The appeal of iniured innocence, unto the religious learned and ingenuous reader in a controversie betwixt the animadvertor, Dr. Peter Heylyn, and the author, Thomas Fuller.

PART I.

Dr. Heylyn.

IN order to the first conversion of the British Nation, our Author takes be∣ginning at the sad condition they vvere in, before the Christian Faith was prea∣ched unto them.] And in a sad condition they were indeed, as being in the state of Gentilism, and consequently without the true knowledge of the God that made them.

Fuller.

The Author takes beginning vvhere Dr. Heylyn himself, had he writ the Church-History of Brittain, I believe, would, and I am sure should, have begun. And seeing he concurreth vvith the Author in the same expression, that the Brittains were in a sad condition, he might have spared himself and his Reader the trouble, of the following impertinency.

Dr. Heylyn.

But yet they were not in a worse condition then the other Gentiles, &c.

Fuller.

Nor did I ever say they vvere. Had I said so, the Doctor's carping had had a handle to hold on, vvhereas novv his teeth and nails must bite and scratch a fastning for themselves.

Dr. Heylyn.

But yet not in a vvorse condition then the other Gentiles, vvho vvere not one∣ly darkened in their understanding, but so deprav'd also in their affections, as to work all manner of uncleanness even with greediness. Not so effeminate in their conversation as the Asiaticks, nor so luxurious as the Greeks, nor branded with those filthy and unnaturall lusts which St. Paul chargeth on the Romans, and were in ordinary practise with most Eastern Nations.

Fuller.

What of all this? It is said of King * 1.1 Ioram, He wrought evill in the sight of the Lord, but not like his father and like his mother. It is said of King * 1.2 Hoshea, He did that which was evill in the sight of the Lord, but not as the Kings of Israel that were before him. It doth not follow, that these Kings were good, because less bad then others. So that my words stand an un-shakened truth, that the Brittains be∣fore their conversion were (though not so debauched as other Heathens) Idola∣ters, in a sad condition.

Dr. Heylyn.

And though they were Idolaters, yea, and foul ones, as our Author hath it; yet neither, &c.

Fuller.

If they were Idolaters, they must be foul ones, except (as one hath fancied a tale of a fair Aethiopian) any could make a truth of fair Idolaters.

Dr. Heylyn.

Yet neither were their gods of so brutish and impure a nature, as the Pria∣pus, Cloacina, and Stercutia amongst the Romans; or as their Venus, Flora, Lupa, common Harlots. All of vvhich, and such like other gods, the old Fathers tell

us, that they vvere not nomina Colendorum, sed crimina Colentium. Nor vvere they so immodest and obscene in their rites and ceremonies, as were the Greeks and Romans, in the Sacrifices to their Cybele or Berecynthia, vvhom they call the mother of the gods; described by Arnobius, Lactantius, and others of the antient Writers, in such lively colours, as no chaste eye can look upon them without detestation.

Fuller.

Well may the Doctor run apace, drawing an empty Cart after him. What is all this to confute my position, that the unconverted Brittains, foul Idolaters, were in a sad condition? It seems he had a mind to tell the world of the foulest Idolls amongst the Romans; and, if so, let them thank him for his intelligence, who knew it not before.

Dr. Heylyn.

And for the number of their gods, they fell extreamly short of that infinite multitude, which St. Augustine finds amongst the Romans, our Author naming onely three, (which he calls gods paramount) that is to say, BELINUS, AN∣DATE, and DIANA.

Fuller.

If they had onely three gods, they had two too many, However, it will appear, that these were onely (as the Author phraseth them) Paramount▪ That they fell not (to use the Doctor's words) extreamly short (a virtuous ex∣tream) of the Romans in their Idolatry, may thus be proved.

They that had Idolls almost exceeding the Aegyptians in number, fell not much short of the Romans.

But the antient Brittains almost exceeded the Aegyptians in number of Idolls.

Therefore they fell not much short of the Romans.

The Major is plain in Scripture, often complaining of the Idols of Aegypt; as also in human Writers, Iuvenal jeering the Aegyptians, for being over-stocked with such kind of cattle, whose gods (Leeks and Onyons) did commonly grow in their Gardens.

The Minor are the very words of grave Gildas, the most antient Brittish Wri∣ter, (flourishing Anno Domini 580.) Portenta pene numero Aegyptiaca vincentia. Where, in few words, we have the Numerosity and Monstrosity of the Brittish Idols. Numerosity, almost exceeding the Aegyptians; Monstrosity, called Portents, mishapen Anticks of prodigious deformity.

Dr. Heylyn.

When therefore Gildas telleth us of the antient Brittains, that in the number of their gods they had almost exceeded Aegypt, (Portenta pene numero Aegyptiaca vincentia, in that Author's language) it must be understood with reference to the Times in which he lived, when all the Roman Rabble had been thrust upon them, and not as speaking of the time of their first Conversion.

Fuller.

Satis pro Imperio, MUST is for a King; and seeing the Doctor and I are both Kings alike, I return, He MUST NOT be so understood; as, to any judicious and indifferent Reader will appear.

For the clearing hereof, I will present and translate the words of Gildas, with what precedeth and followeth them, conducing effectually to the true understanding of this clause controverted. I use the first and best printed Editi∣on, set forth by Polydore Virgil 1523. and Dedicated to Cuthbert Tonstall, then the learned Bishop of London, Onely because I suspect, that some Readers will be out of breath in going along with the long-winded style of Gildas, (the excusable fault of the Age he lived in) I crave leave to divide his long and entire Sen∣tence,

for the better understanding thereof, into severall parcells, without the least addition thereto, or alteration thereof.

Gildas Folio primo.

Igitur omittens priscos illos com∣munesque cum omnibus gentibus, erro∣res, quibus ante adventum Christi in carne omne humanum genus obligabatur adstrictum.

Nec enumerans PATRIAE POR∣TENTA ipsa diabolica pene numero Aegyptiaca vincentia, quorum nonnulla lineamentis adhuc deformibus intra vel extra deserta moenia solito more rigentia, torvis vultibus intuemur.

Neque nominatim inclamitans Mon∣tes ipsos aut Colles, vel Fluvios (olim exi∣tiabiles, nunc vero humanis usibus utiles) quibus divinus Honor à caeco tunc populo cumulabatur.

Et tacens vetustos immanium Tyran∣norum Annos, qui in aliis longe positis Regionibus vulgati sunt, ità ut Porphy∣rius, rabidus orientalis adversus Ecclesi∣am canis, dementiae suae ac vanitatis stylo hoc etiam adnecteret, Britannia, inquiens, fertilis Provincia Tyrannorum.

Illa tanium proferre conabor in medi∣um, quae temporibus Romanorum Impera∣torum & passa est, & aliis intulit Civibus & longe positis, mala.

Gilda first Leafe.

Omitting therefore those old Errors, and common [to the Brittains] with other Nations, to which all Mankind was tyed and fettered, before the comming of Christ in the flesh.

Nor reckoning up those very de∣villish PORTENTS of our own COUNTRY, almost exceeding those of Aegypt in Number; some where∣of we, with frowning eyes, do still behold, drawn with deformed shapes within or without our desert Walls.

Nor calling upon by name the Mountains themselves, or Hills, or Rivers, (in times past deadly, now profitable to mans use) on which di∣vine honour was then heaped up by the blind people.

And passing over in silence the an∣tient years of those vast Tyrants, which are commonly spoken of in other far-distant Countries; so that Porphyrius (that raging Dog of the East against the Church) in the style of his madness and vanity, addeth this also, Brittain (saith he) a fruitfull Pro∣vince of Tyrants.

I will onely endeavour publickly to proffer such evils, as she [Brittain] in the times of the Roman Emperours both suffered in her self, and impres∣sed on her People placed far off.

See here this Prolixe sentence of Gildas, built (as I may say) five stories high; the four first are of Privation, or Preterition, of what he will not meddle with; the fifth and last, of Position, whereon he would insist. He would not reckon the Brittish Errors common with others, nor Patriae Portenta, the Portentive Idolls of their Country, which plainly decideth the thing in controversie, that those their Idolls were Indigenae, non Advenae; Natives, not Forraigners, of Brittish originati∣on, not Roman superinduction. His method plainly proveth, that these Subjects which he declineth to treat of, were all of them precedaneous to the Romans comming into Brittain, whence he beginneth his History. I mention not the Marginal Note of Polydore Virgil, (placed over against the words of Gildas) Ve∣terum Britannorum vana Religio, The vain Religion of the old Brittains. The rest of his Testimony we leave lying in the Deck, and it will not be long before we shall make use thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

But whether their Idols were more or fewer, our Author is resolved on DIA∣NA for one though whether this were a Brittish deity may be more then que∣stioned, whose Temple was built in, or near the place, where St. Pauls now stands, as our learned Antiquaries do acknowledge.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor doth confesse, that the Brittans did worship Diana: But whether she was one of the latter brood of Idols, brought in by the Romans at their Conquest; or hatched long before amongst the Brittains, as their own Coun∣try-goddess, is the Question. I am confident in the latter.

The Brittish Stories tell us, that Brutus (some hundred of years before the Ro∣mans arrived here) being upon his Sea-voyage to seek his fortune, repaired to the Temple of Diana, in an Island called Largeria, and there addressing him∣self to her Temple, was in a dream not onely instructed in the manner of her sacrifices, and rituall services; but also directed to an Island in the West, now Brittain, where his Posterity should fix themselves in happiness. And that this passeth for currant amongst the Welch, I report my self to their learned Gentry, the proper judges thereof.

