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
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
A SPECIMEN Of some ERRORS and DEFECTS IN THE History of the Reformation OF THE Church of ENGLAND Wrote by GILBERT BVRNET D. D. now Lord Bishop of Sarum By ANTHONY HARMER LONDON Printed for Randall Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1693. A SPECIMEN of some Errors and defects in the late History of the Reformation of the Church of England IT ought not to be esteemed any Disrespect to the Author of the late History of the Reformation of the Church of England now advanced to an eminent station therein nor any Indignity offered to the Work it self if the Errors and Defects of it be discovered and published by others To examine the Truth of things proposed is a privilege common to all men Nor can this Great Historian justly take it ill if the title of Infallible which he with so great strength of reason opposeth in others be denied to himself especially since himself hath laid down this excellent Rule that ingenuous persons ought not to take things on trust easily no not from the greatest Authors At least it will be allowed that when a Forreigner however eminent and learned undertaketh to write the History of any Nation or part of it the Natives have more than ordinary right to examine the truth and discover the mistakes of it lest otherwise the honour of their Countrey should suffer any prejudice by a false Relation of its Transactions This examination will be so much the more necessary and serviceable by how much the History hath obtained the greater reputation in the World since where any History acquireth as this hath most deservedly such an universal reception as to be read and esteemed by all at home to be translated into other Languages abroad to be accounted by all most perfect in its kind that universal reputation will the more effectually contribute to the propagation of the Errors contained in it and further since as the Author himself not vainly imagins it is a Work that may live some time in the World those Errors which tend to the prejudice of truth and dishonour of the Nation will be perpetuated unless this remedy of a publick detection of them be allowed I do not hereby pretend to detract from the honour due to this History nor do I presume so much as to insinuate what the Historian himself is pleased to own his unfitness for such a work by reason of his unacquaintedness with the Laws and Customs of this Nation not being born in it however the desire and encouragement of Great Persons did herein over-rule his Modesty I am not so vain as to imagin that I can in the least blast a reputation so firmly and so deservedly established nor is that any part of my design On the contrary I should give to this History those praises which are due to it could I induce my self to believe that my suffrage could add any thing to that great opinion which the World hath already entertained of it The only reasons which have drawn me to this Undertaking are the love of truth and concern for the honour of the Reformation of our Church which will receive at least some small advancement by the discovery of any errors committed and believed in the History of it If Varillas Le Grand and others have been successfully triumphed over and baffled by the Historian who have already published Reflections Animadversions or Corrections of this History being mere strangers to our Nation and the History of it and designing not in the least the discovery of truth or restauration of History but only to gratify their private passions and to vilify the honour and justice of our Reformation if their attempts have succeeded so ill that will not discourage me who do not altogether labour under the same disadvantages with them and am not conscious to my self of any sinister design Or if they have given to the Historian just occasion to treat them with some scorn and contempt I do not much fear the same treatment which yet if it should happen will not affright me nor yet deterr me from enquiring further into the truth of things especially those relating to our Church as I shall have leisure and opportunity It ought not nor can it be supposed that I have discovered and in these Papers published all the Errors committed in this History I have indeed read the whole but have not had opportunity to examine the truth of a third part of it In that small part which I have examined I have detected all the following mistakes for which reason I call it a Specimen so that if I had present leisure and means to pursue the examination throughout I could scarce hope to find the remaining part free from Errors But I would not bestow too much time upon it nor if I would do I enjoy yet fit opportunity The Reflections of Varillas Le Grand or any others upon this History I have not read since they were first published and then I had entertained no thoughts of such a design so that if any observation of mine be common to them it is by chance But I do not much fear it having for the most part drawn my Observations from Books and Records which they never saw As for Mr. Fulman's Corrections which the Historian hath published in the end of his second Volume I have not insisted on any mistakes observed by him unless where he hath either mistaken himself or not sufficiently cleared the matter In the whole I have made use of the second Edition of the History which as the title