^{page 301 note 1} Dickens, A. G., Archbishop Holgate, St. Anthony's Hall Publications no. 8, York 1955. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 301 note 2} MacGeoghegan, J., Histoire de l'Irlande, Paris 1758–62, ii. 362Google Scholar.

^{page 301 note 3} Ware, R., The Reformation of the Church of Ireland, Dublin 1681Google Scholar. Robert Ware was the second son of the noted Irish antiquarian Sir James Ware, 1594–1666. Although he continued the antiquarian tradition of his father, his interests were religious and polemical rather than historical. On the death of Sir James his collections of historical records passed to Robert. Among these Robert interpolated a considerable number of spurious documents, some of which he reproduced in his own violent polemics against the Roman Church. His best known works are Foxes and Firebrands, Dublin 1680; The Reformation of the Church of Ireland, Dublin 1681; and The Hunting of the Romish Fox, Dublin 1683. He died in 1696. A good general account of Robert Ware's work is in Wilson, Philip, ‘The forgeries of Robert Ware’, in Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, xv (1917), 83–95Google Scholar.

^{page 302 note 1} E.g., Copinger, J., Theatre ofcatholique andprotestant religion, Paris 1620, 8, 66Google Scholar; de Herrera, T., Alphabetum Augustinianum, Madrid 1644, 301Google Scholar; Ware, J., De praesulibus Hiberniae, Dublin 1665, 26Google Scholar; Lynch, J., De praesulibus Hiberniae (1671), ed. O'Doherty, J. F., Dublin 1944, ii. 318–19Google Scholar.

^{page 302 note 2} Robert Ware's documentary sources came under suspicion in the second half of the last century, see Bridgett, T. E., Blunders and forgeries, London 1890, 217, 241Google Scholar; Wilson, P., ‘Forgeries of Robert Ware’, in Transactions of the Bibliographical Society, xv (1917), 83–95Google Scholar. The definitive exposure of Ware's documents on Browne is in Edwards, R. D., Church and State in Tudor Ireland, Dublin 1935Google Scholar, passim.

^{page 302 note 3} E.g., Cox, R., Hibernia Anglicana, London 1689, i. 245–304Google Scholar; Richardson, J., Short history of the attempts to convert the natives of Ireland, London 1712, 7–8Google Scholar; Leland, T., History of Ireland, London 1773, ii. 160–208Google Scholar; Mant, R., History of the Church of Ireland, London 1840, 106–235Google Scholar; Brenan, M. J., Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, Dublin 1864, 392–402Google Scholar.

^{page 302 note 4} E.g., Copinger, op. cit, 8, 66; de Herrera, op. cit., 301; J. Lynch, op. cit., 319.

^{page 302 note 5} Cox, op. cit., passim.

^{page 302 note 6} Strype, J., Memorials of Thomas Cranmer, Oxford 1840, i. 53–4Google Scholar.

^{page 302 note 7} Ronan, M., Reformation in Dublin, 1536–58, London 1926, passimGoogle Scholar; Jourdan, G. V., ‘The breach with Rome’, in History of the Church of Ireland, ed. Phillips, W. A., London 1934, ii. 169–291Google Scholar.

^{page 303 note 1} L. & P. Henry VIII, viii. no. 121.

^{page 303 note 2} Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII, London 1968, 287–302Google Scholar, see especially 295. Scarisbrick points out quite rightly that the jurisdictional issue had a doctrinal dimension. The repudiation of papal jurisdiction necessarily entailed the repudiation also of the ecclesiology on which papal supremacy was based. It involved an alternative view of the Universal Church, of the local Church, and of the relationship between the two. Nevertheless, the Henrician reformation is distinguishable from the continental movement because in England the extent of the theological divergence was delimited by the jurisdictional issue. From the point of view of the Roman Church the Henrician reformation was schismatical whereas its continental counterpart was heretical. See below, 314 n. 1.

^{page 304 note 1} Smith, L. B., Tudor Prelates and Politics, London 1953, 3–5Google Scholar.

^{page 304 note 2} Dickens, Archbishop Holgate, 21.

^{page 304 note 3} Registrum Collegii Exoniensis, ed. Boase, C. W., Oxford 1884, i. 170Google Scholar. The exact date of appointment as prior is not known but the appointment was confirmed by the General of the Order on 14 October 1532; see document edited in Roth, F., English Austin Friars, New York 1961, ii. no. 1083Google Scholar.

^{page 305 note 1} Ware, The Reformation of the Church of Ireland, 5.

