Examen historicum, or, A discovery and examination of the mistakes, falsities and defects in some modern histories occasioned by the partiality and inadvertencies of their severall authours / by Peter Heylin ...

ANIMADVERSIONS ON The Fifth and Sixth Books OF The Church History OF BRITAIN. (Book 5)

Relating to the time of King Henry the Eighth. (Book 5)

WE are now come to the busie times of King Henry the Eighth, in which the power of the Church was much diminisht, though not reduced to such ill terms as our Author makes it. We have him here laying his foundations to overthrow that little which is left of the Churches Rights. His super∣structures we shall see in the times ensuing more sea∣sonable for the practice of that Authority which in this fifth Book he hammereth only in the speculati∣on. But first we will begin with such Animadversions as relate unto this time and story as they come in our way, leaving such principles and positions as concern

the Church, to the close of all; where we shall draw them all together, that our discourse and observations there∣upon may come before the Reader without interruption.

And the first thing I meet with is a fault of Omissi∣on; Dr. Newlen who succeeded Dr. Iackson in the Pres••dentship of Corpus Christi Colledge in Oxford, Anno 1640. by a free election, and in a statuteable [ 101] way being left out of our Authors Catalogue of the Presidents of C. C. C. in Oxford, fol. 166. and Dr. Stan∣ton who c••me in by the power of the Visitors above eight years after being placed therein. Which I thought fit (though otherwise of no great moment) to take notice of, that I might do the honest man that right which our Author doth not.

Fol. 168. King Henry endevoured an uniformity of Grammar all over his Dominions; that so youths though changing their School-masters might keep their learning.] That this was endevoured by King Henry, and at last en••oyned, I shall easily grant. But then our Authour [ 102] should have told us (if at least he knew it) that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thereof p••oceeded f••om the Convocation in the yea•• 1530. in which complaint being made. Quod mul∣tiplex & varius in Scholis Grammaticalibus modus esset 〈◊〉〈◊〉 &c. That the multiplicity of Grammars did much him to learning; it was thought meet by the Prelates and Clergy then assembled, Vt una & eadem edatur formula Auctoritate 〈…〉〈…〉 singula Schola Gramma••icals per 〈…〉〈…〉* 1.1 that is to say that one on∣ly 〈…〉〈…〉

that within few years after, it was enjoyned by the Kings Proclamation to be used in all the Schools thoughout the Kingdom. But here we are to note [ 103] withall, that our Author anticipates this business, pla∣cing it in the eleventh year of this King•• Anno 1519. whereas the Convocation took not this into con••idera∣tion till the eighth of March, Anno 1530. and ce••tainly would not have medled in it then, if the King had setled and enjoyned it so long before.

Fol. 168. Howsoever it is probable, some other ••ardiner gathered the Flowers (made the Collections) though King Henry had the honour to wear the Posie.] I am not igno∣rant [ 104] that the making of the Kings Book against Martin Luther, is by some Popish writers ascribed to Dr. Iohn Fisher, then Bishop of Rochester. But this Cav•••• was not made till after this King had re••ected the Popes Su∣premacy, and consequently the lesse credit to be given unto it. It is well known, that his Father King Henry the seventh designed him for the Arch-bishoprick of Canterbury, and to that end caused him to be trained up in all parts of learning, which might inable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for that place. But his elder Brother Prince Arthur d••ing, and himself succeeding in the Crown, though he had laid aside the thoughts of being a Priest, he could not but retain that Learning which he had acquired, and reckon it amongst the fairest Flowers which adorned his Diadem. Too great a Clerk he was to be called Beauclerk junior, as if he were as short in learning of King Henry the first (whom commonly they called Beauclerk) as he was in time; though so our Author would fain have it, Hist. Cam. p. 2, 3. A little learning went a great way in those early dayes, which in this King would have made no shew•• in whose ••••me both the Arts and Languages began to flourish. And if our Author doth not suspect this Kings lack of learning, he hath no reason to suspect his lack of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the work be∣ing

small, the glory great, and helps enough at hand if he wanted any. But of this enough.

