An answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a person of honour touching his vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet / by Edw. Stillingfleet.

CHAP. IV. (Book 4)

Of the Conversion of England, and the difference between the Brittish and Saxon Christians. (Book 4)

§. 1. MR. Cressy in the heat of his Zeal for the honour of S. Benedict, would make the Vindication of him to be not barely the duty of those of his own Order,* 1.1 but the common concernment of the whole Nation: and I cannot blame him, considering the weakness of his Cause, that he calls in so many to his assistance. He had a mind to engage the whole Western Patriarchate against me, but being some∣what fearful lest that should not obey his Command, and rise like one man for the ho∣nor of the Founder of his Order, he summons the Arrierban of the English Nation, as most especially concerned in the quarrel. If Mr. Cressy's Rhetorick had been equal to his passion, and if his own rage could have

enflamed a Nation, what cause should I have had to repent the attempt of Ecli∣psing the glory of his Order, by charging Fanaticism on the Founder of it? But he comforts himself with the hopes that scarce any one hereafter will be willing to imitate my malignant ingratitude: Malignant in∣gratitude! Me••hinks it sounds very well; especially in the same Chapter,* 1.2 wherein he calls me Theological Scarron, a man of poy∣sonous hatred not only against the Church-Catholick Militant, but Tri••••phant too; than whom he does not know any Adversa∣sary,* 1.3 that could with all his study, have shewed himself more imp••tent in his passi∣ons and less successful in Reasoning. And after such obliging Kindnesses as these, had he not just reason to charge me with ma∣lignant Ingratitude? Which being the ut∣most and most comprehensive terms of re∣proach, put me in some ••opes, that he hath brought up all that which lay so uneasie at the very bottom of his stomach: And now I shall reason the case with him; and in truth I do not find the charge of Ingrati∣tude laid upon me, any further than as I am a Native of England, in which he saith Christianity was established by the Disciples of S. Benedict: which being expressed in such large and general terms, gave just oc∣casion

to the Person of Honour to tell him, that Christianity was planted with us many hundred years before the birth of S. Bene∣dict;* 1.4 and that we may reasonably believe that it was sooner planted in Britain, than it was at Rome it self, since the last year of Tiberius was before S. Peters coming to Rome. Therefore Mr. Cressy craves leave to explain himself by saying,* 1.5 that he did not speak it of the planting Christianity in our Island; but he saith, that which he said was (not by his favour that which he said, for he said no such thing; but that which he now tells us he meant by what he said, was) that England, or the Countrey and Nation of the English Saxons who drove the Christian Britains out of our part of the Island, was indeed converted by the ••isci∣ples of S. Benedict: and this, he saith, truly he must stand to. Some would be glad to meet with any thing, which a man of so uncertain a humour as he hath been, will at last stand to; but the only reason is, because he must; i. e. because he is a Benedictin; and therefore must believe and defend any thing that makes for the credit of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉. It is very unhappy to Mr. Cressy that when he had Truth and Reason on his side he could not stand to it then; but there are some troublesome In∣sects,

which fly up and down and make a great noise buzzing in the air, and never stand to it till they at last fall into the most filthy places.

But since Mr. Cressy thinks this a great aggravation of my crime, and is so resolved to stand to it, I shall try whether he be not ca∣pable of being shocked even in this funda∣mental point of the honour belonging to the English Benedictin Order. If then, it cannot be proved, either that Christianity was first brought among the English Saxons by the Benedictins; or if it were, that it was established in England by their means, then all the reason Mr. Cressy will have left to stand to this assertion will be only, be∣cause he must.

