Critical Apparatus for this Page
View an Image of this PageCommentary on the GlossesCattley Pratt ReferencesCommentary on the Text
Person and Place Index  *  Close
Hugh Latimer

(1485 - 1555)

Bishop of Worcester (1535 - 1539). Martyr. Of Thirkeson, Leicester. [DNB]

Foxe relates Latimer's formative years. 1563, p. 1297, 1570, pp. 1903-04, 1576, p. 1630, 1583, p. 1730.

Hugh Latimer, the martyr, was the son of Hugh Latimer of Thirkeson, Leicestershire. 1563, p. 1297, 1570, p. 1903, 1576, p. 1630, 1583, p. 1730.

Latimer declaimed the work of Melancthon. 1563, p. 1297, 1570, p. 1903, 1576, p. 1630, 1583, p. 1734.

Foxe records a sermon Latimer preached at Cambridge in 1529. 1563, pp. 1298-1304, 1583, pp. 1731-35.

Foxe records another of Latimer's sermons, the subject of which was Turks. 1563, pp. 1304-07, 1583, pp. 1735-36.

Foxe records Latimer's sermon on how to play with certain cards. 1563, pp. 1298-1304, 1583, pp. 1731-34.

Buckenham, prior of the Black friars or Lady friars, attempted to show Latimer why scripture should not be in English by use of his cards. 1570, pp. 1903-04, 1576, p. 1631, 1583, p. 1734.

Dr Venetus, a Grey friar, berated Latimer in his sermons. 1570, p. 1904, 1576, p. 1631, 1583, p. 1734.

Latimer's adversaries are listed: bishop of Ely (preached against him in King's College), Dr Watson (Master of Christ's College), Dr Norton (Master of Clare), Dr Philo (Master of Michael House), Dr Metcalfe (Master of St John), Dr Blith (of the King's Hall), Dr Bullock (Master of Queen's College), Dr Palmes (Master of St. Nicholas hostel), Bayne, Rud and Greenwood of St John's, Brikenden of St John's also, and said to have been a scholar of Latimer's. 1563, p. 1307, 1570, p. 1904, 1576, p. 1631, 1583, p. 1735.

[Back to Top]

Henry VIII appointed Richard Stokesley (Bishop of London), Stephen Gardiner (Bishop of Winchester), Richard Sampson (Bishop of Chichester), William Repps (Bishop of Norwich), Thomas Goodrich (Bishop of Ely), Hugh Latimer (Bishop of Worcester), Nicholas Shaxton (Bishop of Salisbury) and William Barlow (Bishop of St David's) to compose a book of ecclesiastical institutions called the Bishops' Book. 1563, p. 1472.

[Back to Top]

Dr West preached against Latimer at Barwell Abbey. 1570, p. 1904, 1576, p. 1631, 1583, p. 1735.

Barnes, prior of the Augustine friars, licensed Latimer to preach to the friars. 1570, p. 1904, 1576, p. 1631, 1583, p. 1735.

Articles were gathered out of Barnes' sermon against Master Tyrell, fellow of King's Hall, 1570, p. 1904, 1576, p. 1631, 1583, p. 1735.

Latimer would walk and talk on 'Heretykes hyll' with Bilney. 1563, pp. 1307-08, 1570, p. 1905, 1576, p. 1631, 1583, p. 1735.

Latimer went with Bilney to visit prisoners in the Tower in Cambridge. 1570, p. 1905, 1576, p. 1632, 1583, p. 1735.

Latimer and Bilney spoke to a woman in prison who was accused of killing her own child. Latimer spoke to Henry VIII after a sermon he gave at Windsor and tried to get the woman pardoned. 1570, p. 1905, 1576, p. 1632, 1583, p. 1735.

The woman gave birth to another child and Latimer became godfather, Mistress Cheek godmother. 1570, p. 1905, 1576, p. 1632, 1583, p. 1735.

Latimer and Bilney gave the woman spiritual counselling and eventually she was pardoned. 1570, p. 1905, 1576, p. 1632, 1583, p. 1735.

Dr Redman was an enemy of Latimer at Cambridge. 1570, p. 1905, 1576, p. 1632, 1583, pp. 1735-36.

Foxe includes a copy in English and in Latin of a letter Latimer received from Dr Redman, who revoked him for the doctrine he taught, along with Latimer's brief response. 1563, p. 1308, 1570, pp. 1905-06, 1576, p. 1632 [English only], 1583, p. 1736.

Latimer subscribed to articles after three years' teaching and preaching at Cambridge. 1563, p. 1309, 1570, p. 1905, 1576, p. 1632, 1583, p. 1737.

Dr Buttes, the king's physician, housed Latimer while he was preaching in London. 1563, p. 1309, 1570, pp. 1905-06, 1576, p. 1632, 1583, p. 1738.

Latimer had been offered the benefice of West Kinton, Wiltshire, through the suit of Dr Buttes and Lord Cromwell. 1563, p. 1309, 1570, pp. 1905-06, 1576, p. 1632, 1583, p. 1738.

Latimer had been made bishop of Worcester, assisted by Cromwell and Buttes. 1570, p. 1907, 1576, p. 1632, 1583, p. 1738.

Latimer refuted Dr Powell's articles. 1563, pp. 1309-11, 1570, p. 1906, 1576, p. 1633, 1583, p. 1738.

Enemies of Latimer were Powell of Salisbury, Wilson of Cambridge, Hubberdin and Sherwood. 1563, p. 1311, 1570, p. 1906, 1576, p. 1633, 1583, p. 1738.

Latimer was called to appear before William Wareham (archbishop of Canterbury) and John Stokesley (bishop of London) on 29 January 1531. 1570, p. 1906, 1576, p. 1633, 1583, p. 1738.

The wording in Tonstall's register seems to suggest that Latimer did subscribe. 1563, p. 1334, 1570, p.1907 , 1576, p. 1633, 1583, p. 1739.

Latimer was advanced to the post of bishop by Buttes and Cromwell. 1563, p. 1349, 1570, p. 1907, 1576, p. 1633., 1583, p. 1739.

Latimer told Morrice that the mayor had appointed him to preach at Easter. 1563, p. 1314, 1570, p. 1910, 1576, p. 1633, 1583, p. 1739.

