Jan. 4. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



9 



is an allusion to the " defacing or deformation 

 which the rebels have made, " where though they 

 tarry but a little while they make such retorma- 

 tion, that they destroy all places, and undo all 

 men where they come." . 



Collier, in his Ecclea. History, vol. vi. p. 469. 

 edit. Straker, 1840, part ii. b. vi., says,— 



«' However, the insurrection went on, and the rebels 

 made their first march to Durham. And here going 

 into the churches they tore t/ie Euylish Bible and the 

 Common Prayer. Thev officinted in the service of the 

 mass, had the five wounds of Ctirist represented tn some 

 of their colours, and a chalice in others. One Richard 

 Norton, an ancient gentleman, carried the standard 

 with a cross in it." 



In this passage we have three out of four facts 

 enumerated: 1st. The defacing of places; 2d. 

 The banner with the five wounds; 3d. ihe 

 standard with the cross. It does not, therefore, 

 seem unreasonable to infer, that the other tact 

 alluded to, viz. the banner with the motto, is to 

 be referred to the same rebellion. 



It is not, however, impossible that the rebellion, 

 which broke out a.d. 1549, first in the western 

 counties, and then in Oxfordshire, Bucks, Nor- 

 folk, Suffolk, and Yorkshire, may be also alluded 

 to in the homily. For Cranmer, in his answer to 

 the Devonshire and Cornish rebels, urges this 

 amongst other reasons : — 



" Fourthly, for that they let the harvest, which is 

 the chief sustentation of our life ; and God of his good- 

 ness hath sent it abundantly. And they by their folly 

 do cause it to be lost and abandoned." — Strype's Mem. 

 of a, ed. Oxf. 1840, vol. ii. p. 841. 

 An argument similar to the one used in the homily. 

 The insurrection, in fact, in_ the midland and 

 north-eastern counties, began with an attempt to 

 redress an agricultural grievance; according to 

 Fox (E. H. vol. ii. p. 665. edit. 1641) ; "about 

 plucking ilown of enclosures and enlarging of 

 commons." The date of the homily itself offers 

 no objection ; for though it is said (Oxf. ed. Pref. 

 p. v.) not to occur in any collected edition printed 

 before 1571, yet there exists a separate edition 

 of it printed in 4to. by Jugge and Cawood, pro- 

 bably earlier than a.d. 1563. Collier does not 

 quote his authority ibr the statement about the 

 banners, but probably it was either Camden or 

 Holiushed ; and a reference to these authors, which 

 I regret I have no means of making, might esta- 

 blish the particular point in question. E. A. D. 



" DEFENDKE OF THE FAITH. 



(Vol. ii., pp. 442. 481.) 

 I regret that my Note, inserted in your paper 

 of Nov. 30lh, was so ambiguously written as to 

 elicit such a rei.ly as it has been favoured with by 

 Me. Gibson of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. 



What I meant to say in my last Note was simply 

 tl,is_tliat two persons, viz. Messrs. Christopher 

 Wren and Chamberlayne, have asserted that the 

 title "Defender of the Faith" had been used by 

 our monarchs anterior to 1521 ; and in support of 

 their assertions, cite the Black Book of the order 

 of the garter, and several charters granted to the 

 University of Oxford : that is, each gives a distinct 

 proof of his alienation. 



Had Mr. Gibson understood my Note, as I 

 trust he now will, he will see at once that the 

 expression " untrue" is totally inapplicable to their 

 statements, at least upon any showing upon his 

 part ; for he does not appear to me to have con- 

 sulted either the Black Book or the charters, on 

 which alone their assertions are based, to which 

 alone we must in common honesty refer, and by 

 which alone their veracity must be judged. 



That their " startling" statements do not ap- 

 pear in Selden, nor in Luder's brief paper in the 

 19th vol. of the Archceologia, is conceded; but I 

 think it might have occurred to the mind of one 

 of less acumen than Mr. Gibson, that it was pre- 

 cisely because the allegations do not appear in 

 these or any other writers or authorities that I 

 considered them not unworthy of the attention of 

 the readers of the "Notes and Queries." I am 

 at a loss to reconcile Mr. Gibson's expression 

 " startling," as applied to the assertions of Messrs. 

 Wren an°d Chamberlayne (and I need not add, 

 that had they not been startling to myself as to 

 him, they would never have found their way to 

 your paper), with the following paragraph : 



" In this sense, the sovereign and every knight be- 

 came a sworn defender of the faith. Can this duty 

 have come to be popularly attributed as part of the 

 royal style and title?" 



I do not allude to this statement in a critical 

 point of view, but simply, as, from the general 

 tenor of his communication, Mr. Gibson appears 

 to labour under an impression, that, from igno- 

 rance of historical authorities, I have merely given 

 utterance to a popular fallacy, unheard of by him 

 and other learned men ; and, like the " curfew," 

 to he found in no coutemiioraneous writer. I beg, 

 however, to assure him, that before forwarding the 

 note and question to your paper, I had examined 

 not only the Bulls, and our best historians, but 

 also the works of such writers as Prynne, Lord 

 Herbert, Spelman, Camden, and others, who have 

 in any way treated of regal titles and prerogatives. 

 I have only to add, that beyond the investiga- 

 tion of the truth of the assertions of Messrs. Wren 

 and Chamberlayne, I am not in any way inte- 

 rested. I care not for the result. I only seek for 

 the elucidation of that which is at once " startling" 

 and a " popular fallacy." PiOBEKT Anstruthee. 



Bayswater. 