§. 2. I begin with the first bringing of Christianity among the English Saxons; and notwithstanding that the Ecclesiastical History of those times, is for the most part delivered by Saxon Monks, who had al∣wayes a kindness for the Roman Missiona∣ries, and very little for the Brittish Bishops (as may be easily discerned even in Bede himself) yet by laying several circumstances together, we may make it appear that Au∣gustin and his Companions were not the first who brought the knowledge of Christiani∣ty

among the English Saxons. The first settlement we find the Saxons made in this Nation, (for no account of their Religion is to be expected before) was after the fa∣mous Victory of Aurelius Ambrosius, where∣in Hengist was defeated; and afterwards his Son Occa, Eosa and the rest of the Sax∣ons in those parts submitted themselves to mercy; upon which Ambrosius gave them a Countrey near Scotland, and entred into a League with them: which saith Matthew Westminster happened A. D. 490.* 1.6 wherein he followed the Brittish Historians; for the Saxon generally omit any Victories of the Brittish forces, and this particularly: yet William of Malmsbury,* 1.7 who relates it some∣what differently, saith, that Hengist sent Occa and Ebusa into the Northern parts, who having conquered those which opposed them, they brought the rest to a volunta∣ry submission. So that here we find the Brittains and Saxons united together so early under the Saxon Government, which according to the computation of Henry of Huntingdon,* 1.8 was but forty years from the Saxons first coming in England; and that these Britains continued a long time in these Northern parts,* 1.9 appears not only by the name of Cumberland (for Camden shews, that the Cumbri and Cambri were

the same) but from the rising of Caed∣walla the Prince of the Britains in those parts against Edwin the King of the Nor∣thumbers,* 1.10 who is said by Beda to have reign∣ed both over the English and Britains: and was killed A. D. 633. and the Britains in those parts are said to have enjoyed their liberty for forty six years,* 1.11 viz. to the time of Beda's writing his History; which was A. D. 731. and after the coming in of the Saxons 285.* 1.12 Now in this Kingdom of the Cambri Iohn of Tinmouth, or Capgrave out of him, saith, that S. Kentigern came to preach Christianity, and particularly, he shewed that Woden the chief God of the Saxons was a mortal man and a King of the Saxons,* 1.13 from whom several Nations were derived. Now I desire to know, whether this were not preaching Christiani∣ty among the Saxons,* 1.14 and that long before she coming of Augustin, ••or Alford places it in A. D. 566. and the landing of Augustin A. D. 597. No;* 1.15 saith Mr. Cressy, he pre••ched only to the Picts who were revolt∣ed to the Saxon Idolatry;: and to prove that, makes use of an excellent way by corrupting his Author; for the words in Ca••grave are these, Woden verò quem prin∣cipalem Deum crediderunt & Angli, de quo originem duxerant, cui & quartam feriam

consecraverant, hominem fuisse mortalem asseruit, & Regem Saxonum à quo plures na∣tiones genus duxerant: which he thus ren∣ders; And as for Woden whom (by the seduction of the Saxons) they esteemed their principal God, and to whose h••nour they con∣secrated the fourth day of the week, &c. What pretence is there to understand these words of the Picts and not of the Saxons themselves? I know Alford brings that clause in by way of Parenthesis, and reads it thus (& praecipuè Angli de quo originem duxerant, &c.) but I have set the words down exactly as they are published by Bol∣landus the Iesuit,* 1.16 who mentions his own care in the publishing of it: but saith Mr. Cressy, it is plain he meant the Picts, because it is said that by his do∣ctrine he freed the Nation of the Picts from Idolatry and heresie: Here again Mr. Cressy discovers his admirable ingenui∣ty; for the words in Capgrave are, (seve∣ral things being interposed) Pictorum patriam quae modo Galwedia dicitur ab Ido∣lolatriâ & haereticâ pravitate, doctrin•• suâ purgavit: which he mentions as a distinct thing from his former preaching in the Reg∣num Cambrense; of which the former words are expresly spoken. And although Alford, Mr. Cressy's Author, will by no

