comparison, however be called them by the Name of Schifm, and that they little troubled the State of the Church; while be named one as divers from other in Opinion in one Point, and falfely furmifed of another (meaning the Archbishop) to be a Lutheran.

Now I take it for granted, that Mr. Strype's Quotations from Dorman and Nowell are true. And if fo; as Dean Nowell, who was Prolocutor of the Lower House in this very Convocation, had good reafon to deny, that Archbishop Parker was a Lutheran (for the Archbishop had actually fubfcrib'd the Twenty ninth Article, as appears by the Bennet College MS. and had made the Reference to St. Auftin with his own Hand: by which 'twas evident,that he could not believe Confubftantiation)fo he dares not to deny, but does in Effect own, what Dorman faid with relation to the Bishops of London and Rochefter. And confequently 'tis highly probable, that Bishop Geft might at that time fcruple the Doctrine of the Twenty ninth Article, and for that Reafon refuse Subscription. Tho' he came off from those Notions afterwards (as diverfe Perfons in those early Daies entertain'd different Opinions at different Times about the Sacrament) and fubfcrib'd that ve Article in the Convocation of 1571, as appears ry by the Bennet College English MS. fubfcrib'd in that Year by him and ten other Bishops.

As for Cheny the Bishop of Glocefter, he probably refufed Subfcription for the fame Reafon. For Mr. Strype (c) has thefe Paffages concerning him ; The Archbishop of Canterbury iffued out a Commiffion to him, under the Title of Bishop of Glocefter, and Commendatory of the Cathedral Church of Bristol, appointing þim bis Vicar-General, Delegate, and Commissary-General

(F) Annals, Ch. 25. p. 245, 246.

in Spirituals, and Keeper of the Spiritualty of the City and Diocese of Briftol: To vifit the Church of Bristol, &c. And this during the Vacancy of the See. This Commiffion was dated at Lambeth, May 3. But it was not long before this Commiffion was taken away from him again by the Archbishop, difliking most probably fome of his Principles and Opinions. At which Bishop Cheny took fuch "diftaft, that he wrote to Sir Will. Cecil to release him of the Bishoprick of Glocefter. And in September be renewed his Requeft, that he might have leave to resign his Office, confidering the Furifdiction of Bristol was taken from him and fuch Preaching in the Rafh and Ignorant, he faid, was continued in Glocefter Diocefe, as his poor Confcience could not think to be good. What this Preaching was, we may guess, and but guess at, by the Remembrance of a former Bishop there; namely Hoper; who did not much affect Ceremonies, either of Habits or Ornaments of Religion, nor allowed of any manner of Corporeal Prefence in the Sacrament: Which Sentiments most probably were by bim or his Chaplains fo diligently fown in that Diocese, that much of them remained to this Day; Opinions, by no means liked of by Bishop Cheny, who was, as Camden faith of bim, moft addicted to Luther, both in respect, I suppose, of the Doctrine of the Prefence, as alfo for the retaining of many old Cuftoms, as Crucifixes and Pictures of Saints in the Churches, and fuch like. He had made fome Complaints to the Archbishop of rafh Preaching, when he was at London; and the Archbishop promifed him Countenance in fuppreffing it. And accordingly he had a Commission from bis Grace, as was before faid. But after some short time be and his Principles were better known, and less approved Which caufed the Archbishop, as we may conclude, to withdraw his Commiffion. This made him tell the Secretary, that his Grace of Canterbury acted contrary to bis Promife with him.

And

And (d) again; In the Synod in April, Anno 1571. be was folemnly denounced Excommunicate by the Prefident, the Lord Archbishop himself, for Abfence and Contumacy, in Henry the Seventh's Chapel, before the whole Synod.

