fta1 Thus far the quotation is from 1. 2, c. 75, where the words are used of Livia. fta2 This is given by Fox,6, 425, as the composition of Bishop Parkhurst, with the variation of valere for loquutam. fta3 Edd. “The Lady Frances’s daughter; and in fine, one of the co-heirs.” fta4 Cecily, heiress of her maternal great-grandfather, William Lord Bonvile, and also heiress of the Harington family, through her grand-mother, Elizabeth de Harington, daughter of Lord Harington. — Nicolas, Synopsis, 71, 304. fta5 “A man for his harmless simplicity neither misliked nor much regarded.”

Hayward, 320. fta6 She was born in 1537. — Biograph. Britannica. fta7 Strype’s Life of Bp. Aylmer. p. 3, ed. Ox. 1821. fta8 It is related by Ascham himself in his “Schoolmaster.” — Works, ed.

Bennet, p. 222, where, in a note, is quoted his commendation of Lady Jane, from a letter to Sturmius. fta9 Boccace” in the original passage. fta10 6, 384. fta11 Fuller, 4, 119. fta12 1, 293. fta13 Edd. l, 2, “ventures.” fta14 This argument is abridged from Fox,6, 384. fta15 “His,” not in edd. 1, 2. fta16 On Hayward’s statement to this effect, Strype, Eccl. Mem. 2, 480, remarks, “as for Cecil, he was so far from assisting and drawing up this instrument of settlement, that he opposed it as much as he could, — (and so Camden expressly saith) — though he signed with the rest.” fta17 Hayward, 325*; Camden, Eliz. 366. Mary had a little plane, in which she liked to frisk; wasn’t she a silly girl, her little*? fta18 Hayward, 326.* fta19 Ibid. fta20 Edd. 1, 2. “Thus.” fta21 The authority for the account here given, is a narrative drawn up by Montague himself, and communicated by his great-grandson, Lord Montague of Boughton, to Fuller, who printed it in his Ch. Hist. 4, 137-146. fta22 Paulet, Marquess of Winchester. fta23 Edd. 1, 2, “Gale.” fta24 It was not the first time that Montague had been terrified by the “vultus instantis tyranni.” The story is well known, how, when he was Speaker of the House of Commons, and a difficulty was made about granting a supply, Henry VIII. sent for him, and “laying his hand on Montague’s head, who was then on his knees before him, he said, Get my bill passed by to-morrow, or else to-morrow this head of your’s shall be off.’“ — Hume, 4, 397. fta25 Godwin, Ann. 165; Strype, Cranm. 2, 420-2, Ed. Eccl. Hist. Soc. The instrument is printed in Strype’s Appendix, No. 68. fta26 Hayward, 326*. “In the meanwhile [at the beginning of Mary’s reign] many men were forward in erecting of altars and masses in churches.

And such as would stick to the laws made in King Edward’s time, till others should be established, some of them were marked, and some presently apprehended; among whom Sir James Hales, a Knight of Kent and Justice of the Common Pleas, was one; who, notwithstanding he had ventured his life in Queen Mary’s cause, in that he would not subscribe to the disinheriting of her by the King’s Will, yet for that he did, at a Quarter-sessions, give charge upon the Statutes made in the time of King Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth, for the Supremacy and Religion, be was imprisoned in the Marshalsea Compter and Fleet, and so cruelly handled and put in fear, by talk that the Warden of the Fleet used to have in his hearing, of such torments as were in preparing for heretics, — or for what other cause God knoweth — that he sought to rid himself out of this life, by wounding himself with a knife, and afterward was contented to say as they willed him: whereupon he was discharged. But, after that, he never rested till he had drowned himself in a river, half a mile from his house in Kent.” — Fox,6, 394-5. Comp. 6, 710-717, where the story of Judge Hales is more fully told. Hasted states that at the time of his suicide he was on a visit to his nephew at Thanington, near Canterbury. — Hist. of Kent, in. 584. fta27 Hayward, 327. fta28 Edd. Heyl. “Hoveden.” fta29 Thuan. 50, 13, c. 1. (Tom. I. p. 439). fta30 Thuan. 13, 2. (T. 1, 439.) fta31 Ib. fta32 By a note from the Earl of Arundel. — Lingard, 7, 111. fta33 Holinshed, 3, 1066, and Heylyn read “the dying of our said brother.” fta34 Edd. 1, 2, “hands.” fta35 “Pardon the same; and that to eschew.” — Holinshed and edd.Heylyn. fta36 Edd. Heyl, read “and” for “that.” fta37 Fox,6, 385. fta38 Lord Rich and Sir John Gates are among the subscribers in Fox and Holinshed. fta39 Edd. Heyl. “bound.” fta40 Edd. 1, 2, “and assent.” fta41 Edd. Heyl. “both for the quiet of the realm,” (omitting “but”). fta42 Edd. 1, 2, “rules.” fta43 Edd. 1, 2, “pretents.” fta44 Fox,6, 355. fta45 There seems to be some error here. Perhaps we might read “impossible;” or, “the first, a loss not to be repaired; the next, scarce possible to be avoided.” fta46 Qu. “sisters?” fta47 Edd. 1, 2, “letters.” fta48 Printed by Burnet, II. 2, 337. fta49 “By” omitted in edd. 1, 2. fta50 Edd. 1, 2, “to congratulate at.” fta51 Stow, 611. fta52 Stow, 610. fta53 Stow, 610. fta54 Over the insurgents of 1549. — Sup. 1, 161. fta55 The substance of this is in Stow, 610. fta56 These words are marked as emphatic, by a difference of type in all the old editions, and by a sign text(p. 28) in the margin of 1 and 3. fta57 “Papists” entrance,” Stow. fta58 Stow, 610-11. fta59 See Mary,1,3. fta60 Sup. 1, 178. fta61 Stow, 611. fta62 Stow, 611. fta63 Fuller, Hist. of Cambridge, 186. fta64 Fuller, Hist. of Cambridge, 186. Sandys was, however, imprisoned for almost a year, and, being then discharged, took refuge in Germany. His Sermon before the Duke of Northumberland is believed not to be in existence. He had prepared it for the press, but was obliged to fly before it was printed. — Fox,8, 590-598. fta65 Stow, 611. fta66 Godwin, 158. fta67 See Mary, Introd. 24. fta68 Fox,6, 389. fta69 Stow, 611; Speed, 842. fta70 Speed, 842; Godwin, 159. fta71 Godwin, 159-60. De Thou gives a longer speech,1,13, c. 2, Tom. I. 441-2. fta72 Godwin, 160. fta73 Stow, 612. fta74 Mary,1,19. fta75 Edd. “rights.” fta76 Stow, 612. fta77 Godwin, 160. fta78 Edd. 1, 2,”was.” fta79 Edd. “third.” fta80 Stow, 617. fta81 Mary,1,26. fta83 6, 415-17. fta83 Fox says, “a letter written by the Lady Jane, in the end of the New Testament in Greek, the which she sent unto her sister, the Lady Katherine.” Heylyn is mistaken in supposing that the letter itself was in Greek. Banks, in a letter to Bullinger, (Epp. Tigur. 201; Orig. Letters, p. 304), plainly intimates that it was in English — “Haec ego omnia [including this letter] de vernaculo nostro sermone in Latinum convertenda curavi.” As to the “Letter to a noble friend, newly fallen from the truth,” which is commonly supposed to have been written by Lady Jane to Harding, formerly her father’s chaplain — Sir Harris Nicolas, while he maintains its genuineness, argues that Harding cannot have been the person to whom it was addressed, as it was written before Lady Jane’s marriage, whereas Harding did not avow his apostasy until after the accession of Mary. (Remains of Lady J. Gray, 77). But were there any defections to Romanism before the accession of Mary? Is it not more likely that there may be some error in the signature of the letter as printed, which is the only ground of the argument as to its date? Banks, writing in March 1554, refers the letter to the time of Lady Jane’s imprisonment. — Epp. Tigur. 201. fta84 The letter here given from Fox,6, 423, agrees in the main with a MS. in the British Museum, printed by Nicolas, Rem. of Lady J. Gray, 44-5: in which work another copy is also given. fta85 For “upon you” Fox reads “up.” fta86 Sic in odd. fta87 Speed, 844. fta88 Others mention Sir John Brydges, lieutenant of the Tower. — Nicolas, 99. fta89 On the improbabilities of this account, (which does not appear in Fox, and only in part in Godwin, 175), see Nicolas, 94. seqq. He denies altogether that Lady Jane wrote any epigram or sentence on her husband, and considers that the evidence preponderates against her having written any on herself. He believes that the only writing on this occasion consisted of some words inscribed, at the request of Sir J.

Brydges, in a book of devotions, which is preserved in the British Museum. fta90 Thuan. 13, 4, (T. I. p. 450); Godwin, 175, (but both less fully). fta91 Holinshed, 4, 22. fta92 1 Mary, Sess. 2, c. 4. fta93 Hall, 584. Stow dates the birth on the 11th of February (504);Sandford, Geneal. History, 499, on the 8th. fta94 Nov. 14, 1501. fta95 Apr. 2, 1502. fta96 Hall, 507; Herbert, 4. fta97 Dec. 26, 1503. The instrument is printed in Burnet, II. 2, 15; Collier, 9, 64-6. fta98 So Hall, 757; Speed, 780. “Illudque [matrimonium] carnali copula forsan consummavissetis.” — Collier, 9, 65. fta99 Feb. 18, 1503-4. — Sandford, 480. fta100 He was born June 28, 1491. — Sandf. 479. fta101 The age of puberty, according to the canon law. — Walter, Lehrb. d.

Kirchenrechts, 610, ed. Bonn, 1842. fta102 It would seem that his father’s policy was the chief motive to this step. — Burnet, I. 36, (fol.); Collier, 4, 2; Lingard, 5, 328-9; 6, 2. fta103 His mother had died Feb. 11, 1502-3, before the marriage was finally settled. — Sandf. 469. fta104 In quadam bassa camera, infra palatium regium Richmondiae” — as is stated in the instrument itself. fta105 Speed and edd. Heyl. “Miles.” fta106 Speed and edd. Heyl. “Mainie.” fta107 p. 776. Also in Herbert, 117; Burnet, I. 2, 17; Collier, 9, 66-8. The date is June 27, 1505. fta108 April 21. — See Nicolas, Chronology, 333. fta109 June 3. — Herb. 4; Holinshed, 3, 547; Sandf. 480. fta110 Hall, 509. fta111 Jan. 1, 1510-11. — Hall, 516. fta112 Nov. 1514. — Stow, 497. fta113 He died Feb. 22. — Ha11. fta114 Dr Lingard believes — on authority which seems insufficient — that Henry had by Katherine three sons and two daughters. — 6, 109, 376. fta115 This lady, the last of the Plantagenets, “was beheaded in the Tower, May 27, 1541, being never arraigned nor tried before, but condemned by Act of parliament.” — Stow, 581. fta116 Godwin, Ann. 179; Philips, Life of Pole, 1, 38. fta117 Fuller, 4, 174. See below, Mary,1,22. fta118 Oct. 1518. — Herbert, 31. fta119 June 19, 1522. — Hall, 641. fta120 Herbert, 47. fta121 Feb. 24, 1524-5. fta122 Edd. 1, 2, “Polugull.” fta123 This marriage was celebrated on March 12,1525-6. — (Robertson, Hist. of Charles V. 1, 416, ed. Oxford, 1825.) Heylyn is therefore wrong in naming the sack of Rome and the capture of the Pope as motives to the breach of the engagement with Mary, these events not having taken place before May and June 1527. fta124 Herb. 70. fta125 The statement that the validity of Henry’s marriage with Katherine was questioned in Spain is derived from Hall, on whose authority it has been repeated by many later writers. “Among these was Burnet in his first volume; but, having afterwards seen the instructions to the Ambassadors at Madrid, he candidly acknowledged that it was a mistake, (Vol. 3, p. 63).” — Lingard, 6, 85. fta126 Edd. 1, 2, “excepted.” fta127 It was agreed that she should marry Francis himself, if he remained unmarried until she attained the age of puberty; otherwise, the Duke of Orleans. — Herb. 80; Lingard, 6, 117. fta128 Henry II. fta129 Tarbes. — Herb. 81. Hall states that “that matter was put in suspense, because the President of Paris [‘Master Antony Vesey, second President of Paris,’ who was one of the commissioners], doubted whether the marriage between the King and her mother were good or no.” — 720. fta130 Longland, Bishop of Lincoln. This is Henry’s own account of the matter (Stow, 543); but it is stated on the other hand that Longland mentioned the subject to the King, and had been instigated to do so by Wolsey. See Wordsworth, Eccl. Bldg. 1, 548, who is disposed to acquit Wolsey. For the other view, Weber, Gesch. d. Akathol. Kirchen 5, Grossbritannien, 1, 654, and his quotation from Turner. fta131 A.D. 1523. — Camd. Eliz. 364; Robertson, Charles V., 1, 364, ed.

Oxf. fta132 The refusal of the Archbishoprick of Toledo rests on the authority of Polydore Vergil. — Herb. 84. It appears that Wolsey had enjoyed a pension of 10,000 ducats out of the revenues of that see, — conferred by the Emperor, and confirmed by the Pope; also that Charles had promised him the bishoprick of Badajoz. — Turner, Hist. of Henry, etc. 1, 238. Comp. Hermer, (Wharton), Spec. of Errors, p. 1. fta133 Renee, afterwards the patroness of Calvin. fta134 Hall, 728; Holinsh. 3, 736; Speed, 776; Herbert, 99; Shakespeare, Hen. VIII. Act 3, Sc. 2. fta135 “Jan. 24, 1527 — five months before Wolsey set out on his embassy.” — Ling, 6, 380. It would seem, however, that Wolsey had thought of this Princess as a wife for his master before her marriage to the titular King of Navarre. fta136 These words are repeated in the Introduction to the reign of Elizabeth, sect 2; which section may be referred to for the time of Anne Boleyn’s return to England. fta137 Cavendish, Life of Wolsey, in Wordsw. Eccl. Biog. 1, 539. fta138 See the correspondence in the Appendix to Burnet, Vol. I. b. 2. A bull of dispensation, authorising the King, for the sake of offspring, to contract a second marriage, in Wilkins, 3, 707. fta139 1524. He was afterwards deprived. — See 1, 65. fta140 June, 1529. — Hall, 754; Stow, 541; Holinsh, 3, 737; Speed, 779; Godwin, 52; Herbert, 107; Cavendish, Life of Wolsey in Wordsw.

Eccl. Biog. 1, 542. fta141 “it,” omitted in Edd. 1, 2. fta142 Baker, 277. “A gentlewoman nothing favorable to his pontifical pomp, nor no great follower of the rite of those times.” — Speed, 782. Comp. 783. “What though I know her virtuous, And well deserving? yet I know her for A spleeny Lutheran.” — Shakesp. Hen. VIII. Act 3, Sc. 2. fta143 Stow, 559. fta144 Edward Fox, afterwards Bishop of Hereford, the almoner, and Gardiner, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, the secretary. John Fox relates that, when attending on the King in a progress, these two lodged at Waltham in the house of a gentleman named Cressy, and there met with Cranmer, who was tutor to the sons of their host, and had withdrawn from Cambridge with his pupils on account of a sickness then prevailing in the University. (8, 6.) The martyrologist differs from Heylyn, in stating that Cranmer suggested an appeal to the Universities at home as well as to those of other countries; and the truth of the statement, both in its wider and in its narrower extent, has been disputed. Collier argues (4, 150) that it must be erroneous, because the meeting at Waltham did not take place until August 1529; whereas (1) the determination of the University of Orleans bears date April 1529; (2) the King, in his speech at Bridewell, Nov. 8, 1528 (Fox,2, 327, ed. 1631) declares that he had already applied to “the greatest clerks in Christendom” for their opinions; (3) Cavendish (in Wordsw.

Eccl. Biog. 1, 539) ascribes to Wolsey the suggestion of a reference to the Universities. The same reasoning is repeated by Fiddes, Life of Wolsey, 444; and in deference to it Dr Wordsworth (Eccl. Biog. 3, 129), and Dr Jenkyns (Pref. to Cranmer, 7), have given up Fox’s story as untrue — in so far, at least, as concerns the subject of the conference. On the other hand, Archdeacon Todd (Life of Cranmer, 1, 11, seqq.) and Dr Weber, of Heidelberg, (in his Gesch. der Akatholischen Kirchen und Sekten von Grossbritannien, 1, 656-7, — a careful and well-digested work, which as yet extends only to the end of Henry’s reign) endeavor to maintain the claim put in for Cranmer, while they allow that the consultation of the Universities had been before proposed by Wolsey. To me it appears that the compromise attempted by the last-mentioned writers is less probable than either of the opinions between which it is intended to mediate. For how, on this supposition, can we account for the sudden rise of Cranmer? If the consultation had been before suggested by Wolsey, is it likely that a repetition of this old idea from another quarter would have been hailed as particularly valuable, or regarded as a token of singular merit in the proposer? (Mr Todd and Dr Weber add to the improbability of their view, by admitting — the former, that the Orleans decree had already been given; the latter, that the English Universities had been consulted before Nov. 1528; admissions which are both erroneous.) On the whole, I cannot but consider Fox’s statement the most probable. For (1) the date of the Orleans determination is incorrect. Dr Weber assumes it to be so, because all the other academical judgments are of 1530, and he cannot suppose that that of Orleans preceded them by a year; but we have more satisfactory evidence in the wording itself — “die quinto mensis Aprilis, ante pascha.” For in 1529, Easter-day was March 28; in 1530, it was April 17, (Nicolas, Chronology, 66-7); so that we must refer the decree to the latter year, and suppose the scribe to have committed an error, which might very easily be made, when the beginning of the year was reckoned from March 25. (2) Henry’s words in Nov. 1528 are more naturally to be understood of a reference to individual Divines and Canonists, than to academic bodies. (3) It might seem that Cavendish, a contemporary, and a member of Wolsey’s household, would be the highest authority on this subject, and entitled to claim our belief; he has, however, vitiated his story by stating that Wolsey not only suggested the reference to the Universities, but procured their opinions under their several seals, (Wordsw. 1, 540); — a statement which cannot possibly be true, as it was not until after the Cardinal’s disgrace that a judgment was given by any University — that of Cambridge bearing date in Feb. 1530 (Burnet, 1, b. 2, Append. 32); that of Oxford, April 8 (Wood’s Hist. of Oxford, ed. Gutch, 4, 44); those of foreign Universities, in the spring of the same year. We are, therefore, justified in setting Cavendish’s witness aside, except as to the fact of Wolsey’s having held consultations on the subject of the divorce with Bishops and other learned persons. In addition to this, we know that between Christmas and Easter 1528-9, there were conferences at Lambeth between divines from both Universities, which did not end in any decisive conclusion. — (Wood, Hist. Oxf. 4, 36.) But, as there, was no academic sentence, either at home or abroad, until 1530, and as the arguments of Collier and others do not bear examination, I have little hesitation in believing the statement of Fox — that the consultation of the Universities was first proposed by Cranmer, and that in or about the month of August 1529. fta145 Dec. 8, 1529. — Godwin, 68. fta146 Herbert, 140. fta147 Oct. 1529. — Sup. 1, 38. fta148 Nov. 4, 1530. fta149 Nov. 30. — Godw. 65. fta150 Sup. 1, 38; Hall, 772; Fox,2, 329, ed. 1631, wrongly refers this proclamation to the year 1532, and is followed by Wilkins, 3, 755. fta151 Sup. 1, 38-9. fta152 Sup. 1, 39. fta153 Ut praefecto sacris Bigoranno [Bigerronum] Episcopo, omnia sine Romani Pontificls authoritate administrarentur. — Thuan. Author. [Thuan. 1. I. c, 9, Tom. 1, p. 20 — where it is explained in a note that Bigerronum Episcopus means the Bishop of Tarbes.] fta154 Edd. “eighth.” fta155 Ecclesiasticam disciplinam citra Romani [pontificii] nominis authoritatem posse consecrari, [ad tempus conservari.] Author. [Thuan. 1. i.c. 2, T. i.p. 23. It will be seen that Heylyn has somewhat exaggerated the opinion of De Thou — especially when the omission of the words ad tempus is considered, (consecrari being merely a misprint, as appears by comparing our author’s Tracts, p. 25 — from which place, the argument of this section is repeated.)] fta156 Opera, 1, 154, ed. Paris, 1606. fta157 Hall, 781; Herbert, 53. fta158 Speed, 783. fta159 On the date of the marriage, see Eliz. Introd. sect 7 and note. fta160 24 Hen. VIII. e. 12. fta161 Edd. 1, 2, “all causes ecclesiastical cognisances.” Ed. 3, “all causes ecclesiastical cognisances.” (omitting “cognisance.”) fta162 Stow, 562; Holinsh. 3, 777. fta163 Aug. 22, 1532. — Richardson, in Godwin De Praesul. 136. fta164 Fox,8,65; Godwin, Ann. 70. His unwillingness is denied by Lingard: but see Jenkyns, 4, 92; Weber, Geseh. d. Akath. Kirchen, 282. fta165 Wilkins, 3, 757. “Non est, nec erit, meae voluntatis aut intentionis, per hujusmodi juramentum vel juramenta, qualitercunque verba in ipsis posita sonare videbuntur, me obligare ad aliquod ratione eorundem posthac dicend, faciend, aut attemptand. quod erit aut esso videbitur contra legem Dei, vel contra illustrissimum Regem nostrum Angliae, aut rempublicam hujus sui regni Angliae, legesve aut praerogativas ejusdem; et quod non intendo per hujusmodi juramentum aut juramenta quovismodo me obligare, quominus libere loqui, consulere, et consentire valeam in omnibus in singulis reformationem religionis christianae, gubcrnationem ecclesiae Anglicanae, aut praerogativam coronae ejusdem, reipublicaeve commoditatem quoquomodo concernentibus, et ca ubique exequi et reformare, quae mihi in ecclesia Anglicana reformanda videntur.” On Cranmer’s protestation, see Palmer’s Treatise on the Church,1, 536, ed. 1838; Massingberd’s Hist. of the English Reformation, Lond. 1842, p. 271. It was, as Dr Weber observes, in accordance with the casuistry of the time, if not with true morality; “and Romish and Jesuitical writers are the last persons who can have any right to speak severely in reproof of it.” — Akathol.

Kirchen 5, Grossbrit. 1, 283. fta166 Godw. de Praesul. 139. fta167 Wilkins, 3, 758. fta168 The letters both of Cranmer and of the King are printed in Cranm.

Works, ed. Park. Soc. 2, 237-8. fta169 Stow, 563. fta170 Printed in Cranm. Works, 2, 242. fta171 May 23. — Wilkins, 3, 759; Stow, 563; Herbert, 101-5. fta172 Edd. 1, 2, “Bayden.” fta173 Hall, 807-8. Comp. Letter of Suffolk and others to the King, Dec. 19, 1533. — State Pap. Henry VIII., 1, 415. fta174 See a Letter of Mountjoy and others to the Council, State Papers, 1, 400. The volume contains much correspondence relating to conferences with Katherine. fta175 I cannot find that any bull against Henry was framed before 1535, or published before 1538. — (Sup. 1, 20.) Godwin, whom Heylyn appears to have followed in some respects, antedates the supposed bull yet further — representing it as having preceded and provoked the reduction of Katherine’s household. (74-5.) It would seem that there is some confusion between the decisions of the Pope and his consistory against the divorce — which were accompanied with threats of excommunication in case of disobedience, — (Collier, 4, 217, 227), — and the bulls of later date. Paul III. in his bull of 1535, mentions censures (the margin says excommunication) passed on Henry by Clement VII. — Bullar. Rom. ed. Romans 1745, 6:126. fta176 Edd. “hereof.” fta177 Edd. “25th.” fta178 On the subject of Elizabeth Barton, see Hall, 808-814; Stow, 569-571; Cranmer, ed. Park. See. 2, 271-4. fta179 Fisher and More were willing to swear to the succession, but objected to the preamble of the Act. “The offensive passages in this statute seem to be these: viz. the parliament’s pronouncing against the dispensation with the first marriage. Secondly, their declaring for the legality of Cranmer’s proceedings in the divorce. And thirdly, there were some pretty broad satirical expressions against the Pope’s supremacy. But which of these particulars, or whether all of them, shocked Fisher and More, they would not discover. Cranmer advised the admitting them to swear upon their own terms, as appears by his letter to Cromwell.” — Collier, 4, 242. Comp. Wordsworth, Eccl. Biog. 2, 141; Cranmer, ed.

Park. Soc. 2, 286; Strype, Cranm. ed. Eccl. Hist. Soc. 1, 337-340. fta180 Hall, 817; Stow, 572; Holinsh. 3, 793; Herbert, 174, 183-4. fta181 Herbert states that she named More as concerned. — 176. But this, if not an error of the historian, would seem to have been a falsehood on her part. “What presumptions lay against Sir Thomas More, I have not been able to find out, only that he wrote a letter to the nun, at which the King took great exception; yet it appears he had a mean opinion of her, for in discourse with his beloved daughter, Mrs Roper, he called her commonly the silly nun.” — Burnet, I 303. Among the documents attached to his second volume, Burnet prints (401) a letter from More to Cromwell, in which the nun is spoken of as a hypocrite and impostor. This letter had been suppressed by the Romish editors of More’s works. — (Burnet, II. 634.) Comp. Wordsworth, Eccl. Biog. 2,132; Lingard, 6,212. fta182 Herb. 188. fta183 Hall, 818. fta184 Herb. 188. fta185 Tytler, 5, pp. 196, 208. This historian, however, speaks of the match as desired by Henry; and as declined by James, out of a wish to avoid any share in the English King’s breach with Rome. fta186 Heylyn has dated Voysey’s appointment to the bishoprick ten years after the real time, (1519, Godw. do Praesul. 416), and is, consequently, incorrect in stating that he owed his preferment to the successful discharge of his duties as Mary’s tutor. She was but three years old when he was made Bishop. fta187 “He was fully purposed to proceed further with her, (as is reported) had not the intercession of Thomas Cranmer the Archbishop reconciled the King to favor and pardon his own daughter.” — Fox,2, 787, ed. 1631. fta188 Fox,2, 788, ed. 1631. fta189 Fox,2, 788, ed. 1631. fta190 Edd. Heyl. “Beaulien.” fta191 Herbert gives the articles only, without the preamble. — 195. Strype also gives only the articles from a different copy. — Eccl. Mem. I.

