extream old Age but he had reserved a Pension yearly for himself during Life out of the Lands of the Bishoprick and almost all the rest he had basely alienated taking care only for himself and ruining his Successors The Memory of Veysey suffers upon this Account on all hands The case of his Bishoprick indeed was very deplorable which from one of the richest in his time became the poorest of all the old English Bishopricks But had any Bishop of England sate at Exeter at that time he must have done the same thing or have been immediately deprived For Veysey alienated no Possessions of his See but upon express Command of the King directed to him under the Privy Seal in favour of certain Noblemen and Courtiers All the Bishops at that time were subjected to a like Calamity Even Cranmer was forced to part with the better half of the Possessions of his See and Ridley soon after his Entry into London was forced to give away the four best Mannors of his See for ever in one day These two were the greatest Favourites among all the Bishops in that Reign Others were yet more severely dealt with The common Pretence was to exchange some Lands of their Bishopricks with others of Religious Houses remaining in the King's hands since their Suppression Even then it was such an exchange as Diomedes made with Ajax But to Veysey no other recompence was made than the Promise of the Kings Good-will and Favour assured to him in the conclusion of all those Mandates in case of Compliance with them the effect of which Promises was that after he had complied with them to the ruin of his See he was forced to resign it per metum terrorem as himself afterward alledged All he could do was to Enregister at length all those Privy-Seals for the Vindication of himself to his Successors for ever which he hath carefully done Pag. 166. lin 4. Miles Coverdale was made Bishop of Exeter the business of Hooper was now also setled so he was consecrated in March 1551. The Historian hath inverted the true Order of their being made Bishops For Hooper was consecrated 1551. March 8th and Coverdale on the 30th of August following being nominated on the 27th of August according to King Edward's Journal Pag. 171. lin 34. This Year 1551. there were Six eminent Preachers chosen out to be the Kings Chaplains in Ordinary two of these were always to attend the Court and four to be sent over England to Preach in their Courses These were Bill Harley Pern Grindal Bradford the Name of the Sixth is so dashed in the King's Journal that it cannot be read It might be guessed from some Passages in the Council-Book that the Sixth Preacher was Knox. For 1552. October 21. A Letter was sent from the Privy-Council to Mr. Harley Bill Horn Grindal Pern and Knox to consider certain Articles exhibited to the Kings Majesty to be subscribed by all such as should be admitted to be Preachers or Ministers in any part of the Realm and to make report of their Opinions of the same Shortly after to Mr. Knox Preacher in the North Forty pounds were given by way of Gratuity And 1552. December 9th A Letter to the Lord Wharton in recommendation of Mr. Knox. And 1553. February 2. A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury in favour of Mr. Knox to be presented by him to the Church of All-hallows in Breadstreet London Lastly 1553. Iune 2. A Letter to the Lord Russel and the Iustices of the Peace in Buckinghamshire in favour of Mr. Knox the Preacher The Author also of the History of the Church of Scotland ascribed to him relateth that he was first appointed Preacher to Barwick then to Newcastle and was at length called to London and to the South part of England To the Life of Bernard Gilpin wrote by Bishop Carleton is added a Letter from him to his Brother wherein he saith of himself that Secretary Cecil obtained for him from King Edward a License constituting him a general Preacher throughout the Kingdom so long as the King lived But after all I rather think that the Name of the Sixth Preacher was Thexton For I did near Twenty years since see in the hands of a worthy Clergyman descended from him an Original Commission under the King's Seal given to him whereby he was Authorized by him to Preach in the North-East parts of England I do not at so great distance of time fully remember the Contents of the Commission but I think it to have been such as agreeth well with the Time and Office of these six Preachers Pag. 171. c. The Business of the Lady Mary was now taken up with more heat than formerly The Council finding that her Chaplains had said Mass in one of her Houses they ordered them to be proceeded against Upon which in December the last Year viz. 1550. she writ earnestly to the Council to let it fall The Council writ her a long Answer So the Matter slept till the beginning of May 1551. In Iuly the Council sent for Three of her chief Officers and gave them Instructions to signifie the Kings Pleasure to her and to return with an Answer In August they came back and said that she charged them not to deliver their Message to the rest of the Family in which they being her Servants could not disobey her Upon this they were sent to the Tower The Lord Chancellour c. were next sent to her with a Letter from the King c There being some mistakes in this Relation I will amend them and add some farther light to the account out of the Council-Book The Emperour's Embassadours pressed the Council 1551. Febr. 16. to observe their promise made to him for permission to the Lady Mary of the exercise of her Religion till the King should come to age March 18. The King relateth in his Journal that he sent for her to Westminster and told her he could not any longer bear her practise Upon this next day the Emperour's Embassadour declared War to the King if he continued not to her the liberty of her Religion Thereupon Mar. 22. Cranmer Ridley and Poynet discoursed with the King about the lawfulness of the permission And March 23. the Council decreed to send Wotton to the Emperour who was not dispatched till the 10th of April and in the mean time to punish the offenders first of the King's Servants that heard Mass next of hers March 24. Sir Anth. Brown and Sergeant Morgan were sent to the Fleet for hearing Mass. Thus King Edward's Journal which I have observed to be often false in the days and especially in this place For in the Council-Book it is said March 18th the Emperour's Embassadour had access to the Council What was said by him or answered to him doth not appear it being probable that for more secrecy the Clerk was then excluded March 19. Serjeant Morgan was committed to the Fleet and March 22. Sir Anth.
