purposes From hence it may appear how unhappy the conjecture of the Historian is who detracting from the praises of the Cardinal supposeth that he was no better a Speaker than the preceding Chancellors whom at the same time he maketh to have been very sorry Orators Pag. 11. lin 57. When any See was vacant the King recommended one to the Pope upon which his Bulls were expedited at Rome and so by a Warrant from the Pope he was consecrated and invested in the Spiritualities of the See The Historian here undertaketh to describe the way and process of making Bishops in England received for above 300 years before the Reformation In his description of it he hath committed several mistakes For first this method was not much used in England until within less than 200 years before the Reformation Secondly It was not even then always used For sometimes within that term Bishops were elected confirmed and consecrated without consulting the Pope in the least or expecting any Bulls from him Thirdly Even after the method of expecting Papal Bulls and proceeding in virtue of them was fully setled the King did not always recommend nor did the Pope always grant his Bulls to the person recommended But sometimes the Pope staid not for his Recommendation but granted his Bulls to whom he thought fit or after he had received the King's Letters granted his Bulls to some other whom himself liked better or whom the Archbishop or some powerfull Nobleman had recommended Indeed for about sixty years before the Reformation our Kings had got the better of the Popes in this matter and drawn the disposition of Bishopricks to themselves yet not altogether for the Popes by their authority and pleasure disposed of Worcester at least three times together within that term and after all 4thly the Bishops were not first consecrated and then invested in the Spiritualities of the See But the practice was all along contrary For they received the Spiritualities of their Sees immediately upon Confirmation and the sentence of their Confirmation was ever accompanied with a decree for their being put in possession of their Spiritualities and a mandate directed to the Guardian of the Spiritualities to deliver them up to them Pag. 11. lin 35. Though the Parliament and two or three high-spirited Kings had given some interruption to the cruel exactions and other illegal proceedings of the Court of Rome yet that Court always gained their designs in the end Not always For if that were true our Nation had indeed been very tame But I hope the English are not descended of such a dastardly generation Our Ancestors had before the Reformation got the better of the Court of Rome in many points controverted between them and those of the greatest moment Further not onely two or three of our High-spirited Kings had given some interruption to that Court. Of all our Kings since the Conquest Richard II. and Henry VI. were the farthest from being high-spirited Yet very great if not the greatest interruption was given in their Reigns Not to say that the interruption under Edward III. was not made till the latter end of his Reign when he was nothing less than high-spirited Pag. 12. lin 5. But when this began viz. That Bishops receiving their Temporalities from the King should renounce the benefit of the Papal Bulls in relation to them or any Claim to them to be derived from thence I leave to the more Learned in the Law to discover I do not pretend to be Learned in the Law Yet my small knowledge in the Antiquities of my Country enableth me to discover this if it is to be called a Discovery This Custom began in the Year 1272 when a like Renunciation was required of Robert Kilwardby collated by the Pope to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury And shortly after the Papal Bulls of Provision increasing the matter was fully setled about the Year 1300. Pag. 21. lin 45. In the Days of King Edgar most of the Secular Clergy being then married and refusing to put away their Wives were by Dunstan c. turned out of their Livings The Historian here and in the following Lines seemeth to have been Ignorant of the ancient English History Dunstan Ethelwald and Oswald ejected the married Secular Clergy only out of two Cathedral Churches and some few Monasteries if the then Possessors of Monasteries may be called Seculars They endeavoured indeed to eject them out of other Cathedrals and Monasteries but could not effect their Design As for the great Body of the Secular Clergy the Parish-Priests Dunstan and his Complices were so far from turning most of them out of their Livings on account of their Marriages that they never attempted it They declaimed indeed furiously against their use of Marriage as sinful and would have persuaded them from it but never forbad it to them by any solemn Sanction much less deprived them of their Livings upon it All this the Historian might have learned from the Writings of our eminent Divines at the time of the Reformation if he thought himself not obliged to read the ancient Histories of our Nation For Bishop Poynet in his Defence of Priests Marriages maintains that Marriage of Priests was not forbidden in England before King Henry the First And when Dr. Martin in his Answer to Poynet exclaimed against his Assertion as false the Annonymous Author of the long and learned Defence of Priests Marriages published by Archbishop Parker defended it and shewed the truth of it from the antient Histories proving that Dunstan Ethelwald and Oswald expelled Secular married Priests only out of some Cathedral Churches All which is more largely and accurately proved by the Archbishop in his Additions to that Treatise Pag. 21. lin 49. There is in the Rolls an Inspeximus of King Edgar's erecting the Priory and Convent of Worcester signed by the King two Archbishops five Bishops six Abbots but neither Bishoprick nor Abbey are named six Dukes and five Knights but there is no Seal to it Had this Historian been acquainted with our English Antiquities he would have known that this very Charter hath been often and long since published in the Monasticon in Spelman's Councils and elsewhere and would not have imagined himself to have discovered some rare Secret in this Inspeximus Or if he had been acquainted with our Rolls he would not have expected to find in an Inspeximus the Seal of an Original Charter enrolled in it Or if he had been conversant in our ancient Records and Charters made before the Norman times he would have spared his Observations of the want of a Seal to this Charter although he had seen the Original Charter and observed this in it and of the not naming either Bishoprick or Abbey therein For they who know this to be the Case of the far greater part of the Instruments and Charters of those times would no more have made such an Observation than after having said that they had seen a Man named Titius
not left to the pleasure of the Abbot or Religious House to whom the Church belonged But the Bishops endowed the Vicarages with what proportion of Tithes and Emoluments they thought fit in many places reserved to the Vicar one half of all manner of Tithes and the whole Fees of all Sacraments Sacramentals c. in most places reserved to them not some little part of but all the Vicarage-tithes and in other places appointed to them an annual pension of Money In succeeding times when the first Endowments appeared too slender they encreased them at their pleasure Of all which our ancient Registers and Records give abundant testimony This was the case of all Vicarages As for those impropriated Livings which have now no settled Endowment and are therefore called not Vicarages but perpetual or sometimes arbitrary Curacies they are such as belonged formerly to those Orders who could serve the oure of them in their own persons as the Canons Regular of the Order of St. Austin which being afterwards devolved into the hands of Laymen they hired poor Curates to serve them at the cheapest rate they could and still continue to doe so Pag. 25. lin 28. Ridley elect of Rochester designed for that See by King Henry but not consecrated till September this Year 1547. If King Henry designed Ridley to be Bishop of Rochester he could not do it by any actual Nomination but only by Prophetical foresight of Longland's Death and Holbeach's Translation For the King died 1547 Ianuary 28th Longland of Lincoln died 1547. May 7th Holbeach of Rochester was elected to Lincoln 9th August So that until August there was no room for Ridley at Rochester Pag. 30. lin 17. The Form of bidding Prayer was used in the times of Popery as will appear by the Form of bidding the Beads in King Henry the 7th's time which will be found in the Collection The Form published by the Historian out of the Festival Printed Anno 1509. seemeth by the length of it and comparing it with another undoubtedly true Form to have been rather a Paraphrase or Exposition of the Form of bidding Beads I have therefore presented to the Reader a much shorter and ancienter Form taken out of an old written Copy Pag. 32. lin 13. Tonstall searching the Registers of his See found many Writings of great consequence to clear the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England The most remarkable of these was the Homage King William of Scotland made to Henry the Second by which he granted that all the Nobles of his Realm should be his Subjects and do Homage to him and that all the Bishops of Scotland should be under the Archbishop of York It was said that the Monks in those days who generally kept the Records were so accustomed to the forging of Stories and Writings that little Credit was to be given to such Records as lay in their keeping But having so faithfully acknowledged what was alledged against the Freedom of Scotland I may be allowed to set down a Proof on the other side for my Native Countrey copied from the Original Writing yet extant under the Hands and Seals of many of the Nobility and Gentry of that Kingdom It is a Letter to the Pope c. The ancient and allowed Laws of History exclude Partiality yet this Historian's great Concern for the Honour of his Countrey cannot well be called by any other name which hath induced him to publish and Instrument of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland not at all relating to the History of our English Reformation If he thinketh that this Liberty ought to be allowed to him in recompence of the great Obligation he hath laid upon the English Nation for having so faithfully acknowledged what was alledged against the Freedom of Scotland we pretend that all Persons conversant in the History of our Nation did before this very well know all these Allegations and ten times as many of no less weight and that either he did not perfectly understand the Controversie or hath not so faithfully represented the Arguments of our side For King William did not herein make any new Grant to King Henry but only confirmed and acknowledged the ancient Dependence and Subjection of Scotland to England nor did he then first subject the Bishops of Scotland to the Archbishop of York but engaged that hereafter they should be subject to him as of right they ought to be and had wont to be in the time of the former Kings of England The Bishops of Scotland had been all along subject to the Archbishops of York but having about Eleven years before this obtained an Exemption of this Jurisdiction by a Bull of Pope Alexander the King of Scotland now undertook that they should not claim the benefit of that Exemption but be subject to the Church of England as formerly and the Bishops of Scotland also then present concurred with the King and promised for themselves although within a short time after they broke their Faith and procured a new and fuller Exemption from the Pope which Dempster placeth in the Year 1178. The Charter of King William before mentioned was made in 1175. But after all the Bishoprick of Galloway continued to be subject unto the Archbishop of York until towards the end of the Fifteenth Century when it was by the Pope taken from York and subjected to Glasgow then newly erected into an Archbishoprick Now whereas the Historian would invalidate the Authority of this Charter insinuating that it may justly be suspected to have been forged by the Monks because taken out of their Records and coming out of their Custody he may please to know that this very Charter may be found entire in the Printed History of Roger de Hoveden who was no Monk but a a Secular Clergy-man a Domestick of this King Henry attending him in all his Expeditions As for the pretence of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland in their Letter written to the Pope Anno 1320. and published by the Historian it is not to be wondered if their minds being elated with unusual Success against our unfortunate King Edward II. they enlarged their Pretences and affected an independency from the Crown of England which their Forefathers never pretended to nor had themselves at any other time dared to arrogate All the principal Nobility and Gentry of Scotland had in the Year 1291. made as ample and authentick an Instrument of the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England as could be conceived before Edward had either Conquered or invaded their Countrey which Instrument Tonstall taketh notice of in his Memorial and this was indeed the most remarkable of all the Testimonies produced by Tonstall at least accounted by King Edward to be of so great moment that he sent a Copy of it under the Great Seal to every noted Abbey and Collegiate Church in England that it might be safely preserved and inserted into their several Annals It may be seen at length in the Printed History
extream old Age but he had reserved a Pension yearly for himself during Life out of the Lands of the Bishoprick and almost all the rest he had basely alienated taking care only for himself and ruining his Successors The Memory of Veysey suffers upon this Account on all hands The case of his Bishoprick indeed was very deplorable which from one of the richest in his time became the poorest of all the old English Bishopricks But had any Bishop of England sate at Exeter at that time he must have done the same thing or have been immediately deprived For Veysey alienated no Possessions of his See but upon express Command of the King directed to him under the Privy Seal in favour of certain Noblemen and Courtiers All the Bishops at that time were subjected to a like Calamity Even Cranmer was forced to part with the better half of the Possessions of his See and Ridley soon after his Entry into London was forced to give away the four best Mannors of his See for ever in one day These two were the greatest Favourites among all the Bishops in that Reign Others were yet more severely dealt with The common Pretence was to exchange some Lands of their Bishopricks with others of Religious Houses remaining in the King's hands since their Suppression Even then it was such an exchange as Diomedes made with Ajax But to Veysey no other recompence was made than the Promise of the Kings Good-will and Favour assured to him in the conclusion of all those Mandates in case of Compliance with them the effect of which Promises was that after he had complied with them to the ruin of his See he was forced to resign it per metum terrorem as himself afterward alledged All he could do was to Enregister at length all those Privy-Seals for the Vindication of himself to his Successors for ever which he hath carefully done Pag. 166. lin 4. Miles Coverdale was made Bishop of Exeter the business of Hooper was now also setled so he was consecrated in March 1551. The Historian hath inverted the true Order of their being made Bishops For Hooper was consecrated 1551. March 8th and Coverdale on the 30th of August following being nominated on the 27th of August according to King Edward's Journal Pag. 171. lin 34. This Year 1551. there were Six eminent Preachers chosen out to be the Kings Chaplains in Ordinary two of these were always to attend the Court and four to be sent over England to Preach in their Courses These were Bill Harley Pern Grindal Bradford the Name of the Sixth is so dashed in the King's Journal that it cannot be read It might be guessed from some Passages in the Council-Book that the Sixth Preacher was Knox. For 1552. October 21. A Letter was sent from the Privy-Council to Mr. Harley Bill Horn Grindal Pern and Knox to consider certain Articles exhibited to the Kings Majesty to be subscribed by all such as should be admitted to be Preachers or Ministers in any part of the Realm and to make report of their Opinions of the same Shortly after to Mr. Knox Preacher in the North Forty pounds were given by way of Gratuity And 1552. December 9th A Letter to the Lord Wharton in recommendation of Mr. Knox. And 1553. February 2. A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury in favour of Mr. Knox to be presented by him to the Church of All-hallows in Breadstreet London Lastly 1553. Iune 2. A Letter to the Lord Russel and the Iustices of the Peace in Buckinghamshire in favour of Mr. Knox the Preacher The Author also of the History of the Church of Scotland ascribed to him relateth that he was first appointed Preacher to Barwick then to Newcastle and was at length called to London and to the South part of England To the Life of Bernard Gilpin wrote by Bishop Carleton is added a Letter from him to his Brother wherein he saith of himself that Secretary Cecil obtained for him from King Edward a License constituting him a general Preacher throughout the Kingdom so long as the King lived But after all I rather think that the Name of the Sixth Preacher was Thexton For I did near Twenty years since see in the hands of a worthy Clergyman descended from him an Original Commission under the King's Seal given to him whereby he was Authorized by him to Preach in the North-East parts of England I do not at so great distance of time fully remember the Contents of the Commission but I think it to have been such as agreeth well with the Time and Office of these six Preachers Pag. 171. c. The Business of the Lady Mary was now taken up with more heat than formerly The Council finding that her Chaplains had said Mass in one of her Houses they ordered them to be proceeded against Upon which in December the last Year viz. 1550. she writ earnestly to the Council to let it fall The Council writ her a long Answer So the Matter slept till the beginning of May 1551. In Iuly the Council sent for Three of her chief Officers and gave them Instructions to signifie the Kings Pleasure to her and to return with an Answer In August they came back and said that she charged them not to deliver their Message to the rest of the Family in which they being her Servants could not disobey her Upon this they were sent to the Tower The Lord Chancellour c. were next sent to her with a Letter from the King c There being some mistakes in this Relation I will amend them and add some farther light to the account out of the Council-Book The Emperour's Embassadours pressed the Council 1551. Febr. 16. to observe their promise made to him for permission to the Lady Mary of the exercise of her Religion till the King should come to age March 18. The King relateth in his Journal that he sent for her to Westminster and told her he could not any longer bear her practise Upon this next day the Emperour's Embassadour declared War to the King if he continued not to her the liberty of her Religion Thereupon Mar. 22. Cranmer Ridley and Poynet discoursed with the King about the lawfulness of the permission And March 23. the Council decreed to send Wotton to the Emperour who was not dispatched till the 10th of April and in the mean time to punish the offenders first of the King's Servants that heard Mass next of hers March 24. Sir Anth. Brown and Sergeant Morgan were sent to the Fleet for hearing Mass. Thus King Edward's Journal which I have observed to be often false in the days and especially in this place For in the Council-Book it is said March 18th the Emperour's Embassadour had access to the Council What was said by him or answered to him doth not appear it being probable that for more secrecy the Clerk was then excluded March 19. Serjeant Morgan was committed to the Fleet and March 22. Sir Anth.
