A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

S. CLEMENS ROMANUS.

ST. Clement the Disciple, and Coadjutor of the Apostles a 1.1, was ordained Bishop of Rome after S. Anacletus b 1.2, in the year of our Lord 93. Divers Books are attributed to him, some of * 1.3 which are really his, others are ancient tho' supposititious, and others are both counterfeit and modern: And indeed we can only reckon among those that were certainly composed by this Bi∣shop the two Epistles to the Corinthians, the first whereof, so famous among the ancient Authors c 1.4, was undoubtedly written by him. Irenaeus Book 3. chap. 8. speaks thus. In the time of S. Clement,

(says he) upon occasion of a great Division that happened in the Church of Corinth, the Church of Rome wrote a very pathetical Letter to the Corinthians, to restore them to Peace, wherein she strengthens their Faith, and preacheth those Traditions that they had lately received from the Apostles. This Epistle which is cited by S. Cle••••ns Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius, was for a long time concealed, until at length M. Patrick Young having found it in an ancient Manuscript d 1.5, caused it to be printed at Oxford, Anno Dom. 1633.

After the Holy Scriptures, it is in my opinion one of the most eminent Records of Antiquity. S. Clement, therein exhorts the Faithful of the Church of Corinth, that was in a Disturbance by the revolt of some Christians, who refused to submit to their lawful Pastors, he exhorts them, I say, to a Re-union, and to seek after Peace; particularly he admonisheth them to persevere in the Obedience and Submission that they owed to their Spiritual Guides, he censures those that disturbed the Church, and that promoted secret Cabals against their Ministers on purpose to supplant them; He begins with putting them in mind of the Happiness of that Peace which they had formerly enjoyed; afterwards he represents to them the misfortune of their present Divisions, and proceeds to shew by many Ex∣amples, what lamentable Consequences have always attended it, and how displeasing it is to God: Moreover he adviseth them to repent, in practising Humility, Obedience, and Charity, in imitation of the Humility of Jesus Christ, and the Mercy of God, through the Hope of a Resurrection: From thence he takes an occasion to recommend to the Faithful the Practice of many Christian Virtues, and the Observation of a Regular Discipline: He declares to them, that it was very ill done to rise up against the Pastors and Bishops that were Constituted by the Apostles, or Elected by the Faithful after their Death▪ He aggravates the heinousness of their Crime that were the first promoters of this Division, and earnestly sollicits them to return to their Duty by obeying their Ministers, and by re-uniting themselves with the rest of the Believers. Thus you have an account of the Subject of this Epistle written by S. Clement in the name of the Church of Rome to that of Corinth, about the end of the Persecution raised by the Emperor Domitian. The Style thereof (says Photius) is simple and clear, and it comes very near the natural and artless manner of Expression used by the ancient Ecclesiastical Au∣thors. I shall add, that one may discern a great deal of Energy and Vigour, accompanied with much Prudence, Gentleness, Zeal, and Charity.

The second Epistle of S. Clement is not so certainly known to be his; Eusebius, S. Jerom, and Photius observe, that there is reason to doubt of its being Genuine, because it is not mentioned by the an∣cient Writers; nevertheless some of the Fathers have cited both these Epistles, as if they were of equal Authority e 1.6. The Fragment that is now extant of this last Letter published in Latin by Wendelinus, and in Greek by Mr. Young, is an Exhortation to the Practice of Repentance, and of divers Christian Virtues on the account of the Mercy of God, and the Reward that is promised to the Faithful.

