APP3-1 “His son’s son .]—The Latin edition calls Richard “Edvardi ex filio nepos:” the edition of 1563, Edward’s “nephew” (see vol. 1 p. 89, note 2): the edition of 1570, “his sonne:” the editions of 1576, etc. “his sonnes sonne.”

APP3-2 Foxe has derived the ensuing account of Wickliff, extending to page 24, from several sources (see pp. 5, 8, 13, 19, 20): most of it, however, will be found in Walsingham; the present page, for example, might be considered as a translation of the following passage:— “Qui [Wiclevus], ut suam haeresin cautius palliaret, ac sub exquisito colore dilataret latius, congregavit iniquitatem sibi, videlicet, comites atque socios unius sectae insimul Oxoniis et alibi commorantes, talaribus indutos vestibus de russeto, in signum perfectionis amplioris, incedentes nudis pedibus, qui suos errores in populo ventilarent ac palam ac publice in suis sermonibus praedicarent. Qui inter caetera ista quidem tenuerunt ad unguem, videlicet, etc.” [Then follow the Articles which Foxe here translates: after which Walsingham proceeds,] “Ista et plura alia . . . . asseruerunt et affirmarunt . . . . . Cum autem conclusiones istae et deliramenta fuissent exhibita et perlecta coram Papa, viginti tres earum tanquam hereticas et vanas ipse damnavit, dirigens bullas suas Archiepiscopo et episcopo Londinensi, ut ipsarum authorirate dictum Johannem facerent comprehendi, ac supra dictis conclusionibus diligenter examinari. Quo facto, atque habita declaratione super istis, licet ficta et vana, dictus dominus archiepiscopus sibi et omnibus allis super ilia materia, praesente duce Lancastriae cum domino Henrico Percy, indixit silentium, prohibens ne de cetero illam materiam quovismodo tangeret aut tractaret, et ne illam permitteret alios ventilare. Igitur tam ipse quam sequaces sui aliquandiu siluerunt. Sed tandem contemplatione dominorum temporalium easdem opiniones et alias multo pejores illis postmodum ausi sunt reassumere et laicis spargere, quam sparsere prius. Hi vocabantur a vulgo Lollardi, incedentes nudis pedibus, vestiti pannis vilibus, scilicet de russeto, ut per vitam poenalem facilius incautos traherent ad sectam suam. Eo vero die quo praemissa Londoniis erant peracta, propter verbum quoddam injuriosum et insolens a duce Lancastriae episcopo Londinensi prolatum confestim Londonienses unanimiter insurgentes, arreptis armis, ipsum occidere proponebant, etc.” (Walsingham’s History, edit. 1574, p. 188, and Hypodig. Neust. p. 135.)

There is considerable perplexity, however, about this part of Foxe’s narrative. The second half of this page, beginning at the § “In the mean time, etc.,” is only a repetition of the former half; and yet the second half is made to grow out of the first, as though it were posterior in time. Here is a council at St. Paul’s (bottom of page 3), then an injunction of silence, disregarded by Wickliff, and followed by papal interference. This papal interference produces—not, another but—the same citation of Wickliff to appear at St. Paul’s, “as is aforesaid;” where all proceeded “as hath been above recorded,” except the addition of the pope’s part, which is certainly quite new: and then the same sequel follows—an injunction of silence, disregarded by Wickliff, and papal interference in consequence. This manifest incoherency in the narrative would have been avoided, if Foxe, instead of alluding at bottom of page 3 to the council at St. Paul’s, had referred to some earlier stage of Wickliff’s course; for example, to vol. :pp. 799, 800, where Wickliff is stated to have “commenced in sundry acts and disputations, contrary unto the form and teaching of the pope’s church in many things,” etc.; for which “he was deprived, and prohibited to stir any more in those sorts of matters:” then this page would naturally proceed, “Who, notwithstanding,” etc. The articles ensuing, called in the margin Wickliff’s “first articles,” would then appear what Walsingham represents,them, viz. as the substance of his preaching previous to the council at St. Paul’s. and it is observable, that the articles here given as Wickliff’s “first articles” coincide exactly with the description given of his preaching at that period, vol. 2 pp. 799, 800.

There is yet another difficulty, however, which requires explanation.

The description given in the middle of this page of the origin and proceedings of the council at St. Paul’s, is inconsistent with the former narrative, vol. 2 p. 801, where it is described as purely the act of the English prelates, and as followed by no result, not even an injunction of silence on Wickliff: here, however, it is represented as summoned purposely to receive the pope’s letters, wherein Wickliff’s doctrines were condemned (as Walsingham says) to the number of twenty-three, or (as Foxe says) by twenty-three cardinals; and these letters (it seems) were exhibited; and (according to Walsingham) a declaration made thereon (i.e. by Wickliff), and an injunction of silence, etc.: in short, a deal of solemn business was transacted; only, through the presence of the two noblemen Wickliff escaped without any personal molestation.

The explanation of this inconsistency seems to be, that there was a second council at St. Paul’s about February 1378, i.e. a year after the first —that council, in fact, the summons to which is given at p. note (6); at which all this might have really happened, and Wickliff might have again escaped through the second, intervention of the two noblemen, who were yet overawed by the pope’s letters to behave with less violence than on the former occasion. Such a second failure at St. Paul’s would lead, naturally, to another citation of Wickliff soon after to appear at Lambeth, where the bishops might hope to have it all their own way; but how Wickliff again escaped through court favor, is told at page 13. Walsingham might easily blunder the two councils into one, if both were held. in the same month (February), and if the same two noblemen interposed with like success on both occasions: he would also be glad, for the church’s credit, to merge the account of a second defeat at St. Paul’s in that at Lambeth. It may be added, that the impassioned state of mind in which the bishops are described (p. 12) as going to the council of Lambeth, would be well accounted for by the supposition of a recent second disappointment at St. Paul’s. The hypothesis of this second council would also account for a statement of Foxe in this page, which (as it stands) is not accurate; viz. that “all this,” i.e. the proceedings at St. Paul’s, “happened in the days and last year of King Edward III. and pope Gregory XI.;” the second council would fall in the “last year” of this pope, who died March 27th, 1378, but the first evidently did not.

APP3-3 “Long frieze gowns.”]—See the archbishop’s remark to Thorpe, p. 272, line 44.

APP3-4 “Accordingly, that same year .”]—Foxe says, “In the year following ( A.D. 1378),” evidently supposing the pope’s bulls to have been issued in that year; at p. 8 he repeats the error, and defends it: the following passage from Walsingham, though it does not countenance this error, shows how Foxe was betrayed into it:—“ Anno dominicae incarnationis millesimo trecentesimo septuagesimo octavo, qui est annus regni regis Richardi Secundi primus, tenuit idem rex natale apud Windesore. Paucis diebus ante natale dominicum, misit dominus papa bullam suam universitati Oxoniae, ministerio magistri Edmundi Stafford, etc.” From which it appears, that the five bulls ensuing were not made use of till the end of 1377, or the beginning of 1378; but they were issued (and probably sent over into England) May 22nd, 1377: the death of Edward III., June 21st following, prevented any immediate use being made of them. It is observable, that the summons to the second council at St. Paul’s (p. 12, note (6)) speaks of the bulls as then (Dec. 28th, 1377) in the archbishop’s possession. It is probable that the bishops were roused into fresh activity at this time, by the reply which Wickliff had just returned to a question proposed to him by Richard’s first parliament, which met October 13th, 1377: see a portion of that reply at p. 54.

APP3-5 “The authors of this story, whom I follow .”]—Walsingham says (Hist. p. 200), “Pudet recordationis tantae imprudentiae, et ideo supersedeo in hujusmodi materia immorari, ne materna ridear ubera decerpere dentibus, quae dare lac potum scientiae consuevere.”

APP3-6 — Two lines which follow here in Foxe’s text—“ and that the king... or to his doctrine in any wise”—have been transferred to the next page, as belonging to the description of another letter: see the contents of the letters, as given in the foot notes.

APP3-7 — Walsingham, p. 201, inserts “Johannam” before “principissam.”

APP3-8 —The words in the text—“ the one directing.., within three months” are put into the text on the authority of the letter in the note.

APP3-9 —Foxe here again falls into the error mentioned in the note on the last line but one of page 4, of supposing the five bulls to have been first issued when they were first used, and defends his error by a false argument, for the 7th year of Gregory began January 5th, 1377, and his bulls are dated May 22nd following; and Edward III. did not die till June 21st following.

APP3-10 —See the remarks with which Foxe introduces the 24 Articles at p. 21, and, upon his Articles generally at p. 64. Dr. Wordsworth, in his “Eccl. Biog.” vol. 1 p. 203, edit. 1839, makes some valuable remarks on these conclusions, “in justice” (as he says) “to the reader and to the memory of this great man.” After remarking that several of the Articles will startle the reader, he adds that, “partly it is to be borne in mind, that the Articles come to us from the hands of Wickliff’s adversaries; and partly, we must take them in connection with the limitations and explanations which he himself has given of them.” Dr. Wordsworth then shows, that in some of them he is certainly calumniated.

APP3-11 —The doctrine that dominion is founded in grace, which the pope here tries to fasten on Wickliff, was none of his, but was, in truth, maintained and acted upon to a fearful degree by the Roman Catholics themselves. See Lewis, pp. 115-117, 342; and Dr.

Wordsworth’s note on this Article.

APP3-12 —Wickliff, in both his subsequent Expositions of these Articles (see p. 15, and Appendix) disclaims any intention of teaching, that where individuals were dissatisfied, with their clergyman, however justly, they should take the law into their own hands: he rather pleaded for better laws and discipline in regard to the clergy, and that proper facilities should be afforded for legal process against such of them as grossly neglected their duties. It is observable that John Huss, while defending this Article of Wickliff, makes a similar disclaimer at p. 78. “Notwithstanding, I protest that it is not my intention,” etc.

APP3-13 —This Article may be illustrated by the conduct of Henry III. toward the bishop and chapter of Hereford, as related supra, vol. 2 p. 559.

APP3-14 “Under a condition implied .”] —See Swinderby’s observations on this point at p. 122, line 32; “And as anentes,”etc.

APP3-15 — The meeting at Lambeth must have been early in 1378, for Gregory XI. died March 27th; and Walsingham particularly bewails his death, because it put a stop to any further process against Wickliff.

APP3-16 —Dr. Vaughan insinuates a doubt, as to how far the document which Walsingham has preserved as Wickliff’s exposition of his sentiments, is genuine: certainly Walsingham entertained a bitter hatred toward Wickliff and his opinions, which he takes no pains to conceal; and occasionally gives a much more unfavorable turn to his history than Walden. (See p. 19, note (1).) Knyghton is open to the same charge, and gives documents as recantations, which are either plainly the reverse or plainly forgeries.

APP3-17 —Walsingham says, p. 206, “tanto timore concussi sunt, ut cornibus eos carere putares, factos velut homo non audiens, et non habens in ore suo redargutiones:” a citation of Psalm 38:14.

APP3-18 —The following is Foxe’s translation (somewhat modified) of the second edition of Wickliff’s Protestation and Expositions, referred to in the note, and extant in Walden’s “Fasciculus,” fol. 57 b, and in the Selden MSS. B. 10. Walden speaks of it as addressed to the bishops, but the other copy intitules it as addressed “ad Parliamentum Regis.” The paper begins in the Selden MS with this preface: “Ista est protestatio Reverendi Doctoris, una cum ejus conclusionibus quae ab eo in subscripta forma sunt positae, quae in consimilibus materiis et dissimilibus formis sunt et fuerunt reportatae et ad curiam Romanam transmissae, et sic in multis minus bene impositae.” The paper then proceeds:- Conclusions, and Expositions thereof, exhibited by John Wickliff to the Parliament. “I protest publicly, as I have often before done, that I intend and wish to be entirely a Christian, and as long as breath shall remain in me to profess the law of Christ in word and deed. But if from ignorance or any other cause I shall fail thereof, now as then I revoke and abhor the same, humbly submitting myself to the correction of holy mother church.

I. “The whole human race concurring,” etc. This I grant from the Scriptures; forsomuch as before the final judgment all civil polity must cease; for the Apostle, speaking in I Corinthians 15 of the day of judgment, writeth thus: “Then shall the end come, when he shall deliver up his kingdom unto God, his Father; when as he shall have made void all princely rule, power, and dominion.” Whosoever then believeth the resurrection of the flesh, believeth also this article, forsomuch as after that there shall be no more exaction or secular conversation. No man, then, hath power to ordain any thing contrary to the decree of the Lord on this behalf.

II. “God cannot give civil dominion to any man,” etc. Here it is to be understood, First, that the term “for ever” is taken properly and famously and after the manner of the church, when she prayeth, “Glory be into the Trinity both now and ever:” Secondly, I understand that civil dominion is taken formally for that, whereby any man doth civilly govern: and, Thirdly, that the conclusion speaketh of the ordinary power of God: and then this conclusion followeth from the preceding. But speaking of the absolute power of God, it seemeth probable unto many, that God cannot continue eternally the pilgrimage of his spouse, because he would then defraud her of her reward, or would unjustly defer to take that vengeance upon the body of the devil, which he hath deserved.

III.“ Charters of human invention,” etc. This was spoken by the way unto a certain doctor, who highly commended the writings of men, to the disparagement of the Christian Scripture: I said it were best to attend to the defense and exposition of the Scripture, forsomuch as many of these charters are impossible. I therefore grant the conclusion, forsomuch as many charters affirm as touching those who are disherited and dead intestate, that certain lordships are given to them for themselves and their heirs for ever: the which thing, forsomuch as it is against the divine ordinance, we must not canonize every such charter, thereby contemning the Scriptures.

IV. “Every one existing [or, being] in grace justifying,” etc. The which is proved evidently enough from the holy Scripture (Matthew 24 ), He will set him over all his goods,” etc.; together with that of the apostle in Romans 8, “God spared not his own Son, but gave him for us all; how then (saith he) did he not give us all things with him?” Wherefore the first three conclusions do print the faith of Christ on the hearts of worldlings, that they should not be drowned in the sea of the world, which passeth away with its concupiscence: and the fourth conclusion allureth men unto the love of the Lord, who hath chosen us to so many true riches.

V. “A man can give any temporal dominion (or eternal, by implication), as well to his natural son, as to his son by adoption, only ministratoriously.” This is proved from Luke 6, “They shall give into your bosom a good measure, shaken together, and running over.” And, that it is done only ministratoriously is proved from this, that it is not lawful for a man purely to give any thing except, as the minister of God, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 4), “Let a man account us as the ministers of Christ.” Whence Christ was a true minister of the church, as the Apostle saith (Romans 15), “I say that Jesus Christ was a minister,” etc. Let not his vicar, therefore, blush to perform the ministry of the church, forsomuch as he is (or at the least, ought to be) the “servant of the servants of God.” For any decree deviating from the manner of speaking of the holy Scripture, and the pride of secular dominion, with an ambitious worldly style, seemeth to tend too much unto blasphemy and to the advancement of Antichrist; and specially if the verities of the Scripture faith are reputed as cockle, something contrary to the christian faith, by the chief captains themselves, who presume that all controversies of the faith should stand in their determination, albeit they be never so ignorant of the faith of the Scriptures. For so they might come together to the Court [of Rome] to purchase a condemnation of holy Scripture as heretical, and a determination against the articles of our christian faith.

VI. “If God is, temporal lords can lawfully,” etc. Here it is to be understood, that we use the expression “can” according as the authentic Scripture saith most truly and excellently (Matthew 3), “God can even of these stones raise up children unto Abraham.”

Wherefore I grant the conclusion as correlative unto the first article of our faith: for if God be, he is omnipotent; and if he be omnipotent, he can give unto the secular lords such power; and so, by consequence, they can meritoriously and lawfully use such a power. But lest this conclusion should seem far fetched and inconsequential, I have shown that the temporal lords have power to take away their alms bestowed upon a church, if that she abuse the same, and that such taking away might, percase, be a spiritual work of mercy, saving the soul from hellfire, and obtaining for both parties blessedness; and such alms bestowed upon the church, although beyond, yea, against the religion which Christ instituted, doth relieve the body from temporal misery as well as a corporal alms. And as it seemeth that giving may be an occasion of blessedness, so more likely taking away. Yet notwithstanding, I have said it was not lawful to do this but by the authority of the church, and in lack of a spiritual ruler, and in case that the ecclesiastical ruler shall himself need to be rebuked by persons worthy of that trust.

VII. “We know that it is not possible that the vicar of Christ,” etc.

This is proved from the Scripture, according to which the church doth fully believe that the enabling of any man must first proceed from the Lord. But no vicar of Christ hath any power in this matter, except as vicar in the name of the Lord to notify unto the church whom God hath enabled. Therefore if he do any thing not as vicar and in the name of the Lord, whom he is to recognize in his work and account as the author thereof, it is presumption worthy of Lucifer, since in Corinthians 3 Christ saith by his apostle, “All your sufficiency is of the Lord.”

VIII. “It is not possible that a man should be excommunicated to his damage,” etc. This appeareth, in that every such excommunication doth tend unto the damaging of him who is excommunicated. But no man, according to St. Chrysostom and the holy Scripture, can be endamaged, except he be hurt by sin, the which must take its first original from him who committeth the sin. For the merited suspension of a man from the sacraments and from entrance into the church, is no excommunication but in name only. And as touching the desert itself, it proceedeth first from him which is excommunicated, not from the vicar of Christ, who only giveth the sentence against him. For no man is damnified, except through sin the divine help were withdrawn from him; as is proved by Isaiah 59, “Your iniquities have separated between you and your God.”

IX. “No body ought to excommunicate,” etc. This is proved from the circumstance, that no man ought to seek vengeance but in the cause of justice: but every cause of justice is the cause of God, since he is himself the fountain of justice: Ergo, etc. For inasmuch as all such punishment hath its original in sin, and that all sin is against God, according to the saying Psalm 51 “Against thee only have I sinned,” thereby it is evident that no man ought to proceed to such punishment but only in respect to take vengeance for the injury done to God. For according unto the Scripture, no man ought to take vengeance but only on the account of injury being done to his Lord, remitting all account of personal injury; as is plain from the commandment of Christ (Matthew 18), “If thy brother have sinned against thee, forgive him even unto seventy times seven.”

X. “Cursing or excommunication’ ‘doth not bind simply [or, absolutely], out only in so far as it is pronounced against the adversary of God s law.”

This is proved thus. Every such curse doth not bind as touching God, except that he who is so bound do offend against his law: but it doth not bind except so far as it bound touching God: Ergo, etc. “For if God do justify, who is he that can condemn?” and God is not offended at any time, except it be for resistance of his law. And these articles of faith do further and help, both that the law of Christ should be the more loved, for that it ought to be the rule to direct us in every lawful process, and also that the Scripture doctrine written in Romans should be the better impressed, where it is said, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place to wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine, and I will repay.”

XI. “There is no power exemplified [or, granted] by Christ,” etc. This is proved from the fact, that Christ teacheth, that the honor of God and the profit of the church are to be thought of before any personal commodity or the denial of temporalties. The second part is proved from Luke 9, where Christ forbade his disciples, when they would have had fire to come down from heaven, to excommunicate the unbelievers, unjustly keeping back their goods from Christ and his disciples. “Ye know not,” said he, “what spirit you are of; for the Son of man is come, not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Whence it is concluded generally, that it is not lawful for Christ’s vicar to excommunicate his neighbor but only for love, wherewithal he must be more affected than with [the desire of] all the temporal goods in the world. The negative conclusion is also proved inductively, and by reducing us to an impossibility which otherwise should have been in Christ, namely, a “yea” and a “nay.”

XII. “The disciples of Christ have no power,” etc. This is proved from the apostles and the other of Christ’s disciples until the time that the church was endowed with possessions; for in how great necessity soever the faithful then were, they did never exercise any such kind of power, but exhorted men according to the law of God and from devotedness to his service to suitable benefactions of voluntary alms.

But after that the church was endowed, then were these cloaked censures and secular exactions brought in. Nay, it is proved by Luke 22, that civil possessions were prohibited unto Christ’s disciples.

XIII. “It is not possible by the absolute power of God,” etc. This is proved from the fact, that every Christian might err in this matter so as to disagree with the church triumphant; but in that case he would not bind or loose as he doth pretend to do; wherefore it cannot be, that albeit he do pretend to bind and loose, that he necessarily doth so.

Whereupon it seemeth unto me, that he that doth usurp that power unto himself should be that Man of Sin, of whom it is written in Thessalonians 2 that “he sitteth in the temple of God, and sheweth himself as though he were God.”

XIV. “ We ought to believe, that then only the vicar of Christ,” etc.

This is proved from the fact, that all the power of Christ’s vicar is then only lawful in effect, when it is regulated and governed by the good pleasure of the Head of the church.

XV. “This ought universally to be believed, that any priest rightly ordered according unto the law of grace, hath a power, according to which he may minister the sacraments, and, by consequence, absolve any man who confesseth to him from any sin whatever, he being contrite for the same.” This is proved by the fact, that the powers of orders in all christian priests are equal; as Hugo in his second book ‘on the Sacraments’ doth declare. Notwithstanding, the powers of orders in some, though substantially equal to those of others, are reasonably restrained, and yet may again be loosed for the work of the ministry, as the conclusion saith.

XVI. “It is lawful for kings, in cases limited by the law, to take away the temporalties from ecclesiastics habitually abusing the same. This is proved by the principle laid down in the fifth conclusion; for to the works of greatest merit, and at the same time most easy to the temporal lords, the said lords are most bound: but it might, percase, be a greater alms, as well as an easier thing for the temporal lord, to take away his alms from one who is building unto damnation through the abuse thereof, than to bestow the said alms for mere corporal succor: Ergo, etc. Whence this opinion is specified according to a threefold law: The first is the civil law, de Capitulis Corradi, col. 10. “ 1 If a cleric,” saith that law, “as a bishop or an abbot, having a benefice given by the king, not only to his own person but also to the church, through his own default should lose the same, during his life let it pertain to the king; but after the death of the cleric let it revert to his successor.” The second is the canon law, [‘Causa] 16, quaest. 7, where it is thus decreed touching sons, that “it shall be lawful for the sons, nephews, and the most respectable of the kindred of him who either builded or endowed any church, to have this foresight, that if they perceive any priest to mis-apply any portion of the property bestowed upon him, they should either admonish him by honest communication, or else report to the bishop or judge the matters needing correction: but if the bishop shall be negligent in doing of his office, let it be told unto the metropolitan: and thirdly, in case of his neglect, it ought (as saith the canon) to be intimated to the king.” But I cannot imagine any end in so complaining to the king, but only that he should himself apply correction; neither is there any doubt, but that the correction most suitable for the king and most advantageous in this behalf would be, the taking away of the goods (whereof he is lord in capite) in proportion to the quality of the fault. The third is the law of the gospel, 2 Thessalonians 3, where the apostle writeth thus; “When we were with you, this we declared unto you, that if any would not work neither should he eat.” The law of nature also doth allow, that such as have the governance of kingdoms should rectify such abuses of the temporalties,, as would prove the chief destruction of their kingdoms.

XVII. Whether they be temporal lords, or any others, who have endowed,” etc. This is proved from the fact, that the condition consequent upon the gift of any goods unto the church is, that God should be honored and the church edified thereby; which condition, if it fail through the opposite result taking place, proveth that the title of the gift is lost, and that, by consequence, the lord who gave the gift ought to correct the fault. But excommunication ought not to stop the full execution of justice, for otherwise the clergy might by their excommunications get the whole world into their hands.

XVIII. “An ecclesiastical minister, even the Roman pontiff etc. The first part is proved by the fact, that every such ecclesiastic is our peccable brother, and is consequently under the law of brotherly correction; wherefore, according to Matthew 18, if he do offend in any point, any body having any possible opportunity ought to rebuke him; and so likewise, if that he obstinately continue in the maintenance of any heretical opinion or other grievous offense tending to the spiritual damage of the church, in that case he ought to be complained on to his superiors, to the intent that through his correction the danger to the church may be avoided. For so was Peter rebuked by St. Paul (Galatians 2); and many unruly popes have been deposed by the emperors, as Cestrensis in the fifth book of his Polychronicon 2 doth declare. For the church is above the pontiff, and therefore to say that he ought not to be rebuked of man but only of the Lord, what offense soever he hath committed, seemeth to me to imply that he is above the church, the spouse of Christ, and that, after the manner of Antichrist, he is exalted higher even than Christ. For Christ himself, albeit that he was without sin, yet chose to be subject to princes, even in the taking away of his temporalties, as appeareth in Matthew 17. This is a sort of rejoinder to the bull. 3 These conclusions I would describe as the pure wheat of faith separated from the chaff; whereby is to be burned the intrusive cockle, which, after it hath brought out the scarlet and unsavory blossom of vengeance, provideth food for Antichrist against the holy Scriptures: of whose coming it is an infallible sign, that there should reign among the clergy the venom, of Lucifer, namely, pride, consisting in the lust of domination, whose wife, namely, covetous desire of earthly things, should bring forth children of the devil, the children of evangelical poverty being extinguished. But some judgment may be formed of the vigorous growth of this plant from the fact, that many even of the children of poverty, having degenerated, do maintain by their words, or at the least by their silence, the part of Lucifer, not being able, or at the least not daring, because of the seed of the man of sin which is sown in their hearts, or else for the slavish dread of losing their temporalties, to stand to the defense of evangelical poverty.”

Then follow these words in the Selden MS.: “Hae sunt Conclusiones quas vult etiam usque ad mortem defendere, ut per hoc valeat mores ecclesiae reformare.”

Foxe then proceeds:— “These were the chief conclusions which Wickliff, at that present, exhibited unto the bishops, which being either not thoroughly read, or at least not well understood, (I cannot tell by what means) suddenly they waxed very meek and gentle, and granted him free liberty to depart.”—See Latin Edition, Basle, 1559, pp. 8-12. Edition 1563, London, pp. 91-95. See these conclusions also, in Lewis’s Life of Wickliff, p. 318, and Vaughan’s Life of Wickliff (Appendix to vol. 1), copied from MSS. Seldeni Archi. B. 10.

About the same time, as Lewis thinks (p. 326), or rather later according to Dr. Vaughan, Wickliff wrote an answer in Latin under a feigned name to a certain doctor, whom he calls a medley divine (“ mixtus theologus”), who had asserted the papal supremacy and infallibility; it is extant in MSS. Seldeni, Arch. B. 10. Lewis and Vaughan give an abstract of it.

Dr. Lingard has inverted the chronological order of these three apologies by Wickliff, and represents him as gradually qualifying his assertions; whereas internal evidence seems to prove their order to be as above stated, and consequently that Wickliff grew bolder and more distinct in the avowal of his sentiments.—Milner in his Church History speaks of the explanations as evasive, and inconsistent with that boldness with which Wickliff has spoken against the pope in his other writings: Dr. Vaughan, however, triumphantly vindicates the Reformer against this charge, by showing that those other writings were of a posterior date; and that Wickliff in reality increased in boldness, as he became more distinct in his views of the errors and abominations of popery. In fact, Wickliff took the 18 Articles as he found them, framed by his enemies, and therefore likely enough to be distortions, if not falsifications, of his real sentiments: yet even at such a disadvantage, he chose rather to face his adversaries than appear timidly to abandon the cause which he had undertaken. His feeling in writing these Expositions was doubtless the same as that, with which John Huss afterwards undertook the defense of some of the most obnoxious Articles: “I protest that it is not my intention, like as it is not the intention of the University, to persuade, etc ... But it is our intention diligently to search out whether this Article may have in it a true sense, in which it may be defended without reproof.” (See p. 78 of this vol.)

APP3-19 —Foxe considers the schism as terminating when the council of Constance deposed Benedict XIII., July 1417, which would make it thirty-nine years in duration. Sir H. Nicolas however observes, that on the death of Benedict XIII. in 1424, another pope was chosen as Clement VIII., who however abdicated July 1429, thus terminating a schism of fifty-one years.

Wickliff himself refers to this schism in his writings. Among other advantages which he gained from it one was, that of leisure from controversy for carrying on his translation of the Scriptures, which Walsingham does not notice: this may account for Foxe’s silence on that point.

APP3-20 —It should have been stated in this note, that several erroneous dates in the text have been corrected.

APP3-21 “The bishop of Aquilonensis,” Foxe.] —Stephen, bishop of Aquila, in Apulia, is the individual here meant.

APP3-22 —Theodoric, of Niem in Germany, and (according to some) bishop of Verden, was private secretary to several popes. He wrote a history of the schism, from the death of Gregory XI. to the election of Alexander V., i.e. from A.D. 1378 to A.D. 1410, in three books; which is here referred to. See Cave’s “Hist. Lit.,” and Illyricus’s “Cat. Test.,” which gives extracts.

APP3-23 —The following is Berton’s Process against Wickliff, copied from Walden’s “Fasciculus,” folio 28b, and collated with the copy in Wilkins, in. p. 170. Foxe misdates this process “ A.D. 1380,” though he begins his next paragraph “The next year after ( A.D. 1382):” Walden places it in or after the year 1381, which year is inserted in the text. “Diffinitio facta per Cancellarium et Doctores Universitatis Oxonii de Sacramento Altaris contra opiniones Wycliffianas: alias, Sententia Willielmi Cancellarii Oxon. contra M. J. Wyclyff, residentem in cathedra. “Willielmus de Berton, Cancellarius Universitatis Oxon. omnibus dictae Universitatis filiis ad quos praesens nostrum mandatum pervenerit, salutem et mandatis nostris firmiter obedire. Ad nostrum non sine grandi displicentia pervenit auditum, quod, cum omnes heresium inventores, defensores, seu fautores, cum eorum perniciosis dogmatibus, sint per sacros canones sententia majoris excommunicationis damnabiliter involuti, et sic a cunctis catholicis rationabiliter evitandi; nonnulli tamen, maligni Spiritus repleti consilio, in insaniam mentis producti, molientes tunicam Domini scilicet Sanctae Ecclesiae scindere unitatem, quasdam haereses olim ab Ecclesia solemniter condemnatas his diebus (proh dolor) innovant, et tam in universitate ista quam extra publice dogmatizant; duo inter alia sua documenta pestifera asserentes; Primo, in sacramento altaris substantiam panis materialis et vini, quae prius filerunt ante consecrationem, post consecrationem realiter remanere; Secundo, quod execrabilius est auditu, in illo venerabili sacramento non esse corpus Christi et sanguinem essentialiter, nec substantialiter, nec etiam corporaliter, sed figurative seu tropica, sic quod Christus non sit ibi veraciter in sua propria praesentia corporali. Ex quibus documentis fides catholica periclitatur, devotio populi minoratur, et haec Universitas mater nostra non mediocriter diffamatur. Nos igitur advertentes quod assertiones hujusmodi per tempus se deteriores haberent, si diutius in hac Universitate sic conniventibus oculis tolerentur, convocavimus plures sacrae theologiae doctores et juris canonici professores quos peritiores credidimus, et praemissis assertionibus in eorum praesentia patenter expositis ac diligenter discussis, tandem finaliter est compertum et eorum judicio declaratum, ipsas esse erroneas atque determinationibus ecclesiae repugnantes, contradictoriasque earundem esse veritates catholicas, et ex dictis sanctorum et determinationibus ecclesiae manifeste sequentes; videlicet quod per verba sacramentalia a sacerdote rite prolata panis et vinum in altari in rerum corpus Christi et sanguinem transubstantiantnr sen substantialiter convertuntur, sic quod post consecrationem non remanent in illo venerabili sacramento panis materialis et vinum quae prius, secundum suas substantias seu naturas, sed solum species eorundem: sub quibus speciebus verum corpus Christi et sanguis realiter conti-nentur, non solum figurative seu tropice, sed essentialiter, substantialiter ac corporaliter, sic quod Christus est ibi veraciter in sua propria praesentia corporali. Hoc credendum, hoc docendum, hoc contra contradicentes viriliter defendendum. Hortamur igitur in Domino, et auctoritate nostra monemus primo, secundo, et tertio, ac districtius inhibemus, pro prima monitione assignando unum diem, pro secunda alium diem, et pro tertia monitione canonica ac peremptoria unum alium diem, nequis de cetero, cujuscunque gradus status aut conditionis existat, praemissas duas assertiones erroneas, aut earum alteram, in scholls vol extra scholas in hac Universitate publice teneat, doceat, seu defendat, sub poena incarcerationis et suspensionis ab omni actu scholastico, ac etiam sub poena excommunicationis majoris, quam in omnes et singulos in hac parte rebelles et nostris monitionibus non parentes, lapsis ipsis tribus diebus pro monitione canonica assignatis, mora, culpa, et offensa precedentibus et id fieri merito exigentibus, ferimus in his scriptis, quorum omnium absolutiones et absolvendi potestatem, praeterquam in mortis articulo, nobis et successoribus nostris specialiter reservamus. “Insuper ut homines, quamvis non propter timorem lathe sententiae, saltem propter defectum audientiae, a talibus doctrinis illicitis retrahantur, et eorum opiniones erroneae sopiantur, eadem auctoritate qua prius monemus, primo, secundo, tertio, ac districtius inhibemus, ne quis de cetero aliquem publice docentem, tenentem, sen defendentem praemissas duas assertiones erroneas, aut earum alteram, in scholls vel extra scholas in hac Universitate quovismodo audiat vel auscultet, seal statim sic docentem tanquam serpentem venenum pestiferum emittentem fugiat et abscedat, sub poena excommunicationis majoris in omnes et singulos contravenientes non immerito fulminandae et sub poenis aliis superius annotatis. “Nomina autem Doctorum qui praesenti decreto specialiter affuerunt, et eidem unanimiter consenserunt, sunt haec. “Magister Johannes Lawndryne, sacrae paginae professor et secularis. “Magister Henricus Crompe, Albus Monachus. “Magister Johannes Chessham, de ordine Praedicatorum, “Magister Willielmus Bruscombe, de eodem ordine. “Magister Johannes Schipton, de ordine Augustinen. “Magister Johannes Tissington, de ordine Minorum. “Magister Johannes Loveye, de ordine Carmelitarum. “Magister Johannes Welles, monachus de Ramesey. “Magister Johannes Wolverton, de ordine Praedicatorum. “Magister Robertus Rygge, S. paginae professor et secularis. “Magister Johannes Moubray, Doctor in utroque Jure. “Magister Johannes Gascoigne, Doctor in Decretis. “Convocatis igitur praefatis Doctoribus, ut dictum est, in eorum domum, et plena deliberatione habita de praemissis, ex omnium nostrorum unanimi consilio et assensu praesens mandatum emanare decrevimus. In quorum omnium singulorum testimonium, sigillum officii nostri fecimus his apponi.”

