Images c. This Preface indeed was published at London 1550. under the name of Wickliffe and hath generally passed for his But after all Wickliffe did not write it but the Author of the other old English Translation of the Bible For we have two Translations of the Bible made about that time one by Wickliffe the other by an unknown Person In the Preface the Author giveth several Specimens of his Translation of many difficult places of Scripture which agree not with Wickliff's but with the other Translation Further the Author of the Preface inveighs sharply against the Discipline and Members of the University of Oxford which it is certain Wickliffe would never have done for Reasons before mentioned That Wickliffe condemned praying to Saints we have only the Testimony of his Adversaries I will not affirm any thing at this time but I have reason to suspect the contrary Pag. 25. lin 27. Iohn Braibrook Bishop of London then Lord Chancellor viz. 26 Maii Anno 5. Ricardi 2. His name was Rober Braibrook and he was not Lord Chancellor until the Sixth Year of King Richard Pag. 35. lin 28. The two Prelates that were then in the Year 1503 between February and December in greatest esteem with King Henry the 7 th were Warham Archbishop of Canterbury and Fox Bishop of Winchester Warham was not translated from London to Canterbury till 1504. Ianuary 23. Pag. 88. lin 10. This the small Allowance made by the King to Crook his Agent in foreign Universities I take notice of because it is said by others that all the Subscriptions that he procured were bought So pag. 89. in imo Margine No Money nor Bribes given for Subscriptions This is endeavoured to be farther proved pag. 90. However it might be then thought necessary or useful to procure the Determinations of foreign Universities in favour of the Divorce of King Henry thereby the better to satisfie the Clergy at home and to justifie the Divorce abroad yet to those who know very well that this National Church had sufficient Authority to determine such a Controversie without consulting foreign Universities it will not be accounted a matter of any moment whether these were bribed or not I will not therefore scruple to set down the Testimonies of two undeniable Witnesses who lived at that time and could not but know the truth of the whole matter The first is of Cornelius Agrippa of whom the Historian himself giveth this Character Cornelius Agrippa a man very famous for great and curious Learning and so satisfied in the Kings Cause that he gave it out that the thing was clear and indisputable for which he was afterwards hardly used by the Emperor and died in Prison If this Great Person then had any partiality in this Cause it lay on the side of the King yet in one of his Books he hath these words Sed quis credidisset Theologos in rebus fidei conscientiae non solum amore odio invidia perverti sed nonnunquam etiam flecti conviviis muneribus abduci a vero nisi ipsi illius sceleris fidem fecissent in Anglicani Matrimonii damnatione Who would have believed that Divines in matters of Faith and Conscience are not only perverted by Love Hatred or Envy but also sometimes bribed by Banquets or drawn from the truth by Gifts unless themselves had given evident Proof of this Vileness in condemning the Marriage of the King of England The other is Mr. Cavendish an honest plain Gentleman first a Servant of Cardinal Wolsey afterwards highly obliged by King Henry He in writing the Life of his Master the Cardinal giveth this account of the whole matter It was thought very expedient that the King should send out his Commissioners into all Universities in Christendom there to have this Case argued substantially and to bring with them from thence every Definition of their Opinions of the same under the Seal of the University And thereupon divers Commissioners were presently appointed for this Design So some were sent to Cambridge some to Oxford some to Lovain others to Paris some to Orleance others to Padua all at the proper Costs and Charge of the King which in the whole amounted to a great Summ of Money And all went out of this Realm besides the Charge of the Embassage to those famous and notable Persons of all the Universities especially such as bare the Rule or had the Custody of the University Seals were fed by the Commissioners with such great Summs of Money that they did easily condescend to their Requests and grant their Desires By reason whereof all the Commssioners returned with their Purpose furnished according to their Commissions under the Seal of every several University Pag. 107. lin 5. For then about the time of Edward I. the Popes not satisfied with their other Oppressions did by Provisions Bulls and other Arts of that See dispose of Bishopricks Abbeys and lesser Benefices to Foreigners Cardinals and others that did not live in England This is a very wide mistake For the Popes did not then dispose of Bishopricks and Abbeys to Foreigners Cardinals and others that did not live in England The Popes did not give any Bishoprick of England to any Foreigner that did not live therein till about