Besides these two Epistles, several voluminous Books have been attributed to S. Clement even in the Primitive Ages of the Church, that were not his; such were (as Eusebius declares in the third Book of his History, chap. ••8.) the Disputes of S. Peter and Appion, whereof the ancient Authors have made no mention, and which contain Matters that are far from the Purity of the Apostolical Doctrine: We may conjecture, that these Writings were part of the Book, Entituled, Recognitiones Clementis, which is likewise called, The Voyages, Itin••ra••y, or Acts of S. Peter: This Work, tho▪ fictitious, is anci∣ent, being cited by Origen f 1.7, Eusebius, S. Athanasius, S. Epiphanius, S. Jerom, and the Author of The Commentaries on S. Matthew, ascribed to S. Chrysostom: Ruffinus hath made a Translation thereof which is still extant; Gelasius hath inserted it in the Catalogue of Apocryphal Books; and Photius observes, that there are Absurdities and Errors to be found in it: And indeed it is a Writing full of Fables, Tales, Conferences, and ridiculous Disputes, feigned at pleasure, and pretended to be holden between S. Peter and Simon Magus, concerning certain Events and Occurrences that are related after a childish manner; But that which is more dangerous, is, that we may easily discover in several Pas∣sages thereof the Opinions of the Ebionites, tho▪ much palliated, together with many other Errors. In short this Book is of no use, if we reflect on the Style and Method in which it is written, or on the Things that are comprised therein.

I shall not pass the same censure upon the Apostolical Constitutions that are likewise falsly imputed to S. Clement, and which, tho' written by a later Author g 1.8, yet contain many things very useful to the Discipline of the Church; ••t is not known by whom, nor when they were composed h 1.9; All that can be certainly affirmed is, that they are cited by S. Epiphanius i 1.10, and the Author of The Commentary on S. Matthew, falsly attributed to St. Chrysostom; but the passages which are produced by them not perfectly agreeing with those that are found in the Constitutions which are extant at this day, we may be induced to conjecture that they have been since corrupted, and so much the rather, because they are infected with the Arian Heresie k 1.11. and several other Errors. This is the Judgment that was given concerning them by the Greek Bishops in the Synod that was conven'd in the Imperial Pa∣lace of Constantinople after the fifth General Council. However I admire that the Learned Photius l 1.12 hath not made this Observation, and that he hath imputed the Errors of this Book to its Primitive Author.

It remains only to enquire, whether this Book be the same as that which is mentioned by Eusebius m 1.13 and S. Athanasius, Entituled, The Doctrine, or the Precepts, of the Apostles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This is the Opinion of Nicephorus n 1.14, Zonaras, and Matthaeus Blastares; but it seems to me to be most probable, that The Constitutions of the Apostles, and the Book called their Doctrine, were two different Works which the likeness of their Titles hath caused to be confounded o 1.15

It is therefore extremely difficult to determine when the Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles first appeared, since the Author of them is absolutely unknown, neither can it be proved whether they were at first the same as they are now. We can only conjecture, that it is most probable that the Constitutions ascribed to the Apostles, or St. Clement belong to the third, or rather the fourth Century, and that they have been from time to time corrected, altered, and augmented, according to the va∣rious Customs of different Ages and Countries p 1.16.

Those that we have at present are not in Greek. Crabb gives us a Latin Epitome of them in his second Edition of the Councils, Pinted Anno 1557. The first entire Version that ever appeared, was made by Bovius, and inserted by Surius in the Collection of Councils, which he set forth in the years 1567, and 1585. Nicolinus published another Translation of the Constitutions composed by Tur∣rianus, together with the Annotations of the same Author; this was Printed at Venice in 1563, and at Antwerp in 1578. Afterwards Binius caused it to be Re-printed in his first Edition of the Councils, Anno Dom. 1606. but he did not think fit to allow it a place in his second Edition of the year 1608. Fronto Ducaeus, a Jesuit, is the first that published a Greek and Latin Edition of those Constitutions at the end of Zonaras, which was annexed to the new Collection of Councils. They are divided into eight Books, containing a great number of Precepts relating to Christian Duties, especially to those of Pastors, and concerning the Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church, of all which it would be too tedious to give a particular account. They that are desirous to be further informed, may have recourse to the Titles of the Chapters that are prefixed to these Tracts.

The last Work attributed to S. Clement, is a Collection of divers Pieces, Entituled, Clementinae, and there hath been a Book under this Title for some time: The Author of the Epitome of the H. Scri∣ptures attributed to S. Athanasius mentions them, and after him the Chronicle of Alexandria, Nice∣phorus Callistus in the third Book of his History, chap. 18. S. John Damascen, and some others q 1.17.

