I 1 ... ‘ 5.. 5 1 .,.5 .,”.‘,,5,._.l .,. ~'5 . r . 51.“ .,. ...5. ,.. 5.5..,;,',: 1.... .. .5 55 1 5 #315. {'1 _,55 11.515 . 15.55:, .55 . 3.5,5'. 5 5. - , .‘ . .555". 55".'5"'1":5'""57;:, 1.1“ 3.15..» ...5 . 55 . .5. ,. 5. 5 5.. :5..- . . 5. . 5.1, 5... $51.5 .-.. F ' w 1"" 122.13,”? 5': "5 5 .5. 59.5.5. m}... .55.. .511 155.51 L'ffl' 55 ,. . 5 -15.!) . 5 .551.” ! 15:4: . .-1“' 5'1 .4 .. 0.125555; .16 .,-,..r.. ”.755“, r. '555..5.:> ,. .. .55...-” ,..5,.,J . :2 .1... v-r '1 55.3.2 .2... . 5»- .< 5.5.5.555... ., 5-.. ...-.'..'.. fly... .5 . 1'. .5 (Ir-5 dun. .5“:,5..;..,5,, '5 551 5 '5 (1,." , , XJ..;.5.55:..'.5 . 5 5.. 11.. , ' m .5 25.11”" $501 "' .f .5 .5 n—r -r 5..‘5.5 5‘ \. 1.... . 12., 37551.51 1.5.55.5 ,.. ,., 2...,5, ,; hp .. .51. ' 5. ' ’ ”I". ' .w- :1 —;«- 15-5‘5‘ ,1"".5':;;"““" ' 1 ‘ ' .. fl" .. 2",24351 """..~...f-J—.‘-—: . -.5 55'- 7'“ f ’ ”fur-Farm «r r" ' ' '1 " \ 3.101% 1-~. (u.- .. 5. 5 ..55 51515 I :1 ”’""" w‘5'" r—u—Z-ru-n— ,. Mr. . . .. . . 5v 5... r .-..:-15--.-.......,....,. 551.5 ... 5»; ‘1: r .5...” . I" ,. " """,’.' v.11. 1'” r .5 . 5. fl 15-5555 .5 m4 .5 ~15 ~‘ 3'13 ‘I upr- ,1 .,5‘.. '.5{..,'.J. ' Hy} ”55.,1',.u,7552.'._ . . :54“- 5,... :5): ’ '< .. 5,1. . 5 h"1";“1'2'3’; 2.421;.» wvfl‘nwumruwvi 5:592. :‘ 5 :1, We 5: 51‘5“ 4;": . mum-351m- ’5 ...5....5..~55w5 ..,,. «m... .. 55... x.3.- ~ ,...~. ['71555".55555r_f.le (My, 51.5 155.55.51.55-» 515-. ‘ r 5. J J: ' ‘ 5.231.... " """'»- 2:111} '5'513'5'55-2-5115 . 2"". 12...: 5:12;. . .. 55.. - 515;,::,...:....... - .55-... 5:3,: 5....,,5.....5...,-..5.......-... ”.5 1. ..... . 5 ... .-. 555'~ . ”.155 mwm 5”,"... 5...- 5-5.5:....',. -5.- 5 .. ...5.. .-55 5_5 , , .. 41,.-.) 3! “‘J .. ... —. r..........'.w........r.. . , . . 55:5. 55 . . , . .’L2,..+51..,..14.1..3 ', «5. -— .7.» ”Mall! ”fun 5 X‘ .5. ., ,5. “5.5.5....4 4 “,me nl 5 55:2" .5 555 ..- .5... ”.- . — . . 5 - 1.5 ' “"1 “-1 hank-:51; y»- . £1»:- khan-”45m" mun-5.55.5.4»..- “um", 515.5... 4.55%. ’ ’........1i“»2c; myrrh—5; 5515511 ”In"? ~.—3 . urn:- <.—'~ .5 ‘ ’“"..n‘r’é.--~ ,z. . «5.5!; ‘ ’3‘ Inuit... .... 5.5,... ' 3.1.3.3; ” ~.- My , 101‘...“ ...5 v , 1.135;...” 1'1‘4- . v“ .. . .. ,..'.'"5‘15“"“ .557.5.r.5-5- mi'q- 535513‘mw \ . 5515 v £3 1!; I... fllz’v "um-«5 mm... .— .....m.....,........,..' 114% v \;r‘ 1- 5.15.5 '5',"".'l55l. 1 5 5“ I My‘ M; «MW 5.“ ’1’»... "7 5.555 5:575 ‘ , ’1 T531" '-.C-fla.--m5vé§1f15:5% "r 7 . .5, .' '5 5 5 7M: 'i‘P/IWI . ”5““ ' .‘H'V 1")“ 5-91- rwgzr )‘anpIfif-xqgfl 53.15'5'55'55 5. 5 f. .. 1.5,. .. 5'..51 Dinah-«$511!, _....-~, ' "v.1. .43'55 nap-w»..— ’ 5..35'5.5..5 "5"' .55” 55" .555“: Mm Ff 5 5 5145- .....wr... .. 5N ’5- ' 51 11531: -. I 4' 5:; '21:... 5515.?” v. 1 .. 11.555.12.055... ' 5: 5 Fr ... .......- , . . 5.. .5... ,5 .. .. . “.5 a g ,1" .. ,...u;‘55~uu amt... o... _ . ' 1w; .5 5555,5215 11-55514; 51.1,? " 41:35:;a1-II’JI- *er '“lemf r, ‘1 ,2...".‘:? 5 .. .;.~. ‘zrw r~""5""‘§"""'v.. .5. - any . .115»: sw- .5'~ v5", 4.5:, . u 5' 1 .. .5... '5‘ .. .'-5.5-.'~... 551¢»5|‘;‘5151‘:‘ “A ;IJ.vW-GI*‘F.' I 5....5...555.., . 5. ¢ ‘51.”? 5‘ rigrrrywwrnrrv'pu’fi .JLV‘ .5." Irgwm $.52“: .2 ' "'3 ' .. . -.. r 51...";5 In «ME: '5” 74' "1 ”awnf'W’Z‘W‘W" .753" .3ng v5: "-m m. "whoa; ‘ I fr'n"531';‘ ‘ ‘ rm .1; WIJF'S‘u 5 fiva5tdAltqoZ5253 ‘ xii”? fix” ,. 't " "'C' ”4.55,...55’ 5 _1 5... '55 5. .55... ' 5 . 5. .. n . 55 "521.51“le what, 5‘ .33 5 .. ., .. ‘IV‘ ‘1‘ '4 l-J‘ 193' not .3551}. “(333:0 ‘W ‘5'" 7’5'L'E”1‘5{'7‘1§":m~ !; 1:13;: _ ‘rn E818 KEEP ("5 Jf‘: ~ Michigan 5 "ate University This is to certifg that the thesis entitled William Roy: A Study of Sixteenth-Century Lollard-Protestant Relationships. presented bg Donald 0. Fries has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for L degree in M . )1 l a 1 1/! A. ,' , - J/QL‘L/ v \ L’ 9 /LC U Major professor Date Au ust S, 1969 0-169 l IlllS' l J Jfig; 19¢: ;..;..:t M3115"; swat? Z. ”’73,. E éoéfj ABSTRACT WILLIAM ROY: A STUDY IN EARLY SIXTEENTH- CENTURY PROTESTANT-LOLLARD RELATIONSHIPS BY Donald 0. Fries One of the unsolved problems of the early English Refor— nmtion is the relationship between the Protestants and the trmfixional English heresy. The Lollards had existed within mgland since the last part of the fourteenth century. This grmnn cut off from any clerical or intellectual support, zmtained at least an approximation of what John Wycliffe had taught. When the Reformation began in Germany certain non- Iollard Englishmen were attracted to the new heresy. These may educated clerics for the most part, began to preach, wiflfin England, doctrines which were similar to those of the Imllards. The English ecclesiastical authorities, clamping dmwlon these heretics forced some to recant and others to flee the country. In the third decade of the sixteenth cmfimry some of these exiles began an appeal to the English smople, but especially to the Lollards, hoping to attract flfis ready-made basis of support to the doctrines of Continental Protestantisnn In the beginning the leader of this movement to attract um Lollards to the new heresy was William Roy. Roy, an 'IIo-u '\ a. In" ‘ 'P!\ I I z 1“. l'! W .., 5 I... (I) “I“ u. h " U1 u“ l “‘. 4H "‘ Donald 0. Fries educated Londoner and subsequent observant friar at the Greenwich monastery, fled England in 1525. After studying for a time with Luther at Wittenberg, Roy joined William Tyndale in Cologne. He aided the translator in the com- pletion and printing of the English version of the New Testament. Tyndale and Roy soon parted, and Roy travelled to Strasbourg where he lived for three years. During this time he issued a number of publications which made him famous in England and turned him into a fugitive, hunted by the English authorities. Because of certain attacks on Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor co-ordinated a search for Roy which took on international aspects and which put the ex-Franciscan into extreme jeOpardy. With Wolsey's fall the search was allowed to lapse, and Roy continued to issue Reformation tracts. These included the first English translation of a complete tract by Luther and the first statement in English of Protestant doctrine. This latter statement represents the first Zwinglian doctrinal statement to be sent into England. Toward the end of his life Roy realized the need to united Lollardy and Continental Pro- testantism. His last two works were republications of Lollard treatises. By studying Roy's life it is possible to see that while the English New Testament played a large role in attracting the Lollards to Protestantism, the work of men .u D“ - I1" I ”I“ o Inv‘ all A. . ;' 9' i a w... . ‘ n "In! ‘.0Vu ”In. “Inn "th 'oulzI u ‘l '|.| ‘\‘, d x 12 a, 1” s. '. Donald 0. Fries like Roy did even more to unite the two dissident groups. His work indicates that he saw the need for a union between the two groups, as the Lollards provided not only a home- based reform movement, but also gave the Protestants an ancient pedigree. Finally, Roy was the first publicist for the Reforma— tion in England. His works were designed for the semi- educated layman. They contain simple statements of doctrine and point out what he thought to be the evils of the Roman Church. While certainly neither highly intellectual nor learned, his writings are attempts to p0pularize and to convert the English lower classes. This study chronologically traces Roy's life. Although dealing in part with his birth and education, it is primarily a study of his career as a reformer, translator, and author of Reformation literature. It is also an attempt to show how the Lollards as a group were won over to the Reformation. By analyzing Roy's writing and tracing their effect in England, this study gives some insight into Roy's contribution to the English Reformation. WILLIAM ROY: A STUDY IN EARLY SIXTEENTH- CENTURY PROTESTANT-LOLLARD RELATIONSHIPS BY Donald 0. Fries A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1969 " I: 'II n. ‘ II? I en's 'H The D" ‘I.. ' “Nu QUova 1’ 2'7 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Although writing a dissertation is often an extremely frustrating and trying experience I was very fortunate to have a doctoral committee who aided me in many ways. Dr. Marjorie Gesner, my major professor, was most helpful in giving me guidance and encouragement. Her patience with my mistakes and problems was most appreciated. While giving me full freedom to express my ideas she tempered my foibles with mature scholarly Opinion. Her great knowledge of sixteenth—century England gave me valuable insights in the writing of this thesis. To Dr. Thomas Bushell I also owe a debt of gratitude. His most valuable comments on content and style and his Careful testing of the logic of my conclusions have certainly aided me greatly. Professor Richard E. Sullivan has also taken time from his busy schedule to read and make corrections in my manuscript. I also wish to acknowledge my wife, Grace, who, through Working to support us during the whole of my study, made my research trip to England, and in the final analysis, the whole doctorate possible. Her unfailing patience and understanding are also most appreciated. ii Chapter II III IV VI TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION0000000000000000000000000000000 WILLIAM ROY To 1524000000000000000000000000 ROY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 1524-15260000000000000000000...000000000000 THE FIRST WORKS 1526’15280000000000000000000000000000000000 THE HUNT FOR THE HERETICS 1528-15300000000000000000000000000.00000000 LAST WORKS AND DEATH 1530-15310000000000000000000000000000000000 CONCLUSION000000000000000000000000000000000 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY...................... iii Page 1 33 65 109 155 187 220 230 11’ 7.216 ~:- In. 153332 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Before the biography of any historical personage can be written, something must be known of the times in which he lived. It is impossible to trace the lives of men such as Sir Francis Bacon or James I until something is known of the Elizabethan and Jacobean ages. Sir Robert Walpole is a complete enigma unless one understands early eighteenth- century England. If this is true of great and influential personages, it is perhaps even more true of the lesser known, those men who flit across the pages of history from time to time, men whose import is not easily understood. It would be very difficult to understand the life of a man like William Roy unless we know something of the background which influenced him and his fellow reformers. We could also never begin to uncover any contribution which he might have made to the history of the English Reformation unless we realize the background in which he worked. If William Roy‘s writings appear vulgar, it is because he appealed to a Vulgar audience. If he seems violent, it was because he lived in a violent time. Perhaps it is because he was a man v 60‘ ’1‘ 2 both of and appealing to the pe0ple that historians have made him to be one of the "bad men" of the English Reformation. If, however, Roy is viewed in the light of his own times, if we could discover what might have influenced him or to whom he appealed, then we might be able to assess his true worth and his true contribution to the Reformation. Thus, the introduction to this thesis will consist of an account of the forces which moved England toward some sort of religious upheaval well before Henry VIII sought to rid himself of a barren wife so that he might have a' male: heir. Hapefully this account will provide the necessary background information so that in subsequent chapters we shall be able to make some estimate, not only of Roy‘s character, but also of his worth and contribution to the history of the Refor- mation . I Sir F. Maurice Powicke once stated: "The one definite thing which can be said about the reformation in England is that it was an act of State."1 What Powicke meant by this statement is that Roman ecclesiastical authority was over- thrown in England through certain acts of the monarch and Parliament. Beginning in 1529, the second Tudor, __ lSir 15‘. Maurice Powicke, The Reformation in England (London: Oxford University Press, Ig4l) , 1. ‘— I, ... , In... M “4.. I...‘ . or“ lg.“ 1"“! ‘N\ I a... 1““ "‘4 I: I I.‘ I u |. . r1 I 33-. Henry VIII, by using his prerogative, his Parliament, and his indomitable will, forced Roman authority out of the English Church, thus ending a connection which had existed since 663 A.D. What Henry attempted to do between 1529 and 1543 was not to institute those reforms which Continental reformers deemed necessary in order to "purify" the church, but rather to leave the basic structure of the English Church intact. The king was more than willing to leave the dogma and practices of the church alone and only insisted that he, rather than the p0pe, was the supreme head of the church in England. It is certainly true that during Henry's reign some ecclesiastical innovations were begun. The Ten Articles only listed three sacraments and an English trans- lation of the Bible was approved.2 However, before his death, the king had not only reinstated the seven sacraments, but had also forbidden the marriage of priests and had outlawed indiscriminate Bible reading by the laity.3 When Henry died in 1547 the English church was hardly more than ‘- 2c. E. Williams, En lish Historical Documents: 1485-1558 (London: Eyre and Spottlswoode, I537} , 7§5 and 953. ""'" 3The Six Articles finally set the religious format for Henry's reign. They can be found in: Henry Gee and William J. Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: MacMiIIan & Co.,—18§6) .10 - . IIVU 4... \ . “IV! \“ ~~ I" (I w" ’i I) 1'5! “" 4 the Holy Catholic Church of his father, except the king and not the pontiff was supreme head. At first glance, then, the English Reformation seems, as Gairdner stated, to be a "contest, not of the English peOple, but of the king and his government with Rome."4 Even though there is some truth in both Powicke's and Gairdner's statements, the Reformation in England was cer- tainly, "no sudden movement forced upon the church by an obscure student in Germany, or by an aristocratic sovereign in England," but was actually a culmination of various factors which had existed for a long time and which ultimately made some form of reform inevitable.5 In fact a case could plausibly be made for the argument that there were two Reformations in England during the first half of the sixteenth century. On one hand there was the Henrican Reformation, truly an act of state. On the other hand there was a movement for a change, not only in church government, but in dogma, practices, and forms of worship. This second Reformation for the most part worked "underground", as it were, first being deemed heretical by the Roman authorities and later held in contempt by the Henrican church. This k fl 4 James Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in En land I (London: MacMillan 5. Co., 19m 5. k' 5R. S. Arrowsmith, The Prelude to the Reformation (London. Society for Promoting Christian Knowl'e'dge, 1923), v. i (I l"|§u ‘Ii "An. ‘.‘ \.‘ st” .‘ I ‘I‘ "Vm l movement for reform, while attracting some intellectuals like Tyndale, Bilney, and Barnes, was primarily made up of the commonalty. The peOple of the middle and lower classes, the merchants and laborers who had little voice in government seemed to feel antagonism toward both the Roman and the Anglican churches. These two reform movements, one sponsored and nurtured by the state and the other often hunted and harassed, existed side by side during the latter half of Henry's reign. These movements were united during the short reign of Edward VI, when Archbishop Cranmer, no longer held in check bY Henry's power, was able to initiate a state church embodying many of the tenets held by those who advocated a thorough-going reform. For six years these united reform movements attempted to create an English Protestant church along Continental lines. The reigns of Mary I and Eliza— beth I again drove the reform movements apart, and the state church evolved into Anglicanism, while the thorough reformers became what history has known as Nonconformists. II If one were to write a history of the English Refor- matiofl, he would be forced to begin, not with Martin Luther: or with Henry VIII, but with a group of men whose history it is impossible to fully relate. These men were the 'II .‘I‘ 1:.” V". 6 Lollards. The word Lollard apparently was of German origin and meant mumblers or mutterers of prayers. This word was first applied to the followers of John Wycliffe by an Irish Cistercian, Henry Crump.6 Wycliffe (1324-1384) was a fellow at and subsequently master of Balliol College, Oxford, who began, about 1377, to attack certain tenets of the church. From that date to his death in 1384 he strongly advocated church reform.