An Account of Cawdrys Triplex Diatribe, Chapter 7 · Section 3
Sect. 3. Of Creſcens coming into France, and Simon Zelotes into England. The difference of keeping Eaſter in the Weſt and Eaſt. Teſtimonies for our converſion in the Apoſtles times, Before King Lucius. The Diatribiſts ſuggeſtion diſproved. Britain not converted from Rome.
COncerning the firſt planting of Chriſtianity in this Nation by ſome Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon, what was ſaid with competent probability out of our hiſtories, is conſidered by the Diatribiſt in the next place, but nothing ſaid or offered to be proved by him, which may exact anſwer from me, the whole matter eſpecially being but a foreign to the buſineſs of Feſtivals: only ſome paſſages of his muſt be ſhortly noted.
As 1. when from my ſaying that Creſcens his being in France removes all improbability from thoſe hiſtories that record the plantation of Chriſtianity in theſe Iſlands in the Apoſtles times] he ſeems to believe it my opinion that Creſcens came over hither, (for ſo, ſaith he, the Doctor would have it, and proves it out of Scripture) which very thing he knowes I abſolutely diſclaim, and only conclude it as credible that ſome other Apoſtle or Apoſtolical perſon ſhould ſo early come over hither and plant the Faith, as that Creſcens ſhould come into France in S. Pauls dayes, which yet the French generally believe that he did, and have received it by tradition, and the words of Scripture may very fitly be ſo interpreted as to affirm it (and I do not believe that Eſtius hath, or that this Diatribiſt can demonſtrate the contrary, I am ſure he hath here produced nothing toward it, but the bare name of Eſtius.
That Joſeph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes was the perſon that firſt planted the faith here, I receive from our Stories by tradition, and accordingly ſatisfie my ſelf therewith, and never attribute it to Creſcens or any other, but particularly expreſs my reaſons why I cannot imagine it to be Creſcens, and therefore am very much miſreported in this matter.
All that I had to do with Creſcens in that place was only this, that from the authority of the relations of Creſcens's coming ſo early into France, I thought I might conclude againſt the improbability of Joſephs or Simons coming hither, the latter being perfectly as credible as the former, and the paſſage from France to England ſo ſhort and eaſie, that there can be no difficulty or diſparity in the matter, that one ſhould be believed by the French, and the other be incredible to us. This was ſet down intelligibly enough in that treatiſe, if the Diatribiſts haſte or ſomewhat elſe had not caſt the cloud over it.
Secondly, when from the time of celebrating Eaſter anciently in this Nation I conclude that neither Peter nor Paul nor Creſcens did firſt bring the Faith into this Iſland, and the Diatribiſt thinks he hath thereby gained an advantage, and that the ſame reaſon is of force againſt Joſeph and Simon Zelotes alſo, this is an evident miſtake in him. For it is ſufficiently known that as the Weſtern cuſtome of keeping Eaſter was deduced from S. Peter and S. Paul, ſo the contrary Eaſtern obſervation pretended to tradition from other Apoſtles, particularly from S. John. Now as to the former of theſe it is conſequent, that none of the aſſociates or attendants of S. Paul or S. Peter were the planters of the Faith here (and ſo not Creſcens, who was ſuch, 2 Tim. 4. 11.) becauſe of thoſe it is not imaginable that they ſhould vary from the cuſtome received from thoſe two Apoſtles, as tis apparent the firſt Chriſtians here did, in the celebrating of Eaſter; ſo it is no way concluſible of all others, which related not to thoſe two Apoſtles, and ſuch I ſuppoſe Joſeph and Simon Zelotes were, it being very poſſible that either of theſe might comply with the Jewiſh account, and accord with S. John, and the Eaſtern Church in this celebration.
And accordingly as by this indication it appears, that the words of Metaphraſtes concerning Simon Peters preaching the faith, and conſtituting Churches &c. in Britain in the 12th of Nero, cannot be deemed to have truth in them, ſo if it may be ſuppoſed that Metaphraſtes, receiving his intelligence from ſome more ancient author or tradition, miſtook Simon Peter for Simon Zelotes, I ſee not what could be objected againſt the probability of the relation. either in reſpect of the perſon of that Simon, who is by very good Authors deemed to have been the planter of the faith here, or in reſpect of the earlineſſe of the plantation, in or before the 12th of Nero, i. e. within 34 years after Chriſts aſcenſion.
