the King or Church But as for Deanries Prebends and Parsonages the Usurpation of the Popes in the disposal of them was intollerable These they granted to Cardinals and other Aliens not residing without all Shame Insomuch as I remember to have seen an Epistle of the Bishop of Salisbury to the Pope wrote about that time wherein complaining that the Advowson of his Benefices was taken from him by Papal Provisions he sends to him a List of all the Prebends and Prebendaries of his Church of Salisbury and adding to the name of every one by the Presentation of what Bishop or by the Provision of what Pope they obtained their several Prebends demonstrates that more of the then Prebendaries had come in by Papal Provision than by the Presentation of the Bishop the proper Patron that so if possible he might shame the Pope out of the like Usurpation for the future Nor was the case of other Churches particularly of York and St. Pauls unlike at this time Pag. 108. lin 46. When Henry the 4th had treasonably usurped the Crown all the Bishops Carlisle only excepted did assist him in it Many accusations of the Bishops of England may be sound in Prynn But I dare affirm that a falser cannot be found in him That all the Bishops were assisting to the Treason of Henry IV. except Carlisle the Historian hath no other evidence than this that none of them except Carlisle had the courage to protest in the house of Lords against a wicked design then contriving against the Person of the late King Richard But it doth not hence follow that all the other Bishops consented to this wicked design because they made no protestation against it which would have done no service to their injured Sovereign and onely exposed their own persons to the fury of an enraged multitude It is not to be doubted that many of the Bishops of that time retained their Allegiance to King Richard as long as the iniquity of the time would permit them although they cared not to become Martyrs in the cause At least it is certain that the interest of Walden Archbishop of Canterbury was so closely linked to his that there could be no suspition of his acting against his Prince and accordingly the Treason of Henry the 4th obtaining success they were both deposed together It is also well known that Scrope Archbishop of York immediately after took up Arms against King Henry published a bold Declaration of his Treason and Injustice and his forces being dissipated lost his head in the Quarell We are farther assured that both these Archbishops with the Bishops of London Exeter Litchfield and Landaffe attended King Richard faithfully in his Marches after Henry of Lancaster had landed and declared against him and assisted him to their utmost untill the Commonality running into the Duke of Lancaster on all sides and the King fleeing for his safety they were forced to give way to the violence of a rapid Revolution Pag. 110. lin 22. ult The first Letter is to Henry Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury it bears date the fifth day of December 1426. then follows the Appeal of the Archbishop dated the 6 th of April 1427. There is also another Letter dated the 6 th of May directed to the Archbishop But the next Letter is of an higher strain It is directed to the two Archbishops this is dated the 8 th day of December the 10 th year of his Popedom The History of the proceedings between Pope Martin and Archbishop Chichley in the matter of Provisoes would have been very acceptable had not the Historian marred all for want of a little Chronology He hath here disposed matters in a fair Historical series But most unhappily those two Letters which he maketh to have been wrote at so great a distance of time from each other I mean the first and last of those here mentioned were wrote within very few days of each other This with a little care might easily have been perceived For the 8 th day of December in the tenth year of the Popedom of Martin falls into the year 1426. By this mistake the whole contexture of this narration is overthrown But farther both these Letters were wrote upon the same day And the Historian in transcribing the Popes first Letter to the Archbishop which he hath published in the Collection of Records Pag. 98. hath given a false date of it For whereas it is truly dated Quinto Id. December He hath changed this into quinto die December The other Letter also which he saith to have been wrote the 8 th of December is in the Manuscript Copy dated as the former quinto Id. Decembr anno Pontificatus nostri decimo viz. 1427. December 9. Pag. 111. lin 2. Then follow Letters from the University of Oxford the Archbishop of York the Bishops of London Duresm and Lincoln to the Pope bearing date the 10 th and the 25 th of Iuly I did many years since transcribe out of an Authentick Register all the Instruments of this contest between the Pope and the Archbishop here mentioned by the Historian and as many more relating to the same matter which seem to have been wanting in his Manuscript so that I am thereby enabled