This section on John Browne first appeared in the 1583 edition.It is an abridged version of an account that had first appeared in 1570 (p. 1480). Thelonger account was reprinted in the 1583 edition (1583, pp. 1292-3), along with thisshorter account. Thus the 1583 edition had longer and shorter versions of this narrative printed almost 500 pages apart. The reason for this confusion is compli-cated. In the 1570 edition, Foxe had first printed a description of the proceedings against John Browne, drawn from Archbishop Warham's register (1570, pp. 1453-1455). Further on in the same edition, Foxe also printed the longer account of thisnarrative (1570, p. 1480). This narrative was derived not from official records, butas Foxe notes, was related to him by Browne's daughter Alice. Both of theseaccounts, the one from the register and the one from Alice Browne, were inserted into Foxe's book as it was being printed, consequently neither account appears in1511, when Browne's trial and execution actually took place. They were reprinted,in the same chronologically inaccurate locations in Foxe's text, in the next two editions (1576, pp. 1239-41 and 1255; 1583, pp. 1276-7 and 1292-3). However, Foxe then added this shorter version of Alice Browne's narrative, without, however, removing the longer version. This probably happened because Foxe decided to move the account of John Browne to its proper chronological place and decided to shorten it in the process. But for some reason, he neglected to remove the long version and also, more understanably, overlooked the account derived from Warham's register. As a result, there are three separate accounts of John Browne scattered across the pages of the 1583 edition (1583, pp. 805, 1276-77 and 1292-3) and all subsequentunabridged editions.

Low Sunday is the first Sunday following Easter. In 1511, this was 27 April.

If Browne was indeed totured in this manner, it was grossly illegal.But it should be remembered that this story passed from Browne's wife to theirdaughter to Foxe and none of these parties had any interest in minimizing Browne'ssufferings.

If correct, this would mean Browne had abjured in 1504. But it iscertainly incorrect. At his trial, Browne stated that 'he was abjured bifore my lordMorton, cardinal and archebisshop of Canterbury…xii teares past' (Kent HeresyProceedings, 1511-12, ed. Norman Tanner, Kent Records 26 [Maidstone, 1997],p. 48). This would place his abjuration around 1499. Archbishop Morton died in1500.

Foxe's first account of the Coventry martyrs , burned in Coventry in 1520 and 1522 appeared in the Rerum (pp. 116-17). In it, Foxe relates that the widow of a prominent man named Smith, was arrested with six other unnamed people outside the walls of Coventry. The woman was reprieved, but as she was escorted home, the man who led her by the arm discovered that she had a copy of the Lord's Prayer, in English, hidden in her sleeve. Because of this discovery, she was led back to be burned with the others. Foxe dated this episode to around 1490. Foxe's source for this story may well have been his wife, whose father was a citizen of Coventry. (Foxe stayed briefly in Coventry in the 1540s).

In the 1563 edition, Foxe redated the executions to a more plausible, although still slightly inaccurate, 1519. He also added the names of the mayor and sheriff at the beginning of the account, which - as Shannon McSheffrey has observed - suggests that he consulted a mayoral list or civic annals. However, Foxe also supplied the names of the martyrs and the warden of the Coventry Franciscans which, with the other details Foxe added, indicates that he had a local informant or informants. This may, or may not, have included the Mrs. Hall, cited in the 1570 edition. He specifically cites Mrs. Hall in this edition in order to rebut Harpsfield's scepticism that the martyrs were executed for reading prayers and Scripture in English.

In 1566, Nicholas Harpsfield attacked Foxe's version of this story, claiming that it was preposterous to assert, as Foxe had done, that these people were burned merely for reading and owning the Scriptures and the Lord's Prayer in English (Dialogi sex, pp. 827-8 and 833). Foxe responded by asserting in the 1570 edition that these were indeed the very 'crimes' for which these people were burned. Foxe also stated that there witnesses to this story and cited one of them: Mrs Hall of Baginton. Nevertheless Harpsfield had a point. Foxe dropped the account, given in the 1563 edition, of Robert Hatchet declaring to Bishop Blyth, that all that he and his defendants wanted was the Lord's prayer and other essentials of the Christian faith in English. Apart from terse narratives in civic annals, Foxe's account is the only source for these executions. The annalists do report that the seven were burned for hearing and saying prayers in English, but they also report that Robert Silkby was burned for believing that Christ was not really present in the Eucharist. (See Lollards of Coventry, 1486-1522, ed. and trans. Shannon McSheffrey and Norman Tanner, Camden Society, Fifth series 23 [2003], pp. 54-55 and 315-18. This book is indispensable for an understanding of this episode). It is quite likely that the seven who were executed (many of whom, as Foxe notes, had already done penance for heresy) held further unorthodox beliefs.

Thomas S. Freeman

Foxe added a new beginning to this story, to flatly contradict Nicholas Harpsfield's scepticism that these people were executed for no other reason than reading and reciting prayers in the vernacular.

John Stafford was the warden of the Franciscan friary in Coventry until 1538. (See Lollards of Coventry, 1486-1522, ed. and trans. Shannon McSheffrey and Norman Tanner, Camden Society, Fifth series, 23 [2003], p. 347).

In 1563 (p. 420), Foxe goes on to relate that Robert Hatchet declared to Bishop Blyth that he only wished to read the Lord's prayer in English. Foxe may have dropped the passage because he believed that the remark was invented or possibly he dropped it because he thought that the mention of Blyth was inaccurate; there is no other indication that the bishop presided at the 1520 trials.

I.e., 1520. Foxe was misled by the fact that the Coventry annals dated events by mayoral years which commenced in Easter.

In 1563 (p. 420), Foxe stated that Silkeb fled to Kent; this was omitted in subsequent editions.

13 January 1522 in modern reckoning.

Foxe mentions that witnesses to what happened are alive, and he specifically cites Mrs. Hall, in order to rebut Harpsfield's scepticism that the martyrs were executed for reading prayers and Scripture in English.

The account of Patrick Hamilton is the first of two extended sections in the Acts and Monuments tackling Scottish affairs. Foxe's willingness to extend his scope to Scotland was partly a routine matter of Protestant internationalism, reflecting the cosmic scale of his enterprise. More importantly, it reflected a 'British' idealism common amongst English and Scottish Protestants in the second half of the sixteenth century, an idealism first forged in the shared Anglo-Scottish exile of the 1550s. The first edition of the Acts and Monuments proclaimed on its title page its focus on 'this Realme of England and Scotlande': strictly speaking, a meaningless statement before the union of the crowns in 1603, but an eloquent testimony to the aspiration to see a common British Protestant culture. (See Jane Dawson, 'Anglo-Scottish Protestant culture and integration in sixteenth-century Britain' in Steven G. Ellis and Sarah Barber (eds), Conquest and Union: fashioning a British state, 1485-1725 (New York, 1995).) Subsequent editions also retained Scotland on the title page, despite the relative paucity of Scottish material in the book.

For the problem - as Scotland's own martyrologist, Foxe's friend John Knox, acknowledged ruefully - was that Scotland had produced relatively few martyrs. There was a single medieval burning (that of Paul Craw, mentioned in Foxe: 1563, p. 360, and subsequent editions), and twenty-one further executions during the period 1528-58 (see Alec Ryrie, The Origins of the Scottish Reformation, p. 42). However, two at least of these were of internationally prominent figures, including the first Scottish martyr of the Reformation era, Patrick Hamilton. Hamilton's commonplaces on justification, which John Frith published as Patrick's Places, won him posthumous renown in England as well as in Scotland. The case also had a major impact in Scotland, and there are numerous independent accounts of his death. Foxe's account in 1570 and subsequent editions, however, is amongst the most detailed. On Hamilton, see Ryrie, Origins, pp. 31-3; ODNB; and Gotthelf Wiedermann, 'Martin Luther versus John Fisher: some ideas concerning the debate on Lutheran theology at the University of St. Andrews, 1525-30', in Records of the Scottish Church History Society vol. 22 (1984), 13-34

As with all his Scottish material, Foxe's account of Hamilton appeared in two distinct forms. In 1563 there was a short and imprecise account padded out with moralising but short on detail. This followed closely the account which he had earlier written in the 1559 Rerum in ecclesia gestarum, itself based on the account in John Bale's Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytanniae ... Catalogus, vol. 2 (Basle, 1559), apparently derived principally from Francis Lambert's memorial of Hamilton. The account was almost completely rewritten, and greatly extended, in 1570, and remained unaltered in the two subsequent editions. This new material is detailed, circumstancial and strikingly accurate. It includes text which purports to be taken from the 'registers', presumably those of the archbishop of St. Andrews (which do not survive), as well as a letter from the university of Louvain to Archbishop Beaton. Foxe never went to Scotland in person, and he does not reveal the identity of his informant(s), beyond stating that this material was gathered in 1564. Thomas S. Freeman has argued persuasively that all of this material was provided to Foxe by John Winram, the superintendent of Fife who had (before his late but sincere conversion to Protestantism) been subprior of St. Andrews. See Thomas S. Freeman, '"The reik of Maister Patrik Hammyltoun": John Foxe, John Winram and the martyrs of the Scottish Reformation', in The Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 27 (1996), 43-60.Alec Ryrie

Hector Boece's Scotorum historia (Paris, 1527) was also Foxe's source for the burning of Paul Craw.

John Knox's parallel but independent account describes how Alexander Campbell's accusation arose from a betrayal of personal trust, and alleges that Campbell died 'in Glaskow, in a phrenesye, and as one dispared.' John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, 6 vols (Edinburgh, 1846-64), vol. I p. 19.

Hamilton was the illegitimate son of Sir James Hamilton of Cadzow; his mother was a granddaughter of King James II. He was legitimized in 1513, at the age of about nine years.

1528. Hamilton in fact answered the summons in mid-January 1528, was released after several days' discussions, and was rearrested about a month later, being burned on 29 February.

As John Knox observed, 'the Articles for the which [Hamilton] suffered war bot of Pilgramage, Purgatorye, Prayer to Sanctes, and for the Dead, and such trifilles'. This set of articles, at least, does not appear to take cognizance of the more systematic Protestant doctrine taught in Patrick's Places. John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, 6 vols (Edinburgh, 1846-64), vol. I p. 16.

However, they do agree closely with the articles numbered 1-7, above.

1528.

The papal bull of foundation was issued in 1413, confirming an episcopal charter of 1411.

This was indeed a truism amongst Scots, unshaken by the (admittedly marginal) presence of Lollardy in fifteenth-century Scotland: see, for example, The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. II (1814), p. 295.

While attending the University of Marburg in 1527, the Scottish evangelical Patrick Hamiliton was persuaded by François Lambert, the head of the theological faculty there, to publish a set of propositions on works and justification by faith that Hamiliton had written for public debate. These were printed as the Loci communes. Patrick's Places is the title which John Frith gave to his translation of the Loci communes. This translation was printed in Antwerp around 1531 (STC 12731.4). Frith's version proved quite popular and three further editions of it were printed from 1532 until 1549 (STC 12731.6-12732). But Patrick's Places enjoyed even greater popularity through being printed as part of other widely disseminated works, including primers, John Knox's History of the Reformation in Scotland and, from 1570 onwards, the Acts and Monuments.

Foxe's plans for publishing Patrick's Places had apparently been brewing for some time. Surviving among Foxe's papers in Emmanuel College, Cambridge, is a manuscript title page for what was presumably a copy-text for a new edition of Patrick's Places (ECL, MS 262, fo. 60r-v). The manuscript title-page states at the bottom that it is 'Newly imprinted in London' in 1566. The remainder of the complete text of Patrick's Places occurs further on in the manuscript (ECL, MS 262, fos. 72r-81r). Its text is clearly marked up in preparation for printing and also contains revisions of the text in Foxe's handwriting. Obviously Foxe intended to produce an edition of Patrick's Places in 1566, but, for some unknown reason, changed his mind. Instead of printing the work as an independent tract, he incorporated it into the Acts and Monuments. The version of Patrick's Places printed in the Acts and Monuments, however, is significantly different from both the Emmanuel College, Cambridge manuscript version and, more importantly, from Frith's version. Although Foxe preserved Frith's preface, he recast the format of the work, changing what was basically a catechism into an academic disputation. All of the syllogisms are Foxe's additions. And he appended a set of 'brief' interpretative notes at the end of the tract, thus doubling its length. These notes discussed the distinction between the law and the gospel which anticipated the longer discussion of this in Foxe's Sermon on Christ Crucified (1571). Thomas S. Freeman

This is the preface from Frith's 1531 edition of Patrick's Places, reprinted - unlike much of the rest of the edition - with complete fidelity to the original.

This passage is an explicit reference to 2 Timothy 3: 1. It is an interesting indication of Frith's placing Hamilton's work in an apocalyptic context.

This paragraph is added by Foxe.

Frith's translation concludes at this point, from here until the end is entirely Foxe's composition. The effect of these alterations is to make the stark contrasts in the original, between faith and works, more flexible for both pastoral purposes and to rebut Catholic polemic.

This section is a somewhat miscellaneous collection of the persecution of various Lollards and evangelicals in the years 1520-32 in the dioceses of Lincoln and London. One of these cases, that of Thomas Harding, a veteran Lollard with local influence (listed among those who had abjured in 1511), resulted in an execution for heresy. Alice Doyly or Cottismere was apparently neither forced to abjure nor punished despite being previously investigated for heresy in the previous decade; undoubtedly she was protected by her wealth and family connections. She had married three times; first to a John Wilmot, the second time to William Cottesmere, a member of an important gentry family and the third time to Thomas Doyly, the head of one of Oxfordshire's most ancient gentry families. By the time of her third marriage her moveable goods alone were estimated at £1000 (Andrew Hope, 'Lollardy: The Stone the Builders Rejected?' in Protestantism and the National Church in Sixteenth Century England, ed., Peter Lake and Maria Dowling [Beckenham, 1987], pp. 8-10).

Many of the other cases described in this section concern a conventicle held in the house of John Taylor in Speen, Hertfordshire, in 1530. This conventicle was led by evangelicals who had travelled to Germany and met with Luther. Foxe's objectives in printing this material are rather different than those when he printed earlier descriptions of the persecution of heretics. Then he was trying to show that there was a True Church before Luther. Now his concern was to emphasize the innocuous, if not godly, nature of the offences for which people were persecuted, in particular, the reading of the Bible, or religious books, in English.

Foxe's sources for this material vary. For Thomas Harding, Foxe apparently drew on material sent to him by an informant. For Robert West, Foxe relied on a now lost courtbook of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstal. There is, however, independent corroboration for these episodes (Lincolnshire Archives Office, Register 26, fos. 180v and 205v for Harding and London Metropolitan Archive, DL/C/330, fo. 175v for West). For other cases, Foxe was apparently drawing on a now lost courtbook of Bishop John Longland of Lincoln. As will be seen from various references it is fairly clear that Foxe did not consult Bishop Longaland's register.

Thomas S. Freeman

John Hacker was an extraordinarily influential Lollard with a long career; see J. A. F. Thomson, The Later Lollards, 1414-1520 for details. Hacker would be arrested in London in 1527 and in 1528, he would abjure and give the names of over 40 other Lollards to the authorities (1563, p. 418 and BL, Harley 421, fos. 11r-14r).

Here Foxe is highlighting the triviality, at least in his eyes, of the offences charged against Alice Doyly.

There is no corroboration for Foxe's list of the charges against Hachman.

Foxe's source for this account is almost certainly a now lost court-book of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstal of London. Robert West was also - according to a record not consulted by Foxe - charged with eating meat on Friday and having committed adultery (London Metropolitan Archive, DL/C/330, fo. 175v).

There is no corroboration of Foxe's account of John Ryburn.

Note Foxe's concern to underscore how Bishop Longland's investigations of heresy subverted family ties and values. He also does this in Book 7.

There is no corroboration for Foxe's account of the Eatons; although the identity of Thomas Lound, who is mentioned in it, can be verified.

Thomas Lound attended the conventicle held in John Taylor's house and Bishop Longland ordered his arrest on 11 November 1530 (Lincolnshire Archives Office, Register 26, fo. 180v).

Bishop John Longland ordered the arrest of John Simonds for his participation in the conventicle held at John Taylor's house (This is copied into Bishop Longland's register; Lincolnshire Archives Office, Register 26, fo. 180v).

A writ ordering the arrest of 'Richard Field' for leading a conventicle in John Taylor's house in Speen, Hertfordshire on 11 November 1530 is copied into Bishop Longland's register (Lincolnshire Archives Office, Register 26, fo. 180v). Whether Foxe's version of Field's name - Nicholas instead of Richard - and his version of the place where the conventicle was held - Hitchenden instead of Speen - was due to these variants appearing in his source or simple mistranscription will never be known. There is no evidence that this is the same 'Field' as the individual who was Barnes' disciple.

Orders for the arrest of Thomas Hawkes, John Taylor, John Hawkyns (not Hawks as in Foxe), Richard Field, Thomas Clerk and William Hawkes on charges of attending a conventicle at John Taylor's house on 11 November 1530 are copied into Bishop Longland's register (Lincolnshire Archives Office, Register 26, fo. 180v). The names of William Wingrave, Thomas Hearn and Richard Dean do not appear on these orders; they were probably arrested later.

In 1538 a Simon Wisdom of Burford was collector of the lay subsidy for the hundreds of Bampton and Chedington (R.H. Gretton, The Burford Records: A Study in Minor Town Government (Oxford, 1920), p. 200). A man named Wisdom fled to the Continent in 1546, saying that he had feared for his life at the hands of the persecuting bishops (L&P, 21(1), pp. 748-9). This may have been Simon Wisdom, not the better known evangelical, Robert Wisdom. Simon Wisdom was a clothier and a mercer who purchased enough land to attain the status of a yeoman. He was elected bailiff of Burford seven times in the years 1545-67 and was an alderman of the town nine times in the years 1559-81. Wisdom was steward of the town in 1553. He died around 1585 (Gretton, Burford, pp. 97, 103 and 199-201). For persuasive arguments that Simon Wisdom the clothier and Burford official was the same Simon Wisdom who was accused of heresy in 1530 see Gretton, Burford, pp. 199-200).

There is no independent corroboration of this account.

This may the same John French who was charged as a sacramentary in the diocese of Canterbury in 1543 (L&P 18(2), p. 306).

A Thomas Harding and his wife were listed among those who had abjured in 1511. In 1532, Thomas Harding will be burned for heresy

The following account of Harding's arrest is too detailed and too discursive to have come from official records. It was probably sent to Foxe by an informant, probably by the same informant or informants who supplied with informa-tion on other heretics from the Chilterns (Robert Cosin, William Scrivener, Nicholas Collins, Thomas Man, William Tilesworth and Thomas Chase). Bishop Longland's register confirms that Thomas Harding was excommunicated and turned over to the secular authorities as a relapsed heretic (Lincolnshire Archives Office, Register 26, fos. 180v and 205v).

Foxe's account should be treated with caution at this point, particularly since there is no corroboration of the charges against Harding or of the circumstances that led to his arrest. Possession of the Bible in English was not a crime, although under certain circumstances it could arouse or confirm suspicion. It is possible that Harding's activities and/or books were less innocuous than his narrative describes.

Here Foxe is drawing on a now lost courtbook of Bishop John Longland of Lincoln.

Alice Doyly had married three times; first to a John Wilmot, the second time to William Cottesmere, a member of an important gentry family and the third time to Thomas Doyly, the head of one of Oxfordshire's most ancient gentry families. By the time of her third marriage her moveable goods alone were estimated at £1000 (Andrew Hope, 'Lollardy: The Stone the Builders Rejected?' in Protestantism and the National Church in Sixteenth Century England, ed., Peter Lake and Maria Dowling [Beckenham, 1987], pp. 8-10). Alice would be investigated again for heresy (whether as a result of this testimony or on later charges is unknown) but there is no record of her being convicted

The reason for Campeggio's mission in 1518 (not 1517, as Foxe states) was to persuade Henry VIII to support Pope Leo X's project for a crusade. Legates a latere were only exceptionally admitted to England (or to several other states), but this intention gave Cardinal Wolsey the opportunity to seek the same status for himself. Henry VIII therefore wrote on 11 April 1518, agreeing to the request on the condition that Wolsey was accorded the same rank. The Bull conferring this on the English cardinal was issued on 17 May, over a month before Campeggio reached Calais, so the sequence of events proposed by Foxe is in error. The real reason for the delay in the latter's proceeding to England was that Wolsey had another request. Cardinal Adriano Castelli, who held the English see of Bath and Wells, had been marginally involved in a plot against Leo, and Wolsey was anxious to secure his deprivation in order to possess the see himself. His campaign against Castelli was aided by another cardinal, Sylvestro Gigli, and it appears to have been Gigli's idea to keep Campeggio waiting until their demand was met. Campeggio reached Calais about 21 June and Wolsey sent an escort to bring him into England on around 10 July (Peter Gwyn, The King's Cardinal: the Rise and Fall of Thomas Wolsey [1990], pp. 102-3). An authentic account of Wolsey's pomp is contained in George Cavendish, The Life and Death of Cardinal Wolsey, ed. Richard S. Sylvester, Early English Text Society No. 243. (London: Oxford University Press, 1959). Cavendish wrote between 1556 and 1558, but his work remained in manuscript, and there is no reason to believe that Foxe ever saw it. This account is taken from Edward Hall, The Union of the two noble and illustre families of Lancastre and Yorke (London, 1550), 'The triumphant reign of K. Henrie the eight', p. 64r-v [STC (2nd ed.) 12723a]. An additional source may be found in BL Harley MS 433 fo. 293, calendared in the Letters and Papers…of the Reign of Henry VIII. ed. J. Gairdner et al. (London, 1862-1910), 2, No. 4333. This manuscript originally belonged to John Foxe.

The main source for Foxe's story of Campeggio's second visit in 1529 is Edward Hall's chronicle, referred to above, pp. 161-3, 170r-171v, and 184v. This is in the regnal year 21 Henry VIII, not, as stated, 19 Henry VIII. The pope in question was Clement VII, not Clement VIII. This appears to have been simply a mistake (if he had been counting the anti-popes, he should have been Clement IX, since 'Clement VII' reigned at Avignon from 1378 to 1394, and 'Clement VIII' from 1423 to 1429). The occasion for this second visit was, of course, the resolution of the 'King's Great Matter' - the annulment of his marriage to Catherine. The story of the sack of Rome, which helped to frustrate the king's efforts, is also taken from Hall's Chronicle (pp. 159-61). The story of Wolsey's malice against Richard Pace, dean of St Paul's (and dean of Exeter and dean of Salisbury), however, does not come from Hall, and although the fact of his collapse can be confirmed from letters calendared in the Letters and Papers, there is no likelihood that Foxe would have known about these. It no doubt derived from the letter of Erasmus to Thomas Lupsett of 4 October 1525, in which he hoped that 'our friend Pace has recovered by now' from 'the love disease' [syphilis] which afflicted him (Erasmus, Collected Works ed. Alexander Dalzell [1994], No. 1624 [p. 305]). This had already been published in the Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami (Basel: Froben, 1529). There is no reason to suppose that the cardinal was deliberately responsible for Pace's insanity, which caused him to be recalled from Rome in November 1525, although it is possible that the pressures put upon him may have been a contributory factor. Pace was relieved of his duties as king's secretary in 1526, and consigned to the care of the Brigittine monks at Syon. Pace was in and out of care for the rest of his life, pursuing his scholarly interests as best he could. For a while, he lived normally in London, but later he returned (apparently voluntarily) to Syon. On the whole, Wolsey's treatment of him was patient and considerate, and Foxe was taking at face value hostile stories that had become part of the cardinal's 'Black Legend'. The former diplomat never, however, completely recovered, and died eight years later. On Pace, see Jervis Wegg, Richard Pace, A Tudor Diplomat (London, 1932), pp. 273-288. The original of the 'ambitious letter', written by Wolsey to Gardiner, is to be found in BL Cotton MS B.XI, fo. 57, although how Foxe obtained a copy of it is not known. The source of the 'Instructions' is similarly unknown, but the stories about Barnes and the Legatine Congregation are to be found in Hall's Chronicle, pp. 146-7, 166, and 169. Wolsey's arrest, the summoning of Parliament, and More's appointment as chancellor, are similarly taken from Hall, as are the 'Greuvances against the Clergie' (p. 188) and the articles against Wolsey (p. 189). The petition of Humphrey Monmouth to Wolsey and the Council, dated 19 May 1528, from which most of the story his 'trouble' is taken, came from a manuscript in Foxe's possession (BL Harley MS 421). It was printed by Strype (Ecclesiastical Memorials, 1, ii, p. 89) and taken from Strype by the Letters and Papers (4, ii, No 4282). The proceedings against Arthur, Bilney, and others are taken from the registers of John Tunstal, bishop of Durham (not Stokesley), bishop of London (London Guildhall Library, Guildhall MS 9531/10 (fos.131r-36r)), whilst the story of Thomas Hytten probably comes from John Fisher's Rochester register, now missing. The substance of these blocks was repeated with very little alteration in 1583.

David Loades

This refers to the 'paralipomena' (Greek: 'supplement') of the Chronicon quo omnes fere veteres … a chronicle that ended in the thirteenth century, by Burchard, abbot of Uspergensis [Urspergensis = Ursperg, a monastery in Bavaria]), edited and published by the enthusiastic humanist and Augsburg antiquarian Conrad Peutinger in 1515. The first continuation was by Conrad of Lichtenau [Konrad von Lichtenau]. The second continuation, to which Foxe refers here, was that by Caspar Hedio, which took it to 1537, the year it was published.

The principal source for this section is a letter from Humphrey Monmouth to the Privy Council, written on 19 May 1528, found in Foxe's papers (British Library, Harleian MS 425 fo. 10 ff; transcription in John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, Relating Chiefly to Religion and the Reformation of it (Oxford, 1822), vol. I part ii, pp. 363-8). Foxe abbreviates this text to extract this narrative from it. In the process, he suppresses Monmouth's claim to have burned all his suspected books and his correspondence with Tyndale. He also suppresses Monmouth's fulsome profession of Catholic orthodoxy in that letter, including a reference to pardons he had received on a pilgrimage to Rome and his earnestly pious statement of trust 'in God I received at Easter last past'. Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials I/ii, pp. 366-7.Alec Ryrie

Hytten was in fact executed on or around 23 February 1530, making him the first English Protestant to be burned for heresy.

In fact in the latter part of 1523. Tyndale left Monmouth's house for the Continent in or around April 1524.

Erasmus' Enchiridion Militis Christiani (Handbook of a Christian Soldier), first published in 1504, republished with a new prefatory letter in 1518 and thereafter an enormous publishing success. It is a text of polemical but ultimately orthodox Catholic humanist piety. Monmouth's original letter makes it plain that his copy was of the English translation prepared by Tyndale himself, who left it in Monmouth's custody. He owned at least two copies, although claimed in 1528 that he no longer had either of them. The translation is presumed lost, although it is possible that the first printed English edition of 1533 is, or is based on, Tyndale's translation. Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, I/ii, p. 365. The existence of a translation of the Enchiridion by Tyndale is independently attested in 1563, p. 514. See also Desiderius Erasmus, Enchiridion Militis Christiani: an English version, ed. Anne M. O'Donnell (Early English Text Society 282: Oxford, 1981), pp. xlix-liii.

Monmouth described this as a handwritten book in English, 'an old book', and claimed that he could not remember how it came to be in his possession. It may be a Lollard text. Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, I/ii, p. 365.

Luther's The Liberty of a Christian, first published in 1520: Luther's fullest early statement of his core doctrine of justification by faith alone. This too, Monmouth's letter makes plain, was a handwritten copy in English, making it the earliest known English translation of Luther. He was given it by 'one Arnold, a yong man that is gone into Spain'. Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, I/ii, p. 365.

This anecdote is lifted from Latimer's seventh sermon on the Lord's Prayer: Hugh Latimer, 27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant matir of Iesus Christe, Maister Hugh Latimer (STC 15276: London, 1562), fo. 57r-v. Monmouth is not named in the text, simply being 'a great riche merchaunte'.

Romans 12:20-1.

Foxe's sources here are, as he suggests, William Tyndale, The practyse of prelates (STC 24465: Antwerp, 1530), sig. K6r, and Tyndale, An answere vnto sir Thomas Mores dialoge (STC 24437: Antwerp, 1531), sig. I5r-v. Tyndale also referred to Hitton, giving no additional detail, in The examinacion of master William Thorpe preste (STC 24045: Antwerp, 1530), sig. A2r. Hitton is also the 'Seinte Thomas mar.' placed in the calendar of George Joye's primer Ortulus animus (RSTC 13828.4: Antwerp, 1530), sig. A3v. These scattered references provoked a much fuller and more circumstancial account of Hitton's case from Thomas More, in The confutacyon of Tyndales answere (STC 18079: London, 1532), sigs. Bb2r-4r. But in the 1583 edition of the Acts and Monuments, Foxe succeeded in providing an even more detailed account of Hitton, apparently drawing on Archbishop Warham's records: see 1583, pp. 2136-2137. See also Charles C. Butterworth, The English Primers (1529-1545) (Philadelphia, 1953), pp. 11-17, 23-4.

Unlike Robert Barnes or other Cambridge men who were among the earliest English evangelicals, Thomas Bilney left few written works at the time of his execution by burning on 19 August 1531. Posterity therefore has had to depend very largely on Foxe's martyrology for his portrait. When Patrick Collinson wrote that John Foxe's beautiful stories are `indispensable' for our understanding of the Reformation, because `we cannot and never shall be able to see the events' that he recounted `except through his spectacles' (Patrick Collinson, `Truth and legend: the veracity of John Foxe's Book of Martyrs', in Elizabethan Essays, (London, 1994), p. 177), we may appreciate that Foxe is also indispensable for what we can know about Bilney. In this section of his text it is particularly clear how Foxe and his printer John Day looked through the spectacles of the men who had actually known Bilney, and how they interwove the contradictory accounts of his life, examinations, retractions, and death into a memorable portrait of a man who was sacrificed at a delicate moment in the life of the Christian Church.

