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
directed to the Bishop of Lichfield in whose Diocess it was Seated which Bishop until the Division of his Diocess and Erection of a new Bishoprick at Chester was in writing and in common Speech as often called the Bishop of Chester as of Lichfield as is well known to those who are acquainted with the State of the English Church before and at the Reformation Pag. 267. lin 1. The Popish party used all the Arts possible to insinuate themselves into the King And therefore to shew how far their Compliance would go Bonner Bishop of London took a strange Commission from the King on the 12th of November this Year 1539. Whether the other Bishops took such Commissions from the King I know not But I am certain there is none such in Cranmers Register and it is not likely if any such had been taken out by him that ever it would have been razed After he had taken this Commission Bonner might well have been called one of the Kings Bishops When the Historian wrote this surely he little thought that he should publish in the Second part of his History a like Commission taken from King Edward VI. by Cranmer For whosoever compareth the two Commissions will find that they are not only alike but the very same mutatis mutandis only with this difference as the Historian himself forgetting what he had here wrote is forced to own that there is no mention made of a Vicar General in the Commission of Edward VI. to Cramner as was in that of Henry VIII to Bonner there being none after Cromwell advanced to that Dignity Now it is very injurious to the Memory of Cranmer first to represent this Action of Bonner as a vile unworthy Compliance and then afterwards to say that Cranmer did the same thing For what difference is there between taking such a Commission from King Henry and taking the like from King Edward unless it be that it seemeth somewhat more colourable to take it from a Man than from a Child Nor can any excuse be raised from the necessity imposed by the Act of Parliament made 1547 December 20th of which an Account is given afterwards For Cranmer had taken out his Commission on the 7th of Frebruary preceding But neither is it true that Cranmer did not take such a Commission from King Henry VIII For the Order of Council related by the Historian to have been made in the beginning of the Reign of King Edward VI. plainly implyeth the contrary requiring the Bishops to take out new Commissions of the same Form with those they had taken out in King Henry's time in obedience to which Order Cranmer took out his Commission before mentioned If no such Commission taken by Cranmer from King Henry be now found in his Register it doth not thence follow that none was taken by him For his Register is imperfect in many places Indeed he took out such a Commission from King Henry long before Bonner For in the Collections of Dr. Yale who could not but know the Truth herein having been in the time of Cranmer an eminent Advocate in Doctors Commons and afterwards principal Registrary and Vicar-General to Archbishop Parker I find a Transcript of this Commission agreeing exactly with that of Bonner published by the Historian mutatis mutandis and this note subjoyned Tales licentias acceperunt Thomas Archiepiscopus Cantuarmense Octobri 1535. Edwardus Archiep. Eborac Iohannes Episcopus Lincoln 13. Octobr. 1535. Iohannes Episcopus London 19. Octobr. 1535. Stephanus Episcopus Winton eodem Anno Cuthbertas Episcopus Dunelm 10 Novemb. 1535. c. Pag. 268. lin 9. I will not presume to determin so great a Point of Law whether the Abbots sate in the House of Lords as being a part of the Ecclesiastical State or holding their Lands of the King by Baronages It is the known and avowed Constitution of our Nation that the Convocation of the Clergy doth constitute the first Estate therein This being premised it is manifest that Bishops and consequently Abbots also sate in Convocation as a part of the Ecclesiastical State and must therefore sit in the House of Lords under some other Quality which can be no other than that of their Baronage Pag. 268. lin 21. Generally Coventry and Burton viz. the Priory of Coventry and Abbey of Burton were held by the same man as one Bishop held both Coventry and Lichfield though two different Bishopricks I will not take notice of the Historians oversight in making Coventry and Lichfield two different Bishopricks for that Mr. Fulman had before observed but of his Error in affirming Coventry and Burton to have been generally held by the same man He might with as much truth have said that the Archbishopricks of Canterbury and York were generally held by the same man What gave occasion to this enormous mistake I cannot conceive Burton and Coventry were no more related than any other two Abbeys neither was one a Cell of the other nor had the one any Dependance upon the other At the end of the Annals of Burton Printed some time since at Oxford may be found an exact List of the Abbots of that House from the first Foundation to the Dissolution of it In Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire may be seen a like Catalogue of the Priors of Coventry If these two be compared it will be found that from beginning to end they are made up of different Persons not so much as any one name of the one Catalogue occurring in the other Pag 300. lin 25. Two years after this viz. after September 1541 the Abbey of Osney in Oxford was converted into a Bishoprick a Deanry and six Prebends And the Monastery of St. Austins in Bristol was changed into the same use The Cathedral Church of Osney was founded by the King's Charter dated 1542. September 1. And Paul Bush Bishop of Bristol was consecrated 1542. Iune 25th So that the Historian is mistaken when he referreth the Foundation of both these Bishopricks to the end of the Year 1543. Pag. 300. lin 49. Then the Priories at most Cathedrals such as Canterbury Winchester Duresm Worcester Carlisle Rochester and Ely were also converted into Deanries and Colleges of Prebends If by most Cathedrals are to be understood most of the Cathedrals of England that is not true For if to those he had added Norwich he had named all But if by that Term are to be understood most of those old Cathedrals which were founded anew at this time then it is trifling For in all the old Cathedrals which were then founded anew the Priories were thus changed Pag. 301. lin 43. In England when the Bishoprick of Lincoln being judged of too great an extent the Bishoprick of Ely was taken out of it it was done only by the King with the Consent of his Clergy and Nobles Pope Nicholas indeed officiously intruded himself into that matter by sending afterwards a Confirmation of what was done The Erection of a new Bishoprick at Ely was
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
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