A HISTORY OF LONDON duty of kings and rulers de necessitate salutis to give their people the Scrip- tures in the vulgar tongue. He contrived, however, to reconcile statements which satisfied the bishops with others which he had already made in his sermons, and declared that, whatever people might say, he was ' neither abjured nor yet perjured.' ^'* A printed copy of his confession of faith was circulated at his desire by his parish priest at St, Antholin's ; it seemed to one of the more extreme reformers (James Bainham, who thought Crome and Latimer the only persons who preached the word of God 'sincerely, after the vein of Scripture ') ' a very foolish thing,' "^ Crome's case was one incident in a period of persecution which cul- minated in the winter of 153 1—2 and ended after the execution of Frith in 1533. Sir Thomas More is mentioned in connexion with most of the cases recorded,'^* but it is clear that Stokesley was also responsible. Of those who are said by Foxe to have abjured during the years 1530—2" four were certainly Londoners, and over twenty others may have been. Among them is Thomas Philip, a point-maker, who had been a member of Hacker's ' sect ' in 1528 ; but it would appear that he really refused to abjure, and appealed like Crome to the king. He confessed only to having had for twenty years ' the New Testament of the old translation , , , taken out of St. Jerome's translation,' and afterwards stated that the bishop could prove nothing against him, and that ' all the people , . . shouting in judgement openly witnessed his good name and fame, to the great reproof and shame of the said bishop,' If this really occurred popular feeling must have been veering to the side of those accused, even justly, of heresy — for there is little doubt that most of the charges against Philip were substantially true. In spite of his appeal to the king he was excommunicated and remained a prisoner in the Tower."" Hugh Latimer, a Cambridge scholar holding a living in the country, was in London in 1531, having been summoned, like Crome, to answer tor his opinions before Convocation. ' Certain mer- chants,' with the consent of the parson and curate, persuaded him to preach at St, Mary Abchurch, though he told them he had only a licence from the university, not from the bishop. Stokesley accused him of contempt for his authority, "^ — which is not surprising, as in the course of his sermon Latimer had exhorted ecclesiastical judges to be charitable, suggesting that if St. Paul had been living then he might have borne a faggot at Paul's Cross."' In December 1531 the punishment of heretics by burning was resumed after thirteen years of disuse. The victims, Richard Bayfield and John Tewkesbury, had both abjured before Tunstall."' Bayfield had since I '" L. and P. Hen. Vlll, v, 703 ; Foxe, op. cit. iv, 699. Two versions of this declaration are extant, one of which is evidently that made before his parishioners at St. Antholin's ; Foxe, op. cit. v, App. xvi ; Strype, Mem. iii (i), 158 ; (ii), 192. '" Foxe, op. cit. iv, 699 ; cf. v, 32, and Orig. Letters (Parker Soc), i, 208. '" Cf. with those mentioned that of John Petit, which belongs to this period ; Narratives of tie Reforma- tion (Camd. Soc), 25 et seq. ; L. and P. Hen. Fill, vii, 923 (iii) (xx) ; Foxe, op. cit. iv, 586. "* Foxe, op. cit. V, 29-39. "Mbid. 29, and App. ii ; cf. iv, 235, 585, and Harl. MS. 421, fol. 13. For his after history see Narratives of the Reformation (Camd. Soc), zj ; A letter of a Tonge Gentylman (B.M. Pressmark G, 11990), p. xiiii ; L. and P. Hen. nil, vii, 923 (iii) (xlv) ; Hall, Chron. 30 Hen. VIII. '" L. and P. Hen. VIU, v, 667. "' Latimer appears, from Bainham's statement quoted above, to have delivered other sermons on the same lines. "' Vide supra, pp. 255, 256. 258
