With this the Cholerick old Bishop being enraged cited Richard Cockeral Mayor of Thetford and others into his Spiritual Court and enjoyned them under pain of Excommunication to call a Jury of their Town before them and forthwith to revoke and cancel the former Presentment For this the Bishop was attainted in a Praemunire put out of the King's Protection his Person imprisoned his Lands Goods and Chattels forfeited to the King by a Sentence in the King's Bench Court in the beginning of the Year 1534. With part of the Bishop's Fine and Forfeiture upon this Attainder the Glass-windows of Kings-Colledge Chappel in Cambridge are said to have been bought and set up Page 215. Line 18. By the 17th Act of the last Parliament begun 1536 Iune 8th and ended 1536 Iuly 18th it appears that the Bishoprick of Norwich being vacant the King had recommended William Abbot of St. Bennets to it but took into his own hands all the Lands and Manors of the Bishoprick and gave the Bishop several of the Priories in Norfolk in exchange which was confirmed in Parliament This Act was made in the preceding Parliament begun 1536 February 4th and dissolved April 14th and gave to the Bishoprick of Norwich in exchange only the Abbey of St. Bennets in the Holm the Priory of Hickling in Norfolk and a Prebend in the Collegiate Church of St. Stephens in Westminster Pag. 235. lin 20. The Abbot of Farnese in Lincolnshire with thirty Monks resigned up that House to the King on the 9th of April 1537. The Abbey of Furnes was seated in Lancashire Pag. 241. lin 45. Battel Abbey was represented to be a little Sodom so was Christ-Church in Canterbury with several other Houses The Historian doth not tell us by whom they were thus represented For that would have marred all the History and have relieved the reputation of these Monasteries Not by the Visitors surely for the Acts of their Visitation of these places do not remain The credit of the whole matter rests upon the authority of a vile Pamphlet published soon after without a Name pretending to relate the enormous wickednesses discovered in the Monasteries of England at their suppression From this Pamphlet Stevens transcribed these Stories into his Apology for Herodotus and from him Fuller took them into his Church History from whom our Historian received them But Fuller is so ingenuous as to own from whence he took them and to add that he thinks it not reasonable to believe such hainous accusations upon so slender testimony We have some reason to reflect upon the complaint which our Historian brings against Dr. Heylin that benever vouched any authority for what he writ which is not to be forgiven any who write of Transactions beyond their own Times I fear that upon computation it will not be found that our Author hath vouched any Authority for so much as the third part of his History and is especially deficient in those passages which tend to defame the Memories of other men in which above all others Justice and Charity would require that sufficient or at least some testimony be produced But to return to Battel Abbey and Christ Church in Canterbury I am not much concerned for either Yet being willing to doe Justice to all men I will not conceal that the accusation appears very improbable to me as far as Christ Church Canterbury is concerned in it since I am well assured that Dr. Goldwell the Prior of it who had governed it for 23 years before the Dissolution was a learned grave and religious Person and that when it was founded anew it is not to be supposed that Archbishop Cranmer employed by the King therein would have taken into the new Foundation any persons so scandalously wicked yet twelve Monks were taken into it which exceedeth the number of just persons to be found in Sodom at the time of its Destruction Pag. 248. lin 37. Edward Fox Bishop of Hereford died the 8th of May that year viz. 1538. Bishop Godwin indeed saith that Fox died that day But our Historian pretends not to take things on trust easily no not from the greatest Authors The Archbishop of Canterbury did that day take into his hands the Spiritualties of the See of Hereford void by the death of Fox But his death might and not probably did happen several days before this Pag. 263. lin 8. The new Bishoprick of Chester was erected before any others For I have seen a Commission under the Privy Seal to the Bishop of Chester to take the surrender of the Monastery of Hamond in Shropshire bearing date the 24th of August this Year viz. 1539. So it seems the See of Chester was erected and endowed before the Act passed which was in May 1539. though there is among the Rolls a Charter for founding and endowing it afterwards From this Passage it may appear how necessary it is for any one who undertaketh to write the History of our Reformation to be well acquainted with the State of things before the Reformation Had this been done many mistakes would have been escaped and other Contradictions which accompany them would have been avoided It is here said that the Commission to the Bishop of Chester for the taking the surrender of Hamond was dated the 24th of August but in the Collection of Records it is dated the 31st of August It is somewhat unlikely that a Commission should be given to the new Bishop of Chester to take the surrender of a Monastery in Shropshire no part of his Diocess Who should this new Bishop be It is incredible that we should have altogether lost the name and remembrance of a Bishop who acted in such a busie time The first Bishop of the new Bishoprick of Chester which we can find was Iohn Bird translated thither from Bangor And of him we know that the See of Bangor was not void by his Translation to Chester until the beginning of the Year 1542. He therefore could not be that Bishop of Chester to whom the Commission was granted in 1539. I cannot sufficiently wonder that Mr. Fulman should be led into the same mistake who alloweth the new Bishoprick of Chester to have been erected before the making of this Act but to have been afterwards surrendred and founded anew For from the Historian's Collection of Records it appears that the Monastery of St. Werburge in Chester in which the new Bishoprick is founded was not surrendered till 1540. Ianuary 20th which alone overthrows all the Conjectures of the Historian and Mr. Fulman In truth the first Charter for erecting the new Bishoprick of Chester was dated 1541. Iuly 16th but there being some mistake committed therein a new Charter of Foundation was granted 1541. August 5th The Historian is mistaken when he puts afterwards August 4th and Bird the first Bishop took Possession in the beginning of the following Year The Commission therefore granted to the Bishop of Chester for taking the surrender of Hamond was
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