Fol. 196. Which when finished (as White-hall, Hampton-Court, &c.) he either freely gave to the King, or exchanged them on very reasonable considerations.] That Hampton Court was either freely given by Wolsey, or [ 105] otherwise exchanged on very reasonable terms, I shall grant as easily; but Whitehall was none of his to give, as belonging to the Archbishop in the right of the See of York, and then called York place. But the Kings Palace at Westminster being lately burnt, and this House much beautified by the Cardinal, the King cast a longing eye upon it; and having attainted the Cardinal in a Praemu∣nire, he seised upon this house with all the furniture there∣of as a part of the spoil. Which when he found he could not hold, as being the Archbishops and not the Cardinals, he sent an Instrument unto him to be signed and sealed for the surrendry of his title and estate therein; and not con∣tent to have forc'd it from him, (the Cardinal honestly declaring his inability to make good the grant) he caused the Dean and Chapter of York to confirm the same unto him under their Common Seal in due form of Law, which being obtained and much cost bestowed upon the House, he caused it to be called Whitehall; gratifying the Archbishops of York with another House, belonging then to the See of Norwich, and now called York-house.

Fol. 170. So that lately there were maintained therein one Dean, eight Canons, three publick professors of Divi∣nity, H••brew and Greek, sixty Students, &c.] Our Au∣thor tels us Lib. 4. that the spent seventeen weeks in this Vniversity, but he that looks on this and some other passages will think he had not tarryed there above seventeen hours. For besides his omitting of Dr. Newlin spoken of before, and his giving of the name of Censors to the Deans of Magdalen, which I finde afterwards, Lib. 8. ••. 7. he is very much mistaken in the matters

of Christ Church. For first the three Professors of Divi∣nity, [ 106] Hebrew, and Greek are no necessary parts of that foundation, nor can be properly said to be founded in it. Till of late times they were and might be of other Colledges, as they are at this present, this Colledge being only bound to pay them for their annual Pensions fourty pounds apiece. In after times King Iames an∣nexed a Prebends place in this Church to the Pro∣fessor of Divinity, as King Charles did another to the Hebrew Reader. But for the Greek Reader he hath on∣ly his bare pension from it, and hath no other relation to it, but by accident only; the last Greek Reader of this House being Dr. Iohn Perin who died in the year 1615. And secondly, he is very far short in the number of Students, diminishing them from an hundred to six∣ty, there being an Hundred and one of that foun∣dation by the name of Students, equivalent to the Fellowes of most other Colleges in the Revennes of their place and all advantages and incouragements in the way of learning. But this perhaps hath somewhat in it of design, that by making the foundations of Oxford to seem lesse then they are, those in the other Vniver∣sity, might appear the fairer.

Fol. 171. And here Wolsey had provided him a second Wife (viz.) Margaret Countesse of Alanzon, sister to Francis King of France.] As much ou•• in his French, [ 107] as his English Heraldry. For first the Lady Margaret here spoken of was never Countess, though sometimes Dutchess of Alanzon, as being once wife to Charls the fourth Duke thereof. And secondly, at the time when King Henries divorce from Queen Katherine was first agitated, this Lady was not in a capacity of being projected for a Wife to King Henry the eighth, being then actually in the bed of another Henry, that is to say, Henry of Albret King of Navarre, as appears plainly by the Articles of Pacification which were to be propounded for the re∣storing

of King Francis the first (being then Prisoner in Spain, Anno 1525.) to his Realm and Li∣berty.* 1.2 In which it was propounded amongst other things, that Francis should not send any Aid to the said Henry of Albret (for the recovery of his Kingdom) notwithstanding that he had marryed the Kings Sister, and other Sister that King had none but this Margaret only.

Fol. 178. Yet had he the whole Revenues of York Arch∣bishop•• ick (worth then little lesse then four thousand pounds yearly) besides a large Pension paid him out of the Bishop∣rick of Winchester.] And a large Pension it was indeed (if it were a Pension) which amounted to the whole [ 108] Revenue. But the truth is, that Wolsey having gotten the Bishop••ick of Winchester, to be holden by him in Commendam with the See of York, was suffered to enjoy it till the time of his death, Anno 1631. After which time as Dr. Edward Lee succeeded him in the Church of York, so then, and not before, Dr. Stephen Gardiner principal Secretary of State, was made Bishop of Win∣chester, by which name, and in which capacity I finde him active in the Convocation of the following year.