Latimer prayed for Dr Wilson and his countrymen who disliked Latimer. 1563, p. 1317, 1570, p. 1912, 1576, p. 1633, 1583, p. 1739.

A friend of Latimer's told him that Wilson had gone to Beverley in Holdernesse and then on progress. 1563, p. 1317, 1570, p. 1912, 1576, p. 1633, 1583, p. 1739.

Latimer resigned his bishopric at the same time as Bishop Shaxton of Salisbury. 1563, p. 1353, 1570, p. 1907, 1576, p. 1634, 1583, p. 1740.

Articles were brought against Latimer. 1570, pp. 1926-28, 1576, pp. 1652-53, 1583, p. 1732.

Latimer was injured by a falling tree. He went to London for a remedy but was imprisoned in the Tower by the bishops in Edward's reign. 1563, p. 1353, 1570, p. 1908, 1576, p. 1635, 1583, p. 1738.

A justice in the diocese of Worcester bought land for his brother or for himself and and tried to have a poor man in the diocese damned. This man appealed to Latimer, who wrote to the gentleman about this. The gentleman later mended his ways and died prior to 1563. 1563, p .1353, 1570, p. 1908, 1576, pp. 1634-35, 1583, p. 1739.

[Back to Top]

Latimer preached in Stamford before the duchess of Suffolk in London in convocation and in the garden before King Edward at court. 1563, p. 1353, 1570, p. 1908, 1576, p. 1635, 1583, p. 1739.

He prophecied that plagues would come in Queen Mary's reign. 1563, p. 1354, 1570, p. 1909, 1576, p. 1635, 1583, p. 1740.

He believed that preaching the gospel would cost him his life and that was why Winchester was imprisoned. 1563, p. 1354, 1570, p. 1909, 1576, p. 1635, 1583, p. 1740.

Articles were imputed to Latimer by Powell of Salisbury. 1563, p. 1654, 1570, p. 1906, 1576, p. 1633, 1583, p. 1739.

Hubberdin railed against Latimer and also railed against Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Frith, and Tyndale. Hubberdin danced in the pulpit. 1570, p. 1912, 1576, p. 1639, 1583, p. 1748.

On 4 September 1553, the privy council ordered Latimer to appear before them (1583, p. 1497 [recte 1409]; APC IV, p. 340).

On 13 September, Latimer appeared before the privy council and was committed to the Tower as a 'close prisoner' (1583, p. 1497 [recte 1704] - 1410]; APC IV, p. 345-46). [NB: Foxe did not reprint the description in the privy council register of Latimer's 'sedycious demeanour'].

Latimer was committed to the Tower on 17 September 1553 (1570, p. 1466; 1576, p. 1395; 1583, p. 1635). [Note that Foxe never corrected these inconsistent dates].

He was examined by Weston and the other members of the catholic delegation to the Oxford disputations on Saturday 14 April 1554 (1563, pp. 933 and 938; 1570, pp. 1593; 1576, p. 1935 [recte 1359]; 1583, p. 1430).

[There is a summary of Latimer's disputation on Wednesday 18 April 1554 which was printed in its entirety only in 1563, p. 934-35.]

Latimer disputed with Weston, Smith and the other catholic doctors on 18 April 1554 (1563, pp. 978-85; 1570, pp. 1622-27; 1576, pp. 1384-89; 1583, pp. 1454-59).

Latimer was summoned, together with Cranmer and Ridley, before Weston and the commissioners on 20 April 1554. He refused to recant what he had said during the disputations. He was condemned and taken in custody by the bailiffs (1563, pp. 935-36; 1570, pp. 1632-33; 1576, pp. 1393; 1583, pp. 1463-67).

He was brought out of the bailiff's house where he was being held, on 21 April 1554, to observe a procession in which Weston carried the sacrament and four doctors carried a canopy over Weston. Latimer, however, thought he was about to be taken to execution and urged one Augustine Cooper to make a fire that would burn quickly. When he came to Carfax and understood that he was being taken to view the procession, Latimer refused to look at it and ran 'to one Spensers shop' (1563, p. 936; 1570, p. 1633; 1576, p. 1393; 1583, p. 1464).

[Back to Top]

Foxe mentions Latimer's condemnation and disputation in passing in 1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1399; 1583, p. 1469).

Bullinger sent commendations to Latimer, Thomas Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley in a letter to John Hooper dated 10 October 1554 (1570, p. 1692; 1576, p. 1444-45; 1583, p. 1518).

Laurence Saunders sent a letter to Latimer, Thomas Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley from the Marshalsea(1570, pp. 1671-72; 1576, p. 1426; 1583, p. 1500).

The examination of Latimer and Ridley before White and Brookes took place on 30 September 1555. White and Brookes received their commission from Cardinal Poole. 1563, pp. 1297-98, 1570, pp. 1903-09, 1576, pp. 1628-30, 1583, pp. 1757-60.

Latimer appeared at a second session with Brookes and White on 1 October 1555. 1570, pp. 1930-33, 1576, pp. 1758-59.

Ridley was cast into Bocardo prison with Hugh Latimer. 1563, p. 1285, 1583, p. 1718.

There was a conference between Ridley and Latimer in prison upon the objection of Antoman. 1563, pp. 1285-94, 1583, pp. 1718-24.

Grindal wrote to Ridley from his exile in Frankfort, to which letter Ridley replied. He mentioned his imprisonment with Cranmer, Latimer and Bradford. 1570, pp. 1901-02, 1576, pp. 1628-30, 1583, pp. 1729-30.

Bullinger sent commendations to Latimer, Thomas Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley in a letter to John Hooper dated 10 October 1554. 1570, p. 1692; 1576, p. 1444-45; 1583, p. 1518.

Laurence Saunders sent a letter to Latimer, Thomas Cranmer and Nicholas Ridley from the Marshalsea. 1570, pp. 1671-72; 1576, p. 1426; 1583, p. 1500.

John Bradford sent a letter to Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley. 1570, p. 1815 1576, p. 1551, 1583, p. 1634.

Rowland Taylor wrote a letter to Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer when they were prisoners in Oxford. 1570, p. 2072; 1576, p. 1787; 1583, p. 1893.

Foxe relates the behaviour of Ridley and Latimer at their martyrdom. 1563, pp. 1376-79, 1570, pp. 1937-39, 1576, pp. 1661-62, 1583, p. 1769.

