1 King. 5.7.
See how he seeketh a Quarrel against me.
Terent. in Eunucho.
Responsum non dictum est, quia laesit prior.

LONDON, Printed by W. Godbid, and are to be sold by Iohn Williams at the Crowne in St. Paul's Church-yard. M. DC. LIX.

To the Right Honorable GEORGE BERKELEY, L. Berkeley, Moubray, Segrave and Bruce, my most Bountiful and most Exemplary Patron.


MY Church-History was so far from prosti­tuting her Self to Mercenary Embraces, She did not at all Espouse any Particular Interest, but kept her self a Virgin.

However, a Dragon is risen up, with much Fiercenesse and fury, threatning this my Virgins destruction.

Your Name is GEORGE, and for you it is as easie as Honourable to protect Her from violence.

If any Material Falshood or Forgery be found in my Book, let LIAR be branded in my face: But oh! suffer not my Injured Innocence to be over-born in such things, which I have truly, clearly, and warily written.

Thus shall you encourage Me (leaving off such Controversal deviations from my Calling) to PREACH and to perform in my Ministerial function somewhat worthy of the Honour to be

Your Lordships most oblieged Servant and Chaplain THOMAS FULLER.


CHAP. I. That it is impossible for the Pen of any Historians writing in (as our's) a divided Age, to please all Parties, and how easie it is to Cavil at any Author.

SUch as lived after the Flood, and before the Confusion of Tongues, were happy in this particular, that they did Hear to Understand, and Speak to be Understood with all persons in their Generation. Not such their Felicity who lived after the Confusion of Languages at the Tower of Babel, when the Eloquence of the Best was but Barbarisme to all, save a few Folk of his owne Familie.

Happy those English Historians who wrote some Sixty years since, before our Civil Distempers were born or conceived; at leastwise, before there were House-burnings (though some Heart-burnings) amongst us: I mean, before Mens latent Animosities broke out into open Hostility; seeing then there was a generall right understanding betwixt all of the Nation.

But alass! Such as wrote in or since our Civil Wars, are seldome apprehended truely and candidly, save of such of their owne perswasion, whilest others doe not (or what is worse will not) understand them aright: And no wonder if Speeches be not rendred according to the true intent of the Speaker, when Prejudice is the Interpreter thereof.

This I foresaw when I entred upon my Church-History, but comforted my self with the counsel of Erasmus; Si non possis placere Omnibus, place to Optimis; If thou canst not please all, please the best. In order whereunto I took up to my self this Resolution, to Stere my course betwixt the two Rocks of Adulation and Irritation; though it seems I have run upon both, if the Animadvertor may be beleeved; whereof hereafter.

As it is impossible in distracted Times to please all, so is it easie for any at any time to Cavil at the best Performance. A Pigmey is Giant enough for this purpose. Now Cavils may be reduced to these two heads:

  • Without Cause.
  • Without Measure.

Causeless Cavils are such as the Caviller himself doth create, without any Ground for the same; such find a Knot in a Bulrush, because they themselves before had ty'd it therein; and may be compared to Beggers, who breed Vermine in their owne bodies, and then blow them on the cloaths of others.

Cavils without measure, are, when the anger and bitterness of the Caviller ex­ceedeth due proportion, and the demerit of the Fault; as when he maketh Memorie to be Iudgement-mistakes; Casual, to be Voluntary Errors; the Printers, to be the Authors faults: And then brags every Foil to be a Fall, and Triumpheth at the Rout of a small Party, as at the Defeat of the whole Army. This Distinction is here premised, whereof hereafter we shall make use as we see just occasion.

CHAP. II. Why the Author desired and hoped never to come under the Pen of the Animadvertor in a Controversal Difference.

IT was ever my Desire [...]nd Care, if it were possible, not to fall under the Pen of the Animadvertor; having several reasons thereof to my self, which now I publickly profess:

  • 1. I knew him a Man of able Parts, and Learning; God sanctifie both to his Glory, and the Churches Good.
  • 2. Of an Eager spirit, with him of whom it was said, Quicquid voluit valde voluit.
  • 3. Of a Tart and Smart Style, endevouring to down with all which stood betwixt him and his Opinion.
  • 4. Not over Dutiful in his Language to the Fathers of the Church, (what then may Children expect from him?) if contrary in Judgment to him.
  • Lastly and chiefly, One, the Edge of whose keenness is not taken off by the Death of his Adversary; witness his writing against the Archbishops of York and Armagh.

The Fable tells us that the Tanner was the Worst of all Masters to his Cattle, as who would not onely load them soundly whilest living, but Tan their Hides when dead; and none could blame one if unwilling to exasperate such a Pen, which, if surviving, would prosecute his Adversary into his Grave. The premises made me, though not servilely fearful, (which I praise God I am not of any Writer) yet generally cautious not to give him any Personal pro­vocation, knowing that though Both our Pens were Long, the World was Wide enough for them without Crossing each other.

As I desired, so I partly hoped that my Church-History would escape the Animadvertor: First, because a Gentleman came to me (sent from him, as I supposed) informing me, That had not Dr. Heylin been visited with blindness, he had been upon my bones before. Then I desired him to return this Answer; That, as I was sorry for the Sad Cause, the Doctors Blindness; I was glad of the Ioyful Effect, my owne Quiet. Nor hearing any more for many moneths after, I conceived my self secure from any wind in that corner.

It increased my Confidence, because I conceived Dr. Heylin neither out of Charity or Policy, would write against one who had been his Fellow-Servant to▪ and Sufferer for, the same Lord and Master, King Charles; for whose Cause I lost none of the worst Livings, and one of the best Prebends in England: Onely thus happy I was in my very unhappiness, to leave what was taken away from the rest of my Brethren.

In a word, seeing no Birds or Beasts of Prey (except Sharp-set indeed) will feed on his own Kind, I concluded Dr. Heylin would not write against me, who conceived my self to be One of his owne Party.

But it seems I reckoned without my Host, and now am call'd to a Rear-account; I cannot say with Iob, The thing that I feared; but, The thing that I feared not, is faln upon me.

Psal. 34 14.However, I conceived my self bound in Duty to David's Command, Not onely to seek peace, but to pursue it; though in some sort it fled away from me, being now informed that the Doctor was writing against me; wherefore, finding him in Fleetstreet, and following him at his heels to his Chamber, (at a Stationers house over again St. Dunstan's Church) I sent up my Name to him by a Ser­vant of the House, desiring to speak a few Words with him; the Messenger went to him, and return'd me this Answer; That the Doctor was very busie, and could not be spoken with. Thus my Treaty for Peace taking no effect, I armed my self with Patience, and quietly expected the coming forth of his Book against me.

CHAP. III. That after serious Debate the Author found himself Necessitated to make this Appeal in his own just Vindication.

HAving perused the Books of the Animadvertor against me, it bare a strong Debate within me, whether I should pass it over in silence, or return an Answer unto him, and Arguments on both sides presented themselves unto me.

Silence seemed best, because I lacked leisure solemnly to confute his Animad­versions, having at this time so much and various Imployment: The Cow was well stocked with Milk, thus praised by the Virgill Eg. Poet;

Bis venit ad Mulctrum binos alit Ubere faetus.
She suckles Two, yet doth not fail
Twice a day to come to th' Pail.

But I justly feared, who twice a Lords-day do come to the Pulpit, (God knows my Heart I speak it not to Ostentation) that I could not suckle my Parish and the Press, without Starving or Short-feeding of one: Whereas the Animad­vertor in his retired Life gives no other Milk then following his own private Studies.

Secondly, I suggested to my self, that the second blow makes the Frey, and should I rejoyn, probably it would engage me in an endless Contest, with which my declining age could ill comport. I remembred the Man who moved in Chancery for a Gelt Order which should beget no more; but knew not when any such Eunuch-Answer should pass betwixt us, to put a period to the Controversie.

Lastly, our Saviours counsel came into my mind, Matth. 5.39. Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right side, turn to him the other also. And al­though some Divines make this Precept but Temporary (as a Swadling-cloath to the Church, whiles in the Infancy thereof, under Persecution;) yet others make it alwaies Obligatory, and of perpetual Continuance.

On the other side, the Distinction came seasonably to my Remembrance, of a Mans RIGHTING and REVENGING himself; the latter belongs to God alone, Rom. 12.19. Vengeance is mine, I will repay it; the former Men may, and in some cases must do, in their owne fair defence, without Breach of our Saviours Pre­cept lately alledged.

I called also to Mind, how in our Common Law, MUTES at the Bar, who would not plead to the Indictment are Adjudged guilty, and therefore justly suspected I should from my Silence be concluded Cast in the Court of Religion and Learning, for such Faults and Errors as the Animadvertor hath charged on me.

But most of all it moved me, that Ministers of Gods Word and Sacraments ought to Vindicate their Credits, that so they may be the more Effectual Factors for Gods glory in their Vocation. When our Saviour went about to Heal the Mans withe­red hand on the Sabbath day, Mar. 3.4. Is it lawful (said he) to save Life, or to Kill? Where I observed, that our Saviour accounted not healing to be hurting; yea, not curing to be killing, in that person who had Ability and Opportunity to do it. And by the same Proportion, not plaistering is Killing of ones wounded Credit, and so consequently I should be FELO DE SE, and by my sinful Silence be the Wilful murtherer of my own Reputation.

These last Reasons did preponderate with me; and I resolved on two things; to return a Plain, Full and Speedy Answer; and to refrain from all Railing, which is a Sick Wit (if not the Sickness of Wit;) and though perchance I may have something tart to Quicken the Appetite of the Reader, yet nothing bitter against the Credit of the Animadvertor. This my Answer I have here Entituled, The APPEAL unto the RELIGIOUS, LEARNED and INGENUOUS.

But before I close with the Animadvertor, Comminùs, Hand to hand; let us first, Eminùs, try it at Distance, and entertain the Reader (to his Profit and Pleasure, I hope) with my General Defences, before I proceed to Answer each Particular.

CHAP. IV. The Author's first General Answere taken from his Title-page and Word ENDEVOVRED.

MEn may be ranked into three Forms, of INTENDERS, ENDEVOURERS and PERFORMERS.

INTENDERS are the first and lowest Form, yet so far favoured by some Papists, that they maintain, That a good Intention though embracing ill Means, makes a good Action.

PERFORMERS are the third and highest rank, to which my Thoughts dare not aspire, but leave this upper room empty, to be filled by Men of better parts and ability.

The middle Form consists of ENDEVOURERS, amongst whom I took my station in the Title-page of my Book, The Church-History of Britain, ENDEVOURED by Thomas Fuller. And as I did not hope that any Courteous Reader would call me up higher, so I did not fear that any Caviller thereat could cast me lower, but that I might still peaceably possess my Place of an ENDEVOURER.

For, what though I fall short of that which I desire, and strive to perform, I did neither belie my self, nor deceive the Reader, who neither was the first, nor shall be the last, of whom it may be truly said, Magnis excidit Ausis. The Fate of many, my Betters, who have undertook to compass high and hard Matters.

But it may be objected against me, that being conscious of my owne weakness with the weight of the burden, I should have left the Work for some stronger back to bear, and quitted it to those who would not only have endevoured but performed the same.

I answer; first, I did hope, that what was acceptable to God, would not be con­temptible to good Men; having read, If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that 1 Cor. 8.12. a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. Secondly, seeing this my willingness was attended with a competencie of Books, Records, Friends, Intel­ligence, Strength, Health and Leisure, (be all spoken not to my praise, but Gods glory) I did hope something worth the Readers acceptance might be produced. Lastly, though failing in what I undertook, I hoped to perform what might be usefull and advantagious to abler Pens undertaking the same task, and to use my owne (as who should forbid) Expression, my Beams, might be Scaffolds; my Corner, Filling stones for his more beautiful Building.

The premisses encouraged me to undertake my Church-History; wherein, if I have not done what the Reader expected, let him consider with himself, whether he did not expect what I never promised. Who being unwilling to be Cast by the Verdict of the Ingenuous, for laying my owne Action too high, have not farced the first page of my Book, like a Mountebanks Bill, pretending no higher but to ENDEVOUR.

CHAP V. The Second Generall Answer. That many, especially MEMORY Mistakes and Pen-slips, must be ex­pected in a great Volume.

IT is the Advantage of a Small Book, that the Authors Eye may in a manner be Incumbent at once over it all, from the Beginning to the End thereof; a Cause why they may be more exactly corrected. A Garden hard by ones House is easier Weeded and Trimmed, than a Field lying at some distance; Books which swell to a great Volume, cannot be spun with so even a Thread, but will run courser here and there; yea, and have Knots in them sometimes, whereof the Author is not so sensible as the Reader; as the Faults in Children are not so soon found in them by their own Fathers, as by Strangers. Thus the Poet; Verum opere in Longo Fas est obrepere somnum.

As for MEMORY-MISTAKES, which are not the Sleeping bnt Winking of an Author, they are so far from overthrowing the Credit of any Book, as a speck, (not paring-deep) in the rind of an apple, is from proving of the same rotten to the core. [Page 5] Yea, there want not learned Writers ▪ whom I need not name) of the Opinion that even the Instrumental Pen-men of the Scripture might commit [...]; though open that window to profaneness, and it will be in vain to shut any dores; Let God be true, and every man a lyer: However, I mention their judgments to this purpose, to shew that Memory-mistakes have not been counted such hainous matters, but venial in their own nature, as not only finding but deserving pardon.

I confess when such mistakes become common and customary in an Author, they mar the credit of his Book, and intollerably abuse the Reader. Nothing is lighter in it self than a single crumb of Sand, yet many of them put together are the heavyest of bodily burdens: Heavier than the Job 6.3. Sand on the Sea. What is slight in it self, if nume­rous, will become ponderous; but I hope that Memory-mistakes and Pen-slips in my Book will not be found so frequent; and desire the benefit of this Plea to be allowed me but four times, in my Answer to the Animadvertor. A Number low enough, I hope, for the Ingenuous Reader to grant, though perchance too high for me to request.

CHAP. VI. The Third General Answer. That in Intire Stories of impregnable Truth it is facile for one to Cavill with some Colour at Dismembred Passages therein.

IT is an Act as easie as unjust, for one to assault a naked Sentence, as it stands by it self, disarmed of the Assistance of the coherence before and after it: all Sentences (except they be intire and independent) have a double strength in them, one Inherent, the other relative, and the latter sometimes greater than the former; when what in a Sentence is doubtful, is explained; difficult, expounded; defective, supplyed; yea, seemingly false, rendred really true by the Connexion.

We read in the Life of Cit [...]d in Cam. Romains. pag. 241. St. Edward, that Harold Cup-bearer to the King, chanced to stumble with the one foot, that he almost kissed the Ground; but with the other Leg he recovered himself: whereat his Father Godwin, Earl of Kent (then dining with the King) said, Now one Meaning his Brother Alfred whom Godwin had shameful­ly murthered. Brother doth help another; to whom the King re­plyed, And so might my Brother have helped me, if it had so pleased you.

Many times when one Sentence in my Book hath had a Casual slip, the next to it out of Fraternal kindness would have held it up (in the apprehension of the Reader) from falling into any Great Error, had the Animadvertor so pleased, who uncharitably cutteth it off from such support, so that one Brother cannot help another; whilest he representeth mangled and maimed Passages, to the Disadvan­tage of the Sense and VVriter thereof. Thus one may prove Atheisme out of Scri­pture it self; There is no God. But what went before? The fool hath said in his heart.

I have dealt more fairly in this my Appeal with the Animadvertor; and have not Here and There picked out Parcels, and cut off Shreads where they make most for my advantage; but have presented the whole Cloath of his Book, (as he will find so, if pleasing to measure it over again) Length and Breadth, and List and Fag and all; that so the Reader may see of what Wool it is made, and what Thread it is spun, and thereby be the better enabled to pass his verdict upon it.

CHAP. VII. The Fourth General Answer. That FAVOVR of COVRSE is indulged to the first (as least per­fect) Edition of Books.

THe first Edition of a Book, in a difficult Subject, hath ever been beheld as less complete; and a liberty of Correcting and Amending hath been al­lowed to all Authors of this kind.

I will instance in his Book (whose Books would I was worthy to bear) Mr. Camden's Britania. His first Edition was a Babe in a little; the second, a Childe in a bigger Octavo; the third, a Youth in a Quarto (but Map-less;) the last, a Man in a fair Folio; first and last differing more then a Gally and Galeas, not onely in the Greatness but Perfection, every newer Edition amending the Faults of the former.

[Page 6]Next, we will insist in another Author above all exception, even the Animadver­tor himself, who in his Epistle to the Reader, before the Second and much altered Edition of his MICROCOSME, thus expresseth himself, not unhappily either for his owne or my purpose: ‘I am not the first of whom it was said, Secundae Cogitationes sunt meliores; neither is it a thing rare for Children of this nature, to be as often perfected as born; Books have an Immortality above their Authors. They when they are full of Age and Guiltiness, can be retaken into the wombe which bred them, and with a new Life, receive a greater Portion of Youth and Glory. Every Impression is to them another being; and that alwayes may, and often doth bring with it, a sweeter Edition of Strength and Loveliness. Thus with them Age, and each several Death, is but an Usher to a new Birth; each several Birth the mother of a more vigorous Perfection.’

Had the like liberty of a Second Edition been allowed me, which the Animadvertor assumed, his pains had been prevented, and most of the Faults he hath found in my Book (being either derected by my self, or discovered by my Friends, com­municating the same unto me) had been rectified.

Thus in the Latin Tongue the same word SECUNDUS signifieth both Second and Successful, because Second Undertakings (wherein the failings of the former are observed and amended) generally prove most Prosperous.

But it will be Objected, Such Second Editions with new Insertions, Additions and Alterations, are no better than Pick-pockets to the Reader, who having purchased and perused the first Edition, is by this new one, both in his purse and pains equally abused, and his Book rendred little better than Waste paper.

I Answer; First, I am no more obnoxious to this Objection than other Authors who set fort New Editions. Secondly, I hope my Alterations shall not be so many or great as to disguise the second from the first Edition; Lastly, I will take order (God willing) for the Printing of a peice of Paper (lesse then a Leaf) in my second Impression, being the Index of Alteration, so that the Owners of the First, may (if so pleased) in less then an Hour, with their Pens, conform their Books to the new Edition, which though a little less Beautifull to the Eye, will be no less Beneficial to the Users thereof.

Here let me humbly tender to the Readers Consideration, that my HOLY WARRE, though (for some Design of the Stationer) sticking still in the Title Page, at the third Edition (as some unmarried Maids will never be more then eigh­teen) yet hath it oftner passed the Press, as hath my HOLY STATE, MEDITA­TIONS, &c. and yet never did I alter Line or Word in any new Impression.

I speak not this by way of Attribution to my Self, as if my Books came for that first with more Perfection then other Mens, but with Insinuation to the Reader, that ti is but equall that I, who have been no Common Begger in this Kind, yea never before made use of a second Edition, may now have the Benefit thereof allowed me, especi­ally in a Subject of such Length, Latitude, Difficulty, Variety and Multiplicity of Matter.

CHAP. VIII. The Fifth General Answer. That it is no shame for any Man to confess (when convinced thereof) and amend an Error in his Iudgement.

THe Knowledge of our Saviour, as God, may be compared to the Sun, all perfect and compleat at once without any accession or addition thereunto, whilst his Knowledge, as Man, like the Waxing Moon was capable of Increase, and was (though not subject to the least Error) receptive of clearer Information; Luke 2.28. and Iesus increased in Wisdome; yea, it is expresly said, yet learned he Obedience by the thing which he suffered.

[Page 7]Not such, the Knowledge of the best and wisest Man, which besides a Capability of more Instruction, is always attended with an obnoxiousnesse to many mistakes, seeing 1 Cor. 13.9. here wee know in part, and easy it is for any Man to come on the Blinde Side of another, as being better versed and skilled in such particular matters.

When therefore I find my self convinced in my Judgement of an Error in my Church-History, by perusing the Notes of the Animadvertor, I will fairly and freely confesse and amend it.

And I conceive it is no shame at all for a Childe to write a few Lines of Retractation, after so good a St Augustin. Father hath set him so fair a Copy thereof.

In such a case let not the Animadvertor give me any Blowes, where I conceive that my own Blush is a sufficient Penance for the same; and let him not immoderately insult on such occasions, seeing my Iudgement-Faults will be found neither in number nor Nature such as He hath suggested. Covetous Euclio in the Aulularia Plauti.Comedy, complained that his Servant Intromisit Sexentos Coquos, had let in six hundred Cooks, when they wanted five hundred ninety eight of that number, being but two [Anthrax and Congrio] truely told; and though the Animadvertor frequently complaineth, that I Page 218, 223, and often else­where. run into many Errors, run into many Errors; yet on examination, many of those Errors will prove Truths, and such as remain Errors will not prove many.

Besides, the Animadvertor is concerned to be civill to me in this Kind, seeing in this particular.

Veniam petimus dabimusque vicissim:
A mutuall Bargain we may make,
Pardon to give, and Pardon take.

If I were minded to retaliate, and to show that Humanum est errare, I could instance in many mistakes in the last Edition of his Geography. Some of the best Birth and Brains in our Nation, and Travalers in foreign parts, as far as India it self, proferred me on their accord to detect in several Countryes unexcusable Errors, confuted by their ocular discovery.

I heartily thanked them for that which I refused to accept; and did return; First, that the Book had atchieved a generall Repute, and not undeservedly. Secondly, that it was very usefull, and I my Self had reaped Benefit thereby. Thirdly, that it would seem in me like to Revenge in this Juncture of Time, when the Doctor was disadvantaged by some Infirmity. Lastly, that others might be detremented thereby. Yea, if we but look into his SHORT VIEW of the Life and Reign of King CHARLES, some Faults occur therein which God willing I will calmly discover in our Answer to these Animadversions, not with intent to Cloud his Credit, but Clear my own.

CHAP. IX. The Sixth General Answer. That Prelial Mistakes in Defiance of all Care will escape in the best Corrected Book.

THe most accurate Book, that ever came forth into Light, had some Mistakes of the Presse therein. Indeed, I have heard of Robert Stephen, that he offered a great Summe of Money (equivalent perchance to five Pounds of our English Coin) to such who would discover any Erratum in his Folio Greek Testament, dedicated to King Francis the first.

[Page 8]But sure I am, that some of our English Bibles, which may be presumed set forth with the best Care, printed at London, have their Errats; and therefore Prelial Faults being a catching Disease, no wonder if my Book as well (or rather as ill) as others, be subject to the same.

Here it will be objected that there is a known and sure Receipt for the Cure of this Disease, viz. the Listing of such Faults as have escaped, either in the Beginning or End of the Book; that so the Reader may, if he please, amend, if other­wise, avoid them. Such an Index Erratorum, or Catalogue of Mistakes, is, in some sort a STOOL OF REPENTANCE, wherein Offenders find their lost Innocence; and such faults thus confessed, are never charged either on the Author's or Printer's Account.

It is answered, that although such a List of Faults, generally followeth as the Impedimentum or Baggage in the Rere of a Book, yet seldome or never is it adequate to all the Errata's, which are committed therein.

For first, all committed, are not discovered, neither by the Corrector, nor the Author himself, who perusing his own Book, in overlooking the faults therein, Overlooks them indeed, and following the conduct of his own fancy, (where­in He intended all to be right) readeth the words in his Book, rather as they should be, than as they are printed.

Secondly, all faults which are discovered are not confessed. Such as the Printer esteemeth small, He leaveth to be amended by the direction of the Sense, and discretion of the Reader; according to the common Speech, that the Reader ought to be better than his Book.

In my Book, the Index of Errata's amounts not to above forty, a very small number in proportion of so voluminous a Work, which with Credit might crave the allowance of twice as many more thereunto: The Animadvertor in these his Notes, maketh great advantage of some of these un-confessed-Faults, and I sometimes plead the mistake of the Press for my Answer, though seldome, save when some similitude of form in the mistaken letter rendreth it probable for a Prelial Error.

CHAP. X. The Seventh and last General Answer. That an Author charging his Margin with his Author is thereby Himself discharged.

HIstorians, who write of things done at distance, many miles from their dwellings, and more years before their Births, must either feign them in their owne Brains, or fetch them from other credible Authors. I say credible, such as carry worth and weight with them, Substantial Persons, Subsidie men (as I may say) in Truths Book; otherwise, for some Pamphlets, and all Pasquils, I behold them as so many Knights of the Post, even of no Reputation.

Now, for the more credit of what is written, and better assurance of the Reader, it is very expedient that the Author alledged be fully and fairly quoted in the Margin, with the Tome, Book; Chapter, Leaf, Page and Columne, sometimes (seldome descending so low as the Line) where the thing quoted is expressed; and this done, the Author is free from fault which citeth it, though He may be faulty who is cited, if delivering a falshood.

Indeed, if one become bound as Surety for another, he engageth Himself to make good the Debt in the Default of Principal. But if he onely be Bail for his Appearance, and accordingly produceth his Person in Publick Court, He ought to be discharged without farther trouble.

Semblably, if one not onely cites, but commends the words of an Authour, [Page 9] then He undertakes for him, adopts his words to be his owne, becomes his Pledge, and consequently is bound to justifie and maintain the truth of what he hath quo­ted. But if he barely alledgeth his words, without any closing with them in his Judgement, he is onely bound for that Author's appearance. Understand me, to justifie that such words are exactly extant in manner and form in the place alledged, easy to be found by any who will follow the Marginal direction.

This I reserve for my Eighth and last Answer, when taxed by the Animadvertor for such things for which I have presented my Author in the Margin. In such cases I conceive I should be discharged; and, if any Fees at all be to be paid, I hope the Courteous Reader (on my request) will remit them, and dismiss me, without more molestation.

CHAP. XI. That many of the Animadvertors Notes are onely Additional, not Op­posite to what I have written; And that all things, omitted in an History, are not Defects.

WHo so beholdeth the Several places in my Book, noted on by the Animadvertor, hath cause, at the first Blush, to conclude my Church-History very Erroneous and full of Faults; out of which, so bigg a Bundle of Mistakes have been collected: but upon serious Perusal of these Notes, it will appear that a third part of them at the least, are meerly Additional not opposite to what I have written; so that they render my Book not for Truth the lesse, but his for Bulk the greater.

Herein he seemeth like unto those Builders; who either wanting Materials to erect an intire house, or fearing so frail and feeble a Fabrick will not stand by it self, run it along the side-walls of another house, whereby they not onely save Timber, but gain strength to their New Edifice.

The Animadvertor had a Mind to communicate some new Notions he had to the World, but he found them not many and weighty enough to fill a just Book for Sale: whereupon, he resolves to range his Notions against my Church-History, that so partly carping thereat, and partly adding thereto, he might be­twixt both make up a Book Competent for Sale.

Hence, it is that sometimes not liking my Language (as not proper and expressive enough) he substituted his owne, with little or no variation of Matter; and some­times adds new Passages: some whereof I could formerly have inserted, but be­cause I perceived my Book (as the Reader is sensible by the price thereof) grown already to too great a Volume.

When Additional Notes frequently occur, I conceive my self not obliged in the least degree to return an Answer thereunto, as being rather besides than against what I have written: However, if I have left out any thing, it would have been suspected I had omitted that which most had made against me, to pre­vent which Jealousie, such Additional Notes are also here verbatim represented.

To such as object that the Animadvertor's Additions are Suppletory of the Defects in my Church-History; I answer, that a Defect properly is Absentia debiti adesse, the Absence of what ought to be there, so that a thing is maimed or lame with­out it.

But Additions to an History are reducible to these two Heads, viz. either such as they

Must without Imperfection be added.
May without Impertinency be added.

Few, if any, of the former; some of the latter kind are found in the Animad­vertor's Additory Notes. And let me tell Him, that if He writes Books against [Page 10] all who have written Books, and have not written all which may be said of their Subject, he may even write against all who have ever written Books, and then He will have work enough.

Let us go no farther then to his own Geophraphy, being sure he is too Iudicious to be so conceited of his own pains, as to think he hath inserted all that may be said of so large a Subject.

The In Vit. Aesopi. Story is well known of Aesop's Master, who buying two Servants toge­ther in the Market-place, demanded of one of them, what he could doe; He an­swered, that he would doe all things, doe all things. Then the other [Aesop him­self] being askt what he could doe, answered, He could doe nothing. His Master seeming angry to keep so unprofitable a Servant; How can I (returned Aesop) doe any thing, when my Fellow-servant will doe all, and leave me nothing to doe?

If Dr. Heylin hath done all things in his Geography, he hath given a Writ of Ease for ever to Posterity, who may Despair to merit more of that matter. All who hereafter shall write a new Book of Geography, must also find out a new World with Columbus, as anticipated by the Doctor, having formerly completed all on that Subject.

I presume not to say, that I have in my Church-History done all things, having written many and most material Passages, leaving the rest to others. But this I say, that all things left out in a History, are not wanting; neither are all things wan­ting, Defects, if not essential thereunto. As for some of the Animadvertors added Notes, they are no more needful or useful than a sixth finger to a mans Hand, as (God willing) in due time shall appear.

CHAP. XII. That the Author Designed unto himself no Party-pleasing in Writing his Church-History.

PArtiality is constantly charged on me by the Animadvertor, and once, with a witness, as followeth, pag. 257.

We see by this, as by like Passages, which way our Author's Bowle is BY ASSED, how constantly he declares himself in Favour of those who have either Separated from the Church, or appeared against it.

I return, (to prosecute his Metaphor) that I have used as UPRIGHT BOWLES as ever any that enter the Alley of History, since our Civil Dissentions.

I do freely declare my self, that I in VVriting my Book, am for the Church of England, as it stood established by Law; the Creed being the Contracted Articles, and the 39. Articles the Expanded Creed of her Doctrine, as the Canons of her Discipline. And still I prise her Favour highest, though for the present it be least worth, as little able to protect, and less to prefer any that are faithfull to her Interest.

As for pleasing of Parties, I never Designed or Endevoured it. There were a kind of Philosophers, called ELECTICI, which were of none, yet of all Sects, and who would not engage in gross in the Opinions of any Philosophers, but did pick and choose here and there, what they found Consonant to Truth, either amongst the Stoicks, Peripateticks, Academicks, or (misinterpreted Epicures,) receiving that, and rejecting the rest; such my Project to commend in all Parties what I find praise-worthy, and condemne the rest; on which Account, some Fleer, some Frown, none Smile upon me.

First, for the Papists, though I malice not their Persons, and have a Pity (as God I hope hath a Mercy) for many amongst them, yet I do, as occasion is offered, dislike their Errors, whereby I have incurred (and according to their principles) deserved their Displeasure.

[Page 11]The old Non-conformists being the same with the modern Presbuterians, but de­pressed and under, as the modern Presbuterians are the old Non-conformists, but vertical and in Authority, do (though the Animadvertor twi [...]teth me constantly to Advocate for them) take great and general exception at me; and it is not long since, in a Meeting of the most Eminent amongst them, I was told, that I put too much Gall into my Inck against them.

The Independent, being the Gen. 43.44. Benjamin of Parties, (and his Mess I assure you is none of the least) taxeth me for too much fieriness, as the Animadvertor (in his Expression lately cited) chargeth me for too much Favour unto them.

Thomas Lord Coventry, when coming from the Chancery to sit down at Dinner, was wont to say, Surely, to day I have dealt equally, for I have displeased both sides. I hope that I have his Happiness, for I am sure I have his Unhappiness, that having disobliged all Parties, I have written the very Truth. Thus I can onely privately comfort my self in my owne Innocence, and hope that when my Head is laid low, what seems too sweet, too bitter, too salt, too fresh to the pre­sent divided Age, will be adjudged well tasted and seasoned to the Palate of Unpartial Posterity.

CHAP. XIII. What Good the Animadvertor might, but would not doe; and, what Good, by Gods goodness he Herein hath done unto the Author.

WHen the Animadvertor had perused my Book, marking some (but making moe) faults therein, it was in his Power to have done me a Pleasure, the greatest he could give, or I receive, viz. not to paradigmatize me, but by Letter in an amicable way to impart my Mistakes unto me, that I might amend them in my next Edition. Say not, He owed me no such thing, who would have beheld it not as a Debt paid unto, but Alms bestowed upon me.

I was not wholly without hope hereof, having found such favour from some worthy Friends. Had the Animadvertor done the like, How had he obliged me? As the Society of Peter-house do preserve the Pictures of their Benefactors in their Parlour, so would I have erected unto him a Monument of Gratitude in my Heart, besides my publick acknowledgement of the courtesie.

But it seems He intended not my Information, but Defamation. However, he hath done to me a great good turn, for which (because not intended) I will thank God, viz. He by his causeless Carping hath allayed in me the delight in Writing of Histories; seeing nothing can be so unpartially and inoffensively written, but some will carp thereat.

Mothers minding to wean their Children, use to put Soot, Wormwood or Mustard on the Nibbles of their Breasts. God foresaw I might Suck to a Surfet in Writing Histories, which hath been a Thief in the Lamp of my Life, wasting much Oyle thereof. My Head and Hand had robb'd my Heart in such delight­ful Studdies. Wherefore he raised the bitter Pen of the Animadvertor to wean me from such Digressions from my Vocation.

