Critical Apparatus for this Page
Commentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Unavailable for this Edition
1153 [1152]

K. Hen. 8. Allegations agaynst the vj. Articles. Priestes Mariage.

MarginaliaDistinct. 56. Hosius. MarginaliaEx Vicelio de [illegible text] missæ.

Syluerius. an. 544.
Deusdedit, about the
Adrianus 2. about the
Fœlix 3. about the yere
Commentary  *  Close

No pope by this name existed; Foxe is simply repeating Flacius.

Agapetus. an. 534.
Gelasius, 484.
Theodorus, whose Fa-
ther was Bishop of
Hierusalem, about

the yeare. 634.
Ioannes. 10. an. 924.
Ioannes. 15. the sonne
of Leo a Priest, a-
bout the yeare.
Richard Archdeacō of

Henry Archdeacon of

Volusianus Bishop of
Commentary  *  Close

No such bishop of Carthage existed.

Tho. Archb. of Yorke,
sonne of Sampson
B. of Worceter.

[Back to Top]

And howe many other Byshops and Priestes in other countreys besides these Byshops of Rome, myght be annexed to this Catalogue, if our leasure were suche, to make a whole beadrole of them all?

In the meane tyme the wordes of Syluius Cardinall, & afterward B. of Rome, are not to bee forgotten, whiche he wrote to a certeyne frende of hys, whiche after his orders taken, was disposed to mariage. MarginaliaEx Æneas Siluio. Epist. 321. To whome the foresayd Syluius aunswereth agayne in these woordes folowyng 

Commentary  *  Close

See Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Opera qua extant omnia (Basel, 1551), p. 809.

: Credimus te vti non insulso consilio, si cum nequeas continere, coniugium quæris: quamuis id prius cogitandum fuerat, anteaquam initiaueris sacris ordinibus. Sed non sumus dij omnes qui futura prospicere valeamus. Quando huc vētum est, vt legi resistere nequeas, melius est nubere quam vri. &c. That is: We beleue that you in so doyng, follow no sinister counsaile, in that you chuse to be maried, when otherwyse you are not able to lyue chaste. Albeit this counsaile should haue come into your heade, before that you entrede into ecclesiasticall orders. But we are not all gods to foresee before, what shal happen hereafter. Now for so much as the matter and case standeth so, that you are not able to resist the law, better it is to mary then to burne. &c

[Back to Top]

All these premisses wel considered, it shall suffice, I trust though no more were sayd, to proue that this generall law and prohibition of Priests mariage pretended to be so auncient, is of no such great tyme, nor lōg continuance of yeres, as they make it, but rather to be a late deuised doctrine gendered by the Monkes, and grounded vpon no reason, law, nor Scripture, but that certeine, which be repyners against the truth, do racke and wrast a fewe places out of Doctors and ij. or iij. Councels for their pretensed purpose. Whose obiections and blynde cauillations, I as professing here but to wryte storyes, referre to the further discussion of Diuines: in whose bookes this matter is more at large to bee sought and searched. In the meane season, so much as apperteyneth to the searching of times & antiquitie, and to the conseruation of such Actes and monumentes as are behoueable for the Churche, I thought hereunto not vnprofitable to be adioyned a certayne Epistle learned and aunciēt, MarginaliaVolusianus Byshop of Carthage. of Volusianus Bishop somtymes of Carthage, tendyng to the defence of Priestes lawfull wedlocke 

Commentary  *  Close

What follows, regarding the letters attributed to Volusuanus, a non-existent fourth century bishop Carthage, is extremely confusing and has hitherto never been properly teased out, although Catherine Hall has made an invaluable contribution to solving the puzzle. 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). 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 (This letter is reprinted from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), pp. 101-9), creating considerable confusion.

[Back to Top]

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 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]

Thomas S. Freeman

, which Æneas Syluius in Descriptione Germaniæ, also Illyricus in Catal. and Melancth. Lib. De coniugio do father vpon MarginaliaHulderichus Byshop of Augusta, about the yeare of our Lorde. 900. Hulderichus Byshop of Augusta in the tyme of Pope Nicolas 2. but as I finde it in an old written example 
Commentary  *  Close

Gonville & Caius MS 427.