to correct the mistakes of the Historian herein From the words of the Historian any Reader would imagine that the Letter of the University was dated on the 10 th and that of the Bishops on the 25 th of Iuly But on the contrary the Bishops Letter is dated Iuly 10 th and the Universities Iuly 25 th Then whereas the Historian nameth onely the Archbishop of York and three Bishops in truth that Letter was written in the name of fifteen Bishops that is of all the Bishops of England except three who were then absent For Salisbury and Chichester were at that time void Pag 111. lin 27. The Letter of the Pope to the Parliament is dated the third of October decimo Pontificat But I believe it is an error of the Transcriber and that its true date was the 13 th of October The Historian imputeth this mistake to the viciousness of the Copy But I fear it ought to be imputed to the negligence of the Transcriber For in my Copy 't is truly dated Tertio Id. Octobris Instead of which the Historian renewing his former error hath in his transcript of the Instrument substituted tertio die Octobris To proceed and joyn all the mistakes of this matter together and transcript of the Archbishops speech in the House of Commons which he giveth to us is also false For it reads die Veneris 30 Ianuarii Anno Domini millesimo quadringentesimo decimo septimo Indictione sextâ Pontificatus Martini Papae Anno Undecimo All the concurrent notes added to the year of our Lord shew that it should be ann mill quadr vicesimo septimo and so I doubt not the Manuscript hath it Lastly to say no more of this matter the conclusion of the Archbishops Appeal as it
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
ut supra upon Robert Ferrar Bishop of St. Davids Propter causas supradictas upon Iohn Bird Bishop of Chester Propter conjugium No Sentence of Deprivation was pronounced at that time upon Bush Bishop of Bristol Whether he evaded it by renouncing his Marriage or by any other Submission is uncertain But he was never deprived However willingly or unwillingly he resigned his Bishoprick in Iune following For in the same Register the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury assumed the spiritual Jurisdiction of the See of Bristol void per spontaneam resignationem Pauli Bushe 1554. Iunii 21. Pag. 275. lin 32. Gooderick Bishop of Ely died in April this Year 1554. He died in May either on the 9th or 10th day of the Month. Pag. 275. lin 41. Hopton was made Bishop of Norwich But Story that had been Bishop of Chichester though upon Day 's being restored he was turned out of his Bishoprick did comply merely He came before Bonner and renounced his Wife and did Pennance for it and had his Absolution under his Seal the 14th of Iuly this Year 1554. Day was restored to the Bishoprick of Chichester before the 16th of March 1554 when the Queens Commission was directed to him and others in Vertue of which he with his Collegues deprived several Bishops on the 20th of March whereas Hopton of Norwich was not consecrated till the 25th of Octob. following Besides it is not certain that Story was turned out of his Bishoprick The words of the Register are somewhat ambiguous but seem to insinuate as if he voluntarily restored to Day the Bishoprick of Chichester from which he had been ejected I will not omit here to add that his Pennance if he performed any was not imposed so much for his Marriage contracted after Priests Orders as for the violation of his Vow For although it be not known of what Order he was we are assured from Archbishop Parker in the Catalogue of the Bishops of his time prefixed to his History of the Archbishops of Canterbury that he was a Regular Pag. 276 lin 1. The Bishop of Bath and Wells Barlow was also made to resign as appears c. though elsewhere it is said that the See was Vacant by his Deprivation But I incline it truer that he did resign It is most certain that Barlow did resign For in the aforesaid Register is a Commission granted to certain Persons by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury to Act during the Vacancy of the See of Bath and Wells which is there said to be void Per liberam spontaneam resignationem Domini Willielmi Barlowe ultimi Episcopi Pastoris ejusdem This Commission was giving between 20th December 1553 and 25th March 1554 Pag. 276. lin 16. Barlow never Married A more unhappy mistake could not possibly have been made For so remarkable a Marriage never happened to any Clergyman of England as to Barlow He he had Five Daughters afterwards married to five Bishops The first Fraunces was married to Matthew Parker Son to Archbishop Parker After his Death which was in the end of the Year 1574. she was married to Dr. Matthews Archbishop of York A second Daughter of Barlow was married to Wickham Bishop of Winchester a third to Overton Bishop of Lichfield a fourth to Westphaling Bishop of Hereford a fifth to Day Bishop of Winchester All this is declared at length in the Epitaph fixed to the Monument of Fraunces who dying in 1629. Aged 78 years