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


    APP6-1 “A certain precept or decree of King Edward,” etc.] — This will be found in the Westminster Register (bound up with the Bonner Register), folio 272 verso. Foxe’s copy has been collated, and conformed to the original. It is followed in the Register by a letter from Bonner to Richard Eden, archdeacon of Middlesex, for the execution thereof, dated Westin. Dec. 28th, 1549.

    APP6-2 — “Graile , or grayle , corrupted from gradual . It ought to contain ‘the office for sprinkling holy water, the Prefaces to the Masses, the offices, the Kyrie, the Gloria in Excelsis, the gradales , or what is gradually sung after the Epistles, etc.’ (Gutch, Coll. Cur. 2, 166.) — Pie , or pye , the familiar English name for the popish ordinal; that is, the book in which was ordained the manner of saying and solemnizing the offices of the Church. (See Gutch, Collect. Cur. 2, 169.) The difficulty and intricacy of it is alluded to in the preface to our Liturgy. The word is supposed to be an abbreviation of pinax , the Greek word for an index; or because it was pied, or of various colors, red, white, and black. The former seems more probable. — Portass , or portues , the port-hors or breviary.” (Nares’s Glossary.)

    APP6-3 “By a common consent,” ] The word “common” is put in from the Register.

    APP6-4 — The Register reads “the said book; ” Foxe, “the same book.”

    Foxe also changes “Cant.” into “Cranmer.”

    APP6-5 — Nicholas Ridley, bishop of Rochester, was translated to London by royal letters, dated April 1st, 1550. (Richardson’s Godwin.) He immediately proceeded to visit his new diocese, but the Register only expresses the date of the visitation generally, as held Ed. VI., 1550; it was held, most probably, early in June, for K.

    Edward’s Journal, at June 28th, states that on that day “Sir John Yates, the high sheriff of Essex [‘Sir John Gate, knight, of Garnetts in High Easter, elected sheriff Nov. 2, 1549; Morant’s Essex, vol. 1.

    Introd. p. 8], was sent down with letters to see the bishop of London’s injunctions performed, which touched the plucking down of superaltaries, altars, and such like ceremonies and abuses.” (See Burnet, 2 p. 325, pt. 2 p. 24; Strype, Mem. 2 pt. 1 p. 355; Collier, 2 p.304.)

    In the Ridley Register we find three documents connected with this visitation. 1. “Articles to be inquired upon,” folio 304. 2. “Injunctions,” folio 305. 3. “Reasons why the Lord’s board,” etc., folio 288, with a preamble and conclusion, precisely as exhibited in the edition of Foxe, 1563, p. 727, and in the present text. 1. As for the “Articles,” bishop Sparrow professes to give them in his “Collections,” whence they have been printed by Wilkins, Dr.

    Cardwell (Doc. Ann.), and the Parker Society (Ridley’s Remains, supplement). In the Register, however, there appear twenty-eight Articles , which have been omitted by bishop Sparrow after the 12th (ending “give them their goods”). These Articles, altogether sixty in number, were printed at the time by Wolf, for they thus conclude in the Register: — “Finis.

    God save the King.

    Imprinted at London by Reynold Wolf cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum.”

    This book, however, is not mentioned by our bibliographers among those printed by Wolf. The twenty-eight additional Articles will be given at the end of this Appendix.

    Several variations occur between the printed “Articles” and those in the Register: thus, in the Register, the text from Timothy reads, “I testify therefore before,” “Jesu,” “the dead,” “preach thou,” “farvent in season or out of season,” “improve;” and the verses are not mentioned. Then comes a heading — “Articles concerning men’s conversation.”

    Art. II “doth haunt:” Art. 4. “hath committed,” “or be vehemently:” Art. V. “doth maintain:” Art. VI. “the fourtie part.” Then comes a fresh heading “Of Preaching.”

    Art. VII. “or some place:” Art. 8. “them self that are licensed:” Art. 12. “insurrections:” after which come the omitted Articles: then of the printed copy Art. 13. “can not the Pater noster:” Art. 14. “useth to have:” Art. 15. “doctrine,” “themselfe:” Art. 18. “any other tongue:” Art. XX. “prohibite,” “their church:” Art. XXI. “that curates license:” Art. XXVI. “in some partes:” Art. XXX. “covering of shrines.” 2. The “Injunctions” will be found at folio 305 verso of the Register, fourteen in number; and they are printed in various collections. The 5th, to which allusion is made in the “Reasons,” runs thus: — “Whereas in divers places some use the Lord’s board after the form of a table and some of an altar, whereby dissension is perceived to arise among the unlearned; therefore wishing a godly unity to be observed in all our diocese, and for that the form of a table may more move and turn the simple from the old superstitious opinions of the popish mass and to the right use of the Lord’s supper, we exhort the curates, churchwardens, and questmen here present, to erect and set up the Lord’s board after the form of an honest table, decently covered, in such place of the quire or chancel as shall be thought most meet by their discretion and agreement, so that the ministers, with the communicants, may have their place separated from the rest of the people; and to take down and abolish all other by “altars or tables.”

    It appears from the copy of the “Injunctions” in the Ridley Register that they also, as well as the “Articles,” were printed at the time by Wolf, for they thus close in the Register (folio 306): — “Proverb. xv.

    The ear that hearkeneth to the reformation of life shall dwell among the wise. He that refuseth to be reformed, despiseth his own soul; but he that submitteth himself to correction is wise. 3 Regum 18. Elias.

    How long halt ye between two opinions: If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal be he, then go after him. Imprinted at London by Reynold Wolfe Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum.”

    But neither is this mentioned by any of our writers on Typographical Antiquities among the works printed by Wolf. The “Injunctions” in the Ridley Register vary slightly from the printed copies: thus, in Inj. 2. “holding up his forefingers and thumbs;” and “in time of [omitting ‘the’] holy communion:” in Inj. 8. “That common prayer:” in Inj. 9. “at the least.” 3. Respecting the “Reasons,” see the next note to this.

    APP6-6 — The whole of this and the next page, and to the end of the top paragraph in p. 7, is in the Ridley Register (bound up with Bonner’s), folio 287 verso. It is not improbable that (like the Articles and Injunctions) the whole passage was printed at the time wider the direction of the Council, and sent to the bishops, clergy, and churchwardens; for, in 1641, the same matter was printed in the same form in which it here appears, as though it were a reprint of an older publication. Foxe’s text has been collated with the Register, and strictly conformed to it.

    The Order in Council from the king to Ridley is in the Register dated “the xxiii day of November;” Foxe says “the xxiiii;” but he has made similar mistakes at pp. 426, 427; see the notes infra. He changes “whereas” in line 3 into “wher,” and “Cant.” among the signatures into “Cranmer.”

    The “Reasons” are thus introduced in the Register immediately after the Order in Council: — “Roman. I.

    I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth.

    Londini A°. dni. M.D. L.

    Certain reasons why the reverend father, Nicholas, bishop of London, amongst other his injunctions given in his late visitation,” etc.

    There is no doubt that these “Reasons” were drawn up by Ridley, and it is as clear that they are identical with the “Considerations” referred to in the Order of Council. That they are Ridley’s appears from the preamble to them, which expressly says so; and the marginal title in the Register (omitted by Foxe, but given in this Edition) equally identifies them with the “Considerations” mentioned in the king’s letter. Moreover, it appears from the Council Book, quoted in Strype’s Life of Cranmer (book 2 ch. 20) and Collier’s History, that Day, bishop of Chichester, was before the Council November 30th, for not complying with the king’s letter of November 23d, and next day stated to them that he saw no force in the Six Reasons which were set forth by the bishop of London, to persuade the taking down of altars and erection of tables. It is pretty plain, then, that he, and every other bishop, had received the Order in Council and the “Reasons” together.

    It is a singular circumstance, that Thomas Thirlby, who vacated the see of Westminster the same day that Ridley came to that of London (April 1st, 1550), has entered, for the last entry in his Register (folio 275), the opening of the Reasons as far as the end of the preamble, in which he omits the word “late” before “visitation:” he then suddenly breaks off, by saying, “Omisi ulterias scribere rationes predictas, eo quod inscribuntur verbatim in Registro tempore dicti Nicolai Epi.

    London habito et facto:” from which it would appear that the “Reasons” were prepared by Ridley, and in existence, before his visitation, and were probably used by him in his own diocese before they were adopted by the Council in November following. He seems, however, to have taken fresh courage from the patronage of the Council, and promptly complied with their order, as appears by the following entry in his Register, folio 288 verso, immediately after the “Reasons,” etc. “Nicholas, by the permission of God bishop of London, sufficiently auctorized by our sovereign lord and most excellent prince Edward the 6th, by the grace of God king of England France and Ireland, defender of the faith, and of the church of England and also of Ireland in earth the supreme head, To my wellbeloved brother, the archdeacon of London, and to his official, and to either of them, doo send greeting.

    And where of late I have received our said sovereign lord the king’s majesty’s most honorable letters of commandment, and certain considerations with the same of such tenor as be hereunto annexed; and according to my most bounden duty willing and desiring the said letters of commandment to be in all points duly executed and observed, and the same considerations deeply weighed, pondered, and considered, according to the tenor and purport thereof: These be therefore to require and also straitly to charge and command you and either of you, on his said majesties behalf, that ye, seriously and diligently weighing and considering the tenor effects and intents as well of the said commandment as of the same considerations in all points and understandings, doo forthwith upon receipt hereof with all your diligence wisdom and dexterity travail earnestly, not only in your own persons, but also by all other ways and means to the best of your power, in doing your duties for and concerning the speedy and due accomplishment of his graces said commandment: and furthermore semblably do monish and command, or cause to be monished and commanded, on his Majesty’s behalf, all and singular parsons, vicars, curates, churchwardens and others within your archdeaconry, as well in places exempt as not exempt, to whom it appertaineth, to do and accomplish the like in all things accordingly; Requiring and likewise charging you and either of you, with convenient celerity (as becometh) to make certificate of all your doings and proceedings herein to me or to my chancellor, with the names also of all such within the same your archdeaconry, as from henceforth shall be found negligent, obstinate, or disobedient in doing their duties in the premises, or any part thereof. In witness whereof I have caused the king’s majesty’s seal, appointed for causes ecclesiastical in my diocese of London, hereunto to be put.

    Given in my house at London the last day of November in the year of our Lord God 1550, and in the iiijth year of our said sovereign lord the king’s majesty’s most prosperous reign, and the first year of my translation. “Memorandum quod tres similes moniciones sive mandata emanarunt sub sigillo archidiaconis Essexiae, Middlesexiae, et Colcestriae, ac eorum officialibus, (conjunctim et divisim de data ac sub sigillo praedicto).”

    A similar document was issued to the dean and chapter of St. Paul’s (folio 289). “Nicholas, by the permission of God etc. (ut superius) To my wellbeloved brethren the dean and chapter of the Cathedral Church of Saint Paul in London, and to the other ministers there and to every of them, doo send greeting. And where of late I have received etc. (ut superius). These be therefore to require and also straitly to command and charge you and every of you on his said majesty’s behalf that ye etc. And furthermore that ye semblably do monish and command etc. churchwardens and other within your peculiar jurisdiction as well in places exempt as not exempt, to whom it appertaineth, to do and accomplish etc.”

    APP6-7 “To sacrifice Christ up again.”] — The Register reads “upp againe;” Foxe’s first edition “upon againe;” all the subsequent editions read simply “again.”

    APP6-8 — The words between stars are in the Register, but in no edition of Foxe, having been evidently omitted by the transcriber through oversight.

    APP6-9 — After the Edition of 1563 Foxe dropped the preamble to the “Reasons,” and converted this concluding paragraph into a paragraph of his own text, which then stood as follows: after the words “contained in that book,” which close the Sixth Reason, he proceeds: — “After these letters and reasons received, the forenamed Nicholas Ridley, bishop of London, consequently, upon the same did hold his visitation [a flat contradiction to the preamble of the ‘ Reasons,’ which speaks of his ‘late visitation; ’ and probably it was to avoid this contradiction that Foxe thenceforth omitted the preamble], wherein amongst other his Injunctions the said bishop exhorted those churches in his diocese where the altars then did remain to conform themselves unto those other churches which had taken them down, and had set up in the stead of the multitude of their altars one decent table in every church. Upon the occasion whereof there arose a great diversity about the form of the Lord’s board, some using it after the form of a table, and some of an altar. Wherein when the said bishop was required to say and determine what was most meet, he declared he could do no less of his bounden duty,” etc. [See the text, to “the high altar’s side,” for the rest of the paragraph.] This attempt of our author to explain the origin and course of the struggle between the altars and the tables is so inaccurate, that the Editor deemed it best to revert to the text of the first edition, derived (as is evident) from the bishop’s own Register. The origin of the dispute was the mention by K. Edward’s First Service Book (1548) of “Lord’s board,” “table,” and “altar:” Ridley’s “Injunction” at his Visitation in June 1550 did not produce uniformity; nor did his subsequent “Reasons,” though afterwards backed by the Order in Council in November; nor was the dispute allayed till the Second Service Book, in 1552, suppressed the word altar. The dispute has, unhappily, burst out afresh in our own time, but without the least sanction from the authorized documents of the Church. It is the more singular that Foxe should have so bungled this matter, as he was living in London at the time of the Visitation, and was ordained deacon by Ridley at St. Paul’s soon after; for we find by the Register, fol. verso, among the deacons ordained at St. Paul’s June 24th, 1550, “Magr. Johnes Foxe in artibus magr. moram faciens cum dna. ducissa Surf., oriundus apud Boston Lincoln dioc. per lras. commendaticias in ea parte laudabiliter comendatus.” Foxe was most probably misled as to the time of the Visitation by the fact, that the Order in Council of November and the “Reasons” occur at fol. 288 of the Register; whereas the Visitation “Articles” and “Injunctions” are not inserted till long after, at folio 304.

    APP6-10 — Mary’s Letter and the King’s Reply, and the ensuing Instructions, together with the proceedings of the Council relative to this subject from August 9th to 29th, 1551, will be found amongst the Harleian MSS. No. 352, fol. 166-182, copied from the Council Book.

    The greater part of this is printed in the Archaeologia, vol. 18, pp. 154- 166.

    APP6-11 — “ Blind” in all the editions till 1596, Which reads “bind.”

    APP6-12 — Holinshead, at the end of Edward 6th’s reign, mentions among others who died about that time “doctor Joseph an excellent preacher.”

    John Joseph, S.T.P. is mentioned by Newcourt as becoming rector of St. Mary-le-Bow October 20th, 1546, put in of course by Cranmer; this is probably the same individual, but Newcourt does not mention the time of his death. Dr. Tonge was dead at the time of Gardiner’s trial in 1551: see mention of him at pp. 129, 150, 154, 251, 253-255.

    APP6-13 — Something is wanting after “new;” we have the expression “new schoolmen” in next page.

    APP6-14 “Alma chorus Domini .”] — These are the first words of one of the Sequences used at Pentecost, and may be seen in the “Expositio Sequentiarum secundum usum Sarum,” Paris, 1502; fol. 22 (misprinted xxi.); in the “Portiforium seu Breviarium, ad usum Ecclesiastes Sarisb.” in 4to. Paris, 1535, fol. cxviii.; or, in what may be more accessible, the “Thesaurus Hymnologicus, sive Hymnorum Sequentiarum Collectio;” Halls, 1841, tom. 1 p. 273; where the editor remarks: “Videtur carmen Galliae et Angliae fuisse proprium; nam praeter Clichtovaeum unum dedit Brev. Sarisburiense in die Pentecostes ad Completorium et tribus diebus sequentibus.’” It appears in the Salisbury Missale also, fol. xcv. (misprinted cxv.) verso, edit. London, printed by Pynson, 1512.

    APP6-15 “These books strive one with another directly,” etc.] — The instances of contradiction alleged by Gardiner, and which Foxe has omitted, have been printed by Strype in his “Memorials of Cranmer,” vol. 2 pp. 785-91, edit. Oxford, 1812.

    APP6-16 “Master Aire .”] — This is no doubt the Dr. Giles Ayre or Eyre mentioned at pp. 129, 150, 154, 251, 253-255. Willis mentions a Dr.

    Giles Eyer made prebend of Ely September 10th, 1540, and afterwards dean of Chichester in 1549.

    APP6-17 — As the Greek original of this passage does not contain, though implying, the word “alone,” Foxe would have done better to make some other quotation from the archbishop, in which it does appear totidem litteris . See Chamiers Panstratia Catholica, tom. 3 lib. 22 cap. 5, Section 8. The Latin is the translation of Ambrosius Camaldulensis.

    The second quotation is in tom. 7 p. 361, Paris, 1886.

    APP6-18 — The value of this sentence must stand on its own merits — it was not written by Clement of Rome, as seems to be assumed: see Nat. Alexand. Hist. Ecclesiastes tom. 4 p. 130, edit. 1786; and James’s Corruption of Scripture, Fathers, etc. p. 4, edit. 1843.

    APP6-19 “The new church, I know not the name, but not far from the Old Jewry.”] — St. Martin’s, Ironmonger Lane. See an account of the matter in Burnet, near the opening of Edward’s reign.

    APP6-20 — These nineteen Articles, and Gardiner’s answers to them, will be found among the Harleian MSS. No. 304, fol. 27-38, extracted from the minutes of the Privy Council by “Henry Savill,” and directed “To the right honorable and my singuler good lorde, my lorde archbushop of York’s good grace. This MS. stops at the words “I may have liberty to prosecute” (see p. 77 of this volume). The MS. confirms the accuracy of Foxe’s copy.

    APP6-21 — The reason why Foxe introduced these Articles and Replies so much before their chronological position (see p. 96, note; and p. 99, note) probably was, that they review the chief points of Gardiner’s course through the interim.

    APP6-22 — One would rather expect “non-observation:” but the Harleian MS. agrees with Foxe.

    APP6-23 “The superstitious going about of St. Nicholas bishop.”] — See Brand’s Popular Antiquities, vol. 1 pp. 227-235, edit. 1841. In the days of queen Mary, “the procession of the Boy Bishop was too popular a mummery to be overlooked. Warton informs us that one of the child bishop’s songs, as it was sung before the queen’s majesty in her privy chamber, at her manor of St. James in the Fields, on St.

    Nicholas Day and Innocents’ Day, 1555, by the child bishop of St.

    Paul’s with his company, was printed that year in London, containing a fulsome panegyric on the queen’s devotions, comparing her to Judith, Esther, the queen of Sheba, and the Virgin Mary.”

    APP6-24 “the eighth Article .”] — See p. 96, note.

    APP6-25 last line. “Of parts .”] — The copy in the Harleian MSS. reads “on my part.”

    APP6-26 “Taken out of the Register.”] — 1. e . of the Privy Council.

    Foxe’s matter from hence to the bottom of p. 85 (“to be kept secret”) is all taken from that Register, as appears from another copy of the same matter preserved among the Harleian MSS. No. 352, fol. 99-101, which is printed in the Archaeologia, vol. xviii, p. 135, and confirms the accuracy of Foxe’s copy.

    APP6-27 — The Harleian MS. omits “by the council.”

    APP6-28 “The ninth of June .”] — “ The tenth,” which is the reading of Foxe’s text, is an evident slip of his pen for “ninth:” see the preceding minute of the Council.

    APP6-29 — The Harleian MS. omits “of them.”

    APP6-30 “Resolved upon.”] — The Harleian MS. reads “agreed upon.”

    APP6-31 — The Harleian MS. omits “hearafter.”

    APP6-32 “And was convented .”] — This sentence is printed and punctuated as in Foxe’s text, except that “and” is inserted before “was convented” from the Harleian MS., which seems more correct.

    APP6-33 — It is remarkable that Gardiner’s answer in the margin of the preamble is omitted in all the editions of Foxe subsequent to that of 1563, though Foxe’s marginal introduction to it is retained. See Archaeologia, xviii, p. 140.

    APP6-34 — Foxe’s first edition reads “prudente” which agrees with the Harleian MS.; but Foxe has altered it in subsequent editions into “profitable.”