App. No. 75. Comp. State Papers, 1, 458-9. The MS., in the Cottonian Library, is greatly mutilated. fta192 Edd. “in the behalf of all,” etc. The alteration is according to the copy of Mary’s submission in Collier, 4, 340. Strype reads “in that behalf,” but omits the remainder of the article. fta193 This article is considerably different in Strype; who inserts between it and the next, one in which the Princess acknowledges herself to be “illegitimate and a bastard.” fta194 So Strype; edd. Heyl. “thereof.” fta195 Herbert, 195. The submission is printed by Burnet, I. 418; Collier, 4, 339. fta196 The lordship and manor of Kenninghall, with the impropriate rectory and its appurtenances, were granted to the Lady Mary by Edward VI.

May 17, 1548. — Strype, Eccl. Mem. 2, 99. fta197 Fox,6,7. Heylyn has not given the whole of the letter. fta198 The word “I” is omitted in Fox, as if “pray” were in apposition with “live.” fta199 Edd. Heyl. “Lords.” fta200 Fox,6,8. fta201 Fox,6,14. Sec 1, 219. fta202 Fox,6, 10-22; sup. 1, 217-220. fta203 Hayward, 313. fta204 Edd. 1, 2, “Leezdi;” ed. 3, “Leezdy.” I have substituted the form of the name which is usual in the work. fta205 Rochester and Waldegrave do not appear to have been Knights at the time in question. fta206 Sup. 1, 219. fta207 Mary: — “My lord, as for this last matter, I pray you make the answer to it yourself.” Bishop: — “Madam, considering mine office and calling, I am bound in duty to make to your Grace this offer, to preach before you. “ Mary: — “Well, I pray you, make the answer, (as I have said,) to this matter yourself; for you know the answer well enough. But if there be no remedy but I must make you an answer, — the door of the parishchurch shall be open, etc.” — Fox,6, 354. fta208 “After many bitter words against the form of religion then established.” — Fox. fta209 Fox,6, 354. fta210 Sup. p. 31. fta211 “it” omitted in Edd. 1, 2. fta212 Sup. p. 18. fta213 Heylyn sometimes writes “Framingham.” fta214 Fox,6, 387; Speed, 842. Dr Lingard, 7, 373, tries (very unsuccessfully]) to shew that Mary did not make any promise, although he admits that the Emperor advised such measures, and that her partisans probably used them “to allure men to her standard!” fta215 Fox, Speed, as above referred to. fta216 Fox, Speed. fta217 Sup. p. 35. Comp. “Diary of Henry Machyn, citizen of London, 1550- 1563,” p. 37. This diary, (Cotton MSS. Vitell. F. 5.) which had been much used by Strype, was first edited by Mr J. G. Nichols, and published by the Camden Society, Loud. 1848. fta218 Stow, 612. fta219 Edd. 1, 2, “Earl.” fta220 Sup. p. 19. fta221 Edd. Heyl. “after.” fta222 Stow, 612. fta223 Stow, 612. fta224 Ibid.; Speed, 843. fta225 Stow, 612. fta226 Stow, 613. fta227 Stow, 614. fta228 Stow, 614. fta229 “He might pretend.” — Godwin. “Se quidem non aliam quam majorum religionem semper in sinu coluisse.” — Thuanus. The speech is given in a fuller form than usual, from the Harleian collection, by Mr Tytler, Edw. and Mary,2, 230-3. In that version Northumberland does not say, (as most writers represent him to have said), that he had been always a Romanist; but, professing to die in the Roman faith, and appealing to the Bishop of Worcester in witness of his sincerity, he expresses regret that he had not “had this belief sooner.” fta230 The speech is taken, (with the variation just noticed), from Godwin, 164, who follows De Thou, 1, 13 c. 2. (T. 1, 445.) fta231 Holinshed, 4, 4. fta232 It is a mistake to style the elder Dudley a Knight, although Empson was one. — (Hall, 505.) But, unlike his associate, Dudley was a man of family — grandson of John Sutton, Lord Dudley. — Dugdale, Baronage, 2, 217. Herbert styles him “a gentleman of birth, and of such parts as he was chosen speaker of the parliament-house,19 Hen. VII.” — (p. 3.) Bacon distinguishes the “horseleeches” thus — “Dudley was of a good family, eloquent, and one that could put hateful business into good language. But Empson, that was the son of a sievemarker, triumphed always upon the deed done, putting off all other respects whatsoever.” — Life of Hen. VII. 119. Lond. 1676. fta233 Sic edd. fta234 Fuller, Hist. of Cambridge, 186. fta235 Jeremiah 22:30. fta236 Mary, 5:18. fta237 Stow, 613, says 13,000. fta238 Stow, 613; Godwin, Ann. 162. fta239 Stow, 613. fta240 Qu. “conferred?” fta241 Richardson (n. on Godw.) states that it was on the 21st; but the record, quoted by Lord Campbell, 2, 54, confirms the date given in the text, and by Stow, Holinshed, 4, 5, and Godwin De Praesul. 236. The Great Seal had been delivered up by Goodrick to the Lords Arundel and Paget, who carried it with them when they joined Mary at Framlingham. — Campb. 2, 37. fta242 Sup. 1, 298. fta243 Stow, 616. fta244 Fox,6, 540. fta245 Edd. 1, 2, “tending.” fta246 This is the only one of Heylyn’s documents which the editor has not found elsewhere. fta247 This was not until Jan. 18, 1558. — Stow, 632. fta248 Nov. 30, 1557. — Stow, 631. See sup. p. 32, and Mary,4,5. fta249 Edd. 1, 2, “John’s.” fta250 See Tanner, Notitia Monastica, 299. fta251 As successor to Thirlby, who was translated to Ely. Hopton was consecrated Oct. 25 or 28, 1554. — Godw. de Praesul. 441. fta252 Fox,6, 540. fta253 Stow, 613. fta254 Sup. 1, 287. The Act for the restoration is 1 Mar. Sess. 3. c. 3. fta255 Edd. 1, 2, “See.” fta256 Stow, 613. fta257 Fox,6, 537. fta258 Harmer (Wharton), 124. fta259 Edd. 1, 2, “Prebends.” fta260 “But who it was, it could not then be proved, albeit afterward it was known.” — Fox,6, 392. Comp. 7, 144. fta261 Stow, 614; Fox,6, 392. fta262 A.D. 1557. fta263 Stow, 614. fta264 Fox,6, 393. fta265 Ibid. fta266 Aug. 16. — Ibid. fta267 “Embraced,” Fox. fta268 “False-found,” Fox. fta269 Fox,6, 390. The proclamation is here given only in part. Strype records the first reappearance of the mass in a London church, Aug. 21. “Mass began at St Nicholas Cole-Abbey, sung in Latin, and tapers set on the altar, and a cross. The next day a goodly mass in Latin was sung also in Bread-street. And here I cannot but make this remark upon the incumbent of the said St Nicolas, whose name was Parson Chicken, that he sold his wife to a butcher, and Nov. 24 was carted about London.” — Eccl. Mem. 3, 22. (Comp. Machyn, 48, 336.) The Latin service began at St Paul’s on the 28th of August. — Holinsh. 4, 5. fta270 Fox,6, 394. fta271 See below sect. 22. fta272 See 1, 21; Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3, 200. fta273 Fox,6, 542. fta274 Dr Young, Master of Pembroke Hall. — Fuller, Hist. of Camb. 188. fta275 He added the offense of “receiving strangers of other parishes to the same.” — Fox,6, 540. fta276 Ib. 541. fta277 Ibid. fta278 “The 6th of November, Master Pollard preached at St Michael’s, and in his sermon approved purgatory.” — Fox,6, 542. fta279 Humphrey, Vita Juelli, p. 41, ed. 1573; Fuller, 4, 151. fta280 Fox,6, 705. fta281 Fox,6, 394; Fuller, 4, 163. “But Beale, clerk of the Council, in Queen Elizabeth’s time, says that Bishop Taylor took his place in his robes, but, refusing to give any reverence to the mass, was violently thrust out of the house.” — Collier, 6, 21. fta282 Not, however, until after he had been deprived, March 15, 1553-4. — Wilkins, 4, 118. He died in December following. — Note in Godw. de Praesul. 301. fta283 He died in 1554. — Godw. 494. fta284 “Scory, though, upon Day’s being restored, he was put out of his bishoprick, did comply merely; he came before Bonner, and renounced his wife, and did penance for it, and had his absolution under his seal the 14th of July, 1554, [printed in II ii. 361.] But it seems this was out of fear; for he soon after fled out of England, and lived beyond sea until Queen Elizabeth’s days, and then he came over; but it was judged indecent to restore him to his former see, where it is likely this scandal that he had given was known; and so he was made Bishop of Hereford.” — Burnet, II. 553. Comp. Wharton in Strype’s Cranmer, 2, 682, ed. Eccl. Hist. Soc. fta285 Burnet states, II. 553, that a violent book against the Reformation was published at this time in Barlow’s name; but he questions its genuineness. Comp. Collier, 6, 68. Barlow’s recantation is given by Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3, 153. fta286 Godwin, Ann. 165. fta287 Ibid. fta288 This is a mistake; for the act 25 Hen. VIII. c. 14, while it repealed that of Hen. IV., confirmed those of Rich. II. and Hen. V., and enacted the punishment of death. It was the act of I Edw. VI. c. 12, which abrogated all these — as is rightly stated above, 1, 97. fta289 It was also said that the restoration of the mass at Canterbury was by the Archbishop’s authority. fta290 Printed by Fox,6, 539; Burnet, II. 2, 349. fta291 Fox,8,39. Terentianus, in the letter mentioned, p. 102, n. 2, states that the Archbishop actually executed his intention of posting his declaration about London. — Orig. Letters, Park. Soc. 371; Epp.

Tigur. 245. Comp. Jenkyns, Pref. to Cranm. 112. The same statement is made by Sleidan, b. 21, p. 475. Lat. 590. Eng. fta292 Fox,8,39. fta293 Sup. 37. fta294 Fox,6, 413. fta295 Sanders, 247. fta296 A curious account of P. Martyr’s escape is given by Julius Terentianus in a letter of Nov. 20, 1553. — Epp. Tigur. 242-7; Orig. Letters, 369- 72. fta297 Sanders, 247. fta298 Fuller, 4, 155; Fox,6, 429. fta299 Fox,6, 394. fta300 A proclamation “for driving out of the realm strangers and foreigners,” is given by Fox,6, 429; Wilkins, 4, 93. fta301 A narrative of the Duchess’ escape is given by Fox,8, 569, seqq. fta302 Poinet and Barlow. fta303 Cheke was arrested in Flanders, and brought back to England. He recanted, and soon after died, it is said, of grief and shame which followed from his lapse. — Fox,8, 257; Fuller, 4, 232-3. fta304 Fuller, 4, 228-37. fta305 Sarpi, 384. The Bull of his appointment, dated Aug. 5, 1553, is in Wilkins, 4, 87. fta306 Sarpi, 384; Sanders, 250 — who, however, commits the mistake of representing Commendone as sent by the Pope, whereas he was really sent by Dandino, the nuncio at Brussels, at the instance of Pole. — Burnet, II. 516; Collier, 6, 29; Lingard, 7, 137. fta307 Sanders, 254; Thuan. 1. 13, c. 3; Godwin, Ann. 180. Burnet states that the Emperor was partly influenced by Gardiner, who represented the exasperation of the English against the Pope, the difficulties as to church-lands, etc.; that Gardiner’s wish was to restore, in the first instance, the system of Henry’s latter years, leaving the revival of the papal supremacy to be effected afterwards; while the Queen desired to re-establish the power of the Pope at once — because (among other reasons.) her legitimacy depended on the papal sentence. There was much correspondence with the Emperor, who advised moderate proceedings in the matter of religion. — Burnet, II. 484. Comp.

Sleidan, b. 25, p. 591. Eng. The Queen wrote to Pole, desiring him not to come to England, until further advised. — Burnet, II. 520. The conclusion of his answer is given by Burnet, II. 2, 351; and in the third volume there is much additional matter, illustrated by documents, relating to this part of the history. fta308 Sup. 1, 38. fta309 1 Mar. Sess. I. c. 2. fta310 1 Mar. Sess. I, c. 3. fta311 Dec. 15. Fox,6, 542. fta312 1 Mar. Sess. 2, c. 1. fta313 Sarpi, 385. “But,” says Collier, “the reasoning of this author seems not conclusive. For the parliament might found their declaration upon Deuteronomy 25:5, and believe that King Henry VIII.’s marriage with Katherine of Spain stood upon the reason and equity of that law.” — 6, 25. fta314 Sup. 43. fta315 1 Mar. Sess. 2, c. 16. fta316 Selden, Titles of Honour. Works, ed. Wilkins, 3, 177, (quoting Dyer’s Reports.) There is a curious note on this title in Gibson, Codex, 34. “It is alleged by my Lord Coke, (4 Inst. p. 344, that the repeal [by 1, Philippians and Mar. c. 8, of the act for ratification of the King’s Majesty’s style, 35 Hen. VIII. c. 3] is only a repeal of the treasons made and enacted by that statute, ‘but,’ as he adds, ‘the style and title of the crown without question remaineth of force unrepealed.’ “ In the first year of Elizabeth the same question was raised, whether the omission of the title of Supreme Head did not invalidate the writs of summons. It was held that it did not; — this decision, however, did not rest on a supposition of the invalidity of Henry’s act, through that of Philip and Mary, but on the ground that the words of the statute were “only affirmative, and not negative, so as to make it a style of absolute necessity.” After all, the statement in the text appears to be questionable. “Why,” says Collier, “the Queen should use the title of Supreme Head in a writ to the convocation, and omit it in those for the parliament, is not easy to imagine. Besides, in the Statutes at Large, printed from the Parliament-Rolls by Cawood, the Queen’s printer, the distinction of Supreme Head of the Church of England, etc. is added to the rest of the royal titles, both in the first and second sessions of this parliament.” — vi. 38. (It is so in the Statutes of the Realm, published by order of George III. Vol. 4, pp. 177, 179.) For Mary’s dislike of the title, see Phillips, Life of Pole, 2, 57, quoting Pole’s Epistles. fta317 i.e. was taken. fta318 “But this post was not annexed to the see of London by common right, but by the choice of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury: in case a convocation meets when the see of Canterbury happens to be void, the Prior and Convent formerly, but since the Reformation the Dean and Chapter, direct a commission to some Bishop to represent them: for, being beneath an episcopal character, they are unqualified to preside in person in the upper house: they commonly make the Bishop of London their representative upon such occasions; they have the liberty, notwithstanding, of pitching upon any other; and thus, in the convocation held in the year 1532, when the see of Canterbury was void by the death of Archbishop Warham, the Prior and Convent chose the Bishop of St Asaph for their commissioner, who, upon the strength of this representation, presided in the convocation. Farther, they are not tied to the nomination of a single Bishop, but may join two or three in the instrument for this purpose: and thus it happened [in the first convocation under Elizabeth, (see below, Eliz. 1, 20)], the Bishops of Worcester and Coventry being joined in commission with Bonner.” — Collier, 6, 205. Comp. Cardwell, Synodalia, 496. fta319 Fox,6, 395. fta320 i.e. the proctors for the capitular and parochial Clergy. fta321 These are the persons mentioned as dissentient from the articles agreed on by the convocation concerning the Eucharistic Presence and Transubstantiation. — Wilkins, 4, 88. Philips recanted in the following year (ib. 94), but retained his preferment under Elizabeth. — Fox,6, 398. fta322 Thomas Young, precentor of St David’s, preferred under Elizabeth to the bishoprick of St David’s and the archbishoprick of York. — Burnet, 2, 527. Pollanus, in his Latin translation of the “Disputation,” observes that, though Young took no part in the argument, yet he was one of those who refused to subscribe the acts of the Synod. — N. in Philpot’s Works, ed. Park. Soc. 171. fta323 Fox,6, 396, seqq. The disputation is also reprinted in Philpot’s Works. fta324 Sup. 1, 257-8. fta325 “Penultimo die Octobris Mag. Philpot propter ignorantiam, arrogantiam, insolentiam ac pertinacitatem ad disputandum non est ulterius admissus nisi in causis civilibus.” — Registr. Lambeth. ap.

Wilkins, 4, 88. fta326 Holinshed, 4, 9. fta327 Nov. 25. — Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3, 52. Machyn, 49. fta328 Edd. 1, 2, “Prebends.” fta329 Fox,6, 413. fta330 i.e. the Bishop’s. See Gavanti, Thes. Sacr. Rit. 1, 209, ed. Aug.

Vindel. 1763. fta331 Fox,6, 426. fta332 Oct. 25, 1554. — Fox,6, 565; Wilkins, 4, 108. The texts had been chosen with a controversial intention, as is declared in Bonner’s order.

Stow, relating the pulling down of images in the preceding reign, adds that “texts of scriptures were written on the walls of the churches, against images.” — Chron. 595. fta333 Edd. 1, 2, “Prebends.” fta334 Fox,6, 558. fta335 Stow, 627. fta336 Sept. 3, 1553. — Stow, 616. fta337 Dr Lingard, (7, 128) shews, from the dispatches of Noailles, the French Ambassador, that Courtenay forfeited the Queen’s regard by misconduct; that while “in public she observed that it was not for her honor to marry a subject...to her confidential friends she attributed the cause to the immorality of Courtenay.” (Comp. Tytler, Edw. and Mary,2, 259.) Dr Lingard has, however, done wrong to Hume in saying that he “could have had no better authority than his own imagination” for his “very romantic statement” as to the cause of Courtenay’s rejection; for Hume only followed Heylyn. On the subject of Courtenay, see the British Magazine, 18, 256-60. fta338 Sup. p. 50. fta339 He was born in 1500. — Life by Philips, 1, 4. fta340 Godwin, 167. fta341 It is, however, certain, especially from the dispatches of Noailles, that “Gardiner was an obstinate opponent of the match in the cabinet, and then only sought to make it palatable and useful to the nation, when he found that it was not in his power to prevent it.” — Lingard, 7, 147, cf 132. fta342 Godwin, 167. fta343 Godwin, 167-8. fta344 Gardiner. fta345 Stow, 617. fta346 Qu. “artifices”? aft347 Godwin, 168. aft348 Edd. 1, 2, “accidently.” fta347 Godwin, 169. fta348 Godwin, 171, names Lord John Grey here, instead of Lord Thomas.

The Duke’s three brothers were all concerned. fta349 Stow, 617. fta350 See Eliz. 4, 15. fta351 April 27. — Fox,6, 549. fta352 Fox,6, 544; Stow, 622-3. fta353 For Wyatt’s rebellion, see Stow, 618 seqq.; Holinshed, 4:10, seqq.; Stow, 854-7; Godwin, 168, seqq. fta354 Edd. “who according.” fta355 This can hardly be called an abridgment of the longer reports in Fox,6, 415; Stow, 619; Godwin, 172. fta356 See 1, 172, n. 2. fta357 Stow, 619. Some remains of the Bishop of Winchester’s palace are still to be seen, near the western end of St Savior’s Church. fta358 Stow, 622-4. fta359 Fuller, 4, 330 — (where the quotation is not exactly the same).

Compare with this section, Aer. Rediv. p. 25. Also the chapters on “Puritan Politics,” in Maitland’s Essays on the Reformation, pp. 85, seqq., or British Magazine, Vol. 29. fta360 See Maitland, 103, 116-126. fta361 Calvin in Amos, c. 7, Opp. 5, 223, col. 1. designates Gardiner as “impostor ille qui postea fuit cancellarius hujus Proserpinae, quae hodie illic [in Anglia] superat omnes diabolos.” fta362 Edd. 1, 2, “Vauham; “ ed. 3, “Vanham.” fta363 Stow, 620. Burnet argues that Poinet cannot have been in the affair, because if so, the fact would have been published by Queen Mary’s government, and Gardiner would have moved for his attainder. But such arguments do not warrant us in setting aside the positive testimony of Stow, who was resident in London at the time. (Maitland, 95-6). And Poinet’s appearance in the rebellion was perfectly consistent with the principles of a work which he soon after published — “A treatise of Politic Power.” On this work, see Collier, 6, 61; Hallain, Literature of Europe, 2, 188-192, ed. 1; Maitland, 97, 123, etc.

Poinet died at Strasburg, 1556, aged 40. Godwin de Praesul. 256. (A story against him, which has been disbelieved as coming from Sanders, 230, is confirmed by Machyn’s Diary — “The 27 day of July [1551] was the nuw bisshope of W. devorsyd from the bucher wyff with shame enogh.” — p. 8.) fta364 Fox,6, 426. fta365 Edd. 1, 2, “were.” fta366 Edd. Heyl. “or.” fta367 “amove,” Burnet. fta368 Edd. 1, 2, and Fox, “alienis.” fta369 Edd. Heyl. “used frequently.” fta370 In Fox, Burnet, and Wilkins, the latter part of this paragraph is a distinct article, so that the number of the whole is eighteen. fta371 Edd. Heyl. “sufficient ability.” fta372 Edd. Heyl. “at.” fta373 Edd. Heyl. “or.” fta374 Fox, 6,427; Burnet, II. App. 252, (folio); Wilkins, 4, 89. fta375 Qu. “arms?” fta376 Sanders, 255; Stow, 625. fta377 Burnet, II 549, and 2:565, protests against “the malignity of one of our historians” (Heylyn), in having adopted this notion from Sanders.

But the subject of the words uttered by the “Spirit” appears to bear out the remark in the text; moreover Speed, a writer of principles very opposite to Sanders, ascribes the imposture to “certain giddy reformers.” 851; and the girl herself declared that she was instigated by a servant of Sir Antony Knevett — one of Wyatt’s adherents. — Machyn, 66. fta378 Godwin, 178. fta379 1597, for his services against the Armada, 1588, and in the Cadiz expedition, 1596. Camd. Eliz. Lat. 2, 137. fta380 A.D. 1559. fta381 See Eliz. Introd. 15-17. fta382 Dugdale 2, 404. fta383 He was created Lord North of “Kirtling, now called Carthlage.” — Dugdale, 2, 394. Edd. 1, 3, read “Charleleg;” Ed. 2, “Charlebeg.” I have given the name as it is in Godwin, 184. fta384 Edd. 1, 2, “impudence.” Dugdale, (2, 356) mentions that George, Lord Chandos, died in 1654. “To whom succeeded in his honor, William his brother, but not to much of his lands, he having settled the inheritance of them upon Jane his last wife,” by whom they passed to her second husband, George Pitts, Esq., ancestor of the Earls of Rivers.

For an account of the Chandos peerage, see the Supplement to Collins, Vol. 9, and many other publications of Sir Egerton Brydges. Against his claim, a work by Mr G. F. Beltz, of the Heralds’ College. fta385 The editions read Rome; but it seems unnecessary to follow them in the text. fta386 Mar. Sess. 2, c. 2. fta387 Godwin de Praesulibus, 552. fta388 Godw. p. 301; sup. p. 98. As was there remarked, the vacancy of Lincoln was caused, not by the death of Taylor, but by his deprivation. fta389 May, 1552. Edd. 1, 2, read “Story,” as if confounding the name of the Protestant Bishop with that of the Romanist civilian, who is repeatedly mentioned. fta390 Godwin, 538. Brooks and White were consecrated on the same day. fta391 1Mar. Sess. 1, c. 3. See Vol. 1, p. 290. fta392 Godwin, Ann. 179. fta393 i.e. Hapsburg. fta394 Fox,6, 555; Stow, 625. fta395 Stow, 625. fta396 Stow, 625. fta397 Stow, 625. — “It was matted about with mats, and mailed in little bundles about two feet long, and almost half a foot thick; and in every cart were six of those bundles. What it was indeed, God knoweth; for it is to us uncertain.” Fox 6, 560. fta398 Stow, 626, says the twelfth of February. fta399 Holgate. fta400 Machyn, 80; Fox,6, 586. fta401 Fox,6, 549. fta402 Holinshed, 4, 79. — This Earl held his peerage under a patent granted by Queen Mary in 1553; the earlier titles of the family having been lost through the attainder of his father. (Sup. 1, 19.) The earldom was created with remainder to “his heirs male for ever;” and in 1831 it was decided by the House of Lords that this description included the surviving branch of the Courtenay family, as being descended from common ancestors, although the last of these had lived two hundred years before the date of the title. Thus the Earldom of 1553 was adjudged to William, Viscount Courtenay, who, though only the second bearer of the title, was the ninth who was entitled to it, and the twentieth in hereditary succession from the first Earl of his family.

Lodge’s Genealogy of the Peerage. fta403 Eliz. Introd. fta404 Dillingen on the Danube, in Bavaria. fta405 Sarpi, 385. fta406 The Emperor and Gardiner apprehended great difficulties as to the reconciliation with Rome, unless the church-lands which had fallen into lay hands might be retained by the possessors; and the Cardinal was detained at Brussels for some time on account of negotiations with the Pope on this subject. — Lingard, 7, 176. fta407 Qu. “served?” fta408 In a letter from Dean Wotton, dated Melun, Dec. 23, 1553, it is said — “I understand that Cardinal Pole had put [the French King and others] in a good hope that the said marriage [of Mary with Philip] should take none effect.” — Tytler, Edw. and Mary,2, 274. As Mr Tytler observes, — if this be true, we cannot wonder at the Emperor’s behavior to Pole. fta409 Godwin, 181. (See p. 135). fta410 Stow, 626. — The commission for expelling Holgate, Farrar, Bird, and Bush, is printed by Burnet, II. 2, 359; that against Taylor, Hooper, and Harley, ib. p. 360. There was a difference between the cases — the first four, as regular clergy, being charged with violation of engagements by which the others, as seculars, had not been bound.

