Memorials of the Most Reverend Father in God, Thomas Cranmer sometime Lord Archbishop of Canterbury wherein the history of the Church, and the reformation of it, during the primacy of the said archbishop, are greatly illustrated : and many singular matters relating thereunto : now first published in three books : collected chiefly from records, registers, authentick letters, and other original manuscripts / by John Strype ...

To the Reverend Mr. STRYPE.

SIR,

AT the Desire of Mr. Chiswell, our Common Friend, I have perused your Memorials of Archbishop Cranmer, not without great Sa∣tisfaction; being much pleased to see the Actions of that Excel∣lent Prelate, and the Affairs of the Reformation of our Church, happily begun and carried on in his Time, and by his Conduct, disposed in so clear a Method. I have not been able to make my Observations upon it with that Exactness and Fulness which I desired, and you may perhaps expect; being at this time placed at a very great distance from all my Papers and Collections, and not enjoying the use even of such Printed Books, as would be necessary to this Design: So that I have been forced to pass by very many Places of your History, wherein I have suspected some Error to have been committed, but could not either confirm or remove my Suspicion, for want of farther present Evidence. However, I have noted several Places, which at first Reading appeared Suspicious, and after farther Consideration, were judged Erroneous by me; altho even in some of those Places I have only Pointed at the Error, not being able always to rectify it, without the Assistance of Books and Papers, whereof I am now wholly destitute. Be pleased to accept of my Performance herein with that Candor, wherewith I read your Book, and made the following Observations; since I willingly profess, That the commis∣sion of Errors in writing any History, especially of times past, being altoge∣ther unavoidable, ought not to detract from the Credit of the History, or Merit of the Historian; unless it be accompanied with Immoderate Osten∣tation, or Vnhandsome Reflections upon the Errors of others; from which Imputation, that Indifference and Candor which appear throughout your whole Work, wholly exempt you; altho no History of those Matters or Times, which I have seen, be wrote with equal Exactness.

PAGE 16. Line 4. It is the sense of an Ingenious and Learned Friend of mine, That the pretended Martyr Thomas Becket, tho he died in Vindication of the Privileges of the Church, yet he was the First Betrayer of the Rights of his See; viz. of Canterbury. He made the greatest Breach upon the Authority of the Primacy of Canterbury, by resigning the Archbishoprick into the Pope's

hands, and receiving it again from him as the Pope's Donation.]

Thomas Becket was not the First nor the Chief Betrayer of the Rights of the See of Can∣terbury. The first and greatest Breach upon the Authority of the Primacy of that See, was made by his Predecessor William de Corboil, Thirty seven years before; who after he had been fully Invested in the Archbishoprick of Canterbury by due Authority, solicited and accepted the Bulls of Pope Honorius, conferring it upon him as by Papal Gift, and other Bulls constituting him the Pope's Legate in Eng∣land; whereby he subjected his own See, and the Church of England, to the Au∣thority of the See of Rome, which were before wholly independent of it.

Page 21. line 21. The Twelfth Article of Cranmer's Judgment of the Un∣lawfulness of K. Henry's Marriage, is this, We think that the pretended Matrimony of K. Henry, &c. hath been and is none at all.]

You will please to consider, whether the Latin words, fuisse & esse nullum, should not have been rather translated, hath been and is null; which is the Canonical Term expressing Voidance in Law.

Page 23. line 44. Licenses were granted this year, 1533, to the Lady Guil∣ford, and the Marchioness of Dorset, to have the Eucharist, &c. ministred to them in their private Chappels; whether indulged to them by the Archbishop, the rather to free them from danger for not frequenting their Parish-Churches, and for the avoiding the Superstitious and Idolatrous Worship there perform∣ed, &c. or only for the Convenience of those Ladies, the Reader hath liberty to judge.]

The Archbishop cannot be hence supposed to have countenanced any Separation from the Parochial Worship of that time, or to have insinuated his Judgment of the Danger, Superstition, or Idolatry of the Publick Worship then used; since such Licenses were customary acts, very frequent before and at that time. Many hundreds of them may be found among the Faculties granted by the Predecessors of this Archbishop more than Two hundred years upwards. Private Oratories were then more used, and Domestick Chaplains entertained in much greater number than in latter times: Yet none then presumed to make use of either, without License first obtained of their Diocesans: Which Discipline was formerly observed by all strictly, and continued in great measure till the time of Archbishop Abbot, altho now little regarded. So that hereby Archbishop Cranmer gave no occasion for any such Conjecture as is here made, any more than Archbishop Parker did, when he granted a like License to his own Wife, al∣tho she was no Puritan, or Separatist from the Established Worship.

Page 25. line 40. This year, 1534, all the Learned and Spiritual men in England, subscribed to it with their Hands, That the Pope hath no Jurisdiction in this Kingdom. The Archbishop's Church in Canterbury began; for the Prior and Convent thereof solemnly subscribed an Instrument for abolishing the Pope's Supremacy, &c.