Perhaps this is the second Part of the Recognitions cited by Ruffinus, for it is a Continuation of the Preachings and Acts of S. Peter. The Greek and Latin Collection, published by Cotelerius under this Name, contains divers Tracts full of Errors in Philosophy, as also of the Heresie of the Ebionites, and is such another Book as the Recognitions. There must needs have happened some Alteration in these Clementinae, as well because they do not agree with that which is cited from them by Maxi∣mus, and by the Author of the Chronicle of Alexandria, as because they are infected with the Errors of Eunomius; besides, there is a Passage cited by an Author in the Library of the College of Clermont which is not to be found there; and we are informed by Nicephorus, that the Clementinae are an Or∣thodox Work, whereas this (as we have already shewn) abounds with Errors. It contains, first, two Apocryphal Letters, one of which is attributed to S. Peter as written to S. James, wherein he advi∣seth him not to deliver the Book of his Preachings to the Gentiles, which is followed by a Protestation of S. James. The other is a Letter of S. Clement to S. James, which tho' it be ancient, and transla∣ted by Ruffinus, yet is certainly counterfeit; as we shall hereafter shew when we give an account of the Forgeries of the Decretals of the Popes. To these two Epistles there are nineteen Homelies an∣nexed relating to the Voyages, Preachings, and Disputes of S. Peter. Moreover at the end of this Work is likewise inserted an Epitome of the Actions of S. Peter extracted from the Clementinae, the Recognitions, and the Epistle of S. Clement. Cotelerius found three of them in the King's Library, and hath published but one, which is the shortest, formerly published by Turnebus, and Printed at Paris Anno Dom. 1555. All these Writings, which are of very little use because they are full of Errors, are only a Contexture of Fables and idle Tales. Lastly, Cotelerius hath added the Records of the Martyrdom of S. Clement, concerning the Antiquity whereof we have no assurance, and which appear on the contrary to have been composed by the modern Greeks r 1.18.

Now it will not be amiss briefly to recollect all that hath been said concerning the Works of S. Clement, and to declare our Opinion in this matter. The first Epistle to the Corinthians was cer∣tainly written by him, and is a good and useful Treatise. The second is very ancient, tho' not of the same Authority. The Constitutions are an ancient and useful Book falsly imputed to S. Clement, in which many things have been added and altered in process of time, for which Reason several Errors have crept in amongst them. The Recognitions are an Apocryphal Work, ancient indeed, but abound∣ing with Errors and Fables. The same Judgment ought to be given concerning the Clementinae, which are not perhaps so ancient, as also the second Part of the Recognitions. The Book Entituled, The Doctrine of the Apostles, may be the same with the Original Constitutions, but it is more probable that they are a different Work. We can give no account of the Book that bears the Title of The Precepts of S. Clement, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Voyages or Itinerary of S. Peter are the same as the Recognitions and the Clementinae. The Epitome is an Abridgment of these Apocry∣phal Writings. The Acts of the Martyrdom of S. Clement were composed by the modern Greeks. The Discourse of Ephrem is likewise of a later Date. There were also certain Sermons ascribed to S. Clement concerning the Just Judgment of God and Divine Providence cited by Anastasius Antioche∣nus, Quest. 96. but there is no probability of their being his. The five Decretals are counterfeit; and the Revelations or Apocalypse of S. Peter, heretofore thought to have been written by S. Clement, is likewise supposititious. Thus we have given in short the Judgment that (according to our Opinion) ought to be given of all the Books that are, or have been, attributed to S. Clemens Romanus, and all that we judge necessary to be propounded or explained concerning them in this place.