Collier, 6, 65. On Holgate, see Harmer (Wharton) 125. fta411 The Conge d’e1ire is dated Feb. 19, 1554-5. Godw. de Praesul 710. fta412 Sup. 1, 65, whence it will be seen that there is a misstatement here. fta413 May 10. Godw. de Praes. 272; Strype, in Burnet, III. 2, 535. fta414 The Conge d’elire is dated Sept. 4, 1554. Godw. 441. fta415 The Conge d’elire is dated March 3, 1553-4. Ib. 388. fta416 Sup. p. 92. (As to Bourne’s Archdeaconry, see 1, 85). fta417 “Hospitalis episcopi gloriam affectans, tantam aluit familiam, ut cum quotidianis sumptibus reditus non suffecerint, necesse habuerit fundos episcopales in longissimum tempus, (qued nimirum adhuc non est clapsum), elocare; id quod episcopatum antea satis tenuem nunc reddidit pauperrimum.” — Godwin, 642. “Cum [sedem Assavensem], praediis episcopalibus divenditis, nequissimo spoliasset sacrilegio, in rei tam praeclare gestae praemium ad Herefordensem episcopatum a Maria regina provehitur.” — Ibid. 494. But Richardson remarks, in a note on the passage — “Post rerum omnium disquisitionem, totum hoc de alienationibus a cl viro Br. Willis penitus negatur.” fta418 The epithet “old” would be more fitly applied to Bird than to Bush; for the age of the latter was at this time 64, while Bird is described as “ferme octogenarius” at the time of his death, two years later. After his deprivation he recanted, and became a suffragan under Bonner. — Godwin, De Praesul. 564, 776. Compare the notes in Strype’s Cranmer, ed. Eccl. Hist. Soc. 1, 135-7. fta419 Consecrated, Nov. 18, 1554. Godw. de Praesul. 564. fta420 The editions wrongly call this bishop Coles. He was consecrated April 1, 1554, and died in the end of the following year. — Godwin, 776. fta421 Nov. 18, 1554. — Godwin, 325. fta422 Fox,6, 579; Sarpi, 385. fta423 1 and 2 Philippians and Mar. c. 8. fta424 1 and 2 Philippians and Mar. (Private Act, 1.) The Act passed on Nov. 21 — the day of the Cardinal’s landing at Dover; and the royal assent was given on the 22nd. — Fox,6, 567. fta425 Sarpi, 386. fta426 Ibid.; Fox,6, 568-571; Godw. Ann. 182. fta427 Sarpi, 386; Stow, 625; Sanders, 257; Fox,6, 571. — The letters patent of Philip and Mary, authorizing submission to Pole’s legatine authority, are in Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3, 157. fta428 Sarpi, 386. fta429 Fox,6, 572; Wilkins, 4, 111, gives the Latin form, from the first edition of Fox, p. 1011. fta430 “inquinamentis.” fta431 “exhiberet,” [“ present,” Eng. Bible, Ephesians 5:27.] fta432 Edd. Heyl. “censures and pains.” fta433 Qu. “praise? “ fta434 Wilkins, 4, 121. Sanders, 259, represents Pole as ordering this by his own authority. fta435 Stow, 626; Fox,6, 577. fta436 Sarpi, 386; Sleidan, 491. Lat. fta437 The Latin is in Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3, App. No. 21; Wilkins 4, 101; and is recited in the “Act restoring the Papal Supremacy,” 1 and Philippians and Mar. c. 8. fta438 “dispositione.” fta439 ”propter multiplices et paene inextricabiles super his habitos contractus et dispositiones.” fta440 “suum progressum et finem.” fta441 “haec nomine nostro insinuari et,” omitted in the translation. fta442 “quae hanc nostram jurisdictionem et libertatem ecclesiasticam tollunt, seu quovis modo impediunt.” fta443 Edd. 1, 2. — “Majesty.” fta444 “necessitatibus et incommodis hujus sui regni ecclesiarum, maxime curam animarum habentium, nunquam defuturas esse, sed prout opus fuerit, consulturas atque provisuras.” The translation is as if the comma were after regni, (as in Gibson) instead of after ecclesiarum. fta445 Fox,6, 579. A bull of Julius III., dated June 28, 1554, empowering Pole to settle all questions as to alienated church-property, is printed by Wilkins, 4, 102; comp. Burnet III. Introd. 34-8; Lingard, 7, 176; Sup.

Vol. I. pp. 11-12. fta446 It is not to be supposed that Heylyn would have spoken so uncertainly if he had seen the Act 1 and 2 Philippians and Mar. c. 8; for in it are recited both the petition of the clergy, (as already mentioned) and the Legate’s dispensation, which was the instrument by which the assurance of church-lands to the laity, the confirmation of clergymen in their benefices, etc. were conveyed. The Act is printed in full by Gibson, 37 seqq. fta447 Perhaps the reference should be to Sanders, p. 260. “As to the assurance of the abbey-lands to the present holders, this originated in a bull, published by Paul IV. in the preceding July, and supposed to revoke the alienations formerly sanctioned by the Legate. [Bullarium Roman. Rom. 1745, 6, 319.] In reality, the bull did not relate to this country. Pole, however, applied to Rome; and, when parliament assembled, he was able to produce another instrument, specially exempting England from the effects of any such revocation.” — Dodd, 2, 115. The instrument in question is printed in the same volume, Appendix, p. 120; comp. Lingard, 7, 180. Sir W. Petre obtained from the Pope a special confirmation of the church-lands of which he was possessor. — (Sup 1, 36); Strype. Eccl. Mem. 3, 270. fta448 For the Cardinal’s letters of dispensation, see Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3, 160-1 and Append. 21-2; Wilkins, 4, 112; compare Ranke, Hist. of Popes, tr. by Mrs Austin, 1, 317, referring to Pallavicino, 13, 9, 411.

Sanders (248, 261) regrets the facility with which dispensation was granted to married clerks, and such as were willing to conform were admitted to exercise their functions, without any inquiry as to the source whence they had derived their orders. fta449 Antony Kitchen, “qui,” says Sanders, p. 260, “illud negligentia potius quam malitia praetermittens, solus postea sub Elizabetha, Dei ut interpretamur judicio, in schisma relapsus est.” fta450 Fox,6, 588. fta451 Dugdale, Baronage, 2, 396. He was grandson of the Lady Lucy, daughter and one of the coheiresses of John, Marquess of Montacute. — Ibid. fta452 Sup. 1, 288; Dugdale, Baronage, 1, 307-8. fta453 Stow, 626; Sarpi, 386. fta454 Julius died March 5, 1554-5. Marcellus was elected on the 9th of April, and died on the 30th. — Nicolas, Chronology, 206. fta455 Sup. 1, 44. fta456 Sarpi, 391-2. The bull was treated as of some importance, inasmuch as “The natives of Ireland had maintained that the Kings of England originally held Ireland by the donation of Adrian IV., and had lost it by their defection from the communion of Rome.” — Lingard, 7, 186. fta457 Sarpi, 392. Phillips, (L. of Pole, 2, 143), and Lingard, (7, 186), deny the truth of Fra Paolo’s statements on this subject — founding their contradiction on Pole’s letters. But Mackintosh (2, 322) observes that “Pallavicino, who wrote from the archives of the court of Rome, for the purpose of discrediting Fra Paolo, confirms [his story] by a remarkable and otherwise inexplicable silence .... He passes over in silence the remonstrances of the pontiff against the detention of ecclesiastical property in England, which so acute and vigilant an antagonist would certainly have contradicted if he durst. — Pallav, 13, c. 12. In c. 13 there is almost a positive admission of the veracity of Fra Paolo.” “It is not difficult,” Sir James remarks, “to understand the expedients by which the ingenious and refined sophists of Romo might reconcile the private language of the Pope with his public acts.

Whoever, indeed, is thoroughly imbued with the important distinction between an immoral and an illegal act, will own that this dangerously applied reasoning is not in itself without some color.” — Comp. G.

Ridley’s Review of Phillips, 276-7. fta458 Sarpi, 393. fta459 Dated Nov. 27, 1554. — See Fox,6, 567; Wilkins, 4, 109. fta460 1 and 2 Philippians and Mar. c. 10. fta461 Fox,6, 582; Wilkins, 4, 116. The prayers used on this occasion are sometimes to be found inserted in MS. in the missals of the time. fta462 Fox,7, 125-6. Letters for the purpose of announcing to foreign princes the birth of a “fil. — ,” (with a blank for the termination, according as the sex should prove to be,) were prepared, and are preserved in the State Paper Office. — Tytler, Edw. and Mary 2, 469. fta463 Fox,7, 126. fta464 Edd. “whereof.” fta465 Godwin, 183. fta466 There is no ground for saying that Rose “did use to pray” to this purpose in his London congregation under Mary; nor does Dr Lingard’s statement (7, 191), that he “openly prayed” so on new year’s eve, 1554-5, when he was apprehended, appear to be more correct, although it is conntenanced by an anonymous letter of the time, Epp.

Tigur. 499, where it is said that Rose “pro conversione reginae oravit ita, ut vel cito eam Deus converteret, vel illius jugum a cervicibus piorum tolleret.” The letter-writer (who evidently considered it a great hardship that any one should interfere with such innocent intercessions) would seem to have heard some confused and inaccurate account of the affair. Fox relates (8, 584) that when Rose had been apprehended with his congregation, while celebrating the holy communion on new year’s eve, he was examined before Gardiner; that one of the Bishop’s servants charged him with having once prayed in the manner described, at Sir J. Robster’s house, near Norwich, in the reign of Edward; and that he declared this to be a misrepresentation of his words: — “My Lord, I made no such prayer, but next after the King I prayed for her after this sort, saying, ‘Ye shall pray for my Lady Mary’s grace, that God will vouchsafe to endue her with His Spirit, that she graciously may perceive the mysteries contained within His holy laws, and so render unto Him her heart, purified with true faith, and true and loyal obedience to her sovereign Lord the King, to the good ensample of the inferior subjects.’ And this, my Lord, is already answered in mine own handwriting to the Council.” For an account of Rose, see Strype, Cranmer 2, 374 — 6, ed. Eccl Hist. Soc; Maitland on the Reformation, 434-6. Cranmer recommended him for an Irish archbishoprick in 1552. fta467 1 and 2 Philippians and Mar. c. 9 This act (Star. of the Realm, 4, 254) speaks of the words ascribed in the text to Rose as used by “divers naughty, seditious, malicious and heretical persons”...”in conventicles in divers and sundry profane places within the city of London.” fta468 Stow, 624. fta469 Edd. 1, 2. “in.” fta470 June 22, ibid. fta471 This does not mean merely that the matter was stated in the sermon at St Paul’s Cross, but that the cat itself was exhibited by the preacher, acting under order of the Bishop. Stow, 623. The gibbet in Cheapside was one of a number set up in different parts of the city for the execution of Wyatt’s followers, which were allowed to remain from Feb. 13 to June 4, when they were removed on the occasion of Philip’s arrival. Fox,6, 548. fta472 Perhaps “she” ought to be omitted, or “they” to be substituted. fta473 1 and 2 Philippians and Mar. c. 6. fta474 See Sleidan, b. 25, p. 591, (transl.) for the Emperor’s moderate advice. fta475 “So” omitted in Edd. 1, 2. fta476 October, 1553. fta477 On the speech which our author puts into the mouth of Bonner, see Maitland’s Essays on the Reformation, 463-4. Of Fuller’s assertion that the Bishop “stood not on distinction of dioceses,” Dr Maitland observes: — “I believe this to be absolutely and entirely untrue .... I suspect it would be impossible to name a case in which Bonner martyred, or examined, or meddled with, anybody whatsoever, except on the ground that the prisoner was under his jurisdiction” (409). “I believe that he never dealt with any alleged heretic who was not brought before him in his official character, as Bishop of London, in due course of law, by the warrant of some magistrate, or other person acting directly under a commission from the Government.” (414.

Comp. 518, 520). The Essay from which these words are quoted, contains a detailed examination of the charges of cruelty commonly advanced against Bonner, and appears to vindicate him successfully from them, while the learned author does not pretend to “set him up as a model of wisdom, piety, and virtue” (574). fta478 Sup. 1, 42. fta479 Edd. 1, 2. “Prebends.” fta500 Fox,6, 591-612. fta501 Sup. 1, 189, seqq. fta502 For Hooper, see Fox,6, 636-676. fta503 Cleop. E. 5, 380. The text of this document, (which the editor has not met with elsewhere in print) has been corrected by the MS. fta504 Edd. “false and.” fta505 Edd. 1, 2, omit “the.” fta506 Edd. “refuseth.” fta507 “Edd. “that.” fta508 Edd. “your.” fta509 Edd. “as other heretics.” fta510 Edd. “inconveniences.” fta511 Fuller, 7, 1 — 28. Sup. 1, 253. fta512 Godwin, Ann. 186. fta513 “A restitution of one that hath two titles to lands or tenements, and is seized of them by his latter title, unto his title that is more ancient, in case where the latter is defective.” (Johnson, from Cowell.) fta514 Edd. 1, 2. “nor.” fta515 For Farrar, see Fox,7,3, seqq. fta516 Hadleigh, in Suffolk. See Fox,7, 676-703. fta517 May 30. Fox,7, 77, seqq. fta518 Fox,6, 612-636. fta519 Fox,7, 143-285. fta520 Sup. p. 92. See Maitland, 455. fta521 Fox,6, 439, who states that the order for their delivery was sent to the Tower on March 10th. Burnet says that the order was sent on the 8th of March, Pt. 3, b. 5, p. 226; and Machyn in his Diary, p. 57, records the removal from the Tower on that day. See Maitland, 431; also Cranmer, ed. Park. Soc. Vol. 2, Pref. p. 11, where it is shewn that the removal of the Bishops took place before Easter, which fell on March 25th, according to Nicolas, Chronol. 67. fta522 1 Corinthians 15:32. fta523 Godwin, Ann. 177. fta524 Oglethorpe, afterwards Bishop of Carlisle. fta525 Fox,6, 439. But the lists are incorrect. There were, in fact three sets of disputants — Holyman, Tresham, Marshall, Morwent, Smith, and others, of Oxford; Young, Glyn, Atkinson, Watson, Scot, Langdale, and Sedgwick, of Cambridge; with Weston, Oglethorpe, Seton, Chedsey, Cole, Geffrey, Pye, Feckenham, and J. Harpsfield, as representatives of the Convocation. Strype’s Cranmer, 335, folio ed. fta526 The questions were agreed on by the Convocation which was sitting in London, and were then sent down to Cambridge, where they were adopted by the Senate, as agreeable to Catholic doctrine. Strype’s Cranmer, 334, folio. Fox,6, 439-40. fta527 Fox,6, 444. fta528 Fox,6, 511. fta529 Fox,6, 444, seqq. Comp. Cranmer, ed. Jenkyns, 4; ed. Park Soc. 1, 391, seqq. fta530 Fox,6, 534. fta531 “sense and judgment.” Fox. fta532 ”And, as I am persuaded, shall by the grace of God abide,” etc. Fox. fta533 Edd. 1, 2, “as.” Ed. 3 omits the word altogether. fta534 Edd. Heyl. “that.” fta535 Fox,6, 642. fta536 Hooper had probably incurred the especial enmity of Bonner by the part which he took in his deprivation under Edward. Sup. 1, 162; Fox,6, 645. See, however, Maitland, 448, seqq. fta537 The proceedings in the matter of Cranmer are in Fox, Vol. 8, and in the editions of the Archbishop’s Remains. fta538 “Not so. But the citation to Rome took place on Saturday, Sept. 7, 1555, before the commencement of this process. See Cranmer’s Letter to the Queen, subjoined to the second edition of Cranmer’s answer to Gardiner, p. 420.” [Cranm. Works, ed. Park. Soc. 2, 447.] Wordsw.

Eccl. Biog. 3, 243. Dr Wordsworth in the same note exposes other mistakes of Fox, etc., which Heylyn has not followed. fta539 Fox,7, 518. fta540 Fox,7, 540. fta541 Fox,7, 550. fta542 Godwin, 186. I have not observed this circumstance in the text of Fox, but in his engraving of the martyrdom, Cranmer appears on the top of a tower, with the prayer issuing from his mouth. fta543 Stow, 527. fta544 2 and 3 Philippians and Mar. c. 4. fta545 See below, 4, 2. fta546 c. 15. fta547 Stow, 627. fta548 Wilkins, 4, 120. fta549 “Non obligarentur rependere duplum, etc., pro quo in fisco regio multi conqueruntur se conventos.” Wilkins, 4, 120. fta550 Sup. p. 133. fta551 Edd. “Goldnel.” fta552 Godw. de Praesul. 642. fta553 Rather Bulkley. The story which follows is from Godwin De Praesulibus, 626, but the editor, Richardson, remarks: “In MS. Anstis hoc scriprum legi, — ‘Arthurus Bulkeley optime meruit de Episcopatu, et fuit praecipuus Benefactor Sedi et Ecclesiae Bangorensi; seal nunquam fuit caecitate pereussus, ut false narrat Godwinus: in tota Dioecesi Bangor. sunt in nulla Eccl. quinque nolae, nisi in Cathedrali Bang. duntaxat, et nunquam ibi ante annum 1687.”’ There is no note on Godwin’s statement (p. 627) that Bp Rowlands, (1598-1618) “ecclesiae suae campanile, quod Bulkleius expilaverat, quatuor nolis instruxit.” fta554 Edd. “Goldnel.” Glyn was consecrated Sept. 8; Godw. de Praesul. 626. The date of Goldwell’s consecration is not given. fta555 Fox,8,68. See above, p. 160 n. 1. fta556 The sentence is in Fox,8, 69-71. fta557 Edd. “so indifferently.” fta558 Fox, 8:71-2. fta559 Ibid. 73-6. fta560 Juan de Villa Garcia. Fox. 8, 80. He was Regius Professor of Divinity from 1556 to 1559. Le Neve, Fasti 471. See Brit. Magazine, 16, 488. fta561 Fox,8, 81. See Brit. Mag. 17, 6-16. fta562 “One of our learned Church-historians [Burnet] says, it was thought Pole himself hastened Crammer’s execution, longing to be invested in that See. But so dishonorable a practice is foreign to the Cardinal’s character: and if we examine the matter farther, it will be found Pole could have no temptation to such extraordinary management: for the See of Canterbury was actually void upon Cranmer’s attainder, two years since. Besides, the present Pope, in his Bull of December last, had collated Pole to the archbishoprick of Canterbury. And in this instrument he declares he had solemnly excommunicated and deposed Cranmer. From hence it is evident that Cranmer’s life could be no hinderance to Pole’s advancement to the See of Canterbury.” Collier, 6, 139. Comp. Harmer (Wharton), Specimen of Errors, 145. Godwin states that Pole refused to receive the revenues of Canterbury, while Cranmer lived, except as a sequestrator. Ann. 187. fta563 1 Samuel 15:32. fta564 Fox,8, 90. fta565 This statement was probably taken from Godwin, De Praesul. p. 144. “But,” says Collier, 6, 142, “the truth of this relation may be questioned; for Fox, who never omits anything for the advantage of those who suffered, says nothing of this wonderful circumstance.” fta566 Collier (6, 138) observes that the letter, which is addressed to a lawyer (Fox,8, 98. Cranm. ed. Jenkyns, 1, 536; ed Park. Soc. 2, 455), does not bear out this conjecture, of which Fox is the author. “The Archbishop acquaints the lawyer, whom he desired to draw up his appeal from the Pope, that the principal reason of his applying to this expedient [i.e. the appeal to a General Council] was to lengthen his life a little, till he had finished his answer to the book above mentioned: but here is not a syllable of his recantation in the letter, which was not made till his appeal was overruled, till he was degraded in form, and put into the hands of the secular magistrate.” In a letter written from prison to Peter Martyr, (which was discovered at Zurich by the Reverend S. A. Pears, in the course of researches for the Parker Society), he says “Hodie nihil magis anitaum angit meum, quam quod haetenus M. A., [i.e. to Gardiner, who had written under the name of Marcus Antonius Constantius] nihil est responsum; ad eujus astutias, praestigias, et insanias jamdudum non defuisset responsum, nisi mihi defuissent et libri et libertas.” Works, ed. Park. Soc. 2, 457. fta567 That this is an exaggeration, see Maitland on the Reformation, 408-9. fta568 Fox,8, 510. The boy went to Bonner’s house, and, being questioned by a chaplain as to his business, told him that he came to see his father, and pointed to the prison as the place where the father was. “Why,” quoth the priest, “thy father is a heretic.” The boy replied, “My father is no heretic; for you have Balaam’s mark.” The chaplain then carried him into the house, — “whether to the Bishop or not, I know not,” says Fox; and he was cruelly whipped “amongst them.” Bonner is described as ashamed and grieved for what had been done, and released the father in consequence; “but within fourteen days after, the child died; whether through this cruel scourging, or any other infirmity,” says Fox, “I know not.” It will be seen that this story does not justify Heylyn’s representation of the case, which was probably taken from Fuller, 4, 186, without reference to the original authority. (This note is left as it was written before the editor had seen the more complete exposure of Fuller’s statement, in Maitland, 414-420.) fta569 Edd. “Lavecork.” The story is in Fox,8, 140. See Maitland, 420. fta570 Fox,7, 605-714. See Maitland, 410. fta571 Fox,6, 704. But this sermon appears to have been preached merely as a matter of policy, for the benefit of Philip’s reputation — the English people being inclined to refer the persecution to the Spaniards. The friar, Alphonso a Castro, was at this very time preparing a new edition of a work in which he very strongly maintains the propriety of inflicting death on heretics — “De Justa Haereticorum Punitione,” ed. 2. Lugd.

Bat. 1556. — See Brit. Mag. 17, 488; Massingberd’s Hist. of the English Reformation, 1st ed. 399. fta572 It ought to be stated, in justice to Bonner, that he was more than once admonished by the Council [Burnet, II 2, 400. III. 506,) to go on with the prosecution of persons charged with heresy; — which seems to imply a slackness on his part. Fox treats the monitions of the Council as a trick of Bonner’s own contriving. (7, 287; comp. 8, 451.) But on the whole question of “Bonner’s cruelty,” see Dr Maitland’s Essay, which, (it need hardly be said), is not to be confounded with the fashion which has for some time prevailed, of endeavoring, with or without reason, to reverse all our old historical beliefs. fta573 Fox mentions Christopherson as a violent persecutor, 8, 430; but some of the burnings in the diocese of Chichester were before the appointment of this bishop. He was nominated at the time when the ten were burnt at Lewes, June 22, 1557 (Fox,8, 332), but was not consecrated until the following November. Godw. 513. fta574 Fox,8, 401. Fuller, 4, 191. fta575 Fox,8, 247. fta576 Edd. “March.” Fox,7, 39-68. fta577 Edd. “Coles.” fta578 Fox,7, 28-33. The old editions of Heylyn make this person into two — “Rawlins and White.” The error is not in Fuller, who is the immediate authority in this section (4, 180, seqq.); but our author has misled Collier into speaking of “two more” besides Bishop Farrar as burnt in Wales, 6, 153. fta579 Fox,8, 504. fta580 Fuller, 4, 199. See below, 6, 3. fta581 In Fox the name is spelt “Cawches.” fta582 Helier Gosselin. Fox. fta583 Fox,8, 226-241. The truth of this story was denied by Harding. Fox replied to him, and was answered by Persons; on the strength of whose argument Dr Lingard considers himself entitled to disbelieve the tale. 7, 376. fta584 “Canis pessimi ne catulum relinqnendum.” Author, [probably from some translation of Eusebius, De Martyribus Palaestinae.] fta585 Godwin, Ann. 187. fta586 Godw. de Praesul. 236. fta587 Stow, 627. fta588 Ibid. fta589 4 The next day , March 22. Godw. de Praesul. 150. fta590 Godw. de Praesul 238. But the editor, Richardson, states, on the authority of New College Register, that he was a native of Farnham, — a place connected with the See of Winchester by the residence of the Bishop. fta591 Ibid. fta592 7 July, 1556. Ibid. fta593 Godwin, 417. But Richardson dates his consecration Sept. 8, 1555. fta594 “Manors of Credinson of Kirton.” Edd. 1, 2. “Manors of Credinson, or Kirton.” Ed. 3. fta595 Bp. Godwin tells us that this was done “me canonico, sed concessioni assensum minime praebente.” De Praesul. 417. fta596 See Maitland’s Essays on the Reformation, Nos. 5-9. The seditious writings of the exiles and others of the reformed party must, no doubt, as Dr Maitland suggests, have had a great share in provoking the severe measures of the government. fta597 Sup. p. 125. fta598 Stow, 626. fta599 Stow, 628, on whose authority I have substituted the two names of Rossey and Dedike for the one, “Rosededike,” which appears in the old editions. fta600 Hist. d’Angleterre, Paris, 1634, p. 1085. fta601 Edd. “possibly.” fta602 p. 171. fta603 The details which follow are from “A brief Discourse of the Troubles at Frankfort,” printed A.D. 1575, reprinted in the Phenix, Vol. 2, and lately (1846) as a volume of Petheram’s “Puritan Discipline Tracts.”

The references apply to the last edition, which is paged after that of 1575. It is necessary to state that Heylyn’s view of the affair is very different from that of the original author, — (probably Whittingham.