Let me add this Passage from the Pen of as great an Antiquary, as any Wales now doth enjoy.

As for the name of Diana, I do conceive that she was called Dain in our Language; and I have many Histories of our Nation, that seem to make no que∣stion of it. To this day in Wales, fatt marketable Cattle are called Guartheg Demol; that is to say, Diana's Cattle, or, Cattle fit to be sacrificed, &c. And I am more then confident, there is no man living can put any other interpre∣tation upon this word Demol; it must be an Adjective of Dain, and Dain hath no other signification in our Language, then the name of Diana.

Dr. Heylyn.

This Temple of Diana in London (saith the Author) rendreth their conceit not altogether unlikely, who will have London so called from L••an-Dian, which signifieth in Brittish, the Temple of Diana.] A conceit, whosesoever it was, not altogether so likely neither as the Author makes it.

Fuller.

No cautiousness of proof against captiousness. I called it but a conceit, I said not that it was true; yea, my words left an insinuation of unlikeliness to an indif∣ferent Reader. But seeing the Animadvertor is so hard-hearted to an innocent conceit, I shall ever hereafter love it the better.

Dr. Heylyn.

A conceit, LONDON from LLAN-DIAN, whosesoever it was; not altoge∣ther so likely neither as the Author makes it. For though the Brittains being well stored with Wood and Venison, possibly might have a Hunting-goddess amongst the rest. Yet certainly she was not called by the name of Diana, till the Roman Conquest and Plantations, before which time this City had the name of London, (or Londinum) as we read in Tacitus. The name and sacrifices of Diana were not originally Brittish, but of Roman race, as the great Temple in or near the place where St. Pauls now stands, was of their foundation. The Brittains, worshipping Apollo by the name of Belinus, as both Cambden and our Author say they did, must be supposed to have another name for Diana also, and were more likely to have called her by the name of Artemis, her old Grecian name, or by some other of as near a resemblance to it, as Belinus was to that of Bel in the Eastern Countries. Assuredly, if that great City had received its name from Diana's Tem∣ple, the Welch being so tenacious of their antient Language, would have had some remembrance of it, who to this day call it Lundayn, and not LLAN-DIAN, according to the new conceit which our Author speaks of. But of this enough.

Fuller.

Yea indeed, too much. So may you say, A surfeit is enough. Whosesoever this con∣ceit was.] I had thought the Animadvertor could not have been ignorant thereof, being no meaner a man than Mr. Selden.

This learned Antiquary, after he had alledged some Verses out of Robert of Glocester, deriving the name of LONDON, quasi LUD'S TOWN, from LUD, he proceedeth as followeth;

In his Notes on the eighth SONG in POLYOLBION, Page 126.

Iudicious Reform••rs of fabulous Report, I know, have more serious derivations of the name; and, seeing conjecture is free, I could imagine, it might be called at first LHAN-DIEN, 1. the Temple of Diana, as LHAN-DEWI, LHAN-STEPHAN, LHAN-PADERN VAUR, LHAN-VAIR. i. e. S. Dewys, S. Stephans, S. Pa∣tern the great, S. Mary (and Verulam, is by H. Lhuid derived from VER-LHAN, i. e. the Church upon the River Ver) with divers more such places in Wales: and so afterwards by strangers turned into Londinium, and the like. For that Diana and her brother Apollo (under the name of Belin) were two great deities amongst the Britons.

If the Animadvertor hath a mind to enter the List with Mr. Selden, and have a vennue with him, to try whose skill is most and weapon best; he may, if he pleaseth.

Dr. Heylyn.

Now to facilitate this great work of their Conversion, Cambden and Godwin, two great Antiquaries, have alledged one reason, which is not allowed of by our Author; and our Author hath alledged another reason, which none can al∣low of but himself. The reason alledged by the two great Antiquaries, is, that the Druides did instruct the Brittains in the knowledge of One onely God, which que∣stionlesse was a great step to their Conversion. Druides unum esse Deum semper in∣culcârunt, saith our Author's Margin. But this he reckoneth a mistake, and thus charitably wisheth thereupon, viz.

May their mistake herein be as freely forgiven them, as I hope and desire, that the charitable Reader will with his pardon meet those unvoluntary errors, which in this work by me shall be committed.

Whether all the errors of our Author be involuntary, or not, (for I grant that some of them may be such) will be seen hereafter.

Fuller.

In good time, Sir. But till this [hereafter] cometh, Iudge not, lest you be judged; and think charitably, that a Christian will not willingly, wittingly, and wilfully run into errors.

Dr. Heylyn.

But whether those two learned Pens were mistaken or not, shall be now exa∣mined. I conceive clearly, that they were not mistaken in it, it being first improbable, if not impossible, that two Men of such Parts and Learning, and of such eminent integrity in all their Writings, should vent a Proposition, or position rather, which they have no ground for.

Fuller.

They were learned Pens indeed, as ever our Nation bred, in their kind of Studies; and great Antiquaries. But onely the * ANTIENT OF DAIES is Omniscient and Infallible. And I am confident, such was their Ingenuity, that they would rather be thankfull to, than angry with any, who, with due respect to their persons, should discover their mistakes. Amongst which, this was one, that the DRUIDES instructed the Brittains in the knowledge of one God.

The contrary doth plainly appear by the testimony of Gildas, lately alledged, whose words are so walled about (as I may say) on both sides, by what went

before, and after that, as they cannot be evaded, they cannot be perverted to other reference, than relating unto the Religion of the antient Brittains, long before the entrance of the Romans into this Island; who, besides a numerous rabblement of portentous Idolls, gave divine honour to Mountains, Hills, and Rivers. Nothing can be more diametrically opposite to the worship of One God, than such gross and generally diffused Polytheism.

Add to the authority of Gildas that of Origen, thus writing in his fourth Ho∣mily on Ezekiel.

Confitentur & miserabiles Iudaei haec de Christi presentia praedicari; sed stultè ignorant personam, cum videant impleta quae dicta sunt. Quando enim terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem? Quando ter∣ra Maurorum, &c.

All judicious Readers easily understand this Interrogation, [When did the Land of Brittain, before the comming of Christ, consent in the Religion of one God?] I say, all do understand, that this his question asked, and left unanswered, amoun∣teth unto a very strong Negation; and, that before the comming of Christ, Brittain was divided into the worshipping of many gods.

Dr. Heylyn.

And secondly our Author tells of the Druides, that they were Philosophers, Divines, and Lawyers, to the rest of the Brittains; and if Philosophers, they might by their long study in the book of Nature, and their Industrious inquiry into naturall Causes, attaine unto the knowledge of that one and onely Superna∣turall Cause, (as others of the Heathen Philosophers in their severall Countries,) from which the works of Nature had their first Originall. And of some other the old Philosophers, it is said expresly by Minutius, that they had spoken so divinely of the things of God; ut quivis arbitretur aut nunc Christianos Philoso∣phos esse, aut Philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos. So little was the difference in that particular, between these old Philosophers and the Primitive Christians. For though they did admit a multitude of Inferiour Gods, Topical in respect of Countries, and Tutelar in respect of particular Persons; yet in the middle of that darknesse they discerned one Supreme God over all the rest, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Grecians; Hominum Sator atque Deorum, as the Latines call him. And though they were mistaken in the name of that Supream Power, whom generally they entituled by the name of Iupiter, yet they did well e∣nough agree in giving him the Supream Power over all the world. Et qui Iovem principem volunt falluntur in nomine, sed de ea potestate consentiunt, as my Au∣thor hath it. Nor did those old Philosophers keep the great truth unto them∣selves, like a Candle in a dark-Lanthorn, or hid under a bushell; but plac'd it like a great Light on the top of a Mountain, that all the people might discern it; who thereupon lifting their hands unto the Heavens, did frequently make their addresses but to one God onely, saying in common SPEECH unto one another, that God was great, and God was true, and, If God permit. Of which, my Author (the same Christian Advocate) seems to make a question; Vulgi iste na∣turalis sermo est, an Christiani confitentis oratio? that is to say, Whether these expressions favoured not rather of the Christian, than the vulgar Heathen. And hereupon I may conclude in the behalf of the Druides, (or rather of those lear∣ned Pens who affirm it of them) that being Philosophers in Study, and Divines by Office, and very eminent in their times in both capacities, they might as well instruct the People in the knowledge of one onely God, as any other of the Heathen Sages, either Greeks or Romans. The reason alledged by these great Antiquaries being thus made good, we next proceed to the examination of that which is produced by our Author.

Fuller.

In this long Harangue, I know not what the Animadvertor aimes at; this I know, he hits not me, nor alledgeth any thing in opposition to what I have

written. If he desireth onely to prove, that the refined Heathens worshipped one God above all the rest, he shall not onely have my free consent, but the adjection of this my Symbole thereunto.

I conceive, that the Pagans adored the Essence of God under the name of Iupiter: and his Attributes under other Titles; Wisdom, of Apollo; Omni-pre∣sence, Swiftnes of Mercury; Power, of Mars; Beauty, of Venus; Providence over the Sea, Neptune; Winds, Aeolus; Catile, Pan, &c. Yet can I not see, how this can excuse them from being foul Idolaters, seeing the morall Commandement doth not say, Thou shalt not have other gods in equall degree of worship with me; but, * 3.1 Thou shalt not have other gods before me: and the Animadvertor knoweth well, that the Originall importeth, Coram me, that is, Thou shalt have none other in my sight or presence.

