¹ C.H. Garrett, The Marian Exiles (Cambridge, 1938), p. 253. Writing a decade before Garrett, J.W. Allen considered that Ponet's Short Treatise had “little significance of any sort” for England. J.W. Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1928, rev. ed. 1957), p. 120.

² W.S. Hudson, John Ponet (1516?-1556): Advocate of Limited Monarchy (Chicago, 1942). W. Gordon Zeeveld, Foundations of Tudor Policy (Cambridge, Mass., 1948), pp. 241-43, 246-64.

³ Zeeveld, Foundations of Tudor Policy, p. 241. For Ponet's career before exile see Hudson, John Ponet, pp. 3-19.

⁴ See Hudson, John Ponet, p. 24 for Ponet's relationship with Martyr.

⁵ On September 19. 1553, Martyr had been given a safe-conduct affixed with the queen's sign-manual. See Hastings Robinson (ed.), [Original Letters] Relative to the English Reformation (Cambridge, 1846-47), I, 372.

⁶ A Brief Discourse of the Troubles…at Frankfort, 1554-1558 A.D. (London, 1575), p. 13.

⁷ Stowe mentions Ponet in this connection. See The Chronicle of England, from Brute unto this present year 1580 (London, 1580), p. 1048, but he is not named by any other contemporary account of Wyatt's rising. (John Proctor, The History of Wyatt's Rebellion; Chronicle of the Grey friars of London; The Chronicle of Queen Jane and the first Two Years of Queen Mary; Wriothesley's Chronicle of England), nor does his name appear in the authoritative modern study of the rebellion, D.M. Loades's Two Tudor Conspiracies (Cambridge, 1965). The suggestion that Ponet returned from Strasbourg to participate in the rebellion appears to be without foundation, although it is made by both A.G. Dickens in The English Reformation (London, 1967), p. 358 and Dan G. Danner in “Christopher Goodman and the English Protestant Tradition of Civil Disobedience,” Sixteenth Century Journal 8 (1977), 71.

⁸ Garrett, Marian Exiles, p. 254. John Philpot's signature was already affixed to this document, and, for the other possible candidates, John Pullain, James Pilkington, and John Parkhurst, there is no record of imprisonment. For the bishops’ statement see John Foxe, Acts and Monuments of the English Church, S.R. Cattley and George Townsend (eds.) (repr. New York, 1965), VI, 550-53.

⁹ The time taken for the journey from England to Germany was four to six weeks, as can be gathered from contemporary accounts of exiles’ travels. See Original Letters I, 54, 372, and Garrett, Marian Exiles, p. 9.

¹⁰ Garrett, Marian Exiles, pp. 67, 225, 230, 365-7; Hudson, John Ponet, p. 74.

¹¹ Original Letters, I, 116. Garrett, who is consistently and rather unreasonably hostile to Ponet, contends that the valuables were “loot—either from Winchester itself, or from Gardiner's house in London which had been sacked during Wyatt's rebellion” (256). There is no conclusive evidence for the latter part of this statement in particular. See n. 6 above.

¹² Garrett, Marian Exiles, pp. 168, 256, 329, names him as the “chief author” of the Frankfort crisis, but is convincingly refuted by Hudson, John Ponet, pp. 75-76.

¹³ Among Ponet's works written in Strasbourg were a Latin treatise on the nature of the Eucharist, Diallaction viri bon et litterati, de veritate, natura atque substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi eucharisti and An Apology fully answering… a blasphemous book, which defended his previous treatise on the marriage of priests. See John Bale, Scriptorum illustrium Maioris Brytannie (Basle, 1557-59), I, 695. Garrett insists that he was also the author of, or at least a collaborator in, the tract known as The Confession of certain poor banished men (Wittenberg, 1554). This contention i s based on certain si milarities in style between the Confession and Cranmer's statement of his doctrinal position (the Declaration concerning the Mass) published in London in September 1553. The style of the Declaration is so much more vehement than Cranmer's usual considered prose that Garrett confidently assigns its authorship to Ponet (Garrett, Marian Exiles, pp. 28-29, 254 and “John Ponet and the Confession of the banished ministers “Church Quarterly Review CXXVII, 47-74; CXXXVIII, 181-204). However, when the Confession appeared, Peter Martyr disapproved of its position so strongly that he asserted “it cannot have been put forward by our party,” although it was “circulated under our name” (George Gorham [ed.], Gleanings during the Reformation in England [London, 1857], pp. 334-5). Given the close and continuing association between Martyr and Ponet, it is surely unlikely that theology so repugnant to the former should have been written, or even approved of, by the latter. It should also be noted that the Strasbourg authorities had prohibited the publication in the city of any work which contained a doctrine of the Eucharist at variance with the one accepted there (Original Letters I, 114). Ponet's desire for continuing residence in Strasbourg would presumably have meant an unwillingness on his part to antagonize either the civil or religious authorities.

