his Assembly at St. Austin's in London Polidor Virgil desired leave to go out of England which was granted to him on the 2d of Iune this Year 1550. To this I will add that on the 19th of November 1551. the Council ordered a Reward of an 100 Pounds to be given to Iohn Alasco And that Polidor Virgil went not out of England before the end of the Year 1551. For I find an Order of Council 1551. Octob. 14. to deliver to Polidor Virgil in way of the King's reward the Summ of One hundred Marks and another Order 1551. Nov. 9. to pay to to Plidor Virgil in way of the King's Majesties reward the Summ of 300 Crowns after Five shillings the Crown Pag. 155. lin 2. On the 26th of Iune 1550. Poynet was declared Bishop of Rochester The Council-Book saith that 1550. May 11th Mr. Poynet was appointed Bishop of Rochester King Edward's Journal Iune 30th John Poynet made Bishop of Rochester and received his Oath This latter is to be understood of the reception of his Temporalties from and doing Homage to the King For he was consecrated Iune 29th Pag. 156. lin 19. Bucer wrote a Book Entituled Concerning the Kingdom of Christ. In it he complains much of Pluralities and Non-Residence as a Remainder of Popery so hurtful to the Church that in many places there were but one or two or few more Sermons in a whole Year The Historians affection to the present Constitution of our Church in relation to Plurality of Benefices is well known He had before said in his Preface that the present use of Pluralities of England was a Relique of Popery a scandal of a crying Nature which may justly make us blush But he will never be able to adapt Bucer's words to such Pluralities as are now allowed and practised in this Church The words of Bucer are these Quot reperias qui licet manifesto horrendo Sacrilegio plurium Parochiarum emolumenta absumant tamen ne uni quidem debitum impendere ministerium vel per suos mercenarios taceo per seipsos dignetur Si enim bi inlocis Splendidis frequentioribus unam alteram vel paulo plures in anno conciones habuerint existimant se suo munere proeclare esse defunctos reliqúum omne tempus otio luxui pompae mundanae impendunt Wherein he blamed those who received the Profits of many Benefices with Cure of Souls and yet served not the Cure of any one of them either by Curates or their own Persons whereas it is notorious that at this time none is permitted to hold above two Benefices and both are constantly supplied by the Beneficiary either personally or by Curates and Sermons preached in either every Sunday whereas also those whom Bucer complaineth of thought they satisfied their Duty if they preached two three or more Sermons in a year in some populous and eminent places which the Historian by mistake interprets of their own Parishes I find but one remarkable thing concerning Pluralities during the whole Reign of Edward VI. and that is an Order of Council 1550. Iune 28 That upon Consideration Mr. Poynet now Elect Bishop of Rochester hath no House to dwell on and his Living small it was agreed he should enjoy his Benefice in Commendam But from henceforth it is decreed that no Bishop shall keep other Benefice than his Bishoprick only Pag. 160. lin 18. The Duke of Lunenberg had offered the King 10000 men to his Assistance and desired to enter into a Treaty of Marriage for the Lady Mary The Council-Book saith it was the D. of Brandenburgh who proposed to treat of a Marriage with the Lady Mary and that the Embassador who came to propose it had Two hundred pounds given to him by way of Gratuity King Edward's Journal indeed relateth it of the Duke of Brunswick Pag. 165. lin 3. Gardiner was soon after February 1551. put out There was a Commission issued out to the Archbishop c. He put in a Compurgation Upon this many Witnesses were Examined His Judges on the 18th of April gave Sentence against him by which they deprived him of his Bishoprick I find in the Council-Book that the Bishop of Winchester's Case was first renewed after the Sequestration 1550. Nov. 23. when it was agreed in Council that the Bishop of Ely Secretary Petre Dr. May and Dr. Glynn should confer on the matter and on Tuesday following should certifie to the Council what was to be done by the Order of Law in that case What was their report doth not appear But Decemb. 14. the Council ordered that the Lieutenant of the Tower should carry him to Lambeth before the Archbishop and other Commissioners constituted in his Cause on Monday following and after that when and as often as he shall be by them required Decemb. 16. The Commissioners having allowed Council to Gardiner this was approved by the King's Council and the Persons by him named were Licensed to repair to the Tower to him and that although one of them was the King's Chaplain Ianuary 19th Two of his Servants came to the Privy-Council and desired that certain of them might be sworn upon certain Articles as Witnesses in behalf of the Bishop The Privy Councellors offered to Answer to those Articles upon their Honour but would not be sworn February 15th It was ordered in Council That for asmuch as the Bishop had at all times before the Iudges of his cause used himself unreverently to the King's Majesty and very slanderously towards his Council and especially yesterday being the day of his Iudgment given against him so that he was deprived on the 14th of February he called the Iudges Hereticks and Sacramentaries these being there the Kings Commissioners and of his Highnesses Counsail he should be removed from his present into a meaner Lodging in the Tower and have but one Servant to wait on him that his Books and Papers be taken from him and that from henceforth he have neither Pen Ink nor Paper but be sequestred from all Conference and from all means that may serve him to practise any ways King Edward's Journal saith that the Bishop after long Tryal was Deposed February 13th Pag. 165. lin 47. Eight days after on the 26th of April Poynet was translated from Rochester to Winchester That the See of Winchester was void by the Deprivation of Gardiner before the 18th of April the Historian might have learned from King Edward's Journal published by himself wherein it is said that April the 5 th Poynet Bishop of Rochester received his Oath for the Bishoprick of Winchester viz. then he received the Temporalities of Winchester The Council-Book saith that February 8th This day by the King 's own Appointment Dr. Poynet Bishop of Rochester was appointed and admitted Bishop of Winchester And April the 9th A Letter was writ to the Treasurer of the First fruits in favour of Mr. Skorie appointed Bishop of Rochester Pag. 166. lin 1. Veysey Bishop of Exeter did also resign pretending