was buried in the Church of York So that Fraunces was born in 1551. in the Reign of King Edward when her Father was Bishop of Wells Besides these Daughters Barlow had a Son of his own name who was Prebendary of Wyvelescomb in the Church of Wells in the Year 1571. being then in Deacons Orders It appeareth farther that Barlow's Wife was alive after that her Daughter Fraunces had married to Matthew Parker so that notwithstanding the Historians reasons it is to be feared that Barlow made some dishonourable compliance in the Reign of Queen Mary Pag. 276. lin 31. When this was done viz. after the old Bishops were deprived in the Year 1554. the Bishops went about the executing the Queens Injunctions In this Business none was so hot as Bonner He set up the old Worship at St. Pauls on St. Katherines day And the next day being St. Andrews he did officiate himself and had a solemn Pocession Bonner had restored the Mass in the Church of St. Pauls on the 27th Aug. 1553. as was before related out of Stow and Grafton If St. Andrews day be the next day to St. Katherine our English Calendar indeed wants great Reformation which placeth it five days after St. Katherine But it may be presumed that if the Calendar can retain any Friends to plead its cause it may in this Case get the better of the Historian Pag. 276. lin 46. The Clergy were now fallen on for their Marriages Parker estimates it that there were now about 16000 Clergymen in England and of those 12000 were turned out upon this Account Some he says were deprived without Conviction some were never cited c. They were all Summarily deprived The Historian would have obliged us if he had pleased to acquaint us in what Book or Writing Parker hath delivered this Account The Testimony of so grave and so worthy a Person would have excluded all doubt In the Defence of Priests Marriages wrote by an unknown Layman and published by Parker this Passage may indeed be found Is thus the Honour of the Clergy preserved to drive out so many twelve of Sixteen thousand as some Writer maketh his Accompt to so great a Peril of getting their Livings and this just at the Point of Harvest Here it may be easily observed that this Author will by no means vouch for the Truth of this Computation It would in truth be a very extraordinary matter if 12000 Clergymen should have married between the end of the year 1548 and the middle of 1553. I cannot affirm of my own knowledge that the account is extravagantly false but am very apt to believe it And in this belief I am confirmed for that having had the Curiosity to compute how many Clergymen were deprived for Marriage in this Reign in the Diocess and Peculiars of the See of Canterbury I found the proportion far short of this account For whereas there are contained therein about 380 Benefices and other Ecclesiastical Promotions no more than 73 Clergymen therein were then deprived for Marriage or any other Cause which far from the proportion of 12 to 16 scarce bears the proportion of 3 to 16. Yet Thornden and Harpsfield were as vigorous in prosecuting the married Clergy of that Diocess as any Zealots in any part of England As for the severe and unjust proceedings against some of the married Clergy related by the Historian the Author before mentioned attesteth the same thing But when the Historian saith they were all summarily deprived I fear this is
Poloniae tali verborum contextu Concedentes ut omnibus Privilegiis c. quae ad Legatos Natos pertinent quae alii Legati Nati praesertim vero Legatus Cantuariensis in suis Provinciis utuntur libere licite valeat uti c. Pag. 360. lin 17. The Parliament was opened on the 20th of Ianuary 1558. In the House of Peers the Abbot of Westminster and the Prior of St. Iohn of Ierusalem took their places according to their Writs Tresham was now made Prior. Thomas Tresham had been made Prior of St. Iohn of Ierusalem by the Queen on the 30th of November 1557 as both Stow and Fuller witness Pag. 378. lin 45. In the beginning of the next year viz. 1559. the Bishops of Norwich and Glocester died They both died before the end of this year 1558. For in the Register of Pole I find that the See of Glocester was void by the Death of Iames Brooks 1558. Sept. 7. And in the Register of Canterbury the Dean and Chapter of the Church are said to have seized into their hands 1558. Decemb. 