never thought on till the Year 1106 and was compleated in the Year 1109. Pope Nicholas II died in the Year 1061 and Pope Nicholas III obtained the Papacy in 1277. We desire to know which of these two the Historian meaneth Not the former surely But neither did the latter any more than the former concern himself in a matter done so long before his time It was Pope Paschal II whose Bulls of Confirmation were pretended to have been sent immediately after the Erection of the Bishoprick But even those seem to have been forged Pag. 316. lin 44. In the time of Popery there had been few Sermons but in Lent If he speaks of the ancient times of Popery it may be true But for some time before the Reformation Preaching seems to have been more frequent in England For Dr. Lichfield Rector of All-Saints in Thames Street London who died in the Year 1447 left behind him 3083. Sermons wrote with his own hand and preached at several times by him All these Sermons could not be preached in Lent After him we have the Examples of Bradley the Suffragan Bishop of Norwich who died in the Year 1492. after he had spent many years in travelling about that Diocess and Preaching in it of Dr. Colet Dean of S. Pauls who constantly preached or expounded the Scriptures either in his own or in some other Church of the City of Dr. Collingwood Dean of Lichfield who preached in that Cathedral every Sunday for many years together The Practice seemeth not to have been unfrequent long before this time and in some places to have been commanded to all the Parish-Priests For in the Constitutions of Iohn de Thoresby Archbishop of York made about the Year 1360. I found a Command to all the Parochial Clergy to preach frequently to their People and explain to them the Articles of Faith in the English Tongue and an Exhortation directed to the People to here Goddys Service every Soneday with Reverence and Devocioun and seye devowtly thy Pater-Noster c. and here Goddys Lawe taught in thy Modyr Tonge For that is bettyr than to here many Massys Pag. 328. lin 37. Dr. Lee Dean of York was brought up about All-hallow-tide in the Year 1543. and sent into Kent So also Append. pag. 292. lin 38. Leighton brought in Lee to be a Visitor of the Monasteries but they were of the Popish party and Lee was Cranmer's Friend He was in Orders and soon after the Visitation of Monasteries performed by him was made Dean of York Lee was never Dean of York For Higden who was made Dean in 1516 died in 1537. To him succeeded Dr. Layton for so his name is to be wrote not Leighton for he was no Scot who died in the Year 1544 and was succeeded by Dr. Wotton who died in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Pag. 333. lin 24. Bell that was Bishop of Worcester had resigned his Bishoprick the former year viz. in the Year 1544 the Bishop of Rochester Heath was translated to that See And upon the Translation of Sanepson from Chicester to Litchfield Day was made Bishop of that See Bell had resigned his Bishoprick in the Year 1543. For Heath was Elected to succeed him December 22. 1543. Sampson's Translation preceded even that of Heath for Day was Elected to Chicester void by his Translation April 24. 1543. Pag. 337. lin 14. None of the Preachers were either Actors or Consenters to the murder of Cardinal Beaton I do not find that any of them justified it Knox gave a violent Suspicion of his consenting to it and justifying it when the Murderers being immediately after the murder committed besieged in the Castle he conveyed himself in among them and became their Chaplain The Author of the History of the Church of Scotland which passeth under Knox his Name extolls the murder as a Noble and Heroical Action If Knox were not yet at least one of the Scotch Preachers was the Author of this History There is no Villany of this kind so black which may not be believed of Scotch Presbyterians since they have in our days as inhumanely murdered another Archbishop of St. Andrews and justifyed it and commended it as a meritorious Action Pag. 349. lin 35. This leads me to discover many things concerning the Will of King Henry VIII which have been hitherto unknown I draw them from a Letter written by Maitland of Leithington Secretary of State to the Queen of Scotland The design of it is to clear the right his Mistress had to the Crown of England Therein he proveth King Henry's Will to be a Forgery because it was not signed with the King 's own Hand but those about him put the Stamp to it when they saw his Death approaching For this he appealed to the Deposition of the Lord Paget and desired the Marquess of Winchester c. Dr. Buts and some others might be examined Thus it appears what vulgar Errors pass upon the World Here the Historian maketh great Ostentation of his own performance imagining that he hath entirely overthrown the Credit of all our English Histories and convicted the English Nation of a blind credulity But we beg leave to put in our Exceptions Maitland as Secretary to the Queen of Scotland might do well to urge any Argument tending to the Service of his Mistress whether true or false But what is allowable to a States-man herein is not to an Historian It is manifest that Maitland was ill informed in one Circumstance and if so all the rest may be suspected as being received from the same Authority For he affirms Dr. Buts the Kings Physician to have been present at his Death when the Stamp was set to the Will Now Dr. Buts died 1545. 17th November as his Epitaph in the Church at Fulham testifieth But King Henry died not till the 28th Ianuary 1546 7 not 1547 8 as the Inscription under his Picture prefixed to this History beareth So that the whole Story alledged by Maitland may be as much a Forgery as King Henry's Will is by the Historian said to be Pag. 353. lin 37. But if he Fisher Bishop of Rochester had kept his opinion of the King's Supremacy to to himself they could not have proceeded farther He would not do that but did upon several Occasions speak against it so he was brought to his Tryal The Historian doth more than once insist upon this I am very unwilling to deliver any thing without present Evidence yet I do very well remember that some years since I saw in writing a Complaint of Bishop Fisher's declaring the unhandsome dealing of those who from time to time were sent by the King to discourse with him in Prison how that having urged him to declare his Reasons against the King's Supremacy and assured him that in so doing he should receive no prejudice they obtained of him to do it and then made use of such his Declaration to his Destruction grounding their Testimony of his Recusancy upon it Pag. 358.