Thirty years before the Reformation when it was not done without the Kings good liking and in Vertue of some secret compact between them As for Abbeys from the first Foundation to their Dissolution the Popes never gave any one to a Foreigner not residing For Cardinal Abbots there never was any besides Cardinal Wolsey and of him it is well known that he had his Abbey from the gift of the King and lived in England The matter therefore complained of in the Preamble of the Act of Parliament 25 Edw. I. which the Historian inserteth was this That whereas Bishops and Abbots ought to be Elected by their several Chapters and Convents and these Elections to be confirmed by the King the Popes had taken upon them to Annul the Elections of Chapters and then to substitute whomsoever themselves pleased without a new Election or to dispose of them without expecting any Election yet still none of these were granted to Cardinals or to Foreigners not residing in England And whereas the Popes had usurped the Presentation of and given to Aliens although not residing other Benefices as Deanries Prebends and Parsonages which ought of right to belong to their proper Patrons against these Encroachments a Remedy was desired and provided in this Act. Several Foreigners had a little before this time been preferred to Bishopricks such as Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury Adomarus de Lesignan Bishop of Winchester Petrus de Aqua-blanca Bishop of Hereford But these came in by the Election of their several Chapters overawed thereto by the Power and Authority of King Henry III to whose Queen they were related by near Kindred and after all resided upon their Sees unless when diverted by Employment in the business of
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
directed to the Bishop of Lichfield in whose Diocess it was Seated which Bishop until the Division of his Diocess and Erection of a new Bishoprick at Chester was in writing and in common Speech as often called the Bishop of Chester as of Lichfield as is well known to those who are acquainted with the State of the English Church before and at the Reformation Pag. 267. lin 1. The Popish party used all the Arts possible to insinuate themselves into the King And therefore to shew how far their Compliance would go Bonner Bishop of London took a strange Commission from the King on the 12th of November this Year 1539. Whether the other Bishops took such Commissions from the King I know not But I am certain there is none such in Cranmers Register and it is not likely if any such had been taken out by him that ever it would have been razed After he had taken this Commission Bonner might well have been called one of the Kings Bishops When the Historian wrote this surely he little thought that he should publish in the Second part of his History a like Commission taken from King Edward VI. by Cranmer For whosoever compareth the two Commissions will find that they are not only alike but the very same mutatis mutandis only with this difference as the Historian himself forgetting what he had here wrote is forced to own that there is no mention made of a Vicar General in the Commission of Edward VI. to Cramner as was in that of Henry VIII to Bonner there being none after Cromwell advanced to that Dignity Now it is very injurious to the Memory of Cranmer first to represent this Action of Bonner as a vile unworthy Compliance and then afterwards to say that Cranmer did the same thing For what difference is there between taking such a Commission from King Henry and taking the like from King Edward unless it be that it seemeth somewhat more colourable to take it from a Man than from a Child Nor can any excuse be raised from the necessity imposed by the Act of Parliament made 1547 December 20th of which an Account is given afterwards For Cranmer had taken out his Commission on the 7th of Frebruary preceding But neither is it true that Cranmer did not take such a Commission from King Henry VIII For the Order of Council related by the Historian to have been made in the beginning of the Reign of King Edward VI. plainly implyeth the contrary requiring the Bishops to take out new Commissions of the same Form with those they had taken out in King Henry's time in obedience to which Order Cranmer took out his Commission before mentioned If no such Commission taken by Cranmer from King Henry be now found in his Register it doth not thence follow that none was taken by him For his Register is imperfect in many places Indeed he took out such a Commission from King Henry long before Bonner For in the Collections of Dr. Yale who could not but know the Truth herein having been in the time of Cranmer an eminent Advocate in Doctors Commons and afterwards principal Registrary and Vicar-General to Archbishop Parker I find a Transcript of this Commission agreeing exactly with that of Bonner published by the Historian mutatis mutandis and this note subjoyned Tales licentias acceperunt Thomas Archiepiscopus Cantuarmense Octobri 1535. Edwardus Archiep. Eborac Iohannes Episcopus Lincoln 13. Octobr. 