In the 1563 edition, their source material was drawn from the official records kept by Cuthbert Tunstall, then bishop of London, in his episcopal register; the sermons of Hugh Latimer; as well as the polemical denunciations of Sir Thomas More. In the second edition of 1570, Foxe and Day were assisted by those who had known Bilney, and were still alive at the time that they were writing, most notably their great patron the archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker, who was a Norwich native, and as a young fellow of Corpus Christi College had accompanied Bilney when he went to the stake. The reason why Foxe consulted these sources about Bilney's death was that he was responding to charges made by Thomas More, and repeated later by Nicolas Harpsfield in 1566, that Bilney had died a penitent sinner, reconciled with the Catholic church.

Latimer's first printed references to Bilney appeared during the reign of King Edward VI, when Day (while he was working with William Seres in the late 1540s) began to disseminate his sermons with the backing of Katherine Brandon, the widowed duchess of Suffolk, whose arms appear at the beginning of Latimer's books. After Latimer was burnt in 1555, Foxe and Day continued to gather his sermons as they prepared their successive editions of the A&M. Day printed a fresh assemblage of Latimer's sermons in 1562, with previously-unprinted additions that contained further references to Bilney. Even at the end of Day's life, he discovered more sermons by Latimer to put into print.

To Latimer, we can attribute the evocative portrait of `Bilney, little Bilney' the vulnerable and harmless scholar, which he created in three sermons:1) 'Bilney, litle Bilnei, that blessed martyr of GOD', first appeared in Latimer's Seventh Sermon preached before King Edward VI: The seconde sermon of Maister Hughe Latimer, whych he preached before the Kynges Maiestie within his graces Palayce at Westminster, the xv. day of Marche M.ccccc.xlix. (London: John Day and William Seres [1549], STC 15274.7), sigs. Bb3A-Bb3B; (reprinted in the Parker Society edition of Latimer's Sermons, ed. George Elwes Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), p. 222.2) Bilney asked Latimer to hear his confession (1524): first printed in Latimer's First Sermon on the Lord's Prayer in 27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant matir [sic] of Iesus Christe, Maister Hugh Latimer, as well such as in tymes past haue bene printed, as certayne other commyng to our handes of late, whych were yet neuer set forth in print, (London: John Day, 1562, STC 15276) in the section known as Certayn Godly Sermons, made vppon the Lordes Prayer, at fol. 13B (reprinted in Latimer's Sermons, ed. pp. 334-5).3) Bilney's `anguishe and agonie' following his recantation of 1527 appeared in one of the final books Day printed, in Latimer's Lincolnshire Sermons for the Second Sunday in Advent Fruitfull sermons preached by the right reuerend Father, and constant martyr of Iesus Christ M. Hugh Latimer (London: John Day, 1584, STC 15280), fols. 247-247v; reprinted in Sermons and Remains, ed. George Elwes Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), p. 51.Latimer's reminiscences of Bilney's life and sufferings, as they were adapted in the A&M, have proved to be definitive over the centuries, or rather, the chief means by which Bilney has been understood, at least until recently.

In contrast to Latimer's portrait of Bilney as the noble victim, Sir Thomas More's characterization was polarized between Bilney's obvious reputation for goodness, contrasted against the harm that More believed Bilney inflicted when he preached and distributed books in London and East Anglia. So More wrote during Bilney's lifetime that he had heard that his reputation, was of 'a good honest vertuous man/ farre from ambycyon and desire of worldely worshyp/ chast/ humble/ and charytable/ free and lyberall in alm[h]ouse dede[s]/ and a very goodly prechoure' in A dyaloge of syr Thomas More knyghte . . . touchyng the pestylent secte of Luther [and] Tyndale (London: William Rastell, 1530, STC 18085), especially sig. B3B. B5A-C6B; reprinted in Sir Thomas More, A Dialogue Concerning Heresies, eds. Thomas M. C. Lawler et al., in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 6, pt. 1 (New Haven, 1981), especially pp. 27-8, 35-51. As Lord Chancellor, More was asked to investigate some of the legal disarray that accompanied Bilney's execution, which he discussed in The confutacyon of Tyndales answere (London: William Rastell, 1532, STC 18079), sig. Cc3B-Dd1A, reprinted in The confutacyon of Tyndales answere, ed. L. A. Schuster et al., in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 8, pt. 1 (New Haven, 1973), pp. 22-5. More's nuanced and complicated understanding of Bilney, which moved in turns from sympathy through to acidulation, has been especially influential in recent decades in the work of John F. Davis and Gregory Walker, among others.

What was Bilney's own religious complexion? The term `Protestant' began to emerge only from 1529, after the second Diet of Speyer and it did not gain any currency in English until long after Bilney's death. Probably it is not fair to call Bilney a Protestant, for he died before doctrinal lines and confessional identities had been sufficiently developed to make their meanings clear (this was also the view of the Jesuit Robert Parsons writing at the beginning of the seventeenth century). Bilney's opinions reveal a certain fluidity that was characteristic of the Cambridge men of his generation. Also, it may not be completely appropriate to refer to his conversion, as Foxe and Day did, nor to his converting of others, for they defined with the benefit of hindsight what has become known as `the conversion experience' in a manner that might not be said to match the type of profound religious and emotional engagements that Bilney or Latimer knew. Some profound transformations occurred in their devotional lives, but `conversion', as Foxe and Day labeled them, might be too limiting to express the complexity of what actually occurred. Elements of Lollardy have been identified in Bilney's thinking, but many of his ideas were also unexceptional in the broad currents of the Christian Church. It is hard to discern how much of Luther's ideas he accepted. In 1527 he agreed that Luther's opinions had been justly condemned, and that Luther and his followers were wicked and detestable heretics. Four years later, however, some of his ideas sound very much influenced by Luther indeed. But by the time of his death, Bilney may have already been surpassed in his thinking by other Cambridge men. This is apparent if we can believe a comment the A&M attributed to Richard Nix, bishop of Norwich, who exclaimed, `I feare I haue burnt Abell & let Cain go', after learning that Nicholas Shaxton had preached during a University Sermon on Ash Wednesday 1531 that it was wrong to say publicly that there was no purgatory, but not damnable to think so privately. John F. Davis, followed by P. R N. Carter, termed Bilney an `evangelical': one who believed that scripture defined faith, devotion, and practice. Evangelical is the term for Bilney that will be embraced here.

Why was Bilney burned in 1531? The circumstances of his execution go back to his defiant to return to Norwich and preach publicly. His adversaries held the advantage once he decided to repudiate his abjuration and 'go to Ierusalem'), and see his friends no more (like Christ on his way to Golgotha). As a relapsed heretic, he could expect little mercy. More importantly, his execution came about as one element in the larger struggle that was taking place in England between the clergy and Henry VIII for control over the English Church. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (who examined Bilney in 1527) was discarded as the king's chief advisor in 1529 after he failed to obtain an annulment of Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon from Pope Clement VII. From mid-1530, the king became emboldened to assert his own authority against the jurisdiction of the pope. Henry began to press forward the understanding that he was the supreme head of the Church in England, and that English kings had always held spiritual sovereignty in their realm. Under this line of reasoning the papacy was a mere usurper in England, and the pope was only the bishop of Rome. In 1527, Bilney made the daring suggestion that kings and princes should assume the role of an Ezechias and destroy any religious images that detracted worshippers from the sacrifice that Christ had made on the cross. In essence, Bilney attempted to push Henry into the role of acting like an Old Testament ruler like Hezekiah, or Josiah, which was a trend that gained greater success late in his reign, and became the standard attribute for the young King Edward VI. During his trial in Norwich in 1531, Bilney appealed to have the king hear his case as the supreme head of the English Church (a strategy that saved his colleague Edward Crome when he was accused of preaching heresies). But Bishop Richard Nix and his chancellor Thomas Pelles refused to allow Bilney to appeal to the king, and they moved swiftly to have him condemned and executed. He was burnt in a place outside Norwich known as the Lollards Pit. It may have seemed singularly appropriate to burn Bilney on the feast day of St. Magnus as a means to repair the insult that he had inflicted four years earlier by preaching against idolatry in a church dedicated to the saint.

Bilney's execution (like Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's in 1556) was marked by vexing irregularities that fed contentious controversies for decades to come, and they informed the narrative that Foxe created in the A&M. At the last moment, just before the fire was lit, a written recantation was thrust into Bilney's hands to give him a final chance to submit. But he did not take advantage of the opportunity, even though he might have saved his life had he read the document loud enough for the people standing by to hear him. His execution was vastly disturbing. Bilney was a Norfolk native. He had many friends in Norwich, and a number of his colleagues from Cambridge University attended him in his last hours. The fact that his appeal was not brought before the king worried many, and Sir Thomas More, as Lord Chancellor, was asked to investigate. More decided that Bilney had indeed `redde hys reuocacyon hym selfe' as he stood at the stake, but `so softely' that those standing by could not hear him. Had Bilney then revoked at the last moment? If so, was it correct to burn him? In The confutacyon of Tyndales answere More continued to associate Bilney with the teachings of Martin Luther and William Tyndale, but he concluded that Bilney had revoked. As God had given Bilney grace to cast all of his errors to the devil, then Bilney `with glad herte was content to suffer the fyre' as a punishment for his offences. Then, More hoped, God had 'forthwith from the fyre taken hys blessed soule to heuen', where Bilney now could pray for all of those still alive whom he had deluded.

What Bilney wanted to achieve, at least in terms of dismantling shrines, was done later in Henry's reign, and under King Edward. Bilney was audacious, and he pushed the pace too early. In 1531 he became the victim, but as matters developed, his enemies also failed, for the reaction to his death was extreme. The English clergy was forced to submit to Henry VIII's supremacy over the Church. More's pursuit of Bilney and other heretics in his defense of the papacy and tradition was among the factors that led to his surrender of the office of Chancellor in 1532. Latimer and other evangelicals played a part in bringing him to his execution in 1535. Latimer of course read every word that More had printed against Bilney. He took his own opportunity avenge his friend when he preached before King Edward. 'Wo, wil be to that byshoppe that had the examynacyon of hym,' he warned (Nix had died in 1535, hounded to the end by Cranmer for killing Bilney), 'if he repented not.' (Hugh Latimer, The seconde sermon of Maister Hughe Latimer, whych he preached before the Kynges Maiestie within his graces Palayce at Westminster, the xv. day of Marche M.ccccc.xlix. (London: John Day and William Seres [1549], STC 15274.7), Bb3v).More's writings remained influential long after his death, and were newly relevant after Queen Mary Tudor (1553-1555) brought about a rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church. Foxe and Day used their account of Bilney in successive editions of the A&M as a means to discredit Catholic politics and theology, and to prevent any possible backsliding toward Rome under Queen Elizabeth. They reconciled the conflicting and divergent interpretations of Bilney's actions largely following Latimer's lead. Bilney was a good man who was overcome by the enemies of the true Church. The heightened competition between Protestant and Catholic traditions had solidified by the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Foxe and Day reinterpreted the confusing 1520s and 1530s in light of their own present-day circumstances. Thus they smudged some aspects of Bilney's career. They made some of the details of his 1527 submission harder to understand, and cloaked the fact that Bilney had agreed that Luther was a heretic. They also stressed the word 'conuersio' or 'conversion' when they referred to the astonishing and elusive life-altering interviews that passed between Bilney and his friends.

Was Foxe and Day's account of Bilney's life mainly the literal truth, or was it art? We may never know, and here we suggest some approaches to this difficult issue. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Jesuit Robert Parsons criticized Foxe for his 'bragg & glory' (N. D. [Robert Parsons], A Treatise of Three Conversions of England from Paganisme to Christian Religion (St. Omer, 1603- [1604], STC 19416), 547), and he dismissed the story of Latimer hearing Bilney's confession as a vain thing. Parsons maintained that Bilney had held but few Protestant opinions and that he died in his adjuration. Recently, Bilney could seem (Gregory Walker has argued) more the 'scheming lawyer than the persecuted saint' in 1527 (Walker, 'Heresy Trial', p. 163). If Foxe and Day drifted in their stories, then perhaps they learned some of their strategies from what they called the 'Poeticall fictions' (1563, p. 1009) of Sir Thomas More. Beyond all doubt, however, is the fact that Foxe and Day's portrait of the life and martyrdom of Thomas Bilney is among the elements that make the A&M one of the supreme religious and literary masterpieces of sixteenth-century England.

Susan Wabuda
Fordham University

Wolsey's examination of Latimer, as related by Ralph Morice in British Library Harley MS 422, fols. 84-8, 90, should be compared with his examination of Arthur and Bilney.

Bilney's college at Cambridge was Trinity Hall.

The place where the Anchoress was walled up was near the convent of the Dominican Friars in Norwich (now known as St. Andrew's and Blackfriars Halls). Sir Thomas More wrote that Bilney was 'secretely kepte' for a time in Norwich, and he was seized while he was delivering to her 'dyuers of Tyndales bokes'. The books afterward were conveyed away by another man, who was found with them, and the double discovery of Bilney and the books 'came to lyght by the very prouysyon of god.' Sir Thomas More, The confutacyon of Tyndales answere, ed. L. A. Schuster et al., in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 8, pt. 1 (New Haven, 1973), p. 23 from The confutacyon of Tyndales answere (London: William Rastell, 1532, STC 18079), sig. Cc3B.

Foxe tells us here that Bilney gave her only two books (rather than the `dyuers' that More mentioned) by William Tyndale: his translation of the New Testament, and The obedience of a Christen man. Tyndale's New Testament began to reach England from its first edition of 1525 (printed in Cologne, STC 2823) and from the Worms edition of 1526. Other expositions of scripture followed when Tyndale was living in Antwerp. The obedience of a Christen man appeared in 1528. The obedience of a Christen man and how Christen rulers ought to governe (Marlborow in the land of Hessen: Hans Luft [Antwerp: J. Hoochstraten], 1528, STC 24446).

John Byrd was born in Coventry, and he became a suffragan bishop in 1537. In 1541 he was made bishop of the newly-created diocese of Chester. At the time of Bilney's examinations, Byrd was still a Carmelite friar. See Richard Copsey's account of him in ODNB. Dr John Stokes, was the prior of the convent of Augustinian friars in Norwich.

The date of any previous conversation between Arthur and Sir Thomas More is not known.

Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall of London licensed the Dominican Geoffrey Jullys to preach through his diocese with two other Cambridge black friars, Robert Buckman and Henry Agbonby, in February 1526/7. Greater London Record Office, MS DL/C/330, fol. 134A and B. See also Patrick Zutshi and Robert Ombres, `The Dominicans in Cambridge 1238-1538', Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, vol. 60 (1990), pp. 313-73.

Thomas Bilney proceeded to the degree of bachelor in Canon Law at Cambridge in 1521. Grace Book B, Part II: Containing the Accounts of the Proctors of the University of Cambridge, 1511-44, ed. Mary Bateson (Cambridge, 1905), p. 95.

Foxe is our chief source of information that Bilney `conuerted' Thomas Arthur. The best account of Arthur's life has been written by Andrew Hope for the ODNB. Arthur was a fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, which had been built by the chancellor of the university, Bishop John Fisher of Rochester, using a legacy from Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of King Henry VII. Fisher maintained a strong influence over St. John's in the 1520s. The word was Day's and Foxe's anachronistic term for Bilney's influence on his contemporaries. 'Conversion' was not a term that the early evangelicals often used (see Peter Marshall, 'Evangelical conversion in the reign of Henry VIII', in The Beginnings of English Protestantism, eds. Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie [Cambridge, 2002], 14-37). 'Conuerted' also appeared as a gloss in 1562, when Day printed Latimer's story of how Bilney had come to his chambers and asked him to hear his confession in 1524 (about the same time that he was proceeding to his bachelor's degree in theology) when he preached his first sermon on the Lord's Prayer in Lincolnshire before the Duchess of Suffolk and her household in 1553. 27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant matir [sic] of Iesus Christe, Maister Hugh Latimer, as well such as in tymes past haue bene printed, as certayne other commyng to our handes of late, whych were yet neuer set forth in print, (STC 15276) in the section known as Certayn Godly Sermons, made vppon the Lordes Prayer, at fol. 13B (reprinted in the Parker Society edition of Latimer's Sermons, ed. George Elwes Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), pp. 334-5. In the marginal comments Day wrote in 1562: 'Bilney was gods instrument to conuert Latymer.' Also, 'Latymer is conuerted by hearing Bilneys confession.' In contrast, Latimer said that he 'learned' more from Bilney than he had for many previous years, and that he from thenceforth relinquished his studies in the scholastic doctors, as well as `began to smell the word of god' in increasing his interest in Biblical studies. What actually occurred seems to have been more subtle and less cataclysmic, at least at first, than Day and Foxe would have their readers believe.

4 December 1527. Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London; John Fisher, bishop of Rochester; Nicholas West, bishop of Ely; John Vesey, bishop of Exeter; John Longland, bishop of Lincoln; John Clerk of Bath and Wells; and Henry Standish of St. Asaph. Among the other examiners whom Foxe did not name was the bishop of Carlisle. They met in the octagonal chapter house of Westminster Abbey, which has remained relatively unchanged in the intervening centuries. It is reached from the Cloister and it retains its original tile floor and wall paintings.

5 December 1527. It should be noted that Bishop Tunstall was deliberately slow in passing an irrevocable sentence of death over Bilney, and may be taken as an indication that Tunstall would have preferred that Bilney submit and be spared.

Among the thirty witnesses that Bilney now claimed that he could bring to support his case, we must number Dr. Robert Foreman of Queen's College, Cambridge, and rector of All Hallows, Honey Lane in London, who warned some thirty persons in Cambridge in 1526 that a search was about to be made for Luther's books at the university by Cardinal Thomas Wolsey and Cambridge Chancellor John Fisher, bishop of Rochester.

Dr. Robert Foreman of Queen's College, Cambridge, and rector of All Hallows, Honey Lane in London, warned some thirty persons in Cambridge in 1526 that a search was about to be made for Luther's books at the university by Cardinal Thomas Wolsey and Cambridge Chancellor John Fisher, bishop of Rochester.

In after years, Latimer recommended that those accused should 'Abiure al your fryends' rather than listen to them and abjure as Bilney did in 1527. The seconde sermon of Maister Hughe Latimer, whych he preached before the Kynges Maiestie within his graces Palayce at Westminster, the xv. day of Marche M.ccccc.xlix (London: John Day and William Seres [1549], STC 15274.7), sigs. Bb3A-Bb3B; (reprinted in the Parker Society edition of Latimer's Sermons, ed. George Elwes Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), p. 222.

Hugh Latimer's famous account of what passed between him and Bilney when Bilney 'conuerted' him in 1524. 27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant matir [sic] of Iesus Christe, Maister Hugh Latimer, as well such as in tymes past haue bene printed, as certayne other commyng to our handes of late, whych were yet neuer set forth in print, (STC 15276) in the section known as Certayn Godly Sermons, made vppon the Lordes Prayer, at fol. 13B (reprinted in the Parker Society edition of Latimer's Sermons, ed. George Elwes Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), pp. 334-5. The word 'conuersion' was Day's and Foxe's anachronistic term for Bilney's influence on his contemporaries. 'Conversion' was not a term that the early evangelicals often used (see Peter Marshall, `Evangelical conversion in the reign of Henry VIII', in The Beginnings of English Protestantism, eds. Peter Marshall and Alec Ryrie [Cambridge, 2002], pp. 14-37).

Hugh Latimer became University Chaplain in 1522. Although one of his duties was the custody of Cambridge's elaborate silver processional cross, which was brought out at several important occasions during the academic year, Latimer was more correctly known as Chaplain of the University rather than as its `croskeper'. Foxe's source for his information here was from Ralph Morice in British Library, Harley MS 422, fols. 84-8, 90.

It had been illegal to preach or teach any of Martin Luther's doctrine any where in western Europe since mid 1520, when his books and sermons were banned by Pope Leo X in his Bull Exsurge Domine. When Luther continued to defy the pope by burning the Bull with books of canon law publicly in late 1520, Leo excommunicated him at the beginning of 1521. Heresy was illegal in England under the terms of both canon law and statute: the 1408 Constitutions of Archbishop Thomas Arundel, printed in William Lyndwood, Provinciale, (seu Constitvtiones Angliae) (Oxford, 1679; rpt. 1968), p. 286; 5 Ric. II, st. 2, c. 5 (1382); 2 Hen. IV, c. 15 (1401); 2 Hen. V., st. 1, c. 7 (1414). See also J. A. Guy, 'The Legal context of the controversy: the law of heresy', in The Debellation of Salem and Bizance in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 10 (1987), pp. xlvii-lxvii.

28 November 1527. Tunstall, West and Fisher came to the house of Richard Nix, near Charing Cross, perhaps out of consideration for Nix's partial blindness. Nix was a member of Bilney's college, Trinity Hall.

2 December 1527. Despite `the same place', this part of the proceedings resumed at the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey.

The records of Bilney's and Arthur's examinations are preserved in the Register of Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London, in Guildhall Library, MS 9531/10, fols. 130B-136A. Arthur's and Bilney's examinations have also been discussed by Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation, (Oxford, 1989), pp. 71, 111-113, 116, 119, 122-3, 127, 161, 195, 204, 260.

All traveling preachers, whether friars, monks, or learned secular clergymen, were required under the terms of English statute (2 Henry IV, c. 15, printed in Statutes of the Realm, vol. 2, pp. 125-8) and canon law (William Lyndwood, Provinciale, (seu Constitvtiones Angliae) (Oxford, 1679; rpt. 1968), Lib. V, tit. 5, pp. 288-9) to hold a license, usually from the bishop in whose diocese they wanted to preach. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester and chancellor of Cambridge obtained new licensing powers for the university under the terms of a Bull issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1503. A Cambridge University preaching license permitted its holder to preach anywhere in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Damian Riehl Leader, A History of the University of Cambridge, vol. 1, The University to 1546 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 246-7, 278-9; Susan Wabuda, Preaching during the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 117-119. Arthur was licensed to preach by Cambridge University in 1519-20 in the same group that included Nicholas Shaxton and Thomas Cranmer. Grace Book B, Part II: Containing the Accounts of the Proctors of the University of Cambridge, 1511-44, ed. Mary Bateson (Cambridge, 1905), p. 77. Bilney was issued a license to preach in the diocese of Ely in 1525, which Bishop West retracted after he was convicted of heresy. Cambridge University Library, MS EDR, G/1/7, fol. 33A.

For Arthur to preach that `euerye man may preach' was unusual, and against canon law and statute. Here he may have been influenced by some of the writings of Erasmus, or the idea of the priesthood of all believers, found in Martin Luther's [Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church] - De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae (Basle: Adam Petri, 1520).

For the crosses on the walls of London, see also Patrick Collinson, 'Truth and Legend: the Veracity of John Foxe's Book of Martyrs', in Elizabethan Essays (London, 1994), pp. 151-77 at p. 175, n. 88.

Luther argued in Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church that every Christian, in some senses, can be a priest in the exercise of ministry. De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae (Basle: Adam Petri, 1520).

For Arthur to preach that 'euerye man may preach' was unusual, and against canon law and statute. Here he may have been influenced by some of the writings of Erasmus, or the idea of the priesthood of all believers, found in Martin Luther's De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae (Basle: Adam Petri, 1520).

Bilney and Thomas Arthur went preaching together from the university to Ipswich and Norwich and onward to London during the summer of 1527. Theirs was an aggressive preaching itinerary, and they were followed at every step by Dominican friars. At Ipswich, Bilney was heard to say that Christ was the only mediator between us and the Father. To petition the saints was to injure the blood of Christ. Bilney was accused of preaching in the churches of St Helen's Bishopsgate, St Magnus, and also in the churches of Willesden (in the week of Pentecost), Newington (in the week of Pentecost), Kensington, and Chelsea outside the city, as well as Ipswich on 28 May. At Willesden, Bilney spoke against going on pilgrimages and offerings to saints. He recommended that worshippers stay at home. At the church of St Magnus (which was always an important City church, as it stood on the north end of London Bridge), the parishioners were gilding their new rood, and here Bilney denounced idolatry. Chelsea is particularly noteworthy, as Sir Thomas More's residence was next to what is now known as Chelsea Old Church, where he intended to be buried next to the chantry chapel he built there. Arthur preached at Cambridge on Whitsunday; and also at Walden; and St Mary Woolchurch in London at the feast of the Trinity. Susan Wabuda, Preaching during the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 119-120; Gregory Walker, 'Saint or schemer?: the 1527 heresy trial of Thomas Bilney reconsidered', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 40 (1989), pp. 219-38; Patrick Zutshi and Robert Ombres, `The Dominicans in Cambridge 1238-1538', Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, vol. 60 (1990), pp. 313-73.

Among the other examiners whom Foxe did not name was the bishop of Carlisle. They met in the octagonal chapter house of Westminster Abbey, which has remained relatively unchanged in the intervening centuries. It is reached from the Cloister and it retains its original tile floor and wall paintings.

The actual number of letters that passed between Thomas Bilney and Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall is confused here. What is clear is that Tunstall carefully saved Bilney's letters, and used them here in examining him in 1527.

The records of Bilney's and Arthur's examinations are preserved in the Register of Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London, in Guildhall Library, MS 9531/10, fols. 130B-136A. The bishop of Rochester was John Fisher, chancellor of Cambridge University, who was among the most implacable of Luther's adversaries, and he enjoyed an international reputation for learning and orthodoxy. Luther's 1520 book De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae created a sensation because he attacked the doctrine of the seven sacraments and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church by calling into question the theology of the Mass. Fisher responded against him in Defensio Regie assertionis contra Babylonicam captiuitatem and Sacri sacerdotij defensiones contra Lutherum, (Cologne: Peter Quentell, June 1525).

The target of the bishops' inquiry here was the Lutheran tenet of justification by faith alone, without the necessity of good works (including pilgrimages, the invocation of the saints, or almsdeeds).

The reading of the Bible in the vernacular by the laity had been illegal in England ever since the medieval heresy laws against Lollardy had been passed by Parliament in 5 Ric. II, st. 2, c. 5 (1382); 2 Hen. IV, c. 15 (1401); 2 Hen. V., st. 1, c. 7 (1414), and also in the 1408 Constitutions of Archbishop Thomas Arundel, printed in William Lyndwood, Provinciale, (seu Constitvtiones Angliae) (Oxford, 1679; rpt. 1968), p. 286. Vernacular prayers and lessons were at issue once more since 1516 when Erasmus first issued his powerful call for everyone to read scripture in the Paraclesis.

The reference here to wooden `beades' may not be simply to rosary beads, but to the `pardon beads' that were offered by some religious houses to reassure worried lay people. See J. T. Rhodes, `Syon Abbey and its Religious Publications in the Sixteenth Century', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 44 (1993), pp. 11-25.

Translations of the Bible into English had been illegal ever since the Wycliffite heresies of the late fourteenth century. See 5 Ric. II, st. 2, c. 5 (1382); 2 Hen. IV, c. 15 (1401); 2 Hen. V., st. 1, c. 7 (1414), and also the 1408 Constitutions of Archbishop Thomas Arundel, printed in William Lyndwood, Provinciale, (seu Constitvtiones Angliae) (Oxford, 1679; rpt. 1968), p. 286. The call of the humanists, including Erasmus, to return ad fontes, and to understand sacred scripture as it had been written, was highly controversial in the late 1520s. Susan Wabuda, 'The Woman with the Rock: the Controversy on Women and Bible Reading', in Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson from His Students, eds. Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 40-59.

Bilney was issued a license to preach in the diocese of Ely in 1525, which Bishop West retracted. Cambridge University Library, MS EDR, G/1/7, fol. 33A.

For Bilney's 'manner of qualifying' see J. Y. Batley, On a Reformer's Latin Bible: being an Essay on the `Adversaria' in the Vulgate of Thomas Bilney (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 47-8; John F. Davis, `The Trials of Thomas Bylney and the English Reformation', Historical Journal, vol. 24 (1981), pp. 775-790; Susan Wabuda, 'Equivocation and Recantation During the English Reformation: the "Subtle Shadows" of Dr Edward Crome', The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 44 (1993), pp. 224-242; Gregory Walker, 'Saint or schemer?: the 1527 heresy trial of Thomas Bilney reconsidered', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 40 (1989), 219-38.

Foxe was deliberately obscure here to conceal the fact that Bilney (with Arthur) believed that Luther's opinions had been justly condemned, even under the terms of Holy Scripture, and that Luther was 'a wicked and detestable hereticke'. Bilney and Arthur agreed that John Fisher, bishop of Rochester and chancellor of Cambridge University, had been correct in impugning Luther's assertions in his books Defensio Regie assertionis contra Babylonicam captiuitatem and Sacri sacerdotij defensiones contra Lutherum (Cologne: Peter Quentell, June 1525).

Robert Barnes had shocked the university and the hierarchy of the English Church when he was the first of the Cambridge evangelicals to openly criticize Thomas Cardinal Wolsey in a sermon he delivered at St. Edward's Church in Cambridge on Christmas Eve in 1525.

Bilney's opinion that the saints were not in heaven was highly unusual. See John F. Davis, 'The Trials of Thomas Bylney and the English Reformation', Historical Journal, vol. 24 (1981), pp. 775-790.

Translations of the Bible into English had been illegal ever since the Wycliffite heresies of the late fourteenth century. See 5 Ric. II, st. 2, c. 5 (1382); 2 Hen. IV, c. 15 (1401); 2 Hen. V., st. 1, c. 7 (1414), and also the 1408 Constitutions of Archbishop Thomas Arundel, printed in William Lyndwood, Provinciale, (seu Constitvtiones Angliae) (Oxford, 1679; rpt. 1968), p. 286. The call of the humanists, including Erasmus, to return ad fontes, and to understand sacred scripture as it had been written, was highly controversial in the late 1520s. Susan Wabuda, 'The Woman with the Rock: the Controversy on Women and Bible Reading', in Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson from His Students, eds. Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 40-59.

To write that Christ is our only mediator, as Foxe does here, is meant to dismiss the role that any of the saints had in salvation, and most particularly was a criticism of the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

For the practice of burying the dead in the cowls of Franciscan friars, see Susan Wabuda, Preaching during the English Reformation (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 108, 122-139.

