A SPECIMEN Of some ERRORS and DEFECTS IN THE History of the Reformation OF THE Church of ENGLAND; Wrote by GILBERT BURNET, D. D. now Lord Bishop of Sarum.  
By ANTHONY HARMER.  
LONDON, Printed for Randall Taylor, near Stationers-Hall. 1693.   

A SPECIMEN of some Errors and defects in the late History of the Reformation of the Church of England.  
IT ought not to be esteemed any Disrespect to the Author of the late History of the Reformation of the Church of England, now advanced to an eminent station therein, nor any Indignity offered to the Work itself; if the Errors and Defects of it be discovered and published by others. To examine the Truth of things proposed, is a privilege common to all men: Nor can this Great Historian justly take it ill, if the title of Infallible, which he with so great strength of reason opposeth in others, be denied to himself, especially since himself hath laid down this excellent Rule, 
Hist. Reform. p. 1. p. 264.  that ingenuous persons ought not to take things on trust easily, no not from the greatest Authors.  
At least it will be allowed, that when a Foreigner (however eminent and learned) undertaketh to write the History of any Nation, or part of it; the Natives have more than ordinary right to examine the truth, and discover the mistakes of it; lest otherwise the honour of their Country should suffer any prejudice by a false Relation of its Transactions. This examination will be so much the more necessary and serviceable, by how much the History hath obtained the greater reputation in the World: since where any History acquireth (as this hath most deservedly) such an universal reception, as to be read, and esteemed by all at home, to be translated into other Languages abroad, to be accounted by all most perfect in its kind; that universal reputation will the more effectually contribute to the propagation of the Errors contained in it: and further since (as the Author himself not vainly imagines) it is a Work that may live some time in the World; 
Par. 2. in Praf. p. 13.  those Errors, which tend to the prejudice of truth and dishonour of the Nation, will be perpetuated, unless this remedy, of a public detection of them, be allowed.  
I do not hereby pretend to detract from the honour due to this History; nor do I presume so much as to insinuate, what the Historian himself is pleased to own, 
Par. 1. in Pref. p. 8.  his unfitness for such a work, by reason of his unacquaintedness with the Laws and Customs of this Nation, not being born in it; however the desire and encouragement of Great Persons did herein overrule his Modesty. I am not so vain as to imagine, that I can in the least blast a reputation so firmly and so deservedly established; nor is that any part of my design. On the contrary, I should give to this History those praises, which are due to it; could I induce myself to believe, that my suffrage could add any thing to that great opinion, which the World hath already entertained of it. The only reasons which have drawn me to this Undertaking, are the love of truth, and concern for the honour of the Reformation of our Church; which will receive at least some small advancement by the discovery of any errors committed and believed in the History of it.  
If Varillas, Le Grand, and others have been successfully triumphed over, and baffled by the Historian, who have already published Reflections, Animadversions, or Corrections of this History, being mere strangers to our Nation, and the History of it; and designing not in the least the discovery of truth, or restauration of History, but only to gratify their private passions, and to vilify the honour and justice of our Reformation: if their attempts have succeeded so ill, that will not discourage me, who do not altogether labour under the same disadvantages with them, and am not conscious to myself of any sinister design. Or if they have given to the Historian just occasion to treat them with some scorn and contempt, I do not much fear the same treatment, which yet if it should happen, will not affright me; nor yet deter me from enquiring further into the truth of things, especially those relating to our Church; as I shall have leisure and opportunity.  
It ought not, nor can it be supposed, that I have discovered, and in these Papers published, all the Errors committed in this History: I have indeed read the whole, but have not had opportunity to examine the truth of a third part of it. In that small part which I have examined, I have detected all the following mistakes, (for which reason I call it a Specimen) so that if I had present leisure and means to pursue the examination throughout; I could scarce hope to find the remaining part free from Errors. But I would not bestow too much time upon it; nor if I would, do I enjoy yet fit opportunity. The Reflections of Varillas, Le Grand, or any others upon this History I have not read since they were first published; and then I had entertained no thoughts of such a design: so that if any observation of mine be common to them, it is by chance. But I do not much fear it, having for the most part drawn my Observations from Books and Records which they never saw.  
As for Mr. Fulman's Corrections, which the Historian hath published in the end of his second Volume, I have not insisted on any mistakes observed by him; unless where he hath either mistaken himself, or not sufficiently cleared the matter. In the whole I have made use of the second Edition of the History, which (as the title bears) hath been corrected.   

Pars Prima.  
Page 4. Line 38. 
Cardinal Wolsey in the mean while was put in hopes of the Archbishopric of Toledo.  
THE Historian seemeth to have been ignorant, that the Cardinal did for several years receive a very large Pension out of the Archbishopric of Toledo. Not many weeks since I saw an Original Letter writ with the Cardinal's own hand to Dr. Lee, his Agent in the Emperor's Court; wherein, among other things, he commanded him to expostulate with the Emperor's Ministers for the nonpayment of the Pension reserved to him out of the Archbishopric. The exact sum due to him is therein inserted: but having not then taken any minutes of the Letter, not so much as the date of it, I will not affirm any thing particular of the sum. Yet to do justice to the memory of the Cardinal, lest he should be thought to have been bribed by any Foreign Prince to act against the interest of his Master, I will add, that when Tournay was delivered by K. Henry to the French, 
Lettere di Cardinal Bibiena entre Lettere di Principi, lib. 1. p. 33.  in the year 1518, the Ambassador of the K. of Spain did privately offer to the Cardinal 100000 Crowns in the name of his Master, if he would cause the Citadel of Tournay to be demolished before the delivery of it: which offer the Cardinal generously refused, because contrary to the Articles agreed between his Master & the French King.   
Pag. 8. lin. 1. 
Cavendish's Life of Cardinal Wolsey is cited out of a Manuscript, ex MSS. Nobilis Viri, etc.  
This Life hath been twice printed: So that it need not to have been cited with so much pomp out of a Manuscript: Or if the written differs from the printed Copy, that should have been observed. If that long passage, giving a character of the Cardinal, which the Historian here transcribeth, be taken Verbatim out of the Manuscript: We have just reason to suspect, that the Life contained in this Manuscript was not written by Cavendish, but by some other, who enlargeth on his words. For in the printed Copies, that passage is not to be found; although somewhat like to it, in much fewer words, may be read therein. Yet I have seen a fair Manuscript Copy of Cavendish's Life, written above a hundred years since, agreeing in all things with the printed Copy.   
Pag. 8. lin. 38. in marg. 
Cardinal Wolsey exchanged the Bishopric of Duresm for the Bishopric of Winchester, and had restitution of the Temporalities of Winchester 4 Maii, anno 20 H. 8.  