1535. Iohannes Episcopus London 19. Octobr. 1535. Stephanus Episcopus Winton eodem Anno Cuthbertas Episcopus Dunelm 10 Novemb. 1535. c. Pag. 268. lin 9. I will not presume to determin so great a Point of Law whether the Abbots sate in the House of Lords as being a part of the Ecclesiastical State or holding their Lands of the King by Baronages It is the known and avowed Constitution of our Nation that the Convocation of the Clergy doth constitute the first Estate therein This being premised it is manifest that Bishops and consequently Abbots also sate in Convocation as a part of the Ecclesiastical State and must therefore sit in the House of Lords under some other Quality which can be no other than that of their Baronage Pag. 268. lin 21. Generally Coventry and Burton viz. the Priory of Coventry and Abbey of Burton were held by the same man as one Bishop held both Coventry and Lichfield though two different Bishopricks I will not take notice of the Historians oversight in making Coventry and Lichfield two different Bishopricks for that Mr. Fulman had before observed but of his Error in affirming Coventry and Burton to have been generally held by the same man He might with as much truth have said that the Archbishopricks of Canterbury and York were generally held by the same man What gave occasion to this enormous mistake I cannot conceive Burton and Coventry were no more related than any other two Abbeys neither was one a Cell of the other nor had the one any Dependance upon the other At the end of the Annals of Burton Printed some time since at Oxford may be found an exact List of the Abbots of that House from the first Foundation to the Dissolution of it In Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire may be seen a like Catalogue of the Priors of Coventry If these two be compared it will be found that from beginning to end they are made up of different Persons not so much as any one name of the one Catalogue occurring in the other Pag 300. lin 25. Two years after this viz. after September 1541 the Abbey of Osney in Oxford was converted into a Bishoprick a Deanry and six Prebends And the Monastery of St. Austins in Bristol was changed into the same use The Cathedral Church of Osney was founded by the King's Charter dated 1542. September 1. And Paul Bush Bishop of Bristol was consecrated 1542. Iune 25th So that the Historian is mistaken when he referreth the Foundation of both these Bishopricks to the end of the Year 1543. Pag. 300. lin 49. Then the Priories at most Cathedrals such as Canterbury Winchester Duresm Worcester Carlisle Rochester and Ely were also converted into Deanries and Colleges of Prebends If by most Cathedrals are to be understood most of the Cathedrals of England that is not true For if to those he had added Norwich he had named all But if by that Term are to be understood most of those old Cathedrals which were founded anew at this time then it is trifling For in all the old Cathedrals which were then founded anew the Priories were thus changed Pag. 301. lin 43. In England when the Bishoprick of Lincoln being judged of too great an extent the Bishoprick of Ely was taken out of it it was done only by the King with the Consent of his Clergy and Nobles Pope Nicholas indeed officiously intruded himself into that matter by sending afterwards a Confirmation of what was done The Erection of a new Bishoprick at Ely was
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
Brown for hearing Mass in her company when by the King's order he attended her from Essex to London Now all this relating to the Emperour's denunciation of War to the King's Consultation with the Bishops to the Councils debate thereon and the sending of Dr. Wotton is erroneously placed by the Historian before December 1550. It is also a mistake that the prosecution of the Chaplains kept from December 1550 to May 1551. For it was not begun till December 15 and March 23. according to the King's Journal I think rather the 18 th it was resolved to punish her Servants hearing or saying Mass Accordingly in the Council-Book I find that March 22. her Comptroller Mr. Rochester was examined how many Chaplains she had who answered four viz. Mallet Hopton Barker and Ricardes April 29. the King's Journal saith falsly the 27 th Dr. Mallet was brought before the Council and being examined what he meaned that after he had been once forgiven he would again wilfully offend the King's laws in saying of Mass and other like could not deny but he had done evil in so doing He therefore was committed to the Tower So that Mallet was now imprisoned for a second offence not as the Historian saith because he could not be before this apprehended since his first prosecution May and Brown and Morgan upon their submission were discharged from their imprisonment Nothing further was done in this matter till Aug. 9. when it was resolved in Council to send for the chief Officers of the Lady Mary's House and to give them in charge not to permit Mass to be said in her House or to hear it and to give the same charge to her Chaplains and other