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
his Assembly at St. Austin's in London Polidor Virgil desired leave to go out of England which was granted to him on the 2d of Iune this Year 1550. To this I will add that on the 19th of November 1551. the Council ordered a Reward of an 100 Pounds to be given to Iohn Alasco And that Polidor Virgil went not out of England before the end of the Year 1551. For I find an Order of Council 1551. Octob. 14. to deliver to Polidor Virgil in way of the King's reward the Summ of One hundred Marks and another Order 1551. Nov. 9. to pay to to Plidor Virgil in way of the King's Majesties reward the Summ of 300 Crowns after Five shillings the Crown Pag. 155. lin 2. On the 26th of Iune 1550. Poynet was declared Bishop of Rochester The council-Council-Book saith that 1550. May 11th Mr. Poynet was appointed Bishop of Rochester King Edward's Journal Iune 30th John Poynet made Bishop of Rochester and received his Oath This latter is to be understood of the reception of his Temporalties from and doing Homage to the King For he was consecrated Iune 29th Pag. 156. lin 19. Bucer wrote a Book Entituled Concerning the Kingdom of Christ. In it he complains much of Pluralities and Non-Residence as a Remainder of Popery so hurtful to the Church that in many places there were but one or two or few more Sermons in a whole Year The Historians affection to the present Constitution of our Church in relation to Plurality of Benefices is well known He had before said in his Preface that the present use of Pluralities of England was a Relique of Popery a scandal of a crying Nature which may justly make us blush But he will never be able to adapt Bucer's words to such Pluralities as are now allowed and practised in this Church The words of Bucer are these Quot reperias qui licet manifesto horrendo Sacrilegio plurium Parochiarum emolumenta absumant tamen ne uni quidem debitum impendere ministerium vel per suos mercenarios taceo per seipsos dignetur Si enim bi inlocis Splendidis frequentioribus unam alteram vel paulo plures in anno conciones habuerint existimant se suo munere proeclare esse defunctos reliqúum omne tempus otio luxui pompae mundanae impendunt Wherein he blamed those who received the Profits of many Benefices with Cure of Souls and yet served not the Cure of any one of them either by Curates or their own Persons whereas it is notorious that at this time none is permitted to hold above two Benefices and both are constantly supplied by the Beneficiary either personally or by Curates and Sermons preached in either every Sunday whereas also those whom Bucer complaineth of thought they satisfied their Duty if they preached two three or more Sermons in a year in some populous and eminent places which the Historian by mistake interprets of their own Parishes I find but one remarkable thing concerning Pluralities during the whole Reign of Edward VI. and that is an Order of Council 1550. Iune 28 That upon Consideration Mr. Poynet now Elect Bishop of Rochester hath no House to dwell on and his Living small it was agreed he should enjoy his Benefice in Commendam But from henceforth it is decreed that no Bishop shall keep other Benefice than his Bishoprick only Pag. 160. lin 18. The Duke of Lunenberg had offered the King 10000 men to his Assistance and desired to enter into a Treaty of Marriage for the Lady Mary The council-Council-Book saith it was the D. of Brandenburgh who proposed to treat of a Marriage with the Lady Mary and that the Embassador who came to propose it had Two hundred pounds given to him by way of Gratuity King Edward's Journal indeed relateth it of the Duke of Brunswick Pag. 165. lin 3. Gardiner was soon after February 1551. put out There was a Commission issued out to the Archbishop c. He put in a Compurgation Upon this many Witnesses were Examined His Judges on the 18th of April gave Sentence against him by which they deprived him of his Bishoprick I find in the Council-Book that the Bishop of Winchester's Case was first renewed after the Sequestration 1550. Nov. 23. when it was agreed in Council that the Bishop of Ely Secretary Petre Dr. May and Dr. Glynn should confer on the matter and on Tuesday following should certifie to the Council what was to be done by the Order of Law in that case What was their report doth not appear But Decemb. 14. the Council ordered that the Lieutenant of the Tower should carry him to Lambeth before the Archbishop and other Commissioners constituted in his Cause on Monday following and after that when and as often as he shall be by them required Decemb. 16. The Commissioners having allowed Council to Gardiner this was approved by the King's Council and the Persons by him named were Licensed to repair to the Tower to him and that although one of them was the King's Chaplain Ianuary 19th Two of his Servants came to the Privy-Council and desired that certain of them might be sworn upon certain Articles as Witnesses in behalf of the Bishop The Privy Councellors offered to Answer to those Articles upon their Honour but would not be sworn February 15th It was ordered in Council That for asmuch as the Bishop had at all times before the Iudges of his cause used himself unreverently to the King's Majesty and very slanderously towards his Council and especially yesterday being the day of his Iudgment given against him so that he was deprived on the 14th of February he called the Iudges Hereticks and Sacramentaries these being there the Kings Commissioners and of his Highnesses Counsail he should be removed from his present into a meaner Lodging in the Tower and have but one Servant to wait on him that his Books and Papers be taken from him and that from henceforth he have neither Pen Ink nor Paper but be sequestred from all Conference and from all means that may serve him to practise any ways King Edward's Journal saith that the Bishop after long Tryal was Deposed February 13th Pag. 165. lin 47. Eight days after on the 26th of April Poynet was translated from Rochester to Winchester That the See of Winchester was void by the Deprivation of Gardiner before the 18th of April the Historian might have learned from King Edward's Journal published by himself wherein it is said that April the 5 th Poynet Bishop of Rochester received his Oath for the Bishoprick of Winchester viz. then he received the Temporalities of Winchester The council-Council-Book saith that February 8th This day by the King 's own Appointment Dr. Poynet Bishop of Rochester was appointed and admitted Bishop of Winchester And April the 9th A Letter was writ to the Treasurer of the First fruits in favour of Mr. Skorie appointed Bishop of Rochester Pag. 166. lin 1. Veysey Bishop of Exeter did also resign pretending
Duke of Somersets after his last apprehension the Bishop was now sent for and this day made his appearance before the Lords by whom being charged with this matter and his own Letter produced against him which he could not deny but to be of his own hand and unable to make any further Answer thereto than he had done before by Writing he was for that the same seemed not a sufficient Answer committed by the King's Commandment to the Tower of London to abyde there c. He had been accused by Menvile before 1550. For the History of the Bishops of Durham lately published affirmeth that Dr. Whitehead Dean of Durham being together with the Bishop and his Chancellor Hindmarsh accused by Menvile was forced to goe to London where he died in 1548. Whosoever succeeded him in the Deanry seemeth for some time to have been an Adversary of the Bishop For in the Council-Book it is said 1551. May 20. The Bishop of Duresm upon hearing the matter between him and the Dean of Duresm was committed to his House On the 8th Iuly following the Council ordered the Dean of Duresm to Answer in Writing unto Matters as he was charged with at his being before the Council and in such sort as he will stand to at his peril Aug. 2. The Bishop had License granted to him to walk in the Fields October 5. A Letter was wrote by the Council to the