oughte not to condemne me as an hereticke. for I am a good Christian. But now go to, do as you haue alredy determined. for I see right well, that right and truth be suppressed, and cannot appeare vpon the earth. These words ended, the Bishop pronounced the sentence of condemnation, and so deliuered him vnto the temporal officers. Who reserued him in their custody vntil the xvii. daye of September, at which time, both he and the other thre before mencioned were all burned, as ye haue already heard. Of which other three because as yet litle is said, I will therfore nowe procede to declare suche cause of their cruell deathes as in the Registry is recorded.

TOuchinge the firste apprehension of these two persons, I finde neyther occasiō why, nether time, nor maner how. Howbeit as the dayes then serued, it was no hard or straunge matter to fall into the handes of such as with crueltye persecuted the true professours of gods gospell, especially hauinge so many promoters, & vnneighbourly neighbors to helpe them forwardes. By which kinde of people, it is not unlike these two godlye yoke fellowes were accused and taken. And being ones deliuered into the pitylesse handlinge of Boner: their examinations (ye maye be sure) wer not long differred. For the xvi. day of Iuly. 1557. they were brought before him into his palace at London. Where first he demaunded of the said Iames Austoo (amōgest other questions) where he had bene confessed in lent, and whether he receaued the sacrament of the aulter at Easter or not. To whom he answered that in dede he had bene confessed of the curate of Alhallowes Barking, nighe vnto the Tower of London, but that he had not receaued the Sacramēt of the altar. For he defied it, from the bottom of his harte. Why, quod the Byshop dost thou not beleue that in the sacrament of the aulter there is the true body and bloud of Christ? No said Austoo, not in the sacrament of the aulter: but in the supper of the Lord, to the faythfull receauer, is the verye bodye and bloud of Christ by fayth. Boner not well plesed with this talke, asked then the wife, howe she did like the religion then vsed in this churche of England? she answered that shee beleued, that the same was not according to gods woord, but false and corrupted, and that they which did go there vnto, did it more for feare of the lawe, then otherwise. Then he agayne asked her if she would go to the churche and heare masse, & praye for the prosperous estate of the king, being then abroad in his affairs. Whereunto she said that she denied the Masse with al her hart, and that she would not come into any churche wherein were Idoles. After

this the Byshop obiected vnto them certain articles, to þ^e nombre of eightene. The tenure wherof, (because they touch only such commen and tryfeling matters as are alredy mencioned in diuers and sondry places before) I do here for breuity sake omit and passe ouer: geuing you yet this much to vnderstand, that in matters of fayth, they were as sound, and answered as truly (God bee therfore praysed) as euer did any, especially the woman, to whō the Lord had geuen the greater knowledge & more feruentnes of spiryt. Notwithstandinge accordinge to the measure of grace that God gaue them, they both stoode most firmly vnto the truth. And therfore to conclude, the. x. day of September, they were (with Rafe Allerton of whom ye haue heard) brought again before the Byshop at Fulham, in his chappell ther. Who first speaking vnto them, sayd: Aswtoo, dost thou knowe where thou arte now? and in what place? and before whom? and what thou hast to do? Yea (quod Awstoo) I knowe where I am. For I am in an ydoles tempell. After which words their articles being again red, and their constancy perceaued, Bonner pronounced agaynst either of them seuerally the sentence of condempnation, and delyuering them vnto the Shryue, there present, did rid his handes (as he thought) of them: but the Lord in thend will iudge that, to whom I referre hys cause.

IN the Godly fellowship of the forenamed three martirs, was also this Richard Roth, as is alredy before specified. who being apprehended and brought vp vnto the Byshop of London, was by him examyned þ^e fourth day of Iuly, at what tyme the byshop did earnestly trauell to induce him to beleue that there wer seuen sacraments in Christes Church, & that in the sacramēt of the aulter (after the words of consecration duly spoken) there remayned the very substance of Christes body and blood and none other. Wherunto, (at that present) he made only this aunswer: that if the scriptures did so teach him, and that he mighte bee by the same so perswaded, he would so beleue, otherwise not. But at an other examination (which was the. ix. day of September) hee declared plainlye, that in the saide sacrament of the aulter (as it was then vsed) there is not the very body and blood of Christ, but that it is a dead God, & that the masse was detestable and contrary to Gods holy worde and wyll, from the which fayth and opinion he woulde not go or decline. The next day being the. x. day of the same moneth of September, the byshop (at his house at Fulham) by waye of an article, layd and obiected agaynst him that he was a comforter and boldener of heretyckes,