Caenae Domini per literas legi consuetas reservata existat injuncta eis pro modo culpae poenitentia salutari auctoritate Apostolica in forma Ecclesiae consueta absolvere illos unitati Ecclesiae Catholicae restituere ac omnes Solemnitates quae in hujusmodi absolutionibus de jure vel consuetudine solent adhiberi ratione multitudinis arbitrio suo in partem vel in totum remittere secumque super quacunque irregularitate praemissorum occasione contracta dispensare possint valeant Praemissis ac Regula de Insordescentibus edita quibusvis aliis Constitutionibus Ordinationibus Apostolicis etiam in die Caenae Domini Legi consuetis caeterisque contrariis quibuscunque non obstantibus Formula Absolutionis DOminus noster Iesus Christus summus Pontifex per suam piissimam Misericordiam Clementiam vos cruore suo pretiosissimo redemptos de ineffabili sua pietate ab omnibus peccatis per vos commissis misericorditer absolvat Et ego auctoritate Apostolorum Divi Petri Pauli ac Sedis Apostolicae mihi Comissa vos vestrum quemlibet ab omnibus peccatis criminibus excessibus delictis atque ab omni Haeresi Schismate Apostasia irregularitate quocunque errore vestris necnon à juramento contra Papatum Romanum per vos praestito à quibusvis Excommunicationis suspensionis interdictorum aliis Sententiis censuris poenis Ecclesiasticis à jure vel ab homine latis per vos ratione praemissorum incursis contractis absolvo ac communioni fidelium Sacrosanctae Dei Ecclesiae Sacramentis restituò reduco redintegro in nomine Patris Filii Spiritûs Sancti Amen Additament to Par. I. to be placed between Sect. 19. and 20. Hist. of Reform Par. I. pag. 105 106. Now the Session of Parliament came on the 16th of Ianuary 1531. and there the King first brought into the House of Lords the Determination of the Universities c. touching his Marriage with Queen Catherine After they were read and considered there the Lord Chancellor on the 20th of March did with other Lords go down to the House of Commons and shewed the same to them The Matter was also brought before the Convocation and they having weighed all that was said on both sides seemed satisfied that the Marriage was unlawfull and that the Bull dispensing with it was of no force more not being required at that time The Historian could not safely conclude that no more was then required because he could find no more Much more was then required of and done by the Convocation in this affair I have seen an authentick Instrument of their whole proceedings herein drawn up by a Publick Notary at the King's command and attested by the President and other eminent Members of the Convocation wherein this account is given Two Questions were by the King propounded to the Convocation to be dicussed and determined by them The first which was to be considered and determined by the Divines of the Convocation was conceived in these words An ducere Uxorem cognitam à Fratre decedente sine prole sit prohibitio juris divini indispensabilis à Papâ At the discussion and determination of this were present personally in the Convocation Divines 75 by Proxies 197 in all 272. The Names of all are inserted at length with great accuracy in the Instrument before mentioned Of these 253 determined the Question in the Affirmative and 19 only held the Negative The second Question which was to be considered and determined by the Professors of Law Canon or Civil or both Members of the Convocation was conceived thus An carnalis eopula inter Illustrissimum Principem Arthurum Serenissimam Dominam Catherinam Reginam ex propositis exhibitis deductis allegatis sit sufficienter probata At the Examination and Decision of this Question were present personally Canonists and Civilians 44 by Proxy 3 in all 47. Of these 41 determined the Question in the Affirmative and only 6 maintained the Negative I will subjoyn the Names of those who held the Negative in each Question Divines Personaliter praesentes Iohannes Episcopus Roffen Georgius Episcopus Landaw Ricardus Abbas de Winchelcomb Robertus Prior Ecclesiae Cath. Eliensis Ricardus Prior de Walsingham Willielmus Prior S. Gregorii Cantuar. Hugo Abbas de Reading Nicolaus Wilson Robertus Shirton Ricardus Fetherstone Edwardus Powell Nicolaus Metcalfe Gilbertus Smith Thomas Wadilowe Ricardus Ducke Thomas Bough Per Procuratorem suum Abbatem de Peaeding Iohannes Abbas de Shirbourne Iohannes Rector de Edingdon Iohannes Abbas de Parshore Canonists and Civilians Personaliter praesentes Iohannes Episcopus Bath Wells Adam Travers Petrus Ligham Ricardus Harrison Robertus Clyff Laurentius Woodcock Additament to Par. II. Sect. 76. I have there said that besides the Speeches of Heath and Fecknam made in the House of Lords against the