Lord Treasurer Lord Chamberlain Secretary Cecil and Mr. Mason to hear and examine the Bishop and Dean of Duresme 's Case and to make them report of the same and if they shall so think convenient to send for them and their Accuser together or apart as shall seem best unto them So that by this time the Bishop and Dean were involved in the same Cause November 3. The Dean of Durham was bound by the Council in a Recognizance of Two hundred Pounds to appear before the Council on the first day of the next Term. He was then very sick and seemeth to have died within few days after For the King granted the Deanry to Dr. Horn 1551. November 20. The name of the Dean intervening between Whitehead and Horn I cannot recover and am ready to suspect that the time of Whitehead's Death is falsly related in the History of Durham and that the Order of Council of the 20th of May was not well worded by the Clerk For Horn is by many affirmed to have succeeded immediately to Whitehead and to him the Council 1552. February 18th granted a Letter directed to the Prebendaries of Durham to conform themselves to such Orders in Religion and Divine Service standing with the Kings proceeding as their Dean Mr. Horn shall set forth whom the Lords require to receive and use well as being sent to them for the weal of the Country by his Majesty To return to Tonstall while he lay in the Tower in the Year 1551. he wrote his Book De veritate corporis sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia in the 77th Year of his Age which was Printed at Paris 1554. Pag. 196. lin 28. On the First of November last Year viz. 1551. a Commission was granted to Eight Persons to prepare the Matter a Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws for the Review of the Two and thirty On the 6th of October 1551. the Council had directed a Letter to the Lord Chancellor To make out Commission to Thirty two Persons viz. Eight Bishops Canterbury London Winchester Ely Exeter Glocester Bath Rochester Eight Divines Taylor of Lincoln Cox Parker Latimer Cook Martyr Cheek Masco Eight Civilians Petre Cecill Sir Tho. Smyth Taylor of Hadley May Traheron Lyell Skinner Eight common Lawyers Justice Hales Justice Bromley Gooderick Gosnald Stamford Carrell Lucas Brook To authorize them to Assemble together and to resolve upon the Reformation of the Canon Law Eight of these to rough hew the Canon Law the rest to conclude it afterwards On the 9th of November 1551. a new Commission was ordered to those Eight Persons mentioned by the Historian For the first drawing and ordering the Canon Law for that some of those before appointed are now thought meet by the King to be left out The Commission was Sealed November 11. as appears by the Reformatio legum Eccl. Printed at London 1571 1640. Next Year viz. 1552. February 2. it was ordered that the Lord Chancellor make out a Commission to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Bishops Learned men Civilians and Lawyers of the Realm for the Establishment of the Ecclesiastical Laws according to the Act of Parliament made the last Sessions The granting of this Commission King Edward placeth in the 10th of February and giveth a List of the Commissioners Names but among the Civilians hath omitted Hussey principal Registrary of the See of Canterbury whose Name I find added to this List in some Papers of Archbishop Parker wherein also instead of Mr. Red .... the Name of Holford occurs Pag. 203. lin 3. This Year 1552. Day of Chichester was put out of his Bishoprick Whether he refused to submit to the new Book or fell into other Transgressions I do not know His Sentence is something ambiguously expressed in the Patent that Story had to succeed him which bears Date the 24th of May. The Council-Book giveth a large account of this matter 1550. October 7. The Council ordered Dr. Cox to repair into Sussex to appease the people by his good Doctrine which are now troubled through the seditious preaching of the Bishop of Chichester and others November 8. The Bishop of Chichester appeared before the Council to Answer the things objected to him for Preaching And because he denied the words of his Accusation he was commanded within two days to bring in writing what he preached November 30. The Duke of Somerset declared in Council that the Bishop of Chichester coming to him two days before had shewed him that whereas he had received Letters from the King and Council a Copy of which may be found in the council-Council-Book commanding him to take down all Altars in the Churches of his Diocess and in lieu of them to set up Tables in some convenient place of the Chauncels and to cause the Reasonableness of it to be declared to the people in Preaching He could not conform his Conscience to do what he was by the said Letter commanded and therefore prayed to be excused Upon this the Bishop was commanded to appear the day following which he did and being asked what he said to the King's Letter he answered that he could not conform his Conscience to take down the Altars in the Church and in lieu of them to set up Tables as the Letter appointed for that he seemed for his Opinion the Scripture and the Consent of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church and contrariwise did not perceive any strength in the Six Reasons which were set forth by the Bishop of London to persuade the taking down of Altars and Erection of Tables And then being demanded
is the principalest Point considering his offence that the now goeth about to defend to the intent that he should have no just cause to say that he was not mercifully handled it was agreed that the Master of the Horse and Mr. Secretary Petre should repair unto him again with the same Submission exhorting him to look better upon it and in case the words seem too sore then to refer unto himself in what sort and in what words he should devise to submit him that upon the acknowledging of his fault the King's Highness might extend his mercy and liberality towards him as it was determined On the 13th of Iuly his Answer was reported in Council which was That he stood precisely in Iustification of himself that he had never offended the King's Majesty wherefore he utterly refused to make any Submission at all For the more surety of which Denial it was agreed that a new Book of Articles should be devised wherewith the said Master of the Horse and Mr. Secretary should repair to him again and for the more Authentick proceeding with him they to have with them a Divine and Temporal Lawyer which were the Bishop of London and Mr. Gooderick The Historian nameth only Ridley Then followeth a Copy of the Articles sent to the Bishop of Winchester the Summ of which is truly related by Fox and the Historian Iuly 15th the Bishops Answer was reported in Council whereupon it was agreed he should be sent for by the Council and be examined before them which being done Iuly 19th and the Articles read to him and his Subscription peremptorily required he made this short Answer That in all things that his Majesty would lawfully command him he was willing and most ready to obey But forasmuch as there were divers things required of him which his Conscience would not bear therefore he prayed them to have him excused Whereupon the Sentence of Sequestration was read and Denunciation of Deprivation in case he did not conform within three Months Nevertheless upon divers good Considerations and especially in hope he might within this time be yet reconciled it was agreed that the said Bishops House and Servants should be maintained in their present Estate until the time of this intimation should expire and the matter for the mean time to be kept private There is some little difference between the council-Council-Book and King Edward's Journal in fixing the days of these two Messages Pag. 152. lin 32. On the third of Iuly this Year 1550. Hooper was by Letters Patents appointed to be Bishop of Glocester The council-Council-Book saith on the 15th of May Mr. Hooper was constituted Bishop of Glocester King Edward's Journal saith July 20th Hooper was made Bishop