enacted by Statute 27 H. 8. That all Licenses Dispensations and Faculties obtained of the Archbishop of Canterbury in matters not repugnant or contrary to the Holy Scriptures and Laws of God should stand in full Authority and Strength without any repeal to be hereafter had of any such Licenses divers Priests obtained Dispensations of Marriages some of which were corroborated by the King 's Broad Seal and some by the Archbishop's Seal only Afterwards the King understanding that certain in his Realm were married as well Regulars as Seculars without Authority and Common Laws did through the instigation of the Popish party make an open Proclamation which may be found in the following Collection in the 30 th Year of his Reign wherein he did but for afterward charge that no man should attempt the same again and did not dissolve those Marriages being so privately contracted In the following year indeed the Popish party still prevailing more at Court the Six Articles were enacted by which such Marriages were dissolved and many Persons so married were divorced But after all the King knew by Information of a good number from time to time and yet did both tolerate the same which were used secretly and such as were openly known did not separate them but commanded them to be reputed as Lay-Persons and would have granted Liberty to all in his days but for some certain zealous Councellors as was not unknown to divers who heard him oft speak of that matter Pag. 90. lin 13. Many great Bishops in these times the fourth and fifth Ages lived still with their Wives and had Children by them as namely Nazianzen's and Basil's Fathers and Hilary of Poictiers when very old writing to his Daughter Abra bid her ask her Mother c. Nazianzen's Father was certainly a Bishop and begat him after his Consecration But that Basil's Father was a Bishop appeareth not Some later Writers indeed have affirmed it without any ground from ancient Writers but that he still lived with his Wife and had Children neither later nor ancient Writers mention The like may be said of Hilary The Epistle to his Daughter Abra the only foundation of his supposed Marriage is generally allowed by Critics to be spurious The Historian may here perhaps defend himself by alledging that he doth not in this place propose his own arguments but only the reasons upon which our Reformers proceeded in restoring Marriage to the Clergy I do acknowledge that these mistakes are found in most of their Writings concerning the Marriage of the Clergy published at that time But then we have just reason to complain that it is injurious to the Honour of our Reformers to choose from among so many irrefragable arguments and authorities proposed and urged by them in this cause such as are mistakes or at least liable to exception Pag. 90. lin 21. Heliodorus Bishop of Trica did first move that Clergymen should be obliged to live single The Historian is too well conversant in the History of the ancient Church not to know that long before the time of Heliodorus some Bishops moved in the great Council of Nice that Bishops Priests and Deacons should be obliged to perpetual continence and had succeeded in it had not Paphnutius vehemently opposed the motion and shewn the unreasonableness and danger of such an imposition This is related by all the Ecclesiastical Historians of that time and is a matter well known however impudently denied by some Writers of the Church of Rome Even before the Council of Nice Eustathius Bishop of Sebastea had endeavoured to impose the like necessity of perpetual continence upon the Clergy which endeavour of his was condemned in the Council of Gangra About fourscore years after the Council of Nice Heliodorus introduced a total abstinence of the Clergy from their Wives in the Province of Thessaly where he was Bishop The Historian seems to have believed that he first made the motion in the Council of Nice This mistake as far as I can find is purely his own For although I have read all the Treaties in Defence of Priests Marriage published by our Reformers I do not remember to have observed this in any of them Pag. 90. lin 38. It is true that in the fourth Age they began to make Canons against the Marriage of those who were in Orders especially in the Roman and African Churches It was forbidden to those who were in Orders to contract Marriage by the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions received in the Eastern Church long before It was forbidden also by the Council of Neocaesarea and in part by the Council of Ancyra But if by Canons made against the Marriage of those in Orders the Historian understands the Use or Enjoyment of Marriage whether contracted before or after Ordination he hath then committed a great mistake in joyning the African to the Roman Churches The Church of Africa did all along signally oppose and baffle the Attempts of the Popes of Rome for the Establishment of Celibacy therein and retained to her Bishops the use of Marriage long after it had been generally disused by other Bishops