King James Bible Adam Clarke Bible Commentary Martin Luther's Writings Wesley's Sermons and Commentary Neurosemantics Audio / Video Bible Evolution Cruncher Creation Science Vincent New Testament Word Studies KJV Audio Bible Family videogames Christian author Godrules.NET Main Page Add to Favorites Godrules.NET Main Page

Bad Advertisement?

Are you a Christian?

Online Store:
  • Visit Our Store


    APP1 “Digest and compile .”]—This expression truly describes the nature of Foxe’s Work, which is—not a flowing history, the production of one man’s mind and one man’s pen, but—a “Compilation” of documents and passages from a vast variety of sources, the whole “digested” into a chronological series. Foxe himself confesses to much haste in the original construction of the Work, and he was compelled to avail himself of the assistance of other persons, some of whom were incompetent to their task. Under these circumstances, the wonder with every candid reader will be—not, that many oddities, obscurities, and errors, are to be found in so large a compilation, but—that it is so valuable as it really is. the blemishes alluded to are, indeed, chiefly confined to the earlier portion of the “Acts and Monuments,” which consists very much of translations from works of Greek and Latin writers, some of which at that period existed only in manuscript.

    These blemishes have till of late excited little notice or observation, owing to the circumstance that the work, valuable as it was on other accounts, was chiefly resorted to for the account of our English martyrs. Modern criticism, however, has laid bare these defects with an unsparing hand, and in a manner which might lead some persons to regard the work as altogether valueless, and to treat with undeserved neglect a most valuable treasury of documents and facts illustrative of the history and character of the Great Romish Apostasy. An attempt, therefore, has been made in this Edition to discover such blemishes, as far as possible, by having recourse to Foxe’s own alleged authorities and other authentic sources of information. The result of such an investigation has been, that many errors have been discovered which were evidently the effect of haste or incompetence on the part of translators, of whose assistance Foxe was compelled to avail himself; others (and those not a few) evidently arose from his adherence to the statement of the author whom he was following. Many of his errors are actually the errors of the writers whom he copies. It is obvious, also, that, where different writers vary in their accounts of the same matter, Foxe’s faithful adoption of each would produce an inconsistence between different parts of his own work, which he did not always perceive, or had not leisure to rectify. It has not been deemed necessary to notice, in detail, every correction which has been made; but some reference is usually given in the Notes or in the Appendices, which may be consulted by readers desirous of seeing the grounds of any alteration made; while particular notice is taken of some of the more serious corrections, in order to give the reader an insight into the plan which has been pursued, and to satisfy him that changes have not been made wantonly.

    APP2 The author repeats this five-fold division of ecclesiastical history at the opening of the first book (p. 88), wherein he treats of the first period: this division is, however, lost sight of in the subsequent arrangement of the work, which is made chiefly with reference to the epochs of English history. It!is worthy of observation, that his fourth and fifth periods partly synchronize; else they would carry us down to about A.D. 1680, long after the author’s decease: the fourth reaches from A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1400, the fifth from A.D. 1270 or 1300 to Foxe’s own time. It is remarkable, too, that in this place and at p. 88 he assigns A.D. 1000 as the period of Satan’s “loosing out:” whereas, in every other instance (it is believed) he assigns A.D. 1300. This difference is to be traced to the change which took place in our author’s views of the Apocalyptic prophecies. His first view (and, as he states infra, vol. 4 p. 724, the current view),reckoned the millennium, or the thousand years of Satan’s restraint, from the nativity or passion of Christ. It appears from his own account (infra, p. 289-292), that, while engaged in writing the narrative of the ten early persecutions, he was led to adopt a different view, which supposed the thousand years to commence at the ceasing of persecution under Constantine, A.D. 324.

    To this last view he ever afterwards adhered. See vol. 2:724-727; vol. 107, 108. He probably forgot to alter or expunge these early passages which proceeded on his first view. Full information on the various interpretations of the Apocalyptic prophecies, formerly current, will be found in Bishop Hall’s treatise, intituled “The Revelation Unrevealed,” and in the first chapter of Archbishop Usher’s work, “De Statu et Succ. Christ. Eccles.”

    APP3 “Pighius, Hosius ....”]—Albertus Pighius was a Dutch divine of much eminence. According to Beza he sought a cardinal’s hat by writing against the Reformers. He had the misfortune, however, to have his own treatises put in the Spanish Index Expurgatorius, for their disagreement with S. Augustine: he was considered also as having had his principles corrupted by reading the writings of the Reformers.— See Bayle, v.Pighius: also Possevini, App. Sac.

    Stanislaus Hosius, a native of Cracow, a man of great talents and accomplishments. He became bishop of Culm, and afterward of Warmia. He was a zealous advocate of the Romish Church, and was made cardinal of St. Lawrence by Pius IV., who sent him as his legate to open and preside in the Council of Trent. He died in 1579, aged 70.

    His writings fill two folio volumes; first published at Cologne, in 1584.—See Bayle, v,Hosius. —Pighius and Hosius are referred to in vol. 6 p. 505, note (4.)

    APP4 As many specimens of logical reasoning occur in the course of the “Acts and Monument,” the technicalities of which may perplex general readers, it may be well to observe that in logic arguments are framed with the help of certain contrivances termed “figures” and “moods,” and that logicians have employed certain mnemonic words, which indicate the combinations of “figure” and “mood” fitted to produce sound arguments. (See p. 46, for a specimen of a false argument.)

    These mnemonic words are strung together in the following hexameters:- Fig. 1. Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque, prioris: 2. Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco, secundae: tertia, Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton, 3. Bokardo, Feriso, habet: quarta insuper addit 4. Bramantip, Cameues, Dimaris, Felapo, Fresison. Encyc. Metrop. PURE SCIENCES, vol. 1 p. 210.

    APP5 The passage in the text to which this note applies, is very obscure, as written by Foxe. It reads thus in the edition of 1570, page 3, col. 2: “Of the which two ages and states of the Romaine church, the first I cal the primitiue church of Rome The other I cal the latter church of Rome, countyng this latter church from the thousand yeares after Christ expired, from which time Satan hath been let louse accordyng to the prophecy of the 20th chapter of S. Johns Revelation. And thus halle ye the churche of Rome parted into two churches, in double respect and consideration of two sondry states and times.” It is clear that Foxe here intended the second 600 years to be reckoned from about A.D. 1000, the period at which he originally considered the millennium to close, and “Satan to be loosed out.” (See Appendix on p. 4, note (4.)) On the revision of his work for republication in 1576, he made a two-fold deviation from the above reading. First, the clauses just quoted from thedition of 1570, page 3, col. 1, are thus varied in the edition of l576: Of the which two ages and states of the Romaine Church, the first I call the primitiue Church of Rome. The other I call the latter Church of Rome, countyng this latter Churche from the thousand yeares expired after the bindyng up of Sathan, to the tyme of his 1ousing agayne accordyng to the Prophesie of the 20th chap. of S.

    Johns Revelation And thus haue ye the Churche of Rome parted into two Churches, in double respect and consideration of two sondry states and tymes. Secondly, Foxe inserts in the dotted hiatus the following entirely new clause:” “countyng these. 1000. yeares from the ceasing of persecution, under Constantinus Magnus, to the begynnyng of persecution of the Churche agayne under Innocentins III. and Ottomannus the first Turcian Emperor.” It is observable that Foxe, for the first time, introduces into that same edition (of 1576) the narrative of his change of views respecting the apocalyptic prophecies, which occurs infra, pp. 289-292. It may be supposed, therefore, that his mind was much occupied with that subject, and that he hastily introduced the above clause, containing his second view of the time of the “loosing out of Satan,” not perceiving that the effect of its introduction would be to bring down the latter church of Rome to A.D. 1800 or 1900; that is, to 200 or 300 years after his own time. For Innocent III., (who lived A.D. 1200,) Boniface VIII. (who lived A.D. 1300, and contemporaucously with Ottoman I.) has been substituted in this edition, conformably to other passages of Foxe.

    APP6 The original Latin of this passage, respecting the sources of papal revenue, is given by Illyricus from Car. Mol. in his “Cat. Test.” (edit. 1608), cols. 1952-1955.

    APP 7 “By reason of all which ... men conjecture .”]—It will be satisfactory to the reader to see the original text of this paragraph, and the Latin of Carolus Molinaeus, from which the new and amended text is furnished.

    Foxe, Edit. 1583, p. 3.]—”Fourtenthly, for grauntyng out Buls and Commissions of new foundations, or for changyng of the old, for reducyng regular Monasteries, to a secular state, or for restoryng agayne into the old, and for other infinite rescriptes and writes, about matters dependyng in controversie, and otherwise might and ought by the Ordinary to be decided. “Fiftenthly, for geving the palle to Archbishops newly elected, by reason of all whiche devises (besides the first of the Annates) it hath been accounted out of the kinges recordes in Fraunce, in the tyme of Ludovike the 9th. (as testifieth Molineus) to the number of two hundred thousand crownes, onely out of Fraunce payd and transported to Rome. which summe since that time hath bene doubled and tripled, besides Annates and Palles, whiche altogether are thought to make the totall summe, yearely goyng out of Fraunce to the Popes coffers, of late yeares, 10. myriades, or millions, every myriade mounting to 10. thousand crownes. Now, what hath risen besides in other Realmes and Nations, let other men coniecture.”

    The following is the passage in Carolus Molinaeus, on which the amended text is grounded:— 14. “... Quae jure communi per ordinarios expediri deberent. Ex quibus, etiam non computato primo annatatum articulo, tempore Ludovici undecimi inventum est, ultra ducenta millia aureorum singulis annis regno efferri. Quare idem Rex omnino vetuit Romam quicquam deferri, vel ullam bullam inde avehi. Certum est autem, hodie quantitatem illam ad minus duplicatam esse, tam propter augmentationem populi, plus media parte ab illo tempore aucti, quam propter augmentationem taxarum curiae Romanae. Postquam autem locum pragmaticae subintravit concordatum, et sic locus apertus est annatis, coepit ultra quantitatem praecedentem (quae circiter quater centum millia aureorum ascendit) alia similis quantitas annatarum nomine extrahi. 15. “Praeterea coeperunt multi curiae Romanae aulici, archiepiscopatus, episcopatus, abbatias, et pinguiora beneficia regni possidere, quorum reditus singulis annis regno evehuntur: ita quod singulis annis fere decem myriades (quem milionem vocant) soleant regno Romam evehi.” “Decem myriades” is a slip of the pen: the French edition of Carolus Molinaeus, published ten years after the Latin, reads “Dix cent mille.”

    APP8 “Saint Louis,” i.e. Louis IX.I—”S. Ludovico,” Molinaeus. Foxe, by mistake, says” Louis the Pious,” who was Louis I.

    APP9 “Pragmatick Sanction.” ]—”The late King Charles VII., willing to follow the Council of Basil, had summoned a parliament at Bitures, where, by the full consent of all the states in France, both Spiritual and Temporal, a certain constitution was decreed and published, called the Pragmatick Sanction, wherein was comprehended briefly the pith of all the Canons and Decrees concluded in the Council of Basil, of which constitution I hinted before. The same the said King Charles commanded to be observed and ratified inviolably throughout all his Realm, for the honor and increase of Christian Religion for ever. Now King Lewis XI., successor to Charles, had promised before (being Dauphin,) unto Pope Pius the Second, called before Eneas Sylvius, that if ever he came to the crown, the aforesaid Pragmatick Sanction should be abolished. Pope Pius hearing him to be crowned, sent unto him John Balveus, a Cardinal, with his letters patent, willing him to be mindful of his former promise. The King hereupon directed the Pope’s letters patent with the said Cardinal to the Council of Paris, requiring them to consult upon the cause. The matter being proposed in the Parliament House, the King’s Attorney, named Joannes Romanus, a learned and eloquent man, proved the said sanction to be profitable, good and necessary for the wealth of the Realm, and in no case to be abolished.