Servants The same day it was resolved not to permit the use of Mass to the Emperour's Ambassadour since he would not permit the English Ambassadour resident in his Dominions the use of our Liturgy So that now the Council began to be less in fear of the Emperour not before the End of the last Year as the Historian hath it Aug. 11. a Warrant was signed for the appearance of the Lady Mary's Officers Aug. 14. there appeared Robert Rochester Edward Malgrave and Sir Francis Englefield her three chief Officers and were strictly charged not to signifie the King's pleasure to her to have the new Service in her Family and to give the like charge to her Chaplains and all her Servants as the Historian relateth but only to charge the Chaplains not to say Mass in her House or elsewhere and the Servants not to hear it and themselves to conform to the same Order and to take care that the others did it Aug. 22. the King's Journal saith the 23d the Officers returning reported to the Council that having first related their Instructions to her Grace which they had not been commanded to do she had absolutely forbidden them to deliver their charge to the Chaplains and Servants They also brought with them a Letter wrote by her to the King which I have inserted in the following Collection Upon which the Officers were not immedidiately sent to the Tower as the Historian writeth but called before the Council next day and reproved for not having executed their former Instructions but troubling her Grace with the opening their Message to her contrary to the Order and Charge prescribed to them wherefore each of them by himself and a part was commanded to return to her Graces House and execute the said Charge apart in such sort as the Order was given to them on the 14th Aug. The which thing they all refused to do albeit they were enjoined to do the same in vertue of their Allegiance Thereupon they were commanded to attend continually till they should know the Councils farther pleasure It was also decreed that the Lord Chancellour Secretary Petre and Sir Anth. Wingfield should repair to the Lady Mary with a Letter from the King and large Instructions from the Council which were sent to them being then in Essex The Letter I have put into the Collection The Instructions contained a Command to declare to her the King 's peremptory resolution not to permit to her any longer the use of the Mass the reasons which induced the Council to send a Charge to her Chaplains and Houshold by her own Servants which she had extremely resented the negligence of her Officers in not executing that Charge to justifie the King's proceedings to her and lastly calling her Chaplains and Servants before them to charge them strictly not to say or hear Mass. Aug. 29. the Commissioners being returned made report in Council of the Execution of their Charge and of the Lady Mary's Answer whom they had attended on the 28th The Report is large the substance of which is rightly given by the Historian When their Report was ended an Order was made that Rochester Inglefield and Walgrave should be conveyed from the Fleet to which they had been committed the day before to the Tower Next year on the 14 th of April they were set at liberty and commanded to return to their Lady and attend her Service as she had requested Pag. 177. lin 32. The English Embassadours in France 1551. moved for the Daughter of France to be given in marriage to King Edward yet this never taking effect it is needless to enlarge farther about it of which the Reader will find all the particulars in King Edward's Journal This Treaty of Marriage had a considerable Effect not mentioned in the King's Journal For it is said in the Council-Book that 30. Dec. 1551. This day the Lord Admiral being returned out of France delivered to the Lords the Ratification of the Marriage between the King's Majesty and the Lady Elizabeth the French Kings Daughter under the Great Seal of France And it was accorded that the same Treaty should be delivered to the Lord Treasurer to be by him reposed in the Treasury of the Exchequer to remain there of record in safe keeping Pag. 194. lin 43. Tonstall Bishop of Duresm was upon some complaint brought against him of Misprision of Treason put into the Tower about the end of December last year viz. 1551. What the particulars were I do not find King Edward's Journal placeth his Imprisonment on the 20th of December 1551. and so doth the Council-Book which relateth the Cause of it in these Words Whereas the Bishop of Duresm about July in Anno 1550 was charged by Ninian Menvile to have consented to a Conspiracy in the North for the raising of a Rebellion as by the same accusation in writing the Bishop's Answer thereunto and Menvile 's Replication to the same may at length appear For as much as for want of a Letter written by the said Bishop to Menvile whereupon depended a great Trial of this matter the Determination thereof was hitherto stayed and the Bishop only commanded to keep his House untill he should be called to further Answer which Letter being lately come to light found in a Cask of the
