MarginaliaGardiners report.(sayth Gardiner) Barnes could not aunswer, but desired to be spared that night, and the next morning he would answer hys arguments.MarginaliaDisputation betwene Barnes & Gardiner. In the morning Gardiner with þe hearers being againe assēbled, D. Barnes, according to the appoyntment, was present who then went about to assoyle hys argumentes. To his solutions Gardiner againe replied. And thus continued they in this altercation by the space of two houres.MarginaliaSteuen Gardiner in his preface to George Ioye. In the ende of this Cockfight Winchester thus cēcludeth hys glorious tale, and croweth vp the triumph, declaring how Barnes besought hym to haue pity of hym, to forgeue hym, and to take hym to be hys scholer,MarginaliaSteuen Gardiner offereth to Doct. Barnes xl. pounde a yeare. whom then the sayd Winchester (as he confesseth himselfe) receiuyng, not as hys scholer, but as his companion, offred to hym a portion out of hys liuyng, to the summe of xl. li. a yeare. Which if it be true, as Ste. Gardiner hymselfe reporteth, why then doth this glorious Cockatrise crowe so muche agaynste Barnes afterward, and cast hym in the teethe, bearyng all the worlde in hande, that Barnes was hys scholer, where as he hymselfe here refuseth Barnes to bee hys Scholer, but receyueth him as hys companion fellowlike? But to the story.
[Back to Top]This done, the kyng beyng aduertised of the conclusion of this matter betwene Barnes and Winchester, was content that Barnes should repaire to the Bishoppes house at London, the Monday folowing. Which he did, with a certaine other companion ioyned vnto him. Who he was, Winchester there doth not expresse, only he saith, that it was neither Hierome nor Garret. In this next meeting betwene Barnes and the bishop vpon the foresaid Monday
8 March 1540.
This list is taken either from Gardiner's own book, where they are scattered through the text, or from the book Gardiner was rebutting: George Joye, George Joye confuteth Winchester's false articles (STC 14826: Antwerp, 1543), fos. 17v-18r. In either case there is a minor error: for this list was numbered slightly differently, and Foxe also omits the final clause of the ninth article ('You say that fayth is thassueraunce of the promyse of forgeuenes of synnes' (Gardiner, A declaration, fo. 79v)). The list preserved at the British Library, Cotton MS Cleopatra E.v fo. 107r-v (LP XV 312.1) numbers them differently and omits the last two of Foxe's clauses entirely.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaWinchesters articles agaynst Doct. Barnes.
1. THe effect of Christes passion hath a condition. The fulfilling of the condition diminisheth nothyng the effecte of Christes Passion.
Marginalia2. They that will enioy the effect of Christes passion must fulfill the condition.
Marginalia3. The fulfillyng of the condition requireth first knowledge of the condition, which knowledge we haue by fayth.
Marginalia4. Fayth commeth of God, and this fayth is a good gift. It is good and profitable to me: it is profitable to me to doe well, and to exercise this fayth: Ergo, by the gift of God I may do well before I am iustified.
Marginalia5. Therfore I may do well by the gift of God before I am iustified, towardes the attainment of iustification.
Marginalia6. There is euer as much charitie towardes god, as faith, And as faith encreaseth, so doth charitie encrease.
Marginalia7. To the atteinment of iustification is required fayth and charitie.
Marginalia8. Euery thing is to be called freely done, wherof the beginning is free and at libertie without any cause of prouocation.
Marginalia9. Faith must be to me the assuraunce of the promises of God made in Christ (if I fulfill the condition) and loue must accomplish the condition: wherupon followeth the attainment of the promise according to Gods truth.
Marginalia10. A man beynge in deadly sinne, may haue grace to doe the workes of penance, wherby he may attaine to his iustification.
MarginaliaThe aunswere and the reioynder of George Ioye agaynst Winchester. These Articles for so much as they be sufficiently aunswered and replied vnto by George Ioy in his Ioynder
Joye, George Joye confuteth Winchester's false articles (STC 14826: Antwerp, 1543).
Joye, The refutation of the byshop of Winchesters derke declaration of his false articles (RSTC 14828.5: London?, 1546).
I told you before how the king was contented þt Barnes should resort to the house of the bishop of Winchester, to be traded and directed by the bishop, which Barnes then hearing the talke of the people, and also hauyng conference with certaine learned men, within two dayes after his commyng to the bishops house, waxed wery therof,MarginaliaDoct. Barnes refuseth to come to Gardiner, to be instructed of hym, but onely to conferre with hym. and so commyng to the Bishop, signified vnto hym, that if he would take him as one that came to conferre, he would come still, but els he would come no more, and so cleane gaue ouer the Bishop.