Now for quietnesse sake, let the result of this long discourse (so far as I can understand) be granted him, and it amounts to no more, then to put the Brit∣tains in the same form with the Grecians; instructed by their Druids in the wor∣ship of one God, as well and as far as the Grecians were in the same Lesson by their Philosophers. Now what the Grecians held and did in this point, will ap∣pear by the practise of the Athenians, whose City was the Mistris of Greece, Staple of Learning, and Palace of Philosophers; and how well the Athenians worshipped one God, we have from the infallible witness of St. * 3.2 Paul, whose spirit was stirred within him, whilst he saw the City wholly given to idolatry. Whence it will follow, that the Brittaines, form-fellowes with the Grecians, were wholly given to Idolatry: which is as much, and more then I said before.

And now the Reader may judge, what progress the Animadvertor hath made in confuting what I have written; yea, less then the Beast Pigritia in Brasil, which, as he telleth us * 3.3 elsewhere, goeth not so far in fourteen daies, as one may throw a stone. Yea, our Adversary hath not gone at all, (save back∣ward) and if he doth not mend his pace, it will be late before he commeth to his lodging.

Here let me mind the Animadvertor, that my Church-History thus begin∣neth; That we may the more freely and fully pay the tribute of our thanks to Gods goodness, for the Gospell which we now enjoy; let us recount the sad condition of the Brittains, our Predecessors, before the Christian faith was preached unto them. If there∣fore the Animadvertor by his tedious discourse, endeavouring to UN-IDO∣LATRIZE the Brittains as much as he could; I say, if hereby he hath hindred or lessened any mans paying of his thanks to God, he hath done a thankless office both to God and Man therein.

Dr Heylyn.

Our Author proceedeth, fol. 3. It facilitated the entrance of the Gospell hither, that lately the Roman Conquest had in part civilized the South of this Island, by transporting Colonies, and erecting of Cities there.] Than which, there could not any thing be said more different from the truth of story, or from the time of that Conversion, which we have in hand; performed, as all our latter Writers (and amongst them our Author himself) have affirmed from Gildas, who lived in the fourth Century of the Christian Church) Tempore summo Tiberii Caesa∣ris, toward the latter end of the Reigne of Tiberius Cesar, that is to say, about thirty seven years after Christs Nativity, at what time the Romans had neither erected any one City, nor planted any one Colony in the South parts of the Island. For though Iulius Cesar, in pursuance of his Gallick Conquest, had at∣tempted this Island, crossed the Thames, and pierced as far as Verulamium, in the County of the Cattieuchlani, (now Hartfordshire) yet either finding how difficult a work it was like to prove, or having business of more moment, he gave over the enterprize, resting contented with the honour of the first disco∣very. Et ostendisse potiùs quàm trad disse, as we read in Tacitus. Nothing done af∣ter this in order to the Conquest of Brittain, untill the time of Claudius. Au∣gustus would by no means be perswaded to the undertaking, and much less

Tiberius, in whose last years the Gospell was first preach'd in Brittain, as before was said. * 3.4 Concilium id Divus Augustus vocabat, Tiberius praecipue. And though Caligula, leaving the honour of this Conquest to his Uncle Claudius, who next succeeded in the Empire; and being invited into Brittain by a discontented par∣ty amongst the Natives, reduc'd some part thereof into the form of a Roman Province. Of this, see Tacitus at large, in the life of Agricola. By which it will appear most clearly, that there was neither City of the Romans erection, nor Co∣lony of their plantation, till the time of Claudius, and consequently no such fa∣cilitating of the work, by either of those means which our Author dreams of. But from the Time, proceed we to the Author of this first Conversion, of which thus our Author.

Fuller.

In the first place, know, Reader, that Mr. Burton, in his late learned Notes on Antoninus, justifieth, that Iulius Cesar did Colonize (what ever the Anim∣advertor saith to the contrary) some part of this Land; otherwise, his whole Conquest would have unraveled after his departure, and his Successors had had their work to begin afresh.

2ly. I say not, the first entrance, but, the Entrance of the Gospell was facilitated by the Roman Conquest. The entrance of the Gospell into this Island was so far from being done in an instant, or, simul & semel, that it was not, res unius se∣culi, the product of one age; but was successively done, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at sundry times, and in divers manners. So that this extensive entrance of the Christian Religion, gradually insinuating it self, took up a century of years, from the latter end of Tiberius, and so forwards.

Christianity entred not into this Island like Lightning, but like light. None can behold this Essay thereof in the time of Tiberius, otherwise then a mor∣ning-Star; some forty years after the day dawned; and lastly, under King Lucius, (that Leuer-Maure, or the great light) the Sun of Religion may be siad to arise; before which time, the South of this Island was sufficiently Colonized by the Romans, whereby Commerce and Civility ushered Christianity into Brittain. Yet to clear my words, not from untruth in themselves, but mistakes in others, and to avoid all appearance of falshood, it shall be altered (God-willing) in the next Edition. It facilitated the entrance and propagation of the Gospell here, &c.

Dr. Heylyn.

Parsons the Iesuite mainly stickleth for the Apostle Peter to have first preached the Gospell here. And our Author doth as mainly stickle against it. The Reason which induced Parsons so to stickle in it, was, as our Author thinks and telleth us, fol. 4. to infer an Obligation of this Island to the See of Rome. And to exempt this Island from that Obligation, our Author hath endeavoured to disprove the Tradition.

Fuller.

That the Iesuite furiously driveth on that designe▪ appeareth to any that per∣use his Works, and your Author conceiveth his owne Endeavours lawfull and usefull in stopping his full Carrere, and disobliging the Church of England from a Debt as uniustly pretended, as vehemently prosecuted.

Et veniam pro laude petit; laudatus abun••e, Non fastiditus, si tuus Author erit. Your Author for his praise doth pardon crave; If not despis'd, his praise enough shall have.

It is therefore but hard measure, for you to require his good intentions, (if failing in successe) with contempt and reproach.

Dr. Heylyn.

Whereas indeed St. Peters preaching in this Island, (if he were the first that preach't here) in the Time of Tiberius, must be before his Preaching in the Cit∣ty

of Rome, to which he came not till the Reigne of the Emperour Claudius. And thereupon it followeth by the Iesuit's Logick, that the Brittains by spa∣ring their Apostle to preach at Rome, did lay an Obligation upon that Citty, but received none from it.

Fuller.

Yea but if Simeon * 3.5 Metaphrastes be to be believed (on whose testimony Parsons Principally relieth) being the selfe same Author, whom the Animadvertor within few lines hereafter doth so highly commend and extoll, St. Peter prea∣ched here, not before, but long after his being at Rome; and but a little before his Death, namely in the twelfth year of Nero Cesar.

Dr. Heylyn.

Or granting that St. Peter did first preach at Rome, yet would this draw up∣on us no such engagement to the Pope, and the Church of Rome, as our Author fears; and other German Nations by Boniface, Willibade, Willibad, Willibidd, and Swibert, English Saxons all, might or did draw the like Dependance of those Churches, upon this of England.

Fuller.

The proportion, I confesse, is Good and well-grounded: but I answer, great the difference betwixt the Natures of England and Rome. England never pretended Superiority over other Churches, which Rome doth, prosecuting even Shadowy pretences with all violence. What the Talent-hiding servant said of his Master, may be justly said of moderne Rome, She reapeth where she hath not strowed; demanding Officium, where she never bestow'd Beneficium, and requi∣ring duty where she never conferred Courtesie. Rome therefore being no faire Creditor, but so cruell an Extortioner, I conceive my paines well imployed, to quit England from a Debt of Obligation, unjustly exacted of her by Parsons the Iesuite, on the pretence of St. Peter's preaching here.

Dr. Heylyn.

So that this fear being overblown, we will consider somewhat further of St. Peters first Preaching in this Island, not as deliver'd by Tradition from the Church of Rome, which is suspected to have pleaded their own Interest in it; but as affirmed positively by the Greek Menologies, and in the works of Simeon Metaphrastes an approved Greek Author. Of the Menologies (though vouched by Camden to this purpose) our Author takes no notice at all, but lets the weight of his displeasure fall on Metaphrastes.

Fuller.

The best way to over-blow this feare is to confute the five Arguments alled∣ged by Parsons, for St. Peters Preaching here, which I hope is done effectually by me in my Church-History, where I follow the Iesuite verbatim, in answering to his Reasons. And this is the Reason that I took no notice of the Greek Meno∣logies, because not mentioned by Parsons: whence I collect that either he had never seen them, (which is very improbable,) or else he conceived, that no great beliefe was to be given unto them, or advantage thereby to be gotten for his Cause.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author saith, Metaphrastes is an Au••hor of no Credit, as Baronius himselfe doth confesse. But first, Baronius himselfe makes no such Confession, that which our Author tells us from him being onely this, In alijs multis ibi ab ipso positis errare eum certum est; that is to say, that he hath err'd in many things by him delivered. Assuredly if to erre in many things delivered in so great a Work, as that of Simon Metaphrastes, may forthwith be conceived sufficient to

make an Author of no Credit, God blesse not onely our Historian, but Baronius him∣selfe from being held Authors of no Credit, in both whom there are many Er∣rours not possible to be reconciled to the Truth of Story.

Fuller.

THREE is a perfect Number, let therefore the Animadvertor be put in also, partly to make up a Compleate company; partly that he may have the Benefit of his owne JEAR-PRAYERS to himselfe.