bears hath been corrected Pars Prima Page 4. Line 38. Cardinal Wolsey in the mean while was put in hopes of the Archbishoprick of Toledo THE Historian seemeth to have been ignorant that the Cardinal did for several years receive a very large Pension out of the Archbishoprick of Toledo Not many weeks since I saw an Original Letter writ with the Cardinal 's own hand to Dr. Lee his Agent in the Emperour's Court wherein among other things he commanded him to expostulate with the Emperour's Ministers for the non-payment of the Pension reserved to him out of the Archbishoprick The exact summ due to him is therein inserted but having not then taken any minutes of the Letter not so much as the date of it I will not affirm any thing particular of the summ Yet to do justice to the memory of the Cardinal lest he should be thought to have been bribed by any Forreign Prince to act against the interest of his Master I will add that when Tournay was delivered by K. Henry to the French in the year 1518 the Embassadour of the K. of Spain did privately offer to the Cardinal 100000 Crowns in the name of his Master if he would cause the Cittadel of Tournay to be demolished before the delivery of it which offer the Cardinal generously refused because contrary to the Articles agreed between his Master the French King Pag. 8. lin 1. Cavendish's
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
curiam Saecularem puta Domini Regis Parliamentum quod in camerâ ejusdem Domini fuit inchoatum that this was contrary to the ancient Form and that therefore they would not proceed to act unless they might be assured that this should not be drawn into a President and that for the future the old Form should be observed Which assurance being given to them the Clergy granted a Subsidy apart to the King upon Conditions by them mentioned From this it should appear that before the time of Edward III. the Convocations of the Provinces of Canterbury and York were not held out of the several Provinces and consequently that the Clergy of both did not meet together and with the Laymen constitute one Body in one House of Parliament that the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury were then summoned by Writs of the same Form as afterwards that not the King but the Archbishop appointed the time and place that they never sat at Westminster where the other Estates of Parliament were at that time wont to sit that they permitted not Laymen to entermeddle in their Consultations but sate apart from them and granted Subsidies apart and all this as themselves alledge had been done à tempore cujus memoria non existit Pag. 56. lin 8. The Clerks of Council did not then enter every thing with that Exactness that is since used It had been more cautious in the Historian to have said that he could not find such exact Entries made by them For I find an Order of Council made 1550. April 19th and entred in the beginning of a large Original Book containing the Acts of Council for the last four years of King Edward 6th that there shall be a Clerk attendant upon the said Council to Write Enter and Register all such Decrees Determinations and other things as he should be appointed to enter in a Book to remain always as a Leger as well for the discharge of the said Counsellors touching such things as they shall pass from time to time as also for a Memorial unto them of their own proceedings Unto which Office William Thomas was appointed by the Kings Highness with the advice of his aforesaid Council and in Presence of the same Council sworn Accordingly all the Acts of Council are therein entred largely and with great exactness the Original hands of the Privy Councellors then present being added to the Acts and Orders of every several day This Book I shall often mention hereafter Pag. 71. lin 1. 36. The next thing Cranmer set about was the compiling of a Catechism or institution of young Persons in the Grounds of the Christian Religion a work which was wholly his own without the Concurrence of any others In truth Cranmer only translated this Catechism out of Dutch at least translated it from the Latin Translation of Iustus Ionas who had translated the Dutch Catechism as both the Title and the Preface of it might have informed the Historian The Title saith it was overseen and corrected by the Archbishop and Cranmer himself in another Book speaketh of this Catechism in these words a Catechism by me translated and set forth He added indeed a large Discourse of his own to the Exposition of the Second Commandment and inserted some few Sentences elsewhere Pag. 89. lin 29. The people had been more prejudiced against the Marriage of the Clergy if they had not felt greater Inconveniences by the Debaucheries of Priests who being restrained from Marriage had defiled the Beds and deflowred the Daughters of their Neighbours c. As for Adulteries and Rapes which the Historian insisteth on it is charitably to be hoped that they were not so frequent in the Clergy before the Reformation But the greatest Scandal arose by keeping Women in their Houses under the Name and Notion of Concubines and being Licensed by their several Bishops to do it which abuse obtained generally and was practised openly throughout the whole Western Church immediately before the Reformation Yet in any case to cover the faults of the Clergy and to excuse them where the cause admitteth any excuse not only the respect due to the sacred Order