Duke of Somersets after his last apprehension the Bishop was now sent for and this day made his appearance before the Lords by whom being charged with this matter and his own Letter produced against him which he could not deny but to be of his own hand and unable to make any further Answer thereto than he had done before by Writing he was for that the same seemed not a sufficient Answer committed by the King's Commandment to the Tower of London to abyde there c. He had been accused by Menvile before 1550. For the History of the Bishops of Durham lately published affirmeth that Dr. Whitehead Dean of Durham being together with the Bishop and his Chancellor Hindmarsh accused by Menvile was forced to goe to London where he died in 1548. Whosoever succeeded him in the Deanry seemeth for some time to have been an Adversary of the Bishop For in the Council-Book it is said 1551. May 20. The Bishop of Duresm upon hearing the matter between him and the Dean of Duresm was committed to his House On the 8th Iuly following the Council ordered the Dean of Duresm to Answer in Writing unto Matters as he was charged with at his being before the Council and in such sort as he will stand to at his peril Aug. 2. The Bishop had License granted to him to walk in the Fields October 5. A Letter was wrote by the Council to the Lord Treasurer Lord Chamberlain Secretary Cecil and Mr. Mason to hear and examine the Bishop and Dean of Duresme 's Case and to make them report of the same and if they shall so think convenient to send for them and their Accuser together or apart as shall seem best unto them So that by this time the Bishop and Dean were involved in the same Cause November 3. The Dean of Durham was bound by the Council in a Recognizance of Two hundred Pounds to appear before the Council on the first day of the next Term. He was then very sick and seemeth to have died within few days after For the King granted the Deanry to Dr. Horn 1551. November 20. The name of the Dean intervening between Whitehead and Horn I cannot recover and am ready to suspect that the time of Whitehead's Death is falsly related in the History of Durham and that the Order of Council of the 20th of May was not well worded by the Clerk For Horn is by many affirmed to have succeeded immediately to Whitehead and to him the Council 1552. February 18th granted a Letter directed to the Prebendaries of Durham to conform themselves to such Orders in Religion and Divine Service standing with the Kings proceeding as their Dean Mr. Horn shall set forth whom the Lords require to receive and use well as being sent to them for the weal of the Country by his Majesty To return to Tonstall while he lay in the Tower in the Year 1551. he wrote his Book De veritate corporis sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia in the 77th Year of his Age which was Printed at Paris 1554. Pag. 196. lin 28. On the First of November last Year viz. 1551. a Commission was granted to Eight Persons to prepare the Matter a Reformation of the Ecclesiastical Laws for the Review of the Two and thirty On the 6th of October 1551. the Council had directed a Letter to the Lord Chancellor To make out Commission to Thirty two Persons viz. Eight Bishops Canterbury London Winchester Ely Exeter Glocester Bath Rochester Eight Divines Taylor of Lincoln Cox Parker Latimer Cook Martyr Cheek Masco Eight Civilians Petre Cecill Sir Tho. Smyth Taylor of Hadley May Traheron Lyell Skinner Eight common Lawyers Justice Hales Justice Bromley Gooderick Gosnald Stamford Carrell Lucas Brook To authorize them to Assemble together and to resolve upon the Reformation of the Canon Law Eight of these to rough hew the Canon Law the rest to conclude it afterwards On the 9th of November 1551. a new Commission was ordered to those Eight Persons mentioned by the Historian For the first drawing and ordering the Canon Law for that some of those before appointed are now thought meet by the King to be left out The Commission was Sealed November 11. as appears by the Reformatio legum Eccl. Printed at London 1571 1640. Next Year viz. 1552. February 2. it was ordered that the Lord Chancellor make out a Commission to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Bishops Learned men Civilians and Lawyers of the Realm for the Establishment of the Ecclesiastical Laws according to the Act of Parliament made the last Sessions The granting of this Commission King Edward placeth in the 10th of February and giveth a List of the Commissioners Names but among the Civilians hath omitted Hussey principal Registrary of the See of Canterbury whose Name I find added to this List in some Papers of Archbishop Parker wherein also instead of Mr. Red .... the Name of Holford occurs Pag. 203. lin 3. This Year 1552. Day of Chichester was put out of his Bishoprick Whether he refused to submit to the new Book or fell into other Transgressions I do not know His Sentence is something ambiguously expressed in the Patent that Story had to succeed him which bears Date the 24th of May. The Council-Book giveth a large account of this matter 