Par. 2. Append. p. 411.  The day here assigned for the restitution of the Temporalities of Winchester, viz. 4 Maii, falls into the year 1528. To which Mr. Fulman justly objects, that the See of Winchester seems not to have been void before the 9 th' of September this year, 
Ibid.  for that Fox's Register reacheth so far. To this the Historian answers, that he took all these dates from the Rolls and must add that he hath often seen cause to question the exactness of Clerks in enrolling of dates. To put the force of Mr. Fulmen objection beyond dispute, I will add that Fox died not till the 14. of Sept. 1528. So that it cannot be avoided, but that either the Record or the Historian must be mistaken. The Historian chargeth it on the Record, and not content with this, brings the same charge of falsity against many other Records. He who seeks to overthrow the Testimony of Records, in the truth of which the honour of a whole Nation is so much concerned, aught to be very sure. Notwithstanding his asseveration, I examined the Record, and upon search found, that not it, but the Historian, is mistaken. For the Record truly saith, that the Cardinal received the Temporalities of Winchester 6 April 20 H. 8. 
Pat. 20 H. 8. rot. 43.  Which falls in the year 1529, and agreeth very well with the time of Fox's death, and Wolsey's installation, which was performed by Proxy 1529. April 11.  
Mr. Fulman had also questioned the date of the restitution of the Temporalities of Lincoln, assigned to be 4 Martii, 5 H. 8. because Wolsey was not consecrated till the 26. of March. I know not, whether the answer subjoined, That this might be to give him a right to the mean profits by restoring the Temporalities before Lady. day, tho' he was not consecrated till the 26 th'. belong to Mr. Fulman, or to the Historian. But it proveth, that neither of them knew the true state of this matter. For whereas the restitution of the Temporalities of Lincoln to Wolsey before his consecration, is here represented to have been (if true) an extraordinary case, owing to his great favour and power at Court: The truth is, that at that time, and for several Ages before, Bishops received their Temporalities from the King immediately after their Confirmation, even before Consecration; and at their Confirmation did of course take out a writ from the Archbishop to the King, signifying their Confirmation, and in virtue of it desiring restitution of their Temporalities to be granted to them. 
Regist. Warham.  Wolsey therefore being provided to the Bishopric of Lincoln by the Pope on the 6 th' of Febr. no wonder, that as soon as his Bulls came into England, and had been allowed by the Archibshop, he should immediately receive his Temporalities before consecration.   
Pag. 9 lin. 1. 
Even after Wolsey was Cardinal, Warham as Lord Chancellor took place of him, as appears from the Journals of the house of Peers, 7 H. 8. and afterwards (viz. after that Wolsey was made Lord Chancellor) gave him place; as appears on many occasions, and particularly in the Letter written to the Pope 1530. which the Cardinal subscribed before Warham.  
Many mistakes and false consequences are contained in these lines. For 1. if Wolsey in the quality of Lord Chancellor, took place of Warham; it would follow that the Lord Chancellors, as such, aught to precede the Archbishops of Canterbury: The contrary of which is known to be and to have always been true. 2dly. If Warham, when Lord Chancellor, took place of Wolsey, when Cardinal, in the house of Peers; it doth not follow, that at that time he took place of him elsewhere, as the Historian would insinuate. For in the House the Chancellor precedeth all other Peers, and even the Archbishop of Canterbury among the rest, as being in virtue of his Office Speaker of the House. Nor, could Wolsey be so extravagantly vain as to desire the Great Seal only that he might precede Warham in the Parliament. For, 
Pag. 8.  as the Historian observeth, he affected to govern without Parliaments. And accordingly for many years after he obtained the Great Seal, had no Parliaments. And even after the Seal was taken from him, he still took place of Warham in the house of Peers. 3dly. If in the Letter wrote to the Pope 1530. The Cardinal subscribed before Warham; he could not do this in the quality of Lord Chancellor, as the Historian imagines. For the Great Seal had been taken from him in the preceding year 1529, October 17. So that some other reason of Wolsey's precedence must be enquired. And that reason is very obvious. For Wolsey took place of Warham, even before and after he was Lord Chancellor, as being Cardinal. This is confirmed by the relation of Cavendish: Who in his Life saith, 
Cap. 4.  that Warham checked him for his presumption in carrying himself as his equal; but that shortly after Wolsey obtained to be made Cardinal, and thereby got the better of Warham in that point.   
Pag. 9 lin. 4. 
We have nothing on Record, to show what a speaker he (Cardinal Wolsey) was.  
If the word Record be here used in the Law-sence of it; we grant it to be true: But than it is not very pertinent▪ But if it be used in an Historical sense, it is a mistake. For to pass by the many Letters, Dispatches, Instructions, etc. Which remain of the Cardinals own writing, and which manifest that he had a great command of words as well as knowledge of things: We have the assurance of one who (as the Historian himself elsewhere observeth) knew him very well, and would not flatter him, that he was much famed for his Eloquence. 
Cavendish ●n his Life ●ap. 2.3.  His sentences in the Star-chamber were ever so pithy and witty: that upon all occasions they assigned him, for the fluent eloquence of his tongue, to be their expositor in all proceedings,— he had an especial gift of natural eloquence, and a filed tongue to pronounce the same: That he was able therewith to persuade and allure all men to his purposes. From hence it may appear how unhappy the conjecture of the Historian is; who detracting from the praises of the Cardinal, supposeth that he was no better a Speaker than the preceding Chancellors, whom at the same time he maketh to have been very sorry Orators.   
Pag. 11. lin. 57 
When any See was vacant, the King recommended one to the Pope; upon which his Bulls were expedited at Rome; and so by a Warrant from the Pope he was consecrated, and invested in the Spiritualities of the See.  
The Historian here undertaketh to describe the way and process of making Bishops in England, received for above 300 years before the Reformation. In his description of it he hath committed several mistakes. For, first, this method was not much used in England, until within less than 200 years before the Reformation. Secondly, It was not even then always used: For sometimes within that term Bishops were elected, confirmed and consecrated, without consulting the Pope in the least, or expecting any Bulls from him. Thirdly, Even after the method of expecting Papal Bulls, and proceeding in virtue of them was fully settled: the King did not always recommend, nor did the Pope always grant his Bulls to the person recommended. But sometimes the Pope stayed not for his Recommendation, but granted his Bulls to whom he thought fit: or after he had received the King's Letters granted his Bulls to some other, whom himself liked better, or whom the Archbishop or some powerful Nobleman had recommended. Indeed for about sixty years before the Reformation our Kings had got the better of the Popes in this matter, and drawn the disposition of Bishoprics to themselves, yet not altogether (for the Popes by their authority and pleasure disposed of Worcester at least three times together within that term) and after all, 4thly, the Bishops were not first consecrated and then invested in the Spiritualities of the See. But the practice was all along contrary. For they received the Spiritualities of their Sees, immediately upon Confirmation; and the sentence of their Confirmation was ever accompanied with a decree for their being put in possession of their Spiritualities, and a mandate directed to the Guardian of the Spiritualities to deliver them up to them.   
Pag. 11. lin. 35. 
Though the Parliament and two or three high-spirited Kings, had given some interruption to the cruel exactions and other illegal proceedings of the Court of Rome; yet that Court always gained their designs in the end.  
Not always: For if that were true, our Nation had indeed been very tame: But I hope the English are not descended of such a dastardly generation. Our Ancestors had before the Reformation got the better of the Court of Rome, in many points controverted between them, and those of the greatest moment. Further not only two or three of our High-spirited Kings had given some interruption to that Court. Of all our Kings since the Conquest, Richard II. and Henry VI. were the farthest from being high-spirited. Yet very great, if not the greatest, interruption was given in their Reigns. Not to say, that the interruption under Edward III was not made till the latter end of his Reign, when he was nothing less than high-spirited.   
Pag. 12. lin. 5. 
But when this began (viz. That Bishops receiving their Temporalities from the King, should renounce the benefit of the Papal Bulls in relation to them, or any Claim to them, to be derived from thence.) I leave to the more Learned in the Law to discover.  
I do not pretend to be Learned in the Law: Yet my small knowledge in the Antiquities of my Country, enableth me to discover this, if it is to be called a Discovery. This Custom began in the Year 1272, when a like Renunciation was required of Robert Kilwardby, collated by the Pope to the Archbishopric of Canterbury. And shortly after the Papal Bulls of Provision increasing, the matter was fully settled about the Year 1300.   
Pag. 21. lin 45. 
In the Days of King Edgar, most of the Secular Clergy being then married, and refusing to put away their Wives, were by Dunstan, etc. turned out of their Livings.  
The Historian here, and in the following Lines, seemeth to have been Ignorant of the ancient English History. Dunstan, Ethelwald, and Oswald, ejected the married Secular Clergy only out of two Cathedral Churches, and some few Monasteries (if the then Possessors of Monasteries may be called Seculars). They endeavoured indeed to eject them out of other Cathedrals and Monasteries; but could not effect their Design. As for the great Body of the Secular Clergy, the Parish-Priests; Dunstan and his Complices were so far from turning most of them out of their Livings, on account of their Marriages; that they never attempted it: They declaimed indeed furiously against their use of Marriage, as sinful, and would have persuaded them from it; but never forbade it to them by any solemn Sanction, much less deprived them of their Livings upon it. All this the Historian might have learned from the Writings of our eminent Divines, at the time of the Reformation; if he thought himself not obliged to read the ancient Histories of our Nation. For Bishop Poynet in his Defence of Priests Marriages, maintains, that Marriage of Priests was not forbidden in England before King Henry the First. 
Cap. 13.  And when Dr. Martin in his Answer to Poynet, exclaimed against his Assertion as false; the Annonymous Author of the long and learned Defence of Priests Marriages, published by Archbishop Parker, defended it, 
Pag. 214. Pag. 215.  and showed the truth of it from the ancient Histories; proving that Dunstan, Ethelwald, and Oswald, expelled Secular married Priests, only out of some Cathedral Churches. 
Pag. 280. etc.  All which is more largely and accurately proved by the Archbishop in his Additions to that Treatise.   
Pag. 21. lin. 49. 
There is in the Rolls an Inspeximus of King Edgar's, erecting the Priory and Convent of Worcester— signed by the King, two Archbishops, five Bishops, six Abbots (but neither Bishopric nor Abbey are named) six Dukes, and five Knights; but there is no Seal to it.  
Had this Historian been acquainted with our English Antiquities, he would have known; that this very Charter hath been often and long since published in the Monasticon, in Spelman's Councils, and elsewhere; and would not have imagined himself to have discovered some rare Secret in this Inspeximus. Or if he had been acquainted with our Rolls, he would not have expected to find in an Inspeximus, the Seal of an Original Charter, enroled in it: Or if he had been conversant in our ancient Records and Charters made before the Norman times, he would have spared his Observations of the want of a Seal to this Charter (although he had seen the Original Charter, and observed this in it) and of the not naming either Bishopric, or Abbey therein. For they who know this to be the Case of the far greater part of the Instruments and Charters of those times; would no more have made such an Observation; than after having said that they had seen a Man named Titius, they would have added that he had a Nose on his Face.   
Pag. 22. lin. 10. 
The Monks being thus settled in most Cathedrals of England. (So also p. 187. lin. 20.) King Edgar converted most of the Chapters into Monasteries.  
This surely was wrote at adventure. 
Par. 2. Append. pag. 412.  Mr. Fulman had before observed, that the Monks were not settled in half the Cathedrals of England. To which I may add, that they were then settled in no more than two Cathedrals, viz. Winchester and Worcester: Nor were any more Chapters converted into Monasteries, in the time of King Edgar. The married Clergy were then indeed ejected out of Ely, and Monks planted in their Room. But that Church was not a Cathedral until near 140 years after. Afterwards indeed, about the end of the eleventh Age, Monks were settled in some other Cathedrals, or Episcopal Sees fixed in Monasteries: to omit, one Cathedral, (viz. that of Canterbury) in which Monks were introduced in the beginning of the same Age. But after all, far from being settled in most Cathedrals, they were settled in no more than Nine, viz. Canterbury, Winchester, Duresm, Worcester, Rochester, Ely, Norwich, Bath, and Coventry. The Church of Carlisle indeed was possessed by Regulars; but those were Canons, not Monks.   
Pag. 22. lin. 10, 15. 
The Monks being thus settled, gave themselves up to idleness and pleasure, having in their hands the chief Encouragments of Learning, and yet doing nothing towards it: but on the contrary decrying and disparaging it all they could.  
This is a very hard Censure to pass upon a whole Order of men, who were once very honourable, but always serviceable in the Church. On the contrary, after they were thus settled (viz. by Dunstan, Ethelwald, and Oswald, in the Reign of Edgar) they set themselves in with great Industry to restore Learning, and root out that universal Ignorance which had then prevailed in England: and effectually performed it. Insomuch, as whereas before that time scarce any Secular Priest in England, 
Praef. add Grammat-Saxon.  could read or write a Latin Epistle; within few years (as Elfric a learned Disciple of Ethelwald boasteth) the face of things was so changed by the endeavours of Dunstan, and his Master Ethelwald, that Learning was generally restored, and began to flourish. At that time, and long after, the Monasteries were the Schools and Nurseries of almost the whole Clergy, as well Secular as Regular: For the Universities (if there were any) were then very mean Societies; and the whole Learning of the Nation was then in a manner confined to their Cloisters. As the Universities increased, they gradually decreased: yet still retained and cultivated Learning, till about the middle of the 13 th' Age; when the Mendicant Orders arose, who by their Hypocrisy, juggling Tricks, and extraordinary Industry, ran down both them and the Secular Clergy. Within two hundred years the Mendicants became contemptible; and then both the Monks and the Seculars began to recover their ancient Credit, and long before the Reformation, had made great progress in the Restauration of Learning. They had all along brought up their Novices in Learning; every Great Monastery having for that purpose a peculiar College in one of the Universities; and even to the time of their Dissolution, they continued to bring up great numbers of Children at School at their own Charge for the Service of the Church: and immediately before the Reformation, many of the great Monasteries were so many Nurseries of Learning; and the Superiors of them very Learned themselves, and Promoters of Learning in others. Such were Kidderminster Abbot of Winchelcomb, Goldwell Prior of Canterbury, Voche Abbot of St. Augustine's, Wells Prior of Ely, Holbeach Prior of Worcester, Islip Abbot of Westminster, Webbe Prior of Coventry, and many others. I do not hereby Apologise for the Laziness of the Monks in the middle Ages; but maintain, that both in the time of Edgar, and some time after, and immediately before the Reformation, they deserved a contrary Character to what the Historian giveth of them; and that even in the worst times, they were far from being Enemies, and Opposers of Learning; as he would have it believed.   
Pag. 22. lin. 31. 
To suppress some Monasteries was thought as justifyable, as it had been many Ages before, to change Secular prebend's into Canons Regular.  
This is not so accurately expressed: the conversion of Secular Prebendaries into Canons Regular the Historian supposeth: to have been made often, and in many Churches. But it was never done save in one Cathedral Church of England, that of Carlisle. Secular Prebendaries had in several Churches been changed into Monks. But Monks are a distinct Order from Canons Regular▪   
Pag. 23. lin. 12. 
Wickliff was supported by the Duke of Lancaster— the Bishops could not proceed against him, till the Duke of Lancaster was put from the King; and then he was condemned at Oxford.  
It might have become Varillas very well to have wrote this of Wickliff; but such a mistake is unworthy of an accurate and Reformed Historian, who ought especially to take care of doing justice to the Memory of that Great man. Far from being condemned at Oxford during his own Life, or the Life of the Duke of Lancaster, his Person was had in great Esteem and Veneration at that University to the last, and his Writings, for many years before and after his Death, were as much read and studied there, as of Aristotle, or the Master of the Sentences: Nay, so much concerned was that University for his Reputation; that near twenty years after his Death, hearing that false Reports had been spread abroad in foreign Parts, 
Vide opera Joannis Huffi in calce.  as if Wickliff had been convicted of Heresy in England, and his Body thereupon disinterred and burnt: the Chancellor and Senate of the University published a Manifesto; wherein they gave to him a great Character of Learning and Piety, called him a valiant Champion of the Faith; and declared that he had never been convicted of Heresy, nor his Body disinterred, Absit enim, quod tantae probitatis virum, etc. Indeed four years after this, the Authority of the Pope and King concurring with the restless Endeavours of Archbishop Arundel, several of his Writings were condemned and burnt at Oxford; and eighteen years after this his Body was taken up and burned.   
Pag. 23. lin. 13. 
Many Opinions are charged upon Wickliff; but whether he held them or not, we know not, but by the Testimony of his Adversaries.  
It seems the Historian knew not any certain means of gaining Information of Wickliff's true Opinions; but when he would include all others in the same Ignorance of them, we must desire to be excused. We have as many of the Works of Wickliff yet extant, as (if Printed together) would make four or five Volumes in Folio. And whether so many Books be not sufficient to teach us his Opinions, let the Reader judge.   
Pag. 23. lin. 16. 
Wickliff translated the Bible out of Latin into English, with a long Preface before it; in which he reflected severely on the Corruptions of the Clergy, condemned the worshipping of Saints and Images, etc.  
This Preface indeed was published at London, 1550. under the name of Wickliff, and hath generally passed for his. But after all, Wickliff 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 Wickliff, 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 Wickliff would never have done for Reasons before mentioned. That Wickliff 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. 
john Braibrook Bishop of London, than 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 january, 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 Margin.) 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 satisfy the Clergy at home, and to justify the Divorce abroad, yet to those who know very well, that this National Church had sufficient Authority to determine such a Controversy 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. 
Part 1. pag. 95.  Cornelius Agrippa, a man very famous for great and curious Learning, and so satisfied in the King's 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, 
Cap. 15.  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 Louvain, others to Paris, some to Orleans, others to Milan: all at the proper Costs and Charge of the King, which in the whole amounted to a great Sum 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 Sums 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 Bishoprics, 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 Bishoprics, and Abbeys, to Foreigners, Cardinals, and others that did not live in England. The Popes did not give any Bishopric of England, to any Foreigner that did not live therein, till about Thirty years before the Reformation; when it was not done without the King's good liking, and in Virtue 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 Deaneries, prebend's, 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 Bishoprics, 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 Deaneries, prebend's, and Parsonages, the Usurpation of the Popes in the disposal of them was intolerable. 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 prebend's, 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 prebend's, 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. Paul's, 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 only 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 suspicion 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 Quarrel. 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; until 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 Prouisoes 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 Pope's 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 july.  
I did many years since transcribe out of an Authentic 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 july. But on the contrary the Bishop's Letter is dated july 10 th' and the Universities july 25 th'. Then whereas the Historian nameth only 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 'tis 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 join all the mistakes of this matter together, and transcript of the Archbishop's speech in the House of Commons, which he giveth to us, is also false. For it reads die Veneris, 30 januarii Anno Domini millesimo quadringentesimo decimo septimo, Indictione sextâ, Pontificatus Martini Papae Anno Undecimo. All the concurrent notes added to the year of our Lord show 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 Archbishop's Appeal, as it is by him published, manifests with how little care these public Instruments have been transcribed, for thus it ends: praesentibus discretis viris. M. W. Lyn. Curiae Cant. officii, & Thoma B. Archidiacono sanctarum in Ecclesiâ Lyne. Utriusque juris Doctoribus. Now to mistake and report falsely the dates of public Instruments is not a matter of light moment. For these will necessarily betray both Writers and Readers into infinite other mistakes, while they endeavour to adapt things, and the circumstances of them to the supposed, but mistaken time of other Actions. Besides all this it diminisheth the credit of any History, so that in all other matters the Reader cannot safely rely upon it, when he knows the negligence of the Historian in any part of it. And as for the Collection of Records, which make up one half of each Volume of this History, they will be of little value, if once there appears just reason to suspect the care or fidelity of the Transcriber. I have not had opportunity or a curiosity to examine one half of the dates of times either in the History itself, or in the Collection of Records; but do assure the Reader that of those which I have examined, I found near as many to be false as true.   
Pag. 112. lin. 4. 
The Pope's Usurpations still increasing, those Statutes (of Provisoes and Praemunire) lay dead among the Records, and several Cardinals had procured and executed a Legantine Power, which was clearly contrary to them.  
A competent knowledge of the History of the English Church, would have prevented so large a mistake. No Cardinals before Wolsey, had procured and executed such Legantine Power in England since those Laws were made. Cardinal Beaufort of Winchester indeed had procured it, but could never execute it, being inhibited by King Henry VI, by the advice of Archbishop Chichley, and forced to renounce his pretended Power: As for the Legantine Power of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was claimed and exercised by them in Quality of Legati nati; that was not in the least contrary to these Laws, nor ever was so accounted; being annexed perpetually to the See of Canterbury, ever since the Year 1200, and always belonging to them, without any new or distinct Bulls.   
Pag. 121. lin. 33. 
The old Cardinal of Ravenna was so jealous, that the Ambassadors of the King were forced to promise him the Bishopric of Chester (one of the new Bishoprics, designed to be erected in the Year 1532.) with which he was well satisfied.  
If in the Promises made by the Ambassadors to the Cardinal, the Historian found express mention of the new Erection of the Bishopric of Chester promised to him we must submit: Otherwise it is more probable, that the Bishopric desired by him, and promised to him; was the old Bishopric of Lichfield, which was then commonly called the Bishopric of Chester, and which was then likely to be void very shortly, by the Death of Dr. Blithe an extreme Old man, who died the following Year.   
Pag. 128. lin. 34. 
Cranmers' Bulls for the Archbishopric of Canterbury, bear date the 21st of February, 1533— By a tenth Bull dated the 2d of March, the Pall was sent to him— when these Bulls were brought into England, Thomas Cranmer was on the 13th of March consecrated.  
We have here another Instance of the little Exactness of the Historian in the dates of time. I will not take Notice that the first Bulls in the the Original bear date the 21st of February, 1532. For that is indeed 1533, to those who begin their Year on the first day of january. But the tenth Bull sending the Pall to Cranmer, is dated the 3d of March, and he was consecrated the 30th of March.   
Pag. 129. lin. 42. 
The most Learned Sir Henry Spelman, hath in no place of his Collections of our Counsels, considered the Constitution of the two Houses of Convocation; and in none of our Records have I been able to discover, of what Persons they were made up in the time of Popery: and therefore since we are left to conjecture, I shall offer mine to the learned Reader. It is that none sat in the lower House, but those who were deputed by the inferior Clergy; and that Bishops, Abbots, mitred and not mitred, and Priors, Deans and Archdeacon's, sat then in the upper House of Convocation. To which I am induced by these Reasons, etc.  
Sir Henry Spelman completed only the first Volume of his Councils which reacheth to the Conquest. Therein he had no opportunity to treat of this matter. For we do not inquire of the Constitution of Convocations in the Saxon times, but in the time immediately preceding the Reformation. As for the second Volume of Councils, which reacheth from the Conquest to the Reformation, the Collection of it was only begun by Sir Henry Spelman, but completed and published by others, without any tolerable Care or Skill. No doubt Sir Henry knew very well the Constitution of our Convocations before the Reformation, and so do all inquisitive Persons of our Nation; however the Historian may think a discovery herein to be necessary, to the Information of the Learned Reader. If he knew it not, he may be excused, as a Foreigner: Or if in none of our Records he were able to discover it, that also may be excused. For neither are all our Records kept at the Rolls, nor did the multiplicity of business permit the Historian to attend long to the search of them; but that he should proceed to offer his Conjecture, and such a Conjecture, as, if he had industriously sought to do it, he could not have made one more Erroneous. We cannot but wonder since he had sufficient means of better Information. Mr. Fulman hath observed, 
Par. 2. in Addend. p. 413.  that the Conjecture here proposed by the Historian, doth not agree with what he had before delivered, that Pole as Dean of Exeter was a Member of the lower House of Convocation. This demonstrates the Error of the Historian, but doth not Correct it. It may be Corrected, and the truth of the whole matter fully discovered from the Subscriptions of the Convocation held in the Year 1536. published by the Historian himself in the Addenda of this first part of his History: 
P. 315.  wherein all the Members of the upper House subscribe apart; and then all the Members of the lower House subscribed by themselves. The Instrument of their Subscription is an Original, (which I did many years since transcribe) and may be infallibly relied on.  
Therein it appears, that the Bishops, Abbots and Priors, constituted the upper House; and that all Deans, Archdeacon's, Proctors of Clergy, and Chapters of Cathedral Churches, sat in the lower House of Convocation. The Historian himself there summeth up all the Members of the lower House, 
P. 316.  who then subscribed in this manner; 24 Archdeacon's, 4 Deans of Cathedrals, three Deans of Collegiate Churches, 17 Procurators for the Clergy, and one Master of a College, (viz. Provost of a Collegiate Church.) Such an Error could not easily have been committed by so accurate an 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 Underworkmen. 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, 
P. 48. & 49.  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 Authentic Instrument. In the Convocation held in the Year 1462, the lower House wanting a small Sum 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 Archdeacon's of Colchester, Winchester, Surry, Taunton, Dorset, etc.  
So then the Matter of Fact is put beyond all doubt; that all the Bishops, Abbots and Priors, sat in the upper House; all Deans, Archdeacon's, and Proctors of the Clergy; in a word, all the Secular Clergy beneath Bishops, sat in the lower House of Convocation. But I will farther inquire, how it came to be settled 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, than sat 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 ecclesiastics (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, sat 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 Diocese, 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 sat 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 sat 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 sat 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 tried 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 privilege of wearing the Pontifical Habit at solemn times, viz. Mitre, Pastoral Staff, etc. and had thereupon assumed to themselves the name of Prelates; they claimed in virtue of that privilege, and were admitted to sit in Convocation among the Prelates: Or that whereas it was thought very indecent, that the Prior of Canterbury, in whom the Archepiscopal Jurisdiction, during a vacancy, was invested, and by whom the Convocations was summoned in that Case, should sit in the lower, and was thereupon removed to the upper House; his Example might facilitate Admission to the Priors of other Cathedrals, and open the way to them.   
Pag. 158. lin. 5. 
Suffragan Bishops were believed to be the same with the Chorepiscopi in the Primitive Church; which continued in the Western Church till the ninth Century; and then they were put down every where by degrees, and now (Anno 1534.) revived in England.  
If the Historian had pleased to acquaint himself with the State of the Church of England before the Reformation, he could not have been Ignorant, that for about 200 years before the Reformation, Suffragan Bishops had been frequent in England, 
Par. 2. Append. p. 414.  not only in large or neglected Dioceses (as Mr. Fulman imagineth, who hath in part noted the Error of the Historian) but also in smaller Dioceses, such as Wells, and in those wherein the proper Bishop did generally reside in Person: insomuch that in many Dioceses, whose Records are preserved, there appear a continued Series or Succession of Suffragan, as well as proper Bishops; and at the time of making this Act (Anno 1534.) there seemeth to have been a Suffragan Bishop in every Diocese of England, save Carlisle, Rochester and the Welsh Dioceses; and in several Dioceses more than one. That they were not by this Act revived in England, after the discontinuance of so many Ages, the Historian might have learned from the very Preface of it, 
Pag. 157.  which himself relates to begin thus: Whereas Suffragan Bishops have been accustomed to be had within this Realm, etc.   
Pag. 161. lin. 3. 
Chancellor More was the most zealous Champion the Clergy had; so he answered this Supplication (of the Beggars) by another in the name of the Souls that were in Purgatory, representing the miseries they were in, etc.  
Sir Thomas More wrote this Supplication of Souls, before he was Lord Chancellor, in the Year 1529, as the Title of it witnesseth, being then Privy Councillor. He was then indeed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; but in this Sense, I suppose, the Historian did not here call him Chancellor: Since the Historian hath mentioned this Supplication of the Souls, and hath given an Abstract of it, whereby he would seem to have read it; I beg leave to represent to him, that it would have been very fair in him, if when he related the Tragical Story of the Murder of Richard Hun, 
Pag. 14. & 18.  so much in prejudice of Fitz-Iames Bishop of London, and his Chancellor Doctor Horsey, he would have acquainted the Reader, that notwithstanding the general and violent Suspicions of their foul dealing therein, Sir Thomas More, who was then an eminent Man, and had certain opportunities of knowing the whole truth of the matter, hath in this Treatise largely defended both the Bishop and his Chancellor, and acquitted them from all manner of guilt or injustice therein.   
Pag. 182. lin. 6. 
In Oxford, the Question being put (Anno 1535.) Whether the Pope had any other Jurisdiction in England, than any other foreign Bishop? it was referred to certain Delegates, who agreed in the Negative; and the whole University being examined about it man by man, assented to their Determination.  
I fear that the Historian had conceived some displeasure against the University of Cambridge, for that he alloweth not to them, the Honour of having asserted betimes the Independency of our National Church upon the See of Rome; nor thinks fit to take any notice of them in this matter. I am not bound to engage in the private Quarrels of the Historian, and therefore shall think myself at Liberty to do Justice to the University of Cambridge, and to publish their Determination herein, which I have done: 
Collect. numb. 1.  To which I will here add, that the like Determinations seem to have been then made by particular Colleges in the University apart, and to have been subscribed by the Masters and Fellows of them. For I have seen such an original Instrument of one College.   
Pag. 186. lin. 28. 
What the ancient British Monks were; and by what Rule they were governed must be left to Conjecture. But from the little that remains of them, we find they were very numerous, and were obedient to the Bishop at Caerleon; as all the Monks of the Primitive times were to their Bishops.  
This is not accurately said. The British Monks were subject not only to the Bishop of Caerleon, but to their several Bishops, in whose Dioceses they lived. Indeed after that the Britain's were driven into Wales, and settled there, all their Bishops were subject to the Archbishop of Caerleon, and so by consequence were all the Monks also ultimately subject to him. But the Historian speaketh here of their immediate Subjection. Besides, that in this place he treateth of the ancient British Monks, which were before the Confusions of the Gothic Wars in Italy, and before the times of Benedict; when the Britain's were not driven into Wales, nor all their Bishops subjected to him of Caerleon. But there were at that time several other Archbishops in Britain, to whom the Bishops of their Provinces were as much subject; as the Bishops of the Province of Caerleon were to him.   
Pag. 186. lin. 43. 
This Exception of the Abbey of St. Augustine's from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop and his Successors, was granted, that they might have no disturbance in the Service of God. But whether this, with many other ancient Foundations, were not later Forgeries, which I vehemently suspect, I leave to Critics to discuss.  
That this and all other Charters of Exemption from Episcopal Jurisdiction, granted to Monasteries in England before the Conquest, were mere Forgeries, is an undoubted truth to all those who are not engaged by Interest to defend them. But it is somewhat extraordinary in any Writer to lay down Principles confessedly false or dubious, and then to build upon them, and raise consequences from them, as if they were indubitably true. This seemeth to be done by our Historian in the following Page; where he layeth down the Exemption of Monks in the ancient Foundations from Episcopal Jurisdiction, as one Foundation of their Corruption in Discipline, and increase in Riches. The first Exemption of this kind, really granted to any Monastery of England, was that given by William the Conqueror to Battle Abbey, newly founded by him; the Example of which prompted the Monks of other places to counterfeit the like ancient Exemptions, or to purchase new ones from the Court of Rome.   
Pag. 187. lin. 7. 
About the end of the eighth Century, the Monks had possessed themselves of the greatest part of the Riches of the Nation. (So also Par. 2. Praefat. pag. 9 lin. 1.) the best part of the Soil of England being in such ill hands, it was the Interest of the whole Kingdom to have it put to better uses.  
Such high Figures of Rhetoric and Hyperbolical Expressions are better reserved for Harangues, and do not well agree with History. The end of the eighth Century was the Year of our Lord 800, at which times very few Monasteries had been yet founded; nor had the Monks then in all appearance gained Possession of the hundredth part of the Riches of the Nation. Afterwards indeed they increased exceedingly in Number, Riches, and Possessions, especially in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth Centuries; but after all, upon a just Account, they will not be found even in Title to have possessed above a fifth part of the Nation: and considering that long before the Reformation, they were wont to Lease out their Lands to Laymen, for easy Fines, and small Rents, as Bishops, and Deans, and Chapters now do; it may be truly said that they did not in reality possess the Tenth part of the Riches of the Nation. Then for that other Charge, that the best part of the Soil of the Nation being in such ill hands, it was the Interest of the Nation to have it put to better uses, it is altogether Erroneous. From the beginning to the end, none ever improved their Lands and Possessions to better advantages, by Building, Cultivation, and all other methods, than the Monks did, while they kept them in their own hands: And when they Leased them out to others, it was the Interest of the Nation to have such easy Tenors continued to great numbers of Persons who enjoyed them. To this may be added, that they contributed to the public Charges of the Nation equally with the other Clergy; and the Clergy did always contribute in proportion above the Laity. So that we cannot find, to what better uses these Possessions have been since put; save only that inconsiderable part of them, which remains to Bishoprics, Cathedrals, and Schools, founded by King Henry VIII.   
Pag. 189. lin. 1. 
The Monks became lewd and dissolute, and so impudent in it, that some of their Farms were Let, for bringing in a yearly Tribute to their Lusts.  
God forbid, that any Professors of Christianity, much less the greatest Pretenders to it, should be guilty of such monstrous wickedness, or that any others should believe it of them without evident Proof. This Accusation is taken from Fuller's Church-History, 
Pag. 318.  who relateth no more than one Example of this kind, and that of a Convent, not of Monks, but of Canons Regular (of Waltham) not upon his own knowledge, but the single Testimony of a most notorious lying Villain, Stephen Marshal; and after all is so ingenuous, that he professeth himself to disbelieve it. On the contrary our Author suppresseth his Authority, and brings no other Testimony; raiseth the number from one to many, and delivereth a dubious matter as a Truth most certain. Surely if the Monks had been guilty of any such thing, it could not have escaped the knowledge of their Visitors, who searched and divulged all their Faults with the utmost Industry; nor would it have been unknown to Bale, brought up among them, nor omitted by him in his English Votaries, wherein he hath set himself to defame the Monastic Order, and the unmarried Clergy with insatiable Malice; nor would Instances of it be wanting in those many Leiger-Books, of the Monasteries still remaining, wherein they Registered all their Leases, and that for their own private use.   
Pag. 189. lin. 10. 
The Orders of Begging Friars at first would have nothing, no real Estates but the ground on which their House stood. But afterwards Distinctions were found, for satisfying their Consciences in larger Possessions.  
Hereby it is insinuated, that the Begging Friars, gained to themselves and possessed other real Estates, besides the Site of their Convents. But no such thing was done. To the very last they had no other real Estates in England.   
Pag. 194. lin. 47. 
The use of the Scripture in the vulgar Tongue continued for several Ages, till the state of Monkery arose; and than it was not consistent with their Designs, nor with the Arts used to promote them, to let the Scriptures be much known.  
The Order of Monks is now extinct in England, so that whatsoever may be said against them, there is no danger of a Reply from them. Yet still so much respect is owing to the Readers, as not to impose any thing upon them, which hath not at least the appearance of truth. That, this Accusation will not have to those, who know with what Industry the Monks in many Nations, but more especially here in England, translated the Scriptures into the Vulgar Tongue. We have the Names left of seven English Monks, who before the Conquest translated the Scriptures, or some part of it into the Saxon Tongue. After the Conquest we do not find so many Translations made; but of those which were made, as many were owing to the Monks as to the Secular Clergy.   
Pag. 215. lin. 17. 
Nix Bishop of Norwich died the former Year, tho' Fuller in his slight way, makes him to sit in the Convocation, held in the middle of the Year 1536.  
The Historian could not have blamed Fuller's slight way of writing at a more unlucky moment. For himself hath here committed three mistakes within the compass of six Lines. The first of them is this concerning the time of Bishop Nix's Death, who died not the former Year, but on the 14th of january in this Year; nor will the difference in Computation in beginning the Year salve the mistake. For this Historian always begginneth the Year on the first of january. The other two mistakes follow.   
Pag. 215. lin. 13. 
Nix Bishop of Norwich had offended the King Signally, by some correspondence with Rome, and was kept long in the Marshalsea, and was convicted and found in a Praemunire.  
I fear, that this also was wrote at adventure. 
Norric. p. 184.  The Historian finding the Bishop in a Praemunire, and in the Marshalsea, without further Enquiry, would suppose, that the Crime was some correspondence with Rome, and so gave his Conjecture for History. But had he known the Character of this Bishop, he would not have thought this so much as probable. Alexander Nevyl, who knew him well, describeth him to have been the most vicious Clergyman of his time. So that no remaining scruple of Conscience, or supposed Sense of Duty could prompt him at this time to hold any Correspondence with Rome: Nor yet could the hope of advancing his Fortune by it, in Case the Papal Power should be restored in England, induce him to it. For he was then an extreme old Man, and had been blind many years: But the true Cause of his Conviction and Imprisonment was this, which I shall deliver out of a Record. 
Term Hilary 25. H. 8. coram Rege rot. 15.  The Town of Thetford in Norfolk, had made a Presentment upon Oath before the King's Judges, touching their Liberties; namely, that none of the said Town ought to be Cited into any Spiritual Consistory, but only into the Court of the Dean of Thetford; and that if any Person cited any of that Town into another Spiritual Court, he should forfeit Six shillings and Eight pence for the same. With this the Choleric old Bishop being enraged, cited Richard Cockeral, Mayor of Thetford, and others, into his Spiritual Court, and enjoined them under pain of Excommunication to call a Jury of their Town before them, and forthwith to revoke and cancel the former Presentment. For this the Bishop was attainted in a Praemunire, put out of the King's Protection, his Person imprisoned, his Lands, Goods and Chattels forfeited to the King, by a Sentence in the King's Bench Court, in the beginning of the Year 1534. With part of the Bishop's Fine and Forfeiture upon this Attainder, the Glass-windows of Kings-Colledge Chappel in Cambridge are said to have been bought and set up.   
Page 215. Line 18. 
By the 17th Act of the last Parliament (begun 1536, june 8th, and ended 1536, july 18th) it appears that the Bishopric of Norwich being vacant, the King had recommended William, Abbot of St. Bennets to it, but took into his own hands all the Lands and Manors of the Bishopric, and gave the Bishop several of the Priories in Norfolk in exchange, which was confirmed in Parliament.  
This Act was made in the preceding Parliament, begun 1536, February 4th, and dissolved April 14th, and gave to the Bishopric of Norwich in exchange only the Abbey of St. Bennets in the Holm, the Priory of Hickling in Norfolk, and a Prebend in the Collegiate Church of St. Stephens in Westminster.   
Pag. 235. lin. 20. 
The Abbot of Farnese in Lincolnshire, with thirty Monks, resigned up that House to the King on the 9th of April 1537.  
The Abbey of Furnes was seated in Lancashire.   
Pag. 241. lin. 45. 
Battle Abbey was represented to be a little Sodom, so was Christ-Church in Canterbury, with several other Houses.  
The Historian doth not tell us, by whom they were thus represented. For that would have marred all the History, and have relieved the reputation of these Monasteries. Not by the Visitors surely; for the Acts of their Visitation of these places do not remain. The credit of the whole matter rests upon the authority of a vile Pamphlet published soon after without a Name, pretending to relate the enormous wickednesses discovered in the Monasteries of England at their suppression. 
Pag. 317.  From this Pamphlet Stevens transcribed these Stories into his Apology for Herodotus, and from him Fuller took them into his Church History, from whom our Historian received them. But Fuller is so ingenuous, as to own from whence he took them; and to add, that he thinks it not reasonable to believe such heinous accusations upon so slender testimony. We have some reason to reflect upon the complaint which our Historian brings against Dr. Heylin, that benever vouched any authority for what he writ, 
Praef. p. 2.  which is not to be forgiven any who write of Transactions beyond their own Times. I fear that upon computation it will not be found, that our Author hath vouched any Authority for so much as the third part of his History; and is especially deficient in those passages which tend to defame the Memories of other men; in which above all others Justice and Charity would require that sufficient, or at least some testimony be produced.  
But to return to Battle Abbey and Christ Church in Canterbury; I am not much concerned for either. Yet being willing to do Justice to all men, I will not conceal that the accusation appears very improbable to me as far as Christ Church Canterbury is concerned in it; since I am well assured, that Dr. Goldwell the Prior of it, who had governed it for 23 years before the Dissolution, was a learned, grave and religious Person▪ and that when it was founded anew, it is not to be supposed, that Archbishop Cranmer, employed by the King therein, would have taken into the new Foundation any persons so scandalously wicked, yet twelve Monks were taken into it, which exceedeth the number of just persons to be found in Sodom at the time of its Destruction.   
Pag. 248. lin. 37. 
Edward Fox Bishop of Hereford died the 8th of May, that year, viz. 1538.  
Bishop Godwin indeed saith that Fox died that day. But our Historian pretends not to take things on trust easily, no not from the greatest Authors. The Archbishop of Canterbury did that day take into his hands the Spiritualties of the See of Hereford, void by the death of Fox. But his death might, and not probably did, happen several days before this.   
Pag. 263. lin. 8. 
The new Bishopric of Chester was erected before any others. For I have seen a Commission under the Privy Seal to the Bishop of Chester, to take the surrender of the Monastery of Hamond in Shropshire, bearing date the 24th of August this Year, viz. 1539. So it seems the See of Chester was erected and endowed before the Act passed (which was in May 1539.) though there is among the Rolls a Charter for founding and endowing it afterwards.  
From this Passage it may appear, how necessary it is for any one who undertaketh to write the History of our Reformation, to be well acquainted with the State of things before the Reformation. Had this been done, many mistakes would have been escaped, and other Contradictions, which accompany them, would have been avoided. It is here said, that the Commission to the Bishop of Chester, for the taking the surrender of Hamond, was dated the 24th of August; 
Pag. 148.  but in the Collection of Records it is dated the 31st of August. It is somewhat unlikely, that a Commission should be given to the new Bishop of Chester to take the surrender of a Monastery in Shropshire, no part of his Diocese. Who should this new Bishop be? It is incredible, that we should have altogether lost the name and remembrance of a Bishop, who acted in such a busy time. The first Bishop of the new Bishopric of Chester, which we can find, was john Bird, translated thither from Bangor. And of him we know, that the See of Bangor was not void by his Translation to Chester, 
Regist. Cranmer.  until the beginning of the Year 1542. He therefore could not be that Bishop of Chester, to whom the Commission was granted in 1539. I cannot sufficiently wonder, that Mr. Fulman should be led into the same mistake; 
Par. 2. in Append. p. 415.  who alloweth the new Bishopric of Chester to have been erected before the making of this Act, but to have been afterwards surrendered, and founded anew. For from the historians Collection of Records it appears, that the Monastery of St. Werburge in Chester, (in which the new Bishopric is founded) was not surrendered till 1540 
Pag. 149.  january 20th, which alone overthrows all the Conjectures of the Historian and Mr. Fulman. In truth the first Charter for erecting the new Bishopric of Chester, was dated 1541. july 16th, but there being some mistake committed therein, a new Charter of Foundation was granted 1541. August 5th. (The Historian is mistaken when he puts afterwards August 4th.) and Bird the first Bishop took Possession in the beginning of the following Year. 
Pag. 300.  The Commission therefore granted to the Bishop of Chester, for taking the surrender of Hamond was directed to the Bishop of Lichfield (in whose Diocese it was Seated) which Bishop, until the Division of his Diocese and Erection of a new Bishopric 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 show 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 King's Bishops.  
When the Historian wrote this, 
Par. 2. in Append. p. 90.  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, 
Par. 2. p 6.  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, 
Pag. 43.  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. 
Pag. 6.  For the Order of Council, related by the Historian to have been made in the beginning of the Reign of King Edward VI plainly implieth 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 Doctor's 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 subjoined, Tales licentias acceperunt Thomas Archiepiscopus Cantuarmense Octobri 1535. Edwardus Archiep. Eborac. johannes Episcopus Lincoln. 13. Octobr. 1535. johannes Episcopus London. 19 Octobr. 1535. Stephanus Episcopus Winton, eodem Anno, Cuthbertas Episcopus Dunelm. 10 Novemb. 1535. etc.   
Pag. 268. lin. 9 
I will not presume to determine so great a Point of Law, whether the Abbots sat 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, sat 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 Bishoprics.  
I will not take notice of the Historians oversight in making Coventry and Lichfield two different Bishoprics: 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 Archbishoprics 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 Dependence 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 Bishopric, a Deanery, and six prebend's. And the Monastery of St. Augustine's 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. june 25th. So that the Historian is mistaken, when he referreth the Foundation of both these Bishoprics 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 Deaneries and Colleges of prebend's.  
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; than 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 Bishopric of Lincoln being judged of too great an extent, the Bishopric 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 Bishopric at Ely, was never thought on till the Year 1106, and was completed in the Year 1109. Pope Nicholas TWO, 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 TWO, whose Bulls of Confirmation were pretended to have been sent immediately after the Erection of the Bishopric. 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 Diocese, and Preaching in it: of Dr. Colet Dean of S. Paul's, 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 john 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 say devowtly thy Paternoster, etc. and here Goddys' Law taught in thy Modyr Tonge. For that is better than to here many Massys.   
Pag. 328. lin. 37. 
Dr. Loe 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 Cranmers 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 Bishopric, 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.  

