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.

THE SECOND BOOK. Of the Conversion of the Saxons, and that which followed thereupon till the Norman Conquest.

Dr. Heylin.

IN order to the Conversion of the Saxons, our Author begins (as he had done before in that of the Britans) with the unhappy condition of that People in the state of Gentilism.

Fuller.

Here is an intimation, as If I had mistook my Epoches in my Church History of Britans or Saxons, or both; beginning them too soon or too late. I avouch it done in due time: and so passe from the Animadvertors snarling to his biting.

Dr. Heylin.

In the description whereof, he omitteth that which was indeed their greatest unhappiness, that is to say, their barbarous and inhumane sacrifices of men and women unto two of their Idols. For Camden telleth us of their god called Wooden,* 1.1 that they used to procure his favour by sacrificing unto him men a∣live: And I have read in Verstegan (if my memory fail not) a man inferiour to none, in the Antiquities of this Nation, that at their return from any conquest, they us'd to sacrifice the noblest of their Captives to their Idol Thur. In this not much inferior to the Palestinians, in their sacrifices to Moloch; or to the Carthaginians, in the like abominable sacrifices to Saturn; or to the Scythians, in the like to Diana Taurica;* 1.2 or finally, to the Galls, in theirs to Haesus and Teutate•• their own National Deities. But not to lay at our Authors charge these small sins of Omission, we must next see whether he be not guilty of some sin of Commission also.

Fuller.

See here the signal Charity of the Animadvertor! After he had layed the charge as heavy as he could, (and heavier than he should) he candidly comes off, he will not lay to my charge such small faults of Omission.

I was not bound to particularize in all the Saxon prodigious impieties, all be∣ing included in that my general expression, * 1.3 ABOMINABLE (the proper Scrip∣ture-word in this case) in the Rites and Ceremonies of their Adoration.

Dr. Heylin.

For making a general muster of the Saxon Gods, and shewing how they were dispos'd of in relation to the dayes of the week, he concludes it thus: Fol. 55. And thus we see the whole week bescattered with Saxon Idols, whose Pagan gods were the God-fathers of the dayes, and gave them their names.] Not the whole week, though the greatest part thereof was thus bescattered. Sun∣day and Munday being so call'd in reference to the Sun and Moon, or else in cor∣respondence to the names of Dies Solis and Dies Lunae, which they found given by the Romans at their entrance here. For either the Sun and Moon were wor∣shipped

by the ancient Saxons, and then might think themselves neglected in ha∣ving no place assigned them amongst the rest; or else the Saxon Pagan Gods were not the Godfathers to all the dayes of the week, as our Author telleth us.

Fuller.

It is harsh, that I must be indicted to justifie every metaphorical expression; but know, That the word [bescattered] properly importeth some empty inter∣valls; or naked distances betwixt the things scattered; which otherwise, would be covered all over, and not be scattered. If therefore two dayes in the seven have escaped nomination from Saxon Idols, the week notwithstanding may be said, be∣scattered by them.

Dr. Heylin.

As much he seems to be mistaken in their god called Woden; of whom thus he telleth us. Fol. 54. Woden, that is wood, fierce, or furious, gi∣ving the denomination to Wednesday,* 1.4 or Wodens-day, armed cap a pe with military Coronet on his head, he was the god of Battail, by whose aid and fur∣therance, they hoped to obtain Victory; correspondent to Mars.] But Camden sings another song, telling us that Wooden was not worshipped for Mars, but Mercury. Above all other gods, saith he; they worshipped Mercury, whom they called Woo∣den, whose favour they procured by sacrificing unto him men alive, and to him they consecrated the fourth day of the week, whereupon we call it at this day Wed∣nesday. Thus also in another place,* 1.5 Wansdike, in the Saxon tongue called Wodene∣poic, that is to say, the Ditch of Wooden or Mercury, and as it should seem of Wo∣den, that false imagined god and father of the English Saxons. And herein I shall rather subscribe to Camdens, than our Authors judgement. For certainly had the Saxons worshipped Wooden as the god of Battail, or correspondent to Mars, they would have given him the third day of the week, or the day of Mars, and not the fourth day of the week or the day of Mercury; as they gave Sunday and Munday unto Sol and Luna, and Thursday unto Thur, whom they worshipped in the place of Iupiter, ascribing unto him (as the Greeks and Romans did to Iupiter) the power of bearing rule in the Air, governing Thunder, Lightnings, Windes, Showers, fair weather, &c. as Adam Bremensis, a good Writer, doth inform us of them. And though it may be true, which our Author telleth us, that by his aid and fur∣therance they hoped to obtain Victory, yet this entitleth him not to the place of Mars; as many victories being gotten by wit and stratagem (the known arts of Mercury) as by strength and valour.

Fuller.

In describing the Saxon Idolatries I followed Verstegan, as the best in this kind, as who (Data opera) had written on that subject, and who lately by the * 1.6 Animad∣vertor was styled (and that very deservedly) a man inferiour to none in the Antiqui∣ties of this Nation.

However, finding a difference betwixt him and Mr. Camden in this particular, I fairly entred this plain note in the * 1.7 margin of my book,

So Verstegan pag. 72. but Camden Brit. pag. 135. makes him to be Mercury.

Now either the Animadvertor did not, or did take notice of this marginal note. If he did not, being there tendered so conspicuously to the Reader, it is high time for him to leave off writing of books, and turn his penne into prayers; otherwise, such omissions by those who read unto him, will every day more and more inevi∣tably betray him to, and involve him in more inconveniences.

If he did take notice of this note (which is most probable, alwaies consulting my margin, when making for his advantage) he discovered much superfluity; (not to say of * 1.8 naughtinesse,) Actum agere, that what I had done before, he must

doe again; and also finde fault with me, who had done it before, in this his un∣necessary Animadversion.

I will onely add, that the fierce and furious aspect of Woden, the evidence of his wild and wood nature (whence He had his Name) better countenanceth his corre∣spondency with Mars, than Mercury; the latter being concerned to carry a more meek and mild countenance, as who being of a tamer kind, and acting all by craft and cunning, did not fright, but flatter deluded people into his plausible Designes.

Dr. Heylin.

But from our Authors failers, in recounting the superstitions of our Saxon Ancestors, let us next see how he behaves himself in laying down the story of their conversion. In which, though he ascribe some∣thing unto Austin the Monk, yet he will by no means allow him to be their Apostle: For, fol. 54. The Papists (saith he) commonly call Augustine the English Apostle, how properly we shall see hereafter. And after, fol. 68. The Papists brag that he was the Apostle of the English.] In these few words there are two things to be considered, whether he is called the Apostle of the English by the Papists onely; and secondly, whether he were not so, both in fact and title. Not call'd so by the Papists onely, I am sure of that; but called so commonly by as good Prote∣stants as our Author himself. Thus Camden,* 1.9 a right English Protestant, After this Augustine, whom commonly they call the Apostle of the English men, being sent hi∣ther by Gregory the Great, having abolished these monstrous abominations of Hea∣thenish impiety, with most happy successe, planting Christ in their hearts, converted them to the Christian faith. Nor doth he speak this onely in the voice of the common people,* 1.10 but in another place more plainly, as his own opinion. A place there is about this shire called Austins Oke, at which Augustine the Apostle of the En∣glish men, and the Bishops of Britain met, &c.

Dr. Philemon Holland of Coventry, a good Protestant also, making an Index un∣to Camden, speaks the self same language; Augustine the Apostle of the English; which is short, but full. Gabriel Richardson of Brazen-Nose,* 1.11 an honest Protestant, in his laborious piece called the State of Europe, telleth us of Canterbury, that the Archbishops See was founded by King Ethelbert in the person of St. Austin the Apostle of the English. More of this kind might be produc'd, were it not given us for a Rule in the holy Scripture, Ex ore duorum testium vel trium, that two or three wit∣nesses were sufficient to confirm a truth.

The next thing here to be considered is, whether Austin were not the Apostle of the English, both in fact and title. In order whereunto, we must first take notice, that the word being meerly Greek, doth signifie in its natural and original sence a Messenger, a Legat, an Embassador, from whom, to whomsoever sent; and though appropriated to twelve as by way of excellence, yet not improperly com∣municated unto others in succeeding times, with reference to the Nations whom they had converted. So Boniface an English man the first Archbishop of Ments, is called by Dr. Holland, (as by many others) the Apostle of Germany; Palladius styled by Camden,* 1.12 the Apostle of the Scottish Nation; and the Irish would not think themselves to be fairly dealt with, if their St. Patrick should not be honou∣red with that Title also. In this sence Austin may be call'd, and that not impro∣perly, the Apostle of the English Nation; though a derivative Apostle, an Apostle (as our Author calls him in the way of scorn, fol. 68.) at the second hand, though others propagated the Gospel further than he liv'd to doe. It was enough to en∣title him to this Apostleship, that be first publiquely preacht the Gospel, and brought the glad Tiding of Salvation amongst the English, though he neither con∣verted all the Nation, nor travelled into all parts of the Land to attempt the same. Neither St. Paul could be entitled the Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Thomas of the Indians, nor St. Matthew of the Ethiopians; if it were necessarily required to their Apostleships, that all the Nations of the Indians must be converted by the one, or the vast Countries of the Ethiopians must be converted by the other; of fi∣nally, if St. Paul, to save them a labour, must have reduced all the Gentiles to the

faith of Christ. And this the Embassadors for the King of England at the coun∣cil of Basil, understood right well, when they contended for precedency with those of Castile. For when the Castilians had objected, that although Ioseph of Arimathea had preacht in England, it was but in a corner thereof, the grand bo∣dy of Britain remaining Pagan many hundred years after: the English Embas∣sadors wisely answered, that the Allegation was impertinent to the present pur∣pose, it being not the Universality, but the first Preaching of the Christian Faith which gained the name of an Apostle; there being no Disciple (as they truly ur∣ged it) that ever converted a Kingdome totally and entirely to Christianity, for which consult our very Author, Lib. 4.181.

And yet ••he pains in preaching of Austin were not so limited and restrain'd to one Kingdome only, but that he travail'd into most parts of the Saxon Heptar∣chy, preaching the Gospell in all places to which the spirit did conduct him, or his b••sinesse lead him. Our Author grants him to have converted the King∣dome of Kent, fol. 7. and to have taken care for planting the Gospel in the King∣dom of the East-Saxons, and for that end ordaining Mellitus the first Bishop of London fol. 67. From hence he carries him to a conference with the British Bi∣shops in the Country of the Wiccians (now Worcestershire) then part of the King∣dom of Mercia, fol. 60. From thence to Richmondshire in the Kingdom of Northum∣berland, where he is said to have baptiz'd above ten thousand in one day, fol. 66. And finally, to Cern in Dorsetshire, part of the Kingdome of the West-Saxons, where he destroyed the Idol of Heale of Aesculapius. By which we see, that he visited no fewer than five of the seven Kingdoms in the Saxon Heptar∣chie, not onely doing in each of them that particular work which he went about, but preaching in all fit places as he passed along. And this considered as it ought, with reference to the distance of those several places to which our very Author brings him, gives him just title to that honour which our Author would so willingly deprive him of, when telling us how the Papists called him the English Apostle, he adds these words, how properly (so called) we shall see hereafter.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor engageth deeper in this Controversy, than in my minde it deserveth. To sta••e the difference truly, whether Augustine properly is called the Apostle of the English? we must explain two Terms, Apostle and English.

Waving the generall notation of Apostle for no more than a Messenger; In the new Testament it importeth a person immediately sent by Christ, to preach people into salvation: It was essentiall to their constitution, either to have accompanied Christ in the flesh, a qualification required by St. * 1.13 Peter in such Elects, who should supply the vacancy of Iudas, or at the least that they should see Christ incarnate, either humbled or glorified; the latter favour being peculiarly afford••d to St. Paul:* 1.14 Am I not an Apostle, Am I not free, have I not seen Iesus Christ our Lord? These I may call primitive Apostles; and none will entitle Augustin the Monk, to be one of their order. A second sort I call derivative Apostles, a Term, which though the Animadvertor sayeth is used by me in the way of scorn, I protest it in sober seriousnesse, God hath not endowed me to make a more proper Expression, signifying such as mediatly, and (as I say) at the se∣cond hand, and sent by some eminent servants of God to convert Pagans to Christianity.

English may be taken in a threefold sence.

• First, for all the Nation, (an Indefinite, tantamounting to an universal) and this is the most proper sence of the word.
• Secondly, for the greater part of the Nation, which in common discourse deno∣minates the whole.
• Thirdly, for some part of the nation, which may be made good by a Synec∣doche, especially justified, when it is a chief and first (though least) part thereof, which (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or) per eminentiam, taketh the name of the whole.

My clear sence is, Augustine the Monk may be called a derivative Apostle of

the English in the last acception of the word, and so Mr. Camden, Mr. Richard∣son, Mr. Holland, and I doubt not but many more have and may intitle him.

The Animadvertor measureth the progresse of Augustine with too extensive dimensions, making him a greater English Travailer than ever he was; Kent was generally the Sphere he moved in, and from thence he was Itinerant to Cerne in Dorsetshire, the boundary of his Western travail: No personall atchievments by him North of Thames, seeing that grave baptization (if in Yorkshire) was surely done by Paulinus. As for the interview and conference betwixt him and the British Bishops in Worcestershire (though some probably might be converted in his passage thither, and return thence) no great advantage, but detriment to Chri∣stianity was thereby occasioned, those parts generally remaining in Paganism.

And here I will tender the Reader another distinction of Apostles, submitting it to his judgement, They were either of God alone, Man alone, God and Man together.

Of God alone,* 1.15 as St. Paul (and the other twelve) an Apostle not of Man, neither by man, but by Iesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.

Secondly, of Man alone, being such as the false Apostles amongst the Corin∣thians, and else where, whose Commission was made and drawn up by them∣selves, sealed and attested by some of their Factious admirers.

Thirdly, of God and Man, and such an Apostle was Augustine sent, as I may say, by God and Gregory to the English Nation. But let him not ingrosse the name to himself, but admit also as his partners therein, 1 Mellitus, 2 Paulinus, and Aidan, 3 Felix, 4 Birinus, 5 Chad, 6 Wilfrid, Apostles also, because sent to, and convertors of the, 1 East-Saxons, 2 Northumbrians, 3 East-Angles, 4 West, 5 Mercians, 6 South-Saxons.

Dr. Heylin.

I have spent more time than I intended in defence of this Title, and there∣fore think it seasonable to proceed from the Person to his Acts. Of which the first we meet with is, the fixing of the Archiepiscopal See at Canterbury, for which our Author, amongst many other Reasons, gives us this for one, viz. That London, by reason of the receipt thereof was likely to prove the residing place for the English Monarch, and it was probable that the Archiepiscopal dignity would there be eclipst, and outshined by the Regal Diadem.] But here I must needs ask our Au∣thor, whether he thinks, that this was really one of those many motives which occasioned Austin to resolve of Canterbury for his Seat of Residence? If yea, then must our Author grant him to be endued with the Spirit of Prophesie, which I think he will not; if not, then a contingency so remote could not be taken by him into consideration, as indeed it was not. For first, London at that time, was the chief City of the Kingdome of East-sex, one of the weakest of the seven, and so not likely to prevail over all the rest. Secondly, if any of the greater Kingdomes of Mercia, West-sex, or Northumberland, should in fine prevail, it was not probable that the Conquerors would remove the Seat Royal from their own Dominions into any of the conquered Countries. And thirdly, though the Kings of the West-Saxons, who prevailed at last, and became Monarchs of the whole, settled the Royal Seat in London, yet was it not till Winchester, their own Regal City, was destroyed by fire, and made unable to receive them.

Fuller.

Other Reasons are alledged by me, why Austin chose Canterbury rather than London for his Archiepiscopal See. These Arguments Iuncta juvant, and will hold in the Sheaff, though a single Arrow should be broken, I mean, though this one Reason (alledged by me) were disproved.

Austin needed no propheticall Inspiration, whilst prudential prevision could suffi∣ciently suggest unto him, that if ever the Saxon-Heptarchy terminated (which was most probable) in a Monarchy, London might be presumed the principal place of the Royal Residence, as most convenient for Trading, and commo∣dious for scituation: I say London, an Infant in the time of Tacitus, a Stripling in

the time of Austin, a Man before the Conquest, and grown a Giant in our daies.

Dr Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 60. The first cast of his Office was to call a Councel for the Saxon and British Bishops to come together in the consines of the Wiccians and West-Saxons.] Our Author placeth this meeting within few lines after, in the confines of Worcester and Herefordshire, and more rightly there; Worcestershire, or the Countrey of the Wiccii confining on the County of Hereford, but border∣ing in no place on the Kingdome of West-sex, the whole County of Glocester be∣ing interposed. So that our Author being mistaken in the place of the meet∣ing, it is no wonder if he stumble at the Monuments and Records thereof. Of one of which he telleth us.

Fuller

Here is more than an Insinuation, as if I in designing the Place of this Meeting, had written something contrary to Truth, and also to my Self, who indeed have exactly followed the best Authors in the Position thereof.

Bede fixeth it [Book 2. Chap. 2.] in confinio Wicciorum & Occidentalium-Saxonum in the confines of Worcestershire Men and West-Saxons; and H. Hun∣tington hath the same words, lib. 3. pag. 323.

Mr. Camden makes the Oake under which they met, in the bor∣ders of Worcester and Here∣fordshire; and Sir Henry Spel∣man doth concur with him there∣in.

If therefore the Interposition of Glocestershire distanceth Worcestershire from confining on the West-Saxons, the Animadvertor ought to have vented his displea∣sure not on Me, but on Bede, and Huntington, whose words I exactly transla∣ted.

May the Reader be pleased to take notice, that Glocestershire, a limitary Coun∣ty, did in that Age belong to three Dominions: That West of Severn (now the Forest of Dean) to the Britans or Welsh; the East part thereof, (chiefly consisting of Cotswold) to the Kingdome of Mercia; and the middle of that County, (along the East of Severn) to the West Saxons, as I have seen in an exquisite Map of the Heptarchy; and this I tender as the most probable Expedient to reconcile learned Authors amongst themselves, and all to the Truth, in bringing Worcestershire and West Saxons together. Thus being critical in stating the Place, and laying the Scene, I hope I shall be the better believed in relating the Acts of this Con∣ference.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 61. That we can part with it without any losse to our selves, and therefore bids it to make shift for its own Authenticalnesse, fol. 60. The Record sleighted thus, is a Memorial of the Answer of the Abbot of Bancor, to Archbishop Austins proposition, communicated by Peter Moston a Welsh Gen∣tleman, to that learned and industrious Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman, and by him placed in his collection of the British and Saxon Councels: Which honour he had never given it, had he not conceived it worthy to deserve that place▪ nor had the Papists used such violence to wrest it from us, without the hope of gaining some what to themselves.

Fuller.

Had I sleighted that Record, I would not have took the pains to have exem∣plyfied it in British and English, and procured a Prime Antiquary of the Welsh to cor∣rect it; I have given the true Valuation thereunto, esteeming it as highly, as Doctor Hammond hath done, thus writing thereof in his Account of H. T. his Ap∣pendix

to the Manual of Controversie concerning the Abbot of Bangors Answer to Augustine,

Page 168.

In case this one Testimony should be demonstrated to be a Simple Imposture, we can unconcernedly and easily part with it, standing in no need of this Auxiliary: And not long after, The acquisitions of this Author [H.T.] hereby, and proportionably out losses must be so unconsiderable.

For the rest I refer my self to my Church-History in this particular passage, and stand ready to justifie the same, as truly and cautiously written:

Dr. Heylin.

But to proceed, this conference being ended without success, there followed not long after the great slaughter of the Monks of Bancor, for which our Author in a merrier humor than becomes the sadnesse of the matter, or the gravity of an Ecclesiastical History, hath caused Austin to be indited, impanelling a Jury, and pro∣ducing his evidence.

Fuller.

I am sensible of no mis-becoming mirth or levity therein. The impanelling of a Iury is one of the most solemn and serious of all the proceedings in our Law; I pre∣ferred this method as the clearest to present all passages to the fancie, and fittest to fix the same in the memory of the Reader.

Dr. Heylin.

Amongst which Matthew Parker, the learned Archbishop of Canterbury, and Iohn Iewel, the renowned Bishop of Salisbury, must be rejected by the Jury as in∣competent witnesses; partly because of their known opposition to the Romish Church; and partly because of their modern writing, almost a thousand years after the matter in fact, fol. 64. And all this done to add the greater honour to Mr. Fox, as Mo∣dern as either of the two, and as averse as either of them from the Church of Rome. But Mr. Fox was Mr. Fox, no friend unto the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, whereas the other two were Bishops and great sticklers for them. This makes our Author magnifie Fox for his moderation, whose moderate testimony (saith he) much moved the whole Court; and as much to condemn the others for the sharpnesse of their expressions against Austin, (whom our Author him∣self reproacheth often for his pride and haughtinesse, fol. 62.) which made them of lesse credit amongst the Jury. A thread of which fine spinning we shall finde frequently interwoven in the whole web of this History; and towards the latter end thereof, not a few whole pieces made of no better yarn. And let the Reader take this with him for a taste of our Authors good affections to the several parties, that it is bare M. Parker and plain Bishop Iewel, without welt or guard, but reve∣rent Mr. Fox by all means; and so let him passe. And let us passe also to the re∣sidue of the Acts of Austin.

Fuller.

1. I did not expect that the Animadvertor, being of Magdalens in Oxford, would have been offended to have heard his Collegiate (Mr. Fox) to be com∣mended.

2. The testimonies of Archbishop Parker and Bishop Iewell are (to hold the Ballance indifferently) the lesse valued, Because in some sort they were parties, as who (in their Writings) had engaged themselves in this present Controversie, whilest Mr. Fox stands Neu••er as to this particular Controversie.

3. Though the Animadvertor be pleased to entitle him noe friend to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, give me leave to add, and he was no fierce foe against them; But Mr. Fox was Mr. Fox, and Dr. Heylin is Dr. Heylin.

4. As Mr. Fox hath now the casual favour of my Pen to be epithited Reverent,

so afterwards without welt or guard, he is plainly called * 1.16 Iohn Fox. The Animad∣vertor in this his sleight Note, reaping what was not purposely sowen, will finde little food in what He reaps.

Lastly, Bishop Iewel hath his large and due character of commendation (with all honourable Additions with advantage) in due * 1.17 place: So also hath Archbishop Parker, on the same token, that in my History of * 1.18 Cambridge, I cleer him from the scandalous insinuation of Bryan Twine; Si illis standum sit, &c. suggesting some unworthy suspicions, as if he had falsified Mathew Paris in his Edition thereof.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 66. Who all this while was very industrious, and no lesse successfull in converting the Saxons to the Christian faith: Insomuch that a certain Author reporteth, how in the River Swale neer Richmond in Yorkshire, he in one day baptized above ten thousand.] The certain Author whom he means, is an old fragment of a namelesse Author, cited by Camden, fol. 136. who tells the sto∣ry otherwise than our Anthor doth: For though the Fragment tell us, that the River was called Swale, yet that it was the River Swale neer Richmond in York∣shire, is the addition of our Author. That there is a River of that name neer Rich∣mond is affirmed by Camden,* 1.19 who withall telleth us,

That it was reputed very sacred amongst the ancient English, for that in it, when the English-Saxons first embraced Christianity, there were in one day baptized with festival joy by Paulinus the Archbishop of York, above ten thousand Men besides Women and little Children.

Of Austins baptizing in this River, not one word saith he. Neither doth Beda touch upon it, as certainly he would have done, had there been ground for it. And therefore if I may have leave to venture my opinion, I shall concur with the old fragment as to the name of the River, and yet not carry Austin out of Kent, & much less into Richmondshire to perform that office. For when we find in Camden that the Medway falling into the Thames,* 1.20 is divided by the Isle of Sheppey into two great branches, of which the one is called East Swale, the other West-Swale, I see no reason why we should look any where else for that River Swale mentioned in the old fragment, which before we spake of. But herein I must submit my self to more able judgements. The place agreed on, we should next inquire into the numbers, but that our Author seems to grant as much as the fragment craveth.

Fuller.

I could heartily wish that all the Animadvertors Book had consisted of such mat∣ter, then had it been greater though less, I mean bigger in benefit, though smaller in Bulk, and more instructive to the Reader thereof. I did not before take notice of either East or West-Swale in Kent, and now prosesse my self the Animadvertors Convert in this point, agreeing with him, that this grand-Baptizing (if done by St. Austin) was done in the place by him specified.

But this still doth more and more confirm me in my judgement, that Austin advanced never into Yorkshire, and that the conversion of the Northumbrians was the work of Paulinus and others.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 66. If so many were baptized in one day, it appears plainly, that in that age the Administration of that Sacrament was not loaded with those superstitious Ceremonies, as essential thereunto, of crossing, spittle, Oyl, Cream, Salt, and such like Trinkets.] Our Author here reckoneth the signe of the Crosse in Baptism amongst the vain trinkets, and superstitious Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, and thereby utterly condemneth the Church of England, which doth not onely require it in her Rubricks, but also pleads for it in her Canons. Not as essen∣tial to that Sacrament (the Papists not making Spittle, Oyle, Cream, Salt, &c. to be essential thereunto, as our Author saith) but onely for a signe significative, in token

that the party signed shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified,* 1.21 and manfully to fight under his Banner, against sin, the world, and the Devil, and to con∣tinue Christs faithfull soldier and servant unto his lives end. A Ceremony not so new as to be brought within the compass of Popish Trinkets, though by them abu∣sed, For when the point was agitated in the Conference at Hampton Court,* 1.22 and that it was affirmed by some of the Bishops, that the Crosse in Baptism was used in the time of Constantine; Dr. Reynolds, the most able man of the opposite party, who had before acknowledged it to have been in use in other cases, from the very times of the Apostles, had not one word to say against it. And to say truth, no man of modesty and learning, could have spoke against it, when it was proved so clearly by Dr. Andrews then Dean of Westminster out of Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, (each of which died long time before Constantines birth) to have been used in immortali Lavacro, in that blessed Sacrament. That good old saying of Tertullian, Caro signetur, ut anima muniatur, may serve once for all. And there∣fore when our Author telleth us in the following words, that in that age nothing was used with Baptism, but Baptism, it must be considered as a smack of that old leaven which more and more will sowre the lump of his whole discourse. We have already had a taste of it in the very first Book, we finde a continuance of it here, and we shall see more of it hereafter; our Author not being coy in shewing his good affections not onely to the persons of the Non-conformists, but their incon∣formity; not to the men onely, but their Doctrines and Opinions also. And this is that which we must trust to in the whole course of this History.

Fuller.

This Objection hath been answered at large in the Introduction, and here I in∣tend no repetition, onely desiring the Reader to take notice of those my words, as ESSENTIAL thereunto.

Let me add that a * 1.23 Curse is pronounced on those who remove the Land-marks, and it falleth most heavy on them who remove the limits in Gods worship, (as being Boundaries of highest Consequence,) turn MAY into MUST, convenient into ne∣cessary, Ornamental into Essential.

I have as high an Esteem for the Cross in Baptisme as the Animadvertor Him∣self, so long as it observes the due distance of an Ancient and Significant Ceremo∣ny, and intrudes not it self as Essential. A Chain of Gold is an eminent Ornament about the Neck, but it may be drawn so close, as to choak and strangle the wearer thereof. And in like manner Ceremonies, though decent and usefull, when pre∣tending to Essentiality, become (as Luther saith) Carnificinae Conscientiae, and there∣fore justly may we beware thereof.

Dr. Heylin.

Having now done with the Acts of Austin, we shall not keep our selves to so continued a discourse as before we did, but take our Authors Text by piecemeal, as it comes before us, and making such Animadversions on the same, as may best serve to rectifie the story and maintain the truth, as namely, Fol. 65. Thus the Ita∣lian, Spanish, and French, Daughters or Neeces to the Latine, are generated from the corruption thereof.] This is (I grant) the common and received opinion; but yet, me thinks, our Author who loves singularities, should not vouchsafe to travel on the publique Road.

Fuller.

In my passage to heaven, I desire to goe in the narrow path, and decline the broad way which leadeth to destruction:* 1.24 But on earth I love to travel the common and beaten road, as easiest to finde, and wherein (if wrong, or at a losse,) one may soonest finde company to guide and direct him.

If I should travel over the Animadvertors several at Laceys-Court, I have cause to suspect he would sue me for pedibus ambulando; And it is hard, if also he will not let me goe (without carping at me) in the high-way or publique road.

I build nothing on the high-way (so to trespasse upon the Lord of the Soil) but onely peaceably passe along it: I mean, I make no inferences or deductions from this received opinion, I derive no consequence thence. All that I doe, is to gain just advantage thereby to honour the Welsh tongue, by shewing that it is no Daugh∣ter or Neece (like the Italians, Spanish, and French) but a Mother and original Lan∣guage, and might justly have expected thanks rather than censure, from the Ani∣madvertor for my pains, seeing he delighteth to derive himself from British extraction.

Dr. Heylin.

For in my minde it is affirmed with better reason by our learned Brerewood, That those tongues have not sprung from the corruption of the Latine,* 1.25 by the inundation and mixture of barbarous people in those Provinces, but from the first imperfect impressi∣on and receiving of it in those forein Countries. For the Latine tongue was never so ge∣nerally received in any of the conquered Provinces out of Italy, as to be spoken or∣dinarily by the common people; the Gentry and Nobility might be perfect in it, for the better dispatch of their Affairs with the Roman Magistrates, who had the Government and Lieutenancy in their several Countries. And some taste of it might be found with the Vulgar also, who having continual intercourse with the Roman Souldiers, and some recourse for Trade to the Roman Colonies, could not but get a smattering of the Latine tongue. Just so the Gentry and Nobility both in Wales and Ireland, are trained up for the same reasons in the English tongue; which notwithstanding could never get the mastery of the natural Languages, or gain much ground on those of inferior quality. Secondly, had these National Languages proceeded from the depravation of the Latine tongue, by the mixture of the barbarous Nations, it must needs follow, that the Italian had not now been the language of all people in Italy, nor the French of all the Nations which inha∣bit France: & sic de caeteris. My reason is, because the Heruli, being setled in those parts, which we now call Piedmont, the Longobards more towards the East, the Goths about the middle parts, the Saracens and Greeks in the Realm of Naples, there must needs be as many distinct Languages in that one Continent, as there were barbarous Nations planted in it, or at the least such different Dialects, as could be scarce intelligible unto one another. Whereas it is certainly and most plainly known, that there is onely one Language spoken in all that Countrey, equally understood by all, without so much as any sensible difference in pronun∣ciation; more than is usual in all places between the Countrey Villages and the neighbouring Citizens. The like may be affirmed of the ancient Gallia, planted on the East-side of the Loyre by the Burgundians; on the West-side of that River, and towards the Mediterranean, the Pyrenies and the Aquitan Ocean by the Gothish Nations, in most other parts of it by the Franks; and yet all speaking (with very little difference) the same one Language, which from the most predominant People we now call the French. More to this purpose might be said, were not this sufficient.

Fuller.

In this my Expression, that the Italian, Spanish, and French, are * 1.26 Generated from the Corruption of the Latin, the Animadvertor layeth not so much weight on the term GENERATED, as on the word CORRUPTION; whereas indeed whatsoe∣ver is Generated, must be by the Corruption [in some kinde] of that whereof it is begotten.

Corruption importeth (as currant in common discourse) the abasing of a thing from the purity thereof: Now it is all one in Effect, and equally doth my work, to dignifie the British as an Original, above those three Languages, if they came from the imperfect Impression or Reception of the Latin, which may be reduced to the Corruption thereof. Thus the Siboleth of the * 1.27 Ephraimites, may in proprieiy of phrase, be said to have had its rise and being from the Corruption [viz. natural mis∣pronunciation] of the Hebrew word Shiboleth. As for the Animadvertors long

discourse of the irruption of Barbarous, I will return an answer when at better lei∣sure, beholding my self as utterly unconcerned therein.

Let me ad a passage from the mouth of a person present thereat: Bishop Willi∣ams Lord Keeper could speak the Spanish very well; but knowing how much it concerned a Minister of State to be perfect Master of his Tongue, declined it in all Negotiations, Now Gondomar in a State-passage, desired Him to speak Spanish, and on the Bishops refusal thereof, My Lord (said the Don) doe but spoil your good, turning it into scurvy Latin, and it will make as good Spanish as any in the World. It seems he was of my Mind in this present Controversie.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Ibid. The Hebrew the common Tongue of the whole world, before it was inclos'd (that is to say, divided) into several Languages.] An Opinion as common as the other, and as weakly grounded, such as I marvel at in our Au∣thor, who having traveld over all the Holy-Land, should have been better studied in the true nature and original of the Holy-Tongue.

Fuller.

It is strongly grounded on convincing arguments, as God willing shall soon appear.

The Animadvertors marvelling why I am no better studied in the nature and original of the Hebrew Tongue, who (as he saith) have travelled over the Holy-Land, moveth me more to admire, that he himself should be so utterly ignorant in the Brasilian, Mexican, Aethiopian, Persian, Indian, and Tartarian Tongues; but especially in the China language, one letter whereof he did never understand, al∣though he hath written a general Geographie of the whole world.

Dr. Heylin.

Nor is it the opinion onely, that this Tongue was spoken universally before the Flood, and even in Paradise it self in the state of Innocency, but that it shall be spo∣ken in the Celestial Paradise, the language of the Saints in glory.

Fuller.

I will not ingage my self in such a point of meer curiosity; yet is it not impro∣bable, that it might be spoken in Paradise, seeing the word Paradise, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, is borrowed, as Criticks confesse, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Hebrew word. Besides, it is not probable that Adam lost his Language with his Innocence; and that he sp••ke Hebrew after his fall, shall immediatly be proved.

Lesse will I trouble my self what Language the glorified Saints shall speak in Heaven, though I am sure that Halaluijah, praise ye the Lord, is pure Hebrew. When people report unto us improbable passages from forain far distant Coun∣tries, we commonly return, That it is better to beleeve them, than to goe thither to confute them. But if any have over confidently affirmed, that the Saints in glorie shall speak Hebrew, let us rather labour to goe thither to confute them, than here to believe them. Mean time let us here take heed of the malicious language of Detra∣ction against our Brethren, and of scurrilous and profane Language, whereby Piety may be dishonoured.

Dr. Heylin.

Insomuch that some good women of my old acquaintance, were once very ea∣gerly bent to learn this Language, for fear (as I conceive) they should not chat in handsomly when they came to heaven.

Fuller.

The Doctors Book bears the title of NECESSARY Animadversions; But if this be one, let it even serve the Reader for his NECESSARY use.

Indeed I have read of Cato, who having heard some Philosophers maintain that

the Heathen gods spake Greek in Heaven, being past sixtie years old, he began to learn the Greek, that after death he might the better converse with them; a pro∣ject and practise proportionable enough to Pagan principles: The analogy where∣of is too applyable to some prophane mouthes of our age, who by execrable oaths and Curses practise aforehand to blaspheme, rendring themselves (without their serious and seasonable repentance) in a neerer capacity to discourse with the De∣vils and Damned in Hell. But of chatting of Hebrew in Heaven, this is the first, and I hope it shall be the last time I shall meet with the expression.

Dr. Heylin.

Now for the ground thereof, it is no other than an old Iewish Tradition, im∣porting, that this being the common Language of all people before the Flood, was afterwards appropriated unto Phaleg (the son of Heber) and to his Posterity, because not present with the rest at the bullding of Babel, and consequently not within the curse of confounded Languages.* 1.28 But against this it is disputed; first that it is but a Tradition, and therefore of no sure foundation to build upon.

Fuller.

Before we come to the serious examination of the point in hand, I would sain be satisfied what means this marginal note, (Heylins Cosmographie, page 19.) What? Doth he alledge himself to prove his own opinion; my bad Heraldry was never guilty of such a fault, metal upon metal.

Now that the Hebrew was the common Tongue of the world, before the Confusion at Babel, is more than a meer Tradition, being back•• with many Authorities and un∣answerable Arguments.

Of Authorities, we begin with St. Hierom, one who is many Authors in this Point (because of his great and general skil in Languages) and who in his Comment on Zephany, chapt. 3.18. affirmeth, Linguam Hebraicam omnium Linguarum esse Matricem, that the Hebrew is the Mother of all Languages. St. Augustine, lib. 10. cap. 1 de Civitate Dei, Quae prius humano generi non immerito creditur esse communis, ideo deinceps Hebreae est nuncupata.

To these I will add a Iury of publike Professors, all of Eminent note, since the reviving of Languages in the Western world.