of Glocester The first may relate to his Nomination the second to the Signing of his Patent Pag. 153. lin 19. Cranmer wrote about this difference raised by Hooper about wearing the Episcopal Vestments to Bucer reducing it to these two plain Questions Whether it was lawful to use those Garments c. And whether he that affirmed that it was unlawful or on that Account refused to use those Vestments did not sin against God The latter part of the Question put by Cranmer was this An is qui affirmaverit nofas esse aut recusarit his vestibus uti peccet in Deum quia immundum esse dicit quod Deus sanctificavit in Magistratus quod violet ordinem Politicum The Historian therefore hath negligently translated it and in part changed the State of the Question by adding these words on that Account which make the refusal to proceed wholly upon a Supposition that the Thing commanded was unlawful by the Law of God whereas Cranmer put the Question more genenerally in those words aut recusarit so as to include a refusal to obey the Command of the Magistrate out of wilfulness or for any other cause beside pretence of unlawfulness by the Law of God which is taken away by the answering to the first part of the Question Pag. 154. lin 29. Cranmer wrote back that he could not dispense with the use of Episcopal Garments at the Consecration of Hooper without incurring a Praemunire So the King was moved to write to him warranting him to do it But though this was done on the 4th of Aug. yet he was not consecrated till March next year and in the mean while he was suspended from Preaching The King and Council rejected the Puritanical niceness of Hooper 's Conscience much further than all this amounts to which Affairs I will relate from the council-Council-Book In Council 1550. October 6th A Letter to the Bishop of London that where there hath been some difference between him and the Elect Bishop of Glocester upon certain Ceremonies belonging to the making of a Bishop wherein their Lordships desire is because they would in no wise the stirring up of Controversies between men of one Profession did send for him willing him to cease the occasions thereof who humbly desired that he might for Declaration of his doings put in writing such Arguments as moved him to be of the Opinion he held which thing was granted and was by their Lordships commanded to be at the Court on Sunday next bringing with him that he shall for an Answer have thought convenient 1551. January 13th Mr. Hooper Bishop Elect of Glocester appeared before the Council touching his old Matter of denying to wear such Apparel as other Bishops wear and having been before commanded to keep his House unless it were to go to the Archbishop of Canterbury Bishops of Ely London or Lincoln for satisfaction or Counsail of his Conscience in that matter nor further neither to Preach nor Read until he had further License from the Council it appeared both that he had not kept his House and that he had also written and Printed a Book wherein was contained matter that he should not have written For the which and for that also he persevered in his former Opinion of not wearing the Bishops Apparel he was now committed to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Custody either there to be reformed or further to be punished as the Obstinacy of his case required January 27th Upon a Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury that Mr. Hooper cannot be brought to any Conformity but rather persevering in his Obstinacy coveteth to prescribe Orders and necessary Laws of his head it was agreed he should be committed to the Fleet upon the occasion aforesaid A Letter to the Warden of the Fleet to receive the said Mr. Hooper and to keep him from Conference of any Person saving the Ministery of that House On the 8th of March following he was consecrated Now all this was done after the King's Letter wrote in his behalf to Cranmer so that in all appearance he was forced to reconcile his squeamish Conscience to the Episcopal Habit in order to obtain his Bishoprick Pag. 154. lin 36. 48. This Summer Iohn a Lasco with a Congregation of Germans was allowed to hold
what Scriptures he had he alledged a saying in Esay which place being considered by the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London's and the Lords in the Council was found of no purpose to maintain his Opinion Then the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely argued the Lawfulness and Reasonableness of the thing after which he was commanded by the Council to conform which he still refusing because contrary to his Conscience he was ordered to resort to the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishops of Ely and London to confer with them for satisfying his Conscience and to appear again the 4th of December When he then appeared being demanded he stuck to his former Resolution and entred into a Dispute with the Archbishop about the merits of the Cause and alledged the former place out of Esaiah and a place out of the last Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews Which the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely answered and shew from Origen that in the Primitive Church Christians had no Altars and urged the necessity of reforming the abuses of Altars But touching the naming the Table an Altar it was left indifferent to him so to name it because ancient Writers sometime call that Table an Altar Notwithstanding the Bishop persevering in his Resolution although he was now again commanded on his Allegiance to comply the Council ordered him to appear again on Sunday and then to give his final Answer Which he did and answered that plainly he could not do it saving his Conscience and that he determined rather to lose all that ever he had Hereupon two days more were given to him to deliberate But on the 11th of December persisting and praying them to do with him what they thought connevient for he would never obey to do this thing thinking it a less evil to suffer the Body to perish than to corrupt the Soul he was committed to the Fleet. On the 9th of Iune 1551. an Order was sent to the Warden of the Fleet to suffer the Bishop of Chichester to have such number to attend on him and to be ordered at those who attend on the Bishop of Worcester In September a Commission was given to examine and judge him On the 24th of October 1551. an Order was made for seizing into the Kings hands the Temporalties of the Bishopricks of Chichester and Worcester lately given to his Highness by the Iudgment given by the Commissioners lattely appointed for the hearing of the said Bishops Causes 1552. Iune 15. A Letter was wrote to the Lord Chancellor Signifying to him that Dr. Day late Bishop of Chichester is sent to him by the Kings Appointment to be used of his Lordship as in Christian Charity shall be most seemly A like Letter was then sent to the Bishop of London for the receiving of Dr. Hethe late Bishop of Worcester and an Order to the Warden of the Fleet to deliver them both to the Bishops appointed to receive them The Archbishop seized the Spiritualties of the See of Chichester void by the Deprivation of Day 1551. November 3. Stâ—w saith that the Sentence of his Deprivation was pronounced 1551. October 10. King Edward's Journal placeth it on the 5th of October Pag. 203. lin 3. This Year 1552. Heath Bishop of Worcester was put out of his Bishoprick He had been put in Prison for refusing to Consent to the Book of Ordinations He was afterwards deprived The Council-Book reports that at a Council held at Chelsey 1551. September 22. Nicholas Bishop of Worcester was sent for to whom was repeated the Cause of his Imprisonment to be for that he refused to subscribe to the Book devised for the form of making Bishops Priests and Deacons being authorized by Parliament At the time of which refusal being not only gently required to subscribe but also being manifestly taught by divers other Learned men that all things contained in that Book were good and true and that the Book was expedient and allowable the said Bishop declared