Foxe records Ridley's lamentation for a change in religion, in which Ridley makes reference to Latimer, Lever, Bradford and Knox, as well as Cranmer and their part in the duke of Somerset's cause. 1570, pp. 1945-50, 1576, pp. 1670-78, 1583, pp. 1778-84.

Cranmer was examined by Bonner and Ely and condemned on 12 September 1556 (seven days before the condemnation of Ridley and Latimer). 1563, pp. 1491-92, 1570, p. 2046, 1576, p. 1765, 1583, p. 1871.

Letters. 1563, pp. 1314-17, 1321-25, 1333-34, 1344-48, 1349-53, 1570, pp. , 1576, pp. , 1583, pp. 1736-37, 1741-42, 1745-56.

Hugh Latimer presented a new year's gift to Henry VIII. 1563, p. 1734.

Foxe includes one of Latimer's card sermons. 1583, p. 2142.

Person and Place Index  *  Close
Hugh Weston

(1505? - 1558)

Dean of Westminster (1553 - 1556). Archdeacon of Colchester (1554 - 1558). Dean of Windsor (1556 - 1557) [Fasti]. Prolocutor of the Lower House [Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (Yale, 1996), pp. 563-68].

Hugh Weston was appointed Prolocutor of the 1553 Convocation, over which he presided and during which he disputed with Philpot and Aylmer (1563, pp. 906-16; 1570, pp. 1571-78; 1576, pp. 1340-47; and 1583, p. 1410-17).

According to a story related to Sir Thomas White (and printed by Foxe), Sir Thomas Wyatt declared from the scaffold that Elizabeth and Edward Courtenay were innocent of any involvement in his treason. Weston, who was on the scaffold, cried out to the crowd that Wyatt had confessed otherwise before the Privy Council. Allegedly White, on hearing a report of the incident, denounced Weston as a knave (1570, p. 1587; 1576, p. 1355; and 1583, p. 1425).

[Back to Top]

Weston was prolocutor (technically Weston was prolocutor of the lower house of convocation) and head of a delegation sent to dispute with Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer (see MacColloch, Cranmer, p. 563) at the Oxford Disputations (1563, pp. 932 and 936; 1570, p. 1591; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1428).

He received the doctors sent from Cambridge to the disputation (1563, p. 936; 1570, p. 1592; 1576, p. 1358; 1583, p. 1429).

He presided over the Oxford disputations of 1554 (1563, pp. 936-85; 1570, pp. 1592-1627; 1576, pp. 1358-88; 1583, pp. 1429-59).

[NB: A brief account of the entire disputations, which mentions Weston throughout, is given on 1563, pp. 933-35; part of this brief account listing the disputants with Ridley was reprinted in 1570, p. 1606; 1576, p. 1371; and 1583, p. 1441).

Weston presided over John Harpsfield's disputation for his D.D. on 19 April 1554. Weston debated with both Cranmer and Harpsfield (1563, pp. 986-91; 1570, pp. 1627-32; 1576, pp. 1389-92; 1583, pp. 1459-63).

Weston presided over the commissioners at the condemnation of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer on 20 April 1554 (1563, pp. 935-36; 1570, pp. 1632-33; 1576, p. 1393; 1583, pp. 1463-64).

Weston received a letter from Ridley of 23 April 1554, protesting that he had broken his promise to allow Ridley to examine a copy of the record of his disputation and also protesting the conduct of the disputation and demanding that Weston show Ridley's written answers to the propositions disputed to the Upper House of Convocation. Weston refused to deliver the letter and also a letter of protest which Cranmer had written to the Privy Council over the Disputations (Ridley's letter - included as part of Ridley's account of the disputation - is printed in 1563, p. 977, but Cranmer's letter and Weston's refusal to deliver the letters are not in this edition (see 1570, p. 1633; 1576, pp. 1393-94; 1583, p. 1464).

[Back to Top]

Weston received Mary at Westminster Abbey for her coronation on 1 October 1553 (1570, p. 1635; 1576, p. 1395; 1583, p. 1466).

He preached at Paul's Cross on 20 October 1553, exhorting his auditors to pray for souls in purgatory, denouncing the communion table as an oyster board and denouncing Cranmer's recent catechism (1570, p. 1636; 1576, p. 1396; 1583, p. 1466).

He attended the execution of Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk, (according to Foxe) against the Duke's wishes. Also (according to Foxe) Weston was heckled by the crowd (1570, p. 1637; 1576, p. 1397; 1583, pp. 1467-68).

He participated, together with Gilbert Bourne and Frances Mallet, in an effort to persuade Walter Mantell to recant (1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1398; 1583, p. 1468).

When Sir Thomas Wyatt at his execution cleared Elizabeth and the Earl of Devon of involvement in his rebellion, Weston declared that this contradicted what Wyatt had earlier told the Privy Council. Wyatt retorted that what he said now was true (1570, p. 1639; 1576, p. 1399; 1583, p. 1469).

A prayer Weston made for the safe delivery of a child by Queen Mary is printed in 1563, p. 1015 (Latin and English versions); 1570, p. 1653; 1576, p. 1410; 1583, pp. 1480-81 (English only).

Foxe calls Weston a man whom 'all good and godly men worthily despise' and prints Laurence Saunders' account of Weston's attempting to persuade Nicholas Grimald and Saunders to recant. 1563, pp. 1041-42; 1570, p. 1667; 1576, p. 1422; 1583, p. 1496.

Weston was reported by Hooper to have obtained a commission in May 1554 to establish a disputation, despite its illegality. 1570, p. 1687; 1576, p. 1440; 1583, p. 1513.

On 21 March 1555 Bradford talked with Dr Weston, after being told of Weston's intention to visit via the earl of Derby's servant (when master Collier, Warden of Manchester had come to dinner at the Counter). 1576, p.1536. Bradford and Westo spoke to each other in the presence of Master Collier, the earl of Derby's servant, the subdean of Westminster, the keeper (Master Clayden), and others. 1570, 1799-80, 1576, pp.1536-7, 1583, pp.1619-20.