Notes

• a 1.1

  St. Clement the Disciple and Coadjutor of the Apostles.] This is the same Clement whom S. Paul mentions, Phil. 4. v. 3. reckoning him in the number of those that had laboured together with him in propagating the Gospel, and that had assisted him in his Ministry; With Clement also, and with other my Fellow-L••bourers, whose Names are in the Book of Life.
• b 1.2

  Was ordained Bishop of Rome after Anacletus.] He is reputed by S. Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other ancient Writers, to have been the third Bishop of Rome, tho' some affirm, that he was the immediate Successor of S. Peter; but it is better in my opinion to adhere to S. Irenaeus.
• * 1.3

  S. Clemens Romanus.
• c 1.4

  So famous among the ancient Authors.] S. Irenaeus hath cited it, Lib. 3. chap. 3. S. Clemens Alex. Lib. 1. Stromat. p. 289. and Lib. 4. p. 516. Lib. 5. p. 686. Lib. 6. p. 647. Origen, Lib. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; chap. 3. In Joan. 1. chap. 29. Euseb. Lib. 3. chap. 16, and 36. Lib. 4. chap. 22, and 23. S. ••yrill, Catech. 18. Epiph. Haeres. 27. N. 7. Hieron. in Lib. de Viris illustribus, and Lib. adversus Jovin. c. 7. Comment. in Isaiam, Lib. 14. chap. 52. vers. 13. Comment. in Ep. ad Ephes. Lib. 1. chap. 2. vers. 2. Lib. 2. ad chap. 4. vers. 1. Autor. R••sp. ad Orthodox. apud Just. Quaest. 74. Photius, Cod. 113.
• d 1.5

  In an ancient Manuscript▪] It is called The Manu∣script of Thecla, because it was written with the hand of an ancient Virgin called Thecla, who lived, (as is generally believed) in the time of the first Council of Nice. These Epistles have been since printed in the Collection of Cotelerius, in L••bbee's Edition of the Councils, and at Helmstadt in the year 1654. [As also at Oxford in 1677.]
• e 1.6

  Some of the Fathers have cited both these Epistles, as if they were of equal Authority.] The Author of the Apostolical Constitutio••••, c. ult. S. Epiphan. H••res. 27. chap. 6. and 30. chap. 15. S. Jerom, adversus J••v. chap. 7. Photius C••d. 126. Damasus, Lib. 4. Orth. Fidei. S. Dionys••••s of Corinth takes notice but of one single Epistle, and there is some difference in the style of the second, which makes us doubt of its Veracity. The Sibyls were heretofore cited therein, if we may give Credit to the Author of the Questions attributed to S. Justi••; but he doth not declare, whether it were in the first Part, or in the second, and part of the se∣cond is lost. Moreover S. Epiphanius seems to men∣tion other Epistles of S. Clement.
• f 1.7

  Being cited by Origen.] Tom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Comment. in Genes. in Philocal. chap. 22. and in Matth. ch. 26. Euseb. lib. 3. Hist. chap. 3, and chap. 38. Athanas. in Synops. Epiph. H••res. 30. chap. 25. Hieron. in Catalog. and Lib. 1. in Jovin. chap. 14. and Comment. in Ep. ad G••lat. Lib. 1. chap. 18. Ruffinus de Adulterat. Lib. Orig. Autor op. imp. in Matth. chap. 10. vers. 15, 16, 24, and 42▪ Photius, Cod. 112, and 113.
• g 1.8

  Tho' written by a later Author.] The Author of the Recognitions is not the same with the Author of the Constitutions, tho' some have been of this Opini∣on; for their style is different; the later is well versed in the Principles of the Christian Religion, and in the Rites of the Church, but the other is ignorant of these matters; moreover they maintain a contrary Do∣ctrine: The Author of the Constitutions, in lib. 8. c. 46. reckons the Sun, Moon, and Stars, in the num∣ber of inanimate Creatures; whereas the Author of the Recognitions imagineth, that they have a Soul, in lib. 5. chap. 16. Lastly, the Author of the Constituti∣ons was not an Ebionite, but he that writ the Recogni∣tions was.
• h 1.9

  It is not known by whom, ••r when they were composed.] It is certain that they do not belong to the Apostles, as we have already evidently demonstrated.
• i 1.10