Duke of Somersets after his last apprehension the Bishop was now sent for and this day made his appearance before the Lords by whom being charged with this matter and his own Letter produced against him which he could not deny but to be of his own hand and unable to make any further Answer thereto than he had done before by Writing he was for that the same seemed not a sufficient Answer committed by the King's Commandment to the Tower of London to abyde there c. He had been accused by Menvile before 1550. For the History of the Bishops of Durham lately published affirmeth that Dr. Whitehead Dean of Durham being together with the Bishop and his Chancellor Hindmarsh accused by Menvile was forced to goe to London where he died in 1548. Whosoever succeeded him in the Deanry seemeth for some time to have been an Adversary of the Bishop For in the Council-Book it is said 1551. May 20. The Bishop of Duresm upon hearing the matter between him and the Dean of Duresm was committed to his House On the 8th Iuly following the Council ordered the Dean of Duresm to Answer in Writing unto Matters as he was charged with at his being before the Council and in such sort as he will stand to at his peril Aug. 2. The Bishop had License granted to him to walk in the Fields October 5. A Letter was wrote by the Council to the Lord Treasurer Lord Chamberlain Secretary Cecil and Mr. Mason to hear and examine the Bishop and Dean of Duresme 's Case and to make them report of the same and if they shall so think convenient to send for them and their Accuser together or apart as shall seem best unto them So that by this time the Bishop and Dean were involved in the same Cause November 3. The Dean of Durham was bound by the Council in a Recognizance of Two hundred Pounds to appear before the Council on the first day of the next Term. He was then very sick and seemeth to have died within few days after For the King granted the Deanry to Dr. Horn 1551. November 20. The name of the Dean intervening between Whitehead and Horn I cannot recover and am ready to suspect that the time of Whitehead's Death is falsly related in the History of Durham and that the Order of Council of the 20th of May was not well worded by the Clerk For Horn is by many affirmed to have succeeded immediately to Whitehead and to him the Council 1552. February 18th granted a Letter directed to the Prebendaries of Durham to conform themselves to such Orders in Religion and Divine Service standing with the Kings proceeding as their Dean Mr. Horn shall set forth whom the Lords require to receive and use well as being sent to them for the weal of the Country by his Majesty To return to Tonstall while he lay in the Tower in the Year 1551. he wrote his Book De veritate corporis sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia in the 77th Year of his Age which was Printed at Paris 1554. Pag. 196. lin 28. On the First of November last Year viz. 1551. a Commission was granted to Eight Persons to prepare the Matter a Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws for the Review of the Two and thirty On the 6th of October 1551. the Council had directed a Letter to the Lord Chancellor To make out Commission to Thirty two Persons viz. Eight Bishops Canterbury London Winchester Ely Exeter Glocester Bath Rochester Eight Divines Taylor of Lincoln Cox Parker Latimer Cook Martyr Cheek Masco Eight Civilians Petre Cecill Sir Tho. Smyth Taylor of Hadley May Traheron Lyell Skinner Eight common Lawyers Justice Hales Justice Bromley Gooderick Gosnald Stamford Carrell Lucas Brook To authorize them to Assemble together and to resolve upon the Reformation of the Canon Law Eight of these to rough hew the Canon Law the rest to conclude it afterwards On the 9th of November 1551. a new Commission was ordered to those Eight Persons mentioned by the Historian For the first drawing and ordering the Canon Law for that some of those before appointed are now thought meet by the King to be left out The Commission was Sealed November 11. as appears by the Reformatio legum Eccl. Printed at London 1571 1640. Next Year viz. 1552. February 2. it was ordered that the Lord Chancellor make out a Commission to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Bishops Learned men Civilians and Lawyers of the Realm for the Establishment of the Ecclesiastical Laws according to the Act of Parliament made the last Sessions The granting of this Commission King Edward placeth in the 10th of February and giveth a List of the Commissioners Names but among the Civilians hath omitted Hussey principal Registrary of the See of Canterbury whose Name I find added to this List in some Papers of Archbishop Parker wherein also instead of Mr. Red .... the Name of Holford occurs Pag. 203. lin 3. This Year 1552. Day of Chichester was put out of his Bishoprick Whether he refused to submit to the new Book or fell into other Transgressions I do not know His Sentence is something ambiguously expressed in the Patent that Story had to succeed him which bears Date the 24th of May. The Council-Book giveth a large account of this matter 1550. October 7. The Council ordered Dr. Cox to repair into Sussex to appease the people by his good Doctrine which are now troubled through the seditious preaching of the Bishop of Chichester and others November 8. The Bishop of Chichester appeared before the Council to Answer the things objected to him for Preaching And because he denied the words of his Accusation he was commanded within two days to bring in writing what he preached November 30. The Duke of Somerset declared in Council that the Bishop of Chichester coming to him two days before had shewed him that whereas he had received Letters from the King and Council a Copy of which may be found in the Council-Book commanding him to take down all Altars in the Churches of his Diocess and in lieu of them to set up Tables in some convenient place of the Chauncels and to cause the Reasonableness of it to be declared to the people in Preaching He could not conform his Conscience to do what he was by the said Letter commanded and therefore prayed to be excused Upon this the Bishop was commanded to appear the day following which he did and being asked what he said to the King's Letter he answered that he could not conform his Conscience to take down the Altars in the Church and in lieu of them to set up Tables as the Letter appointed for that he seemed for his Opinion the Scripture and the Consent of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church and contrariwise did not perceive any strength in the Six Reasons which were set forth by the Bishop of London to persuade the taking down of Altars and Erection of Tables And then being demanded
what Scriptures he had he alledged a saying in Esay which place being considered by the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London's and the Lords in the Council was found of no purpose to maintain his Opinion Then the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely argued the Lawfulness and Reasonableness of the thing after which he was commanded by the Council to conform which he still refusing because contrary to his Conscience he was ordered to resort to the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishops of Ely and London to confer with them for satisfying his Conscience and to appear again the 4th of December When he then appeared being demanded he stuck to his former Resolution and entred into a Dispute with the Archbishop about the merits of the Cause and alledged the former place out of Esaiah and a place out of the last Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews Which the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely answered and shew from Origen that in the Primitive Church Christians had no Altars and urged the necessity of reforming the abuses of Altars But touching the naming the Table an Altar it was left indifferent to him so to name it because ancient Writers sometime call that Table an Altar Notwithstanding the Bishop persevering in his Resolution although he was now again commanded on his Allegiance to comply the Council ordered him to appear again on Sunday and then to give his final Answer Which he did and answered that plainly he could not do it saving his Conscience and that he determined rather to lose all that ever he had Hereupon two days more were given to him to deliberate But on the 11th of December persisting and