[Back to Top]

On 25 February, at about 5pm, Master Weston visited Bradford and asked to speak with him in private. When the two men were alone, Weston thanked Bradford for his writings to him and then produced the work that Bradford had sent him. It was entitled, 'Certayne reasons againste Transubstantiation gathered by John Bradforde, and geuen to Doctour weston and others'. 1563, p. 1212. They discussed transubstantiation. 1563, pp. 1211-12, 1570, pp. 1801-2. [In 1570 this meeting is dated as the afternoon of 28 March].

[Back to Top]

On 25 February (1563) or 28 March (1570 onwards) Weston told John Bradford of Grimald's recantation. 1563, p. 1212, 1570, p. 1801, 1576, p. 1538., 1583, p. 1621.

Bradford's reasons against transubstantiation were given to Weston and others. 1563, pp. 1211-12, 1570, pp. 1800-1, 1576, pp. 1537-38, 1583, pp. 1620-21.

On 5 April, at 2pm, Weston went to visit Bradford in the Counter. Weston had not visited him earlier due to ill health and also because he had been busy withstanding monks from entering Westminster. He also thought that Pendleton would be coming to see him. Weston told Bradford that the pope was dead and that Weston had petitioned the queen and so thought that death would not come to Bradford soon. 1570, p. 1802, 1576, pp. 1538-39, 1583, pp. 1621-22.

[Back to Top]

As Weston left Bradford on 5 April, he set for Master Weale. 1570, p. 1802, 1576, p. 1539, 1583, p. 1622.

After Weston left Bradford on 5 April, the keeper, Master Claydon, and Steven Bech came to Bradford and spoke unkindly to Bradford even though they had hitherto appeared to be friendly to him. 1570, p. 1802, 1576, pp. 1538-39, 1583, pp. 1621-22.

Weston was one of the audience at the re-examination of Ridley and Latimer and interjected a question. 1563, p. 1363; 1570, p. 1926, 1576, p. 1652, 1583, p. 1761.

Philpot's eleventh examination, on St Andrew's day, was before Durham, Chichester, Bath, Bonner, the prolocutor, Christopherson, Chadsey, Morgan of Oxford, Hussey of the Arches, Weston, John Harpsfield, Cosin, and Johnson. 1563, pp. 1425-34, 1570, pp. 1986-92, 1576, pp. 1710-15, 1583, pp. 1817-22.

Cranmer was condemned by Weston and others of the university. He was committed to the mayors and sherriffs of Oxford. 1570, p. 2047, 1576, p. 1765, 1583, p. 1871.

Hugh Weston displeased Pole for being willing to give up his deanery.

Weston was caught committing adultery and appealed to Rome for clemency.

He died after Queen Mary. 1563, p. 1707, 1570, p. 2301, 1576, p. 1992, 1583, p. 2102.

Person and Place Index  *  Close
John Harpsfield

(1516 - 1578)

Chaplain to Bishop Bonner. Archdeacon of London (1554 - 1559); dean of Norwich (1558 - 1559). Brother of Nicholas Harpsfield. [DNB; Fasti]

Harpsfield preached a sermon at the commencement of the 1553 convocation (1570, p. 1571; 1576, p. 1340; and 1583, p. 1410).

He sparred with Philpot in the debates at the 1553 convocation. (See 1563, pp. 909, 912 and 914-15; 1570, pp. 1573-74 and 1576-78; 1576, pp. 1342 and 1345-46 and 1583, pp. 1412 and 1416-17).

He was one of the catholic disputants at the Oxford disputations of 1554; he debated with Cranmer and Ridley (1563, pp. 932-34, 938, 955, 967-69 and 978; 1570, pp. 1591-93 and 1605-6; 1576, pp. 1358-59 and 1370-71; 1583, pp. 1428, 1430 and 1440-41).

Harpsfield disputed on the eucharist for his D.D. on 19 April 1554; Cranmer disputed with him (1563, pp. 986-91; 1570, pp. 1627-32; 1576, pp. 1389-92; 1583, pp. 1459-63).

He gave a Latin oration in St Paul's before King Philip (1570, p. 1643; 1576, p. 1402; 1583, p. 1473).

He witnessed Bonner's burning Tomkins' hand with a candle, and he urged Bonner to cease the torture (1570, pp. 1710-11; 1576, p. 1460; 1583, p.1534).

Together with William Chedsey and John Feckenham, Harpsfield attempted to persuade John Hooper to recant after his condemnation on 29 January 1555. The attempt was unsuccessful but it caused false rumors of Hooper's recantation to spread (1563, p. 1057; 1570, p. 1680; 1576, p. 1434; 1583, p. 1507).

Harpsfield witnessed the degradation of John Rogers and John Hooper on 4 February 1555 (1563, p. 1058; 1570, p. 1681; 1576, p. 1435; 1583, p. 1508).

He was one of those who presided over the examination of Thomas Tomkins on 9 February 1555 (1570, p. 1712; 1576, p. 1461; 1583, p. 1535).

Harpsfield was one of those who examined Thomas Causton and Thomas Higbed on 18 February 1555 (1563, p. 1104). Bonner ordered him to deliver a rebuttal to the confession of faith of Thomas Causton and Thomas Higbed (1563, p. 1107; 1570, p. 1719; 1576, p. 1468; 1583, p. 1541).

He conversed with Thomas Hawkes in June 1554, arguing the necessity of infant baptism. 1563, pp. 1151-52;1570, pp. 1760-61; 1576, p. 1551 [recte 1503]; 1583, pp. 1587-88

He escorted Thomas Hawkes to the Gatehouse at Westminster on 1 July 1554. 1563, p. 1156; 1570, p. 1765;1576, p. 1765; 1583, p. 1590

John Harpsfield conferred with the bishop of Durham about John Bradford. 1563, p. 1191, 1570, p. 1787, 1576, p. 1526, 1583, p. 1609.

On 16 February 1555 John Harpsfield and two others went to see Bradford in prison, to defend the line of bishops in the catholic church. Bradford refuted the argument. 1563, pp. 1202-03, 1570, pp. 1792-93, 1576, pp. 1530-31, 1583, pp. 1614-15.

Smith was examined by Bonner and Harpsfield, among others, met with Harwood in the garden, and was re-examined. Smith was then left in the garden until Harwood was examined, after which Smith was examined again. 1563, pp. 1252-55, 1570, pp. 1870-72, 1576, pp. 1601-03, 1583, pp. 1691-92.