    Unto whose sentence the University of Paris adjoyning their consent, did appeal from the attempts of the Pope to the next general council.

    The Cardinal fretting thereat returned to the Pope, his purpose being not obtained. And the same King Lewis, Anno. 1463, to secure himself from the censures of the said Pope, with the advice of his Parliament ordained an Arrest that the Cardinal of Constance should be punished because he had resisted the Rights and Authorities of the King, saith Mr, John du Tillet.”—Ecelesiastical History of France, p. 173, by G.

    G. 4to. printed 1676.

    APP10 “Constantine IV. Emperor of Constantinople .”]—So Molinaeus; Foxe erroneously reads, “Constantine the fourth Emperor.”

    APP11 The original sentence in Foxe reads thus (edition 1583, p. 4.):— ”First, for that it is taken out of the Popes Bibliothe-earle, a suspected place and collected by the keeper and maister of the Popes Libratie, a suspected author, who whatsoeuer fayned writynges or Apocripha he could finde, etc.” Molinaeus’s words are, “Mutuatus e Bibliothecario Romano, suspecto authore.” ... At line 10 from bottom of next page Foxe correctly enough renders the expression, “the master of the Pope’s library,” which is placed here in the margin, instead of “The Pope’s bibliothecary.” The author alluded to is “Anastasius, sub,, Stephano 3 pontifice Romanae Ecclesiae bibliothecarius: claruit anno 754. Cave Hist. Litt. He wrote “De vitis pontificum a Petro usque ad Nicholaum I.,” undertaken by order of the latter. This, with his “Historia Ecclesiastica,” was printed at Paris, fol. 1649. The following passages from his lives of Benedict II. and Conon will illustrate the text. “Hie (Benedictus) suscepit divales jussiones clementissimi Constan-tini Magni Principis ad venerabilem Clerum, et populum, atque felicissimum exercitum Romanae civitatis, per quas concessit, ut persona qui electus fuerit ad sedem Apostolicam e vestigio absque tarditate Pontifex ordinetur,” p. 57.—”Videns, autem, exercitus unanimitatem Cleri, populique in decreto ejus sub-scribentium, post aliquot dies, et ipsi flexi sunt, et missos pariter una cum clericis et ex populo ad excellentissimum Theodorum exarchum, ut mos est, direxerunt.” p. 5.

    APP12 In the original text of Foxe (edition 1583, p. 5, col. 2) the words, “Res Ecclesiae vota sunt fidelium, pretia peccatorum, et patrimonia pauperum,” which are here brought down into the note, form part of the text, and introduce the translation. “Pretia peccatorum” Foxe interprets as meaning, “prices to raunsome such as be in captiuitie or prison.” He was probably led to put this construction upon the words by the commentary made upon them by Jacobus Selestadiensis, in his Epistle to the Emperor Maximilian, of which a translation is given by Foxe, infra, vol. 4 pp. 14, 15. It is right to state, that in that translation there is nothing corresponding to the words “pretia peccatorum,” though they occur in the original Epistle of Selestadiensis (see the “Fasciculus” of Orth. Grat., and Freheri Script. Germ. tom. ii.), and are cited here by Foxe himself in juxta-position with his English version of them.

    APP13 “Like an Emperor .”]—Boniface became Pope of Rome, A. D. 1294 or 95 (see Pauli Langii Chron. Citizense, p. 1193, in the Rerum German. Scripp. tom. 1. edit. Ratisb. 1726), a more propitious year to him than 1298, according to the Magnum Chron. Belgicum in the same collection, tom. 3 p. 298.

    APP14 “Unto this Lothaire Pope Leo IV. maketh suit .”]—The note of Boehmer, in his edition of the Jus Canonicum, corrects a slight mistake here made in attributing this request to Pope Leo IV:— “Sed hoc decretum Lotharii, quod corr. Romans cum Baronio datum fuisse existimant ad postulationem Leonis IV ., quodque illi ex codice LL. Longobard. descripserunt, diu ante promulgatum fuisse observat Baluzius, quam idem Pontifex in sede pontificali locaretur. Conditum erim fuit a Lothario an. DcccxxIv. Eugenii II. temporibus, ut Holstenius in collect. Romans p. II. p. 218, refert, et ipsa capitula Lotharii ex eodem repetit Pagi in Crit. ad Baron. ad an. 824. sect. 3.”— Corpus Jur. Canon. edit. Halae Magdeb. 1747.

    APP15 “Ranking above the Bishop of Alexandria. ”] Foxe here reads, “in the room of the Bishop of Antioch,” but on what authority does not appear. The canons of the council of Nice, which will be found quoted in the note following this, represent that there were at that time three chief patriarchates, those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, while Jerusalem (which was really under the patriarch of Antioch) enjoyed a quasi-patriarchal dignity. The third canon of the council of Constantinople subsequently assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople the second rank among the patriarchs: the canon is in Labbe ii. Col. 948, and is as follows:— Tontoi Kwnstantinoupo>lewv ejpi>skopon e]cein ta< presbei~a th~v timh~v meta< tomhv ejpi>skopon, dia< to< ei+nai ajuthan JRw>mhn .

    Labbe gives, at col. 324 of the same tome, what he intitules “Concilii Nicaeni Canones 74, praeter 20 vulgatos, nova ex: Arabica versione Latine redditi ab Abrahamo Echellensi. The 37th of these canons makes the four original patriarchates to be those of Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Antioch; the 88th canon directs the transfer of the patriarchal dignity from Ephesus to Constantinople; and the 41st says, “Post autem hanc sessionem tributus est patriarchatus domini Ephesi domino Constantinopolitano, et factus est secundus in gradu, Alexandrinus vero tertius.” It is clear, therefore, that when Constantinople came to be numbered among the patriarchates, it took precedence of Alexandria, as well as of Antioch.

    APP16 “First in the Council of Nice ... other more, are forged.”] The following is the corresponding passage in Foxe, edition 1583, p. 10. col. 1. First, in the councell of Nyce, which was the yeare of our Lord. 340. and in the. 6:Canon of the sayd Councell, we finde it so decreed: that in euery pro-uince or precinct of some one Churche, and Byshop of the same, was appointed and set up to halle the inspection and regiment of other- Churches about him. Secundum morem antiquum, that is, after the ancient custome, as the wordes of the Councell do purporte, so that the Byshop of Alexandria shoulde haue power of Lybia, and Pentapolis in Egypt, for as much as the Byshop of the Cytie of Rome, hath the like or same manED. And in like sort also in Antioch, and in other countreyes, let euery Church haue his due honor, and consequently that the Bishop of Jerusalem haue also his due honor to him reserued, so that such order be kept:, that the Metropolitane Cities be not defrauded of their dignitie which to them is due and proper, etc. In this Councell, and in the same Canon. 6 and 7 where the Byshops of Alexandria, of Rome, and of Antioch, are ioyned together in on like maner of dignity, fyrst there appeareth to be no difference of honor to be ment therein. Secondlye forsomuch as in the sayde two Canons after mention made of them, immediately followeth, that no Byshoppes should be made without consent of their Metropolitanes, yea and that the citie also of Hierusalem should be under hys Metropolitane, and that the Metropolitane should haue the ful power to confirme euery Byshop made in his prouince: Therefore it may be well suspected that the third Epistle decretall of Pope Anacletus, and of Pope Stephanus, with other mo are forged, ....

    The following are the Greek canons of the Council of Nice alluded to by Foxe, and on the authority of which his text in the above passage has been considerably altered: they are copied from Labbe, Cone. Gen. 2 cols. 30, 32.— CAN. 4. JEpi>skopon prosh>kei ma>lista mentwn tw~n ejn th~| ejparci>a| kaqi>stasqai. Eij de< duscerenwn di>dosqai kaq j iJka>sthn ejparci>an tw~| mhtropoli>th|.

    CAN. 6 Ta< ajrcai~a e]qh kratei>tw, ta< ejn Aijgu>ptw| kai< Libu>h| kai< Pentapo>lei, w[ste ton jAlexandrei>av ejpi>skopon pa>ntwn tou>twn e]cein than. JEpei>dh kai< tw~| ejn th~| JRw>mh| ejpisko>pw| tou~to sunh>qe>v ejstin oJmoi>wv de< kai< kata< thn j Antio>ceian, kai< ejn tai~v a]llaiv ejparci>aiv, ta< presbei~a sw>zesqai tai~v ejkklhsi>aiv, kaqolou de< pro>dhlon ejkei>no.

    CAN. 7 JEPEIDH< sunh>qeia kekra>thke kai< para>dosiv ajracai>a, w[ste toa| ejpi>skopon tima~saqi, ejce>tw than th~v timh~v, th~| mhtropolei swzome>nou tou~ oijkei>ou ajxiw>matov.

    Subjoined is the Latin version of these canons furnished to the Sixth Council of Carthage, and given by Labbe, Conc. Genesis 2 cols. 1594- 1599.

    Capitula Nicaeni Concilii per Teilonem et Tharistum Constantinopolitanum de Graeco in Latinum conversa.

    Can. 4. Episcopum oportet maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sunt intra provinciam episcopis ordinari. Si autem hoc difficile fuerit aut propter urgentem paupertatem aut propter longitudinem itineris, omnimodo tres in unum convenientes, consentientibus et his qui absentes sunt episcopis et spondentibus per scripta, tunc manus impositionem fieri.

    Confirmatio autem eorum quae fiunt danda est unicuique a suae provinciae metropolitano.

    Can. 6. Antiquiores [? antiqui mores] obtineant qui apud A Egyptum sunt et Libyam et Pentapolim, its ut Alexandrinus episcopus horum omnium habeat solicitudinem, quia et urbis Romae. Episcopo similis mos est. Similiter. antem et circa Antiochiam et in caeteris provinciis privilegia propria reserventur metropolitanis ecclesiis.

    Can. 7. Hierosolymitani consuetudo antiqua servetur ut AEliae episcopus honoretur et habeat ordinem honoris, salva tamen metropolitani dignitate ejusdem provinciae.

    Ruffinus’s version of the sixth canon is here given, as containing the origin of the phrase “suburbicary cities,” sometimes employed by Foxe and others.

    Can. 6. “Et ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille AEgypti, vel hic suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat.” Labbe, tom. 2 col. 1556.

    APP17 “After this followed,” etc.]—It has been necessary a little to correct Foxe’s narrative of the affair of Apiarius. Foxe says, “It continued the space of five years, wherein was great contention about the supremacy and jurisdiction. The council, however, to which Zosimus sent his legates, was not properly the Sixth council of Carthage, which did not meet till May 25th, A.D. 419, and Zosimus died December 26th, A.D. 418; but it was some African council, held toward the close of A.D. 418.