both of the Eastern and Western Churches insomuch as the Quinisext Council in the Year 692 imposing perpetual continence upon all Bishops in pursuance of the Custom which had long since generally prevailed in the Church took notice of the different practice of the Bishops of Africa herein and by a particular Clause obliged them to conform themselves to the practice of the rest of the Catholick Church in this matter This mistake also is peculiar to the Historian I do not find any Footsteps of it in the Writings of our Reformers Pag. 91. lin 6. Restitutus Bishop of London lived openly with his Wife Whether Restitutus were married or not we know no more than whether the Wise Men of the East were married Bale indeed affirms it and from him Parker Godwin Spelman and others have taken it But Bale is scarce to be believed when he relateth a matter upon his own knowledge much less when he delivereth any thing at 1200 Years distance without any Authority The like may be said of Richard Bishop of Chicester who in this same Page is affirmed to have been married The false Opinion of his Marriage seemeth to have arose either from the hasty Inadvertency of that Reformed Writer who first reported it or from a double Error of the Press substituting Richard Bishop of Chicester instead of Robert Peche Bishop of Chester Pag. 91. lin 17. Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury did not impose Celibate on the Clergy in the Villages but only on those who lived in Towns and on Prebendaries This mistake is wholly the Historians own Our Reformers understood the History of the English Church too well to lead the way in such an Error Lanfranc imposed Celibacy on Prebendaries but allowed to the Clergy living in Towns and Villages the use of their Marriage already contracted His Constitution was conceived in these words Nullus
what Scriptures he had he alledged a saying in Esay which place being considered by the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London's and the Lords in the Council was found of no purpose to maintain his Opinion Then the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely argued the Lawfulness and Reasonableness of the thing after which he was commanded by the Council to conform which he still refusing because contrary to his Conscience he was ordered to resort to the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishops of Ely and London to confer with them for satisfying his Conscience and to appear again the 4th of December When he then appeared being demanded he stuck to his former Resolution and entred into a Dispute with the Archbishop about the merits of the Cause and alledged the former place out of Esaiah and a place out of the last Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews Which the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely answered and shew from Origen that in the Primitive Church Christians had no Altars and urged the necessity of reforming the abuses of Altars But touching the naming the Table an Altar it was left indifferent to him so to name it because ancient Writers sometime call that Table an Altar Notwithstanding the Bishop persevering in his Resolution although he was now again commanded on his Allegiance to comply the Council ordered him to appear again on Sunday and then to give his final Answer Which he did and answered that plainly he could not do it saving his Conscience and that he determined rather to lose all that ever he had Hereupon two days more were given to him to deliberate But on the 11th of December persisting and praying them to do with him what they thought connevient for he would never obey to do this thing thinking it a less evil to suffer the Body to perish than to corrupt the Soul he was committed to the Fleet. On the 9th of Iune 1551. an Order was sent to the Warden of the Fleet to suffer the Bishop of Chichester to have such number to attend on him and to be ordered at those who attend on the Bishop of Worcester In September a Commission was given to examine and judge him On the 24th of October 1551. an Order was made for seizing into the Kings hands the Temporalties of the Bishopricks of Chichester and Worcester lately given to his Highness by the Iudgment given by the Commissioners lattely appointed for the hearing of the said Bishops Causes 1552. Iune 15. A Letter was wrote to the Lord Chancellor Signifying to him that Dr. Day late Bishop of Chichester is sent to him by the Kings Appointment to be used of his Lordship as in Christian Charity shall be most seemly A like Letter was then sent to the Bishop of London for the receiving of Dr. Hethe late Bishop of Worcester and an Order to the Warden of the Fleet to deliver them both to the Bishops appointed to receive them The Archbishop seized the Spiritualties of the See of Chichester void by the Deprivation of Day 1551. November 3. Stâ—w saith that the Sentence of his Deprivation was pronounced 1551. October 10. King Edward's Journal placeth it on the 5th of October Pag. 203. lin 3. This Year 