• 1. Mercerus, Professor Parisiensis Re∣gis, in Gen. 11. 1.
• 2. D. Pareus, Prof. Heidelberg. in eun∣dum locum.
• 3. Rivetus, Prof. Leiden. Isay c. 4.
• 4. Crinesius, Prof. Aldorphini Noricor. de confusione Linguarum, pag. 4.17.
• 5. Ioh. Buxtorfius senior, in Epist. ded. Thesauri Grammat.
• 6. Ioh. Buxtorfius junior, Prof. Basil. de origine Primigeniae Lingua, in 4¹⁰.
• 7. Glassius, Prof. Ienae, lib. 4. tract. 3. de nomine proprio, pag. 775.
• 8. Polyander, Prof. Leid. Orat. 18. in laudem linguae Hebraae, pag. 296, 297.
• 9. Tremellius, Profess. Heb. Linguae, Cantabrigia.
• 10. Fr. Iunius, Prof. Heidelberg. in Gen. 11.1. Urbis iisdem, &c.
• 11. Whitakerus, Prof. Cantab. Con∣trov. 1. quaest: 2. de script.
• 12. Christ. * 1.29 Beckman, de prop. voc. significatione, pag. 30.

These Authorities are seconded with convincing Arguments. Not to insist on some Ruines and Reliques of Hebrew, scattered in all ancient Languages (and there∣fore Io. Scaliger hath his last (as surest) recourse to it in his Quest after the origina∣iion of Words) Names imposed on Persons before the Confusion of Tongues, are by the Spirit in Scripture (the best Interpreter) made to speak pure Hebrew.

Not to instance in Adam, notoriously known for red Earth, we take no∣tice of,

• 1. Eve * 1.30 or Chavah, so called by her husband, Because she was the Mother of all living, and there is life enough in her Name to justifie it.
• 2. Cain * 1.31, so called by his Mother, rejoycing that she had gotten a Man, and the

• word signifieth a Possession, though therein She (with many other parents, abused by their own over-affection) promised her self more happiness than was performed.
• 3. SETH * 1.32, so named by his mother, for God (said she) hath APPOINTED me another seed, &c. and signifieth one put, placed, or constituted.
• 4. Noah * 1.33, so named by his Father, because this son (said he) shall comfort us, &c. as the word doth import.
• 5. Peleg * 1.34, the son of Heber, may be presumed born at or immediatly after the divisions of the World into Languages, and Colonies, and brooks division in his name.

It is not to be expected that all the whole sentence (spoken by their parents) should be completely contained in their name, but onely that the most operative, emphatical, and expressive word, should appear therein.

I am not ignorant that Goropius Becanus in his Book, which is rather smiled at for the wit, than approved for the judgement therein, deriveth all words from the German or Dutch Tongue. An handsome and prety Essay, but I believe that the Animadvertor is not of his opinion.

It is one thing here and there to take a name, and to make it countenance such a sense; and another thing to charge through and through, so as all names may be de∣monstrated Hebrew in persons born before the confusion of Babel.

How vain would He prove himself, who from the name of AHIMAN * 1.35 (one of the giant sons of Anak) and from some correspondency of height in our Lan∣guage, would thence infer, that English was the ancient Tongue spoken in the Land of Canaan.

But I have stayed too long on this discourse, and refer the rest unto Doctor Brian Walton, who in his Preface unto the last and very laborious and judicious Edition of the Hebrew and many-languag'd Bible, hath no lesse learnedly than copi∣ously handled this Subject.

Dr. Heylin.

And secondly, that it is such a Tradition, as holds no good coherence with the truth of Story, it being a most clear and demonstrative truth, that the Hebrew tongue was not the Language which Abraham brought with him out of Chaldea and Mesopotamia, but that which he found spoken in the Land of Canaan at his coming thither, to which both he and his posterity did conform themselves. Or had it been the Language of Heber, as they say it was, (but most undoubtedly was not) yet, thirdly, had this been a priviledge conferred on Heber, that he and his posterity should speak the Original Language without alteration or corruption, it must have been extended to all those of the house of Iocktan, which descend from him; as also to the house of Laban in Padan-Aram, and to the Moabites, and the Ammonites, as the seed of Lot; and finally to the Madianites, Ishmaelites, and Idu∣maeans, descended of Abraham and Esau; and not be limited and confined onely to the House of Iacob. Now that the language which afterwards was and still is called by the name of the Hebrew, was spoken vulgarly in the Land of Canaan be∣fore the coming of Abraham thither, is not affirmed by Brerewood onely, but by Scaliger, Grotius, Vossius, Bochartus, (all of them men of great renown for their learned studies) and by many others of this age. By most of which it is affirmed also, that the name of Hebrews was given unto them by the people of Canaan, not in regard of their descent from Heber the father of Phaleg, but from Abrahams passing over the River Euphrates, when he came out of Chaldaea with his Family to dwell amongst them; that name in the Canaanitish language signifying as much as trajiciens or transfluvialis; and therefore not unfitly given by them to Abraham at his first coming thi••her. And if the Hebrew (as we now call it) was that Holy Language which was spoken in Paradise, continued by the Patriarchs before the Flood, and after to the building of Babel; it must needs seem infinitely strange, that it should be reserv'd onely amongst the Canaanites, accursed in the person of Ca∣naan (their common Parent) by his Grandfather Noah, and so abominated by God for their filthy wickednesses, that he resolv'd to spew them out of their Na∣tive

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Country, as in fine he did. Or if Abraham brought it with him also, when he came into the Land of Canaan, he must needs leave it behinde him also amongst the Chaldees, where he was born, and where his Ancestors had dwelt before their removal unto Haran. And yet we know that the Hebrew Tongue was so different from the Chaldean, that when the Iews returned from the Captivity of Babylon, where they had been accustomed to, and bred up for the most part in the Chal∣dean Language, they could not understand the very words of the Hebrew Text without an Interpreter, as is apparant in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, vers. 7.8. But of this Argument enough, let us now goe forward.

Fuller.

There be Three distinct Questions, which the Animadvertor doth purposely huddle together for his own advantage.

• 1. Whether the Hebrew was the common Tongue of the old World.
• 2. Whether the Hebrew was so preserved in the posterity of Heber, and so con∣fined to his Family, that no other communicated therein.
• 3. Whether Abraham did bring the Hebrew Tongue into the Land of Canaan, or rather found it there, as spoken formerly by the Natives thereof.

Such as maintain the first, of the Coevity of the Hebrew with the World and Man∣kind, are not necessarily obliged to defend the two latter.

I said and onely said, (as neither inforcing it, nor inferring any thing thence) that the Hebrew was the common Tongue of the world, and have proved it. The rest I am ready to say, so soon as the affirming thereof shall lye in my way, or make for my work, and then (God willing) I will defend my positions. Til then I will gratifie the Animadvertor with no other Answer; and that for these reasons: 1. To shew my own liberty, that I am free born, and not bound to lacquey after his Animadversions when I have no businesse of my own. 2. To wean him from mo∣rosenesse, by not indulging too much to his humor therein. Lastly, to spare time, my own, and the Readers pains now, that we may the more seasonably spend them hereafter, on matter of more importance.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 69. As Pitseus a Catholick Writer would have it.] A Roman Catholicke if you will, but no catholick Writer. And much I wonder, that an Author so averse from the Church of Rome, should give the Title of Catholick to a stickler in the Romish Quarrel; though others of lesse zeal and prudence doe commonly but inconsiderately bestow it on them, A Title which they take with joy,* 1.36 and from thence suck unto themselves no small advantage. Adeo probanda est Ecclesia nostra à nomine Catholici, quod extorquet etiam ab invitis Haereticis, as is bragged by Barclay. But as Pope Gregory pleading against the Patriarch of Constan∣tinople, who had then assum'd unto himself the name of Oecumenical Bishop; ad∣vertiseth all the rest of that sacred Order; Si ille est Universalis, restat ut vos non sitis Episcopi:* 1.37 so may I say with reference to the present case. By gra••ifying these men with the name of Catholicks, we doe unwittingly confesse our selves to be no Christians, or at least but Hereticks.

Fuller.

Had I called Pits a Roman Catholick, then the Animadvertor would have char∣ged me with a contradiction, of a particular general. To clear all, Catholick shall be deleted in the next Edition, and Papist placed in the room thereof.

It is no great wonder if my Pen, perusing many Authors of the Romish perswa∣sion, hath got a smatch of their language. But the danger is the lesse, seeing the Animadvertor will be my compurgator, that my judgement is not inclined to their erronious Opinions. However, he might have omitted this Note, who in his book against Mr. Sanderson, calleth the whole Lump of English Papists, the Catholick Party; as also he termeth them so in his View of the Life of King Charles,

Page 27. the two first lines.

A necessity lay on Prince Charles (then in Spain) of keeping at that time a plausible correspondency with the Catholick PARTY.

Nor can He justly condemn that in Me, which He committeth in himself.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 76. Oxford lays claim to the Antiquites of ••reke∣lade and Lechlade, two ancient Schools of Greek and Latine, as some would have it, remov'd afterwards to Oxford, &c.] The like we finde fol. 117. where our Author telleth us of two Towns on the banks of the Isis▪ the one call'd Greekelade, in which the Greek, the other Lechlade, or Latinlade, in which the Latin Tongue was taught by Philosophers.* 1.38 Most miserably mistaken in both places. For though ••rekelade, or Grekelade may import a study of Greek Philosophers, as some are ready to be∣lieve, yet certainly Lechlade in no Language will signifie the like study of the La∣tine Tongue. The Countrey people (as it seems) doe better understand them∣selves than our Author doth. Amongst whom there is a common Tradition, that ••rekelade was a University of Greek Philosophers, Lechlade of Leches, or Physici∣ans, as the name doth intimate▪ and Lat••en, a small Village betwixt both, to be the place of study for the Latin Tongue. But though the people are mistaken in the Etymon of the name of Lechlade, yet are they not so far out as our Author is, in making Lechlade or Latinlade, to be both the same place and of the same signifi∣cation; whereas in truth that Town is si•• denominated from the River Lech, which arising in the Hills Cotswold, passeth first by Northlech, from thence to Eastlech, and finally falleth into the Thames neer St. Iohns-bridge in this Parish of Lechlade. As for the University of Oxford, which from hence took beginning, as our Author hath it, and the antiquity thereof, I shall not meddle at the present, though our Author, forgetting the Subject which he was to write of, takes all oc∣casions to hook in every old Tradition, (though lesse probably grounded) to ju∣stifie the seniority of the younger Sister.

Fuller.

I live and learn, being in this particular beholden to the Animadvertor. It seems there be three places neer one another,

• 1. ••reeklad, where Greek, are reported professed.
• 2. Le••ch-lade, where Physick, are reported professed.
• 3. Latten, where Latin, are reported professed.

The last of these I never heard of before, and since have never seen in any Map [Shoxtons, Camdens, Speeds;] so that it seems an inconsiderable Village. Howe∣ver my next Edition, God willing, shall be reformed accordingly. And yet I might justly discount this my mistake, and make it goe for nothing, by setting another of the Animadvertors over against it, when in the close of his last Note he informeth us, that the River Lech falleth into the Thames in the Parish of Lechlade: Whereas Thames is more than eighteen miles from Lech-lade by Land, (and thirty by water) not taking the name until the confluence of Tame with Isis, neer to Dorchester in Oxfordshire. This small Error I had passed over in silence; but because I have to doe with an Adversary, who lyeth at catch for the least advantage, and therefore he ought not to be offended, if I return him the same measure I receive from him.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 78. Del••a, whence, some say, Deirham or Durham, lay betwixt Tues and Humber.] More out of this, than in his Lech-lade or Latin-lade, which before we had. For first Durham is not so called quasi Deirham.

Fuller.

It seems that the Animadvertor playeth alwayes at In and In, and I, alas, at Out and Out; But herein I am not out one hairs breadth, as soon will appear.

Dr. Heylin.

Our learned Antiquary gives us a better and more certain derivation of it.

The River (saith he) as though it purposed to make an Island, compasseth al∣most on every side, the chief City of this Province, standing on a Hill, whence the Saxons gave it the name of Dunholm. For as you may gather out of Bede, they called an Hill Dun, and a River-Island Holme. Hereof the Latine Writers have made Dunelmum, the Normans, Duresme; but the common people most corruptly Durham.

Fuller.

Our learned Antiquary (though here not named) doth name himself even Mr. Cam∣den. I ever did and doe believe, that he giveth the true Denomination of Durham, so called from Dunholm.

But let me ad, that I may lawfully, without the least fault, give in also another etymologie, (though not true, yet probable) which I meet with in perusing of seve∣ral Writers.

Mercator, in his Description of Italy, saith some will have it so called quasi Vitalie, from the fairest and fattest Calves bred therein, though I believe that he himself did not believe it to be true, but onely relates it as he found it in Festus. I may challenge the like liberty of presenting etymologies of places, as tendred to me by other Authors.

Dr. Heylin.

But secondly (which marrsall the matter) the Bishoprick of Durham was not in the Kingdome of Deira, as being wholly situate on the North side of the Tees, and consequently part of the Realm of Bernicia, which makes our Authors mistake in another place, fol. 51. the more remarkable, where speaking of the Kingdome of Deira, he gives us this Comment in the Margin, (viz.) What this day is the Bisho∣prick of Deirham or Durham.

Fuller.

Be it here rather repeated than inserted, that in the Saxon Heptarchy, limitary Counties, did march and retreat, dilated and contracted by their Princes success.

As for the Bishoprick of Durham, (though sometimes it might belong to Ber∣nicia) yet generally it was the North-east boundary of the Kingdome of DEIRA, as in the Archbishop of Armagh doth plainly appear,

De Brit. Eccles. primord pag. 395.

Deiri possessed

• ...Lancashire,
• ...Yorkshire,
• ...Westmorland,
• ...Camberland,
• ...Bishoprick of Durham.

Let me add, that He is as exact (even to fractions) as any who ever wrote of the partage of the Saxon Heptarchy.

Dr. Heylin.

But as long as some say so, all is well, though who those some are (except our Author) I can no where finde. Onely I find, that as it is held necessary for a No body to be in all great Houses, to bear the blame of such mischances as by the careles∣ness

of servants and inconsideratenesse, doe too often happen; so is it no lesse necessary, that there should be a some-body also in all great undertakings to bear the blame of such misfortunes as our Adventurers at wit doe as often meet with.

Fuller.

What if Hee can no where finde it, doth it therefore follow, that it is not to be found? Will he presume that his own reading is adequate to things being?

This No-body, so much derided by the Animadvertor, will at last appear some-body, even Mr. Iohn Fox,

Acts & Mon. pag. 149. last Edition.

Deira, a part of North-Saxons, whereof, as it is thought, that which we now call Deirham taketh his name.

Thus, Reader, I have discharged my self from all appearance of fault, by pro∣ducing my Author, a learned and able Historian, how meanly soever the Ani∣madvertor may be pleased to esteem him.

Dr. Heylin.

And such a some-body as this, our Author hath found out to be the father of ano∣ther conceit of his concerning Teyburn (that I may take in this also whilest it is in my minde) of which he tells us lib. 4. fol. 168. That some have deduced the etymo∣logie of Teyburn from Ty and Burn; because forsooth the Lord Cobham was there hang'd and burnt. Whereas indeed it was so named from the Tey, or Teybourn, a small Brook passing neer unto it in the former times. Which Brook or Bourn arising nor far from Padington, hath since been drawn into several Conduits for the use of the City.

Fuller.

I have heard of the Animadvertors etymologie, and believe it probable. I have also been informed from good Antiquaries, that the true name is Twey-BORN, from two little Brooks (wherewith it is insulated in the Winter) running neer to it.

The deduction of Tye-BORN, alias I BURN, from burning of Lollards, I pro∣test I did read in Harpsfield, and it is none of my own invention.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 69. A place so marked, being foretold fortunate to Aeneas to found Alba (since Rome) therein.] A passage as well stor'd with Errors as the rest before, and such a piece of fine new learning, as never any Antiquary had found out till now. For first, Aeneas was not the founder of Alba, though that the place design'd unto him for the seat of his Kingdom. The building of that City was the work of Ascanius, as we finde in Virgil.

At puer Ascanius — Regnum{que} à sede Lavini Transferet, & longam multa vi muniet Albam.

That is to say,

Ascanius from Lavinum shall translate To Alba strongly fenc'd, the Regal State.

And secondly Alba was not built in the place where Rome since stood, but duede∣cimo ab Urbe lapide, about twelve miles off. For though the River Tiber in some ancient Writers hath the name of Albula, yet I never found in any Writer either old or new (till I incounterd it in our Author) that Rome was anciently called Alba.

Fuller.

Rather than any difference shall arise betwixt us about this matter, the Paren∣thesis [since Rome] shall be altered into [neer Rome] and then I hope all shall be right and strait beyond exception.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 104. It is admirable to consider what Sholes of People were formely vented out of Cimbrica Chersonesus, take it in the largest ex∣tent, for Denmark, Norway, and Swedeland.] And in the largest extent it is taken indeed, such as no Author ever gave it before this time. The Cimbrick Cherso∣nese, truly and properly so call'd, comprehended onely those parts of the King∣dome of Denmark which we now call Iuitland, divided by the River Eydore from the Dukedome of Holstein. Ortelius, and some late Geographers make it to take up all that Languet, or piece of Land on the North of Germany, extended from the River Albis in the South, and stretching Northward to that part of the Ocean which leads into the narrow Strait, or passage now called Sundt. But never any till our Author, extended this name over those great Kingdoms of Denmark, Nor∣way, and Swedeland, or unto any part of either beyond the Sundt. And yet he had need stretch it a great deal further before he can finde place in it for his Huns, and Vandals; of which the first inhabited in Asia, beyond the Fens of Maeotis; the last upon the Coast of the Baltick Sea in Germany, now the Dukedom of Mecklen∣burg.

Fuller.

That Denmark, Norway, and Swedeland are a Chersonesus, or almost an Island, the Animadvertor will not deny. But that I called them the Cimbrian Chersonese, cannot clearly be collected from those my words, take it in the largest extent; which amount onely to a Concession, to such who have a mind so to accept it, and to extend the bounds thereof.

Here plainly to discover my judgement, I conceive that those Sholes of People, did not, and yet did, come out of the Cimbrick Chersonese, in the strickt and true ac∣ception thereof.

They did not, that is, they came not thence, as having all their birth therein. Iuitland, not so big as Yorkshire, and the Languet the Animadvertor speaks of, not bigger than Wales, being Hives too little to hold such swarmes and Cas••es of People.

Yet I believe they did come out of that Chesonese immediatly, it being most probable, that out of the opposite Continent of Norway and Swedland, they crossed the Baltick-Sea, being narrowest thereabouts, and so came into Iuitland, and thence Inunded the most of Europe.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 125. Datum in Grantecestria, Anno ab incarnatione Domini 915. venerabili Fratri Frithstano, Civitatis Scolarium Cantabrig. Cancella∣rio, & Doctori per suum, &c.] These words are the conclusion of an ancient Char∣ter, suppos'd to have been given to the Scholars of Cambridge by King Edward the elder; against which our Author fancies one objection, which he thinks easie to be answered, but utterly leaves out another, which I think unanswerable. The objection which our Author makes against it, is the barbarous style and language of it; which if it be a good objection against this Charter, will be as strong against all the Charters of this age, as some ages following in which there was but little of the Elegancies of the Latine tongue. And therefore this objection might have well been spared, but that our Author would be thought to deal very equally in the business, by saying all that might be said against himself.

Fuller.

I plead my last General Answer, discharging my self, because I did there charge

my Margin with two Authors (besides Clareball in Cambridge, where this Charter is extant) Thomas Rudburn, and Iohn Rouse of Warwick. I did not engage with any earnestness for the Charter, per me si non VALEAT, VALEAT. Yet let me add, that following Arguments of the Animadvertor, are so farre from shattering, they doe not shake the credit thereof.

Dr. Heylin.

But yet I have another objection which he takes no notice of, because not so easie to be answered; which is, that Frithstan (whatsoever he was) is here honour∣ed with the degree of Doctor, and the title of Chancellor. But first I would fain know where Frithstan took the degree of Doctor, and in what faculty he took it; that title in those early dayes being so unusual, as hardly to be found amongst the Attributes of the learnedst men. Secondly, I conceive it to be very hard, I had almost said impossible, for him to prove, that the chief Officer of Cambridge, (admitting it at that time for a place of learning) had the name of Chancellor. When I shall see some proof of this, and some satisfaction, I shall give some cre∣dit to the Charter, till then, none at all.

Fuller.

The name of Doctor is threefold, first, for a Teacher at large, extant in Scrip∣ture, Art thou a * 1.39 Doctor in Israel, and knows not these things?

Secondly, as a title of Dignity fixed by a Society of learned men, on some emi∣nent person amongst them.

Thirdly, for one solemnly and ceremoniously graduated by a Professor in some particular faculty, and the word in this sense is not of so great seniority.

I take Doctor in this Charter in the second acception thereof.

And here I cannot but commend the warinesse of the Animadvertors words, that the Title of Doctor is hardly to be found in those early dayes. He hath read the Rule of Grammarians, Quod fere fit, non fit; quod vix fit, fit; what is almost done, is not done; what is scarcely or hardly done, is done. He knew that the Title of Doctor began to come into request in that Age.

Thus Bale and Pits (but both of them, as they confesse; taking their word from a better Antiquary, I. Leland) writing of BRIDFERTUS, contemporary with our Frithstun in the same Generation, dying about the year 980.

Monachus & DOCTOR Anglus in Coenobio Ramsiensi.

As for the name Chancellor, it was (as in Sir H. Spelman his Glossary doth ap∣pear) used at and before this time by the Saxons for a prime officer (though gene∣rally the Secretary) and therefore no such improbability that the Chief of Cam∣bridge might be so denominated.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 139. Cambridgshire men claim an ancient (now an∣tiquated) priviledge to lead the Van in all Battels.] Zealous alike, not onely for the University, but the County of Cambridge, his zeal in both transporting him be∣yond his knowledge into dark adventures. Some Authors he pretends to for the University, for this priviledge none, telling us onely that he hath read it, though he know not where. But I can tell him when and where I have read the contra∣ry, that is to say, in learned Camden, who ascribes this honour to the Kentish. For this he cites not onely the authority of a namelesse Monk, but the words of Iohannes Saruburiensis in his Polycraticon, which are these that follow, For good desert (saith he) of that notable valour which Kent shewed so puissantly and patiently against the Danes,* 1.40 it retaineth still unto these dayes in all Battails the first and foreward, yea and of the first conflict with the Enemy. And if this priviledge was given the Kentish for their valour shew'd against the Danes, it could neither be given to the

men of Cambridgshire, as our Author would, nor on the same occasion as he saith it was.

Fuller.

I have read, that when at the taking of a City by the Romans, two soldiers con∣tended for the CROWN-MURAL, (each pleading he first scaled the walls) that the General caused two Crowns-Mural to be made, affirming that on serious examina∣tion of all circumstances, both appeared to him mounting the walls in the same mo∣ment; and so rewarding them both, prevented a Mutiny of part-taking in the Army.

This controversie is not capable of the same expedient, seeing one cannot make two VANS at once in the same Army, yet may we distinguish of several Times, and accommodate the contest.

King Arthur in his time, gave the conduct of the Front to the Cornish,

Nobilis * 1.41 Arthurus nobis dat primitus ictum.

Cambridgeshire might afterwards have that honour conferred on them, the words of * 1.42 Brimpton, though not cleaving the pin, touch the mark in this point, Unde Anglis regnantibus laus CANTABRIGIENSIS PROVINCIAE splendide flo∣rebat.

Yet the dignity being but tempory, and disposable at the Princes pleasure, in re∣ward of new Services, the Kentish had it afterward bestowed on them, and for a long time enjoyed it.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 141. It did not afterwards embolden him to the an∣ticipation of the Crown, attending till it descended upon him.] He speaks this of King Edward the Confessor, who had he tarryed till the Crown had descended on him, might possibly have found a place amongst the Confessors, but not amongst the Kings of England. For the truth is, the right title to the Crown was at that time in Edward surnamed the Outlaw, the eldest son of Edmund Ironside, who flying into Hungary to avoid the fury of the Danes, married the Kings sister of that Coun∣try, and was by her the Father of Edgar Atheling, and of Margaret wife to Mal∣colm Conmor King of the Scots. But these being absent at that time, Emma the Mother of Prince Edward, and Widow to Canutus the Dane, took the oportunity to set her son upon the Throne, as being not onely half-brother to King Edmund Ironside, but also half-brother, and consequently nearest Kinsman to Canutus the second; which if it were a good descent, will plead almost as strongly for King Harald as it did for him.

Fuller.

My words are true, and not subject to just exception, which I confined onely to King Edward his relation to his own brethren. The legend of his life reports him to be crowned, when unborn, in his Mothers Belly, and having six elder Bre∣thren by the same father King Ethelred:

• 1. Ethelstan,
• 2. Egbert,
• 3. Edmond,
• 4. Edred,
• 5. Edwy,
• 6. Edgar.

(Some of which came to the Crown, others died in their minority.) King Ed∣ward (though thus pre-crowned) did not endeavor to ante-date his possession of the Throne, before his elder Brethren, but waited till the title (as it was derived unto him from his father) descended on him. Otherwise I advocate not for Him, if He took it from any other, who had more right to it than himself.

Dr. Heylin.

But by what means soever he got the Crown, he deserved to weare it.

Fuller.

I cannot cordially close with the Animadvertors expression herein, being sensi∣ble of no Desert, which in this Case is not attended with a true Title: For who shall judge of the desert of Competitors? If the person himself, then every usur∣per will cry up his own worthinesse. If his party, they will make him most meriting whom they favour most in their fancies. This will unsettle all States, cassat all Titles, and cause much distraction. But believing no Il at all intended in these his words, let us proceed.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author telleth us, ibid. That whereas formerly there were manifold Laws in the Land, made, some by the Britains, others by the Danes, others by the English, &c. He caused some few of the best to be selected, and the rest as captious and unnecessary, to be rejected; from whence they had the name of the Common Laws.] That the Com∣mon-Law was so call'd, because compounded of the Saxon, British, and Danish Lawes, which were before of force onely in such places where the Danes, Bri∣tans and Saxons had the greatest sway; though it be easie to be said, will be hard to be proved. The Britains at that time liv'd under their own Princes, and were governed by their own Lawes, and so they were for a long time after; so that King Edward, having no dominion over them, could not impose a Law upon them. Nor was it propable that he should borrow any of their Laws, or impose them on his natural Subjects, considering the antipathy and disaffection betwixt the Nati∣ons. There were at that time indeed in England three kindes of Laws: The first called Dane-lage, or the Danish Laws, prevailing for the most part in the King∣dome of the East-Angles, and that of Northumberland: Secondly, Saxon-lage, used generally in the Kingdoms of the West-Saxons, East-Saxons, South-Saxons, and that of Kent: And thirdly, Mercen-lage, extending over all the Provinces of the Kingdome of Mercia. As for the Britans of Cornwall and Cumberland, they had no distinct Law for themselves (as had those of Wales) but were governed by the Laws of that Nation unto which they were Subject. By these three sorts of Laws were these Nations governed in their several and respective limits, which being afterwards reduced into one body, and made common equally to all the sub∣jects, did worthily deserve the name of the Common-Law. But secondly I dare not give the honour of this Action to King Edward the Confessor. The great Iu∣stinian in this work was another Edward, called, for distinctions sake, King Ed∣ward the elder, who began his Reign Anno 900. almost 150 years before this Confessor, to whom our Author hath ascribed it. But the truth is, that these Laws being suppressed by the Danish Kings, who governed either in an arbitrary way, or by Laws of their own Countrey, they were revived and reinforced in the time of this Edward, from whence they had the name of Edward the Confessors Laws, and by that name were sued and fought for in the time succeeding, of which more hereafter. Now as this work may be ascribed to his love to Justice; so from his piety, his successors derive as great a benefit of curing the disease which from thence is called the Kings-Evill, which some impute (as our Author tells us) to se∣cret and hidden causes.

Fuller.

This long Note might well have been boiled down from a Gallon to a Gil, to make it more cordial. If the Reader can pick any information out of it, much good may it doe him. Let the honour of so good a Deed, with all my heart, be parted betwixt the two Edwards, one the Beginner, the other the finisher thereof.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 145. Others ascribe it to the power of fancy and an ex∣alted imagination.] Amongst which others, I may reckon our Author for one. He had not else so strongly pleaded in defence thereof. But certainly what effect

soever the strength of fancy and an exalted imagination, as our Author calls it, may produce in those of riper years, it can contribute nothing to the cure of children. And I have seen some children brought before the King by the hanging sleeves, some hanging at their Mothers breasts, and others in the arms of their Nurses, all touch'd and cur'd without the help of any such fancies or imaginations as our Author speaks of.

Fuller.

If I be reckoned amongst them, I am mis-reckoned; for though I conceive fancy may much conduce, in Adultis, thereunto, yet I believe it partly Miraculous, as may appear by my last and largest insisting thereon. I say partly, because a com∣pleat Miracle is done presently and perfectly, whereas this cure is generally ad∣vanced by Degrees, and some Dayes interposed.

Dr. Heylin.

Others lesse charitably condemn this cure as guilty of superstition, quarrel∣ling at the Circumstances and Ceremonies which are used. And this they doe (saith he ibid.) either displeased at the Collect, consisting of the first nine verses of the Gospel of St. John, as wholly improper, and nothing relating to the occasion, &c.] Our Author tels us more than once, lib. 11.167. of his being a Clerk of the Convocati∣on, but I finde by this, that he never came so high as to be Clerk of the Closet.

Fuller.

I never was (nor the Animadvertor neither) Clerk of the Closet, Non tanto me dig∣nor honore. But I have had the honor to see the King solemnly Heal in the Quire of the Cathedral of Sarisbury, though, being so long since, I cannot recover all particulars.

Dr. Heylin.

Which had he been, he would not have mistaken the Gospel for a Collect; or touched upon that Gospel which is lesse material, without insisting on the other, which is more pertinent and proper to the work in hand; or suffered the displea∣sed party to remain unsatisfied about the sign of the Crosse made by the Royal Hands on the place infected (as it after followed) when there is no such crossing used in that sacred Ceremony, the King only gently drawing both his hands over the sore at the reading of the first Gospel.

Fuller.

I fully satisfie the displeased party, (if he be not through weaknesse nor wilfulnesse incapable thereof) about the Sign of the Crosse, in those my words immediate∣ly following.

All which exceptions fall to the ground when it shall be avowed, That the Kings bare Hands, notwithstanding the omission of such Ceremonies have effected the Healing.

Take it pray as since it is set down in more ample manner in a late Book, which I know not whither it be more learned in it self or usefull to others.

* 1.43All along K. Edward the sixth, and Queen Elizabeth her reign, when the Stru∣mosi, such as had the Kings-Evil came to be touch'd, the manner was then, for Her to apply the Sign of the * 1.44 Crosse to the Tumor, which raising a cause of Jea∣lousies, as if some mysterious Operation were imputed to it. That wise and learned King, not only (with his Son the late King) practically discontinued it; but ordered it to be expunged out of the prayers relating to the Cure, which hath proceeded as effectually, that omission notwithstanding, as ever before.

Dr. Heylin.

But that both he and others may be satisfied in these particulars, I have thought fit to lay down the whole form of prayers and readings used in the healing of that malady in this manner following.

The form of the Service at the healing of the Kings-Evil.

THe first Gospel is exactly the same with that on Ascension day▪ At the touching of every infirm person, these words are repeated, They shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The second Gospel begins the first of St. Iohn, and ends at these words, Full of grace and truth. At the putting the Angel about their necks were repeated, That Light was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Lord have mercy upon us. Christ have mercy upon us. Lord have mercy upon us.

Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, &c.

Min. O Lord, save thy servants. Answ. Which put their trust in thee. Min. Send unto them help from above. Answ. And evermore mightily defend them. Min. Help us, O God our Saviour. Answ. And for the glory of thy Names sake deliver us, be mercifull unto us sinners for thy Names sake. Min. O Lord, hear our prayer. Answ. And let our cry come unto thee.

The Collect.

Almighty God, the eternal health of all such as put their trust in thee, Hear us, we beseech thee, on the behalf of these thy servants, for whom we call for thy mercifull help, that they receiving health may give thanks unto thee in thy holy Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The peace of God, &c.

This is the whole form, against which nothing is objected, but the using of the words before mentioned at the putting on of the Angel; the pertinency whereof may appear to any who consider that the Light which was the true Light, and lighteth every man which cometh into the world, did not shine more visibly, at the least more comfortably upon the people, than in the healing of so many sick, in∣firm and leprous persons, as did from time to time receive the benefit of it. But it is time I should proceed.

Fuller.

I perceive by this office, that I have mistaken the Gospel for the the Collect; which in the next Edition (God willing) shall be rectified.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 148. These chose Harald to be King, whose title to the Crown is not worth our deriving of it, much lesse his relying on it.] A Title not so despicable as our Author makes it, nor much inferiour unto that, by which his predecessor obtain'd the Kingdome. Harald being son to Earl Godwin, (the most potent man of all the Saxons) by Theyra the natural daughter of Canutus the first, was consequently Brother by the whole blood to Harald Harfagar, and Brother by the half blood to Canutus the second, the two last Danish Kings of England. In which respect being of Saxon Ancestry by his Father, and of the Danish Royal blood by his Mother, he might be lookT on as the fittest person in that conjun∣cture, to content both Nations: But whatsoever his Title was, it was undoubted∣ly better than that of the Norman, had either his success been answerable, or his sword as good.

Fuller.

It was a despicable Tit••le, even after the Animadvertor hath befriended it with his most advantageous representing thereof,

• 1. From his Father, Earl Godwin, the most potent man of Saxon Ancestry.
• 2. From his Mother, Theyra, the natural Daughter of Canutus the first.

As to his Paternal Title, if his Fathers potencie was all can be alledged for it, any Oppressor hath the same right.

His Maternal Title, if from Canutus his natural [understand base] Daughter openeth a Dore (as I may say) for all who come in by the window.

Besides, the Animadvertor is much mistaken in the name of his Mother, seeing Mr. * 2.1 Camden saith, E Githâ Suenonis Regis Danici Sorore natu•• fuit: He was born of Githa Sister to Sweno King of Denmark.

Dr. Heylin.

Upon occasion of which Conquest, our Author telleth us that, Ibid. This was the fifth time wherein the South of this Island was conquered; first by Romans, second∣ly by Picts and Scots, thirdly by Saxons, fourthly by the Danes, and fifthly by the Nor∣man.] But this I can by no means yeeld to, the Scots and Picts not being to be nam'd amongst those Nations who subdued the South part of this Island. That they did many times harrass and depopulate the South part of it, I shall easily grant; but to the subduing of a Countrey, there is more required than to waste and spoil it; that is to say, to fix their dwelling and abode (for some time at least) in the Countrey conquered; to change the Laws, alter the Language, or new mould the Government; or finally, to translate the Scepter from the old Royal Family to some one of their own. None of which things being done in the Invasions of the Scots and Picts, they cannot properly be said to have subdued the South parts of the Island, as our Author (out of love perhaps to the Scots) would perswade the Reader.

Fuller.

I confesse of all Five, the Picts and Scots had the most short and uncertain abode in the South. The distinction is very nice, betwixt harrassing or depopulating of a Countrey and subduing it. If I could but harrasse and depopulate (that is but de∣argumenta••e) the Animamadvertors Book against me, I doubt not but I should be accounted to subdue it.

Why is not my Pen charged with a love to the Picts (whom I also equally with the Scots intitle to this subduing) and is a Nation now no where extant, to be the object of my affection.

But this five-times subduing of the South of this Island, is in all Authors as gene∣rally known and received, as that a man hath five fingers on his hand. Wherefore no more in Answer to just nothing.

THE THIRD BOOK From the time of the Norman Conquest, to the first preach∣ing of Wickliffe.

Dr. Heylin.

WE are now come unto the times of the Norman Government, when the Church began to settle on a surer bottom, both for power and polity; the Bishops lesse obnoxious to the Kings than formerly, because elected by the Monks and Canons of their own Cathedrals; their Consistories free from the inter∣mixture of Lay-assistance, and their Synods manag'd by themselves. Wherein though they had power of making such Synodicall Constitutions as did ipso facto binde all parties, yet our Author is resolv'd to have it otherwise.

Fuller.

All this is but perfatary, and therefore my Answer not necessary thereunto. The Animadvertor seemeth to congratulate the Condition of the English Church, as better hereafter in the following, than in foregoing Ages.