Regist Cranmer.  Bell had resigned his Bishopric 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, extols 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 Villainy 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 justified 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 Marquis of Winchester, etc. Dr. Butts, 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 Statesman 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. Butts, the King's Physician, to have been present at his Death; when the Stamp was set to the Will. 
Par. 2. Addend. p. 416.  Now Dr. Butts died 1545. 17th. November, as his Epitaph in the Church at Fulham testifieth. But King Henry died not till the 28th january 1546/7 (not 1547/8, as the Inscription under his Picture, prefixed to this History beareth.) So that the whole Story alleged 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 Trial. 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. lin. 8. 
Thus died john Fisher Bishop of Rochester, in the 80th. Year of his Age.  
George Lily, who knew him well, and wrote his Life, saith that he was born in the Year 1459. He was beheaded in the middle of the Year 1535. so that his Age did not then exceed 76 years.   
Pag. 356. lin. 49. 
Makerel the Monk, that first raised the Lincolnshire Rebellion, was with Sixteen more indicted of High Treason.  
Dr. Makerel might have deserved some higher Title than that of plain Monk. For he was Abbot of Barlings, and had been many years Suffragan Bishop in the Diocese of Lincoln.   
Pag. 361. lin. 48. 
This Year, (1540) Samson Bishop of Chichester was put in the Tower, upon Suspicion of Correspondence with the Pope.  
The Historian would have done well to have produced his Testimony, when he charged the Bishop with this Crime. Godwin saith, that he was imprisoned for relieving with money the necessities of some poor Prisoners, who had been imprisoned for denying the King's Supremacy. The same also Fabian, Hall, and Stow, affirm in their Histories. Now great difference is to be made between holding Correspondence with the Pope, and relieving others imprisoned for it. The first would have been unpardonable Treachery, after so many Pretensions and Engagements to the contrary. But the latter might only have been an effect of his Charity to distressed Persons.   
Addenda. pag. 291. lin. 1. 
Sanders had said, that the King (Henry) made many write Apologies for what he did; which some did willingly, being tainted with Heresy; others unwillingly, and for fear, as Gardiner, and Tonstall. For this the Historian is angry with Sanders, and saith, that indeed Gardiner was a man like enough to write any thing that might please the King; but Tonstall was a man of greater probity, than to have done to unworthy a thing upon any Account whatsoever.  
When Sanders speaks in favour of the Reformation, he is not rashly to be disbelieved. I esteem it no small Honour to our Cause, that so excellent a Person as Tonstall once wrote in defence of it. I much desired therefore that it might be true; and upon search found it to be so. 
De Scriptor. Brit. p. 714.  For to omit the Testimony of Bale, who reckons amongst Tonstall's writings, a Book against the Supremacy of the Pope, I have seen and read a long Sermon of Tonstall's, preached before K. Henry on Palm-Sonday, and Printed London, 1633, in 4 to, in which he inveigheth largely against the Primacy of the Pope, and the Treason of Reginald Pole then Cardinal. It should seem that this Sermon was published even in the time of Tonstall's Life. 
Pag. 193. & 214.  For I find it cited by the Author of the Defence of Priests Marriages wrote in the Reign of Queen Mary. The Author of Athonae Oxonienses saith, that it was Printed in London 1539. who farther adds, that he wrote a Letter to Cardinal Pole against the Supremacy of the Pope, Printed at London 1560, and 1579. Quarto.   
Pag. 316. lin. 15. 
The Abbot's writ generally so ill, that it is very hard to read their Subscriptions: Some of them I could by no means know what to make of.  
If the Historian intended hereby to Arraign the Abbots of Illiterature; let it be remembered, that himself had before said of King Henry, 
Par. 2. p. 10, 11.  That he was the most learned Prince, that had been in the World for many Ages, and yet that he never wrote well, but scrawled so that his hand was scarce Legible. But not to make Inferences for the Historian; let us only consider his own Words. He complains that he could not read all the Subscriptions of the Abbots by reason of the badness of their hands. We are willing to allow any excuse to him, unless wherein he reflects upon the Memory of others. For that is not fair. Any one who compareth his Transcript with the Original, would judge, that neither could he read the Subscriptions of the Secular Clergy of the lower House of Convocation. For in his Copy many of their Names are miserably corrupted, and mistaken. The truth is, all of them might without much difficulty have been read, and exactly transcribed; if the Historian had not read, as well (as others say he wrote) in Posthaste. I will therefore conclude this First Part, with subjoyning the Names of those Abbots and Priors, whose Titles the Historian could not read.  
Henricus Abbas de Gratiis, Thomas Abbas de Gerendon, johannes Prior de Newenham, Richardus Abbas de Bruera.    

Pars Secunda.  
Pag. 10. lin. 36. 
Alcuinus, a most learned Countryman of ours.  
IF by Countryman is here to be understood a Scot, the Historian would never have asserted Alcuinus to be his Countryman, had he not presumed very much upon the ignorance of the English Nation, and supposed that in knowledge of Antiquity we were got no farther, than we were in the time of Hector Boethius, when such Fables as this, (that Achaius King of Scotland sent Alcuinus, Rabanus Maurus, etc. to Charles the Great,) might be securely vended. Alcuinus himself in his Epistle to the Emperor Charles, calleth York his Country; and saith, that he was educated there under Egbert the Archbishop: Date mihi exquisitioris eruditionis Scholasticae libellos, 
Malmsbur. de gest. Pontif. fol. 153.  quales in patriâ habui, per bonam & devotissimam magistri mei Egberti Archiepiscopi industriam: And in his Poem concerning the Archbishops and Saints of the Church of York, hath these Verses, 

Patriae quoniam mens dicere laudes 
Pag. 703.732.   
Et veteres cunas properat proferre parumper,  
Euboricae gratis praeclarae versibus urbis.   

