Some few Observations upon this Discourse of yours, will further manifest the Absurdity of that Consequence, which you feign not to have been taken notice of in the Animadversions, for which you had no cause, but that you might easily discern that it did not deserve it. 1. Then you grant that the Gospel came out of the East into this Land. So then we did not first receive the Gospel from Rome, much less by the means of Papists. But the Land was then called Albion, or Brittany, and the people Britons or Kimbrians, not Englishmen. 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 ⟨p. 323⟩from Rome 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: Strengthened 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 ad Judae and of Origen. Hom. 4. in Ezek. concerning Christianity in Britain belong. Besides, 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 Bede 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 duty not to do? But what need we stay in the confutation of this figment?
Some few Observations upon this Discourse of yours, will further manifest the Absurdity of that Consequence, which you seign not to have been taken notice of in the Animadversions, for which you had no cause, but that you might easily discern that it did not deserve it. 1. Then you grant that the Gospel came out of the East into this Land. So then we did not first receive the Gospel from Rome, much less by the means of Papists. But the Land was then called Albion, or Brittany, and the people Brittans or Kimbrians, not Englishmen. What then, though the names of places or people are changed, the Gospel whereever it is, is still the same. But the Brittans lost the Gospel until they had a new Conversion ⟨p. 323⟩from Rome 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 Brittain, 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 Brittans were then strengthened in the faith, not that they then received it: Strengthened in what they had, not newly converted, though some as it is said, were so. And the dayes of Lucius are assigned by Sabellicus, as the time wherein the whole Province received the name of Christ, publicitus cum ordinatione, by publick 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 ad Judae and of Origen. Hom. 4. in Ezek. concering Christianity in Brittain belong. Besides, 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 Brittans, 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 duty not to do? But what need we stay in the confutation of this sigment?