He instanceth in two particulars POWER and POLITIE, omitting a third worth Both, Piety (to which Purity in Doctrine may be reduced) which now began more and more to be impaired.

Let me add, that after the Kings of England had parted (which indeed was wrested from them) with the Investing of Bishops, Bishops became lesse managable by, and dutiful to their Prince, and more insulting over the People: and being lesse OBNOXIOUS (to use the Animadvertors word) to the Soveraign, were more NOXIOUS to the Subjects.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 19. The Proceedings (saith he) of the Canon Law were never wholly received into practice in the Land; but so as made subject in whatso∣ever touched temporals, to Secular Lawes, and National Customes. And the Laity as pleasure limited Canons in this behalf.] How false this is, how contrary to the power and practice of the Church before the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the eight; and finally how dangerous a ground is hereby laid to weaken the Authority of Convocations, will best appear by laying down the sum of a Petition presented by the House of Commons to the same King Henry, toge∣ther with the Answer of the Prelates and inferior Clergy, then being Synodi∣cally assembled, to the said Petition.

The substance of the Petition was as followeth, viz.

THat the Clergy of this your Realm, being your Highnesse Subjects, in their Convocation by them holden within this your Realm, have made, and daily make divers Sanctions or Laws concerning Temporal things, and some of them be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of your Realm,* 2.2 not having ne requiring your most Royal assent to the same Laws so by them made, nother any assent or knowledge of your Lay Subjects, is had to the same, no∣ther to them published and known in their Mother tongue, albeit divers and sundry of the said Laws extend in certain causes to your excellent Person, your Liberty and Prerogative Royal, and to the interdiction of your Laws and Pos∣sessions, and so likewise to the Goods and Possessions of your Lay Subjects, declaring the infringers of the same Laws so by them made, not onely to incur the terrible censure of Excommunication, but also to the detestable crime and sin of Heresie, by the which divers of your humble and obedient Lay Subjects be brought into this Ambiguity, whether they may doe and execute your Laws according to your jurisdiction Royal of this Realm, for dread of the same Cen∣sures and pains comprised in the same Laws so by them made in their Con∣vocations, to the great trouble and inquietation of your said humble and obedient Lay Subjects, &c. the impeachment of your Jurisdiction and Pre∣rogative Royal.

The Answer thereunto was this.

TO this we say, that forasmuch as we repute and take our Authority of ma∣king Laws to be grounded upon the Scripture of God, and the determina∣tion of holy Church, which must also be a rule and squier to try the justice and righteousnesse of all Laws, as well Spiritual as Temporal; we verily trust, that considering the Laws of this Realm be such as have been made by most Chri∣stian, religious, and devout Princes and People, how both these Laws proceed∣ing from one fountain, the same being sincerely interpretrd, and after the good meaning of the makers, there shall be found no repugnancy, nor contrariety, but that the one shall be found as aiding, maintaining, and supporting the other. And if it shall otherwise appear, as it is our duty (whereunto we shall alwayes most diligently apply our selves) to reform our Ordinances to Gods Commissi∣on, and to conform our Statutes and Laws, and those of our predecessors, to the determination of Scripture and holy Church; so we hope in God, and shall daily pray for the same, that your Highnesse will, if there appear cause why, with the assent of your People, temper your Graces Laws accordingly. Whereby shall ensue a most happy and perfect conjunction and agreement, as God being Lapis angularis, to agree and conjoyn the same. And as concerning the requiring of your Highnesse Royal assent to the authority of such Laws as have been by our Predecessors, or shall be made by us in such points and Arti∣cles as we have by Gods authority to rule and order by such Provisions and Laws; we knowing your Highness wisdome, and vertue, and learning, nothing doubt but the same perceiveth how the granting hereunto dependeth not upon our will and liberty. And that we your most humble Subjects may not submit the execution of our charge and duty certainly prescribed by God, to your Highnesse assent, although in very deed the same is most worthy for your most Noble, Princely, and excellent vertues, not onely to give your Royal assent, but also to devise and command what we should for good order and manners by Statutes and Laws provide in the Church, neverthelesse considering we may not so, ne in such sort refrain the doing of our office in the feeding and ruling of Christs people your Graces Subjects; we most humbly desiring your Grace

as the same hath heretofore, so from henceforth to shew your Graces minde and opinion unto us, what your high Wisdome shall think convenient, which we shall most gladly hear and follow, if it shall please God to inspire us so to doe, with all submission and humility beseech the same, following the steps of of your most Noble Progenitors, and conformably to your our own Acts doe maintain and defend such Laws, and Ordinances, as we according to our cal∣ling and by Authority of God, shall for his honour make, to the edification of vertue, and maintaining Christs faith, of which your Highnesse is named Defender, and hath been hitherto indeed a special Protector.

Furthermore whereas your said Lay Subjects say, that sundry of the said Laws extend in certain causes to your excellent Person, your Liberty and Prerogative Royal, and to the interdiction of your Land and Possessions: To this your said Orators say, that having submitted the tryal and examining of the Laws made in the Church by us and our Predecessors, to the just and straight Rule of Gods Laws, which giveth measure of Power, Prerogative, and Authority to all Emperors, Kings, Princes, and Potentates, and all o∣ther; we have conceiv'd such opinion, and have such estimation of your Ma∣jesties goodnesse and vertue, that whatsoever any persons not so well learned as your Grace is, would pretend unto the same, whereby we your most hum∣ble Subjects may be brought in your Graces displeasure and indignation, sur∣mising that we should by usurpation and presumption, extend our Laws to your most noble Person, Prerogative and Realm, yet the same your High∣nesse being so highly learn'd, will of your own most bounteous goodnesse fa∣cilly discharge and deliver us from that envy, when it shall appear that the said Laws are made by us, or out Predecessors, conformable and maintainable by the Scripture of God, and determination of the Church, against which no Laws can stand or take effect.

Somewhat to this purpose had been before endeavoured by the Commons in the last Parliament of King Edw. 3. of which, because they got nothing by it, but only the shewing of their teeth without hur∣ting any body; I shall lay nothing in this place, reserving it to the time of the long Parliament, in the Reign of King Charles, when this point was more hotly followed, and more powerfully prosecuted than ever formerly.

What sayes our Author unto this? Findes he here any such matter, as that the Laity at their pleasure could limit the Canons of the Church? Or that such Ca∣nons in whatsoever touched temporals were subject unto secular Laws and National Cu∣stomes? And here of I desire the Reader to take special notice, as that which is to serve for a Catholicon, or general Antidote against those many venomous in∣sinuations, which he shall meet with up and down in the course of this History. As for the case in which our Author grounds this pestilent Position, it was the Canon made in a Synod at Westminster, in the time of Anselm, Anno 1102. prohi∣biting the sale of men and women like brute beasts in the open Market. Which Ca∣non not finding presently an universal obedience over all the Kingdome (as certainly ill customes are not easily left, when they are countenanced by profit) occasioned our Author to adventure upon this bold assertion.

Fuller.

I conceived it uncivil to interrupt the Animadvertor in his long discourse un∣til he had ended it, and now professe, I know not how it maketh in opposition to what I said, and heartily wish that the Reader may understand it better than I doe.

It cannot be denyed, but that the Clergy did claim and challenge a power, and sometimes de facto executed it, over the temporal Estates of the La••ty (for I behold the Clergy, more bound, (because binding themselves by their represen∣tatives) unto their Canons) yet they never peaceably injoyed their Power, as con∣stantly checkt and controled by the Laws of the Land, in such things, wherein the Temporal Estate, Life and Limb of Persons were concerned.

We have an eminent instance hereof, in the Canon, occasioning this dis∣course.

Anselme makes a Constitution (and that indeed charitable and Chri∣stian) against the sale of men and women like brute beasts in the open market place. Now such persons sold (slaves and Vassals as I understand it) being the Goods and Chattels of their Masters, the proprietaries and owners of their Bodies, they would not part with their right in obedience to the Canon.

Suppose a Convocation some thirty years agoe should have made a Canon, without any confirmation from Parliament, That no Merchant living in England should by his Factors sell any Negroes or Blacks in the Barbadoes, which formerly he had bought in Guinnie, it would not oblige to the observation thereof; because in such matters wherein propertie was concerned, the Canon must say to the Common-Law, By your leave Sir.

I have writen nothing in this point, bu•• what I have a good Author for. And seeing the Animadvertor in his Geography hath been pleased to tell a passage be∣twixt him and his fathers man, let me relate another, wherein my self was con∣cerned, knowing it to be as true, and hoping it to be as well applyed.

Some three years since, walking on the Lords day into the Park at Copthall, the third son (a child in coats) of the Earl of Dorset, desired to goe with me, whereof I was unwilling, fearing he should straggle from me whilest I meditated on my Sermon: And when I told him, that if he went with me, he would lose himself, he returned, Then you must lose your self first, for I will goe with you.

This rule I alwayes observe, when medling with matters of Law, because I my self am a child therein, I will ever goe with a man in that faculty, such as is most e∣minent in his profession, à cujus latere non discedam; so that if he lose me, he shall first lose himself, as hereafter when we grapple together in this Controversie, will appear.

As for this particular case (for I will engage no further for the present) this Canon did not dispossesse Masters of their property in their Vassals, and no meaner than Mr. Selden, is my conductor herein, stiled hereafter by, the Animadvertor* 2.3, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that renowned Humanitian and Philologer.

Yea I entred my Author in the Margin, had the Animadvertor been pleased to take notice thereof) Spiceleg ad Edmerium, page two hundred and eight.

Ne{que} sane Canon▪ hic, aut alia apud nos lata Lex id juris hactenus adeo refixit; quin in Iurisconsultorum nostratium Commentariis passim Legibus quibus utimur consonum agnoscatur. Neither truly this Canon, or any other Law made amongst us, hath hitherto unfastened this right; but that in the Comments (or Reports), of our Common Lawyers, it is acknowledged consonant to those Laws which we use. And though in processe of Time, first conscientious, then all Masters laudibly submitted themselves to this Canon (forbearing such sales;) yet were they not by the Canon devested of the power of Doing it, such vendition and emption being by the Common-Law pre∣served unto them, though now, very commendably, long disused.

And whereas the Clergy in their Answer, pretend all their Canons grounded on the Word of God, I would fain be informed where they finde in the New-Testament (which ought to regulate their proceedings) that the power of the Church extendeth to life, limb, or estate. Sure I am her censures appear spiritual on the soul, by those expressions, Binde * 2.4 on Earth, Cast * 2.5 out, Deliver * 2.6 to Satan, &c. But because the Reader reserveth a lager prosecution of this point for another time, we will also respit our larger answer hereunto.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 24. Indeed 1. Davids had been Christian some hun∣dred of years, whilest Canterbury was yet Pagan.] Not many hundred years I am sure of that nor yet so many as to make a plural number by the Latin Grammer; Kent being conquered by the Saxons, who brought in Paganism, Anno 455. Con∣verted unto Christianity by the preaching of Austin, Anno 569. Not much more than 140. years betwixt the one and the other.

Fuller.

The Christian Antiquity of St. David bare a double Date, one native or inherent, the other adopted and Reputative.

• 1. The Inherent from the time that St. David fixed there, on which account I believe it was no more than 140. years senior to Canterbury.
• 2. The Reputative from the first found∣ing of a Bishoprick at Carleon by King Lucius, which (indifferently stated) was about the year of our Lord 169▪ which was four hundred years before Canter∣bury.

Now it is notoriously known, that the antiquity of Carleon (whence the See was removed) in computation of the seniority is adjected to St. Davids, (her adopted Daughter.)

Hence was it that the Abbot of Bancar in his * 2.7 Answer unto Austin, acknow∣ledged himself and his Convent under the Government of the Bishop of Carleon upon Uske, (though then no Bishop therein) meaning St. Davids thereby, as Dr.* 2.8 Ham∣mond and others doe unanimously allow.

Thus grafting St. Davids (as it ought) on the Stock of Carleon, it is senior in Christianity to Canterbury four hundred years, and FOUR, may be termed Some, in the stricktest propriety of Language.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 29. To whose honour he (viz. King Stephen) erected St. Stephens Chappel in Westminster, neer the place where lately the Court of Re∣quests was kept.] Our Author is here mealy mouth'd, and will not parler le tout, as the French men say. For otherwise he might have told us that this Chappel is still standing, and since the surrendry of it to King Edward the sixth, hath been used for a Parliament House,* 2.9 imployed to that purpose by the Commons, as it still continueth. What might induce our Author to be thus reserved, I can hardly tell; unless it be to prevent such inferences and observations, which by some wanton wits might be made upon it.

Fuller.

I hope rather some gracious hearts will make pious improvement thereupon, praying to God, that seeing so many signal persons are now assembled therein, the very place once dedicated as a Chappel to St. Stephen, may be their more effectual Remembrancer, to imitate the purity and piety of that renowned Saint: That so God may be invited graciously to be present amongst them, to over-rule all their consultations to his Glory, the Good of the Church and State, and the true honour of the Nation: And to this let every good man say, Amen.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 40. By the same title from his Father Jeffery Plan∣tagenet, be possessed fair lands in Anjou and Maine.] I had thought he had posses∣sed somewhat more in Anjou and Maine, than some fair Lands onely, his Father Ieffrey Plantagenet being the Proprietary Earl of Anjou, Maine, and Toureine, not a titular onely, succeeded in the same by this King Henry and his two sons, Ri∣chard and Iohn, till lost unhappily by the last, with the rest of our Estates on that side of the Sea. From this Ieffery descended fourteen Kings of the name of Plan∣tagenet, the name not yet extinguished, though it be improverished: Our Au∣thor speaking of one of them, who was found not long since at the Plow, Lib. 2. p. 170. Another of that name publishing a Book about the Plantation of New-Al∣bion, Anno 1646. or not long before.

Fuller.

The frequent and familiar figure of MOISIS will rectifie all, wherby lesse is said than meant, and therefore more must be understood than is said. Besides, it made me mince my expression, (being loath to exceed) because this Ieffery did not to me appear (though the Earl,) so intire in those Dominions, but that the Kings of France and England had Cities and Castles interposed therein.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 53. King John sent a base, degenerous, and unchri∣stian Embassage to Admitalius Mutmelius a Mahometan King of Morocco, then very puissant, and possessing a great part of Spain.] This Admiralius Murmelius, as our Author and the old Monks call him, was by his own name called Mahomet Enaser, the Miramomoline of Morocco; to whom if King Iohn sent any such Message, it was as base, unchristian▪ and degenerate as our Author makes it.

Fuller.

I will ingenuously confesse, that the first time I found this Story, was in the Doctors Mi••ro-cosm (the novelty making me take the more notice thereof.) Though since I have met with it in M. Paris (the fountain) and other Authors, the channels thereof, I conceive it was as lawfull for me to relate it, as for the Animadvertor, who epitheis this Embassy BASE* 2.10, DEGENEROUS, and UNCHRISTIAN, the words which in me he reproveth.

Dr. Heylin.

But being the credit of the Tale depends upon the credit of the Monkish Au∣thors, to which brood of men that King was known to be a prosessed Enemy (ha∣ting and hated by one another) it is not to be esteemed so highly as a piece of Apo∣crypha, and much lesse to be held for Gospel.

Fuller.

Here he rather speaks aliter than alia, from what I had written on the same Subject, who thus concluded the Character of King Iohn.

Church-Hist. Book 3. pag. 54.

We onely behold him Him thorough such a Light as the Friers his foes shew him in; who so hold the candle, that with the Shadow thereof they darken his virtues, and pre∣sent onely his Vices; yea, and as if they had also poysoned his memory, they cause his faults to swell to a prodigious greatnesse, making him with their pens more black in conditions, than the Morocco King (whose aid he requested) could be in complexion.

Here I desire to give the Reader a ••aste of what doth frequently occur in this Book, and of what I justly did complain, viz. the Animadvertor * 2.11 sometimes not liking my language, (as not proper and expressive enough) substituteth his own, with little or no variation of matter.

I confesse he is not bound to use my words, and such variations simply in it self, is no wrong unto me; but it becometh an Injury when they must passe for ne∣cessary Animadversions on my Book, to the defaming thereof, as if it were defe∣ctive without them, which were there (though perchance not so finely) as fully and clearly before.

Dr. Heylin.

Possible it is, that being overlaid by his own Subjects, and distressed by the French, he might send unto that King for aid in his great extremities. And doing this (if this were all) he did no more than Nature, and indignation, and the necessi∣ty of his affairs did provoke him to; not half so much as was done afterwards up∣on far weaker grounds by King Francis the first, employing the Turks Forces both

by Sea and Land against Charles the fifth. But the Monks coming to the know∣ledge of this secret practise, and construing his actions to the worst, improv'd the Molehill to a Mountain, rendring him thereby as odious to posterity, as he was to themselves.

Fuller.

How much is this different from what I have written before, but that the Ani∣madvertor will not wear words at the second hand of my using, but will have them spick and span new of his own making.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 63. I question whether the Bishop of Rochester (whose Country house at Bromley is so nigh) had ever a House in the City.] There is no que∣stion but he had, Stow finding it in Southwark by the name of Rochester house, ad∣joyning on the South side to the Bishop of Winchesters, ruinous and out of repara∣tion in his time (as possibly not much frequented since the building of Bromley House) and since converted into Tenements for private persons.

Fuller.

It was a Question to me, though none to the Animadvertor; now it is a que∣stion neither to him nor to me, who by him am informed. I see that men may learn by what boyes learn in their Qui mihi,

Sed qui nil dubitat, nil capit inde boni.

Had I not questioned this once publickly, probably I had questioned it ever pri∣vately, and gone in my self without satisfaction.

Dr. Heylin.

But since our Author hath desired others to recover the rest from oblivion, I shall help him to the knowledge of two more, and shall thank any man to finde out the third. The first of these two is the Bishop of Lincolns House, situate neer the old Temple in Holborn, first built by Robert de Chesney, Bishop of Lincoln, Anno 1147. since alien'd from that See to the Earls of Southampton, and passing by the name of Southampton House. The second is the Bishop of Bangors, a fair House situate in Shoe-lane neer St. Andrews Church, of late time leased out by the Bishops, and not since, the dwelling of Dr. Smith Doctor in Physick, a right honest and ingenuous person, and my very good friend. Of all the old Bishops which were founded be∣fore King Harry the eight, there is none whose House we have not found, but the Bishop of Asaph; to the finding whereof, if our Author, or any other will hold forth the Candle, I shall follow the light the best I can, and be thankfull for it.

Fuller.

I faithfully promise so to doe, as soon as I arrive at any good intelligence thereof.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 67. And though some high Royalists look on it as the product of Subjects animosities improving themselves on their Princes extremities, &c.] Our Author telleth us in his Epistle to the Reader, that the three first Books of this Volume were for the main written in the reign of the late King, and that it would appear so by some passages which were then proper for the Government. But certainly if these words were written in the time of the late King, they were written in the time of his distresse, when his affairs were desperate, and his Party ruin'd; the name of Royalists had not else been used here in the way of reproach, nor any new matter charg'd upon them, which might render them more obnoxious to fine and ransome than the crime of Loyalty.

Fuller.

My Loyaltie did rise and fall with his Majesties successe, as a Rock in the Sea doth with the ebbing and flowing of the Tyde. I had more pitty but not lesse honour for him in his deepest distresse.

God knows my heart, I use not the word High-Royalist here as by way of reproach, and the unpartial Reader niether will nor can so understand it.

Some there are who maintain, that a King is no way confined with his own Laws, but that without any fault, he may by his own l••st limit his Demands on his Subjects, taking from them, without any wrong, what they refuse to pay unto him. There the Animadvertor will call Royalists, and I dare call them High-Royalists, beholding (as I have said) the Grand-Charter as the product of Subjects animosities improving themselves on their Princes extremities.

Dr. Heylin.

But whatsoever our Author thinks, it cannot but appear to any who consults the story of former times, that the original of this Charter, was first writ in blood, obtain'd by working on the necessities of some Princes, extorted in the minority of another, and finally confirm'd by him who had not power to justifie his denial of it.

Fuller.

I could heartily have wished, that the Animadvertor had expressed the names of these Kings. Who now onely hope that I conjecture them aright.

• 1. King Iohn, on the working of whose necessities it was first obtainned.
• 2. Henry the third, whose consent thereto was extorted in his minoritie.
• 3. Edward the first, confirming it when not in power to justifie his denial, du∣ring his durance as a Prisoner taken in Battail.

Here I confesse, are three sad conditions, necessity of the first, minority of the second, captivity of the third. But know, that the last of these when at liberty, and not onely endued with freedome, but impowered with force, and being as wise and successefull a Prince, as ever sate on the English Throne; found it advan∣tagious for his Interest, to observe what formerly when a Prisoner he had confir∣med.

Otherwise his Sword was so long, reaching as farre as Palastine it self, and so sharp, hewing his conquering way through Wales and Scotland; that therewith (en∣forced with his arm) he might have rescinded the Seals of the Grand-Charter, and put himself into the condition of an absolute command.

But he preferred the strict observation thereof, partly out of Piety, because solemnly sworn thereunto; partly out of Policy, as sensible that therein the Rights of Sovereigns and Subjects, were indifferently contempered to their mutual happinesse, it being Fetters to neither, but Girdles to both to be strength∣ned by such restraints.

Dr. Heylin.

And if our Author be so certain, that those Kings flourihed most both at home and abroad, who tyed themselves most conscientiously to the observation thereof: I would fain know how some of our Kings, who have most conscientiously tied themselves to that observation, became so unprosperous; or how some others came to flourish both at home and abroad, who have made it their great work to infringe the same in almost all the principal Articles and main branches of it.

Fuller.

It is an hard question, and yet perchance more dangerous than difficult to an∣swer, but the reason I dare alledge is this, Even so Father, because it pleased thee.

Let me add, that such conscientious observers thereof, which have proved un∣successefull, may esteem their losses as Sweet-Bryar and Holy-Thistle, and more

cordially comfort themselves in such sanctified afflictions, than the Infringers of their Charter could content themselves in their successefull oppression.

I cannot part from this point, till I have inserted that Sir Robert Cotton, (one who had in him as much of the Gentleman, Antiquarie, Lawyer, good Subject, and good Patriot, as any in England) was the Author, [in his short view of the long reign of King Henry the third] who made the observation of those most successe∣full Kings, by whom the Grand-Charter was most conscienciously observed.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 88. The poor Jews durst not goe into France (whence lately they had been solemnly banished) but generally disposed themselves in Germany and Italy.] The poor Iews are more beholding to our Author for his commise∣ration than the high Royalists, (as he cals them) in the former passage. But poor or rich, they might have passed safely into France, had they been so minded. For though he tell us, that they had been solemnly banished out of France before this time; yet either such banishment was repealed, or temporary only, or (as I rather think) not so much as sentenced. Certain I am, our learned Brerewood upon a diligent enquiry hath found it otherwise than our Author doth; letting us know,* 2.12 That the first Countrey in Christendome, whence the Jews were expelled with∣out hope of return, was our Countrey of England, whence they were banished, Anno 1290. by King Edward the first; and not long after out of France, Anno 1307. by Philippus Pulcher. Not out of France first, out of England afterwards, as our Author would have it.

Fuller.

I wonder any good Christians would be offended with me, for pittying them by the name poor Iews. If any High royalist, (as I fear there is too many) be in low Estate, would it were as well in my power to relieve as to pitty them. Till when they shall have my prayers, that God would give them patience, and support them in their deepest distresse.

The Author will find, that though the Great, General, and Final banishment of the Jews out of France, was Anno 1307. under Philip the Fair, yet formely there had been Edicts for their Exile thence.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 100. Thus men of yesterday have pride too much to remember what they were the day before.] An observation true enough, but not well applyed. The two Spencers whom he speaks this off, were not men of ye∣sterday, or raised out of the dirt or dunghill to so great an height; but of as old and known Nobility as the best in England:* 2.13 insomuch that when a question grew in Parliament, whether the Baronesse de Spencer, or the Lord of Aburgaveny were to have precedency, it was adjudg'd unto de Spencer, thereby declar'd the ancientest Barony of the Kingdome at that time then being. These two Spen∣cers, Hugh ••he Father was created Earl of Winchester for term of life; and Hugh the Son by marrying one of the Daughters and co-heirs of Gilbert de Clare, be∣came Earl of Glocester. Men more to be commended for their Loyalty, than ac∣cused for their pride, but that the King was now declining, and therefore it was held fit by the prevalent faction to take his two supporters from him, as they af∣ter did.

Fuller.

The two Spencers fall under a double consideration, and are beheld in History for their extraction, either, as

• Absolutely in themselves.
• Comparatively with others.

Absolutely they were of honourable parentage, and I believe the Elder might be born a Baron, whose Baronry (by the Heir general is still extant in Mildmay

Fane, Earl of Westmorland, and from the younger House of a Male Heir, the Lord Spencer of Wormelayton (now Earl of Sunderland) doth, as I have seen in his Pedi∣gree, derive himself.

Comparatively, So were they far inferiour to most of those great persons over whom they insulted, being originally Earls, and some of them of Royall ex∣traction.

Again, the Two Spencers may and ought by an Historian to be considered, as to be

• 1. Commended for their Loyalty,
• 2. Condemned for their Insolency.

On the first account, they deserve just praise; and it is probable enough, that they finde the lesse Favour from some Pens, for being so Faithfull to so unfortu∣nate a Soveraigne.

The latter cannot be excused, appearing too plain in all our Histories.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 113. The Lord Chancellor was ever a Bishop.] If our Author by this word ever understands 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, most commonly, or for the most part, he is right enough; but then it will not stand with the following words viz. as if it had been against equity to imploy any other therein. And on the other side, if he take the word ever in its proper and more natural sense, as if none but Bishops had ever been advanced unto that office, he doth not onely misinform the Reader, but confute himself, he having told us fol. 31. of this present book, that Thomas Becket being then but Archdeacon of Canterbury, was made Lord Chancellor, and that as soon as he was made Archbishop, he resign'd that office. But the truth is, that not onely men in holy Orders, but many of the Laity also had attained that dignity, as will appear to any who will take the pains to consult the Catalogue of the Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal, in the Glossary of Sir Henry Spelman: in which appear not onely some of inferior dignity, as Deans, Archdeacons, House-hold Chaplains; but many also not dignified with any Ecclesiastical Title, or Notification, and therefore in all probability to be looked on as meer Lay-men, Counsellors, and Servants to the Kings in whose times they lived, or otherwise studied in the Laws, and of good affections, and consequently capable of the place of such trust and power.

Fuller.

May the Reader take notice, that this complaint was made by the Commons in the 11^th of Edward the 3^d Anno 1336. Now Ever I here restrain to the oldest man alive, then present in Parliament, who could not distinctly remember the contrary, from the first of King Edward the first, who began his Reign 1272. so that for full 64. years, an uninterrupted series of Bishops (except possibly one put in pro tempore, for a moneth or two) possessed the place of Chancellors.

This complaint of the Commons occasioned that the King some three years after. viz. in the fifteenth year of his reign, conferred the Chancellors place on a Layman. But it was not long before things returned to the old channel of Cler∣gy-men, and so generally for many years continued, with some few and short in∣terpositions of Lay-men.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 116. This year, viz. 1350. as Authors generally agree, King Edward instituted the Order of the Garter.] Right enough as unto the time, but much mistaken in some things which relate unto that ancient and most noble Order; our Author taking up his Commodities at the second hand, neither consulting the Records, nor dealing in this businesse with men of credit.

Fuller.

I am now come under the Roof of the Animadvertor, who (by the Laws of Hospitality) is bound to treat me the more courteously; I mean, I am entred into

a Subject, wherein he is well seen, and therefore might favourably connive at my small slips, being therein best studied.

It is severely said, that in this businesse I dealt with no men of credit. The highest person (next the Son of the King) wearing a blew Ribbon was pleased so far to fa∣vour me, as that from his own mouth I wrote the last sheet of my History, his Grace endeavouring to be very exact in all particulars.

Dr. Heylin.

For first there are not fourteen Canons resident in the Church of Windsor, but thirteen onely with the Dean; it being King Edwards purpose when he founded that Order, consisting of twenty six Knights, himself being one, to institute as ma∣ny greater and lesser Canons, and as many old Soldiers (commonly called poor Knights) to be pensioned there: Though in this last, the number was not made up to his first intention.

Fuller.

The mistake (such an one as it is) shall be amended in my next Edition.

Dr. Heylin.

He tells us secondly, that if he be not mistaken (as indeed he is) Sir Thomas Row was the last Chanoellor of the Order. Whereas Sir Iames Palmer one of the Gentle∣men Huishers of the Privy Chamber succeeded him in the place of Chancellor after his decease, Anno 1644.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor is very discourteous to deny me the benefit of the Paren∣thesis, If I be not mistaken. The best Authors have their Ni fallor, Si quid video, Si bene intelligo, and the like: These are Grains allowed to all Pieces currant in payment.

Sir Thomas Roe was the last Chancellor who effectually officiated in his place. Winsor before the year 1644. being a chief Garrison of the Parliament.

Tully calls a Consul, chosen in the morning and put out before night, a Vigilant Consul, who never slept in all his Co••sulship. But (on another occasion) one may say of Sir Iames Palmer (otherwise a worthy Gentleman, well deserving that and a better place) that He was a very watchfull Chancellor, who never slept in Winsor whilst invested in his Office.

Dr. Heylin.

He tels us thirdly, That there belongs unto it one Register, being alwayes the Dean of Winsor: which is nothing so. For though the Deans of late times have been Re∣gisters also, yet ab initio non fuit sic, it was not so from the beginning; The first Dean was also Register, being Iohn Boxul, Anno 1557. Before which time, be∣ginning at the year 1414. there had been nine Registers which were not Deans; but how many more before that time, I am not able to say, their names not being on Record.

Fuller.

I say not that the Register alwaies Was the Dean, but being alwaies the Dean; which relating to our and our fathers memories, is right enough: but it shall be reformed.

Dr. Heylin.

And fourthly he tels us, That the Garter is one of the extraordinary Habiliments of the Knights of this Order, their ordinary being onely the blew Ribbon about their necks, with the Picture of St. George appendant, and the Sun in his glory on the left shoulder of their Cloak; whereas indeed the Garter is of common wearing, and of such necessary use, that the Knights are not to be seen abroad without it, upon pain

of paying two Crowns to any Officer of the Order, who shall first claim it, unlesse they be to take a journey;* 2.14 in which case it is sufficient to wear a blew Ribbon under their Boots to denote the Garter. Lastly, whereas our Author tells us, that the Knights hereof doe weare on the left shoulder of their Cloaks a Sun in his glory, and attributes this wearing, as some say, to King Charles. I will first put him out of doubt, that this addition was King Charles his; then shew him his mistake in the matter it self. And first, in the first year of that King, Apr. 26. 1626. it was thus enacted at a pub∣lick Chapter of the Order, viz.

That all Knights and Companions of the Order, shall wear upon the left part of their Cloaks, Coats, and riding Cassocks at all times when they shall not wear their Roabs, and in all places of Assembly, an Escocheon of the Armes of St. George, id est, a Crosse within a Garter, not en∣riched with Pearls or Stones: in token of the honour which they hold from the said most noble Order, instituted and ordained for persons of the highest worth and honour.

Our Author, secondly, may perceive by this Act of the Kings, that St. Georges Crosse within the Garter, is the main device injoyned to be worn by all the Knights of that noble Order; to which the adding of the Sun in his glo∣ry served but for ornament and imbellishing, and might be either used or not used (but onely for conformities sake) as they would themselves.

Fuller.

This Sun in Glory affords me small light, so that I can see but very little (if any thing at all) which I have to alter.

Dr. Heylin.

So many Errors in so few lines one shall hardly meet with.

Fuller.

Yea, with more in fewer lines, even in the Animadvertor himself, in laying down the Root and Branches of the noble family of the Montagues: Mistakes the more remarkable, because done in correction of Mr. Sanderson, and making more faults that He mendeth; Or rather all is but one mistake, resulting from a continued complication of omissions, confusions, and transpositions.

Advertisements on the History of the Reign of King Iames, pag. 21, 22.

Fol. 490. Sir Edward Montague had three sonnes, Edward the eldest Knight of the Bath, &c.] The Author here is much mistaken in the House of the Montagues.

For first, that Edward Montague who was Knight of the Bath, &c. was not Bro∣ther to Iames Bishop of Winchester, and Henry Earl of Manchester, but their Bro∣thers Son, that is to say, the Son of another Edward their eldest Brother.

Secondly, besides that, Edward, Iames, and Henry, there was another Brother whom the Author names not, though he could not chuse but know the man, viz. Sir Sidney Montague, one of the Masters of the Requests to the late King Charles. Therefore to set this matter right, I am to let both him and his Readers know, that Sir Edward Montague chief Justice in the time of King Edward the sixth, was father of another Edward who lived peaceably and nobly in his own Country. To whom succeeded a third Edward, who sought for honour in the Wars, and gained the reputation of a good Commander▪ the elder Brother of Iames, Henry, and Sidney before mentioned, and the father of a fourth Edward who was made Knight of the Bath, at the Coronation of King Iames, Anno 1603. and afterwards created Lord Montague of Boughton in the nineteenth year of that King, Anno 1621. which honourable Title is now enjoyed by his Son (another Edward) Anno 1658.

And thirdly, though I grant that Dr. Iames Montague Bishop of Winchester (the second Brother of the four) was of great power and favour in the time of King Iames.

Thus far Dr. Heylin, out of his Advertisements, written in correction of Mr. Sandersons History of the Reign of King Iames.

To rectifie this heap of Errors, not to be paralleled in any Author (pretending to the emendation of another) I have here plainly set down the Male-pedegree of this Noble, Numerous, and successfull Family.

• 1 Sir Edward Montague, Lord Chief Justice in the Reign of King Henry the eighth.
  • 2 Sir Edward Montague, a worthy Patriot, in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.
    • Sir Walter Montague Knight, second Son, died without Issue.
      • Sir Henry Montague third Son, Earl of Manchester, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Treasurer, &c.
        • Edw. Montague now Earl of Manchester, besides other Sons.
    • 3 Sir Edward Montague, made Knight of the Bath at the Coronati∣on of King Iames (ne∣ver a Martialist,) and created by Him Baron Montague of Boughton, dying in the beginning of the Civill Warres.
      • William Mountague Esq of the Mid∣dle-Temple, se∣cond Son.
      • 4 Edward now Lord Montague of Boughton.
        • Ralfe Montague Esq second Son.
        • Edward Montague Esq eldest Son.
      • Christopher Montague third Son, died before his Father, being a most hopefull Gentle∣man.
    • Sir Charles Monta∣gue fourth Son, who did good service in Ireland; and left three Daughters and Co-heirs.
      • Iames Montague fifth Son, Bishop of Winchester, died unmarried.
      • Sir Sidney Mon∣tague sixth Son, Master of the Requests.
        • Edward Monta∣gue now Admi∣rall, and one of the Lords of the Councel.

I presume the Animadvertor will allow me exact in this Family, which hath reflected so fauourably upon me, that I desire (and indeed deserve) to live no longer, than whilest I acknowledg the same.

THE FOURTH BOOK. From the first preaching of Wickliffe, to the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the eighth.

Dr. Heylin.

OUR Author begins this Book with the Story of Wickliffe, and con∣tinueth it in relating the successes of him and his followers, to which he seems so much addicted, as to Christen their Opinions by the name of the Gospel: For, speaking of such incouragements and helps as were given to Wickliffe by the Duke of Lancaster, with other advantages, which the conditions of those times did afford unto him, he addeth, That,

Fol. 129. We must attribute the main to Divine Providence blessing the Gospel.] A name too high to be bestowed upon the Fancies of a private man, many of whose Opinions were so far from truth, so contrary to peace and civil Order, so inconsistent with the Government of the Church of Christ, as make them utterly unworthy to be look'd on as a part of the Gospel. Or if the Doctrines of Wickliffe must be call'd the Gospel, what shall become of the Religion then establisht in the Realm of England, and in most other parts of the Western World? Were all but Wickliffes Followers relaps'd to Heathenism; were they turn'd Jews, or had im∣brac'd the Law of Mahomet? If none of these, and that they still continued in the faith of Christ, delivered to them in the Gospels of the four Evangelists and other Apostolicall Writers, Wickliffes new Doctrines could not challenge the name of Gospel, no•• ought it to be given to him by the Pen of any. But such is the humor of some men, as to call every separation from the Church of Rome, by the name of Gospel, the greater the separation is, the more pure the Gospel. No name but that of Evangelici would content the Germans when they first separated from that Church, and reformed their own: And Harry Nichols, when he separated from the German Churches, and became the Father of Familists, bestows the name of Evangelium Regni on his Dreams and Dotages. Gospels of this kinde we have had, and may have too many, quot Capita t••t Fides, as many Gospels, in a manner, as Sects and Sectaries, if this world goe on.