^{page 305 note 2} See Harleian Miscellany, ed. Oldys, W. and Park, T., London 1808, v. 595Google Scholar; Ronan, Reformation in Dublin, 3. Browne received royal permission to travel overseas in October 153a: L. & P. Henry VIII, v. no. 1499 (12). Ronan (op. cit.) suggests that Browne came under Lutheran influence in the course of this trip. However, there is no evidence that Browne actually made the journey overseas. If he did it must have been brief, for he was back in London in the spring of 1533.

^{page 305 note 3} E.g., Barlow, Coverdale, Cranmer, Ferrar, Hilsey, Hooper, Latimer, Ridley, Shaxton.

^{page 305 note 4} L. & P. Henry VIII, iv. (3), no. 202; Roth, English Austin Friars, ii. no. 1067. For the history of the London house of Austins see ibid., i. 286–96; cf. ibid., i. 239–40.

^{page 305 note 5} L. & P. Henry VIII, vi. no. 391; x. no. 351.

^{page 306 note 1} L. & P. Henry VIII, v. no. 1028; ix. no. 172; x. no. 351.

^{page 306 note 2} Elton, G. R., ‘The evolution of a reformation statute’, in English Historical Review, lxiv (1949), 174–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elton, G. R., England under the Tudors, London 1955, 132–3, 160–2Google Scholar. Henry's most recent biographer gives the king considerably more credit for engineering the divorce and the ecclesiastical revolution than Elton, in his admiration for Cromwell, would allow; see Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 294–304, 313–16. The fact remains that the policy that proved successful coincided with Cromwell's arrival on the scene; Elton, op. cit., 122–6, 130–6.

^{page 306 note 3} L. & P. Henry VIII, vi. no 391. Browne's announcement was obviously part of a process intended to make public in an informal way news of the secret marriage. Henry had introduced Anne in court as queen the previous day: Hughes, Philip, Popular History of the Reformation, London 1957, 190–1Google Scholar. The latter incident is not noted in Hughes's specialised study of the English reformation, The Reformation in England, i–iii, 1950–4.

^{page 307 note 1} There may have been one previous connexion. Chapuys suggests that Browne officiated at the secret marriage of Henry and Anne in January 1533: L. & P. Henry VIII, viii. no. 121. On the other hand, Harpsfield wrote that Rowland Lee performed the ceremony: Harpsfield, N., The Pretended Divorce, ed. Pocock, N., London 1878, 235Google Scholar. Harpsfield's version seems more reliable. Although he wrote twenty-four years after the event he was able to give a detailed account of the scene. This suggests an eye-witness source. Chapuys, writing in 1535, merely referred to the matter in passing and gives the impression of repeating only common gossip.

^{page 307 note 2} Constant, G., Reformation in England, Eng. trans. London 1934, i. 121, 128–36Google Scholar.

^{page 307 note 3} L. & P. Henry VIII, vii. no. 587 (18).

^{page 307 note 4} The polemicists managed to confuse the issue to such an extent that an eminent Irish historian of the present day could describe Browne as ‘Henry's principal agent in the suppression of the English monasteries’: Gwynn, A., Medieval Province of Armagh, Dundalk 1946, 220Google Scholar. Evidence of the same confusion is found in the works of Philip Hughes, Popular History of the Reformation, 196, and Reformation in England, London 1953, i. 285–6. The attack on Browne and Hilsey was mounted most forcefully by cardinal Gasquet through a masterly use of innuendo: Gasquet, F. A., Henry VIII and the Monasteries, London 1902, i. 172–92, ii. 243–4Google Scholar.

^{page 308 note 1} For an account of these two visitations see Knowles, D., Religious Orders in England, Cambridge 1959, iii. 351 ff., 360 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 308 note 2} The best account of the visitation of the Observants and the Carthusians in 1534 is in D. Knowles, Religious Orders, iii. 206–11. Knowles is mistaken, however, in associating Thomas Legh, instead of Rowland Lee, with Bedyll in the enterprise.

^{page 308 note 3} The documentary evidence indicates that the experience of Browne and Hilsey corresponded with the easy compliance encountered generally by the commissioners who were engaged in administering the oath: cf. Elton, G. R., England under the Tudors, London 1955, 137–40Google Scholar; Knowles, Religious Orders, iii. 177–8.

^{page 308 note 5} L. & P. Henry VIII, viii. no. 121.

^{page 308 note 6} Hughes, Reformation in England, i. 272–3, 279.

^{page 309 note 1} L. & P. Henry VIII, viii. no. 1054.

^{page 309 note 2} Elton, England under the Tudors, 151–6.