praying them to do with him what they thought connevient for he would never obey to do this thing thinking it a less evil to suffer the Body to perish than to corrupt the Soul he was committed to the Fleet. On the 9th of Iune 1551. an Order was sent to the Warden of the Fleet to suffer the Bishop of Chichester to have such number to attend on him and to be ordered at those who attend on the Bishop of Worcester In September a Commission was given to examine and judge him On the 24th of October 1551. an Order was made for seizing into the Kings hands the Temporalties of the Bishopricks of Chichester and Worcester lately given to his Highness by the Iudgment given by the Commissioners lattely appointed for the hearing of the said Bishops Causes 1552. Iune 15. A Letter was wrote to the Lord Chancellor Signifying to him that Dr. Day late Bishop of Chichester is sent to him by the Kings Appointment to be used of his Lordship as in Christian Charity shall be most seemly A like Letter was then sent to the Bishop of London for the receiving of Dr. Hethe late Bishop of Worcester and an Order to the Warden of the Fleet to deliver them both to the Bishops appointed to receive them The Archbishop seized the Spiritualties of the See of Chichester void by the Deprivation of Day 1551. November 3. Stâ—w saith that the Sentence of his Deprivation was pronounced 1551. October 10. King Edward's Journal placeth it on the 5th of October Pag. 203. lin 3. This Year 1552. Heath Bishop of Worcester was put out of his Bishoprick He had been put in Prison for refusing to Consent to the Book of Ordinations He was afterwards deprived The Council-Book reports that at a Council held at Chelsey 1551. September 22. Nicholas Bishop of Worcester was sent for to whom was repeated the Cause of his Imprisonment to be for that he refused to subscribe to the Book devised for the form of making Bishops Priests and Deacons being authorized by Parliament At the time of which refusal being not only gently required to subscribe but also being manifestly taught by divers other Learned men that all things contained in that Book were good and true and that the Book was expedient and allowable the said Bishop declared himself to be a very obstinate Man and for that his doing it was now shewed to him that he deserved longer Imprisonment Nevertheless he was now offered to recover the Kings favour if he would subscribe to the Book He answered Confessing he took the Cause of his Imprisonment to be as was alledged and that also he was very gently used rather like a Son than a Subject Nevertheless that he remained in the same mind not willing to subscribe it although he would not disobey it And although he was reasoned withall by every of the said Council there were present only Six Laymen in disproving his manner of Answer being every thing in the said Book true and good and being devised by Eleven other Learned men to the which he was joyned as the Twelfth and received of all the Realm agreeing also that he would obey it but not subscribe it which contained a Contradiction of Reason Yet he still refused to subscribe it Whereupon he was offered to have Conference with Learned men and to have time to consider the matter better Whereunto he said That he could have no better Conference than he had heretofore and well might he have time but of other mind he thought never to be Adding that there be many other things whereunto he would not Consent as to take down Altars and set up Tables He was then expresly charged to subscribe before Thursday following before the 24th of September upon pain of Deprivation Next follow the Orders of the 24th of October 1551 and 15th of Iune 1552. related in the preceding Article King Edward in his Journal noteth that he was deprived for Contempt 1551. October 5. The Register of Archbishop Cranmer affirmeth him to have been deprived 1551. October 10. which is chiefly to be relied on as being a Record with which also Stow agreeth adding that the same day he was committed to the Fleet. He had been imprisoned in the Fleet before this Day For the Council-Book after the Relation of his Examination and Answer on the 22d of September addeth that as a man incorrigible he was returned to the Fleet. Pag. 203. lin 16. This Year the Bishoprick of Glocester was quite suppressed and Hooper was made Bishop of Worcester In December before Worcester and Glocester had been united So they were to be ever after one Bishoprick with two Titles But now they were put into another method and the Bishop was to be called only Bishop of Worcester So also Pag. 396. lin penult Hooper had not two Bishopricks but one that had been for some years divided into two He only enjoyed the revenue of Glocester for Worcester was entirely suppressed The Historian would have obliged us if he had pleased to acquaint us by what Authority all this was done It should seem that Hooper had Possession of the Revenues of Worcester I mean as much of it as the greedy Courtiers thought fit to leave to it as well as Glocester For in the Council-Book is found this Order made 1552. May
Images c. This Preface indeed was published at London 1550. under the name of Wickliffe and hath generally passed for his But after all Wickliffe did not write it but the Author of the other old English Translation of the Bible For we have two Translations of the Bible made about that time one by Wickliffe the other by an unknown Person In the Preface the Author giveth several Specimens of his Translation of many difficult places of Scripture which agree not with Wickliff's but with the other Translation Further the Author of the Preface inveighs sharply against the Discipline and Members of the University of Oxford which it is certain Wickliffe would never have done for Reasons before mentioned That Wickliffe condemned praying to Saints we have only the Testimony of his Adversaries I will not affirm any thing at this time but I have reason to suspect the contrary Pag. 25. lin 27. Iohn Braibrook Bishop of London then Lord Chancellor viz. 26 Maii Anno 5. Ricardi 2. His name was Rober Braibrook and he was not Lord Chancellor until the Sixth Year of King Richard Pag. 35. lin 28. The two Prelates that were then in the Year 1503 between February and December in greatest esteem with King Henry the 7 th were Warham Archbishop of Canterbury and Fox Bishop of Winchester Warham was not translated from London to Canterbury till 1504. Ianuary 23. Pag. 88. lin 10. This the small Allowance made by the King to Crook his Agent in foreign Universities I take notice of because it is said by others that all the Subscriptions that he procured were bought So pag. 89. in imo Margine No Money nor Bribes given for Subscriptions This is endeavoured to be farther proved pag. 90. However it might be then thought necessary or useful to procure the Determinations of foreign Universities in favour of the Divorce of King Henry thereby the better to satisfie the Clergy at home and to justifie the Divorce abroad yet to those who know very well that this National Church had sufficient Authority to determine such a Controversie without consulting foreign Universities it will not be accounted a matter of any moment whether these were bribed or not I will not therefore scruple to set down the Testimonies of two undeniable Witnesses who lived at that time and could not but know the truth of the whole matter The first is of Cornelius Agrippa of whom the Historian himself giveth this Character Cornelius Agrippa a man very famous for great and curious Learning and so satisfied