Alteration of the Liturgy mentioned by the Historian I had seen a Speech of Scot Bishop of Chester made at the same time in the same Cause Since that I find that the Historian hath also seen it and giveth an Extract of it with the others which being by his Printers fault joyned to the Extract of Heath's Speech in the same continued Section and only a few Syllables Intervening I overlooked But to make amends for this oversight I will here correct several mistakes committed by the Historian in relating the Transactions of that Sessions of Parliament which I am enabled to doe having carefully perused the Journall of the House of Lords in that Session The Historian saith That the Bill concerning the New Service was sent up by the Commons on the 18th of April and debated in the House of Lords in which Debate the several Speeches before mentioned were made and at length passed On the contrary the Lords Journall testifieth That on Monday the 17th of April the House of Lords sate and after having read several Bills was adjourned by the Lord Keeper to Wednesday April 19th So that on the 18th the House sate not and even on the 19th nil actum to use the words of the Journall but was then adjourned to Saturday the 22d Then also nil actum but was adjourned to Tuesday the 25th of April on which day and not before this Bill was sent up from the Commons with 8 other Bills It was not immediately debated but was read the first time on Wednesday the 26th the second time on the 27. It was read the last time and concluded on Friday the 28th It was debated on the two last days Scot spoke his Speech on the last day and therein undertook to Answer the Speech of a certain Nobleman made in the House on the day before in favour of the Bill wherein that Nobleman had reflected on the blindness of our Forefathers From whence it appears to have been debated on the 27th on which day I suppose Fecknam to have made his Speech For he was not present in
the House on the 28th when the Bill was concluded For the Historian mistaketh when he placeth the Abbot of Westminster among the Dissenters at the conclusion of the Bill for the Journall hath not his Name He hath also farther mistaken herein in leaving out the Bishops of Landaff and Exeter whom the Journall reports to have dissented with the rest there named A like mistake is committed by him in relating the conclusion of the Act for the Restitution of the First-fruits and Tenths to the Crown He saith It was agreed to by the Lords on the 4th of February the Archbishop of York Bishops of London Worcester Landaff Litchfield Exeter Chester and Carlisle protesting against it but that the Bishops of Winchester Ely c. were then absent Now the Journall of the Lords affirmeth that the Bill was concluded Dissentientibus Arch. Ebor. Episcopis London Winton Wigorn. Landavan Coven Litch Cestrien Carliol there being that day no more or other Lords Spiritual there present So that indeed Winchester was there and Exeter was not But after all the Bill was not now ultimately concluded but being sent back from the Commons with an Amendment was read and agreed to in the Lords House on the 15th of March when dissented from it besides the former Prelates the Bishop of Exeter and Abbot of Westminster but London was not then present In the next place whereas the Historian relateth That upon the ultimate reading and conclusion of the Bill for the Supremacy after it had been sent back by the Commons with an Amendment it passed in the House of Lords with the same dissent as before when it was read on the 18th of March and sent down to the Commons it is a mistake for on the 22d of March when it was ultimately read and concluded the Earl of Shrewsbury the Viscount Montacute and the Bishop of Worcester are not said in the Journall to have dissented all whom the Historian therein agreeing with the Journall maketh to have dissented on the 18th Lastly when the Historian relating that the Bishop of Ely was absent at the passing of this Act For though he would not consent to it yet having done all that was prescribed by it so often before he thought it more decent to be absent than either to consent to it or to oppose it We cannot but except against his familiar Method of proposing such like conjectures as assured matters of History and delivering them as peremptorily as if he had been of Councel to the several Persons If for this reason the Bishop of Ely had absented at this time he ought for the same Reason to have absented himself on the 26th of April when was read and concluded in the Lords House An Act Restoring to the Crown the Ancient Iurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual and abolishing all Foreign Power Repugnant to the same the Bishop of Ely being then present and with other Bishops and Viscount Montague and Abbot Fecknam dissenting from it as the Journall of the Lords testifieth FINIS The Reader is desired to correct the following ERRATA of the Press PArs I. Page 1. Line 15. ab imo for the read that P. 17. l. 14. for Rober r. Robert In margine P. 18. l. 8. ab imo set these words Apol adv Theologos Lovan cap. 2. In margine P. 19. l. 3. ab imo for XIX r. XX. P. 24. l. 17. 