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
in Woods and secret Places as a faithfull and holy Shepherd preaching to them and administring the Sacraments and for this purpose lurking up and down in England at last died like an exile in his own Countrey Pag. 327. lin 25. It was thought that Pole himself hastned the Execution of Cranmer who was executed in March 1556. longing to be invested with that See which the only personal blemish I find laid on him I am very unwilling to believe that a Person of such eminent vertue as Cardinal Pole is by all allowed to have been could be guilty of so base an Action The truth is he could have no such design For it was before shewed that the See of Canterbury had been actually voided immediately upon the Attainture of Cranmer in the end of the year 1553. After his Attainture at home and deposition and excommunication pronounced at Rome of which I spoke before he was dead to the Canon as well as Common Law His natural Life could be no obstacle to the advancement of Pole to the Archbishoprick And accordingly that very Pope Paul of whom the Historian maketh Pole to have been so much afraid lest he should defeat his hope of the Archbishoprick if Cranmer's Life were not quickly taken away had by a Bull dated 1555. Decemb. 11. collated or provided Pole to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury constituting him Administrator of the Archbishoprick till he should be ordained Priest and after that appointing him Archbishop with full Power and Jurisdiction Upon the reception and publication of these Bulls in England which was about the beginning of the following Month Pole was to all intents and purposes fully possessed of the Archbishoprick although he was not consecrated till the 22d of March following the day after Cranmer's Martyrdom The Historian reneweth this Charge against Pole pag. 340 but there urgeth the same argument only namely his choosing the next day after Cranmer's Death for his Consecration which is of no moment since Cranmer had in his account and in Canon and Common Law ceased long since to be Archbishop of Canterbury and himself had been possessed of the Archbishoprick above two Months Pag. 326. lin 38. Although Cardinal Pole had an only Brother David that had continued all King Henry's time in his Archdeaconry of Darby he did not advance him till after he had been two years in England and then he gave him only the Bishoprick of Peterborough one of the poorest of the Bishopricks Cardinal Pole had three Brothers and this David was not his Brother Bacatelli who wrote his Life had been his Secretary and Domestick Servant for near twenty Years before his Death He had reason therefore to know the Cardinals Kindred and he affirmeth that the Cardinal had three Brothers Henry Lord Montacute condemned of Treason and executed in the year 1538. Arthur condemned for Treason in 1562. and Geofry condemned in 1538 but neither executed and two Sisters Then whereas David Pole is said by the Historian to have been preferred to Peterborough one of the poorest of the Bishopricks in truth Peterborough was at that time none of the least Bishopricks in England having been endowed by King Henry far above any of the new erected Bishopricks and made equal in revenue to most of the ancient Bishopricks and so continued until Scambler the Successor of this David Pole did by a Simoniacal Contract convey away the better part of the Possessions of it to a Noble Person of the Neighbourhood that he might thereby make way for his own Translation to the Bishoprick of Norwich to do the like Mischief there Pag. 340. lin 20. On the 28th of March Pole came in State through London to Bow-Church where the Bishops of Worcester and Ely put the Pall about him He received and was solemnly invested with his Pall at Bow-Church on the 25th of March as his own Register testifieth which is confirmed by Stow. Pag. 340. lin 22. This was a Device set up by Pope Paschal the second in the beginning of the twelfth Century for the engaging of all Archbishops to a more immediate dependance on that See they being after they took the Pall to act as the Popes Legates born as the Phrase was of which it was the Ensign But it was at first admitted with great Contradiction both by the Kings of Sicily and Poland the Archbishops of Palermo and Gnesna being the first to whom they were sent all men wondring at the Novelty of the thing and of the Oath which the Popes required of them at the Delivery of it I cannot sufficiently admire that any learned Man should commit so great a Mistake None conversant in the History of the Church can be ignorant that the Custom of sending Palls from Rome to the Archbishops owning any Dependance upon that See or Relation to it began many hundred years before Pope Paschal the Second Pope Gregory the First had sent a Pall to Augustin the first Archbishop of Canterbury and all the Archbishops from him to the Reformation did singly receive Palls from Rome if sudden Death did not prevent them before the Reception In like manner all the English Archbishops of York from the beginning if we except two or three who for that reason claimed not Archiepiscopal Priviledges received their Palls from thence and so also all the Archbishops of the Western-Church which held any Communication with the See of Rome When they were first sent to Archbishops and for several Ages after no Oath of Obedience to the See of Rome was exacted at the Delivery of them Thus the Historian is found to have erred in fixing the time of their beginning and in affixing a constant Oath to them But farther he hath widely mistaken the Design of them which was not to constitute those who received them Legati Nati to the See of Rome For if that were true all the Archbishops of Canterbury from the first Foundation of the See almost all the Archbishops of York and the other Archbishops of the Western Church would have been Legati Nati to the Pope whereas in truth the Number of Legati Nati in Christendom is very small not exceeding four or five the Archbishops of York never were Legati Nati nor the Archbishops of Canterbury till about the Year 1200. When Archbishop Herbert first obtained that Priviledge to himself and Successors Lastly whereas the Historian maketh the Archbishop of Gnesna to have been one of the first to whom the Title and Priviledge of Legatus Natus was conferred and that by Pope Paschal the contrary of it is so far true that Andreas Olzowski Archbishop of Gnesna in his Letter wrote to Dr. Sheldon Archbishop of Canterbury in the Year 1675. wherein he requests of him to send to him an account of the Priviledges of Legatio Nata belonging to the See of Canterbury beginneth to propose his requests in these words Concessum olim erat Anno 1515. Privilegium Legationis nata à Leone X. Papâ Archiepiscopis Gnesnensibus Primatibus