‘7 He preached against the growing secularization of the clergy as manifested by their increasing desire for temporal wealth and possessions.8 He declared that by obtaining worldly possessions the church had impoverished the people and the State had every right to seize all ecclesiastical tenures and should use this confiscated property for the benefit of the Poorog One of the main goals of his reform was the use of church wealth to alleviate the mounting tax burdens Of the Poor. Wycliffe's hatred for the secularization of the English K 6A. G. Dickens: The English Reformation (London: Botsford Ltd., 1964) , 23 o 7 . . . h SldneY Lee (ed.) Dictionagy 93 National Bio ra , XLIII (London: Smith and Elder and Co., 1900) , 20%. 81bid., 206. 9 . . James MacKinnon, The Origins 9_f_ the Reformation (Lorldon: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1939) r " :Lergy‘ gm 1 In... 1 a : ~s UI 'I :I5 I "h . "In. I ‘ " "VI-l . u.‘ *m oi- 4" r l NI (flergy and the demand for the seizure of ecclesiastical gmoperties were not in themselves heretical. The pope, lumself, referred to Wycliffe's teachings as only errors aminot as heresies. Even though not heresy, Wycliffe's plaifor a state, rather than an ecclesiastical, reform of 'flm church was certainly original in England during the late fourteenth century.10 Wycliffe's errors soon turned into heresies. He kwcame concerned with the ignorance of the laity in regard H>the essentials of religion. To combat this ignorance Wwfliffe sent preachers into the parishes to work as emxmtors.ll Believing that a literal interpretation of scripture was the only sure way to religious truth, WWfliffe began an English translation of the Bible.12 Cmflinuing his attack on ecclesiastical practices, he dammded that the church return to a pre-Constantinian, nmrpapal condition.l3 Wycliffe maintained that the pope Wasneither the head of nor more powerful than any other bishOp.l4 K 10 DNB, LXIII, 209. l lMacKinnon, 55. 12Ibid., 90. 13Ibid., 1020 14John Foxe, The Acts and Monuments 2E EEEE EEEEI II Eondon: Seeley and Burnside, 18375, 799‘800° ‘ 0",! .I.“ “at. Jan» I V M. .. '" BO u... I 'llh' ....‘ In I .. I... ’ I ayt‘. Pp Cl (.1 0" , l. (1‘) n. it By late 1380 Wycliffe had swung away from his attack on church practices and had begun an attack on dogma. He taught that the church was in error in its teachings on the Eucharist.15 He concluded that "the consecrated host which we see on the altar is neither Christ nor any part of him, but the effectual sign of him.“16 Wycliffe was a university man, and in the beginning his movement was sustained by university peOple. For a short time after his death, men like John of Gaunt and Sir John Oldcastle gave powerful lay support to the movement. How- ever, after Henry V became king in 1413 persecution of the Lollard heresy began in earnest. In 1414, after an abortive attempt at rebellion, Oldcastle was burnt and Lollardy lost its last important chMpion. Not only did Lollardy lose its Powerful lay support, but also all its ties with intellec— tuals and with the universities were severed.l7 Wycliffe's teachings, however, did not die, but were only cut loose from the intellectual and ruling members of society. Cut loose, these teachings drifted to lesser men, to the artisans and lower classes. After 1414, Wycliffe's teaching remained h l5mm, LXIII, 212. 16lbid. 17 Arthur Ogle, The Tra ed of the Lollards Tower (Oxford; Pen in Hand publishin‘g'Co‘. , I§§9T7 22. our". 0 on." _ I lug-q null" I .0000 ‘h "we ‘ l u. - ~," ~ " 9‘ ».'.:" i'u' “hm t.‘ ,. 1‘ l“; i I 9 alive only in those peeple who he himself had endeavored to instruct, the mass of common peOple.18 Although a bit harsh, Gairdner is perhaps expressing some truth in assessing the Lollard movement when he paraphrases Reginald Pecock: In short, a movement which sprang among purer ndnded men, touched by the wonderful beauty and sweetness of Holy Writ in their mother tongue, had, for want of prOper control, lent itself greatly to the guidance of men who were not pure minded or pure in morals either for it encouraged an unreasoning hatred, both of the clergy and of the established institutions of religion. The Lollards who lived after Wycliffe, many of them illiterate, had no central organization or educated priest- hood to guide and bind them together. They existed in isolated groups bound only by family ties and by a set of beliefs which had originally come from Wycliffe, but which had been changed and modified through oral transmission 20 during the fifteenth century. Under such conditions, it is really surprising that Lollard traditions could remain alive and almost intact. But except for some obvious cases —__ ———_— J'8K. B. McFarlane, John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (London: English Universities Press—f Lt ., 1952) , 187. 19Gairdner, I, 222. 20John Thomson, The Later Lollards, 1414—1520 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933) r 2° 2‘ I- ‘I “i . '1 “Pa ‘Oei. ‘ l n“. u.“ i . ‘I i.“ "0‘ .a s u: 1.0 of fanaticism, the Lollards all seem to have held similar beliefs . 21 If there was one statement of beliefs to which they all clung, that statement‘was the Twelve Conclusions presented by the Lollards to Parliament in 1395. The first of these conclusions criticized the English church for following the Roman practice of dwelling on temporalities while "faith, hOpe, and charity," had disappeared. Secondly, the Lollards believed that the existing priesthood was begun by Rome and was not the priesthood ordained by Christ and his apostles. Thirdly, the laws of celibacy were a source of evil. Fourthly, the Eucharist was only a "pretended miracle" which led one to idolatry. The fifth held that the practices of exorcism and benedictions over bread and wine were more suited for necromancy than for theology. The sixth conclu- sion railed against the policy of the episc0pacy serving as secular servants to the monarchy. The seventh and eighth spoke out against prayers for the dead and pilgrimages to crosses and roods. The ninth denied the need for auricular confession said to priests; while the tenth declared warfare and capital punishment to be contrary to the teachings of the New Testament. The eleventh maintained that the practice of women becoming nuns only leads to sin. The final fi—___ 21F” examples of these, see John Foxe, III, 134-178. ”f.” t ”at! 2231M l '2 .3 ¢.—': In a_,___ m——__~__._w .. ————-— ll conclusion decries extravagant and sinful ecclesiastical practices.22 Along with these conclusions, the Lollards always maintained a love and desire for the scriptures to be in English. 23 If the above conclusions were the embodiment of the basic elements of Lollardy, its greatest advertisement is to be found in the Wycliffe Bible and in a book known as WLcliffe's Wicket. Wchliffe's Wicket, although not written by the Oxford reformer, enjoyed a wide p0pularity throughout Lollard circles. The author of this tract writes: They say it is heresy to speak of the holy scriptures in English and so they would con- demn the Holy Ghost that gave it in tongues to the apostles of Christ to speak the word of God in all languages....Consider you whether it be not all one to deny Christ's words for heresy and Christ for an heretic.24 This tract proved so pOpular that it was reprinted in England as late as 1548. The Lollard heresy enjoyed a peculiar history in England. If the number of cases of heretics brought before the M 22For these conclusions see: Gotthard Lechler, John Wycliffe and his English Precursors (London: The Religious Tract Society, 18§4) , 447-148. 23Wycliffe’s Wicket, (src 25590), 1546, [Aviii]. 24Ibid., Av. $3: *0 ‘ n,~ I 0" I.V 1.2 ecclesiastical courts is examined, a rather strange pattern emerges. Between 1414 and 1450 many instances of Lollard persecution occur. Between 1450 and 1485 there are so few cases that it appears that Lollardy was dead. After 1485 the cases again grow to surprising pr0portions. The Lollard heresy may have been stifled only to revive again during the last quarter of the fifteenth century. It is also possible that the increase of Lollard activity after 1485 is only an illusion caused by the fact that records were better kept during the Tudor period.25 It is perhaps sufficient to state that beginning in 1485 there was a great number of abjurations by people accused of Lollard beliefs. Not only John Foxe, but diocesan registers, record a great number of heresy trials during this period. A. G. Dickens has counted at least seventy cases of heresy between 1510 and 26 Coupled with this is the figure of 27 1522 in London alone. eighty cases in Buckinghamshire during the same period. It is perhaps not too strong a conclusion to state that in certain areas the Lollard heresy was extremely __ 5Thomson , 3 . 2 . . . 6A. G. Dickens, "Heresy and the Origins of English Protestantism," Britain and the Netherlands, II (Groningen, J. B. Wolters, 1.964) , SS. 2 7John Foxe, III, 123-124. 0 up U hvld o 2:1, u... . . 0:" wrug'l O I); 4" J- h \ \.‘ h" ‘ ‘34 ‘ I 3" "u! 13 widespread throughout the lower orders of English society ! during the last quarter of the fifteenth and the first quarter i of the sixteenth centuries. This group, without influence or | fortune, did represent a group of peOple who were highly discontented with the existing ecclesiastical order and who were bent on resistance to the established church. If this group had no influence on the church or on the newly formed Tudor government, it did have a profound effect on the reception of reform ideas in England. III There were, however, other Englishmen besides the Lollards who had begun to feel that something was amiss within the church during the late fifteenth and early six- teenth centuries. These men, mostly churchmen, were inter— ested in change, not in doctrine, but in church practice. Most of these men had no contact with the Lollards, and one, Reginald Pecock, was a vociferous enemy of the heretics. Yet these men preached a program of clerical reform to which the Lollards could easily subscribe. At least three of these men, Reginald Pecock, Thomas Gascoigne, and Dean John Colet, are worth mentioning as examples of members of the ecclesiastical establishment who felt that something ought to be done to reform church practices. It must be stated qua . , uIny I -Mn pvl cl; 'l’ O l.‘ ‘ I“ ‘ u“. I‘“, ’N l-‘. li‘ qt ,' o. I' 14 at the outset that these men had no desire to create a new church. They only wanted to reform the old one. Reginald Pecock (1395-1460) is perhaps the most remark- able of this group of peOple who believed that something should be done to reform the church. He was the Bishop of St. Asaph, who in a book entitled The Repressor 9_f_ 0113; m Blaming pf Eh_e_ Clergy, published in 1455, strongly argued against the Lollards. In this attack he attempted to prove that eleven Lollard tenets were erroneous and he did it so effectively that he was translated from St. Asaph to the BishOpric of Chichester.28 However, the very next year he published a tract entitled, 39215. g: 52.1.31! in which he maintained that scripture contains the ultimate authority for religious truth. He also maintained that where reason is certain it should be obeyed even in defiance of the church. Pecock does add that reason is seldom sure, and when one is in doubt authority should be taken as a guide to truth.29 'In the Repressor Pecock went so far as to state that reason is even a higher authority than scripture in 30 cases where discrepancy exists between the two. Finally, _‘k zanus, XLIV, 200. 291hid. 3°Reginald pecock. The Repressor 93'; Over Much Blaming 9_f_ the Clergy (London: Longmans, Green, 1860), 10. .3-0 ‘ . u. . In u " “I :«g "I. y I “the :':~ “" n‘. 0 I .. _. .7‘ 1 ‘- \. . ... ‘ .O* C... a 15 in a series of works at the end of his life Pecock denied 31 that the apostles had written the Creed. He was charged with heresy and forced to recant. Pecock was certainly not a heretic in the Lollard vein, but his appeal to reason was an appeal which the Lollards could understand, as was his statement that the scriptures represented ultimate authority}:2 In John Foxe's Acts and Monuments, Pecock emerges as a strong advocate of reform.33 Perhaps the importance of Foxe's statement lies not in its veracity, which in this case is doubtful, but in the fact that the martyrologist considered Pecock worth mentioning as one who led the way to the Reformation. Connected in no way with Lollardy, Pecock is certainly connected with a desire for the reform of some of the teachings of the church. If Pecock was interested in the use of rationality and scriptures to define religious truth, Thomas Gascoigne (1403-1458) was vehement in his denunciation of the clerical practices which existed during his life. Gascoigne was Chancellor of the University of Oxford and a pOpular preacher and teacher during the second quarter of the fifteenth century. He was a man of integrity who was “vehement in *— BlDNB, XLIV, 200. 32Thomson , 244 . 33John Foxe, III, 733. 16 his hostility to the Wycliffe movement and as unsparing as Wycliffe himself of the evils in the Church whenever he found them.’34 He defended the authority of the holy scripture and the right of the king's prerogative. He also fought against non-residence, pluralities, and neglect of clerical duties. He, himself, refused any benefice to which he could not minister personally.35 Foxe includes only one reference to Gascoigne, but in this brief quotation, a glimpse of the tenor of Gascoigne's writings can be seen. I have found it alleged out of Thomas Gascoin in Dictionario Theologico whose plain words be these 'A.D. 1311, Thomas Arundel, Archbish0p of Canterbury, was so stricken in his tongue, that he could neither swallow or speak for a certain space before his death, much like the example of a rich glutton; and so died upon the same. And this was thought by many to come upon him for that he so bound the word of the Lord,3§hat it should not be preached in his day'. Gascoigne summarizes his beliefs and teachings in the above mentioned Dictionarium Theologicum which contains both a theological discussion and a discussion of his view of the condition of church and state between the years 1403 and 1455. Unfortunately, this interesting work has never been ——__.. 34mm, xxx, 42. 3511931. 36John Foxe, III, 404. 17 translated into. English, but portions of it were printed by J.E.T. Rogers in 1881.37 In this work Gascoigne, Chancellor of Oxford, learned and educated, has no patience with worldly bish0ps. He advocates piety and chastity. He maintains that the poPe "misleads and is misled."39 Turning to church practices Gascoigne writes: ‘ Modern sinners say 'I do not care what and how many sins I commit in God's sight because I can easily and speedily get a plenary remis- sion granted me by the pOpe, whose writing and grant I have bought for foBrpence or siXpence, or for a game of tennis'.4 Gascoigne also rails against the bishOps, crying that they received their benefices through court intrigue and through simony. He maintains that the peOple were more than dis- contented with episc0pal practices. Everywhere could be heard the people crying "away with the bishOps who grow 37James E. T. Rogers, Loci ‘5"; Libro Veritatum, Passages Selected from Gascoi ne's Theological Dictionary (Oxford: _ Oxford University Press, lBBTD . 381bid., 1xii. 391bid., 152. 40Ibid. , 123. "Consimilter jam moderni peccatores dicunt 'non curoquae et quot mala fecero coram Deo quia facillime et citissime habeo remissionem plenariam cujuscunque culpae et poenae per absolucionem et indulgenciam concessam michi a papa cujus scripturam et concessionem emi pro iv denariis vel pro sex denariis, velper lusum ad plum‘ .“ 5 ~31? 1' I‘ll Cl old I I :.9 his! I. .: .3 .. _ :35 I... 0 “out no 5; I ‘l‘ IA 0. vi' '1‘; ‘3: : I‘Q‘ 18 wealthy, who wish to be called lords...and will do nothing about preaching to save men's souls."4l In a sermon delivered to the University of Oxford, Gascoigne continued his attack on the short comings of the clergy by listing seven evil conditions of the church. Four of these conditions dealt with the practices of bishops and priests in their worldly lives and their demands for secular gain. The final three dealt with abuses in absolution, indulgences , and dispensations . 42 Although these criticisms by Gascoigne would appear to put him firmly in the Lollard camp, he was never associated with the Lollards. He had little desire for doctrinal change but wanted reform of ecclesiastical practices. He did not like Lollards and would have been shocked to have been given their label. However, there was very little Which Gascoigne wrote with which a Lollard, if he could have read it, would not have agreed. Thus, in fifteenth— Century England we can readily see two separate strains m°Ving toward a reform. These strains, one Clerical and the other heretical, were neither connected nor even very Vociferous. The majority of Englishmen were content with K 4lIbid., 41. 