I now experimentally find the Truth of * Solomon's words, of making many Books there is no End. Not, but that all perfect Books (I mean perfect in sheets, otherwise none save Scripture perfect) have Finis in the Close thereof; or that any Author is so irrational, but He propounds an End to himself before he begins it; but that in making of many Books there is no end; that is, the Writers of them seldome or never do attain that End which they propound to themselves, especially if Squinting at sinister Ends, as who is not flesh and blood? Such as project wealth to themselves, are commonly by unwise managing, or casual miscarriage, impaired [Page 12] thereby in their Estates. Others who designed to themselves, (with the builders of Babel) to get them a Name, commonly meet with shame and disgrace. Or else, when their Books are ended, yet they are not ended, because though never so cautiously written, some Antagonists will take up the Bucklers against them, so that they must begin again after they have ended, (or sink in their credits) to write in their own vindication, which is my case, enough to take off my edge, for­merly too keen in making multiplicity of Books.

I confess, I have yet one History ready for the Press, which I hope will be for Gods Glory and Honour of our Nation. This new-built Ship is now on the Stocks, ready to be lanched; and being a Vessel of great Burden, God send me some good Adventurers to bear part of the Expence. This done, I will never meddle more with making any Books of this Nature. It is a provident way, be­fore Writing leave us, to leave of Writing; and the rather, because Scribling is the Frequentative thereof.

If therefore my Petitioning and Optative Amen, shall meet with Gods Commis­sioning and Imperative Amen, I will hereafter totally attend the Concernments of my Calling, and what directly and immediately shall tend to the advance of Devotion in my Self and in Others, as preparatory to my Dissolution out of this state of Mortality.

CHAP. XIV. That the Author is unjustly charged by the Animadvertor for being agreeable to the Times; And how far forth such Agreeableness is consistent with Christian Prudence.

Page. 268. towards the bottom there­ofTHe Animadvertor is pleased to Charge me to be a great Temporizer, and agreeable to the Times. In Order to my Defence herein, let me premise this Distinction; that there is a Sinful and Sinless Agreeableness with the Times, be they never so bad.

It is a Sinful Agreeableness, when People for their private profit, or safety, or both, are resolved in Belief and Life; Faith, and Fact; Doctrine and Manners, to be the same with the Times; how contrary soever they be unto the Will and Word of God. Be it BIBLE, or THALMUD, or ALCORAN, or MASSE-BOOK, or COMMON-PRAYER-BOOK, or DIRECTORY; any, many, all, or no Manner of God's publick Service; to them, all is alike, and equally imbraced.

But there is also a Sinless, yea lawful and necessary agreeableness to the Times, insomuch that no meaner Father than St. Ambrose, or worse Critick than Erasmus, read the Text Romans 12.11. [...], Serving the Time. A Reading countenanced by the Context, Rejoycing in Hope, patient in Tribulation, continu­ing in Prayer; all being Directions of our demeanour in dangerous times. And even those who dislike the Reading as false, defend the Doctrine as true; that though we must not be Slaves and Vassals, we may be Servants to the Times, so far forth as not to Dis-serve God thereby.

This Sinless and lawful Agreeableness with the Times, is partly Passive, partly Active. Passive chiefly consisteth in Bearing and Forbearing: Bearing, in paying all Pecuniary burdens imposed; it being but equal (in my opinion) there to return Tribute where we receive Protection. I doubt not but in this point even the Animadver­tor himself is agreeable to the Times, going along with the rest of his Neighbours in their paying of all publick Taxes.

Forbearing expresseth it self, first in Silence. The Spanish Proverb, true at all, is necessary in dangerous, Times, Where the mouth is shut no Fly doth enter: Yea, the Spirit of God giveth his Servants this counsel, Amos 5.13. Therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that Time, for it is an evil Time. Thus, Holding of ones peace, that is, [Page 13] using no Provoking Language against the Present Power, procureth Holding of ones Peace, that is, retaining and possessing of one's Safety and Quiet.

Secondly, Forbearing consisteth in Refraining (though not without secret sor­row) from some Laudable Act which he heartily desireth, but dares not doe, as visibly destructive to his Person and Estate, being prohibited by the Predominant Powers: In such a Case a man may, to use the 1 Cor. 7 26. Apostle's phrase, [...], for the present necessity, omit many things Pleasing to, but not Comman­ded by that God, who preferreth Mercy before Sacrifice.

For instance; If any Earthly Prince or Power should enjoyn a Christian (as Darius did Dan. 6.7. Daniel) not to pray to God for the space of Thirty dayes together; his Command is not to be obeyed, as contrary to Gods positive Precept, 1 Tehss. 5.17. Pray con­tinually. But if he should onely enjoyn him to forbear such a Form of Prayer, allowing him liberty to use any other; I conceive that such an omission, Lawful; dictated unto him by the Principles of Prudence, for his self-Preservation.

The Active Part of Lawful Agreeableness with the times, is in doing what they enjoyn, as being Indifferent; and sometimes so good, that our own Conscience doth or should enjoyn the same. In such a case, where there is a Concurrence of Both together, it is neither Dishonesty, nor Indiscretion, for one in himself to conceal his own Inclinations, and publickly to put his Actions (as Fasting, Thanksgiving, Preaching, &c.) on the Account of Conformity to the Times; it being (as flattery to court, so no less) folly to contemne and reject the favour of the Times, when it may be had without the least violation, yet possibly with an Improvement of our own Conscience.

I have Endevoured to steer my Carriage by the Compass aforesaid; and my main Motive thereunto was, that I might enjoy the Benefit of my Ministry, the bare using whereof, is the greatest Advancement I am capable of in this Life. I know all Stars, are not of the same Bigness and Brightness; some shine, some only twinkle; and allowing my Self of the latter Size and Sort, I would not willingly put out my own (though dimme) light in total Darkness, nor would bury my halfe-Talent, hoping by putting it forth to gain an other half-Talent thereby to the Glory of God, and the good of others.

But it will be Objected against me, that it is suspicious (at the least) that I have Bribed the Times, with some base Compliance with them, because they have re­flected so favourably upon me. Otherwise, how cometh it to pass, that my fleece, like Gideons, is dry, when the rest of my Brethren of the same party, are wet with their own Tears; I being permitted Preaching, and peaceable Enjoying of a Parsonage.

I answer first, I impute this Peaceableness I enjoy, to Gods undeserved Goodness on my Unworthiness. He hath not dealt thus with all my Brethren, above me in all respects. God maketh People sometimes, potius reperire quàm invenire Gratiam, to find the Favours they sought not for. If I am one of them, whom God Psal. 106.46. hath made to be pitied of those who carried me away captive, I hope, I shall be thankful unto Him; and Others, I hope, will not be Envious at me for so great a Mercy.

Next to the Fountain of Gods Goodness, I ascribe my Liberty of Preaching, to the Favour of some Great Friends, God hath raised up for me. It was not a Childish answer, though the answer of a Child to his Father taxing him for being Proud of his New Coat, I am glad (said he,) but not proud of it. Give me leave to be glad, and joyful in my self, for my Good Friends; and to desire, and endevour their Continuance and increase. A Friend in the Court hath alwayes been accounted as Good as a Penny, in the Councel; as a Pound, in the Purse. Nor will any rational man Condemn me, for making my Addresses to, and improvement of them, seeing the Animadvertor himself (as I am informed) hath his Friend in the Councel; and it is not long since, he had Occasion to make use of his Favour.

I must not forget the Articles of Exeter, whereof I had the Benefit, living, and waiting there on the Kings Daughter at the Rendition thereof. Articles, which [Page 14] both as Penned, and Performed were the best in England, thanks to their Wisdome, who so Warily made; and Honesty, who so well observed them. Nor was it (though last named) least causal of my Quiet, that (Happy Criticism to my self as I may call it) I never was formally sequestred, but went, before driven away from my Living, which took of the Edge off the Ordinance against me, that the Waight thereof fell but slentingly upon me. Thus when God will fasten a favour on any Person, (though never so unworthy) he ordereth the Concurrences of all things contributive thereunto.

All I will add is this, that hitherto (and I hope, Who hath, will keep me I speak it in the presence of God) I have not by my Pen, or Practice to my knowledge done any thing Unworthily to the betraying of the Interest of the Church of England; and if it can be proved, Let my Mother-Church not onely spit in my face (the expression it seems of Numb. 12.14. Parents amongst the Iews when they were offended with their Children for some misdemeanor) but also spew me out of her mouth. Some will say, such a Vaunt savoreth of a Pharisaical Pride. I utterly deny it. For even the Publican after he came from his Confession he had made in the Temple Luk. 18.13. God be merciful to me a Sinner, had he met one in the outward Court, accusing and taxing him with such particular Sins, whereof he was guiltless, would no doubt have replied in his own just defence. And seeing I am on my Purgation, in what the Schools term Iustitia Causae (though not Personae) I cannot say less, (as I will no more) in my Iustification.

Thus have I represented the Reader with the True Complexion of my Cause, and though I have not painted the [...]ace thereof with false Colours, I hope I have washed from it the foul Aspersion of Temporizing or sinful Agreeableness with the Times, which the Animadvertor causlesly casts upon it.

So much for my Outward Carriage in reference to the Times; Mean time what the Thoughts of my Heart have been thereof. I am not bound to make a Discovery to my Own Danger. Sure I am, such who are 2 Sam. 20.19. Peaceable and Faithful in Israel, may nevertheless be Esaiah 61.3. Mourners in Zion, and greive at what they cannot mend, but must endure. This also I know that, That Spoak in the Wheel which Creeketh most, doth not bear the Greatest burden in the Cart. The Greatest complainers are not alwayes the Greatest Sufferers, whilst as much yea more sincere sorrow may be managed in Secret Silence, than with Querulous, and Clamorous Obstreporous­ness; and such, who will neither print nor preach Satyrs on the Times, may make Elegies on them in their own Soules.

Dr. Heilyn's TITLE-PAGE. Examen Historicum: OR A DISCOVERY and EXAMINATION OF THE Mistakes, Falsities, and Defects in some Modern History. Part. I. CONTAINING Necessary ANIMADVERSIONS ON The Church-History of BRITAIN: AND The History of CAMBRIDGE, Publish'd by Thomas Fuller: For Vindication of the Truth, the Church, and the Injured Clergy.

2 CORINTH. 13.8.
Non possumus aliquid adversus veritatem: sed pro veritate.
Minut. Foel. in Octavio.
Et Veritas quidem obvia est, sed requirentibus.

THe Chalenge, is no part of the Combate; nor the Mountebanks Bill of the Cure. It is answer enough to a Title-page, to return, It is but a Title-page. Whereas the Doctor intituleth his Notes on my Books Animadversions, know, Animadvertere in Latine signifieth, to mark, and observe; but rather, by the way of reproof, than approbation. And in a Secundary Sense, it importeth to correct, chastise, and severely to punish a [reputed] Malefactor, as the Doctor in a Judicatory, of his own Erecting, (without any Commission for the same,) hath herein passed many most heavy Censures on Me, before He heard what I could say in my own just defence.

[Page 16]Whereas the Animadvertor proceedeth, as followeth, ‘ANIMADVERSIONS ON The Church-History of BRITTAIN: AND The History of CAMBRIDGE, Publish'd by Thomas Fuller: For Vindication of the Truth, the Church, and the Injured Clergy.’

He hath done me more—right, than he was aware of, or was willing to do: for those indeed were the three principal Motives of my weak Endea­vours in my Church-History. However, because he intended those words to relate not to my History, but his own Animadversions thereon, let the Reader Judge, to which of our two Works they bear the best and most proper reference.

The words of St. Paul 2. Cor. 13.8. Non possumus aliquid adversus veritatem sed pro veritate, We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth; well fitted the mouth of the Apostle, divinely inspired in his writings, only to be a Cham­pion for the Truth. In one sense I allow them also applicable to the Animad­vertor, according to the received Rule Illud possumus, quod jure possumus, We can do that which we can lawfully do —. But otherwise, I humbly conceive that St. Paul could not, and the Animadvertor should not, do any thing against the Truth.

All that I will add is this, that although the Doctor be pleased to call his notes Necessary Animadversions, (who can blame the loving Father for giving his own dear Babe a good name) yet upon serious examination it will appear that some of these Animadversions, ought to have been omitted, for the promoting of Piety; and many of them might have been omitted, without any prejudice to the Truth: as in due time and place, God willing, shall be observed.

Dr. Heylyn.


It is affirmed of History by the famous Orator, that it is Testis Temporum, the Witness and Record of Time, by which the Actions of it are transmitted from one Age to another. And therefore it concerns all those who apply themselves to the writing of Histories to take speciall care, that all things be laid down exactly, faithfully, and without Deviation from the Truth in the least particular; For if the Witnesses be suborned, the Record falsified, or the Evidence wrested, neither posterity can Judge rightly of the Actions of this present time; or this time, give a certain Judgement of the Ages past.


Allthough Mr. Sanderson is equally concerned with my Self in this Generall Preface, yet because I am beheld as the principal malefactor, I have here pre­sented it intire. I look on it thus far as but the flourish or Illumining of a Text and Initial-Letter, signifying nothing in it self: and therefore let him proceed, to something more materiall.

Dr. Heylyn.
[Page 17]

It is therefore a good direction which Iosephus the Historian gives us, and which he followed as it seems in his Iewish Antiquities, not only to be care­full that the Stile be pleasing, but that the whole work be framed by the level and line of Truth, Nam qui Historiam & rerum propter Antiquitatem ob­scurarum expositionem, &c. ‘They (saith he) who make profession to write Histories, and to recite such things as are obscured by Antiquitie, ought not only studiously to conform their stile, but also to beautyfie the same with ornaments of Eloq [...]ence, to the intent the Reader may converse in their Wri­tings with the more delectation. But above all things they must have an especial care so exactly to set down the truth, that they who know not how those things came to pass, may be the more duely and fitly informed.’


I acknowledge that this is the Character of a Complete Historian, to which all in their Writings ought to aspire with their best endeavours; though I believe none ever attained to the height thereof.

But first I would fain know, (seeing these are Necessary Animadversions) what need there was of that long-Latine-Line (staved off at last with an &c.) seeing Io­sephus did write in Greek. And if the Doctor would have presented us with the Original, it should have been in Greek; if but with a Translation, it might only have been in English.

I behold Iosephus as a worthy Historian, whose memory I deservedly honour; yet herein he might say with the Poet, Monitis sum minor ipse meis. He in his Practise fell far short of his Precepts, witness his inserting of this false passage, opposite to the very Letter of the Old Testament, speaking of Iehojakaim King of Iudah,

2 King. 24.9.

And he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his Father had done.

Iosephus Ant. Iud. lib. 10. cap. 9.
This man being merciful and just by his nature. &c.

But because it is not my Work to accuse Iosephus (whom I cannot praise and prize enough) but to defend my self against the Animadvertor, let us proceed.

Dr. Heylyn.

There is another rule which he bound himself to, that is to say, Neither to omit any thing through ignorance, nor to bury any thing in forgetfullness: And all these cautions well observed make a perfect History.


Here is the Elixir indeed of Historical perfection. Let a Glorified Saint write such an History of the Church-Triumphant, that so there may be a just proportion betwixt the Author and his Subject, both being Perfect.

I have met with this Distick made by reverend in his Life Page, 103. Bernard Gilpin, upon such Sectaries as require exactness in our Church of England.

Optant ut careat maculis Ecclesia cunctis;
Praesens vita negat, vita futura dabit.

Thus Englished by Bishop Carleton.

Men wish our Church no blemish had at all;
It cannot be so here, in Heaven it shall.

[Page 18]This is true both of our Church, and all Church-Histories; whereof none without faults, and they the best which have the fewest.

Dr. Heylyn.

But on the contrary, there are some who do spend themselves on the style and dresse, as if their business rather were to delight the ear then inform the judge­ment; Others so byassed by self-ends and private interesse, that they seem ra­ther Advocates to plead for some growing party, then true Reporters of affairs as they be before them. Some who endevouring to be copious, clap all together in a huddle which is offered to them, without relation to the Ornaments and Attire of Language; and others with like carelesness as unto themselves, but greater inconvenience as unto the Reader, examine not the truth and certainty of what they write, so they write somewhat which they think may inform the Reader. Betwixt these, Truth is oftentimes irrecoverably lost, the Reader led aside from the wayes of Verity into the crooked lanes of Error; and many times conducted to such dangerous precipices as may prove destructive to himself, and of ill conse­quence to all those which are guided by him. The Errors of the Understanding, in matters which may possibly be reduced to Practise, are far more mischievous then those which do consist in the niceties of Speculation, and advance no far­ther; which moved the Orator, not onely to honour History with the Attribute of Testis Temporum, but to style it also by the name of Magistra Vitae.


I remember when the reverend Vice-master of Trinity College in Cambridge was told that one of the Scholars had abused him in an Oration. Did he (said he) name me? Did he name Thomas Harrison? And when it was returned, that he named him not; then said he, I do not believe that he meant me. Although it is very suspicious that I am the mark aimed at in this discourse; yet being not conscious of such faults to my self, and because I am not named by him, I will not understand my self intended, till he toucheth me with more personal par­ticularities.

Dr. Heylyn.

These things considered as they ought, hath made me wonder many times at the unadvisedness of some late Writers in this kind, whose Histories are com­posed with so much partiality on the one Side, and so much inadvertency on the Other; that they stand more in need of a Commentator to expound the Truth, and lay it clear and open to the view of the Reader, than either the dark words of Aristotle, or any other obscure Piece of the ancient Writers. I speak of Histories, not Libels; of which last sort, I reckon Weldon's Pamphlet, called The Court of King Iames; and Wilson's most infamous Pasquil of the Reign of that King: in which it is not easie to judge, whether the Matter be more false, or the Stile more reproachful in all parts thereof. Certain I am, we may affirm of them as Cremutius Cordus doth of the Epistles of Antonius, and the Orations of Brutus, Falsa quidem in Augustum probra, sed multa cum acerbitate habent; that is to say, that they contained not only false and disgraceful passages against the honour of Augustus, but were apparelled also in the habit of scurrilous language. With such as these I shall not meddle at the present, leaving their crimes unto the punishment not of an Index, but an Ignis Expurgatorius, as most proper for them.


I am not concerned at all in this Paragraph; Onely let me add this in the honour of the deceased Robert Earl of Warwick, who told me at Beddington, [Page 19] that when Wilson's Book in Manuscript was brought unto him, he expunged out of it more than an hundred offensive passages. My Lord, said I) you have done well, and you had done better if you had put out one hundred more.

Dr. Heylyn.

But as for those whom either the want of true intelligence or inadvertency in not weighing seriously what they were to do, or the too much indulgence to their own affections have made more capable of being bettered by correction, I have thought it more agreeable to the Rules of justice, to rectifie their mistakes, and reform their Errors, than absolutely to condemn and decry their Writings.


REFORMING of Errors is a specious and glorious Designe, especially when proportionable means are used in order thereunto. But of late the word RE­FORMATION is grown so thredbare, it hath no nap left it, thereunder to cover foul acts to attain a fair end. I much suspect the Animadvertor will prove such a Deforming-Reformer, as our Age hath produced too many of them.

Dr. Heylyn.

At this time I have Two before me whom I conceive to stand in need of such Observations, by which the truth may be preserved, and the clear face of things presented to the Readers eye; the one of them an Authour of Eccle­siastical, the other of some Civil Histories.


I commend the valour of the Animadvertor, to combate with Two at once; odds, on which Hercules himself durst not adventure. I also am to deal with two, the Animadvertor and Dr. Cosins, but not as a Challenger, but in the notion of a poor Defendant; and if one be assaulted by two hundred, he may and must guard himself against them as well as he can.

Dr. Heylyn.

In both I find the Truth much injured, and in one the Church. The Errors of the one tend not to the subversion of any publick interesse, but, being Errors, may misguide the Reader in the way of his knowledge and discourse; and therefore I have rectified him with some Advertisements (not taking notice of such passages as have been made the subject of some Observations from another hand) that so he may be read with the greatest profit.


This is meant of Mr. Sanderson. I am not so divellishly minded as to desire all men might be equally faulty with my self, that so being involved with others in a joynt-Guiltiness of the same degree, I might on that account pretend to a mock-Innocence. If Mr. Sanderson's Pen be less peccant than mine, I congratu­late his condition, and provide to answer to my owne Charge, which followeth.

Dr: Heylyn.

The other (besides Errors of this kind too many) hath intermingled his Discourse with some Positions of a dangerous nature; which being reduced into practise, as they easily may, not only overthrow the whole power of the Church, [Page 20] as it stands constituted and established by the Laws of the Land, but lay a probable foundation for the like disturbances in the Civil State.


Si satis sit accusâsse, quis Innocens? saith Tertullian. To this double Indictment I plead, not guilty, and put my self on the Trial of God and Goodmen, request­ing the Reader's patience till the proofs on both sides be produced.

Dr. Heylyn.

And therefore I have fitted him with some Animadversions in the way of an Antidote, that so he may be read if possible without any danger.


Common custome hath oversway'd the word Antidote to signifie a Defensative against, or expulsative of, Poyson; However, the bare notation of the word advanceth no further than to import something given against: in which sense none of our Nation hath been so free of his Antidotes as the Animadvertor; having given them against Mr. Calvin, Archbishop Williams, Archbishop Usher, Dr. Hackwell, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Barnard, Mr. Le-strange, Mr. Sanderson, and my un­worthy Self, no shame to follow in the Reere after such a Van and Main-battel.

Sure I am, his pretended Antidote on my Book, hath more of Poyson than Cordial therein, envenoming many plain and true passages, sound and solid sentences,, with his false Glosses, forced Inferences, and pestilent Applications.

Dr. Heylyn.

I know well, how Invidious a Task I have undertaken and that it will be charged upon me at the first apprehensions of it, that I have rather chosen to find fault with the writings of others, than to write any things of this kind, which may be subject to the like partialities, and mistakings. Carpere vel noli nostra, vel ede tua, might come in seasonably here, if I had not somewhat to alledge for my Justification; But when the Reasons which induced me to the first Adventure (mentioned in the Introduction following) be seriously considered, as they ought to be, I hope I shall be capable of excuse, if not of pardon.


The Animadvertor hath here raised up (I assure you) a Strong Spirit against himself, and whether the Spells, here used by him, be able to conjure it down again, others must decide it; mean time, fight Animadvertor, fight Objection of his own making, seeing I have neither Skill, nor Will, to interpose to part them.

Dr. Heylyn.

And for my venturing on the other, I shall say nothing more at the pre­sent, but that as well my love to Truth, as to do right unto the Author (whom I would willingly look on as a man well principled, and of no ill affectio­ons to Church or State) hath invited me to it.


Here my credit is more deeply wounded by the glance of a bullet, than if it were directly shot against me; For whereas he saith, that he would willingly look on Mr. Sanderson as a man well principled, and of no ill affections to Church, [Page 21] or State, he concludes me by plain intimation disaffected to both; But I hope that those who are cleer-sighted, look on me under a better notion.

Dr. Heylyn.

Truth is the Mistris which I serve.


Rough though I am, I have a Mistris too, and her the Self-same, with the Animadvertor's. Be it referred to Her, to Judge betwixt us, which of us hath, doth, or shall do her the better Service; and let him be received, the other rejected.

Dr. Heylyn.

And I presume that none will be offended with me, because I tell them of their Errors in a modest way, and bear witness for them to that Truth, of which they do profess themselves such especiall lovers. In that great Disputation betwixt the Esquires of the Body of King Esdr. 4.41. Darius, whether the King, Women, or the Truth, were of greatest Power, the whole Assembly cried out in the behalfe of Truth, Magna est veritas & praevalet, that is to say, Great is Truth, and mighty above all things.


I acknowledge this a Canonical Truth, though written in the Apocrypha. It will soon be seen, who will shout most at the Triumphs of Truth, I or the Animadvertor, corrivall with me to the same Mistris.

Dr. Heylyn.

So that in standing for the Truth, without Consideration of the RECOM­PENCE of REWARD, I hope though I meet some Adversaries, I shall find more Friends.


Here he soareth so high a flight I cannot follow him; yea, I suspect, that in reaching so high a Note he hath strained (if not broken) his voice. What, no reflexion on a Reward? He might have had an Intuition at it, as the Incouragement though not the Cause of his pains; he might look at, in, through, and beyond the Reward, without the least mixture of any Mercenar inesse: Sure I am, that one of as much Meekness, as some are of Morosness, even upright Moses himself, in his Service of the Essential, and Increated Truth (of higher consequence than the Historical Truth controverted betwixt us) had notwithstanding a Heb. 11.26. respect to the recompence of Reward.

Dr. Heylyn.

If not (for I am at a reasonable pass for that) it shall be no small comfort to me, that the weak Candle of my Studyes hath given light to others, whereby they may discern some Historical Truths even in the darkest mists of Error, which either Partiality or Incogitance hath cast before the eyes of many Readers.


The Reader in due time will Judge, whether his Candle hath by the light [Page 22] thereof discovered more Truths; or by the Smoke thereof darkned more, or given more just offence by the unsavory Snuff thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

Which said, I shall now add no more, but that having two Patients under cure of different tempers, it is not to be thought, that I should administer unto both the same kind of Physick, an ordinary purge being sufficient for the one, where­as the foul body of the other doth require a Fluxing; as some wounds may be healed with Balm, when others more corrupt and putrified do exact a Lancing.


Which said, I shall now add no more but that having two Adversaries, Dr. Heylyn, and Dr. Cosens to encounter, it is not to be thought, that I should pro­ceed against both alike; Dr. Cosens hath merited much of the Protestant Cause in France, and thereby commands my Pen to pay the Homage of due reverence to the Crown of his old Age, especially when found in the way of Truth. But I am not under any such Obligation of particular respect to Dr Heylyn on the same account.

I could wish he had used a more cleanly Metaphor, and forborn the phrase of Fluxing. Such a cure appears not in Hippocrates, as being a modern remedy, for a modern malady. However, would I were but half so holy as he was, of whom it was said, An evill disease Psal. 41.8. say they (and they did but say it) cleaveth fast unto him.

I will use no harsher Metaphor in relation of my answers to my two Antagonists, than only, That men may meddle with a Mallow with naked hands, but need to put on their Hedging-gloves when to deal with a Thorn or Nettle.

Onely here I shall presume to request the Reader, to take especial notice of those remarkable words of the Animadvertor [tell them of their Errors in a MODEST WAY] and keep them against a rainy-day, I mean such a seasonable Time as we may make use thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

But so it happeneth many times, that some men are more impatient of the Cure, then sensible of their Diseases; and that, in stead of giving thanks to to the Physitian, for the great pains he took about them, they pay him with nothing but displeasures. Which being the worst that can befall me, I am armed against it.


But so it happeneth many times, that (as in this case) there may be plus periculi à Medico quàm à Morbo, More danger of the Physitian than of the Disease; A good belief and conceit of the Physitian, is more than half a Cure: and I con­fess I have none of the Animadvertor, whom I behold but as an adventurous Emperick, having seen and marked his practise on other Patients, rather disgrace­ing their Persons than amending their Errors: Give me a Physitian of my own Election, not of his Intrusion; especially when he usually wrappeth up his best Receipts in Poysoned Papers.

Dr. Heylyn.

If by the hazard of my Peace I shall procure this benefit to the present and succeeding times, that men may prove more careful of what they write, and [Page 23] not obtrude upon the Reader (either through Ignorance, inadvertency, or somewhat worse) such and so many falsities, mistakes, and errors, as have been lately put upon him in some modern Histories; It is that I aimed at, and having gained that point, I have gained my purpose.


But what if on the contrary (which is more probable) it commeth to pass, that some having commendable Inclinations, and proportionable Qualifications to write Histories, perceiving their Books, Damnatos antequam natos, baned before born, by the prejudice which this Animadvertor bears their Parents; who is ready as soon as their Books shall peep out of the Press, to assault them with causless cavills: What I say if such persons on the tender resentment of the premises shall quit all their Intentions to write; the Animadvertor can little com [...]ort himself, and others will less commend him, for this his over-activity, so destru­ctive to the publick Good. But there are some, who when they can no longer bewitch with their Beauty, endevour to doe it with their Malice, thereby to render themselves in any sort considerable; to be feared, when they are no more loved. All I will add is this, He who already having one of his feet in the Grave, will spurn his brother with the other; will find few to pitty him, if falling all a­long for his pains.

Dr. Heylyn.
Non Partis Studiis agimur, sed Sumpsimus Arma
Consiliis Inimica tuis, Ignavia fallax.
Peter Heylyn.

This Distick, whereof the Animadvertor, (by the immediate subscription of his name thereunto▪ may to some seem the Author, is frequently cited by Mr. Selden, and may thus be Englished,

We serve no Sides, nor Parties seek to please,
But do defie, Sloth, thy deceiving Ease.

However I humbly conceive, that (what faults soever I am guilty of) the sin of Sloth cannot justly, especially in my Church-History, be laid to my charge.

1. All passages of Church-concernment from the Reign of Henry the third, untill King Henry the sixth, I got exactly written and attested out of the Records in the Tower.

2. The most material transactions in all Convocations since the Reformation till the time of Queen Elizabeth (save that sometimes the Journals be very defective, which was no fault of mine,) I transcribed out of the Registers of Canterbury.

3. I have by much labour procured many Letters and other Rarities (which formerly never did see the light) out of the Library of Sir Thomas Cotton and others.

4. The learned Mr. Selden (on his own desire) honoured my first four Centuries with reading, and returned them unto me some weeks after; without any considerable alterations.

5. The best Antiquaries of England (amongst whom the Arch-Bishop of Armagh, it being not then my happiness to be known to the Learned and religious Sir R. Twisden,) I consulted with; These now I forbear to name, lest I remove and derive the Animadvertors anger on them from my self, who am (though not the most able) the best prepared to endure his displeasure.

Give me leave to add, that a greater volume of general Church-Historie might [Page 24] be made with less time, pains, and cost: for in the making thereof, I had Straw provided me to burn my Brick; I mean, could find what I needed, in printed Books. Whereas in this Brittish Church-History, I must (as well as I could) provide my own Straw, and my pains have been scattered all over the Land, by riding, writing, going, sending, chiding, begging, praying, and sometimes pay­ing too, to procure manuscript materials.

These particulars seriously considered, I hope it will appear, that the Animad­vertor unjustly chargeth Sloth on my account, and Tyrannically crieth out with Pharoah, Exod. 5.17. Ye are idle, Idle are you. Yea I hope, I may alter the property of the Animadvertors Distick, and turn his Sword into my Shield after this manner.

Non Partis Studiis agimur, sed sumpsimus arma
Consiliis peramica tuis, Industria Doctrix.
Thomas Fuller.

An ANSWER TO Dr. Heylyn's Necessary INTRODUCTION &c.

Dr. Heylyn.

INtending some short Animadversions on the Church-History of Brittain, for Vindication of the Truth, the Church, and the injured Clergy, I have thought good to prepare the way unto them by a plain, but necessary Introduction, touching the Quality and Nature of the Book which I have in hand.


Intending, God willing, to return a true, clear, and short Answer to the Introducti­on, I conceived it requisite to premise these few lines following.

The Animadvertor like a Cunning Market-man, hath put his best Corn in the top of his Sack to invite Chapmen to buy it. His Preface hath a Decoction of his whole Book, which was advisedly done by him, hoping that those might read his Preface whom he suspected would never peruse his Book.

Reader, As I am loath, any thing in his Book should not be once Answered, so be not offended, if to avoid repetition, I am loath it should be twice answered. Each particular in the Preface will recurre in the body of the Book, where (by Gods assistance) no emphatical word nor syllable shall pass without its respective reply.

Nor hath the Reader any cause to suspect, that by such shifting I intend any Evasion, by pleading in the Preface, that I will answer objections in the Body of my Book, and alledging in the Body of my Book, that I have answered them in the Preface. For I have to do with the Animadvertor, so cunning and so exacting a Merchant, that it is impossible for one indebted unto him, to escape without full payment, by changing the place of his habitation.

However the Animadvertor hath dealt severely (to say no worse) with me, who, to render me the more culpable, and my Book of the less credit, hath re­presented all my faults in a Duplicating Glass; And whereas the Best of Beings, non bis judicat in id ipsum, doth not punish the same faults twice, he hath twice taxed every supposed mistake in my History, once in his Preface, and again, in the Body of his Book.

Dr. Heylyn.

Concerning which, the Reader is to understand that in the Year 1642. Mr. Fuller publisht his Book called The Holy State; in the Preface whereof he let [...] us know, [Page 25] that he should count it freedom to serve two Appr [...]ntiships (God spinning out the [...] thread of his life so long) in writing the Ecclesiastical History from Christ [...] time to our daies. And so much time it seems he had spent upon it (excepting some [...] for recreation in the Holy Land, before he had finisht and expos'd it to pub [...]ck view; the Book not comming out untill the year 1655. whether agreeable to his promise and such a tedious expect [...]tion, we are now to see.


My words are by the Animadvertor given-in de [...]ectively, and (as to me) disad­vantageously; this [...]assage (which ought to have been inserted) immediatly pre­ceding my Promise.

If I may be so happy as to see these gloomy dayes disclouded with the beams of Gods mercy.

I appeal to the Conscience of the Animadvertor himself, wh [...]ther in his Soul he conceiveth these days disclouded or no. Gloomy they were when I w [...]ote those words, before any war rained in the Land; and since such bloody showers have ended, they continue louring, gloomy, and dark unto this day.

My promise therfore being thus but Conditional, and the condition on which it was grounded not as yet performed, I have no ne [...]d Liberare fidem, to free my Faith, which was never bound, though I had ever since utterly quitted all thoughts of writing any Church-History.

