1583 Edition | Book 8 | Page 1059 
Close(1473 - 1547) [ODNB]
Scholar, preacher; BTh Oxford by 1509; DTh by 1511; dean of Salisbury 1514
Bishop of Lincoln (1521 - 1547); royal confessor 1524
Thomas Wolsey, William Warham, Cuthbert Tunstall, John Fisher, Nicholas West, John Veysey, John Longland, John Clerk and Henry Standish took part in the examination of Thomas Bilney and Thomas Arthur in 1527-28. 1563, pp. 461-78; 1570, pp. 1134-46; 1576, pp. 971-81; 1583, pp. 998-1008.
Thomas Harding was brought before Bishop Longland to be examined. Longland condemned him as a relapse, and he was sentenced to be burnt. 1570, p. 1117; 1576, p. 956; 1583, p. 983.
John Longland took part in the examination of John Tewkesbury. 1563, p. 491; 1570, pp. 1165-66; 1576, p. 997; 1583, p. 1025.
John Frith was examined in London by the bishops of London, Winchester and Lincoln. Stokesley pronounced the sentence of condemnation. 1563, pp. 501-04; 1570, pp. 1176-78; 1576, pp. 1006-08; 1583, pp. 1034-35.
Andrew Hewett was examined by Stokesley, Gardiner and Longland. 1563, p. 506; 1570, p. 1180; 1576, p. 1009; 1583, p. 1036.
Other Lollards were brought before Longland to be examined, confess and abjure. 1570, pp. 1118-20; 1576, pp. 957-59; 1583, pp. 984-86.
The archbishop of Canterbury (Cranmer), along with the bishops of London (Stokesley), Winchester (Gardiner), Bath and Wells (Clerk) and Lincoln (Longland) and other clergy went to see Queen Catherine. She failed to attend when summoned over 15 days, and they pronounced that she and the king were divorced. 1570, p. 1200; 1576, p. 1027; 1583, p. 1055.
[Back to Top]Longland was one of the subscribers to the Bishops' Book. 1570, p. 1211; 1576, p. 1037; 1583, p. 1064.
Longland attended a synod in 1537 with other bishops and learned men and with Thomas Cromwell as vicar-general. Longland favoured retaining the seven sacraments. 1563, p. 594; 1570, p. 1351; 1576, p. 1153; 1583, p. 1182.
Longland preached a sermon against the pope's supremacy in front of the king at Greenwich on Good Friday in 1538. 1570, pp. 1250-54; 1576, pp. 1071-74; 1583, pp. 1097-1100.
Mark Cowbridge went mad, was condemned by John Longland and burnt in Oxford. 1563, p. 574; 1570, p. 1292; 1576, p. 1105; 1583, p. 1131.
Longland and Anthony Draycot were active in enforcing the Six Articles within the diocese of Lincoln. 1570, p. 1382; 1576, p. 1179; 1583, p. 1207.
Close(1475 - 1539) [ODNB]
MA Oxford 1500; DTh 1516; archdeacon of Surrey 1522; archdeacon of Dorset 1523; dean of St George's, Windsor 1524; royal confessor 1517; royal chaplain 1519; almoner 1520; bishop of London (1530 - 39)
Thomas Boleyn, John Stokesley and Edward Lee were sent as delegates to the pope to present the king's case for a divorce from Queen Catherine. 1570, p. 1195; 1576, p. 1023; 1583, p. 1051.
Thomas Cranmer, John Stokesley, Edward Carne, William Benet and the earl of Wiltshire were sent as ambassadors to the pope to dispute the matter of the king's marriage. 1570, p. 1280; 1576, p. 1095; 1583, p. 1121.
John Stokesley became bishop of London after Thomas Wolsey was deprived. 1570, p. 1130; 1576, p. 968; 1583, p. 994.
After King Henry had extended Wolsey's praemunire to the whole clergy, the bishops agreed to call all the priests in their dioceses to contribute. Stokesley called his clergy together, but there was such protest and disorder that he sent them away with his pardon. He then complained of his clergy to Sir Thomas More. 1570, p. 1195; 1576, p. 1023; 1583, p. 1051.