Baronius being Dead, to pray for him, is Popery; and to take God's Name in vain (to Jear us both) is Prophanenesse. The Animadvertor who now inserts, GOD-BLESSE, when it might have been omitted, will omit it when it should be inserted; as God willing I shall take notice of in due time and place hereafter.

Dr. Heylyn.

But secondly, as Baronius did not, so he could not say, that Metaphrastes was an Author of no credit: the Man being not onely pious, but Learned also, for the times wherein he lived; honoured as a Saint in the Greek Menologies, on the 27. day of November, and graced with a Funeral Oration by Michael Psellus a Renouned Scholler, highly extolled by Balsamon for his paines and industry in this present work, and no lesse magnified by the Fathers in the Councill of Florence, Anno. 1436. All which had never set such an Estimate upon him in their severall Times, had he been an Author of no Credit as our Author makes him.

Fuller.

I shall hereafter have an higher esteem for Metaphrastes. However, to re∣turn to the words of Baronius, which (in the last Note) gave the occasion of this contest.

In aliis multis IBI ab ipso positis errare eum certum est: It is certain that he hath er∣red in many things THERE delivered by him. The Animadvertor in his Translati∣on omitteth THERE, the most emphaticall word in the whole Sentence, see∣ing, granting Metaphrastes a good Author in other things, he is erroneous in this particular.

Dr. Heylyn.

I had now ended with St. Peter, but that I find him appear in a vision to King Edward the Confessor, and telling him, That he had preached the Gos∣pell in Brittain, (occasioning thereby the foundation of the Abbey of St. Peter in Westminster.) To which our Author makes this answer, To this vision pretended of Peter, we oppose the certain words of St. Paul, 1 Tim. 4.1. Neither give heed to fables.

What a pitty is it, that this apparition was not made, and the same tale told over again, to Thomas Fuller of Hammersmith, that so it might have found some credit with our Author, though with no body else.

Fuller.

Nay rather, what a pitty was it, that this Apparition of St. Peter was not made unto his name-sake Peter, (here the Animadvertor) and then all had been authentick indeed.

Dr. Heylyn.

For of this, Thomas Fuller our Author telleth us, (and telleth it in confirmation of some Miracles done by King Henry the sixth after his decease) that being a very honest man, he hapned into the company of some who had stoln some Cattle, for which he was condemned and executed; and being on the top of the Ladder, King Henry the sixth appeared unto him, and so ordered the matter, that he was not strangled with the Rope, but preserved alive: And finally, that in gratitude of so great a benefit, he repaired to that Kings Tomb in Chertsey Abbey, and there presented his humble thanks for that great deliverance. There being

as good Authors for that Apparition of St. Peter, as of this of St. Henry. Vel neutrum flammis ure, vel ure duos: Either let both be believed for truths, or for fals∣hoods burn both.

Fuller.

Let the Eccho both in Latine and English answer for me, Ure duos, Burn both, for a brace of notorious falshoods, and see who will shed a tear to quench the fire. As for the Apparition to Thomas Fuller of Hammersmith, seeing afterwards the Animadvertor twitteth me therewith, we will till then defer our Answer thereunto.

Dr. Heylyn.

Less opposition meets the preaching of St. Ioseph of Arimathea, though it meeteth some. For notwithstanding that this Tradition be as generall, as universally received, as almost any other in the Christian Church; yet our Author, being resolved to let fly at all, declares it for a piece of Novel super∣stition, disguis'd with pretended Antiquity. Better provided (as it seems) to dis∣pute this point than the Ambassadours of Castile, when they contended for pre∣cedency with those of England in the Council of Basil; who had not any thing to object against this Tradition of Iosephs preaching to the Brittains, although the English had provoked them, by confuting their absurd pretences for St. Iames his preaching to the Spaniards.

Fuller.

I never denyed the Historicall ground-work, but the Fabulous varnish of Arima∣thean Ioseph here preaching. My words run thus.

Church-History, Pag. 6. Part 12.

Yet because the Norman Charters of Glassenbury refer to a Succession of many antient Charters, bestowed on that Church by severall Saxon Kings, as the Saxon Charters relate to Brittish Grants in Intuition to Joseph's being there; We dare not wholly deny the substance of the Story, though the Leaven of Monkery hath much swollen and puffed up the circumstance thereof.

And to the impartiall peruser of the connexion of my words, Novell Superstition, disguised with pretended Antiquity, relate not to the substance of the Story, but as it is presented unto us with fictitious embellishments.

And here I foretell the Reader, what he shall see within few pages performed, namely, that after the Animadvertor hath flung, and flounced, and fluttered a∣bout, to shew his own activity and opposition, against what I (though never so well and warily) have written, at last he will calmly come up, and in this con∣troversie close with my sense, though not words, using (for the more credit) his own expressions.

Dr. Heylyn.

For first, our Author doth object in the way of scorn, that, fol. 6. The relation is as ill accoutred with tacklings, as the Ship, in which it is affirmed that St. Phillip, St. Jo∣seph, and the rest, were put by the Iews, into a Vessell without Sails or Oars, with intent to drown them; and being tossed with tempests in the midland Sea, at last safely landed at Marcelles in France, and thence afterwards made for England.] No such strange piece of Errantry (if we mark it well) as to render the whole truth suspected.

Fuller.

Not by way of scorn, Sir, but by way of dislike and distrust. The more I mark it, the more strange piece of Errantry it seemeth, so that I cannot meet with a stranger.

Dr. Heylyn.

For first, we find it in the Monuments of elder times, that Acrisius King of Argos exposed his daughter Danae, with her young son Perseus, in such a vessell as this was, and as ill provided of all necessaries, to the open Seas; who, not∣withstanding,

by divine providence, were safely wafted to those parts of Italy, which we now call Puglia.

Fuller.

Monuments of elder times! What be your Acts, if these be your Monuments? Ask my fellow if I be a thief; ask a Poeticall Fable, if a Monkish Legend be a lyar. And what if Danae (the self-same forsooth which had a golden shoure rained into her lap) crossed from Argos in Peloponesus, to Apulia, now Puglia, al∣most in a streight line, and the narrowest part of the Adriatick. This doth not parallel the improbability of Ioseph his voyage, in an un-accoutred Ship, from some Port in Palestine, to Marselles, the way being ten times as far, full of flexures, and making of severall points; which costs our Sea-men some months in sailing, (though better accommodated). I confess, Gods power can bring any, a grea∣ter distance, with cordage of cobweb in a nut-shell, but no wise man will make his belief so cheap, to credit such a miracle, except it be better attested.

Dr. Heylyn.

And secondly, for the middle times, we have the LIKE story in an Author above all exception, even our Author himself, who telleth us, lib. 6. fol. 265. of our present History, that King Athelstane put his brother Edwin into a little Wherry or Cock-boat, without any tackling or furniture thereunto, to the end, that if the poor Prince perished, his wickedness might be imputed to the waves.

Fuller.

Thanks for the jeer premised. I am not the Author, but bare Relater of that story, obvious in all our English Chronicles. Nor is the story LIKE to that of Io∣seph's, except he had been drowned in his Waftage to Marelles, as this expo∣sed Prince Edwin was in our Narrow Seas, (whether wilfully or casually, not so certain) his corps being taken up in Flanders. The resemblance be∣twixt stories chiefly consists in similitude of success; And what likeness betwixt a miserable death, and a miraculous deliverance?

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author objecteth in the next place, that no writer of credit can be produced before the Conquest, who mentioneth Joseph's comming hither.] For answer where∣unto, it may first be said, that where there is a constant uncontrolled Tradi∣tion, there is most commonly the less care taken to commit it to Writing.

Fuller.

Less care implyeth some care, whereas here no care, but a pannick silence of all Authors, Brittish, Saxon, and Christian, for a thousand years together. Second∣ly, the Animadvertor might have done well, to have instanced in any one Tra∣dition, (seeing he saith it is most commonly done) which is constant and uncon∣trolled, yet attested by no creditable Author; and then let him carry the cause.

Dr. Heylyn.

Secondly, that the Charters of Glassenbury, relating from the Norman to the Sax••n Kings, and from the Saxons to the Brittains, being all built upon St. Ioseph's comming hither, and preaching here, may serve instead of many Authors bea∣ring witness to it.

And thirdly, that Frier Bale, as great an enemy to the unwarrantable Tra∣ditions of the Church of Rome, as our Author can desire to have him, hath vouch'd two witnesses hereunto, that is to say, Melkinus Avalonius, and Gildas Albanus; whose Writings, or some fragments of them, he may be believed to have seen, though our Author hath not.

Fuller.

Nor the Animadvertor neither. Bale doth not intimate that he ever saw any part of them; and he useth to Cackle, when lighting on such Eggs. But we col∣lect from him and other Authors, that no credit is to be given to such suppo∣sititious fragments.

Dr. Heylyn.

As for some circumstances in the story, that is to say, the dedicating of Io∣sephs first Church to the Virgin Mary, the burying of his body in it, and the in∣closing of the same with a large Church-yard; I look upon them as the pro∣ducts of Munkish ignorance, accommodated unto the fashion of those times which the writers liv'd in. There is scarce any Saint in all the Calendar, whose History would not be subject to the like misconstructions, if the addita∣ments of the middle and darker times should be produced to the disparage∣ment of the whole Narration.

Fuller.

Now the Reader sees my Prediction performed, viz. that after the Animad∣vertor had flounced about, he would close with my sense in his owne words. Is no•• this the very same in effect with what I said, approving the Substance, but reject∣ing the Fabulous circumstances of the story of Ioseph? In all this he hath done just nothing, save onely swelled his Book, (though hollow within) to make it amount to a Saleable bignesse.