    APP6-35 — The paragraph in the text, and that which follows it next page, are in the edition of 1563, p. 768, exhibited in the form of two extracts from the Register, like those in p. 79; thus: — “Westminster, the 11th of July, 1550. “This day the bishop of Winchester’s case was debated; and because it appeareth that he sticketh upon the submission, which is the principalist point (considering his offense that he now goeth about to defend), to the intent he should have no just cause to say he was not mercyfully handled, it was agreed that the maister of the horses and Maister Secretary Peter should repair unto him again with the same submission,” etc. [See text.] “At Westminster, the 13th of July. “The maiester of the horses and Maister Secretary Peter made report that they had been with the bishop of Winchester, who stood precisely, etc.” [See text.] APP6-36 “So ye might fortune ,” etc.] — This remark of Foxe is intended to apply to Gardiner’s professed desire in the text, for “nothing but justice.” The pun was an after-thought, for in the first edition the margin merely says, “Ye myghte fortune ben hanged than.”

    APP6-37 — The words in the text between stars are not found in Foxe’s text, having slipt out through an error of the press between the bottom of p. 772 and the top of p. 773. The last word at the bottom of p. is “Christe,” with the pass word “was” underneath: the top of p. begins with “fice.” In a copy of the first edition, in the possession of the Reverend J. Mendham, of Sutton Coldfield, the hiatus is supplied on a slip of paper pasted over. A similar printed slip of paper in the same copy will be noticed on p. 711. The celebrated edition of the Latin Vulgate, published at Rome in 1590, is remarkable for alterations effected in a similar way. (See Schelhorn’s Amoenitates Literariae, vol. 4 p. 433.)

    APP6-38 “The 15th of December .”] — In the Archaeologia, 18 p. 151, the following minute of the Council appears: “At Greenwiche, the xix day of January, an. 1550 [1551]. This Daye the Bishoppe of Winchesteres servantes came to the Counsell and desired certaine of them to be sworne upon certayne Articles for witnese on his behalfe; wherunto they answered that upon their honores and as they would answere before God they would witnes trulye accordinge to their conscyences and as effectually as yf they were sworne uppon a booke.”

    APP6-39 — “Say unto him ,” must mean Sir R. Sadler: see next interrogatory: at the end of which “bishops” seems an error for “bishop.”

    APP6-40 “The 23d day of December .”] — Foxe’s text reads, by a misprint, “xiiii.” for “xxiii.;” Tuesday having fallen on Dec. 23d in (Nicolas’s Tables.)

    APP6-41 — Foxe’s text reads “vi.,” which must be a misprint for “vii.”

    APP6-42 — Foxe’s text, by a misprint, has “the xi. day” for “the xii:day.” (See p. 65, line 9, and p. 128, Art. xiii.)

    APP6-43 — From Sept. 25th to Jan. 7th inclusive, would be exactly weeks. (See p. 46, note (1).)

    APP6-44 — On the number of witnesses produced at Gardiner’s trial, see Foxe’s remark, vol. 2 p. 7.

    APP6-45 — The matters presented or found at visitations were technically called the “Comperta et Detecta,” which were respectively Englished into comperts and detects . We have read supra, vol. 4 p. 239, that “Sir John, a priest, and also Robert Robinson, detected Master Cotismore of Brightwell.” And when All Souls had been visited by the commission, archbishop Whitgift wrote “that he found also by the detects that,” etc. (Strype’s Life of Whitgift, ii. p. 464.) Corresponding to these comperta et detecta were certain “acta et habita,” which formed a very important part of a visitation. It appears that, in the present case what should have been had and done in respect of certain particular comperts had been neglected.

    APP6-46 — Ridley himself refers to this sermon afterwards at p. 437.

    APP6-47 “Guadixiens. Epise .”] — M. Perez de Ayala was made bishop of Guadix in 1548; in which year was published the work, the title of which appears in the text, at Cologne; it was afterwards reprinted at the same place in 1560. The author died in 1566, being then archbishop of Valencia, in his 61st year. (See Antonio, Biblioth. Hispana nova, tom. 2 p. 108.)

    APP6-48 — “Leave doone” means probably “leave doing.”

    APP6-49 “As I ought to be .”] — Misprinted in Foxe “thought:” the Latin at p. 100 is, “prout esse debui et debeo.”

    APP6-50 — From the Archaeologia, xviii, p. 152, it appears, that on the 15th of February, “for his unreverent behavior,” especially the day before (when judgment was given against him), Gardiner was ordered by the Council to be removed to a meaner lodging in the Tower, and secluded from all intercourse, and his books and papers, pens and ink, taken from him.

    APP6-51 — Foxe himself, at p. 275, makes some remarks on commemorations for the dead similar to these of Fechtius.

    APP6-52 . — “That the whole school did not know what was meant .”] — “Quibus verbis Christus consecraverit, operose quaerunt Scholastici, quorum opiniones varias ac diversas enumeravimus superius Section 129. Quidam statuunt, nobis plane ignotum esse, quibus verbis Christus consecraverit. Quidam putant Christurn formasse signurn crucis super panem, atque hoc modo absque omni verborum forma consecrasse. Quidam statuunt, quod Christus ilia verba: Hoc est corpus meum, his protulerit, primo secrete ad consecrandum, secundo mani — feste ad instruendum. Quidam dieunt, Christum his ipsis verbis aperte prolatis consecrasse: Hoc est corpus meum: Evangelistas vero non tenere hun, ordinem in recitando, quo res sunt gestae; atque inde esse, quod benedictio prolationi verborum illorum praemittatur. Haec, omnis breviter complectitur Gabr. Biel, sic scribens, lect. xxxvi, in Can. Mis.

    Circa hoec verba (inquit) benedixit, fregit, deditque, etc.; dubium est, quem ordinem Christus observavit, et quibus verbis consecravit, et sunt diversoe opiniones doctorurn.” Gerhard. Loci Theologici, L. 22:cap. 13, Section 148; from which, and more especially the citations in Section 129, the variations, doubts, and confusion which abound in these writers may be clearly discerned.

    APP6-53 — “ Popish” is not in the first edition, but was added by Foxe afterwards.

    APP6-54 . “Cyriacus, Crescentianus .”] — Foxe’s text has “Ciriatius, Crescentius; ” but see the Observatio in Sollier’s edition of Usuard’s Martyrology, August 8th.

    APP6-55 “Hereupon I think it came to pass ,” etc.] — See the remarks of Fechtius, at p. 269, note (1).

    APP6-56 “The protector suffered his brother being accused .”] — This being the portion of the first edition of the Acts and Monuments ordinarily pointed out as distinguishing it from succeeding editions, we may here notice the variation after the word “accused:” “withoute any manifest offense and (as it was afterward proved) giltles, to be beheaded,” etc. p. 880. This speaks more positively, it will be observed, than the present text. There are some variations also in what immediately follows, but not of opinion.

    APP6-57 “About the beginning of September .”] — August 27th (Rapin).

    APP6-58 . “Letters.. against the Lord Protector .”] — Four letters on this subject occur in Ellis’s Letters (first series, vol. 2 p. 166), the last dated October 10th, recommending Somerset’s apprehension. He was put in Beauchamp’s Tower at Windsor the night of October 12th, and conveyed to the Tower October 14th. The Harleian MS., No 353, gives a letter from Edward to the Council at London recommending moderation, dated October 8th: this is printed by Halliwell.

    APP6-59 — Several versions are extant of these Articles: Foxe’s copy exactly agrees with that in Holinshed. Stow’s copy (Chron. edit. 1631, p. 601) consists of 29 Articles; and exhibits several variations in phraseology: there is another of 31 Articles among the Harleian MSS., in connection with “an acte of parliament passed against the duke of Somerset in the 3 year of king Edward the 6th, charged by Articles and convicte therupon, and condempnd therin to imprisonment duringe the kinges pleasur the xxviijth day of Decembere ano. 1549.” (Harl. MSS.

    No. 353, fol. 78.)

    APP6-60 — The Harleian MS. reads: 11. “And further the said duke hath comaunded multiplication and alkemistry to be practiced, therby to abase your highnese coyne.” The same volume of the Harleian MSS. fol. 107, has “altere or abase any more his coynes yet.” Stow reads “alcumistry” and “abate,” on which word see Halliwell’s Dict.

    APP6-61 Art. XII.] — For “repressing” Stow reads “appeasing.”

    APP6-62 Art. XIV.] — Stow reads “did against the laws, and caused,” etc.

    APP6-63 , Art. XX.] — Stow reads “did counsell at London to come to you, to the intent to commune,” etc.; also “misgovernance.”

    APP6-64 — The ensuing narrative of Somerset’s execution is much altered, as to phraseology, in all the subsequent editions from what it was in the first edition: the original narrative seems to have been treated much like Dalaber’s account of Garret in vol. 5. The original text is here restored (see the edition of 1563, p. 880).

    APP6-65 — The original text says, “in the sixt yere of the reign:” this is clearly wrong (see Nicolas’s Tables); and as Foxe himself corrected it in his subsequent editions, his correction is in this instance retained.

    APP6-66 “Suddenly there was a terrible noise .”] — This is explained by Stow, who was present, as follows (p. 607): — “The people of a certaine Hamlet, which were warned to be there by seven of the clocke, to give their attendance on the Lieutenant, now came through the Posterne, and perceiving the Duke to be already on the scaffold, the foremost began to run, crying to their fellowes to follow fast after: which suddennesse of these men being weaponed with Bils and Halbards thus running, caused the people which first saw them, to thinke some power had come to have rescued the Duke from execution, and therefore to cry away, away; whereupon the people ran some one way some another, many fell into the Tower ditch, and they which tarried thought some pardon had been brought.”

    APP6-67 — In the Latin edition of Foxe, Basil, 1559, p. 214, we have this distich: “In illustrissimum ducem Somersetum distichon epitaphicum Johannis Foxi. “Innumeras uno laudes ut carmine dicam, Anglia tota ruit caede, Semere, tua.” APP6-68 — Foxe’s text of 1563 and 1570 here reads”viii times,” and the subsequent editions “eight times,” which agrees with Hall, the original authority cited by Foxe; but the corresponding passage in vol. 3 p. 712, has “seven times.”

    APP6-69 — “ Howsoever” is the reading in the first edition, p. 884, and is preferable to “whatsoever,” which all the subsequent editions read.

    APP6-70 “The bigness of this volume .”] — This disputation was carried on for four days, from May 28th to June 1st, 1549. A report of it is included in the volume to which Foxe alludes, entitled “Tractatio de Sacram. Eucharistise habita in Univ. Oxon. per Petrum Martyrem Verm. Florentinum, Regium ibidem Theolog. Prof. — ad haec Disputatio de eodem Eucharist. Sacramento in eadem Univ. habita per eadem P. Mart.; ” A.D. 1549, Londini. It is also among the Harleian MSS. No. 422, fol. 4-30. Several improvements of Foxe’s text from the Latin will be suggested.

    APP6-71 — The Latin (both here and at p. 302) says, “corporaliter aut carnaliter nec realiter.”

    APP6-72 , “Under the kinds.”] — “ under the appearances.”

    APP6-73 “Not to exclude bread from the nature of the sacrament .”] — The original says, “retinere symbolorum naturas.”

    APP6-74 “Was secret within.”] — “ Latebat.”

    APP6-75 — Cross out “which are seen.”

    APP6-76 “Taking bread of the same condition which after us .”] — Original, “hujus conditionis quae est secundum nos.” In Irenaeus, lib. c. 32, “ex ea creatura, quae est,” etc. In lib. 5 c. 2, in a parallel passage, it is tosewv a]rton.

    APP6-77 “Receiving the word and calling .”] — Original, “percipiens vocationem Dei.” This translation follows the reading in Irenaeus (lib. cap. 34), e]kklhsin ; on which Grabe remarks: “ Thklhsin legi debere, ex veteri versione et aliorum S. Patrum locis inferius p. citatis colligere, atque etiam exinde perspicere est, perperam a Feuardentio aliisque Romans ecclesiae doctoribus invocationem , recitationem verborum Christi: Hoc est corpus meum : Hic sanguis meus, hic intelligi.”

    APP6-78 — Fill up this reference thus: “August.(prout citatur) Dist. 2. De Consecrat. [cap. 48.] Ex sententiis Prosperi.” A remark may be added here, perhaps, though it would have found a place more appropriately in vol. 3 p. 115, on the mode of quoting from the fathers observable in Swinderby and others; that it was an object in those times to be able to cite the authority of Gratian, without much reference to the validity of the passages adduced by him in themselves. “His satisfaciendum fuit (remarks Boehmer) qui sententiam Augustini aliorumque Patrum maluerunt ex Decreto adducere, quam ex fonte tantum in scenam producere, quod ex relatione in Decretum usum auctoritatemque accepisse crederetur. In hanc etiam sententiam ivit Espenius in schol, in omnes Can. Conciliorum, P. VI. c. 3, Section 5, aitque: quapropter si Canon alicujus particularis Coneilii aut sententia S. Parris alteriusve probati autoris a Gratiano referatur; et quis illius canonis aut sententioe auctoritate uti velit, soepius non inutile erit, eum e Decreto Gratiani cotare, proecipue si cum Canonistis agatur. Cum enim hi a puero Decreto Gratiani assueuerint, illudque una cum reliquis partibus juris canonici in scholis proelegi et exponi audiverint, majorem eis ideam imprimere solebant, qui e Decreto Gratiani pro — feruntur Canones, quam e synodis aliquibus aut patribus aliisque auctoribus , QUOS PENE NUNQUAM LEGUNT, imo de quibus frequenter nec audiverunt; ereduntque communiter quoe ex his referuntur theologos non canonistas spectare, nullaque auetoritate valere, ni in Decreto Gratiani sint canonixata, Hae indubie de causa, qui Concilia et Patres ediderunt, in margine notare consueverunt loca Gratiani, in quibus canones aut Patrum sententioe referuntur . Ingenua confessio viri, dura viveret, celeberrimi, confirmat ea, quae statim ab initio (Section 1) de studio juris Canonici, olim admodum rudi et inculto, edisserui.” (Boehmeri Dissert. prefixed to Corpus Juris Can. tom. 1 p. xxxii, note; Halae Magd. 1747.) the passage from Van Espen, above quoted, does not appear in some of the editions of his works, another treatise having been substituted.

    APP6-79 — Fill up: “Theod. Dial. 1. contra Eutych. [cap. 8, Dial. 2. cap. 24.]” APP6-80 “But our bodies are not made incorruptible by changing their substance .”] — The original is much plainer: Sed in hac mutatione non abjicitur substantia corporum nostrorum.”

    APP6-81 “Et Epist. ad Dardanum ”] — query “ad Bonifacium.” [98 (olim 23) Section 9.] APP6-82 “Aug. ad Dardanum .”] — Ep. 187, Section 41; olim Ep. 57.

    APP6-83 “Cyprian de coena Domini .”] — Mistakingly attributed to the pen of Cyprian. “Sciant Lectores libellum sive sermonem hunc [de c.

    D.]. cum undecim aliis ejusdem authoris qui illum comitantur sub titulo quem ipsemet apposuit de operibus Cardinalibus Christi , Cypriano falso et inepte tribui: quod ex ipsis adversariis nobiscum fatentur, non modo Erasmus, sed et Sixtus Senensis, Hesselius, Possevinus, et Bellarminus, qui et judieii sui rationes tres affert.” (Albertin. de Sacram.

    Euchar. p. 380.) It is, however, a tract of antiquity, and useful antipapal passages from it will be found in Faber’s “Doctrine of Transubstantiation,” pp. 114, 118.

    APP6-84 — For the Latin of this First Disputation, see Harl. MSS. No. 422, fol. 35-37.

    APP6-85 — The words “after him bishop of Rome” are put in by Foxe.

    The original says: “Sub 3° Innocentio coepit haec tam portentosa transubstantio circa annum Domini 1315. Bonifacius fecit hanc transubstantiationem terrium articulum fide. Gelasius plane testatur panem manere, contra Nestorium.

    APP6-86 “Whereas another bishop of Rome before him..,Gelasius the First .”] — Foxe’s text reads “after” and Gelasius “the Third :” but there was no Gelasius 3. Gelasius I., who wrote “contra Eutychen et Nestorlium,” was Pope A.D. 492-496. The passage here referred to occurs in that work (Basil. 1556, p. 689), and is cited at p. 347, note (6), of this volume. See Rivet’s Critici Sacri, lib. 4 Section 26.

    APP6-87 — In the reference “80” has been substituted for “8,” as suiting the text better than the other, the identical words appearing in neither.

    Several passages given as quotations in this discussion seem more like inferences than verbal citations.

    APP6-88 “Ep . 95”J — query “59.”

    APP6-89 “Who , as one Trithemius saith .”] Foxe’s text reads erroneously Tritenius . Trithemius states respecting Jo. Damascene, “claruit sub Theodosio devotissimo principe, anno Domini cccxc.;” to which this corrective note is subjoined in the Bibliotheca ecclesiastica of Fabricius (Hamb. 1718) p. 27: “imo saeculo octavo. Nimirum Theodosium, qui ante Leonem Isaurum rebus praefuit, cum Theodosio magne Trithemius confundit.”

    APP6-90 — Foxe’s text reads “Theophilactus Alexandrinus,” and the Harleian MS. fol. 36 b, “Theophilus Alexandrinus; ” confounding him with “Theophilus,” archbishop of Alexandria in the fourth century.

    Theophylact was archbishop of Achrida and primate of Bulgaria about A.D. 1070. See note on p. 319, and Cave’s Historia Litt.

    APP6-91 “Theophylact of Achrid ...The bread , saith he , is transelementate .”] — “At quodnam est ejus transelementationis subjecturn, ex ipsorummet adversariorum sententia? Substantia certe panis et vini: non sola accidentia, sed substantiam potissimum intelligit: neque enim inusitata estea hujus vocabuli species , in hoc sensu acceptio, ut alibi multis Vetcrum testimoniis ostendimus. Si vero panis et vini substantia conservatur ex Theophylacti mente, transelementatio quam illi conjunctim tribuit, de mutatione substantiali nullomodo accipi potest; contradictionem enim implicat aliquid substantialiter conservari et remshere, ac simul substantialiter converti.

    Secundo ipse se explicans ac per transelementationem quid designet, aperiens: transelementat , inquit, in virtutem (du>namin ) corporis et sanguinis . Quibus verbis aperte docet transmutationem de qua loquitur esse mere aecidentalem: du>namiv enim proprie est facultas alicui rei indita, non autem substantia ipsc cujus facultas est.” (Albertin. de Sacram. Euchar. p. 956.)

    APP6-92 — For the Latin of the Second and Third Disputations, see Harleian MSS. No. 422, fol. 31-35, where they are dated June 24th and 25th.

    APP6-93 — Foxe’s text and the Harleian MS. fol. 31 read “Theophilus Alexandrinus; ” but see note on p. 313.

    APP6-94 — ”Yea,” “Immo,” “Nay: ” line 16, “Crucify him anew,” “occidis:” line 19, “Christ’s body and blood,” “praesentia vera corporis Christi:” line 33, “Christ is the only, etc.,” “unum atque uniturn sacrificium satisfactio Christi est: ” line 39, “you say, dixeras: ” line 40,“and, We believe, and therefore do speak, etc.,” “et nos credidimus,” etc., “we also believe, and therefore speak,” etc.: line 48, “For neither do I, nor yet doth Augustine,” “neque Augustinus neque ego.”

    APP6-95 — “Saeramenta sunt significantia:” line 4, “neque ego respuo:” line 22, “quisquis tollit omnem substantiam tollit similitudinem, et per consequens,” etc.: line 27, “turning us into himself:” the original goes on thus: “Origenes super Matthew non quod intrat in os,” etc.

    APP6-96 “Chrysostome upon Matth . Hom . xi.”] — See Elliott’s “Delineation of Roman Catholicism,” p. 77, edit. London, 1844.

    APP6-97 “Not as Chrysostomes but some mans else , as you know :”] — in the Latin, “non recipitur ut Chrysostomi, quod in eo negat Christum esse homousion, quod ubique Christus asserit.”

