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
lin 8. Thus died Iohn Fisher Bishop of Rochester in the 80th Year of his Age. George Lilly who knew him well and wrote his Life saith that he was born in the Year 1459. He was beheaded in the middle of the Year 1535. so that his Age did not then exceed 76 years Pag. 356. lin 49. Makerel the Monk that first raised the Lincolnshire Rebellion was with Sixteen more indicted of High Treason Dr. Makerel might have deserved some higher Title than that of plain Monk For he was Abbot of Barlings and had been many years Suffragan Bishop in the Dioces of Lincoln Pag. 361. lin 48. This Year 1540. Sampson Bishop of Chichester was put in the Tower upon Suspicion of Correspondence with the Pope The Historian would have done well to have produced his Testimony when he charged the Bishop with this Crime Godwin saith that he was imprisoned for relieving with money the necessities of some poor Prisoners who had been imprisoned for denying the King's Supremacy The same also Fabian Hall and Stow affirm in their Histories Now great difference is to be made between holding Correspondence with the Pope and relieving others imprisoned for it The first would have been unpardonable Treachery after so many Pretensions and Engagements to the contrary But the latter might only have been an effect of his Charity to distressed Persons Addenda pag. 291. lin 1. Sanders had said that the King Henry made many write Apologies for what he did which some did willingly being tainted with Heresie others unwillingly and for fear as Gardiner and Tonstall For this the Historian is angry with Sanders and saith that indeed Gardiner was a man like enough to write any thing that might please the King but Tonstall was a man of greater probity than to have done to unworthy a thing upon any Account whatsoever When Sanders speaks in favour of the Reformation he is not rashly to be disbelieved I esteem it no small Honour to our Cause that so excellent a Person as Tonstall once wrote in defence of it I much desired therefore that it might be true and upon search found it to be so For to omit the Testimony of Bale who reckons amongst Tonstall's writings a Book against the Supremacy of the Pope I have seen and read a long Sermon of Tonstall's preached before K. Henry on Palm-Sonday and Printed London 1633 in 4 to in which he inveigheth largely against the Primacy of the Pope and the Treason of Reginald Pole then Cardinal It should seem that this Sermon was published even in the time of Tonstall's Life For I find it cited by the Author of the Defence of Priests Marriages wrote in the Reign of Queen Mary The Author of Athonae Oxonienses saith that it was Printed in London 1539. who farther adds that he wrote a Letter to Cardinal Pole against the Supremacy of the Pope Printed at London 1560 and 1579. Quarto Pag. 316. lin 15. The Abbots writ generally so ill that it is very hard to read their Subscriptions Some of them I could by no means know what to make of If the Historian intended hereby to Arraign the Abbots of Illiterature let it be remembred that himself had before said of King Henry That he was the most learned Prince that had been in the World for many Ages and yet that he never wrote well but scrawled so that his hand was scarce Legible But not to make Inferences for the Historian let us only consider his own Words He complains that he could not read all the Subscriptions of the Abbots by reason of the badness of their hands We are willing to allow any excuse to him unless wherein he reflects upon the Memory of others For that is not fair Any one who compareth his Transcript with the Original would judge that neither could he read the Subscriptions of the Secular Clergy of the lower House of Convocation For in his Copy many of their Names are miserably corrupted and mistaken The truth is all of them might without much difficulty have been read and exactly transcribed if the Historian had not read as well as others say he wrote in Post-hast I will therefore conclude this First Part with subjoyning the Names of those Abbots and Priors whose Titles the Historian could not read Henricus Abbas de Gratiis Thomas Abbas de Gerendon Iohannes Prior de Newenham Richardus Abbas de Bruera Pars Secunda Pag. 10. lin 36. Alcuinus a most learned Countreyman of ours IF by Countreyman is here to be understood a Scot the Historian would never have asserted Alcuinus to be his Countreyman had he not presumed very much upon the ignorance of the English Nation and supposed that in knowledge of Antiquity we were got no farther than we were in the time of Hector Boethius when such Fables as this that Achaius King of Scotland sent Alcuinus Rabanus Maurus c. to Charles the Great might be securely vended Alcuinus himself in his Epistle to the Emperour