Navigate the 1563 Edition
PrefaceBook 1Book 2Book 3Book 4Book 5
Critical Apparatus for this Page
Commentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Unavailable for this Edition
437 [437]

likewise he altered his minde otherwise. In so much that in his boke intreating of Germany and there speaking of the noble city of August by occasion inuayed against a certain Epistle of Hulderike, one bishop of the said city, wrytten against the constitution of the syngle lyfe of priestes. Where by it appeareth howe the minde of this Pius was aultered from that it was before.

[Back to Top]

And forasmuche as we haue chaunced into the mention of the Epistle of Hulderik, being bothe learned and worthye to be knowen, we thought good and no les profitable, here to declare to the reader, the effect of the same, translated into English, as he him self wrote it in Latten.

¶ A certaine learned Epistle, that Hulderick bishop of Ausbroughe sent to Pope Nicolas the first, against the single life of priestes. 
Commentary  *  Close
Ulrich of Augsberg letter

This letter is reprinted from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), pp. 101-9. During the eleventh century, letters were composed under the name of the revered and relatively recently deceased St. Ulric, a tenth-century bishop of Augsburg. The purpose of these was to provide a historical (or pseudo-historical) justification for the marriage of priests. These letters were widely disseminated throughout Europe and accepted as genuine writings of St. Ulric. (See 'Pseudo-Udalrici epistola de continentia clericorum', ed. L von Heineman in Libelli de lite Imperatorum et Pontificum Saeculis 11-12, I, pp. 255-60 (Monumenta Germaniae Historia) and E. Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit (Hanover, 1997), pp. 70, 176-80 and 303-15). In the fifteenth century, the humanist scholar Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (later Pope Pius II) came across one of these letters and described it as denunciation of clerical celibacy written by St. Ulric. Piccolomini's description of the letter brought it back into prominence and it was seized upon by Protestants. The letter was printed both by Luther and Robert Barnes. (See Catherine Hall, 'The One-Way Trail: Some Observations on CCC MS 101 and G&CC MS 427', Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographic Society 11 [1998], p. 276). In 1556, Matthias Flacius printed the letter and identified Ulric as the author and Pope Nicholas I as the recipient (Catalogus testium veritatis [Basel, 1556], pp. 101-9).

[Back to Top]

Bale, following Flacius, referred to the letter as the work of St. Ulric in his Scriptorum Illustrium maioris Brytanniae…Catalogus (Basel, 1557), p. 118. Yet in a letter to Matthew Parker of 30 July 1560, Bale stated that he, Barnes and other scholars had been 'foully deceyved' by Picclomini's attribution of the letter to Ulric. Now Bale postulated that the letter had been written by a Bishop Gulderic of Utrecht. (CUL MS Add 7489, fo. 4r - NB the Latin for Ulric is Uldericus or Huldericus). What had changed Bale's mind? Almost certainly it was the Catholic polemicist Frederic Staphylus, who pointed out in 1559, that Nicholas I and St. Ulric were not contemporaries. (Ulric was bishop of Augsburg from 924-73 while Nicholas I was pope from 858-67). On this basis, Staphylus denounced the letter as a forgery (Fredericus Staphylus, Defensio pro trimembri theologica M. Lutheri contra aedificationes Babylonicae turris [Augsburg, 1559], sigs. b4r-C1r). Apparently Staphylus's uncomfortably accurate observation inspired Bale to come up with his identification of Bishop Guldericus of Utrecht as the real author of the letter. Unfortunately there was no bishop named Guldericus in Utrecht in the relevant time period. However, sometime between his letter to Parker and his death, Bale discovered a manuscript which had belonged to the monastery of St. Augustine's, Canterbury and is now Gonville and Caius MS 427 (Hall, 'One-way trail', p. 274). This manuscript contained copies of two letters, both supporting clerical marriage and both attributed to the fictitious Bishop Volusianus of Carthage. The first of these letters was the one that Picclomini had discovered and Flacius had printed, and which both scholars had attributed to Ulric. Bale triumphantly concluded that the letters that he had found were both authentic and both written by Volusianus. Bale also, as Foxe declared, gave the manuscript to Matthew Parker (1570, p. 1320). Parker, however, did not do anything with Bale's discovrery for a number of years and Foxe apparently did not know of it. Instead, Foxe reprinted Flacius's version of the letter, with a translation, in the 1563 edition, attributing it to Ulric (1563, pp. 385-88). Unfortunately, in subsequent editions of the A&M, the Flacius version of the letter continued to be reprinted and atrtributed to Ulric (C 42/1), creating considerable confusion. In 1566, Nicholas Harpsfield repeated Staphylus's criticisms (Nicholas Harpsfield, Dialogi sex [Antwerp, 1566], pp. 146-52). Apparently in response to this, Parker had the pseudo-Volusianus letters printed from the manuscript Bale had given him (Epistolae duae D. Volusiani…[London, 1569], STC 24872). At first Foxe seems to have been unaware of the letters attributed to Volusianus when he began the 1570 edition, since he reprinted the letter attributed to Ulric from Flacius. But Parker eventually loaned Foxe Bale's manuscript of the two letters (C 233/132) and Foxe included them in the A&M. He also referred the reader back to his earlier translation of the first letter and supplied his own translation of the second letter. And, where Bale and Parker maintained that the letters were sent to Nicolas I, Foxe argued that they were sent to Nicholas II.