himself to be a very obstinate Man and for that his doing it was now shewed to him that he deserved longer Imprisonment Nevertheless he was now offered to recover the Kings favour if he would subscribe to the Book He answered Confessing he took the Cause of his Imprisonment to be as was alledged and that also he was very gently used rather like a Son than a Subject Nevertheless that he remained in the same mind not willing to subscribe it although he would not disobey it And although he was reasoned withall by every of the said Council there were present only Six Laymen in disproving his manner of Answer being every thing in the said Book true and good and being devised by Eleven other Learned men to the which he was joyned as the Twelfth and received of all the Realm agreeing also that he would obey it but not subscribe it which contained a Contradiction of Reason Yet he still refused to subscribe it Whereupon he was offered to have Conference with Learned men and to have time to consider the matter better Whereunto he said That he could have no better Conference than he had heretofore and well might he have time but of other mind he thought never to be Adding that there be many other things whereunto he would not Consent as to take down Altars and set up Tables He was then expresly charged to subscribe before Thursday following before the 24th of September upon pain of Deprivation Next follow the Orders of the 24th of October 1551 and 15th of Iune 1552. related in the preceding Article King Edward in his Journal noteth that he was deprived for Contempt 1551. October 5. The Register of Archbishop Cranmer affirmeth him to have been deprived 1551. October 10. which is chiefly to be relied on as being a Record with which also Stow agreeth adding that the same day he was committed to the Fleet. He had been imprisoned in the Fleet before this Day For the council-Council-Book after the Relation of his Examination and Answer on the 22d of September addeth that as a man incorrigible he was returned to the Fleet. Pag. 203. lin 16. This Year the Bishoprick of Glocester was quite suppressed and Hooper was made Bishop of Worcester In December before Worcester and Glocester had been united So they were to be ever after one Bishoprick with two Titles But now they were put into another method and the Bishop was to be called only Bishop of Worcester So also Pag. 396. lin penult Hooper had not two Bishopricks but one that had been for some years divided into two He only enjoyed the revenue of Glocester for Worcester was entirely suppressed The Historian would have obliged us if he had pleased to acquaint us by what Authority all this was done It should seem that Hooper had Possession of the Revenues of Worcester I mean as much of it as the greedy Courtiers thought fit to leave to it as well as Glocester For in the Council-Book is found this Order made 1552. May
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
Canonicas uxorem habeat Sacerdotum vero in Castellis in vicis habitantium habentes uxores non cogantur ut dimittant non habentes interdicantur ut habeant Our Reformers who wrote of the Marriage of the Clergy represented this Constitution aright So Archbishop Parker who having related his prohibition of Marriage to Prebendaries adds But yet he moderated so the matter that he made a Decree that such Priests as dwelt in Towns and Villages being married should not be separated but continue with their Wives in their Ministration Ecclesiastical Pag. 92. lin 13. The Legate that in King Henry the Second's time got that severe Decree made that put all the married Clergy from their Livings was found the very Night after in Bed with a Whore This mistake also is altogether owing to the Historian Our Reformers consonantly to the Testimony of all our ancient Histories relate this misfortune to have happened to Iohannes de Crema the Pope's Legate in the Year 1125. in the Reign of King Henry the First And the Annals of Winchester lately published relate another like miscarriage of the same Legate in the same Year Pag. 93. lin 13. I have seen no Remains of this Convocation which restored Marriage to the Clergy in the Year 1548. or of any other Convocations that came afterwards in this Reign Archbishop Parker who was a Member of and present at this Convocation hath in his Additions to the Anonymous Defence of Priests Marriages published by him given a short Relation of the Transactions and Determination of the Convocation in this Affair which because the Book is very scarce I have transcribed and put into the following Collection To it the Archbishop subjoyned the Opinion of Dr. Redman which however published by the Historian in his Collection I would not disjoyn especially since the Historian or his Scribe hath omitted and changed many words of moment in it Pag. 128. lin 3. Bonner was looked on generally as a Man of no Principles All the Obedience he gave either to the Laws or to the King's Injunctions was thought a Compliance against his Conscience extorted by Fear The Historian perhaps may be able to reconcile these two Periods although it be generally supposed that where no Principles are there can be no Conscience since Conscience ever proceeds upon some Principles either true or false But it seems after a strict Enquiry he hath discovered one Principle in Bonner to which he constantly adhered that was his Love of Pears and Puddings a matter which will no doubt reflect as great Infamy upon the Memory of Bonner as Honour upon the Historian for the Acuteness of the Observation He was aware that it would be thought disingenuous to Print such Letters being the Privacies of Friendship which ought not to be made publick but forgat that it was beneath the Majesty of History to insert such trifles in it Pag. 149. l. ult Ridley was pitched on to be the man who should fill the See of London So on the 21. of February 1550 he was writ for and on the 24th he was declared Bishop of London and Westminster It might then be resolved to make Ridley Bishop of Westminster upon the intended Translation of Thirleby But he could not then be declared Bishop of that See since it was not void till April following in the beginning of which Month Thirleby was translated to Norwich King Edward's Journal therefore saith that Ridley was made Bishop of London on the 3d of April and Thirleby translated the same day from Westminster to Norwich Pag. 150. lin 35. The Lord Treasurer c. were sent to Gardiner Fox saith that this was on the 9th of Iuly but there must be an Error in that it must have been in November the former Year They brought him a Paper to which they desired he would set his hand In the Original Council-Book of King Edward the Sixth before-mentioned all the Orders Messages Papers Articles and Answers relating to Gardiner are at length inserted From thence I shall correct the Historians Account On the 8th of Iune 1550. it was resolved in Council Considering the long Imprisonment the Bishop of Winchester hath sustained that he should be spoken withal and agreed that if he repented his former Obstinacy and would thenceforth apply himself to advance the King's Majesties preceedings his Highness in this case would be his good Lord and remit all his Errors passed Otherwise his Majesty was resolved to proceed against him as his Obstinacy and Contempt required For the Declaration whereof the Duke of Somerset Lord Treasurer c. were appointed the next day to repair unto him June 10 th Report was made by the Duke of Somerset and the rest sent to the Bishop of Winchester that he desired to see the King's Book of Proceedings upon the sight whereof he would make a full Answer seeming to be willing in all things to conform himself thereunto and promising that in case anything offended his Conscience he would open it to none but the Counsail Whereupon it was agreed that the Book should be sent him to see his Answer that his Case may be resolved on And that for the mean time he should have the Liberty of the Gallery and Garden in the Tower when the Duke of Norfolk were absent June 13 