Dr. Heylyn.

But such an Enemy Our Author is to all old Traditions, that he must needs have a blow at Glassen-bury Thorne, though before ••ut down by some Souldiers, as himselfe confesseth; like Sir Iohn Falstaffe in the Play, who to shew his Va∣lour, must thrust his sword into the Bodies of those men which were dead be∣fore.

Fuller.

Not to all old Traditions, good Animadvertor. Saint Paul * 3.6 saith, Hold the Tra∣ditions which you have been taught whether by Word, or our Epistle: such Traditions as these, whether in Doctrine or Practice, I desire to retaine. As for unwitnessed Traditions, my Emnity is not such, but in the heat thereof I can smile at them. The Animadvertor hath wronged me, and, The Comedian hath wronged Sir Iohn Falstaffe. He was a valiant Knight, famous for his Atcheivements in France, made (as the History * 3.7 of St. George testifieth,) Knight of the Garter by King Henry the Sixt, and one who disdained to violate the Concerments of the Dead. Nor have I been injurious to the Thorne of Glassenbury living or Dead, as will appeare.

Dr. Heylyn.

The budding or blossoming of which Thorne, he accounts untrue (which, were it true, &c. Fol. 8.) affirming, from I know not whom, that it doth not punctually and critically bud on Christmas Day, but on the dayes neare it and about it. And were it no otherwise then so, the Miracle were not much the lesse, then if it budded critically on Christmas Day, as I have heard from persons of great Worth and credit dwelling neare the place, that indeed it did: though unto such, as had a mind to decry the Festival, it was no very hard matter to belie the Miracle.

Fuller.

My words amount not to an absolute Denial, but to some Dissatisfaction. Par∣cel-Diffidelity in matters of such nature, I am sure is no sin. Mr. Taylor, burges for Bristol in the long Parliament, was He who told me, that going thither pur∣posely with his Kinsman it did not that year exactly bud on Christmas Day. A Person as improbable to de••ry the Festival, being a Colonel on the Kings side,

(who refusing quarter was killed under the walles of Bristol); so unlikely, if living, to have taken the LYE from the Pen of the Animadvertor.

And now Reader, (seeing some mirth will not be amisse) know that, As I do not believe his report, who on a Christmas day, stroaking his Hand down his Doublet before, found there a great green Quick-Set suddenly grown, and Wondred thereat, untill he remembred, that the moulds of his Bald-worne but∣tens were made of Glassen-bury Thorne: so am I not of so sullen and Morose a Nature, as not to Credit what is generally and Credibly reported. Nor do my words Positively and Peremptorily conclude against the budding of this Thorne, but against the necessary relating thereof, to Arimathean Ioseph, which I rather leave at large to some occult Quality in nature, paralleling it with the like, (never as yet fathered on any Saint the causer thereof,) the Oake in Ham∣shire. But enough, lest we occasion the altering of the Proverb from de Lana Caprina, into de Corno Glastoniensi.

Dr. Heylyn.

In fine, our Author either is unwilling to have the Gospell as soon preach't here as in other places, or else we must have preachers for it from he knowes not whence. Such preachers we must have, as either drop down immediately from the Heavens, as Diana's Image is said to have done by the Towne-Clark of Ephesus; or else must suddenly rise out of the earth, as Tages the first Sooth-sayer amongst Thuscans, is reported to have done by some antient Writers. And yet we cannot say of our Author neither, as Lactantius did of one Acesilas (if my memory fail not,) Recte hic aliorum sustulit disciplinas, sed non rectè fundavit suam; that is to say, that though he had laid no good grounds for his own opinion, yet he had solidly confuted the opinions of others. Our Author hath a way by himselfe, neither well skill'd in pulling down, or in building up.

Fuller.

I have plucked nothing dovvn but vvhat vvould have fallen of it selfe, and thereby perchance hurt others, (I meane mis-inform them) as grounded on a foundred foundation. In place vvhereof I have erected, if not so faire, a more firme Fabrick, acknovvledging, That Apostolicall men did at first found the Gospell here, though (to use my * 3.8 vvords) the British Church hath forgotten her own infancy, and who were her first God-Fathers. Adding hereto that as God concea∣led the Body of * 3.9 Moses to prevent Idolatry; So, to cut off from posterity all occasion of superstition, He suffered the memories of our Pri••itive planters to be buried in Obscurity.

This is enough to satisfie any ingenuous person, who ••••eferreth a modest truth before adventurous assertions, having in them much of fals-ho••d and more of un∣certainty.

Dr. Heylyn.

From the first conversion of the Brittains, proceed we now unto the second, as Parsons cals it, or rather from the first Preaching to the Propagation. The Christian Faith here planted by St. Peter or St. Ioseph (or perhaps planted by the one, and watered by the other, in their severall times) had still a being in this Island till the time of Lucius. So that there was no need of a new Con∣version, but onely of some able Labourers to take in the Harvest. The Mira∣cles done by some pious Christians induced King Lucius to send Elvanus and Meduinus (two of that profession) to the Pope of Rome, requesting principally, that some Preachers might be sent to instruct him in the saith of Christ. Which the Pope did according to the Kings desire, sending Faganus and Derwianus, two right godly men, by whom much people were converted, the Temples of the gods converted into Christian Churches, the Hierarchy of Bishops setled, and the whole building raised on so good a foundation, that it continued undemo∣lisht till the time of the Saxons.

Fuller.

This is the Sum and Substance of the Story of K. Lucius, which the Ani∣madvertor hath breviated, and with whom I concurre therein. It never came into my thoughts to doubt the substance, but deny some circumstances thereof. My owne * 3.10 expression is, that the whole Bulk thereof is not to be Refused, but Refined, and to this I adhere.

Dr. Heylyn.

And in the summing up of this story, our Author having refuted some petit Arguments which had been answered to his hand (though much mistaken by the way in taking Diotarus King of Galatia, for a King of Sicilie, fol. 10.) gives us some other in their stead, which he thinks unanswerable.

Fuller.

I deny not that P. Eleutherius might or did send a Letter to K. Lucius, but I justly suspect the Letter novv extant to be but-pretended and forged. I ne∣ver thought (by the vvay, hovv came the Animadvertor to knovv my thoughts,) my Arguments unanswerable, but now I say they are unanswered; standing in full force, notvvithstanding any alledged by the Animadvertor to the contrary. I confesse a Memory-mistake of Sicilia for Galatia: and as it is the first fault he hath detected in my Book; so shall it be the first by me (God Willing) amen∣ded in the next Edition.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author First objects against the Popes answer to the King, that

Fol. 11. It relates to a former letter of King Lucius wherein he requested of the Pope to send him a Copy or Collection of the Roman Lawes, which being at that time in force in the Ile of Britain, was but actum agere.] But certainly though those parts of Brittain in which Lucius reign'd, were governed in part (and but in part) by the Lawes of Rome, yet were the Lawes of Rome, at that time more in num∣ber, and of a far more generall practice, then to be limited to so narrow a part of their Dominions. Two thousand Volumes we find of them in Iustinians time, out of which, by the help of Theophilus, Trebonianus, and many other lear∣ned men of that noble faculty, the Emperour compos'd that Book or body of Law which from the universality of its comprehension, we still call the Pan∣dects.

Fuller.

One who hath taken but two Turnes in Trinity hall Court in Cambridge, knowes full well what PANDECTS are, and why so called. All this is but praefatory: I waite for the answer to the Objection still to come.

Dr. Heylyn.

In the next place it is objected, that

This letter mounts King Lucius to too high a Throne, making him the Monarch or King of Britain, who neither was the Supreme nor sole King here, but partial and sub∣ordinate to the Romans.] This we acknowledge to be true, but no way preju∣diciall to the cause in hand. Lucius both was and might be call'd the King of Britain, though Tributary and Vassal to the Roman Emperors, as the two Baliols Iohn and Edward were both Kings of Scotland, though Homagers and Vassals to Edward the first, and third, of England, the Kings of Naples to the Pope, and those of Austria and Bohemia to the German Emperors.

Fuller.

A Blank is better then such writing to no purpose. For first, both the Baliols in their severall times were (though not SUPREME) SOLE Kings of Scotland. So

were the Kings of Naples, and the King of Austria, (there never being but one, the first, and Last, viz. * 3.11 Fredoritus Leopoldus) and the Kings of Bohemia in their respective Dominions. Not so Lucius, who was neither Supreme nor Sole King of Brittain.

Besides the Baliols being Kings of Scotland, did never Style themselves, (or were Styled by other) Kings of Brittaine. The Kings of Naples never entituled themselves Kings of Italy: Nor the Kings of Austria and Bohemia ever wrote themselves, (or were written to,) as Kings of Germany.

Whereas Lucius, (Ruler onely in the South West-part of this Isle,) is in this Letter made King of Brittain, more then came to his share; an Argument that the Forger thereof was unacquainted with the Constitution of his Kingdom. And this just Exception stands firme against the Letter, what ever the Animadvertor hath alledged in the excuse thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

Nor doth the next objection give us any trouble at all, that is to say, that

The Scripture quoted in that Letter is out of St. Hieroms Translation, which came more then a hundred years after:] Unless it can be prov'd withall (as I think it cannot) that Hierom followed not, in those Texts, those old Translations, which were before receiv'd and used in the Western Churches.

Fuller.

See the different tempers of men, how some in point of Truth, are of a ten∣derer constitution than others. The * 3.12 Primate Armach was so sensible of the strength of this reason, that it made him conclude against the authenticallnesse of the Letter.