directed to the Bishop of Lichfield in whose Diocess it was Seated which Bishop until the Division of his Diocess and Erection of a new Bishoprick at Chester was in writing and in common Speech as often called the Bishop of Chester as of Lichfield as is well known to those who are acquainted with the State of the English Church before and at the Reformation Pag. 267. lin 1. The Popish party used all the Arts possible to insinuate themselves into the King And therefore to shew how far their Compliance would go Bonner Bishop of London took a strange Commission from the King on the 12th of November this Year 1539. Whether the other Bishops took such Commissions from the King I know not But I am certain there is none such in Cranmers Register and it is not likely if any such had been taken out by him that ever it would have been razed After he had taken this Commission Bonner might well have been called one of the Kings Bishops When the Historian wrote this surely he little thought that he should publish in the Second part of his History a like Commission taken from King Edward VI. by Cranmer For whosoever compareth the two Commissions will find that they are not only alike but the very same mutatis mutandis only with this difference as the Historian himself forgetting what he had here wrote is forced to own that there is no mention made of a Vicar General in the Commission of Edward VI. to Cramner as was in that of Henry VIII to Bonner there being none after Cromwell advanced to that Dignity Now it is very injurious to the Memory of Cranmer first to represent this Action of Bonner as a vile unworthy Compliance and then afterwards to say that Cranmer did the same thing For what difference is there between taking such a Commission from King Henry and taking the like from King Edward unless it be that it seemeth somewhat more colourable to take it from a Man than from a Child Nor can any excuse be raised from the necessity imposed by the Act of Parliament made 1547 December 20th of which an Account is given afterwards For Cranmer had taken out his Commission on the 7th of Frebruary preceding But neither is it true that Cranmer did not take such a Commission from King Henry VIII For the Order of Council related by the Historian to have been made in the beginning of the Reign of King Edward VI. plainly implyeth the contrary requiring the Bishops to take out new Commissions of the same Form with those they had taken out in King Henry's time in obedience to which Order Cranmer took out his Commission before mentioned If no such Commission taken by Cranmer from King Henry be now found in his Register it doth not thence follow that none was taken by him For his Register is imperfect in many places Indeed he took out such a Commission from King Henry long before Bonner For in the Collections of Dr. Yale who could not but know the Truth herein having been in the time of Cranmer an eminent Advocate in Doctors Commons and afterwards principal Registrary and Vicar-General to Archbishop Parker I find a Transcript of this Commission agreeing exactly with that of Bonner published by the Historian mutatis mutandis and this note subjoyned Tales licentias acceperunt Thomas Archiepiscopus Cantuarmense Octobri 1535. Edwardus Archiep. Eborac Iohannes Episcopus Lincoln 13. Octobr. 1535. Iohannes Episcopus London 19. Octobr. 1535. Stephanus Episcopus Winton eodem Anno Cuthbertas Episcopus Dunelm 10 Novemb. 1535. c. Pag. 268. lin 9. I will not presume to determin so great a Point of Law whether the Abbots sate in the House of Lords as being a part of the Ecclesiastical State or holding their Lands of the King by Baronages It is the known and avowed Constitution of our Nation that the Convocation of the Clergy doth constitute the first Estate therein This being premised it is manifest that Bishops and consequently Abbots also sate in Convocation as a part of the Ecclesiastical State and must therefore sit in the House of Lords under some other Quality which can be no other than that of their Baronage Pag. 268. lin 21. Generally Coventry and Burton viz. the Priory of Coventry and Abbey of Burton were held by the same man as one Bishop held both Coventry and Lichfield though two different Bishopricks I will not take notice of the Historians oversight in making Coventry and Lichfield two different Bishopricks for that Mr. Fulman had before observed but of his Error in affirming Coventry and Burton to have been generally held by the same man He might with as much truth have said that the Archbishopricks of Canterbury and York were generally held by the same man What gave occasion to this enormous mistake I cannot conceive Burton and Coventry were no more related than any other two Abbeys neither was one a Cell of the other nor had the one any Dependance upon the other At the end of the Annals of Burton Printed some time since at Oxford may be found an exact List of the Abbots of that House from the first Foundation to the Dissolution of it In Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire may be seen a like Catalogue of the Priors of Coventry If these two be compared it will be found that from beginning to end they are made up of different Persons not so much as any one name of the one Catalogue occurring in the other Pag 300. lin 25. Two years after this viz. after September 1541 the Abbey of Osney in Oxford was converted into a Bishoprick a Deanry and six Prebends And the Monastery of St. Austins in Bristol was changed into the same use The Cathedral Church of Osney was founded by the King's Charter dated 1542. September 1. And Paul Bush Bishop of Bristol was consecrated 1542. Iune 25th So that the Historian is mistaken when he referreth the Foundation of both these Bishopricks to the end of the Year 1543. Pag. 300. lin 49. Then the Priories at most Cathedrals such as Canterbury Winchester Duresm Worcester Carlisle Rochester and Ely were also converted into Deanries and Colleges of Prebends If by most Cathedrals are to be understood most of the Cathedrals of England that is not true For if to those he had added Norwich he had named all But if by that Term are to be understood most of those old Cathedrals which were founded anew at this time then it is trifling For in all the old Cathedrals which were then founded anew the Priories were thus changed Pag. 301. lin 43. In England when the Bishoprick of Lincoln being judged of too great an extent the Bishoprick of Ely was taken out of it it was done only by the King with the Consent of his Clergy and Nobles Pope Nicholas indeed officiously intruded himself into that matter by sending afterwards a Confirmation of what was done The Erection of a new Bishoprick at Ely was
of Matthew Westminster Therein it may be observed that it was subscribed by some of those very Noblemen of Scotland who subscribed the Letter to the Pope published by the Historian who may be thought therein to have done no great Honour to his Countrey by publishing such an Authentick Testimony of the Infidelity of it Pag. 47 48 49. When the Parliament was divided into two Houses then the Clergy made likewise a Body of their own and sate in Convocation which was the third Estate Whether ever the Clergy were a part of the House of Commons is a just doubt Upon the whole matter it is not certain what was the Power or Right of these Proctors of the inferior Clergy in former times Some are of opinion that they were only Assistants to the Bishops but had no voice in either House of Parliament But as the Clause Praemonentes in the Writ seems to make them a part of the Parliament so these Petitions suppose that they sate in the House of Commons anciently In a matter so perplexed and dark I will presume to offer a Conjecture which will not appear perhaps improbable In the 129th Page of the former Part I gave the Reasons that made me think the lower House of Convocation consisted at first only of the Proctors of the Clergy It is generally believed that the whole Parliament sate together in one House before Edward the Third's time and then the inferiour Clergy were a a part of that without question But when the Lords and Commons sate apart the Clergy likewise sate in two Houses So that it seems to me most probable that the Proctors of the Clergy were both in England and Ireland the lower House of Convocation I will not here enter into an exact Enquiry concerning the ancient Constitution of Parliaments in England A question which hath already exercised so many Learned Pens cannot be dispatched in few words I will only observe that the Historian hath succeeded very ill in his Conjectures In the first place it is a wide mistake to affirm that after the Division of the Houses and perfect Settlement of the Constitution of Parliament the Convocation was the third Estate For it was anciently accounted and was really the first Estate Then his Conjecture concerning the ancient Seat of the Proctors of the Clergy in Parliament deduced with so much Labour so many previous and concomitant Observations is unhappily founded upon two false Suppositions The first is That formerly the lower House of Convocation consisted only of the Proctors of the Clergy The contrary of this was fully proved in the preceding Papers wherein it was shewn that Deans also and Archdeacons did sit in the lower House of Convocation The second false Supposition is that until Edward the Third's time the whole Parliament sate together in one House and consequently that the several Estates of Parliament were then alike summoned by the Kings Writ Now the contrary of this appears from an ancient Remonstrance of the Clergy in Convocation in the Year 1314. found in an Authentick Register the summ and occasion of which I will represent in few words The King had issued out a Writ to Walter Archbishop of Canterbury Die 27. Martii Anno Regni Septimo in this Form Vobis mandamus quatenus sitis in propriâ personâ vestrâ apud Westmonasterium in crastino Ascensionis Domini proximo futuro coram fidelibus nostris ad hoc deputandis ad tractandum cum eisdem fidelibus nostris super competenti auxilio à Clero Provinciae vestrae Cant. nobis impendendo pro utilitate Reipublicae c. prout in proximo Parliamento apud Westmonasterium habito tam per Clerum quà m per Communitatem regni nostri extitit concordatum prout per praedictos fideles nostros eritis requisiti Et ad eundem diem venire faciatis coram dictis fidelibus nostris Suffraganeos vestros Decanos Abbates c. Clerum cujusque Diocesis ejusdem Provinciae per duos Procuratores sufficientes ad tractandum consentiendum unà Vobiscum his quae in praemissis ibidem contigerit ordinari In obedience to this Writ which is Entituled Litera de Convocatione Cleri apud Westm. the Archbishop sent a Mandate to his Suffragans c. in such Form as repeating at length the Kings Writ he subjoyned Quocirca vobis tenâ—re praesentium injungimus mandamus quatenus vos dictis die loco intersitis c. From hence it appears that the Clergy were even before this called immediately to Convocation by the Archbishops Writ and that in the preceding Parliament the Clergy and Communitas Regni sate apart But this is not all When the Clergy met upon this Mandate of the Archbishop they presented to him a Remonstrance excepting against the form of the King's Summons and his Mandate Contra formam hujusmodi citationis Clerus Cant. Provinciae proposuit rationes subscriptas die Lunae in crastino S. Dunstani apud Westm. c. Imprimis That whereas the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury had not been wont nor ought to be called by the King's Authority This Mandate of the Archbishop proceeded in virtue of the King's command as appeared by the Form thereof which had never before been done That if this Precedent were allowed without any Contradiction the King might send out hereafter like Writs to the great prejudice of the Church and Clergy That the King might by the same reason summon them to meet at some place out of the Province which would be prejudicial to the Clergy of the Province and had been hitherto without Example That they were herein summoned to meet at Westminster locum videlicet exemptum auctoritate Ordinarii ad quem Clerus Cant. Provinciae ante haec tempora vocari nullatenus consuevisset That whereas Laymen had nothing to doe to intermeddle with Ecclesiastical causes and persons this Writ summoned them to appear coram dilectis fidelibus Domini nostri Regis nullâ authoritate ecclesiasticâ fulsitis contrary to the usage of all former times For these and many other Reasons they desired that this Writ should be revoked and themselves dismissed and be summoned again in the usual and legal form Accordingly they were dismissed on the Wednesday following and were summoned by a new Mandate of the Archbishop dated Iune 6. in such Form as was wont to be heretofore used to meet at the Church of St. Pauls London on the 8th of Iuly Which Form mutatis mutandis agreeth exactly with the Form used immediately before the Reformation and published by the Historian among the Memorials of the first Part. On the first day of December the same year the King summoned another Parliament to meet at Westminster in the Octaves of Hilary and directed a Writ to the Archbishop to summon the Clergy to meet dictis die loco which the Archbishop did When the Clergy were met they protested against the Form of the Summons because cited ad
in Woods and secret Places as a faithfull and holy Shepherd preaching to them and administring the Sacraments and for this purpose lurking up and down in England at last died like an exile in his own Countrey Pag. 327. lin 25. It was thought that Pole himself hastned the Execution of Cranmer who was executed in March 1556. longing to be invested with that See which the only personal blemish I find laid on him I am very unwilling to believe that a Person of such eminent vertue as Cardinal Pole is by all allowed to have been could be guilty of so base an Action The truth is he could have no such design For it was before shewed that the See of Canterbury had been actually voided immediately upon the Attainture of Cranmer in the end of the year 1553. After his Attainture at home and deposition and excommunication pronounced at Rome of which I spoke before he was dead to the Canon as well as Common Law His natural Life could be no obstacle to the advancement of Pole to the Archbishoprick And accordingly that very Pope Paul of whom the Historian maketh Pole to have been so much afraid lest he should defeat his hope of the Archbishoprick if Cranmer's Life were not quickly taken away had by a Bull dated 1555. Decemb. 11. collated or provided Pole to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury constituting him Administrator of the Archbishoprick till he should be ordained Priest and after that appointing him Archbishop with full Power and Jurisdiction Upon the reception and publication of these Bulls in England which was about the beginning of the following Month Pole was to all intents and purposes fully possessed of the Archbishoprick although he was not consecrated till the 22d of March following the day after Cranmer's Martyrdom The Historian reneweth this Charge against Pole pag. 340 but there urgeth the same argument only namely his choosing the next day after Cranmer's Death for his Consecration which is of no moment since Cranmer had in his account and in Canon and Common Law ceased long since to be Archbishop of Canterbury and himself had been possessed of the Archbishoprick above two Months Pag. 326. lin 38. Although Cardinal Pole had an only Brother David that had continued all King Henry's time in his Archdeaconry of Darby he did not advance him till after he had been two years in England and then he gave him only the Bishoprick of Peterborough one of the poorest of the Bishopricks Cardinal Pole had three Brothers and this David was not his Brother Bacatelli who wrote his Life had been his Secretary and Domestick Servant for near twenty Years before his Death He had reason therefore to know the Cardinals Kindred and he affirmeth that the Cardinal had three Brothers Henry Lord Montacute condemned of Treason and executed in the year 1538. Arthur condemned for Treason in 1562. and Geofry condemned in 1538 but neither executed and two Sisters Then whereas David Pole is said by the Historian to have been preferred to Peterborough one of the poorest of the Bishopricks in truth Peterborough was at that time none of the least Bishopricks in England having been endowed by King Henry far above any of the new erected Bishopricks and made equal in revenue to most of the ancient Bishopricks and so continued until Scambler the Successor of this David Pole did by a Simoniacal Contract convey away the better part of the Possessions of it to a Noble Person of the Neighbourhood that he might thereby make way for his own Translation to the Bishoprick of Norwich to do the like Mischief there Pag. 340. lin 20. On the 28th of March Pole came in State through London to Bow-Church where the Bishops of Worcester and Ely put the Pall about him He received and was solemnly invested with his Pall at Bow-Church on the 25th of March as his own Register testifieth which is confirmed by Stow. Pag. 340. lin 22. This was a Device set up by Pope Paschal the second in the beginning of the twelfth Century for the engaging of all Archbishops to a more immediate dependance on that See they being after they took the Pall to act as the Popes Legates born as the Phrase was of which it was the Ensign But it was at first admitted with great Contradiction both by the Kings of Sicily and Poland the Archbishops of Palermo and Gnesna being the first to whom they were sent all men wondring at the Novelty of the thing and of the Oath which the Popes required of them at the Delivery of it I cannot sufficiently admire that any learned Man should commit so great a Mistake None conversant in the History of the Church can be ignorant that the Custom of sending Palls from Rome to the Archbishops owning any Dependance upon that See or Relation to it began many hundred years before Pope Paschal the Second Pope Gregory the First had sent a Pall to Augustin the first Archbishop of Canterbury and all the Archbishops from him to the Reformation did singly receive Palls from Rome if sudden Death did not prevent them before the Reception In like manner all the English Archbishops of York from the beginning if we except two or three who for that reason claimed not Archiepiscopal Priviledges received their Palls from thence and so also all the Archbishops of the Western-Church which held any Communication with the See of Rome When they were first sent to Archbishops and for several Ages after no Oath of Obedience to the See of Rome was exacted at the Delivery of them Thus the Historian is found to have erred in fixing the time of their beginning and in affixing a constant Oath to them But farther he hath widely mistaken the Design of them which was not to constitute those who received them Legati Nati to the See of Rome For if that were true all the Archbishops of Canterbury from the first Foundation of the See almost all the Archbishops of York and the other Archbishops of the Western Church would have been Legati Nati to the Pope whereas in truth the Number of Legati Nati in Christendom is very small not exceeding four or five the Archbishops of York never were Legati Nati nor the Archbishops of Canterbury till about the Year 1200. When Archbishop Herbert first obtained that Priviledge to himself and Successors Lastly whereas the Historian maketh the Archbishop of Gnesna to have been one of the first to whom the Title and Priviledge of Legatus Natus was conferred and that by Pope Paschal the contrary of it is so far true that Andreas Olzowski Archbishop of Gnesna in his Letter wrote to Dr. Sheldon Archbishop of Canterbury in the Year 1675. wherein he requests of him to send to him an account of the Priviledges of Legatio Nata belonging to the See of Canterbury beginneth to propose his requests in these words Concessum olim erat Anno 1515. Privilegium Legationis nata à Leone X. Papâ Archiepiscopis Gnesnensibus Primatibus