    While the affair was pending in that council Zosimus died; not, however, before the African bishops had written him a letter of the nature which Foxe describes. The same legates, being authorized by his successor, Boniface, renewed their former application to the African church, which produced the sixth council of Carthage, May 25th, A.D. 419. They answered Boniface in much the same strain as they had done Zosimus. See the letter to Boniface, Labbe Cone. Genesis tom. col. 1670: it refers to the letter sent to his predecessor, Zosimus, “superiori anno.” The phrase “Domine frater” twice occurs in it. At length the correct copies of the canons of the council of Nice (twenty or twenty-one in number, given in Labbe, col. 1594) arrived from the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople, whose accompanying Notes are given by Labbe, col. 1673: that of Cyril states that they should keep Easter the next “indiction,” (i. e. year commencing September 1,) 17. Cal. Maias, i.e. April 15th. P. Pagi observes that is a corruption of xiiii., making the date April 18th, which was the date of Easter in A.D. 420. This Note, therefore, proves that the canons were received front Alexandria before September 1st, A.D. 419. They were sent off to Boniface, 6 Cal. December, i.e. November 26th, A.D. (Labbe, col. 1673), and seem to have operated on him as a “quietus.”

    The affair was revived by reason of Apiarius (who had been restored, but again excommunicated) appealing to pope Celestine, who was elected September 10th, A.D. 422, and sat till July, A.D. 432. The African bishops wrote him the letter of which Foxe gives a part, and which is given by Labbe, col. 1674; wherein they decidedly refused to allow of appeals to Rome by their ecclesiastics.

    APP18 “It cannot, indeed, be denied,”etc .]—It may be satisfactory to the reader to see the original faulty text of Foxe (edit. 1583, p. 12, col. 2,) which is as follows:— “Although it cannot be denied, but certaine were in the primatiue time, which began priuately to pretende that proude and wicked title of universal Byshop, as Menna, and especially Ioannes Patriarche of Constantinople, who calling a Counsell at Constantinople, went about to stablish and ratfie and to dignifie his throne by the consent of the Counsell, and the Emperour of Constantinople, and obtained the same as appeareth in the 5th generall Councell of Constantinople the second, where both Menna is named Oichumenicus Patriarcharum, and alsoIoannes in the sayde Councell is titled Oicumenicus Patriarcha: ex Concil. general. 5. cap. Domino.”

    APP19 “Namely Pelagius II. and Gregory I.” etc.]—The same occasion led both Pelagius and Gregory to say so much against this title of “Universal bishop,” viz., the assumption of it by John, P. C., who in A.D. 588, at a general Oriental council, so styled himself in a cyclical letter. Both Pelagius, at the time, and Gregory, A.D. 595, wrote to dissuade him from using the ambitious title, but in vain. John died A.D. 596.—L’’Art de V. des Dates.

    APP20 Foxe again alludes to this controversy infra, p. 340, where (as well as here) he attributes all Gregory’s zeal to detestation of “the ambitious pride” of the patriarch John. A sense of inferiority, however, besides his better and avowed reasons, may have given rise to Gregory’s rather unmeasured language on this occasion:—”At clamet licet Gregorius, et mare coelo confundat, controversia nihili fuit, cum nec titulus OEcumenici Constantinopolitanis praesulibus novus esset, nec eo caeteris Ecclesiae praesulibus suus Episcopatus eriperetur. Eo titulo Primatus honoris, non potentiae in caeteros orbis praesules Joanni ascribebatur. Et qued Gregorium fugit, pontifices Romani titulo universalis ornabantur. Epist. 54:Leonis ad Martianum titulus hic est: Leo Episc. Rein. et universalis Ecclesioe Martiano Augusto. Et in Epist. 65:Leo Romans et universalis Ecclesioe Episc. Eudocioe Augustoe.

    Similibus etiam titulis Hormisda decoratus fuit. Quid miri Regiae urbis episcopum OEcumenici affici titulo, quo Academiae Constantinopolitanae Praefectus fulgebat, teste Zonara, lib. 15, cap. 3.” (Basnagii Annales Politico-Ecclesiastes ad an. 595, sect. 3.) The Bishop of Rome had, previously to Gregory’s times, shown himself careful in keeping his brother of Constantinople in his proper place.

    See Concilia studio Labbei, tom. 4 col. 844, 849; and Bower’s Lives of the Popes.

    APP21 The following remarks may assist the reader in making up his mind on these points: ”Mediam viam cum Christ. Cellario Th. Ittigio, Sal.

    Van Til, et G. Caveo insistere malim, persuasus cum W. E.TENTZELIO distinguendas omnino esse duas quoestiones; utrum Petrus Romoe fuerit? et an 25:annos ibi sederit? Prioreau hodie plerique etiam ex Protestantibus affirmant: posterior olim pontificiis fere communis, sed non solum historiae et chronologiae repugnat, judice Ed. Richerio (Hist.

    Conc. Genesis c. 1:n. 5), sed et fere jam antiquata est, ex quo Steph.

    Baluzius (in notis ad Lact. de mort. persecut, p. 354) receptam apud pontificios sententiam labefaetare sustinuit. Caeterum non contemnenda adversus Schelstratium de fictitiis xxv pontificatus Petrini annis protulit G. Caveus, Part 2:Hist. Lit. Scripp. Ecclesiastes Ut vero summam quandam eorum quae dixi conficiam, omniaque sub uno aspectu ponam, malo Camp. Vitringoe (in Hypotyposi Hist. et Chron.

    Sacrae, p. 253) verbis quam meis ipsius uti; non sane tanti esset tam calide et acriter de eo disputare si pontificiae sectae homines in hypothesi hujus traditionis non fundarent proerogativam sedis Romanoe, t um infallibilitatis tum superioritatis et eminentioe Monarchicoe supra omnes alias totius orbis ecclesias. Obstat tamen universalis totius antiquae ecclesiae traditio fulta autoritate Papioe, Justini Mart., Dionysii Corinth. Episc., auctoris praedicationis Petri, Caii Ecclesiastes Romans Presbyteri, Irenoei, Clementis Alex., Tertulliani, qui vel medio vel inclinante seculo 2 floruerunt, ne sequentium temporum doctores huc advocem; quam qui rejiciunt, videntur etiam idem cum ratione agere, Imo antiqnior etiam auctor est Ignatius in Epist. ejus ad Romanos, quae si pro genuino illius foetu habeatur, controversiam facile dirimeret. Certe teneo cum Pearsonio Cestriensi Episc., qui hoc argumentum, ut solet, docte et moderate tractat, ex historia Lucoe et Epistolis Apostolorum nihil product posse qued traditionem subvertat, nihil etiam qued firmet. Ex Lucae et Paulinis id recte colligi patior, Petrum non fuisse Romae, antequam Paulus a prioribus suis vinculis solutus sit, in quo historia Lucae terminatur, sed eundem Remain non venisse post illud tempus, et ibidem subiisse martyrium, quis affirmet, quis affirmanti credat?—P.

    Zornii Opuscula Sacra, tom. 2 pp. 736, 738, Altonaviae, 1731.

    APP22 On this fivefold division of church history, see note in Appendix on p. 4, note (4).

    APP23 “Of James, the brother,” etc.]—This title in Foxe runs thus (Edition 1583, p. 33):—”Of James, the brother of the Lord, thus we read in the story of Clement and Egesippus.” But as the following account is compiled by Eusebius from those two authors, his name is substituted here as the direct authority. The last two paragraphs (p. 99) are printed by Foxe in his larger type, as though they were a part of his own text; but they are in reality a continuation of Eusebius’s account, and are therefore printed as such in this edition.

    APP24 “The persecution of the Jews”—i:e. the persecution of the early church by the Jews; in like manner in pp. 152, 306, we have the expression, “the dispersion of the Jews,” for “the dispersion of the early church by the Jews.”

    APP25 “As Jerom in his Epistle .”]—This letter does not appear among Jerome’s Epistles; in fact it seems doubtful whether it was ever written by that Father. It will be found prefixed to “Usuardi Martyrologium Lovanii,” 1573; in which see the remarks of Molanus, the editor, fol. 232, who considers that even if allowed to have proceeded from Jerome, the letter has nevertheless been interpolated.

    To show the extravagant estimate which Romish writers make, of the number of martyred Christians in these times, we may just add that the chronologer Genebrard assigns an average of 30,000 per day during the ten persecutions, supposing them limited to one year. Vide “Ferraris Bibliotheca prompts,” etc. tom. 5:p. 454, edit. Venetiis, 1782.

    APP26 “Clement of Alexandria, moreover,” etc.]—This sentence reads thus in Foxe (Edition 1583, p. 36): “Clemens Alexandrinus moreover noteth, both the tyme of this holy apostle, and also addeth to the same a certain history of him, not unworthy to bee remembred of such which delite in things honest and profitable. Of the which historic Sozomenus also in his Commentaries maketh mention. The wordes of the author setting forth this historic, be these.” Foxe is here translating the Magdeburg Centuriatores (Cent. I. lib. 2 cap. 10), “Clemens inquit [Eusebius] simul et tempus significat, et historiam summe necessariam illis qui honestis et utilibus delectantur adjicit, cujus et opulentus quidam Sozomenus in suo commentario meminit.” The history of Sozomen, however, which relates to a much later period, will in vain be searched for any allusion to this matter; and in fact the Centuriators mistook the title of Clement’s work for the name of the historian: this will be evident to any one who reads the original sentence as it stands in Eusebius— JO de< Klh>mhv oJmou~ tonon ejpishmhna>menov kai< iJstori>an ajnagkaiota>thn oi=v kala< kai< ejpwfelh~ fi>lon ajkou>ein prosti>qhsin ejn w=| [tw=| ] ti>v oJ swzo>menov plou>siov ejpe>grayen aujtou~ auggra>mmati. Foxe’s text has been corrected accordingly.

    APP27 “Between the second,” etc.]—This paragraph and its heading would stand, according to our author’s text, at p. 115, between the first and second paragraphs; they are brought back hither, in order to assign the martyrdoms of the bishops of Rome presently mentioned to their appropriate period.

    APP28 “But then how can that stand with Bede and Marianus Scotus?”]— In the opinion of a good judge, “incerta prorsus omnia sunt, quae de annis pontifficatus initioque narrantur—Qui ad veri normam annos primorum pontiffcum dirigere conantur, illi sane, ut aiunt, le>onta keire>in leonem tondere videntur.” (Basnagii Annales Historico-polit. an. 110, section 7.) Upon the supposed martyrdom of Alexander, and the objections to the Acta, see the same writer ad an. 119, sect. 4.

    APP29 For a paragraph which follows here in the original, see supra, p. 111, line 4.

    APP30 The Greek word in Jerome for “churches” is paroiki>av, which Foxe renders “parishes: ” in the next two sentences the original word ejkklhsi>a is rendered “congregation,” which rendering has inadvertently been left to stand in line 17 of next page: as Foxe himself, at page 135, several times adopts the usual term church, ‘it has, for the sake of uniformity, been substituted here.

    APP31 Rather, “Faustinus and Jouta;” and afterwards Calocerus.” These martyrdoms are doubtful. “Neque in veteri Calendario, quod adidit Rosvedus, neque apud Adonis martyrolog., ulla Faustini et Jovitae mentio inscribitur: At eorum martyrium non immerito revocetur in dubium.” Basnage (ut supra) ad an. 135, sect. 4.

    APP32 “Bishop of Illyricum ”]—So says Nicephorus, the author just cited:

    Foxe says, “bishop of Apulia.” See note (8).

    APP33 “Symphorosa and Getulius .”]—Ruinart places their martyrdom under the year 120, Baronius under 136. See Basnage ad an. 120, sect. 5.

    APP34 “A little before,” etc.]—This paragraph would stand. according to Foxe’s text, at p. 187, immediately before the paragraph “Under the said Antoninus Verus,” etc.: it seems to have got accidentally misplaced.

    APP35 “Whom the Martyrology and Chronicle of Ado declare,” etc.]— ”Acta haec Symphorosae sinceris germanisque eximimus.—Figmentum redolet praeceptum quod aseribitur Adriano, ut in gutture Crescens, in pectore Julianus, etc. vulneraretur.” Basnagii Annales, aa an. 120, sect. 5.