42 Ibid. , 53-54. «v- .UV u. - “. I...‘ ”fil- a' a g n; CI) 19 the church; most people were convinced that the church was flmctioning as well as possible. But those voices which vmre heard were perhaps preparing the way for the religious upheaval of the sixteenth century. The third member of the trio who pointed out what he mnmidered to be grave defects in the church was also an emxated Oxford doctor and a churchman who gave great impetus to the nascent reform movement. This man was John Colet, Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral. Colet (1467-1519) kmlonged to that rather ephemeral group of intellectuals knmnisometimes as the Oxford reformers and other times astme English humanists. This group consisted of men like Sirlmomas More, Linacre, Grocyn, Colet, and of course, Etasmus himself, when he was in England. Sir Thomas More caned Colet his spiritual director and the Dean stood very nfiar the top of the liberal intellectual circle of early sixteenth-century English humanists.43 Even Henry VIII was rePOrted to have said of Colet: "let every man have his mxmor as he liketh, this shall be my doctor.“44 While at Oxford, Colet began to give PUblic lectures on St.Paul's epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. In these ‘ 43mm, xx, 322. 44 Foxe, IV, 248. 1—9. ii. In" ' i "7' 1.5 1"- «III ‘II I I I "in I "0 l m l 20 lectures Colet attempted to show the human side of the saint amieach lecture also contained some attack on the condition amipractices of the church.45 For example, in one of his lectures Colet maintained that when St. Paul tells us that the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, he means that mmsessions are not necessary or even helpful in attaining eternal life. Churchmen, he adds, have become very eager flu'worldly gain, and he ends by stating: ...you will find nothing that has befallen the church to have done more mischief than posses— sions, and titles of meum and tuum, and power of claiming property. Hence have sprung ava- rice and greed of money, a disease that has now grown to such strength in the Christian Church...that, unless Christ have mercy on his own Body and aid it in its peril, it assuredly cannoz be far off from being doomed to destruction. Aflmr receiving his D.D. from Oxford in 1505, Colet was, in flat same year, installed as Dean of St. Paul's in London, “mere he became a popular preacher. The Lollards are reputed tofwve been his most attentive and avid listeners. k 4 SDNB, xx, 325. 46John Colet, Joannis Coleti Enarrationin E istol18 §'£EE££ ad Romanos’Yibndon: Bell and Daldy, 1§§§YTTF“ 4 7DNB, XI, 325. a- 1' :ms ‘ul l n I II“ I on u u. n' U .‘l I l “.‘ I 21 In 1511 a convocation was called in the Southern Province ofEmgland to consider ways of ending the growing Lollard heresy. For some reason ArchbishOp Warham, a close friend, amlsubsequent protector of Colet, chose the Dean of St. Pmflfis to preach the Opening sermon. This sermon was a cnfifical attack on ecclesiastical practices and is certainly worth reading as an example of a declaration of the state of the church, made by an orthodox churchman in pre-Reformation England. ...But we wish that once, remembering your name and profession ye would mind the reformation of ecclesiastical affairs. For assure yourselves there never was more need of it, the state of the church did never more desire your endea- vours.... And first to speak of pride of life: how much greediness and appetite of honour and dignity is seen nowadays in clergymen.... The second secular evil is carnal concu- piscence and hath not this vice grown and increased in the church so far that in this most busy age the far greater numbers of priests mind but what doth delight and please their senses. Covetousness is the third secular evil.... This abominable pestilence hath so entered in the minds of almost all priests, hath so blinded the eyes of their understanding that we see nothing but that which seems to bring unto us some gains.... The fourth secular evil that Spotteth the face of the church is continual secular occu- pation, wherein priests and bishOps nowadays doth busy themselves, becoming the servants rather of men than of God.... Now the way whereby the church may be reformed into better fashion is not for to make new laws...but that those that are made already be well kept.... he: i; : - Nib! u I 3'1: II..‘ I :i.‘ 1". T. I. “i. u“ "‘i H". [A .— 71-}; H. n \ I- 22 The clergy and spiritual men being thus once reformed in the church, we then may with a just order proceed to the reformation of the lay part, which truly will be very easily done if we first reform ourselves. Hepefully, this lengthy quotation will indicate the state to which some orthodox ministers felt the church had descended. Colet's sermon was preached in Latin, but an English trans- lation soon appeared which was very pepular in London. The Dean was charged with heresy, but ArchbishOp Warham dis- missed the charges against him.49 It can be seen from the previous examples that there was some discontent with the existing ecclesiastical prac- tices during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. If this discontent was not widespread, it was certainly loud. Men like Colet and Gascoigne had no wish to destroy the existing order. The idea of a change in doctrine would have repelled them, but they did want to see a thorough reforma_ tion of the existing practices of the clergy. Whether church practices were as corrupt and evil as these men maintained is a question beyond the sc0pe of this study. But what is important to note is the fact that there —____ . 48The first English translation of this sermon preserved 1n the British Museum is: John Colet, 5 Sermon of Conformin 23¢} Reformin made to the Convocation at _S_t_. PaulT-s' Ewan—339 @3219; (Cambridge: ‘3'. Field, 16617. "‘ 49DNB, XI, 3250 a. I n 150: a, U. 1 all L... in I II. ‘ I" I h.' "J 23 were in England groups of peOple who were not only highly discontented with the existing clerical situation, but who were openly attempting to improve it. These men, along with the Lollards, were perhaps preparing a way, or at least a fertile seedbed, for the revolution which was to occur. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that with all the fervor of men like Gascoigne and Colet, this group of reformers was extremely small. There was no real unity or even necessarily any sympathy between the peOple who Spoke out for reform. If the church had evils, it also had strengths, and to most men-—even men like Sir Thomas More, Bishop Fisher, and ArchbishOp Warham--the strengths far outweighed the evils. Perhaps if men like Gascoigne and Colet had lived through the religious confrontation of the 1530's, they would, like Fisher and More, have chosen the block over the prOSpect of a reform which ultimately Spelled destruction to a system they understood and sought to improve . IV By the year 1500 all these forces demanding reform in England had more or less coalesced. The center of this tur- moil, this evergrowing movement to end clerical abuses, was in London. It is not difficult to eXplain the reasons why the capital became the focal point for English reform. It n n! ..d l v an a v—‘ u . 15. l I new I "a. "Vn "t v... In I“ ‘ y... m,“ H.“ 1". 24 had long been the largest city in England. It was the center of trade and abounded with foreigners. If anywhere in Eng- land there was to be found a great exchange of ideas, that place was London. It was probably against the London heretics that Reginald Pecock directed his Repressor g: 929$. 1339.1}. Blaming 93 _t_h__e_ Clergy, as various references to the city are found throughout this work. It was in London that Dean Colet preached his anti—clerical sermons. Throughout the period when Lollard persecution was in abeyance there were appar- ently Lollards in considerable numbers living there.50 During the first twenty-five years of the sixteenth century the persecution of Lollards was carried out with great vigor in the capital city. Cuthbert Tunstal, BishOp of London, conducted a heresy proceeding in 1527-1528, and from this proceeding it is evident that a group of people holding Lollard views had been active for some time.51 Between 1509 and 1527 John Foxe lists at least ninety- two peOple who were accused of heresy in the city.52 These _— —__ 50William Page (ed.) , The Victoria History 952 London (London: Constable and Co., 1909) , 233. 51John Stacey, John W cliffe and Reform (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 19645 r 133- 52John Foxe, IV, 174-176, 200—244. . In no i - l . It'd! '- " u l:~‘ '0.“ 0 "HI In "\ 4”. . 4 25 people were accused of the usual Lollard heresies which included the reading of such books as The Four Evangelists; Wygliffe's Wicket; A 59313 9_f_ the Ten Commandments g_f_ Almighty 99517 and The Revelation _o_f §_’_c_. John and the Epistles 93: 23111 and James.” Most of these Lollards were of the lower and lower-middle classes. There were a number of tailors, carpenters, weavers, and servants, with only an occasional man of substance. Between 1510 and 1520 two goldsmiths were apprehended, while the case of Richard Hunne, merchant tailor, has been well publicized by Arthur Ogle. The London Lollards appear to have been of the same social classes as were the Lollards throughout England. The centers of London Lollardy appear to have been in Coleman and Wood streets, near Aldersgate.54 Inspired by the seemingly ubiquitous "Father" John Hacker, water bearer, no less than six heretics were named during this period who dwelt in Coleman Street. This area in northwest London was populated with weavers and artisans. One point which set the citizens of London apart from the rest of the English was the bitter anti-clerical feeling existing within the city. The causes of this ill-feeling lay in an old dispute about the payment of tithes. From “- 53Ibid., 176. 54Ibid., 239. in- ‘1': (h - l- l.- n sage | I. ‘ “a: 26 1457 on, this dispute smoldered and occasionally broke out into the open.55 All these factors--the existence of a large Lollard fraction, centered in the northwest corner of the city; the existence of a long—standing tithe dispute and subsequent anti-clerical feeling on the part of the pOpulace; and the existence of a small group of educated men who spoke out against clerical abuses--served to make London a fertile ground for Reformation ideas. It is not surprising that when the foreign merchants, eSpecially those from Germany, began to bring Protestant ideas with them into England, they found willing listeners in London. It is also not surprising that London became the center of an illicit trade in prohibited Protestant books during the third decade of the sixteenth century. Nor is it surprising that certain men, living in or near London, were, at an early date, infected with the ideas of the Reformation. Some of these men fled to Germany and Switzer- land where they wrote tracts, appeals, and even a new English translation of the Bible, all of which appealed to the Lollards and other anti-clerical elements of the city, Who avidly desired to hear and read of the marvelous Refor- mation which must have seemed to them as the beginning of the fruition of all they had held so long. *_ ~———— 55Page, The Victoria History 9_f_ London, 249. 0'!!! “.1. I'n' u. a n.. We. :w nvvu c-— 1’: t '- it", Q ‘\ 27 Even though men like Dean Colet did rail against the church practices of his time, it was really the Lollards who prepared England for the Reformation. E. G. Rupp is correct when he states that "any due assessment of the causes and consequences of the English Reformation must take into 56 The work of men like account the survival of Lollardy." Rupp and Professor A. G. Dickens have left little doubt that the English Reformation was greatly influenced by the Lollards. The Lollards had converted some of the lower classes to their beliefs and had ingrained their ideas, if not their heresies, in many others. Dickens has gone so far as to state that the English lower classes of the early part of the reign of Henry VIII were all Lollards or near- Lollards. He adds: "...heretics and peOple on the fringe of heresy were more numerous in the earlier half of Henry VIII's reign than [James] Gairdner's generation would ever acknowledge . " 5 7 Most Englishmen apparently cared very little for the doctrinal changes demanded by the Lollards, but they did seem vitally concerned with what they thought were clerical _— _— .. 56 E. G. Rupp, Studies in the Making o__f_ the English Prot- estant Tradition (MainI 1'n_ the Reign o__f Henr VIII ridge: Cambridge Un1vers1ty Press, 1949;, I. 57Dickens, "Heresy and the Origins of English Prot- estantism," Britain and the Netherlands, II, 65. 5:~:li 1501 ‘i? ‘ 0n 1.... .1. a in. u. o d} 0“. 4:5 a.“ H“, 5.15 '1‘.- | "\ I :53! 0 1:4 28 abuses. Professor Dickens insists that an anti-clerical feeling grew among English laymen in the three decades before the Reformation. He sees Lollard prOpaganda as the nourisher and spreader of this feeling.58 Richard Hunne's case is a perfect example of the hatred which was felt toward the clergy. Hunne, after all, was a Lollard--a heretic, a man with whom the pOpulace at large should not have even bothered. Even though he possessed some wealth and social standing, his heresy should have denied him all association with the Christian peOple of London. On his death, however, lay London was extremely incensed.59 The clergy were vilified, and as late as 1528 William Roy men— tioned Hunne's name in his satire on Cardinal Wolsey. If Dickens is correct, it was this anti-clerical feeling long recorded in Lollard circles, which in the first thirty years of the sixteenth century spread throughout the pOpulace and made the Reformation possible. Besides instilling an anti-clerical feeling in the maple, the Lollards were responsible for many other aspects of the preparation of England for a reform. The Lollards' __— 58Ibid., 61. 59The best discussion of the controversy over Hunne's death is, of course, Arthur Ogle. John Foxe gives a more contemporary Protestant account, while Sir Thomas More in his Dialogue Concernixlg Heresies and Matters _o__f_ Religion.. , presents the contemporary Catholic view. "r? I. D‘- 25261 Q fivfill IQUM [I :1: t." 0 "v: D“; | | I“! I.“ 29 great desire to have the scripture in English and their tenet of scriptual authority made them the most demanding purchasers of the English New Testament, when it reached England in 1526. They were willing listeners and avid advocates of the new ideas which spread through England. They were the original "fifth column" of English heretics who, with the aid of writings of perhaps more daring Englishmen who had fled the country, prepared England for the day when the Protestant cause would triumph. Whether the English Reformation was an act of state or an act of men attempting to do what they thought was necessary to purify the church is still debatable. But no Reformation, either as an act of state or as a movement from below could have been successful in England unless a great number of peOple were willing to accept it. Not even Henry VIII, with all his power, could have transformed the church in England into the Church of England unless he could count on the acquiescence of most of the pOpulace. This acquiescence was, to a large extent caused by the work of the Lollard propagandists, and it was perhaps this group which enabled Henry VIII to make a religious revolution with very little open hostility. I“ In 1511 ha; I..\ '- 1:” a.