Now as Wickliffes Doctrines are advanc'd to the name of Gospel, so his Follow∣ers whatsoever they were) must be called Gods servants, the Bishops being said fol. 151. to be busie in persecuting Gods servants; and for what crime soever, they were brought to punishment, it must be thought they suffered onely for the Gospel and the service of God. A pregnant evidence whereof we have in the story of Sir Iohn Oldcastle, accused in the time of King Harry the fifth for a design to kill the King and his Brethren, actually in Arms against that King in the head of 20000 men,* 2.15 attainted for the same in open Parliament, and condemn'd to die, and executed in St. Giles his Fields accordingly, as both Sir Roger Acton his prin∣cipal Counsellor, and 37 of his Accomplices had been before. For this we have not onely the Authority of our common Chronicles, Walsingham, Stow, and many

others; but the Records of the Tower, and Acts of Parliament, as is confessed by our Author, fol. 168. Yet coming out of Wickliffes Schools, and the chief Scholar questionlesse which was train'd up in them, he must be Registred for a Martyr in Fox his Calendar. And though our Author dares not quit him, (as he sayes himself) yet such is his tendernesse and respect to Wickliffes Gospel, that he is loath to load his Memory with causlesse Crimes; fol. 167. taxeth the Clergie of that time for their hatred to him, discrediteth the relation of T. Walsingham, and all later Authors, who are affirm'd to follow him, as the Flock their Belweather; and finally leaves it as a special verdict to the last day of the Revelation of the righteous Iudgements of God.

Fuller.

First, I fain would know, whether the Animadvertor would be contented with the Condition of the Church of England, as Wickliffe found it, for Opinions and Practise, and doth not earnestly desire a Reformation thereof.

I am charitably confident, that He doth desire such an Emendation, and there∣fore being both of us agreed in this Point of the convenience, yea necessity there∣of; in the second place I would as fain be satisfied from the Animadvertor, whe∣ther He conceived it possible, that such Reformation could be advanced (with∣out Miracle) all on a sodain, so that many grosse Errors would not continue, and some new one be superadded.

The man in the Gospel first saw men walking as trees, before he saw per∣fectly. Nature hath appointed the Twilight as a Bridge to passe us out of Night into Day. Such false and wild opinions (like the * 2.16 Scales, which fell down from the Eyes of St. Paul, when perfectly restored to his sight) have either vanished or been banished, out of all Protestant Confession.

Far be it from me to account the rest of England relapsed into Atheism, or lapsed in Iudaism, Turcism, &c. whom I behold as Erronious Christians in Do∣ctrine and Practise, and yet still in such a condition, that though so living and dy∣ing, if they lead a good life, and being weak, ignorant, and seduced, seriously repented of all their sins of ignorance, they might be saved; closing fully with the moderate Judgement of learned Hooker herein.

I know that the very worst of Hereticks, have assumed to themselves the very best of Names, gilding themselves over with the Title of Gospellers, and the like; but because Thieves often pretend themselves honest men, may not honest men a∣vow themselves to be so, and also be so termed by others?

The words of the Animadvertor of Wickliffs Gospel, might well have been spa∣red, seeing indeed it was Christs Gospel (dawning is part of day) preached by Wick∣liffe, in a purer manner than in that Age, (thanks to God it was then so good;) impurer than in our Age, thanks be to God it now is better.

As for Sir Iohn Oldcastle L. Cobham, his Case is so perplexed with contrary relations much may be said against him, and little lesse in his behalf; and I have cause to beleeve indeed, that his Innocence wanted not clearnesse but clearing.

Whereas the Animadvertor takes exception at my referring the Decision here∣of to the revelation of the righteous judgement of God, it must be Either because

• 1. That Time will come too soon to decide the Controversie.
• 2. Or else come too late to decide the Controversie.
• 3. Or else be insufficient to decide the Controversie.

And having no just cause to suspect any of these, it had been better if my (or ra∣ther St. * 2.17 Pauls words) had passed without his reprehension.

Dr. Heylin.

From the Scholar passe we to the Master, of whom it is reported in a late Popish Pamphlet, that he made a recantation of his Errors, and liv'd and dyed confor∣mable to the Church of Rome. This I will behold as a notorious falshood, an

imposture of the Romish party, though the argument used by our Author, be not of strength sufficient to inforce me to it. If, saith he, Wickliffe was sufficiently re∣concil'd to the Roman faith, why was not Rome sufficiently reconciled to him? Using such cruelty to him many years after his death, fol. 171. But this, say I, is no reason, of no force at all. Wickliffe might possibly be reconcil'd to the Church of Rome, and yet the Ministers of that Church, to strike a terror into others, might execute that veng••ance on him after his decease, which they had neither power nor op∣portunity to doe when he was alive. Quam vivo iracundiam debuerant, in corpus mortui contulerunt. And hereof we have a fair example in Marcus Antonius de Dominis Archbishop of Spalato, who comming into England 1616. did manifest∣ly oppose the Doctrines of the Church of Rome in some learned Volumes. But being cunningly wrought on by some Emissaries of the Romish party in the year 1622. he went back to Rome, was reconcil'd to that Church, and writ there most reproachfully of the Church of England; which notwithstanding, he was kept prisoner all the rest of his life, and his body burnt to ashes after his decease. So then it is no such new matter for a dissenting Christian, such as Wickliff and de Do∣minis were, though branded by the name of Hereticks, to be admitted to a recon∣ciliation with the Church of Rome, and yet that Church to carry a revengefull minde towards them when occasion serves.

Fuller.

I answer first, I am not the first who have discovered strong affections, with a weak Judgement, endeavouring to prove a Truth with a non-cogent, and un-con∣cluding Argument, in case my reason should be disproved.

Secondly, Spalato is no proper parallel of Wickliffe, in this point. Spalato con∣tracted a new * 2.18 Guilt, by bragging at the Table of a Cardinal in Rome, that his Book de Repub. Eccles. could be answered by none but himself; and dum calebat, whilest the scent hereof was hot, they burnt his Body when but lately dead: Whereas their despight followed Wickliffe at a distance more than fourty years after his Death, on no pretended new misdemeanor.

Lastly, the Animadvertor cometh up unto me, in allowing Wickliffe his Recon∣ciliation to Rome, a notorious untruth; and therefore we may proceed to what is more material, wherein we two shall apppear two, being, it seems, but one in this difference.

Dr. Heylin.

And all this while we have expected that our Author would have given us a brief Summary of Wickliffes Doctrines, that by seeing the Piety and Orthodoxie of his Opinions, we might have thought more reverently both of him and his Followers. But the••ein our expectation must remain unsatisfied, our Author thinking it more agreeable to his Design to hold the Reader in suspense, and con∣ceal this from him: dealing herein as the old Germans did with those of other Nations, who came to wait upon Valeda a great Queen amongst them; not suffer∣ing any to have a sight of her, to keep them in a greater admiration of her Parts and Person.* 2.19 Arcebantur aspectu quò plus venerationis inesset, as it is in Tacitus. The wheat of Wickliffe was so foul, so full of chaff, and intermingled with so many and such dangerous Tares, that to expose it to the view, were to mar the market. And therefore our Author having formerly honoured his Opinions by the name of Gospel, and his followers with the Title of Gods servants, as before was noted; had reason not to shew them all at once, in a lump together, that we might think them better and more Orthodox than indeed they were. But the best is (to save us the trouble of consulting Harpsfield, and others who have written of them) our Author hath given them us at last on another occasion, Lib. 5. fol. 208. many of which the Reader may peruse in these Animadversions, Numb. 113. Thus having laid together so much of this present Book as relates to Wickliffe and his follow∣ers, I must behold the rest in fragments, as they lye before me.

Fuller.

Wickliffes Doctrines, so called, fall under a double notion, being either such as were

• 1. Charged on Him.
• 2. Maintained by Him.

For the former, no Fault of Omission can be found in me, having given in (in a full Sheet* 2.20) a Catalogue of them, digested under several Heads, as concerning the Pope, Prelats, Priests, Saints, King, Christ, God, with the Tome, Book, Article, Chapter, where they are to be found in T. Waldensis.

Sure I am, they were not so bad in all particulars as he there representeth them. If the Animadvertor a Protestant, living with me in the same suffering Age, * 2.21 accuse me for accounting Murdering of Kings for necessary Prudence, as oft as they shall fall into the power of their Subjects, which I abhor in my heart, and no such thing appears in the place cited; no wonder if Waldensis charged on Wickliffe abomi∣nable Errors, which he cordially detested.

As for the Doctrines which Wickliffe did maintain, we have some, but want an exact List of them; and I believe it is past the power of any Author alive to present it intire (defecated from the calumniations of his Adversaries;) and therefore im∣possibilities are not to be expected from me.

Yet am I not such an Admirer of Wickliffe, but that I beleeve he did defend some grosse Errors; and it had been no wonder if it were, but had been a miracle if it had not been so, considering the frailty of flesh, darknesse of the Age he lived in, and difficulty of the Subject he undertook. But because the Animadvertor re∣ferres to something following in my fifth Book; I will also reserve my self for his Encounter in time and place appointed.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 152. He lies buried in the South Isle of St. Peters Westminster, and since hath got the company of Spencer and Drayton.] Not Dray∣tons company I am sure, whose body was not buried in the South-Isle of that Church, but under the North wall thereof in the main body of it, not far from a little dore which openeth into one of the Prebends houses. This I can say on cer∣tain knowledge, being casually invited to his Funeral, when I thought not of it; though since his Statua hath been set up in the other place which our Author speaks of.

Fuller.

I follow the Information in his Epitaph on his Tombe, near the South dore in Westminster Abbey.

Doe Pious Marble, let the Readers know What they, and what their Children owe To DRAITONS name, whose sacred Dust We recommend unto thy trust. Preserve his Memory, and protect his Story, Remain a lasting Monument of his Glory. And When thy Ruine shall disclaim To be the Treasurer of his name, His name, which cannot dye, shall be An Everlasting Monument to thee.

Have Stones learnt to Lye, and abuse posterity? Must there needs be a Fiction in the Epitaph of a Poet? If this be a meer Cenotaph, that Marble hath nothing to doe with Draitons Dust: but let us proceed.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 153. The right to the Crown lay not in this Hen∣ry,

but in Edmund Mortimer Earl of March, descended by his Mother Philippa, from Lionel Duke of Clarence, elder son to Edward the third.] I shall not now di∣spute the Title of the House of Lancaster, though I think it no hard matter to de∣fend it.

Fuller.

I think it is not onely difficult, but impossible, except the Animadvertor can chal∣lenge the Priviledge of the Patriarch * 2.22 Iacob, to crosse his Hands, and prefer the younger before the Elder Child, in succession.

Again, the Title of Lancaster may be considered, either

• 1. As it was when Henry the fourth first found it.
• 2. As it was when Henry the sixth last left it.

The latter of these was countenanced with many Laws, corroborated with three descents, and almost threescore years possession.

Know Reader, my words are of the right, where it was when Henry the fourth first seized the Crown, and then he had not a Rag of Right to cover his Usurpation. Instead of justifying whereof, let us admire Gods free Pleasure, in permitting the House of Lancaster to last so long; his Iustice, in assisting York afterwards to re∣cover their Right; and his Mercy at last, in uniting them both, for the happinesse of our Nation.

Dr. Heylin.

And much lesse shall I venture on the other controversie, viz. whether a King may Legally be depos'd? as is insinuated by our Author in the words foregoing.

Fuller.

If seems the Animadvertor finds little in my Book above ground for his purpose to cavil at, because fain to Mine for my insinuations. But let the Reader judge, whe∣ther any man alive can from those my words, the right lay not in this Henry, but in Mortimer Earl of March, infer an INSINUATION, that Kings may legally be deposed. This Insinuation must be in Sinu, in the Bosom of the Ani∣madvertor, which never was in the breast of the Author. More perspicacitie must be in the Organ, than perspicuity in the Object, to perceive such an Insinuation.

Dr. Heylin.

But I dare grapple with him in a point of Heraldry, though I finde him better studied in it, than in matter of History. And certainly our Author is here out, in his own dear Element:* 2.23 Edmund Mortimer Earl of March not being the Son, but Husband of the Lady Philippa Daughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence, and Mo∣ther of Roger Mortimer Earl of March, whom Richard the second (to despite the house of Lancaster) declared Heir apparent to the Kingdome of England. 'Tis true, this Edmund was the Son of another Philippa, that is to say, of Philip Monta∣cute, wife of a former Roger Earl of March, one of the founders of the Garter. So that in whomsoever the best Title lay, it lay not in this Edmond Mortimer as our Author makes it.

Fuller.

It is a meer casual slip of my Pen, Edmund for Roger, and this is the first time I crave the Benefit of this Plea in my defence.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 154. This is one of the clearest distinguishing Cha∣racters betwixt the Temporal and Spiritual Lords; that the former are to be tryed per Pares, by their Peers, being Barons of the Realm.] Not shall I here dispute the point, whether a Bishop may not challenge to be tryed by his Peers, but whether the Bi∣shops were not Barons and Peers of the Realm. Our Author intimates that they were not, but I think they were.

Fuller.

From a late Insinuation, the Animadvertor now proceeds to a new Intimation of mine, utterly unextractable from my words. But know, it never came into my minde to think that Bishops were not Peers, who to my power will defend it against any who shall oppose it.

Dr. Heylin.

* 2.24And this I think on the authority of the learned Selden, in whom we finde, that at a Parliament at Northampton under Henry the second the Bishops thus chal∣lenge their own Peerage, viz. Non sedemus hic Episcopi, sed Barones; Nos Barones, vos Barones; Pares hic sumus: that is to say, We sit not here as Bishops onely, but as Barons; We are Barons, and you are Barons; here we sit as Peers. Which last is also verified in terminis,* 2.25 by the words of a Statute or Act of Parliament, wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to be Peers of the Land. And for further proof hereof, Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury (if I remember it aright) being fallen into the displeasure of King Edward the third, and denyed entrance into the House of Peers, made his Protest, that he was Primus par Regni, the first Peer of the Realm, and therefore not to be excluded from his place and Suffrage.

Fuller.

This indeed is one of the most ancient and pregnant Evidence of our Bishops sitting as Peers in Parliament. But I suspect it may be mis-improved by the Back-friends to Bishops, that they sate there onely in the Capacity of Peers, and not a THIRD ESTATE.

Dr. Heylin.

But of this Argument enough, if not too much, as the case now stands; it be∣ing an unhappy thing, to consider what they have been formerly, and what they are at this present.

Fuller.

It is a sad Truth which the Animadvertor sayeth. And here I cannot but re∣member David * 2.26 his expression, when flying from Absalom, If I shall find favour in the Eyes of the Lord, he will bring me again: But if he say, I have no delight in thee, behold, here I am, &c. If it be co••sistent with the good will and pleasure of God, in due time he will Boy up again the sunk credit of the Clergy; if not, all must submit to him, whose wayes are often above reason, never against right.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 156. Yea this very Statute which gave power to a Bi∣shop in his Diocess to condemn an Heretick, plainly proveth that the King by consent of Parliament, directed the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court in Cases of Heresie.] The Bishops and Clergy in their Convocations had anciently the power of de∣claring Heresie, the Bishops singly in their Consistories to proceed against them, by injoyning penance and recantation, or otherwise to subject them to Excom∣munication. The Statute which our Author speaks of, being 2 H. 4. c. 15. pro∣ceedeth further, and ordain'd in favour of the Church, that the Ordinary might not onely convent, but imprison the party suspected of Heresie, and that the party so convented and convicted of Heresie, and continuing obstinate in the same, should upon a certificate thereof made and delivered to the Secular Judge, be publickly burned before the People. In order whereunto, as in a matter which concern'd the life of a Subject, the King with the advice of his Parliament, might lay down some rules for the regulating the proceedings of the Bishops and other Ordinaries.

Fuller.

There be two distinct things which in this Point must be severally con∣sidered,

• 1. To declare and define, what shall be accounted Heresie.
• 2. To condemne to Death a declared Heretick.

The Power of the former was in this Age fixed in the Bishops (without any competition) and is so clear none can question it. Yea by the same Power, they might proceed against a declared Heretick (without any leave or liceence from King or Parliament,) so far as Church-Censures, Suspensions, Excommunications, &c. could extend.

But as for the latter, to condemn them to Death, herein the Common-Law began, where the Cannon Law ended, and regulated their proceedings accordingly.

Dr. Heylin.

But certainly it is a sorry piece of Logick to conclude from hence, that gene∣rally in all cases of Heresie, the King with advice of his Parliament directed the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Courts. A piece of Logick shall I call it, or a Fallacy rather, a Fallacy à d••cto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, committed commonly, when from a proposition which is true onely in some respect, with reference to time, place, and other circumstances, the Sophister inferreth something, as if simply true, though in it self it be most absolutely false. As for example, The Pope even in matters of spiritual cognisance (for so it followeth in our Author) had no power over the lifes of the English Subjects; and therefore had then no power to pro∣ceed against them in point of Heresie.

Fuller.

I intended not, nor have I abused the Reader with any fallacious argumentation. It is true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the King and Parliament directed the proceedings of the Eccle∣siastical Court in cases of Heresie: I mean not to decide which were Heresies, but to order the Power of the Bishop over declared Hereticks, without the direction of the Statute, not to proceed to Limb and Life: And I believe my words will be found transcribed out of Sir Edward Coke his most elaborate Report of the Kings power in Ecclesiastical matters.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 161. Henry the seventh (born in the Bowels of Wales at Pembroke, &c.) some years after plucked down the Partition Wall betwixt them.] Neither so, nor so. For first Pembroke doth not stand in the Bowels of Wales, but almost on the outside of it; as being situate on one of the Creeks of Milford-Haven.

Fuller.

Pembroke (though verging to the Sea) may properly be called in the Bowels of Wales, beholding the Marches [next England] as the outward Skin thereof. Bowels are known to the Latines by the name of Penetralia, à penetrando; one must pierce and passe so farre from the outward skin, before one can come at them. So is Pembroke placed in the very Penetrals of Wales, seeing the Travailer must goe six-score miles from England, before he can come thither.

Dr. Heylin.

And secondly King Henry the seventh did not break down the Partition Wall be∣tween Wales and England. That was a work reserved for King Harry the eighth, in the 27. of whose Reign there past an Act of Parliament, by which it was en∣acted,

That the Country of Wales should be, stand, and continue for ever, from thenceforth incorporated, united, and annexed to, and with this Realm of Eng∣land. And that all and singular person and persons born and to be born in the

said Principality, Country, or Dominion of Wales shall have, enjoy, and inherit all and singular Freedoms,* 2.27 Liberties, Rights, Priviledges, and Laws within this Realm and other the Kings Dominions, as other the Kings Subjects naturally born within the same, have, and injoy, and inherit.

And thirdly, between the time which our Author speaks of, being the 14 year of King Henry the fourth, and the making of this Act by King Henry the eighth, there passed above an hundred and twenty years, which intimates a longer time than some years after, as our Au∣thor words it.

Fuller.

Far be it from me to set variance betwixt Father and Son, and to make a Partition Wall betwixt them, which of them first did break down the Partition Wall betwixt Wales and England. The intentions of King Henry the seventh, were executed by King Henry the eighth; and all shall be reformed in my Book accordingly.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 168. I will not complain of the dearnesse of this Uni∣versitie, where seventeen weeks cost me more than seventeen years in Cambridge, even all that I had.] The ordinary and unwary Reader might collect from hence, that Oxford is a chargeable place, and that all commodities there are exceeding dear, but that our Author lets him know, that it was on some occasion of di∣sturbance.

Fuller.

He must be a very Ordinary and unwary Reader indeed; or an Extraordinary one (if you please) of no common weakness or willfulnesse so to understand my words, which plainly expound themselves.

Dr. Heylin.

By which it seems our Author doth relate to the time of the War, when men from all parts did repair to Oxford, not as a University, but a place of safety, and the seat Royal of the King; at which time notwithstanding all provisions were so plentifull and at such cheap rates, as no man had reason to complain of the dear∣nesse of them. No better argument of the fertility of the soil and richnesse of the Country in which Oxford standeth, than that the Markets were not raised on the accession of such infinite multitudes as resorted to it at that time, and on that occa∣sion. Our Author therefore must be thought to relate unto somewhat else than is here expressed, and possibly may be, that his being at Oxford at that time, brought him within the compass of Delinquency, and consequently of Sequestration.

Fuller.

I commend the carefulnesse of the Animadvertor, tender of the honour of Ox∣ford and Oxfordshire his native Country, as I have heard from his own mouth. But herein his jealousie had no•• just cause, nothing derogatory thereunto being by me intended herein. Oxfordshire hath in it as much of Rachel aud Leah, fairnesse and fruitfulnesse, as in any County in England, and so God willing in my description of the English Worthies I shall make to appear.

Dr. Heylin.

And were it so, he hath no reason to complain of the University, or the dear∣nesse of it; but rather of himself, for coming to a place so chargeable and destru∣ctive to him. He might have tarried where he was (for I never heard that he was sent for) and then this great complaint against the dearness of that University would have found no place.

Fuller.

I was once sent up thither from London, being one of the Six, who was chosen to

carry a Petition for Peace to his Majesty, from the City of Westminster and the Li∣berties thereof, though in the way remanded by the Parliament.

As for my being sent for to Oxford, the Animadvertor I see hath not heard of all that was done. I thought that as St. * 2.28 Paul wished all altogether such as he was, except these bonds; so the Animadvertor would have wished all Englishmen like himself, save in his sequestration, and rather welcomed than jeered such as went to Oxford. But let him say and doe as he pleaseth.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 175. Surely what Charles the fifth is said to have said of the City of Florence, that it is pity it should be seen save onely on holy∣dayes, &c.] Our Author is somewhat out in this, in fathering that saying on Charles the fifth, Emperor and King of Spain, which Boterus and all other Authors ascribe to Charles Archduke of Austria; that is to say, to Charles of Inspruch, one of the younger Sons of the Emperor Ferdinand the first, and consequently Ne∣phew to Charles the fifth.

Fuller.

Nihil dictum, quod non dictum prius: And it is very probable that the one first made, the other used the same expression.

Dr. Heylin.

Nor is our Author very right in taking Aquensis for Aix in Provence: Fol. 178. Especially (saith he) if, as I take it, by Provensis Aix be meant, sited in the farther∣most parts of Provence, though even now the English power in France was waning.] For first, the English never had any power in Provence, no interest at all therein, nor pretentions to it; as neither had the French Kings in the times our Author speaks of. Provence in those dayes was independent of that Crown, an absolute Estate, and held immediatly of the Empire, as being a part and member of the Realm of Burgundy, and in the actual possession of the Dukes of Anjou; on the expiring of which House, by the last Will and Testament of Duke Rene the second, it was bequeathed to Lewis the eleventh of France, by him & his Successors to be enjoyed upon the death of Charles Earl of Maine, as it was accordingly. And secondly, that Bernard, whom the Latine calls Episcopus Aquensis is very ill taken by our Author to be Bishop of Aix. He was indeed Bishop of Acqus or Aux in Guinne called anciently Aquae Augustae from whence those parts of France had the name of Aquitain; and not of Aix (which the ancient Writers called Aquae Sex∣tiae) in the Country of Provence. Now Guinne was at that time in the power of the Kings of England, which was the reason why this Bernard was sent with the rest of the Commissioners to the Councel of Basil; and being there, amongst the rest, maintained the rights and preheminences of the English Kings.

Fuller.

There is nothing more destructive to Truth, than when Writers are peremptory in affirming what seems doubtfull unto them. Errant Hypocrisie for the Hand to be positive in a Point, when the Head is (as I may say) but suppositive, as not suffi∣ciently satisfied therein. Such men, because they scorn to doubt, lead others quite out of the way.

To prevent this mischief, I onely said, if, as I take it by Aquensis, Aix be meant▪ for it seemed to me too long a stride, (or straddle rather) for the legs of our English Armies to have any power in Provence. And now seeing it was but hal•• a fault in me, it doth not deserve the Animadvertors whole reproof.

Dr. Heylin.

In agitating of which controversie, as it stands in our Author, I finde mention of one Iohannes de Voragine, a worthlesse Author, fol. 181. Mistook both in the name of the man, and his quality also. For first the Author of the Book called

Legenda aurea related to in their former passage, was not Iohannes, but Iacobus de Voragine. In which book, though there are many idle and unwarrantable ••ictions; yet secondly was the man of more esteem, than to passe under the Character of a worthlesse Author, as being learned for the times in which he lived, Archbishop of Genoa a chief City of Italy, & moribus & dignitate magno precio, as Philippus Bergomensis telleth us of him, Anno 1290. at what time he liv'd; most eminent for his translation of the Bible into the Italian tongue (as we read Vossius) a work of great both difficulty and danger,* 2.29 as the times then were, suffi∣cient (were there nothing else) to free him from the ignominious name of a worthlesse Author

Fuller.

I here enter my publique thanks to the Animadvertor, Iacobus de Voragine (so it seems was his name) was a better Author than I took him for, indeed having read that Melchior Canus called the author of some Legends, a man ferrei oris et plumbei cordis, one of an Iron face and leaden heart, I conceived him incended therein.

But if he did translate the Bible into Italian, (as I have cause to believe, knowing nothing to the contrary,) it was, as the Animadvertor saith well, a work of great both difficulty, and danger, as the times then were.

I confesse I have formerly in the Table of my Esteeme, placed this Voragine as the very lag at the lowest end thereof; But hereafter I shall say to him, come up hither, and provide a higher place for him in my Reputation.

Dr. Heylin.

A greater mistake than this, as to the person of the man, is that which follows viz. Fol. 185. Humphry Duke of Gloster son to King Henry the fifth.] This though I cannot look on as a fault of the Presse, yet I can easily consider it as a slip of the Pen; it being impossible that our Author should be so farre mistaken in Duke Humphry of Gloster, who was not son but brother to King Henry the fifth.

Fuller.

This being allowed (as indeed it is) but a Pen-slip, who is more faulty, the Author in the cursorily committing, or the Animadvertor in the deliberate censu∣ring thereof?

Dr. Heylin.

But I cannot think so charitably of som other errors of this kind, which I finde in his History of Cambridge, fol. 67. Where amongst the English Dukes which carried the title of Earl of Cambridge, he reckoneth Edmond of Langly fift son to Edward the third, Edward his son, Richard Duke of York his brother, father to King Edward the fourth. But first this Richard whom he speaks of, though he were Earl of Cambridge by the consent of Edward his elder brother, yet was he never Duke o•• York; Richard being executed at South-hampton for treason against King Harry the fifth, before that Kings going into France, and Edward his elder brother slain not long after in the Battail of Agincourt. And secondly, this Ri∣chard was not the Father, but Grandfather of King Edward the fourth. For be∣ing married unto Anne, sister and heir unto Edmond Mortimer Earl of March, he had by her a sonne called Richard, improvidently restored in blood, and advan∣ced unto the Title of Duke of York, by King Henry the sixth, Anno 1426. Who by the Lady Cecely his wife, one of the many D••ughters of Ralph Earl of West∣merland, was father of King Edward the fourth, George Duke of Clarence, and King Richard the third. Thirdly, as Richard E••rl of Cambridge was not Duke of York, so Richard Duke of York was not Earl of Cambridge; though by our Au∣thor made the last Earle thereof (Hist. of Cam. 162.) before the restoring of that title on the House of the Hamiltons.

Fuller.

This hath formerly been answered at large in the Introduction, wherein it plainly appeares, that the last Richard was Duke of York and Earle of Cambridge: though I confesse it is questionable, whether his Father were Duke of York.

However it doth my work, viz. That the Earldome of Cambridge was al∣wayes (the first alone excepted) conferred on either a forreign Prince, or an English Peer of the Blood-royall, an honour not communicated to any other Peere in England.

Dr. Heylin.

If our Author be no better at a pedegree in private Families, then he is in those of Kings and Princes, I shall not give him much for his Art of memory, for his History lesse, and for his Heraldry just nothing.

Fuller.

When I intend to expose them to sale, I know where to meet with a francker Chapman. None alive ever heard me pretend to the Art of memory, who in my booke have decried it as a Trick,* 2.30 no Art; and indeed is more of fancy than me∣mory. I confesse some ten years since, when I came out of the Pulpit of St. Dunstons-East; One (who since wrote a book thereof,) told me in the Vestry, before credible people▪ That he in Sydney Colledge, had taught me the Art of me∣mory. I returned unto him, that it was not so; for I could not remember that I had ever seen his face; which I conceive, was a reall Refutation. However, seeing that a natural memory is the best flower in mine, and not the worst in the Ani∣madvertors garden, Let us turn our competitions herein, unto mutuall thinkfulnesse to the God of heaven.

Dr. Heylin.

But I see our Author is as good at the succession of Bishops, as in that of Prin∣ces. For saith he, speaking of Cardinal Beaufort, Fol. 185. He built the fair Hospital of St. Cross neere Winchester; and although Chancellor of the Univesity of Oxford, was no grand benefactor thereunto, as were his Predecessors Wickam and Wainfleet.] Wickham and Wainfleet are here made the Predecessors of Cardinal Beaufort in the See of Winchester; whereas in very deed, though he succeeded Wick∣ham in that Bishoprick, he preceded Wainfleet. For in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Winchester they are marshulled thus, viz. 1365. 50. William of Wick∣ham, 1405. 51. Henry Beaufort, 1447. 52. William de Wainfleet, which last conti∣nued Bishop till the year 1485 the See being kept by these three Bishops a∣bove 120. years, and thereby giving them great Advantages of doing those ex∣cellent works, and founding those famous Colleges, which our Author rightly hath ascribed to the first and last. But whereas our Author ••elleth us also of this Cardinal Beaufort, that he built the Hospital of St. Crosse, he is as much out in that,* 2.31 as he was in the other; that Hospital being first built by Henry of Blais, Brother of King Stephen and Bishop of Winchester, Auno 1129. augmented onely, and perhaps more liberally endowed by this Potent Cardinal. From these Foundations made and enlarged by these three great Bishops of Winchester suc∣cessively, proceed we to two others raised by King Henry the sixth, of which our Author telleth us.

Fuller.

What a peice of DON QUIXOTISME is this, for the Animadvertor to fight in confutation of that which was formerly confessed? These words be∣ing thus fairly entred in the Table of Errataes.

Book	pag.	line
4.	185.	22.

read it thus, of his Predecessor Wickham, or Successor Wainfleet.

Faults thus fairly confessed, are presumed fully forgiven; and faults thus fully forgiven, have their guilt returning no more. In the Court Christian, such might have been sued, who upbraided their Neighbours for incontinence, after they formerly had performed publique penance for the same. And I hope the Rea∣der will allow me Reparation from the Animadvertor, for a fault so causlesly taxed, after it was so clearly acknowledged, and amended.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 183. This good precedent of the Archbishops bounty (that is to say, the foundation of All-souls Colledge by Archbishop Chiche∣ley) may be presumed a spur to the speed of the Kings liberality; who soon after founded Eaton Colledge, &c. to be a Nursery to Kings Colledge in Cambridge, fol. 184.] Of Eaton Colledge, and the condition of the same, our Author hath spoken here at large, but we must look for the foundation of Kings Colledge, in the History of Cambridge, fol. 77. where I finde something which requireth an Animadver∣sion. Our Author there chargeth Dr. Heylin for avowing something which he cannot justifie, that is to say, for saying,

That when William of Wainfleet Bishop of Winchester (afterwards founder of Magdalen Colledge) perswaded King Henry the Sixth, to erect some Monument for Learning in Oxford, the King returned, Imo potius Cantabrigiae, ut duas (si fieri possit) in Anglia Academias ha∣beam. Yea rather (said he) at Cambridge, that (if it be possible) I may have two Universities in England.

As if Cambridge were not reputed one before the founding of Kings Colledge therein. But here the premisses onely are the Do∣ctors, the inference or conclusion is our Authors own. The Doctor infers not thereupon, that Cambridge was not reputed an University till the founding of Kings Colledge by King Henry the sixth; and indeed he could not: for he acknow∣ledged before out of Robert de Renington, that it was made an University in the time of King Edward the second. All that the Doctor sayes, is this, that as the University of Cambridge was of a later foundation then Oxford was, so it was long before it grew into esteem, that is to say, to such a measure of esteem at home or abroad (before the building of Kings Colledge, and the rest that followed) but that the King might use those words in his discourse with the Bishop of Winchester. And for the Narrative, the Doctor (whom I have talked with in this businesse) doth not shame to say, that he borrowed it, from that great Treasury of Acade∣mical Antiquities Mr. Brian Twine, whose learned Works stand good against all Opponents; and that he found the passage justified by Sir Isaack Wake in his Rex Platonicus. Two Persons of too great wit and judgement, to relate a matter of this nature on no better ground than common Table-talk, and that too spoke in merriment by Sir Henry Savil. Assuredly Sir Henry Savil was too great a Zealot for that University, and too much a friend to Mr. Wake, who was Fellow of the same Colledge with him, to have his Table-talk and discourses of merriment to be put upon Record as grounds and arguments for such men to build on in that weighty Controversie. And therefore when our Author tells us, what he was told by Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Hubbard by Mr. Barlow, Mr. Barlow by Mr. Bust, and Mr. Bust by Sir Henry Savil. It brings into my minde the like Pedegree of as true a Story, even that of Mother Miso in Sir Philip Sidney, telling the young Ladies an old Tale, which a good old woman told her, which an old wise man told her, which a great learned Clerk told him, and gave it him in writing; and there she had it in her Prayer-book; as here our Author hath found this on the end of his Creed. Not much unlike to which, is that which I finde in the Poet;

Quae Phaebo Pater omnipotens, mihi Phoebus Apollo Praedix••t, vobis Furiarum ego maxima pando.

That is so say,

What Iove told Phoebus, Phoebus told to me, And I the chief of Furies tell to thee.

Fuller.

The controversie betwixt us consists about a pretended Speech of King Henry the sixth, to Bishop Wainfleet, perswading him to found a Colledge at Oxford. To whom the King is said to return, Yea rather at Cambridge, that (if it be possible) I may have two Universities in England.

A passage pregnant with an Inference, which delivereth it self without any Mid∣wifry to help it, viz. that till the time of King Henry the sixth, Cambridge was no, or but an obs••ure University, both being equally untrue.

The Animadvertor will have the speech grounded on good Authority, whilest I more than suspect to have been the frolick of the fancie of S. Isaack Wake, citing my Author for my beliefe, which because removed four descents, is, I confesse, of the lesse validity: Yet is it better to take a Truth from the tenth, than a Falshood from the first hand.

Both our Relations ultimately terminate in Sir Isaack Wake, by the Animad∣vertor confessed the first printed Reporter thereof. I confess S. I. Wake needed none but Sr. Isaack Wake, to attest the truth of such thing, which he had heard or seen himself. In such Case his bare Name commandeth credit with Posterity. But relating a passage done at distance, some years before his great Grandfather was rockt in his Cradle, we may and must doe that right to our own Iudgement, as ci∣vily to require of him security for what he affirmeth, especially seeing it is so clog'd with such palpable improbabilitie. Wherefore, till this Knights invisible Author be brought forth into light, I shall remain the more confirmed in my for∣mer Opinion, Rex Platonicus alone sounding to me in this point no more than Pla∣to's Commonwealth; I mean, a meer Wit work, or Brain-Being, without any other real existence in Nature.

Dr. Heylin.