[Back to Top]Simon Fish was wary of returning home because he was afraid of Sir Thomas More and John Stokesley. 1570, p. 448; 1570, p. 1153; 1576, p. 987; 1583, p. 1014.
Articles were put by Stokesley, bishop of London, to Humphrey Monmouth, accusing him of helping William Tyndale and of advancing the opinions of Martin Luther. He was examined and sent to the Tower. According to Monmouth, Tyndale had wished to become chaplain to the bishop of London, but was turned down. 1570, p. 1133; 1576, p. 970; 1583, p. 997.
[Back to Top]Thomas Phillips was handed over by Sir Thomas More to Bishop Stokesley in 1530. As well as holding heretical opinions, he was charged with having a copy of William Tracy's will and butter and cheese during Lent. He was examined by More and Stokesley and agreed to abjure, but not to read openly the abjuration in the form presented. He appealed to the king and was excommunicated by the bishop. 1570, p. 1185; 1576, p. 1014; 1583, p. 1042.
[Back to Top]Richard Bayfield was tried before John Stokesley, assisted by Stephen Gardiner and others. 1563, p. 484; 1570, p. 1161; 1576, p. 993; 1583, p. 1021.
Stokesley sent a letter to the mayor and sheriffs of London, directing them to be present at the sentencing of Richard Bayfield. 1563, pp. 488-89; 1570, p. 1164; 1576, p. 996; 1583, p. 1024.
Mr Selyard, writing to John Stokesley, asked him to send word by his friend William Saxey of anything that could be discovered against Robert Bate. 1563, p. 495; 1570, p. 1168; 1576, p. 999; 1583, p. 1127.
Stokesley had all of Tyndale's New Testaments and other books brought into St Paul's churchyard and burnt. 1563, p. 495; 1570, p. 1168; 1576, p. 999; 1583, p. 1127.
Stokesley pronounced sentence on John Tewkesbury as a relapsed heretic and turned him over to the sheriffs. 1563, p. 493; 1570, p. 1167; 1576, p. 998; 1583, p. 1026.
James Bainham was examined before John Stokesley in the house of Sir Thomas More. 1563, p. 496; 1570, p. 1168; 1576, p. 999; 1583, p. 1027.
Andrew Hewett was examined by Stokesley, Gardiner and Longland. 1563, p. 506; 1570, p. 1180; 1576, p. 1009; 1583, p. 1036.
Many people in the London diocese were made to abjure under Bishop Stokesley. 1570, p. 1184; 1576, p. 1013; 1583, p. 1040.
Thomas Patmore had been preferred to the living of Much Hadham by Bishop Fitzjames and continued there peacably for sixteen years until John Stokesley became bishop of London. Stokesley was suspected of wanting the benefice for someone else. He imprisoned Patmore in his own palace and then had him sent to Lollards' Tower, where he was kept in harsh conditions. 1583, p. 1044.
[Back to Top]Patmore's release from prison was ordered by the king. The king gave him a commission to the lord chancellor, the archbishop of Canterbury and Secretary Cromwell to investigate the dealings of Stokesley and Foxford towards Patmore. 1583, p. 1045.
John Frith was examined in London by the bishops of London, Winchester and Lincoln. Stokesley pronounced sentence upon him and turned him over to the mayor and sheriffs of London to be burnt. 1563, pp. 501-04; 1570, pp. 1176-78; 1576, pp. 1006-08; 1583, pp. 1034-35.
The archbishop of Canterbury (Cranmer), along with the bishops of London (Stokesley), Winchester (Gardiner), Bath and Wells (Clerk) and Lincoln (Longland) and other clergy went to see Queen Catherine. She failed to attend when summoned over 15 days, and they pronounced that she and the king were divorced. 1570, p. 1200; 1576, p. 1027; 1583, p. 1055.
