purposes From hence it may appear how unhappy the conjecture of the Historian is who detracting from the praises of the Cardinal supposeth that he was no better a Speaker than the preceding Chancellors whom at the same time he maketh to have been very sorry Orators Pag. 11. lin 57. When any See was vacant the King recommended one to the Pope upon which his Bulls were expedited at Rome and so by a Warrant from the Pope he was consecrated and invested in the Spiritualities of the See The Historian here undertaketh to describe the way and process of making Bishops in England received for above 300 years before the Reformation In his description of it he hath committed several mistakes For first this method was not much used in England until within less than 200 years before the Reformation Secondly It was not even then always used For sometimes within that term Bishops were elected confirmed and consecrated without consulting the Pope in the least or expecting any Bulls from him Thirdly Even after the method of expecting Papal Bulls and proceeding in virtue of them was fully setled the King did not always recommend nor did the Pope always grant his Bulls to the person recommended But sometimes the Pope staid not for his Recommendation but granted his Bulls to whom he thought fit or after he had received the King's Letters granted his Bulls to some other whom himself liked better or whom the Archbishop or some powerfull Nobleman had recommended Indeed for about sixty years before the Reformation our Kings had got the better of the Popes in this matter and drawn the disposition of Bishopricks to themselves yet not altogether for the Popes by their authority and pleasure disposed of Worcester at least three times together within that term and after all 4thly the Bishops were not first consecrated and then invested in the Spiritualities of the See But the practice was all along contrary For they received the Spiritualities of their Sees immediately upon Confirmation and the sentence of their Confirmation was ever accompanied with a decree for their being put in possession of their Spiritualities and a mandate directed to the Guardian of the Spiritualities to deliver them up to them Pag. 11. lin 35. Though the Parliament and two or three high-spirited Kings had given some interruption to the cruel exactions and other illegal proceedings of the Court of Rome yet that Court always gained their designs in the end Not always For if that were true our Nation had indeed been very tame But I hope the English are not descended of such a dastardly generation Our Ancestors had before the Reformation got the better of the Court of Rome in many points controverted between them and those of the greatest moment Further not onely two or three of our High-spirited Kings had given some interruption to that Court. Of all our Kings since the Conquest Richard II. and Henry VI. were the farthest from being high-spirited Yet very great if not the greatest interruption was given in their Reigns Not to say that the interruption under Edward III. was not made till the latter end of his Reign when he was nothing less than high-spirited Pag. 12. lin 5. But when this began viz. That Bishops receiving their Temporalities from the King should renounce the benefit of the Papal Bulls in relation to them or any Claim to them to be derived from thence I leave to the more Learned in the Law to discover I do not pretend to be Learned in the Law Yet my small knowledge in the Antiquities of my Country enableth me to discover this if it is to be called a Discovery This Custom began in the Year 1272 when a like Renunciation was required of Robert Kilwardby collated by the Pope to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury And shortly after the Papal Bulls of Provision increasing the matter was fully setled about the Year 1300. Pag. 21. lin 45. In the Days of King Edgar most of the Secular Clergy being then married and refusing to put away their Wives were by Dunstan c. turned out of their Livings The Historian here and in the following Lines seemeth to have been Ignorant of the ancient English History Dunstan Ethelwald and Oswald ejected the married Secular Clergy only out of two Cathedral Churches and some few Monasteries if the then Possessors of Monasteries may be called Seculars They endeavoured indeed to eject them out of other Cathedrals and Monasteries but could not effect their Design As for the great Body of the Secular Clergy the Parish-Priests Dunstan and his Complices were so far from turning most of them out of their Livings on account of their Marriages that they never attempted it They declaimed indeed furiously against their use of Marriage as sinful and would have persuaded them from it but never forbad it to them by any solemn Sanction much less deprived them of their Livings upon it All this the Historian might have learned from the Writings of our eminent Divines at the time of the Reformation if he thought himself not obliged to read the ancient Histories of our Nation For Bishop Poynet in his Defence of Priests Marriages maintains that Marriage of