18. for December r. Decembris P. 26. l. 4. for the r. these Ibid. l. 30. dele a. P. 27. l. 18. for Archbishop r. Archbishops P. 32. l. 26. for Baronies r. Barones P. 33. l. 3. aft there add were P. 34. l. 16. dele that P. 35. l. 24. for Arch-Episc r. Archiepiscopal P. 40. l. 6. ab imo for times r. time P. 44. l. 2. ab imo for Norric r. Norwic. and place it in the margin of p. 45. over against l. 5. P. 46. l. 5. ab imo for Farnese r. Furnese P. 48. l. penult for probably r. improbably P. 53. l. 10. for Baronages r. Baronage PArs II. P. 68. l. 18. after and add by In marg P. 76. l. 5. set Pag. 6.3 lines lower P. 90. l. penult for the r he P. 93. l. 17. dele the. P. ibid. l. 4. ab imo for Affairs r. Affair P. 96. l. 9. ab imo for of r. in Ibid. lin penult in marg for 19. r. 15. P. 97. l. 1. for dignetur r. dignentur P. 105. l. 13. for kept r. slept Ibid. l. penult for May and r. May 4th P. 106. l. 17. for Malgrave r. Walgrave P. 107. l. 12. for 14th Aug. r. 14th of August P. 110. l. 14. aft him add and ..... Ibid. l. 17. aft unto add such P. 112. l. 1. for Masco r. Alasco P. 114. l. 15. for London and the r. London and other P. 117. l. 25. for before r. being P. 121. l. 2. for June r. Anno. In marg l. 12. for Chron. r. Chron. Ser. P. 123. l. 16. for Delgarum r. Belgarum P. 124. l. 4. aft Transcript add of the Historian Ibid. l. 20. for was r. may P. 126. l. 6. for I know r. I know not P. 128. l. 18. for anni r. annis Ibid. l. 22. for Nocholaus r. Nicholaus Ibid. l. 30. for notoriae r. notoriè P. 129. l. 7. for iniquitates r. iniquitatis P. 130. l. ult for Cester r. Cestr. P. 131. l. 1. for professione in r. professionem P. 135. l. 13. aft incline add to believe Ibid. 23. for giving r. given P. 136. l. 16. in marg for Faad r. Facult P. 139. l. 2. aft Brother add and. P. 140. l. 24. for falsly r. fully Ibid. l. 27. for Beacon r. Beaton P. 141. l. 8. for Beacon r. Beaton P. 143. l. 23. for Denrham r. Bentham P. 144. l. 13. for which the r. which is the. P. 148. l. 21. for Herbert r. Hubert Ibid. l. ult for nata r. Natae P. 149. l. 4. ab imo for the r. that P. 150. l. 15. for Holman r. Holiman P. 152. l. 5. aft sincere add and. Ibid. l. 13. for Proctours r. Doctors Ibid. l. 25. for Salkel r. Salkeld P. 154. l. 18. for believed r. delivered P. 155. l. 18. for was done r. was not done P. 158. l. 8. aft had add been P. 159. l. 22. for Cantleury r. Cantleurs P. 162. l. 4. ab imo for anxius r. anxias P. 164. l. 4. for debimus r. debemus Ibid. l. 6. for discere r. dicere Ibid. l. penult for qua r. quà m P. 165 l. 14. for Doctissimus r. doctissimis Ibid. l. 18. for naturâ deliberationem r. maturâ deliberatione P. 166. l. 10. ab imo for hee rinne serit r. heerinne servit Ibid. l. 5. ab imo aft alle add her Ibid. before Prince add the. P. 167. l. 4. for enthe r. erthe Ibid. l. 4. ab imo for the reinne r. thereinne P. 168. l. 3. for tethegeren r. tethegeven P. 173. l. 18. for with r. wish Ibid. l. 28. for to time r. in time P. 175. l. 3. for contention r. contentation P. 176. l. 15. for There r. These The Author hath not been able to correct the mistakes of the Piess committed in the Sheets N. and O. having not yet seen them since they were wrought off Hist. Reform p. 1. p. 264. Par. 2. in Praf p. 13. Par. 1. in Pref. p. 8. Lettere di Cardinal Bibiena entre Lettere di Principi lib. 1. p. 33. Par. 2. Append. p. 411. Ibid. Pat. 20 H. 8. rot 43. Regist. Warham Pag. 8. Cap. 4. Cavendish â—n his Life â—ap 2.3 Cap. 13. Pag. 214. Pag. 215. Pag. 280. c. Par. 2. Append. pag. 412. Praef. ad Grammat-Saxon Vide opera Joannis Huffi in calce Part 1. pag. 95. Cap. 15. Par. 2. in Addend p. 413. P. 315. P. 316. P. 48. 49. Par. 2. Append. p. 414. Pag. 157. Pag. 14. 18. Collect. numb 1. Pag. 318. Norric p. 184. Term Hilary 25. H. 8. coram Rege rot 15. Pag. 317. Praef. p. 2. Pag. 148. Regist. Cranmer Par. 2. in Append. p. 415. Pag. 149. Pag. 300. Par. 2. in Append. p. 90. Par. 2. p 6. Pag. 43. Pag. 6. Regist Cranmer Par. 2. Addend p. 416. De Scriptor Brit. p. 714. Pag. 193. 214. Par. 2. p. 10 11. Malmsbur de gest Pontif fol. 153. Pag. 703.732 Vicar's Plea Collect. numb 2. Pag. 6. Treatise of the Sacrament f. 100. * Planet Eccl. l. 2. †Consultat 23. Pag. 329. Pag. 334. Pag. 173.197 198. Num. â— Can. 12. Pag. 279. Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 298. Pag. 351. Numb 4. Regist. Cranmer Pag. 12. Do Regno Christi l. 1. c. 19. Pag. 24. Regist. Cranmer Pag. 23. Numb 5. Numb 6. Angl. Sacr. Par. 1. p. 782. Athen. Oxon. Par. 1. Chron. p. 88. Pag. 154. Pag. 394. Pag. 190 191. Part 1. Pag. 582. Reg. Ebor. Reg. Faad Parker Fol. 6. Pag. 13.269 Fol. 5. Num. 8. Num. 9. Num. 7. Pag. 1117. Orig. Iur. pag. 90. Vita Iuelli pag. 70. Register Pole De Scriptor Angl. pag. 755. Registr Canto Registr Parker Registr Ebor. Vol. 3. Pag. 19. Numb 10. Numb 11. Scriptor Brittan Par. 2. p. 110. Par. 2. p. 393. p. 383. p. 386. p. 387.