Charles calleth York his Countrey and saith that he was educated there under Egbert the Archbishop Date mihi exquisitioris eruditionis Scholasticae libellos quales in patriâ habui per bonam devotissimam magistri mei Egberti Archiepiscopi industriam And in his Poem concerning the Archbishops and Saints of the Church of York hath these Verses Patriae quoniam mens dicere laudes Et veteres cunas properat proferre parumper Euboricae gratis praeclarae versibus urbis Utpote quae proprium sibi me nutrivit alumnum Imbuit primis utcunque verenter ab annis When equal Evidence shall be produced that Alcuinus was born or bred in Scotland we shall allow him to have been the Historian's Countryman Pag. 24. lin 35. By an Act made in King Henry the 8th's time none might hold two Benefices without a Dispensation but no Dispensation could enable one to hold three The contrary of this appears from the Register of Faculties granted by Archbishop Parker wherein may be sound very many Dispensations of triality of Benefices with cure of Souls enabling the Grantee to hold any third Living with two or any two with one already possessed or to hold any three hereafter to be obtained Pag. 24. lin 39. While the Abbies stood the Abbots allowed those whom they appointed to serve the Cure in the Churches that belonged to them a small Stipend or some little part of the Vicarage-tithes The case of Vicars was not so bad before the Reformation as after Before it the Fees of Sacraments Sacramentals Dirige's c. were very great since very inconsiderable Before the Reformation Bishops could from time to time encrease their Allowance out of the Tithes of the Benefice in what proportion they pleased even beyond the first dotation of it The Bishops indeed have the same right still as Dr. Ryves hath fully proved but the interposition of the Common Law would now hinder the execution of it The Vicars then were
if neither at my humble suit nor for regard of the promise made to the Emperour your Highnesse will suffer and bear with me as ye have done till your Majesty may be a Judge herein your self and right understand their proceedings of which your goodness yet I despair not otherwise rather than to offend God and my Conscience I offer my body at your will and death shall be more welcome than life with a troubled conscience Most humbly beseeching your Majestie to pardon my slownesse in answering your Letters For my olde disease would not suffer me to write any sooner And thus I pray Allmighty God to keep your Majestie in all vertue and honour with good helth and long life to his pleasure From my poor house at Copped-Hall the XIX of August Your Majesties most humble Sister MARY VI. A Letter of King Edward the Sixth to the Lady Mary RYght dear and right entirely beloved Sister we grete you well and let you know that it greveth us much to perceave no amendment in you of that which we for Goddes cause your Soules helth our conscyence and the common tranquyllytie of our Realm have â—o long desired Assuring you that our Suffraunce hath much more demonstration of natural love than contention of our conscyence and foresight of our savety Wherefore although you give us occasion as much almost as in you is to deminishe our naturall love yet be we lothe to fele it decay and mean not to be so careles of you as we be provoked And therefore meaning your weale and therewith joyning a care not to be found in our conscyence to God having cause to require forgivenesse that we have so long for respect of love towarde you omitted our bounden dieuty we do send at this present our right trusty and right well-beloved Counsalour the Lord Riche our Chancellour of England our trusty and right well-beloved Counsailour Sir Anthony Wingfield Knight Comptroler of our Houshold and Sir William Peter Knight oon of our two Pryncipal Secretaries in message to you touching the order of your howse willing you to give them firme creditt in those things they shall say to you from us and doo therein in our name Geven under our Signet c. VII An Order of the Privy-Council for a Thanksgiving for Queen Mary's Great Belly AFter our hearty commendations unto your good Lordships Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God among other his infinite benefits of late most gratiously poured upon us and this whole Realm to extend his benediction upon the Queen's Majestie in such fort as She is conceived and quick with Child whereby her Majesty being our natural Liege Lady Queen and undoubted inheritour of this Imperial Crown good hope of certain Succession in the Crown is given unto us and consequently the great Calamities which for want of such Succession might otherwise have fallen upon us and our posterity shall by God's grace be well avoyded if we thankfully acknowledge this benefit of Almighty God endeavouring