Priests was not forbidden in England before King Henry the First And when Dr. Martin in his Answer to Poynet exclaimed against his Assertion as false the Annonymous Author of the long and learned Defence of Priests Marriages published by Archbishop Parker defended it and shewed the truth of it from the antient Histories proving that Dunstan Ethelwald and Oswald expelled Secular married Priests only out of some Cathedral Churches All which is more largely and accurately proved by the Archbishop in his Additions to that Treatise Pag. 21. lin 49. There is in the Rolls an Inspeximus of King Edgar's erecting the Priory and Convent of Worcester signed by the King two Archbishops five Bishops six Abbots but neither Bishoprick nor Abbey are named six Dukes and five Knights but there is no Seal to it Had this Historian been acquainted with our English Antiquities he would have known that this very Charter hath been often and long since published in the Monasticon in Spelman's Councils and elsewhere and would not have imagined himself to have discovered some rare Secret in this Inspeximus Or if he had been acquainted with our Rolls he would not have expected to find in an Inspeximus the Seal of an Original Charter enrolled in it Or if he had been conversant in our ancient Records and Charters made before the Norman times he would have spared his Observations of the want of a Seal to this Charter although he had seen the Original Charter and observed this in it and of the not naming either Bishoprick or Abbey therein For they who know this to be the Case of the far greater part of the Instruments and Charters of those times would no more have made such an Observation than after having said that they had seen a Man named Titius
they would have added that he had a Nose on his Face Pag. 22. lin 10. The Monks being thus setled in most Cathedrals of England So also p. 187. lin 20. King Edgar converted most of the Chapters into Monasteries This surely was wrote at adventure Mr. Fulman had before observed that the Monks were not setled in half the Cathedrals of England To which I may add that they were then setled in no more than two Cathedrals viz. Winchester and Worcester Nor were any more Chapters converted into Monasteries in the time of King Edgar The married Clergy were then indeed ejected out of Ely and Monks planted in their Room But that Church was not a Cathedral until near 140 years after Afterwards indeed about the end of the eleventh Age Monks were setled in some other Cathedrals or Episcopal Sees fixed in Monasteries to omit one Cathedral viz. that of Canterbury in which Monks were introduced in the beginning of the same Age. But after all far from being setled in most Cathedrals they were setled in no more than Nine viz. Canterbury Winchester Duresm Worcester Rochester Ely Norwich Bath and Coventry The Church of Carlisle indeed was possessed by Regulars but those were Canons not Monks Pag. 22. lin 10 15. The Monks being thus setled gave themselves up to idleness and pleasure having in their hands the chief Encouragments of Learning and yet doing nothing towards it but on the contrary decrying and disparaging it all they could This is a very hard Censure to pass upon a whole Order of men who were once very honourable but always serviceable in the Church On the contrary after they were thus setled viz. by Dunstan Ethelwald and Oswald in the Reign of Edgar they set themselves in with great Industry to restore Learning and root out that universal Ignorance which had then prevailed in England and effectually performed it Insomuch as whereas before that time scarce any Secular Priest in England could read or write a Latin Epistle within few years as Elfric a learned Disciple of Ethelwald boasteth the face of things was so changed by the endeavours of Dunstan and his Master Ethelwald that Learning was generally restored and began to flourish At that time and long after the Monasteries were the Schools and Nurseries of almost the whole Clergy as well Secular as Regular For the Universities if there were any were then very mean Societies and the whole Learning of the Nation was then in a manner confined to their Cloysters As the Universities increased they gradually decreased yet still retained and cultivated Learning till about the middle of the 13 th Age when the Mendicant Orders arose who by their Hypocrisie jugling Tricks and extraordinary Industry ran down both them and the Secular Clergy Within two hundred years the Mendicants became contemptible and then both the Monks and the Seculars began to recover their ancient Credit and long before the Reformation had made great progress in the Restauration of Learning They had all along brought up their Novices in Learning every Great Monastery having for that purpose a peculiar Colledge in one of the Universities and even to the time of their Dissolution they continued to bring up great numbers of Children at School at their own Charge for the Service of the Church and immediately before the Reformation many of the great Monasteries were so many Nurseries of Learning and the Superiors of them very Learned