Dr. Heylyn.

Lesle am I mov'd with that which follows, viz.

That this letter not appearing till a thousand years after the death of Pope Eleuthe∣rius, might probably creep out of some Monks Cell, some four hundred years since.] Which allegation being admitted, (the Monks Cell excepted,) it makes no more to the discredit of the letter which we have before us, then to the under∣valuing of those excellent Monuments of Piety and Learning, which have been recovered of late times from the dust and moths of ancient Libraries. Such Treasures like money long lock't up, is never thought lesse profitable when it comes abroad. And from what place soever it first came abroad, I am confi∣dent it came not out of any Monks Cell; that generation being then wholly at the Popes devotion, by consequence not likely to divulge an Evidence, so ma∣nifestly tending to the overthrow of his pretensions. The Popes about four hun∣dred years since were mounted to the height of that power and Tyranny which they claimed as Vicars unto Christ. To which there could not any thing be more plainly contrary then that passage in the Pope's letter, whereto he tells the King, That he was Gods Vicar in his owne Kingdom (vos estis Vicarius Dei in Regno vestro, as the Latin hath it.) Too great a secret to proceed from the Cell of a Monk, who would have rather forg'd ten Decretals to uphold the Popish usurpations over Soveraign Princes, then published one onely (whether true or false) to subvert the same. Nor doth this Letter onely give the King an empty Title, but such a Title as imports the exercise of the chief Ecclesiastical Power within his Dominions. For thus it followeth in the same; The people and the folk of the Realm of Britain be yours, whom if they be divided, ye ought to gather in concord and peace, to call them to the faith and law of Christ, to cherish and maintain them, to rule and govern them, so as you may reign everlastingly with him whose Vicar you are. So far the very words of the letter, as our Author rendereth them, which savour far more of the honest simplicity of the Primitive Popes, then the impostures and supposititious issues of the latter times.

Fuller.

I confesse some pretious pieces of Antiquity, long Latent in Obscurity, have at last broke forth into the Light, with no little advantage to Learning. But then such were intire Books, and we know, how, when, where, and by whom, they were found out, and brought forth. Whereas this loose Letter secretly and slily slid into the World, unattended with any such Cicumstances to attest the Genuinesse thereof. Children casually lost, are no whit the lesse Legitimate; and beloved the more, when found and owned of their Parents. But give me leave to suspect that Babe a Bastard, which is left on a bulk, or under a Stall; no Father being found, or Mother, to maintaine it. A Presumption that this Letter of Elu∣therius is supposititious.

I confesse, this pretended Letter of Lucius hath something in it, which doth act and personate primitive simplicity, (as that passage of Regal power in Church-matters,) but more which doth practise the Monkish ignorance, of later times. There were lately false twenty Shilling pieces, (commonly called Morgans) coyned by a cunning and cheating Chymist, whose part without the Rind was good Gold, and would endure the touch, whilst that within was base as but double guilded Brasse. Such, this Letter of Lucius; some part whereof will endure the Test, the other not: the Monk, who made it, pretending something of anti∣quity, (so to palliate the deceit); but having more of the Novelty of the middle age. He lived in some six hundred years since.

May the Reader be pleased to take notice, that the Animadvertor hath silently passed by, the strongest Argument to shatter the credit of this Letter alledged by me, and taken from a phrase unknown in that Age, yet used in the Letter, even MANU TENERE, to Maintain, or defend. This the Animadver∣tor slips over in silence, and that I believe for nineteen reasons, whereof this was one, because He himselfe was unable to answer it, and knew Criticks would laugh at him, if affirming those words, in that sense, contemporary with Pope Eleutherius. Herein, He appears like a Dunkerker, who delights to prey on poore Marchants Ships passing on in their Calling, but meeting an English Man of War, He can look Big, and fairly give him the goe-By. He finds it more facile to carpe an easie inoffensive passage, then to confute what hath difficulty, and strength of reason therein.

I resume what I said before, and what the Animadvertor hath gain-said to no purpose, viz. that this Story of K. Lucius is not to be Refused but Refined, and the drosse is to be put from the good Metall; or (as my own words also are,) the good Corn therein sifted from the Chaffe; and, amongst the Chaffe, I have cast away this Letter. But if the Animadvertor loves to eat both Corn and Chaffe, much good may his Diet do him, and let Him and Horse feed on their Loafe together.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author tells us, fol. 9. that he had ventured on this story with much aversnesse; and we dare believe him. He had not else laboured to discredit it in so many particulars, and wilfully (that I say no worse) suppressed, &c.

Fuller.

Can he say worse than wilfully, except it be Maliciously? Seeing, in my con∣science, I believe the Story of the conversion of K. Lucius: though this Letter, and some other circumstances seem to me improbable.

I enter'd on this story with this much aversenesse, as finding much difficulty, and fearing not to give satisfaction therein to my self, and others.

I see not how it can be inferred from such my aversenesse, that I therefore la∣boured to discredit the story in so many particulars.

If this be a good consequence, I desire the Reader to remember, what the Animadvertor hath written in the latter end of the introduction to his Ani∣madversions on my Book, viz.

I must needs confesse withall, that I did never enter more unwillingly upon any un∣dertaking, then I did on this.

May I not then, by the same Logick, conclude his endeavouring to disparage my Book: because he entered thereon so unwillingly?

Dr. Heylyn.

The best part of the Evidence in the words of Beda; who being no friend un∣to the Brittains, hath notwithstanding done them right in this great businesse. And from him take the story in these following words; Anno ab Incarnatione Domini, 156. &c. In the 156. year after Christs Nativity, Marcus Antonius Verus together with Aurelius Commodus his Brother, did in the fourteenth place from Augustus Ceasar, undertake the government of the Empire. In whose times when as Eleutherius a godly man was Bishop of the Church of Rome, Lucius King of the Brittains sent unto him, Obsecrans u•• per eius mandatum Christianus efficeretur, intreating by his means to be made a Christian. Whose vertuous de∣sire herein was granted; and the faith of Christ being thus received by the Brittains, was by them kept inviolate and undefiled untill the time of Diocle••ian. This is the substance of the story, as by him delivered, true in the main, though possibly there may be some mistake in his Chronology, as in a matter not so canvassed as it hath been lately.

Fuller.

I entered a grand Jury of Authors, which mentioned the Conversion of Lucius, amongst whom Bede is one. I expressed none of them, (as I had no cause) in their words at length; neither can I properly be said to suppress any of them, solemnly giving in their names, and their severall Dates, which they assigne to that memorable action.

Dr. Heylyn.

Now to proceed unto our Author, he tells us. Fol. 10. out of Ieffery of Monmouth, That at this time there were in England twenty eight Cities, each of them having a Flamen or Pagan Priest; and three of them, namely London, York, and Caer-lion in Wales, had Arch-flamens, to which the Rest were subjected: and Lu∣cius placed Bishops in the Rome of the Flamens, and Arch-bishops, Metropolitans in the places of Arch-flamens; concluding in the way of Scorne, that his Flamines, and Arch-flamines seem to be Flams and Arch-flams, even notorious False-hoods.

Fuller.

I would not willingly sit in the seat of the * 3.13 Scorner, and if the Animadvertor by his force will thrust me down into it, I will (God willing) rise up againe, and leave the place empty to himselfe to stand or sit therein, Pro libero suo Arbi∣trio.

I say no more, nor so much, as that Worthy Knight Sr. Henry Spelman (so great an Antiquary, that it is Questionable, whether his Industry, Iudgment, or Humility were the Greatest) hath said on the same Subject. Who having learnedly con∣futed this Report of Geffery of Monmouth, concludeth with the cause of his Mis∣take, relying on some supposititious Epistles.

Sr. H. Spelman de Concilijs Page 13.

Gaufrido autem atque alijs, qui Flaminum. Archiflaminum, et Protoflaminum Commento capiuntur, imposuisse videtur Gratiani authoritas, Epistolis munita S Lucij, &c.

See! He calleth that Commentum, which our Dictionaries English a Flat. Lye, which I have mitigated into a Flamme, as importing in common Discourse a Falshood, which hath more of vanity, then Mischiefe therein.

Dr. Heylyn.

And it is well they do but seem so, it being possible enough that they may seem Falshoods to our Author, even notorious Falshoods; though they seem true enough to others, even apparent Truths.

Fuller.

They seem so also to learned Sr. Henry Spelman, lately alledged; and to the Reverend Arch-bishop of Armagh, and many others.

Dr. Heylyn.

And first though Ieffery of Monmouth, seem to deserve no credit in this par∣ticular, where he speaks against our Author's sense; yet in another place where he comes up to his Desires, he is otherwise thought of, and therefore made the Fore-man of the Grand-inquest against Augustine the Monk, whom he enditeth for the Murther of the Monks of Bangor. And certainly, if Ieffery may be be∣lieved when he speaks in Passion, when his Welch-Blood was up, as our Author words it, as one that was concerned in the Cause of his Country-Men; he may more easily be believed in a Cause of so remote Antiquity, where neither Love nor Hatred, or any other prevalent Affection had any power or reason to di∣vert him from the Way of Truth.

Fuller.

It is usuall with all Authors, sometimes to close with the Iudgments of the same Person, from whom they afterwards on just Cause may dissent; and should not this Liberty be allowed me, to like or leave, in Ieffery Monmouth, what I think fitting? The Animadvertor concurreth with Bishop God-win, that the DRUIDES instructed the Britons in the worship of one God; yet will not be con∣cluded with his Iudgement, when averring the Letter fathered on Eleutherius not to savour of the Style of that Age. Yea, when I make for him, he can alledge twenty Lines together, out of my Book, against H. le Strange; though at other times, when he hath served his Turne of me, I am the Object of his sleighting and Contempt.

