THE Historian seemeth to have been ignorant, that the Cardinal did for several years receive a very large Pension out of the Archbishoprick of Toledo. Not many weeks since I saw an Original Let­ter writ with the Cardinal's own hand to Dr. Lee, his Agent in the Emperour's Court; wherein, among other things, he commanded him to expostulate with the Emperour's Mini­sters for the non-payment of the Pension reser­ved to him out of the Archbishoprick. The exact summ due to him is therein inserted: but having not then taken any minutes of the Let­ter, not so much as the date of it, I will not affirm any thing particular of the summ. Yet to do justice to the memory of the Cardinal, lest he should be thought to have been bribed by any Forreign Prince to act against the inte­rest of his Master, I will add, that when Tour­nay was delivered by K. Henry to the French, Lettere di Cardinal Bibiena entre Let­tere di Principi, lib. 1. p. 33. in the year 1518, the Embassadour of the K. of Spain did privately offer to the Cardinal 100000 Crowns in the name of his Master, if he would cause the Cittadel of Tournay to be demolished before the delivery of it: which offer the Car­dinal [Page 2] generously refused, because contrary to the Articles agreed between his Master & the French King.

This Life hath been twice printed: So that it need not to have been cited with so much pomp out of a Manuscript: Or if the written differs from the printed Copy, that should have been observed. If that long passage, giving a character of the Cardinal, which the Historian here transcribeth, be taken Verbatim out of the Manuscript: We have just reason to suspect, that the Life contained in this Manuscript was not written by Cavendish, but by some other, who enlargeth on his words. For in the printed Copies, that passage is not to be found; although somewhat like to it, in much fewer words, may be read therein. Yet I have seen a fair Manuscript Copy of Cavendish's Life, written above a hundred years since, agreeing in all things with the printed Copy.

Par. 2. Append. p. 411.The day here assigned for the restitution of the Temporalities of Winchester, viz. 4 Maii, falls into the year 1528. To which Mr. Ful­man justly objects, that the See of Winchester [Page 3] seems not to have been void before the 9th of September this year,Ibid. for that Fox's Register reacheth so far. To this the Historian answers, that he took all these dates from the Rolls and must add that he hath often seen cause to question the exactness of Clerks in enrolling of dates. To put the force of Mr. Fulmans objection beyond dispute, I will add that Fox died not till the 14. of Sept. 1528. So that it cannot be avoided, but that either the Record or the Historian must be mistaken. The Historian chargeth it on the Record, and not content with this, brings the same charge of falsity against many other Re­cords. He who seeks to overthrow the Testi­mony of Records, in the truth of which the honour of a whole Nation is so much concern­ed, ought to be very sure. Notwithstanding his asseveration, I examined the Record, and upon search found, that not it, but the Histori­an, is mistaken. For the Record truly saith, that the Cardinal received the Temporalities of Winchester 6 April 20 H. 8.Pat. 20 H. 8. rot. 43. Which falls in the year 1529, and agreeth very well with the time of Fox's death, and Wolseys installation, which was performed by Proxy 1529. April 11.

Mr. Fulman had also questioned the date of the restitution of the Temporalities of Lincoln, assigned to be 4 Martii, 5 H. 8. because Wolsey was not consecrated till the 26. of March. I know not, whether the answer subjoyned, That this might be to give him a right to the mean profits by restoring the Temporalities before Lady. day, tho' he was not consecrated till the 26th. belong to Mr. Fulman, or to the Historian. But it proveth, that neither of them knew the [Page 4] true state of this matter. For whereas the restitution of the Temporalities of Lincoln to Wolsey before his consecration, is here repre­sented to have been (if true) an extraordina­ry case, owing to his great favour and power at Court: The truth is, that at that time, and for several Ages before, Bishops received their Temporalities from the King immediate­ly after their Confirmation, even before Con­secration; and at their Confirmation did of course take out a writ from the Archbishop to the King, signifying their Confirmation, and in vertue of it desiring restitution of their Tem­poralities to be granted to them.Regist. Warham. Wolsey there­fore being provided to the Bishoprick of Lincoln by the Pope on the 6th of Febr. no wonder, that as soon as his Bulls came into England, and had been allowed by the Archibshop, he should immediately receive his Temporalities before consecration.

Many mistakes and false consequences are contained in these lines. For 1. if Wolsey in the quality of Lord Chancellor, took place of War­ham; it would follow that the Lord Chancel­lors, as such, ought to precede the Archbi­shops [Page 5] of Canterbury: The contrary of which is known to be and to have always been true. 2dly. If Warham, when Lord Chancellor, took place of Wolsey, when Cardinal, in the house of Peers; it doth not follow, that at that time he took place of him elsewhere, as the Histori­an would insinuate. For in the House the Chancellor precedeth all other Peers, and e­ven the Archbishop of Canterbury among the rest, as being in virtue of his Office Speaker of the House. Nor, could Wolsey be so extrava­gantly vain as to desire the Great Seal only that he might precede Warham in the Parlia­ment. For,Pag. 8. as the Historian observeth, he af­fected to govern without Parliaments. And accordingly for many years after he obtained the Great Seal, had no Parliaments. And even after the Seal was taken from him, he still took place of Warham in the house of Peers. 3dly. If in the Letter wrote to the Pope 1530. The Cardinal subscribed before Warham; he could not do this in the quality of Lord Chan­cellor, as the Historian imagins. For the Great Seal had been taken from him in the prece­ding year 1529, October 17. So that some other reason of Wolsey's precedence must be enquired. And that reason is very obvious. For Wolsey took place of Warham, even before and after he was Lord Chancellor, as being Cardinal. This is confirmed by the relation of Caven­dish: Who in his Life saith,Cap. 4. that Warham check­ed him for his presumption in carrying himself as his equall; but that shortly after Wolsey ob­tained to be made Cardinal, and thereby got the better of Warham in that point.

If the word Record be here used in the Law-sence of it; we grant it to be true: But then it is not very pertinent▪ But if it be used in an Historical sence, it is a mistake. For to pass by the many Letters, Dispatches, Instructions, &c. Which remain of the Cardinals own writing, and which manifest that he had a great command of words as well as knowledge of things: We have the assurance of one who (as the Historian himself elsewhere ob­serveth) knew him very well, and would not flatter him, that he was much famed for his Eloquence.Cavendish [...]n his Life [...]ap. 2.3. His sentences in the Star-chamber were ever so pithy and witty: that upon all occa­sions they assigned him, for the fluent eloquence of his tongue, to be their expositor in all proceedings, — he had an especial gift of natural eloquence, and a fyled tongue to pronounce the same: That he was able therewith to persuade and allure all men to his 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.

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 [Page 8] 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.

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.

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.

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 [Page 10] 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.Cap. 13. 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,Pag. 214. Pag. 215. 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.Pag. 280. &c. All which is more largely and accurately proved by the Archbishop in his Additions to that Treatise.

