Ecclesiasticas praesertim quae fidei non officiunt ita observandas ut à majoribus traditae sunt nec aliorum consuetudinem aliorum contrario more subverti I would briefely admonish you that Ecclesiastical traditions especially such as offend not the faith are so to be observed as they are delivered by our Ancestors nor must the custome of some be subverted by the contrary custome of others And yet higher in the same Epistle Vnaquaeque provincia praecepta majorum leges Apostolicas arbitretur Let every Province esteem the precepts of their Ancestors as Apostolical Laws i. e. certainly pay observance to them though they be not of Apostolical institution So Isidore l. 2. de Eccl Offic c. 43. Nec disciplina in his melior est gravi prudentique Christiano nisi ut eo modo agat quo agere viderit Ecclesiam ad quam devenerit There is no better rule in such things for a grave and prudent Christian then to do in that manner as he sees the Church do to which he comes Store of suffrages might be heaped up on this occasion these few may suffice to justifie all that I had said in that first § Sect. 2. Heathen adherents a proof of the first Antiquity THE 2d § had proposed one argument for the antiquity of this usage among us founded in the adversaries suggestion against it The adversaries generally accuse the Christmass Festivity for some heathenish mixtures reteined in it From which if it were true or however from the concession of those that affirmed it I conceived an argument might be drawn that therefore it was to be taken as granted that this usage was continued among us from the time of our first conversion from heathenism And I cannot yet see how this inference can be avoided For how can any heathen usage adhere to this Festivity if all heathen customes were laid aside long before this Festival were observed Can it be imagined that after the ejecting of heathenism and the solemn abolition of all their feasts Saturnalia and the like when Christianity had gotten the possession there should still continue among them those adherent rites of their heathen feasts so many accidents without their subjects Or that Christians that had long since renounced heathenism and at length received this Christian feast should ransack their heathen rituals for ceremonies wherewith to adorn it But this it seems is of no force or as he saith no way constringent with this Diatribist For saith he they might be added some good while after the first conversion of some part of this Island the better to win the rest to a liking of Christian religion by conforming to them in the celebration of festivals As the like was done to win the Jews in observing the old sabbath Pentecost c. But sure there is little force in this evasion For 1. it is by this answer confest that as to some parts of this Island my argument is of force and that in those this festival was introduced as early as their Christianity and if that may be granted me I shall contend for no more by this medium but think I have gained a very fair confession for the antiquity of this usage in this Church that this festivity was thus early introduced among us even as soon if not before Christianity had gotten possession of this whole Nation Meanwhile that the Nation was not converted the several parts of it together I mean not every person of every part but some of all or that there was any such interstitium or interval considerable betwixt the conversion of some part of this Island and the rest of it this is incumbent on the Diatribist to prove or else the argument remains in full force to the whole Nation as well as to any part of it And for this he hath offered no proof and so hath yielded the force of my argument when he went about to refute it 2dly The example of the Christians complying with the Jews will stand him in as little stead for when was it that the Christians thus complied with the Jews or that they retain'd their old sabbath out of that design of compliance with them Was it not at the time of the first conversion of the Jews to Christianity Can it be imagined that the Jews were a good while before converted to the faith and to the doctrine of the abolition of the sabbath and then some good while after that their conversion the observation of their sabbath should be reduced expostliminio Would not this be a constringent argument to any gainsayer to prove that baptism was introduced at the first beginnings of Christianity because baptisme is known to be a custome taken from the Jews And so sure of the sabbath and the like If any space or interval had come in after the planting of Christianity among the Jews it is no way probable that the sabbath once laid aside as a ceremony naild to the cross of Christ would ever after have been recalled and observed among Christians only at the first conversion or plantation of the faith such things might from the Jewish state adhere unto the Christian though they were not taught by Christianity and so some others from the heathen also t is possible and imaginable but t is no way supposeable after the space of many years when heathenisme with all its rites and adherents had long ago been cast out And let this serve for his 2d § The matter is not so weighty being but an argumentum ad homines as to deserve any greater length of discourse to vindicate it 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 t is 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 words of Theodoret in his Therapeut Ser 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where having compared the Apostles of Christ under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Nicephorus Callistus who setting down the several plantations of the Apostles hath these words of Simon Zelotes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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
