« AnteriorContinuar »
conference. This state of things, natural as it is, will explain the alternations of grants and withdrawals of faculties for perusing heretical books, which shew what difficulty the Roman rulers felt in choosing their position.
I was not, however, aware that a withdrawal of this description was issued by Julius III., (one of the legatine presidents of the council of Trent at its first opening,) in the first year of his pontificate, 1550, till I saw the fact asserted, and the terms given for substance in the work of Illyricus which I have named. I naturally and immediately had recourse to the Bullarium Magnum. But neither in the first nor supplemental part could I discover any trace of such a document. This was a “blow," but not a “heavy one ;” and a “discouragement,” but not a very “sad one." I relied with security upon the veracity of the centuriator; and your readers, giving me credit for the rationality of my confidence, will perhaps feel no objection to read a document as new perhaps to them as it was to me. It
35. His holiness is speaking, and perhaps motu proprio :
“ Quum igitur diversi effectus quàm sperabantur, ex concessionibus per predecessores nostros, et per nos variis personis, episcopis et aliis, de legendis libris hæreticorum factis, secuti sunt: omnes illas concessiones revocantes atq; annullantes, ne in posterum aliquis, cujuscunq; gradus, status, coditionis et qualitatis sint, aut quavis dignitate episcopali, vel archiepiscopali (nisi sint hæreticæ pravitatis inquisitores, durante tantum tempore inquisitionis eorum) dictos libros quovis modo legere, nec apud se publicè vel occultè, domi aut alibi tenere possint, sub anathematis pæna inhibemus,” &c.
I had for some time satisfied myself with evidence somewhat short of demonstration, as we must pretty frequently do on historical subjects, when a book in a Cambridge catalogue attracted my attention, simply from the general nature of its subject. I obtained it, and give the title_“Bullet Diversorum Pontificum incipiente [sic] a Ioáne XXII. usq; ad Sanctiss. D. N. D. Julium Papam III. Er. Bib. Lud. . Gomes Ep. Sarnensis, Pal. Ap. Auditoris, Sacræq; Panit, Regentis, &c. Romæ 1550. Cum privilegio S. D. N. D. Iulii III. Pont. Max." To my surprise, as well as gratification, (for I had no thought or expectation of the fact,) the very last bull, motu proprio, in the volume, proved to be that of which Flacius had given the substance ovly, but correctly. He has, indeed, omitted an additional expression of the motives of the pontiff for withdrawing the formerly conceded faculties, which has somewhat rather remarkable: the hoped for fruits had not been realized, quinimo diversa inconvenientia subsecuta sunt, a delicate allusion to what was afterwards more explicitly declared, the occasional conversion of the converters. The date of the bull is 3 kal. Maii, 1550. The collection is an extraordinary one. I can find no notice of it in Fabricius's, either “ Bibl. Græc,” or “ Bibl. Lat. Med. et Inf. Ætatis," last editions, where the “ Bullaria” are enumerated;
• The remainder of the title is "Summa cum diligentia excerptæ, et in unum redactæ. Procuratoribus, et omnibus in Romana Curia versantibus, utiles, et necessariæ. Romæ Apud D. Hieronymā de Cartulariis perusin. Anno Dni. 1550. Mense Iunii. 4to. Foll. 92." Figures of St. Peter and St. Paul are in the title page.
although the next collection by Bladus, in 1559, appears in its place, “ Bibl. Græc," tom. xii. p. 180. Whether that collection contains the bull in question, I have not the means of ascertaining, but should be glad to obtain some information respecting the volume in my possession. We have abundance of bibliographies of the fifteenth century, but are sadly deficient in information, which would be nearly as interesting, as to the sixteenth. Panzer helps us but for a short distance. Some natural conjectures might be hazarded as to the reason of the omission of this bull in future collections. The council of Trent was about to reassemble for the second, and again for the third time. Protestants, as appears from the instance before us, began to make use of such things. The small selection in the volume which has been described was evidently intended for a particular class of papal officials, and it might be kept private, or, if it had wandered, be withdrawn. They have always managed these affairs with much dexterity in Italy.
Upon the whole, this unexpected and complete verification of Illyricus, founded simply on his own credit, not only establishes a fact of some interest in the policy of Rome, as literature is concerned, but may suggest caution and moderation in rejecting or questioning the assertions of reputable writers, though not attested as might be desired. It is obvious that cases like this may frequently occur ; and there is reason to believe that the great historian of the council of Trent would have been left by his enemies to the slow but pretty secure effect of gratuitous calumny and well-aimed insinuations, had not his fidelity obtained increasing and finally indisputable establishment by the unexpected discovery of evidence which it was not perhaps prudent for him at the time to produce in its circumstantial force.