‘ 30 V Although recently the Lollards have obtained a great deal of credit for the role they played in preparing England for the Reformation, it is still necessary, before one can truly understand the English Reformation, to trace the ways in which Lollards and Protestants were connected. It is certainly true that the English New Testament was one great link between the old heresy and the new Protestant thought. However, there are other links between the two. English. Protestants during the early part of the sixteenth century Openly sought Lollard aid. That the Protestants appealed to the Lollard heretics hopefully will be shown in the following pages. It appears that if a link can be found between the two groups, that link must be sought in this appeal. More than one tract was written as a thinly veiled appeal to the Lollards, perhaps to convince them that the new heresy was the old writ large. Not only were appeals written to the Lollards, but also the Reformation had to be popularized in England. Contro- versialists such as Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Huldrich Zwingli, and Sir Thomas More were engaged in rather heady theological debates, while the common man little understood what was occurring. Certain writers endeavored to facilitate the assimilation of the reform ideals by the 2""! I... '0 Il‘. I 0“ I 1 :I l‘. h “b N 31 common peOple. These men wrote treatises on and made trans— lations of the doctrinal theories being expressed by Luther and Zwingli. These writers were able to bring, through skillful translations, the ideas of the great reformers down to a level which the common peOple could both understand and appreciate. No Reformation could have taken place in Eng- land if the common man had not understood what the theologians said. The men who translated and simplified the work of the great reformers served as pOpularizers who spread Reformation principles to a people who were, at best, barely literate. Quite often these writings were vulgar and perhaps sometimes even erroneous, but they did, in their time, serve the purpose of informing and making understand— able those ideas which were perhaps too complex or were in a language not understood by the common sixteenth-century Englishnian. One of the men who labored throughout his career as a reformer to papularize the Reformation both through an appeal to the Lollards and through a simplification of Reformation ideas was William Roy. Roy has never been PrOperly understood. Although quoted by almost every Reformation scholar since Gairdner, he has most often been relegated to a minor and even dishonorable role in the Eng- lish Reformation, Admittedly, Roy is a shadowy character, 3.5!: up :"-'r. ~It“! '0" I|=Pl In I in. 32 appearing and disappearing through the history of the early years of the Reformation. He was always on the move, always hunted; he was the heretic most sought after by the English authorities during the 15205. Because he was often vituperative; because he ‘was perhaps a braggart; and because there is some question as to just what he did and did not write, William Roy's contribution to the English Reformation has been underestimated. William Roy did, however, make a contribution to the Reformation. In the final analysis perhaps it was men like William Roy, who really made the Reformation in England possible. ’1- I.~ I“ "u‘ CHAPTER II WILLIAM ROY TO 1524 The Roy family was not native English stock. They apparently came to England from various Continental locales at various times. In England, although found as far north as York, most of them were to be found in the London area. The family, if indeed one can Speak of a single family named Roy, was never one of prominence in England, though occasionally a member would rise to a position of some wealth and social standing. Most of the peOple named Roy, who appear in sixteenth-century records, apparently were of the middle and lower-middle classes: weavers, merchants and l brewers. Solid citizens, many were of some wealth, but none were members of the aristocracy. A rather curious point about the family, a point which would lead one to believe that there was some connection between the various 1'J. S. Brewer (ed.) , Letters and Pa ers, Forei n and Domestic of the Rei n of Henr VII'I—TLongon: His Mage's-t'y's Stationery-Office, 2“, I, 1%0. 145 and Addenda No. 321. Also see the writ of William Roy, Merchant, against the sheriff of York in Great Britain, Public Record Office Early Chancery Proceedings, Class C 1. Bundle 703. No. 1‘7 , 33 I) ‘ *I Q A I l.‘ Mn 4..., «xiii-7-; - 75"?" I'.’ m / ’f/ljf' ' 34 members in England, is the reoccurrence of the names John and William.2 The Roys also apparently had some Continental ties as the name has been found in Calais, Brabant, and Spain.3 During the first twenty years of the sixteenth century there were three men named Roy mentioned in the records. The first, John Roy, was one of Henry VII's gentleman ushers. He was a man of some standing with the king, for in 1502 he was made Tronater of Wool for the City of London, . and in 1504 Henry granted him forty marks a year from the Exchequer . 4 ! 2In 1416 a grant was made to John Roys, while in 1405 a John Roy had two sons, William and Ralph; see A Descri - _t_i\_rg Catalo ue of Ancient Deeds in the Public Record Office, 111, Nfibers 6777 A4, and A9169. In 1473 a William de Roy was at Cambridge; see Stanley Leathes, Grace Book A, Con- tainin Proctors Accounts and Other Records of the Unifirsity g: ca—n'wgridge, for the Years 1454-1485 (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co. , Miami-flan and Bowes, 1397) , 94. There were also William and John Roys living in York, Northampton, and London. 3See the letter from the Mayor of Calais to Henry VIII in Great Britain, Public Record Office, Group Letter SP, Class 1, Piece No. 54, fol. 97, [1514]. Also references to the Roys' coming from Brabant and Spain can be found in L&P, I, No. 1083, Listing 29, and in W. P. Phillimore (ed.) ,‘t'alendars of Wills and Administrations in the Consistory (__:_o_urt of Lien": eId and-Eventry 1516-16521 fio'fidon: British Record-Eociety, , listing No. 50, and Calendar of the Patent Rolls Pre- served in the Public Record Office, Elizabeth, Vol. II 1560'- WWLb—fidafi'? Majesty's Stationery Office, 194877 4537 4Calendar o__f_ the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Henry VII, Vol. 33;. 1494-1509 Eondon: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1916) , 264 and 390. :c.‘ o'ob "v. I an ,~. I - I ...—. r J' l'.' _ ’-- __ -7 2';' /.:- 35 John Roy apparently never served the crown after the first Tudor's death in 1509, but he was granted loans of the sum of three thousand pounds by Henry VIII in 1512.5 How John Roy used this money, or where he lived, or who his chil- dren were, is unfortunately unknown, but it was most likely this John Roy who died at Northampton in 1524.6 The second Roy of some prominence was William Roy, native of Brabant, who was granted denization in 1512.7 Many historians, including W‘. A. Shaw in the Dictionary 93 National Biography, have assumed that this was the father of the reformer.8 This, however, is not the case, for the William Roy who was granted denization in 1512 lived in St. Katherine's without Aldgate, and when he died in 1520, he left a will.9 This will leaves money and goods to his wife, 5LhP, II, 1456-1457; and see also British Museum, Add. 6Great Britain, Public Record Office, Inquisition 93 John Roys in the County 93: Northampton. 7William Page (ed.) , Letters 9_f_ Denization and Acts of Ngturalizgtion for Aliens _1_'n England, 1509—1653 (London: “'— Huguenot Society of London, 1893T, 210. 8one, XLIX, 370. 9J. Challener and C. Smith (eds.) , Index 9_f_ Wills Proved _i_n_ the Prerogative Court 2; Canterbury, Wills 1383- London: British Record Soc1ety Ltd., 18935, 357° "tit .c'. I a" 36 Marion, and to his daughter, the wife of Antony Anthony, but there is no mention of a son, William.10 The third Roy who gained some notoriety during the first part of the sixteenth century was neither a John nor a William, but a Peter Roy. Peter Roy was a citizen of Calais and some historians believe that he was the refor- mer's father.]'1 He was a ne'er-do-well, a gambler, a man who was in trouble for cheating at cards. He was accused in 1514 by one Thomas Thacker, a merchant of the staple at Calais, for having, along with Peter Denegroo and Barthol- omew Castapolegrino, won money "by deceit with the connivance 12 of the controller and mayor." The deputy mayor of Calais was so concerned about this allegation that he personally wrote Henry VIII of the matter in 1515.13 Peter Roy and his accomplices denied the charge stating that they had “played with many noblemen in England."14 Peter ROY even —~ 10Great Britain, Probate Registry, Somerset House, The Will of William Ro e, proved _a_t_ the Prerogative Court 9_f_""" QanteFSur , 1520 five Maynwaringl. llRupp, 52. lstp, II, No. 2970. l3Ibid., No. 242. l4Ibido, 1, N00 3567. ._-—-. I! ”I" now 12!! "<- II - u I .-.‘. u- u J9 .__J_v .— _. _. ..._—- ——-—-—‘ _ 37 offered to go to London with Thacker to answer to the charges . 15 It has long been assumed that one of these three men was the father of William Roy, the reformer. Older histo- rians assumed it was William Roy, native of Brabant, while more recently Peter Roy, gambler of Calais has been picked as Roy's father. In fact it was neither of these two, nor was it John Roy, the gentleman usher of Henry VII. William Roy's father was Pety Roy. Pety Roy was well known in his own day. He was so well known that in Antwerp in 1529 Wil- liam Roy could be referred to merely as "the son of Pety Roy."l6 He was so well known that William Roy, himself, could write in 1528: Yea and where as they [i.e., the BishOp of London at St. Paul's Cross] had no thing whereon to ground themselves against us [i.e., Tyndale and Roy] they were not ashamed falsely to defame them which long before that time were dead and rotten, as my father. Thinking that defaming of him they should quench and darken the clear and evident light of God...as a thing against their bellies most noyous and contrary, saying, his father would eat no pprk, what fruit can such a tree bring forth. But knowing that 15Letter from Mayor of Calais to Henry VIII [1514] . "Personen te Antwerpen in de XVI eeuw, voor het 'feit van religie' gerechtelijk vervolgd--lijst en Ambtelijke bij- hoorige stukken," Antwerpsch Archievenblad, VII (Antwerp: Drukkerij Guil. Van Merlen, undated), 177. 170nly E. G. Rupp, 52, mentions the possibility of Roy coming from Jewish stock. There is certainly no evidence for this beyond Roy's own denial, which must be accepted. 'u u. a «I u.‘ . I:' I“ | :n “M UN "‘ u'- _—a c a a — o - I r‘ "" (I. i 38 the innoncy, both of my father and also of me is not unknown (in that behalf) unto all the noblesuofothe realm1 I little regard their heady indiscretion. Roy declares here that all the important people in the realm of England knew his father and could attest to his Aryanism. Finally, Pety Roy was so well known that in 1545, over thirty years after the death of Henry VII, Stephen Gardiner was to write, "Mary as Pety Roy, as I have heard told, spake of love to King Henry VII, it was too much he said, he would have half in love and half in money...."‘19 It is one of the curious accidents of history that this man, apparently familiar to almost everyone in England during his own and his son's time, has now been almost com- pletely forgotten. Pety Roy, William Roy's father, was a servant of Henry VII. He was a groom of the chamber who was mentioned in the first Tudor's will.20 Although Pety is obviously a sobriquet, it is not a sobriquet for John Roy. In the section of Henry's will in Which Pety is mentioned, John Roy's name also appears. Most M 18Adolf Wolf (ed.), "William Roy's Dialogue Between a Christian Father and His Stubbdrn Son," AM 92; WiSSenschaften, Vienna, Philoso hisch-hist. Klasse, R'— _— ——-—' —_ Sltzungsberichte, LXXXVI 11873) , 323° 19 £22. XX, Pt. II, No. 775. 2 . 0Ibid., I, No. 20. an. (I . . .4. a .4" m l -- l- (n I .. :I n o r II- [1:51, 39 historians have assumed that Pety is a shortened form of Petite, but it is certainly possible that Pety or Petie, as it was sometimes written, does not stand for Petite, but is a sobriquet for Peter Roy. However, Peter Roy was a gambler and one would hardly find such a person at the rather austere court of Henry VII. On at least two occasions Pety is listed as Petite.21 Not only is this true, but Petite Imy was also the sobriquet of the reformer and it can be assumed that it came to him from his father.22 Other references to Pety Roy are rare though he probably aided the king in transporting cannon to France in 1513.23 William ROy's father, then, was a minor, but rather intimate, ser- vant of Henry VII. Apparently the family lived in Westminster, most likely in St. Margaret”s Parish where an Agnes Roy 4 lived as late as 1553.2 Living in Westminster, in the 21He is called Petite both in the Antwerpsch Archieven— élééi VII, article listed above and in L&P, I, No. 256. 22Great Britain, Public Record Office, Miscellaneous % g the Reign it: Henry VIII, fol. 75. 23British Museum, Cotton MSS, Caligula D IV, £010 33° 24Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved 1g Egg 222;;2 Record Office, Ed—w‘a'rTv_I_, 1550-1553, IV (London- 15 MaJeSty's§Statio~—nery Offic_—e, 19W . an q" l.‘ ‘I u. “I in In, .7. 40 service of the king, the Pety Roys were probably rather well to do.25 Although the record of William Roy's birth has not been preserved it can with some certainty be placed around 1500. He was probably between the ages of sixteen and eighteen in 1516 when he was ordained exorcist by the Bishop of London, so a birthdate between 1495 and 1500 would be tenable.26 Thus, William Roy was born during the time when the Lollard heresy was again being vehemently persecuted in England. He grew up during the years when the Lollards were being har- assed and when Richard Hunne was arrested. William Roy Perhaps saw the execution of those few Lollards who refused to recant or who were detected a second time; and he was old enough to remember Richard Hunne's case. In 1528 in the friend and co-author Jerome Barlow wrote: Jeffrey: They maye well both ban and cours But they cannot do moche wors Then they did to Hun the marchaunt ‘ 25It is known that William Roy's mother lived in weSIET minster in 1529. Although no Pety Roy can be traced to t 13 area before that date, there are, in the 9113112333 EdgdflR—dys Accounts for St. Margaret's Parish, various cos, . after‘IsidT‘afia it can be assumed that the family had lived in Westminster for some time before 1529. . 26Guildhall Library (London) MSS. Diocese oflggndon. EPiSCOPal Registers: Fitzjames 1506-1522,: fol. . 41 Watkins: Did they eny grievance to hym? Jeffrey: Out of this lyfe they did hym trymme Because he was goddis servaunte. Watkins: He did some faulte gretly notory? Jeffrey: No thinge but for a mortuary The prestes agaynst hym did aryse No maner faulte in hym was fownde Yet was he hanged, brent, and drownde His goodes takyn up for a prise As an herityke they hym toke Because he had many a boke In Englysshe of holy scripture Also he worshipped no ymages And wolde not go on Pilgremage37 Usying none others to periure. Asiate as 1528 Hunne's death was remembered, and England was reminded of the fate of a man who would keep holy writings in English. It was also while Roy was growing up in Westminster that the king was enjoying the first fruits of his reign. Roy grew up in a London which knew extreme poverty and great wealth. Connected with the court, the family must have wit- nessed the great spectacles of the early reign of Henry VIII. Roy must have also been aware of a young cleric who was achieving a meteoric rise in Henry VIII's government. This man, Thomas Wolsey, perhaps knew Roy's father, for it was muflng the French War of 1513, managed by Wolsey. that Pety K W h87William Roy and Jerome Barlow, Rede me and fig nott rot e, for I sa no thinge but trothe (repfihted y Edward ArBe"r, 1‘7‘8 1)? “10%.— 13' :u: . :99 .II a u - ‘1 I. . n” "on 42 Roy brought English cannon to the Continent. Roy saw and learned to hate the pomp of men such as Wolsey and when he fled England in 1525 he took this hatred with him. There is no way of determining why William Roy entered the Franciscan order. Perhaps he was a younger son. Perhaps he actually felt a sense of dedication and a desire to serve the poor and ignorant who abounded on the London streets. For whatever reason, he entered the Franciscan Observant house at Greenwich shortly before 1516. II The Franciscans had long been in England. In 1222, the first English Franciscan house was founded at Oxford.28 By 1225 a second house, at Cambridge, was initiated."29 Strangely enough a William de Roy was among the first Franciscans to arrive at Cambridge in 1225.30 According to the rule of their order the Franciscans were to live among the poor. They were mendicants, who administered to the less 28British Museum, Harleian M88, 7048, fol. 69. 