See Petheram, 5-9). Comp. Fuller, 4, 208, seqq. fta604 Or Clauburg. Henry, Leben Calvins, 3, 419. fta605 pp. 5, 6. The words “that they should not dissent from the French men in doctrine or ceremonies,” were not intended to bind them to any particular form of service. fta606 Pp. 6-7. fta607 Pp. 8-13. fta608 Pp. 13, seqq. fta609 See Maitland on the Reformation, 126, seqq. fta610 Troubles,13. He had been invited to Frankfort as minister. fta611 Eliz. 2, 1. fta612 Pp. 1-2. The latter seems to mean the letter from Strasburg , p. 22. fta613 Pp. 23-4. fta614 Pp. 24-7. fta615 This order is reprinted in the second volume of the Phenix. fta616 Sup. 1, 166-7. fta617 p. 28. fta618 “Non est ea puritas quae optanda foret.” Author . fta619 “Faecis papisticae reliquias.” Author . fta620 Pp. 34-6. The whole passage is as follows: “In Anglicana Liturgia, qualem describitis, multas video fuisse tolerabiles ineptias. His duobus verbis exprimo, non fuisse eam puritatem quae optanda fuerat; quae tamen primo statim die corriginon poterant vitia, quum nulla subesset manifesta impietas, ferenda ad tempus fuisse. Sic ergo a talibus rudimentis incipere licuit, ut doctos tamon probosque et graves Christi ministros ultra eniti, et aliquid limatius ac purius quaerere, consentaneum foret .... Quid sibi velint, nescio, quos faecis papisticae reliquiae tantopere delectant.” Calv. Epp. p. 98, col. 1, where the date given is “15 Cal. Febr.” fta621 p. 36. fta622 “the last of April.” P. 37. fta623 “Superstitious, unpure, and unperfect, — which he offered to prove before all men.” P. 38. fta624 p. 43. fta625 p. 44. fta626 Pp. 46, seqq. fta627 P. 60. fta628 “24” in the “Troubles,” p. 51. fta629 pp. 51-3. Calv. Epp. p. 98. fta630 p. 59. fta631 Edd. “conformed.” fta632 Whitehead resigned Jan. 6, 1555-6; Horn was inducted March 1, P. 62. fta633 Heylyn here gives in the margin the date 1555-6; but it was really in 1556-7 that this new quarrel began, so that Horn had at the time been nearly a year in possession of his office. P. 62. fta634 P. 8. fta635 Pp. 82-4. fta636 P. 83. Chambers had hitherto had all the funds in his hands. For an account of him, see Strype’s Eccl. Mem. 3,142. fta637 Pp. 88, seqq. fta638 p. 99. Mr Bertie has been mentioned already, p. 103, as husband of the Duchess of Suffolk. fta639 p. 170. fta640 pp. 182-4. Edd. Heyl. read “July.” fta641 p. 98. fta642 Heylyn’s “Aerius Redivivus, or History of the Presbyterians,” was published posthumously in 1670. fta643 Edd. “and.” fta644 Troubles of Frankfort, 192. fta645 “Sometime a bookseller, now Reader of St Antholine’s, Parson of St Peter the Poor, Prebend of St Paul’s, Vicar of St Giles without Cripplegate, and Dean of Hereford,” as he is described by Stow, in a paper published by Dr Wordsworth, Eccl. Biog. 3, 475. Crowley had, how ever, been educated at Oxford before he became a bookseller and printer. Wood, Athen. Oxon. 1, 542-6, where there is a long list of his publications. He advocated his theological views in verse as well as in prose, and was the first editor of Piers Plowman’s Vision, which he published with a controversial intention. Warton, Hist. of Eng. Poetry,3, 165. ed. 1840. This turbulent puritan died in 1588 (Stow, Survey, 313), and was succeeded in the parish of St Giles by a man of a very different stamp — Lancelot Andrewes. The work here quoted was answered by Campneys (sup. 1, 153.) Compare for Campneys, Heyl.

Historia Quinquart. pt. 3, p. 5; for Crowley, Strype, Eccl. Mem. 2, 139; Parker, 218-91. fta646 So Aer. Red.; “had,” edd. Eccl. Restaur. fta647 The substance of this section, with the quotations, is taken from the Historia Quinquarticularis, 3, 5-8 (reprinted in Heylyn’s Tracts); and it is repeated in the Aerius Redivivus, 243. On the history of predestinarian doctrines, comp. Cypr. Anglic. 28, seqq. end of text p.

Ftb1 Edd. 1, 2. “Laws.”

Ftb2 Edd. “the dignity thereof, and my crown imperial.”

Ftb3 Sup. p. 162.

Ftb4 Fox, 7:34, (who gives March 28, 1555 as the date).

Ftb5 According to Speed; but Dugdale’s valuation is £3471. 9s. 2 ½ d.

Monast. Angl. 1:230.

Ftb6 Sup. 1:125.

Ftb7 He is said by Godwin to have been consecrated in 1556, but by Richardson on August 15, 1557. His predecessor, Aldrich, died March 5, 1555-6. De Praesul. 770.

Ftb8 Edd. “opportunity.”

Ftb9 Fox, 8:637.

Ftb10 Stow, 628. Machyn, 119. Fuller, 6:96. Dodd and Lingard state that the number of monks was twenty-eight — “all of them beneficed clergymen, who had quitted their livings.” Perhaps the smaller number may have been appointed at first, and the rest added, or intended to be added, afterwards. “Feckenham was again appointed Abbot, but only for three years. For the Cardinal disapproved of the ancient custom of abbots for life; and had sent to Italy for two monks, who might establish in England the discipline observed in the more rigid communities abroad.” Lingard, 7:216.

Ftb11 In 1534, Henry “suppressed at Canterbury, Greenwich, Richmond, and some other places, the Observant Friars, noted to be the most clamorous against him, and for them substituted the Augustine Friars.”

Herbert, 178. Comp. Fuller, in. 363, 483.

Ftb12 Fuller, 3:483.

Ftb13 Ibid.

Ftb14 Ibid. It was founded in 1414, and removed to Sion in 1432. Mon.

Angl. 6:540.

Ftb15 Fuller, 3:483.

Ftb16 Ibid. 3:483.

Ftb17 Sup. 1:152.

Ftb18 Fuller, 3:484. Sup. 32.

Ftb19 Ibid. 3:489.

Ftb20 This statement; as to the object of Henry VII’s foundation appears to be erroneous. Stow, Survey, 491, Tanner, Notit. Monast. 327, and Maitland, Hist. of London, 1338, state that he endowed it as an hospital for a hundred poor persons.

Ftb21 Sup. 1:275.

Ftb22 Fuller, 4:248.

Ftb23 Philip remained abroad a year and a half at this time. Speed, 854.

Ftb24 Edd. “where.”

Ftb25 Robertson, Hist. of Charles V., 3:99, ed. Oxf. 1825.

Ftb26 On the strange discrepancies as to the dates of the Emperor’s resignations, see Robertson, Charles V., 3:86.

Ftb27 The Bull “Injunctum nobis desuper,” mentioned p. 141, note 3. Comp.

Fox, 7:35, where it is maintained that “in very deed the meaning of that bull was only for England, and no country else.”

Ftb28 3 and 4 Philippians and Mar. c. 8. (Irel.)

Ftb29 c. 10.

Ftb30 Sleidan, b. 21 p. 490, Eng.; Speed, 852. His orthodoxy on the subject of Justification was questioned. Caraffa (now pope) had maintained opinions opposed to his in the early sessions of the Council of Trent.

Ranke, Hist. of Popes, 1:204.

Ftb31 Holinshed, 4:141. Wilkins, 4:169.

Ftb32 The old editions read “14, 15, and 17th;” which is certainly wrong, as appears from the subsequent mention of the seventeenth article.

Ftb33 Edd. Heyl. “and.”

Ftb34 Edd. “having.”

Ftb35 The names of Godfathers and Godmothers are to be found in some registers of this period, as in that of Staplehurst, mentioned by Burn (Hist. of Parish Registers, p. 85), and in that of Barham, near Canterbury. Such entries are, however, rare: possibly because the order may have been disregarded; or (more probably) because the registers now extant are commonly copies, made in the last years of Elizabeth, under a ‘Canon which directed that the entries of the paper books from the beginning of the reign should be transcribed on parchment (A.D. 1597. Cardw. Synod. 1:160); and clergymen who were at the pains of copying earlier ‘entries may have retained only so much of them as was agreeable to the practice of their own time. Mr Burn, in his very curious work, gives instances of the entry of sponsors from registers of the Reformed English Church.

Ftb36 It was in 1604, after the Hampton-Court Conference, that the administration of Baptism in the English Church was restricted to “the minister of the parish, or some other lawful minister.” Cardwell, Conferences, 145, 218.

Ftb37 Ed. 3, “great.” Perhaps “as great a zeal” — a conjecture the more likely because the work was written from dictation. Comp. p. 195, 50:32.

Ftb38 The proceedings are very fully related by Fox, 8:258, seqq.

Ftb39 Sup. 1:208.

Ftb40 Ormanetto was Datary for England (Godw. de Praesul. 151). The definition of Datarius given by Du Cange is, “primus Cancellariae Romanae minister, praelatus semper, interdum cardinalis; sic dictus a litteris expeditis quibus vulgo addit Datum Romoe, etc.” But, as it does not appear how such a functionary could act anywhere but at Rome, we may perhaps understand the office of the Datary for England better by supposing Ormanetto to have been commissioned for the transaction of business like that of the Dataria Romana, — the department to which belong the issuing of dispensations, the conferring of such ecclesiastical dignities as are in the gift of the Pope, and similar acts of grace. (Walter, Lehrb. d. Kirchenrechts, Bonn, 1842, p. 295.) The office was probably extraordinary, — the affairs of the reconciliation rendering it expedient that a person should be sent into England with authority to settle matters which in the ordinary course must have been referred to Rome.

Ftb41 Fox, 8:296.

Ftb42 Fox, 8:296-.7.

Ftb43 The sermon and the panegyric are both given by Fox, 8:287-295; and in the Appendix to Bucer’s Scripta Anglicana, there is a full history of the Commemoration. The materials of the narrative were collected under the superintendence of Grindal. Comp. Zurich Letters, ed. 2. p. 114.

Ftb44 Sup. 1:292-3. Milton’s Prose Works, 577-8, ed. 1834.

Ftb45 Sup. 1:231.

Ftb46 i.e. Chancellor. The scene of this disaster was Pitsligo Bay, in Aberdeenshire. See “Collections on the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff,” presented by the Earl of Aberdeen to the Spalding Club, Aberd. 1843. p. 440.

Ftb47 Stow, p. 629.

Ftb48 Stow, 630. Speed, 859. Godwin, 192.

Ftb49 Stow, 631. Godwin, 193.

Ftb50 Stow, 631.

Ftb51 Sup. p. 173.

Ftb52 “Bulla provisionis data 9 Kal. April, 1556; consecratus, decimo quinto Augusti, 1557.” Godwin, de Praesul. 301.

Ftb53 “Provisus bulla data non Maii, 1557; consecratus, 21 Nov.” Godw. 513.

Ftb54 “Temporalia hahuit restituta 29 Sept. 1556.” Godw. 776.

Ftb55 Aug. 15, 1557. Godw. 770.

Ftb56 Oct. 6, 1557. Godw. 353.

Ftb57 Richardson dates the death of Chambers in the end of February 1555- 6. Ibid. 558.

Ftb58 Mary, 5:8.

Ftb59 Godw. 558.

Ftb60 i.e. Thomas. See Dugdale, Baronage, 1:283-4.

Ftb61 Dugdale, 2:229.

Ftb62 Stow, 630. Godwin, Ann. 192. Comp. Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3. c. Machyn, 355. The name was Hartgill.

Ftb63 Edd. 1, 2, “Artanasdes.”

Ftb64 “Artanasdem [Artavasden] Armeniae Regem, fraude deceptum, catenis, sed, ne quid honori deesset, auraeis vicit [aureis vinxit] Antonius.” Veil. Paterc. [2:82.] Author. [This quotation is omitted in ed. 3.] Ftb65 Stow, 631. The Escurial was built in memory of the victory of St Quentin. Robertson, Hist. Charles V., 3:117.

Ftb66 Stow, 631.

Ftb67 “Eo factum plerique putant, ut post prosperos adeo successus majoris molis negotium Philippus minime tentaverit, et dissolvi sensim exercitum passus sit.” Thuan. 19:11. (tom. 1 p. 660.)

Ftb68 Edd. 1, 2. “Fanim.” Ed. 3. “Hames.”

Ftb69 “La plus belle capitainerie du monde, a mon advis, au moins de la Chretiente.” Mem. de Comines, 1. 3. c. 4.

Ftb70 Holinshed, 3:495.

Ftb71 Stow, 632. Godwin, Ann, 195-6.

Ftb72 Edd. “Flemming.”

Ftb73 Ralegh, Hist. of the World, b. 4 p. 170. ed. London, 1614. (The reference for this incident, — which is not related by the ordinary authorities for the history of the time, — was found by the help of Heylyn’s “Relation of Two Journeys into France and the adjacent Islands,” p. 296, ed. 1656.)

Ftb74 “Quod [dum] vetera extollimus, venientium [recentium] incuriosi.” [Tacit. Ann. 2:88.] Author.

Ftb75 Stow, 633-4. Godwin, 198.

Ftb76 Stow, 631.

Ftb77 Camden, Remains, 286, ed. 1657.

Ftb78 i.e. fifteenth.

Ftb79 Wilkins, 4:155.

Ftb80 Wilkins, 4:156.

Ftb81 Comp. 1:117.

Ftb82 Sup. p. 172.

Ftb83 Godw. Ann. 193. Sarpi, 403-6.

Ftb84 Peto was at this time eighty years of age (Lingard, 7:184). He had made himself conspicuous by his violence in that opposition to Henry VIII.’s divorce which provoked the dissolution of the order of Observants, to which he belonged (sup. p. 190), going so far as to tell the king, in a sermon preached before him, that dogs should lick his blood like that of Ahab (Collier, 4:243). The Pope created him a cardinal June 13, 1.557. Godw. de Praesul. 797.

Ftb85 Sarpi, 405. “Soon afterwards, though he no longer styled himself Legatus a latere, Pole assumed the title of legatus natus, and kept it till his death.” Lingard, 7:234. Strype and Burnet wrongly complain that he was stripped of the latter title, which for centuries had been annexed to the see of Canterbury. Ibid.

Ftb86 Strype shows (in Burnet, III. 2:537) that Peto was in England at the time; but “orders were issued, that every messenger from foreign parts should be arrested and searched. The bearer of the papal letters was arrested at Calais; his dispatches were clandestinely forwarded to the Queen; and the letters of revocation were either secreted or destroyed.

Thus it happened that Peto never received any official notice of his preferment, nor Pole of his recall.” Lingard, 7:234 Ftb87 He had formerly lived in his family. Lingard, ibid.

Ftb88 Sarpi, 405; Godwin, Annals, 193-4; De Praesul. 150. 354. The account of Peto’s appointment given by Philips is, that the Pore declared an intention of recalling his legates from all the dominions of Philip, — from England among the rest; that the Queen represented the alarm which would thus be caused among her people, and the danger of injury to the Church; and thereupon the Pope declared that he would continue the legatine power in England, but, for the sake of his own dignity, would nominate a new person to hold it. Life of Pole, 2:244.

Ftb89 Fox, 8:300.

Ftb90 So in Fox. “Seditious and clamorous words.” Burnet.

Ftb91 Fox, 8:301.

Ftb92 Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3:459 (with very slight differences).

Ftb93 Fox, 8:479-559.

Ftb94 Fox, 8:559.

Ftb95 See Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3:471; Haweis, Sketches of the Reformation, 187.

Ftb96 Fox, 8:443-450. Rough joined the murderers of Cardinal Beaton, while they held the castle of St.. Andrew’s, but left them after a time on account of their “godless course of life.” Keith, 1:146, ed. Spottisw.

Soc. Comp. Maitland on the Reformation, 559-64.

Ftb97 He was a Swiss, and had been servant to Latimer, some of whose sermons were published by him. Latimer, ed. Park. Soc. 1 pref. p. Ftb98 Godwin de Praesul. 325. Edd. Heyl. “1589.”

Ftb99 Fox, 8:559.

Ftb100 “In summo eum esse odio, quod Anglos profugos hospitio susceperat [susceperit],”etc. P. Mart. Epist. [ad Calvin. Loci Comm. 1097.] Author.

Ftb101 “Ubi vociferantur quidam, Martyres Anglicos esse Martyres Diaboli.”

In epist. Octob. 8. Author. [“Mihi videtur recte hoc scribi, ne videamur fremitus littoris Baltici probare, ubi vociferantur quidam, martyres Anglicos esse martyres diaboli, Nolim hac contumelia afficere Spiritum Sanctum in Latimero, qui annum octogesimum egressus fuit, et in aliis sanctis viris quos novi.” Letter to Camerarins, Oct. 8, 1558. (Melancth. etc. Epistolae, Lond. 1642, col. 959.) Rogers on the 39 Articles, p. 86. ed. Lond. 1629, mentions “Westphalus and Marbachius,” as having applied the term “Devil’s martyrs” to those who suffered under Mary.] Ftb102 Ep. 3. 5:10.

Ftb103 P. Martyr mentions in a letter to Calvin, that a Lasco had been very ill received in Denmark and Saxony, p. 1098.

Ftb104 Embden, 1557. Tanner, Bibliotheca, 207. See Cranmer, ed. Jenkyns, Vol. 1 Pref, 98. Vol. 2. 276. The translation is reprinted in the Parker Society’s edition of Cranmer, vol. 1 Appendix.

Ftb105 Ridley’s “Brief Declaration of the Lord’s Supper,” was translated by Whittingham, and published at Geneva, 1556. Tanner, Bibliotheca, 631.

Ftb106 Edd. 1, 2, add “1559.”

Ftb107 Stow, 634.

Ftb108 Ibid.

Ftb109 Edd. 1, 2, “said.”

Ftb110 Stow, 634.

Ftb111 Fox, 8:504.

Ftb112 “digged.” Jewel.

Ftb113 Against Harding, Art. 17:11. Vol. 3:304, ed. Jelf; 1:728, ed. Park.

Soc. The quotation is not verbally exact.

Ftb114 The names of 277 are collected from Fox, by Dr Maitland, 576-82.

Burnet gives 284 as the number of those burnt in this reign. “Lord Burleigh, in his treatise called Execution of Justice in England, writ in the year 1583, reckoneth the number together of those that died by imprisonments, torments, famine, and fire, to be near 400, and among that Lord’s papers I find a paper making the burned to amount to the number of 290.” Strype, Eccl. Mem. 3:474. He prints the paper in his Appendix.

Ftb115 Speed, 852.

Ftb116 Sup. p. 127.

Ftb117 So Ed. 8, and Speed, 853. Edd. 1, 2, read “nipped.”

Ftb118 vv. 11, 12.

Ftb119 “Penelope languens reditum sui Ulixis exspectat; ille vero Antverpiae pro fausto adepto ducatu orgia Bacchi celebrat…. Horrenda referuntur de illius choreis, nocturnis ludicris, virginumque raptu, quibus nunc se Antverpiae totum dedit.” Sampson to Bullinger, Epp. Tigur. 115; Orig.

Letters, 175.

Ftb120 See above, 1:213, note 1.

Ftb121 Stow, 653.

Ftb122 July 2. Stow, 634. Wentworth was tried by his peers, and acquitted in the beginning of the next reign, April 22, 1559 (ibid. 639).

Chamberlayne, Captain of the castle of Calais, and Hurlestone, Captain of Rysbank, were found guilty of high treason, Dec. 22, 1559 (ib. 640), but were not executed. Lingard, 7:267.

Ftb123 Speed, 856.

Ftb124 Godwin de Praesul. 151. Machyn states that Pole outlived the Queen two days. 178, 368.

Ftb125 Sept. 22. Godw. 494.

Ftb126 Ibid. 564; but the precise date is not given.

Ftb127 May 21. Ibid. 626.

Ftb128 He was the Queen’s chaplain in former times, and died before the end of the year, — of grief for her death, it is said. Ibid. 441.

Ftb129 Richardson, in Godwin, 552, states, on the authority of H. Wharton, that Brooks died before the Queen, on Sept. 7.

Ftb130 “There were nine who were of the death-guard of Queen Mary, as expiring either a little before her decease, or a little after.” Fuller, 4:278.

Ftb131 Stow, 635.

Ftb132 For Mary’s benefactions to Oxford, see Wood’s Hist. and Antiq. ed.

Gutch, 4:118.

Ftb133 Ed. 3, “great.”

Ftb134 Fuller, 4:239.

Ftb135 For the story of this bequest, see Ant. a Wood’s Life, ed. Eccl. Hist.

Soc. 95-8.

Ftb136 See note at the end of the History.

Ftb137 Fuller, 4:241. The name of the College was, no doubt, derived from the circumstance that the London Merchant Tailors’ company was “the Guild of St John the Baptist.” Stow, Survey, 189. For an account of Sir T. White’s other benefactions, see Stow, Survey, 94.

Ftb138 The erection of Gonville Hall, Cambridge, into a College, by its second founder, Dr Kaye (latinized Caius), also belongs to this reign.

Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages, tr. by Babington, 304.

Ftb139 Hall, 805. A letter to Lord Cobham, in the Queen’s name, announcing the birth (see 1:14, n. 1), is printed in the State Papers of Henry VIII. 1:407.

Ftb140 It is commonly stated that Anne was the elder daughter (as by Nicolas, Synopsis of the Peerage, 696, and Lodge, Portraits, Vol. 1); but she was really the younger. See State Papers, 1:92; Lingard, 6:112.

Ftb141 Camden, Eliz. in Kennett, 2:363; Speed, 783.

Ftb142 Hall, 703.

Ftb143 Ann. 30 Hen. VIII. Dugdale, Baronage, 2:306.

Ftb144 Eliz. 1:7.

Ftb145 See above, p. 233, n. 2.

Ftb146 Mary, sister of Henry VIII., married to Louis XII., October 9, 1514.

Herbert, 21. Anne Boleyn was only seven years of age when she accompanied the Queen to France. Louis died within a few weeks after his marriage, and his widow returned to England early in 1515, leaving the child with Claude, queen of the new sovereign, Francis I. Camden, EIiz. 363. Herbert (46, 122) states that Anne returned from France in 1522; and it is certain that a daughter of Sir T. Boleyn was at that time sent back to England, in consequence of a plan for marrying her to a son of Sir Piers Butler. The editors of the State Papers suppose the elder sister, Mary, to be meant; Dr Lingard argues that this cannot have been the case, as Mary Boleyn was married some months before the time in question (6:111). But, if Anne were the person, why should we not suppose that she returned to France on the failure of the matrimonial scheme, — continuing with Queen Claude until the death of that; princess in 1524, then passing into the household of the Duchess of Alencon, and finally coming to England at the time stated by Heylyn? Comp. Camden, 363; Twysden in Wordsw. Eccl. Biog. 1:496.

Ftb147 Sup. p. 54.

Ftb148 Sup. 1:11.

Ftb149 Sup. p. 52-3.

Ftb150 Edd. 1, 2, “was.”

Ftb151 Sup. p. 54.

Ftb152 So the editions here; “Rhinee” in Introd. to Mary, Section 6.

Ftb153 By the treaty of Madrid, 1526, Francis undertook to pay all that was due by the Emperor to the king of England. Godwin, 46. By the treaty of Cambray, he engaged himself to pay 950,000 crowns on this account, — 400,000 of them being the forfeiture incurred by Charles for breach of his agreement to marry the Princess Mary (sup. p. 51).

Henry remitted 550,000 crowns, and allowed five years for the payment of the remainder. Godwin, 66. But the date of the treaty of Cambray, 1529, is inconsistent with Heylyn’s statement as to the motive of this liberality. Henry did not at that time wish to obtain the hand of Rondo, but to secure the French influence with the Pope in the matter of his divorce. Robertson, Hist. of Charles V., 2:26-7.

Ftb154 Cavendish, Life of Wolsey, in Wordsw. Eccl. Biog. 1:497.

Ftb155 This speech is from Cavendish, who professes to have heard it. Life of Wolsey, 2:63-4, ed. Singer; Wordsw. Eccl. Biog. 1:499.

Ftb156 Edd. Heyl. “master.”

Ftb157 “ensured,” Cavend. ed. Singer. “assured,” ed. Wordsw.

Ftb158 Edd. 1, 2. “prosperity.”

Ftb159 “Doth rather lament thy lightness than malign me for the same.”

Cavend. ed. Wordsw. — “than malign the same,” ed. Singer.

Ftb160 Edd. Heyl. “masterful.”

Ftb161 Cavendish in Wordsw, 1:500.

Ftb162 Cavendish in Wordsw. 1:559.

Ftb163 Ibid. 557-9.

Ftb164 Sup. 1:38.

Ftb165 Stow, 560.

Ftb166 Hall, 793.

Ftb167 So all the Editions read.

Ftb168 Nov. 14 (St. Erkenwald’s day), is given as the date by the majority of the old historians (including Sanders, p. 65). Godwin (73) and Stow (562), however, date the marriage on Jan. 25; and this is countenanced by a letter from Cranmer to Hawkyns, dated June 17,1533, which states that the marriage took place “much about St Paul’s day last.” (Cranm. 1:31. ed. Jenkyns; 2:246. ed. Park. Soc.) The letter was first noticed by Strype, on whose authority Burnet gives the later date in his supplementary volume (3:134. 3. 2:542). On the inferences which Dr Lingard (6:188) eagerly draws from the date thus ascertained, Mr Hallam well observes: “I think a prurient curiosity about such obsolete scandal very unworthy of history.” (Const. Hist. 1:61. Comp.

Mackintosh, Hist. Eng. 2:139.) After all, however, it is too much to suppose, as modem writers generally do, that we know the exact day of the marriage; for Cranmer only states that it was “much about” Jan. 25; and that such a date coming from him may be somewhat wide of the truth, appears from another letter (Jenkyns, 1:83; Park. Soc. 2:274), in which he makes an error of a week as to the time of Elizabeth’s birth.

Ftb169 1534. “Hanc ob rem nomen ejus (apud nostros praecipue Wallos) celebre est, quod sub eo Praeside, et illius fortasse magna ex parte opera, Wallia in eandem corporis compagem cum Anglia coaluit, iisdem legibus gubernari coepta, eorundemque jurium usquequaque facta particeps authoritate Parliamentaria; quo vix quidquam foelicius huic genti contigisse confitemur. Walliae adhuc Praeses decessit, anno 1545.” Godwin de Praesul. 324. Dr. Lingard says that Lee “was made bishop of Chester, and was translated to Lichfield and Coventry,” 6:189. But the Bishoprick of Chester was not erected until 1541; and any mention which is found of Chester in connection with the name of this bishop, has its origin in the circumstance that the bishops of Lichfield were before popularly styled bishops of Chester. Godwin, 777; Collier, 5:83; Sup. 1:37, note 3.

Ftb170 Herbert, 161. Archbishop Parker states that Cranmer officiated at the marriage. (De Antiq. Brit. Eccl. 492, ed. Drake.) Cranmer himself, in the letter referred to in the preceding note, informs us that this was a common report at the time, but that in truth he was not even present, and did not know what had taken place until a fortnight later.

Ftb171 Edd. “visible.”

Ftb172 Hall, 795. Stow, 562-3.

Ftb173 Sup. p. 61.

Ftb174 Sup. pp. 62-4. Weber (Akathol. Kirchen, 659-60) gives reasons for supposing that a sentence of divorce had been privately passed before the marriage. Burnet considers that Henry did not think it necessary to wait for a sentence, after the marriage with Katherine had been declared null by so many authorities. 1:225.