To this matter of the antiquity of the faith in this Iſland, and that particularly by this Simon Zelotes, I ſhall now add ſome few conſiderations: Firſt out of the See Sir H. Spelman De Exord. Chriſt. Rel. in Brit. p. 2.words of Theodoret in his Therapeut: Ser: 9. foreign, where having compared the Apoſtles of Chriſt, under the title of p. 123.foreign our fiſher-men and Publicans, with the Lawgivers of the Grecians and Romanes, he affirms that whereas theſe latter did not perſwade or gain upon their next neighbours to live according to their laws, thoſe former wrought upon not only Grecians and Romanes, but foreign all the nations of the Barbarians (among which we know the Britains were vulgarly contained) and brought them to embrace the Evangelical law; and if this be yet too general, he then addes the enumeration of the ſeverals, and among them by name ſpecifies the Britains, foreign. p. 125.A clear teſtimony that the Apoſtles themſelves in perſon paid this obedience to Chriſts command of going to all nations, none excepted, and that with ſome kinde of ſucceſſe every where, particularly here in Britain.
2dly From the expreſs words of Hiſt. Eccl: l. 2. c. 40.Nicephorus Calliſtus, who ſetting down the ſeveral plantations of the Apoſtles, hath theſe words of Simon Zelotes, foreign. After the coming of the holy Ghoſt upon him, he betook himſelf to Aegypt, and Cyrene, and Africk, and paſſing through Mauritania and Lybia in the preaching of the Goſpel, and adventuring on the Weſtern Ocean, and preaching the Goſpel to the Brittiſh Iſlands, and depredicating Chriſt as was needful both by many ſignes and wonders, and by divinity and doctrine, and being tried with many afflictions, at laſt with endleſs joy embracing the death of the croſs he departed to his Maſter. Which laſt paſſage of his death, that it belonged to theſe Iſlands alſo, is affirmed by Dorotheus, who addes that he was ſlain and buried here, and thereto accord the Greek Liturgies in their Menelogie, though Baronius and others diſſent in that particular of his death.
Thirdly, That Gildas Brito or Badonicus, who affirms that Chriſt was preached to Britanny (under the name of glaciali frigore rigenti Inſulae) ſummo Tiberii Caeſaris, in the laſt year of Tiberius Caeſar, i. e. in the fifth year after Chriſts reſurrection, is by Sir Hen: Spelman cited as author gravis & eximiae fidei, a grave author and of great fidelity, anciently ſtyled Sapiens, The wiſe, and ſo agreeing with theſe former teſtimonies, may deſerve to be heeded by us, and not caſt off, as by the Diatribiſt he is, magiſterially dictating, that his affirmation was meer tradition and far from probability, but not adding the leaſt proof of it, but only that no authors of any credit lay it ſo high, with what truth, doth now competently appear, and is yet farther confirmed by a former teſtimony brought by Mr. Fox out of Gildas Albanicus in his book of the victory of Aurelius Ambroſius, where he affirmes p. 107.Britannie received the Goſpel in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. To this accordeth alſo the Vatican MS. out of which Baronius placeth the reception of the Faith in this Iſland about the year 35. which is two years earlier then the laſt of Tiberius.
For other paſſages to the ſame purpoſe, eſpecially for the relations of Joſeph of Arimathea in Guil: Malmesbur: I refer the Reader to that worthy Antiquary, Sir Henry Spelman, de exord: p. 4. &c. And whatever the Diatribiſt ſuggeſts, I ſee not indeed in any or all of this the leaſt degree of either impoſſibility or improbability; For of thoſe Apoſtles that immediatly after Chriſts aſcenſion took their journeys to ſeveral corners of the world, to publiſh and propagate the Goſpel, what difficulty is there in believing, that in the ſpace of four or five years, ſome one either by himſelf, or by his miſſive, at leaſt that the tidings of that bleſſed newes, ſhould finde the way hither into this Iſland? I ſhall now adde no more of this.
Laſtly, when in the ſetting and tranſlating the ſuppoſed words of Eleutherius to King Lucius, the Diatribiſt chargeth me for leaving out or not tranſlating nuper (which the Latine in my margent retained) adding that I did it wiſely (I ſuppoſe on ſome deſigne to aſſiſt my cauſe) and leaving others to judge why it was done; this is but a calumny all this while.