themselves and Promoters of Learning in others Such were Kidderminster Abbot of Winchelcomb Goldwell Prior of Canterbury Voche Abbot of St. Austins Wells Prior of Ely Holbeach Prior of Worcester Islip Abbot of Westminster Webbe Prior of Coventry and many others I do not hereby Apologize for the Laziness of the Monks in the middle Ages but maintain that both in the time of Edgar and some time after and immediately before the Reformation they deserved a contrary Character to what the Historian giveth of them and that even in the worst times they were far from being Enemies and Opposers of Learning as he would have it believed Pag. 22. lin 31. To suppress some Monasteries was thought as justifyable as it had been many Ages before to change Secular Prebends into Canons Regular This is not so accurately expressed the conversion of Secular Prebendaries into Canons Regular the Historian supposeth to have been made often and in many Churches But it was never done save in one Cathedral Church of England that of Carlisle Secular Prebendaries had in several Churches been changed into Monks But Monks are a distinct Order from Canons Regular Pag. 23. lin 12. Wickliffe was supported by the Duke of Lancaster the Bishops could not proceed against him till the Duke of Lancaster was put from the King and then he was condemned at Oxford It might have become Varillas very well to have wrote this of Wickliffe but such a mistake is unworthy of an accurate and Reformed Historian who ought especially to take care of doing justice to the Memory of that Great man Far from being condemned at Oxford during his own Life or the Life of the Duke of Lancaster his Person was had in great Esteem and Veneration at that University to the last and his Writings for many years before and after his Death were as much read and studied there as of Aristotle or the Master of the Sentences Nay so much concerned was that University for his Reputation that near twenty years after his Death hearing that false Reports had been spread abroad in foreign Parts as if Wickliffe had been convicted of Heresie in England and his Body thereupon disinterred and burnt the Chancellor and Senate of the University published a Manifesto wherein they gave to him a great Character of Learning and Piety called him a valiant Champion of the Faith and declared that he had never been convicted of Heresie nor his Body disinterred Absit enim quod tantae probitatis virum c. Indeed four years after this the Authority of the Pope and King concurring with the restless Endeavours of Archbishop Arundel several of his Writings were condemned and burnt at Oxford and eighteen years after this his Body was taken up and burned Pag. 23. lin 13. Many Opinions are charged upon Wickliffe but whether he held them or not we know not but by the Testimony of his Adversaries It seemes the Historian knew not any certain means of gaining Information of Wickliff's true Opinions but when he would include all others in the same Ignorance of them we must desire to be excused We have as many of the Works of Wickliffe yet extant as if Printed together would make four or five Volumes in Folio And whether so many Books be not sufficient to teach us his Opinions let the Reader judge Pag. 23. lin 16. Wickliffe translated the Bible out of Latin into English with a long Preface before it in which he reflected severely on the Corruptions of the Clergy condemned the worshipping of Saints and
is by him published manifests with how little care these publick Instruments have been transcribed for thus it ends praesentibus discretis viris M. W. Lyn. Curiae Cant. officii Thoma B. Archidiacono sanctarum in Ecclesiâ Lyne Utriusque Iuris Doctoribus Now to mistake and report falsly the dates of publick Instruments is not a matter of light moment For these will necessarily betray both Writers and Readers into infinite other mistakes while they endeavour to adapt things and the circumstances of them to the supposed but mistaken time of other Actions Besides all this it diminisheth the credit of any History so that in all other matters the Reader cannot safely rely upon it when he knows the negligence of the Historian in any part of it And as for the Collection of Records which make up one half of each Volume of this History they will be of little value if once there appears just reason to suspect the care or fidelity of the Transcriber I have not had opportunity or a curiosity to examine one half of the dates of times either in the History it self or in the Collection of Records but do assure the Reader that of those which I have examined I found near as many to be false as true Pag. 112. lin 4. The Popes Usurpations still increasing those Statutes of Proviso's and Premunire lay dead among the Records and several Cardinals had procured and executed a Legantine Power which was clearly contrary to them A competent knowledge of the History of the English Church would have prevented so large a mistake No Cardinals before Wolsey had procured and executed such Legantine Power in England since those Laws were made Cardinal Beaufort of Winchester indeed had