they came to Oxford "a little before Easter," which fell in that year on March 25th (see Nicolas's Tables).
The following extract from the Register of Convocation, and the Bonner Register, fol. 339, is printed in Wilkins, iv. p. 94: "Quinto die Aprilis prolocutor Hugo Weston a præside convocationis [Episcopo London] admittebatur: ibi etiam tractabatur de eligendis quibusdam de clero, qui totius vice cleri mitterentur Oxoniam, ad tractandum cum domino Cranmero, domino Ridleo, nuper prætenso episcopo London., et Hugone Latymer, olim episc. Wigorn., de quibusdam articulis religionem concernentibus. Et delecti sunt doctor Weston, Oglethorp, Chedsye, Seton, Cole, Jeffery, Fecknam, et Harpesfield ad effectum prædictum. Et quia prædictus prolocutor non potuit adesse dictæ convocationi, substituit N. Harpesfield et Joh. Wimbleseye conjunctim et divisim in loco suo."
The following are the Articles, as given in the official Report, Harl. MSS. No. 3642; also in the Grace of the University of Cambridge, printed in Strype and Wilkins:
1. "In sacramento altaris virtute verbi divini a sacerdote prolati, præsens est realiter sub speciebus panis et vini naturale corpus Christi conceptum de Virgine Maria. Item, naturalis ejusdem sanguis.
2. "Post consecrationem non remanet substantia panis et vini, neque alia ulla substantia, nisi substantia Christi, Dei et hominis.
3. "In missa est vivificum Ecclesiæ sacrificium pro peccatis tam vivorum quam mortuorum propitiabile."
These two documents are printed in Strype's Life of Cranmer, Appendix, Nos. 77, 78; and from thence by Wilkins, iv. p. 98: the doctors delegated by the University appear from these two documents to have been Dr. John Young, vice-chancellor, successor of Ridley as master of Pembroke; Dr. William Glynn, president of Queen's; Dr. Richard Atkinson, provost of King's; Dr. Cuthbert Scott, master of Christ's; Dr. Thomas Watson, master of St. John's; Dr. Alban Langdale, of St. John's; and Dr. Thomas Sedgwyke, of Trinity, regius professor of divinity in Cambridge. Dr. John Seton, of St. John's, was sent by the Convocation. Dr. Langdale was parson of Buxted in Sussex, and in that character appears a persecutor of the Gospel at vol. viii. p. 352, &c.; and again at p. 367. &c.
The Council Book has: "August xxij. 1553. Two several lettres unto Miles Coverdale and John Hooper clerks for their indelayde repaire unto the Courte, where to attende upon the Lords of the Counsaill." And again: "At Richmount the xxix. of Aguuste, 1553. John Hoper, bishop of Gloucester, made this day his personal appearance." Again: "At Richmount the xxxj. of August, 1553. Miles Coverdale, bishop of Exeter, made this day his personall apperance." And again: "At Richmount the firste of September, 1553. This day appered before the Lords John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, and Miles Coverdale, Bishop of Exeter. And the said Hooper, for considerations the Councell moving, was sent to the Fleete. And the said Coverdale commaunded to attende untill the Lordes Pleasure be further knowen."
William Dalby, in a letter written at London, Sept. 1st, 1553, says that "The Bishope of Canterbury, Hooper, Levere, the bushope of Londone, and diverse other are together in disputation dayly at their owne howses, but what is done amongeste them I cannot learne." (Harleian MSS. No. 353, fol. 143.) Another letter dated September 5th, says, "At London is kepte diveres disputationes in the consistorye place in Pawles with the bushopes. Bushope Hooper must dispute on Monday nexte in the same place and upon diveres articles, but what they be I cannot as yet learne." (Ibid.)
The whole of the matter from hence to p. 394, ending "by the French ambassador," is evidently taken from the minutes of the Privy Council: see copious transcripts of those minutes in the Harleian MSS., No. 643, (printed in the Archæologia, vol. xviii. pp. 173 - 185), also in Haynes's Burghley State Papers, pp. 155 - 193. The Editor has consulted the original Council Book. See also a MS. history of this time compiled from contemporary Letters, Harleian MSS.No. 353.
{Cattley/Pratt substitutes 'Wakefield' for 'Wakecline'.} For "Wakecline" (or "Wakeclyn," ed. 1570,) the edition of 1563, p. 936, reads "Wakefield."
{Cattley/Pratt substitues 'chamber' for 'keeping' in the text and adds the note: Edition of 1563. - ED.}
Appendix:For "chaumber" all the editions except 1563 read "keeping," - "Doctor Seton and Watson's keeping."
Dr. William Tresham had been commissary according to Neve and Wood from 1532 to 1546, and vice-chancellor the latter part of 1550, and a considerable part of 1551. Richard Martiall was made vice-chancellor Oct. 3d, 1552: "Absentis vices gerebat Dr. Tresham." (Wood.) Martiall was reappointed 1553, but Walter Wryght is mentioned as such April 4th, and Dr. Tresham (who was about that time prisoner in the Fleet) as commissary Nov. 6th. John Warner was nominated as vice-chancellor by Martiall April 15th, 1554, and soon after admitted. (Wood.) It is plain, therefore, that Tresham ought here to have been called "commissary," especially as Martiall is called "vice-chancellor" at p. 443.
{Cattley/Pratt adds 'where they had a junkery, but sat not down' and notes: [Edition of 1563. - ED.]}
Addenda:Bishop Fisher, in his Months mind on Margaret Countess of Richmond, p. 113, Camb. 1840, recommends "exchewynge banketts, Reresoupers, joncryes betwixt meles."
This is not true in any edition except that of 1563, which in the first Account of the Disputation ... had said (p. 936): "After the sentence pronounced they were separated the one from the other: videlicet, my lord of Canterbury was put in Bocardo: Dr. Ridley was caried to maister Shrives house: maister Latimer in maister Bailifs." The foregoing words are inserted at p. 534 of this volume, followed by a short paragraph which forms the termination of the first Account in the edition of 1563.
{Cattley/Pratt substitutes 'copes' for 'robes' in the text.} Edition of 1563. - ED.
Appendix, ref. page 441, top line:All the editions except the first read "roabes" or "robes" in the text and margin.
{Cattley/Pratt adds 'being gremials' to the sentence in the text.} Edition of 1563. - ED.
Appendix, ref. page 441, line 9:This is, if we may judge by its absence from various dictionaries, Todd's Johnson, the Promptuarium Parvulorum, Halliwell, &c., a very rare word in English. It is explained by Adelung, "Qui est de gremio seu sodalitate cujusdam ordinis." Fuller's Church History, book viii. sect. 3, ¶ 45, has: "as if admitted gremials in the university."
The official report says, that Cranmer "primo eosdem articulos in forma verborum qua concipiuntur veros non esse asseruit; nihilo minus aiebat, quod si copiam eorundem articulorum et tempus perpendendi eosdem concederemus, redigere vellet in scriptis ejus ad eosdem responsum, nobisque in crastino tunc consequente die transmittere." See the note next but one following this.
The edition of 1563 adds, "the byble being red at a deske in the myddle of the Hall by a scholer with a verye loude voyce, grace after diner likewyse sayde, with an antempe [anthem] in pricksong." Two lines lower, for "whither Dr." that edition reads "and Dr.;" and four lines lower, "at eight or soon after."
The Cambridge MS. gives an answer of Cranmer, "Because I would not write all that long treatise."
This was according to previous arrangement: see the note next but one preceding this. The first Explication, given by Foxe at p. 445, is evidently that which Cranmer delivered in on Sunday night; for the official report only adverts to two answers to the articles as given by Cranmer in writing:and the MS. in the Cambridge Library (MSS. Kk. 5. 14) and Foxe's Latin account (Ed. Bas. 1559, p. 641, which professes to follow "ipsum notariorum archetypum") only mentions one paper as delivered during the Disputation: the answer of Sunday, as given in the Cambridge MS., contains some expressions not to be found in either of the "Explications."
{Cattley/Pratt substitutes 'Sunday' for 'day after' in the text.} The first three editions omit the three paragraphs preceding this (from "By reason of this tumult" to "licensed by the queen"), and commence this paragraph: "The next Sunday following the queen's garde was at the Cross," &c., putting "Aug. 20" in the margin. The edition of 1583 first introduced the new paragraphs, and commenced this paragraph, "After this sermon at Paul's Cross aforenamed, the next day after it followed that," &c. This error has been corrected in the present edition, from the old editions.
The first edition reads, "went to Exeter college, besyde the scholes, and there taryed in the garden a quarter of an hower for the Vicechauncellor, and then they went.'
Dr. William Tresham had been commissary according to Neve and Wood from 1532 to 1546, and vice-chancellor the latter part of 1550, and a considerable part of 1551. Richard Martiall was made vice-chancellor Oct. 3d, 1552: "Absentis vices gerebat Dr. Tresham." (Wood.) Martiall was reappointed 1553, but Walter Wryght is mentioned as such April 4th, and Dr. Tresham (who was about that time prisoner in the Fleet) as commissary Nov. 6th. John Warner was nominated as vice-chancellor by Martiall April 15th, 1554, and soon after admitted. (Wood.) It is plain, therefore, that Tresham ought here to have been called "commissary," especially as Martiall is called "vice-chancellor" at p. 443.
The official report states that the Disputation was previously arranged to take place "scholastico more, atque concisis argumentis, et sermone Latino." The Cambridge MS. represents Cole as first departing from the rule. Cranmer complained of the character of the Disputation to the Council; his letter is given at p. 533 of this volume: see also Ridley's complaint at p. 532; the letter of certain preachers, &c. at p. 550; and Hooper's letter at p. 664.
The edition of 1563 here says, "of Cambridge began: and Dr. Scotte could not be suffered to dispute. The Vicechauncellor of Cambridge also was interrupted as before."
The first edition for "to discuss," has, "to unfolde the plytes and wrinckles of," &c.
"Ad nos transmisisti," Lat. Ed. p. 640. The account in the Latin edition breaks off at the next line, "disagreeth from the catholic," and proceeds at once with the Explication at the bottom of this page, "In the assertions," &c. The intermediate passage in the English editions is plainly only another version of the argument in next page, following the first Explication and introducing the second. The Latin of the first Explication is printed in the Latin edition and in Jenkyns.
1 Cor. xi.
Matt. xxvi.
The Cambridge MS. adds, that Cranmer from respondent, demanded, according to the usage of the schools, to be opponent: "Cran. Oppono: vos respondete scripturis. West. Habebis aliam diem ad opponendum." This day was the following Thursday, April 19th.
"This authority is stated in the Cambridge MS. to have been alleged by Oglethorpe; it certainly forms part of his train of reasoning." Jenkyns, vol. iv. p. 24. - ED.
After "Weston" the edition of 1563 adds, "praising the modesty of the man, saith."
The Council Book reads "Rutter." "August xv. 1553. - One William Rutter committed this daye to the Marshalsie for uttering certain seditious words against the Preacher, Mr. Bourne, for his sermon at Paul's Cross on Sunday last." Foxe's text reads "Rutler."
According to the Cambridge MS. the argument up to this point had been conducted in Latin, and Cole first broke through the rule of the disputatio "Sermone Latino."
[Or rather Hom. in Johan. 46, ad 45, Edit. Benedict. tom. viii. p. 272; in Jenkyns's Appendix, p. 423. - ED]
["Sir H. Saville doubted the genuineness of this homily, and F. Ducæus and Montfaucon reject it altogether, as unworthy of Chrysostome." Jenkyns. - ED.]
{Cattley/Pratt cites the reference, but substitutes 'cap. 4' for 'cap. 3' and adds: ["The original of this passage supports Cranmer's reasoning much better than the version here given." Jenkyns, vol. iv. p. 30. The principal variation appears in the closing line, which we accordingly copy: "??????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ???????." In Hughes's edition of this treatise (Cantabr. 1712), ???????? takes the place of ???????; he has a long note upon the passage (p. 291), but does not notice any various reading; neither does Montfaucon, vol. i. p. 468. Paris, 1834. - ED.]}
[This passage will be found "Apud Œcumen." tom. i. p. 532. Paris, 1631. Jenkyns. - ED.]
The Cambridge MS. puts this accusation into the mouth of Weston. As he pursued the matter, Dr. Jenkyns thinks it natural to suppose that he started it.
There were Editions of Paris, 1510, and of Basle, 1523 and 1550, prefaced by Erasmus. The passage in debate occurs in the treatise "de Trinitate," lib. viii. ¶ 13. - ED.
A full account of this Dr. Smith is given by Strype in his "Memorials," Mary, chap. xxviii., and "Life of Cranmer," pp. 171, 172. It appears there that the offence which he had committed, and which caused him to flee into Scotland, was his endeavouring to excite opposition to P. Martyr at Oxford, putting him even in danger of his life; and his writing a book in favour of the "Celibacy of the Clergy" against Cranmer. This was in the year 1549. He wrote two letters from Scotland of apology to the archbishop, of which this is one, belonging to 1550.
Dr. Smith had mistranslated this passage of Hilary in his Assertion of the Sacrament of the Altar; and had been exposed by Cranmer in his Defence and Answer to Gardiner. This, Dr. Jenkyns thinks, was the reason why Smith held his peace. See infra, vol. viii. pp. 708, 709, for an interesting anecdote in connexion with this dispute about the reading in Hilary.
"The 'book' referred to must be Cranmer's Answer to Gardiner, printed by Wolf in 1551; in which the original passage from Hilary is cited with the true reading, 'vere.'" - Jenkyns. From a previous note of Mr. Jenkyns it appears that Cranmer had been led into the mistake "vero," by the pages, not of an impugner but a defender of the corporal presence; namely by Gardiner, in his Detection of the devil's Sophistry, 1546. - ED.