Utpote quae proprium sibi me nutrivit alumnum,  
Imbuit & primis utcunque verenter ab annis.   When equal Evidence shall be produced, that Alcuinus was born or bred in Scotland; we shall allow him to have been the Historian's Countryman.   
Pag. 24. lin. 35. 
By an Act made in King Henry the 8th's time, none might hold two Benefices without a Dispensation; but no Dispensation could enable one to hold three.  
The contrary of this appears from the Register of Faculties granted by Archbishop Parker: wherein may be sound very many Dispensations of triality of Benefices with cure of Souls, enabling the Grantee to hold any third Living with two, or any two with one, already possessed; or to hold any three, hereafter to be obtained.   
Pag. 24. lin. 39 
While the Abbeys stood, the Abbots allowed those, whom they appointed to serve the Cure in the Churches that belonged to them, a small Stipend, or some little part of the Vicarage-tithes.  
The case of Vicars was not so bad before the Reformation, as after. Before it the Fees of Sacraments, Sacramentals, Dirige's, &c. were very great, since very inconsiderable. Before the Reformation, Bishops could from time to time increase their Allowance out of the Tithes of the Benefice, in what proportion they pleased, even beyond the first dotation of it. The Bishops indeed have the same right still, 
Vicar's Plea.  as Dr. Ryves hath fully proved; but the interposition of the Common Law would now hinder the execution of it. The Vicars than were not left to the pleasure of the Abbot or Religious House, to whom the Church belonged. But the Bishops endowed the Vicarages with what proportion of Tithes and Emoluments they thought fit; in many places reserved to the Vicar one half of all manner of Tithes, and the whole Fees of all Sacraments, Sacramentals, etc. in most places reserved to them, not some little part of, but all the Vicarage-tithes, and in other places appointed to them an annual pension of Money. In succeeding times when the first Endowments appeared too slender, they increased them at their pleasure. Of all which our ancient Registers and Records give abundant testimony. This was the case of all Vicarages. As for those impropriated Livings, which have now no settled Endowment, and are therefore called not Vicarages, but perpetual or sometimes arbitrary Curacies; they are such as belonged formerly to those Orders, who could serve the our of them in their own persons, as the Canons Regular of the Order of St. Austin; which being afterwards devolved into the hands of Laymen, they hired poor Curates to serve them, at the cheapest rate they could, and still continue to do so.   
Pag. 25. lin. 28. 
Ridley elect of Rochester, designed for that See by King Henry, but not consecrated till September this Year 1547.  
If King Henry designed Ridley to be Bishop of Rochester, he could not do it by any actual Nomination, but only by Prophetical foresight of Longland's Death, and Holbeach's Translation. For the King died 1547, january 28th. Longland of Lincoln died 1547. May 7th. Holbeach of Rochester was elected to Lincoln 9th. August. So that until August there was no room for Ridley at Rochester.   
Pag. 30. lin. 17. 
The Form of bidding Prayer was used in the times of Popery, as will appear by the Form of bidding the Beads in King Henry the 7th's time; which will be found in the Collection.  
The Form published by the Historian out of the Festival, Printed Anno 1509. seemeth by the length of it, and comparing it with another undoubtedly true Form, to have been rather a Paraphrase or Exposition of the Form of bidding Beads. I have therefore presented to the Reader a much shorter and ancienter Form, 
Collect. numb. 2.  taken out of an old written Copy.   
Pag. 32. lin. 13. 
Tonstall searching the Registers of his See, found many Writings of great consequence to clear the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England.— The most remarkable of these, was the Homage King William of Scotland made to Henry the Second, by which he granted, that all the Nobles of his Realm should be his Subjects, and do Homage to him; and that all the Bishops of Scotland should be under the Archbishop of York.— It was said, that the Monks in those days, who generally kept the Records, were so accustomed to the forging of Stories, and Writings; that little Credit was to be given to such Records, as lay in their keeping. But having so faithfully acknowledged what was alleged against the Freedom of Scotland, I may be allowed to set down a Proof on the other side, for my Native Country, copied from the Original Writing yet extant under the Hands and Seals of many of the Nobility and Gentry of that Kingdom. It is a Letter to the Pope, etc.  
The ancient and allowed Laws of History exclude Partiality, yet this historians great Concern for the Honour of his Country cannot well be called by any other name; which hath induced him to publish and Instrument of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland, not at all relating to the History of our English Reformation. If he thinketh that this Liberty ought to be allowed to him in recompense of the great Obligation he hath laid upon the English Nation for having so faithfully acknowledged what was alleged against the Freedom of Scotland; we pretend, that all Persons conversant in the History of our Nation, did before this very well know all these Allegations, and ten times as many of no less weight; and that either he did not perfectly understand the Controversy, or hath not so faithfully represented the Arguments of our side. For King William did not herein make any new Grant to King Henry, but only confirmed and acknowledged the ancient Dependence and Subjection of Scotland to England; nor did he then first subject the Bishops of Scotland to the Archbishop of York, but engaged that hereafter they should be subject to him, as of right they ought to be, and had wont to be in the time of the former Kings of England. The Bishops of Scotland had been all along subject to the Archbishops of York; but having about Eleven years before this obtained an Exemption of this Jurisdiction by a Bull of Pope Alexander; the King of Scotland now undertook, that they should not claim the benefit of that Exemption, but be subject to the Church of England, as formerly; and the Bishops of Scotland also then present concurred with the King, and promised for themselves: although within a short time after they broke their Faith, and procured a new and fuller Exemption from the Pope; which Dempster placeth in the Year 1178. The Charter of King William before mentioned was made in 1175. But after all the Bishopric of Galloway continued to be subject unto the Archbishop of York, until towards the end of the Fifteenth Century, when it was by the Pope taken from York, and subjected to Glasgow, then newly erected into an Archbishopric. Now, whereas the Historian would invalidate the Authority of this Charter, insinuating that it may justly be suspected to have been forged by the Monks, because taken out of their Records, and coming out of their Custody; he may please to know, that this very Charter may be found entire in the Printed History of Roger de Hoveden; who was no Monk, but a a Secular Clergyman, a Domestic of this King Henry, attending him in all his Expeditions. As for the pretence of the Nobility and Gentry of Scotland, in their Letter written to the Pope Anno 1320. and published by the Historian; it is not to be wondered, if their minds being elated with unusual Success against our unfortunate King Edward II. they enlarged their Pretences, and affected an independency from the Crown of England, which their Forefathers never pretended to, nor had themselves at any other time dared to arrogate. All the principal Nobility and Gentry of Scotland, had in the Year 1291. made as ample and authentic an Instrument of the Subjection of the Crown of Scotland to England, as could be conceived, before Edward had either Conquered, or invaded their Country: which Instrument Tonstall taketh notice of in his Memorial; and this was indeed the most remarkable of all the Testimonies produced by Tonstall; at least accounted by King Edward to be of so great moment, that he sent a Copy of it under the Great Seal, to every noted Abbey and Collegiate Church in England, that it might be safely preserved, and inserted into their several Annals. It may be seen at length in the Printed History of Matthew Westminster. Therein it may be observed, that it was subscribed by some of those very Noblemen of Scotland, who subscribed the Letter to the Pope, published by the Historian; who may be thought therein to have done no great Honour to his Country, by publishing such an Authentic Testimony of the Infidelity of it.   
Pag. 47, 48, 49. 
When the Parliament was divided into two Houses, than the Clergy made likewise a Body of their own, and sat in Convocation, which was the third Estate— Whether ever the Clergy were a part of the House of Commons, is a just doubt.— Upon the whole matter, it is not certain, what was the Power or Right of these Proctors of the (inferior) Clergy in former times. Some are of opinion, that they were only Assistants to the Bishops, but had no voice in either House of Parliament.— But as the Clause Praemonentes in the Writ, seems to make them a part of the Parliament; so these Petitions suppose that they sat in the House of Commons anciently.— In a matter so perplexed and dark, I will presume to offer a Conjecture, which will not appear perhaps improbable. In the 129th Page of the former Part, I gave the Reasons that made me think the lower House of Convocation consisted at first only of the Proctors of the Clergy. It is generally believed that the whole Parliament sat together in one House before Edward the Third's time; and then the inferior Clergy were a a part of that without question. But when the Lords and Commons sat apart, the Clergy likewise sat in two Houses.— So that it seems to me most probable, that the Proctors of the Clergy were both in England and Ireland, the lower House of Convocation.  
I will not here enter into an exact Enquiry concerning the ancient Constitution of Parliaments in England. A question, which hath already exercised so many Learned Pens, cannot be dispatched in few words. I will only observe, that the Historian hath succeeded very ill in his Conjectures. In the first place it is a wide mistake to affirm, that after the Division of the Houses, and perfect Settlement of the Constitution of Parliament, the Convocation was the third Estate. For it was anciently accounted, and was really the first Estate. Then his Conjecture concerning the ancient Seat of the Proctors of the Clergy in Parliament, deduced with so much Labour, so many previous and concomitant Observations, is unhappily founded upon two false Suppositions. The first is, That formerly the lower House of Convocation consisted only of the Proctors of the Clergy. The contrary of this was fully proved in the preceding Papers; wherein it was shown, that Deans also, and Archdeacon's, did sit in the lower House of Convocation. The second false Supposition is, that until Edward the Third's time, the whole Parliament sat together in one House, and consequently that the several Estates of Parliament were then alike summoned by the King's Writ. Now the contrary of this appears from an ancient Remonstrance of the Clergy in Convocation in the Year 1314. found in an Authentic Register, the sum and occasion of which I will represent in few words. The King had issued out a Writ to Walter Archbishop of Canterbury, Die 27. Martii, Anno Regni Septimo, in this Form.— Vobis mandamus, quatenus sitis in propriâ personâ vestrâ apud Westmonasterium in crastino Ascensionis Domini proximo futuro, coram fidelibus nostris ad hoc deputandis, ad tractandum cum eisdem fidelibus nostris super competenti auxilio à Clero Provinciae vestrae Cant. nobis impendendo, pro utilitate Reipublicae, etc. prout in proximo Parliamento apud Westmonasterium habito, tam per Clerum, quam per Communitatem regni nostri extitit concordatum; & prout per praedictos fideles nostros eritis requisiti. Et ad eundem diem venire faciatis coram dictis fidelibus nostris Suffraganeos vestros, Decanos, Abbates, etc. & Clerum cujusque Diocesis ejusdem Provinciae per duos Procuratores sufficientes; ad tractandum & consentiendum unà Vobiscum his quae in praemissis ibidem contigerit ordinari. In obedience to this Writ, (which is Entitled Litera de Convocatione Cleri apud Westm.) the Archbishop sent a Mandate to his Suffragans, etc. in such Form, as repeating at length the King's Writ, he subjoined: Quocirca vobis ten●re praesentium injungimus & mandamus; quatenus vos dictis die & loco intersitis, etc. From hence it appears, that the Clergy were even before this called immediately to Convocation by the Archbishop's Writ; and that in the preceding Parliament the Clergy and Communitas Regni sat apart. But this is not all. When the Clergy met upon this Mandate of the Archbishop, they presented to him a Remonstrance, excepting against the form of the King's Summons and his Mandate. Contra formam hujusmodi citationis Clerus Cant. Provinciae proposuit rationes subscriptas die Lunae in crastino S. Dunstani apud Westm. etc. Imprimis, That whereas the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury had not been wont nor aught to be called by the King's Authority: This Mandate of the Archbishop proceeded in virtue of the King's command, as appeared by the Form thereof, which had never before been done. That if this Precedent were allowed without any Contradiction, the King might send out hereafter like Writs, to the great prejudice of the Church and Clergy. That the King might by the same reason summon them to meet at some place out of the Province, which would be prejudicial to the Clergy of the Province, and had been hitherto without Example. That they were herein summoned to meet at Westminster, locum videlicet exemptum auctoritate Ordinarii, ad quem Clerus Cant. Provinciae ante haec tempora vocari nullatenus consuevisset. That whereas Laymen had nothing to do to intermeddle with Ecclesiastical causes and persons, this Writ summoned them to appear coram dilectis & fidelibus Domini nostri Regis nullâ authoritate ecclesiasticâ fulsitis, contrary to the usage of all former times. For these and many other Reasons, they desired that this Writ should be revoked, and themselves dismissed, and be summoned again in the usual and legal form. Accordingly they were dismissed on the Wednesday following, and were summoned by a new Mandate of the Archbishop dated june 6. in such Form as was wont to be heretofore used, to meet at the Church of St. Paul's London, on the 8th of july. 
Pag. 6.  Which Form, mutatis mutandis, agreeth exactly with the Form used immediately before the Reformation, and published by the Historian among the Memorials of the first Part. On the first day of December the same year the King summoned another Parliament to meet at Westminster in the Octaves of Hilary, and directed a Writ to the Archbishop to summon the Clergy to meet dictis die & loco: which the Archbishop did. When the Clergy were met, they protested against the Form of the Summons, because cited ad curiam Saecularem, puta Domini Regis Parliamentum, quod in camerâ ejusdem Domini fuit inchoatum; that this was contrary to the ancient Form, and that therefore they would not proceed to act, unless they might be assured, that this should not be drawn into a Precedent, and that for the future the old Form should be observed. Which assurance being given to them, the Clergy granted a Subsidy apart to the King, upon Conditions by them mentioned. From this it should appear, that before the time of Edward III. the Convocations of the Provinces of Canterbury and York were not held out of the several Provinces, and consequently that the Clergy of both did not meet together, and with the Laymen constitute one Body in one House of Parliament; that the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury were then summoned by Writs of the same Form as afterwards; that not the King, but the Archbishop, appointed the time and place; that they never sat at Westminster, where the other Estates of Parliament were at that time wont to sit; that they permitted not Laymen to intermeddle in their Consultations, but sat apart from them, and granted Subsidies apart; and all this, as themselves allege, had been done, à tempore cujus memoria non existit.   
Pag. 56. lin. 8. 
The Clerks of Council did not then enter every thing with that Exactness that is since used.  
It had been more cautious in the Historian to have said, that he could not find such exact Entries made by them. For I find an Order of Council made 1550. April 19th, and entered in the beginning of a large Original Book containing the Acts of Council for the last four years of King Edward 6th, that there shall be a Clerk attendant upon the said Council, to Write, Enter, and Register all such Decrees, Determinations, and other things, as he should be appointed to enter, in a Book to remain always as a Leger, as well for the discharge of the said Counsellors, touching such things as they shall pass from time to time, as also for a Memorial unto them of their own proceedings. Unto which Office William Thomas was appointed by the King's Highness, with the advice of his aforesaid Council, and in Presence of the same Council sworn. Accordingly all the Acts of Council are therein entered largely and with great exactness, the Original hands of the Privy Councillors then present being added to the Acts and Orders of every several day. This Book I shall often mention hereafter.   
Pag. 71. lin. 1. & 36. 
The next thing Cranmer set about, was the compiling of a Catechism, or institution of young Persons, in the Grounds of the Christian Religion— a work which was wholly his own, without the Concurrence of any others.  
In truth Cranmer only translated this Catechism out of Dutch (at least translated it from the Latin Translation of justus jonas, who had translated the Dutch Catechism) as both the Title and the Preface of it might have informed the Historian. The Title saith, it was overseen and corrected by the Archbishop; and Cranmer himself in another Book speaketh of this Catechism in these words— a Catechism by me translated and set forth. 
Treatise of the Sacrament, f. 100  He added indeed a large Discourse of his own to the Exposition of the Second Commandment, and inserted some few Sentences elsewhere.   
Pag. 89. lin. 29. 
The people had been more prejudiced against the Marriage of the Clergy; if they had not felt greater Inconveniences by the Debaucheries of Priests; who being restrained from Marriage, had defiled the Beds and deflowered the Daughters of their Neighbours, etc.  
As for Adulteries and Rapes (which the Historian insisteth on) it is charitably to be hoped, that they were not so frequent in the Clergy before the Reformation. But the greatest Scandal arose by keeping Women in their Houses under the Name and Notion of Concubines, and being Licenced by their several Bishops to do it: which abuse obtained generally, and was practised openly, throughout the whole Western Church immediately before the Reformation. Yet in any case to cover the faults of the Clergy, and to excuse them where the cause admitteth any excuse, not only the respect due to the sacred Order, but common Justice also requireth. Had all these Women, thus generally entertained by the Clergy, been no other than their Concubines; it would indeed have been inexcusable. But in truth, they were for the most part their Wives; whom they married secretly, and kept under the name of Concubines: since the Laws and Canons then received, forbade them to Marry openly, or to entertain Women under the name of Wives. This the Bishops very well knew: and from time to time gave them Licenses to do it, and tolerated them in it; not allowing them thereby to violate the Divine Laws of Chastity, but only in secret to neglect the Ecclesiastical Laws of Celibacy. Now that this was the case of the Western Clergy, we are assured by Alvarus Pelagius, 
* Planet. Eccl. l. 2.  
† Consultat. 23.  Cassander, and others. And lest we should imagine the Clergy of England in this practice to have Acted, either with less Wit or Conscience than the Clergy of other Nations; we find several Constitutions of our latter Provincial Councils directed against the Clandestine Marriages of the Clergy. These Constitutions were made for show; but were seldom or never executed. But the most express Testimony, that can be desired herein, is given by Archbishop Parker; who publishing a large and accurate Defence of Priests Marriages, wrote by an Anonymous Layman in the Reign of Queen Mary; hath towards the end of the Book, in some Copies of it, inserted ten Sheets of his own Composition, wherein he giveth a full and learned History of the Marriage and Celibacy of the Clergy of England, from the first Reception of Christianity to the Reformation. In this History he affirms the practice of the Clergy in Relation to Concubines before mentioned, 
Pag. 329.  to have continued all along in England, concluding thus,— And so lived secretly with their Friends, not openly vouched for Wives, but in affectu sororio, amore uxorio, & fide conjugali, as they use the Terms. In which kind of Life there be no small Arguments, that some Bishops, and the best of the Clergy, lyvyng within the Memory of man, did continue. And in another place: 
Pag. 334.  For as many of the Clergy lived in Adulteries, and some in Vices Sodomitical; so did divers, whose Consciences were better, and in knowledge more wise, lived secretly with Wives, and provided for their Children under the Names of Nephews, and other men's Children.— In which manner lived Bonifacius Archbishope of Canterbury, and other bishops of old days; but some also of late days did live, though all the World did not bark at the matter.  
Before I dismiss this matter, I will add somewhat concerning the Attempt made for the open Restitution of Marriage to the Clergy in the times of Henry 8th, of which our Historian is altogether silent. The Anonymous Author of the Defence of Priests Marriages before mentioned, 
Pag. 173.197, 198.  relateth, that after it had been enacted by Statute 27 H. 8. That all Licenses, Dispensations, and Faculties obtained of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in matters not repugnant or contrary to the Holy Scriptures and Laws of God, should stand in full Authority and Strength, without any repeal to be hereafter had of any such Licenses; divers Priests obtained Dispensations of Marriages; some of which were corroborated by the King's Broad Seal, and some by the Archbishop's Seal only. Afterwards the King understanding, that certain in his Realm were married, as well Regulars as Seculars, without Authority and Common Laws, 
Num. ●.  did (through the instigation of the Popish party) make an open Proclamation (which may be found in the following Collection) in the 30 th' Year of his Reign; wherein he did but for afterward charge, that no man should attempt the same again; and did not dissolve those Marriages being so privately contracted. In the following year indeed (the Popish party still prevailing more at Court) the Six Articles were enacted; by which such Marriages were dissolved, and many Persons so married were divorced. But after all the King knew by Information of a good number from time to time; and yet did both tolerate the same, which were used secretly; and such as were openly known did not separate them, but commanded them to be reputed as Lay-people,— and would have granted Liberty to all in his days, but for some certain zealous Councillors; as was not unknown to divers, who heard him oft speak of that matter.   
Pag. 90. lin. 13. 
Many great Bishops in these times (the fourth and fifth Ages) lived still with their Wives, and had Children by them; as namely Nazianzen's, and Basil's Fathers; and Hilary of Poitiers, when very old, writing to his Daughter Abra, bid her ask her Mother, etc.  
Nazianzen's Father was certainly a Bishop, and begat him after his Consecration. But that Basil's Father was a Bishop, appeareth not. Some later Writers indeed have affirmed it, without any ground from ancient Writers; but that he still lived with his Wife, and had Children, neither later nor ancient Writers mention. The like may be said of Hilary. The Epistle to his Daughter Abra, the only foundation of his supposed Marriage, is generally allowed by Critics to be spurious. The Historian may here perhaps defend himself by alleging, that he doth not in this place propose his own arguments, but only the reasons upon which our Reformers proceeded in restoring Marriage to the Clergy. I do acknowledge, that these mistakes are found in most of their Writings concerning the Marriage of the Clergy published at that time. But then we have just reason to complain, that it is injurious to the Honour of our Reformers to choose, from among so many irrefragable arguments and authorities proposed and urged by them in this cause, such as are mistakes, or at least liable to exception.   
Pag. 90. lin. 21. 
Heliodorus Bishop of Trica did first move, that Clergymen should be obliged to live single.  
The Historian is too well conversant in the History of the ancient Church, not to know, that (long before the time of Heliodorus) some Bishops moved in the great Council of Nice, that Bishops, Priests and Deacons should be obliged to perpetual continence, and had succeeded in it, had not Paphnutius vehemently opposed the motion, and shown the unreasonableness and danger of such an imposition. This is related by all the Ecclesiastical Historians of that time, and is a matter well known, however impudently denied by some Writers of the Church of Rome. Even before the Council of Nice, Eustathius Bishop of Sebastea had endeavoured to impose the like necessity of perpetual continence upon the Clergy; which endeavour of his was condemned in the Council of Gangra. About fourscore years after the Council of Nice, Heliodorus introduced a total abstinence of the Clergy from their Wives in the Province of Thessaly, where he was Bishop. The Historian seems to have believed, that he first made the motion in the Council of Nice. This mistake (as far as I can find) is purely his own. For although I have read all the Treaties in Defence of Priest's Marriage, published by our Reformers; I do not remember to have observed this in any of them.   
Pag. 90. lin. 38. 
It is true, that in (the fourth Age) they began to make Canons against the Marriage of those who were in Orders, especially in the Roman and African Churches.  
It was forbidden to those who were in Orders to contract Marriage, by the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, received in the Eastern Church long before. It was forbidden also by the Council of Neocaesarea, and in part by the Council of Ancyra. But if by Canons made against the Marriage of those in Orders, the Historian understands the Use or Enjoyment of Marriage, whether contracted before or after Ordination; he hath then committed a great mistake in joining the African to the Roman Churches. The Church of Africa did all along signally oppose and baffle the Attempts of the Popes of Rome for the Establishment of Celibacy therein; and retained to her Bishops the use of Marriage long after it had been generally disused by other Bishops both of the Eastern and Western Churches: insomuch as the Quinisext Council in the Year 692, imposing perpetual continence upon all Bishops, 
Can. 12.  in pursuance of the Custom which had long since generally prevailed in the Church, took notice of the different practice of the Bishops of Africa herein, and by a particular Clause obliged them to conform themselves to the practice of the rest of the Catholic Church in this matter. This mistake also is peculiar to the Historian; I do not find any Footsteps of it in the Writings of our Reformers.   
Pag. 91. lin. 6. 
Restitutus Bishop of London lived openly with his Wife.  
Whether Restitutus were married or not, we know no more, than whether the Wise Men of the East were married. Bale indeed affirms it; and from him Parker, Godwin, Spelman, and others have taken it. But Bale is scarce to be believed when he relateth a matter upon his own knowledge, much less when he delivereth any thing at 1200 Years distance without any Authority. The like may be said of Richard Bishop of Chicester, who in this same Page is affirmed to have been married. The false Opinion of his Marriage seemeth to have arose, either from the hasty Inadvertency of that Reformed Writer, who first reported it; or from a double Error of the Press, substituting Richard Bishop of Chicester instead of Robert (Peche) Bishop of Chester.   
Pag. 91. lin. 17. 
Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury did not impose Celibate on the Clergy in the Villages, but only on those who lived in Towns and on Prebendaries.  
This mistake is wholly the Historians own. Our Reformers understood the History of the English Church too well, to lead the way in such an Error. Lanfranc imposed Celibacy on Prebendaries; but allowed to the Clergy living in Towns and Villages the use of their Marriage already contracted. His Constitution was conceived in these words. Nullus 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, 
Pag. 279.  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 dwelled 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 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 johannes de Crema, the Pope's Legate in the Year 1125. in the Reign of King Henry the First. And the Annals of Winchester, 
Angl. Sacr. Vol. 1. p. 298.  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, 
Pag. 351.  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. 
Numb. 4.  To it the Archbishop subjoined the Opinion of Dr. Redman, which (however published by the Historian in his Collection) I would not disjoin; 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 public; but forgot 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, 
Regist. Cranmer.  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, etc. were sent to Gardiner (Fox saith that this was on the 9th of july, 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, beforementioned, 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 june 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, etc. 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 Counsel. 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 Counsel, 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 Counsel hereupon might determine further Order for him. July 8 th' the Bishop of Winchester' s Case was renewed. Then was the Lord Treasurer, etc. 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 july. Although he might mean, that the Commissioners went to him on that day: which seems to have been true. For on the 10th of july 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 july, King Edward testifieth 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 Acknowledgement 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 is the principalest Point, considering his offence that the now goeth about to defend, to the intent that he should have no just cause to say that he was not mercifully handled; it was agreed, that the Master of the Horse, and Mr. Secretary Petre should repair unto him again with the same Submission: exhorting him to look better upon it; and in case the words seem too sore, then to refer unto himself, in what sort, and in what words he should devise to submit him; that upon the acknowledging of his fault, the King's Highness might extend his mercy and liberality towards him, as it was determined. On the 13th of july, his Answer was reported in Council, which was, That he stood precisely in justification of himself, that he had never offended the King's Majesty: wherefore he utterly refused to make any Submission at all. For the more surety of which Denial, it was agreed, that a new Book of Articles should be devised; wherewith the said Master of the Horse, and Mr. Secretary, should repair to him again; and for the more Authentic proceeding with him, they to have with them a Divine and Temporal Lawyer, which were the Bishop of London and Mr. Gooderick. The Historian nameth only Ridley. Then followeth a Copy of the Articles sent to the Bishop of Winchester; the Sum of which is truly related by Fox and the Historian. july 15th, the Bishop's Answer was reported in Council; whereupon it was agreed he should be sent for by the Council, and be examined before them; which being done july 19th, and the Articles read to him, and his Subscription peremptorily required, he made this short Answer: That in all things that his Majesty would lawfully command him, he was willing and most ready to obey. But forasmuch as there were divers things required of him, which his Conscience would not bear, therefore he prayed them to have him excused. Whereupon the Sentence of Sequestration was read, and Denunciation of Deprivation, in case he did not conform within three Months. Nevertheless upon divers good Considerations, and especially in hope he might within this time be yet reconciled, it was agreed, that the said Bishop's House and Servants should be maintained in their present Estate, until the time of this intimation should expire; and the matter for the mean time to be kept private. There is some little difference between the Council-Book and King Edward's Journal, in fixing the days of these two Messages.   
Pag. 152. lin. 32. 
On the third of july this Year (1550.) Hooper was by Letters Patents appointed to be Bishop of Gloucester.  
The Council-Book saith, on the 15th of May, Mr. Hooper was constituted Bishop of Gloucester: King Edward's Journal saith, July 20th, Hooper was made Bishop of Gloucester: The first may relate to his Nomination, the second to the Signing of his Patent.   
Pag. 153. lin. 19 
Cranmer wrote about this difference, (raised by Hooper about wearing the Episcopal Vestments) to Bucer, reducing it to these two plain Questions, Whether it was lawful to use those Garments, etc.— And whether he that affirmed that it was unlawful, or on that Account refused to use those Vestments, did not sin against God.  
The latter part of the Question put by Cranmer was this, An is qui affirmaverit nofas esse, aut recusarit, his vestibus uti, peccet in Deum, quia immundum esse dicit quod Deus sanctificavit, & in Magistratus, quod violet ordinem Politicum. The Historian therefore hath negligently translated it, and in part changed the State of the Question, by adding these words on that Account, which make the refusal to proceed wholly upon a Supposition that the Thing commanded was unlawful by the Law of God, whereas Cranmer put the Question more genenerally in those words aut recusarit, so as to include a refusal to obey the Command of the Magistrate out of wilfulness, or for any other cause, beside pretence of unlawfulness by the Law of God, which is taken away by the answering to the first part of the Question.   
Pag. 154. lin. 29. 
Cranmer wrote back, that he could not dispense with the use of Episcopal Garments at the Consecration of Hooper, without incurring a Praemunire. So the King was moved to write to him, warranting him to do it. But though this was done on the 4th of Aug. yet he was not consecrated till March next year, and in the mean while he was suspended from Preaching.  
The King and Council rejected the Puritanical niceness of Hooper 's Conscience, much further than all this amounts to: which Affairs I will relate from the Council-Book. In Council 1550. October 6th. A Letter to the Bishop of London, that where there hath been some difference between him and the Elect Bishop of Gloucester, upon certain Ceremonies belonging to the making of a Bishop, wherein their Lordship's desire is, because they would in no wise the stirring up of Controversies between men of one Profession, did send for him, willing him to cease the occasions thereof; who humbly desired that he might for Declaration of his doings put in writing such Arguments as moved him to be of the Opinion he held; which thing was granted, and was by their Lordships commanded to be at the Court on Sunday next, bringing with him, that he shall for an Answer have thought convenient 1551. January 13th. Mr. Hooper Bishop Elect of Gloucester, appeared before the Council touching his old Matter, of denying to wear such Apparel as other Bishops wear; and having been before commanded to keep his House, unless it were to go to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishops of Ely, London, or Lincoln, for satisfaction or Counsel of his Conscience in that matter; nor further, neither to Preach, nor Read, until he had further Licence from the Council: it appeared both that he had not kept his House, and that he had also written and Printed a Book, wherein was contained matter that he should not have written. For the which, and for that also he persevered in his former Opinion of not wearing the Bishop's Apparel, he was now committed to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Custody, either there to be reform, or further to be punished as the Obstinacy of his case required. January 27th. Upon a Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, that Mr. Hooper cannot be brought to any Conformity, but rather persevering in his Obstinacy, coveteth to prescribe Orders and necessary Laws of his head, it was agreed, he should be committed to the Fleet upon the occasion aforesaid. A Letter to the Warden of the Fleet, to receive the said Mr. Hooper, and to keep him from Conference of any Person, saving the Ministry of that House. On the 8th of March following he was consecrated. Now all this was done after the King's Letter wrote in his behalf to Cranmer; so that in all appearance he was forced to reconcile his squeamish Conscience to the Episcopal Habit, in order to obtain his Bishopric.   
Pag. 154. lin. 36. & 48. 
This Summer john a Lasco, with a Congregation of Germans, was allowed to hold his Assembly at St. Austin's in London— Polidor Virgil desired leave to go out of England, which was granted to him on the 2d of june this Year 1550.  
To this I will add, that on the 19th of November 1551. the Council ordered a Reward of an 100 Pounds to be given to john Alasco. And that Polidor Virgil went not out of England before the end of the Year 1551. For I find an Order of Council 1551. Octob. 14. to deliver to Polidor Virgil, in way of the King's reward, the Sum of One hundred Marks, and another Order 1551. Nou. 9 to pay to to Plidor Virgil in way of the King's Majesties reward the Sum of 300 Crowns, after Five shillings the Crown.   
Pag. 155. lin. 2. 
On the 26th of june 1550. Poynet was declared Bishop of Rochester.  
The Council-Book saith, that 1550. May 11th, Mr. Poynet was appointed Bishop of Rochester. King Edward's Journal, june 30th. John Poynet made Bishop of Rochester, and received his Oath. This latter is to be understood of the reception of his Temporalties from, and doing Homage to, the King. For he was consecrated june 29th.   
Pag. 156. lin. 19 
Bucer wrote a Book, Entitled, Concerning the Kingdom of Christ. In it he complains much of Pluralities and Nonresidence, as a Remainder of Popery, so hurtful to the Church, that in many places there were but one or two, or few more, Sermons in a whole Year.  
The Historians affection to the present Constitution of our Church in relation to Plurality of Benefices is well known. 
Pag. 12.  He had before said in his Preface, that the present use of Pluralities of England was a Relic of Popery, a scandal of a crying Nature, which may justly make us blush. But he will never be able to adapt Bucer's words to such Pluralities, as are now allowed and practised in this Church.  