1550. October 7. The Council ordered Dr. Cox to repair into Sussex to appease the people by his good Doctrine which are now troubled through the seditious preaching of the Bishop of Chichester and others November 8. The Bishop of Chichester appeared before the Council to Answer the things objected to him for Preaching And because he denied the words of his Accusation he was commanded within two days to bring in writing what he preached November 30. The Duke of Somerset declared in Council that the Bishop of Chichester coming to him two days before had shewed him that whereas he had received Letters from the King and Council a Copy of which may be found in the Council-Book commanding him to take down all Altars in the Churches of his Diocess and in lieu of them to set up Tables in some convenient place of the Chauncels and to cause the Reasonableness of it to be declared to the people in Preaching He could not conform his Conscience to do what he was by the said Letter commanded and therefore prayed to be excused Upon this the Bishop was commanded to appear the day following which he did and being asked what he said to the King's Letter he answered that he could not conform his Conscience to take down the Altars in the Church and in lieu of them to set up Tables as the Letter appointed for that he seemed for his Opinion the Scripture and the Consent of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church and contrariwise did not perceive any strength in the Six Reasons which were set forth by the Bishop of London to persuade the taking down of Altars and Erection of Tables And then being demanded
what Scriptures he had he alledged a saying in Esay which place being considered by the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London's and the Lords in the Council was found of no purpose to maintain his Opinion Then the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely argued the Lawfulness and Reasonableness of the thing after which he was commanded by the Council to conform which he still refusing because contrary to his Conscience he was ordered to resort to the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishops of Ely and London to confer with them for satisfying his Conscience and to appear again the 4th of December When he then appeared being demanded he stuck to his former Resolution and entred into a Dispute with the Archbishop about the merits of the Cause and alledged the former place out of Esaiah and a place out of the last Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews Which the Archbishop and Bishop of Ely answered and shew from Origen that in the Primitive Church Christians had no Altars and urged the necessity of reforming the abuses of Altars But touching the naming the Table an Altar it was left indifferent to him so to name it because ancient Writers sometime call that Table an Altar Notwithstanding the Bishop persevering in his Resolution although he was now again commanded on his Allegiance to comply the Council ordered him to appear again on Sunday and then to give his final Answer Which he did and answered that plainly he could not do it saving his Conscience and that he determined rather to lose all that ever he had Hereupon two days more were given to him to deliberate But on the 11th of December persisting and praying them to do with him what they thought connevient for he would never obey to do this thing thinking it a less evil to suffer the Body to perish than to corrupt the Soul he was committed to the Fleet. On the 9th of Iune 1551. an Order was sent to the Warden of the Fleet to suffer the Bishop of Chichester to have such number to attend on him and to be ordered at those who attend on the Bishop of Worcester In September a Commission was given to examine and judge him On the 24th of October 1551. an Order was made for seizing into the Kings hands the Temporalties of the Bishopricks of Chichester and Worcester lately given to his Highness by the Iudgment given by the Commissioners lattely appointed for the hearing of the said Bishops Causes 1552. Iune 15. A Letter was wrote to the Lord Chancellor Signifying to him that Dr. Day late Bishop of Chichester is sent to him by the Kings Appointment to be used of his Lordship as in Christian Charity shall be most seemly A like Letter was then sent to the Bishop of London for the receiving of Dr. Hethe late Bishop of Worcester and an Order to the Warden of the Fleet to deliver them both to the Bishops appointed to receive them The Archbishop seized the Spiritualties of the See of Chichester void by the Deprivation of Day 1551. November 3. Stâ—w saith that the Sentence of his Deprivation was pronounced 1551. October 10. King Edward's Journal placeth it on the 5th of October Pag. 203. lin 3. This Year 1552. Heath Bishop of Worcester was put out of his Bishoprick He had been put in Prison for refusing to Consent to the Book of Ordinations He was afterwards deprived The Council-Book reports that at a Council held at Chelsey 1551. September 22. Nicholas Bishop of Worcester was sent for to whom was