This answer does not appear in the first edition of Foxe, and looks like a jocose remark of his own.
See Bingham's Christian Antiquities; book xiii. chap. i. ¶. 4. - ED. Appendix:"Quod ad nomen Missæ attinet 'Habraicum vel Chaldaicum esse putidissimum commentum est,' inquit post alios plurimos doctissimos viros (imprimus autem Picherellum Presbyt. in locum Matth. de S. Cœnæ institutione, et Dissert. de Missa, cap. i.) Is. Casaubonus, Exercitat. xvi. p. 582. Hanc sententiam Bellarminus et alii docti Romanenses exploserunt dudum, ut qui diversum sentiunt plane ridiculi sint, et neque Hebraicas neque Chaldaicas literas se intelligere manifeste ostendant.
"Vocabulum certe Latinum est, et inventum circa finem, ut videtur, tertii seculi, vel paulo ante. Nam si vera est Epistola Cornelii Papæ ad Lupicinum Viennensem, circa A. D. 250 notum jam erat istud vocabulum, ut recte ait Casaubonus." (Considerationes modestæ, per G. Forbesium, Episc. Edenburg.; Lond. 1658, p. 445.)
Deut. xvi. 10.
Levit. vi. 15.
This service, with its prefixed story, may be seen in the "Missale ad usum ecclesiæ Sarum" (Paris, 1515), fol. xxvii.; and also in the "Missale Romanum cum multis missis ac benedictionibus noviter additis" (Venetiis, 1515), fol. ccxxiv. - ED.
A superb copy of this Mass Book (Missale secund. usum. Eccles. Sarisburiensis, fol. 1497) is in the Royal Library of Windsor, to which place it has recently been conveyed from Kensington. Another copy bearing date 1527 is in the British Museum, and all those "Secund. usum Sarisburiensis," may be consulted for the completion of many of the directions, ceremonies, and conjurations here referred to. - ED
There must be some oversight here: the words in Eusebius are (lib. ii. cap. 1), xxx. See Euseb. lib. vii. cap. 19, and the note of Valesius. The same mistake occurs in the reference to St. James in Bishop Tonstall's Sermon, vol. v. p. 92.
The word "Liturgus," upon which Foxe grounds his remarks, does not appear in the portion of Eusebius referred to (lib. ii. cap. 1,) nor in book vii. cap. 19, where the appointment of St. James is again the subject.
The recantation here alluded to, or one of them at least, was put into print under the title, "A godly and faythfull Retractation made and published at Paule's Crosse in London, the yeare of our Lord God 1547, the 15 daye of May, by Mayster Richard Smyth, Dr. of divinitye; &c. Londini, 1547."
This rare tract is of only 16 leaves: Bishop Gardiner has made a smart reference to it above (see p. 40). Dr. Maitland pronounces it to be generally unknown: see p. 216 of "A List of some early printed Books in the Archiep. Library, Lambeth, 1843;" where there is a copy, and also in the Bodleian Collections. The following specimen of it is interesting:
"There be many thinges" (says Dr. Smith) "ascribed to thappostles, and called traditions deduced from the tyme of thappostles and read in the name of olde Authors, and set furth under the pretensed title of their name, which be fayned and forged and notheng trew, full of superstition and untrewth, feyned Epistles of Clemens, Anacletus, Euaristus and Fabianus and other which arr set furth by the byshop of Rome and his complices, which be forged, feyned and of none auctoritie nor to be beleved, but counterfeyted by theym: who with the color of antiquitie wolde magnify that usurped power of the byshop of Rome."
Farther on (the tract is unpaged) we read: - "When I folowed myne own invention not directed by Scripture, I began as the nature of man is to wander, and at the last went cleane contrary to God's woord.
"Wherfore, I hertely exhort every man as touchyng matiers of faith to found the same upon God's certeyn, trew, and infallyble woorde: lest by doyng the contrary, they fall into superstition, idolatry, and other manyfold errers, as I my self sometyme, and many other (although I doo not come hyther too accuse any man) yet I perceyve of late tyme have doone." (See Strype's Memorials under Edward VI. book i. chap. 6.)
"Perlectâ enim epistolâ et evangelio, finis sacrificio imponebatur," p. 57. Edit. Lugduni. 1512 - ED.
"Convenit fere inter auctores usum Introitus introductum esse a Celestino I., pontifice; sic enim scribit Walafridus, cap. xxii., Micrologus, cap. i., et alii passim." Bellarmine de Missa, lib. ii. cap. 16 - ED.
Neither this reference, nor one to Hom. 21, made by Hospinian, suits. Perhaps it may be found to answer one or other in an early Latin edition of Chrysostom.
A reason for this number, as an explanation will perhaps be looked for, may be given from the notes to the enlarged edition of Cardinal Bona's work, De Rebus Liturgicis, tom iii. (Aug. Taur. 1753) lib. ii. cap. iv. 10: "Novem vicibus, ut dictum est, hanc precationem repetimus, ter ad Patrem, ter ad Filium, ter ad Spiritum Sanctum eam dirigentes, contra triplicem miseriam (ut apte observat Natalis Alexander Theol. Dog. et Mor. tom. i. lib. 2, art. 5,) ignorantiæ, culpæ, et pœnæ; vel ut tres Personas in se mutuo inexistere significetur;" and so forth.
This is a mistake: Gregory himself assigns it to an earlier period. The error, however, is made in company with eminent liturgists: "Gravius errant Amalarius, Strabo, Micrologus, qui Gregorium M. hujus ritus auctorem statuunt. Illum enim Romæ, et per totam Italiam, jam anno 529 receptum fuisse ex Can. 3 Councilii Vasensis ii. vel iii. perspicue intelligimus ... Imo Gregorius ipse in sua Epistola 64, lib. 7, ad Jo. Syracusanum data, negat se hanc precem primo in Missa instituisse, sed illam, longe ante usitatam et postea intermissam, restituisse affirmat, adeoque se cæremonias antiquas Eccles. Rom. conservare, non autem a Græcis accipere, ut quidam Siculi ei exprobrabant." (Krazer, de Liturgiis Liber singularis; Aug. Vind. 1786, p. 380.)
Innocentius III. (lib. ii. de Mysterio Missæ, cap. 20) scribit eam additionem ("Gloria in Excelsis") a nunnullis tribui Telesphoro, sed a pluribus tamen tribui Hilario Pictavo. See Bellarmine. - ED.
See Card. Bona's Rerum Liturg. lib. ii. cap. iv. and notes. The assertion about Hilary is contested by various writers; see Krazer (ut supra), p. 393.
"Dicuntur autem hi versiculi 'Tractus' qui graviter et tractim cani debent in signum mœstitiæ, ut placet Durando." A very different reason is given by others; but the subject is hardly worth inquiring into. The preceding quotations are made from the Romish Cardinal, Bellarmine, to show the accuracy of Foxe, and his acquaintance with the subject generally. In the Historia Sacramentaria of Hospinian the same points are fully considered; pp. 175 - 182. Edit. Genevæ, 1681. - ED.
"Vera ratio videtur quam tradit B. Rhenanus in Annot. ad Tertul. de coronâ militis, quod scilicet dicatur Graduale, quia canebatur dum diaconus gradus ascenderet," &c. See Bellarmine. - ED.
{Pratt alters '500. yeares almoste' to 'the year of Christ 500' in the text. The entry in the addenda reads: Foxe reads "about 500 years almost the epistle:" but see the Latin {in the text}.}
After "time enough" add, "Any day hereafter will serve to dispute on," from Ed. 1563, p. 959. The Latin in Ridley's Works (P. S.), p. 440, sanctions this.
In Muratori's Liturgia Romano Vetus; tom. ii. col. 1024.
More on this point may be seen if wished for, in Bona's Rerum Liturg. lib. ii. cap. 10.
"Valfridus et Micrologus opinati sunt ab Alexandro Papa additam hanc clausulam, Qui pridie. Sed rectius sentit Alcuinus etiam Apostolis in usu fuisse. Extat autem in Liturgia Jacobi et Clementis, et apud Ambrosium lib. 4 de Sacram. cap. 5." Bona, Rerum Liturg. lib. ii. cap. 12, from which this quotation is made, not as if assenting to the fancies of Alcuin or others, but in order to support or illustrate the statements of Foxe.
A mistake has been made here - rather a common one - in taking Scholasticus for a proper name. "Miras nugas de hoc Scholastico quidam scribunt, presertim Heterodoxi Misoliturgi; cum manifestissimum sit in prædicta Gregorii Epistola nomen Scholastici non esse proprium alicujus nominis, sed accipi pro viro docto et erudito, quales olim fuerunt, qui scholis Christianorum præficiebantur, ut conversos ad fidem erudirent." Cardinal Bona "Rerum Liturg." lib. ii. cap. xi., supporting his assertion from Augustine, Salvian, and Jerome; to which his annotator adds: "Et quidem ipse Gregorius lib. 10, Ep. 2, vocat Matthæum Scholasticum virum clarissimum, et Gennadius in Catalogo Scriptorum Eccles. c. 84, vocat Prosperum Aquitanum sermone scholasticum, id est eloquentia et eruditione præstantem. Honorius item in Catal. Scrip. vocat Alcuinum officio Scholasticum. In eodem sensu hoc vocabulum accipit S. Aguustinus Tract. super Psalmum 44." R. Sala, not. in Bonam, vol. iii. p. 246.
Rather "336." The introduction of the Pall is ascribed to him. "Ab eo institutum, ut Episcopus Ostiensis, qui consecrat Episcopum urbis, pallio uteretur, tradit liber Pontificalis." Vitæ Pontiff. Rom. studio A. Sandini (Ferrariæ, 1775), p. 94; who quotes Baronius also (ad an. 336, ¶ 63) to the same effect. - ED.
"Ab defensione sacrarum imaginum ordiens Pontificatum, legationibus, Epistolis, Synodis restitit Imperatori Iconomacho." Sandini ut supra, p. 268. - ED.
This ordinance belongs rather to Felix I. Cardinal Bona cites as much from Anastasius, lib. i. Rerum Liturg. cap. 19, ¶ 5; but it is of little consequence. - ED.
Cardinal Bona (as quoted by Sandini, p. 40, note 3) writes - "putant nonnulli a Zephyrino papa statutum fuisse, ut calices vitrei essent." Lib. i. Rerum Liturg. cap. 25, ¶ 1. - ED.
"Sabinianum Campanarum usum invenisse affirmant aliqui." Sandini, p. 217; who thinks the opinion to be unfounded. He was bishop of Rome in 604. - ED.
"Anno 672, e vivis abiit Vitalianus, quem organis ad sacrorum cultus usum esse, ex quorundam sententia Platina scribit." Sandini, p. 241. - ED.
Edition 1563 reads, "Doth the time require that you speak blasphemies? Lay your blasphemies aside, I say:" and at line 11, "all is husht and at quiet," which is supported by the Latin account; and at line 25, more correctly, "workers of miracles," in the Latin, "mirabiliarios."
"Multi scriptores legem canendæ doxologiæ in fine Psal. ad Damasum papam referunt, a quo hanc editam sactionem aiunt, D. Hieronymo suadente et procurante. Decepti sunt isti ob epist. Hieronymi ad Damasum, quæ ab eruditis tanquam adulterina ac plane commentitia exploditur." Bona de divina Psal. cap. 16, ¶ 6. 2. - ED.
"Eutychianus, as others say." "Hic constituit, ut fruges super altare tantum, fabæ, et uvæ benedicerentur." Anastasii Hist. de Vitis Pont. Rom. p. 12. Moguntiæ, 1602. - ED.
This was in the fourth Lateran council, canon 21, in Labbe, tom. xi. pars 1, col. 173. - ED.
"Id fuit in sextæ Synodi clausula habitæ an. 681, sic scribente Anastasio his verbis: Tanta autem gratia divina omnipotentis concessa est Missis Apost. Sedis, ut ad lætitiam populi vel S. Concilii, qui in urbe Regia erat, Joannes Episc. Portuensis Missas publicas latine celebraret coram principe et Patriarcha, ut omnes unanimiter in laudes et victorias piissimorum Imperatorum eo die Latinis vocibus acclamarent." (Note on Card. Bona "Rerum Liturg." lib. i. cap. 12, edit. Aug. Taurin. 1747.)
"Hic constituit, ut septem hebdomadas ante pascha jejunium celebraretur, et natali Domini noctu missæ celebrarentur." Anastas. Hist. Rom Pontif. p. 4. - ED.
This statement is rather too general; Sigebert writes: "His temporibus floruit Theodolphus, Abbas Floriacensis, postmodum Episc. Aurelianensis, de quo refertur, quod illos versus, quos in die Palmarum singulis annis ecclesiæ Galliarum decantare in usu habent, ipse composuerit, id est, Gloria laus et honor." See the "Rerum Germann. Scriptores" (Ratisb. 1726), tom. i. p. 792.
These incantations will be commonly found in the earlier pages of the Missals, etc.; as in the Missale ad usum insignis ecclesiæ Sarum (fol. Paris, 1502), where they follow the Calendar. They appear also much in the same position in the Manuale ad usum Sarum (Antverpiæ 1542). See Rivet. Catholicus orthodox. tract., 2 quæst. 25, ¶ 2, and Thuani Hist. lib. cxxiii. cap. 1, where nearly seven folio pages are filled with an account of a pretended possession, which was, as usual, countenanced by the popish priesthood, till it ceased to answer. - ED.
See Anastas. de Vitis Pontiff. p. 16. Edit. 1602; or Sandini, page 88. - ED.