Robert Smith was examined by John Dee, Harpsfield and Bonner on eucharistic doctrine. 1563, p. 1252, 1570, p. 1870, 1576, p. 1601, 1583, p. 1691.

Philpot's fourth examination was in John Harpsfield's house before Bonner, Bath, Worcester and Gloucester. 1563, pp. 1393-98, 1570, pp. 1965-68, 1576, pp. 1692-95, 1583, pp. 1799-1803.

[In a letter that was never delivered] Green told Philpot of his presentment on 17 November before Bonner and two bishops, Master Dean, Roper, Welch, John Harpsfield, and two or three others. Dr Dale, Master George Mordant and Master Dee were also there. 1563, p. 1460, 1570, p. 2023, 1576, p. 1744, 1583, p. 1852.

[Back to Top]

Philpot's eighth examination was before Bonner, John Harpsfield, St David's, Mordant and others. 1563, pp. 1419-20, 1570, pp. 1982-83, 1576, pp. 1705-06, 1583, p. 1814.

During Philpot's ninth examination, Bonner called for John Harpsfield, who attended the session to examine Philpot, and Chadsey, who had however left for Westminster. 1563, pp. 1420-24, 1570, pp. 1983-85, 1576, pp. 1707-09, 1583, pp. 1815-16.

Philpot's eleventh examination, on St Andrew's day, was before Durham, Chichester, Bath, Bonner, the prolocutor, Christopherson, Chadsey, Morgan of Oxford, Hussey of the Arches, Weston, John Harpsfield, Cosin, and Johnson. 1563, pp. 1425-34, 1570, pp. 1986-92, 1576, pp. 1710-15, 1583, pp. 1817-22.

Later on the day of his thirteenth examination, Philpot spoke with John Harpsfield, Bonner and Chadsey. 1570, pp. 1996-97, 1576, p. 1719, 1583, pp. 1823-24.

John Harpsfield urged Thomas Whittle to recant and composed a bill of submission for Whittle to sign. 1563, pp. 1454-55, 1570, p. 2017, 1576, p. 1737, 1583, pp. 1845-46.

John Harpsfield wrote a letter to Bonner about Whittle's suscription. It mentioned one of Penbroke's men who wanted license to erect a school. Harpsfield hoped for Penbroke's sake that it be requested, and he and M Johnson (Register) were working to that effect. 1563, pp. 1455-56, 1570, pp. 2017-18, 1576, p. 1738, 1583, pp. 1846-47. [In all editions after 1563, the heading incorrectly gives the author of the letter as Nicholas Harpsfield.]

[Back to Top]

Robert Farrer talked with Laurence Sheriff in the Rose tavern and suggested to Sheriff that Elizabeth had been involved in Wyatt's rebellion. Sheriff complained to Bonner about Farrer before Mordaunt, Sir John Baker, Darbyshire, Story, Harpsfield, and others. 1570, p. 2296, 1576, p. 1988, 1583, p. 2097.

[Back to Top]

Bonner sent Thomas Hinshaw before John Harpsfield and Henry Cole. 1563, p. 1690, 1570, p. 2242, 1576, p. 1937, 1583, p. 2043.

Bonner attended evensong with John Harpsfield prior to causing several boys to be beaten in 1558. 1563, p. 1692, 1570, p. 2264, 1576, p. 1955, 1583, p. 2061.

Bonner and Harpsfield laughed at and mocked Edward Benet for his beliefs. 1576, p. 1968 [incorrectly numbered 1632], 1583, p. 2075.

Harpsfield was committed to the Fleet after the death of Mary. 1570, p. 2301, 1576, p. 1992, 1583, p. 2102.

Person and Place Index  *  Close
Nicholas Cartwright

D.D. 1536 (Oxford) (See Emden, Fines)

During Latimer's disputation at Oxford in April 1554, he urged Latimer to convert back to catholicism as he had done (1563, pp. 935, 978 and 983-85; 1570, pp. 1622 and 1626; 1576, pp. 1384 and 1387; 1583, pp. 1454 and 1458).

[NB: Cartwright had supported Peter Martyr in his debate with Chedsey at Oxford on 29 May 1549. His presence in the Oxford disputations of 1554 was a deliberately symbolic action by the Marian authorities. His recantation is BL, Harley MS 421. fol. 88r.]

Nicholas Cartwright was deprived by Draycot and Bayne in 1556. 1563, p. 1548, 1570, p. 2141, 1576, p. 1861, 1583, p. 1955.

Person and Place Index  *  Close
Richard Smith

(1500 - 1563)

1st Regius Professor of Divinity (1535 - 1548, 1554 - 1556, 1559 - 1560) (DNB)

According to Foxe, Richard Smith forced Hooper to leave Oxford University because of his evangelical convictions (1563, p. 1049; 1570, p. 1674; 1576, p. 1429; 1583, p. 1502).

Foxe prints a letter of Smith's, written in Edward VI's reign, to Cranmer, in which Smith offered to write in defence of clerical marriage and declared that it would be against his conscience to write against Cranmer's treatise on the Eucharist and the Reformed doctrine of Edward VI (1570, p. 1606; 1576, p. 1370; 1583, p. 1441).

[Back to Top]

Richard Smith was appointed as one of the official disputants in the Oxford Disputations of 1554 (1563, p. 932).

According to an account of the Oxford disputation of 1554, which was only printed in 1563, Anthony Smith was appointed to debate with Cranmer on Monday 16 April 1554 (1563, p. 933). Almost certainly Richard Smith was meant.

Cranmer, during his disputation on 16 April 1554, when pressed on alleged inaccuracies in his translations, countered that some translation had appeared in a work of Smith's. Queried about this by Weston, Smith refused to answer (1563, p. 951; 1570, p. 1602; 1576, p. 1367; 1583, p. 1437).

Smith is mentioned in a brief account of the Oxford Disputations, as disputing with Ridley (1563, p. 934; 1570, p. 1606; 1576, p. 1371; 1583, p. 1441).

Richard Smith was Ridley's main opponent during the Disputations; he also debated sporadically with Latimer and participated briefly in Cranmer's debate with John Harpsfield (1563, pp. 932-34, 958-59, 963-67, 974-75, 978, 981-85 and 988; 1570, pp. 1606, 1612-15, 1617, 1620-22, 1624-27 and 1629; 1576, pp. 1372, 1375-78, 1380, 1382-84 and 1386-88; 1583, pp. 1442-43, 1446-48, 1450-54, 1456-58 and 1461).