our selves with earnest repentence to thank honour and serve him There be not only to advertise you of this good news to be by you published in all places within your Diocese but also to pray and require you that both your selves do give God thanks with us for this special grace and also give order that thankes be openly given by singing Te Deum in all Churches within our Diocese and that likewise all Priestes and other Ecclesiastical Ministers in their Masses and othar divine Services may continually pray to Almighty God so to extend his holy Hand over her Majesty the King's Highnesse and the whole Realm as this thing being by his omnipotent power graciously thus begun may by the same be well continued and brought to good effect to the glory of his Name Whereunto albeit we doubt not yee would of your selves have had special regard without these our Letters yet for the earnest desire wee have to have the thing done out of hand and diligently continued we have also written these our Letters to put you in remembrance and to bid your Lordship most heartily well to fare From the Court at Westminster the 27th Day of November 1554. Your Lordships assured loving Friends S. Winton Cancell Fr. Shewsbury Tho. Eliens Tho. Wharton H. Arundell H. Sussex R. Rich Richard Southwell Ed. Darby Io. Bathon To our loving Friends the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury and all other having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction during the Vacation of that See VIII Articuli ministrati Presbyteris conjugatis Mense Martio 1554. IMprimis an fuerit Religiosus cujus Ordinis in quo Monasterio sive domo Item ad fuit promotus ad Sacros Ordines dum erat in Monasterio Item in quo quibus sacris an ministravit in Altaris ministerio quot annis Item an citra professionem suam regularem conjunxit se mulieri sub appellatione matrimonii Item cum qua in qua Ecclesia fuit matrimonii solemnizatio per quem Item quam duxit erat resoluta an vidua Item an cohabitavit cum eâ in unâ eâdem domo ut vir cum uxore Item an prolem vel proles ex eâ suscitaverit necne Item an post citra matrimonii bujusmodi solemnizationem assequutus fuit est beneficium Ecclesiasticum habens curam animarum quot annes illud obtinuit Item an officio Sacerdotis post citra assertum matrimonium hujusmodi contractum in Altaris ministerio se immiscuit ac Sacramentis Sacramentalibus ministrandis se ingessit Item an praemissa omnia singula fuerunt sunt vera IX A Bull of Pope Iulius costituting Cardinal Pole his Legate in England IUlius Episcopus servus servorum Dei dilecto filio Reginaldo Sanctae Mariae in Cosmedin Diacono Cardinali Polo nuncupato ad charissimam in Christo filiam nostram Mariam Angliae Reginam illustrem universum Angliae Regnum nostro Apostalicae sedis Legato de latere salutem Apostolicam benedictionem Si ullo unquam tempore licuit nunc certè expositissimè licet dicere dextra Domini fecit virtutem Hanc inquam laetissimam vocem licet omnium piorum gaudiis atque acclamatione celebrare Quid enim aliud dicamus quin dextram Domini hanc tani inopinatam rerum conversionem fecisse ut florentissimum Angliae Regnum ab Henrico Octavo in dissidium ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ secessionemque seductam ac deinde Edwardi ejus nati successione in paterno haereditario errore corroboratum firmatum in eum nunc statum repentè devenerit ut ad sanctum ovile atque ad Ecclesiae Catholicae septa revocari facillimè posse videatur Profectò hoc nihil aliud est quam mutatio dextrae Excelsi Defuncto enim vitâ supradicta Edwardo adnisisque illius sectatoribus qui rerum habenas qui arces qui exercitum qui classem obtinebant Regnum alicui ex suâ sectâ deferre exclusâ legitimâ haerede charissimâ in
of Matthew Westminster Therein it may be observed that it was subscribed by some of those very Noblemen of Scotland who subscribed the Letter to the Pope published by the Historian who may be thought therein to have done no great Honour to his Countrey by publishing such an Authentick Testimony of the Infidelity of it Pag. 47 48 49. When the Parliament was divided into two Houses then the Clergy made likewise a Body of their own and sate in Convocation which was the third Estate Whether ever the Clergy were a part of the House of Commons is a just doubt Upon the whole matter it is not certain what was the Power or Right of these Proctors of the inferior Clergy in former times Some are of opinion that they were only Assistants to the Bishops but had no voice in either House of Parliament But as the Clause Praemonentes in the Writ seems to make them a part of the Parliament so these Petitions suppose that they sate in the House of Commons anciently In a matter so perplexed and dark I will presume to offer a Conjecture which will not appear perhaps improbable In the 129th