^{page 285 note 1} Sir John Boys (c. 1535–1612). Fifth son of William Boys of Nonington, Kent. Married (1) Dorothy Pawley, (2) Jane Walker. Admitted Middle Temple 1560, Reader 1580, Treasurer 1598. M.P. for Sandwich 1572, Midhurst 1593, Canterbury 1597, 1601, 1604. Member of the High Commission from c. 1601 to his death (see below, 298 n. 2). Knighted 1604. Steward of the archbishop's Liberty from c. 1573 until his death. He was also a considerable local benefactor and the founder of Jesus (or Boys) Hospital in Canterbury. For brief biographical details, see Edward Hasted, The Hsitory and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent, 2nd ed. Canterbury 1797–1801, viii. 528–9; The Middle Temple Bench Book, 2nd ed., ed. Williamson, J. Bruce, London 1937, 81Google Scholar; Gleason, J. H., The Justices of the Peace in England 1558 to 1640, Oxford 1969, 33–4Google Scholar. I am indebted to the History of Parliament Trust for information regarding his parliamentary career.

^{page 285 note 2} For a brief account of the descent of the MSS., see the letter from Thomas Brett to John Strype, 25 June 1711, Cambridge University Library Baumgartner MSS., Strype Correspondence, 6, no. 429, quoted below, 287. Genealogies of the Brett and Boys families, showing Thomas Brett's descent from Edward Boys of Betshanger, will be found in Berry, William, County Genealogies. Pedigrees of the Families in the County of Kent, London 1830, 325Google Scholar (Brett), 440–1, 444 (Boys). See also Hasted, Kent, x. 45–6, for the descent of the manor of Betshanger.

^{page 286 note 1} They are not among Thomas Brett's correspondence in the Bodleian (MSS. Eng. Theol. c. 24–35) nor among the Brett family papers in the Kent County Record Office in Maidstone.

^{page 286 note 2} C.U.L. Baumgartner MSS., Strype Correspondence, 6, no. 423. In this and subsequent quotations from MS. sources I have modernised the punctuation and capitalisation and expanded conventional abbreviations, but have otherwise retained the original spelling. Brett, however, was an inveterate user of capitals and in some instances I have retained his capitals where modern usage would not regard them as strictly necessary.

^{page 288 note 1} C.U.L. Baumgartner MSS., Strype Correspondence, 6, no. 429.

^{page 289 note 1} Ibid. At the time of writing this letter Brett was engaged in writing a short tract on the subject of suffragan bishops, which was published in the nineteenth century under the title Suffragan Bishops and Rural Deans. Some suggestions relative to the Restoration of Suffragan Bishops and Rural Deans made by Thomas Brett, LL.D., in the Year 1711, ed. Fendall, James, Cambridge 1858Google Scholar. Brett's letter of dedication, addressed to archbishop Sharp of York, is dated 13 July 1711. For Richard Rogers, see D.N.B. and Brett, Suffragan Bishops and Rural Deans, 64–6.

^{page 289 note 2} Bodleian Library MS. Eng. Theol. c. 24, fol. 415.

^{page 289 note 3} Thomas Brett to John Strype, 21 June 1712: C.U.L. Strype Correspondence, Additional volume (Mm. 6. 49), no. 29.

^{page 289 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 290 note 1} Bodleian Library MS. Eng. Theol. c. 24, fol. 482.

^{page 290 note 2} All references in this article are to the Clarendon Press eddition of Strype, John, The Life and Ads of John Whitgift, D.D., the Third and Last Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols., Oxford 1822Google Scholar.

^{page 291 note 1} See Cooper, Thomas, An Admonition to the People of England. 1589., ed. Arber, Edward, The English Scholar's Library 15, Birmingham 1882, 32–60Google Scholar.

^{page 291 note 2} The text of Article 30 is as follows: ‘30. Item, that he, with others assembled in such a generall Assembly, or Synod at Cambridge, did conclude, and decree (as in another schedule annexed, or in some part thereof is conteined) which decrees were made known afterwards at Warwick, to sundry Classes there by his means assembled, and allowed also by them then met together in the same or like form’: Fuller, Church-History of Britain, Book IX. 202.

^{page 291 note 3} For the history and importance of this document, see Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, London 1967, 327–9, 404Google Scholar.

^{page 291 note 4} Ibid. 327 and n. 23 (493), 417. In identifying the items in Brett's collection for this article I have derived invaluable assistance from the bibliographical information regarding MSS. relating to the Puritans contained in Professor Collinson's book.

^{page 292 note 1} For a more detailed discussion of the contents of this document and the identity of the persons involved in the controversy, see my article ‘Sir Francis Knollys' Campaign against the Jure Divino Theory of Episcopacy’ in The Dissenting Tradition: Essays for Leland H. Carlson, ed. Cole, C. Robert and Moody, Michael E., Athens, Ohio 1975, 39–77Google Scholar.