in the Kings Cause that he gave it out that the thing was clear and indisputable for which he was afterwards hardly used by the Emperor and died in Prison If this Great Person then had any partiality in this Cause it lay on the side of the King yet in one of his Books he hath these words Sed quis credidisset Theologos in rebus fidei conscientiae non solum amore odio invidia perverti sed nonnunquam etiam flecti conviviis muneribus abduci a vero nisi ipsi illius sceleris fidem fecissent in Anglicani Matrimonii damnatione Who would have believed that Divines in matters of Faith and Conscience are not only perverted by Love Hatred or Envy but also sometimes bribed by Banquets or drawn from the truth by Gifts unless themselves had given evident Proof of this Vileness in condemning the Marriage of the King of England The other is Mr. Cavendish an honest plain Gentleman first a Servant of Cardinal Wolsey afterwards highly obliged by King Henry He in writing the Life of his Master the Cardinal giveth this account of the whole matter It was thought very expedient that the King should send out his Commissioners into all Universities in Christendom there to have this Case argued substantially and to bring with them from thence every Definition of their Opinions of the same under the Seal of the University And thereupon divers Commissioners were presently appointed for this Design So some were sent to Cambridge some to Oxford some to Lovain others to Paris some to Orleance others to Padua all at the proper Costs and Charge of the King which in the whole amounted to a great Summ of Money And all went out of this Realm besides the Charge of the Embassage to those famous and notable Persons of all the Universities especially such as bare the Rule or had the Custody of the University Seals were fed by the Commissioners with such great Summs of Money that they did easily condescend to their Requests and grant their Desires By reason whereof all the Commssioners returned with their Purpose furnished according to their Commissions under the Seal of every several University Pag. 107. lin 5. For then about the time of Edward I. the Popes not satisfied with their other Oppressions did by Provisions Bulls and other Arts of that See dispose of Bishopricks Abbeys and lesser Benefices to Foreigners Cardinals and others that did not live in England This is a very wide mistake For the Popes did not then dispose of Bishopricks and Abbeys to Foreigners Cardinals and others that did not live in England The Popes did not give any Bishoprick of England to any Foreigner that did not live therein till about Thirty years before the Reformation when it was not done without the Kings good liking and in Vertue of some secret compact between them As for Abbeys from the first Foundation to their Dissolution the Popes never gave any one to a Foreigner not residing For Cardinal Abbots there never was any besides Cardinal Wolsey and of him it is well known that he had his Abbey from the gift of the King and lived in England The matter therefore complained of in the Preamble of the Act of Parliament 25 Edw. I. which the Historian inserteth was this That whereas Bishops and Abbots ought to be Elected by their several Chapters and Convents and these Elections to be confirmed by the King the Popes had taken upon them to Annul the Elections of Chapters and then to substitute whomsoever themselves pleased without a new Election or to dispose of them without expecting any Election yet still none of these were granted to Cardinals or to Foreigners not residing in England And whereas the Popes had usurped the Presentation of and given to Aliens although not residing other Benefices as Deanries Prebends and Parsonages which ought of right to belong to their proper Patrons against these Encroachments a Remedy was desired and provided in this Act. Several Foreigners had a little before this time been preferred to Bishopricks such as Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury Adomarus de Lesignan Bishop of Winchester Petrus de Aqua-blanca Bishop of Hereford But these came in by the Election of their several Chapters overawed thereto by the Power and Authority of King Henry III to whose Queen they were related by near Kindred and after all resided upon their Sees unless when diverted by Employment in the business of
the King or Church But as for Deanries Prebends and Parsonages the Usurpation of the Popes in the disposal of them was intollerable These they granted to Cardinals and other Aliens not residing without all Shame Insomuch as I remember to have seen an Epistle of the Bishop of Salisbury to the Pope wrote about that time wherein complaining that the Advowson of his Benefices was taken from him by Papal Provisions he sends to him a List of all the Prebends and Prebendaries of his Church of Salisbury and adding to the name of every one by the Presentation of what Bishop or by the Provision of what Pope they obtained their several Prebends demonstrates that more of the then Prebendaries had come in by Papal Provision than by the Presentation of the Bishop the proper Patron that so if possible he might shame the Pope out of the like Usurpation for the future Nor was the case of other Churches particularly of York and St. Pauls unlike at this time Pag. 108. lin 46. When Henry the 4th had treasonably usurped the Crown all the Bishops Carlisle only excepted did assist him in it Many accusations of the Bishops of England may be sound in Prynn But I dare affirm that a falser cannot be found in him That all the Bishops were assisting to the Treason of Henry IV. except Carlisle the Historian hath no other evidence than this that none of them except Carlisle had the courage to protest in the house of Lords against a wicked design then contriving against the Person of the late King Richard But it doth not hence follow that all the other Bishops consented to this wicked design because they made no protestation against it which would have done no service to their injured Sovereign and onely exposed their own persons to the fury of an enraged multitude It is not to be doubted that many of the Bishops of that time retained their Allegiance to King Richard as long as the iniquity of the time would permit them although they cared not to become Martyrs in the cause At least it is certain that the interest of Walden Archbishop of Canterbury was so closely linked to his that there could be no suspition of his acting against his Prince and accordingly the Treason of Henry the 4th obtaining success they were both deposed together It is also well known that Scrope Archbishop of York immediately after took up Arms against King Henry published a bold Declaration of his Treason and Injustice and his forces being dissipated lost his head in the Quarell We are farther assured that both these Archbishops with the Bishops of London Exeter Litchfield and Landaffe attended King Richard faithfully in his Marches after Henry of Lancaster had landed and declared against him and assisted him to their utmost untill the Commonality running into the Duke of Lancaster on all sides and the King fleeing for his safety they were forced to give way to the violence of a rapid Revolution Pag. 110. lin 22. ult The first Letter is to Henry Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury it bears date the fifth day of December 1426. then follows the Appeal of the Archbishop dated the 6 th of April 1427. There is also another Letter dated the 6 th of May directed to the Archbishop But the next Letter is of