Page of the former Part I gave the Reasons that made me think the lower House of Convocation consisted at first only of the Proctors of the Clergy It is generally believed that the whole Parliament sate together in one House before Edward the Third's time and then the inferiour Clergy were a a part of that without question But when the Lords and Commons sate apart the Clergy likewise sate in two Houses So that it seems to me most probable that the Proctors of the Clergy were both in England and Ireland the lower House of Convocation I will not here enter into an exact Enquiry concerning the ancient Constitution of Parliaments in England A question which hath already exercised so many Learned Pens cannot be dispatched in few words I will only observe that the Historian hath succeeded very ill in his Conjectures In the first place it is a wide mistake to affirm that after the Division of the Houses and perfect Settlement of the Constitution of Parliament the Convocation was the third Estate For it was anciently accounted and was really the first Estate Then his Conjecture concerning the ancient Seat of the Proctors of the Clergy in Parliament deduced with so much Labour so many previous and concomitant Observations is unhappily founded upon two false Suppositions The first is That formerly the lower House of Convocation consisted only of the Proctors of the Clergy The contrary of this was fully proved in the preceding Papers wherein it was shewn that Deans also and Archdeacons did sit in the lower House of Convocation The second false Supposition is that until Edward the Third's time the whole Parliament sate together in one House and consequently that the several Estates of Parliament were then alike summoned by the Kings Writ Now the contrary of this appears from an ancient Remonstrance of the Clergy in Convocation in the Year 1314. found in an Authentick Register the summ and occasion of which I will represent in few words The King had issued out a Writ to Walter Archbishop of Canterbury Die 27. Martii Anno Regni Septimo in this Form Vobis mandamus quatenus sitis in propriâ personâ vestrâ apud Westmonasterium in crastino Ascensionis Domini proximo futuro coram fidelibus nostris ad hoc deputandis ad tractandum cum eisdem fidelibus nostris super competenti auxilio à Clero Provinciae vestrae Cant. nobis impendendo pro utilitate Reipublicae c. prout in proximo Parliamento apud Westmonasterium habito tam per Clerum quà m per Communitatem regni nostri extitit concordatum prout per praedictos fideles nostros eritis requisiti Et ad eundem diem venire faciatis coram dictis fidelibus nostris Suffraganeos vestros Decanos Abbates c. Clerum cujusque Diocesis ejusdem Provinciae per duos Procuratores sufficientes ad tractandum consentiendum unà Vobiscum his quae in praemissis ibidem contigerit ordinari In obedience to this Writ which is Entituled Litera de Convocatione Cleri apud Westm. the Archbishop sent a Mandate to his Suffragans c. in such Form as repeating at length the Kings Writ he subjoyned Quocirca vobis tenâ—re praesentium injungimus mandamus quatenus vos dictis die loco intersitis c. From hence it appears that the Clergy were even before this called immediately to Convocation by the Archbishops Writ and that in the preceding Parliament the Clergy and Communitas Regni sate apart But this is not all When the Clergy met upon this Mandate of the Archbishop they presented to him a Remonstrance excepting against the form of the King's Summons and his Mandate Contra formam hujusmodi citationis Clerus Cant. Provinciae proposuit rationes subscriptas die Lunae in crastino S. Dunstani apud Westm. c. Imprimis That whereas the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury had not been wont nor ought to be called by the King's Authority This Mandate of the Archbishop proceeded in virtue of the King's command as appeared by the Form thereof which had never before been done That if this Precedent were allowed without any Contradiction the King might send out hereafter like Writs to the great prejudice of the Church and Clergy That the King might by the same reason summon them to meet at some place out of the Province which would be prejudicial to the Clergy of the Province and had been hitherto without Example That they were herein summoned to meet at Westminster locum videlicet exemptum auctoritate Ordinarii ad quem Clerus Cant. Provinciae ante haec tempora vocari nullatenus consuevisset That whereas Laymen had nothing to doe to intermeddle with Ecclesiastical causes and persons this Writ summoned them to appear coram dilectis fidelibus Domini nostri Regis nullâ authoritate ecclesiasticâ fulsitis contrary to the usage of all former times For these and many other Reasons they desired that this Writ should be revoked and themselves