but common Justice also requireth Had all these Women thus generally entertained by the Clergy been no other than their Concubines it would indeed have been inexcusable But in truth they were for the most part their Wives whom they married secretly and kept under the name of Concubines since the Laws and Canons then received forbad them to Marry openly or to entertain Women under the name of Wives This the Bishops very well knew and from time to time gave them Licenses to do it and tolerated them in it not allowing them thereby to violate the Divine Laws of Chastity but only in secret to neglect the Ecclesiastical Laws of Celibacy Now that this was the case of the Western Clergy we are assured by Alvarus Pelagius Cassander and others And lest we should imagine the Clergy of England in this practise to have Acted either with less Wit or Conscience than the Clergy of other Nations we find several Constitutions of our latter Provincial Councils directed against the Clandestine Marriages of the Clergy These Constitutions were made for shew but were seldom or never executed But the most express Testimony that can be desired herein is given by Archbishop Parker who publishing a large and accurate Defence of Priests Marriages wrote by an Anonymous Layman in the Reign of Queen Mary hath towards the end of the Book in some Copies of it inserted ten Sheets of his own Composition wherein he giveth a full and learned History of the Marriage and Celibacy of the Clergy of England from the first Reception of Christianity to the Reformation In this History he affirms the practise of the Clergy in Relation to Concubines before mentioned to have continued all along in England concluding thus And so lived secretlye with their Friendes not openly vouched for Wives but in affectu sororio amore uxorio fide conjugali as they use the Tearmes In which kynde of Lyfe there be no small Argumentes that some Bishoppes and the best of the Cleargie lyvyng within the Memorie of man dyd continue And in another place For as many of the Cleargie lyved in Adulteries and some in Vices Sodomitical so dyd diverse whose Consciences were better and in knowledge more wise lyved secretlie with Wives and provyded for their Children under the Names of Nephews and other mens Children In which manner lyved Bonifacius Archbishope of Canterbury and other Bishopes of old dayes but some also of late days dyd lyve though all the World did not barke at the matter Before I dismiss this matter I will add somewhat concerning the Attempt made for the open Restitution of Marriage to the Clergy in the times of Henry 8th of which our Historian is altogether silent The Anonymous Author of the Defence of Priests Marriages before mentioned relateth that after it had been
Or that whereas it was thought very indecent that the Prior of Canterbury in whom the Arch-Episcopal Jurisdiction during a vacancy was invested and by whom the Convocations was summoned in that Case should sit in the lower and was thereupon removed to the upper House his Example might facilitate Admission to the Priors of other Cathedrals and open the way to them Pag. 158. lin 5. Suffragan Bishops were believed to be the same with the Chorepiscopi in the Primitive Church which continued in the Western Church till the ninth Century and then they were put down every where by degrees and now Anno 1534. revived in England If the Historian had pleased to acquaint himself with the State of the Church of England before the Reformation he could not have been Ignorant that for about 200 years before the Reformation Suffragan Bishops had been frequent in England not only in large or neglected Diocesses as Mr. Fulman imagineth who hath in part noted the Error of the Historian but also in smaller Diocesses such as Wells and in those wherein the proper Bishop did generally reside in Person insomuch that in many Diocesses whose Records are preserved there appear a continued Series or Succession of Suffragan as well as proper Bishops and at the time of making this Act Anno 1534. there seemeth to have been a Suffragan Bishop in every Diocess of England save Carlisle Rochester and the Welch Diocesses and in several Diocesses more than one That they were not by this Act revived in England after the discontinuance of so many Ages the Historian might have learned from the very Preface of it which himself relates to begin thus Whereas Suffragan Bishops have been accustomed to be had within this Realm c. Pag. 161. lin 3. Chancellor More was the most zealous Champion the Clergy had so he answered this Supplication of the Beggars by another in the name of the Souls that were in Purgatory representing the miseries they were in c. Sir Thomas More wrote this Supplication of Souls before he was Lord Chancellor in the Year 1529 as the Title of it witnesseth being then Privy Councellor He was then indeed Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster but in this Sense I suppose the Historian did not here call him Chancellor Since the Historian hath mentioned this Supplication of the Souls and hath given an Abstract of it whereby he would seem to have read it I beg leave to represent to him that it would have been very fair in him if when he related the Tragical Story of the Murder of Richard Hunne so much in prejudice of Fitz-Iames Bishop of London and his Chancellor Doctor Horsey he would have acquainted the Reader that notwithstanding the general and