    APP36 —Biothonatus is a Graeco-Latin word for “a suicide.”

    APP37 “Andhere occasion serveth to speak of Justin,” etc.]—The whole passage from hence to the words “because they were called Christians,” p. 126, line 30, would stand in Foxe’s text before the paragraph “Thus have ye heard,” etc. at the top of p. 143: it is brought back hither, as by far the most suitable position for it. The introductory clause is the Editor’s: the words “a man in learning and philosophy excellent, and a great defender of the Christian religion,” are brought back from the last paragraph of text in p. 129, where they would stand after the words “good Justin,” but rather oddly after the abundant previous mention of him in this place.

    APP38 It should be stated,:that the change in the application of the terms first and second, to Justin’s Apologies, mentioned in the note, rendered it also necessary to invert the order of Foxe’s matter in describing the two apologies.

    APP39 “By these things,” etc., and, “This Justin,” etc.’]—These two paragraphs in Foxe conclude the long transposed passage (see note in this Appendix on page 122, third paragraph): but they follow the next sentence ending with “because they were called Christians.” This minor transposition has been made, in ,order to make the entire transposed passage piece on the better with what follows. Foxe also says that Justin was martyred “a little after that Polycarpus was martyred in Asia, as witnesseth Eusebius.” For justification of the alteration here made, see note in this Appendix, on page 129, line from the bottom.

    APP40 “As well may appear,” etc.]—These words in Foxe piece on to the paragraph ending “being moved,” p. 122. Foxe, it will be seen, does not err in bad company, in attributing the following letter to Antoninus Pius. “Hanc (epist.) Pio vindicavit Eusebius, quem sequuntur Baronius an 154, n. 5. Cavius, aliique eruditi. Nos potius assentimur Valesio, qui Marci rescriptum esse statuit, ut ex titulo palam est—Pius autem nunquam Marci Aurelii nomeu habuit: neque tertius ejus Consulatus, quem an. 140 gessit, cum Trib. P. 15 copulari potest. Quod maximum esse putamus argumentum, Pius Armeniaci titulo non est insignitus.

    Marcus ergo accurate pingitur.” Basnagii Annales Historico-polit. ad an. 165, sect. 4.

    APP41 “ Proete>qh ejn jEfe>sw| : id est proposita Ephesi. Sic in aliquot legibus Cod. Theodosiani additur—P. P. Romae aut Carthagine.’ Quae nota significat illam Imperatoris legem publice propositam esse in ea civitate. Solebout enim Imperatores, quoties aliquam constitutionem ad omnium notitiam pervenire vellent, sua manu adscribere proponatur, ut discimus ex Novellis Valentiniani et Majorini.”—Valesii not. in Eusebius H. E. 4 13: vide etiam not. in vit. Constant. 2: 42.

    APP42 “Among those who sustained,” etc.]—This paragraph is brought back from p. 137, where Foxe inserts it after the words “as witnesseth Eusebius;” and the succeeding paragraphs, as far as “miracles, there may find them” (p. 129), are brought back from the close of Justin’s martyrdom, “died cheerfully and with honor” (p. 131); it being Foxe’s custom to mention first, under each Emperor, the martyrs of Rome and Italy; and, for want of such arrangement, the account of this reign is: rather confused. These Roman martyrdoms occupy the place; of the Asiatic, which, vice versa, are thrown forward to p. 131, line 11.

    APP43 “Herford,” according to Oudin, tom. 3 p.973, is more correct than Erfurt; though it is of no great consequence. “Henricus de Hervordia ita dictus, quia ac urbe Hervordia in Westphalia oriundus fuit, non autem in urbe Erfordia, quae in Thuringia est.”.

    APP44 “In the rage of this fourth persecution,” etc.]—The succeeding account of Justin’s martyrdom would, according to Foxe, follow the martyrdoms of Polycarp and the other Asiatics, after the words “as witnesseth Eusebius,” p. 137; but see the respective dates of the two as settled by Foxe himself, pages 130, 131, 136: in the opening, indeed, of the ensuing translation from Eusebius he makes him say, “About the same time, or a little after, that Polycarp,” etc.; but the words “or a little after” are added by the translator. By interchanging the position of the Roman and Asiatic martyrs, as explained in the note on page 127, line 21, this chronological error has been wholly got rid of.

    APP45 For the reader’s satisfaction, the original text of Foxe (Edition 1583, p. 45) is here given:—”Hierome, in his Ecclesiasticall Catalogue, thus writeth: Justine, when in the cittie of Rome he had his disputations, and had reproved Crescens the Cinike, for a great blasphemer of the Christians: for a bellygod, and a man fearing death, and also a follower of lust and lechery: at the last by his indeavour and conspiracie, was accused to be a Christian, and for Christ shed his blond in the yeare of our Lord 154, under Marcus Antonius, as the Cronicles doe witness, Abb. Ursperg: and Eusebius in his Cronicle in the 13th yeare of the Emperor Antoninus.”

    APP46 “Here is to be gathered,” etc.]—This paragraph stands in Foxe at the tail of the long transposed passage about Justin, which was carried back from p. 143, to p. 122, and is best placed here in connection with the discussion of the date of his martyrdom.

    APP47 The following is Foxe’s very inadequate representation of the Greek (Edit. 1583, p. 42): “And whilest a great uprore and tumult began thus to be raised upon those cries: a certaine Phrigian, named Quintus, lately come out of Phrigia, who seyng and abhoruing the wilde beasts, and the fierce rage of them, of an over light mynd betrayed his own safetie. For so the same letter of him doth report, that he, not reuerently, but more malipertly then requisite, was together with others rushed into the judgement-place, and so being taken, was made a manifest example to all the beholders, that no man ought rashly and unreuerently with such boldnesse, to thrust in himself, to entermeddle in matters, wherwith he hath not to do.”

    APP48 “Irenoeus in his boole against heresies,” &e.]—This paragraph, according to Foxe would stand, but not so conveniently, at the top of the page, immediately after the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna.

    APP49 “Of Germanicus,” etc.]—This paragraph stands in Foxe after that mentioned in the preceding note, and is reserved to this place for clearness, that the account of Polycarp might not be interrupted.

    APP50 “Blessed saints of France Vettius, Zacharias .”]—The name of Zacharias ought not to appear in this list. “Zacharias, qui in Martyroiogiis Adonis, Usuardi, Notkeri, presbyter audit, ex prays Rufini versione numerum auxit martyrum, ut erudite observatum Valesio. ‘Qui si Graecum hujus epist. exemplar consuluissent, animadvertissent profecto Zacari>an Presbu>teron hic dici—sed Patrem Johannis Bapt.’”— Basnagii Annal. ad. an. 177, sect. 16.

    APP51 “Marcus Aurelius to the senate and people of Rome .”]—It appears from the Lux Evangelii toti Orbi exoriens of Fabricins, which includes the edicts of the Roman Emperors favourable to the Christians, that ejn Karnou>tw| in the original of this letter is a better reading than ejn Koti>nw| . His note is (p. 229) “Ita recte Latinus interpres et Scal. pro ejn Koti>nw| : adde Eusebius Chron. et Hist. Miscellam, 10:16.” This place is mentioned by Zozimus, lib. 2.

    APP52 Foxe’s “Marcus Aurelius Commodus” is altered into “Lucius Oelius Verus,” in compliance with the note (4.)

    APP53 “The one Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost .”] The original Latin is, “Date honorem trino et uni Deo, Patri, Filio, et Spiritui Sancto;” which Foxe renders, “believe upon the true and only God,” and “give honor to God alone.”

    APP54 Foxe reads “Superaltar,” and infra, p. 165, line 6, “altar, or superaltar,”—line 7, “superaltar;” but Platina’s words are—”Illis quoque poenam constituit qui negligentes sunt in attrectando Christi sanguine et corpore: Poenitentiam (inquit) agant quadraginta diebus quorum negligentia in terram aliquid acciderit: si super altare tribus diebus: si super linteum quatuor: si in aliud linteum novem.” Where it is plain that “super” is a preposition governing “altare,” as “super” governs “linteum.” Platina goes on “Ubicunque deciderit, si recipi potest lambatur, sin secus, aut lavetur aut radatur: lotum et rasum nut comburatur aut in sacrarium reponatur:” the conclusion of the sentence, therefore, should be rather, “the washings and scrapings either burned or laid up in the sanctuary.”

    APP55 Bishop Pearson makes the following general inferences, after an examination into the authorship of the “Liber Pontifcalis:”— ”His perpensis, quis non videt fidem huic Libro Pontiffcali minime adhibendam esse? Autor enim ejus anonymus et incertus sixti saeculi scriptor, et status primitivae Ecclesiae plane ignarus fuit. Unde pluribus et faedis erroribus scatet, fictisque narrationibus plenus est, et enormem rituum doctrinarumque antiquitatem venditat. Et quod ad Chronologiam spectat, successionis ordinem non semel perturbat, annosque Pontificum nulla, certitudine, summa negligentia vel inscitia tradit, et quicquid de eorum annis, qui ante Liberium sedebant, boni habet, illud ex vetustiori scriptore hausit, et male plerumque expressit.

    Scriptotem autem vetustiorem ilium non alium fuisse censeo, quam autorem veteris Catalogi, per Cuspinianum primo editi. Hunc primum Catalogum, quod ad rem chronologicam spectat, exprimere conatus est autor secundi Catalogi sive Libri Pontificalis; quod ex certissimis conjecturis colligi posse videtur.”—Jo. Pearsoni, Ep. Cest. Opera posthuma; pp. 129-30.

    APP56 See note in this Appendix on page 308, note (5).

    APP57 “Timotheus, in his story, thinketh that Eleutherius came himself .”]—This statement is copied from the Magdeburg Centuriators (cent. 2:p. 2), who have made it under a misapprehension of the meaning of a passage in Nauclerus, who says, on the authority of the “Legenda S. Timothei,” “Quod venerit” (i.e. Timothy, not Eleutherius) “in Britanniam, et Lucium ejus gentis regem cum tota insula ad fidem Christi converterit.” Archbishop Usher points out this error of the Centuriators in his” Ant. Brit. Eccl.” cap. 4. — ED.

    APP58 “And, as there is a variance among the writers for the count of years.”]— ”Usserius lib. de Britannicarum ecclesiarum primordiis, cap. 4, quo anno Lucius Britanniae rex Legatos ad Eleutherum Papam miserit, dili-genter inquirit, et opiniones viginti tres ea de re recitat, quarum maxima pars in eo convenit cum Beda et Mariano Scoto, quod initio Pontificatus Eleutheri ea legatio destinata fuerit. Baronius Lucium Commodo imperante conversum scribit, quod primus tradidit Rogerus de Wendover in Chronico circa 1335 in lucem edito. Citat pro sua opinione Baronius Adonem in Chronico, qui tamen, quemadmodum et Beda, Hermannus Contractus, Marianus Scotus, aliique plures ab Usserio laudati, hanc conversionem ad M. Aurelii tempora retulerunt, quibus longe major fides habenda.” “Pagii critice annal, eccles. Baron.” ad an. 183, sect. 3.

    APP59 “Foxe’s text is (Edition 1583, p. 53), “About the same time also wrote Heraclitus, who first began to write annotations and enarrations upon the newe Testament, and Epistles of the Apostles. Also Theophilus byshop of Caesaria, Dionysius byshoppe of Corinthe a man famously learned, which wrote divers Epistles to divers churches, and among other writeth, exhorting Penitus, a certaine byshop,” etc.