Do Regno. Christi, l. 1. c. 19  The words of Bucer are these, Quot reperias, qui licet manifesto & horrendo Sacrilegio plurium Parochiarum emolumenta absumant tamen ne uni quidem debitum impendere ministerium, vel per suos mercenarios, taceo per seipsos, dignetur? Si enim bi inlocis Splendidis & frequentioribus unam & alteram vel paulo plures in anno conciones habuerint, existimant se suo munere proeclare esse defunctos; reliqúum omne tempus otio, luxui, pompae mundanae impendunt. Wherein he blamed those who received the Profits of many Benefices with Cure of Souls, and yet served not the Cure of any one of them, either by Curates or their own Persons, whereas it is notorious, that at this time none is permitted to hold above two Benefices, and both are constantly supplied by the Beneficiary either personally, or by Curates; and Sermons preached in either every Sunday: whereas also those, whom Bucer complaineth of, thought they satisfied their Duty if they preached two, three or more Sermons in a year, in some populous and eminent places, which the Historian by mistake interprets of their own Parishes. I find but one remarkable thing concerning Pluralities during the whole Reign of Edward VI and that is an Order of Council 1550. june 28, That upon Consideration Mr. Poynet now Elect Bishop of Rochester hath no House to dwell on▪ and his Living small, it was agreed he should enjoy his Benefice in Commendam. But from henceforth it is decreed, that no Bishop shall keep other Benefice than his Bishopric only.   
Pag. 160. lin. 18. 
The Duke of Lunenberg had offered the King 10000 men to his Assistance, and desired to enter into a Treaty of Marriage for the Lady Mary.  
The Council-Book saith it was the D. of Brandenburg who proposed to treat of a Marriage with the Lady Mary, and that the Ambassador, who came to propose it, had Two hundred pounds given to him by way of Gratuity. King Edward's Journal indeed relateth it of the Duke of Brunswick.   
Pag. 165. lin. 3. 
Gardiner was soon after (February 1551.) put out. There was a Commission issued out to the Archbishop, etc.— He put in a Compurgation.— Upon this many Witnesses were Examined.— His Judges on the 18th of April, gave Sentence against him, by which they deprived him of his Bishopric.  
I find in the Council-Book, that the Bishop of Winchester's Case was first renewed after the Sequestration, 1550. Nou. 23. when it was agreed in Council, that the Bishop of Ely, Secretary Petre, Dr. May, and Dr. Glynn, should confer on the matter, and on Tuesday following should certify to the Council, what was to be done by the Order of Law in that case. What was their report doth not appear. But Decemb. 14. the Council ordered, that the Lieutenant of the Tower should carry him to Lambeth, before the Archbishop and other Commissioners constituted in his Cause on Monday following, and after that, when and as often as he shall be by them required. Decemb. 16. The Commissioners having allowed Council to Gardiner, this was approved by the King's Council, and the Persons by him named were Licenced to repair to the Tower to him, and that although one of them was the King's Chaplain. january 19th. Two of his Servants came to the Privy-Council, and desired that certain of them might be sworn upon certain Articles, as Witnesses in behalf of the Bishop. The Privy Councillors offered to Answer to those Articles upon their Honour, but would not be sworn. February 15th. It was ordered in Council, That for as much as the Bishop had at all times before the judges of his cause, used himself unreverently to the King's Majesty, and very slanderously towards his Council, and especially yesterday being the day of his judgement given against him (so that he was deprived on the 14th of February) he called the judge's Heretics and Sacramentaries, these being there the King's Commissioners, and of his Highness' Counsel, he should be removed from his present into a meaner Lodging in the Tower, and have but one Servant to wait on him; that his Books and Papers be taken from him, and that from henceforth he have neither Pen, Ink nor Paper, but be sequestered from all Conference, and from all means that may serve him to practise any ways. King Edward's Journal saith, that the Bishop after long Trial was Deposed, February 13th.   
Pag. 165. lin. 47. 
Eight days after, (on the 26th of April) Poynet was translated from Rochester to Winchester.  
That the See of Winchester was void by the Deprivation of Gardiner, before the 18th of April, the Historian might have learned from King Edward's Journal published by himself; 
Pag. 24.  wherein it is said, that April the 5 th', Poynet Bishop of Rochester received his Oath for the Bishopric of Winchester, viz. then he received the Temporalities of Winchester. The Council-Book saith that February 8th. This day by the King's own Appointment Dr. Poynet Bishop of Rochester, was appointed and admitted Bishop of Winchester. And April the 9th, A Letter was writ to the Treasurer of the First fruits in favour of Mr. Skorie appointed Bishop of Rochester.   
Pag. 166. lin. 1. 
Veysey Bishop of Exeter did also resign, pretending extreme old Age; but he had reserved a Pension yearly for himself during Life, out of the Lands of the Bishopric, 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 Bishopric indeed was very deplorable, which from one of the richest in his time, became the poorest of all the old English Bishoprics. But had any Bishop of England sat 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 Manors 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 Bishoprics with others of Religious Houses remaining in the King's hands since their Suppression. Even than it was such an exchange, as Diomedes made with Ajax. But to Veysey no other recompense was made, than the Promise of the King's goodwill 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 alleged. 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 settled; 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, 
Regist. Cranmer.  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 King's 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 King's 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. june 2. A Letter to the Lord Russel, and the justices 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 Licence 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. etc. 
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 july the Council sent for Three of her chief Officers, and gave them Instructions to signify the King's 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 Chancellor, etc. 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 Emperor's Ambassadors 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, 
Pag. 23.  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 Emperor's Ambassador 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 Emperor (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 Emperor's Ambassador 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 Sergeant Morgan was committed to the Fleet, and March 22. Sir Anth. 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 Emperor'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 controller 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 falsely 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 Emperor's Ambassador, since he would not permit the English Ambassador resident in his Dominions the use of our Liturgy. So that now the Council began to be less in fear of the Emperor, 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 signify 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, 
Numb. 5.  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 Grace's 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 virtue 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 Chancellor, 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, 
Numb. 6.  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 Household by her own Servants (which she had extremely resented) the negligence of her Officers in not executing that Charge, to justify 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 Ambassadors 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, until 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 abide there, etc. He had been accused by Menvile before 1550. 
Angl. Sacr. Par. 1. p. 782.  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 go to London where he died in 1548. Whosoever succeeded him in the Deanery, 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. july 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 Licence 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. 
Athen. Oxon. Par. 1.  For the King granted the Deanery 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 falsely 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, Gloucester, Bath, Rochester: Eight Divines, Tailor of Lincoln, Cox, Parker, Latimer, Cook, Martyr, Cheek, Masco: Eight Civilians, Petre, Cecil, Sir Tho. Smyth, Taylor of Hadley, May, Traheron, lyel, Skinner: Eight common Lawyers, Justice Hales, Justice Bromley, Gooderick, Gosnald, Stamford, carrel, Lucas, Brook,) To authorise them to Assemble together; and to resolve upon the Reformation of the Canon Law: Eight of these to rough hue 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 Bishopric.— 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 showed 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 Diocese, and in lieu of them to set up Tables in some convenient place of the Chancels, 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 chose 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 alleged 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 entered into a Dispute with the Archbishop about the merits of the Cause, and alleged 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 show 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 june 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 King's hands the Temporalties of the Bishoprics of Chichester and Worcester, lately given to his Highness by the judgement given by the Commissioners, lattely appointed for the hearing of the said Bishops Causes 1552. june 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. St●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 Bishopric. 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 showed to him, that he deserved longer Imprisonment. Nevertheless he was now offered to recover the King's favour, if he would subscribe to the Book. He answered, Confessing he took the Cause of his Imprisonment to be as was alleged, 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 withal 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 joined 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 expressly 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 june 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 Bishopric of Gloucester was quite suppressed, and Hooper was made Bishop of Worcester. In December before Worcester and Gloucester had been united. So they were to be ever after one Bishopric 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 Bishoprics, but one that had been for some years divided into two. He only enjoyed the revenue of Gloucester; 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 Gloucester. For in the Council-Book is found this Order, made 1552. May 29. A Letter to ...... to make a Book to the Bishop of Worcester and Gloucester 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 King's Majesty. Now Hooper had been Consecrated Bishop of Gloucester 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 allege 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 Bishopric 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 justice, 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 Colleagues 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. Tons●all remaining Prisoner in the Tower such Money as should serve for his necessities, until such time as farther Order shall be taken touching the Goods and Money lately appertaining to him; and that the Lord Wharton cause the Accounts of the Revenues of the Bishopric of Duresm, as well for the second and third Years of the late Bishop's entry into the same, as for two Years last passed, 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 alleged 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 reinstated 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 Bishopric of Durham, for Heresy and Sedition.   
Pag. 242. lin. 39 
june 1553. the Seal was on the 13th. of August given to Gardiner, who was declared Lord Chancellor 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 Gardener on the 23d. of Aug. His Patent for the Office of Lord Chancellor bears date on the 21st. of September, according to Sir William Dugdale's accurate Catalogue of the Chancellors, 
Chron. p. 88  etc. 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 Bishopric 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 show 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 june 1557. Fourteen Protestants were destroyed in two days by Thornton and Harpsfield.  
There was but one Suffragan Bishop in the Diocese 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 Cranmers 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 john 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 Friesland.  
A most exact account of the Foundation and Dissolution of this Germane 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 johannem Utenhovium Gandavum, being approved by john 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, etc. 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 john a Lasco and his Congregation; 
Pag. 154.  which the Historian had before mentioned, and put it into his Collection, for the Curiosity of the thing, as himself saith: It was also published by Mr. Prynn in his Trial of Archbishop Laud. 
Pag. 394.  I will further add, that it is more correct in Utenhovius, than in the Transcript; which is the Case of all th● Instruments and Memorials published by him, which I have had occasion to compare either with the Originals, or with other Copies.   
Pag. 251. lin. 2. 
Cox was without any good colour turned out both of his Deanery of Christ-Church, and his Prebendary at Westminster. He was put into the Marshalsea, but on the 19th of August 1553. was discharged.  
Cox had no Prebendary (the Historian would have said Prebend) at Westminster, but besides his Deanery of Christ-Church Oxford, was Dean of Westminster, and Prebendary of Windsor; of all which he was deprived about this time. The cause of his Deprivation, was probably supposed to have been, that he had acted in favour of Queen jane. For being a considerable Person in King Edward's Court at the time of his Death, and having been much employed even in State Affairs, he could not well avoid to be concerned in that matter, if he were then present at Court. He was married indeed at this time. But I do not think that was alleged as a Cause of his Deprivation. For they did not yet proceed to deprive the married Clergy, until some Months after this.   
Pag. 252. lin. 28. 
On the Fourth of October 1553. Holgate Archbishop of York was put in the Tower, no cause being given, but heinous Offences only named in General.  
I fear that Holgate by his imprudent Carriage, if not by worse Actions, had brought a Scandal on the Reformation. Most, if not all the Persons highly instrumental in the Reformation, were eminent for Virtue, but the probity of Holgate may justly be suspected. For in the Council-Book of King Edward, I find this Order made on the 23d. of November, 1551. A Letter to the Archbishop of York, to stay his coming up hither till the Parliament. Also a Letter to Sir Tho. Gargrave, and Mr. Chaloner, and Dr. Rouksby, to search and examine the very truth of the matter between the Archbishop of York, and one Norman, who claimeth the said Archbishop's Wife to be his Wife, to which end the Supplication of the said Norman is sent to them enclosed. It is to be lamented indeed, that such occasions of Scandal were given by any eminent Persons of our Church (although to say the truth Holgate acted very little in the Reformation) but when they are given, they ought not to be dissembled by an Historian, out of favour or affection to any Party. To represent only the laudable Actions of men, is to write an Elegy, or Apology, or Panegyric, or whatever other Name it may assume, the name of History it ought not to claim. And after all such Scandals (if indeed this were justly so) are no more prejudicial to the Honour of the Church of England, at and since the Reformation, than the scandalous Impurities of Walter Bishop of Hereford, Stanley Bishop of Ely, and many others, were to the Honour of the same Church before the Reformation. I know whither the learned Author of the Defence of Priest-Marriages, published by Archbishop Parker intends the Case of Holgate, 
Pag. 190, 191.  when he saith, I mean not to justify the universal sort of the married Bishops, and Priests in all their light and dissolute Behaviour; whatsoever it hath been in any of them from the highest to the lowest.— I think that I may speak it of the Conscience of some married Bishops and Priests in England, that they do as much lament the light Behaviour, showed and escaped by some of them; in the Libertee that was granted them of Law and Parliament, as they that be most angry and out of patience with them.— and beside forth bewail the dissolute Behaviour of a great meany of their best beloved, and wish as heartily all Offendicles and Slanders rooted out both sorts of the Clergy. It should seem that in the Imprisonment of Holgate, this was alleged as one of those heinous Offences, which were the pretended cause of it. For in the Instrument of his Deprivation it is said, that he was for his Marriage committed to the Tower and deprived.   
Pag. 257. lin. 16. 
On the 3d. of November 1553. Archbishop Cranmer, with others, were brought to their Trial.  
He was Arraigned and Condemned of Treason at Guild-Hall London, on the 13th of November, according to Stow and Grafton.   
Pag. 257. lin. 28. 
And now, (after his Attainture) Cranmer was legally devested of his Archbishopric, which was hereupon void in Law.— But it being now designed to restore the Ecclesiastical Exemption and Dignity to what it had been anciently, it was resolved, that he should still be esteemed Archbishop, till he were solemnly degraded according to the Canon Law (which was done in the middle of February 1556.) So that all that followed upon this against Cranmer, was a Sequestration of all the Fruits of his Archbishopric; himself was still kept in Prison.  
This, if true, would be a matter of great moment, and make a considerable change in the History of our Church. But really it is a mere Fiction. For immediately after his Attainture, the See of Canterbury was declared void, and the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury thereupon assumed the Administration of the Spiritual Jurisdiction of the Archbishopric, as in other Cases of Vacancy. The Attainture was completed in the middle of November 1553. and on the 16th of December following, the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, gave out Commissions to several Persons for the Exercise of the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction in their Names, and by their Authorities. The Chapter continued in Possession of this Jurisdiction, till the Publication of Cardinal Poles Bulls of Provision to the Archbishopric; viz. till the beginning of the Year 1556. and during that time gave Commissions to the several Officers and Judges of the Courts of the Archbishopric, had the spiritual Jurisdiction of all vacant Bishoprics, gave Institution to all Benefices in them, and in the Diocese of Cunterbury, gave Commissions for the Consecration of Bishops, etc. of all which Acts done a peculiar Register was made, Entitled, Vacatio sedis Metropoliticae Christi Cantuar. post depositionem Thomae Cranmer nuper Archiepiscopi Cantuar. primo de crimine laesae Majestatis Authoritate Parliamenti convicti, & deinde ob varias haereses Authoritate sedis Apostolicae depositi, degradati, Seculari brachio traditi, & post remò in alma Universitate Oxoniensi igne consumpti, sub anni Domini, 1553, 1554, & 1555. regnorum vero Philippi & Mariae Regum, etc. During this time, all Acts and Instruments begin with these words: Nocholaus Wotton utriusque juris Doctor. Decanus Ecclesiae Cathedralis, & Metropolitices Christi Cantuar. & ejusdem Ecclesiae Capitulum, ad quem, & quos, omnis & omnino da jurisdictio Spiritualis & Ecclesiastica, quae ad Archiepiscopum Canturiensem, sede plenâ, pertinuit, ipsa sede jam per Attincturam Thomae Cranmer, ultimi Archiepiscopi ejusdem, de altâ proditione attincti & adjudicati, vacant, notoriae dinoscitur pertinere. Thus in particular beginneth the first Instrument of the Register, Dated 1553. December 16. Long before his Degradation also, the Pope had solemnly Excommunicated and Deposed Cranmer for Heresy: for it did not concern him to take notice of the Pretence of High-Treason. In the Bull of Provision to Cardinal Pole, to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, dated 1555. December 11. Pope Paul saith, that he had by a solemn Sentence, Excommunicated and Deposed from the See of Canterbury, filium iniquitates Thomam Cranmer, olim Archiepiscopum Cantuar. ob notorias haereses. This Bull sufficiently disproveth the Historians relation. But that which is chiefly to be regarded herein, is the Register of the Vacancy before mentioned, which puts it beyond all doubt, that the See of Canterbury became void immediately upon the Attainture of Cranmer, and was at least in England so accounted.   
Pag. 267. lin. 25. 
The last thing I find done this Year 1553. was the restoring Veysey to be Bishop of Exeter, which was done on the 28th of December. In his Warrant for it under the Great Seal it is said, that he for some just troubles both in Body and Mind, had resigned his Bishopric to King Edward, to which the Queen now restored him.  
The Register of Canterbury beforementioned recordeth, that Veysey was restored to his Bishopric, because he had been induced by fear to resign it in the time of King Edward. 
Part 1. Pag. 582.  The Author of Athenae Oxon. saith, that he was forced to resign pro corporis metu 1551. August 14. and was restored by the Queen's Patent bearing date 1553, September 28.   
Pag. 275. lin. 1. 
Thus were seven Bishops all at a Dash turned out (in the Year 1554.) It was much censured, that there having been Laws made, allowing Marriage to the Clergy, the Queen should by her own Authority, upon the repealing those Laws, turn out Bishops for things that had been so well warranted by Law.— And even the severest Popes, who had pressed the Celibate most, had always before they proceeded to deprive any Priests for Marriage, left it to their Choice, whether they would quit their Wives or their Benefices.  
In the Commissions given by the Queen for the Deprivation of these Bishops, and related by the Historian; it is ordered to proceed against Four of them only for Marriage (viz. York, St. david's, Chester, and Bristol) but against the other Three (viz. Lincoln, Gloucester, and Hereford) for other pretended misdemeanours. Now in aggravating the Queen's injustice, in depriving them Summarily for their Marriage; the Historian plainly mistaketh the Case. For they were not ordered to be deprived simply for their Marriage, but for having broken their Vows of perpetual Celibate, and having married after a solemn Profession of Chastity. This the Historian might have observed from the very Commission for the Deprivation of the Four first (published by himself) the words whereof are these. Quia comperimus Robertum, Archiepiscopum Ebor. Robertum Meneu. johannem Cester. & Paulum Brostol. post expressam professione in castitatis, expressè, ritè, & legitimè emissam, cum quibusdam mulieribus nuptias de facto, cum de jure non deberent, contraxisse. The Secular Clergy of England had never indeed made any Profession of Chastity at their Ordination. But that all the Regulars did, is notorious. And however the severest Popes had, before they proceeded to deprive any Secular Priests for Marriage, left it to their Choice, whether they would quit their Wives or their Benefices; yet no such favour was ever allowed to the Regular Priests who had contracted Marriage, but their Marriage was accounted an heinous Crime, by reason of the Violation of their Vow included in it. It may be therefore observed, that the Queen giving Commissions at the same time, for the Deprivation of the Four first, and of the Three last Bishops, ordereth the former to be deprived for their Marriage, the later for their pretended misdemeanours, having taken Grants of their Bishoprics from King Edward the Sixth with this Clause, quamdiu bene se gesserint, although two of the Three later Bishops were married, and all the Four former Bishops had taken Patents from King Edward with the like Clause. The reason of this diversity of proceeding was because the first Four were Regulars, and the other Three were Seculars. That the later were Seculars is well known: and of the others Holgate of York had been Provincial of the Order of St. Gilbert of Sempringham, Ferrar of St. David's had been a Canon Regular of the Order of St. Augustin, Bush of Bristol had been Provincial of the Order of Bonhommes, Bird of Chester had been Provincial of the Carmelites. Of the three Secular Bishops (viz. Lincoln, Gloucester and Hereford) the two later were indeed married, but of that the Queen taketh no notice in her Commission for their Deprivation; although their Ecclesiastical Judges in depriving them, thought fit to allege their Marriage, as one 'Cause of their Deprivation, not in Virtue of the Queen's Commission but of the Canon-Law, which upon repeal of the Statutes for the Marriage of the Clergy, recovered its former force in this Case.   
Pag. 275. lin. 24. 
For the Archbishop of York, though he was now (in March 1554.) turned out, yet he was still kept Prisoner, till King Philip procured his Liberty: But his See was not filled till February next; for then Heath had his Congee d'elire.  
The Historian dateth the Queen's Commission, by Authority of which he supposeth Holgate to have been deprived, on the 16th of March 1554. 
Reg. Ebor.  But the See of York was void before this. For the Dean and Chapter of York assumed to themselves the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction (void by his Deprivation) on the 8th of March 1554.) He was discharged out of the Tower 1555. january 18. His See was not filled till june or july of the Year 1555. For however the Congee d'elire might issue out in February, Heath had not Possession of the Archbishopric, until his Election was confirmed at Rome, and his Bulls were published in England, which Bulls were not dispatched till the 21st of june 1555.   
Pag. 275. lin. 28. 
On, or before the 18th of March this Year (1554) were those other Sees (St. david's, Chester, Bristol, Lincoln, Gloucester, Hereford,) declared Vacant.  
The Register of Canterbury, in which all these Deprivations are recorded, testifieth, that on the 20th of March 1554. the Bishops of Winchester, London, Chichester, and Durham, by Virtue of the Queen's Commission directed to them, pronounced the Sentence of Deprivation upon john Taylor Bishop of Lincoln, Ob nullitatem consecrationis ejus & defectum tituli sui quem habuit à Rege Edwardo Sexto per literas patentes cum hâc clausulâ dum bene se gesserit, upon john Hooper Bishop of Worcester and Gloucester, Propter conjugium, & alia mala merita, & vitiosum titulum, ut supra, upon john Harlowe Bishop of Hereford, Propter conjugium & Hoeresin, & ut supra, upon Robert Ferrar Bishop of St. David's, Propter causas supradictas, upon john Bird Bishop of Chester, Propter conjugium. No Sentence of Deprivation was pronounced at that time upon Bush Bishop of Bristol. Whether he evaded it by renouncing his Marriage, or by any other Submission, is uncertain. But he was never deprived. However, willingly or unwillingly, he resigned his Bishopric in june following. For in the same Register, the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, assumed the spiritual Jurisdiction of the See of Bristol void; per spontaneam resignationem Pauli Bushe 1554. junii 21.   
Pag. 275. lin. 32. 
Gooderick Bishop of Ely died in April this Year 1554.  
He died in May, either on the 9th, or 10th day of the Month.   
Pag. 275. lin. 41. 
Hopton was made Bishop of Norwich. But Story, that had been Bishop of Chichester, though upon Day's being restored he was turned out of his Bishopric, did comply merely. He came before Bonner, and renounced his Wife, and did Penance for it, and had his Absolution under his Seal, the 14th of july this Year 1554.  
Day was restored to the Bishopric of Chichester, before the 16th of March 1554, (when the Queen's Commission was directed to him and others, in Virtue of which he with his Colleagues deprived several Bishops on the 20th of March,) whereas Hopton of Norwich was not consecrated till the 25th of Octob. following. Besides it is not certain, that Story was turned out of his Bishopric. The words of the Register are somewhat ambiguous, but seem to insinuate, as if he voluntarily restored to Day the Bishopric of Chichester, from which he had been ejected. I will not omit here to add, that his Penance, if he performed any, was not imposed so much for his Marriage contracted after Priests Orders, as for the violation of his Vow. For although it be not known of what Order he was, we are assured from Archbishop Parker (in the Catalogue of the Bishops of his time, prefixed to his History of the Archbishops of Canterbury) that he was a Regular.   
Pag. 276 lin. 1. 
The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Barlow, was also made to resign; as appears, etc. though elsewhere it is said, that the See was Vacant by his Deprivation. But I incline it truer that he did resign.  
It is most certain, that Barlow did resign. For in the aforesaid Register is a Commission granted to certain Persons by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, to Act during the Vacancy of the See of Bath and Wells, which is there said to be void, Per liberam & spontaneam resignationem Domini Willielmi Barlowe ultimi Episcopi & Pastoris ejusdem. This Commission was giving between 20th. December 1553, and 25th. March 1554   
Pag. 276. lin. 16. 
Barlow never Married.  
A more unhappy mistake could not possibly have been made. For so remarkable a Marriage never happened to any Clergyman of England, as to Barlow. He he had Five Daughters, afterwards married to five Bishops. The first, Frances was married to Matthew Parker Son to Archbishop Parker. After his Death, (which was in the end of the Year 1574.) she was married to Dr. Matthews Archbishop of York. A second Daughter of Barlow, was married to Wickham Bishop of Winchester, a third to Overton Bishop of Lichfield, a fourth to Westphaling Bishop of Hereford, a fifth to Day Bishop of Winchester: All this is declared at length in the Epitaph fixed to the Monument of Frances, who dying in 1629. Aged 78 years, was buried in the Church of York. So that Frances was born in 1551. in the Reign of King Edward, when her Father was Bishop of Wells. Besides these Daughters, 
Reg. Faad. Parker.  Barlow had a Son of his own name, who was Prebendary of Wyvelescomb in the Church of Wells in the Year 1571. being then in Deacons Orders. It appeareth farther, that Barlow's Wife was alive, after that her Daughter Frances had married to Matthew Parker; so that notwithstanding the Historians reasons it is to be feared, that Barlow made some dishonourable compliance in the Reign of Queen Mary.   
Pag. 276. lin. 31. 
When this was done (viz. after the old Bishops were deprived in the Year 1554.) the Bishops went about the executing the Queen's Injunctions.— In this Business none was so hot as Bonner. He set up the old Worship at St. Paul's on St. Katherine's day. And the next day being St. Andrews, he did officiate himself, and had a solemn Pocession.  
Bonner had restored the Mass in the Church of St. Paul's on the 27th. Aug. 1553. as was before related out of Stow and Grafton. If St. Andrews day be the next day to St. Katherine, our English Calendar indeed wants great Reformation, which placeth it five days after St. Katherine. But it may be presumed, that if the Calendar can retain any Friends to plead its cause, it may in this Case get the better of the Historian.   
Pag. 276. lin. 46. 
The Clergy were now fallen on for their Marriages. Parker estimates it, that there were now about 16000 Clergymen in England; and of those 12000 were turned out upon this Account. Some, he says, were deprived without Conviction, some were never cited, etc. They were all Summarily deprived.  
The Historian would have obliged us, if he had pleased to acquaint us, in what Book or Writing Parker hath delivered this Account. The Testimony of so grave, and so worthy a Person would have excluded all doubt. In the Defence of Priests Marriages, wrote by an unknown Layman, and published by Parker; this Passage may indeed be found. 
Fol. 6.  Is thus the Honour of the Clergy preserved, to drive out so many, twelve of Sixteen thousand (as some Writer maketh his Account) to so great a Peril of getting their Livings, and this just at the Point of Harvest? Here it may be easily observed, that this Author will by no means vouch for the Truth of this Computation. It would in truth be a very extraordinary matter, if 12000 Clergymen should have married between the end of the year 1548, and the middle of 1553. I cannot affirm of my own knowledge that the account is extravagantly false, but am very apt to believe it. And in this belief I am confirmed; for that having had the Curiosity to compute how many Clergymen were deprived for Marriage in this Reign, in the Diocese and Peculiars of the See of Canterbury, I found the proportion far short of this account. For whereas there are contained therein about 380 Benefices, and other Ecclesiastical Promotions, no more than 73 Clergymen therein were then deprived for Marriage, or any other Cause; which far from the proportion of 12 to 16, scarce bears the proportion of 3 to 16. Yet Thornden and Harpsfield were as vigorous in prosecuting the married Clergy of that Diocese, as any Zealots in any part of England. 
Pag. 13.269.  As for the severe and unjust proceedings against some of the married Clergy, related by the Historian; the Author before mentioned attesteth the same thing. 
Fol. 5.  But when the Historian saith, they were all summarily deprived, I fear this is an Addition of his own. For this Author on the contrary saith, that a years time was allowed to the Clergy to abjure their heresy, and put away their Wives: although in some places their enemies were so zealous, that they dispossessed many of them before the year expired. The first deprivation, which I find to have been made on this account, was in the Church of Canterbury, by Thornden then Vice-Dean: who on the 16th of March 1554, deprived six Prebendaries (one of them the Archbishop's Brother, Archdeacon also,) six Preachers, and two minor Canons of that Church. In the Register of the Vacancy may be found many Processes against, and Deprivations of married Clergymen; from whence it appears plainly, that the usual forms of proceeding were, at least in many Cases observed, and that all were not summarily deprived.   
Pag. 277. lin. 2. 
Nor was this all; but after they were deprived, they were also forced to leave their Wives: Which piece of severity was grounded on the Vow, that (as was pretended) they had made; though the falsehood of this Charge was formerly demonstrated.  
It is true that the Secular Clergymen had made no Vow. But it cannot be denied that as many of the Clergy, as had formerly been Regulars, had made solemn and express Vows. Now the Number of these was very considerable among the beneficed Clergy of that time; by reason that all Priests who had been ejected out of Religious Houses, were enabled to hold Benefices; and that the King also, and other Patrons did more readily give Benefices to them, that so by that means they might discharge themselves from the obligation of paying their Annual Pensions any longer to them. These therefore were all forced to leave their Wives, unless they evaded it by any base compliance, by Connivance, or by the Favour of any great Person. But that any of the Seculars were forced to leave their Wives, I do no where find. Indeed it was necessary to all, who would continue in their Benefices, to renounce their Wives; but we now speak of those Clergymen, who had been already deprived of their Benefices. Against many of them Processes were form for their Marriage, which may be found in the Register often made; but therein I cannot find any beside Regulars, to have been deprived by the Sentence of the Court, or their Marriages to have been annulled. And accordingly in the Articles of Enquiry or Interrogatories to be administered to every married Clergyman, form in March 1554. (when the persecution of the married Clergy began in the Diocese of Canterbury) the first is, Whether he had been a Religious, and of what Order, and in what Monastery or House? A Copy of these Articles I have given in the following Collection. 
Num. 8.    
Pag. 292. lin. 6. 
What Cardinal Pole's Instructions were, I do not know, nor is it falsely understood by Learned men, what was the Power of a Legate a Latere in those days. But I found the Original Bull of Cardinal Beacon's Legatine Power in Scotland, and have given it a room in the Collection, though it be large, since, no doubt, Cardinal Pool's Bull was in the same form.  
We have no such necessity of borrowing light from Scotland. The Bull of Cardinal Pole's Legatine Power is entered in the beginning of his Register (kept at Doctor's Commons) which ought in the first place to have been consulted. I have caused it to be thence transcribed, 
Num. 9  and have put it into the following Collection. From thence it will appear, how false the Conjecture of the Historian is, that Pole's Bull was in the same form with Beacon's Bull, which he pronounceth to be without all doubt. For in truth they differ altogether both in matter and form.   
Pag. 292. lin. 39 
The Queen was falsely believed to be with Child. Notice was given of it to the Council, who that Night wrote a Letter to Bonner about it, ordering a Te Deum to be sung at Paul's, and the other Churches of London.  
The Council wrote and sent such Orders not only to Bonner, but to other Bishops of the Nation, on the same day. I have in the Collection subjoined the Letter wrote by the Council to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, 
Num. 7.  who had then the Spiritual Jurisdiction in that Diocese in the Vacancy of the See.   
Pag. 297. lin. 33. 
Upon Cardinal Pole's being called over, there was a Commission sent him by the Great Seal, bearing date 10. Nou. 1554. authorising him to exercise his Legatine Power in England.  
This Licence bears date on the 10th of Decemb. that year, as may be seen in the Cardinals own Register, wherein it is enregistered. In like manner Pole afterwards obtained a Licence from the Queen 1555. Nou. 2d. to hold a Convocation (as the Historian relateth, pag. 324) in virtue of which Licence he sent his Mandate to Bonner on the 8th. day of the same Month to summon a Convocation. In obedience to which, Bonner summoned the Clergy to meet on the 2d. of December following. Which I observe, because the Historian in speaking of this Convocation, hath not fixed the time of it.   
Pag. 313. lin. 1. 
john Kardmaker, that had been Divinity-Reader at St. Paul's, and a Prebendary at Bath, was burnt in Smithfield on the 30th of May 1555.  
There had been Monks in the Church of Bath, until the Dissolution of the Monastery. But since that time, neither Monks nor Prebendaries had any place therein. Kardmaker had been really Prebendary of Wells, and in King Edwards' Council-Book I find ordered 1551. Febr. 18. A Letter to the Chapter of Wells, in favour of Mr. John Kardmaker, Chancellor of that Church.   
Pag. 320. lin. 45. 
Gardiner Bishop of Winchester was believed to be the base Son of Richard Woodvil, that was brother to Queen Elizabeth, Wife to King Edward IU.  
Bishop Godwin delivereth a more probable relation (which he affirmeth to have received from a Kinsman of Gardiner) that he was the base Son of Lionel Woodvil Bishop of Salisbury: which Lionel was the Son of Richard Woodvil mentioned by the Historian. 
Pag. 1117.  With Godwin agreeth Mills in his Genealogical Catalogue of the Nobility of England.   
Pag. 321. lin. 44. 
Heath Archbishop of York had the Seals in Febr. after, viz. in 1556.  
Hethe received the Great Seal on the first day of january 1556. according to Stow. Dugdale also writeth, that he was constituted Chancellor on that day, alleging undoubted authority, Claus. 2. & 3. Phil. & Mar. 
Orig. jur. pag. 90.    
Pag. 339. lin. 3. 
The Chief of these (faithful Shepherds, who were willing to hazard their Lives in feeding this Flock committed to their care, privately) were Scambler and Dentham, etc.  
Had none of the old deprived Bishops then, who were at liberty, courage sufficient to do their duty herein? That would indeed reflect upon their Memory. I doubt not, that some of them performed their duty. At least I am sure, that Harley late Bishop of Hereford did; of whom Dr. Humphreys (sometimes his Scholar, 
Vita juelli pag. 70.  afterward his intimate Friend) relateth, that under the Reign of Queen Mary, he instructed his Flock in Woods and secret Places, as a faithful and holy Shepherd, preaching to them, and administering the Sacraments; and for this purpose lurking up and down in England, at last died like an exile in his own Country.   
Pag. 327. lin. 25. 
It was thought, that Pole himself hastened the Execution of Cranmer (who was executed in March 1556.) longing to be invested with that See: which the only personal blemish I find laid on him.  
I am very unwilling to believe, that a Person of such eminent virtue, as Cardinal Pole is by all allowed to have been, could be guilty of so base an Action. The truth is, he could have no such design. For it was before showed, that the See of Canterbury had been actually voided immediately upon the Attainture of Cranmer in the end of the year 1553. After his Attainture at home, and deposition and excommunication pronounced at Rome (of which I spoke before) he was dead to the Canon as well as Common Law. His natural Life could be no obstacle to the advancement of Pole to the Archbishopric. 
Register. Pole.  And accordingly that very Pope Paul (of whom the Historian maketh Pole to have been so much afraid, lest he should defeat his hope of the Archbishopric, (if Cranmers Life were not quickly taken away) had by a Bull dated 1555. Decemb. 11. collated or provided Pole to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, constituting him Administrator of the Archbishopric till he should be ordained Priest, and after that, appointing him Archbishop with full Power and Jurisdiction. Upon the reception and publication of these Bulls in England (which was about the beginning of the following Month) Pole was to all intents and purposes fully possessed of the Archbishopric, although he was not consecrated till the 22d of March following, the day after Cranmers Martyrdom. The Historian reneweth this Charge against Pole, pag. 340, but there urgeth the same argument only, namely, his choosing the next day after Cranmers Death for his Consecration, which is of no moment, since Cranmer had in his account, and in Canon and Common Law, ceased long since to be Archbishop of Canterbury, and himself had been possessed of the Archbishopric above two Months.   
Pag. 326. lin. 38. 
Although Cardinal Pole had an only Brother David, that had continued all King Henry's time in his Archdeaconry of Derby, he did not advance him till after he had been two years in England; and then he gave him only the Bishopric of Peterborough, one of the poorest of the Bishoprics.  
Cardinal Pole had three Brothers; and this David was not his Brother. Bacatelli who wrote his Life, had been his Secretary and Domestic Servant, for near twenty Years before his Death. He had reason therefore to know the Cardinal's Kindred; and he affirmeth, that the Cardinal had three Brothers, Henry (Lord Montacute, condemned of Treason, and executed in the year 1538.) Arthur, (condemned for Treason in 1562.) and Geofry, (condemned in 1538, but neither executed) and two Sisters. Then whereas David Pole is said by the Historian to have been preferred to Peterborough, one of the poorest of the Bishoprics; in truth Peterborough was at that time none of the least Bishoprics in England, having been endowed by King Henry, far above any of the new erected Bishoprics, and made equal in revenue to most of the ancient Bishoprics; and so continued, until Scambler, the Successor of this David Pole, did by a Simoniacal Contract, convey away the better part of the Possessions of it to a Noble Person of the Neighbourhood; that he might thereby make way for his own Translation to the Bishopric of Norwich, to do the like Mischief there.   
Pag. 340. lin. 20. 
On the 28th of March, Pole came in State through London to Bow-Church; where the Bishops of Worcester and Ely put the Pall about him.  
He received, and was solemnly invested with his Pall at Bow-Church, on the 25th of March; as his own Register testifieth; which is confirmed by Stow.   
Pag. 340. lin. 22. 
This was a Device set up by Pope Paschal the second, in the beginning of the twelfth Century, for the engaging of all Archbishops to a more immediate dependence on that See; they being, after they took the Pall, to act as the Pope's Legates born (as the Phrase was) of which it was the Ensign. But it was at first admitted with great Contradiction, both by the Kings of Sicily, and Poland; the Archbishops of Palermo and Gnesna, being the first to whom they were sent, all men wondering at the Novelty of the thing, and of the Oath which the Popes required of them at the Delivery of it.  
I cannot sufficiently admire, that any learned Man should commit so great a Mistake. None, conversant in the History of the Church, can be ignorant, that the Custom of sending Palls from Rome to the Archbishops owning any Dependence upon that See, or Relation to it, began many hundred years before Pope Paschal the Second. Pope Gregory the First had sent a Pall to Augustin, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, and all the Archbishops from him to the Reformation did singly receive Palls from Rome, if sudden Death did not prevent them before the Reception. In like manner all the English Archbishops of York from the beginning (if we except two or three, who for that reason claimed not Archiepiscopal Privileges) received their Palls from thence; and so also all the Archbishops of the Western-Church, which held any Communication with the See of Rome. When they were first sent to Archbishops, and for several Ages after, no Oath of Obedience to the See of Rome was exacted at the Delivery of them. Thus the Historian is found to have erred in fixing the time of their beginning, and in affixing a constant Oath to them. But farther he hath widely mistaken the Design of them: which was not to constitute those, who received them, Legati Nati, to the See of Rome. For if that were true, all the Archbishops of Canterbury from the first Foundation of the See, almost all the Archbishops of York, and the other Archbishops of the Western Church, would have been Legati Nati to the Pope: whereas in truth, the Number of Legati Nati in Christendom is very small, not exceeding four or five; the Archbishops of York never were Legati Nati, nor the Archbishops of Canterbury, till about the Year 1200. When Archbishop Herbert first obtained that Privilege to himself and Successors. Lastly, whereas the Historian maketh the Archbishop of Gnesna to have been one of the first, to whom the Title and Privilege of Legatus Natus was conferred, and that by Pope Paschal: the contrary of it is so far true, that Andreas Olzowski Archbishop of Gnesna in his Letter wrote to Dr. Sheldon Archbishop of Canterbury in the Year 1675. (wherein he requests of him to send to him an account of the Privileges of Legatio Nata belonging to the See of Canterbury) beginneth to propose his requests in these words. Concessum olim erat Anno 1515. Privilegium Legationis nata à Leone X. Papâ Archiepiscopis Gnesnensibus Primatibus Poloniae tali verborum contextu, Concedentes, ut omnibus Privilegiis, etc. quae ad Legatos Natos pertinent, & quae alii Legati Nati, praesertim vero Legatus Cantuariensis in suis Provinciis, utuntur, libere & licite valeat uti, etc.   
Pag. 360. lin. 17. 
The Parliament was opened on the 20th of january 1558. In the House of Peers the Abbot of Westminster, and the Prior of St. john of jerusalem, took their places according to their Writs. Tresham was now made Prior.  
Thomas Tresham had been made Prior of St. john of jerusalem by the Queen on the 30th of November 1557, as both Stow and Fuller witness.   
Pag. 378. lin. 45. 
In the beginning of the next year, (viz. 1559.) the Bishops of Norwich and Gloucester died.  
They both died before the end of this year, 1558. For in the Register of Pole, I find that the See of Gloucester was void by the Death of james Brooks, 1558. Sept. 7. And in the Register of Canterbury, the Dean and Chapter of the Church, are said to have seized into their hands, 1558. Decemb. 24. the Spiritualties of the See of Norwich, void by the Death of john Hopton.   
Pag. 378. lin. 44. 
Those now void, were the Sees of Canterbury, Hereford, Bristol, and Bangor. It was of great importance to find men able to serve in these Employments, chiefly in the See of Canterbury. For this Dr. Parker was soon thought on. He was writ to on the 9th of December, 1558. to come up to London.  
From this Relation any Reader would conclude, that the See of Bristol was void before the first Designation of Parker to the Archbishopric, viz. before the 9th of December. But that doth not appear. For the Spiritualties of the See of Bristol, void by the Death of john Holman, were not seized by the Chapter of Canterbury, until the 18th of December.   
Pag. 293. lin. 48. 
Thus I have given the Substance of their Speeches (of Heath and Fecknam, made in Parliament, in behalf of Popery) being all that I have seen on that side.  
Besides these, I have seen a long Speech of Scot Bishop of Chester, delivered at the same time in the same cause.   
Pag. 396. lin. 7. 
It doth not appear, how soon after the Dissolution of the Parliament (dissolved 1559, May 8.) the Oath of Supremacy was put to them (the Clergy and Bishops.) For the last Collation Bonner gave of any Benefice, was on the 6th of May this Year.  
It cannot be imagined, that Bonner was deprived before the Dissolution of the Parliament. On what days the several Bishops of the Province of Canterbury were deprived, may be determined from the times of the Seizure of the Spiritualties of their Bishoprics made by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury; who then possessed and exercised the Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction in the Vacancy of the See. These I will here present out of the Register of that Church. The Spiritualties of the See of London, void by the Deprivation of Edmund Bonner, were seized 1559, june 2. The Spiritualties of Winchester, void by the Deprivation of john White, 1559. july 18. of Lincoln, void by the Deprivation of Thomas Watson, 1559. july 2. (these two Bishops had been committed to the Tower on the 5th of April preceding.) The Spiritualties of Ely, void by the Deprivation of Thomas Thirleby, 1559. Nou. 23. of Lichfield, void by the Deprivation of Ralph Bayne, 1559. june 24 (he died before the end of the same Year.) The Spiritualties of Exeter, void by the Deprivation of james Turbervil, 1559. Nou. 16. Of Worcester, void by the Deprivation of Richard Pates, 1559. june 30. of Peterborough, void by the Deprivation of David Pool, 1559. Nou. 11. of St. Asaph, void by the Deprivation of Thomas Goldwell, 1559. july 15. When the See of York was first voided by the Deprivation of Heath, I shall relate hereafter. The certain times of the Deprivation of Tunstall of Durham, of Oglethorp of Carlisle, and of Scot of Chester, I cannot find. In all 14 Bishops were deprived; to whom may be added one Suffragan, viz. Pursglove of Hull. The whole Number of the Clergy deprived at this time, is thus described by a Romish Dissenter, Author of A sincere modest Defence of English Catholics that suffer, etc. Published in 1583. He saith that in England were deprived 14 Bishops, besides 3 Bishops Elect, the Abbot of Westminster, 4 Priors of Religious Houses, 12 Deans, 14 Archdeacon's, above 60 Canons of Cathedral Churches, not so few as a 100 Priests of good Preferment, 15 Heads of Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge, and above 20 Proctors of divers Faculties therein. No great Number, to be deprived at a time of so great a Change in Religion. I am willing to believe the Computation of this Author to be exact; because I find it to be so in the Number of Bishops and Deans deprived. The 14 Bishops we have named already. The Names of the 12 Deans follow. Cole of St. Paul's, steward of Winchester, Robertson of Durham, Ramridge of Lichfield, Goodman of Wells, Reynolds of Exeter, Harpsfield of Norwich, Holland of Worcester, Daniel of Hereford, Salkel of Carlisle, joliff of Bristol, Boxal of Peterborough, and Windsor. Of the three Bishops Elect, who are said to have been deprived, I can recover the Names but of Two, Viz. Thomas Rainolds Elect of Hereford, and Thomas Wood   
Pag. 396. lin. 11. Pag. 397. lin. 7. 
The Oath being offered to Heath Archbishop of York, Christopherson Bishop of Chichester, they did all refuse to take it.— They were upon their refusal deprived and put in Prison.— Christopherson chose to live still in England.  
This is a fair Story. 
De Scriptor. Angl. pag. 755.  But what if after all, Christopherson died before Queen Mary? This is affirmed by Pits. At least it is most certain, that he died within six Weeks after her. In which time, Queen Elizabeth, far from depriving any Bishops, had not declared her Resolution in matter of Religion on either side. The Dean and Chapter of Canterbury seized the Spiritualties of the See of Chichester vacant per mortem naturalem johannis Christopherson ultimi Episcopi, 
Registr. Canto.  & Pastoris ejusdem, 1559. jan. 2. Now although he should have died some few days before Queen Mary (as Pits saith) it is not to be wondered, if amidst so much Confusion, as attended the Death of the Queen, and Cardinal Pole, the Chapter of Canterbury neglected for some time to seize the Spiritualties of Chichester.   
Pag. 402. lin. 33. 
On the 8th Day of july 1559. the Congee d'Elire (for Matthew Parker) was sent to Canterbury. On the 22 of july a Chapter was summoned to meet the first of August; where the Dean and Prebendaries meeting they all elected him.  
The Congee d'Elire was sent to the Chapter of Canterbury, 
Registr. Parker.  not on the 8th, but on the 18th of july; in virtue of which, Parker was elected on the first of August by the Dean and four Prebendaries, then present in Chapter. The other Canons were either absent, or refused to appear. But the Election was not thereby the less Canonical. For they had been all cited in due form to appear, and give their Votes.   
Pag. 403. lin. 25. 
Some time after this, in February 1561. Young was translated from St. David's to York; there being now no hopes of gaining Heath to continue in it; which it seems had been long endeavoured, for it was now two Years that that See had been in Vacancy.  
The Historian finding, that the See of York lay void from the enacting the Oath of Supremacy two Years (not strictly accounted) and not knowing the Cause of it, hath invented a plausible Reason, and believed it as a matter of equal Certainty with any other Occurrence related by him. To assign proper and plausible Reasons to every Action, may add Beauty to a History; but if liberty be taken to do this without any ground or warrant, little difference will be left between a History and a Romance. Hethe was actually deprived long before this. For on the 3d. of February 1560. (viz. in the beginning of the Year 1560. 
Registr. Ebor. ) the Dean and Chapter of York assumed the Exercise of the Spiritual Jurisdiction of that See, void by his Deprivation: On the 12th of August 1560. William May Dean of St. Paul's, London, was elected Archbishop of York. But he dying before his Confirmation and Consecration, Thomas Young, Bishop of St. David's, was finally elected to that Archbishopric on the 27th of january 1561. and confirmed on the 25th of February.   
Pag. 403. lin. 23. 
Parker being thus Consecrated himself (1559. December. 17.) did afterwards Consecrate Bishops for the other Sees, Cox Bishop of Ely, etc. and Par Bishop of Peterborough.  
There never was any Bishop of Peterborough of that Name. To David Pole succeeded immediately in that See Edmond Scambler; who was consecrated by Archbishop Parker, on the 16th of February, 1561.   
Pag. 404. lin. 35. 
Some excepted against the Canonicalness of Parker's Consecration, because it was done by all the Bishops of the Province, and Three of the Bishops had no Sees when they did it, and the Fourth was only a Suffragan Bishop: But to all this it was said, That— a Suffragan Bishop being Consecrated in the same manner that other Bishops were, tho' he had a limited Jurisdiction, yet was of the same Order with them.  
When I first observed, that in the Arms of Archbishop Parker under his Effigies over-against pag. 402. the Keys were inverted (which he ever bore erect) I began almost to fear, that the Historian would deny the Regularity of his Consecration. But since he is pleased to do Justice to the Archbishop herein; I will add in Confirmation of what is said concerning the equal Authority, which Suffragan Bishops have to consecrate with others; that the practice of the Church of England, before the Reformation will clear all doubts of this Nature. For the Archbishops in taking other Bishops to their Assistance in the Consecration of Bishops, or in giving Commissions to other Bishops to consecrate in their stead, made no difference between Suffragan and Diocesan Bishops: So that I could produce above twenty Examples of the Consecration of Diocesan Bishops in England, within Two hundred years before the Reformation, performed with the Assistance of Suffragan Bishops, and that when the Canonical number of Consecrators was not complete without them.   
Appendix; pag. 386. lin. 3. 
Saunders saith, that the Heads of Colleges were turned out (under Edward the Sixth) and the Catholic Doctors were forbid to Preach. The Historian answereth. I do not find that one Head of a College in either University was turned out.  
I find somewhat relating to the Heads of Houses in King Edward's Council-Book, 1550. 13th. October. A Letter to the Fellows of New College in Oxford, forbidding them to choose a Warden in Mr. Coles stead, without Licence from the King, 1551. 29th. January, Commissioners appointed to examine and try the Case of Dr. Cole, upon certain Objections made by the Fellows of New College in Oxford against him, 1551. March 25th. White Warden of Winchester College committed to the Tower, for receiving Letters and Books from beyond Sea, and particularly from one Martin a Scholar there, who impugneth, etc. 1551. June 15th. Dr. Morwent, Precedent of Corpus Christi College, Oxon, with some of the Fellows of that House, committed to the Fleet, for using upon Corpus Christi Day other Service than that is appointed in the Book of Service. A Letter to the said College signifying the same, and appointing Mr. Juell to govern the said College in the absence of the said Precedent, 1551. December 22. Dr. Tresham committed to the Fleet. Or if express Instances of the Ejection of any Heads be required, I will produce one in each University. In Oxford, Dr. Richard Smith, Regius Professor of Divinity, and Principal of Alban Hall, was ejected in the Reign of King Edward. In Cambridge, Dr. George Day, Bishop of Chichester, and at the same time Provost of King's College, was deprived about the same time.   
Pag. 390. lin. 2. 
Day Bishop of Chichester was judged by Lay Delegates; so it is like his offence was against the State.  
I before gave an Account of the Deprivation of Day out of the Council-Book; from whence it appears that he was deprived for a matter of Religion.   
Pag. 396. lin. 15. 
Coverdale was put in the See of Exeter, upon Veyseys free Resignation, he being then extreme old.  
The Record of Veyseys Restitution to Exeter saith, that metu olim eidem Episcopatui cesserat. His Patent of Restitution allegeth, that he had forced to resign pro corporis metu.   
Pag. 396. lin. 17. 
Ridley and Harley were never married.  
The Historian hence hath taken an occasion to reproach Sanders for his little Exactness, because he had reckoned these among the married Bishops. But himself also is no less mistaken. Harley was indeed married. For the Record of his Deprivation, saith, that he was destitutus Episcopatu Herefordensi ex conjugio & haeresi. 
Vol. 3. Pag. 19  His Marriage is further attested by Fox.   
Pag. 403. lin. 43. 
The Historian denieth, that the whole Clergy, who had engaged in, or submitted to the Reformation under King Edward were formally reconciled to the See of Rome under Queen Mary.  
This is a mistake. The Clergy were singly reconciled by formal and solemn Acts. To which purpose Cardinal Pole, the Pope's Legate, gave Commissions to the several Ordinaries; one of which I have published in the Collection. 
Numb. 10.  And not content with this, he prescribed to them a form, by which they should be reconciled. 
Numb. 11.  This also I have subjoined in the Collection.   
Pag. 403. lin. 1. 
Sanders had said, that William Thomas, Clerk of the Council had conspired to kill the Queen; for which he justly suffered. The Historian answereth, of this I find nothing on Record; so it must depend on our Author's credit.  
If the Historian had pleased to have read our English Histories of these times, composed by Grafton, Stow, and others; he might have discovered somewhat of this matter upon Record. I before reported the Order of Council, constituting William Thomas Clerk of the Council, in the beginning of the Year 1550. King Edward's Journal mentioneth it on the same day, viz. the 19th of April. Soon after, in reward of his Attendance, the Prebend of Cantleury in St. Paul's Church (lately conveyed to the Crown) and the Parsonage of Presthende in South-Wales, were by the King given to him, when Queen Mary came to the Crown he was stripped of his Office, and perhaps of his Rewards also. In revenge of which he designed the Murder of the Queen: for which he was sent Prisoner to the Tower of London, 1554. February, 20. On the 26th of February, he endeavoured to murder himself, in Prison by a Stab: but the wound not proving Mortal, he was Arraigned and Condemned at Guildhall on the 9th of May, and executed at Tyburn on the 18th of May. 
Scriptor. Briton. Par. 2. p. 110.  Bale endeavouring to extenuate the matter, saith, that he was condemned and executed for designing to kill Stephen Gardiner. But all other Historians agree, that it was for conspiring the Queen's Death.  
THese are the Errors and Defects, which I have observed in this History. For my performance herein, I expect not either praise or thanks from the present Age; much less from the Historian: yet I thought it a Duty owing to Posterity, not to permit it to be led into mistakes in any thing, relating to the Reformation of this Church, by Errors contained in an History published in our times, with Pomp, and seeming Authority. I do not suspect any Person to be so disingenuous, as to raise hence an Argument of my disaffection to the Reformation: or if any shall be so base, I shall slight the Calumny. The Reformation of our Church was begun and carried on with so much Piety, Wisdom, and fullness of due Authority; that a faithful and exact Account is the best Vindication, and Defence of it: nor should I ever have taken so much pains to rectify the History, if I had not been fully persuaded of the Justice of it. If some favourable Passages in this History are by me disproved; the cause of our Reformation will not be really injured thereby, as not needing the Patronage of false or erroneous Relations. We were sufficiently able to defend the Justice of it, before any Foreigner undertook to deliver the History of it; and shall be so still, although the Reputation of his History should suffer any Diminution.  
Lest it should be imagined, that I have examined this History so curiously, as to have discovered all the Errors and Defects of it, and to have left no room to after diligence, or the Enquiry of others; I do protest, that I never form any Design of this nature until about a Month since. I have noted, what my Memory and present Collections suggested to me. But it may be easily observed, that I have considered only that part of the History which is purely Ecclesiastical, and not all that. If any one should take the Pains to examine in like manner, the Civil History intermixed therewith; it may be feared, that not a few Errors and Defects may be discovered in that part of it.  
In the last place, if the Historian, or any for him, shall ask why, in Compliance to his Desire, expressed in the Conclusion of his History, I did not first Communicate the Papers to himself; I refer him for an Answer to the Athenae Oxonienses, par. 2. pag. 625.   