The Original whereof is in a Volume of the Cotton Library] The Right Reverend the Bishop of Salisbury in his History of the Reformation, gi∣veth two or three such Instruments of the Subscription of so many particular Con∣vents, and supposeth that no more remain, but that all the rest were in the Reign of Queen Mary destroyed by Bp. Bonner, by Virtue of a Commission granted to him for razing of Scandalous Records. In truth, all those Instruments do yet re∣main, and are a most Authentick Justification of the Proceedings of the King in abolishing the Papal Supremacy. The Originals of them do yet remain in their proper place, the King's Exchequer, into which they were at first returned, and where they have been hitherto kept. There are in my hands no less than One hundred seventy five such Instruments, transcribed long since from thence, contain∣ing the Subscriptions of all the Bishops, Chapters, Monastries, Colleges, Hospitals, &c. of Thirteen Diocesses. The Subscriptions of those of the other Nine Diocesses are to my certain knowledge yet remaining in another place, but I have not yet gained Copies of them: Some of these Instruments have been transcribed into the Volume of the Cotton Library here mentioned; but that is only a Transcript, containeth not the Originals, as is here supposed. Nor did the Church of Canter∣bury begin the Subscription; for however the Instrument of that Church may be

placed first, upon account of the Preeminence of it, the Instruments of several Religious Houses, even in that Diocess, are dated before it.

Page 29. line 31. Nix Bishop of Norwich died two years after, September 1534. and came in to be Bishop in the year 1500.]

He died in the middle of Ianuary, 1535/6; and was Consecrated Bishop in April, 1501.

Page 32. line 6. ab imo. The Archbishop began his Provincial Visitation Iure Metropolitico, the last year, 1534. It was somewhat extraordinary, for such a Vi∣sitation had not been in an hundred years before. —The Diocess of Winchester having been visited but five years ago▪ by his Predecessor Warham.]

The Arch∣bishop in his Letter in answer to the Bishop of Winchester, in the Appendix, Pag. 21. saith truly, That the Diocess of Winchester was visited by his Predecessor Warham the third year before this. But when he addeth, That else it had not been visited by any of his Predecessors these forty years, he is to be understood cautiously. For altho perhaps it had not been visited by any Archbishop since the death of Bishop Langton, which was in the year 1493, yet it had been visited Metropolitico by the Chapter of Canterbury, in the beginning of the year 1501. Again, when it is said from Bishop Stok••sly's Letter in the Appendix, page 22. That such a Pro∣vincial Visitation had not been held by any of the Archbishop's Predecessors in an hundred years before; this also is to be understood dextrously. For men in their Juridical Answers are wont to alledge any thing which may seem to make for their Cause, little regarding whether it be exactly true or no. It is true, the Archbishops of Canterbury had not for so long a time undertaken or performed a Metropolitical Visitation of their whole Province at one time; but they had often within that time visited particular Diocesses Iure Metropolitico; which was a suffi∣cient President to the Cause then in hand.

Page 36. line 32. Suffragan Bishops were not unusual in the Realm. — To give some Instances of them. —Certain bearing the Title of Bishops of Sidon, assisted the Archbishops of Canterbury; one of these was named Thomas Wellys, Prior of St. Gregories by Canterbury; he being Archbishop Warham's Chaplain, was sent by him, &c. —There was afterwards one Christopher, that bore that Title, and assisted Archbishop Cranmer about these times (1535.) in Ordinations.

And another Thomas, intituled of Sidon, succeeded.] It should seem to be here supposed, That the Suffragans of the Diocess of Canterbury did then commonly take their Titles from Sidon; whereas indeed none of them, (save that Thomas Wellys here mentioned) was intituled from thence. As for Chri∣stopher, he was not Suffragan to the Archbishops of Canterbury; and that other Thomas of Sidon was in Cranmer's time Suffragan to the Bishops of London. That Thomas Wellys moreover, who was Prior of St. Gregories, and Titular Bishop of Sidon, was not Chaplain to Archbishop Warham; for Archbishops never enter∣tained Regulars in the quality of Chaplains. Archbishop Warham had indeed a Chaplain of that name, but he was neither Prior nor Bishop, but a Secular, Do∣ctor of Divinity, and Rector of Chartham near Canterbury.

Ibid. line 47. Long before these, I find one William Botlesham Episcopus Nava∣tensis, Anno 1382. at the Convocation in London, summoned against the Wick∣livites.]

If this were a Titular Bishop only, he had nothing to do in the Con∣vocation, nor any Right to be summoned to it. That Willelmus Botlesham, Episcopus Navatensis, was in truth no other than Willelmus Episcopus Landavensis, Bishop of Landaff, whose Title of Landavensis the Ignorance or Mistake of the Scribe chan∣ged into Navatensis. By a like mistake, very frequent in our Ancient Records, the Bishop of Lincoln, Lincolniensis, is corruptly stiled Nicoliensis.

Page 37. line 6. Iohn Thornden, who was often Commissary of Oxon, while Archbishop Warham was Chancellor of that University, was stiled Episcopus Sy∣rinensis.]

His Name was Iohn Thornton. Many years after him, Richard Thornden was Suffragan Bishop in the Diocess of Canterbury. In Thornton endeth the Cata∣logue

of Suffragan Bishops, which you could find, Consecrated before the time of Archbishop Cranmer, being in all seven. If it pleaseth God to permit me to to finish my Angli•• Sacra, I shall exhibit a perfect Succession of Suffragan Bishops in almost all the Diocesses of England, for about Two hundred years before the Reformation.