[Back to Top]

He was one of those who examined Thomas Causton and Thomas Higbed on 18 February 1555 (1563, p. 1104). He volunteered to rebut the joint confession of Thomas Causton and Thomas Higbed, but Bonner would not let him speak, ordering John Harpsfield to answer them instead (1563, p. 1107; 1570, p. 1719; 1576, p. 1468; 1583, p. 1541).

[Back to Top]
1478 [1454]

Queene Mary. Disputation of Doct. Ridley Bishop of London in Oxford.

Rid. That Councell was collected out of ancient Fathers and is to me of great authority, for it sayth: Positum esse panem in altari, & exaltata mente considerandum eum qui in cœlis est. i. That breade is set vpon the aultare, and hauing our mindes lifted vp, we must consider him which is in heauen. The words of the Councell make for me.

[Back to Top]

Wat. (Exaltata mente) with a minde exalted: That is, not as brute beastes at the racke or maunger, hauing an eye onely vpon the thing that is set before them. Agnus Dei iacet in mensa: the Marginalia* If the Lambe of God did lye really vpon the table, then why doth the Councell bid vs lift vp our mindes, which rather should bid vs let downe our mindes to the Altar. * Lambe of God lieth on the table, sayeth the Councell.

[Back to Top]

Rid. The Lambe of God is in heauen, accordyng to the verity of the body: and here he is with vs in a mistery, according to his power, not corporally.

Wat. But the Lambe of God lyeth on the table.

Rid. It is a figuratiue speach, for in our minde we vnderstand him which is in heauen.

Wat. But he lyeth there, the Greeke word is κεῖται.

Rid. He lyeth, there that is, he is there present, not corporally, but he lyeth there in his operation.

Wat. He lyeth, but his operation lyeth not.

MarginaliaThe place of Nicene Councell expoūded. Rid. You thinke very grossely of the sitting of lying of the Celestiall Lambe on the Table of the Lorde. For we may not imagine any such sitting or lying on þe table, as the reason of man would iudge: but all thinges are here to be vnderstand spirituallye. For that heauenly Lambe is (as I confesse) on the table, but by a spirituall presence, by grace, and not after any corporall substance of his flesh taken of þe virgin Mary.

[Back to Top]

And indeed the same Canon MarginaliaDe cōsecrat. Dist 9.doth very playnly teach, that the bread which is set on the table, is materiall bread, and therefore it (the Canon I meane) commaundeth that we shoulde not creepe on the ground in our cogitation, to these thinges which are set before vs, as who shoulde say, what other things are they (as much as perteineth to their true substaunce) then bread and wine? but rather (sayth the Canon) lifting vp our mindes into heauen, let vs consider wt fayth the Lambe of God, which taketh awaye the sins of þe world, sitting or lying vpon þe table. For a lifted vp fayth sayth he seeth him, which sitteth on the right hande of God the father, after þe true maner of a body, set by grace on the Lordes Table, and taking away the sinnes of the worlde. For I thinke you meane not so, as though the Lambe did lye there prostrate with his members spreade upon the table.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaAn other place of Nicene Counsell alleaged. Smith. I bring an other place out of the Councell of Nice, Nullus Apostolorum dixit, hæc est figura corporis Christi, Nullus venerabilium præsbyterorum dixit incruentum altaris sacrificium figuram: Ergo. &c. That is. None of the Apostles sayd, this is a figure of the body of Christ: None of the reuerend Elders sayd, the vnbloudy sacrifice of the aultar to be a figure.

[Back to Top]

Ergo, you are deceiued.

Rid. This Chanon is not in the Councell of Nice. 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Appendix, ref. page 499, lines 19, 23

The bishop is right; but it makes its appearance in the proceedings of the Second Nicene Council, Actio vi.; in Labbe, tom. vii. col. 447 and 837: - Ο�?δεὶς γά�? ποτε -ῶν σαλπίγγων τοῦ πνεύματος �?γίων ἀποστοολων, ἢ τῶν ἀοιδίμων πατέ�?ων ἡμῶν, τὴν ἀναίμακτον ἡμῶν θυσίαν, τὴν εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς α�?τοῦ οἰκονομίας γινομένην, εἶπεν εἰκόνα τοῦ σώματος α�?τοῦ. See Aubertin, de Euchar. Sacram. p. 914 (Edit. Latin. 1654) upon the contradictory affirmations of this notable council.

[Back to Top]
For I haue read ouer this Councell many times.

MarginaliaOut of D. Ridleys Copye. The Councell of Florence alleaged.Then came in an other whom M. Ridley knew not, & sayd, the vniuersall church both of the Greekes & Latines of the East and of the West, haue agreed in the Councell of Florence vniformably in þe doctrine of the sacrament, that in the Sacrament of the Aultar there is the true and reall Body.

[Back to Top]

Rid. I denye the Greeke and the East Churche to haue agreed either in the Councel at Florence, or at any time els with the Romish Church in the doctrine of Transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ. For there was nothing in the Councell of Florence, 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley, VI, 499, fn 4

This assertion is perfectly true, although cardinal Bessarion had managed to produce a temporary union; for his conduct in which business he was severely blamed, the Greek church being uninformed of his proceedings, and having never authorized him to attempt a uinion. See Historia concertationis Græc. Latinorumque de Transubstant., auct. J. R. Kieslingio; Leipsiæ, 1754, pp. 188 - 194; Fleury, Hist. Eccles. livre 108, ¶ 135, and Labbe, tom. xiii. - ED.

[Back to Top]
wherein the Greekes would agree with the Romanistes: albeit hitherto I confesse it was left free for euery Churche to vse, as they were wont, leuened or vnleauened bread.

[Back to Top]

Here cryed out D. Cole, & sayde, they agreed together concerning transubstantiation of breade into the bodye of Christ. M. Ridley sayd, that could not be.

MarginaliaOne of the Scribes.Here start vp an other vnknowne to M. Ridley, but thought to be one of the Scribes, who affirmed with him, þt in deed there was nothing decreed cōcerning trāsubstātiation, but the Councell left that, as a matter not meete nor worthy to disturbe the peace and concord of the church. To whom M. Ridley answered agayne, saying: that he sayd þe trueth.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaM. Pie disputeth agaynst B. Ridley. Pie. What say you to that councell, where it is sayde, that the Priest doth offer an vnbloudy sacrifice of the Bodye of Christ?