Had this Historian been acquainted with our [Page 11] 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, they would have added that he had a Nose on his Face.

This surely was wrote at adventure.Par. 2. Append. pag. 412. 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 [Page 12] 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.

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 [Page 13] performed it. Insomuch, as whereas before that time scarce any Secular Priest in England, Praef. ad Grammat-Saxon. 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 13th 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; [Page 14] 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.

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▪

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,Vide opera Joannis Huffi in calce. 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.

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.

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, [Page 17] 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.

His name was Rober Braibrook, and he was not Lord Chancellor until the Sixth Year of King Richard.

Warham was not translated from London to Canterbury, till 1504. Ianuary, 23.

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.Part 1. pag. 95. 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 [Page 19] 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,Cap. 15. 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. XIX

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 [Page 21] 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 the King or Church. But as for Deanries, Prebends, and Parsonages, the Usur­pation of the Popes in the disposal of them was intollerable. These they granted to Cardinals and other Aliens, not residing, without all Shame. Insomuch, as I remember to have seen an Epistle of the Bishop of Salisbury to the Pope, wrote about that time; wherein com­plaining, that the Advowson of his Benefices was taken from him by Papal Provisions, he sends to him a List of all the Prebends, and Prebendaries of his Church of Salisbury; and adding to the name of every one by the Pre­sentation of what Bishop, or by the Provision of what Pope they obtained their several Pre­bends, demonstrates that more of the then Prebendaries, had come in by Papal Provision, than by the Presentation of the Bishop the pro­per Patron: that so, if possible, he might shame [Page 22] the Pope out of the like Usurpation for the fu­ture. Nor was the case of other Churches, parti­cularly of York and St. Pauls, unlike at this time.

Many accusations of the Bishops of England may be sound in Prynn: But I dare affirm, that a falser cannot be found in him. That all the Bishops were assisting to the Treason of Henry IV. except Carlisle, the Historian hath no other evidence than this, that none of them, except Carlisle, had the courage to protest in the house of Lords against a wicked design, then contriving against the Person of the late King Richard. But it doth not hence follow that all the other Bishops consented to this wicked de­sign, because they made no protestation against it; which would have done no service to their injured Sovereign, and onely exposed their own persons to the fury of an enraged multi­tude. It is not to be doubted that many of the Bishops of that time retained their Allegi­ance to King Richard as long as the iniquity of the time would permit them, although they cared not to become Martyrs in the cause. At least it is certain that the interest of Walden Archbishop of Canterbury was so closely linked to his, that there could be no suspition of his acting against his Prince; and accordingly the Treason of Henry the 4th obtaining success, they were both deposed together. It is also well [Page 23] known, that Scrope Archbishop of York imme­diately after took up Arms against King Henry, published a bold Declaration of his Treason and Injustice; and his forces being dissipated lost his head in the Quarell. We are farther assured, that both these Archbishops, with the Bishops of London, Exeter, Litchfield and Lan­daffe, attended King Richard faithfully in his Marches, after Henry of Lancaster had landed and declared against him; and assisted him to their utmost; untill the Commonality running into the Duke of Lancaster on all sides, and the King fleeing for his safety, they were for­ced to give way to the violence of a rapid Re­volution.

The History of the proceedings between Pope Martin and Archbishop Chichley in the matter of Provisoes would have been very ac­ceptable had not the Historian marred all for want of a little Chronology. He hath here disposed matters in a fair Historical series. But [Page 24] most unhappily those two Letters which he ma­keth to have been wrote at so great a distance of time from each other (I mean the first and last of those here mentioned) were wrote within very few days of each other. This with a little care might easily have been per­ceived. For the 8th day of December in the tenth year of the Popedom of Martin, falls into the year 1426. By this mistake the whole contexture of this narration is over­thrown. But farther, both these Letters were wrote upon the same day: And the Historian in transcribing the Popes first Letter to the Archbishop, (which he hath published in the Collection of Records Pag. 98. hath given a false date of it. For whereas it is truly dated Quin­to Id. December. He hath changed this into quinto die December. The other Letter also which he saith to have been wrote the 8th of December, is in the Manuscript Copy dated as the former, quinto Id. Decembr. anno Pontificatus nostri decimo viz. 1427. December 9.

I did many years since transcribe out of an Authentick Register all the Instruments of this contest between the Pope and the Archbishop here mentioned by the Historian, and as many more relating to the same matter, which seem [Page 25] to have been wanting in his Manuscript; so that I am thereby enabled to correct the mi­stakes of the Historian herein. From the words of the Historian any Reader would ima­gine that the Letter of the University was da­ted on the 10th and that of the Bishops on the 25th of Iuly. But on the contrary the Bishops Letter is dated Iuly 10th and the Universities Iuly 25th. Then whereas the Historian na­meth onely the Archbishop of York and three Bishops; in truth that Letter was written in the name of fifteen Bishops, that is, of all the Bishops of England except three who were then absent. For Salisbury and Chichester were at that time void.

The Historian imputeth this mistake to the viciousness of the Copy. But I fear it ought to be imputed to the negligence of the Transcri­ber. For in my Copy 'tis truly dated Tertio Id. Octobris. Instead of which the Historian renew­ing his former error hath in his transcript of the Instrument substituted tertio die Octobris. To proceed and joyn all the mistakes of this matter together, and transcript of the Archbishops speech in the House of Commons, which he giveth to us, is also false. For it reads die Ve­neris, [Page 26] 30 Ianuarii Anno Domini millesimo qua­dringentesimo decimo septimo, Indictione sextâ, Pontificatus Martini Papae Anno Undecimo. All the concurrent notes added to the year of our Lord shew that it should be ann. mill. quadr. vicesimo septimo, and so I doubt not the Manu­script hath it. Lastly (to say no more of this matter) the conclusion of the Archbishops Ap­peal, as it 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.

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.

[Page 28]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.

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.

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 [Page 30] 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,Par. 2. in Addend. p. 413. 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:P. 315. 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,P. 316. who then subscri­bed in this manner; 24 Archdeacons, 4 Deans of Cathedrals, three Deans of Collegiate [Page 31] 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,P. 48. & 49. 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 [Page 32] 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. [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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: Or that whereas it was thought very indecent, that the Prior of Canterbury, in whom the Arch-Episcopal Jurisdiction, during a vacancy, was invested, and by whom the Convocati­ons was summoned in that Case, should sit in the lower, and was thereupon removed to the upper House; his Example might facilitate Admission to the Priors of other Cathedrals, and open the way to them.