procured it but could never execute it being inhibited by King Henry VI by the advice of Archbishop Chichley and forced to renounce his pretended Power As for the Legantine Power of the Archbishop of Canterbury which was claimed and exercised by them in Quality of Legati nati that was not in the least contrary to these Laws nor ever was so accounted being annexed perpetually to the See of Canterbury ever since the Year 1200 and always belonging to them without any new or distinct Bulls Pag. 121. lin 33. The old Cardinal of Ravenna was so jealous that the Ambassadors of the King were forced to promise him the Bishoprick of Chester one of the new Bishopricks designed to be erected in the Year 1532. with which he was well satisfied If in the Promises made by the Embassadors to the Cardinal the Historian found express mention of the new Erection of the Bishoprick of Chester promised to him we must submit Otherwise it is more probable that the Bishoprick desired by him and promised to him was the old Bishoprick of Lichfield which was then commonly called the Bishoprick of Chester and which was then likely to be void very shortly by the Death of Dr. Blithe an extreme Old man who died the following Year Pag. 128. lin 34. Cranmers Bulls for the Archbishoprick of Canterbury bear date the 21st of February 1533 By a tenth Bull dated the 2d of March the Pall was sent to him when these Bulls were brought into England Thomas Cranmer was on the 13th of March consecrated We have here another Instance of the little Exactness of the Historian in the dates of time I will not take Notice that the first Bulls in the the Original bear date the 21st of February 1532. For that is indeed 1533 to those who begin their Year on the first day of Ianuary But the tenth Bull sending the Pall to Cranmer is dated the 3d of March and he was consecrated the 30th of March. Pag. 129. lin 42. The most Learned Sir Henry Spelman hath in no place of his Collections of our Counsels considered the Constitution of the two Houses of Convocation and in none of our Records have I been able to discover of what Persons they were made up in the time of Popery and therefore since we are left to conjecture I shall offer mine to the learned Reader It is that none sate in the lower House but those who were deputed by the inferior Clergy and that Bishops Abbots mitred and not mitred and Priors Deans and Archdeacons sate then in the upper House of Convocation To which I am induced by these Reasons c. Sir Henry Spelman compleated only the first Volume of his Councils which reacheth to the Conquest Therein he had no opportunity to treat of this matter For we do not inquire of the Constitution of Convocations in the Saxon times but in the time immediately preceding the Reformation As for the second Volume of Councils which reacheth from the Conquest to the Reformation the Collection of it was only begun by Sir Henry Spelman but compleated and published by others without any tollerable Care or Skill No doubt Sir Henry knew very well the Constitution of our Convocations before the Reformation and so do all inquisitive Persons of our Nation however the Historian may think a discovery herein to be necessary to the Information of the Learned Reader If he knew it not he may be excused as a Foreigner Or if in none of our Records he were able to discover it that also may be excused For neither are all our Records kept at the Rolls nor did the multiplicity of business permit the Historian to attend long to the search of them but that he should proceed to offer his Conjecture and such a Conjecture as if he had industriously sought to do it he could not have made one more Erroneous We cannot but wonder since he had sufficient means of better Information Mr. Fulman hath observed that the Conjecture here proposed by the Historian doth not agree with what he had before delivered that Pole as Dean of Exeter was a Member of the lower House of Convocation This demonstrates the Error of the Historian but doth not Correct it It may be Corrected and the truth of the whole matter fully discovered from the Subscriptions of the Convocation held in the Year 1536. published by the Historian himself in the Addenda of this first part of his History wherein all the Members of the upper House subscribe apart and then all the Members of the lower House subscribed by themselves The Instrument of their Subscription is an Original which I did many years since transcribe and may be infallibly relyed on Therein it appears that the Bishops Abbots and Priors constituted the upper House and that all Deans Archdeacons Proctors of Clergy and Chapters of Cathedral Churches sate in the lower House of Convocation The Historian himself there summeth up all the Members of the lower House who then subscribed in this manner 24 Archdeacons 4 Deans of Cathedrals three Deans of Collegiate Churches 17 Procurators for the Clergy and one Master of a College viz. Provost of a Collegiate Church Such an Error could not easily have been committed by so accurate an