th the Lieutenant of the Tower who before was appointed to deliver the King's Book to him declared to the Counsail that the Bishop having refused it said unto him He could make no direct Answer unless he were at Liberty and so being he would say his Conscience Whereupon the Lords and others that had been with him the other day were appointed to go to him again to receive a direct Answer that the Counsail hereupon might determine further Order for him July 8 th the Bishop of Winchester ' s Case was renewed Then was the Lord Treasurer c. sent to him with the Message of which the Historian here speaketh Together with the Articles the Council sent a Letter to him blaming his Obstinacy and persuading him to conform Fox giveth a true Account of the Articles and his Answer to them Only hath erroneously put the 9th for the 8th of Iuly Although he might mean that the Commissioners went to him on that day which seems to have been true For on the 10th of Iuly the Commissioners reported his Answer in Council related by Fox and from him by the Historian And that these Commissioners went indeed to the Bishop on the 9th of Iuly King Edward testifyeth in his Journal published by the Historian himself Pag. 151. lin 7. Herbert and Petre came to him some time after that but how soon it is not clear and pressed him to make the Acknowledgment without Exception The council-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
extream old Age but he had reserved a Pension yearly for himself during Life out of the Lands of the Bishoprick and almost all the rest he had basely alienated taking care only for himself and ruining his Successors The Memory of Veysey suffers upon this Account on all hands The case of his Bishoprick indeed was very deplorable which from one of the richest in his time became the poorest of all the old English Bishopricks But had any Bishop of England sate at Exeter at that time he must have done the same thing or have been immediately deprived For Veysey alienated no Possessions of his See but upon express Command of the King directed to him under the Privy Seal in favour of certain Noblemen and Courtiers All the Bishops at that time were subjected to a like Calamity Even Cranmer was forced to part with the better half of the Possessions of his See and Ridley soon after his Entry into London was forced to give away the four best Mannors of his See for ever in one day These two were the greatest Favourites among all the Bishops in that Reign Others were yet more severely dealt with The common Pretence was to exchange some Lands of their Bishopricks with others of Religious Houses remaining in the King's hands since their Suppression Even then it was such an exchange as Diomedes made with Ajax But to Veysey no other recompence was made than the Promise of the Kings Good-will and Favour assured to him in the conclusion of all those Mandates in case of Compliance with them the effect of which Promises was that after he had complied with them to the ruin of his See he was forced to resign it per metum terrorem as himself afterward alledged All he could do was to Enregister at length all those Privy-Seals for the Vindication of himself to his Successors for ever which he hath carefully done Pag. 166. lin 4. Miles Coverdale was made Bishop of Exeter the business of Hooper was now also setled so he was consecrated in March 1551. The Historian hath inverted the true Order of their being made Bishops For Hooper was consecrated 1551. March 8th and Coverdale on the 30th of August following being nominated on the 27th of August according to King Edward's Journal Pag. 171. lin 34. This Year 1551. there were Six eminent Preachers chosen out to be the Kings Chaplains in Ordinary two of these were always to attend the Court and four to be sent over England to Preach in their Courses These were Bill Harley Pern Grindal Bradford the Name of the Sixth is so dashed in the King's Journal that it cannot be read It might be guessed from some Passages in the council-Council-Book that the Sixth Preacher was Knox. For 1552. October 21. A Letter was sent from the Privy-Council to Mr. Harley Bill Horn Grindal Pern and Knox to consider certain Articles exhibited to the Kings Majesty to be subscribed by all such as should be admitted to be Preachers or Ministers in any part of the Realm and to make report of their Opinions of the same Shortly after to Mr. Knox Preacher in the North Forty pounds were given by way of Gratuity And 1552. December 9th A Letter to the Lord Wharton in recommendation of Mr. Knox. And 1553. February 2. A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury in favour of Mr. Knox to be presented by him to the Church of All-hallows in Breadstreet London Lastly 1553. Iune 2. A Letter to the Lord Russel and the Iustices of the Peace in Buckinghamshire in favour of Mr. Knox the Preacher The Author also of the History of the Church of Scotland ascribed to him relateth that he was first appointed Preacher to Barwick then to Newcastle and was at length called to London and to the South part of England To the Life of Bernard Gilpin wrote by Bishop Carleton is added a Letter from him to his Brother wherein he saith of himself that Secretary Cecil obtained for him from King Edward a License constituting him a general Preacher throughout the Kingdom so long as the King lived But after all I rather think that the Name of the Sixth Preacher was Thexton For I did near Twenty years since see in the hands of a worthy Clergyman descended from him an Original Commission under the King's Seal given to him whereby he was Authorized by him to Preach in the North-East parts of England I do not at so great distance of time fully remember the Contents of the Commission but I think it to have been such as agreeth well with the Time and Office of these six Preachers Pag. 171. c. The Business of the Lady Mary was now taken up with more heat than formerly The Council finding that her Chaplains had said Mass in one of her Houses they ordered them to be proceeded against Upon which in December the last Year viz. 1550. she writ earnestly to the Council to let it fall The Council writ her a long Answer So the Matter slept till the beginning of May 1551. In Iuly the Council sent for Three of her chief Officers and gave them Instructions to signifie the Kings Pleasure to her and to return with an Answer In August they came back and said that she charged them not to deliver their Message to the rest of the Family in which they being her Servants could not disobey her Upon this they were sent to the Tower The Lord Chancellour c. were next sent to her with a Letter from the King c There being some mistakes in this Relation I will amend them and add some farther light to the account out of the council-Council-Book The Emperour's Embassadours pressed the Council 1551. Febr. 16. to observe their promise made to him for permission to the Lady Mary of the exercise of her Religion till the King should come to age March 18. The King relateth in his Journal that he sent for her to Westminster and told her he could not any longer bear her practise Upon this next day the Emperour's Embassadour declared War to the King if he continued not to her the liberty of her Religion Thereupon Mar. 22. Cranmer Ridley and Poynet discoursed with the King about the lawfulness of the permission And March 23. the Council decreed to send Wotton to the Emperour who was not dispatched till the 10th of April and in the mean time to punish the offenders first of the King's Servants that heard Mass next of hers March 24. Sir Anth. Brown and Sergeant Morgan were sent to the Fleet for hearing Mass. Thus King Edward's Journal which I have observed to be often false in the days and especially in this place For in the council-Council-Book it is said March 18th the Emperour's Embassadour had access to the Council What was said by him or answered to him doth not appear it being probable that for more secrecy the Clerk was then excluded March 19. Serjeant Morgan was committed to the Fleet and March 22. Sir Anth.