For, the first five years, during our actual Civill Wars, I had little list or leasure to write; fearing to be made an History, and shifting daily for my safety. All that time I could not live to study, who did onely study to live.

So soon as Gods goodness gave me a fixed habitation, I composed my Land of Canaan or Pisgah-Sight. This, though I confess it be no part of Church-Building, yet it is the clearing of the floore or Foundation thereof, by presenting the performances of Christ and his Apostles in Palestine. I perceive the Anim­advertor hath a months mind to give me a Jeere, for my fallying into the Holy-Land, which I can bear the better, seeing (by Gods goodness) that my Book hath met with generall reception, likely to live when I am dead; so that friends of quality solicite me, to teach it the Latine-Language.

Dr. Heylyn.

For first, the Reader might expect by the former passage, that he designed the Generall History of the Church, from the first preaching of Christ, and the calling of the twelve Apostles to the times we live in: whereas he hath restrained himself to the Church of Brittain, which he conceives to be so far from being founded in the time of Christ, that he is loth to give it the Antiquity of being the work of any of the Apostles, of any of the Seventy Disciples, or finally of any Apostolicall Spirit of those eldest times.


Charity begins, but doth not end, at home. The same Method was embraced in my Church-History. It began with our own Domestick affairs, to confute that accusation, commonly charged on Englishmen, that they are very knowing in for­rain parts, but ignorant in their own Country. I intended (God willing) to have proceeded to forrain Churches, but I am discouraged by the causless cavil­ing at what I have written already.

My Church-History beginneth (for point of Time) Indeterminately before the Birth of Christ, (lapping in, or folding over part of Paganisme) and presenteth the dolefull condition of the Britons, whilest yet unconverted, and grievious Idolaters.

[Page 26] Determinately, my History begins Anno Dom. 37. which is but four years after Christs Passion, and that is very early, I assure you: Christianity in this Island, being a Timely riser, to be up so soon, and dressing it Self, whilest as yet (and many years after) most Countreys were fast asleep in Pugan Impiety,

I deny not but that Apostolical men, were the first founders of Religion in our Land. But as for such Apostles, (St. Peter, St. Paul, &c.) who without probability of Truth, and against proportion of Time, are by some Authors obtruded on us, those I do reject, (I hope, without the least [...]ault) rendring my reasons for the same.

Dr. Heylyn.

And secondly, Though he entitle it by the name of the Church-History of Brittain, yet he pursues not his Design agreeable to that Title neither: there being little said of the affairs of the Church of Scotland, which certainly makes up a considerable part of the Isle of Brittain; and less (if any thing at all) of the Church of Ireland, which anciently past in the account of a Brittish-Island.


I will render the Reader a true account, why I entitled my Book, The Church-History of Brittain.

First, the Church-History of England I might not call it, the five first Centu­ries therein belonging wholly to the Brittains before the Name and Notion of England, was ever heard of in any Author.

Secondly, The Church-History of Great-Brittain, I did not call it; for fear of bringing in Scotland within the Latitude thereof, a compass too large for my weak Endeavours.

Thirdly, The Church-History of Brittain, I did, and might call it, in a double respect, tam à parte Majore, quàm meliore, both from the bigger and better, the fairer and fruitfuller part of Brittain, the Ecclesiastical affairs whereof were there­in contained.

Yea the Animadvertor knows full well, that the South of this Island, by way of Eminence is so called: To give one Instance of many, from the Title-page, of a passage of State. ‘Nobilissima disceptatio super Dignitate & magnitudine Regnorum Britannici Et Gallici, habita ab utriusque Oratoribus & Legatis, in Concilio Constantiensi; Lovanii, anno 1517. Typis excusa.’

The most noble Dispute, about the Dignity and greatness of the Kingdomes of Brittain and France, betwixt the Embassadors and Legates of both Sides, in the Councell of Constance; Anno 1517. printed at Lovaine.

Here the contest only was betwixt the Crowns of England [here termed Brittain] and France, Scotland not at all interesting it self therein.

It will not be long before the Animadvertor (as, God willing, in due time shall be observed) stickleth with might and main, that Lucius might properly style himself, and be styled King of Brittain, who had not an half of the Southern-half of this Island: and therefore, by his own Principles, it is no Solecisme in me, to name the cis-Tweedan Moity thereof, Brittain.

Had I given my native Countrey a narrow and restrictive name, I had deserved due reproof; but now, measuring the denomination thereof, with all honourable advantage, I humbly conceive my self not to fall under just reprehension for the same.

Dr. Heylyn.
[Page 27]

Nor is it, thirdly, a Church-History rightly and properly so called, but an aggregation of such and so many Heterogeneous bodies, that Ecclesiastical affairs make the least part of it. Abstracted from the dresse and trimming, and all those outward imbelishments which appear upon it, it hath a very fit resem­blance to that Lady of pleasure of which Martial tells us, Pars minima est ipsa puella sui, that the woman was the least part of her self. The name of a Church-Rhapsody had been fitter for it, though to say truth (had it been answerable thereunto in point of learning) it might have past by the old Title of Fuller's Miscellanies. For such and so many are the impertinencies, as to matters of Histo­ricall nature, more as to matters of the Church, that without them this great Volume had been brought to a narrower compass, if it had taken up any room at all. So that we may affirm of the present History, as one did of the Wri­tings of Chrysippus an old Philosopher,Diog. Laert. in vita Chry­sippi. viz. Si quis tollat [...]è Chrysippi Libris quae aliena sunt, facilè illi vacua relinquerentur Pergamena, that is to say, that if they were well purged of all such passages as were not pertinent to the business which he had in hand, there would be nothing left in them to fill up his Parchments.


The Animadvertor hath a free liberty to name His own Books; and I crave the same leave my self, to denominate My own.

Before he had fallen so fiercely on my extravagancies in the Church-Historie, he had done well to have defended his own, in his Geographie; sixteen parts of twenty therein being meerly Historicall, and aliene from his Subject in the strictness there­of. Sure I am, Ptolomey, Strabo, Pliny &c. in their severall descriptions of the world, have nothing to countenance the excursions about the Pedegrees of Princes, not reductive to Geographie without the great favor of the Reader so to understand it.

But because Recrimination is no part of Purgation, I provide my self to answer to all which shall be objected for impertinencies.

Dr. Heylyn.

The first of this kind which I am to note, is a meer extrinsecall and outside unto those impertinencies which are coucht within; consisting of Title-Pages, Dedicatory-Epistles, and severall intermediate Inscriptions unto every Section. A new way, never travelled before by any, till he found it out; and such where­in he is not like to find many followers, though the way be opened. I know it is no unusuall thing for works of different Arguments, publisht at severall times, and dedicated to severall persons, to be drawn together into one Volume; and being so drawn together, to retain still those particular Titles and Dedicati­ons which at first they had. But I dare confidently say, that our Historian is the first, who writing a Book of the same Argument, not published by peece-meal, as it came from his hand, but in a full and intire Volume, hath filled his Sheets with so many Title-leaves and Dedications, as we have before us.


I answer first, Although it be unlawfull even for the owner himself abuti re sua, to abuse what is his own, because the Publick hath an interest therein; Yet, Math. 5.10. Is it not lawfull for me to Do, what I will with my Own?

Secondly, seeing the Animadvertor pretendeth in his notes to rectifie Mistakes, Falsities, and Defects, this cometh not under any of these notions. And whereas he writeth (as he saith) for the Vindication of the Truth, Church, and injured-Clergy; [Page 28] by my dedicating of my Book to many Patrons, the Truth is not prejudiced, nor the Church wronged, nor any of the Clergy injured.

Thirdly, Of late some usefull and costly Books, when past their Parents power to bring them forth, have been delivered to the Publick, by the Midwifery of such Dedications.

Fourthly, Many (if not most) of my Patrons invited themselves purposely to encourage my endevours; And why should any mans eye be evil, because theirs were good unto me.

Lastly, It is all one in effect, whether one printeth his Dedications to many Pa­trons, or whether one presenteth a printed History of St▪ George, to each English Knight of the Garter, with a written As in the [...] wh [...]ch I have seen under the hand of the Animad­ve [...]o [...]. letter prefixed to every one of them: save that the former way is better, as which rendereth the Authors gratitude the more publick and conspicuous.

Dr. Heylyn.

For in this one Book, taking in the History of Cambridge, which is but an Appendix to it, there are no fewer than twelve particular Titles, besides the generall; as many particular Dedications; and no fewer then fifty eight or sixty of those By-Inscriptions, which are addrest to his particular Friends and Be [...]ef [...]ctors, which make it bigger by forty Sheets at the least, then it had been otherwise. Nay, so ambitious he is of increasing the Number of his Patrons, that having but four Leaves to come to the end of his History, he finds out a particular Benefactress to inscribe it to: Which brings to my minde the vanity of Vitellius in bestowing, and of Roscius, Regulus for accepting the Consular Dignity, for that part of the day on which Cecinna, by Order and Decree of the Senate, was degraded from it: Of which the Historian gives this Note, that it was, Magno cum irrisu accipientis tribuentisque, a matter of no mean dis­port amongst the People for a long time after.


Ordinary Dedications exceed not a dozen lines, and therefore I believe the Animadvertor is much mistaken in his proportions.

If I did Dedicate four leaves to a distinct Patroness, no such fault therein; seeing, I am confident, those four leaves contain in them so remarkable an Accident, as the Animadvertor never read the like in four thousand leaves of any Historian.

Dr. Heylyn.

But of this Argument our Author heard so much at the late Act at Oxford, that I shall say no more of it at this present time.


I heard nothing thereof at Oxford, being then sixty miles distanced thence. Sure I am, I did not there Malè audire deservedly; and if undeservedly, mala fama bene parta delectat.

Secondly, I have heard since, that one in the Act, was bold to play on my own name and Church-History. But for the seventeen years I lived in Cambridge, I never heard any Prevaricator mention his Senior by name: We count such particularizing beneath an University.

Thirdly, I hope it will not be accounted Pride, but Prudence in me, to believe my self above such Trifles, who have written a Book to Eternity.

Fourthly, I regreat not to be Anvile, for any ingenious Hammer to make pleasant musick on; but it seems my Traducer was not so happy.

[Page 33]Lastly, I remember a speech o [...] Sir Walter Rawleighs, If any (saith he) speaketh against me to my face, my Tongue shall give him an Answer; but my back-side is good enough to return to him, who abuseth me behind my back.

Dr. Heylyn.

In the next ranck of Impertinencies, which are more intrinseall, part of the substance of the work, I account his Heraldry, Blazons of Arms, Descents of noble Families with their Atchivements intermingled as they come in his way; not pertinent, I am sure, to a Church-Historian, unless such persons had been Founders of Episcopal Sees, or Religious-Houses, or that the Arms so blazoned did belong to either.


I answer in generall, Those passages of Heraldry are put in for variety and diversion, to refresh the wearied Reader.

They are never used without asking of leave before, or craving pardon after the inserting thereof; and such craving is having a request in that kind with the Ingenious. Grant it ill manners in the Author not to ask, it is ill nature in the Reader not to grant so small a suit.

Mr. Camden in his description of Oxfordshire, hath a prolixe (though not tedious) poeme, of the marriage of Thame and Isis, which he ushereth in with Si placet, vel legas vel negligas, read or reject, either set by it, or set it by; as the Reader is disposed.

The same, (though not expressed) is implied in all such Digressions, which may be said to be left unprinted in Effect, to such as like them not: their Ploughs may make Balks of such deviations, and proceed to more serious matter.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author tells us, lib. 9. fol. 151. that knowledge in the Laws of this Land, is neither to be expected or required in one of his profession; and yet, I trow, considering the great influence which the Laws have upon Church-matters, the knowledge of the Law cannot be so unnecessary in the way of a Clergy-man, as the study of Heraldry: But granting Heraldry to be an Ornament in all them that have it, yet is it no ingredient requisit to the composition of an Ecclesiasti­cal History: The Copies of Battle-Abbey Roll fitter for Stow and Hollinshead, (where before we had them) can, in an History of the Church, pretend to no place at all, though possibly the names of some may be remembred, as their Foundations or Endowments of Churches give occasion for it. The Arms of Knight-Errant, billeted in the Isle of Ely, by the Norman Conqueror, is of like extravagancy. Such also is the Catalogue of those noble Adventurers, (with their Arms, Issue and Atchievements) who did accompany King Richard the first to the War of Palestine, which might have better serv'd as an Appendix to his History of the Holy War, then found a place in the main Body of an History of the Church of England: Which three alone, besides many intercalations of that kind, in most parts of the Book, make up eight sheets more, inserted onely for the ostentation of his skill in Heraldry, in which notwithstanding he hath fallen on as palpable Errors as he hath committed in his History:


Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments hath done the like, presenting the names of such who came over at the Norman Conquest. I have only made their Catalogue more complete. And seeing it was preserved in Battle-Abbey, the very addition of Abbey doth dye it with some Ecclesiastical tincture.

[Page 34]The Arms of the Knights of Ely, might on a threefold title have escaped the Animadvertor's censure: First, they was never before printed. Secondly, the Wall whereon they were depicted, is now demolished. Lastly, each Knight being blended (or, as I may say, empaled) with a Monk, a Moiety of that Mixture may be construed reducible to Church-History.

As for the Arms of some signal persons atchieved in the HOLY-WAR; If the Sirname of WAR be secular, the Christian name thereof, HOLY, is Ecclesiastical; and so rendred all actions therein within the latitude of Church-History, to an inge­nuous Reader.

Dr. Heylyn.

For, besides those which are observed in the course of this work, I find two others of that kind in his History of Cambridge, to be noted there.

For fol. 146. he telleth us, That Alice Countess of Oxford was Daughter and sole Heir of Gilbert Lord Samford, which Gilbert was Hereditary Lord Chamberlain of England]. But, by his leave, Gilbert Lord Samford was never the hereditary Chamberlain of the Realm of England, but only Chamberlain in Fee to the Queens of England; betwixt which Offices how vast a difference there is, let our Au­thour judge.


I plead in my own defence (according to my last general Answer) that I have charged my Margin with my Autho [...]. Mr. Parker In his S [...] [...]on Cantab. M. Sc. (Fellow of Caius College in Cambridge,) one known for a most ab [...] Antiquary, but especially in Heraldry; and I thought that he had lighten on some rare Evidence, out of the ordinary road: but, seeing he was mistaken, I will amend it (God willing) in my next Edition.

Dr. Heylyn.

And secondly, The Honor of Lord Chamberlain of England, came not unto the Earls of Oxford by that Marriage, or by any other, but was invested in that Family, before they had attained the Title and Degree of Earls: Conferred by King Henry the first on Aubrey de Vere, a right puissant Person, and afterwards on Aubrey de Vere his Son, together with the Earldome of Oxford, by King Henry the second; continuing Hereditary in that House, till the death of Robert Duke of Ireland, the ninth Earl thereof, and then bestowed for a time at the Kings discre­tion, and at last setled by King Charls in the House of Lindsey.


This is nothing Confutatory of Me, who never affirmed that the High-Cham­berlainship accrued to the House of Oxford by any such match.

Dr. Heylyn.

But because being a Cambridge Man, he may be better skill'd in the Earls of that County, let us see what he saith of them; and we shall find, fol. 162. That Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, was the eighth Earl of Cambridge.

Whereas first, Richard Duke of York was not Earl of Cambridge.


He was, he was, he was; as presently (God willing) will appear, beyond all doubt and contradiction.

Dr. Heylyn.

And secondly, If he had been such, he must have been the seventh Earl, and not the eighth: For thus those Earls are marshalled in our Catalogues of Honor, and [Page 35] Books of Heraldry, viz. 1. William de Meschines. 2. Iohn de Hainalt. 3. William Marquess of Iuliers. 4. Edmond of Langley, D. of York. 5. Edward D. of York. 6. Richard de Conisburgh, younger Brother of Edward. 7. Iames Marquess Hamil­ton, &c.


Indeed they are thus reckoned up in a late little (and useful) Book, entituled, The Help of History, made (as I am credibly informed) by the Animadvertor himself, and therefore by him wel stiled OUR Catalogues of Honour. But more exact Heralds, whom it concerns to be skilful in their own Profession, do otherwise account them.

Dr. Heylyn.

No Richard Duke of York to be found amongst them; his Father, Richard of Konisburgh, having lost that Title by Attainder, which never was restored to Richard his Son (though most improvidently advanced to the Dukedom of York) nor unto any other of that Line and Family.


I admire at the Animadvertor's peremptoriness in this point, when the no less learned (but more modest) Mr. Camden, speaking of these Earls in the Descri­ption of Cambridge-shire, saith, that after the death of Richard of Conisburgh, ‘The Title of the Earl of Cambridge, either wholly vanished with him, or else lay hid amongst the Titles of Richard his Son, who was restored Duke of York as Kinsman and Heir to his Uncle Edward Duke of York.

What he warily said laid hid, is found out by such as since wrote on that Subject, Mr. Brooke, York Herald, and Mr. Augustine Vincent (in effect Mr. Camden revi­sed;) who writing Corrections on Brooke, Pag. 94, 95. concurreth with him in this particular. ‘for Richard of Conisburgh, Edward's Brother, was after created Earl of that place, [Cambridge] and after him another Richard, who was Richard of Conisburgh's Son.’ See Reader what an Adversary I have gotten, who careth not to write against the most evident and avowed Truths, so be it, he may write something against Me.

Dr. Heylyn.

4. Proceed we in the next place to Verses, and old ends of Poetry, scattered and dispersed in all parts of the History, from one end to the other; for which he hath no precedent in any Historian, Greek or Latine, or any of the National Histories of these latter times: The Histories of Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucidides and Plutarch, amongst the Greeks; of Caesar, Livy, Salust, Tacitus, and Suetonius, amongst the Latines; afford him neither warrant nor example for it: The like may be affirmed of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Ruffin and Evagrius, Church-Historians all; though they had all the best choice, and the most excel­lent Poets of the world to befriend them in it: And he that shall consult the Historyes of succeeding times, through all the Ages of the Church, to this present day, will find them all as barren of any incouragements in this kind, as the ancients were.


Never had Herodotus given his Nine Books the names of the Nine Muses, if such was his Abstemiousness from Poetry. Not one of them, which is [...] in this kind; and there are found in Clio the first, no fewer than thirty Verses of the Oracles of Pythia. As those his Books are fruitful, so his Book of the Life of Homer hath a superfetation of them, so that if Paose be the Warp, [Page 36] Verses are the Woof thereof. Whereas the Animadvertor instances in Plutarch; open at the life of Theseus, and we are presented with Poetry therein.

But grant no precedent in this nature in these Authors. A more free Genius acteth in modern than in ancient Historians, manumissed from the Servilities they were tied (or tied themselves) unto. The Animadvertor, like another Empson, endevoureth to revive the Penal Statutes of History against me, (so to subject me to fine for the breach thereof) which Time in effect hath cancelled.

Qui Scribit Historicè, scribit miserè, if enslaved to all puntillo's thereof. Let the Animadvertor keep those Steel-bodys for his own wearing, and not force them on me. What, not a Plait or a Ruffle more or less but all must be done in Number, Waight, and Measure! according to Historicall criticisme! This is not put­ting the Book, but the Author himself, into the Press.

Tacitus himself, (here instanced in) would be Tacitus indeed, if all Politick Sentences and prudential results were deleted in him, being trespasses on the pre­ciseness of History, confined to matter of Fact: But well-fare that Historian, who will go out of his own way, to direct his Reader.

We know Pliny, Solinus, &c. in their Topographical description of Countreys, are barren of verses. Let the Animadvertor on the same account therefore charge Mr. Camden for surcharging his Britannia with Poetry, having but three verse­less Shires, viz. (Dorset, Bucks, and Westmerland) in all England, and more than fourscore verses apeece, in the three severall Counties of Berks, Oxford, and Somerset.

Dr. Heylyn.

Nay, whereas Bishop Godwin in his Annals, gives us an Epitaph of two Verses only made on Queen Iane Seymour, and afterwards a Copy of eighteen verses on the Martyrdome of Arch-Bishop Cranmer; he ushers in the last with this short Apology, Contra morem Historiae liceat quaeso inserère, &c. Let me, (saith he, I beseech you) insert these following verses, though otherwise against the Rule and Laws of History.


What if that worthy Prelate was pleased to pass a Complement on his Reader, it followeth not that they do want Civility, who have less Courtship in this Point than he hath. Let us look on his Catalogue of Bishops, which hath more vici­nity with my Subject, and there we shall find (the Bulk of the Book consider­ed) more verses in proportion, than in my Church-History, on the token that where I cite but four, he quoteth fourteen, out of Martial, to prove Claudia Ruffi­na a Britan, and a Christian.

Dr. Heylyn.

But what alas were eighteen or twenty verses compared with those many hundred (six or seven hundred at the least) which we find in our Author, whether to shew the universality of his reading in all kind of Writers, or his faculty in Translating (which when he meets with hard Copies, he knows how to spare) I shall not determine at the present.


If peeces of verses be counted whole ones, which in this point is no Charitable Synecdoche, and if Translations be reckoned distinct Verses, though it is hard that a Man and his Shadow should be accounted two different persons:

And if the verses in the History of Cambridge be adjected, though he who banisheth Poetry out of an University, will find Iambicks enough to pay him for his pains:

And if the verses in the History of Waltham-Abby be cast in, though who [Page 37] shall hinder but I will describe my own Parish in Prose or Poetry as I think fit; all put together will not amount to the number.

Besides many of my verses may be said to be Prose in Effect, as containing the Religion of that Age, and therefore alledged as Evidence thereof, before the Norman Conquest; and no authority can in Prose be produced which doth so fully and cleerly represent the same.

Other Verses are generally Epitaphs on some eminent Church-men, which could not well be omitted.

Dr. Heylyn.

Certain I am, that by the interlarding of his Prose with so many Verses, he makes his Book look rather like a Church-Romance, (our late Romancers being much given to such kind of mixtures) than a well-built Ecclesiastical History. And if it be a matter so inconvenient to put a new peice of cloth on an old garment; the putting of so many old patches on a new peice of cloth, must be more unfashion­able. Besides that, many of these old ends are so light and ludicrous, so little pertinent to the business which he has in hand, that they serve only to make sport for Children, (ut pueris placeas & Declamatio fias) and for nothing else.


Had the Animadvertor come with a good stomach, such larding had been no bad Cookery. Certain I am, that a Comment admitteth less latitude in this kind than a Church-History. Certain I am also, that a Comment on the Creed, is allow­ed less Liberty then other Comments. Now the Animadvertor hath be scattered his, every where with Verses, and Translations. It consisteth not with my Charity to miscall it a Creed-Romance, accounting it a sin so to decry or disparage his usefull endevours. The best way to discover the deformity of my Fabrick, is for the Animadvertor to erect a more beautifull Building hard by it, that so his rare and regular, may shame my rude peece of Architecture.

What if such mixtures make the Garment (which also I utterly deny) to be less in the fashion (the fondling of Fancy;) I made it not for Sight but Service, that it might be strong and warm to the Wearers thereof.

I stand on my justification, that no such light or ludicrous Verses are to be found in my Book, which render it to just exception. But no wonder if the Bel clinketh even as the prejudic'd Hearer thinketh thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

This leads me to the next impertinency, his raking into the Chanel of old Po­pish Legends, writ in the darker times of Superstition, but written with an honest zeal, and a good intention, as well to raise the Reader to the admiration of the person of whom they write, as to the emulation of his virtues: But being mixt with some Monkish dotages, the most learned and ingenious men in the Church of Rome have now laid them by; and it had been very well if our Author had done so to, but that there must be something of entertainment for the gentle Reader, and to inflame the reckoning which he pays not for.


I have not raked into the Kennel of old Popish Legends, who took the clearest water, in this kind, out of those Rivers which run, at this day, in highest Reputa­tion with the Romanists. I never cited any Legend but either out of Harpsfield, who wrote in the last Generation, and was as Ingenuous as any of his Perswasion; or else out of Hierom Porter his Flores Sanctorum, who wrot some forty years, and in high esteem with the Papists at this day, as appears by the dear price thereof.

I confess I have instanced (taking ten perchance out of ten thousand) in the grossest of them, (that is the fairest Monster, which is most Deformed) partly to shew what a Spirit of Delusion acted in that Age, partly to raise our Gratitude to God, seeing such Lying vanities, are now ridiculous even to children.

I believe not the Animadvertor, when saying, that the most learned and Ingenious of Rome have laid them aside, seeing Cornelius à lapide weaveth them in, all along his [Page 38] comments, and K. Iames did justly complain, that Bellarmine himself, did mar his pretty Books of Devotion, with such Legendary mixtures.

Dr. Heylyn.

But above all things, recommend me to his Merry Tales, and scraps of Trencher­jests, frequently interlaced in all parts of the History; which if abstracted from the rest, and put into a Book by themselves, might very well be serv'd up for a second course to the Banquet of Iests, a Supplement to the old Book, entituled, Wits, Fits, and Fancies; or an additional Century to the old Hundred Merry Tales, so long since extant. But standing as they do, they neither do become the gravity of a Church-Historian, nor are consistent with the nature of a sober argument.


The Animadvertor should have rendred me liable to just Reproof, by instancing in One of those Tales so inconsistent with the gravity of a Church-Historian: which no doubt he had done, but because he knew himself unable to produce it.

He, who is often seen to snap hastily at, and feed hungerly on an hard crust, will not be believed if bragging that he can eat Pheasants and Partridges at his Pleasure. And seeing the Animadvertor, doth commonly carp and cavil at the silly shadows of seeming mistakes, in my Book; it is utterly improbable he can, yet will not, charge me with a fault, which cannot be defended.

But let him at leasure produce the most light and ludicrous Story in all my Book, and here I stand ready to Parallel it with as light, (I say not in the Animadvertor,) but in as Grave Authors as ever put Pen to Paper.

Dr. Heylyn.

But as it seems, our Author came with the same thoughts to the writing of this present History, as Poets anciently address themselves to the writing of Come­dies, of which thus my Terence.

Poeta cum primùm animum ad scribendum appulit.
Id sibi negotii credidit solum dari,
Populo ut placerent quas fecisset fabulas.

That is to say,

Thus Poets, when their mind they first apply
In looser verse to frame a Comedy,
Think there is nothing more for them to do,
Then please the people, whom they speak unto.

I admire that the Animadvertor, who so lately had taxed me for writing and tran­slating of Verses, will now do the same himself. There is a double people-pleasing. One sordid and servile, made of falshood and flattery, which I defie and detest. The other lawful, when men deliver and dress Truth in the most plausible expression. I have a precedent above Exception to warrant it, even Solomon himself, Eccles. 12.10. The Preacher sought out Acceptable words. This I did, and will, aim at in all my writings, and I doubt not but that the Animadvertor's Stationer doth hope and de­sire, that he hath thus pleased people in his Book, for the advancing of the price, and quickning the Sale thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

In the last place proceed we to the manifold excursions about the Antiquity of Cambridge, built on as weak Authority as the Monkish Legends, and so impertinent [Page 39] to the matter which he hath in hand, that the most Reverend Mat. Parker (though a Cambridge man) in his Antiquitates Britannicae, makes no business of it.

The more impertinent, in regard that at the fag-end of his Book there fol­lows a distinct History of that University, to which all former passages might have been reduced.

But, as it seems, he was resolved to insert nothing in that History but what he had some probable ground for; leaving the Legendary part thereof to the Church-Romance, as most proper for it. And certainly he is wondrous wise in his gene­ration.

For fearing lest he might be asked for those Bulls and Chartularies which fre­quently he relates unto in the former Books, he tells us in the History of Cam­bridge, fol 53. That they were burnt by some of the seditious Townsmen in the open Market place, Anno 1380. or thereabouts: So that for want of other ancient evidence, we must take his word; which whether those of Cambridge will depend upon, they can best resolve.

For my part I forbear all intermedling in a controversie so clearly stated, and which hath lain so long asleep, till now awakened by our Author to beget new quar­rels: Such passages in that History as come under any Animadversion, have been reduced unto the other, as occasion served, which the Reader may be pleased to take notice of as they come before him.


Because omitted by Arch-Bishop Parker, I have the more Cause and Rea­son to insert it: Otherwise, had he handled the Subject before, the Animad­vertor would have cryed out Crambe, that there was nothing novel therein.

Call it (I pray) The FRINGE of my Book, be it but for the Subjects sake, whereof it treats, my dear Mother, the University of Cambridge.

I live in the same generation with the Animadvertor, and I hope shall acquit my self as honest, which truly is as wise as himself. CHURCH-ROMANCE parciùs ista.

As I tell the Reader of the burning of those Original Charters, so in the same place I charge my Margin with my Author, [Dr. Caius] and thereby discharge my self.

Doth the Animadvertor now forbear all intermedling therein, in this Controversy? Why did he not forbear before, when setting forth his last Geography some five years since? And is it not as lawful for me to defend, as for him to oppose my Mother? When, where, and by whom, was this Controversie so clearly stated? Was it by the Animadvertor himself? Such a Party is unfit for a Iudge. Or, was it stated by the Parliament mentioned by him 1mo. Iacobi, when, as he telleth us, the Clerk was commanded to place Oxford first. But it plainly appears it was not then so clearly decided; but that the question was ever started again, in the late long Parliament, with Arguments on both Sides. Witness the printed Speech of Sir Simonds D'EWES on that occasion.

Dr. Heylyn.

All these extravagancies and impertinencies (which make up a fifth part of the whole Volume) being thus discharged, it is to be presum'd that nothing should remain but a meer Church History, as the Title promiseth. But let us not be too presumptuous on no better grounds.


The Animadvertor's Words, mind me of a Memorable passage, which here­after he hath in his Animadversions on my Sixth Book, or History of Abbeys. [Page 40]The Intruder payeth to the Sequestred Minister but a NINETEENTH part in stead of a FIFTH.’ But if the FIFTH-PART, in relation to my Book, be here stated to the same proportion, for the NINETEENTH, yet will not the Animadvertor's measure be reconciled to the Standard of Truth.

Dr. Heylyn.

For on a Melius inquirendum into the whole course of the Book which we have before us, we shall find too little of the Church, and too much of the State, I mean too little of the Ecclesiastical, and too much of the Civil History: It might be reasonably expected, that in a History of the Church of England, we should have heard somewhat of the foundation and enlargement of Cathedral Churches, if not of the more eminent Monasteries and Religious Houses; and that we should have heard somewhat more of the succession of Bishops in their several and respective Sees, their personal Endowments, learned Writings, and other Acts of Piety, Magnificence, and publick Interess, especially when the times afforded any whose names in some of those respects deserv'd to be retain'd in ever­lasting remembrance.


I doubt not, but the Reader, who hath perused my Church-History, will bear me witness, that therein there is a competent Representation of all these particu­lars, so far forth as the Proportion of the Book will bear.

Dr. Heylyn.

It might have been expected also, that we should have found more frequent mention of the calling of National and Provincial Synods, with the result of their proceedings, and the great influence which they had on the Civil State, spa­ringly spoken of at the best, and totally discontinued in a manner, from the death of King Henry the fourth, until the Conv [...]tion of the yeer, 1552. of which no notice had been taken, but that he had a mind to question the Authority of the Book of Articles which came out that year, though publisht as the issue and product of it, by the express Warrant and Command of King Edward the sixth.


All Councels before the Conquest, with their Canons are compleatly (and the most remarkable, after it) represented in my History. With what face can the Animadvertor say that I have discontinued the Acts of the Convocation till the year 1552? The Acts of one [critical] Convocation in the 27 of Henry the eighth, 1535. taking up no less than eight sheets in my Book, and another in the same Kings Reign imploying more than a sheet.

Dr. Heylyn.

No mention of that memorable Convocation in the fourth and fifth years of Philip and Mary, in which the Clergy taking notice of an Act of Parliament then newly passed, by which the Subjects of the Temporality, having Lands to the yearly value of five pounds, and upwards, were charged with finding Horse and Armour, according to the proportion of their yearly Revenues and Possessions, did by their sole authority, as a Convocation, impose upon themselves and the rest of the Clergy of this Land, the finding of a like number of Horses, Armour, and other Necessaries for the War, according to their yearly income, proportion for proportion, and rate for rate, as by that Statute had been laid on the Temporal Subjects.


I am confident that this is the self-same Convocation which is thus entered in my Church-History, Book 8. p. 39. Anno 1557. quinto Mariae. [Page 41]The Clergy gave the Queen a Subsidie of eight shillings in the pound (confirmed by Act of Parliament) to be paid in four years: In requital whereof, by Poole's procurement, the Queen Priviledged them from shewing their horses with the Laily; yet so, that they should muster them up for the defence of the Land, under Captains of their own own chusing.’

I cannot therefore be justly charged with no mention of the Acts of this Con­vocation.

Dr. Heylyn.

And this they did by their own sole Authority, as before was said, Ordering the same to be levyed on all such as were refractory, by Sequestration, De­privation, Suspension, Excommunication, Ecclesiastical Censures all; without relating to any subsequent confirmation by Act of Parliament, which they conceiv'd they had no need of.


I took the less notice of, and gave the less heed to the transactions of the Clergy therein, because then they were in their Hufte and Height, furious with Fire and Fagot, so that all done by them de facto, cannot be justified for Legal; who sometimes borrowed a point of Law (even with intent never to repay it) in their proceedings. It may be proved out of Mr. Fox, that some at that time (by a cruell Prolepsis) antedated the burning of some Martyrs, before the Writ de Haeretico Comburendo came unto them. Wherefore all their actions in that time are not Precedential to warrant Posterity, and the Air of that Torrid Zone will not fit the Bodyes in our Temperate Climate.