29John R. H. Moorman, The Greyfriars _i__n_ Cambrid e, 1225-1538 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1352), 39, 30J. S. Brewer (ed.) , Monumenta Franciscana, I (London: Longmans, Brown, Green, & Roberts, 1858f, l6. in! a“ ‘IAI l O. ' I . II“ L3 43 fortunate members of society. They were prohibited from living in settled communities, but, were rather supposed to wander from community to conununity doing the Lord‘s work. In following the second rule of St. Francis, "in no wise they receive coin or money either themselves or through any 31 interposed persons." In the early days of their ministry in England they were very similar to Wycliffe's poor preachers. It was only during the later fourteenth century that the Franciscans began to build large convents and to amass wealth.32 I There were, in fact, two groups of Franciscans. The older group was made up of the original followers of St. Francis, while the newer or observant Franciscans found their way to England only in the fifteenth century. The observants came first to Scotland in 1447 and did not reach England until a papal license empowered King Edward IV to establish an observant house at Greenwich on January 4, 1481.33 They were supposed to follow the strict rule of 31Edward Hutton, The Frapciscans in England, 1224-1538 (London: Constable and Co., Ltd., 19267, 219. 321bid., 239. 33A. Bonnar, "The Greenwich Franciscans in the Six- teenth Century," Transactions _o_f the Thirt —fifth Annual General Meeting 93: the Catholic Record SoC1ety, (19425 , 10. 44 St.FTancis, though the lower classes of sixteenth-century England felt that perhaps this was not the case. Roy and Barlow were not kind to their former brethren. Fryers? Nowe they are worst of all Ruffian wretches and rascall Lodesmen of all knavishness Though they be no possessioners Yet are they intollerabill beggers Lyvynge on rapyn and disceyte Worshipful matrons to beguyle Honorable virgins to defyle.... 34 {Hus passage perhaps does more than reflect the ideas of two (fisgruntled apostate friars. In the English pOpular mind of the sixteenth century the mendicant orders were open to some criticism. Friars such as Friar Tuck, companion of Robin Hood, and those of Barlow's and Roy's account illustrate the popular conception of the mendicants. The monastery at Greenwich was one of the observant houses. It had a very special relationship to the crown. Founded by Edward IV, it soon had support from the Tudors. Under Henry‘VII and Henry VIII Greenwich became the chief observant house in England.35 Its proximity to the royal palace at Greenwich ensured that the brothers would be near, if not alway‘sdear. to the hearts of the early Tudors. In __ __— 3‘IRecle' Mg, 72. 35 I Hutton, 241. «)3. .‘N i.“ o u- '1‘ 45 1486 Henry VII confirmed Edward IV's foundation on land adjoining the royal palace.36 Henry VIII was born at Greenwich in 1491, and that palace, with its Franciscan Monastery, became one of his favorite residences. Katharine of Aragon also favored the monastery. She often attended midnight devotion with the inmates, and one of the brothers, Father John Forrest, became her confessor.3l7 Not only was the monastery one of Henry and Katharine's favorite establish- ments, but it was also a stepping place for travellers to and from London. Erasmus probably visited there, and it is known that Dean Colet dined at the house on at least one occasion.38 It was perhaps not unnatural that the son of a servant of Henry VII would enter this order at the king's favorite religious house. Thus it was that William Roy entered the monastery at Greenwich, some time before 1516, most likely in 1515. Apparently Roy intended to become a priest for he proceeded quite rapidly through the minor orders of the clergy. In 1516 he was ordained both exorcist and acolyte 36Rev. Daniel Lysons, The Environs 9_f_ London, IV (London: T. Cadell, 1796), 464. 37Ibid. 38L8P, III, No. 303. 46 by the Bishop of London.39 For some reason he left the Green- wich house and resided at Richmond for one year. He was at Richmond when he was ordained subdeacon in March, 1517.40 In September, 1518, he returned to the Greenwich house where he became a deacon.4l He proceeded no further toward the priesthood. He may have heard of the news of the Lutheran revolt in Germany and so had paused and reconsidered his intentions. Or he may not have found clerical life to be all he had hoped. Or perhaps he became interested in a different calling, that of a scholar. It can only be established that Roy did not rise any further up the clerical ladder and that he never became a priest. Although the monastery at Greenwich was orthodox in sympathy, it had several inhabitants who were to play an important part in the forthcoming Reformation. No list of monks survives, as all records of the house were destroyed in the dissolution, but from other sources it is fairly certain that between 1514 and 1524 the Membership of the Greenwich MonaStery included John Laurance, John West, John Forrest, Richard Lyst, William Peto, Jerome Barlow, William . 39Guildhall Library (London) MSS, Diocese of London, Episcopal Registers: Fitzjames, 1500—1522, fol. 172. 4°Ibid., 173. 41Ibid., 176. it I’- ll" 5“ .I. I I." ‘1‘ 3.. ..uwx..mw.\hm -3; - .. .5... ...nw - n. 47 Roy, William Renscroft, and a certain William Tyndale.42 Of these nine men, three, Roy, Barlow, and Richard Lyst were connected with the reform; and, three, Laurance, West, and Forrest, were actively opposed to it. The year 1515, when William Roy entered the monastery, was a rather important one, for it can be seen as the end of one era and the beginning of another. In 1514 Richard Hunne was murdered. He was not the last Lollard to die in England, but he was the last important martyr to an obscure cause. The Lollards remained hunted, and Lollardy remained the heresy of ignorant and poor men. But after 1515 they could find supporters, if not adherents, all over Europe. When William Roy was at Richmond, another friar, Martin Luther, was preparing his ninety-five theses, a document which was to shake all Christendom. The obscure English heretics were unaware of this act which was to cause a gigantic religious upheaval and was to bring to their cause support and preachers 42John Laurance and John Forrest are listed as brothers 0f Greenwich in L&P, V, No. 1525. William Peto and Richard Lyst are included—_y Hutton, 241. John West is mentioned as a brother there in British Museum, Cotton MSS, Vitellius B x, fol. 188. Barlow and Roy are listed as brothers by Tyndale in his preface to the Parable o__f_: t__h__e Wicked Mam—_o_n, Taken out o__f ut_h__e Sixteenth Cha ter —9_f “Luke w1th a_n ex osition t ere n _a___yte corrected (Marl 1.01'5rr:ough Hans Luft,1528). Moz eyu as pretty much proven that the William Tyndale of the Grey Friars was not the same man as the Bible translator; see J S. Mozley, William T ndale (London: Society for Promoting Christian KnowI—e—dEeT—1937).Renscroft is listed in John Gough Nichols (ed. ), Chronicle of th__e_ Grey Friars of London (London: Printme_ Camden Society, 1852) ,34. o = in 1.1 ”i I 0.. 48 from the very highest intellectual circleso After 1517, the Lollards in England provided a ready-made sub-strata of society willing and eager for the “good news" from the Continent. The members of the observant house at Greenwich cer— tainly must have been cognizant of the forces of reform beginning to spread throughout the Continento Situated near London, the brothers must have learned from the foreign merchants, artisans, and tradesmen what Luther and his adherents were instigating. The very rule to which each friar was bound linked him with the forces advocating reform. The friars observant were bound by their rule to live penniless and to minister to the poor» This rule tied them to the lower classes and may have led some of them to the verge of heresyo It would be an overstatement to maintain that the friars minor were Lollards or even Lollard sympathizerso But the friars who were conscientious about their ministry certainly must have been fully aware of the Lollard heresy; and especially those in and near London must have encountered a great amount of hostility on the part of um poor against the wealth of the church, the "evil" prac— tices of the clergy, and the great pomp of men like Wolsey, "Carter of Yorcke, the vile butcher's sonne°"43 It is not 43Rede fig, 200 1., 4‘. .q. t it 49 at all unlikely that part of this hostility was picked up by some of the brothers at Greenwich. It is most significant that of the nine brothers listed above two, Roy and Barlow, became connected with the radical reform, and only Lyst supported the King's cause. Those brothers who remained loyal to the Church were as vehement in their denunciation of the reform as the reformers were of the Church.44 The signifi- Cance of this fact is that the observant house at Greenwich became a house divided in the early 1520's. Much of England was soon to follow in this. III If by 1520 the Greenwich monastery was beginning to be in a turmoil over the new reform ideas, William Roy was soon to dwell in a place which was even more in the convulsions of reform. During 1520 or 1521, Roy entered Cambridge University. Unfortunately there is no extant record of the __— 44Richard Lyst was a spy for Thomas Cromwell (see Bonnar, 12), while John Forrest attempted to have John Laurance removed from the house for backing the King's divorce (L&P, V, No. 1525). ia‘u ‘a I. q M ’11:...— l 50 dates of his attendance there, but probably it was after he had been in the monastery for at least some time.45 All monasteries had the education of the brothers as one of their goals. The Church was very eager for bright young men to attend the university, and in the early part of the sixteenth century the student bodies of English univer- sities remained primarily clerical. There was a Frater de Roy at Cambridge in 1473, but this man would have been much too old to have lived the active life of the reformer in the 1520's.46 More significant perhaps, but equally vague, is the reference in Grace Book B which lists a Father Petitte being conferred with the degree of Bachelor of Canon Law in 1520.47 Even though Roy was called Petitte after his father, this was at best a sobriquet; and although Roy himself was to use this curious name in the future, it is highly unlikely 45It is a very interesting fact that although Roy's name does not appear anywhere in the Grace Book of Cambridge or in any other contemporary source of Cambridge students, historians, beginning with Charles and Thompson Cooper in Athenae Cantabri ienses, 1500-1585, I (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1858; have listed Roy as a student there. He also appears in J. and Jo A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924f and all subsequent historians have assumed his attendance. 46Leathes, Grace Book A, 94. 47Mary Bateson, Grace Book B, Part 1;, Containing the Accounts of the Proctors 9f the University 2f Cambrid e, I§II—1534_TCambridge: Cambridge University Press, 190 ), 93, "‘1 n c."- \ I'.‘ ..., "g. in. \" 'di‘ as. - Y‘ l"~ I n \"I I n I.” N) :3! -. - ... I]. a-- r- ..~ A “s. 51 that a degree would be conferred on him under an alias. It must, however, be concluded that because Roy was an educated man, eSpecially in languages, the assumption that he attended Cambridge is most likely true. Another fact which reinforces the theory that Roy studied at Cambridge comes from a rather curious source. In 1516,Euasmus published his Greek New Testament. There was mmm controversy over this translation; and among those panfle most vehemently against it was one Henry Standish. Standish was an observant friar who was, in 1505, a warder aftme Greyfriars house in London. He first gained notori- ety when, in 1515, the bill against the benefit of the clergy was being renewed by Parliament. This bill had first been passed in 148.9 and had been renewed in 1512. The original act stated in part: Whereas upon trust of privilege of the church divers persons lettered hath been the more hold to commit murder, rape, robbery, theft, and all other mischievious deeds, because they have been continually admitted to the benefice of the clergy as oft as they did offend.... be it enacted... that every person not being within orders, which once had been admitted to have the benefice of his clergy, eftsoons arraigned of any such offence, be not admittgg to have benefice of privilege of his clergy. When this bill came up for renewal the church mounted a strong attack against it in the hOpe that it would be rejected by _— 43Statutes of the Realm, 1377—1503, II (London: Record CommissM—“mn, 183177 538. 52 Parliament. Henry Standish, who was, by this time, provincial of his order, violently opposed the church on this subject, and in a series of debates with the Abbot of Winchcomb, Richard Kidderminster, Standish so well served the crown, that Henry VIII had him named to the Bishopric of St. Asaph in 1518. Even though he took a stand against the church in this matter, Henry Standish was no reformer. In fact, he was violently Opposed to any movement for reform. He denounced both Colet and Erasmus. He especially denounced Erasmus" edition of the New Testament in a book, since lost, entitled, Treatise Against Erasmus, His Translation 9f. the 9152’. Testament.” In arguing with Erasmus, Henry Standish made use of a Greek manuscript now known as the Montfort Codex. The Montfort Codex is, in fact, a c0py of the older Leicester Codex, both of which were owned by the Franciscan house at Cambridge in the early part of the sixteenth century. Erasmus had borrowed the Leicester Codex in making his own Greek translationoso The Montfort Codex was copied in the early 15205 and certain changes were made which differed from the original and which would indicate Erasmus” translation to be in error. __~ 49DNB, LIII, 472-473. 50Moorman , 12 3 . . In. ..f‘ u.‘ .‘~ - v‘n \ "‘n a I \ s‘. 53 In studying the Montfort Codex scholars have discovered that its first owner was a Friar Froye, and that Froye owned the manuscript at the time of its first mention, sometime between 1519 and 1522. In 1887, James Rendel Harris studied both the Leicester and the Montfort Codices and concluded that Froye was actually the name of the c0pier of the Mont— fort Codex. Harris went on to assume that since the name Froye does not appear in any sixteenth—century Franciscan or Cambridge records, perhaps the name Froye was a misspell- ing of Fratis Roye. It was Harris” theory that when Roy’s name was transcribed the copyist read f. roye as froye.51 This interesting theory is born out only by the fact that Roy was well known for his interest and proficiency in languages, and the man who was the author of the Montfort Codex would have had to know Greek to make the c0py. Roy did know Greek as he later translated the prologue to Erasmus' edition of the New Testament which he and Standish sought to discredit. Also later in his life, he had to 5:I‘James Rendel Harris, The Origins 93: the Leicester Codex (London: C. J. Clay & Sons, 1887), 47-48. Harris' assurnption is fairly well argued except for his footnote which states "Is it a priori likely that at the same date there would be in the same religious order both a Froye and a Roye?" (48), Of course this could be very likely, but because of Roy's subsequent interest both in languages and In the New Testament, I would tend to believe that Harris has identified the true c0pier of the Montfort Codex as William Roy. :in It: Icy \ . win 1") (D 54 convince William Tyndale that he was capable of doing bibli- cal translation, and the fact that he could pass himself off as an expert. copyist of Greek manuscripts may well have convinced the translator of Roy's merits. If Roy did make the c0py, in all probability it was Standish who encouraged him. Roy had little love for the IfishOp of St. Asaph. The fact that Standish probably talked Murinto this task, which included a forgery, may have mnued the reformer on the BishOp. Roy and Barlow saved some of their most bitter invective for the BishOp of St. Asaph. The wholy biSSOp of Saynct asse A poste of Satans jurisdiccion Whom they call Doctour Standisshe Wone that is nether flesshe nor fisshe At all tymes a commen lyer. He is a bablynge Questionist And a mervelous grett SOphist Som tyme a lowsy graye fryer Of stommake he is fearce and bolde In braulynge wordes a very scolde Menglynge vennem with sugre He despyseth the trueth of god Takynge parte rather with falsehod Forto obtayne worldly lucre. Nuelast three lines may well be a reference to the forgery h1the Montfort Codex. If this portrait 0f Standish has been colored by Roy and Barlow's evident dislike for him, iizdoes indicate the depth of feeling they had against the ¥l 52Rede £42: 117. ‘1: ‘.