means allow any Saxons to be converted by Kentigern, (for fear forsooth the Saxons should not owe their entire Christianity to S. Gregories Missionaries) yet Bollandus ingenuously confesseth,* 1.17 that bo••h Kentigern and Gildas did employ their zeal and charity towards the conversion of the English Sax∣ons. For in the life of Gildas published by Ioh. à Bosco,* 1.18 it is said, that the Northern p••rts of Britain flocked to his preaching, and for saking the errours of Gentilism they de∣stroyed their Idols, and were ••aptized in the faith of the Holy Trinity. Mr. Cressy, al∣though he allows the next passages to be understood of Gildas Sapiens, who lived af∣ter the Saxons had over-run the Island; yet,* 1.19 he applyes the for••er passage to an el∣der Gildas called Gildas Albanius, that it might with less probability be understood of the conversion of the Saxons; but Bollan∣dus* 1.20 hath sufficiently proved that there was but one Gildas called by those several titles, and so much is acknowledged by the French Benedictins,* 1.21 so that no relief can be had from thence. Thus we see what ground we have to believe that the Northern Saxons were acquained with Christianity, before the Order of Benedictines was ever heard of. The next settlement we find, was of the Western Saxons by Cerdic who

landing with a great force after the death of Hengist, A. D. 495. did so weary out the Britains, that Malmsbury saith,* 1.22 that they willingly yielded themselves to him, and lived quietly together under his Go∣vernment; and is it then reasonable to conceive that so many Saints as lived in that Age by the Confession of our Adversaries, should not in all that time acquaint their Neighbours with the Christian Doctrine, (especially if it be true,* 1.23 which Mr. Cressy reports of them, that they wrought so many miracles) such as S. David, S. Iustinian, S. Dubricius, S. Paternus, S. Theliau, S. Paulens, &c. Certainly these men were in all respects better qualified than Augustin the Monk, if one half of the Legends concerning them be true: and why should they neglect so necessary a duty where they had such advantages of doing it, and such an easie way of working miracles to convince the Saxons?* 1.24 Shall we say, as Bede▪ doth, that the Britains wholly neglected it? but that must certainly be understood of such wretched Britains as Gildas describes, not of such Saints as these were: and Bollandus* 1.25 thinks those words of Bede do need a li∣mitation, viz. that such Apostolical men were but few in comparison of those after∣wards. Or shall we say, that, these Saints

had a great mind to do it, but because of the continual wars and persecutions they were forced to retire to a Monastick life? No,* 1.26 Mr. Cressy himself tells us, that Cerdic did permit the Inhabitants of Cornwal, paying an annual tribute, to enjoy the exer∣cise of the Christian Religion; which, saith he, appears by the great number of Saints, which in these and the following times flou∣rished there. If there were such a number of Saints then, how came they never to employ themselves in the Conversion of their Neighbour Inf••••els? I had thought those who glory so much and beyond all reason in the Conversion of Remote Infidels, would have allowed their Saints to have converted those that were so near at hand; especially considering how successful they wer••, where they undertook it. For, S. Ken∣tigern, they tell us, for his share purged Gal∣loway, converted Albania, and sent disciples to the Orcades, Norway, and as far as Iseland. Methinks, a little charity would have d••ne well nearer home; when the Saxons needed it so much, and they bred up such numbers of Disciples under them, as is reported of Gildas, Iltutus, S. David, and the rest of them. But if notwithstanding all this, Christianity was unknown to the Saxons, what will become of the Saintship

of these persons who were so highly quali∣fied, by the gift of Tongues, and all sorts of miracles, (if their Writers say true) and yet utterly neglected to preach Christianity to the Saxons? But for all that I can see, the reputation of these British Saints must vaile, when it stands in competition with the Apostolicalness of Augustin the Monk.

§. 3. But although in these rem••ter parts the Britains being mixed with the Saxons might acquaint some of them with the Christian Religion; yet surely in Kent and those parts to which Augustin came, he was the first who brought the knowledge of Chri∣stianity among them. This is as far from being true as the other: for to omit what Alford conf••sseth to be very probable, viz. that Irmiric Father to Ethelbert did permit the Christian Religion to be professed in his Kingdom;* 1.27 I shall insist upon what is more certain; viz. the confe••sion of Bede him∣self; that the same of the Christian Religion was brought to Ethelbert before the coming of Augustin, by the means of a Christian Wife which he had of the Royal Family of the Franks named Bertha: whom he received from her Parents on that condition, that he would suffer her to enjoy her Religion, and to have a Bishop to attend her whose name