Dr. Heylyn.

Nor find we any thing of the Convocations of Queen Elizabeths time, ex­cept that of the year 1562. (and that not fairly dealt with neither, as is else­where shewed) though there passed many Canons in the Convocation of the year 1571. and of the year 1585. and the year 1597. all Printed, and still publickly extant; besides the memorable Convocation of the year 1555. in which the Clergy gave the Queen a Benevolence of 2 s. in the pound, to be levyed by Ecclesiastical Censures, without relating to any subsequent confirmation by Act of Parliament, as had accustomably been used in the Grant of Subsidies.


Bernardus non vidit omnia; I could not come to the knowledge of every particular. But I confess I cannot conjecture the cause of the Animadvertor's retrograd [...] motion, who after so many years in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, goeth back again to the year 1555. Which was four years before she came to the Crown.

Dr. Heylyn.

It might have been expected also that we should have found in a Church-History of Brittain, the several degrees and steps by which the Heterodoxies and Superstitions of the Church of Rome did creep in amongst us; and the degrees by which they were ejected and cast out again, and the whole Refor­mation setled upon the Doctrine of the Apostles, attended by the Rites and Ceremonies of the Primitive times.


I hope the peruser of my Book will be sensible of no defect, but that the same in a good degree is performed by me on several occasions.

Dr. Heylyn.
[Page 42]

As also that some honorable mention should be found of those gallant Defences which were made by Dr. Bancroft, Dr. Bilson, Dr. Bridges, Dr. Cosins, and divers others, against the violent Batteries and Assaults of the Puritan Faction in Queen Elizabeths time; and of the learned Writings of B. Buckeridge, B. Morton, Dr. Sut­cliff, Dr. Burges, &c. in justification of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, against the remnants of that scattered (and then broken) Faction in the time of King Iames; of which we have Ne gry quidem, not a word deli­vered: Nor could it stand with his design (which will discover it self in part in this Introduction, and shall more fully be discovered in the Animadversions) that it should be otherwise.


I answer: First, no Drag-net can be so comprehensive as to catch all Fish and Fry in the River; I mean, no Historian can descend to every particular.

Secondly, What if I left that piece in the Dish, for manners sake? I must not ingross all History to my self, but leave some to such as shall succeed me in the same Subject.

Thirdly, the Reader in perusing my Book will bear me witness that most of these have their true Encomiums on the same account; and especially Dr. Bancroft, Dr. Bilson, Dr. Cosins.

Fourthly, if my omission of his Book hath offended B. Morton, my asking will be having the pardon of so vivacious a piety; who being past the age of a man, now leads the life of an Angel.

Lastly, I have a Book of the Lives of all English Worthies, (God send it good success) which had been in print, if not obstructed by the intervening of this Contest; And, coming forth, will be suppletory of all such defects.

Dr. Heylyn.

All which together, make it cleer and evident that there is too little of the Church or Ecclesiastical History in our Authors Book: And that there is too much of the State or Civil History, will be easily seen, by that unnecessary inter­mixture of State-Concernments, not pertinent to the business which he hath in hand.


I answer first in general; Such the sympathy betwixt the embracing Twins, Church and State, that sometimes 'tis both painful and pity to part them. More parti­cularly, such passages have at the least a cast or eye of Church-colour in them, or else they are inserted for necessity, Ne detur vacuum, for meer lack of Church-matter. All the Ecclesiastical History in Mr. Fox, during the Reign of Edward the fourth, will not fill his hollow Pen, the cause why he makes it up with History of the State; and I sometimes do the like. Lastly, it is done for Variety, (and then, commonly, I crave the Readers leave) which I hope is no offence. Must I turn School-boy again, and the Animadvertor be my School-master, to give me a Theam, that I must write on no other Subject, but what he appoints me?

Dr. Heylyn.

Of this sort to look no further, is the long Will and Testament of King Henry the eighth, with his Gloss or Comment on the same, taking up three whole sheets at least, in which there is not any thing which concerns Religion, or which relates unto the Church, or Church-affairs; although to have the better colour to bring it in, he tells us that he hath transcribed it, not onely for the rarity thereof, but because it contained many passages which might reflect much light upon Church-History.

[Page 43]

I answer first, All ancient Wills have something of Sacredness in them, begin­ning In the name of God Amen. Secondly, they are proved in the Court-Christian, which evidenceth something of Ecclesiasticalness in them. Thirdly, Kings have ever been beheld as mixt Persons, wherein Church and State, are blended together. Fourthly, the Will of King Henry the eighth, in that Active-juncture of times, is more than the Will of an ordinary King. Fiftly, it is most remarkable even in Church-History, if only on this Account, to shew that he who had violated the Testaments of so many Founders and Benefactors, had hardly any one Particular of his own Will performed. Sixthly, it never was, and perchance (had I not done it) never had been Printed Seventhly, false and imperfect Copies there­of pass about in Manuscript. Lastly, I have received so much thanks from the Animadvertor's Betters for printing of it, that I will freely pardon and pass by his causless cavil against me for the same.

Dr. Heylyn.

Lib. 5. fol. 243. Of this sort also is his description of the pomp and order of the Coronation of King Charles, which though he doth acknowledge not to be within Pale and Park of Ecclesiastical History, yet he resolves to bring it in, because it comes within the Purlews of it, as his own words are: But for this he hath a better reason than we are aware of, that is to say, That if hereafter Divine Providence shall assign England another King, though the transactions here­in be not wholly precedential, something of State may be chosen out gratefull for im­itation.

Lib. 11. fol. 124. As if the Pomp and order of a Coronation were not more punctually preserved in the Heralds Office who have the ordering of all things done without the Church, (and are eye-Witnesses of all which is done within) than in our Authors second-hand and imperfect Collections.


I answer first, a Coronation is Church-work, performed therein by an Arch-bishop, attended with prayers and a Sermon.

2. I never expected that a Chaplain to K. Charles, should find fault with any thing tending to the honour of his Lord; How can any good Disciple grudge at what is expended [...], on the buriall of the Memory of his Master being the last in this kind.

3. My Collections, I mean printed by me, but observed by my most worthy Friend, are (abating onely the uncertain place of the Lord Maior) most critically exact.

Lastly, though the Heralds Office doth carefully preserve all such Ceremonyes, yet cannot all persons living at great distance, and desiring information here­in, have on all occasions so facill and convenient access to their Office, as to my Printed Book.

Dr. Heylyn.

The like may be said also of the quick and active Raigns of Edward the the sixth, and Queen Mary, in which the w [...]ole Body of the reformed Re­ligion was digested, setled, and destroyed; sufficient of it self to make a com­petent Volume, but contracted by our Author (like Homer's Iliads, in the Nut­shell) into less than 25. sheets: And yet in that small Abstract we find many Impertinences, as to the work he hath in hand, that is to say, the great profici­ency of King Edward, in his Grammar Learning, exemplified in three pieces of Latine of his making, when he was but eight or nine yerrs old.

[Page 44]

Just reason of such contraction because of Mr. Fox his dilatation on the same: Where he found my fault, he (if so pleased) might have found my defence, viz. If Papists preserve the Nailes and Hairs of their supposed Saints, give me leave to Record the first Essays of this Pious Prince, especially they being un­printed rarieties, with which no Divine or Schollar, save the Animadvertor alone, would, or could have found any fault.

Dr. Heylyn.

The long Narrative of Sir Edward Montague, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, to vindicate himself from being a voluntary Agent in the business of the Lady Iane Gray needlesly inserted.


King Edward the sixth, his passing the Crown (over the heads of his two Sisters) to his Cousin the Lady Iane, is a piece of Church-History; because the continuing of the Protestant Religion, is all the plausible Plea for the same, and the fair varnish of so foul a Ground-work. This passage of Consequence is defectively delivered by our Historians, some Circumstances thereof being hitherto lockt from the world: Some have endevoured to force the lock by their bold Conjectures. I am the first that have brought the true key and opened it, from Judge Montague's own hand, truely Passive, (though charged to be most Active therein) driven with the Tempest of Duke Dudley's anger, against the Tide of his own Inclinations. I prize a Dram of acceptance from the Ingenuous Reader, above a Pound of the Animadvertor's Cavilling; which is offended with my inserting of so authentique and informative a Manuscript.

Dr. Heylyn.

Needless the full and punctual relation of Wyats Rebellion, and the Issue of it, though acted upon some false grounds of Civil Interess, without relating to Religi­on or to Church Affairs: Infinitum esset ire per singula, &c.


This Rebellion was grounded on Erronious Principles of Religion, and therefore Goodman (Il-man) did in his Book of that Subject entitle it GODS-CAUSE; and, though souly mistaken therein, it is enough to reduce this Design to Church-concernment. Had I omitted it, the Animadvertor would have charged me with Puritanical (pardon the Prolepsis) compliance ▪ so hard it is to please him, either full, or fasting.

Dr. Heylyn.

But well it were, if onely Aberrations from Historicall truth were to be met with in our Author: In whom we find such a continual vein of Puritanism, such dangerous grounds for Inconformity and Sedition to be raised upon, as easily may pervert the unwary Reader, whom the facetiousness of the style (like a Hook baited with a painted Fly) may be apt to work on. Murthering of Kings avowed for a necessary prudence, as oft as they shall fall into the power of their Subjects, Lib. 4. fol. 109.


The Page cited by him happily happeneth to be the Initial One of a Section, and hath no more therein then as followeth.

Church-History, Book 4. Page. 109.

Soon after his Death, K. Edward was much lamented by those of whom in [Page 45] his li [...]e time he was never beloved. Whether this proceeded from the meer mu­ta [...]ility [...]f mens minds, (weary to loiter long in the lazie posture of the same affection.) Or whether it proceeded from the Pride of Mortimer, whose insolence grew intolerable. Or whether, because his punishment was generally apprehended too heavy for his fault; so that Deposition without Death, or (at the worst) Death without such unhumane cruelty, had been sufficient.

One of our English-Poet-Historians accquainteth us with a passage which to my knowledge appeareth not in any other Author.

This all in that page.

Reader I request thee do Me, thy Self, and Truth right: Whether can my avowance of King-murdering be collected from any thing here written by me?

But because, some will say, the Quotation possibly may be mistaken: If any thing sounding to that sense, there, or elsewhere, be found in my Book, may the Ravens of the Valleys (whom I behold as loyall Subjects) in Vindication of the Eagle their Soveraign pick out my eyes, for delivering such rebellious Doctrine.

Dr. Heylyn.

The Coronation of Kings, (and consequently their succession to the Crown of England made to depend upon the suffrage and consent of the People, Lib. 11. fol. 122.

The Sword extorted from the Supream Magistrate, and put into the hands of the common People, whensoever the Reforming humor shall grow strong amongst them, Lib. 9. fol. 51.

The Church depriv'd of her Authority in determining controversies of the Faith, and a dispute rais'd against that clause of the Article, (in which that Au­thority is declared) whether forg'd or not, Lib. 9. fol. 73.


Stylus Equabilis! Here is a continued Champian, large Levell, and fair Flat, of fourteen untruths at least, without any Elevation of Truth interposed. No such matter in that place, as hereafter shall appear.

False as the former as in due time and place (cited now, afterwards by him eagerly improved) will appear.

I am depraved unjustly, who never deprived' the Church of her Authority. I raised no such Dispute, but would have quel'd it, if in my power. All which I refer to my Answer to these respective Quotations.

Dr. Heylyn.

Her power in making Canons every where prostituted to the lust of the Parliament, contrary both to Law and constant practise.


Every where, is No where. And seeing no particular place is instanced; to a General Charge, a General Deniall shall suffice. Let me add, that whereas the An­imadvertor Vide, infra. part. 3. pag. 70. hereafter taxeth me for calling the two Houses, the Parliament; we therefore may presume that he (not running on the same rock) by Parliament meaneth the King, Lords, and Commons: which granted, how much of loyalty and Discretion there is in these his words prostituted to the LUST let others judge.

Dr. Heylyn.

The Heterodoxies of Wickcliff Canoniz'd for Gospel, and Calvin's Opinions whatsoever they were, declar'd for Orthodox.


The Animadvertor's words are more than Apocrypha, even a very untruth.

Dr. Heylyn.
[Page 46]

The Sabbatarian Rigors, published for Divine and Ancient Truths, though there be no antiquity nor divinity in them.

The Hierarchy of Bishops so coldly pleaded for, as shewes he had a mind to betray the cause, &c.


Most false, as in due time and place shall abundantly appear.

Weakly, it may be, for lack of Ability, not coldly for want of affection: But rather than the Cause I so cordially wish well to, should miscarrie by my well-in­tended weakness, hence-forward I will stand by, and resign my place at the Bar, to better Pleaders in its behalf.

Dr. Heylyn.

Whilst all things pass on smoothly for the Presbyterians, whom he chiefly acts for: And this is that which we must look for, par my & par tout, as the Frnchmen say. Nor deals he otherwise with the Persons which are brought be­fore him, than he doth with the Causes which they bring. No profest Puritan, no cunning Non-conformist, or open Separatist, comes upon the Stage, whom he follows not with Plaudite's and some fair Commends.


He means Mr. Carlwright, Travers, Stone, Udal, Greenham, Hildersham, Dod; all, (though dissenting from the Church in Ceremonyes) eminent in their Genera­tions. I commend them not for their Non-conformity, but other qualities of Piety, Painfullness, Learning, Patience, &c. Doth not Anno 1586. Mr. Camden give Babington (who suf­fered as a Traitor to Q. Eliz.) the commendation of Wealth, Wit, Learning, and Handsomness? Yea, doth not the holy Spirit praise Absalom for his blamless Beauty? and Achitophel for his oraculous wisdome? The worst of moral men may be commended for their Naturals, and the worst of Spiritual men for their Morals.

Dr. Heylyn.

When as the Fathers of the Chuch, and conformable Children of it, are sent off commonly in silence, and sometimes with censure.


The Reader by perusing my Book will find, I have embalmed their memoryes with my best spices.

Dr. Heylyn.

The late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, so eminently deserving of the Church of England, must be raked out of his Grave, arraigned for many misdemeanors, of which none could accuse him when he was alive; all his infirmities and weaknesses mustered up together, make him hatefull to the present and succeed­ing Ages; when Mr. Love's Treasonable practises and seditious Speeches, must needs (forsooth) be buried in the same Earth with him.


I have in this my Appeal collected twenty two commendations of the Arch-Bishop out of my Church-History, and had made them up forty, save that the Press prevented me: The best is, what is lost in the Hundred, is found in the Shire; I mean may be (though not in this my Defence) found in my Book at large.

Dr. Heylyn.
[Page 47]

The University of Oxford frequently quarrelled and exasperated, upon sleight occasions.

The late King's party, branded by the odious Title of Malignants, not better'd by some froth of pretended Wit in the Etymology.


When, and Where, being now left at large, without any direction to the place; I am more troubled what my Offence is, than what my Defence shall be. I am sure the Animadvertor, (as a dutifull Son to his Mother) will in due time and place discover it, and (unwilling to antedate my own molesta­tion,) my answer is deferred (or rather referred) thereunto.

As for my using the term Malignant, in due time I shall make a satis­factory Answer.

Dr. Heylyn.

The regular Clergy shamefully reproached by the Name of covetous Confor­mists. Lib. 9.fol. 98.


Who would not think, but that (as the Charge standeth against me) I had branded all Conformists with the Note of Covetous, which had been an Abomi­nable Scandall indeed. Whereas my words only relate to some particular per­sons: whom, if the Animadvertor will say, they were Conformists, (as indeed they were;) I dare sweare, (if called thereunto) that they were Covetous, as who, by Unreasonable Leases, (as the Statute calleth them) wasted the Lands of the Church, till they were seasonably retrenched by that wholesom Law made the of Q. Elizabeth.

Regular Clergy they might be, (as the Animadvertor termeth them) in other things, but in this particular, Regular, only to the Rules of Avarice: making such Leases against Reason, and common Equity, though, in the Rigor of the [then] Law, justifiable; I wonder that the Animadvertor will advocate for their Actions so detrimental to the Church.

Nor doth this dash the least disgrace on Conformity it self, they not doing it quà Conformists. It was not their Conformity made them Covetous, (though perchance their Covetousnesse might make them conformable) but their own Corruption.

But if the Epithet of Covetous be so offensive, I will in my next Edition, to mend the Matter, change it into Sa [...]rilegious Conformity, and justifie my Expression, according to the Principle of the Animadvertor's own Judgement, because they enriched themselves with impayring the goods of the Church.

Dr. Heylyn.

And those poor men who were ejected by this late long-Parliament, des­pitefully called Baal's Priests, unsavory salt, not fit to be thrown upon the Dung­hill; though he be doubtfull of the Proofs which were brought against them. Lib. 11. fol. 207.


I have, at large, defended my self against this foul and false accusation, when the place cited doth occur.

Dr. Heylyn.

So many of all sorts wronged and injured him, that, should they all study their personal and particular Revenges, he were not able to abide it: And therefore we may justly say, in the Poet's Language,

[Page 48]
Si de tot laesis sua Numina quisque Deorum.
Vindicet, in poenas non satis unus erit.
Which may be Englisht in these words.
Should all wrong'd parties seek t'avenge their fame,
One man were not enough to bear the shame.

If I stand endebted to so many for wronging of them, the fairest way is for them jointly, to seize on what I have, that so my small Estate may be shared amongst them all, so far as it will go, and every one have his Proportion thereof: Whereas now the Animadvertor taking all (and more then all) his Penny-worths out of Me, he hath injuriously dealt with the rest of the Creditors thereby. However, I hope to appear responsible, (seeing no debt is soon satisfied) and the Animadvertor himself in due time, will be found in my debt, if all accounts be equally audited betwixt us.

This I dare boldly say (though I confess his faults excuse not mine, if guilty) that he hath wronged more, and Persons of higher quality, in his late Books. Bishop Iames Montague, a known eminent Scholler, vilified by an odi­ous and indiscreet comparing him with another of his Sirname.

Judge Hutton and Crook scandalously abused by him for consenting private­ly to the SHIP-MONY, who as well privately (in the King's presence) as pub­likely opposed it, though they subscribed their hands, in Conformity to the greater number: as the Animadvertor (more knowing in Law, than my self) will acknow­ledge the common and constant custome in such cases. I could instance in many more, it being no discretion to play out all I have at once, but to keep a Reserve in my hand, in case, (which God forefend) I should be provoked to another Answer.

Dr. Heylyn.

But nothing does more evidently discover his unfaithfull dealing, then his report of the proceedings in the Isle of Wight, between his Majesty, and the long-Parliament Divines; of which he tells us, Lib. 11. fol. 235. That his Majesty, in the last Paper which he sent them, acknowledged their great pains to inform his Iudgement, according to their perswasions, and also took especial no­tice of their Civilities of the Application both in the beginning and body of their Reply; and having cleer'd himself from some mis-understanding about the Writ of Partition which they speak of, puts an end to the businesse. The man who reads this passage, cannot choose but think that his Majesty, being van­quisht by the Arguments of the Presbyterians, had given over the cause; and therefore, as convicted in his Conscience, rendreth them thanks for the In­struction which he had received, and the Civilities they used towards him in the way thereof. But he that looks upon his Majestie's last Paper, will find that he had Learnedly and Divinely refel'd all their Arguments: And having so done, puts them in mind of three questions which are propos'd in his former Paper, acknowledged by themselves, to be of great importance in the present controversie; without an Answer whereunto, his Majesty declared that he would put an end to that conference: It not being probable (as he told them) that they should work much upon his Iudgement, whilst they are fearfull to declare their own, nor possible to relieve his conscience, but by a free declaring of theirs. But they not able, or not daring, (for fear of displeasing their great Masters) to return an Answer to those Questions, his Majesty remain'd sole Master of the field, a most absolute Conquerour: For though the first blow commonly does begin the Quarrel, it is the last blow always that gets the Victory: But Regium est cum benefeceris malè audire: It hath been commonly the fortune of the greatest Princes, when they deserve best, to be worst reported.

[Page 49]

Here I will truely acquaint the Reader with the State of this Matter. The posting Press, which with the Time and Tide will stay for no man, mis­taking my Copy compleat, and not attending my coming to London, that morning from Waltham, clapt it up imperfect. I must therefore deservedly take all the blame and shame thereof on my self, and here in this Sheet do publick-pennance for the same, promising amendment to the full, God willing, in the next Edition.

Dr. Heylyn.

Nor deals he better with the Church, then he does with the King; con­cealing such things as might make for her justification, and advocating for such things as disturb her order. In the last Book we find him speaking of some heats which were rais'd in the Church, about placing the Communion-Table Altar-wise, and great fault found for the want of Moderation in those Men, who had the managing of that business. But he conceals his Majesties Determination in the Case of St. Gregories, Novemb. 3. 1633. By which all Bishops and other Ordinaries, were incouraged to proceed, therein, and consequently those of in­feriour rank to defend their actings.


I have not full twenty Lines on the whole Subject, being loath to enlarge on so odious a difference, sopited in good measure: and as I durst not totally o­mit, so I passed it over, with all possible brevity.

Dr. Heylyn.

The Chappel of Emanuel Colledge in Cambridge is built North and South, contrary to the usage of the primitive times; and the Church of England, with which King Iames being made acquainted, he answered (as our Author tels us) That it was no matter how the Chappel stood, so the heart stood aright: Which Tale being told by him, and believed by others (& populum, qui sibi credit, habet, Ovid. in Ep. Hysiphil.) as he is like enough to find many Believers, farewell to all external Reverence in the Service of God: What need we trouble our selves or others with standing, kneeling, bowing in the acts of Worship; it is no matter in what posture the Body be, so the Heart be right.


The Speech of K. Iames was no Tale but a Truth; when he did not exclude bodily reverence, but prefer Soul sincerity in divine Service. Parallel unto those Scripture-In­stances, Psalm. 51.26. for thou desirest no Sacrifice, that is, thou wouldest them not, com­paratively to cordial Contrition. 1 Pet. 4, 3. speaking of good women, whose a­dorning let it not be that outward of playting the hair, viz. not chiefly therein, to the neglecting of inward holiness. Nor is the Speech inductive of corporal Irreverence, if believed; seeing a Mans body may, and ought easily, quickly, and cheaply, be contrived; into standing, bowing, kneeling; when it requires time, and expence to take down, and re-build a Chappel, which would cost the Colledge five hundred Pounds at the least.

Dr. Heylyn.

What need we put our selves or others to the charge of Surplices and Hoods, of Gowns and Cassacks, in the officiating of Gods Service; It is no matter in what habit the Body be, so the heart be right. There is another Chappel in Cambridge which was never consecrated, (whether a Stable or a Dormitory, is all one to me.) At which time when some found themselves grieved, our Author tells them, This others of us great Learning and Religion (himself espe­cially [Page 50] for one) dare defend, that the continued Series of Divine Duties, pub­lickly practised for more then thirty years (without the least check or controul of those in authority) in a place set apart to that purpose, doth sufficiently consecrate the same: Stables and Barns by this Argument, shall in some tract of time become as sacred as our Churches.


Had I lived in Sidney Colledge, when that Dormitory was first used for a Chappel, I would have advised, and (in my Sphere) advanced its consecration; accounting the Omission to fall under just reproof. But seeing it hath been so long omitted, I now conceive it hath no need of Consecration, seeing though never solemnly and formally dedicated to Divine Service by the Ordinary, (or one deputed by him) yet hath it had a tacite, & interpretative Consecration, and thereby hath contracted a relative Sacrednesse. By the same Proportion, it is, that Utensils, long used in a Family, to most civill and generous imploy­ment, by degrees acquire to themselves, the Reputation (in the Apostle's language) of vessels of honour; as being opposed to such vessels imployed in sordid (though necessary) Service, and of the same metal and matter.

I doubt not but if this place used for a Chappel (now about a Jubilee of years) should be turned to a Stable, the Animadvertor would behold it (and justly too) as a piece of Prophanation, and this intimates a Sacrednesse therein.

It is mainly material, that Bishop Andrews, of Ely, a Reverend Prelate, and as knowing as any of his Order in this point of Antiquity; knew this to be in his Diocesse, yet never manifested the least Regreet at the Chappelizing of this Place.

As for consecration of Churches and Chappels, I say; first, is no Sacra­mental action.

Secondly, It is not of Evangelical Institution, as Bellarmine himself doth freely confesse, no Express for it in the New-Testament.

De cultu Sanctorum. lib. 3. cap. 5.
In statu Evangelii non habemus tam expressa testimonia Scripturae.

Thirdly, It is charitably to be presumed, that when Dr. Montague, and the fellows first entred the Dormitory, sequestring that place for a Chappel, they by Prayers and a Sermon, did solemnly consign it, to the Service of God: seeing no man of common Principles of Piety, will offer to eat meat, before he hath said Grace.

Fourthly, Such Prayers did in some sort Dedicate the place, wanting no formality, save, because not done by a Bishop; and if this be all the fault can be found therein, let the Animadvertor prove, (probatio incumbit affirmanti) that in the primitive Times, consecrating of Churches was only an Episcopal Act.

Fifthly, What was wanting in the consecration at the first, hath since suf­ficiently been supplyed and corroborated by usance thereof to Gods Service only.

If factious people, should, in peaceable times, against lawfull Authority con­venticle in a Barn or Stable; their Meetings, (sinfull in themselves) could not derive any Sacrednesse to the place, whilst the World lasteth.

But if Persecution, which God of his goodness avert (though we by our wickednesse deserve it) should invade our Land; I conceive, Stables are, by Prayers, and presence of God's suffering Servants, and chiefly by God's presence with them, at the minute of their entrance thither, elevated into Holy places.

Dr. Heylyn.

And if the Brethren think it not enough for their ease to be pent up in so narrow a Room, tis but repairing to the next Grove or Coppise, and that in a like traet of time shall become as holy as Solomons Temple, or any consecrated place whatso­ever it be.

[Page 51]

Not the solemnest Consecration, can advance our Churches into the same degree of Sacredness with Solomon's Temple, which was (yea might bee) but one, dignified (when dedicated) with God his Glorious Presence, 2 Chro. 7.12. Who chose that place to himself for an house of Sacrifice. It was the Type of our blessed Saviour, perfect in all Points, as made by inspired Architects; and the utensils in the Holy of Holiest, the self same which Moses made according to the pattern in the Mount.

But I hold English Churches may amount to the Holinesse of the Jewish Synagogues.

Dr. Heylyn.

Churches may well be spared, pulled down, and their Materials sold for the use of the Saints.


God forbid! The clean contrary followeth from my Position, wherein I do offer an Argument for the Sacredness of Places, the Register of whose Consecration is lost, as Time out of Mind, so that now they can no other­wise prove it, (no Record being extant thereof) save by pious Prescription. Enough in my Judgement to give Sacriledge, a Rap over the fingers, if offe­ring to lay hold on such places and buildings, and turn them to her private Profit.

Were it in my power, I would have built a Church, where I only made my Church-History. But the worst is, the Animadvertor would then have quar­relled the contriving and adorning of my Church, as much as now he doth the matter and making of my Book; and therefore I leave it to others, of more ability, first to do, and then to defend their good Actions, from his Morosity.

Dr. Heylyn.

A Tub by this our Author's Logick, will be as useful as the Pulpit unto Edifica­tion.


This is a Tale (for I am sure it is no Truth) of a Tub indeed. I ever beheld a Pulpit, as in some sort jure divino, ever since I read Nehem. 8.4. that Ezrah stood upon a Pulpit of Wood. However, if called thereunto, I pray God I may make but as good a practical Sermon, as Iohn Badby effectually preached in a Tub, of Constancy and Christian Patience, when put into such a Fox, Acts and Monu­ments. Vessel, and burnt therein for the testimony of the Truth, in the Reign of K. Henry the fourth.

Dr. Heylyn.

And that we may perceive that nothing is more precious with him then an irregular, unconsecrated, and unfurnished Chappel, &c.


Next to an Heart, such as David had, made (the best Coppy of the best O­riginal) after Gods own heart, I most highly prize a regular and consecrated Chappel, furnished with Matron-like, not Meritricious Ornaments.

Dr. Heylyn.

Melvin's infamous Libel against the Furniture of the Altars in the Chappels Royall, (for which he was censur'd in the Star-Chamber) must be brought in by head and shoulders, out of time and place, for fear lest such an excellent piece of Puritanical Zeal should be lost to posterity: These things I might have noted in their proper places, but that they were reserv'd for this as a taste to the rest.

[Page 52]

I account not those his verses worth the translating, (though easie) and speak of his censure as well as of his offence. I mis-timed nothing, having enter­ed this passage near the year wherein he was setled a Professor beyond the Seas.

Dr. Heylyn.

Et jam sinis erat; And here I thought I should have ended this Anatomy of our Author's Book, but that there is another passage in the Preface thereof, which requires a little further consideration.

For in that Preface he informs us, by the way of caution, That the three first Books were for the main written in the Reign of the late King, as appeareth by the Passages then proper for the Government: The other nine Books were made since Monarchy was turned into a State.


The Animadvertor hath fairly and fully (no constant Practice) cited my words; I request the Reader to take especial notice of those three FOR THE MAIN

I presume the Reader conceiveth such a caveat not improper or impertinent, but safe and seasonable, for my Defence, and his Direction, especially seeing the like happened not to any English Historian, this thousand The Govern­ment of Eng­land, though often translat­ed from one Family, yea Nation to a­nother, yet hath so long continued Monarchical. years, that his Pen (during the writing of his Book) should pass through Climates of different Governments.

Dr. Heylyn.

By which it seems, that our Author never meant to frame his History by the line of Truth, but to attemper it to the palat of the present Govern­ment, whatsoever it then was, or should prove to be; which I am sure agrees not with the Laws of History.

And though I can most easily grant, that the fourth Book and the rest that follow, were written after the great alteration and change of State, in making a new Common-wealth out of the ruines of an ancient Monarchy; yet I con­cur not with our Author in the time of the former: For it appears by some passages, that the three first Books either were not all written in the time of the King, or else he must give himself some disloyal hopes, that the King should never be restored to his place and Power, by which he might be called to a reckoning for them.


It Seems. [Multa videntur quae non sunt.] The Inference is false and forced; Titus Livius lived in Imperial, yet wrote of Regal, Consulatory, Tribunitial at Rome, without the least imputation of falshood. I conceive Monarchical Aristocratical and Democralical truth, to be One and the Same: It followeth not, that two-faced Ianus (as beholding two worlds, one before, the other after the Flood) had also two Hearts. I did not attemper my History to the Palat of the Govern­ment; so as to sweeten it with any Falshood; but I made it Palatable thus far forth as not to give a wilful disgust to those in present Power, and procure danger to my self, by using any over-salt tart or bitter Expression, better forborn than inserted, without any prejudice to the Truth.

Dr. Heylyn.

For in the second Book he reckons the Cross in Baptism for a Popish Trinket, by which it appears not, I am sure, to have been written in the time of Kingly Government, that being no expression sutable unto such a time.


Should I simply and absolutely call the Cross in Baptisme a Popish Trinket, [Page 55] my fore-head (Signed therewith) would give my Tongue the lye, and return the Popery in the teeth thereof. I behold it as an Ancient and Significant Cere­mony, but in no degree essentiall to, or completory of, the Sacrament▪ witness the wisdome of the Church of England, which in private Baptism permitteth the omitting thereof. But when Ceremonyes shall devour their distance, and in­trude themselves necessary and essential, it is high time to term them Superstiti­tious Trinkets. The rest I referr to what I have written, when this passage recurreth in the place cited by the Animadvertor.

Dr. Heylyn.

Secondly, speaking of the precedency which was fixt in Canterbury, by re­moving the Archiepiscopal See from London thither, he telleth us that the matter is not much, which See went first, when living; seeing our Age hath laid them both alike level in their Graves: But certainly the Government was not changed into a State or Commonwealth, till the death of the King; and till the death of the King, neither of those Episcopall Sees, nor any of the rest, were laid so level in their Graves, but that they were in hope of a Resurrection; the King declaring himself very constantly in the Treaty at the Isle of Wight, as well against the abolishing of the Episcopal Government, as the alienation of their Lands.

Thirdly, In the latter end of the same Book, he makes a great dispute a­gainst the high and sacred priviledge of the Kings of England, in curing the disease comonly called the Kings Evil, whether to be imputed to Magick, or Imagi­nation, or indeed a Miracle; next, brings us in an old Wives Tale about Queen Elizabeth, as if she had disclaimed that power she daily exercised; and final­ly, manageth a Quarrel against the form of Prayer used at the curing of that Evil, which he arraigns for Superstition and impertinencies, no inferior Crimes: Are all these passages proper to that Government also?

Finally in the third Book, he derogates from the power of the Church in making Canons, giving the binding and concluding Power in matters which concern the civil Rights of the Subjects, not to the King, but to the Lay-people of the Land assembled in Parliament; which game he after followeth in the eighth and last: And though it might be safe enough for him in the eighth and last, to derogate in this manner from the King's supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs; yet certainly it was neither safe for him so to do, nor proper for him so to write, in the time of the Kingly Government, unless he had some such wretched hopes as before we spake of.


I desire the Reader, to remember my late words, (as the Animadvertor re­cited them) FOR THE MAIN.

I confess, though these Books were written in the Reign of King Charles; yet after his Death, I interpolated some lines, and amongst others, that of level­ling all Bishopricks.