Ibid. line 8. And hereafter we shall meet with a Bishop of Hippolitanum, who assisted Archbishop Cranmer at his Ordinations.]

It will be hard to find such a City as Hyppolitanum in the world. We had in England many Suffragan Bishops, who successively assumed the Title of Bishops of Hippo, the See of the Great St. Austin. These were wont to stile themselves Hipponenses; but some of them, not being so good Grammarians, took the Stile of Ypolitanenses, and Hippolita∣nenses▪ which latter Appellation might give occasion to the mistake concerning a Bishop of Hippolitanum.

Page 38. line 3. ab imo. The King sent to the Archbishop to make Thomas Mannyng Suffragan of Gipwich, who was accordingly Consecrated by the Arch∣bishop.]

This Gipwich is no other than Ipswich, the chief Town of Suffolk, in Latin called Gip••svicum, and Gipwicum; from which place Mannyng at his Pr••mo∣tion to the Office of a Suffragan Bishop, took his Title.

Page 41. line 3. This choice Treasure (the Original Book, containing the Subscription of the Members of the Convocation to certain Articles of Religion) Sir Robert Cotton afterwards procured. — And at the bottom of the first Page is written Robertus Cotton Bruce••s, by Sir Robert's own hand, signifying his Value of this Monument.]

Sir Robert did not by that Subscription of his Name testify any extraordinary Value of this Volume; for he wrote the same words at the bottom of the first Page of all, or almost all, the Manuscript Volumes of his Library.

Page 50. line 26. Iune — Anno 1536. William Rugg was Consecrated Bi∣shop of Norwich. His Consecration is omitted in the Register.

Probably he was consecrated with Sampson Bishop of Chic••ester, who was Confirmed Iune 10th.] Rugg could not be Consecrated in Iune, for he was not Confirmed till the 28th. of that Month; and the first Sunday after that day, was Iuly 2d. Bishops were wont to be Consecrated on the next Sunday after their Confirmation. So that it is most likely Sampson was Consecrated Iune 11th▪; and Rugg, together with Warton of St. Asaph, on Iuly 2d.

Page 61. line 18. ab imo. Iune 24. Anno 1537. Iohn Bird was Consecrated Suffragan of the See of Penrith in Landaff Diocess; and Lewis Thomas Suffragan Bishop of the See of Salop.]

It should have been said, that Bird was Conse∣crated Suffragan of the Diocess of Landaff, with the Title of Bishop of Penrith; Bishop of Shrewsbury (not Salop); for Penrith is no more in Landaff Diocess, than Shrewsbury is in that of St. Asaph. But it may be observed, That in the first Act of Parliament made in this Reign touching Suffragan Bishops, certain Titles were appointed, to which the said Suffragans should be Consecrated, taken from several of the chief Towns in England; but it was not required, that the Suffra∣gan of any particular Diocess should take his Title from some Town in that Dio∣cess, but was left at liberty to take it from any Town mentioned in that Act. Which was accordingly practised indifferently till the Promulgation of the second Act concerning Suffragans.

Ibid. line 2. It was now forbidden by the Parliament, that the Feast of St. Tho∣mas a Becket, the pretended Martyr, should be celebrated any more. He is also stiled Thomas a Becket, Page 70. line 21. & 28. Page 92. line 4. &c.]

This is a small Error; but being so often repeated, deserveth to be observed and corrected. The Name of that Archbishop was Thomas Becket; nor can it otherwise be found

to have been written in any Authentick History, Record, Kalendar, or other Book. If the Vulgar did formerly, as it doth now, call him Thomas a Becket, their Mi∣stake is not to be followed by Learned men.

Page 62. line 8. The Reason why Archbishop Cranmer all this while, that is from the first making the Act concerning Suffragans in the year 1534, to this time (1537.) had nominated none for Suffragan to this See (Dover) till now (when he nominated and consecrated Richard Yngworth in December) might be, because there seemed to be a Suffragan already, even the same that had been in the time of Archbishop Warham, namely, Iohn Thornton▪ Prior of Dover, who was one of the Witnesses appointed by that Archbishop to certify what was found and seen at the opening of St. Dunstan's Tomb. Richard Thornden seems to have succeeded Yngworth in this Office.]

St. Dunstan's Tomb was opened in April 1508, and Thornden died not till the last year of Queen Mary: So that if to Thern∣ton succeeded Yngworth, and to Yngworth succeeded Thornden▪ there will be no room for any of those three Bishops of Sidon, who were before in this History (pag. 36.) said to have assisted the Archbishops Warham and Cranmer in the Quality of Suf∣fragan Bishops. For the very first of them, Thomas Wellys, was Suffragan Bishop after the year 1508. I know not when he was made Suffragan, or when he died, but I am certain that he survived the year 1511. As for Christopher, and the other, Thomas, Bishops of Sidon, they indeed were not the peculiar Suffragans of the Archbishops of Canterbury, as I before said.