dismissed and be summoned again in the usual and legal form Accordingly they were dismissed on the Wednesday following and were summoned by a new Mandate of the Archbishop dated Iune 6. in such Form as was wont to be heretofore used to meet at the Church of St. Pauls London on the 8th of Iuly Which Form mutatis mutandis agreeth exactly with the Form used immediately before the Reformation and published by the Historian among the Memorials of the first Part. On the first day of December the same year the King summoned another Parliament to meet at Westminster in the Octaves of Hilary and directed a Writ to the Archbishop to summon the Clergy to meet dictis die loco which the Archbishop did When the Clergy were met they protested against the Form of the Summons because cited ad
it into his Collection for the Curiosity of the thing as himself saith It was also published by Mr. Prynn in his Tryal of Archbishop Laud. I will further add that it is more correct in Utenhovius than in the Transcript which is the Case of all th◠Instruments and Memorials published by him which I have had occasion to compare either with the Originals or with other Copies Pag. 251. lin 2. Cox was without any good colour turned out both of his Deanry of Christ-Church and his Prebendary at Westminster He was put into the Marshalsea but on the 19th of August 1553. was discharged Cox had no Prebendary the Historian would have said Prebend at Westminster but besides his Deanry of Christ-Church Oxford was Dean of Westminster and Prebendary of Windsor of all which he was deprived about this time The cause of his Deprivation was probably supposed to have been that he had acted in favour of Queen Iane. For being a considerable Person in King Edward's Court at the time of his Death and having been much employed even in State Affairs he could not well avoid to be concerned in that matter if he were then present at Court He was married indeed at this time But I do not think that was alledged as a Cause of his Deprivation For they did not yet proceed to deprive the married Clergy until some Months after this Pag. 252. lin 28. On the Fourth of October 1553. Holgate Archbishop of York was put in the Tower no cause being given but heinous Offences only named in General I fear that Holgate by his imprudent Carriage if not by worse Actions had brought a Scandal on the Reformation Most if not all the Persons highly instrumental in the Reformation were eminent for Vertue but the probity of Holgate may justly be suspected For in the Council-Book of King Edward I find this Order made on the 23d of November 1551. A Letter to the Archbishop of York to stay his coming up hither till the Parliament Also a Letter to Sir Tho. Gargrave and Mr. Chaloner and Dr. Rouksby to search and examine the very truth of the matter between the Archbishop of York and one Norman who claimeth the said Archbishop's Wife to be his Wife to which end the Supplication of the said Norman is sent to them enclosed It is to be lamented indeed that such occasions of Scandal were given by any eminent Persons of our Church although to say the truth Holgate acted very little in the Reformation but when they are given they ought not to be dissembled by an Historian out of favour or affection to any Party To represent only the laudable Actions of men is to write an Elogy or Apology or Panegyrick or whatever other Name it may assume the name of History it ought not to claim And after all such Scandals if indeed this were justly so are no more prejudicial to the Honour of the Church of England at and since the Reformation than the scandalous Impurities of Walter Bishop of Hereford Stanly Bishop of Ely and many others were to the Honour of the same Church before the Reformation I know whither the learned Author of the Defence of Priest-Marriages published by Archbishop Parker intends the Case of Holgate when he saith I mean not to justifie the universal sort of the married Bishops and Priests in all their light and dissolute Behaviour whatsoever it hath been in any of them from the highest to the lowest I think that I may speak it of the Conscience of some married Bishops and Priests in England that they do as much lament the light Behaviour shewed and escaped by some of them in the Libertee that was granted them of Law and Parliament as they that be most angry and out of patience with them and beside forth bewail the dissolute Behaviour of a great meany of their best beloved and wish as hartely all Offendicles and Slaunders rooted out both sortes of the Clergie It should seem that in the Imprisonment of Holgate this was alledged as one of those hainous Offences which were the pretended cause of it For in the Instrument of his Deprivation it is said that he was for his Marriage committed to the Tower and deprived Pag. 