But to proceed, Fol. 190. This was that Nevil, who for Extraction, Estate, Al∣liance, Dependents, Wisdome, Valour, Success, and Popularity, was superiour to any English Subject since the Conquest.] Our Author speaks this of that Richard Ne∣vil who was first Earl of Warwick, in right of Anne his Wife, Sister & Heir of Henry Beauchamp, the last of that Family, and after Earl of Salisbury by discent from his Father; a potent and popular man indeed, but yet not in all or in any of those re∣spects to be match'd with Henry of Bullenbrook, son to Iohn of Gaunt, whom our Author must needs grant to have lived since the time of the Conquest. Which Henry after the death of his Father was Duke of Lancaster and Hereford, Earl of Leicester, Lincoln, and Darby, &c. and Lord High Steward of England: Possessed by the donation of King Henry the third, of the County Palatine of Lancaster, the forfeited Estates of Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester, Robert de Ferrars Earl of Darby, and Iohn Lord of Monmouth; By the compact made between Thomas Earl of Lancaster, and Alice his Wife, of the Honor of Pomfret, the whole Estate of the Earl of Lincoln, and a great part of the Estates of the Earl of Salisbury; of the goodly Territories of Ogmore and Kidwelly in Wales, in right of his descent from the Chaworths; of the Honor and Castle of Hartford by the grant of King Edward the third; and of the Honor of Tickhill in Yorkshire, by the donation of King Ri∣chard the second; and finally of a Moity of the vast Estate of Humphry de Bohun Earl of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton in right of his Wife. So royal in his Extraction, that he was Grandchilde unto one King, Cousin-german to another, Father and Grand-father to two more. So popular when a private person, and that too in the life of his Father, that he was able to raise and head an Army a∣gainst Richard the Second, with which he discomfited the Kings Forces, under the command of the Duke of Ireland. So fortunate in his Successes, that he not onely had the better in the Battail mentioned, but came off with Honor and Re∣nown in the War of Africk, and finally obtained the Crown of England. And this I trow, renders him much Superior to our Authors Nevil, whom he exceed∣ed also in this particular, that he dyed in his bed, and left his Estates unto his Son.

But having got the Crown by the murther of his Predecessor, it stai'd but two descents in his Line, being unfortunately lost by King Henry the sixth: of whom, being taken and imprisoned by those of the Yorkish Faction, our Author telleth us.

Fuller.

It never came into my thoughts, to extend the Parallel beyond the line of Sub∣jection, confining it to such as moved only in that Sphere, living and dying in the Station of a Subject; and thus far I am sure I am ••ight, that this our Nevil was not equal'd, much lesse exceeded, by any English-man since the Conquest.

As for Henry Duke of Lancaster, his Coronet was afterwards turned into a Crown, and I never intended comparison with one who became a Soveraign, having learnt, primum in unoquo{que} Genere, est excipiendum.

The Animadvertor hath here taken occasion to write much, but thereof no∣thing to confute me, and little to informe others. He deserved to be this King Henry's Chaplain (if living in that Age) for his exactnesse in the distinct enumera∣tion of all his Dignities and Estate, before he came to the Crown.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds Fol. 190. That States-men do admire how blinde the Po∣licy of that Age was, in keeping King Henry alive, there being no such sure Prison as a Grave for a Cap••ive King, whose life (though in restraint) is a fair mark for the full Aim of mal-contents to practise his enlargement.] Our Author might have spar'd this Doctrine so frequently in practise amongst the worldly Politicians of all times and ages,* 2.32 that there is more need of a Bridle to holde them in, than a Spur to quicken them. Parce precor stimulis, & fortiùs utere loris, had been a wholesome caveat there, had any friend of his been by to have advis'd him of it. The murthering of depos'd and Captive Princes, though too often practi∣sed, never found Advocates to plead for it, and much lesse Preachers to preach for it,* 2.33 untill these latter times. First made a Maxim of State in the School of Machi∣avel, who layes it down for an Aphorisme in point of policy, viz. that great Persons must not at all be touched, or if they be, must be made sure from taking Revenge; inculcated afterwards by the Lord Gray, who being sent by King Iames to inter∣cede for the life of his Mother, did underhand solicite her death, and whispered nothing so much in Queen Elizabeths eares,* 2.34 as Mortua non mordet, if the Scots Queen were once dead, she would never bite. But never prest so home, never so punctually appli'd to the case of Kings, as here I finde it by our Author; of whom it cannot be affirm'd, that he speaks in this case the sense of others, but positively and plainly doth declare his own. No such divinity preach'd in the Schools of Ignatius, though fitter for the Pen of a Mariana, than of a Divine or Mi∣nister of the Church of England. Which whether it passed from him, before or since the last sad accident of this nature, it comes all to one; this being like a two-hand-sword made to strike on both sides, and if it come too late for in∣struction, will serve abundantly howsoever for the justification. Another note we have within two leaves after as derogatory to the Honour of the late Arch∣bishop, as this is dangerous to the Estate of all Soveraign Princes, if once they chance to happen into the hands of their Enemies. But of this our Author will give me an occasion to speake more in another place, and then he shall heare fur∣ther from me.

Fuller.

My words, as by me laid down, are so far from being a two-handed sword they have neither hilt nor blade in them, only they hold out an Handle for me, there∣by to defend my self; I say, States-men did admire at the preserving King Hen∣ry alive, and render their reason, If the Animadvertor takes me for a Statesman (whose generall Judgement in this point I did barely relate) he is much mista∣ken in me.

Reason of State and Reason of Religion, are Stars of so different an Horison, that the elevation of the One, is the depression of the other. Not that God hath pla∣ced Religion and Right Reason diametrically opposite in themselves, (so that where∣ever they meet, they must fall out and fight,) but Reason bowed by Politicians, o their present Interest (that is Achitophelesme) is Enmity to Religion. But the lesse we touch this harsh string the better musick.

Dr. Heylin.

Now to goe on. Fol. 197. The Duke requested of King Richard the Earldome of Hereford, and Hereditary Constableship of England.] Not so, it was not the Earldom, that is to say, the Title of Earl of Hereford, which the Duke reque∣sted; but so much of the Lands of those Earls, as had been formerly enjoy'd by the House of Lancaster. Concerning which we are to know, that Humphry de Bo∣hun the last Earl of Hereford, left behinde him two Daughters onely, of which the eldest called Eleanor was married to Thomas of Woods••ock, Duke of Gloster; Ma∣ry, the other, married unto Henry of Bullenbrook, Earl of Darby. Betwixt these two the Estate was parted; the one moity, which drew after it the Title of Hereford, falling to Henry Earl of Darby; the other, which drew after it the Office o•• Con∣stable, to the Duke of Glo••ester. But the Duke of Glocester being dead, and his estate coming in fine unto his Daughter, who was not able to contend, Henry the fifth forced her unto a sub-division, laying one half of her just partage to the other moity. But the issue of Henry of Bullenbrook being quite extinct in the Person of Edward Prince of Wales Son of Henry the sixth, these three parts of the Lands of the Earls of Hereford having been formerly incorporated into the Duchy of Lan∣caster, remained in possession of the Crown, but were conceiv'd by this Duke to belong to him, as being the direct Heir of Anne Daughter of Thomas Duke of Glocester, and consequently the direct Heir also of the House of Hereford. This was the sum of his demand. Nor doe I finde that he made any suit for the Office of Constable, or that he needed so to doe, he being then Constable of England, as his Son Edward the last Duke of Buckingham of that Family, was after him.

Fuller.

The cause of their variance is given in differently by several Authors. Some say, that at once this Duke requested three things of King Richard, 1. Power. 2. Honor, 3. Wealth: First, Power, to be Hereditary Constable of England, not to hold it as he did pro arbitrio Regis, but in the right of his descent. Secondly, Honor, the Earldome of Hereford. Thirdly, Wealth, that partage of Land mentioned by the Animadvertor. I instanced onely in the first, the pride of this Duke, being notoriously known to be more than his covetousnesse, not d••nying but that the Kings denyal of the Land he requested, had an effectual influence on his discontent.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 169. At last the coming in of the Lord Stanley with three thousand fresh men decided the controversie on the Earls side.] Our Author is out in this also. It was not the Lord Stanley, but his Brother Sir William Stanley, who came in so seasonably, and thereby turn'd the Scale, and chang'd the for∣tune of the day. For which service he was afterward made Lord Chamberlain of the new Kings Houshold, and advanc'd to great Riches and Estates, but finally beheaded by that very King for whom, and to whom he had done the same. But the King look'd upon this action with another eye. And therefore when the me∣rit of his service was interposed to mitigate the Kings displeasure, and preserve the ma••, the King remembred very shrewdly, that as he came soon enough to win the Victory, so he staid long enough to have lost it.

Fuller.

Though a courteous Prolepsis might salve all the matter, yet (to prevent except∣ions) in my next Edition, the Lord shall be degraded into Sir William Stanley.

THE FIFTH BOOK. Relating to the time of King Henry the Eight.

Dr. Heylin.

WE are now come to the busie times of King Henry the Eight, in which the power of the Church was much diminisht, though not reduced to such ill terms as our Author makes it We have him here laying his foundations to overthrow that lit∣tle which is left of the Churches Rights. His super-structures we shall see in the times ensuing more seasonable for the practise of that Authority which in this fifth Book he hammereth onely in the speculation.

Fuller.

I deny, and defie any such Designe, to overthrow the foundations of the Churches right. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous doe? I•• my Back could butterresse them up, it should not be wanting. However, I am not sensible that any such invasion was made on the true property of the Church, but that the King resumed what by God was invested in him, and what by the Pope was unjustly taken from him; though none can justifie every parti∣cular in the managery of the Reformation.

Dr. Heylin.

But first we will begin with such Animadversions as relate unto this time and story, as they come in our way; leaving such principles and positions as concern the Church, to the close of all; where we shall draw them all together, that our discourse and observations thereupon may come before the Reader without in∣terruption.

And the first thing I meete with, is a fault of Omission; Dr. Newlen who succeeded Dr. Iackson in the Presidentship of Corpus Christi Colledge in Oxford, Anno 1640 by a free election, and in a statutable way, being left out of our Au∣thors Catlogue of the Presidents of C. C. C. in Oxford, fol. 166. and Dr. Stan∣ton who came in by the power of the Visitors above eight years after being pla∣ced therein. Which I thought fit (though otherwise of no great moment) to take notice of, that I might doe the honest man that right which our Author doth not.

Fuller.

Would the Animadvertor had given me the Christian, as well as the Sir••name of the Doctor, that I may enter it in my next Edition. But I will endea∣vour some other wayes to recover it.

Such, and greater Omisions, often attend the Pens of the most exact Authors. Witnesse the Lord Stanhop, created Baron of Harington in Narthampton-shire, ••er¦tio Iacobi, left out in all the Editions [Latine and English] of the Industrious and Judicious Mr. Camden though his junior Baron (the Lord Arundel of

Wardour) be there inserted. This his omission proceeded not from the least neglect, as I protest my Innocence in the casual preterition of Dr. Newlen.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 168. King Henry endeavoured an uni••ormity of Grammer all over his Dominions; that so youths, though changing their School-Masters, might keep their learning.] That this was endeavoured by King Henry, and at last enjoyned, I shall easily grant. But then our Author should have told us (if at least he knew it) that the first hint thereof proceeded from the Convoca∣tion in the year 1530▪ in which, complaint being made, Quod multiplex & varius in Scholis Grammaticalibus modus esset docendi, &c. That the multiplicitie of Grammers did much hurt to learning; it was thought meet by the Prelates and Clergy then assembled,* 2.35 Ut una eadem edatur formula auctoritate hujus sacrae Synodi, in qualibet & singula Schola Grammaticali per Cantuariensem Provinciam usitanda & edocenda: that is to say, that one onely form of teaching Grammar should be enjoyned from thenceforth by the Authority of the Convocation, to be used in all the Grammar Schools of the Province of Canterbury. Which being so agreed upon, Lilly then Schoolmaster of St. Pauls School, was thought the fittest man for that undertaking; and he performed his part so well, that within few years after, it was enjoyned by the Kings Proclamation to be used in all the Schools through∣out the Kingdom. But here we are to note withall, that our Author anticipates this businesse, placing it in the eleventh year of this King, Anno 1519. whereas the Convocation took not this into consideration till the eighth of March, Anno 1530. and certainly would not have medled in it then, if the King had setled and en∣joyned it so long before.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor discovers much indiscretion, in cavelling at a well-timed truth in my Book, and substituting a falshood in the room thereof.

The endeavor of Henry the eight, for uniformity of Grammar throughout all his Dominions, begun (as I have placed it) one thousand five hundred and nine∣teen, William Lillie being the prime person imployed for the composure thereof.

Indeed it met not with universal Reception for some years (babits not being easily deposed:) and therefore the Convocation concurring with the Kings plea∣sure therein, added their assistance in the year 1530. as the Animadvertor ob∣serveth; and soon after by the Kings Proclamation, the matter was generally effected.

But whereas he sayth, That after that time 1530. William Lillye was thought the fittest man for that undertaking, Let me tell him, That a man dead five, if not eight years before, was not fit to make a Grammar.

I appeal to Bale and Pitts, both which render William Lillye to dye in the year 1525. but mistaken herein; For indeed he dyed three years before, if the Epitaph on his Monument, made by his sonne George Lillye, may be believed, in a brass plate near the great North dore of St. Pauls.

Gulielmo Lilio Paulinae Scholae olim, Preceptori Primario, & Agneti Con∣jugi, in Sacratissimo hujus Templi coemiterio hinc à tergo nunc destructo conse∣pultis, Georgius Lillius hujus Ecclesiae Canonicus, parentum memoriae piae con∣sulens, Tabellam hanc ab amicis conservatam, hic reponendam curavit. Obiit ille G. L. Anno Dom. 1522. Calend. Mart. Vixit annos 54.

Wherefore this unnecessary Animadversion, to correct what was right before, might very well have been spared.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 168. Howsoever it is probable, some other Gardiner gathered the Flowers (made the Collections) though King Henry had the honor to

wear the Posie.] I am not ignorant that the making of the Kings Book against Martin Luther▪ is by some Popish Writers ascribed to Dr. Iohn Fisher, then Bishop of Rochester. But this Cavil was not made till after this King had rejected the Popes Supremacy, and consequently the lesse credit to be given unto it. It is well known, that his Father King Henry the seventh designed him for the Archbisho∣prick of Canterbury, and to that end caused him to be trained up in all parts of learning which might enable him for that place. But his eldest brother Prince Arthur dying, and himself succeeding in the Crown, though he had laid aside the thoughts of being a Priest, he could not but retain that Learning which he had acquired, and reckon it amongst the fairest Flowers which adorned his Diadem. Too great a Clerk he was to be called Beauclerk junior, as i•• he were as short in learn∣ing of King Henry the first (whom commonly they called Beauclerk) as he was in time▪ though so our Author would fain have it, Hist. Cam. p. 2.3. A little Learn∣ing went a great way in those early dayes, which in this King would have made no shew, in whose time both the Arts and Languages began to flourish. And if our Author doth not suspect this Kings lack of learning, he hath no reason to su∣spect his lack of time, the work being small, the glory great, and helps enough at hand if he wanted any. But of this enough.

Fuller.

No considerable variation from what I have written, so that my Answer there∣unto is not required. Let him be another Beauclerk instead of Beauclerk junior.

Dr. Heylin.

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

Fuller.

My words are, he either freely gave to the King, or exchanged them, [but I say not FREELY] on very reasonable tearms. Now though he did not freely give Whitehall to the King, he exchanged it, (though unwillingly) on very reasonable considerations; seeing for bignesse, building, and circuit of ground, it then was worth Ten of York-house, given to his See, in lieu thereof. However, the Ani∣madvertor is exact in some circumstances of this Exchange, which I knew not before.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 170. So that lately there were maintained therein one Dean, eight Canons, three publique Professors of Divinity, Hebrew and Greek, sixty Students, &c.] Our Author tells us, Lib. 4. that he spent seventeen weeks in this University, but he that looks on this and some other passages, would think he had not tarryed there above seventeen hours.

Fuller.

Yea, the Animadvertor would perswade his Reader, That I never spent sea∣venteen weekes in Oxford or in any other University, if all the errors be so many and great as he accuseth me of. But I prepare my selfe to heare his Charge.

Dr. Heylin.

For besides his omitting of Dr. Newlin spoken of before, and his giving of the name of Censors to the Deans of Magdalen, which I finde afterwards, Lib. 8. fol. 7. he is very much mistaken in the matters of Christ Church.

Fuller.

What Dr. Newlen again? What if I called the Dean of Magdalen Colledge, the Censor. Grande piaculum!

Doe I not confesse it possible, That my Cambridge Sibboleth may make me lisp, and mispronounce the topicall offices in Oxford, and publiquely desired pardon, when such mistakes are committed? Where hath the Animadvertor left or lost his ingenuity, that so another may looke after, and make use of it, if so pleased?

Hereafter I shall remember that there is, though not a Censor now living in Magdalen Colledge, yet there was therein a Censurer [the Animadvertor] when no just cause is given him.

I expected rather, that he would have thanked, than censured me; Who be∣ing a Cambridge man, and finding their printed Catalogue of the presidents of Magdalen Colledge imperfect, as set forth by their own Antiquary Bryan Twyne, did amend the same, by inserting (in his due time) no meaner man than Dr. Walter Haddon, that famous and learned Civilian formerly omitted.

Dr. Heylin.

For first the three Professors, of Divinity, Hebrew, and Greek, are no necessary parts of that foundation, nor can be properly said to be founded in it. Till of late times they were and might be of other Colledges, as they are at this present, this Colledge being onely bound to pay them for their annuall Pensions fourty pounds a piece. In after times, King Iames annexed a Prebends place in this Church, to the Professor of Divinity, as King Charles did another to the Hebrew Reader. But for the Greek Reader he hath only his bare pension from it, and hath no other relation to it, but by accident onely; the last Greek Rea∣der of this House being Dr. Iohn Perin who dyed in the yeare 1615

Fuller.

I say not, that those three professors were founded in that Colledge, but that they are maintained therein. And seeing the Colledge (as the Animadvertor con∣fesseth payes them their salaries, my words are subject to no just Exceptions.

Dr. Heylin.

And secondly, he is very far short in the number of Students, diminishing them from an hundred to sixtie, there being an Hundred and one of that foun∣dation by the name of Students, equivalent to the Fellowes of most other Col∣ledges in the Revenues of their place and all advantages and incouragements in the way of learning. But this perhaps hath somwhat in it of design, that by making the foundations of Oxford to seeme lesse than they are, those in the o∣ther University, might appear the fairer.

Fuller.

'Tis a meere pen-slip, and shall be amended accordingly. God knowes I hatch no such envious design, who could wish, that not onely sixty, but six score six hundred, were founded, &c. therein. Alwayes provi∣ded,

That the Nursery exceed not the Orchard: And that the Universities by too large a Plantation breed not more Scholars, than the Kingdome is able to prefer and imploy.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 171. And here Wolsey had provided him a second Wife (viz.) Margaret Countesse of Alanzon, sister to Francis King of France.] As much out in his French as his English Heraldry. For first the Lady Margaret here spoken of, was never Countesse, though sometimes Dutchesse of Alanzon, as being once wife to Charles the fourth Duke thereof. And secondly, at the time when King Henries Divorce from Queen Katherine was first agitated, this Lady was not in a capacity of being projected for a Wife to King Henry the eighth, being then actually in the bed of another Henry, &c.

Fuller.

Margaret (who shall be amended Dutchesse) of Alanzon was Here, (I mean not just in this year, but in this businesse, afterwards designed by Wolsy for a Wife to King Henry.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 178. Yet had he the whole Revenues of York Arch∣bishoprick (worth then little lesse than four thousand pounds yearly) besides a large Pension paid him out of the Bishoprick of Winchester.] And a large Pension it was indeed (if it were a Pension) which amounted to the whole Revenue, &c.

Fuller.

For quietnesse sake, he shall have the whole Bishoprick, though I have read, that after Wolsey fell in the Kings displeasure, his revenue in Winchester (which he kept in Commendam) was reduced to a Pension.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 184. The Clergy of the Province of Canterbury alone bestowed on the King One hundred thousand pounds, to be paid by equall portions in the same year, say some; in four years say others, and that in my opinion with more probabily.] Here have we three Authors for one thing, some, others, and our Au∣thor himself, more knowing than all the rest in his own opinion. But all out alike. This great summe was not to be paid in one year, nor in four years neither, but to be paid by equall portions (that is to say, by twenty thousand pound per annum) in the five years following, &c.

Fuller.

Not reckoning the first summe, which was paid down on the Nail, that had just four years assigned them for the payment of the remainder.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 186. But he might have remembred, which also pro∣duced the peerlesse Queen Elizabeth, who perfected the Reformation.] Either our Au∣thor speaks not this for his own opinion, as in that before, or if he doe, it is an opini∣on of his own, in which he is not like to finde many followers. The Puritan party whom he acts for in all this work, will by no means grant it; comparing that most excellent Lady in their frequent Pasquils, to an idle Huswife, who sweeps the middle of the house to make a shew, but leaves all the dirt and rubbish behind the door. The grand Composers of the Directory doe perswade themselves, that if the first Reformers had been then alive,* 2.36 they would have joyned with them in the work, and laboured for a further Reformation. And what else hath been cla∣moured for during all her Reign, and the Ring leaders of the Faction endeavoured ever since her death, but to carry on the work of Reformation from one step to

another, till they had brought it unto such a perfection as they vainly dreamt of, and of which now we feel and see the most bitter consequences? And as for the Prelatical party, the high Royallists, as our Author calls them, they conceive the Reformation was not so perfected in the time of that prudent Queen, but that there was somewhat left to doe for her two Successors; that is to ••ay, the altering of some Rubricks in the Book of Common-prayer, the adding of some Collects at the end of the Letany, the enlargement of the common Catechism, a more exact translation of the Bible than had been before, the setling of the Church upon the Canons of 603. and finally, a stricter and more hopefull course for suppressing Popery, and for the maintenance both of conformity and uniformity by the Canons of 640.

Fuller.

I have the company of many honest and learned men going before, with, or after me, in the same opinion.

Perfection, in relation to the Church, is two-fold, Absolute or Exact, Gradual or Comparative.

The former is onely Christs work to perform for whom alone the honor is re∣served, to present the Church without spot or wrinkle to his father.

The latter, viz. Gradual and Comparative Perfection, may be attributed to particular militant Churches.

Queen Elizabeth did gradually perfect the Reformation, leaving it in a farre better condition than she found it in, in the reign of King Edward the sixth. Yet doe I not deny but that her Successors made commendable additions thereunto, not∣withstanding all whose endeavors, I doubt not but still something did remain, to be amended; So that it will be perfectio perficienda as long as the Church is militant.

The Animadvertor must not strain up perfection (when appliable to any Church on Earth) too high to the Pin, with which the spirits * 2.37 of just men are made perfect. For as long as the Church hath a FORME on Earth, it will be subject to deformi∣ties, and consequently will need reformation.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 187. And now I cannot call King Henry a Batchelor, because once married; nor a married man, because having no wife; nor properly a Widower, because his wife was not dead.] Our Author speaks this of Henry the eighth immediatly after his divorce, but is much mistaken in the matter. King Henry was so averse from living without a Wife, that he thought it more agree∣able to his constitution to have two Wives together, than none at all. To that end while the businesse of the Divorce remained undecided,* 2.38 he was married pri∣vately to the Lady Anne Bullen, on the 14 of November, &c.

Fuller.

It will rectifie all if I change those words having no wife, into as yet publiquely owning no wife, which shall be done accordingly.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 208. Though many wilde and distempered Expressi∣ons be found therein, yet they contain the Protestant Religion in Oare, which since by Gods blessing is happily refined.] Our Author speaks this of a Paper containing ma∣ny erronious Doctrines presented by the Prolocutor to the Convocation: some few of which, as being part of Wickliffs Gospel and chief ingredients in the Com∣position of the new Protestant Religion lately taken up, I shall here subjoyn.

• 1. That the Sacrament of the Altar, is nothing else but a piece of bread, or a little predie Round-Robin.
• 2. That Priests have no more Authority to minister Sacraments than the Lay-men have.
• ...

• 3. That all Ceremonies accus••omed in the Church, which are not clearly ex∣pressed in Scripture, must be taken away, because they are Mens inventions.
• 4. That the Church commonly so called is the old Synagogue; and that the Church, is the Congregation of good men onely.
• 5. That God never gave grace nor knowledge of holy Scripture to any great Estate or rich man, and that they in no wise follow the same.
• 6. That all things ought to be common.
• 7. That it is as lawfull to Christen a child in a Tub of water at home, or in a Ditch by the way, as in a Font-stone in the Church.
• 8. That it is no sin or offence to eat White-meats, Egges, Butter, Cheese, or Flesh in Lent, or other Fasting dayes commanded by the Church, and received by consent of Christian people.
• 9. That it is as lawfull to eat flesh on Good-Friday, as upon Easter-day, or other times in the year.
• 10. That the Ghostly Father cannot give or enjoyn any penance at all.
• 11. That it is sufficient for a Man or Woman to make their confession to God alone.
• 12. That it is as lawfull at all times to confesse to a Lay-man as to a Priest.
• 13. That it is sufficient that the sinner doe say, I know my self a sinner.
• 14. That Bishops, Ordinaries, and Eccelesiastical Iudges, have no Authority to give any sentence of Excommunication or censure, ne yet to absolve or loose any man from the same.
• 15. That it is not necessary or profitable to have any Church or Chappel to pray in, or to doe any divine service in.
• 16. That buryings in Churches and Church-yards be unprofitable and vain.
• 17. That the rich and costly Ornaments in the Church are rather high displeasure than pleasure or honour to God.
• 18. That our Lady was no better than another Woman, and like a bag of Pepper or Saffron when the spice is out.
• 19. That Prayers, Suffrages, Fasting, or Alms-deeds, doe not help to take away sin.
• 20. That Holy-dayes ordained and instituted by the Church, are not to be observed and kept in reverence, in as much as all dayes and times be alike.
• 21. That Plowing and Carting, and such servile work, may be done in the same, without any offence at all, as on other dayes.
• 22. That it is sufficient and enough to beleeve, though a man doe no good works at all.
• 23. That seeing Christ hath shed his blood for us, and Redeemed us, we need not to doe any thing at all, but to believe and repent if we have offended.
• 24. That no humane Constitutions or Laws do binde any Christian man, but such as be in the Go••pels, Pauls Epistles, or the New Testament: and that a man may break them without any offence at all.
• 25. That the singing or saying of Mass, Mattens, or Even song, is but a roring, howling, whistling, mumming, tom••ing, and jugling, and the playing on the Organs a foolish vanity.

This is our Authors golden Oare, out of which his new Protestant Religion was to be extracted. So happily refin'd, that there is nothing of the Old Christian Re∣ligion to be found therein. Which though our Author doth defend as Expressions rather than Opinions, the Careers of the Soul, and Extravagancies of humane infir∣mity, as he doth the rest; yet he that looks upon these points, and sees not in them the rude draught and lineaments of the Puritan Plat-form, which they have been hammering since the time of Cartwright and his Associates, must either have bet∣ter eyes than mine, or no eyes at all. I see our Author looks for thanks for this discovery for publishing the paper which contain'd these new Protestant truths, and I give him mine.

Fuller.

I have many things to return in this Contest. First, had I garbled the Opinions

of my own Head, and not presented them to the Reader, as I found them pre∣sented in the Records of the Convocation, then the Animadvertor had had just ad∣vantage against me.

Secondly, He taketh exception at me in his Introduction, for not giving in the Degrees by which Heterodoxies in Religion were ejected and cast out: Yet not he is offended at me, because I goe about to doe it, shewing how bad Religion was be∣fore the Reformation, even in the best Professors thereof.

Thirdly, It is more than probable, that these Opinions, presented by such as were disaffected to the Reformation, were not over favourably stated, but rather worded to the disadvantage.

Fourthly, Some of these Opinions, thus condemned by the Animadvertor, are ••ound in themselves. I instance in that which in this his List is the eleventh in number, viz That it is sufficient for a man or woman to make confession to God alone. This at this day is defended by the Protestan•• Church, which though commend∣ing Confession as expedient in some cases, especially when the afflicted Conscience cannot otherwi••e get any ea••e, yet doth it not command it on any as necessary, necessitate precepti, so that the omission thereof should amount to a sin. I am confi∣dent that the Animadvertor himself never solemnly confessed his sins to any but to God alo••e. And it is injurious in him, to demand of another to doe that which was never done by himself.

Lastly, How unjust were it to put all * 2.39 Ieremies bud figs by themselves, and thence to conclude all the rest (which indeed were very good) to be like unto them? Such the dealing of the Animadvertor herein, who hath called out the very Refuse and Dross of the Dross in these Opinions, and left out the rest, then maintained by Gods People in opposition to the Errors and Superstition of that Age, some whereof are here inserted.

• 1. They deny Extreme Unction to be any Sacrament.
• 2. That all those are Antichrists, who deny the Laity the Sacrament under both kindes.
• 3. That it is plain Idolatry, to set up any Lights before any Images, or in any place of the Church in time of Divine Service, as long as the Sun giveth light.
• 4. That Au••icular Confession is invented to know the secrets of mens hearts, and to pull money out of their purse.
• 5. That Sain••s are not to be invocated, and that they understand not, nor know nothing of our Petitions, nor can be Mediators or Intercessors betwixt us and God.
• 6. That Diriges, Mass••s, &c. done for the Souls of those which are departed out of this World, are bu•• vain, and of no profit.
• 7. That Souls departed goe strait to Heaven, others to Hell.
• 8. That there is no mean place betwixt Heaven and Hell, where Souls departed may be aff••cted.
• 9. That there is no distinction of Sin, to be Venial and Mortal.
• 10. That hallowed Water, Bread, Candles, Ashes, Palmes, are of none effect, and are onely used to seduce people.

The rest I refer to my Church-History.

Had that all been like these, I would have called them the Gold, but (because of many Errors mixed amongst them) I resume my Metaphor, and term them the Golden Oare, out of which the Reformed Christian Religion was extracted. And let the Author and Reader joyn in their thanks to Gods Goodnesse, by whose blessing on the pious endeavors of the Reformers, th•• bad Figs, I mean those false, indiscreet, scandalous, and dangerous Doctrines are cashired and condemned, and the good ones, understand me, the Positions which were pious and orthodox, retained, defended and practised at this day in the Church of England.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 239. At this time also were the Stews suppressed by the Kings command.] And I could wish that some command had been laid upon

our Author by the Parliament to suppresse them also, and not to have given them any place in the present History, especially not to have produc'd those arguments by which some shamelesse persons endeavoured to maintain both the conveniency and necessity of such common Brothel-houses.* 2.40 Had Bishop Iewel been alive, and seen but half so much from Dr. Harding pleading in behalf of the common women permitted by the Pope in Rome, he would have thought, that to call him an Ad∣vocate for the Stews had not been enough. But that Doctor was not half so wise as our Author is, and doth not fit each Argument with a several Antidote as our Au∣thor doth, hoping thereby, but vainly hoping, that the arguments alledged will be wash'd away. Some of our late Criticks had a like Designe in marking all the wanton and obscene Epigrams in Martial with a Hand or Asterism, to the intent that young Scholars, when they read that Author, might be fore-warn'd to passe them over: Whereas on the contrary, it was found, that too many young fel∣lows, or wonton wits, ••s our Author calls them, did ordinarily skip over the rest, and pitch on those which were so mark't and set out unto them. And much I fear that it will so fall out with our Author also, whose Arguments will be studied and made use of, when his Answers will not.

Fuller.

The commendable Act of King Henry the eighth, in suppressing the Stews, may well be reported in Church-History, it being recorded in * 2.41 Scrip∣ture to the eternal praise of King Asa, that he took away the Sodomites out of the Land. I hope my collection of arguments in confutation of such Styes of Lust, will appear to any rational Reader of sufficient validity.

Indeed it is reported of Zeuxes, that famous Painter, that he so lively pictured a Boy with a Rod in his hand, carrying a Basket of Grapes, that Birds (mistaking them for real ones) peckt at them; and whilest others commended his Art, he was angry with his own work-manship, confessing, that if he had made the Boy but as well as the Grapes, the Birds durst not adventure at them.

I have the same just cause to be offended with my own indeavors, if the Arguments against those Schools of Wantonnesse should prove insufficient, though I am confident that if seriously considered, they doe in their own true weight pre∣ponderate those produced in favour of them. However, if my well-intended pains be abused by such who onely will feed on the poisons, wholy neglecting the Anti∣dotes, their destruction is of themselves, and I can wash my hands of any fault therein.

But me thinks the Animadvertor might well have passed this over in silence, for fear of awaking sleeping wontonnesse, jogged by this his Note; so that if my Ar∣guments, onely presented in my Book, be singly, this his Animadversion is doubly guilty on the same account, occasioning loose eyes to reflect on that which other∣wise would not be observed.

Dr. Heylin.

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

of a Survivor-ship in such a case, when the one person had been long dead before the other was born.

Fuller.

Terms of Law when used not in Law-Books, nor in any solemn Court, but in com∣mon Discourse, are weaned from their critical sense, and admit more latitude. If the word surviving should be tied up to legal strictnesse, Survivour is appliable to none save onely to such who are Ioint-tenants. However, because co-viving is properly required in a Survivor, those my words had he survived, shall be altered into had he lived to survive Prince Edward, and then all is beyond exception.

Dr. Heylin.

These incoherent Animadversions being thus passed over, we now proceed to the Examination of our Authors Principles, for weakning the Authority of the Church, and subjecting it in all proceedings to the power of Parliaments. Con∣cerning which he had before given us two Rules Preparatory to the great busi∣nesse which we have in hand. First, that the proceedings of the Canon Law were sub∣ject in whatsoever touched temporals, to secular Laws and National Customes. And the Laitie at pleasure limited Canons in this behalf, Lib. 3. n. 61. And secondly, that the King by consent of Parliament directed the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court in cases of Heresie. Lib. 4. n. 88. And if the Ecclesiastical power was thus curbed and fettered when it was at the highest, there is no question to be made, but that it was much more obnoxious to the secular Courts when it began to sink in repu∣tation, and decline in strength. How true and justifiable, or rather how unjusti∣fiable and false these two principles are, we have shewn already, and must now look into the rest, which our Author in pursuance of the main Design hath pre∣sented to us. But first we must take notice of another passage concerning the cal∣ling of Convocations or Synodical meetings, formerly called by the two Arch∣bishops in their several Provinces by their own sole and proper power, as our Au∣thor grants, fol. 190. to which he adds,

Fol. 190. But after the Statute of Premunire was made (which did much restrain the Papal power, and subject it to the Laws of the Land) when Arcbishops called no more Convocations by their sole and absolute command, but at the pleasure of the King.] In which I must confesse my self to be much unsatisfied, though I finde the same position in some other Authors. My reasons two, 1. Because there is nothing in the Statu••e of Praemunire to restrain the Archbishops from calling these meetings as before; that Act extending onely to such as purchase or pursue, or cause to be purchased or pursued, in the Court of Rome, or elsewhere any such Translations, Processes, Sentences of Excommunication, Bulls, Instruments, or any other things whatsoever which touch the King, against him, his Crown and his Regality, or his Realm; or to such as bring within the Realm or them receive, or make thereof notification, or any other Execution whatsoever within the same Realm, or without, &c. And secondly, because I finde in the Statute of the submission of the Clergy, that it was recognized and acknow∣ledged by the Clergie in their Convocation,* 2.42 that the Convocation of the said Clergie is, alwaies hath been, and ought to be assembled alwaies by the Kings Writ. And if they had been alwaies call'd by the Kings Writ, then certainly before the Sta∣tute of Praemunire; for that the whole Clergy in their Convocation should pub∣liquely declare and avow a notorious falshood, especially in a matter of fact, is not a thing to be imagined. I must confesse my self to be at a losse in this intricate Labyrinth, unless perhaps there were some critical difference in those elder times between a Synod and a Convocation: the first being call'd by the Arch-bishops in their several and respective Provinces, as the necessities of the Church; the other only by the King, as his occasion and affairs did require the same. But whether this were so or not, is not much material, as the case now stands, the Clergie not assembling since the 25 of King Henry the eighth, but as they are convocated and convened by the Kings Writ only. I only add that the time and year of this sub∣mission is mistook by our Author▪ who placeth it in 1533. whereas indeed the

Clergy made this acknowledgement and submission in their Convocation, Anno 1532. though it pass'd not into an Act or Statute till the year next following. Well then, suppose the Clergy call'd by the Kings Authority, and all their Acts and Constitutions ratified by the Royals assent, are they of force to binde the Sub∣ject to submit and conform unto them? Not, if our Author may be judge; for he tels us plainly,

Fol. 191. That even such Convocations with the Royal assent, subject not any (for recusancie to obey their Canons) to a civil penalty in person or property, until confirmed by Act of Parliament.] I marvel where our Author took up this opinion, which he neither findes in the Registers of Convocation, or Records of Parlia∣ment. Himself hath told us, fol. 190. that such Canons and Constitutions as were concluded on in Synods or Convocations, before the passing of the Statute of Praemunire, were without any further Ratification, obligatory to all subjected to their jurisdiction. And he hath told us also of such Convocations as had been called between the passing of the Statute of Praemunire, and the Act for Submission, that they made Canons which were binding, although none other than Synodical Authority did confirm the same. Upon which premisses I shall not fear to raise this Syllogism, viz. That power which the Clergy had in their Convocations before their sub∣mission to the King, to binde the Subject by their Canons and Constitutions with∣out any further ratification than own Synodical Authority, the same they had when the Kings power signified in his Royal assent was added to them; but the Clergy (by our Authors own confession) had power in their Convocations be∣fore their submission to the King, to bind the Subject by their Canons and Consti∣tutions, without any further ratification than their own Synodical Authority; Ergo they had the same power to bind the Subjects, when the Kings power signified by the Royal assent was added to them. The Minor being granted by our Author, as before is shewed, the Major is onely to be proved. And for the proof hereof, I am to put the Reader in minde of a Petition or Remonstrance exhibited to the King by the House of Commons, Anno 1532. in which they shewed themselves agrieved, that the Clergy of this Realm should act Authori••atively and Supreme∣ly in the Convocations, and they in Parliament do nothing, but as it was confirmed and ratified by Royal assent. By which it seems that there was nothing then desired by the House of Commons, but that the Convocation should be brought down to the same level with the Houses of Parliament; and that their Acts and Constitutions should not binde the Subject as before, in their Goods and Possessions, until they were confirmed and ratified by the Regal Power. The Answer unto which Remonstrance being drawn up by Dr. Gardiner then newly made Bishop of Winchester, and allowed of by both Houses of Convocation, was by them pre∣sented to the King. But the King not satisfied with this Answer, resolves to bring them to his bent, lest else perhaps they might have acted something to the hin∣drance of his divorce, which was at that time in agitation; and therefore on the tenth of May he sends a Paper to them by Dr. Fox, (after Bishop of Hereford) in which it was peremptorily required, That no Constitution or Ordinance shall be hereafter by the Clergy Enacted, Promulged, or put in Execution, unlesse the Kings Highnesse do approve the same by his high Authority and Royal assent; and his advice and favour be also interponed for the execution of every such Constitution among his Highnesse Subjects. And though the Clergy on the receipt of this paper remov'd first to the Chappel of St. Katherines, and after unto that of St. Dunstan to con∣sult about it, yet found they no Saint able to inspire them with a resolution con∣trary to the Kings desires; and therefore upon the Wednesday following, being the fifteenth of the same Moneth, they made their absolute submission, binding themselves in Verbo Sacerdotii, not to make or execute any Canons or other Syno∣dical Constitutions, but as they were from time to time enabled by the Kings Authority. But this submission being made unto the King in his single person, and not as in conjunction with his Houses of Parliament, could neither bring the Convocation under the command of Parliaments, nor render them obnoxi••us to the power thereof, as indeed it did not. But to the contrary hereof it is said by our Author, that

Fol. 194. He (viz. the King) by the advice and consent of his Clergy in Convoca∣tion and great Councel in Parliament, resolved to reform the Church under his inspe∣ction from grosse abuses crept into it.] To this I need no other Answer than our Au∣thor himself, who though in this place he makes the Parliament to be joyned in Commission with Convocation, as if a joynt Agent in that great businesse of Reforming the Church; yet in another place he tels us another tale.