In Buck's Theological Dictionary, by Dr. Henderson, it is stated (p. 101), that the bells were assigned "godfathers and godmothers, who, as they held the ropes, gave them their names," &c.; and they may be seen so represented in a wood-cut in the Pontificale Romanum, folio. Venetiis, 1543. Upon the same subject may be consulted Hospinian de Templis, p. 470, edit. 1603; Centum Gravamina Nat. Germ. No. 51; Riveti Catholicus Orthodox. lib. ii. quæst. 17, ¶. 11; and Crashaw's Sermon at the Crosse (London, 1609), p. 115. - ED.
The notes upon this portion of Foxe might have been much enlarged from Gavanti's Thesaurus rituum, etc.; to which, or to similar works, the reader is referred for enlarged information on the above subject. What has been here brought forward is enough to show Foxe's general accuracy, and, that object satisfactorily attained, any further inquiry into these subjects seems needless in this place. - ED.
The first edition, p. 964, has "to craft with your equivocations:" Halliwell records "craft" from Palsgrave as meaning "to deal craftily."
Most of the incidents mentioned in the next thirty pages appear in the Council Book, Holinshead, Stowe, or Strype.
The edition of 1563, p. 1000, here says, "returning again to the month of August the year before, viz. 1553. In the whiche moneth of August Masse first seemed to be attempted in London." Then follows the passage: "The 11th day of August An. 1553 did a priest say masse at S. Barthelmews in Smithfield; but before he had half done, he was glad to take him to his legges; for as he was lifting up the bread, there were stones flong at him, and one hit him between the shoulders, as the bread was over his head; so that he would not tary, to make an end of his maske."
Sir Edward Montague, is meant. He had been speaker of the House of Commons in the reign of Henry VIII.
Of the sufferings of this man, a narration is given by Strype, from an account which Underhill himself drew up and sent to Foxe. See Mem. under Mary, cap. 6. - ED.
A small town four miles from Calais. - ED.
The example thus set by the Queen in patronizing the popish ritual very much tended to the general restoration of it: the Mass does not seem to have been regularly authorized till December, see p. 542. But the first edition of Foxe, p. 1000, says, "In the whiche moneth of August Masse first seemed to be attempted in London." In a letter of John Rowe, dated London, August 24th, we read that, "As for the altares and masses [they] are in bildinge faster than ever they weare put downe." In another of William Dalby, September 1st, "All the altares at Poules are up, and all the oulde service sayd in Latin, and almoste throughe out London the same." Another letter of September 5th says, "The mase is verry riffe:" and another of September 8th says, "Heare is no newese but candelsticks, books, bells, censores, crosses, and pixes ... The highe aulter in Poules churche is up againe elevated 5 or 6 stepes above the mayne; but for makinge haste the worke fell. I hope it wilbe a token of some ill chaunce to come again, which God send quickly." (Harleian MSS. No. 353, fol. 143.)
In the edition of 1563, p. 1000, occurs here the following entry, which is omitted in all sebsequent editions: "The 11th day of August An. 1553 did a priest say masse at S. Barthelmews in Smithfield; but before he had half done, he was glad to take him to his legges; for as he was lifting up the bread, there were stones flong at him, and one hit him between the shoulders, as the bread was over his head; so that he would not tary, to make an end of his maske."
Foxe, from the Council Book, prints this name "Vernon" at p. 392. But in the Episcopal Registers of London he is invariably called "Veron." He is said to have been a Frenchman, "Senonois" i.e. of Sens. He was ordained priest by Ridley August 24th, 1551 (Ridley Register, fol. 320), as "Johannes Veroneus, Senon. dioc." He was admitted rector of St. Alphage, London Wall, January 3d, 1552 ("Johannes Veroneus, clericus," Ridley Register, fol. 316): he was deprived under Mary in 1554 (his successor being appointed June 8th, "per legitimam deprivationem Johannis Veron. clerici conjugati," Bonner Reg. fol. 453.) He was presented by Elizabeth to the prebend of Mora in St. Paul's November 8th, 1559 (Newcourt), to the rectory of St. Martin Ludgate March 8th, 1560 ("Johannes Veron, sacræ Theologiæ Professor," Grindal Reg. fol. 113, 131: Newcourt misprints his name in this instance as "Heron"), and to the vicarage of St. Sepulchre's October 21st, 1560 ("Johannes Veron, clericus," Grindal Reg. fol. 117). Strype calls him "a Frenchman by birth, but a learned Protestant" (Mem. iii. chap. 5), and "one of the eminentest preachers at this time, and a writer:" he states that he preached at Paul's Cross before the mayor and aldermen September 17th, 1559, and that "he died April 9th, 1563, and was buried the next day after, being Easter Even." (Annals, i. chaps. 16, 34). See the Index to Machyn's Diary for several curious allusions to Veron. A list of his works will be found in Lowndes's Bibliographical Manual.
This is the Dr. Watson who disputed at Oxford the next April. The present statement is confirmed by a contemporary. (See Harleian MSS. No. 353, fol. 141.)
"22 August. 1555." "By a letter writtene in London by William Dalby is signefied one Sondaye laste was a sermone at Paules Crosse made by one doctor Watsone: theare was at his sermone the marques of Winchester the earle of Bedforde the earle of Pembrock the lord Wentworthe the lord Riche they did sitte wheare my lord mayer and the aldermen wear wonte to site my lord maiore sittinge uppermoste, thear was also in the windowe overe the mayor the ould bushope of London and diveres otheres, thear was 120 of the garde that stoode round aboute the Crosse with their halberds to gard the preacher and to apprehend them that would stuire. His sermone was no more eloquent than edefieng, I meane it was nether eloquent nor edefienge in my opinione for he medled not withe the Gospelle nor Epistle nor noe parte of Scripture. After he had red his theame he entred into a by mattere and so spente his tyme 4 or 5 of the cheefe poynts of his sermone that I cane remember I will as breefly as I can reporte unto you: vilz. he requirede the people not to believe the preacheres, but that ther faith should be firme and sure because theare is suche vanties amongeste them, and yf any mane doubte of his faithe let him goe to the Scriptures, and also to the olde interpreteres of the doctores, and interprite it not aftere their owne brayne, he wisshed the people to have no newe faithe, nor to build no newe temple, but to keepe the ould faythe, and edifye the ould Temple againe. He blamed the people in a manor for that heartofore they would have nothing that was manes tradissyone, and nowe they can be contented to have manes tradissyon, shewing that in the first yeare of the raigne of our soveraigne lorde king Edward the 6. theare was a lawe established that in the sacramente theare was the bodie and bloode of Christe not really but spiritually, and the nexte yeare aftere they established another lawe that thear was the body of Christe neither speritually nor really. Thes 2 in themselves are contraryes therarfor they cannot be bothe trewe. He shewed that we should ground our faithe uppon gods word which is scripture and scripture is the byble which we have in Hebrue Greeke and Lattine and nowe translated into Englishe: but he doubtethe the translatyon was not true. Also he said theare hathe byne inhis tyme that he hathe seene xx Catechesmeses and every one varinge from other in some points, and well he said they mighte be all false but they could not be all true, and thus persuadin the people that they had followed menes tradishyones and had gone a straye, wishin them to come home agayne and reedefy the ould Temple. Thus with many other persuasiones he spente the tyme tyll xj of the clocke and ended."
Also from another letter (in the same MS. fol. 143) written in London by John Rowe, August 24th, we learn: "Uppon Sondaye the 20 of Auguste theare preached at Poules Crosse one named Wattes, and to keepe and preserve him from the enemyes theare weare with their holbards about 200 of the garde, the lyke was never seene; and as for altares and masses are in bildinge faster than ever they weare put downe."
The first edition for "by" reads "after;" the Latin, "sed secundum locum," where "sed" seems a misprint for "seu."
See the Harleian MSS. in the Brit. Mus. No. 422, artic. 8, in Grindall's handwriting. - ED.
Appendix:Respecting this Purgation, see the note on p. 394, and Dr. Jenkyn's note, Cranmer's Remains, iv. p. 1. The following notice of the subject is taken in a comtemporary letter dated London September 8th, Harleian MSS. No. 353, fol. 143 b: "The bushop of Canterbury is the ould mane he was ... The bushope of Canterbury hathe made declaratione in wrytyng and sent it to be delivered abroade to the answeringe of all suche as have reported him to be the cause that masse was said in Canterbury and that he offered to saye masse before the queene him selfe, in which declaration he sayth that he was never consenting; that mass should be said in Canterbury, ne in no other place. And he proffereth to on doctor Peetor and 2 or 3 others to prove that this our laste order is more nigher to the institutione of Christe, than the masse is."
Stow says the 14th of September. - ED.
Appendix:The Council Book says: "At Westminster the xiij. day of September, 1553. This daye Mr. Hugh Lattymer clercke appeared before the lordes, and for his seditious demeanor was comitted to the Towere, there to remaine a close prisoner, havinge attendinge upon him one Austy his servante ... The archbishop of Canterbury appearing this day before the lords, was commaunded to appere the next day before them at afternoon, at the Star Chamber."
Sept. 15, according to Stow. - ED.
Appendix:The Council Book says: "At the Starre Chamber the xiiij. of September ano. 1553. This presente daye Thomas archbishoppe of Canterburye appeared before the Lordes (as he was the daye before appoynted): after longe and serious debatynge of his Offence by the whole boarde, it was thoughte convenyente that as well for the Treason committed by him againste the Queene's Matie as for the aggravatynge of the same his offence, by spreadinge aboute seditious Billes movinge tumultes to the disquietnes of the presente State, he should be comitted to the Towere, there to remayne and be referred to Justyce or furthere ordered as shall stande with the Queen's pleasure." The Harleian MS. mis-copies the date of this entry "the viij of September," whence it is so printed in the Archæologia, vol. xviii. p. 175.
See this paragraph confirmed at p. 614.
{Cattley/Pratt alters '20' to '22' in the text.} As October 15th, mentioned above, certainly fell on a Sunday in 1553, Foxe's "20" must be a misprint for "22:" but it so stands in all the editions. The next paragraph states, that the week following the disputations began in the Convocation: these were appointed to commence on Friday, Oct. 20th, but they did not actually commence till Monday the 23d (see pp. 396, 397): and it is very natural to suppose that Weston would improve the intervening Sunday, Oct. 22d, to prepossess the minds of the public.
By the "Round parish in Cambridge" is doubtless meant the Round Church, as it is still popularly called.
"Mores." Maurice Griffin was consecrated to this see in April 1554. "Poole," bishop of Asaph, also appears to be an error. Parfew and Goldwell are the only names that occur about the period specified. A David Poole was made bishop of Peterborough in 1557. See Godwin. - ED.
For "the 12th of January" the edition of 1563, p. 1000, says "the xiij day of January;" and makes no mention of the next entry.
There is an allusion to Dr. Crome in Ridley's Letter to Hooper, at p. 643. See ... chapter xi. of vol. iii. of Strype's Memorials. See also Dr. Lamb's "Collection of CCCC. MSS.," London 1838, pp. 20, 27.
{Cattley/Pratt alters 'and the next day' to 'and, the second day after' in the text.} It has been necessary to correct two inaccuracies in this passage:
(1.) Foxe here says, "and the next day after;" the effect of which is to place the arrival of the duke of Suffolk and his brother in the Tower to Sunday February 11th; whereas that occurred on the Saturday: for Fabian mentions their arrest by the earl of Huntington as having taken place February 6th; and Stow says:
"The tenth of Februarie the earle of Huntington and other gentlemen, and to the number of 300 horsemen, brought into the Towre as prisoners the duke of Suffolke, and the lord John Grey his brother, from Coventry, where the D. had remained three dayes after his taking in the house and custody of Christopher Warren, Alderman there:" all which is confirmed by Robert Swifte, writing thus to the earl of Shrewsbury on Monday, February 12th. - (Lodge's Illustrations, vol. i. p. 190.) - "The erle of Huntyngton, furnyshed wt. IIC horsemen wt. staves and bowes, browght thowrow London upon Saturdaye at afternone the Dewke of Suffolke and the Lord Iohn his brother, and so conducted them to the Towre."
This is a bald rendering of the Latin "petis principium," i. e. "you beg the question." The first edition has "fall" for "run;" but that does not improve the translation.
{Cattley/Pratt alters '11.' to '10' in the text.} (2.) ... Foxe says, "how the day before, which was the 11th of the said month, Lord William Howard and Sir Edward Hastings were sent for the Lady Elizabeth;" whereas Mr. Tytler, in his "Reigns of Edward VI. and Mary" (vol. ii. p. 426), prints a letter from the State Paper Office, which, as curious and bearing on the point, is here reprinted:
"The Lord Admiral, Sir Edward Hastings, and Sir Thomas Cornwaleys, to the Queen.
"Orig. St. Paper Off. Domestic, 11th Feb. 1553-4.
"In our humble wise. It may please your Highness to be advertized, that yesterday, immediately upon our arrival at Ashridge, we required to have access unto my Lady Elizabeth's Grace; which obtained, we delivered unto her your Highness's letter; and I, the Lord Admiral, declared the effect of your Highness's pleasure, according to the credence given to us, being before advertized of her estate by your Highness's physicians, by whom we did perceive the estate of her body to be such, that, without danger of her person, we might well proceed to require her in your Majesty's name (all excuses set apart) to repair to your Highness with all convenient speed and diligence.
"Whereunto we found her Grace very willing and conformable; save only that she much feared her weakness to be so great that she should not be able to travel and to endure the journey without peril of life, and therefore desired some longer respite until she had better recovered her strength; but in conclusion, upon the persuasion as well of us as of her own council and servants, whom we assure your Highness we have found very ready and forward to the accomplishment of your Highness's pleasure in this behalf, she is resolved to remove her hence to-morrow towards your Highness, with such journeys as by a paper herein enclosed your Highness shall perceive: further, declaring to your Highness that her grace much desireth, if it might stand with your Highness's pleasure, that she may have a lodging at her coming to the court, somewhat further from the water than she had at her last being there; which your physicians, considering the state of her body, thinketh very meet, who have travailed very earnestly with her Grace, both before our coming and after, in this matter.