Fol. 184. The Clergy of the Province of Canterbury alone bestowed on the King One hundred thousand pounds, to be paid by equall portions in the same year, say some; in four years say others, and that in my opinion with more [ 109] probability.] Here have we three Authors for one thing, some, others, and our Author himself, more knowing then all the ••est in his own opinion. But all out alike. This great sum was not to be paid in one year, nor in four years neither, but to be paid by equall portions (that is to say, by twenty thousand pound per annum) in the five years following. And this appears plainly by the Instrument of Grant it self. Where having named the sum of an hundred thousand pounds by them given

the King, they declare expresly, Ad usum Majestatis ejusdem intra quinquiennium ex nunc proxime & immediate sequens per qui••q, aequales portiones solvend' &c. The first payment to be made the morrow after Michaelmas day then next ensuing after the day of the date thereof, which was the 22 of March 1530.

Fol. 186. But he might have remembred, which also produced the peerless Queen Elizabeth, who perfected the Reformation.] Either our Author speaks not this for his [ 110] own opinion, as in that before, or if he do, it is an opinion of his own, in which he is not like to finde many followers. The Puritan party whom he acts for in all this work, will by no means grant it; compa∣ring that most excellent Lady in their frequent Pasquils to an idle Huswife, who sweeps the middle of the house to make a shew, but leaves all the dirt and rubbish be∣hinde the door. The grand Composers of the Directo∣ry do perswade themselves, that if the first Reformers had been then alive they would have joyned with them in the work,* 1.3 and laboured for a further Reformation. And what else hath been clamoured for during all her Reign, and by the Ring-leaders of the Faction endevoured ever since her death, but to carry on the work of Reformation from one step to another, till they had brought it unto such a perfection as they vainly dreamt of, and of which now we feel and see the most bitter consequences? And as for the Prelatical party, the high Royalists, as our Author cals them, they conceive the Reformation was not so perfected in the time of that prudent Queen, but that there was somewhat left to do for her two Succes∣sors; that is to say, the altering of some Rubricks in the Book of Common-prayer, the adding of some Collects at the end of the Letany, the enlargement of the common Catechism, a more exact translation of the Bible then had been before, the setling of the

Church upon the Canons of 603. and finally, a stricter and more hopeful course for suppressing Popery, and for the maintenance both of conformity and uniformity by the Canons of 640.

Fol. 187. And now I cannot call King Henry a Batchelor, because once marryed; nor a marryed man, because having no wife; nor properly a Widower, because [ 111] his wife was not dead.] Our Author speaks this of Henry the eighth immediately after his divorce, but is much mistaken in the matter. King Henry was so averse from living without a Wife, that he thought it more agreeable to his constitution to have two Wives to∣gether then none at all. To that end while the busi∣ness of the Divorce remained undecided,* 1.4 he was marryed privately to the Lady Anne Bol∣len, on the 14 of November (Stow puts it off till the 25 of Ianuary then next following) by Dr. Rowland Lee his Chaplain, promoted not long after to the Bishoprick of Coventry and Lichfield; the Divorce not being sentenced till the Aprill following. [ 112] And whereas our Author tels us in the following words, that soon after he was solemnly marryed to the Lady Anna Bollen, he is in that mistaken also. King Henry though he was often marryed, yet would not be twice mar••yed to the same Woman; that being a kinde of Bigamy, or Anabaptistry in marriage, to be hardly met with. All that he did in order to our Authors mea∣ning is, that he avowed the marriage openly which be∣fore he had contracted in private; the Lady Anne Bollen being publickly shewed as Queen on Easter Eve,* 1.5 and solemnly crowned on Whitsunday being Iune the second. Assuredly unlesse our Author makes no difference between a Coronation and a Marriage, or between a mar∣riage solemnly made, and a publique owning of a Marri∣age before contracted: King Harry cannot be affirmed

to have marryed Anne Bollen solemnly after the Divorce, as our Author telleth us.

Fol. 208. Though many wilde and distempered Expres∣sions be found therein, yet they contain the Protestant Re∣ligion in Oare, which since by Gods blessing is happily re∣fined.] Our Author speaks this of a paper containing [ 113] many erroneous Doctrines presented by the Prolocutor to the Convocation: some few of which as being part of Wickliffs Gospel and chief ingredients in the Com∣position of the new Protestant Religion lately taken up, I shall here subjoyn.

1. That the Sacrament of the Altar is nothing else but a piece of bread or a little predie round Robin.

2. That Priests have no more Authority to minister Sa∣craments then the Lay-men have.

3. That all Ceremonies accuestomd in the Church, which are not clearly expressed in Scripture, must be taken away, because they are Mens inventions.