they would have added that he had a Nose on his Face Pag. 22. lin 10. The Monks being thus setled in most Cathedrals of England So also p. 187. lin 20. King Edgar converted most of the Chapters into Monasteries This surely was wrote at adventure Mr. Fulman had before observed that the Monks were not setled in half the Cathedrals of England To which I may add that they were then setled in no more than two Cathedrals viz. Winchester and Worcester Nor were any more Chapters converted into Monasteries in the time of King Edgar The married Clergy were then indeed ejected out of Ely and Monks planted in their Room But that Church was not a Cathedral until near 140 years after Afterwards indeed about the end of the eleventh Age Monks were setled in some other Cathedrals or Episcopal Sees fixed in Monasteries to omit one Cathedral viz. that of Canterbury in which Monks were introduced in the beginning of the same Age. But after all far from being setled in most Cathedrals they were setled in no more than Nine viz. Canterbury Winchester Duresm Worcester Rochester Ely Norwich Bath and Coventry The Church of Carlisle indeed was possessed by Regulars but those were Canons not Monks Pag. 22. lin 10 15. The Monks being thus setled gave themselves up to idleness and pleasure having in their hands the chief Encouragments of Learning and yet doing nothing towards it but on the contrary decrying and disparaging it all they could This is a very hard Censure to pass upon a whole Order of men who were once very honourable but always serviceable in the Church On the contrary after they were thus setled viz. by Dunstan Ethelwald and Oswald in the Reign of Edgar they set themselves in with great Industry to restore Learning and root out that universal Ignorance which had then prevailed in England and effectually performed it Insomuch as whereas before that time scarce any Secular Priest in England could read or write a Latin Epistle within few years as Elfric a learned Disciple of Ethelwald boasteth the face of things was so changed by the endeavours of Dunstan and his Master Ethelwald that Learning was generally restored and began to flourish At that time and long after the Monasteries were the Schools and Nurseries of almost the whole Clergy as well Secular as Regular For the Universities if there were any were then very mean Societies and the whole Learning of the Nation was then in a manner confined to their Cloysters As the Universities increased they gradually decreased yet still retained and cultivated Learning till about the middle of the 13 th Age when the Mendicant Orders arose who by their Hypocrisie jugling Tricks and extraordinary Industry ran down both them and the Secular Clergy Within two hundred years the Mendicants became contemptible and then both the Monks and the Seculars began to recover their ancient Credit and long before the Reformation had made great progress in the Restauration of Learning They had all along brought up their Novices in Learning every Great Monastery having for that purpose a peculiar Colledge in one of the Universities and even to the time of their Dissolution they continued to bring up great numbers of Children at School at their own Charge for the Service of the Church and immediately before the Reformation many of the great Monasteries were so many Nurseries of Learning and the Superiors of them very Learned themselves and Promoters of Learning in others Such were Kidderminster Abbot of Winchelcomb Goldwell Prior of Canterbury Voche Abbot of St. Austins Wells Prior of Ely Holbeach Prior of Worcester Islip Abbot of Westminster Webbe Prior of Coventry and many others I do not hereby Apologize for the Laziness of the Monks in the middle Ages but maintain that both in the time of Edgar and some time after and immediately before the Reformation they deserved a contrary Character to what the Historian giveth of them and that even in the worst times they were far from being Enemies and Opposers of Learning as he would have it believed Pag. 22. lin 31. To suppress some Monasteries was thought as justifyable as it had been many Ages before to change Secular Prebends into Canons Regular This is not so accurately expressed the conversion of Secular Prebendaries into Canons Regular the Historian supposeth to have been made often and in many Churches But it was never done save in one Cathedral Church of England that of Carlisle Secular Prebendaries had in several Churches been changed into Monks But Monks are a distinct Order from Canons Regular Pag. 23. lin 12. Wickliffe was supported by the Duke of Lancaster the Bishops could not proceed against him till the Duke of Lancaster was put from the King and then he was condemned at Oxford It might have become Varillas very well to have wrote this of Wickliffe but such a mistake is unworthy of an accurate and Reformed Historian who ought especially to take care of doing justice to the Memory of that Great man Far from being condemned at Oxford during his own Life or the Life of the Duke of Lancaster his Person was had in great Esteem and Veneration at that University to the last and his Writings for many years before and after his Death were as much read and studied there as of Aristotle or the Master of the Sentences Nay so much concerned was that University for his Reputation that near twenty years after his Death hearing that false Reports had been spread abroad in foreign Parts as if Wickliffe had been convicted of Heresie in England and his Body thereupon disinterred and burnt the Chancellor and Senate of the University published a Manifesto wherein they gave to him a great Character of Learning and Piety called him a valiant Champion of the Faith and declared that he had never been convicted of Heresie nor his Body disinterred Absit enim quod tantae probitatis virum c. Indeed four years after this the Authority of the Pope and King concurring with the restless Endeavours of Archbishop Arundel several of his Writings were condemned and burnt at Oxford and eighteen years after this his Body was taken up and burned Pag. 23. lin 13. Many Opinions are charged upon Wickliffe but whether he held them or not we know not but by the Testimony of his Adversaries It seemes the Historian knew not any certain means of gaining Information of Wickliff's true Opinions but when he would include all others in the same Ignorance of them we must desire to be excused We have as many of the Works of Wickliffe yet extant as if Printed together would make four or five Volumes in Folio And whether so many Books be not sufficient to teach us his Opinions let the Reader judge Pag. 23. lin 16. Wickliffe translated the Bible out of Latin into English with a long Preface before it in which he reflected severely on the Corruptions of the Clergy condemned the worshipping of Saints and
Images c. This Preface indeed was published at London 1550. under the name of Wickliffe and hath generally passed for his But after all Wickliffe did not write it but the Author of the other old English Translation of the Bible For we have two Translations of the Bible made about that time one by Wickliffe the other by an unknown Person In the Preface the Author giveth several Specimens of his Translation of many difficult places of Scripture which agree not with Wickliff's but with the other Translation Further the Author of the Preface inveighs sharply against the Discipline and Members of the University of Oxford which it is certain Wickliffe would never have done for Reasons before mentioned That Wickliffe condemned praying to Saints we have only the Testimony of his Adversaries I will not affirm any thing at this time but I have reason to suspect the contrary Pag. 25. lin 27. Iohn Braibrook Bishop of London then Lord Chancellor viz. 26 Maii Anno 5. Ricardi 2. His name was Rober Braibrook and he was not Lord Chancellor until the Sixth Year of King Richard Pag. 35. lin 28. The two Prelates that were then in the Year 1503 between February and December in greatest esteem with King Henry the 7 th were Warham Archbishop of Canterbury and Fox Bishop of Winchester Warham was not translated from London to Canterbury till 1504. Ianuary 23. Pag. 88. lin 10. This the small Allowance made by the King to Crook his Agent in foreign Universities I take notice of because it is said by others that all the Subscriptions that he procured were bought So pag. 89. in imo Margine No Money nor Bribes given for Subscriptions This is endeavoured to be farther proved pag. 90. However it might be then thought necessary or useful to procure the Determinations of foreign Universities in favour of the Divorce of King Henry thereby the better to satisfie the Clergy at home and to justifie the Divorce abroad yet to those who know very well that this National Church had sufficient Authority to determine such a Controversie without consulting foreign Universities it will not be accounted a matter of any moment whether these were bribed or not I will not therefore scruple to set down the Testimonies of two undeniable Witnesses who lived at that time and could not but know the truth of the whole matter The first is of Cornelius Agrippa of whom the Historian himself giveth this Character Cornelius Agrippa a man very famous for great and curious Learning and so satisfied in the Kings Cause that he gave it out that the thing was clear and indisputable for which he was afterwards hardly used by the Emperor and died in Prison If this Great Person then had any partiality in this Cause it lay on the side of the King yet in one of his Books he hath these words Sed quis credidisset Theologos in rebus fidei conscientiae non solum amore odio invidia perverti sed nonnunquam etiam flecti conviviis muneribus abduci a vero nisi ipsi illius sceleris fidem fecissent in Anglicani Matrimonii damnatione Who would have believed that Divines in matters of Faith and Conscience are not only perverted by Love Hatred or Envy but also sometimes bribed by Banquets or drawn from the truth by Gifts unless themselves had given evident Proof of this Vileness in condemning the Marriage of the King of England The other is Mr. Cavendish an honest plain Gentleman first a Servant of Cardinal Wolsey afterwards highly obliged by King Henry He in writing the Life of his Master the Cardinal giveth this account of the whole matter It was thought very expedient that the King should send out his Commissioners into all Universities in Christendom there to have this Case argued substantially and to bring with them from thence every Definition of their Opinions of the same under the Seal of the University And thereupon divers Commissioners were presently appointed for this Design So some were sent to Cambridge some to Oxford some to Lovain others to Paris some to Orleance others to Padua all at the proper Costs and Charge of the King which in the whole amounted to a great Summ of Money And all went out of this Realm besides the Charge of the Embassage to those famous and notable Persons of all the Universities especially such as bare the Rule or had the Custody of the University Seals were fed by the Commissioners with such great Summs of Money that they did easily condescend to their Requests and grant their Desires By reason whereof all the Commssioners returned with their Purpose furnished according to their Commissions under the Seal of every several University Pag. 107. lin 5. For then about the time of Edward I. the Popes not satisfied with their other Oppressions did by Provisions Bulls and other Arts of that See dispose of Bishopricks Abbeys and lesser Benefices to Foreigners Cardinals and others that did not live in England This is a very wide mistake For the Popes did not then dispose of Bishopricks and Abbeys to Foreigners Cardinals and others that did not live in England The Popes did not give any Bishoprick of England to any Foreigner that did not live therein till about Thirty years before the Reformation when it was not done without the Kings good liking and in Vertue of some secret compact between them As for Abbeys from the first Foundation to their Dissolution the Popes never gave any one to a Foreigner not residing For Cardinal Abbots there never was any besides Cardinal Wolsey and of him it is well known that he had his Abbey from the gift of the King and lived in England The matter therefore complained of in the Preamble of the Act of Parliament 25 Edw. I. which the Historian inserteth was this That whereas Bishops and Abbots ought to be Elected by their several Chapters and Convents and these Elections to be confirmed by the King the Popes had taken upon them to Annul the Elections of Chapters and then to substitute whomsoever themselves pleased without a new Election or to dispose of them without expecting any Election yet still none of these were granted to Cardinals or to Foreigners not residing in England And whereas the Popes had usurped the Presentation of and given to Aliens although not residing other Benefices as Deanries Prebends and Parsonages which ought of right to belong to their proper Patrons against these Encroachments a Remedy was desired and provided in this Act. Several Foreigners had a little before this time been preferred to Bishopricks such as Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury Adomarus de Lesignan Bishop of Winchester Petrus de Aqua-blanca Bishop of Hereford But these came in by the Election of their several Chapters overawed thereto by the Power and Authority of King Henry III to whose Queen they were related by near Kindred and after all resided upon their Sees unless when diverted by Employment in the business of
is by him published manifests with how little care these publick Instruments have been transcribed for thus it ends praesentibus discretis viris M. W. Lyn. Curiae Cant. officii Thoma B. Archidiacono sanctarum in Ecclesiâ Lyne Utriusque Iuris Doctoribus Now to mistake and report falsly the dates of publick Instruments is not a matter of light moment For these will necessarily betray both Writers and Readers into infinite other mistakes while they endeavour to adapt things and the circumstances of them to the supposed but mistaken time of other Actions Besides all this it diminisheth the credit of any History so that in all other matters the Reader cannot safely rely upon it when he knows the negligence of the Historian in any part of it And as for the Collection of Records which make up one half of each Volume of this History they will be of little value if once there appears just reason to suspect the care or fidelity of the Transcriber I have not had opportunity or a curiosity to examine one half of the dates of times either in the History it self or in the Collection of Records but do assure the Reader that of those which I have examined I found near as many to be false as true Pag. 112. lin 4. The Popes Usurpations still increasing those Statutes of Proviso's and Premunire lay dead among the Records and several Cardinals had procured and executed a Legantine Power which was clearly contrary to them A competent knowledge of the History of the English Church would have prevented so large a mistake No Cardinals before Wolsey had procured and executed such Legantine Power in England since those Laws were made Cardinal Beaufort of Winchester indeed had procured it but could never execute it being inhibited by King Henry VI by the advice of Archbishop Chichley and forced to renounce his pretended Power As for the Legantine Power of the Archbishop of Canterbury which was claimed and exercised by them in Quality of Legati nati that was not in the least contrary to these Laws nor ever was so accounted being annexed perpetually to the See of Canterbury ever since the Year 1200 and always belonging to them without any new or distinct Bulls Pag. 121. lin 33. The old Cardinal of Ravenna was so jealous that the Ambassadors of the King were forced to promise him the Bishoprick of Chester one of the new Bishopricks designed to be erected in the Year 1532. with which he was well satisfied If in the Promises made by the Embassadors to the Cardinal the Historian found express mention of the new Erection of the Bishoprick of Chester promised to him we must submit Otherwise it is more probable that the Bishoprick desired by him and promised to him was the old Bishoprick of Lichfield which was then commonly called the Bishoprick of Chester and which was then likely to be void very shortly by the Death of Dr. Blithe an extreme Old man who died the following Year Pag. 128. lin 34. Cranmers Bulls for the Archbishoprick of Canterbury bear date the 21st of February 1533 By a tenth Bull dated the 2d of March the Pall was sent to him when these Bulls were brought into England Thomas Cranmer was on the 13th of March consecrated We have here another Instance of the little Exactness of the Historian in the dates of time I will not take Notice that the first Bulls in the the Original bear date the 21st of February 1532. For that is indeed 1533 to those who begin their Year on the first day of Ianuary But the tenth Bull sending the Pall to Cranmer is dated the 3d of March and he was consecrated the 30th of March. Pag. 129. lin 42. The most Learned Sir Henry Spelman hath in no place of his Collections of our Counsels considered the Constitution of the two Houses of Convocation and in none of our Records have I been able to discover of what Persons they were made up in the time of Popery and therefore since we are left to conjecture I shall offer mine to the learned Reader It is that none sate in the lower House but those who were deputed by the inferior Clergy and that Bishops Abbots mitred and not mitred and Priors Deans and Archdeacons sate then in the upper House of Convocation To which I am induced by these Reasons c. Sir Henry Spelman compleated only the first Volume of his Councils which reacheth to the Conquest Therein he had no opportunity to treat of this matter For we do not inquire of the Constitution of Convocations in the Saxon times but in the time immediately preceding the Reformation As for the second Volume of Councils which reacheth from the Conquest to the Reformation the Collection of it was only begun by Sir Henry Spelman but compleated and published by others without any tollerable Care or Skill No doubt Sir Henry knew very well the Constitution of our Convocations before the Reformation and so do all inquisitive Persons of our Nation however the Historian may think a discovery herein to be necessary to the Information of the Learned Reader If he knew it not he may be excused as a Foreigner Or if in none of our Records he were able to discover it that also may be excused For neither are all our Records kept at the Rolls nor did the multiplicity of business permit the Historian to attend long to the search of them but that he should proceed to offer his Conjecture and such a Conjecture as if he had industriously sought to do it he could not have made one more Erroneous We cannot but wonder since he had sufficient means of better Information Mr. Fulman hath observed that the Conjecture here proposed by the Historian doth not agree with what he had before delivered that Pole as Dean of Exeter was a Member of the lower House of Convocation This demonstrates the Error of the Historian but doth not Correct it It may be Corrected and the truth of the whole matter fully discovered from the Subscriptions of the Convocation held in the Year 1536. published by the Historian himself in the Addenda of this first part of his History wherein all the Members of the upper House subscribe apart and then all the Members of the lower House subscribed by themselves The Instrument of their Subscription is an Original which I did many years since transcribe and may be infallibly relyed on Therein it appears that the Bishops Abbots and Priors constituted the upper House and that all Deans Archdeacons Proctors of Clergy and Chapters of Cathedral Churches sate in the lower House of Convocation The Historian himself there summeth up all the Members of the lower House who then subscribed in this manner 24 Archdeacons 4 Deans of Cathedrals three Deans of Collegiate Churches 17 Procurators for the Clergy and one Master of a College viz. Provost of a Collegiate Church Such an Error could not easily have been committed by so accurate an