If the Historian had pleased to acquaint him­self with the State of the Church of England before the Reformation, he could not have been Ignorant, that for about 200 years be­fore the Reformation, Suffragan Bishops had been frequent in England, Par. 2. Append. p. 414. not only in large or neglected Diocesses (as Mr. Fulman imagineth, who hath in part noted the Error of the Hi­storian) but also in smaller Diocesses, such as Wells, and in those wherein the proper Bishop did generally reside in Person: insomuch that in many Diocesses, whose Records are preser­ved, there appear a continued Series or Suc­cession of Suffragan, as well as proper Bishops; and at the time of making this Act (Anno 1534.) there seemeth to have been a Suffragan Bishop in every Diocess of England, save Carlisle, Ro­chester and the Welch Diocesses; and in several Diocesses more than one. That they were not by this Act revived in England, after the discontinuance of so many Ages, the Histori­an might have learned from the very Preface of it,Pag. 157. which himself relates to begin thus: Whereas Suffragan Bishops have been accustomed to be had within this Realm, &c.

Sir Thomas More wrote this Supplication of Souls, before he was Lord Chancellor, in the Year 1529, as the Title of it witnesseth, being then Privy Councellor. He was then indeed Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster; but in this Sense, I suppose, the Historian did not here call him Chancellor: Since the Historian hath mentioned this Supplication of the Souls, and hath given an Abstract of it, whereby he would seem to have read it; I beg leave to represent to him, that it would have been very fair in him, if when he related the Tragical Story of the Murder of Richard Hunne, Pag. 14. & 18. so much in prejudice of Fitz-Iames Bishop of London, and his Chancellor Doctor Horsey, he would have acquainted the Reader, that notwithstan­ding the general and violent Suspitions of their foul dealing therein, Sir Thomas More, who was then an eminent Man, and had certain opportunities of knowing the whole truth of the matter, hath in this Treatise largely de­fended both the Bishop and his Chancellor, and acquitted them from all manner of guilt or injustice therein.

I fear that the Historian had conceived some displeasure against the University of Cambridge, for that he alloweth not to them, the Honour of having asserted betimes the Independency of our National Church upon the See of Rome; nor thinks fit to take any notice of them in this matter. I am not bound to engage in the private Quarrels of the Historian, and there­fore shall think my self at Liberty to do Ju­stice to the University of Cambridge, and to publish their Determination herein, which I have done:Collect. numb. 1. To which I will here add, that the like Determinations seem to have been then made by particular Colledges in the Uni­versity apart, and to have been subscribed by the Masters and Fellows of them. For I have seen such an original Instrument of one Colledge.

This is not accurately said. The British Monks were subject not only to the Bishop of Caerleon, but to their several Bishops, in whose Diocesses they lived. Indeed after that the [Page 39] Britains were driven into Wales, and setled there, all their Bishops were subject to the Archbishop of Caerleon, and so by consequence were all the Monks also ultimately subject to him. But the Historian speaketh here of their immediate Subjection. Besides, that in this place he treateth of the ancient British Monks, which were before the Confusions of the Gothic Wars in Italy, and before the times of Benedict; when the Britains were not driven into Wales, nor all their Bishops subjected to him of Caerleon. But there were at that time several other Arch­bishops in Britain, to whom the Bishops of their Provinces were as much subject; as the Bishops of the Province of Caerleon were to him.

That this and all other Charters of Exemp­tion from Episcopal Jurisdiction, granted to Monasteries in England before the Conquest, were mere Forgeries, is an undoubted truth to all those who are not engaged by Interest to defend them. But it is somewhat extraordinary in any Writer to lay down Principles confes­sedly false or dubious, and then to build upon [Page 40] them, and raise consequences from them, as if they were indubitably true. This seemeth to be done by our Historian in the following Page; where he layeth down the Exemption of Monks in the ancient Foundations from Epis­copal Jurisdiction, as one Foundation of their Corruption in Discipline, and increase in Riches. The first Exemption of this kind, really gran­ted to any Monastery of England, was that given by William the Conqueror to Battel Ab­bey, newly founded by him; the Example of which prompted the Monks of other places to counterfeit the like ancient Exemptions, or to purchase new ones from the Court of Rome.

Such high Figures of Rhetorick and Hyper­bolical Expressions are better reserved for Ha­rangues, and do not well agree with History. The end of the eighth Century was the Year of our Lord 800, at which times very few Monasteries had been yet founded; nor had the Monks then in all appearance gained Pos­session of the hundredth part of the Riches of the Nation. Afterwards indeed they increased exceedingly in Number, Riches, and Possessi­ons, [Page 41] especially in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth Centuries; but after all, upon a just Account, they will not be found even in Title to have possessed above a fifth part of the Na­tion: and considering that long before the Re­formation, they were wont to Lease out their Lands to Laymen, for easie Fines, and small Rents, as Bishops, and Deans, and Chap­ters now do; it may be truly said that they did not in reality possess the Tenth part of the Riches of the Nation. Then for that other Charge, that the best part of the Soil of the Nation being in such ill hands, it was the In­terest of the Nation to have it put to better uses, it is altogether Erroneous. From the beginning to the end, none ever improved their Lands and Possessions to better advantages, by Building, Cultivation, and all other methods, than the Monks did, while they kept them in their own hands: And when they Leased them out to others, it was the Interest of the Na­tion to have such easie Tenures continued to great numbers of Persons who enjoyed them. To this may be added, that they contributed to the publick Charges of the Nation equally with the other Clergy; and the Clergy did always contribute in proportion above the Laity. So that we cannot find, to what better uses these Possessions have been since put; save only that inconsiderable part of them, which remains to Bishopricks, Cathedrals, and Schools, founded by King Henry VIII.

God forbid, that any Professors of Christia­nity, much less the greatest Pretenders to it, should be guilty of such monstrous wickedness, or that any others should believe it of them without evident Proof. This Accusation is ta­ken from Fuller's Church-History,Pag. 318. who relateth no more than one Example of this kind, and that of a Convent, not of Monks, but of Ca­nons Regular (of Waltham) not upon his own knowledge, but the single Testimony of a most notorious lying Villain, Stephen Marshal; and after all is so ingenuous, that he professeth him­self to dis-believe it. On the contrary our Au­thor suppresseth his Authority, and brings no other Testimony; raiseth the number from one to many, and delivereth a dubious matter as a Truth most certain. Surely if the Monks had been guilty of any such thing, it could not have escaped the knowledge of their Visitors, who searched and divulged all their Faults with the utmost Industry; nor would it have been unknown to Bale, brought up among them, nor omitted by him in his English Vota­ries, wherein he hath set himself to defame the Monastick Order, and the unmarried Clergy with insatiable Malice; nor would Instances of it be wanting in those many Leiger-Books, of the Monasteries still remaining, wherein they Registred all their Leases, and that for their own private use.

Hereby it is insinuated, that the Begging Fryers, gained to themselves and possessed o­ther real Estates, besides the Site of their Con­vents. But no such thing was done. To the very last they had no other real Estates in England.