4. That the Church commonly so called is the old Syna∣gogue; and that the Church is the Congregation of good men only.

5. That God never gave grace nor knowledge of holy Scripture to any great Estate or rich man, and that they in no wise follow the same.

6. That all things ought to be common.

7. That it is as lawful to Christen a childe in a Tub of water at home, or in a Dirch by the way, as in a Font-stone in the Church.

8. That it is no sin or offence to eat White-meats, Egges, Butter, Cheese or flesh in Lent, or other Fasting dayes commanded by the Church, and received by consent of Christian people.

9. That it is as lawful to eat flesh on Good-Friday, as upon Easter day, or other times in the year.

10. That the Ghostly Father cannot give or enjoyn any penance at all.

11. That it is sufficient for a Man or Woman to make their confession to God alone.

12. That it is as lawfull at all times to confesse to a Lay-man, as to a P••iest.

13. That it is sufficient that the sinner do say, I know my self a sinner.

14. That Bishops, Ordinaries, and Ecclesiastical Iudges, have no Authority to give any sentence of Excommunication or censure; ne yet to absolve or loose any man from the same.

15. That it is not necessary or profitable to have any Church or Chappel to pray in, or to do any divine ser∣vice in.

16. That buryings in Churches and Church-yards be unprofitable and vain.

17. That the rich and costly O••naments in the Church are rather high displeasure then pleasure or honour to God.

18. That our Lady was no better then another Woman, and like a bag of Pepper or Saffron when the spice is out.

19. That Prayers, Suffrages, Fasting, or Alms-deeds do not help to take away sin.

20. That Holy-dayes ordained and instituted by the Church, are not to be observed and kept in reverence, in as much as all dayes and times be alike.

21. That Plowing and Ca••ting, and such servile work may be done in the same as on other without any offence at all as on other dayes.

22. That it is sufficient and enough to believe, though a man do no good works at all.

23. That seeing Christ hath shed his bloud for us and Redeemed us, we need not to do any thing at all, but to believe and repent if we have of∣fended.

24. That no humane C••nstitutions or Laws do binde 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Christian man, but such as be in the Gospels, Pauls Epistles, or the New Testament: and that a man may break them without any offence at all.

25. That the singing or saying of Mass, Mattens, or Even song, is but a roring, howling, whistling, mumming, tomring, and jugling, and the playing on the Organs a foolish vanity.

This is our Authors golden Oare, out of which his new Protestant Religion was to be extracted. So happily refin'd, that there is nothing of the Old Chri∣stian Religion to be found therein. Which though our Author doth defend as Expressions rather then Opinions, the Careers of the Soul, and Extravagancies of humane infir∣mity, as he doth the rest, yet he that looks upon these points, and sees not in them the rude draught and linea∣ments of the Puritan Plat-form, which they have been hammering since the time of Cartwright, and his Asso∣ciates, must either have better eyes then mine, or no eyes at all. I see our Author looks for thanks for this dis∣covery for publishing the paper which contain'd these new Protestant tru••hs, and I give him mine.

Fol. 239. At this time also were the Stews suppressed by the Kings command.] And I could wish that some com∣mand [ 114] had been laid upon our Author by the Parliament to suppress them also, and not to have given them any place in the present History, especially not to have pro∣duc'd those arguments by which some shameless persons endeavoured to maintain both the conveniency and necessity of such common Brothel houses. Had Bishop Iewel been alive,* 1.6 and seen but half so much from Dr. Harding ple••ding in behalf of the common women permitted by the Pope in Rome, he would have thought that to cal to him an Advocate for the Stews had not beeen enough. But that Doctor was nor half so wise as our Author is, and doth not fit each Argument with a several Antid••te as our Author doth▪ hoping there∣by

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

by, but vainly hoping, that the arguments alleadged will be wash'd away. Some of our late Criticks had a like De∣sign in marking all the wanton and obscene Epigrams in Martial with a Hand or Asterism, to the intent that young Scholars when they read that Author, might be fore-warn'd to pass them over. Whereas on the contrary it was found, that too many young fellows, or wanton wits, as our Author calls them, did ordinarily skip over the rest, and pitch on those which were so mark't and set out un∣to them. And much I fear that it will so fall out with our Author also, whose Arguments will be studied and made use of when his Answers will not.