an higher strain It is directed to the two Archbishops this is dated the 8 th day of December the 10 th year of his Popedom The History of the proceedings between Pope Martin and Archbishop Chichley in the matter of Provisoes would have been very acceptable had not the Historian marred all for want of a little Chronology He hath here disposed matters in a fair Historical series But most unhappily those two Letters which he maketh to have been wrote at so great a distance of time from each other I mean the first and last of those here mentioned were wrote within very few days of each other This with a little care might easily have been perceived For the 8 th day of December in the tenth year of the Popedom of Martin falls into the year 1426. By this mistake the whole contexture of this narration is overthrown But farther both these Letters were wrote upon the same day And the Historian in transcribing the Popes first Letter to the Archbishop which he hath published in the Collection of Records Pag. 98. hath given a false date of it For whereas it is truly dated Quinto Id. December He hath changed this into quinto die December The other Letter also which he saith to have been wrote the 8 th of December is in the Manuscript Copy dated as the former quinto Id. Decembr anno Pontificatus nostri decimo viz. 1427. December 9. Pag. 111. lin 2. Then follow Letters from the University of Oxford the Archbishop of York the Bishops of London Duresm and Lincoln to the Pope bearing date the 10 th and the 25 th of Iuly I did many years since transcribe out of an Authentick Register all the Instruments of this contest between the Pope and the Archbishop here mentioned by the Historian and as many more relating to the same matter which seem to have been wanting in his Manuscript so that I am thereby enabled to correct the mistakes of the Historian herein From the words of the Historian any Reader would imagine that the Letter of the University was dated on the 10 th and that of the Bishops on the 25 th of Iuly But on the contrary the Bishops Letter is dated Iuly 10 th and the Universities Iuly 25 th Then whereas the Historian nameth onely the Archbishop of York and three Bishops in truth that Letter was written in the name of fifteen Bishops that is of all the Bishops of England except three who were then absent For Salisbury and Chichester were at that time void Pag 111. lin 27. The Letter of the Pope to the Parliament is dated the third of October decimo Pontificat But I believe it is an error of the Transcriber and that its true date was the 13 th of October The Historian imputeth this mistake to the viciousness of the Copy But I fear it ought to be imputed to the negligence of the Transcriber For in my Copy 't is truly dated Tertio Id. Octobris Instead of which the Historian renewing his former error hath in his transcript of the Instrument substituted tertio die Octobris To proceed and joyn all the mistakes of this matter together and transcript of the Archbishops speech in the House of Commons which he giveth to us is also false For it reads die Veneris 30 Ianuarii Anno Domini millesimo quadringentesimo decimo septimo Indictione sextâ Pontificatus Martini Papae Anno Undecimo All the concurrent notes added to the year of our Lord shew that it should be ann mill quadr vicesimo septimo and so I doubt not the Manuscript hath it Lastly to say no more of this matter the conclusion of the Archbishops Appeal as it
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
Poloniae tali verborum contextu Concedentes ut omnibus Privilegiis c. quae ad Legatos Natos pertinent quae alii Legati Nati praesertim vero Legatus Cantuariensis in suis Provinciis utuntur libere licite valeat uti c. Pag. 360. lin 17. The Parliament was opened on the 20th of Ianuary 1558. In the House of Peers the Abbot of Westminster and the Prior of St. Iohn of Ierusalem took their places according to their Writs Tresham was now made Prior. Thomas Tresham had been made Prior of St. Iohn of Ierusalem by the Queen on the 30th of November 1557 as both Stow and Fuller witness Pag. 378. lin 45. In the beginning of the next year viz. 1559. the Bishops of Norwich and Glocester died They both died before the end of this year 1558. For in the Register of Pole I find that the See of Glocester was void by the Death of Iames Brooks 1558. Sept. 7. And in the Register of Canterbury the Dean and Chapter of the Church are said to have seized into their hands 1558. Decemb. 24. the Spiritualties of the See of Norwich void by the Death of Iohn Hopton Pag. 378. lin 44. Those now void were the Sees of Canterbury Hereford Bristol and Bangor It was of great importance to find men able to serve in these Imployments chiefly in the See of Canterbury For this Dr. Parker was soon thought on He was writ to on the 9th of December 1558. to come up to London From this Relation any Reader would conclude that the See of Bristol was void before the first Designation of Parker to the Archbishoprick viz. before the 9th of December But that doth not appear For the Spiritualties of the See of Bristol void by the Death of Iohn Holman were not seized by the Chapter of Canterbury untill the 18th of December Pag. 293. lin 48. Thus I have given the Substance of their Speeches of Heath and Fecknam made in Parliament in behalf of Popery being all that I have seen on that side Besides these I have seen a long Speech of Scot Bishop of Chester delivered at the same time in the same cause Pag. 396. lin 7. It doth not appear how soon after the Dissolution of the Parlament dissolved 1559 May 8. the Oath of Supremacy was put to them the Clergy and Bishops For the last Collation Bonner gave of any Benefice was on the 6th of May this Year It cannot be imagined that Bonner was deprived before the Dissolution of the Parliament On what days the several Bishops of the Province of Canterbury were deprived may be determined from the times of the Seisure of the Spiritualties of their Bishopricks made by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury who then possessed and exercised the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction in the Vacancy of the See These I will here present out of the Register of that Church The Spiritualties of the See of London void by the Deprivation of Edmund Bonner were seized 1559 Iune 2. The Spiritualties of Winchester void by the Deprivation of Iohn White 1559. Iuly 18. of Lincoln void by the Deprivation of Thomas Watson 1559. Iuly 2. these two Bishops had been committed to the Tower on the 5th of April preceding The Spiritualties of Ely void by the Deprivation of Thomas Thirleby 1559. Nov. 23. of Lichfield void by the Deprivation of Ralph Bayne 1559. Iune 24 he died before the end of the same Year The Spiritualties of Exeter void by the Deprivation of Iames Turbervil 1559. Nov. 16. Of Worcester void by the Deprivation of Richard Pates 1559. Iune 30. of Peterborough void by the Deprivation of David Pool 1559. Nov. 11. of St. Asaph void by the Deprivation of Thomas Goldwell 1559. Iuly 15. When the See of York was first voided by the Deprivation of Heath I shall relate hereafter The certain times of the Deprivation of Tunstall of Durham of Oglethorp of Carlisle and of Scot of Chester I cannot find In all 14 Bishops were deprived to whom may be added one Suffragan viz. Pursglove of Hull The whole Number of the Clergy deprived at this time is thus described by a Romish Dissenter Author of A sincere modest Defence of English Catholiques that suffer c. Published in 1583. He saith that in England were