Page 63. line 28. March 24. 1537. Henry Holbeach was Consecrated Suffragan Bishop of Bristow in the Bishop of London's Chappel in the said Bishop's House, scituate in Lambeth-Marsh, by the said Bishop, &c.]

The Bishops of London ne∣ver had any House scituate in Lambeth-Marsh, but the Bishops of Rochester at that time had; which House was soon after conveyed from the See of Rochester to the Crown; and afterwards from the Crown by exchange to the See of Carlisle, to which it now belongeth.

Page 86. line 22. ab imo. In this Consecration (of Bonner Bishop of London, Anno 1540.) the Prior and Chapter of Canterbury insisted, it seems, upon an Ancient Privilege of their Church, which I do not find in this Register (that of Archbishop Cranmer) they had at other Consecrations done; namely, that the Consecration should be celebrated at the Church of Canterbury, and at no other Church or Oratory, without their allowance. And so in a formal Instrument they gave their License and Consent. — The renewing of this their old pretended Privilege, looked like some Check to the Archbishop, and as tho they required of him a sort of Dependance on them now more than before; and it shewed some secret Ill-will towards him.]

This Privilege was first granted to the Prior and Chapter of Canterbury by Thomas Becket, but afterwards more am∣ply confirmed to them by St. Edmund the Archbishop, in the year 1235; from which time to the present year 1540▪ I dare confidently ••ver▪ That no Bishop of the Province of Canterbury had been Consecrated by the Archbishops or by any other by their Commission, in any Church or Place without the Metropolitical Church of Canterbury, without License first desired and obtained in writing from the Chapter of Canterbury under their Seal; if we except only two or three Ca∣ses between the years 1235, and 1300; which were the occasions of great Con∣troversies between the Archbishops Consecrating, and the Bishops Consecrated, on the one part, and the Chapter of Canterbury on the other part; which yet always ended to the advantage of the Chapter, and the farther Confirmation of their Privilege herein. If these Licenses be not registred in the Archbishops Re∣gisters, it is not to be wondred at; it being not their concern to cause those things to be enregistred, which were not essential to the Confirmation or Conse∣cration of the Bishops of their Province, but related merely to the Privileges of the Chapter of Canterbury. But they are all enregistred, and may be found in the Registers of that Chapter. If therefore the Prior and Convent of Canterbury did at this time require Boner to take out such a License before his Consecration,

they thereby gave no more evidence of any sinister Design or Ill-will against the Archbishop, than they had done at any time before to him or any of his Prede∣cessors for 300 years, whensoever any Bishop of the Province was to be Conse∣crated out of their Church.

Page 95. line 18. Robert King, Titular Bishop Reonen, Suffragan to the Bishop of Lincoln, was this year (1541.) Consecrated Bishop of Oxford. The Date, or his Consecrators, I cannot assign, the Act being omitted in the Archbishop's Register.]

Whensoever a Suffragan Bishop was promoted to any real Bishoprick, he had no need of any new Consecration, the Character and Order of Bishop having been all along as full, valid, and effectual in him, as in any Bishop what∣soever. So that in such a Promotion no other Form was observed, than in the Translation of any Bishop from one Diocess to another; viz. Election and Con∣firmation. But in this case not so much as that was necessary; for the Bishoprick of Oxford being then newly erected, King the first Bishop of it was to be put in Possession of it, not by any Act of the Archbishop's, but by Letters Patents of the King the Founder of it; which Letters were not issued out until the first day of September in the following year.

Page 111. line 13. The names of the chief Actors (of a Conspiracy against the Archbishop) were Thornden, who lived in the Archbishop's Family, and eat at his Table, and with whom he used to converse most familiarly. So also Pag. 121. line 12. Thornton who was Suffragan of Dover, the Archbishop made Prebenda∣ry of his Church, and whom he always set at his own Mess. Page 120. line 5. Dr. Thornton, who was very great with the Archbishop, but secretly false to him. Page 304. line 7. ab imo.

This had the Suffragan of Dover, Dr. Thornton done.] In these and other Passages of this History, the Names and Persons of Dr. Thorn∣ton and Dr. Thornden, both Suffragans of the Diocess of Canterbury, are confound∣ed. Iohn Thornton, Prior of Dover, was Suffragan to Archbishop Warham, and died in his time. Richard Thornden was Monk of Christ-Church, Canterbury, and at the dissolution of that Monastery in 1539, or 1540, and Conversion of it into a College of Secular Canons, was constituted the first Prebendary of it, and soon after made Suffragan of the Diocess, with the Title of Bishop of Dover; in which Office he continued till his death, ultimo Mari••. He never lived in the Archbi∣shop's Family, but in the Monastery till the Dissolution of it; and after that con∣stantly resided upon his Prebend and other Benefices which he held in the Diocess. You might perhaps find it noted, That the Archbishop always set him at his own Mess; which might give you occasion to think that he sometimes lived in the Archbishop's Family; whereas indeed no more was meant thereby, than that the Archbishop was wont to shew to him extraordinary Respect, whensoever he at∣tended him; for in those days Suffragan Bishops, however usual, were treated with Contempt enough, not wont to be admitted to dine at the Archbishops own Table in the Hall of the Archbishop's Palace. There were generally three Tables spread in the Archbishops Hall, and served at the same time: The Archbishops Table, at which ordinarily sate none but Peers of the Realm, Privy-Counsellors, and Gentlemen of the greatest Quality. The Almoners Table, at which sate the Chaplains, and all Guests of the Clergy beneath Diocesan Bishops, and Abbots. The Stewards Table, at which sate all other Gentlemen. The Suffragan Bishops then were wont to fit at the Almoners Table; and the Archbishop in admitting his Suffragan Thornden to his own Table, did him an unusual Honour; which was therefore noted to aggravate the Ingratitude of the man, conspiring against the Archbishop.