Ftb175 Comp. Hall, 798. Holinshed, 3:782-805.

Ftb176 Stow, 569. Hall, 805-6. Herbert, 169.

Ftb177 Sup. p. 66.

Ftb178 Herbert, 186. Burnet, 1:183, and Rec. 131 (folio).

Ftb179 Stow, 572. Speed, 791. Herb. 191. “But those houses were generally much richer than they seemed to be: for the abbots, raising great fines out of them, held the leases still low, and by that means they were not obliged to entertain a great number in their house, and so enriched themselves and their brethren by the fines that were raised.” Burnet, 1:390.

Ftb180 Herbert, 192.

Ftb181 “The statute which vested these establishments in the King, left it to his discretion to found them anew. The monks of each community sought by presents and annuities to secure the protection of the minister and the visitors…. More than a hundred monasteries obtained a respite from immediate destruction; and of these the larger number was founded again by the King’s letters patent, though each of them paid the price of that favor by the surrender of a valuable portion of its possessions.” Lingard, 6:233-4.

Ftb182 Stow, 572.

Ftb183 So the editions read; and it would seem that Heylyn intended to write so.

Ftb184 Hall notes, p. 818, that “Queen Anne wore yellow for the mourning;” and such was the custom of the French court, in which she had been brought up (Weber, 389). It would, no doubt, have shown a better taste if she had worn the more sober color used in England; but by far too much has been made of this little circumstance; indeed its character has been altogether misrepresented, — as, for instance, by Dr Lingard, who tells us that “out of respect for the Spanish princess, the King had ordered his servants to wear mourning on the day of her burial; but Anne dressed herself in robes of yellow silk,” etc. 6:237.

Ftb185 Jan. 29. Stow, 572. Hall (818) dates the event in February.

Ftb186 Edd. “much.”

Ftb187 p. 255.

Ftb188 Speed mentions this as a story which he had heard. 784.

Ftb189 A commission to inquire into the Queen’s conduct had been issued a week before this, Apr. 24. Mackintosh, 1:193.

Ftb190 Herbert states (194) that “Our histories mention not this passage,” and that it rests on no better authority than that of Sanders (122). Dr Lingard (6:239) endeavors at once to secure the benefit of it, as against the Queen, and to avoid committing himself to a belief in it. Hall (819) and Stow merely say that the king “departed suddenly from the justs.”

Ftb191 See Mackintosh, 2:193.

Ftb192 Speed, 784. Mackintosh, 2:196, 200.

Ftb193 Speed, 784.

Ftb194 October 18, 1536 — on occasion of the birth of Prince Edward (sup. 1:16). Godwin, 91.

Ftb195 Heylyn seems to have been the first to prat this letter from the Cottonian Collection. It has since been much mutilated by fire. A copy of it in its present state is given in Ellis’s Original Letters, First Series, 2:61. For an account of Sir Edward Bayntun, who was Vicechamberlain to the Queen, see Wordsw. Eccl. Biog. 2:490.

Ftb196 Herbert, 194. See Letters of Kingstone, in Ellis, First Ser. 2:53, seqq.

Ftb197 Speed. 792.

Ftb198 That this is untrue is shown by Burnet, (1:363), who discovered the error after having followed our author in the body of his work. He informs us that he has not been able to trace Heylyn’s statement to any earlier source, with the exception of Sanders (122), — who in all probability invented it.

Ftb199 Stow, 573. Rochford was tried on the same day with his sister the rest on the 12th. Mackintosh, 2:198.

Ftb200 May 19. Hall, 819. Slow, 573. Godw. 81. Herb. 195.

Ftb201 Herbert, 195.

Ftb202 Wilkins, in. 803. For the letter written by Cranmer on the disgrace of Anne, see his Works, ed Park. Soc. 2:323.

Ftb203 Dr Lingard (6:247) supposes the reason to have been the King’s previous cohabitation with Mary Boleyn — of which there is no better evidence than some passages in the writings of Cardinal Pole — declamatory in style, and composed under violent irritation — and the assertions of notoriously unscrupulous Romanists such as Sanders.

Against this see Mackintosh (whose zeal for Anne is equal to Dr Lingard’s malignity), 2:201. Soames, Hist. Ref. 2:137. Weber, Akathol.

Kirchen, 608-670.

Ftb204 Edd. 1, 3 “Hadly,” Ed. 2 “Hadley.”

Ftb205 i.e. Christ-Church.

Ftb206 “Instrumentum hoc fuit sigillatum 10 die Julii, et 28 ejusdem mensis ab utraque domo convocationis subscriptum.” Wilkins, 3:804.

Ftb207 28 Hen. VIII. c. 7. See Strype’s Cranmer, ed Eccl. Hist. Soc. 1:101.

Ftb208 This word ought to be omitted.

Ftb209 Edd. Heyl. “or.”

Ftb210 “for the ground, etc…the least alteration was fit and sufficient, I know.” M.

Ftb211 Edd. Heyl. “find.”

Ftb212 Edd. Heyl. “truths.”

Ftb213 “me” not in M.

Ftb214 “your.” M.

Ftb215 “strait.” M.

Ftb216 Sup. 1:57.

Ftb217 See the Life of Ascham, by Johnson, prefixed to Bennet’s edition of his works; and the very interesting biography in Mr Hartley Coleridge’s “Lives of Eminent Northerns,” Leeds, 1833.

Ftb218 Eliz. 6:3.

Ftb219 A. D. 1597. See Camden, Eliz. P. 2 p. 139. Lat. The incident would probably have been related in the continuation of this work, which Heylyn intended to carry down to his own time. (1:113) Ftb220 Camd. Eliz. 366.

Ftb221 Sup. 1:148.

Ftb222 Edw. Journal, Dec. 19, 1550.

Ftb223 Sup. p. 113.

Ftb224 Fox, 6:430. Dr Lingard (of course) represents Elizabeth as guilty, 7:151, 167. Sir J. Mackintosh maintains her innocence, 2:309. Mr Hallam observes, that since the letters of Noailles, the French ambassador, prove that Courtenay was implicated, the testimony of Wyatt in favor of Elizabeth may probably have been as worthless as that for the Earl. Const. Hist. 1:107. Mr Tytler, who publishes for the first time letters of Renard, the Emperor’s ambassador, is of opinion that Elizabeth was privy to the plot, but that there, is no evidence of her having encouraged it. Edw. and Mary, 2:421.

Ftb225 The narrative of Elizabeth’s troubles is mainly drawn from Fox, 8:600, seqq.; and it has been shown by Mr Tytler that the story in the “Acts and Monuments” is much exaggerated. The mission of Sir E.

Hastings did not take place until a fortnight after Mary had written to her sister, begging her, in consideration of the reports which were current, to repair to the Court; nor was the removal of Elizabeth conducted with the barbarity alleged by Fox. She did not leave Ashridge until the second day after the arrival of Hastings, — the Queen’s physicians, who accompanied him, having certified that she was able to endure the journey; and she was five days on the way, travelling in the Queen’s litter, by stages of not more than from five to eight miles a day. Tytler, Edw. and Mary, 2:424-8.

Ftb226 Fox, 8:609.

Ftb227 “The common rascal soldiers receiving it.” Fox, 8:611.

Ftb228 The feelings and conduct of Gardiner towards Elizabeth are very variously represented. See Brewer on Fuller, 4:186. The speech ascribed to him below (Section 24) was certainly made by Story (Eliz. 1:10); whether Gardiner also uttered it, appears very doubtful. On the whole, since there is no evidence for supposing him fond of bloody measures, and since he was unquestionably English in his affections, rather than Spanish, or even Romish, the more favorable view appears probable.

Ftb229 Edd. 1, 2. “answerably.”

Ftb230 Camden, Eliz. 367.

Ftb231 Baker’s Chronicle, 320, ed. 1684. (The first edition was published in 1641.)

Ftb232 Godwin, 185. Fuller, 4:3.

Ftb233 Fox, 8:618.

Ftb234 Camd. Eliz. 368.

Ftb235 He visited England in 1554-5, arriving on Dec. 27. Stow, 626.

Ftb236 Ann. Eliz. 368.

Ftb237 Ascham to Sturmius, Works, ed. Bennet, p. 351.

Ftb238 Qu. “representers?”

Ftb239 Stow, 635. Holinshed, 4:155.

Ftb240 Hayward’s First Four Years of Elizabeth, edited by John Bruce, Esq., for the Camden Society, 1840, pp. 2-3. (The less complete edition of this work, published in 1636 with the same author’s Life of Edward VI., was one of Heylyn’s chief authorities for the time which it embraces.)

Ftb241 Holinsh. 4:156. Hayw. 3.

Ftb242 Stow, 635.

Ftb243 Baker, 329. Hayw. 10-11.

Ftb244 Stow, 635.

Ftb245 Hayw. 6.

Ftb246 Ibid.

Ftb247 Camd. 19, ed. 1615; Hayw. 12.

Ftb248 Ib. 19-20.

Ftb249 Sarpi, 411.

Ftb250 Ibid. Camd. p. 20. ed. 1615.

Ftb251 This story is the first in Bacon’s Collection of Apophthegms; but he does not name Rainsford.

Ftb252 Sir T. Cheyney died Dec. 8. See an account of him in Holinsh. 4:158.

Ftb253 Edd. 1, 2. “Petice;” ed. 3, “Petie.”

Ftb254 Edd. “Parre.”

Ftb255 Edd. “Care.”

Ftb256 Camden, Annals, 18-19,. ed. 1616. He adds Francis Knollis. Dr.

Lingard, 7:252, substitutes “the civilian Dr. Boxall,” for Wotton.

Ftb257 Stow, 635.

Ftb258 Hayw. 136.

Ftb259 5 Eliz. c. 18. See Burnet, II. 160; Campbell, Lives of Chancellors, 2:94.

Ftb260 Camden, 371; Hayw. 28.

Ftb261 Hayw. 5. This proclamation does not appear in Burnet, Strype, or Wilkins.

Ftb262 “Time out of mind, it hath been a laudable custom, that on Good Friday in the afternoon, some especial learned man, by appointment of the prelates, hath preached a sermon at Paul’s Cross, treating of Christ’s Passion; and upon the three next Easter holydays, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the like learned men, by the like appointment, have used to preach on the forenoons at the said Spital [St Mary’s without Bishopgate], to persuade the article of Christ’s resurrection; and then on Low Sunday, one other learned man, at Paul’s Cross, to make rehearsal of those four former sermons, either commending or reproving them, as to him (by judgment of the learned divines) was thought convenient.” Stow’s Survey of London, 176.

Ftb263 Sup. p. 178.

Ftb264 Stow, 637.

Ftb265 Dated Dec. 27. Hayw. 5. Strype, Ann. 1 Append. No. 3. Wilkins, 4:180.

Ftb266 Holinsh. 4:158; Hayw. 13.

Ftb267 Rishton, in Sanders, 273; Camden, 371. “Oglethorpe, Bishop of Carlisle, preparing to say mass in the Royal Chapel on Christmas day, received an order not to elevate the host in the royal presence. He replied that his life was the Queen’s, but that his conscience was his own; on which Elizabeth, rising immediately after the Gospel, retired with her attendants.” Lingard, 7:255. I am unable to refer to Dr Lingard’s authorities for Oglethorpe’s reply; that the Queen left the chapel after the Gospel is mentioned by Sir W. Fitzwilliam, in Ellis, Orig. Letters, 2rid Ser. 2:261.

Ftb268 Lord John Grey, the same who is mentioned above, p. 117.

Ftb269 Camden, 371. Fuller, 4:27. See the “Device for alteration of Religion,” supposed to have been drawn up by Sir Thomas Smith, in Burnet, 2; Strype, Annals, 1 Append. No. 4; Cardwell, Conferences, 43.

Ftb270 Printed in Strype’s Eccl. Mem. 3 Append. No. 81.

Ftb271 Stow, 635. Holinsh. 4:158.

Ftb272 Stow, 635.

Ftb273 Sup. p. 84.

Ftb274 Sup. 1:6, 251.

Ftb275 The new peer was not descended from the lady mentioned in the text, — Margaret, Countess of Richmond, mother of Henry VII., — but from her mother, Margaret Beauchamp, who, before marrying John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, had been the wife of Sir Oliver St John.

Collins, 6:741. Heylyn states the descent rightly in Exam. Hist. Pt. 3:75.

Ftb276 Stow, 635. Cared. 371.

Ftb277 Holinshed, 4:176.

Ftb278 Holinshed, 4:168. This chronicler is very full on the subject of the pageants connected with the coronation.

Ftb279 Ibid. 170; Hayw. 17.

Ftb280 Ibid. 176. Strype, Ann. 1:29, mentions a curious circumstance, — that Bonner’s robes were borrowed for the occasion.

Ftb281 Thirlby.

Ftb282 Sup. p. 143.

Ftb283 Coverdale, Scory, and Barlow.

Ftb284 Stow, 636.

Ftb285 To whom Cox had been tutor, sup. 1:25.

Ftb286 Qu. “returned?”

Ftb287 Camden, 372; who says that the Romanists represented this as having been done. The very same sort of management had been used in the preceding reign. See Queen Mary’s letter to the Earl of Sussex before the Parliament in which the reconciliation with Rome was to be moved.

Burnet, III. 2:283. On the interference of the Court in elections to the House of Commons in those days, see Hallam, Const. Hist. 1:45.

Ftb288 Fox, 6:554; Hayw. 25; Strype, Ann. 1:70. Camden, Annal. p. 13, ed. 1615, refers Story’s speech to the reign of Mary. “Ea tempestate, dum in minoris notae Protestantes saeviretur, J. Storius, Legum D. et alii ingenio immiti [cf. p. 261] per circulos passim dictitarunt, Haeresis radicem (illam innuentes) exscindendam, non ramusculos amputandos.”

Ftb289 He fled to Brabant, and was appointed searcher for English goods at Antwerp. Having been decoyed on board an English vessel in 1569, he was brought back, and committed to prison. In 1571 he was tried for having conspired the Queen’s death, having advised the Duke of Alva how to invade England, and other such offenses. He refused to submit to a trial, declaring himself a subject not of Elizabeth, but of the king of Spain; and denying that he was accountable in England for what he had done abroad. The judges, however, condemned him, and he was executed at Tyburn. Fuller, 4:349. Camden in Kennett, 2:417, 437.

Burnet, 2 2:555. Fox, 8:743. Speed, 870.

Ftb290 1 Eliz. c. 3.

Ftb291 Camd. 25, ed. 1615.

Ftb292 “Licet jurisprudentia Anglicana jam olim pronuntiarit Coronam semel susceptam omnes omnino defectus tollere.” Ibid.

Ftb293 1 Eliz. c. 4.

Ftb294 P. 162.

Ftb295 1 Eliz. c. 24. Stow, 640. Holinshed, 4:185.

Ftb296 Sup. 191. The nuns of Sion retired to the continent, and, after various movements, settled at Lisbon. Fuller, in. 493. There the convent was kept up until 1810, when its members were driven from Portugal by the war, and sought a refuge in England. “Two or three, advanced in years, were in 1825 living in the vicinity of the Potteries in Staffordshire, — the last remnant of an English community dissolved in the reign of Henry VIII.” Monast. Angl. 6:540.

Ftb297 Eliz. 2:26.

Ftb298 1 Eliz. c. 1. Fuller, 4:264.

Ftb299 Rishton (in Sanders, 275) will not admit that there was any real amendment. Sandys states, in a letter to Parker, that a scruple as to the title of ‘Supreme Head’ was put into the Queen’s mind by Lever.

Burnet, 2. 2:465.

Ftb300 1 Mar. Sess. 3 c. 1.

Ftb301 Edd. 1, 2, “or.”

Ftb302 Coke’s 5th Report, p. 8. ed. 1727. (Cawdrey’s case.) Comp. Gibson, Codex, p. 48.

Ftb303 Wilkins, 4:188.

Ftb304 Edd. “Princess.”

Ftb305 Articles of Religion, No. 37.

Ftb306 It is probable that the substance of this section is taken from some treatise, according to our author’s practice in similar eases. Some of the matter may be found in Andrewes’ “Tortura Torti,” p. 151.

Ftb307 Decretal. Gregorii, 50:1 tit. 33. c. 12. Cf. Andrewes, 151.

Ftb308 Edd. 1, 2, omit “in.”

Ftb309 Sup. p. 197.

Ftb310 Edd. “Palladanus.”

Ftb311 Andrewes, 151.

Ftb312 “Fuit hic nimium populariter [papaliter] dispensatum.” Author. [Gratiani Decretum, Causa 2 Quaest. 5, “Mennam.” Dr Jelf states that “the latter part of the section is not found in the Epistle of Gregory referred to, nor does Gratian hint at the place whence he takes it.” (Note on Jewel, 2:238.) The note on the Decretum strongly denies the alleged fact, and refers the error to an oversight supposed to be made in reading a part of something else as a continuation of St Gregory’s Epistle to Brunichildis. But Dr Jelf, in a note on another place where Jewel quotes the passage (6:318), says, that “there seems some mystery to hang over the subject, as both the Decretum and the Gloss are ancient; and it is not impossible that the passage was fraudulently expunged from St Gregory’s Epistles.”] Ftb313 i.e. the latter of the two mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph; for it is by no means the last clause of the Act.

Ftb314 Edd. “repress.”

Ftb315 Cardwell, Doc. Ann. 1:223.

Ftb316 Edd. 1, 2 omit “that.”

Ftb317 The words were, as in our present book, “which was given for thee, preserve thy body,” etc. Cardwell, Liturgies, 303.

Ftb318 “Being thus left out, it appears no more in any of our Common Prayers till the last Review; at which time it was again added, with some little amendment of the expression and transposal of the sentences, but, exactly the same throughout as to the sense, except that the words real and essential presence were thought proper to be changed for corporal presence.” Wheatley. Compare Cardwell, Conferences, pp. 34-35, ed. 1840.

Ftb319 Wilkins, 4:182-9.

Ftb320 There was, however, a provision attached, which could not have been pleasing to Romanists, — that at the administration of the Holy Communion the table should “be so placed in good sort within the chancel, as whereby the minister may be more conveniently heard of the communicants in his prayer and ministration, and the communicants also more conveniently, and in more number, communicate with the minister.” Wilkins, 4:188.

Ftb321 Howell’s State Trials, 2:222. Comp. Cawdrey’s Case, Coke’s Reports, Pt. 5:25, seqq. ed. 1727.

Ftb322 “As well those restrained, as generally all the papists in this kingdom, not any of them did refuse to come to our church, and yield their formal obedience to the laws established. And thus they all continued, not any one refusing to come to our churches, during the first ten years of her Majesty’s government. And in the beginning of the eleventh year of her reign, Cornwallis, Bedingfield, and Silyarde, were the first recusants; they absolutely refusing to come to our churches. And until they in that sort began, the name of recusant was never heard of amongst us.” Coke’s Charge at Norwich, Loud. 1607, fol. 12.

Ftb323 A.D. 1570. Heyl. Aer. Redivivus, 260, where other authorities to the same purpose are given. Also Eccl. Vindic. Preface. Comp. Andrewes, “Tort. Torti,” 130-1; Fullwood, “Roma Ruit,” ed. Hardwick, Camb. 1847, Append. p. 317; Wordsworth, Eccl. Biog. 3:317.

Ftb324 Or rather his continuer, Rishton, pp. 291-2. He says, however, that the Romanists at the same time celebrated their own rites in private; and he adds, “Imo quod magis mirum ac miserum erat, sacerdos nonnunquam prius rem sacram domi faciens, deferebat pro catholicis, quos ipse id desiderare cognoverat, hostias secundum formam ab Ecclesia usitatam consecratas, quas eodem tempore iisdem dispensabat, quo panes haereticorum ritu confectos, caeteris Catholicae fidei minus studiosis distribuebat.”

Ftb325 For the best account of these proceedings, see Cardwell’s Conferences on the Common Prayer, cc. 1-2.

Ftb326 There is a considerable variety of statements as to the number and the names of the disputants. (1.) A letter of the Privy Council (Cardw. 25-9) states that an offer had been made to Archbishop Heath for a conference of eight, nine, or ten on each side, and that eight was the number fixed on. (2.) Jewel, in a letter written before the disputation (Zurich Letters, ed. 2, p. 23) mentions nine as the number on each side. He gives the names of the Protestants in agreement with Heylyn, but speaks of five bishops of the other party, (not named) and omits Langdale. Hayward, p. 19, agrees with this, but that he does not name any of the Romanists. (3.) Collier (6:207) and Dr Cardwell (25) give eight on each side, omitting Feckenham and Sandys. (4.) Fuller’s list is the same; except that he inserts Sandys and omits Cox (4:274-5). (5.) Fox states that the number of each party was eight, but gives nine of each, differing from the statement in the text by the substitution of Oglethorp, Bishop of Carlisle, for Feckenham. Stow (639), Holinshed (4:183), Speed (358), and Burnet (2:776), have the same list as Fox. (6.) Camden (in Kennett, 2:372) omits Scory, and gives both Cox and Sandys. On the Romish side, he omits Scot and Feckenham, — which reduces the number to seven. (7.) Strype, on the authority of a letter of Cox to Weidner, and of the letter of the Council, says that there were only eight of each party, “so that the Bishop of Carlisle on the Papists’ side, and Sandys on that of the Protestants, are misadded; though probably they were present at the Conference. And we find that the Bishop of Carlisle was present on the second day; and so was Turbervile, Bishop of Exeter, too, and Abbot Fecknam.” Ann. 1:37-8.

We might be satisfied with this last statement, were it not that Feckenham’s connection with the Conference does not appear to have been merely that of a witness; for he is mentioned in the letter of the Privy Council, as distinguished from the rest of his party by having been willing to read his arguments. That Fuller was wrong in omitting the name of Cox, appears from that divine’s own letter to Weidner (in Cardwell, 98), and from his signature to a paper of arguments, ib. 162.

There are seven other names attached to the paper, that of Sandys being the one which does not appear. On the whole, there seems to be good ground for believing that eight was the number on each side; and of the names mentioned in the various lists, we may perhaps do best by omitting Sandys of the Protestant party, and Oglethorpe and Langdale of the Romanists.

Ftb327 Edd. 1, 2, “Prebend.”

Ftb328 They were disposed to excommunicate her (Cared. 29, ed. 1615); but it does not appear that they uttered any threat at the Conference, although they behaved violently.

Ftb329 Hayw. 23.

Ftb330 Camden, 27, Lat.

Ftb331 Sup. 1:10.

Ftb332 Concilia Maxima, edd. Labbe et Cossart, 4:78.

Ftb333 Baronius, 5:587, 593, ed. Antverp. 1658.

Ftb334 Comp. Sarpi, 136; Heylyn’s Tracts, 43; Field “Of the Church,” b. 5:c. 53.

Ftb335 Wilkins, 4:179. Fuller, 4:169.

Ftb336 See p. 108, note 2.

Ftb337 This is Fuller’s translation of the Latin which he gives, — “ Virtute Christi, verbo et a sacerdote debite prolato, assistentis.” The words in Wilkins are “virtute verbi Christi, a sacerdote debite prolati existentis.”

Ftb338 “Quos Spiritus Sanctus in hoc in ecclesia Dei posuit.”

Ftb339 “Qui articulos praedictos, ut apparebat, gratanter accepit, sed nullum omnino responsum dedit.” Mr Brewer erroneously substitutes the name of Archbishop Heath, the Chancellor, for that of Bacon, the Keeper.

See above, p. 269.

Ftb340 The delay as to Salisbury has been explained, p. 215. King having died Dec. 4, 1557, Bishop Goldwell, of St Asaph, was nominated to Oxford in the reign of Mary, and received the temporalities, Oct. 25, 1558. Thomas Wood was nominated as his successor in St Asaph, Nov. 5, 1558. Richardson, Notes on Godwin, 546, 642. The death of the Queen interfered with the execution of these arrangements.

Ftb341 Edd. 1, 2. “Pacefew.”

Ftb342 Sup. p. Ftb343 Nov. 20. Godwin, 538.

Ftb344 Fourteen. See p. 295, n. 1.

Ftb345 At Cobham in Surrey. Camden in Kennett, 2:376; who, with Fuller, 4:280-1, is generally followed in this paragraph. Comp. Strype Parker, b. 2 c. 16; Andrews, Tort. Torti, 145-7.

Ftb346 Godwin, 756.

Ftb347 Ib. 273.

Ftb348 Ib. 388.

Ftb349 Camd. 376.

Ftb350 Godwin, 417.

Ftb351 1584. Ibid. 301.

Ftb352 Godwin, 770.

Ftb353 Ibid. 343.

Ftb354 Ibid. 586.

Ftb355 Futler, in his History of Cambridge, mentions him as ejected, and Burnet supposed him to have survived the change of religion. But Strype, in Burnet 3. 2:548, and Harmer (Wharton) 158, show that such was not the case. Machyn (184) records his burial on Dec. 28, 1558.

Comp. Richardson, in Godwin, 513.

Ftb356 “Clero et episcopis carcere et rerum suarum amissione mulctatis, nonnullis etiam veneno, nece, etc. absumptis.” Genebr. Chronographia, 737. ed. Lugd. 1609.

Ftb357 Camden in Kennett, 2:876. Strype quotes a Cottonian MS., which makes the whole number 192, including abbesses. Ann. 1:72. As Christopherson was dead, the number of Bishops deprived was 13.

Ftb358 “Cum autem viri docti rarius invenirentur, multi ex officina mechanici, et non minus illiterati quam ipsi pontificii sacerdotes, dignitates ecclesiasticas, praebendas, et opima sacerdotia consecuti sunt.” Camd. p. 39. ed. 1615. The evil consequences of admitting such persons to holy orders were very soon felt. Strype gives a letter of Archbishop Parker to Grindal, then Bishop of London, dated Aug. 15, 1560, in which it is stated, that “now by experience it was seen that such manner of men, partly by reason of their former profane arts, partly by their light behavior otherwise, and trade of life, were very offensive unto the people; and unto the wise of this realm they were thought to do a great deal more hurt than good, the Gospel thereby sustaining slander.” The Bishops are, therefore, charged “to be more circumspect in admitting any to the ministry; and only to allow such as, having good testimony of their honest conversation, had been traded and exercised in learning, or, at the least, had spent their time in teaching of children; excluding all others which had been brought up and sustained themselves either by occupations or other kinds of life alienated from learning.” Life of Parker, 91. (Traded is not, as we might suppose, put by mistake for trained; in Stapleton’s “Fortress of Faith,” as quoted by Fulke in his Answer, reprinted by the Parker Society, 1848, the word is used in the same sense as here, — “The preachers which were traded up by them were of a virtuous conversation,” p. 121.)