The Order of Monks is now extinct in England, so that whatsoever may be said a­gainst them, there is no danger of a Reply from them. Yet still so much respect is owing to the Readers, as not to impose any thing upon them, which hath not at least the appearance of truth. That, this Accusation will not have to those, who know with what Industry the Monks in many Nations, but more especially here in England, translated the Scriptures into the Vulgar Tongue. We have the Names left of seven English Monks, who before the Con­quest translated the Scriptures, or some part [Page 44] of it into the Saxon Tongue. After the Con­quest we do not find so many Translations made; but of those which were made, as ma­ny were owing to the Monks as to the Secu­lar Clergy.

The Historian could not have blamed Ful­ler's slight way of writing at a more unlucky moment. For himself hath here committed three mistakes within the compass of six Lines. The first of them is this concerning the time of Bishop Nix's Death, who died not the former Year, but on the 14th of Ianuary in this Year; nor will the difference in Computation in beginning the Year salve the mistake. For this Historian always begginneth the Year on the first of Ianuary. The other two mistakes follow.

I fear, that this also was wrote at adven­ture.Norric. p. 184. The Historian finding the Bishop in a Praemunire, and in the Marshalsea, without fur­ther Enquiry, would suppose, that the Crime [Page 45] was some correspondence with Rome, and so gave his Conjecture for History. But had he known the Character of this Bishop, he would not have thought this so much as probable. Alexander Nevyl, who knew him well, de­scribeth him to have been the most vitious Clergyman of his time. So that no remaining scruple of Conscience, or supposed Sense of Duty could prompt him at this time to hold a­ny Correspondence with Rome: Nor yet could the hope of advancing his Fortune by it, in Case the Papal Power should be restored in England, induce him to it. For he was then an extreme old Man, and had been blind ma­ny years: But the true Cause of his Convi­ction and Imprisonment was this, which I shall deliver out of a Record.Term Hi­lary 25. H. 8. coram Rege rot. 15. The Town of Thet­ford in Norfolk, had made a Presentment upon Oath before the Kings Judges, touching their Liberties; namely, that none of the said Town ought to be Cited into any Spiritual Consistory, but only into the Court of the Dean of Thet­ford; and that if any Person cited any of that Town into another Spiritual Court, he should forfeit Six shillings and Eight pence for the same. 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 [Page 46] 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.

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.

The Abbey of Furnes was seated in Lan­cashire.

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.Pag. 317. 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, Praef. p. 2. 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 [Page 48] 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.

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.

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;Pag. 148. 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 [Page 50] See of Bangor was not void by his Translation to Chester, Regist. Cranmer. 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;Par. 2. in Append. p. 415. 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.Pag. 149. 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.Pag. 300. The Commission there­fore granted to the Bishop of Chester, for taking the surrender of Hamond was 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.

When the Historian wrote this,Par. 2. in Append. p. 90. 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,Par. 2. p 6. 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 [Page 52] 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,Pag. 43. 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.Pag. 6. 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. [Page 53] Iohannes Episcopus Lincoln. 13. Octobr. 1535. Iohannes Episcopus London. 19. Octobr. 1535. Stephanus Episcopus Winton, eodem Anno, Cuth­bertas Episcopus Dunelm. 10 Novemb. 1535. &c.

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.

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 [Page 54] 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.

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.

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.

The Erection of a new Bishoprick at Ely, was 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, [Page 56] 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.

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 [Page 57] 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.

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.

Regist Cranmer. 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.

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.

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 [Page 60] was set to the Will.Par. 2. Addend. p. 416. 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.

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.

George Lilly, who knew him well, and wrote his Life, saith that he was born in the Year 1459. He was beheaded in the middle of the Year 1535. so that his Age did not then exceed 76 years.

Dr. Makerel might have deserved some higher Title than that of plain Monk. For he was Abbot of Barlings, and had been many years Suffragan Bishop in the Dioces of Lin­coln.

The Historian would have done well to have produced his Testimony, when he char­ged the Bishop with this Crime. Godwin saith, that he was imprisoned for relieving with money the necessities of some poor Prisoners, who had been imprisoned for denying the King's Supremacy. The same also Fabian, Hall, and Stow, affirm in their Histories. Now great difference is to be made between holding Cor­respondence [Page 62] with the Pope, and relieving o­thers imprisoned for it. The first would have been unpardonable Treachery, after so many Pretensions and Engagements to the contrary. But the latter might only have been an effect of his Charity to distressed Persons.

When Sanders speaks in favour of the Refor­mation, he is not rashly to be disbelieved. I esteem it no small Honour to our Cause, that so excellent a Person as Tonstall once wrote in defence of it. I much desired therefore that it might be true; and upon search found it to be so.De Scrip­tor. Brit. p. 714. For to omit the Testimony of Bale, who reckons amongst Tonstall's writings, a Book a­gainst the Supremacy of the Pope, I have seen and read a long Sermon of Tonstall's, preached be­fore K. Henry on Palm-Sonday, and Printed Lon­don, 1633, in 4 to, in which he inveigheth largely against the Primacy of the Pope, and the Trea­son of Reginald Pole then Cardinal. It should seem that this Sermon was published even in [Page 63] the time of Tonstall's Life.Pag. 193. & 214. For I find it cited by the Author of the Defence of Priests Mar­riages wrote in the Reign of Queen Mary. The Author of Athonae Oxonienses saith, that it was Printed in London 1539. who farther adds, that he wrote a Letter to Cardinal Pole against the Supremacy of the Pope, Printed at Lon­don 1560, and 1579. Quarto.

If the Historian intended hereby to Arraign the Abbots of Illiterature; let it be remembred, that himself had before said of King Henry, Par. 2. p. 10, 11. That he was the most learned Prince, that had been in the World for many Ages, and yet that he ne­ver wrote well, but scrawled so that his hand was scarce Legible. But not to make Inferences for the Historian; let us only consider his own Words. He complains that he could not read all the Subscriptions of the Abbots by reason of the badness of their hands. We are willing to allow any excuse to him, unless wherein he reflects upon the Memory of others. For that is not fair. Any one who compareth his Transcript with the Original, would judge, that neither could he read the Subscriptions of the Secular Clergy of the lower House of Convocation. For in his Copy many of their Names are miserably corrupted, and mista­ken. The truth is, all of them might with­out [Page 64] much difficulty have been read, and ex­actly transcribed; if the Historian had not read, as well (as others say he wrote) in Post­hast. I will therefore conclude this First Part, with subjoyning the Names of those Abbots and Priors, whose Titles the Historian could not read.

IF by Countreyman is here to be understood a Scot, the Historian would never have asser­ted Alcuinus to be his Countreyman, had he not presumed very much upon the ignorance of the English Nation, and supposed that in knowledge of Antiquity we were got no far­ther, than we were in the time of Hector Boe­thius, when such Fables as this, (that Achaius King of Scotland sent Alcuinus, Rabanus Mau­rus, &c. to Charles the Great,) might be secure­ly vended. Alcuinus himself in his Epistle to the Emperour Charles, calleth York his Coun­trey; and saith, that he was educated there under Egbert the Archbishop: Date mihi exqui­sitioris eruditionis Scholasticae libellos, Malms­bur. de gest. Pon­tif. fol. 153. quales in patriâ habui, per bonam & devotissimam magistri mei Egberti Archiepiscopi industriam: And in his Poem concerning the Archbishops and Saints of the Church of York, hath these Verses,

[Page 66] When equal Evidence shall be produced, that Alcuinus was born or bred in Scotland; we shall allow him to have been the Historian's Countryman.