was Luidhardus. What can be more plain from hence, than that the first entertainment which Christianity met with in the Saxon Court was by the means of Queen Bertha and her Bishop Luidhardus? This Queen Bertha was the only daughter of Ch••ripertus King of Paris (one of the four sons of Clo∣tharius, among whom his Kingdom was divided) by Ingoberga; and her marriage is mentioned by Gregorius Turonensis,* 1.28 to the Son of the King of Kent; which mar∣riage was in all probability solemnized be∣fore the death of Charipertus; now Cha∣ripertus dyed A. D. 567. so that Christia∣nity had been known about thirty years in King Ethelberts Court before ever Augustin set footing upon English ground. And is it conceivable that when a Bishop had per∣formed the exercises of the Christian Re∣ligion for thirty years in a Church for that purpose, viz. S. Martins near Canterbury, the English Saxons should know nothing of Christianity till Augustins arrival? But this is not all; for we have great reason to be∣lieve that the Conversion of the Saxons to Christianity is in a great measure owing to this Queen, and her Bishop Luidhard, or Le∣tardus; who had been Bishop of Senlis in France,* 1.29 as Thorn tells us. I know herein how much I shall provoke the whole Gene∣ration

of Romish Missionaries; but I value not the displeasure of those whom Truth and Reason will enrage. William of Malmsbury (himself a Benedictin Monk, and one of the most judicious of our Monkish historians,* 1.30) saith, that by Ethel∣berts match to Queen Bertha, the Saxons be∣gan by degrees to lay aside their barbarous customs, and by conversation with the Fr••nch became more civilized: to which was ad∣ded the holy and single life of Letardus the Bishop, who came over with the Queen, by which without speaking he did invite the King to the knowledge of Christ our Lord: by which means it came to pass that the mind of the King being already softened, did so readily yield to the preaching of Au∣gustin. By which it appears that the main of the business as to the Kings Conversion was effected before Augustins coming; on∣ly for the greater solemnity of it, a Mission from Rome was obtained; and I am much de∣ceived, if Gregory himself doth not imply that it was at the request of the English Saxons themselves. I know very well what an idle story the Monks tell of the occasion of the conversion of the English Nation, viz. S. Gregories seeing some pretty English boys to be sold for slaves at Rome, and having luckily hit upon two or three pious quibbles

in allusion to the names of their Nation and Countrey and King, he was at last in good earnest moved to seek the Conversion of the whole Nation. A very likely story for so grave a Saint! I do not quarrel with it on the account of the custom of selling English slaves, but for the Monkishness, i. e. the sil∣liness of it.* 1.31 I know Bede reports it, but he brings it in after such a fashion, as though he were afraid of the anger of his Brethren the Monks if he had left it out; for he mentions it as a reverend tale with which the Monks used to entertain them∣selves, that had come down to them, by that infallible method of conveyance, viz. Oral Tradition, and quotes nothing else for it. Whereas in the Preface to his History he tells his Readers, that in the matters re∣lating to Gregory he relyed on Nothelmus who had been at Rome and had searched the Register of the Roman Church; but we see as to this story he saith, he had nothing but an old Tradition for it.* 1.32 But since Mr. Cressy is so zealous in Vindication of this story, I desire the other part of it may not be left out which is told by Bro••pton Abbot of Iorval; viz. that S. Gregory and his compa∣nions were come three dayes journey towards England; and then sitting down reading in a Meadow, a Grashopper leapt upon his

Book and made him leave off reading; then S. Gregory thinking seriously upon this little creatures name (for his wit lay much that way) he presently found this mysterie in it, Locusta, saith he, quasi loco sta: which saith Brompton he spake by a Prophetick Spi∣rit, for messengers immediately came upon them from Rome and stopped their journey. And surely he had been much to blame to undertake such a journey upon the instiga∣tion of one quibble, if he had not been as ready to turn back upon the admonition of another. But to set aside these Monkish fopperies; the best Authority we can have in this case is of S. Gregory himself: seve∣ral of whose Letters are still ext••nt in the Register of his Epistles▪ relating to this af∣fair. In one sent to the Kings of France Theodoric, and Theodebert, he expresseth himself thus;* 1.33 Atque ideo pervenit ad nos, Anglorum gentem ad fidem Christianam, Deo miserante, desi••eranter velle converti, sed sacerdotes vestros è vicino neglige••e•• & desideria eorum cessare suâ aah••rtatione suc∣cendere. Ob hoc igitur Augustinum serv••••m Dei praesentium portitorem, cujus zelus & studium bene nobis est cogn••tum, cum aliis servis Dei praevid••mus illuc dirigendum. Quibus etiam injunximus ut aliquos secum è vicino debeant presbyteros▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉, cum