, sent by Iohn Bale to Math, Archbyshop of Canterbury, as it is ioyned in the same booke: so it beareth also the same title and name of Volusianus Byshop of Carthage: ioynyng also withall, an other Latine Epistle, whiche perhappes hath not bene sene in Print before. The Copyes of whiche both Epistles,as beyng pertinent to the purpose present, here vnder ensue in forme as foloweth.

[Back to Top]
The epistle in Latin 
Commentary  *  Close

This is reprinted from Epistolae duae D. Volusiani…(London, 1569), STC 24872, pp. 1-12.

of Volusianus, or as some thinke of Hulderichus bishop of Augusta, to Pope Nicholas, against the forbidding of Priestes Mariage.
Epistola Volusiani Carthanigensis Episcopi ad Nicolaum Romanorum Episcopum.

¶ Hæc est reseriptio Volusiani Carthanigensis Episcopi, in qua Papæ Nicolao de continentiam clericorum, non iustè sed impiè, nec canonicè, sed indiscretè tractanti ita respondit.

Nicolao Domino & patri peruigili sanctæ Romanæ Ecclesiæ Prouisori, Volusianus solo nomine Episcopus, amorē vt filius, timorem vt seruus.

MarginaliaThe Epistle of Volusianus or as some say, of Hulderichus to the Pope in defence of Priestes mariage. CVm tua, ô Pater & Domine, decreta super clericorum cōtinentia nuper mihi transmissa, à discretione inuenirem aliena, timor me turbauit cum tristitia. Timor quidem propter hoc, quod dicitur, pastoris sententia, siue iusta siue iniusta, timenda est. &c.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe antiquitie of the Epistle before mentioned. As touchyng the antiquitie of this epistle aboue prefixed it appeareth by the copye whiche I haue seene, and receaued 

Commentary  *  Close

This indicates that Parker had actually loaned the manuscript (now Gonville and Caius 427) to Foxe.

of the aboue named Matthewe Archbyshop of Canterbury, to be of an olde and auncient wrytynge, bothe by the forme of the characters, and by the wearyng of the Partchment, almost consumed by length of yeares and tyme.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaThe author of the foresayd Epistle doubtfull whether he be Hulderichus or Volusianus. And as concernyng the author therof, the superscriptiō (if it be true) playnely declareth it to bee the epistle of Volusianus Byshop of Carthage. Albeit heretofore it hath commonly bene taken and alleaged by the name of Hulderichus Byshop of Augusta, and partely appeareth to be so, both by the testimonie of Æneas Syluius, in Descriptione Germaniæ, who in the sayd treatise affyrmeth that Hulderichus Byshop of Augusta, dyd constantly resiste the Pope abolyshyng the maryage of priestes. &c: and also by the recorde of Illyricus, testifying that the sayd epistle not onely remayneth yet to this day in olde monumentes, but also þt he him selfe dyd see two exemplars of the same, both pretēdyng the name of the sayd Hulderichus to bee the author. Notwithstandyng this copye here aboue prefixed, beareth þe title not of Hulderichus Byshop of Augusta, but of Volusianus Byshop of Carthage in Aphricke, as ye may see by the wordes of the preamble, saying, This is the rescripte of Volusianus Byshop of Carthage, vnto Pope Nicholas concernyng priestes not to bee restrayned from lawfull mariage. &c.

[Back to Top]

Furthermore, which Pope Nicholas thys was to whō these epistles 

Commentary  *  Close

Both Bale and Parker, influenced by Flacius, believed that Pope Nicholas I was the recipient of this letter. Foxe, for reasons that he will present, doubts this.

were written, it is not playnely shewed in the same, but that by probable coniecture it may be gessed rather to be Pope Nicholas. 2. for so much as in hys tyme priestes mariage began somwhat earnestly to be called in, more then at other tymes before.