not left to the pleasure of the Abbot or Religious House to whom the Church belonged But the Bishops endowed the Vicarages with what proportion of Tithes and Emoluments they thought fit in many places reserved to the Vicar one half of all manner of Tithes and the whole Fees of all Sacraments Sacramentals c. in most places reserved to them not some little part of but all the Vicarage-tithes and in other places appointed to them an annual pension of Money In succeeding times when the first Endowments appeared too slender they encreased them at their pleasure Of all which our ancient Registers and Records give abundant testimony This was the case of all Vicarages As for those impropriated Livings which have now no settled Endowment and are therefore called not Vicarages but perpetual or sometimes arbitrary Curacies they are such as belonged formerly to those Orders who could serve the oure of them in their own persons as the Canons Regular of the Order of St. Austin which being afterwards devolved into the hands of Laymen they hired poor Curates to serve them at the cheapest rate they could and still continue to doe so Pag. 25. lin 28. Ridley elect of Rochester designed for that See by King Henry but not consecrated till September this Year 1547. If King Henry designed Ridley to be Bishop of Rochester he could not do it by any actual Nomination but only by Prophetical foresight of Longland's Death and Holbeach's Translation For the King died 1547 Ianuary 28th Longland of Lincoln died 1547. May 7th Holbeach of Rochester was elected to Lincoln 9th August So that until August there was no room for Ridley at Rochester Pag. 30. lin 17. The Form of bidding Prayer was used in the times of Popery as will appear by the Form of bidding the Beads in King Henry the 7th's time which will be found in the Collection The Form published by the Historian out of the Festival Printed Anno 1509. seemeth by the length of it and comparing it with another undoubtedly true Form to have been rather a Paraphrase or Exposition of the Form of bidding Beads I have therefore presented to the Reader a much shorter and ancienter Form taken out of an old written Copy Pag. 32. lin 13. Tonstall searching the Registers of his See found many Writings of great consequence to clear the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England The most remarkable of these was the Homage King William of Scotland made to Henry the Second by which he granted that all the Nobles of his Realm should be his Subjects and do Homage to him and that all the Bishops of Scotland should be under the Archbishop of York It was said that the Monks in those days who generally kept the Records were so accustomed to the forging of Stories and Writings that little Credit was to be given to such Records as lay in their keeping But having so faithfully acknowledged what was alledged against the Freedom of Scotland I may be allowed to set down a Proof on the other side for my Native Countrey copied from the Original Writing yet extant under the Hands and Seals of many of the Nobility and Gentry of that Kingdom It is a Letter to the Pope c. The ancient and allowed Laws of History exclude Partiality yet this Historian's great Concern for the Honour of his Countrey cannot well be called by any other name which hath induced him to publish and Instrument of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland not at all relating to the History of our English Reformation If he thinketh that this Liberty ought to be allowed to him in recompence of the great Obligation he hath laid upon the English Nation for having so faithfully acknowledged what was alledged against the Freedom of Scotland we pretend that all Persons conversant in the History of our Nation did before this very well know all these Allegations and ten times as many of no less weight and that either he did not perfectly understand the Controversie or hath not so faithfully represented the Arguments of our side For King William did not herein make any new Grant to King Henry but only confirmed and acknowledged the ancient Dependence and Subjection of Scotland to England nor did he then first subject the Bishops of Scotland to the Archbishop of York but engaged that hereafter they should be subject to him as of right they ought to be and had wont to be in the time of the former Kings of England The Bishops of Scotland had been all along subject to the Archbishops of York but having about Eleven years before this obtained an Exemption of this Jurisdiction by a Bull of Pope Alexander the King of Scotland now undertook that they should not claim the benefit of that Exemption but be subject to the Church of England as formerly and the Bishops of Scotland also then present concurred with the King and promised for themselves although within a short time after they broke their Faith and procured a new and fuller Exemption from the Pope which Dempster placeth in the Year 1178. The Charter of King William before mentioned was made in 1175. But after all the Bishoprick of Galloway continued to be subject unto the Archbishop of York until towards the end of the Fifteenth Century when it was by the Pope taken from York and subjected to Glasgow then newly erected into an Archbishoprick Now whereas the Historian would invalidate the Authority of this Charter insinuating that it may justly be suspected to have been forged by the Monks because taken out of their Records and coming out of their Custody he may please to know that this very Charter may be found entire in the Printed History of Roger de Hoveden who was no Monk but a a Secular Clergy-man a Domestick of this King Henry attending him in all his Expeditions As for the pretence of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland in their Letter written to the Pope Anno 1320. and published by the Historian it is not to be wondered if their minds being elated with unusual Success against our unfortunate King Edward II. they enlarged their Pretences and affected an independency from the Crown of England which their Forefathers never pretended to nor had themselves at any other time dared to arrogate All the principal Nobility and Gentry of Scotland had in the Year 1291. made as ample and authentick an Instrument of the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England as could be conceived before Edward had either Conquered or invaded their Countrey which Instrument Tonstall taketh notice of in his Memorial and this was indeed the most remarkable of all the Testimonies produced by Tonstall at least accounted by King Edward to be of so great moment that he sent a Copy of it under the Great Seal to every noted Abbey and Collegiate Church in England that it might be safely preserved and inserted into their several Annals It may be seen at length in the Printed History
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