24. the Spiritualties of the See of Norwich void by the Death of Iohn Hopton Pag. 378. lin 44. Those now void were the Sees of Canterbury Hereford Bristol and Bangor It was of great importance to find men able to serve in these Imployments chiefly in the See of Canterbury For this Dr. Parker was soon thought on He was writ to on the 9th of December 1558. to come up to London From this Relation any Reader would conclude that the See of Bristol was void before the first Designation of Parker to the Archbishoprick viz. before the 9th of December But that doth not appear For the Spiritualties of the See of Bristol void by the Death of Iohn Holman were not seized by the Chapter of Canterbury untill the 18th of December Pag. 293. lin 48. Thus I have given the Substance of their Speeches of Heath and Fecknam made in Parliament in behalf of Popery being all that I have seen on that side Besides these I have seen a long Speech of Scot Bishop of Chester delivered at the same time in the same cause Pag. 396. lin 7. It doth not appear how soon after the Dissolution of the Parlament dissolved 1559 May 8. the Oath of Supremacy was put to them the Clergy and Bishops For the last Collation Bonner gave of any Benefice was on the 6th of May this Year It cannot be imagined that Bonner was deprived before the Dissolution of the Parliament On what days the several Bishops of the Province of Canterbury were deprived may be determined from the times of the Seisure of the Spiritualties of their Bishopricks made by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury who then possessed and exercised the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction in the Vacancy of the See These I will here present out of the Register of that Church The Spiritualties of the See of London void by the Deprivation of Edmund Bonner were seized 1559 Iune 2. The Spiritualties of Winchester void by the Deprivation of Iohn White 1559. Iuly 18. of Lincoln void by the Deprivation of Thomas Watson 1559. Iuly 2. these two Bishops had been committed to the Tower on the 5th of April preceding The Spiritualties of Ely void by the Deprivation of Thomas Thirleby 1559. Nov. 23. of Lichfield void by the Deprivation of Ralph Bayne 1559. Iune 24 he died before the end of the same Year The Spiritualties of Exeter void by the Deprivation of Iames Turbervil 1559. Nov. 16. Of Worcester void by the Deprivation of Richard Pates 1559. Iune 30. of Peterborough void by the Deprivation of David Pool 1559. Nov. 11. of St. Asaph void by the Deprivation of Thomas Goldwell 1559. Iuly 15. When the See of York was first voided by the Deprivation of Heath I shall relate hereafter The certain times of the Deprivation of Tunstall of Durham of Oglethorp of Carlisle and of Scot of Chester I cannot find In all 14 Bishops were deprived to whom may be added one Suffragan viz. Pursglove of Hull The whole Number of the Clergy deprived at this time is thus described by a Romish Dissenter Author of A sincere modest Defence of English Catholiques that suffer c. Published in 1583. He saith that in England were deprived 14 Bishops besides 3 Bishops Elect the Abbot of Westminster 4 Priors of Religious Houses 12 Deans 14 Archdeacons above 60 Canons of Cathedral Churches not so few as a 100 Priests of good Preferment 15 Heads of Colledges in Oxford and Cambridge and above 20 Proctours of divers Faculties therein No great Number to be deprived at a time of so great a Change in Religion I am willing to believe the Computation of this Authour to be exact because I find it to be so in the Number of Bishops and Deans deprived The 14 Bishops we have named already The Names of the 12 Deans follow Cole of St. Pauls Stuarde of Winchester Robertson of Durham Ramridge of Lichfield Goodman of Wells Reynolds of Exeter Harpsfield of Norwich Holland of Worcester Daniel of Hereford Salkel of Carlisle Ioliff of Bristol Boxal of Peterborough and Windsor Of the three Bishops Elect who are said to have been deprived I can recover the Names but of Two Viz. Thomas Rainolds Elect of Hereford and Thomas Wood. Pag. 396. lin 11. Pag. 397. lin 7. The Oath being offered to Heath Archbishop of York Christopherson Bishop of Chichester they did all refuse to take it They were upon their refusal deprived and put in Prison Christopherson chose to live still in England This is a fair Story But what if after all Christopherson died before Queen Mary This is affirmed by Pits At least it is most certain that he died within six Weeks after her In which time Queen Elizabeth far from depriving any Bishops had not declared her Resolution in matter of Religion on either side The Dean and Chapter of Canterbury seised the Spiritualties of the See of Chichester vacant per mortem naturalem Iohannis Christopherson ultimi Episcopi Pastoris ejusdem 1559. Ian. 2. Now although he should have died some few days before Queen Mary as Pits saith it is not to be wondred if amidst so much Confusion as attended the Death of the Queen and Cardinal Pole the Chapter of Canterbury neglected for some time to seize the Spiritualties of Chichester Pag. 402. lin 33. On the 8th Day of Iuly 1559. the Conge d'Elire for Matthew Parker was sent to Canterbury On the 22 of Iuly a Chapter was summoned to meet the first of August where the Dean and Prebendaries meeting they all elected him The Conge d'Elire was sent to the Chapter of Canterbury not on the 8th but on the 18th of Iuly in vertue of which Parker was elected on the first of August by the Dean and four Prebendaries then present in Chapter The other Canons were either absent or refused to appear But the Election was not thereby the less Canonical For