quibus eorum possint mentes agnoscere, & voluntatem admonitione sua, quantam Deus donaverit adjuvare: and to the same pur∣pose he writes to Brunichildis their Mo∣ther. Indicamus ad nos pervenisse Anglo∣rum gentem Deo ann••ente velle fieri Chri∣stianam,* 1.34 &c. Which are the most remark∣able testimonies we could desire to our pur∣pose: for these Letters were sent by Au∣gustin the Monk, before ever he had been in England; and therein the Pope expresseth the desire of the English Nation to embrace Christianity (not barely of Ethelbert and his Court) that this desire was made known at Rome; that upon this the Pope sends Augustin and his Companions; that the French who were their Neighbours had been too negligent in this Work, and began to be more slack than formerly in it; that how∣ever now, since he had taken so much care to send these on purpose for that work, he intreats them to send over so many Priests as might serve for their interpre∣ters: which is a plain discovery, that there had been entercourse about the Chri∣stian Religion between the French and the Saxons before; and that still they under∣stood their language so well, as to serve for interpreters to Augustin and his Bre∣thren. Mr. Cressy who pares and clips

testimonies to make them serve his pur∣pose, renders those words,* 1.35 Anglorum gentem desideranter velle converti, & velle fieri Christianam; only thus, that the English Nation were in a willing disposition to re∣ceive the Christian faith: but certainly not a bare disposition, but a desire too is im∣plyed in them, and the latter words with the same ingenuity he thus expresses the sense of; but that the French Clergy and Bishops their Neighb••urs were negligent and void of all Pastoral solicitude towards them: whereas methinks desideria eorum cessare suâ adhortatione succendere, are words, which although they do blame them for present negligence, do imply withall a for∣mer care; for how could they cease to do that which they had never begun? And Pope Gregory in his Letter to the Queen whom he calls Aldilberga attributes very much of the success of his Missionaries to her kindness and prudence;* 1.36 although con∣sidering her zeal and learning, it was ra∣ther to be wondered that the work was so long in doing: but, he saith, God had re∣served the glory of the Conversion of the English Nation, as a reward to her vertue; and compares her with Helena,* 1.37 hoping that by her means the Conversion of the Whole Na∣tion would be made much more easie; and

he adds that her Fame had already reached as far as Constantinople. By which we see how much the knowledge and establish∣ment of Christianity in thus Nation, is ow∣ing to the care and devotion of this good Queen: and that Hadrianus Valesius had some reason to say,* 1.38 that the Christianity of England was owing rather to the Franks, than the Romans.

§ 4. But supposing, we should yield that Augustin and his Brethren were the first who brought Christianity among the English Saxons; how comes from thence such a mighty obligation to the Benedictin Order? Is it so unquestionable that they were all Benedictins who came over, or that any of them were such? By all the search I can make, this may very well bear a dispute. For it is agreed on all sides that Augustin fol∣lowed the same rule and was of the same Order that S. Gregory himself was of;* 1.39 and no meaner a Person than Cardinal Baronius hath utterly denyed that S. Gregory was of the Benedictin Order;* 1.40 methinks his Au∣thority might at least have made Mr. Cressy not so peremptory in this matter, and not so resolved to stand to it: especially con∣sidering the Reasons which he gives. For he plainly proves from S. Gregories own words in his Dialogues, that when he founded