Brown for hearing Mass in her company when by the King's order he attended her from Essex to London Now all this relating to the Emperour's denunciation of War to the King's Consultation with the Bishops to the Councils debate thereon and the sending of Dr. Wotton is erroneously placed by the Historian before December 1550. It is also a mistake that the prosecution of the Chaplains kept from December 1550 to May 1551. For it was not begun till December 15 and March 23. according to the King's Journal I think rather the 18 th it was resolved to punish her Servants hearing or saying Mass Accordingly in the council-Council-Book I find that March 22. her Comptroller Mr. Rochester was examined how many Chaplains she had who answered four viz. Mallet Hopton Barker and Ricardes April 29. the King's Journal saith falsly the 27 th Dr. Mallet was brought before the Council and being examined what he meaned that after he had been once forgiven he would again wilfully offend the King's laws in saying of Mass and other like could not deny but he had done evil in so doing He therefore was committed to the Tower So that Mallet was now imprisoned for a second offence not as the Historian saith because he could not be before this apprehended since his first prosecution May and Brown and Morgan upon their submission were discharged from their imprisonment Nothing further was done in this matter till Aug. 9. when it was resolved in Council to send for the chief Officers of the Lady Mary's House and to give them in charge not to permit Mass to be said in her House or to hear it and to give the same charge to her Chaplains and other Servants The same day it was resolved not to permit the use of Mass to the Emperour's Ambassadour since he would not permit the English Ambassadour resident in his Dominions the use of our Liturgy So that now the Council began to be less in fear of the Emperour not before the End of the last Year as the Historian hath it Aug. 11. a Warrant was signed for the appearance of the Lady Mary's Officers Aug. 14. there appeared Robert Rochester Edward Malgrave and Sir Francis Englefield her three chief Officers and were strictly charged not to signifie the King's pleasure to her to have the new Service in her Family and to give the like charge to her Chaplains and all her Servants as the Historian relateth but only to charge the Chaplains not to say Mass in her House or elsewhere and the Servants not to hear it and themselves to conform to the same Order and to take care that the others did it Aug. 22. the King's Journal saith the 23d the Officers returning reported to the Council that having first related their Instructions to her Grace which they had not been commanded to do she had absolutely forbidden them to deliver their charge to the Chaplains and Servants They also brought with them a Letter wrote by her to the King which I have inserted in the following Collection Upon which the Officers were not immedidiately sent to the Tower as the Historian writeth but called before the Council next day and reproved for not having executed their former Instructions but troubling her Grace with the opening their Message to her contrary to the Order and Charge prescribed to them wherefore each of them by himself and a part was commanded to return to her Graces House and execute the said Charge apart in such sort as the Order was given to them on the 14th Aug. The which thing they all refused to do albeit they were enjoined to do the same in vertue of their Allegiance Thereupon they were commanded to attend continually till they should know the Councils farther pleasure It was also decreed that the Lord Chancellour Secretary Petre and Sir Anth. Wingfield should repair to the Lady Mary with a Letter from the King and large Instructions from the Council which were sent to them being then in Essex The Letter I have put into the Collection The Instructions contained a Command to declare to her the King 's peremptory resolution not to permit to her any longer the use of the Mass the reasons which induced the Council to send a Charge to her Chaplains and Houshold by her own Servants which she had extremely resented the negligence of her Officers in not executing that Charge to justifie the King's proceedings to her and lastly calling her Chaplains and Servants before them to charge them strictly not to say or hear Mass. Aug. 29. the Commissioners being returned made report in Council of the Execution of their Charge and of the Lady Mary's Answer whom they had attended on the 28th The Report is large the substance of which is rightly given by the Historian When their Report was ended an Order was made that Rochester Inglefield and Walgrave should be conveyed from the Fleet to which they had been committed the day before to the Tower Next year on the 14 th of April they were set at liberty and commanded to return to their Lady and attend her Service as she had requested Pag. 177. lin 32. The English Embassadours in France 1551. moved for the Daughter of France to be given in marriage to King Edward yet this never taking effect it is needless to enlarge farther about it of which the Reader will find all the particulars in King Edward's Journal This Treaty of Marriage had a considerable Effect not mentioned in the King's Journal For it is said in the council-Council-Book that 30. Dec. 1551. This day the Lord Admiral being returned out of France delivered to the Lords the Ratification of the Marriage between the King's Majesty and the Lady Elizabeth the French Kings Daughter under the Great Seal of France And it was accorded that the same Treaty should be delivered to the Lord Treasurer to be by him reposed in the Treasury of the Exchequer to remain there of record in safe keeping Pag. 194. lin 43. Tonstall Bishop of Duresm was upon some complaint brought against him of Misprision of Treason put into the Tower about the end of December last year viz. 1551. What the particulars were I do not find King Edward's Journal placeth his Imprisonment on the 20th of December 1551. and so doth the council-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
29. A Letter to ...... to make a Book to the Bishop of Worcester and Glocester of discharge of the First-fruits and Tenths to be paid for the same in Consideration that he hath departed with certain Lands to the Kings Majesty Now Hooper had been Consecrated Bishop of Glocester in the beginning of the Year 1551. and therefore could now in 1552. be called Bishop Elect only in respect of Worcester Nor could he now be charged with First-fruits and Tenths on any other Account than of the Temporalties of Worcester newly received by him Nor could he have passed away any of the Lands of Worcester to the King if he had not once Possession of them But to put the matter past all Dispute I will alledge an Order of Council fully proving that Hooper did enjoy the Revenue of Worcester For 1552. September 24. the Council directed a Letter to the Dean of Worcester to cause the Rent-Corn of the Bishoprick to be reserved to the Bishop notwithstanding Hethe 's Claim to the same Pag. 216. lin 15. How Tonstall Bishop of Duresm was deprived I cannot understand It was for Misprision of Treason and done by Secular men in the Year 1553. What was done in the Case of Tonstall till the end of the Year 1551. was before related out of the Council-Book I will here add out of the same Book what