‘ u“ |.. M .I ‘\ n," Q“ 55 Bish0p. Perhaps Roy's feeling that he had been "used" by Standish caused him to include the venomous attack quoted above. If Roy attended Cambridge he lived at the Greyfriars house there. This house was originally located in a vacated synagogue, but later the observants moved their house to the site where Sidney College now stands.5:3 The house was used primarily as a hostel for the brothers attending the University. It was also well known as a center for the study of the Bible. Peter Brinkley, a Franciscan of the Cambridge house, remained at the University at least until 1518, teaching Greek and Hebrew.54 After 1518 Cambridge began to be infected with the Lutheran heresy, but the Franciscan house was only slightly affected. The majority of Franciscans resident there feared the new heresy, for they were essentially connected to the older forms of worship and would lose their very existence if a "reformation" was instituted in England. However, even though most members remained loyal some did have sympathy for the reform. Friar William Call and Gregory Basset, both at Cambridge when Roy was there, flirted with reform ideas but retained their orthodoxy. Shortly after Roy's departure k ~——_ 53British Museum, Harleian M88, 7048, fol. 69. 54Moorman, 121-122. 15W [1" I I'll to. H n *1 l‘. ‘1: 'H. 56 in 1524, one Friar Bartholomew Traheron came to Cambridge. He was as eager as Roy for the Protestant cause and must have created some stir within the house.55 Of course, the most famous adherent of the reform to dwell at the Cambridge house was Roy himself. It must have been extremely interesting to have been a resident of this house during the 15203. With men like Roy and later Traheron, both of whom were rather outspoken in their beliefs, in residence, life at the Grey- friars house in Cambridge must have been most challenging. Even though the Franciscan house and the University as a whole remained orthodox during the 15205, Cambridge did have a large "underground" of dissidents who were very avid reformers. Beginning about 1485 humanistic studies were stressed at Cambridge. By 1511 when Erasmus first came to lecture in Greek and divinity, Cambridge had “blossomed forth so as to rival the leading modern schools and now contains men of such quality that in comparison, those of the old time appear mere shadows of theologians."56 Although Erasmus had left the University by the time Roy began his studies there, humanistic studies, in part founded by the Dutch humanist, certainly were being continued. The stress ‘ ~— 551bid., 126. 56 The Cambridge Letters of Erasmus (Toronto: Uni verHtTof I“ Monte Press, 19335 , E5. D. F. S. Thomson (ed. and trans.) Erasmus and Cambridge, 57 cxlthe "new learning" and on Greek and classical Latin, on art and music, and an emphasis on the dignity rather than the depravity of man, certainly made Cambridge into a most intellectually stimulating and challenging center of study. Under the chancellorship of the Bish0p of Rochester, John Eisner, who himself founded three colleges, Cambridge became the center of English humanistic studies.'57 Fisher was the man who persuaded Erasmus to come to Cambridge in the first place, and the great humanist had nothing but praise for the Chancellor and the University. As late as 1520 when Roy was attending Cambridge, Erasmus wrote to Juan Luis Vives . Three years ago a man [Fisher]...told me how it stands in the University of Cambridge... he said, instead of sephistical refinement, sober and sound discussions are held nowadays among the theologians, and from thgfie they depart not only learned, but better men. With an environment which promoted free discussion on theology and a biblical criticism based on Erasmus‘ own Greek New Testament, it is not hard to discover the reasons why Cambridge was the first center of English reform. Drawn to this intellectual center were many men who were later famous for their activities in the reform. Most ___ 57. SBIbido ’ 202-2030 |‘\ F‘ t ‘.‘|‘ hr 0 I c I.“ \I “V n | I \ I .n \ .... .__ fl .._.. 58 of the men who instituted the reform in England, both clandestinely and with the approval of the crown, had studied at Cambridge. And, one Cambridge man, John Fisher, suffered martyrdom for his adherence to the Church. Reading a list of the Cambridge scholars who were active in the reform is like reading a martyrology. 0f the reform- ers who studied at Cambridge, Thomas Bilney, Robert Barnes, who got his doctorate in 1523, and William Tyndale stand out.59 On the king's side were Thomas Cranmer, Miles Cover- dale, Hugh Latimer, Cuthbert Tunstal, Stephen Gardiner, and 60 If the latter three were not avid Henry Standish. reformers, at least Tunstal and Gardiner did support the king's actions during the 15303, and Standish supported the crown in the benefit of clergy dispute. Besides the reform- ers mentioned above, John Frith, John Rogers, Nicholas Ridley, Richard Bayfield, and William Jerome were also Cambridge 59Barnes is listed in Grace Book 13, _P_t. II, 94. For the record of Thomas Bilney attending the University see Qgtalogus Cancellariorum, Proconcellariurum, ad gradum Rgctoratus aspirauerunt ab an 9313 1500 et an Henr VII, XV 223. g} _a_n_ Domfnja Eli zabEtH—Angliae Refinie XIV 1557-2") ."'" 60British Museum, Add. M88 5960. am . I .7 I b 1 1 I (1’ --.- "'5 It. I.‘ I.U V‘_ __-__,___ _ 59 students.61 These men, many of whom attended Cambridge during the time that Roy was there, began to assimilate and to preach Reformation ideas while at the University. The reformers discussed their views at an inn called the White Horse "which for despite of them, to bring God's work into contempt, was called Germany."62 Robert Barnes, the warden of the Augustinean house at Cambridge was more or less the leader of this group. It is impossible to state exactly which students attended the meetings at the White Horse, but it is certainly possible that William Roy was among them. Between 1518 and 1524 Roy was converted to Protestantism. Cambridge and the White Horse tavern may well have been the locale of his conversion. It is impossible to discover the college which Roy attended, and he must be put in that rather ephemeral 61Marcus Loane, Pioneers of the Reformation in England (London: The Church Book Room—Press, 1964), 3 and—93. ' Ridley's name is mentioned in Add. M88 5845, fol. 418. E. G. Rupp, 197, has constructed a list of Cambridge men who were martyred for their Protestant beliefs. Thomas Bilney Robert Barnes John Hullier Richard Bayfield Thomas Garrard George Marsh Thomas Dusgate William Jerome John Cardmaker William Roy George Wishart John Bradford John Frith ‘John Rogers Robert Glovers William Tyndale 'Laurance Sanders John Bland John Lambert Rowland Tayler Hugh Latimer Richard Yeoman Robert Ferrar Thomas Cranmer Nicholas Ridley 62John Foxe, V, 415. w: nu a I! :-r DUI I :F I“ c v - - ~ - (ID '12! (I) I 60 category "of the University" along with men such as William Tyndale. It is also impossible to discover what he studied while at Cambridge, but with his subsequent activities as a translator and as "one both to write and to help me to com- pare texts together," it would be most probable that he studied Greek, Latin and possibly Hebrew.63 He was so well known for his linguistic ability that later, when he was the subject of an international manhunt, he could be iden- tified merely by the fact that he spoke all manner of languages.64 In examining Roy's writings and translations, it soon becomes evident that besides an ability with languages, he also possessed a good knowledge of English history and of scholastic and classical philOSOphy. That Cambridge had become a center, not only for classical languages, but also of phiIOSOphy is attested to by Erasmus in 1521. Both at Paris and at Cambridge, the study of philOSOphy is flourishing as it never flour- ished before. What's the reason? Why, that theologians are adapting themselves to the age, which was turning itself in another direction; that they don't repel, as if they were enemies, this better literature which 63Tyndale, Wicked Mammon, preface. 64In 1529, John West identified Roy. after an informer described him as "how he does Speak all manner of language,“ 933, IV, No. 5667. km I“ use I‘r Na 1": GI" "HI I=H 61 tries to break in even by force, but wel- come it genially, like hosts. Besides languages and theology, William Roy was also familiar with English verse and with much of the Reformation litera— ture of Luther, Zwingli, and Wycliffe, as well as with Erasmus' work. He was not a humanist, at least not in the same vein as were Erasmus, Tunstal, and More. Roy was much more interested in church reform than in humanism, but he did reap the benefits of a humanistic education at Cambridge and he imbibed the humanist's love for languages. At the beginning of 1524 Roy's studies were suddenly interrupted . The XVI day of January [1524], before the Bis- hOp of St. Asaph [Standish] and doctor Ally [Allen] and other officers belonging to the said legate [Wolsey] did begin their visitation at the observants at Greenwich.6 Because so many of the friars were absent, the visitation could not continue. The friars were all called home for interrogation. Appalled at the absence of so many of the brothers, Standish ordered that John Forrest preach at St. Paul's Cross the following Sunday, and that Forrest should pronounce those friars who were unwilling to return 65D. F. S. Thomson, 204. “£521 Friars Chronicle, 31. ape h. I 0" 62 to the monastery as accursed.6.7 After Forrest's sermon some of the friars returned to the house and were later sent to the Cardinal's palace at Hampton Court where they were detained in the porter's ward. One brother, William Rens- croft, proved so intransigent that he was sent to prison in the London Greyfriar's house.68 Obviously those friars who were out in the world, and eSpecially those who were in the process of obtaining an education, were extremely upset over this develOpment. The visitation of 1524 was probably the catalyst which drove William Roy into active rebellion against the Church. For he never forgave those men who visited the Greenwich house. The three visitors, Wolsey, Standish, and Allen come in for castigation in Roy and Barlow's §e_d_e_ Me. It is Allen who received the brunt of the attack for the 1524 visitation. Jeffrey: Besyde this "to tell thee more newes He [Wolsey] hath a payre of costly shewes Which sildom touche eny grownde.... Watkins: And who did for thes shewes paye? Jeffrey: Truly many a ryche abbaye To be easied of his visitacion Watkins: Doth he in his owne persone visit? Jeffrey: No, another for hym doth it That can skyll of the occupacion. 67Ibid., 34. 68Ibid. 210! I. "1 no! 63 A felowe nether wyse nor sadde But he was never yett full madde Though he be frantyke and more Doctor Alyn he is named One that to lye is not asshamegg If he spye avauntage therfore. Early in 1525, soon after the date of Wolsey's visita— tion, William Roy left England. He left under cover, for where he intended to dwell, no orthodox Englishman could live; and what he intended to do, no Franciscan friar could do. He left England the son of Pety Roy; he was to return as the most famous and sought after of all the English reform— ers, an arch-heretic considered more dangerous than Tyndale. He was to defy his church, his king, and perhaps at that time even more dangerously, he was to defy and insult the most powerful man in England, Cardinal Wolsey. When he left England he carried with him a burning zeal for reform, a desire for a new Jerusalem. He left with a great love for the Bible and a belief that the Bible was a sacred book, which all men should be able to read for themselves. Roy also left England with an intense dislike for the prelacy and their tools. At the time of his departure from England, William Roy was about twenty-five years old. He was small in stature, perhaps of dark complexion, and sometime during his youth he ‘— 69Rede Mg, 57. had n. u “- hi . "A. NN ._ .a u l 64 had been stricken with smallpox or some other disease which had left his face disfigured. He was armed with a knowledge of Greek, Latin, probably Hebrew, and he possessed a sound background in traditional theology. Some place, perhaps from the streets of London, he had come into contact with Lollardy. He certainly knew something of its history and he left England steeped both in the traditional English heresy and in the recentOpinions of Luther. He was to use all these tools in his new life as a hunted heretic. It was not easy for Roy to flee England and to face, almost alone, a life of extreme peril, the only possible end of which could be the stake. In 1525 only one English- man, William Tyndale, had gone to the Continent to take up the reform cause. Roy was among the first and, in his own day, the greatest to flee what he considered to be the evils of the Church and to go to the Open embrace of what he con- sidered to be the truth. There was no turning back after the initial step. Behind him lay the security of the monastery and of a respectable name; before him lay nothing but peril, infamy, and, most likely, death. For what he considered to be the truth, William Roy made his choice and left England. w.“ I Wm- ‘ .1 ‘5! CHAPTER III ROY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT 1524-1526 Cambridge was not the only hot-bed of reform ideas. The whole realm was becoming infected with the Lutheran heresy. Outside of Cambridge, London, the center of the realm, was also the center of the reform movement. When Roy left the monastery in 1525 he found men in London who shared his views. For the most part these supporters were drawn from the ranks of the lower and middle classes. The Lollards were widely recognized as the most eager beneficiaries of the Lutheran heresy. They certainly welcomed any person or. group who attacked the Church. Lutherans and Lollards were not particularly close on much of their respective dogmas, especially on the Eucharist and on the stress placed by Lutherans on justification by faith, but the two groups were sufficiently close and sufficiently attractive to one another to increase the alarm of the authorities. There was no decrease in the number of Lollards who abjured and who were tried during the early 15205. In 1522 an event occurred 65 slaw V'v h‘ “a all I :w ‘Oh .I:\ I.'. ii‘" I“. N. \ ‘A I“, 66 which increased the harassment of the heretics. On Septem- ber 4, 1522, Cuthbert Tunstal was named BishOp of London. Tunstal, after studying at both Oxford and Cambridge, became one of the leaders of the English humanistic movement, counting as his friends Sir Thomas More, Archbish0p Warham, and Erasmus. Even though he was a humanist and a follower of Erasmus, Tunstal was, like More and John Fisher, terribly afraid of the Lutheran movement. He encouraged Erasmus to denounce the Lutheran heresy as early as 1520.2 In 1523, frightened by the growing contact between Lutherans and Lollards, he wrote to Erasmus, "it is no question of some pernicious novelty, it is only that new arms are being added to the great band of Wycliffite heretics."3 Tunstal proved to be a most active foe of the London Protestants. It would certainly be an overstatement to declare that London was on the verge of a Protestant revolution in 1525, but by that date there were many men, both clerical and lay, who were becoming increasingly active in the reform. The 1British Museum, Harleian M88, 421, fol. 443. 2one, LVII, 311. 36. M. Trevelyan, England it; the Age 9_f_ Wycliffe (London: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1925) , has translated this passage on page 349. .31 no I fit It I}: M '- '4 67 lkfllard heresy had belonged to a group which was almost com— pletely made up of uneducated laymen, but suddenly, after 1517, a new group of men, educated and even wealthy, became attracted to heresy. If these men were not Lollards in doctrine, they did share with the heretics certain beliefs, and especially the belief that existing Church practices were corrupt and evil. They were interested in working with and 'flubugh the Lollards in order to realize a reformation of uu3Church in England. These men, working with the Lollards at home and with the English reformers abroad, became known as the Christian Brethren.4 When William Roy left the monastery in the early part of 1525, he contacted one of the leaders of the Christian Inethren, Humphrey Monmouth. Monmouth was a wealthy draper living in the parish of All Saints, Barking, London.5 According to Foxe, he was also an alderman of London, who was put in the Tower "for the gOSpel of Christ" and for "main- taining them that favored the same."6 This wealthy merchant, vmo was later accused of having Luther's books translated into English, was very eager to help Roy escape his ‘ 4For a discussion of the Christian Brethren see pages 92-95 below. 5British Museum, Harleian M88, 425, fol. 8. 6Foxe, IV, 617. 2-1' I u.” iii 2'! 5.. .5. I .'