Now when as the IN-ANIMADVERTOR (for now I must so call him for his Carelesnesse,) citeth a place in my Book, viz. [Lib. 2. Fol. 63.] that I make J. Monmouth the Foreman of the great inquest against Augustine the Monk, he is much mistaken therein. For in the place by him cited, I Impannell a Grand Iury, (amongst whom J. Monmouth is neither Fore-man, nor any Man) of Iudici∣ous Readers consisting of twenty four. As false is it what he addeth, as if in that Triall I attributed much to the judgment of J. Monmouth, who therein is one∣ly produced as a Witnesse, and a Verdict brought in, point-Blank against his Evi∣dence, acquitting Augustine the Monk of the Murther, whereof Monmouth did accuse him.

Dr. Heylyn.

And secondly, though Ieffery of Monmouth be a Writer of no great credit with me, when he stands single by himselfe; yet when I find him seconded and confirmed by others, I shall not brand a truth by the name of falshood, because he reports it. Now that in Brittain at that time there were no fewer then eight and twenty Cities, is affirmed by Beda. Henry of Huntington not only agrees with him in the number, but gives us also the names of them, though where to find many of them it is hard to say. That in each of these Cities was some Temple dedicated to the Pagan Gods, that those Temples afterwards were im∣ploy'd to the use of Christians, and the Revenues of them assign'd over to the maintenance of the Bishops and other Ministers of the Gospel, hath the concur∣rent testimony of approved Authors; that is to say, Matthew of Westminster out of Gildas, Anno 187. Rodolph de Diceto, cited by the learned Primat of Armach in

his Book De Primordiis Eccles. Brit. cap. 4. Gervase of Tilbury, ibid. cap. 6. And for the Flamines, and Arch-flamines, they stand not onely on the credit of Ieffery of Monmouth, but of all our owne Writers, who speak of the foundation of the antient Bishopricks, even to Polydor Virgil.

Fuller.

I concurre with the Animadvertor in the number of the Citties in Brittain.

Also I do not deny but that K. Lucius might place Bishops in some (perchance half) of them, which I believe is all which the Animadvertor doth desire. On∣ly as to Bishops and Arch-bishops exactly substituted in the Individual places of Flamens and Arch-flamens, my beliefe cannot come up to the height thereof. I find that Giraldus Cambrensis and other Authors of that age, (though concur∣ring with J. Monmouth in Lucius his Episcopating of Citties,) make not any mention of these Arch-flamens.

Dr. Heylyn.

Nor want there many forrain Writers who affirm the same, beginning with Martinus Polonus, who being esteemed no friend to the Popedom (because of the Story of Pope Ione which occurs in his Writings) may the rather be believ'd in the story of Lucius. And he agrees with Ieffery of Monmouth in all parts of the story, as to the Flamines and Arch-flamines, as do also many other of the Roman Writers which came after him.

Fuller.

Nothing more usuall then for forrain Writers, with implicite faith, to take things on the credit of such who have wrote the History of their own Country. But on the Confutation of the Leading Author, the rest sink of course of them∣selves.

Dr. Heylyn.

But where both our Author and some others have rais'd some objections against this part of the History, for Answer thereunto I refer the Reader to the learned and laborious Work of Francis Mason late Archdeacon of Norfolk, De Ministerio Anglicano, the sum whereof in brief is this, Licet in una urbe multi Fla∣mines, that though there were many Flamines in one City, yet was there onely one which was called Pontifex or Primus Flaminum; the Pope or principall of the Flamines; of which kind one for every City, were those whom our Histori∣ans speak of. And for the Archi-Flamines or Proto-Flamines, though the name occurre not in old Roman Writers, yet were there some in power and Autho∣rity above the rest, who were entituled Primi Pontificum (as indeed Coifi by that name is called in Beda) which is the same in sense with Arch-flamines although not in sound. All I shall further add is this, that if these 28 Cities were not all furnished with Bishops in the time of Lucius, for vvhom it vvas impossible to spread his armes and expresse his power over all the South parts of the Island; yet may the honour of the vvork be ascribed to him, because begun by his encouragement, and perfected by his example; as Romulus is generally esteem∣ed for the Founder of Rome, although the least part of that great City vvas of his Foundation.

Fuller.

But, whereas both the Animadvertor and some others conceive their Answers satisfactory to such Objections raised against this part of the History; I refer the Reader unto Sr. Henry * 3.14Spelman, and to the Arch-bishop of* 3.15 Armagh; both as learned and Judicious Antiquaries as ever our Land enjoyed.

These it seemes were not satisfied, with such Solutions, as Mr. Mason pro∣duceth against those Objections, because (writing later than Mr. Mason) they in their judgments declare themselves against J. Monmouth herein.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author has not yet done vvith Lucius. For admitting the story to be true, he disallowes the turning of the Pagan Temples into Christian Churches, vvhich he censureth as the putting of new Wine into old Vessels, which afterwards savour'd of the Cask, Christianity hereby getting a smack of Heathen ceremonies. But in this point the Primitive Christians were as wise as our Author, though they were not so nice. Who without fearing any such smack, accommodated them∣selves in many ceremonies to the Gentiles, and in some to the Iewes; that being all things to all men, they might gain the more, as in fine they did: which not∣withstanding our Author hereupon inferreth.

Fuller.

I onely humbly tendered my weak Opinion herein, that Religion was a loser by such mixtures. If it findeth no welcome in the brest of the Animadvertor and others, no hurt is done; let it fairly return into his Bosome, who (it seems) first gave it a beeing, though I could cite most Pious and Learned Authors of the same Judgement. But for the present let all the weight of the guilt light on my selfe alone.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 13. They had better built new Nests for the holy Dove, and not have lodg'd it where Schriech-owls and unclean Birds had formerly been harboured.] A prety piece of new Divinity, and such as savours strongly of the Modern Anabaptist; such as not onely doth reproach the practise of most pious Antiquity, but layes a sure ground for the pulling down of all our Chur∣ches (as having been abus'd to Popish Superstitions in the former times) if ever that encreasing faction should become predominant. What pitty is it that our Author had not liv'd and preacht this Doctrine in King Edwards time, that the Parochiall Churches and Cathedrals being sent after the Abbies, new Nests might have been built for the Dove in some tree or other, under the shade whereof the people might assemble to their devotions: and not new Nests provided only, bur new feathers also, the vestments prescribed to the Ministers by the Church of England, being condemned and disallowed by the Puritan party, because in use formerly with the Priests of the Church of Rome. More of this stuffe, but of a more dangerous consequence to the publick peace, we shall see hereafter.

Fuller.

I do not quarrell with the posture of my Nativity, knowing God hath * 3.16 de∣termined the times fore-appointed and the bounds of their Habitation. Nor would I have my beeing antedated in the dayes of K. Edward the sixt, whereby my Soul should be degraded into a dimmer Light, then what now I live in.

Had I lived in His Reigne, I know not what I would have done, seeing one may be lost in the Labyrinth of his owne Heart. But though I know not what I would have done, I know what I should have done, viz. perswaded, to my power, all people to be sensible of the vast difference betwixt Heathen-Temples and Christian-Churches.

The former were the Styes of swine, yea the Dens of Devils, profaned to the foul Idols of Pagans.

The latter were dedicated to the true God, and the memory of his glorious Saints, out of zeal, and wel-intended Devotion. And though the same were abused by superstition, yet the substantiall use of them might remain, when their acciden∣tial abuse was removed, and might be continued for God's service without any Sin; not to say, could not be aliened from it, without some sacriledge.

Dr. Heylyn.

We have now done at last vvith the story of Lucius, and must next follow

our Author unto that of Amphibalus, in prosecution whereof he telleth us of a great slaughter of Christians in or near the City of Litchfield, from thence so de∣nominated, of vvhich thus saith he;

Fol. 19. This relation is favoured by the name of Litchfield, which in the British tongue signifies a Golgotha, or a place bestrewed with skuls.] It's true indeed that Litchfield, or Licidfield, as Bedae calleth it, is made by Iohn Rosse to signifie Ca∣daverum Campus, or the field of dead bodies. But that it doth so signifie in the British language, I do more then doubt, the termination of the vvord be∣ing meerly Saxon, as in Hefensield, Cock-field, Camps-field, and many others. As little am I satisfied in the Etymon of the name of Maiden-head, which he ascribes unto the worshipping of the head of one of those many Mai∣dens vvhich vvere martyred with Ursula at Colen, fol. 36. For vvhich though he cite Camden for his Author (following therein, but not approving the old Tradition) yet vvhen I find in the same Camden, that this Town was formerly called Maiden-hith, that anciently there vvas a ferry near the place vvhere the Town now stands, and that Hith in the old Saxon tongue, did signifie a Wharf, Haven, or landing place, I have some reason to believe, that the Town took this name from the Wharf or Ferry belonging at that time to some neighbouring Nunnery, or to some private Maidens dwelling thereabout, vvho then received the profits of it. Just so, Queen-Hith in London took that appellation, because the profits of that Wharf vvere antiently accompted for, to the Queens of Eng∣land; and Maiden-bradly in Wilshire, vvas so denominated because belonging to one of the inheretrices of Manasses Basset, a most noble personage in his time, who founded a House here for Maiden Lepers.