afterwards occurs relating to him 1552. September 21. A Letter unto the Chief Iustice signifying unto him that there is presently sent to him the Commission addressed to him and others for the Limitation and Determination of the Bishop of Duresm 's Case with also eight Letters and other Writings touching the same which he is willed to consider and proceed to the hearing and ordering of the Matter as soon as he may get the rest of his Collegues to him By these Commissioners Tonstall was deprived on the 11 th of October 1552. according to King Edward's Journal On the 31. of Oct. following it was ordered in Council that Sir John Mason should deliver to the use of Dr. Tonsâ—all remaining Prisoner in the Tower such Money as should serve for his necessities untill such time as farther Order shall be taken touching the Goods and Money lately appertaining to him and that the Lord Wharton cause the Accompts of the Revenues of the Bishoprick of Duresm as well for the second and third Years of the late Bishops entry into the same as for two Years last past to be searched for and sent hither with speed Pag. 216 lin 8. Ridley as himself writes in one of his Letters was named to be Bishop of Duresme but the thing never took effect It so far took effect that Ridley was actually translated from London to Durham For in the Instrument of the restitution of Bonner to the See of London in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign it is alledged that the See of London was then void by the Removal of Ridley to Durham made by King Edward after the Deprivation of Tonstall and Bonner was thereupon re-instated in London without pronouncing Ridley deprived of the See of London but on the contrary Ridley is in the Register declared to have been deprived of the Bishoprick of Durham for Heresie and Sedition Pag. 242. lin 39. Iune 1553. the Seal was on the 13th of August given to Gardiner who was declared Lord Chancellour of England Stow who is very exact in denoting the times of things falling within the compass of his own observation saith that the Seal was delivered unto Gardiner on the 23d of Aug. His Patent for the Office of Lord Chancellour bears date on the 21st of September according to Sir William Dugdale's accurate Catalogue of the Chancellours c. of England With Stow agreeth Grafton herein Pag. 247. lin 5. Pag. 248. lin 35. The Commission for restoring Bonner bearing date the 22d of Aug. was directed to some Civilians who pronounced his former Sentence of Deprivation void Thus he was restored to his See on the 5th of September 1553. Stow and Grafton affirm that Bonner was restored to his Bishoprick in the beginning of August and that he caused the use of the Mass and other Roman Ceremonies to be renewed in his Cathedral Church on the 27th of August Pag. 249. lin 17. P. 314. l. 36. P. 348 l. 38. Cranmer protested that the Mass was not set up at Canterbury by his Order but that a fawning hypocritical Monk this was Thornton Suffragan of Dover had done it Anno 1553 without his knowledge Thornton Suffragan of Dover resolved to shew his zeal for Popery Anno 1555. This Thornton had from the first Change made by King Henry been the most officious and forward in every turn In the Month of Iune 1557. Fourteen Protestants were destroyed in two days by Thornton and Harpsfield There was but one Suffragan Bishop in the Diocess of Canterbury of the Name of Thornton He was Suffragan to Archbishop Warham in the Year 1508. and had his Title not from Dover but in partibus Infidelium and died long before Cranmer's time The Suffragan under Cranmer and Pole was Richard Thornden sometimes Monk afterwards upon the Suppression of the Priory first Prebendary of the Church of Canterbury He died in the end of year 1557 or rather in the beginning of 1558. Pag. 250. lin 8. On the 13th of September Latimer and Cranmer were called before the Council Latimer was that day committed but Cranmer was respited till next day and then he was sent to the Tower If Stow may be believed Latimer was sent to the Tower on the 14th and Cranmer on the 15th of September 1553. Pag. 250. lin 17. 24. There was an Order sent to Iohn a Lasco and his Congregation to be gone Alasco after a long and hard passage arriving at Denmark was ill received there From thence they went first to Lubeck then to Wismar and Hamburgh and at last planted themselves in Friseland A most exact account of the Foundation and Dissolution of this German Congregation in England with their subsequent Removals was written by Utenhovius one of the Ministers at the desire of the Congregation and is printed at Basil 1560 86. with this Title Simplex fidelis Narratio de institutâ demum dissipatâ Delgarum aliorumque Peregrinorum in Anglia Ecclesiâ per Iohannem Utenhovium Gandavum being approved by Iohn a Lasco and the rest as a true account From this Narration it appears that although some of the Company went to Hamburgh Lubeck Wismar c. Yet that Alasco himself went not thither with them He left Denmark on the 19th of November passed through Holsatia and arrived at Embden the 4th of December He was accompanied with a Servant of the King of Denmark by whom he sent back a severe or rather unmannerly Letter to the King In this same Relation of Utenhovius is printed at large the Charter given by King Edward to Iohn a Lasco and his Congregation which the Historian had before mentioned and put
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 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 Pag. 277. lin 2. Nor was this all but after they were deprived they were also forced to leave their Wives Which piece of severity was grounded on the Vow that as was pretended they had made though the falsehood of this Charge was formerly demonstrated 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 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 Pag. 292. lin 6. What Cardinal Pole's Instructions were I do not know nor is it falsly understood by Learned men what was the Power of a Legate a Latere in those days But I found the Original Bull of Cardinal Beacon's Legatine Power in Scotland and have given it a room in the Collection though it be large since no doubt Cardinal Pool's Bull was in the same form We have no such necessity of borrowing light from Scotland The Bull of Cardinal 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 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 Pag. 292. lin 39. The Queen was falsly believed to be with Child Notice was given of it to the Council who that Night wrote a Letter to Bonner about it ordering a Te Deum to be sung at Pauls and the other Churches of London 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 who had then the Spiritual Jurisdiction in that Diocess in the Vacancy of the See Pag. 297. lin 33. Upon Cardinal Pole's being called over there was a Commission sent him by the Great Seal bearing date 10. Nov. 1554. authorizing him to exercise his Legatine Power in England 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 Pag. 313. lin 1. Iohn Kardmaker that had been Divinity-Reader at St. Pauls and a Prebendary at Bath was burnt in Smithfield on the 30th of May 1555. 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-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 Pag. 320. lin 45. Gardiner Bishop of Winchester was believed to be the base Son of Richard Woodvil that was brother to Queen Elizabeth Wife to King Edward IV. 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 With Godwin agreeth Mills in his Genealogical Catalogue of the Nobility of England Pag. 321. lin 44. Heath Archbishop of York had the Seals in Febr. after viz. in 1556. 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. Pag. 339. lin 3. The Chief of these faithfull Shepherds who were willing to hazard their Lives in feeding this Flock committed to their care privately were Scambler and Dentham c. 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 afterward his intimate Friend relateth that under the Reign of Queen Mary he instructed his Flock