^{page 309 note 3} Browne's predecessor was archbishop Alen; his successor was archbishop Curwcn (Corren). See Handbook of British Chronobgy, ed. Powicke, F. M. and Fryde, E. B., 2nd ed., London 1961, 337, 370Google Scholar.

^{page 310 note 1} L. & P. Henry VIII, x. no. 597.

^{page 310 note 2} S.P. Henry VIII, i. 438, 439; ibid., ii. 275, 280, 318.

^{page 310 note 3} L. & P. Henry VIII, xi. no. 120.

^{page 310 note 4} L. & P. Henry VIII, xii (i). no. 960. Archbishop Alen, Browne's predecessor, frequently drew attention to the fact that the material wealth of the archdiocese was continually declining; see Calendar of Archbishop Alen's Register, ed. MacNeill, C., Dublin 1950, 130Google Scholar. Alen's register describes the situation before the Kildare rebellion, and it, therefore, did not take account of the havoc wrought on archiepiscopal property at that time. On this see S.P. 60/2. no. 25; S.P. Henry VIII, iii. 385; L. & P. Henry VIII, xv. no. 367.

^{page 310 note 5} S.P. Henry VIII, ii. 315, 318.

^{page 310 note 6} There is evidence that Browne was subjected to much scornful ridicule by his colleagues on the council: S.P. Henry VIII, iii. 208, 573; L. & P. Henry VIII, xxi (i). no. 918.

^{page 311 note 1} L. & P. Henry VIII, xii (i). no. 1077.

^{page 311 note 2} S.P. Henry VIII, ii. 318. The proctors of the lower clergy staunchly opposed the supremacy legislation, but they were alone in their opposition: S.P. Henry VIII, ii. 315, 318, 437. See further Bradshaw, B., ‘The opposition to the ecclesiastical legislation in the Irish reformation parliament’, in Irish Historical Studies, xvi (1969), 285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 311 note 3} S.P. Henry VIII, ii. 370, 380, 404, 426, 437.

^{page 311 note 4} S.P. Henry VIII, ii. 517. One tax bill was dropped; the other was amended so that it excluded the laity: S.P. Henry VIII, ii. 437, 524. A pardon was granted to those threatened with treason for complicity in the Kildare rebellion: Cal. Patent Rolls, Ireland, i. 35.

^{page 311 note 5} Maynard, T., Henry VIII, Milwaukee 1949, 273–6Google Scholar; Ridley, J., Thomas Cranmer, Oxford, 1962, 100–12Google Scholar.

^{page 312 note 1} On Bale see his Vocacyon, in The Harleian Miscellany, by Oldys, W., ed. Park, T., London 1808–13, vi. 437 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 312 note 2} S.P. Henry VIII, ii. 465.

^{page 312 note 3} S.P. Henry VIII, ii. 539.

^{page 312 note 4} S.P. Henry VIII, iii. 1; L. & P. Henry VIII, xiii (i). no. 1161; L. & P. Henry VIII, xiii (ii). no. 64.

^{page 313 note 1} The injunctions are in Documents illustrative of English Church History, ed. Gee, H. and Hardy, W. G., London 1896, 275Google Scholar.

^{page 313 note 2} For the ‘form of the beads’, see S.P. Henry VIII, ii. 564.

^{page 313 note 3} ‘Formularies of the Faith, ed. Lloyd, C., Oxford 1825, 96–8, 209Google Scholar. Browne's position in this matter has been misunderstood. It has been suggested that he taught in the ‘form of the beads’ that contrition and faith only were necessary for salvation. He was thought to have discarded good works (forsaking of sin), and thus to have adopted a position nearer to Lutheranism than was officially authorised; see R. D. Edwards, Church and State in Tudor Ireland, 50.

^{page 313 note 4} S.P. Henry VIII, iii. 6.

^{page 313 note 5} Ridley, Cranmer, 84, 160; Gasquet, Henry VIII and the Monasteries, i. 193.

^{page 313 note 6} S.P. Henry VIII, iii. 35; Knowles, Religious Orders, iii. 352.

^{page 313 note 7} Ronan, Reformation in Dublin, 101, 9; cf. Edwards, Church and State, 50.