repeated the Cause of his Imprisonment to be for that he refused to subscribe to the Book devised for the form of making Bishops Priests and Deacons being authorized by Parliament At the time of which refusal being not only gently required to subscribe but also being manifestly taught by divers other Learned men that all things contained in that Book were good and true and that the Book was expedient and allowable the said Bishop declared himself to be a very obstinate Man and for that his doing it was now shewed to him that he deserved longer Imprisonment Nevertheless he was now offered to recover the Kings favour if he would subscribe to the Book He answered Confessing he took the Cause of his Imprisonment to be as was alledged and that also he was very gently used rather like a Son than a Subject Nevertheless that he remained in the same mind not willing to subscribe it although he would not disobey it And although he was reasoned withall by every of the said Council there were present only Six Laymen in disproving his manner of Answer being every thing in the said Book true and good and being devised by Eleven other Learned men to the which he was joyned as the Twelfth and received of all the Realm agreeing also that he would obey it but not subscribe it which contained a Contradiction of Reason Yet he still refused to subscribe it Whereupon he was offered to have Conference with Learned men and to have time to consider the matter better Whereunto he said That he could have no better Conference than he had heretofore and well might he have time but of other mind he thought never to be Adding that there be many other things whereunto he would not Consent as to take down Altars and set up Tables He was then expresly charged to subscribe before Thursday following before the 24th of September upon pain of Deprivation Next follow the Orders of the 24th of October 1551 and 15th of Iune 1552. related in the preceding Article King Edward in his Journal noteth that he was deprived for Contempt 1551. October 5. The Register of Archbishop Cranmer affirmeth him to have been deprived 1551. October 10. which is chiefly to be relied on as being a Record with which also Stow agreeth adding that the same day he was committed to the Fleet. He had been imprisoned in the Fleet before this Day For the Council-Book after the Relation of his Examination and Answer on the 22d of September addeth that as a man incorrigible he was returned to the Fleet. Pag. 203. lin 16. This Year the Bishoprick of Glocester was quite suppressed and Hooper was made Bishop of Worcester In December before Worcester and Glocester had been united So they were to be ever after one Bishoprick with two Titles But now they were put into another method and the Bishop was to be called only Bishop of Worcester So also Pag. 396. lin penult Hooper had not two Bishopricks but one that had been for some years divided into two He only enjoyed the revenue of Glocester for Worcester was entirely suppressed The Historian would have obliged us if he had pleased to acquaint us by what Authority all this was done It should seem that Hooper had Possession of the Revenues of Worcester I mean as much of it as the greedy Courtiers thought fit to leave to it as well as Glocester For in the Council-Book is found this Order made 1552. May
Author after he had seen and published such an Instrument if himself had vouchsafed so much as to read the Records which he hath published in his Collections and not left them to be perused and transcribed by some Under-workmen I should have thought that he saw not this Instrument until he had Composed and Printed of this part off the History if he had pleased in his Addenda to have owned and amended a mistake of so great Consequence or if in the Second part of his History he had not repeated and confirmed this his erroneous Conjecture touching the Constitution of our Convocations before the Reformation If it should be suspected that however it might be in the Convocation of the Year 1536 when the frequent and great Changes preceding and accompanying it might disorder and change the method and order before received yet that it was otherwise in precedent times I answer that it might be undeniably demonstrated from the Acts of many Convocations for above 200 years before the Reformation until that very time that the Constitution of Convocations was all along in this respect the same For although the Registers of the Convocations be lost yet the Acts of many of them remain and may be found elsewhere I will give but one Proof of this but that out of an Authentick Instrument In the Convocation held in the Year 1462 the lower House wanting a small Summ of ready Money for some slight occasion resolved to raise it by imposing small Mulcts upon all the absent Members To this purpose a List of the names of all the absent Members of the lower House was brought in and they were these the Deans of Sarum Lincoln Windsor Wells Chichester the Archdeacons of Colchester Winchester Surry Taunton Dorset c. So then the Matter of Fact is put beyond all doubt