    APP60 “Over and besides these, etc .”]—This paragraph stands in Foxe before the preceding paragraph, but is placed after it, because Clemens Alexandrinus was a pupil of Pantaenus.

    APP61 For seventy, ‘Foxe reads “threescore “but Eusebius says toukonta ; and line 17, for “other,’ Foxe reads “other four;” but Eusebius says kai< tinav ejte>rav.

    APP62 “Bonifacius Simoneta in lucem emisit commentarios in Persecutionum Christ. Pontificumque historiam a S. Petro ad Innocent VIII. Prod. Mantuae 1509.” Hallervordii Specimen de hist. Lat. in Fabricii “Supplem. ad Vossium,” p. 692, Hamb. 1709.

    APP63 “A hundred and sixteen years .”]—Foxe says “an hundred and threescore years and three,” but Eusebius (lib. 6 cap. 11,) says eJkato APP64 Foxe reads (Edition 1583, p. 55, col. 2), “to make his journey up to Hierusalem and Palestina (for that place remained free from this persecution) to see there the congregation, and to pray;” but Eusebius says, Tau>th| d j ou+n w[sper kata< ti qeopo>pion ejk th~v tw~n Kappadokw~n gh~v, e]nqa to> prw~ton th~v ejpiskoph~v hwto, than ejpi< ta< Jieroso>luma eujch~v kai< tw~n to>pwn iJstori>av e[neken pepoihme>non filofrone>stata oiJ th~|de uJpolabo>ntev ajdelfoi<.

    APP65 “Ado, and others,... do hold that he was martyred.”]— It is doubtful: see Basnagii Annales Politico-eccles. ad an. 194, sect. 4.

    APP66 Foxe reads (Edition 1583, p. 55, col. 2), “as were before both of Origen and Irenaeus.” As Foxe has not before alluded to any “naevi” of these two fathers, a slight change has been made in the above clause. It would have been more correct, however, to say, “as are both in Irenaeus, who was before him, and likewise in Origen and others (were they never so excellent) that followed him.” See pp. 157, 158, and p. 174.

    APP67 Foxe reads, “concerning the altar or superaltar to be false; for what superaltar, etc.” See sup. p. 151, note in Appendix.

    APP68 “Did both suffer,” etc.]—”Non dissimulabimus tamen martyrium ejus a nobis non una de causa in falsi suspicionem adduci. Monet nos altum de eo martyrio Eusebii silentium, et in Chronico, et in historia.

    Monet benificus Alex. Imp., benignusque, in Christianos animus.”

    Basnagii Annal. ad an. p. 219, sect. 6, where read more.

    APP69 “Of this Coecilia,” etc.]—Similia et in Adonis et in Romano legi .Martyrologio profitemur, neque negamus virginem aliquam, Caeciliam nomine, in certamen pro fide venisse. At Romae imperante Alexandro illud inivisse, eaque ratione qua refertur in Martyrol. constantissime negamus. Adonis martyrol, passam M. Aurelii et Commodi, temporibus Caeciliam, diserte habet. Sed non conveniunt tempora cum episcopatu S. Urbani Papae, itaque ventura ad Severi actatem, quo sedebat Urbanus.—Basnagii Annal, ad an. 230. sect. 4, who proceeds to show that the Churches were enjoying rest at this time. For “Almachius,” read “Amalachius.”

    APP70 “Of Hippolytus,” etc.]—This is placed here among the writers; it stands in Foxe in the next page, before the paragraph, “After the emperor Gordian,” etc.

    APP71 Foxe inadvertently says, “the first persecution.”

    APP72 “Alexander ”]—Foxe reads “Gordian,” which is, perhaps, more in accordance with the authors mentioned. For Nicephorus says (lib. cap. 26), Kata< thcou todhn filhtoceto jAlexa>nddrou die>pontov thbenov au+qiv dia>docov h+n? tonou teleuth>santa oJ iJeroma>rtuv Babu>lav taav dieceiri>zeto? ou\ meta< than ejn desmwthri>w| thmenou ejpi< Deki>ou, Fa>biov th~v ajuto>qi ejkklhsi>av proi>stato : which passage seems to imply that the episcopate of Asclepiades extended into Alexander’s reign. Zonaras, the other historian mentioned, seems to make the episcopate of Asclepiades extend beyond the death of Alexander, for he says, (lib. 12 of his Annals, end of cap. 15, and beginning of cap. 16.), jAntiocei>av de< h+n thnikau~ta proeisthkwan ijqu>nwn jAsklhpia>dhv, kai< Sapdianomwn . Kai< oJ mexandrov e]th JRwmai>wn hJgemoneu>sav de>ka, o[n ei]rhtai tro>pon ajnhrh>to. On the other hand, Foxe says he entered on his episcopate A.D. 214, which must have terminated (on Foxe’s own showing) A.D. 221. “L’Art de Verifier des Dates” says that he died in the second year of Heliogabalus, June 7th, A.D. 219. But Alexander was made Caesar, A.D. 221, and emperor March 11th, A.D. 222, (L’Art de Ver. des D.); and as Foxe’s object is to throw back Asclepiades as far as possible from Decius’s reign, Alexander’s name is in the text substituted for Gordian’s.

    APP73 “Nicephorus maketh mention of another Babylas besides this, that suffered under Decius, who was bishop of Nicomedia .”]—This last assertion is not correct; for the words of Nicephorus are JHni>ka kai< Babu>lav todie>negken ejpi< th~v Nikomh>douv. Foxe was led into the error by the Centuriators, (Cent. 3. cap. 3.)

    APP74 The following list is taken by Foxe from the Centuriators (Cent. 3, cap. 12): ”Reliquorum martyrum sub Decio catalogus, ex Bedae libro minori de Temporibus, citante Henrico de Erfordia. Sub Decio passi sunt Hippolytus et concordia, Hiereneus et Abudus, Victoria virgo, primates Antiochiae: Bellias episcopus civitatis Apolloniae; Leaeus, Tyrsus, et Gallinetus, Nazanzo: Triphon in AEgypto civitate Tanais, Phileas episeopus, Philocomus cum multis allis in Perside, Philochronius Babyloniae, Thesiphon episcopus Pamphiliae, Nestor episcopus in Corduba, Parmenius presbyter, cum allis pluribus. In Circensi colonia Marianus et Jacobus. In Africa Nemesianus, Felix, Rogatianus presbyter, Felieissimus Romae Jovinus, Basileus, Ruffina et Secunda virgines, Tertullianus, Valerianus, Nemesius, Sempronianus et Olympius. In Hispania Terragone, Veronae Zeno episeopus, Caesarae Marinus et Archemius. In vico Mitiaensi privatus episeopus, Theodorus cognomento Gregorius Ponti episcopus. Haec Beda.” This list is extremely corrupt, owing to the peculiar mode, perhaps, in which they were written in the original MS, and the ignorance or carelessness of transcribers. Thus “Nazanzo,” should stand next before “Theodorus.” It may have got out of its place owing to the names being found in some MS. written in columns, with Leacus, Tyrsus, et Gallinetus, at the top of one, and Nazanzo, Theodorus cognomento Gregorius, Ponti, etc., at the top of the next column, and the copyist did not know to which column Nazanzum belonged. “Primates,” translated by Foxe “being noble personages,” is clearly a corruption of “Miniates.” The editor transcribes Foxe’s version of this list: when compared with the amended list, in the text, it will strikingly show the difficulty of editing John Foxe. “Under Decius suffered Hyppolitus and Concordia, Hiereneus and Abinudus, Victoria a virgine, being noble personages of Antioche. Bellias byshoppe of the city of Appolonia.

    Leacus, Tyrsus, and Gallinatus, Nazanzo, Tryphon in the citie of Egypt called Tanais. Phileas bishop, Philocomus with many other in Perside. Philcronius byshop of Babylon, Thesiphon byshop of Pamphilia. Nestor byshop in Corduba. Parmenius priest with divers moe. In the province called Colonia, Arcensis, Marianus and Jacobus.

    In Africa, Nemesianus, Felix, Rogatianus priest. Felicessimus. At Rome Jouinus, Basileus, also Ruffina, and Secunda virgines, Tertullianus, Valerianus, Nemesius, Sempronianus, and Olympius. In Spain Teragone, at Verona Zeeno byshop. At Caesarea, Marinus, and Archemius. In the towne of Miliane Privatus byshop, Theodorus surnamed Gregorius byshop of Pontus, Hoec Bedoe.” APP75 “Whose names,” etc.]—Foxe says, “whose names I find not, except they be Pergentius and Laurentinus mentioned in Equilthus.”

    The fact is that Vincentius mentions their names; but Foxe is only copying the Centuriators, (Cent. 3, cap. 3.) “Vincentius ex Hugone martyrum puerorum meminit, apud Aretium civitatem Tusciae, libro undecimo, capite quinquagesimo secundo.” Not having Vincentius at hand, but having perhaps Equilthus, he has accordingly stated the case as if Vincentius had not given the names.

    APP2-75A Ibid. —This story about Serapion is alluded to infra, vol. 7:p. 662.

    APP76 “Two priests with three deacons,” etc.-]—The letter alluded to by Foxe is given by Labbe (Cone. Genesis tom. 1 col. 721), with this title, “Epistola Lucii Papae I. ad Galliae atque. Hispaniae Episcopos,” and this remark in the margin, “Suspecta eodem jure cum allis Isidori mercibus.” The general heading of the letter begins, “Ut duo presbyteri et tres diaconi in omni loco episcopo adheereant propter testimonium ecclesiasticum,” etc. etc.

    Capitul. 1. Ut episcopus semper testes secum presbyteros ac diaconos habeat.

    The canon itself runs thus:—\parCAN. 1. Propter tales, fratres, hortamur vos, sicut et in hac sancta ecclesia constitutum habemus, ut semper testes vobiscum sacerdotes et diaconos habeatis. Et licet conscientia sufficere possit propvia, tamen propter malevolos juxta apostolum, “etiam testimonium vos oportet habere bonum ab his qui foris sunt.” Quoniam et in hac sancta sede constitutum habemus, ut duo presbyteri vel tres diaconi in omni loco episcopum non docerant, propter testimonium ecclesiasticum.” This is quoted in Decreti Pars III. De Consecratione, Dist. 1, “Jubemus,” only the reading is “duo presbyteri et tres diaconi.” Binius says in his note on this letter (Labbe, 1:col. 726,) “Decernitur ut ad evitanda detractionis et infamiae pericula propter testimonium ecclesiae nusquam eant nisi duorum presbyterorum et trium diaconorum comitatu stipati. Decreti hujus sanciendi calumniae in Cornelium a Novatiano confictae causam dedisse videntur. Baronius anno 257, num. 5.” Baronius (1oco citato) reads “et tres diaconos,” and suggests the origin of the law mentioned by Binius. There is an evident allusion to this law infra, vol. 2 bottom of p. 121.

    APP77 This note is incorrect, so far at least as regards the name Perennis, for he is mentioned by Eulogius, archbishop of Alexandria, as an agent of persecution in the times of Decius and Valerian. See Photii Biblioth, cod. 182, col. 413, edit. 1612; dr Dr. Routh’s Reliquioe Sacra, tom. p. 132.

    APP2-78 Ibid. line 22, “misadvised,” parapei>sqeiv .]—Foxe, “charmed or incensed.”

    APP79 Foxe reads “exclamations,” where he probably meant “accusations;” which has therefore been substituted.

    APP2-80 Ibid. line 30.—Foxe erroneously refers to the “first” book of Cyprian’s Epistles.