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.
Canonicas uxorem habeat Sacerdotum vero in Castellis in vicis habitantium habentes uxores non cogantur ut dimittant non habentes interdicantur ut habeant Our Reformers who wrote of the Marriage of the Clergy represented this Constitution aright So Archbishop Parker who having related his prohibition of Marriage to Prebendaries adds But yet he moderated so the matter that he made a Decree that such Priests as dwelt in Towns and Villages being married should not be separated but continue with their Wives in their Ministration Ecclesiastical Pag. 92. lin 13. The Legate that in King Henry the Second's time got that severe Decree made that put all the married Clergy from their Livings was found the very Night after in Bed with a Whore This mistake also is altogether owing to the Historian Our Reformers consonantly to the Testimony of all our ancient Histories relate this misfortune to have happened to Iohannes de Crema the Pope's Legate in the Year 1125. in the Reign of King Henry the First And the Annals of Winchester lately published relate another like miscarriage of the same Legate in the same Year Pag. 93. lin 13. I have seen no Remains of this Convocation which restored Marriage to the Clergy in the Year 1548. or of any other Convocations that came afterwards in this Reign Archbishop Parker who was a Member of and present at this Convocation hath in his Additions to the Anonymous Defence of Priests Marriages published by him given a short Relation of the Transactions and Determination of the Convocation in this Affair which because the Book is very scarce I have transcribed and put into the following Collection To it the Archbishop subjoyned the Opinion of Dr. Redman which however published by the Historian in his Collection I would not disjoyn especially since the Historian or his Scribe hath omitted and changed many words of moment in it Pag. 128. lin 3. Bonner was looked on generally as a Man of no Principles All the Obedience he gave either to the Laws or to the King's Injunctions was thought a Compliance against his Conscience extorted by Fear The Historian perhaps may be able to reconcile these two Periods although it be generally supposed that where no Principles are there can be no Conscience since Conscience ever proceeds upon some Principles either true or false But it seems after a strict Enquiry he hath discovered one Principle in Bonner to which he constantly adhered that was his Love of Pears and Puddings a matter which will no doubt reflect as great Infamy upon the Memory of Bonner as Honour upon the Historian for the Acuteness of the Observation He was aware that it would be thought disingenuous to Print such Letters being the Privacies of Friendship which ought not to be made publick but forgat that it was beneath the Majesty of History to insert such trifles in it Pag. 149. l. ult Ridley was pitched on to be the man who should fill the See of London So on the 21. of February 1550 he was writ for and on the 24th he was declared Bishop of London and Westminster It might then be resolved to make Ridley Bishop of Westminster upon the intended Translation of Thirleby But he could not then be declared Bishop of that See since it was not void till April following in the beginning of which Month Thirleby was translated to Norwich King Edward's Journal therefore saith that Ridley was made Bishop of London on the 3d of April and Thirleby translated the same day from Westminster to Norwich Pag. 150. lin 35. The Lord Treasurer c. were sent to Gardiner Fox saith that this was on the 9th of Iuly but there must be an Error in that it must have been in November the former Year They brought him a Paper to which they desired he would set his hand In the Original Council-Book of King Edward the Sixth before-mentioned all the Orders Messages Papers Articles and Answers relating to Gardiner are at length inserted From thence I shall correct the Historians Account On the 8th of Iune 1550. it was resolved in Council