Rid. I say, it is well sayd, if it be rightly vnderstand.

Pie. But he offereth an vnbloudy sacrifice.

MarginaliaSacrifice called vnbloudy is nothing els but a representation of the bloudy Sacrifice of Christ. Rid. It was called vnbloudy, and is offered after a certain maner, and in a misterye, and as a representation of that bloudy sacrifice, and he doth not lye which sayth, Christ to be offered.

MarginaliaWeston playeth Golyah with Dauid. West. I with one argument will throw downe to þe groūd your opinion, out of Chrysostome, Homi. 24. in . 1. ad Corinth. and I wil teach, not onely a figure or signe, or grace onely, but the very same body which was here conuersant in the earth, to be in the Eucharist.

[Back to Top]

We worship the selfe same body in þe Eucharist, whiche the wise men did worship in the maunger.

But that was his naturall & reall body, not spirituall:

Ergo the reall body of Christ is in the Eucharist. MarginaliaThis argument after the disposition & termes, as it standeth, is not formall.

Agayne, the same Chrysostome sayth: We haue not here the Lord in the maunger, but on the aultare. Here a woman holdeth him not in her handes, but a priest.


Commentary  *  Close

Near the very end of Ridley's disputation, his reply to Weston is completely rewritten (see textual variant 60 and textual variant 61). It is very likely that Foxe rewrote this passage to make it more theologically explicit.

Rid. We worship I confesse, the same true Lord and Sauiour of the world, which the wise men worshipped in the maunger, howbeit we do it in mystery, and in the sacramēt of the Lordes supper, and that in spirituall liberty, as sayth S. Aust Lib: 3. de doctrina Christiana: not in carnall seruitude: that is, we do not worship seruilely the signes for the thinges: for that shuld be, as he also sayth, a part of a seruile infirmity. But we behold with the eyes of fayth, him present after grace and spiritually sette vppon the Table: and we worship which sitteth aboue, & is worshipped of the Aungels, For Christ is alwaies assistant to his mysteries, as the sayd August. sayth. And the diuine maiesty, as sayth Cyprian, doth neuer absent it selfe from the diuine mysteries, but this assistaunce and presence of Christ, as in Baptisme is wholy spirituall, and by grace, and not by any corporal substaunce of the flesh: euen so is it here in the Lords supper, being rightly & according to the word of God duely ministred,

[Back to Top]

West. That which the woman did hold in her wombe, the same thing holdeth the priest.

MarginaliaThe same thing but the maner diuers. Rid. I graunt the prieste holdeth the same thing, but after an other maner. She did holde the natural body: the priest holdeth the mystery of the body.

West. Weston repeated agayne his argumēt out of Chrysostome in English.

Rid. I say that the author meant it spiritually.

West. Weston here dissoluing the disputations, had these wordes: MarginaliaD. Weston bloweth vp the triumph. Videtis præfractum hominis animum, gloriosum, vafrum, inconstantem: videtis hodie veritatis vires inconcussas, Ita que clamate: Vicit veritas: that is, Here you see, the stubborne, the glorious the crafty, the vnconstant minde of this man. Here you see this day, that the strength of the trueth is withour foyle. Therefore I beseech you all most earnestly to blow the note,  

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Appendix, ref. page 500, line 15 from the bottom

{Cattley/Pratt alters 'blow the note' to 'blow the morte' in the text.} The Emmanuel MS. (1. 2. 8. No. 10) and Foxe's first edition (p. 977) here read "mote," altered in the subsequent editions into "note:" but there can be no doubt that "mote" is for "mōte" or "morte:" to "blow the mort" is a hunting phrase, illustrated by Nares in his Glossary: in the Gentleman's Recreations, 1721, p. 67, in the "Directions at the Death of Buck or Hart," we read: "then having blown the mort, and all the company come in, &c. [then the cutting up is described]: the concluding ceremony is, if a buck a double, if a stag a treble, mort is blown by one, and then a whole recheat in concert by all that have horns." Green's Card of Fancy has: "He that bloweth the mort before the death of the buck, may very well miss of his fees."

[Back to Top]
and he beganne, and they folowed. Verity hath the victory: Veritye hath the victory.

[Back to Top]
¶ The disputation had at Oxford, the 18. day of Aprill. 1554. betwene Mayster Hugh Latimer Aunswerer, and Mayster Smyth and other Opposers. 
Commentary  *  Close
Block 20: Latimer's Disputation

Unlike the disputations of Cranmer and Ridley, Latimer's disputation was relatively unchanged from edition to edition. Partly this was because Foxe apparently used one source for this disputation. A complete copy of Latimer's disputation survives in Foxe's papers (BL Harley MS 422, fols. 92r-100v); this may well be Foxe's source for the disputation. (Whatever Foxe's source was, he had it before he wrote Rerum, which means that it almost certainly came from a protestant source and was probably the record of one of the protestant notaries). A copy of Latimer's protestation at the beginning of the disputation is in ECL MS 262, fols. 171r-174r; a version of this is also printed in Strype, EM III, 2, pp. 288-95. (Unless Strype greatly altered this document in printing it, it was not the same version as ECL 262, fols. 171r-174r). Further, a Latin summary of Latimer's disputation is also in Foxe's papers (Harley 422, fols. 65r-67r); this may well be the original version of the similar summary printed in (only) 1563, pp. 934-35.

[Back to Top]

Another reason for Foxe's relative restraint in editing Latimer's disputation was that it, unlike the other disputations, was largely conducted in English rather than Latin, thus eliminating the need (so apparent in Cranmer's disputation) for Foxe to correct the work of earlier translators. Furthermore, Latimer eschewed elaborate theological or logical arguments during his disputation and quoted few patristic authors, thus obviating much of the need for the revisions which Foxe had made in the other two disputations.

[Back to Top]
Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, 500, fn 5

See the Harleian MSS. No. 422, art. 92.