1552. Heath Bishop of Worcester was put out of his Bishoprick He had been put in Prison for refusing to Consent to the Book of Ordinations He was afterwards deprived The Council-Book reports that at a Council held at Chelsey 1551. September 22. Nicholas Bishop of Worcester was sent for to whom was repeated the Cause of his Imprisonment to be for that he refused to subscribe to the Book devised for the form of making Bishops Priests and Deacons being authorized by Parliament At the time of which refusal being not only gently required to subscribe but also being manifestly taught by divers other Learned men that all things contained in that Book were good and true and that the Book was expedient and allowable the said Bishop declared himself to be a very obstinate Man and for that his doing it was now shewed to him that he deserved longer Imprisonment Nevertheless he was now offered to recover the Kings favour if he would subscribe to the Book He answered Confessing he took the Cause of his Imprisonment to be as was alledged and that also he was very gently used rather like a Son than a Subject Nevertheless that he remained in the same mind not willing to subscribe it although he would not disobey it And although he was reasoned withall by every of the said Council there were present only Six Laymen in disproving his manner of Answer being every thing in the said Book true and good and being devised by Eleven other Learned men to the which he was joyned as the Twelfth and received of all the Realm agreeing also that he would obey it but not subscribe it which contained a Contradiction of Reason Yet he still refused to subscribe it Whereupon he was offered to have Conference with Learned men and to have time to consider the matter better Whereunto he said That he could have no better Conference than he had heretofore and well might he have time but of other mind he thought never to be Adding that there be many other things whereunto he would not Consent as to take down Altars and set up Tables He was then expresly charged to subscribe before Thursday following before the 24th of September upon pain of Deprivation Next follow the Orders of the 24th of October 1551 and 15th of Iune 1552. related in the preceding Article King Edward in his Journal noteth that he was deprived for Contempt 1551. October 5. The Register of Archbishop Cranmer affirmeth him to have been deprived 1551. October 10. which is chiefly to be relied on as being a Record with which also Stow agreeth adding that the same day he was committed to the Fleet. He had been imprisoned in the Fleet before this Day For the Council-Book after the Relation of his Examination and Answer on the 22d of September addeth that as a man incorrigible he was returned to the Fleet. Pag. 203. lin 16. This Year the Bishoprick of Glocester was quite suppressed and Hooper was made Bishop of Worcester In December before Worcester and Glocester had been united So they were to be ever after one Bishoprick with two Titles But now they were put into another method and the Bishop was to be called only Bishop of Worcester So also Pag. 396. lin penult Hooper had not two Bishopricks but one that had been for some years divided into two He only enjoyed the revenue of Glocester for Worcester was entirely suppressed The Historian would have obliged us if he had pleased to acquaint us by what Authority all this was done It should seem that Hooper had Possession of the Revenues of Worcester I mean as much of it as the greedy Courtiers thought fit to leave to it as well as Glocester For in the Council-Book is found this Order made 1552. May
beginning of the Year 1550. King Edward's Journal mentioneth it on the same day viz. the 19th of April Soon after in reward of his Attendance the Prebend of Cantleury in St. Pauls Church lately conveyed to the Crown and the Parsonage of Presthende in South-Wales were by the King given to him when Queen Mary came to the Crown he was stripped of his Office and perhaps of his Rewards also In revenge of which he designed the Murder of the Queen for which he was sent Prisoner to the Tower of London 1554. February 20. On the 26th of February he endeavoured to murder himself in Prison by a Stab but the wound not proving Mortal he was Arraigned and Condemned at Guildhall on the 9th of May and executed at Tyburn on the 18th of May. Bale endeavouring to extenuate the matter saith that he was condemned and executed for designing to kill Stephen Gardiner But all other Historians agree that it was for conspiring the Queens Death THese are the Errors and Defects which I have observed in this History For my performance herein I expect not either praise or thanks from the present Age much less from the Historian yet I thought it a Duty owing to Posterity not to permit it to be led into mistakes in any thing relating to the Reformation of this Church by Errors contained in an History published in our times with Pomp and seeming Authority I do not suspect any Person to be so disingenuous as to raise hence an Argument