deprived 14 Bishops besides 3 Bishops Elect the Abbot of Westminster 4 Priors of Religious Houses 12 Deans 14 Archdeacons above 60 Canons of Cathedral Churches not so few as a 100 Priests of good Preferment 15 Heads of Colledges in Oxford and Cambridge and above 20 Proctours of divers Faculties therein No great Number to be deprived at a time of so great a Change in Religion I am willing to believe the Computation of this Authour to be exact because I find it to be so in the Number of Bishops and Deans deprived The 14 Bishops we have named already The Names of the 12 Deans follow Cole of St. Pauls Stuarde of Winchester Robertson of Durham Ramridge of Lichfield Goodman of Wells Reynolds of Exeter Harpsfield of Norwich Holland of Worcester Daniel of Hereford Salkel of Carlisle Ioliff of Bristol Boxal of Peterborough and Windsor Of the three Bishops Elect who are said to have been deprived I can recover the Names but of Two Viz. Thomas Rainolds Elect of Hereford and Thomas Wood. Pag. 396. lin 11. Pag. 397. lin 7. The Oath being offered to Heath Archbishop of York Christopherson Bishop of Chichester they did all refuse to take it They were upon their refusal deprived and put in Prison Christopherson chose to live still in England This is a fair Story But what if after all Christopherson died before Queen Mary This is affirmed by Pits At least it is most certain that he died within six Weeks after her In which time Queen Elizabeth far from depriving any Bishops had not declared her Resolution in matter of Religion on either side The Dean and Chapter of Canterbury seised the Spiritualties of the See of Chichester vacant per mortem naturalem Iohannis Christopherson ultimi Episcopi Pastoris ejusdem 1559. Ian. 2. Now although he should have died some few days before Queen Mary as Pits saith it is not to be wondred if amidst so much Confusion as attended the Death of the Queen and Cardinal Pole the Chapter of Canterbury neglected for some time to seize the Spiritualties of Chichester Pag. 402. lin 33. On the 8th Day of Iuly 1559. the Conge d'Elire for Matthew Parker was sent to Canterbury On the 22 of Iuly a Chapter was summoned to meet the first of August where the Dean and Prebendaries meeting they all elected him The Conge d'Elire was sent to the Chapter of Canterbury not on the 8th but on the 18th of Iuly in vertue of which Parker was elected on the first of August by the Dean and four Prebendaries then present in Chapter The other Canons were either absent or refused to appear But the Election was not thereby the less Canonical For
Caenae Domini per literas legi consuetas reservata existat injuncta eis pro modo culpae poenitentia salutari auctoritate Apostolica in forma Ecclesiae consueta absolvere illos unitati Ecclesiae Catholicae restituere ac omnes Solemnitates quae in hujusmodi absolutionibus de jure vel consuetudine solent adhiberi ratione multitudinis arbitrio suo in partem vel in totum remittere secumque super quacunque irregularitate praemissorum occasione contracta dispensare possint valeant Praemissis ac Regula de Insordescentibus edita quibusvis aliis Constitutionibus Ordinationibus Apostolicis etiam in die Caenae Domini Legi consuetis caeterisque contrariis quibuscunque non obstantibus Formula Absolutionis DOminus noster Iesus Christus summus Pontifex per suam piissimam Misericordiam Clementiam vos cruore suo pretiosissimo redemptos de ineffabili sua pietate ab omnibus peccatis per vos commissis misericorditer absolvat Et ego auctoritate Apostolorum Divi Petri Pauli ac Sedis Apostolicae mihi Comissa vos vestrum quemlibet ab omnibus peccatis criminibus excessibus delictis atque ab omni Haeresi Schismate Apostasia irregularitate quocunque errore vestris necnon à juramento contra Papatum Romanum per vos praestito à quibusvis Excommunicationis suspensionis interdictorum aliis Sententiis censuris poenis Ecclesiasticis à jure vel ab homine latis per vos ratione praemissorum incursis contractis absolvo ac communioni fidelium Sacrosanctae Dei Ecclesiae Sacramentis restituò reduco redintegro in nomine Patris Filii Spiritûs Sancti Amen Additament to Par. I. to be placed between Sect. 19. and 20. Hist. of Reform Par. I. pag. 105 106. Now the Session of Parliament came on the 16th of Ianuary 1531. and there the King first brought into the House of Lords the Determination of the Universities c. touching his Marriage with Queen Catherine After they were read and considered there the Lord Chancellor on the 20th of March did with other Lords go down to the House of Commons and shewed the same to them The Matter was also brought before the Convocation and they having weighed all that was said on both sides seemed satisfied that the Marriage was unlawfull and that the Bull dispensing with it was of no force more not being required at that time The Historian could not safely conclude that no more was then required because he could find no more Much more was then required of and done by the Convocation in this affair I have seen an authentick Instrument of their whole proceedings herein drawn up by a Publick Notary at the King's command and attested by the President and other eminent Members of the Convocation wherein this account is given Two Questions were by the King propounded to the Convocation to be dicussed and determined by them The first which was to be considered and determined by the Divines of the Convocation was conceived in these words An ducere Uxorem cognitam à Fratre decedente sine prole sit prohibitio juris divini indispensabilis à Papâ At the discussion and determination of this were present personally in the Convocation Divines 75 by Proxies 197 in all 272. The Names of all are inserted at length with great accuracy in the Instrument before mentioned Of these 253 determined the Question in the Affirmative and 19 only held the Negative The second Question which was to be considered and determined by the Professors of Law Canon or Civil or both Members of the Convocation was conceived thus An carnalis eopula inter Illustrissimum Principem Arthurum Serenissimam Dominam Catherinam Reginam ex propositis exhibitis deductis allegatis sit sufficienter probata At the Examination and Decision of this Question were present personally Canonists and Civilians 44 by Proxy 3 in all 47. Of these 41 determined the Question in the Affirmative and only 6 maintained the Negative I will subjoyn the Names of those who held the Negative in each Question Divines Personaliter praesentes Iohannes Episcopus Roffen Georgius Episcopus Landaw Ricardus Abbas de Winchelcomb Robertus Prior Ecclesiae Cath. Eliensis Ricardus Prior de Walsingham Willielmus Prior S. Gregorii Cantuar. Hugo Abbas de Reading Nicolaus Wilson Robertus Shirton Ricardus Fetherstone Edwardus Powell Nicolaus Metcalfe Gilbertus Smith Thomas Wadilowe Ricardus Ducke Thomas Bough Per Procuratorem suum Abbatem de Peaeding Iohannes Abbas de Shirbourne Iohannes Rector de Edingdon Iohannes Abbas de Parshore Canonists and Civilians Personaliter praesentes Iohannes Episcopus Bath Wells Adam Travers Petrus Ligham Ricardus Harrison Robertus Clyff Laurentius Woodcock Additament to Par. II. Sect. 76. I have there said that besides the Speeches of Heath and Fecknam made in the House of Lords against the Alteration of the Liturgy mentioned by the Historian I had seen a Speech of Scot Bishop of Chester made at the same time in the same Cause Since that I find that the Historian hath also seen it and giveth an Extract of it with the others which being by his Printers fault joyned to the Extract of Heath's