Ftb359 Qu. “and to?”

Ftb360 Laurence Humphrey, Professor from 1560 to 1589. Le Neve, Fasti, 471.

Ftb361 Eliz. 6:3.

Ftb362 Edd. “Whittington.” He was Dean of Durham from 1563 to 1579. Le Neve, 351.

Ftb363 Eliz. 6:4.

Ftb364 Edd. 1, 2. “Prebends.”

Ftb365 Wood gives the following account of this person: — “He ran with the mutable times of King Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Queen Mary, and, being in show a zealous Protestant in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth, was by her made the first canon of the second stall in the collegiate church of Westminster, in the year 1560. About which time, being well known among the puritanical party (who began to show themselves betimes), he was made their instrument to break down the altars, and to deface the ancient utensils and ornaments of the church of Westminster. For which, upon complaint, he was deprived by the Queen’s Commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, in 1567. Fasti, Oxon. 1:110.

Ftb366 Camd. 373.

Ftb367 Ib. 378.-9.

Ftb368 Wilkins, 4:182-9.

Ftb369 Sup. 1:70-74.

Ftb370 Inj. 29, after declaring that the marriage of clergy is not forbidden by the word of God, or by the example of the primitive Church, states that evils had arisen through “lack of discreet and sober behavior in many ministers of the Church, both in choosing of their wives, and indiscreet living with them,” and orders that no priest or deacon shall marry without the sanction of the bishop and of two justices of the peace, together with the goodwill of the woman’s nearest kinsfolks, “or, for lack of knowledge of such, of her master or mistress where she serveth.” The marriages of bishops were to be sanctioned by the metropolitan, and by the Queen’s Commissioners; those of deans and masters of colleges, by their respective Visitors. Comp. Rishton in Sanders, 299-301.

Ftb371 “service.”

Ftb372 “in any part so abused in the Church.”

Ftb373 Comp. 1:271; Collier, 5:307, 478.

Ftb374 Rushworth, Hist. Collections, 2:207. Wilkins, 4:483. This judgment was given in the case of St Gregory by St Paul’s, London, A. D. 1688, immediately after the elevation of Laud to the primacy. Heylyn retained a particular interest in such questions from his controversy with Archbishop Williams.

Ftb375 Wilkins, 4:189-191.

Ftb376 Stow, 640. Comp. Strype, Ann. 1:167-171.

Ftb377 Stow, 640; Hayw. 28.

Ftb378 Camden, 370.

Ftb379 P. 268.

Ftb380 Stow, 636. Camd. 375-6. Hayw. 31-3.

Ftb381 Gustavus Vasa died Sept. 29, 1560, and was succeeded by Eric, the son of his first marriage. It was by deposing Eric (who had given proofs of an unsound mind), that his half-brother John became King in 1657. Gfrorer’s Gustav Adolf, Stuttg. 1845, pp. 21-3.

Ftb382 Stow, 640. Hayw. 37.

Ftb383 Stow, 639. Camd. 374. A translation of the treaty is in Speed, 859.

Ftb384 Stow, 639.

Ftb385 Stow, 640. Holinsh. 4:185-6. Strype, Ann. 1:127-9.

Ftb386 Godwin de Praesul. 152.

Ftb387 Holinsh. 4:601.

Ftb388 Edd. “presbyterians.”

Ftb389 For Parker’s reluctance to accept the primacy, see Strype’s Parker, b. 1 c. 8.

Ftb390 1 Eliz. c. 19, repealed by 1 Jac. 1 c. 3, in so far as regarded alienations of lands by bishops to the sovereign. It was first printed by Gibson, Codex, 676. For an account of the representations made by Parker, Cox, and others, with the view of persuading the Queen to remit the execution of the act, see Strype’s Parker, 43, and Append. No. 10; Annals, 1 c. 6. By way of inducement, they offered 1000 marks yearly, in the name of the province of Canterbury; but Elizabeth was not to be moved.

Ftb391 Edd. “Statutes.”

Ftb392 Sup. p. 174.

Ftb393 Fuller, 4:285-393.

Ftb394 There had been an earlier mandate, dated Sept. 9, which was not toted on. Bramhall, ed. Anglo-Cath. Lib. 3:73.

Ftb395 Edd. 1, 2, “or any of them;” Ed. 3, “or any two of them.”

Ftb396 Wilkins, 4:188. Bramhall, 3:203.

Ftb397 Edd. 1, 2. “Dale.” Ed. 3. “Vale.”

Ftb398 Sup. p. 127.

Ftb399 Mason de Minist. Anglic. 1:3 c. 8 p. 339. Bramhall, 3:151.

Ftb400 Edd. 1, 2. “Keale.” Ed. 3. “Weale.”

Ftb401 Fuller styles him, “lying Slanders,” 3:235; but it is not probable that this so obvious and so well deserved variation on the name remained for Fuller to discover.

Ftb402 It ought to be observed that the account of the reign of Elizabeth is not by Sanders, but by a worthy continuator, Rishton.

Ftb403 This might lead us to suppose that Sanders (or Rishton) asserted the Nag’s Head consecration; which is not the case. The form which the falsehood bears in the book De Schismate Anglicano is, that after an imprisoned Irish archbishop had in vain been urged to consecrate, the Protestant Bishops entered on their office without any consecration whatever (298). It is shewn in Bramhall, 3:47, that there was no Romish archbishop of Ireland with whom there could have been a negociation; and that, if necessary, consecrators could readily have been procured from the Irish Church.

Ftb404 Parsons did not maintain the story in print, although it is possible that he may have privately expressed a belief in it, as he lived six years after it had been first published by Holywood (or Sacrobosco)at Antwerp, in 1604. Note in Bramhall, 3:39.

Ftb405 Edd. “Collins.”

Ftb406 Godwin, 163.

Ftb407 “The Consecration of Protestant Bishops Vindicated, and the Fable of the Nag’s Head Ordination refuted.” This treatise has been elaborately edited in the “Anglo-Catholic Library” edition of Bramhall, vol. 3; to which the reader may be referred for a history of the controversy on the subject. See also Courayer’s work on English Ordinations, ed. Oxf. 1844. The Nag’s Head story, although it would seem to be still maintained by some of the lower Romish writers, is now abandoned by all respectable Romanists, including Dr Lingard, 7:380. The late editor of Dodd’s Church History (Mr Tierney) also professes himself “compelled to adopt the opposite opinion” to his author, who “was inclined to favor the story.” 2 Append. p. 277.

Ftb408 c. 14. But it is incorrect to say that there ever “were twenty-six” suffragans in England. The statute named that number of towns which should be the seats of suffragans; but it was only partially and occasionally acted on. The suffragans, who were not uncommon in England before the date of this act, usually took their titles from places in partibus infidelium. See Gibson, Codex, 155 — 7. He mentions Dr Stern, suffragan of Colchester, circa 1606, as “one of the last” of those appointed under the act; which, however, is still unrepealed.

Ftb409 They were both confirmed Dec. 20. Bramh. 3:227.

Ftb410 Sup. 1:112.

Ftb411 The reasons here given are merely conjectural. Mr Brewer, in a note on Fuller, 4:298, quotes from Harrington’s Nugae Antiquae, a strange statement of a superstitious motive for Barlow’s having declined his old see. Burnet suggests, with great probability, that the remembrance of the lapse mentioned in p. 98, note 5 (of which Heylyn had no knowledge), may have rendered Scory unwilling to return to Chichester, 2:553. The like might, indeed, be said of Barlow. See p. 99.

Ftb412 “Non nisi toga lanca talari utebatur.” Record of the Consecration, in Bramhall, 3:211, and Wilkins. Comp. Strype, Ann. 1:425. Coverdale afterwards obtained the rectory of St Magnus, near London Bridge, the first-fruits being remitted on account of his poverty. He died in 1569, aged 81. Strype, Parker, 149.

Ftb413 Bramh. 3:218-9.

Ftb414 Ib. 220-1.

Ftb415 Ib. 222.

Ftb416 Ib. 223.

Ftb417 Edd. “26th.” Sup. 1:39.

Ftb418 Sup. 1:173.

Ftb419 Chrys. in Matth. Horn. 82, t. 2:p. 471, ed. Field.

Ftb420 Hieton. adv. Pelagianos, lib. 2 (Opera, ed. Martianay, Paris, 1706. t. pars 2 col. 502.) “Quae sunt rogo, inimicitiae contra Deum…si episcopus, presbyter, et diaconus, et reliquus ordo ecclesiasticus, in administratione sacrificiorum candida veste processerint?” This and the preceding passage have been found by the help of Cypr. Anglic. p. 6, — where, however, the references are given with Heylyn’s usual incorrectness. Comp. Hooker, b. 5 c. 29.

Ftb421 Sup. 1:144.

Ftb422 But see p. 286, n. 3.

Ftb423 See Cypr. Anglic. p. 17, where the subject of this section is more fully treated.

Ftb424 See 1:171.

Ftb425 See “How shall we conform to the Liturgy?” pp. 131, seqq.

Ftb426 Zur. Letters, ed. 2, p. 29. Elizabeth wished that the Rood, with the figures of St Mary anal St John, should be retained in churches.

Sandys, ib. 98. A paper of reasons against Images, presented to her by some Bishops and others, is printed by Burnet, 2:487. Comp. Dr Cardwell’s note on it, Doc. Ann. 1:235.

Ftb427 I do not know the authority for the statement that the Queen’s fool was the agent, although, for the reason given in the parenthesis, it may well be believed that the fact was so.

Ftb428 Camden, 371.

Ftb429 “Of which your good inclination (that I seem not to flatter) these both to me and to others appear most evident arguments. Your constant bearing and upholding of the banner and ensign of our redemption (the image I mean of Christ crucified) against the enemies of his cross: your princely word. commanding a preacher, that opened his lewd mouth against the reverent use of the cross in your private chapel, to retire from that ungodly digression unto his text of holy scripture: your well understanded liking of the soberest preachers, both always heretofore, and specially on Good Friday last openly by word of thanks declared, when one of a more temperate nature than the rest in his sermon before your majesty confessed the real presence.” . “A Confutation of a Booke intitvled an Apologie of the Chvrch of England, by Thomas Harding, Doctor of Divinitie.” Antwerpe, 1565, fol. 2. b. of the Dedication to Queen Elizabeth. (This extract from Harding’s very rare work has been most obligingly supplied by the Revelation J. Ayre, editor of Jewel for the Parker Society. Harding’s Dedication is not reprinted in Jewel’s works.)

Ftb430 Harding, as quoted in the preceding note; Rishton, in Sanders, 304, (who, however, does not mention this as creditable to the Queen, but as an instance of improper interference with the Church.) Comp.

Churton’s Life of Nowell, 111.

Ftb431 See note 3, p. 216. Mr Ayre remarks, — “This Good Friday must have been March 31, 1564, as Good Friday 1565 was Apr. 20, and Harding’s book is dated Apr. 12, 1565.”

Ftb432 Qu. “she?”

Ftb433 Spottiswoode, 117.

Ftb434 Ibid. 121-2. See Keith, 1:190-1.

Ftb435 Spottisw. 123-4.

Ftb436 Ibid. 129.

Ftb437 i.e. Knox.

Ftb438 Spottisw. 137.

Ftb439 Ibid. 140.

Ftb440 Ibid. 131.

Ftb441 Ibid. 138-9.

Ftb442 Maitland of Lethington, and “Robert Melvil, brother of the laird of Raith.” Spottisw. 141.

Ftb443 Stow, 641. Cared. 46, ed. 1615. Hayw. 45-7.

Ftb444 Camden, 48-9. Spottisw. 142-3.

Ftb445 Edd. 3 reads “3000;” Camden says 1200.

Ftb446 Stow, 641. Spottisw. 144. Holinshed is very full on this expedition. 4:190, seqq.

Ftb447 Heylyn has omitted to mention that the Queen Regent of Scotland died on the 10th of June. Spottisw. 146.

Ftb448 Edd. “Nachkeeth.”

Ftb449 Stow, 640. Spottisw. 147-9.

Ftb450 Spottisw. 152.

Ftb451 “Scoti, ante aliquot annos, Anglorum auxiliis e servitute Gallica liberati, religionis cultui et ritibus cum Anglis communibus subscripserunt.” Buchanan, Hist. Rerum Scoticarum, 50:19. (p. 380, ed. Ruddiman, Edinb. 1715.) That this is the authority on which Heylyn relied, is ascertained by the Preface to his Ecclesia Vindicata (Hist.

Tracts, folio). Perhaps, however, he has gone too far in inferring from it that the reforming party in Scotland bound themselves to the English Prayer-book and ceremonies precisely at this time, and that there was a compact on the subject between them and Elizabeth. Buchanan does not distinetly make either of these statements; moreover, the passage does not hold its proper place in his work, according to the order of time, but is inserted by way of retrospect in the narrative of a later period. And it would appear that, with the exception of Buchanan’s words, there is no known authority for the circumstance of a covenant with the English Queen for the use of the Liturgy. (See Bp. Sage, Fundamental Charter of Presbytery examined, Works, ed. Spottisw.

Soc. 1:159.) The more important fact, that the English Book was used in Scotland during the earlier years of the Reformation, is, however, certain. The Lords of the Congregation, on associating together for reformation of religion in 1558, resolved “That in all parishes the curates should be caused to read the Prayers, and Lessons of the Old and New Testaments, on Sundays and other festival days, according to the form set forth in the Book of Common Prayers” (Spottisw. 117); — .by which title, as is now proved beyond all question, the second Prayer-book of King Edward is meant. See Sage, 1:164-7; Keith, 1:155; Tytler, 6:117; Lingard, 7:273.

Ftb452 Aer. Rediv. p. 139, ed. 1672.

Ftb453 Spottisw. 149-150. On the invalidity of this Parliament, see Bp.

Russell’s ed. of Spottiswoode., 1:378.

Ftb454 Srottisw. 150.

Ftb455 2 Eliz. c. 1. Irel.

Ftb456 2 Eliz. c. 2. Irel. See above, 1:260.

Ftb457 In the note at the end of the History, Heylyn corrects the statement of vol. 1 p. 260, that “no care was taken” for translating the Liturgy into Irish; but it is true, as is stated here, that no care was taken by parliament.

Ftb458 2 Eliz. c. 3. Irel.

Ftb459 i.e. twentieth.

Ftb460 Sup. p. 194.

Ftb461 2 Eliz. c. 7. Irel.

Ftb462 The act for dissolution of the Order, 32 Hen. VIII. c. 24, allowed Sir W. Weston, the Prior of England, a pension of £1000. Sir John Rawson, Prior of Ireland, had 500 marks, and the other members had allowances according to their standing, the least being £10 a-year.

Massingberd was at that time among those to whom the lowest rate of pension was assigned. Gibson, Codex. 1243.

Ftb463 Heylyn’s reference to the act of Henry VIII. for Ireland, as similar to that of England, might mislead the reader as to the purport of the Irish act, 2 Eliz. c. 4, which did not provide for the “electing” of Archbishops and Bishops, but, like the English act of 1 Edw. VI. c. (sup. 1:104), abolished the capitular elections, on the ground that they caused delay and expense to the nominees; “and whereas the said elections be in very deed no elections, but only by a writ of conge d’eslire have colors, shadows, or pretences of elections — serving nevertheless to no purpose, and seeming also derogatory and prejudicial to the Queen’s prerogative royal, to whom only appertaineth the collation and gift of all archbishoprics and bishoprics and suffragan bishops within this her Highness’ realm.” Comp. Mant, 1:263-4.

Ftb464 For details of the Irish spoliations, see Mant, 1:280, seqq.; Brainhall, 1:18, 81, 89, 90. Heylyn had probably seen in MS. the letter to Laud, in which Bramhall states, A.D. 1633, that “the Earl of Cork holds the whole bishoprick of Lismore, at the rent of 40s., or five marks, by the year.” 1:81.

Ftb465 Edd. “30th.” “It would appear that this Challenge was first given at Paul’s Cross on the 26th of November, 1559, when Jewel was bishop elect of Salisbury, but before his confirmation and consecration, which took place in the following January.” (Cardwell, Doc. Ann. 1:255.) “The Sermon, with the Challenge amplified, was preached at the Court, March 17,1560, and repeated at Paul’s Cross, March 31.” Note in Jewel, ed. Park. Soc. 1:3. The original Challenge contained only the first fifteen articles, ib. 21. It was on occasion of the second preaching, — that at Court, — that Cole’s attack was made. Jelf’s note on Jewel, 1:3.

Ftb466 Jewel, ed. Park. Soc. 1:20-21; ed. Jelf, 1:30-32.

Ftb467 “they.”

Ftb468 “and in silence.”

Ftb469 “his Lord and God.”

Ftb470 This was a dictum uttered by Cole at the Westminster disputation.

Jewel to P. Martyr, in Cardwell, Conferences, 96; Works, ed. Park.

Soc. 1:57.

Ftb471 “Confutation of a Sermon pronounced by Mr Jewel at Paul’s Cross,” Antw. 1564. Tanner, Bibliotheca, 617.

Ftb472 “A proof of certain Articles in Religion denied by Mr Jewel.” Antw. 1564. “A Request to Mr Jewel, that he keep his promise made by solemn protestation in his late Sermon at Paul’s Cross,” 1567, etc.

Tanner, Bibl. 232.

Ftb473 “A Treatise of the Cross, gathered out of the Scriptures, Councils, and Antient Fathers of the Primitive Church.” Antw. 1564.

Ftb474 “A Reproof of a book entitled A Proof of certain Articles,” etc. Lond. 1565. The controversy between Nowell and Dorman ran to some length. Tanner, 553. See below, 6:12; Strype, Ann. 1:540.

Ftb475 Calf hill, however, is not a writer with whom Heylyn would have had much sympathy, if he had read his “Answer to Martial’s Treatise of the Cross.” The work has been learnedly and impartially edited for the Parker Society by the Revelation R. Gibbings.

Ftb476 “Edd. “velilations.”

Ftb477 “Quo quidem tempore [scil. Numantino bello] juvenes adhuc Jugurtha et Marius, sub eodem Africano militantes, in iisdem castris didicere quae postea in contrariis facerent.” Vell. Paterc. 2:9. The illustration is borrowed from the Life (by Featley; see Fuller’s Abel Redivivus, Intr.

Section 11, and p. 313, ed. Camb. 1651) of Jewel, prefixed to the folio edition, 1609; but the error as to the persons is Heylyn’s own.

Ftb478 See p. 38, note 2.

Ftb479 Acts 8.

Ftb480 Fox, 6:418.

Ftb481 Eliz. 4:16.

Ftb482 For a collection of testimonies to this great controversialist, see the Quarterly Review, Vol. 69 pp. 476-7.

Ftb483 Harding’s book appeared in 1564; Jewel’s answer in the latter part of 1565. Jewel, ed. Park. Soc. 1 Advertisement, and p. 85.

Ftb484 Camden, 58.

Ftb485 Camd. 59-60. Fuller, 4:307-9. Wilkins, 4:219.

Ftb486 Mr Clay shows that “little claim to the authorship of the Latin prayerbook was possessed by Haddon” (or by the Elizabethan editor, whoever he was), inasmuch as it is grounded on the version of King Edward’s second Liturgy made by Aless (sup. 1:165). Liturgies of Elizabeth, ed. Park. Soc. p. 25.

Ftb487 See Strype, Ann. 1:422.

Ftb488 Wilkins, 4:217.

Ftb489 Against Heylyn’s view of the intention with which the Latin book was published, and against the story of the Pope’s willingness to confirm it, see Clay, Liturg. Eliz. 22.

Ftb490 Camden only states that the purport of Parpaglia’s instructions was said (“Fama obtinet”) to have been such as is here reported. Of himself he expressly says, “Quae Parpalia proposuit, non comperi, nec enim scriptis mandata credo, comminisci vero cum vulgo historicorum minime lubet.” p. 59, ed. 1615. On the other hand, Coke, in his charge at the Norwich assizes, 1607, states that he received a similar relation from the Queen herself (Twysden’s Hist. Vindication, 200, ed. Corrie, Camb. 1847); and the truth of it is maintained by Twysden, ibid.

Ftb491 De Schism. Angl. 307.

Ftb492 “Which is altogether improbable; for how could he propound anything to the Queen, — (which Camden says he did) — if he saw her not?

Would he be so negligent of the papal honor as to send a letter which he was to deliver himself? If we are to credit tradition, he not only spoke with her Majesty, but passed from her not without a gratitude.

And I conceive the learned doctor [Heylyn] attributes to this abbot what happened to another, the year following; for of Martinengus, 1561 [see Eliz. 3:9], it is most true, but none mention it of this; neither is it likely the Pope, having received so peremptory a denial, would a year after have adventured a second.” Twysden, 200.

Ftb493 Mr Anderson shows (Annals of the English Bible, 2:320), that Whittingham, Gylby, and Sampson, were the only Englishmen of note who remained at Geneva, and that to them the version is to be attributed.

Ftb494 The letter to Cecil is in Calv. Epp. p. 133; but although he there speaks of having given advice to the Queen, no letter to her appears in the Collection.

Ftb495 Martyr had written to Elizabeth on her accession, Loci Com. 1121-4; there is no other letter of his to the Queen.

Ftb496 Sampson, see 1:195, note 2.

Ftb497 1559. P. Martyr, Loci Comm. 1127. Zurich Letters, ed. 2, p. 65.

Ftb498 P. Martyr. 1127-8. Zurich Letters, 84-6. The date is Feb. 1, 1560.

Ftb499 Edd. “their.”

Ftb500 The only letter to Grindal on the subject in the collection of Calvin’s Epistles is that of thanks, mentioned in the next paragraph.

Ftb501 Sup. 1:189.

Ftb502 i.e. Vienne; where the relics of the Egyptian St Anthony were believed to be preserved. See Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Jan. 17.

Ftb503 Stow, Survey, 190.

Ftb504 Stow.

Ftb505 Stow, Survey, 190-1.

Ftb506 Besides the new establishment of the French church, that of “Dutch” (or Germans) was about this time restored. Utenhovius, who had been a leading member of a Lasco’s congregation, again came to England, bringing with him King Edward’s charter, which the Queen was prayed to confirm. The petition was at first refused, “because the Queen thought it not convenient in her kingdom to have another superintendant over a Church, and that a stranger, besides the Bishop of London.” In order to meet this objection, the Germans chose Bishop Grindal for superintendant; and, after overcoming various other difficulties, they were restored to the possession of the building in the Augustine Friars, which in the reign of Mary had been used as a repository for naval stores. Strype, Annals, 1:118. Compare for the history of foreign congregations, Strype’s Grindal, b. 1 c. 5; Burn’s Hist. of Protestant Refugees, Lond. 1845.

Ftb507 Epp. p. 144. May 15, 1560.

Ftb508 Camden, 60. Lat.

Ftb509 Loci Comm. 1128-31.

Ftb510 There were later orders for inquiry as to strangers who “were come into the realm for pretense of religion.” See Cardw. Doc. Ann. 1:307.

Ftb511 Injunctions of 1559, No. 23.

Ftb512 Qu. “preserved?”

Ftb513 Edd. “nobles, estates.”

Ftb514 “Using therein the advice of the Ordinary, and, if need shall be, the advice also of her Majesty’s Council,” etc.

Ftb515 Fuller, 4:301-5. Wilkins, 4:221-2.

Ftb516 “And make such like alterations, as thereby they seek a slanderous desolation,” etc.

Ftb517 Fuller, 4:301.

Ftb518 But we have already had notice of a reform in the reign of Edward 1:232.

Ftb519 Stow, 640. Camden, 61-2. Lat.

Ftb520 Camd. 70. Lat.

Ftb521 Sup. 1:230.

Ftb522 Fuller, 4:312. Camd. 61. Lat.

Ftb523 Rishton, in Sanders, 295.

Ftb524 See Fuller, 5:96; Heyl. Exam. Hist. Pt. 1:167.

Ftb525 Stow, Survey, 500.

Ftb526 Stow, Survey, 330, 917. Sup. 1:124.

Ftb527 Speed, 861. On the religious wars of France, comp. Aer. Rediv. b. 2.

Ftb528 Davila, 39.

Ftb529 Sarpi, 439; Davila, 52.

Ftb530 Camd. 68. ed. 1615.

Ftb531 Sup. p. 331.

Ftb532 Sarpi, 416.

Ftb533 Ibid. 425-7.

Ftb534 Ibid. 436. Camd. 68. ed. 1615.

Ftb535 Sup. p. 181.

Ftb536 Godwin, 238. Brain hall, 3:224.

Ftb537 Eliz. 8:1-3.

Ftb538 Godw. 559. Bramh. 3:225. Scambler was also chaplain to Archbishop Parker.

Ftb539 See Browne Willis, Survey of Cathedrals, 3:496.

Ftb540 He had refused the archbishoprick, which was then offered to May, dean of St. Paul’s; but, on May’s dying before consecration, Young accepted it. Bramh. 3:228.

Ftb541 Stow, 602. Godw. 710. Fuller, 4:344.

Ftb542 Godw. 586.

Ftb543 Consecrated May 26, 1561. Godw. 643. It was in the see of St Asaph that Richard Davis (who held St David’s till 1581) was succeeded by Thomas.

Ftb544 1560-1. Godw. 756. Pilkington had been nominated and elected to Winchester, but made way for Horn in that see. Bramh. 3:224-6.

Ftb545 See Heylyn’s Examen Historicum, 103-4; Browne Willis, 1:228.

Ftb546 Godw. 771. Bramh. 3:226.

Ftb547 See Wordsw. Eccl. Biog. 3:404.