Dr. James, first librarian of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and entitled to the best gratitude of all critical theologians, published proposals for restoring to integrity authors corrupted by the papists. This was on a single sheet. He soon after, in 1625, published an “ Explanation or Enlarging of the Ten Articles in the Supplication," as he calls it. The sixth point, or article, is to rectify and supply out of the originals the “ Catalogus” of Illyricus. He and his kinsman, Richard James, had collected much to that purpose, and would of themselves have answered for the completion of the work, had they been at leisure from all other. Poor James had such encouragement as scholars similarly disinterested generally have; and that, as well as other valuable literary projects, fell to the ground, because those who should have helped him cared more for other things. His university, however, did not prove to him Alma Noverca. If some scholar of ability and leisure in Oxford would gain credit to himself, he could not do better than give a good, corrected, and annotated edition of the English works of Dr. James, prefaced with an account of his life, and adding those letters which may be found in the “ Reliquæ Bodleianæ," and Parr's “ Life of Usher." The whole need not extend to more than two rather ample octavos. The “ Corruptions” would make one, and the other works another. The editor should possess both skill and patience. The “Manuduction," a work not VOL. XIII.-April, 1838.
much known, but peculiar and of great value, will require no little industry to reprint correctly, and to correct throughout, particularly in the punctuation. And if any appropriate annotations are made, which may be done to great advantage, a little more information than is generally possessed on some subjects will be put in requisition. But it will be hard if a seminary of sound and useful learning, like Oxford, cannot supply such an individual.
J. M. Sutton Coldfield, Jan. 29, 1838.
P.S. Since this letter was written, I have received a copy of “ Bullar. Rom. Continuatio a Com. Alex. Spetia I. C. Romæ, 1835;" in the preface to the first volume of which, p. X., (12) note, is contained a plain recognition of the collection of bulls of which I have made use. « Bullæ diversorum Pontificium a Joanne XXII.: ad Julium III. ex bibliotheca Ludovici Gomes Romæ apud Hieronymum de Chartutariis in 4repetitæ Romæ 1559 apud Antonium Bladum ; incipit a Bonifacio VIII. usque ad Paulum IV.” I give it faithfully, with all its blunders, with which the whole preface shamefully abounds, although the work is magnificently printed at the Apostolic press. The date of the first of the two collections should have been inserted, 1550, and the size of the other, which is folio. However, at any rate, I am secure against the charge of quoting a book which nobody knows; and least of all can such a charge be now made by a Romanist.
CONDUCT OF FOXE THE MARTYROLOGIST, IN THE FRANKFORT
TROUBLES. DEAR SIR,-- In the discussion which is now in progress respecting the literary character and principles of John Foxe, I have not seen any remark on the part which he took personally in the unhappy disputes among the exiles in Queen Mary's reign. This episode in Foxe's life affords an easy clue to the spirit in which such a man would write his memorials of the Reformation.
From the Puritan narrative, called a “ Discourse of the Troubles begun at Frankeford,” first published in Germany, 1575, and reprinted in London, 1642, it appears that Foxe arrived at Frankfort towards the close of the year 1554, his name first appearing subscribed to a letter sent thence to the divines at Strasbourg, dated December 3.
It was in the beginning of August, probably before Foxe's arrival, that Whittingham, “afterwards," as Archbishop Bancroft* speaks of him, “ unworthily Dean of Durham," and six others, had addressed a long and obscure circular letter to their countrymen at Strasbourg, Zuric, and other places, inviting them to Frankfort, where “ God's providence," they said, “ had procured them a church free from all dregs of superstitious ceremonies ;" a phrase which is to be explained by the fact that they had, within a month after their arrival from
• Bancroft's Dangerous Positions, b. ii, p. 38.
England, abolished the answering aloud after the minister, the use of the surplice, the psalms and lessons for the day, and the Litany: they had substituted a confession “ of more effect of their
own, after which, and singing a psalm in metre, they at once proceeded to the sermon, leaving the Lord's Prayer and Creed to come afterwards, between a new general prayer for all estates and for their country of England, and another psalm in metre to a plain tune, with which, followed by the minister's blessing, the business concluded.