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
29. A Letter to ...... to make a Book to the Bishop of Worcester and Glocester of discharge of the First-fruits and Tenths to be paid for the same in Consideration that he hath departed with certain Lands to the Kings Majesty Now Hooper had been Consecrated Bishop of Glocester in the beginning of the Year 1551. and therefore could now in 1552. be called Bishop Elect only in respect of Worcester Nor could he now be charged with First-fruits and Tenths on any other Account than of the Temporalties of Worcester newly received by him Nor could he have passed away any of the Lands of Worcester to the King if he had not once Possession of them But to put the matter past all Dispute I will alledge an Order of Council fully proving that Hooper did enjoy the Revenue of Worcester For 1552. September 24. the Council directed a Letter to the Dean of Worcester to cause the Rent-Corn of the Bishoprick to be reserved to the Bishop notwithstanding Hethe 's Claim to the same Pag. 216. lin 15. How Tonstall Bishop of Duresm was deprived I cannot understand It was for Misprision of Treason and done by Secular men in the Year 1553. What was done in the Case of Tonstall till the end of the Year 1551. was before related out of the Council-Book I will here add out of the same Book what afterwards occurs relating to him 1552. September 21. A Letter unto the Chief Iustice signifying unto him that there is presently sent to him the Commission addressed to him and others for the Limitation and Determination of the Bishop of Duresm 's Case with also eight Letters and other Writings touching the same which he is willed to consider and proceed to the hearing and ordering of the Matter as soon as he may get the rest of his Collegues to him By these Commissioners Tonstall was deprived on the 11 th of October 1552. according to King Edward's Journal On the 31. of Oct. following it was ordered in Council that Sir John Mason should deliver to the use of Dr. Tonsâ—all remaining Prisoner in the Tower such Money as should serve for his necessities untill such time as farther Order shall be taken touching the Goods and Money lately appertaining to him and that the Lord Wharton cause the Accompts of the Revenues of the Bishoprick of Duresm as well for the second and third Years of the late Bishops entry into the same as for two Years last past to be searched for and sent hither with speed Pag. 216 lin 8. Ridley as himself writes in one of his Letters was named to be Bishop of Duresme but the thing never took effect It so far took effect that Ridley was actually translated from London to Durham For in the Instrument of the restitution of Bonner to the See of London in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign it is alledged that the See of London was then void by the Removal of Ridley to Durham made by King Edward after the Deprivation of Tonstall and Bonner was thereupon re-instated in London without pronouncing Ridley deprived of the See of London but on the contrary Ridley is in the Register declared to have been deprived of the Bishoprick of Durham for Heresie and Sedition Pag. 242. lin 39. Iune 1553. the Seal was on the 13th of August given to Gardiner who was declared Lord Chancellour of England Stow who is very exact in denoting the times of things falling within the compass of his own observation saith that the Seal was delivered unto Gardiner on the 23d of Aug. His Patent for the Office of Lord Chancellour bears date on the 21st of September according to Sir William Dugdale's accurate Catalogue of the Chancellours c. of England With Stow agreeth Grafton herein Pag. 247. lin 5. Pag. 248. lin 35. The Commission for restoring Bonner bearing date the 22d of Aug. was directed to some Civilians who pronounced his former Sentence of Deprivation void Thus he was restored to his See on the 5th of September 1553. Stow and Grafton affirm that Bonner was restored to his Bishoprick in the beginning of August and that he caused the use of the Mass and other Roman Ceremonies to be renewed in his Cathedral Church on the 27th of August Pag. 249. lin 17. P. 314. l. 36. P. 348 l. 38. Cranmer protested that the Mass was not set up at Canterbury by his Order but that a fawning hypocritical Monk this was Thornton Suffragan of Dover had done it Anno 1553 without his knowledge Thornton Suffragan of Dover resolved to shew his zeal for Popery Anno 1555. This Thornton had from the first Change made by King Henry been the most officious and forward in every turn In the Month of Iune 1557. Fourteen Protestants were destroyed in two days by Thornton and Harpsfield There was but one Suffragan Bishop in the Diocess of Canterbury of the Name of Thornton He was Suffragan to Archbishop Warham in the Year 1508. and had his Title not from Dover but in partibus Infidelium and died long before Cranmer's time The Suffragan under Cranmer and Pole was Richard Thornden sometimes Monk afterwards upon the Suppression of the Priory first Prebendary of the Church of Canterbury He died in the end of year 1557 or rather in the beginning of 1558. Pag. 250. lin 8. On the 13th of September Latimer and Cranmer were called before the Council Latimer was that day committed but Cranmer was respited till next day and then he was sent to the Tower If Stow may be believed Latimer was sent to the Tower on the 14th and Cranmer on the 15th of September 1553. Pag. 250. lin 17. 24. There was an Order sent to Iohn a Lasco and his Congregation to be gone Alasco after a long and hard passage arriving at Denmark was ill received there From thence they went first to Lubeck then to Wismar and Hamburgh and at last planted themselves in Friseland A most exact account of the Foundation and Dissolution of this German Congregation in England with their subsequent Removals was written by Utenhovius one of the Ministers at the desire of the Congregation and is printed at Basil 1560 86. with this Title Simplex fidelis Narratio de institutâ demum dissipatâ Delgarum aliorumque Peregrinorum in Anglia Ecclesiâ per Iohannem Utenhovium Gandavum being approved by Iohn a Lasco and the rest as a true account From this Narration it appears that although some of the Company went to Hamburgh Lubeck Wismar c. Yet that Alasco himself went not thither with them He left Denmark on the 19th of November passed through Holsatia and arrived at Embden the 4th of December He was accompanied with a Servant of the King of Denmark by whom he sent back a severe or rather unmannerly Letter to the King In this same Relation of Utenhovius is printed at large the Charter given by King Edward to Iohn a Lasco and his Congregation which the Historian had before mentioned and put