    APP6-98 “Here Master Gest disputed .”] “Excusavit imperitiam suam per exemplum cujusdam simplicis viri, qui olim cure Arriano in Concilio Niceno disserens nitebatur convertere ilium, qui erat magnus philosophus (?) et doctus valde: sic ego simplex vir (?) phylosophum et doetotem veritati innitens (?) conabor ad veritatem reducere et convertere.”

    A portion omitted here about the human nature being limited to space, the divine every where, etc.

    APP6-99 “Non est, nam sunt 4 termini.”

    APP6-100 “The Declaration of Master Perue .”] — A short introduction is here omitted.

    APP6-101 “Overpass in Berengarius , Zuinglius ,” etc .:] “quod ut in Berengario, Wycleffo, praeterea in Zuinglio:” line 10 from the bottom, “You have pretended,” “audimus.”

    APP6-102 “The book of Theodoret , in Greek , was lately printed at Rome .”] — It bears the following title,” Theodoriti Episc. Cyri Dialogi tres contra quasdam haereses, etc.; Romae per Steph. Nicolinum Sabiensem Chalcog. Apostolicurn, 1547.” And Bishop Ridley’s assertion of its being “directly against transubstantiation” is so well founded, that the Editor has thought it necessary to prefix something of a caveat against the very natural inferences, which would be made by the reader: “Cum hic liber nunc editus sit in multorum manus venturus, quorum non deerunt aliqui etiam in rebus sacris versati, qui fortasse facile offendentur, Lectorem admonendum duximus, esse in hoc authore nonnulla, quae si non diligenter attendantur, in malam partem accipi, et aliquid forte scrupuli injicere possint; animadversa autem et recte ponderata nihil omnino offensionis afferant. “Ac primurn, quod de sacrosanetae Eucharistiae mysterio dicit charta viii. pagina 11,et charta xxxviii, pagina prima, dictum esse videtur ex eorum sententia, qui falso asseruerunt esse in eo pane corpus Christi remanente tamen panis substantia: quod quidem falsum est, cure ecclesia, et ipsius Christi verbis id aperte signifieantibus, et omnium tam veterum quam recentium Doctorum authoritate mota, facto Oecumenici Concilii decreto pronuneiarit, substantiam panis in corpus Christi transubstantiari. Quanquam Theodoretus hoc fortasse nomine aliqua venia dignus videatur, quod de ea re ejus tempore ab ecclesia nondum fuisset aliquid promulgatum: et minus mirandum est, si dum adversus Haereticos acerrime disputat veritatis tuendae studio longius provectus, in alteram pattern nimium quandoque declinet.” And again: “Quod autem ali-cubi videtur (Theodoretus) minus plene loqui de veritate corpotis et sanguinis Domini ut cum symbola et typos corporis et sanguinis Domini saepe repetat;” — and, after quoting several passages, adds: “Clarum est haec verba Theodoriti posse ad impium sensum torqueri,” etc.; affording no disputable support to bishop Ridley’s inferences. We quote from a copy of the edition now before us.

    Several other writers of the Latin Church have labored in the same way about this testimony of Theodoret, or are disposed to set it aside altogether: their sentiments are collected by Aubertin in his large volume, De Sacramento Eucharistiae (Davent. 1654) p. 774.

    APP6-103 — This passage of Augustine is cited at p. 342, whence it appears that the words “not from the altars” are an insertion.

    APP6-104 “Aug . Ep . 57,”] — now Ep. 187, Section 10.

    APP6-105 — The quotation from Augustine (tom. Iv. col. 1066, edit.

    Bened.) varies rather too much from the original. “Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem nihil prodest, etc. — Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus sum, non hoe corpus quod videtis, manducaturi estis; et bibituri ilium sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent.

    Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritaliter intellectum vivificabit vos.”

    APP6-106 “Irenaeus saith , ‘Quando mixtus calix , et fractus panis .’”] — For “fractus,” which was the reading of this passage in Foxe’s days and merely conjectural, should be substituted” factus.” Grabe’s lower note on the passage (lib. v. cap. 2) is: “Ita omnia MSS. nostra et Feuard . vetus codex, necnon Erasmi editt, habent juxta Graecum gegonwGallasii , Grynaei , Feuardent . editt, perperam extat fractus : quae lectio orta videtur ex conjectura quorundam V. DD., siquidem Fischerus Episeopus Roffensis et Oecolampadius lib. 4 de Euchar. c. 23 ita citarunt, uti Feuard . hoc loco annotavit.”

    APP6-107 “And in anotherplace of the same Epistle .”] cap. 3, Section 10.

    APP6-108 . “And in another [the same ] place , of the same Epistle .”] — [Section 10, col. 681.] APP6-109 “In like manner writeth Damasus in his Credo .”] There are four different copies of the creed attributed to Damasus, given in Walch’s “Bibliotheca Symbolics vetus” (Lemgov. 1770), pp. 172-176; but the extract here made agrees exactly with none of them. In the second form it runs thus: — “Qui, devicto mortis imperio, cum ea carne qua natus et passus et mortuus fuerat et re surrexit,” etc. Upon the authorship Walch remarks: “De symboli hujus auctore nemo diligentius disputavit Quesnello Diss. xiv: in Leonem, section. 7. Hic satis recte demonstravit neque a Damaso neque a Gregorio , aut his similibus, esse id confectum.” (P. 180.)

    APP6-110 — This passage has been corrected and filled up from the original of Augustine, which is accurately translated at p. 334.

    APP6-111 “St . Ambrose declareth the meaning of St . Paul .”] The quotation here cited from Ambrose must have been made by memory, the mere words varying considerably from the original: the same remark applies to some of those on the preceding page.

    APP6-112 “Henry the Emperor , the sixth of that name .”] He is sometimes called Henry VII. the difference depends on whether Henry the Fowler be reckoned an emperor: he never took the title even of “King of Germany:” hence some reckon his son Otho the Great as the first German emperor, and number the Henrys from Henry the Saint, A.D. 1002.

    APP6-113 — This quotation may be made from an early Latin edition, the latter part not appearing in the Greek· APP6-114 — “Augustin ad Marcellinum.” The reference should rather be to” Fulgentii de fide ad Petrum, section 62.” (Append August Oper. tom. vi. col·30.) The extract in Foxe’s note does not seem to be correctly quoted.

    APP6-115 “August . in Sermone .”] Quoted in Gratian’s Decre-tum, de Consecr. Dist. II. cap. 36.

    APP6-116 “Legis et Prophetarum .”] — See lib. ii. cap 9, Section 33. The sentences are inverted here, and the words not all exactly as in Augustine.

    APP6-117 “Satellitium Vivis .”] A work of John Ludovicus Vives entitled, “Satellitium animi, sine Symbola Principum institutioni potissimum destinata,” Lugduni, 1532; Basileae, 1537. There were several other editions, but these were the only ones the Prince could have used. Vines had dedicated to Henry VIII. his edition of Augustine’s treatise “De Civitate Dei,” printed at Basil, 1522 (see Antonio Biblioth. Hispana nova; tom. 1. pp. 725, 726); and in the same year came into England to wait upon the princess Mary and to teach her the Latin tongue and the belles lettres.” (Dupin, Cent. XVI. book iii. p. 360.)

    APP6-118 “First concerning the origin of the word Missa .”] “Quod ad nomen Missae attinet ‘Hebraicum vel Chaldaicum esse putidissimum commentum est,’ inquit post alios plurimos doctissimos viros (imprimis autem Picherellum Presbyt. in locum Matth. de S. Coenae institutione, et Dissert. de Missa, cap. i.) Is. Casaubonus, Exercitat. p. 582. Hanc sententiam Bellarminus et alii docti Romanenses exploserunt dudum, ut qui diversum sentiunt plane ridiculi sint, et neque Hebraicas neque Chaldaicas literas se intelligere manifeste ostendant. “Vocabulum certe Latinum est, et inventum circa finem, ut videtur, tertii seculi, vel paulo ante. Nam si vera est Epistola Cornelii Papae ad Lupicinum Viennensem, circa A.D. 250 notum jam erat istud vocabulum, ut recte air Casaubonus.” (Considerationes modestae, per G. Forbesium, Episc. Edenburg.; Lond. 1658, p. 445.)

    APP6-119 “Egesippus thus writeth of St . James .”] There must be some oversight here: the words in Eusebius are (lib. 2:cap. 1 ), jIa>kwbon tokaion ejpi>skopon Jierosolu>mwn eJle>sqai See Euseb. lib. 7 cap. 19, and the note of Valesius. The same mistake occurs in the reference to St. James in Bishop Tonstall’s Sermon, vol. 5. p. 92.

    APP6-120 “Chrysostome , in the eleventh Homily upon Matthew .”] Neither this reference, nor one to Hom. 21, made by Hospinian, suits.

    Perhaps it may be found to answer one or other in an early Latin edition of Chrysostom.

    APP6-121 “The Kyrie Eleyson , 9. times to be repeated .”] A reason for this number, as an explanation will perhaps be looked for, may be given from the notes to the enlarged edition of Cardinal Bona’s work, De Rebus Liturgicis, iii. (Aug. Taur. 1753) lib. 2. cap. 4. 10: “Novem vicibus, ut dictum est, hane precationem repetimus, ter ad Pattern, ter ad Filium, ter ad Spiritum Sanctum eam dirigentes, contra triplicem miseriam (ut apte observat Natalis Alexander Theol. Dog. et Mor. tom. 1 lib. 2, art. 5. 4) ignorantire, culpre, et poenre; vel ut tres Personas in se mutuo inexistere significetur;” and so forth.

    APP6-122 “The Kyrie Eleison Gregory did institute .”] This is a mistake:

    Gregory himself assigns it to an earlier period. The error, however, is made in company with eminent liturgists: “Gravius errant Amalarius, Strabo, Micrologus, qui Gregorium M . hujus ritus auctorem statuunt.

    Ilium enim Romae, et per totam Italiam, jam anno 529 receptum fuisse ex Can. 3, Concilii Vasensis 2. vel. iii. perspicue intelligimus...Imo Gregorius ipse in sua Epistola 64, lib. 7, ad Jo. Syracusanum data, negat se hanc precem primo in Missa instituisse, sed illam, longe ante usitatam et postea intermissam, restituisse affirmat, adeoque se creremonias antiquas Ecclesiastes Romans conservare, non autem a Graecis accipere, ut quidam Siculi ei exprobrabant.” (Krazer, de Liturgus Liber singularis; Aug. Vind. 1786, p. 380.)

    APP6-123 “Gloria in excelsis .”] See Card Bonds Rerum Liturg. lib. 2. cap 4, and notes. The assertion about Hilary is contested by various writers; see Krazer (ut supra), p. 393.

    APP6-124 “The preface of the Canon .”] More on this point may be seen, if wished for, in Bona’s Rerum Liturg. lib. 2. cap. 10.

    APP6-125 “Whereby it is to be noted that Polydore Virgil , who ascribeth Qui pridie .”] “Valfridus et Micrologus opinati sunt ab Alexandro Papa additam hanc clausulam, Qui pridie . Sed rectius sentit Alcuinus etism Apostolis in usu fuisse. Extat autem in Liturgia Jacobi et Clementis, et apud Ambrosium lib. 4 de Sacram. cap. 5.” Bona, Rerum Liturg. lib. 2. cap. 12, from which this quotation is made, not as if assenting to the fancies of Alcuin or others, but in order to support or illustrate the statements of Foxe.

    APP6-126 — “Some impute the Canon to Gelasius , some again to Scholasticus .”] A mistake has been made here — rather a coralicon one, happily — in taking Scholasticus for a proper name. “Miras nugas de hue Scholastico quidam scribunt, presertim Heterodoxi Misoliturgi; cum manifestissimum sit in praedicta Gregorii Epistola nomen Scholastici non esse proprium alicujus nominis, sed accipi pro viro docto et erudito, quales olim fuerunt, qui scholis Christianorum praeficiebantur, ut conversos ad fidem erudirent.” Cardinal Bona “Rerum Liturg.” lib. 2. cap. xi., supporting his assertion from Augustine, Salvian, and Jerome; to which his annotator adds: “Et quidem ipse Gregorius lib. 10, Ep. 2, vocat Matthaeum Scholasticum virum clarissimum, et Gennadius in Catalogo Scriptorum Ecclesiastes c. 84, vocat Prosperurn Aquitanum sermone Scholasticum, id est eloquentia et eruditione praestantem. Honorius item in Catal. Scrip. vocat Alcuinum officio Scholasticum. In eodem sensu hoc vocabulum accipit S. Augustinus Tract. super Psalmum 44” R . Sala , not. in Bonam, vol. in. p. 246.

    APP6-127 “Dist . 2, c. 10.”] — It is of no authority. “Observabit Lector, Turrianum, ex eoque Binium creterosque Pontificios, Pseudo-Anacleti verbs pervertere: 1. dum fingunt decreturn ab ipso propositum de Cleri solius ad communionem obligatione intelligendum esse; cum perspicue referatur ad omnes qui Ecclesiae liminibus carere nolunt , hoc est ad fideles omnes qui Ecclesiae membra censentur, non ad Clericos qui prius ab officio removendi sunt, quam excommunicatiouis mucrone amputandi: 2. dum fingunt ministros, ut testimonium darent sacrificanti, communicare debuisse; nihil enim tale asserit Pseudo- Anacletus: 3. dum scribunt hoc decretum in suasionem transiisse, nec fuisse necessarium, nisi quamdiu Ecclesia subjecta fuit persequentium periculo; hoc enim falsum esse docent Conc. Antioch. c. 2. Collectio Mart. Bracar. c. 83. Concil Aquisgran. Gregorio IV. cap. 21, quae omnis (Ecclesia a persequentium furore liberata) renorare videntur can. 10. Apostolorum dictum. Meminerit ergo Lector Missas privatas quo tempore haec Epistola Anacleto supposita est, piis omnibus ipsique Romanae ecclesiae incognitas fuisse.” Blondel, Examen Epist.

    Decretalium, Genevae, 1635, p. 118; who then refers to Hieron. Apol. ad Pammach. c. 6, Cyprian de Orat. Dominica.

    APP6-128 — “Platina writeth bow the first Latin Mass ,” etc.] — ” Id fuit in sextae Synodi clausula habitae an. 681, sic scribente Anastasio his verbis: Tanta autem gratis divina omnipotentis coneessa est Missis Apost . Sedis , ut ad laetitiam populi vel S . Concilii , qui in urbe Regia erat , Joannes Episc. Portuensis, Missas publicas latine celebraret coram principe et Patriarcha , ut omnes unanimiter in laudes et victorias piissimorum Imperatorum eo die Latinis vocibus acclamarent .” (Note on Card. Bona “Rerum Liturg.” lib. 1. cap. 12, edit. Aug. Taurin. 1747.)

    APP6-129 “Instituted by Theodolphus about 843.”] — This statement is rather too general; Sigebert writes: “His temporibus floruit Theodolphus, Abbas Floriacensis, postmodum Episc. Aurelianensis, de quo refertur, quod illos versus, quos in die Palmarum singulis annis ecclesiae Galliarum decantare in usu habent, ipse composuerit, id est, Gloria laus et honor .” See the “Rerum Germann. Scriptores” (Ratisb. 1726), tom. 1. p. 792.

    APP6-130 — “To the house of the Aspasians, Sem-pronians, or mother of the Gracchies,” is the reading in Foxe’s text, except that in 1576 and ever since “Aspasians” has been changed into “Vaspasians,” and “or” into “and.” Foxe’s text has been improved from the Latin edition, which runs thus,. p. 233: — “Quae si tam felicem sortita fortunam fuisset, quam cum felici ingenio non infelicem conjunxit educationem, non modo cum Aspasiis, Semproniis, Gracchorum matre, et literaria laude commendatissimis quibusque foeminis, sed viris, Academicis etiam titulis lauroque onustis, pari certare commendatione potuisset.”

    All the females of the famlilies of the Sempronii, Gracchi, and Scipios, were sometimes called by the term Sempronia. There was a sister of the Gracchi called Sempronia. Hence Foxe puts in “Matre Gracchorum” parenthetically, to determine whom he meant. (See Lempriere.)

    APP6-131 “Dr . Ridley ...made a sermon at Pauls Cross .”] Holinshead dates this sermon Sunday, July 16th, which suits Nicolas’s Tables.

    Mary was proclaimed in London July 19th, just ten days after the proclaiming of Jane.

    APP6-132 “[He according to his duty ,” etc.] — See before, of this volume.

    APP6-133 “Ridley...sent the Tower .”] The following entry in the Council Book is printed in Haynes’s Burghley State Papers, p. 160: “July 23d, 1553. A letter to Sir Thomas Cheney and to Sir John Gayge to receive into the Tower of London, as prysoners to be safely kept, the Marquess of Northampton, the Lord Robert Dudley, and Doctor Ridley.” Foxe, however, states at p. 537 that they were actually put in the Tower July 26th.

    APP6-134 “Master Rogers the next Sunday .”] July 23d, which was the eighth Sunday after Trinity by Nicolas’s Tables, when the Gospel for the day would be Matthew 7:15-21.

    APP6-135 middle. “An Inhibition of the queen ,” etc.] — This is alluded to at p. 538, but with a different date.

    APP6-136 “An order was taken by the lords of the Council ,” etc.] — The whole of the matter from hence to p. 394, ending “by the French ambassador,” is evidently taken from the minutes of the Privy Council: see copious transcripts of those minutes in the Harleian MSS., No. 643, (printed in the Archaeologia, vol. xviii, pp. 173-185), also in Haynes’s Burghley State Papers, pp. 155-193. See also a MS. history of this time compiled from contemporary Letters, Har-leian MSS. No. 353.

    APP6-137 “The next Sunday .”] The first three editions omit the three paragraphs preceding this (from “By reason of this tumult” to “licensed by the queen “), and commence this paragraph: “The next Sunday following the queen’s garde was at the Cross,” etc., putting “Aug. 20” in the margin. The edition of 1583 first introduced the foregoing passage, and commenced this paragraph, “After this sermon at Paul’s Cross aforenamed, the next day after it followed that,” etc.

    This error has been corrected in the present edition, from the old editions.

    APP6-138 — It would appear from the authorities quoted in the last note but one, that the Council Book reads “Rutter.” “August 15th, 1553. — One William Rutter committed this daye to the Marshalsie for uttering certain seditious words against the Preacher, Mr. Bourne, for his sermon at Paul’s Cross on Sunday last.” Foxe’s text reads “Rutler.”

    APP6-139 — The Council Book says: “August 16th, 1553. Brad-forde and Vernon, two sedicious preachers, committed to the charge of the lieutenant of the Tower...Theodore Basil, alias Thomas Becon, another sediciouse preacherr committed also to the Lieutenant’s charge of the Toure.”

    APP6-140 — The Council Book has: “August 22d, 1553. Two several lettres unto Miles Coverdale and John Hooper clerks for their indelayde repaire unto the Courte, where to attende upon the Lords of the Counsaill.” And again: “At Richmount the 29th of Auguste, 1553.

    John Hoper, bishop of Gloucester, made this day his personal appearance.” Again: “August 30th, 1553. Miles Coverdale, bishop of Exeter, made this day his personall apperance.” And again: “At Richmount the firste of September, 1553. This day appered before the Lords John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester, and Miles Coverdale, Bishop of Exeter. And the said Hooper, for considerations the Councell moving, was sent to the Fleete. And the said Coverdale commaunded to attende untill the Lordes Pleasure be further knowen.”

    APP6-141 — William Dalby, in a letter written at London, Sept. 1st, 1553, says that “The Bushope of Canterbury, Hooper, Levere, the bushope of Loudone, and diverse other are together in disputation dayly at their owne howses, but what is done amongeste them I cannot learne.” (Harleian MSS. No. 353, fol. 143.) Another letter dated September 5th, says, “At London is kepte diveres disputationes in the consistorye place in Pawles with the bushopes. Bushope Hooper must dispute on Monday nexte in the same place and upon diveres articles, but what they be I cannot as yet learne.” (Ibid.)