that all the Bishops Abbots and Priors sate in the upper House all Deans Archdeacons and Proctors of the Clergy in a word all the Secular Clergy beneath Bishops sate in the lower House of Convocation But I will farther enquire how it came to be setled in this method It is notorious that for some time after the present Constitution of Parliaments was introduced in the Reign of Henry III. great numbers of Abbots and Priors were summoned to Parliament by particular Writs directed to every one I will not now dispute whether the second and third Estates the Lords and Commons then sate together but most certain it is that the Pares Proceres Baronies Regni were those who were summoned to Parliament by particular Writs At first the King summoned by particular Writs all the Ecclesiasticks viz. Bishops Abbots and Priors who received their Temporalities from the Crown At least the King summoned as many of them as he pleased Some Abbots and Priors were perhaps excused from attendance by reason of their Poverty Thus Anno 49. H. 3. there were summoned Abbots and Priors 102. Anno 35. Edward I. there were summoned 47. Anno. 1. E. II. there summoned 56. Anno. 4. E. III. there were summoned 33. Now all the Abbots and Priors thus summoned by particular Writs sate inter Pares Proceres Barones Regni and were held a part of the second as well as of the first Estate of the Nation represented in Parliament They were a part of the first Estate as Ecclesiastical Prelates and a part of the second Estate as receiving their Temporalties and holding their Baronies of the King For such Abbots and Priors the King was wont to summon as received their Temporalties from him Afterwards in the Reign of Edward III. the number of Abbots and Priors summoned by particular Writs was much reduced and so continued till the Reformation only some of the greater Abbots being wont to be summoned The number of them was never unalterably fixed but received Addition or Diminution even till the time of Hen. VIII But from the Reign of Edw. III. till the Reformation their number always exceeded twenty and fell short of thirty When the Kings therefore ceased to summon particularly the lesser Abbots and Priors they lost their place in the second Estate of Parliament but still continued to be summoned to the Convocation by their several Bishops in obedience to the Mandate of the Archbishop commanding them to summon to Convocation to be held at such a time all within their Diocess having Right to sit therein When these came up to Convocation as many of them as received their Temporalties from the King and had been wont formerly to be summoned by him inter Barones Regni and to sit among them claimed still their former place in the Convocation which was to sit with the Bishops whether yet they sate in one House with the inferior Clergy or whether they had by this time separated themselves into a distinct upper House as most certainly they did afterwards This Claim could not reasonably be denied to such Abbots and Priors and this giveth a clear Account how all such Abbots and Priors came to obtain a place in the upper House of Convocation But the great difficulty consists in the Case of Priors of Cathedral Churches For I find that some time before the Reformation that they also sate in the upper House although none of them received their Temporalties from the King except the Prior of Coventry They were of so great Account that some of them had been summmoned by the King to Parliament although they owed to him no such Service upon the account of their Temporalties which they received not from him Thus the Prior of Norwich was summoned Anno 1293. but the Prior of Canterbury several times as Anno 49. Hen. 3. Anno 35. E. 1. Anno 21. E. 2. and in the Years 1399 and 1401. This the King might do either upon extraordinary occasions with a Salvo to their Rights or pretending to the immediate Superiority of their Temporalties as he sometimes did but was cast therein and at length forced to renounce that Claim However after the Year 1300 I find none of them summoned by the King but the Prior of Canterbury and him no more than these four times But when these Priors came to Convocation summoned by their Bishops they could not but conceive some Indignation that when so many Abbots and petty Priors sate in the upper House themselves should be thrust down to the lower House who in revenue and interest were equal to the greatest Abbots So that no wonder if they tryed all possible methods to raise themselves into the upper House which they at last effected at least some of them did At what time and by what Pretences they did effect it I cannot certainly affirm But I suppose that whereas some of them had gained of the Pope the priviledge of wearing the Pontifical Habit at solemn times viz. Mitre Pastoral Staff c. and had thereupon assumed to themselves the name of Prelates they claimed in vertue of that priviledge and were admitted to sit in Convocation among the Prelates
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.
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.