For 1. having (as he acknowledges) ſet down the word nuper in the margent, that was a fair evidence to any charitable perſon that there was no treachery deſigned the Reader, for it being certainly foreſeen by me that my Readers would eaſily underſtand ſo much Latine as the rendring of nuper would amount to, I had been by any ſuch deſigne engaged to conceal the Latine alſo, the ſetting down that, was the certain way of diſcovering any ſuch ſuppoſeable treachery, and ſo ſure no artifice or maſter piece of wiſdome (which the Diatribiſt imputes to me) but at once an act and puniſhment of folly ſuch as I heartily deſire may alwaies attend ſuch enterpriſes.
But I need not ſuch preluſorie anſwers as theſe, the matter is plain to any man that hath eyes in his head; My Engliſh tranſlation was not verbum verbo, yet by way of paraphraſe perfectly anſwerable to the Latine, the Latine is, Suſcepiſtis nuper miſeratione divinâ in regno Brittanniae legem & fidem Chriſti, and the Engliſh is as explicite to every minute part of it, that before that writing of his (is not that the full paraphraſe of nuper, without defining what is not there defined, how long, or how little while agoe this was, but only before the writing of Elutherius's Epiſtle) the kingdome of Britain had received by Gods mercy the law and faith of Chriſt. I ſee there is no hope of approving my ſelf to this Diatribiſt, If there were, I ſhould not have fallen thus cauſeleſly under his ſevereſt diſcipline, for ſuch I muſt eſteem this his ſuggeſtion, and the inſinuations accompanying it.
And yet after all this, if I had done the utmoſt which he can ſuppoſe, viz. not rendring nuper at all, on purpoſe that this converſion of the Iſland might be thought to be long before the time of Lucius and Eleutherius, which was above 140 years after Tiberius's deceaſe, I hope it is by this time plain by what hath here been ſaid of our converſion by ſome Apoſtle, particularly by Simon Zelotes, that I ſhould not much have abuſed the Reader. That the faith was not firſt preacht in Lucius's days, but revived after the death of the firſt planters of it, I refer the Reader to learn from Sir Henry Spelman p. 12. out of our ancient records: And for the truth of the paſſages between Eleutherius and Lucius, as I never had ingaged my ſelf, ſo if from thence, as the Diatribiſt pretends, any inconveniences be now found conſequent toward the ſupport of the Romaniſts plea to our ſubjection, it will be his (not my) concernment to fence himſelf againſt them, having here thus farre acknowledged the truth of the ſtory that Lucius ſent to Eleutherius for ſome to baptize him and his people, withall from hence concluding that Chriſtianity was not here planted from the Apoſtles times.
And here let me adde in reference to his ſixth §. that if I ſhould yield what here he doth, that this Nation firſt received baptiſm not from any Apoſtle or Apoſtolical planter, but in Lucius's days from Eleutherius Biſhop of Rome, it could not well be imagined how our ancient Britiſh ſhould be found ſo different from the uſages of Rome in the celebration of Eaſter &c. as it is known they were before, and at the time of Auguſtines coming hither. For certainly the Weſtern manner was conveighed to all who had their Chriſtianity or baptiſme from Rome.
And indeed, as to the other concernment, what would it avail us to prove that we had not our Chriſtianity firſt from Rome in Auguſtines time, if we be yielded to have had it firſt from Rome in Eleutherius's time? I deſire the Diatribiſt, which even now foreſaw the danger, will now ſee to it.
What to this he ſaith (viz. that the Eaſtern Chriſtians which kept their Eaſter after the Jewiſh manner, kept it not ſo in the Apoſtles times) is neither proved to have any truth in it, nor if it had, would it give any account of the reaſon of the Britiſh retaining the Jewiſh and Eaſtern cuſtome, in caſe they had their baptiſme from Eleutherius, for as to the latter of theſe, though this difference were granted to be of a later original then the Apoſtles times, yet what poſſibility were there that the Britiſh ſhould have the Eaſtern Jewiſh cuſtome from Rome, when the Romiſh was conſtantly the contrary, or that receiving Baptiſme from Rome, we ſhould have our moſt ancient rites from Greece, quite contrary to the uſages of Rome.