Considering the long Imprisonment the Bishop of Winchester hath sustained that he should be spoken withal and agreed that if he repented his former Obstinacy and would thenceforth apply himself to advance the King's Majesties preceedings his Highness in this case would be his good Lord and remit all his Errors passed Otherwise his Majesty was resolved to proceed against him as his Obstinacy and Contempt required For the Declaration whereof the Duke of Somerset Lord Treasurer c. were appointed the next day to repair unto him June 10 th Report was made by the Duke of Somerset and the rest sent to the Bishop of Winchester that he desired to see the King's Book of Proceedings upon the sight whereof he would make a full Answer seeming to be willing in all things to conform himself thereunto and promising that in case anything offended his Conscience he would open it to none but the Counsail Whereupon it was agreed that the Book should be sent him to see his Answer that his Case may be resolved on And that for the mean time he should have the Liberty of the Gallery and Garden in the Tower when the Duke of Norfolk were absent June 13 th the Lieutenant of the Tower who before was appointed to deliver the King's Book to him declared to the Counsail that the Bishop having refused it said unto him He could make no direct Answer unless he were at Liberty and so being he would say his Conscience Whereupon the Lords and others that had been with him the other day were appointed to go to him again to receive a direct Answer that the Counsail hereupon might determine further Order for him July 8 th the Bishop of Winchester ' s Case was renewed Then was the Lord Treasurer c. sent to him with the Message of which the Historian here speaketh Together with the Articles the Council sent a Letter to him blaming his Obstinacy and persuading him to conform Fox giveth a true Account of the Articles and his Answer to them Only hath erroneously put the 9th for the 8th of Iuly Although he might mean that the Commissioners went to him on that day which seems to have been true For on the 10th of Iuly the Commissioners reported his Answer in Council related by Fox and from him by the Historian And that these Commissioners went indeed to the Bishop on the 9th of Iuly King Edward testifyeth in his Journal published by the Historian himself Pag. 151. lin 7. Herbert and Petre came to him some time after that but how soon it is not clear and pressed him to make the Acknowledgment without Exception The Council-Book fixeth the time of this Message and cleareth a mistake of the Historian July 11th This day the Bishop of Winchester ' s Case was debated and because it appears that he sticketh upon the Submission which
29. A Letter to ...... to make a Book to the Bishop of Worcester and Glocester of discharge of the First-fruits and Tenths to be paid for the same in Consideration that he hath departed with certain Lands to the Kings Majesty Now Hooper had been Consecrated Bishop of Glocester in the beginning of the Year 1551. and therefore could now in 1552. be called Bishop Elect only in respect of Worcester Nor could he now be charged with First-fruits and Tenths on any other Account than of the Temporalties of Worcester newly received by him Nor could he have passed away any of the Lands of Worcester to the King if he had not once Possession of them But to put the matter past all Dispute I will alledge an Order of Council fully proving that Hooper did enjoy the Revenue of Worcester For 1552. September 24. the Council directed a Letter to the Dean of Worcester to cause the Rent-Corn of the Bishoprick to be reserved to the Bishop notwithstanding Hethe 's Claim to the same Pag. 216. lin 15. How Tonstall Bishop of Duresm was deprived I cannot understand It was for Misprision of Treason and done by Secular men in the Year 1553. What was done in the Case of Tonstall till the end of the Year 1551. was before related out of the Council-Book I will here add out of the same Book what afterwards occurs relating to him 1552. September 21. A Letter unto the Chief Iustice signifying unto him that there is presently sent to him the Commission addressed to him and others for the Limitation and Determination of the Bishop of Duresm 's Case with also eight Letters and other Writings touching the same which he is willed to consider and proceed to the hearing and ordering of the Matter as soon as he may get the rest of his Collegues to him By these Commissioners Tonstall was deprived on the 11 th of October 1552. according to King Edward's Journal On the 31. of Oct. following it was ordered in Council that Sir John Mason should deliver to the use of Dr. Tonsâ—all remaining