of my disaffection to the Reformation or if any shall be so base I shall slight the Calumny The Reformation of our Church was begun and carried on with so much Piety Wisdom and fulness of due Authority that a faithful and exact Account is the best Vindication and Defence of it nor should I ever have taken so much pains to rectifie the History if I had not been fully persuaded of the Justice of it If some favourable Passages in this History are by me disproved the cause of our Reformation will not be really injured thereby as not needing the Patronage of false or erroneous Relations We were sufficiently able to defend the Justice of it before any Forreigner undertook to deliver the History of it and shall be so still although the Reputation of his History should suffer any Diminution Lest it should be imagined that I have examined this History so curiously as to have discovered all the Errors and Defects of it and to have left no room to after diligence or the Enquiry of others I do protest that I never formed any Design of this nature until about a Month since I have noted what my Memory and present Collections suggested to me But it may be easily observed that I have considered only that part of the History which is purely Ecclesiastical and not all that If any one should take the Pains to examine in like manner the Civil History intermixed therewith it may be feared that not a few Errors and Defects may be discovered in that part of it In the last place if the Historian or any for him shall ask why in Compliance to his Desire expressed in the Conclusion of his History I did not first Communicate the Papers to himself I refer him for an Answer to the Athenae Oxonienses par 2. pag. 625. An Additament to Par. 2. Sect. 14. In the place referred to I thought it sufficient to observe that there appeareth no certain ground of the Marriage of Richard Bishop of Chichester reported by the Historian But upon revising of the place I think it not amiss to add That we have undoubted certainty that he never was married For Ralph de Bocking a Dominican Fryar who had been his Confessor and wrote his Life at large hath these words of him Testis est Frater qui haec scripsit cui ante paucos dies transitûs sui ex hoc mundo idem sanctus vitam Commissa sua Denudavit quòd ipsum sic carnis florem repperit custodisse ut in eorum numero censeatur qui cum Mulieribus non sunt Coinquinati And afterwards passing through the several parts of the Episcopal Office described by the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop must be blameless c. and applying them to Bishop Richard when he cometh to that part of the Apostolick Charge The Husband of one Wife he saith Ipse autem Richardus Matrimonium Omnino refutavit Consonant to this Pope Urban IV. in the Bull of his Canonization among other Arguments of his supposed Sanctity maketh use of this Carnalis Conjugii voluptates appetentibus anxius Satiatis plenitudine plenas abhorruit ut immaculati thori delicias Desiderantibus suaves placidas fruentibus gratas avidas obtineret A COLLECTION Of some few Records and other Instruments of which mention is made in the preceding Papers I. The Determination of the University of Cambridge against the Supremacy of the Pope Invictissimo ac Potentissimo Principi ac Domino nostro Clementissimo Henrico Octavo Angliae Franciae Regi Domino Hiberniae c. QUod faelix faustum sit huic florentissimo Regno tuo universo orbi Christiano Invictissime Princeps ac Domine Clementissime en scripto prodimus ac palam dicimus sententiam nostram in quaestione illâ famosâ de Romani Pontificis potestate cujus quaestionis veritatem post maturam sedulam examinationem ac varias ea de re non uno tempore collocutiones diligenti tandem Scripturarum collatione perpensione ut nobis videmur eruimus erutam Syngrapho quodam expressam quod sententiae nostrae facti certissimus testis fuerit Majestati tuae unà cum literis istis nunc mittimus Atque hanc sane provinciam Serenissime Rex abs tuâ sublimitate nobis impositam libenter suscepimus partim ob eam quam Majestati tuae debimus fidem obedientiam quibus ullo loco aut tempore de esse nefas maximum putamus partim ipsius veritatis amore ac studio quam discere ac praedicare quoties è Christi Gloriâ Reipublicae Chrstianae salute atque commodo esse videatur cum omnium intersit qui Christo nomen dederunt atque in illius verba jurarunt tum nostrâ multò magis referre interesseque videtur qui quotidie in illius Scripturis versamur quotidiè illius verba voces legimus qui est ipsa via veritas vita quique veritatem custodit in Saeculum saeculi Hujus favorem ac gratiam semper tuae Celsitudini adesse precamur optamusque ut nos ut Academiam nostram quae tuae semper voluntati fuerit obsequentissima vicissim Sublimitatis tuae favore prosequi fovere atque ornare digneris Christus Servator Serenissimam Majestatem tuam Diutissimè servet Universis sanctae Matris Ecclesiae filiis ad quos praesentes literae perventurae sunt caetus omnis Regentium non Regentium Academiae Cantabrigiensis salutem in