First, then, I suppose the whole story is built on the authority of the epistle of Eleutherius unto Lucius, which is yet extant: other foundation of it, that I know of, is neither pleaded or pretended. Now, there want not reasons to prove that epistle, as the most of those fathered on the old bishops of Rome, to be supposititious. For, -^1. The author of that epistle condemneth the imper'ial laivs, and rejecteth them as unmeet to ))e used in the civil government of this nation; which Eleutherius neither ought to have done, nor could safely do. 2. It supposeth Lucius to have the Roman law sent imto him, which had been long before exercised in this nation, and was well known in the whole province, as he witnesseth of days before these : " Gallia causidicos docuit facunda Biitannos." — Juv xv. 11 L
39 6 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX,
Secondly, The first reporters of this story agi'se not in the time wherein the matter mentioned in it should fall out. Beda, lib. i. cap. 4, assigns it unto the year 156, which was twenty-two years before Eleutherius was bishop, as Baronius manifests. Henricus de Erfordia ascribes it unto the nineteenth year of the reign of Yerus the emperor, who reigned not so many years at all. Ado refers it unto the time of Commodus, with some part of whose reign the episcopacy of Eleutherius did indeed contemporate. 2. Geoffrey of Monmouth, the chief promoter of this report, joineth it with so many lies and open fictions, as may well draw the truth of the whole story into question. So that divers would have us believe that some such thing was done at one time or other, but when they cannot tell. 3. Both the epistle of Eleutherius and the reporters of it do sup- pose that Lucius, to whom he wrote, was an absolute monarch in England, king over the whole kingdom, with supreme authority and power, ruling his subjects by the advice of his nobles, Avithout being obnoxious. imto or dependent in his government on any others. But this supposition is so openly repugnant to the whole story of the state of things in the province of England in those days, that it is beyond the wit of man to make any reconciliation between them ; for besides that Caesar and Tacitus do both plainly affirm that in the days of the Romans' entrance upon this island, there was no such king or monarch among the Britons, but that they were all divided into several toparchies, and those at mortal feuds and variance among themselves (which made for the conquest of them all), it was now become a presidiary province of the Roman empire, and had been so from the days of Claudius; as Suetonius, Tacitus, and Dio inform us. Especially was it reduced into and settled in that form by Pub. Ostorius in the days of Nero, upon the conquest of Boadicea, queen of the Iceni; and fully subjected in its remainders unto the Roman yoke and laws, after some stragglings for liberty, by Julius Agricola, in the days of Vespasian ; as Tacitus assures us in the life of his father- in-law. In this estate Britain continued under Nerva and Trajan; the whole province being afterward secured by Adrian from the in- cursion of the Picts, and other barbarous nations, with the defence of his famous walls; whereof Spartianus gives us an account. In this condition did the whole province continue unto the death of Cora- modus, under the rule of XJlpius Marcellus; as we are informed by Dio and Lampridius. This was the state of affairs in Britain when the epistle of Eleutherius is supposed to be written. And for my part, I cannot discover where this Lucius should reign with all that sovereignty ascribed unto him. Baronius thinks he might do so beyond the Picts' wall; wliich utterly overthrows the whole story, and leaves the whole province of Britain utterly unconcerned in the
PROGRESS AND DECLENSION OF RELIGION. 397
coming of Fugatiiis and Daniianus into this island. These are some, and many other reasons of my suspicion I could add, manifesting it to be far more just than yours, — " That I had no reason for it but only because I would not acknowledge that any good could come from Rome."^
Let us now see what you farther except against the account I give of the progress and declension of religion in these and other nations. You add, " ' Then,' say you, ' succeeded times of luxury, sloth, pride, ambition, scandalous riots, and corruption both of faith and man- ners, over all the Christian world, both princes, priests, prelates, and people.'" But you somewhat pervert my words, so to make them liable unto your exception; for as by me they are laid down, it seems you could find no occasion against them. I tell you, p. 253, [p. 99], " That after these things a sad decay in faith and holiness of life be- fell professors, not only in this nation, but, for the most part, all the world over. The stories of those days are full of nothing more than the oppression, luxury, sloth of rulers; the pride, ambition, and un- seemly, scandalous contests for pre-eminence of sees and extent of jurisdiction, among bishops; the sensviality and ignorance of the most of men." Now, whether these words are not agreeable to truth and so- briety, I leave to every man to judge who hath any tolerable acquaint- ance with history, or the occurrences of the ages respected in tliem. Your reply unto them is : " Not a grain of virtue or goodness, we must think, in so many Christian kingdoms and ages!" But why must you think so? Who induceth you thereunto? When the church of Israel was professedly far more corrupted than I have intimated the state of the Christian church in any part of the world to have been, yet there was more than " a grain of virtue or goodness," not