And (e) again; One of his Succeffors in the See of Glocefter, named Godfrey Goodman (who indeed turned Papift) in a certain MS. Book of his own writing, makes the World believe, that this Bishop Cheney was a Papift, and was fufpended in the Court of Arches for Popery, and had brought up his Servants Papifts. But I do not find any where, that he was indeed of that Faith any further than that he was for the Real, that is, the Corporeal, Prefence of Chrift in the Sacrament. By a Letter wrote unto him in November, 1571. by Campian the Jefuit, who knew him well, we rather collect the contrary. For therein he earnestly exhorted him to return to the Church That he was more tolerable than the rest of the Hereticks, because be held the Prefence of Chrift in the Altar, profeffed the Freedom of Man's Will, and punished not Catholicks in his Diocefe; whereby he got the Hatred of the Puritans ; get be tells him that he was Hæreticorum Odium & Catholicorum Pudor; that is, fuch a one as the Hereticks hated, and the Catholicks were afhamed of. And bis Sufpenfion, which is spoken of (if true) related, no Queftion, partly to his being in the Queen's Debt, partly to his Lutheran Doctrine, but chiefly to his Excommunication.

And (f) again; On this he built his Real Prefence in the Sacrament; because this was the ancient Faith, and the Chriftian World, and the Company of Bishops, who were the Keepers of that which was committed to the Church (Cuftodes Depofiti) held this Doctrine.

(d) p. 246. (e) P. 247. (f) P. 248;

Nor

Chap. V. Nor do I believe, that Bishop Cheny did ever fubscribe the Twenty ninth Article. For tho' the 13 Eliz. c. 12. obliged the inferior Clergy to Subfcription; yet the Bishops are exempted from that Neceffity by the very Letter of the Act.

As for the Subfcriptions of the Bishops of Chiche fter, Worcester, and Peterborough, together with those of the Archbishop of York, and his Suffragans of Durham and Chefter, which appear in the MS. they were probably very foon added, tho' perhaps not on the 29th of January, but on fome one or more other Daies; there being no reafon to affix a different Date of their Subfcriptions, tho' fubfequent to thofe made on the 29th of January; this being agreeable to what is commonly practis'd in numberlefs other Cafes; and what was certainly done in this very Cafe by the inferior Clergy, as appears from thofe Paffages, which I fhall produce in the next Chapter. The Bishops of Chichester and Peterborough were in the Synod on Feb. 3. and the Bishop of Worcester on Feb. 5. I prefume therefore, that they fubfcrib'd at their first Appearance after the 29th of January, when the Subfcription began. But I can't guess at the Day, on which the Archbishop of York, with his Suffragans of Durham and Chester fubfcrib'd: nor can I guess, in what Place they did it for the Acts do not mention, that they were ever present in Synod.

С НА Р.

CH V P. VI.

Of the Subfcriptions of the Inferior Clergy.

EXT to that firft Parcel of fix Sheets of Pa

NEXT

per, which contains the Articles fubcribed by the Bishops on Jan. 29. 1562, there follows, in the Volume Synodalia, a fecond Parcel of two Sheets only, folded one within another, Folio wife, of the the very fame fort of Paper with the firft, third,fifth and fixth Sheets of the first Parcel.

The two firft Pages of the outer Sheet (being the whole first Leaf) are blank.

Then,in the upper part of the third Page (which is the firft Page of the inner Sheet) are thefe Words (probably in the Hand of the Actuary of the Lower House; however, in a different Hand from that in which the Articles fubfcribed by the Upper House are writen) Hi quorum nomina fequuntur propriis manibus fubfcripferunt libello articulorum a Reverendiffimo Archiep. Cant. & Epifc. provincia Cantuar. ad infer. Domum Convocat, tranfmiffo 50 Feb. 1562.

Then follow the Subfcriptions of the Clergy: concerning which I muft advertise the Reader, 1. That tho' I fhall exprefs their furnames with as much Exactnefs as I am able; yet I do not oblige my felf conftantly to exprefs every Letter of their Christian Names at large, nor to give their Titles exactly as they stand in the Original. I may print the Words fometimes fhorter and fometimes more at Length, than the Perfons themfelves wrote them :. and in fuch Cafes I think it fufficient, if the Reader understands them. However, if any odd or falle Spelling appear in the Print, 'tis certainly to be

found