  They are cited by S. Epiphanius.] In Haeres. 45. this Father produceth a passage that is found in the beginning of the Constitutions, and in Haeres. 80. he cites another, which we read in Lib. 1. Constitut. chap. 3. concerning the Beards of Priests. In H••res. 25. he quotes a passage taken from Lib. 5. chap. 14, and 17. relating to the Fasts enjoyned on Wednesday and Friday, as also on the Days before Easter. In H••res. 70. he observes, that the Audians made use of certain Constitutions▪ which, tho dubious, ought not alto∣gether to be rejected, as containing nothing contrary to the Faith or Discipline of the Church. This may induce us to believe, that the Constitutions which are now extant, have been corrupted since the time of E∣piphanius, because the same thing could not be ••ss••∣med of those. Add to this, that in the same place Epiphanius cites a passage concerning Easter, wherein the Christians are admonished to celebrate that Feast together with the Jews, and the contrary is expresly declared in Constitut. Lib. 5. chap. 1••. Moreover in the same place, he produces other Testimonies, out of the Constitutions that are not found therein: Per∣haps S. Epiphanius had not sufficiently examined this Work, or perhaps he cited it without Book, or on the Report of another; However it be, he acknowledg∣eth it to be dubious.
• k 1.11

  Because they are infected with the Arian Heresie.] In Lib. 6. chap. 25. the Author reckons in the num∣ber of Hereticks, those that believe that JESUS is the same with the God of the Universe, but this might have been said in opposition to the Sabellians; and so much the rather since he adds, and do not distinguish the Son and the Holy Ghost. Many other Passages are likewise alledged, wherein he affirms, that the Son and the Word is the Servant, and Minister of God the Father. These are the Phrases used by the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, but they have been suspected ever since the Council of Nice.
• l 1.12

  That the Learned Photius.] He censures them on Three several Accounts. in ••od. 112. First ex mala∣fictione, from which (as he says) they may be vindi∣cated; Secondly, by reason of some Expressions used by the Author, which are Contradictory to the Book of Deuteronomy, and for these he might likewise be excused; and Lastly, he chargeth him with Arianism, from which he cannot be cleared without offering him some violence.
• m 1.13

  Mentioned by Eusebius.] Euseb. Lib. 3. chap. 25. Athan. in Ep. Fest. & Synopsi.
• n 1.14

  Of Nicephorus.] Niceph. in Stichometria. Zona∣ras in Ep. Ath. Mat. Blast••res in a Collection of Canons that is not Printed.
• o 1.15

  Which the likeness of their Titles hath caused to be confounded.] There are many Reasons to prove, that these are two different Books, for first S. Athanasius rec∣kons the Book of the Doctrine of the Apostles, among those that were usually read to the Catechumens, where∣as the Constitutions were Composed rather for the use of Bishops, and we find it prohibited in the last Canon to publish them, or to discover the Contents thereof to all sorts of People. Secondly, the Book of the Do∣ctrine of the Apostles, contained only Two hundred Verses according to the Stichometria of Nicephorus, which cannot agree with the Constitutions, that are more voluminous▪ Thirdly, in the Index of Scri∣pture made by Anastasius Nicenas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are mentioned as distinct Books, and in some Manuscripts the Constitutions are Entituled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Fourthly, in the Epitome of S. Athanasius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are distinguished; therefore this Work was not attributed to S. Clement▪ Fifthly, when Eus••bius Discourses of the Writings of S. Clement, he takes no notice of the Apostolical Con∣stitutions, neither have the Ancients mentioned them. The Arians might have objected them, in Vindica∣tion of their Heresie, and the Orthodox would have been obliged to make a Reply, but this is not done by either Party; therefore they are of a later Da••e, than the Doctrine of the Apostles; that was known to Eusebius, and S. Athanasius. These Reasons howsoever probable they may seem to be, are not altogether Ir∣reprehensible; to the First it is replyed, that the Con∣stitutions were made for the use of all Christians, as appears from the first Words thereof; that the last Ca∣non might perhaps be of a later Date; that S. Ath••∣nasius observes only, that this Book was useful for the instructing of Catechumens in the Discipline, and Faith of the Church, tho' it was not Canonical, which may be very safely affirmed of these Constitutions. In Answer to the Second it is alledged, that there were two Editions of the Constitutions, one more large being that which is now extant; and another, that was an Epitome thereof, and perhaps Nicephorus makes mention of this last under the Name of The Doctrine of the Apostles: Besides that there are some Manuscripts wherein there are 6000 Verses, and besides the Length of every particular Verse is not known. Thirdly, that the Distinction of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no∣thing to the purpose, the one possibly was an Abridg∣ment of the other, neither is it certain, whether The Constitutions, be the Books now called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Fourthly, the Clementinae are a Work different from the Constitutions, as well as The Doctrine of the Apo∣stles. Lastly, the ancient Writers have not cited every thing that occured to them; the Arians have not made all the Objections that were obvious; and the Ortho∣dox have not replyed to every particular Circumstance that might be objected against them. These are the Answers, that are propounded to those that distin∣guish this Book of The Doctrine of the Apostles from The Constitutions, and I shall leave it to the Determi∣nation of the Reader, whether they do not cause grea∣ter Difficulties; for my part, I believe the formet Opinion to be more probable.
• p 1.16