[Back to Top]

NIcolao domino et patri, peruigili sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ prouisori, Huldericus solo nomine Episcopus, amorem vt filius, timorem vt seruus. Cum tua o pater et domine, decreta super clericorum continentiam &c.

Hulderike bishop only by name, vnto the reuerent father Nicholas the vigilant prouisor of the holy church of Rome, with due commendation sendeth loue as a sōne, and feare as a seruaunt. Vnderstanding reuerēt father your decrees which you sent to me, concernyng the single life of the clergy to be farre dyscrepant from all discretion, I was troubled partlye wt feare, partly with heauinesse. With feare, for that, because as it is saide, the sentence of the pastor, whether it be iust or vniust, it is to bee feared.

[Back to Top]

For I was afraid for the weak hearers of the scripture, which skarsly obey þe iust sētence of their pastor, much more despising this vniust decrement, thorow the onerus and inportable transgression of their pastor, shuld shew them selues disobedient. With heauines I was trobled, and with compassion, for that because I doubted how the members of the body, should do, their hed being so greatly out of frame, for what can be more greuous or more to be lamēted, touching the state of the churche, then for you, being the bishop of the principall seate, to whom apertaineth the regiment of the whole church, to swarue neuer so litle, out of þe right way? Certes in this you haue not a litle erred in that you haue gone about to cōstrain your clergy to singlenes of life, through your imperious tirāny whō rather ye ought to styr vp to the continency of mariage. For is not this to be counted a violence and tiranny to þe iudge-ment of al wise men, whē a man is compelled by your decrees to doo that which is against þe institution of the gospel, and the proceading of the holy gost? Seing then there be so many holy examples, both of thold and new Testamēt, teaching vs, as you know, due information, I desyre your pacience not to thinke it greuous, for me to bring a few here out of manye.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaPriests mariage in the old law permitted. In the newe law not forbidden.First in the olde law, the Lorde permitteth marriage vnto the priestes, which afterwarde in the new law, we doo not read to be restrayned, but in the Gospell thus he saieth: there be some Eunuchus whiche haue gelded them selues, for the kingdome of heauen, but al men doo not take this woorde: he that can take, let him take it. Wherfore the Apostle sayeth: concerning virgines, I haue no commaundement of the Lord, but only I geue counsell. Which counsell also, all men doo not take, as in the commaundement of the Lord before, but many there be false dissemblers and flatterers going about to please men, and not God, whom we see vnder a false pretence of continency, to fall into horrible wickednesse: Some to lye wt their fathers wiues, some to be Sodomyts and not to abhorre to playe the beastes wyth brute beastes, and therfore least thorow the infection of this wicked Pestilence, the state of the Church should to much goo to ruin, therfore he said, because of fornication lette euerye mā haue his own wife. touchīg which saying our false hipocrites falsly doo lie, and faine as onlye thoughe it pertained to the laitye and not to them. And yet they them selues seming to be sette in the moost holye order, are not afrayde to abuse other mennes wiues. And as we see with weping eies, al they do outrage in foresaid wickednesse.

[Back to Top]

These menne haue not rightlye vnderstanded the scripture, whose brests while they suck so hard, in stead of milke, they suck out bloud. For the sayinge of the Apostle, lette euerye manne haue his owne wife, doothe excepte none in verye deede but him onlye whyche hathe the gifte of continencye, prefixinge with him selfe to keepe and to continue his virgine in the Lorde, wherefore, o reuerent father, it shall be your parte to cause and ouersee, that whosoeuer, either with hand or mouthe hathe made a vowe of continencye, and afterwarde would forsake, either shoulde be compelled to keepe his vowe, or elsse by lawfull authoritye should be deposed from his order.

[Back to Top]

And to bringe this to passe ye shall not onlye haue me, but also all other of my order, to be healpers vnto you. But that you maye vnderstande that suche whiche knowe not, what a vowe doothe meane, are not violentlye to be compelled there vnto, heare what the Apostle sayeth vnto Timothye.

A
Nn.i.
Go To Modern Page No:  
Click on this link to switch between the Modern pagination for this edition and Foxe's original pagination when searching for a page number. Note that the pagination displayed in the transcription is the modern pagination with Foxe's original pagination in square brackets.
Find:
Type a keyword and then restrict it to a particular edition using the dropdown menu. You can search for single words or phrases. When searching for single words, the search engine automatically imposes a wildcard at the end of the keyword in order to retrieve both whole and part words. For example, a search for "queen" will retrieve "queen", "queene" and "queenes" etc.
in:  
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield