"I would have hereto put mi name, good reader, but I know wel that thou regardest not who writteth, but what is writen; thou estemest the worde of the verite, and not of the authour. And as for M. More, whom the verite most offendeth, and doth but mocke it out when he can not sole it, _he knoweth my name wel inough_" (sub fin). But here rises a grave difficulty, which I have taken the liberty of propounding to the readers of "Notes and Queries." Notwithstanding the above statements, both of the writer and of Sir Thomas More, as to the _anonymous_ character of the treatise we are considering, the "Epistle to the Reader" is in my copy subscribed "Robert Crowley," naturally inducing the belief that the whole emanated from him. Perhaps this difficulty may be resolved on the supposition that, while the body of the Tract was first published without the "Epistle to the Reader," and More's reply directed against it under this form, it might soon afterwards have reached a second edition, to which the name of the author was appended. It is certain that More's copy consisted of 32 leaves only (p. 1039, G.), which corresponds with that now before me, excluding the "Epistle to the Reader." Still, it is difficult to conceive that the paragraph in which the author speaks of himself as anonymous should have remained uncancelled in a second edition after he had drawn off what More calls "his visour of dissimulacion." There is, indeed, another supposition which would account for the discrepancy in question, viz. that the epistle and a fresh title-page were prefixed to some copies of the original edition; but the pagination of the Tract seems to preclude this conjecture, for B.i. stands upon the third leaf from what must have been the commencement if we subtract the "Epistle to the Reader." Wood does not appear to have perceived either this difficulty, or a second which this treatise is calculated to excite. He places the _Supper of the Lorde_ at the head of the numerous productions of _Robert Crowley_, as if its authorship was perfectly ascertained. But Crowley must have been a precocious polemic if he wrote a theological treatise, like that answered by More, at least a year previously to his entering the university. The date of his admission at Oxford was 1534; he was elected Fellow of Magdalene in 1542; he printed the first edition of _Piers Plowman_ in 1550; and was still Parson of St. Giles's, near Cripplegate, in 1588, i.e. fifty-five years after the publication of the Tract we are considering. (See _Heylin's Hist. of the Reformation_, ii. 186., E.H.S. ed.) Were there _two_ writers named _Robert Crowley?_ or was _the_ Crowley a pupil or protégé of some early reformer, who caused his name to be affixed to a treatise for which he is not wholly responsible? I leave these queries for the elucidation of your bibliographical contributors.