No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
page 25 note 2 This “order” is almost literally an order for a “prophesy,” like those suppressed by the Government in 1577; the only essential difference is that the authority then assigned the moderator is here shared by the assembled ministers. It had been usual at the “ prophesy”to examine the conduct of the varioils ministers concerned. At the beginning, then, this was no attempt at a presbytery but simply an unauthorised “ prophesy.” Fuller, Church History, Bk. ix. sect. iv. 2 ; Strype, Grindal, pp. 260, 441, 566 ; ibid. Annals, iii. pt, i. 477; MSS. Caius College, Camb, 103, f. 17.
page 26 note 1 For biographical data see Introduction, p. xxxv.
page 26 note 2 “ to come ” struck out.
page 26 note 3 “ of ” struck out.
page 27 note 1 “ and ” struck out.
page 27 note 2 Here follow the autograph signatures. Those written below the line were admitted at a later date.
page 27 note 3 The dates and sentences placed as headings before the various meetings are in the manuscript written at the side of the sheet. The parts heavily bracketed are a different ink and larger characters than the rest.
page 27 note 4 For some of their arguments on this question see pp. 75, 76.