The famous pilgrimage shrines to the Blessed Virgin Mary at Walsingham in Norfolk (which was established soon after the Norman Conquest in the eleventh century); St. Thomas Becket in Canterbury (Becket was murdered in the Cathedral in 1170), and the shrine to Our Lady of Grace in Ipswich (dating from the 1100s). Willesden also had an important pilgrimage site in its shrine to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The interesting details of these episodes remain obscure.

Bilney was accused of preaching at Willesden in the week of Pentecost in 1527.

Details concerning the identity and career of Friar John Brusierd continue to be sparse. Craig W. D'Alton, 'The Suppression of Lutheran Heretics in England, 1526-1529', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 54 (2003), pp. 228-53.

Details concerning the identity and career of Friar John Brusierd continue to be sparse. Craig W. D'Alton, 'The Suppression of Lutheran Heretics in England, 1526-1529', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 54 (2003), pp. 228-53.

The records of Bilney's and Arthur's examinations are preserved in the Register of Cuthbert Tunstall, bishop of London, in Guildhall Library, MS 9531/10 fols. 130B-136A.

Bilney's attempt to persuade Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall to favour him may be compared with William Tyndale's efforts to gain Tunstall's patronage in the early 1520s.

The actual number of letters that passed between Thomas Bilney and Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall is confused. What is clear is that Tunstall carefully saved Bilney's letters, and used them here in examining him in 1527.

The book Bilney was reading was the Novum Instrumentum, the first version of the New Testament that Erasmus issued in 1516 that printed the original Greek of scripture in parallel columns with the Latin Vulgate.

The sentence that matters here is; 'Sed tandem de Iesu audiebam, nimirum tum, cum nouum Testamentum primum ad Erasmo aederetur'. It must be noted that Bilney did not use the word 'conuersio' to refer to the exhilarating effect that his reading had upon him. Foxe and Day's stress on Bilney's conversion here is meant to deflect readers' attention from his recantation.

The book Bilney was reading was the Novum Instrumentum, the first version of the New Testament that Erasmus issued in 1516 that printed the original Greek of scripture in parallel columns with the Latin Vulgate.

Among the other examiners whom Foxe did not name was the bishop of Carlisle. The octagonal chapter house of Westminster Abbey has remained relatively unchanged in the intervening centuries. It is reached from the Cloister and it retains its original tile floor and wall paintings.

The sentence that matters here is; 'Sed tandem de Iesu audiebam, nimirum tum, cum nouum Testamentum primum ad Erasmo aederetur'. It must be noted that Bilney did not use the word 'conuersio' to refer to the exhilarating effect that his reading had upon him.

For the association of the crucified Christ with the brazen serpent of Moses (from Numbers 21:4-9 and John 3:14-15), see Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: a Life (New Haven, 1996), pp. 118-120. Bilney's essential dependence upon the sacrifice of Christ in his theology may help to explain his attack on idolatry at the church of St Magnus the Martyr (which was always an important City church, as it stood on the north end of London Bridge), where the parishioners were gilding their new rood. Bilney argued there that just as Ezechias destroyed the brazen serpent that Moses had made, so too should kings and princes in the present day destroy and burn the images of saints that were set up in churches and other places. See Gregory Walker, 'Saint or schemer?: the 1527 heresy trial of Thomas Bilney reconsidered', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 40 (1989), pp. 219-38.

In this section, Foxe used Bilney as his point of reference against the papal supremacy to answer Nicholas Sander, The rocke of the Churche wherein the primacy of S. Peter and of his successours the Bishops of Rome is proued out of Gods worde (Louvain: John Fowler, 1567, STC 21692). Sander had the audacity to dedicate his book to Archbishop Matthew Parker, and he attacked Thomas Cranmer's memory from the perspective of one who was in Oxford at the time of the archbishop's incarceration and burning there: 'And a little before his death, for a few hours of temporall life' Cranmer `sold his poore faith twise a day.' (sig. ****5r). The rocke of the Churche was one of several works that Sander wrote to attack Bishop John Jewel of Salisbury, following the `challenge sermons' that Jewel delivered at Paul's Cross and at Queen Elizabeth I's court starting in 1559. John Day inaugurated Jewel's controversy into print in 1560 when he issued The Trve Copies of the letters between the reuerend father in God Iohn Bisshop of Sarum and D. Cole, vpon occasion of a Sermon that the said Bishop preached before the Quenes Maiestie, and hir moste honorable Counsel. 1560 (STC 14613), fols. 4B-5A. Jewel invited English theologians to consider doctrinal matters that were crucial to the Reformation, and important again following Elizabeth's accession. He asked whether it could be established in ancient times that scripture, the early Councils or the writings of the ancient Fathers of the Church had taught that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the universal Church; whether the Bible might be read by the laity, and if in the sacrament after the words of Consecration whether the substance of bread and wine 'departeth awaye'. The resulting hard-hitting controversies involved not only Sander, but also Henry Cole and Thomas Harding.

The actual number of letters that passed between Thomas Bilney and Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall is confused. What is clear is that Tunstall carefully saved Bilney's letters, and used them here in examining him in 1527.

'wrasted' scripture: the past tense of `to wrest' or twist. It means to deliberately misinterpret.

The famous preacher Bilney mentioned here cannot be identified.

beadman: one who prays regularly for another.

John Day began to print Latimer's sermons when he was working with William Seres as early as 1548, with the backing of Katherine Brandon, the widowed Duchess of Suffolk, whose arms appear at the beginning of Latimer's books. Further details about her patronage of Latimer and other preachers, and of printers, can be found in my account of her life in ODNB (under Katherine Bertie). Latimer preached before King Edward VI's court during Lent 1549, and his comments on Bilney occur in a section that muses on the fear of death. Day and Seres printed at least three editions of Latimer's court sermons that year. The quotation 'Bilney, litle Bilnei, that blessed martyr of GOD', can be seen in Latimer's Seventh Sermon preached before King Edward VI: The seconde sermon of Maister Hughe Latimer, whych he preached before the Kynges Maiestie within his graces Palayce at Westminster, the xv. day of Marche M.ccccc.xlix (London: John Day and William Seres [1549], STC 15274.7), sigs. Bb3A-Bb3B; (reprinted in the Parker Society edition of Latimer's Sermons, ed. George Elwes Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), p. 222.

Bilney's `anguishe and agonie' following his recantation of 1527: which appeared in one of the final books Day printed, in Latimer's Lincolnshire Sermons for the Second Sunday in Advent Fruitfull sermons preached by the right reuerend Father, and constant martyr of Iesus Christ M. Hugh Latimer (London: John Day, 1584, STC 15280), fols. 247-247B; reprinted in Sermons and Remains, ed. George Elwes Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), p. 51.

John Day began to print Latimer's sermons when he was working with William Seres as early as 1548, with the backing of Katherine Brandon, the widowed Duchess of Suffolk, whose arms appear at the beginning of Latimer's books. For one example among many, see A notable sermon of the reuerende father Maister Hughe Latemer whiche he preached in the Shrouds at paules churche in London, on the. xviii. daye of Ianuary. 1548 (London: John Day and William Seres [1548], STC 15291). Further details about her patronage of Latimer and other preachers, and of printers, can be found in my account of her life in ODNB (under Katherine Bertie). Latimer's story concerning how Bilney asked him to hear his confession was first printed by Day in 1562 in a collection known as 27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant matir [sic] of Iesus Christe, Maister Hugh Latimer, as well such as in tymes past haue bene printed, as certayne other commyng to our handes of late, whych were yet neuer set forth in print, (STC 15276) in the section known as Certayn Godly Sermons, made vppon the Lordes Prayer, from a series that he preached in Lincolnshire before the Duchess of Suffolk and her household in 1553. Latimer's reminiscence appeared in his first sermon on the Lord's Prayer, at fol. 13B (reprinted in the Parker Society edition of Latimer's Sermons, ed. George Elwes Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), pp. 334-5. The events that Latimer described here probably occurred in 1524, about the same time that he was proceeding to his bachelor's degree in theology.

Foxe expanded the Bilney related material in the 1570 edition to include criticism of More's treatises and unusual Star Chamber investigation after the publication of Nicolas Harpsfield's treatise, Dialogi sex contra summi Pontificatus, monasticae vitae, sanctorum, sacrarum imaginum oppugnatoreset pseudomartyrs (Antwerp, 1566) which was itself very critical of Foxe's original 1563 conclusions. It was Harpsfield who raised More's conclusions about Bilney's trials and second recantation at Norwich, forcing Foxe subsequently to deal with these issues too. For comments, see G R Elton, 'Persecution and toleration in the English reformation', in Studies in Church History, 21 (1984), pp. 163-84 (also published in Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government: Papers and reviews 1946-1972, ed. G R Elton (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 175-98.

This is a reference to the famous 'Trojan horse' story. Sinon was the Greek 'deserter' who tricked the Trojans into dragging the wooden horse into the city. The phrase has come to refer to any story which contains just enough truth to be convincing.

Foxe's account is the only surviving record of the Norwich trial before bishop Nix in 1531 which was, apparently, for his denial of papal supremacy. See John F Davis, 'The Trials of Thomas Bilney and the English Reformation', in The Historical Journal, 24 (1981), p. 786.

Thomas More was executed on 6 July 1535.

For useful discussion of this point, see E Gow, 'Thomas Bilney and his Relations with Sir Thomas More', in Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society, 32 (1958-61), pp. 307-8 and E G Rupp, 'The Recantations of Thomas Bilney', in The London Quarterly and Holborn Review, 167 (1942), p. 182-4.

For Bilney's confession to Latimer, see Hugh Latimer, 'First sermon on the Lord's Prayer, 1552', in Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, sometime bishop of Worcester, martyr, 1555, 2 vols., ed. by George E Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), 1 pp. 334-5.

Bilney never denied the traditional doctrine of the Mass or transubstantiation.

This refers to the preface materials, see Thomas More, 'A dialogue concerning heresies', in The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vi/1-2 (New Haven, Y.U.P. 1981), 1. There is also a useful on-line discussion of the preface at http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/chapters/heresy1.html which is taken from Romuald Ian Lakowski, Sir Thomas More and the Art of Dialogue (unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1993), pp. 125-74.

This is another reference to Nicolas Harpsfield. In 1566, Harpsfield published a treatise entitled Dialogi sex contra summi Pontificatus, monasticae vitae, sanctorum, sacrarum imaginum oppugnatoreset pseudomartyrs (Antwerp, 1566) which was very critical of Foxe's original 1563 conclusions.

The canon law regarding unrepentant relapsed heretics was uncompromising. See J A Guy, The public career of Sir Thomas More (New Haven, 1980), pp. 169; idem, 'The legal context of the controversy: the law of heresy', in The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, x (New Haven, 1980), pp. xlvii-lxvii.

Foxe is referring here to More's treatise of 1532-3, entitled The confutation of Tyndale's answer. Originally written in two parts, the first written while More was still chancellor and published in 1532, the second was published the next year, after More had resigned his office. More had written that eye-witnesses to Bilney's execution had heard him recant his heresies. See Thomas More, 'The confutation of Tyndale's answer', ed. by Louis A Schuster, Richard C Marius and James P Lusardi, The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, viii/1-3 (New Haven, Y.U.P. 1973), 1, pp. 22-6.

Foxe is being a little disingenuous here. Bilney was, as was the law, burned by the authority of the temporary powers not by the church - heresy equated to treason.

Hebrews 5.1-2.

Another reference to Nicolas Harpsfield's treatise, Dialogi sex contra summi Pontificatus, monasticae vitae, sanctorum, sacrarum imaginum oppugnatoreset pseudomartyrs (Antwerp, 1566) which was itself very critical of Foxe's original 1563 edition.

This refers to Bilney's preaching tour of 1527 (Willesden, Newington and Ipswich) in which he spoke against images. For commentary, see Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors (Oxford, 1993), p. 63.

Foxe is quoting Guildhall Library, Register Tunstall, 9531/10, fol. 82, but also see Thomas More, 'The confutation of Tyndale's answer', ed. by Louis A Schuster, Richard C Marius and James P Lusardi, The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, viii/1-3 (New Haven, 1973), 1, pp. 22-5.

William Cade, monk of Ipswich, testified that Bilney had criticised the greed, idolatry and sexual incontinence of the monks.

Pilgrimages were one of those practices hated by evangelical reformers in that it implied that man's own actions could increase merit in degradation of the one time for all time sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Bilney had preached in the town in 1527.

John Huggen was a witness to Bilney's sermon at St George's chapel, Ipswich. Bilney had preached against salvation by works, referring to the one time for all time sacrifice of Christ on the cross and related doctrine of sola fideism. The idea being that to suggest salvation depends on any additional earned merits denigrates that original sacrifice. Bilney was arrested here.

This refers to the medieval practice of wrapping the dead in Franciscan cowls before burial as a means of increasing merit - See, Susan Wabuda, Preaching during the English reformation (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 108, 122-39.

Thomas More's treatise, Utopia (Louvain, 1516).

This is Guildhall Library, Register Tunstall, 9531/10.

There are documents which purport to be written by Bilney, for which, see PRO, SP 1/66, fols. 296-317 (or L&P, v, no. 372 (1-3).

This can be found earlier, on page 1137 [Foxe, 1570 edition] and is Bilney's answer to the third objection against him.

Guildhall Library, Register Tunstall, 9531/10, fol. 137.

This refers to Nicolas Harpsfield's treatise, Dialogi sex contra summi Pontificatus, monasticae vitae, sanctorum, sacrarum imaginum oppugnatoreset pseudomartyrs (Antwerp, 1566), which was itself very critical of Foxe's original 1563 edition. It was Harpsfield who raised More's conclusions about Bilney's trials and second recantation at Norwich. For comments, see G R Elton, 'Persecution and Toleration in the English Reformation', in Studies in Church History, 21 (1984), pp. 163-84 (also published in Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government: Papers and reviews 1946-1972, ed. by G R Elton (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 175-98. For More's notation of Bilney's recantation, see Thomas More, 'The confutation of Tyndale's answer', ed. by Louis A Schuster, Richard C Marius and James P Lusardi, The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, viii/1-3 (New Haven, 1973), 1, pp. 22-5.

The conclusion that More set out to prove that Bilney had made a second recantation is also the conclusion of Professor Guy, for which see J A Guy, The Public Career of Sir Thomas More (New Haven, 1980), p. 170.

In a sermon of 1531 (Ash Wednesday) Shaxton preached a sermon in which he suggested that while it was permissible to doubt purgatory it was illicit to give voice to these doubts, after which he was carefully watched. For discussion, see Alec Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry VIII: Evangelicals in the Early English Reformation (Cambridge, 2003), p. 72; Peter Marshall, Religious Identities In Henry VIII's England (Aldershot, 2006), p. 173; Susan Wabuda, 'Shaxton, Nicholas (c.1485-1556)', ODNB (2004).

Bilney was a fellow of Trinity Hall (canon and civil law) and, famously, a member of the Little Germany discussion group at the White Horse tavern.

Bilney had recanted originally on 7 December 1527 after a trial in the chapter house at Westminster. For a useful discussion of the trial, see John F Davis, 'The Trials of Thomas Bilney and the English Reformation', in The Historical Journal, 24 (1981), pp. 775-90, and for a record of his trials and recantation see Guildhall Library, Register Tunstall, 9531/10, fols. 133v-35v.

Bilney is mentioned a few times in Latimer's sermons, for example, as 'little Bilney, that blessed martyr of God' in his Seventh sermon before Edward the sixth (1549), or simply as 'master Bilney', as in the Last sermon before Edward the sixth (1550). For these references, see Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, sometime bishop of Worcester, martyr, 1555, 2 vols., ed. by George E Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), 1, pp. 222 and 251 respectively. Other references can be found in volume one (pp. 334, 336, 343) and in volume two (p. 51).

Foxe may be referring to Latimer's Seventh sermon before Edward the sixth (1549) in which the former bishop talks about his old friend Bilney and his martyr's death. [See, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, sometime bishop of Worcester, martyr, 1555, 2 vols., ed. by George E Corrie (Cambridge, C.U.P., 1844), i, p. 222].

For a useful discussion of More's unorthodox involvement in the Bilney case, and Bilney's trials and tribulations, see J A Guy, The public career of Sir Thomas More (New Haven, 1980), pp. 167-71 and John F Davis, 'The Trials of Thomas Bilney and the English Reformation', in The Historical Journal, 24/4 (December 1981), pp. 775-90].

This refers to a man named Uzzah, who with all good intentions, touched the ark of the covenant to steady it when the oxen pulling the cart upon which it was placed stumbled, threatening to upset the cart. As this was a direct violation of divine law (despite his good intentions) he was killed instantly through the contact. This story can be found in 1 Chronicles 13.11-3 and is a lesson in meddling where you do not belong.

Thomas Pelles is identified by Professor Guy as a 'hard-core' conservative member of lower convocation who supported Catherine (in the divorce matter) as part of an Aragonese faction. As chancellor of Norwich diocese he had examined Bilney's opinions. He claimed after Bilney's execution that he had handed the martyr a draft revocation which Bilney read out. Pelles was arrested in 1531 for praemunire violations. See J A Guy, The Public Career of Sir Thomas More (New Haven, 1980), pp. 142, 167 and 176].

Bilney was executed on 19 August 1531 at the so-called 'Lollard's Pit' in Norwich.

Norwich had been granted the privilege (1404) of electing a mayor, aldermen and two sheriffs. Thomas Necton's name can be found listed as an alderman (for which, see L&P, 10, 1257 (ii) and Professor Guy names him as the brother of the Protestant bookseller Robert, who had been captured by Wolsey and tried by Tunstal in 1528 For further details, see J A Guy, The Public Career of Sir Thomas More (New Haven, 1980), p. 168. For Necton as sheriff, there is a listing at the entrance to Suckling House, Norwich for 1530 (Necton owned the house for a time).

The feast day of St Magnus of Avignon (19 August). Susan Wabuda has suggested that this date for Bilney's execution was deliberate. Bilney had preached at St Magnus, London, almost exclusively against prayers to saints. Two chaplains had been present at the sermon, and swore out depositions against Bilney at his first heresy trial. [See, John F Davis, 'The Trials of Thomas Bilney and the English Reformation', in The Historical Journal, 24 (1981), p. 780].

An 'alebrew' or 'aleberry' is a kind of gruel - a drink made from ale, boiled together with oats or some other wheat and toasted bread-sops.

Isaiah 43.1-3.

Many witnesses had taken notes of Bilney's last hours, including the mayor of Norwich, Edward Reed, and Professor Guy notes the many depositions taken by More in regard to the occasion. Foxe may have had access to some of these unofficial accounts. See J A Guy, The Public Career of Sir Thomas More (New Haven, 1980), p. 168).

These are both pole-arm (6'-7' long) based weapons. The glaive consists of a single edged blade mounted on a pole and may have a small hook on the other side of the blade to snag riders, while the halberd (or Swiss voulge) is a two-handed weapon with an axe blade and spike mounted in place of the glaive's blade.

Although no longer extant, Lollard's pit was in Thorpe Wood, Norfolk, a chalk pit which had been excavated for the building of the Cathedral. See Oliver Rackham, Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape (London, 1976), p. 145.

This refers to St Leonard's priory.

Part of the ritual for degrading priests was the bloodying of the head.

Bilney's sermons against the doctrine of purgatory and against idols and images may very well explain clerical antipathies. See Thomas More, 'A dialogue concerning heresies', in The Yale Edition of the Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vi/1-2 (New Haven, Y.U.P. 1981), 1, pp. 27-8.

This refers to St Edward King and Martyr (the chapel of Trinity Hall).

This may refer to Bilney's prohibition from preaching by Bishop West of Ely. On 23 July 1525 he had been licensed to preach in the diocese, but this was revoked by the bishop after Bilney was first charged and tried for heresy by Wolsey in 1527.

Psalm 143.1

Psalm 143.2

A paraphrase of Luke 23.34.

Latimer uses such phraseology at least twice in his sermons. In his 'Seventh sermon before Edward the sixth (1549)', the phrase 'that blessed martyr of God' appears, while in his 'First sermon on the Lord's Prayer, 1552', Latimer says '… or rather Saint Bilney, that suffered death for God's word sake.' [See, Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, sometime bishop of Worcester, martyr, 1555, 2 vols., ed. by George E Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), 1, pp. 222 and 334 respectively].

Foxe refers to Hugh Latimer's observations on Bilney's mental condition after his return to Cambridge following his recantation. See Hugh Latimer, 'Eighth sermon - Second Sunday in Advent, 1552', in Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, sometime bishop of Worcester, martyr, 1555, 2 vols., ed. by George E Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), 2, p. 51.

Foxe is alluding to the writings of St Paul in Acts 19.21 & 20.22.

As Lord Chancellor More worked in close cooperation against the rising tide of heresy in the capital with John Stokesley, the bishop of London. See J A Guy, The Public Career of Sir Thomas More (New Haven, 1980), pp. 166-74.

This important passage of Foxe's text, dealing with Archbishop Matthew Parker's erstwhile friend, Thomas Bilney, was quite radically expanded in the 1570 edition of the martyrology. This was in order to respond to Nicolas Harpsfield's criticisms of the passage in the 1563 edition, expressed in the Dialogi sex contra summi Pontificatus, monasticae vitae, sanctorum, sacrarum imaginum oppugnatoreset pseudomartyrs (Antwerp, 1566), edited by Alan Cope, which was itself very critical of Foxe's original 1563 edition. It was Harpsfield who raised More's conclusions about Bilney's trials and second recantation at Norwich. It is therefore worth examining in detail how Foxe undertook those changes, and this is done in the notes to the individual passages as they occur.

Andrew ChibiUniversity of Leicester

In the winter of 1527 Jack Roo had produced a masque (written twenty years earlier) which Wolsey took to be aimed at himself. Foxe has Fish playing the offending role. Roo spent time in the Fleet prison as a result of the play, and Fish escaped to Antwerp. However, Foxe may have placed Fish into the play without any real justification as Edward Hall, a barrister of Gray's Inn and eye-witness to the events, does not mention Fish, although one Thomas Moyle was also imprisoned (for which, see Edward Hall, The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre & York [London, 1547], fol. 154v). These events are examined closely in Rodney M Fisher, 'Simon Fishe, Cardinal Wolsey and John Roo's Play at Gray's Inn, Christmas 1526', in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 69 (1978), pp. 293-8 and in Peter Gwyn, The King's Cardinal: The rise and fall of Thomas Wolsey (London, 1990), pp. 136-7.

Edmund Moody was made a gentleman by letters patent in 1540. The story is that Moody saved the king from drowning some time previous, for which see //free pages.genealogy.roots web.ancestry.com/~edmund moody/.

This refers to events of 1528 when the famous magician was in the town, and was used to illustrate Stafford's attention to his duties as a priest. Thomas Becon, chaplain to Cranmer, notes that Stafford set out to convert this man - resulting in the burning of his books - but that Stafford caught the plague and died before the effort was completed. See Writings of the Rev. Thomas Becon, chaplain to archbishop Cranmer, and prebendary of Canterbury, ed. by William M Engles (Philadelphia, 1890), p. 7.

This repeats the details of his death. I can find no mention of Stafford in the letters of Ridley.

Stafford and Latimer had an initially stormy relationship as Stafford lectured on the Bible from study of the original languages (influenced by Erasmus) while Latimer was opposed to this, thinking students should study the schoolmen and glosses, as was more traditional. See Hugh Latimer, 'Seventh sermon on the Lord's Prayer, 1552', in Sermons and Remains of Hugh Latimer, sometime bishop of Worcester, martyr, 1555, 2 vols., ed. by George E Corrie (Cambridge, 1844), 1, pp. 440-1.

No doubt as a result of his treatise, A supplication for the beggars (1529).

Fish had been arrested in London on heresy charges, but died of plague before he could stand trial in 1531.

James Bainham was a lawyer of Middle Temple and member of the Christian Brethren. He was burned as a relapsed heretic (tried on 19 April 1531) for denying purgatory and auricular confession. See John F Davis, Heresy and reformation in the south east of England, 1520-1559 (London, 1983), pp. 55-6.

It is difficult to pin down precisely which index of forbidden books Foxe is referring to here as there were many at the time. See Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), p. 179. If the list was produced after Fish's death, which seems to the tenor of Foxe's argument, than it could not have been Tunstal's list, but one of Stokesley's, of 3 December 1531 - see Andrew A Chibi, Henry VIII's Conservative Scholar (Berne, 1997), p. 122.

This refers to Simon Fish, A supplication for the beggars (Antwerp, 1529). For references I have used the copy in The English Scholar's Library of Old and Modern Works, ed. by Edward Arber (London, 1878), pp. 1-13, which can be found on-line at http://www.archive. org/stream/supplicationforb00fishuoft. For a biographical examination, see J S W Helt, 'Fish, Simon (d.1531)', ODNB (Oxford, O.U.P., 2004).

This is Simon Fish's Sum of the Holy Scripture (which is actually the translation from a Dutch original treatise in denial of infant baptism), printed in England in 1529.

The story of George Stratford, appearing for the first time in the 1570 edition of the martyrology, followed on and reinforced the revised material that Foxe had introduced that year upon Thomas Bilney. Stratford's conversion and martyrdom was presented as additional proof of the efficacity of Bilney's message. The text of Simon Fish's famous, and virulently anti-clerical 'Supplication of Beggars' had been printed in the 1563 edition of the martyrology as 'A certaine Libell or boke intituled the Supplycation of beggers throwen and scattered at the procession in Westminster vpon Candelmas day…' - i.e. 2 February 1529 (1563, pp. 445-448). When it came to the 1570 edition, Foxe tucked it in, with evident embarrassment, after the Stratford narrative: 'before the tyme of M. Bilney, and the fall of the Cardinall, I should haue placed the story of Symon Fish with the booke called the Supplication of beggars […]' but by placing it where he did, he was able to recover the forward momentum of his reformation narrative. The theme of the 'Supplication' was (as Foxe put it) 'the reformation of many thinges, especially of the Clergy'. Fish had written it during his second exile in Antwerp. The sixteen-page pamphlet accused the church of almost everything - from avarice to treason. The printer of the subversive pamphlet was most likely to have been Johannes Grapheus of Antwerp. From Antwerp the 'Supplication' was smuggled into England, penetrating the country's borders despite its prohibition. It was dedicated to Henry VIII.

Andrew ChibiUniversity of Leicester

This is a complete copy of Simon Fish, A supplication for the beggars (1529). For references I have used the copy in The English Scholar's Library of Old and Modern Works, ed. by Edward Arber (London, 1878), pp. 1-13.

Andrew ChibiUniversity of Leicester

This refers to the great cause célèbre of the 1510s, the so-called Hunne case. In essence, Hunne refused to pay a fee to the parish priest (the rector of St Mary Matfelon in Whitechapel) for the burial of his child (March 1511). The priest sued Hunne in the ecclesiastical court of Audience (April 1512) - which found in the priest's favour - and Hunne counter-sued in the civil courts (January 1513) accusing the priest of slander and praemunire (acting upon the orders of a foreign power without the king's license). The London clergy rallied and charged Hunne with heresy as a result, and he was imprisoned in the Lollards' Tower of St Paul's Cathedral (October 1514). He committed suicide (4 December 1514) and his body was burned for heresy (20 December). A coroner's jury concluded (February 1515) that Hunne had been murdered while in prison. See E Jeffries Davis, 'The Authorities for the Case of Richard Hunne (1514-15)' in The English Historical Review 30 (July 1915), pp. 477-88.

Mortmain is a legal condition in which land or property is possessed not by a person but by a non-personal legal entity (or corporation) like the church. The land or property, thereby, is not subject to inheritance fines. The two statutes (of 1279 and 1290) were attempts by Edward I to prevent too much land falling into the possession of the church (which limited the crown's revenues).

This is one of Fish's theological arguments, this one against the doctrine of purgatory very much along sola scriptura lines.

Fish here rejects the sale of indulgences, very much after the tenor of Luther's Ninety-five theses. The doctrine of purgatory was nonsensical in terms of scripture and, according to Fish, the sacrament of penance was more a financial expedient than anything else. Fish seems to (consciously?) misunderstand the doctrine of penance, however, insofar as it relates to indulgences. The indulgence derives from the donation of the penitent (considered to be his act of remorse or his necessary penalty for sin) and not from the action of the pope (who could not simply pardon all the souls without some evidence of genuine remorse).

Matthew 22.21.

John Alen was very active in the cardinal's suppression of monasteries in the late 1520s.

This refers to Thomas More's treatise, The Supplycatyon of Soulys (October 1529) (in two books). See The Yale Edition of The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, ed. by Frank Manley, Clarence H. Miller, and Richard C. Marius, vol.7 (New Haven, 1990). More's response to Fish was famously ten times longer and written within only days of his reading Fish's work.

More was a successful London lawyer with a growing practice when he was employed by the crown as a member of a commercial treaty negotiating commission in the Low Countries. Following on from this he was made a privy councillor and was knighted in 1521. Further offices followed: master of requests, under-treasurer, and chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster (1525) and lord chancellor (25 October, 1529) - an office in which he served two and a half years.

This refers to prosopopoeia, which is a rhetorical device in which a writer speaks to an audience as another person or object.

The Supplication makes three important arguments (economic, theological and anti-clerical). That the clergy control so much land is one of his economic complaints. The economic argument is probably the key aspect of the treatise given that the 1520s witnessed a Europe wide inflation crisis.

According to mediaeval Catholic doctrine, merit had been accrued over the years by the virtues of the saints which could be applied to the souls in purgatory, mitigating their time.

This is a rather pithy little play on words by Foxe. Utopia, More's treatise of 1516, famously described a fictional island which featured a perfect society, with perfect political, economic and legal systems. The title stems from the Greek construct of '??' (meaning 'not') and '?????' (meaning 'place') or 'no place'.

Sir John Oldcastle famously escaped imprisonment at the Tower of London and led a Lollard rebellion against his friend Henry V. It is assumed that he was also the model for Shakespeare's character Sir John Falstaff. [See James Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England, an historical survey, 3 vols. (London, 1908), 1, pp. 93-7].