Speech in the same continued Section and only a few Syllables Intervening I overlooked But to make amends for this oversight I will here correct several mistakes committed by the Historian in relating the Transactions of that Sessions of Parliament which I am enabled to doe having carefully perused the Journall of the House of Lords in that Session The Historian saith That the Bill concerning the New Service was sent up by the Commons on the 18th of April and debated in the House of Lords in which Debate the several Speeches before mentioned were made and at length passed On the contrary the Lords Journall testifieth That on Monday the 17th of April the House of Lords sate and after having read several Bills was adjourned by the Lord Keeper to Wednesday April 19th So that on the 18th the House sate not and even on the 19th nil actum to use the words of the Journall but was then adjourned to Saturday the 22d Then also nil actum but was adjourned to Tuesday the 25th of April on which day and not before this Bill was sent up from the Commons with 8 other Bills It was not immediately debated but was read the first time on Wednesday the 26th the second time on the 27. It was read the last time and concluded on Friday the 28th It was debated on the two last days Scot spoke his Speech on the last day and therein undertook to Answer the Speech of a certain Nobleman made in the House on the day before in favour of the Bill wherein that Nobleman had reflected on the blindness of our Forefathers From whence it appears to have been debated on the 27th on which day I suppose Fecknam to have made his Speech For he was not present in
Canonicas uxorem habeat Sacerdotum vero in Castellis in vicis habitantium habentes uxores non cogantur ut dimittant non habentes interdicantur ut habeant Our Reformers who wrote of the Marriage of the Clergy represented this Constitution aright So Archbishop Parker who having related his prohibition of Marriage to Prebendaries adds But yet he moderated so the matter that he made a Decree that such Priests as dwelt in Towns and Villages being married should not be separated but continue with their Wives in their Ministration Ecclesiastical Pag. 92. lin 13. The Legate that in King Henry the Second's time got that severe Decree made that put all the married Clergy from their Livings was found the very Night after in Bed with a Whore This mistake also is altogether owing to the Historian Our Reformers consonantly to the Testimony of all our ancient Histories relate this misfortune to have happened to Iohannes de Crema the Pope's Legate in the Year 1125. in the Reign of King Henry the First And the Annals of Winchester lately published relate another like miscarriage of the same Legate in the same Year Pag. 93. lin 13. I have seen no Remains of this Convocation which restored Marriage to the Clergy in the Year 1548. or of any other Convocations that came afterwards in this Reign Archbishop Parker who was a Member of and present at this Convocation hath in his Additions to the Anonymous Defence of Priests Marriages published by him given a short Relation of the Transactions and Determination of the Convocation in this Affair which because the Book is very scarce I have transcribed and put into the following Collection To it the Archbishop subjoyned the Opinion of Dr. Redman which however published by the Historian in his Collection I would not disjoyn especially since the Historian or his Scribe hath omitted and changed many words of moment in it Pag. 128. lin 3. Bonner was looked on generally as a Man of no Principles All the Obedience he gave either to the Laws or to the King's Injunctions was thought a Compliance against his Conscience extorted by Fear The Historian perhaps may be able to reconcile these two Periods although it be generally supposed that where no Principles are there can be no Conscience since Conscience ever proceeds upon some Principles either true or false But it seems after a strict Enquiry he hath discovered one Principle in Bonner to which he constantly adhered that was his Love of Pears and Puddings a matter which will no doubt reflect as great Infamy upon the Memory of Bonner as Honour upon the Historian for the Acuteness of the Observation He was aware that it would be thought disingenuous to Print such Letters being the Privacies of Friendship which ought not to be made publick but forgat that it was beneath the Majesty of History to insert such trifles in it Pag. 149. l. ult Ridley was pitched on to be the man who should fill the See of London So on the 21. of February 1550 he was writ for and on the 24th he was declared Bishop of London and Westminster It might then be resolved to make Ridley Bishop of Westminster upon the intended Translation of Thirleby But he could not then be declared Bishop of that See since it was not void till April following in the beginning of which Month Thirleby was translated to Norwich King Edward's Journal therefore saith that Ridley was made Bishop of London on the 3d of April and Thirleby translated the same day from Westminster to Norwich Pag. 150. lin 35. The Lord Treasurer c. were sent to Gardiner Fox saith that this was on the 9th of Iuly but there must be an Error in that it must have been in November the former Year They brought him a Paper to which they desired he would set his hand In the Original Council-Book of King Edward the Sixth before-mentioned all the Orders Messages Papers Articles and Answers relating to Gardiner are at length inserted From thence I shall correct the Historians Account On the 8th of Iune 1550. it was resolved in Council Considering the long Imprisonment the Bishop of Winchester hath sustained that he should be spoken withal and agreed that if he repented his former Obstinacy and would thenceforth apply himself to advance the King's Majesties preceedings his Highness in this case would be his good Lord and remit all his Errors passed Otherwise his Majesty was resolved to proceed against him as his Obstinacy and Contempt required For the Declaration whereof the Duke of Somerset Lord Treasurer c. were appointed the next day to repair unto him June 10 th Report was made by the Duke of Somerset and the rest sent to the Bishop of Winchester that he desired to see the King's Book of Proceedings upon the sight whereof he would make a full Answer seeming to be willing in all things to conform himself thereunto and promising that in case anything offended his Conscience he would open it to none but the Counsail Whereupon it was agreed that the Book should be sent him to see his Answer that his Case may be resolved on And that for the mean time he should have the Liberty of the Gallery and Garden in the Tower when the Duke of Norfolk were absent June 13 th the Lieutenant of the Tower who before was appointed to deliver the King's Book to him declared to the Counsail that the Bishop having refused it said unto him He could make no direct Answer unless he were at Liberty and so being he would say his Conscience Whereupon the Lords and others that had been with him the other day were appointed to go to him again to receive a direct Answer that the Counsail hereupon might determine further Order for him July 8 th the Bishop of Winchester ' s Case was renewed Then was the Lord Treasurer c. sent to him with the Message of which the Historian here speaketh Together with the Articles the Council sent a Letter to him blaming his Obstinacy and persuading him to conform Fox giveth a true Account of the Articles and his Answer to them Only hath erroneously put the 9th for the 8th of Iuly Although he might mean that the Commissioners went to him on that day which seems to have been true For on the 10th of Iuly the Commissioners reported his Answer in Council related by Fox and from him by the Historian And that these Commissioners went indeed to the Bishop on the 9th of Iuly King Edward testifyeth in his Journal published by the Historian himself Pag. 151. lin 7. Herbert and Petre came to him some time after that but how soon it is not clear and pressed him to make the Acknowledgment without Exception The Council-Book fixeth the time of this Message and cleareth a mistake of the Historian July 11th This day the Bishop of Winchester ' s Case was debated and because it appears that he sticketh upon the Submission which