APP3-24 —The following is from Wilkins, 3 p. 171, where it pieces on to the Process given in the note preceding this. It is also in Walden’s “Fasciculus,” apud Bodleianum, whence it is printed by Spelman. (See Lewis, p. 288.) “Ista praedicta condemnatio promulgata est publice in scholls Augustinensium, ipso Magistro Joanne sedente in cathedra et determinante contrarium: sed confusus est ista audita condemnatione.

Sed tamen dixit quod nec Cancellarius nec aliquis de suis complicibus poterat suam sententiam infringere, se in hoe ostendens hereticum pertinacem. Sed post, ad suae heresis majorem manifestationem et suae pertinaciae ostentationem, alias publice a condemnatione Cancellarii et judicio praedicto appellavit, non ad Papam, vel ad Episcopnm, vel ad Ordinarium Ecclesiasticum: sed hereticus, adherens seculari potestati in defensionem sui erroris et heresis, appellavit ad Regem Ricardum, volens per hoe se protegere regali potestate, quod non puniretur vel emendaretur ecclesiastica potestate. Et post appellationem advenit nobilis dominus, dux egregius et miles strenuus sapiensque Consiliarius, dux Lancastriae, Sacrae Ecclesiae filius fidelis, prohibens magistro praedicto Johanni quod de cetero non loqueretur de ista materia. Sed nec ipse obtemperans suo ordinario, Cancellario, nec etiam tam strenuo domino, incepit confessionem quandam facere, in qua continebatur omnis error pristinus, sed secretius sub velamine ratio verborum, in qua dixit suum conceptum, et nisus est suam sententiam probare. Sed velut hereticus pertinax refutavit omnes Doctores de Secundo Millenario in materia de Sacramento Altaris, et dixit omnes illos errasse praeter Berengarium, cujus opinio damnatur Distinct. 2da ‘de Consecratione,’ cap. ‘Ego Berengarius,’ et ipsum et suos complices; dixit palam Sathanam solutum et potestatem, habere in Magistro Sententiarum et in omnibus qui fidem catholicam praedicaverunt.

Wicliff is stated by Wood (Ant. Oxon. I. p. 189) to have read a Confession on the Sacrament in Latin at Oxford before certain bishops and an assembled multitude, in which he retracted his opinions. Lewis gives a Latin Confession in his Appendix, No. 16; together with the ensuing one in English, from Knyghton, col. 2649. One can only wonder how either of them should be considered a recantation. See the note in this Appendix, on p. 49 note (1). “We beleve as Crist and his Apostolus han taugt us, that the Sacrament of the Auter white and ronde, and lyk tyl oure Brede or ost unsacrede is verray Goddus Body in fourme of Brede, and if it be broken in thre Parties os the Kirke uses, or elles in a Thousand, everylk one of these Parties is the same Goddus Body, and ryth so as the Persone of Crist is veray God and verray Man, verray Godbede, and verray Manbede, ryth so, as holy Kirke many hundrith wynter has trowyde, the same Sacrament is verray Goddus Body and verray Brede: As it is Forme of Godus Body and Forme of Brede as techith Crist and his Apostolus. And therefore Seynt Poule nemeth it never but when he callus it Brede, and he he our beleve tok his wit of God in this: And the Argument of Heretykus agayne this Sentens, lyth to a Cristine Man for to assolve. And right as it is Heresie to belive that Crist is a Spirit and no Body: So it is Heresie for to trowe that this Sacrament is Goddus Body and no Brede; for it is both togedur. But the most Heresie that God sufferyde come tyl his Kirke is to trows that this Sacrament is an accident withouten a Substance, and may on no wyse be Goddus Body: for Crist sayde be witnesse of John, that this Brede is my Body. And if the say that be this skylie that holy Kyrke hat bens in Heresy many Hundred Wynter, so the it is, specially sythen the Fends was lousede that was be witnesse of Angele to John Evangeliste after a Thousande Wynter that Crist was stenenyde to Heven. But it is to suppose that many Seyntes that dyede in the mene tyme before her Death were purede of this Errours.

Owe howe grete diversitie is betwene us that trowes that this Sacrament is verray Brede in his Kynde, and betwene Heretykus that tell us that this is an Accident withouten a Sujet. For before that the Fends Father of Lesyngus was lowside, was never this gabbyng contrydede. And howe grete diversitie is between us that trowes that this Sacrament that in his Kinds is veray Brede and sacramentally Goddus Body, and betwene Heretykes that trowes and telles that this Sacrament may on none wyse be Goddus Body. For I dare surly say that gif this were soth Crist and his Seynts dyede Heretykus, and the more partye of holy Kyrke belevyth nowe Heresye, and before devout Men supposene that this Counsayle of Freres in London was with the Herydene. 4 For they put an Heresie upon Crist and Seynts in Hevyne, wherefore the Erth tremblide. Fay land maynnus Voice answeryde for God als it did in tyme of his Passione, whan he was damphyde to bodely Deth. Crist and his Modur that in gronde had destroyde all heresies kep his Kyrke in right Belefe of this Sacrament, and move the King and his Rewme to aske sharply of his Clerkus this Offis that all his Possessioneres on pain of lesyng all her Temporalres tells the King and his Rewme with sufficient grownding what is this Sacrament; and all the Orders of Freres on payne of lesing her Legians telle the King and his Rewme with gode grounding what is the Sacrament; for I am certaine of the thridde Part of Clergie that defendus thise Doutes that is heresaid, that they will defende it on paine of her Lyre.”

APP3-25 —This anecdote respecting the earthquake is told by Walden, who says expressly, “In die S. Dunstani post prandium apud Praedicatores London. (“ Fasciculus Zizaniorum Wiclevi,” apud Bodleianum, fol. 63.)

The Preaching Friars were Dominicans, and also called Black Friars: their priory stood in the parish near St. Paul’s, which is still called, from them, St. Anne’s Black-friars. The Grey Friars were of the Franciscan order; and their priory was where Christ’s Hospital now stands. (Tanner’s Notitia Monastica.)

St. Dunstan’s day was May 19th. (Nicolas’s Chronol. of History.)

APP3-26 “Reported by John Huss’s enemies.”] —See p. 455.

APP3-27 —The short paragraph in the text is put in by the Editor, in lieu of the following words which stand in Foxe’s text: “The mandate of the archbishop, William Courtney, sent abroad for the conventing together of this council, here followeth underwritten, truly copied out of his own register.” Instead of a “Mandate for the conventing of the council,” it is a Process consequent upon the council: it is so called in the Register (Wilkins, Conc. 3 p. 157), and internal evidence proves it such. In conformity with this correction, the whole previous paragraph—“Here is not to be passed over .....nature and infirmity”— which contains some account of the council itself, but which in Foxe stands after the Process, is in this edition placed before it. The marginal note to that paragraph—“Determination upon the Articles of Wicliff”—in the edition of 1570 was slipped down and made, in that and all subsequent editions, the head line of a paragraph relating to a totally different matter (see the note in this Appendix, on page 24, note (2)). The whole of the ensuing Process, Articles, and Mandates, to p. 24, have been collated with the original in Wilkins, and revised, or rather retranslated.

APP3-28 “The articles of John Wickliff,” etc.] —The manner in which Foxe here cautions his readers against receiving these twenty-four Articles too implicitly as a fair exhibition of Wickliff’s sentiments, accords with what has been already said on this subject in reference to the eighteen Articles above, p. 11. The need of this caution is illustrated in the foot-notes, with regard to several of the ensuing Articles; several more illustrations shall be added here.

APP3-29 —See the explanation of Huss at p. 454. In fact, Wickliff himself says expressly: “Sophisters shulden know well, that a cursed man doth fully the sacraments, though it be to his damning; for they ben not authors of these sacraments, but God keepeth that divinity to himself.” (Lewis, p. 96. See also Swinderby’s answer on this point at p. 117, Art. IV.)

APP3-30 —Wickliff in a Defence of his opinions, written after this council, takes notice of this Article thus: “Such things they do invent of Catholic men that they may blacken their reputation, as if they held this heresy, That God is the devil, or any other open heresy, being consequently prepared by false witnesses to impose such heresies on true men, as if they were the false inventors of them.” (Lewis, p. 96.)

APP3-31 “That tithes be pure almose,” &e.] —Wickliff does not appear to have held this Article, in its absolute sense. See the note on Article VI. at p. 11, and Dr. Wordsworth’s note in his Ecclesiastical Biography, vol. 1, p. 326. Lewis (pp. 119—124) maintains that he only taught (what was the fact) that the tithes were held by the tenure called frank-almoigne, i.e. exempt from secular burdens, being originally given “in liberam, puram, et perpetuam eleemosynam, ad Deo soli et ecclesiae serviendum: and that, consequently, when these implied ends were not accomplished by the clergy, it was the duty of the supreme authority in the realm to rectify the abuse, by transferring their benefices to those who would carry out the pious intentions of the donors. This is no more than was actually done at the period of the Reformation, when the tithes were transferred by the State from the papal clergy to the clergy of the Reformed church. Dr. Wordsworth, indeed, cites (Eccl. Biog. 1839, vol. 1, p. 329) an awkward passage from Wickliff himself, proposing, that “when the new bishops came successively before the king to do homage, he should in all cases refuse to make restitution of the temporalties, seize them into his own hands, and dispose of them to whatever uses he might be advised to think good.” (Trialogus, p. 239.) Still it may be doubted whether Wickliff meant anything more by this proposal than what is hinted above, viz. a legal transfer by authority of the church endowments to those who would accomplish their ends. It is likely, however, that some of Wickliff’s disciples were tempted by the desperate corruption of the church in that age to go a step further and maintain that “tithes were pure alms” in the sense that the payment of them was optional. See Thorpe’s Examination, pp. 269, etc. But the expression “perpetua eleemosyna,” as Dr. Wordsworth well shows, makes the payment of tithes obligatory, and precludes the notion of purely spontaneous gift,, which Thorpe and others seem to contend for, except in the case of the original donors; and the State, in securing the payment of the tithes and other church dues, is only executing a sacred trust placed in its hands by those original donors.

APP3-32 —Foxe refers to Huss’s defense of this article at pp. 70-76.

Neither Wickliff nor Huss, however, would have denied the right of ecclesiastical rulers to regulate the ministrations of the clergy so as should most tend to general edification, nor the general duty of the clergy to render canonical obedience to such regulations. Wickliff says, that “though the priestly power is not more or less sufficient in its essence, still the powers of inferior priests are at times reasonably restrained, and at other times relaxed.” (See p. 16, Art. XV.) But Huss argues, that the church in all ages had expected all clergymen to preach the word of God as the essential business of their calling, and that the ordination vows of a clergyman involved as much; and that consequently any regulations which went to prevent such exercise of their function, were unlawful, and not entitled to obedience. The reasoning of Swinderby and Thorpe goes to the same point. (See pp. 123, 260.) If there be some danger attending such a doctrine, there is no less danger attending the opposite doctrine of unqualified submission to the authority of the church.

There are cases in which we must “obey God rather than man;” and the case of the Reformers was surely one of them. (See Bilney’s apology in his last moments for some irregularity of proceeding, infra, vol. 4, p. 654.) What would have become of the Reformation, if its early champions had submitted to the repeated injunctions of silence, or to such a constitution as that of archbishop Arundel at p. 243, which went virtually to silence the witnesses for Christ, while it left the mendicant friars in undisturbed possession of their privilege of preaching where, and when, and how they pleased. Often as those friars interfered with the province of the parochial clergy, so as to produce the most unseemly bickerings and heart-burnings, they were shortly after secured in the enjoyment of their privileges by a special declaration of archbishop Arundel, published the same year with his Constitutions (Wilkins, 3, p. 324). Hence, as Thorpe observes in his Testament at p. 284, “Hermits and pardoners, anchorites and strange beggars, are licensed and admitted by prelates and priests to beguile the people with flatterings and leasings slanderously against all good reason and true belief; and so to increase divers vices in themselves, and also among all them that accept them or consent unto them.” We cannot wonder that the Reformers felt their “spirit stirred within them” at the sight of such things, and stoutly maintained the right and duty of rightly ordained clergymen to preach “the everlasting gospel” of Christ.

Some persons may think, that these good men would have acted in a more straightforward manner, had they seceded openly from a church the proceedings of which they deemed unscriptural. But they entertained a laudable dread of schism, and rather than incur that charge they preferred asserting the constitutional liberties of the church by the Scriptures, by her own canons, and by the writings of her most eminent fathers, though at the risk of appearing contumacious. The notion, moreover, had for ages prevailed, that the church of Rome was the only true church; and most, if not all, of the early Reformers appear to have died in her communion, though protesting against her errors; and they must be allowed the praise of having made the experiment (to many of them a most dreadful one), what might be done to reclaim her from her unscriptural dogmas and proceedings. This experiment failing, men began to inquire into the grounds on which Rome claimed the supremacy, when it was perceived to be founded altogether on fable and usurpation. Whereupon, an indignant nation arose, and emancipated both herself and her church from the unrighteous tyranny.

APP3-33 —The correcting and retaining of the passage in the text from the edition of 1563, besides filling up the narrative here, makes it harmonize with the subsequent narrative at p. 25, where it is expressly stated, that “the doing of this matter was committed to Peter Stokes, friar,” etc.

APP3-34 —Knyghton (col. 2651) gives a letter of John, bishop of Lincoln, to this diocese, dated Stowe-park, 12th July, 1382, including a letter to himself from Robert, bishop of London, dated London, July 5th, 1382, and communicating this mandate of the archbishop, dated Otteford, penult. die Maii.

APP3-35 —Foxe derived the ensuing account of Rygge, Hereford,, Reppyngdon, and Ashton (extending to page 48) immediately from Walden s “Fasciculus Zizaniorum Wiclevi.” The documentary portions of it were not introduced by Foxe before the edition of 1570, and are distinguished in this edition from the rest of the narrative by being printed in smaller type. The whole has been collated with Walden s “Fasciculus,” and with the archbishop’s Registers as printed in Wilkins’s Concilia, tom. 3, p. 157; some errors have been thence corrected in the narrative, and the documents have been retranslated. A new arrangement also of the whole has been found absolutely necessary, to render the account consistent and intelligible. Foxe appears to have become fairly puzzled amidst the numerous facts and documents before him; and for want of accurately considering their dates, and their mutual relation, he lost the thread of the story, and of course perplexed his narrative. By a new arrangement of his own materials, however, and the occasional introduction of a few connecting words, order has been restored. These first four pages, for example, would stand, according to Foxe’s arrangement, immediately before the king’s letter in favor of Henry Crompe, at p. 43: and instead of the proper commencement of the narrative, as it stands in this present edition— “Matters incident of Robert Rygge, etc.”—we have here, according to Foxe’s text—Determination upon the Articles of Wickliff. Item, the twelfth day of June, A.D. 1382, in the chamber of the friars preachers, the aforesaid Master Robert Rigges, etc.”—whereas no mention whatever had been made of Robert Rigges. This proves incidentally, that the arrangement now adopted was that which Foxe originally intended. He afterwards resolved to connect the proceedings at Black-friars against Rygge with those at the same place against Wickliff in the preceding month. Hence he brought down a side-note which had originally related to the proceedings against Wickliff (see note on p. 20, note (3)), and made it the title to these proceedings against Rygge. Foxe was led so strangely to dislocate his materials, partly, through his misunderstanding a passage in Walden, which will be brought forward in a note on p. 31, note (1).

A large extract from Walden, extending to eight folios, and embracing most of this affair, is among the Cotton MSS. Cleopatra E. Anthony a Wood also gives the history in his “Hist. et Antiq. Oxon.,” i.p. 190, on the authority of the “Fasciculus,” referring to the folios as they stand in the copy preserved in the Bodleian, formerly the property of bishop Bale, and which has been referred to by the present Editor.

APP3-36 —With respect to the mode of writing the proper names concerned in this process— “Ryggaeus,” “Rygge,” and “Rigges,” are the readings in the several editions of Foxe: “Rygge” is retained, as the spelling in the archbishop’s Registers. “Hereford” is “Herford” and “Harford” in Foxe, but “Hereford” at p. 188, “Hereford” in the Registers, and “Herefordiensis” in Walden and Wood. Foxe uses “Repyngdonus, Rapyndon,” “Reppington,” “Repington:” in the Registers it is always “Reppyngdon,” except twice, when it is “Rappyngdon:” probably it was always pronounced “Rappyngdon,” just as “Derby” (in which county Repton stands) is pronounced Darby: and this pronunciation would the more easily suggest the nickname “Rampyngdon,” which was afterwards applied to this man (see pp. 46, 258).

Lastly, Rygge is called by Foxe “chancellor,” “vice-chancellor,” and “commissary,” of Oxford, for which he is criticized by Wood. He is always called “chancellor” in the Registers, which designation is adopted in the text, to preserve the identity of the individual.

APP3-37 —” His first degree unto doctorship,” i.e. he was already bachelor of divinity.

APP3-38 “But through the great and notable dexterity of his wit,” etc ] — Foxe’s original Latin here seems to have been penned rather with an eye to Reppyngdon’s subsequent apostasy, and to imply that he had never been sincere in the cause: “Qui simul atque jam sumpta doctoris persona in scenam tandem fabulam saltaturus prodiit, coepit protinus bene celatum ac dissimulatum ingenium prodere, publice attestatus, Wiclevum se in omni materia morali defensurum. De re vero sacramentaria Pythagorisare velle, donec Dominus afflasset cleri animos. Erat hic canonicus Leicestrensis, jamque primum gradum fecerat ad Doctoratum: quo tempore concionem ad Braclenses quandam habuit; ob quam Pharisaeis invisus suspectusque reddebatur.

Caeterum ob ingenii niveum quendam quem omnibus ubique prae se tulit, cum pari comitatum modestia, candorem, vel superavit vel temperavit certe hanc Nemesin; moxque in Doctoratum cum publica theatri approbatione adoptatus est.” (Lat. Ed. p. 19.)

APP3-39 —The words “as is before declared” have been added to Foxe’s text, to show that this narrative synchronizes with that in page 22.

APP3-40 Brackley in Northamptonshire.] — The Latin edition says “ad Braclenses;” the edition of 1563 “at Bracle;” all the subsequent editions, “at Broadgates,” a hall for law-students at Oxford, now merged in Queen’s College: Walden says “Bracle,” and Wood (Ant.

Oxon. i.) says “Bracleia in agro Northampton:” “Doctoratum hoc anno adeptus in Theologia Wicliffio addictum sese ostendit; quod semel tantum antehac fecerat, nempe cum Bracleiae in agro Northampton concionem habens doctrinam ejus de sacramento altaris enunciavit.” As there seems to be no authority for “Broadgates,” “Brackley in Northamptonshire” is substituted for it on the authority of Walden and Wood.

APP3-41 —Lewis gives this letter in his Appendix, with marginal corrections of certain alleged errors in the MS.; but the Editor is able to state, on the authority of the Reverend Mr. Coxe, sub-librarian of the Bodleian, that Lewis’s collator mis-read the MS., except in the two instances noticed in the present copy.

APP3-42 —The retaining of this passage from the Edition 1563 is important, as it explains what is said in the next page about the chancellor being “accused for the contempt of the archbishop’s letters.”

APP3-43 —The old writers frequently used neuter verbs transitively: thus besides “slept” here for “suffered to sleep,” we have “tarrie,” at pp. 258, 274, 278, for “delay.”

APP3-44 —On Brightwell’s recantation, see the note infra, on p. 257, line 7.

APP3-45 —The whole of these seven “Evidentiae” are given at length from Walden by Wood (Hist. et Antiq. Oxon. 1:191).

APP3-46 “The Tuesday after .”] —Foxe says, “three days after.” Walden’s words are, “Sabbato autem proximo [i.e. Saturday next following his sermon, which was on Thursday, June 5th, see margin, p. 25] dixit Philippus publice in scholis inter caetera, quod ordo suus, etc. Feria autem tertia proxima frater Petrus praedictus determinavit contra eum publice in scholis in materia recommendationis,” etc. “Feria” means a day of the week (see vol. 2, p. 209, note (1)); “tertia feria” therefore is Tuesday: Wood has not understood it, and says “tertio abhinc festo,” which conveys no distinct meaning. According to Walden, the archbishop’s letter summoning Stokes to London was delivered to him before he had left the schools; and both he and the chancellor appeared next day (Wednesday, June 11th) before the archbishop in London, when the matter was remanded to the “feria quinta [Thursday, June 12th] proxime sequens,” i.e. the morrow; at which point the archbishop’s Register takes up the matter next page.

APP3-47 “Bedeman.”] — Foxe reads “Redman” both here and at p. 96, which reading he derived from Walden (“ Fasciculus,” fol. 70); but the Register reads “Bedeman” (Wilkins, 3, p. 160), and in one place “Laurentius Stephyns, alias Bedeman.” (Ibid. p. 168.)

APP3-48 —The words “For confirmation of the foregoing history hereunder follow” have been put into the text for the sake of clearness.

It has been already explained (see Appendix on page 24, note (2)), that the foregoing narrative respecting Rygge, Hereford, and Reppyngdon, would not be introduced according to Foxe’s arrangement till page 43; i.e. after the story had been told from the archbishop’s Register, it is partly told again some pages after, to the utter confounding of the reader. This confusion is obviated on the plan here adopted, by which the Register is brought in to confirm the previous narrative; conformably to Foxe’s own example at p. 342, where he brings in a long Epistle of archbishop Arundel from the Registers, “for confirmation” of the previous account of Lord Cobham’s prosecution.

APP3-49 “After this, the same day and place,” etc.] —Foxe here says, “After this, within a few days, the aforesaid archbishop William Courtney directed down his letters monitory,” etc. But the Register expressly says, “Postmodum, eisdem die et loco, dictus Dominus Cantuariensis archiepiscopus Cancellarium praedictum monuit sub eo qui sequitur tenore verborum.”

APP3-50 —Henry Crompe was a Cistercian monk of Baltinglass, diocese of Meath, in Ireland. Wood states from Walden (Hist. Oxon. 1, p. 196), that Crompe after this returned to Ireland and preached the doctrines of Wickliff, for which he was called to account by William Andrew, bishop of Meath, and after steadily refusing to recant was declared a heretic, A.D. 1385: after this he returned to Oxford, and preached there the doctrines of Wickliff, for which he was suspended from all his Acts, cited up to the king’s council, March 21st, 15 Rich.

II. ( A.D. 1392), and compelled to recant at Stamford, May 28th: he subsequently renewed his profession of Wickliffite doctrines at Oxford, and was somewhat protected against the chancellor and others by a letter of the archbishop, dated October 21st, A.D. 1392. (Walden’s “Fasciculus,” fol. 77 b.) Foxe, following Walden, at once introduces the king’s letter in his favor here: it has been postponed in this edition to page 43, that the reader may the better perceive the chronological order of the events. That letter supports Foxe’s statements in this paragraph.

APP3-51 “He called the Lollards ‘heretics.’ “ ] —Foxe says, “he called the heretics ‘Lollards.’” The original is rather equivocal: “Suspenditur Henricus Crompe, magister in theologia, ab actibus suis publice in ecclesia beatae Virginis, et imponunt sibi perturbationem pacts, quia vocavit haereticos Lollardos.” (Walden, fol. 70 b). Wood appears to have caught the true sense of the passage, when he says, “Quod Haereticorum stigmate Lollardos vocaverat.”

APP3-52 “Were offended and in the tops of the friars,” etc.] —“Atqui religiosis potissimum infensi infestique omnes reddebantur,” etc. (Lat.

Ed. p. 15.) The phrase “to be in the top of” is similarly used at p. 24, line 5 from the bottom.

APP3-53 —The fact that Rygge returned to Oxford on Saturday is stated by Walden in a passage which shall be quoted presently.

APP3-54 “On Monday.” ] —This appears from Walden, who says “feria it,” i.e. “the second day of the week.” It may be well here to quote the passage of Walden, on which this part of the narrative is founded, because Foxe has evidently misunderstood the passage. Walden, after mentioning Crompe’s affair, and Rygge’s second citation up to London, and the king’s subsequent letter in Crompe’s favor, dated July 14th, proceeds thus:—“Sed et cancellarius praedictus postquam feria quinta habuit mandatum praedictum ab archiepiscopo et praeceptum concilii regni, venit (ut dictum est) Oxontum sabbato proximo; qui intimavit Philippo et Nicolao suas suspensiones; qui statim feria ii proxima London. venerunt, quaerentes dominum ducem Lancastriae Johannem. Quo invento apud Totenhale juxta London, &e In constino [i.e. Tuesday] plures, doctores pontificii. . . Tandem praecepit eis [dux. Lancastriae] ut starent ordinationi domini archiepiscopi, qui eis assignavit feriam sex tam proximam [i.e. Friday, June 20th] ad respondendum London. in conventu praedicatorum: qui comparuerunt, et petiernut tempus deliberandi, et, datum est usque ad 12 Kalend. Julii [i.e. Friday, June 20th], et tum venerunt,” etc. It is obvious that Walden has made a mistake in calling the first day of their appearance “feriam sextam,” as it should have been “quartam,” i.e.

Wednesday, June 18th, the day presently named in the Registers: he probably misread, or it was mis-written, in some MS. “feriam vi” for “feriam iv; or he was thinking of the day on which they were eventually brought to their answer.

Walden, in the foregoing passage, clearly intended to resume the thread of his narrative—interrupted by the anticipative introduction of Crompe’s affair and the king’s letter in his favor, dated July 14th—and informs us that Rygge, having on the Thursday [June 12th] received the commands of the archbishop and the council, returned, as before stated, to Oxford on the Saturday following [June 14th], when he informed his friends Hereford and Reppyngdon of their suspension: they on the Monday following [June 16th] fled to the duke of Lancaster, who received them kindly, but next day [June 17th] being solicited by some doctors, of the other party, changed his mind and desired them to go and submit to the archbishop’s award. Foxe was quite aware that this was the general drift of the passage; but in an evil hour confounded this flight of Hereford and Reppyngdon from Oxford to the duke with their subsequent absconding from London while their trial was pending, between June 27th and July 1st; for he follows up this paragraph on which we are now commenting by the following: “In the mean time, while they were thus fled to the duke, great search and inquisition was made for them, to cite and to apprehend them wheresover they might be found,” etc. The Latin Edition (page 15) makes it still plainer that this was his notion: “Unde iterum arcessitus cancellarius cum procurationibus regis et concilii nomine sed pontificis instinctu nova accepit mandata ad investigandos persequendosque hereticos. Ibi Philipp. Repyngtonus et Nic. Herfordus clam admoniti per cancellarium, ilico ad D. Johan. Lancastriae ducem se receperunt.”

It is curious that Anthony a Wood has likewise stumbled at the above passage of Walden, and supposes it to describe events altogether subsequent to July 14th: for he interprets Walden’s “feria quinta” by “quinto abhinc die,” which makes his narrative as confused and incoherent as Foxe’s. To Foxe’s misunderstanding of this passage of Walden we are to trace his dislocation of these proceedings against the Oxford reformers.

APP3-55 “From the hall to the kitchen.”] — Here ends the portion which, according to Foxe’s arrangement, would have stood at p. 43. (See note on p. 24.)—The reader will find the English proverb used by Foxe again at p. 377, line 29, only in an inverse order.—That this occurred on the Tuesday, appears from Walden, as cited in the last note but one.

APP3-56 . “Examination of N. Hereford, etc.’”] —These proceedings, taken by Walden (fol. 70) from the archbishop’s Register, show that the alleged recantation of Hereford given by Knyghton (col. 2655), dated June 19th, must be a forgery.

APP3-57 —Foxe reads “Si Dudum” for the first words of this Clementine, both here and at p. 34: he misunderstood Walden’s abbreviation, “Si Dnm.” (“ Fasciculus,” fol. 72, 73.)

APP3-58 “The nineteenth conclusion.”] — Both Walden and the Register here call this the “twentieth” conclusion: but 12 lines lower they call it “decimam nonam,” which Foxe’s text translates “tenth ninth,” as if it were not certain whether two Articles were not referred to, the 10th and the 9th. It is the 19th, in p. 33, and is therefore so numbered here.

APP3-59 “The same day se’nnight.”] — Foxe’s text reads, “eight days’ space;” the Register says, “praefixit et assignavit praefatis Nicolao et Philippo diem eundem ad 8 dies, videlicet 27 diem dicti mensis.” (Wilkins, 3, p. 163.)

APP3-60 “Uttered frivolous and opprobrious contumelies,” etc.] —The reader will observe that this is the statement of the archbishop’s Register, which Foxe gives just as he found it: “Clamando verba frivola opprobriosa et contumeliosa.... ut videbatur.” (Wilkins, 3, p. 164.)

APP3-61 “That day se’nnight, that is to say, the twenty-seventh of the said month.”] — Here again Foxe misapprehends the date: “Praefixit et assignavit dictum diem octavum, videlicet 27 diem dicti mensis” (Wilkins, 3, p. 164); whence Foxe says, “assigned eight days after, that is to say, the twenty-eighth of the said month;” and 11 lines lower down he says, “the twenty-eighth of June,” whereas the Register says, “Subsequenter die Veneris dicto, videlicet vicesimo septimo die mensis Junii.”

APP3-62 —Foxe mis-read the MS. of Walden here, and translates, “Saying oftentimes and expressly, as Luke said;” which is not sense. “To believe as the church believes,” i.e. as the priest teaches, is a principle sedulously inculcated on the laity of the Romish church to this day.— Several of the early Reformers seem to have used a prudent reserve on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Reppyngdon above (p. 25) had said, “De materia sacramenti altaris pythagorisare velle, donee Dominus affiasset cleri animos;” and Purvey recommends his friends a particular course to be taken, when they were catechized on the subject of the Lord’s Supper: “Therefore, when Anti-Christ, etc. . . . as true martyrs of Jesus Christ.” (See the note in this Appendix on p. 287.) The conduct of Ashton seems to have been regulated on this occasion by the foregoing maxim.

APP3-63 “The archbishop, yet not contented with this,” &e.] —Another transposition is here made of Foxe’s materials; for the three pages extending from hence to the bottom of p. 39 would, according to the original text, come in at p. 42, before the paragraph, “The young king also, moved, etc.” The new arrangement preserves the chronological order of events, and seems in the present case very important. (See page 39, foot-note (3).)

APP3-64 “Hitherto .... no public law or statute of this land to proceed unto death against any person whatsoever in case of religion, but only by the usurped tyranny and example of the court of Rome.”] —Foxe could hardly mean that the ensuing “bastard statute,” as he terms it, would authorize putting to death for heresy, real or pretended; it was only meant as a stepping-stone to that dreadful climax, and for the present only authorized the imprisonment of persons suspected of heresy, on a certificate being sent by the diocesan to the king’s chancellor of their being so suspected. Hitherto heretics (real or pretended) had been burnt by the Common Law.

APP3-65 The above act has been collated with and revised from Cotton’s Abridgment and the Statutes at Large. the date is put in from Sir E.

Coke: see the next note but one. The repeal of the statute in next page is printed in Cotton’s Abridgment of the Parliamentary Rolls, vol. 3, p. 141, with which this translation has been revised:

APP3-66 —This royal letter is printed in Wilkins, 3, p. 156, “ex autographo,” in the Ely Register, dated July 12th, 6 R. II.

APP3-67 —Sir Edward Coke, in chap. 5 of the third part of his “Institutions,” explains this affair thus. He says, that of ancient time, when Acts of Parliament had been passed, in order to their being published (especially before the use of printing), the Acts were engrossed on parchment, and sent in a bundle to the sheriff of each county, accompanied by a writ in the king’s name and under the great seal, ordering the sheriff to publish the said Acts within his bailiwic.

Now Robert Braybrook, bishop of London and lord chancellor of England at the time, caused the said ordinance of the king and lords to be inserted in the writ for proclamation, and to be proclaimed among the Acts of Parliament; which writ Sir E. Coke says he had seen, dated “Teste Rege apud Westm. 26 May, anno regni Regis R. 2, 5.” But in the parliamentary proclamation of the Acts passed 6 R. 2, the Act of R. 2, whereby the aforesaid supposed Act of 5 R. 2 was declared void, is omitted; and afterwards the said supposed Act of 5 R. 2 was continually printed, and the other Act of 6 R. 2 hath by the prelates from time to time been kept from the print. Bishop Gibson, however, in his Codex, takes a different view of the subject, and defends the genuineness of the statute.

APP3-68 “This archbishop, moreover, the said year,” etc.] —This paragraph in Foxe follows, instead of precedes, the ensuing “Mandate,” which Foxe calls a “Citation.” The paragraph itself, moreover, is clipped here of a small piece, “Whereby may appear,” etc., which has been transferred to a more appropriate place, at the bottom of p. 44, where the archbishop, having failed to discover his prey by means of Rygge, writes a similar mandate to all the bishops of England.