they had been all cited in due form to appear and give their Votes Pag. 403. lin 25. Some time after this in February 1561. Young was translated from St. Davids to York there being now no hopes of gaining Heath to continue in it which it seems had been long endeavoured for it was now two Years that that See had been in Vacancy The Historian finding that the See of York lay void from the enacting the Oath of Supremacy two Years not strictly accounted and not knowing the Cause of it hath invented a plausible Reason and believed it as a matter of equal Certainty with any other Occurrence related by him To assign proper and plausible Reasons to every Action may add Beauty to a History but if liberty be taken to do this without any ground or warrant little difference will be left between a History and a Romance Hethe was actually deprived long before this For on the 3d. of February 1560. viz. in the beginning of the Year 1560. the Dean and Chapter of York assumed the Exercise of the Spiritual Jurisdiction of that See void by his Deprivation On the 12th of August 1560. William May Dean of St. Pauls London was elected Archbishop of York But he dying before his Confirmation and Consecration Thomas Young Bishop of St. Davids was finally elected to that Archbishoprick on the 27th of Ianuary 1561. and confirmed on the 25th of February Pag. 403. lin 23. Parker being thus Consecrated himself 1559. December 17. did afterwards Consecrate Bishops for the other Sees Cox Bishop of Ely c. and Par Bishop of Peterborough There never was any Bishop of Peterborough of that Name To David Pole succeeded immediately in that See Edmond Scambler who was consecrated by Archbishop Parker on the 16th of February 1561. Pag. 404. lin 35. Some excepted against the Canonicalness of Parker's Consecration because it was done by all the Bishops of the Province and Three of the Bishops had no Sees when they did it and the Fourth was only a Suffragan Bishop But to all this it was said That a Suffragan Bishop being Consecrated in the same manner that other Bishops were tho' he had a limited Jurisdiction yet was of the same Order with them When I first observed that in the Arms of Archbishop Parker under his Effigies over-against pag. 402. the Keys were inverted which he ever bore erect I began almost to fear that the Historian would deny the Regularity of his Consecration But since he is pleased to do Justice to the Archbishop herein I will add in Confirmation of what is said concerning the equal Authority which Suffragan Bishops have to consecrate with others that the practice of the Church of England before the Reformation will clear all doubts of this Nature For the Archbishops in taking other Bishops to their Assistance in the Consecration of Bishops or in giving Commissions to other Bishops to consecrate in their stead made no difference between Suffragan and Diocesan Bishops So that I could produce above twenty Examples of the Consecration of Diocesan Bishops in England within Two hundred years before the Reformation performed with the Assistance of Suffragan Bishops and that when the Canonical number of Consecrators was not compleat without them Appendix pag. 386. lin 3. Saunders saith that the Heads of Colledges were turned out under Edward the Sixth and the Catholick Doctors were forbid to Preach The Historian answereth I do not find that one Head of a Colledge in either University was turned out I find somewhat relating to the Heads of Houses in King Edwards Council-Book 1550. 13th October A Letter to the Fellows of New Colledge in Oxford forbidding them to choose a Warden in Mr. Coles stead without License from the King 1551. 29th January Commissioners appointed to examine and try the Case of Dr. Cole upon certain Objections made by the Fellows of New Colledge in Oxford against him 1551. March 25th White Warden of Winchester Colledge committed to the Tower for receiving Letters and Books from beyond Sea and particularly from one Martin a Scholar there who impugneth c. 1551. June 15th Dr. Morwent President of Corpus Christi Colledge Oxon with some of the Fellows of that House committed to the Fleet for using upon Corpus Christi Day other Service than that is appointed in the Book of Service A Letter to the said Colledge signifying the same and appointing Mr. Juell to govern the said Colledge in the absence of the said President 1551. December 22. Dr. Tresham committed to the Fleet. Or if express Instances of the Ejection of any Heads be required I will produce one in each University In Oxford Dr. Richard Smith Regius Professor of Divinity and Principal of Alban Hall was ejected in the Reign of King Edward In Cambridge Dr. George Day Bishop of Chichester and at the same time Provost of Kings Colledge was deprived about the same time Pag. 390. lin 2. Day Bishop of Chichester was judged by Lay Delegates so it is like his offence was against the State I before gave an Account of the Deprivation of Day out of the Council-Book from whence it appears that he was deprived for a matter of Religion Pag. 396. lin 15. Coverdale was put in the See of Exeter