332 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
have been taken notice of in the "Animadversions;" for which you had no cause, but that you might easily discern that you did not de- serve it. First, then, you grant that the gospel came out of the east into this lajid : so, then, we did not first receive the gospel from Rome, much less by the means of Papists. " But the land was then called Albiori or Brittany, and the people Britons or Cimbrians, not Eng- lishr^eu." What then? though the names of places or people are changed, the gospel, wherever it is, is still the same. "But the Britons lost the gospel until they had a new conversion from Bome, by the means of Eleutherius." But you fail, sir, and are either ignorant in the story of those times or else wilfully pervert the truth. All the fathers and favourers of that story agree that Christianity was well rooted and known in Britain when Lucius, as is pretended, sent to Eleutherius for assistance in its propagation. Your own Baronius will assure you no less, ad an. 183, n. 3, 4. Gildas, De Excid. will do it more fully. Virunnius tells us that the Britons were then " strengthened in the faith," not that they then received it; strength- ened in what they had, not newly converted, though some, as it is said, were so. And the days of Lucius are assigned by Sabellicus as the time wherein the whole province received the name of Christ " publicitus cum ordinatione," — " by public decree." That it was received there before, and abode there, as in other places of the world, under persecution, all men agree. In this interval of time did the British church bring forth Claudia, Ruffina, Elvanus, and Meduinus; whose names, amongst others, are yet preserved. And to this space of time do the testimonies of Tertullian adv. Judgeos, and of Origen, Hom. 4, in Ezek., concerning Christianity in Britain, belong. Be- sides, if the only prevalent religion in Brittany were, as you fancy, that which came from Rome, how came the observation of Easter, both amongst the Britons, as Beda manifests, and the Scots, as Petrus Cluniacensis declares, to be answerable to the customs of the Eastern church, and contrary to those of the Roman? Did those that came from Rome teach them to do that which they judged their dut}' not to do? But what need we stay in the confutation of this figment? The very epistle of Eleutherius manifests it abundantly so to be. If there be any thing of truth in that rescript, it doth not ajopear that Lucius wrote any thing unto him about Christian religion, but about the imperial laws to govern his kingdom by ; and Eleutherius, in his answer, plainly intimates that the Scripture was received amongst the Britons, and the gospel much dispersed over the whole nation. And yet this figment of your own you make the bottom of a most strange contemplation, — namely, that God in his "providence would have all that Christianity fail which came not from Rome." That is the meaning of those expressions, " He would have nothing stand firm or,
WHENCE THE GOSPEL CAME TO ENGLAND. 333
lasting but what was immediately fixed by and seated on that rock ; for all other convei'sions have vanished." Really, sir, I am sorry for you, to see what woful shelves your prejudicate opinions do cast you upon, who in yourself seem to be a well-meaning, good-natured man. Do you think, indeed, that those conversions that were wrought in the world by the means of any persons not coming from Rome, which Avere Christ himself and all his apostles, were not fixed on the rock? Can such a blasphemous thought enter into your heart? If those pri- mitive converts that were called unto the faith by persons coming out of the east were not built on the rock, they all perished everlastingly, every soul of them ; and if the other churches planted by them were not immediately fixed and seated on the rock, they went all to hell, — the gates of it prevailed against them. Do you think, indeed, that God suffered all the churches in the world to come to nothing, that all Christians might be brought into subjection to your pope? which you call " cementing in a unity of one head." If you do so, you think, wickedly, that he is altogether like unto yourself; but he will reprove you, and set your faults in order before your eyes. Such horrible, dismal thoughts do men allow themselves to be conversant withal, who are resolved to sacrifice truth, reason, and charity unto their prejudices and interest! Take heed, sir, lest the rock that you boast of prove not seven hills, and deceive you. In the pursuit of the same consideration you tell me, " that I will laugh at your obser- vation, that the tables written by God's own hand were broken, but those written by Moses remained, that we may learn to give a due respect to him whom God hath set over us." But you do not well to say so; I do not laugh at your observation, but I really pity you that make it. Pray, sir, what were those tables that were written by Moses, when those written by God were broken? Such mistakes as these you ever and anon fall into, and I fear for want of being con- versant in holy writ; which it seems your principles prompt you unto a neglect of Sir, the tables prepared by Moses were no less written with tlie finger of God than those were which he first prepared him- self, Exod. xxxiv. 1, 28; Deut. x. 1, 2, 4. And if you had laid a good ground for your notion, that the tables prepared by God were broken, and those hewed by Moses preserved, and would have only added, Avhat you ought to have done, that there was nothing in the tables delivered unto the people by Moses but what was written by the fiusfer of God, I should have commended both it and the inference you make from it. As it is built by you on the sand, it would fall with its own Aveight, were it no heavier than a feather. But you lay great stress, I sujopose, on that which follows, — namely, " That the Britons being expelled by the Saxons, the Saxons first received their Christianity from Rome." You may remember what hath been told