Author after he had seen and published such an Instrument if himself had vouchsafed so much as to read the Records which he hath published in his Collections and not left them to be perused and transcribed by some Under-workmen I should have thought that he saw not this Instrument until he had Composed and Printed of this part off the History if he had pleased in his Addenda to have owned and amended a mistake of so great Consequence or if in the Second part of his History he had not repeated and confirmed this his erroneous Conjecture touching the Constitution of our Convocations before the Reformation If it should be suspected that however it might be in the Convocation of the Year 1536 when the frequent and great Changes preceding and accompanying it might disorder and change the method and order before received yet that it was otherwise in precedent times I answer that it might be undeniably demonstrated from the Acts of many Convocations for above 200 years before the Reformation until that very time that the Constitution of Convocations was all along in this respect the same For although the Registers of the Convocations be lost yet the Acts of many of them remain and may be found elsewhere I will give but one Proof of this but that out of an Authentick Instrument In the Convocation held in the Year 1462 the lower House wanting a small Summ of ready Money for some slight occasion resolved to raise it by imposing small Mulcts upon all the absent Members To this purpose a List of the names of all the absent Members of the lower House was brought in and they were these the Deans of Sarum Lincoln Windsor Wells Chichester the Archdeacons of Colchester Winchester Surry Taunton Dorset c. So then the Matter of Fact is put beyond all doubt that all the Bishops Abbots and Priors sate in the upper House all Deans Archdeacons and Proctors of the Clergy in a word all the Secular Clergy beneath Bishops sate in the lower House of Convocation But I will farther enquire how it came to be setled in this method It is notorious that for some time after the present Constitution of Parliaments was introduced in the Reign of Henry III. great numbers of Abbots and Priors were summoned to Parliament by particular Writs directed to every one I will not now dispute whether the second and third Estates the Lords and Commons then sate together but most certain it is that the Pares Proceres Baronies Regni were those who were summoned to Parliament by particular Writs At first the King summoned by particular Writs all the Ecclesiasticks viz. Bishops Abbots and Priors who received their Temporalities from the Crown At least the King summoned as many of them as he pleased Some Abbots and Priors were perhaps excused from attendance by reason of their Poverty Thus Anno 49. H. 3. there were summoned Abbots and Priors 102. Anno 35. Edward I. there were summoned 47. Anno. 1. E. II. there summoned 56. Anno. 4. E. III. there were summoned 33. Now all the Abbots and Priors thus summoned by particular Writs sate inter Pares Proceres Barones Regni and were held a part of the second as well as of the first Estate of the Nation represented in Parliament They were a part of the first Estate as Ecclesiastical Prelates and a part of the second Estate as receiving their Temporalties and holding their Baronies of the King For such Abbots and Priors the King was wont to summon as received their Temporalties from him Afterwards in the Reign of Edward III. the number of Abbots and Priors summoned by particular Writs was much reduced and so continued till the Reformation only some of the greater Abbots being wont to be summoned The number of them was never unalterably fixed but received Addition or Diminution even till the time of Hen. VIII But from the Reign of Edw. III. till the Reformation their number always exceeded twenty and fell short of thirty When the Kings therefore ceased to summon particularly the lesser Abbots and Priors they lost their place in the second Estate of Parliament but still continued to be summoned to the Convocation by their several Bishops in obedience to the Mandate of the Archbishop commanding them to summon to Convocation to be held at such a time all within their Diocess having Right to sit therein When these came up to Convocation as many of them as received their Temporalties from the King and had been wont formerly to be summoned by him inter Barones Regni and to sit among them claimed still their former place in the Convocation which was to sit with the Bishops whether yet they sate in one House with the inferior Clergy or whether they had by this time separated themselves into a distinct upper House as most certainly they did afterwards This Claim could not reasonably be denied to such Abbots and Priors and this giveth a clear Account how all such Abbots and Priors came to obtain a place in the upper House of Convocation But the great difficulty consists in the Case of Priors of Cathedral Churches For I find that some time before the Reformation that they also sate in the upper House although none of them received their Temporalties from the King except the Prior of Coventry They were of so great Account that some of them had been summmoned by the King to Parliament although they owed to him no such Service upon the account of their Temporalties which they received not from him Thus the Prior of Norwich was summoned Anno 1293. but the Prior of Canterbury several times as Anno 49. Hen. 3. Anno 35. E. 1. Anno 21. E. 2. and in the Years 1399 and 1401. This the King might do either upon extraordinary occasions with a Salvo to their Rights or pretending to the immediate Superiority of their Temporalties as he sometimes did but was cast therein and at length forced to renounce that Claim However after the Year 1300 I find none of them summoned by the King but the Prior of Canterbury and him no more than these four times But when these Priors came to Convocation summoned by their Bishops they could not but conceive some Indignation that when so many Abbots and petty Priors sate in the upper House themselves should be thrust down to the lower House who in revenue and interest were equal to the greatest Abbots So that no wonder if they tryed all possible methods to raise themselves into the upper House which they at last effected at least some of them did At what time and by what Pretences they did effect it I cannot certainly affirm But I suppose that whereas some of them had gained of the Pope the priviledge of wearing the Pontifical Habit at solemn times viz. Mitre Pastoral Staff c. and had thereupon assumed to themselves the name of Prelates they claimed in vertue of that priviledge and were admitted to sit in Convocation among the Prelates
With this the Cholerick old Bishop being enraged cited Richard Cockeral Mayor of Thetford and others into his Spiritual Court and enjoyned them under pain of Excommunication to call a Jury of their Town before them and forthwith to revoke and cancel the former Presentment For this the Bishop was attainted in a Praemunire put out of the King's Protection his Person imprisoned his Lands Goods and Chattels forfeited to the King by a Sentence in the King's Bench Court in the beginning of the Year 1534. With part of the Bishop's Fine and Forfeiture upon this Attainder the Glass-windows of Kings-Colledge Chappel in Cambridge are said to have been bought and set up Page 215. Line 18. By the 17th Act of the last Parliament begun 1536 Iune 8th and ended 1536 Iuly 18th it appears that the Bishoprick of Norwich being vacant the King had recommended William Abbot of St. Bennets to it but took into his own hands all the Lands and Manors of the Bishoprick and gave the Bishop several of the Priories in Norfolk in exchange which was confirmed in Parliament This Act was made in the preceding Parliament begun 1536 February 4th and dissolved April 14th and gave to the Bishoprick of Norwich in exchange only the Abbey of St. Bennets in the Holm the Priory of Hickling in Norfolk and a Prebend in the Collegiate Church of St. Stephens in Westminster Pag. 235. lin 20. The Abbot of Farnese in Lincolnshire with thirty Monks resigned up that House to the King on the 9th of April 1537. The Abbey of Furnes was seated in Lancashire Pag. 241. lin 45. Battel Abbey was represented to be a little Sodom so was Christ-Church in Canterbury with several other Houses The Historian doth not tell us by whom they were thus represented For that would have marred all the History and have relieved the reputation of these Monasteries Not by the Visitors surely for the Acts of their Visitation of these places do not remain The credit of the whole matter rests upon the authority of a vile Pamphlet published soon after without a Name pretending to relate the enormous wickednesses discovered in the Monasteries of England at their suppression From this Pamphlet Stevens transcribed these Stories into his Apology for Herodotus and from him Fuller took them into his Church History from whom our Historian received them But Fuller is so ingenuous as to own from whence he took them and to add that he thinks it not reasonable to believe such hainous accusations upon so slender testimony We have some reason to reflect upon the complaint which our Historian brings against Dr. Heylin that benever vouched any authority for what he writ which is not to be forgiven any who write of Transactions beyond their own Times I fear that upon computation it will not be found that our Author hath vouched any Authority for so much as the third part of his History and is especially deficient in those passages which tend to defame the Memories of other men in which above all others Justice and Charity would require that sufficient or at least some testimony be produced But to return to Battel Abbey and Christ Church in Canterbury I am not much concerned for either Yet being willing to doe Justice to all men I will not conceal that the accusation appears very improbable to me as far as Christ Church Canterbury is concerned in it since I am well assured that Dr. Goldwell the Prior of it who had governed it for 23 years before the Dissolution was a learned grave and religious Person and that when it was founded anew it is not to be supposed that Archbishop Cranmer employed by the King therein would have taken into the new Foundation any persons so scandalously wicked yet twelve Monks were taken into it which exceedeth the number of just persons to be found in Sodom at the time of its Destruction Pag. 248. lin 37. Edward Fox Bishop of Hereford died the 8th of May that year viz. 1538. Bishop Godwin indeed saith that Fox died that day But our Historian pretends not to take things on trust easily no not from the greatest Authors The Archbishop of Canterbury did that day take into his hands the Spiritualties of the See of Hereford void by the death of Fox But his death might and not probably did happen several days before this Pag. 263. lin 8. The new Bishoprick of Chester was erected before any others For I have seen a Commission under the Privy Seal to the Bishop of Chester to take the surrender of the Monastery of Hamond in Shropshire bearing date the 24th of August this Year viz. 1539. So it seems the See of Chester was erected and endowed before the Act passed which was in May 1539. though there is among the Rolls a Charter for founding and endowing it afterwards From this Passage it may appear how necessary it is for any one who undertaketh to write the History of our Reformation to be well acquainted with the State of things before the Reformation Had this been done many mistakes would have been escaped and other Contradictions which accompany them would have been avoided It is here said that the Commission to the Bishop of Chester for the taking the surrender of Hamond was dated the 24th of August but in the Collection of Records it is dated the 31st of August It is somewhat unlikely that a Commission should be given to the new Bishop of Chester to take the surrender of a Monastery in Shropshire no part of his Diocess Who should this new Bishop be It is incredible that we should have altogether lost the name and remembrance of a Bishop who acted in such a busie time The first Bishop of the new Bishoprick of Chester which we can find was Iohn Bird translated thither from Bangor And of him we know that the See of Bangor was not void by his Translation to Chester until the beginning of the Year 1542. He therefore could not be that Bishop of Chester to whom the Commission was granted in 1539. I cannot sufficiently wonder that Mr. Fulman should be led into the same mistake who alloweth the new Bishoprick of Chester to have been erected before the making of this Act but to have been afterwards surrendred and founded anew For from the Historian's Collection of Records it appears that the Monastery of St. Werburge in Chester in which the new Bishoprick is founded was not surrendered till 1540. Ianuary 20th which alone overthrows all the Conjectures of the Historian and Mr. Fulman In truth the first Charter for erecting the new Bishoprick of Chester was dated 1541. Iuly 16th but there being some mistake committed therein a new Charter of Foundation was granted 1541. August 5th The Historian is mistaken when he puts afterwards August 4th and Bird the first Bishop took Possession in the beginning of the following Year The Commission therefore granted to the Bishop of Chester for taking the surrender of Hamond was
enacted by Statute 27 H. 8. That all Licenses Dispensations and Faculties obtained of the Archbishop of Canterbury in matters not repugnant or contrary to the Holy Scriptures and Laws of God should stand in full Authority and Strength without any repeal to be hereafter had of any such Licenses divers Priests obtained Dispensations of Marriages some of which were corroborated by the King 's Broad Seal and some by the Archbishop's Seal only Afterwards the King understanding that certain in his Realm were married as well Regulars as Seculars without Authority and Common Laws did through the instigation of the Popish party make an open Proclamation which may be found in the following Collection in the 30 th Year of his Reign wherein he did but for afterward charge that no man should attempt the same again and did not dissolve those Marriages being so privately contracted In the following year indeed the Popish party still prevailing more at Court the Six Articles were enacted by which such Marriages were dissolved and many Persons so married were divorced But after all the King knew by Information of a good number from time to time and yet did both tolerate the same which were used secretly and such as were openly known did not separate them but commanded them to be reputed as Lay-Persons and would have granted Liberty to all in his days but for some certain zealous Councellors as was not unknown to divers who heard him oft speak of that matter Pag. 90. lin 13. Many great Bishops in these times the fourth and fifth Ages lived still with their Wives and had Children by them as namely Nazianzen's and Basil's Fathers and Hilary of Poictiers when very old writing to his Daughter Abra bid her ask her Mother c. Nazianzen's Father was certainly a Bishop and begat him after his Consecration But that Basil's Father was a Bishop appeareth not Some later Writers indeed have affirmed it without any ground from ancient Writers but that he still lived with his Wife and had Children neither later nor ancient Writers mention The like may be said of Hilary The Epistle to his Daughter Abra the only foundation of his supposed Marriage is generally allowed by Critics to be spurious The Historian may here perhaps defend himself by alledging that he doth not in this place propose his own arguments but only the reasons upon which our Reformers proceeded in restoring Marriage to the Clergy I do acknowledge that these mistakes are found in most of their Writings concerning the Marriage of the Clergy published at that time But then we have just reason to complain that it is injurious to the Honour of our Reformers to choose from among so many irrefragable arguments and authorities proposed and urged by them in this cause such as are mistakes or at least liable to exception Pag. 90. lin 21. Heliodorus Bishop of Trica did first move that Clergymen should be obliged to live single The Historian is too well conversant in the History of the ancient Church not to know that long before the time of Heliodorus some Bishops moved in the great Council of Nice that Bishops Priests and Deacons should be obliged to perpetual continence and had succeeded in it had not Paphnutius vehemently opposed the motion and shewn the unreasonableness and danger of such an imposition This is related by all the Ecclesiastical Historians of that time and is a matter well known however impudently denied by some Writers of the Church of Rome Even before the Council of Nice Eustathius Bishop of Sebastea had endeavoured to impose the like necessity of perpetual continence upon the Clergy which endeavour of his was condemned in the Council of Gangra About fourscore years after the Council of Nice Heliodorus introduced a total abstinence of the Clergy from their Wives in the Province of Thessaly where he was Bishop The Historian seems to have believed that he first made the motion in the Council of Nice This mistake as far as I can find is purely his own For although I have read all the Treaties in Defence of Priests Marriage published by our Reformers I do not remember to have observed this in any of them Pag. 90. lin 38. It is true that in the fourth Age they began to make Canons against the Marriage of those who were in Orders especially in the Roman and African Churches It was forbidden to those who were in Orders to contract Marriage by the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions received in the Eastern Church long before It was forbidden also by the Council of Neocaesarea and in part by the Council of Ancyra But if by Canons made against the Marriage of those in Orders the Historian understands the Use or Enjoyment of Marriage whether contracted before or after Ordination he hath then committed a great mistake in joyning the African to the Roman Churches The Church of Africa did all along signally oppose and baffle the Attempts of the Popes of Rome for the Establishment of Celibacy therein and retained to her Bishops the use of Marriage long after it had been generally disused by other Bishops both of the Eastern and Western Churches insomuch as the Quinisext Council in the Year 692 imposing perpetual continence upon all Bishops in pursuance of the Custom which had long since generally prevailed in the Church took notice of the different practice of the Bishops of Africa herein and by a particular Clause obliged them to conform themselves to the practice of the rest of the Catholick Church in this matter This mistake also is peculiar to the Historian I do not find any Footsteps of it in the Writings of our Reformers Pag. 91. lin 6. Restitutus Bishop of London lived openly with his Wife Whether Restitutus were married or not we know no more than whether the Wise Men of the East were married Bale indeed affirms it and from him Parker Godwin Spelman and others have taken it But Bale is scarce to be believed when he relateth a matter upon his own knowledge much less when he delivereth any thing at 1200 Years distance without any Authority The like may be said of Richard Bishop of Chicester who in this same Page is affirmed to have been married The false Opinion of his Marriage seemeth to have arose either from the hasty Inadvertency of that Reformed Writer who first reported it or from a double Error of the Press substituting Richard Bishop of Chicester instead of Robert Peche Bishop of Chester Pag. 91. lin 17. Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury did not impose Celibate on the Clergy in the Villages but only on those who lived in Towns and on Prebendaries This mistake is wholly the Historians own Our Reformers understood the History of the English Church too well to lead the way in such an Error Lanfranc imposed Celibacy on Prebendaries but allowed to the Clergy living in Towns and Villages the use of their Marriage already contracted His Constitution was conceived in these words Nullus