Page 126. line 13. About this time (1544.) it was, I conjecture, that the King changed the Archbishop's Coat of Arms; for unto the year 1543, he bore his Paternal Coat of Three Cranes Sable, as I find by a Date set under his Arms, yet remaining in a Window in Lambeth-House.]

Those Arms of Arch∣bishop Cranmer, here mentioned to remain in a Window in Lambeth-House, toge∣ther with the Arms of the other Archbishops succeeding to him since the Refor∣mation,

and placed in the same Window, were painted at the cost of, and set up by my Lord Archbishop Sancroft, not many years since.

Page 141. med. One of the very first things that was done in K. Edward's Reign, in relation to the Church, was, That the Bishops, &c. should be made to depend intirely upon the King and his Council, &c.; and should take Commissi∣ons from him for the exercise of their Office and Jurisdiction, and those to last only during the King's Pleasure.—In this I suppose the Archbishop had his hand. — And therefore he began this Matter with himself,—Petitioning for such a Commission, —which was granted to him, Feb. 7. 1546.]

This Matter was not now first begun or done. The Archbishop and all the Bishops of England had taken Commissions from K. Henry in the very same Form, mutatis mu∣tandis, in the year 1535.

Page 161. med. An English Exile, naming himself E. P. in Q. Mary's days published again the Archbishop's Book against Vnwritten Verities, and prefixed to it a Preface of his own, — I will add one Passage taken out of this Book, about the middle, whereby it may be seen what a Clergy was now in England. He makes a heavy Complaint against the frequent practice of beastly sins in the Priests, Adultery, Sodomy, &c. and that they never were punished. And in my memory, (as he proceeds) which is above thirty years, and also by the information of others that be twenty years older than I, I could never learn that one Priest was punished]

These Exiles are a sort of men who generally write with Passion and Prejudice against their own Countrey; so that ordinarily little more credit is to be given to their Information, than to the Intelligence of Deserters from an Army. I am sure he hath shamefully belied the Clergy of England in accusing them of the fre∣quent practice of such beastly sins, and then affirming that he could never learn that one Priest was punished for it in the space of fifty years before that time. It is true, that Crimes of Incontinence, as such, especially in the Clergy, were then cognoscible and punishable only by the Ecclesiastical Law, and in the Spiritual Courts; but Rapes were, then as well as now, in Clergy-men as well as Lay-men, tryable and punishable at Common-Law. And of this the Laity took such ma∣licious advantage, immediately before the Reformation, that they were wont to pretend all Acts, and even Indications of Incontinence in Clergy-men, to be so many Rapes, and to Indict them as such: Insomuch, that scarce any Assizes or Sessions passed at that time, wherein several Clergy-men were not Indicted of Rapes, and a Jury of Lay-men Impannell'd to Try them, who would be sure not to be guilty of shewing over-much favour to them in their Verdicts. Neither was the Ecclesiastical Authority then so remiss (as is pretended) as not to have pu∣nished any one Priest for Incontinence within the space of fifty years before: If I had my Papers by me, I could produce Examples of many Incontinent Clergy-men punished and deprived by their Ordinaries within that time. About this very time wherein this Preface was wrote, Dr. Weston, altho otherwise a man of great Note and Interest among the Popish Party, was deprived of the Deanry of Wind∣sor, for a single Act of Incontinence, and about twenty years before this, Stokesly Bishop of London is by Iohn Bale reported to have deprived Iohn Lord Abbot of Colchester for an horrible Act of Incontinence. Indeed I know Bale to have been so great a Lyar, that I am not willing to take any thing of that kind upon his Cre∣dit; however, his Testimony may serve well enough against such another foul-mouth'd Writer as this E. P. seems to have been.

Ibid. line 11. ab imo. The Archbishop supplied the City of Canterbury with store of Excellent Learned Preachers, Turner, the two Ridleys, Becon, &c.]

Turner ne∣ver was Preacher in Ordinary at Canterbury, but at Chartham near Canterbury. He is said indeed afterwards in this History to have been one of the Six Preachers of the Church of Canterbury; which may be true; yet to Preach there three or four Sermons in a year upon so many Holidays, is not a sufficient ground to say, that that City was supplied with such or such Preachers.

Page 164. in imo. The University of Cambridge laboured under great suspicions of being spoiled of its Revenues; she having observed how those of her Sister the Church were daily invaded by Secular hands.]

The University hath ever been so dutiful, as to own the Church to be her Mother.

Page 183. line 10. ab imo. Farrar was Consecrated Bishop of St. Davids, by Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, endued with his Pontificals.