[Back to Top]Stokesley swore an oath of allegiance to Henry VIII as head of the church. 1570, p. 1203; 1576, p. 1030; 1583, p. 1057.
Stokesley met Princess Elizabeth's christening procession at the church door. 1570, p. 1199; 1576, p. 1026; 1583, p. 1054.
Stokesley preached a sermon in 1534 commending the efficacy of masses. This was attended by Thomas Merial, who was accused of heretical opinions and brought before Stokesley. 1570, pp. 1439-40; 1576, p. 1228; 1583, p. 1257.
Stokesley was one of the subscribers to the Bishops' Book. 1570, p. 1211; 1576, p. 1037; 1583, p. 1064.
Bishops Stokesley and Tunstall wrote a letter to Cardinal Pole in Rome, urging him to give up his support of the supremacy of the pope. 1563, pp. 613-20; 1570, pp. 1212-16; 1576, pp. 1037-42; 1583, pp. 1065-68.
Stokesley attended a synod in 1537 with other bishops and learned men and with Thomas Cromwell as vicar-general. Stokesley favoured retaining the seven sacraments. 1563, p. 594; 1570, p. 1351; 1576, p. 1153; 1583, p. 1182.
Holland, Stokesley's summoner, was sent for by Sir Christopher Barker to take Thomas Frebarne to the bishop. Frebarne had obtained pork in Lent for his pregnant wife. The bishop had Holland take him and the pig to the civil authorities. 1570, p. 1354; 1576, p. 1156; 1583, p. 1184.
Edmund Bonner, when nominated to the bishopric of London, told Richard Grafton that John Stokesley had been wrong to persecute those like Lobley for having bibles in English. 1570, p. 1362; 1576, p. 1162; 1583, p. 1191.
MarginaliaChrisostom expoundeth himselfe.creatures, and doe not anye longer thinke vpon the breead but vppon hym whiche is signified by the bread. And after thys manner he seeth it, and agayn he seeth it not: for as he seeth it with his outwarde and carnall eyes, so wyth his inwarde eye he seeth it not, that is to saye regardeth not the bread, or thinketh not vppon it, but is otherwyse occupyed. Euen as when we play or doe anye thing els negligently, we commonly are wont to say, we see not what we do: not that in deede we doe not see that whiche we go about but because our minde is fixed on some other thynge, and doth not attend vnto that whiche the eyes do see.
[Back to Top]In lyke manner may it be aunswered vnto that whiche followeth: Doe they auoyde from thee (sayth hee) into the draught as other meates doe? I will not so say. For other meates passing through the bowels, after they haue of them selues geuen nourishment vnto the bodye, be voyded into the draught, but this is a spirituall meate, which is receiued by fayth, and nourisheth both body and soule vnto euerlasting lyfe, neyther is it at anye tyme auoyded as other meates are.
[Back to Top]Marginalia Argumentum ex Chrisost. The bellye of man cannot abyde any part of Christs body. The bellye of man auoydeth some part of euery thing that the mouth receaueth. Ergo, the mouth of man receaueth not the bodye of Christ. This is largely a close paraphrasing of page 452 of the Russell edition. Frith carries on the discussion of Chrysostom's doctrine.
Close
Here they sayde, that was not Chrisostomes minde: but that by this example hee declareth that there remayned no bread nor wine. I aunswered, that was false. for the example that he taketh, tendeth to no other purpose, but to call away our spirituall eyes from the beholdyng of visible thynges, and to transport them an other waye, as if the thynges that are seene, were of no force. Therefore he draweth awaye our mynde from the consideration of these thinges, and fixeth it vppon him, whiche is signified vnto vs by the same. The very woordes whiche followe, sufficiently declare thys to be the true meaning of the authour, MarginaliaAl misteries to be seene with inward eyes.where as he commaundeth vs to consider all thynges with our inward eyes, that is to say, spiritually.
CloseThis is largely a close paraphrase of pages 452-3 of the Russell edition. Frith carries on the discussion of Chrysostom's doctrine, in which Frith has taken up Zwingli's spiritual doctrine in explanation of his own opinions.