Commentary on the Glosses  *  Close

Foxe seems keen here to compensate for and justify Latimer's relatively quiet performance. He seeks to construct a venerable Latimer whose past achievements preaching before kings place him beyond the criticism of 'rusticall diuines' ('M. Latimer found more audience with kinges & Princes, then with rusticall diuines'), an impression emphasised by the glosses dealing with his moderate and perceptive admonishment of Weston (e.g. 'The iudgement of M. Latimer of D. Weston', 'Pride of D. Weston priuily touched'). (The sense of participation in an unfolding historical-providential drama conveyed in these glosses is added to by the reference to Weston's early death: 'But God saw it good that Westō neuer came to his age'.)

[Back to Top]

This protective impulse is expressed in other ways. The large amount of comment from the glosses ('By that reason the new & old testamēt should not differ, but should be contrary one frō the other, which cannot be true in naturall or morall precepts', 'Edere in some places is taken for credere: but that in all places it is so taken it followeth not', 'This place of the Hebrewes alluded to the old Sacrifice of the Iewes, who in the feast of propitiation the 10. day, vsed to cary the flesh of the sacrifice out of the tents to be burned on an Altar with out, because none of thē which serued in the Tabernacle should eate thereof: only the bloud was caryed by the high Priest into the holy place') objecting to the arguments of the interlocutors was perhaps provoked by Latimer's somewhat nondisputacious bearing at this stage. The typological contrast between the moderate martyr and his railing opponents is drawn once more: compare the presentation of Weston and Latimer in the glosses 'Weston scorneth the name of Minister' and 'M. Latimer modestly maketh himselfe vnable to dispute': 'scorneth' against 'modestly'. Foxe seems somewhat more willing to vent spleen in this section, especially towards the end ('Shameles railyng and blasphemous lyes of D. Weston sitting in Cathedra pestilentiæ' (1570), 'A shamefull railing and blasphemous lyes' (1563), 'Who be these, or where be they M. Oblocutor, that will be like the Apostles? that will haue no churches? that be runnagates out of Germany? that gette thē tankards? that make monethly faithes? that worship not Chrst in al hys Sacramētes? Speake truth man, and shame the deuil. If ye know any such, bring them forth: if ye know none, what aleth you thus to take on where ye haue no cause?' (1570), 'Vrge hoc quoth Weston, with his berepot', 'Blasphemous lyes of D. Westō sitting in Cathedra pestilentiæ' and 'D. Westons Apes haue tayles' (1583); again this was perhaps due to a desire to reinforce the resistance offered by Latimer and also genuine anger at the treatment of an old man. Weston seems to be a particular focus for Foxe's ire. The 1570 gloss 'There you misse I wis' contains an insult that Foxe later dropped: this would suggest that he was careful to consider the likely effect of the tone of his critical remarks.

[Back to Top]

The gloss concerned with Luther ('In that booke the deuill doth not dissuade him so much from saying Masse, as to bring him to desperation for saying Masse, such temptatiōs many times happen to good men') shows Foxe's energetic affection for him. The gloss 'Obedience to Princes hath his limitation' offers a stark formulation of the limits of princely power: it is perhaps surprising that Foxe did not make explicit that only the commands of God come before those of princes. There are some corrections of grammar and logic (see 'Weston opposed in his grammer', 'D. Treshams argument without forme or mode, concluding affirmatiuely in the 2. figure', 'Facere, for sacrificare, with D. Weston'). One gloss which departs from Latimer's point emphasises the singularity of Christ's sacrifice ('If Christ offered himselfe at the Supper, and the next day vpon the Crosse, then was Christ twise offered'). There seems to be a subtle point in the gloss 'Cartwright returning to his olde error agayne', which admits of two readings depending on one's confessional allegiance; there is a similar ambiguity at the gloss 'How the body of Christ is shewed vs vpon the earth', a gloss turning Weston's formulation against him. For mistakes following the usual trend of 1583 not matching earlier editions, see the glosses 'August. in Psal. 31. Chrisost De incomprehensibili Dei natura' (1583) and 'August. in Psal. 38. Chrysost. De incomprehensibili Dei natura' (1576).

[Back to Top]
MarginaliaM. Hugh Latimer disputeth. AFter these disputations of Byshop Ridly ended, nexte was brought out Mayster Hugh Latimer to dispute, vpon Wednesday, which was MarginaliaAprill. 18.the eightenth day of Aprill. 
Commentary  *  Close

In the edition of 1563 Foxe added descriptions of the beginning of Latimer's disputation (1563, p. 978; 1570, p. 1622; 1576, p. 1384; 1583, p. 1454) and the conclusion (1563, p. 985; 1570, p. 1627; 1576, p. 1389; 1583, p. 1459); these almost certainly came from another eyewitness.

Which disputation beganne at eight of the clocke, in suche forme as before: but it was most in English. For mayster Latimer the answerer alleged that he was out of vse with the Latine, and vnfit for that place.

[Back to Top]

There replyed vnto him MarginaliaM. Smith of Oriall Colledge Opponent to M. Latimer. M Smith of Orial colledge. Doctor Cartwright, mayster Harpsfield, and diuers other had snatches at him, and gaue him bitter tauntes. Hee escaped no hissinges and scornefull laughings, no more then they that went before him. He was very faynt, and desired that he might not long tary. He durst not drinke, for feare of vomiting. The disputation ended before xi. of the clock. MarginaliaM. Latimers writings could not be read.Maister Latimer was not suffered to read, that he had (as he sayd) paynfully writtē: but it was exhibited vp, and the Prolocutor read part therof, and so proceeded vnto the disputation.

[Back to Top]
¶ The Preface of Weston vnto the disputation folowing.

MarginaliaWestōs preface. MEn and brethren, we are come together this day (by þe helpe of God) to vanquish the strength of the Argumentes, and dispersed opinions of aduersaryes, agaynst þe truth of the reall presence of the Lordes body in the sacramēt. And therfore, you father, if you haue any thing to answere, I do admonish that you aunswere in short and few wordes.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaM. Latimer requireth to dispute in the English tongue. Lat. I pray you good mayster Prolocutour, doe not exacte that of me, which is not in me, I haue not these xx. yeares much vsed the Latine tongue. 

Cattley Pratt  *  Close
Cattley/Pratt, VI, Addenda, ref. page 501, line 13

"Used any Latin tongue," Ed. 1563, p. 978, and so the Harl. MS.

West. Take your ease father.

Lat. I thanke you Syr, I am well. Let me here protest

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