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

So then the Reformation of the Church was acted chiefly by the King with the advice of the Clergy in their Convocation; the confirmation on the post-fact by the King in Parliament: and that (by his leave) not in all the Acts and Particulars of it, but in some few onely, for which consult the Tract entituled, The Way and Manner of the Reformation of the Church of Eng∣land. Now as our Author makes the Parliament a joynt Assistant with the King in the Reformation, so he conferreth on Parliaments the Supreme Power of ra∣tifying and confirming all Synodical Acts.

Fol. 199. The Parliament (saith he) did notifie and declare that Ecclesiastical Power to be in the King, which the Pope had formerly unjustly invaded: Yet so, that they reserved to themselves the confirming power of all Canons Ecclesiastical; so that the person or property of Refusers should not be subjected to temporal penalty without consent of Parliament.] But certainly there is no such matter in that Act of Par∣liament, in which the submission of the Clergy and the Authority of the King grounded thereupon is notified and recorded to succeeding times; nor any such reservation to themselves of a confirming power, as our Author speaks of, in any Act of Parliament (I can knowingly and boldly say it) from that time to this. Had there been any such Priviledge, any such Reservation as is here declared, their Power in confirming Ecclesiastical Canons had been Lord Paramount to the Kings; who could have acted nothing in it, but as he was enabled by his Houses of Parlia∣ment. Nor is this onely a new and unheard of Paradox an Heterodoxie (as I may call it) in point of Law, but plainly contrary to the practise of the Kings of Eng∣land from that time to this; there being no Synodical Canons or Constitutions (I dare as boldly say this too) confirmed in Parliament, or any otherwise ratified, than by the superadding of the Royal assent. For proof whereof look we no fur∣ther than the Canons of 603 and 640 confirmed by the two Kings respectively, and without any other Authority concurring with them in these following words (viz.)

We have therefore for Us, our Heirs, and lawfull Successors, of our espe∣cial Grace, certain knowledge, and meer motion, given, and by these presents doe give our Royal assent according to the form of the said Statute or Act of Parliament aforesaid, to all and every of the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, and to all and every thing in them contained. And further∣more, we doe not onely by our said Prerogative Royal, and Supreme Au∣thority, in causes Ecclesiastical, ratifie, confirm, and establish by these our Let∣ters Patents, the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, and all and every thing in them contained, as is aforesaid: But doe likewise propound, publish, and straightly enjoyn and command by our said Authority, and by these our Letters Patents, the same to be diligently observed, executed, and equally kept by all our loving Subjects of this our Kingdome, both within the Province of Canterbury and York, in all points wherein they doe or may concern every or any o•• them according to this our Will and Pleasure hereby signified and ex∣pressed.

No other Power required to confirm these Canons, or to impose them on the People but the Kings alone. And yet I trow there are not a few par∣ticulars, in which those Canons doe extend, to the propertie and persons of such Refusers as are concerned in the same; which our Author may soon finde in them

if he list to look. And having so done, let him give us the like Precedent for his Houses of Parliament (either abstractedly in themselves, or in cooperation with the King) in confirming Canons; and we shall gladly quit the cause, wil∣lingly submit to his * 2.43 ter judgement.

But if it be objected, as perhaps it may, That the Subsidies granted by the Clergy in the Convocation, are ratified and confirmed by Act of Parliament, before they can be levied either on the Granters themselves, or the rest of the Clergy.

I answer, that this makes nothing to our Authors purpose, that is to say, that the person or property of Refusers should not be subjected to temporal penalty, without consent of Parliament. For first, before the submission of the Clergy to King Hen∣ry the 8. they granted Subsidies and other aids unto the King in their Convoca∣tions, and levied them upon the persons concerned therein, by no other way than the usual Censures of the Church, especially by Suspension and deprivation, if any Refuser prove so refractary as to dispute the payment of the sum imposed. And by this way they gave and levied that great sum of an Hundred thousand pounds in the Province of Canterbury onely; by which they bought their peace of the said King Henry, at such time as he had caused them to be attainted in the Praemunire. And secondly, there is a like Precedent for it since the said Submissi∣on. For whereas the Clergy in their Convocation in the year 1585. being the 27 year of Queen Elizabeth, had given that Queen a Subsidy of four sh••llings in the pound, confirmed by Act of Parliament in the usual way; th••y gave her at the same time (finding their former gift too short for her present occasions) a Be∣nevolence of two shillings in the pound to be raised upon all the Clergy, by virtue of their own Synodical Act onely, under the penalty of such Ecclesiastical Cen∣sures as before were mentioned. Which precedent was after followed by the Clergy in their Convocation, An 1640. the Instrument of the Grant being the same verbatim with that before; though so it hapned (such influence have the times on the Actions of men) that they were quarreld and condemned for it by the following Parliament in the time of the King, and not so much as checkt at, or thought to have gone beyond their bounds in the time of the Queen. And for the ratifying of their Bill by Act of Parliament, it came up first at such times (after the Submission before mentioned) as the Kings of England being in distrust of their Clergy, did not think fit to impower them by their Letters Patents for the making of any Synodical Acts, Canons or Constitutions whatsoever, by which their Subsidies have been levied in former times, but put them off to be confirmed and made Obligatory by Act of Parliament. Which being afterwards found to be the more expedite way, and not considered as derogatory to the Churches Rights, was followed in succeeding times without doubt or scruple; the Church proceeding in all other Cases by her native power, even in Cases where both the persons and property of the Subject were alike concerned, as by the Canons 1603, 1640, and many of those past in Queen Elizabeths time (though not so easie to be seen) doth at full appear. Which said, we may have leisure to consider of another passage relating not unto the Power of the Church, but the wealth of the Churchmen. Of which thus our Author.

Fuller.

I conceived it Civil to suffer the Animadvertor (to use his own phrase) parler le tout, to speak all out in this long Discourse; which, although it consisteth of se∣veral Notes, yet because all treat of the same subject, and because a Relative strength might result thereby to the whole, I have presented it intire: Yet when all is said, I finde very little I have learnt thereby, and lesse (if any thing) which I am to alter.

These my two preparatory Rules (as the Animadvertor terms them) I have for∣merly stated, and proved, and here intend no repetition.

It is no Beame, and but a Moat-fault at most, if I have dated the submission of the Clergy to the King, not from the first private performance, but the passing there∣of

into Print and publique cognisance. Thus the Age of Children are by their Parents reckoned from their birth, but by others from their entrance in the Register.

But the main fault (and that a foul one, if true) layed to my charge is, for weak∣ning the Authority of Church, and subjecting it to the power of Parliaments. But know it is past the might and spight of the most malicious man finally to weaken the just Authority of the Church, God having solemnly promised That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Yet Princes (as King Henry the eighth did) might re∣trence the Power of the Church (or ambitious Church-men rather) when they in∣vaded the just priviledges of others.

I shall onely return a few plain and general answers to what is objected. First, before I entred on the difficult Subject of Synods and Convocations (before and since the Clergies Submission) with their respective powers, I placed, as followeth,

Church-History, Book 1. pag. 191.

This I humbly conceive to be the difference betwixt the three kindes of Convocations, submitting what I have written, to the censure and correction of the learned in the Law, conscious of my own ignorance therein, as indeed such skill neither is to be expe∣cted or required in one of my profession, who am ready with willingnesse, yea with chear∣fulnesse, yea with thankfulnesse to God and man publickly to recall and retract what any such convince me to have mistaken herein; hoping that my stumbling in so dark a sub∣ject, may prevent the failing of others.

Having thus humbly desired (I say not deserved) favour, I hope it will be indul∣ged unto me.

Secondly, I presume to tender this (I hope reasonable) motion to the Reader, that seeing the Animadvertor not onely freely confesseth this Subject to be an intricate Labyrinth, but also fairly acknowledgeth, that he findeth the Positions I maintain in SOME OTHER AUTHORS, that I may be discharged, and that the guilt (if any) may be derived on such Authors as have misguided me.

Thirdly, When I use the word Parliament, it expoundeth it self what was meant thereby (capable in that age of no other comment) viz. The aggregation of the King, Lords, and Commons.

Fourthly, I distinguish betwixt a consultive, conclusive, and punitive power in matters of Religion. The consultive power God hath intrusted his Church with, and the Clergy as the Representative thereof. The conclusive power also is inve∣sted in them, so far forth as to declare what is Orthodox, and what Heretical. But the punitive power (especially when exceeding Church Censors) and extending to Life, Limb, and Estate, is in the Parliament; that so neither Royal Prerogative nor Subjects Right may be injured.

Fifthly, I distinguish betwixt the power which the Convocation had over the Clergy, and what they have over the Laity. Over the Estates of the latter, they have no power.

As for the Clergy, they are all represented, by their voluntary elections, in their Clerks or Proctors: Volenti non fit injuria, A man that is willing is not wronged. What summes therefore they give away of the Clergy, they may be presumed impowred therein, with the consent of the Clergy. However, to clear all doubts, the consent of Parliament hath [since the Submission of the Clergy] been required unto it.

As for the black Swan in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, I mean that single and signal instance of tha•• Unparliament-impowred-Convocation, which gave that suppli∣mental Subsidie to Queen Elizabeth; I humbly conceive that the popularity of so peerlesse a Princesse, the necessity of her occasions, and the tranquilitie of those times (a happinesse denyed in our Age) made that unquestioned, which might be questionable if any turbulent Clergy-man had proved recusant in payment.

As to the Convocation 1640. let me request the Reader, that I may without danger humbly tender my opinion therein. That Convocation (as all others) consisted of Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and Clerks. Of these, the three former acted onely in their personal capacities, and carrying their own Purses in their own pockets, might give Subsidies to the King to what proportion they pleased, and justifie the doing thereof.

Not so the fourth and last Members, being Clerks chosen for their respective Cathedrals and Diocesses, legally to sit as long as the Parliament lasted. After the dissolution whereof they desisted to be publique Persons, lost the notion of Repre∣sentatives, and returned to their private condition. In which capacity they might have given for themselves what sums they pleased, but could not vote away the e∣states of other Clergy-men, except the respective Cathedrals and Diocesses had re-Elected them; which had it been done, they might no doubt have justifyed the gi∣ving away of Subsidies, as authorized thereunto, though the Parliament had been dissolved, seeing every man may doe with his owne as he pleaseth, and the diffusive Clergy were justly interpreted to doe what was done by their Proctors. Truth may be blamed, but cannot be shamed, and I have unbosomed my thoughts and judg∣ment herein. But this outswelleth the proportion of my booke, and let me make a faire motion to the Animadvertor. I resume my two former Propositions, (viz.)

• 1 The proceedings of the Canon Law in what touched temporals of Life, Limb, and Estate, was alwaies limited with the secular Lawes and Nationall Customes of England.
• 2 That the King, by consent of Parliament, directed the proceedings of Ecclesiasti∣call Courts, against declared Hereticks, so that they could not punish them in Life or Limbe, but as limited by the Statute.

If the Animadvertor, who hath leisure and abilitie, be pleased in confutation of these my Propositions, to write a few sheets (it being richly worth his and the Readers paines) cleerly, briefly, fully and fairly, without the least dash of ill language, subscribing his name thereunto, I will God willing returne him my an∣swere qualified accordingly; and, though I confesse the Animadvertor hath the advantage of me at the weapon of Law, yet my confidence of a good Cause will make mee undertake the Challenge; alwaies provided, That no advantage be taken against us by any for delivering our Judgements and Consciences in so nice a Controversie: For the present I forbeare, because this dispute is substantive e∣nough to stand by it self, and too large to bee adjected to this booke.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 253. I have heard (saith he) that Queen Elizabeth being informed that Dr. Pilkington Bishop of Durham had given ten thousand pounds in marriage with his Daughter; and being offended that a Prelates daughter should equall a Princesse in Portion, took away one thousand pounds a year from that Bishoprick, and assigned it for the better maintenance of the Garrison of Barwick.] In telling of which story our Author commits many mistakes, as in most things else. For first to justifie the Queens displeasure (if she were displeased) he makes the Bishop richer, and the Portion greater than indeed they were. The ten thousand pounds Lib 9 fol. 109. being shrunk to eight; and that eight thousand pound not given to one Daughter (as is here affirmed) but divided equally between two: whereof the one was married to Sir Iames Harrington, the other unto Dunch of Berkshire. Secondly, this could be no cause of the Queens displeasure, and much lesse of the Countries envie; that Bishop having sat in the See of Durham above seventeen years. And certainly he must needs have been a very ill Husband if out of such a great Revenue he had not saved five hundred pounds per annum to pre∣fer his Children; the income being as great, and the charges of Hospility lesse than they have been since. Thirdly, the Queen did not take away a thousand pound a year from that Bishoprick, as is here affirmed. The Lands were left to it as before, but in regard the Garrison of Barwick preserved the Bishops Lands and Tenants from the spoil of the Scots; the Queen thought fit, that the Bishops should contribute towards their own defence, imposing on them an annual pen∣sion of a thousand pound for the better maintaining of that Garrison. Fourthly, Bishop Pilkington was no Doctor, but a Batchelor of Divinity onely; and possibly had not been raised by our Author to an higher title and Degree than the Univer∣sity had given him, but that he was a Conniver at Non-conformity, as our Author

telleth us Lib. 9. fol. 109. Lastly, I shall here add, that I conceived the Pension above mentioned, not to have been laid upon that See after Pilkingtons death, but on his first preferment to it, the French having then newly landed some forces in Scotland, which put the Queen upon a necessity of doubling her Guards and in∣creasing her Garrisons. But whatsoever was the cause of imposing this great yearly payment upon that Bishoprick, certain I am, that it continued, and the money was duly paid into the Exchequer for many years, after the true cause thereof was taken away; the Queens displeasure against Pilkington ending either with his life or hers, and all the Garrisons and forces upon the Borders being ta∣ken away in the beginning of the Reign of King Iames. So true is that old saying, Quod Christus non capit, fiscus rapit; never more fully verified than in this par∣ticular.

Fuller.

I have given in a double account of Bishop Pilkingtons Issue and Estate.

• 1. As same reported, and as envio••s Courtiers represented it to Queen Eliza∣beth, that he gave ten thousand with his onely Daughter, Lib. 5. fol. 253.
• 2. As it was in truth, giving but four thousand a piece with Two daughters, lib. 8. fol. 109.

The Animadvertor may allow me knowing in his family, my wife being Grand∣child to his Eldest Daughter, married to Sir * 2.44 Henry Harrington.

Yet no relation to him, or favour for him as a semi-non conformist, but mere love to the Truth, made me entitle him Doctor, though I confesse Bishop Godwin maketh him but Batchelour in Divinity. For Dr. Caius, Master of Gonvil Hall, whilest Pilkington was of St. Iohns in Cambridge, giveth him the stile of * 2.45 Doctor, who must be presumed most exact in the Titles of his own Contemporary.

The difference is not great, betwixt taking away 1000 l. yearly from the Bi∣shoprick, and charging it with an annual Pension of 1000 l. to maintain the Garri∣son of Barwick. However if the Reader can gain any information from what is additory in the Animadvertor, I shall be light glad thereof.

THE SIXTH BOOK. Containing the History of Abbeys.

Dr. Heylin.

THis Book, containing the History of Abbeys seems but a Supple∣ment to the former, but being made a distinct book by our Author, we must doe so likewise. In which the first thing capable of an Animadversion, is but meerly verbal, viz.

Fol. 266. Cistercians so called from one Robert living in Cister∣cium in Burgundy.] The place in Burgundy from whence these Monks took deno∣mination, though call'd Cirstercium by the Latins, is better known to the French and English by the name Cisteaux; the Monks thereof, the Monks of Cisteaux by the English, and Lesmoines de Cisteaux by the French; and yet our Author hath hit it better in his Cistercians, than Ralph Brook York Herald did in his Sister-senses, for which sufficiently derided by Augustin Vincent, as our Author, being so well studied in Heraldry, cannot chuse but know.

Fuller.

It was equally in my power and pleasure (without the least prejudice to the Truth) whether I would render the place in the French [Cisteaux,] or retain the Latine name Cistercium. I preferred the latter because our English word Cistercians hath most conformity therewith.

What is R. Brooke his Sister-senses, Brother-senses, or Non-senses to me? This spends time in writing, money in buying, pains in reading, makes some more angry, none more knowing.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 268. But be he who he himself or any other pleaseth, brother if they will to St. George on Horseback.] Our Author not satisfying him∣self in that Equitius, who is supposed to be the first Founder of Monks in England, makes him in scorn to be the Brother of St. George on Horse back; that is to say, a meer Chimera, a Legendary Saint, a thing of nothing. The Knights of that most noble Order are beholding to him for putting their Patron in the same Rank with St. Equitius; of whose existence on the Earth he can finde no Constat.

Fuller.

I honour the Knights of that noble Order, as much as the Animadvertor him∣self. Their Ribbands though (now wearing out apace) seem in my eyes as fair and fresh as when first put on. I doe not deny, but much doubt of St. George, as he is presented with his improbable Atchievements; Yet grant the whole History, onely Emblematical, and Allegorical of Christ, rescuing his Church from the might and malice of Satan, no Diminution of Honour at all is thereby to the Fellows of that noble Order.

Dr. Heylin.

But I would have him know, how poorly soever he thinks of St. George on Horseback, that there hath more been said of him, his Noble birth, Atchievements, with his death and Martyrdome, than all the Friends our Author hath, will or can justly say in defence of our present History.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor might have done well, to instanced in that Author which hath been the Champion for this Champion, and hath so substantially asserted him. If in this passage he reflecteth on his own Book on that Subject, he hath lookt so long on St. George, he hath forgot Solomon: Let another praise thee, and not thy own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. For my part I am yet to seek what service he hath done to the Church of God, so busie to make DOWN SAB∣BATH, and UP St. GEORGE.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 270 — So they deserve some commendation for their Orthodox Judgement in maintaining some Controversies in Divinity of im∣portance against the Jesuites.] Our Author speaks this of the Dominicans or preaching Fryers, who though they be the sole active managers of the Inquisiti∣on, deserve notwithstanding to be commended for their Orthodox judgement. How so? Because forsooth in some Controversies of importance, that is to say, Predestination, Grace, Free-will, and the rest of that link, they hold the same opini∣ons against the Iesuites and Fraenciscans, as the Rigid Lutherans doe against the Melanchthonians, and the Rigid or peremptory Calvinists against the Remonstrants. &c.

Fuller.

Two things are considerable in the Dominicans, First their Cruelty in mana∣ging the inquisition, which all must justly condemn. And I doubt not, but God, when he maketh Inquisition for blood, will remember the bloody Inquisition.

Secondly, their Orthodoxnesse in many points, here reckoned up by the Ani∣madvertor, which in the Judgement of many pious and learned Divines, deserve just commendation. And if the Animadvertor dissent from them herein, sure I am, He will close with them in another controversie against the Franciscans, in maintaining that the Virgin Mary was conceived in sin: For although all gene∣rations shall call her BLESSED, yet it followeth not thence, that shee was without sin, Seeing BLESSED is he to whom God imputeth no sin. In a word the Dominicans are the least erronious of all the Monks and Friers.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 300. We will conclude with their observation (as an ominous presage of Abbies ruine) that there was scarse a great Abbey in England, which once at least, was not burnt down with lightning from Heaven.] Our Author may be as well our in this, as he hath been in many things else; it being an ordinary thing to adscribe that to Lightning or fire from Heaven, which happened by the malice or carelesenesse of Knaves on Earth, of which I shall speak more hereafter, on occasion of the firing of St. Pauls steeple in London, lib. 9.

Fuller.

If your Author be out, he told you who were out with your Author, yea, who led him out; viz. the following Authors being all of them authenticall, and of the Romish perswasion, cited in the margent.

• 1. Historia Gervasii.
• 2. Historia Ingulphi.
• 3. Cronicon Petroburg.
• 4. Cronicon S^ti Edmundi.
• 5. Malmsbury
• 6. Hoveden.
• 7. Walter Covenir.
• 8. Fabian.

These may be presumed utterly unlikely to be-libell heaven for the Actions of Earth, or to entitle that an accident of Lightning, which was voluntary from knavish incendiaries.

Dr. Heylin.

Now only noting by the way, that scarce any, and but thirteen (for our Author names no more which were so consumed) hang not well together. If onely thirteen were so burnt (and sure our Author would have nam'd them if they had been more) he should have rather chang'd his style, and said that of so many Re∣ligious Houses as suffered by the decayes of time and the fury of the Danish Wars, or the rage of accidental fires, scarfe any of them had been striken by the hand of Heaven.

Fuller.

He might as well have said, that the Husbandman, who only sheweth a Sample, hath no more corn in his Barn. Or the Draper who presenteth but a Patern, hath no more cloth in his Shop.

I was unwilling to burthen my book with the enumeration of them all, and the Reader may take notice of the thirteen named, nine Mitred Abbies, each 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, eminently worth many meaner Monasteries, whose names follow.

• 1. Canterbury.
• 2. Croyland.
• 3. Peterburrough.
• 4. St. Maries, York.
• 5. Edmondsbury.
• 6. Glocester.
• 7. Cicester.
• 8. Glassenbury.
• 9. Evesham.

If it were worth the while, I could add many more; mean time, it is enough to say, Mr. Fox is the Author wherein this is to be found.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 313. Hence presently arose the Northern Rebel∣lion, wherein all the open undertakers were North of Trent, &c.] Not all the open un∣dertakers▪ I am sure of that, our Author telling us in the words next following, that this commotion began first in Lincolnshire, no part whereof, except the River-Isle of Axholm, lies beyond the Trent, &c.

Fuller.

Almost all Lincolnshire lyeth North (though not of the fall) of the foundation of Trent. However, these words North of Trent shall be altered into, in the North of England.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 316. Where there be many people, there will be ma∣ny Offenders, there being a Cham amongst the eight in the Ark, yea a Cain amongst the four Primitive Persons in the beginning of the world.] In this, our Authors rule is better than his Exemplification. For though there were but eight persons in the Ark. whereof Cham was one, yet in all probability there were more than four persons in the world at the birth of Abel, reckoning him for one. &c.

Fuller.

I passe not whether there were, or were not; I build nothing of consequence thereon, and the matter being no more, I may take it by content without telling it, on the reputation of the generall Opinion.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 340. It was in those dayes conceived highly injuri∣ous, to thrust Monks and Nuns out of House and Home, without assigning them any al∣lowance

for their subsistence.] Our Author sayes very well in this, there being few Religious persons thrust out of their Houses, (except those that suffered by the first act of dissolution) who either were not prefer'd in the Church, (as Wakeman the last Abbot of Tewksbery, was by the King made the first Bishop of Glocester) or otherwise provided of some liberal pension, &c.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor going along with me in this long Note, needeth no answer of mine. Hereupon he taketh occasion to shew how injuriously many sequestred Clergy-men are dealt with in their fift part, that instead thereof but a nineteenth part is but paid in some places; and I am sorry I must concurre with him in so sad a Truth.

But whereas, after his too just complaint, he concludeth with this passage:

Our Author might have saved me the greatest part of this Application, had he been minded to doe the poor Clergy any right, as he seldome doth.

Let me add, The Animadvertor might have saved me all the pains of this Answer, had he not been minded causlesly to cavil, as he often doth. For when I handled the Sub∣ject of the fifth part, first I got the Order for it, (hard to come by) to be inserted. Secondly, I solemnly answered seven subterfuges, pretended by such as either wholy refuse, or defectively pay the fifth part to the sequestred Minister, and then thus conclude.

Church-Hist. Book 11. pag. 230:

I am sorry to see the pitifull and pious intentions of the Parliament so abused and deluded by the indirect dealings of others, so that they cannot attain their in∣tended ends, for the relief of so many poor people, seeing no doubt, therein they desired to be like the best of Beings, who as closely applieth his lenitive as cor∣rasive plaisters, and that his Mercy may take as true effect as his Iustice. Sure if the present Authority (when at leisure from higher imployment) shall be pleased to take the groans of these poor souls into its consideration, the voice of their hungry Bowels will quickly be turned to a more pleasant tune, from barking for food, to the blessing of those who procured it. Now let any censure this a digres∣sion from my History; for though my Estate will not suffer me with * 2.46 Job; to be eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame, I will endeavor what I can to be a tongue for the Dumbe.

Let the Reader judge betwixt me and the Animadvertor, whether in this par∣ticular matter controverted, I have not done the poor Clergy as much right, as lay in my power, and more than consisted with my safety.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 357. But this was done without any great cost to the Crown, onely by altering the Property of the place from a late made Cathedral to an Abbey.] Our Author speaks this of the Church of Westminster; which though it suffered many changes, yet had it no such change as our Author speaks of; that is to say, from a Cathedral to an Abbey, without any other alteration which came in between. &c.

Fuller.

I said not, that it was immediatly changed from a Cathedral to an Abbey; but that it was changed, and that without any great cost to the Crown; so my words want nothing but a candid Reader of them.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 359. Nor can I finde in the first year of Queen Eli∣zabeth any particular Statute wherein (as in the reign of King Henry the eight) these Orders are nominatim suppressed, &c.] But first, the several Orders of Religious

Persons were not suppressed nominatim, except that of St. Iohns, by a Statute in the time of King Henry the eighth. Secondly, if there were no such Statute, yet was it not because those Houses had no legal settlement, as it after followeth; Queen Mary being vested with a power of granting Mortmains, and consequently of founding these Religious Houses in a legal way. Thirdly, there might be such a Statute, though our Author never had the good luck to see it; and yet for want of such good luck, I finde him apt enough to think there was no such Statute; Et quod non invenit usquam, esse putat nusquam, in the Poets language &c.

Fuller.

I could not then finde the Statute, and I am not ashamed to confesse it. Let those be censured who pretend to have found what they have no••, and so by their confidence (or impudence rather) abuse Posterity. Since, I have found a Copy thereof in Sr. Thomas Cottons Library, with many Commissions granted there∣upon, for the dissolution of such Marian foundations.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 369. Jesuits, the last and newest of all Orders.] The newest if the last, there's doubt of that: But the last they were not, the Oratorians (as they call them) being of a later brood. The Iesuites, founded by Ignatius Loy∣ola, a Spaniard, and confirmed by Pope Paul the third, Anno 1540. The Oratori∣ans founded by Philip Merio a Florentine, and confirmed by Pope Pius the fourth, Anno 1564. By which accompt these Oratorians are younger Brethren to the Ie∣suits, by the space of four and twenty years; and consequently the Iesuites not the last and newest of Religious Orders.

Fuller.

Writing the Church-History of Britain, I herein confined my expression there∣unto. The Iesuites are the last and newest Order, whose over-activity in our Land commends (or condemns them rather) to publick notice.

Idem est non esse, & non apparere. The Oratorians never appeared in England, save an handfull of them, who (at Queen Maries first arrival from France) onely came Hither, to goe hence a few moneths after.

THE SEVENTH BOOK. Containing the Reign of King Edward the sixth.

Dr. Heylin.

WE are now come unto the Reign of King Edward the sixth, which our Author passeth lightly over, though very full of action and great alterations. And here the first thing which I meet with, is an unnecessary Quaere which he makes about the Injunctions of this King. Amongst which we finde one con∣cerning the religious keeping of the Holy-dayes, in the close whereof it is decla∣red,

That it shall be lawfull for all people in time of Harvest, to labour upon Holy and Festival dayes, and save that thing which God hath sent, and that scrupulosity to abstain from working on those dayes doth grievously offend God. Our Author hereupon makes this Quaere, that is to say, fol. 375.

Whe∣ther in the 24 Inju••ction, labouring in time of Harvest upon Holy-dayes and Festi∣vals, relateth not onely to those of Ecclesiastical Constitution (as dedicated to Saints) or be inclusive of the Lords-day also.]. Were not our Author a great Zelot for the Lords-day-Sabbath, and studious to intitle it to some antiquity, we had not met with such a Quaere. The Law and practise of those times make this plain enough. &c.

Fuller.

It is better to be over doubtfull, than over confident. It had been much for the credit, and nothing against the Conscience of the Animadvertor, if he had made quaeries, where he so positively and falsly hath concluded against me. Now my Quaere is answered: And I believe that the Lords Day was included within the numb••r of holy dayes, and common work permitted thereon.

This maketh me bespeak my own and the Readers (justly suspecting that the Ani∣madvertor will not joyn with us herein on this account) thankfulnesse to God. That the Reformation since the time of King Edward the sixth, hath been progressive, and more perfected in this point amongst the Rest, in securing the Lords-day from servile imployments.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 386. In the first year of King Edward the sixth, it was recommended to the care of the most grave Bishops and others (assembled by the King at his Castle at Windsor) and when by them compleated, set forth in Print 1548. with a Proclamation in the Kings name, to give Authority thereunto, being also re∣commended unto every Bishop by especial Letters from the Lords of the Councel to see the same put in execution. And in the next year a penalty was imposed by Act of Parli∣ament on such who should deprave or neglect the use thereof.] Our Author here mi∣stakes himself, and confounds the businesse; making no difference between the whole first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth, and a particular form of Admini∣stration. &c.

Fuller.

I•• the Reader, by perusing this Note of the Animadvertor, can methodize the Confusion charged on me, I shall be right glad thereof. And I wish that the nice distinction of the Liturgie, and the form of Administration may be informative unto him more than it is to me.

The close of this Animadversion, whether this Book brought under a Review, much altered in all the parts and offices of it, be unto the better or unto the worse, Leaves it under a strong suspition of the negative in the Judgement of the Animadvertor.

And now I shall wonder no more at the Animadvertors falling foul on my

Book, who (as he * 2.47 confesseth) am not known unto him by any injurie. Seeing such distance in our judgements, that he conceiveth the Reformation in the Reign of King Edward more perfect than what was afterwards,* 2.48 Let us make us a Captain and return unto Egypt. I have too much advantage in my own hand, and a prin∣ciple in my bosome will not give me leave to make use thereof to the utmost.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 404. At last the great Earl of Warwick deserted his Chaplain in open field to shift for himself. Indeed he had higher things in his head, than to attend such trifles.] A man may easily discern a Cat by her Claw, and we may finde as easily by be scratches of our Authors Pen, to what party in the Church he stands most inclined. He had before declared for the Dominicans and Rigid Calvinists in some points of Doctrine, and now declares himself for the Non-Con∣formists in point of Ceremonie. He had not else called the Episcopal Ornaments, particularly the Rochet, Chimere, and Square-cap, by the name of trifles; such trifles as were not worth the contending for, if Resolute Ridley had been pleased to dispense therein. &c.

Fuller.

I say not that they were trifles, but that Iohn Dudley Earl of Warwick (after∣wards) Duke of Northumberland) counted them so, in respect to his high designes to the Crown yea it is more than suspicious, that his ambition esteemed greater matters than Ceremonies, meer trifles, even Religion it self, which he so often changed.

If the Cat hath put in her claw, let her put in her whole foot. I conceive such vestments comparatively trifles, as to things necessary to salvation. And thus I prove it.

I dare wager with the Animadvertor. That take the Clergy of England, as con∣stituted 1640, that three parts of four did not know what a CHIMERE was. Nor is this any diminution to their Learning and Religion; seeing they were not bound to take cognisance thereof. And therefore I beleeve one may safely call it a trifle, without the knowledge of which word, and what was meant thereby, so many flocks of pious and learned Shepheards have gone to Heaven.

As for the Animadvertors additory Note which followeth, concerning the sing∣ing of Psalmes in Churches, I am not concerned therein.

Nor will I here insert his Instances of some fortunate Subjects, who married Queens, seeing I say not alwaies, but often, such matches prove unprosperous.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 421. This barren Convocation is intituled the Parent of those Articles of Religion (fourty two in number) which are printed with this Preface, Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi, &c.] Our Author here is guilty of a greater crime than that of Scandalum Magnatum, making King Edward the sixth of pious memory, no better than an impious and leud Impostor. For if the Con∣vocation of this year were barren (as he saith it was) it could neither be the Parent of those Articles, nor of the short Catechism which was printed with them, coun∣tenanced by the Kings Letters Patents prefixt before it, &c.

Fuller.

Here is an high charge indeed. I believe ••hat I am generally believed to have as high a reverence for the Memory of King Edward as the Animadvertor himself.

The Journals of the Convocation in this Kings Reign I have carefully perused, which a••e no better than blanck paper, containing onely the names of the Mem∣bers therein daily meeting, without any matter of moment (yea any matte•• at all) Registred to be performed by them. But I wholy refer my self to what I have written in my Church-History of this hard Subject, making it there as plain as I could, which the Animadvertor hath a mind again to involve and perplex.

THE EIGHTH BOOK. The Reign of Queen Mary.

Dr. Heylin.

WE next proceed unto the short, but troublesome Reign of Queen Mary; in which the first thing that occurs, is Fol. 1. But the Commons of England who for many years together had conn'd Loyalty by-heart, out of the Statute of the succession, were so perfect in their Lesson, that they would not be put out of it by this new started design] In which I am to note these things; first that he makes the Loyaly of the Commons of England not to depend upon the primogeniture of their Princes, but on the Statute of Succession, and then the object of that Loy∣alty must not be the King, but the Act of Parliament, by which they were di∣rected to the knowledge of the next successor: and then it must needs be in the power of Parliaments to dispose of the Kingdome as they pleas'd; the Peoples Loyalty being tyed to such dispositions. &c.

Fuller.

I make not the loyalty of the Commons to depend on, but to be directed by the Sta∣tute of Succession.

In such Intricacies, it was good to have such a Guide to lead mens Judgements in the right. And though some male-contents started from their Loyalty, the Generality of the Commons of England kept constant unto it.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 11. Afterwards Philpot was troubled by Gardiner for his words spoken in the Convocation. In vain did he plead the priviledge of the place, commonly reputed a part of Parliament.] I cannot finde that the Convoca∣tion at this time, nor many yeares before this time, was commonly reputed as a part of the Parliament. &c.