APP3-69 “The young king also,” etc.] —This paragraph is a description of the ensuing royal letter: in Foxe’s text, however, the royal letter is placed first, and the paragraph then begins, “Besides these letterspatent, the said young king, etc ..... sendeth moreover, another special letter, etc.:” and after describing the contents of the letter at the conclusion of the paragraph, he says that it bore date “July 14th,” as though it were a totally different letter from that last given, and written the day following.

APP3-70 “And we give in charge unto the sheriff.”] — “Et damus Vic. et Majori Oxon. pro temp. existent, ac universis ac singulis Vicecomitibus, Majoribus, et Ballivis, et subditis nostris,” etc. (Wilkins, 3, p. 166.) Foxe, though he had intituled the letter as addressed to “the Vice-Chancellor and Proctors of Oxford,” takes “Vic.” to mean “Vice-Cancellario,” instead of “Vice-Comiti.”

APP3-71 “Besides these letters-patent,”, etc.] —This paragraph, is put in by by the Editor to introduce the ensuing letter, which in Foxe’s text is introduced by the paragraph at p. 30, ending, “the words of which letter hereafter follow.” See the note on p. 30, line 31.

APP3-72 . “Unto the aforesaid letters.”] — This refers to the archbishop’s mandate to Rygge, at p. 41. Foxe has confused his narrative by mistranslating the opening of the ensuing letter from Rygge to the archbishop.

The letter says:—“Literas vestras mihi directas mensis Junii die decimo quarto reverenter recepi” (Wilkins, 3, p. 168)—where Junii is plainly an error for Julii. Foxe mistranslates, “Your letters bearing the date of the fourteenth of July I have received.” See the next note to this.

APP3-73 “In the mean time.”] — Foxe adds, “while they were thus fled to the duke.” These words have been dropped, because Foxe here labored under a mistaken impression, which has been pointed out at p. 30; viz. that their present flight from the archbishop’s judgment, between June 27th and July 1st, was identical with their former flight from Oxford to the duke, June 16th. The reader will bear in mind, that according to Foxe’s arrangement, the last paragraph at p. 30, “Mention was made before,” etc. would immediately precede this paragraph; but the words, while they were thus fled to the duke,” lose their meaning under the new arrangement. Another change in this paragraph also requires notice. Foxe says that “the archbishop of Canterbury, William Courtney, directed his letters first to the vice-chancellor of Oxford, then to the bishop of London, named Robert Braybroke, charging them not only to excommunicate the said Nicholas and Philip within their jurisdiction, and the said excommunication to be denounced, likewise, throughout all the diocese of his suffragans, but also, moreover, that diligent search and watch should be laid for them, both in Oxford and in London, that they might be apprehended; requiring, moreover, by them to be certified again, what they had done in the premises. And this was written the fourteenth day of July, A.D. 1382.”

The letter to Rygge has already been given at p. 41, dated July 13th; and Rygge’s reply, dated July 20th, was received before the letter to the bishop of London was sent, which is given in the note, dated July 30th. Rygge’s reply, which is placed by Foxe after this paragraph, has for the above reason been placed before it. The last sentence, also, of this paragraph, “Whereby may appear,” etc. has been brought from a previous page. See the note on p. 41.

APP3-74 —The restoration of Laurence Stephyns, alias Bedeman, is dated October 18th, 1382 (Wilkins, 3, p. 168); that of Reppyngdon, October 23rd (ibid. p. 169); and that of Ashton, November 27th (ibid.).

APP3-75 “Became at length the most bitter persecutor.”] — That this was no slander against him, will appear from the character given of him by archbishop Arundel in 1407, at p. 258. The following notices of his course subsequent to this period may be acceptable to the reader:—he became abbot of Leicester, according to Thorpe, p. 258; he became chancellor of Oxford in 1400; was consecrated bishop of Lincoln, March 29th, 1405; made by Gregory XII. cardinal of St. Nereus and Achilles, Sept. 18th, 1408; resigned his bishopric, October 10th, 1419; ceased his spiritual functions, Feb. 1st, 1420; Regist. Repynd. (Godwin); was yet living, 1 Hen. VI. Regist. Chich. (Richardson apud Godwin.)

APP3-76 “(1382).”] —This date is calculated to mislead: the above particulars about Ashton are no doubt told in the Chronicle by anticipation under that year; but Arundel did not become archbishop till the year 1397. This error is repeated at p. 285.

APP3-77 “And thus far concerning Nicholas Hereford, and the other aforesaid.”] — The following notices have been collected of the subsequent fortunes of these Reformers. Knyghton (col. 2657) states that Hereford went to Rome in 1382, and there pleaded his cause before the pope, who imprisoned him; but that he escaped from prison by occasion of a riot of the citizens; and that returning to England he resumed his preaching, and was again imprisoned by the archbishop. In 1387 he was reckoned a Lollard, for Wilkins (3:203) gives a mandate of the bishop of Worcester, dated August 10th, 1387, against Lollard preachers in his diocese, and names N. Hereford, J. Ashton, John Purvey, John Parker, and Robert Swinderby; and in 1392 he sought and obtained the protection of the court against the machinations of his enemies, which had arisen from his being supposed to be a disciple of Wickliff. (Vaughan, 2:p. 89.) Yet we find him, at p. 187, sitting on his countryman, Walter Brute, in 1393; and a letter from some Lollard, reproaching him, is given at p. 188. Thorpe, at pp. 257, 258, speaks of Hereford and others as then (1407) having recanted their Lollard doctrines, and as bringing much scandal on their profession by their vacillation; while he speaks with the greatest respect of Wickliff and Ashton, the latter of whom, he says, “died as he had lived.” (See p. 258.)

APP3-78 —Whatever became of Wickliff after his appearance at the Black-friars, it is certain that (as Foxe says at p. 53) he “again within short space repaired to his parish of Lutterworth, where he was parson;” for Dr. Vaughan gives us a passage from one of his parochial homilies, in which he probably adverts to the process pending against Hereford, Ashton, etc. He is speaking of the entombment of Christ, and of the abortive attempts of the priesthood to prevent his resurrection; and these he produces as illustrating the attempts of the prelates to suppress the revival of the Gospel of Christ: “Even thus do our high priests; lest God’s law, after all they have done should be quickened. Therefore make they statutes, stable as a rock; and they obtain grace of knights to confirm them; and this they well mark with the witness of lords: and all lest the truth of God’s law, hid in the sepulcher, should break out, to the knowing of the common people. O Christ, thy law is hidden thus; when wilt thou send thine angel to remove the stone, and shew thy truth unto thy flock? Well I know that knights have taken gold in this case to help that thy law may be thus hid, and thine ordinances consumed: but well I know, that at the day of doom it shall be made manifest, and even before, when thou arisest against all thine enemies.” Dr. Vaughan also gives an extract from another of his parochial expositions, referring to the same process, wherein he attributes the persecution principally to the zeal of Courtney, whom he describes as the “great bishop of England,” and as deeply incensed because God’s law is written in English to lewd men.“He pursueth a certain priest, because he writeth to men this English, and summoneth him, and traveleth him so that it is hard for him to bear it. And thus he pursueth another priest by the help of Pharisees, because he preacheth Christ’s gospel freely and without fables. Oh! men who are on Christ s behalf, help ye now against Antichrist, for the perilous times are come which Christ and Paul foretold.” MS. Hom. Bib. Reg. cited by Dr. Vaughan, vol. 2 pp. 87, 96, edit. 1831. The former of the two priests here alluded to was probably Hereford, who much assisted Wickliff in translating the Testament, (see the Preface to Bagster’s English Hexapla, pp. 18, 24); and the latter well describes Ashton, who was famous as an itinerant preacher.

Mr. Le-Bas (Life of Wiclif, p. 267) conjectures that he was protected during this period by the appeal which he had made to the crown; which he further followed up in November by an ‘Appeal and Complaint to the king and parliament. Soon after which the Commons entered their protest against the statute of 5 Rich. II. (see p. 38).

Wickliff was cited before the Convocation at Oxford to answer respecting the opinions expressed in the Articles of his “Complaint;” after which he published the two confessions of his belief touching the Eucharist, mentioned in the note on p. 19, note (1). After this he was by a royal ordinance expelled the university of Oxford, whence he retired to Lutterworth for the rest of his life.

There is no reason to believe that Wickliff retired into comparative privacy in order to shun the crown of martyrdom, for it was during his retirement that some of his most spirited attacks on popery were penned; particularly his “Trialogus” and his Objections to the Freres.”

That he was also aware of the danger attendant upon his unsparing exposure of errors and corruptions in the Church, Mr. Le-Bas 1 thinks to be clear from various passages of his writings, and more especially of his “Trialogus,” which was produced after his banishment from Oxford, and in which it is plainly intimated, that a multitude of the friars, and of others who were called Christians, were then compassing his death by every variety of machination. 2 That he had fully counted the cost of his warfare, is further evident from the language in which he contends for the necessity of constant preparation for martyrdom. “It is a satanical excuse,” he says in the same treatise, “made by modern hypocrites, that it is not necessary now to suffer martyrdom, as it was in the primitive Church, because now all, or the greatest part of living men, are believers, and there are no tyrants who put Christians to death. This excuse is suggested by the devil; for if the faithful would now stand firm for the law of Christ, and, as his soldiers, endure bravely any sufferings, they might tell the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, and other prelates, how, departing from the faith of the Gospel, they minister unfitly to God, and what perilous injury they commit against his people.’ And he adds, ‘Instead of visiting pagans, to convert them by martyrdom, let us preach constantly the law of Christ to princely prelates: martyrdom will then meet us, speedily enough, if we persevere in faith and patience.” APP3-79 —Dr. Wordsworth observes rightly, that the Latin should have been thus rendered in the text above: “And that Christ, who did give this same gospel, I believe to be very God and very man; and in this I believe the gospel law to surpass all other parts of Scripture.” The expression, three lines from the bottom, “If Icould labor,” is thought by Lewis (p. 284) to imply, that Wickliff pleaded his paralysis as an excuse for not appearing before the pope. (See the note on p. 53, note (1).)

APP3-80 —In the Appendix to Dr. Hickes’s Apologetical Vindication of the Church ofEngland, Loud. 1706, are contained several records relating to the schism between Urban VI. and Clement VII. The bishop of Norwich, Knyghton tells us, (Hist. Aug. scripp, 10 col. 2671,) “collected an innumerable and incredible sum for his expedition, in silver, gold, jewels, bracelets, spoons, rings, etc. especially from the ladies and other women, who gave liberally, and many of them above their ability, to procure the benefit of absolution for themselves and their friends. For Urban had furnished him with wonderful indulgences for all who would assist him, or contribute towards the Crusado, with power to absolve a poena et culpa; and some of his commissioners, who were all priests, told the people that at their command the angels came down from heaven, and delivered souls out of purgatory. Among the crimes for which Master John de Aston was then censured, it was not the least that he preached at Gloucester against this bloody crusado (Knyghton, col. 2660), telling the people, that of all the facts that ever were, he thought that the most wicked; that they were all thieves who promoted it; and that the encouragers of it tempted Christians to contribute to the murder of men.”—Preface to Vind.

APP3-81 —Walsingham (Hist. p. 321, edit. 1574,) states, that the bishop came to Canterbury “circa festum Trinitatis, quod advenit hoc anno in medio mensis Maii [May 17],” and that he was lodged “ad manerium abbatis Sti. Augustini vocatum Northbourne.”

APP3-82 —Walsingham says: “Talibus monitis animata juventus vires colligit et hostes acrius invadendo caedit, retro-cedere cogit, donec rarus super muros defensor appareret. Occupant idcirco muros nostri viriliter,” etc. Walsingham, Hist. p. 322.

APP3-83 —Wickliff died of paralysis. There is in Vaughan’s Life of Wickliff, vol. 1 p. 346, an extract from the Bokyngham (Lincoln) Register, proving that he died the last day of December, 1384.

Walsingham’s Hypod. Neust. and the Teinmouth Chronicle state that he was struck with palsy on Thomas Becket’s day, December 29th, and died St. Sylvester’s day, December 31. Walsingham (Hist. p. 312) mentions a report as current, that Wickliff was struck the very day he was preparing to blaspheme the holy martyr Becket. John Horne, however, who was curate to Wickliff at Lutterworth during his last two years, attests that Wickliff was struck on Holy Innocents, the day before the feast of Thomas Becket. Horne further states, that he was a paralytic for two whole years before his death; which statement appears the more probable, because it accounts for our hearing no more of Wickliff in a public capacity: his inability also for active exertion delivered his enemies from any further dread of him, and saved them the odium of persecuting so popular a man. (See Lewis’s Appendix, No. 19.) It is stated on the same authority, that he was hearing mass in the church at the time when he was struck for death; and this circumstance has been noticed both by friends and enemies as an inconsistency with his former profession. It nowhere appears, however, that he entertained any scruples on the subject of the mass; and it has been already observed on p. 22, that the early Reformers strove to maintain communion with the Church of Rome.

It was stated in a note on vol. 2 p. 797, that a correspondent of the Gentleman’s Magazine for August 1841 (p. 147) had produced some facts strongly tending to prove, that John Wyclyve, the Warden of Canterbury Hall, was a different individual from John Wickliff the reformer. The reader will probably be pleased to see an abstract of this communication. “In compiling” (the writer says) “a History of the Palace of Mayfield, in Sussex, formerly one of the numerous residences of the archbishop of Canterbury, I had occasion to consult the registers of that see, for the purpose of ascertaining the early vicars of that parish, which lies within the peculiar jurisdiction of the archbishop, and I was not a little surprised to find, in the year 1361, and on the 12 Cal. August (21 July) John Wickliffe collated to the vicarage by archbishop Islip, the prelate who, rather more than four years after, is stated to have preferred John Wickliffe the Reformer to be warden of his then lately founded Hall of Canterbury at Oxford. Islip’s deed of appointment bears date at Mayfield, 5 id. Dec. (9 Dec.) 1365, at which place he had been resident with little intermission from the time at which (as before mentioned) he collated John Wickliffe vicar, in 1361; and from the manner in which he speaks of the person whom he had appointed to the wardenship, as a man in whose ‘fidelity, circumspection, and industry he much confided, and whom he called to that office on account of the honesty of his life, his laudable conversation, and his knowledge of letters,’ (Wood’s Antiq. Oxon. i.p. 484,) it is evident that he was then well known to him, and that his words are something more than those of mere form. Upon examining the documents appointing the vicar of Mayfield (Reg. Islip, in Dioc. Cant. fol. 287b) and the warden of Canterbury Hall (Wood’s Antiq. Oxon, 1 184), I found the final syllabic of the name to be clyve in both instances; and although the orthography of a name at this period of time is very uncertain, still as connected with what I have hereafter to state, it is worthy of observation that such is the spelling of the name attributed to the master of Canterbury Hall, in 1361 and 1365, whilst the name of the master of Baliol in 1361 (Wood’s Antiq. Oxon. 3, 82) and 1368 (Reg. Bockingham, in Dioc. Linc.) is spelt with the last syllable lif or liffe, the spelling invariably attributed to the Reformer’s name in all original evidences concerning him. “If, under these circumstances, any doubt remained that the vicar of Mayfield had, from the constant intercourse which had subsisted between them for four years, been appointed by his patron to the wardenship of Canterbury Hall, upon his deposition of Wodehull the monk, and his associates, it would entirely have vanished upon finding further that Islip, at the period of his decease, in April 1366, a few months after Wickliffe’s appointment, was about to appropriate towards the support of the master or warden, the rectory of the parish of May field, which he had not thought of doing upon his appointment of Wodehull in 1363, but his death occurred before any such appropriation could be completed. An earlier trace of the Reformer’s preferment in the church, than any hitherto known of him, was thus thought to be clearly established, for, having identified the vicar of Mayfield with the warden of Canterbury—a preferment attributed to him by all who ever wrote concerning his life and actions—I had little idea of finding that, although the vicar of Mayfield and the warden of Canterbury were one, the warden of Canterbury Hall and the Reformer were two distinct individuals. Such, however, proves to have been the case; for, upon further search into the archbishop’s records, it was found that in 1380 the vicar of Mayfield exchanged that preferment for Horsted Kaynes, in the same county, (Reg. Sudbury, fol 134a), and that he died in 1383, rector of Horsted Kaynes, and prebendary of Chichester; his will being dated 12, and proved 21 November in that year (Reg. Courtenay, in Dioc. Cant.) only the year previous to the decease of the rector of Lutterworth.”

A correspondent of the same Magazine, in August 1844, p. 136, has produced facts tending to prove, that John Wickliff, the master of Balliol, was also a different individual from the Reformer. For it appears that John Wickliff, who was collated May 14, 1361, to the rectory of Fillingham in Lincolnshire, by the master and fellows of Balliol (and is commonly presumed to be the same person that was afterwards chosen master of Balliol), exchanged that living Nov. 12th, 1368, for the rectory of Ludgershall, which he retained (according to Dr. Lipscombe’s Hist. of Buckinghamshire, 1 p. 318) till 1390 or later, i.e. full six years after the Reformer’s death.

APP3-84 “As AEneas Sylvius writeth.”] — Historia Bohemica, cap. 35.

APP3-85 —John Cochlaeus, a native of Nuremberg, wrote,” Historiae Hussitarum Libri Duodecim per Joanhem Cochlaeum, Artium ac sacrae theologiae magistrum, canonicum Uratislaviensem: operose collecti ex variis et antiquis tum Bohemorum tum altorum codicibus, antea nunquam excusis;” printed “apud S. Victorem prope Moguntiam MDXLIX.” He died A.D. 1552. (Hoffman.) Like Walsingham, he entertained and expressed a hitter hatred towards John Wickliff and his followers, and says of his name, “quod est Anglice interpretatum Joannes Impiae Vitae.” (Hist. p. 7.) The passage here referred to is at p. 8 of the “Historia.”

APP3-86 —Walden states, that the above question and reply were made in the first parliament of Richard II., which met October 13th, 1377; and they probably led to the renewal of the proceedings against Wickliff, as remarked in the note on page 4, last line but one. The last paragraph of the reply, “And moreover, as far as I remember,” etc. is printed in all the English editions of Foxe in the large type of the text; which occasions Dr. Vaughan to complain, that the reader can scarcely make out where Wickliff ends and Foxe begins again. The Latin edition is not open to this objection, which after this last paragraph says, “Haec Wiclevus, praeter multa id genus similia, quae hic brevitatis necessitate praecidimus.” (Lat. ed. p. 18.)

APP3-87 . “This seemeth also false,” etc.] —This sentence appears in Foxe’s text in large type, as if it were Foxe’s remark; whereas it is a continuation of Huss’s “Testimonial;” as well as the next sentence, which the Editor has put in from the original, but does not appear in Foxe at all.

APP3-88 —“Ego Berengarius” is the beginning of a Confession put into the hands of Berengarius by pope Nicholas II., at a council held at Rome A.D. 1059.

APP3-89 —In the “Fasciculus” of Orthuinus Gratius is a treatise by William Wideford, dedicated to Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, written at his command, and intituled at its conclusion— “Tractatus Magistri Willielmi Widefordi, de Ordine Minorum, contra errores Wiclephi in Trialogo, qui damnatus est in concilio provinciali London. sub domino Thoma Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, Anno Domini MCCCXCVI.”—Its opening describes it to contain, “Causas condemnationis articulorum per vos nuper damnatorum, ac etiam responsiones ad argumenta per adversarium pro articulis facta.” It is accompanied with a copy of these eighteen articles, whence a few corrections are introduced in this translation.

APP3-90 “The fourteenth article of Wickliff.”] — This is numbered according to the original in “Hist. et Mon. Joh. Huss,” and as it stands among the 45 Articles of Wickliff, supra, p. 22, and as Huss numbers it next page, and Foxe himself only eight lines above: here, however, he miscalls it the “thirteenth.”

APP3-91 “Augustine, in his book ‘De Baptismo contra Donatistas,’ lib. cap. 3.”] —Foxe and his authority both refer here erroneously to the “De Unico Baptismo,” which consists of only one book, in which this passage does not occur.

APP3-92 —St. Rusticus, fifth archbishop of Narbonne, born in 394, embraced the monastic life about 411. St. Jerome wrote his 95th Epistle to him, to confirm him in his holy vows. He became archbishop of Narbonne 427 or 430, and died October 26th, 461.— Gallia Christiana, on the Archbishops of Narbonne.

APP3-93 —“Beatus Gregorius in Registro, libro 7, cap. 9”—is the reading in “Hist. et Mon. J. Huss.” But in a 3 vol. collection of Epistolae Decretales, Romae 1591, we find this letter (to Brunichilda, the French queen) as the 64th letter of the 9th book of Gregory’s Register.

APP3-94 —The author here cited as “Hostiensis” is Henry de Susa, or Segusio, a celebrated canonist of the 13th century, of, such repute as to have been called “the source and splendor of the law.” He was first created archbishop of Embrun, then cardinal-bishop of Ostia in 1262, whence he is often called “Ostiensis,” or “Hostiensis.” Hostiensis is perpetually quoted in the Notes on the Decretals as a commentator; and in the 3rd book of all Decretals this heading is to be found, “De Decimis, Primitiis, et Oblationibus.” The author of Paraleipomena Urspergensis (p. 252) about the death of Frederic II. A.D. 1250, mentions “Compostellanus et Hostiensis, Decretalium illustratores,” as then flourishing.

APP3-95“Eighteen more .”] —Foxe says “twenty:” but in “Hist. et Mon.

Joh. Huss” the reasons go on to the number of 43 in all; so that, as Foxe has given 25 of them, there remain but 18 more.—The rest of this paragraph needed much revision from the Latin.

APP3-96 “Lincolniensis” means Robert Grosthead, bishop of Lincoln, of whom so interesting an account is given by Foxe supra, vol. 2 pp. 523- 534. He wrote 128 Epistles, which are collected into one volume, furnished with a good index: 101 of his Letters are printed in Browne’s Appendix to the “Fasciculus” of Orth. Gratius. The reference here, in “Hist. et Mon.” fol. 121, is to “Lincolnien. Epist. 71.”

APP3-97 —This saying of pope Leo IV. is mentioned supra vol. 1 p. 25.

APP3-98 —This 42nd reason in the margin of “Hist. et Mon.” is called “Optima ratio,” which perhaps induced Foxe to give it.

APP3-99 —Eugene III. was pope A.D. 1145-1153, and this council of Treyes was held A.D. 1147. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP3-100 —Hugo de St. Victor, abbot of the Augustine monastery of St.

Victor at Paris, flourished 1120, died February 11th, 1140, 44 years old. (Cave’s Hist. Lit.)

APP3-101 “To redeem the captive.”] — This seventh, though given in the original, Foxe has omitted.

APP3-102 —A Dominican friar, named Johannes Januensis, i.e. of Genoa, published a dictionary, called “Summa seu Catholicon,” compiled from the two older dictionaries of Papias and Ugution, with additions of his own. He himself states at the conclusion, that he finished it on the Nones of March, 1286. Erasmus thought meanly of its Latinity. It has been several times printed; first at Mentz 1460, and afterwards, with successive additions, at venice 1487, and Lyons 1514. See Preface to Ducange’s Glossary, cap. 47.

APP3-103 —Wickliff died the last day of the year A.D. 1384, and this decree is dated May 4, 1415. There was, therefore, an interval of years and 4 months. The decree, however, was not executed till 1424, by Richard Fleming, bishop of Lincoln, by order of the council of Sienna (Godwin de praesul.). Richardson in a note quotes the authority of Lyndwood, for its not having been till 1428. Fleming was bishop from 1420 to 1430.

APP3-104 “Bedman.”] — Foxe reads “Redman,” but “Bednamus” in the Latin edition: see note on p. 28, line 6 from the bottom.

APP3-105 —Peter Paine was vice-principal of St. Edmund Hall from to 1415, as may be seen by reference to the list of vice-principals in the Oxford Calendar and Wood’s History of Oxford. He was born at Haugh or Hough, three miles from Grantham. He was a delegate from the Bohemians to the council of Basil, 1433, and in that character we find him introduced at p. 679: he is supposed to have died at Prague in 1455.

APP3-106 “There chanced at that time a certain student of the country of Bohemia to be at Oxford, of a wealthy house and also of a noble stock.”] —Foxe probably had the following passage of Cochlaeus before him:—” Quidam ex discipulis ejus, nomine Petrus Payne, Anglus, Pragam cum libris illius profugit, regnante Wenceslao: ea forsitan occasione permotus, quod ante eum Boemus quidam genere nobilis, ex dome quam “Putridi Piscis” vocant, apud Oxonium in literari studio constitutus, libros Wiclevi quibus titulus est ‘de Universalibus realibus’ inde in patriam secum retulit, velut pretiosum thesaurum. Commodavit vero libros illos iis potissimum qui Teutonicorum (uti refert /Eneas) odio tenebantur, ut illi, per nova dogmata vexati, Academiam Pragensem in qua praevalebant Bohemis regendam discedentes relinquerent.” (Cochlaei Hist. p. 8). L’Enfant, “Hist. Hussit. et Concilii Basil,” says that “Faulfish” was the surname of the Bohemian nobleman.

APP3-107 “Finding.”] —I.e. maintaining: so infra vol. 4 p. 660, line 17.

APP3-108 “Prophecy of Jerome Savonarola.”] — He is out of his place in this part of the history, having flourished about 1490. A number of his sermons, which were printed in the earlier part of the 16th century, both in Latin and in his own language, Italian, are included in the Trent Index of Prohibited Books, till expurgated. His prophecies and their supposed fulfillment will be found in Flacius Illyr. Cat. Testium Veritatis, col. 1914, edit. folio, 1608. See more in Dupin’s Ecclesiastical History, cent. 15, ch. 4, p. 102.—It is rather singular, that John Huss, on the contrary, at pp. 72-75 has been arguing that miracles were a sign of Antichrist.

APP3-109 “Fluentius Antistes.” (Lat. ed. p. 57.)] — “Fluentins” is probably only another form for Florentinus, the title, not the name, of the bishop: see Hoffman, 5 Fluentius, and the Index to Carolus Molinaeus’s Works.

APP3-110 Guy of Perpignan was bishop of Elne in Roussillon, and inquisitor against the Waldenses. He flourished, and some say died A.D. 1380. A portion of the prophecies of the Abbot Joachim is quoted at the end of Bale’s “Brefe Chronycle,” “Ex Compendiario Guidonis Perpiniani do Heresibus,” the first sentence of which is, “In the latter days shall appear a law of liberty.”

APP3-111 —One Robert Swinderby was known as a preacher of Wickliff’s doctrines in the diocese of Worcester, in the year 1387. (See the note in this Appendix on p. 49, line 12.) The present account of William Swinderby is first introduced into the edition of 1570, the notices of him in the previous Latin and English editions being very short. Several corrections of the punctuation and references have been made.

APP3-112 “Our Lady’s churches at Newark.”] — This should have been at been corrected to, “the church of St. Mary, Newarks” (as it has been at p. 200), a church so called at Leicester; of which the following account is taken from Bishop Tanner’s “Notitia Monastica:”—“ There was a district in Leicester, near the castle, called the ‘Liberty of Newark,’ or ‘the Newarks;’ in which a hospital was founded, 1330, by Henry earl of Leicester and Lancaster, to the honor of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; this was so enlarged by his son, Henry duke of Lancaster, that, about 1355, it was turned into a noble college, called the ‘New Work,’ or ‘Newark,’ or ‘Collegium Novi Operis,’ or St. Mary’s the Greater. It was finished by the son of the last named Henry, viz. John of Gaunt.”—The three places presently mentioned, “Helhoughton,” etc. are, Houghton-on-the-Hill,6 miles S.E. of Leicester, Market Harborough, and Loughborough.

APP3-113 —The bishop of Hereford’s name is “Tresnant” in Foxe: “Trefnant” is put in on the authority of Godwin’s “De Praesulibus,” which says that Johannes Trevenant, al. Trefant, was “in Romana Curia Auditor Retro,” and instituted to the bishopric of Hereford October 9th, 1389. Henry IV. sent him as his ambassador to Boniface.

He sat four years and a half, and died about April, 1404.

APP3-114 “Concomitanter.”— Foxe reads “communicant:” the other is put in as the true reading on the authority of Art. IX. p. 134, with which this article is identical.

APP3-114A. “Have not their power of binding and loosing mediately from the pope,” &e.] —The reading “mediately” of the editions of 1570 and 1576, is corrupted into “immediately” in that of 1583 and all subsequent editions. In Article XIII. p. 134, which is identical with this, all the editions correctly read “mediately,” and refer to this passage.

APP3-115 “That it were medefull and leefull,” etc.] —This sentence has been made more intelligible than in Foxe, by a better punctuation.

APP3-116 —Wickliff and his followers did not oppose the setting up of images in churches as laymen’s books. See p. 327, line 14.

APP3-117 “Maumetrie.”] — “We charge the prelatiecal clergy with popery to make them odious, though we know they are guilty of no such thing; just as heretofore they called images ‘Mammets,’ and the adoration of images ‘Mammetry,’ i.e. Mahomets and Mahometry: odious names, when all the world knows that Turks are forbidden images by their religion.” Selden’s Table Talk, article Popery. (Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biog. vol. 1 p. 368.) See p. 327, line 18.

APP3-118 —The names of places in this Process all appear in Carlisle’s Topographical Dictionary, whence one or two corrections are made; thus Foxe reads (line 17), “and Monmouth Clifford,” whereas these are two places.

APP3-119 “It were medefull and leefull,” &e.] —See this sentence better punctuated at p. 114.

APP3-120 —The edition of 1583 alters “disperpel” into “disperkel.” but retains “disperpel.” According to Phillips’s Dictionary of New Words, “Disperpled” or “Disparpled” (in Heraldry) means loosely scattered, or shooting itself into several parts. In Wimbledon’s Sermon, at p. 304, we have “disparkled into all the world.”

APP3-121 —The Latin edition here says: “Exacto itaque anno Domini supra millesimum quadringentesimo primo, post Wiclevi vero obitum 13, principante apud Anglos Henrico 4, cum jam Richardus e fastigio regiae sublimitatis in turrim abreptus occubuisset, factum est Londini parliamentum, in quo edictum est ut manibus injectis prehenderentur,” etc. (Lat. ed. p. 59.) Richard resigned the crown September 29th, A.D. 1399, but he lived till the following year (as Foxe states at p. 221), and died February 1400. (Rapin.) The person who translated the above passage from Foxe’s Latin (and the first English edition of Foxe, 1563, was little else but a translation of the Latin by other hands) not aware, perhaps, of these facts, introduced into the text the inaccuracy of making Henry IV. to “invade the kingdom of England” first in 1401: this date indeed might be retained, if we were to say “at which time, king Richard, having been wrongfully deposed, Henry IV. had invaded the kingdom of England;” and to omit the clause “during the time of king Richard II.,” because Richard’s influence in this, as in every other matter, of course ceased when he resigned the crown in 1399. This, on the whole, would be the preferable way of amending the text, because Foxe in his Latin evidently meant to direct attention to the statute of Henry IV., as the limit to Swinderby’s safety.

APP3-122 “This law (saith the story) brought a certain priest to punishment the same year .... it appeareth unto me that his name was Swinderby.”] —No doubt the “piece of an old story,” whence Foxe says he derived this account, meant William Sautre by the nameless priest; for Walsingham in the following passage states the same fact, and names Sautre as the sufferer. “Anno Domini MCCCCI. (qui est anni regni regis Henrici a conquestu quarti secundus) post Epiphaniam factum est parliamentum Londoniis, in quo statutum fuit editum de Lollardis, ut ubicunque deprehenderentur suam pravam doctrinam amplexantes caperentur et diocesano episcopo traderentur. Qui si perseverarent pertinaciter opiniones suas defendere, degradarentur, et jurisdictioni seculari committerentur: practizataque fiit haec lex in pseudo-presbyterum, qui apud Smithfeld (multis aspectantibus) est eombustus.” (Hist. p. 405.) It is a mistake, however, to represent Sautre as at all the victim of the statute “Ex Officio,” for he was burnt under the king’s writ. Foxe being aware of this, for this very reason suggests that the nameless priest was Swinderby. It is most probable, however, that both the “old story” and Walsingham were mistaken; and that neither Swinderby nor any other person was burnt after Sautre till Badby suffered nine years later, and even he not by this statute. (See the notes on pp. 234, 239.)

APP3-123 “The story and process against Walter Brute.”] — Contemporary references (or what approaches to it) to such characters are so rare, that it may be worth noticing the mention of this man in the Creed of Piers Plowman:— “Byhold upon Water Brut Who.., bisiliche thei pursueden, For he seid hem the sothe.” V. 1305; in Mr. Wright’s edition, p. 489. Lond. 1842.

APP3-124 —According to Godwin (edit. Richardson), John Gilbert was made bishop of Hereford A.D. 1375, and translated from Hereford to St.

David’s, by a bull dated May 5th, 12th of Urban VI. A.D. 1389, and was succeeded at Hereford by John Trefnant, who held this Process.

APP3-125 “Whereas of late,” etc.] —Swinderby was condemned October 3d, 1391 (p. 126), and this appearance is October 15th following.

APP3-126 “1391, the indiction 14.”] —Foxe’s text has here, “the indiction fifteen,” which must be incorrect; for the indiction is found by adding to the year and dividing the sum by 15, the remainder is the indiction, which in this case would be 14: the indiction of 1391 is again, lower in the page, said to be fifteen; but in that instance 1391 means 1392: see note (2). the year of indiction was reckoned from January 1st, as appears from p. 235, where 1408 [i.e. 1409] is said to be the second indiction, which suits 1409, not 1408.