This is a reference to Bishop John Fisher's patristic examination of the doctrine of purgatory, entitled Confutation of Lutheran Assertions (1523). See Carl R Trueman, Luther's Legacy: Salvation and English Reformers, 1525-1556 (Oxford, 1994), pp.121-56.

This refers to 'nasturtium' or watercress, a leaf vegetable known for its peppery flavour.

A reference to a 'black mass' or 'satanic mass', which is a ceremony supposedly developed in mediaeval European witch circles as a parody of the Christian ceremony featuring the profanation of the Host.

Matthew 8.12 or 25.30.

Thomas More was executed on 6 July 1535.

Another reference to Thomas More's The Supplycatyon of Soulys (October 1529) written over two books.

A summoner was a minor church official whose duty was to summon offenders to appear in ecclesiastical courts to stand trial for their offences against the church. Already, by Fish's period, holders were highly suspect of corruption and accepting bribes. See R Wunderli, 'Pre-Reformation London Summoners and the Murder of Richard Hunne', in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 33 (1982), pp. 209-24.

At the time (c.1526) under Henry VIII, an Angel was valued at 7s and 6d. Fish's point is that just one of the existing five orders of mendicant friars in England took some ?43.333 6s.8d each year out of the English economy.

These are parliamentary grants of taxation calculated based on one-fifteen of a person's annual income (there was another valuation based on a tenth) as well as customs duties paid annual to the king in the form of tonnage (on wine) and poundage (on all other goods).

This refers to one of two possible sources. Either the Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth or a fourteenth century poem known as Alliterative Morte Arthure. Both tell the same tale, that of the (fictional) emperor's attempt to regain Gaul from Arthur. Arthur and his army defeat the emperor, thereby adding Italy to his extensive continental holdings.

Fish relates here the essential details of the origins of the Magna Carta. John was in dispute with the king of France (Philip Augustus) over his succession to the English throne, and with the pope (Innocent III) over the election of Stephen Langton as archbishop of Canterbury. John refused to recognize the election and Innocent issued an interdict against England in 1208, an excommunication order against John in 1209, and encouraged Philip to invade in 1212. John backed down and went so far as to give England and Ireland over to the pope (renting them back as a fiefdom for a yearly tribute of 1000 marks). It is this to which Fish refers.

This is part and parcel of Fish's various anti-clerical arguments. Here, clerical celibacy and sexual incontinence are said to have created the appearance of no less than 100,000 whores.

At this point in the treatise, Fish has basically claimed that the clergy are a separate state within the state, subject to their own rules and regulations, indeed, taking power away from the temporal authority all the time. His point here is that temporal law is ineffective.

In October 1527, according to Le Neve's Fasti Ecclesiae, the archdeacons referred to here are Richard Rawson (Essex, collated on 24 January 1503, died c.29 October 1543), Richard Eden (Middlesex, collated on 11 August 1516, died c.9 April 1551) and Edward Lee (Colchester, collated on 19 November 1523, created archbishop of York in 1531). (See, Joyce M Horn [ed.], Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300-1541: volume 5: St Pau's, London [1963], pp.9-14).

Foxe then continues with a selection of more disparate protestant works. The Evangelistrum enarrationes nuncupata. De hebdomadis quae apud Danielem sunt opusculum, in quo tractatur de sacrificio missae abolendo appears to refer to a treatise published by Heinrich Bullinger of Zürich in 1530, which Bucer subsequently and partially adopted as a defence against an earlier treatise of 1526, entitled De sacrificio missae libri tres, which had been assembled by Johannes Eck, Irwin Iserloh, Vinzenz Pfnur and Peter Fabisch (for which, see the review by John L Farthing, in Church History 53:4 (December, 1984), pp. 552-553). There then follows Urbanus Rhegius, Novas Doctrinae ad veterem collatio per Urbanum Regium, in quo tractat de sacris Ecclesiae. The work referred to in the list as 'Collectanea communium…' is discussed in George J. Engelhardt, 'The Relation of Sherry's Treatise of Schemes and Tropes to Wilson's Arte of Rhetorique', in PMLA, 62 [1947], pp.76-82). In Epistolam ad Romanos, Andreas Knopken Costerinensis interpretatio, Adjecta est ipsa Pauli epistola, a Philippo Melanchthone, passim notis quibusdam illustrata, quibus & disputationis ordo & sermonis compositio indicatur (1525) refers to a work by the Lutheran reformer of Riga, Andreas Knopken (cvar: Knop or Knoppe), a student of Johannes Bugenhagen (see David G Selwyn, The library of Thomas Cranmer [Oxford 1996], pp.50-1). There then follows a reference to Johannes Agricola, Epistola Pauli ad Titum (1530) and Cellarius (i.e. 'Martin Borrhaus'), De operibus dei (1527); then Wolfgang Capito, In Hoseam prophetam (quinque sermons) commentarius (1527).

Included in Foxe's list at this point are several treatises by Philip Melanchthon. The first is his Dispositio orationis in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos of which two editions were available, an earlier edition of 1529 (Hagenau) and a 1530 edition (Wittenberg). The second is his Sancti Pauli ad Colossenses Epistola, cum commentariis Phil. Melancthonis (1527) and the third his Solomonis sententiae (1525). The De authoritate, officio et potestate Pastorum Ecclesiasticorum, ex Phil. Melanct. editione may be a selection of quotation taken out of Melanchthon's works on the issue of pastoral authority (but I can find no specific reference to this title). The second is his Annotationes in Johannem (1523) and the third is his Annotationes in Evangelium Matthaei. On this last, two possibilities exist as there was a 1519 edition and a 1523 Strasbourg edition.

Here the list includes three Martin Bucer treatises and then ones by Johannes Brenz. The first is his Enarrationes perpetuae in sacra quatuor Evangelia (1530) which was a later edition of the treatise Enarrationum in evangelii Matthaei, Marci & Lucae, libra duo (published in Strasbourg in 1527). The second is Bucer's Epistola D. Pauli Epistolam ad Ephesios (1527). Now, according to the study of Peter Stephens, this refers to the much neglected publication of Bucer's Strasbourg lectures of the 1520s (see Peter Stephens, 'The church in Bucer's commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians', in D F Wright (ed.), Martin Bucer, Reforming church and community (Cambridge, 1994), pp.45-60). The third work is Bucer's In Theophaniam quem Sophoniam vulgo vocant, Epitomographus ad Hebraicam veritatem versus (n.d.). Then it mentions Johannes Brenz (var: Brentz or Brentius), Job cum piis et eruditis Joannis Brentii commentariis (1528), Ecclesiastes Salomonis cum Commentariis Johannis Brentii (1525) and In Divi Joannis Evangelium Johannis Brentii exegeses (n.d.).

The list continues with seven works by François Lambert of Avignon. These treatises are In divi Luce Evangelium Commentarii (1524) of which there is a 1525 edition from Strasbourg, Commentarii de Prophetia, Eruditione et Linguis, deque Litera et Spiritu (1526), Commentarii in Regulam Minoritarum, et contra universas perditionis Sectas (1525), Eiusdem libellus de differentia Stimuli carnis Satanae nuncii et ustionis (1526), Commentarii in Cantica Canticorum Salomonis, libellum quidem sensibus altissimis, in quo sublimia sacri conjugii mysteria, quae in Christo, et Ecclesia sunt, pertractantur (1524), Commentarii in Amos, Abdiam, Et Ionam Prophetas (1525), and Commentarii in IV ultimos Prophetas, nempe Sophoniam, Aggeum, Zachariam et Malachiam (1526).

The list continues with some of the works of Johan Wessel (more accurately Wessel Harmensz Gansfort), a nominalist theologian of the fifteenth-century (1419-89), born in Groningen and often called 'lux mundi' or 'light of the world' by later protestant commentators due to his so-called pseudo- or proto-humanism and interest in the three biblical languages. Foxe had already mentioned him earlier in the martyrology approvingly. In 1521 Martin Luther paid tribute to Wessel with the publication of a collection of his works - Praefatio in Iohannis Wesseli et aliorum ad ipsum epistolas. The tracts mentioned here are: De Sacramento Eucharistiae et audienda missa, De certissima et benignissima Dei providential, De dignitate et potestate Ecclesiastica, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, & quae sint claves Ecclesiæ, de potestate ligandi De Purgatorio, Epistola adversus M. Engelbertum Leidensem, in qua tractatur quid sit tenendum de spirituum et mortuorum apparitionibus, ac de suffragiis et celebration bus, De oratione et modo orandi, De Christi Incarnatione, de magnitudine, et amaritudine dominicae passionis, libri duo, and De Causis Incarnationis or (from Luther's edition) De causis, mysteriis et effectibus Dominicæ incarnationis et passionis.

The list then includes some of the works of John Pupper of Goch, a monk of Mechlin, works which were never published in his lifetime but which were later prohibited by the Council of Trent. According to a biography by David C Steinmetz, little is known of Pupper besides his founding of an Augustianian convent at Thabor. He was the author in the late fifteenth-century of four theological treatise against scholastic theology and traditional monastic theory (the value of vows). His works were edited into a publishable edition in 1521, which led Luther and others to consider him a forerunner of the reformation due to his stance in support of sola scriptura (see David C Steinmetz, '"Libertas Christiana": Studies in the Theology of John Pupper of Goch (d. 1475)', The Harvard Theological Review 65 [1972], pp. 191-230) The tracts mentioned here are In Dei gratiae et Christianae Fidel commendationem, contra falsam et Pharisaicam multorum, de justitiis et meritis operum doctrinam et gloriationem, fragmenta aliquot D. Joannis Gocchii, nunquam ante hac excusa and Dialogus de quatuor erroribus circa Evangelicam legem exortis.

The final treatises mentioned on the list are Johannes Oecolampadius, Quod non sit onerosa Christianis confessio paradoxon (1521), written in support of the psychological benefits of confession to a priest or monk. This work was briefly discussed by Amy Nelson Burnett in her article 'Church Discipline and Moral Reformation in the Thought of Martin Bucer' Sixteenth Century Journal 22 (1991), pp. 438-456. Then comes Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Super coelibatu monachatu et viduitate axiomatic (1521). The final book on the list is François Lambert of Avignon, Commentarii de causis excaecationis multorum seculorum, ac veritate denuo et novissime Dei misericordia revelata, etc. (1525). [This work is briefly mentioned in Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), p.116.

By 1570, Foxe had clearly learned some more valuable details about the curious financing and publication of the second edition of Tyndale's New Testament (for which, see Edward Hall, The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre & York (London, 1547), fol.186A; and Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation [Oxford, 1989], p.181). George Constantine (1500-60), the individual concerned in the story was a priest, 'book carrier' or 'colporteur' and the subject of a series of letters to Thomas Cromwell (beginning 14 November 1531) from Stephen Vaughan (an agent of Cromwell's in Antwerp). Vaughan was concerned that his was one of the names given up by Constantine, apparently under torture (Vaughan denied any heresy and More denied torture). Vaughan was in Antwerp after Constantine broke the stocks and escaped More's custody (c.6 December 1531) (see W E Campbell, Erasmus, Tyndale and More [London, 1949], pp.193-210. According to Brian Moynahan, Constantine was a canonist, friend of Tyndale's in Antwerp (though he also lived in Paris [L&P, iv, 4396] and was in London selling Tyndale books. Foxe mentions that Constantine gave More the names of other suspects - Richard Necton is named below -while others include Vaughan and Johan Bryte (another bookseller). Moynahan speculates that More actually allowed Constantine to escape, using him to lead More's agents to other English fugitives - Brian Moynahan, William Tyndale: If God spare my life [London, 2002], pp.255-9). The Richard Necton, mentioned towards the end of the story, was a bookseller of London and East Anglia, arrested originally by bishop Tunstal in March 1528. Necton had brought with him at least three volumes named on the index - Tyndale's New Testament, Justus Menius' Economica christiana, and Unio dissidentium; Libellus ex praecipuis ecclesiae Christianae doctoribus selectus, per venerabilem petrum Herman. Bodium. For Necton's activities, see Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), pp.115, 118. Foxe truncates the Constantine story, perhaps because further information was lacking to him, but it is interesting. Constantine returned to England in c.1536 - following More's death - and (according to Glanmor Williams) went into the service of Sir Henry Norris (who was later executed along with Anne Boleyn). In 1539 he took up the post of vicar of Llawhaden in Pembrokeshire (under Bishop William Barlow), only to be denounced as a sacramentarian and imprisoned in the Tower by Cromwell. In 1546, he became registrar of St David's (still under Barlow), archdeacon of Carmarthen in 1549, and prebendary of Llangamarch. Constantine was opposed to bishop Robert Ferrar, only to be deprived of his livings under Mary. In 1559, Elizabeth named him one of the visitors for the western circuit of dioceses, and in November 1559 he became archdeacon of Brecon.

Some of the books on this list, reproduced in the 1576 and 1583 editions by Foxe, do not appear on the lists which had appeared previously. It appears to derive from the list of books mentioned in David Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae. 4 vols. (London, 1737), 3, pp.719-20 (also see BL. MS Cott.Cleop.F.ii. fol.54). The list includes obscure treatises which may be works or translations by Miles Coverdale. A treatise of 1529, entitled Of the olde God and the new has been attributed to him. Also included is a reference to William Barlow, De sepultura missae (The buryall of the masse) or sometimes called Rede Me and be nott Wrothe (1528). This poem is sometimes attributed to William Roye (see A Koszul, 'Was Bishop William Barlow Friar Jerome Barlow? A Propos of Rede Me and Be Not Wroth and Other Early Protestant Dialogues' in The Review of English Studies 4 [1928], pp.25-34. Then comes a reference to Simon Fish, Sum of the Holy Scripture (which is actually the translation from a Dutch original treatise which denied infant baptism), printed in England in 1529. A further work identified on the list is William Roye, An exposition in to the seventh chapter of the pistle to the Corinthians (1529). Then comes William Tyndale The Preface of Master William Tyndale, that he made before the Five Books of Moses, called Genesis (1530), his A Prologue into the Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomy (1530), and his (now lost) exposition on the sacrament of marriage, published c.1528. The English Psalter referred to next on the list is most likely George Joye's publication (in 1530) of the Psalms in English, later published as Davids Psalter (Antwerp, 1534). William Tyndale, The Practice of Prelates (1530) follows, and then George Joye's translation of a German text, published as Hortulus Animae (1530), a popular prayer book, first printed in 1498 at Strasbourg. The 'A.B.C.' against the clergy has been attributed to William Roye but is, in fact, a Lollard tract of the early fifteenth century, published in Marburg (1530), and sometimes known as Dialogus inter generosum et rusticum (for which, see Margaret Aston, Lollards and reformers [London, 1984], pp.220-4). The final work in this list is William Tyndale, The examination of Master William Thorpe, priest, of heresy, before Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1407 (1530). There is, in reality, a question mark over the existence of William Thorpe, a Lollard of the early fifteenth century, reputedly the author of The Testimony of William Thorpe in 1407. Foxe had already referred to him in the martyrology. See Maureen Jurkowski, 'The arrest of William Thorpe in Shrewsbury and the anti-Lollard statute of 1406', in Historical Research 75 (August 2002), pp.273-95.

There was certainly no scarcity of indexes of forbidden or condemned works at this time. Bishops Fitzjames, Tunstal and Clerk (twice) had issued lists of heretical books, as had the Chancellor's office (twice in 1530) - see, Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), p.179.] None of these list was comprehensive enough for Stokesley, who released another on 3 December 1531(see, Andrew A Chibi, Henry VIII's Conservative Scholar [Berne, 1997], p.122). Sometimes these lists are mixed up or wrongly credited. Foxe here describes two lists, of which the first is probably an official proclamation from the archbishop's office (a Clerk list) while the second is probably Stokesley's [However, cf. Tudor and Stuart Proclamations 1485-1714. 2 vols [Oxford, 1910], i, p.13 [no.114 of 6 March 1528] and p.14 [no.122 of June 1530] and L&P, v, Appendix no.768 (xviii)].

Foxe could not resist exploiting the irony of the fact that Sir Thomas More was given a special permission to read and reply to heretical texts on 7 March 1528 (see Guildhall Library, MS 9531/10 Register Tunstal 1522-9/30, fol.138; David Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae. 4 vols. (London, 1737), 3, pp.711-2). According to Richard Marius, the immediate result of this privilege was More's great treatise, A Dialogue Concerning Heresies (see Richard Marius, Thomas More [New York, 1985], p.339).

The works mentioned in this list include Simon Fish, The Supplicacyon for the Beggars (1529); a 1521 English publication, The Pope confounded and his kingdom exposed of Revelation of Antichrist (a work of Martin Luther which featured a number of woodcuts on the proposition that Rome is the new Babylon and the pope is now the Antichrist), or (alternatively) John Frith, Revelation of Antichrist published at Antwerp in 1529. There were, of course, numerous treatises on the subject of Antichrist available. The 1521 treatise is mentioned in William A Clebsch's article, 'The Earliest Translations of Luther into English', The Harvard Theological Review 56:1 (January 1963), pp. 75-86. The three other treatises mentioned here are Tyndale's The Parable of the Wicked Mammon (1528) - which is an 'elaboration and translation of Luther's exposition of the parable of the unjust steward' (William A. Clebsch, op.cit., p.75)]; The Obedience of a Christian man (1528) and Compendious introduction un to the pistle off Paul to the Romayns, which is sometimes known as Prologue to the Epistle to the Romans (1526) - and generally regarded as a direct translation of Martin Luther's Preface to St Paul's Epistle to the Romans (1522). (Leonard J Trinterud, 'A reappraisal of William Tyndale's debt to Martin Luther,' Church History 31 [1962], pp. 24-43 provides a comprehensive and comparative examination of the two treatises). For the 'Dialogue between the father and the son', There are several possible identifications. The most likely is William Roye's translation from the Latin of an anonymous German tract A Brefe Dialoge bitwene a Christen father and his stubborn Sonne (1526-7) (see William A. Clebsch, op.cit., p. 79) The next treatise in the list is Justus Menius, Economica christiana (1529). Menius, also known as Jost or Just Menig, was a Lutheran theologian, a student of Melanchthon's at Wittenberg, and had been heavily influenced in his opinions by Luther. He was variously a teacher, preacher and official church visitor for Duke John of Electoral Saxony. The following work is Unio dissidentium; Libellus ex praecipuis ecclesiae Christianae doctoribus selectus, per venerabilem petrum Herman. Bodium, an anthology of patristic works addressing a number of reformation related topics (e.g., the Eucharist, good works, etc.) Tyndale, in his disputations with Thomas More, made reference to a book entitled The Union of Doctors, which Foxe also seems to have appreciated. It is quite likely that this is the work to which he was referring. The Precationes Piae variis usibus, temporibus, et person is accommodatae was an anthology of prayers taken out of scripture, devotional poems and hymns. This had been recently translated in English by Geoffrey Lome, the porter of St Anthony's School and friend of soon to be executed heretics Thomas Bilney and Thomas Garrard (see John F Davis, 'The Trials of Thomas Bylney and the English Reformation', The Historical Journal 24 [1981], pp.775-90). The following treatise in the list is Martin Luther's famous Babylonian captivity of the church (1520). There follows Johannes Hus in Oseam (mentioned in Craig D'Alton, 'William Warham and English Heresy Policy after the Fall of Wolsey', Historical Research 77 [2004], pp.337-357). Then comes Huldrich Zwingli's notorious In catabaptistarum strophes elenchus (1527). The following work in the list probably refers to Wolfgang Capito, De pueris instituendis ecclesiae Argentinensis Isagoge (1527) which was translated into the English vernacular by William Roye in the same year. The next work is Johann Brenz (var: Brentz or Brentius) De administranda pie republica ac subditorum erga Magistratus justa obedientia libellus. Then comes a series of published works of Martin Luther, which include his famous Commentary on St Paul's Epistle to Galatians (1519); On the freedom of a Christian (1520) and A brief and sound explanation of the Lord's Prayer (1519).

There were a number of lists of indexed books around this point in the early 1530s and D'Alton has done some interesting research into the problem of separating them (see Craig D'Alton, 'William Warham and English Heresy Policy after the Fall of Wolsey', Historical Research 77 [2004], pp.337-357. According to D'Alton, Bishop John Clerk (of Bath and Wells) had assembled a list for Archbishop William Warham's anti-Luther initiative of 1529. Clerk's list of 29 November, although no longer extant, may well have been the basis of subsequent lists, as preserved in David Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae. 4 vols. (London, 1737), 3, p.706 and L&P, iv, no.2607. From this, it is possible to reassemble the Clerk list. Bishop Tunstal (of London) is often credited with another booklist of 1531/2, but this was actually the much more comprehensive Bishop Stokesley list, which was made with the cooperation of the Lord Chancellor Thomas More (see, Andrew A Chibi, Henry VIII's Conservative Scholar (Berne, 1997), p.122). A great many Lutheran works, treatises and letters, seemed to have been in circulation in London at this time and several of these are listed here, along with an edition of John Wyclif's four treatises on church doctrine (which had been collected together into a single volume). The Wyclif work is Johannis Wiclevi Trialogus (1525) which had been published in Basel (and in the same year at Worms as Dialogorum Libri quattuor). The many Luther works mentioned are A treatise on good works (1520), Letter to Pope Leo X (30 May 1518) - which includes his Resolutions to the Ninety-five thesis - and De quatuodecim spectris (1520) - which was also known by the more formal title Tessaradecas Consolatoria pro laborantibus et oneratis (and which was translated into German by Georg Spalatin). This last was a pastoral work written as a comfort to the sick and was much praised by Erasmus, and translated into English (STC 10868). The list also includes Luther, On the freedom of a Christian (1520), Sermons on the First Epistle of St Peter (1523), and Ad Librum eximii magistri nostri Mag. Ambrosii Catharini defensoris Silv. Prieratis acerrimi, responsio M. Lutheri (1521). In 1520 Ambrosius Catharinus Politus had been commission by Giulio de' Medici (future Pope Clement VII) to write a defense of the church against Luther (which was eventually published as the Apologia of 1520, in which Politus listed eleven ways in which Luther - identified as Antichrist - deceived the people). The treatise mentioned here is Luther's rather angry response (See Patrick Preston, 'Catharinus versus Luther, 1521', History, 88 [2003], 364-78. Also listed here is Luther's Deuteronomium Mosi cum annotationibus (1523) translated as The Deuteronomy of Moses with notes, Large Catechism (1530), his Commentary of the book of Jonah (1526) and his Commentary on St Paul's Epistle to Galatians (1519). This last may refer to the published edition of Luther's lectures of the 1518-19 period which was subsequently reprinted in a second edition of 1523. The final Luther work mentioned at this point is Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521). The problem with the many mentions made of Luther's commentaries in Foxe is that the works were spread out over a number of volumes (see Richard Marius, Martin Luther: the Christian between God and death [London, 1999], p.192) making it difficult to pin-point exact publishing details. At all events, one other work mentioned on this list is list is Martin Borrhaus (Cellarius), De operibus dei (1527). This treatise was published in Strasbourg and featured a preface written by Capito. Cellarius was a friend of Melanchthon and Luther who had been influenced into a more spiritual doctrine by the Zwickau prophet Marcus Stübner, after which he moved to Zürich and joined the Swiss Brethren, only to subsequently make peace with Luther in 1525. His book acknowledged the various justifications for temporal government, repudiated free will and spelled out a doctrine of election similar to Zwingli's.

Here Foxe lists further Luther pamphlets placed on the lists of prohibited books in London in the early 1530s. Besides the circulation of pamphlets created out of Luther's works and letters on such topics as feast days, good works, ceremonies, inner peace and other popular issues, treatises listed here are Luther's Church Postils (1522) - a collection of his sermons assembled as a guide to other preachers; his Commentary on Jonah (1526), De votes monasticis M Lutheri iudicium (1521), and a Latin translation of his Prayer-booklet of 1521. Also on this list here is Philip Melanchthon's Didymi Faventini versus Thomam Placentinum pro M. Luthero oratio. These and the following lists were dropped from the 1576 edition.

Foxe then lists a large selection of works by the Basel reformer Johannes Oecolampadius. The treatises mentioned are his Commentaries on the Prophet Isaiah (1525) and Commentariorum in Danielem, Libri Duo (or On the Prophet Daniel) of 1530. Oecolampadius wrote two Apologies in 1526; the one on the list at this point is to Theobald Billican (who had sided with Luther against Karlstadt on the doctrine of the Eucharist but later changed his mind in a letter addressed to Oecolampadius on 16 January 1526). Next comes his De non habendo pauperum delectu, Io. Oecolampadii Epistola utilisssime (1523) [or A most useful epistle of J Oecolampadius on not holding collection for the poor]. The other Apology of 1526 was addressed to Urbanus Rhegius. Also on the list are Oecolampadius' commentaries In postremos tres prophetas, nempe Haggaeum, Zachariam, et Malachiam (1527) and De genuine verborum Domini, "hoc est corpus meum" juxta vetustissimos autores expositione (1525). Oecolampadius had later reinforced this later piece (around the time of the Marburg colloquy) with a number of citations taken out of the Greek and Roman fathers, work which so impressed Melanchthon that he began to distance himself from Luther's Eucharistic doctrine (thus creating the schism in the Lutheran ranks which would explode in the 1560s). The last Oecolampadius work mentioned by Foxe is his Annotations on the Epistles of St Paul (published in 1526).

Foxe follows with a block of several works by Huldrich Zwingli, the reformer of Zürich. Included on the list are his Friendly exegesis (or Exposition of the matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther which was published in 1527), Commentary on Isaiah (1529) - which may have appeared in London appended to Zwingli's Apology on the Canon of the Mass (1523). Next mentioned is his Farrago Annotationum in Genesim, ex ore Huldrychi Zuinglii per Leonem Iudae & Casparem Megandrum except arum (of 1527). This seems to have been an edition to which were attached a number of Zwinglian commentaries on St Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians (which are found in his Epistola of c.1527). Then comes Zwingli's Ad Philippenses annotatiunculae per Leonem Judam, ex ore Huldrici Zuinglii exceptae. Leo Juda was a friend and co-worker with Zwingli in Zürich and was responsible for a number of translations into German of Zwingli's Latin works. His scripture translations also formed a basis for Calvin's own works. The work mentioned here probably therefore refers to a collection of Juda's annotations on the text of St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians along with some excerpts of Zwingli's own studies. This is followed by Zwingli's Ad Carolum Rom. Imperatorem, Fidei Huldrychi Zvinglii ratio; Illvstrissimis Germaniae Principibus in comitijs Augustanis congregates (which is also known as The Letter to the Princes of Germany, published in 1530), Concerning an Anabaptist book (1527/8), A Commentary on true and false religion (1525), Reproduction from memory of a sermon on the providence of God dedicated to His Highness, Philip of Hesse (1530) and Commentary on Jeremiah (of 1530, and which may have appeared appended to Zwingli's Apology on the Canon of the Mass (1523). The final two works are Zwingli's Responsio to the letters of Theobald Billican and Urbanus Rhegius and his Certeyne precepts declaring howe the ingenious youth ought to be instructed and brought unto Christ (1523). (For further details on these treatises, see W P Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli [Oxford, 1988]).

This section is a number of treatises by Johannes Bugenhagen, the Lutheran reformer of a number of towns in Northern Germany and Scandinavia. Those listed are Annotations upon the ten Epistles of Paul (1524) - or here as Annotationes Johannis Bugenhagii Pomerani in Epistolas Pauli ad Galatas, Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses, Thessalonicenses, primam et secundam which may be referring to the second edition of 1525. There then follows In Regum duos ultimos libros annotationes Johannis Bugenhagii Pomerani post Samuelem, jam primum emissae; Annotationes In Deuteronomium, In Samuelem prophetam, id est, duos libros Regum. Ab eodem praeterea conciliata ex Euangelistis histori passi Christi & glorificati, cu[m] annotation bus (1524), De coniugio episcoporum et diaconorum.

Mentioned here are two works of Conrad Pelikan, a humanist and scholar of biblical languages and Judaic scholarship. The two treatises are his Explicatio brevis, simplex, et canonica libelli. Ruth, ea forma qua totius veteris test. Canonici Libri expositi sunt and Psalterium Davidis, Conradi Pellicani opera elaboratum: non esse ferendas in templis Christianorum imagines et statuas coli solira, authoribus Ecclesiasticis Argentoraten .

In concentrating upon the prohibition of the circulation of the scriptures in English, issued by Cuhbert Tunstall on 23 October 1527 (not 24 October 1527, as Foxe states) were crystal-clear. It was a golden opportunity to emphasise the opposition to the spread of evangelical truth among the English ecclesiastical hierarchy on the eve of the events that Foxe will shortly describe, and which led to the reformation. Cuthbert Tunstal, bishop of London, had been consecrated there on 19 October 1522 (provided on 10 September and the temporalities assigned 7 October). He would be translated to the see of Durham on 21 February 1530. The archdeacon, to whom the prohibition was addressed, was Geoffrey Wharton, collated 29 March 1526 (see Tunstal's register at London Guildhall MS, 9531/10: Episcopal Register Tunstal: 1522-29/30, fol.14b). Wharton died two years later on c.30 October 1529 (fol.28). His vicar-general, also mentioned in the prohibition, was Richard Foxford. The translated and printed New Testament, whose circulation it sought to prevent was Tyndale's New Testament, completed by February 1526 at the Peter Schoeffer printer in Worms, the first to be printed in the English vernacular. It is interesting that, for all the trouble Chancellor Thomas More and Bishop Stokesley would put him through, the major influence upon Tyndale's translation had been Erasmus' own Greek New Testament, which was available to him in its third edition of 1524 (with its Latin translation and notes). Stokesley had defended an earlier edition of Erasmus before Henry VIII in 1521 (Collected Works of Erasmus, 67 vols. (Toronto, 1974-91), vi, p.63 (no.855), viii, pp.8ff, 19; L&P, ii/ii, 4340) while More's relationship with Erasmus is well known. Tyndale had also used Luther's 1521 September Testament (see, Brian Moynahan, William Tyndale [London, 2002], p.6). Tyndale would make much of the fact that Erasmus had been his major influence.