[ 115] Fol. 253. Otherwise, some suspect, had he survived King Edward the sixth, we might presently have heard of a King Henry the ninth.] Our Author speaks this of Henry Fitz Roy, the Kings natural Son by Elizabeth Blunt, and the great disturbance he might have wrought to the Kings two Daughters in their Succession to the Crown. A Prince indeed whom his Father very highly cherished, crea∣ting him Duke of Somerset and Richmond, Earl of Not∣tingham, and Earl Marshal of England, and raising him to no small hopes of the Crown it self, as appears plainly by the Statute 22 H. 8. c. 7. But whereas our Author speaks it on a supposition of his surviving King Edward the sixth, he should have done well in the first place to have inform'd himself whether, this Henry and Prince Edward were at any time alive together. And if my Books speak true, they were not; Henry of Somerset and Richmond dying the 22. of Iuly, Anno 1536. Prince Edward not being born till the 12. of October, An. 1537. So that if our Author had been but as good at Law or Grammar, as he is at Heraldry, he would not have spoke of a Survivor-ship in such a case, when the one person had been long dead before the other was born.

These incoherent Animadversions being thus passed over, we now proceed to the Examination of our Au∣thors Principles, for weakning the Authority of the Church, and subjecting it in all proceedings to the power of Parliaments. Concerning which he had before given us two Rules Preparatory to the great business which we have in hand. First that the proceedings of the Canon Law were subject in whatsoever touched temporals to secular Laws and National Customs. And the Laitie at pleasure limited Canons in this behalf, Lib. 3. n. 61. And secondly, that the King by consent of Parliament directed the pro∣ceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court in cases of Heresie. Lib. 4. n. 88. And if the Ecclesiastical power was thus curbed and fe••••ered when it was at the highest, there is no que∣stion to be made, but that it was much more obnoxious to the secular Courts, when it began to sink in reputation, and decline in strength. How true and justifiable, or ra∣ther how unjustifiable and false these two principles are, we have shewn already, and must now look into the rest, which our Author in pursuance of the main Design hath presented to us. But first we must take notice of another passage concerning the calling of Convocati∣ons or Synodical meetings, formerly called by the two Archbishops in their several Provinces by their own sole and proper power, as our Author grants, fol. 190. to which he adds,

Fol. 190. But after the Statute of Praemunire was made (which did much restrain the Papal power, and subject it to the Laws of the Land) when Archbishops called no more Convocations by their sole and absolute command, but at the pleasure of the King.] In which I must confess my self to be much unsatisfied, though I finde the same position in some other Authors. My reasons two, 1. Because there [ 116] is nothing in the Statute of Praemunire to restrain the Archbishops from calling these meetings as before; that

Act extending only to such as purchase or pursue, or cause to be purchased or pursued, in the Court of Rome, or else∣where any such translatations, Processes, Sentences of Ex∣communication, Bulls, Instruments, or any other things what∣soever which touch the King, against him, his Crown and his Regality, or his Realm; or to such as bring within the Realm or them receive, or make thereof notification, or any other Execution whatsoever within the same Realm, or with∣out, &c. And 2. because I finde in the Statute of the sub∣mission of the Clergy, that it was recognized and acknow∣ledged by the Clergie in their Convocation, that the Convocation of the said Clergie is,* 1.7 always hath been, and ought to be assembled always by the Kings Writ. And if they had been always call'd by the Kings Writ, then certainly before the Statute of Praemunire; for that the whole Clergy in their Convocation should publickly declare and avow a notorious falsehood, especially in a matter of fact, is not a thing to be imagined. I must confess my self to be at a loss in this intricate Labyrinth, unless perhaps there were some critical difference in those elder times between a Synod and a Convocation: the first being call'd by the Archbishops in their several and respective Provinces, as the necessities of the Church; the other only by the King, as his occasions and affairs did require the same. But whether this were so or not, is not much material, as the case now stands, the Clergie not assembling since the 25 of King Henry the eighth, but as they are convo∣cated [ 117] and convened by the Kings w••it only. I only adde that the time and year of this submission is mistook by our Author, who pl••ceth it in 1533. whereas indeed the Clergy made this acknowledgement and submission in their Convocation, Anno 1532. though it pass'd not into an Act or Statute till the year next following. Well then, suppose the Clergy call'd by the Kings Authority, and all their, Acts and Constitutions rati••ied by the R••yal

assent, are they of force to binde the Subject to submit and conform unto them? Not, if our Author may be judge, for he tels us plainly