Fuller.

I onely say that Mr. Philpot pleaded it, (and that in vaine) that it was so reputed, as may plainly appear in Mr. Fox; so that my words are liable to no just ex∣ception.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 27. The Letany, Surplice, and other Ceremonies in Service and Sacraments they omitted, both as superfluous and superstitious.] Our Author speaks this of the Schismaticall Congregation at Franckford, who turn'd the Publique Church Liturgy quite out of their Church, fashioning to them∣selves a new forme of Worship, which had no warrant and foundation by the Lawes of this Realm. And first (saith he) the Letany, Surplice, and other Cere∣monies they omitted both as superfluous and supersticious. Superfluous, and superstici∣ous,

in whose opinion? In that of the Schismaticks at Franckford, our Authors, or in both alike? Most probable in our Authors, as well as theirs; for other∣wise he would have added some note of qualifications, &c.

Fuller.

This note might well have been spared, I appeal to such as knew my confor∣mity in the Colledge Chappel, Country Parishes, and Cathedrall of Sarum, to be my Cumpurgators in this unjust accusation.

Dr. Heylin.

Thirdly, having laid down an abstract of the form of worship contriv'd by the Schismaticks at Franckford, he honoureth them with no lower Title than that of Saints; and counts this liberty of deviating from the Rules of the Church for a part of their happinesse. For so it followeth, fol. 28. This, faith he, is the Communion of Saints, who never account themselves peaceably possest of any happinesse, untill (if it be in their power) they have also made their fellow-sufferers partakers thereof. If those be Saints, who seperate themselves schismatically from their Mother Church; and if it be a happinesse to them to be permitted so to doe; our Au∣thor hath all the reason in the world to desire to be admitted into their Commu∣nion, and be made partaker of that happinesse which such Saints enjoy. &c.

Fuller.

If God were not more mercifull unto us, than we are charitable one to another, what would become of us all?

I humbly conceive that these Exiles, (though I will not advocate for their carriage in all particulars) had more liberty in modeling their own Church, than such as live in England, under a setled Government, commanded by Authority.

Schismatick in my minde is too harsh for such who fled and suffered for their conscience; However, I conceive a Saint-ship not inconsistent with such Schis∣maticalnesse; God graciously, on their general repentance, forgiving them their fault herein.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 39. Trinity Colledge built by Sir Thomas Pope.] I shall not derogate so much from Sir Thomas Pope, as our Author doth from Trinity Colledge, naming no Bishop of this House, as he doth of others. He tells us that he liv'd in this University about 17 weeks, and all that time Dr. Skin∣ner the Bishop of Oxford liv'd there too. Dr. Wright the Bishop of Liechfield, probably was then living also, (for he deceased not till after the beginning of the year 1643.) but he living at that time in his own House of Ecclesal Castle. Both of them Members of this Colledge, and therefore worthily deserving to have found some place in our Authors History. And because our Author can finde no learned Writers of this Colledge neither, I will supply him with two o∣thers ••n that kinde also. The first whereof shall be Iohn Selden, of the Inner Temple, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ that renown'd Humanitian and Philologer, some∣times a Commoner of this House, and here initiated in those Studies, in which he afterwards attain'd to so high an eminence. The second William Chillingworth, an able and accute Divine, and once a Fellow of this Colledge; whose Book intitu∣led, The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation, written in defence of Dr. Pot∣ters Book called Charity mistaken, commended by our Author, Lib 3. fol. 115. remains unanswered by the Iesuites, notwithstanding all their brags before∣hand, to this very day. Which Book though most ridiculously buried with the Author at Arundel (get thee gon thou accursed Book &c.) by Mr. Francis Chey∣nel, the usu fructuary of the rich Parsonage of Petworth, shall still survive unto the world in its own value, when the poore three-penny commodities of such a sor∣ry Haberdasher of Small-weares shall be out of credite. Of this Pageant, see the Pamphlet call'd Chillingworthi Novissima, printed at London, Anno 1644.

Fuller.

If the Animavertor had written an History of Cambridge, perchance he would have made as many and great Omissions. I have craved solem pardon of the Reader when such failings should occur.

Church History Book 3. pag. 67.

I humbly request the Antiquaries of their respective foundations (best skilled in their own worthy Natives) to insert their own observations, which if they would restore un∣to me against the next Edition of this work, if it be thought worthy thereof; God shall have the Glory, they the publick thanks, and the world the benefit of their contribu∣tions to my endeavours.

Bishop Wright is entred in (where he ought) a Warden of Wadham; the rest shall be inserted in the next Edition, with my worthy friend Mr. Gilbert Ironside of the same foundation.

Mr. Cheynel is now rather the object of the Animadvertors prayer and pittie, than of his Anger.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 41. But now it is gone, let it go; it was but a beg∣gerly Town, and cost England ten times yearly more than it was worth in keeping there∣of.] Admit it be so, yet certainly it was worth the keeping, had it cost much more. The English while they kept that Town, had a dore open into France upon all occasions, and therefore it was commonly said that they carried the Keyes of France at their Girdles. &c.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor might understand my meaning, even to make the best of a bad matter, when it cannot be helped.

A KEY falleth under a double valuation, one for the intrinsicall works from the weight thereof in Metal, which is very inconsiderable. The other from the use thereof, and thus it's price riseth or falleth, as it openeth to more or less trea∣sure.

Calis I confesse, in the second consideration, was a place of main importance; yet indeed it cost a vast expence in keeping it, as by a Book in the Exchequer (which some moneths since * 2.49 I perused) doth appear, the charge amounting to an innumerable Sum, at the rate of Money in that Age.

THE NINTH BOOK. Containing the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Dr. Heylin.

THe short Reigns of King Edward the sixth, and Queen Mary being briefly past over by our Author, he spends the more time in setting out the affairs of the Church under Queen Elizabeth; not so much because her Reign was long, but because it was a busie Age, and full of Faction. To which Faction how he stands aff••cted, he is not coy to let us see on all occasions, giving us in the very first entrance this brief, but notable Essay, viz.

Fol. 51. Idolaty is not to be permitted a moment; the first minute is the fittest to abolish it: all that have power, have right to destroy it by that grand Charter of Re∣ligion, whereby every one is bound to advance Gods glory. And if Sovereigns for∣get, no reason but Subjects should remember their duty.] Our Author speaks this in behalf of some forward Spirits, who not enduring the lazinesse of Authority in order to the great work of Reformation, fell before hand to the beating down of super∣stitious Pictures and Images. And though some others condemned their indiscreti∣on herein, yet our Author will not, but rather gives these reasons for their justifica∣tion; 1. That the Popish Religion is Idolatry. 2. That Idolatry is to be destroyed by all that have power to doe it. 3. (Which is indeed the main) that if the Sove∣reigns do forget, there is no reason but Subjects should remember their duty. This being our Authors Master-piece, and a fair ground-work for Seditious and Re∣bellious for the times ensuing, I shall spend a little the more time in the examina∣tion of the propositions, as before we had them, &c.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor hath dealt most unfairly with me in citing by the halfs what I have written, and leaving out what immediatly followed, and what he ought to have inserted, viz.

For after I had presented the Judgement of these rigid and violent Hotspurs, I subjoyned as followeth, in confutation of their Extravagancies:

But others condemned their indiscretion herein; for though they might reform the private persons and families, and refrain to communicate in any outward Act contrary to Gods word; yet publick reformation belonged to the Magistrate, and a good deed was by them ill done, for want of a calling to doe it.

I appeal to such who knew me in the Universitie, to those that have heard my many Sermons on this Subject in London, and else where, but especially to my Book called TRUTH MAINTAINED, made against Mr. Saltmarsh, wherein I have heartily, (to place that first) largely, and to my power strongly vindicated. Non licet Populo renuente Magistratu, Reformationem moliri.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 54. This Parliament being very active in matters of Religion, the Convocation (younger Brother thereunto) was little imployed, and less re∣garded.]

Our Author follows this Design of putting matters of Religion into the power of Parliaments, though he hath chosen a very ill Medium to conclude the point. This Parliament as active as he seems to make it, troubled it self so little with matters of Religion, that had it done lesse, it had done just nothing. All that it did, was the Repealing of some Acts made in the time of Queen Mary, and setling matters in the same State in which she found them at her first coming to the Crown. The Common Prayer Book being reviewed and fitted to the use of the Church by some godly men, appointed by the Queen alone, receiv'd no other confirmation in this present Parliament, than what it had before in the last years of King Edward. The Supremacy was again restor'd, as it had been formerly; the Title of Supreme head, which seem'd offensive unto many of both Religions, being changed into that of Supreme Governor, nothing in all this done de novo, which could intitle this Parliament to such activity in matters of Religion, but that our Author had a minde to undervalue the Convocation, as being little imploy∣ed, and lesse regarded. I grant indeed, that the Convocation of that year did only meet for forms sake, without acting any thing, &c.

Fuller.

Yea God hath done great things for us already, whereof we rejoyce. And although the Animadvector is pleased to say, That if this Parliament had done lesse, it had done just nothing, these truly were MAGNALIA, so farre as the word is apply∣able to humane performances.

Dr. Heylin.

In the mean time I would fain know our Authors Reason, why speaking of the Convocation and the Parliament in the notion of Twins, the Convocation must be made the younger Brother. Assuredly there had been Convocations in the Church of England some hundreds of years before the name of Parliament had been ever heard of; which he that lists to read the collection of Councels pub∣lished by that learned and industrious Gentleman Sir Henry Spelman, cannot but perceive.

Fuller.

I confesse Convocations in their general notion more ancient, and regular, and completely constituted than Parliaments: Yet of these Twins, I called the Con∣vocation the younger Brother properly enough.

First, Because modern Convocations, as modelled since the submission of the Clergy to Henry the eighth, are many years junior to Parliaments.

Secondly, The Convocations alwaies began the day after the Parliament, the Archbishops and Bishops alwaies attending the King the first day in Parliament.

Lastly, The Parliament hath made a younger Brother of the Convocation: And there being a priority in Power, he in effect is the Heir and elder Brother, who confineth the other to a poor pittance and small portion as our Age can well re∣member.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 71. This year the spire of Poles-steeple, covered with lead, strangely fell on fire.] More modestly in this than when he formerly ascribes the burning of some great Abbeys to Lightning from Heaven. And so this steeple was both reported and believed to be fired also, it being an ordinary thing in our common Almanacks, till these latter times, to count the time (among the other Epoches of Computation) from the year that St. Paul-steeple was fired with Lightning. But afterwards it was acknowledged (as our Author truly notes) to be done by the negligence of a Plummer, carelesly leaving his Coles therein: since which acknowledgement we finde no mention of this accident in our yearly Al∣manacks. But whereas our Author finds no other Benefactors for the repairing of this great Ruine, but the Queens bounty, and the Clergies benevolence, I must

needs tell him that these were onely accessories to the principal charge. The greatest part hereof, or to say better, the whole work was by the Queen imposed on the City of London,* 2.50 it being affirmed by Iohn Stow, that after this mischance the Queens Majesty directed her Letters to the Major, willing him to take order for the speedy repairing of the same, &c.

Fuller.

Non est tanti all this Note. The Queen and Clergy are onely mentioned by way of eminence not exclusion of others.

The Animadvertor commonly layeth it to my charge, that in my writing I am injurious to the Church and Clergy; and now he is offended with me for giving them too much honour.

Sure I am, Mr. * 2.51 Camden, speaking of the repairing of S. Pauls on this occasion, ascribes it to the great bounty of the Queen, and money gathered of the Churchmen and others, where his particular nomination onely of the Queen and Church-men making them paramount Benefactors.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 72. In the Convocation now sitting, the nine and thirty Articles were composed, agreeing for the main with those set forth in the Reign of King Edward the sixth, though in some particulars allowing more liberty to dissent∣ing judgements.] This is the active Convocation which before I spake of, not set••ing matters of Religion in the same estate in which they were left by King Edward; but altering some Articles, expunging others, adding some de novo, and fitting the whole body of them unto edification; Not leaving any liberty to dissenting judgements, as our Author would have it, but binding men unto the literal and Grammatical sense.

Fuller.

But the literal and Grammatical sense is worded in so favourable and receptive terms, that two opposite parties (both well••skilled in Grammer) have with great assurance of successe, pleaded them in their defence.

In such Cases, when the Controversie is admissive of a latitude, as not necessa∣ry to salvation, the pious and learned Penners of the Articles, though they did not purposely use Cheverel expressions (to afford shelter to equivocation;) yet prudent∣ly seeing that all things in the Articles were not of equall concernment, and po∣litickly ••ore-seeing men would be divided and differ in their judgements about them, selected phrases Grammatically admissive of several senses, all consistent with Salvation; and would draw their words no closer, for fear of strangling tender Consciences. Hence is it that in the Question, Whether Concupiscence be properly a sin in the Regenerate? both parties appeal unto the Article, equally perswaded there so finde favour in their several Opinions; as indeed (like a well drawn Picture) it seemeth to Eye them both, and yet frown on neither.

And one may read in the works of King Iames, that on this account he highly commendeth the discretion and moderation of the Composers of our Articles.

Dr. Heylin.

They had not otherwise attained to the end they aimed at, which was ad tollen∣dam opinionum dissensionem, & consensum in vera Religione firmandum; that is to say, to take away diversitie of Opinions, and to establish an agreement in the true Re∣ligion. Which end could never be effected, if men were left unto the liberty of dissenting, or might have leave to put their own sense upon the Articles. But whereas our instances in the Article of Christs descent into Hell, telling us that Christs preaching unto the Spirits there (on which the Article seemed to be ground∣ed in King Edwards Book) was left out in this; and thereupon inferreth, that men are left unto a latitude concerning the cause, time, manner of his discent; I must needs say, that he is very much mistaken. For first the Church of England hath

alwaies constantly maintained a local Descent, though many which would be thought her Children, the better to comply with Calvin and some other Di∣vines of forain Nations, have deviated in this point from the sense of the Church. And secondly, the reason why this Convocation left out that passage of Christ preaching to the spirits in hell; was not, that men might be left unto a latitude concerning the cause, time, and manner of his Descent, as our Author dreams; but because that passaage of St. Peter being capable of some other in∣terpretations, was not conceived to be a clear and sufficient evidence to prove the Article. For which see Bishop Bilsons Survey, p. 388.389.

Fuller.

I cannot fully concur with the Animadvertor, That the Church of England hath constantly maintained a LOCAL DESCENT, though no man hath an higher esteem for those worthy Writers who are of that perswasion.

I will confess this hitherto hath staggered me, viz. St. Peter his application of Davids words to Christ,* 2.52 thou shalt not leave my soul in hel.

I appeal whether these words import not a favour to all unprejudiced hearers, which God did to his Son, bearing this natural and unviolated sense, That had God left Christs soul in hell, his soul had been in a bad condition, as being there in a suffering capacity, but Gods Paternal affection to his dear Son, would not leave his soul in hell, but did rescue it thence.

Now all our Protestant, and especially English Writers, who maintain a LOCAL DESCENT, doe very worthily (in opposition to the Romish Error) de∣fend, that Christ was then in a good estate, yea in a triumphing condition.

Now then, it had been no favour not to leave his soul in Hell, but a less love unto him, to contract his happiness in his triumph.

I protest, that in this or any other point, I am not possest with a spirit of op∣position; and when I am herein satisfied in any good degree, I shall become the Animadvertors thankful Convert in this particular.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 74. In a word, concerning this clause whether the Bishops were faulty in their addition, or their opposites in their substraction, I leave to more cunning Arithmeticians to decide.] The Clause here spoken of by our Au∣thor, is the first Sentence in the twentieth Article, entituled De Ecclesiae Autho∣ritate, where it is said that the Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of the Faith, &c.

Fuller.

To this and to what ensueth in two leaves following I return no answer; not because I am pinched therein with any matter of moment, but for these reasons following.

First, I understand, That the Animadvertors Stationer taketh exception, that I have printed all his book, which may tend to his detriment. Now I pro∣test, when I ••irst took up this resolution to present the Animadvertors whole Cloth, List, Fagg and all, I aimed not at his damage, but my own defence: no•• can I see how I could doe otherwise, seeing the plaister must be as broad as the sore, the tent as deep as the wound; yea, I have been in••ormed by prime Sta∣tioners, the like hath formerly been done without exception taken on either side, in the Replies and Rejoynders betwixt Dr. Whitgift and Mr. Cartwright, and many others. However, being willing to avoid all appearance of injury, I have left out some observations which I conceived might well be spared, as containing no pungent matter against me.

Secondly, I am confident, That there needs no other answer to these notes, then the distinct and serious perusal of my Church History, with the due altera∣tion of favour indulged to all writings.

L••stly, What of moment in these notes is omitted by me, relateth to those

two Church Questions in Law,* 2.53 which I have formerly desired may fairly be ventilated betwixt the Animadvertor and me: and if he be sensible, That any thing herein tendeth to his advantage, he may, and no doubt will re-assume and enforce the same.

Dr. Heylin.

From the Articles our Author proceeds unto the Homilies approved in those Articles, and of them he tels us, Fol. 75. That if they did little good, they did little harm.] With scorn and insolence enough. Those Homilies were so composed, as to instruct the people in all positive Doctrines necessary for Chri∣stian men to know, with reference both to Faith and Manners; and being penned in a plain style, as our Author hath it, were fitter for the edification of the com∣mon people, than either the strong lines of some, or the flashes of vain wit in o∣thers, in these latter times, &c.

Fuller.

With scorn and insolence I defie the words. The Animadvertor might have added my words immediately following, viz. They preached not strange Doctrines to People, as too many vent, DARKNESSES now a dayes, intituled New Lig••ts.

And well had it been for the peace and happiness of the Church, if the Ani∣madvertor (and all of his Party) had had as high an esteem as the Author hath, for the Homilies, If none of them had called them HOMELY HOMILIES, (as one did,) And if they had conformed their practise to the second Homilie in the second Book, and not appeared so forward in countenancing Images of God and his Saints in Churches.

Dr. Heylin.

The Author proceeds. Fol. 76. The English Bishops conceiving themselves im∣powred by their Canons, began to shew their authority, in urging the Clergy of their Diocess to subscribe to the Liturgy, Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church, and such as refused the same, were branded with the odious name of Puritans.] Our Author having given the Parliament a power of confirming no Canons, as before was shewed, he brings the Bishops acting by as weak Authority in the years 1563. & 1564. there being at that time no Canons for them to proceed upon for re∣quiring their Clergy to subscribe to the Liturgies, Ceremonies, and Discipline of the Church: And therefore if they did any such thing, it was not as they were im∣powred by their Canons, but as they were inabled by that Authority which was inherent naturally in their Episcopal Office.

Fuller.

I profess my self not to understand the sense of the Animadvertor, and what he driveth at herein. And as soon as I shall understand him, I will either fully concur with him, or fairly dissent from him, rendring my reason for the same.

Dr. Heylin.

But whereas he tels us in the following words, that the name of Puritan in that notion began this year, viz. 1564. I fear he hath anticipated the time a little, Genebrard a right good Chronologer placing it (ortos in Anglia Puritanos) a∣bout two years after, Anno 1566, &c.

Fuller.

I answer, First, Let the Animadvertor keep his fears for me to himself, and not be solicitous in my beha••f.

Secondly, If the time be anticipated but a little, these necessary Animadversi∣ons needed not to take notice thereof.

Thirdly, Genebrards placing the beginning of the Name Puritan, about two years after, intimates a latitude in his Computation.

Fourthly, Genebrard Anno 1566. calleth them ortos [but not orientes] in An∣glia Puritanos: And when I speak of the beginning of the name, I relate to it rising, not risen.

Fifthly, Genebrard is so disaffected to our Religion, he is not to be credited, taking all implicitly out of rayling Saunders: Witnesse this eminent Note a∣mongst the rest, Anno 1570. UNCTI in Surria Comitatu Angliae, è Calvinii Schola o••iuntur; qui docent peccare neminem nisi qui veritatem ab ipsis praedicatam non re∣c••pit. The ANOINTED Scholars of Calvin did rise this year in Surry, an English County; who teach, that every man must sin that will not imbrace their Doctrine: all which is a notorious untruth.

Lastly, The Animadvertor cannot justly be angry with me if I antedated the Puritans by two years, seeing he findeth the Lineaments of the * 2.54 Puritan Plat∣form in the Reign of King Henry the eighth, twenty years at least be••ore my men∣tion of them.

Dr. Heylin.

But why our Author should call the Bishop of Londons House by the name of the Popes Palace, I doe very much wonder; unlesse it were to hold conformity with the style of Martin Mar-Prelate, and the rest of that Faction. Amongst whom nothing was more common than to call all Bishops Petty-Popes, and more parti∣cularly to call the Archbishop of Canterbury the Pope of Lambeth, and the Bishop of London, Pope o•• London. But I hope more charitably than so, being more wil∣ling to impute it to the fault of the Printers, than the Pen of our Author, &c.

Fuller.

It falls out happily for me that Grindal was then Bishop o•• London, one so far from Popery, that he is beheld under an opposite notion. I wonder the Animad∣vertor will lay so much weight on a plain mistake of the Presse.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 98. Against covetous Conformists it was provided, that no spiritual Person, Colledge, or Hospital, shall let Lease, other than for twenty one years, or three lives, &c.] No mention in the Statute of Covetous Conformists, I am sure of that; and therefore no provision to be made against them, the Covetous Conformist is our Authors own, &c.]

Fuller.

I say in the same place, that in this Parliament Laws were enacted against Poiniards with three Edges. Conformists they must needs be, who enjoyed so great Church-preferment; and Covetous I may call them, who made so unreasonable Leases. But of this I have largely spoken in my Answer to the Introduction.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 121. These Prophecyings were founded on the Apo∣stles Precept; For ye may all Prophesie one by one, that all may learn and all be com∣forted; but so as to make it out, they were fain to make use of humane prudential ad∣ditions.] Not grounded, but pretended to be grounded on those words of St. Paul, &c.

Fuller.

Grounded shall be altered, God willing, into pretended to be grounded, and then I hope no shadow of offence.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 135. A loud Parliament is alwaies attended with a silent Convocation, as here it came to passe. The Activity of the former in Church matters, l••st the latter nothing to doe.] A man would think by this, that the Parlia∣ment

of this year, being the 23 of the Qu••en, had done great ••eats in matters of Religion, as making new Articles of Faith, or confirming Canons, or something else of like importance, &c.

Fuller.

It lyeth not in the Power of Parliament to make new ARTICLES of FAITH, nor did they ever pretend unto it. Nor lyeth it in the Power of the Church to make any new ARTICLES; Canons they may make, for the Descipline; and may declare and publish Articles of faith. But God alone in Scripture hath made them; to which man, under an heavy curse, may make no Addition.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 187. That since the High Commission, and this Oath (it is that ex officio which he meaneth) were taken away by the Act of Parliament, it is to be hoped, that (if such swearing were so great a grievance) nihil analogum, nothing like unto it (which may amount to as much) shall hereafter be substituted in the room thereof.] What could be said more plain to testifie his disaffections one way, and his z••al another? The High-Commission and the Oath reproached as Grievances, because the greatest ••urbs of the Puritan party, and the strongest Bulwarks of the Church, a congratulation to the times for abolishing both, though as yet I finde no Act of Parliament against the Oath, except it be by consequence and illation onely; and finally a hope exprest that the Church never shall revert to her for∣mer power in substituting any like thing in the place thereof, by which the good people of the Land may be stopt in their way to the fifth Monarchy so much sought after. And yet this does not speak so plain as the following passage.

Fuller.

God restore the Church in his good time to her just rights, and give her wis∣dome mo••e ra••ely to use it.

I am ••o•• no fift Monarchy or first Anarchy ••he•• but desire from my heart, that no such analogical Oath may be offered to me; and let the Animadvertor, if de∣sirous thereof, have it to himself, and much good may it doe him.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 193. Wits will be working, and such as have a Saty∣rical vein, cannot better vent it than in lashing of sin.] This spoken in defence of those scurrilous Libels which Iob Throgmorton, Penry, Fenner, and the rest of the Puritan Rabble published in print against the Bishops, Anno 1588. thereby to render them ridiculous both abroad and at home.

Fuller.

I am most disingeniously dealt with by the Animadvertor, obtruding on me such words. In defence, I defie it, these me words immediatly following.

But 〈…〉〈…〉 and devou•• sort of men, even of such as were no great friends to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 upon solemn deba••e then resolved (I speak on certain know∣ledge from the mouthes of such whom I must believe) that for many foul fals∣hoods therein suggest••d, altogether ••••••eseeming a pious spirit to print, publish, or with pleasure peruse▪ which ••••posed true both in matter and measure, rather conceal than discover: The best of men being so conscious of their own bad∣nesse, that they are more carefull to wash their own faces, than busie to throw dirt on others. Any man may be witty in a biting way; and those who have the dullest brains, have commonly the sharpest teeth to that purpose▪ But such ca••nal mirth, whilest it tickleth the flesh doth wound the soul. And which was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, these ba•••• Books would give a great advantage to the General foe; and Papists would make too much u••e thereof against Protestant Religion; espe∣cially seeing an Archangel thought himself too good to bring, and * 2.55 Satan not bad enough to have railing speeches brought against him.

Reader, what could I have written more fully and freely in the cordial detesta∣tion of such abhominal Libels.

Dr. Heylin.

For if our Authors rule be good, fol. 193. That the fault is not in the Writer, if he truly cite what is false on the credit of another, they had no reason to examine punctually the truth of that which tended so apparently to the great advantage of their cause and party, &c.

Fuller.

I say again the Writer is faultless, who truly cites what is false on the CREDIT of another; alwayes provided that the other, who is quoted, hath Credit, and be not a lying Libeller like these Pasauls.

If this Rule be not true, the Animadvertor will have an hard task of it, to make good all in his Geography on his own knowledge, who therein hath traded on trust as much as another.

Dr. Heylin.

But I am weary and ashamed of raking in so impure a kennel, and for that cause also shall willingly pass over his apology for Hacket that blasphemous wretch, and most execrable Miscreant, justly condemned and executed for a double Treason, against the King of Kings in Heaven, and the Queen on earth.

Fuller.

I appeal to the Reader, whether I have not in my Church History wrote most bitterly and deservedly against Him; only I took occasion by Hackets badness to raise our thankfulness to God. If my meat herein please not the Animadver∣tors pallat, let him leave it in the Dish; none shall eat thereof against their own stomacks, for fear of a surfeit.

Dr. Heylin.

Of whom he would not have us think, fol. 204. that he and his two Companions (his two Prophets, for so they called themselves) were not worse by nature than all others of the English Nation▪ the natural corruption in the hearts of others being not less headstrong, but more bridled: And finally, that if Gods restraining grace be taken from us, we shall all run unto the same excess of Riot. Which Plea, if it be good for Hacket, will hold good for Iudas; and pity it is, that some of our fine wits did never study an apology for him, &c.

Fuller.

〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 214. At Antwerp he was ordained Minister by the Presbytery there, and not long after that, he was put in Orders by the Presbytery of a forain Nation.] Here have we Ordination, and putting into Orders ascribed to the Presbytery of Antwerp, a Mongrel company, consisting of two blew Aprons to each Cruel night cap: and that too in such positive terms, and without any the least qualification, that no Presbyterian in the pack could have spoke more plainly, &c.

Fuller.

It is better to weare a Cruel Night-cap than a cruel heart, causelesly cavilling at every man.

Mr. Travers was ordained Minister or Priest by the Presbytery of Antwerp, and never had other Ordination. I only relate that it was so de facto, and appeal to the Reader, whether my words import the least countenance and approbation thereof, though the sin had not been so hainous if I had so done.

Dr. Heylin.

Only I shall make bold to quit my Author with a merry tale (though but one for an hundred) and 'tis a tale of an old jolly popish Priest, who having no en∣tertainment for a friend, who came to him on a Fasting day, but a piece of Pork, and making conscience of observing the appointed Fast, dipt it into a tub of water, saying down Pork, up Pike. Satisfied with which device (as being ac∣customed to transubstantiate, he well might be) he caused it to be put into the pot and made ready for dinner. But as the Pork, for all this suddain piece of wit, was no other than Pork; so these good fellowes of the Presbytery by lay∣ing hands upon one another, act as little as he. The parties so impos'd upon (im∣pos'd upon indeed in the proper notion) are but as they were, Lay-bretheren of the better stamp, Ministers, if you will, but not Priests nor Deacons, nor any wayes Canonically enabled for divine performances.

Fuller.

It is not a fortnight since I heard proclamation against the selling of Porke, because about London fatted with the flesh of diseased horses.

I suspect some unwholsomness in the Animadvertors Pork-story, especially as applyed, and therefore will not meddle therewith.

Dr. Heylin.

But fearing to be chidden for his levity, I knock off again, following my Au∣thor as he lea••s me; who being over shoes, will be over boots also. He is so lost to the High Royalist and covetous Conformist, that he cannot be in a worse case (with them) than he is already.

Fuller.

If I be lost with the high Royalists and covetous Conformists, I hope I shall be found by the low Royalists and liberal Conformists: However may God be pleased to finde my soul, and I pass not with whom I be lost.

There are a sort of men who with Dr. Manwaring maintain that Kings may impose without Parliaments what taxes they please, and the Subjects bound to payment under pain of Damnation, a principle introductory to tyranny and slavery: These I term high Royalists, and I protest my self as to dissent in judge∣ment from them, so not to be at all ambitious of their favour.

Dr. Heylin.

And therefore having declared himself for a Presbyterian in point of Go∣vernment, he will go thorough with his work, &c.

Fuller.

Where have I declared my self for a Presbyterian in point of Government? who never scattered sylable, (and if I did, I would snatch it up again) to counte∣nance such presumption.

I confess I said, That Mr. Travers was made Minister or Priest by the Pres∣bytery at Antwerp; that is, made Minister so far forth as they could give, and he receive the Ministerial Character, who never had it otherwise impressed upon him.

Suppose a disputable power should dub a Knight •• Might not a Historian say such a man was made a Knight by such a power of person, not engaging himself to justifie his Authority that made him? And by the same proportion, I relating Mr. Travers made Minister at Antwerp, am not concerned to justifie, nor by my expression doe I any way approve their Minister-making, if they have no Com∣mission thereunto.

I cannot close with the Animadvertor in his uncharitable censure of the Mi∣nistery of forain Protestant Churches, rendring them utterly invalid, because ordained by no Bishops. Cain (as commonly believed) is conceived to have killed a fourth part of mankinde by murthering Abel; but the Animadver∣tors cruelty to Protestants hath exceeded this proportion, in spiritually killing more than a fourth part of Protestants, according to his own principles: For if no Priests in France, Low Countries, Swisserland, &c. then no Sacraments; then no Church; then no Salvation.

Far more Charitie in those of the former Age. Bishop Andrews when he con∣curred with others of his own order, in ordaining a Scotishman Bishop, who (as by proportion of time may be demonstrated) received his Deaconship and Prist∣hood from the Presbytery, conceived such ordination of validity when done; though I beleeve in his judgement, not so well approving the doing thereof: Otherwise he would never have consented to make a meer Lay man, per saltum, a Bishop.

Dr. Heylin.

First for the Sabbath, (for the better day the better deed) having repeated the chief heads of Dr. Bounds Book published Anno 1595. in which the Sabbatarian Doctrines were first set on foot, he adds, that learned men were much divided in their judgements about the same.

Fol. 228. Some (saith he) embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture, long disused and neglected, now seasonably revived for the encrease of piety.] Amongst which some, he that shall take our Author for one, will not be much mistaken ei∣ther in the man, or in the matter. For that he doth approve Bounds Doctrines in this particular, &c.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor imposeth on me that which is contrary to my Judgemens.

I am not of Dr. Bounds Opinion, who straineth the Sabbath too high; yea the Animadvertor when writing against Mr. Le strange, maketh use of above twenty lines out of my Book against him.

I am of the judgement of moderate men, as I have clearly and largely stated it in my Church-History, and will live, and desire to dye in the main∣tenance thereof. And I hope the Animadvertor will allow me to know my own judgement bet∣ter than he doth.

I am not of the Ani∣madvertors mind, That the Lords day is alterable and of meer Ecclesiastical constitution; much less dare I concur with him in his scandalous expression, That the late * 2.56 Parliament hath by their Orders and Ordinances laid greater restraints on People than ever the Scribes and Pha∣rises did on the Iews.

To what followeth in the Animadvertor concerning the Articles at Lambeth, I return no other answer, save this: As a Historian I have written truly for mat∣ter of Fact; And if as a Divine, I have interposed something of my Judgement in those points, I beleeve the Animadvertor, if writing on the same subject, would not appear more moderate. Mean time, I am sure he differs as much from me, as I from him in these opinions; and therefore I see no reason of his animositie on this ••ccount.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 179. Queen Elizabeth coming to the Crown, sent for Abbot Fecknam to come to her, whom the Messenger found setting of Elms in the Or∣chard of Westminster Abbey: But he would not follow the messenger, till first he had finished his Plantation.] The tale goes otherwise by Tradition than is here deli∣vered; and well it may. For who did ever hear of any Elms in Westminster Or∣chard, or to say truth, of any Elms in any Orchard wha••soever of a late Planta∣tion? Elms are for Groves, and Fields, and Forests, too cumbersom and over∣spreading to be set in Orchards, &c.

Fuller.

When a Traveller on the High-way suddenly returns back again, surely 'tis to fetch some matter of moment, which he hath forgotten and left behind him. The Animadvertor in this his Note, retreats above 50 pages in my Church-History, viz. from fol. 233. to fol. 179. And what is this Retrograde motion for? Even to carpe at Elmes, which I say were set by Abbot Feckenham in the Orchard of the Dean of Westminster, citing my Author Reynerius for the same; whose words in horto, I translate in the Orchard, as more proper for Elmes than a Garden. Thus have you my Tale and my Tales maker. So that this wooden Animadversion might well have been spared.

THE TENTH BOOK. Containing the Reign of King James.

Dr. Heylin.

OUr Author proceeeds. Fol. 5. Watson with William Clark (ano∣ther of his own profession) having fancied a notional Treason, imparted it to George Brooks.] To these he after adds the Lord Cobham a Pro∣testant, the Lord Gray of Wh••ddon a Puritan, and Sir Walter Rawleigh an able Statseman, and some other Knights.

In the recital of which names our Author hath committed a double fault, the one of omission, and the other of commission. A fault of omission, in leaving out Sir Griffith Markam, as much concerned as any of the principal actors, de∣signed to have been Secretary of Estate, had the Plot succeeded, and finally ar∣raigned and condemned at Winchester, as the others were.

Fuller.

I distinguish betwixt total Omission, express Enumeration, and implicit Inclusion. Sir Griffith Markam cannot be said to be omitted by me, because included in that clause, and some other Knights. Yea this whole treason had not at all sound any mention in my History (not being bound to take cognizance thereof) save for the two Priests, who were engaged therein.

Dr. Heylin.

His fault of commission is, his calling the Lord Gray by the name of the Lord Gray of Whaddon (a fault not easily to be pardoned in so great an Herald) where∣as indeed though Whaddon in Buckinghamshire was part of his Estate, yet Wilton in Herefordshire was his Barony and ancient Seat; his Ancestors being call'd LL. Gray of Wilton, to difference them from the Lord Gray of Reuthen, the Lord Gray of Codnor, &c.

Fuller.

A fault not so great neither in an Herauld, seeing I call him not Lord Gray Baron of Whaddon, but of Whaddon; and a noble Person may be additioned either from his Honour or his Habitation. Besides Wilton in Herefordshire, long since being run into ruin, those Lords, some sixscore years agoe, removed their residence to Whaddon in Bucks where some of them lived, died, and are bur••ed.

The Animadvertor made as great an omission in his Short view of K. Charles, when mentioning his Tutor Mr. Murrey, but quite leaving out Sir Iames Fuller∣ton, conjoyned with him in the same charge of the Princes education. And a greater fault of Commission is he guilty of, when taxing Mr. Murrey as disaffe∣cted to the English Church, who when made Provost of Eaton▪ took his oath and therein professed his good liking of our Discipline, as in the Cabala doth appear.