Andrew ChibiUniversity of Leicester

This sentence is largely to recounting the ordeals of a number of evangelicals, who suffered during an extensive crackdown on heresy conducted in 1531-2 while Thomas More was Lord Chancellor. More was clearly acting in an unofficial partnership with John Stokesley, bishop of London, and he played a major role in the persecution of three of these martyrs: Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury and James Bainham. There are also a few other individuals whose sufferings are described here: an obscure and unnamed old man in Buckinghamshire; John Randall, a Cambridge student and evangelical who was allegedly murdered around 1531, and Edward Freese, who was arrested for heresy in 1534.

Foxe's major source for these accounts, particularly those of Bayfield, Tewkesbury and Bainham, was now lost court books of Bishop Stokesley and Tunstall.. In one case, Foxe drew on Tunstall's register (Guildhall MS 9531/10, fo. 123r-v). He also drew on works by John Bale and Thomas More (see especially Bale, Catalogus; Bale, The epistle exhortatorye of an English Christiane [Antwerp, 1544?], STC 1291.5, fo. 13v; The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, ed. L. A. Schuster, Richard C. Marius, James P. Lusardi and Richard J. Schoeck, CWTM 8[3 vols., New Haven, CT, 1973], I, p. 8). Foxe, however, also drew on information supplied by individual informants, particularly for the accounts of Tewkesbury, Randall, Freese and Bainham. One of these sources was Joan Fish, the widow of James Bainham (For Joan Bainham as a source for other accounts in Foxe see Thomas S. Freeman, 'The importance of dying earnestly: the metamorphosis of the account of James Bainham in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" in The Church Retrospective, ed. R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 272-3). In the case of John Randall, Foxe's source was clearly his wife or his wife's family.

These sources presented several problems for Foxe. The first was that of confusion, because Foxe was getting different information on the same people for different sources at different times. As a result, the material on Bayfield and Bainham, in particular, is badly organised. In fact, the description of a recantation, which is attributed to John Tewkesbury in the first edition, is attributed to James Bainham in subsequent editions. The second problem is that the material coming from individual informants was, occasionally, unreliable. The account of Randall's murder is almost certainly an exaggeration of a family tragedy (for instance, Nicholas Harpsfield questioned how a murderer could have killed Randall, place him in a noose, and then leave the room, with the door bolted from the inside?), while the account of Bainham's last words is probably a pious invention (Thomas S. Freeman, 'The importance of dying earnestly: the metamorphosis of the account of James Bainham in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs"' in The Church Retrospective, ed. R. N. Swanson, Sudies in Church History 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 278-81).

Thomas S. Freeman

Foxe's account presents difficulties here. Bayfield apparently left Cambridge and went to London before Robert Barnes was convicted of heresy early in 1526. In 1528, he was tried for heresy by Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall of London. Bayfield abjured and various penances were imposed upon him: most notably, that he was to resume wearing his monastic habit, to return to the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds and never to re-enter the diocese of London without episcopal permission. After his abjuration, Bayfield definitely fled overseas. He then began importing heretical works into England, on a large scale. In 1531, Bayfield was again arrested (as Foxe describes) visiting a bookbinder. Either Bayfield went abroad twice, once before and once after, his first arrest for heresy or (more likely) Foxe was confused in dating Bayfield's flight.

The coal house of the bishop of London's palace in the capital was frequently used as an ad-hoc detention centre for prisoners whom the bishop was examining.

Thomas Patmore, of Much Hadham. Susan Brigden has persuasively argued that the two Thomas Patmores mentioned by Foxe were, in fact, the same person and that Patmore while still vicar of Much Hadham, became free of the Drapers's Company (Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation [Oxford, 1989], p. 206). She suggests that the purpose of this was to remain incognito and that the Drapers were chosen because of a significant evangelical presence in their membership. But Patmore's purpose may simply have been to acquire London citizenship. And the Drapers's Company may have been chosen beecause his father had been a member of the company. He was arrested but released due to petitions from his supporters to Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell (L&P VII, p. 348).

The articles charged against Bayfield, his answers to them, the sentence of degradation imposed on him and the letter to the mayor and sheriffs of London, are taken from a now lost court book of Bishop John Stokesley. Because Foxe does not mention Bayfield's first trial for heresy, the reader is likely to be confused by the references below to punishments already imposed on Bayfield. This was Bayfield's second trial for heresy.

Richard Foxford was chancellor and vicar general of the diocese of London.

As a former monk, Bayfield was in clerical orders and had to be formally degraded from them before he could be executed.

The statute referred to is 'De haeretico comburendo', which mandated the punishment for heresy and the process for trying and punishing heretics. It wasenacted under Henry IV in 1401.

I.e. a letter of requirement or command.

This was part of the ceremony of degradation and not simply gratuitous violence.

According to one contemporary, Bayfield was burned on 4 December 1531. (See Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England during the reigns of the Tudors, ed. W. D. Hamilton, Camden Society, new series, 11 and 20 {2 vols., London, 1875-77], I, p. 17).

More made these charges in his Confutation. (See The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, ed. Louis A. Schuster, Richard A. Marius, James P. Lusardi and Richard J. Schoeck, CWTM 8, [3 vols., New Haven, CT, 1978], I, pp. 17-18). The accusation of bigamy is probably unfounded, but the claim that Bayfield informed on another evangelicals is convincing.

These materials are taken from a court book of Cuthbert Tunstall that is now lost. These documents are from Tewkesbury's first trial for heresy; not the second - and lethal - trial.

This is one of the works of William Tyndale.

Tewkesbury was, in fact, tried at More's house at Chelsea, which was unusual, but not illegal. This provided fuel for lurid rumours that More tortured accused heretics at his house.

Foxe's sudden desire for brevity is a little suspicious, especially since it contrasts with his diligence in printing documents from Tewkesbury's first heresy trial. Foxe clearly had access to the records of Tewkesbury's second trial, so why didn't he print those? Thomas More, who was present, claimed that Tewkesbury, at his second trial, denied that he had ever held the opinions that he had abjured at his first trial (Thomas More, The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, ed. Louis A. Schuster, Richard C. Marius, James P. Lusardi and Richard J. Schoeck, CWTM 8 (3 vols, New Haven, CT, 1973), I, p. 21). If Tewkesbury had appeared to be disingenuous, evasive or even deceptive at his trial, then Foxe would have wanted to conceal this.

This is an indication that More was correct and that Tewkesbury had attempted to deny that he had held the beliefs he abjured at his first trial (see preceding comment). Tewkesbury's answer to this article, had Foxe printed it, would have been interesting.

This is a work by William Tyndale.

This document must have come from a now lost court book of Bishop John Stokesley of London.

According to English law, a heretic could only be burned after Chancery sent a writ authorizing the execution. Foxe claims that this did not happen in this case and, as a matter of fact, there is no surviving copy of the signification of excommunication for Tewkesbury. This is hardly conclusive. If, however, the dates Foxe gives for Tewkesbury's trial and execution are correct, then the authorities were certainly in a hurry to execute Tewkesbury; he was burned four days after he was condemned.

This material on Bayfield's background comes from a knowledgeable informant (Robert Barnes attended the University of Louvain in the years 1517-21 (ODNB). Edmund Rougham matriculated there in 1520 (Emden A, p. 243). The knowledge of the activities of Maxwell and Stacy (see comment after next) and the account's greater detail on what happened to Bayfield in London suggest that this informant was based in the capital.

It appears that Foxe's account of Edward Freeze and 'father' Bate is based on material sent to Foxe by an informant; very probably an informant in Colchester (this account contains quite a bit of detail on people from Essex and Colchester). But there is quite a bit of corroboration for Foxe's account. First of all, A. G. Dickens uncovered information on Edward Freese's family. Edward's father Frederick was a Dutch immigrant (the family name was probably Vries or de Vries), who settled in York and made a living as a bookbinder and stationer (A. G. Dickens, Lollards and Protestants in the diocese of York 1509-1558 [Oxford, 1959], p. 30). This Dutch background may explain the pronounced evangelical convictions of Valentine and Edward Freese. Another major piece of corroboration is a letter, almost certainly sent to Thomas Cromwell, which is now in the TNA. Although the signature has been cut off of the letter, the biographical details related in it fit Edward Freese so closely that is virtually certain that he wrote it. The author of the letter, detained in London for religious offences, admits that he had been a monk since the age of 13, but claims that he was 'sold' by his master to the abbot of Jervaulx (see next comment). The author of the letter declared that he attempted to flee the abbey several times but was recaptured. Finally he fled to Colchester and he got married (TNA SP 1/73, fos. 175r-176r).

A. G. Dickens guessed that 'Bearsie Abbey' was Bermondsey (A.G. Dickens, Lollards and Protestants in the diocese of York 1509-1558 [Oxford, 1959], p, 30). But a letter, almost certainly by Edward Freese, refers to himself as having been 'sold' to Jervaulx Abbey by his master, when he was an apprentice. And on 30 July 1532, the abbot of Jervaulx wrote to Cromwell, regarding an 'Edw. Payntter' (remember that Freese was a painter) who had been arrested for heresy and was in the custody of London. In this letter, the abbot said that 'Edw. Payntter' had fled the abbey of Jervaulx but that Jervaulx did not him returned (L&P V, p. 527).

It appears that Foxe's account of Edward Freeze and 'father' Bate is based on material sent to Foxe by an informant; very probably an informant in Colchester (this account contains quite a bit of detail on people from Essex and Colchester). But there is quite a bit of corroboration for Foxe's account.

Unsurprisingly, there was probably more behind Freese's arrest than this. In a letter that he sent to Cromwell, he admitted having previously arrested for heresy, but released upon receipt of a royal pardon. Freese also denied the charge the he had led conventicles that met secretly at night (TNA SP 1/73, fo. 175r-v).

Manchet was the finest kind of wheat bread [OED].

In a letter Edward Freese sent to Cromwell, he complained of the cruelty of being held in irons (TNA SP 1/37, fo. 176r).

Valentine Freese had been arrested (we do not know the reason, but the offence was clearly related to his evangelical convictions) in the Marches of Wales in 1534. He was apparently released through Thomas Cromwell's intervention. In 1540, Freese and his wife were burned on a charge of sacramentarian heresy in York (A. G. Dickens, Lollards and Protestants in the Diocese of York 1509-1538 [Oxford, 1959], pp. 31-32). Foxe also records that in 1533, Valentine Freese had smuggled a file into the bishop of London's palace, enabling Andrew Hewet, a Protestant martyr, to attempt an escape (1563, p. 506; 1570, p. 1179; 1576, p. 1008 and 1583, p. 1036).

I.e. a monk in the great Benedictine abbey at Bury St. Edmunds.

This is William Roy, the evangelical and anti-clerical satirist [ODNB]. Foxe is almost certanly repeating Thomas More on Roy's death (see The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, ed. L. A. Schuster, Richard C. Marius, James P. Lusardi and Richard J. Schoeck, CWTM 8[3 vols., New Haven, CT, 1973], I, p. 8).

Foxe's first account of James Bainham was in the Rerum (pp. 126-7). Foxe stated that George [sic] Bainham was in 1532 for denying the existence of Purgatory and denying that Thomas Becket was a saint. Foxe's source for this was clearly John Bale, who had written that 'George' Bainham was burned for denying the existence of Purgatory and denying that Thomas Becket was a saint (Bale, Catalogus, p. 763 and John Bale, The epistle exhortatorye of an English Christiane [Antwerp, 1544?], STC 1291.5, fo. 13v).

James Bainham was the youngest son of Sir Alexander Bainham, who was the head of the most prominent family in the Forest of Dean and who had been sheriff of Gloucestershire five times. James Bainham's mother was the sister of William Tracy. William Tracy was a prominent member of a leading Gloucestershire family and he was a former sheriff of the county. His will aroused considerablecontroversy because of its outspoken declaration of justification by faith without theassistance of works. Manuscript copies of the will circulated extensively. On the Bainham family, see Caroline Litzenberger, The English Reformation and the Laity: Gloucestershire, 1540-1580 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 30-31. On Tracy, see John Craig and Caroline Litzenberger, 'Wills as Religious Propaganda: The Testament of William Tracy', Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 [1993], pp. 415-31 and the 1535 copy of the will, with commentaries by William Tyndale and John Frith, that was printed in Antwerp: the testament of master William Tracie esquier (Antwerp, 1535), STC 24167.

Although Foxe does not say so, it is pretty clear that Joan Bainham was the source for this story of More's treatment of James Bainham. Notice that the account ends with a description of her imprisonment. For Joan Bainham as a source for other accounts in Foxe see Thomas S. Freeman, 'The importance of dying earnestly: the metamorphosis of the account of James Bainham in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" in The Church Retrospective, ed. R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 272-3. Given the source, and her understandable animus against More, the stories his torturing her husband should be treated with caution. More vehemently denied contemporary allegations that accused heretics were beaten in his garden (Thomas More, The Apology, ed. J. B. Trapp, CWTM 9 [New Haven , CT, 1974] pp. 117-20).

The source for the material on Bainham's first trial is a now lost court book of Bishop John Stokesley of London. In his first edition, Foxe first printed a statement (almost certainly from Joan Bainham) that Bainham confounded his adversaries at this trial. Foxe then printed a list of the articles ministered to Bainham, but not Bainham's answers (1563, pp. 492-3). What probably happened was that Foxe only obtained this court book as the story of James Bainham was being printed and that Foxe was only able to integrate material from the cout book only imperfectly into his marrative. In the second edition, Foxe omitted the inaccurate description of defiant Bainham overcoming his examiners and he provided Bainham's answers to the answers.

In the 1583 edition, Foxe omitted this favourable reference to Edward Crome. For Foxe's increasingly unfavourable view of Crome, see Susan Wabuda, 'Equivocation and recantation during the English Reformation: the 'subtle shadows' of Dr. Edward Crome', Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 (1993), pp. 328-9.

On Laurence Maxwell see 1563, p. 418. On James Stacy also see 1563, p. 418 as well as 1570, p. 1161 and p.1185; 1576, p. 993 and 1014; 1583, p.1021 and pp. 1041-1042

These are all works by William Tyndale.

This is George Joye, the evangelical author.

There were two prisons known as the Compter in London: one on Wood Street, the other on Poultry Street.

Somehow Foxe got confused in the 1563 edition and related this story of the penitent declaration before an evangelical congregation but claimed that John Tewkesbury was the repentent sinner (1563, p. 486). This mistake was corrected in the 1570 edition.

The documents from this second trial of Bainham as a relapsed heretic are from a now lost court book of Bishop John Stokesley.

This date was corrected in the 1570 edition. This is an indication of both the haste in which these documents were transcribed for the1563 edition and the careful correction of the text in the 1570 edition.

This account of Bainham's further mistreatment probably came from his wife Joan (the account of More's treatment of Bainham ends with a description of her imprisonment. For Joan Bainham as a source for other accounts in Foxe see Thomas S. Freeman, 'The importance of dying earnestly: the metamorphosis of the account of James Bainham in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" in The Church Retrospective, ed. R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 272-3.) Whether Bainham was physically tortured is doubtful, but the account of his movements is interesting. The trip to Chelsea and then Fulham indicates that both More and Stokesley made further efforts to induce Bainham not to relapse.

This account of Bainham's execution and last words was added to an appendix in the 1563 edition, which means that it reached Foxe after the account of Bainham was printed. It also means that the account did not come from Joan Banham. For a discussion of the reasons why this version of Bainham's death is fictitious see Thomas S. Freeman, 'The importance of dying earnestly: the metamorphosis of the account of James Bainham in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs"' in The Church Retrospective, ed. R. N. Swanson, Sudies in Church History 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 278-81.

Edmund Rougham. In 1545, now apparently more theologically conservative, Rougham would preach at the burning of John Kirby in Bury St. Edmunds. Edward Rougham had formerly been an evangelical sympathiser and a friend of Richard Bayfield and Robert Barnes.

Robert Barnes attended the University of Louvain in the years 1517-21 (ODNB). Edmund Rougham matriculated there in 1520 (Emden A, p. 243). This accurate detail helps to establish the general accuracy of this account.

I.e. in the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds.

This must have taken place before Christmas Day 1525, when Robert Barnes would preach a sermon that embroiled him in heresy charges (ODNB).

Information about Benet and Trapnel must have been sent to Foxe by an informant between 1563 and 1570. There is no other existing record of these two martyrs.

In the Rerum, Foxe briefly notes that three 'iuvenes', Robert King, Nicholas Marsh and John 'Debnammus' were hung in 1532 for destroying an 'idolum' at Dovercourt Essex. Foxe also mentioned that a 'Robertus Gayrnerus' was burned for the same offence (Rerum, p. 126). Foxe's source for this was undoubtedly John Bale who had written that Robert King, Nicholas Marsh and John 'Debynsham' were executed for 'destroying the fowle ydoll of Dovercourt' (John Bale, The epistle exhortatorye of an English Christiane [Antwerp, 1544?], STC 1291.5, fo. 13r). Bale didn't mention Robert Gardner, though, and Foxe must have learned of him from Bale or another exile.

But while Foxe's early information about Gardner was garbled - Gardner was clearly not burned - it seems to have provided an important lead for future research into what happened at Dovercourt. The account of the destruction of the Dovercourt rood comes - as Foxe states - from a letter Robert Gardner wrote a Londoner, describing the incident. Foxe cites Gardner as his source for other acts of iconoclasm in Essex and Sussex in 1532 (It is clear from Foxe's note that his source for the following incidents was Robert Gardner. But it is not apparent whether these details came from the original letter Gardner sent to Chapman or from subsequent communications between Foxe and Gardner). It seems clear that Foxe's recovering this evidence is the product of directed research and not serendipity.

This one of a number of indications scattered throughout the Acts and Monuments of Foxe's whole-hearted approval of iconoclasm. It is perhaps worth remembering that he destroyed an image of the Virgin Mary at Ouldsworth, Surrey, during Edward VI's reign [ODNB].

It is clear from Foxe's note that his source for the following incidents was Robert Gardner. But it is not apparent whether these details came from the original letter Gardner sent to Chapman or from subsequent communications between Foxe and Gardner.

Foxe's treatment of the John Frith martyrdom provided him with the material (Frith's own writings, and those of his critics) to provide an exposition of protestant doctrines on purgatory and transubstantiation, supported by relevant patristic material, within the overall context of a narrative that emphasised his valiant steadfastness, intellectually and physically. The story was somewhat elaborated in the 1570 editions and subsequently, with Frith's beliefs examined in greater detail and the letter 'to his friends' printed in extenso. The story of the martyrdom of Andrew Huet ('Hewet'), who accompanied Frith to the scaffold, provided much less possibility for doctrinal elaboration, but he served to make the point that Frith's doctrines and steadfastness had been persuasive.

Andrew ChibiUniversity of Leicester

Foxe does not go into the chain of events very deeply at this point which is unfortunate as the events are quite interesting. Simon Fish, in exile in Antwerp in 1529, had written a vehemently anti-clerical short pamphlet entitled Supplication of the Beggars in which he disputed the existence of purgatory (from a 'sola scriptura' perspective) and, consequently, the validity of papal indulgences as he construes them to be. He also made the argument that the clergy had usurped certain temporal powers. Such an argument as this was, of course, calculated to appeal to a king who was, at the time, vying with papal obstructionism over his effort to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. In October 1529, Thomas More responded to the pamphlet with his The Supplycatyon of Soulys (in two books) defending the doctrine of purgatory with all the wit and logic at his command. It was on this point of purgatorial doctrine that Frith comes into the picture, determined to undertake an answer to More's book on Fish's behalf and in defence of his anti-purgatorial theology.

Frith had published two books in 1529. One of these was entitled Patrick's Places - the translation of a short treatise of the Scottish reformer, Patrick Hamilton, covering such issues as law, gospel, charity and good works. The other work of that year was the much more important The Revelation of Antichrist written under the pseudonym Richard Brightwell. This treatise consists of an introductory letter and three sections dedicated to doctrine, of which only the first section - 'An Epistle unto the Christian Reader' - is original. The other two sections - 'The Revelation of Antichrist' and 'Antithesis between Christ and the Pope' - are respectively translations of Luther's Concerning Antichrist (1521) and Melanchthon's Suffering of Christ and Antichrist (1521). Frith, in this way, presented the doctrine of 'sola fide' to the English reading public. In 1531, while still in exile, Frith wrote two considerable more original treatises. The lesser of the two is a commentary on the last will of the executed heretic William Tracy, entitled Tracy's Testament. The greater work - entitled A disputation of Purgatory - is an attack on the traditional Catholic orthodoxy as presented in three other recent English works. These are John Rastell's rationalist account New Book of Purgatory (1530), Thomas More's scriptural account The Supplycatyon of Soulys (1529) and Bishop John Fisher's patristic account Confutation of Lutheran Assertions (1523). These are discussed in Carl R Trueman, Luther's Legacy: Salvation and English Reformers, 1525-1556 (Oxford, 1994), pp.121-56.

According to William Gordon (referencing the work of Germain Marc'hadour) there was another Frith work, a short, preliminary draft to his larger Tower work (Quid veteres senserint de sacramento eucharistiae (A Book Answering More's Letter) on the doctrine of the Eucharist, entitled A christen sentenceand true iudgement of the moste honorable Sacrament of Christes body and bloude declared both by the auctorite of the ho1y Scriptures and the auncient Doctores (STC-5190) - subsequently used by Tyndale. See, Germain Marc'hadour, Thomas More et la Bible (Paris, 1969), p.298 and Walter M Gordon, 'A Scholastic Problem in Thomas More's Controversy with John Frith', in The Harvard Theological Review 69:1/2 (January - April, 1976), pp.131-149. The influence of Oecolampadius and the figurative interpretation of the key biblical texts on the real presence in the Eucharist is clear from this treatise. Here Foxe extracts the four main points of Frith's doctrine. In essence, Frith wrote that interpretation of the presence was adiaphoric with regards to salvation, that the ubiquity theory of many medieval thinkers (and Luther) was unreasonable, that the text of Matthew 26.36 should be given an analogical rather than literal reading, and that the Mass ceremonial itself also needs to be brought more in line with Christ's own words. Frith made use of two works of Oecolampadius, De genuine verborum Domini, "hoc est corpus meum" juxta vetustissimos autores expositione (1525) and Dialogus quo patrum sententiam de coena Domini bonafide explanat (1530). [For discussion of these works see, William A Clebsch, England's Earliest Protestants (New Haven, 1964), p.126]. That Frith had been influenced by Oecolampadius was no secret to Thomas Cranmer who, after his interrogation of Frith in the Tower, wrote that Frith's doctrine was 'most after the opinion of Oecolampadius' - see Thomas Cranmer, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters, ed. J E Cox (Cambridge, 1846), letter no.xiv, p.246. It was against this shorter tract that More wrote his Letter Against Frith (which can be found in volume seven of the Yale edition of More's works), which Frith answered in his larger treatise which was not answered before his execution. More's The answere to the first parte of the poysened booke whych a namelesse heretyke hath named the souper of the lorde was published in 1534 (which can be found in volume eleven of the Yale edition). Frith became the first English theologian to address the Eucharist related issues of presence and efficacy of the Mass (and which Cranmer later incorporated into 1552 edition of the Book of Common Prayer).

Holt, seemingly a part of More's spy network, was the foreman of the shop of one Mr Malte, tailor to the king.

This refers to the earlier More treatise Letter Against Frith.

References are to I Corinthians 10:1-4; Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 26:4.

Foxe's examination of Frith's work reveals a great many debts to the writings of Zwingli and Oecolampadius. For example, the discussion of circumcision (as the foundation of the covenant) and manna (patristic opinion of it as an early manifestation of the Eucharist eating) can be traced to Zwingli's On the Lord's Supper (1526). Discussions of the sacraments as made up of signs and things signified, and the relation between these issues, was a great part of the controversy between Lutherans and Zwinglians. Frith clearly belonged to the Zwinglian camp (which held an analogical connection).

For perhaps obvious reasons, Foxe here makes more of More's reluctance to publish his refutation or answer than what was probably the case. More sent copies of the response to his friends for commentary (e.g. to Stephen Gardiner) rather than risk too much public/scholastic exposure for Frith's Zwinglianism. Of course, More also faces the very real task of trying to refute Frith's theology and scholastic arguments to a potential audience of literate men who were not, however, theologians. Too in-depth a theological or scriptural argument would have gone over their heads; too little evidence from scripture or from the traditional Catholic theologians would have merely provided ammunition to his enemies (Frith, Tyndale, etc.). More was under the additional pressure of being Henry VIII's voice of orthodoxy even though he had retired as chancellor over the divorce and supremacy issues.

Foxe refers here to Frith's Quid veteres senserint de sacramento eucharistiae (A Book Answering More's Letter).

Foxe here refers to Thomas Cranmer's work of 1551, An Answer to a crafty and sophistical cavillation devised by Stephen Gardiner (which was a response to Gardiner's An explication and assertion of the true Catholique fayth).

This refers to Frith's A Disputation of Purgatory (1531). As noted earlier, this short treatise was a response to three earlier pro-purgatory treatises written by More, his brother-on-law, Rastell and the bishop of Rochester, each of which takes a separate foundation for their argument - scripture, reason and natural philosophy, and the patristic fathers.

Rastell's book of 1530 had been in dialogue form between a German Christian and a Turk and he responded to Frith's book with An apology against John Frith which Frith may also have been responded to. Frith's theology on this point seems to reflect Luther's discussions of two kinds of righteousness, before God and before man. Because the sinner is already forgiven his sins, purgatory becomes a redundant theology - for which, see Martin Luther, 'Two kinds of righteousness', in Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, ed. by Timothy F Lull (Minneapolis, 2005), pp.134-40. Although More and Fisher were not convinced, Rastell was convinced, converted, and died a Protestant (imprisoned in the Tower in 1536). For a brief discussion of the Frith/Rastell relationship see Herbert Samworth, 'John Frith: Forging the English Reformation', at http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/ hotb_0011.html.

Foxe is probably making a veiled reference to the Colloquy of Marburg (1-4 October 1529). Zwingli and Luther managed to agree to a wide range of issues but contended heatedly over the issue of the real presence. Luther eventually concluded that Zwingli was no better than a sacramentarian while Zwingli concluded that Luther was a secret favourer of the papal doctrine. The meeting had been arranged by Philip of Hesse in an attempt to unite Protestant Germany against resurgent Catholic power, only to result in permanent schism.

Foxe here refers to a work of Robert Barnes, a Lutheran theologian, entitled Sentientae ex doctoribus collectae, quas papistae valde impudenter hodie damnant (1530) which featured a preface by Bugenhagen. Whether consciously or not, Barnes here discussed, using scripture and patristic sources, what would amount to the main points of the Augsburg Confession (also of 1530), including nineteen chapters on such key reformation doctrines as faith, justification, free will, ecclesiastical authority and the sacrament. For a discussion of Barnes, see Neelak S Tjernagel, Henry VIII and the Lutherans (St Louis, 1965), pp.60ff.

The treatise referred to here may be part of Frith's The Mind and Exposition of the old doctors upon the words of Christ's Maundy [for which, see The works of the English Reformers: William Tyndale and John Frith, ed. by Thomas Russell, 3 vols. (London, 1831), 3, pp.360-424. There are several divisions in the text, one of which is 'D. Barnes did graciously escape M. More's Hands' (pp.420-23 of the Russell edition).

Actually, John Rastel was married to More's younger sister Elizabeth. See Peter Ackroyd, The Life of Thomas More (London, 1998), p.9.

This refers to the Abbey of St Frideswide which, along with Wallingford Priory, was suppressed in 1525 to provide the necessary building funds. It is interesting to note that the college was subsequently suppressed in 1531 following the fall from grace of Wolsey and re-founded in 1532 as King Henry VIII's College and re-founded again in 1546 as Christ Church (the seat of the new diocese of Oxford).

Foxe constricts the chronology of Frith's trials to a certain extent and leaves out some interesting details. Frith was burned as a heretic on 4 July 1533, having first faced trial before Cranmer, sitting in court at Lambeth palace, with Stokesley, Longland, the duke of Suffolk, the Lord Chancellor (Sir Thomas Audley) and the earl of Wiltshire assisting. Cranmer, in a letter of 17 June 1533, noted that he had tried to persuade Frith to recant 'three or four times' previously - for which see Thomas Cranmer, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters, ed. by J E Cox (Cambridge, 1846), letter no.xiv, p.246. Prior to leaving Frith to the tender mercies of Stokesley, he was sent to appear before Gardiner, at his court in Croyden (22 December 1532). Frith would have been a useful addition to Cromwell's propaganda machine, if he could have been persuaded away from what Henry VIII considered sacramentarianism (one of only two heresies - with Anabaptism) for which the penalty throughout the reign was death. Gardiner could not talk Frith around, so he was brought before Stokesley's court at St Paul's on 20 June 1533 (Longland and Gardiner assisting). See BL Lansdowne MS 979, fol.92v; London Guildhall MS 9531/11: Episcopal Register Stokesley 1530-39, fol.71r. Frith dispatched a letter from prison to his friends on 23 June 1533. This is known as The Articles wherefore John Frith died which he wrote in Newgate the 23rd day of June … - for which, see The works of the English Reformers: William Tyndale and John Frith, ed. By Thomas Russell, 3 vols. (London, 1831), 3, pp.450-5.

Foxe here almost directly lifts the text of the Frith letter. According to Frith (and substantiated by Stokesley's register) there were two counts against him with regard to the doctrine of purgatory (which he denied) and the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist. Purgatory was dealt with first (pages 450-1 in the Russell edition). With regard to his purgatorial doctrine, Frith had not moved far from his earlier treatises. For example, he held that St Augustine interpreted 'fire' in 1 Corinthians 3 not with purging but with temptations and tribulations in life. Thus, if he did make a concession it was only that if purgatory existed it would have to exist in this life (pertaining as it does to the body and physical matters) and not after death (pertaining as that does to the spiritual and the mind). Frith used the texts of 1 John 1:7-9 to explain himself, adopting a basic Zwinglian approach (justification and sanctification), nonetheless maintaining an adiaphoric stance with regard to salvation itself - see Raynor, p.110.