¹⁴ An Apology fully answering…a blasphemous book (Zurich, 1555), 128; Original Letters I, 116.

¹⁵ Original Letters I, 154.

¹⁶ Original Letters II, 761-62. The pamphlet to which the writers referred was Knox's A faithful admonition to the professors of God's truth in England, published in Zurich in 1554. The accuracy of the statement regarding convictions for the specific offence of possessing Knox's work is questionable, although there is sufficient evidence to show that illicit literature published on the Continent enjoyed circulation in England, and that readers of it were persecuted. See Jennifer Loach, “Pamphlets and politics 1553-8,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 48 (1975), 35-38.

¹⁷ Original Letters I, 150. Stephen Gardiner replaced Ponet as Bishop of Winchester in August 1553.

¹⁸ Original Letters I, 132-33.

¹⁹ For Mary's attempts to secure the return of other Protestants to England see John Brett, “A narrative of the pursuit of the English refugees in Germany under Queen Mary,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, ed. I.S. Leadam, 2nd series XI (1897), 113-31. The story of Cheke's capture is recounted in Strype, The Life of the learned Sir John Cheke (Oxford, 1821), pp. 113, 130. For a discussion of official attitudes towards Protestants in England see D.M. Loades, “The enforcement of reaction 1553-1558,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History XVI (1965), 54-66.

²⁰ Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers ought to be obeyed of their Subjects (Geneva, 1558), 98-99.

²¹ For the volume of pamphlet literature produced during the exile see Loach, “Pamphlets and politics 1553-8,” esp. pp. 31-37.

²² A Short Treatise of Politic Power (Strasbourg, 1556), sig. E viii. Spelling, and, where necessary, punctuation, in all quotations has been modernized.

²³ D.M. Knowles, The Religious Orders in England (Cambridge, 1948-59), III, 42143 discusses the problems surrounding the Marian restoration of monastic lands. Pole's opposition to the inclusion of the dispensation was partly because he considered such an action simoniacal. See Jennifer Loach, “Conservatism and consent in parliament 1547-59” inThe Mid-Tudor Polity c. 1540-1560 ed. Jennifer Loach and Robert Tittler (London, 1980), p. 16. Pole also objected to the dispensation's presence in the act on the grounds that it would make an act of favor by the Pope appear to be dependent on parliamentary sanction. D.M. Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor: politics, government and religion in England 1553-58 (London, 1979), pp. 327-28.

²⁴ Michieli to the Doge and Senate, 18 November 1555, Calendar of State Papers, Venetian ed. Rawdon Brown et. al. (London: HMSO, 1864-98), VI, 251. Hereafter CSP Yen.

²⁵ Particularly by J.E. Neale in Elizabeth I and her Parliaments 1559-1581 (London, 1953), pp. 23-26. See also D.M. Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, pp. 178-79.

²⁶ Loach, “Conservatism and consent”, p. 15.

²⁷ As reported by Michieli on 24 October 1555. CSP Wen., VI, 229.

²⁸ Michieli to the Doge and Senate, 16 September 1555. CSP Ven., VI, 188.

²⁹ Loades, The Reign of Mary Tudor, pp. 298-99.

³⁰ Michieli to the Doge and Senate, 18 November 1555. CSP Ven., VI, 251. See also Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, p. 181, and E.H. Harbison, Rival Ambassadors at the Court of Queen Mary (Princeton, 1940), pp. 275-76.

³¹ Commons’ Journals ed. T. Vardon and T.E. May (London, 1852), I, 45.