"And after her first day's journey one of us shall await upon your Highness to declare more at large the whole estate of our proceedings here. And, even so, we shall most humbly beseech Christ, long to preserve your Highness in honour, health, and the contentation of your godly heart's desire.
"From Ashridge, the 11th of February, at four of the clock in the afternoon.
"Your Highness's most humble and bounden Servants and subjects,
W. Howard.
Edward Hastings.
T. Cornwaleys."
Enclosure.
"The order of my lady Elizabeth's Grace voyage to the court:-
"Monday. - Imprimis, to Mr. Cooke's, vi. miles.
Tuesday. - Item, to Mr. Pope's, viii. miles.
Wednesday. - To Mr. Stamford's, vii. miles.
Thursday. - To Highgate, Mr. Cholmeley's house, vii. miles.
Friday. - To Westminster, v. miles."
Swifte's letter also to the earl of Shrewsbury, above referred to, under date of Monday, Feb. 12, says: - "Three days ago [or Saturday, Feb. 10], the lady Elizabeth was sent for, but as yet she is not come, whatever the let is." He also says, "This day lady Jane was beheaded. Also this day, the earl of Devonshire was sent to the Tower."
It is pretty plain that Elizabeth was too ill for the above plan to be adhered to, for she did not arrive in town till February 22 or 23 (see Appendix to vol. viii. note on p. 606), and probably it is to the Lord Admiral's considerate conduct on this occasion that we are to ascribe the good opinion of him which Elizabeth expressed to the count de Feria, November 10, 1558, just before Mary's death. (See Memorias de la Real Acadamia de la Historia, vol. vi. p. 255. Madrid, 1832.)
(3.) That Sir H. Iseley and the others mentioned by Foxe were brought to the Tower on Sunday the 11th, is confirmed thus by Stow:
"The 11 day Sir Henry Isley, who had fled, was brought into the Tower prisoner in an old friese coat, and an old paire of hosen, all his apparell not worth 4s. The same day came in two of the Culpeppers, one Cromer, and Thomas Rampton, the duke of Suffolkes secretary."
This date is correct: see the note above on p. 425. The Cotton MS. Vittell. F. 5, most unaccountably dates the beheading of the duke of Suffolk "the xxiij day of March."
This should be Sir Edward according to the Chronicle of Queen Jane, published by the Camden Society, p. 65; on which Mr. Nichols, the Editor, remarks: - "Holinshead and Foxe erroneously say Sir John Rogers. Sir Edward was named by Sir T. Wyat as having brought him a message from the Earl of Devonshire. He was also discharged on the 18th Jan. 1554-5." His committal also is put on the xxiiii. in the above Chronicle.
"In the afternoone of Frydaye," according to the Chronicle of Queen Jane and Q. Mary, p. 66.
The editions of 1563, 1570, 1576, read correctly, "the 7th of March;" the subsequent editions corrupt this into "17th," evidently with a view of making the date square with the opening of the next paragraph, which (except in the first edition, where it is wanting) opens: "On the Sunday following, being the 18th of March." The Queen's precept was sent to the lord mayor on Sunday, March 4th, and the lord mayor's precept to the aldermen on Monday, March 5th: see the document itself suprà, p. 492; from which it appears that Wednesday, March 7th (correct by Nicolas's Tables) was the day appointed for the inhabitants of each Ward to appear before their alderman, not the day on which the command was issued, as this paragraph seems rather to imply.
This and the next paragraph are not in the edition of 1563. That the text should make the Sunday following the 7th of March to be the 18th (as the second and third editions do) can only be explained by supposing, that Foxe was quoting the exact words of some chronicle, and omitted some intervening dates; or that Elizabeth really went to the Tower March 11th, Passion Sunday, instead of Palm Sunday, March 18th; all the historians, however, seem to concur in saying March 18th. Among Ellis's Letters, second series, vol. ii. p. 254, is one from Elizabeth to Mary, on being ordered to the Tower, without date.
"The xiii. day of Aprel was a proclamasyon was made that what so mever he wher that cold bryng forth hym that dyd hang the catt on the galaus, he shuld have xx marke for ys labur." - Machyn's Diary, p. 60.
Edward Courtenay was eldest son of Henry Courtenay, late marquis of Exeter and earl of Devonshire, who was beheaded in 1539-40. Edward Courtenay had lately been restored to his father's forfeited dignity of earl of Devonshire. The historians sometimes erroneously call him marquis of Exeter. (Lodge's Illustr. of British History, vol. i. p. 190.)
It is Lucar, not Lucas, in Foxe, ed. 1570, and in the above-named Chronicle, p. 75, and in Machyn's Diary.
So the Chronicle of Queen Jane and Mary (p. 66): Stow and Machyn say, April 29. - ED. Addenda: Machyn has it under the same date.
The good Doctor, who was master of Whittington College, afterwards gave some account of his exploits on this occasion, which it may be well to produce from a small volume, of course not commonly known. The writer was fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge, and subsequently rector of Hackney. "This doctrine taught Doctor Smith. I heard him in Whittington college in London, in Queen Maries daies; he moved manie affections, and told the tale on this wise. Maisters, saith he, you are in a great terrour [? error] as concerning that blessed sacrament, and all your trust was in Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer: as for Latimer, he said in open disputation in Oxford, that he had no learning in that matter, but out of Cranmer's book; besides this I disputed with Latimer twentie yeres agone; and then he had no learning. As for Cranmer he said that his learning came from Ridley. And as for Ridley, I disputed with him myself now at Oxford the other daie, and I proved my argument thus: - Ille, cui Christus obviavit Romæ, fuit Romæ:He whom Christ met at Rome, was at Rome. But Christ met Peter at Rome: ergo Peter was at Rome. By this argument I prove two things, and singular misteries of our faith. First that Peter was at Rome, against them that clatter that Peter was never at Rome, and Linus also who was Peter's successor at Rome. Secondlie, that if Peter met Christ bodilie, as Abidias reporteth, and which I am sure is true, or else such an ancient and holie father would never have written it: then consequently he may be as well bodily in the blessed sacrament, as he was met bodily. To this Ridley stood like a block, and, feeling himself convicted, answered nothing. Then said I, Cur non respondes hæretice, hæreticorum hæreticissime. Did I not handle him well? Then denied he the minor, which I proved thus: Christ met Peter going out of Rome, and said, good morrowe Peter, whither goest thou? Peter answered, good morrowe good man, whither goest thou? Then said Christ, I go to Rome to suffer. What? saith Peter, I trow, unless I take my markes amiss, you are Jesus Christ: good Lord, how do you? I am glad I have met you here. Then said he to Peter, go back and suffer, or else I must, et pro te et me. When Ridley had heard this my proof and Abdias authority, a doctor ancient and irrefragable [see vol. i. p. 101, note; and Gibbings's Reprint of Index Expurg. Vaticanus. Pref. xxiii. Dublin, 1837], he answered never a word. And thus I confuted Ridley in the audience of a thousand, that he had not one word to say: yet you say that Christ was never on earth since the ascension bodily: beleeve with me that he is under form of bread and wine. Let this argument of mine confound you, as it did Ridley your chiefe champion. [! !] Thus much doctor Smith, and more, in Whitengton colledge church in London, standing in the street called tower Royall, a little above the three cranes in the Vintree." (Chr. Carlile's Discourse of Peter's life, peregrination and death; London, imprinted by R. Ward, 1582, pp. 18, 19.) See Wood's Athenæ Oxon. vol. i. col. 336, for a notice of Carlile. (edit. Bliss.)
Stow says he was condemned on the 9th of May; Machyn places it on the 18th. - ED.
As this instance of supposed disloyalty has been seized upon by Dr. J. Milner (see Dr. Townsend's Preliminary Dissertation, prefixed to this edition of Foxe) by way of parallel to the acts of multitudes of papally authorized traitors, it may be well to quote a few lines from Strype's Memorials (under Queen Mary, chap. 21) with reference to it.
"In May was arraigned and condemned and executed for treason William Thomas, a very wise man, clerk of the council to King Edward, and by him much valued and used; having writ several treatises of state policy for the use and exercise of the young king. The crime laid to his charge was that he designed the murder of the queen, or, as Bale writeth, of Stephen Gardiner, the lord chancellor.
"But as to Thomas' treason, I find these particulars of it; which is all that I can see alleged against him. Sir Nicholas Arnold, in trouble upon Wyat's plot, did say, that Sir Nicholas Throgmorton did shew him, that Thomas did devise, that one John Fitzwilliams should kill the queen; but, when this was charged upon Throgmorton, he utterly denied that he said any such thing, but that Arnold rather spake it to save himself, being charged with that matter, to transfer that devise upon the said Thomas. And to justify what he said, Thorgmorton urged, that Fitzwilliams, who was hard by, might be called, to depose his knowledge of the matter. And Fitzwilliams appeared. But (as though it were likely to turn to the vindication of Throgmorton or Thomas) the attorney-general prayed the court, that Fitzwilliams might not be sworn nor suffered to speak. And he was forthwith commanded by Stamford, the judge, to depart the court. Yet not to conceal one thing more: when at Sir Thomas Wyat's trial Sir Edward Hastings had asked him, whether he was privy to a device to murder the queen, in a certain place, where she should walk? he answered that it was William Thomas his invention, whom he ever after abhorred for that cause. But it must be observed that Wyat said this when he was earnestly suing for the queen's pardon, and had spoken several other things rather acceptable to the court than true; as, declaring himself then much satisfied with the Spanish match, against which he had taken up arms, and falsely accusing the Lady Elizabeth and the Lord Courtney to have been privy to his doings, which he revoked at his execution.
"Thomas was arraigned or condemned one day, and hastily executed the next. He made a right godly end; and in his imprisonment wrote many pious letters, exhortations and sonnets. He wrote a little book, 'Of the Vanity of the World,' printed, I think, 1545. He made an Italian Dictionary and Grammar at Padua, printed afterwards, 1567, by the appointment of Sir Walter Mildmay; and a Short and Methodical History of Italy, printed 1549, reprinted 1561; and translated some books out of Italian.' (Strype's Eccles. Memorials, vol. iv. pp. 288 - 290, edit. 1816.)
A.D. 325 - ED.
A.D. 383. - ED.
A.D. 431. - ED.
A.D. 451. - ED.
Foxe infrà, vol. viii. p. 614, gives the same date, "May 19th," but there adds that it was Trintity Sunday, which fell on May 20th, and this is the date assigned in Cott. MS. Vitel. F. 5: "The xx. day of May, my Lady Elizabeth came out of the Tower." But Robert Swifte tells the earl of Shrewsbury, under date of "Sunday, May xx," "Of Saturdaye at one of the cloke at after none, my Lady Elsabethe was delyverd owt of the Towre by the lord Tresorer and my lord Chamberleyn, and went to Rychemonde by water furthewter she landyd, wher she shalbe attendid upon by sundrye of garde, and sume oficers of every office in the quene's howse, bot how longe she shall continewe ther I knowe not." (Lodge, vol. i. p. 193.)
{Cattley/Pratt here inserts in the text: 'But herein have we to see and note, not so much the uncivil nature and disposition of that man, as the singular lenity and gracious mansuetude of that princess, who, after coming to her crown, showed herself so far from revenge of injuries taken, that whereas other monarchs have oftentimes requited less offences with loss of life, she hath scarce impaired any piece of his liberty or estimation, save only that he was restrained from coming to the court. And whereas some, peradventure, of her estate would here have used the bloody sword, here majesty was contented with scarce a nipping word; only bidding him to repair home, and saying, "If we have any prisoner, whom we would have sharply and straitly kept, then we will send for you." This virtuous and noble lady, in what fear she was the mean time, and in what peril greater than her fear, the Lord only best doth know: and, next, it is not unknown to herself, to whose secret intelligence I leave this matter further to be considered. This I may say, which every man may see; that it was not without a singular miracle of God that she could or did escape, in such a multitude of enemies, and grudge of minds so greatly exasperated against her; especially Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, whose head and devices were chiefly bent, as a bow, against that only person, to make her away: and no doubt would have brought it by some means to pass, had not the Lord prevented him with death; to preserve her life, to the preservation of this realm. Wherefore that is false which Dr. Story said in the parliament-house, lamenting, as I heard say, "that when they went so much about the branches, they had not shot at the root herself." For why? They neither lacked their darts, or no good will, to shoot at the root, all they possibly might; but, what God's providence will have kept, it shall be kept, when all Dr. Stories have shot all their artillery in vain. But of this matter it is sufficient at this present,'.} See Ed. 1563, p. 1004 - ED.
Stow says July 19. - ED.
Appendix:Foxe himself also, in the edition of 1563, p. 1004, where we read: "The xix. of Julye did Philippe, Prynce of Spaine, and sonne and heyre unto Charles the Fifth then emperour, arrive at Southampton. And the fourth daye after, in the evenyng, he came to Wynchester, where (goynge to the churche) he was honourably receyved of the Bishoppe, and a greate number of the nobles for that purpose appoynted. The nexte daye he mette with the Queene, with whom he hadde long and familier talke.
"And the xxv. daye, being Sainct James day (the chiefe patrone of the Spanyards), maryage was honourably solemnized between them."
It is to be observed, however, that St. Margaret's-day, and the Friday in July 1554, would both fall on July 20th. (Nicolas's Tables.)
Dr. John Parkhurst, afterward made bishop of Norwich, A.D. 1560. - ED.