APP3-127 —Foxe’s text has here “Gregory IX.” and 3 lines lower “ Honorius III.;” but these two popes should change places, and the text has been corrected accordingly. The allusions in this paragraph have been supported by references in the foot of the page to the foregoing history.

APP3-128 “But ‘Sermo’ (that is the word),” etc.] —The translator has no doubt bungled here; the whole paragraph is evidently a citation of Hebrews 7:25-28.

APP3-129 “With which agreeth that of Jerome in the Decretum.”] — Foxe’s text reads absurdly, “With which agreeth the writing of Jerome upon the decretals.”

APP3-130 —To this place belongs the letter of king Richard II., dated September 22d, A.D. 1393, given at pp. 196, 197.

APP3-131 —The treatise of W. Wideford against Wickliff’s articles is mentioned in the note on p. 63, as published in the “Fasciculus” of Orthuinus Gratius. In that treatise, under Art. 11, he uses this expression: “Ut diffuse alias declaravi in epistola missa domino Erfordensi contra libellum Waltheri Brittae:” and again, under Art. 12, he speaks of “historia directs domino episcopo Erfordensi contra Walterum Britte.”

APP3-132 “The four chief doctors.”] — These were Austin, Jerome, Ambrose, and Gregory.

APP3-133 —Wolfius, in his “Lectiones Memorabiles,” tom. 1 p. 654 [or 540], has published a copy of the Latin Letter, ascribing it to Nicholas Orem, whose sermon before pope Urban (translated by Foxe supra, vol. 2 p. 767) he had just given. Fabricius “De Scriptoribus Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis,” ascribes a letter opening with the very same words to Henry of Hesse, and cites Bernard Pezius (p. 79) for his authority. A different letter by Henry of Hesse is mentioned by Foxe from Illyricus at p. 193. Toward the end, Foxe’s version is slightly amplified from the Latin copy in Wolfius.

APP3-134 “The foregoing letter.”] — Foxe says, “Divers other writings of like argument, both before and since, have been devised; as one bearing the title ‘Luciferi,’” etc. He is evidently translating Illyricus in the whole of the ensuing page, and Illyricus makes the said letter “Luciferi,” etc. the same with that of which Foxe has just given the translation. Illyricus says that he printed this letter himself at Magdeburg in the year 1549, and that he afterwards met with a copy of it printed at Paris in 1507, with the “De Collatione Beneficiorum” of William bishop of Paris, and that a still older impression of it had been published about 1490. The error in Foxe’s text has been corrected.

APP3-135 “The king’s commission.”] — This commission is erroneously represented by its position as the effect of the preceding papal bull, whereas it is dated three and a half years earlier. It belongs to p.130 supra, where see note (2). This is a specimen of the commissions referred to supra p. 39, line 6. The general commission spoken of in the beginning of this document is given at p. 39.

APP3-136 —This letter of the king against Brute belongs to p. 187 supra; the feast of St. Thomas of Hereford (bottom of this page) was October 2d; the day of appearance was therefore October 3d, which was a Friday, and this agrees with the dates in p. 187.

APP3-137 —This account of the visitation at Leicester is given in Wilkins, 3, p. 208, A.D. 1389, where it begins thus:— “In quo quidem monasterio praefato, ultime die dicti mensis Octobris...” No monastery, however, is mentioned till toward the end (see p. 199), where the Register says,” Injungens abbati monasterii de Pratis praedicti.” The house referred to is the nunnery of St. Mary Pre—or “de Pratis juxta Leicester, extra portam aquilonarem Legecestriae”— founded in the reign of Stephen for nuns of the Cluniac order (Tanner, Dugdale). Wilkins reads, “Dominus Waytstach capellanus”— “Harry”—and “Parchmener.”

APP3-138 “The said monastery.”] — None has been mentioned, but see the ensuing page, line 9, and the note preceding this.

APP3-139 —The second article in Wilkins is as follows:—“Item, quod decimae non debent solvi rectoribus vel vicariis quamdiu sunt in peccato mortali.” This is omitted by Foxe.

APP3-140 —“Quod quaedam mulier Mathildis anchorita in quodam inclusorio infra coemeterium St. Petri .... reclusa, etc.”—Wilkins.

APP3-141 “The monastery of St. James at Northampton.”] — The Austin abbey of St. James was an abbey of black canons in the extreme part of the west suburb of Northampton, founded in the year 1112 to the honor of St. James.—Tanner’s Not. Mon.

APP3-142 —The original Latin of the text is as follows:—“Quod ostium, in quo ipsa Mathildis reclusa fuerit, aperiri et usque ad ejus reditum honeste et secure faceret custodiri.” (Wilkins, ut supra.) After this passage, Wilkins gives an edict of the archbishop concerning the Lollards, dated Towcester, Nov. 7th, A. D. 1389, “translationis nostrae 9:” and next to that the king’s Process ensuing. William Courtney was translated July 1381. (See p. 579.) Nov. 7th in 1389 was a Sunday. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP3-143 —The Benedictine nunnery of St. Mary and St. Radegund was founded in 1130 or 1160, and converted into Jesus College in 1497. (Tanner.) John Fordham was bishop of Ely A.D. 1388-1426.—Godwin.

APP3-144 “The collegiate church of St. Mary, Newarks.”] — “Decano ecclesiae collegiatae B. Mariae Novi Operis Leycestr.” (Wilkins, 3, p. 217.) “The cathedral church of our Lady of Leicester,” says Foxe. For an explanation of what is meant by St. Mary Newarks, Leicester, see the note in this Appendix on p. 108. The ensuing letter of the archbishop is retranslated.

APP3-145 “Who was married to king Richard about the fifth, some say the sixth, year of his reign.”] — They were married at the Chapel Royal, Westminster, January 14th, A.D. 1382 (Tyrrel, Rymer’s Feed.), and, consequently, in the fifth year of Richard II. (Nicolas’s Tables.) The queen died at Shene, in Surrey, June 7th, A.D. 1394, and was buried at Westminster August 3d (Rymer), i.e. she lived nearly twelve years and a half with her husband.

APP3-146 “The next year.”.] — Foxe says “the same year” [i.e. 1394.]: the king, no doubt, went over to Ireland in September of that year; but it was the next year (1395) that he was fetched as described, in consequence of the proceedings in parliament presently detailed.

Hence another alteration is made in Foxe’s text, 12 lines lower. “The occasion of which complaint was,” is put in by the Editor for Foxe’s “In the meantime, in the beginning of the year following.” (See Rapin, Henry, etc.)

APP3-147 —Bale says that these “Conclusions” were drawn up by Lord Cobham (Preface to the “Brefe Chronicle,” etc. fol. 7, and Conclusion, fol. 50, edition 1544): they are found in Latin in Foxe’s Latin edition, p. 76; in Wilkins’s Concilia, tom. 3, p. 221, ex MSS. Cotton.

Cleopatra, E. 2, fol. 210; and in Lewis’s Life of Wicliff, p. 298. These different copies slightly vary in a few passages. They were exhibited by Sir Thomas Latimer and Sir Richard Stury to the parliament which was held at Westminster Jan. 29th, A.D. 1394-5, by Edward Duke of York, who was left Regent when the king went to Ireland. (Rapin.)

APP3-148 —The following are the words of Foxe’s Latin Edition (p. 76): “Quia ipsi dant coronas in characteribus loco alborum cervorum; et hic character est Antichristi introductum in sanctam ecclesiam ad colorandam ociositatem,” The copies in Wilkins and in Lewis both read “corvorum” instead of “cervorum;” Foxe’s, however, is probably the true reading. The “hart” was often used as a figure of spiritual persons by the divines of the middle ages. The index to tom. 5 of Bernard Pezius’s “Thesaurus Anecdotorum,” v. “Cervus,” will show that it is used as a figure of Christ, of the patriarchs and prophets, the apostles, the devout soul, the sinner, and of spiritual persons.

APP3-149 —Foxe reads “spiritual,” and all the Latin copies “spiritualis.”

The argument, however, and the context, which uses “specialis” three times, require that we here also read “special.”

APP3-150 —“Qui sunt populus strenuus ad operandum et inserviendum toti regno, jam retentus in otio,” is Foxe’s Latin: the other copies read, “Qui sunt populo magni operis toti regno manutentus in ociositate,” which Lewis judges to be corrupt.

APP3-151 “Certain verses.”] — Bale gives an inferior translation of these verses in the Conclusion of his “Brefe Chronicle,” fol. 50, ed. 1544; and adds that “when the Conclusions themselves would not help towards any reformation, but were laughed to scorn of the bishops, then were these verses copied out by divers men, and set upon their windows, gates, and doors, which were then known for obstinate hypocrites and fleshly livers, and this made the prelates mad. And this is the great insurrection that Walden, then the king’s confessor, complaineth of to Pope Martin V., and afterwards Polydorus, the pope’s collector, and other papists more, wherein never a one man was hurt.”

APP3-152 —The following corollary, wanting in Foxe, is given in the other Latin copies. “Corelarium est, quod ex quo Sanctus Paulus dicit, Habentes victum et vestitum his contenti simus, videtur nobis quod aurifabri et armatores et omnimodae artes non necessariae homini secundum Apostolum destruerentur pro incremento virtutis; quia licet istae duae artes nominatae erant multum necessariae in antiqua lege, Novum Testamentum evacuat istas et multas alias.”

APP3-153 —The words— “consecrated bishop of Durham . . . the miracle of St. Cuthbert was”—have dropped out of edition 1583 and those which follow: the particulars here restored to the text are not mentioned in Malinesbury or M. Paris, but are in the Chronicle of Simeon of Durham.

APP3-154 —Foxe’s “Notes of certain Parliaments” have, like those at the close of vol. 2, been collated with the originals printed in Cotton’s Abridgement, and many inaccuracies corrected.

APP3-155 —It was this enactment which occasioned the valuation of benefices mentioned vol. 2 p. 809. See the note in the Appendix on that passage.

APP3-156 “A certain new grant.”] — The grant was, for justices of the peace to be competent to see the execution of the statute of provisors, and to inquire into cases of clerical extortion, without waiting for the justices of assize. See the Records.

APP3-157 “Then termed shifts.”] — “Et l’appellent chevance.”—Records.

APP3-158 “Within six weeks,” etc.] —“De la Vendredi en la Veille del Fest de Saint Michel a sys semaines prochein ensuites.”—Records.

APP3-159 —This parliament, called the Merciless, sat from February 3d, 1388, to June 4th.

APP3-160 —Maitland’s History of London gives John Hynde... Mayor, Nov. 1391-Nov. 1392.

John Shadworth Sheriffs, Oct. 1391-Oct. 1392.

Henry Vamere Sheriffs, Oct. 1391-Oct. and all these displaced by a decree of Richard II. in Rymer, dated Nottingham Castle, June 25th, 1392, and appointing Edward Dalyngrugge Custos. Another decree of Richard in Rymer, dated Windsor Castle, July 22nd, appoints Sir Baldwin de Radyngton Custos. (See the note in the Appendix on vol. 2 p. 342, note (3).) In Rymer, there is an act of pardon for the city functionaries, dated Woodstock, September 19th, 1392. The decree for removing the courts to York is given in Rymer, dated Stamford, March 30th, to take effect the morrow after St. John Baptist’s day, i.e. June 25th.

APP3-161 —Froissart states that it was the castle of Pleshey where the duke of Gloucester lay. He was strangled in September. His body was brought over from Calais by an order of the king’s, dated October 4th. (Rym. Feed.) John Hall, servant of Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, captain of Calais, confessed his share in the murder, and was executed for it in 1400.—See Cotton.

APP3-162 —These Cartes-Blanches or Ragmans (as they were called) were demanded of the richer gentlemen and burgesses by the king as a penalty for joining the rebellion of the duke of Gloucester, and were peculiarly unjust and hateful, because the parliament of 1388 had pardoned all his adherents. They were afterwards burnt by order of Henry IV. (Rymer.) John of Gaunt died about Feb. 2d, 1399.

APP3-163 —The following process against William Sautre is taken from the archbishop’s Registers, and is printed in Wilkins’s Conc. 3, pp. 254-260, where it is stated that the convocation met “in Crastino Conversionis S. Pauli,” i.e. Jan. 26th, and adjourned “in diem Sabbati post festum S. Scholasticae virginis” (which feast is on Feb. 10th) “proxime futurum, viz. 12 Feb.” The year mentioned in the Register (as in Foxe) is A.D. 1400; but that is “juxta supputationem ecclesiae Anglicanae,” which made the year commence at March 25th. Hence it was really A.D. 1401, in which year Feb. 12th fell on a Saturday; and all the subsequent notes of time concur to prove that it was A.D. 1401.

APP3-164 —Foxe says “the twenty-fourth.” But the Register, as quoted in Wilkins, says “23 Feb.,” which fell on a Wednesday in the year 1401.

APP3-165 —“South Helingham,” here and some lines lower, is “Southelmham” in the Register. “And of Tilney” (line 10) is put in from the Register. Tilney is a place between five and six miles southwest of Lynn. For the “nineteenth day of May” (line 16) Wilkins has “die 30 mensis Maii,” which must be wrong.

APP3-166 —Foxe says “the 22d of February:” but the Register, as printed in Wilkins, says “Et subsequenter, dicto 23 die mensis Feb. A.D. 1400,” which is correct, and “23rd” is put into the text.

APP3-167 “Upon Saturday, being the 26th of February.”] — Wilkins says “24 die Feb.” which must be a mistake.

APP3-168 “Thus William Sautre .”] —In Wilkins it is stated, that after the “degradation” the council adjourned “in diem lunae proxime sequentem [which would be Feb. 28th] viz. ejusdem mensis Feb. ultimo die: ” another proof that this was A.D. 1401 according to modern computation, for A.D. 1400 was a leap year, and Feb. 28 would not be the last day of February in that year. (See Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP3-169 —By an error of the press the “2,” which should have followed “sui,” has been printed as a reference mark.

APP3-170 “Roger Clarendon.”] — Foxe says “John,” but Walsingham says “Roger,” also Foxe at p. 232.—There was a priory of Augustine canons at Launde, or Lodington, in Leicestershire, founded in the time of Henry I.—Tanner.

APP3-171 —It is perhaps too much to say that Foxe has misplaced the account of Badby’s martyrdom, for he probably had a motive for placing it where he has. Certain, however, it is, that in the Latin and first English editions this part of the history, though more scanty, was more chronologically arranged; there was Sautre’s martyrdom, immediately followed by the statute “Ex Officio;” then a nameless priest, supposed by Foxe to be Swinderby, a victim thereof; then mention of Crompe and others; then the History and Testament of Thorpe; and lastly, Badby’s martyrdom. In the edition of 1570 and all subsequent, Foxe has brought back the martyrdom of Badby to stand next after that of Sautre and next before the statute “Ex Officio.” Now Foxe very probably had a motive in making this singular alteration in his arrangement, viz. that he might make clearer (what was really the fact) that Badby was no more a victim of the statute “Ex Officio” than Sautre had been, for, like Sautre, he was burnt under a king’s writ. The reader, however, should be apprised, that in regard of chronological order, the ensuing account of Badby’s martyrdom would come in at p. 307, and the account of the statute “Ex Officio,” would immediately follow the martyrdom of Sautre. (See the note on p. 239.)

APP3-172 —The ensuing process against John Badby is printed from the archbishop s Registers (see Wilkins’s Concilia, 3, p. 324), with which Foxe’s text has been collated. Several errors have been thence corrected in this paragraph. Foxe says, “In the year of our Lord 1409, on Sunday, being the first day of March, etc.” The ecclesiastical year then commenced at March 25th, consequently this was A.D. 1410 according to modern computation. The Register also says, “in die Sabbati,” which means Saturday, and would be March 1st in A.D. 1410, by Nicolas’s Tables; see also the course of the dates in Wilkins’s Concilia, 3, pp. 324, 325. A few lines lower, Foxe says, that the bishop of “Oxford” was one of the assessors on the trial: the Register says “Exon.” not “Oxon.”: the bishopric of Oxford was not created till the reign of Henry VIII. The Register calls Badby “scissor,” which Foxe sometimes renders “shearman:” Collier calls him “a smith,” on the authority of Walsingham’s “Faber.” In the writ for his burning he is called “Johannes Badby de Evesham in comitatu Wigorniae.” In the document below, Foxe mis-numbers the pope “Gregory XI.,” though at p. 308 he calls him correctly “Gregory XII.:” he was elected Nov. 30th, A.D. 1406, and deposed June 5th, A.D. 1409. Lower down, Foxe says, “In the chapel Caruariae of St. Thomas the Martyr;” the Register says, “ In capella carnariae S. Thomae Martyris;” i.e. The chapel of the Carnaria or charnel-house, dedicated to St. Thomas Becket.” There were several chapels in the cathedral of Worcester, as in most cathedrals, and this was one of them. See Green’s History of Worcester Cathedral, vol. 1 p. 96.

APP3-173 —The names in this paragraph slightly vary from those in Wilkins, who reads “Malverne,” “Dudeley,” “monk and sub-prior,” “Hawley,” “Pentyngs,” “Swippeden,” “Gerbryg,” “Wyche,” “Wyble,” “Peverell,” “Wolstan,” and “Wesseborne.”

APP3-174 “Wednesday arrived, being the fifth day of May.”] — Foxe says the “fifteenth;” but Wilkins, “Adveniente praefato die Mercurii viz. dicti mensis Martii die 5;” which is correct.

APP3-175 —Edition 1563, p. 172, says, “for so muche as Cherillus Bul was not then in ure:” the Latin also has “Cherillus,” which is not altered into “Perillus” till edition 1593. “Ure” was an old form, or rather a corruption, of “use.”

APP3-176 “This godly martyr Badby,” etc.] —This paragraph almost seems to imply, that Foxe supposed the statute “Ex Officio” to have been first enacted 11 Hen. IV. immediately after Badby’s martyrdom.

He has himself, at p. 130, referred to it without naming it, as having been first enacted early in this reign. The bishops, however, seem to have been unable or afraid to make use of a statute so obnoxious to the people as it evidently was. The parliament of 11 Hen. IV., referred to in this paragraph, met in January 1410, and the Commons then presented two petitions: 1. That given at p. 318; 2. For the repeal of the statute of 2 Hen. IV. against heretics. The king rejected both these petitions (see Cotton’s Abridgement), and so virtually (as Foxe here says) “granted to the said parliament a statute called ‘Ex Officio’ to be observed.” Foxe has reserved his description of the statute till the time was arrived for its becoming operative: previously it was a dead letter.

The archbishop’s Register takes the same course; for under the year 1401 it gives the statute, but in a very brief and imperfect form (Wilkins, 3, p. 252); but after relating Badby’s martyrdom the Register says: “Et interim a ditto die Lunae usque in diem Martis et deinde de die in diem usque ad diem Lunae 10 diem ejusdem mensis Martii in domo capitulari, qua supra, continuata fuit convocatio. Qua die adveniente exhibitum fuit quoddam statutum regium,” etc. (Wilkins, 3, p. 328.) Then follows the statute, in the same form as that which Foxe has given. The reader, then, is only to bear in mind that he is not here reading the first enactment of the statute in the 2d year of Hen. IV., but its confirmation in the 11th year of Hen. IV., previous to which it had never been operative.

APP3-177 “Furthermore, for the more fortification of this statute of the king aforesaid, concurreth also another constitution of archbishop Arundel.”] —The reader must here forget the concluding sentence of the last note, and suppose he had been reading a history of the first enactment of the statute “Ex Officio,” in 2 Hen. IV. or A.D. 1401. The “Constitution,” or “Constitutions,” of archbishop Arundel are given in Wilkins, 3, pp. 314-319: who also adds (p. 320) a mandate from the archbishop to the bishop of London for the publication thereof, dated the castle of Queenborough, Ap. 13th, A.D. 1409, the thirteenth year of his translation. From this mandate we learn, that the “Constitutions” were first agreed on at a provincial synod held at Oxford, and afterwards confirmed at a full convocation of the province of Canterbury, held at St. Paul’s, Jan. 14th, A.D. 1408, the thirteenth of his translation, a full year before the martyrdom of John Badby.

APP3-178 —The original says:—“Praeterea nullus clericus aut populus cujuscunque parochiae aut loci nostrae Cantuariensis provinciae.”

APP3-179 “Albeit, some there were that did shrink,” etc.] —And then Foxe proceeds to specify divers persons who were induced to recant by the “laws and constitutions” just described; and yet, with only one exception, that of Purvey, the instances which he gives all occurred previous to the “law” of 1401 and the “constitutions” of 1409.

APP3-180 “John Purvey.”] — Purvey evidently recanted twice: 1st, at Paul’s cross, June 1st, A.D. 1401; 2dly, at Saltwood, before archbishop Arundel, A.D. 1421. (See pp. 248, 257, 285, 292;) Foxe says, “of whom more followeth (the Lord willing) to be said in 1421;” but nothing is said of Purvey under that year: what is told at p. 285, etc. relates to his recantation in 1401. By enlarging the parenthesis, and changing 1421 into 1401, the difficulty is obviated.

APP3-181 “To change the purpose.”.] — “Ad mutandum propositum dicti Johannis, substantiam.., esse...”—Wilkins.

APP3-182 —John Purvey recanted at Paul’s Cross, Sunday, March 6th, A.D. 1401, (Wilkins, 3, p. 262): John Edward recanted at Norwich Palm Sunday, April 12th, A.D. 1405, (Ib. p. 282): John Becket, of Padswick in the diocese of London, recanted at Sleyden June 10th, A.D. 1400, (Ib. p. 247): John Seynons, parish priest of Daunton, Lincolnshire, recanted at Christ Church Canterbury, April 19th, A.D. 1401.

APP3-183 —The articles on this page are given in the singular number by Wilkins, 3, p. 249, and as those recanted by John Seynons, who is meant by “John” in article 6. Wilkins improperly places them under the year A.D. 1400, as they refer to Sautre’s martyrdom.

APP3-184 —The whole of the ensuing batch of articles is given by Wilkins, 3, p. 282, as recanted by John Edward de Bryngton, chaplain, of the diocese of Lincoln, at Norwich, Palm Sunday, April 12th, A.D. 1405, William Appelby, mayor, and John Skye, John Sampson, sheriffs, in a garden contiguous to the north side of the cathedral called the Greneyard. The five first of them are also given by Wilkins, 3, p. 208, A.D. 1389, as a part of the errors of the Leicester Lollards, Dexter, Tailor, Parchmenear, etc. (See p. 198.)

APP3-185 —Whitehead was in 1552 recommended by Cranmer for “his good knowledge, special honestie, fervent zeal, and politick wisdom,” to the archbishopric of Armagh. It is said that on the accession of Elizabeth he was solicited to accept of the see of Canterbury. George Constantine is supposed by Sir Thomas More to have been the first editor of Thorpe’s Examinations.

APP3-186 —Laminas-Day, or the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, was August 1st, which in 1407 fell on a Monday; so that this examination took place August 7th.

APP3-187 “Concluded the feend.”]. —i:e. silenced. Pierce Ploughman thus versifies a part of our Savior’s promises to his apostles: “Though ye come before kings and clarkes of the law, Be not abashed for I shall be in your mouthes, And gyve you wytte & will, & conning to conclud Them all that agaynst you of Christendom disputen.” Dr. Wordsworth gives this and other examples of the use of the word.

Eccl. Biog. 1 p. 266, edit. 1839.

APP3-188 —” Comone forth,” i.e. communicate: very often used of the sacrament, as in Thorpe’s Testament, at p. 284, line 19 from the bottom.

APP3-189 —“Blow,” to discolor and disfigure. “File” for defile, or make vile. “The visage which was moost fayre of all other membres is fyled, bespytte, and mute with the thornes of the Jewes.” “The vysage which aungels desyre to se, the Jewes with theyr spyttyng have defyled; with theyr handes have smytten.”—Golden Legend, fol. 16, b, cited by Dr. Wordsworth.

APP3-190 —“To dinge,” to beat or knock.

APP3-190A “To make a blind knight.”] — According to some of the old writers, the soldier who pierced the side of Christ with his spear on Calvary was physically blind when he did it; and touching his eyes afterwards with his own bloody hands, he instantly recovered his sight. Hence he was canonized as St. Longius ( Lo>gch ).—See Golden Legend, fol. 98, b. and Pierce Ploughman’s Vision, fol. 98.

APP3-191 —“Buxome,” obedient. (Johnson’s Dict.) See vol. 2. p. 747, line 8, for this use of it in the “Ploughman’s Complaint.”

APP3-192 “To what entent to swear thereby?” ] —A note of interrogation should probably be also inserted after “entent.” The Latin edition (p. 81) puts this matter thus: “Sed unum hoe abs te, Domine Archipraesul, scire expeto, cur manum libro apponerem?

Archepiscopus. Ut fidei juramentum praestes.”

APP3-193 “How Susan saide,” etc.] —See the Hist. of Susanna, 5. 22.

APP3-194 —An “appealer,” according to Foxe, was a name given to thieves, who, to screen themselves, accused innocent persons (supra, p. 56, line 28); but according to Blount’s Law Dictionary, it means one who impeaches and betrays an accomplice, and this seems to be its meaning here: the Latin edition (p. 81) says, “Merito totius Angliae explorator proditorque videri possem, quovis Juda sceleratior.”

APP3-195 “This office [i.e. of appealer or spy] that ye would now infeaffe me with. ] —It was perpetually enjoined on Lollards in the edicts against them, that they should turn informers against their party. See the dreadful effects of this injunction in the diocese of Lincoln, infra, vol. 4 pp. 221-240.

APP3-196 “And as I considered.”] — Dr. Wordsworth suggests “als,” i.e. also, for “as.”

APP3-197 “For that there was no audience of secular men by.”] —See Dr.

Wordsworth’s note.

APP3-198 — “Or” for “ere,” i.e. before. So at p. 257, line 11 from bottom, “or we depart;” p. 264, line 8 from the bottom, “or that I leave thee;” and p. 293, note (9). So in Daniel, 6:24 “Or ever they came at the bottom of the den.”

APP3-199 “H., I. P., and B. ”] —Dr. Wordsworth conjectures these initials to denote Hereford, John Purvey, and Becket. The recantation of these three individuals is stated at pp. 49, 248; where see the notes. The adversary alludes to the first two by name at p. 279, still disguising the third under his initial “B.” But both in this and that passage the Latin edition names “Brightwell” (see supra, p. 27) as the person indicated by “B — .” “Satis me exempla imbecillium quorundam docent, praecipue N. Herfordi, I. Purvei, Tho. Brightwelli, ac hujus potissimium Repingtoni, quid mihi hic multisque allis metuendum” (Lat. Ed. p. 82): “Simulque tecum cogita, quam eruditi fuerint Lincolniensis jam praesul, Herfordus, et Purveus: Brituellus quoque, vir haud vulgariter peritus.” (Ibid. p. 95.)

APP3-200 “A false harlot .”] —A very common expression in the old writers: see Foxe’s account of the origin of the word ‘harlot’ supra, vol. 2 pp. 559, 560. The Latin Edition (p. 82) says, “Si Purveus versipellis ac callidus fuerit.”

APP3-201 “David Cotraie of Pakring, monke of Byland,” etc.] —The Latin Edition (p. 83) makes “Packring” the name of a person: “David Gottraeus, et Pakryngus monachus Bylandensis.”

APP3-202 —“Philippo Repyngtono, Leicestriensi olim canonico et abbati, accessit dies ille festivus, cujus tam diu jejunavit vigiliam.” (Lat. Ed. p. 83.) See the note on p. 46.

APP3-203 “Wherefore tariest thou me thus with such fables?”] — “Tarry” here means “delay,” transitively: the Latin edition (p. 83) says, “Quare his nugis tam diu nos detines?” Another example occurs at p. 274, line 15 from the bottom: “Wilt thou tarrie my lord no lenger?” where the Latin edition (p. 92) says, “Quin age: ne quid amplius moreris dominum Archiepiscopum, apposita libro manu, spondeas te illius et ecclesiae ordinationibus assensurum.” Another example occurs p. 278, last line but one: “Tarrie thou me no lenger.”

See the note on p. 26, supra.

APP3-204 “To suffer open jouresse.”] — The Latin edition (p. 84) says, pro APP3-205 —“Subject” and “sovereign,” were often used of inferior minister and prelate, or of layman and clerk: in this ecclesiastical sense (as Dr. Wordsworth remarks) Thorpe here applies St. Paul’s words.

APP3-206 “Deserveth meed.”] — On the doctrine of unqualified submission to the church here, and generally to this day, taught by the Roman church, and the awful consequences to which it leads, see Dr.

Wordsworth’s valuable note on this passage.

APP3-207 “In the decrees.” ] —See Corpus Juris Canon. 1 2306.

APP3-208 “Lefull and lawfull .”] —The former of these two words, which are used together at page 273, line 25, Dr. Wordsworth interprets as quasi “leave-full,” i.e. allowable, permissible; and cites “leve-full” from a passage of Wickliff’s works. The Latin edition (p. 85) says, “Praeterquam in honestis et licitis.”

APP3-209 “Saith Lincolne.”] — i.e. Robert Grostead, bishop of Lincoln: see the note on p. 85, line 9.

APP3-210 “Therefore, sir, appose you him now,” etc.] —” Interrogetur, itaque, quid de objectis articulis sentiat.” (Latin edit. p. 86.) See the note on p. 273, line 8.

APP3-211 “The houres of the moste blessed Virgin.”] — The Latin edition (p. 86) gives the words, thus:— “Memento, salutis auctor, Quod nostri quondam corporis Ex illibata virgine Nascendo formam sumpseris.” APP3-212 “That the ordinance of men,” etc.] —i.e. that the determinations of men living under obligations of obedience to the articles of the Christian faith, should be elevated to equal authority with those articles. The Latin edition (p. 86) says, “Antehac non audivi humanas traditiones sub fidel vocabulo venire.”

APP3-213 “An ententif doctor.”] —i, e. “busie, earnest, intentive,” Cotgrave, cited by Dr. Wordsworth. The Latin edition (p. 86) says, “Et hujus opinionis est Fulgentius, doctor non aspernandus.”

APP3-214 “Secret of the mid masse on Christmase daies.”] — The Latin edition (p. 87) says, “In secreto missae Christi nativitatis in Aurora.”

APP3-215 “The fourth ferie ‘quatuor temporum Septembris.’” ] —The “quatuor tempora,” or four quarter fasts, called now Ember weeks: the service in the Breviary for the Wednesday next after. September 14th is here denoted.

APP3-217 —The text says “friar Thomas againe” in every one of the English editions of Foxe: “Aquine” is put in on Dr. Wordsworth’s suggestion. The place cited is in “Summa Theolog.” part 3, quest. 75, art. 5: The Latin edition (p. 87) says here, “Quae vero deinceps, post Satanam ab angelo solutum, per fratrem Thomam ejusque farinae sophistas invecta sunt in ecclesiam (veluti accidens sine subjecto, atque id genus nugae), his ego neutiquam assentiendum arbitror: ex hujus fratris emendicata aliunde sententia fidel articulos non constituam. De me videat agatque Dominus pro sancto arbritratu suo.”

APP3-218 “God worshippeth.”] —i, e. honoureth: “With my body I thee worship.” (Marriage Service.)

APP3-219 —See Dr. Wordsworth’s note on the worshipping of images.

APP3-220 “Do off their caps to these letters.”] — See Dr. Wordsworth’s note for illustrations of this passage.

APP3-221 “Books and calenders. ”] —See Dr. Wordsworth’s note.

APP3-222 —Towards the great north door of St. Paul’s was a crucifix, to which pilgrimages and offerings were often made, of which the dean and canons had the benefit. (Dugdale’s Hist. of St. Paul’s.) the Latin edition (p. 88) says, “Londini apud Sanctum Paulum ad valvas aquilonares, and “de diva virgine Parathalassia.”

APP3-223 “The fiend hath great power,” etc.] —See the dialogue between Bilney and friar Brusierd infra, vol. 4 bottom of p. 630.

APP3-224 —On these representations of the Deity, Dr. Wordsworth refers to Lewis’s.Life of Bishop Peacock, p. 85, and Taylor’s Dissuasive from Popery.

APP3-225 —“The seven deadly sins” were pride, envy, wrath, sloth, covetousness, gluttony, and lewdness. See Lewis, p. 136, (Ed. 1820.)

APP3-226 —On the gross ignorance of the people in religion at this period, see Dr. Wordsworth’s note.

APP3-227 . “Sing wanton songs. ”] —See Dr. Wordsworth’s notes.

APP3-228 —On the corruptions in church music, and the scandal which this subject occasioned, not only to Lollards, but Romanists, and Erasmus himself, see Dr. Wordsworth’s note.

APP3-229 “No title to tithes .”] —See the note on p. 22, Art. 18.

APP3-230 “And that they are accursed. ”] —Alluding to a general sentence pronounced four times a year. See Dr. Wordsworth’s note.

APP3-231 —This is an error of Thorpe and the old writers, for Gregory’s ordinance only respected tithes which had not been previously conveyed. The payment of tithes to the parish priest was fully settled in the Saxon times.

APP3-232 “To depart .”] —To divide. See Nares’s Glossary. See the Ploughman’s Complaint supra, vol. 2 p. 746, line 6 from the bottom.

Originally our Marriage Service read, “till death us depart;’ altered at the Savoy Conference in 1661 to “do part.”—On the doctrine of poverty of ministers here advocated, see the opinion of Nicholas Orem supra, vol. 2 p. 771, line 7 from the bottom. The same doctrine has been sometimes alleged to have been held by Wickliff, but both his practice and writings show that he was in favor of a more generous mode of living among clergymen than Thorpe here seems to advocate.

