464 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 294. 



Field, 1660, to the present time-: uniformly range 

 under class 3. 



Mr. Stephens, in his elaborate edition of the 

 Prayer-Book published by the Ecclesiastical 

 History Society (p. 786.), dates the commence- 

 ment of the needful correction of the text to an 

 edition at Cambridge, 1816, in which the words 

 " of God" are inserted. And in a note on p. 949. 

 informs us, that those words were omitted by 

 Walton in the Vulgate to his Polyglot. This was 

 the case also in Calmet's edition of the Vulgate 

 with " Comment and Dissertations" in 18 vols. 4to. 



My inquiry is, Who has, or ever had, authority 

 to alter or amend the text of the sacred Scriptures 

 or of the Book of Common Prayer ? And, Why 

 the Cambridge editions have been corrected since 

 1816, and the others are printed with this im- 

 portant omission ? 



There can be little doubt but that the omis- 

 sion in 1611 was a typographical error, not dis- 

 covered or corrected till 1629. That was the first 

 revised edition in which former omissions were in- 

 serted, and errors corrected throughout. Can any 

 of our friends inform me by whom, or by what 

 authority, that emendation was made ? 



Although not a member of the Church of 

 England, it is a source of regret to me that many 

 pious persons in that communion are puzzled and 

 perplexed at the variations which constantly occur 

 between those parts of the sacred text published 

 in the Prayer-Book and the Bible, as set forth by 

 the same authority in our venerable translation. 

 Uniformity in this respect was conceded at the 

 revision of the Prayer-Book in 1661, as to the 

 Epistles and Gospels. Why not as to all other 

 portions of Scripture read in the public service ? 

 And why perpetuate an error which had then 

 been corrected in all. the authorised editions of 

 the Bible ? 



The same error is unpardonably copied into the 

 editions of the Book of Common Prayer for the 

 Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 

 which was altered as it seemed " necessary or ex- 

 pedient." George Offor. 



Hackney. 



PETER DE CORBA.RIO AND PETRUS CORBARIENSIS. 



Mr. Lewis, in his Essay on Suffragan Bishops 

 in England, published in vol. vi. of Nichols's 

 Bihlioth. Topog. Brit., after making some com- 

 ments on Collier's mention (after Wharton) of 

 Peter Corbariensis, as chorepiscopus or suffragan 

 to Stephen, Bishop of London, 1329, adds, — 



" By the likeness of their names and order, and their 

 time of living, one would be tempted to imagine that 

 Peter de Corbario and Petrus Corbariensis was the same 

 man, of whom the following account is given by Muri- 

 muth : * Eodem anno 1328, Petrus de Corbario de ordine 

 patrum minorum, qui de concilio et auxilio Ludovici 



ducis Bavarise in civitate Roma in papam se fecit coro- 

 nari : idem Petrus antipapa eundem Ludoviciim in regem 

 Romanorum, contra statum ecclesiae, coronavit. Iste 

 antipapa cardinales et alios officiarios, quos verus papa 

 solebat habere, creavit.' " 



However, Mr. Lewis's conjecture is hardly 

 borne out by facts. Petrus episcopus Cf)rbari- 

 ensis occurs in Wharton's list of suffragan bishops 

 as chorepiscopus to the Archbishop of Canterbury 

 as early as 1324, and to the Bishop of London as 

 late as 1331, in which year he died. Mr. Collier 

 also, at A.D. 1328, says of him, — 



" About two years forward Petrus Corbariensis, chor- 

 episcopus or suffragan to Stephen, Bishop of London, 

 departed this life. He was of the Order of St. Francis, 

 and a person of a most unexceptionahle life. He supplied 

 the place of several bishops of the province," &c. 



On the other hand, under the same year, 1328, 

 Collier says of the antipope : 



" About this time Peter de Corbario, a Minorite, set up 

 against John XXII., assumed the papal title by the 

 assistance of Lewis, Duke of Bavaria, was received at 

 Rome, and had a party in the conclave to support him. 

 And now the two competitors thundered out excom- 

 munications against each other. But, upon the progress 

 of the contest, the Pope at Avignon having the greater 

 interest, the other was forced to submit, renounce his 

 claim, and retire with disgrace to his monastery." 



Raynoldus, in the fifth volume of his continuation 

 of Baronius, speaking of Petrus e Corbaria and his 

 cardinals, not only tells us (ad ann. 1328, § l.) of 

 the burning of their papers, &c., " illorumque 

 privilegia omnia publice' exusta in capitolio," but 

 also (ad ann. 1330, § xxvii.) informs us that — 



" Ne Petrus Corbarius ad vomitum redire facile posset, 

 ac novum in ecclesia schisma constare, pontifex, et pub- 

 lico quieti et Petri ipsius saluti consulturus, sub honesta 

 eum custodia in pontificio palatio tenuit ; ac, neraine cum 

 eo colloqui permisso, plurimos illi libros, ut studio et 

 orationi vacaret, et cibos opipare suppeditari jussit. De 

 quo hsec refert Bernardus : ' Prsefatus Petrus fuit cle- 

 menter et misericorditer susceptus ad pcenitentiam, posi- 

 tus in decenti custodia ad cautelam, ut probaretur an 

 ambularet in tenebris vel in luce ; ibique hodie, quo haec 

 scripsimus, tractatur ut familiaris, sed custoditur ut 

 hostis.' Exactis in eo honest.o carcere tribus annis et inense 

 uno, morbo et senio confectus obiit; sepultusque est in 

 minoritarum ecclesia, cultu Franciscano indutus." 



It would appear, then, that Peter Corbariensis 

 (or Corbanensis) the suffragan, exercised the func- 

 tions of his oflice in England from 1324 to 1331, 

 when he departed this life, bearing a " most un- 

 exceptionable " character ; whereas Petrus de 

 Corbario (or Petrus e Corvaria) assumed the 

 Papal title in 1328, and passed the latter days 

 of his life (viz. from 1330 to 1333) in honourable 

 confinement in the Pope's palace. 



Perhaps some of your readers may be in posses- 

 sion of facts that would throw farther liglit upon 

 this subject. J. Sansom. 



Oxford. 