The contrary of this appears from the Re­gister of Faculties granted by Archbishop Par­ker: wherein may be sound very many Dis­pensations of triality of Benefices with cure of Souls, enabling the Grantee to hold any third Living with two, or any two with one, alrea­dy possessed; or to hold any three, hereafter to be obtained.

The case of Vicars was not so bad before the Reformation, as after. Before it the Fees of Sacraments, Sacramentals, Dirige's, &c. were very great, since very inconsiderable. Before the Reformation, Bishops could from time to time encrease their Allowance out of the Tithes of the Benefice, in what proportion they pleased, even beyond the first dotation of it. The Bishops indeed have the same right [Page 67] still,Vicar's Plea. as Dr. Ryves hath fully proved; but the interposition of the Common Law would now hinder the execution of it. The Vicars then were 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.

[Page 68]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.

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,Collect. numb. 2. taken out of an old written Copy.

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, [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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 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 [Page 72] such an Authentick Testimony of the In­fidelity of it.

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 [Page 74] 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, quàm 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 ten [...]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 [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] used, to meet at the Church of St. Pauls Lon­don, on the 8th of Iuly. Pag. 6. 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 curiam Saecularem, puta Domini Regis Parliamentum, quod in camerâ ejusdem Domini fuit inchoatum; that this was contrary to the ancient Form, and that therefore they would not proceed to act, unless they might be assu­red, that this should not be drawn into a Presi­dent, and that for the future the old Form should be observed. Which assurance being given to them, the Clergy granted a Subsidy apart to the King, upon Conditions by them mentioned. From this it should appear, that before the time of Edward III. the Convocati­ons of the Provinces of Canterbury and York were not held out of the several Provinces, and consequently that the Clergy of both did not meet together, and with the Laymen consti­tute one Body in one House of Parliament; that the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury were then summoned by Writs of the same Form as afterwards; that not the King, but the Archbishop, appointed the time and place; that they never sat at Westminster, where the [Page 77] other Estates of Parliament were at that time wont to sit; that they permitted not Laymen to entermeddle in their Consultations, but sate apart from them, and granted Subsidies apart; and all this, as themselves alledge, had been done, à tempore cujus memoria non existit.

It had been more cautious in the Historian to have said, that he could not find such exact Entries made by them. For I find an Order of Council made 1550. April 19th, and en­tred in the beginning of a large Original Book containing the Acts of Council for the last four years of King Edward 6th, that there shall be a Clerk attendant upon the said Council, to Write, Enter, and Register all such Decrees, Determi­nations, and other things, as he should be appointed to enter, in a Book to remain always as a Leger, as well for the discharge of the said Counsellors, touching such things as they shall pass from time to time, as also for a Memorial unto them of their own proceedings. Unto which Office William Tho­mas was appointed by the Kings Highness, with the advice of his aforesaid Council, and in Pre­sence of the same Council sworn. Accordingly all the Acts of Council are therein entred large­ly and with great exactness, the Original hands of the Privy Councellors then present be­ing added to the Acts and Orders of every se­veral day. This Book I shall often mention hereafter.

In truth Cranmer only translated this Cate­chism out of Dutch (at least translated it from the Latin Translation of Iustus Ionas, who had translated the Dutch Catechism) as both the Title and the Preface of it might have in­formed the Historian. The Title saith, it was overseen and corrected by the Archbishop; and Cranmer himself in another Book speaketh of this Catechism in these words— a Catechism by me translated and set forth. Treatise of the Sacra­ment, f. 100. He added indeed a large Discourse of his own to the Exposition of the Second Commandment, and inserted some few Sentences elsewhere.

As for Adulteries and Rapes (which the Historian insisteth on) it is charitably to be hoped, that they were not so frequent in the Clergy before the Reformation. But the grea­test [Page 79] Scandal arose by keeping Women in their Houses under the Name and Notion of Concu­bines, and being Licensed by their several Bi­shops to do it: which abuse obtained generally, and was practised openly, throughout the whole Western Church immediately before the Reformation. Yet in any case to cover the faults of the Clergy, and to excuse them where the cause admitteth any excuse, not only the respect due to the sacred Order, but common Justice also requireth. Had all these Women, thus generally entertained by the Clergy, been no other than their Concubines; it would in­deed have been inexcusable. But in truth, they were for the most part their Wives; whom they married secretly, and kept under the name of Concubines: since the Laws and Canons then received, forbad them to Marry openly, or to entertain Women under the name of Wives. This the Bishops very well knew: and from time to time gave them Li­censes to do it, and tolerated them in it; not allowing them thereby to violate the Di­vine Laws of Chastity, but only in secret to neglect the Ecclesiastical Laws of Celibacy. Now that this was the case of the Western Clergy, we are assured by Alvarus Pelagius, Planet. Eccl. l. 2. Consul­tat. 23. Cassander, and others. And lest we should i­magine the Clergy of England in this practise to have Acted, either with less Wit or Conscience than the Clergy of other Nations; we find se­veral Constitutions of our latter Provincial Councils directed against the Clandestine Mar­riages of the Clergy. These Constitutions were made for shew; but were seldom or never exe­cuted. [Page 80] But the most express Testimony, that can be desired herein, is given by Archbishop Parker; who publishing a large and accurate Defence of Priests Marriages, wrote by an Ano­nymous Layman in the Reign of Queen Mary; hath towards the end of the Book, in some Copies of it, inserted ten Sheets of his own Composition, wherein he giveth a full and learned History of the Marriage and Celibacy of the Clergy of England, from the first Re­ception of Christianity to the Reformation. In this History he affirms the practise of the Clergy in Relation to Concubines before men­tioned,Pag. 329. to have continued all along in England, concluding thus,—And so lived secretlye with their Friendes, not openly vouched for Wives, but in affectu sororio, amore uxorio, & fide conjugali, as they use the Tearmes. In which kynde of Lyfe there be no small Argumentes, that some Bishoppes, and the best of the Cleargie, lyvyng within the Me­morie of man, dyd continue. And in another place:Pag. 334. For as many of the Cleargie lyved in Adul­teries, and some in Vices Sodomitical; so dyd di­verse, whose Consciences were better, and in know­ledge more wise, lyved secretlie with Wives, and provyded for their Children under the Names of Nephews, and other mens Children.—In which manner lyved Bonifacius Archbishope of Canter­bury, and other Bishopes of old dayes; but some also of late days dyd lyve, though all the World did not barke at the matter.