his Monastery in Rome, he did not take his Abbot from the Benedictin Monks, who were then removed by the persecution of the Lombards to the L••teran Church; but sent into the Province Valeria for one Valentius, whom he called his own Abbot; and withal shews not only that the Benedictin Monastery at Rome had a distinct succession of Abbots, but that the Monasteries of that Province, from whence Valentius was taken, were not under the Benedictin Rule: and that Joh. Diaconus was much to blame for ma∣king S. Gregory a Monk under one Hilarion, when himself saith expresly, he was under Valentius. The freedom of this discourse of Baronius brought a swarm of Benedictin Monks about him;* 1.41 Bellottus, Const. Cajeta∣nus, and others; but Antonius Gallonius un∣dertook the defence of Baronius; and at large shews, that the Benedictins produced nothing but trifles,* 1.42 forgeries and lyes to de∣fend themselves; and Spondanus confesses that Gallonius had with great strength over∣thrown the Benedictins arguments.* 1.43 But of late the French Benedictins have renewed the quarrel against Baronius,* 1.44 who yet make use only of the baffled arguments of the former Benedictins; and after all confess, that they are but conjectures; and that the greatest strength they have lyes in Augustin

the Monk and his companions being of that Order. If therefore we desire them to prove Augustin to have been a Benedictin, they presently fly to S. Gregories being so; if we would have them prove Gregory to have been a Benedictin, then they say he must be be∣cause Augustin was so. So that the main proof of the point, is, that it must needs be so; and it must needs be so and they are re∣solved to stand to it, because it is for the honour and advantage of their Order. And therefore our English Benedictins have thought themselves more than a little con∣cerned in this Controversie: for what would open the purses and hearts of the people more towards them, than for them to be accounted the Apostolical Order of England? Alas! what have the merits of the Iesuits been to theirs? They, an up∣start Order, that have converted some in these latter times to Treason and the Gal∣lows; but the Benedictins, the ancient Apostolical Benedictins, were the only Per∣sons who Converted England to the Chri∣stian faith; and therefore they deserve greater respect than the Iesuits; however the others have been too cunning for them. Thus we see, upon what hinge the Con∣troversie turns: and I cannot say, the Benedictins have been wanting to them∣selves;

for Mr. Cressy hath not been the only Person, who hath resolved to stand to it in this matter. Reynerius hath pub∣lished a voluminous Book to this purpose, which he calls,* 1.45 the Apostleship of the Bene∣dictins in England; and he proves it chiefly from the common Tradition of the English Nation. And what demonstration can be greater, than the Infallibility of Oral Tra∣dition? This is proving it in I. S. his Scien∣tifical way. As though it were possible for the people to be deceived in a matter of such consequence; which Mothers would be sure to teach their Children; viz that Augustin the Monk and his c••mpanions were by no means Equitians, or of any other Order, but right and true Benedi∣ctins. I confess Reyner hath luckily hit on the right Mathematical way; the very same Mons. Arnauld hath taken for Transubstan∣tiation: for,* 1.46 saith Reyner, I will instance in an Age wherein all the Monasteries and Cathedral Churches possessed by Monks in England, were in the hands of the Bene∣dictins; viz. in the Age of William the Conquerour: for which he quotes many Authors, as Mons. Arnauld doth to prove Transubstantiation to have been the faith of the same Age: Now since it is evident that the Benedictin Order was then in pos∣session,

and no time can be instanced in wherein the Benedictin Order was brought into England from the time of Augustin, it necessarily follows that Augustin and his Companions brought it in. Here is a de∣monstration in the case! which I grant to be altogether as good, as that which the men for Oral Tradition do produce for their Articles of Faith. Thus he proves it, from Testimonies of Authors, and the Foundations of Monasteries, and the par∣ticular Histories of them; by which it appearing, that they were at such a time of the Benedictin Order, and no account being given of any change of the Order, he thinks it sufficiently proved that they were Originally Benedictins. But is it not possible to suppose that the Histories being afterwards written by Benedictin Monks, they would for the honour of their Order conceal any such alteration, if it had happened among them? We find in other Countries, the Benedictins have done the same thing, and why should we wonder if they have done it in England? Trithemi∣us, who was no fool,* 1.47 for the greater ho∣nour of the Benedictins, reckons Caprasius among the famous men of that Order; but the mischief of it is that Caprasius lived about a hundred years before S. Be∣nedict:

as Vincentius Baralis observes.* 1.48 So likewise he piaces S. C••••sarius among them, who dyed (after he had been Bishop of Arles forty years) before S. Benedict, and therefore was somewhat unlikely to be bred up a Monk in his Order: indeed in one of his Homilies he calls S. Benedict our Father;* 1.49 but the same Vincentius observes, that the name Benedict was soisted in by the Monks, no such name appearing in the antient MS.* 1.50 And it appears by the foregoing Chapter, that this Demonstration will not hold in France; and certainly there is as little rea∣son it should in England.

§. 5. For Mr. Broughton hath taken a great deal of pains to prove,* 1.51 That there were other antient Orders which continued after the coming of Augustin, that neither Gregory nor Augustin, nor his Companions could be Benedictins; that the Monastick Rules introduced by Augustin were very different from those of Benedict; both in habit, customs, publick service and other particulars:* 1.52 and that not any one Monaste∣ry, till about an hundred years after Au∣gustin's coming into England, was or could be of S. Benedicts Rule or Order: and in answer to the former Demonstration, he saith, That since it is evident there was

no such thing in Ethelbert and S. Austins time: the other latter times are produced to no purpose; all men granting th••t both Benedictin Monks, and many latter Orders were in England in those dayes. And what doth meek Mr. Cressy answer to angry Mr. Broughton, as he calls him? He pro∣duces the Testimony of our four L••arned Antiquaries Sr. R. C. Sr. H. Sp. Mr. Selden and Mr. Cambden; which he produ••es falsly and to little purpose. Falsely, for he thus introduces it;* 1.53 that they expresly in oppo∣sition to Mr. Broug••ton test••fie, that where∣as he affirmed, that the fi••••t Converters of Saxons in England, were not Benedictins, but Eq••itians, &c. Who affirmed this? Mr. Brought••n? I with Mr. Cressy would learn to write either with more honesty, or more care. Fo•• M••. Broughton in the very Title page of his Book saith, That the De∣sign of it is to prove, that in the Primitive Church of the Saxons, there was no Rule, nor Order from Egypt, nor of S. Benedict, nor of S. Equitius: and in the body of his Book he very often disproves their opinion who made Augustin and his Companions to be of an Equit••••n Order: and Mr. Broughton writ since their testimony and in con••utation of it. Now their Testimony, as it is set down by Mr. Cressy, is thus, that they having

spent much time in searching the Antiqui∣ties of our Nation do affirm, they could find only two sorts of Monks in the antient Saxon Churches, the first such as followed the Egyptian form of Monachism, before S. Austin's arrival (which plainly makes against Mr. Cressy, being an express acknow∣ledgement, that there was another Order of Monks among the Saxons, and conse∣quently that Christianity was entertain'd by them, before S. Austins arrival in England) and the other Benedictins compantons of S. Austin. And as for Equitians, no such name was extant in any antient record. Moreover, that whereas they could exactly discover the Original and entrance of all other Religious Orders, and could name the very years, they could not do so of the Be∣nedictins, which firmly argues that S. Au∣gustin and his associates were Benedictins, &c. I could hardly believe that Persons of so much understanding would ever draw up such a Testimony as this; which at least seems to contradict it self; for whereas they say, they could not name the year when the Benedictins came in; and yet say that S. Augustin and his companions did bring the Benedictin Order hither; the time of whose coming they as certainly knew, as of any other Orders, looks too much like a

contradiction for such great men to be guilty of. But we must suppose they meant any year after Augustins coming; yet I can hardly think such knowing persons should not at least be able to give a very proba∣ble conjecture concerning it. For in the MS. life of wilfrid extant in the Library of one of those Learned Persons, and written by one that lived in the same time with him, and whose name is mentioned by Bede in his History, viz. Steph. Eddius or Heddius, we have this account of him; that at fourteen years of Age,* 1.54 he was sent by Queen Eanf••ed to attend upon a Noble man called Cudda in the Monastery of Lin∣disfarn: After he had been there a while the Spirit moved him (suggerente Spiritu Sancto) to go to Rome, to visit the Apo∣stolical See; adhuc inattritam viam genti∣nostrae temptare in cor adolescentis supra∣dicti ascendit; a road very little frequent∣ed by our Nation (it seems then Pilgri∣mages, and Appeals to Rome were very lit∣tle known in those dayes).* 1.55 The Queen un∣derstanding his desire sends him to Ercon∣bert King of Kent, who found out a compa∣nion for him whom he calls Biscop-baducing; (but more commonly known by the name of Benedict Biscop, whose life is written by Bede,* 1.56 and their going together is mentioned