The latter words are a Translation of Pontificalibus indutus, which signifies no other than being Invested or Attired in his Episcopal Habit.

Page 184. med. Bishop Farrar hearing of great Corruption among those be∣longing to the Chapter of the Church of Carmarthen, and chiefly Thomas Young, Chanter, after Archbishop of York, &c.]

I suppose the Chapter of the Church of St. Davids is here meant; for there was no such Church at Carmarthen; and Young was at this time Precentor of St. Davids.

Page 208. line 13. ab imo. Bishop Ridley, at his entrance upon the See of Lon∣don, was exceeding wary not to do his Predecessor Bonner the least injury, but ra∣ther did many kindnesses to his Mother, Servants, and Relations; he continued Bonner's Receiver, one Staunton, in his Place.]

In this last case Ridley could not give any evidence of Kindness or Unkindness; for Staunton held his Place of Receiver by Patent for life.

Page 224. med. The Council sitting at Greenwich, the Bishop's (Gardiner of Winchester) Servants came, and desired that certain of them might be sworn upon certain Articles for Witness on his behalf. And if they might not be sworn, &c. And they were allowed.]

From this relation any Reader would imagine, That the Bishop's Servants desired that themselves might be sworn in behalf of their Lord and Master; whereas in the Council-Book (from whence this Matter is reported) it is plain, that they desired that some of the Privy-Counsellors might be sworn, or at least be obliged to declare upon their Honour what they knew of the matter then in question, in favour of the Bishop.

Page 267. line 21. This Scory (Bishop Elect of Rochester) was at first preferred by the Archbishop to be one of the Six Preachers at Canterbury, and always con∣tinued firm for the Purity of Religion, and endured Trouble for it.—He was a Married man, and so deprived at the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign, fled beyond Sea, &c.]

Scory was so far from continuing always firm to the Pu∣rity of Religion, that in the beginning of Queen Mary's Reign he reconciled himself to the See of Rome, submitted himself to Bishop Bonner, made a formal Recantation, and did open Penance for his Marriage; however, afterwards he resumed his former Principles, when he had got beyond Sea.

Page 270. line 17. ab imo. All this I have related of this Divine (Dr. Iohn Redman, who died in 1551.) that I may in some measure preserve the Memory of one of the Learnedest men of his time; and lay up the Dying Words of a Papist, signifying so plainly his dislike and disallowance of many of their Doctrines.]

I cannot imagine why Dr. Redman should be accounted or called a Papist at the time of his Death, who had all along lived and then died in the Communion of the Establish'd Church, and had but little before joined with the Archbishop and other Bishops and Divines, in compiling the Book of Common-Prayer. If because he had once held the Popish Doctrines con∣cerning Justification, the Sacrament of the Altar, &c. with equal and for the same reason Cranmer himself, and all the Bishops and Eminent Divines of that time may be called Papists: Or if it was because he judged it unlawful for any Priest to marry a second time (as is related page 157.) he therein followed the Canons and received Doctrines of the Ancient Church, and hath many Learned and Worthy Divines of our own Time and Church concurring with him in the same Opinion.

Page 274. line 5. ab imo. The other was Richard Turner, in former time Cu∣rate of Chartham in Kent, and commonly called Turner of Canterbury, living in the Family of Mr. Morice the Archbishop's Secretary, who held the Impropria∣tion of that Parsonage, and had presented this man to the Vicarage.]

It would be very ill for me, if the Parsonage of Chartham were Impropriate: It never yet was, and, as I hope, never shall be in the Poss••ssion of any Lay-man, Mr. Morice only held it at that time by Lease of Richardson, the Rector of it, with obligation to provide and pay a Curate, which was this Turner.

Page 275. med. And this I judge to be that Turner whom the Archbishop no∣minated for Ireland (to the Archbishoprick of Armagh), having lived long in his Diocess, and so well known to him, and whom he had, I suppose, removed to Canterbury, to a Prebend, or some other Preferment there.]

He never was Prebendary of Canterbury.

Page 279. line 5. ab imo. While King Edward was in his Progress, 1552. some about his Person, to make the better way for their Sacrilegious Designs, and to make the King the more inclinable to lay hands on the Episcopal Demeans, or at least to clip and pare them, buzzed about Rumors. &c.—This Sir William Ce∣cyl, the Secretary, who was now with the King, laboured to hinder; for he was a very great Favourer, as of the Reformed Clergy, so of their Estate and Ho∣nours.]

He gave but bad evidence of such Favour to the Clergy and Estate of the Church, when many years after this (the Revenue of the Church being then also much more diminished than it was at the time of this Design) he tore away from the Bishoprick of Peterborough the far better part of the Lands and Revenues wherewith it had been endowed; which he effected by procuring Bi∣shop Scamler to be translated from thence to Norwich; which Translation, by the baseness of that Bishop, conspiring with the sacrilegious greediness of two Po∣tent Courtiers, was the ruin of both those Bishopricks.

Page 307. line 10. So on the day appointed, Aug. 27. 1553. the Archbishop, together with Sir Thomas Smith, K. Edward's Secretary, and Dr. May, came be∣fore the Queen's Commissioners; and the Archbishop brought in his Inventory. We are le••t to guess what he was now cited for. I suppose it was to lay to his cha••ge Heresy and his Marriage.]