violent Suspitions of their foul dealing therein Sir Thomas More who was then an eminent Man and had certain opportunities of knowing the whole truth of the matter hath in this Treatise largely defended both the Bishop and his Chancellor and acquitted them from all manner of guilt or injustice therein Pag. 182. lin 6. In Oxford the Question being put Anno 1535. Whether the Pope had any other Jurisdiction in England than any other foreign Bishop it was referred to certain Delegates who agreed in the Negative and the whole University being examined about it man by man assented to their Determination I fear that the Historian had conceived some displeasure against the University of Cambridge for that he alloweth not to them the Honour of having asserted betimes the Independency of our National Church upon the See of Rome nor thinks fit to take any notice of them in this matter I am not bound to engage in the private Quarrels of the Historian and therefore shall think my self at Liberty to do Justice to the University of Cambridge and to publish their Determination herein which I have done To which I will here add that the like Determinations seem to have been then made by particular Colledges in the University apart and to have been subscribed by the Masters and Fellows of them For I have seen such an original Instrument of one Colledge Pag. 186. lin 28. What the ancient British Monks were and by what Rule they were governed must be left to Conjecture But from the little that remains of them we find they were very numerous and were obedient to the Bishop at Caerleon as all the Monks of the Primitive times were to their Bishops This is not accurately said The British Monks were subject not only to the Bishop of Caerleon but to their several Bishops in whose Diocesses they lived Indeed after that the Britains were driven into Wales and setled there all their Bishops were subject to the Archbishop of Caerleon and so by consequence were all the Monks also ultimately subject to him But the Historian speaketh here of their immediate Subjection Besides that in this place he treateth of the ancient British Monks which were before the Confusions of the Gothic Wars in Italy and before the times of Benedict when the Britains were not driven into Wales nor all their Bishops subjected to him of Caerleon But there were at that time several other Archbishops in Britain to whom the Bishops of their Provinces were as much subject as the Bishops of the Province of Caerleon were to him Pag. 186. lin 43. This Exception of the Abbey of St. Austins from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop and his Successors was granted that they might have no disturbance in the Service of God But whether this with many other ancient Foundations were not later Forgeries which I vehemently suspect I leave to Criticks to discuss That this and all other Charters of Exemption from Episcopal Jurisdiction granted to Monasteries in England before the Conquest were mere Forgeries is an undoubted truth to all those who are not engaged by Interest to defend them But it is somewhat extraordinary in any Writer to lay down Principles confessedly false or dubious and then to build upon them and raise consequences from them as if they were indubitably true This seemeth to be done by our Historian in the following Page where he layeth down the Exemption of Monks in the ancient Foundations from Episcopal Jurisdiction as one Foundation of their Corruption in Discipline and increase in Riches The first Exemption of this kind really granted to any Monastery of England was that given by William the Conqueror to Battel Abbey newly founded by him the Example of which prompted the Monks of other places to counterfeit the like ancient Exemptions or to purchase new ones from the Court of Rome Pag. 187. lin 7. About the end of the eighth Century the Monks had possessed themselves of the greatest part of the Riches of the Nation So also Par. 2. Praefat. pag. 9. lin 1. the best part of the Soil of England being in such ill hands it was the Interest of the whole Kingdom to have it put to better uses Such high Figures of Rhetorick and
Hyperbolical Expressions are better reserved for Harangues and do not well agree with History The end of the eighth Century was the Year of our Lord 800 at which times very few Monasteries had been yet founded nor had the Monks then in all appearance gained Possession of the hundredth part of the Riches of the Nation Afterwards indeed they increased exceedingly in Number Riches and Possessions especially in the tenth eleventh and twelfth Centuries but after all upon a just Account they will not be found even in Title to have possessed above a fifth part of the Nation and considering that long before the Reformation they were wont to Lease out their Lands to Laymen for easie Fines and small Rents as Bishops and Deans and Chapters now do it may be truly said that they did not in reality possess the Tenth part of the Riches of the Nation Then for that other Charge that the best part of the Soil of the Nation being in such ill hands it was the Interest of the Nation to have it put to better uses it is altogether Erroneous From the beginning to the end none ever improved their Lands and Possessions to better advantages by Building Cultivation and all other methods than the Monks did while they kept them in their own hands And when they Leased them out to others it was the