    APP81 “Curubis,” or Corobis, in the district of Zeugitanea, now called Gurba, on the north side of the bay of Haman-et. See Shaw’s Travels, p. 90; or Dalrymple’s Remains of Christian Antiquity. (Edinb. 1778,) vol. 2 p. 105.

    APP82 Foxe’s text reads (Edition 1583, p. 170, col. 1), “by which words it is apparant, that Cyprian meaneth, this deliueraunce (which commeth by almose gyuing) from death and sinne, not to be expounded nor to be taken for death euerlasting, etc.”

    APP83 “Ignatius. Epist. ad Philip. contrary to—St. Paul .”]-”In eadem epistola totus locus de jejunio ex constitutionibus Clementis assutus est, ut videre est lib. 5 cap. 13, et lib. 7 c. 24, in quibus eadem totidem verbis habetur.”—Rivet. Crit. Sac. lib. 2 cap. 2.

    APP84 “Albeit, here is to be noted,” etc.]—The original text stands thus (Edition 1583, p. 71, col. 1):—”Albeit here is to be noted by the way, touching the life and story of Cyprian that this Cyprian was not he, whome the narration of Nazianzen speaketh of (as is aboue mentioned) who from Arte Magicke was conuerted to bee a Christian, which Cyprian was a Citizen of Antioche, and afterward Bishop of the same Citie, and was martyred under Diocletian. Where as this Cyprian was Byshop of Carthage, and died under Valerianus, as is sayd,” etc. What Nazianzen, however, says about Cyprian, he clearly intended to be understood of this Cyprian, for he calls him Thascius. The amended text, therefore, speaks more correctly, and probably Foxe himself meant the same, though he has expressed himself ambiguously. See supra, p. 199.

    APP85 Foxe says, “so miserably vexed that they bit off their tongues and died.”

    APP86 Foxe omits “Claudia her mother.”

    APP87 The Martyrology of Usuard was dedicated, it seems more ,,probable, to Charles the Bald; “jussu Caroli Calvi Martyrologio operam dedit. ‘See Praef. to the Edition in 4to, Paris, 1718, p. v.

    APP88 Foxe reads this sentence thus (Edition 1583, p. 75, col. 2):— ”Eutropius and Vopiscus affirme, that as the said Aurelianus was purposing to rayse persecution against us, he was sodainly terrified with lightning, and so stopped from his wicked tyranny. Not long after about the fifte or sixt yeare of hys rayne, he was slaine betwene Bizance and Hieraclea, an. 278. Thus Aurelianus rather intended then moued persecution.”

    Foxe is here copying the Centuriators: “Meditatum igitur cam (persec.) solum, non executum Aurelianum apparet. Facit huc quod Eutropius, Vopis-cus, et Eusebius in Chronico prodiderunt, Aurelianum postquam persecutionem decerneret, fulmine subito territum paulo post interfectum esse.. Quo magis miramur, etc.” The subsequent reference to Orosius seems to be Foxe’s own, and shows that he had Orosius before him. He has not been accurate, however, as to the authors he names for the different points of his statement. Eutropius and Vopiscus do not say anything about the persecution, or death by lightning, but assert that Aurelian was murdered in his journey between Heraclea and Bezantium.” Eusebius, in his Chronicle, however, and Osorius, do so state the matter; their names, therefore, have been introduced into the text: the former, in his Chronicle, sub anno 278, says, “Aurelianus cum adversum nos persecutionem movisset, fulmen juxta eum comitesque ejus ruit, ac non multo post inter Constantinopolim et Heracleam in Cenophruno viae veteris occiditur.”

    Osorius, lib. 2:cap. 23, says, “Novissime, cum persecutionem adversus Christianos agi nonus a Nerone decerneret, fulmen ante eum magno pavore circumstantium ruit, ac non multo post in itinere occisus est.”

    Eusebius decidedly says the persecution was moved, and Osorius (as Foxe presently remarks) makes it the tenth persecution: Foxe’s “purposing” has, therefore, been changed into “beginning.”

    APP89 This and the next two pages are very inaccurate in the original text, and have been quite re-modelled from Eusebius: see the references in the notes, and Foxe, Edition 1583, pp. 77, 78.

    APP90 Foxe’s text reads thus (Edit. 1583, p.77), “Thus most violent edictes and proclamations were set foorth, for the overthrowing as is saide, of the Christians temples throughout all the Romane Empire.

    Neyther did there want in the officers any cruell execution of the same proclamations. For their temples were defaced euen when they celebrated the feast of Easter. Eusebius lib. 8. cap. 2. And this was the first edicte giuen out by Dioclesian, the next proclamation that came forth, was for the burning of the bookes of the holy scripture, which thyng was done in the open market place as before: then next unto that were edictes giuen forth for the displacing of such as were magis-trats, and that with a great ignominie, and al other whatsoever bare anye office, imprisoning such as were of the common sorte, if they would not abiure Christianitie, and subscribe to the heathen religion. Eusebius lib. 8. cap. 3. and Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 4. Zonoras also in his second tome. And these were the beginning of the Christians euils” APP91 Foxe says merely, “one Tirannion;” line 7, he says the “Bishop of Sydon;” line 8, for “under the torments” he says “with bricke-bates;” line 12, he says “mettall mynes of Phenitia;” and the ensuing sentence in the original is thus:—Pamphilius the elder of Cesarea being the glory of that congregation, died a most worthy Martyr, whose both life and most commendable martyrdome, Eusebius oftentimes declareth in his 8. booke and 13. chapter, in so much that he hath written the same in a booke by itselfe.” (Edition 1583, p. 78, col. 1.)

    APP92 “Hermannus Gigas,” etc.]—The original text here reads, “Hermanus also that monster, caused Serena the wife of Dioclesian the emperour, to be martyred for the Christian Religion.” (Edition 1583, p. 78, col. 2.) The following words from the Chronicle of Hermannus Gigas, will justify the correction made:— “Hic [Diocletianus] fuit homo pessimus et maledictus; uxorem sanctissi-mam habuit, Senecam nomine, quae pro fide Christi martyrium constanter passa est, in crastino assumptionis beatae et gloriosae Virginis Mariae.”—Hermanni Gygantis Flores Temporum, 4to. Lugduni Batavorum, 1750. f. 43.

    This writer or compiler is so little known, that some notice of him seems desirable. ‘Dubio procul is est Hermannus Gigas, qui fuit Minorita. Chronico veto, quod scripsit, titulum dedit De Floribus Temporum, seu Flores Temporum. Hujus Chronici neminere Jac.

    Wimphelingus sub. 29 Episcopo Argent.; Flacius catal. testium veritatis; Centuriatores Magd.; Hospinian, de festis et templis; Wolfius rerum memotab, tom. 2 etc. etc. Wolfius aetetem ejus indicat, quando statuit medium inter autores, qui floruere inter an. 1420 et 1440.”

    Sandii notae ad Vossium de Hist. Lat. p. 444 in Supplementa ad Voss, cum praef. Fabricii; Hamb. 1709. His chronicle has since been printed under the title: ”Herm. Gygantis Flores Temporum, seu Chronicon Universale ab O. C. ad an. 1349, editurn a Joh. Gerh. Meuschen, 4to.

    Lug. Bat. 1743.”

    APP93 The original text reads as follows (Edition 1583, pp.78, 79)— ”There was in Phrigia a citie, unto which the Emperour sent his Edictes that they should doe sacrifice to the gods, and worship Idoles, all which Citizens the Major himselfe, the Questor, and chiefe Caprathe confessed that they were all Christians. The Citie upon this was besieged and set on fire, and all the people, Eusebius lib. 8 cap. 11. In Melitina a region of Armenia, the bishops and Elders were cast in prison. Eusebius codera cap. 6. In Arabrace a region neare adioyning to Armenia, Eustratius was martyred, as Nicephorus declareth, Lib. 7, cap. 14. This Eustratius was that countrey man borne, and very skilfull in the Greeke tong. executyng by the Emperour’s commaundement, the shiriffes office at Licia in the East, which also did execution there upon the Christians, and was a Scribe of great estimation called Ordinis Ducalis.”

    APP94 The original sentence in Foxe (Edition 1583, p. 79) reads thus: “Also in Samtatum, of whiche place Chronicon maketh mention, and Scilia, where were 79. martyrs slayne, for the profession of Christ, as writeth Henricus de Erfordia.” Foxe clearly had before him the following sentence of the Centuriators:—”Nec desunt qui in Insulis progressam earn per-secutionem prodiderunt: ut in Lesbum, quod Sabellicus indicavit Ennead. 7. lit. 8. Item in Samum, cujus loci Chronicon meminit; ac Siciliam, ubi Sep-tuaginta novem Martyres ob confessionem Christi trucidatos simul, scribit Henricus de Erfordia.”

    APP95 The following is the original text of this sentence (Edition 1583, p. 79, col. 2): “Also Henricus de Erfordia, and Reginus make mention of great persecution to bee at Colonia where Agrippina and Augusta were martyred, as also in the prouince of Rhetia.”

    APP96 “Where Afra was martyred .”]—The place where this martyrdom occurred is supposed to have been mistaken, inasmuch as in several Martyrologies, and in Notker’s, it is enrolled in Augusta Euphratensi, nativitas Sti. Afri: “So Augusta in Syria having been taken for Augusta in Germany, St. Afer was translated to Augsburg, and was there turned into a woman; and notwithstanding that city’s great distance from Jerusalem, was still said to have been converted to the faith by Narcissus, Bp. of Jerusalem, as St. Afer, of Syria, was.” Dr. Geddes’s Miscellaneous tracts, vol. it. p. 198: but see Tillemont’s remarks on the subject in his Note sur St. Afre. Tom. 5 pt. 2. p. 415.

    APP97 “Honorius .”]—A presbyter of Autun, who flourished about 1140, and acquired some celebrity by a Chronicle, an epitome of which was printed at Basle, 1544. See Supplem. ad Vossium, pp. 364, 731.

    APP98 The quotation from Baronius upon this passage will be illustrated and rectified by the following from the Acta Sanctorum (Octobris, tom. 5 p. 39): “Ex its quae disputata sunt consectarium fit, ut oppidum, de quo hic sermo instituitur, primo Vetera, dein Bertinum, ac denique a S.

    Victore ejusque sociis ibidem passis ac cultis Sancti seu Sanctum, fuerit vocatum; postea interim id, cum posterioris hujus appellationis ratio haud satis haberetur comperta, nonnullis etiam ac nominatim hic Helinando [a Cistercian monk, the writer of the passage quoted from Baronius], qui Trojanam Francorum originem credebant, idemque oppidum a Trojanis conditum, praepostero nimiae antiquitatis amore abrepti volebant, Xanthum ac Trojam minorem appellantibus.”

    APP99 For “Galerius” Foxe erroneously reads “Maximian.”

    APP100 “Maximin his son. ”]—”His nephew” would be more exact.

    APP101 Foxe’s text erroneously reads “Athenians,” instead of “Antiochians.”

    APP102 “They also did counterfeit,” etc., and line 6 from bottom,”And the children,” etc.]—The following is the Greek of these two passages, Eusebius, lib. 9 cap. 5 and 7:— Cap. 5. Plasa>menoi dh~ta Pila>tou kai< tou~ Swth~rov hJmw~n uJpomnh>mata, pa>shv e]mplea kata< tou~ Cristou~ blasfhmi>av, gnw>mh| tou~ Mei>zonov ejpi< pa~san diape>mpontai thtwn parakeleuo>menoi, kata< pa>nta to>pon ajgrouleiv, ejn ejkfanei~ tau~ta toi~v pa~sin ejkqei~nai, toi~v te paisi< toulouv ajnti< maqhma>twn tau~ta meleta~n, kai< dia< mnh>mhv kate>cein paradido>nai.