{Cattley/Pratt alters 'Saunders' to 'Symons' in the text.} "Saunders" is the reading in Foxe's text and margin, but this is at variance with his own text in line 16 of this page, and line 6 from the bottom; moreover it is at variance with the Council Book, the authority which Foxe is evidently following.
"J. C." is "James Caufield" in the first edition.
The word "cacolucus" is intended for a play, by contrast, upon the catholicus of the Romish versifier, Maister White. See too Davanzati's Schisma d'Inghilterra, p. 60, ed. Venezia, 1756.
The first edition reads here, "Other verses also answering to the former verses of the Byshop of Lincolne, made by J. F."
Stow says, they went to Richmond on the 11th, and rose through Southwark and London on the 12th; thus antedating the pageant of the 18th of August. - ED.
These were, Joshua, David, and Judas Maccabæus; Hector of Troy, Alexander the Great, and Julius Cæsar; and Arthur of Britain, Charlemagne of France, and Godfrey of Bouillon.
This incident is related in the Chronicle of Queen Jane and Q. Mary, p. 78, where see Mr. Nichols's note.
There is a much tamer account of this Sermon among the Foxian MSS. (Harl. 425, p. 118).
"Twenty cartloads of gold and silver in buillion, and two more of coined money." Walter's History of England, vol. iii. p. 383. - ED.
Addenda:The Chronicle of Queen Jane and Q. Mary, p. 83, says that the twenty carts contained "iiijxx xvij lytell chestes of a yard long and iiij ynches brode, of syllver, which will mak by estymacyon 1 thousand pounde." Stowe instead of "fourscore and seventeen chests," has made 27 chests in each cart.
Machyn has got it recorded under the xxiiiith day of May, Corpus Christi day, p. 63.
This Chronicle has been put into print by the Camden Society, under the title, Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London, 1852. The sentence quoted by Foxe appears on p. 89.
The bishop might have set aside this authority more decisively, as even many papal writers of eminence scruple not, in their better judgment, to reject the books attributed to this author. "In biblioth. vet. Patrum, et in Historia Christiana per Laurentium de la Barre, impress. Parisiis 1583, habentur duo libri, quorum prior habet titulum, 'B. Lini Rom. Pontif. de Passione B. Petri et Pauli ad Orientales Ecclesias liber primus:' alter hunc; 'De Passione B. Pauli ad Eccles. Orient. liber secundus.' Citantur in Legenda aurea, ut probetur, Petrum magnum instituisse certamen cum Simone Mago; a Sixto Senensi et Salmerone, ut fidem concilient Epistolis Pauli ad Senecam et Senecæ ad Paulum; et a Coccio, ut probet animas Sanctorum viventibus aliquando apparere, et ignota quædam revelare." Cook's "Censura quorundam Scriptorum (Helmestad. 1683)," p. 26, where the opinions of D'Espence, Baronius, Bellarmine, and others are quoted. The following is the most recent opinion: - "Sub nomine S. hujus Pontificis circumferuntur libri duo de passione divorum Petri et Pauli. At hos pariter libros S. Lino Papæ longe post, et per injuriam, suppositos esse, Bellarminus, Pagius, Dupinius et omnes hodie eruditi censent; quia nemo veterum de iis meminit, et multa omnino falsa, atque Apostolis illis indigna continent." Lumper Hist. Theologico-critica de vita, scriptis, SS. Patrum; tom. i. p. 468.
Stow says, three priests and two laymen. He adds, that during the sermon they were "displed [disciplined] on the heads, with the same rods." - ED.
Addenda:According to Machyn's Diary (p. 74) only one was a priest, Sir Thomas Lawes, otherwise called Sir Thomas Gryffyn: "iiii of them wher relegyous men, and the feyth was a temporall man that had ii wyeffes."
These articles are in the Bonner Register, folios 365-370: whence they are printed by Wilkins.
This book is entitled "A Declaration of Edmonde Bonner's Articles concerning the Cleargye of London Diocese, whereby that execrable Antichriste is, in his righte colours, reueled." London, 1554. - ED.
This Dr. Bricket had given evidence on Gardiner's trial.
William Sommers, or Sommer, was a buffoon or jester in Henry VIII's time. Ascham mentions a practice of his, here alluded to by Jocelyn: "They be not much unlike in this pointe to Wyll Sommers, the kinges foole, which smiteth him that standeth alwayes before his face, be he never so worshipfull a man, and never greatlye lokes for him which lurkes behinde an other man's backe, that hurte him in deede." (Ascham's Toxoph. p. 43.) See more in Nares's Glossary.
{Cattley/Pratt inserts in the text here: 'in their own style and words,' and adds the note: It is extant in Latin in the First Edition, p. 1005 ... - ED.}
Appendix:The Latin of this Mandate {is} from Bishop Bonner's Register, folio 357 verso.
The following is from the first edition, p. 1007: "And for as much as mention is here made of Oxford, I cannot but something lament the state and condition of that University, which before in Wicliffe's time, being so forward in religion, and the first eye that gave lighte to al other places, to discerne true religion from blyndnese and ignorance, now through the misgovernaunce of certayne heads, seemeth so prone and inclinable to blind superstition and all popery, that so sone as the Quene came in, they with the first were redye to masse; insomuch that the Quene comminge in July, the next moneth after (being the xv of August) upon the assumption day, masse was sayd, first in Marton college, then in Corpus Christi college, and then in New college, being compelled by no law notwithstanding to the same. Only Magdalene college and Christes church, misliking the heady rashnes of them, did shew themselves more constante in thys matter then the rest. And here," &c.
The following is from the first edition, pp. 1007-8: "Who supplying the room of the subdean *under Doctoure Marshall* in Christ's Church, *upon a great zeale, more willful than witful, called his companye together into the back side of the quere, where he required certain of the prebendaries, which wer nothing so folishlye affected as he was, to be present and to assist him. In the number of the students were a great many grave men, well learned and wise. To them Doctoure Tresham made an exhortation, the which was so eloquently handled and with such arte persuasory, that although we be not able to attain to the perfit grace thereof, yet in repeting the effect we thought it not good to defraud the reader of the fruite of so worthy a matter. The state of his oration was, to move them to come to the church, and there devoutly to behave themselves, and to here masse. Among other things conteined in his oration, two were principal, which this auncient doctour most substantially handled. The one was a proof of al masse to be good, whiche he confirmed by an enumeration how many kindes of masses there wer. The other matter was a violent persuasion, to bring men to church for the commodity that should arise by it. For the first, he sayd that all masses were either of the Trinity, or of the Holy Ghost, or of our Ladye. Now the Trinity said he none wil deny but damnable heretikes: such as wer condemned by the holy general counsels. Wherfore the masse of the Trinity must needs be good. The masse of the Holy Ghost was never douted of, of any Christian. Why? It is sayde before every generall counsell, and therefore it muste nedes be good. But peradventure ye doubte of the masse of oure Ladye. But I tell you, there is stuffe inough in Scrypture to prove it, and good stuffe too. But stuffe did he store them with none but with this. For the other part of his perswasion, he said,* ther were a company of goodly copes," &c. Foxe was, in all probablility, furnished with an abstract of the oration on these "important" matters by Jewel, afterwards bishop of Salisbury.
Stow says, Nov. 24. - ED.
Addenda:Upon the 20th, according to the "Ritorno del Regno d'Inghilterra alla cath. Unione," &c. reprinted in Poli Epistolæ, pars v. 305, written probably by Binardi. or Floribello, or Fr. Stella, or some other Italian in the cardinal's retinue." (Pye's Life of Card. Pole, p. 93.)
The first edition reads "procession in Paul's Churche, with Masse, and te Deum solemnely songe."
The title of the little volume alluded to is, "Catechismus brevis, Christianæ disciplinæ summam continens, omnibus Ludimagistris auth. Regiâ commendatus: huic Catechismo adjuncti sunt Articuli de quibus in ultima Synodo Londinensi A. D. 1552, &c. &c. 8vo. Lond. 1553." This Catechism is generally considered to be the production of Poynet, bishop of Winchester. Strype, however, says, "It was certainly writ by Alexander Noel, as I find by comparing Noel's Catechism and this together." See the matter again referred to in Cranmer's Disputation at Oxford, p. 468 of this volume, and in Ridley's Disputation, p. 487. The following passage of a letter from Sir John Cheke to Bullinger, dated Greenwich, June 7th, 1553 (Zurich Letters, Parker Soc. 1846, No. 71), decides the point of the authorship: "Besides this, he [Edward VI.] has lately recommended to the schools by his authority the Catechism of John Bishop of Winchester, and has published the Articles of the Synod of London." Weston evidently alludes to the latter part of the title-page, respecting the Articles. This book was printed in Latin by Wolfe, and in English by Day, at the same time. Copies "are very rare. They could only be circulated from May 20th to July 6th, of 1553. During the reign of Mary all that fell into the hands of the various commissioners, visitors, and bishops, were burnt. Beloe, in his Anecdotes of Literature, mentions this work (vol. iii. 22), and says of it, ' it is a very rare little book, concerning which Heylin very truly says, that it is so hard to come by, that scarce one scholar in five hundred hath ever heard of it, and hardly one of a thousand has ever seen it.'" (See more in Dr. Lamb's Historical Account of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 6, Cambridge, 1829.) There are copies of it in the Public Library at Cambridge, and elsewhere; and the Parker Society has reprinted it among the "Documents of Edward VI." Dr. Lamb thinks that the publication of neither part can be said to have had the sanction of Convocation, strictly speaking. Dr. Cardwell ("Acta Synodalia") disputes Dr. Lamb's view, and thinks that the Articles had.
A good sketch of the policy of the Bishop of Rome, in the appointment of legates, is given by De Marca, a French Romanist, Archbishop of Paris, in his learned work, De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, lib. v. cap. 47, ¶ 1. "Reserato (writes he) retinendæ dominationis arcano per legationes, perpetuos in provinciis legatos ea de caussa instituendos esse censuerunt Romani Pontifices. Eam illis mentem fuisse, docet Honorii III. Epistola ad Rogerium Archiep. Pisanum, in qua verbis minime ambiguis scribit; Corsicam deferbuisse a subjectione et obedientia sedis Apostolicæ ob desuetudinem Legatorum. Corsicana vero inquit (Tom. III. Italia Sacra, p. 441) tam prolixitate spatiorum quam negligentia pastorum, dominorum insolentia, et desuetudine Legatorum Sedis Apostolicæ, a subjectione et obedientia Romanæ ecclesiæ deferbuerat. Scilicet ea prima et potior cura Legatis erat, ut populos imbuerent reverentia Pontificum Romanorum, commendata successione Apostolorum et loci auctoritate, intentatis porro pœnis adversus eos, qui majestatem Romanæ sedis minus colere viderentur."
{Cattley/Pratt inserts 'to say' in the text}: The words "to say" are supplied from Elder's Letter, appended to the Chronicle of Queen Jane and Q. Mary.
But the actual reconciliation, as it should have been made plainer, took place on the 30th, St. Andrew's day: see Phillips' Life of Cardinal Pole, vol. ii. p. 129, and Pol. Ep. v. 315.
Several of these letters and small documents are reprinted from the original publications in Cardinal Quirini's collection of Pole's Epistolæ, tom. v. Brixiæ, 1757, pp. 293-324. The sermon of Bishop Gardiner is given in Latin from notes taken by Harpesfield, archdeacon of Canterbury, and of course more at length than in Foxe. At the close, where Foxe (p. 578) has "for the Bishop of London," the reprint in Pole gives "et reverendissimo Legato Polo," p. 299.
This may be confirmed if necessary from Spondanus: "His interim Romam celeriter perlatis, propter lætissimæ rei nuncium supplicationes publicæ decretæ fuere, non in Urbe solum, sed per Italiam universam, gratiis Deo agendis, ipso summo Pontifice sacra mysteria Romæ celebrante, et Indulgentiam ad modum Jubilæi per Christianum orbem in gratiarum actionem publicante." (Spondan. Annales Eccles. an. 1554, ¶ 3.) Sanders had employed nearly the same language: see Raynaldi, Annales ad an. 1554, ¶ 14.
The title of Philip's letter runs thus in the first edition: "A copye of a Letter of Philip King of Spain, and at that time of England also, written with his own hand to Pope Julius the third, touching the restoring of the Realm of England to the obedience of the Sea of Rome, translated out of the Spanish tongue, as it was first written, into the English tongue."
See Raynaldi, Annales ad an. 1554, ¶ 21. "Con este despacho partio don Juan Manrique para Roma." (Seg. parte de la Vida del Emp. Carlos Quinto por Sandoval; book 31, ¶ 9, an. 1551.)
The Latin copy of this letter is in the First Edition, pp. 1012. 1013 - ED.
Addenda:This and other similar papers were published at the time in the shape of separate tracts, some of them at Milan in 1554 and 1555. There are copies in the Grenville collection (see Biblioth. Grenv. vol. ii. pp. 447, 561).
This archibishop of Conza in the kingdom of Naples (not Cosenza in Calabria, as writers sometimes state) was perhaps Thaddeus Gaddi, a Florentine, who was made cardinal of St. Sylvester in 1557, and died 1516{sic}: he had succeeded his uncle, Nicolas Gaddi (also a cardinal, who died 1562,) in the archbishopric of Conza. (Moreri, vv. Cardinal and Gaddi.) But others think Hieronymus Muzzarelli rather to be intended.
Addenda:Hieronymus Muzzarelli seems rather to be the right man: "A Julio III. allectus est [Hieron. Muzzarellus] sacri Palatii magister, et anno 1553 die xi Dec. ab eodem ad sedem Compsanam evectus, ac paulo post ad Carolum V. Imp. de gravissimis negotiis nuntius Apostolicus missus." Quetif. Scripp. Ord. Præd. ii. 179.