~ o tn, | \‘l n. | I" be 68 monastery.7 He was apparently impressed with Roy's linguistic mfidity and with his knowledge of theology, for he sent Roy 'U>the Continent to aid in the translation of the Bible. In the spring of 1525, Monmouth financed Roy's escape. Ikewas first sent to the Brethren's representative in Antwerp, Richard Harmon. Harmon was the liaison man between Tyndale and Roy and the Brethren in England.8 Both Harmon and Monmouth were to get into a great deal of trouble for their part in sending Roy to the Continent. They were arrested and tried, but were released when the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn brought a different religious climate to England. ' Following in the footsteps of Tyndale, who had gone before him, William Roy made his way from Antwerp into Ger- many, through Saxony to Wittenberg. He may well have st0pped at Hamburg where Tyndale was already working on his trans- lation of the New Testament. Monmouth admitted that in the Spring of 1525 he sent Tyndale ten pounds through one Hans Collenbeke of the Stillyard. It is very likely that Roy 7British Museum, Harleian M88, 425, fol. 8. 8fltwerpsch Archievenblad, VII, 177. l H J ~~I -o- 69 travelled with Collenbeke and met Tyndale at that time.9 If the two did meet in Hamburg no record of it exists. Roy was to appear next at Wittenberg. There were not many Englishmen in Wittenberg in the 15205. Fortunately the lists of Wittenberg scholars who 10 signed the registry have been preserved. Of all the students there between 1520 and 1526 only three were from England. The first was a ."Guillelmus Daltici ex Anglia," who signed the registry on May 27, 1524.11 It is now believed that this signature was a anagram for William Tindal, the sylla- bles having been reversed and the N changed to a C in an attempt to disguise Tyndale's true identity.l’2 There is no doubt, however, about the second English signature in the Wittenberg registry. It reads "Guilhelmus Roy ex Landino, 1n Ju[ne] 1525."13 William Roy has been accused of many faults since his death in 1531, but he has never been accused 9John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials Relating Chiefly to Religion and the Reformation o_f _1__t and the Emergence g_f Ehe C urch of En land Under King Henry VIII, King Edward_ VI g—nj Queen Mary_ I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1822)“- , I, Part 1' 1' , Number" 89. loCharles E. Foersterman (ed ), Album Academiae Viteber- gensis, I (Leipzig: Charles Tauchnit11,_T—'—-184l). lllbid., 121. lzpreserved Smith, "Englishmen at Wittenberg in the Six- Eighth Century," The English Historical Review, XXXVI (1921) 135.322“. Academiae Vitebergensis, I, 125. 70 cowardliness. Once he joined the reform, he joined it irrevocably. He saw no need tO hide his name at Wittenberg 14 He saw no need to hide his as did Tyndale and Barnes. conversion to the reform, but sought tO publicize it, de- fending himself with what he thought was the unassailable truth. The University Of Wittenberg was founded by Frederick 15 Martin Luther had the Wise, Elector Of Saxony, in 1502. taught there since 1508. After the Diet Of Worms and Luther's subsequent hiding in the Wartburg Castle, he had emerged as the leader Of the new force Of Protestantism, which was beginning to sweep Northern EurOpe. Beginning in 1521, while Luther was in hiding, Carlstadt reformed the churches at Wittenberg. The altars were pulled down, poor relief was increased, the mass was abandoned, and the monasteries were 16 Opened up. Luther, himself, was not particularly happy with these reforms, but iconoclasts all over EurOpe, including men such as William Roy, must have rejoiced over the happy tidings Of this "reformation." “ 14Neelak S. Tjernagel (ed.), The Reformation Essays Of 11%. Robert Barnes (London: Concordia Publishing House ,7963) , 5Franz Funck-Bretano, Luther (London: Jonathon Cape, 1936), 47. 6Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters gf Martin Luther (London: Constable & CO. Ltd., 1911), 135-136. VIII 1 1.1... l|I 1 .1 I u A «Flu l. I n I V. Ali. M“. r. 1 urn.“ 6. H |l~ u- \II c I. I a b a...‘ it ‘1 "A I VI I I IR I I! g 0-. y 7.]. By 1525 the University had become a haven for those students attracted by the Lutheran heresy. Scholars who were deeply interested in reform had begun to flock tO Wittenberg. During the year 1525 the city was alive with the news Of the great peasant revolt in Germany, which Luther railed against. Luther's marriage was also causing consid— erable comment. When Roy signed the registry on June 10, it was only three days before Luther married Catharine von Bora,l7 This wedding Of a priest to an ex-nun excited all EurOpe, and perhaps it was because Of Luther's marriage that Roy decided tO translate the German reformer's treatise on the seventh chapter Of the First Epistle tO the Corinthians, which advocates clerical marriage. When Roy entered the University, not only Luther, but also Melancthon, was teaching Greek and the Bible. In 1525, Luther lectured on Deuteronomy and began his lectures on the minor prOphets . 1 8 NO doubt Roy was present at some Of these lectures. It was also while Roy was at Wittenberg that Luther was in the midst Of his controversy with Henry VIII. In 1521 Luther had printed a book entitled, The Captiviiy 9_i_3_ 1133 Church _a_t_ Babylon, and Henry had written a small answer 17Smith, The Life and Letters..., 174. 18Ibid., 185. 72 which he called Assertio Septum Sacramentorum adversas Mar- tinum Luterum and which had gained for the English monarch the title "Defender Of the Faith." In 1523 Luther had answered Henry's treatise using extremely strong language. Henry refused tO answer again until 1528 when he now wrote against Luther, Roy, and Tyndale.19 Roy, upon reaching Wittenberg, was assuredly questioned as tO Henry's reaction to Luther's answer Of 1523. William Roy remained at Wittenberg for only a short period Of time. By August, 1525, he was with Tyndale, who had moved from Hamburg to Cologne. Thus, it is probable that Roy stayed at the Reformation school in Wittenberg for nO longer than two months. His subsequent writings and trans— lations show little interest in Lutheran theology, and his experience at Wittenberg may have disillusioned him with the brand Of protest known as Lutheranism. Although in the future he made use Of at least one Of Luther's writings, he was, in all his works, definitely not a Lutheran. His interests appear tO have been more in the Older Lollard and in the Zwinglian heresies. Roy never wrote anything which was anti- Lutheran, apparently always attempting to maintain the fiction _— __— l9Henry VIII, A CO of the Letter, wherein the most Egdoubted and mighty- princ'eT. .Henry the eight,...made answer unto g certain letter _o__f_ Martin Luther (London: Richard Pynson, 1528) . 4 h: r 1' (I) 'v- N N '5 ,._,_ _.... 73 that the Continental Protestants were united. But in all his writings there is little evidence Of Lutheranism. Roy was interested in making a reformation in England, but as he envisioned this reformation, it would be one which was much closer to the Lollard beliefs. Before he could begin his own work on the reform he had tO fulfill the task on which he had been sent by Monmouth and Harmon, that is, tO aid Tyndale in the translation Of the Bible. II TO state that William Tyndale was the first man to translate the Bible into English would Obviously be incor- rect. The whole Bible had been translated by Wycliffe and his followers. Even before Wycliffe, however, the Bible, or at least parts Of it, had been translated. In the Brit- ish Museum there are a number Of translations or partial translations Of the Bible which were both pre-Wycliffe and also acceptable to the authorities. Some Of these date back to the ninth century. However, it must be pointed out that three Of these translations are in Anglo-Saxon and the others are in Anglo-Norman. There is a fourteenth- and a fifteenth-century translation, but only the psalter and n In 'I I I‘ll l (‘1 I '1 l 74 canticle have been rendered into English?"0 There are no English translations Of the entire Bible extant in the Museum earlier than the Wycliffe translation dating from near the end Of the fourteenth century. There are at least three extant OOpies Of the entire Wycliffe Bible and at least two c0pies Of the New Testament, all Of which date from the late fourteenth or early fifteenth centuries.2l It is apparent that during the high—middle ages the Bible did exist in Eng- land in the vernacular, but it was either in the Old Anglo— Saxon language which had gone out Of usage, or was in the Anglo-Norman dialect Of the upper classes. 20The following pre-Wycliffe biblical translations are in the British Museum: a) Cotton MSS, Vespian A I, Ninth-Century Anglo— Saxon and Latin Bible. 15) Cotton MSS, Tiberius C VI, Eleventh-Century Latin with Anglo-Saxon gloss. c) Cotton MSS, Claudius B IV, Eleventh-Century Bible with An lo-Saxon gloss. ’ d Royal MSS, I C III, Fourteenth—Century, Anglo- Norman (Genesis to Tobit only). mrufi'del M88, 158, Fourteenth—Century Psalter, English and Latin. f) Add. MSS, 17376, Mid-Fourteenth-Century, non- Wycliffe rose. g) Harleian M88, 1896, Mid-Fifteenth—Century Psalter 13 Latin and English. 21 The Wycliffe versions in the British Museum are: a) Arundel M83, 254, Fourteenth-Century Wycliffe Bible in En lish. _ b) Egerton M88, 617, Fourteenth—Century Wycliffe Bible 1n En lish. *— -— 0) Add. MSS, 41,175, Fifteenth-Century Wycliffe Bible in En lish. ‘- d) Egerton M58, 1175, Fifteenth-Century Wycliffe New Testament in English. e) Egerton M88, 1165, Fifteenth-Century Wycliffe Egg Testament 13 English. Em 75 Until Wycliffe's time there was nO great demand for such a translation. Most Of the lower classes could not read, and educated men were able tO read Latin or Anglo-Norman and probably could have, if they desired, procured a Bible at least on a temporary basis. Wycliffe's reform movement, with its emphasis on a Bible for every man, created a desire for an English Bible. By 1525 this desire was not limited tO those peOple who were considered Lollards. Sir Thomas More, in a critical article on Tyndale's Bible declares that the English mutter against the clergy for not having the Bible in English "for in all other countries Of Christendom the peOple have the scriptures translated into their own tongue and the clergy there find no such fault therein."22 Wycliffe's Bible was very pOpular and fragments Of it were kept by Lollards and non-Lollards alike. It has even been asserted that this Bible without the prologue was sometimes found in monasteries . 2 3 Wycliffe's concern for the Bible in English also had the effect of forcing the ecclesiastical authorities to be extreme- ly nervous about future translations. In 1408 ArchbishOp ~—-— 2281r Thomas More, Workes (London: John Cawod, John Wall, and Richard Tuttel, 1557) , 214- 23Margaret Deanesly, The Lollard Bible and Other Medi- eval Bible Versions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, )I 31I0 76 Arundel presided over a council held at Oxford on the whole problem Of the vernacular Bible. In brief this council decided that: The holy scripture is not tO be translated into the vulgar tongue, nor a translation to be expounded until it shall have been duly examined under pain Of excommunication and stigma Of heresy.... Moreover it is a perilous thing to trans- late the text Of holy scripture from one idiom into another inasmuch as in the translations themselves it is nO easy matter tO keep the same meaning in all cases.... We therefore enact and ordain that nO one henceforth on his own authority translate any text Of holy scripture into English or other language by way Of a bOOk, pamphlet or tract and that no book, pamphlet, or tract Of this kind be read, either already recently composed in the time Of said J. Wyclif, or since then...under pain Of great- er excommunication, until the translation itself shall have been approved by the diocesan Of the place or if need be by a provincial council. It was this prohibition which created in the English pmpular mind Of the sixteenth century the fiction that the Bible in English had been banned. The universality Of this telief, Obviously emanating from Lollard circles, indicates the effectiveness Of their prOpaganda. In fact, the pro— tubition does not proscribe either extant or future trans- lations. It does make such translations extremely difficult, but not at all impossible. Sir Thomas More examined the k 24Alfred W. Pollard (ed.), Records gf the English Bible (London: Oxford University Press, 1911), 80. "‘ 77 whole problem in the Dialogue Against Heretics. In this dialogue, set up between a messenger and More, various heretical subjects are treated and, as More hoped, refuted. The messenger, who is Obviously nO heretic, but one who is questioning the recent ban on Tyndale's translation, main- tains that 'the Tyndale New Testament had been banned to keep "out Of the peoples hands all knowledge Of Christ's gOSpel and Of God's law, except so much only as the clergy 25 themselves list now and then tO tell us." More maintains that this is incorrect; that there is no law tO keep the English scripture away from the peOple. He mentions the prohibition Of the Council Of Oxford, but maintains that the prohibition was ordained tO fight against the heretical translation Of John Wycliffe. More also states that "the whole bible was long before his days Of vertuous and well learned men translated into the English tongue."26 More further states that on seeing how the reading Of Wycliffe's version led people astray, the authorities had to ban it. Very interestingly, he adds: but myself have seen and can show you bibles fair and Old written in English which have been known and seen by the bishOp Of the 25More, Workes, 214. 26Ibid., 233. 78 diocese and left in laymen's hands and womens tO such as he knew for gOOd and Catholig folk that used it with devotion and soberness. 7 If More saw these English Bibles, they have not been preserved and the conunonalty Of More's day certainly believed that no approved English translation existed or could ever lawfully exist. Not only did the laymen Of More's time consider Eng- lish translations Of the Bible tO be prohibited, but even some Of the clergy were Of this Opinion. In 1525, Edward Lee, the king's almoner, wrote to Henry VIII: All our fore fathers, governors Of the Church Of England hath with all diligence forbade and eschewed publication Of English Bibles as appeareth in constitutions provincial Of the Church Of England.2 Inthough More was theoretically correct in his statement that all vernacular Bibles were not prohibited, the majority of Englishmen believed that they were forbidden by the 1408 provisions. William Tyndale, however, was one man who not only knew what the prohibition Of 1408 actually stated, but also vdshed tO test it. He was a country priest, who was first attracted to the idea Of an English translation when he found that he could not teach the peOple any truth unless they 27Ibid., 234. 21 ”British Museum, Cotton MSS, VeSpian C III, £015. 210- l. aim p ..‘f . I. 79 could see it for themselves in the scriptures "plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue."29 Tyndale had excellent qualifications for the task ahead Of him. He was educated both at Oxford and Cambridge and apparently knew Greek and Latin as well as German. By Tyndale's own admission he got into trouble with the authorities Of his diocese over his proposed translation and was forced tO leave the area because the priests in his diocese were ignorant, knew no Latin, and "when they came together tO the alehouse, which is their preaching place, they affirm that my sayings are heresy." As he looked for a place within England, where he might peacefully work on the translation, it occurred to him that if he were to gain the patronage Of Cuthbert Tunstal he would be able to undertake his task. Tunstal, newly named BishOp Of London, was according to Erasmus, a great patron Of learning and very learned in biblical studies himself.31 There was, however, nO room for William Tyndale in the BishOp's house. He remained in London for about a year, living part Of that _ w 29Pollard, 95. 3°1bid., 96. 311bid. 591' :11 .21 .ég' I I" 1.. I .1- (I) m r1 __ ml. _ 80 time with Humphrey Monmouth. In 1524 Tyndale perceived that with all the pomp Of the London prelates "not only that there was no room in my lord Of London's palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England. " 32 Humphrey Monmouth first met Tyndale at St. Dunstan's Church in London, where the reformer was preaching. As Tyndale had 'nO place to live, Monmouth tOOk him home and the priest resided for six months in the Draper's house where he "lived like a good priest."33 Tyndale later departed for the Continent with ten pounds lent him by Monmouth. He left behind two OOpies Of the Enchiridion, one Of which the draper lent to a friar at Greenwich.