    APP6-142 — “Saunders” is the reading in Foxe’s text and margin, which is at variance with his own text in line 16 of this page, and line 6 from the bottom; moreover it is at variance with the Council Book (the authority which Foxe is evidently following).

    APP6-143 — The Council Book says: “At Richmount the 4th of September. A Lettre of Apparaunce directed to Hughe Latymere.”

    APP6-144 “About the 5th of September ,” etc.] — See the matters in this paragraph fully detailed in a letter from Julius Teren-tianus to John ab Ulmis (Zurich Letters, Parker Soc. 1846, No. 182).

    APP6-145 — See p. 540, line 8. The Council Book says: “At Westminster the xiij day of September, 1553. This daye Mr. Hugh Lattymer clercke appeared before the lordes, and for his seditious demeanor was comitted to the Towere, there to remaine a close prisoner, havinge attendinge upon him one Austy his servante...The archbishop of Canterbury appearing this day before the lords, was commauntied to appere the next day before them at afternoon, at the Star Chamber.”

    APP6-146 — See p. 540, line 10. The Council Book says: “At the Starre Chamber the xiiij, of September an°. 1553. This presente daye Thomas archbishoppe of Canterburye appeared before the Lordes (as he was the daye before appoynted): after longe and serious debatynge of his Offence by the whole boarde, it was thoughte convenyente that as well for the Treason committed by him againste the Queene’s Mat? as for the aggravatynge of the same his offense, by spreadinge aboute seditious Billes movinge tumultes to the disquietnes of the presente State, he should be comitted to the Towere, there to remayne and be referred to Justyce or furthere ordered as shall stande with the Queen’s pleasure.” The Harleian MS. Mis-copies the date of this entry “the viij of September,” as the Editor is informed by Mr. Lemon of the S. P.O.

    The following entries may be added, as interesting: “At Westminster the xvij day of November ano. 1553. A letter to the Livetenante of the Tower willinge him at conveniente tymes, by his discrecyon, to suffer [among others named] Docter have the liberty of the walke within the garden of the Towere, upon suggestyon that diverse be and have bene evell at ease in their bodyes for want ofAyre.”...“At St. James’s the iij day of May ano. 1554. It was this Daye ordered by the Lordes that the Maiore of Oxeford should bringe in his Byll of Allowances for the charges of Doctor Cranmer, Doctor Ridleye, and Mr. Lattimer, and should have a Warrante for the same, and furthere it was resolved by their Lordshippes that the Judges and the Queenes Highnes Counselle learned should be called together, and theire Opinions demaunded what they thinke in Lawe her highnes may doe touchinge the Causes of the sayde Cranmer, Ridley, and Lattimer, being alredie by both the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge judged to be obstynate Heretiques, which matter is the rather to be consulted upon for that the said Cranmer is allredy attainted.”...“At Hampton Courte the xxv Day of September ano. 1554. A letter to the Mayore and Bailires of Oxeford to delivere the late Bishoppe of Canterburye, Doctor Ridley, and Latymer, over to the charge of the newe Maiore and Bailifes that shall succede in their rowme.”

    For the following entry (Counc. Reg. Mary, vol. 2. p. 367) the Editor is indebted to the kindness of Robert Lemon, Esq. of the S. P. O.: — “At Grenewiche the Seconde of Februarye 1555.

    THAPPARAUNCE The L. Chauncelour Mr. Vicechamberlaine The L. Privie Scale Mr. Sec. Bourne The Erle of Pembroke Sr. John Mordaunt The L. Admyrall Sr. Thos. Wharton The B. of Elye Sr. Fraunees Englefield Mr. Comptrollour Sr. Edward Walgrave Mr. J. Thorsse “A letter to the Thresourer, giving him tunderstand that it is resolved here that the late Maiour and Bailiefes of Oxforde shall have for the charges due unto them for D. Cranmer, Ridley and Latymer and their servauntes, thre pounde every weke; praieng him to give ordre that they be paide after that rate for somoche as is due unto them.”

    APP6-147 “Seditious bills .”] See p. 539 for Cranmer’s Purgation , the “bill” intended: see also the Zurich letter referred to in the note on p. 393, line 15 from the bottom.

    APP6-148 “At Ankerwyke by sickness departed .”] — Foxe in his first edition only, p. 905, says, that Dr. Taylor “was upon the same committed to the Tower, where not long after by sicknes he departed: ” in which statement he no doubt discovered that he was mistaken. See Richardsoh’s Godwin.

    APP6-149 — The ensuing Report contains many verbal variations from the text of 1563: the whole has been collated with the Latin, which is printed in the Latin edition of 1559, and some of these variations being improvements are left to stand; in other cases the readings of the first Edition are restored, as more faithful to the Latin. A Portion of the Disputation, as between Haddon and Watson, not given by Foxe, will be found in the Harleian MSS. No. 422, fol. 38-40.

    APP6-150 “And for that ,’ said he , ‘there is a book of late set forth , called the Catechism ,’” etc.- ] The title of the little volume alluded to is, “Catechismus brevis, Christianae disciplinae summam continens, omnibus Ludimagistris auth. Regis commendatus: huic Catechismo adjuncti sunt Articuli de quibus in ultima Synodo Londinensi A.D. 1552, etc. etc. 8vo. Lond. 1553.” This Catechism is generally considered to be the production of Poynet, bishop of Winchester.

    Strype, however, says, “It was certainly writ by Alexander Noel, as I find by comparing Noel’s Catechism and this together.” (Memorials of the Reformation under Edward VI. book ii, chap. 15.) See the matter again referred to in Cranmer’s Disputation at Oxford, p. 468 of this volume, and in Ridley’s Disputation, p. 487. The following passage of a letter from Sir John Cheke to Bullinger, Greenwich June 7th, (Zurich Letters, Parker Soc. 1846, No. 71), decides the point of the authorship: “Besides this, he [Edward VI.] has lately recommended to the schools by his authority the Catechism of John , Bishop of Winchester , and has published the Articles of the Synod of London.”

    Weston evidently alludes to the latter part of the title-page, respecting the Articles. This book was printed in Latin by Wolfe, and in English by Day, at the same time. Copies “are very rare. They could only be circulated from May 20th to July 6th, of 1553. During the reign of Mary all that fell into the hands of the various commissioners, visitors, and bishops were burnt. Beloe, in his Anecdotes of Literature, mentions this work (vol. iii. 22), and says of it, ‘it is a very rare little book, concerning which Heylin very truly says, that it is so hard to come by, that scarce one scholar in five hundred hath ever heard of it, and hardly one of a thousand has ever seen it.’” (See more in Dr.

    Lamb’s Historical Account of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 6, Cambridge, 1829.) There are copies of it in the Public Library at Cambridge, and elsewhere; and the Parker Society has reprinted it among the “Documents of Edward VI.” Dr. Lamb thinks that the publication of neither part can be said to have had the sanction of Convocation, strictly speaking. Dr. Cardwell (“Acta Synodalia”) disputes Dr. Lamb’s view, and thinks that the Articles had.

    APP6-151 “As messenger from the lord high steward .”] The first edition reads “a messenger.” All the English editions read erroneously, “lord great master.” The Latin edition (1559), p. 216, says: “quidam generosus accessit, nomine Domini magni oeconomi, significans ipsum cum Comite Devoniensi (qui sanguine ortus regio, quamvis a pueris carcere clausus fuerit, in omni tamen disciplinarum genere non mediocriter eruditus, natalibus nuper aequissimo judicio comitiorum restitutus est) velle disputationi interesse:” and the margin says opposite to “oeconomi,” “Is est comes Arundellus qui ad nobilitatis antiquiss, ornamenta adjecit etiam eruditionem non vulgarem.” See Beatson’s Political Index, vol. 1. p. 432, edit. 1806; and Gerdes’ Miscellanea Groningana nova, tom. 2. pt. 1. p. 168, note.

    APP6-152 “Misalledging the text .”] It may be well perhaps to give the original of a passage, which has from that day to the present been perverted by mistranslation (see Faber’s “Account of Husenbeth’s Attempt to assist the Bishop of Strasbourg,” Lond. 1829, p. 30): jEra.

    Kai< pisteu>eiv ge sw>matov Cristou~ metalamba>nein kai< ai=matov; jOrq. Ou[tw pisteu>w. jEran. [Wsper toi>nun ta< su>mbola tou~ despotikou~ sw>mato>v te kai< ai=matov, ajlla< mesewv, meta< de> ge thklhsin metaba>lletai, kai< e[tera gi>netai: ou[tw to< despotikolhyin eijv than meteblh>qh th>n qei>an.

    JOrqo. Jea>lwv ai=v u[fh|nav a]rkusin?oujde< gambola th~v oijkei>av ejxi>statai fu>sewv. Me>nei garav oujsi>av kai< tou~ sch>matov kai< tou~ ei]douv, kai< oJrata> ejsti, kai< aJpta<, oi=a kai< pro>teron h+n.

    Dialog. ii. cap. 24; or fol. 38 recto edit. Romae, 1547.

    APP6-153 “Only so much ,” etc.] Instead of this the first edition has: “we must beleve so much of his omnipotence, as he by his word hath declared and taught us; but by his word he hath taught us that the heavens must receive his body till the day of Dome: therefore we ought so to beleve.”

    APP6-154 “Their gay gardeviance .”] See the Appendix to vol. 2. note on p. 279.

    APP6-155 . “Southwark , who forasmuch as he could not enter that way .”] The reason for this alteration of march is thus explained by Stowe: “Certaine both men and women came to Wyat in most lamentable wise, saying, Sir, wee are all like to bee utterly undone, and destroyed for your sake; our houses shall by and by bee throwne downe upon our heads, to the utter spoyle of this borough, with the shot of the Tower, all ready bent and charged towards us; for the love of God therefore take pittie upon us — And so in most speedie manner hee marched away.” (Pp. 619, 620.)

    APP6-156 — The genuineness of this narrative of the conference with Fecknam is asserted by James Haddon in a letter to Bullinger. (Zurich Letters, Parker Society, 1846, No. 134.)

    APP6-157 — The genuineness of this letter has been disputed by some.

    Sir Harris Nicolas in his Life of Lady Jane Gray, p. lxxvi., allows its authenticity, but thinks it must have been written before her condemnation, because it is signed with her maiden name. Sir H.

    Nicolas prints it in Latin, as well as that to her sister, evidently thinking that they were originally written in Latin. But it appears from a letter of James Haddon to Bullinger, and another from John Banks to the same, published by the Parker Society (Zurich Letters, 1846, Nos. 134, 141), not only that they are genuine, but that they were originally written by her in English, and translated into Latin by Banks, who infused a coarseness into the Latin, for which Sir H. Nicolas apologizes from the state of the times, but which really does not appear in Lady Jane’s English.

    APP6-158 — “Seloma and Zetrophone” in Foxe’s text is evidently a corruption for “Seleucia and Ctesiphon;” for Simeon, archbishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, was martyred under Sapor, king of Persia: see supra, vol. 1. 280. It is curious that there , also, Foxe’s text (corrected however in this edition) makes a second martyr out of the second part of Simeon’s title, for his text there reads, “Symeon, archbishop of Seleueia, with Ctesiphon, another bishop in Persia;” and a few lines lower, in a translation from Sozomen, “accused Symeon and Ctesiphon.” It is most probable that Foxe and Lady Jane were led into their mistake by Simeon Metaphrastes, or some other martyrologist who did not quite comprehend Sozomen’s Greek. “Seloma” cannot be a corruption of Solyma or Jerusalem; for though Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, was a martyr (see vol. 1. pp. 104, 116), he is never called “arch bishop;” and “Zetrophone” is not to be met with in any of the martyrologics.

    APP6-159 — Foxe reads “upon the 21st of the same month the fourth day after his condemnation.” No doubt the 21st was the fourth day after his condemnation, according to p. 544; but the execution is there dated Friday, February 23d, which suits Nicolas’s Tables, and is confirmed by Noailles 88, Stow, Hollinshed, Godwin in Kennett’s Collections, and Strype.

    APP6-160 — This monition of Bonner is in the Bonner Register, fol. 341.

    It is singular that in all the editions of Foxe it is misdated the 23d of February, though in the preceding paragraph of text it is correctly dated the 24th. The Register says “the xxiiij day of February.” Foxe’s copy has been collated with the original, and conformed to it. The first edition, indeed, is nearly exact; only two words in square brackets are added by Foxe, as necessary to the sense.

    APP6-161 — This letter of the queen and the Articles following are in the Bonner Register, fol. 342. Here also it is singular, that though Foxe a few lines above, correctly dates them March 4th, in the preamble and the conclusion of the letter he says “March 3:” the Register says “the fourth day of March.” The only instances in which Foxe’s copy of the letter differs from the Register are in his reading “adultery” for “advoutry,” at bottom of p. 426; omitting “utterly” at line 4 of next page; and reading “our” instead of “your” at line 26.

    APP6-162 — Foxe omits “speedy” after his first edition, though it is in the Register.

    APP6-163 — Foxe reads “their” instead of “our.”

    APP6-164 — All the editions of Foxe, except those of 1563 and 1570 read “alienis vicibus,” though the Register has plainly “alternis.”

    APP6-165 — The Register, fol. 343 verso, says that copies of the foregoing were sent also to the archdeacons of London, Middlesex, and Colchester. Letters from Bonner to his four archdeacons are given in the Register dated March 18th, for the execution of the premises.

    APP6-166 — By some unaccountable oversight, no edition after that of 1563 gives the “prescript or monitory” here referred to: it will be found both in Latin and English, among the Documents at the end of this Appendix, No. II. Two or three inaccuracies in Foxe’s Latin have been corrected from the original in the Bonner Register, fol. 345.

    APP6-167 “March 15: ” at p. 548 we read “March 18.”

    APP6-168 — The acts of this Convocation are briefly given in the Bonner Register, fol. 339-341. It opened on Tuesday, April 3d, 1554, and was on Friday, May 25th, prorogued to the 5th of October ensuing, being the Friday following St. Michael’s day.

    APP6-169 — This summons of Mary for the Convocation is in the Register folio 337 verso: it is dated “London, decimo-quinto die Marcii, anno Regni primo.” It is remarkable, that at folio 323, where Mary’s reign commences, the anti-papal style of the Sovereign is inscribed in the title of the Register.

    APP6-170 “Therefore here is to be known that the dignity of priests , by some means passeth the dignity of angels ,” etc.] — It may be well, as this statement does not come immediately from Bishop Bonner himself, to support his opinion from Mr. Gibbings’s Roman Forgeries and Falsifications; or an Examination of counterfeit and corrupted Records, p. 63. (Dublin, 1842). “Notwithstanding the usual exaggeration of the Virgin Mary’s power and privileges, there is a class of human beings, by whom she is confessedly surpassed. — ‘Gabriel Biel super Canonem Missae et Discipulus Serm. III. ex Catbolicorum omniurn Doctorurn communi consensu statuit Sacerdotem sanctissima et immaculata Virgine matte majorem et digniorem: quia illa semel tantum filium sacro meruit in utero portare; iste vero quotidie, imo in casibus a jure expressis (in Gloss. c. “consuluit,” De celebr. Miss. Et a Soto in 4. dist. 13. q. 2.

    Navar. in c. 25. n. 87. et alii) his, et in die Nativitatis ter poterit consecrate.” (Jos. Geldolph. a Ryckel justa Funeb. Animab. Fidel.

    Defunct. Persolv. p. 404, Lovan. 1634.)

    APP6-171 — The conference between Ridley and Bourn is given according to the text of 1563, which seems the most correct and genuine: many verbal alterations occur in the subsequent editions, some of them much for the worse.

    APP6-172 “Then do they not alarm what ye take , but what they meant .”] — This is the reading in the first edition; subsequent editions read, “then do they affirm what ye take, but not what they meant.” The word “take” occasions some obscurity in this passage: it is taken literally in the line before, “ye take their words;” but at the end of the paragraph it is used for “understand,” “ye take my words,” i .e .” understand; ” and this seems the sense in which it is here used, “they do not affirm what ye take,” i .e . understand, “but what they meant,” i .e . you and they use the same words in different senses.

    APP6-173 — Much the same sentiment occurs in a letter to OEcolampadius, dated April 8th, 1529. See Epist. Collect. tom. 1. col. 1048.

    APP6-174 — The editions after those of 1563 and 1570 read “whom was he?” an evident corruption.

    APP6-175 “Trithemius was but of late time .”] A very full account of this writer and his times is given in Zeigelbaver’s “Historia Rei literariae Ord. S. Bened.” (Aug. Vind. 1754), tom. iii. from p. 217 to p. 333. On the particular work of Trithemius referred to, it is remarked: — ” His itidem diebus inchoavit (T.) laboriosum opus de viris Ulustribus Ordinis S. B. in quatuor libros divisum, quorum priores duos an. 1492 perfecit, posteriores sequenti anno complevit, ut habet Chronicon Spanhemense. Opus tamen needum typis in lucem prolatum fuisse anno1507 memorat ipse in epistola ad Rogerium Sicambrum.” (P. 255.)

    APP6-176 — Foxe says in the margin “The book of catechism.” Foxe may mean the Catechism of Justus Jonas, translated under Cranmer’s authority, 1543, and often called his: but still more probably his Book on the Sacrament, which Cranmer afterwards defended against Gardiner.

    APP6-177 “But maketh it ,” etc.] — “But” is wanting in the first edition.

    APP6-178 — This sermon of Ridley’s is alluded to at pp. 241, 242, of this volume.

    APP6-179 “Quod master secretary , ‘of our failh which is to be believed under pain of damnation .’”] — In the editions after the first this passage stops at the word “faith.”

    APP6-180 — The letter in question was perhaps actually sent, and the prisoners given up to Sir John Williams, “March 10th; ” but the following is the minute of the Council Book on the subject: “At Westminster the viij day of Marche ano 1553 [1554]. A Letter to the Livetenaunte of the Towere to deliver to Sr John Williames the bodies of the late Archbishope of Canterbury, Doctor Ridley, and Mr.

    Lattymer, to be by him convaied to Oxeford.” Harl. MSS. Numbers 643, fol. 20 b, printed in the Archaeologia, vol. xviii, p. 177.

    APP6-181 — Foxe in his first edition, pp. 931-936, gives another and more succinct account of the Oxford Disputation, which will be found reprinted among the Documents at the end of this Appendix, No. III.

    APP6-182 “About the 10th of March .”,] Foxe here says “April,” though higher up he has said that orders for their removal had been given by the Council a month before. It is most likely, however, that by “10th of April” Foxe in reality meant rather to describe the time of their arrival in Oxford; for the edition of 1563, p. 932, in the other account of the Oxford Disputation, reprinted at the end of this Appendix, states, that “two dayes after theyr [the 3 martyrs.] commyng to the universitie, being the xii of Apryll, diverse learned men of bothe the universities were sente in commission from the convocation above mentioned of the clergye, to examine them and dispute with them in certain articles. The names of the chief were these: of Oxforde, Doctor Weston, prolocutor,” etc. But this certainly is not correct: for the Queen’s Warrant to the mayor of Oxford at p. 532, dated London April 11th, speaks of them as then “remaining in custody” at Oxford: the two documents which passed the Cambridge Senate April 10th speak of them as then at Oxford. (Strype’s Cranmer, Appendix, Nos. 77, 78.) Further, a letter from Lever to Bullinger, dated Geneva April 11th, 1554, says: “Alius tamen, qui a Londo (sic ) decessit 13 die Martii , hodie hic mihi retulit, quod in seditione per Voyetum [Wyat] concitata nulli sacrifici, etc.. Atque praeterea asseverabat se pro certo audivisse Cranmerum Cantuariensem episcopum, Ridleum Londinensem episcopum, Latimerum concionatorem celeberrimum, et Halesium jurisperitum pium, omnes hos pariter traductos a Londino ad Oxoniam fuisse , ut ibi a dominis doctoribus illius academiae condemnati haereseos igni (sic ) comburerentur.” (Zurich Letters, Parker Society, 1846, No. 77.) In the next letter, April 23d, he says, “Ex Anglia recens nihil ad me pervenit, nisi redargutio illorum rumorurn, quibus per aliquot dies hic dicebatur reginam interemptam fuisse.”