APP3-233 . “The lenger that ye appose him. ”] —“Quo magis interrogas, hoc videtur praefractior.” (Lat. ed. p. 91.) See note on p. 263, line I.

APP3-234 It seems doubtful whether the Lollards held this doctrine absolutely. Dr. Wordsworth observes, that the statement that they did so may have originated from two causes: 1st, their protesting against the profane swearing then so common; and, 2dly, a scruple as to the mode of taking an oath. See Swinderby’s view of this subject supra, p. 119, art. 14.

APP3-235 —See on “tarrie,” the note on p. 258, line 22 from the bottom.

APP3-236 Evil apayd .”] —Ill-satisfied, ill-contented. See the word supra vol. 2 p. 359, line 9; and “apayd,” ib. p. 360, line 21 from the bottom.

APP3-237 “Tarrie .”] —See the note on p. 274.

APP3-238 “Bethinke thee, how great clerkes,” etc.] —See the note on p. 257, line 7.

APP3-239 “Thomas Purvey. ”] — No doubt “Thomas” is a mistake for “John.” The Latin edition (p. 95) only says “Purveus,” omitting the Christian name, and therefore clearly referring to the same Purvey elsewhere mentioned in this Examination as “John.”

APP3-240 —Archbishop Arundel was tried on a charge of treason in 1397, and banished; but in about two years was restored.

APP3-241 “Rowned with him .”] —To rowne or round a person in the ear, is to whisper to him. See Dr. Wordsworth’s note.

APP3-242 “ Again, neither is it found that he was burned. ”] —The Latin edition, however, says (p. 96), “Sunt qui testantur cum eodem anno Domini 1407 in Augusto exustum: sed locum non designant: ex quo atque aliis colligendum,” etc.

APP3-243 “1382.”] —On the error in this date, see the note on p. 47.

APP3-244 “Articles of John Purvey .”] —These articles, with Purvey’s recantation of each seriatim, are given by Wilkins, from the archbishop’s Register. (Conc. 3, pp. 260-262.) the first appearance of Purvey before the council is there dated “die Lunae: viz. ultimo die ejusdem mensis Feb. in domo capitulari;” i.e. Feb. 28th, A.D. 1401, the next meeting after the degradation of Sautre. He is called Purney in Wilkins; and “capellanus Lincoln. dioecesis.” The recantation is dated at “Paul’s Cross, Sunday, March 6th, 1401.”

APP3-245 “A certain whispering .”] —”Quaedam auriculatio.” (Wilkins.)

APP3-246 “Yet is he a true priest before God .”] —The Register says here, “Est verus presbyter et sacerdos, ordinatus a Deo ad ministrandum omnia sacramenta necessaria hominibus ad salutem;” adding, as the first-born were natural priests, and Moses before Aaron. (Wilkins.)

See Purvey’s doctrine more fully drawn out by Foxe at the middle of p. 288.

APP3-247 “Have not the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but rather of hell .”] —Foxe translates erroneously, “Either of the kingdom of heaven, or yet of hell:” “sed claves inferni” (Wilkins). The sense is correctly given by Foxe at p. 289, line 18, and margin.

APP3-248 —Articles 5 and 6 change places with each other in Wilkins.

APP3-249 —"In the general council of Lyons” is put in from Wilkins. “A proper priest” (proprio sacerdoti) means “their own parish-priest.”

APP3-250 “Therefore when Antichrist, or any of his shavelings,” etc.] — This maxim of Purvey’s seems to have been pretty generally acted upon by the Lollards: see the examples of Reppyngdon, p. 25; Hereford and Reppyngdon, p. 34; Ashton, p. 36; Swinderby, pp. 117, 124; Thorpe, p. 263; lord Cobham, p. 328. Walter Brute is explicit, p. 173, etc. William Sautre attempted to evade the question, but was forced honestly to avow his opinion, p. 224. This prudent reserve or evasion is ridiculed in Barlowe’s “Dialogue concerning Lutheran Factions,” signat. 11, 12, Edition 1553. Wickliff also seems to have disapproved of it: see the note on p. 49, note (1).

APP3-251 “To remain continuing his life in the wars .”] —The original imports just the contrary—“militiae cingulo careat.”

APP3-252 “At Saltwood .”] —The recantation before archbishop Arundel was at St. Paul’s; and that at Saltwood was before Archbishop Chichesley. See pp. 248, 285, 286, and the notes.

APP3-253 . “Being then, as it seemeth, William Courtenay. ] —See the table of archbishops given at p. 579.

APP3-254 —Foxe here reads “anno 1389,” though in his text, a few line above, he says 1388. This must be the true year, if the statement be correct at p. 304, that when this sermon was preached, there wanted “not fully twelve years and a halfe” of the year 1400, for 1387.5 + 12.5 = 1400, so that this would make the sermon preached a little after Midsummer 1388. In accordance with this, it may be remarked, that the text is in the Gospel for the 9th Sunday after Trinity, which in the year 1388 fell on July 26th. On the other hand, this does not well accord with the statement that it was preached on Quinquagesima Sunday, which in 1388 fell on Feb. 9th, and in 1389 on Feb. 28th (see Nicolas’s Tables). It is remarkable, that in the edition of 1563 the words “and a halfe” are wanting; “not fully twelve yeares” were “lacking” of 1400: this would suit Quinquagesima, but would make the year 1389. Perhaps the sermon was first composed or preached July 26th, 1388, (“made in the year of our Lord M.CCCLXXXVIII.:” Edition of 1563), and re-preached Quinquagesima 1389; and so the words “and a halle” are retained or omitted accordingly.

APP3-255 “Priesthood, knythode, and laborers .”] —See the note on p. 324, line 13 from the bottom.

APP3-256 “Disparkled .”] —See note on p. 130, note (1).

APP3-257 —The process of Gregory’s election is given, confirming Foxe’s account of it, in Wilkins’s Concilia, 3, pp. 286-288, from archbishop Arundel’s Register. He was elected unanimously Nov. 30th, A.D. 1406. (Nicolas.)

APP3-258 —Foxe’s text reads, “which was about the year 1409;” this for the sake of precision is altered into, “which last was in the year 1410.” — Four lines lower, Foxe says in all the old editions, the schism endured “this space of xxix years;” at the same time referring to the passage at p. 17, where they all read plainly and properly “xxxix.:” “thirty-nine” is therefore put into the text here.—He also mis-numbers the pope “Urban V.”

APP3-259 —Boniface IX. was elected Nov. 2d, and crowned Nov. 9th, A.D. 1389: died Oct. 1st, A.D. 1404.

APP3-260 —There is a letter in Wilkins from Benedict XIII. to Gregory, dated 11 Cal. Feb. in the 13th year of his pontificate, i.e. January 22, A.D. 1407.

APP3-261 . “The Cardinal of Bordeaux.”] —Foxe, following Walsingham, says, “the Cardinal Bituriensis” (of Bourges): we should here read “Burdegalensis:” the individual meant was Francesco Hugociono, a very able canonist, who was made archbishop of Bourdeaux in 1389, and cardinal Quatuor Sanctorum Coronatorum by Innocent VII. in 1405; he died at Florence, Aug. 14th, 1412. He was very zealous in striving to persuade Gregory to fulfill his engagements (Gallia Christiana, tom. 2 p. 839). He is mentioned in a public document of archbishop Arundel given in Wilkins’s Cone. 3, p. 311, as having come over to England between July 23d and Nov. 30th, A.D. 1408. He is also mentioned in a letter of the cardinal’s to Henry IV., given in Wilkins, as a particular favorite of the king’s. It seems from Moreri’s Diet. 5Cardinal, that there was not a cardinal of Bourges at this time.—Foxe misdates the letters ensuing A.D. 1409, as he had the election of pope Gregory XII. above, A.D. 1407.

APP3-262 —The council of Pisa sat March 25th to August 7th, A.D. 1409.

APP3-263 —“Within the twelvemonth is more correct than Foxes “within the same year;” for Alexander V. was elected in June, A.D. 1409, and crowned soon after: he died May 3d, A.D. 1410. (Nicolas.)

APP3-264 —Foxe’s narrative, from hence to the top of p. 311, is taken accurately from Cochlaeus: Foxe repeats a portion of it at p. 405, professedly from the same authority, but not so accurately. (See the note on p. 405.) Foxe (after Cochlaeus) calls the archbishop “Swinco;” and sometimes strangely confounds his name and his title, calling him archbishop of “Swinco” instead of “Prague;” for which Cochlaeus gives no foundation. He has already been mentioned supra, at p. 54.

APP3-265 “A Mandate of Thomas Arundel .”] —This is given in Wilkins’s Conc. 3, p. 246, from the Register of Braybrook, bishop of London. It is headed “Mandatum Arundelli... pro veneratione Sanctae Dei genetricis ad pulsationem in Aurora sicut ad pulsationem ignitegii.”

Foxe heads it, “A Mandate of Thomas Arundel, directed to the bishop of London, to warn men to say certain prayers at the tolling of the ‘Aves’ or ringing of Curfew;” which is a very vague description of it.

Several expressions of the original, badly translated by Foxe, have been better rendered— “mystico inspiramine,” “inter cultores vineae,” “ad ipsius domini nostri regis specialem rogatum.” The concluding sentence, and when before day, etc. is rather obscurly expressed in the original: but the heading of the letter explains it.

APP3-266 —Foxe misdates the mandate “anno transl. 9, A.D. 1405,” when no “Robert” was bishop of London. The date in Wilkins is “Anno Domini 1399., et nostrae translationis anno quarto,” which is inserted in the text: Robert Braybrooke was bishop of London January 5th, A.D. 1381 to August 27th, A.D. 1404 (Godwin, edit. Richardson); and as Arundel became archbishop towards the close of 1396, his fourth year would begin toward the close of A.D. 1399: it is evident, therefore, that the 1399 of Wilkins here means the 1400 of modern computation.

APP3-267 “A commission directed to the Somner,” etc.] —On the subject of ringing bells, see Brand’s Pop. Ant. vol. 2 p. 135, note, and infra, vol. 6 p. 562.

Latimer, in his Sixth Sermon before Edward VI., alludes to these interdicts for not ringing the bells.

APP3-268 —As Chichesley became archbishop A.D. 1414, his twelfth year would end in A.D. 1426, which year is clearly meant by the “1425” of the Register.

APP3-269 —Foxe gives the superscription of the penance thus:— “Injunctio poenitentiae tenentibus domini in non portando sufficientem quantitatem foeni et straminis;” for the correct reading, this edition is indebted to the Reverend S. R. Maitland, librarian to the archbishop of Canterbury.

APP3-270 —These “parliamentary notes,” and the references in the notes, are revised from the original printed in Cotton’s Abridgment, as in similar cases at p. 213, and vol. 2 p. 783. The note relating to the “eleventh” year of the reign, at the bottom of p. 317, Foxe places, in p. 316, to the “second year of the said king,” no doubt owing to his having misunderstood “11” for ii. instead of xi.

APP3-271 —For a much more accurate copy of the Latin penance than Foxe’s, this edition is indebted to the Revelation S. R. Maitland.

APP3-272 —Foxe, by mistake, reads “thirteenth” instead of “fourteenth.”

APP3-273 —The whole of this page has been collated with Walsingham and Fabian, where the matter will be found; some corrections have thence been made: in the list of abbeys, “Osiis” (Fabian) is for “Osyth’s:” in this form we trace the origin of “Size Lane “in London, where formerly stood St. Osyth’s Church. The clause “in the see of Durham,” etc. omitted by Foxe, is put in from Fabian: without it the calculation at the end would not be correct.

APP3-274 “Then called Passion Sunday.”] — The fifth Sunday of Lent is so called, because the Gospel for the day is John 8:46, etc., where the Jews take up stones to cast at Jesus, and this the Festival (fol. 25) says, was the beginning of Christ’s passion.

APP3-275 “In holy kitchen—in holy church, I would say .”] —This is a species of wit common (as Mr. Maitland remarks), among the writers of that age, when having said a saucy thing, they affect to catch themselves up and correct a pretended mistake.

APP3-276 “The trouble and persecution of Sir John Oldcastle, knight, lord Cobham .”] —Most of the ensuing narrative is taken from John Bale’s “Brefe Chronycle concernyng the Examinacyon and Death of the Blessed Martyr of Christ Sir Johan Oldecastell the Lorde Cobham:” first printed August 16th, A.D. 1544. The source from which Bale derived it (as he informs us in his preface) was chiefly the account drawn up at archbishop Arundel’s command expressly for distribution through the realm, and now extant in his Register. This is called “The Great Process of Thomas Arundell,” etc. Walden’s “Fasciculus Zizaniorum Wiclevi” embodies this Process, together with some other matters relating to the subject: Walden’s first epistle to Martin V., his “Sermo de funere regis,” and his first and second books “adversus Wiclevistas,” have also contributed something. Several important passages which were omitted by Foxe after the edition of 1563 are here retained, especially the account of lord Cobham’s death.

APP3-277 —Foxe, from Walden, reads inaccurately 1387 for 1384.

APP3-278 “There resorted unto them the twelve inquisitors of heresies; whom they had appointed at Oxford the year before,” etc.] —Foxe is here strictly following Walden and Bale; the accuracy of the statement, however, seems doubtful, for Wilkins (3 p. 339, sub anno 1412, “the year before” this process) gives—“Ex MSS. Cotton, Faustina C. 7”— An Epistle of the University of Oxford, reporting the opinion of the judges appointed to examine Wickliff’s writings, and giving conclusions which they had picked out of his works and pronounced heretical: but the names of the 12 judges are not mentioned. Wilkins afterwards (p. 350) gives a letter (ex eodem MS.) of archbishop Arundel to pope John. But Wilkins had before (at p. 171) given precisely the same epistle of the university of Oxford, sub anno 1381, “ex Registro Sudbury, fol. 76.” This early copy of the Epistle of the University has the names of the 12 judges appended to their opinion, and they are the very same as those given here; but no conclusions are there specified as heretical. Now, it seems rather improbable that the very same 12 judges should have been appointed in 1381 and 1412, to make the same investigation, and report afresh in the very same words: it is most likely, that that epistle and decision of 1381 were reproduced before the council of 1412, not the judges themselves.

APP3-279 “Two hundred and sixty-six conclusions .”] —The edition of 1563, p. 261, says “two hundreth and lxvi.,” which is corrupted in the next edition of 1570, p. 664, into two hundreth and xlvi.” Walden and Bale both say “two hundred and lxvi.,” and they are printed in Wilkins (3 p. 339) to the number of 267.

APP3-280 “Proctors of the clergy” is put in from Wilkins; both Foxe and Bale read “general proctors,” and Foxe in his edition of 1563 adds from Bale, “yea rather betrayers of Christ in his faithful members.”

APP3-281 “At Kennington .”] —Both Bale and Foxe omit to mention what the Register states (Wilkins, 3, p. 357) to have been the immediate matter of complaint against lord Cobham. A volume in quires (“ in quaternis”) tending, as the Register states, to the subversion of the faith and of holy church, was discovered at a limner’s in Paternoster Row, where it was awaiting the process of illumination. The artist, being apprehended, confessed that the book was lord Cobham’s.

Certain extracts from it were read at Kennington, before the king, who is said to have expressed his abhorrence of them. Lord Cobham, being questioned by the king, allowed that this and similar books had been condemned justly, and denied that he had read more than two or three leaves.

APP3-282 —For “prelates,” the edition of 1563, copying Bale, reads “ravenours.”

APP3-283 —“Not” is improperly foisted in before “contented” in all the editions till 1583.

APP3-284 —Cowling Castle is said, at p. 343, to have been a little more than three miles from Rochester Cathedral.

APP3-285 —Ledes Castle is five miles south-east from Maidstone. (Carlisle’s Topographical Dictionary) APP3-286 —St. Matthew’s day is Sept. 21st, which in A.D. 1413 (by Nicolas’s Tables) fell on a Thursday; the Saturday following would be Sept. 23d. Both Bale and Foxe, here and at p. 326, say erroneously, “the Saturday before the feast of St. Matthew.” The Register is correct. (Wilkins, 3 p. 354.) See also p. 844, line 5.

APP3-287 “This latter congregation,” etc.] —The reader will find a similar triple division of the church militant into “priesthood, knythode, and laborers,” in Wimbledon’s Sermon supra, p. 293. Lewis also (p. 125) cites a similar division from one of Wickliff’s writings.

APP3-288 “In knighthood .”] —It was the custom in some countries for the nobles to draw their swords at the recital of the Creed or the Gospel. See Archbishop Grindali’s works (Parker Soc. p. 56), and Dr.

Wordsworth’s note on this place.

APP3-289 “He offered himself, after the law of arms, to fight .”] —This was according to the notions of the times. The trial by battle, in cases where the question could not be determined by legal proof or testimony, continued to disgrace the law of England till June 22d, 1819, when an Act was passed to abolish the practice. See Dr.

Wordsworth’s note on this place, which states that in 1352 the bishop of Bath and Wells ordered his clergy to exhort their people to pray for the success of Henry duke of Lancaster, in an intended trial by battle with the duke of Brunswick for some reproachful words.

APP3-290 —“Nild” is a contraction of “ne willed,” which occurs uncontracted in the Ploughman’s Complaint supra, vol. 2 p. 732: “God that is endlesse in mercy saith, that he ne will not a sinfull man’s death, but that he be turned from his sin and liven.” In Wimbledon’s Sermon supra, p. 295, we find “nis” for “ne is:” “What sinne, I pray you, will the fiend have now on men, that nis now yused?” “Nought” and “never” for “ne ought” and “ne ever,” are familiar to us. (Wordsworth.)

APP3-291 “The Saturday after,” etc.] —See the note on p. 323, line from the bottom.

APP3-292 “Calenders to lewd men [laymen ].”] —See the note on p. 119, line 12 from the bottom.

APP3-293 —See footnote APP3-294 . “To Canterbury .”] —See Dr. Wordsworth’s note on this shrine.

APP3-295 “Remaineth material bread, or not? ”] —See the note on p. 287.

APP3-296 “Dost thou believe in the determination of the church?” etc.] — See Dr. Wordsworth’s note on the distinction between “believing” and “believing in.” Bishop Bonner himself held, “Concerning the Catholique churche, we must believe it, that is to say, geve credite to it, but not beleve in it, for to beleve in it, were to make it God.”— Profitable and Necessary Doctrine, signat. I. 46, A.D. 1555.

APP3-297 “For then cried an angell,” etc.] —Bale in his margin refers to Ranulphus Cestrensis in Polychron. lib. 4 cap. 26. The endowment of the church by Constantine is the event referred to.—See Dr.

Wordsworth’s note.

APP3-298 —“Pilled,” shaven, “pilis delectus, pilatus.”

APP3-299 —Antiochus, a monk of Saba, in Palestine, who wrote in the seventh century, deplores the loss of the real cross, which he says was carried away into Persia after the defeat of the emperor Heraclius by Chosroes in the year 614.—See Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca. (Wordsworth.)

APP3-300 “This is a very cross .”] —See what Thorpe says at the top of p. 265. Also the language of Margery Backster, at p. 594, and John Edmunds infra, vol. 4 p. 238, cited by Dr. Wordsworth, with a passage from Dr. Barnes’s works.

APP3-301 . “Honour to the holy cross .”] —See Dr. Wordsworth’s note.

APP3-302 “Do him thereupon to death .”] —These words not being in the original, but Bale’s exposition of the undoubted meaning of “delivery to the secular power,” are put in brackets. See Dr. Wordsworth’s note.

This writ is dated in Wilkins (3 p. 357) Oct. 10th, 1413.

APP3-303 —“Process” is corrupted into “excess,” after the edition of 1570.

APP3-304 —This parliament was called at Leicester, April 30th, A.D. 1414. I Pad. Hist. 324.

APP3-305 “A bill was put in there,” etc.] —Fabian, sub an. 2 Hen. V. speaks of this bill, as the revival of the former one of 11 Hen. IV., which he mentions in its place, but makes no specific allusion to that in 18 Ric. II. Shakespeare opens his Henry V. with allusion to the two bills of 11 Hen. IV. and 2 Hen. V. Lord Cobham was banished soon after the first bill of 11 Hen. IV., and presented a remonstrance in his own name alone with the second in 2 Hen. V. See Rapin, vol. 4 pp. 59, 176, notes.

APP3-306 “Twice before,” etc.] —Foxe mentions the bill presented by the Commons in 11 Hen. 4 (or A.D. 1410) supra, p. 318, and the other in 18 Ric. II. at p. 203.

APP3-307 “By the procurement of the said lord Cobham .”] —This is Bale; who likewise attributes (Brefe Chron. Ed. 1544, folios 7, 51) to Cobham the Articles at p. 203, etc.

APP3-308 —Foxe reads “synod,” in this reference: Bale, fol. 47, reads “sy-done,” divided between two lines. This is probably a misprint for “sermone,” for Bale in his Preface to the Chron. fol. 6, mentioning this same matter, refers in his margin to “Waldenus in ser-mone de funere regis,” “ser-mone” being similarly divided; and at the end of the Preface refers to the same work thus,” Waldenus in Sermone.”

APP3-309 “The twenty-third day of September .”] —Wilkins (3 p. 354) reads correctly “23,” and so do the editions of 1563 and 1570. See notes above on pp. 323, 326.

APP3-310 “The words and content of the statute,” etc.] —The original French is in Wilkins (3 p. 358), with which Foxe’s translation has been collated, and the first 33 lines much improved.

APP3-311 —The extracts from the statute 2 Hen. IV., given in the text, have been strictly conformed to the original.

APP3-312 —The reader will find some remarks by the Reverend S. R.

Maitland, in his new volume on the Dark Ages, tending to remove the erroneous representations of some writers respecting “the feast of the ass.” Professor Edgar is not quite exact in representing the ass as “taught to kneel;” he derived this notion from a stage-direction in the margin.

APP3-313 “In the time of king Henry III .”] —This passage as it stands in Foxe is most incorrect: “In the time of king Henry III., Simon Montfort earl of Gloucester, Gilbert Clare earl of Leicester, Humfrey Rone earl of Ferrence,” etc.; the alterations made in the text will be borne out by the references at the foot of the page. The large portions of English history given by Foxe in vol. 2 are here turned to account.

APP3-314 —The incorrectness of Polydore appears thus: Henry IV. became king Sept. 30th, 1399, and died March 20th, 1413, so that he reigned 13 years 6 months, minus 10 days. (Nicolas.)

APP3-315 —Foxe alludes to Psalm 51:7; “Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow;” which stands in the Vulgate, “Asperges me hyssopo, et mundabor; lavabis me, et super nivem dealbabor.” APP3-316 —The numerous references at the foot of this and several following pages are added by the present Editor.

APP3-317 “As Hieronymus Marius doth credibly witness. ”] —Eusebius Captivus, pp. 43-46. But a much better reference may be made to Georgi’s Imperatorum, totiusque Nationis Germanicae Gravamina adv. sedem Romanam, etc. (Francof. 1725, pp. 180-188); who takes his account from Aventinus, Cuspinian, and others. He concludes the chapter with,— “Tandem A. 1347, 5 Id. Octobr. cum venatum exivisset [Ludovicus] de equo praecipitatus, apoplexia, vel veneno periit. Avent. p. 182, edit. Fr. et p. 628, edit. Basil. Cuspinianus, p. 378, imprimis p. 380, ubi affirmat venenum accepisse, neque ulla alia de causa venatum exiisse, quam ut motu atque labore sibi consuleret, quae spes hac vice ilium fefellit. Contrarium tamen defendit Burgundus, p. 180.”

APP3-318 “In canons of the Apostles,” etc.] — “Daille affirms that the canons claim for themselves an apostolic origin. De la Roque is of the same opinion; and Gibert reasons in a similar manner: but bishop Beveridge has demonstrated that in each of four instances which may be adduced, interpolation has taken place. In the 29th Canon (according to Beverege) we find uJp ejmou~ Pe>trou a me Petro; whereas the version by Dionysius Exiguus, and after him the Excerptions from Egbert, contain only a Petro. Again, in Canon I. Dionysius has non enim dixit nobis Dominus; but this important word is either spurious, or rather has arisen from reading hJmi~n for hJmw~n , Moreover, in Canons 82 and 85 the pronouns hJme>terov and hJmw~n have been introduced by some unknown falsifier.” Gibbings’ Roman Forgeries and Falsifications (Dublin, 1842), pp. 85, 86.

APP3-319 “Cogging in a false canon to the council of Nice .”] —See vol. of Foxe, p. 32, and Appendix, p. 392, for an account of this “cogging in.” To wipe off this scandal, Binius and Baronius stickle vehemently, and try all their art to get St. Peter’s ship off from these rocks. The former publishes long notes (in Labbe, tom. 2 col. 1599); the latter falls from writing to dispute (Annal. ad an. 419): but all in vain; for Binius, after he had falsely told us that it was the ancient custom for bishops and priests to appeal to Rome, and for the Africans to desire their sentences to be confirmed by the pope, confesses that the pope’s legates cited the canons of Sardica under the name of those of Nice, and that they were not to be found in the originals of the council of Nice, kept in the other patriarchal sees.” Comber’s Roman Forgeries in Councils, part 3, p. 36. See also Richier’s Historia Concill. Generall. (edit. Colon. 1683, tom. 1 pp. 114-121) for a detailed reply to Bellarmine’s arguments on this matter of appeals.

APP3-320 “Nine and twenty years .”] —Foxe says “five and twenty,” both here and at p. 530; but see the table at p. 579, note. From hence to p. 416 Foxe follows Cochlaeus, pp. 19-68; whence Foxes text is considerably corrected.

APP3-321 “Meaux .”] —Foxe, from Fabian, reads “Meldune or Melione:” “de Vincennes has been added to Foxe’s “Bois,” as the more usual mode of designating the place.

APP3-322 —The cardinal Colonna here mentioned was Otho de Colonna, a Roman, cardinal-deacon of St. George in Velabro, created in 1405: afterward pope Martin V. (Moreri, 5 Cardinal).

APP3-323 —The cardinal of Aquileia was Antoine Pancerino, a native of Friuli, patriarch of Aquileia, made cardinal-priest of St. Susanna and bishop of Frascati by pope John XXIII. in 1411; died 1431. The cardinal of Venice was Francis Lando, a Venetian, made patriarch of Grado in 1408, and afterward of Constantinople: created cardinal of the Holy Cross at Jerusalem in 1411, and died 1427. (Moreri, Dict. Cardinal).

APP3-324 —The sentence in the text is not exactly according to Cochlaeus, the author to whom Foxe here refers us: thus, the pope’s citation of John Huss is put too late, for Cochlaeus (Hist. p. 19) says, that when he was cited, he refused to obey the summons; whereupon the pope wrote to archbishop Sbinco, etc. “Scripsit itaque Alexander Papa V. Suinconi Archiepiscopo, ut autoritate Apostolica prohiberet, ne per aliquos (etiamsi essen, super hoc Apostolico seu quovis alio indulto muniti) praedicationes aut sermones ad populum fierent, nisi in cathedralibus, collegiatis, parochialibus, aut monasteriorum ecclesiis, seu earum cimiteriis,” etc. The foregoing extract also shows, that the object of the papal letters is not quite correctly stated by Foxe. He has stated the whole matter more correctly from the same passage of Cochlaeus at pp. 309, 310 of this volume.

APP3-325 —See Cochlaeus, pp. 24, 25, where the document is said to have been dated Bethlehem Chapel, Prague, A.D. 1412, March 3d, second year of the Pontificate of John XXIII. The treatise “De tribus dubiis” is printed in the “Historia et Monuments Johan. Huss,” fol. 169.

APP3-326 “Of the human race destroyed by the deluge .”] —This clause is put in from Cochlaeus.

APP3-327 . “Conrad bishop of Olmutz,” etc.] —This sentence is considerably modified from Cochlaeus, p. 29. Foxe reads thus:— “It followeth, moreover, after the death of the archbishop Swinco abovementioned, that one named Conrad was placed by the pope there to be chief general, which Conrad, conferring with the divines and doctors of the university of Prague, required their advices and counsels, what way they might best take to assuage the dissensions and discords between the clergy and the people; whereupon a certain council was devised to be holden after this sort and manner, as followeth.” The words of Cochlaeus (p. 29) are these:—“Ne autem Ecclesia illa Metropolitans, rectore legitimo carens, orphans atque omnino Acephala videretur, datus est ei a sede Apostolica Administrator Conradus Episcopus Olomucensis, Qui a theologis studii Pragensis petiit exemplum illius Consilii quod Swinconi scriptum dederunt, ab eo requisiti, quonam pacto possint haec reals, discordia cleri, plebisque motus ac varia in fide et religione populorum dissidia et scandala, de medio tolli, atque redintegrata pace sedari.

Cujus sane Consilii haec quae sequuntur, fuere capitula.” Foxe correctly, in the very next page, calls Conrad “administrator,” and even “the aforesaid administrator,” which renders the change here introduced necessary. Cochlaeus intitules the ensuing document, “Consilium facultatis theologicae studii Pragensis.” Foxe miscalls it the “Council of the Prelates of Prague against the Gospellers.”

APP3-328 —This Article is explained by what Cochlaeus says (Hist. p. 18), viz—“Libris vero combustis, Joannes Hus, ut Archiepiscopo injuriam rependeret, its et odiosum et contemptibilem eum suis detractionibus populo reddidit, ut plerique partium suarum Laici vulgares et ironicas in optimum patrem cantiones confingerent ac decantarent in publico, Suinick Kraschy spalil, propter eam librorum combustionem.”

APP3-329 —In Cochlaeus (p. 32) is a 12th article added, as follows: “XII.

Item ex istis omnibus claret, quod in nobis non deficit inire concordiam, sed in els; ex quo nolunt ad ista rationabilia et praetacta consentire.

Quilibet enim compos rationis intelligere potest ex hoc consilio, quod non propriam laudem nec aliquorum confusionem, sed gloriam Dei, honorem domini regis et sui regni, vellemus libenter procurare. Quia ad omnia suprascripta nos ipsos subjicimus, et parati sumus haec eadem facere inchoando. Ipsi autem, nolentes ad ista particularia descendere, nimis reddunt in materia fidei se suspectos.”

APP3-330 —Cochlaeus (p. 32) says, that this “Consilium” war “datum et exhibitum in congregatione cleri in die S. Dorotheae A.D. 1413” St.

Dorotheas day was Feb. 6th or March 28th. (Nicolas’s Chronology of History.) The first three of the ensuing Articles are revised from the original in Cochlaeus.

APP3-331 “Was ravaging .”] —“Infestabat,” Cochlaeus; “had besieged,” Foxe.

APP3-332 “Artisans” is put in here for Foxe’s word “Captains.”

APP3-333 —“Johanne, Martino, et Stascone,” Cochlaeus (p. 38). In “Histor. et Mon. Joh. Huss,” etc. fol. 245 (margin), it is stated, that at the chapel of Bethlehem a parchment book, called “Passionale,” was preserved, in the margin of which (at the chap. de Adriano sub Maximiniano passo) was written with John Huss’s own hand: “ A.D. 1412, feria ante festum apostolorum Petri et Pauli sic voluerunt multi decollari, flectentes sub gladio tortoris; quando decollabantur Martinus, et Johannes, et Stassek, ex eo quod contradixerunt praedicantibus quod licitum est bellare, et quod in papam credendum, et quod quicunque dederint papae pecuniam ad bellum est absolutus a poena et a culpa.”

This shows that John is a distinct individual from Martin. See note infra, on p. 483, note (2), where it appears that Huss in his text, at the place just referred to, calls the three martyrs by the same names as Cochlaeus and Foxe.

APP3-334 “The sum of eighteen articles .”] —This does not appear from Cochlaeus, p. 44, where the “Consilium doctorum contra haeresim Pragae exortam” is not given in the form of Articles. Foxe probably inferred what he says, from the Objections in reply being eighteen in number.

APP3-335 —Foxe, in stating that “John Huss preached at the funeral” of the three artisans of Prague, states that with which Huss was undoubtedly charged by his enemies at his trial; but he as undoubtedly denied that he was even present at the funeral (see p. 483 of this volume, and the note in this Appendix on that page). Cochlaeus himself, whom Foxe professes here to follow, does not say that Huss did preach at the funeral: the following are Cochlaeus’s words:—“At Hus cum suis occurrens interemptorum corpora rapuit, et aureo circumvoluta panno per omnes (ut ait A Eneas) urbis ecclesias detulit, cantantibus sectae suae sacerdotibus, ‘Isti sunt sancti qui pro testamento Dei sua corpora tradiderunt,’ etc. Exin cadavera in sacrario Bethlehem reposita, quasi martyrum reliquiae aromatibus condita fuerunt. De quibus ipse Hus in libro suo ‘de Ecclesia’ inscripto sic habet et gloriatur (cap. 21), etc.” Cochlaeus then quotes an account of the affair by Stephen Paletz, in which these words occur: “Accessisti siquidem, et jacentium rebellium corpora sub Mediastino sustilisti, et cum ea quae tibi videbatur summa reverentia ad cathedram tuae superbiae capellam dictam Bethlehem detulisti, tui ipsius et scholarturn tuae societatis, sancica obedientiae contrariis, clamorosis et altissimis vocibus usque ad inferni novissima concrepantibus, Isti sunt sancti, etc. Quibus sic inductis per to in Capellam illam, tantum fecisti popularis tui favoris concursum, ut non solum illorum sic juste decollatorum sanguinem linteis maxime Beginae tuae et quidam alii abstergerent, sed quasi prae illorum sanctitate et potius pertusa saccitate lamberent. Ita ut to largiente et to donante locus ille tuae cathedrae summus, non tam Bethlehem, sed ad Tres Sanctos per to et tuos complices vocaretur.” (Cochlaei Hist. pp. 38, 40.) Dubravius says expressly that Huss did not preach; but only that some of the clergy of their party followed their corpses, singing the words just recorded, “ad templum Bethlehem, ubi Hus concionatorem agebat [i.e. was the stated and habitual preacher]. Ac illo quidem die Huss concione abstinuit, sed postea non cessavit mortem illorum deplorare, invidia majori quam ut illam sedare possent senatores” (Hist. Boiem. lib. Hanov. 1602, p. 194). It is clear, therefore, that Foxe has not correctly gathered the import of Cochlaeus’s words, and that what he represents Huss as doing at the funeral, Huss really did afterwards, especially in his treatise “De Ecclesia,” cap. 21. (See Hist. et Mon. Joh. Huss, tom. 1 fol. 245.)