To return to Whaddon the Animadvertor might have spared this his Note, who in the * 2.57 Postcript annexed to this Book, maketh Edward Lord Montagu created Baron of Broughton in Northamptonshire. Now though the L. Montagu hath the Manor of Broughton (with the appendant Advowson) and other considerable

Lands therein; yet is he Baron of Boughton in the same County. A mistake so much the greater in the Animadvertor, because done in his Emendation of his Emendations of the faults of another, so that he cannot hit it right in this his third endeavor. This I had passed over in silence, had not his cruelty on my Pen or Presse-slips occasioned me to take notice thereof.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 21. This Conference was partially set forth only by Dr. Barlow Dean of Chester, their professed Adversary, to the great disadvantage of their Divines.] If so, how did it come to passe, that none of their Divines then present, nor any other in their behalf did ever manifest to the world the partiali∣ties and falshoods of it. The Book was printed not long after the end of the Con∣ference, publickly passing from one hand to another, and never convicted of any such Crime as it stands charged with, in any one particular passage to this very day, &c.

Fuller.

I only said that some did complain that this Conference was partially set forth. I avowed not that they complained justly, I believe their complaint causlesse, (and let it be remedilesse for me,) seeing I my self professe verbo Sacerdotis, that I have been accused that I have abridged this Conference to the disparagement of Dr. Reynolds, though my Conscience be clear herein.

Dr. Heylin.

However our Author telleth us, that he (viz. Mr. Nicholas Fuller) left behind him the reputation of an honest man. No question of it. It is a thing so incident to the Name, that whatsoever they doe or say, they are honest still.

Fuller.

All his jeering on my Name shall not make me goe to the Heraulds Office to en∣deavor the altering thereof. I fetcht it from my great-great Grand father, and hope shall leave it to my great-great Grand-child. A Name which no doubt ori∣ginally was taken from that usefull trade, without which Mankind can neither be warm or cleanly.

The like is frequent in many respectfull Families in England, as the Antiquary hath observed.* 2.58

From whence came Smith, al be he Knight or Squire, But from the Smith that forgeth at the fire.

Yet considering the narrownesse of my name, it is inferiour to few, having pro∣duced the best of English Pilots T. Fuller, who steered Captain Cavendish round about the World; the best of English Criticks, N. Fuller, so famous in forain parts for his Miscellany's; and none of the worst of English Benefactors, I. Fuller, one of the Judges of the Sheriffs Court in London, who built and * 2.59 endowed an Almeshouse for twelve poor men at Stoken-heath, and another at Shorditch for as many poor Women. Besides, he gave his Lands and Tenements of great yearly valuation in the Parishes of S. Bennet, and Peters Pauls Wharf London, to Feoffees in Trust, to release Prisoners in the Hole of both Counters, whose Debts exceed∣ed not twenty shillings eight-pence. Yea it hath at this Day, one Bishop, one Dean, one Doctor, two Batchelour of Divinity, and many Masters of Arts, of no contemptible condition. Pardon Reader this digression done se defendendo against one, by whom my Name is too much undervalued, by Ironical over-valuing thereof.

Dr Heylin.

Before we had the story of Thomas Fuller of Hammersmith condemn'd for fe∣lony, but still so honest and so entirely beloved by King Harry the sixth after his de∣cease, that he appeard to him on the top of the Gallows, incourag'd him, and so

charm'd the Rope, that it did not strangle him, lib. 4.154.

Afterwards we meet with Iohn Fuller, Doctor of the Laws (a better than he) a Persecutor in Queen Maries dayes, but a pittiful man, as the Index telleth us.

Here we have Nicholas Fuller a Counseller (the best of the three) decrying openly the Authority on the High Commission; and thereby giving a legal advan∣tage to Archbishop Bancroft, by whom imprisoned, and there dying but dying, with the reputation of an honest man.

And then another Thomas Fuller a Minister, (the best of all the company) and an honest man too, so well deserving of the Church▪ and all good Church-men (both alive and dead) by this notable History, as not to doubt of the like favour at their hands (should there be occasion) as Thomas of Hammersmith receiv'd of King Harry the sixth.

Fuller.

Here are four Gradations of Fullers, good, better, best, best of all, which in the language of jeering (speaking alwayes by the contraries, amounteth unto bad, worse, worst, worst of all. As for the first T. Fuller, I answer; First, the tale is not made, but related by me, who have charged my Margin with the Author thereof, * 2.60Harpsfeild, not inconsiderable for Learning & Religion amongst his own party. Secondly, not the least credit is given thereunto in my reporting it, matching it with another miracle, which I call equally true, that is equally untrue in the inter∣pretation of any unpartial Reader. Thirdly, seeing I followed Harpsfeild in re∣lating his Miracles in other places; if here I should have deserted him, probably it would have been by others condemned in me for a sullen omission, as by the Ani∣madvertor for a light Insertion, because T. F. was my Namesake.

The good nature and pittiful disposition of Dr. I. Fuller plainly appeareth in Mr. Fox; and as for his bounty to Iesus Col. in Cambridge, I leave it to some of that foundation to give testimony thereof.

As for the third N. Fuller, be it reported to the * 2.61 IESSES of Grayes-Inne, I mean such Benchers as pass amongst them for Old Men, and can distinctly remember him, whether he hath not left a pretious and perfumed memory behinde him, of one pious to God, temperate in himself, able in his Profession, moderate in his Fees, care∣full for his Client, faithfull to his Friend, hospital to his Neighbour, pittifull to the Poor, and bountifull to Emanuel Colledge in Cambridge: in a word blamless in all things, save this one Act of Indiscretion, which could not make him forfeit the reputation of his honesty, especially seeing he paid dear for it, and died in durance. Thus though Mr. Stubbs was so obnoxious to the displeasure of Queen Elizabeth, that h••s Right-hand was cut off, for writing a Libel against Her Match with Mon∣seir; yet * 2.62 Mr. Camden does call him Virum famae integerrimae.

For the fourth and last, I will make the Animadvertor the self same Answer which the Servants of Hezekiah returned to Rabsecah; * 2.63 But they held their peace, and answered him not a word.

Dr. Heylin.

The Author saith, and as about this time, some perchance over-valued the Geneva Notes, out of that especial love they bare to the Authors, and place whence it proceeded: So on the other side, same without cause did sleight, or rather without charity did slander the same.] I trowe our Author will not take upon him to condemn all those who approve not of the Genevian Notes upon the Bible, or to appear an Advo∣cate for them, though he tells us not many lines before, that they were printed thirty times over with the general liking of the people.

Fuller.

Had I said two and thirty times, though past the Head Game I had not been out. And now the Reader shall have my full and free sense of the Genevian Notes. I remember the Proverb.

* 2.64〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

• ...In Head of Polypus is had
• ...What is good, and what is bad.

Such a mixture is in these Notes, wherein the most, pious and proper to ex∣pound their respective places; but some (And those too many, though never so few) false, factious, dangerous, yea destructive to Religion. I could therefore wish some godly and discreet persons, impowred and imployed to purge forth the latter, that the rest may remain without danger, for the profit of plain people. But till this be done, I am (I thank God) old enough to eat fish, feeding on the flesh thereof, and laying by the bones on my Trencher, or casting them down to the Doggs.

Dr. Heylin.

I hope he will not condemn all those who approve not those Notes, for K Iames, who in the Conference at Hampton Court, did first declare that of all the Translation of the Bible into the English tongue, that of Geneva was the worst; And secondly, that the Notes upon it were partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits. For proof whereof his Majesty in∣stanced in two places, the one on Exod. 1. ver. 19. where disobediance to the King is allowed of: The other in 2 Chron. 8.15, 16. where Asa is taxed for de∣posing his Mother only, and not killing Her: A note, whereof the Scottish Presbyte∣rians made special use, not only deposing Mary their lawfull Queen from the Re∣gal Throne, but prosecuting Her openly, and under hand, till they had took away her life. These instances our Author in his Summary of that Confererence, hath passed over in silence, as loath to have such blemishes appear in the Gene∣vians, or their Annotations: And I hope also that he will not advocate for the rest.

Fuller.

Down with these Bones to the Dogs indeed, which alone are proper for their palate. The Scots are old enough (being reputed by Historians one of the most ancient Nations of Europe;) let them answer for themselves, though (I beleeve) they cannot answer this foul fact, but by penitent confession thereof. But whereas the Animadvertor taxeth me for wilfully omitting those Instances of K. Iames in favour to the Genevians; I protest my integrity therein. It was only be∣cause I would have my Summary a Summary, no Abridgement being adequate to the Narration abridged therein.

Dr. Heylin.

For let him tell me what he thinks of that on the second of St. Matthews Gos∣spel, ver. 12. viz. Promise ought, &c.

Fuller.

Let him shew me what commission he hath to enquire into my thoughts; However, to doe him a pleasure, I will tell him what I think in the point.

Dr. Heylin.

Promise (say the Genevians) in their Note, Matthew 5.12. ought not to be kept where Gods Honour and preaching of his Truth is hindred, or else it ought not to be bro∣ken. What a wide gap, think we, doth this open to the breach of all Promises, Oathes, Covenants, Contracts, and Agreements, not only betwixt man and man, but between Kings and their Subjects? What Rebel ever took up Arms without some pretences of that nature? What Tumults and Rebellions have been rais'd in all parts of Christendom, in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Germany, and indeed where not? under colour that Gods honour, and the preaching of the truth is hindred? If this once pass for good sound Do∣ctrine,

Neither the King nor any of his Good Subjects, in what Realm soever, can live in safety. Gods Honour and the preaching of his Truth are two such pretences, as will make void all Laws, elude all Oaths, and thrust out all Covenants and agree∣ments, be they what they will.

Fuller.

I behold this Note as impertinent to that place, seeing it appears not in the Text, that those wise men made Herod any promise to return unto him. Secondly, Had they made him any promise, yea bound it with an Oath by the living God, such an Oath had not been obligatory, because God (to whom the forfeiture was due) re∣leased the Band in an extraordinary Vision, unto them such, that our Age doth not produce.

As the Note is impertinent in that place, so it is dangerous at all times; and mans corruption may take thence too much mischievous advantage, which is partly gi∣ven, because so perilous a pit is left open (contrary to the Iudicial * 2.65 Law) and not covered over with due caution requisite thereunto. I concurre therefore with the Animadvertor in the just dislike thereof.

Dr. Heylin.

Next I would have our Author tell me, what he thinks on this Note, on the ninth of the Revelation, vers. 3. where the Locusts which came out of the smoak are said to be false Teachers, Hereticks, and wouldly subtil Prelats, with Monks, Fri∣ers, Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Doctors, Batchelours, and Masters. Does not this Note apparently fasten the Name of Locusts on all the Clergy of this Realm, that is to say, Archbishops, Bishops, and all such as are graduated in the University by the name of Doctors; Batchelours, and Masters? And doth it not as plainly yoke them with Friers, Monks, and Cardinals, &c.

Fuller.

It was in my opinion both indiscretly and uncharitably done, to jumble them to∣gether, being of so different (not to say contrary) originations. Sure I am, though they are pleased to match them by force, yet the Parties were never agreed.

They might as well have added Superintendents, Lecturers, Assistants, and whole Classesses; seeing all such, it victous in Life, or Heretical in Doctrine, (not∣withstanding their reformed Names) are Locusts▪ as well (that is, as ill) as any of the other.

But let us return to those my words which first gave the first occasion to these four last Animadversions.

Church-History, 10 Book, Page 59.

And as about this time, some perchance over-valued the Geneva Notes, out of the especial love they bare to the Authors and Place whence they proceeded; soon the other side,* 2.66 some without cause, did sleight, or rather without charity, did slander the same: For in this or the next year a Doctor in solemn assembly in the University of Oxford publickly in his Sermon at St. Maries, accused them as guilty of mis-interpretation touching the Divinity of Christ; and his Messiah-ship, as if symbolizing with Arrians and Jews against them both. For which he was afterwards suspended by Dr. Robert Abbot propter conciones publicas minus Orthodoxas & offensionis plenas.

Fain would I know first, whether these my words import my inclination to de∣fend all in the Geneva Notes.

Secondly, though I neither can nor will (as by the premisses doth appear) ex∣cuse all passages in them, I am confident that neither the Animadvertor, nor all those of all degrees and qualities in both Universities urging him to write against me, are able to finde out any Arianisme or Anti-Mess••anisme in those Notes. And therefore as an Historian I was bound to take notice of the fault and censure of that Doctor, onely expressed in the Margin by the initial letter of his sirname.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author goeth on. Fol. 77. At this time began the troubles in the Low-Coun∣tries about matters of Religion heightned between two opposite parties, Remonstrants, and Contra-Remonstrants; their Controversies being chiefly reducible to five points, &c.] Not at this time, viz. 1618. which our Author speaks of, but some years before.

Fuller.

A causlesse Cavil. I said not absolutely they now began, but now they began heightned. The Animadvertor knows full well that such participles equivale Infi∣nitives.

In Greek, Matth. 1.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

In Latin, Virg. En. 2. —Sensit medios delapsus in Hostes, pro delapsum se esse.

The Troubles in the Low-Countries began heightned, that is to heightned. The distemper was bred some years before, which now came to the Paroxism thereof, viz. anno 1618.

Dr. Heylin.

And first it is to be observed, that though he was then Dean of Westminster when the custody of the Great Seal was committed to him; yet was he not then and still Dean of that Church, that is to say, not Dean thereof at such times as our Author writ this part of the History: For fol. 80. speaking of Dr. Halls return from the Synod of Dort, Anno 1618. he adds, that he continued in health till this day, thirty three years after, which falls into the year 1651. And certainly at that time Dr. Williams (then Archbishop of York) was not Dean of Westminster, that place being bestowed by his Majesty on Dr. Steward Clerk of the Closet, Anno 1645. being full six years before the time our Author speaks of.

Fuller.

This I have learnt from the Animadvertor, which I knew not before, and I thank him for it. The great distance of Exeter (where I lived) from Oxford, may partly excuse my ignorance therein; who alwaies beheld Archbishop Williams as the last Dean of Westminster: as indeed he was the last that ever was instauled therein. And Dr. Steward never lived minute in, or gained farthing from his Dean∣ship. So umbratile a Dignity is not worth the contending for.

Dr. Heylin.

Secondly, Whereas our Author tells us, that the place was proper not for the plain but guarded Gown; I would fain know how it should be more proper for the guarded Gown than it was for the plain. There was a time when the Chancellors (as our Author telleth us elsewhere) were alwaies Bishops; and from that time till the fall of Cardinal Wolsey, that Office continued for the most part in the hands of the Prelates: at what time, that great Office was discharged with such a ge∣neral contentment, that people found more expedition in their Suits, and more ease to their purses than of later times. By which it seems that men who are ne∣ver bred to know the true grounds and reasons of the Common Law, might and could mitigate the rigor of it in such difficult cases as were brought before them; the Chancery not having in those dayes such a mixture of Law as now it hath, nor be∣ing so tyed up to such intricate Rules as now it is.

Fuller.

I have nothing to return in opposition to the Animadvertor in his endeavouring to make a Clergy-man proper to be Lord Chancellor of England, as, as well qualified As any Common-Lawyer for the Place. Nor if I could, would I disprove what tendeth to the Honour of my Profession. The little toe is advanced when the

Head is Crowned, as a Member of the same Body; and my meannesse is sensible of some honour, that any of my Calling are put in a capacity of so high a Prefer∣ment. Onely I request, that if the Animadvertor be advanced to the Place, and if I have a cause brought before him, that he would be pleased to hear it cum omni favore on this consideration, that he put me to much trouble in answering his caus∣lesse Cavils against my Church-History.

Give me leave to add, that I suspect the Common-Lawyers will take advantage from the last words of the Animadvertor, confessing the Court of Chancery now more intricated and mingled with Law, than in former Ages. Hence I fear they will infer, that Clergy-men (though they were heretofore) will not hereafter be so able and fit to discharge that Office. But let us proceed.

Dr. Heylin.

But thirdly, whereas our Author in advocating for the Common Lawyers, prescribeth for them a Succession of six Descents, he hath therein confuted him∣self, and saved me the trouble of an Animadversion, by a Marginal Note; in which he telleth us, that Sir Ch. Hatton was not bred a Lawyer. If so, then neither was the Title so strong, nor the Proscriptions so well grounded as our Author makes it; the interposition of Sir Christopher Hatton between Sir Tho. Bromley and Sir Iohn Puckering, restraining it to three Descents▪ and but thirty years; which is too short a time for a Prescription to be built upon.

Fuller.

I prescribe not for the Common-Lawyers whose words are, the Common-Law∣yers (and those I assure you knowing enough in this their own Art) prescribed for six Descents. The Marginal note was entred by me, a little to check, for (say they) it doth not confute their prescription. Alledging that Sir Christopher Hatton, though not bred so professed a Lawyer, as to be called to the Bar, was admitted in one of the Inns of Court, and wore no plain but a guarded Gown in Westminster-Hall, as some still alive doe remember.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author telleth us folio. 93. how Marcus Antonius de Dominis, He had 14. years been Archbishop of Spalato, &c. Conscience in shew, and Covetousness in deed, caused his coming hither.] This is a very hard saying, a censure which entren∣ches too much upon the Priviledges of Almighty God, who alone knows the secrets of the heart of man. Interest tenebris, interest cogitationibus nostris, quasi al∣teris tenebris, as Minutius hath it.

Fuller.

If my saying intrencheth on divine Priviledges, I shall crave pardon from that God, who will more freely forgive me, than the Animadvertor would, had I offended him: besides, it is no encroachment on the Prerogative of the Crown of Heaven, to censure the secrets of mens hearts, when made visible to the World in their actions: And though the thoughts of this Prelate were written in secret Cha∣racters, yet are they easily read, as decyphered by the Key of his ensuing Deeds, who left the Print of his covetous claws in all places where he got English pre∣ferment.

Dr. Heylin.

The man here mentioned had been in the confession of our Author himself, Archbishop of Spalato in Dalmatia, a dignity of great power and reputation, and consequently of a fair Revenue in proportion to it.

Fuller.

I believe no less; but far short of our English Bishopricks. It may be said of I∣talian Dignities, (to which Dalmatian may be reduced, as under the Venetian

Common-wealth) that generally they have high Racks, but bad Mangers, as being set too thick to burnish about in much breadth and wealth. The Intrado of the Archbishoprick of Spalato consisteth partly in his Iurisdiction, the exercise where∣of is much obstructed, partly in Lands, the Revenues whereof are more impai∣red by the vicinity of the Turk, harraging those parts with his daily Intrusion. * 2.67 Mercator tels us, that the Port of Salona (which is hardly an English mile from Spalato) nunc quidem parum Colitur ob Turcarum Viciniam.

A * 2.68 judicious Writer, valuing his Arch-bishoprick (as it seemeth to advantage) estimateth it annually at 3000 Crowns, which falleth a fourth part short of 1000 pounds sterling, a summe exceeded in most of our middling Bishopricks: Besides the Arch-bishoprick of Spalato was clogged and incumbred with a Pensi∣on of 500 Crowns (the sixth part of his Revenues) payable (with the arrears) by the Popes Command, to one Andrutius. The payment of which Sixt part went as much against Spalato's stomach, as the payment of the Fifts now a dayes doth from the present Possessors to sequestred Minister.

Dr. Heylin.

He could not hope to mend his fortunes by his coming hither, or to advance himself to a more liberal entertainment in the Church of England, than what he had attained to in the Church of Rome. Covetousness therefore could not be the motive for leaving his own Estate, of which he had been possessed 14. years in our Authors reckoning, to betake himself to a strange Country, where he could promise himself nothing but protection and the freedome of consci∣ence. Our Author might have said, with more probability, that covetousness, and not conscience, was the cause of his going hence, no bait of profit or prefer∣ment being laid before him to invite him hither, as they were both, by those which had the managing of that designe, to allure him hence▪ &c.

Fuller.

Dark men are the best Comment upon themselves, whose precedent are best ex∣pounded by their subsequent actions. Who so considereth the rapacity and tenacity of this Prelate in England, will easily believe that a two-handed covetousness mo∣ved him to leave his native Country and come over hither; One to save, the other to gain. To save, that is to evade the payment of the aforesaid Pension, with the arrears thereof: To gain, promising himself, as by the future will appear, not only protection, but preferment; not only safety, but more plenty by coming hither. He had Learning enough to deserve, Ambition enough to desire, Boldness enough to beg, and presumed K. Iames had bounty enough to give him the high∣est and best pr••ferment in England; and he who publickly did beg York, may be presumed privately to have promised the Arch-bishoprick of Canterbury to himself.

Dr. Heylin.

All mens mouths (saith our Author) were now filled with discourse of Prince Charles his Match with Donna Maria, the Infanta of Spain. The Protestants grie∣ved thereat, fearing that his Marriage would be the Funerals of their Religion, &c.] The business of the Match with Spain hath already sufficiently been agitated, be∣tween the Author of the History of the Reign of King Charles and his Observator: And yet I must add something to let our Author and his Reader to understand thus much, that the Protestants had no cause to fear such a Funeral.

Fuller.

H••d I said that the Protestants justly feared this Marriage, then the Animadver∣tor had justly censured; whereas now, grant they feared where no fear was, he fin∣deth fault where no fault is. Historians may and must relate those great and gene∣ral impressions which are made on the spirits of people, and are not bound to justifie the causes thereof to be sound and sufficient. Ten thousand Persons of quality are still alive, who can ••nd will attest, that a pannick fear for that Match invaded the Nation.

Dr. Heylin.

They knew they lived under such a King who loved his Sovereignty too well, to quit any part thereof to the Pope of Rome; especially to part with that Supre∣macy in Ecclesiastical matters, which he esteemed the fairest flower in the Roy∣al Garland. They knew they lived under such a King, whose interest it was to preserve Religion in the same state in which he found it; and could not fear but that he would sufficiently provide for the safety of it.

Fuller.

Mr. Camden writing of the Match of Q. Elizabeth, with Mounsier, younger Bro∣ther to the King of France, hath this presage, that when Mr. Stubs whose hand was cut off, said, God save the Queen, the multitude standing by held their peace, rendring this as one reason thereof:

* 2.69 Ex odio Nuptiarum, quas religione exitiosas futuras praesagierunt. Out of hatred to that Match, which they presag'd would be destructive to Religion.

Now may not the Animadvertor as well tax Mr. Camden for inserting this need∣less Note, and tell the world, that no Princess was more skild in Queen craft than Q Elizabeth, and that this presage of her People was falsly fo••••de••? I detract not from the policy or piety, head or heart of K. Iames; but this I say, let Sovereigns be never so good, their Subjects under them will have their own Ioyes, Griefs, Loves, Hatreds, Hopes, Fears; sometimes caused, sometimes causless; and Histor••ans have an equal Commission to report both to posterity.

Dr. Heylin.

If any Protestants feared the funeral of their Religion, they were such Pro∣testants as had been frighted out of their wits, as you know who used to call the Puritans; or such who under the name of Protestants had contrived themselves into a Faction not only against Episcopacy, but even Monarchy also.

Fuller.

I profess I know not who used to call Puritans Protestants frighted out of their wits: who ever it was, it was not Michael the Arch-angel, who would not rail on the Devil.

By Protestants, I mean Protestants indeed, or (if you will rather have it) Chri∣stians sound in their Iudgement, uncontriv'd into any Faction; so far from be∣ing Anti-episcopal, that some of them were Members of the Hierarchy; and so far from destroying Monarchy, that since they endeavoured the preservation thereof, with the destruction of their own Esta••es.

As worthy Doctor Hackwel, Arch-Deacon of Surrey, was outed his Chaplain•• place, for his opposing the Match when first tendred to Prince Henry; so many (qualified as aforesaid) concurred with his ••udgement, in the resumption of the Match with K. Charles; notwithstanding they were justly and fully possessed of integrity and ability of K. Iames. Their seriously considering the Z••••l of the Spanish to promote Popery; the activity of the Romish Priests to gain Proselites; their dexterous sinisterity in seducing Souls; the negligence of two many English Ministers in feeding their Flocks; the pl••usibility o•• Popery to vulgar Iudgements▪ the lushiousness thereof to the pala•• of flesh and Blood▪ the fickleness of our English Nation to embrace Novelties; the wavering of many unsettled minds; the substilty of Satan to advance any mischievous designe; the justice of God to leave a sinful Nation to the Spirit of delusion; feared (whether justly or no, let the Reader judge) that the Spanish Match (as represented, attended with a Tolleration) might prove fatall to the Protestant Religion.

Dr. Heylin.

And to these Puritans, nothing was more terrible than the Match with Spain, fearing (and perhaps justly fearing) that the Kings alliance with that Crown, might arme him both with power and counsel to suppress those Practices which have since prov'd the funeral of the Church of England.

Fuller.

By the Church of England the Animadvertor meaneth (as I believ) the Hierarchy, the Funerals whereof for the present we do behold: However I hope there is still a Church in England alive, or else we were all in a sad, yea in an unsaluable condi∣tion. The state of which Church in England I compare to * 2.70 Eutichus. I suspect it hath formerly slept too soundly in case and security. Sure I am, it is since, with him, fallen down from the third Loft; from Honour into Contempt; from Unity into Faction; from Verity into dangerous Errors•• Yet I hope (to follow the Allego∣ry) that her life is still left in her; I mean so much soundness left, that persons born, living, and dying therein are capable of salvation. Let such who think the Church of England sick, pray for her wonderfull Recovery; and such as think her dead, pray for her miraculous Resurrection.

Dr. Heylin.

But as it seems they feared where no fear was, our Author telling us, fol. 112. that the Spanish State had no minde or meaning of a Match; and that this was quickly discovered by Prince Charles at his coming thither. How so? Because, saith he, fol. 112. they demanded such unreasonable liberty in education of the Loyal Offspring, and other Priviledges for English Priests, &c.] If this be all, it signifies as much as nothing. For thus the argument seems to stand, viz. The Spaniards were desi∣rous to get as good conditions as they could for themselves and their Party, ergo they had no minde to the match. Or thus, The demands of the Spaniards when the businesse was first in Treaty, seem'd to be unreasonable, ergo they never really intended that it should proceed. Our Author cannot be so great a stranger in the shops of London, as not to know that Trades-men use to ask many times twice as much for a Commodity, as they mean to take; and therefore may conclude as strongly, that they doe not mean to sell those wares for which they ask such an unreasonable price at the first demand. Iniquum petere, ut aequum obtineas, hath been the usual practise (especially in driving State-bargains) or all times and ages. And though the Spaniards at the first spoke big, and stood upon such points, as the King neither could, nor would in honour or conscience consent unto: yet things were after brought to such a temperament, that the Marriage was agreed upon, the Ar∣ticles by both Kings subscrib'd, a Proxie made by the Prince of Wales to espouse the Infanta, and all things on her part prepared for the day of the Wedding. The breach which followed came not from any aversness in the Court of Spain, though where the ••ault was, and by what means occasioned, need not here be said.

Fuller.

I expected when the Animadvertor had knocked away my Bowl, he would have layed a Toucher in the room thereof: but if neither of us have a Bowl in the Alley, we must both begin the Game again.

May the Reader be pleased to know, that living in Exeter, I had many hours private Converse with the Right Honourable Iohn Digby Earl of Bristow, who fa∣voured me so far (much above my desert) that at his last going over into France (where he died) he was earnest with me to goe with him, promising me, to use his own expression, that I should have half a loaf with him, so long as he had a whole one to himself. This I mention to insinuate a probability, that I may be as knowing in the Misteries of the Spanish Match as the Animadvertor.

Double was the Cause of the breach of the Spanish Match; One, such as may with no lesse truth than safety be related, as publickly insisted on in the Parliament, viz.

the Spanish Prevarication to restore the Palatinate: The other secret, not so ne∣cessary to be known, nor safe to be reported. And I crave the liberty to conceal it, seeing the Animadvertor himself hath his Politick Aposiopaesis, breaking off as ab∣ruptly as the Spanish Match with this warie reservation; though where the fault was, and by what Means occasioned, need not here to be said.

Dr. Heylin.

But well fare our Author for all that; who finally hath absolv'd the Spaniard from this breach, and laid the same upon King Iames, despairing of any restituti∣on to be made of the Palatinate by the way of Treaty.

Ibid. Whereupon King James not onely broke off all Treaty with Spain, but also called the great Councel of his Kingdom together.] By which it seems, that the breaking off of the Treaty did precede the Parliament. But multa apparent quae non sunt, every is not as it seems. The Parliament in this case came before, by whose con∣tinual importunity and solicitation, the breach of the Treaties followed after. The King lov'd peace too well to lay aside the Treaties, and engage in War before he was desparate of successe any other way than by that of the Sword, as was assur'd both of the hands and hearts of his subjects to assist him in it. And therefore our Author should have said, that the King not onely called together his great Coun∣cel, but broke off the Treaty, and not have given us here such an Hysteron Proteron, as neither doth consist with reason, nor the truth of story.

Fuller.

To be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Covenant-breaker, is a foul fault, as the * 2.71 Apostle accounteth it: Far be it from me to charge it causlesly on any, especially on a dead Christi∣an, especially on a King, especially on King Iames, generally represented over-fond of Peace, and therefore the more improbable first to infringe it.

To prevent exception, in the next Edition, calling the Parliament, shall have the precedency of breaking off the Treaty for the Match.

I suspect that the Animadvertor hath committed a greater transposition, when affirming King * 2.72 Iames to have designed the Spanish Match in order to the recove∣ry of the Palatinate: Whereas it plainly appears, * 2.73 that before any suspicion of troubles in the Palatinate (occasioned by P. Fredericks accepting the Crown of Bohemia,) this Match was projected by K. Iames for P. Henry his eldest Son; and after his death, resumed for P. Charles, without the least relation to the re∣gaining of the (not then lost) Palatinate.

I have passed over some additory notes of the Animadvertor in this Kings Reign, partly because I perceive my Book swels beyond the expected propor∣tion, partly that I may have the more scope to answer every particular objected against me in the Reign of K. Charles, in such things which lie level to our own eyes, and are within our own remembrance.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Camd. in Brit. fol. 135.
• * 1.2

  Lactant. lib. 16 cap. 21.
• * 1.3

  Lib. 2. pag. 5••
• * 1.4

  In Brit. fol. 135
• * 1.5

  Id. in Wiltsh. fol. 241.
• * 1.6

  In the last page.
• * 1.7

  Pag. ut prius.
• * 1.8

  Iames 1.21.
• * 1.9

  Camd. Brit. fol. 136.
• * 1.10

  Id. in Worcest. fol. 578.
• * 1.11

  Richardsons State of Europe lib. 3.
• * 1.12

  Camd in Scot∣land, fol. 45.
• * 1.13

  Acts 1.21.
• * 1.14

  1 Corinth. 9.1.
• * 1.15

  Gal. 1.5.
• * 1.16

  Church Hist. Book 9. page 187. parag. 63
• * 1.17

  Lib 9 pag 101 and oft before.
• * 1.18

  Page 14.
• * 1.19

  Camden in Richmondshire, fol. 720.
• * 1.20

  Camden in Kent, fol. 333.
• * 1.21

  Form of Baptism.
• * 1.22

  Conference pag. 7.
• * 1.23

  Deut. 27.17.
• * 1.24

  Matth 7.14.
• * 1.25

  ••••••••••wood 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap V.
• * 1.26

  I request the Reader to con∣sult my words, as rendred by the Animad∣vertor, in the formar para∣graph.
• * 1.27

  Iudges 12.6.
• * 1.28

  Heylins Cos∣mog. pag 17.
• * 1.29

  For the elder Buckstors and Beckman, I am as certain they were, as uncer∣tain were, publike Pro∣fessors.
• * 1.30

  Gen 3.20.
• * 1.31

  Gen. 4.1.
• * 1.32

  Gen. 4 25.
• * 1.33

  Gen. 5.24.
• * 1.34

  Gen. 10 25.
• * 1.35

  Numb. 13 22.
• * 1.36

  Parenes. ad Scotos p 99.
• * 1.37

  Greg. M. Epist. 70.
• * 1.38

  Camden in Wilts. 241.
• * 1.39

  Iohn 3 10.
• * 1.40

  Camd. in K••nt, 324.
• * 1.41

  Carew in Cornwall.
• * 1.42

  Cronicon pag. 887.
• * 1.43

  H. le Strange Alliances of Divine Offices, pag. 250.
• * 1.44

  As appears in Dr. Tuckers Charisma p. 109.
• * 2.1

  Britar. Lat. pag. 104.
• * 2.2

  Acts of Con∣voc. Anno 1532.
• * 2.3

  In his Ani∣madversion on my 8. Lib. or reign of Q Mary.
• * 2.4

  Matth. 16, 19
• * 2.5

  1 Iohn 9.34.
• * 2.6

  1 Cor. 5.5.
• * 2.7

  (A Record lately so priced by the Ani∣madv)
• * 2.8

  In his ac∣count H S. his Appendix.
• * 2.9

  Stowe Survey, p 893.
• * 2.10

  His descrip∣tion of Bar∣bary.
• * 2.11

  Vide supra, part. 1 chap. 11
• * 2.12

  Brerewoods Enq. cap. 13.
• * 2.13

  Camden in Monmout••••h.
• * 2.14

  Hist. of St. George lib. 3. cap. 3.8.
• * 2.15

  Stow in Hen 5.
• * 2.16

  Acts 9.18.
• * 2.17

  Rom. 2.5.
• * 2.18

  Out of exact intelligence sent from his neer Kindred, to Venice, and thence to Mr. Calendrine, now Minister of the Dutch Church.
• * 2.19

  Hist. lib. ••.
• * 2.20

  Church. Hist. 4. Book, p. 131.
• * 2.21

  In his Intro∣duction.
• * 2.22

  Gen. 48.14.
• * 2.23

  Camden in Radnor 624▪
• * 2.24

  Selden. Tit. Hon. part. 2. c. 5.
• * 2.25

  Stat. 25. Edw. Antiquit. Bri∣tan. in Stratf.
• * 2.26

  2 Sam. 15.25.
• * 2.27

  27 H. 8 c. 26.
• * 2.28

  Acts 26.29.
• * 2.29

  Vossig. de Lat. Hist.
• * 2.30

  Holy State, ti∣tle Memory.
• * 2.31

  Camb. in Ham. fol 267.
• * 2.32

  Ovid Met. Lib. 2.
• * 2.33

  History of Flo∣rence.
• * 2.34

  Camdens An∣nals. An. 1656.
• * 2.35

  Acta Convoca∣••ionis 1530.
• * 2.36

  Pres. to the Directory.
• * 2.37

  Heb. 11.23.
• * 2.38

  Hollinsh p. 129
• * 2.39

  Ier. 24.2.
• * 2.40

  Defence of the Apolog.
• * 2.41

  1 King. 15.12
• * 2.42

  Stat 25 H 8. c. 19.
• * 2.43

  I bilieve this should be bet∣ter, as may ap∣pear in the Er∣rata. But be∣cause the page is mistaken, 121, for 101, I dare not al∣ter it.
• * 2.44

  So is his name in my corrected Books.
• * 2.45

  In his List of the Masters of St. Iohns.
• * 2.46

  Iob. 29.15.
• * 2.47

  In his Intro∣duction.
• * 2.48

  Numb. 14 4.
• * 2.49

  In particu∣lars, their total Sum, to my re∣membrance, not being cast up.
• * 2.50

  Stows Survey of Lond. p 623.
• * 2.51

  In his Eliz. Anno 1561.
• * 2.52

  Acts 2.27.
• * 2.53

  Vid. sup. part. 2. p. 62.
• * 2.54

  Vid. sup••••a c. 2. ••ag ••••
• * 2.55

  Iude 9.
• * 2.56

  In his Adver∣tisemen••s on the History of King Charles, p. 64.
• * 2.57

  Pag. 2. li. 14.
• * 2.58

  Verstegan of decayed intelli∣gence.
• * 2.59

  Stow his Sur∣vey of London, pag. 97.
• * 2.60

  Hist. Eccle∣siast. seculo de∣cimo quinto, pag. 646.
• * 2.61

  1 Sam. 17.12
• * 2.62

  In his Elizab. Anno 1581.
• * 2.63

  Esay 36.21.
• * 2.64

  Plutarchus.
• * 2.65

  Exod. 21.33.
• * 2.66

  In the Margin this Note Dr H in Ox∣fo••d causlesly inveyeth a∣gainst the Ge∣neva Notes.
• * 2.67

  A••••a••, p. 334.
• * 2.68

  Dr. C••••k••n 〈…〉〈…〉 disen¦sione Eccles A••g••••r pag 3.
• * 2.69

  Camdens 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Anno 1••81. pag. 346.
• * 2.70

  Acts 20.9.
• * 2.71

  Rom 1.31.
• * 2.72

  In his short view of the reign of King. Charles.
• * 2.73

  In the Caba∣la, and in the historical ob∣servations of Mr. Rushworth