This is largely a close paraphrasing of page 451 of the Russell edition. Frith's examination of St Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians was inspired (or lifted directly) from Zwingli's Exposition and basis of the conclusions or articles (of 1523). The reference to sacramental eating ('Finally when … mouth and teth'] is taken from Zwingli's Fidei confessio (or Account of the faith) of 1530. After which Frith expresses his adiaphora theory on the sacrament. The quote is altered slightly in the 1583 edition.

This is largely a close paraphrasing of page 452 of the Russell edition. Frith refers here to the letter of St Augustine to Boniface (of 408AD). This is letter no.98 of Augustine's collected letters and can be found on-line at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm, which discusses the relationship between the physical elements of the eucharist and the spiritual elements these represent. Luther held that the physical and spiritual elements partake of each other in such a close fashion that the bread and the body of Christ cannot be distinguished in the elements whereas Zwingli (who Frith follows here) held that the relationship between the physical and spiritual elements was symbolic only, but that the physical elements still had some deep meaning (see the references to sacramental eating made earlier). Frith then went on to discuss the opinions of St John Chrysostom, which the bishops interrogating him took to prove a physical presence. Frith is here referring to Chrysostom's homily 82 (an exposition of Matthew 26:26-9), which can be found on-line at http://www.newadvent. org/fathers/240182.htm. Chrysostom actually discusses the eucharist throughout several homilies (on Matthew and on John 6) and it is understandable why the bishops would take him as a source in favour of a real physical presence doctrine. Chrysostom often made a comparative argument in his homilies (here and elsewhere) between God's power and human senses so, for example, where Jesus says 'this is my body', Chrysostom seemed willing to take Him at his word, even if human senses failed to discern a difference between the bread and the body.

This is largely a close paraphrasing of page 452 of the Russell edition. Frith carries on the discussion of Chrysostom's doctrine.

This is largely a close paraphrase of pages 452-3 of the Russell edition. Frith carries on the discussion of Chrysostom's doctrine, in which Frith has taken up Zwingli's spiritual doctrine in explanation of his own opinions.

This is largely a close paraphrase of page 454 of the Russell edition. Frith here reiterates his adiaphora opinion with regard to the interpretation of the sacrament as having salvation value.

This is largely a close paraphrase of page 455 of the Russell edition. Frith here discusses the commonplaces of his own doctrine with those of the Lutherans ['Germaines'] and Zwinglians ['Helvesianes'] in that all of them deny the traditional Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Although the word itself was often left out of official proclamations, as supreme head of the church Henry VIII was devoted to two firm doctrines - the real presence and the value of infant baptism - and those who denied these in any way (called 'Sacramentarians' and 'Anabaptists') - were subject to arrest and heresy charges throughout his reign. Frith would have been considered a Sacramentarian. After this point Foxe mentions Frith's trial at bishop Stokesley's court at St Paul's once again.

Foxe's description of Frith's trial where he refused to recant his opinions on the two articles charged against him.

This is the judgement of Bishop Stokesley made against Frith, prior to turning him over to the temporal authorities for execution. Stokesley was a rather doctrinaire conservative and Foxe probably rightly suspected that where the bishop speaks of charity he was rather quite pleased to see another 'heretic' removed.

This is Foxe's description of Frith's burning.

Foxe is suggesting here that William Holt, one of the chancellor's spies, set up Andrew Huet (or Hewet) as part of a seemingly wider scheme to uncover a brethren cell. The story of the Freez family is an interesting side bar to Huet's release. Valentine Freez was the brother of Edward (an apprentice painter), the two sons of Frederick (a book printer of York). Foxe relates the story of Edward's arrest for heresy (c.1529) and his going insane while imprisoned in Lollard's Tower. Valentine evaded capture in London, but was taken by bishop Rowland Lee of Coventry and Lichfield after 1534 (L & P, vii, p.514) later to be executed as a sacramentarian in York, condemned not by the church courts but by the council in the North under the terms of the recent 'Act of Six Articles' - see 'Tudor York: Religion and the Reformation', in A History of the County of York: the City of York (London 1961), pp.142-155, which can be found on-line at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=36342.

Huet must have been rather naïve and Holt and his accomplice played him skilfully. John Chapman was a 'known man' (a member of the Christian Brethren or Lollards) and provided a safe-house/cell near Smithfield. 'Wythers' could be another tailor, Christopher Ravyns of Witham who had previously abjured his radical beliefs.

John Tibald (Tybal) was a Lutheran sympathizer of Steeple Bumpstead in Essex, who had abjured his beliefs before Tunstal in 1528, had been in London since c.1526 when he and his Thomas Hills had come to purchase an English New Testament from Robert Barnes - see J E Oxley, The Reformation in Essex (Manchester, 1965), pp.10-14; Davis, pp.61-2.]. Tybal was not allowed to return to his home by virtue of injunction.

Stokesley's chancellor and vicar-general was Richard Foxford 'the persecutor and common butcher of good families of God' (BL Lansdowne MS. 979, fols.90,92v & 98). Chapman, Huet and Tibald were captured in possession of heretical books but taken to separate locations.

There were two prison-towers in London at this time, each known as Lollard's Tower. The old water tower at Lambeth Palace had been converted and was often used to hold accused heretics, often in stocks, and the bishop of London's prison within the precincts of St Paul's. Huet was probably taken to the latter.

Chapman was eventually freed through the intervention of Sir Thomas Audley, More's successor as Lord Chancellor. Why he would put pressure on London's ecclesiastical machine is unknown, although Susan Brigden supplies a hint that Chapman and others had found favour with the new queen, Anne Boleyn (see, S. Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), p.197). Huet had found no such favour, which suggests that he was a disciple of Frith and considered a sacramentarian (which condemned him in the eyes of the king).

Clarke died in the custody of Bishop Longland of Lincoln.

Huet's examination before Stokesley, Longland and Gardiner is very similar to Frith's, and his beliefs on the eucharist seem to feature heavily.

Foxe provides here some details of the Huet examination. It seems that he was being manoeuvred into admitting more than sacramentarian beliefs. There were many ancient heresies, like monophysitism, which denied one or the other aspect of Christ's dual nature and these accusations were often thrown around in controversial writings. It seems Huet fell into this trap, much to the bishops' amusement.

Foxe mentioned Dr John Coke here, the rector of All Hallow's Honey Lane, who had been imprisoned with Frith for a time. Coke was not a heretic, however, but a reactionary Catholic who opposed the royal supremacy and the divorce. He was probably well aware of Frith and Huet's opinions and considered them dangerous subversives.

Foxe omits the 1563 reference to Mary Hall.

No mention of this man appears in the 1563 edition. He was Rodulphus Gualterus of Zürich, who published (among other things) the first translation of the Koran into German.

The text is similar to the 1563 edition, except here (below) Foxe lists more names.

The identifiable names are John Clerke (senior canon), Henry Sumner, Godfrey Harman, William Bettes, Richard Cox, John Fryer, William Baily, John Frith, Michael Drumm, John Radley, Thomas Lawney and John Taverner. See Brian Raynor, John Frith: Scholar and Martyr (Peterborough, 2000), p.60].

This refers to the scandal of 1528, in which a number of indexed books were found to be in circulation at the college. See Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (Oxford, 2004), p.267.

These men are Dr John London, warden of New College (c.1526), Dr John Higden, president of Magdalen College (1516-25) and dean of Cardinal College, and Dr Thomas Cottesford, Commissary.

William Betts was chaplain to Anne Boleyn - see Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn (Oxford, 2004), p.266.

Frith was released from imprisonment in 1528 and spent the next four years travelling Europe, sometimes in the company of William Tyndale. He was, for instance, with Tyndale at Marburg and Antwerp, but Frith also travelled around the centres of Reformed Protestantism (e.g., Basel and Zurich). The influence of Oecolampadius is obvious in his later doctrine.

As noted in the 1563 edition commentary, Taverner was recruited (as early as 1524 but declined the offer until 1526) and became the 'Informator Choristarum' (or director of music and instructor of the choristers) - a prestigious position. He is now recognized as one of the most influential musicians of the period and, although later arrested for holding heretical views, his talent, ignorance of theological matters, and Wolsey's opinion that Lutheranism was exclusively a clerical issue saved him from death. See TNA, State Papers 1/47, fol.111A. For more details on his music, see the biography at http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/ taverner.html or the listing in David M Greene, Greene's Biographical Encyclopedia of Composers (London, 1985), pp.30-1. Also see, Roger Bowers, 'Taverner, John (c.1490-1545)', in ODNB (Oxford, 2004), 53, pp.836-40.

This refers to the abjurations of Anthony Dalaber - a bookseller - and Thomas Garrett in 1528.

Frith held the sacrament of the eucharist as adiaphora or of no specific salvation value.

This is very similar to the theology of Zwingli, Oecolampadius and Martin Bucer, who developed the idea that non-believers eat to their own damnation in 1528 - see Martin Bucer, Conciliation between Dr Luther and His opponents regarding Christ's Supper. Zwingli would also make much of the idea of sacramental eating in his Fidei confessio (or Account of the faith), published in 1530.

Much of this is repeated from the 1563 edition, except here Foxe adds the relevant biblical quotes in the margins: I Corinthians 10:1-4; Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 26:4.

These limited biographical details do not appear in the 1563 edition.

There may be more to the story here than Foxe relates. Although not mentioned in S F Ryle's biography of Cox in the ODNB (but according to Frederic Carpenter), Cox (Coxes or Cockes) was a friend of both Erasmus and Melanchthon. In 1524, he was the schoolmaster of Reading Grammar School and was much noted for his The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryck which was the first such book published in England in the vernacular. Much of it is a translation of Melanchthon's Institutiones Rhetoricae (1521). While Ryle notes its publication in 1530, Carpenter notes that this was a second edition. See Frederic Ives Carpenter, 'Leonard Cox and the First English Rhetoric', in Modern Language Notes 13:5 (May 1898), pp.146-7 and S F Ryle, 'Cox, Leonard', in ODNB, 13, pp.854-6].

The earliest translation of Homer's Iliad into English was in 1598 by the dramatist George Chapman.

This would be October 1532. Frith appears to have been preaching at Bow Lane.

This account of Thomas Dusgate provides a striking example of the important contribution individual informants made to Foxe's book. Dusgate (or Benet) had not been previously mentioned by any Protestant writer, including Bale. And, in fact, Foxe did not mention Dusgate in the Rerum or in the 1563 edition. Yet sometime between 1563 and 1570, two informants sent accounts to Foxe of this Henrician martyr. One of these informants was John Vowell (or Hooker), a celebrated antiquary and local historian. This account forms the basis for Foxe's entire account of Dusgate; it was never changed by the martyrologist. The other account of Dusgate was sent to Foxe by Ralph Morice, who had been Thomas Cromwell's principal secretary and became an important source for Foxe. (Morice's account of Dusgate survives among Foxe's papers as BL, Harley MS 419, fo.125r-v). Although Foxe did not make use of Morice's account, it contains important information about the martyr. Most notably, it was Morice who established that the Thomas Dusgate who attended Cambridge was the same person as Thomas Benet the martyr. (Upon resigning his fellowship at Corpus Christi College, Dusgate changed his name to Benet. This was a reference to his former college, which was also known as Benet's College, because its fellows were attached to the neighbouring church of St Benet. Hooker knew of Dusgate's Cambridge background, but he did not know that Benet's real name was Dusgate). Morice also relates that Dusgate, while still a fellow at Corpus, visited Martin Luther and that Dusgate resigned his fellowship because he was unwilling to take holy orders and remain celibate.

Thomas S. Freeman

I.e., St. Nicholas's Priory, a Benedictine house in Exeter.

A reference to Joshua 6-7. The story of these chapters (and undoubtedly the theme of the sermon) was of Aachan, whose covert defiance of God's laws, brought destruction upon the Israelites until his sin was discovered and he was slain.

This was one of several conflicting accounts of how Dusgate was discovered.

Morice would seem to corroborate this version; he states that Dusgate was spotted fixing his messages on the door of the cathedral and that his house was searched, whereupon incriminating documents were found (BL, Harley NS 419, fo. 125r-v).

This is an error; John Gibbons was chancellor of Exeter diocese from 1522-1537.

'De heretico comburendo' was the statute authorizing the death penalty for heresy. It mandated that a writ had to be sent from Chancery authorizing the execution of a condemned heretic.

The Freeman's Book of Exeter records that Sir Thomas Dennys, sheriff of Exeter, wished to burn Dusgate in Southernhay (just aside the city walls), but that the mayor insisted that he be burned at Liverydole, the normal site of executions, a mile outside the city (Exeter City Muniments, Book 55, fo. 89r). This entry does not record the reasons for this decision, but it seems likely that the sheriff wished to make a public spectacle of Dusgate's death and that the mayor resisted this, possibly from sympathy for Dusgate, possibly from fear of disorder.

'I pray to holy Mary and all the saints of God'.

A furze is an evergreen bush with spiny leaves. It was used in this case as kindling for the fire to burn Dusgate.

Dusgate is quoting Luke 23:34 in theVulgate.

Thomas Dusgate changed his name to Thomas Benet upon leaving Cambridge (see the ODNB article on Thomas Dusgate).

Dusgate is quoting Luke 23:46 in the Vulgate.

I.e. a jerkin of the highest quality leather.

Dusgate certainly did not become a priest; Morice makes it clear that he left Cambridge to avoid taking holy orders (stating that Dusgate was 'very moche combered with the concupissence of the fleshe' and refused to enter holy orders, then obligatory for all fellows (BL, Harley MS 419, fo. 125r)). A Dusgate (no first name given) proceded MA at Cambridge in 1524 (Grace Book B. ii. 94).

Bilney was active in Cambridge at this time and Dusgate's visit to Luther certainly indicates his evangelical sympathies.

Ralph Morice states that Dusgate left Cambridge because he was 'very moche combered with the concupissence of the fleshe' and refused to enter holy orders, then obligatory for all fellows (BL, Harley MS 419, fo. 125r).

'Country' in the sixteenth century could mean county or region, as it does here.

Vowell apparently sent Foxe documents and testimonies along with his own account of Dusgate.

At this time, Bassett was a member of the Oxford Franciscan convent. He would become warden of the Exeter Franciscan convent. This account of Bassett's imprisonment, in his younger days, for reading works of Luther is confirmed by Exeter City Muniments, Book 51, fo. 350r.

This is largely an account of evangelicals, who were forced to abjuretheir beliefs and do pennance during a crackdown on heresy conducted jointly by Bishop John Stokesley and Thomas More, during his tenure as Lord Chancellor.There are two two notable insertions into this material. The first is an account ofWilliam Tracy, whose outspokenly evangelical will led to his posthumous convict-ion of heresy and the exhumation of his body. Foxe reprinted his copy of Tracy's will from the version in Hall's Chronicle (See Edward Hall, The union of the two noble and illustre famelies of Lancastre and York [London, 1548], STC 12721, fo. 211r-v) Foxe's account of Tracy, including a translation of his will into Latin, first appeared in the Rerum (pp. 125-6). The second is an account of Richard Bayfield's apprehension which Foxe found in the London court books.

In fact, most of the material in this section was taken from London court books from the episcopates of Cuthbert Tunstall and John Stokesley. The fact that this was not joined to the main narrative of Bayfield's martyrdom (the material on Bayfield's background comes from a knowledgeable informant, probably based in London. However, the articles charged against Bayfield, his answers to them, the sentence of degradation imposed on him and the letter to the mayor and sheriffs of London, are taken from a now lost court book of Bishop John Stokesley.) is an indication that Foxe's search through the diocese of London archives was being made while this section of the first edition was being printed. Another indication of this is the list of names of the people who were forced to do penance in London - a list of names that includes the people described in this section - which appeared in the first edition. The list, without any of the details which appear in this section, indicate that Foxe only had time to scan this material in 1563. Most of these London court books are, now lost, but much of the detail in this section can be confirmed in other sources. (Pages from one register, relating to a visitation of the diocese in 1527 survive in Foxe's papers as part of BL, Harley MS 421; the visitation was by Geoffrey Wharton, the vicar-general of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall of London and he uncovered a network of heretics in Colchester and its environs, particularly the villages of Boxted, Witham and Steeple Bumpstead. Much of this visitation was recorded in a register whosepages - apparently torn out by Foxe or his associates - form a significant portionof BL, Harley MS 421. Some pages of this register that now longer survive, were transcribed by John Strype, when he had custody of Foxe's papers and printed inhis Ecclesiaiastical Memorials.). One item also comes from the register of Bishop Tunstall (Guildhall MS 9531/10, fos. 136v-137r) and another comes from petition sent to Anne Boleyn (Anne Boleyn was marchioness of Pembroke from 1 September 1532 until her recognition as queen in March 1533. The accurate citation of Anne's title of marchioness helps to confirm that Foxe was drawing his information from a petition). Interestingly, Foxe only obtained this petition between 1576 and 1583. Some of Foxe's narratives are confirmed by contemporary chronicles (Thomas More, The Apology, ed. J. B. Trapp, CWTM 9 [New Haven, CT, 1979], p. 121 and 'Two London Chronicles', ed. C. L. Kingsford in Camden Society Miscellany XII, third series, 18 [London, 1910], p. 5).

Foxe's unwillingness to describe the abjurations of Henrician evangelicals(and, earlier in his work, the Lollards) contrasts starkly with his desire to conceal such submissions in the case of the Marian martyrs. This an indication of the extent to which an earlier tolerance of recantations had eroded among Protestants, and alsoof Foxe's conviction that those born before the full onset of the Reformation had bothlesser spiritual knowledge and lesser obligations to God.

Thomas S. Freeman

Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, not Bishop John Stokesley.

William was a husbandman of Braintree, Essex. He and his wife were associates of leading Lollards in Essex (Strype, EM, I, I, p. 117 and I, 2, p. 53).

Of St. Nicholas parish, Colchester. He supplied other Lollards with books and owned an extensive collection of Lollard works (Strype, EM I,1, pp. 115, 118-23, 126-9, 132-3 and I, 2, p. 53; BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 19r).

See Strype, EM I, I, pp. 124-31 and I, 2, p. 53; also see BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 19r.

See BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 19r.

He was a servant to Christopher Ravin of Witham, Essex. Heattended Lollard meetings, bought and sold heretical books, and had extensive ties to Lollards and evangelicals in Steeple Bumpstead (Strype, EM, I, 1, p. 114 and I, 2, p. 54; BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 19r and James Oxley, The Reformation in Essex[Manchester, 1965], pp. 13-14).

This is a mistake. This was Roger, a tanner of Bowers Gifford, not a man named Roger Tanner. He bought and sold an English New Testament (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 34r).

Of Witham, Essex. Ravin had already abjured back in 1511. His household was apparently a center of Lollard activity and a number of his servants were also Lollards (Roger, a tanner of Bowers Gifford, bought and sold an English New Testament (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 34r), the Chapman brothers, servants to Christopher Ravin, also were Lollards: see BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 34r and Strype, EM, I, I, p. 114 and I, 2, p. 54). He was apparently survived long enough to relate a story about this visitation to Foxe or one of Foxe's associates (since he seems to be the source for stories about the harsh treatment of his servants).

On the Chapman brothers, servants to Christopher Ravin, see BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 34r and Strype, EM, I, I, p. 114 and I, 2, p. 54.

I.e., Christopher Ravin, who seems to be the source for this story about the harsh treatment of his servant.

Robert Bate is meant; Foxe's account of Edward Freeze and 'father' Bate is based on material sent to Foxe by an informant; very probably an informant in Colchester (this account contains quite a bit of detail on people from Essex and Colchester). But there is quite a bit of corroboration for Foxe's account. First of all, A. G. Dickens uncovered information on Edward Freese's family. Edward's father Frederick was a Dutch immigrant (the family name was probably Vries or de Vries), who settled in York and made a living as a bookbinder and stationer (A. G. Dickens, Lollards and Protestants in the diocese of York 1509-1558 [Oxford, 1959], p. 30). This Dutch background may explain the pronounced evangelical convictions of Valentine and Edward Freese. Another major piece of corroboration is a letter, almost certainly sent to Thomas Cromwell, which is now in the TNA. Although the signature has been cut off of the letter, the biographical details related in it fit Edward Freese so closely that is virtually certain that he wrote it. The author of the letter, detained in London for religious offences, admits that he had been a monk since the age of 13, but claims that he was 'sold' by his master to the abbot of Jervaulx. The author of the letter declared that he attempted to flee the abbey several times but was recaptured. Finally he fled to Colchester and he got married (TNA SP 1/73, fos. 175r-176r).

Foxe's source for the account of Robert West is almost certainly a now lost court- book of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstal of London. Robert West was also - according to a record not consulted by Foxe - charged with eating meat on Friday and having committed adultery (London Metropolitan Archive, DL/C/330, fo. 175v)

I.e., Simon Smith, the curate of Much Hadham and his wife (Smith was Patmore's curate and Benmore his maidservant. Patmore's activesupport, if not outright instigation, of this marriage was necessary.).

Foxe's unwillingness to describe the abjurations of Henrician evangelicals (and, earlier in his work, the Lollards) contrasts starkly with his desire to conceal such submissions in the case of the Marian martyrs. This an indication of the extent to which an earlier tolerance of recantations had eroded among Protestants, and also of Foxe's conviction that those born before the full onset of the Reformation had both lesser spiritual knowledge and lesser obligations to God.

William was a tailor of Colchester and one of the leaders of the local network of Lollards; see BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 19r and Strype, EM I, 1, pp.117-20 and 124-32.

Of St. Giles, Colchester; see BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 19r and Strype, EM I, I, p. 116.

See BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 19r and Strype, EM, I, I, pp. 121, 129, 132-3 and I, 2, p. 54.

Thomas Forman, the rector of All Hallows Honey Lane was one of the leading evangelicals in London and one of the capital's most popular preachers. He was also the head of a network disseminating heretical books in London and Cambridge (Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation [Oxford, 1982], pp. 112-115).

Robert Necton disseminated heretical literature throughout East Anglia, under the aegis of Thomas Forman. Necton abjured in 1528, but was re-arrested in 1531 and sent to Newgate (See Strype, EM, I, 2, pp. 62-3 and ThomasMore, The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, ed. L. A. Schuster, R. C. Marius,J. P. Lusardi and R. J. Schoeck, CWTM8, 3 vols. [New Haven, CT, 1973], I, p. 18 and III, pp. 813-15).

Of Colchester. See Strype, EM I, 1, pp. 121, 129 and 133.

Of Colchester. See Strype, EM, I, 1, p. 129 and BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 30r.

In 1536, a Nicholas White of Winchelsea was charged with opposing veneration of the Virgin Mary, pilgrimages, offerings to saints, prayers for the dead, and he was also charged with denying the existence of Purgatory (L&P XI, p. 569). On 19 January 1557, a Nicholas White (whose age and place of residence are not given by Foxe) was burned at Canterbury (1563, p. 1571; 1570, p. 2107; 1576,p. 1872; 1583, p. 1930). The two Nicholas Whites may be the same person or they may be relatives.

Of East Donyland, ESSex. The case against the Huberts wasdismissed and they did not abjure (BL, Harley MS 421, fos. 19r and 30r).

Foxe's presentation of this material makes it appear that the Wilys were accused of all the charges listed and abjured in 1528. However, John Wily, the elder, possessed a copy of the examinations of William Thorpe and John Oldcastle, a work which was not printed until 1530. The date of 1532 is also given by Foxe in his account of the Wilys. The most likely explanation is that the Wilys wereaccused and abjured in 1528 and were charged again in 1532. The articles Foxe lists are from 1532.

The account of how Richard Bayfield (the articles charged against Bayfield, his answers to them, the sentence of degradation imposed on him and the letter to the mayor and sheriffs of London, are taken from a now lost court book of Bishop John Stokesley) was arrested almost certainly came from the same courtbooks that were Foxe's source for his main account of Bayfield. The fact that this account of Bayfield was not joined to the main narrative of Bayfield's narrative is an indication that Foxe's search through the diocese of London records was being made while the 1563 edition was being printed.

Mark 16: 15.

See Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation [Oxford,1989], pp. 270-71 for the background to these execiutions.

Almost certainly this the same william Blomefield, a Benedictine monk, who publicly denounced evgeryone in religious orders and who was imprisoned in Norwich (Thomas More, The Apology, ed. J. B. Trapp, CWTM9 [New Haven, CT, 1979], p. 113).

John Tyndale, a merchant tailor, had been excommunicated and handed over to the secular arm for burning in May 1529 (TNA C/85/188/28). Normally this was the first step in the process of execution for heresy, presumablyonly a sudden abjuration saved him. Later in November 1530, John Tyndale, along with Thomas Somers and Thomas Patmore (Susan Brigden, Londonand the Reformation [Oxford, 1989], p. 206) were publicallyshamed and placed in the pillory in London for smuggling William Tyndale'stranslation of theBible and other heretical works into the capital (Cal. S. P. VenIII, p. 271; Cal. S. P. Spanish IV,1, pp. 820-1; 'Two London Chronicles', ed.C. L. Kingsford in Camden Society Miscellany XII, third series 18 [London, 1910], pp. 4-5 and BL, Harley MS 425, fo. 15r). Foxe will later describe Thomas Somers'sexperiences on this occasion (1570, p. 1381; 1576, pp. 1178-9 and 1583, p. 1207).For more on John Tyndale see Susan Brigden, 'Thomas Cromwell and the "Brethren"'in Law and the Government under the Tudors: Essays presented to Sir Geoffrey Elton,ed. C. Cross, D. Loades and J. Scarisbrick [Cambridge, 1988], pp. 33 and 36-7).

John Tyndale was the younger brother of William Tyndale, then in exile in Antwerp.

John Stacy was a warden of the bricklayers company. He was charged in 1531 for aiding - and having converted - the evangelical martyr Richard Bayfield (1570, p. 1161; 1576, p. 993 and 1583, p. 1021). He would testify against Thomas Phillips and then abjured (1570, p. 1185; 1576, p. 1014 and 1583, pp. 1041-1042).

The text reads 'tayler' but this is a misprint of 'tyler'. On Laurence Maxwell see 1563, p. 418.

Curson had been an Augustinian monk. (See Ralph Houlbrooke, 'Persecution of Heresy and Protestantism in the diocese of Norwich under Henry VIII', Norfolk Archaeology 35 [1972], p. 323).

See 1570, pp. 1959-60; 1576, pp. 991-2 and 1583, pp. 1019-20.

I.e., abandoning his monastic habit.

Thomas Austy was the son-in-law of Thomas Vincent (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 12r). In 1527, Austy would would be condemned to perpetual imprisonment as an obdurate heretic, but he escaped.

Thomas Philip was a pointmaker of the parish of Micheal le Querne, London. John Hacker informed on him in 1528. He was imprisoned and later held in the house of Thomas More (then Lord Chancellor), who turned him back over to Bishop Stokesley (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 13r; More, Apology, CWTM 9, p. 126). He abjured, but abjured his abjuration and was imprisoned in the Tower (1570, pp. 1185-6, 1576, p. 1014; 1583, p. 1042). He remained imprisoned in the Tower, but working as a gaoler. In this capacity he aided evangelical prisoners (BL, Harley MS 425, fo. 138v).

This is the tract, edited by William Tyndale and John Frith, onWilliam Tracy and his will (In 1535, a copy of the will, with commentaries by William Tyndale and John Frith, was printed in Antwerp: the testament of master William Tracie esquier (Antwerp, 1535), STC 24167.

Thomas Philip was a pointmaker of the parish of Micheal le Querne, London. John Hacker informed on him in 1528. He was imprisoned and later held in the house of Thomas More (then Lord Chancellor), who turned him back over to Bishop Stokesley (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 13r; More, Apology, CWTM 9, p. 126). He abjured, but abjured his abjuration and was imprisoned in the Tower (1570, pp. 1185-6, 1576, p. 1014; 1583, p. 1042). He remained imprisoned in the Tower, but working as a gaoler. In this capacity he aided evangelical prisoners (BL, Harley MS 425, fo. 138v).

2 Peter 2: 9.

1 Peter 5: 7.

Hebrews 12: 2.

See Acts 23: 3.

Notice that Foxe shifts the blame for persecution from Henry VIII to his bishops.

Actually this is a reference to Acts 23: 27-8.

This is a somewhat unusual interpretation of Matthew 18: 20.

I Timothy 5: 19.

The account which follows is word-for-word from Edward Hall'schronicle. (See Edward Hall, The union of the two noble and illustre famelies ofLancastre and York [London, 1548], STC 12721, fo. 211r-v).

William Tracy was a prominent member of a leading Gloucestershire family and he was a former sheriff of the county. His will aroused considerablecontroversy because of its outspoken declaration of justification nby faith without theassistance of works. Manuscript copies of the will circulated extensively. (See John Craig and Caroline Litzenberger, 'Wills as Religious Propaganda: The Testament of William Tracy', Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 [1993], pp. 415-31). In 1535, a copy of the will, with commentaries by William Tyndale and John Frith, was printedin Antwerp: the testament of master William Tracie esquier (Antwerp, 1535), STC 24167.

Foxe (following Hall's chronicle) is condensing extemely complex and protracted proceedings. Convocation debated Tracy's will in different sessions for fifteen months before Tracy was finally condemned (posthumously) as a heretic and the exhumation of his body ordered. (See John T. Day, 'William Tracy's Posthumous Legal Problems' in William Tyndale and the Law, ed. John A. R. Dick and Anne Richardson [Kirksville, MO, 1994], pp. 108-10).

I.e., Parker, the chancellor of the diocese, claimed that he was acting on the orders of the archbishop of Canterbury.

Matthew Parker, the chancellor of the diocese of Worcester (not to be confused with the Elizabethan archbishop of Canterbury of the same name) burned Tracy's body in addition to exhuming it. This burning - but not the exhumation - was a violation of the statute De heretico comburendo, which mandated the punishments for heresy. Under this statute, it was illegal to burn a heretic, livingor dead, without receipt of a writ from Chancery and, in any case, the burning wasto be managed by secular officials. Whether Tracy's body was burned on the orders of the Archbishop Warham or not (Parker, the chancellor of the diocese, claimed that he was acting on the orders of the archbishop of Canterbury), Parker did not have a writ and he conducted the burning himself. Richard Tracy, William's son, petitioned the king, asking that Parker be punished for this violation of the law. Ultimately Parker was fined £100. (See John T. Day, 'William Tracy's Posthumous Legal Problems' in William Tyndale and the Law, ed. John A. R. Dick and Anne Richardson [Kirksville, MO, 1994], pp. 110-11).