^{page 292 note 2} In my earlier article I suggested that the Hatfield copy was the original of Hammond's letter to Knollys of 4 November 1588 (The Dissenting Tradition, 46). However, a reexamination of the microfilm of the Hatfield MS. in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Library has led me to the conclusion that it is, in fact, a copy in the hand of Knollys's secretary, and that the original must be presumed lost.

^{page 293 note 1} Cf. especially Whitgift, i. 559 and B.L. Add. MS. 48,064, fol. 229.

^{page 294 note 1} Hammond was a civilian.

^{page 294 note 2} Knollys's conclusion, as given in the Yelverton MS., is as follows: ‘Here followethe the opinion of him that wrote the firste sillogisme: in takinge the oathe of her Majesties supremacie all men doe sweare that her Majestie is the only supreame governour within her dominions over all her subiectes as well in causes or in thinges ecclesiasticall or spirituall or temporall; and therefore our Bishopps of England must (I suppose) either claime there superioritie over there inferior bretheren directly from her Majesties supreame authoritie, and not directly Jure devino, or else they saide Bishopps doe dangerously iniurie her Majesties supreame goverment, makinge waye for poperie’: B.L. Add. MS. 48,064, fol. 234.

^{page 294 note 3} This appears to have been a deliberate act of policy on the part of Knollys. In the Rawlinson copy of the ‘Short observations’ Bridges is mentioned by name on several occasions. In the Yelverton version of the text these references have been systematically removed and he is referred to simply as ‘the preacher’. Similarly, throughout the document Hammond is referred to as ‘a grave lerned man’ (i.e. a lawyer) or ‘the lerned man’ or ‘the replier’.

^{page 294 note 4} See The Dissenting Tradition, 57 and n. 67 (75). At the time I wrote my earlier article I was unable to identify the writing referred to with any certainty.

^{page 294 note 5} Ibid., 53–4.

^{page 294 note 6} See Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 419 ff.

^{page 295 note 1} Brett omits ‘by them’ in the heading of the second column; otherwise the wording is identical (see above, 287).

^{page 295 note 2} See Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 411.

^{page 296 note 3} See Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 417–18.

^{page 297 note 1} Ibid., 417.

^{page 297 note 2} See above, 289.

^{page 297 note 3} See Strype, Whitgift. i. 590–1, and Marprelate, Martin, The Epistle, ed. Arber, Edward, The English Scholar's Library, 11, London 1880, 40–1Google Scholar.

^{page 298 note 1} See above, 287.

^{page 298 note 2} His name appears last in two lists of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes for the province of Canterbury of 1603 and 1604, printed in H.M.C., Calendar of Salisbury MSS., XV. 224 and 290. R. G. Usher lists his name as appearing in the commissions of 1605, 1611 and 1613, although in fact, Boys died in 1612 (The Rise and Fall of the High Commission, Oxford 1913, Appendix 11, 346Google Scholar). In addition, it is clear that it is he, and not—as stated by Usher—his nephew, John Boys, later dean of Canterbury, who is the John Boys named in the commission of 1601 (Ibid.). Boys also appears as one of the ecclesiastical commissioners involved in the examination of the seminary priest, Thomas Clarke, in January 1593; but this commission, which included bishop Rogers of Dover, was evidently a local commission lor the diocese of Canterbury, and not the ecclesiastical commission for the province (Calendar of State Papers Domestic 1591–94, 304).

^{page 298 note 3} For the office of steward of the Liberty, see Boulay, F. R. N., The Lordship of Canterbury, London 1966, 277 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 298 note 4} See below, 299–300.

^{page 299 note 1} Strype, Whitgift, i. 558–9, 600–1.

^{page 299 note 2} The Dissenting Tradition, esp. 43–4.

^{page 299 note 3} See above, 289.

^{page 299 note 4} In the event, Whitgift's attempt to influence the outcome of the election was unsuccessful as Sir Moyle Finch was defeated by Percival Hart.

^{page 300 note 1} See above, 289. Brett's language is ambiguous and it is possible that there was, in fact, only one letter from Rogers to Boys on this subject, not two as the grammatical structure of Brett's sentence seems to imply. See also Additional Note, below, 302.

^{page 301 note 1} For Streatfield, see D.N.B. A short account of the history of his collections is given in Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the Years MDCCCLXXXVIII-MDCCCXCIII, London 1894, 119Google Scholar.

^{page 301 note 2} See above, 289.

^{page 301 note 3} Correspondence of Matthew Parker, D.D., Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. Bruce, J. and Perowne, T. T., Parker Society, Cambridge 1853, 452Google Scholar.

^{page 301 note 4} See also Strype, Whitgift, ii. 425.

^{page 301 note 5} I am indebted to Dr. E. G. W. Bill, Librarian of Lambeth Palace, for kindly supplying me with information regarding the acquisition of these two letters.