they had been all cited in due form to appear and give their Votes Pag. 403. lin 25. Some time after this in February 1561. Young was translated from St. Davids to York there being now no hopes of gaining Heath to continue in it which it seems had been long endeavoured for it was now two Years that that See had been in Vacancy The Historian finding that the See of York lay void from the enacting the Oath of Supremacy two Years not strictly accounted and not knowing the Cause of it hath invented a plausible Reason and believed it as a matter of equal Certainty with any other Occurrence related by him To assign proper and plausible Reasons to every Action may add Beauty to a History but if liberty be taken to do this without any ground or warrant little difference will be left between a History and a Romance Hethe was actually deprived long before this For on the 3d. of February 1560. viz. in the beginning of the Year 1560. the Dean and Chapter of York assumed the Exercise of the Spiritual Jurisdiction of that See void by his Deprivation On the 12th of August 1560. William May Dean of St. Pauls London was elected Archbishop of York But he dying before his Confirmation and Consecration Thomas Young Bishop of St. Davids was finally elected to that Archbishoprick on the 27th of Ianuary 1561. and confirmed on the 25th of February Pag. 403. lin 23. Parker being thus Consecrated himself 1559. December 17. did afterwards Consecrate Bishops for the other Sees Cox Bishop of Ely c. and Par Bishop of Peterborough There never was any Bishop of Peterborough of that Name To David Pole succeeded immediately in that See Edmond Scambler who was consecrated by Archbishop Parker on the 16th of February 1561. Pag. 404. lin 35. Some excepted against the Canonicalness of Parker's Consecration because it was done by all the Bishops of the Province and Three of the Bishops had no Sees when they did it and the Fourth was only a Suffragan Bishop But to all this it was said That a Suffragan Bishop being Consecrated in the same manner that other Bishops were tho' he had a limited Jurisdiction yet was of the same Order with them When I first observed that in the Arms of Archbishop Parker under his Effigies over-against pag. 402. the Keys were inverted which he ever bore erect I began almost to fear that the Historian would deny the Regularity of his Consecration But since he is pleased to do Justice to the Archbishop herein I will add in Confirmation of what is said concerning the equal Authority which Suffragan Bishops have to consecrate with others that the practice of the Church of England before the Reformation will clear all doubts of this Nature For the Archbishops in taking other Bishops to their Assistance in the Consecration of Bishops or in giving Commissions to other Bishops to consecrate in their stead made no difference between Suffragan and Diocesan Bishops So that I could produce above twenty Examples of the Consecration of Diocesan Bishops in England within Two hundred years before the Reformation performed with the Assistance of Suffragan Bishops and that when the Canonical number of Consecrators was not compleat without them Appendix pag. 386. lin 3. Saunders saith that the Heads of Colledges were turned out under Edward the Sixth and the Catholick Doctors were forbid to Preach The Historian answereth I do not find that one Head of a Colledge in either University was turned out I find somewhat relating to the Heads of Houses in King Edwards council-Council-Book 1550. 13th October A Letter to the Fellows of New Colledge in Oxford forbidding them to choose a Warden in Mr. Coles stead without License from the King 1551. 29th January Commissioners appointed to examine and try the Case of Dr. Cole upon certain Objections made by the Fellows of New Colledge in Oxford against him 1551. March 25th White Warden of Winchester Colledge committed to the Tower for receiving Letters and Books from beyond Sea and particularly from one Martin a Scholar there who impugneth c. 1551. June 15th Dr. Morwent President of Corpus Christi Colledge Oxon with some of the Fellows of that House committed to the Fleet for using upon Corpus Christi Day other Service than that is appointed in the Book of Service A Letter to the said Colledge signifying the same and appointing Mr. Juell to govern the said Colledge in the absence of the said President 1551. December 22. Dr. Tresham committed to the Fleet. Or if express Instances of the Ejection of any Heads be required I will produce one in each University In Oxford Dr. Richard Smith Regius Professor of Divinity and Principal of Alban Hall was ejected in the Reign of King Edward In Cambridge Dr. George Day Bishop of Chichester and at the same time Provost of Kings Colledge was deprived about the same time Pag. 390. lin 2. Day Bishop of Chichester was judged by Lay Delegates so it is like his offence was against the State I before gave an Account of the Deprivation of Day out of the council-Council-Book from whence it appears that he was deprived for a matter of Religion Pag. 396. lin 15. Coverdale was put in the See of Exeter upon Veyseys free Resignation he being then extream old The Record of Veyseys Restitution to Exeter saith that metu olim eidem Episcopatui cesserat His Patent of Restitution alledgeth that he had forced to resign pro corporis metu Pag. 396. lin 17. Ridley and Harley were never married The Historian hence hath taken an occasion to reproach Sanders for his little Exactness because he had reckoned these among the married Bishops But himself also is no less mistaken Harley was indeed married For the Record of his Deprivation saith that he was destitutus Episcopatu Herefordensi ex conjugio haeresi His Marriage is further attested by Fox Pag. 403. lin 43. The Historian denieth that the whole Clergy who had engaged in or submitted to the Reformation under King Edward were formally reconciled to the See of Rome under Queen Mary This is a mistake The Clergy were singly reconciled by formal and solemn Acts. To which purpose Cardinal Pole the Popes Legate gave Commissions to the several Ordinaries one of which I have published in the Collection And not content with this he prescribed to them a form by which they should be reconciled This also I have subjoyned in the Collection Pag. 403. lin 1. Sanders had said that William Thomas Clerk of the Council had conspired to kill the Queen for which he justly suffered The Historian answereth of this I find nothing on Record so it must depend on our Authors credit If the Historian had pleased to have read our English Histories of these times composed by Grafton Stow and others he might have discovered somewhat of this matter upon Record I before reported the Order of Council constituting William Thomas Clerk of the Council in the