    Cap. 7. Oi[ te pai~dev ajna< ta< didaskalei~a jIhsou~n kai< Pila>ton kai< ta< ejf j uJbrei plasqe>nta uJpomnh>mata, dia< sto>matov kata< pa~san e]feron hJme>ran.

    The following allusion to these counterfeit “Acts” is in Eusebius lib. 1.

    Cap. 9. Oujkou~n safw~v ajpelh>legktai to< plasma< tw~n kata< tou~ Swth~rov hJmw~n uJpomnh>mata cqehn diadedw>kotwn.

    Foxe’s text (Edition 1583, p. 83) thus interprets these two passages: “They also did counterfet certaine practises of Pilate against our savior Christ, full of blasphemie.”—”And the children in the scholes with great noise and handes did euery day resound, the contumelious blasphemies of Pilate unto Jesus, and what other things so euer were deuised of,the magistrates, after most despitefull maner. Eusebius lib. 8, cap. 3, 4, 5, 6,7.”

    APP103 The following is the original list of martyrs as given by Foxe (Edition 1583, p. 83, col. 2.) “To conclud many in sundry places euery where were martyred, whose name the booke intituled Fasciculus temporum declareth, as Victorianus, Symphoviianus, Castorius, with his wife, Castulus, Cesarius, Mennas, Nobilis, Dorotheus, Gorgonius, Petrus, and other innumerable martirs, Erasmus, Bonifacius, Juliana, Cosmas, Damianus, Basilinus with seuen others, Dorothea, Theophihs, Theodosia, Vitalis, Agricola, Acha, Philemon, Hireneus, Ianuarius, Festus, Desiderius, Gregorius, Spoletanus, Agapes, Chionia, Hirenea, Theodora, and other martyrs, Florianus, Primus and Felicianus, Virus and Modestus, Crescentia, Albinus, Rogatianus, Donatianus, Pancratius, Catharina, Margareta, Lucia, the virgin, and Antheus the king with many thousand martirs mo. Simplicius, Faustinus, Beatrix, Panthaleon, Georgius, Iustus, Leocandia, Anthonia, and other mo to an infinite number, suffered martirdome in this persecution, whose names God hath written in the booke of life. Also Felix Victor, with his parents Lucia the widow, Gemenianus, with 79 others, Sabinus, Anastasia, Chrisogonus, Felix, and Audactus, Adrianus, Nathalia, Eugenia, Agnes, also when she was but 13. yeare old was martyred.”

    This list affords a curious instance how martyrs names may be corrupted, and martyrs made by thousands, who never existed. Foxe followed the foregoing Latin list of the Centuriators, adhering undeviatingly to it, except that, instead of literally translating “27,000 martyrum,” he substituted “many thousand martyrs mo.” The Centuriators give as their authority the “Fasciculus Temporum.” It is not improbable that, when compiling their own work, they had before them a manuscript copy of the “Fasciculus,” which it was difficult to decipher. In that work, as it appears in the printed copies, the names above quoted occur in columns, and among them the following stand thus:—\parPANTALEON KATHARINA MARGARITA LUCIA VIRGO AGNES ( RUS CHRISTOPHO—\parSIMPLICIUS In an ill-written MS. “Agnes (rus” might have chanced to look like “Antheus rex,” and have been followed by abbreviations which might have been mistaken for “27,000 martyrum.”

    APP104 “Also of another Theodore,” etc.]—This, in the original text, stands thus: “Also of another Theodorus, being the byshop of Tyre.”

    The words of Nicephorus are, a]llov ou=tov para< torwna Bri>gga| tw~| hJgemo>ni Maximianou thrpwsin ajndrei>wv dienegko>nta ejn jAmasi>wn th~| po>lei.

    APP105 “Prolonged life.”]—Foxe has “eternal life.”

    APP106 For “lib. viii.” read “lib. vii.”

    APP107 “Anysia .”]—This should be probably Anastasia, as in the Martyrologies of Usuard and Bede, Decemb. 25.

    APP108 “Urged.”]— Biazome>noi Theod. “brought,” Foxe.

    APP109 “Army-camels .”]— Th~v stratia~v talouv, Theod. “elephants,” Foxe.

    APP110 “A thousand servants.”]— Kai< Souhnhwn oi]ketwn despo>thn, Theod. “a hundred,” Foxe.

    APP111 The expression “after the dispersion of the early church by the Jews,” is an amplification of Foxe’s “after dispersion of the Jews;’ (Edition 1583, p. 106): a similar amplification is made at p. 152, line 8, where Foxe, however, reads “after the dispersion of the Jews.” See also p. 99, line 16 from the bottom of the text, for a similar instance.

    APP112 This pretended work of Gildas is alluded to before, at page 152. It is referred to by Geoffrey of Monmouth, at the end of the fourth book of his British History, as containing a full account of the settlement of the British Church by Lucius. Fordun, in his Scotichronicon, mentions Gildas as having recorded the exploits of Ambrosius in a very superior style. Foxe’s immediate authority, no doubt, was the Magdeburg Centuriators—”Ut Gildas Albanius in libro de victoria Aurelii Ambrosii refert.” (Cent. 2, cap. 2.) Usher says, “Patricii discipulus Gildas Albanius de Victoria, Aurelii Ambrosii librum scripsisse dicitur: quem de rebus a Josepho et sociis apud Glastonienses gestis authorem citat Foxus noster. Sed neque ille ejusmodi librum unquam vidit, neque Nicolao Sandero ulla fides adhibenda, Gildae hic authoritatem tam confidenter venditante.” (Britan. Ecclesiastes Antiqu. cap. 11.)

    Stillingfleet says, that Leland searched in vain for the book. The best authority for it, he adds, is Geoffrey of Monmouth; but still he declares his doubt of such a work having ever existed; and both he and Usher view the story about Joseph of Arimathea as a pure fiction of the monks of Glastonbury. (See W. Malmsb. de Antiqu. Glaston.

    Eccles.) Tanner, after Bale and Pits, sets down the work to Gildas Albanius, but states that he died 4 Cal. Feb. A.D. 512, and that Gildas Badonicus was so named from being born in the year of Ambrosius’s victory, A.D. 520; if so, how could Gildas Albanius celebrate that victory?

    APP113 “Nauclerus saith it was anno 156.”]—Foxe makes this statement, supra, p. 151, and from note (6) on that page it might be inferred that he misquoted Nauclerus: this is not the case. Nauclerus (according to Edit. Colonial, 1564,) is inconsistent with himself: for in the left column of p. 564, he says, “Anno autem Domini 177 imperii M.

    Antonini XVI. Soter papa moritur et sepelitur Successit Eleutherius natione Graecus Hie inito pontificatu mox Epistolam acespit a Lucio rege Britanniae, qua rogabatur ut se ac suos in Christianorum numerum, reciperet:” in ,,the right column of p. 565 (opposite to p. 564, as the book lies open) he says, Inde [regnavit] Coillus. Huic successit filius Lucius qui primus Christi fidem accepit, petitis per literas a pontifice Eleutherio pietatis doctoribus, circiter annum Domini 156, Impp. Rum.

    M. Antonino et Lucio Vero;” whereas, previously, at p. 562, he had made these emperors accede to the throne A.D. 162. So that 156 must be considered as a slip of Nauclerus’s pen, or a corruption of his text: but Foxe does not misquote him.

    APP114 The following remarks, bearing on the genuineness of the Epistle of Eleutherius, may be found useful:—”There are all the marks of fable upon this story that can be imagined. First of all, it is very uncertain when the thing happened. For archbishop Usher reckons up no less than twenty-three opinions of several authors about the time of this royal conversion. Now this renders a thing very suspicious, when people cannot agree about it when it was done. Even Bede himself differs from himself; for in his Chronicle he sets the story down after the death of Lucius Aurelius Commodus, the brother of M. Aurelius Antoninus; and, in his history, he says the thing happened during Commods’s life, in the year 167, as appears from the ‘Recapitulatio Chronica,’ at the end of his Ecclesiastical History. Now Bede is the very first author that ever put it into any history or chronicle, and he is so much at a loss where to place it, that he unhappily contradicts himself. Besides that, it could not happen an. 167, because Eleutherus was not bishop of Rome till about ten years after. And pray whence had Bede this curious piece of history? Why, from the silly, illcontrived book called the ‘Liber Pontificalis,’ which was patched up about the latter end of the sixth century, by Nobody-knows-who, and which has the following words: ‘He (Eleutherus) received an epistle from Lucius, the British king, that by his command he might be made a Christian.’ [See life of Eleutherus, in all the edit. of Councils.] These are very nearly the words of Bede, both in his History and his Chronicle. Now, every body agrees that this hook, which contains the actions of the popes, is full of notorious blunders and feigned narrations, which the learned on both sides esteem of no authority at all. Mr. Tillemont himself [Note 2 upon Eleutherus, vol. 3 p. 615]] agrees, that this story being not founded upon ancient and original pieces, cannot pass for altogether certain. And as for those two learned men, Eluanus and Medwinus, whom king Lucius sent to Eleutherus, and those other two learned and holy bishops, SS. Fugatius and Damianus, who did many great and wonderful feats here, by authority from the apostolic see, there never were any such persons but in the fertile brains of some late Monkish writers; and the said Mr. Tillemont reckons them all as appendages of the story, that are by no means to be maintained.”—The Britons and Saxons not converted to Popery, or the Faith of our Ancestors shown to have been corrupted by the Romish Church (Lond. 1748); pp. 276, 277.

    The text in Bede is as follows:—”CLVI: Anno ab Incarnatione Domini centesimo quinquagesimo sexto Marcus Antoninus Verus, decimus quartus ab Augusto, regnum cum Aurelio Commodo fratre suscepit: quorum temporibus cum Eleutherus vir sanctus Pontificatui Romanae Ecclesiae praeesset, misit ad eum Lucius Britanniarum Rex epistolam, obsecrans, ut per ejus mandatum Christianus efficeretur: et mox effectum piae postulationis consecutus est, susceptamque fidem Brittani usque in tempora Diocletiani Principia inviolatam integratoque quiets in pace servabant.”—Historiae Ecclesiastes lib. 1 cap. 4; Ed.

    Cantab. 1722, p. 44.

    APP115 For the satisfaction of the reader, the Latin Copy of the Letter is here subjoined, from the laws of Edward the Confessor in Wilkins’s “Leges Anglo-Saxonicae” p. 201. It is also in Lambard’s collection of Ancient Laws. Sammes, in his “Britannia Antiqua Illustrata, Lond. 1676, p. 262,” gives it from a bundle of Antient Records in the City of London, and remarks, that it was used by Bishop Jewel against Harding. The following is the copy from Wilkins:—”Anno 169 (Alias (dicit Lambardus) 156.) a passione Christi Dominus Eleutherius Papa Lucio Regi Brytanniae scripsit, ad petitionem Regis et procerum Regni Brytanniae. Petistis a nobis Leges Romanas et Cabsaris vobis transmitti, quibus in regno Brytanniae uti voluistis. Leges Romanas et Caesaris semper reprobate possumus, legem Dei nequaquam.