    Another in the same collection, from Peter Martyr to Bullinger, dated Strasburgh April 3d, 1554, says: “D. Cantuariensis cure Londinensi olim episcopo et Latimero sunt Oxonium deducti, ubi jam habebitur (ut vocant) parliamentum, ibi enim indictum est, nisi consilium mutent.”

    We may safely say, therefore, with Dr. Ridley (Life of Bishop Ridley, p. 488), that they came to Oxford “a little before Easter,” which fell in that year on March 25th (see Nicolas’s Tables).

    APP6-183 — The following extract from the Register of Convocation, and the Bonner Register, fol. 339, is printed in Wilkins, 4. p. 94: “Quinto die Aprilis prolocutor Hugo Weston a praeside convocationis [‘Episcopo London.] admittebatur: ibi etiam tractabatur de eligendis quibusdam de clero, qui totius vice cleri mitterentur Oxoniam, ad tractandum cure domino Cranmero, domino Ridleo, nuper praetenso episcopo London., et Hugone Latymer, olim episc. Wigorn., de quibusdam articulis religionem concernentibus. Et delecti sunt doctor Weston, Oglethorp, Chedsye, Seton, Cole, JelTery, Fecknam, et Harpesfield ad effectum praedictum. Et quia praedictus prolocutor non potuit adesse dictae convocationi, substituit N. Harpesfield et Joh.

    Wimbleseye conjunctim et divisim in loco suo.”

    APP6-184 — The following are the Articles, as given in the official Report, Harl. MSS. No. 3642; also in the Grace of the University of Cambridge, in Strype and Wilkins: 1. “In sacramento altaris virtute verbi divini a sacerdote prolati, praesens est realiter sub speciebus panis et vini naturale corpus Christi concepturn de Virgine Maria. Item, naturalis ejusdem sanguis. 2. “Post consecrationem non remanet substantia panis et vini, neque alia ulla substantia, nisi substantia Christi, Dei et hominis. 3. “In missa est vivificum Ecclesiae sacrificium pro peccatis tam vivorum quam mortuorum propitiabile.”

    APP6-185 “The aforesaid letters .”] These two documents are printed in Strype’s Life of Cranmer, Appendix, Nos. 77, 78; and from thence by Wilkins, 4. p. 98: the doctors delegated by the University appear from these two documents to have been Dr. John Young, vice-chancellor, successor of Ridley as master of Pembroke; Dr. William Glynn, president of Queen’s; Dr. Richard Atkinson, provost of King’s; Dr.

    Cuthbert Scot, master of Christ’s; Dr. Thomas Watson, master of St.

    John’s; Dr. Alban Langdale, of St. John’s; and Dr. Thomas Sedgwyke, of Trinity, regius professor of divinity in Cambridge. Dr. John Seton, of St. John’s, was sent by the Convocation. Dr. Langdale was parson of Buxted in Sussex, and in that character appears a persecutor of the Gospel at vol. 8. p. 352, etc.; and again at p. 367, etc.

    APP6-186 — For “Wakecline” (or “Wakeclyn,” ed. 1570,) the edition of 1563, p. 936, reads “Wakefield.”

    APP6-187 — For “keeping” the edition of 1563 reads “chaumber” — “Doctor Seton and Watsoh’s chaumber.”

    APP6-188 — Dr. William Tresham had been commissary according to Neve and Wood from 1532 to 1546, and vice-chancellor the latter part of 1550, and a considerable part of 1551. Richard Martiall was made vice-chancellor Oct. 3d, 1552: “Absentis vices gerebat Dr. Tresham.” (Wood.) Martiall was reappointed 1553, but Walter Wryght is mentioned as such April 4th, and Dr. Tresham (who was about that time prisoner in the Fleet) as commissary Nov. 6th. John Warner was nominated as vice-chancellor by Martiall April 15th, 1554, and soon after admitted. (Wood.) It is plain, therefore, that Tresham ought here to have been called “commissary ,” especially as Martiall is called “vice -chancellor ” at p. 443.

    APP6-189 “As was said afore .”] This is not true in any edition except that of 1563, which in the first Account of the Disputation, reprinted at the end of this Appendix, No. III., had said (p. 936): “After the sentence pronounced they were separated the one from the other: videlicet, my lord of Canterbury was put in Bocardo: Dr. Ridley was caried to maister Shrives house: maister Latimer in maister Bailifs.”

    This sentence occurs at p. 534 of this volume, followed by a short paragraph which forms the termination of the first Account in the edition of 1563.

    APP6-190 — All the editions after the first read “roabes” or “robes’ in the text and margin.

    APP6-191 “Being gremials .”] This is, if we may judge by its absence from various dictionaries, Todd’s Johnson, the Promptorium Parvulorum, Halliwell, etc., a very rare word in English. It is explained by Adelung, “qui est de gremio seu sodalitate cujusdam ordinis.”

    APP6-192 “Willing him to write his mind of them that night .”] The official report says, that Cranmer “primo eosdem articulos in forma verborum qua concipiuntur veros non esse asseruit; nihilo minus aiebat, quod si copiam eorundem articulorum et tempus perpendendi eosdem concederemus, redigere vellet in scriptis ejus ad eosdem responsum, nobisque in crastino tunc consequente die transmittere.” See the note next but one.

    APP6-193 “Had a great dinner .”] The edition of 1563 adds, “the byble being red at a deske in the myddle of the Hall by a scholer with a verye loude voyce, grace after diner likewyse sayde, with an anterope [anthem] in pricksong.” Two lines lower, for “whither Dr.” that edition reads “and Dr.; ” and four lines lower, “at eight or soon after.”

    APP6-194 “Dr . Cranmer sent answer of his mind upon the articles in writing .”] This was according to previous arrangement: see the note next but one preceding this. The first Explication, given by Foxe at p. 445 is evidently that which Cranmer delivered in on Sunday night; for the official report only adverts to two answers to the articles as given by Cranmer in writing : and the MS. in the Cambridge Library (MSS.

    Kk. 5. 14) and Foxe’s Latin account (Ed. Bas. 1559, p. 641, which professes to follow “ipsum notariorum archetypum”) only mention one paper as delivered during the Disputation: the answer of Sunday, as given in the Cambridge MS., contains some expressions not to be found in either of the “Explications.”

    APP6-195 “Met together at Exeter ...and so they went .”] The first edition reads, “went to Exeter college, besyde the scholes, and there taryed in the garden a quarter of an hower for the Vicechauncellor, and then they went.”

    APP6-196 “Marshal vice-chancellor .”] — See the note on p. 440, line 32.

    APP6-197 “Disorderly , sometimes in Latin , sometimes in English ,” etc.] — The official report states that the Disputation was previously arranged to take place “scholastico more, atque concisis argumentis, et sermone Latino .” The Cambridge MS. represents Cole as first departing from the rule. Cranmer complained of the character of the Disputation to the Council: his letter is given at p. 533 of this volume: see also Ridley’s complaint at p. 532; the letter of certain preachers, etc. at p. 550; and Hooper’s letter at p. 664.

    APP6-198 — The edition of 1563 here says, “of Cambridge began: and Dr.

    Scotte could not be suffered to dispute. The Vicechauncellor of Cambridge also was interrupted as before.”

    APP6-199 “You have already given up unto us ,” etc .] “Ad nos transmisisti,” Lat. Ed. p. 640. The account in the Latin edition breaks off at the next line, “disagreeth from the catholic,” and proceeds at once with the Explication at the bottom of this page, “In the assertions,” etc. The intermediate passage in the English editions is plainly only another version of the argument in next page, following the first Explication and introducing ‘the second . (See note on p. 443, line from the bottom). The Latin of the first Explication is printed in the Latin edition and in Jenkyns.

    APP6-200 — Collier also prints the original of this second Latin explication, apparently from the same source. There is another MS. copy of it in C. C. C. Cambridge, intituled, “Praefatio et protestatio Thomae Cranmer scripta et tradita propria manu in schola publics.” A similar title is prefixed to an English translation of it by Grindal, Harl.

    MSS. 422, fol. 44.

    APP6-201 — According to the Cambridge MS. the argument up to this point had been conducted in English, and Cole first broke through the rule of the disputatio “Sermone Latino.”

    APP6-202 — The scholar of Oxford, in the other account of the Disputation printed at the end of this Appendix, says, that “this was the strongest argument which was thought to blank him.”

    APP6-203 — The Cambridge MS. puts this accusation into the mouth of Weston. As he pursued the matter, Dr. Jenkyns thinks it natural to suppose that he started it.

    APP6-204 — Dr. Smith had mistranslated this passage of Hilary in his Assertion of the Sacrament of the Altar; and had been exposed by Cranmer in his Defence and Answer to Gardiner. This, Dr. Jenkyns thinks, was the reason why Smith held his peace. See infra, vol. 8. pp. 708, 709, for an interesting anecdote in connection with this dispute about the reading in Hilary.

    APP6-205 “Thus far was their talk in English .”] The Cambridge MS. says that the greater part of their previous talk had been in Latin, and that their discussion on the reading of Hilary was in English. It adds, that the arguments between Young and Cranmer were in Latin.

    APP6-206 “Let it be so ,” etc.] — This answer does not appear in the first edition of Foxe, and looks like a jocose remark of his own.

    APP6-207 “He doth not call the Spirit ,” etc.] — In the Cambridge MS. this answer is attributed to Cole, and the following argument from Ambrose to Weston.

    APP6-208 — “Fit sanguis, id est, ostenditur sanguis. Ex hoc response orta sunt sibila.” (Cambridge MS.)

    APP6-209 . “Similitude of his blood .”] The Cambridge MS. here adds, “West . Are ye not weary? Cran . No, sir.”

    APP6-210 — The charge in the text was made again by Ward against Ridley, p. 490. The charge was quite unfounded.

    APP6-211 “Your book omitteth many things here .”] The Cambridge MS. gives an answer of Cranmer, “Because I would not write all that long treatise.”

    APP6-212 “The truth overeometh .”] The Cambridge MS. adds, that Cranmer from respondent, demanded, according to the usage of the schools, to be opponent. “Cran . Oppono: vos respondete scripturis. West . Habebis aliam diem ad opponendum.” This day was the following Thursday, April 19th.

    APP6-213 — Respecting this Catechism, see the note in this Appendix on p. 396.

    APP6-214 — A full account of this Dr. Smith is given by Strype in his “Memorials,” Mary, chap. xxviii., and “Life of Cranmer,” pp. 171, 172. It appears there that the offense which he had committed, and which caused him to flee into Scotland, was his endeavoring to excite opposition to P. Martyr at Oxford, putting him even in danger of his life; and his writing a book in favour of the “Celibacy of the Clergy” against Cranmer. This was in the year 1549. He wrote two letters from Scotland in apology to the archbishop, of which this is one, belonging to 1550.

    APP6-215 “Touching which D . Smith forsomueh as mention here happeneth , turned and returned .”] The recantation here alluded to, or one of them at least, was put into print under the title, “A godly and faythfull Retractation made and published at Paule’s Crosse in London, the yeare of our Lord God 1547, the 15 daye of May, by Mayster Richard Smyth, Dr. of divinitye; etc. Londini, 1547.”

    A specimen of this rare tract, to which Bishop Gatdiner has made a smart reference (see p. 40, supra), containing as it does but 16 leaves, it may be of some interest to extract. Mr. Maitland pronounces it to be generally unknown: see p. 216 of “A List of some early printed Books in the Archiep. Library, Lambeth, 1843; ” where there is a copy, and also in the Bodleian Collections. “There be ‘many thinges” (says Dr. Smith) “ascribed to thappostles, and called traditions deduced from the tyme of thappostles and read in the name of olde Authors, and set furth under the pretensed title of their name, which be feyned and forged and notheng trew, full of superstition and untrewth, feyned by them, which wold magnify their owne power and auctoritie, as is the Epistles of Clemens, Anacletus, Euaristus and Fabianus and other which art set furth by the byshop of Rome and his complices, which be forged, feyned and of none auctoritie nor to be beleved, but counterfeyted by theym: who with the color of antiquitie wolde magnify that usurped power of the byshop of Rome.”

    Farther on (the tract is unpaged) we read: — “When I folowed myne own invention not directed by Scripture, I began as the nature of man is to wander, and at the last went cleane contrary to God’s woord. “Wherfore, I hertely exhort every man as touchyng matiers of faith to founde the same upon God’s certeyn, trew and infallyble woorde; lest by doyng the contrary, they fall into superstition idolatry, and other manyfold errers, as I my self sometyme, and many other (although I doo not come hyther too accuse any man) yet I perceyve of late tyme have doone.” (See Strype’s Memorials under Edward VI. book 1. chap. 6.)

    APP6-216 — The original Latin of Ridley’s Disputation is reprinted by the Parker Society (Ridley’s Remains, Appendix 1.) from the Latin edition of Foxe, Bas. 1559.

    APP6-217 “We have Linus and Egesippus against you ,” etc.] — The good Doctor, who was master of Whittington College, afterwards gave some account of his exploits on this occasion, which it may be well to produce from a small volume, of course not commonly known. The writer was fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge, and subsequently rector of Hackney. “This doctrine taught Docter Smith. I heard him in Whittington college in London, in Queen Maries daies; he moved manie affections, and told the tale on this wise. Maisters, saith he, you are in a great terrour [? error] as concerning that blessed sacrament, and all your trust was in Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer: 1 as for Latimer, he said in open disputation in Oxford, that he had no learning in that matter, but out of Cranmer’s book: besides this I disputed with Latimer twentie yeres agone; and then he had no learning. As for Cranmer he said that his learning came from Ridley. And as for Ridley, I disputed with him myself now at Oxford the other daie, and I proved my argument thus: — Ille , cui Christus obviavit Romae , fuit Romae . He whom Christ met at Rome, was at Rome. But Christ met Peter at Rome: ergo Peter was at Rome. By this argument I prove two things, and singular misteries of our faith. First that Peter was at Rome, against them that clatter that Peter was never at Rome, and Linus also who was Peters successor at Rome. Secondlie, that if Peter met Christ bodilie, as Abdias reporteth, and which I am sure is true, or else such an ancient and holie father would never have written it: then consequently he may be as well bodily in the blessed sacrament, as he was met bodily. To this Ridley stood like a block and feeling himself convicted, answered nothing. Then said I, Cur non respondes haertice , haereticorum haereticissime . Did I not handle him well ? Then denied he the minor, which I proved thus: Christ met Peter going out of Rome, and said, good morrowe Peter, whither goest thou? Peter answered, good morrowe good man, whither goest thou? Then said Christ, I go to Rome to suffer. What? saith Peter, I trow unless I take my markes amiss, you are Jesus Christ: good Lord, how do you? I am glad I have met you here. Then said he to Peter, go back and suffer, or else I must, et pro to et me . When Ridley had heard this my proof and Abdias authority, a doctor ancient and irrefragable [see vol. i.p. 101, note; and Gibbings’s Reprint of Index Expurg. Vaticanus, Pref. 23. Dublin, 1837] he answered never a word. And thus I confuted Ridley in the audience of a thousand, that he had not one word to say: yet you say that Christ was never on earth since the ascension bodily: beleeve with me that he is under form of bread and wine. Let this argument of mine confound you, as it did Ridley your chiefe champion. [!!] Thus much doctor Smith, and more, in Whitengton colledge church in London, standing in the street called tower Royall, a little above the three cranes in theVintree.” (Chr. Carlile’s Discourse of Peter’s life, peregrination and death; London, imprinted by R. Ward, 1582, pp. 18, 19.) See Wood’s Athenae Oxon. vol. 1. col. 336, for a notice of Carlile, (edit.


    APP6-218 “The story of Linus is not of so great authority .”] The bishop might have set aside this authority more decisively, as even many papal writers of eminence scruple not, in their better judgment, to reject the books attributed to this author. “In biblioth, vet. Patrum, et in Historia Christiana per Laurentinto de la Barre, impress. Parisils 1583, habentur duo libri, quorum prior habet titulum, ‘ B. Lini Rom.

    Pontif. de Passlone B. Petri et Pauli ad Orientales Ecclesias liber primus:’ alter hunc; ‘De Passione B. Pauli ad Eccles. Orient. liber secundus.’ Citantur in Legenda aurea, ut probetur, Petrum magnum instituisse certamen cum Simone Mago; a Sixto Senensi et Salmerone, ut fidem concilient Epistolis Pauli ad Senecam et Senecas ad Paulum; et a Coccio, ut probet animas Sanctorum viventibus aliquando apparere, et ignota quaedam revelare.” Cooke’s “Censura quorundam Scriptorum (Helmestad. 1683)” p. 26, where the opinions of D’Espence, Baronius, Bellarmine, and others are quoted. The following is the most recent opinion: — “Sub nomine S. hujus Pontificis circumferuntur libri duo de passione divorum Petri et Pauli. At hos pariter libros S. Lino Papae longe post, et per injuriam, suppositos esse, Bellarminus, Pagius, Dupinius et omnes hodie eruditi censent; quia nemo veterum de iis meminit, et multa omnino falsa, atque Apostolis illis indigna continent.” Lumper Hist. Theologico-critica de vita, scriptis, SS.

    Patrum; tom. i. p. 468.

    APP6-219 — Respecting this Catechism, see p. 468, and the note in this Appendix on p. 396.

    APP6-220 “I bring another place out of the Council of Nice .”] See the note next following this.

    APP6-221 “This canon is not in the Council of Nice .”] The bishop is right; but it makes its appearance in the proceedings of the Second Nicene Council, Actio vi.; in Labbe, tom. vii. Col. 447 and 837: — Oujdeir pote tw~n salpi>ggwn tou~ pneu> matov aJgi>wn ajposto>lwn, h\ tw~v ajoidi>mwn pate>rwn hJmw~n, thmakton hJmw~n qusi>an, thmnhsin tou~ pa>qouv tou~ Qeou~ hJmw~n kai< pa>shv th~v aujtou~ oijkonomi>av ginome>nhn, ei+pen eijko>na tou~ sw>matov aujtou~. See Aubertin, De Euchar. Sacram. p. 914 (edit. Latin. 1654) upon the contradictory affirmations of this notable council.

    APP6-222 “Blow the morte .”] The first edition here reads “mote,” which subsequent ones alter into “note:” but there can be no doubt that “mote” is corrupt for “mote” or “morte: ” to “blow the mort” is a phrase in hunting, illustrated by Nares in his Glossary: in the Gentleman’s Recreations, 1721, p . 67, in the “Directions at the Death of Buck or Hart,” we read: “then having blown the mort , and all the company come in, etc. [then the cutting up is described.]: the concluding ceremony is, if a buck a double, if a stag a treble, mort is blown by one, and then a whole recheat in concert by all that have horns.” Green’s Card of Fancy has: “He that bloweth the mort before the death of the buck, may very well miss of his fees.”

    APP6-223 — Strype (Mem. III. 1. 375) observes that “Foxe’s copy of Latimer’s protestation is very imperfect, and many mistakes made, and many things omitted.” He accordingly in his Appendix, No. XXXIV. supplies a better from the Foxian MSS.

    APP6-224 — “Offerers” stands in all the editions of Foxe except that of 1571, where and in Strype it is corrupted into “officers.”

    APP6-225 — The old editions of Foxe and Strype here read — “more than one, two, or three hours together [to either, Str.] without interruption:” but the Foxe of 1684 reads “once;” and a copy of the Protestation in Caius College, Cambridge, reads — “more than two or three, etc.”

    APP6-226 — It is proper to remark, that Diaconi is the word used in the passage referred to, not Sacerdotis . (See Chrysostom, horn. 21, Section 4, upon the Acts.)

    APP6-227 “The same Augustine said mass for his mother .”] Reference is made by Dr. Milner (End of Controversy) “to St. Augustine’s account of the death of his mother Monica. On her death-bed she had entreated him to remember her soul at the altar; and in compliance with this request, after her decease he performed this duty in order, as he declares, ‘to obtain the pardon of her sins.’ (Aug. Confess. 9. c. 13, Section 35). But what can this have to do with the point in question?