^{page 314 note 1} Stat. of Realm, iii. 739. Scarisbrick has reopened the much controverted question of Henry's personal theological position. He maintains that on such issues as the priesthood, the mass and the sacraments, Henry's views were appreciably left of centre; Henry VIII, 398–423. Given Henry's authoritarian temper and his not inconsiderable opinion of his own theological ability, it seems unlikely that the Henrician Church would have remained formally orthodox had not its supreme head remained orthodox also. And it does not seem that the Henrician religious decrees at any stage explicitly asserted what was contrary to essential Catholic teaching: Constant, G., The Reformation in England, London 1934 i. 391–435Google Scholar; Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation, London 1964, 174–8Google Scholar. For a contrary interpretation of the religious decrees of the Henrician Church see Hughes, Reformation in England, i. 348–66; ii. 22–60. It is always possible to find an ulterior motive for Henry's dallyings with unorthodoxy in considerations of political expediency, both foreign and domestic, and his desire to keep the clergy in their place; see Elton, England under the Tudors, 150–60, 193–202; Parker, T. M., The English Reformation to 1558, Oxford 1950, 109–17Google Scholar.

^{page 314 note 2} Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, 368–75; Ridley, Cranmer, 199, 205–6.

^{page 315 note 1} Ridley, op. cit., 184; Hughes, Reformation in England, i. 365.

^{page 315 note 2} S.P. Henry VIII, iii. 9. The letter is here incorrectly placed in 1538; see L. & P. Henry VIII, xiv (i). no. 1006. The letter was written on 21 May 1539, five days after the preliminary discussions that culminated in the introduction of the Act of Six Articles began in the English parliament: Ridley, op. cit., 179.

^{page 315 note 3} This suggestion was put forward by Edwards, Church and State, 130, 134, 140; but other recent writers were also confused by the apparently contradictory evidence, e.g., Ronan, Reformation in Dublin, 340, 388; Jourdan, ‘Reformation and reaction’ in Phillips, History of the Church of Ireland, ii. 258.

^{page 316 note 1} S.P. 61/1, nos. 133, 171; S.P. 61/3, no. 45; S.P. 61/1, no. 10.

^{page 316 note 2} In the Henrician period no specific responsibility with regard to the Crown's religious policy was imposed on the lord deputy and he usually preferred to ignore it. The local reformers, in consequence, operated in direct contact with Cromwell. In the Edwardine period, however, the London authorities insisted on the lord deputy assuming the primary function in administering religious policy in Ireland. Thus the role of the local reformers was downgraded and their opportunities for communicating with the London authorities were diminished: Col. Patent Rolls, Ireland, i. 220; S.P. 61/3, nos. 3, 7; S.P. 61/4, no. 28.

^{page 316 note 3} S.P. 61/1, no. 10.

^{page 316 note 4} Jourdan, ‘Reformation and reaction’ in Phillips, History of the Church of Ireland, ii. 247; Edwards, Church and State, 127.

^{page 317 note 1} Ridley, Cranmer, 327–8; Hughes, Reformation in England, ii. 82–3, 138 ff., 156 ff.

^{page 317 note 2} Stat. of Realm, iv (i). 24; Ridley, Cranmer, 273.

^{page 318 note 1} S.P. 61/1, no. 141.

^{page 318 note 2} Ridley, Cranmer, 274–5; Parker, T. M., The English Reformation to 1558, Oxford 1950, 124Google Scholar; cf. Hughes, Reformation in England, ii. 147–9.

^{page 318 note 3} Burnet, History of the Reformation, ed. Pocock, N., Oxford 1865, v. 188, 193Google Scholar; Hughes, Reformation in England, ii. 147–9; Ridley, Cranmer, 275.

^{page 319 note 1} S.P. 61/1, no. 141.

^{page 319 note 2} Ridley, Cranmer, 275–6.

^{page 319 note 3} Ridley, op. cit., 266–7; Hughes, Reformation in England, ii. 96–7.

^{page 319 note 4} Ridley, op. cit., 283–5.

^{page 319 note 5} S.P. 61/4, no. 36 (ii).

^{page 319 note 6} White, D. G., ‘The reign of Edward VI in Ireland’, in Irish Historical Studies, xiv (1965). 197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 320 note 1} S.P. 61/1, no. 122.

^{page 320 note 2} S.P. 61/1, no. 133.

^{page 320 note 3} H.M.C., Salisbury MSS., pt. i. 78–9; N. B. White (ed.), ‘Annals of Dudley Loftus’, in Analecta Hibemica, x (1941), 234; see Boke of the Common Praier, Dublin 1551, Trinity College, Dublin, Library, BB.d.3.

^{page 320 note 4} The Act of Uniformity became effective in June 1549: Stat. of Realm, iv. 37. The same month a commission was engaged in supervising the ‘abolition of the mass sacrament’ in south Leinster: S.P. 61/2, no. 47. This is a reference to the implementation of the Act of Uniformity, not to the Order of the Communion as Ronan thought; Reformat ion in Dublin, 356.