The divines at Strasbourg, not seeing the drift of this letter, and knowing nothing of their proceedings, supposed that they wrote for the help of some experienced minister, and proposed sending them the exiled Bishop Poynet, or Bishop Scory, then at Emden, to whom Grindal wrote with the view of forwarding this object. Those at Zuric, having better private information, declined all concert with them, unless they should use the same order which the Church of England had prescribed. And those at Strasbourg afterwards, sending Grindal and Chambers as deputed from them, earnestly desired them to restore their church “to its former perfection last had in England,” and “not to seem to condemn the chief authors of that Reformation, who were now ready to confirm it with the price of their blood;"-offering to come to Frankfort in the following February to endeavour with them to persuade the magistrates to allow them the full use of the English service. But in the meantime the party of Whittingham, now augmented to twenty-one, had, on the 24th of September, invited Knox from Geneva to be their minister ; a summons which he seems immediately to have obeyed.
It is to the answer sent to the second message from Strasbourg that the name of John Foxe is first appended, together with those of Knox, Whittingham, and fourteen others. The style of this document is arrogant and evasive, first excusing their departure from the English book on the plea that “the order of the country would not bear some of the ceremonies, but they omitted them with as little alteration as possible." (We have seen that they left nothing but the Creed and Lord's Prayer.) Then, plainly intimating their opinion of the ignorance or slender learning of those who found fault with them, and disparaging such stiffness about ceremonies, they tell the divines at Strasbourg that “any journey, for the establishing of them, would be more to their own cost than the general profit," unless they should come to stay at Frankfort, and form one church with them. Finally, they conclude with a very equivocal expression : “ As touching our book, we will practise it, as far as God's word doth assure it, and the state of this country permit.
On receiving this letter, the divines at Strasbourg, still supposing that the hindrance lay with the magistrates, declined coming to a general meeting till they should hear that their countrymen had more liberty in other respects, and also that the Prayer-book should be allowed. Whittingham, and the majority with him, now determined to have the Order of Geneva, which was already printed in English, and in their opinion an order most godly and furthest from superstition." Knox would neither use the Genevan, nor retain the English form, wishing to administer the sacraments especially in some other way, “according to his conscience." Other conflicting opinions arose ; and the famous correspondence with Calvin succeeded; in which Knox, Whittingham, and others, gave him their “very favourable" report of the English Liturgy, and had that eminent person's opinion, to their heart's content, in return. (See a fuller account of this in Heylyn's History of Queen Mary.)
It was now towards the end of January (1555), when Calvin's answer was received, and the debate renewed. Here again the name of John Foxe occurs. The congregation chose five persons to draw out “ some order meet for their state and time:" of this committee, Knox, Whittingham, and Foxe, were members. They appear to have been unanimous, and immediately proposed the Genevan Order. Such was our Murtyrologist's regard for the Common Prayer! But this being strongly opposed by such as were bent to the Book of England,” the two parties made a compromise, and agreed to use for two months an order taken in part from the English book, “ with other things put to it.” Up to this time, for a space of seven months, the Holy Communion had not once been administered.
On the 13th of March, Coxe, Jewell,* and others from England, came to Frankfort, and their accession changing the balance of affairs, they demanded the restoration of the Prayer-book, and that they might see “ the face of an English church.” This brought on a crisis. Knox attacked the Anglican party from the pulpit, denouncing the English book as “superstitious and impure," and declaring that he never would consent to its reception: and Coxe, in the name of his adherents, forbade Knox to exercise the office of minister any more among them. Shortly after that measure was adopted which Bancroft refers to as a proof of the sound loyalty of the English exiles : Knox was accused of treason preached in England against the Queen and the Emperor; and the magistrates advised him, for his own safety, to leave the city, which he did on the 26th of March,
By this time there seem to have been assembled all the most eminent English churchmen from Strasbourg, Zuric, and other places; and, at their instance, on the day of Knox's departure, the magistrates authorized the use of the English Liturgy, of which a formal intimation was sent in a letter written by Coxe to Calvin, with a view, no doubt, of checking any further interference from that quarter. But immediately on the decision, the Genevan party having sent Whittingham to travel to find them a new location, he seems to have gone to Geneva, and had a sight of the letter before Calvin replied to it: perhaps he may have influenced the mind of his master; but the subject was naturally not an agreeable one to Calvin ; and the disappointment of his hopes to adjust the affairs of the exiles by his
* Mr. Le Bas, in his life of Bishop Jewell, has mis-dated his arrival at Frankfort, which he supposes to have been in July or August, 1555. It is plain that he reached Frankfort on the 13th of March, and there immediately, publicly from the pulpit, abjured his recantation, as this narrative shews, which contains many illnatured allusions to the subject. He also mis-dates the time of Knox's departure. Life of Jewell, pp. 33, 48.