    In the first place purgatory is not a place of pardon, but of punishment. Nor only is Augustine silent respecting any temporal pains, but he adds: — ‘I believe that thou hast already done what I ask;’ so that his prayer could not be for her release from the Papal Tartarus.” (Elliott’s Delineation of Roman Catholicism, p. 277, Lond. 1844.)

    APP6-228 — The first edition reads “philosopher” for “sophister.”

    APP6-229 “Ad Caesarium Monachum .”] See tom. in. p. 897, edit. 1835; also Cranmer’s Works, 2. 325, and an edition of the “Epistola ad Caesarium,” by James Basnage, Trajecti, 1687, pp. 23, 33.

    APP6-230 — Ridley numbers this the 2d Apology of Justin, and so do the printed copies; but in Eusebius it is correctly numbered the 1st (see vol. 1. p. 125, note (1)): the same remark applies to note (4) in next page.

    APP6-231 “To Richard Atkinson , mayor of Oxford ”] — According to Peshall’s account of Oxford, R. Atkinson was mayor in 1548-9.

    APP6-232 — Foxe’s text reads erroneously “by your appointment.”

    APP6-233 — The English copy of Ridley’s Report as given in the edition of 1563, is so much closer to the Latin than in any subsequent edition, that it is printed among the Documents at the end of this Appendix, No. 4.

    APP6-234 “A prison so called .”] “The north gate of the city remembered in St. Frid’s day an. 700 and before — in after time fell into the hands of the mayor and bailiffs, who made it a common prison.” (Peshall’s Account of Oxford, pp. 197-8).

    APP6-235 “Dr . Weston ...took his journey up to London .”] The following extract from the Convocation and Bonner Register is in Wilkins, 4. p. 94: “Vieesimo septimo ejusdem mensis (post diversas continuationes, in quibus nihi actum est memoratu dignum) post aliquales tractatus et colloquia de reformatione status cleri in convocatione habita, comparuerunt in domo capitulari S. Pauli London. prolocutor et alii doctores, viz. theologiae professores et legum utriusque uuiversitatis nuper ad universitatem Oxoniae destinati, et praeseutaverunt processum super examinatione Thomae Cranmer, Nicolai Ridley, et Hugonis Latymer per eosdem doctores ex speciali commissione eis directa habit, et fact. sub sigillo universitatis Oxon. ac subscriptione notariorum publicorum una cum quibusdam slits scriptis.”

    APP6-236 — “All my three answers” is the reading in the first edition, the later ones read “all mine answers;” “now,” a few lines lower, is from the same source.

    APP6-237 — Dr. Jenkyns has printed another copy of Cranmer’s Letter to the Council from the Emmanuel Library at Cambridge, which differs considerably from Foxe’s, but very little from that in Coverdale’s “Letters of the Martyrs.” (“Cranmer’s Remains,” 1. p. 365.)

    APP6-238 — The edition of 1563, p. 1000, here says, “returning again to the month of August the year before, viz. 1553. In the which month of August Masse first seemed to be attempted in London.” Then follows the passage cited in the note on p. 538, line 3.

    APP6-239 “Other things which happened in this realm ,” etc.] — Most of the ineidents mentioned in the next thirty pages appear in the Council Book (see the note above on p. 392), Holinshead, Stowe, or Strype.

    APP6-240 — The example thus set by the queen in patronizing the popish ritual very much tended to the general restoration of it: the Mass does not seem to have been regularly authorized till December, see p. 542.

    But the first edition of Foxe, p. 1000, says, “In the whiche moneth of August masse first seemed to be attempted in London.” In a letter of John Rowe, dated London, August 24th, we read that, “As for altares and masses [they] are in bildinge faster than ever they weare put downe.” In another of William Dalby, September 1st, “All the altares at Poules are up, and all the oulde service sayd in Latin, and almoste throughe out London the same.” Another letter of September 5th says, “The masse is verry riffe:” and another of September 8th says, “Heare is no newese but candelsticks, books, bells, censores, crosses, and pixes...The highe aulter in Poules churche is up againe elevated 5 or stepes above the mayne; but for makinge haste the worke fell. I hope it wilbe a token of some ill chaunce to come again, which God send quickly.” (Harleian MSS. No 353, fol. 143.)

    APP6-241 — In the edition of 1563, p. 1000, occurs here the following entry, which is omitted in all subsequent editions: “The 11th day of August An. 1553 did a priest say masse at S. Barthelmews in Smithfield; but before he had half done, he was glad to take him to his legges; for as he was lifting up the bread, there were stones flong at him, and one hit him between the shoulders, as the bread was over his head; so that he would not tary, to make an end of his masse.”

    APP6-242 “Veron .”] — Foxe, from the Council Book, prints this name “Vernon” at p. 392. But in the Episcopal Registers of London he is invariably called “Veron.” He is said to have been a Frenchman, “Senonois” i .e . of Sens. He was admitted rector of St. Alphage, London Wall, January 3d, 1552 (“Johannes Veroneus, clericus,” Ridley Register, fol. 316): he was deprived under Mary in 1554 (his successor being appointed June 8th, “per legitimam deprivationera Johannis Veron. clerici coningati,” Bonner Reg. fol. 453.) He was presented by Elizabeth to the prebend of Mora in St. Paul’s November 8th, (Newcourt); to the rectory of St. Martin Ludgate March 8th, (“Johannes Veron, sacrae Theologiae Professor,” Grindal Reg. fol. 113, 131: Newcourt misprints his name in this instance as “Heron”); and to the vicarage of St. Sepulchre’s October 21st, 1560 (“ Johannes Veron, clericus,” Grindal Reg. fol. 117). Strype calls him “a Frenchman by birth, but a learned Protestant,” (Mere. in. chap. 5), and “one of the eminentest preachers at this time, and a writer:” he states that he preached at Paul’s Cross before the mayor and aldermen September 17th, 1559, and that “he died April 9th, 1563, and was buried the next day after, being Easter Even.” (Annals, 1. chaps, 16, 34). A list of his works will be found in Lowndes’s Bibliographical Manual.

    APP6-243 “On Sunday the 20th of August , Dr . Watson ,” etc.] — This is the Dr. Watson who disputed at Oxford the next April. The present statement is confirmed by a contemporary. (See Harleian MSS. No. 353, fol. 141. ) “By a letter writtene in London by William Dalby is signcried one Sondaye laste was a sermone at Paules Crosse made by one doctor Watsone theare was at his sermone the marques of Winchester the earle of Bedforde the earle of Perubrock the lord Wentworthe the lord Riche they did sitte wheare my lord mayer and the aldermen wear wonte to site my lord maiore sittinge uppermoste, thear was also in the windowe overe the mayor the ould bushope of London and diveres otheres, thear was 120 of the garde that stoode round aboute the Crosse with their halberds to gard the preacher and to apprehend them that would stuire. His sermone was no more eloquent than edefieng, I meane it was nether eloquent nor edefienge in my opinione for he medled not withe the Gospelle nor Epistle nor hoe parte of Scripture After he had red his theame he entred into a by mattere and so spente his tyme 4 or 5 of the cheefe poynts of his sermone that I cane remember I will as breefly as I can reporte unto you: vilz. he requirede the people not to believe the preacheres, but that ther faith should be firme and sure because theare is suche varieties amongeste them, and yf any mane doubte of his faithe let him goe to the Scriptures, and also to the olde interpreteres of the doctores, and interprite it not aftere their owne brayne, he wisshed the people to have no newe faithe, nor to build no newe temple, but to keepe the ould faythe, and edifye the ould Temple againe. He blamed the people in a manor for that heartofore they would have nothing that was manes tradissyone; and howe they can be contented to have manes tradissyon, shewing that in the first yeare of the raigne of our sovergaigne lorde king Edward the 6. theare was a lawe established that in the sacramente theare was the bodie and bloode of Christe not really but spiritually, and the nexte yeare aftere they established another lawe that thear was the body of Christe nether speritually nor really Thes 2 in themselves are contraryes thearfor they cannot be bothe trewe, he shewed that we should ground our faithe uppon gods word which is scripture and scripture is the byble which we have in Hebrue Greeke and Lattine and howe translated into Englishe: but he doubtethe the translatyon was not true Also he said theare hathe byne in his tyme that he hathe seene xx Catechesmeses and every one varinge from other in some points, and well he said they mighte be all false but they could not be all true, and thus persuadin the people that they had followed menes tradishyones and had gone a straye, wishin them to come home agayne and reedefy the oula Temple. Thus with many other persuasiones he spente the tyme tyll xj of the clocke and ended.”

    Also from another letter (in the same MS. fol. 148) written in London by John Rowe, August 24th, we learn: “Uppon Sondaye the 20 of Auguste theare preached at Poules Crosse one named Wattes, and to keepe and preserve him from the enemyes theare weare with their holbards about 200 of the garde, the lyke was never seene; and as for altares and masses are in bildinge faster than ever they weare put downe.”

    APP6-244 — This proclamation is given at p. 390, supra, dated August 18th.

    APP6-245 — Respecting this Purgation, see the note on p. 894, and Dr.

    Jenkyns’s note, Cranmer’s Remains, 4. p. 1. The following notice of the subject is taken in a contemporary letter dated London September 8th, Harleian MSS. No. 853, fol. 143 b: “The bushop of Canterbury is the ould mane he was...The bushope of Canterbury hathe made declaratione in wrytyng and sent it to be delivered abroade to the answeringe of all suche as have reported him to be the cause that masse was said in Canterbury and that he offered to saye masse before the queene him selfe, in which declaration he sayth that he was never consentinge that mass should be said in Canterbury, ne in no other place. And he proffereth to on doctor Peetor and 2 or 3 others to prove that this our laste order is more nigher to the institutione of Christe, than the masse is.”

    APP6-246 “Thornton .”] This name is more correctly spelt “Thornden.”

    Henry Wharton has carefully distinguished him, as Thornden , from a Thornton , suffragan to Archb. Warham: see Strype’s Memoirs of Cranmer, vol. 2. p. 1049, edit. Oxford, 1812.

    APP6-247 — See the note above on p. 393.

    APP6-248 — See the note on p. 394.

    APP6-249 . “On the Sunday after , being the 15th of October ,” etc.] — See this paragraph confirmed at p. 614.

    APP6-250 — As October 15th, mentioned above, certainly fell on a Sunday in 1553, Foxe’s “20” must be a misprint for “22:” but it so stands in all the editions. The next paragraph states, that the week following the disputations began in the Convocation: these were appointed to commence on Friday, Oct. 20th, but they did not actually commence till Monday the 23d (see pp. 396, 397): and it is very natural to suppose that Weston would improve the intervening Sunday, Oct. 22d, to prepossess the minds of the public.

    APP6-251 — By the “Round parish” is doubtless meant the Round Church, as it is still popularly called.

    APP6-252 — For “the 12th of January” the edition of 1563, p. 1000, says “the xiij day of January; ” and makes no mention of the next entry.

    APP6-253 — On Dr. Crome, see note in this Appendix on p. 588.

    APP6-254 “And the second day after .”] It has been necessary to correct two inaccuracies in this passage: — (1.) Foxe here says, “and the next day after ;” the effect of which is to place the arrival of the duke of Suffolk and his brother in the Tower to Sunday, February 11th; whereas that occurred on the Saturday: for Fabian mentions their arrest by the earl of Huntington as having taken place February 6th; and Stow says: — “The tenth of Februarie the earle of Huntington and other gentlemen, and to the number of 300 horsemen, brought into the Towre as prisoners the duke of Suffolke, and the lord John Grey his brother, from Coventry, where the D. had remained three dayes after his taking in the house and custody of Christopher Warren, Alderman there:” all which is confirmed by Robert Swifte, writing thus to the earl of Shrewsbury on Monday, February 12th. — (Lodge’s Illustrations, vol. i.p. 190.) — “The erle of Huntyngton, furnyshed wt. IIC horsemen wt. staves and bowes, browght thowrow London upon Saturdaye at afternone the Dewke of Suffolke and the Lord Ihon his brother, and so conducted them to the Towre.”

    Two lines lower, Foxe says, “how the day before, which was the 11th of the said month, Lord William Howard and Sir Edward Hastings were sent for the Lady Elizabeth;” whereas Mr. Tytler, in his “Reigns of Edward VI. and Mary” (vol. it. p. 426), prints a letter from the State Paper Office, which, as curious and bearing on the point, is here reprinted: — “The Lord Admiral, Sir Edward Hastings, and Sir Thomas Cornwaleys, to the Queen. “Orig . St. Paper Off. Domestic, 11th Feb. 1553-4. “In our humble wise. It may please your Highness to be advertized, that yesterday, immediately upon our arrival at Ashridge, we required to have access unto mv Lady Elizabeth’s Grace; which obtained, we delivered unto her your Highness’s letter; and I, the Lord Admiral, declared the effect of your Highness’s pleasure, according to the credence given to us, being before advertized of her estate by your Highness’s physicians, by whom we did perceive the estate of her body to be such, that, without danger of her person, we might well proceed to require her in your Majesty’s name (all excuses set apart) to repair to your Highness with all convenient speed and diligence. “Whereunto we found her Grace very willing and conformable; save only that she much feared her weakness to be so great that she should not be able to travel and to endure the journey without peril of life, and therefore desired some longer respite until she had better recovered her strength; but in conclusion, upon the persuasion as well of us as of her own council and servants, whom we assure your Highness we have found very ready and forward to the accom- plishment of your Highness’s pleasure in this behalf, she is resolved to remove her hence to-morrow towards your Highness, with such journeys as, by a paper herein enclosed, your Highness shall perceive: further declaring to your Highness that her grace much desirefib if it might stand with your Highness’s pleasure, that she may have a lodging at her coming to the court, somewhat further from the water than she had at her last being there; which your physicians, considering the state of her body, thinketh very meet, who have travailed very earnestly with her Grace, both before our coming and after, in this matter. “And after her first day’s journey one of us shall await upon your Highness to declare more at large the whole estate of our proceedings here. And, even so, we shall most humbly beseech Christ, long to preserve your Highness in honor, health, and the contentation of your godly heart’s desire. “From Ashridge, the 11th of February, at four of the clock in the afternoon. “Your Highness’s most humble and bounden Servants and subjects, W.HOWARD.


    T. CORNWALEYS.” ENCLOSURE “The order of my lady Elizabeth’s Grace voyage to the court: — “MONDAY — Imprimis, to Mr. Cooke’s, 6:miles.

    Tuesday — Item, to Mr. Pope’s, 8:miles.

    Wednesday — To Mr. Stamford’s, 7:miles.

    Thursday — To Highgate, Mr. Cholmeley’s house, 7:miles.

    Friday — To Westminster, 5:miles.”

    Swifte’s letter also to the earl of Shrewsbury, above referred to, under date of Monday, Feb. 12, says: — “Three days ago [or Saturday, Feb. 10], the lady Elizabeth was sent for, but as yet she is not come, whatever the let is.” He also says, “This day lady Jane was beheaded.

    Also this day, the earl of Devonshire was sent to the Tower.”

    It is pretty plain that Elizabeth was too ill for the above plan to be adhered to, for she did not arrive in town till February 22 or 23 (see Appendix to vol. 8:note on p. 606); and probably it is to the Lord Admiral’s considerate conduct on this occasion that we are to ascribe the good opinion of him which Elizabeth expressed to the count de Feria, November 10, 1558, iust before Mary’s death. (See Memorias de la Real Acadamia de la Historia, vol. 6. p. 255.

    Madrid, 1832.) (3.) That Sir H. Iseley and the others mentioned by Foxe were brought to the Tower on Sunday the 11th, is confirmed thus by Stow: — “The 11 day Sir Henry Isley, who had fled, was brought into the Tower prisoner in an old friese coat, and an old paire of hosen, all his apparell not worth 4s. The same day came in two of the Culpeppers, one Cromer, and Thomas Rampton, the duke of Suffolkes secretary.”

    APP6-255 “On Friday , the 23d of February .”] This date is correct: see the note above on p. 425. The Cotton MS. Vitell. F. 5, most unaccountably dates the beheading of the duke of Suffolk “the xxiij day of March.”

    APP6-256 — Among Ellis’s Letters, second series, vol. 2. p. 254, is one from Elizabeth to Mary, on being ordered to the Tower, without date.

    APP6-257 — The editions of 1563, 1570, 1576, read correctly, “the 7th of March ;” the subsequent editions corrupt this into “17th,” evidently with a view of making the date square with the opening of the next paragraph, which (except in the first edition, where, it is wanting) opens: “On the Sunday following, being the 18th of March. The Queen’s precept was sent to the lord mayor on Sunday, March 4th, and the lord mayor’s precept to the aldermen on Monday, March 5th: see the document itself supra, p. 429; from which it appears that Wednesday, March 7th (correct by Nicolas’s Tables), was the day appointed for the inhabitants of each Ward to appear before their alderman, not the day on which the command was issued, as this paragraph seems rather to imply.

    APP6-258 — This and the next paragraph are not in the edition of 1563.

    That the text should make the Sunday following the 7th of March to be the 18th (as the second and third editions do) can only be explained by supposing, that Foxe was quoting the exact words of some chronicle, and omitted some intervening dates; or that Elizabeth really went to the Tower March 11th, Passion Sunday, instead of Palm Sunday, March 18th; all the historians, however, seem to concur in saying March 18th. (See more on this subject in the Appendix to vol. 8:note on p. 608.)

    APP6-259 — Edward Courtenay was eldest son of Henry Courtenay, late marquis of Exeter and earl of Devonshire, who was beheaded in 1539- 40. Edward Courtenay had lately been restored to his father’s forfeited dignity of earl of Devonshire. The historians sometimes erroneously call him marquis of Exeter. (Lodge’s Illustr. of British History, vol. i.p. 190.) See a notice respecting him in the note above on p. 397.

    APP6-260 “William Thomas — which how true it was , I havenot to say .”] As this instance of supposed disloyalty has been seized upon by Dr. J. Milner (see vol. 1. pt. 2, p. 391, of this edition of Foxe) by way of parallel to the acts of multitudes of papally authorized traitors, it may be well to quote a few lines from Strype’s Memorials (under Queen Mary, chap. 21) with reference to it. “In May was arraigned and condemned and executed for treason, William Thomas, a very wise man, clerk of the council to King Edward, and by him much valued and used; having writ several treatises of state policy for the use and exercise of the young king.

    The crime laid to his charge was that he designed the murder of the queen, or, as Bale writeth, of Stephen Gardiner, the lord chancellor. “But as to Thomas’ treason, I find these particulars of it; which is all that I can see alleged against him. Sir Nicholas Arnold, in trouble upon Wyat’s plot, did say, that Sir Nicholas Throgmorton did shew him, that Thomas did devise, that one John Fitzwilliams should kill the queen; but, when this was charged upon Throgmorton, he utterly denied that he said any such thing, but that Arnold rather spake it to save himself, being charged with that matter, to transfer that devise upon the said Thomas. And to justify what he said, Throgmorton urged, that Fitzwilliams, who was hard by, might be called, to depose his knowledge of the matter. And Fitzwilliama appeared. But (as though it were likely to turn to the vindication of Throgmorton or Thomas) the attorneygeneral prayed the court, that Fitzwilliams might not be sworn nor suffered to speak. And he was forthwith commanded by Stamford, the judge, to depart the court. Yet not to conceal one thing more: when at Sir Thomas Wyat’s trial Sir Edward Hastings had asked him, whether he was privy to a device to murder the queen, in a certain place, where she should walk? he answered that it was William Thomas his invention, whom he ever after abhorred for that cause. But it must be observed that Wyat said this when he was earnestly suing for the queen’s pardon, and had spoken several other things rather acceptable to the court than true; as, declaring himself then much satisfied with the Spanish match, against which he had taken up arms, and falsely accusing the Lady Elizabeth and the Lord Courthey to have been privy to his doings, which he revoked at his execution. “Thomas was arraigned or condemned one day, and hastily executed the next. He made a right godly end; and in his imprisonment wrote many pious letters, exhortations and sonnets.