upon Veyseys free Resignation he being then extream old The Record of Veyseys Restitution to Exeter saith that metu olim eidem Episcopatui cesserat His Patent of Restitution alledgeth that he had forced to resign pro corporis metu Pag. 396. lin 17. Ridley and Harley were never married The Historian hence hath taken an occasion to reproach Sanders for his little Exactness because he had reckoned these among the married Bishops But himself also is no less mistaken Harley was indeed married For the Record of his Deprivation saith that he was destitutus Episcopatu Herefordensi ex conjugio haeresi His Marriage is further attested by Fox Pag. 403. lin 43. The Historian denieth that the whole Clergy who had engaged in or submitted to the Reformation under King Edward were formally reconciled to the See of Rome under Queen Mary This is a mistake The Clergy were singly reconciled by formal and solemn Acts. To which purpose Cardinal Pole the Popes Legate gave Commissions to the several Ordinaries one of which I have published in the Collection And not content with this he prescribed to them a form by which they should be reconciled This also I have subjoyned in the Collection Pag. 403. lin 1. Sanders had said that William Thomas Clerk of the Council had conspired to kill the Queen for which he justly suffered The Historian answereth of this I find nothing on Record so it must depend on our Authors credit If the Historian had pleased to have read our English Histories of these times composed by Grafton Stow and others he might have discovered somewhat of this matter upon Record I before reported the Order of Council constituting William Thomas Clerk of the Council in the
Life of Cardinal Wolsey is cited out of a Manuscript ex MSS. Nobilis Viri c. This Life hath been twice printed So that it need not to have been cited with so much pomp out of a Manuscript Or if the written differs from the printed Copy that should have been observed If that long passage giving a character of the Cardinal which the Historian here transcribeth be taken Verbatim out of the Manuscript We have just reason to suspect that the Life contained in this Manuscript was not written by Cavendish but by some other who enlargeth on his words For in the printed Copies that passage is not to be found although somewhat like to it in much fewer words may be read therein Yet I have seen a fair Manuscript Copy of Cavendish's Life written above a hundred years since agreeing in all things with the printed Copy Pag. 8. lin 38. in marg Cardinal Wolsey exchanged the Bishoprick of Duresm for the Bishoprick of Winchester and had restitution of the Temporalities of Winchester 4 Maii anno 20 H. 8. The day here assigned for the restitution of the Temporalities of Winchester viz. 4 Maii falls into the year 1528. To which Mr. Fulman justly objects that the See of Winchester seems not to have been void before the 9 th of September this year for that Fox's Register reacheth so far To this the Historian answers that he took all these dates from the Rolls and must add that he hath often seen cause to question the exactness of Clerks in enrolling of dates To put the force of Mr. Fulmans objection beyond dispute I will add that Fox died not till the 14. of Sept. 1528. So that it cannot be avoided but that either the Record or the Historian must be mistaken The Historian chargeth it on the Record and not content with this brings the same charge of falsity against many other Records He who seeks to overthrow the Testimony of Records in the truth of which the honour of a whole Nation is so much concerned ought to be very sure Notwithstanding his asseveration I examined the Record and upon search found that not it but the Historian is mistaken For the Record truly saith that the Cardinal received the Temporalities of Winchester 6 April 20 H. 8. Which falls in the year 1529 and agreeth very well with the time of Fox's death and Wolseys installation which was performed by Proxy 1529. April 11. Mr. Fulman had also questioned the date of the restitution of the Temporalities of Lincoln assigned to be 4 Martii 5 H. 8. because Wolsey was not consecrated till the 26. of March I know not whether the answer subjoyned That this might be to give him a right to the mean profits by restoring the Temporalities before Lady day tho' he was not consecrated till the 26 th belong to Mr. Fulman or to the Historian But it proveth that neither of them knew the true state of this matter For whereas the restitution of the Temporalities of Lincoln to Wolsey before his consecration is here represented to have been if true an extraordinary case owing to his great favour and power at Court The truth is that at that time and for several Ages before Bishops received their Temporalities from the King immediately after their Confirmation even before Consecration and at their Confirmation did of course take out a writ from the Archbishop to the King signifying their Confirmation and in vertue of it desiring restitution of their Temporalities to