An Additament to Par. 2. Sect. 14.  
In the place referred to I thought it sufficient to observe, that there appeareth no certain ground of the Marriage of Richard Bishop of Chichester reported by the Historian: But upon revising of the place, I think it not amiss to add, That we have undoubted certainty, that he never was married. For Ralph de Bocking, a Dominican Friar, who had been his Confessor, and wrote his Life at large, hath these words of him. Testis est Frater, qui haec scripsit, cui ante paucos dies transitûs sui ex hoc mundo idem sanctus vitam & Commissa sua Denudavit, quòd ipsum sic carnis florem repperit custodisse, ut in eorum numero censeatur, qui cum Mulieribus non sunt Coinquinati. And afterwards passing through the several parts of the Episcopal Office described by the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3. A Bishop must be blameless, etc. and applying them to Bishop Richard, when he cometh to that part of the Apostolic Charge: The Husband of one Wife, he saith, Ipse autem Richardus, Matrimonium Omnino refutavit. Consonant to this Pope Urban IV. in the Bull of his Canonization, among other Arguments of his supposed Sanctity, maketh use of this. Carnalis Conjugii voluptates, appetentibus anxius, Satiatis plenitudine plenas, abhorruit; ut immaculati thori delicias Desiderantibus suaves & placidas, fruentibus gratas & avidas, obtineret.    