257. lin 16. On the 3d. of November 1553. Archbishop Cranmer with others were brought to their Tryal He was Arraigned and Condemned of Treason at Guild-Hall London on the 13th of November according to Stow and Grafton Pag. 257. lin 28. And now after his Attainture Cranmer was legally devested of his Archbishoprick which was hereupon void in Law But it being now designed to restore the Ecclesiastical Exemption and Dignity to what it had been anciently it was resolved that he should still be esteemed Archbishop till he were solemnly degraded according to the Canon Law which was done in the middle of February 1556. So that all that followed upon this against Cranmer was a Sequestration of all the Fruits of his Archbishoprick himself was still kept in Prison This if true would be a matter of great moment and make a considerable change in the History of our Church But really it is a meer Fiction For immediately after his Attainture the See of Canterbury was declared void and the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury thereupon assumed the Administration of the Spiritual Jurisdiction of the Archbishoprick as in other Cases of Vacancy The Attainture was compleated in the middle of November 1553. and on the 16th of December following the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury gave out Commissions to several Persons for the Exercise of the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction in their Names and by their Authorities The Chapter continued in Possession of this Jurisdiction till the Publication of Cardinal Poles Bulls of Provision to the Archbishoprick viz. till the beginning of the Year 1556. and during that time gave Commissions to the several Officers and Judges of the Courts of the Archbishoprick had the spiritual Jurisdiction of all vacant Bishopricks gave Institution to all Benefices in them and in the Diocess of Cunterbury gave Commissions for the Consecration of Bishops c. of all which Acts done a peculiar Register was made Entituled Vacatio sedis Metropoliticae Christi Cantuar. post depositionem Thomae Cranmer nuper Archiepiscopi Cantuar. primo de crimine laesae Majestatis Authoritate Parliamenti convicti deinde ob varias haereses Authoritate sedis Apostolicae depositi degradati Seculari brachio traditi post remò in alma Universitate Oxoniensi igne consumpti sub anni Domini 1553 1554 1555. regnorum vero Philippi Mariae Regum c. During this time all Acts and Instruments begin with these words Nocholaus Wotton utriusque juris Doctor Decanus Ecclesiae Cathedralis Metropolitices Christi Cantuar. ejusdem Ecclesiae Capitulum ad quem quos omnis omnino da Iurisdictio Spiritualis Ecclesiastica quae ad Archiepiscopum Canturiensem sede plenâ pertinuit ipsa sede jam per Attincturam
ut supra upon Robert Ferrar Bishop of St. Davids Propter causas supradictas upon Iohn Bird Bishop of Chester Propter conjugium No Sentence of Deprivation was pronounced at that time upon Bush Bishop of Bristol Whether he evaded it by renouncing his Marriage or by any other Submission is uncertain But he was never deprived However willingly or unwillingly he resigned his Bishoprick in Iune following For in the same Register the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury assumed the spiritual Jurisdiction of the See of Bristol void per spontaneam resignationem Pauli Bushe 1554. Iunii 21. Pag. 275. lin 32. Gooderick Bishop of Ely died in April this Year 1554. He died in May either on the 9th or 10th day of the Month. Pag. 275. lin 41. Hopton was made Bishop of Norwich But Story that had been Bishop of Chichester though upon Day 's being restored he was turned out of his Bishoprick did comply merely He came before Bonner and renounced his Wife and did Pennance for it and had his Absolution under his Seal the 14th of Iuly this Year 1554. Day was restored to the Bishoprick of Chichester before the 16th of March 1554 when the Queens Commission was directed to him and others in Vertue of which he with his Collegues deprived several Bishops on the 20th of March whereas Hopton of Norwich was not consecrated till the 25th of Octob. following Besides it is not certain that Story was turned out of his Bishoprick The words of the Register are somewhat ambiguous but seem to insinuate as if he voluntarily restored to Day the Bishoprick of Chichester from which he had been ejected I will not omit here to add that his Pennance if he performed any was not imposed so much for his Marriage contracted after Priests Orders as for the violation of his Vow For although it be not known of what Order he was we are assured from Archbishop Parker in the Catalogue of the Bishops of his time prefixed to his History of the Archbishops of Canterbury that he was a Regular Pag. 276 lin 1. The Bishop of Bath and Wells Barlow was also made