I raised no dispute against the Kings curing the Evil, it being raised be­fore I was born, and which I endeavoured to allay, referring it to Miracle, as to the peruser of my History, in that place will appear. I tell no old Wives Tale of Queen Elizabeth, it being a Masculine Truth, from most authen­tick Authors.

I derogate not, in the least degree, from the power of the Church; but the Animadvertor doth arrogate unto it more then is due, by the Lawes of God and Man: maintaining that Church-men may go beyond Ecclesiastical Censures, even to the Limbs and Lives of such! as are Recusants to their Constitutions.

WRETCHED and what formerly he said DISLOYAL HOPES, I defie and return them in the Teeth of him that wrote the words.

[Page 56]He had WRETCHED AND DISLOIAL HOPES, who wrote, that King Iames went to New-market, as Tiberius to his Capreae; he waved his Loyalty and Discretion together, who so saucily and un-subject-like counted, how often King Charles waved his Crown.

Here give me leave to tell the Animadvertor, that such whom he slighteth for LOW-ROYALISTS, were (whilst they had a King in England) as HIGH in their Loyalty to him, Prayers and Sufferings for him, as those HIGH-ROI­ALISTS, who maintain that all goods of the Subjects are at the King's abso­lute Dispose, and yet since those Kings are departed this life, can write of them in so base and disparaging Language, that any one of the LOW-ROIALISTS, would have his right hand cut off, rather then write the like. Reader, pardon my too just passion, when DISLOIALTY is laid to my charge: It is with me Either now speak or else for ever hereafter hold your Peace.

Dr. Heylyn.

I must needs say that on the reading of these Passages, and the rest that follow, I found my self possest with much Indignation.

And I long expected when some Champion would appear in the Listes against this Goliah, who so reproachfully had defied the whole Armyes of Israel.

And I must needs confess withal, that I did never enter more unwillingly on any undertaking.

But beeing solicited thereunto by Letters, Messages, and several personal Addresses, by Men of all Orders and Dignityes in the Church, and of all de­grees in the Universities, I was at last overcome by that Importunity, which I found would not be resisted.


The Breaks in my Answer re­late respective­ly to those in the Doctor's Animadver­sions. Indignation, is grief and anger boiled up to the height. What just cause I have given for so great passion, the Reader will judge.

If I be a Goliah, in this point may I have his Success to be conquered, killed, and my head cut off even with my own Sword; If I be none, May the Animadver­tor be graciously pardoned.

And it may be, he shall never come off any undertaking more unhappily.

I could mate him, with telling him, that Men of all Sorts and Sizes, their Equals in Number and Quality, have likewise importuned me, not tamely to sit down, but to vindicate my own credit and conscience.

Dr. Heylyn.

I know that as the Times stand, I am to expect nothing for my pains and Travel but the displeasure of some, and censure of others.


I will take no advantage by the Times; and, if without their help, I cannot Bwoy up my credit, let it sink for ever. And I humbly desire all, who have, or may reap benefit by my Books, not to be displeased with the Animadver­tor, in my behalfe. It is Punishment enough that he hath written, and too much for his Stationer that he hath printed, so impertinent a Book.

When Henry Lord Hunsdon, on the High-way, had in Passion, given a Blow to Sir Henry Colt, the Lord had it returned him, the Principal with Interest: and when the Lord his Servants and Followers began to draw their Swords, Away, away, (said he) cannot I and my Neighbour exchange a Box on the Ear, but you must in­terest your selves in the matter.

Let none of my Friends and Favourers, engage their anger in this diffe­rence betwixt Mee and the Animadvertor. Let us alone; and although we enter Adversaries in the Beginning, wee shall I hope go out friends at the end of the Contest, after there hath been a Pass or two betwixt our Selves. Thus, [Page 57] Heats betwixt Lawyers born at the Bar, in Westminster-Hall, are commonly buryed at the Board, in the Inns of Court.

Dr. Heylyn.

But coming to the work with a single Heart abstracted from all self-ends and Interests, I shall satisfie my Self, with having done this poor Service to the Church, my once blessed Mother, for whose sake only I have put my Self upon this Adventure.

The party whom I am to deal with, is so much a stranger to me, that he is neither beneficio, nec injuriâ notus; and therefore no particular respects have mov'd me to the making of these Animadversions.

Which I have writ (without Relation to his person) for vindication of the Truth, the Church, and the injured Clergy, as before is said: So that I may affirm with an honest Conscience;

Non lecta est operi, sed data, causa meo, That this imployment was not chosen by me, but impos'd upon me; the unresistable Intreaties of so many friends having something in them of Commands.

But howsoever, Iacta est alea, as Caesar once said when he passed over the Rubicon.

I must now take my fortune whatsoever it proves. So God speed me well.


How much of this SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE is performed by him, let the Reader judge in due time.

I am glad to hear this Passage from the Animadvertor, that I never did him any In­jury; the rather because some of my Friends have charged me for provoking his Pen against me. And though I pleaded that neither in Thought, Word, or Deed, I ever did him any wrong, I hardly prevailed with them for beliefe: And now the Animadvertor hath cleared me, that I never did any Injury unto him. Would I could say the same of him, that he never did me any Injury. However, as a Christian, I here fully and freely forgive him, and hereafter will ende­vour as a Scholar, so to defend my self against his Injury, that (God willing) it shall not shake my Contentment.

Without relation to my person, let the Reader be Judge hereof. Indeed Thomas hath been well used by him, but Fuller hath soundly felt his displeasure. However, if Truth, the Church, and Clergy have been abused by me; He hath given Me too fair quarter, who deserved Death down-right, for so hainous an Offence.

Amongst all which Persons inciting him to write against me, one Letter sent to him, from Regina Pecunia was most prevalent with him. Witnesse this his Book offered to, and refused by some Stationers, because, on his high terms, they could not make a saving Bargain to themselves.

Iacta est alea. The English is, you have cast the Dey. And seeing the Animadvertor, hath begun the Metaphor, I hope I may make it an Allegory, without rendring either of us Scandalous. I appeal to the Reader, whom I make Groom Porter, (termed by Mr. Camb. Aleatorum Arbiter) and let him judge, who plays with False, who Coggs, who slurrs a Dey and in a doubtful Case, when we cannot agree upon the Cast; betwixt our selves, let him decide it.

By Fortune, I presume the Animadvertor intendeth nothing derogatory to divine Providence, in which Sense St. Augustin, retracteth his [former] frequent using of the Word. Only he meaneth uncertainty of Successe. In which notion I say an hearty Amen to his Prayer, when I have enlarged his God speed me into God speed US well. May he, who manageth this Controversie, with most Sincerity, come off with best Successe. AMEN.

Errata confessed by the Printer of Dr. Heylyns Animadversions.

PAge 10. line 17. for Helkinus r. Telkinus, p. 20. l. 21. for Queen of, r. Queen of England, p. 27. l. 6. for Wooderpoir r. Woodensdike, p. 42. l. 1. for inconsideratenesse r. the inconsideratenesse of Children, p. 121. l. f28. for ter. r. better, p. 145. l. 2. for statuendo [...] statuendi p. 15 l. 22. Horcon [...]nar r. cantuur, p. 154. l. 17. for Dr. Hammond r. Dr. Boke, p. 160. l. 1. for his r. this, p. 163. l. 28. for Jesuites r. Franciscans, p. 189. l. ult. 2 or contemn r. confession, p. 221. in the Marg. for whether r. with other, p. 228. l. 2. for Den r. Dean, p. 239. l. 9. for Commons r. Canons, p. 271. l. ult. for culis r. ocul [...]s.


THis is a Catalogue of Prelal. Mis [...]akes, committed and confessed in the Doctor's Book of Animadversions, and here by me inserted, not to disparage the pains of c [...]re of the Printer, but on these Considerations.

First, to prevent all Exceptions, that I have defectively presented in his Book.

Secondly, to show, that sometimes (as here) there may be an Erratum Erratorum, to be re-reformed. It thus beginneth. Page 10. l. 17. for Melkinus r. Tolkinus. That is, read that which is wrong, instead of tha [...] which was right before. For a M [...]lkinus Avalonius, appeareth in Bale, Pits, and others but a Telkinus was never in Nature. But Take notice also of this confessed Mistake, p. 163. l. 28. for Iesuits r. Franciscans. There is here no temptation to the Press to Erre, there being betwixt the two Words, no literal Similitude, or Orthographical Symbolizing, scarce a letter in the one, which is in the other.

I make no other use hereof save only to crave the like Favour, in my own Defence, when in the Earls of March, Roger is misprinted Edward; and in the Earls of Bath, Henry is misprinted William, in my Church History.

I confess there be some Press faults in this my Book, as for Prelial, (wherever occurring) read Prelal; part 1. p. 50. l. 32. for Anno Dom. 580 r. 560. part. 1. p. 52. l. 18. for DEMOL r. DEINOL. and part 2. page 88. betwixt the 33. and 34 l. insert I pray,

Papists, Non-conformists, and covetous Conformists, the Acts therein appearing like.

For the rest, I hope they are nothing so many or great, as to discompose the sense, and therefore I confide in the Reader's Discretion as also in the Animadvertor's Ingenuity, expecting he will deal as candidly with me, as I have done with him, when such (though unconfessed) Errata's do occur.

And because my hand is now in, I request such as have my Church-history to delete these words

Book 2. p. 129. l. 21. A Title till his Time unknown in England

For I profess I know not by what casualty these words crept into my Book, contrary to my intent.


Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


What of all this? It is said of King 2 King. 3.2. Ioram, He wrought evill in the sight of the Lord, but not like his father and like his mother. It is said of King 2 King. 17.2. Hoshea, He did that which was evill in the sight of the Lord, but not as the Kings of Israel that were before him. It doth not follow, that these Kings were good, because less bad then others. So that my words stand an un-shakened truth, that the Brittains be­fore their conversion were (though not so debauched as other Heathens) Idola­ters, in a sad condition.

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

Yet neither were their gods of so brutish and impure a nature, as the Pria­pus, Cloacina, and Stercutia amongst the Romans; or as their Venus, Flora, Lupa, common Harlots. All of vvhich, and such like other gods, the old Fathers tell [Page 50] us, that they vvere not nomina Colendorum, sed crimina Colentium. Nor vvere they so immodest and obscene in their rites and ceremonies, as were the Greeks and Romans, in the Sacrifices to their Cybele or Berecynthia, vvhom they call the mother of the gods; described by Arnobius, Lactantius, and others of the antient Writers, in such lively colours, as no chaste eye can look upon them without detestation.


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

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

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

Therefore they fell not much short of the Romans.

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

For the clearing hereof, I will present and translate the words of Gildas, with what precedeth and followeth them, conducing effectually to the true understanding of this clause controverted. I use the first and best printed Editi­on, set forth by Polydore Virgil 1523. and Dedicated to Cuthbert Tonstall, then the learned Bishop of London, Onely because I suspect, that some Readers will be out of breath in going along with the long-winded style of Gildas, (the excusable fault of the Age he lived in) I crave leave to divide his long and entire Sen­tence, [Page 51] for the better understanding thereof, into severall parcells, without the least addition thereto, or alteration thereof.

Gildas Folio primo.

Igitur omittens priscos illos com­munesque cum omnibus gentibus, erro­res, quibus ante adventum Christi in carne omne humanum genus obligabatur adstrictum.

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

Neque nominatim inclamitans Mon­tes ipsos aut Colles, vel Fluvios (olim exi­tiabiles, nunc vero humanis usibus utiles) quibus divinus Honor à caeco tunc populo cumulabatur.

Et tacens vetustos immanium Tyran­norum Annos, qui in aliis longe positis Regionibus vulgati sunt, ità ut Porphy­rius, rabidus orientalis adversus Ecclesi­am canis, dementiae suae ac vanitatis stylo hoc etiam adnecteret, Britannia, inquiens, fertilis Provincia Tyrannorum.

Illa tanium proferre conabor in medi­um, quae temporibus Romanorum Impera­torum & passa est, & aliis intulit Civibus & longe positis, mala.

Gilda first Leafe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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

[Page 52]

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

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

Let me add this Passage from the Pen of as great an Antiquary, as any Wales now doth enjoy. ‘As for the name of Diana, I do conceive that she was called Dain in our Language; and I have many Histories of our Nation, that seem to make no que­stion of it. To this day in Wales, fatt marketable Cattle are called Guartheg Demol; that is to say, Diana's Cattle, or, Cattle fit to be sacrificed, &c. And I am more then confident, there is no man living can put any other interpre­tation upon this word Demol; it must be an Adjective of Dain, and Dain hath no other signification in our Language, then the name of Diana.

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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

[Page 53]

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

Now to facilitate this great work of their Conversion, Cambden and Godwin, two great Antiquaries, have alledged one reason, which is not allowed of by our Author; and our Author hath alledged another reason, which none can al­low of but himself. The reason alledged by the two great Antiquaries, is, that the Druides did instruct the Brittains in the knowledge of One onely God, which que­stionlesse was a great step to their Conversion. Druides unum esse Deum semper in­culcârunt, saith our Author's Margin. But this he reckoneth a mistake, and thus charitably wisheth thereupon, viz. ‘May their mistake herein be as freely forgiven them, as I hope and desire, that the charitable Reader will with his pardon meet those unvoluntary errors, which in this work by me shall be committed.’

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

The contrary doth plainly appear by the testimony of Gildas, lately alledged, whose words are so walled about (as I may say) on both sides, by what went [Page 54] before, and after that, as they cannot be evaded, they cannot be perverted to other reference, than relating unto the Religion of the antient Brittains, long before the entrance of the Romans into this Island; who, besides a numerous rabblement of portentous Idolls, gave divine honour to Mountains, Hills, and Rivers. Nothing can be more diametrically opposite to the worship of One God, than such gross and generally diffused Polytheism.

Add to the authority of Gildas that of Origen, thus writing in his fourth Ho­mily on Ezekiel. ‘Confitentur & miserabiles Iudaei haec de Christi presentia praedicari; sed stultè ignorant personam, cum videant impleta quae dicta sunt. Quando enim terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem? Quando ter­ra Maurorum, &c.’

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


In this long Harangue, I know not what the Animadvertor aimes at; this I know, he hits not me, nor alledgeth any thing in opposition to what I have [Page 55] written. If he desireth onely to prove, that the refined Heathens worshipped one God above all the rest, he shall not onely have my free consent, but the adjection of this my Symbole thereunto.

I conceive, that the Pagans adored the Essence of God under the name of Iupiter: and his Attributes under other Titles; Wisdom, of Apollo; Omni-pre­sence, Swiftnes of Mercury; Power, of Mars; Beauty, of Venus; Providence over the Sea, Neptune; Winds, Aeolus; Catile, Pan, &c. Yet can I not see, how this can excuse them from being foul Idolaters, seeing the morall Commandement doth not say, Thou shalt not have other gods in equall degree of worship with me; but, Exod. 20.3. Thou shalt not have other gods before me: and the Animadvertor knoweth well, that the Originall importeth, Coram me, that is, Thou shalt have none other in my sight or presence.

Now for quietnesse sake, let the result of this long discourse (so far as I can understand) be granted him, and it amounts to no more, then to put the Brit­tains in the same form with the Grecians; instructed by their Druids in the wor­ship of one God, as well and as far as the Grecians were in the same Lesson by their Philosophers. Now what the Grecians held and did in this point, will ap­pear by the practise of the Athenians, whose City was the Mistris of Greece, Staple of Learning, and Palace of Philosophers; and how well the Athenians worshipped one God, we have from the infallible witness of St. Act. 17.16. Paul, whose spirit was stirred within him, whilst he saw the City wholly given to idolatry. Whence it will follow, that the Brittaines, form-fellowes with the Grecians, were wholly given to Idolatry: which is as much, and more then I said before.

And now the Reader may judge, what progress the Animadvertor hath made in confuting what I have written; yea, less then the Beast Pigritia in Brasil, which, as he telleth us In his Mi­crocosm, p. 800. elsewhere, goeth not so far in fourteen daies, as one may throw a stone. Yea, our Adversary hath not gone at all, (save back­ward) and if he doth not mend his pace, it will be late before he commeth to his lodging.

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

Dr Heylyn.

Our Author proceedeth, fol. 3. It facilitated the entrance of the Gospell hither, that lately the Roman Conquest had in part civilized the South of this Island, by transporting Colonies, and erecting of Cities there.] Than which, there could not any thing be said more different from the truth of story, or from the time of that Conversion, which we have in hand; performed, as all our latter Writers (and amongst them our Author himself) have affirmed from Gildas, who lived in the fourth Century of the Christian Church) Tempore summo Tiberii Caesa­ris, toward the latter end of the Reigne of Tiberius Cesar, that is to say, about thirty seven years after Christs Nativity, at what time the Romans had neither erected any one City, nor planted any one Colony in the South parts of the Island. For though Iulius Cesar, in pursuance of his Gallick Conquest, had at­tempted this Island, crossed the Thames, and pierced as far as Verulamium, in the County of the Cattieuchlani, (now Hartfordshire) yet either finding how difficult a work it was like to prove, or having business of more moment, he gave over the enterprize, resting contented with the honour of the first disco­very. Et ostendisse potiùs quàm trad disse, as we read in Tacitus. Nothing done af­ter this in order to the Conquest of Brittain, untill the time of Claudius. Au­gustus would by no means be perswaded to the undertaking, and much less [Page 56] Tiberius, in whose last years the Gospell was first preach'd in Brittain, as before was said. [...]cit. in vita [...]ola. Concilium id Divus Augustus vocabat, Tiberius praecipue. And though Caligula, leaving the honour of this Conquest to his Uncle Claudius, who next succeeded in the Empire; and being invited into Brittain by a discontented par­ty amongst the Natives, reduc'd some part thereof into the form of a Roman Province. Of this, see Tacitus at large, in the life of Agricola. By which it will appear most clearly, that there was neither City of the Romans erection, nor Co­lony of their plantation, till the time of Claudius, and consequently no such fa­cilitating of the work, by either of those means which our Author dreams of. But from the Time, proceed we to the Author of this first Conversion, of which thus our Author.


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

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

Whereas indeed St. Peters preaching in this Island, (if he were the first that preach't here) in the Time of Tiberius, must be before his Preaching in the Cit­ty [Page 57] of Rome, to which he came not till the Reigne of the Emperour Claudius. And thereupon it followeth by the Iesuit's Logick, that the Brittains by spa­ring their Apostle to preach at Rome, did lay an Obligation upon that Citty, but received none from it.


Yea but if Simeon S. Metaphra­stes, Com­ment. de Pe­tro et Paulo ad diem 29. Junij. Metaphrastes be to be believed (on whose testimony Parsons Principally relieth) being the selfe same Author, whom the Animadvertor within few lines hereafter doth so highly commend and extoll, St. Peter prea­ched here, not before, but long after his being at Rome; and but a little before his Death, namely in the twelfth year of Nero Cesar.

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author saith, Metaphrastes is an Au [...]hor of no Credit, as Baronius himselfe doth confesse. But first, Baronius himselfe makes no such Confession, that which our Author tells us from him being onely this, In alijs multis ibi ab ipso positis errare eum certum est; that is to say, that he hath err'd in many things by him delivered. Assuredly if to erre in many things delivered in so great a Work, as that of Simon Metaphrastes, may forthwith be conceived sufficient to [Page 58] make an Author of no Credit, God blesse not onely our Historian, but Baronius him­selfe from being held Authors of no Credit, in both whom there are many Er­rours not possible to be reconciled to the Truth of Story.


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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

For of this, Thomas Fuller our Author telleth us, (and telleth it in confirmation of some Miracles done by King Henry the sixth after his decease) that being a very honest man, he hapned into the company of some who had stoln some Cattle, for which he was condemned and executed; and being on the top of the Ladder, King Henry the sixth appeared unto him, and so ordered the matter, that he was not strangled with the Rope, but preserved alive: And finally, that in gratitude of so great a benefit, he repaired to that Kings Tomb in Chertsey Abbey, and there presented his humble thanks for that great deliverance. There being [Page 59] as good Authors for that Apparition of St. Peter, as of this of St. Henry. Vel neutrum flammis ure, vel ure duos: Either let both be believed for truths, or for fals­hoods burn both.


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Church-History, Pag. 6. Part 12.

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

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

For first, we find it in the Monuments of elder times, that Acrisius King of Argos exposed his daughter Danae, with her young son Perseus, in such a vessell as this was, and as ill provided of all necessaries, to the open Seas; who, not­withstanding, [Page 60] by divine providence, were safely wafted to those parts of Italy, which we now call Puglia.


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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

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

[Page 61]

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


Not to all old Traditions, good Animadvertor. Saint Paul Of Thessal. 2.15. saith, Hold the Tra­ditions which you have been taught whether by Word, or our Epistle: such Traditions as these, whether in Doctrine or Practice, I desire to retaine. As for unwitnessed Traditions, my Emnity is not such, but in the heat thereof I can smile at them. The Animadvertor hath wronged me, and, The Comedian hath wronged Sir Iohn Falstaffe. He was a valiant Knight, famous for his Atcheivements in France, made (as the History Pag. 329. of St. George testifieth,) Knight of the Garter by King Henry the Sixt, and one who disdained to violate the Concerments of the Dead. Nor have I been injurious to the Thorne of Glassenbury living or Dead, as will appeare.

Dr. Heylyn.

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


My words amount not to an absolute Denial, but to some Dissatisfaction. Par­cel-Diffidelity in matters of such nature, I am sure is no sin. Mr. Taylor, burges for Bristol in the long Parliament, was He who told me, that going thither pur­posely with his Kinsman it did not that year exactly bud on Christmas Day. A Person as improbable to de [...]ry the Festival, being a Colonel on the Kings side, [Page 62] (who refusing quarter was killed under the walles of Bristol); so unlikely, if living, to have taken the LYE from the Pen of the Animadvertor.

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


I have plucked nothing dovvn but vvhat vvould have fallen of it selfe, and thereby perchance hurt others, (I meane mis-inform them) as grounded on a foundred foundation. In place vvhereof I have erected, if not so faire, a more firme Fabrick, acknovvledging, That Apostolicall men did at first found the Gospell here, though (to use my 1 Cent. p. 4. vvords) the British Church hath forgotten her own infancy, and who were her first God-Fathers. Adding hereto that as God concea­led the Body of Deu. 34.6. Moses to prevent Idolatry; So, to cut off from posterity all occasion of superstition, He suffered the memories of our Pri [...]itive planters to be buried in Obscurity.

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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

[Page 63]

This is the Sum and Substance of the Story of K. Lucius, which the Ani­madvertor hath breviated, and with whom I concurre therein. It never came into my thoughts to doubt the substance, but deny some circumstances thereof. My owne Church Hist. v. 1. pag. 10. expression is, that the whole Bulk thereof is not to be Refused, but Refined, and to this I adhere.

Dr. Heylyn.

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


I deny not that P. Eleutherius might or did send a Letter to K. Lucius, but I justly suspect the Letter novv extant to be but-pretended and forged. I ne­ver thought (by the vvay, hovv came the Animadvertor to knovv my thoughts,) my Arguments unanswerable, but now I say they are unanswered; standing in full force, notvvithstanding any alledged by the Animadvertor to the contrary. I confesse a Memory-mistake of Sicilia for Galatia: and as it is the first fault he hath detected in my Book; so shall it be the first by me (God Willing) amen­ded in the next Edition.

Dr. Heylyn.

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

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

In the next place it is objected, that

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


A Blank is better then such writing to no purpose. For first, both the Baliols in their severall times were (though not SUPREME) SOLE Kings of Scotland. So [Page 64] were the Kings of Naples, and the King of Austria, (there never being but one, the first, and Last, viz. Seb. Munste­rus de Germa­nia. Fredoritus Leopoldus) and the Kings of Bohemia in their respective Dominions. Not so Lucius, who was neither Supreme nor Sole King of Brittain.

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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

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


See the different tempers of men, how some in point of Truth, are of a ten­derer constitution than others. The De prim Ec. Brit. Primate Armach was so sensible of the strength of this reason, that it made him conclude against the authenticallnesse of the Letter.

Dr. Heylyn.

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

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

[Page 65]

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

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

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

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

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

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

[Page 66] I must needs confesse withall, that I did never enter more unwillingly upon any un­dertaking, then I did on this.

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


I would not willingly sit in the seat of the Psal. 1. Scorner, and if the Animadvertor by his force will thrust me down into it, I will (God willing) rise up againe, and leave the place empty to himselfe to stand or sit therein, Pro libero suo Arbi­trio.

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

Sr. H. Spelman de Concilijs Page 13.

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.
[Page 67]

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

And secondly, though Ieffery of Monmouth be a Writer of no great credit with me, when he stands single by himselfe; yet when I find him seconded and confirmed by others, I shall not brand a truth by the name of falshood, because he reports it. Now that in Brittain at that time there were no fewer then eight and twenty Cities, is affirmed by Beda. Henry of Huntington not only agrees with him in the number, but gives us also the names of them, though where to find many of them it is hard to say. That in each of these Cities was some Temple dedicated to the Pagan Gods, that those Temples afterwards were im­ploy'd to the use of Christians, and the Revenues of them assign'd over to the maintenance of the Bishops and other Ministers of the Gospel, hath the concur­rent testimony of approved Authors; that is to say, Matthew of Westminster out of Gildas, Anno 187. Rodolph de Diceto, cited by the learned Primat of Armach in [Page 68] his Book De Primordiis Eccles. Brit. cap. 4. Gervase of Tilbury, ibid. cap. 6. And for the Flamines, and Arch-flamines, they stand not onely on the credit of Ieffery of Monmouth, but of all our owne Writers, who speak of the foundation of the antient Bishopricks, even to Polydor Virgil.


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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

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

Dr. Heylyn.
[Page 69]

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


I do not quarrell with the posture of my Nativity, knowing God hath Act. 17.23. de­termined the times fore-appointed and the bounds of their Habitation. Nor would I have my beeing antedated in the dayes of K. Edward the sixt, whereby my Soul should be degraded into a dimmer Light, then what now I live in.

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

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

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

Dr. Heylyn.

We have now done at last vvith the story of Lucius, and must next follow [Page 70] our Author unto that of Amphibalus, in prosecution whereof he telleth us of a great slaughter of Christians in or near the City of Litchfield, from thence so de­nominated, of vvhich thus saith he;

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

To put all out of doubt, the Reader may rely on the judgement of this my vvorthy friend, vvhose Letter I have here caused to be inserted, [Page 71] Mr. Fuller.

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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

But what is the Total sum of what he saith? It amounts to just nothing, only to show that (which I confessed) he did some good (besides no hurt) to Christi­anity. What is this to prove the words of Learned, (but here mistaken) Mr. Camden. ‘An Emperour surpassing in all Virtues and Christian Piety.’

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

In a word, As Chlorus or YELLOW (so his Name in Greek) is a Middle colour betwixt White and Black, below the former, and above the latter in Brightnesse; So this Emperour, (well answering his name,) was indeed much better than [Page 72] most Pagans, and yet far short (so far as by any humane Author can be collect­ed) of a true Christian.

Dr. Heylyn.

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

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


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

Dr. Heylyn.

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


The words of the Animadvertor in common estimate intimate, that they are not constantly so accounted. The seven wise men of Greece are variously reckoned up, as severall Authors fancied them. So also are the nine Worthyes; and if worth makes a worthy, Constantine deserved a place amongst them, being in time be­fore any, in valour behind none of the three Christians. Yea as Sapho is adject­ed by Le [...]bia pieriis Sapho soror addita Mu [...]is, Ausonius. some to the nine Muses, and made a Tenth; so let there be ten worthyes, ra­ther than Constantine should be excluded. But enough hereof, Poets and Pain­ters being the most staple Authors in this point.

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.


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, Camd. in Brit. fol. 135. that they used to procure his favour by sacrificing unto him men a­live: 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;Lactant. lib. 16 cap. 21. 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.


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 be­ing included in that my general expression, Lib. 2. pag. 5 [...] ABOMINABLE (the proper Scrip­ture-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. Sun­day and Munday being so call'd in reference to the Sun and Moon, or else in cor­respondence 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 wor­shipped [Page 2] by the ancient Saxons, and then might think themselves neglected in ha­ving 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.


It is harsh, that I must be indicted to justifie every metaphorical expression; but know, That the word [bescattered] properly importeth some empty inter­valls; 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, be­scattered 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, gi­ving the denomination to Wednesday,In Brit. fol. 135 or Wodens-day, armed cap a pe with military Coronet on his head, he was the god of Battail, by whose aid and fur­therance, 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 Woo­den, 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 Wed­nesday. Thus also in another place,Id. in Wiltsh. fol. 241. Wansdike, in the Saxon tongue called Wodene­poic, that is to say, the Ditch of Wooden or Mercury, and as it should seem of Wo­den, 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 fur­therance 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.


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 In the last page. Animad­vertor was styled (and that very deservedly) a man inferiour to none in the Antiqui­ties of this Nation.

However, finding a difference betwixt him and Mr. Camden in this particular, I fairly entred this plain note in the Pag. ut prius. 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 inevi­tably 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 Iames 1.21. naughtinesse,) Actum agere, that what I had done before, he must [Page 3] doe again; and also finde fault with me, who had done it before, in this his un­necessary 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 corre­spondency 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 some­thing 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 Prote­stants as our Author himself. Thus Camden, Camd. Brit. fol. 136. a right English Protestant, After this Augustine, whom commonly they call the Apostle of the English men, being sent hi­ther by Gregory the Great, having abolished these monstrous abominations of Hea­thenish 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,Id. in Worcest. fol. 578. 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 En­glish men, and the Bishops of Britain met, &c.

Dr. Philemon Holland of Coventry, a good Protestant also, making an Index un­to Camden, speaks the self same language; Augustine the Apostle of the English; which is short, but full. Gabriel Richardson of Brazen-Nose, Richardsons State of Europe lib. 3. 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 wit­nesses 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 com­municated 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, Camd in Scot­land, fol. 45. 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 honou­red with that Title also. In this sence Austin may be call'd, and that not impro­perly, 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 en­title him to this Apostleship, that be first publiquely preacht the Gospel, and brought the glad Tiding of Salvation amongst the English, though he neither con­verted 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 fi­nally, if St. Paul, to save them a labour, must have reduced all the Gentiles to the [Page 4] faith of Christ. And this the Embassadors for the King of England at the coun­cil 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 bo­dy of Britain remaining Pagan many hundred years after: the English Embas­sadors wisely answered, that the Allegation was impertinent to the present pur­pose, 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 ur­ged 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 Heptar­chy, 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 King­dome of Kent, fol. 7. and to have taken care for planting the Gospel in the King­dom 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 Bi­shops in the Country of the Wiccians (now Worcestershire) then part of the King­dom of Mercia, fol. 60. From thence to Richmondshire in the Kingdom of Northum­berland, 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 Heptar­chie, 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.


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. Acts 1.21. 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 Corinth. 9.1. 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 se­cond 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 deno­minates the whole.
  • Thirdly, for some part of the nation, which may be made good by a Synec­doche, especially justified, when it is a chief and first (though least) part thereof, which ( [...] or) per eminentiam, taketh the name of the whole.

My clear sence is, Augustine the Monk may be called a derivative Apostle of [Page 5] the English in the last acception of the word, and so Mr. Camden, Mr. Richard­son, 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 Chri­stianity 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, Gal. 1.5. 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 Corin­thians, and else where, whose Commission was made and drawn up by them­selves, 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 there­fore 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 Au­thor, 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.


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 suffi­ciently 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 commo­dious for scituation: I say London, an Infant in the time of Tacitus, a Stripling in [Page 6] 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 border­ing in no place on the Kingdome of West-sex, the whole County of Glocester be­ing interposed. So that our Author being mistaken in the place of the meet­ing, it is no wonder if he stumble at the Monuments and Records thereof. Of one of which he telleth us.


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. Hun­tington hath the same words, lib. 3. pag. 323.

Mr. Camden makes the Oake under which they met, in the bor­ders of Worcester and Here­fordshire; and Sir Henry Spel­man doth concur with him there­in.

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

May the Reader be pleased to take notice, that Glocestershire, a limitary Coun­ty, 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 Con­ference.

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 Gen­tleman, 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.


Had I sleighted that Record, I would not have took the pains to have exem­plyfied it in British and English, and procured a Prime Antiquary of the Welsh to cor­rect 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 Ap­pendix [Page 7] 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 pro­ducing his evidence.


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 pre­ferred 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 in­competent 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 Mo­dern 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 him­self 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 reve­rent Mr. Fox by all means; and so let him passe. And let us passe also to the re­sidue of the Acts of Austin.


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 com­mended.

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, [Page 8] so afterwards without welt or guard, he is plainly called Church Hist. Book 9. page 187. parag. 63 Iohn Fox. The Animad­vertor 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 Lib 9 pag 101 and oft before. place: So also hath Archbishop Parker, on the same token, that in my History of Page 14. 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 sto­ry 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 York­shire, is the addition of our Author. That there is a River of that name neer Rich­mond is affirmed by Camden, Camden in Richmondshire, fol. 720. 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, Camden in Kent, fol. 333. 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.


I could heartily wish that all the Animadvertors Book had consisted of such mat­ter, 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 essen­tial 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 [Page 9] that the party signed shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified,Form of Baptism. and manfully to fight under his Banner, against sin, the world, and the Devil, and to con­tinue 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 abu­sed, For when the point was agitated in the Conference at Hampton Court, Conference pag. 7. 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 there­fore 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 incon­formity; 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.