It was undoubtedly to charge him with Treason, for what he had done in the business of Queen Ia••; which the appea∣rance o•• Smith and May at the same time with him confirmeth. It was too early yet ••o object to him either Heresy or Marriage.

Page 310. line 7. Cuthhert Bishop of Durham, formerly d••prived, was resto∣red. Edmond Boner Bishop of London restored, Nicolas Ridley being removed from the said See, and cast into Prison, &c.]

These words are said to be verbatim de∣scribed out of the Register of the Church of Canterbury. I know not, Sir, whe∣ther you inspected that Register with your own eyes; but I assure you, that Re∣gister relateth the matter otherwise; viz. that Boner was restored to the See of London, then Canonically void by the Translation of Ridley the Bishop of it to the See of Durham (made in the very end of K. Edward's Reign); and that Tun∣stall was restored to Durham, void by the Deprivation of Ridley, deprived there∣of for Heresy and Sedition.

Ibid. line 13. How they proceeded with the Clergy in general for being mar∣ried, may be measured, &c. —Some were deprived, never convict nor called (I use the words of an Author that then lived, Dr. Parker.)—Some induced to resign upon promise of Pension; and the Promise as yet never performed.]

Over-against these latter words, are placed in the Margent the Names of Dr. Ponet, Tayler, Parker. Of Ponet and Tayler it had been said immediately before, in this and the foregoing Page, that they were deprived of their Bishopricks. If then they were deprived, they were not induced to resign upon Promise of Pension. Of Poinet particularly it was re∣lated from the Register of Canterbury, that he was ejected, and imprisoned, and depri∣ved

of Episcopacy for being Married. I suppose the words of the Register are privatus Episcopatu, which ought to be rendred, deprived of his Bishoprick (viz. of Win∣chester), not of Episcopacy; for the Order is indelible, and so allowed to be by those who deprived him. The Causes of Tayler's Deprivation are reported from the same Register; but Marriage is not mentioned among them. Nay, we are as∣sured by undoubted Testimony (vide supra, Page 156.) That he never was married. Farther, this Account, said to be taken from the Words of Dr. Parker, is not his, but they are the words of the Anonymous Large Defence of Priests Marriage, published by him.

Pag. 318. med. In the first year of Queen Mary▪ a very soul Scandal was blown about of her, That she was with Child by Bishop Gardiner; however it was raised, whether of her Enemies, to render her odicus; or of some Zea∣lots of Popish Religion, to shew the desire they had of her matching with him.]

It will be very difficult to persuade the world, that any Zealots of the Popish Religion, who are so prejudiced against the Marriage of the Clergy, should desire the Marriage of a Queen, whom they loved so much, with a Bishop of their own Communion, whom they no less admired.

Page 324. line 2. Cardinal Pole, in answer to both Queen Mary's Letters, thought fit to send his mind at large by his Messenger Thomas Goldwell, who was once, if I mistake not, Prior of the Church of Canterbury, but long since fled out of England, and lived with Pole, and by the Queen afterwards prefer∣red to the Bishoprick of S. Asaph.]

The Prior of Canterbury, and Bishop of St. Asaph, had nothing common but their Names. The one was a Regular, the other a Secular. The first, Doctor of Divinity before the other was born, and dead before the other was made Bishop.

Page 328. line 4. ab imo. This is some account of the Church of Canter∣bury's doings, in pursuance of the Queen's Instructions before-mention∣ed, viz. against the Married Clergy.]

This account relateth only the Pro∣ceedings of that Chapter against the Married Clergy, Members of the Cathedral Church, or Incumbents within the Deanry of the Arches. The same Register of that Church (from whence this account is taken) relateth at large their Pro∣ceedings against all the Married Clergy within the whole Diocess of Canterbury, and in the other D••anries of the peculiar Jurisdiction of that See.

Page 329. line 11. Bernard Ochin, Preb••ndary of Canterbury. So also pag. 400, &c.] His Name was Bernardinus; a man sufficiently known.

Page 331. line 9. ab imo. The other thing thought hard concerning these Or∣ders taken with the Married Clergy, was, that after these poor men had thus done their Penances, the Imposers of these Penalties were not so good as they pretended they would be, &c. towards them, not restoring them to their Mini∣stration.]

This is not universally true. All Secular Married Clergy-men, who desired it, were restored after such Penance undergone, unless some other great Demerit intervened. But no Regulars could obtain that favour; Marriage in them being accounted Apostacy from their Vow and Order.

Page 331. line 12. The said Poinet, late Bishop of Winchester, but now an Exile, very learnedly answered this Book (of Dr. Martin against Priests Marriage) in two several Treatises.—The second Treatise he lived not to finish; but the Copy falling into the hands of Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, he published it in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, with very large and excellent Additions of his own.

The same Book is ascribed to Poinet, infra, lin. 39. with some doubt, pag. 330. med. page 53, 69, &c.] This Book was most certainly none of Poinet's; for the Author of it saith of himself more than once, that he was a Layman; had designed indeed to enter into Holy Orders, but was pre∣vented by the Death of K. Edward, and the Iniquity of the Times succeeding to

it. He lived in or about either Norwich or Lincoln; and died before the end of Q. Mary's Reign. Archbishop Parker in Publishing it, did not adjoin his own Ad∣ditions to all the Printed Copies, but only to a few of them.