never thought on till the Year 1106 and was compleated in the Year 1109. Pope Nicholas II died in the Year 1061 and Pope Nicholas III obtained the Papacy in 1277. We desire to know which of these two the Historian meaneth Not the former surely But neither did the latter any more than the former concern himself in a matter done so long before his time It was Pope Paschal II whose Bulls of Confirmation were pretended to have been sent immediately after the Erection of the Bishoprick But even those seem to have been forged Pag. 316. lin 44. In the time of Popery there had been few Sermons but in Lent If he speaks of the ancient times of Popery it may be true But for some time before the Reformation Preaching seems to have been more frequent in England For Dr. Lichfield Rector of All-Saints in Thames Street London who died in the Year 1447 left behind him 3083. Sermons wrote with his own hand and preached at several times by him All these Sermons could not be preached in Lent After him we have the Examples of Bradley the Suffragan Bishop of Norwich who died in the Year 1492. after he had spent many years in travelling about that Diocess and Preaching in it of Dr. Colet Dean of S. Pauls who constantly preached or expounded the Scriptures either in his own or in some other Church of the City of Dr. Collingwood Dean of Lichfield who preached in that Cathedral every Sunday for many years together The Practice seemeth not to have been unfrequent long before this time and in some places to have been commanded to all the Parish-Priests For in the Constitutions of Iohn de Thoresby Archbishop of York made about the Year 1360. I found a Command to all the Parochial Clergy to preach frequently to their People and explain to them the Articles of Faith in the English Tongue and an Exhortation directed to the People to here Goddys Service every Soneday with Reverence and Devocioun and seye devowtly thy Pater-Noster c. and here Goddys Lawe taught in thy Modyr Tonge For that is bettyr than to here many Massys Pag. 328. lin 37. Dr. Lee Dean of York was brought up about All-hallow-tide in the Year 1543. and sent into Kent So also Append. pag. 292. lin 38. Leighton brought in Lee to be a Visitor of the Monasteries but they were of the Popish party and Lee was Cranmer's Friend He was in Orders and soon after the Visitation of Monasteries performed by him was made Dean of York Lee was never Dean of York For Higden who was made Dean in 1516 died in 1537. To him succeeded Dr. Layton for so his name is to be wrote not Leighton for he was no Scot who died in the Year 1544 and was succeeded by Dr. Wotton who died in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Pag. 333. lin 24. Bell that was Bishop of Worcester had resigned his Bishoprick the former year viz. in the Year 1544 the Bishop of Rochester Heath was translated to that See And upon the Translation of Sanepson from Chicester to Litchfield Day was made Bishop of that See Bell had resigned his Bishoprick in the Year 1543. For Heath was Elected to succeed him December 22. 1543. Sampson's Translation preceded even that of Heath for Day was Elected to Chicester void by his Translation April 24. 1543. Pag. 337. lin 14. None of the Preachers were either Actors or Consenters to the murder of Cardinal Beaton I do not find that any of them justified it Knox gave a violent Suspicion of his consenting to it and justifying it when the Murderers being immediately after the murder committed besieged in the Castle he conveyed himself in among them and became their Chaplain The Author of the History of the Church of Scotland which passeth under Knox his Name extolls the murder as a Noble and Heroical Action If Knox were not yet at least one of the Scotch Preachers was the Author of this History There is no Villany of this kind so black which may not be believed of Scotch Presbyterians since they have in our days as inhumanely murdered another Archbishop of St. Andrews and justifyed it and commended it as a meritorious Action Pag. 349. lin 35. This leads me to discover many things concerning the Will of King Henry VIII which have been hitherto unknown I draw them from a Letter written by Maitland of Leithington Secretary of State to the Queen of Scotland The design of it is to clear the right his Mistress had to the Crown of England Therein he proveth King Henry's Will to be a Forgery because it was not signed with the King 's own Hand but those about him put the Stamp to it when they saw his Death approaching For this he appealed to the Deposition of the Lord Paget and desired the Marquess of Winchester c. Dr. Buts and some others might be examined Thus it appears what vulgar Errors pass upon the World Here the Historian maketh great Ostentation of his own performance imagining that he hath entirely overthrown the Credit of all our English Histories and convicted the English Nation of a blind credulity But we beg leave to put in our Exceptions Maitland as Secretary to the Queen of Scotland might do well to urge any Argument tending to the Service of his Mistress whether true or false But what is allowable to a States-man herein is not to an Historian It is manifest that Maitland was ill informed in one Circumstance and if so all the rest may be suspected as being received from the same Authority For he affirms Dr. Buts the Kings Physician to have been present at his Death when the Stamp was set to the Will Now Dr. Buts died 1545. 