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

Let me add that a Deut. 27.17. 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 ne­cessary, Ornamental into Essential.

I have as high an Esteem for the Cross in Baptisme as the Animadvertor Him­self, so long as it observes the due distance of an Ancient and Significant Ceremo­ny, 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 pre­tending to Essentiality, become (as Luther saith) Carnificinae Conscientiae, and there­fore 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 Ita­lian, 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.


In my passage to heaven, I desire to goe in the narrow path, and decline the broad way which leadeth to destruction:Matth 7.14. 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.

[Page 10]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 Daugh­ter or Neece (like the Italians, Spanish, and French) but a Mother and original Lan­guage, and might justly have expected thanks rather than censure, from the Ani­madvertor 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, [...]wood [...]. cap V. by the inundation and mixture of barbarous people in those Provinces, but from the first imperfect impressi­on and receiving of it in those forein Countries. For the Latine tongue was never so ge­nerally received in any of the conquered Provinces out of Italy, as to be spoken or­dinarily 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 inha­bit 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 pronun­ciation; 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.


In this my Expression, that the Italian, Spanish, and French, are I request the Reader to con­sult my words, as rendred by the Animad­vertor, in the formar para­graph. 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 whatsoe­ver 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 Iudges 12.6. Ephraimites, may in proprieiy of phrase, be said to have had its rise and being from the Corruption [viz. natural mis­pronunciation] of the Hebrew word Shiboleth. As for the Animadvertors long [Page 11] discourse of the irruption of Barbarous, I will return an answer when at better lei­sure, beholding my self as utterly unconcerned therein.

Let me ad a passage from the mouth of a person present thereat: Bishop Willi­ams 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 Au­thor, who having traveld over all the Holy-Land, should have been better studied in the true nature and original of the Holy-Tongue.


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, al­though 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 spo­ken in the Celestial Paradise, the language of the Saints in glory.


I will not ingage my self in such a point of meer curiosity; yet is it not impro­bable, that it might be spoken in Paradise, seeing the word Paradise, and [...] in Greek, is borrowed, as Criticks confesse, from [...] 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 Coun­tries, 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 Detra­ction 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 ea­gerly bent to learn this Language, for fear (as I conceive) they should not chat in handsomly when they came to heaven.


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 [Page 12] 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 pro­ject and practise proportionable enough to Pagan principles: The analogy where­of 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 De­vils 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, im­porting, 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.Heylins Cos­mog. pag 17. But against this it is disputed; first that it is but a Tradition, and therefore of no sure foundation to build upon.


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 un­answerable 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 Re­gis, in Gen. 11. 1.
  • 2. D. Pareus, Prof. Heidelberg. in eun­dum 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. Con­trov. 1. quaest: 2. de script.
  • 12. Christ.
    For the elder Buckstors and Beckman, I am as certain they were, as uncer­tain were, publike Pro­fessors.
    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 there­fore Io. Scaliger hath his last (as surest) recourse to it in his Quest after the origina­iion 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 no­tice of,

  • 1. Eve
    Gen 3.20.
    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
    Gen. 4.1.
    , so called by his Mother, rejoycing that she had gotten a Man, and the [Page 13] 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
    Gen. 4 25.
    , so named by his mother, for God (said she) hath APPOINTED me another seed, &c. and signifieth one put, placed, or constituted.
  • 4. Noah
    Gen. 5.24.
    , so named by his Father, because this son (said he) shall comfort us, &c. as the word doth import.
  • 5. Peleg
    Gen. 10 25.
    , 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 de­monstrated Hebrew in persons born before the confusion of Babel.

How vain would He prove himself, who from the name of AHIMAN Numb. 13 22. (one of the giant sons of Anak) and from some correspondency of height in our Lan­guage, 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 copi­ously 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 Idu­maeans, 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 be­fore 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 Ca­naan (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 Na­tive [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 14] 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 Chal­dean 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.


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 con­fined 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 Man­kind, 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 mo­rosenesse, 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,Parenes. ad Scotos p 99. 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 Constan­tinople, who had then assum'd unto himself the name of Oecumenical Bishop; ad­vertiseth all the rest of that sacred Order; Si ille est Universalis, restat ut vos non sitis Episcopi: Greg. M. Epist. 70. 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.


Had I called Pits a Roman Catholick, then the Animadvertor would have char­ged 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 perswa­sion, 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 15]
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 [...]reke­lade 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. Camden in Wilts. 241. Most miserably mistaken in both places. For though [...]rekelade, or Grekelade may import a study of Greek Philosophers, as some are ready to be­lieve, yet certainly Lechlade in no Language will signifie the like study of the La­tine Tongue. The Countrey people (as it seems) doe better understand them­selves than our Author doth. Amongst whom there is a common Tradition, that [...]rekelade was a University of Greek Philosophers, Lechlade of Leches, or Physici­ans, 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 signifi­cation; 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 oc­casions to hook in every old Tradition, (though lesse probably grounded) to ju­stifie the seniority of the younger Sister.


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. Howe­ver 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.

[Page 16]

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 al­most 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.


Our learned Antiquary (though here not named) doth name himself even Mr. Cam­den. 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 seve­ral 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 Bisho­prick of Deirham or Durham.


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 Ber­nicia) 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 careles­ness [Page 17] 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.


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 pro­ducing my Author, a learned and able Historian, how meanly soever the Ani­madvertor 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 ano­ther 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 etymo­logie 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.


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 pro­test 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 duede­cimo 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.

[Page 18]

Rather than any difference shall arise betwixt us about this matter, the Paren­thesis [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 ex­tent, 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 Cherso­nese, truly and properly so call'd, comprehended onely those parts of the King­dome 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, Nor­way, 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 Mecklen­burg.


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 ac­ception 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. Cancella­rio, & Doctori per suum, &c.] These words are the conclusion of an ancient Char­ter, 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.


I plead my last General Answer, discharging my self, because I did there charge [Page 19] 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 honour­ed 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 cre­dit to the Charter, till then, none at all.


The name of Doctor is threefold, first, for a Teacher at large, extant in Scrip­ture, Art thou a Iohn 3 10. Doctor in Israel, and knows not these things?

Secondly, as a title of Dignity fixed by a Society of learned men, on some emi­nent 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 ap­pear) used at and before this time by the Saxons for a prime officer (though gene­rally the Secretary) and therefore no such improbability that the Chief of Cam­bridge might be so denominated.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 139. Cambridgshire men claim an ancient (now an­tiquated) 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 be­yond 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 contra­ry, 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,Camd. in K [...]nt, 324. 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 [Page 20] men of Cambridgshire, as our Author would, nor on the same occasion as he saith it was.


I have read, that when at the taking of a City by the Romans, two soldiers con­tended 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 examina­tion of all circumstances, both appeared to him mounting the walls in the same mo­ment; 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,

Carew in Cornwall.
Arthurus nobis dat primitus ictum.

Cambridgeshire might afterwards have that honour conferred on them, the words of Cronicon pag. 887. Brimpton, though not cleaving the pin, touch the mark in this point, Unde Anglis regnantibus laus CANTABRIGIENSIS PROVINCIAE splendide flo­rebat.

Yet the dignity being but tempory, and disposable at the Princes pleasure, in re­ward 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 an­ticipation 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 Coun­try, and was by her the Father of Edgar Atheling, and of Margaret wife to Mal­colm 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.


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 Bre­thren 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 Ed­ward (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.

[Page 21]

I cannot cordially close with the Animadvertors expression herein, being sensi­ble 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 usur­per 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 Com­mon-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, Bri­tans 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 Nati­ons. 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 King­dome 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 sub­jects, 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 Iu­stinian in this work was another Edward, called, for distinctions sake, King Ed­ward 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 se­cret and hidden causes.


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 ex­alted 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 [Page 22] 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.


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 com­pleat Miracle is done presently and perfectly, whereas this cure is generally ad­vanced by Degrees, and some Dayes interposed.

Dr. Heylin.

Others lesse charitably condemn this cure as guilty of superstition, quarrel­ling 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 Convocati­on, but I finde by this, that he never came so high as to be Clerk of the Closet.


I never was (nor the Animadvertor neither) Clerk of the Closet, Non tanto me dig­nor 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 displea­sed 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.


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 immediate­ly 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.

H. le Strange Alliances of Divine Offices, pag. 250.All along K. Edward the sixth, and Queen Elizabeth her reign, when the Stru­mosi, such as had the Kings-Evil came to be touch'd, the manner was then, for Her to apply the Sign of the As appears in Dr. Tuckers Charisma p. 109. Crosse to the Tumor, which raising a cause of Jea­lousies, 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, in­firm and leprous persons, as did from time to time receive the benefit of it. But it is time I should proceed.


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 conjun­cture, to content both Nations: But whatsoever his Title was, it was undoubted­ly better than that of the Norman, had either his success been answerable, or his sword as good.

[Page 24]

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. Britar. Lat. pag. 104. 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, second­ly by Picts and Scots, thirdly by Saxons, fourthly by the Danes, and fifthly by the Nor­man.] 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.


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 de­argumenta [...]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 gene­rally 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 preach­ing 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 inter­mixture 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.


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 whatso­ever 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, toge­ther with the Answer of the Prelates and inferior Clergy, then being Synodi­cally assembled, to the said Petition.

[Page 26] 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,Acts of Con­voc. Anno 1532. 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, no­ther 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 Pos­sessions, 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 Cen­sures and pains comprised in the same Laws so by them made in their Con­vocations, to the great trouble and inquietation of your said humble and obedient Lay Subjects, &c. the impeachment of your Jurisdiction and Pre­rogative Royal.’ The Answer thereunto was this.

TO this we say, that forasmuch as we repute and take our Authority of ma­king Laws to be grounded upon the Scripture of God, and the determina­tion 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 Chri­stian, religious, and devout Princes and People, how both these Laws proceed­ing 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 Commissi­on, 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 Arti­cles 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 [Page 27] 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 cal­ling 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 o­ther; we have conceiv'd such opinion, and have such estimation of your Ma­jesties goodnesse and vertue, that whatsoever any persons not so well learned as your Grace is, would pretend unto the same, whereby we your most hum­ble Subjects may be brought in your Graces displeasure and indignation, sur­mising that we should by usurpation and presumption, extend our Laws to your most noble Person, Prerogative and Realm, yet the same your High­nesse being so highly learn'd, will of your own most bounteous goodnesse fa­cilly 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 hur­ting 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 Ca­nons in whatsoever touched temporals were subject unto secular Laws and National Cu­stomes? 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 in­sinuations, 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. prohi­biting the sale of men and women like brute beasts in the open Market. Which Ca­non 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.


I conceived it uncivil to interrupt the Animadvertor in his long discourse un­til 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 represen­tatives) unto their Canons) yet they never peaceably injoyed their Power, as con­stantly 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 dis­course. [Page 28] Anselme makes a Constitution (and that indeed charitable and Chri­stian) 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 be­twixt him and his fathers man, let me relate another, wherein my self was con­cerned, 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 e­minent 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 AnimadvertorIn his Ani­madversion on my 8. Lib. or reign of Q Mary., [...], 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 pre­served 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 Matth. 16, 19 on Earth, Cast 1 Iohn 9.34. out, Deliver 1 Cor. 5.5. 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 hun­dred 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. Con­verted unto Christianity by the preaching of Austin, Anno 569. Not much more than 140. years betwixt the one and the other.

[Page 29]

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 found­ing 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 Canter­bury.

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 (A Record lately so priced by the Ani­madv) Answer unto Austin, acknow­ledged 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.In his ac­count H S. his Appendix. Ham­mond 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 Re­quests 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, Stowe Survey, p 893. 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.


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 Plan­tagenet, be possessed fair lands in Anjou and Maine.] I had thought he had posses­sed 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, Ri­chard 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 Plan­tagenet, the name not yet extinguished, though it be improverished: Our Au­thor 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-Al­bion, Anno 1646. or not long before.

[Page 30]

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 unchri­stian 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.


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 His descrip­tion of Bar­bary., 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 Au­thors, to which brood of men that King was known to be a prosessed Enemy (ha­ting and hated by one another) it is not to be esteemed so highly as a piece of Apo­crypha, and much lesse to be held for Gospel.


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 pre­sent 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 Vide supra, part. 1 chap. 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 ne­cessary Animadversions on my Book, to the defaming thereof, as if it were defe­ctive 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 necessi­ty of his affairs did provoke him to; not half so much as was done afterwards up­on far weaker grounds by King Francis the first, employing the Turks Forces both [Page 31] by Sea and Land against Charles the fifth. But the Monks coming to the know­ledge 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.


How much is this different from what I have written before, but that the Ani­madvertor 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 que­stion but he had, Stow finding it in Southwark by the name of Rochester house, ad­joyning on the South side to the Bishop of Winchesters, ruinous and out of repara­tion in his time (as possibly not much frequented since the building of Bromley House) and since converted into Tenements for private persons.


It was a Question to me, though none to the Animadvertor; now it is a que­stion 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 pri­vately, 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 be­fore 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.


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.

[Page 32]

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.


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, du­ring 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 advan­tagious for his Interest, to observe what formerly when a Prisoner he had confir­med.

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 (en­forced 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 strength­ned 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.


It is an hard question, and yet perchance more dangerous than difficult to an­swer, 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 un­successefull, may esteem their losses as Sweet-Bryar and Holy-Thistle, and more [Page 33] 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 successe­full 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 commise­ration 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,Brerewoods Enq. cap. 13. That the first Countrey in Christendome, whence the Jews were expelled with­out 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.


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 ye­sterday, 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: Camden in Monmout [...]h. 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 Spen­cers, 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, be­came Earl of Glocester. Men more to be commended for their Loyalty, than ac­cused 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 af­ter did.


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 [Page 34] 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 Pedi­gree, 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 ex­traction.

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 unfortu­nate 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 [...], 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.


May the Reader take notice, that this complaint was made by the Commons in the 11th of Edward the 3d 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 Cler­gy-men, and so generally for many years continued, with some few and short in­terpositions 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.


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 [Page 35] 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 fa­vour 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 ma­ny 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.


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 Gentle­men Huishers of the Privy Chamber succeeded him in the place of Chancellor after his decease, Anno 1644.


The Animadvertor is very discourteous to deny me the benefit of the Paren­thesis, 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 Re­gisters 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, be­ginning 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.


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 [Page 36] of paying two Crowns to any Officer of the Order, who shall first claim it, unlesse they be to take a journey;Hist. of St. George lib. 3. cap. 3.8. 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 pub­lick 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 en­riched 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 glo­ry served but for ornament and imbellishing, and might be either used or not used (but onely for conformities sake) as they would themselves.


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.


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 Bro­ther to Iames Bishop of Winchester, and Henry Earl of Manchester, but their Bro­thers 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.

[Page 37]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 Coronati­on of King Iames (ne­ver a Martialist,) and created by Him Baron Montague of Boughton, dying in the beginning of the Civill Warres.
        • William Mountague Esq of the Mid­dle-Temple, se­cond 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 Gentle­man.
      • Sir Charles Monta­gue 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 Mon­tague sixth Son, Master of the Requests.
          • Edward Monta­gue now Admi­rall, 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 con­tinueth 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 im­brac'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 Follow­ers 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,Stow in Hen 5. 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 prin­cipal 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 [Page 40] 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.


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 there­fore being both of us agreed in this Point of the convenience, yea necessity there­of; in the second place I would as fain be satisfied from the Animadvertor, whe­ther He conceived it possible, that such Reformation could be advanced (with­out 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 per­fectly. Nature hath appointed the Twilight as a Bridge to passe us out of Night into Day. Such false and wild opinions (like the Acts 9.18. 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 Do­ctrine and Practise, and yet still in such a condition, that though so living and dy­ing, 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 a­vow themselves to be so, and also be so termed by others?

The words of the Animadvertor of Wickliffs Gospel, might well have been spa­red, seeing indeed it was Christs Gospel (dawning is part of day) preached by Wick­liffe, 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 here­of 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 ra­ther St. Rom. 2.5. 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 confor­mable to the Church of Rome. This I will behold as a notorious falshood, an [Page 41] 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 re­concil'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 op­portunity 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 manifest­ly 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 Do­minis were, though branded by the name of Hereticks, to be admitted to a recon­ciliation with the Church of Rome, and yet that Church to carry a revengefull minde towards them when occasion serves.


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-con­cluding Argument, in case my reason should be disproved.

Secondly, Spalato is no proper parallel of Wickliffe, in this point. Spalato con­tracted a new Out of exact intelligence sent from his neer Kindred, to Venice, and thence to Mr. Calendrine, now Minister of the Dutch Church. 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 Recon­ciliation 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 con­ceal 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 suffer­ing any to have a sight of her, to keep them in a greater admiration of her Parts and Person.Hist. lib. [...]. 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 follow­ers, I must behold the rest in fragments, as they lye before me.

[Page 42]

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 SheetChurch. Hist. 4. Book, p. 131.) 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, In his Intro­duction. 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 abomi­nable 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 im­possibilities 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 re­ferres 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 Dray­tons 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 cer­tain 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.


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 Hen­ry, [Page 43] 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 di­spute the Title of the House of Lancaster, though I think it no hard matter to de­fend it.


I think it is not onely difficult, but impossible, except the Animadvertor can chal­lenge the Priviledge of the Patriarch Gen. 48.14. 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 re­cover 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.


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, whe­ther 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 Ani­madvertor, 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:Camden in Radnor 624▪ Edmund Mortimer Earl of March not being the Son, but Husband of the Lady Philippa Daughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence, and Mo­ther 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 Monta­cute, 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.


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 Cha­racters 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 Bi­shops were not Barons and Peers of the Realm. Our Author intimates that they were not, but I think they were.

[Page 44]

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.

Selden. Tit. Hon. part. 2. c. 5.And 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 chal­lenge 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, Stat. 25. Edw. Antiquit. Bri­tan. in Stratf. 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.


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 be­ing an unhappy thing, to consider what they have been formerly, and what they are at this present.


It is a sad Truth which the Animadvertor sayeth. And here I cannot but re­member David 2 Sam. 15.25. 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 Bi­shop 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 de­claring Heresie, the Bishops singly in their Consistories to proceed against them, by injoyning penance and recantation, or otherwise to subject them to Excom­munication. The Statute which our Author speaks of, being 2 H. 4. c. 15. pro­ceedeth 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.

[Page 45]

There be two distinct things which in this Point must be severally con­sidered,

  • 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 gene­rally 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 pro­ceed against them in point of Heresie.


I intended not, nor have I abused the Reader with any fallacious argumentation. It is true [...], the King and Parliament directed the proceedings of the Eccle­siastical 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.


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 be­tween 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 en­acted, ‘That the Country of Wales should be, stand, and continue for ever, from thenceforth incorporated, united, and annexed to, and with this Realm of Eng­land. And that all and singular person and persons born and to be born in the [Page 46] said Principality, Country, or Dominion of Wales shall have, enjoy, and inherit all and singular Freedoms,27 H. 8 c. 26. 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 Au­thor words it.


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 Uni­versitie, 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 di­sturbance.


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 dear­nesse 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 occa­sion. 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.


I commend the carefulnesse of the Animadvertor, tender of the honour of Ox­ford 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 dear­nesse of it; but rather of himself, for coming to a place so chargeable and destru­ctive 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.


I was once sent up thither from London, being one of the Six, who was chosen to [Page 47] carry a Petition for Peace to his Majesty, from the City of Westminster and the Li­berties 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. Acts 26.29. 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 holy­dayes, &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 Ne­phew to Charles the fifth.


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 farther­most 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 Sex­tiae) 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.


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 suffi­ciently 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 [Page 48] 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,Vossig. de Lat. Hist. as the times then were, suffi­cient (were there nothing else) to free him from the ignominious name of a worthlesse Author


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.


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 censu­ring 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 Ri­chard was not the Father, but Grandfather of King Edward the fourth. For be­ing 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 advan­ced 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 West­merland, 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 Au­thor made the last Earle thereof (Hist. of Cam. 162.) before the restoring of that title on the House of the Hamiltons.

[Page 49]

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 al­wayes (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.


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, Holy State, ti­tle Memory. no Art; and indeed is more of fancy than me­mory. 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 me­mory. 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 Ani­madvertors 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 Prin­ces. 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 Wick­ham in that Bishoprick, he preceded Wainfleet. For in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Winchester they are marshulled thus, viz. 1365. 50. William of Wick­ham, 1405. 51. Henry Beaufort, 1447. 52. William de Wainfleet, which last conti­nued Bishop till the year 1485 the See being kept by these three Bishops a­bove 120. years, and thereby giving them great Advantages of doing those ex­cellent 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,Camb. in Ham. fol 267. 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 suc­cessively, proceed we to two others raised by King Henry the sixth, of which our Author telleth us.


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


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

[Page 50]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 Rea­der 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 Chiche­ley) 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 Animadver­sion. 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 ha­beam. 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 Do­ctors, 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 acknow­ledged 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 Acade­mical 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.
[Page 51]

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 Mid­wifry 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 Animad­vertor 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 ci­vily 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 for­mer Opinion, Rex Platonicus alone sounding to me in this point no more than Pla­to'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, Al­liance, Dependents, Wisdome, Valour, Success, and Popularity, was superiour to any English Subject since the Conquest.] Our Author speaks this of that Richard Ne­vil 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 re­spects 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 Ri­chard 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 a­gainst 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 Re­nown 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 exceed­ed also in this particular, that he dyed in his bed, and left his Estates unto his Son. [Page 52] 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.


It never came into my thoughts, to extend the Parallel beyond the line of Sub­jection, 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 no­thing 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 enumera­tion 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 Po­licy 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,Ovid Met. Lib. 2. 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 practi­sed, never found Advocates to plead for it, and much lesse Preachers to preach for it,History of Flo­rence. untill these latter times. First made a Maxim of State in the School of Machi­avel, 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 inter­cede for the life of his Mother, did underhand solicite her death, and whispered nothing so much in Queen Elizabeths eares,Camdens An­nals. An. 1656. 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 Mi­nister 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 in­struction, will serve abundantly howsoever for the justification. Another note we have within two leaves after as derogatory to the Honour of the late Arch­bishop, 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 fur­ther from me.


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, there­by to defend my self; I say, States-men did admire at the preserving King Hen­ry 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 mista­ken in me.

[Page 53] 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 pla­ced Religion and Right Reason diametrically opposite in themselves, (so that where­ever 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 reque­sted; 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 Bo­hun 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; Ma­ry, 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 [...] Con­stable, 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 Lan­caster, 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.


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 for­tune 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 me­rit 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.


Though a courteous Prolepsis might salve all the matter, yet (to prevent except­ions) 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 lit­tle 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.


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 parti­cular 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 in­terruption.

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 Au­thors Catlogue of the Presidents of C. C. C. in Oxford, fol. 166. and Dr. Stan­ton who came in by the power of the Visitors above eight years after being pla­ced 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.


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 endea­vour 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, [...]ertio 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 [Page 56] 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 Convoca­tion 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,Acta Convoca­ [...]ionis 1530. 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 through­out 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 en­joyned it so long before.


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 nine­teen, 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 plea­sure therein, added their assistance in the year 1530. as the Animadvertor ob­serveth; 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 Con­jugi, in Sacratissimo hujus Templi coemiterio hinc à tergo nunc destructo conse­pultis, Georgius Lillius hujus Ecclesiae Canonicus, parentum memoriae piae con­sulens, 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 [Page 57] 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 Archbisho­prick 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 learn­ing 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 Learn­ing 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 su­spect his lack of time, the work being small, the glory great, and helps enough at hand if he wanted any. But of this enough.


No considerable variation from what I have written, so that my Answer there­unto 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, Hamp­ton-Court, &c.) he either freely gave to the King▪ or exchanged them on very rea­sonable considerations.] That Hampton-Court was either freely given by Wolsey, or otherwise exchanged on very reasonable tearms, I shall grant as easily; but White­hall 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 long­ing 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, be­longing then to the See of Norwich, and now called York-house.


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 Ani­madvertor 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.

[Page 58]

Yea, the Animadvertor would perswade his Reader, That I never spent sea­venteen 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.


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 be­ing 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 Rea­der of this House being Dr. Iohn Perin who dyed in the yeare 1615


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 con­fesseth 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 foun­dation by the name of Students, equivalent to the Fellowes of most other Col­ledges 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 o­ther University, might appear the fairer.


'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 provi­ded, [Page 59] 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.


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 Arch­bishoprick (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.


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 Au­thor 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.


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 pro­duced the peerlesse Queen Elizabeth, who perfected the Reformation.] Either our Au­thor speaks not this for his own opinion, as in that before, or if he doe, it is an opini­on 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, Pres. to the Directory. they would have joyned with them in the work, and laboured for a further Reformation. And what else hath been cla­moured 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 [Page 60] 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.


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 re­served, 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, not­withstanding 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 Heb. 11.23. of just men are made perfect. For as long as the Church hath a FORME on Earth, it will be subject to deformi­ties, 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 agree­able to his constitution to have two Wives together, than none at all. To that end while the businesse of the Divorce remained undecided,Hollinsh p. 129 he was married pri­vately to the Lady Anne Bullen, on the 14 of November, &c.


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 Expressi­ons 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 ma­ny erronious Doctrines presented by the Prolocutor to the Convocation: some few of which, as being part of Wickliffs Gospel and chief ingredients in the Com­position 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.
  • [Page 61]3. That all Ceremonies accus [...]omed in the Church, which are not clearly ex­pressed 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 Re­ligion to be found therein. Which though our Author doth defend as Expressions rather than Opinions, the Careers of the Soul, and Extravagancies of humane infir­mity, 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 bet­ter 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.


I have many things to return in this Contest. First, had I garbled the Opinions [Page 62] of my own Head, and not presented them to the Reader, as I found them pre­sented in the Records of the Convocation, then the Animadvertor had had just ad­vantage 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 be­fore 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 commend­ing 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 confi­dent 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 Ier. 24.2. 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 [Page 63] 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. Defence of the Apolog. 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 Ad­vocate 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 Au­thor 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 fel­lows, 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.


The commendable Act of King Henry the eighth, in suppressing the Stews, may well be reported in Church-History, it being recorded in 1 King. 15.12 Scrip­ture 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 pre­ponderate 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 Anti­dotes, 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 Ar­guments, 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 other­wise 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 [Page 64] of a Survivor-ship in such a case, when the one person had been long dead before the other was born.


Terms of Law when used not in Law-Books, nor in any solemn Court, but in com­mon 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. Con­cerning which he had before given us two Rules Preparatory to the great busi­nesse which we have in hand. First, that the proceedings of the Canon Law were sub­ject 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 repu­tation, and decline in strength. How true and justifiable, or rather how unjusti­fiable 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 pre­sented to us. But first we must take notice of another passage concerning the cal­ling of Convocations or Synodical meetings, formerly called by the two Arch­bishops in their several Provinces by their own sole and proper power, as our Au­thor 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 acknow­ledged by the Clergie in their Convocation, Stat 25 H 8. c. 19. 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 Sta­tute of Praemunire; for that the whole Clergy in their Convocation should pub­liquely 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 sub­mission is mistook by our Author▪ who placeth it in 1533. whereas indeed the [Page 65] 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 Sub­ject 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 Parlia­ment. 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 sub­mission to the King, to binde the Subject by their Canons and Constitutions with­out 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 be­fore their submission to the King, to bind the Subject by their Canons and Consti­tutions, 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 Supreme­ly 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 pre­sented 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 hin­drance 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 con­sult about it, yet found they no Saint able to inspire them with a resolution con­trary 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 Syno­dical 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

[Page 66]Fol. 194. He (viz. the King) by the advice and consent of his Clergy in Convoca­tion and great Councel in Parliament, resolved to reform the Church under his inspe­ction from grosse abuses crept into it.] To this I need no other Answer than our Au­thor 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 Eng­land. 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 ra­tifying 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 Par­liament, 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 Parlia­ment. 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 Eng­land 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 fur­ther 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 espe­cial 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 further­more, we doe not onely by our said Prerogative Royal, and Supreme Au­thority, in causes Ecclesiastical, ratifie, confirm, and establish by these our Let­ters 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 ex­pressed.’ 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 par­ticulars, 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 [Page 67] 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, wil­lingly submit to his I bilieve this should be bet­ter, as may ap­pear in the Er­rata. But be­cause the page is mistaken, 121, for 101, I dare not al­ter it. 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 Hen­ry the 8. they granted Subsidies and other aids unto the King in their Convoca­tions, 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 Submissi­on. 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 Be­nevolence 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 Cen­sures 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.


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 se­veral 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 for­merly 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 there­of [Page 68] 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 weak­ning 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 re­trence the Power of the Church (or ambitious Church-men rather) when they in­vaded 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 expe­cted or required in one of my profession, who am ready with willingnesse, yea with chear­fulnesse, 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 sub­ject, may prevent the failing of others.

Having thus humbly desired (I say not deserved) favour, I hope it will be indul­ged 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 inve­sted 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 suppli­mental 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.

[Page 69]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 Repre­sentatives, 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 e­states 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 gi­ving 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 judg­ment 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 Ecclesiasti­call 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 an­swere 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 e­nough 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 pre­fer 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 pen­sion 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 Univer­sity had given him, but that he was a Conniver at Non-conformity, as our Author [Page 70] 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 in­creasing 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 ta­ken 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 par­ticular.


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 Eliza­beth, 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 Grand­child to his Eldest Daughter, married to Sir So is his name in my corrected Books. 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 In his List of the Masters of St. Iohns. 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 Bi­shoprick, and charging it with an annual Pension of 1000 l. to maintain the Garri­son 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 Supple­ment 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 Cister­cium in Burgundy.] The place in Burgundy from whence these Monks took deno­mination, 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.


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 him­self 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.


I honour the Knights of that noble Order, as much as the Animadvertor him­self. 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.
[Page 72]

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.


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 SAB­BATH, 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 im­portance against the Jesuites.] Our Author speaks this of the Dominicans or preaching Fryers, who though they be the sole active managers of the Inquisiti­on, 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 opini­ons against the Iesuites and Fraenciscans, as the Rigid Lutherans doe against the Melanchthonians, and the Rigid or peremptory Calvinists against the Remonstrants. &c.


Two things are considerable in the Dominicans, First their Cruelty in mana­ging 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 Ani­madvertor, 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 gene­rations 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.


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 Sti Edmundi.
  • 5. Malmsbury
  • 6. Hoveden.
  • 7. Walter Covenir.
  • 8. Fabian.

[Page 73]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 Re­ligious 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.


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 [...], 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 Rebel­lion, wherein all the open undertakers were North of Trent, &c.] Not all the open un­dertakers ▪ 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.


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 ma­ny 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.


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 injuri­ous, to thrust Monks and Nuns out of House and Home, without assigning them any al­lowance [Page 74] 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.


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 Sub­ject 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 in­tended 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 cor­rasive 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 digres­sion from my History; for though my Estate will not suffer me with Iob. 29.15. 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 par­ticular 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.


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 Eli­zabeth 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 [Page 75] 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.


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 there­upon, 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 Loy­ola, a Spaniard, and confirmed by Pope Paul the third, Anno 1540. The Oratori­ans 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 Ie­suits, by the space of four and twenty years; and consequently the Iesuites not the last and newest of Religious Orders.


Writing the Church-History of Britain, I herein confined my expression there­unto. 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 con­cerning the religious keeping of the Holy-dayes, in the close whereof it is decla­red, ‘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.’ Whe­ther in the 24 Inju [...]ction, labouring in time of Harvest upon Holy-dayes and Festi­vals, 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.


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 Ani­madvertor 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 re­commended 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 Parli­ament on such who should deprave or neglect the use thereof.] Our Author here mi­stakes himself, and confounds the businesse; making no difference between the whole first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth, and a particular form of Admini­stration. &c.


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 [Page 78] Book, who (as he In his Intro­duction. 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,Numb. 14 4. Let us make us a Captain and return unto Egypt. I have too much advantage in my own hand, and a prin­ciple 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-Con­formists 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.


I say not that they were trifles, but that Iohn Dudley Earl of Warwick (after­wards) 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 con­stituted 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 sing­ing 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 Con­vocation 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, coun­tenanced by the Kings Letters Patents prefixt before it, &c.


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 Mem­bers 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 Loy­alty must not be the King, but the Act of Parliament, by which they were di­rected 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.


I make not the loyalty of the Commons to depend on, but to be directed by the Sta­tute 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 Convoca­tion at this time, nor many yeares before this time, was commonly reputed as a part of the Parliament. &c.


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 ex­ception.

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 them­selves 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 Cere­monies they omitted both as superfluous and supersticious. Superfluous, and superstici­ous, [Page 80] 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 other­wise he would have added some note of qualifications, &c.


This note might well have been spared, I appeal to such as knew my confor­mity 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 Au­thor hath all the reason in the world to desire to be admitted into their Commu­nion, and be made partaker of that happinesse which such Saints enjoy. &c.


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 Schis­maticalnesse; 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. Skin­ner 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 o­thers [...]n that kinde also. The first whereof shall be Iohn Selden, of the Inner Temple, [...] ▪ that renown'd Humanitian and Philologer, some­times 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 intitu­led, The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation, written in defence of Dr. Pot­ters Book called Charity mistaken, commended by our Author, Lib 3. fol. 115. remains unanswered by the Iesuites, notwithstanding all their brags before­hand, 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 Chey­nel, 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 sor­ry Haberdasher of Small-weares shall be out of credite. Of this Pageant, see the Pamphlet call'd Chillingworthi Novissima, printed at London, Anno 1644.