Ftb548 Bp Carleton, in his Life of Gilpin, states that he was recommended for the bishopric by the Earl of Bedford, and by Sandys, then Bishop of Worcester. The latter, in a letter urging him to accept it, writes, “I give you to understand that the said bishopric is left unto you untouched, neither shall anything of it be diminished (as in some others it is a custom); but you shall receive the bishopric entire as Dr Oglethorpe left it.” The reason of Gilpin’s refusal is thus given by the biographer, from the remembrance of his conversation, — “If I had been chosen in this kind to any bishopric elsewhere, I would not have refused it; but in that place I have been willing to avoid the trouble of it, seeing I had there many of my friends and kindred, at whom I must connive in many things, not without hurt to myself, or else deny them many things, not without offense to them: which difficulties I have easily avoided by refusal of that bishopric.” Wordsw. Eccl. Biog. 3:396.

Ftb549 Godw. 770. Bramh. 3:226.

Ftb550 Stow, 647.

Ftb551 Matthew 24:23.

Ftb552 Acts 8:10.

Ftb553 Bingham, 11:3, 5. Menander seems really to have asserted, not that he was identical with our Lord, but that he was a being of the same class with Him, as represented by the heretic’s system. . “It appears from the testimony of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, that he wished to be thought one of the AEons, sent from the upper world or the Pleroma, to succor the souls that were suffering miserably in material bodies, and to afford them aid against the machinations and the violence of the demons who governed our world.” Mosheim, by Murdock and Soames, Loud. 1841, 1:115. Comp. Fleury, 1, 2 c. 42.

Ftb554 “Though Montanus has been charged with the blasphemy of calling himself the Paraclete, it seems certain that he only meant to say that the Holy Ghost, or Paraclete, had given to himself and his followers an extraordinary measure o£ spiritual illumination.” Burton, Hist. of the Christian Church, 141. Comp. Newman on Arianism, p. 131.

Ftb555 See Stow, 178; Baker, ed. 1674. p. 89.

Ftb556 Stow, 647. Camd. 72, Lat.

Ftb557 See Pilkington’s Works, ed. Park. Soc. 479-648.

Ftb558 Fuller, b. 9:71, folio; comp. Heyl. Exam. Hist. pt. 3:100; although Dugdale, in his History of St Paul’s (p. 147, ed. 1818), refers to the present work as if the earliest authority for this statement as to the origin of the fire. His editor, Sir Henry Ellis, denies the truth of the story, on the ground that a black-letter tract, printed at the time, and republished in the Archaeologia, vol. 11, relates that some persons who were in a boat on the Thames saw lightning strike the spire. I should be disposed to attach greater weight to a passage in Churton’s Life of Nowell, to which Sir H. Ellis refers: — “The Vera Historia, minutely detailed in the episcopal register by an eyewitness...assures us, that neither plumbers nor other workmen had been employed about the church for six months before, and that the fire was occasioned by lightning.” p. 59, ed. Oxf. 1809. Comp. Strype’s Grindal, 53-5, where it is also stated that the spire of St Martin’s, Ludgate, suffered at the same time from lightning.

Ftb559 Stow, 647.

Ftb560 Stow, Chron. 647; Survey, 357. Wilkins, 4:226. Comp. Strype’s Parker, 92-3, 127; Grindal, b. 1 cc. 6-7.

Ftb561 “This one thing resteth to be told, that, by the estimation of wise men, 10000 pounds more than is yet granted to it, will not perfect and finish the church and steeple in such sort as it was before the burning thereof.” Holinsh. 4:203.

Ftb562 Sarpi, 441. Camden, 68-9. Fuller, 4:312-3.

Ftb563 Sup. p. 216.

Ftb564 See Eliz. 5:1.

Ftb565 Rishton, in Sanders, 307. Strype gives in his Annals, 1 App. D, E, a letter from the Emperor, with Elizabeth’s answer. The chief subject of these are, the treatment of the Romish bishops, and the Emperor’s wish that places of worship should be allowed for the Romanists. The exhortation to return to the communion of Rome may have been contained in an earlier letter, to which reference is made.

Ftb566 Edd. “63.” The order really was, not that the buildings should be demolished, but that they should be taken from the sectaries, — pa>ntwn tw~n aijretikw~n tououv ei]ge eujkthri>ouv ojnoma>zein oi]kouv prosh>kei ajfaireqe>ntav th~| kaqolikh~| ejkklhsi>a| paradoqh~nai. (p. 622, ed. Reading.) The editor remarks that Christopherson rendered ajfaireqe>ntav by diruta; and on this mistranslation Heylyn’s statement is doubtless founded.

Ftb567 Sup. 1:34. n. 3.

Ftb568 Camd. 71.

Ftb569 Stow, 647. Camd. 70-1.

Ftb570 Stow, 647.

Ftb571 2 Kings 16:10, seqq. The presbyterian Calderwood had applied the name of Altare Damascenum to the English Church. See 1:194.

Ftb572 The statements of this paragraph appear to be derived from the paper of orders given below.

Ftb573 1 Eliz. c. 1 Section 18. Sup. p. 284.

Ftb574 “authorized.”

Ftb575 1 Eliz. c. 2. Section 24-5.

Ftb576 These Orders — about which there had been much discussion between our author and Archbishop Williams, (Coal from the Altar,22; Holy Table,41) — do not appear in any of the histories or collections, and have been reprinted for the first time while the present edition was passing through the press. It seems, therefore, worth while to give them at full length, from the British Magazine for October, 1848 (vol. 34 pp. 419-421), to which they were communicated by the Revelation W. Goode. (Comp. Grindal, ed. Park. Soc. 154.) “Orders taken the 10th day of October, in the third year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. By virtue of Her Majesty’s letters addressed to her Highness’ Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical, as followeth: — “Inprimis, for the avoiding of much strife and contention, that hath heretofore risen among the Queen’s subjects in divers parts of the realm, for the using or transposing of the rood-lofts, fonts, and steps, within the queres and chancels in every parish-church — It is thus decreed and ordained, that the rood-lofts, as yet being at this day aforesaid untransposed, shall be so altered that the upper part of the same with the soller be quite taken down, unto the upper parts of the vautes, and beam running in length over the said vautes, by putting some convenient crest upon the said beam towards the church, with leaving the situation of the seats (as well in the quere as in the church), as heretofore hath been used. “Provided yet, that where any parish of their own costs and charges by common consent will pull down the whole frame, and reedifying again the same in joiner’s work (as in divers churches within the city of London doth appear), that they may do as they think agreeable, so it be to the height of the upper beam aforesaid. “Provided also, that where in any parish-church the said rood-lofts be already transposed, so that there remain a comely partition betwixt the chancel and the church, that no alteration be otherwise attempted in them, but be suffered in quiet. And where no partition is standing, there to be one appointed. “Also that the steps which be as yet at this day remaining in any cathedral, collegiate, or parish-church, be not stirred nor altered; but be suffered to continue, with the tombs of any noble or worshipful personage, where it so chanceth to be, as well in chancel, church, or chapel. And if in any chancel the steps be transposed, that they be not erected again, but that the place be decently paved, where the Communion-table shall stand out of the times of receiving the communion, having thereon a fair linen cloth, with some covering of silk, buckram, or other such like, for the clean keeping of the said cloth on the communion-board, at the cost of the parish. “And further, that there be fixed upon the wall, over the said communion-board, the tables of God’s precepts, imprinted for the said purpose. “Provided yet that in Cathedral Churches the tables of the said precepts be more largely and. costly painted out, to the better show of the same. “Item, that all chancels be clean kept and repaired, within as without, in the windows and otherwhere as appertaineth. “Item, that the font be not removed from the accustomed place; and that in parish-churches the curates take not upon them to confer baptism in basens, but in the, font customably used. “Item, that there be no destruction or alienation of the bells, steeple, or porch belonging to any parish-church, by the private authority of any person or persons, without sufficient matter showed to the Archbishop of the province, of his and their doings, and by them allowed; except it be for cause of repairing the same. “Item, that neither the curates nor the parents of the children alter the common used manner for godfathers and godmothers to answer for the children, nor shall condemn the accustomable usage in the same. “Item, that it shall not be lawful to any ordinary to assign or enjoin the parishes to buy any books of sermons or expositions, in any other sort than is already, or shall be hereafter, appointed by public authority. “Item, that there be none other days observed for holy days or fasting days, as of duty and commandment, but only such holy days as be expressed for holy days in the Kalendar late set forth by the Queen’s authority. And none other fasting days (to be so commanded), but as the laws and proclamations by the Queen’s Majesty provided in the same do appoint. “Item, that the parson, vicar, or curate, with the churchwardens, shall yearly make and exhibit unto the registers [registrars] of the Ordinary, the names and surnames of all persons married, christened, and buried, within their said parishes, by bill indented, with the subscription of their hands: noting the day and year of the said christenings, marriages, and burials, out of their original register kept in custody, as is appointed by the Queen’s Majesty’s Injunctions. “Item, that no parson, vicar, or curate of any exempt churches, or otherwise called lawless Churches, do attempt to conjoin by solemnization of matrimony any persons not being of his parish, without sufficient testi-timony of the banns asking in the Churches where they dwell: or otherwise be authorized lawfully to marry. “Imprinted at London in Powles Church-yard, by Richard Jugge, Printer to the Queen’s Majesty. Cum privilegio Regiae Majestatis.”

Ftb577 The Calendar was revised in 1561. See Liturgical Services of Eliz. ed.

Park. Soc. 33:435-455.

Ftb578 Eliz. 6:8.

Ftb579 Comp. Cypr. Anglic. p. 20. The words of the order, and Heylyn’s reasoning on them, are inconsistent with the notion which has of late been very confidently propounded, — that the Elizabethan reformers intended to place the Commandments in the chancel-arch, as a substitute for the images which they removed from the screen.

Ftb580 Sup. p. 229.

Ftb581 “The Roose.” Stow, Chron. “The Rose.” Id. Survey.

Ftb582 The name of Hills is familiar to the readers of the Zurich Letters, as a correspondent of Bullinger and other reformers, and a benefactor to the exiles in the reign of Mary.

Ftb583 Chronicles 647. Survey, 64.

Ftb584 See Hasted’s Hist. of Kent, 4:273-4; Strype’s Parker, 138-9.

Manwood was a barrister when he set the design on foot, with the assistance of others, about 1568. His monument, in St Stephen’s Church, Hackington, near Canterbury, states that he became a judge of the Queen’s Bench in 1567, chief baron of the Exchequer in 1578, and died in 1592. A letter from Parker to Cecil, in favor of the design, dated Aug. 27, 1568, is printed by Ellis, Orig. Letters, 2nd Series, 2:268.

Ftb585 Sarpi, 469. The words Propone ntibus Legatis — which gave rise to much fruitless negtiation and discussion — were not agreed to in the preliminary session, but were part of a form drawn up after it, and voted next day, as stated in the text below.

Ftb586 Ibid.

Ftb587 Sarpi, 469.

Ftb588 Ibid. 471.

Ftb589 Ibid. 475.

Ftb590 Ibid. 482.

Ftb591 Sarpi, 482-3.

Ftb592 These topics are gathered from Jewel’s letter.

Ftb593 This was the first publication of the letter, A.D. 1629, fifty-eight years after the death of Jewel; and no explanation is given as to the source front which it was derived. It appears, however, to be, as Dr Jelf says, “a genuine, though perhaps an unfinished, work of Bp Jewel,” (n. in Jewel, 8:73), — agreeing with his acknowledged writings in style and in sentiment, and closely resembling the “Apology” both in the choice and in the treatment of topics. Dr Wordsworth suggests that “Seignor Scipio” may have been “probably Scipione Biondi, the son of Michelangiolo Biondi” (Eccl. Biog. 3:309); and Dr Jelf adopts the suggestion (8:73). But why should we suppose him a real person at all, and, by so doing, encumber the argument for the genuineness of the Epistle with the very questionable position that Jewel once resided at Padua? a circumstance for which no evidence has yet been produced (Jelf, 1 Pref. 28), while the cause of his exile from England renders it extremely unlikely that he should have ventured into a country of the Roman obedience. The only passage in Jewel’s Works which bears on the subject is in a Letter to P. Martyr, of date Feb. 7, 1562; where, after mentioning the publication of his Apologia, he writes — “nos nunc cogitamus publicare causas quibus inducti ad concilium non veniamus.” (Zur. Lett. 1:60. Lat.) Perhaps he may have thought of executing this design in the form of a letter to an imaginary friend, — to be published (probably) under a fictitious name; and after having drawn up the tract in question, he may have suppressed it — preferring to rest the defense of the Church in the eyes of foreign nations wholly on the “Apology.” Dr Jelf supposes the date to have been July 1562.

Ftb594 The division into heads, and the order in which these are placed, are Fuller’s.

Ftb595 Juramentum Episcopi, in Pontifical. Romans p. 64. ed. Venet. 1836; Juram. Abbatis, ibid. p. 93.

Ftb596 “They could not, as free persons,...they would not come as offenders, to hear the sentence pronounced against themselves, which they had heard of before.” Fuller. The passage here intended is near the beginning of the letter: “Hoc mihi velim responderi, utrum id agat pontifex, ut nobiscum, quos habet pro haereticis, in Concilio de religione deliberet; an potius ut nos ex inferiori loco causam dicamus, et vel statim mutemus sententiam, vel iterum e vestigio condemnemur?

Alterum novum est, et prorsus nostrarum partium hominibus jampridem a Julio papa tertio denegatum; alterum ridiculum est, si id putat, Anglos venturos esse ad Concilium, tantum ut accusentur, et causam dicant, apud illum praesertim qui jamdudum non tantum a nostris, sed etiam a suis, gravissimis criminibus accusetur.” 8:75.

Ftb597 Sarpi, 498.

Ftb598 Edd. “Goldnel.”

Ftb599 Fuller states that Scot, Bishop of Chester, went to Louvain.

Ftb600 It is said by Phillips, that Pates “assisted at the close of the Council of Trent.” Life of Pole, 2:39. Strype mentions that he was imprisoned in the Tower, A. D. 1563, “perhaps for presuming to sit in the Council of Trent.” Ann. 1:144. His name, however, does not appear in the list.

Ftb601 Goldwell went further. — to Rome, where he lived six and twenty years. Rishton, in Sanders, 286. And he is named as the only English bishop who attended the later sessions of the Council. Concil. Trident.

Canones, etc. ed. Lips. 1846. pp. 332-9.

Ftb602 “A blast, heinous proverb was generally used, — That the Synod of Trent was guided by the Holy Ghost, sent thither from time to time in a cloak-bag from Rome.” Sarpi, 497.

Ftb603 Davila, 19-20.

Ftb604 “There have been several fanciful derivations of the word Huguenot.

It is now supposed to have been originally Eidgenossen, or associated by oath, the name assumed by the Calvinistic party in Geneva, during their contest with the catholics. From Geneva, missionaries penetrated into the south of France, and took with them the appellation of Egnots, or Huguenots.” Lingard, 7:308. It is singular that this German etymology is not given by the writer of the article on the Huguenots in the Conversations-Lexicon, who, like Davila, p. 20, derives the name from the gate of St Hugo at Tours. The other derivation mentioned in the text is given by De Thou: — “Cum singulae urbes apud nos peculiaria nomina habeant, quibus mormones, lemures, manducos, et caetera hujusmodi monstra inania anilibus fabulis…vulgo indigitant, Caesaroduni [Tours] Hugo rex celebratur, qui noctu pomoeria civitatis obequitare et obvios homines pulsare ac rapere dicitur. Ab eo Hugonoti appellati, qui ad ea loca ad conciones audiendas ac preces faciendas itidem noctu, quia interdiu non licebat, agminatim in occulto conveniebant.” Hist. 24:21. (t. 1:827.) So too Beza, quoted by Henry, Leben Calvins, 1:48.

Ftb605 Sarpi, 421.

Ftb606 Edd. 1, 2, “princes.”

Ftb607 “Licere respondebant vim contra illegitimam Guisianorum dominationem opponere, modo accederet regiae stirpis principum, qui in his casibus legitimi sint ac nati magistratus, aut unius ex iis, auctoritas, et ex ordinum regni aut majoris ac sanioris eorum partis consensu id fieret: quippe superfluum esse regem ea de re monere, qui ob aetatem et nullum rerum usum rebus suis superesse non possit, et a Guisianis quasi captivus teneatur, ut ordinariae juris rationi minime locus sit.” Thuan. 24:17. (t. 1 p. 818.) Sarpi, 421.

Ftb608 Thuan. 24:18. (t. 1 p. 824.)

Ftb609 Thuan. 24:19. (t. 1 p. 825.)

Ftb610 Ibid. 25:3. (t. 2 p. 5.) Sarpi, 421-2. Dav. 28.

Ftb611 Sarpi, 442.

Ftb612 Thuan. 29:17. (t. 2 p. 165.)

Ftb613 Sarpi, 480; Day. 51.

Ftb614 Odo de Coligny, brother of the Admiral. On joining the Reformed, he styled himself Count of Beauvais, — the city of which he was bishop.

Davila, 64. He afterwards took refuge in England, and is buffed in Canterbury Cathedral.

Ftb615 Day. 69.

Ftb616 Stow, 650-1.

Ftb617 Published in Stow, 648-50. Comp. Camden, 76.

Ftb618 Holinshed, 4:205.

Ftb619 Camd. 76; Dav. 72.

Ftb620 Stow, 648.

Ftb621 Stow, 651.

Ftb622 The statement as to the Protestants is a mistake. They professed, indeed, to desire the Queen’s return; but they were at the same time intriguing, in conjunction with Elizabeth, to prevent it. Mary applied to the English Queen for a passport, which was refused. “This proceeding,” writes Cecil, “will like the Scots well.” Tytler, 6:230.

Ftb623 Spottisw. 177. Camden, 64-7.

Ftb624 See Tytler, 6:230.

Ftb625 “that” not in Edd. 1, 2.

Ftb626 Spottisw. 178.

Ftb627 “In case she should have no issue.” Spottisw. 180.

Ftb628 Spottisw. 182.

Ftb629 Spottisw. 185. Camd. 75.

Ftb630 Sup. 1:22.

Ftb631 Fuller, 4:314-5. Wood’s Hist. and Antiq. of Oxf. ed. Gutch, 4:149- 151. Strype’s Parker, b. 2 c. 11.

Ftb632 Cared. 72-3.

Ftb633 Sup. 1:293.

Ftb634 Sup. p. 117.

Ftb635 “Sidney’s sister, Pembroke’s mother,” celebrated by her brother Sir Philip Sidney, and by Jonson.

Ftb636 “Hereupon I shall add what I have heard related from persons of great credit; which is, that the validity of this marriage was afterwards brought to a trial at common law; where, the minister who married them being present, and other circumstances agreeing, the jury found it a good marriage.” Dugdale, Baronage, 2:369. Cf. Ellis, Orig. Letters, 2nd Series, 2:290, in which volume (pp. 272, seqq.) there is much information on the subject of Lady Katherine Grey.

Ftb637 Camd. 74.

Ftb638 “Camden, 87. It is necessary to distinguish between two Duchesses of Suffolk, who were living at the same time, and both remarried to commoners-the lady here spoken of, widow of Henry Grey, and her stepmother, widow of Charles Brandon, and remarried to Mr Bertie. (Sup. p. 103.) Heylyn is mistaken in supposing (as he appears to do) that the former lady was alive at the time to which the text relates. She died Nov. 20, 1559, although Camden (87), misled by the date of the erection of her monument, places her death in the sixth year of Elizabeth. Strype, Ann. 1:196. Comp. Machyn, 217.

Ftb639 The Earl. who married Lady Katherine Grey, lived to the year 1621, when he was succeeded by his grandson William, the husband of the Lady Arabella. The patents here mentioned, however, were obtained, not by William, but by his father, Edward, Lord Beau champ, who died in 1618. Dugdale, Baronage, 2:369. Earl William was created Marquess of Hertford in 1640, and in reward of his steady loyalty, the Dukedom of Somerset was revived in his favor at the Restoration of Charles II., which he survived only a few months. (See p. 434, below.)

Ftb640 Dugdale’s Baronage, 2:369.

Ftb641 Sup. p. 330.

Ftb642 “Two only I hear of that have written against it [the Apology] — the one in Latin, a learned Spaniard, bishop in the kingdom of Naples; the other an Italian, in the Italian tongue. Both books are stayed from print and setting abroad, as it is thought, in regard of our country; whose honor should be overmuch touched, if the whole church of the realm were so openly charged with the approving of such a lying, undiscreet, unreasonable, slanderous, and ungodly writing. For which cause myself thought it more convenient to write this Confutation in English than in Latin,” etc. Harding’s Address to the Reader. Compare what Bp. Jewel says of these two persons, Def. of Apol. Pt. 1 c. 4. div. 2. (quoted below). [For this note I have again to acknowledge the kindness of the Revelation J. Ayre. See p. 316.] Ftb643 Harding ap. Jewel, ed. Jelf, 4:198.

Ftb644 Jewel, ed. Jelf, 4:202.

Ftb645 Ib. 199.

Ftb646 “gnawing.”

Ftb647 Jewel, ed. Jelf, 4:201-2.

Ftb648 This letter (Jelf, 4:3; Zur. Lett. 161) was written on receiving the published book, which Jewel had sent off in February. Sup. p. 368.

Ftb649 Godwin, 552-564.

Ftb650 Godwin, 564. Fletcher (father of the dramatist), was preferred to Worcester in 1592, and thence to London in 1594. Richardson, ibid.

Ftb651 Sup. p. 293.

Ftb652 Godwin, 545-6.

Ftb653 The reference is to Rastell, quoted below, 8:4, as challenging Jewel to show that in the primitive times any Bishop “gathered a benevolence of his clergy, to set him up in his household.”

Ftb654 5 Eliz. c. 1.

Ftb655 Eliz. 8:1-3.

Ftb656 c. 15 against prophecies; c. 16, against witchcrafts. Jewel, writing of Mary’s reign, Nov. 2, 1559, says, “Magarum et veneficarum numerus ubique in immensum excreverat” (Zur. Letters, 1 Lat. 25); and in a sermon preached before Elizabeth (Works, 1:1027-8, ed. Park. Soc.), he speaks of the increase of witchcraft, and urges “that the laws touching such malefactors may be put in due execution.” Comp.

Haweis, Sketches of the Reformation, 216, seqq.

Ftb657 5 Eliz. c. 23.

Ftb658 5 Eliz. c. 14. See Neale on Feasts and Fasts, 344.

Ftb659 Rishton in Sanders, 303. Gardiner had been ridiculed in like manner, for appointing Wednesday to be a fast. Fox, 6:32.

Ftb660 Articles of Religion, No. 24.

Ftb661 5 Eliz. c. 28.

Ftb662 Wilkins, 4:230, seqq. A fuller account in Cardwell, Synodalia, 405, seqq.

Ftb663 Brother of George Day, Bishop of Chichester, who has been repeatedly mentioned in the History. He was consecrated to Winchester, Jan. 25, 1595-6, and died in September following.

Godwin, 240.

Ftb664 This cannot, however:, imply that the Dean was a member of the Upper House; for we find him acting as one of those who presented the prolocutor to the Archbishop, and subscribing with the clergy of the Lower House. Wilkins, 4:232, 237.

Ftb665 Comp. Cyp. Ang. p. 423, ed. 1668. The form is still observed.

Ftb666 See Lamb’s Hist. of the Articles, 15, seqq.

Ftb667 Barlow’s account of the Hampton Court Conference, in Cardwell Conferences, 200.

Ftb668 Ibid. 187.

Ftb669 Ibid. 185.

Ftb670 Qu. “modality?”

Ftb671 See Lamb,19, seqq.

Ftb672 See the Appendix.

Ftb673 Edd. 1, 2, “into.

Ftb674 The Catechism in question was that of Dean Nowell. The records of the Upper House, as Heylyn states, do not contain any notice of its having been ratified by that house. It was, however, published in 1570, and by the Canons of 1571 was sanctioned for exclusive use in schools, — to be learned in Latin or in English, according to the capacity of the scholar. Collier, 6:388. Cardwell, Synod. 128, 522.

Ftb675 Wilkins, 4:240; Collier, 6:371.

Ftb676 Wilkins, 4:238. Cardwell, Synod. 518.

Ftb677 Edd. “ratably.”

Ftb678 The words “newly imposed” do not appear in Wilkins, Cardwell, or Collier. See 1:34; 2:357.

Ftb679 Sup. p. 378.

Ftb680 Spottiswoode, 188.

Ftb681 Ibid.

Ftb682 For this war, see Stow, 651, seqq. Holinsh. 4:205, seqq.

Ftb683 Hauteville.

Ftb684 Gaspard de Coligny.

Ftb685 Edd. 1, 2. “was.”

Ftb686 Stow, 656. Camden, 80-4.

Ftb687 P. 389.

Ftb688 Camd. 41, 54, 125.

Ftb689 Sarpi, 727.

Ftb690 Edd. 1, 2, “heretics.”

Ftb691 This is in the main taken verbatim from Brent’s translation of Fra Paolo, 796; but Heylyn has misapprehended the case, and has given a representation of it which is both inaccurate and inconsistent. The proposal made by the Archbishop of Otranto was, that an anathema should be pronounced on “the heretics,” — by which he meant, not al heretics, but those in particular against whom the Council had been summoned; and he named “Luther and Zuinglius dead, and their followers alive.” To this the Cardinal of Lorraine made the reply here reported, — that Luther and Zuinglius were not the real heads of the heretics; that to name the princes who were indeed their leaders, was inexpedient; and, “therefore, to do not what they would, but what they could, he thought that [not the more moderate, but the more universal resolution was the better;” i. e. that there should not be any naming of particular heresics. The result was a general “anathema cunctis haereticis.” Conc. Trid. Canones, ed. Lips. 1846. 208.

Ftb692 Sarpi, p. 2.

Ftb693 Camden states the number at 21,580 (84). Stow says 20,872 in the city and liberties; 2732 in the out-parishes, (656-7).

Ftb694 Stow, 656.

Ftb695 Edd. “parts.”

Ftb696 Ib. 657.

Ftb697 Stow, 657.

Ftb698 Camd. 90.

Ftb699 Sup. p. 304.

Ftb700 Stow, 657.

Ftb701 Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon, cousin of the Queen. Sup. p. 274.

Ftb702 Stow, 657. Camd. 88.

Ftb703 Holinshed, 4:226. Stow, 660. Camd. 91. Fuller, Ch. Hist. 4:331-2.

