The churche of Christ was before any scripture written. For Mathew was the fyrst that wrote the gospell, about a dosein yeares after Christe: ergo the churche was before the Scripture. To whome Philpot aunsweryng, denied his argument. Which whan Moreman could not proue, Philpot shewed that his argumēt was (Elēchus) or a fallace, that is a deceiuable argument. For he tooke the scripture onely to be that whiche is written by men in letters, where as in very dede all prophecy vttered by the spirit of God, was counted to be scripture before it was written in paper and inke, for that it was written in the heartes, and grauen in the myndes: yea, and inspired in the mouthes of good men, and of Christes Apostles, by the spirite of Christ: As the salutation of the Aungell was the scripture of Christ, and the woorde of God, before it was written. At that Moreman cryed, fye, fye: wondring that the scripture of God should be coūted scripture, before it was written, and affyrmed that he had no knowledge, that so sayde. To whō Philpot answered, that concerning knowledge in this behalf, for þe trial of the truth about the questions in controuersie, he would wyshe hymselfe no worse matched, than with Moreman. At the whiche saying, the Prolocutor was greuously offended, saying that it was arrogātly spokē of him, that would compare with such a worshipfull learned man, as Moreman was, being himself a man vnlearned, yea a madman, meter to be sent to Bedlem, than to be amonge suche a sorte of learned and graue men, as there were, and a man that neuer would be aunswered, and that troubled the whole house: & therfore he dyd commaund him that he should come no more into the house, demanding of the house whether they woulde agree thereuppon or no. To whom a great number answered, yea. Thā saide Philpot againe, that he might think hymself happy, that was out of that company. After this Morgan rose vp and rounded the Prolocutor in the eare. And than agayne the Prolocutor spake to Philpot and saide, lest you shoulde slaūder the house, and say that we wyll not suffer you to declare your minde, we are contente, you shal come into the house, as you haue done before, so that you bee apparelled with a longe gowne and a tippet, as we be and that you shal not speake, but when I commaunde you. Than quod Philpot, I had rather be absēt altogether. Thus thei reasoning to and fro, at length about the. 13. of December, Quene Mary, to ake vp the matter, sendeth her commandement to Boner Bishop of London, that he should dissolue and breake vp the conuocation: The copye of which commaundement here foloweth.[Back to Top]
Generally, if Foxe quotes a document in the 1563 edition which pertains to the London diocese, it came from the London diocesan records, one of the few archival collections which Foxe systematically exploited before the 1563 edition. Mary's precept to Bonner to dissolve Convocation probably came from these records.[Back to Top]
MAria. &c. Reuerendo in Christo patri & domino, domino Edmūdo London. Episcopo, salutem. Cū præsens conuocatio cleri Cātuariensis prouinciæ, apud Sanctū Paulū London. iā modo tenta & instans existit, certis tamen vrgentibus causis & considerationibus nos specialiter mouentibus, de aduisamento concilij nostri ipsam præsentem conuocationē duximus dissoluendam. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod eandem præsentem conuocationem apud Sanc-[Back to Top]
tum Paulum prædictum debito modo absque aliqua dilatione dissoluatis, dißoluiue faciatis prout cōuenit significantes ex parte nostra vniuersis & singulis episcopis, necnon Archidiaconis, Decanis, & omnibus alijs personis ecclesiasticis quibuscunque, dictæ Cantuariensis prouinciæ, quorum interest vel intereße poterit, quod ipsi & eorum quilibet huic mandato nostro exequendo intendentes sint & obedientes prout decet. Teste meipsa apud Westmonasteriū. 13. die Decembris, Anno regni nostri primo.
The wording and close linking of reform to the queen can be seen in the glosses 'Good Byshops displaced' and 'Popish Prelates intruded by Q. Mary'. These are contrasting glosses: the 'displaced' (a word which suggests fault if not illegality) good bishops and the 'intruded' (roughness of dealing, but, again, no illegality suggested by this term) popish prelates.[Back to Top]
In Nouember the Archebishop Cranmer, (notwithstanding he had earnestly refused to subscribe to the kynges wyll:, in disheritynge his Sister Mary, alleging many and pithy reasons for her legitimation) was in the Guylde hall of London, arraygned and attaynted of high Treason, with the Lady Iane, and three of the Duke of Northumberlandes Sonnes, which al at the entreatie of certain persōs wer had againe to the Tower.