[Page 81]

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 un­to 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 contribu­tions 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 beg­gerly Town, and cost England ten times yearly more than it was worth in keeping there­of.] 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.


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 trea­sure.

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 In particu­lars, their total Sum, to my re­membrance, not being cast up. 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 Re­ligion, whereby every one is bound to advance Gods glory. And if Sovereigns for­get, 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 super­stitious Pictures and Images. And though some others condemned their indiscreti­on herein, yet our Author will not, but rather gives these reasons for their justifica­tion; 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 Sove­reigns 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 Re­bellious for the times ensuing, I shall spend a little the more time in the examina­tion of the propositions, as before we had them, &c.


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 re­garded.] [Page 84] 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 imploy­ed, and lesse regarded. I grant indeed, that the Convocation of that year did only meet for forms sake, without acting any thing, &c.


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 apply­able 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 pub­lished by that learned and industrious Gentleman Sir Henry Spelman, cannot but perceive.


I confesse Convocations in their general notion more ancient, and regular, and completely constituted than Parliaments: Yet of these Twins, I called the Con­vocation 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 re­member.

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 Al­manacks. 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 [Page 85] 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, Stows Survey of Lond. p 623. 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.


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. In his Eliz. Anno 1561. 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 dissent­ing 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.


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 necessa­ry to salvation, the pious and learned Penners of the Articles, though they did not purposely use Cheverel expressions (to afford shelter to equivocation;) yet prudent­ly seeing that all things in the Articles were not of equall concernment, and po­litickly [...]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 tollen­dam 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 Re­ligion. 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 ground­ed 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 [Page 86] alwaies constantly maintained a local Descent, though many which would be thought her Children, the better to comply with Calvin and some other Di­vines 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 in­terpretations, was not conceived to be a clear and sufficient evidence to prove the Article. For which see Bishop Bilsons Survey, p. 388.389.


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,Acts 2.27. 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) de­fend, 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 op­position; 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 Au­thor, is the first Sentence in the twentieth Article, entituled De Ecclesiae Autho­ritate, where it is said that the Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of the Faith, &c.


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 pro­test, 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 Sta­tioners, 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 altera­tion of favour indulged to all writings.

L [...]stly, What of moment in these notes is omitted by me, relateth to those [Page 87] two Church Questions in Law,Vid. sup. part. 2. p. 62. 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 Chri­stian 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 com­mon people, than either the strong lines of some, or the flashes of vain wit in o­thers, in these latter times, &c.


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 Ani­madvertor (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 im­powred 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 re­quiring 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 im­powred by their Canons, but as they were inabled by that Authority which was inherent naturally in their Episcopal Office.


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) a­bout two years after, Anno 1566, &c.


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 Animadversi­ons 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.

[Page 88]Fourthly, Genebrard Anno 1566. calleth them ortos [but not orientes] in An­glia 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 a­mongst 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 re­c [...]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 Vid. sup [...]a c. 2. [...]ag [...] Puritan Plat­form in the Reign of King Henry the eighth, twenty years at least be [...]ore my men­tion 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 parti­cularly 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 wil­ling to impute it to the fault of the Printers, than the Pen of our Author, &c.


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 Animad­vertor 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.]


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 Apo­stles Precept; For ye may all Prophesie one by one, that all may learn and all be com­forted; but so as to make it out, they were fain to make use of humane prudential ad­ditions.] Not grounded, but pretended to be grounded on those words of St. Paul, &c.


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 Parlia­ment [Page 89] 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.


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 for­mer 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.


God restore the Church in his good time to her just rights, and give her wis­dome 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 de­sirous 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 Saty­rical 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.


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 know­ledge from the mouthes of such whom I must believe) that for many foul fals­hoods 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 bad­nesse, 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; espe­cially seeing an Archangel thought himself too good to bring, and Iude 9. Satan not bad enough to have railing speeches brought against him.’ [Page 90] Reader, what could I have written more fully and freely in the cordial detesta­tion 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.


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.


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 Animadver­tors 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.



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.


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.
[Page 91]

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 en­tertainment 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 ac­customed 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 lay­ing hands upon one another, act as little as he. The parties so impos'd upon (im­pos'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.


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 Au­thor 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.


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 judge­ment 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 Go­vernment, he will go thorough with his work, &c.


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 counte­nance such presumption.

I confess I said, That Mr. Travers was made Minister or Priest by the Pres­bytery 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 Com­mission thereunto.

I cannot close with the Animadvertor in his uncharitable censure of the Mi­nistery 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 Animadver­tors 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.

[Page 92]Far more Charitie in those of the former Age. Bishop Andrews when he con­curred with others of his own order, in ordaining a Scotishman Bishop, who (as by proportion of time may be demonstrated) received his Deaconship and Prist­hood 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 ei­ther in the man, or in the matter. For that he doth approve Bounds Doctrines in this particular, &c.


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 main­tenance thereof. And I hope the Animadvertor will allow me to know my own judgement bet­ter than he doth.

I am not of the Ani­madvertors 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 In his Adver­tisemen [...]s on the History of King Charles, p. 64. Parliament hath by their Orders and Ordinances laid greater restraints on People than ever the Scribes and Pha­rises 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 mat­ter 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 Or­chard 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 deli­vered; and well it may. For who did ever hear of any Elms in Westminster Or­chard, or to say truth, of any Elms in any Orchard wha [...]soever of a late Planta­tion? Elms are for Groves, and Fields, and Forests, too cumbersom and over­spreading to be set in Orchards, &c.


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 (ano­ther of his own profession) having fancied a notional Treason, imparted it to George Brooks.] To these he after adds the Lord Cobham a Pro­testant, 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, de­signed to have been Secretary of Estate, had the Plot succeeded, and finally ar­raigned and condemned at Winchester, as the others were.


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) where­as 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.


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 Fuller­ton, 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 disaffe­cted 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 Pag. 2. li. 14. 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 [Page 94] 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 partiali­ties and falshoods of it. The Book was printed not long after the end of the Con­ference, 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.


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.


All his jeering on my Name shall not make me goe to the Heraulds Office to en­deavor 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 ori­ginally 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.Verstegan of decayed intelli­gence.

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 pro­duced 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 Stow his Sur­vey of London, pag. 97. 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 exceed­ed 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 fe­lony, but still so honest and so entirely beloved by King Harry the sixth after his de­cease, that he appeard to him on the top of the Gallows, incourag'd him, and so [Page 95] 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 advan­tage 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.


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, Hist. Eccle­siast. seculo de­cimo quinto, pag. 646. Harpsfeild, 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 inter­pretation of any unpartial Reader. Thirdly, seeing I followed Harpsfeild in re­lating 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 Ani­madvertor 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 1 Sam. 17.12 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, care­full 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 Mon­seir; yet In his Elizab. Anno 1581. 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; Esay 36.21. 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 Advo­cate for them, though he tells us not many lines before, that they were printed thirty times over with the general liking of the people.


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.

[Page 93] Plutarchus. [...].

  • 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 ex­pound 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 in­stanced 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 de­posing his Mother only, and not killing Her: A note, whereof the Scottish Presbyte­rians made special use, not only deposing Mary their lawfull Queen from the Re­gal 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 Gene­vians, or their Annotations: And I hope also that he will not advocate for the rest.


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 be­cause 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 Gos­spel, ver. 12. viz. Promise ought, &c.


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 bro­ken. 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 Do­ctrine, [Page 97] 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 agree­ments, be they what they will.


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) re­leased 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 gi­ven, because so perilous a pit is left open (contrary to the Iudicial Exod. 21.33. 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, Fri­ers, 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.


It was in my opinion both indiscretly and uncharitably done, to jumble them to­gether, 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, (not­withstanding 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,In the Margin this Note Dr H in Ox­fo [...]d causlesly inveyeth a­gainst the Ge­neva Notes. 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 de­fend all in the Geneva Notes.

Secondly, though I neither can nor will (as by the premisses doth appear) ex­cuse 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.
[Page 98]

Our Author goeth on. Fol. 77. At this time began the troubles in the Low-Coun­tries 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.


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

In Greek, Matth. 1.8. [...].

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.


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 Dean­ship. 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 ge­neral 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 ne­ver 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 be­ing so tyed up to such intricate Rules as now it is.


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 [Page 99] 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 Prefer­ment. 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 caus­lesse 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 him­self, 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.


I prescribe not for the Common-Lawyers whose words are, the Common-Law­yers (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 entren­ches too much upon the Priviledges of Almighty God, who alone knows the secrets of the heart of man. Interest tenebris, interest cogitationibus nostris, quasi al­teris tenebris, as Minutius hath it.


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 Cha­racters, 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 pre­ferment.

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.


I believe no less; but far short of our English Bishopricks. It may be said of I­talian Dignities, (to which Dalmatian may be reduced, as under the Venetian [Page 100] 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 where­of is much obstructed, partly in Lands, the Revenues whereof are more impai­red by the vicinity of the Turk, harraging those parts with his daily Intrusion. A [...]a [...], p. 334. Mercator tels us, that the Port of Salona (which is hardly an English mile from Spalato) nunc quidem parum Colitur ob Turcarum Viciniam.

A Dr. C [...]k [...]n [...] disensione Eccles A [...]g [...]r pag 3. 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 Pensi­on 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 consci­ence. 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 prefer­ment 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.


Dark men are the best Comment upon themselves, whose precedent are best ex­pounded by their subsequent actions. Who so considereth the rapacity and tenacity of this Prelate in England, will easily believe that a two-handed covetousness mo­ved 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 high­est 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 grie­ved 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, be­tween 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.


H [...]d I said that the Protestants justly feared this Marriage, then the Animadver­tor had justly censured; whereas now, grant they feared where no fear was, he fin­deth fault where no fault is. Historians may and must relate those great and gene­ral 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.
[Page 101]

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 Supre­macy in Ecclesiastical matters, which he esteemed the fairest flower in the Roy­al 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.


Mr. Camden writing of the Match of Q. Elizabeth, with Mounsier, younger Bro­ther 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:

Camdens [...], Anno 1 [...]81. pag. 346.
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 need­less 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 Pro­testants 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.


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) Chri­stians sound in their Iudgement, uncontriv'd into any Faction; so far from be­ing 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.
[Page 102]

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.


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 condi­tion. The state of which Church in England I compare to Acts 20.9. 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 Allego­ry) 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 desi­rous 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 Ar­ticles 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.


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 fa­voured 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. [Page 103] the Spanish Prevarication to restore the Palatinate: The other secret, not so ne­cessary 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 ab­ruptly 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 restituti­on 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 con­tinual 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 Coun­cel, 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.


To be [...], a Covenant-breaker, is a foul fault, as the Rom 1.31. Apostle accounteth it: Far be it from me to charge it causlesly on any, especially on a dead Christi­an, 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 In his short view of the reign of King. Charles. Iames to have designed the Spanish Match in order to the recove­ry of the Palatinate: Whereas it plainly appears, In the Caba­la, and in the historical ob­servations of Mr. Rushworth 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 re­gaining 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 propor­tion, 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.

THE ELEVENTH BOOK, Containing the Reign of K. Charls.

Dr. Heylyn.

THis Book concludes our Authour's History, and my Animadversions. And if the End be sutable unto the Beginning, it is like to finde me work enough; our Authour stumbling at the Threshold, which amongst Su­perstitious People hath been counted for an ill Presage.


Who I pray stumbled in the beginning of his Animadversions? when he said, That the Brittains worshipped but one God, and that Diana was none of their originall Deity. What if I stumbled, yea, and should fall too? Hath not the Animadvertor read,Mica. 7.8. Rejoyce not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall rise again.

Dr. Heylyn.

Having placed King Charls on the Throne, our Author saith, fol. 117. On the fourteenth day of May following, King James his Funeralls were performed very so­lemnly, in the Collegiat Church at Westminster.] Not on the fourteenth, but the fourth, saith the Author of the History of the Reign of King Charls; and both true alike. It neither was on the fourth, nor on the fourteenth, but the seventh of May, on which those solemn Obsequies were performed at Westminster. Of which, if he will not take my word, let him consult the Pamphlet, called, The Observator observed, (fol. 6.) and he shall be satisfied. Our Author's Clock must keep time better, or else we shall never know how the day goes with him.


I will take his word without going any further, and this erroneous Date, in my next Edition shall, God-willing, be mended accordingly. That Clock which alwaies strikes true, may well be forfeited to the Lord of the Manour; though mine, I hope, will be found to go false, as seldom as another's.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author saith, As for Dr. Preston, &c. His party would perswade us, that he might have chose his own Mitre.] And some of his party would perswade us, That he had not onely large parts, of sufficient receipt to manage the Broad Seal it self, but that the Seal was proffered to him, fol. 131.] But we are not bound to believe all which is said by that Party, who looked upon the Man with such reverence, as came near Idolatry.


I do not say, they do perswade, but they would perswade us. And here the com­mon expression takes place with me, Non persuadebunt, etiamsi persuaserint. Grant, I do not believe all which is said by his Party, yet I believe it was my duty, as an Historian, to take notice of so remarkable a passage, and to report it to Po­sterity, charging my Margin (as I have done) with the name and place of the Mr. B [...]ll in Dr. Prestons life. Author, wherein I found it related.

Dr. Heylyn.
[Page 2]

His Principles and Engagements were too well known by those, which go­verned affairs, to venture him unto any such great trust in Church or State; and his activity so suspected, that he would not have been long suffered to con­tinue Preacher at Lincolns-Inne. As for his intimacy with the Duke, (too vio­lent to be long-lasting) it proceeded not from any good opinion which the Duke had of him, but that he found how instrumentall he might be, to manage that prevailing Party to the King's advantage. But when it was found, that he had more of the Serpent in him, than of the Dove; and that he was not tractable in steering the Helm of his own Party by the Court-Compass, he was dis­countenanced and laid by, as not worth the keeping. He seemed the Court-Meteor for a while, raised to a suddain height of expectation; and having flasht and blaz'd a little, went out again, and was as suddainly forgotten.


This is onely Additionall, and no whit Opposite to what I have written, and therefore I am not obliged to return any answer thereunto.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 119. Next day the King comming from Canterbury, met her at Dover, whence with all solemnity she was conducted to Somerset-House in Lon­don, where a Chappel was now prepared for her Devotion, with a Covent adjoyning of Ca­puchin-Fryers, according to the Articles of her marriage.] In all this nothing true, but that the new Queen was conducted with all solemnity from Dover to London. For first, although there was a Chappel prepared, yet was it not prepared, for her; nor, at Somerset-house. The Chappel which was then prepared, was not prepared for her, but the Lady Infanta, built in the Kings house of St. Iames, at such time as the Treaty with Spain stood upon good tearms, and then intended for the Devotions of the Princess of Wales, not the Queen of England. Secondly, the Articles of the Marriage make no mention of the Capuchin-Friers, nor any Covent to be built for them. The Priests who came over with the Queen were by agreement to be all of the Oratorian Order, as less suspected by the English, whom they had never provok'd, as had the Iesuits, (and most other of the Monastick Orders) by their mischie­vous practises. But these Oratorians being sent back with the rest of the French, Anno, 1626. and not willing to expose themselves to the hazard of a second expulsion, the Capuchins, under Father Ioseph, made good the place. The breach with France, the action at the Isle of Rhee, and the losse of Rochel, did all occur, before the Capuchins were thought of, or admitted hither. And thirdly, some years after the making of the Peace between the Crowns, (which was in the latter end of 1628. and not before) the Queen obtain'd, that these Friers might have leave to come over to her, some lodgings being fitted for them in Somerset-house, and a new Chappel then and there built for her Devotion.


Here, and in the next Note, the Animadvertor habet confitentem reum. And, not to take covert of a Latine expression, in plain English, I confess my mistake, which is no originall, but a derivative errour in me, who can (if so pleased) al­ledge the printed Author who hath misguided me. Yet, I will patiently bear my proportion of guilt, and will provide, God-willing, for the amendment in the next Edition. Thus, being so supple to confesse my fault, when convinced thereof, I therefore may and will be the more stiff, in standing on the tearms of mine own integrity, when causlesly accused.

But if the Animadvertor be too Insulting over me, let him remember his own short view of the life of King Charls, vvhere he tells us of the three Welch Gene­rals, that they submitted to mercy, which they never tasted, naming Compare his page 140 with his page 144. Laughern, [Page 3] Powel, and Poyer: whereas two of them did find mercy, a little male-child being taken up, who did cast Lots at White-hall; and, by Providence ordering Casualty, Laughern and Powel were pardoned, and lately, if not still, alive. But I forgive the Doctor for this errour, being better then a truth, two Gentlemen gaining their lives thereby.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, f. 121. The Bishop of Lincoln, Lord Keeper, was now daily descendant in the Kings favour; who so highly distasted him, that he would not have him, as Dean of Westm. to perform any part of his Coronation.] As little truth in this as in that before. For first, the Bishop of Lincoln was not Lord Keeper at the time of the Coronation. Secondly, if he had been so, and that the King was so distasted with him, as not to suffer him to assist at his Coronation; how came he to be suffered to be present at it in the capacity of Lord Keeper? For that he did so, is affirmed by our Author, saying, That the King took a scrowl of parchment out of his bosome, and gave it to the Lord Keeper Williams, who read it to the Commons four severall times, East, West, North, and South, fol. 123. Thirdly, the Lord Kee­per, who read that Scrole, was not the Lord Keeper VVilliams, but the Lord Keeper Coventry; the Seal being taken from the Bishop of Lincoln, and commit­ted to the custody of Sir Thomas Coventry, in October before. And therefore fourthly, our Author is much out, in placing both the Coronation, and the following Parliament, before the change of the Lord Keeper; and sending Sir Iohn Suckling to fetch that Seal, at the end of a Parliament in the Spring, which he had brought away with him before Michaelmas Term. But as our Au­thor was willing to keep the Bishop of Lincoln in the Deanry of Westminster, for no less then five or six years after it was confer'd on another; so is he as de­sirous to continue him Lord Keeper for as many months, after the Seal had been entrusted to another hand.


This also is an errour, I neither can nor will defend the Lord Keeper Willi­ams, put for the Lord Keeper Coventry, which hath betrayed me to some con­sequentiall incongruities. I will not plead for my self in such a Suit, where I foresee the Verdict will go against me. Onely I move as to mitigation of Costs and Dammages, that greater slips have fallen from the Pens of good Historians.

Mr. Speed in his Chronicle, first Edition, page 786. speaking of Henry, el­dest son to King Henry the eighth, maketh Arch-Bishop Cranmer (mistaken for Warham) his God-father, twenty four years before Cranmer ever sat in that See. I write not this to accuse him, but in part to excuse my self, by paralleling mine with as evident a mistake. I hope my free confession of my fault, with promise of emendation of It (and the Appendants thereof) in my next Edition, will meet with the Reader's absolution. And let the Animadvertor for the pre­sent (if so pleased) make merry, and feast himself on my mistake, assuring him, that he is likely to fast a long time hereafter.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, f. 122. The Earl of Arundel, as Earl Marshal of England; & the Duke of Buckingham, as Lord high Constable of England, for that day went be­fore his Majesty in that great Solemnity.] In this passage, and the next that follows, our Author shewes himself as bad an Herald in marshalling a Royal Show, as in stating the true time of the creation of a noble Peer. Here in this place he placeth the Earl Marshall before the Constable; whereas by the Statute 31 H. 8. c. 10. the Constable is to have precedency before the Marshall. Nor want there precedents to shew, that the Lord High Constable did many times direct his Mandats to the Earl Marshall, as one of the Ministers of his Court, willing and requiring him to perform such and such services, as in the said Precepts were expressed.

[Page 4]

My Heraldry is right both in Place and Time. The Earl of Arundel, as Earl Marshall, went after the Duke of Buckingham, as Lord High Constable, though going before him. For Barons went (in this Royall Procession, at the Kings Co­ronation) before Bishops, Bishops before Viscounts, Viscounts before Earls, the meaner before the greater Officers of State. Thus the Lord Constable (though the last) was the first, because, of all Subjects, nearest to the person of the Soveraign. It seemeth the dayes were very long when the Animadvertor wrote these causless cavills, which being now grown very short, I cannot af­ford so much time in confuting them.

This his cavilling mindeth me, of what he hath mistaken in his Geography. For, the younger son of an English Earl comming to Geneva, desi­red a Carp for his dinner, having read in the Doctor's Geography, that the Lemman Lake had plenty of the Fish, and the best and biggest of that kind. The people wondred at his desire of such a dainty, which that place did not afford; but told him, That they had Trouts as good and great, as any in Europe. Indeed, learned De Piscibus in [...]ce Trutta. Gesner doth observe, that the Trouts caught in this Lake, sent to, and sold at Lions, are mistaken for Salmons by strangers, unacquainted with their proportions. It seems the Animadvertor's Pen is so much given to cavil­ling, that he turned Trouts into Carps though none of them so great, as this his CARP at me, for making the Lord Marshall to go before the Lord Constable, at the King's Coronation.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Ibid. That the Kings Train being six yards long of Purple V [...]lvet, was held up by the Lord Compton, and the Lord Viscount Dorcester.] That the Lord Compton was one of them which held up the Kings Train, I shall ea­sily grant; he being then Master of the Robes, and thereby challenging a right to perform this service. But that the Lord Viscount Dorcester was the other of them, I shall never grant, there being no such Viscount at the time of the Coro­nation. I cannot say, but that Sir Dudley Carlton might be one of those which held up the Train, though I am not sure of it. But sure I am, that Sir Dudley Carlton was not made Baron of Imber-court, till towards the latter end of the following Parliament of Anno 1606. nor created Viscount Dorcester untill some years after.


It is a meer mistake of the Printer; for Viscount Doncaster, son of (and now himself) the Earl of Carlile, whose Father having a great Office in the Wardrobe, this place was proper for him to perform. All will presume me knowing enough in the Orthography of his Title, who was my Patron when I wrote the Book, and whom I shall ever, whilst I live, deservedly honour, for his great bounty unto me.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 122. The Lord Arch-bishop did present his Majesty to the Lords and Commons, East, West, North, South; asking their minds four severall times, if they did consent to the Coronation of King Charls their lawfull Soveraign.] This is a piece of new State-doctrine, never known before, that the Coronation of the King (and consequently his Succession to the Crown of England) should depend on the consent of the Lords and Commons, who were then assembled; the Coronation not proceeding (as he after telleth us) till their consent was given four times by Acclamations.


I exactly follow the Language of my worthy Intelligencer, a Doctor of Divinity, still alive, rich in Learning and Piety, present on the place, and an exact observer of all passages; and see no reason to depart [Page 5] to depart from it. I am so far from making the Coronation of the Soveraign de­pend on the consent of his Subjects, that I make not the Kingly power depend on his Coronation, who, before it, and without it, is lawfull and effectuall King to all purposes and intents. This was not a consent like that of the Bride to the Bride-groom, the want whereof doth null the Marriage; but a meer ceremoniall one, in majorem Pompam; which did not make, but manifest; not constitute, but declare his power over his people. So that the King got not one single mite of Title more, than he had before this four-fold Acclamation.

Dr. Heylyn.

And this I call piece of new State-Doctrine, never known before, because I find the contrary in the Coronation of our former Kings. For in the form and manner of the Coronation of King Edward 6. described in the Catalogue of Ho­nour, set forth by Thomas Mills of Canterbury, Anno 1610. we find in thus. ‘The King being carried by certain noble Courtiers in another Chair, unto the four sides of the Stage, was by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury declared unto the people (standing round about) both by Gods and Mans Lawes, to be the right and lawfull King of England, France, and Ireland, and proclaimed that day to be Crowned, Consecrated, and Annointed: unto whom he deman­ded, Whether they would obey and serve, or not? By whom it was again with a loud cry answered, God save the King, and, Ever live his Majesty.’ The same we have in substance, but in fewer words, in the Coronation of King Iames, where it is said, that ‘The King was shewed to the People, and that they were required to make acknowledgement of their allegiance to his Majesty by the Arch-Bishop; which they did by acclamations.’ Assuredly, the difference is exceeding vast betwixt obeying and consenting; betwixt the Peoples acknowledging their alliegance and promising to obey and serve their lawfull Soveraign, and giving their consent to his Coronation, as if it could not be per­formed without such consent.


The hinge of the controversie turneth on the criticall difference betwixt these two phrases.

Acknowledging their allegiance to their Soveraigne.

Giving consent to his Coronation.

The Animadvertor endeavours to widen the distance betwixt them, and make the difference vast, yea, exceeding vast, against the will of the words, vvhich are well inclined to an agreement, there being a Vicinity, yea, Affinity, betvvixt them, since such who vvill not acknowledge their Allegiance, will not give-consent to his Coronation; and such vvho will consent thereunto, will acknowledge their allegiance.

I refer my self wholly in this difference to the Arbitration of Mr. Mills, the same Author and Edition cited by the Animadvertor, who speaking of the anti­ent form of the Coronation of the Kings of England, in reference to this passage, thus expresseth himself.

Mills' Catal. of Honour, pag. 51. After the King hath a little reposed himself in the Chair or Throne, erected upon the Scaffold, then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall go unto the four squares of the Scaffold, and with a loud voice, Ask the good liking of the people, concerning the Coro­nation of the King.

Small, I am sure, is the difference betwixt consenting and good-liking. Howe­ver, the Kings Coronation, though following after, did not depend on such consent, good-liking, or acknowledging of Allegiance; seeing amongst our English Kings, an Vsurper's Title was not the better with, nor a lawfull Prince's the worse without, such ceremonies of State.

Dr. Heylyn. pag. 202.

Nor had the late Arch-Bishop been reproacht so generally by the common [Page 6] people, (and that reproach publish'd in severall Pamphlets) for altering the King's Oath at his Coronation, to the infringing of the Liberties, and diminu­tion of the Rights of the English Subjects; had he done them such a notable piece of service, as freeing them from all promises to obey and serve, and ma­king the Kings Coronation to depend on their consent. For Bishop Laud being one of that Committee, which was appointed by the King to review the form and order of the Coronation, to the end it might be fitted to some Rites and Cere­monies of the Church of England, which had not been observ'd before; must bear the greatest blame in this alteration, (if any such alteration had been made as our Author speaks of) because he was the principall man whom the King relied on in that business.


This proceedeth on the former foundation, which being false, and confuted, the superstructure sinketh therewith.

Dr. Heylyn.

But our Author tells us in his Preface, that this last Book, with divers of the rest; were written by him, when the Monarchy was turn'd into a State.] And I dare believe him. He had not else so punctually conform'd his language to the State-doctrin, by which the making (and, consequently, the unmaking) of Kings is wholly vested in the People, according to that Maxim of Buchanan, Populo jus est, imperium cui velit deferat; than which, there is not a more pesti­lent and seditious passage in his whole Book, De jure Regni apud Scotos, though there be nothing else but treason and sedition in it.


What I wrote in this point, I wrote in my PREFACE, that it might be obvious to every Eye; viz. That the first three Books of my Church History were for the main written in the Reign of the late King; the other nine, since Monar­chy was turn'd into a State.

My language in the latter Books forbeareth such personall passages, on the King and his Posterity, which in his life-time were, as consistent with my loy­alty, as since inconsistent with my safety. I will instance in one of them.

Church-History, Book 3. Page 52.

Some of whose Offspring [King Iohn's] shall flourish, in free and full power on the English Throne, when the Chair of Pestilence shall be burnt to ashes; and neither Tripple Crown left at Rome to be worn, nor any Head there which shall dare to wear it.

But if the Animadvertor, or any by him employed, can in any my nine last Books discover a syllable, sounding to the disparagement of the Kings person or power, to any impartiall Ear, let me, who so long fed on the King's large diet, be justly famished for my unthankfulnesse.

As for Buchanan, as I admire his Poetry, so I dislike his Divinity, especially in this point; desiring that his Principles may never come South the River Tweed, and, if offering it, may be drowned in their passage.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, f. 123. Then as many Earls and Barons as could conveniently stand about the Throne, did lay their hands on the Crown on his Majesty's head, protesting to spend their bloods to maintain it to him and his lawfull Heirs.] A promise faithfully performed by many of them, some losing their lives for him in the open field, others exhausting their Estates in the defence of his, many more venturing their whole fortunes by adhering to him to a confiscation: A Catalogue of which last we may find subscribed to a Letter, sent from the Lords and Com­mons of Parliament assembled in Oxford, to those at Westminster, Anno 1643. And by that Catalogue we may also see, what and who they were, who so [Page 7] ignobly brake faith vvith him: all those whose names we find not in that sub­scription, or presently superadded to it, being to be reckoned amongst those, who instead of spending their blood to maintain the Crown to Him, and to his lawful Successors, concurred vvith them either in opere, or in voto, who despoiled him of it. And to say truth, they were revvarded as they had deserved, the first thing which was done by the House of Commons (after the King, by their means, had been brought to the fatall Block) being to turn them out of povver, to dissolve their House, and annul their priviledges, reducing them to the same condition vvith the rest of the Subjects.


I behold all this Paragraph as a Letter sent to me vvhich requires no An­swer, (onely I bear the Animadvertor witnesse, that it is delivered) seeing I was none of the Lords on either Side. But I am not altogether satisfied in the Adequation of the Animadvertor's Dichotomy to all the English Nobility, That all not subscribing the Catalogue at Oxford, must instantly be concluded on the op­site Party; believing, that upon serious search, some Lords would be found in their Minority, and not necessarily reducible to either of these heads.

Dr. Heylyn.

Footsteps of his moderation, content with the enjoying without the enjoyning their private practices and opinions on others.] This comes in as an inference onely on a former passage, in which it is said of Bishop Andrews, that in what place soever he came, he never pressed any other Ceremonies upon them, than such as he found to be used there before his comming. Though othervvise condemned by some for many superstitious Ceremonies and superfluous Ornaments used in his private Chappell. How true this is, I am not able to affirm.


The Animadvertor (if so disposed) might soon have satisfied himself in this point, being Beneficed in Hampshire, the last Diocesse of Bishop Andrews. And though his institution into his Living was since the death of that worthy Pre­late, yet his information in this particular had been easie, from the aged Clergy of his Vicinage. Sure I am, he ever was inquisitive enough in matters, vvhi [...]h might make for his advantage; so that his not denying, tantamounteth to the affirming of the matter in question.

Dr. Heylyn.

I am less able (if it should be true) to commend it in him. It is not certainly the office of a carefull Bishop, onely to leave things as he found them, but to re­duce them, if amiss, to those Rules and Canons, from which, by the forward­ness of some to innovate, and the connivance of others at the innovations, they had been suffered to decline.


I comply cordially with the Animadvertor in all this last Sentence. Only I add, That it is also the office of a good Bishop, not to endeavour the Alteration of things well setled before. This was the constant practice of Doctor Andrews, successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester, who never urged any o­ther Ceremonies, that what which he found there. Now whereas the Anim­advertor saith, that i [...] this should be true, he is not able to commend it in him; the matter is not much, seeing the actions of Bishop Andrewes are able to commend themselves.

Dr. Heylyn.

And for the Inference it selfe, it is intended chiefly for the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; against whom he had a fling before in the fourth Book of this [Page 8] History, not noted there, because reserved to another place, of vvhich more hereafter. Condemmed here for his want of moderation, in enjoyning his private practices and opinions on other men. But first, our Author had done well to have spared the man, vvho hath already reckoned for all his errours, both vvith God and the vvorld.


He hath so, and I hope, what he could not satisfie in himself, was done by his Sav [...]our. But first, the Animadvertor had done wel to have spared his censure on my intentions, except he had better assurance of them. Here I must, Reader, appeal to an higher than thy self, Him vvho can read the secrets of my heart, before whom I protest, That in this passage I did not reflect in any degree on the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury. To make this the more probable, knovv, the Articles of his Visitation vvere observed to be as moderate, as any Bishops in England.

Here let me enter this Memorable, and let the Animadvertor confute it, if he can. There was a designe of the thirty six Dissenters (of whom hereafter) in the Convoca [...]ion, to obtain, that these Articles of his Visitation might be pre­ceden [...]tall to all the Bishops in England, as being in themselves in offensive, and containing no Innovations. This was by some communicated to Arch-Bishop Laud, who at first seemed to approve thereof; and how it came afterwards to miscarry, I am not bound to discover.

I confess, this my expression did eye another person, related to Bishop An­drewes, whom I forbear to name, except by the Animadvertor's reply unto me I be forced thereunto.

Dr. Heylyn.

And secondly, it had been better if he had told us, what those private practi­ses and opinions were, which the Arch-Bishop, with such want of moderation, did enjoy [...] on others.


They are reckoned up in my Church-History, Book 11. pag. 174. parag: 47 & 48. This is direction enough, and there one may find more then a good many of such opinions and practises. On the self-same token, that it was discreetly done of the Animadvertor to pass them over in silence, without a word in their defence or excuse. I will not again here repeat them, partly because I will not revive what in some sort is dead and buried; and partly, because I charitably believe, that some engaged therein, and still alive, are since sorry for their over-activity therein.

Dr. Heylyn.

For it is possible enough, that the opinions which he speaks of, might be the publick Doctrines of the Church of England, maintained by him, in opposition to those private opinions, which the Calvinian party had intended to obtrude upon her. A thing complained o [...] by Spalato, who well observed, that many of the opinions both of Luther and Calvin, were received amongst us, as part of the Doctrine and Confession of the Church of England; which otherwise he acknow­ledged to be capable of an Orthodox sense. Praeter Anglicanam Confessionem (quam mi [...] ut mo [...]estam praedicalant) multa video Lutheri & Calvini dogmata ob­tinuisse, as he there objects.