Before I dismiss this matter, I will add some­what concerning the Attempt made for the open Restitution of Marriage to the Clergy in the times of Henry 8th, of which our Histori­an [Page 81] is altogether silent. The Anonymous Au­thor of the Defence of Priests Marriages before mentioned,Pag. 173.197, 198. relateth, that after it had been 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, Num. [...]. did (through the instigation of the Po­pish party) make an open Proclamation (which may be found in the following Collection) in the 30th 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 [Page 82] to divers, who heard him oft speak of that matter.

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.

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.

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,Can. 12. 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.

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.

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 [Page 86] 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, Pag. 279. 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.

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, Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 298. lately published, relate another like miscarriage of the same Le­gate in the same Year.

[Page 87]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,Pag. 351. 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.Numb. 4. 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.

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 [Page 88] 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.

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,Regist. Cranmer. 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.

In the Original Council-Book of King Ed­ward the Sixth, before-mentioned, all the Or­ders, Messages, Papers, Articles and Answers [Page 89] 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 10th. 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 13th. 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 [Page 90] to go to him again, to receive a direct An­swer; that the Counsail hereupon might determine further Order for him. July 8th 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.

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 [Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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.

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.

[Page 93]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.

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 [Page 94] 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, [Page 95] 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.

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.

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.

The Historians affection to the present Con­stitution of our Church in relation to Plurali­ty of Benefices is well known.Pag. 12. 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.

Do Regno. Christi, l. 1. c. 19.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 [Page 97] 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.

[Page 98]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.

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 [Page 99] 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.

That the See of Winchester was void by the Deprivation of Gardiner, before the 18th of [Page 100] April, the Historian might have learned from King Edward's Journal published by himself;Pag. 24. wherein it is said, that April the 5th, 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.

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 [Page 101] 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.

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,Regist. Cranmer. being nomi­nated on the 27th of August, according to King Edward's Journal.

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 [Page 103] 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.

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,Pag. 23. 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 [Page 105] 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. 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 18th.) 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 27th.) 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. [Page 106] 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 [Page 107] have inserted in the following Collection. Upon which the Officers were (not immedi­diately sent to the Tower,Numb. 5. 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,Numb. 6. 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 [Page 108] 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 14th. of April they were set at liberty, and commanded to return to their Lady, and attend her Service as she had re­quested.

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, [Page 109] to remain there of record in safe keep­ing.

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 [Page 110] 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.Angl. Sacr. Par. 1. p. 782. 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.Athen. Oxon. Par. 1. For the King granted [Page 111] 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.

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, [Page 112] 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.

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 [Page 114] 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: [Page 115] 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 [Page 116] 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. St [...]w saith, that the Sentence of his Deprivation was pronounced 1551. October 10. King Edward's Journal placeth it on the 5th of October.

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 [Page 117] 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 [Page 118] 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.

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 [Page 119] 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.

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 [Page 120] was deprived on the 11th. 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. Tons [...]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.

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.

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,Chron. p. 88. &c. of England. With Stow agreeth Grafton herein.

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.

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.

If Stow may be believed Latimer was sent to the Tower on the 14th, and Cranmer on the 15th. of September 1553.

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 aliorum (que) 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;Pag. 154. which the Historian had before mentioned, and put it into his Collection, for the Curiosity of the [Page 124] thing, as himself saith: It was also published by Mr. Prynn in his Tryal of Archbishop Laud. Pag. 394. I will further add, that it is more correct in Utenhovius, than in the Transcript; which is the Case of all th [...] Instruments and Memorials published by him, which I have had occasion to compare either with the Originals, or with other Copies.

Cox had no Prebendary (the Historian would have said Prebend) at Westminster, but besides his Deanry of Christ-Church Oxford, was Dean of Westminster, and Prebendary of Windsor; of all which he was deprived about this time. The cause of his Deprivation, was probably supposed to have been, that he had acted in favour of Queen Iane. For being a conside­rable Person in King Edward's Court at the time of his Death, and having been much em­ployed even in State Affairs, he could not well avoid to be concerned in that matter, if he were then present at Court. He was married indeed at this time. But I do not think that was alledged as a Cause of his Deprivation. For they did not yet proceed to deprive the married Clergy, until some Months after this.

I fear that Holgate by his imprudent Car­riage, if not by worse Actions, had brought a Scandal on the Reformation. Most, if not all the Persons highly instrumental in the Re­formation, were eminent for Vertue, but the probity of Holgate may justly be suspected. For in the Council-Book of King Edward, I find this Order made on the 23d. of November, 1551. A Letter to the Archbishop of York, to stay his coming up hither till the Parliament. Also a Letter to Sir Tho. Gargrave, and Mr. Cha­loner, and Dr. Rouksby, to search and examine the very truth of the matter between the Archbi­shop of York, and one Norman, who claimeth the said Archbishop's Wife to be his Wife, to which end the Supplication of the said Norman is sent to them enclosed. It is to be lamented indeed, that such occasions of Scandal were given by any eminent Persons of our Church (although to say the truth Holgate acted very little in the Reformation) but when they are given, they ought not to be dissembled by an Historian, out of favour or affection to any Party. To represent only the laudable Actions of men, is to write an Elogy, or Apology, or Panegyrick, or whatever other Name it may assume, the name of History it ought not to claim. And after all such Scandals (if indeed this were justly so) are no more prejudicial to the Honour of [Page 126] the Church of England, at and since the Re­formation, than the scandalous Impurities of Walter Bishop of Hereford, Stanly Bishop of Ely, and many others, were to the Honour of the same Church before the Reformation. I know whither the learned Author of the De­fence of Priest-Marriages, published by Arch­bishop Parker intends the Case of Holgate, Pag. 190, 191. when he saith, I mean not to justifie the universal sort of the married Bishops, and Priests in all their light and dissolute Behaviour; whatsoever it hath been in any of them from the highest to the lowest.— I think that I may speak it of the Conscience of some married Bishops and Priests in England, that they do as much lament the light Behaviour, shewed and escaped by some of them; in the Libertee that was granted them of Law and Parliament, as they that be most angry and out of patience with them.—and beside forth be­wail the dissolute Behaviour of a great meany of their best beloved, and wish as hartely all Offen­dicles and Slaunders rooted out both sortes of the Clergie. It should seem that in the Imprison­ment of Holgate, this was alledged as one of those hainous Offences, which were the preten­ded cause of it. For in the Instrument of his Deprivation it is said, that he was for his Mar­riage committed to the Tower and deprived.

[Page 127]He was Arraigned and Condemned of Treason at Guild-Hall London, on the 13th of November, according to Stow and Grafton.