Job 19: 25.

I.e., the health.

These articles are taken from Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall's register (Guildhall MS 9531/10, fos. 136v-137r).

It is this statement, declaring that faith, without works, was allthat was necessary salvation, which made this will hertetical.

Mark 16: 16.

Tracy's lack of concern over his burial arrangements was not heretical, but it was very unconventional.

Matthew 25: 35.

Matthew 25: 45.

This is a rather free reading of Romans 14: 17-23.

Apparently Periman was also selling heretical books.

Although none of his sermons survive, Edward Crome was one of the most outspoken and popular evangelical preachers in London. Crome himself was charged with heresy in 1531 and escaped by recanting. He subsequently retracted his recantation.

An unnnamed glazier did pennace at Paul's Cross on 22 October 1531('Two London Chronicles', ed. C. L.. Kingsford in Camden Society Miscellany XII, third series 18 [London, 1910}, p. 5). This was probably Goldstone.

James Bainham was the youngest son of Sir Alexander Bainham, who was the head of the most prominent family in the Forest of Dean and who had been sheriff of Gloucestershire five times. James Bainham's mother was the sister of William Tracy. On the Bainham family, see Caroline Litzenberger, The English Reformation and the Laity: Gloucestershire, 1540-1580 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 30-31.

Thomas More, defending himself from charges of torturing accused heretics, admitted that Nicholson had been detained in his house for four or five days. More also admitted that there were reports that Nicholson was whipped and otherwise tortured while he detained him. More indignantly denied these reports and declared that Nicholson was physically unharmed during the entire time thathe was More's involuntary guest (Thomas More, The Apology, ed. J. B. Trapp,CWTM 9 [New Haven, CT, 1979], p. 121). Foxe is probably refering here to wilder versions of these stories, although he must have known of More's denialof these stories. As a result, Foxe is being disingenous here by repeating the charges, but not endorsing them and not naming More.

The eating of eggs, like the eating of meat, was traditionally forbidden on Fridays.

The sentence of life imprisonment against Tomson was severe, but it is confirmed by a contemporary chronicler ('Two London Chronicles', ed. C. L. Kingsford in Camden Society Miscellany XII, third series, 18 [London, 1910], p. 5).

In the following incident, Wetzell was mocking the large rood at St Margaret Pattens, a popular image, particularly venerated by London sailors.

Robert Cooper (or Cowper) was rhe rector of Hanwell, Middlesex. He later became chaplain to Edward VI, and, while a fellow at Corpus Christi, he had been tutor to Matthew Parker, the future archbishop of Canterbury (Venn, sub Cowper, Robert).

Cooper was charged with saying that a blessing from a person waving a shoe in the was of equal benefit as a blessing from a bishop.

This is very probably the Henry Fasted who, in 1534, tried to disseminate evangelical books in Colchester and who reported his efforts, as well those who resisted them, to Thomas Cromwell (L&P VII, p. 170).

This may be the John Hammon of Enfield, Middlesex, who in 1538 wrote to Thomas Cromwell, complaining that his parish priest was persecuting him for reading the Bible aloud to others (L&P XIV, 2, pp. 349-50).

Susan Brigden has persuasively argued that the twoThomasPatmores were, in fact, the same person and that Patmore while still vicar ofMuch Hadham, became free of the Drapers's Company (Susan Brigden, Londonand the Reformation [Oxford, 1989], p. 206). She suggests that the purpose ofthis was to remain incognito and that the Drapers were chosen because of a significant evangelical presence in their membership. But Patmore's purpose may simply have been to acquire London citizenship. And the Drapers's Company may have been chosen beecause his father had been a member of the company.

John Raimund (or more correctly, Hans von Ruremond) was aFlemish printer who had already been convicted in 1525 for printing hereticalworks in 1525. Ae appears to have moved permanently to London and wasstill active there in 1535 under the alias of John Holibusch (see Fines).

I.e., the candles.

I.e., he would not stipulate to the charges against him nor answer them unless his accusers were produced.

Foxe only mentions a crucial fact later in his narrative: Smith was Patmore's curate and Benmore his maidservant. Patmore's activesupport, if not outright instigation, of this marriage was necessary.

Although he does not say so, it is fairly clear that Foxe took thisinformation, added in 1583, from a petition sent to Anne Boleyn (Anne Boleyn was marchioness of Pembroke from 1 September 1532 until her recognition as queen in March 1533. This coincides with a petition sent to Thomas Cromwell before Michaelmas 1532 (L&P VII, p. 348). The accurate citation of Anne's title of marchioness helps to confirm that Foxe was drawing his information from a petition).The summary of Patmore's career, thedetailed recitation of specific grievancesas well as the defense of his conduct and character would be the appropriate components of such a document. Moreover, a petition was sent at about thesame time to Thomas Cromwell on Patmore's behalf (L&P VII, p. 348).

Well hardly. Accepting that there was only one Thomas Patmore - and not two brothers with the same first name (Susan Bridgen suggests there was only one Patmore: see Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation [Oxford, 1989], p. 206), then Patmore had already done public penance in the autumn of 1530 for distributing copies of Tyndale's New Testament (in November 1530, John Tyndale, along with Thomas Somers and Thomas Patmore, was publically shamed and placed in the pillory in London for smuggling William Tyndale's translation of theBible and other heretical works into the capital (Cal. S. P. Ven III, p. 271; Cal. S. P. Spanish IV,1, pp. 820-1). And even if there were two Thomas Patmores, the vicar of Much Hadham had still married his curate and had been outspokenly critical of many aspects of traditional Catholicism.

John Stokesley was installed bishop of London in the summer of 1530. He probably was determined to drive Patmore from his benefice, notfrom greed or malice, as Foxe suggests, but from a desire to rid his diocese of anincumbant with decidely evangelical sympathies.

Foxe was probably basing this account on a petition sent to Anne Boleyn. Anne Boleyn was marchioness of Pembroke from 1September 1532 until her recognition as queen in March 1533. This coincides witha petition sent to Thomas Cromwell before Michaelmas 1532 (L&P VII, p. 348).The accurate citation of Anne's title of marchioness helps to confirm that Foxe wasdrawing his information from a petition.

Foxe only mentions a crucial fact later in his narrative: Smith was Patmore's curate and Benmore his maidservant. Patmore's activesupport, if not outright instigation, of this marriage was necessary.

'publicly accused by good and grave men'. A key element ofPatmore's defense was to insist on an apparent lack of witnesses against him (I.e., he would not stipulate to the charges against him nor answer them unless his accusers were produced).

This is disingenuous: Smith was Patmore's curate and Benmore his maidservant. Patmore's active support, if not outright instigation, of this marriage was necessary.

Roger Whaplod was the son-in-law of Richard Hunne and like Hunne, he was markedly anti-clerical in his sympathies. A few years after the incident described below, he was in even more serious trouble with the authorities, as one of the ringleaders of a riot that occurred at St. Paul's cathedral in 1531. Whaplod was one of five men arrested and he was imprisoned for an unknown length of time. In 1538, his wife appealed to Thomas Cromwell for her husband's release. Whether or not the appeal was successful is unknown and Whaplod's subsequent fate is unclear. He was dead by August 1560 (W. R. Cooper, 'RichardHunne', Reformation 1 [1996], pp. 234-5). Roger's son Dunstan would supply Foxe with records of the Hunne affair.

I.e., Richard Foxford, who was chancellor of the diocese of London.

Galatians 3: 17 and 19; but imperfectly quoted.

An inexact quotation, probably either Psalm 149 or Psalm 150is meant.

1 Cor. 3: 21.

Acts 29: 14.

Thomas Philip: a pointmaker of the parish of Micheal le Querne, London. John Hacker informed on him in 1528. He was imprisoned and later held in the house of Thomas More (then Lord Chancellor), who turned him back over to Bishop Stokesley (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 13r; More, Apology, CWTM 9, p. 126). He abjured, but abjured his abjuration and was imprisoned in the Tower (1570, pp. 1185-6, 1576, p. 1014; 1583, p. 1042). He remained imprisoned in the Tower, but working as a gaoler. In this capacity he aided evangelical prisoners (BL, Harley MS 425, fo. 138v).). In 1534, Philip petioned Parliament for his release (TNA SP 1237, fo. 78r-v). If Foxe is correct, Philip secured Patmore's release, if not necessarily his own. Previously Patmore's servant John Stanton complained in the House of Commons about Patmore's treatment and Lord Chancellor Thomas More had Stanton imprisoned for his trouble (TNA SP 1/70, fos. 2r-3r).

This may be giving Anne Boleyn too much credit; Patmore's supporters also petioned Cromwell for his release (L&P VII, p. 348) and had lobbied for Commons for his release (in 1534, Thomas Philip petioned Parliament for his release (TNA SP 1237, fo. 78r-v). If Foxe is correct, Philip secured Patmore's release, if not necessarily his own).

Foxe is accurate about this; in 1535 commissioners were appointed to look into Patmore's case (L&P VIII, p. 419).

Apparently Periman was also selling heretical books.

Eve is listed inaccurately in the first edition of the Acts andMonuments as the parish clerk of Much Hadham (1563, p. 419).

Foxe's syntax makes this passage unclear. Whaplod sent Norfolk to Goderidge, not the other way round.

The feast of the Holy Innocents (28 December).

It was the custom for a boty to be chosen to officiate as bishop to the services held on the feast of the Holy Innocents. The boy received small gifts and was sometimes referred to as St. Nicholas (who was the patron saint of children).

Michael Lobley was a bookbinder (1570, p. 1372; 1576, p. 1162 and 1583, p.1191), who obviously used his professional contacts and activitiesto disseminate heretical literature. Thomas More claimed that Michael Lobley,after he was arrested, informed on those who purchased herteical books from him (Thomas More, The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, ed. Louis A. Scuster,Richard C. Marius, James P. Lusardi and Richard Schoeck, CWTM 8 [New Haven, CT, 1973], II, p. 813).

According to one contemporary, Bayfield was burned on 4 December 1531. (See Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England during the reigns of the Tudors, ed. W. D. Hamilton, Camden Society, new series, 11 and 20 {2 vols., London, 1875-77], I, p. 17).

Foxe may have obtained this material from an oral source. The detail about the conditions of imprisonment and the lack of specific dates are both atypical of material obtained from official records. Elsewhere in the Acts and Monuments, Foxe mentions that a Richard Carket copied material from the London registers for him (This is a very valuable (and rare) indication by Foxe of the assistance he received in having official transcribed. It also indicates that, even for records in London, Foxe relied on transcriptions of archival documents, rather than examining the documents himself).

Margaret Bowgas had already been forced to find six compurgators to clear her of charges of heresy in Colchester in July 1528 (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 30v). Her husband Thomas had been forced to abjure his heretical beliefs and do pennance in Colchester in 1528 (Fines).

I.e., an Augustinian friar from the house at Stoke by Clare, Suffolk. Robert was the brother of Thomas Topley.

Richard Foxe was the parish minister of Steeple Bumstead, Essex. He was a leading proponent of evangelical views in his parish and later informed on other evangelicals as part of his abjuration (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 28r).

Topley is describing Erasmus's colloquy 'Rash Vows'. See Colloquies, trans. and annotated by Craig R. Thompson, vols., 39-40 of TheCollected Works of Erasmus (Toronto, 1997), I, pp. 36-43.

Miles Coverdale, the bible translator and future bishop of Exeter.

Roger Whaplod, who was Richard Hunne's son-in-law and he had successfully petitioned to have Hunne's property restored to his family and tohave compensation paid to them for his death. Whaplod, moreover,continued to twist the knife. The bill Goderidge read was hardly hertetical, but,by announcing that money used from Hunne's estate would be used to pay for repairs to the Fleet conduit, it was a reminder of Hunne's former standing as a leading andphilanthropic citizen. The request to pray for Hunne's soul was particularly provocative, since he had been convicted of heresy. The choice of the venue forthis announcement was also calculated and inflamatory: St Mary Spital had been the parish church of Charles Joseph, the gaoler who was believed to have murdered Hunne.

Coverdale had been an Augustinian friar; in fact, he was at the house in Cambridge when Robert Barnes was prior.

In 1528, Richard Johnson was summoned before the ecclesiatical authorities in Colchester and did not appear (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 30r). Richard and Alice are the 'Johnson and wife' whom Foxe mentions as being imprisoned at Fulham in 1534 (1570, p. 1168; 1576, p. 999 and 1583, p. 1026). In 1535, Richard Johnson wrote to Thomas Cromwell, complaining that in the previous year he and his wife had been arrested, tajken to Fulham and held there for months. They were released on Henry VIII's orders, But Stokesley had them sent to St. John's abbey in Colchester, for an informal - and illegal - detention. Johnson and his wife escaped, but they asked Cromwell to intercede with Stokesley so that they did not have to fear being apprehended again (L&P IX, p. 383).

The records that follow for the remainder of this section were generated in 1527 when Geoffrey Wharton, the vicar-general of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall of London, made a visitation of the diocese. He uncovered a network ofheretics in Colchester and its environs, particularly the viallges of Boxted, Witham and Steeple Bumpstead. Much of this visitation was recorded in a register whosepages - apparently torn out by Foxe or his associates - form a significant portionof BL, Harley MS 421. Some pages of this register that now longer survive, were transcribed by John Strype, when he had custody of Foxe's papers and printed inhis Ecclesiaiastical Memorials.

These articles are taken from Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall's register (Guildhall MS 9531/10, fos. 136v-137r).

John Tyball was a figure of more significance than this terse mention would indicate, He converted Richard Foxe (Richard Foxe was the parish minister of Steeple Bumstead, Essex. He was a leading proponent of evangelical views in his parish and later informed on other evangelicals as part of his abjuration (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 28r)), and was an avid collector of Lollard and evangelical works (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 35r). He would bear witness, as part of his abjuration, in Colchester and its environs (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 30r-v; Strype, EM, I, 1, p. 131 and I, 2, pp. 50-66)

Edmund Tyball was John's brother and a churchwarden in Richard Foxe's church (Richard Foxe was the parish minister of Steeple Bumstead, Essex. He was a leading proponent of evangelical views in his parish and later informed on other evangelicals as part of his abjuration (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 28r)). He would later abjure and denounce a number of Lollards in Colchester and its environs (Bl, Harley MS 421, fo. 28r-v; Strype, EM I, 1,p. 135 and I, 2, p. 56).

Butcher was a plowright of Steeple Bumstead, who abjured on 11 May 1528 in Colchester. Reading of the New Testament in English were held in his house (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 34r; Strype, EM I, 1, p. 132 and I, 2, pp. 59-60).

These two Joan Smiths are apparently different people.

They abjured in Colchester on 11 May 1528. The pair was from Steeple Bumpstead, Essex and Robert claimed that Richard Foxe (Richard Foxe was the parish minister of Steeple Bumstead, Essex. He was a leading proponent of evangelical views in his parish and later informed on other evangelicals as part of his abjuration (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 28r)) had worked to convert him to heresy. Robert was the brother of Thomas Hempstead. See BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 34r).

They abjured in Colchester on 11 May 1528. Thomas was one of Richard Foxe's churchwardens (Richard Foxe was the parish minister of Steeple Bumstead, Essex. He was a leading proponent of evangelical views in his parish and later informed on other evangelicals as part of his abjuration (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 28r)). He testified that his wife taught him the Lord's Prayer and Apostle's Creed in English (BL, Harley MS 421, fo. 34r). Thomas was the brother of Robert Hempstead.

Henry VIII delivered this oration at Bridewell on 8 November 1529 (see Edward Hall, The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre & York (London, 1547) and it remained in all four editions. Henry VIII's sense of dynastic insecurity, more clearly expressed here than perhaps at any other moment of the reign, he was clearly referring to the 'Wars of the Roses', still within living memory. He refers to his own grandfather, Edward IV (of York), who had contested the throne with Henry VI (of Lancaster) between 1461 and 1471, and who ruled unopposed to 1483. Famously, his successor, Edward V was usurped (or perhaps legitimately replaced) by Richard III, who was himself removed by the successful rebellion of Henry Tudor (a distant Lancastrian candidate). Henry VII had married Elizabeth York and their heirs - Arthur, Henry, Mary and Margaret - had united the Plantagenet family. The 'fayre daughter' is, of course, Princess Mary (later Mary I), born 18 February 1516, the only child of Catherine and Henry to survive early childhood. The king emphasised the seriousness of the situation in which he might find himself, having 'so long lyued in adultery to Gods great displeasure, and haue no true heyre of my body to inherit this realme'. The king promised that 'I seke a remedy'. Already, two ecclesiastical tribunals had been assembled to hear the case, one at Westminster in 1527 and another at Blackfriars monastery in 1529. Moreover, Henry had also canvassed widely among the English theologians (e.g., John Fisher, John Stokesley) and canonists (e.g., Stephen Gardiner, William Warham) and assembled a group of scholars to examine the evidence from every conceivable angle (including such men as Richard Croke and Nicholas de Burgo). Henry's case revolved around the fact that Arthur and Catherine had consummated their marriage which had created insurmountable impediments between Catherine and himself. In essence he had married his genuine sister; his daughter was the product of an incestuous union, was illegitimate and, thereby, could not inherit. Henry's sincerity has been called into question by historians and chroniclers from the time of the speech itself, but there is no real reason to doubt his claims. One of the key characteristics of the Tudors, and Henry in particular, was their devotion to the veneer of legality for their acts. The question of legitimacy hung over the Tudors, and Henry was obsessed by the idea of a legitimate male heir and of avoiding a return to the bloodshed of the civil wars. By this point, of course, Henry had also been convinced that his marriage to Catherine was entirely illegitimate, so he has no real reason to dissemble with regard to Catherine's merits and his feelings toward her.

Foxe is being very subtle here. Henry was allied with Charles V at this point against France and could not yet afford to forgo this arrangement. Foxe is also not mentioning that the pope was in the emperor's power, since Rome had been sacked by imperial troops on 6 May 1527.

Gardiner and Edward Foxe were sent to Rome (more precisely to Orvieto where the pope was then residing) in February 1528.

Foxe is here referring to Sir Nicholas Harvey who was Henry VIII's ambassador to the emperor in 1530. The imperial ambassador in England, Eustace Chapuys, suggested that Harvey was also a partisan of Anne Boleyn (for which, see Calendar of State Papers, Spain, iv/i, p.586). Harvey left England in late June 1530, arriving in Augsburg (8 July) in the midst of the famous Luther trial.

Foxe's analysis of the reception of the oration, and the events that followed it was substantially changed in between the 1563 and the 1570 and later editions. In 1563, Foxe placed the emphasis on the Queen's reaction. As Foxe says in 1563, 'herepon word was sent not longer after to the Quene, by the cardinal, & certen other messengers'. In reality, delegations of the great and the good were sent to Queen Catherine a number of times over the course of the marriage trial, with the objective of ending her obstructionism. The latest delegation (for which, see L&P, iv:iii, no.739), perhaps that one referred to here, consisted of Thomas Howard (Duke of Norfolk), Edward Lee and Richard Sampson, Longland and Stokesley, and they addressed theology, canon law and civil political issues. The cardinal referred to here is Cardinal Lorenzo (var: 'Lawrence') Campeggio (who was also for a time Cardinal Protector of England and bishop of Salisbury). The legatine trial at Blackfriars (31 May - 23 July 1529) over which Campeggio presided with Wolsey, was actually his second legatine appearance in England, having been sent in 1518 as Leo X's nuncio (to secure men and funding for a projected crusade). Campeggio was deprived of Salisbury via act of parliament (11 March 1535) (see Edward V Cardinal, Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio, Legate to the Courts of Henry VIII and Charles V (Boston, 1935)].

According to Gairdner's research, the secretary's name was Florian - for which, see James Gairdner, 'New Lights on the Divorce of Henry VIII', in The English Historical Review, 12 (January, 1897), pp.1-16.

A number of depositions were taken from 'witnesses', reporting on the marriage of Arthur and Catherine [for which, see L&P, iv/iii, pp.2578-82].

The final decision in England was made by Archbishop Cranmer at his tribunal at The Priory of St Peter at Dunstable on 23 May 1533 (for which, see Andrew A Chibi, Henry VIII's Conservative Scholar [Bern, 1997], pp.82-4).

Wolsey died at Leicester Abbey on 28/9 November 1530. Cavendish kept a record of the cardinal's last days and this is generally accepted as accurate (for which, see Two Early Tudor Lives, ed. by Richard S Sylvester and Davis P Harding [Yale, 1962], pp.178-86; Peter Gwyn, The King's Cardinal [London, 1990], pp.638-9). The question of possible suicide was raised vaguely by Edward Hall (one of the reasons for Cavendish's extensive treatment) and this has been generally dismissed as exaggeration. Sybil M Jack makes no mention of the idea in her ODNB biography of the cardinal. For further details, see L R Gardiner, 'Further news of Cardinal Wolsey's end, November-December 1530', in Historical Research 57 (May 1984), pp.99-107; Edward Hall, The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre & York, 2 vols., ed. by H Ellis (London, 1809), 2, p.774.

In the 1563 edition, Foxe replicated in extenso the speech supposedly given in reply by Queen Catherine, which had appeared in Edward Hall's chronicle, The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre & York (London, 1547), fols.180B-81A. There is some question over whether she actually made it at all. Catherine claims that she was unaware of the king's doubts; either she had been kept in the dark about young Henry's protest or his doubts and confessions of 1518, or her Spanish servants had not been paying attention. She makes the valid point that some theologians who were now raising objections to the marriage had accepted it at the time. One such was William Warham; another was Richard Fox, the aged bishop of Winchester. Former servants and courtiers had been trotted out at the tribunals to speak on events of twenty years' earlier and pick over the bones of ill or half-remembered statements. She refers tellingly to the dispensation of Julius II (dated 26 December 1503). She reserved her strongest statements, however, for Cardinal Wolsey, convinced that he was behind the divorce issue. In 1515 Leo X had created Wolsey a cardinal and he hoped to negotiate this, and English diplomatic ties with the empire after 1519, into his own election as pope. Charles V, however, supported his tutor (Adrian Dedel or Adrian Florenszoon Boeyens) as Pope Adrian VI and later, Giulio di Giuliano de'Medici (as Clement VII), for which Wolsey never forgave him. Later, in the aftermath of the imperial troops sacking of Rome (6 May 1527), Wolsey had conceived a scheme by which he would be appointed (by the French cardinals) as vice-pope for the duration of the pope's captivity. Charles V once again foiled his efforts by allowing Clement to escape captivity. Catherine was convinced that Wolsey was pursuing his grudge against her (as the aunt of the emperor he could not touch), which may indeed have been a fair assessment of Wolsey's ways of behaving.

Foxe's analysis of events after July1529 is congested and somewhat changed between the 1563 and 1570 editions. In 1563, Foxe mentions that Catherine appealed the projected decision of the legatine court to the pope on 16 June 1529 ('and her appeale made to the Pope'). Again, in the 1563 edition, he briefly alludes to the legatine trial at Blackfriars, which sat between 31 May and 23 July 1529 (about fourteen sessions) under the dual-authorities of cardinals Wolsey and Campeggio ('Fyrst the pope sendeth his two legates, Wolsey and Campeius, to here and decise the case…') noting the involvement of the king's proctor (chief legal advisor) John Bell (later bishop of Worcester), sometimes acting with Richard Sampson (later bishop of Chichester). The queen's proctor was John Clerk (bishop of Bath and Wells). He also refers to the preliminary meeting of 28 May 1529, at which the king and queen were to, officially, learn the reasons they were being summoned to appear before an ecclesiastical court. The other 'counsailors…learned men' assisting the queen mentioned by Foxe were William Warham, Nicholas West, John Fisher and Henry Standish. The queen had other supporters, including her chaplain Thomas Abel, Richard Featherstone, Peter Ligham, Edward Powell, Richard Gwent, her almoner Robert Shorton, her Spanish confessor George de Athequa (bishop of Llandaff) and John Talcarne, not all of whom were entirely to be trusted. Much of the actual chronology is skipped over. The court met in fourteen sessions - 31 May, 18, 21, 22, 25, and 28 June, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, and 23 July. Foxe makes a reference to testimony on behalf of Prince Arthur (given on 19 July) meant to prove consummation of his marriage. This is rumour and hearsay evidence, of course. For example, when gentlemen of the prince's household joked with him over his need for a drink, Arthur reportedly replied: 'Marry, if thou haddest been as often in Spain this night as I have been, I think verily thou wouldest have been much drier.' (For a discussion of these reports, see Henry A Kelly, The Matrimonial Trials of Henry VIII [Stanford, 1976], pp.122ff) There is also reference made here to the Spanish brief (which had been secured for the dying Isabella on 26 December 1503 (and sent to Spain in autumn 1504) - common knowledge in England at the time [see, L&P, i, p.243] - although this fact seems to be often denied or conveniently forgotten by 1529.

Foxe's treatment of Henry VIII's divorce from Queen Catherine of Aragon was clearly central to how he explained the coming of the protestant reformation to England. In the 1563 edition, his explanatory structure was clear and unadorned. He sought to provide 'the whole summe and matter' and to prove that it was a 'maruelous and moost gracious worke', a direct intervention of the 'holy prouidence of God', an event which would have been unthinkable for 'anye Prince within this realme' on his own, let alone any subject of it. That providence worked through the conscience of the king, by which God 'did kepe al princes and kinges so vnder him'. The problem for Foxe was that, if he were to provide the comprehensive account of the affair that he promised, it necessarily involved a complex narrative that concentrated more upon the secret and public affairs of men (and women) rather than the inner workings of divine providence. At all events, by 1570, this explicit explanatory structure, with its ringing introductory claims, was abandoned by Foxe in favour of a denser, but more circumstantiated account of the divorce, in which the point about God's providence became buried in the narrative. By concentrating on the events post-1529, Foxe conveniently ignores, of course, the longer history of the early fourteenth-century praemunire and provisor acts of the English parliament which were essential background to the parliamentary intervention in the 'King's Great Matter' in due course.

In the 1563 edition, Foxe quickly asserts his view that the marriage of King Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon in 1509 had been unlawful ab initio. His view was shared by many contemporaries, who thought that it contravened both divine law and human legal custom (so-called 'impediments'). It contravened divine law in that Catherine had been married to Henry's elder brother Arthur. When he died, it was considered imperative by all parties (Henry VII, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile) that the marriage tie between England and Spain continue, but a papal dispensation was necessary as the subsequent marriage contravened divine law as spelled out in Leviticus (18.16 and 20.21). In other words, there was both an impediment of affinity and of a consanguinity relationship (within forbidden degrees) between Catherine and Henry. Affinity was understood in one of two ways, however, in either 'biblical' or 'canonical' forms. The former (as outlined in Leviticus) arose out of the 'sponsalia' only, that is the 'matrimonium ratum', for which consummation was irrelevant (unlike in the case of the latter and out of which consanguinity or the blood relationship developed). There was a contemporary opinion (e.g. that of William Warham) that even with a papal dispensation the subsequent marriage would be unlawful (see BL, Cott. MSS, Vit. B, xii, fol.123v; L&P, iv:iii, 5774) and certain complications over the dispensation itself, when it was granted by Pope Julius II, were raised. In the event, while the full dispensation was being considered, Queen Isabella of Castile, near death, demanded action and was sent a rather hastily written papal brief (subsequently known as the 'Spanish Brief') dated 26 December 1503 (actually despatched in the autumn of 1504). This was known in England [see, L&P, i, p.243] and the brief was believed to be an inexact version of the bull. Later legal difficulties arose over the Latin word 'forsan' ('perhaps') which appears in the bull but not in the brief with regard to the consummation of the earlier marriage. (For a view of the bull and the brief that reflects some of these contemporary perceptions, see Edward Lord Herbert of Cherbury, The Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth (London, 1649), pp. 264ff.) While the brief acknowledged consummation, the bull merely stated that it was probable. This question mark over the consummation, despite the definition of affinity, was a matter for heated opinions for which no definitive theological evidence existed, and over which opinion (among the divines, ancient Fathers and canonists) was divided well into the sixteenth-century (see Andrew A Chibi, Henry VIII's Conservative Scholar (Bern, 1997), pp.23ff; J. J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII [Berkeley, 1968], pp.163ff). In 1504 there were also certain financial matters to be faced. King Henry VII had been slow in making treaty-related payments to King Ferdinand of Aragon as he and Queen Isabella had not completed their 'dowry' obligations. Henry VIII stalled the new marriage to put pressure on his ally, which raised rumours that Catherine was actually pregnant, rumours exacerbated by the delay in created prince Henry as 'Prince of Wales'. The king also had the prince record a formal protest against the marriage (he was fourteen, considered of age, while the marriage had been negotiated without his prior consent). When Henry became king in 1509, he married Catherine nine weeks after his accession, despite theological opinion. These other legalities and political tactics would be brought up again in due course. Human legal custom (not obligatory) had been contravened in that the impediment of 'public honesty', which arose from the apparent non-fulfilment of the original marriage contract (non-consummation), had not been officially addressed in any contemporary documents. For a difference of opinion, cf. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp.184-97 and Jasper Ridley, Thomas Cranmer (London, 1962), pp.37ff. These were all delicate issues. In a quite remarkable revision of his presentation, Foxe is much less strident about the 'unlawfulness' of the marriage in 1570 and later editions. It was 'very straunge and hard, for one bother to mary the wife of an other'. This enabled him to place the emphasis elsewhere - on the advice that Henry VIII received from learned theologians on the matter in Europe's universities; and to heap blame on the papacy for its role in the affair.