    He wrote a little book, ‘Of the Vanity of the World,’ printed, I think, 1545. He made an Italian Dictionary and Grammar at Padua, printed afterwards, 1567, by the appointment of Sir Walter Mildmay; and a Short and Methodical History of Italy, printed 1549, reprinted 1561; and translated some books out of Italian.” (Strype’s Memorials Ecclesiastes vol. 4. pp. 288-290, 89 edit. 1816.)

    APP6-261 — Foxe infra, vol. 8. p. 614, gives the same date, “May 19th,” but there adds that it was Trinity Sunday, which fell on May 20th, and this is the date assigned in Cott. MS. Vitel. F. 5: ‘“The xx. day of May, my Lady Ehzabeth came out of the Tower. But,Robert Swifte tells the earl of Shrewsbury, under date of “Sunday, May xx,’ “On Saturdaye at one of the cloke at after none, my Lady Elysabethe was delyverd owt of the Towre by the lord tresurer and my lord chamberleyne, and went to Rychemonde by water furthewt. er she landed, wher she shalbe attended upon by sundrye of garde, and sume officers of every office in the quene’s howse, bot howe longe she shall continewe ther I knowe not.” (Lodge, vol. 1. p. 193.)

    APP6-262 — Foxe himself also, in the edition of 1563, p. 1004, where we read: “The 19th of Julye did Philippe, Prynee of Spaine, and sonne and heyre unto Charles the Fifth then emperour, arrive at Southampton.

    And the fourth day after, in the evenyng, he came to Wynchester, where (goynge to the churche) he was honourably receyved of the bishoppe, and a greate number of the nobles for that purpose appoynted. The nexte day he mette with the Queene, with whom he hadde long and familier talke. “And the 25th day, being Sainct James day (the chiefe patrone of the Spaniards), marriage was honourably solemnized between them.”

    It is to be observed, however, that St . Margarets-day , and the Friday in July 1554, would both fall on July 20th. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

    APP6-263 — J. C.” is “James Caufield” in the first edition.

    APP6-264 “Other verses ,” etc.] — The first edition reads here, “Other verses also answering to the former verses of the Byshop of Lincolne made by J.F.”

    APP6-265 — These articles are in the Bonner Register, folios 365- 370: whence they are printed by Wilkins.

    APP6-266 — This Dr. Bricket had given evidence on Gardiner’s trial: see p. 215 of this volume.

    APP6-267 — William Sommers, or Sommer, wasa buffoon or jester in Henry VIII.’s time. Ascham mentions a practice of his, here alluded to by Jocelyn: “They be not much unlike in this pointe toWyll Sommers, the kinges foole, which smiteth him that standeth alwayes before his face, be he never so worshipfull a man, and never greatlye lokes for him which lurkes behinde an other man’s backe, that hurte him in deede.” (Ascham’s Toxoph. p, 43.) See more in Nares’s Glossary.

    APP6-268 — This Mandate of Bishop Bonner’s is in his Register, folio 357 verso.

    APP6-269 “Lady Bell of Bampton .”] Dr. Tresham was vicar of Bampton. (Willis’s Cathedrals, p. 449.)

    APP6-270 — The following is from the first edition, p. 1007: “And forsomuch as we have entered into the mention of Oxford, *I cannot but something lament the state and condition of that University, which before in Wicliffe’s time, being so forward in religion, and the first eye that gave lighte to al other places, to discerne true religion from blyndnesse and ignorance, now through the misgovernaunce ofcertayne heads, seemeth so prone and inclinable to blind superstition and all popery, that so sone as the Quene came in, they with the first were redye to masse; insomuch that the Quene comminge in July, the next moneth after (being the xv of August) upon the assumption day, masse was sayd, first in Marion college, then in Corpus Christi college, and then in New college, being compelled by no law notwithstanding to the same. Only Magdalene college and Christes church, misliking the heady rashnes of them, did shew themselves more constante in thys matter then the rest. And here,” etc.* APP6-271 The following is from the first edition, pp. 1007-8: — “Who supplying the room of the subdean *under Doctoure Marshall* in Christ Church, *upon a great zeale, more willful than witful, called his companye together into the back side of the quere, where he required certain of the pre-bendaries, which wet nothing so folishlye affected as he was, to bepresent and assist him. In the number of the students were a great many grave men, well learned and wise. To them Doetoure Tresham made an exhortation, the which was so eloquently handled and with such arte persuasory, that although we be not able to attain to the perfit grace thereof, yet in repeting the effect we thought it not good to defraud the reader of the fruite of so worthy a matter. The state of his oration was, to move them to come to the church, and there devoutly to behave themselves, and to here masse. Among other things conteined in his oration, two were principal, which this auncient doctour most substantially handled. The one was a proof of al masse to be good, whiehe he confirmed by an enumeration how many kindes of masses there wet. The other matter was a violent persuasion, to bring men to church for the commodity that should arise by it. For the first, he sayd that all masses were either of the Trinity, or of the Holy Ghost, or of our Ladye. Now the Trinity said he none wil deny but damnable heretikes: such as wer condemned by the holy general counsels. Wherfore the masse of the Trinity must needs be good. The masse of the Holy Ghost was never doubted of, of any Christian.

    Why? it is sayde before every generall counsell, and therefore it muste nedes be good. But peradventure ye doubte of the masse of oure Ladye. But I tell you, there is stuffe inough in Scrypture to prove it, and good stuffe too. But stuffe did he store them with none but with this. For the other part of his perswasion he said,* there were a company of godly copes,” etc. Foxe was, in all probability, furnished with an abstract of the oration on these “important” matters by Jewel, afterwards bishop of Salisbury. (See his Life.)

    APP6-272 — The first edition reads “procession in Paul’s churche, with masse, and to Deum solemnely songe.”

    APP6-273 “My Lord Cardinal Pole , come from the apostolic see of Rome as ambassador .”] — A good sketch of the policy of the Bishop of Rome, in the appointment of legates, is given by De Marca, a French Romanist, Archbishop of Paris, in his learned work, De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii, lib. 5. cap. 47, Section 1. “Reserato (writes he) retinendae dominationis arcano per legationes, perpetuos in provinciis legatos ea de caussa instituendos esso censuerunt Romani Pontifices.

    Eam illis mentem fuisse, docet Honorii III. Epistola ad Rogerlure Archiep. Pisanum, in qua verbis minime ambiguis scribit; Corsicam deferbuisse a subjectione et obedientia sedis Apostolicae ob desuetudinem Legatorum. Corsicana vero inquit (Tom. 3. Italia Sacra, p. 441) tam prolixitate spatiorum quam negligentia pastorum , dominorum insolentis , et desuetudine Legatorum Sedis Apostolicae a subjectione et obedientia Romanae ecclesiae deferbuerat . Seilicet ea prima et potior cura Legatis erat, ut populos imbuerent reverentia Pontificum Romandrum, commendata successlone Apostolorum et loci auctoritate, intentatis porro poenis adversus eos, qui majestatem Romanae sedis minus colere viderentur.”

    APP6-274 “Whereupon the pope caused there at Rome processions .”] This may be confirmed if necessary from S. pondanus: “His interim Romam celeriter perlatis, propter laetissimae rei nuncium supplicationes publicae decretae lucre, non in urbe solum, sed per Italiam universam, gratiis Deo agendis, ipso summo Pontifice sacra mysteria Romae celebrante, et Indulgentiam ad modum Jubilaei per Christianum ordinem in gratiarum actionem publicante.” (Spondan.

    Annales Eccles. an. 1554, section 3.) Sanders had employed nearly the same language: see Raynaldi, Annales ad an. 1554, section 14.

    APP6-275 — The title of Philip’s letter runs thus in the first edition: “A Copy of a Letter of Philip King of Spain, and at that time of England also, written with his own hand to Pope Julius the third, touching the restoring of the Realm of England to the obedience of the See of Rome, translated out of the Spanish tongue, as it was first written, into the English tongue.”

    APP6-276 — See Raynaldi, Annales ad an. 1554, section 21. “Con este despacho partio don Juan Manrique para Roma.” (Seg. parte de la Vida del Emp. Carlos Quinto por Sandoval; book 31, section 9, an. 1551.)

    APP6-277 — This archbishop of Conza in the kingdom of Naples (not Cosenza in Calabria, as writers sometimes state,) was Thaddeus Gaddi, a Florentine, made cardinal of St. Sylvester in 1557, and died 1561: he had succeeded his uncle, Nicolas Gaddi (also a cardinal, who died 1562,) in the archbishopric of Conza. (Moreri, vv. Cardinal and Gaddi .)

    APP6-278 — Raynaldi has printed this letter, with the omission however of the sentences from “of the which” down to “in times past.” Annales ad an. 1554, Section 16.

    APP6-279 “To confirm and establish the sale of abbey lands .”] That this was never done unreservedly, and that members of the church of Rome especially, are bound to, and that the bishop of Rome, had he power sufficient, would enforce, a total restitution of secularized church property (so called) see proved, as regards Cardinal Pole, in “A Letter written to Dr. Burnet, giving an account of Cardinal Pole’s secret Powers,” Lond. 1685, where we read (p. 10): “It is plain by the progress of this matter, that the court of Rome never intended to confirm the abbey-lands; for all that was done by Pool was only an artifice to still men’s fears, and to lay the clamor which the apprehension of the return of Popery was raising; that so it might once enter with the less opposition, and then it would be easy to carry all lesser matters, when the great point was once gained, as the saddle goes into the bargain for the horse.” Again: “The Pope according to this decree (Canon Law, Causa 12:quaest. 2, Section 20) could not confirm the alienations that had been made by Henry; and if he did confirm them, the act must be null in law, and could be no prejudice to the present incumbent or his successor, to claim his right. Therefore pursuant to this the powers given to Pool, authorize him only to indemnify and discharge the possessors of the church-lands for the goods they had embezzled, and for the rents they had received; for it runs in these words (which I have marked in the Breve itself, that you may readily turn to it), And to agree and transact with the possessors of the goods of the Church , for the rents which they have unlawfully received , and for the moveable goods which they have consumed ; and for freeing and discharging them for them , they restoring .first (if that shall seem expedient to you) the lands themselves that are unduly detained by them . By these powers it is plain, that the Pope only forgave what was past, but stood to the right of the church, as to the restitution of the lands themselves: and that clause — if that shall seem to you expedient — belongs only to the order and point of time; so that the discharging what was past, might have been done by Cardinal Pool before or after restitution , as he pleased; but restitution was still to be made; and he had by these powers no authority to confirm the alienations that had been made by Henry the 8th for the time to come.” (pp. 7, 8.)

    For later times, “Romanism as it rules in Ireland,” vol. 2. pp. 240, 248, will furnish proof that there is no relinquishment of claim, grounded on extracts from the Bullarium of Benedict XIV.

    APP6-280 This seizure is alluded to infra, vol. 7. p. 342; and one Elizabeth Warne stated to have been one seized.

    APP6-281 — The queen was actually reported in May following to be delivered of a prince. (See infra, vol. 2. p. 123.)

    APP6-282 “Another prayer for Queen Mary ,” etc.] — The original of this prayer does not appear to have been seen either by Strype or Herbert.

    We transcribe it with other prayers from a copy of the broadside, attached to the binding of a Missale secundum usum Saturn, folio, Rothomagi, 1510, in the possession of the Revelation J. Mendham.

    PRAYERS OR COLLECTES TO BE SAYD IN THE MASSE FOR THE QUENES HIGHNESSE, BEINGE WITH CHILDE. “ORATIO “Omnipotens sempiterne deus qui beatissimam virginera et matrem Mariam in conceptu, et in partu consecrasti, et Jonam Prophetam de ventre ceti potenti virtute liberasti, famulam tuam Maria Reginam nostra grayida protege, et visita eam in salutari tuo, ut proles in ea cotenta feliciter ad lucem prodeat, et perveniat ad gratiam lavachri salutaris, ipsa quoque in pariendo dolore misericorditer evadat, et a mortis periculo secura permaneat. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum,” etc. (Visita eam in salutari tuo:” a quotation from the Vulgate of Ps. cvi. 4.—ED) “SECRETA “Suscipe quesumus domine preces et hostias humilitatis nostre, et famulam tuam Mariam Regina nostram scuto protectionis tue defende, et quam gravidam ex tua gratia esse voluisti, hanc adveniente partus sui tempore gratiose libera, et ab omni periculo cure prole in ea contenta clementer conserva. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum,” etc. “POSTCOMMUAIO “Adesto supplicationibus nostris omnipotens Deus, et famulam tuam Mariam Reginam nostra in partu ab omni infortunio clementer preserva, ut proles ejus in hanc lucem edita, percepto lavachro salutari, et gratiose mentis virtutibus, et corporis feliciter proficiat incrementis. Per dominu nostrum Jesure, etc. “Excusum Londini in oedibus Johannis Cawodi, Typographi Regis, Maiestatis.”

    APP6-283 “Also the doing of master Rose ,” etc.] — This matter is handled more at large in the first edition, p. 1019, as follows: “In the beginning of ye next yere, in ye moneth of January, the parliament (whiche began as ye haue heard, the 12th day of Nouember last) was howe dissolued; wherin it was enacted yt the statutes, before time made for the punishement of heretikes, (or rather to speake more truly, the true professors of Christes gospell) and the confirmation of the Popes power, shuld be reuiued, and in as good force, as euer they were before the raign of king Henry theight: and that all such statutes as were at any tyme made against ye supremacie of the Pope, should be cleane abrogated & abolished. When these things were once obtained, & that the Papists had gotten the lawes on their side, & the swerde put into their handes, to kill & murther whom they would: there was then no delay made on their behalf, to accomplishe the effecte of their long hidden infestred and cankred tyranny, against the saintes of God, and true professors of Christes Gospell: with whome neither wisdome, learning, dignitie, nor age, coulde preuayle, as shall more playnly appeare in the discourse of these seuerall matters hereafter followynge, wherein also shall some time appeare that the churche of God (as in all times heretofore: so nowe) was not voyde of dissemblyng and false brethren, by whose meshes (as most fit instrumentes) Satan brought his purpose the better to passe. All whiche notwithstanding the children of God, hauing the lawful oportunitie of seruing of God, taken by this crueltie from them, yet in sundrie times and places secretly assembled them selues, to the comforte of their consciences, & instruction of their soules. And theftore, as at other tymes, so vpon newe yeares day, An. 1555, at euening, there were many godly persones gathered together in a house within Bowe churchyarde in London, where they were, with their minister resister Thomas Rose, deuoutly & zelously occupied in prayer, and hearing of Goddes worde. But whyle they were in the middest of this their godly exercise, they were soddenly betraied (as it is thought by some false dissembling hipocrite) and about 30 of them apprehended and caried to the Counters, but maister Rose was had before the Lorde Chauncelour, and from thence to the Fleete. To the whiche company that godly man and dere martyr of God, resister Hoper, beinge certified by a letter, of the whole discourse hereof, did wryte this comfortable and strengthening exhortation, the copy whereof with the other letters, hereafter ensueth.”

    APP6-284 “A letter of consolation .”] Strype has given what he considers a more correct copy of this letter in his Memorials under Mary; Orig. No. 27. There it is dated “Jan. 4, 1554.”

    APP6-285 “Which opinion of both seemed most true .”] The first edition, p. 1022, proceeds: “for that the parliament was then but newelye ended. In the which (as ye have hearde) the byshoppe of Rome’s supremacye was restored which scant required any great joy, as the sequel declared.”

    APP6-286 — The account of Hooper is at p. 636; of Rogers at p. 591; of Taylor at p. 676; of Bradford at vol. 7. p. 143.

    APP6-287 — See p. 690.

    APP6-288 — The account of Saunders is at p. 612; of Bishop Farrar at vol. 7. p. 3.

    APP6-289 — There is an allusion to Dr. Crome in Ridley’s Letter to Hooper, at p. 643. He had been committed to the Fleet Jan. 13, 1554; see p. 543; vol. 5. p. 537, note in Appendix; and chapter 11:of vol. iii. of Strype’s Memorials. See also Dr. Lamb’s “Collection of CCCC.

    MSS., London 1838, pp. 20, 27.

    APP6-290 — These initials mean Hooper, Farrar, Taylor, Bradford, Philpot, Rogers, Saunders.

    APP6-291 “Testified by his own hand .”] — Several important and preferable readings of the first edition are restored in the ensuing narrative: they are indicated by stars.

    APP6-292 . “My lord cardinals , coming ,” etc.] — See above, p. 567.

    APP6-293 “Save one .”] It stands “said one” in all the editions of Foxe; but in the “Errata” to the edition of 1563 we are told that “said” is an error for “save.” Who this noble minded individual was, we learn from the following passage of Strype: “Nov. 28th (1554), the Parliament by an instrument declared their sorrow for their apostasy, and prayed the king and queen to intercede with the cardinal to obtain his absolution; and they all kneeled down and received it. Yet one, Sir Ralph Bagnal , refused to consent to this submission, and said, ‘He was sworn to the contrary to King Henry VIII., which was a worthy prince, and labored 25 years before he could abolish him: and to say I will agree to it, I will not.’ And many more were of the same mind, but none had the confidence to speak but he.” (Strype’s Memor. in. p. 204.)

    APP6-294 — The three speeches attributed here (according to the first and second editions) respectively to Rogers, the L. Chanc., and Rogers, viz. “Well,” etc., “No,” etc.., “Nay,” etc., are in subsequent editions improperly attributed to L. Chanc., Rogers, and L. Chanc.

    APP6-295 . “My lord of Ely .”] Thomas Thirlby, formerly bishop of Westminster, and thence translated to Norwich, and afterwards to Ely.

    APP6-296 — Robert Aldrich, provost of Eton.

    APP6-297 “Put off his cap .”] So did Henry VIII. when sitting in judgment on Lambert, vol. 5. p. 230.

    APP6-298 “A whip to whip me with .”] The statutes of Richard II., Henry IV., and Henry V. affecting heretics, (repealed 25 Hen. VIII. and Ed. VI.) were revived by Mary.

    APP6-299 — To this note we may add the following: “A Martino V.

    Pont. Abbas S. Mariae Maniacis in Messanensi dioecesi ad Aetnae radices electus est [Nic. Tudeschus.] 10 Jan. 1425, ut ipsemet Nicolaus ait in cap. cum olim de dolo et condumacia , cap. 7; non S. Agathae, ut habent Phil. Labbeus, Lud. Morerius, et H. Wharthon. in Append. ad Cave, p. 70…Ad Concilium [Basil.] redire coactus, Alphonso Rege impellente, ejusdem nomine Felicem veneraturus, Basileam adiit, Felici adhaesit, ut regi morem gereret, qui et ipse Eugenio infensus, Antipapae accessit: ex Aenea Sylvio, etc.” (Zeigelbaver Hist. Rei Literar. Ord. Benedict., Aug. Vind. 1754, tom. iii. pp. 198, 199.)

    APP6-300 — The two following citations made by Dr. Wordsworth, as illustrating this passage, are important: “St. Augustine, when the proconsul of Africa went further than that holy man liked in that kind of severity, professeth he had rather be himself slain by them, than by detecting the Donatists be any cause that they should undergo the punishment of death. From whence Baronins conceives it proceeds, that such as deliver a heretic to the secular power for execution, to this day effectually intercede he may not be punished with death. And yet as it were to mock God, and delude the world, if the lay authority having him in his power, shall defer the doing it more than ordinary, it is the constant tenet of the Canonists, relying on a bull of Alexander IV. (A.D. 1260), that he is to be compelled unto it by spiritual censures; yet may he not take any cognisance of the cause at all.” (Twisden’s Vindication, p. 140.) “In the mean time they had prevailed upon the weakness of bigotted princes, to make the civil power subservient to their purposes, by making heresy not only a temporal, but even a capital offense; the Romish ecclesiastics determining without appeal, whatever they pleased to be heresy, and shifting off to the secular arm the odium and drudgery of executions, with which they themselves were too tender and delicate to intermeddle. Nay, they pretended to intercede and pray, on behalf of the convicted heretic, ut citra mortis periculum sententia circa eum moderetur (Decretal. lib. 5:tit. 40, cap. 27); well knowing at the same time that they were delivering the unhappy victim to certain death.” (Blackstone’s Comment. vol. 4:b. 4, c. 4.)