³² The House was kept sitting until 3 p.m., by which time many members opposed to the bill had left the chamber. (Loach, “Conservatism and Consent,” p. 13).

³³ 5 Richard II st. 1 c. 2. Loades, “The Essex Inquisitions of 1556,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 35 (1962), 87-97 discusses this in detail.

³⁴ Little is known of the religious views of those who opposed the exiles bill, as Loach points out (“Conservatism and Consent,” pp. 13-14). However, the very paucity of the evidence means that the possibility of religious and personal ties between individuals in the Commons and those abroad cannot be absolutely discounted.

³⁵ Sir Anthony Kingston locked the door of the chamber and forced the Speaker to put the bill to the vote before any additional support could be mustered by its sponsors. Loades, Two Tudor Conspiracies, p. 183.

³⁶ Unfortunately, very little of Ponet's person“1.! correspondence survives. Those letters of his preserved in the archives of Zurich are concerned with the practical details of his life in Strasbourg, and no letters survive in England (Garrett, Marian Exiles, p. 255). Only two letters written by Ponet while in exile survive; both are to Bullinger and concerned largely with literary and theological questions (Original Letters 1, 115-18). Ponet undoubtedly knew of events in England, as indicated by the polemical use he made of Cheke's capture ﹛Short Treatise, sig. I 6V), but the quality of his information was probably variable.

³⁷ Short Treatise, sig. Giiv.

³⁸ Ibid., sig. A iii.

³⁹ Ibid., sigs A iii-iiiv.

⁴⁰ Ibid., sig. H i.

⁴¹ Ibid., sig. C viv. Here Ponet appears to weaken his own argument. If judges were bound to enforce a law based on the judgement of God then presumably laws against heretics should be enforced.

⁴² Ibid., sig. F iii.

⁴³ Ibid., sig. F ivv.

⁴⁴ Ibid., sig. E viii.

⁴⁵ Ibid., sigs E viiiv-F i. Again Ponet is guilty of inconsistency insofar as these statements would also condemn the dissolution of the monasteries, the Statute of Uses, and the depredations of episcopal property conducted in Edward's reign.

⁴⁶ [John Rastell], Les termes de la ley: or Certain Difficult and Obscure Words and Terms of the Common Laws of this Realm newly printed (London, 1624), fo. 261 quoted in G.E. Aylmer, “The Meaning and Definition of Property’ in Seventeenth Century England,” Past and Present 86 (1980), 90. The first edition of Rastell's work was published in 1525 and went through numerous editions until 1624 (STC 20701-20718). For contemporary emphases on private property see also Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism: the family, property and social transition (Oxford, 1978), pp. 57-58 and cf. the remarks of Harold Perkin,

⁴⁷ The Social Causes of the British Industrial Revolution,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series. 18 (1968), 134. “hort Treatise, sigs A v, E viiv, G iv-G ii.

⁴⁸ Ibid., sig. D vii.

⁴⁹ For the similarity between the theories of Ponet and Starkey see Zeeveld, Foundations of Tudor Policy, pp. 247-56.

⁵⁰ Short Treatise, sig. D iv. It is unclear whom Ponet envisaged making the decision regarding what was beneficial to the commonwealth.

⁵¹ Ibid., sigs D v, E vi.

⁵² Ibid., sig. D ii.

⁵³ Ibid., sig. C v. Nevertheless, most contemporary pamphleteers expressed this view. 54 Ibid., sig. Givv.

⁵⁵ Ibid., sigs G v-G viii.

⁵⁶ John Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials (London, 1721), Ill.i, 535.

⁵⁷ Short Treatise, sig. G vii.

⁵⁸ Ibid., sigs A vi, H ii-H i iv.

⁵⁹ Ibid .,sigs G vii-G viiv. Ponet never defines his use of the term “the people;” it is not clear whether he means all the people or some form of elected body.

⁶⁰ Ibid., sig. H vv.

⁶¹ The significance of the pamphleteers of the Marian exile will be treated fully in my study of the theory and practice of the royal supremacy in the English Church 1530-1570.

⁶² In 1639, perhaps in Paris (STC 20179) and in 1642, for which edition no place of publication is given (Wing 2904B). The absence of any entry for the second reprint in the Stationer's Company Registers suggests that the tract may have appeared as a “pirate” edition from a secret press.