Raynaldi has printed this letter, with the omission however of the sentences from "of the which" down to "in times past." Annales ad an. 1554, ¶ 16.
{Cattley/Pratt here inserts a section entitled, 'A Lamentable Example of Cruelty showed upon John Bolton...', taken from Edition 1563, p. 1017.}
Addenda:See a letter of Moyer, somewhat correcting and explaining Bolton's statements, in Strype's Memorials, vol. vii. p. 278, Edit. 1816, No. 58.
Tom. ix. Operum, p. 1310. Basil. 1540. - ED.
{Cattley inserts the previous gloss here ('Note how the meaning of St. Paul's words are here applied,') and adds 'for ever.' He places 'Winchester a false prophet' as a marginal gloss.}
"To establish the sale of abbey-lands." [Strype writes under the year 1555: "Notwithstanding the law that was made in the parliament last year, confirming church lands to the present owners, yet so cautious was sir W. Petre, one of the principal secretaries of state, that he thought it not sure enough to rely upon it, and therefore obtained a bull this year from the pope, for the ratification of the manors and lands, that he had purchased of king Henry VIII., which had formerly belonged to monasteries, &c. This bull is extant in Dugdales' Monasticon, where it is specified, that sir W. Petre was ready to assign and demise the said lands to spiritual uses. The original bull was in the keeping of William Lord Petre (descended from the said secretary) anno 1672." Chap. xxxiv. p. 465.]
Appendix: That this was never done unreservedly, and that members of the church of Rome especially are bound to, and that the bishop of Rome, had he power sufficient, would enforce, a total restitution of secularized church property (so called), see proved, as regards Cardinal Pole, in "A Letter written to Dr. Burnet, giving an account of Cardinal Pole's secret Powers," Lond. 1685, where we read (p. 10): "It is plain by the progress of this matter, that the court of Rome never intended to confirm the abbey-lands; for all that was done by Pool was only an artifice to still men's fears, and to lay the clamour which the apprehension of the return of Popery was raising; that so it might once enter with the less opposition, and then it would be easy to carry all lesser matters, when the great point was once gained, as the saddle goes into the bargain for the horse." Again: "The Pope according to this decree (Canon Law, Causa xii. quæst. 2, ¶ 20) could not confirm the alienations that had been made by Henry; and if he did confirm them, the act must be null in law, and could be no prejudice to the present incumbent or his successor, to claim his right. Therefore pursuant to this the powers given to Pool, authorize him only to indemnify and discharge the possessors of the church-lands for the goods they had embezzled, and for the rents they had received; for it runs in these words (which I have marked in the Breve itself, that you may readily turn to it), And to agree and transact with the possessors of the goods of the Church, for the rents which they have unlawfully received, and for the moveable goods which they have consumed; and for freeing and discharging them for them, they restoring first (if that shall seem expedient to you) the lands themselves that are unduly detained by them. By these powers it is plain, that the Pope only forgave what was past, but stood to the right of the church, as to the restitution of the lands themselves: and that clause - if that shall seem to you expedient - belongs only to the order and point of time; so that the discharging what was past, might have been done by Cardinal Pool before or after restitution, as he pleased; but restitution was still to be made; and he had by these powers no authority to confirm the alienations that had been made by Henry the 8th for the time to come." (pp. 7, 8.)
For later times, "Romanism as it rules in Ireland," vol. ii. pp. 240, 248, will furnish proof that there is no relinquishment of claim, grounded on extracts from the Bullarium of Benedict XIV.
This seizure is alluded to infrà, vol. vii. p. 342, where Elizabeth Warne is stated to have been one seized on this occasion.
The queen was actually reported in May following to be delivered of a prince.
The prayer in Latin, with the following inscription, is given in the First Edition of the Acts and Monuments, p. 1015. A Prayer made by Doctor Weston, Dean of Westminster; and delivered to the Children of the Queen's Majesty's Grammar-school there; and said by them daily, Morning and Evening, for her Majesty. - "Juste Domine Deus, qui, propter primæ mulieris piaculum, communem omnibus fœminis severam et inevitabilem maledictionem denunciasti et imposuisti: - nempe ut in peccatis conciperent, et, gravidæ, multis et magnis cruciatibus subjacerent, et, tandem, cum vitæ periculo parerent: - quæsumus, pro tuâ immensâ bonitate proque inexhaustâ misericordiâ, hujus legis edictum mitiga. Quiescat, paululum, ira tua, et reginam nostram Mariam, jam partum enitentem, tuæ gratiæ sinu fove. Adjuva eam ut, sine periculo vitæ, dolorem superare; prolem corpore elegantem, animo nobilem, justo tempore valeat parere: quò pòst, angustiæ oblita, cum gaudio miserationis tuæ gratiam celebret, teque tuumque nomen nobiscum benedicat in secula seculorum! Oramus, obsecramus, obtestamur, Audi Domine et exaudi, ne dicant fidei et ecclesiæ tuæ hostes, 'Ubi est Deus eorum?'" - ED.
This matter is handled more at large in the first edition, p. 1019, as follows: "In the beginning of ye next yere, in ye moneth of January, the parliament (whiche began as ye haue heard, the xii. day of Nouember last) was nowe dissolued; wherin it was enacted yt the statutes, before time made for the punishement of heretikes, (or rather to speake more truly, the true professors of Christes gospell) and the confirmation of the Popes power, shuld be reuiued, and in as good force, as euer they were before the raign of king Henry theight; and that all such statutes as were at any tyme made against ye supremacie of the Pope, should be cleane abrogated & abolished. When these things were once obtained, & that the Papists had gotten the lawes on their side, & the swerde put into their handes, to kill & murther whom they would: there was then no delay made on their behalf, to accomplishe the effecte of their long hidden infestred and cankred tyranny, against the saintes of God, and true professors of Christes gospell: with whome neither wisdome, learning, dignitie, nor age, coulde preuayle, as shall more playnly appeare in the discourse of these seuerall matters hereafter followynge, wherein also shall some time appeare that the churche of God (as in al times heretofore: so nowe) was not voyde of dissemblyng and false brethren, by whose meanes (as most fit instrumentes) Satan brought his purpose the better to passe. All whiche notwithstanding the children of God, hauing the lawful oportunitie of seruing of God, taken by this crueltie from them, yet in sundrie times and places secretly assembled them selues, to the comforte of their consciences, & instruction of their soules. And therfore, as at other tymes, so vpon newe yeares day, An. 1555, at euening, there were many godly persones gathered together in a house within Bowe churchyarde in London, where they were, with their minister maister Thomas Rose, deuoutly & zelously occupied in prayer, and hearing of Goddes worde. But whyle they were in the middest of this their godly exercise, they were about xxx. of them apprehended and caried to the Counters, but maister Rose was had before the Lorde Chauncelour, and from thence to the Fleete. To the whiche company that godly man and dere martyr of God, maister Hoper, beinge certified by a letter, of the whole discourse hereof, did wryte this comfortable and strengthening exhortation, the copy whereof with the other letters, hereafter ensueth."
This letter, with the two following, are printed at the end of a work entitled "An Apologye made by the Reuerende Father and constante martyr of Chryste, John Hooper, etc., that he should be a maintainer and encorager of suche as cursed the Queene's highnes," etc. Lond. printed by W. Tisdale, 1562, 8vo. - ED.
{Cattley/Pratt inserts here into the text a letter entitled, 'A Letter sent to Master Hooper, concerning the taking of a godly Company in Bow-Churchyard, at their Prayer' and notes: This letter is inserted from the First Edition, page 1020: the genuine piety, combined with the perfect simplicity which it displays, cannot fail to interest the reader. - ED.}
Addenda:This and the two following Letters are in MSS. 2. 2. 16, Nos. 2, 3, 4, Emmanuel Coll. Cambridge. Foxe has been collated with that copy, which fills up "Sh." as "Shorte." This Letter is there signed "Tuus usque ad aras fidelissimus servus."
The Emmanuel copy dates this second Letter "January 4, 1554," and then adds, "Your loving fried as you knowe, J. H."
{Cattley/Pratt has 'benefits' in the text.} The first edition has "benefit," supported by "beneficium" in the Latin (Ridley's Works, P. S.), p. 469.
Strype has given what he considers a more correct copy of this letter, in his Memorials, under Mary; Orig. No. 27. There it is dated "Jan. 4, 1554."
The Emmanuel MS. (also Foxe's first Edition) dates this third Letter Jan. 4, 1554. It adds a signature, "Your loving brother in Christ, John Hoper." Then follow these words - "Approbatur Edm. London. Perused by me Henry Bull, and I will further see to the correction hereof at the printer's hands." Coverdale's "Letters of the Martyrs" were originally printed (and very accurately too) from these Emmanuel MSS.
Strype specifies Bishop Hooper, Dr. Crome, Harold Tomson, Rogers, beside "divers others, to the number of eleven persons, besides two more that were not then sent for," as being "arraigned" on that occasion. Machyn, in his Diary (p. 80) says: "The xxii day of Januarii was raynyd at my lord Chansseler plasse bysyd sant Mare Overes ser John Hoper latt bysshope of Glosetur, doctur C[rome], as parsun of Wyttyngtun Colege, harold Tomson, Rogars parsun or veker of Sant Pulkers, and dyvers odur." The examination of Rowland Taylor, who was one of the number, is given at p. 685 of the same volume.
The first edition, p. 1022, proceeds: "for that the parliament was then but newelye ended. In the which (as ye have hearde) the byshoppe of Rome's supremacye was restored, which scant required any great joy, as the sequel declared."
Strype says, that Taylor was ordered to appear there again between three and four in the afternoon.
According to Strype only one month was granted him. See Memorials under Mary: chap. xi. page 170, Edit. 1816. Strype has collected a few additional notes respecting Dr. Crome. - ED.
Appendix:There is an allusion to Dr. Crome in Ridley's Letter to Hooper, at p. 643. He had been committed to the Fleet Jan. 13, 1554; see ... chapter xi. of vol. iii. of Strype's Memorials. See also Dr. Lamb's "Collection of CCCC. MSS.," London 1838, pp. 20, 27.
These initials mean Hooper, Farrar, Taylor, Bradford, Philpot, Rogers, Saunders.
In the edit. of 1563 (p. 975) this paragraph is given in the first person, in accordance with Ridley's MS. At the end, instead of "he smelled," it gives, more closely to the Latin, "methought I smelled."
{Cattley places the previous footnote here.}
In Joh. Evang. Tract. 59, ¶ 1, tom. iii. p. 2, col. 663. - ED.
In Gelasii Histo. Conc. Nicæni Prim. lib. ii. cap. 30. Apud Labbé, tom. ii. col. 232. - ED.
The bishop is right; but it makes its appearance in the proceedings of the Second Nicene Council, Actio vi.; in Labbe, tom. vii. col. 447 and 837: - ??????? ???? ???? -?? ????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????????, ? ??? ???????? ???????? ????, ??? ?????????? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?????????? ?????????, ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????. See Aubertin, de Euchar. Sacram. p. 914 (Edit. Latin. 1654) upon the contradictory affirmations of this notable council.
This assertion is perfectly true, although cardinal Bessarion had managed to produce a temporary union; for his conduct in which business he was severely blamed, the Greek church being uninformed of his proceedings, and having never authorized him to attempt a uinion. See Historia concertationis Græc. Latinorumque de Transubstant., auct. J. R. Kieslingio; Leipsiæ, 1754, pp. 188 - 194; Fleury, Hist. Eccles. livre 108, ¶ 135, and Labbe, tom. xiii. - ED.
The Council Book says: "At Richmount the iv. of September. A Lettre of Apparaunce directed to Hughe Latymere."
{Cattley/Pratt alters 'blow the note' to 'blow the morte' in the text.} The Emmanuel MS. (1. 2. 8. No. 10) and Foxe's first edition (p. 977) here read "mote," altered in the subsequent editions into "note:" but there can be no doubt that "mote" is for "mōte" or "morte:" to "blow the mort" is a hunting phrase, illustrated by Nares in his Glossary: in the Gentleman's Recreations, 1721, p. 67, in the "Directions at the Death of Buck or Hart," we read: "then having blown the mort, and all the company come in, &c. [then the cutting up is described]: the concluding ceremony is, if a buck a double, if a stag a treble, mort is blown by one, and then a whole recheat in concert by all that have horns." Green's Card of Fancy has: "He that bloweth the mort before the death of the buck, may very well miss of his fees."
See the Harleian MSS. No. 422, art. 92.
"Used any Latin tongue," Ed. 1563, p. 978, and so the Harl. MS.
Strype (Mem. III. i. 375) observes that "Foxe's copy of Latimer's protestation is very imperfect, and many mistakes made, and many things omitted." He accordingly in his Appendix, No. XXXIV. supplies a better from the Foxian MSS.
{Cattley/Pratt alters 'Lordes & maysters of the transubstantiation' to 'masters, the transubstantiators'.} So the first and second editions, and Latimer's Works (P. S. vol. ii. p. 253), and the Latin, "transubstantiatores." Other editions read corruptly "the transubstantion" and "of the transubstantiation."
"Offerers" is the reading in all the editions of Foxe except that of 1576, where and in Strype it is corrupted into "officers."
{Cattley/Pratt alters 'one' to 'once' in the text.} The old editions of Foxe and Strype here read "more than one, two, or three hours together [to either, Str.] without interruption:" but the Foxe of 1684 for "one" reads "once;" and a copy of the Protestation in Caius College, Cambridge, reads - "more than two or three, &c."