“ This friar was most likely Roy, who was at that time probably considering following Tyndale to Germany. Monmouth also sent money to Tyndale and seems to have been the financial mainstay Of the translator. After leaving Monmouth, Tyndale first went to Wittenberg where he remained a short while studying under Martin Luther. By the end Of the year he had begun his translation Of the New Testament, had left Wittenberg, gone to Hamburg, and 32 Ibid., 98. 33Strype, I, 364. 34Ibid., 365. 81 finally settled in Cologne. How much of his work he had finiShed by the middle Of 1525 is not known, but by the end of that year he was nearing the completion Of it. In less than two years he had completed the rather herculean task Of translating the New Testament from the Greek and Latin into English. Toward the end Of his work, Tyndale felt that he was lumble to continue his task alone. Such a translation would have been an enormously difficult task for the best scholar ci’any time. That Tyndale did it almost alone is nearly tmbelievable. The gigantic prOportions Of his task must never be under-appreciated. Tyndale, apparently using Cheek, Latin, and possibly German, almost single-handedly cueated the English Bible. Tyndale's New Testament was neither a COpy Of Luther's nor a mere modernization Of the heretical Wycliffe version. It was a new Bible in English, “mich was tO become the basis Of all future English editions. English-Speaking people Of all creeds owe William Tyndale a Inge debt for the excellent work he did in creating the first really readable English translation. Although his work justly deserves praise and commenda- tion, he was not entirely alone in his labors. He had the benefit Of an excellent secretary, a man skilled in languages, and a great believer in the necessity Of the English -_—_r 11‘ 9n w’ 82 translation. In late 1525 William Tyndale needed an assistant very badly. He was at a point in his work where he needed someone to OOpy, tO help proof-read the final manuscript, and to aid in the mechanics Of printing. Evidently Tyndale sent to England for someone whom he refers to simply as "a faith-— ful companion."35 This companion was unable to join him, and Monmouth probably instructed the translator tO hire Roy. The Franciscan certainly must have known Of Tyndale's work before he left England. Both Monmouth and Harmon were aware of it, and both men aided in Roy's escape to the Continent in 1525. At any rate Roy Offered Tyndale his help, and for want Of'a better, Tyndale accepted the apostate Franciscan. William Tyndale did not get on well with Roy, whom he characterized as being "somewhat crafty when he cometh unto new acquaintances and before he be thoroughly known and namely when all is Spent."36 Most likely the two men had an altercation over certain passages of the translation. Tyndale certainly would brook no Opposition tO his work, while Roy felt that some verses could be translated somewhat differently. Both men believed themselves excellent lin- guists, and it is perfectly natural that they might disagree. —._¥ 35Tyndale, Parable gf the Wicked Mammon, preface. 36Ibid. 1;. loin - arr] :4- , '1- 'I oo o 83 Roy hints that this might be the reason in 1529 when he trans- lated A_p_ EXposition into the Seventh Chapter _o_f the first Pistle _t_g the Corinthians. In this little treatise, Roy differs with Tyndale on a number Of verses.37 That in our English text we do here read, withdraw not yourselves one from another, it soundeth rather after the Greek and Latin examples if it should be translated word for word ”Defraud you not' or 'deceive you not one another'.3 Roy, however, always used restraint when referring to Tyndale and tO the translation. He felt that Bitterness and animosity between the reformers would only lead to division and would aid their Opponents. TO the above statement Roy was quick to add: Nevertheless our English text doth right well and eXpressly shew the sense and meaning,of this place like as it doth excellently well of all other points. Feeling that even this was not enough to placate those who would enjoy a chance to point out that the translators 37111 the nineteenth century George Offar, on reading this tract, compared the scriptural references in it to the Tyndale translation. He found that Roy differed with Tyndale on twenty passages. Offar penned these differences on the flyleaf to Roy's work which is now in the British Museum. 38William Roy, An Ethrtation tO the Diligent Study 93 Scri ture made by Era-Emus Roterdamufand Translated into En Iish: Ag Exposition into ”the Seventh Chapter g; the first Pistle to the Corinthians '(Ma‘rburgh Hans Luft?, 15295, o.CiT‘ 39 Ib‘id. Hem hast 130 E; 84 themselves could not agree on the correct translation, Roy hastens to add: And moreover tO blank and confound our phari- sees and enemies Of the truth, which if they once hear that I dO interpret this place other wise than it standeth written in the English translation Of the testament should peradven— ture begin to rail, slander and speak evil... for such both is and ever hath been their nature and demeanor Of me and Of the gOOd man which it translate saying: low they contrary themselves one another, how mad therefore are ye tO believe them.... I have shewed you by reasons manifest and authority sufficieflfi that we do not vary or contrary one another. Ikegoes on tO reiterate that although his translation is the correct one, the one done by Tyndale certainly contains the meaning implied in the passage. ‘ Tyndale must have been Of the Opinion that Roy claimed too much Of a role in the translation, and his attack on Roy ulthe Wicked Mammon may have been the translator's way Of setting the record straight. Roy, however, never claimed to have played a large role in the work. He had had a part ih.it and he was extremely proud Of that part. He realized the revolutionary aspect Of the work and justly tOOk pride :hlit, but he never over-emphasized or enlarged upon his role. Ihlhis Dialogue Between 3 Christian Father and His Stubborn 5'22! Roy not only tells Of his role in the translation, but also of his respect for Tyndale. # 40 Ibid., fol. Cii. In 18 ...3 (I) for ‘ 1 A 1,: 5‘ '1 N 85 It is not unknown tO you all..., howe that this last yere, the Newe Testament Of our Saveour, was delyvered unto you, through the faythful and diligent stOdye Of one of cure nation, a 1 man nO doute, ther unto elect and chosen Of God, named William Hitchyns [i.e° William Tyndale] unto whome I was (after the grace given me Of the lorde) as healpe felowe and parte taker Of his laboures. "Healpe felowe and parte taker," exactly describes what Roy was to Tyndale, and he claimed no more. He places the credit for the New Testament where. it belongs and is sure that the translator is Of the elect. Tyndale answers this encomium tw'declaring that Roy was crafty, hard to manage, and one iflm>"promissed more a great deal than I fear he will ever '.42 . pay. III By August, 1525, Tyndale and Roy were finishing up the translation Of the New Testament. The proofs had been read and a prologue written which is certainly Protestant in tenor. Glosses had been added which included "and all gOOde workes after outward appieraunce with oute faith ar syn: contrarie wyse where faith is there must the veary gOOde 4 1Roy, Dialogue Between g Father and His Son, 422. 42Tyndale, Wicked Mammon, preface. Lat l “.1 hi "i I)? ‘\ Mt :$,£;1 86 workes folowe. " 4 3 It is no wonder that the English ecclesi- astical authorities were upset over this translation. In September, 1525, the first modern English translation Of the New Testament was sent tO the printer, Peter Quentell Of Cologne.“ Quentell began the printing and had proceeded as far as quarto K when a disaster temporarily ended his work.45 Tyndale and Roy had been working quietly on their trans- lation. The authorities in Cologne and in England apparently had no intimation Of what was occurring. Financied by the Christian Brethren, Tyndale and Roy were able to print some of the books. They had hOpedtO have six thousand COpies printed, but Quentell only printed three thousand.46 In late September, 1525, their scheme was discovered. John Dobneck, who called himself Cochlaeus and who was Dean Of the Church Of the Blessed Virgin in Frankfurt, was living in Cologne. Cochlaeus was in implacable foe Of Luther and Of Protestantism. He, along with men like John Eck, dedicated his life tO the defeat Of the Lutheran heresy. He was in 43William Tyndale and William Roy, The New Testament in English (Cologne: Peter Quentell, 1525) . In the British _— Mu‘seum, this is listed under both Tyndale and Roy's names. 44John Dobneck, "Commentaria Johannis Cochlaei de Actes et Scriptio Martini Lutherei Saxonis Chronographica ex ordine ab annO Domina 1517 usque ad annum 1546 inclusive fideliter." See Pollard, 105. 45Ibid., 107. 46Ibid., 104. 'A.’ “M -‘I’ 5". In] ‘I‘l 87 Cologne attempting tO have certain works by a former abbot of Deutz printed which would confute Luther. Unfortunately for Tyndale and Roy, Dobneck went to Peter Quentell tO have these works printed. By all this business Dobneck had become pretty intimate and familiar with the Cologne printers when one day he heard them boasting confidently over their wine that like it or no all England would soon be Lutheran. Of course, Dobneck became very interested in this state- ment, and on questioning the printers, he learned that two Englishmen, "learned, skilled in languages and ready Of Speech" were hiding in Cologne.48 He attempted tO see them, but Roy and Tyndale were warned Of his intentions and remained in hiding. Still not tOO sure Of how England was tO become Lutheran, Dobneck invited the printers tO the inn where he was staying and by plying them with wine got the story from 49 them. Hearing the news that the New Testament in English 471bid., 107. 48Ibid. 9Historians beginning with Mozley, in his bOOk on Tyn- dale, and COpied by J. D. Mackie, T113 Earlier Tudors, 1485- 1553 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962) , have maintained that Roy had put Dobneck on the trail Of the discovery Of the printing Of the New Testament by bragging ("Driven from Cologne when the imprudence Of Roy attracted the watchful Cochlaeus." Mackie, 343). This allegation is, Of course, groundless. The only source for the discovery Of the New Testament in Cologne is Dobneck's own. Dobneck states that he could never meet the two translators and that it was the printers and not Roy who were bragging about the English New Testament. was but ta: gm 88 was already finished and was being printed for secret distri- bution in England, Cochlaeus became "alarmed and bewildered." He rushed to the house of Herman Rinck, one of the Privy Councillors of the city of Cologne, told him of the whole affair, and demanded that the printing be forbidden. Rinck, being a cautious man , told Dobneck to wait while he ascer— tained the facts. He then sent a servant to Quentell's sh0p to search for the translation. When the servant reported Dobneck's allegations were true, Rinck got the Senate of Cologne to forbid further printing.50 Tyndale and Roy by this time had gotten word from Quentell that the authorities were stopping the printing. Fearing for their lives the translator and his secretary quickly gathered up their translation and the quires already printed and fled up the Rhine by boat. They disembarked at Worms, where they again began printing the New Testament. Dobneck and Rinck hastened to inform Wolsey, King Henry VIII, and ‘BishOp John Fisher of the translation. However, Dobneck and Rinck were not the only one to alert the king of the impending English New Testament. On December 2, 1525, shortly after Dobneck wrote to the king about this matter, Edward Lee, the king's almoner wrote to Henry from Bordeaux. Sonobneck, 107—108. ‘ir N.‘ “a II. 89' Please it your highness moreover to under- stand that I am certainly informed as I passed in this country that an Englishman your subject at the solicitation and ins- tance of Luther, with whom he is, hath translated the New Testament into English.... I need not advertise your grace what infection and danger may ensue here by if it be not withstood. This is the next way to fulfill your realm with Lutherans, for all Luther's perverse opinions be grounded on bare woods of scripture....51 If the English authorities prepared any reception for the Emglish New Testament it has not been recorded, but they were, at least, alerted. Both Dobneck and Lee were quick 1x>point out that Luther had a hand in Tyndale's translation. Actually, he did not. Tyndale had made up his mind to translate the Bible before he left England and his work was through and through an English and not a Lutheran book.52 Meanwhile Roy and Tyndale established themselves at Worms. They were extremely angry with Cochlaeus, and Roy never forgave the priest's meddling into the printing of lyndale's translation. In Rede gg_and Bg_Not Wrothe, Roy's vehicle for all his frustrations, Dobneck comes in for some choice invective. Jeffrey: Nevertheless amonge this araye Was nott theare one called coclaye? A littell pratye foolysshe poade, But allthough his stature be small 51 1080 52Rupp, 49. British Museum, Cotton MSS, Vespian C III, £015. 107- “1‘ v.‘ \I. 90 Yett men saye he lacketh no gall More venemous then any toade. Watkins: No for he had a mother occupacyon Wryting to the Englysshe nacyon. Jeffrey: To Englonde? In good tyme I trowe the urchyn will clyme To some promocion hastely. Watkins: Or els truly it shall cost hym a fall For he is in favoure with theym all Which have the gospell in hate Continually he doth wryte Ever laboryinge daye and nyght To upholde Antichristes estate Of papistes he is the defender And of Luther the condemner The gospell utterly despysing 53 To forge lyes he has no shame.... Although Roy does not say anything about Dobneck's part in discovering the translation in Cologne, he forthrightly singles out this rather unpleasant character for special condemnation. In Worms, Tyndale decided not to go ahead with the Printing which Quentell had already begun, but rather to issue a completely new edition. However the quarto edition which had been begun in Cologne was later smuggled into Eng- land. This edition consisted only of the prologue and the first twenty-two chapters of Matthew, with a gloss and one wood cut. Fortunately, one of the original copies has been Preserved in the British Museum. The extant copy of the ‘— 53Rede Mg, 43—44. 91 Cologne Fragment, as it is called, is made up of only eight quartos; that is, it ends with quarto H rather than K, as Dobneck maintained.54 Dobneck wrote his account in 1547, twenty-two years after he had discovered Tyndale and Roy's translation, and it may be he had forgotten exactly how many quartos had been published. It is also possible that three quartos have been torn off the c0py belonging to the British Museum. It is certain, however, that the one in the Museum is the 1525 Cologne edition because of the woodcut, which is known to have been used by Quentell because of the prologue; and by the fact that it is a quarto edition. The three thousand c0pies of this quarto edition were apparently shipped to England along with the completed New Testament printed in Worms. Tyndale and Roy again set to work to have the trans- lation printed. They contacted Peter Schoeffer, a printer in Worms who printed the new edition on octavo sheets. I Tyndale drOpped the prologue, although he did add a short address to the reader at the end of the work.55 Because in Worms "the People are all mad on Luther ," Tyndale and Roy were able to complete the printing of the New Testament, and the modern h _— “Tyndale and Roy, The New Testament (Cologne Fragment) . 5512. Mercer Wilson, T 2ndale Commemoration Volume (London: Lutterworth Press, 1939), . L" l') 4." [__i English Bible became a reality. In January or February, 1526, 92 the book was finished--the book, which Dobneck believed would cause "all the people of England, whether the king liked it or not... [to] become Lutherans," was ready for England.56 IV An English New Testament now existed, the work of its translators nearly over. The next task was to convey it into England. Tyndale had.worked on the translation for two years.‘ Iflthough most of that time he worked alone, Roy was to help lfintfor about six months. The translators had to live; they had to have money to commission the printing; and they had to pay their travel eXpenses to Wittenberg, Hamburg, Cologne, and finally to Worms. All these things necessitated a finan- cdal backing and also an organization to sponsor, hide, protect, and encourage them. Besides this, an organization was needed to import and to sell the book when it was completed. That such an organization existed is apparent. John Foxe 57 It has always been called it the Christian Brethren. rather mysterious and very few sources concerning it exist. Il.was most likely made up of merchants. In every major city