202 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 43. 



These sources would, I conceive, be useful to 

 N.B., who inquires into their tenets and lives. 



I find I have omitted to mention one of their 

 assailants, "the last and most learned," Henry 

 More, the English divine. See his Mystery of 

 Godliness, book vi., chap. 12 — 18. .nyDb* 



The Family of Love. — In addition to the work 

 of John Rogers, referred to by Dr. Rimbault (Vol. 

 ii., p. 49.), the two following treatises, which were 

 also published in the year 1579, will present your 

 readers with much curious information respecting 

 the "Family of Love." The first is entitled, — 



" A Confutation of certaine Articles deliiiered unto 

 the Familye of Loue, with the exposition of Theophilus, 

 a supposed elder in the sayd Familye, upon the same 

 Articles, by William Wilkinson, Maister of Artes, and 

 student of Divinitye, &c. &c. At London : Printed 

 by John Daye, dwelling ouer Aldersgate, An. 1579." 



In the Epistle Dedicatorie, dated Cambridge, 

 September 30, 1579, and addressed to Richard 

 (Cox), Bishop of Ely, the author describes the 

 new doctrine as, — 



" The most pestiferous and deadly Heresie of all 

 others, because there is not almost any one particular 

 erroneous and seliisraaticall phantasie, whereof the Fa- 

 milie of Loue hath not borrowed one braunche or other 

 thereof, to peece vnto themselves this their Religion." 



A passage is then added which may serve in 

 some measure as a reply to N. B. (Vol. ii., p. 89.) 

 It seems to show that, however vile might be the 

 theology of this sect, their morals were not at least 

 publicly offensive. 



" The encrease of this Familie is great, and that 

 dayly, because the withstanders are not many ", the 

 defenders are wily as serpentes, and would fayne in 

 lyfe seeme innocent and vnblameable. In profession 

 of the one they boast very much : of the other they 

 walkyng very closely do iustifie themselues, because 

 fewe haue to finde fault with them, yet liaue they their 

 lothsome spottes andougly deformities, as in this hooke 

 to the diligent reader playnely may appeare." 



The " lothsome spottes " here intended are the 

 13th and 14tli articles of Wilkinson's indictment. 

 They run as follows ; — 



(I.) " H. N. (i. e. Henry Nicholas) saith, It is 

 lawfull for one of his Familie to dissemble," (i.e., to 

 conceal his religion when questioned l)y the magistrate^ ; 

 and (2.) " H. N. maketh God the Author of sinne, 

 and the sinner guiltless," (but no proof is alleged that 

 this speculative impiety was carried out into actual 

 life). 



The title of the second treatise to which I 

 alluded is — 



" A Confutation of monstrous and horrible Heresies, 

 taught by H. N., and embraced of a number wlio call 

 themselves the Familie of Love, by I. Knewstub. Im- 

 printed in London, at the Tliree Cranes in the Vine- 

 tree, by Thoroa-s Dawson, for Richard Sergies, 1579." 



He characteri.ses the doctrine of the "Familists" 

 as — 



" A masse or packe of Poperie, Arianisme, Ana- 

 baptisme, and Libertinisme. Respecting their morals 

 we are told, that although for their loosenesse of life, 

 tbey are from the toppe to the toe nothing but blottes, 

 yet bragge they of all perfection, euen vnto a verie dei- 

 fying of themselues." 



Some further light is thrown upon this point by 

 a letter sent to Knewstub from " a godly learned 

 man, W. C." He says, — 



" Howsoeuer, they seduce some goodly and zealous 

 menand women of honest and godly conuersation, placing 

 them at the porch of their synagogue to make a shewe 

 of holinesse, and to stand there as baites and stalles to 

 deceiue others; yet, alas! who can without blushing 

 vtter the shame tliat is committed in the inwarde 

 roomes, and as it were in the heart of that synagogue 

 of Satan." 



Appended to Knewstub's book is a further — 

 " Confutation of the doctrine of Dauid George, and 



H. N., the father of the Familie of Loue, by M. 



Martyn Micronius, minister of the woorde in the 



Dutche Churche, at London." 



It was originally written in Latin during the 

 reign of Edward VI. The author charges the 

 " Familists " with maintaining that — 



" Idolatry, superstition, and outwarde vices are free 

 and pure vnto them, which, vnder the pretence of a 

 certaine fayth and inwarde puritie, boast that they 

 knowe no sinne in the heart." (Fo. 87 b.) 



Two features particularly distinguish them from 

 other sectaries of the age : they prolessed obedience 

 to the civil magistrate, whatever might be his re- 

 ligion ; and they argued in favour of unlimited to- 

 leration both in regard to themselves and others. 



C.H. 



St. Catharine's Hall, Cambridge. 



TRANSLATION OF THE PHILOBIBLON. 



L. S. (Vol.ii., p. 153.) inquires for " a translation 

 of Robert de Bury's Philohibloii." An English ver- 

 sion of this famous treatise by Richard, not Robert 

 Aungerville (see, for the surname, Pits, p. 467.) 

 deBury, Bishop of Durham in 1333, was published 

 by Mr. Rodd in the year 1832. The translator 

 has not given his name, but he was JNlr. John Bel- 

 linghaui Inglls, formerly a partner in the house of 

 Inglis, Ellis, and Co. It is greatly to be desired 

 that there should be a careful reprint of this most 

 interesting work, and that the first edition of 1473 

 should be collated with MSS. The translation by 

 Mr. Inglis might be revised, and made to accom- 

 pany the Latin text. Let us hope, however, that 

 his notes, if they be permitted again to appear, 

 may be purified trom scepticism and profaneness. 

 The claim of Holcot to be the author of this 

 tract, should be well considered and decided upon ; 