Canonicas uxorem habeat Sacerdotum vero in Castellis in vicis habitantium habentes uxores non cogantur ut dimittant non habentes interdicantur ut habeant Our Reformers who wrote of the Marriage of the Clergy represented this Constitution aright So Archbishop Parker who having related his prohibition of Marriage to Prebendaries adds But yet he moderated so the matter that he made a Decree that such Priests as dwelt in Towns and Villages being married should not be separated but continue with their Wives in their Ministration Ecclesiastical Pag. 92. lin 13. The Legate that in King Henry the Second's time got that severe Decree made that put all the married Clergy from their Livings was found the very Night after in Bed with a Whore This mistake also is altogether owing to the Historian Our Reformers consonantly to the Testimony of all our ancient Histories relate this misfortune to have happened to Iohannes de Crema the Pope's Legate in the Year 1125. in the Reign of King Henry the First And the Annals of Winchester lately published relate another like miscarriage of the same Legate in the same Year Pag. 93. lin 13. I have seen no Remains of this Convocation which restored Marriage to the Clergy in the Year 1548. or of any other Convocations that came afterwards in this Reign Archbishop Parker who was a Member of and present at this Convocation hath in his Additions to the Anonymous Defence of Priests Marriages published by him given a short Relation of the Transactions and Determination of the Convocation in this Affair which because the Book is very scarce I have transcribed and put into the following Collection To it the Archbishop subjoyned the Opinion of Dr. Redman which however published by the Historian in his Collection I would not disjoyn especially since the Historian or his Scribe hath omitted and changed many words of moment in it Pag. 128. lin 3. Bonner was looked on generally as a Man of no Principles All the Obedience he gave either to the Laws or to the King's Injunctions was thought a Compliance against his Conscience extorted by Fear The Historian perhaps may be able to reconcile these two Periods although it be generally supposed that where no Principles are there can be no Conscience since Conscience ever proceeds upon some Principles either true or false But it seems after a strict Enquiry he hath discovered one Principle in Bonner to which he constantly adhered that was his Love of Pears and Puddings a matter which will no doubt reflect as great Infamy upon the Memory of Bonner as Honour upon the Historian for the Acuteness of the Observation He was aware that it would be thought disingenuous to Print such Letters being the Privacies of Friendship which ought not to be made publick but forgat that it was beneath the Majesty of History to insert such trifles in it Pag. 149. l. ult Ridley was pitched on to be the man who should fill the See of London So on the 21. of February 1550 he was writ for and on the 24th he was declared Bishop of London and Westminster It might then be resolved to make Ridley Bishop of Westminster upon the intended Translation of Thirleby But he could not then be declared Bishop of that See since it was not void till April following in the beginning of which Month Thirleby was translated to Norwich King Edward's Journal therefore saith that Ridley was made Bishop of London on the 3d of April and Thirleby translated the same day from Westminster to Norwich Pag. 150. lin 35. The Lord Treasurer c. were sent to Gardiner Fox saith that this was on the 9th of Iuly but there must be an Error in that it must have been in November the former Year They brought him a Paper to which they desired he would set his hand In the Original Council-Book of King Edward the Sixth before-mentioned all the Orders Messages Papers Articles and Answers relating to Gardiner are at length inserted From thence I shall correct the Historians Account On the 8th of Iune 1550. it was resolved in Council Considering the long Imprisonment the Bishop of Winchester hath sustained that he should be spoken withal and agreed that if he repented his former Obstinacy and would thenceforth apply himself to advance the King's Majesties preceedings his Highness in this case would be his good Lord and remit all his Errors passed Otherwise his Majesty was resolved to proceed against him as his Obstinacy and Contempt required For the Declaration whereof the Duke of Somerset Lord Treasurer c. were appointed the next day to repair unto him June 10 th Report was made by the Duke of Somerset and the rest sent to the Bishop of Winchester that he desired to see the King's Book of Proceedings upon the sight whereof he would make a full Answer seeming to be willing in all things to conform himself thereunto and promising that in case anything offended his Conscience he would open it to none but the Counsail Whereupon it was agreed that the Book should be sent him to see his Answer that his Case may be resolved on And that for the mean time he should have the Liberty of the Gallery and Garden in the Tower when the Duke of Norfolk were absent June 13 th the Lieutenant of the Tower who before was appointed to deliver the King's Book to him declared to the Counsail that the Bishop having refused it said unto him He could make no direct Answer unless he were at Liberty and so being he would say his Conscience Whereupon the Lords and others that had been with him the other day were appointed to go to him again to receive a direct Answer that the Counsail hereupon might determine further Order for him July 8 th the Bishop of Winchester ' s Case was renewed Then was the Lord Treasurer c. sent to him with the Message of which the Historian here speaketh Together with the Articles the Council sent a Letter to him blaming his Obstinacy and persuading him to conform Fox giveth a true Account of the Articles and his Answer to them Only hath erroneously put the 9th for the 8th of Iuly Although he might mean that the Commissioners went to him on that day which seems to have been true For on the 10th of Iuly the Commissioners reported his Answer in Council related by Fox and from him by the Historian And that these Commissioners went indeed to the Bishop on the 9th of Iuly King Edward testifyeth in his Journal published by the Historian himself Pag. 151. lin 7. Herbert and Petre came to him some time after that but how soon it is not clear and pressed him to make the Acknowledgment without Exception The Council-Book fixeth the time of this Message and cleareth a mistake of the Historian July 11th This day the Bishop of Winchester ' s Case was debated and because it appears that he sticketh upon the Submission which
is the principalest Point considering his offence that the now goeth about to defend to the intent that he should have no just cause to say that he was not mercifully handled it was agreed that the Master of the Horse and Mr. Secretary Petre should repair unto him again with the same Submission exhorting him to look better upon it and in case the words seem too sore then to refer unto himself in what sort and in what words he should devise to submit him that upon the acknowledging of his fault the King's Highness might extend his mercy and liberality towards him as it was determined On the 13th of Iuly his Answer was reported in Council which was That he stood precisely in Iustification of himself that he had never offended the King's Majesty wherefore he utterly refused to make any Submission at all For the more surety of which Denial it was agreed that a new Book of Articles should be devised wherewith the said Master of the Horse and Mr. Secretary should repair to him again and for the more Authentick proceeding with him they to have with them a Divine and Temporal Lawyer which were the Bishop of London and Mr. Gooderick The Historian nameth only Ridley Then followeth a Copy of the Articles sent to the Bishop of Winchester the Summ of which is truly related by Fox and the Historian Iuly 15th the Bishops Answer was reported in Council whereupon it was agreed he should be sent for by the Council and be examined before them which being done Iuly 19th and the Articles read to him and his Subscription peremptorily required he made this short Answer That in all things that his Majesty would lawfully command him he was willing and most ready to obey But forasmuch as there were divers things required of him which his Conscience would not bear therefore he prayed them to have him excused Whereupon the Sentence of Sequestration was read and Denunciation of Deprivation in case he did not conform within three Months Nevertheless upon divers good Considerations and especially in hope he might within this time be yet reconciled it was agreed that the said Bishops House and Servants should be maintained in their present Estate until the time of this intimation should expire and the matter for the mean time to be kept private There is some little difference between the Council-Book and King Edward's Journal in fixing the days of these two Messages Pag. 152. lin 32. On the third of Iuly this Year 1550. Hooper was by Letters Patents appointed to be Bishop of Glocester The Council-Book saith on the 15th of May Mr. Hooper was constituted Bishop of Glocester King Edward's Journal saith July 20th Hooper was made Bishop of Glocester The first may relate to his Nomination the second to the Signing of his Patent Pag. 153. lin 19. Cranmer wrote about this difference raised by Hooper about wearing the Episcopal Vestments to Bucer reducing it to these two plain Questions Whether it was lawful to use those Garments c. And whether he that affirmed that it was unlawful or on that Account refused to use those Vestments did not sin against God The latter part of the Question put by Cranmer was this An is qui affirmaverit nofas esse aut recusarit his vestibus uti peccet in Deum quia immundum esse dicit quod Deus sanctificavit in Magistratus quod violet ordinem Politicum The Historian therefore hath negligently translated it and in part changed the State of the Question by adding these words on that Account which make the refusal to proceed wholly upon a Supposition that the Thing commanded was unlawful by the Law of God whereas Cranmer put the Question more genenerally in those words aut recusarit so as to include a refusal to obey the Command of the Magistrate out of wilfulness or for any other cause beside pretence of unlawfulness by the Law of God which is taken away by the answering to the first part of the Question Pag. 154. lin 29. Cranmer wrote back that he could not dispense with the use of Episcopal Garments at the Consecration of Hooper without incurring a Praemunire So the King was moved to write to him warranting him to do it But though this was done on the 4th of Aug. yet he was not consecrated till March next year and in the mean while he was suspended from Preaching The King and Council rejected the Puritanical niceness of Hooper 's Conscience much further than all this amounts to which Affairs I will relate from the Council-Book In Council 1550. October 6th A Letter to the Bishop of London that where there hath been some difference between him and the Elect Bishop of Glocester upon certain Ceremonies belonging to the making of a Bishop wherein their Lordships desire is because they would in no wise the stirring up of Controversies between men of one Profession did send for him willing him to cease the occasions thereof who humbly desired that he might for Declaration of his doings put in writing such Arguments as moved him to be of the Opinion he held which thing was granted and was by their Lordships commanded to be at the Court on Sunday next bringing with him that he shall for an Answer have thought convenient 1551. January 13th Mr. Hooper Bishop Elect of Glocester appeared before the Council touching his old Matter of denying to wear such Apparel as other Bishops wear and having been before commanded to keep his House unless it were to go to the Archbishop of Canterbury Bishops of Ely London or Lincoln for satisfaction or Counsail of his Conscience in that matter nor further neither to Preach nor Read until he had further License from the Council it appeared both that he had not kept his House and that he had also written and Printed a Book wherein was contained matter that he should not have written For the which and for that also he persevered in his former Opinion of not wearing the Bishops Apparel he was now committed to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Custody either there to be reformed or further to be punished as the Obstinacy of his case required January 27th Upon a Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury that Mr. Hooper cannot be brought to any Conformity but rather persevering in his Obstinacy coveteth to prescribe Orders and necessary Laws of his head it was agreed he should be committed to the Fleet upon the occasion aforesaid A Letter to the Warden of the Fleet to receive the said Mr. Hooper and to keep him from Conference of any Person saving the Ministery of that House On the 8th of March following he was consecrated Now all this was done after the King's Letter wrote in his behalf to Cranmer so that in all appearance he was forced to reconcile his squeamish Conscience to the Episcopal Habit in order to obtain his Bishoprick Pag. 154. lin 36. 48. This Summer Iohn a Lasco with a Congregation of Germans was allowed to hold
his Assembly at St. Austin's in London Polidor Virgil desired leave to go out of England which was granted to him on the 2d of Iune this Year 1550. To this I will add that on the 19th of November 1551. the Council ordered a Reward of an 100 Pounds to be given to Iohn Alasco And that Polidor Virgil went not out of England before the end of the Year 1551. For I find an Order of Council 1551. Octob. 14. to deliver to Polidor Virgil in way of the King's reward the Summ of One hundred Marks and another Order 1551. Nov. 9. to pay to to Plidor Virgil in way of the King's Majesties reward the Summ of 300 Crowns after Five shillings the Crown Pag. 155. lin 2. On the 26th of Iune 1550. Poynet was declared Bishop of Rochester The Council-Book saith that 1550. May 11th Mr. Poynet was appointed Bishop of Rochester King Edward's Journal Iune 30th John Poynet made Bishop of Rochester and received his Oath This latter is to be understood of the reception of his Temporalties from and doing Homage to the King For he was consecrated Iune 29th Pag. 156. lin 19. Bucer wrote a Book Entituled Concerning the Kingdom of Christ. In it he complains much of Pluralities and Non-Residence as a Remainder of Popery so hurtful to the Church that in many places there were but one or two or few more Sermons in a whole Year The Historians affection to the present Constitution of our Church in relation to Plurality of Benefices is well known He had before said in his Preface that the present use of Pluralities of England was a Relique of Popery a scandal of a crying Nature which may justly make us blush But he will never be able to adapt Bucer's words to such Pluralities as are now allowed and practised in this Church The words of Bucer are these Quot reperias qui licet manifesto horrendo Sacrilegio plurium Parochiarum emolumenta absumant tamen ne uni quidem debitum impendere ministerium vel per suos mercenarios taceo per seipsos dignetur Si enim bi inlocis Splendidis frequentioribus unam alteram vel paulo plures in anno conciones habuerint existimant se suo munere proeclare esse defunctos reliqúum omne tempus otio luxui pompae mundanae impendunt Wherein he blamed those who received the Profits of many Benefices with Cure of Souls and yet served not the Cure of any one of them either by Curates or their own Persons whereas it is notorious that at this time none is permitted to hold above two Benefices and both are constantly supplied by the Beneficiary either personally or by Curates and Sermons preached in either every Sunday whereas also those whom Bucer complaineth of thought they satisfied their Duty if they preached two three or more Sermons in a year in some populous and eminent places which the Historian by mistake interprets of their own Parishes I find but one remarkable thing concerning Pluralities during the whole Reign of Edward VI. and that is an Order of Council 1550. Iune 28 That upon Consideration Mr. Poynet now Elect Bishop of Rochester hath no House to dwell on and his Living small it was agreed he should enjoy his Benefice in Commendam But from henceforth it is decreed that no Bishop shall keep other Benefice than his Bishoprick only Pag. 160. lin 18. The Duke of Lunenberg had offered the King 10000 men to his Assistance and desired to enter into a Treaty of Marriage for the Lady Mary The Council-Book saith it was the D. of Brandenburgh who proposed to treat of a Marriage with the Lady Mary and that the Embassador who came to propose it had Two hundred pounds given to him by way of Gratuity King Edward's Journal indeed relateth it of the Duke of Brunswick Pag. 165. lin 3. Gardiner was soon after February 1551. put out There was a Commission issued out to the Archbishop c. He put in a Compurgation Upon this many Witnesses were Examined His Judges on the 18th of April gave Sentence against him by which they deprived him of his Bishoprick I find in the Council-Book that the Bishop of Winchester's Case was first renewed after the Sequestration 1550. Nov. 23. when it was agreed in Council that the Bishop of Ely Secretary Petre Dr. May and Dr. Glynn should confer on the matter and on Tuesday following should certifie to the Council what was to be done by the Order of Law in that case What was their report doth not appear But Decemb. 14. the Council ordered that the Lieutenant of the Tower should carry him to Lambeth before the Archbishop and other Commissioners constituted in his Cause on Monday following and after that when and as often as he shall be by them required Decemb. 16. The Commissioners having allowed Council to Gardiner this was approved by the King's Council and the Persons by him named were Licensed to repair to the Tower to him and that although one of them was the King's Chaplain Ianuary 19th Two of his Servants came to the Privy-Council and desired that certain of them might be sworn upon certain Articles as Witnesses in behalf of the Bishop The Privy Councellors offered to Answer to those Articles upon their Honour but would not be sworn February 15th It was ordered in Council That for asmuch as the Bishop had at all times before the Iudges of his cause used himself unreverently to the King's Majesty and very slanderously towards his Council and especially yesterday being the day of his Iudgment given against him so that he was deprived on the 14th of February he called the Iudges Hereticks and Sacramentaries these being there the Kings Commissioners and of his Highnesses Counsail he should be removed from his present into a meaner Lodging in the Tower and have but one Servant to wait on him that his Books and Papers be taken from him and that from henceforth he have neither Pen Ink nor Paper but be sequestred from all Conference and from all means that may serve him to practise any ways King Edward's Journal saith that the Bishop after long Tryal was Deposed February 13th Pag. 165. lin 47. Eight days after on the 26th of April Poynet was translated from Rochester to Winchester That the See of Winchester was void by the Deprivation of Gardiner before the 18th of April the Historian might have learned from King Edward's Journal published by himself wherein it is said that April the 5 th Poynet Bishop of Rochester received his Oath for the Bishoprick of Winchester viz. then he received the Temporalities of Winchester The Council-Book saith that February 8th This day by the King 's own Appointment Dr. Poynet Bishop of Rochester was appointed and admitted Bishop of Winchester And April the 9th A Letter was writ to the Treasurer of the First fruits in favour of Mr. Skorie appointed Bishop of Rochester Pag. 166. lin 1. Veysey Bishop of Exeter did also resign pretending