is the principalest Point considering his offence that the now goeth about to defend to the intent that he should have no just cause to say that he was not mercifully handled it was agreed that the Master of the Horse and Mr. Secretary Petre should repair unto him again with the same Submission exhorting him to look better upon it and in case the words seem too sore then to refer unto himself in what sort and in what words he should devise to submit him that upon the acknowledging of his fault the King's Highness might extend his mercy and liberality towards him as it was determined On the 13th of Iuly his Answer was reported in Council which was That he stood precisely in Iustification of himself that he had never offended the King's Majesty wherefore he utterly refused to make any Submission at all For the more surety of which Denial it was agreed that a new Book of Articles should be devised wherewith the said Master of the Horse and Mr. Secretary should repair to him again and for the more Authentick proceeding with him they to have with them a Divine and Temporal Lawyer which were the Bishop of London and Mr. Gooderick The Historian nameth only Ridley Then followeth a Copy of the Articles sent to the Bishop of Winchester the Summ of which is truly related by Fox and the Historian Iuly 15th the Bishops Answer was reported in Council whereupon it was agreed he should be sent for by the Council and be examined before them which being done Iuly 19th and the Articles read to him and his Subscription peremptorily required he made this short Answer That in all things that his Majesty would lawfully command him he was willing and most ready to obey But forasmuch as there were divers things required of him which his Conscience would not bear therefore he prayed them to have him excused Whereupon the Sentence of Sequestration was read and Denunciation of Deprivation in case he did not conform within three Months Nevertheless upon divers good Considerations and especially in hope he might within this time be yet reconciled it was agreed that the said Bishops House and Servants should be maintained in their present Estate until the time of this intimation should expire and the matter for the mean time to be kept private There is some little difference between the Council-Book and King Edward's Journal in fixing the days of these two Messages Pag. 152. lin 32. On the third of Iuly this Year 1550. Hooper was by Letters Patents appointed to be Bishop of Glocester The Council-Book saith on the 15th of May Mr. Hooper was constituted Bishop of Glocester King Edward's Journal saith July 20th Hooper was made Bishop of Glocester The first may relate to his Nomination the second to the Signing of his Patent Pag. 153. lin 19. Cranmer wrote about this difference raised by Hooper about wearing the Episcopal Vestments to Bucer reducing it to these two plain Questions Whether it was lawful to use those Garments c. And whether he that affirmed that it was unlawful or on that Account refused to use those Vestments did not sin against God The latter part of the Question put by Cranmer was this An is qui affirmaverit nofas esse aut recusarit his vestibus uti peccet in Deum quia immundum esse dicit quod Deus sanctificavit in Magistratus quod violet ordinem Politicum The Historian therefore hath negligently translated it and in part changed the State of the Question by adding these words on that Account which make the refusal to proceed wholly upon a Supposition that the Thing commanded was unlawful by the Law of God whereas Cranmer put the Question more genenerally in those words aut recusarit so as to include a refusal to obey the Command of the Magistrate out of wilfulness or for any other cause beside pretence of unlawfulness by the Law of God which is taken away by the answering to the first part of the Question Pag. 154. lin 29. Cranmer wrote back that he could not dispense with the use of Episcopal Garments at the Consecration of Hooper without incurring a Praemunire So the King was moved to write to him warranting him to do it But though this was done on the 4th of Aug. yet he was not consecrated till March next year and in the mean while he was suspended from Preaching The King and Council rejected the Puritanical niceness of Hooper 's Conscience much further than all this amounts to which Affairs I will relate from the Council-Book In Council 1550. October 6th A Letter to the Bishop of London that where there hath been some difference between him and the Elect Bishop of Glocester upon certain Ceremonies belonging to the making of a Bishop wherein their Lordships desire is because they would in no wise the stirring up of Controversies between men of one Profession did send for him willing him to cease the occasions thereof who humbly desired that he might for Declaration of his doings put in writing such Arguments as moved him to be of the Opinion he held which thing was granted and was by their Lordships commanded to be at the Court on Sunday next bringing with him that he shall for an Answer have thought convenient 1551. January 13th Mr. Hooper Bishop Elect of Glocester appeared before the Council touching his old Matter of denying to wear such Apparel as other Bishops wear and having been before commanded to keep his House unless it were to go to the Archbishop of Canterbury Bishops of Ely London or Lincoln for satisfaction or Counsail of his Conscience in that matter nor further neither to Preach nor Read until he had further License from the Council it appeared both that he had not kept his House and that he had also written and Printed a Book wherein was contained matter that he should not have written For the which and for that also he persevered in his former Opinion of not wearing the Bishops Apparel he was now committed to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Custody either there to be reformed or further to be punished as the Obstinacy of his case required January 27th Upon a Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury that Mr. Hooper cannot be brought to any Conformity but rather persevering in his Obstinacy coveteth to prescribe Orders and necessary Laws of his head it was agreed he should be committed to the Fleet upon the occasion aforesaid A Letter to the Warden of the Fleet to receive the said Mr. Hooper and to keep him from Conference of any Person saving the Ministery of that House On the 8th of March following he was consecrated Now all this was done after the King's Letter wrote in his behalf to Cranmer so that in all appearance he was forced to reconcile his squeamish Conscience to the Episcopal Habit in order to obtain his Bishoprick Pag. 154. lin 36. 48. This Summer Iohn a Lasco with a Congregation of Germans was allowed to hold