I am not bound to stand to the judgment of Spalato, who would not stand to his own judgment; but first in [...]ear [...], then in body, went back into Aegypt. Lay not such unsavoury salt in my dish, but cast it to the Dunghill.

Dr. Heylyn.

He that reads the Gag, and the Appello Caesarem of Bishop Mon [...]gue, cannot [Page 9] but see, that those opinions which our Author condemned for private, were the true Doctrine of this Church, professed and held forth in the Book of Articles, the Homilies, and the Common-Prayer-Book.


He that reads the Answers returned by severall Divines to the Books of Bishop Montague, cannot but see, that they were rather private opinions, than the true and professed Doctrine of the Church of England.

Here, Reader, I cannot but remember a passage betwixt two Messengers, sent to carry Defiances from severall Armies, who, meeting in the mid-way, (though naked, and without Swords, yet) to manifest their zeal to their Cause, fought it out with their Trumpets, till, both being well wearied, they went about their businesse, leaving the main successe to be tryed by their Armies.

Historians are beheld in the notion of Heralds. And, seeing the Animadver­tor and I have now clashed it with our Trumpets, let us leave the rest to be disputed and decided by those learned and pious persons, who publickly in Print have engaged therein, and who have (or may in due tim [...]) meet toge­ther in bliss and happinesse. In my Fathers house are (though no wall of partition) many Joh. 14.2 [...] mansions; severall receptacles (as some suppose) for Martyrs, Confessors, &c. and vvhy not for such, as, dissenting in the superstructures, concur in holy life, and the fundamentalls of Religion?

Dr. Heylyn.

And it is possible enough, that the practices which he speaks of, were not private neither, but a reviver of those antient and publick usages, which the Canons of the Church enjoyned, and by the remisness of the late Govern­ment had been discontinued. But for a justification of the practises (the pri­vate practises he speaks of) I shall refer him to an Author of more credit with him. Which Author, first, tells us of the Bishops generally, ‘That being of late years either careless or indulgent, they had not required, within their Diocesses, that strict obedience to Ecclesiasticall Constitutions, which the Law expected; upon which, the Liturgy began totally to be laid aside, and inconformity the uniform practise of the Church. He tells us, secondly, of Arch-Bishop Abbot in particular, That his extraordinary remisness, in not exacting a strict conformity to the prescribed orders of the Church, in point of Ceremony, seemed to dissolve those legall determinations, to their first principle of indifferency, and led in such an habit of inconformity, as the fu­ture reduction of those tender conscienced mens too-long-discontinued obe­dience, was interpreted an innovation. And finally, he tells of Arch-Bishop Laud, who succeeded Abbot in that See, that, being of another mind and met­tle, he did not like, that the externall Worship of God should follow the fashion of every private fancy; and what he did not like in that subject, as he was in State, so he thought it was his duty to reform. To which end, in his Metropoliticall Visitation, he calls upon all, both Clergy and Laity, to observe the Rules of the Church.’ And this is that which our Author calls, the enjoyning of his private practises; private perhaps in the private opinion of some men, who had declared themselves to be professed enemies to all publick Order.


I have cause to give credit unto H. Le Strange Esa; him, who, to the lustre of his antient and noble extraction, hath added the light of Learning, not as his profession, but ac­complishment, whereby he hath presented the Publick with an hansome Hi­story, likely to prove as acceptable to Posterity, as it hath done to the present Age. The Gentleman, in that his passage, reflecteth onely on such Ceremonies, is stood in force by Canon, but had been disused; with whom I concur. But the controversie in hand is about additionall Ceremonies, enjoyned by no Can­nons, [Page 10] (save some mens over-imperious commanding, and others over-officious complying) justly deserving the censure of private practises.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 127. A Commission was granted unto five Bishops, (whereof Bishop Laud of the Quorum) to suspend Arch-Bishop Abbot from ex­ercising his au [...]hority any longer, because un-canonicall for casuall Homicide.] Had our Author said, that Bishop Laud had been one of the number, he had hit it right, the Commission being granted to five Bishops, viz. Dr. Montain, Bishop of London, Dr. Neil Bishop of Durham, Dr. Buckeridge Bishop of Rochester, Dr. Howson Bishop of Oxford, and Dr. Laud Bishop of Bathe and Wells; or to any four, three, or two of them, and no more then so. Had Bishop Laud been of the Quorum, his presence and consent had been so necessary to all their Con­sultations, Conclusions, and dispatch of businesses, that nothing could be done without him; whereas by the words of the Commission, any two of them were impowered, and consequently all of them must be of the Quorum, as well as he; which every Iustice's Clerk cannot chuse but laugh at.


They will soon cease their laughter at the sad story I am about to relate. But be it premised, that here I use the word Quorum not in the legall strictness there­of, but in that passeable sense in common discourse; viz. for one so active in a bu­siness, that nothing is (though it may be) done without him therein.

When the Writing for Arch-Bishop Abbot's suspension was to be subscribed by the Bishops aforesaid, the four Seniors, viz. London, Durham, Rochester, and Ox­ford, all declined to set their hands thereunto, and (seemingly at the least) shewed much reluctance and regrete thereat. Then give me the Pen (said Bishop Laud) and though last in place, first subscribed his name. Encouraged by whose words and example, the rest, after some demur, did the like.

This was attested to me by him who had best cause to know it, the aged and credible Register, still alive, who attended in the place upon them. This I for­merly knew, but concealed it; and had not published it now, if not necessita­ted thereunto in my just defence.

Dr. Heylyn.

Nor is there any such thing as a casuall Homicide mentioned, or so much as glanced at in that Commission, the Commission onely saying, ‘That the said Arch-Bishop could not at that present in his own person attend those servi­ces, which were otherwise proper for his Cognizance and Jurisdiction; and which, as Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, he might and ought in his own person to have performed and executed.’ I am loth to rub longer on this sore, the point having been so vext already betwixt the Historian and the Oservator, that I shall not trouble it any further.


I confess, casuall Homicide not expresly mentioned, but implyed in the Com­mission. Otherwise what did those words import COULD NOT in his person attend? It was not any indisposition of body, being then, and some years after, in health; not impotency in his Intellect, (caused from the influence of age) who afterwards, when older, discharged this place, (as the Animadvertor confes­eth). Though therefore the hilt of Homicide was onely shown, the blade was shaked in the sheath. Sure I am, that some, the nearest about the Arch-Bishop, have informed me, that he interpreted, that UN-COULDING him, solely to relate to his canonicall Irregula [...]ity on the Accident aforesaid, and was dejected accordingly.

Dr. Heylyn.
[Page 11]

Onely I must crave leave to rectifie our Author in another passage, relating to that sad accident.


To rectifie is to make that streight which was crooked before; and it is an act of no less charity, than skill and cunning well to perform it. Onely fools, can be fond of their own deformity. I do not onely desire, but delight, to have the crook­edness of my knowledge streightned, provided alwaies, it be done in the spirit of meekness. But I understand, such as streighten crooked persons beyond the Seas, put them to much torture. I likewise fear, that the Animadvertor will lay so much weight of ill words upon me, that the profit I shall reap, will not counter­vail the pain I must endure in my rectification.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author saith, Ibid. It would be of dangerous consequence to condemn him by the Canons of forrain Councils, which were never allowed any Legislative power in this Land.] Which words are very ignorantly spoken, or else very improperly.


Did I not foretell aright, that my rectification would cost me dear? even the burden of bad words. Here I have a dolefull Dilemma presented unto me, to confesse my self speaking, either very ignorantly, or very improperly. But might not one of these two VERY's have very well been spared? Well, è malis mini­mum, if it must be so, that my choice must be of one of these, let it be rather but Impropriety, than Ignorance.

But, Reader, I see no necessity of acknowledging either, but that my words are both knowingly and properly spoken; and now to the triall.

Dr. Heylyn.

For if by Legislative power, he means a power of making Lawes, as the word doth intimate, then it is true, That the Canons of forrain Councells had ne­ver any such power within this Land: But if by Legislative power he means, a Power or Capability of passing for Lawes within this Kingdom; then (though he use the word improperly) it is very fals) that no such Canons were in force in the Realm of England. The Canons of many forrain Councells, Generall, Nationall, and Provinciall, had been received in this Church, and incorporated into the body of the Canon-Law, by which the Church proceeded in the ex­ercise of her Jurisdiction, till the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the Eighth. And, in the Act confirmative of that submission, it is said expresly, ‘That all Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances, and Synodals Provinciall, as were made before the said Submission, which be not contrary or repugnant to the Laws, Statutes, and Customs of this Realm, nor to the dammage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative Royall, were to be used and executed as in former times, 25 H. 8. c. 19.’ So that unlesse it can be proved, that the pro­ceedings in this case, by the Canons of forrain Councels was either contrary or re­pugnant to the Laws and Customs of the Realm, or to the dammage of the Kings pre­rogative Royall, There is no dangerous consequence at all to be found therein.


By Legislative power of the Canons of forrain Councels, I understand their power to subject the People of our Nation to Guiltiness, and consequently to Penalties, if found infringing them. Now I say again, such forrain Canons, though not against, but onely besides our Common Law; and containing no re­pugnancy, but disparateness to the Lawes of our Land; either never had such [Page 12] power in England since the Reformation, or else disuse long since hath antiquated it, as to the rigid exercise thereof.

For instance, a Bishop I am sure, and I think a Priest too, is, in the old Canons, rendred irregular, for playing a game at Tables, Dice being forbidden by the Ca­nons. Yet I conceive, it would be hard measure, and a thing, de facto, never done, that such irregularity should be charged on him, on that account.

We know it was the project of the Pope and Papall party, to multiply Canons in Councels, meerly to make the more men, and men the more obnoxious unto him, that they might re-purchase their innocence at the price of the Court of Rome. I believe, the Animadvertor himself would be loth to have his canonicalness tried by the Test of all old Canons, made in rigorem disciplinae, yet not contrariant to our Laws and Customs, seeing they are so nice and numerous, that Cautiousnesse it self may be found an offendor therein. I resume my words, That it would be of dangerous consequence to condemn the Arch-Bishop by Canons of forrain Councels, which never obtained power here, either quoad reatum, or poenam, of such as did not observe them.

Dr. Heylyn.

But whereas our Author adds in some following words, That eversince (he means ever since the unhappy accident) he had executed his jurisdiction with­out any interruption:] I must needs add, That he is very much mistaken in this par­ticular. Dr. Williams, Lord Elect of Lincoln; Dr. Carew, Lord Elect of Exeter; and Dr. Laud, Lord Elect of St. Davids, and, I think, some others, refusing to receive Episcopall Consecration from him on that account.


Must the Animadvertor needs add this? I humbly conceive no such necessity, being but just the same which I my self had written before.

Church-History, Book 10. Pag. 88.

Though some squemish and nice-conscienced Elects scrupled to be consecrated by him.

But I beheld this as no effectuall interrupting of his Jurisdiction, because other Bishops, more in number, (no whit their inferiour) received Consecration, Dr. Davenant, Dr. Hall, and King Charls himself his Coronation from him.

Dr. Heylyn.

Far more mistaken is our Author in the next, when he tells us, fol. 128. Though this Arch-bishop survived some years after, yet hence-forward he was buried to the world.] No such matter neither: For, though for a while he stood confined to his house at Ford, yet neither this Confinement, nor that Commission, were of long continuance; for about Christmas, in the year 1628. he was restored both to his Liberty and Jurisdiction, sent for to come unto the Court, received as he came out of his Barge by the Arch-Bishop of York, and the Earl of Dorset, and by them conducted to the King; who giving him his hand to kiss, enjoyned him not to fail the Councill-Table twice a vveek. After which time we find him sitting as Arch-Bishop in Parliament, and in the full exercise of his Iuris­diction till the day of his death, which happened on Sunday, August the 4th. 1633. And so much of him.


An Historian may make this exception, but not a Divine; my words being spoken in the language of the Gal. 6.14. Apostle, The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. I had said formerly, that the Keeper's death was this Arch-Bishop's mor­tification. But from this his Suspension (from the exercise of his Iurisdiction) he was in his own thoughts buried, it reviving his obnoxiousness for his former casuall Homicide; so that never he was seen hartily (if at all) to laugh hereaf­ter, though I deny not, Much Court-savour was afterwards (on designe) confer­red on him.

[Page 13]Here I hope it will be no offence to insert this innocent story, partly to shew how quickly tender guiltiness is dejected, partly to make folk cautious, how they cast out gaulling speeches in this kind. This Archbishop returning to Croidon, (after his late absence thence a long time) many people, most women, (where­of some of good quality for good will) for novelty and curiosity crouded about his Coach. The Archbishop being unwilling to be gazed at, and never fond of Females, said, somewhat churlishly, What make these women here? You had best, (said one of them) to shoot an arrow at us. I need not tell the Reader how neare this second arrow went to his heart.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author goeth on. Fol. 137. My pen passing by them at present, may safe­ly Salute them with a God-Speed as neither seeing nor suspecting any danger in the Designe] Our Author speakes this of the Feoffees, appointed by themselves, for buying [...]in such Impropriations, as were then in the hands of Lay-persons. I say, appointed by themselves; because not otherwise authorised, either by Charter from the King, Decree in Chancery, or by Act of Parliament; but on­ly by a secret combination of the Brother-hood.

But secondly, this will further appear by their proceedings in the businesse, not laying the Impropriations, by them purchased, to the Church or Chappelry to which they had antiently belonged, nor setling them on the Incumbent of the place, as many hoped they would. That had been utterly destructive to their main design, which was not to advantage the Regular and established Clergy, but to set up a new body of Lecturers in convenient places, for the pro­moting of the Cause. And therefore having bought an Impropriation, they parcelled it out into annual Pensions of 40 or 50 l. per annum, and therewith salared some Lecturers in such Market-Towns, where the people had com­monly lesse to do, and consequently were more apt to Faction and Innovation, than in other places. Our Author notes it of their Predecessors, in Cartwrights dayes, that they preached most diligently in populous places; it being observed in England, that those who hold the Helm of the Pulpit, alwayes steer peoples hearts as they please, Lib. 9. fol. 195. And he notes it also of these Feoffees, that in con­formity hereunto, they set up a Preaching Ministry in places of greatest need; not in such Parish-Churches, to which the Tithes properly belonged, but where they thought the Word was most wanting, that is to say, most wanting to advance their project.

Thirdly, if we behold the men whom they made choice of, and employed in preaching in such Market-Towns as they had an eye on, either because most populous, or because capable of electing Burgesses to serve in Parliament, they were for the most part Non-conformists, and sometime such as had been silen­ced by their Ordinary, or the High-commission, for their Factious carriage. And such an one was placed by Geering, one of the Citizen-Feoffees, in a Town of Glocestershire; a fellow which had been outed of a Lecture neer Sandwich by the Archbishop of Canterbury, out of another in Middlesex by the Bishop of London, out of a third in Yorkshire by the Archbishop of York, out of a fourth in Hartfordshire by the Bishop of Lincoln, and finally suspended from his Ministry by the High-Commission; yet thought the fittest man by Geering (as indeed he was) to begin this Lecture.

Fourthly and finally, these Pensions neither were so setled, nor these Lectu­rers so well establisht in their severall places, but that the one might be with­drawn, and the other removed, at the will and pleasure of their Patrons, if they grew slack and negligent in the holy cause, or abated any thing at all of that fire and fury they first brought with them. Examples of which I know some, and have heard of more. And now I would fain know of our Author, whether there be no danger to be seen or suspected in this design; whether these Feoffees in short time would not have had more Chaplains to depend upon them, than all the Bishops in the Kingdom; and finally, whether such needy fellowes de­pending [Page 14] on the will and pleasure of their gracious Masters, must not be forced to Preach such Doctrines onely as best please their Humours. And though I shall say nothing here of their giving under-hand private Pensions, not onely unto such as had been silenced or suspended in the Ecclesiasticall Courts, but many times also to their wives and Children after their decease, all issuing from this common-stock: yet others have beheld it as the greatest piece of Wit and Artifice both to encourage and encrease their Emissaries, which could be possibly devised. If, as our Author tels us, fol. 143. The Design was generally approved, and that both discreet and devout men were doleful at the ruine of so pious a Project; it was because they neither did suspect the danger, nor foresee the mischiefs, which unavoidably must have followed, if not crusht in time.


The Feoffees being now all Dead, save I am infor­med C. Offspring is still alive. one, I may say that in this Suit all the Councell is for the Plantiffe, and none allowed the De [...]enda [...]t. Were any number of them still alive, probably they might plead something in defence of their Proceedings.

However I believe, this Narrative of the Animadvertor, hath very much of Truth therein, and seeing it is not Opposite but Additional to what I have written, my Answer is not required thereunto. Onely the close thereof treadeth on the Toes of my History and that but lightly too; the Animadvertor not denying that, discreet and Devout men were dolefull at the ruine of so pious a Project. And seeing he went so far with my words, would he had gon a little farther, and added, that such Good men were desirous of a Regulation of this Designe; it being pitty that so fair a Tree, should be rent up Root and Branch, for bearing bad, which might and would have born better fruit, with a little good digging about it, and well husbanding thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 148. However, there was no Express in this Decla­ration, that the Ministers of the Parish should be pressed to the publishing.] Our Au­thor doth here change his style. He had before told us, That on the first publi­shing of the Declaration about lawfull Sports on the Lords Day, no Minister was, de facto, enjoyned to read it in his Parish, lib. 10. fol. 76. and here he tells us, that there was no express order in the Declaration, (when reviv'd by King Charls) that the Minister of the Parish should be prest to the publishing of it; adding [...]ithall, that many thought it a more proper work for the Con­stable or Tithing-man, than it was for the Minister. But if our Author mark it well, he may easily find, that the Declaration of King Iames was commanded to be published by order from the Bishop of the Diocess, through all the Parish-Churches of his Jurisdiction. And the Declaration of King Charls to be published with like order from the severall Bishops, through all the Parish-Churches of their seve­rall Diocesses respectively. The Bishop of the Diocess in the singular number, in the Declaration of King Iames, because it principally related to the County of Lan­caster The Bishops in the plurall number, in that of King Charls, because the be­nefit of it was to be extended over all the Realm. In both, the Bishops are commanded to take order for the publishing of them in their severall Parishes; and whom could they require to publish them in the Parish Churches, but the Ministers onely? The Constable is a Lay-Officer, meerly bound by his place to ex­ecute the Warrants and Commands of the Iustices, but not of the Bishop. And though the Tithing-man have some relation to Church-matters, and conse­quently to the Bishop, in the way of presentments; yet was he no [...] bound to exe­cute any such Commands, because not tyed by an Oath of Canonicall Obedience, as the Ministers were. So that the Bishops did no more than they were com­manded, in laying the Publication of these Declarations on the backs of the Ministers▪ and the Ministers by doing less than they were required, infring'd the Oath which they had taken, rendring themselves thereby obnoxious to all [Page 15] such Ecclesiasticall Censures, as the Bishops should inflict upon them.


I said, That there was no Express order in the Declaration, that the Minister of the Parish should be pressed to the publishing of it.

Now the Animadvertor hath done me the favour, to prove my words to be true, acknowledging the Declaration onely enjoyned, That the Bishop of the Dio­cess should order the publishing thereof, through all the Parishes in his Iurisdiction: And so consequently (as the Animadvertor inferreth) the Ministers must do it. Hereby the truth of my words do appear, that there was no express command, seeing an EXPRESS, and an INFERENCE are two things of a different nature.

Whereas I said, That many thought it a more proper work for the Constable or Tithing-man, then for the Minister. There are thousands now alive which will justifie the truth thereof. Yea, their thoughts (which otherwise I confess came not under my cognizance) expressed themselves in their words, wherewith they affirmed and professed the same.

Dr. Heylyn.

It seems that in our Authors judgment, it was well done by the Judges for the County of Somerset, to impose upon the Ministers of that County (over whom they could challenge no authority) to publish their own Declarations against Wakes and Feasts; and that it was well done of the Ministers to obey the same, for which see fol. 147.] These Bishops are beholden to him, for giving greater power to the Iudges and Iustices over his brethren of the Clergy, then he yields to them; and as much beholden are the Clergy, for putting so many Masters over them instead of a Father. The difference of the case will not serve the turn, the King having a greater power to indulge such freedom to his Subjects, then the others could pretend unto, to restrain them from it. If he ob­ject, that the Ministers are most unfit to hold the Candle, to lighten and let in licenti­ousness, as he seems to do; he must first prove, that all, or any of the sports al­lowed of, in those Declarations, may be brought within the compass of licen­tiousness, which neither the Word of God, nor the Canons of the Christian Church, nor any Statutes of the Realm had before forbidden. Lastly, whereas he tells us, That because the Iudges had enjoyned the Ministers to read their Order in the Church, the Kings Declaration was enforced by the Bishops to be published by them in the same place.] There is no such matter. The Declaration of King Iames appointed to be read, and read by order of the Bishop in the Parish Churches, doth evince the contrary.


I did not say, The Judges did well, or did ill therein; but I said, The Judges did order, that the Ministers should publish their Declaration against Wakes and Feasts. I have not (nor can quickly procure) a copy of their order, whether it were mandatory or, by way of advice, did desire Ministers to do that, which might be advantagious to Religion. But I vvill not judge the Iudges, but leave them (as best skilled in their own faculty) to make good their own acts.

If such Grandees in the Law exceeded their bounds in this their injunction to Ministers, (over whom they had no command) how many mistakes should I run into, if once offering to meddle with this matter, being out of my profession? And therefore no more thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

Now for our Authors better satisfaction in the present point, I shall lay down the judgment of one so high in his esteem, (and once in the esteem of that party too) that I conceive he will not offer to gainsay him. It is the Au­thor of the Book, called the Holy Table, Name, and Thing, vvho resolves it thus: [Page 16] All the commands of the King (saith he) that are not upon the first inference and illation (without any Prosyllogisms) contrary to a clear passage in the Word of God, or to an evident Sun-beam of the Law of Nature, are pre­cisely to be obeyed. Nor is it enough to find a remote and possible inconve­nience that may ensue therefrom; (which is the ordinary objection against the Book of Recreations) for every good subject is bound in conscience to be­lieve and rest assured, that his Prince (envi [...]oned with such a Councell) will be more able to discover, and as ready to prevent any ill sequel, that may come of it, as himself possibly can be. And therefore I must not by dis­obeying my Prince commit a certain sin, in preventing a probable but con­tingent inconveniency.’ This if it were good Doctrine then, when both the Author and the Book were cryed up even to admiration, is not to be rejected as false Doctrine now; truth being constant to it selfe, not varying nor alte­ring with the change of times.


I want no satisfaction, I thank God, in the point; and therefore the Anim­advertor might have spared his pains. As an Historian, I have truly related, de facto, what vvas done; and though the Animadvertor may conjecture at my judgment in this controversie, he cannot be confident thereof by any thing I have vvritten.

All I will add is this, Because I may write the more, I will write the lesse of this subject. I have good povver to back me for the present in this controversie, and might securely express my self therein.

When my Text shall lead me in my Vocation to treat of the Observation of the Lords Day, I shall not be sparing to express my opinion therein, and will en­deavour (God-vvilling) to justifie it. Mean time, I vvill not go out of mine own house, which is my castle; I mean, I will not be drawn out into the open field of a controversie, but keep my self under this COVER, That mat­ters of fact in this difference have been truly related by me: and let the Anim­advertor disprove it if he can.

Dr. Heylyn.

But our Author will not stop here, he goes on and saith,

Ibid. Many moderate men are of opinion, that this abuse of the Lords-day was a principal procurer of Gods anger, since poured out on this Land, in a long and bloudy Civill war.] And moderate perhaps they may be in apparell, diet, and the like civil acts of life and conversation; but sure, immoderate enough in this Obser­vation: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath [...]een his Counsellor, saith the great Apostle? But it is as common with some men of the newest Religions, to adscribe Gods secret judgements to some speciall Reasons, as if they had the Key which opens into his Cabinet at their severall Girdles; as if they were ad­mitted to all Consultations in the Court of Heaven, before that dreadfull Judge could inflict any temporall Punishment upon Men on Earth. Otherwise they might find the Nation guilty of too many sins, which drew down this ven­geance, to adscribe it unto any one sin, (if a sin it were;) and rather wonder at Gods mercy, patience, and long-suffering, in deferring his punishments long, then that he inflicted them at last.


I behold them as Moderate men in all Respects. The Animadvertor hath used my words,2 Sam. 10.4. as the King of Ammon dealt with the cloaths of David's Embassa­dours, even cutting them off at the middle. Otherwise, might they have but hung down to the ground, no nakednesse had appeared in what I have written, proceeding as followeth;

Church History, Book 11. page 148.

Such Moderate Men observe that our sights of chief Concernment, [Edge Hill &c.] [Page 17] were often sought on the Lords-Day, as pointing at the punishing of the Profanation thereof.

See here the Reason assigned of their Opinion, as I received it from their mouths. Since, they say, It is one thing with the Beth-shemites to pry into the Ark, and another thing, to look on. God Secrets, in some sort un-secreted, when by the Proportion of his Judgments, he sayeth Come and see. These also al­ledge for themselves, that the Patriarks, sensible of their hard usage from the Governour of Egypt, did not pry into Gods Mysticall Pleasure, when conclu­ding it inflicted on them, for their Cruelty to their Brother Ioseph; Therefore is this distresse come upon us. However I wholly concurre with the Animadvertor in his last Sentence, as truly and savourly written. Onely I dissent from Him, in that Passage,

(if a Sin it were;)

Surely, He meaneth not, if the Profanation of the Lords-Day were a Sin, which is above all Iff [...]s. Rather his sense is, If the using of such Sports were a Profanation of the Lords Day.

But mens Corruption is more prone to acquit themselves when guilty, than to suspect themselves when guiltless.

Parce precor Stimulis, & fortiùs utere Loris.
Spurs I pray refrain;
Rather use the Reine.

I need not mind the Animadvertor, how penal it is by the late Act, for any to write any thing against the strict Observation of the Lords Day; and believe, he Intended nothing Prejudiciall to the same: yet Profaness probably too soon (besides his intention) may improve it selfe on his words, alter his Si into Non; and by the next Return, turn his note of Dubitation into an absolute Negation, on which account the Parenthesis had been better forborn, in my Opinion.

Dr. Heylyn.

And though our Author doth object against this Opinion of those Moderate men, that to pick a solemn Providence out of a common Casualty, savours more of curi­osity then conscience, yet he dares not stand to it; confessing within few lines af­ter, that there may be more in the Observation than what many are willing to acknow­ledge.] If so, there may be as much conscience as curiosity in the Moderate Men.


As I stand not wholly to it, so I run not any whit away from it, but dubiously propound it, hoping the Reader will account me not the lesse constant in my Judgement, but the more cautious in my language, in not being positive in an Observation of this nature.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds Folio 151. If moderate men had had the managing of these matters about the Posture of the Lords Board (call it Table or Altar) the Accommo­dation had been easie with a little Condescention on both sides.] Why then did not these moderate men interpose themselves for taking off those needless Animosities, and putting an end unto the Quarrell? The Presse was open on both sides; Iohn, Lincoln, Deane of Westminister, who appear'd so strongly in the Cause, thinking himselfe as well able and well qualified to license a Book unto the Presse, as either the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Bishop of London.


I said it, and say it again, and any who have Honesty and Learning (the Ani­madvertor only excepted) will say so too; that those differences were easily capable of Accommodations with a little Condescention on both sides. It will not belong before the Animadvertor will tell us, that the Controversies betwixt us [Page 18] and the Church of Rome, (consisting most, as he saith, in Superstructures) may be comprimised: and if (to use his owne Words) the Petulancy of the Puritans on the one side, and the Pragmaticalness of the Iesuites on the other side were charmed a while, moderate men might possibly have agreed on equall tearmes.

Now this seemeth a strange thing to me, that moderation may make Prote­stants agree with Papists in matters Doctrinall; and cannot make Protestants agree with Protestants in matters Ceremoniall. Being the same plaister, why hath it not equall vertue; especially, the latter being the lesser wound? Can the difference of Transubstantiation be taken up betwixt us and the Papists, and not the setting of the Communion-Table betwixt our selves? Can a crack be closed in a Iewell, and a rent not mended in the Case? These things I confess transcend my ap­prehension.

Now that no moderate man stood up in the gap to make up this breach, I can assigne no other cause, save, That God, justly offended with our Nation, had not so great a favour for it, but suffered a Pustle to fester into an Ulcer; not from any insanability in the soar, but want of seasonable Surgery; and let the guilt thereof (that the burden may be the better born) be equally divided, betwixt both parties engaged therein.

Dr. Heylyn.

If all else failed, why did not our Author undertake, and make himself the Moderator in that trifling controversie, which seems to have been so easie to be brought to an accommodation?


The jeer shall go for nothing. The reason why the Author undertook not to be Moderator in the Difference, was, because he was Eph. 3.8. [...], (and if there be a more subter-superlative) the least of the least of his brethren. However, herein the Author comforteth himself, That as it was above his power to cure, so it was against his will to widen the wound; and being quiet in his calling, con­curred not to the inflaming of the mutuall Animosities.

Dr. Heylyn.

Make himself Moderator in that [trifling controversie.]


The Animadvertor his unfair dealing with me, minds me of a passage in Cambridge. One made a [pretended] extemporary Confutation, of his Position against whom he disputed, which indeed was onely premeditately made a­gainst the Question, confuting many things which the Answerer never spake. And when the Answerer, causlesly charged, pleaded for himself, Nihil tale oc­currebat in Positione meâ; the other replyed, Debuit occurrere tamen. I never said, that the controversie about placing of the Communion-Table, was a trifling contro­versie; but it seems I should have said so, that the Animadvertor might have had an advantage against me. This I said, That the controversie might easily have been reconciled with mutuall moderation; but trifling, I never termed it. And therefore the Animadvertor, fighting with his own shaddow, it is all one to me whether he beat or be beaten.

Yet I doubt not, but there are many in this Nation, my betters in all re­spects, who will be bold to call it a Trifling controversie, if not [...]solutely, yet comparatively, to many Doctrinall differences of higher concernment; and, in re­spect of the great troubles caused thereby, far above the considerablenesse of the thing which was in contest.

Dr. Heylyn.

The question was about the placing of the Communion-Table, whether it ought to stand in the middle of the Church, or Chancel, with one end towards [Page 19] the East great Window, like a common Table; or close up to the Eastern-wall, with ends North and South, according as the Altars had been placed in the former times. They that maintained the last opinion, had Authority for it, that is to say, the Injunctions of the Queen, Anno 1599. the Orders and Advertisements of the year 1562. and 1565. the constant practice of the Chappels in his Ma­jestie's Houses, most of the Cathedrall, and some of the Parochiall Churches; and finally, a Declaration of the King, Anno 1633. commending a conformi­ty in the Parish-Churches to their own Cathedralls. They on the other side stood chiefly upon discontinuance, but urged withall, that some Rubricks in the Common-Prayer-Book seemed to make for them. So that the question be­ing reduced to a matter of fact, that is to say, The Table must stand this way, or it must stand that way; I would fain know, how any Condescention might be made on either side, tending to an accommodation, or what our Moderator would have done to atone the differences.


The Dr. hath clearly, briefty, and truly stated the Controversie, whose pen was formerly conversant therein, and by his owne acknowledgment both sides had much to say for themselves.

Onely I wonder that though the Question was reduced to matter of Fact, it should be made by him of so high Importance; That either no condiscention could be made on either side, or such Condiscention (if made) must prove in­effectuall as to an accommodation.

Is there no balme in Gilead? Hath not the spirit of God endowed his servants with such discretion, but they may comprimise a difference of greater Mo­ment?

Dr. Heylyn.

Suppose him sitting in the Chair, the Arguments on both sides urged, and all the Audience full of expectation which side would carry it. The Moderator Fuller of old merry Tales then ordinary, thus resolves the businesse, That he had heard it commended for a great piece of wisdom in Bishop Andrews, ‘That wheresoever he was a Parson, a Dean, or a Bishop, he never troubled Parish, Colledge, or Diocesse, with pressing of other Ceremonies upon them, than such which he found used there before his comming thither.’ That King Iames finding the Archbishop of Spalato in a resolution of questioning all such Leases, as had been made by his Predecessors in the Savoy, gave him this wise counsell, Relinque res sicut eas invenisti; That he should leave things as he found them. That the said King being told by a great Person, of the in­verted scituation of a Chappel in Cambridge, made answer, That it did not matter how the Chappell stood, so their hearts who go thither were set aright in Gods service. But for his part, he liked better of the resolution of Dr. Prideaux, (his brother in the Chair at Oxford) who being troubled with his neighbours of Kidlington, about the setting up of a May-pole, some being for it, and some against it, thus resolved the case; You, saith he, that will have a May-pole, shall have a May-pole; And you that will have none, shall have none. And that according to that pattern, he thought best to accommodate the present Controversie to the same effect, viz. You that will have an Altar, shall set up your Altar; and you that will have a Table, shall have but a Table. Which sentence, whether it would have pleased all parties, I do somewhat doubt; but sure I am, it had not tended to the advancement of that uniformity, which was then designed.


The Animadvertor here makes a Professor's Chaire; and, having solemnly set me down therein, puts words into my mouth, and makes an Oration for me, as Moderator in the present Controversie, with a jeer to boot on the memory of the Reverend Doctor Prideaux.