to resign as appears c. though elsewhere it is said that the See was Vacant by his Deprivation But I incline it truer that he did resign It is most certain that Barlow did resign For in the aforesaid Register is a Commission granted to certain Persons by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury to Act during the Vacancy of the See of Bath and Wells which is there said to be void Per liberam spontaneam resignationem Domini Willielmi Barlowe ultimi Episcopi Pastoris ejusdem This Commission was giving between 20th December 1553 and 25th March 1554 Pag. 276. lin 16. Barlow never Married A more unhappy mistake could not possibly have been made For so remarkable a Marriage never happened to any Clergyman of England as to Barlow He he had Five Daughters afterwards married to five Bishops The first Fraunces was married to Matthew Parker Son to Archbishop Parker After his Death which was in the end of the Year 1574. she was married to Dr. Matthews Archbishop of York A second Daughter of Barlow was married to Wickham Bishop of Winchester a third to Overton Bishop of Lichfield a fourth to Westphaling Bishop of Hereford a fifth to Day Bishop of Winchester All this is declared at length in the Epitaph fixed to the Monument of Fraunces who dying in 1629. Aged 78 years was buried in the Church of York So that Fraunces was born in 1551. in the Reign of King Edward when her Father was Bishop of Wells Besides these Daughters Barlow had a Son of his own name who was Prebendary of Wyvelescomb in the Church of Wells in the Year 1571. being then in Deacons Orders It appeareth farther that Barlow's Wife was alive after that her Daughter Fraunces had married to Matthew Parker so that notwithstanding the Historians reasons it is to be feared that Barlow made some dishonourable compliance in the Reign of Queen Mary Pag. 276. lin 31. When this was done viz. after the old Bishops were deprived in the Year 1554. the Bishops went about the executing the Queens Injunctions In this Business none was so hot as Bonner He set up the old Worship at St. Pauls on St. Katherines day And the next day being St. Andrews he did officiate himself and had a solemn Pocession Bonner had restored the Mass in the Church of St. Pauls on the 27th Aug. 1553. as was before related out of Stow and Grafton If St. Andrews day be the next day to St. Katherine our English Calendar indeed wants great Reformation which placeth it five days after St. Katherine But it may be presumed that if the Calendar can retain any Friends to plead its cause it may in this Case get the better of the Historian Pag. 276. lin 46. The Clergy were now fallen on for their Marriages Parker estimates it that there were now about 16000 Clergymen in England and of those 12000 were turned out upon this Account Some he says were deprived without Conviction some were never cited c. They were all Summarily deprived The Historian would have obliged us if he had pleased to acquaint us in what Book or Writing Parker hath delivered this Account The Testimony of so grave and so worthy a Person would have excluded all doubt In the Defence of Priests Marriages wrote by an unknown Layman and published by Parker this Passage may indeed be found Is thus the Honour of the Clergy preserved to drive out so many twelve of Sixteen thousand as some Writer maketh his Accompt to so great a Peril of getting their Livings and this just at the Point of Harvest Here it may be easily observed that this Author will by no means vouch for the Truth of this Computation It would in truth be a very extraordinary matter if 12000 Clergymen should have married between the end of the year 1548 and the middle of 1553. I cannot affirm of my own knowledge that the account is extravagantly false but am very apt to believe it And in this belief I am confirmed for that having had the Curiosity to compute how many Clergymen were deprived for Marriage in this Reign in the Diocess and Peculiars of the See of Canterbury I found the proportion far short of this account For whereas there are contained therein about 380 Benefices and other Ecclesiastical Promotions no more than 73 Clergymen therein were then deprived for Marriage or any other Cause which far from the proportion of 12 to 16 scarce bears the proportion of 3 to 16. Yet Thornden and Harpsfield were as vigorous in prosecuting the married Clergy of that Diocess as any Zealots in any part of England As for the severe and unjust proceedings against some of the married Clergy related by the Historian the Author before mentioned attesteth the same thing But when the Historian saith they were all summarily deprived I fear this is
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-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-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