APP3-336 —Cochlaeus, in his margin, says that Stanislaus de Znoyma was a Moravian, and a chief doctor at Prague. Cochlaeus (p. 50) gives this list of names from Huss’s “Liber de Ecclesia,” cap. 11. The concluding sentence of the paragraph—“John Huss,” etc.—is from p. 62 of Cochlaeus. Who is meant by “the lord of the soil” appears at p. 548 of this volume.

APP3-337 —The ensuing Articles are revised from Cochlaeus, p. 50.

APP3-338 “Whereas no man knoweth,” etc.] —Huss here refers to some of the opinions attributed to Wickliff: see Art. IV. VIII. XVI. at pp. 21, 22, of this volume.

APP3-339 “Written under the name and authority of Jerome, in Causa 24, q. 1, cap. 14, ‘Haec est fides, Papa beatissime.’ “ ] —Cochlaeus (p. 51) says in his margin at this Article, “Verba Hieron. non ad August. sed ad Damasum scripta sunt.” The same remark is made by the Romish Doctors in their reply to these objections of Huss. (Cochl. pp. 50, 51.)

The editor of the Decretals of Gregory IX. held the same opinion. And Huss was not ignorant of this circumstance; for in his “De Ecclesia,” cap. 16, he argues against the inference which the papists draw from the passage, on the supposition of its being written (as the canon law represents) to pope Damasus: at cap. 21, however, of the same treatise he says, “Ad dictum beati Hieronymi de explanatione fidei dictum est cap. 16, supponendo quod fuisset locutus ad Damasum Papam; sed multis libris antiquis conspectis comperimus, quod scripsit ad beatum Augustinum, quem saepius vocat Papam in suis Epistolis. (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 243.)

Subsequent critics, however, have decided that the letter here quoted is incorrectly assigned to Jerome, and belongs really to Pelagius; who wrote “Libellus fidei ejus Romam missus ad Innocentium, de quo Augus. de Gratia Christi, cap. 30, 32, et 33.” (Riveti Crit. Sac. lib. cap. 7.) “Pelagio haeresiarchae velut legitimo parenti omnium virorum erud. suffragio jam adjudicatur: cui diserte illam tribuunt S. Aug. de peccato orig. c. 21, et Zosimus, epist. 2 ad Africanos Episc. in causa Pelagii.” (Natalis Alexandri Hist. Eccles. saec. 4 tom. 7 p. 327, edit.

Bingae, 1787.) The objection of Huss, though thus losing its strength in this instance, may however be supported from other cases: see Archbp. Usher’s “Religion of the Ancient Irish,” chap. 7, end; and more especially Bingham’s “Christian Antiquities,” book 11 chap. 2, § 7.

APP3-340 —Cochlaeus (Hist. p. 63) says: “At omnium miserrime vexabatur clerus Catholicus, intus et foris, a laicis et a clericis, qui evangelicos sese vocabant: quin etiam a mulierculis et a pueris, ex obedientiae enim lege cogebantur serrate interdictum, ubicunque praesens erat Hus.”

APP3-341 —This letter of pope John is in Cochlaeus, pp. 22, 23, whence some corrections have been made in the translation.

APP3-342 —This story is found in Nicholas de Clemangis, “Disputatio super materia Concilii Generalis,” and is printed in the “Fasciculus rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum,” fol. 201, whence Foxe no doubt took it.

APP3-343 “The space, already, of thirty-six years .”] —Foxe says, “the space, as I said, of twenty-nine years,” and refers to the passage at p. 17 of this volume; where, however, all the editions read correctly xxxix: see also p. 778 of vol. 2 Cochlaeus (whom Foxe seems still to have before him, p. 68) says, that the schism already “xxx annis pias fidelium mentes male vexaverat,” when the council of Pisa was called to put an end to it: the council of Constance came six years later, whence the emendation of Foxe’s text.

APP3-344 “Three years and five months” —is put in for Foxe’s “four years:” the council opened Nov. 16th, 1414, and ended April 22d, 1418.

APP3-345 —It is a mistake of Foxe to represent the same four presidents as acting during the whole council: the list here given will be found in Labbe’s Concilia, tom. 12 col. 61, as presiding over the tenth session.

APP3-346 —The edition of 1563, p. 183, reads 3940, and “Philip and Cheiny,” etc. This last expression seems a satirical allusion to the motley assemblage represented as having resorted to the council; see p. 423, and the note thereon in this Appendix. The phrase is used by Becon (vol. 3, p. 276, Parker Society Ed.);— “They pray for Philippe and Chenye More than a good meany [sort].” The phrase seems equivalent to “Tag, Rag, and Bobtail:” Philip was a pet name for a sparrow, and Cheiny, perhaps, for a dog. See Nares’s Glossary.

APP3-347 —Foxe reads “four years:” see the note on p. 416, line 38.

APP3-348 —A similar recapitulation by Binius is printed in Labbe’s Concilia, 12 cols. 289-294, with the dates of the different sessions: some very important corrections are thence made in Foxe’s text.

APP3-349 —A very large collection of documents relative to the Council of Constance was made by Hermann Von der Hardt, professor of Oriental Languages at Helmstadt, and printed at Frankfort, 1697, tom. in 3 vols, fol., intituled “Historia Oecumenici Concilii Constantiensis, de Universali Ecclesiasticae Disciplines Reformations:” several useful hints are introduced from Hardt’s work in the ensuing notes. The Decree referred to in the note is in Hardt, tom. 3, p. 522, and Labbe, 12 sess. 19:—“Praesens sanctae synodus ex quovis salvoconductu per imperatorem, reges, et alios saeculi principes, haereticis vel de haeresi diffamatis, putantes eosdem sic a suis erroribus revocare (quocunque vinculo se adstrinxerint), concesso nullum fidei catholicae vel jurisdictioni ecclesiasticae praejudicium generari vel impedimentum praestari posse seu debere declarat; quo minus (dicto salvoconductu non obstante) liceat judici competenti ecclesiastico de hujusmodi personarum erroribus inquirere et alias contra sos debite procedere, eosdemque punire quantum justitia suadebit, si suos errores revocare pertinaciter recusaverint, etiamsi de salvoconductu confisi ad locum venerint judicii (alias non venturi), [Lips. et Goth. add] nec sic promittentem, cum alias fecerit quod in ipso est, ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum.”

APP3-350 —See Labbe, 12 col. 273.

APP3-351 “The twenty-fifth session. ] —John bishop of Lithomyssel was put in commendam of the diocese of Olmutz, vacant by the death of Wenceslaus, patriarch of Antioch, till the appointment of a new pope.

This Wenceslaus is mentioned by Huss at p. 445.

APP3-352 “These things thus prepared,” etc.] —This paragraph is very inaccurate as it stands in Foxe: it is corrected from Labbe’s Concilia, cols. 251,252. The emperor is said to have walked “in magno-luto.” (MS. Vindobonense, cited by Von der Hardt, tom. 3, p. 1490.)

APP3-353 “John, bishop of Catania .”] —In Von der Hardt this person is called “Johannes de Podiomiris, Episcopus Cathamensis, frater ordinis Praedicatorum, sacrae theologiae professor.”

APP3-354 —The account in the text of the motley assemblage at the council of Constance will be found in the Paralipomena Urspergensis Chronici, p. 291. Cochlaeus, p. 69, says that there were 30,000 horses at Constance at one time: 4 patriarchs, 29 cardinals, 47 archbishops, 160 bishops, and a vast number of abbots, priors, and clergy; besides secular princes in crowds.

APP3-355 —From this place to p. 530 Foxe follows the “Historia et Monumenta Johannis Huss,” etc.

APP3-356 —This safe-conduct is so often referred to, that a copy of the original is given: it may be well to mention, that in Rymer’s Feedera, tom. 5 pp. 352, 392, will be found two papal bulls, directing that faith was not to be kept with heretics, dated A.D. 1378, 3 and 4 Rich. II.

The following is the Latin safe-conduct given to Huss:—“Sigismundus Dei gratia Romanorum Rex, semper Augustus, et Hungariae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, etc. Rex, universis et singulis Principibus ecclesiasticis et secularibus, Ducibus et Marchionibus, Comitibus, Baronibus, Nobilibus, Proceribus, Militaribus, Militibus, Clientibos, Capitaneis, Potestatibus, Gubernatoribus, Praesidibus, Publicanis, Officialibus quibuscunque Civitatum, Oppidorum, villarum, et locorum communitatibus, ac Rectoribus eorundem, caeterisque nostris et sacri Imperil subditis et fidelibus, ad quos praesentes literae pervenerint, gratiam Regiam et omne bonum. “Venerabiles, Illustres, nobiles et fideles dilecti, honorabilem Magistrum Joannem Hus, sacrae Theologiae Baccalaureum et Artium Magistrum, praesen-tium ostensorem, de regno Bohemiae ad Concilium generale in civitate Constantiensi celebrandum in proximo transeuntem, quem etiam in nostram et sacri Imperii protectionem recepimus et tutelam, nobis omnibus et vestrum cuilibet pleno recommendamus affectu; desiderantes quatenus ipsum, cum ad vos pervenerit, grate suscipere, favorabiliter tractare, atque in his quae ad celeritatem et securitatem itineris ipsius pertinent, tam per terram, quam per aquam, promotivam sibi velitis et debeatis ostendere voluntatem, nec non ipsum cum famulis, equis, et allis rebus suis singulis, per quoscunque passus, portus, ponteis, terras, dominia, jurisdictiones, civitates, oppida, castra, villas, et quaelibet alia loca vestra, sine ulla solutione tributi, telonii, aut alio quovis solutionis onere, omnique prorsus impedimento remoto, transire, stare, morari, et redire libere permittatis, sibique et suis, cure opus fuerit, de securo et salvo velitis et debeatis providere conductu, ad honorem et reverentiam nostrae Majestatis. Datum Spirae, anno Domini M.CCCCXIV. die Octobris 18, Regnorum nostrorum Anno Hungariae, etc. 33, Romanorum vero Quinto. “Ad mandatum Domini Regis, Michael de Pacest, Canonicus Uratislaviensis.” APP3-357 —“Fama hujusmodi”— “Sine mea culpa,” Latin.

APP3-358 “Certified .”] — “Comprobavit,” Latin; Foxe “approved.”

APP3-359 —“Quae sunt in eo,” Latin.

APP3-360 —The corrections of names and dates in this paragraph and in the ensuing document are derived from the “Hist. et Men.” tom. 1 fol. 4.

APP3-361 —” Baccalaurei formati in sacra theologia,” Latin.

APP3-362 . “The public Procuration .”] —See Hist. et Men. fol. 3, 4; where it is “procuratione” in the original; but this is an evident mistake for “congregatione,” which occurs a few lines below in the instrument.

It is called “convocation,” next page, in the “letter which Huss fixed on the public places of the cities on his way to Constance:” the Latin there is “conventu,” which would be better rendered by “congregation.”

APP3-363 —The list of names is revised from the original, in “Hist. et Mon.”

APP3-364 “In all cities as he passed by,” etc.] —“In omnibus itaque civitatibus, maxime vero cum in Germaniam venisset, ingens ad eum multitudo confluxit. Ab ipsis vero hospitibus per omneis Germaniae civitates, a civibus, et nonnunquam ab ipsis etiam Parochis summa humanitate et liberalitate acceptus est, adeo ut ipse Joannes Hus in quadam epistola fateatur, se nusquam majores inimicitias quam in Bohemia expertum esse.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. fol. 4.)

APP3-365 “The mines of gold in Gilowy: which were perished and lost .”] —Foxe says “Gilory,” following the Latin, which says, “Aurifodinae in Giloroy, quae perierant.” Busching, however, in his Geography, 4 p. 80, says: “Gilowey, Eylau, Eule, or Gilovia, a royal mine-town, near which gold was formerly dug, in the circle of Kaurzim, Bohemia.”

APP3-366 “The twentieth day after,” etc.] —Cochlaeus (Hist. lib. 2 p. 84) says that Huss left Prague the Thursday before St. Gall’s Day (which feast was October 16th, and fell on a Tuesday in 1414); and that he arrived at Constance the Saturday after the feast of All Saints (which feast was November 1, and fell on a Thursday, in 1414); and that he lodged “in Platea S. Pauli:” all this agrees with Foxe’s text, except the place of residence.

APP3-367 “Who was the first and bitterest accuser of the said John Huss .”] —“Michaele de Causis, primo Joannis Hus et acerrimo accusatore.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 4.) Foxe merely says: “Who had before falsely accused and blamed the said John Huss.”

APP3-368 —“Ex apostematis dolore mortuus est.” (Hist. et Mon.)

APP3-369 “The borough-master of the town of Constance,” etc.] —“Cum consule Constantiensi Henrico de Ulm, et quodam nobili viro,” Von der Hardt, 3, p. 22; who also, at p. 11, mentions Fredericus Grafcheck as bishop of Augsburg.

APP3-370 —“Didacus” is the Latin for the Spanish name “Diego.”

APP3-371 “Provost of the Roman court .”] —He is called by Hardt, tom. 3, p. 22, “Episcopus Lausanensis Camerae Apostolicae regens.”

APP3-372“After this, the said John Huss,” &e.] —“Qui postea in Cantoris Constantiensis Ecclesiae domum ductus, per satellites in octavum usque diem ibi sub custodia fuit, inde in monasterium Praedicatorum ad Rhenum perductus, et carceri ejus monasterii, ipsi latrinae proximo, mandatus est.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 5.) “Jacobites” was one term for the Preaching or Dominican friars: friar Wideford (Gratius’s “Fasciculus,” fol. 133) says: “Fratres Praedicatores non dicebantur Jacobitae in principio sed posterius valde casualiter: quia Parisiis morabantur juxta portam Sancti Jacobi.” But Matth. Westm., sub anno 1198, speaking of Innocent III., says: “Ejus favore exortum est in Italia novum genus ordinis Praedicatorum qui Jacobitae voluerunt appellari, quia vitam apostolicam videbantur imitari.”

APP3-373 —Von der Hardt says (3 p. 22), that Huss was taken to the house of the praecentor of Constance November 28th: he also, at p. 32, gives a letter of the Bohemians to the Council, reproaching them for the first imprisonment of Huss; he adds, that Paletz made a handle of this letter for getting Huss removed to worse and severer confinement in the Dominican monastery, January 3d, 1415. Hardt adds, at p. 33, another letter of the Bohemian lords, in consequence of this removal. Either Foxe and his author are wrong as to the “8 days,” or they omit the first prison.

APP3-374 “These articles here under written .”] —The original is in Hist. et Mon. fol. 6, whence considerable improvements have been introduced into Foxe’s translation.

APP3-375 —“Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus, Episcopus Castellae, et Episcopus a Libuss.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 7.) Lebus is mentioned supra, vol. 2 pp. 488, 492. Darcher, in his list of those present at the council of Constance, includes “Johannes episcopus de Lebus in Marchia.” The bishop of Castel-a-Mare was “Marinus de Sancta Agatha, canon de Ferma;” he was bishop A.D. 1402-1421 (Richard and Giraud, Bibliotheque Sacree). In Von der Hardt (tom. 3, p. 33) we read, that on Friday, January 4th, 1415, a general congregation was held, where John Dominici, cardinal of Ragusa, and John, patriarch of Constantinople, were admitted to the council as ambassadors of pope Gregory XII.; p. 37, we read at January 22 of Dominus Johannes Electus Constantinopolitanus. It is curious that Hardt (tom. 4 p. 1474) mentions John Pat. Const., but at the election of Martin V. (p. 1479) names Francis Lando, Venetus, as patriarch of Constantinople. Moreri says Lando was patriarch of Grado and afterwards of Constantinople.

APP3-376 —Foxe does not mention the removal of Huss to this third prison; but Von der Hardt says he was removed from the Dominican to the Franciscan convent “Dominica Oculi,” i.e. third Sunday in Lent, March 3d, 1415. Nicolas’s Tables show that Palm Sunday in 1415 fell on March 24th, and Von der Hardt shows that John XXIII. fled March 21st.

APP3-377 —Darcher’s list gives “Marchio Comes Otto de Hochberg, and Gallia Christiana “Otho de Hochber et Rottel,” as bishop of Constance from 1411 to about 1433.

APP3-378 “The deputies of the four nations,” etc.] —“Quatuor nationum,.., deputatis.” (Hist. et Mon. tom 1 fol. 7.)

APP3-379 —For “1409,” Foxe has “1410;” wherein, however, he follows his author; for the “Hist. et Mon.” reads “MCCCC.X,” where an I has clearly dropped out before X; the Council of Pisa sat March 25th- August 7th, 1409. (Nicolas.)

APP3-380 —“John of Prague” was bishop of Lythomysl in Moravia.

APP3-381 “The sixteenth day of May .”] —Foxe says “the seventeenth.”

Whitsunday, 1415, fell on May 19th; and the fourth day before would be May 16th, which was Thursday, and the reply of the Bohemian lords made on Saturday ‘pridie Pent.’ (p. 442) is said to be two days after this meeting, and refers to this as held on Thursday. Foxe has, however, followed his copy in his false date; for Von der Hardt, 3, p. 188 and 208, has several times to correct this error in Crispin, Theobald, and some very old writers whom he cites.

APP3-382 —From hence to p. 449 Foxe’s translation of the documents have been considerably corrected from the original Latin in “Historia et Monumenta Job. Huss, etc.”

APP3-383 “The rival popes. ”] —“Colludentes de papatu” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 9), meaning Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII., who were declared schismatics, heretics, and perjurers, by the council of Pisa, June 5th, 1409, and deposed. (See Nicolas’s Chron. of History.)

APP3-384 —One John Vitalis was patriarch of Antioch.

APP3-385 “The fifth day of June .”] —This day Huss was brought up from the prison at Gottlieben, and lodged again for his last month in the Franciscan convent. (Hardt, tom 3, p. 306.)

APP3-386 “Through their advice,” etc.] —This and the following sentence are altered from Foxe’s words. He says:—“Through their advice the prelates and others departed from the council for that present, and appointed to meet there again on the morrow after, to proceed in judgment. The next day, which was the seventh of June, on which day the sun was almost wholly eclipsed, somewhat after about seven of the clock, this same flock assembled again in the cloister of the friars minor, and by their appointment John Huss was brought before them, accompanied with a great number of armed men.” But the Latin original says: “Ex istorum itaque consilio senatus dimissus, et judicium in perendianum diem iterum est constitutum. Eo igitur die, qui erat septimus Junii, horam circiter septimam, cum paulo ante totalis pene Solis Eclypsis visa esset, iterum in refectorium fratrum minorum iidem qui antea convenerunt, et Joannera Hus magna turba armatorum milltum cinctum coram els sisti mandarunt.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 7.) The table of eclipses in L’Art de Ver. des Dates states this eclipse to have happened at 7 A.M. June 7th: it was however a little before 7.

APP3-387 “The cardinal of Cambray “ ] —was Peter d’Ailly, formerly bishop of Cambray, created presbyter-cardinal of St. Chrysogon by John XXIII. in 1411; he died 1425. (Moreri’s Dict. 5 Cardinal.)

APP3-388 “Do you prove,” etc.] —See Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 12.

APP3-389 “The cardinal of -Florence “] —was Francesco Zabarella, a Paduan, archbishop of Florence, created presbyter-cardinal of St.

Cosmo and St. Damian, by John XXIII.; he died 1417. (Moreri’s Dict. 5 Cardinal.)

APP3-390 “Then said the cardinal again unto him .”] —This would imply the cardinal of Florence: the Latin (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 13) says, “Tum cardinalis;” and the margin adds, “Cameracen.”

APP3-391 “Hath craftily and deceitfully drawn,” etc.] —“Eumque insidiose articulos quosdam ex libris tuis, qui post proferentur, excerpsisse.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 13.)

APP3-392 “Did withstand, etc.”] —“Restitisse condemnationi articulorum Wicleff, quae primum in Romano concilio facts est.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 13.)

APP3-393 “This article,” said Huss, “I have thus limited,” &e.] —“Hunc articulum, inquit, limitavi, ita ut dicerem, eum indigne consecrare et baptizare, quia tune cure est in peccato mortali, sit indignus minister sacramentorum Dei,” &e. See Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 13.

APP3-394 . “An archbishop Of England .”] —As neither Canterbury nor York was there, this, most probably, was the bishop of Salisbury, who is mentioned perpetually in Von der Hardt’s vol. 3, and 4, and always as “archiepiscopus Salisburiensis.” Thus his arrival at the council is announced, vol. 3, January 31, and his death toward the end of the council, tom. 4. See also the note in this Appendix on p. 515, line from the bottom.

APP3-395 “Neither take part,” etc. ] —“Ut neque Gregorio Romano pontifici adhaereret, neque Benedicto XII., Avincensi pontifici, qui etiam papae titulum habebat, ut in Chronicis videre licet.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 14.)

APP3-396 “Saint Wenceslaus. ”] —“Divi Wenceslai,” Latin; “the lord Wenceslaus,” Foxe.

APP3-397 —In Darcher’s list we have among the auditors of the Rots, Nicholas Naso, decretorum doctor.

APP3-398 “Deprived of part,” etc.] —“Ibi Germani indigne ferentes se parte suffragiorum, quae tria habuerant, fraudatos esse.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 14.)

APP3-399 “Dean of the faculty of arts .”] —“Deacon of the faculties,” Foxe; “Albertus Warentrapius, qui tum erat decanus facultatis artium.” (Hist. et Mon. 1 fol. 14.)

APP3-400 “Rigensis .”] —This person is called by Von der Hardt “Johannes a Wallenrod” (vol. 3, p. 23), and by Darcher, in his list of prelates at the council, “Johannes Waldrod.”

APP3-401 “Unto whom John Huss,” etc.] —“Ad quem Joannes Hus; Primum, inquit, Clementiae tuae, rex serenissime, de literis publicae fidei ago gratias immortales. Atque hic interpellatus cure non excusaret se de crimine pertinaciae, admonitus a domino Joanne de Chlum.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 15.)

APP3-402 —Foxe erroneously says, “this bishop of Cambray.” The cardinal of Cambray, Peter d’Ailly, resigned his bishopric when he became cardinal; and we find, accordingly, in Darcher’s list of the prelates at the council (in Von der Hardt), “Johannes de Lidberkken, episcopus Cameracensis in Francia.”

APP3-403 “The audience;”] —i e. some of Huss’s hearers at his public lectures and sermons. In explanation of this it is to be observed, that Cochlaeus (Hist. Hussit. p. 116) states, that Vitalis Valentini, bishop of Toulon, in Provence, and Alan, bishop of Leon, in France, were sent to Prague by the Fathers of the Council, to collect evidence against John Huss on the spot, from those who had heard his lectures and sermons.

APP3-404 —Foxe, misled by the Latin (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 22), reads “Canonicals” for “Canticles.”

APP3-405 —Huss, in his “De ecclesia,” cap. 21, observes, that eight circumstances were held to be necessary to make an action virtuous, which were comprised in this verse:— “Quis, quid, ubi, quantum, quot, cur, quomodo, quando;” where for “cur” we should, perhaps, read “quare.” (Hist. et Mon. to.n. i. fol. 246.)

APP3-406 “Whereas I was not even present .”] —It is remarkable that Foxe omits this clause; though the original is quite distinct, “Cure ego ne adfuerim quidem.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 24.) See the note on p. 410, note (1).

APP3-407 “In those three laymen. ”] —” In illis tribus laicis.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 25.) Foxe erroneously reads “two.”

APP3-408 “The copy of a certain epistle .”] —This testimonial is given in Wilkins (vol. 3, p. 302), dated “Oxonii, in domo nostrae congregationis, quinto die mensis Octobris 1406:” ex MS. Cotton.

Faust. c. 7. See the translation of it by Foxe, sup. pp. 57, 58, and a note upon it.

APP3-409 — In the passage in question Huss is expounding Daniel 11:31-33, and applies it thus: “Illius textus intelligentiam exponit facti experientia, quia docti per gratiam Dei simplices laici et sacerdotes docent plurimos vitae bonae exemplo, et contradicentes publice Antichristi mendacis verbo, ruunt in gladio. Ut patet de laicis, Joanne, Martino et Stascone, qui contradicentes Antichristi discipulis mendacibus in gladio corruerunt.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 245.) See the note supra, on p. 410, line 28.

APP3-410 “The bishop of Lodi.” ] —The same person as is mentioned at p. 419. Foxe here calls his title “Londe;” Cochlaeus says, “episcopus Londoniensis:” L’Enfant, in his History of the council of Constance, calls him the bishop of “London.” The bishop of London at this time was Richard Clifford, whom Godwin (de Praes.), on L’Enfant’s authority, states to have been at Constance, and to have preached before the emperor and council. The above statement, however, does not seem correct; for in the recapitulation of the acts of the council (supra, p. 419), which is given by Labbe, vol. 12 col. 289, he is distinctly called “Jacobus Laudensis episcopus,” i.e. of Lodi. The historical narrative near the end of “Hist. et Mon. Joh. Huss.” etc. fol. 345, says that the surname of this bishop of Lodi was Monachus, or Monk. See the note on p. 523.

APP3-411 “Quod sit quarts persona Divinitatis futurus. ”] —(Hist. et Mon. tom. 1 fol. 27.) Milner takes this to mean, that Huss thought “he himself should become a fourth person in the Deity.”

APP3-412 —The seven bishops were, the arch-bishop of Milan, and the bishops of Feltri, Asti, Alexandria, Bangor, and Lavaur (Cochlaeus, p. 111); and a Leipsic MS. adds, the two suffragans of the bishops of Constance and Bangor. (Hardt, tom. 3, p. 437.)

APP3-413 —Concerning John Przibram, see Cochlaeus, lib. 2 pp. 74, 75; whence it appears as if this account of Huss were taken out of the treatise of Przibram, “De non remanentia panis, contra Wiclevistas.”

APP3-414 —Von der Hardt interprets “supreme cardinal” to mean the bishop of Ostia, who presided (3 p. 307).

APP3-415 —The reference should be to p. 98 of Cochlaeus.

APP3-416 “The tragical... history of ... Master Jerome of Prague .”]:—The ensuing narrative Foxe has derived from the same work as that which furnished the account of John Huss: “Johannis Huss et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et Monumenta: Noribergae, 1558.” Two accounts of Jerome are given in this work, the first at tom. 2 fol. 349, and another at folio 354. Foxe has chiefly made use of the first of these accounts: some corrections of the text, and additional notices of events, have been derived from thence by the Editor.

APP3-417 —This preamble from the edition of 1563 is a translation of the Latin account, Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 349.

APP3-418 “The memory of this most worthy man may, by favor of the author of truth, etc.] —Acta ipsius Magistri Hieronymi decrevi ... in unum redigere, pro ipsius venerandi magistri vivaci memoria, veritatis authore et ejus confessorum praaemiatore donante” (Latin). Foxe’s text absurdly says, “That the memory of this most worthy man, being the author of truth, may hereafter be the more famously celebrate and remembered.”

APP3-419 “On the fourth day of April .”] —Cochlaeus (Hist. p. 71) says, on the authority of Ulricus Reichental, a professed eye-witness, that Jerome came to Constance “feria secunda post festum Paschae,” i.e.

Monday, April lst: but both accounts in “Hist. et Mort.” say, that it was on the feast of St. Ambrose, and the first adds “feria quinta [i. e.

Thursday], quarts die Aprilis.”

APP3-420 “The intimations,” etc.] —This is given in Von der Hardt, under Session 5, dated April 7th, A.D. 1415.

APP3-421 “Jerome returned again into Bohemia. ”] —Von der Hardt (tom. 3, p. 103) states, that Jerome adopted the resolution of returning on Tuesday, April 9th; and (at p. 685) he gives a copy of the Testimonial of the Bohemian nobles, dated “feria tertia post octavas Paschae, A.D. 1415,” i.e. Tuesday, April 9th.

APP3-422 “Brought Master Jerome bound unto the Council .”] —Read “sent” for “brought;” “destinavit” (Latin, folio 350), “misit,” (folio 355). See also the context. Jerome reached Constance again May 23d. (Von der Hardt, 3, p. 481.)

APP3-423 —Von der Hardt states, that what follows occurred in the 17th Session, Friday, July 19th. (3 p. 481.)

APP3-424 —This “duke John, son of Clement,” (as he is called in both the accounts in “Hist. et Mon.”) is by Cochlaeus (p. 71) called “Praefectus Vici.” Foxe in a few lines calls him brother to duke Louis, who is called by his authority “alter filius Clementis.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 355.)

APP3-425 “The master of the university of Cologne .”] —The second account says merely, “Magister Coloniensis, nescio quis.” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 355.)

APP3-426 “The archbishop of Saltzburg .”] —We should probably read “Salisbury;’ for the first account (folio 350) says, “archiepiscopus Salisburgensis;” and the second (folio 355) says, “archiepiscopus Angliae:” this confirms, and is confirmed by, the conjecture thrown out in the note on p. 454, line 25.

APP3-427 “Looking in at a window of the refectory. ”] —“Circa fenestram refectorii foris dixit.” (“ Hist. et Mon.” tom. 2 fol. 350.) The “refectorium fratrum minorum in Constantia” had been previously mentioned as the place where the council assembled to see Jerome on his return to Constance, and where the foregoing proceedings had been going on: he is stated to have been hitherto lodging with the duke Louis “filius Clementis.” (Lat. fol. 355.) This Hussite came to the window of the refectory, while Jerome was waiting after the proceedings were over, “ut de vespere in captivitatem ducatur.”

APP3-428 “Then Master Peter asked,” etc.] —“Et Petrus rogabat, quatenus eidem [i. e. Hieronymo] cibaria permittant dari, quia copiam illorum M. Hieronymo vellet procurare.” (Latin, folio 351.)

APP3-429 “About the feast of Mary the Virgin. ”] —That feast was Sept. 8th, and Jerome was brought forward both on the 8th and the 11th of September. (Von der Hardt.)

APP3-430 “They forced him to abjure .”] —According to Von der Hardt (3 pp. 497, 499) Jerome recanted twice: first, Sept. 11th; secondly, on Monday, Sept. 23d. He says that the abjuration presently given by Foxe was the second, and contains in its last paragraph but one a reference to the first abjuration.

APP3-431 “The forced abjuration,” etc.] —This is printed in Labbe’s Concilia, 12 col. 164.

APP3-432 “And I, the said Jerome,” etc.] —Two or three changes in this paragraph are made on the authority of the Latin account.

APP3-433 “The cardinal de Ursinis .”] —Jourdain des Ursins, a Roman, archbishop of Naples, presbyter-cardinal of St. Martin of the Mountains, bishop of Albano and Sabine, grand penitentiary of the Roman church, and legate in Spain, France, Hungary, Bohemia, and to the Council of Basil; created cardinal by Innocent VII. in 1405, died 1439. (Moreri’s Diet. 5 Cardinal.)

APP3-434 . “The patriarch of Constantinople and a German doctor.”] — “Johannes patriarcha Constantinop. et venerabilis vir, Nicholaus de Dinckelsphuel, doctor in sacra pagina,” had been previously appointed at a general session “commissarii in re fidei” to examine into Jerome’s cause; and on Monday, April 27th, A.D. 1416, produced their articles against him, and were directed to communicate them to him in prison. (Von der Hardt, 3, p. 751.)

APP3-435 —The connection between the patriarch of Constantinople and Huss may be seen supra, pp. 438, 460.

APP3-436 “The twenty-third day of May; ’’] —Foxe says “twenty-fifth,” following the Latin die 25 mensis Maii (fol. 352): it is plain, however, from Nicolas’s Tables that Saturday fell on the 23d May, in 1416: see also Von der Hardt, tom. 3, p. 748. See the note next following this.

APP3-437 “The Tuesday after .”] —Foxe says “the third day after, mistranslating “feriam tertiam ante Ascensionem Domini, post dictum Sabbathum immediate sequentem.” This incidentally proves that the Saturday preceding was the 23d of May (see the last note); for, by Nicolas’s Tables, Ascension day in 1416 fell on May 28th.

APP3-438 . “As when one of them had demanded,” etc.] —Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 356.

APP3-439 “Another then was,” etc.] —From hence to “inhumanity towards him” (p. 522) is taken by Foxe from the letter of Poggius to Aretin. (Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 358.)

APP3-440 “Socrates, Boethius, Maro, Seneca, Plato; et multi alii.”] — (Von der Hardt, p. 758.)

APP3-441 “Their inhumanity towards him. ”] — “Adversus se inhumanitatem” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 358); which Foxe’s text uncouthly renders, “their unkind humanity towards him.”

APP3-442 “When he had spoken these,” etc.] —(Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 352.)

APP3-443 “The Saturday next after the Ascension day.”] — “Sabbatho autem post Ascensionem Domini” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 352); Foxe says, “The Saturday next before the Ascension day,” in which he is borne out by the other Latin account, “Tandem die Saturni ante ferias Ascensionis” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 356); but this is wrong: see Von der Hardt, tom. 3, p. 768. Ascension day fell on May 28th, and Jerome was martyred “3 Cal. Junias,” i.e. May 30th (see the letter of Poggius to Aretin. Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 359).