[Back to Top]This beyng knowen vnto the kyng, thorough sinister complaintes of popish Sycophantes, Barnes agayne was sent for, and conuented before the king, who greuously beyng incensed against him, enioyned both him, Hierome, and Garret, at the solemne Easter sermons at S. Mary spittle, openly in writyng to reuoke the doctrine which they before had taught. At which sermons Ste. Gardinar also himselfe was present to heare their recantation.
[Back to Top]Barnes was in fact the second of the three men to preach his recantation sermon, on the Tuesday of Easter week, 30 March 1540.
This particular claim appears to be Foxe's invention.
The king had appointed before certaine to make report of the sermons. Besides them there was one who writing to a frend of his in the Court, in the fauour of these preachers, declared how gayly they had all handled the matter, both to satisfie the recantation, and also in the same Sermons to vtter out the truth, that it might spread wythout let of the world. Wherfore partly by these reporters, & partly by the negligent looking to this letter, which came to the Lord Cromwels handes (sayth Gardiner)MarginaliaBarnes, Garret, and Hierome committed to the Tower. Barnes with hys other fellowes were apprehended, and committed to the Tower. Steuen Gardiner in hys foresayde booke agaynst George Ioye woulde needes cleare hymselfe, that he was in no part nor cause of their casting into the tower, and geueth this reason for hym,MarginaliaSte. Gardiner had no accesse to the kinges counsell a yeare & more before the L. Crōwels fall. for that he hadde then no accesse ne hadde not after, so long as Cromwels tyme lasted, to the kyngs secrete Counsaile: yet notwithstanding
This passage is a particularly clear example of how the 'black legend' of Gardiner's devious malice had come to exist quite independently of any actual evidence. See Michael Riordan and Alec Ryrie, 'Stephen Gardiner and the making of a Protestant villain' in Sixteenth Century Journal vol. 34 (2003), 1039-63.
[Back to Top]Thus then Barnes, Hierome, and Garret being committed to the Tower, after Easter, there remayned tyll the xxx. day of Iulye, which was two dayes after the death of the Lord Cromwell.MarginaliaProcesse agaynst Barnes, Hierom and Garret. Then ensued processe agaynst them by the kinges Counsell in the Parliament
Barnes, Jerome and Garrett were excluded by name from the general pardon enacted by Parliament, and were subsequently condemned by an act of attainder hurried through at the end of July. Statutes of the Realm, vol. III (1817): 32o Hen. VIII c. 49, c. 60; Journal of the House of Lords, vol. I pp. 158-60.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThe protestation of Doct. Barnes at the stake. I am
This text, known as Barnes' Protestation, rapidly circulated in manuscript amongst London evangelicals, but the earliest witness to it surviving comes from the Catholic John Standish, whose printed rebuttal of it later in 1540 includes the full text: John Standish, A lytle treatise composyd by Johan Standysshe, against the protestacion of R. Barnes (STC 23209: London, 1540). On the tangled history of this text, see Ryrie, '"A Saynt in the Devyls Name"', p. 152.
[Back to Top]This peculiar phrase refers to an image used by English radicals, often from the Lollard tradition as well as Anabaptists, to denigrate the Virgin Mary. Such radicals argued that, like a bag of saffron, she had no merits of her own, was merely a vessel or container, and - once she was no longer carrying her precious cargo - was of no more importance than another woman. The image strongly implies, but does not necessarily require, the belief that Christ did not take flesh from the Virgin, which was anathema to Catholics and mainstream magisterial Protestants alike: hence Barnes' vigorous denial. For contemporary examples of the phrase, see Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 128 p. 13 (LP XVIII (ii) 546 p. 294); British Library, Cotton MS Cleopatra E.v fo. 397r (LP IX 230, where misdated).
[Back to Top]MarginaliaD. Barnes confession. I beleue in the holy and blessed Trinitie, three persons, and one God, that created and made all the world, and that this blessed Trinitie sent downe the second person Iesu Christ into the wombe of the most blessed and purest virgin Mary. And here beare me recorde, that I do vtterly condemne that abhominable and detestable opinion of the Anabaptistes, which say that Christ tooke no fleshe of the virgine. For I beleue that without mans will or power, he was conceiued by the holy Ghost, and tooke flesh of her, and that he suffered hnnger, thirst, colde, & other passions of our body (sinne except) according to the saying of S. Peter: He was made in all thinges like to his brethren, except sinne.
This appears to be a conflation of two separate verses of the letter to the Hebrews, not any work attributed to St. Peter: Hebrews 2:17, 4:15.