Brown for hearing Mass in her company when by the King's order he attended her from Essex to London Now all this relating to the Emperour's denunciation of War to the King's Consultation with the Bishops to the Councils debate thereon and the sending of Dr. Wotton is erroneously placed by the Historian before December 1550. It is also a mistake that the prosecution of the Chaplains kept from December 1550 to May 1551. For it was not begun till December 15 and March 23. according to the King's Journal I think rather the 18 th it was resolved to punish her Servants hearing or saying Mass Accordingly in the Council-Book I find that March 22. her Comptroller Mr. Rochester was examined how many Chaplains she had who answered four viz. Mallet Hopton Barker and Ricardes April 29. the King's Journal saith falsly the 27 th Dr. Mallet was brought before the Council and being examined what he meaned that after he had been once forgiven he would again wilfully offend the King's laws in saying of Mass and other like could not deny but he had done evil in so doing He therefore was committed to the Tower So that Mallet was now imprisoned for a second offence not as the Historian saith because he could not be before this apprehended since his first prosecution May and Brown and Morgan upon their submission were discharged from their imprisonment Nothing further was done in this matter till Aug. 9. when it was resolved in Council to send for the chief Officers of the Lady Mary's House and to give them in charge not to permit Mass to be said in her House or to hear it and to give the same charge to her Chaplains and other Servants The same day it was resolved not to permit the use of Mass to the Emperour's Ambassadour since he would not permit the English Ambassadour resident in his Dominions the use of our Liturgy So that now the Council began to be less in fear of the Emperour not before the End of the last Year as the Historian hath it Aug. 11. a Warrant was signed for the appearance of the Lady Mary's Officers Aug. 14. there appeared Robert Rochester Edward Malgrave and Sir Francis Englefield her three chief Officers and were strictly charged not to signifie the King's pleasure to her to have the new Service in her Family and to give the like charge to her Chaplains and all her Servants as the Historian relateth but only to charge the Chaplains not to say Mass in her House or elsewhere and the Servants not to hear it and themselves to conform to the same Order and to take care that the others did it Aug. 22. the King's Journal saith the 23d the Officers returning reported to the Council that having first related their Instructions to her Grace which they had not been commanded to do she had absolutely forbidden them to deliver their charge to the Chaplains and Servants They also brought with them a Letter wrote by her to the King which I have inserted in the following Collection Upon which the Officers were not immedidiately sent to the Tower as the Historian writeth but called before the Council next day and reproved for not having executed their former Instructions but troubling her Grace with the opening their Message to her contrary to the Order and Charge prescribed to them wherefore each of them by himself and a part was commanded to return to her Graces House and execute the said Charge apart in such sort as the Order was given to them on the 14th Aug. The which thing they all refused to do albeit they were enjoined to do the same in vertue of their Allegiance Thereupon they were commanded to attend continually till they should know the Councils farther pleasure It was also decreed that the Lord Chancellour Secretary Petre and Sir Anth. Wingfield should repair to the Lady Mary with a Letter from the King and large Instructions from the Council which were sent to them being then in Essex The Letter I have put into the Collection The Instructions contained a Command to declare to her the King 's peremptory resolution not to permit to her any longer the use of the Mass the reasons which induced the Council to send a Charge to her Chaplains and Houshold by her own Servants which she had extremely resented the negligence of her Officers in not executing that Charge to justifie the King's proceedings to her and lastly calling her Chaplains and Servants before them to charge them strictly not to say or hear Mass. Aug. 29. the Commissioners being returned made report in Council of the Execution of their Charge and of the Lady Mary's Answer whom they had attended on the 28th The Report is large the substance of which is rightly given by the Historian When their Report was ended an Order was made that Rochester Inglefield and Walgrave should be conveyed from the Fleet to which they had been committed the day before to the Tower Next year on the 14 th of April they were set at liberty and commanded to return to their Lady and attend her Service as she had requested Pag. 177. lin 32. The English Embassadours in France 1551. moved for the Daughter of France to be given in marriage to King Edward yet this never taking effect it is needless to enlarge farther about it of which the Reader will find all the particulars in King Edward's Journal This Treaty of Marriage had a considerable Effect not mentioned in the King's Journal For it is said in the Council-Book that 30. Dec. 1551. This day the Lord Admiral being returned out of France delivered to the Lords the Ratification of the Marriage between the King's Majesty and the Lady Elizabeth the French Kings Daughter under the Great Seal of France And it was accorded that the same Treaty should be delivered to the Lord Treasurer to be by him reposed in the Treasury of the Exchequer to remain there of record in safe keeping Pag. 194. lin 43. Tonstall Bishop of Duresm was upon some complaint brought against him of Misprision of Treason put into the Tower about the end of December last year viz. 1551. What the particulars were I do not find King Edward's Journal placeth his Imprisonment on the 20th of December 1551. and so doth the Council-Book which relateth the Cause of it in these Words Whereas the Bishop of Duresm about July in Anno 1550 was charged by Ninian Menvile to have consented to a Conspiracy in the North for the raising of a Rebellion as by the same accusation in writing the Bishop's Answer thereunto and Menvile 's Replication to the same may at length appear For as much as for want of a Letter written by the said Bishop to Menvile whereupon depended a great Trial of this matter the Determination thereof was hitherto stayed and the Bishop only commanded to keep his House untill he should be called to further Answer which Letter being lately come to light found in a Cask of the
Duke of Somersets after his last apprehension the Bishop was now sent for and this day made his appearance before the Lords by whom being charged with this matter and his own Letter produced against him which he could not deny but to be of his own hand and unable to make any further Answer thereto than he had done before by Writing he was for that the same seemed not a sufficient Answer committed by the King's Commandment to the Tower of London to abyde there c. He had been accused by Menvile before 1550. For the History of the Bishops of Durham lately published affirmeth that Dr. Whitehead Dean of Durham being together with the Bishop and his Chancellor Hindmarsh accused by Menvile was forced to goe to London where he died in 1548. Whosoever succeeded him in the Deanry seemeth for some time to have been an Adversary of the Bishop For in the Council-Book it is said 1551. May 20. The Bishop of Duresm upon hearing the matter between him and the Dean of Duresm was committed to his House On the 8th Iuly following the Council ordered the Dean of Duresm to Answer in Writing unto Matters as he was charged with at his being before the Council and in such sort as he will stand to at his peril Aug. 2. The Bishop had License granted to him to walk in the Fields October 5. A Letter was wrote by the Council to the Lord Treasurer Lord Chamberlain Secretary Cecil and Mr. Mason to hear and examine the Bishop and Dean of Duresme 's Case and to make them report of the same and if they shall so think convenient to send for them and their Accuser together or apart as shall seem best unto them So that by this time the Bishop and Dean were involved in the same Cause November 3. The Dean of Durham was bound by the Council in a Recognizance of Two hundred Pounds to appear before the Council on the first day of the next Term. He was then very sick and seemeth to have died within few days after For the King granted the Deanry to Dr. Horn 1551. November 20. The name of the Dean intervening between Whitehead and Horn I cannot recover and am ready to suspect that the time of Whitehead's Death is falsly related in the History of Durham and that the Order of Council of the 20th of May was not well worded by the Clerk For Horn is by many affirmed to have succeeded immediately to Whitehead and to him the Council 1552. February 18th granted a Letter directed to the Prebendaries of Durham to conform themselves to such Orders in Religion and Divine Service standing with the Kings proceeding as their Dean Mr. Horn shall set forth whom the Lords require to receive and use well as being sent to them for the weal of the Country by his Majesty To return to Tonstall while he lay in the Tower in the Year 1551. he wrote his Book De veritate corporis sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia in the 77th Year of his Age which was Printed at Paris 1554. Pag. 196. lin 28. On the First of November last Year viz. 1551. a Commission was granted to Eight Persons to prepare the Matter a Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws for the Review of the Two and thirty On the 6th of October 1551. the Council had directed a Letter to the Lord Chancellor To make out Commission to Thirty two Persons viz. Eight Bishops Canterbury London Winchester Ely Exeter Glocester Bath Rochester Eight Divines Taylor of Lincoln Cox Parker Latimer Cook Martyr Cheek Masco Eight Civilians Petre Cecill Sir Tho. Smyth Taylor of Hadley May Traheron Lyell Skinner Eight common Lawyers Justice Hales Justice Bromley Gooderick Gosnald Stamford Carrell Lucas Brook To authorize them to Assemble together and to resolve upon the Reformation of the Canon Law Eight of these to rough hew the Canon Law the rest to conclude it afterwards On the 9th of November 1551. a new Commission was ordered to those Eight Persons mentioned by the Historian For the first drawing and ordering the Canon Law for that some of those before appointed are now thought meet by the King to be left out The Commission was Sealed November 11. as appears by the Reformatio legum Eccl. Printed at London 1571 1640. Next Year viz. 1552. February 2. it was ordered that the Lord Chancellor make out a Commission to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Bishops Learned men Civilians and Lawyers of the Realm for the Establishment of the Ecclesiastical Laws according to the Act of Parliament made the last Sessions The granting of this Commission King Edward placeth in the 10th of February and giveth a List of the Commissioners Names but among the Civilians hath omitted Hussey principal Registrary of the See of Canterbury whose Name I find added to this List in some Papers of Archbishop Parker wherein also instead of Mr. Red .... the Name of Holford occurs Pag. 203. lin 3. This Year 1552. Day of Chichester was put out of his Bishoprick Whether he refused to submit to the new Book or fell into other Transgressions I do not know His Sentence is something ambiguously expressed in the Patent that Story had to succeed him which bears Date the 24th of May. The Council-Book giveth a large account of this matter 1550. October 7. The Council ordered Dr. Cox to repair into Sussex to appease the people by his good Doctrine which are now troubled through the seditious preaching of the Bishop of Chichester and others November 8. The Bishop of Chichester appeared before the Council to Answer the things objected to him for Preaching And because he denied the words of his Accusation he was commanded within two days to bring in writing what he preached November 30. The Duke of Somerset declared in Council that the Bishop of Chichester coming to him two days before had shewed him that whereas he had received Letters from the King and Council a Copy of which may be found in the Council-Book commanding him to take down all Altars in the Churches of his Diocess and in lieu of them to set up Tables in some convenient place of the Chauncels and to cause the Reasonableness of it to be declared to the people in Preaching He could not conform his Conscience to do what he was by the said Letter commanded and therefore prayed to be excused Upon this the Bishop was commanded to appear the day following which he did and being asked what he said to the King's Letter he answered that he could not conform his Conscience to take down the Altars in the Church and in lieu of them to set up Tables as the Letter appointed for that he seemed for his Opinion the Scripture and the Consent of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church and contrariwise did not perceive any strength in the Six Reasons which were set forth by the Bishop of London to persuade the taking down of Altars and Erection of Tables And then being demanded
what Scriptures he had he alledged a saying in Esay which place being considered by the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London's and the Lords in the Council was found of no purpose to maintain his Opinion Then the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely argued the Lawfulness and Reasonableness of the thing after which he was commanded by the Council to conform which he still refusing because contrary to his Conscience he was ordered to resort to the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishops of Ely and London to confer with them for satisfying his Conscience and to appear again the 4th of December When he then appeared being demanded he stuck to his former Resolution and entred into a Dispute with the Archbishop about the merits of the Cause and alledged the former place out of Esaiah and a place out of the last Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews Which the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely answered and shew from Origen that in the Primitive Church Christians had no Altars and urged the necessity of reforming the abuses of Altars But touching the naming the Table an Altar it was left indifferent to him so to name it because ancient Writers sometime call that Table an Altar Notwithstanding the Bishop persevering in his Resolution although he was now again commanded on his Allegiance to comply the Council ordered him to appear again on Sunday and then to give his final Answer Which he did and answered that plainly he could not do it saving his Conscience and that he determined rather to lose all that ever he had Hereupon two days more were given to him to deliberate But on the 11th of December persisting and praying them to do with him what they thought connevient for he would never obey to do this thing thinking it a less evil to suffer the Body to perish than to corrupt the Soul he was committed to the Fleet. On the 9th of Iune 1551. an Order was sent to the Warden of the Fleet to suffer the Bishop of Chichester to have such number to attend on him and to be ordered at those who attend on the Bishop of Worcester In September a Commission was given to examine and judge him On the 24th of October 1551. an Order was made for seizing into the Kings hands the Temporalties of the Bishopricks of Chichester and Worcester lately given to his Highness by the Iudgment given by the Commissioners lattely appointed for the hearing of the said Bishops Causes 1552. Iune 15. A Letter was wrote to the Lord Chancellor Signifying to him that Dr. Day late Bishop of Chichester is sent to him by the Kings Appointment to be used of his Lordship as in Christian Charity shall be most seemly A like Letter was then sent to the Bishop of London for the receiving of Dr. Hethe late Bishop of Worcester and an Order to the Warden of the Fleet to deliver them both to the Bishops appointed to receive them The Archbishop seized the Spiritualties of the See of Chichester void by the Deprivation of Day 1551. November 3. Stâ—w saith that the Sentence of his Deprivation was pronounced 1551. October 10. King Edward's Journal placeth it on the 5th of October Pag. 203. lin 3. This Year 1552. Heath Bishop of Worcester was put out of his Bishoprick He had been put in Prison for refusing to Consent to the Book of Ordinations He was afterwards deprived The Council-Book reports that at a Council held at Chelsey 1551. September 22. Nicholas Bishop of Worcester was sent for to whom was repeated the Cause of his Imprisonment to be for that he refused to subscribe to the Book devised for the form of making Bishops Priests and Deacons being authorized by Parliament At the time of which refusal being not only gently required to subscribe but also being manifestly taught by divers other Learned men that all things contained in that Book were good and true and that the Book was expedient and allowable the said Bishop declared himself to be a very obstinate Man and for that his doing it was now shewed to him that he deserved longer Imprisonment Nevertheless he was now offered to recover the Kings favour if he would subscribe to the Book He answered Confessing he took the Cause of his Imprisonment to be as was alledged and that also he was very gently used rather like a Son than a Subject Nevertheless that he remained in the same mind not willing to subscribe it although he would not disobey it And although he was reasoned withall by every of the said Council there were present only Six Laymen in disproving his manner of Answer being every thing in the said Book true and good and being devised by Eleven other Learned men to the which he was joyned as the Twelfth and received of all the Realm agreeing also that he would obey it but not subscribe it which contained a Contradiction of Reason Yet he still refused to subscribe it Whereupon he was offered to have Conference with Learned men and to have time to consider the matter better Whereunto he said That he could have no better Conference than he had heretofore and well might he have time but of other mind he thought never to be Adding that there be many other things whereunto he would not Consent as to take down Altars and set up Tables He was then expresly charged to subscribe before Thursday following before the 24th of September upon pain of Deprivation Next follow the Orders of the 24th of October 1551 and 15th of Iune 1552. related in the preceding Article King Edward in his Journal noteth that he was deprived for Contempt 1551. October 5. The Register of Archbishop Cranmer affirmeth him to have been deprived 1551. October 10. which is chiefly to be relied on as being a Record with which also Stow agreeth adding that the same day he was committed to the Fleet. He had been imprisoned in the Fleet before this Day For the Council-Book after the Relation of his Examination and Answer on the 22d of September addeth that as a man incorrigible he was returned to the Fleet. Pag. 203. lin 16. This Year the Bishoprick of Glocester was quite suppressed and Hooper was made Bishop of Worcester In December before Worcester and Glocester had been united So they were to be ever after one Bishoprick with two Titles But now they were put into another method and the Bishop was to be called only Bishop of Worcester So also Pag. 396. lin penult Hooper had not two Bishopricks but one that had been for some years divided into two He only enjoyed the revenue of Glocester for Worcester was entirely suppressed The Historian would have obliged us if he had pleased to acquaint us by what Authority all this was done It should seem that Hooper had Possession of the Revenues of Worcester I mean as much of it as the greedy Courtiers thought fit to leave to it as well as Glocester For in the Council-Book is found this Order made 1552. May