APP3-444 “The bishop of Lodi .”] —The same person as preached at Huss’s condemnation: he is rightly called “Laudensis episcopus” (Hist. et Mon. tom. 2 fol. 352), but incorrectly “Lugdunensis,” at fol. 356: he is termed “Jacobus episcopus Laudensis” by Cochlaeus (p. 132), who gives the sermon itself. See the note on p. 486.

APP3-445 “Twenty-nine years .”] —Foxe says, “twenty-five:” see note on p. 404.

APP3-446 —This history of Claydon is in Wilkins’s Concilia, 3, pp. 371- 375. Thomas Fauconer is there mentioned as the mayor of London at the time.

APP3-447 “David Beard,” etc.] —are mentioned in Wilkins as three of Claydon’s servants.

APP3-448 —“Quo die Lunae, videlicet decimo nono die dicti mensis” (Wilkins). Foxe wrongly calls it “the twentieth.”

APP3-449 —In Wilkins, 3, 377, is an account of a convocation which met April 1st, 1416, and was afterward adjourned to November 9th; and on November 23d, John Barton, who had been defamed of heresy, “juramento se purgavit.”

APP3-450 —The submission of William James is given in Wilkins, 3, p. 397, and stated to have been made on Palm Sunday,“ultimo die Martii, 1420, indictione decima tertia, pontif. Martini tertio.”

APP3-451 —The process against Jourdelay and Dertford is in Wilkins, 3, p. 498, “die Jovis, 15 Julii, 1428.”

APP3-452 “At the same sitting... Master Robert .”] —See Wilkins, 3 p. 493, July 20th.

APP3-453 “Richard, bishop of Lincoln .”] —This was Richard Fleming, bishop from May 24th, A.D. 1420, to January 25th, A.D. 1430. (Richardson’s Godwin.)

APP3-454 “William Hervey .”] —Foxe miscalls him “William Henry.” His appearance on Wednesday, July 21st, 1420, and with him, of “Johannes Calle,” is mentioned in Wilkins, 3, p. 494.

APP3-455 “One Radulph Mungin .”] —Wilkins introduces Radulphus Mungyn, tom. 3, p. 497, November 26th, 1428: he is again examined Die Jovis, December 2d; again next day, December 3d. In the course of this last day’s examination it appears that he was a friend of Monk, Cornmonger, Hooper, Garenter, and one Shadworth. December 4th, the proceedings against him are reviewed, from whence it seems that he was first cited before a court which sat at St. Michael Bassishaw, July 27th, 1428, and next day at St. Paul’s chapter-house, when he refused to own himself a heretic, and was committed to prison till he was produced again November 26th, four months after. On this December 4th he was once more offered to abjure, but refused, and was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. He is now introduced November 26th.

APP3-456 —The convocation at which the application was first made for these subsidies, met July 5th: the pope’s nuncio was named Conzo de Zwola: the subject was renewed in November. (See Wilkins.)

Meanwhile Mungin had spoken against them, and was summoned July 27th, as above stated.

APP3-457 “Peter Clerk “] —is the same person who is before in this volume called “Peter Paine” (see p. 97). For his disputation at the council of Basil, see pp. 577, 679, of this volume.

APP3-458 —The process against William Russel is in Wilkins, 3, pp. 438- 459; it began on Tuesday, May 15th, 1425, and closed March 21st, 1427.

APP3-459 —This appearance of Mungin was on Dec. 2d.

APP3-460 —Mungin positively denied that he held this or the next article.

APP3-461 “Moreover,” etc.] —This was Mungin’s appearance on December 3d. (Wilkins, 3, pp. 408-500.)

APP3-462 —This was the next day, Saturday, December 4th. (Wilkins, 3, pp. 500-502.)

APP3-463 “The next sitting..,.divers and sundry times afterwards,” etc.] —Foxe has quite mistaken the drift of the Register, which here introduces a review of all the previous examinations of Mungin from July 27th, and then adds one more for this present day (December 4th), which was his final appearance.

APP3-464 —The bishop of Rochester, in 1428, was John Langdon.

APP3-465 — “I held no scripture catholic or holy, but only what is contained in the Bible .”] —The Reverend S. R. Maitland, in his new volume on the “Dark Ages,” observes, that the term “Scripturae,” and even “Sacrae Scripturae,” was applied to all kinds of religious compositions, and whatever was read in churches. See another example of this use of the term in p. 672 (see the note in this Appendix): also in the Life of Cardinal Wolsey, Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biogr. vol. 1 p. (Ed. 1839) “And at the last he fetched a great sighe, and saide this texte of scripture in this wise, ‘O Constantia Martyrum laudabilis !’ etc.” which Dr. Wordsworth supposes to be part of some ecclesiastical hymn.

APP3-466 —These two recantations of Monk and Frith are given in Wilkins, vol. 3, pp. 502, 503.

APP3-467 “Articles decreed in the Council of Constance,” etc.] —Foxe’s translation of the ensuing Articles has been revised from the Latin in Cochlaeus (Hist. Hussitarum, lib. 4 p. 165.)

APP3-468 “Christianus de Prachatitz” has been already mentioned in this History: he is mentioned in Cochlaeus, lib. 8 p. 306, with his full titles, as canon of All Saints’ church in Prague castle, and rector of the parish of St. Michael’s in Greater Prague, and of the university of Prague.

APP3-469 —The first half of this page, as far as “the pope’s horse by the bridle,” has been, in some particulars, improved from Walsingham’s History (pp. 442, 443), which contains most of what Foxe cites from the monk of St. Alban’s: thus, at line 5, “six” is put in for Foxe’s “five:” for Walsingham says: “Sex prelati vel aliae honorabiles personae eeclesiasticae in sacris ordinibus constitutae ... sex personae, sicut superius est expressum:” then he mentions, as representatives of the English nation, four bishops and the abbot and the dean of York.

Labbe, also (12 col. 244), sess. 40, Sat. Oct. 30th, 1417, mentions six as the number.

APP3-470 “The pope beginneth to write his letters to the Bohemians. ] — Cochlaeus (p. 175) gives the letter, dated Constance, 8 Cal. April. pontif, nostri anno primo” [March 25th, A.D. 1418].

APP3-471 —The ensuing history of the religious war in Bohemia, as far as p. 557, is drawn from Aeneas Sylvius’s Historia Bohemica, cap. 36, etc. Foxe’s text has been collated with the original, and thoroughly revised. This will account for many deviations from his text, which is full of inaccuracies. L’Enfant’s “Histoire des Hussites et du Concile de Basle” has been consulted. The modern names of places have been sought out with much labor, chiefly through Martiniere’s and Busching’s Geographies.

APP3-472 “The town of Glattou .”] —Aeneas Sylvius reads “nobile monasterium fratrum praedicatorum apud Sclavoniam, extra moenia oppidi situm.” Freherus, in his edition of Sylvius’s Hist. Bohem. (Germ. Script. tom 1) puts in his margin conjecturally, Glacoviam, Opatoviam; but Opataw was distinguished for a Benedictine monastery. Glattau, Klatowy, or Klattau, in the circle of Pilsen, had a famous Dominican monastery (see Busching and Martiniere), and Glattovia might, in MS., easily be taken for Sclavonia. Cochlaeus (p. 172) quotes the words of Sylvius, without changing” Sclavoniam.” He afterwards (p. 197) mentions “Slatovia” as one of the towns of the Taborites, and probably means the same place, when he speaks, at p. 306, of “Augustinus de Slatonia:” where “G” in the MS. might easily have been mistaken by the printer for “S.” Coehlaeus adds the following reason why the Dominicans were the first objects of assault: “Fratres ordinis praedicatorum, qui per solidam Sti. Thomae Aquinatis theologiam haereticis acerrime resistere solent, prae ceteris invisi erant Hussitis: cumque apud Sclavoniam (uti refert Aen. Sylvius) nobile haberent monasterium, extra moenia oppidi situm, primum illi fecerunt in illud impetum.”

APP3-473 “Under the conduct of Nicholas de Hussinetz.”] — “Ductore Nicolao,” Aen. Sylvius, cap. 36; who adds, that he was lord of the village which gave John Huss his birth and cognomen. He has been mentioned already as Huss’s patron, p. 411.

APP3-474 —Trosnovia or Trocksnow was near Borovania in the circle of Brechin. (L’Enfant, p. 100) APP3-475 —Coranda was a priest, who had joined the Hussites, and is mentioned before by Sylvius, cap. 36, as having been useful to Wenceslaus by his disposition to restrain the Hussites from rebellion and violence.

APP3-476 “Zenko de Wartenberg .”] —Aeneas Sylvius calls him “Cenko Wartenbergensis;” Dubravius “Vartembergus;” L’Enfant (p. 134), “Wartemberg.” Cochlaeus (p. 84) uses both forms; the modern maps read “Wartenberg;” it is in the circle of Bunzlau in Bohemia.

APP3-477 —Cochlaeus says (p. 180), that Zencho betrayed the citadel of Prague soon after Easter [which was April 7th, in 1420], about the feast of St. George [April 23d].

APP3-478 —“Qui antiquam Prutenorum civitatem ordini jure pignoris obligasset, Brandeburgenses autem a corona Bohemica alienasset.” (Aen. Syl.) See L’Art de Ver. des Dates, Hist. des Margraves de Brandenburg, articles Wenceslaus, Sigismund, Josse, Sigismund de Nouveau. “Pruteni” means the “New Mark,” or the eastern part of Brandenburg, about the Oder.

APP3-479 —Aeneas Sylvius (cap. 40) thus explains the appellation of Taborires: “Tanquam cum tribus Apostolis Salvatoris Christi transfigurationem in Monte vidissent, indeque suas opiniones mutuati essent, quas ‘fidei veritates’ appellant.” [As if equal with the three Apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration.] But “Tabor,” in Bohemian, means a tent.

APP3-480 —Voticz is between Tabor and Prague. (L’Enfant, p. 134.)

APP3-481 —“Nilco Crussina Litubergensis, et Nilco Valdesteinensis.” (Aen. Sylv.) In Cochlaeus, p. 201, we find in a list of Bohemian nobles, Hyneck Crussina de Lichtenberg, and Nicolaus de Valstein.

APP3-482 —“Reguli Rosenses et Chrageri” (Aen. Sylv.): i.e. Rosenberg and Gradtzy. (L’Enfant, p. 142.)

APP3-483 —Wiclechon means the White Mountain. (Busching.)

APP3-484 —Cochlaeus, p. 214, says: “Comites Kirchburgenses et Gleicenses.”

APP3-485 . “Brisau .”] —Foxe, from Aeneas Sylvius, reads “Priscovia;” but L’Enfant (p. 231) has “Przibislaw.” Brisau is on the frontiers of Bohemia and Moravia.

APP3-486 —This is divided into two by Foxe, improperly (see Labbe and Cherubini); and Articles V. VI. he makes one: he does the same by Articles XV. XVI. and by Articles XVII. XVIII., and by Articles XXVII. XXVIII., and Article XXX. he wholly omits. The effect of all which is to reduce the number of Articles to XXVI.; whereas the text at p. 564, line 7, alludes to them as “the thirty Articles of John Huss above-written.” The Articles of Huss were condemned by the council of Constance in the 15th Session, Saturday, July 6th, A.D. 1415. (Labbe, 12 col. 129.)

APP3-487 —In the original bull, the articles of Wickliff are inserted at full length: they are omitted here, as having been given before; but Foxe gives no notice whatever of them here, which makes the allusion at p. 564, line 7, unintelligible; the line, “The Articles of John Wickliff to be enquired upon,” is therefore put 3, The Articles of Wickliff were condemned by the council of Constance in the 8th Session, Saturday, May 4th, A.D. 1415. ( Labbe, 12 col. 45.)

APP3-488 “Above-written .”] —The articles of Wickliff are “abovewritten” in the Latin bull, as well as those of Huss: see the notes on p. 561. The word “above-written” is not in Foxe, but is put in from the Latin.

APP3-489 —The last long sentence of the bull is re-translated from the original. The Constitutions of Boniface VIII. and “De duabus diaetis” are also referred to in pope Innocent’s bull supra, vol 2 p. 524 (see the note there). The decree “De duabus diaetis” runs thus: “Nonnulli, gratia sedis apostolicae abutentes, literas ejus ad remotos judices impetrare nituntur, ut reus fatigatus laboribus et expensis liti cedere vel importunitatem actoris redimere compellatur. Cum autem per judicium injuriis aditus patere non debeat, quas juris observantia interdicit; statuimus ne quis ultra duas diaetas extra suam dioecesim trahi possit, nisi de assensu partium literae fuerint impetratae, vel expressam de hac constitutione fecerint mentionem.”

APP3-490 —This bull of pope Martin is given in Labbe, tom. 12, and in Cherubini’s Bullarium; also by Von der Hardt (tom. 4 p. 1518), who remarks, that it is to be found in many Roman Catholic MSS. with different prefaces, suited to the nations addressed. He gives the preface to that for England, addressed to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the bishops of London, Rochester, Chichester, Winchester, Exeter, Lincoln, Bath and Wells, Salisbury, Worcester, Hereford, Coventry, Lichfield, Norwich, Ely, St. David’s, Asaph, Llandaff, Bangor, Durham, Carlisle, and Candida Casa, i.e. Galloway or Whithern. He says that it was first printed at the end of the first edition of the Acts of the Council, published at Haguenau in 1500.

APP3-491 —Foxe here resumes his quotation of Aeneas Sylvius’s Historia Bohemica, and the same process of collation and correction has been pursued as before.

APP3-492 “They had amongst them many cars,” etc.] —Aeneas Sylvins here says that the Taborites—“Carros quamplurimos habere, his pro vallo uti. Procedentes ad pugnam, dua ex his cornua facere, in medio peditatum claudere: alae. equitum extra munitiones prope adesse. Ubi congredi tempus visum, aurigae qui cornua duxerunt, ad imperatoris signum, comprehensa sensim qua voluerunt hostium parte, ordines quadrigarum contrahere: intercepti hostes, quibus sui subvenire non possent, partim gladio a peditatu, partin, a missilibus ab his qui erant in carris, viris ac mulieribus necari.”

APP3-493 “The Hanseatic towns.”] — “Stagnales civitates.” (Aen.

Sylvius.) “The lower cities,” Foxe.

APP3-493a “Meiss” (in Bohemia).] —“Missam,” Aen. Sylvius; who calls the region (some lines lower) “Misnam,” showing that two different places are meant: Foxe, however, calls both “Misnia.”

APP3-494 “Toepl .”] —One edition of Aen. Sylvius here reads “Thopam,” another “Teplam;” Toepl, being more in the line of march than Teplitz, has been put into the text.

APP3-495 “Comes Videmontensis ,”] —which Foxe renders “earl of Vandome.” This dispute lay between Rene, brother-in-law to Charles the French king, and Anthony, earl of Vaudemont, about the succession to the vacant dukedom of Lorraine.

APP3-496 “Melus pudorem evicerat .”] —(Aen. Sylvius.)

APP3-497 “Przibislau .”] —Aen. Sylvius reads “Praezorovia,” Foxe “Prezorabia:” the text is according to L’Enfant.

APP3-498 —“Quingentas,” Aen. Sylvius. Foxe says, “fifty towns.”

APP3-499 —Aen. Sylvius says, “Exactus legatus ex Bohemia, Basileam se contulit, ibique concilium celebravit Sigismundus;” which Foxe’s text absurdly renders, “Then was there an ambassage out of Bohemia unto Basil, where Sigismund held the council.”

APP3-500 —A fuller account of this matter is given at pp. 678-680, where Nicolas Gallecus is called simp;y “a Taborite.”

APP3-501 . “Procopius, cognomen Rasus. ] —He received this surname from his having formerly been a priest, and having taken the tonsure.

APP3-502 —It would be better to translate thus:—“And that she was the ‘enclosed garden,’ and ‘the sealed fountain,’” alluding to Canticles 12: “A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.”

APP3-503 “Bois de Vincennes .] —See the note on p. 405.

APP3-504 —The accession of Henry VI. was Sept. 1st, 1422; his coronation was at London, Nov. 6th, 1429, at Paris, Dec. 17th, 1430. (Rapin.)

APP3-505 —The account of William Tailor is printed from the Register in Wilkins’s Concilia, 3, pp. 404-413; Foxe’s narrative has been carefully collated with the Latin, and cleared of some inaccuracies.

APP3-506 “And thus the said William Tailor,” etc.] —From hence to the end of this paragraph would come, according to Foxe’s arrangement, in the center of the short paragraph in next page, beginning, “Notwithstanding, on his showing signs of penitence,” etc. But Wilkins (p. 404) places it all to the examination of Tailor, “ A.D.

M.CCCCXIX [i.e. 1420], Martini V. pontificatus anno tertio.” Feb. 12th, also, fell on a Monday in 1420, by Nicolas’s Tables. An error has here crept into the text, of “1421” instead of “1420.” The Register calls this Wednesday “14 dicti mensis Februarii,” which fits the year 1420, by Nicolas’s Tables.

APP3-507 “Armilausa (that is, his cloak). ”] —Foxe reads “arunlousa;” Wilkins (p. 405) “armilansa (Anglice dictum, ‘a cloak’).” See Adelung’s Glossarium Manuale, vol. 1 p. 378 (Halre, 1772), and Carpentier’s Supplement to Ducange, in voc.

APP3-508 —The ensuing examination of Tailor is distinctly dated by the Register (Wilkins, p. 406) “ A.D. m.ccccxxr., Martini V. pontificatus anna quarto.”

APP3-509 “In the meantime,” etc.] —Foxe adds, “while William Tailor was thus in the custody of the bishop of Worcester:” but the Register says, “sub custodia carcerali iterum arrestatus,” which implies that he had been at large.

APP3-510 —Foxe says “this was A.D. 1422;” the Register, “die Jovis, Februarii, A.D. 1422 indictione I., pontificatus anna sexto;” which proves the year to have been 1423, according to modern computation.

The subsequent notes of time only suit 1423.

APP3-511 —Foxe has incorrectly attributed this remark upon St. Stephen to Tailor, though Tailor, in the Register, gives it to Augustin, “tertia parte Sermonum,” or in Natali S. Stephani VI. (tom. 5 edit. Benedict.); where it occurs among the “Sermones Supposititii,” Append. Sermo. 215, col. 358.

APP3-512 —This Article is not distinctly stated by Foxe, who merely says “it was much like to the other.”

APP3-513 —Foxe says, “when the Saturday was come, which was the twentieth day of February;” which is corrected from Wilkins.

APP3-514 —The description of Tailor’s degradation is made closer to the Register as printed in Wilkins; see other examples of degradation infra vol. 5 p. 191, vol. 6 p. 652, and vol. 8 p. 77.

APP3-515 —There seems some mistake, either as to the year, “1424,” or the bishop named in this process; for John Wakering was bishop of Norwich from May 31st, 1416, to his death, April 9th, (Richardson’s Godwin): William Alnwick succeeded him, and was translated to Lincoln, September 19th, 1436. (Ibid.) The same dominical letter, A, fits 1424 and 1430; and it is probable that this latter year is the true date: from p. 587 it appears that Foxe culled from the years 1428 to 1431 of Alnwick’s episcopate.

APP3-516 —Blomfield (Hist. of Norwich, p. 101) refers to Atlas, p. 421, as giving this account; he says that “Ludham” is the true reading.

APP3-517 —Blomfield (p. 102) calls these places “Tombland,” “St.

Michael’s at Plea Church,” and “Cutler-row.”

APP3-518 “The story of Thomas of Rennes,” etc.] —Foxe has taken the ensuing account from Crispin’s “Actiones.”

APP3-519 —The allusion in the text is to the phrase in Phaedrus’s Fable “ pro thesauro carbonem,” which Foxe refers to in the margin of p. of this volume; where the Latin edition (p. 78) says, “Papa thesaurarius ecclesiae. Pro thesauro carbones.”

APP3-520 —The following are the Latin verses referred to in the note:— “Carmina quaedam in ejus laudem reperta apud Nicolaum Harlamensem. “Claustra Thomas Gallus primus qui lapsa reformat Carmeli gregis, heu cadit immerito.

Compulit hunc fervor Domini conspargere semen; Exilium vitiis vita modesta dabat.

Dogmata praeconis miracula concomitantur, Illum quae doceant pectus habere pium.

Quantum sic populum Zabuli de dentibus egit Et vita et verbo, credere nemo potest.

Lippis lux oculis nocuit, non sustinuere Vivere tam sancram foeda Romana cohors.

Sistitur haereseos, fictus quod sitque sacerdos, Eugenio papae, et frivola quaeque patent.

Instituit sacris antistes hunc Rhedonensis:

Testis apud Gallos publica fama volat.

Sordida Roma Thomam, papa sordente, petebat Flamma sorbendum, namque tyrannus alit.

Urget ad hoc primus Gulielmus Rothomagensis Cardinei coetus. Sic perit innocuus.

Perstitit igne Thomas constanti pectore firmus, Quod Christi exemplo vivere clerus habet.

Eugenius memorans tandem quod insidiosa Morte viri fuerit credulus ipsc malls; Ingemuit crebro vir quod tam sanctus obisset; Hoe quoque prae cunctis conqueritur abiens.

Non nocuit flamma ista Thomae sed martyrium dat, Immortalis ei parta corona manet.

Post tormenta plus, sibi dant quae carcer et ignis, Martyr ad aethereas convolat iste domos.” APP3-521“The order and manner of the council of Basil .”] —The ensuing account is taken from Aeneas Sylvius’s (afterward pope Pius II.) “Commentariorum de actis et gestis in consilio Basileae celebrato libri duo;” printed at the beginning of Orthuinus Gratius’s “Fasciculus,” and in Aen. Sylvii Opera, Basil. 1571. Foxe states, at p. 658, note (1), that his account is faithfully translated from the Latin by “F. W.” who is also mentioned again at p. 699 as one of Foxe’s helpers in this line.

Who is meant by “F. W.” it is now hopeless to discover; but we may suppose him to have been the same person, who “translated faithfully” the account of the emperor Frederic II. by Nicholas Cisner, supra, vol. 2 pp. 455-509; for the present performance is as inaccurate as that, and has therefore been subjected to the same process of collation with the Latin, and correction. Much pains have been bestowed on the names and titles of persons and places; see, for example, pp. 665, 666.

One might easily imagine Foxe to have been instigated to insert this and several other translations of Latin works in his “Acts and Monuments” by the perusal of the following passage in one of Ridley’s Letters (Parker Soc. Ed. pp. 373, 374, Tract Soc. p. 200:)— “And when he [Grimbold] hath done that, let him translate a work of Aeneas Sylvius, of the Acts of the Council of Basil. In the which although there are many things that savor of the pan, and also he himself was afterwards a bishop of Rome; yet I dare say the papists would glory but little to see such books go forth in English.” He then recommends Orthuinus Gratius’s “Fasciculus;” and says, “I have also many things, but as yet confusedly set together, of the abominable usurpation, pride, arrogance, and wicked-ness, of the see and bishop of Rome, and altogether in Latin If such things had been set forth in our English tongue heretofore, I suppose surely great good might have come to Christ’s church thereby.”

APP3-522 “This council continued almost the space of twelve years .”] — The council was opened July 23d, A.D. 1431, and the first session was held Dec. 14th, A.D. 1431; the 45th and last was held May 16th, A.D. 1443. Foxe, however, both here and at p. 673 states, that the council endured the space of “seventeen” years: in both places “twelve” has been substituted. There is an epitome of the different sessions of this council, with their respective dates, by Binius, printed in Labbe’s Concilia, 12 col. 1421.

APP3-523 “Would transfer the council .”] —This was at the 25th session, held March 7th, A.D. 1437.

APP3-524 “The bishop of Argos .”] —The individual meant is John de Ragusa, mentioned at p. 679 of this volume. He was a Dalmatian, and an acute and learned man: he was particularly well read in the Greek writers. He became general of the order of Preaching Friars. He presided with John Polemar at the opening of the council of Basil, in the absence of cardinal Julian. He was sent thrice as ambassador by the council to Constantinople. Authors differ as to whether it was Martin V. or Eugene IV. who made him titular bishop of Argos in Peloponnesus; in Moreri, 5 Cardinal, he is put down as promoted by the former in 1444; but this very history seems to imply that he was promoted much earlier by Eugene.

APP3-525 —The “Scotch abbot” is again referred to at p. 611, and was probably Thomas, abbot of Dundrain, mentioned at p. 662.

APP3-526 . “Proctor of the faith .”] —Labbe (12 col. 794) gives the mode of proceeding in the council of Basil, as settled on Friday, Sept. 26th, 1430; whence it appears that there were four distinct deputations or committees, denominated “Fidel,” “Pacis,” “Reformationis,” “Communium;” and proctors in each. These deputations, or committees, are repeatedly referred to in the ensuing narrative.

APP3-527 —Sponde (Contin. of Baronius) thus explains “Grisea Secta”: “Allusione ut putamus ad Ligas (ut vocant) seu factiones Griseas Rhaetorum: vel quod is color leucophaeus sit nee ater nee albus, sed medium quid,” i.e. “the Grisled sect.”

APP3-528 —Who and what title are meant by “Episcopus Ebrunensis,” the Editor has in vain attempted to discover. Ferreras, in his History of Spain, gives the following as the ambassadors of the king of Castile to the council, as sent at first: Don Alva Isorna, bishop of Cuenca; Juan de Silva, Seigneur de Cifnuentes; Don Alfonse de Cartagene, dean of Santiago; le docteur Louis Alvarez de Paz, privy counsellor; Loup de Galdo, or Delgado, provincial of the Order of St. Dominique; and Juan d’el Corral, another Dominican. Of these, Don Alfonse became bishop of Burgos, anno 1435, on the death of his father Paul de Carthagena, who was a converted Jew, and died bishop of Burgos. (See Cave’s Hist. Litt., and Du Pin’s Eccl. Hist.) Johannes Corral is mentioned in Rymer’s Fredera, as ambassador to England from the king of Castile, under date of March 8th, March 12th, June 3d, November 8th, A.D. 1430, as “Frater Johannes de Corral,” “honestus et religiosus frater Johannes de Corral, sanctae theologiae professor:” he is not improbably the same with “Johannes de Rupeflore,” mentioned in Labbe as one of the Castilian ambassadors at the council of Constance.

It seems most probable that “le docteur Louis Alvarez de Paz” was the person meant by “Ebrunensis,” for a divine is certainly intended. It appears from the Theatrum Ecclesiasticum of Alphonse Garcia that he was dean of Salamanca, the University of which was represented at the council by John de Segovia, a divine on the same side of the question in this dispute. “Ebrunensis” may mean titular bishop of Hebron. This same individual is mentioned again at p. 630, line 8 from the bottom.

Sponde, in his Cont. of Baronins, calls him “Ebrenensis.” An “Episcopus Ebronensis” is mentioned at p. 660; but that seems to be a mistake for “Ebroicensis,” i.e. Evreux. See the note in this Appendix on that place.

APP3-529 “He meaneth Sylvester II.”] —The opportunity may be taken of the allusion to this occupant of the see of Rome, to state, that many modern writers have supposed that the charges of magic, intercourse with Satan, etc. though entertained by adherents also of the church of Rome, have arisen merely from that pontiff’s superior acquaintance with some of the arts and sciences, now more generally understood.

Anyhow, we are willing to quote, in favor of that view, the following passage from the annotator of Gerhard’s Loci Theologici (vol. 11):— “Non tantum B. Platina, sed et Benno, ecclesiae Romanae cardinalis, Sigebertus Monachus Gemblacensis, Martinus gente Polonus, itemque Leo Urbevitanus, P.M. Sylvestrum II. Gerbertum antea dictum, atque exeunte seculo decimo clarum, magiae criminis commerciique cure dsemonibus adcusare haud dubitarunt. Verum pudenda haec fabula, qua viri hujus sua aetate doctissimi memoriam invidia atque ignorantia conspurcarunt, digna omnino, quae ex historiae sacrae annalibus prorsus eliminetur. Nec improbabilis nobis videtur ea virorum quorundam doctissimorum conjectura, qui aiunt, ipsam eruditionem, qua olim eminuit Sylvester, fabulae huic occasionem subministrare. Erat enim is vir magno excelsoque ingenio praeditus, in astronomia, astrologia, reliquisque artibus mathematicis, mechanica imprimis, pro ratione istius aevi, quo florebat, egregie versatus. Quum itaque artibus hisce instructus ea subinde praestaret, quae alios in stuporem raperent, quin et, ut non sine veri specie conjicere licet, ea, quae praestitit, subinde ambitiosius jactaret, fieri facile potnit, ut alii harum rerum imperiti eundem magiae insimularent, et commercii alicujus cum maligno spiritu suspectum redderent. Certe idem praestantissimis olim philosophis accidisse, variis exemplis uberius demonstravit G.

Naudaeus in Apologie des grands hommes faussement soupconnes de Magie, cap. 19. Conf. Hist. Litteraire de France, tom. 6 p. 156; Jo. D.

Koelerus in Diss. Altdorfi 1720 edita, sub tit. Eximius in medio aevo philosophus, Gerbertus postea R. P. Sylvester II. injuriis tam veterum, quam recentiorum Scriptorum liberatus, J. Brackerus in Hist. Crit.

Philosophiae, tom. 3, p. 649, Weismannus in Hist. Sacra Novi Testamenti, tom. 1 p. 876, edit. nov. Ne alios jam nominemus.” Jo.

Gerhardi Loci Theologici, tom. 11 p. 309, edit. Tubing. 1772.

APP3-530 “Neither do I consent or agree unto the opinion of divers, who affirm that the Virgin Mary,” etc.] —This was the opinion of Durandus (Ration. lib. 4 cap. 1, § 32), Thomas Aquinas (Opuse. quarto), Bonaventure, Jacobus de Viragine, and several others, whose words are given in Paquot’s notes to his edition of Ver Meulen’s “Historia SS. Imaginum et Picturarum,” (Lovan. 1771) pp. 463, 464.

Turrecremata, he states, went so far as to affirm, “Esse contra fidem universalis ecclesiae, asserere, non in sola B. Virgine mansisse fidem in die Passionis Domini.”

APP3-531 —Foxe reads, “As the ecclesiastical history affirmeth.” The original, however, has “Historia Scholastica,” a work written by Petrus Comestor. (See Cave’s Hist. Litt.)

APP3-532 “The deputations .”] —See the note on p. 607, last line but one.

APP3-533 —Dominique Ram, archbishop of Tarragona, was created cardinal of St. Sixt by Martin V. in 1426, and died in 1445. (Moreri, Cardinal.)

APP3-534 “And when he was arguing,” etc.] —Aeneas Sylvius’s words are: “Nec ut caeteri jurisconsulti principia legum in disputando allegabat, sed quasi codicem legeret sic textum memoriter referebat.”

Foxe says, “And in disputation he did not repeat the principles of the law, as other lawyers do, but rehearsed the text without the book, as if he had read it upon the book.” The true meaning of “Principia legum” is well illustrated by the speeches of the archbishop of Sens and the bishop of Autun, vol. 2 pp. 620-639, and many other parts of the foregoing History.

APP3-535 —“Faceret de necessitate virtutem.” (Aen. Sylv.)

APP3-536 “Abbot elect of Mount Aragon.”] — “Ac Segobricensis, electus abbas Montis Arragonum.” (Aen. Sylv.) Hoffman, at the end of his Lexicon, has “Aragon, oppidulum Aragonite, Latine Mons Aragonum.”

Foxe reads, “the elect abbot of Mount Segobria.”

APP3-537 —“F.W.” here reads, “the sixth council holden at Toulouse.”

But the original calls it, distinctly, “concilium Toletanum.” The same misnomer is found next page, line 12, and p. 641: in these cases, therefore, “Toledo” is substituted for “Toulouse.” In the present instance, the decree referred to will be found in Labbe’s Cone. tom. col. 1704. capit, 4. This council is called in Aen. Sylv. the fifth council of Toledo; in Labbe it is printed as the fourth. It was held A.D. 633.

APP3-538 —Whatever be the exact etymology of the phrase “Benet and Collet,” it is frequently employed by Foxe, to represent the inferior orders of the Romish church. See the use of it in Tailor’s degradation supra, p. 584, Hooper’s infra, vol. 6 p. 652, and Cranmer’s infra, vol. 8 p. 78 (margin), and by John Lambert infra, vol. 5 p. 191.

APP3-539 “The Gauls. ”] —” Galli Senones,” (Aen. Sylv.), which “F. W.” amusingly translates “the Frenchmen.”

APP3-540 —Theodore of Cyrene was a philosopher, disciple to Aristippus, and lived about B.C. 300. Lysimachus was one of Alexander’s successors.

APP3-541 . “There was at first a dead silence,” etc.] —The original here says: “Omnes in eum affixis vultibus admirationem stupore prodebant, deinde laudare, hie memoriam ille doctrinam, hun, esse unum qui dignissime praesideret, qui et confutare objecta nosset et (ut praesidentem decet) impenetrabilem se convitiis exhiberet.” The first edition of Foxe, 1563, p. 308, renders this, “All men beholding him did greatly marvel and were amazed: some praised his memory, some his doctrine, other some saying that he alone did most worthily rule and govern, which knew how to confute objections, and as it becomed a president bare himself without all blame or reproach,” etc. The subsequent editions (as the stars indicate) omit this whole passage, and at once proceed to mention the uproar produced by the opposition of the Catalonians, as if it were the immediate effect of the speech of Arelatensis. This is not the only instance in which the text of the first edition is more faithful to the original than the subsequent. All the editions strangely read “Castilians” instead of “Catalonians:” the error is repeated in p. 645 bis , p. 651, p. 655; in all which places the Latin says plainly “Cathelani:” in one instance (see p. 655) the Latin says “Castellani,” where, probably, we should read “Cathelani.”