the original of the word is another thing not super statutum what then can he tolerably mean by t is well applied by Divines can Divines do well to apply superstitio to super statutum when that is no way the nature of the word Or can any proof be brought from hence to conclude superstition an excess or addition to the rule because it is super statutum when there is no affinity between super statutum and superstition what is or can be unreasonable if this be not And so it appears how little truth there is in that which shuts up this first reason That which the Old Testament calls addition to the word the New calls doctrines traditions of men wil-worship superstition In which few words as there be many infirm parts 1. That additions to the word are in the N. T. called Doctrines I suppose he means teaching somewhat else for doctrines Mat. 15 9. assuming them to be such when they are not So again Mar. 7. 7. where yet the word Doctrines signifies the Scripture or Doctrine of God and so the teaching their own traditions for doctrines is adding them to the Scripture Doctrines there simply signifying not that addition but that to which the addition is made and 2. that they are called wil-worship the contrary of which is proved in the Treatise of wil-worship and here to suppose it is a begging of the question so sure this is a third that additions to the rule of worship are any where in the New T. called superstition I desire he will shew me one such place for my Concordance will not afford it me T is but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only twice there used First Act. 17. 22. by St. Paul of the Athenians whom he perceived to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more superstitious then others But these sure never medled with and so added not to the true rule of worship any otherwise then as all that abandon it adde to it live by some other false rule and minde not that and if they are for so doing to be styled adders to the rule of Worship adulterers are so in like manner and so by that measure or standard every sin in the world is superstition Secondly the word is used Act. 25. 29. where Festus speaks of Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 own superstition but sure meant not to accuse him of adding to his or the Jews rule of worship but understood his own Religion and nothing else by that phrase And so still 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are as many misadventures amasst together as could well be crowded into so few words His second proof now follows thus Because as the defect in Religion is called profaneness so the excess is called superstition as standing in opposition to it Alas it seems there is great need of proofs for this again as the former was the very medium to prove the first proposition and so either the first and this second proposition of his are all one and then why was it cut in two by Lucians beetle or else these proofs are very excellent instruments fitted for all turns indifferently However it is I shall not need provide new answers to it but remand it to the former Section where it was considered to the utmost it could pretend Only if he please I shall put it in form for him thus The worship of the many false Gods or Demons is an excess opposed to Religion or worship of the one true God of heaven and earth in Aquinas's opinion and so also is the worshipping the true God after an undue or unlawfull manner ergo the using any Ceremony in the worship of the true God which the Scripture hath not commanded is superstition and superstition is that As if he should say superstition is that because it is somewhat else as extremely distant from that as that which is not God is from God or as unlawfull for so is superstition is from lawfull for such is that which is not prohibited 13. A third proof he now adds of his affirmation and that after the manner observed in his former argument from the Doctors own concessions and no less then five nay the fourth number being twice repeated no less then six of them And if I have so liberally granted it I wonder how it came to be my charge and that as the cause of my miscarriages that I denyed it But 't is strange to see what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can do phansie first and next accuse me of denying a thing grosso modo and to prove me to have erred in thus denying produce six several senses wherein I have granted it whereas there is in the whole inditement but one pretended wherein I had denyed it In all reason those six concessions might have reconciled the Diatribist to me and perswaded him that I was of his minde rather then one single appearance of dissenting have thus provoked him The Doctors Concessions such as they are are evidently reconcileable with all that he hath proposed in that Tract of Superstition and the descending to a particular view of them as they are marshalled up by the Diatribist will take away all doubt in this matter First saith he he grants that superstitions may denote such an excess Sect. 31. Here I demand what Mr. C. means by such an excess that indeed is thus far answered already that he means an excess of Religion But what excess in Religion The super statutum every addition to the rule of worship i. e. every uncommanded circumstance or Ceremony in the worship of God Thus he must mean if he be constant to himself and if the Doctors Concessions yield him any appearance of proof for his affirmative But to see the luck of it this first citation from the Doctor is so far from yielding him any such testimony that it is indeed the quite contrary for that which the Doctor there observes Sect. 31. is this that the word superstitiosus may indeed denote such excess from the force of the termination osus but this no more then the word religiosus also denotes in the opinion of Agellius out of Nigidius Figulus and consequently that 1. Superstitio and Religio were all one in that same Author's opinion and 2. that it is the animadversion of Agellius upon that Author that all such excesses are not culpable or taken in ill but good senses And then was not this a dangerous concession fit to be called out in judgement against me then which nothing could be more direct to the asserting mine and refuting the Diatribists hypothesis If this account of the word superstitiosus were not sufficient to secure my pretensions which in that place were only this that superstition among all Authors signified not any criminous excess I might farther adde that even when the word superstitiosus is but a bare denominative from superstitio and yet is used in an ill sense as when we Christians say a superstitious person the account is clear