29. A Letter to ...... to make a Book to the Bishop of Worcester and Glocester of discharge of the First-fruits and Tenths to be paid for the same in Consideration that he hath departed with certain Lands to the Kings Majesty Now Hooper had been Consecrated Bishop of Glocester in the beginning of the Year 1551. and therefore could now in 1552. be called Bishop Elect only in respect of Worcester Nor could he now be charged with First-fruits and Tenths on any other Account than of the Temporalties of Worcester newly received by him Nor could he have passed away any of the Lands of Worcester to the King if he had not once Possession of them But to put the matter past all Dispute I will alledge an Order of Council fully proving that Hooper did enjoy the Revenue of Worcester For 1552. September 24. the Council directed a Letter to the Dean of Worcester to cause the Rent-Corn of the Bishoprick to be reserved to the Bishop notwithstanding Hethe 's Claim to the same Pag. 216. lin 15. How Tonstall Bishop of Duresm was deprived I cannot understand It was for Misprision of Treason and done by Secular men in the Year 1553. What was done in the Case of Tonstall till the end of the Year 1551. was before related out of the Council-Book I will here add out of the same Book what afterwards occurs relating to him 1552. September 21. A Letter unto the Chief Iustice signifying unto him that there is presently sent to him the Commission addressed to him and others for the Limitation and Determination of the Bishop of Duresm 's Case with also eight Letters and other Writings touching the same which he is willed to consider and proceed to the hearing and ordering of the Matter as soon as he may get the rest of his Collegues to him By these Commissioners Tonstall was deprived on the 11 th of October 1552. according to King Edward's Journal On the 31. of Oct. following it was ordered in Council that Sir John Mason should deliver to the use of Dr. Tonsâ—all remaining Prisoner in the Tower such Money as should serve for his necessities untill such time as farther Order shall be taken touching the Goods and Money lately appertaining to him and that the Lord Wharton cause the Accompts of the Revenues of the Bishoprick of Duresm as well for the second and third Years of the late Bishops entry into the same as for two Years last past to be searched for and sent hither with speed Pag. 216 lin 8. Ridley as himself writes in one of his Letters was named to be Bishop of Duresme but the thing never took effect It so far took effect that Ridley was actually translated from London to Durham For in the Instrument of the restitution of Bonner to the See of London in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign it is alledged that the See of London was then void by the Removal of Ridley to Durham made by King Edward after the Deprivation of Tonstall and Bonner was thereupon re-instated in London without pronouncing Ridley deprived of the See of London but on the contrary Ridley is in the Register declared to have been deprived of the Bishoprick of Durham for Heresie and Sedition Pag. 242. lin 39. Iune 1553. the Seal was on the 13th of August given to Gardiner who was declared Lord Chancellour of England Stow who is very exact in denoting the times of things falling within the compass of his own observation saith that the Seal was delivered unto Gardiner on the 23d of Aug. His Patent for the Office of Lord Chancellour bears date on the 21st of September according to Sir William Dugdale's accurate Catalogue of the Chancellours c. of England With Stow agreeth Grafton herein Pag. 247. lin 5. Pag. 248. lin 35. The Commission for restoring Bonner bearing date the 22d of Aug. was directed to some Civilians who pronounced his former Sentence of Deprivation void Thus he was restored to his See on the 5th of September 1553. Stow and Grafton affirm that Bonner was restored to his Bishoprick in the beginning of August and that he caused the use of the Mass and other Roman Ceremonies to be renewed in his Cathedral Church on the 27th of August Pag. 249. lin 17. P. 314. l. 36. P. 348 l. 38. Cranmer protested that the Mass was not set up at Canterbury by his Order but that a fawning hypocritical Monk this was Thornton Suffragan of Dover had done it Anno 1553 without his knowledge Thornton Suffragan of Dover resolved to shew his zeal for Popery Anno 1555. This Thornton had from the first Change made by King Henry been the most officious and forward in every turn In the Month of Iune 1557. Fourteen Protestants were destroyed in two days by Thornton and Harpsfield There was but one Suffragan Bishop in the Diocess of Canterbury of the Name of Thornton He was Suffragan to Archbishop Warham in the Year 1508. and had his Title not from Dover but in partibus Infidelium and died long before Cranmer's time The Suffragan under Cranmer and Pole was Richard Thornden sometimes Monk afterwards upon the Suppression of the Priory first Prebendary of the Church of Canterbury He died in the end of year 1557 or rather in the beginning of 1558. Pag. 250. lin 8. On the 13th of September Latimer and Cranmer were called before the Council Latimer was that day committed but Cranmer was respited till next day and then he was sent to the Tower If Stow may be believed Latimer was sent to the Tower on the 14th and Cranmer on the 15th of September 1553. Pag. 250. lin 17. 24. There was an Order sent to Iohn a Lasco and his Congregation to be gone Alasco after a long and hard passage arriving at Denmark was ill received there From thence they went first to Lubeck then to Wismar and Hamburgh and at last planted themselves in Friseland A most exact account of the Foundation and Dissolution of this German Congregation in England with their subsequent Removals was written by Utenhovius one of the Ministers at the desire of the Congregation and is printed at Basil 1560 86. with this Title Simplex fidelis Narratio de institutâ demum dissipatâ Delgarum aliorumque Peregrinorum in Anglia Ecclesiâ per Iohannem Utenhovium Gandavum being approved by Iohn a Lasco and the rest as a true account From this Narration it appears that although some of the Company went to Hamburgh Lubeck Wismar c. Yet that Alasco himself went not thither with them He left Denmark on the 19th of November passed through Holsatia and arrived at Embden the 4th of December He was accompanied with a Servant of the King of Denmark by whom he sent back a severe or rather unmannerly Letter to the King In this same Relation of Utenhovius is printed at large the Charter given by King Edward to Iohn a Lasco and his Congregation which the Historian had before mentioned and put
Thomae Cranmer ultimi Archiepiscopi ejusdem de altâ proditione attincti adjudicati vacante notoriae dinoscitur pertinere Thus in particular beginneth the first Instrument of the Register Dated 1553. December 16. Long before his Degradation also the Pope had solemnly Excommunicated and Deposed Cranmer for Heresie for it did not concern him to take notice of the Pretence of High-Treason In the Bull of Provision to Cardinal Pole to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury dated 1555. December 11. Pope Paul saith that he had by a solemn Sentence Excommunicated and Deposed from the See of Canterbury filium iniquitates Thomam Cranmer olim Archiepiscopum Cantuar. ob notorias haereses This Bull sufficiently disproveth the Historians relation But that which is chiefly to be regarded herein is the Register of the Vacancy before mentioned which puts it beyond all doubt that the See of Canterbury became void immediately upon the Attainture of Cranmer and was at least in England so accounted Pag. 267. lin 25. The last thing I find done this Year 1553. was the restoring Veysey to be Bishop of Exeter which was done on the 28th of December In his Warrant for it under the Great Seal it is said that he for some just troubles both in Body and Mind had resigned his Bishoprick to King Edward to which the Queen now restored him The Register of Canterbury before-mentioned recordeth that Veysey was restored to his Bishoprick because he had been induced by fear to resign it in the time of King Edward The Author of Athenae Oxon. saith that he was forced to resign pro corporis metu 1551. August 14. and was restored by the Queens Patent bearing date 1553 September 28. Pag. 275. lin 1. Thus were seven Bishops all at a Dash turned out in the Year 1554. It was much censured that there having been Laws made allowing Marriage to the Clergy the Queen should by her own Authority upon the repealing those Laws turn out Bishops for things that had been so well warranted by Law And even the severest Popes who had pressed the Celibate most had always before they proceeded to deprive any Priests for Marriage left it to their Choice whether they would quit their Wives or their Benefices In the Commissions given by the Queen for the Deprivation of these Bishops and related by the Historian it is ordered to proceed against Four of them only for Marriage viz. York St. Davids Chester and Bristol but against the other Three viz. Lincoln Glocester and Hereford for other pretended misdemeanors Now in aggravating the Queens injustice in depriving them Summarily for their Marriage the Historian plainly mistaketh the Case For they were not ordered to be deprived simply for their Marriage but for having broken their Vows of perpetual Celibate and having married after a solemn Profession of Chastity This the Historian might have observed from the very Commission for the Deprivation of the Four first published by himself the words whereof are these Quia comperimus Robertum Archiepiscopum Ebor. Robertum Menev. Iohannem Cester Paulum Brostol post expressam professione in castitatis expressè ritè legitimè emissam cum quibusdam mulieribus nuptias de facto cum de jure non deberent contraxisse The Secular Clergy of England had never indeed made any Profession of Chastity at their Ordination But that all the Regulars did is notorious And however the severest Popes had before they proceeded to deprive any Secular Priests for Marriage left it to their Choice whether they would quit their Wives or their Benefices yet no such favour was ever allowed to the Regular Priests who had contracted Marriage but their Marriage was accounted an heinous Crime by reason of the Violation of their Vow included in it It may be therefore observed that the Queen giving Commissions at the same time for the Deprivation of the Four first and of the Three last Bishops ordereth the former to be deprived for their Marriage the later for their pretended misdemeanors having taken Grants of their Bishopricks from King Edward the Sixth with this Clause quamdiu bene se gesserint although two of the Three later Bishops were married and all the Four former Bishops had taken Patents from King Edward with the like Clause The reason of this diversity of proceeding was because the first Four were Regulars and the other Three were Seculars That the later were Seculars is well known and of the others Holgate of York had been Provincial of the Order of St. Gilbert of Sempringham Ferrar of St. Davids had been a Canon Regular of the Order of St. Augustin Bush of Bristol had been Provincial of the Order of Bon-hommes Bird of Chester had been Provincial of the Carmelites Of the three Secular Bishops viz. Lincoln Glocester and Hereford the two later were indeed married but of that the Queen taketh no notice in her Commission for their Deprivation although their Ecclesiastical Judges in depriving them thought fit to alledge their Marriage as one Cause of their Deprivation not in Vertue of the Queens Commission but of the Canon-Law which upon repeal of the Statutes for the Marriage of the Clergy recovered its former force in this Case Pag. 275. lin 24. For the Archbishop of York though he was now in March 1554. turned out yet he was still kept Prisoner till King Phillip procured his Liberty But his See was not filled till February next for then Heath had his Conge d'elire The Historian dateth the Queens Commission by Authority of which he supposeth Holgate to have been deprived on the 16th of March 1554. But the See of York was void before this For the Dean and Chapter of York assumed to themselves the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction void by his Deprivation on the 8th of March 1554. He was discharged out of the Tower 1555. Ianuary 18. His See was not filled till Iune or Iuly of the Year 1555. For however the Conge d'elire might issue out in February Heath had not Possession of the Archbishoprick untill his Election was confirmed at Rome and his Bulls were published in England which Bulls were not dispatched till the 21st of Iune 1555. Pag. 275. lin 28. On or before the 18th of March this Year 1554 were those other Sees St. Davids Chester Bristol Lincoln Glocester Hereford declared Vacant The Register of Canterbury in which all these Deprivations are recorded testifieth that on the 20th of March 1554. the Bishops of Winchester London Chichester and Durham by Vertue of the Queens Commission directed to them pronounced the Sentence of Deprivation upon Iohn Taylor Bishop of Lincoln Ob nullitatem consecrationis ejus defectum tituli sui quem habuit à Rege Edwardo Sexto per literas patentes cum hâc clausulâ dum bene se gesserit upon Iohn Hooper Bishop of Worcester and Glocester Propter conjugium alia mala merita vitiosum titulum ut supra upon Iohn Harlowe Bishop of Hereford Propter conjugium Hoeresin
ut supra upon Robert Ferrar Bishop of St. Davids Propter causas supradictas upon Iohn Bird Bishop of Chester Propter conjugium No Sentence of Deprivation was pronounced at that time upon Bush Bishop of Bristol Whether he evaded it by renouncing his Marriage or by any other Submission is uncertain But he was never deprived However willingly or unwillingly he resigned his Bishoprick in Iune following For in the same Register the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury assumed the spiritual Jurisdiction of the See of Bristol void per spontaneam resignationem Pauli Bushe 1554. Iunii 21. Pag. 275. lin 32. Gooderick Bishop of Ely died in April this Year 1554. He died in May either on the 9th or 10th day of the Month. Pag. 275. lin 41. Hopton was made Bishop of Norwich But Story that had been Bishop of Chichester though upon Day 's being restored he was turned out of his Bishoprick did comply merely He came before Bonner and renounced his Wife and did Pennance for it and had his Absolution under his Seal the 14th of Iuly this Year 1554. Day was restored to the Bishoprick of Chichester before the 16th of March 1554 when the Queens Commission was directed to him and others in Vertue of which he with his Collegues deprived several Bishops on the 20th of March whereas Hopton of Norwich was not consecrated till the 25th of Octob. following Besides it is not certain that Story was turned out of his Bishoprick The words of the Register are somewhat ambiguous but seem to insinuate as if he voluntarily restored to Day the Bishoprick of Chichester from which he had been ejected I will not omit here to add that his Pennance if he performed any was not imposed so much for his Marriage contracted after Priests Orders as for the violation of his Vow For although it be not known of what Order he was we are assured from Archbishop Parker in the Catalogue of the Bishops of his time prefixed to his History of the Archbishops of Canterbury that he was a Regular Pag. 276 lin 1. The Bishop of Bath and Wells Barlow was also made to resign as appears c. though elsewhere it is said that the See was Vacant by his Deprivation But I incline it truer that he did resign It is most certain that Barlow did resign For in the aforesaid Register is a Commission granted to certain Persons by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury to Act during the Vacancy of the See of Bath and Wells which is there said to be void Per liberam spontaneam resignationem Domini Willielmi Barlowe ultimi Episcopi Pastoris ejusdem This Commission was giving between 20th December 1553 and 25th March 1554 Pag. 276. lin 16. Barlow never Married A more unhappy mistake could not possibly have been made For so remarkable a Marriage never happened to any Clergyman of England as to Barlow He he had Five Daughters afterwards married to five Bishops The first Fraunces was married to Matthew Parker Son to Archbishop Parker After his Death which was in the end of the Year 1574. she was married to Dr. Matthews Archbishop of York A second Daughter of Barlow was married to Wickham Bishop of Winchester a third to Overton Bishop of Lichfield a fourth to Westphaling Bishop of Hereford a fifth to Day Bishop of Winchester All this is declared at length in the Epitaph fixed to the Monument of Fraunces who dying in 1629. Aged 78 years was buried in the Church of York So that Fraunces was born in 1551. in the Reign of King Edward when her Father was Bishop of Wells Besides these Daughters Barlow had a Son of his own name who was Prebendary of Wyvelescomb in the Church of Wells in the Year 1571. being then in Deacons Orders It appeareth farther that Barlow's Wife was alive after that her Daughter Fraunces had married to Matthew Parker so that notwithstanding the Historians reasons it is to be feared that Barlow made some dishonourable compliance in the Reign of Queen Mary Pag. 276. lin 31. When this was done viz. after the old Bishops were deprived in the Year 1554. the Bishops went about the executing the Queens Injunctions In this Business none was so hot as Bonner He set up the old Worship at St. Pauls on St. Katherines day And the next day being St. Andrews he did officiate himself and had a solemn Pocession Bonner had restored the Mass in the Church of St. Pauls on the 27th Aug. 1553. as was before related out of Stow and Grafton If St. Andrews day be the next day to St. Katherine our English Calendar indeed wants great Reformation which placeth it five days after St. Katherine But it may be presumed that if the Calendar can retain any Friends to plead its cause it may in this Case get the better of the Historian Pag. 276. lin 46. The Clergy were now fallen on for their Marriages Parker estimates it that there were now about 16000 Clergymen in England and of those 12000 were turned out upon this Account Some he says were deprived without Conviction some were never cited c. They were all Summarily deprived The Historian would have obliged us if he had pleased to acquaint us in what Book or Writing Parker hath delivered this Account The Testimony of so grave and so worthy a Person would have excluded all doubt In the Defence of Priests Marriages wrote by an unknown Layman and published by Parker this Passage may indeed be found Is thus the Honour of the Clergy preserved to drive out so many twelve of Sixteen thousand as some Writer maketh his Accompt to so great a Peril of getting their Livings and this just at the Point of Harvest Here it may be easily observed that this Author will by no means vouch for the Truth of this Computation It would in truth be a very extraordinary matter if 12000 Clergymen should have married between the end of the year 1548 and the middle of 1553. I cannot affirm of my own knowledge that the account is extravagantly false but am very apt to believe it And in this belief I am confirmed for that having had the Curiosity to compute how many Clergymen were deprived for Marriage in this Reign in the Diocess and Peculiars of the See of Canterbury I found the proportion far short of this account For whereas there are contained therein about 380 Benefices and other Ecclesiastical Promotions no more than 73 Clergymen therein were then deprived for Marriage or any other Cause which far from the proportion of 12 to 16 scarce bears the proportion of 3 to 16. Yet Thornden and Harpsfield were as vigorous in prosecuting the married Clergy of that Diocess as any Zealots in any part of England As for the severe and unjust proceedings against some of the married Clergy related by the Historian the Author before mentioned attesteth the same thing But when the Historian saith they were all summarily deprived I fear this is