To make the point that the marriage had been 'unlawful', Foxe somewhat exaggerates the point by saying that 'all universities' in the 1563 edition had found it to be so. He nuances the point in the editions after 1570. No university in Germany was found to give a positive determination, and many of the positive determinations were predicated upon the belief that Catherine's first marriage was consummated (over which there is a question mark). However, twelve positive determinations were sent, several of which were published as a preface to a book detailing the theological conclusions of the king's scholars, written by Stokesley, Fox and de Burgo and translated into English by Thomas Cranmer. The twelve positive determinations of 1530 come from Oxford (8 April) - gained by Fox, Longland and Bell; Cambridge (9 March) - gained by Fox and Gardiner; the canon law faculty of Paris (25 May) - gained by Stokesley, Fox and Reginald Pole; the divinity faculty of Paris (2 July) - gained by Stokesley, Fox and Pole; Angers (7 May); Bourges (10 June); Bologna (10 June); Orléans (5 April); Toulouse (1 October); Padua (1 July), Ferrara and Pavia (no dates mentioned). The text of some of these can be found in The Divorce Tracts of Henry VIII, ed. by Edward Surtz and Virginia Murphy (Angers, 1988), pp.5-27. There was a related problem of determining how valuable these university opinions were. Many modern scholars (e.g., Rex, Scarisbrick) have said that they had limited value in that they were bought and paid for (see, Rex Fisher, p. 163; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 256). Others (e.g., Chibi, Farge) have examined in more detail how the royal scholars solicited and interpreted the advice they received (see Andrew A Chibi, Henry VIII's Bishops [Cambridge, 2003], pp.110-2; James K Farge, 'The Divorce Consultation of Henry VIII', in Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty of Theology of Paris, 1500-1543 [Leiden, 1985], pp.135-43).

Foxe was convinced in the 1563 that the pope's dispensation in respect of the marriage was unlawful - an early indication to those who had eyes to see of the fundamental flaws in the papal claims to authority in such matters. The question of whether the pope had sufficient authority to dispense with divine law in certain cases (that one the various faculties and doctors determined on) assumed that the previous marriage had been consummated. While it is interesting to go through the various evidences put forward one way or another, the fact of the matter is that the three central figures to the events, Catherine, Henry and Arthur, all had agendas to pursue, so anything they say is questionable in hindsight. For instance, when Henry first married Catherine, he said she was a virgin, a claim which assured the legitimacy of any premature births. Later, when he claimed she had not been a virgin, it suited the king's need for it to be nullified.

Foxe was aware that a full account of the 'Great Matter' had to account for where the royal doubts about the validity of his marriage had come from. In 1563, Foxe formulates what still remain the three main avenues of scholarly investigation. Either Wolsey first suggested there was a problem, or the Spanish ambassador, or the king himself developed a scruple. In the 1570 edition and beyond, Foxe nuances his account, suggesting that it was a royal doubt, nurtured by the discussions over the possible marriage of Princess Mary, firstly to the Emperor Charles V (arranged through the so-called Treaty of Windsor, 1522) and then, when that fell through (the Infanta Isabel, or Isabella of Portugal being eventually married to Charles V, at Seville, 10 March 1526) by another potential marriage proposal to the French duke of Orléans, where there was a parallel problem, pointed out to him in the negotiations by a président of the Parlement of Paris. That said, Foxe is equally clear that Wolsey had a role in fomenting the king's doubts. In fact, we now know that Wolsey had already expressed them guardedly as early as 1518 (Calendar of State Papers, i (i & ii), i, p.1). What is undeniable is the issue that Foxe does not comment on, allowing the king's oration to do so for him (it would perhaps have been imprudent to dwell on it too much in 1570, or in subsequent editions): that after nine years of marriage, Henry did not have a male heir and this placed the Tudor dynasty on unsteady ground.

Andrew ChibiUniversity of Leicester

Foxe's account of the monumental acts of the Reformation Parliament necessarily focused on the 'aboliyshing of the vsurped power and iurisdiction of the bishop of Rome' rather than the establishment of the royal supremacy. The marginal gloss to the 1563 edition, however, provides the key to later historians' interpretations of these events: 'The kinge proclaimed Supreme head by act of parliament'. By the 1570 edition, however, Foxe's marginal glosses subtly altered the message to meet an anticipated objection about the status of a proclamation: 'The stile of supreme head annexed to the crowne of England' adding, for good measure: 'The popes name and memory abolished'. There were other, even more substantial changes wrought by Foxe in this passage as between the 1563 edition and its successors. In 1563, he had said almost nothing about the other, more detailed but substantial measures that accompanied the famous proclamation and which had been turned into statutes by the Reformation Parliament. In 1570, Foxe was anxious to furnish much more substantive detail on the acts in restraint of appeals, payments to Rome, the forbidden degrees, etc. Wherever possible, Foxe also substantially increased the discussion of the ecclesiastical authorities which had supported these political changes, and their scriptural and other grounds for doing so. In the process, Foxe strengthened the impression in his text that these were changes which overthrew a usurpation, justified by law and scripture.

Andrew ChibiUniversity of Leicester

Foxe notes this as Matthew 18 but the quote comes from Matthew 16.18. It is one of the most common foundations of papal authority.

Elizabeth Barton is the subject of at least one good biography and a recent article by Richard Rex. [See, Alan Neame, The Holy Maid of Kent: The Life of Elizabeth Barton 1506-1534 (London, 1971) and Richard Rex, 'The execution of the Holy Maid of Kent', in Historical Research 64:155 (October, 1991), pp.216-20.]

At this time he was the rector of West Kington, Wiltshire (1531) and soon to be bishop of Worcester (from 12 August 1535).

Edward Thwaites' treatise A marvellous work (an account of the nun's miracles and prophecies) was printed at the Robert Redmen press of London (1527). The treatise was referred to 'as very popular' by Cranmer in a letter of 1533 [for which see, Diane Watt, Secretaries of God: Women Prophets in Late Medieval and Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2001), p.58; Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, 2 vols. ed. by J E Cox (Cambridge, 1846), ii, p.273]. Other men on the list include Thomas Abel (the author of Invicta veritas).

20 April 1534.

Misprision of treason is an offence which is committed by someone who knows that a treason offence is going to happen but who fails to report this to the authorities while an attainder is an act of parliament which declares a person guilty of a crime without the need of trial. Fisher was sent to the Tower on 26 April 1534.

Barton and the executions are mentioned in the 1550 edition of Hall's Chronicle at fols.218v and 223v.

For William Pavier, see Edward Hall, The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre & York, 2 vols., ed. by H Ellis (London, 1809), ii, p.806; Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford, 1989), pp.218-9.

The mayor of London was Sir Christopher Ascue.

Foxford died suddenly if perhaps not so dramatically.

The archbishop died on 22 August 1532.

In his treatise Pro Ecclesiasticae Unitatis Defensione, Pole had used the Matthew text to stress the pastoral responsibility of the papacy for the faith of all Christians. In essence, taking a literal view, he had assigned a universal potestas ordinis to Peter and, through him, to his successors, the popes at Rome [see, sigs.xlviirv]. Stokesley and Tunstal focussed instead on the underlying principle of the building of the church upon the rock of strong faith, repeating St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (3.11) recognizing faith in Christ as the true and only foundation. They are not denying that Peter is a key figure, even first among equals, but reflect mediaeval disputes over both his leadership role and whether his authority was to descend to any successor at all.

The Act of Appeals (24 Henry VIII, c.12).

The council of Chalcedon (451) produced the condemnation of monophysitism and affirmed the two distinct natures of Christ.

Foxe may be here referring to one of many national or plenary Episcopal synods (e.g. Hippo in 393 or Carthage in 407) representing the church in North Africa.

Foxe may be here referring to a synod held at Tolentino.

Catherine's household was established at Ampthill. It was here, on 3 July 1533, she was informed of her official title change from queen to princess dowager.

Archbishop Edward Lee met with Catherine at Ampthill, c.21 May 1533, on the verge of the conclusion of the marriage tribunal at Dunstable.

The priory at Dunstable was selected due to its remoteness from London, because it was unlikely to be disturbed, and because it was close to Ampthill. Late in April 1533, Cranmer cited Catherine and Henry to appear before this new tribunal [see, L&P, vi, 737 (no.7)] and, on her behalf, ambassador Chapuys sent a letter of protest to the king [see, L&P, vi, 391, 465]. The tribunal opened on 10 May and, because she had not appeared, Catherine was declared 'contumacious' [see, L&P, vi, 470] which, in a legal sense, not only means she refused to abide by the order but also means stubbornly disobedient, wilfully obstinate or even rebellious. Final sentence was rendered on 23 May 1533 [for a discussion, see Andrew A Chibi, Henry VIII's Conservative Scholar (Bern, 1997), pp.82-4].

Foxe is here referring to the fact that Catherine's appeal was still very much alive in the courts of Rome, with which Henry VIII still had to deal (largely through his agents there, Edmund Bonner and Sir Edward Carne). The marriage tribunal in Rome proceeded c.6 July 1533 and lasted to 11 July. The final sentencing was not, however, given until 23 March 1534. [See, Henry A Kelly, The Matrimonial trials of Henry VIII (Stanford, 1976), pp.164-70].

John Butler was a Cranmer protégé, a royal chaplain, and was appointed his commissary of Calais by the archbishop by 1 April 1534. There seems, however, to be a question about the exact dating of his appointment [for which, see Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer (Yale, 1996), p.113].

This is Pentecost, seven weeks after Easter (which in 1533 was 23 April).

Luke 22.32.

Charles Brandon was sent (c.18 December) to the village of Buckden, where Catherine was lodged at the Great Hall of the palace of Bishop Grossteste since July 1533. [See, Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, iv/ii, pp.892-99; L&P, vi, 622].

Foxe's timing is a little off here as Catherine was moved on (although not a great distance away) to Kimbolton in May 1534.

A compositor's error. Foxe obviously means 1534. This is corrected in subsequent editions.

The fourth session of the so-called Reformation parliament assembled on the 4th February 1534. Foxe refers here to what became known as the 'first Act of Succession' (25 Henry VIII, c.22), passed in March, which included a necessary oath.

The sermons at St Paul's Cross (the outdoor pulpit set in St Paul's churchyard) to which Foxe refers must have been those of Stokesley (26 April 1534) and John Hilsey, bishop of Rochester (early December 1534). [See Millar Maclure, The Paul's Cross Sermons, 1534-1642 (Toronto, 1958), pp.184-5].

Fisher refused to swear on 26 April 1534 and was sent to the Tower as a result.

More refused to swear on 13 April 1534 and was sent to the Tower as a result.

Wilson refused the oath on 13 April along with some other friars of the Charterhouse.

The fifth session of the so-called Reformation parliament was prorogued from 30 March 1534. The sixth session began on 3 November 1534.

Foxe is probably referring here to the Act extinguishing the authority of the bishop of Rome of 1536 (28 Henry VIII, c.10) which may indicate a slight confusion of dates.

The bishops argue this was meant to comfort Peter, and only Peter, after his fall from faith, letting him know that he would return and be a fervent in faith as he usually had been.

This is the text of the 1534 Act concerning the King's Highness to be Supreme Head of the Church of England (26 Henry VIII, c.1).

Published in 1535 and available as STC 11587. Modern editions (translations) can be found in Obedience in Church and State. Three Political Tracts by Stephen Gardiner, ed. by Pierre Janelle (Cambridge, 1930), pp.67-171 and Bishop Gardiner's Oration on True Obedience, ed. by B A Heywood (London, 1870)].

Foxe quotes Gardiner (on the annulment issue), from De vera obedientia, sigs.C.vja-vija (or see Janelle, True Obedience, pp.85-7).

The marriage prohibitions are found in Leviticus 18.6-18.

A paraphrase of Leviticus 18.16.

These are selections from De vera obedientia, sigs.D.vjb-viija, showing where temporal authority figures (mostly biblical figures) had exercised authority over the church (mostly with regard to the appointment of priests or the setting of doctrine).

Quote from Psalms 2.10 [found at De vera obedientia, sig.D.viija].

Quote from II Chronicles 8.14 [found at De vera obedientia, sig.D.viija (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.109)].

Quote from II Chronicles 8.15 [found at De vera obedientia, sig.D.viijb (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.109)].

Quote from II Chronicles 29 3-5 [found at De vera obedientia, sig.D.viijb (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.109)].

John 21.17. The stress of the verse is actually Christ's knowledge, not Peter's.

The example of emperor Justinian (527-65) was used by all the Henrician apologists as the prime example of the ruler as both 'king and priest' or 'supreme head' of both church and state. Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.E.iiija (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.117), but the interested scholar could also see the work of Edward Fox, De vera differentia regiae potestatis et ecclesiasticae, et quae sit ipsa veritas ac virtus utrusque (1534) [which was translated by Henry, Lord Stafford as The true dyfferis between y regall power and the ecclesiasticall power, etc. (1548)].

The source is Exodus 32. Aaron 'the Levite' (brother to Moses) represented the priestly functions of the Levite tribe and was high priest to the Hebrews while Moses was a judge, military and temporal leader. Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fa (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.129).

The source is I Kings 22. Solomon, son of David, was a great king (or sometimes emperor) and ruled a vast kingdom centred on Israel in the 10th century B.C. Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fa (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.129).

The source is I Maccabees 10. Another example of a military leader and temporal ruler appointing priests (in this case Jonothas) and establishing canon. Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fa (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.131).

The source is I Maccabees 14 and refers to the works of Demetrius I (Soter). Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fa (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.131).

The source is Matthew 16.18. Gardiner echoed the standard Henrician understanding of the famous quote that Christ's words do not refer to Peter, the man, specifically. Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fijb (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.133).

This carries on the deconstruction of Matthew 16.18. Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fijb (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.133).

Gardiner was here making the not unreasonable but standard Henrician argument that the members of the temporal and spiritual spheres were not distinct societies but were both of the same realm - England. Foxe here quotes selections from Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sigs.Cviijb-Db (or see Janelle, True Obedience, pp.91-3).

Gardiner is simply juxtaposing the idea of a king not entirely sovereign in his own realm. Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Diijc (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.97).

Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Diija (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.97).

With reference to 1 Peter 5.2-4 the shepherd analogy is considered further and applied to all priests which more fully fits the characteristics of the priesthood the two bishops would like to establish.

This is one of the most commonly used passages from the Henrician apologists. Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sigs.Diijb - iiija (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.99).

Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Ddvb (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.103).

Foxe here is paraphrasing Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fiia (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.131).

Foxe here quotes Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fiijb (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.135).

Eusebius is one of the standard Henrician sources. Foxe is here quoting Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fiijb (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.135). Gardiner makes reference to John 13, using this as evidence of equality among the disciples.

Gardiner was making a kind of primus enter pares argument here. Foxe is here quoting Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fvja (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.143).

This is carrying on the primus enter pares discussion with specific examples - the renowned artist Apelles of Kos (4th century BC), the university of Paris. Foxe is here quoting Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Fvab (or see Janelle, True Obedience, pp.141-3).

Foxe is here quoting Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Giijb (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.155).

Foxe is here quoting Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Giijb (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.155).

Foxe is here quoting Gardiner at De vera obedientia, sig.Giiija (or see Janelle, True Obedience, p.157).

This refers to Acts 20.28. Where Paul writes 'overseers' this is generally interpreted as 'bishops'. Indeed, with regard to the supposed supremacy of Peter, Acts makes it clear that the activities of Paul have taken on a more central role.

Edmund Bonner would be created bishop of Hereford (26 October 1538) and bishop of London (20 October 1539). The Janelle edition of De vera obedientia does not include the preface. A modern edition of this can be found in Heywood's edition. [See, Bishop Gardiner's Oration on True Obedience, ed. by B A Heywood (London, 1870), pp.29-34]. Foxe paraphrases the preface very closely here (without too much variation).

Foxe is more or less complaining here that the Henricians - Gardiner, Bonner, Tunstal and a few others - all at one time or other opposed reformation under Edward VI and re-conformed to papal supremacy under Mary I.

There can be little doubt that Gardiner was one of the premier scholars of his time. He appears to have been studying at Paris when he met Erasmus in 1511 (age 15); studied Greek at Trinity Hall Cambridge (where he gained doctorates in both canon and civil law c.1520/1). He was also an able theologian. [See, Andrew A Chibi, 'The Intellectual and Academic Training of the Henrician Episcopacy', in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 91 (2000), pp.354-72].

Mary was the first person to whom the risen Christ appeared (John 20.17). Thomas' doubts about the risen Christ are found in John 20.19-31.

Bonner is referring to the great 3rd century B.C. Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, who was also called 'Cunctator' or 'the Delayer' (for his successful tactics during the second Punic War.

This was published as A sermon of Cuthbert Tonstall, Bishop of Durham, Preached on Palm Sunday, 1539, before King Henry VIII (London, 1823). The original was published in London by the T Berthelet press in 1539.

I Peter 2.13.

Romans 13.1-2.

Luke 22.24.

John 18.36.

The two bishops find the key words regere (oversee) and pasce (feed) to have identical implications.

Matthew 22.21.

Matthew 17.26.

John 6.14.

John 13.5-12.

Luke 22.27.

Acts 10.25-6.

Revelation 19.10 & 22.9.

Acts 10.9-16.

This refers to Acts 10.11-15 & 11.5-11 and is taken as a sign that God wants all men to be saved, not just Jews or Gentiles. The bishops' point being that, while fervent in his faith, Peter had been wrong in his approach until this truth was explained to him. Indeed, Peter does not figure very heavily from this point on; attention has switched to the evangelising efforts of Paul.

Matthew 16.18.

The implication of the statement goes a long way toward underpinning the bishops' point equating Peter with papal power. Peter (although not a Judaizer) tended to preach the gospel message only to Jews, while it remained to Paul to preach to Gentiles.

This is an interesting claim based on the account written in Eusebius, [Church History 2:25:5-8] which seems to tally with the text of the Apocryphal 'Acts of Peter' (said to have been written by Leucius Charinus). Peter was seen fleeing Rome to avoid execution until he was confronted by a vision of Christ heading into Rome. This is the source of the famous 'Quo Vadis?' phrase. Peter turns back and accepts his martyrdom.

John 21.17. The Roman interpretation of this verse is that it strengthens and compliments Matthew 16.18, in that Peter's supremacy is here confirmed over all the 'sheep' (the whole flock of the church). Foxe has selected quotations from Tunstal with the specific aim of highlight papal arrogance and the misinterpretation of their so-called scriptural evidences.

Galatians 1.8-9.

Matthew 16.16-18.

Romans 10.8-9.

St John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, homily lxxxii (on the text of Matthew 26.26-8 [for which, see the on-line edition at http://www.microbookstudio.com/johnchrysostom.htm].

I Corinthians 3.11.

Matthew 14.29.

Acts 2, 3 and 4.

Galatians 2.7-8.

This refers to Acts 10.11-15 & 11.5-11 and is taken as a sign that God wants all men to be saved, not just Jews or Gentiles. The bishops' point being that, while fervent in his faith, Peter had been wrong in his approach until this truth was explained to him. Indeed, Peter does not figure very heavily from this point on, attention has switched to the evangelising efforts of Paul.

The quote is taken from 'De Spiritu sancto', book ii, p.808. The bishops draw out the equity argument for Paul and Peter. The Henrician apologist often referred to Ambrose, as his writings could be interpreted against the theory of the church's foundation on one human figure.

Acts 10.11-16.

Ephesians 2.19-21.

Revelation 21.10-14.

St Augustine, Tractates (lectures) on the Gospel of John (no.50 on John 11:55-12). Augustine discusses, in part 12, the text of Matthew 16.19 as well, to highlight the power of the church as a whole. [See the on-line version of this tractate at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701050.htm].

This refers to the work of St Cyril of Alexandria, a church father of the late fourth and early fifth century.

Acts 20.28.

I Peter 5.1-2.

Tunstal's summing up of his interpretation of the meaning of Matthew 16.18 and John 21.17.

Wilkins (Concilia, iii, pp.772-3) dates this proclamation to 1534 whereas Foxe dates it to 1535. Henry refers to the act of supremacy and other related acts in the proclamation, so Foxe's date is correct.

The bishops are raising a controversial issue. In the Apocryphal Acts of Peter (said to have been written by John's companion Leucius Charinus), Peter is seen fleeing Rome to avoid execution until he is confronted by a vision of Christ heading into Rome. This is the source of the famous 'Quo Vadis?' phrase. Peter turns back and accepts his martyrdom. Should he really, in his willingness to flee, be considered as Pole and tradition often consider him?

The sixth council met in Carthage between 418-9. Tunstal was here referring to the so-called African council's reaction to the claims of Pope Zozimus and the encroachments of Rome into their traditional autonomy, as presented to the council by his legate, Bishop Faustinus of the Italian province of Picenum.

Faustinus alleged that canons of the first council of Nicaea supported the supremacy of Rome argument. Tunstal here points out that, in fact, the sixth canon from the first council of Nicaea make the reverse argument. The sixth canon upheld the 'ancient customs' of the bishops of Alexandria (in north Africa) as well as the provincial rights of the bishops of Rome and Antioch. Faustinus and Zozimus were appealing to a corrupted form of the canon, in that certain decisions from the non-ecumenical council of Sardinia (347) had been appended to the original Nicaean text in order to give disgruntled African churchmen an outlet against their provincial superiors through appeal to Rome. Only Rome ascribed to this variant reading. The controversy, the council of Carthage and its canons are extensively discussed at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm.

The canons of the first Council of Nicaea can be readily found on-line at http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm. Tunstal noted here that the fifth canon was actually contrary to the legate's purposes. The fifth canon dealt with provincial problems and their necessary resolution through frequent provincial synods. This was one of the Henricians strongest arguments that matters originating within a province not be appealed to Rome but settled with the province (referring to the annulment suit).

St Augustine attended the Council of Carthage against his adversary Pelagius.

This is an accurate reading of the sixth canon.

This refers to the seventh canon of the council of Nicaea which refers to the authority of the bishop of Aelia (Jerusalem).

The sixth ecumenical council of the church was also known as the third council of Constantinople (680-81).

This refers to the delay of Agatho's consecration as pope until the approval of then emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus could be obtained.

This refers to St Ambrose and St Gregory … Tunstal discusses this at p. 55 of the 1823 edition of the sermon.

Tunstal takes up the discussion of disobedience at p. 44 of the 1823 edition of the sermon (referring to the events of Genesis 3).

This refers to St Ambrose (c.340-97), one of the four great doctors of the church, and his work on the Holy Spirit entitled 'De Spiritu sancto libri tres ad Gratianum Augustum' (which can be found in Patrologiae cursus completus: series Latina, 221 vols., ed. by J P Migne (Paris, 1844-1903), xvi, pp.731-850).

Tunstal here discusses Isaiah 14.12-16, referring to the Babylonian king Nabuchodonosor II. At verse 12 he is called the 'bright morning star' which also alludes to Lucifer (also the 'morning star').

In essence, Christian identification of Lucifer, the fallen angel (thrown out of Heaven for disobedience), Satan, the Devil and the serpent of Eden, draws upon interpretation of Revelation 12 (verses 4, 7, and 9 in particular).

Foxe paraphrases much of the text of pp. 50-2 of the 1823 edition.

The psalm, which is set in the scene of a wedding, is generally considered an analogy for the church and Christ or subjects and king (for bride and bridegroom).

Tunstal here refers to Revelation 19.10 & 22.9 (the reaction of John to the appearance of the angel).

This claim appears at p. 51 of the 1823 edition. Tunstal studied law at the university of Padua (earning his doctorate there) so the claim is not unlikely.

Acts 10.25-6. Tunstal is making a juxtaposition between the Cornelius-Peter interaction from the bible story and the real life scenario of Peter (as embodied by pope Julius II) receiving visitors.

Pole was a son of Sir Richard Pole and Margaret, countess of Salisbury (whose parents were the duke and duchess of Clarence - George Plantagenet and Isabella Neville). In the 1530s Henry came to consider the Poles a family of dangerous rival claimants to the throne.

Ezekiel 39.

The quote is taken from 'De Spiritu sancto', book ii, p.808. The bishops draw out the equity argument for Paul and Peter. The Henrician apologist often referred to Ambrose, as his writings could be interpreted against the theory of the church's foundation on one human figure.

Foxe takes this directly from the Bishops' Book, otherwise known as The Institution of a Christian Man, from the bishops exposition on the sacrament of orders. [See 'The Institutions of a Christian Man', in Formularies of Faith Put Forth By Authority During the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. by C Lloyd (Oxford, 1825), pp.23-211 (at pp.116-7)].

The first eight general councils were 1) the first council of Nicaea (325); 2) the first council of Constantinople (381); 3) the council of Ephesus (431); 4) the council of Chalcedon (451); 5) the second council of Constantinople (553); 6) the third council of Constantinople (680-1); 7) the second council of Nicaea (787); and 8) the fourth council of Constantinople (869).

Foxe here removed part of the quote (the full quote was used in the 1563 edition).

Foxe has expanded the quote from the 1563 edition.

Foxe has removed the Latin verse that he included in the 1563 edition.

Cardinal Fisher was executed by beheading on 22 June 1535, whereas Sir Thomas More was executed by beheading on 6 July 1535.

Foxe here refers to Fisher's treatise of 1527 entitled De Veritate Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia.

Foxe has his publication dates a little confused here. Fisher published three treatises against Luther, but all prior to 1527. These are Sermon ... agayn ye pernicyous doctrin of Martin Luther (1521); Defensio Regiæ Assertionis or A Defence of the Assertions of the King of England against Luthers "Babylonian Captivity") (1525); and Sacri Sacerdotii Defensio Contra Lutherum (1525).

Foxe is referring back to the polemic dispute over purgatory doctrine. Fisher had written Confutation of Lutheran Assertions (1523), presenting a series of patristic arguments in favour of purgatory doctrine. Frith, in part, answered this treatise, in 1531, with a work entitled A disputation of Purgatory.

A paraphrase of Matthew 26.52.

This refers to St Cyprian (d.258), who was converted to Christianity late in life, and to St Jerome (c.347-420), who is best known as the translator of the out of its original languages into the Latin edition known as the Vulgate. These church fathers were useful for the parity argument as both recognized Peter and Paul as sectarian leaders (Jews and Gentiles respectively).

Frith was burned as a heretic on 4 July 1533.

John Tewkesbury was burned as a heretic on 20 December 1531.

Thomas Hitton was burned as a heretic about 16 February 1530.

Richard Bayfield was burned as a heretic on 4 December 1531.

Pope Paul III created Fisher the cardinal-priest of St Vitalis in May 1535. Historical speculation is that this was done in an effort to force Henry VIII to think twice about having him executed.

Foxe is referring here to an impressive canon of works, including Responsio ad Lutherum (1523), The Supplycacyon of Soulys (1529), A Dialogue Concerning Tyndale (1529), The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer (1532), Syr Thomas More's answer to the fyrste parte of the poysoned booke … named 'The Souper of the Lorde' (1532), A Letter impugnynge the erronyouse wrytyng of John Fryth against the Blessed Sacrament of the Aultare (1533) and The Second parte of the Confutacion of Tyndal's Answere (1533).

More was executed on 6 July 1535.

Foxe is here largely quoting directly from the 1550 edition of Hall's Chronicle (fol.226v).

Foxe the prophet! More and Fisher were beatified along with about fifty other English martyrs on 29 December 1886 and both were canonized in 1935.

The executions of Exmewe, Middlemore and Newdigate, all of the London house of the Carthusian order, took place on 19 June 1535.

This comes from Cyprian's treatise entitled 'On the unity of the church' (which can be found in The Writings of Cyprian, 2 vols., ed. by A Roberts and J Donaldson (Edinburgh, 1882), i, pp.377-98). The quote comes early in the work (pp.380-1).

Foxe refers to a treatise entitled Dialogi sex contra summi Pontificatus, monasticae vitae, sanctorum, sacrarum imaginum oppugnatoreset pseudomartyrs (Antwerp, 1566), which was written by Nicolas Harpsfield. The Dialogi is, in part six, an attack on Foxe's Acts and Monuments which forced him into the removal of much disputed material in later editions.

This is from Dialogi (part 6, p.995).

Foxe may be referring to the 1536 act 'Dissolution of the Monasteries' (27 Henry VIII, c.28) or the valuation effort of 1535 which resulted in the Valor Ecclesiasticus the inadvertent first step toward the dissolutions.

According to Holinshed, this procession took place on 11 November 1536 (but very little is made of it). [See Raphael Holinshed, The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (London, 1587), p.939].

Sadler had been in the service of Cromwell and was made a gentleman of the king's privy chamber in 1536 and had been sent to Scotland to oppose the efforts of Cardinal Beaton with regard to an Franco-Scottish alliance.

James V was the son of Margaret Tudor, Henry's elder sister, who had married James IV on 8 August 1503.

A papal nuncio is far more than merely a messenger; he is the permanent diplomatic representative of the papacy in another state. Foxe is referring to David Beaton, a skilled diplomat, who was commendator of Arbroath (from 1524), bishop of Mirepoix (in France from 1537) and cardinal-priest of St Stephen in the Caelian Hill (from 1538).

Beaton's title was Commendator (an office with political connotations) not abbot (with its more religious connotations). Arbroath was a house of the Order of Tiron (a Benedictine order), sometimes called the 'Grey monks', located in Angus.

Edward Foxe was created bishop of Hereford on 20 August 1536.

This refers to the treatise entitled Gravissimae atque exactissimae illustrissimarum totius Italiae et Galliae academiarum censurae, written by John Stokesley, Edward Fox and Nicholas de Burgo and published in April 1530.

This comes from Jerome's treatise 'Contra Jovinianum' (which can be found in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, second series, 14 vols., ed. by Henry R Percival (New York, 1890-1900), vi, pp.346-416. The quote comes early in the work (pp.350-1).

This refers to the secret decretal commission carried by Cardinal Campeggio from the pope allowing himself and Cardinal Wolsey to establish a marriage tribunal in 1529 to decide the validity of the marriage of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. Campeggio destroyed the decretal (probably under papal instructions) before it could be seized and published.

This refers to the sixth canon of the council of Nicaea which affirms that matters arising in any particular province of the church should be settled within that province.

Paolo de Capisucci (or Capisuchis), formerly chaplain to Clement VII and canon of the basilica of St Peter.

This may refer to Pietro Accolti, Cardinal of Ancona, who had been very much involved in the dispute (as a Catherine partisan) prior to his death in 1532.

Gaspard I de Coligny.

This vague reference could refer to any number of problems, going back to Philip I and his many tangles with Pope Gregory VII.