Fol. 191. That even such Convocations with the Royal assent, subject not any (for recusancy to obey their Canons) to a civil penalty in person or property, untill confirmed by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Parliament.] I marvel where our Author [ 118] took up this opinion, which he neither finds in the Registers of Convocation, or Records of Parliament. Himself hath told us, fol. 190. that such Canons and Constitutions as were concluded on in Synods or Con∣vocations, before the passing of the Statute of Praemu∣nire, were without any further Ratification, obligatory to all subjected to their jurisdiction. And he hath told us also of such Convocations as had been called between the passing of the Statute of Praemunire, and the Act for Submission, that they made Canons whiche were binding, although none other then Synodical Authority did confirme the same. Upon whi•••• ••remisses I shall not fear to raise this Syllogism, viz▪ That power which the Clergy had in their Convocations before their submission to the King to binde the subject by their Canons and Constitutions without any further Ratification then own Synodicall Authority, the same they had when the Kings power signified in his Royal assent was added to them; but the Clergy (by our Au∣thors own confession) had power in their Convoca∣tions before their submission to the King to binde the Subject by their Canons and Constitutions without any further ratification then their own Synodical Au∣thority; Ergo they had the same power to binde the Subjects when the Kings power signified by the Royal assent was added to them. The Minor being granted by our Author, as before is shewed, the Major is only to be proved. And for the proof hereof, I am to put the Reader in minde of a Petition or Remonstrance exhi∣bited

to the King by the House of Commons, Anno 1532. in which they shewed themselves agrieved, that the Clergy of this Realm should act Authorita∣tively and Supremely in the Convocations, and they in Parliament do nothing but as it was confirmed and ra∣tified by the Royal assent. By which it seems that there was nothing then desired by the House 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••om∣mons, but that the Convocation should be brought down to the same level with the Houses of Parliament; and that their Acts and Constitutions should not binde the Subject as before in their Goods and Possessions, untill they were confirmed and ratified by the Regal power. The Answer unto which Remonstrance being drawn up by Dr. Gardiner then newly made Bishop of Winchester, and allowed of by both Houses of Convocation, was by them presented to the King. But the King not sa∣tisfied with this Answer ••••solves to bring them to his bent, le••t else perhaps they might have acted some∣thing to the hindrance of his divorce, which was at that time in agitation; and therefore on the 10 of May he sends a paper to them by Dr. Fox (after Bishop of Hereford) in which it was peremptorily required, That no Constitution or Ordinance shall be hereafter by the Clergy Enacted, Promulged, or put in Execution unlesse the Kings Highness do approve the same by his high Au∣thority and Royal assent; and his advice and favour be also interponed for the execution of every such constitution among his Highnesse Subjects. And though the Clergy on the receipt of this paper remov'd first to the Chap∣pel of St. Katherines, and after unto that of St. Dunstan to consult about it, yet found they no Saint able to inspi••e them with a resolution contrary to the Kings desires; and therefore upon the Wednesday following, being the 15 of the same Moneth, they made their absolute submission, binding themselves in Verbo Sacer∣dotii not to make or execute any Canons or other

Synodical Constitutions, but as they were from time to time enabled by the Kings Authority. But this submis∣sion being made unto the King in his single person, and not as in conjunction with his Houses of Parlia∣ment, could neither bring the Convocation under the command of Parliaments, nor render them obnoxious to the power thereof, as indeed it did not. But to the con∣trary hereof it is said by our Author, that

Fol. 194. He (viz. the King) by the advice and con∣sent of his Clergy in Convocation and great Councel in Par∣liament, resolved to reform the Church under his inspection from grosse abuses crept into it.] To this I need no other [ 119] Answer then our Author himself, who though in this place he makes the Parliament to be joyned in Com∣mission with the Convocation, as if a joynt Agent in that great business of Reforming the Church; yet in another place he tels us another tale.

For fol. 188. it will appear, saith he, (and I can tell from whom he saith it) upon serious examination, that there was nothing done in the Reformation of Religion, save what was acted by the Clergy in their Convocations, or grounded on some Act of theirs precedent to it, with the Advice, Counsel and Consent of the Bishops and most eminent Churchmen; confirmed upon the Postfact, and not otherwise by the Civill Sanction, according to the usage of the best and happiest times of Christianity.