This, if true, would be a matter of great moment, and make a considerable change in the History of our Church. But really it is a meer Fiction. For immediately after his At­tainture, the See of Canterbury was declared void, and the Dean and Chapter of Canter­bury thereupon assumed the Administration of the Spiritual Jurisdiction of the Archbisho­prick, as in other Cases of Vacancy. The Attainture was compleated in the middle of November 1553. and on the 16th of December following, the Dean and Chapter of Can­terbury, gave out Commissions to several Persons for the Exercise of the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction in their Names, and by their Au­thorities. The Chapter continued in Possession [Page 128] of this Jurisdiction, till the Publication of Car­dinal Poles Bulls of Provision to the Archbisho­prick; viz. till the beginning of the Year 1556. and during that time gave Commissions to the several Officers and Judges of the Courts of the Archbishoprick, had the spiritual Juris­diction of all vacant Bishopricks, gave Institu­tion to all Benefices in them, and in the Dio­cess of Cunterbury, gave Commissions for the Consecration of Bishops, &c. of all which Acts done a peculiar Register was made, Entituled, Vacatio sedis Metropoliticae Christi Cantuar. post depositionem Thomae Cranmer nuper Archiepiscopi Cantuar. primo de crimine laesae Majestatis Autho­ritate Parliamenti convicti, & deinde ob varias haereses Authoritate sedis Apostolicae depositi, degra­dati, Seculari brachio traditi, & post remò in alma Universitate Oxoniensi igne consumpti, sub anni Domini, 1553, 1554, & 1555. regnorum vero Philippi & Mariae Regum, &c. During this time, all Acts and Instruments begin with these words: Nocholaus Wotton utriusque juris Doctor. Decanus Ecclesiae Cathedralis, & Metropolitices Christi Cantuar. & ejusdem Ecclesiae Capitulum, ad quem, & quos, omnis & omnino da Iurisdictio Spiri­tualis & Ecclesiastica, quae ad Archiepiscopum Canturiensem, sede plenâ, pertinuit, ipsa sede jam per Attincturam 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 [Page 129] 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.

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. Part 1. Pag. 582. 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.

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 [Page 131] 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 [Page 132] 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.

The Historian dateth the Queens Commis­sion, by Authority of which he supposeth Hol­gate to have been deprived, on the 16th of March 1554.Reg. Ebor. 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 [Page 133] at Rome, and his Bulls were published in Eng­land, which Bulls were not dispatched till the 21st of Iune 1555.

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 [Page 134] of the See of Bristol void; per spon­taneam resignationem Pauli Bushe 1554. Iu­nii 21.

He died in May, either on the 9th, or 10th day of the Month.

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 [Page 135] 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.

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

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. [Page 136] 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,Reg. Faad. Parker. 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.

[Page 137] 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.

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.Fol. 6. 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 [Page 138] 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. Pag. 13.269. 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.Fol. 5. But when the Historian saith, they were all summarily deprived, I fear this is an Ad­dition of his own. For this Author on the contrary saith, that a years time was allowed to the Clergy to abjure their heresy, and put a­way their Wives: although in some places their enemies were so zealous, that they dispossessed many of them before the year expired. The first deprivation, which I find to have been made on this account, was in the Church of Canterbury, by Thornden then Vice-Dean: who on the 16th of March 1554, deprived six Pre­bendaries [Page 139] (one of them the Archbishops Bro­ther, Archdeacon also,) six Preachers, and two minor Canons of that Church. In the Regi­ster of the Vacancy may be found many Pro­cesses against, and Deprivations of married Clergymen; from whence it appears plainly, that the usual forms of proceeding were, at least in many Cases observed, and that all were not summarily deprived.

It is true that the Secular Clergymen had made no Vow. But it cannot be denied that as many of the Clergy, as had formerly been Regulars, had made solemn and express Vows. Now the Number of these was very consider­able among the beneficed Clergy of that time; by reason that all Priests who had been ejected out of Religious Houses, were enabled to hold Benefices; and that the King also, and other Patrons did more readily give Benefices to them, that so by that means they might dis­charge themselves from the obligation of pay­ing their Annual Pensions any longer to them. These therefore were all forced to leave their Wives, unless they evaded it by any base com­pliance, by Connivance, or by the Favour of [Page 140] any great Person. But that any of the Secu­lars were forced to leave their Wives, I do no where find. Indeed it was necessary to all, who would continue in their Benefices, to re­nounce their Wives; but we now speak of those Clergymen, who had been already de­prived of their Benefices. Against many of them Processes were formed for their Marriage, which may be found in the Register often made; but therein I cannot find any beside Regulars, to have been deprived by the Sentence of the Court, or their Marriages to have been annulled. And accordingly in the Articles of Enquiry or Interrogatories to be administred to every married Clergyman, formed in March 1554. (when the persecution of the married Clergy began in the Diocess of Canterbury) the first is, Whether he had been a Religious, and of what Order, and in what Mo­nastery or House? A Copy of these Articles I have given in the following Collection.Num. 8.

We have no such necessity of borrowing light from Scotland. The Bull of Cardinal [Page 141] Pole's Legatine Power is entred in the begin­ning of his Register (kept at Doctors Commons) which ought in the first place to have been consulted. I have caused it to be thence tran­scribed,Num. 9. and have put it into the following Col­lection. From thence it will appear, how false the Conjecture of the Historian is, that Pole's Bull was in the same form with Beacon's Bull, which he pronounceth to be without all doubt. For in truth they differ altogether both in mat­ter and form.

The Council wrote and sent such Orders not onely to Bonner, but to other Bishops of the Nation, on the same day. I have in the Col­lection subjoined the Letter wrote by the Council to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbu­ry, Num. 7. who had then the Spiritual Jurisdiction in that Diocess in the Vacancy of the See.

[Page 142]This License bears date on the 10th of De­cemb. that year, as may be seen in the Cardi­nals own Register, wherein it is enregistred. In like manner Pole afterwards obtained a Li­cense from the Queen 1555. Nov. 2d. to hold a Convocation (as the Historian relateth, pag. 324) in vertue of which License he sent his Mandate to Bonner on the 8th. day of the same Month to summon a Convocation. In obedi­ence to which, Bonner summoned the Clergy to meet on the 2d. of December following. Which I observe, because the Historian in speaking of this Convocation, hath not fixed the time of it.

There had been Monks in the Church of Bath, until the Dissolution of the Monastery. But since that time, neither Monks nor Pre­bendaries had any place therein. Kardmaker had been really Prebendary of Wells, and in King Edwards's Council-Book I find ordered 1551. Febr. 18. A Letter to the Chapter of Wells, in favour of Mr. John Kardmaker, Chancellor of that Church.

Bishop Godwin delivereth a more probable relation (which he affirmeth to have received from a Kinsman of Gardiner) that he was the base Son of Lionel Woodvil Bishop of Salisbury: which Lionel was the Son of Richard Woodvil mentioned by the Historian.Pag. 1117. With Godwin a­greeth Mills in his Genealogical Catalogue of the Nobility of England.

Hethe received the Great Seal on the first day of Ianuary 1556. according to Stow. Dugdale also writeth, that he was constituted Chancel­lor on that day, alledging undoubted authori­ty, Claus. 2. & 3. Phil. & Mar. Orig. Iur. pag. 90.

Had none of the old deprived Bishops then, who were at liberty, courage sufficient to do their duty herein? That would indeed reflect upon their Memory. I doubt not, that some of them performed their duty. At least I am sure, that Harley late Bishop of Hereford did; of whom Dr. Humphreys (sometimes his Scho­lar,Vita Iuelli pag. 70. [Page 144] afterward his intimate Friend) relateth, that under the Reign of Queen Mary, he in­structed his Flock 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.

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.Register. Pole. 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. [Page 145] 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.

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 [Page 146] 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.

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.

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, [Page 148] 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 [Page 149] X. Papâ Archiepiscopis Gnesnensibus Primatibus Poloniae tali verborum contextu, Concedentes, ut omnibus Privilegiis, &c. quae ad Legatos Natos pertinent, & quae alii Legati Nati, prae­sertim vero Legatus Cantuariensis in suis Pro­vinciis, utuntur, libere & licite valeat uti, &c.

Thomas Tresham had been made Prior of St. Iohn of Ierusalem by the Queen on the 30th of November 1557, as both Stow and Fuller witness.

They both died before the end of this year, 1558. For in the Register of Pole, I find that the See of Glocester was void by the Death of Iames Brooks, 1558. Sept. 7. And in the Re­gister of Canterbury, the Dean and Chapter of the Church, are said to have seized into their hands, 1558. Decemb. 24. the Spiritualties of the See of Norwich, void by the Death of Iohn Hopton.

From this Relation any Reader would con­clude, that the See of Bristol was void before the first Designation of Parker to the Archbi­shoprick, viz. before the 9th of December. But that doth not appear. For the Spiritualties of the See of Bristol, void by the Death of Iohn Holman, were not seized by the Chapter of Canterbury, untill the 18th of December.

Besides these, I have seen a long Speech of Scot Bishop of Chester, delivered at the same time in the same cause.

[Page 151]It cannot be imagined, that Bonner was de­prived before the Dissolution of the Parliament. On what days the several Bishops of the Pro­vince of Canterbury were deprived, may be determined from the times of the Seisure of the Spiritualties of their Bishopricks made by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury; who then possessed and exercised the Archiepiscopal Ju­risdiction in the Vacancy of the See. These I will here present out of the Register of that Church. The Spiritualties of the See of Lon­don, void by the Deprivation of Edmund Bon­ner, were seized 1559, Iune 2. The Spiritu­alties of Winchester, void by the Deprivation of Iohn White, 1559. Iuly 18. of Lincoln, void by the Deprivation of Thomas Watson, 1559. Iuly 2. (these two Bishops had been commit­ted to the Tower on the 5th of April prece­ding.) The Spiritualties of Ely, void by the Deprivation of Thomas Thirleby, 1559. Nov. 23. of Lichfield, void by the Deprivation of Ralph Bayne, 1559. Iune 24 (he died before the end of the same Year.) The Spiritualties of Exeter, void by the Deprivation of Iames Tur­bervil, 1559. Nov. 16. Of Worcester, void by the Deprivation of Richard Pates, 1559. Iune 30. of Peterborough, void by the Deprivation of David Pool, 1559. Nov. 11. of St. Asaph, void by the Deprivation of Thomas Goldwell, 1559. Iuly 15. When the See of York was first voided by the Deprivation of Heath, I shall relate hereafter. The certain times of the Deprivation of Tunstall of Durham, of Ogle­thorp of Carlisle, and of Scot of Chester, I can­not find. In all 14 Bishops were deprived; [Page 152] to whom may be added one Suffragan, viz. Pursglove of Hull. The whole Number of the Clergy deprived at this time, is thus descri­bed by a Romish Dissenter, Author of A sin­cere modest Defence of English Catholiques that suffer, &c. Published in 1583. He saith that in England were deprived 14 Bishops, besides 3 Bishops Elect, the Abbot of Westminster, 4 Priors of Religious Houses, 12 Deans, 14 Archdeacons, above 60 Canons of Cathedral Churches, not so few as a 100 Priests of good Preferment, 15 Heads of Colledges in Oxford and Cambridge, and above 20 Proctours of divers Faculties therein. No great Number, to be deprived at a time of so great a Change in Religion. I am willing to believe the Com­putation of this Authour to be exact; because I find it to be so in the Number of Bishops and Deans deprived. The 14 Bishops we have named already. The Names of the 12 Deans follow. Cole of St. Pauls, Stuarde of Winchester, Robertson of Durham, Ramridge of Lichfield, Goodman of Wells, Reynolds of Exeter, Harps­field of Norwich, Holland of Worcester, Daniel of Hereford, Salkel of Carlisle, Ioliff of Bristol, Boxal of Peterborough, and Windsor. Of the three Bishops Elect, who are said to have been de­prived, I can recover the Names but of Two, Viz. Thomas Rainolds Elect of Hereford, and Thomas Wood.

This is a fair Story.De Scrip­tor. Angl. pag. 755. But what if after all, Christopherson died before Queen Mary? This is affirmed by Pits. At least it is most certain, that he died within six Weeks after her. In which time, Queen Elizabeth, far from depri­ving any Bishops, had not declared her Reso­lution in matter of Religion on either side. The Dean and Chapter of Canterbury seised the Spiritualties of the See of Chichester vacant per mortem naturalem Iohannis Christopherson ultimi Episcopi, Registr. Canto. & Pastoris ejusdem, 1559. Ian. 2. Now although he should have died some few days before Queen Mary (as Pits saith) it is not to be wondred, if amidst so much Confusion, as attended the Death of the Queen, and Car­dinal Pole, the Chapter of Canterbury neglected for some time to seize the Spiritualties of Chi­chester.

The Conge d'Elire was sent to the Chapter of Canterbury, Registr. Parker. not on the 8th, but on the 18th of Iuly; in vertue of which, Parker was ele­cted on the first of August by the Dean and [Page 154] four Prebendaries, then present in Chapter. The other Canons were either absent, or re­fused to appear. But the Election was not thereby the less Canonical. For they had been all cited in due form to appear, and give their Votes.

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.Registr. Ebor.) 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, [Page 155] was finally elected to that Archbishoprick on the 27th of Ianuary 1561. and confirmed on the 25th of February.

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.

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 [Page 156] 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.

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 [Page 157] 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.

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.

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.

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. Vol. 3. Pag. 19. His Marriage is further attested by Fox.

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 [Page 159] Collection. Numb. 10. And not content with this, he prescribed to them a form, by which they should be reconciled.Numb. 11. This also I have sub­joyned in the Collection.

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 [Page 160] at Guildhall on the 9th of May, and exe­cuted at Tyburn on the 18th of May. Scriptor. Brittan. Par. 2. p. 110. 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 [Page 161] 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.