17th November as his Epitaph in the Church at Fulham testifieth But King Henry died not till the 28th Ianuary 1546 7 not 1547 8 as the Inscription under his Picture prefixed to this History beareth So that the whole Story alledged by Maitland may be as much a Forgery as King Henry's Will is by the Historian said to be Pag. 353. lin 37. But if he Fisher Bishop of Rochester had kept his opinion of the King's Supremacy to to himself they could not have proceeded farther He would not do that but did upon several Occasions speak against it so he was brought to his Tryal The Historian doth more than once insist upon this I am very unwilling to deliver any thing without present Evidence yet I do very well remember that some years since I saw in writing a Complaint of Bishop Fisher's declaring the unhandsome dealing of those who from time to time were sent by the King to discourse with him in Prison how that having urged him to declare his Reasons against the King's Supremacy and assured him that in so doing he should receive no prejudice they obtained of him to do it and then made use of such his Declaration to his Destruction grounding their Testimony of his Recusancy upon it Pag. 358.
not left to the pleasure of the Abbot or Religious House to whom the Church belonged But the Bishops endowed the Vicarages with what proportion of Tithes and Emoluments they thought fit in many places reserved to the Vicar one half of all manner of Tithes and the whole Fees of all Sacraments Sacramentals c. in most places reserved to them not some little part of but all the Vicarage-tithes and in other places appointed to them an annual pension of Money In succeeding times when the first Endowments appeared too slender they encreased them at their pleasure Of all which our ancient Registers and Records give abundant testimony This was the case of all Vicarages As for those impropriated Livings which have now no settled Endowment and are therefore called not Vicarages but perpetual or sometimes arbitrary Curacies they are such as belonged formerly to those Orders who could serve the oure of them in their own persons as the Canons Regular of the Order of St. Austin which being afterwards devolved into the hands of Laymen they hired poor Curates to serve them at the cheapest rate they could and still continue to doe so Pag. 25. lin 28. Ridley elect of Rochester designed for that See by King Henry but not consecrated till September this Year 1547. If King Henry designed Ridley to be Bishop of Rochester he could not do it by any actual Nomination but only by Prophetical foresight of Longland's Death and Holbeach's Translation For the King died 1547 Ianuary 28th Longland of Lincoln died 1547. May 7th Holbeach of Rochester was elected to Lincoln 9th August So that until August there was no room for Ridley at Rochester Pag. 30. lin 17. The Form of bidding Prayer was used in the times of Popery as will appear by the Form of bidding the Beads in King Henry the 7th's time which will be found in the Collection The Form published by the Historian out of the Festival Printed Anno 1509. seemeth by the length of it and comparing it with another undoubtedly true Form to have been rather a Paraphrase or Exposition of the Form of bidding Beads I have therefore presented to the Reader a much shorter and ancienter Form taken out of an old written Copy Pag. 32. lin 13. Tonstall searching the Registers of his See found many Writings of great consequence to clear the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England The most remarkable of these was the Homage King William of Scotland made to Henry the Second by which he granted that all the Nobles of his Realm should be his Subjects and do Homage to him and that all the Bishops of Scotland should be under the Archbishop of York It was said that the Monks in those days who generally kept the Records were so accustomed to the forging of Stories and Writings that little Credit was to be given to such Records as lay in their keeping But having so faithfully acknowledged what was alledged against the Freedom of Scotland I may be allowed to set down a Proof on the other side for my Native Countrey copied from the Original Writing yet extant under the Hands and Seals of many of the Nobility and Gentry of that Kingdom It is a Letter to the Pope c. The ancient and allowed Laws of History exclude Partiality yet this Historian's great Concern for the Honour of his Countrey cannot well be called by any other name which hath induced him to publish and Instrument of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland not at all relating to the History of our English Reformation If he thinketh that this Liberty ought to be allowed to him in recompence of the great Obligation he hath laid upon the English Nation for having so faithfully acknowledged what was alledged against the Freedom of Scotland we pretend that