^{page 320 note 5} In contrast to the period of the Henrician reformation campaign in Ireland, Browne does not complain in the Edwardine period of the refusal of his clergy to accept the official decrees. This suggests that the clergy showed more compliance in the later period. The same conclusion is suggested also by the fact that Browne complained bitterly in 1550 about the continuance of the old ceremonies outside his diocese: S.P. 61/3, no. 45. It is known that at an early stage of the Edwardine reformation in Ireland the lord deputy intervened to scotch an attempt to organise opposition to Browne's reforming activities: S.P. 61/1, no. 171. It would seem that, as a result, the clergy were less prepared to engage in subversion.

^{page 320 note 6} S.P. 61/3, no. 45.

^{page 320 note 7} Loc. cit. This deposition testifies to Browne's opposition to stone altars as early as February 1551. At the time of writing, August 1551, Browne apparently had already attended to the removal of the stone altar from Christ Church.

^{page 321 note 1} Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation, London 1964, 228–9Google Scholar; Parker, The English Reformation to 1558, 133–6.

^{page 321 note 2} Original Letters, Parker Society, 1846–7, 428.

^{page 321 note 3} In May 1551, for instance, John ab Ulmis assured Conrad Pelican that Ireland like England entertained ‘right opinions as to religion’: Original Letters, 431. Almost a year later the lord deputy made a report that flatly contradicts ab Ulmis's claim: S.P. 61/4, no. 28. Other reports by ab Ulmis in similar vein are in Original Letters, 408, 413.

^{page 321 note 4} For a manifestation of this antipathy see Bale, Vocatyon, in Harleian Miscellany, vi. 437.

^{page 322 note 1} Bale, op. cit., 447. The Ordinal itself was only slightly altered in 1552, but the communion service formed part of the ceremony and the changes here were considerable; cf. Clark, F., Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation, London 1960, 184–7, 191–2 197–201Google Scholar.

^{page 322 note 2} Bale, op. cit., 448–454.

^{page 322 note 3} A. G. Dickens, The English Reformation, 256–8; Ridley, Cranmer, 345–6.

^{page 322 note 4} G. R. Elton, England under the Tudors, 214.

^{page 323 note 1} G. Burnet, History of the Reformation, ed. N. Pocock, v. 386, 8; Fletcher, J. S., Reformation in Northern England, London 1925, 149–50Google Scholar; A. G. Dickens, English Reformation, 278. For the Irish commission, see Cal. Patent Rolls Ireland, i. 337 (59).

^{page 323 note 2} Stat. of Realm, iv. 67; cf. Elton, England under the Tudors, 218.

^{page 323 note 3} Acts of the Privy Council, 1554–6, 20; Cal. Patent Rolls Ireland, i. 325.

^{page 323 note 4} Text published by Ronan, in ‘Cardinal Pole's absolution of George Browne’, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, series 5, lxxii (1949), 193–206Google Scholar.

^{page 323 note 6} Burnet, History of the Reformation, ed. Pocock, vi, 322, 361.

^{page 323 note 6} Cal. Patent Rolls Ireland, i. 329.

^{page 324 note 1} Copinger, Theatre of Catholique and Protestant Religion, 66.

^{page 324 note 2} Gardiner, S., De vera obedientia, in Obedience in Church and State, ed. Janelle, P., London 1930, 67–173Google Scholar. On Gardiner's reaction to the edicts of the Crown on religious matters during the Edwardine period see Hughes, Reformation in England, ii. 101–26.

^{page 324 note 3} Elton, England under the Tudors, 151; cf. Dickens, A. G., Thomas Cromwell and the English Reformation, London 1959, 179–80Google Scholar.

^{page 325 note 1} Elton, England under the Tudors, 137, 211 Dickens, English Reformation, 124; idem., Lollards and Protestants in the Diocese of York 1500–58, London 1959, 180–4; Knowles, Religious Orders, iii. 365–6, 402–17.

^{page 325 note 2} Parker, The English Reformation to 1558, 14–18.

^{page 325 note 3} Parker, op. cit., chap, ii, passim. An earlier school of academic historians overemphasized the affinity between the pragmatic outlook found in the reformation period and the cynical attitude of religionless secularism found in some circles today. Recent writers have striven to redress the balance, e.g., Elton, England under the Tudors, 151 n., Dickens, Thomas Cromwell, 179–80; idem., Archbishop Holgate, 21, 32.