Prisoner in the Tower such Money as should serve for his necessities untill such time as farther Order shall be taken touching the Goods and Money lately appertaining to him and that the Lord Wharton cause the Accompts of the Revenues of the Bishoprick of Duresm as well for the second and third Years of the late Bishops entry into the same as for two Years last past to be searched for and sent hither with speed Pag. 216 lin 8. Ridley as himself writes in one of his Letters was named to be Bishop of Duresme but the thing never took effect It so far took effect that Ridley was actually translated from London to Durham For in the Instrument of the restitution of Bonner to the See of London in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign it is alledged that the See of London was then void by the Removal of Ridley to Durham made by King Edward after the Deprivation of Tonstall and Bonner was thereupon re-instated in London without pronouncing Ridley deprived of the See of London but on the contrary Ridley is in the Register declared to have been deprived of the Bishoprick of Durham for Heresie and Sedition Pag. 242. lin 39. Iune 1553. the Seal was on the 13th of August given to Gardiner who was declared Lord Chancellour of England Stow who is very exact in denoting the times of things falling within the compass of his own observation saith that the Seal was delivered unto Gardiner on the 23d of Aug. His Patent for the Office of Lord Chancellour bears date on the 21st of September according to Sir William Dugdale's accurate Catalogue of the Chancellours c. of England With Stow agreeth Grafton herein Pag. 247. lin 5. Pag. 248. lin 35. The Commission for restoring Bonner bearing date the 22d of Aug. was directed to some Civilians who pronounced his former Sentence of Deprivation void Thus he was restored to his See on the 5th of September 1553. Stow and Grafton affirm that Bonner was restored to his Bishoprick in the beginning of August and that he caused the use of the Mass and other Roman Ceremonies to be renewed in his Cathedral Church on the 27th of August Pag. 249. lin 17. P. 314. l. 36. P. 348 l. 38. Cranmer protested that the Mass was not set up at Canterbury by his Order but that a fawning hypocritical Monk this was Thornton Suffragan of Dover had done it Anno 1553 without his knowledge Thornton Suffragan of Dover resolved to shew his zeal for Popery Anno 1555. This Thornton had from the first Change made by King Henry been the most officious and forward in every turn In the Month of Iune 1557. Fourteen Protestants were destroyed in two days by Thornton and Harpsfield There was but one Suffragan Bishop in the Diocess of Canterbury of the Name of Thornton He was Suffragan to Archbishop Warham in the Year 1508. and had his Title not from Dover but in partibus Infidelium and died long before Cranmer's time The Suffragan under Cranmer and Pole was Richard Thornden sometimes Monk afterwards upon the Suppression of the Priory first Prebendary of the Church of Canterbury He died in the end of year 1557 or rather in the beginning of 1558. Pag. 250. lin 8. On the 13th of September Latimer and Cranmer were called before the Council Latimer was that day committed but Cranmer was respited till next day and then he was sent to the Tower If Stow may be believed Latimer was sent to the Tower on the 14th and Cranmer on the 15th of September 1553. Pag. 250. lin 17. 24. There was an Order sent to Iohn a Lasco and his Congregation to be gone Alasco after a long and hard passage arriving at Denmark was ill received there From thence they went first to Lubeck then to Wismar and Hamburgh and at last planted themselves in Friseland A most exact account of the Foundation and Dissolution of this German Congregation in England with their subsequent Removals was written by Utenhovius one of the Ministers at the desire of the Congregation and is printed at Basil 1560 86. with this Title Simplex fidelis Narratio de institutâ demum dissipatâ Delgarum aliorumque Peregrinorum in Anglia Ecclesiâ per Iohannem Utenhovium Gandavum being approved by Iohn a Lasco and the rest as a true account From this Narration it appears that although some of the Company went to Hamburgh Lubeck Wismar c. Yet that Alasco himself went not thither with them He left Denmark on the 19th of November passed through Holsatia and arrived at Embden the 4th of December He was accompanied with a Servant of the King of Denmark by whom he sent back a severe or rather unmannerly Letter to the King In this same Relation of Utenhovius is printed at large the Charter given by King Edward to Iohn a Lasco and his Congregation which the Historian had before mentioned and put