APP3-542 —Diernstein, or Tyernstein, a market-town belonging to the count of Stahrenberg, situate on the Danube, in the circle of Austria, above Manhartz-berge. Near this our Richard I. was imprisoned. (Busching’s Geography.)

APP3-543 —Nicholas Amici and Henry Anester were the “promoters.”

See Labbe, 12 col. 476.

APP3-544 —“Ubi nuc Toletani decretum concilii?” (Aen. Sylv.) The decree here referred to was passed at the eleventh council of Toledo, A.D. 675, and is in the Decretum of Gratian, Pars II. Causa 5. Question 4, cap. 3: “In loco benedictionis.” Among other preliminaries to the council of Basil, this decree was read at the first session, see Labbe, col. 471; as it had been also at the opening of the council of Constance, see Labbe, 12 col. 14. “F.W.” here repeats the misnomer of “Toulouse,” instead of “Toledo.” (See note on p. 633.)

APP3-545 —Vezelai was in the diocese of Autun, and Alexander will be found in the Catalogue of Abbots of this period, in Gallia Christiana.

APP3-546 “Andrew Escobar, commonly called’ the Spaniard.’” ] — Aeneas Sylvius simply says, “Andreas Hispanus:” but Nicolaus Antonius Hispalensis in his Bibliotheca Hispana Vetus, mentions him as Andreas de Escobar, commonly called “Hispanus,” of the Benedictine order, and bishop of Megara. He wrote several works; among others, “Gubernaculum Conciliorum,” dedicated to Cardinal Julian A.D. 1431, and “De Graecis Errantibus,” printed at Bologna, December 15, 1437.

APP3-547 “When he saw he had free liberty to speak,” etc.] —In A Eneas Sylvius we read: “Atque liberum dicendi campum sibi patere vidit, sine fabula sine ulla historia fuit, literature sibi missarum seriem reseravit,” where “sine” is a corruption for “sive.” “F. W.,” however, follows his author to a fault; for he translates, “without either fable or history of any letters sent.” For similar instances, see Appendix on vol. 2 p. 504.

APP3-548 “Neither ignorantly, neither willingly. ”] — “Ut qui nec ignorans nec volens veritatem oppugnasset” (Aen. Sylv.): “F. W.” says “willingly,” which the edition of 1570 corrupts into “unwillingly.”

APP3-549 —”Ad duas diaetas se sequestraverat” (Aen. Sylvius): “F. W.” says, “sequestered himself to two diets.”

APP3-550 “The twenty-fifth day of April .”] —“Quae fuit Aprilis quinta et vigesima.” (Aen. Sylv.) “F. W.” says correctly “the xxvth,” but the edition of 1583 corrupts it into “15th.” April 25th fell on a Saturday, by Nicolas’s Tables.

APP3-551 —“Magis limandum censuit:” “to be more amplified,” “F. W.”

APP3-552 . “Copistarum paedagogorumque gregem.”] — “F. W.” says, “sophisters and schoolmasters.”

APP3-553 “As touching that Panormitane had extolled the authority of the council .”] —“Le cardinal Bellarmin, dans son livre des ecrivains ecclesiastiques, dit que ce traite de Panorme a ete retranche du recueil des ouvrages de cet auteur, comme un ouvrage errone, et fait pour la defense d’une mauvaise cause, et qu’il ne l’a jamais pu trouver dans les differentes editions de cet archeveque de Palerme. Neanmoins il se trouve dans le dernier tome de celle de Lyon de 1547; on l’a aussi imprime separement a Lyon d’une fort ancienne edition. Ce Panorme s’appelle Nicolas Tudesque, et etoit Sicilien. Apres avoir ete abbe d’une abbaye de l’ordre de St. Benoit dans Palerme, il rut archeveque de cette ville: Amedee de Savoye ayant ete elu Pape apres la deposition d’Eugene, le nomma cardinal en 1440. Mais il fut oblige par les ordres du roi d’Arragon son maitre de retourner dans son archeveque, ou il mourut de la peste l’an 1445.” Fleury, liv. 109, § 72: see also L’Enfant’s Concile de Basle, vol. 2 p. 117.

APP3-554 —“That Arelatensis with a few,” etc.] —” Solurn Arelatensem cum paucis et titularibus episcopis rem concludere” (Aen. Sylv.); alluding by “the titulars” to such as “Ebrunensis,” and “Argensis,” (pp. 607, 608): “F. W.” translates, “that Arelatensis with a few other bishops by name should conclude the matter.”

APP3-555 “ At the request of the promoters .”] —“F. W.” says, “of the deputies:” but Aen. Sylv. says, “promotoribus:” these are represented as performing this same function at pp. 646, 650.

APP3-556 —For “Castilians,” we ought, probably, to read here “Catalonians;” but the original says “Castellani.”

APP3-557 —The original text of Foxe is very defective in this sentence; it runs thus: “Arelatensis, considering beforehand what would come to pass, caused prayers to be made, and, after their prayers made unto Almighty God, with tears and lamentations, that he would send them his Holy Spirit to aid and assist them, they were greatly comforted and encouraged. This congregation was famous.’ The original Latin, however, runs thus: “Cogitarat Arelatensis quod erat futurum, plurimasque sanctorum reliquias tota urbe perquiri jussit, ac per sacerdotum manus in sessione portatas, absentium episcoporum locum tenere, quae res maxime devotionem adauxit In tantum, ut vocato postmodum de more Spiritu Sancto, nemo lacrymas continuerit. Erat namque per totam ecclesiam tenerrimus ac suavis fletus bonorum virorum, qui lacrymantes divinum auxilium implorabant, quique, matri ecclesiae ut opera ferret, magnum Deum deprecabantur. Inter alios quoque magnificus ille baro Imperialis Protector uberrimas ecclesiae lacrymas praestabat, et inter flendum haud modicam tali actu consolationem recipiebat. Erat autem concio ipsa frequentissima.” On this the amended text is founded.

APP3-558 “The twins.”] — “Gemini.” (Aen. Sylvius.)

APP3-559 “Also there are two kinds of unrighteousness,” etc.] —“Duo quoque injustitiae fore genera, quibus aut fiends non fierent, aut fierent non fienda” (Aen. Sylv.): this is thus rendered: “There are also ii kinds of injustice: whereby either things are done that should not be done, or things that should not be done are done.” (Ed. 1563, p. 319). Foxe or the editor of the edition of 1576 (p. 664) perceiving that these two kinds were in fact identically the same, altered it thus: “whereby either things are done that should not be done, or things that should be done are not done.” This makes the proper distinction between the two kinds, but by inverting the order in which Aeneas Sylvius had stated them, spoils the subsequent reasoning. This error has been obviated.

APP3-560 “The principal fathers of the council being called together,” etc.] —This was the 35th session, held June 26th, A.D. 1439. (Labbe, 12 col. 621.) The decree speaks of Eugene as having been deposed “7 Cal. Julii” [June 25th], and mentions the law of sixty days’ interval as passed at the 7th session, where it is found in Labbe, col. 496, Nov. 6th, 1432.

APP3-561 “A sudden fear came,” etc.] —July22d (“ 11:Cal. Aug.”) a congregation was held, in which it was proposed to suspend the proceedings of the council on account of the plague, but it was overruled. (Patricii Acta Cone. Bas.)

APP3-562 “The burial grounds,” etc.] —“Quapropter exaratis omnibus coemeteriis, foveas in parochiis peramplas fecerunt, ubi pluribus congestis cadaveribus, terrain superinduxerunt.” (Aen. Sylvius.)

APP3-563 “About the same time,” etc.] —This short paragraph appears in the following form in Foxe:—“About the same time, also, died the king of Arragon’s almoner, in Switzerland, a man of excellent learning, being bishop of Ebron. The abbot of Vergilia died at Spires, and John, the bishop of Lubeck, between Vienna and Buda.” The edition of changes “Ebron” into “Liege.” The words of Aeneas Sylvius, however, are these:—“Per idem tempus diem clausit in terra Switzorum vir summa doctrina eleemosynarius regis Aragonum; in Argentina paulo post episcopus Ebronensis.” Ebronensis seems a mistake for Ebroicensis; for Gallia Christiana in the account of Martial Formier (who became bishop of Evreux Sept. 27th, 1427) states that he went to the council of Basil; and that he died at Strasburgh, in the house of the Templars, of the plague, on the ides of August, 1439. It is remarkable, however, that “Episcopus Ebronensis” was the title of the vicar-general of Martial’s predecessor, and of several other vicarsgeneral to the see of Evreux. (See Gallia Christiana.) It is plain also from Gallia Christiana, that no bishop of Liege died at this time. That “Ebroicensis” was intended by Aeneas Sylvius may be further concluded, from the circumstance that the original MS. Acts of the Council (as the Editor has learnt from Basle) call this individual “Eboracensis;” an easy corruption of “Ebroicensis,” an example of which in the first edition of the “Quadrilogus” is given in the Appendix to vol. 2 p. 203.

APP3-564 “And those also should be priests .”] —The decree of the council, thirty-seventh session, 9 cal. Nov. (24th October) 1439, respecting the mode of choosing a new pope, is in Labbe, 12 col. 626; and, according to that, the electors were all to be at least in priests’ orders: Aeneas Sylvius here says, in deacons’ orders.

APP3-565 “Thomas . .. commonly called the Scottish abbot. ”] —“F. W.” makes strange work of this dignitary: “Thomas, abbot of Dunduno, of the diocese of Candiderace, commonly called of Greece.” The words of Aeneas Sylvius are as follows: “Thomam abbatem de Donduno, ordinis Cisterciensis, dioecesis Candidae casae, vulgo de Graecia nuncupatum.” Aeneas Sylvius seems wrong in calling him “de Graecia,” or rather his text seems corrupt here, as in other cases; see the note following this. He is afterwards called, correctly, “de Scotia” (see p. 666, line 14).

APP3-566 “John de Segovia,” etc.] —Aeneas Sylvius’s text gives, “Johannem de Segovia, archidiaconum de Villa Vissosa, in ecclesia Onetensi” (“ Fascieulus,” fol. 21). Foxe’s copy evidently read “Metensi,” a corruption of “Ovetensi:” Nicolas Antonio Hispalensis (Bibl. Hisp. Vetus, 5 Johannes Segoviensis) observes that “Metensis” is corrected into “Ovetensis” in the edition of Sylvius by Gymnacus, Cologne, 1606.

APP3-567 “Born in the heart of Germany.”] — “Born” is omitted by “F.

W.:” the original is, “ex umbilico nationis Germanicae oriundo.”

APP3-568 “Plouneour .”] —This parish is supplied from Labbe, who calls it “Pleneor;” but the maps call it “Plouneour:” it is on the coast of the province of Finisterre, near St. Pol de Leon.

APP3-569 “Barcelona,” “Elne .”] —These two dioceses are supplied on the authority of Sponde.

APP3-570 “Peter de Atrio. ”] —” Atrio” is Labbe’s reading. Aeneas Sylvius reads “Atro,” which perhaps is more akin to his office of “Soldan.” This term, according to Adelung’s “Glossarium Manuale ad Scriptores Mediae Aetatis” is equivalent to “advocate.” Aeneas Sylvius says of him, “qui etiam ab initio nascentis concilii eo in officio laudabiliter se habuerat.” Labbe, however, 12 col. 493, mentions “Titianus de Laude,” as being elected Soldan at the fifth session, Aug. 13th, 1432.

APP3-571 “Performed divine service. ”] —“Divina officia celebravit,” which “F. W.” translates “sung mass:” it is afterwards called “missarum solemnia.”

APP3-572 “Louis, bishop of Lausanne .”] —He is surnamed “De Palude” in Labbe, 12 col. 480.

APP3-573 “Suscepto dominico corpore juramentum praestiterunt”] — (Aen. Sylv.) This may mean, that they swore holding the Sacrament in their hands.

APP3-574 “Nineteen voices:”] — “Unam de viginti” (Aen. Sylv.), which “F. W.” renders “twenty-one,” as though it were “unam et viginti.”

There are other instances in Foxe of this same error; see two at p. 765, and vol. 4 p. 354, pointed out in the Appendix on those pages.

APP3-575 “There have been popes .”] —Foxe inserts “many;” but the original only says “fuerunt.”

APP3-576 —“Read the fifth epistle of Ignatius .”] —The portion intended to be referred to (p. 95, edit. Genevae, 1623) in the epistle “ad Philadelphenos,” will not be found in the more modern editions. The testimony of Hilary himself on his marriage (vol. 2 col. 415, edit.

Venet. 1749) is, of course, the best, if the letter to his daughter Abra be genuine, as the Benedictine editors are inclined to believe it: on the other side, see Rivet. Crit. Sac. lib. 3, cap. 12; Walch. Bibl. Patfist. p. 273, edit. 1834.

APP3-577 “Scriptures .”] —See the note on p. 539. What prophecies are here alluded to does not appear.

APP3-578 “The space of twelve years .”] —Foxe says, “seventeen:” see the note on p. 605.

APP3-579 “Moreover ... the worthy cardinal of Arles. ”] —“This cardinal of St. Cecilia, who was commonly called the cardinal of Arles, for his having thus adhered to the council to the last, is represented by the Papalin writers of the time, and by some moderns, as a monster made up of ambition and revenge; Ciaconius, in his Lives of the Cardinals, calling him the great reproach and blemish of his order; and yet, for all that, this monster of a cardinal was, for his extraordinary piety and miracles, beatified by Clement VII. in 1527, and has been ever since prayed to with authority in France, which was done by the pope without taking any notice of his ever having repented of his adhesion to the council of Basil; by which we may see what credit the characters given by the Papalin writers to their adversaries deserve.” (Geddes’s “Council of Trent no free Assembly,” Lond. 1697, p. 55, Introduct ) The censure by Ciaconius seems to be omitted in the “Vitro Pontiff. et Cardinallum,” as edited by Oldoinus, Romae, 1677, tom. 2 col. 841- 844.

It appears from “Paralipomena Urspergensis,” that on the occasion here referred to, Arelatensis was captured a mile from Strasburg, when on an embassy from the council into Germany. The “Armagnacs” were the French troops employed by the Dauphin, at Eugene’s instigation, to try and break up the council, A.D. 1444. (See pp. 700, 735.) They were called Armeniaci, or Armagnacs, from the earl of Armagnac, their leader. See Carion’s Chronicle, “Exauctum a Philippians Melancthone, et Casparo Peucero.”

APP3-580 “A further continuation of the History of the Bohemians.”] — Foxe here resumes his extracts from Aeneas Sylvius’s “Historica Bohemica,” at cap. 50. This portion of Sylvius is printed in the “Fasciculus” of Orthuinus Gratius, and in Labbe, 12 col. 442. As before, Foxe’s text has been much improved from the original.

APP3-581 —John Polemar, abbot of Mulbrun in Suabia, was also auditor of the sacred palace, proctor general of the Dominicans, and archdeacon of Barcelona. (L’Enfant, Hist. des Hussites, etc. p. 377.)

He and John Gethusius were “Cisterciensis ordinis.” (Aen. Sylvius.)

APP3-582 —Feldkirch was in the Tyrol, and Sigismund was there on his way to Rome to be crowned: this occurred Oct. 15th, 1431. (L’Enfant p. 364.)

APP3-583“Our men”] — is the literal rendering of Aen. Sylvius’s “nostros,” i.e. the papal allies.

APP3-584 —John Nider was a Suabian, an eminent divine of the order of Preachers, prior of their house at Basil, an inquisitor, and rector of the university of Vienna, which university he represented at the council.

He died at Nuremberg, in 1438. (Cave’s Lit. Hist., who gives a list of his writings.)

APP3-585 “Elnbogen.”] — “Elenbogenses” (Aen. Sylv.); “Cubitenses” (Cochlaeus, p. 246): Elnbogen is near Tauss, and its Latin name is “Cubitus.” (Busching.)

APP3-586“After this they conferred ,” etc.] —Labbe, 12 col. 485, gives a letter of the council to the Bohemians, dated Friday, June 20th, 1432; also a safe-conduct, dated 12 cal. Julii (June 20th), at col. 482.

APP3-587 “ That it was long of the ecclesiastics,” etc.] —“Quo minus cure Bohemis procederet concordia, per ecclesiasticos stare et principes.” (Aen. Sylv.) For another instance of the phrase “long of,” see infra, vol. 5 p. 386.

APP3-588 —Aen. Sylvius says, “fere cum ducentis et quinquaginta equis.”

APP3-589 —Saatz or Zatec was the capital of a Bohemian circle, called in Latin Zatecensis provincia.” (Busching.) Cochlaeus calls this man “Johannes Zarzensis;” Foxe, “a Zaczen.”

APP3-590 “Cadolzburg.”] — Aen. Sylvius says, “Carelspurgum,” which is printed “Catelspurgum” in the “Fasciculus,” which probably means Cadolzburg, a considerable village in the margravate of Onolzbach or Anspach, in Bavaria: it was formerly a residence of the burgraves of Nuremberg. (Busching, vol. 5 p. 442.) The text of Aen. Sylvius says, “Marchio Badensis;” the “Fasciculus,” simply “Marchio,” which would imply the marquis last mentioned.

APP3-591 “Came to Basil the 9th day of October.”] —See above, p. 577.

APP3-592 —The replies of the four divines on behalf of the council were first printed by Henry Canisius, and thence in Labbe’s Concilia, cols. 1013-1419.

APP3-593 “Nicolas, a Taborite .”] —Foxe, following his authority, says “Wenceslaus;” but this is a slip, see p. 680, line 26: he is called Nicolas Gallecus supra, p. 577; Nicolas Taborita, Labbe, 12 col. 1159.

L’Enfant, p. 405, calls him Nicolas Peldrzimousky.

APP3-594 . “Peter Paine .”] —See what is said respecting him in this Appendix, on pp. 97, 538; he is the “Peter Clerk” mentioned at the latter place. See Lewis’s Life of Wickliff, p. 184.

APP3-595 “John de Ragusa .”] —This is the individual before mentioned as bishop of Argos. See the note in this Appendix on p. 608.

APP3-596 “Kalteisen .”] —“Frigidum Ferrum” (Aen. Sylvius.) It is “Kalteisen” in Labbe, 12 col. 1249.

APP3-597 —Trinity Sunday in A.D. 1433 fell on June 7th. (Nicolas’s Tables.)

APP3-598 “Sanctified: ”] —“Certified,” Foxe; “signifieavit,” Aen. Sylvius; “sanctificavit,” the Decrees.

APP3-599 “Masters and priests.”] — “Magistri et sacerdotes” (Aen.

Sylvius): the edition of 1583 alters “priests” into “prelates.”

APP3-600 “Without any circumstances.”] — “Sine ambagibus.” (Aen.

Sylvius.)

APP3-601 “Exigitur magna peritia .”] —(Aen. Sylvius.) the author proceeds, “Quod sit tortuositas in regulato, sed non est; sed est delectus in applicando, quia non applicatur debito modo regula ad regulatum.”

APP3-602 “In eorum partibus .”] —(Ibid.)

APP3-603 “Fourth,”] — “Quartum” (Aen. Sylv.); “third,” Foxe.

APP3-604 . “ A.D. 1434,”] —Foxe reads “1438:” three ambassadors of the Bohemians and four of the council were despatched to Basil, and came back to Prague, where they remained, from the feast of St. Martin to that of the Purification, i.e. Nov. 11th to Feb. 2d: the formula of Concord was agreed on the last day of November. (Labbe.) Cochlaeus gives the formula, dated Prague, A.D. 1433. Indictione XII. Eugen. anno quarto, on St. Andrew’s day: the year must, according to this, be (St. Andrew’s day was the last of November). This is further confirmed by what Cochlaeus says, viz. that the treaty of Iglau (next page) was three years after that of Prague; more correctly, three years and a half, i.e. July 5th, 1438.

APP3-605 “Stuhl-weissenburg .”] —(“Alba Regalis” in Aen. Sylvius) was in the center of Hungary, and there the kings of Hungary used to be crowned and buried.

APP3-606 “During the time,” etc.] —The ensuing paragraph is much corrected from the decree of the council in Labbe, 12 col. 603.

APP3-607 —Foxe calls the above the thirty-seventh session: “thirty-sixth” is put in from Labbe, 12 col. 622.

APP3-608 —See Labbe, 12 col. 601, session 31, 9 cal. Feb. 1438.

APP3-609 —See Labbe, 12 col. 562, session 23, 8 cal. April, 1436. Foxe says, “Besides them that were already:” but the Latin says, “Sic tamen quod numerum viginti quatuor inter hos qui nunc sunt et assumendos non excederet.” (Aen. Sylvius.) See also Labbe, cols. 1425, 1431.

APP3-610 —See Labbe, 12 cols. 552, 1425, session 21, Thursday, 9th June, 1435.

APP3-611 “Confirmed ... at Bourges ,”] —on the nones of July, 1438. (Labbe, 12 col. 1429.)

APP3-612 —This Pragmatic Sanction was enacted nonis Julii, 1438.

Labbe, 12 col. 1439.

APP3-613 “Amongst many decrees,” etc.] —See Labbe, 12 col. 547, 7 id.

Sept. 1434.

APP3-614 —“Non solum propalatione veritatis, sed et allis humanis officiis ipsos Christo lucrifacient.”

APP3-615 “Another decree, moreover .”] —See Labbe, 12 col. 549, 11 cal.

Feb. 1435.

APP3-616 “Furthermore,” etc.] —See Labbe, 12 col. 550. The passage is given, to support Foxe’s statement: “Quia vero in quibusdam regionibus nounulli jurisdictionem ecclesiasticam habentes pecuoiarios quaestus a concubinariis percipere non erubescunt, patiendo eos in tali foeditate sordescere; sub poena maledictionis aeternae praecipit, ne deinceps sub pacto, compositione, aut spe alicujus quaestus, talia quovis modo tolerent aut dissimulent: alioquin ultra praemissam negligentiae poenam duplum ejus quod acceperint restituere ad pios usus omnino teneantur et compellantur.”

APP3-617 —This epistle of cardinal Julian, with another of his, is printed in the “Fasciculus” of O. Gratius, whence probably Foxe derived his translation: it has been revised and corrected by the Latin.

APP3-618 “The captains of their armies.”] — “Ductores exercituum illius gentis” (Aen. Sylvius): Foxe says “enemies.”

APP3-619 After this,” etc.] —This sentence reads as follows in Foxe:— “After this, the French king being dead, who was Charles VII., about A.D. 1444, the pope beginneth a new practice, after the old guise of Rome, to excite, as is supposed, the dauphin of France, by force of arms, to dissipate that council collected against him.” This must be wrong; because Charles VII. did not die till A.D. 1461 (L’Art de Ver. des Dates): the matter is more correctly stated at p. 735, whence this passage is amended.

APP3-620 —Nicholas Canon seems only to have been enjoined penance, supra p. 600.

APP3-621 —“For their fault” is substituted for Foxe’s “for the fact,” which seems a corruption.

APP3-622 —Foxe’s text by mistake reads, “Have ye not then done well and properly?”

APP3-623 —This is thus badly exhibited in Foxe’s text: “Nor did I mean of her now, but because I couple her in the same story, you say.”

APP3-624 “And of the mother of lady Young .”] —These words ought manifestly to be erased.

APP3-625 —These verses accompanied several of the early printed books at Rome, The four lines here quoted are followed by that in p. (attributed by Foxe to Aprutinus), and of which numerous examples occur in the Catalogtus Historico-criticus, Roman edit. saeculi 15. (Romae, 1783), of Audiffredi, pp. 82-40. See the note in this Appendix on p. 721.

APP3-626 “Aprutinus .”] —This is the same writer as appears in the footnote to p. 719, under the name of Campanus. He became a bishop in the Abruzzo, and hence called himself Episcopus Aprutinus. (Bayle’s Dictionary.) “Fernus qui hominem apprime vivens cognoverat, diserte in vita Campani fatetur ipsum fuisse correctorem typographiae Romae apud Uldaricum typographum, qui tanta artem suam diligentia urgebat, ut Campanum interquiescere non pateretur, ad majorem operis instantiam.” Oudin. Comment. de Scripp. Eccles, tom. 3 col. 2681. It might seem strange that a bishop should be employed as a paid corrector of the press; but his biographer and other authorities signify that his love of luxurious living revered some additional means necessary for has enjoyment of it: and for that purpose he was willing thus to increase his annual income.

APP3-627 “Cilicia .”] —The edition of 1570, p. 838, reads “Cecilia,” which subsequent editions alter into” Sicily.”

APP3-628 —Foxe’s text has here erroneously, “first, bishop of Chichester, and afterward by the title of St. Asaph, if there were any such saint.” The order of his preferments is correctly stated by Foxe at pp. 96, 731: the Latin edition incorrectly calls him “Cistereiensis episcopus.”

APP3-629 — “Somewhere” is substituted for Foxe’s “nowhere.”

APP3-630 “After the death,” etc.] —For the reason of some corrections of dates in this paragraph, see p, 579, note.

APP3-631 “The Germans at that time,” etc.] —This paragraph has been for substance already given at p. 700, though not so accurately as here.

See the note in this Appendix on that page.

APP3-632 —This cardinal was Peter Barbo, a Venetian, nephew of Eugene IV., bishop of Cervia, afterward pope Paul II. He was by his uncle created in 1440 cardinal of St. Mary la Neuve, and afterwards of St.

Mark.

APP3-633 “After this Plus II. succeeded Paul II.”] — This pontiff, according to the accounts given by Tursellinus, attributed a recovery from fever and his elevation to the popedom to the assistance of our lady of Loretto, and built for her, in consequence, a noble temple. “At iile (Paulus) Beatae Marice promisso ad summi sacerdotii spem erectus, et simul beneficii accepti satis memor, Lauretanae Aedis Praesidem protinus accersi jubet. Huic propalam enunciat sibi esse in animo magnificentissimum S. Marire Lauretanae templum condere.”

To this indulgences were afterwards attached:— “Pontifex non aedificiis solum, sed litteris quoque ac muneribus Pontificiis Deiparae domum adornavit. Nam visentibus Aedem Lauretanam diebus omnibus Beatae Mariae sacris ac praeterea Dominicis diebus peccatorum omnium veniam indulsit.”—Hor. Tursellini e Soc. Jesu Lauretanae Historiae, libri 5 (Leodii, 1621) pp. 92, 93.

APP3-634 “Sixtus IV. who builded up in Rome stews .”] —Corn. Agrippa” De Vanit. Scient.” § 64. Schelhornii “De Consilio de emendanda Ecclesia ad Card. Quirinum Epistola,” Tiguri, 1748, p. 40.

APP3-635 “Innocent VIII .”] —John Michiele, a Venetian, nephew to Paul II. He was made cardinal of St. Lucy by his uncle, 1468; he was afterward cardinal of St. Angelo, bishop of Albano, Porto, and Padua. (Moreri’s Diet. 5 Cardinal.)

APP3-636 “Among the noble facts of this pope (Innocent VIII.) this was one,” etc.] —Both the “facts” here ranged under the pontificate of Innocent, belong properly to that of Paul II. This will be plain from the Vita Pauli II. first printed by cardinal Quirini:—“Vanam ac scelestan Fratricellorum sectam, quae in agro Piceno, Assisiatensi, atque in oppido Poli flagitiossimo ritu pullulare jam occoeperat, diligenter insectatus est, eorumque plerosque captos coram judicibus in ea causa deputatis, aperta ratione convinci voluit, et quamquam ob eorum gravissima scelera ignia supplicio digni judicati essent, nihilominus Pontifex satis habuit, nonnullos eorum ab oppido Poli, eorumque patria septem annos exulare, annumque publico poenitentium habitu jugiter indui, caeteros veto in tali delicto rursus convictos ac damnatos capitolinis carceribus includi. Stephanum de Comitibus ejus haereseos fautorem, ut dicebatur, in arce Romana detineri mandavit, oppidum, et caetera paternae ditionis libera filiis dimisit.”—P. 78.

With regard to the other fact, quite a commentary, we may observe, upon the noted decree of the fourth Lateran, it may be better to quote Quirini’s own words from the Vindiciae prefixed to this volume, p. lix.:— “Causa Georgii Podiebraccii Boemorum Regis discuti coeperat Callisto III. pontifice, eademque diligenter ad examen revocata fuit sub Pii II. pontificatu, tandemque Paulus II. sententiam in eundem ferens, eum Regno privavit, ejusque bona occupatoribus adjudicavit, pecuniasque plurimas Matthiae Hungarorum Regi, amplissimasque Indulgentias adversus haeretieum decertantibus dilargitus est.”—Pauli II. Veneti, P.M. Vita ex Cod. Angelicae Biblioth. desumpta, praemissis ipsius Pontif. Vindiciis, Romae, 1740. See “Romanism as it rules in Ireland,” vol. 2 p. 263.

APP3-637 —There are but six centuries in Bale. Stanislaus Orichovius, supposed to have been a Russian bishop (see Bayle), wrote Oratio de Lege Coelibatus contra Syricium, et Supplicatio ad Julium III., 8vo.

Basil, 1551. The part to which Foxe refers, will be found in the edition of Bale by Lydius (Lug. Bat. 1615), p. 466.

APP3-638 —The duke of York was declared protector April 2d, 1454, and slain Dec. 31st, 1460. Foxe reads 1453, 1459.

APP3-639 —“1470” is substituted for Foxe’s “1471.”

APP3-640 —Foxe here resumes his extracts from Aeneas Sylvius’s “Historia Bohemica.”

APP3-641 “The vaivode or prince,” etc.] —Foxe says, “surnamed Vaivoda, prince of Transylvania,” and a few lines lower, “Huniades Vaivoda.”

APP3-642 “Neustadt, ”] —“The new city,” Foxe, literally translating the Latin, “Nova Civitas” (Aen. Sylv.), a city near Vienna, on the frontiers of Hungary. It is mentioned again at p. 767 of this volume.

APP3-643 —“In the castle chapel at Prague” (A Ea. Sylv.), and a few lines lower, “the castle rock:” Foxe says, “in the high tower of Prague;” and “the rock of the tower.”

APP3-644 “Rochezanians ] This is according to Aeneas Sylvius: Foxe says “Hussites.”

APP3-645 —Aeneas Sylvius says, “Parasitus regis, ex his qui stultitiam simulantes alios stultos faciunt.” Foxe rather clumsily says, “playing the parasite about the king (as the fashion is of such as feign themselves fools, to make other men as very fools as they.”) APP3-646 . “He was not bound (he said) to attend his commands .”] — This seems the true meaning of Aeneas Sylvius’s words, “non esse obnoxium.” Foxe says, “it was neither best (said he) for the king nor safest for himself to come.”

APP3-647 . “A hundred and fifty thousand. ”] —“Centum quinquaginta millia pugnatorum.” (Aen. Sylv. cap. 65.) Foxe says, “a hundred and fifteen thousand.”

APP3-648 “Belgrade,”] as it is called infra, vol. 4 p. 51. Aeneas Sylvius calls it (and from him Foxe) “Alba.” A Eneas says of it “Thaurinum appellavere majores, nostra aetas ilium vocat Albam, ad confluentes Danubii Savique situm.” It was called “Alba Gaeca” (whence Belgrade) to distinguish it from Alba Regalis or Stuhl-weissenberg, see supra p. 688, infra vol. 4 p. 72.

APP3-649 “A good muster .”] —Foxe says, “a small garrison;” Aeneas Sylvius “cruce-signatorum manum adducens non parvam.”

APP3-650 “Being about the age of eighteen years .”] —Aenas Sylvius does not mention his age, which is here put in on the authority of L Art de Ver. des Dates. Foxe says, “being about the age of twenty and two years; which he evidently gathered from Aeneas Sylvius’s statement toward the end of cap. 70, that he died “adolescens, duodeviginti annos natus;” where Foxe (as elsewhere) has misunderstood “duo de viginti” for “duo et viginti;” the note on p. 670 of this volume.

APP3-651 “The emperor Frederic and the empress,” etc.] —“Imperator et Augusta vocati: ambae regis sorores cum viris earn celebritatem accessurae ferebantur.” (Aen. Sylvius.) Foxe says, “the emperor Frederic, the king’s mother, and his sisters, etc.”

APP3-652 “About midnight,” etc.] —Foxe here says, “about the 21st day of November, A.D. 1461;” but Aeneas Sylvius says (cap. 70), that he “coepit aegrotare decimo calendas Dec. [Nov. 22d] hora circiter duodecima noctis,” and that “intra sex et triginta horas postquam aegrotare coepit extinctus est.” Moreover, he was only “eighteen” not “twenty-two” years of age (see the note above on p. 765, last line), having been born Feb. 22d, 1440, and died Nov. 24th, A.D. 1458 (see supra p. 762, and L’Art de Ver. des Dates).

APP3-653 . “This Uladislaus .”] —Foxe, by a slip, says, “this Casimir.”

APP3-654 —See this passage in the “Fasciculus” of Orthuinus Gratius, fol. 166.

APP3-655 —Foxe has derived this fact from Barns and Bale’s work, “De Vitis Pontiff.;” p. 472 of the reprinted edition by Lydius, Lug. Bat. 1615. See also “Agrippa de Vanitate Scient.” cap. 64.

APP3-656 —The title of this work is given in Panzer’s “Annales Typogr.” tom. 9 p. 204; and in Maittaire, “Ann. Typ.” vol. 1 p. 597, edit. 1733.