So then the Reformation of the Church was acted chiefly by the King with the advice of the Clergy in their Convocation; the confirmation on the post-fact by the King in Parliament: and that (by his leave) not in all the Acts and Particulars of it, but in some few only, for which consult the Tract en∣tituled, The Way and Manner of the Reformation of the Church of England. Now as our Author makes the Par∣liament a joynt Assistant with the King in the Reforma∣tion, so he conferreth on Parliaments the supreme

Power of ratifying and confirming all Synodicall Acts.

Fol. 199. The Parliament (saith he) did notifie and declare that Ecclesiasticall power to be in the King, which the Pope had formerly unjustly invaded. Yet so that they reser∣ved to themselves the confirming power of all Canons Ec∣clesiastical; so that the person or property of Refusers should not be subjected to temporal penalty without consent of [ 120] Parliament.] But certainly there ••is no such matter in that Act of Parliament, in which the submission of the Clergy and the Authority of the King grounded there∣upon is notified and recorded to succeeding times; nor any such reservation to themselves of a confirming power as our Author speaks of in any Act of Parliament (I can knowingly and boldly say it) from that time to this. Had there been any such Priviledge, any such Reservation as is here declared, their power, in confir∣ming Ecclesiastical Canons had been Lord Paramount to the Kings; who could have acted nothing in it but as he was enabled by his Houses of Parliament. Nor is this only a new and unheard of Paradox, an Hetero∣doxie (as I may call it) in point of Law, but plainly contrary to the practice of the Kings of England from that time to this; there being no Synodical Canons or Constitutions (I dare as boldly say this too) confirmed in Parliament, or any otherwise ratified, then by the superadding of the Royal assent. For proof whereof look we no further then the Canons of 603 and 640 confirmed by the two Kings respectively, and without any other Authority concurring with them in these fol∣lowing words (viz.)

We have therefore for Us, our Heirs, and lawful Successors, of our especial Grace, certain knowledge, and meer motion, given, and by these p••esents do give our Royal assent according to the fo••m of the said Statute or Act of Parliament aforesaid, to all and every of the said Canons, Orders,

Ordinances, and Constitutions, and to all and eve∣ry thing in them contained. And furthermore, we do not only by our said Prerogative Royall, and Supreme Authority, in causes Ecclesiasticall, ratifie, confirme, and establish by these our Let∣ters Patents the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, and all and every thing in them contained, as is aforesaid, but do likewise propound, publish, and straightly enjoyne and command by our said Authority, and by these our Letters Pa∣tents, the same to be diligently observed, execu∣ted and equally kept by all our loving Subjects of this our Kingdom, both within the Province of Canterbury and York, in all points wherein they do or may concerne every or any of them accor∣ding to this our Will and Pleasure hereby signi∣fied and expressed.

No other Power required to confirme these Canons, or to impose them on the people but the Kings alone. And yet I ••row there are not a few particulars, in which those Canons do ex∣tend to the property and persons of such Refusers as are concerned in the same; which our Author may soon finde in them if he list to look. And having so done, let him give us the like Precedent for his Houses of Par∣liament (either abstractedly in themselves, or in co∣operation with the King) in confirming Canons; and we shall gladly quit the cause, and willingly submit to his ••er judgement.

But if it be Ob••ected, as perhaps it may, That the Subsidies granted by the Clergy in the Convocation are ratified and confirmed by Act of Parliament, be∣fore they can be levied either on the Granters them∣selves, or the rest of the Clergy.

I answer, that this makes nothing to our Authors purpose, that is to say, that the person or property of Re∣fusers should not be subjected to temporal penalty without