be granted to them Wolsey therefore being provided to the Bishoprick of Lincoln by the Pope on the 6 th of Febr. no wonder that as soon as his Bulls came into England and had been allowed by the Archibshop he should immediately receive his Temporalities before consecration Pag. 9. lin 1. Even after Wolsey was Cardinal Warham as Lord Chancellor took place of him as appears from the Journals of the house of Peers 7 H. 8. and afterwards viz. after that Wolsey was made Lord Chancellor gave him place as appears on many occasions and particularly in the Letter written to the Pope 1530. which the Cardinal subscribed before Warham Many mistakes and false consequences are contained in these lines For 1. if Wolsey in the quality of Lord Chancellor took place of Warham it would follow that the Lord Chancellors as such ought to precede the Archbishops of Canterbury The contrary of which is known to be and to have always been true 2dly If Warham when Lord Chancellor took place of Wolsey when Cardinal in the house of Peers it doth not follow that at that time he took place of him elsewhere as the Historian would insinuate For in the House the Chancellor precedeth all other Peers and even the Archbishop of Canterbury among the rest as being in virtue of his Office Speaker of the House Nor could Wolsey be so extravagantly vain as to desire the Great Seal only that he might precede Warham in the Parliament For as the Historian observeth he affected to govern without Parliaments And accordingly for many years after he obtained the Great Seal had no Parliaments And even after the Seal was taken from him he still took place of Warham in the house of Peers 3dly If in the Letter wrote to the Pope 1530. The Cardinal subscribed before Warham he could not do this in the quality of Lord Chancellor as the Historian imagins For the Great Seal had been taken from him in the preceding year 1529 October 17. So that some other reason of Wolsey's precedence must be enquired And that reason is very obvious For Wolsey took place of Warham even before and after he was Lord Chancellor as being Cardinal This is confirmed by the relation of Cavendish Who in his Life saith that Warham checked him for his presumption in carrying himself as his equall but that shortly after Wolsey obtained to be made Cardinal and thereby got the better of Warham in that point Pag. 9. lin 4. We have nothing on Record to shew what a speaker he Cardinal Wolsey was If the word Record be here used in the Law-sence of it we grant it to be true But then it is not very pertinent But if it be used in an Historical sence it is a mistake For to pass by the many Letters Dispatches Instructions c. Which remain of the Cardinals own writing and which manifest that he had a great command of words as well as knowledge of things We have the assurance of one who as the Historian himself elsewhere observeth knew him very well and would not flatter him that he was much famed for his Eloquence His sentences in the Star-chamber were ever so pithy and witty that upon all occasions they assigned him for the fluent eloquence of his tongue to be their expositor in all proceedings he had an especial gift of natural eloquence and a fyled tongue to pronounce the same That he was able therewith to persuade and allure all men to his
an Addition of his own For this Author on the contrary saith that a years time was allowed to the Clergy to abjure their heresy and put away their Wives although in some places their enemies were so zealous that they dispossessed many of them before the year expired The first deprivation which I find to have been made on this account was in the Church of Canterbury by Thornden then Vice-Dean who on the 16th of March 1554 deprived six Prebendaries one of them the Archbishops Brother Archdeacon also six Preachers and two minor Canons of that Church In the Register of the Vacancy may be found many Processes against and Deprivations of married Clergymen from whence it appears plainly that the usual forms of proceeding were at least in many Cases observed and that all were not summarily deprived Pag. 277. lin 2. Nor was this all but after they were deprived they were also forced to leave their Wives Which piece of severity was grounded on the Vow that as was pretended they had made though the falsehood of this Charge was formerly demonstrated It is true that the Secular Clergymen had made no Vow But it cannot be denied that as many of the Clergy as had formerly been Regulars had made solemn and express Vows Now the Number of these was very considerable among the beneficed Clergy of that time by reason that all Priests who had been ejected out of Religious Houses were enabled to hold Benefices and that the King also and other Patrons did more readily give Benefices to them that so by that means they might discharge themselves from the obligation of paying their Annual Pensions any longer to them These therefore were all forced to leave their Wives unless they evaded it by any base compliance by Connivance or