[Back to Top]

Now as touchyng the Englishe of this Latine epistle aboue exhibited, MarginaliaRead before pag. 139. forasmuch as the same is before inserted, pag. 139. we will referre the reader vnto the same place 

Commentary  *  Close

This letter is reprinted from Matthias Flacius, Catalogus testium veritatis (Basel, 1562), pp. 101-9.

. Wherein if the translation of the Englishe doe swarue any thyng from the Latin here aboue prefixed, the cause was, for that the Latine copie whiche here we followe came not before to our handes.

[Back to Top]
An other epistle of the sayd Volusianus, concerning mariage not to be restrayned from priestes and ministers of the Church.

MarginaliaQuæ sequntur vide superiore æditione pag. 1321 CVm sub 

Commentary  *  Close

This letter is reprinted from Epistolae duae D. Voulusiani…(London, 1569), STC 24872, pp. 13-44.

liberi arbitaij potestate creati simus, & non sub lege, sed sub gratia, qualiter creati sumus, viuamus. Vos qui continentiæ legem nobis inuitis, imponitis, liberi arbitrij nos potestate priuatis. MarginaliaRom. 8.Quod nolumus velle, & quod volumus nolle cogendo imperatis, & imperando cogitis: & legis vinculo, a quo ipsa gratia nos in libertatem liberati sumus, alligare, & spiritum seruitutis iterum in timore accipere, ipsamq̀; gratiam, sine qua nihil facere possumus, omnino euacuare satagitis, ita vt (sicut ait Apostolus) Ipsa gratia iam non sit gratia, MarginaliaRom. 11. & Dei donum non sit Dei donum: Et non ex Deo sed ex homine, nec ex vocante, sed ex operante: cum idem Apostolus dicat: Quia non est volentis neq̀; currentis, sed Dei miserentis. &c.

[Back to Top]
The same in Englishe.

MarginaliaThe epistle of Volusianus Bysh. of Carthage for priestes mariage. FOr as much 

Commentary  *  Close

Parker did not provide translationsof either of the pseudo-Volusianus letters; this is Foxe's translation.

as we are created vnder the power of Marginalia* What he meaneth here by free will he expoundeth playnely hereafter. * free will 
Commentary  *  Close

Rom. 6: 14.

, and not vnder þe lawe but vnder grace let vs so liue as we are created. You whiche lay vpon vs the law of continencie agaynst our will do depriue vs of the libertie of free will. You commaund vs, and by comaundyng compell vs to will that we would not, & not to wil that we would doe. You bynde vs to the law, from the whiche by grace we are made free: and you constrayne vs to receaue the spirite of bondage agayne to feare: and go about to make the grace of God of no effect, without the whiche we can do nothing: so that, as the Apostle saythGrace is now no grace: and the gift of God is not the gift of God. And not of God, but of man: not of hym that calleth, but of hym that woorketh: where as the Apostle sayth 
Commentary  *  Close

Rom. 9: 16.

: It is not in hym that willeth, nor in hym that runneth, but in God that sheweth mercie. MarginaliaRom. 9.

[Back to Top]

For where as there be three principall & effectual things whereby euery humane soule endued with reason apprehēdeth and perceiueth what soeuer spirituall thing it is able to apprehend and perceiue, and without the which it can perceiue nothyng: the which three thinges be these: Marginalia 1. Free will.
2. The Cōmaūdement, or the lawe.
3. Grace.
to wit free will, the commaundement, and grace (for by free wil we discerne and chose the good from the euill: by the commaundement we are prouoked and styrred vp to doe al thynges; by grace we are furthered and holpen to performe the same) MarginaliaGrace Lady and Queene ouer the commaundemēt & free will. yet of all these, grace is the lady and mistresse, and as a mighty Empresse and Queene, vppon whose becke the other doe wayt and geue attendance, receyuing of her both strength and efficacy, and without her can do nothyng, but remayne

[Back to Top]
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.
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.
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield