With this the Cholerick old Bishop being enraged cited Richard Cockeral Mayor of Thetford and others into his Spiritual Court and enjoyned them under pain of Excommunication to call a Jury of their Town before them and forthwith to revoke and cancel the former Presentment For this the Bishop was attainted in a Praemunire put out of the King's Protection his Person imprisoned his Lands Goods and Chattels forfeited to the King by a Sentence in the King's Bench Court in the beginning of the Year 1534. With part of the Bishop's Fine and Forfeiture upon this Attainder the Glass-windows of Kings-Colledge Chappel in Cambridge are said to have been bought and set up Page 215. Line 18. By the 17th Act of the last Parliament begun 1536 Iune 8th and ended 1536 Iuly 18th it appears that the Bishoprick of Norwich being vacant the King had recommended William Abbot of St. Bennets to it but took into his own hands all the Lands and Manors of the Bishoprick and gave the Bishop several of the Priories in Norfolk in exchange which was confirmed in Parliament This Act was made in the preceding Parliament begun 1536 February 4th and dissolved April 14th and gave to the Bishoprick of Norwich in exchange only the Abbey of St. Bennets in the Holm the Priory of Hickling in Norfolk and a Prebend in the Collegiate Church of St. Stephens in Westminster Pag. 235. lin 20. The Abbot of Farnese in Lincolnshire with thirty Monks resigned up that House to the King on the 9th of April 1537. The Abbey of Furnes was seated in Lancashire Pag. 241. lin 45. Battel Abbey was represented to be a little Sodom so was Christ-Church in Canterbury with several other Houses The Historian doth not tell us by whom they were thus represented For that would have marred all the History and have relieved the reputation of these Monasteries Not by the Visitors surely for the Acts of their Visitation of these places do not remain The credit of the whole matter rests upon the authority of a vile Pamphlet published soon after without a Name pretending to relate the enormous wickednesses discovered in the Monasteries of England at their suppression From this Pamphlet Stevens transcribed these Stories into his Apology for Herodotus and from him Fuller took them into his Church History from whom our Historian received them But Fuller is so ingenuous as to own from whence he took them and to add that he thinks it not reasonable to believe such hainous accusations upon so slender testimony We have some reason to reflect upon the complaint which our Historian brings against Dr. Heylin that benever vouched any authority for what he writ which is not to be forgiven any who write of Transactions beyond their own Times I fear that upon computation it will not be found that our Author hath vouched any Authority for so much as the third part of his History and is especially deficient in those passages which tend to defame the Memories of other men in which above all others Justice and Charity would require that sufficient or at least some testimony be produced But to return to Battel Abbey and Christ Church in Canterbury I am not much concerned for either Yet being willing to doe Justice to all men I will not conceal that the accusation appears very improbable to me as far as Christ Church Canterbury is concerned in it since I am well assured that Dr. Goldwell the Prior of it who had governed it for 23 years before the Dissolution was a learned grave and religious Person and that when it was founded anew it is not to be supposed that Archbishop Cranmer employed by the King therein would have taken into the new Foundation any persons so scandalously wicked yet twelve Monks were taken into it which exceedeth the number of just persons to be found in Sodom at the time of its Destruction Pag. 248. lin 37. Edward Fox Bishop of Hereford died the 8th of May that year viz. 1538. Bishop Godwin indeed saith that Fox died that day But our Historian pretends not to take things on trust easily no not from the greatest Authors The Archbishop of Canterbury did that day take into his hands the Spiritualties of the See of Hereford void by the death of Fox But his death might and not probably did happen several days before this Pag. 263. lin 8. The new Bishoprick of Chester was erected before any others For I have seen a Commission under the Privy Seal to the Bishop of Chester to take the surrender of the Monastery of Hamond in Shropshire bearing date the 24th of August this Year viz. 1539. So it seems the See of Chester was erected and endowed before the Act passed which was in May 1539. though there is among the Rolls a Charter for founding and endowing it afterwards From this Passage it may appear how necessary it is for any one who undertaketh to write the History of our Reformation to be well acquainted with the State of things before the Reformation Had this been done many mistakes would have been escaped and other Contradictions which accompany them would have been avoided It is here said that the Commission to the Bishop of Chester for the taking the surrender of Hamond was dated the 24th of August but in the Collection of Records it is dated the 31st of August It is somewhat unlikely that a Commission should be given to the new Bishop of Chester to take the surrender of a Monastery in Shropshire no part of his Diocess Who should this new Bishop be It is incredible that we should have altogether lost the name and remembrance of a Bishop who acted in such a busie time The first Bishop of the new Bishoprick of Chester which we can find was Iohn Bird translated thither from Bangor And of him we know that the See of Bangor was not void by his Translation to Chester until the beginning of the Year 1542. He therefore could not be that Bishop of Chester to whom the Commission was granted in 1539. I cannot sufficiently wonder that Mr. Fulman should be led into the same mistake who alloweth the new Bishoprick of Chester to have been erected before the making of this Act but to have been afterwards surrendred and founded anew For from the Historian's Collection of Records it appears that the Monastery of St. Werburge in Chester in which the new Bishoprick is founded was not surrendered till 1540. Ianuary 20th which alone overthrows all the Conjectures of the Historian and Mr. Fulman In truth the first Charter for erecting the new Bishoprick of Chester was dated 1541. Iuly 16th but there being some mistake committed therein a new Charter of Foundation was granted 1541. August 5th The Historian is mistaken when he puts afterwards August 4th and Bird the first Bishop took Possession in the beginning of the following Year The Commission therefore granted to the Bishop of Chester for taking the surrender of Hamond was
Images c. This Preface indeed was published at London 1550. under the name of Wickliffe and hath generally passed for his But after all Wickliffe did not write it but the Author of the other old English Translation of the Bible For we have two Translations of the Bible made about that time one by Wickliffe the other by an unknown Person In the Preface the Author giveth several Specimens of his Translation of many difficult places of Scripture which agree not with Wickliff's but with the other Translation Further the Author of the Preface inveighs sharply against the Discipline and Members of the University of Oxford which it is certain Wickliffe would never have done for Reasons before mentioned That Wickliffe condemned praying to Saints we have only the Testimony of his Adversaries I will not affirm any thing at this time but I have reason to suspect the contrary Pag. 25. lin 27. Iohn Braibrook Bishop of London then Lord Chancellor viz. 26 Maii Anno 5. Ricardi 2. His name was Rober Braibrook and he was not Lord Chancellor until the Sixth Year of King Richard Pag. 35. lin 28. The two Prelates that were then in the Year 1503 between February and December in greatest esteem with King Henry the 7 th were Warham Archbishop of Canterbury and Fox Bishop of Winchester Warham was not translated from London to Canterbury till 1504. Ianuary 23. Pag. 88. lin 10. This the small Allowance made by the King to Crook his Agent in foreign Universities I take notice of because it is said by others that all the Subscriptions that he procured were bought So pag. 89. in imo Margine No Money nor Bribes given for Subscriptions This is endeavoured to be farther proved pag. 90. However it might be then thought necessary or useful to procure the Determinations of foreign Universities in favour of the Divorce of King Henry thereby the better to satisfie the Clergy at home and to justifie the Divorce abroad yet to those who know very well that this National Church had sufficient Authority to determine such a Controversie without consulting foreign Universities it will not be accounted a matter of any moment whether these were bribed or not I will not therefore scruple to set down the Testimonies of two undeniable Witnesses who lived at that time and could not but know the truth of the whole matter The first is of Cornelius Agrippa of whom the Historian himself giveth this Character Cornelius Agrippa a man very famous for great and curious Learning and so satisfied in the Kings Cause that he gave it out that the thing was clear and indisputable for which he was afterwards hardly used by the Emperor and died in Prison If this Great Person then had any partiality in this Cause it lay on the side of the King yet in one of his Books he hath these words Sed quis credidisset Theologos in rebus fidei conscientiae non solum amore odio invidia perverti sed nonnunquam etiam flecti conviviis muneribus abduci a vero nisi ipsi illius sceleris fidem fecissent in Anglicani Matrimonii damnatione Who would have believed that Divines in matters of Faith and Conscience are not only perverted by Love Hatred or Envy but also sometimes bribed by Banquets or drawn from the truth by Gifts unless themselves had given evident Proof of this Vileness in condemning the Marriage of the King of England The other is Mr. Cavendish an honest plain Gentleman first a Servant of Cardinal Wolsey afterwards highly obliged by King Henry He in writing the Life of his Master the Cardinal giveth this account of the whole matter It was thought very expedient that the King should send out his Commissioners into all Universities in Christendom there to have this Case argued substantially and to bring with them from thence every Definition of their Opinions of the same under the Seal of the University And thereupon divers Commissioners were presently appointed for this Design So some were sent to Cambridge some to Oxford some to Lovain others to Paris some to Orleance others to Padua all at the proper Costs and Charge of the King which in the whole amounted to a great Summ of Money And all went out of this Realm besides the Charge of the Embassage to those famous and notable Persons of all the Universities especially such as bare the Rule or had the Custody of the University Seals were fed by the Commissioners with such great Summs of Money that they did easily condescend to their Requests and grant their Desires By reason whereof all the Commssioners returned with their Purpose furnished according to their Commissions under the Seal of every several University Pag. 107. lin 5. For then about the time of Edward I. the Popes not satisfied with their other Oppressions did by Provisions Bulls and other Arts of that See dispose of Bishopricks Abbeys and lesser Benefices to Foreigners Cardinals and others that did not live in England This is a very wide mistake For the Popes did not then dispose of Bishopricks and Abbeys to Foreigners Cardinals and others that did not live in England The Popes did not give any Bishoprick of England to any Foreigner that did not live therein till about Thirty years before the Reformation when it was not done without the Kings good liking and in Vertue of some secret compact between them As for Abbeys from the first Foundation to their Dissolution the Popes never gave any one to a Foreigner not residing For Cardinal Abbots there never was any besides Cardinal Wolsey and of him it is well known that he had his Abbey from the gift of the King and lived in England The matter therefore complained of in the Preamble of the Act of Parliament 25 Edw. I. which the Historian inserteth was this That whereas Bishops and Abbots ought to be Elected by their several Chapters and Convents and these Elections to be confirmed by the King the Popes had taken upon them to Annul the Elections of Chapters and then to substitute whomsoever themselves pleased without a new Election or to dispose of them without expecting any Election yet still none of these were granted to Cardinals or to Foreigners not residing in England And whereas the Popes had usurped the Presentation of and given to Aliens although not residing other Benefices as Deanries Prebends and Parsonages which ought of right to belong to their proper Patrons against these Encroachments a Remedy was desired and provided in this Act. Several Foreigners had a little before this time been preferred to Bishopricks such as Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury Adomarus de Lesignan Bishop of Winchester Petrus de Aqua-blanca Bishop of Hereford But these came in by the Election of their several Chapters overawed thereto by the Power and Authority of King Henry III to whose Queen they were related by near Kindred and after all resided upon their Sees unless when diverted by Employment in the business of
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 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 Pag. 108. lin 46. When Henry the 4th had treasonably usurped the Crown all the Bishops Carlisle only excepted did assist him in it 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 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 Pag. 110. lin 22. ult The first Letter is to Henry Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury it bears date the fifth day of December 1426. then follows the Appeal of the Archbishop dated the 6 th of April 1427. There is also another Letter dated the 6 th of May directed to the Archbishop But the next Letter is of an higher strain It is directed to the two Archbishops this is dated the 8 th day of December the 10 th year of his Popedom 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 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 8 th 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 8 th of December is in the Manuscript Copy dated as the former quinto Id. Decembr anno Pontificatus nostri decimo viz. 1427. December 9. Pag. 111. lin 2. Then follow Letters from the University of Oxford the Archbishop of York the Bishops of London Duresm and Lincoln to the Pope bearing date the 10 th and the 25 th of Iuly 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 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 10 th and that of the Bishops on the 25 th of Iuly But on the contrary the Bishops Letter is dated Iuly 10 th and the Universities Iuly 25 th 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 Pag 111. lin 27. The Letter of the Pope to the Parliament is dated the third of October decimo Pontificat But I believe it is an error of the Transcriber and that its true date was the 13 th of October 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 't is 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 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
directed to the Bishop of Lichfield in whose Diocess it was Seated which Bishop until the Division of his Diocess and Erection of a new Bishoprick at Chester was in writing and in common Speech as often called the Bishop of Chester as of Lichfield as is well known to those who are acquainted with the State of the English Church before and at the Reformation Pag. 267. lin 1. The Popish party used all the Arts possible to insinuate themselves into the King And therefore to shew how far their Compliance would go Bonner Bishop of London took a strange Commission from the King on the 12th of November this Year 1539. Whether the other Bishops took such Commissions from the King I know not But I am certain there is none such in Cranmers Register and it is not likely if any such had been taken out by him that ever it would have been razed After he had taken this Commission Bonner might well have been called one of the Kings Bishops When the Historian wrote this surely he little thought that he should publish in the Second part of his History a like Commission taken from King Edward VI. by Cranmer For whosoever compareth the two Commissions will find that they are not only alike but the very same mutatis mutandis only with this difference as the Historian himself forgetting what he had here wrote is forced to own that there is no mention made of a Vicar General in the Commission of Edward VI. to Cramner as was in that of Henry VIII to Bonner there being none after Cromwell advanced to that Dignity Now it is very injurious to the Memory of Cranmer first to represent this Action of Bonner as a vile unworthy Compliance and then afterwards to say that Cranmer did the same thing For what difference is there between taking such a Commission from King Henry and taking the like from King Edward unless it be that it seemeth somewhat more colourable to take it from a Man than from a Child Nor can any excuse be raised from the necessity imposed by the Act of Parliament made 1547 December 20th of which an Account is given afterwards For Cranmer had taken out his Commission on the 7th of Frebruary preceding But neither is it true that Cranmer did not take such a Commission from King Henry VIII For the Order of Council related by the Historian to have been made in the beginning of the Reign of King Edward VI. plainly implyeth the contrary requiring the Bishops to take out new Commissions of the same Form with those they had taken out in King Henry's time in obedience to which Order Cranmer took out his Commission before mentioned If no such Commission taken by Cranmer from King Henry be now found in his Register it doth not thence follow that none was taken by him For his Register is imperfect in many places Indeed he took out such a Commission from King Henry long before Bonner For in the Collections of Dr. Yale who could not but know the Truth herein having been in the time of Cranmer an eminent Advocate in Doctors Commons and afterwards principal Registrary and Vicar-General to Archbishop Parker I find a Transcript of this Commission agreeing exactly with that of Bonner published by the Historian mutatis mutandis and this note subjoyned Tales licentias acceperunt Thomas Archiepiscopus Cantuarmense Octobri 1535. Edwardus Archiep. Eborac Iohannes Episcopus Lincoln 13. Octobr. 1535. Iohannes Episcopus London 19. Octobr. 1535. Stephanus Episcopus Winton eodem Anno Cuthbertas Episcopus Dunelm 10 Novemb. 1535. c. Pag. 268. lin 9. I will not presume to determin so great a Point of Law whether the Abbots sate in the House of Lords as being a part of the Ecclesiastical State or holding their Lands of the King by Baronages It is the known and avowed Constitution of our Nation that the Convocation of the Clergy doth constitute the first Estate therein This being premised it is manifest that Bishops and consequently Abbots also sate in Convocation as a part of the Ecclesiastical State and must therefore sit in the House of Lords under some other Quality which can be no other than that of their Baronage Pag. 268. lin 21. Generally Coventry and Burton viz. the Priory of Coventry and Abbey of Burton were held by the same man as one Bishop held both Coventry and Lichfield though two different Bishopricks I will not take notice of the Historians oversight in making Coventry and Lichfield two different Bishopricks for that Mr. Fulman had before observed but of his Error in affirming Coventry and Burton to have been generally held by the same man He might with as much truth have said that the Archbishopricks of Canterbury and York were generally held by the same man What gave occasion to this enormous mistake I cannot conceive Burton and Coventry were no more related than any other two Abbeys neither was one a Cell of the other nor had the one any Dependance upon the other At the end of the Annals of Burton Printed some time since at Oxford may be found an exact List of the Abbots of that House from the first Foundation to the Dissolution of it In Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire may be seen a like Catalogue of the Priors of Coventry If these two be compared it will be found that from beginning to end they are made up of different Persons not so much as any one name of the one Catalogue occurring in the other Pag 300. lin 25. Two years after this viz. after September 1541 the Abbey of Osney in Oxford was converted into a Bishoprick a Deanry and six Prebends And the Monastery of St. Austins in Bristol was changed into the same use The Cathedral Church of Osney was founded by the King's Charter dated 1542. September 1. And Paul Bush Bishop of Bristol was consecrated 1542. Iune 25th So that the Historian is mistaken when he referreth the Foundation of both these Bishopricks to the end of the Year 1543. Pag. 300. lin 49. Then the Priories at most Cathedrals such as Canterbury Winchester Duresm Worcester Carlisle Rochester and Ely were also converted into Deanries and Colleges of Prebends If by most Cathedrals are to be understood most of the Cathedrals of England that is not true For if to those he had added Norwich he had named all But if by that Term are to be understood most of those old Cathedrals which were founded anew at this time then it is trifling For in all the old Cathedrals which were then founded anew the Priories were thus changed Pag. 301. lin 43. In England when the Bishoprick of Lincoln being judged of too great an extent the Bishoprick of Ely was taken out of it it was done only by the King with the Consent of his Clergy and Nobles Pope Nicholas indeed officiously intruded himself into that matter by sending afterwards a Confirmation of what was done The Erection of a new Bishoprick at Ely was
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 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 Pag. 56. lin 8. The Clerks of Council did not then enter every thing with that Exactness that is since used 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 Pag. 71. lin 1. 36. The next thing Cranmer set about was the compiling of a Catechism or institution of young Persons in the Grounds of the Christian Religion a work which was wholly his own without the Concurrence of any others 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 He added indeed a large Discourse of his own to the Exposition of the Second Commandment and inserted some few Sentences elsewhere Pag. 89. lin 29. The people had been more prejudiced against the Marriage of the Clergy if they had not felt greater Inconveniences by the Debaucheries of Priests who being restrained from Marriage had defiled the Beds and deflowred the Daughters of their Neighbours c. 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 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 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 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 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 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 is altogether silent The Anonymous Author of the Defence of Priests Marriages before mentioned relateth that after it had been
ut supra upon Robert Ferrar Bishop of St. Davids Propter causas supradictas upon Iohn Bird Bishop of Chester Propter conjugium No Sentence of Deprivation was pronounced at that time upon Bush Bishop of Bristol Whether he evaded it by renouncing his Marriage or by any other Submission is uncertain But he was never deprived However willingly or unwillingly he resigned his Bishoprick in Iune following For in the same Register the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury assumed the spiritual Jurisdiction of the See of Bristol void per spontaneam resignationem Pauli Bushe 1554. Iunii 21. Pag. 275. lin 32. Gooderick Bishop of Ely died in April this Year 1554. He died in May either on the 9th or 10th day of the Month. Pag. 275. lin 41. Hopton was made Bishop of Norwich But Story that had been Bishop of Chichester though upon Day 's being restored he was turned out of his Bishoprick did comply merely He came before Bonner and renounced his Wife and did Pennance for it and had his Absolution under his Seal the 14th of Iuly this Year 1554. Day was restored to the Bishoprick of Chichester before the 16th of March 1554 when the Queens Commission was directed to him and others in Vertue of which he with his Collegues deprived several Bishops on the 20th of March whereas Hopton of Norwich was not consecrated till the 25th of Octob. following Besides it is not certain that Story was turned out of his Bishoprick The words of the Register are somewhat ambiguous but seem to insinuate as if he voluntarily restored to Day the Bishoprick of Chichester from which he had been ejected I will not omit here to add that his Pennance if he performed any was not imposed so much for his Marriage contracted after Priests Orders as for the violation of his Vow For although it be not known of what Order he was we are assured from Archbishop Parker in the Catalogue of the Bishops of his time prefixed to his History of the Archbishops of Canterbury that he was a Regular Pag. 276 lin 1. The Bishop of Bath and Wells Barlow was also made to resign as appears c. though elsewhere it is said that the See was Vacant by his Deprivation But I incline it truer that he did resign It is most certain that Barlow did resign For in the aforesaid Register is a Commission granted to certain Persons by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury to Act during the Vacancy of the See of Bath and Wells which is there said to be void Per liberam spontaneam resignationem Domini Willielmi Barlowe ultimi Episcopi Pastoris ejusdem This Commission was giving between 20th December 1553 and 25th March 1554 Pag. 276. lin 16. Barlow never Married A more unhappy mistake could not possibly have been made For so remarkable a Marriage never happened to any Clergyman of England as to Barlow He he had Five Daughters afterwards married to five Bishops The first Fraunces was married to Matthew Parker Son to Archbishop Parker After his Death which was in the end of the Year 1574. she was married to Dr. Matthews Archbishop of York A second Daughter of Barlow was married to Wickham Bishop of Winchester a third to Overton Bishop of Lichfield a fourth to Westphaling Bishop of Hereford a fifth to Day Bishop of Winchester All this is declared at length in the Epitaph fixed to the Monument of Fraunces who dying in 1629. Aged 78 years was buried in the Church of York So that Fraunces was born in 1551. in the Reign of King Edward when her Father was Bishop of Wells Besides these Daughters Barlow had a Son of his own name who was Prebendary of Wyvelescomb in the Church of Wells in the Year 1571. being then in Deacons Orders It appeareth farther that Barlow's Wife was alive after that her Daughter Fraunces had married to Matthew Parker so that notwithstanding the Historians reasons it is to be feared that Barlow made some dishonourable compliance in the Reign of Queen Mary Pag. 276. lin 31. When this was done viz. after the old Bishops were deprived in the Year 1554. the Bishops went about the executing the Queens Injunctions In this Business none was so hot as Bonner He set up the old Worship at St. Pauls on St. Katherines day And the next day being St. Andrews he did officiate himself and had a solemn Pocession Bonner had restored the Mass in the Church of St. Pauls on the 27th Aug. 1553. as was before related out of Stow and Grafton If St. Andrews day be the next day to St. Katherine our English Calendar indeed wants great Reformation which placeth it five days after St. Katherine But it may be presumed that if the Calendar can retain any Friends to plead its cause it may in this Case get the better of the Historian Pag. 276. lin 46. The Clergy were now fallen on for their Marriages Parker estimates it that there were now about 16000 Clergymen in England and of those 12000 were turned out upon this Account Some he says were deprived without Conviction some were never cited c. They were all Summarily deprived The Historian would have obliged us if he had pleased to acquaint us in what Book or Writing Parker hath delivered this Account The Testimony of so grave and so worthy a Person would have excluded all doubt In the Defence of Priests Marriages wrote by an unknown Layman and published by Parker this Passage may indeed be found Is thus the Honour of the Clergy preserved to drive out so many twelve of Sixteen thousand as some Writer maketh his Accompt to so great a Peril of getting their Livings and this just at the Point of Harvest Here it may be easily observed that this Author will by no means vouch for the Truth of this Computation It would in truth be a very extraordinary matter if 12000 Clergymen should have married between the end of the year 1548 and the middle of 1553. I cannot affirm of my own knowledge that the account is extravagantly false but am very apt to believe it And in this belief I am confirmed for that having had the Curiosity to compute how many Clergymen were deprived for Marriage in this Reign in the Diocess and Peculiars of the See of Canterbury I found the proportion far short of this account For whereas there are contained therein about 380 Benefices and other Ecclesiastical Promotions no more than 73 Clergymen therein were then deprived for Marriage or any other Cause which far from the proportion of 12 to 16 scarce bears the proportion of 3 to 16. Yet Thornden and Harpsfield were as vigorous in prosecuting the married Clergy of that Diocess as any Zealots in any part of England As for the severe and unjust proceedings against some of the married Clergy related by the Historian the Author before mentioned attesteth the same thing But when the Historian saith they were all summarily deprived I fear this is