But whether Chrisostomes woordes doe tend eyther to to this or that sense,MarginaliaChrisostom agaynst the popish doctrine of the Sacrament. yet do they indifferētly make on our part agaynst our aduersaryes, which way so euer we doe vnderstand them. MarginaliaThe obiection of Chrisostom auoided by a- Dilemma.For if he thought that the bread and wyne doe remayne we haue no further to trauayle: but if he meant contrariwyse, that they doe not remayne, but that the natures of the bread and wyne are altered, then are the bread and wyne falsely named Sacramentes and mysteryes, whiche can be sayd in no place to be in the nature of thynges: For that whiche is in no place, howe can it be a Sacrament, or supplye the roume of a mysterye? Finally, if hee speake onely of the outwarde fourmes and shapes (as we call them) it is most certayne that they doe continually remayne, and that they by the substaunce of the bodye are not consumed in anye place, wherefore it must neceffarily followe the woordes of Chrisostome to be vnderstanded in suche sense as I haue declared.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaA question asked with the cause declared, why that seeing the matter of the sacramēt it selfe, importeth neither saluation nor damnatyon, why then Frythe offereth himselfe to death for the same.Here peraduenture many would maruaile, that for somuch as the matter touching the substaunce of the Sacrament, beyng seperate from the articles of fayth, and binding no man of necessitie eyther vnto saluation or damnation, whether hee beleeue it or not, but rather may be left indifferently vnto all men, freely to iudge eyther on the one part or on the other, accordyng to hys owne mynde, so that neyther part do contemne or despise the other, but that all loue and charitie be still holden and kept in this dissension of opinions: what then the cause is, why I would therfore so willingly suffer death. The cause why I dye is this, for that I can not agree with the diuines & other head Prelates, that it shuld be necessarily determined to be an article of fayth, and that we should beleeue vnder payne of damnation, the substaunce of the bread and wyne to be chaunged into the body and bloud of our sauioure Iesus Christe, the fourme and shape onely not being chaunged. Whiche thing if it were most true (as they shall neuer be able to proue it by any authority of the Scripture or Doctours) yet shall they not so bring to passe, that that doctrine, were it neuer so true, shoulde be holden for a necessarye article of fayth. For there are many thinges both in the Scriptures and other places, whiche we are not bounde of necessitye to beleeue as an article of fayth.
[Back to Top]So it is true, that I was a prisoner and in bondes when I wrotethese thinges, and yet for all that I will not holde it as an article of fayth, *Marginalia* This is to be weyed with tyme when Frythe wrote. but that you may without daunger or damnation, eyther beleeue it, or thinke the contrarie.
CloseThis is largely a close paraphrase of page 454 of the Russell edition. Frith here reiterates his adiaphora opinion with regard to the interpretation of the sacrament as having salvation value.
But as touchinge the cause why I cannot affirme the doctrine of Transubstantiation, diuers reasons doe leade me thereunto. MarginaliaThree causes why transubstātiation is not to be be beleued.First, for that I do playnelye see it to be false and vaine, and not to be grounded vpon anye reason, either of the Scriptures, or of approued Doctours.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThe 2. cause.Secondly, for that by my exāple I woulde not be an author vnto Christians to admit any thing as a matter of fayth, more then the necessary points of ther Creed, wherein the whole summe of oure saluation doth consist, specially such thinges, the beliefe whereof haue no certaine argument of authoritie or reason.
[Back to Top]I added moreouer, that their Church (as they call it) hath no such power and authoritie, that it eyther ought or maye binde vs vnder the peril of our soules, to the beleuing of any such articles.MarginaliaThe third cause.Thirdlye, because I will not for the fauour of our Diuynes or Priestes, be preiudiciall in this poynt, vnto so manye nations of Germaines, Heluetians, and other, whiche altogether reiecting the transubstantiation of the bread and wyne into the bolye and bloud of Christ, are all of the same opinion that I am, as wel those that take Luthers part, as those which holde with Oecolampadius. Which thinges standing in this case, I suppose there is no mā of any vpright conscience, which will not allow the reason of my death, which I am put vnto this only cause, that I do not think transubstantiation, although it were true in deede, to be establyshed for an article of faith.