by the Favour of any great Person But that any of the Seculars were forced to leave their Wives I do no where find Indeed it was necessary to all who would continue in their Benefices to renounce their Wives but we now speak of those Clergymen who had been already deprived of their Benefices Against many of them Processes were formed for their Marriage which may be found in the Register often made but therein I cannot find any beside Regulars to have been deprived by the Sentence of the Court or their Marriages to have been annulled And accordingly in the Articles of Enquiry or Interrogatories to be administred to every married Clergyman formed in March 1554. when the persecution of the married Clergy began in the Diocess of Canterbury the first is Whether he had been a Religious and of what Order and in what Monastery or House A Copy of these Articles I have given in the following Collection Pag. 292. lin 6. What Cardinal Pole's Instructions were I do not know nor is it falsly understood by Learned men what was the Power of a Legate a Latere in those days But I found the Original Bull of Cardinal Beacon's Legatine Power in Scotland and have given it a room in the Collection though it be large since no doubt Cardinal Pool's Bull was in the same form We have no such necessity of borrowing light from Scotland The Bull of Cardinal Pole's Legatine Power is entred in the beginning of his Register kept at Doctors Commons which ought in the first place to have been consulted I have caused it to be thence transcribed and have put it into the following Collection From thence it will appear how false the Conjecture of the Historian is that Pole's Bull was in the same form with Beacon's Bull which he pronounceth to be without all doubt For in truth they differ altogether both in matter and form Pag. 292. lin 39. The Queen was falsly believed to be with Child Notice was given of it to the Council who that Night wrote a Letter to Bonner about it ordering a Te Deum to be sung at Pauls and the other Churches of London The Council wrote and sent such Orders not onely to Bonner but to other Bishops of the Nation on the same day I have in the Collection subjoined the Letter wrote by the Council to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury who had then the Spiritual Jurisdiction in that Diocess in the Vacancy of the See Pag. 297. lin 33. Upon Cardinal Pole's being called over there was a Commission sent him by the Great Seal bearing date 10. Nov. 1554. authorizing him to exercise his Legatine Power in England This License bears date on the 10th of Decemb that year as may be seen in the Cardinals own Register wherein it is enregistred In like manner Pole afterwards obtained a License from the Queen 1555. Nov. 2d to hold a Convocation as the Historian relateth pag. 324 in vertue of which License he sent his Mandate to Bonner on the 8th day of the same Month to summon a Convocation In obedience to which Bonner summoned the Clergy to meet on the 2d of December following Which I observe because the Historian in speaking of this Convocation hath not fixed the time of it Pag. 313. lin 1. Iohn Kardmaker that had been Divinity-Reader at St. Pauls and a Prebendary at Bath was burnt in Smithfield on the 30th of May 1555. There had been Monks in the Church of Bath until the Dissolution of the Monastery But since that time neither Monks nor Prebendaries had any place therein Kardmaker had been really Prebendary of Wells and in King Edwards's Council-Book I find ordered 1551. Febr. 18. A Letter to the Chapter of Wells in favour of Mr. John Kardmaker Chancellor of that Church Pag. 320. lin 45. Gardiner Bishop of Winchester was believed to be the base Son of Richard Woodvil that was brother to Queen Elizabeth Wife to King Edward IV. Bishop Godwin delivereth a more probable relation which he affirmeth to have received from a Kinsman of Gardiner that he was the base Son of Lionel Woodvil Bishop of Salisbury which Lionel was the Son of Richard Woodvil mentioned by the Historian With Godwin agreeth Mills in his Genealogical Catalogue of the Nobility of England Pag. 321. lin 44. Heath Archbishop of York had the Seals in Febr. after viz. in 1556. Hethe received the Great Seal on the first day of Ianuary 1556. according to Stow. Dugdale also writeth that he was constituted Chancellor on that day alledging undoubted authority Claus. 2. 3. Phil. Mar. Pag. 339. lin 3. The Chief of these faithfull Shepherds who were willing to hazard their Lives in feeding this Flock committed to their care privately were Scambler and Dentham c. Had none of the old deprived Bishops then who were at liberty courage sufficient to do their duty herein That would indeed reflect upon their Memory I doubt not that some of them performed their duty At least I am sure that Harley late Bishop of Hereford did of whom Dr. Humphreys sometimes his Scholar afterward his intimate Friend relateth that under the Reign of Queen Mary he instructed his Flock
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