The description of the arraignment of Cranmer, Jane Grey and Northumberland's sons is taken from Crowley's chronicle (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff2v with 1563, p. 916; 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; 1583, p. 1418) except for the passage which reads: 'which at the intreatye of certayne persons were had againe to the Tower and there kept for a time'. This passage is excerpted from Thomas Cooper, Coopers chronicle ... vnto the late death of Quene Marie (London, 1560), STC 15218, sig. Yyyy2r. This is Foxe's only borrowing from Coopers chronicle in Book 10 (or, as far as is known, anywhere in the Actes and Monuments).[Back to Top]
MarginaliaCardinall Poole sent for.In this meane whyle Cardinal Poole being sent for by Quene Mary, was by the Emperor requested to stay with him, to thintent (as som thinke) that his presence in Englād should not be a let to the mariage, which he entended betwene Philip his sonne & Quene Mary: for þe making wherof, he sent a most ample Ambassade, with full power to make vp the mariage betwixt them: MarginaliaMaryage betwixte Philip and Mary concluded.which toke such successe, that after they had commoned of the matter a fewe dayes, they knitte vp the knot.
The detaining of Pole by the emperor and the coming of an embassy sent to arrange the marriage of Philip and Mary are recounted by Crowley and reprinted by Foxe (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff2v with 1563, p. 916; 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; 1583, p. 1418).
Much of the material in this section is reprinted from Crowley's chronicle. Later in Book 10, after the Oxford disputations, Foxe would draw on yet another chronicle or chronicles to form a political narrative of the early years of Mary's reign. Because he was drawing on different sources which covered roughly the same chronological period, there was a good deal of repetition (and a certain amount of inconsistency) between these different sections of Book 10. For example, Foxe gave one account of the capture of the Duke of Suffolk here (1563, p. 916; 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; and 1583, p. 1418) and another, different, account of the same events later in Book 10 (1570, p. 1637; 1576, p. 1396; and 1583, p. 1467). Foxe made no attempt, at any time, to reconcile any of these differing versions of the same events.[Back to Top]
Foxe seems to have been especially concerned to defend the Wyatt rebels against Mary's account of their intentions ('Demaundes pretended to be sent from M. Wyat and hys company to Queene Mary' and 'How he pretended the spoyle of theyr goodes it appeareth in that he comming to Southwarke, did hurt neither man, woman, nor childe, neyther in body nor in a penny of their goodes'). The later dropping of the gloss 'Duke of Suffolke forsooke Quene Mary' (1563) is a possible example of Foxe striving to discredit Mary without explicitly speaking against her.[Back to Top]
It might be noted here that in the Appendix of 1563 (p. 1731), Foxe prints a letter from Mary to the third Duke of Norfolk, informing the Duke of Wyatt's defeat. (This letter was removed from the editions of 1570 and 1576, but was reprinted in the 1583 edition). This letter was almost certainly loaned or given to Foxe by the fourth Duke of Norfolk.[Back to Top]
The brief description of Wyatt's rebellion, Suffolk's capture and the flight of Sir Peter Carew are all taken from Crowley (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sigs. Ffff2v - Ffff3 with 1563, pp. 916-17; 1570, pp. 1579-80; 1576, pp. 1347-48; 1583, p. 1419).
There is one interesting piece of re-writing here, however. Crowley described the fate of the Duke of Norfolk's expedition against Wyatt: 'Thomas Duke of Norfolk, who beynge forsaken of them that went with hym, escaped to London agayne with great difficultie, as he thought, although no man followed him' (cf. Crowley, Epitome, sig. Ffff2v). Foxe, apparently thinking that this made the Duke of Norfolk sound too much like the Duke of Plaza Toro, rendered this: 'Thomas D. of Norfolke, who being aboute Rochester Bridge, forsaken of them that went with him, returned safe to London with out any more harme done unto him, and withoute bloudshed on either partie' (1563, p. 916; 1570, p. 1579; 1576, p. 1347; and 1583, p. 1418). Once again Foxe's loyalty to the Howard family shaped his narrative.[Back to Top]
While Foxe reprinted the account of Suffolk's capture directly from Crowley, in the 1570 edition, he added one detail not in Crowley's account: that the name of the servant who betrayed the duke was Underwood.