    APP6-301 — The following notice is taken of Rogers’ martyrdom by the French ambassador, Noaiiles, a zealous papist: “This day was performed a confirmation de lalliance between the pope and this kilngdom, by a public and solemn sacrifice of a preaching doctor named Rogerus, who has been burnt alive for being a Lutheran; but he died persisting in his opinion. At this conduct the greatest part of the people took such pleasure, that they were not afraid to make him many acclamations to strengthen his courage. Even his children assisted at it, comforting him in such a manner, that it seemed as if he had been led to a wedding.” (Noailles’ Lett. Feb. 4, 1555.)

    APP6-302 “Not using many words , for he could not be permitted .”] — A common practice: see Hooper’s case, p. 656; and Taylor’s, p. 698, 699, with Foxe’s remarks there.

    APP6-303 . “A year and a half .”] The edition of 1563, p. 1036, here says: “This Rogers was first committed to pryson An. 1553, in the moneth of August, and there continued a. xii moneth and a halfe.” See p. 393 of this volume.

    APP6-304 “I will never pray for thee .”] See the case of Frith, supra, vol. 5. p. 18.

    APP6-305 . “Miserere .”] The 51st Psalm: this was repeated by Dr.

    Taylor, see p. 699; and by Hunter, see p. 728. Psalm 106 was used by Wolsey and Pygot, vol. 7. p. 405; and Psalms 106, 107, 108, by Philpot, 7. p. 685.

    APP6-306 — See before, p. 541.

    APP6-307 “The very prophet of England .”] These words are restored from edition 1563, p. 1042.

    APP6-308 — “Advow” is the reading of the first edition (see Halliwell): the subsequent editions alter it into “advouch.”

    APP6-309 — Additional instances may be cited from Strype’s “Ecclesiastical Memorials,” under Mary, (chap. 23,) p. 187, old ed.; vol. 4. p. 308, edit. 1816: — “Then was there a cup of wine called for, and the sheriff began unto me, and willed me to drink to the Marshall’s men, and so I did.” Also from Bishop Jewel, on the 1 Epistle Thessalonians 3:3: — “Drink the cup of bitter gall, whereof Christ began to thee; and carry thy cross, that thou mayst follow him.” And another instance may be seen in Dr. Thomas. James’ “Explanation of Ten Articles,” 1625, p. 34.

    APP6-310 “Poor Christ with all his mainy .”] “Mainy” is the reading of the first edition (p. 1049); subsequent editions corrupt it into “main.”

    See vol. in. p. 11, note, for an explanation of this word; additional instances of which occur in the Paston Letters (vol. i.p. 51, edit. 1841) “he sent him home again with a certain meny; ” in Sir Thomas More’s Dyalogue, b.i. oh. 14. fol. xxvi.; and in Bishop Hall’s Contemplations (the five loaves and two fishes) “and dost thou take up, for thyself and thy meiny.”

    APP6-311 — Hooper was nominated to the see of Gloucester May 15th, 1550, but not consecrated till March 8th, 1551; he was put in commendam of the see of Worcester on the death of Heath in April 1552.

    APP6-312 “ Such garments , etc . as the popish bishops ,” etc .] This is unfair in Foxe. The old popish vestments, the amess, able, surcingle, maniple, stole, and chasuble, were disused at the Reformation; and no garments were consecrated. But Foxe had a predilection for that Puritanical party of which Rogers and Hooper were leaders. Hooper, however, lived to repent of his violence in the matter, and Foxe himself admits in next page, that both parties “contended about it more than reason would.” See an important note on Hooper’s change of views about the habits, in Dr. Wordsworth’s Eceles. Biog. 2. p. 365; also various letters among the Zurich Letters, printed by the Parker Society, 1846.

    APP6-313 — These Letters of Dispensation are in the Ridley Register, folio 282: whence two or three slight corrections of Foxe’s text are introduced.

    APP6-314 “Burdened with the oath used then commonly in the consecration of bishops .”] Strype and (once) Burner supposed that this referred to the oath of canonical obedience. But Burnet, in his third volume, informs us on the authority of Micronius, minister of the German church in London, that it referred to the oath of supremacy, which commenced, “By God, by the saints , and by the holy Gospels:” this he thought impious, as no creature ought to be appealed to, God only knowing the thoughts of men; and the king in Council was so convinced of the propriety of the objection, that he erased the words with his own pen.

    APP6-315 “Master Hooper was fain to agree .”] But not till he had been imprisoned in the Fleet. The minutes of the Privy Council, cited in Harmer’s Specimen of Errors, in Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biog. and in Archaeologia, vol. xviii, p. 151, state, that October 6th, 1550, Hooper appeared before the council that day, and was ordered by them to bring his reasons for refusal next Sunday (October 12th) to court. On January 13th, 1551, he appeared again before the council, and for not having kept his house as directed, and having printed on the subject, and persevering in his refusal, he was committed to the archbishop’s custody. January 27th, he was committed to the Fleet for contumacy.

    There he changed his mind, and addressed a letter to that effect to the council, February 15th, first printed by Dr. Durell in his Sanctae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Vindiciae, and since in Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biog.

    He was consecrated March 8th.

    APP6-316 “I will name nobody .”] Cranmer and Ridley were of the number; and even Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer highly disapproved Hooper’s conduct in the affair.

    APP6-317 “D. C.”] — In the Letters of the Martyrs this is printed “D.

    Cromerum,” and translated “Dr. Crome:” which confirms the Editor’s conjecture in Appendix to vol. 5. note on p. 351.

    APP6-318 “He was one of the first that was sent for .”] The minutes of the Privy Council show that Miles Coverdale and John Hooper were sent for by two separate letters dated August 22d, 1553, to appear before the lords of the Council; and that Hooper made his first appearance before the Council at Richmond August 29th. Haynes’s State Papers, pp. 173- 177: on Sept. 1st he was committed to the Fleet. (Ibid. p. 178.)

    APP6-319 — .His wife and children had escaped to Germany. See Coverdale’s “Letters of the Martyrs,” pp. 94-111, 126; also Zurich Letters, Parker Society, 1846.

    APP6-320 . “ He was worthy to be deprived from his bishopric .”] The Canterbury Register states that on March 20th, 1554, the bishops of Winchester, London, Chichester, and Durham, by virtue of the queen’s commission directed to them, pronounced sentence of deprivation upon John Taylor, bishop of Lincoln, “ob nullitatem consecrationis ejus, et defectum tituli sui quem habuit a rege Edvardo sexto per literas patentes, cum hac clausula dum bene se gesserit .;” upon John Hooper, bishop of Worcester and Gloucester, “propter conjugmm et alia mala merita, et vitiosum titulum ut supra;” and upon John Harlowe, bishop of Hereford, “propter conjugium et heresim ut supra.”

    APP6-321 “William Downton .”] This man is in the Council Book called “William Dunston;” for the day after Hooper’s committal to the Tower, we read, “September 2d, 1553. A letter to the Warden of the Fleet to permit William Dunston to have free accesse to Hooper his master.”

    APP6-322 “Nothing to find me .”] — That he was comfortably supported by friends, however, appears by the “Letters of the Martyrs,” p. 84, Ed. 1837.

    APP6-323 — The first edition concludes this Report at the word “judgment.”

    APP6-324 — January 29th, 1555, fell on a Tuesday. Strype gives the Latin sentence of condemnation, Records No. 28.

    APP6-325 — These acts are printed in Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biog., and the original Latin from the Office Book by Burnet, vol. iii. Records, No. 35.

    APP6-326 “False rumors and reports of recantations .”] See Appendix to vol. 4:note on p. 643, line 22, relative to Bilney. Dr. Wordsworth prints a very curious passage on this topic from Sandys’s “View of the State of Religion,” p. 110.

    APP6-327 — ” Monday” was February 4th, 1555.

    APP6-328 . Such as he was , these Balsamites accounted for no bishop .”] Though consecrated according to their own forms, the oath to the pope was wanting, which vitiated the whole in their opinion. This applied to orders generally. See the queen’s ordinance, supra, p. 428, line 19 from the bottom, and the note above on p. 647, line 27.

    APP6-329 “Benet and Collet .”] See notes in Appendix to vol. in. p. 634, and vol. 4. p. 364.

    APP6-330 “I was both an adulterer and a fornicator .”] This is well illustrated by an extract published by Burner in his third volume, p. 209, of a letter from John ab Ulmis, a Swiss, at Oxford, to Bullinger, December 4th, 1552.

    APP6-331 “A blind boy .”] Thomas Drowry, burned May 5th, 1556. See vol. 8. p. 144.

    APP6-332 “I am no traitor .”] Referring to a calumny affecting his loyalty, grounded on a report that he had written to comfort certain persons confined for cursing the queen. An Apology, written by himself, was published afterwards by John Tisdale in Elizabeth’s reign, from which it appears that he bad written to some other individuals, exhorting them to continue praying together in the vulgar tongue.

    APP6-333 “Speech is prohibited me .”] — A common regulation: see note on p. 609. In this instance, the point was specially named in the queen’s letter ordering the manner of Hooper’s execution: see Burnet’s Hist. vol. in. Appendix, No. 36. “And forasmuehe also as the said Hooper is, as Heretiques be, a vain-glorious Person, and delyteth in his Tongue, and having Liberty may use his sayd Tongue to perswade such as he hath seduced, to persist in the miserable Opinion that he hath sowen among them: Our Pleasure is therefore, and we require you to take Order, that the said Hooper be neither at the Tyme of his Execution, nor in going to the Place therof, suffered to speak at large but thither to be ledde quietly and in Sylence, for eschuyng of further Infection and such Inconvenyence, as may otherwise ensue in this Parte.”

    APP6-334 “Could not be suffered to hear any more .”] The effect produced on the assembled multitude by the dying behavior of the martyrs was often very great, and the popish authorities dreaded this: see in proof of this a letter of Cardinal Pole, written in November 1555, and reprinted by Wordsworth (from “Poli Epistolae,” tom. 5. p. 88, Brixiae, 1757); who also quotes a passage from Heylin’s History, part 2. p. 79, showing the inefficacy of such prohibitions on the part of the authorities: see also Foxe’s remarks at pp. 698, 699.

    APP6-335 “A pound of gunpowder .”] Dorman, afterwards one of Jewel’s antagonists, was present, and in his Disproof of Nowel’s Reproof , takes a most disgraceful occasion from this to taunt the protestant martyrs. See Strype’s Mere. vol. in. p. 230.

    APP6-336 “Embraced them [the reeds ] and kissed them .”] — Similar tokens of cheerful acquiescence in their painful lot were common with the martyrs: see Saunders’s case, p. 628; also that of Dr. Taylor, p. 699; and other instances at vol. 5. p. 493, and vol. 7. pp. 82, 194, 548, 685.

    APP6-337 — The super-altar, called also altar-stone , altare viaticum , or portatile , was “some real stone, insigned with the cross, and duly consecrated; and to be of such a length and breadth, as might conveniently hold the holy cup and consecrated host; with an apt frame of wood whereon to set it...They were very rarely granted but by the pope himself or his penitentiary.” Stavely’s History of Churches in England, p. 214.

    APP6-338 “Christ’s cross be my speed , and St . Nicholas .”] This alludes to the popish horn-book or spelling-book for children. St. Nicholas was their patron saint; and his picture was often at the beginning of their books.

    APP6-339 — Yeoman was removed by Newall, Dr. Taylor’s successor at Hadley. The account of his burning, July 10th, 1558, will be found infra, vol. 8. p. 486.

    APP6-340 “Herod’s oath .”] See infra, vol. 7. p. 151, and vol. 8. p. 55, top.

    APP6-341 . “from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome ,” etc.] — Dr.

    Wordsworth thinks that Dr. Taylor here referred to a petition in the English Litany, as first permitted and published in 1544, and in the English Primer published the next year: “From all sedition and privy conspiracy, from the tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his abominable enormities , from all false doctrine and heresy, from all hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word and commandments:

    Good Lord deliver us.” King Edward’s two Service Books have the same petition, only changing “abominable ” into “detestable: ” and thus Foxe quotes it here in the margin, and Dr. Taylor himself p. 692 top.

    This petition is alluded to again by two other martyrs infra, vol. 7. pp. 91, 107.

    APP6-342 — As pains are now taken to whitewash Mary’s character, it may be well to refer the reader (as Dr. Wordsworth does) to a passage from Burnet’s Introduction to his third volume, on the cruelties and miseries of this unhappy period.

    APP6-343 — See the statement of George Marsh, the martyr, infra, vol 7. p. 46, line 7 from the bottom.

    APP6-344 — Cranmer’s Catechism, here referred to, was originally written in German, translated by Justus Jonas into Latin, and thence into English by Cranmer, and published by him in 1548; reprinted at the Oxford press, 1829.

    APP6-345 — This refers to the two Service Books of Edward VI. published 1548 and 1552.

    APP6-346 — Dr. Wordsworth supposes Gardiner’s book to be here referred to, intituled, “Confutatio cavillationum, quibus sacrosanctum Eucharistice Sacramentum ab impils Capharnaitis impeti solet; ” published certainly in 1554 (if not before in 1552), and which Cranmer was answering at the time of his death. Peter Martyr answered it elaborately in 1559.

    APP6-347 — “That Justinian writetb in Titulo-in Cod.” [VI. tit. 40]: and a few lines lower — “Moreover in the Pandects it is contained.” [Dig. xxxvii, tit. 14:section 6.] APP6-348 And Chrysostom writing upon the Epistle to Timothy .”] The Epistle to Titus seems to be meant: — ” Chrysostomus horn. 11. in Ep. ad Titum. [cap. 1, tom. 11. p. 799] tino>v e[neken kai< toson para>gei, cujus rei gratia talem profert in medium ? videlicet conjugatum, id eat, unius uxoris virum: ejpistomi>zei toumon diaba>llontav , os obstruit haereticis nuptias infamantibus : puta clamantes, in carne esse conjugatos, nec posse placere Deo;immunditiem esse conjugium alienum ideoque alienum a Sacerdotio et similia: deiknuostendens rem non esse abominandam : non ergo opus carnis, non immunditiem, non quid stupro deterius: ajll j ou[tw ti>mion, wJv met j aujtou~ duna>sqai kai< ejpi< tonein qro>non , imo tam honestam , utceum ea possit ascendi in sacram sedem : non tantum ad infimos ordines, ostiariorum, lectorum, cantorum, acolytorum, exoreistarum; sed ad summam. Nam a[giov qro>nov Episcoporum erat: at si Episcoporum, cur non Hypodiaconorum, Diaconorum, Presbyterorum?” (Chamier, Panstratia Catholics, tom. iii. lib. 1. cap. 11. Section 18.)

    APP6-349 “There is express mention in the said Decree that Priests should be divorced ,” etc.] — In Sort. H. E. I. cap. 11; Sozom. H. E. I. cap. 22, where it is called no>mon neapo APP6-350 — Strype gives a passage, apparently from the official records, confirmatory of this second part of Taylor’s statement. (Memorials, iii. p. 182.)

    APP6-351 — See p. 588.

    APP6-352 — The Clink was in Southwark.

    APP6-353 — Bonner takes up the work, of which Gardiner seems to have long since been weary, and convinced of its inefficacy: see his disclaimer to Bradford, vol. 7. p. 157; and Foxe’s statement at pp. 703, 704, of this volume.

    APP6-354 — Ridley, in like manner, in his degradation compared himself to a Vice in a play: see vol. 7. p. 544.

    APP6-355 “Scraped his fingers .”] See the degradation of Cranmer, vol. 8. p. 78 top, and p. 79.

    APP6-356 — See the note on p. 683, bottom.

    APP6-357 “Aldham Common .”] “In Aldham Common, not far from Hadley town, is a great stone, that assigns the place where he suffered, and on it are written these words or to this effect: — “Dr. Taylor, for maintaining what was good, In this place shed his blood.” — Strype’s Life of Cranmer, p. 420, where also Strype gives his epitaph, from a brass plate in Hadley parish church.

    APP6-358 “Then would he have spoken to the people ,” etc.] — See the notes on pp. 609, 656, 657.

    APP6-359 “A waster ,”] — a cudgel. (Nares.)

    APP6-360 “He went to the stake and kissed it .”] — See note on p. 658.

    APP6-361 — Strype, in his Memorials of Cranmer, p. 421, has preserved the heads of a sermon preached at Hadley the day after Taylor’s burning by his successor Newall, “patched up of ignorance, malice, uncharitableness, lies and improbabilities.”

    APP6-362 “Gardiner.. meddled no more in such kind of condemnations.”] — See note on p. 691.

    APP6-363 “The sermon of Alphonsus the Spanish friar .”] This very singular act admits of an easy solution. Sharon Turner, in his History of Mary (c. xvi.), relates from Llorente’s History of the Inquisition (French edit. tom. 2. p. 175), whose authority is Cabrera’s Philip II., that this same Philip was at the time in dread of a papal excommunication. He writes to his sister, regent in Spain, that he had learnt his holiness’s intention to that effect, and to put his state under an interdict, accusing his holiness at the same time of ingratitude for his own merits in pursuing and punishing here without ceasing . These merits Philip repeated two years afterwards in his own country. There is a remarkable confirmation of this view in the continuation of Baronius’s Annals by Raynaldi (ad an. 1557, Section 5), “Paulus Neapolitani proregis armis lacessitus...adversus Carolum V. et Philippum citerioris Siciliae et Angliae regem erecto novo tribunali, selectis ex omni ordinum genere viris doctiss., legum severitatem distringere decrevit, pontificiosque omnes administros, qui in Caesaris et regis Philippi regnis agebant, revocavit; necnon feria quinta majoris hebdomadae defixit anathemate invasores Urbium ditionis ecclesiasticae, tum omnes, qui consilio vel auxilio studiisve iis adhaererent,” etc.

    APP6-364 — In conformity with this letter of Mary’s, we find the following minute of the Council, printed in the Archaeologia, vol. xviii, p. ] 81: “At Westminster the 19th day of February ano 1554. A Paseporte directed to all Majores, Sherifes, Bailires, etc. to permitt Miles Coverdall to passe from hence towards Denmarke with two of his servants, his bagges and baggages, without any theire unlawfulle lette or serche.”

    APP6-365 — This Declaration is in the Bonner Register, folio 372. Foxe’s copy has been collated and found very close: three words in square brackets he has added, and he has at the close corrected the Register, which reads, “much profit and estimable profit.”

    APP6-366 . “Of the Duke of Northumberland .”] In a copy of the first edition of Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, p. 1113, in the possession of the Revelation J. Mendham, Sutton Coldfield, two printed lines have been pasted over these words, and the following substituted: “as he did cast himself into manifest jeopardy of the contrary part to lose assuredly both body and goods, so he,” etc. The words in italics point out the alteration introduced by this substitution. See note above on p. 88.

    APP6-367 “For saying mass .”] The copy in Dr. Dibdin’s Library Companion reads, “of mass.”

    APP6-368 “So this catholic bishop .”] The edition of 1563 goes on: “commanded a burning candle to be brought forth before him; which being speedily done by his servants, ‘Come on,’ quoth he, ‘naughty knave: if thou likest the torment of the fire so well, I will make thee feel in this flame, what it is to be burned; and then if thou be wise, thou wilt change thy mind:’ and so saying commanded his right hand to be put in the burning flame.” (p. 11.02.)

    ADDENDUM APP6-369 — John Joseph was appointed one of the preachers to travel with the King’s Visitors, 1547: in which year he was appointed preacher, with five others, in Canterbury. The other five were, Nicholas Ridley (afterwards Bishop of London), Lancelot Ridley, Thomas Becon, Richard Turner, and Richard Beaseley. (Strype’s Cran.)


    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.