all Persons conversant in the History of our Nation did before this very well know all these Allegations and ten times as many of no less weight and that either he did not perfectly understand the Controversie or hath not so faithfully represented the Arguments of our side For King William did not herein make any new Grant to King Henry but only confirmed and acknowledged the ancient Dependence and Subjection of Scotland to England nor did he then first subject the Bishops of Scotland to the Archbishop of York but engaged that hereafter they should be subject to him as of right they ought to be and had wont to be in the time of the former Kings of England The Bishops of Scotland had been all along subject to the Archbishops of York but having about Eleven years before this obtained an Exemption of this Jurisdiction by a Bull of Pope Alexander the King of Scotland now undertook that they should not claim the benefit of that Exemption but be subject to the Church of England as formerly and the Bishops of Scotland also then present concurred with the King and promised for themselves although within a short time after they broke their Faith and procured a new and fuller Exemption from the Pope which Dempster placeth in the Year 1178. The Charter of King William before mentioned was made in 1175. But after all the Bishoprick of Galloway continued to be subject unto the Archbishop of York until towards the end of the Fifteenth Century when it was by the Pope taken from York and subjected to Glasgow then newly erected into an Archbishoprick Now whereas the Historian would invalidate the Authority of this Charter insinuating that it may justly be suspected to have been forged by the Monks because taken out of their Records and coming out of their Custody he may please to know that this very Charter may be found entire in the Printed History of Roger de Hoveden who was no Monk but a a Secular Clergy-man a Domestick of this King Henry attending him in all his Expeditions As for the pretence of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland in their Letter written to the Pope Anno 1320. and published by the Historian it is not to be wondered if their minds being elated with unusual Success against our unfortunate King Edward II. they enlarged their Pretences and affected an independency from the Crown of England which their Forefathers never pretended to nor had themselves at any other time dared to arrogate All the principal Nobility and Gentry of Scotland had in the Year 1291. made as ample and authentick an Instrument of the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England as could be conceived before Edward had either Conquered or invaded their Countrey which Instrument Tonstall taketh notice of in his Memorial and this was indeed the most remarkable of all the Testimonies produced by Tonstall at least accounted by King Edward to be of so great moment that he sent a Copy of it under the Great Seal to every noted Abbey and Collegiate Church in England that it might be safely preserved and inserted into their several Annals It may be seen at length in the Printed History
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.
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
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
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
it into his Collection for the Curiosity of the thing as himself saith It was also published by Mr. Prynn in his Tryal of Archbishop Laud. I will further add that it is more correct in Utenhovius than in the Transcript which is the Case of all th◠Instruments and Memorials published by him which I have had occasion to compare either with the Originals or with other Copies Pag. 251. lin 2. Cox was without any good colour turned out both of his Deanry of Christ-Church and his Prebendary at Westminster He was put into the Marshalsea but on the 19th of August 1553. was discharged Cox had no Prebendary the Historian would have said Prebend at Westminster but besides his Deanry of Christ-Church Oxford was Dean of Westminster and Prebendary of Windsor of all which he was deprived about this time The cause of his Deprivation was probably supposed to have been that he had acted in favour of Queen Iane. For being a considerable Person in King Edward's Court at the time of his Death and having been much employed even in State Affairs he could not well avoid to be concerned in that matter if he were then present at Court He was married indeed at this time But I do not think that was alledged as a Cause of his Deprivation For they did not yet proceed to deprive the married Clergy until some Months after this Pag. 252. lin 28. On the Fourth of October 1553. Holgate Archbishop of York was put in the Tower no cause being given but heinous Offences only named in General I fear that Holgate by his imprudent Carriage if not by worse Actions had brought a Scandal on the Reformation Most if not all the Persons highly instrumental in the Reformation were eminent for Vertue but the probity of Holgate may justly be suspected For in the Council-Book of King Edward I find