A COLLECTION Of some few Records, and other Instruments, of which mention is made in the preceding Papers.  

I. The Determination of the University of Cambridge, against the Supremacy of the Pope.  
Invictissimo ac Potentissimo Principi ac Domino nostro, Clementissimo Henrico Octavo, Angliae & Franciae Regi, Domino Hiberniae, etc.  
QUod faelix & faustum sit, & huic florentissimo Regno tuo, & universo orbi Christiano, Invictissime Princeps ac Domine Clementissime, en scripto prodimus, ac palam dicimus sententiam nostram in quaestione illâ famosâ de Romani Pontificis potestate; cujus quaestionis veritatem post maturam & sedulam examinationem, ac varias ea de re non uno tempore collocutiones, diligenti tandem Scripturarum collatione, & perpensione (ut nobis videmur) eruimus, & erutam, & Syngrapho quodam expressam, quod sententiae nostrae & facti certissimus testis fuerit, Majestati tuae unà cum literis istis nunc mittimus.  
Atque hanc sane provinciam, Serenissime Rex, abs tuâ sublimitate nobis impositam, libenter suscepimus, partim ob eam quam Majestati tuae debimus, fidem & obedientiam, quibus ullo loco aut tempore de esse nefas maximum putamus, partim ipsius veritatis amore ac studio, quam discere ac praedicare, quoties è Christi Gloriâ, & Reipublicae Chrstianae salute atque commodo esse videatur, cum omnium intersit qui Christo nomen dederunt atque in illius verba jurarunt, tum nostrâ multò magis referre interesseque videtur, qui quotidie in illius Scripturis versamur, quotidiè illius verba & voces legimus, qui est ipsa via, veritas & vita; quique veritatem custodit in Saeculum saeculi. Hujus favorem ac gratiam semper tuae Celsitudini adesse precamur; optamusque ut nos, ut Academiam nostram, quae tuae semper voluntati fuerit obsequentissima, vicissim Sublimitatis tuae favore prosequi, fovere atque ornare digneris. Christus Servator Serenissimam Majestatem tuam Diutissimè servet.  
Universis sanctae Matris Ecclesiae filiis, ad quos praesentes literae perventurae sunt, caetus omnis Regentium & non Regentium, Academiae Cantabrigiensis salutem in omnium Salvatore jesus Christo.  
Cum de Romani Pontificis potestate, quam & ex Sacris Scripturis sibi vendicat in omnibus Christianorum provinciis, & in hoc Regno Angliae longo jam temporis tractu exercuit, hisce nunc diebus quaestio exorta sit, ac nostra eà de re sententia rogaretur, videlicet, An Romanus Pontifex habeat à Deo in Scripturâ sacrâ concessam sibi Majorem Authoritatem ac potestatem in hoc Regno Angliae, qua quivis alius externus Episcopus: nos equum esse putavimus, ut ad dictae quaestionis veritatem eruendam omni studio incumberemus, ac nostram eâ de re sententiam ac censuram tandem orbi proferremus; nempe ad hoc potissimum Academias à Principibus institutas fuisse persuasi, ut & populus Christianus in lege Dei erudiatur, & falsi errores (si qui exorirentur) curâ & sollicitudine doctorum Theologorum penitus convelli ac profligari possint. Quamobrem de praedictâ quaestione deliberaturi more nostro convenientes ac maturâ deliberatione consilia nostra conferentes, quo modo & ordine ad investigationem veritatis certiùs procederetur, atque omnium tandem suffragiis selectis quibusdam ex Doctissimus Sacrae Theologiae Professoribus, Baccalauriis ac aliis Magistris, eâ curâ demandatâ, ut serutatis Diligentissime Sacrae Scripturae locis, illisque collatis, referrent ac renuntiarent, quid ipsi dictae quaestioni respondendum putarent; quoniam auditis, perpensis, & post publicam super dictâ quaestione disputationem naturâ deliberationem discussis his quae in questione praedictâ alterutram partem statuere aut convellere possent; illa nobis probabiliora, validiora, veriora etiam ac certiora etiam, ac genuinum ac Sencerum Scripturae sensum referre visa sunt, quae negant Romano Pontifici talem potestatem à Deo in Scriptura datam esse. Illis igitur persuasi, in unam opinionem convenientes, ad quaestionem praedictam ita respondendum decrevimus, ac pro Conclusione verissimâ asserimus. Quòd Romanus Pontifex non habet à Deo in Sacrâ Scripturâ concessam sibi majorem authoritatem aut jurisdictionem in hoc Regno Angliae, quam quivis alius Episcopus externus. Atque in fidem & Testimonium hujusmodi nostrae Responsionis & Affirmationis, his Literis Sigillum nostrum commune curavimus apponi. Datum Cantabrigiae in Domo nostrâ Regentium secundo die mensis Maii, anno ab Orbe per Christum redempto Millesimo Quingentesimo Tricesimo Quarto.   

II. The Bedes, or the ancient Form of bidding Prayer.  
YE shulle stoned up and bid your Bedys in the worshepe of our Lord Ihesu Crist, and his Mother saint mary, and of all the holy Company of Hevene. Ye shulle also bid for the Stat of holy Cherche, for the Pope of Rome and of his Cardinalis, for the Patriach of jerusalem, for the holy Lond, and for the holy Croys, that Ihesu Crist sendt it out of Hedne men's hand, into Cristin men's hand. And ye shulle bid for the Erchebischop of Canterbury, for the Biscop of Worssestre our ghostly Fader, and all odir Biscopis, ye shulle bid for Abbotis, for Priouris, for Monkis, for Chanonnis, for Frieris, for Ancris, for Heremytis, and for alle the Religiouns. Ye shulle bid for alle the Prestis and Cleerkis that he rinne serit, and haugty servit. Ye shulle bid for the Pees of the Land, that Ihesu Crist holdit that it is, and sendyt that it nies. Ye shulle bid for the King of Engeland, for the Queen, and for alle Childryne; for Prince, for Dukis, for Yerles, for Barronnis, and for the Knytis of this Lond, and for alle her good Counsale and and her true Servauntiss. Ye shul bid for him, that the Stat of holy Church, and of this Lond be well meinteined. Ye shall bid for the wedering, and for the cornis, and for the fruits, that beet, ikast on herd, and on enthe growing, and for alle the true earth tylyaris, that God send swic wederinge fro Hevene to Earth, that it be him to convening and mankende to help of Lif and Savacioun of hour Souls. Ye shulle bid for the Persowne of this Church and for all his Parischons that been here other else war, in Land other in water; that our Lord Ihesu Crist ham shield and ward from alle Mysowneris, and grant him part of alle the Bedys and good Deediss that been deed in holy Church. Ye shulle bid for him that in gwode way beet iwent, odir wendyt, odir thenkit, to when the here sennys to boat, that our Lord Ihesu Crist would ward and shield from alle Mysauntries, and gronte han so goon and comen that it be him to worship, and ham in remission of here Sennys, for ham and for oos and alle Christine solke. Pater noster, Deus misereatur nostri, Kyrie eleison, etc. Also ye shulle bid for the gwode man and the good wife, that the Charite hider brooch to day, and for ham that it furst voondryn and longist holden. Ye shulle bid for ham, that this Church honour with book, with belle, with vestiment, with twaile, odir with ligt, odir with eny odir ournement to roof odir to ground, with land, odir with rent. Ye shulle bid for alle thilk, that bet in good live, that God the reinne ham hold long, and for thilk that bet in evele live, other in dedliche Sin ybound, that our Lord Ihesu Crist ham out bring, and given ham forgiveness of har Sennes. Ye shulle bid for thilk that to God and to holi Chirche trewliche tethegeren, that God tham Wite and Warde from all Misaintre; and for all thilk that evil tethegerens, that God ham give Grace of Amendment, that him ne fall naght in the great Sentence. Ye shulle bid for alle the Seek of this Parische, that our Lord him give sive heel and help of Bodi ann of Soul for ham, and for us, and for alle Christmen, and Wymmen for Charite, Pater Noster, etc. Ye shulle Knelen adown, and bid for Faders Soul, for Moders Soul, for Godfaders' Soul, for Godmoders Soul, for God children's Souls, and for alle the Sawlies of our Bredryn, and Soofters Souls, and for alle the Souls, that we bet in Debt for to bid the fore, and for alle the Sawlies that beet in Purgatoree; that God ham bring the radyr out of Harpeynys thorg the Byseching of our bone. Ye shulle bid for alle the Sawlies hwos bonies restin in this place; for alle Souls hwos Mendeday beet yholde in this Church, other ein other by the Year. De Profundis, Kyriei eleison, Peter noster, etc. Amen.   

III. A Proclamation of King Henry the Eight against the Marriage of the Clergy.  
THe Kings' Majesty understanding, that a few in numbered of this his Realm, being Priests, as well Religous as other, have taken Wives and married themselves, etc. His Highness in no wise minding that the generalitee of the Clergy of this his Realm should with the Example of such a few numbered of light Persouns proceed to Marriage without a common Consent of his Highness and his Realm: doth therefore straightly Charge and Command, as well all and singular the said Priests, as have attempted Marriages, that be openly knawen, as all such as will presumptuously proceed to the same, that they, ne any of them shall minister any Sacrament, or other Ministry mystical; ne have any Office, dignity, Cure, Privilege, Profit, or commodity heretofore accustomed, and belonging to the Clergy of this Realm; but shall be utterly, after such Marriages, expelled and deprived from the same. And that such as shall; after this Proclamation, contrary to this Commandment of their presumptuous mind take Wives and be married, shall run into his Grace's Indignation, and suffer further Punishment, and Imprisonment at his Grace's Will and Pleasure. Given this 16th Day of Novenber in the Thirteenth Year of our Reign.   

IV. An Account of the Proceedings in Convocation about the Marriage of the Clergy, wrote by Matthew Parker.  
IF ye list to understand what was done and subscribed unto by the Clergy meeting in Synod together, and after debatement concluded▪ ye shall hear what the Lower House did affirm in this case of Continence, john Taylor Doctor of Divinity, bein then Prololocutor, and William Say being Register, to accept the Voices and Subscriptions of them that were present, to whose Consciences was this Proposition propounded, either to be freely affirmed, or to be freely denied by them, Videlicet.  
That all such Canons, Laws, Statutes, Decrees, Usages, and Customs heretofore made, had or used, that forbid any Person to contract Matrimony, or condemn Matrimony, by any Person already contracted, for any Vow of Priesthood, Chastity or Widohood, shall from henceforth be utterly void and of none effect.  
The Affirmantes of this Proposition were almost treble so many as were the Negantes. Amongst which Affirmantes, divers were then unmaryed, and never did afterwards take the Liberty of Marriage, as Doctor Tailor the Bishop, Doctor Benson, Doctor Redman, Doctor Hugh Weston, Master Wotton, etc. Of them that denied it (notwithstanding their Superscriptions to the contrary) as few they were, yet some of them took upon them the Liberty of Marriage not long after, as Doctor Oken, Master Rayner, Master Wilson. Now if any Man may fortune doubt of the Judgement of that notable learned Man, and commonly reputed of grave Judgement, I mean, Doctor Redmayn Doctor of Divinity, he shall hear his very Judgement, which he uttered in the self same Convocation, written in a Paper severally by his own Hand, yet extant to be showed, and subscribed with his own Name, and thus he saith.  
I think, that although the word of God do exhort and counsel Priests to live in chastity, out of the cumber of the flesh, and the world, that thereby they may more wholly attend to their calling; yet the band of containing from marriage doth only lie upon Priests of this Realm by reasons of Canons and Constitutions of the Church, and not by any precept of God's word; as in that they should be bound by reason of any vow, which, (in as far as my conscience is) Priests in this Church of England do not make. I think, that it standeth well with God's word, that a man which hath been and is but once married, being otherwise accordingly qualified, may be made a Priest. And I think that forasmuch as Canons and Rules made in this behalf, be neither universal nor everlasting, but upon considerations may be altered and changed: therefore the King's Majesty and the higher powers of the Church may upon such reasons as shall move them take away the clog of perpetual continency from Priests, and grant that it may be lawful to such as cannot, or will not contain, to marry one Wife, and if she die, than the said Priest to marry no more, remaining still in his ministration.  
Thus this Learned man, in such credit universally in decyding questions of Conscience.   

V. Letter of the Lady Mary, to King Edward the Sixth.  
MY Duty most humbly remembered unto your Majesty, it may please the same to be advertised, that I have received by my Servants your most honourable Letters, the Contents whereof do not a little trouble me, and so much the more, for that any of my said Servants should move or attempt me in matters touching my Soul; which I think the meanest Subject within your Highness' Realm could evil bear at their Servants hand; having for my part utterly refused heretofore to talk with them in such matters, and of all other persons lest regarded them therein; to whom I have declared what I think, as she which trusted that your Majesty would have suffered me your poorest humble Sister and Bedeswoman to have used the accustomed Mass, which the King your Father and mine, with all his Predecessors did ever more use, wherein also I have been brought up from my Youth, and thereunto my Conscience doth not only bind me, which by no means will suffer me to think one thing and do another; but also the promise made to the Emperor by your Majesty's Council was an assurance to me, that in so doing I should not offend the Laws, although they seem now to qualify and deny the thing. And at my last waiting upon your Majesty, I was so bold to declare my mind, and conscience to the same; and desired your Highness, rather than you should constrained me to leave the Mass, to take my Life. Whereunto your Majesty made me a very gentle Answer. And now I most humbly beseech your Highness to give me leave to write what I think touching your Majesty's Letters. Indeed they be signed with your own hand, and nevertheless in my opinion not your Majesties in effect, because it is well known (as heretofore I have declared in the presence of your Highness) that although, our Lord be praised, your Majesty hath far more knowledge and greater gifts than others of your years; yet it is not possible that your Highness can at these years be a Judge in matters in Religion. And therefore I take it that the matters in your Letters proceedeth from such as do with those things to take place, which be most agreeable to themselves; by whose (doings your Majesty not offended) I intent not to rule my conscience. And thus without molesting your Highness any further, I humbly beseech the same even for God's sake to bear with me as you have done, and not to think that by my doings or ensample any inconvenience might grow to your Majesty or your Realm. For I use it not after any such sort. Putting no doubt, but to time to come, whether I live or die, your Majesty shall perceyve, that mine intent is grounded upon a true love towards you, whose Royal Estate I beseech Almighty God long to continue; which is and shall be my daily prayer according to my duty. And after pardon craved of your Majesty for these rude and bold Letters, if neither at my humble suit, nor for regard of the promise made to the Emperor, your Highness will suffer and bear with me, as ye have done, till your Majesty may be a Judge herein yourself, and right understand their proceedings (of which your goodness yet I despair not) otherwise rather than to offend God and my Conscience, I offer my body at your will; and death shall be more welcome than life with a troubled conscience. Most humbly beseeching your Majesty to pardon my slowness in answering your Letters. For my old disease would not suffer me to write any sooner. And thus I pray Almighty God to keep your Majesty in all virtue and honour, with good health and long life, to his pleasure. From my poor house at Copped-Hall the XIX of August,  
Your Majesty's most humble Sister, MARY.   

VI A Letter of King Edward the Sixth, to the Lady Mary.  
Right dear and right entirely beloved Sister, we great you well, and let you know that it greveth us much to perceive no amendment in you of that which we for God's cause, your Souls health, our conscience and the common tranquillity of our Realm have ●o long desired. Assuring you, that our suffrance hath much more demonstration of natural love, than contention of our conscience, and foresight of our savety. Wherefore although you give us occasion, as much almost as in you is, to deminishe our natural love; yet be we loath to feel it decay; and mean not to be so careless of you, as we be provoked. And therefore meaning your weal, and therewith joining a care not to be found in our conscience to God, having cause to require forgiveness, that we have so long for respect of love toward you omitted our bounden dieuty; we do send at this present our right trusty and right wellbeloved Counsalour, the Lord rich our Chancellor of England, our trusty and right wellbeloved counsellor Sir Anthony Wingfield Knight, comptroller of our Household, and Sir William Peter Knight oon of our two principal Secretaries, in message to you, touching the order of your house, willing you to give them firm credit in those things they shall say to you from us, and do therein in our name. given under our Signet, etc.   

VII. An Order of the Privy-Council for a Thanksgiving for Queen Mary's Great Belly.  
AFter our hearty commendations unto your good Lordships, Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God among other his infinite benefits of late most graciously poured upon us, and this whole Realm, to extend his benediction upon the Queen's Majesty in such fort as She is conceived and quick with Child, whereby her Majesty, being our natural Liege Lady Queen, and undoubted inheritor of this Imperial Crown, good hope of certain Succession in the Crown is given unto us, and consequently the great Calamities which for want of such Succession might otherwise have fallen upon us and our posterity, shall by God's grace be well avoided, if we thankfully acknowledge this benefit of Almighty God endeavouring ourselves with earnest repentance to thank, honour and serve him. There be not only to advertise you of this good news to be by you published in all places within your Diocese, but also to pray and require you, that both yourselves do give God thanks with us for this special grace, and also give order that thanks be openly given by singing Te Deum in all Churches within our Diocese; and that likewise all Priests and other Ecclesiastical Ministers in their Masses and othar divine Services may continually pray to Almighty God so to extend his holy Hand over her Majesty the King's Highness, and the whole Realm, as this thing being by his omnipotent power, graciously thus begun, may by the same be well continued, and brought to good effect to the glory of his Name. Whereunto albeit we doubt not ye would of yourselves have had special regard without these our Letters, yet for the earnest desire we have to have the thing done out of hand, and diligently continued, we have also written these our Letters to put you in remembrance, and to bid your Lordship most heartily well to far.  
From the Court at Westminster, the 27th Day of November, 1554. Your Lordship's assured loving Friends,  
S. Winton. Cancel. Fr. Shewsbury. Tho. Eliens. Tho. Wharton. H. Arundel, H. Sussex, R. Rich, Richard Southwell, Ed. Derby, Io. Bathon.  
To our loving Friends the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, and all other having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction during the Vacation of that See.   

VIII. Articuli ministrati Presbyteris conjugatis, Mense Martio, 1554.  
IMprimis an fuerit Religiosus, cujus Ordinis, & in quo Monasterio sive domo!  
Item ad fuit promotus ad Sacros Ordines, dum erat in Monasterio?  
Item in quo & quibus sacris, & an ministravit in Altaris ministerio & quot annis?  
Item an citra professionem suam regularem conjunxit se mulieri sub appellatione matrimonii?  
Item cum qua, & in qua Ecclesia fuit matrimonii solemnizatio, & per quem?  
Item quam duxit, erat resoluta an vidua?  
Item an cohabitavit cum eâ in unâ & eâdem domo, ut vir cum uxore?  
Item an prolem vel proles ex eâ suscitaverit necne?  
Item an post & citra matrimonii bujusmodi solemnizationem assecutus fuit & est beneficium Ecclesiasticum habens curam animarum, & quot annes illud obtinuit?  
Item an officio Sacerdotis post & citra assertum matrimonium hujusmodi contractum in Altaris ministerio se immiscuit, ac Sacramentis, & Sacramentalibus ministrandis se ingessit?  
Item an praemissa omnia & singula fuerunt & sunt vera?   