{Cattley/Pratt alters 'snatches, reuilinges' to snackes, rejactes, revilings' in the text.} So reads the first edition of Foxe. This reading is supported neither by the Harleian MS. (Latimer's Works, P. S. vol. ii. 257, 481), nor the Emmanuel MS.; and yet it seems the more correct. "Snak" is explained in Jamieson's Scottish Dictionary by "the gnashing of dog's teeth, when he aims at prey;" and the verb "rejagge" is given by Halliwell, "to reprove," &c. In Strype's Mem. vii. p. 131, we have "snacks, rejagges, revilings." "Rejagge" occurs also in the Promptorium Parvulorum, which see and the note.
{Cattley/Pratt alters 'anye thinge' to 'many things' in the text.} So in the ed. 1563 and the Emmanuel Coll. MS.: in the Latin it is "plurima scire." The passage is a translation of two Latin verses, which Latimer seems to have been fond of, for he cites them infrà, vol. vii. p. 413.
Petilian was a Donatist bishop of Cirtha in Africa in the beginning of the fifth age. - ED.
See the matters in this paragraph fully detailed in a letter from Julius Terentianus to John ab Ulmis (Zurich Letters, Parker Soc. 1846, No. 182.)
Here ends the Emmanuel Coll. MS.
"Cranmer's Book. A Defence of the trve and catholike Doctrine of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Christ." 4to. Lond. 1550. - ED.
Several treatises upon this question will be found in "Operum Huld. Zuinglii pars secunda." Tiguri, 1581; pp. 313 to 376. - ED.
{Cattley/Pratt inserts into the text: 'Latimer: - "Yes, Sir."'} This is Latimer's reply in edit. 1563 and Harleian MS., and is supported by the Latin; in other editions it is expunged, and Weston's "Is not manducare," &c. erroneously put into Latimer's mouth.
The first edition adds, "I was in a thing, and have forgotten it."
The recantation of Nicholas Cartryght, Dr. of Divinity, and Vicar of a Parish in the diocese of Cov. and Lichfield, may be seen in the Harleian MS. 421.
It is proper to remark, that Diaconi is the word used in the passage referred to, not Sacerdotis. (See Chrysostom, hom. 21, ¶ 4, upon the Acts.)
Reference is made by Dr. Milner (End of Controversy) "to St. Augustine's account of the death of his mother Monica. On her death-bed she had entreated him to remember her soul at the altar; and in compliance with this request, after her decease he performed this duty in order, as he declares, 'to obtain the pardon of her sins.' (Aug. Confess. ix. c. 13. ¶ 35). But what can this have to do with the point in question? In the first place purgatory is not a place of pardon, but of punishment. Nor only is Augustine silent respecting any temporal pains, but he adds: - 'I believe that thou hast already done what I ask;' so that his prayer could not be for her release from the Papal Tartarus." (Elliott's Delineation of Roman Catholicism, p. 277, Lond. 1844.)
{Cattley/Pratt alters 'flying Apostataes' to 'fletyng apostates' in the text.} The meaning or derivation given to "flete" in the notes to Prompt. Parv., "Anglo-Saxon fleotan, fluctuare," seems to show this reading to be preferable to "flying," which is adopted in all editions after 1563; agreeing as it does also so well with the remarks following. In the Festyvall, fol. cvii. recto, ed. 1528, we have: "So was Peter so stedfast after, that neyther for wele nor wo he never fletered."
Alexander Ales, or Alesius, who translated the first Liturgy of Edward VI. into Latin. See Dr. Watkins' note in his Life of Latimer, prefixed to his Sermons (London, 1824), p. ciii. - ED.
The Council Book says: "At Westminster the xiij. day of September, 1553. This daye Mr. Hugh Lattymer clercke appeared before the lordes, and for his seditious demeanor was comitted to the Towere, there to remaine a close prisoner, havinge attendinge upon him one Austy his servante ... The archbishop of Canterbury appearing this day before the lords, was commaunded to appere the next day before them at afternoon, at the Star Chamber."
"???? ???? ??????, i.e. "Haud absque Theseo;" cum significamus rem alieno auxilio confici: - refertur hoc adagium a Plutarcho in ejus vita, ¶ 28." Erasmi adagiorum. Chil. i. cent. 5, p. 167. Basil, 1540. - ED.
Rather upon "Expedit vobis ut ego eam." See Biblioth. Patrum. Paris, 1576, tom. v. col. 549. - ED.
[Weston does not give the quotation quite accurately; it is, "Credi salubriter potest (mysterium), vestigari utiliter non potest." Biblioth. Patrum, tom. iv. col. 225. Edit. Paris, 1576. - ED.]
The first edition reads "philosopher" for "sophister."
This work is considered spurious. See Edit. Bened. tom. vi. Jenkyns, p. 73. - ED.
{Cattley/Pratt includes in the text a heading, 'Certaine Observations or Censures given to the Reader, upon the Disputations of the Bishops and Doctors above mentioned.'} For these observations, etc. to the close of the Queen's letter to the mayor and aldermen of Oxford, on page 532, see Edition 1563, pages 991 to 999 inclusive. In later Editions Foxe sums up the disputations in these words: "First of the opponents' part, neither was there almost any argument in true mood and figure rightly framed: neither could the answerers be permitted to say for themselves; and if they answered any thing, it was condemned before they began to speak. Again, such disturbance and confusion, more like a conspiration than any disputation, without all form and order, was in the schools during the time of their answering, that neither could the answerers have place to utter their minds, neither would the opponents be satisfied with any reasons."
See the Harleian MSS. Number 422, art. 53, 60, 68, and the Appendix - ED.
A prison so called. - ED.
Appendix:"The north gate of the city remembered in St. Frid's Days an. 700 and before ... in after time fell into the hands of the mayor and bailiffs, who made it a common prison." (Peshall's Account of Oxford, pp. 197-8).
The market-place, "Quadrivium" in Latin. - ED.
{Cattley/Pratt finishes the paragraph with: 'at it all; and the due reformation of all things which are amiss, I commit to Almighty God my heavenly Father, who, by his dear Son our Saviour Jesus Christ whom he hath made the universal judge of all flesh, shall truly and righteously judge both you and me.'} This letter and the next are given according to the Edition of 1563, page 977, except that they are there exhibited as one letter. - ED.
The Council Book says: "At the Starre Chamber the xiiij. of September ano. 1553. This presente daye Thomas archbishoppe of Canterburye appeared before the Lordes (as he was the daye before appoynted): after longe and serious debatynge of his Offence by the whole boarde, it was thoughte convenyente that as well for the Treason committed by him againste the Queene's Matie as for the aggravatynge of the same his offence, by spreadinge aboute seditious Billes movinge tumultes to the disquietnes of the presente State, he should be comitted to the Towere, there to remayne and be referred to Justyce or furthere ordered as shall stande with the Queen's pleasure." The Harleian MS. mis-copies the date of this entry "the viij of September," whence it is so printed in the Archæologia, vol. xviii. p. 175.
The following entries may be added, as interesting: "At Westminster the xvij day of November ano. 1553. A letter to the Livetenante of the Tower willinge him at conveniente tymes, by his discrecyon, to suffer [among others named] Docter Cranmere ... to have the liberty of the walke within the garden of the Towere, upon suggestyon that diverse be and have bene evell at ease in their bodyes for want of Ayre." ... "At St. James's the iij day of May ano. 1554. It was this Daye ordered by the Lordes that the Maiore of Oxeford should bringe in his Byll of Allowances for the charges of Doctor Cranmer, Doctor Ridleye, and Mr. Lattimer, and should have a Warrante for the same, and furthere it was resolved by their Lordshippes that the Judges and the Queenes Highnes Counselle learned should be called together, and theire Opinions demaunded what they thinke in Lawe her highnes may doe touchinge the Causes of the sayde Cranmer, Ridley, and Lattimer, being alredie by both the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge judged to be obstynate Heretiques, which matter is the rather to be consulted upon for that the said Cranmer is allredy attainted." ... "At Hampton Courte the xxv Day of September ano. 1554. A letter to the Mayore and Bailifes of Oxeford to delivere the late Bishoppe of Canterburye, Doctor Ridley, and Latymer, over to the charge of the newe Maiore and Bailifes that shall succede in their rowme."
The following entry (Coun. Reg. Mary, vol. ii. p. 367) was kindly pointed out to the Editor by Robert Lemon, Esq of the S. P. O.: -
At Grenewiche the Seconde of Februarye 1555.ThapparaunceThe L. ChauncelourMr. VicechamberlaineThe L. Privie SealeMr. Sec. BourneThErle of PembrokeSr. John MordauntThe L. AdmyrallSr Thos. WhartonThe B. of ElyeSr Fraunces EnglefieldMr. ComptrollourSr Edward WalgraveMr. of Thorsse
"A letter to the Thresourer, giving him tunderstand that it is resolved here that the late Maiour and Bailefes of Oxforde shall have for the charges due unto them for D. Cranmer, Ridley and Latymer and their servauntes, thre pounde every weke; praieng him to give ordre that they be paide after that rate for somoche as is due unto them."
The following extract from the Convocation and Bonner Registers is in Wilkins, iv. p. 94: "Vicesimo septimo ejusdem mensis (post diversas continuationes, in quibus nihil actum est memoratu dignum) post aliquales tractatus et colloquia de reformatione status cleri in convocatione habita, comparuerunt in domo capitulari S. Pauli London. prolocutor et alii doctores, viz. theologiæ professores et legum utriusque universitatis nuper ad universitatem Oxoniæ destinati, et præsentaverunt processum super examinatione Thomæ Cranmer, Nicolai Ridley, et Hugonis Latymer per eosdem doctores ex speciali commissione eis directa habit. et fact. sub sigillo universitatis Oxon. ac subscriptione notariorum publicorum una cum quibusdam aliis scriptis."
{Cattley/Pratt alters the text from 'al mine answers' to 'all my three answers'.} "All my three answers" is the reading in the first edition, the later ones read "all mine answers; "now," four lines lower, is from the same source.
Dr. Jenkyns has printed another copy of Cranmer's Letter to the Council from the Emmanuel Library at Cambridge,which differs considerably from Foxe's, but very little from that in Coverdale's "Letters of the Martyrs." ("Cranmer's Remain," i. p. 365.)
A very interesting narrative of the troubles of Thomas Mountain, parson of Whittington College, which has not found a place in Foxe's volumes, might here be introduced from Strype's "Memorials under Mary I.; chaps. vii. xi.;" and more particularly, respecting his removal to the prison at Cambridge, his release thence, and his subsequent hair-breadth escapes from the hands of bishop Gardiner's familiars; in chapters xxiii. xxiv. - ED.
Foxe in his first edition only, p. 905, says, that Dr. Taylor "was upon the same committed to the Tower, where not long after by sicknes he departed:" in which statement he no doubt discovered that he was mistaken. (See Richardson's Godwin.)
1A report of this discussion - intituled "The treu report of the dysputacyon had and begōne in the convocacyō hows at London, etc. Imprinted at Basil by Alexander Edmonds, 1554" - was drawn up by Philpot, archdeacon of Winchester. This was immediately translated by V. Pollanus into Latin, and published under the title - "Vera Expositio Disputationis institutæ mandato D. Mariæ reginæ in Synodo Ecclesiasticâ," (16 mo. Romæ, 1554.) See an English version of Pollanus's Preface in Philpot's "Examinations, &c.," Parker Soc. Ed., page 174; also, Herbert's Typographical Antiquities, vol. iii. page 1574; Strype's Memorials, vol. iv. page 453, London, 1816; also Gerde's Scrinium Antiquarium ad Hist. Reform. Groningæ, 1748, tom. iii. page 163, where a large portion of the Latin Exposition is reprinted.
Appendix, ref. page 395, note 1 The ensuing Report contains many verbal variations from the text of 1563: the whole has been collated with the Latin, which is printed in the Latin edition of 1559: some of the variations being improvements are left to stand; in other cases the readings of the first Edition are restored, as more faithful to the Latin. A Portion of the Disputation, as between Haddon and Watson, not given by Foxe, will be found in the Harleian MSS. No. 422, fol. 38-40.
Addenda:Foxe gives this Disputation in Latin in his "Rerum in Ecclesia Gestarum, &c., Basil. 1559," p. 215; and introduces it with the following words: "Eas autem disputationes in Acta diligentissimè collegit Joannes Filpottus, quarum ipse sæpe in suis post examinibus mentionem facit. Quoniamque eædem ab altero Pollano quodam e vernacula nostra in Latinam sunt linguam redditæ, minus ea in re mihi laborandum fuit, nisi quod narrationem ipsam contractius alicubi in compendium redegi, paucisque in locis recognoscenda nonnulla videbantur." In his first English Edition (1563) Foxe reprints Philpot's original; in the subsequent Editions he has broken up the text, and in some places mended the style, introducing, however, several misprints; these are corrected in this Edition, and several expressions of the original restored. Foxe's expression, in supplying the name of the sixth Protestant advocate - "et (nisi fallit memoria) Cantore Menevensi" - seems to imply that he was himself present at the disputation.
"To the house of the Aspasians, Sempronians, or mother of the Gracchies," is the reading in Foxe's text, except that in 1576 and ever since "Aspasians" has been changed into "Vaspasians," and "or" into "and." Foxe's text has been improved from the Latin edition, which runs thus, p. 233: - "Quæ si tam felicem sortita fortunam fuisset, quàm cum felici ingenio non infelicem conjunxit educationem, non modo cum Aspasiis, Semproniis, Gracchorum matre, et literariâ laude commendatissimis quibusque fœminis, sed viris, Academicis etiam titulis lauroque onustis, pari certare commendatione potuisset." All the females of the families of the Sempronii, Gracchi, and Scipios, were sometimes called by the term Sempronia. There was a sister of the Gracchi called Sempronia. Hence Foxe puts in "Matre Gracchorum" parenthetically, to determine whom he meant. (See Lempriere.)