Fuller.

As for Litchfield, thereof hereafter. But whether it be Maiden-head, or Maiden-hith, is not a straw matter to me, who cited the words out of Cambdens Latine Brittannia: which is more properly Cambden, than the English transla∣tion thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

But to return again to Leitch-field, It must needs seem as strange to my judi∣cious Reader, that one part of it should be borrowed from the Brittains, and the other from the Saxons; as it seems strange unto our Author, and that justly too, that Cern in Dorcetshire should anciently be called Cernel, from the Latine vvord Cerno, vvhich signifies to see, and the Hebrew vvord El signifying God, fol. 67.

Fuller.

Nothing more usuall, than for the same vvord to bear parly par pale, two languages. But such mixtures onely are made in such places, vvhere those two Languages have entred common together.

And this is the reason that disapproveth the probability of Cern-el, because Hebrew and Latine never incorporated together, Greek, as I may say, being interposed betwixt them.

But such Conjunctions of two Languages, vvhich, in some sort, indented one another, are frequent and familiar.

Our Author lately presented us vvith two half-Greek, half-Latine Archi-flamens, and Proto-flamens.

He also just now mentioned a vvord half••French, half Saxon, Camps-field.

Many towns names in England are half Saxons, half British; Up-Avon, Nea∣ther-Avon, tvvo villages in Wilt-shire. Avon being a river in the Brittish tongue.

To put all out of doubt, the Reader may rely on the judgement of this my vvorthy friend, vvhose Letter I have here caused to be inserted,

Mr. Fuller.

As touching the Elymology of the City of Litchfield, I can give you no satisfactory accompt; being not well skill'd in the Saxon Tongue. But if Mr. John Rosse hath ground for his Campus Cadaverum, I conceive he deduced it from the British Tongues and Saxon. For in our Brittish language, Llaith signifies death, as may be seen in severall antient Brittish Authors, as Taliefin and others. Lleithfa may well bear a place of slaugh∣ter as wel as lladdfa; the word lladd in the Brittish is the same with occidere in the La∣tine, ma and Man, denotes a place: and ma, being joyned with lleith or lladd, the m by the rules of the Brittish language turns into f as lladdfa lleithfa lladdfaes. Maes is the ordinary name for a field in our Language, and so the old Saxons, which were not igno∣rant of our language might well make use of their owne word field and ioyne it with the Brittish lleith: which in processe and corruption of time came to be Litchfield. You must note that when the Saxons met with our ll, they wrote and pronounced it alwayes as one single l.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 20. I fear that learned pen hath gone too far, who makes him founder of a Bishoprick at York, and styleth him an Emperour surpassing in all virtue and Christian piety.] The learned pen here spoken of, is that of judici∣ous Camden, whose character of Constantius Chlorus our Author in this place will not let passe without some censure. That he did found (or rather re-found) a Bishoprick in the City of ••ork, I am confident Cambden had not said without very good grounds, though on what grounds he said it, I am yet to seek. A Bishoprick and a Bishop of York we find on good Record within few years after; Eborius the Bishop of that City subscribing to the Councill of Arles in the time of Constantine, the Son and next successor of Constantius Chlorus. And that he was a Prince of surpassing virtue, is generally agreed upon by all Historians, both Pagans and Christians. The Question then will be onely this, Whether he did surpass also in Christian piety, which our Author will not otherwise grant, but by our Saviours Argument onely, concluding those to be on our part who are not against us; Constantius doing no other good unto Christianity, but that he did not do it harm. A censure not agreeable to so good an Emperour, who though he were no through-paced Christian, yet did he both favour their Religion, and protect their persons, as Eusebius testifies de vita Constantini, lib. 1. cap. 12. And not so onely, but as our Author himselfe confesseth, he both permitted and preser∣ved them who would rebuild the decayed Christian Churches. If to preserve the per∣sons of Christians in the exercise of their Religion, to have them near unto him in places of greatest trust and eminence, to suffer them to rebuild their Churches and defend them in it, be not the doing of some good unto Christianity, more then the doing it no harm, let our Author carry it, and Cambden bear the blame of his needlesse Courtship.

Fuller.

If at the end of this long Note, the Animadvertor at Last had demonstrated that Constantius Chlorus was a thorow-paced Christian; the Reader, and I my selfe, would not have grudged our attention unto it.

But what is the Total sum of what he saith? It amounts to just nothing, only to show that (which I confessed) he did some good (besides no hurt) to Christi∣anity. What is this to prove the words of Learned, (but here mistaken) Mr. Camden.

An Emperour surpassing in all Virtues and Christian Piety.

The Animadvertor should first have proved that this Constantius had passed into Christianity before he was surpassing therein; a thing which He, and all his Friends, are never able to evidence by any authentick Author.

In a word, As Chlorus or YELLOW (so his Name in Greek) is a Middle colour betwixt White and Black, below the former, and above the latter in Brightnesse; So this Emperour, (well answering his name,) was indeed much better than

most Pagans, and yet far short (so far as by any humane Author can be collect∣ed) of a true Christian.

Dr. Heylyn.

But this is not the first time, in which our Author hath clasht with Camden, and I see it will not be the last, by that which followeth. For speaking on the by how. Wolves first entred into England, considering that Merchants would not bring them, and that they could not swim over themselves, he adds these words, viz.

Fol. 25. Which hath prevailed so far with some, as to conceive this now an Iland, ori∣ginally annext to the Continent.] It seems that though some so conceive it, yet our Author doth not. And yet he cannot chuse but know that those whom he doth pass so slightly over by the name of some (as if not worthy to be notified by their proper names) are the most eminent and renowned Antiquaries of these latter times. Amongst which if I reckon Camden for one, and a chief one too, I should but do him right, and not wrong the rest. Whose arguments to prove the point; he that lists to see, may find them at large laid down in his description of Kent; which when our Author can confute (as I doubt he cannot) he may then slight it over as a thing conceived, and conceived only by some men not worth the naming. Till then, I shall behold it as a matter not conceived but prov'd, and so must he.

Fuller.

It seems] multa videntur quae no•• sunt. I am ashamed to return an answer to this needlesse and impertinent Note. S. Hierom honoured not Cicero more then I reverence Mr. Camden.

Dr. Heylyn.

I should here end this Chapter and this Book together, but that I find a trifling errour not worth our notice, but that I would set all things right as they come before me; which is the placing of the Emperor Constantine in the Catalogue of those who commonly pass under the name of the 9 Worthies, and this saith he.

Fuller.

Not so. He should have ended this Chapter and Book before, and not have in∣serted his last impertinent note. Num Aquila capit muscas?

Dr. Heylyn.

Fol. 39. Is more then comes to the proportion of Britain; that amongst but nine in the whole World, two should prove Natives of this Iland, Constantine and Arthur.] That Arthur goes for one of the Worthies, I shall easily grant, and I shall grant too, that in the opinion of some writers this Island gave birth unto another of them, namely Guy of Warwick. His Knight Sir Guy one of the nine, we touch but by the way, saith Warner in his Albions England.

Fuller.

Perchance Guy of Warwick may be made one of the nine English worthies. But I believe none ever made him one of the NINE GENERALL WORTHYES little known beyond the Seas, no General [not to say Prince] as the rest of his Form-fellowes, and fam'd onely for his personal performances.

Dr. Heylyn.

But in the common estimate they are reckoned thus; that is to say, three Iewes, 1. Ioshua, 2. David, 3. Iudas Maccabeus; three Gentiles, 4. Hector of Troy, 5. Alexander the great, and 6. Iulius Caesar; three Christians, 7. Arthur of Brittain, 8. Charlemain of France, and 9. Godfry of Bovillon. But I condemn my selfe for mingling this poor piece of Errantry with such serious matters, though the ne∣cessity of following my Leader as he goeth may excuse me in it.

Fuller.

The words of the Animadvertor in common estimate intimate, that they are not constantly so accounted. The seven wise men of Greece are variously reckoned up, as severall Authors fancied them. So also are the nine Worthyes; and if worth makes a worthy, Constantine deserved a place amongst them, being in time be∣fore any, in valour behind none of the three Christians. Yea as Sapho is adject∣ed by * 3.17 some to the nine Muses, and made a Tenth; so let there be ten worthyes, ra∣ther than Constantine should be excluded. But enough hereof, Poets and Pain∣ters being the most staple Authors in this point.

Notes

• * 1.1

  2 King. 3.2.
• * 1.2

  2 King. 17.2.
• * 3.1

  Exod. 20.3.
• * 3.2

  Act. 17.16.
• * 3.3

  In his Mi∣crocosm, p. 800.
• * 3.4

  〈◊〉〈◊〉cit. in vita 〈◊〉〈◊〉ola.
• * 3.5

  S. Metaphra∣stes, Com∣ment. de Pe∣tro et Paulo ad diem 29. Junij.
• * 3.6

  Of Thessal. 2.15.
• * 3.7

  Pag. 329.
• * 3.8

  1 Cent. p. 4.
• * 3.9

  Deu. 34.6.
• * 3.10

  Church Hist. v. 1. pag. 10.
• * 3.11

  Seb. Munste∣rus de Germa∣nia.
• * 3.12

  De prim Ec. Brit.
• * 3.13

  Psal. 1.
• * 3.14

  In his Coun∣cels.
• * 3.15

  In his Pri∣mord. Eccl. Angl.
• * 3.16

  Act. 17.23.
• * 3.17

  Le••bia pieriis Sapho soror addita Mu••is, Ausonius.