IX. A Bull of Pope julius costituting Cardinal Pole his Legate in England.  
IUlius Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, dilecto filio Reginaldo Sanctae Mariae in Cosmedin Diacono Cardinali Polo nuncupato, ad charissimam in Christo filiam nostram Mariam Angliae Reginam illustrem, & universum Angliae Regnum, nostro & Apostalicae sedis Legato de latere, salutem & Apostolicam benedictionem. Si ullo unquam tempore licuit, nunc certè expositissimè licet dicere, dextra Domini fecit virtutem. Hanc inquam laetissimam vocem licet omnium piorum gaudiis atque acclamatione celebrare. Quid enim aliud dicamus, quin dextram Domini hanc tani inopinatam rerum conversionem fecisse, ut florentissimum Angliae Regnum, ab Henrico Octavo in dissidium ab Ecclesiâ Catholicâ secessionemque seductam, ac deinde Edwardi ejus nati successione in paterno & haereditario errore corroboratum & firmatum, in eum nunc statum repentè devenerit, ut ad sanctum ovile atque ad Ecclesiae Catholicae septa revocari facillimè posse videatur. Profectò hoc nihil aliud est quam mutatio dextrae Excelsi. Defuncto enim vitâ supradicta Edwardo, adnisisque illius sectatoribus qui rerum habenas, qui arces, qui exercitum, qui classem obtinebant Regnum alicui ex suâ sectâ deferre, exclusâ legitimâ haerede, charissimâ in Christo filiâ Mariâ Angliae Reginâ, illustri tunc Principe, praefati Henrici & Regis natâ, quae semper in Catholicae fidei unitate permansit, atque ut eis videbatur, voto jam potitis; Ecce ille Dominator Dominus, & terribilis qui aufert Spiritum Principum, cuncta iniquorum commenta disjecit, & repentinâ animorum totius Regni inclinatione atque motu, eâ quam ipsi constituerant Regiâ potestate dejectâ, ut ipsa Maria unâ omnium voce Regina salutaretur, effecit. Gratiae Domino Deo nostro, qui non obliviscitur suo; qui & huic illustrissimum praemium fidei suae invictaeque constantiae, paternum Regnum, quod jam humanitus amiserat, divinitus detulit & hanc non parvam gregis sui partem, à rectâ semitâ jam pridem ab actam, & per deserta dispersam, respicere dignatus est. Quam & non dubitamus eodem divino favore perseverante, postquam Catholicam Principem nacta est, etiam ipsam in Catholicae fidei viam facile conversum iri & communioni Ecclesiae restitutum. Cui quidem spei sanctaeque fiduciae, quam habemus in Domino, nos pro pastorali, quae nobis est ab illo commissa, universalis Ecclesiae curâ, & pro eâ charitate qua erga Anglicam gentem propriè debemus affici, tamque hujus sanctae, sedis, cui sine meritis ullis nostris, sed solâ summi Dei Providentiâ praesidemus, peculiarem filiam, procuratâ olim ab ipsius sede divini illic verbi disseminatione generatam deesse nec volumus nec debemus. cum igitur super hujusmodi tractandâ re, negotioque divinâ ope conficiendo & potissimum cui hanc provinciam demandare possemus, assiduos nostrae mentis cogitatus effunderemus; Tu semper nobis non tamen primus, sed solus omnium, occurristi, quem omnino prae caeteris huic curae praeficere debemus. Unde habitâ super his cum venerabilibus Fratribus nostris Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalibus, deliberatione maturâ, de illorum unanimi assensu & consensu, te ad eandem Reginam Mariam & universum Angliae Regnum nostrum & Apostolicae sedis Legatum delegimus. Sive enim nos natalis terrae tuae, & omnium charitatem, quae in te summa esse debet, & certè est, seu linguae ejus gentis & morum sensuumque notitiam, sive ob deductum à sanguine regio genus autoritatem & gratiam, seu singularem in omni genere prudentium & eloquentiam, seu (quod capu est) flagrantissimum tuum erga Deum & Dominum nostrum jesum Christum ejusque sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam amorem atque observantiam, multis jam in rebus cognitam atque perspectam, spectaremus; Personem tuam, quam his quas modo commemoravimus, & pluribus aliis, virtutibus, omnium munerum largitor Altissimus exornavit, ad hanc Legationem aptissimam judi●avimus. Quamobrem Circumspectioni vestrae per praesentes Litteras mandamus: ut munus istud pro eâdem tuâ erga Deum pietate erga nos & sanctam hanc sedem reverentiâ, erga Christianam Rempublicam studio atque amore, suscipiens, id pro tuâ fide, diligentiâ, dexteritate exequare; nihilque praetermittas, quo minus Deo bene juvante optatum Legationis fructum assequare, in errorem lapsos consolando, atque in Dei gratiam & suae sanctae Catholicae Ecclesiae communionem restituendo. Cujus rei, maximè scilicet in ipsius Dei elementiâ, secundùm Deum autem cum in fludio, prudentiâ & virtute tuâ, tum ipsius Mariae Reginae in Deum pietate, sapientia & devotione, spem ponimus. Dat. Romae apud sanctum Marcum, anno Incarnationis Dominicae millesimo quingentesi●o quinquagesimo tertio, Nonis Augusti, Pontificatus nostri anno quarto.   

X. A Commission given by Cardinal Pole for the reconciliation of Clergy and Laity.  
Commissio Reginaldi Cardinalis Poli Legati de Latere.  
REginaldus miseratione divinâ sanctae Mariae in Cosmedin sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Diaconus Cardinalis Polus nuncupatur, sancti Domini nostri Papae & Sedis Apostolicae ad serenissimos Philippum & Mariam Angliae Reges & universum Angliae Regnum, de Latere Legatus, venerabilibus ac nobis in Christo dilectis Decano & Capitulo Ecclesiae Metropolitices Christi Cantuar, ad quo● omnis & omnimoda jurisdictio spirituatis & ecclesiastica quae ad Archiepiscopum Cantuar. sede plenâ pertinuit, ipsâ sede jam va●ante notoriè dinoscitur pertinere, seu eorum in spiritualibus Vicario Generali, salutem in Domino sempiternam. Cum sanctissimo in Christo Pater Dominus noster Dominus Iulius divina providentia Papa tertius, inter abias facultates pro hujus Regni omniumque personarum in eo existentium sanctae Ecclesiae reconciliatione faciendâ, necessarias nobis in hac nostra Legatione concessas, hanc specialiter indulserit, ut quoscunque in haeresium & Schismatis errores lapsos ab eis & à quibuscunque, censuris & poenis propterea incarsis absolvere, & cum eye super Irregularitate praemiss. occasione contractâ dispensare, & alia multa ad haec necessaria seu quomodolibet opportuna facere, & hoc idem munus Catholicis locorum Ordinariis & aliis personis Deum timentibus, fide insignibus, & literarum scientiâ praedictis, demandere possimus; prout in ejus literis tam sub plumbo quam in formâ Breves expeditis pleniùs continetur. Cumqùe Dei benignitate & Serenissimorum Regum pietate Regnum hoc in universaliter & omnes Domini Spirituales & Temporales, aliaeque personae communitatum in eo quod proxime celebratum est Parliamento congregratae, singulariter primâ, & deinde universum corpus Cleri Provinciae Cantuariensis, & omnes fere personae singulares dictum corpus representates, coram nobis existentes, aliaeque pleraeque fuerint Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae per nos ipsos reconciliatae; speremusque fore, ut omnes aliae, quae reconciliatae adhuc non sunt, reconciliari debeant, defficileque & potius impossibile sit ut tam numerosa multitudo per manus nostras reconcilietur; ideoque vices nostras in hoc locorum Ordinariis & aliis personis ut supra qualificatis delegandas duximus. Circumspectioni igitur vestrae, de cujus probitate & charitatis zelo plenam in Domino fiduciam obtinemus, auctoritate Apostolicae nobis per literas ejusdem Sanctissimi Domini nostri Papae & per nos vobis nunc impensâ, omnes & singulos utriusque sexûs tam Laicas quam Ecclesiasticas, singulares & quorumvis Ordinum Regulares, vestrae, civitatis & Diocesis personas Saeculares, in quibusvis etiam sacris Ordinibus constitutas, cujuscunque statùs & qualitatis existant, etiamsi Capitulum, Collegium, Universitas seu Communitas fuerit, quarumvis Haeresium, aut novarum Sectarum Professores, aut in eis culpabiles vel suspectas, ac credentes receptatores atque fautores ipsorum, suos errores agnoscentes, ac de illis dolentes, & ad Orthodoxam fidem recipi humiliter postulantes, cognitâ in ipsis verâ & non fictâ aut non simulata poenitentia, ab omnibus & singulis Haeresium, Schismatis, & ab orthodoxa fide Apostasiarum & Blasphemiarum & aliorum quorumcunque similium errorum, etiam sub generali sermone non venientium, peccatis, criminibus, excessibus & delictis (de quibus tamen non inquisiti, vel accusali, seu condemnati non fuerint) & quibusvis Excommunicationis, suspensionis & Interdictorum & aliis Ecclesiasticis & temporalibus censuris & poenis in eas praemissorum ac infra Scriptorum occasione aut jure, vel ab homine latis vel promulgatis, etiamsi eis pluribus annis insorduerint, & earum absolutio dictae sedi, etiam per literas in die caenae Domini legi consuetas, reservata existat in utroque, conscientiae & contentioso foro; eos vero, qui jam inquisiti vel accusati aut condemnati fuerint, vel ut praefertur, ad cor revertentes, in foro conscientiae tantum plenarie absolventes & liberantes, necnon cum eis super irregularitate per eos occasione praemissorum contractâ etiam quia sic Legati Missas & alia divina Officia, etiam contra ritus & caeremonias hactenus probatas & usitatas, celebraverint, aut illis aliàs se immiscuerint, contracta; quodque irregularitate & aliis praemissis non obstantibus, in suis Ordinibus, etiamsi ab Haereticis & Schismaticis Episcopis, etiam minus ritè, dummodo in eorum collatione Ecclesiae forma & intentio sic servata, per eos susceptis, & in eorum susceptione etiam juramentum contra Papatum Romanum praestiterint, etiam in altaris ministerio ministrare, ac quaecunque, quotcunque & qualiacunque, etiam curata, invicem tamen se compatientia, Beneficia Saecularia vel Regularia (Dignitatibus in Collegiatis Ecclesiis principalibus & in Cathedralibus etiam Metropolitanis post Pontificalem Majoribus exceptis) etiam Schismaticis Episcopis, seu aliis Collatoribus, etiam laicalis potestatis praetextu habita, auctoritate Apostolica retinere, dummodo alteri jus quaesitum non sit, & non prometi ad omnes, etiam sacros Presbyteratûs Ordines, à suis Ordinariis, se digni & idonei reperti fuerint, rite & legitimè promoveri, ac Beneficia Ecclesiastica, etiam Curata, si eye aliàs canonicae conferantur, recipere & retinere valeant, qualitate temporis, Ministrorum defectu, & Ecclesiae necessitatibus, utilitatibusque ita poscentibus, dispensandi & indulgendi ac omnem inhabilitatis & infamiae maculam, sive notam, ex praemissis quomodolibet insurgentem, penitus & omnino abolendi, necnon in pristinum & eum quo antae praemissa quomodolibet erant, statum, ita ut omnibus & singulis gratiis, privilegiis, favoribus & indultis; quibus caeteri Christi fideles gaudent & gaudere quomodolibet possunt, uti & gaudere valeant in omnibus & per omnia, perinde ac si à fide Catholicâ nunquam in aliquo defecissent, restituendi reponendi & redintegrandi; ac eis dummodo corde cortriti, sua errata & excessus Circumspectioni vestrae; seu alicui alteri, per eos eligendo Catholico Confessori Sacramentaliter confiteantur, ac poenitentiam salutarem eis pro praemissis injungendam omnino adimpleant) omnem publicam confessionem, abjurationem, renuntiationem, & poenitentiam, jure debitas, arbitrio vestro moderandi, vel in totum remittendi; Necnon quoscunque Regulares & Religiosos, extra eorum Regularia loca absque sedis Apostolicae licentiâ vagantes, ab Apostasiae reatu aliis que censuris & poenis Ecclesiasticis per eos propterea, etiam juxta suorum Ordinum instituta incursis, injunctâ eis pro modo culpae poetentiâ salutari, pariter absolvendi, & super qua cunque irregularitate propterea per eos contract, aut cum eis, ut alicui Curato Beneficio de illius obcinentis consensit, etiam in habitu Clerici Saecularis, habitum suum Regularem sub honesta toga Presbyteri Saecularis deferentes, deservire & extra eadem loca Regularia remanere ad bene placitum nostrum libere & licitè possint, eadem auctoritate Apostolicâ, ob defectum Ministrorum & alias praedictas causas, dispensandi, ac quoscunque qui in sacris Ordinibus constituti, Matrimonia, etiam cum viduis & corruptis mulieribus, de facto contraxerint, postquam mulieres sic copulatas rejecerint illisque abjuraverint, ab hujusmodi excessibus & Excommunicationis sententiâ, impositâ eis pro modo culpae poenitentiâ salutari, in forma Ecclesiae consuetâ absolvendi, ac cum eis postquam poenitentiam peregerint & continentur ac laudabiliter vivere cogniti fuerint, super bigamiâ propterea per eos contractâ, ita ut ea non obstante in suscipiendis Ordinibus etiam in Altaris Ministerio, Ministrare, ac alicui Beneficio Ecclesiastico, de illius obtinentis consensu, deservire, extra tamen Diocesin in qua fuerint copulati, eisdem de causis dispensandi, necnon Parochialium Ecclesiarum tuae Diocesis Rectores sive Curatos, de quorum fide, probitate, Circumspectione & Charitatis zelo plena fiducia concipi possit, ad quarumcunque utriusque sexùs sua Parochiae personarum Laicarum tantum Absolutionem & Ecclesiae Catholicae reconciliationem (ut praefertur) auctoritate Apostolicâ faciendam, & si qui ex Curatis praedictis ad id idonei non fuerint, in eorum defectum alias idoneas & sufficientes personas, quae eorum vicem suppleant, nominandi & deputandi; quos sic per vos nominatos & deputatos in locum nostrum in praemissis Absolutimibus & Reconciliationibus Substituimus, eisquevices nostrus Subdeligamus, plenam & liberam auctoritate Apostolicâ nobis (ut praemittitur) concensae tenore Praesentium concedimus facultatem; vosque in praemissis omnibus in nostrum locum Substituinus: praemissis ac Regulâ de Insordescentibus edita, & quibusvis aliis Constitutionibus & Ordinationibus Apostolicis, & omnibus, illis quae in Literis praedictis Sanctitas sua voluit non obstare, contrariis non obstantibus quibuscunque; praesentibus in praeteritis casibus locum habentibus, & ad bene placitum nostrum duraturis. Dat. Lambethi prope Londinum, Wintoniensis Diocesis, anno à Nativitate Domini Millesimo quingentesimo, quinquagesimo quinto, Idibus Februarii, Pontificatûs Sanctissimi in Christo Patris & Domini nostri julii divina Providentiae Papae tertii anno quinto.   

Reg. Card. Polus Leg. XI. Instructions subjoined by Cardinal Polo to the foregoing Commission.  
SInguli Domini Episcopi, necnon Officiales Ecclesiarum, quae nunc vacant, pro executione eorum, quae à Reverendissimo Domino Legato sunt eis demandata, ordinem, qui infra scriptis est, poterunt observare.  
Primum, vocatum ad se totum singularum Civitatum, quibus singuli praesunt, Clerum de his quae sequuntur instruere procurabunt.  
De paterno amore & charitate, quam Sanctissimus Dominus noster julius Papa tertius erga Nationen Anglicam declaravit, qui ut primum cognovit serenissimam Mariam Reginam declaratam, Reverendissimum Dominum Reginaldum Cardinalem Polum de suo latere ad has partes Legatum misit, ut Regnum hoc tot jam annos ab Ecclesia Catholica separatum ad ejus unionem reducere, & in errores lapsos consolari, atque in Dei gratiam restituere studeret.  
De ejusdem Domini Legati adventu, quantâ laetitiâ & honore is acceptus fuit, tum à serenissimis, tum ab aliis omnibus.  
De his quae in proximo Parliamento acta & conclusa sunt, scilicet de omnibus Dominis de Parliamento & universo Regno à Schismate & censuris incursis absoluto, & Ecclesiae Catholicae reconciliato, de omnibus Legibus, quae contra auctoritatem sedis Apostolicae & Romani Pontificis fuerunt per Henricum Octavum & Edwardum sextum latae & promulgatae, revocatis & abolitis; de restitutâ sanctissimo Domino nostro Papae & Ecclesiae Romanae eâdem obedientiâ, quâ ante hoc pernitiosissimum Schisma praestabatur.  
De authoritate Episcopis restitutâ, & maxime ut possint contra Haereticos & Schismaticos procedere, & eos juxta Canoni●as sanctiones coercere & punire.  
His itaque expositis, veniant ad Facultates sibi ab eodem Reverendiss. Domino Legato concessas, quae recitentur & hic omnes, qui in Schisma vel alios errores lapsi sunt, invitentur ad absolutionem, & conciliationem humiliter ex toto corde petendam; necnon dispensationes tam super Ordinibus quam super Beneficiis necessarias & opportunas postulandas. Deinde praefigatur dies, intra quem dict de Clero humiles & poenitentes compareant ad petendam suppliciter absolutionem, reconciliationem & dispensationes praedictas. Idem vero Domini Episcopi, postquam illi omnibus suis erroribus renunciaverint, & promiserint sacramentaliter ipsis aut alteri Sacerdoti Catholico confessuros esse errores suos, & poenitentiam sibi injungendam adimpleturos, eos absolvent & Ecclesiae reconciliabunt; & cum ipsis juxta formam Facultatum, pro petentium necessitatibus, prout sibi visum fuerit, dispensabunt, adhibendo semper convenientem distinctionem inter eos, qui solum in Schisma & Haereses inciderunt, & eos qui eas etiam publicè docuerunt, & alios ad peccandum induxerunt.  
Eodem die constituetur dies Festus & solennis, in quo, astente in Ecclesia populi multitudine, Domini Episcopi & omnes Curati in Ecclesiis suis omnia eadem, quae Clero jam exposita fuerunt, populo quoque insinuabunt & omnes invitabunt paternè & cum omni affectu ut agnitis erroribus suis ad Ecclèsiae Catholicae gremium revertantur, promittendo fore, ut omnibus praeterita crimina omnia condonentur, & remittantur modo eos ex animo illorum poeniteat & illis renuncient. Praefigatur atem terminus, ut puta tota Paschatis Octava; intra quem terminum omnes Ecclesiae reconcilientur, alioquin ●o lapso contra ipsos & eos etiam qui post reconciliationem ad vomitum reversi fuerint, severissime procedetur. Dicatur de Facultate concessâ à Reverendissimo Domino Legato Episcopis & aliis, ut absolvere possint omnes, quicunque ad cor reversi fuerint.  
jidem Domini Episcopi & Officiales nominabunt & deputabunt Ecclesiarum Parochialium Rectores, seu alias personas idoneas, quae Laicos ab Haeresi & Schismate & quibuscunque censuris absolvant, juxta Facultatum formam & tenorem, datâ per Episcopos formulâ, quâ in absolutione & reconciliatione uti debeant.  
Eadem poterunt cum Clero totius Diocesis observari, prout commodius visum fuerit.  
Domini Episcopi & Officiales praefati, neenon omnes Curati seu alii ad id deputati habeant librum, in quo nomen & cognomen & parochiam omnium reconciliatorum inscribantur; ut postea sciatur, qui fuerint reconciliati & qui non.  
jidem Domini Episcopi & Officiales Octauâ Paschatis elapsâ poterunt facere visitationem, Civitatis primo, deinde Diocesis, & si qui non fuerint reconciliati, poterunt ad se eos vocare, & cognoscere caufas propter quas ab erroribus suis nolunt recedere, & si in eis obstinate perseveraverint, tum contra eos procedant.  
In hâc faciendâ visitatione attendant diligenter quae in hoc Brevi Compendio sunt notata, & maxime faciant, ut omnes Ecclesiasticae personae ostendant titulos suorum Ordinum & Beneficiorum; ut si in eis aliquis alius defectus notetur, illis provideant; & omni studio procurent, ut errores, quibus Dioceses eorum sunt infectae, extirpentur, & veritas fidei tum in concionibus, tum in Confessionibus doceatur, deputando personas idoneas ad Conciones faciendas & Confessiones audiendas: Id etiam curent, ut sacrorum Canonum instituta in omnibus observentur, & nomen Divi Thomae Martyris, necnon sanctissimi Domini nostri Papae, ex libris dispunctum, in illis restituatur, & pro eo secundum morem Ecclesiae; ut ante Schisma fiebat, oretur.  
In publicationibus hujusmodi erit ante omnia facienda commemoratio miseriarum & infelicitatis praeteritorum temporum, & magnâ gratiâ quam nunc Deus pro suâ misericordiâ populo huic exhibuit, hortando omnes ad hac grato animo cognoscenda, & infinitas gratias divinae ipsius bonitati assiduè agendas.  
Hortandi etiam sunt omnes, ut devotè orent Deum pro salute & faelici statu horum Serenissimorum, & de hoc Regno optimè meritorum ac merentium, Regum, & specialiter pro faelici partu Serenissimae & piissimae Reginae.   

Facultas Curatis & aliis Ecclesiasticis personis per ipsos idoneis cognitis & nominatis per Dominum Legatum concessa est infra Scripta.  
UT ipsi omnes & singulas utriusque sexûs Laicas suae Parochiae personas, quarumvis Haeresium, aut novarum Sectarum Professores, aut in eis culpabiles vel suspectas, ac credentes, receptatores & fautores eorum, suos errores agnoscentes, & de illis dolentes, & ad Orthodoxam fidem recipi humiliter postulantes; cognita in eis vera & non ficta aut simulata poenitentia, ab omnibus & singulis Haeresium, Schismatis & ab Orthodoxa fidae Apostasiarum & Blasphemiarum, & aliorum quorumcunque errorum, tiam sub generali sermone non venientium, peccatis, criminibus, excessibus & delictis, de quibus inquisiti, vel accusati, seu condemnati non fuerint & cum his etiam in foro Conscientiae tantùm, & quibusvis Excommunicationis Suspensionis, & Interdictorum, & aliis Ecclesiasticis & Temporalibus censuris, sententiis & poenis, in eo● Praemissorum occasione à jure vel ab homine latis vel promulgatis, etiamsi in eis pluribus ●●tis insorduissent, & earum absolutio, Apostolicae Sedi & in die 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 january 1531. and there the King first brought into the House of Lords the Determination of the Universities, etc. (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 showed 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 unlawful, 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 authentic Instrument of their whole proceedings herein, drawn up by a Public Notary at the King's command, and attested by the Precedent 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 subjoin the Names of those who held the Negative in each Question.   


Divines. Personaliter praesentes.  
johannes 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 powel.  
Nicolaus Metcalfe.  
Gilbertus' Smith.  
Thomas Wadilowe.  
Ricardus Duck.  
Thomas Bough.   

Per Procuratorem suum, Abbatem de Peaeding.  
johannes Abbas de Shirbourne.  
johannes Rector de Edingdon.  
johannes Abbas de Parshore.   

Canonists and Civilians. Personaliter praesentes.  
johannes 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 joined 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 do, having carefully perused the Journal 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, 
Par. 2. p. 393.  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 Journal testifieth, That on Monday the 17th. of April the House of Lords sat, and after having read several Bills, was adjourned by the Lord Keeper to Wednesday, April 19th. So that on the 18th. the House sat not; and even on the 19th. nil actum, to use the words of the Journal, 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 Journal hath not his Name. He hath also farther mistaken herein, in leaving out the Bishops of Landaff and Exeter: whom the Journal 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, 
p. 383.  the Archbishop of York, Bishops of London, Worcester, Landaff, Litchfield, Exeter, Chester, and Carlisle, protesting against it; but that the Bishops of Winchester, Ely, etc. were then absent. Now the Journal 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 Lord's House on the 15th. of March; when dissented from it, besides the former Prelates, the Bishop of Exeter, and Abbot of Westminster: 
p. 386.  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 Journal to have dissented; all whom the Historian (therein agreeing with the Journal) 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: 
p. 387.  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 Council 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 Lord's House An Act Restoring to the Crown the Ancient jurisdiction 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 Journal 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 margin, P. 18. l. 8. ab imo, set these words, Apol. adv. Theologos Lovan, cap. 2. In margin, 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. deal 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. deal 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. deal 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 falsely 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 Proctors 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. quam. P. 165 l. 14. for Doctissimus r. doctissimis. Ibid. l. 18. for naturâ deliberationem r. maturâ deliberatione. P. 166. l. 10. ab imo, for he 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. earth. Ibid. l. 4. ab imo, for the reinne r. thereinne. P. 168. l. 3. for tethegerens 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.