they had been all cited in due form to appear and give their Votes Pag. 403. lin 25. Some time after this in February 1561. Young was translated from St. Davids to York there being now no hopes of gaining Heath to continue in it which it seems had been long endeavoured for it was now two Years that that See had been in Vacancy The Historian finding that the See of York lay void from the enacting the Oath of Supremacy two Years not strictly accounted and not knowing the Cause of it hath invented a plausible Reason and believed it as a matter of equal Certainty with any other Occurrence related by him To assign proper and plausible Reasons to every Action may add Beauty to a History but if liberty be taken to do this without any ground or warrant little difference will be left between a History and a Romance Hethe was actually deprived long before this For on the 3d. of February 1560. viz. in the beginning of the Year 1560. the Dean and Chapter of York assumed the Exercise of the Spiritual Jurisdiction of that See void by his Deprivation On the 12th of August 1560. William May Dean of St. Pauls London was elected Archbishop of York But he dying before his Confirmation and Consecration Thomas Young Bishop of St. Davids was finally elected to that Archbishoprick on the 27th of Ianuary 1561. and confirmed on the 25th of February Pag. 403. lin 23. Parker being thus Consecrated himself 1559. December 17. did afterwards Consecrate Bishops for the other Sees Cox Bishop of Ely c. and Par Bishop of Peterborough There never was any Bishop of Peterborough of that Name To David Pole succeeded immediately in that See Edmond Scambler who was consecrated by Archbishop Parker on the 16th of February 1561. Pag. 404. lin 35. Some excepted against the Canonicalness of Parker's Consecration because it was done by all the Bishops of the Province and Three of the Bishops had no Sees when they did it and the Fourth was only a Suffragan Bishop But to all this it was said That a Suffragan Bishop being Consecrated in the same manner that other Bishops were tho' he had a limited Jurisdiction yet was of the same Order with them When I first observed that in the Arms of Archbishop Parker under his Effigies over-against pag. 402. the Keys were inverted which he ever bore erect I began almost to fear that the Historian would deny the Regularity of his Consecration But since he is pleased to do Justice to the Archbishop herein I will add in Confirmation of what is said concerning the equal Authority which Suffragan Bishops have to consecrate with others that the practice of the Church of England before the Reformation will clear all doubts of this Nature For the Archbishops in taking other Bishops to their Assistance in the Consecration of Bishops or in giving Commissions to other Bishops to consecrate in their stead made no difference between Suffragan and Diocesan Bishops So that I could produce above twenty Examples of the Consecration of Diocesan Bishops in England within Two hundred years before the Reformation performed with the Assistance of Suffragan Bishops and that when the Canonical number of Consecrators was not compleat without them Appendix pag. 386. lin 3. Saunders saith that the Heads of Colledges were turned out under Edward the Sixth and the Catholick Doctors were forbid to Preach The Historian answereth I do not find that one Head of a Colledge in either University was turned out I find somewhat relating to the Heads of Houses in King Edwards Council-Book 1550. 13th October A Letter to the Fellows of New Colledge in Oxford forbidding them to choose a Warden in Mr. Coles stead without License from the King 1551. 29th January Commissioners appointed to examine and try the Case of Dr. Cole upon certain Objections made by the Fellows of New Colledge in Oxford against him 1551. March 25th White Warden of Winchester Colledge committed to the Tower for receiving Letters and Books from beyond Sea and particularly from one Martin a Scholar there who impugneth c. 1551. June 15th Dr. Morwent President of Corpus Christi Colledge Oxon with some of the Fellows of that House committed to the Fleet for using upon Corpus Christi Day other Service than that is appointed in the Book of Service A Letter to the said Colledge signifying the same and appointing Mr. Juell to govern the said Colledge in the absence of the said President 1551. December 22. Dr. Tresham committed to the Fleet. Or if express Instances of the Ejection of any Heads be required I will produce one in each University In Oxford Dr. Richard Smith Regius Professor of Divinity and Principal of Alban Hall was ejected in the Reign of King Edward In Cambridge Dr. George Day Bishop of Chichester and at the same time Provost of Kings Colledge was deprived about the same time Pag. 390. lin 2. Day Bishop of Chichester was judged by Lay Delegates so it is like his offence was against the State I before gave an Account of the Deprivation of Day out of the Council-Book from whence it appears that he was deprived for a matter of Religion Pag. 396. lin 15. Coverdale was put in the See of Exeter upon Veyseys free Resignation he being then extream old The Record of Veyseys Restitution to Exeter saith that metu olim eidem Episcopatui cesserat His Patent of Restitution alledgeth that he had forced to resign pro corporis metu Pag. 396. lin 17. Ridley and Harley were never married The Historian hence hath taken an occasion to reproach Sanders for his little Exactness because he had reckoned these among the married Bishops But himself also is no less mistaken Harley was indeed married For the Record of his Deprivation saith that he was destitutus Episcopatu Herefordensi ex conjugio haeresi His Marriage is further attested by Fox Pag. 403. lin 43. The Historian denieth that the whole Clergy who had engaged in or submitted to the Reformation under King Edward were formally reconciled to the See of Rome under Queen Mary This is a mistake The Clergy were singly reconciled by formal and solemn Acts. To which purpose Cardinal Pole the Popes Legate gave Commissions to the several Ordinaries one of which I have published in the Collection And not content with this he prescribed to them a form by which they should be reconciled This also I have subjoyned in the Collection Pag. 403. lin 1. Sanders had said that William Thomas Clerk of the Council had conspired to kill the Queen for which he justly suffered The Historian answereth of this I find nothing on Record so it must depend on our Authors credit If the Historian had pleased to have read our English Histories of these times composed by Grafton Stow and others he might have discovered somewhat of this matter upon Record I before reported the Order of Council constituting William Thomas Clerk of the Council in the
beginning of the Year 1550. King Edward's Journal mentioneth it on the same day viz. the 19th of April Soon after in reward of his Attendance the Prebend of Cantleury in St. Pauls Church lately conveyed to the Crown and the Parsonage of Presthende in South-Wales were by the King given to him when Queen Mary came to the Crown he was stripped of his Office and perhaps of his Rewards also In revenge of which he designed the Murder of the Queen for which he was sent Prisoner to the Tower of London 1554. February 20. On the 26th of February he endeavoured to murder himself in Prison by a Stab but the wound not proving Mortal he was Arraigned and Condemned at Guildhall on the 9th of May and executed at Tyburn on the 18th of May. Bale endeavouring to extenuate the matter saith that he was condemned and executed for designing to kill Stephen Gardiner But all other Historians agree that it was for conspiring the Queens Death THese are the Errors and Defects which I have observed in this History For my performance herein I expect not either praise or thanks from the present Age much less from the Historian yet I thought it a Duty owing to Posterity not to permit it to be led into mistakes in any thing relating to the Reformation of this Church by Errors contained in an History published in our times with Pomp and seeming Authority I do not suspect any Person to be so disingenuous as to raise hence an Argument of my disaffection to the Reformation or if any shall be so base I shall slight the Calumny The Reformation of our Church was begun and carried on with so much Piety Wisdom and fulness of due Authority that a faithful and exact Account is the best Vindication and Defence of it nor should I ever have taken so much pains to rectifie the History if I had not been fully persuaded of the Justice of it If some favourable Passages in this History are by me disproved the cause of our Reformation will not be really injured thereby as not needing the Patronage of false or erroneous Relations We were sufficiently able to defend the Justice of it before any Forreigner undertook to deliver the History of it and shall be so still although the Reputation of his History should suffer any Diminution Lest it should be imagined that I have examined this History so curiously as to have discovered all the Errors and Defects of it and to have left no room to after diligence or the Enquiry of others I do protest that I never formed any Design of this nature until about a Month since I have noted what my Memory and present Collections suggested to me But it may be easily observed that I have considered only that part of the History which is purely Ecclesiastical and not all that If any one should take the Pains to examine in like manner the Civil History intermixed therewith it may be feared that not a few Errors and Defects may be discovered in that part of it In the last place if the Historian or any for him shall ask why in Compliance to his Desire expressed in the Conclusion of his History I did not first Communicate the Papers to himself I refer him for an Answer to the Athenae Oxonienses par 2. pag. 625. An Additament to Par. 2. Sect. 14. In the place referred to I thought it sufficient to observe that there appeareth no certain ground of the Marriage of Richard Bishop of Chichester reported by the Historian But upon revising of the place I think it not amiss to add That we have undoubted certainty that he never was married For Ralph de Bocking a Dominican Fryar who had been his Confessor and wrote his Life at large hath these words of him Testis est Frater qui haec scripsit cui ante paucos dies transitûs sui ex hoc mundo idem sanctus vitam Commissa sua Denudavit quòd ipsum sic carnis florem repperit custodisse ut in eorum numero censeatur qui cum Mulieribus non sunt Coinquinati And afterwards passing through the several parts of the Episcopal Office described by the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop must be blameless c. and applying them to Bishop Richard when he cometh to that part of the Apostolick Charge The Husband of one Wife he saith Ipse autem Richardus Matrimonium Omnino refutavit Consonant to this Pope Urban IV. in the Bull of his Canonization among other Arguments of his supposed Sanctity maketh use of this Carnalis Conjugii voluptates appetentibus anxius Satiatis plenitudine plenas abhorruit ut immaculati thori delicias Desiderantibus suaves placidas fruentibus gratas avidas obtineret A COLLECTION Of some few Records and other Instruments of which mention is made in the preceding Papers I. The Determination of the University of Cambridge against the Supremacy of the Pope Invictissimo ac Potentissimo Principi ac Domino nostro Clementissimo Henrico Octavo Angliae Franciae Regi Domino Hiberniae c. QUod faelix faustum sit huic florentissimo Regno tuo universo orbi Christiano Invictissime Princeps ac Domine Clementissime en scripto prodimus ac palam dicimus sententiam nostram in quaestione illâ famosâ de Romani Pontificis potestate cujus quaestionis veritatem post maturam sedulam examinationem ac varias ea de re non uno tempore collocutiones diligenti tandem Scripturarum collatione perpensione ut nobis videmur eruimus erutam Syngrapho quodam expressam quod sententiae nostrae facti certissimus testis fuerit Majestati tuae unà cum literis istis nunc mittimus Atque hanc sane provinciam Serenissime Rex abs tuâ sublimitate nobis impositam libenter suscepimus partim ob eam quam Majestati tuae debimus fidem obedientiam quibus ullo loco aut tempore de esse nefas maximum putamus partim ipsius veritatis amore ac studio quam discere ac praedicare quoties è Christi Gloriâ Reipublicae Chrstianae salute atque commodo esse videatur cum omnium intersit qui Christo nomen dederunt atque in illius verba jurarunt tum nostrâ multò magis referre interesseque videtur qui quotidie in illius Scripturis versamur quotidiè illius verba voces legimus qui est ipsa via veritas vita quique veritatem custodit in Saeculum saeculi Hujus favorem ac gratiam semper tuae Celsitudini adesse precamur optamusque ut nos ut Academiam nostram quae tuae semper voluntati fuerit obsequentissima vicissim Sublimitatis tuae favore prosequi fovere atque ornare digneris Christus Servator Serenissimam Majestatem tuam Diutissimè servet Universis sanctae Matris Ecclesiae filiis ad quos praesentes literae perventurae sunt caetus omnis Regentium non Regentium Academiae Cantabrigiensis salutem in
never thought on till the Year 1106 and was compleated in the Year 1109. Pope Nicholas II died in the Year 1061 and Pope Nicholas III obtained the Papacy in 1277. We desire to know which of these two the Historian meaneth Not the former surely But neither did the latter any more than the former concern himself in a matter done so long before his time It was Pope Paschal II whose Bulls of Confirmation were pretended to have been sent immediately after the Erection of the Bishoprick But even those seem to have been forged Pag. 316. lin 44. In the time of Popery there had been few Sermons but in Lent If he speaks of the ancient times of Popery it may be true But for some time before the Reformation Preaching seems to have been more frequent in England For Dr. Lichfield Rector of All-Saints in Thames Street London who died in the Year 1447 left behind him 3083. Sermons wrote with his own hand and preached at several times by him All these Sermons could not be preached in Lent After him we have the Examples of Bradley the Suffragan Bishop of Norwich who died in the Year 1492. after he had spent many years in travelling about that Diocess and Preaching in it of Dr. Colet Dean of S. Pauls who constantly preached or expounded the Scriptures either in his own or in some other Church of the City of Dr. Collingwood Dean of Lichfield who preached in that Cathedral every Sunday for many years together The Practice seemeth not to have been unfrequent long before this time and in some places to have been commanded to all the Parish-Priests For in the Constitutions of Iohn de Thoresby Archbishop of York made about the Year 1360. I found a Command to all the Parochial Clergy to preach frequently to their People and explain to them the Articles of Faith in the English Tongue and an Exhortation directed to the People to here Goddys Service every Soneday with Reverence and Devocioun and seye devowtly thy Pater-Noster c. and here Goddys Lawe taught in thy Modyr Tonge For that is bettyr than to here many Massys Pag. 328. lin 37. Dr. Lee Dean of York was brought up about All-hallow-tide in the Year 1543. and sent into Kent So also Append. pag. 292. lin 38. Leighton brought in Lee to be a Visitor of the Monasteries but they were of the Popish party and Lee was Cranmer's Friend He was in Orders and soon after the Visitation of Monasteries performed by him was made Dean of York Lee was never Dean of York For Higden who was made Dean in 1516 died in 1537. To him succeeded Dr. Layton for so his name is to be wrote not Leighton for he was no Scot who died in the Year 1544 and was succeeded by Dr. Wotton who died in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Pag. 333. lin 24. Bell that was Bishop of Worcester had resigned his Bishoprick the former year viz. in the Year 1544 the Bishop of Rochester Heath was translated to that See And upon the Translation of Sanepson from Chicester to Litchfield Day was made Bishop of that See Bell had resigned his Bishoprick in the Year 1543. For Heath was Elected to succeed him December 22. 1543. Sampson's Translation preceded even that of Heath for Day was Elected to Chicester void by his Translation April 24. 1543. Pag. 337. lin 14. None of the Preachers were either Actors or Consenters to the murder of Cardinal Beaton I do not find that any of them justified it Knox gave a violent Suspicion of his consenting to it and justifying it when the Murderers being immediately after the murder committed besieged in the Castle he conveyed himself in among them and became their Chaplain The Author of the History of the Church of Scotland which passeth under Knox his Name extolls the murder as a Noble and Heroical Action If Knox were not yet at least one of the Scotch Preachers was the Author of this History There is no Villany of this kind so black which may not be believed of Scotch Presbyterians since they have in our days as inhumanely murdered another Archbishop of St. Andrews and justifyed it and commended it as a meritorious Action Pag. 349. lin 35. This leads me to discover many things concerning the Will of King Henry VIII which have been hitherto unknown I draw them from a Letter written by Maitland of Leithington Secretary of State to the Queen of Scotland The design of it is to clear the right his Mistress had to the Crown of England Therein he proveth King Henry's Will to be a Forgery because it was not signed with the King 's own Hand but those about him put the Stamp to it when they saw his Death approaching For this he appealed to the Deposition of the Lord Paget and desired the Marquess of Winchester c. Dr. Buts and some others might be examined Thus it appears what vulgar Errors pass upon the World Here the Historian maketh great Ostentation of his own performance imagining that he hath entirely overthrown the Credit of all our English Histories and convicted the English Nation of a blind credulity But we beg leave to put in our Exceptions Maitland as Secretary to the Queen of Scotland might do well to urge any Argument tending to the Service of his Mistress whether true or false But what is allowable to a States-man herein is not to an Historian It is manifest that Maitland was ill informed in one Circumstance and if so all the rest may be suspected as being received from the same Authority For he affirms Dr. Buts the Kings Physician to have been present at his Death when the Stamp was set to the Will Now Dr. Buts died 1545. 17th November as his Epitaph in the Church at Fulham testifieth But King Henry died not till the 28th Ianuary 1546 7 not 1547 8 as the Inscription under his Picture prefixed to this History beareth So that the whole Story alledged by Maitland may be as much a Forgery as King Henry's Will is by the Historian said to be Pag. 353. lin 37. But if he Fisher Bishop of Rochester had kept his opinion of the King's Supremacy to to himself they could not have proceeded farther He would not do that but did upon several Occasions speak against it so he was brought to his Tryal The Historian doth more than once insist upon this I am very unwilling to deliver any thing without present Evidence yet I do very well remember that some years since I saw in writing a Complaint of Bishop Fisher's declaring the unhandsome dealing of those who from time to time were sent by the King to discourse with him in Prison how that having urged him to declare his Reasons against the King's Supremacy and assured him that in so doing he should receive no prejudice they obtained of him to do it and then made use of such his Declaration to his Destruction grounding their Testimony of his Recusancy upon it Pag. 358.