Page 369. line 3. &c. Latimer's Character is best taken from them who best knew him, and lived in his time. One of these (Thomas Becon) thus speaks of him, while he was yet alive, in the beginning of K. Edward. — Latimer was very famous for the Sincerity and Goodness of his Evangelical Doctrine; which since the beginning of his Preaching had in all points been so conformable to the teaching of Christ and his Apostles. —His Fame began to grow apace, while he was at Cam∣bridge, some years before 1530. doing abundance of good there among the Student•• by his Sermons. —Before them he did by invincible Arguments, &c. prove, That the Holy Screptures ought to be read in the English Tongue of all Christen People, whether they were Priests or Laymen, &c.]

Good Mr. Becon did herein either want true in∣formation, or hath imposed upon his Readers. Latimer was so far from maintain∣ing this Doctrine ever since the beginning of his Preaching, that he was one of those Divines, who (being deputed by the University of Cambridge) joined with Archbishop Warham, and other Bishops and Divines, in Condemning all English Translations of the Scripture; and solemnly subscribed this Determination, The Publication of the H. Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue, is not necessary to Christians; and the King's Majesty and the Bishops do well in forbidding to the people the common use of the H. Scripture in the English Tongue. This was done in the year 1530.

Page 383. line 16. ab imo. The Queen would not alter her Determination to have Archbishop Cranmer burnt, by the Instigation, as I suppose, of Pole the Legate.]

I would not have remittted you to so obscure an Author as Anthony Harmer, if your self had not mentioned him in your Preface. He hath offered some Reasons (in his Specimen, page 144.) not altogether contemptible, to clear Cardinal Pole from this Imputation. I am so charitable, as to be willing at least to assent to his Reasons; your self can better judge of the Validity of them.

Page 398. line 9. Among Archbishop Cranmer's Writings are reckoned (from Bale) Letters to Learned Men, one Book; and thereto is added, This I cannot hear any tidings of.]

The Archbishop's Letters to Learned men never were either by himself or others collected into one or more Books, especially at that time. But it was Bale's foolish way, to account to every great man whom he hath placed in his Rhapsody of Writers, One Book of Epistles.

Epist. Dedicat. page 3. The Judgment of Archbishop Arundel was for the Translation of the Scriptures into the Vulgar Tongue, and for the Laity's use thereof. For he preaching the Funeral Sermon of Queen Anne in 1392. com∣mended her particularly for her Study of the Holy Scriptures, — as I find by an Ancient MS. Fragment, formerly belonging to the Church of Worcester, &c.]

This MS. Fragment hath been often published. And Arundel, when he preached this Sermon, was not Archbishop of Canterbury, nor one of Cranmer's Predecessors, as is here supposed. But after all, the Judgment of Archbishop Arundel in this Case is better declared by an Authentick Decree, than by a Rhetorical Passage in a Ser∣mon, wherein he was obliged to commend the Deceased Queen. He was so far then from favouring the Translation of the Scriptures into the Vulgar Tongue, or the use of them by the Laity, that in the year 1408, he made this famous De∣cree in the Synod of Oxford, Periculosa res est, &c. It is a dangerous thing to translate the H. Scripture.—We decree therefore and ordain, That henceforth no man by his own authority translate any Book of H. Scripture into the English or any other Tongue, by way of Book, Libel, or Treatise; and that no such Book or Translation be read by any one, upon pain of the higher Excommunication. I might also observe to you, That the Case of Archbishop Chichely, which you had mentioned immediately before this, is mi∣staken, he doing therein nothing more than what was usual; as also the Case of Archbishop Islip, who decreed in the Case by you mentioned, nothing but what was consonant to the Rules of Canon Law, and the Papal Definitions; it being

a Rule in both, that Simplex Votum impedit matrimonium contrahendum, sed non dirimit contractum. But I fear I have been too long already. I will only put you farther in mind, that when in the following Pages you compare the Archbishops of Can∣terbury preceding to, and succeeding the Reformation, and accuse the former to have minded chiefly great Worldly Pomp and Appearance; but praise the latter for regarding littl•• or nothing the vain shews of exterior Grandeur and Glory; the Compa∣rison is not altogether just: For Parker and Whitgift (whom you chuse to instance in) lived in as great State, Pomp, and Magnificence, and were attended with as large a Retinue, as most of their Predecessors. And that in your Preface, page 7. instead of an Augustine Monk of Canterbury, should be substituted, a Monk of St. Au∣gustines in Canterbury. And lastly, That Page 11. Edward Howes should (if I mi∣stake not) be changed into Edmund Howes.

These, Sir, are the only Errors which I have discovered in your Hi∣story. That the Observation of them may in any measure contribute to the Illustration of your Work, (as I doubt not but your Work will highly con∣tribute to the Information of the Curious, and the Iustification of our Re∣formation) is the Hearty Desire of,

SIR, Your most Humble Servant, HEN. WHARTON.

Novemb. 13. 1693.