    Suscepistis enim nuper miseratione divina in regno Brytanniae legem et fidem Christi, habetis penes vos in regno utramque paginam, ex illis Dei gratia per consilium regni vestri sume legem: et per illam Dei patientia vestrum Reges Brytanniae Regnum. Vicarius vero Dei eatis in regno juxta Prophetam Regem, (Psalm 24:1.) Domini est terra et plenitudo ejus orbis terrarum, et universi qui inhabitant in eo: et rursum juxta prophetam regem, (Psalm 45:7.) Dilexisti justitiam et odisti iniquitatem, propterea unxit to Deus tuus oleo laetitiae prae consortibus tuis: et rursum juxta prophetam regem, (Psalm 72:1.) Deus judicium tuum, etc. Non enim judicium neque justitiam Caesaris, filii enim Regis gentes Christianae et populi regni sunt, qui sub vestra protectione et pace et regno degant et consistant juxta Evangelium, Quemadmodum gallina congregat pullos sub alis, etc. Gentes vero Brytanniae et populi vestri sunt, et quos divisos debetis in unum ad concordiam et pacem et ad fidem et ad legem Christi, et Sanctam Ecclesiam, congregare, revocare, fovere, manutenere, protegere, regere, et ab injuriosis et malitiosis et ab inimicis semper defendere. Vae regno eujus Rex puer est, et cujus principes mane comedunt. (Ecclesiastes 10:16.) Non voco Regem propter parvam et nimiam aetatem, sed propter stultitiam et iniquitatem et insanitatem, juxta prophetam Regem. (Psalm 55:25.) Viri sanguinum et dolosi non dimidicabunt dies suos, etc.: per comestionem intelligimus gulam, per gulam luxuriam, per luxuriam omnia turpia et mala juxta Salamonem regem. (Wisd. 1:4.) In malevolam animam non introibit sapientia, nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis. Rex dicitur a regendo non a regno: Rex eris dum bene regis, quod nisi feceris, nomen Regis non in to constabit, et nomen Regis perdes, quod absit. Det vobis Omnipotens Deus regnum Brytanniae sic regere, ut possitis cum eo regnare in aeternum cujus vicarius estis in regno praedicto, qui cum Patre, et Filio,” etc.

    Sammes gives a translation of this Epistle, and then remarks:— “There are several reasons that induce us to believe that this is not the true and genuine Epistle of Eleutherius. And the first is the date it bears, which in the text is dated 169, in the margin 156, yet neither agree with the time of Eleutherius his Popedom, if we will follow the most approved authors; for although Bede says he was made Bishop of Rome A.D. 167, yet Eusebius in his Chronicle places the beginning of his Popedom in the sixteenth year of the Emperor Antoninus, i.e. A.D. 179; but in his history, and indeed truer, to the following year of Antoninus, which is of our Lord 180. Baronius is of the same opinion also, and confirms it by the letters of the martyrs at Lyons, which were presented to Eleutherius himself. “2. Besides, if this epistle he true, it makes K. Lucius to take a very preposterous course in sending so far as Rome to Eleutherius for the Roman Laws, when he might sooner, and with less trouble, have procured them at home from the Roman governor; for from the time of the Emperor Claudius (who subdued most part of Britain) the Roman laws were in force here, nay, very well known to the further parts of Yorkshire. And Tacitus says he had erected here Roman courts and tribunals, which was about 100 years before Lucius came to the Government. “3. This epistle makes no mention of any power or authority the Romans had in these parts; but makes Lucius an absolute monarch, as in nothing subject to the Roman governor,—‘For you be God’s Vicar (or Vicegerent) in your own kingdom—not Claudius Caesar’s, or any other emperor’s,—contrary to the customes of those times,’ etc. etc. “4. The word ‘manutenere’ (in the original), which we translate ‘maintain,’ was not in use in Eleutherius his time, but savors rather of the Norman-Latin, from which it crept into our country laws, etc. “5. Those places which are quoted out of the Holy Scripture are taken out of the translation of St. Hierom, who lived two hundred years after Eleutherius. “6. This epistle never came out into the world till almost a thousand years after the death of Eleutherius, but out of what monk’s cell it came is uncertain; but that which ought to be most observed is, that it is nowhere to be found in Gaufridus Monumetensis, contemporary with Hoveden, who was always diligent in the collection of the British Antiquities.”

    Collier copies the substance of these objections, and gives another translation of the letter.

    APP115A “Who with Ursula .”]—A similar account is given by Baronius in his notes to the Martyrol. Romans (Oct. 21) from a MS. in the Vatican library, by Geoffry, Bishop of St. Asaph. It may, now not unseasonably, be added, that part of the skull of St. Maurice, and the heads of two of St. Ursula’s companions, were considered as acquisitions in the 17th century by the college at Augsburg; and that the ladies of the family of the Fuggers spent upwards of 600 golden crowns in decking out the aforesaid relics for their temple. See Hist. provincioe soc. Jesu Germanioe Super. ab Ign. Agricola; pars 3, (Aug.

    Vind. 1734,) p. 109.

    If any one is desirous of looking further into the subject, Archbishop Usher’s Brit Eccles. Antiq. pp. 324-30, edit. 1687, may be consulted. “Ejus (Ursulae) historia multa fabulosa continet, nec legitima sunt Acta, quae a Surio ad 21 Oct. ex Auct. Anonymo referuntur; sicut nec quae citantur a Baronio in notis ad Martyrol. Rom., quaeque in Breviariis plerisque leguntur. Hermannus quidem Crombak soc. Jesu theologus tomum integrum de Ursula vindicata composuit Colon. 1647.) Sed uam causam tuendam suscepit magis incredibilem reddit.

    Martyrium itaque S. Ursulae et sociarum certum; sed harum humerus incertus, pluraque ad eam Historiam pertinentia prorsus fabulosa.”

    Pagii critice in Baronii Annal. ad an. 383, sect. 3. See also Basnage upon the same year, sect. 13, who doubts the truth of the whole. The story, however, is still countenanced in Rome. In the “Lives of the saints canonized on Trinity Sunday, 1839,” we read of St. Veronion Giuliani, that “she received in baptism the name of Ursula, for God destined her, like our own holy martyr, to be a virgin, and the leader of many other virgins to the kingdom of heaven.” p. 224.

    APP116 Foxe says, erroneously, “Eleven hundred.”

    APP117 “Canterbury” is substituted for Foxe’s “Dorobernia;” the same has been done twice in p. 342.

    APP118 Guido de Columna, a native of Messina, in Sicily, is most celebrated for a grand prose Romance in Latin, containing fifteen books “on the Trojan War:” it was written at the request of Mattheo de Ports, archbishop of Salerno. Bale says, that Edward the First, having met with Guido in Sicily on his return from Asia, A.D. 1270, invited him into England. Among his works is recited “Historia de Regibus Rebusque Angliae;” it is quoted by many writers under the title of “Chronicon Britannorum.” A full account of him will be found in Mongitori’s Bibliotheca Sicula, 1:265, and Isaiah Vossius de Script.

    Lat., and the Notes of Sandins thereon. See also the New Edit. of Warton’s History of English Poetry, Loud. 1824, vol. 1:pp. 12.9, 130.

    APP119 “The various Sigeberts create confusion .”]—Sigebert or Sigbercht, king of the E. Angles, was converted and baptized in France, when an exile; and, on his return, founded the East Anglian Church, of which Felix was the first bishop. (See Bede, 3 18.) Sigebert, or Sigbercht (the Good), being converted by means of his friend Oswy, king of Northumberland, was baptized by bishop Finian. Cedd was first bishop. This was the revival of Christianity after it had been oppressed by the expellers of Mellitus. (Ib. 22.) Wulfere, hearing that Sighere, brother of Sebbi, king of Essex, had revolted from the faith about A.D. 664 in consequence of a pestilence, sent Jaruman bishop of Mercia, to reclaim the province, who was successful. (Ib. 3 0.) The following passages, also, in Polychronicon were probably before Foxe—” A.D. 650. Circa hoe tempus, Est-Saxones fidem quam olim abjecerunt mediante Oswy Rege Northumbrorum receperunt; Nam Rex eorum Sigebertus baptizatus est a Finano Episcopo Northumbrorum juxta murum ilium prolixum, qui quondam Britannos distinxit a Scotis.” “ A.D. 657. Beda. Wulferus qui primus omnium Regum Merciorum Christianus factus Ermenildam filiam Erconberti Regis Cantiae in conjugem accepit ..... Regem Westsaxonum Kenwalcum spud Ashednum gloriose devicit: Vectam Insulam subjugavit quam postmodum Regi Estanglorum ut Christianus fieret dedit, cujus et ipse in Baptismo Patrinus extitit.”

    APP120 A Roman priest, named Stephen, was chosen to the papal chair immedately after Zachary, but died of paralysis the third day after, without being consecrated; hence he is sometimes omitted (as here) from the list of popes.

    APP121 “Then cometh Adrian the .first holding, moreover, a synod at Rome against Felix .”]—Felix, Bishop of Urgella, is intended; but his heresy had no connection, apparently, with images. (See Mosheim, cent. 8, pt. 2, ch. 5, sect. 3.) “Damnata jam pridem fuerat haeresis Feliciana, quae Christum non verum ac proprium Dei filium, quod fides docet Catholica, sed adoptivum esse contendebat, in Synodo Ratisbonensi an. 792, ubi et auctor ipsc agnitum, ut prae se ferebat, errorem detestans ejurarat; neque ibi solum, sed Romae item apud Hadrianum Papam, ad quem directus a Carolo rege fuerat.’ Labbei Concill. General. (Lutet. Paris. 1671), tom. 7 col 1149; Forbesii Instruct. Historico-theol. lib. 6 cap. 1.

    APP2-122 Thus Charlemagne being proclaimed Emperor ... the empire was translated .”]—The fact, thus briefly alluded to, deserves to be brought more distinctly under the notice of the reader, as the bishops of Rome have frequently referred to the circumstance, as being aspiritual proceeding. “Palmate est Innocentii III. P.M. testimonium in c. ‘Venerabilem’ de electione [Decret. Greg. IX. lib. 1:tit. 6, sect. 34]. APOSTOLICA SEDES, inquit, imperium in persona magnifici Caroli a Groecis transtulit ad Germanos. Idem asserit Clemens V. in Clementina [lib. 2, tit. ix.] ‘Romani principes,’ de Jurejurando: ECCLESIA Romana, inquit, a Groecis imperium transtulit ad Germanos, sc., ad Carolum M., cui Germania parebat universa. “Causam cur Leo III. imperatoris titulum ac dignitatem cum Carolo M. communicarit, paucis verbis exponit Sigonius, lib. 4,. ad an. 801. Hunc, inquit.. dignitatis imperatorioe titulum, quum in Momyllo Augustulo, ultimo Occidentis imperatore, ante trecentos ferme annos, sub regnum Gothorum in Italia defecisset, in eodem Occidente Pontifex renovavit, ut haberet Ecclesia Romana adversus infideles, hoereticos, ac seditiosos tutorem, eujus officium repudiasse jampridem imperator Orientis videretur.” Alex. Natalis Hist. Ecclesiastes tom. 12 p. 196, edit. 1788.

    Cardinal Allen, in his notorious, and now most rare, tractate, An Admonition to the Nobility and People of England and Ireland, printed in 1588, declares plainly, among other instances quoted by him to animate the Papists against queen Elizabeth, that “for heresy and schisme were the Greek emperours discharged, and the Empire thereby translated to the Germans, by Pope Leo the Third.” p. 45. See Mosheim for some good remarks and references upon the subject.


    God Rules.NET
    Search 80+ volumes of books at one time. Nave's Topical Bible Search Engine. Easton's Bible Dictionary Search Engine. Systematic Theology Search Engine.