this Order made on the 23d of November 1551. A Letter to the Archbishop of York to stay his coming up hither till the Parliament Also a Letter to Sir Tho. Gargrave and Mr. Chaloner and Dr. Rouksby to search and examine the very truth of the matter between the Archbishop of York and one Norman who claimeth the said Archbishop's Wife to be his Wife to which end the Supplication of the said Norman is sent to them enclosed It is to be lamented indeed that such occasions of Scandal were given by any eminent Persons of our Church although to say the truth Holgate acted very little in the Reformation but when they are given they ought not to be dissembled by an Historian out of favour or affection to any Party To represent only the laudable Actions of men is to write an Elogy or Apology or Panegyrick or whatever other Name it may assume the name of History it ought not to claim And after all such Scandals if indeed this were justly so are no more prejudicial to the Honour of the Church of England at and since the Reformation than the scandalous Impurities of Walter Bishop of Hereford Stanly Bishop of Ely and many others were to the Honour of the same Church before the Reformation I know whither the learned Author of the Defence of Priest-Marriages published by Archbishop Parker intends the Case of Holgate when he saith I mean not to justifie the universal sort of the married Bishops and Priests in all their light and dissolute Behaviour whatsoever it hath been in any of them from the highest to the lowest I think that I may speak it of the Conscience of some married Bishops and Priests in England that they do as much lament the light Behaviour shewed and escaped by some of them in the Libertee that was granted them of Law and Parliament as they that be most angry and out of patience with them and beside forth bewail the dissolute Behaviour of a great meany of their best beloved and wish as hartely all Offendicles and Slaunders rooted out both sortes of the Clergie It should seem that in the Imprisonment of Holgate this was alledged as one of those hainous Offences which were the pretended cause of it For in the Instrument of his Deprivation it is said that he was for his Marriage committed to the Tower and deprived Pag. 257. lin 16. On the 3d. of November 1553. Archbishop Cranmer with others were brought to their Tryal He was Arraigned and Condemned of Treason at Guild-Hall London on the 13th of November according to Stow and Grafton Pag. 257. lin 28. And now after his Attainture Cranmer was legally devested of his Archbishoprick which was hereupon void in Law But it being now designed to restore the Ecclesiastical Exemption and Dignity to what it had been anciently it was resolved that he should still be esteemed Archbishop till he were solemnly degraded according to the Canon Law which was done in the middle of February 1556. So that all that followed upon this against Cranmer was a Sequestration of all the Fruits of his Archbishoprick himself was still kept in Prison This if true would be a matter of great moment and make a considerable change in the History of our Church But really it is a meer Fiction For immediately after his Attainture the See of Canterbury was declared void and the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury thereupon assumed the Administration of the Spiritual Jurisdiction of the Archbishoprick as in other Cases of Vacancy The Attainture was compleated in the middle of November 1553. and on the 16th of December following the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury gave out Commissions to several Persons for the Exercise of the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction in their Names and by their Authorities The Chapter continued in Possession of this Jurisdiction till the Publication of Cardinal Poles Bulls of Provision to the Archbishoprick viz. till the beginning of the Year 1556. and during that time gave Commissions to the several Officers and Judges of the Courts of the Archbishoprick had the spiritual Jurisdiction of all vacant Bishopricks gave Institution to all Benefices in them and in the Diocess of Cunterbury gave Commissions for the Consecration of Bishops c. of all which Acts done a peculiar Register was made Entituled Vacatio sedis Metropoliticae Christi Cantuar. post depositionem Thomae Cranmer nuper Archiepiscopi Cantuar. primo de crimine laesae Majestatis Authoritate Parliamenti convicti deinde ob varias haereses Authoritate sedis Apostolicae depositi degradati Seculari brachio traditi post remò in alma Universitate Oxoniensi igne consumpti sub anni Domini 1553 1554 1555. regnorum vero Philippi Mariae Regum c. During this time all Acts and Instruments begin with these words Nocholaus Wotton utriusque juris Doctor Decanus Ecclesiae Cathedralis Metropolitices Christi Cantuar. ejusdem Ecclesiae Capitulum ad quem quos omnis omnino da Iurisdictio Spiritualis Ecclesiastica quae ad Archiepiscopum Canturiensem sede plenâ pertinuit ipsa sede jam per Attincturam
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
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