consent of Parliament. For first, before the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the 8. they granted Subsidies and other aids unto the King in their Convocations, and levied them upon the persons concerned therein by no other way then the usuall Censures of the Church, especi∣all, by Suspension and deprivation, if any Refuser prove so refractary as to dispute the payment of the sum imposed. And by this way they gave and levied that great sum of an Hundred thousand pounds in the Province of Canter∣bury only, by which they bought their peace of the said King Henry, at such time as he had caused them to be attainted in the Praemunire. And secondly, there is a like Precedent for it since the said Submission. For whereas the Clergy in their Convocation in the year 1585. being the 27 year of Queen Elizabeth, had given that Queen a Subsidy of four shillings in the pound confirmed by Act of Parliament in the usual way; they gave her at the same time (finding their former gift too short for her present occasions) a Benevolence of two shillings in the pound to be raised upon all the Clergy by vertue of their own Synodical Act only, under the penalty of such Ecclesiastical Censures as before were mentioned. Which precedent was after followed by the Clergy in their Con∣vocation. an. 1640. the Instrument of the Grant being the same verbatim with that before; though so it hapned (such influence have the times on the actions of men) that they were quarreld and condemned for it by the following Parliament in the time of the King, and not so much as checkt at, or thought to have gone beyond their bounds in the time of the Queen. And for the ratifying of their Bill by Act of Parliament, it came up first at such times (after the Submission before mentioned) as the Kings of England being in distrust of their Clergy, did not think fit to impower them by their Letters Patents for the making of any Synodical Acts, Canons, or Constitutions whatsoever, by which their Subsidies have been levied in

former times, but put them off to be confirmed and made Obligatory by Act of Parliament. Which being after∣wards found to be the more expedite way, and not con∣sidered as derogatory to the Churches Rights, was fol∣lowed in succeeding times without doubt or scruple; the Church proceeding in all other cases by her ••••tive power, even in cases where both the person and property of the Subject were alike concerned, as by the Canons 1603, 1640. and many of those past in Q. Elizabeths time (though not so easie to be seen) doth at full appear. Which said we may have leisure to consider of another passage relating not unto the power of the Church, but the wealth of the Churchmen. Of which thus our Autho••.

Fol. 253. I have heard (saith he) that Queen Elizabeth being informed that Dr. Pilkington Bishop of Durham had given ten thousand pounds in marriage with his Daughter; and being offended that a Prelates daughter should equal a Princesse in portion, took away one thousand pounds a year from that Bishoprick, and assigned it for the better maintenance of the Garrison of Barwick.] In telling of which story ou•• [ 121] Author commits many mistakes, as in most things el••e. For first to justifie the Queens displeasure (if she were displeased) he makes the Bishop richer, and the Portion greater then indeed they were. The ten thousand pounds Lib. 9. fol. 109. being shrunk to eight; and that eight thousand pound not given to one Daughter (as is here affirmed) but divided equally between two: whereof the one was married to Sir Iames Harrington, the other ••nto [ 122] Dunch of Berk-shire. Secondly, this could be no cause of the Queens displeasure, and much lesse of the Cour••ie••s envy; that Bishop having sat in the See of Durham above seventeen years. And certainly he must needs have been a very ill Husband if our of such a great Revenue he had not saved five hundred pounds per annum to prefe•• his Children; the income being as great, and the charges of Hospitality lesse then they have been since. Thirdly,

the Queen did not take away a thousand pound a year from that Bishoprick, as is here affirmed. The Lands were left to it as before, but in regard the Garrison of Barwick preserved the Bishops Lands and Tenants from the spoil of the Scots; the Queen thought fit, that the Bishops should contribute towards their own defence, imposing on them an annuall pension of a thousand pound [ 124] for the better maintaining of that Garrison. Fourthly, Bishop Pilkington was no Doctor, but a Batchelor of Di∣vinity only; and possibly had not been raised by our Author to an higher Title and Degree then the Univer∣sity had given him, but that he was a Conniver at Non∣conformity, as our Author telleth us Lib. 9. fol. 109. Lastly, I shall here add that I conceive the Pension above mentioned not to have been laid upon that See after Pilkingtons death, but on his first preferment to it, the French having then newly landed some forces in Scotland, which put the Queen upon a necessity of doubling her Gua••ds and increasing her Garrisons. But whatsoever was the cause of imposing this great yearly payment upon that Bishoprick, certain I am, that it continued and the money was duly paid into the Exchequer for many years, after the true cause thereof was taken away; the Queens displeasure against Pilkington ending either with his life or hers, and all the Garrisons and forces upon the Borders being taken away in the beginning of the Reign of King Iames. So true is that old saying, Quod Christus non capit fiscus rapit, never more fully verified then in this particular.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Acta Convoca∣tion••s 1530.
• * 1.2

  Hollinshead in Henry 8.
• * 1.3

  Pref to the Directory.
• * 1.4

  Hollinsh. pag. 129.
• * 1.5

  Stow in H. 8. pag. 562.
• * 1.6

  Defence of the Apolog.
• * 1.7

  Stat. 25 H 8. c. 19.