CloseThis is largely a close paraphrase of page 455 of the Russell edition. Frith here discusses the commonplaces of his own doctrine with those of the Lutherans ['Germaines'] and Zwinglians ['Helvesianes'] in that all of them deny the traditional Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Although the word itself was often left out of official proclamations, as supreme head of the church Henry VIII was devoted to two firm doctrines - the real presence and the value of infant baptism - and those who denied these in any way (called 'Sacramentarians' and 'Anabaptists') - were subject to arrest and heresy charges throughout his reign. Frith would have been considered a Sacramentarian. After this point Foxe mentions Frith's trial at bishop Stokesley's court at St Paul's once again.
[Back to Top]And thus muche hytherto as touching the articles and whole disputation of Iohn Frith, whiche was done wyth all moderation and vprightnesse. But when as no reason woulde preuaile against the force and crueltie of these furious foes, the xx. day of Iune, in the yeare of oure Lorde, 1533. hee was brought before the Byshoppes of London, Winchester, and Lincolne, who sitting in Paules vpō Friday, the xx. day of Iune, ministred certaine interrogatories vpon the Sacrament of the Supper, and Purgatorie, vnto the sayde Frith, as is aboue declared. To the whiche when he had answeared & shewed his minde in forme and effect, as by his owne wordes aboue doth appeare, hee afterward subscribed to his answears with his owne hand, in these wordes.
[Back to Top]Ego Frithus ita sentio, & quemadmodum sentio, ita dixi, scripsi, asserui, & affirmaui.
That is to say.
MarginaliaThe subscriptiō of Iohn Fryth.¶ I Frith thus doe thinke, and as I thinke, so haue I sayde, written, taught, and affirmed, and in my bookes haue published.
But when as by no meanes he coulde bee perswaded to recant these articles aforesaid, neither be brought to beleue that the sacrament is an article of faith, but said, Fiat Iudicium & iustitia:MarginaliaIohn Fryth condemned. he was condemned by the Bishop of London to be burned, and sentence geuen agaynst him: the tenour whereof here ensueth.
CloseFoxe's description of Frith's trial where he refused to recant his opinions on the two articles charged against him.
MarginaliaSentence against Iohn Frythe.IN the name of God, Amen. We Iohn by the permission of God, Byshop of London, lawfully and rightly proceeding with all godly fauour by authoritie and vertue of our office, against thee Iohn Frith, of our iurisdictiō, before vs personally here present, being accused and detected, and notoriously slaundered of heresie, hauinge hearde, seene, and vnderstande, and with diligent deliberation wayed, discussed, and considered the merites of the cause, all thinges being obserued which by vs in this behalfe, by order of law ought to be obserued, sittyng in our iudgement seate, the name of Christ being first called vppon, and hauing *Marginalia* As they had which crucified Christ. God onely before our eyes, because by þe actes enacted, propoūded, and exhibited in this matter, and by thine owne confession iudicially made before vs, we do finde that thou hast taught, holden, and affirmed, and obstinately defended dyuers errours and heresies, and damnable opinions, contrarie to the doctrine and determinatiō of the holy Church, and specially agaynst the reuerende Sacrament, and albeit that we following the example of Christ, which woulde not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should conuert and lyue, haue oftentimes gone about to correct thee, and by al lawfull meanes that we coulde, and moste wholesome admonitions that we did knowe, to reduce thee againe to þe true fayth, and the vnitie of the vniuersall Catholique Churche, notwithstanding wee haue founde thee obstinate and stiffe necked, willingly continuing in thy damnable opinions & heresies, and refusing to returne againe vnto the true faith and vnitie of the holy mother Church, and as the childe of wickednesse and darkenesse, so to haue hardened thy harte
[Back to Top]