Interest of the Nation to have such easie Tenures continued to great numbers of Persons who enjoyed them To this may be added that they contributed to the publick Charges of the Nation equally with the other Clergy and the Clergy did always contribute in proportion above the Laity So that we cannot find to what better uses these Possessions have been since put save only that inconsiderable part of them which remains to Bishopricks Cathedrals and Schools founded by King Henry VIII Pag. 189. lin 1. The Monks became lewd and dissolute and so impudent in it that some of their Farms were Lett for bringing in a yearly Tribute to their Lusts. God forbid that any Professors of Christianity much less the greatest Pretenders to it should be guilty of such monstrous wickedness or that any others should believe it of them without evident Proof This Accusation is taken from Fuller's Church-History who relateth no more than one Example of this kind and that of a Convent not of Monks but of Canons Regular of Waltham not upon his own knowledge but the single Testimony of a most notorious lying Villain Stephen Marshal and after all is so ingenuous that he professeth himself to dis-believe it On the contrary our Author suppresseth his Authority and brings no other Testimony raiseth the number from one to many and delivereth a dubious matter as a Truth most certain Surely if the Monks had been guilty of any such thing it could not have escaped the knowledge of their Visitors who searched and divulged all their Faults with the utmost Industry nor would it have been unknown to Bale brought up among them nor omitted by him in his English Votaries wherein he hath set himself to defame the Monastick Order and the unmarried Clergy with insatiable Malice nor would Instances of it be wanting in those many Leiger-Books of the Monasteries still remaining wherein they Registred all their Leases and that for their own private use Pag. 189. lin 10. The Orders of Begging Fryers at first would have nothing no real Estates but the ground on which their House stood But afterwards Distinctions were found for satisfying their Consciences in larger Possessions Hereby it is insinuated that the Begging Fryers gained to themselves and possessed other real Estates besides the Site of their Convents But no such thing was done To the very last they had no other real Estates in England Pag. 194. lin 47. The use of the Scripture in the vulgar Tongue continued for several Ages till the state of Monkery arose and then it was not consistent with their Designs nor with the Arts used to promote them to let the Scriptures be much known The Order of Monks is now extinct in England so that whatsoever may be said against them there is no danger of a Reply from them Yet still so much respect is owing to the Readers as not to impose any thing upon them which hath not at least the appearance of truth That this Accusation will not have to those who know with what Industry the Monks in many Nations but more especially here in England translated the Scriptures into the Vulgar Tongue We have the Names left of seven English Monks who before the Conquest translated the Scriptures or some part of it into the Saxon Tongue After the Conquest we do not find so many Translations made but of those which were made as many were owing to the Monks as to the Secular Clergy Pag. 215. lin 17. Nix Bishop of Norwich died the former Year tho' Fuller in his slight way makes him to sit in the Convocation held in the middle of the Year 1536. The Historian could not have blamed Fuller's slight way of writing at a more unlucky moment For himself hath here committed three mistakes within the compass of six Lines The first of them is this concerning the time of Bishop Nix's Death who died not the former Year but on the 14th of Ianuary in this Year nor will the difference in Computation in beginning the Year salve the mistake For this Historian always begginneth the Year on the first of Ianuary The other two mistakes follow Pag. 215. lin 13. Nix Bishop of Norwich had offended the King Signally by some correspondence with Rome and was kept long in the Marshalsea and was convicted and found in a Praemunire I fear that this also was wrote at adventure The Historian finding the Bishop in a Praemunire and in the Marshalsea without further Enquiry would suppose that the Crime was some correspondence with Rome and so gave his Conjecture for History But had he known the Character of this Bishop he would not have thought this so much as probable Alexander Nevyl who knew him well describeth him to have been the most vitious Clergyman of his time So that no remaining scruple of Conscience or supposed Sense of Duty could prompt him at this time to hold any Correspondence with Rome Nor yet could the hope of advancing his Fortune by it in Case the Papal Power should be restored in England induce him to it For he was then an extreme old Man and had been blind many years But the true Cause of his Conviction and Imprisonment was this which I shall deliver out of a Record The Town of Thetford in Norfolk had made a Presentment upon Oath before the Kings Judges touching their Liberties namely that none of the said Town ought to be Cited into any Spiritual Consistory but only into the Court of the Dean of Thetford and that if any Person cited any of that Town into another Spiritual Court he should forfeit Six shillings and Eight pence for the same