The title of the little volume alluded to is, "Catechismus brevis, Christianæ disciplinæ summam continens, omnibus Ludimagistris auth. Regiâ commendatus: huic Catechismo adjuncti sunt Articuli de quibus in ultima Synodo Londinensi A. D. 1552, &c. &c. 8vo. Lond. 1553." This Catechism is generally considered to be the production of Poynet, bishop of Winchester. Strype, however, says, "It was certainly writ by Alexander Noel, as I find by comparing Noel's Catchism and this together." (Memorials of the Reformation under Edward VI. book ii. chap. 15.) See the matter again referred to in Cranmer's Disputation at Oxford, p. 468 of this volume, and in Ridley's Disputation, p. 487. The following passage of a letter from Sir John Cheke to Bullinger, dated Greenwich, June 7th, 1553 (Zurich Letters, Parker Soc. 1846, No. 71), decides the point of the authorship: "Besides this, he [Edward VI.] has lately recommended to the schools by his authority the Catechism of John Bishop of Winchester, and has published the Articles of the Synod of London." Weston evidently alludes to the latter part of the title-page, respecting the Articles. This book was printed in Latin by Wolfe, and in English by Day, at the same time. Copies "are very rare. They could only be circulated from May 20th to July 6th, of 1553. During the reign of Mary all that fell into the hands of the various commissioners, visitors, and bishops, were burnt. Beloe, in his Anecdotes of Literature, mentions this work (vol. iii. 22), and says of it, ' it is a very rare little book, concerning which Heylin very truly says, that it is so hard to come by, that scarce one scholar in five hundred hath ever heard of it, and hardly one of a thousand has ever seen it.'" (See more in Dr. Lamb's Historical Account of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 6, Cambridge, 1829.) There are copies of it in the Public Library at Cambridge, and elsewhere; and the Parker Society has reprinted it among the "Documents of Edward VI." Dr. Lamb thinks that the publication of neither part can be said to have had the sanction of Convocation, strictly speaking. Dr. Cardwell ("Acta Synodalia") disputes Dr. Lamb's view, and thinks that the Articles had.
{Cattley/Pratt alters 'Lord great master' to 'lord high steward'.} All the English editions, following Philpot's original, read erroneously "lord great master." The Latin edition (1559), p. 216, says: "quidam generosus accessit, nomine Domini magni œconomi, significans ipsum cum Comite Devoniensi (qui sanguine ortus regio, quamvis a pueris carcere clauses fuerit, in omni tamen disciplinarum genere non mediocriter eruditus, natalibus nuper æquissimo judicio comitiorum restitutus est) velle disputationi interesse:" and the margin says opposite to "œconomi," "Is est comes Arundellus qui ad nobilitatis antiquiss. ornamenta adjecit etiam eruditionem non vulgarem." See Beatson's Political Index, vol. i. p. 432, edit. 1806; and Gerdes' Miscellanea Groningana nova, tom. ii. pt. i. p. 168, note.
Addenda:It would seem from a note of Mr. Nichols on Machyn's Diary, Preface, p. xiv., that the Latin gives the more correct title; for that the Earl of Arundel, having been made Lord Great Master soon after the accession of Mary, procured the restoration of the former designation "Lord High Steward," which had been changed on the appointment of the Duke of Suffolk in 1531, copying the French title. This title or name of office occurs in a quotation in the "Retrospective Review," New Series, i. 210.
Dial. vol. iv. p. 84. edit. Sirmond: and vol. iv. edit. Schulze. Halæ, 1776. - ED.
It may be well perhaps to give the original of a passage, which has from that day to the present been perverted by mistranslation (see Faber's "Account of Husenbeth's Attempt to assist the Bishop of Strasbourg," Lond. 1829, p. 30): Ἐραν. Καὶ πιστεύεις γε σώματος Χριστοῦ μεταλαμβάνειν καὶ αἷματος; Ὀρθ. Οὕτω πιστεύω. Ἐραν. Ὥσπερ τοίνυν τὰ σύμβολα τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ σώματος τε καὶ αἷματος, ἄλλα μέν εἰσι πρὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς ἐπικλήσεως, μετά δέ γε τὴν ἐπίκλησιν μεταβάλλεται καὶ ἕτερα γίνεται· οὕτω τὸ δεσποτικὸν σῶμα μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν μετεβλήθη τὴν θείαν. Ὀρθ. Ἑάλως αἷς ὕφηνας ἄρκυσιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὸ μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως· μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ προτέρας οὐσίας καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι, καὶ ἁπτὰ, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν. Theodoret, Dialog. ii. cap. 24; or fol. 38 recto. edit. Romæ, 1547.
"Vigilius" was bishop of Thapsus, and flourished about the year 500, or earlier; his treatise against Eutyches is included in the Bibliotheca Patrum, as in the first Paris collection, vol. v. pp. 567 - 584, where it is incorrectly assigned to Vigilius, bishop of Trent. His works have been published in a collected form by Chifflet; Divione. 1665. The treatise here referred to was published separately, Tiguri, 1539; also Colon. 1575. See Oudin. Comment. de Scrip. Eccles. tom. i. col. 1320; also Walchii Biblioth. Patrum, p. 611, Jenæ, 1834; Rivet's Critici Sacri lib. iv. cap. 28; and Cave's Hist. Litt. - ED.
For "diffuse," the Latin has obscura. "This word (diffuse) appears to have been used in the sense of obscure. I find diffused explained by Cotgrave, 'diffus, espars, obscure.' And in a Latin, Greek, and English Lexicon, by R. Hutton, printed at London by H. Bynneman, 1583, the Latin adverb obscurè is interpreted, 'darkely, obscurely, diffusely.'" (Singer's note, to Cavendish's Life of Wolsey, vol. i. p. 92.) Grove's edition of Cavendish at the same place reads "difficult." Latimer, infrà, vol. vii. p. 450, speaks of certain figurative phrases of Scripture as "diffuse and difficult." Foxe himself, vol. viii. p. 202, says that Julius Palmer was fond of "deep and diffuse questions:" and at p. 242, one Jackson talks of "a diffuse question." Another instance of this word, in the sense of obscure, unintelligible, occurs in Stowe's Chronicle (p. 532, edit. 1631), "and speaking merily to one of the Gentlemen there, being a Welshman, [the Cardinall] said, Rice (quoth he) speake you Welsh to them. I doubt not but that thy speech shall be more diffuse to him, than his French shall be to thee."
{Cattley/Pratt substitutes 'Tubervill' in the text, footnoting:} Or "Troublefield." - ED.
The reason for this alteration of march is thus explained by Stowe: "Certaine both men and women came to Wyat in most lamentable wise, saying, Sir, wee are all like to bee utterly undone, and destroyed for your sake; our houses shall by and by bee throwne downe upon our heads, to the utter spoyle of this borough, with the shot of the Tower, all ready bent and charged towards us; for the love of God therefore take pittie upon us - And so in most speedie manner hee marched away" (pp. 619, 620).
The genuineness of this narrative of the conference with Fecknam is asserted by James Haddon in a letter to Bullinger. (Zurich Letters, Parker Society, 1846, No. 134.)
It is thus that Foxe introduces this Letter in the First Edition of the Acts and Monuments, p. 920. "Here followeth a letter or epistle of the aforesaid lady Jane to a certain learned man, whom both I know, and could also here nominate, if I were disposed. But, partly reverencing the worthy learning of the person, and partly, again, trusting and hoping again of some better towardness of the party hereafter, so have I set forth this her zealous letter to the man, that neither he be at any time thereby made the worse (being by me, as yet, vnknown), and [that] others with himself also [may be] made the better; in that they may take heed, thereby not to fall in the like: and he also, being graciously and secretly admonished, may recover the fall, and avoid the peril; which I pray the Lord (if his will so be) he may." - ED.
{Cattley/Pratt inserts the following into the text: * In the mean time, queen Mary keeping at Fremingham (as is said), God so turned the hearts of the people to her, and against the council, that she overcame them without bloodshed, notwithstanding there was made great expedition against her both by sea and land.*} See Edition 1563, page 902. - ED.
The genuineness of this letter has been disputed by some. Sir Harris Nicolas in his Life of Lady Jane Gray, p. lxxvi, allows its authenticity, but thinks it must have been written before her condemnation, because it is signed with her maiden name. Sir H. Nicolas prints it in Latin, as well as that to her sister, evidently thinking that they were originally written in Latin. But it appears from a letter of James Haddon to Bullinger, and another from John Banks to the same, published by the Parker Society (Zurich Letters, 1846, Nos. 134, 141), not only that they are genuine, but that they were originally written by her in English, and translated into Latin by Banks, who infused a coarseness into the Latin, for which Sir H. Nicolas apologizes from the state of the times, but which really does not appear in Lady Jane's English.
Addenda:Lady Jane's Letter to Harding varies much in subsequent editions from the text of 1563; slight portions are added or omitted.
Matt. xiii.
"Seloma and Zetrophone" in Foxe's text is evidently a corruption for "Seleucia and Ctesiphon;" for Simeon, archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, was martyred under Sapor, king of Persia; see supra, vol. i. 280. It is curious that there, also, Foxe's text (corrected however in this edition) makes a second martyr out of the second part of Simeon's title, for his text there reads, "Symeon, archbishop of Seleucia, with Ctesiphon, another bishop in Persia;" and a few lines lower, in a translation from Sozomen, "accused Symeon and Ctesiphon." It is most probable that Foxe and Lady Jane were led into their mistake by Simeon Metaphrastes, or some other martyrologist, who did not quite comprehend Sozomen's Greek. "Seloma" cannot be a corruption of Solyma or Jerusalem; for though Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, was a martyr (see vol. i. pp. 104, 116), he is never called "arch-bishop;" and "Zetrophone" is not to be met with in any of the martyrologies.
"Frowes," probably a plaited ruff. "Frunsit, part. pass., puckered. Fr. froncé, fronsé; id. from fronc-er, fronser, 'to gather, plait, fold, - crumple, frumple.' Cotgrave." (See Jamieson's Scottish Dict.) Frowes was perhaps the same with partlette, of which Halliwell has the following:
"PARTLETT. A ruff or band formerly much worn about the neck by both sexes, but more latterly it seems to have been worn exclusively by women. 'A mayden's neckerchefe or lynnen partlette.' Elyot ed. 1559, in Strophium. The term was sometimes applied to the habit-shirt."
"Paste;" the first edition reads "paste," the others "past" or "paast." Halliwell says: - "PASTS. 'Payre of pastes unes pases.' Palsgrave. See Partlett." 'Wyth gay gownys and gay kyrtels, and much waste in apparell, rynges, and owchis, wyth partelettes and pastis garneshed wyth perle.' More's Supplycacyon of Soulys, sig. L. ii.'
"The xiii day of July [1560] was marad in Sant Ma[ry] Wolnars in Lumbard Strett iij dowthers of master Atkynson the skrevener in ther here and goodly pastes with chenes and pearl and stones." Diary of H. Machyn, Camden Soc. 1848, p. 240. The editor explains this word "pastes" in the Glossary, "head dresses for brides." He adds that parishes kept "pastes" to let out at weddings, as they did herse-cloths for funerals; and the customary charge made at St. Margaret's, Westminster, in the reigns of Ed. VI. and Mary, was xijd. In the inventory of the church goods of that parish, in 1564, occurs, "Cerclet for brides. Item, one past for brydes sett with perle and stone."
Sir H. Nicolas, in his account of Lady Jane Grey (p. xci.), confesses himself unable to explain the phrase; he takes it as one word, "frose-paste," and thinks it was probably of German origin, and a species of tucker that covered the neck, called "fronts-piece." Or "frowes-paste" may mean "a woman's paste," "frowe" being German for a woman. In Crispin's "Act. et Mon. Martyrum," Genev. 1560, fol. 257 recto, these words are rendered by "Exutæ demum mundo, tiara ac peplo." And in the "Histoire des Martyrs," Edit. 1619, fol. 277 recto, by "Et apres qu'elles lui eurent osté ses ornaments et son atour de teste."
{Cattley/Pratt inserts the following in the text:
'* Do never think it strange,
Though now I have misfortune,
For if that fortune change,
The same to thee may happen. *'
adding the footnote: 'This and the succeeding English verse are from the Edition of 1563, page 922. - ED'}.
{Cattley/Pratt inserts the following in the text on page 425:
'* If God do help thee,
Hate shall not hurt thee;
If God do fail thee,
Then shall not labour prevail thee.*}
{Cattley/Pratt alters the text to '23rd of the same month'.} Foxe reads "upon the 21st of the same month ... the fourth day after his condemnation." No doubt the 21st was the fourth day after his condemnation, according to p. 544, but the execution is there dated Friday, February 23d, which suits Nicolas's Tables, and is confirmed by Noailles 88, Stow, Hollinshed, Godwin in Kennett's Collections, and Strype.
This monition of Bonner is in the Bonner Register, fol. 341. It is singular that in all the editions of Foxe it is misdated the 23d of February, though in the preceding paragraph of text it is correctly dated the 24th. The Register says "the xxiiij day of February." Foxe's copy has been collated with the original, and conformed to it. The first edition, indeed, is nearly exact; only two words in square brackets are added by Foxe, as necessary to the sense.
Foxe omits "speedy" after his first edition, though it is in the Register.
Foxe misreads "their" instead of "our."
Rather, October 5. See Statutes of the Realm. Edit. 1819, vol. iv. p. 197. - ED.
All the editions of Foxe, except those of 1563 and 1570, read "alienis vicibus," though the Register has plainly "alternis."
By some unaccountable oversight, no edition after that of 1563 gives the "prescript or monitory" of Bonner here referred to: it will be found both in Latin and English, among the Documents at the end of this Appendix, No. II. Two or three inaccuracies in Foxe's Latin have been corrected from the original in the Bonner Register, fol. 345.