Ftb704 Numbers, 11:1-3.

Ftb705 Paule’s Life of Whitgift, in Wordsw. Eccl. Biog. 3:559. Fuller, Hist. of Cambridge, 196, copies the story from Paule, but says that Cartwright’s friends denied the truth of it. The late biography of Cartwright by Mr B. Brook does not throw any real light on the subject.

Ftb706 “In a letter to Secretary Cecil, Sampson said that at his ordination in 1549 he excepted against the apparel, and by the Archbishop and Bishop Ridley was nevertheless permitted and admitted.” Strype, Cranmer, 2:180, ed. Eccl. Hist. (where the editor gives an account of Sampson). The fact was but little to the purpose, since the ordination took place while things were in an unsettled state. Comp. G1. Ridley’s Life of Ridley, 302. For Sampson and Humphrey, see Strype, Ann. 1 c. 43; Life of Parker, b. 2 c. 28; b. 3 c. 1.

Ftb707 Godwin, 389.

Ftb708 Edd. 1, 2, “who boggled at it, as they all did.”

Ftb709 It is needless to say more here as to the history of this clause, than that it appeared in the first printed edition of the Articles, although omitted in many which followed. Lamb, Hist. of the Articles, 33. See Vol. 1 p. 93; Heylyn, Examen, 143, seqq.; Aer. Red. 231-2, ed. 1672; Laurence, Bampt. Lectures, 236.

Ftb710 Rather to Basel. Sup. 182.

Ftb711 Fuller, 4:328-9.

Ftb712 At the Hampton-Court Conference. Cardwell, Conferences, 210-11.

Ftb713 See p. 316.

Ftb714 p. 301. Sanders (Rishton), however, takes occasion to sneer at the assumption of “pontifical power.”

Ftb715 There is but one letter to Cecil in the collection of Calvin’s Epistles (p. 133, dated Jan. 29, 1559 — sup. 335). He was told that the Queen was angry because he was supposed to have agreed with Knox and Goodman in their opinions as to female sovereignty. Zurich Letters, p. 76.

Ftb716 Sup. 1:195; 2:335. His death has been recorded, p. 387.

Ftb717 On Beza’s interference, see Aerius Rediv., where quotations from his letters are given, pp. 40-43, and Book 6.

Ftb718 Edd. “counted.”

Ftb719 The Zurich Letters contain the correspondence with these divines.

Comp. Strype, Ann. 1 c. 42.

Ftb720 Bullinger’s Letter to Sampson, conveying the joint opinion of himself and Gualter, is in the Zurich Letters, p. 214; that to Bp. Horn, ibid. 224. The opinions of Martyr and Bucer, given in the matter of Hooper (sup. 1:191), were at this time published by order of the Queen’s Commissioners. Ibid. 227. Comp. Strype, Ann. 1:491-2.

Ftb721 Sup. p. 298.

Ftb722 Heylyn, it may be observed, speaks of the Advertisements as having the force of law, — considering that they fulfilled the conditions of the clause in the Act of Uniformity, which reserved to the Queen a power, with the advice of her commissioners or of the metropolitan, of “taking other order” as to dress, ceremonies, etc. from that which was prescribed in the Prayer-Book. And this was the view taken down to our author’s time; e.g. by Andrewes (Append. to Nicholls on the Common Prayer, 38), and by Sparrow (Rationale, 311, ed. Oxf. 1840).

Many writers of a later date, however, — among whom are Gibson, Nicholls, Strype, Collier, Burn, and Dr Cardwell, — have supposed that the Queen’s sanction was withheld, and, consequently, that the Advertisements had not the authority of law. The older view is very fully and satisfactorily vindicated by Archdeacon Harrison, in his” Historical Inquiry into the Rubric.” Lond. 1845, pp. 80, seqq.

Ftb723 Wilkins, 4:247-250.

Ftb724 “especially the state ecclesiastical.”

Ftb725 “in their.”

Ftb726 i.e. long.

Ftb727 c. 13. — A statute against “excess of apparel.”

Ftb728 Edd. Heyl. “he.”

Ftb729 Edd. “to.”

Ftb730 Edd. Heyl. “aforesaid.”

Ftb731 The Advertisements do not appear to have been published until April 1566. Harrison, 123.

Ftb732 Stow, 657.

Ftb733 “Primo regni anno...non sine omnium admiratione.” Camd. 56, ed. 1615.

Ftb734 The Earl of Leicester was elected by the University, in preference to Archbishop Parker. Wood’s Hist. and Antiq. ed. Gutch, 2:100.

Ftb735 See Spenser, Faery Queen, b. 2 canto 3.

Ftb736 The dates of the day and month are left blank in the old editions.

Ftb737 Grindal. The sermon is printed in his Remains, ed. Park. Soc. 34.

Ftb738 Sup. 329.

Ftb739 May 27, ann. aet. 55. Henry, Leben Calvins, 3:592.

Ftb740 “Of what account the Master of Sentences was in the Church of Rome, the same and more amongst the preachers of reformed Churches Calvin bad purchased; so that the perfectest divines were judged they which were skillfullest in Calvin’s writings. His books almost the very canon to judge both doctrine and discipline by. French Churches, both under others abroad and at home in their own country, all cast according to that mould which Calvin had made. The Church of Scotland, in erecting the fabric of their reformation, took the selfsame pattern. Till at length the discipline...began now to challenge universal obedience,” etc. (Hooker, Pref. to Eccl. Polity, 2:8. Vol. 1 p. 173, ed.

Keble, 1836.) But it is incorrect and unjust to speak, as Heylyn does, of Calvin’s doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist as identical with that of Zwingli. See Moehler, Symbolik, 271-4, ed. Mainz, 1843; Hagenbach’s Hist. of Doctrines, transl. by Buch, 2:296-304, Edinb. 1847; Henry, Leben Calvins, 1:137.

Ftb741 He was a native of Artois, his father being a Spaniard. Keble, n. in Hooker, 1:94.

Ftb742 Camd. 84, ed. 1615.

Ftb743 “Joannes Halesius, homo opinosissimus [opiniosissimus?], sed eruditione multiplici.” Camd. 73. He had been clerk of the Hanaper under Edward, and an exile in the reign of Mary. For the unfortunate consequences of his book, see Ellis, Orig. Letters, 2nd Ser. 2:285.

Leicester accused Lord Keeper Bacon of being concerned in it. Bacon denied the charge, and was “aegre et serius” restored to the Queen’s favor by Cecil. Cared. 91. See Strype, Ann. 1:453-6.

Ftb744 Camden, 92.

Ftb745 A.D.. 1544. Herbert, 243. Tytler, Hist. Scot. 4:305. See 1:241.

Ftb746 Sup. p. 385.

Ftb747 Mr Tytler shows, from a letter of Randolph to Cecil, written about this time, that. the Countess of Lenox had exercised a powerful influence over the mind of Queen Mary of England — a fact not mentioned elsewhere. Hist. Scotl. 6:306. For Elizabeth’s equivocal behavior in the matter of Knox’s return to Scotland, see that volume, pp. 292, seqq.

Ftb748 Camden, p. 96, says, that it was suggested that the judges, — “judices regni, qui plerique omnes erant pontificii,” — should be required to take the Oath of Supremacy. After the suppression of the northern rebellion, A. D. 1569, all justices were required to subscribe a profession of conformity to the national Church. Strype, Ann. 1:605, seqq.

Ftb749 Camd. 96.

Ftb750 Spottiswoode, 190.

Ftb751 Ardmanoch. Spottiswoode, 189.

Ftb752 “Plainly professing that he would never consent to acknowledge a king of the popish religion.” Ibid. Knox married the daughter of this lord as his second wife, A. D. 1564. McCrie, 2:109, ed. 2.

Ftb753 Spottisw. 191.

Ftb754 Edd. “but.”

Ftb755 Camden, 97.

Ftb756 These dates are all erroneous. James was born on the 19th of June, was crowned at Stirling on the 29th of July, and succeeded to the English crown by the death of Elizabeth on the 24th of March, 1602-3.

Ftb757 Sic edd.

Ftb758 Stow, 659. Camden, 100.

Ftb759 Stow, 659. Camden states that Charles IX. requested the Queen to name two noblemen for admission: that she made choice of the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Leicester, — “hunc ut charissimum, illum ut longe nobilissimum.” 102. But according to a letter of Cecil, printed by Ellis, 2nd Ser. 2:292, the French king named Leicester, and desired Elizabeth to name the other who should receive the Order.

Ftb760 A.D. 1570. Cared. 179. Wilkins, 4:260.

Ftb761 Genebr. Chronographia, Lugd. 1609, p. 749, quoting Sanders De Monarchia Ecclesiastica, 5:4; Sportdan. Annal. 5:677, ed. Paris, 1659.

I have not observed any notice of the subject in Gualter’s Chronology.

Ftb762 Sup. p. 408.

Ftb763 Published at the end of the Advertisements. Wilkins, 4:250.

Ftb764 Fuller, 4:335-8. Strype, Ann. 1:378.

Ftb765 5 Eliz c. 1. Sup. p. 389.

Ftb766 Or Plowden. This learned lawyer was himself a Romanist.

Ftb767 Dyer’s Reports, 234; Bramhall, 3:79.

Ftb768 Edd. 1, 2, “contrary.”

Ftb769 Edd. 1, 2, “his.”

Ftb770 Sup. 1:173.

Ftb771 Edd. Heyl. “any.”

Ftb772 8 Eliz. c. 1.

Ftb773 These words do not really apply to the refusal, but to the Bishop’s certificate of it. “By occasion or mean of any certificate by any archbishop or bishop heretofore made, or before the last day of this present session of parliament to be made, by virtue of any act made in the first session of this present parliament, touching or concerning the refusal of the oath declared and set forth by act of parliament in the first year of the reign of our sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth.” Gibson, 142.

Ftb774 Perhaps there is a reference to the puritan of this name. Sup. p. 404.

Ftb775 Edd. 1, 2, “to.”

Ftb776 The editor has been furnished, by the kindness of his friend the Revelation Charles Rew, Fellow of St John’s College, Oxford, with a transcript of Rastell’s Challenge, extracted from a pamphlet printed at Antwerp, 1565, (Bodleian Library) — “A copie of a Challenge, taken out of the Confutation of Mr Juell’s sermon, made by John Rastell.”

The text has been corrected by this, in so far as the quotations are taken from the Challenge; and the references to the heads of it are inserted between brackets. The Challenge is in form a parody on Jewel’s. — “ If any learned man of all our adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic Doctor or Father, or out of any General Council, or out of the Holy Scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitive Church, whereby it may be clearly and plainly proved that.... I promise that I will give over and subscribe unto him in that point.” But it will be observed how different the topics are in character from those selected by the Bishop (sup. pp. 347-9). Some points apply as much to the Roman system as to that of the Reformed Church; some might be easily answered by the reference to antiquity which Rastell demands; some relate to small and indifferent matters of detail; some to defects and disorders existing in a Church, which, from the difficulties of the time, was as yet imperfectly settled — (and these were expressly contrary to the mind of the Church, and to the letter of its laws); some refer to private extravagances and scandals, in no way chargeable on the system, and very probably either invented or exaggerated by the malice of the writer and his party. As a reply to Jewel, the Counterchallenge is of no force; but it has now a historical value, and for this it was that Heylyn quoted it.

Ftb777 The latter of these references is to Section 40 of the Challenge, — “Or that they were not heretics which threw down altars erected unto Christ.”

Ftb778 This is probably an allusion to the order of the Second and later Prayer-Books, that at the celebration of the holy Communion the priest should “stand at. the north side of the Table,” whereas the Book of 1549 directed that he should be “standing humbly afore the midst of the Altar.” Edw. VI.’s Liturgies, ed. Park. Soc. 77, 265.

Ftb779 Sic edd. 1, 2, “ale-tasters;” ed. 3, “alebastars,” Rastell.

Ftb780 Edd. Heyl. “adversary.”

Ftb781 Edd. Heyl. “Prince.”

Ftb782 Edd. Heyl. “priests.” This article seems to be an allusion to the case of Hooper, Vol. 1 p. 192.

Ftb783 On this point the Challenge might have been readily met. See Martene De Antiq. Eccl. Riffbus, 3:130, ed. Venet. 1783; How shall we conform to the Liturgy? 233.

Ftb784 That common bread was used in the Eucharist, see Bingham, Antiq. 15:2:5. Works, 1:737, ed. 1726.

Ftb785 This representation is not warranted either by the Homilies for the Rogation. days, or by the Injunction of 1559, which ordered “That the curates in their said common perambulations, used heretofore in the days of Rogations, at certain convenient places shall admonish the people to give thanks to God, in the beholding of God’s benefits, for the increase and abundance of his knits upon the face of the earth, with the saying of the 103 Psalm,” — as well as that “the same minister shall inculcate these or such sentences, — ‘Cursed be he which translateth the bounds and doles of his neighbor,’” etc. Cardw. Doc. Ann. 1:187- 8. See “How shall we conform,” etc. 59.

Ftb786 Edd. Heyl. “show.”

Ftb787 Edd. Heyl. “women.”

Ftb788 The Greek Church directs that the ring be put on the fight hand (Schmid, Liturgik. 3:352, Passan 1842); and such may have been formerly the practice in England, although the direction of the Saturn Manual (Palmer, Origines Liturgicae, 2: 213, ed. 2) is by no means clear. But the practice of the Roman communion in general agrees with that of the reformed Church of England (Schmid, 3:350-2.). Martene quotes from an ancient MS. Pontifical an order that the bridegroom shall place the ring on three fingers of the fight hand successively, and then on one finger of the left, “et ibi relinquat, ut eum deinceps in sinistra [sponsa] ferat, ad differentiam gradus episcopalis, ubi annulus in signaculum integrae et plenae castitatis in dextera manu publice est portandus.” De Antiq. Eccl. Ritibus, 2:128.

Ftb789 This refers to the Act 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 19 (Vol. 1. p. 144), and to the Homily on Fasting.

Ftb790 Another point as to images is, — “Or that images were then cut, hewed, mangled, and reviled, though it were answered that they are not holden for gods and saints, but kept only for memorial sake of Christ himself, or any of his faithful.” Section 27.

Ftb791 This article (which may remind us of what is said Vol. 1 p. 198) does not appear in t. he copy furnished to the editor.

Ftb792 Some further extracts may be here added: — “sect 1. That there was any dry communion in the whole world at that time, for the space of six hundred years after Christ. sect 2. Or that there should be no celebration of the Lord his Supper, except there be a good number to communicate with the Priest, that is, four or three persons at the least, though the whole parish have but twenty of discretion in it. sect 11. Or that Quicunque vult and Creed of Athanasius was appointed to be sung only upon high days and principal feasts. sect 13. Or that the words, of St Paul, 1 Corinthians 11 should be ordinarily read at the time of consecration. sect 19. Or that any man then did read it in open schools, or preach it out of pulpits, or set it forth in print, that St Peter was never at Rome. sect 20. Or that in the time of contagious plagues, when, for fear of the infection, none will communicate with the sick person, the minister might alonely communicate with him without breach of Christ his institution; and that the decree (of no communion to be made without three at least) should in such cases be forgotten. sect 21. Or that the people then were called together to Morning Prayer by ringing of a bell. sect 22. That the Bishop of Rome was called Antichrist within the first vjc [six hundred] years after Christ sect 23. Or that the people, was then taught to believe that the force and strength of their faith made Christ his body present to them in the Sacraments, and not any virtue of words and consecration. sect 25. Or that whoso had said, in the Sacrament is the true and real body of Christ, and not a figurative body only, or mystical, should ben therefore judged a Papist, and brought up before the high Commissioners. sect 29. Or that our Savior in his last Supper delivered his body to many more than his twelve Apostles. sect 30. Or that Judas Machabaeus, in causing sacrifice to be offered for the dead, added in that point unto the Law, and offended God, and is no more to be followed in that doing than Loth and David in their incest and adultery. sect 32. Or that after the first wife’s death, which he had before holy orders received, any priest took a second and third unto him, etc. sect 34. Or that it was at those days the right way to knowledge, every man to read by himself the Scriptures, and neglect all kind of tradition.” [sect 36-7-8, relate to the ceremonies used at Christmas, Candlemas, St John Baptist’s day, and Michaelmas.] “sect 39. Or that they should use the sign of the Cross in Baptism only, and not at the consecrating of Christ his Body. sect 42. Or that any Goodman [see above, p. 120-1 then did write that the government of women was monstrous. sect 43. Or that Est in these words, Hoc est Corpus meum, is to be taken for significat. sect 45. Or that there was any controversy then in Religion, which being decided by the Bishop of Rome, the contrary part was not taken for Heresy, and the maintainers of it accounted Heretics. sect 46. Or that any then was put in the Calendar for a Martyr, which was hanged by just judgment, not for any cause and matter of faith, but for evident and wicked felony. * sect 47. Or that any ecclesiastical persons were deprived then of their benefices, or excommunicated out of Church and Living, for that they refused to swear against the authority of the Bishop of Rome; or that any such oath was used to be put unto any man at that time. sect 50. Or that any but Heretics refused to subscribe to a General and Lawful Council, gathered and confirmed by the Bishop of Rome his authority.” * Perhaps this refers to the insertion of the beheading of Protector Somerset (Jan. 22) among the memorable events recorded at the bottom of the page in the Calendar. See Clay, Liturg. Eliz. (Park. Soc.) 444.

Ftb793 The remaining part of this paragraph, and the “Advertisement” which follows, are not in the first or second edition.

Ftb794 Ed. “also.”

Ftb795 Vol. 1 p. 260. (The reference to the old edition ought to have been p. 122) Ftb796 “The translation of the New Testament into Irish has been mentioned, 1:160, note 2. The first attempt at translating the Old Testament was made under the superintendence of Bp. Bedel. It was completed, and arrangements had been made for printing it, when the breaking out of the Rebellion put a stop to the undertaking. Mant, 1:468.

Ftb797 Vol. 1 p. 8.

Ftb798 The Duke died Oct. 24, 1660 — four days after the date of Heylyn’s Preface, vol. 1 p. 16.

Ftb799 Vol. 2 p. 229.

Ftb800 The old Title of the Appendix promises in addition “2. Notes on the former Articles, concerning the particulars in which they differed, and the reasons of it.” But, as is stated in the following page, the idea of appending Notes was abandoned by the Author.

Ftb801 The copy here given appears to be a translation of the Latin book of 1552, made by the help of the English Articles of 1562, but altogether independent of the English book of 1552, (which is reprinted in Cardwell’s Synodalia, pp. 18-33). The more considerable differences are noticed in the notes.

Ftb802 “All” — not in Lat. or Eng. of 1551; in Eng. but not in Lat., 1562.

Ftb803 Edd. l, 2, “Very far from God, from original righteousness.”

Ftb804 The English of 1552 has “baptized,” here, as below. The Latin in both places is “renatis.”

Ftb805 “A most certain and wholesome doctrine for Christian men.” “Certissima et saluberrima Christianorum doctrina.” 1552.

Ftb806 So edd. Heyl. “Iniquity,” — Eng. of, 1552, in Cardw. Synod. 22, and Collier, 9:282; (possibly by a misprint, as the Latin is “impietate.”) Ftb807 Edd. Heyl. “are.”

Ftb808 “Made once for ever.” — 1552.

Ftb809 So Eng. 1552. Lat. “Omnes.”

Ftb810 “The place for penitentes,” 1552; “locus poenitentiae,” Lat.

Ftb811 “Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is, when a man of malice and stubbornness of mind doth rail upon the truth of God’s word manifestly perceived, and being enemy thereunto persecuteth the same; and because such be guilty of God’s curse, [quia maledicto sunt obnoxii], they entangle [adstringunt] themselves with a most grievous and heinous crime, whereupon this kind of sin is called and affirmed of the Lord unpardonable.” 1552.

Ftb812 “God’s only begotten Son,” 1552. “Unigeniti Jesu Christi,” Lat.

Ftb813 See Art 7 of 1562.

Ftb814 “A quo sibi quae praedicant, suggeri asserunt,” Lat. “Of whom (they say) they have learned such things as they teach,” Eng. 1552.

Ftb815 Edd. Heyl. “have.”

Ftb816 Ed. Heyl. “livings.”

Ftb817 “Not only in worldly matters, but ,also in things pertaining to God,” 1552. The Latin, both of 1552 and of 1562 is, “Etiam in his quae ad normam pietatis pertinent.”

Ftb818 “Hath knit together a company of new people,” 1552. “Societatem novi populi colligavit,” Lat.

Ftb819 “As is baptism,” 1552. “Sicuti est,” Lat.

Ftb820 “And yet not that of the work wrought, as some men speak; which word, as it is strange and unknown to Holy Scripture, so it engendereth no godly, but a very superstitious sense.” 1552.

Ftb821 “Purchase,” “acquirunt,” 1552, 1562, 1571.

Ftb822 “Gods of gifts,” Edd. 1, 2.

Ftb823 “Of such,” 1552.

Ftb824 “Per Spiritum Sautctum,”’ Lat. of 1552; but no corresponding words in Eng.

Ftb825 1552, which omits “in the Supper of the Lord.” The Latin is, “Panis et vini transubstantiatio in Eucharistia.”

Ftb826 “Either to believe or openly to confess,” 1552. “Vel credere vel profiteri,” Lat. The number of Articles in that Book was thirty-eight.

The Article was inserted in 1571. Short’s Hist. of the Church of England, 1st Ed. 1:489-90.

Ftb827 “The pacifying of God’s displeasure,” 1552.

Ftb828 “Sin,” 1552. “Culpae,” Lat.

Ftb829 “Are not commanded to vow the estate of single life without marriage, neither by God’s law are they compelled to abstain, etc.” 1552.

Ftb830 This word ought not to be in the Articles of 1552. In the revision of 1562, “After pro regionum, was added temporum; the former word having been naturally suggested at the Conference held with the foreign Reformers in 1538, and the latter resulting naturally from the changes which the English divines had themselves witnessed.” Cardwell, Synod. 37.

Ftb831 “Be godly and wholesome, containing doctrine to be received of all men,” 1552. “Piae sunt atque salutares, doctrinamque ab omnibus amplectendam continent,” Lat.

Ftb832 “Of very late time,” 1552. “Nuperrime,” Lat.

Ftb833 “Are godly, and in no point repugnant to the wholesome doctrine of the Gospel, but agreeable thereto,” 1552. “Pii sunt, et salutari doctrinae Evangelii in nullo repugnant, sed congruunt,” Lat.

Ftb834 “Punishment,” 1552. “Iram,” Lat.

Ftb835 “Lawful wars,” 1552. “Justa bella,” Lat.

Ftb836 “But is to be looked for at the last day,” 1552. “Extremo die, quoad omnes qui obierunt, expectanda est,” Lat.

Ftb837 “To all that be dead, their own bodies, flesh and bone, shall be restored” 1552; with which the Latin agrees.

Ftb838 “That the wicked man,” Edd. 1, 2. “That man,” Ed. 3.

Ftb839 “Without all sense, feeling, or perceiving,” 1552. “Absque omni sensu,” Lat.

Ftb840 “From the right belief,” 1552. “Ab orthodoxa fide,” Lat.

Ftb841 “Hereticks called Millenarii,” 1552. “Millenarii,” Lat. Archbishop Laurence(Bampt. Lectures, 220,) remarks it as a curious circumstance, that, while the Millennarian opinion is thus condemned in the Articles of 1552, it was asserted in the Catechism of the same date, which was usually (see 1:258) printed with them — “Adhuc non est occisus Antichristus, quo sit [fit] ut nos desideremus et precemur, ut id tandem aliquando contingat et impleatur, utque solus Christus regnet cum suis sanctis, secundum divinas promissiones, utque vivat et dominetur in mundo.” (In Petit. Domin. Orat. “Adveniat regnum tuum.”) But it may, perhaps, be questioned whether the passage of the Catechism, if more fully quoted, ought to be understood as is here supposed. The Latin is as follows: — “Adhuc…impleatur; utque solus Christus regnet cum suis sanctis, secundum divinas promissiones; utque vivat et dominetur in mundo, juxta sancta evangelii decreta, non autem juxta traditiones et leges hominum, et voluntatem tyrannorum mundi.” — (Liturgies, etc. of Edw. VI. ed. Park. Soc., p. 567.) The English is, — “For this cause do we long for, and pray that it may at length come to pass and be fulfilled, that Christ may reign with his saints, according to God’s promises: that he may live and be Lord in the world, according to the decrees of the holy Gospel: not after the traditions and laws of men, nor pleasure of worldly tyrants.” (Ib. p. 520.)

Ftb842 “To renew the fable of the heretics called Millenarii,” 1552. “Millenariorum fabulam,” Lat.

Ftb843 “A Jewish dotage,” 1552. “Judaica deliramenta,” Lat.

Ftb844 “At this time,” 1552. “Hodie,” Lat.

Ftb845 These Articles agree rather with the later copies (from 1571) than with that published at the time when they were composed, (for which see Cardwell, 53-70).

Ftb846 “Essence,” 1562.

Ftb847 “Requisite necessary,” 1562, 1571.

Ftb848 Compare Art. 19 of 1552.

Ftb849 “Very,” not in 1562.

Ftb850 See above, p. 406.

Ftb851 So the English of 1562 reads, and the Latin, “Doctrina Romanensium,” agrees with it. Heylyn reads here, as in the parallel passage, “The doctrine of the schoolmen.”

Ftb852 “Et primitivae Ecclesiae consuetudini,” Lat. 1562; but there are no corresponding words in the English, as printed by Dr Cardwell.

Ftb853 This Article is not in the Book of 1562, although it was in Archbishop Parker’s draught.

Ftb854 “Men,” 1562, 1571.

Ftb855 “Forged,” Eng.; “Blasphema” Lat. 1562. “Blasphemous,” 1571.

Ftb856 “For this time,” 1562; “for these times,” 1571.

Ftb857 “As doth the former book which was set forth at London under Edward the Sixth.” 1562.

Ftb858 “Understanded,” 1562, 1571.

Ftb859 1562; “of Edward the Sixth,” 1571.

Ftb860 1571; “Ecclesiastical or no” 1562.

Ftb861 Edd. Heyl. “Princess.”

Ftb862 1571; “Ecclesiastical or no.” 1562.