  That they have been from time to time Corrected, &c. according to the various Customs of different Ages and Countries.] It is on this Account, that the Ethio∣pians have certain Constitutions different from Ours, which are cited by Anastasius Nicenus, Cod. 189. in the King's Library, and in his Questions, Q. 160. where they are much commended.
• q 1.17

  8. John Damascen and some others.] S. Epipha∣nius seems to quote Haeres. 26. n. 16. as also Anastasius; Q. 20. p. 242. Maximus in Homil. 53. and 55. Cedr••∣nus in Comp••nd. Hist. p. 170, and 171. Moreover it is ci∣ted in a Collection of the Works of the Fathers, which is in the Library of the Jesuits College at Clermont, and by Nicon in his Pandect.
• r 1.18

  Which appear on the contrary, to have been Com∣posed by the Modern Greeks.] It is related in these Acts, that S. Clement was sent beyond Sea, (ultra mare) and afterwards into a Desart near the City, (in Deser∣tum urbi vicinum). That he found there 2000 Chri∣stians condemned to hew Marble out of the Quarries, who entreated him saying, Ora pro nobis Pontifex, ut digni efficamur promissione Christi; Pray for us O Priest, that we may be made worthy of the Promise of Christ. That S. Clement caused a Spring to rise up in that place, because these Christians were obliged to fetch water Six Miles off from thence, that they built there with∣in one Year 75 Churches, that they demolished the Temples, and cut down consecrated Trees to the Number of 300000, that the Emperor Trajan being astonished at these Actions, sent thither the President Aufidianus, who caused S. Clement to be drowned; that whilst his Disciples sought after the Relicks of his Body, the Sea withdrew, and they found it laid in a Tomb of stone, and that it was revealed to his Disciples, that his Body should not be taken away, and that the Sea should retire after the same manner every Year during seven Days, which it continues to do (says the Author of these Acts) even unto this Day, and this was accompanied with divers Miracles. Here are many Fables that do not agree with the time of S. Clement. Who can imagine that People condem∣ned to hew Stones should find means to Erect 75 Churches, and to pull down an infinite Number of Temples? S. Ephrem, or rather the Author of the Narrative, which is falsly said to be his, gives an Ac∣count of the same Miracle, concerning the Sea that was dryed up, to discover the Body of S. Clement and adds that his Child being left in a Tomb, was found alive, and in good health at the end of the year following: But this pretended Ephrem is an Au∣thor no less addicted to Fables, who calls himself Arch-bishop of Chersona, tho' he never was in that place.

  [There have been several Editions of S. Clement's E∣pistle to the Corinthians, besides Mr. Young's and Cote∣lerius's: Joachim Maderus Printed it at Helmstadt 1654. in Quarto; Colomesius likewise set it out at London in Octavo, with some few Notes 1687; and it was Prin∣ted at Oxon in 1677 in Twelves. All these Editions are in Greek and Latin; Mr. Burton who writ Notes upon Antonius's Itinerary, as far as it concerned Britain, Translated it into English, and Printed it with Notes in Quarto 1647, at London.]