in his History) Wilfrid stayes a while be∣hind in France; but afterwards arrived at Rome, where by the help of Boniface the Arch-Deacon he was well instructed in the Rules of Ecclesiastical Discipline,* 1.57 and ad∣mitted to the Popes Favour and Benediction: (after which he ever continued the Popes most humble servant). In his return through France he received the tonsure of S. Peter; (for it seems they were so cun∣ning in those days, to know exactly the diffe∣rent cuts of S. Peter and S. Paul, and of Si∣mon Magus, (as we may see afterwards) and wilfrid was guilty of no malignant in∣gratitude for this favour, for he stood to it with great zeal against the Scots who liked S. Pauls Cut better) Upon his return he was entertained with great kindness by Alch∣frid the Son of Oswi,* 1.58 by whom he was drawn off from the customs of his Countrey to those of Rome, from whom Wilfrid received the Monastery of Rippon; and soon after was made Priest by Agilbertus.* 1.59 Then happened the famous conference between Wilfrid and Colman Arch-bishop of York about the time of Easter, and the right Tonsure, wherein wilfrid shewed a more than ordinary zeal for the Roman Customs; insomuch that when upon the cession of Colman he was chosen Bishop he refused to be consecrated by any

of them,* 1.60 as Schismatical Persons; and therefore in great humility he desired leave to be consecrated in France. In the mean time Ceadda by King Oswi's consent was made Bishop, and consecrated at home; Wil∣frid upon his return finding the See ••ull, was employed by Vulpher King of the Mer∣cians to settle Monasteries;* 1.61 and after the death of Deus-dedit he was sent for by E••bert King of Kent, where he went up and down through his Countrey, and then adds, & cum Regula Benedicti instituta Ec∣clesiarum bene melioravit, he improved the Orders of Churches by the Rule of S. Be∣nedict: which is in effect to say, that he first brought this Order among them; for how could he better their Orders by it, if they had it among them before? And he presently adds, Tun•• ergo in illis regioni∣bus sancto Episcopo sicut Paulo Apostolo mag∣num estium fidei Deo adjuvante apertum est: as though the ••eceiving the Order of S. Benedict were of as much consequence as believing the Christian Faith. After three years by Theodore's means then Arch-bishop of Canterbury, he was put into the Arch∣bishoprick Of York and Ceadda deposed; he had not been long there, but refusing to consent to the making of three Bishops un∣der him, he was deprived by Theodore:

Wilfrid appeals to Rome, and hastens thi∣ther himself, where he was kindly received (for Rome from its foundation hath been an Asylum for fugitives especially when their coming helps to increase its Grandeur) Pope Agatho with his Council orders his restitu∣tion;* 1.62 and threatens deprivation and excom∣munication to those that refuse him: Wil∣frid returns loaden with Reliques, and the Popes Bull; the King and the Bishops refuse to obey the Popes command; and instead of restoring him,* 1.63 the King commits him to Prison, and afterwards banished him; and he returned not home till the second year of Aldfrid,* 1.64 where he continued not long but he was banished again for refusing to submit to the Synodical Constitutions at home.* 1.65 Then a Synod was called of all the Bishops of England to which Wilfrid was summon'd, where he upbraided the Bishops,* 1.66 that they had opposed the Popes command for twenty two years, and wondered they durst prefer the Constitutions of Theodore before the Bull of the Pope. (Was not England in great subjection to Rome at that time, when all the Bishops (one factious person except∣ed) refused to obey the Pope upon an ap∣peal for two and twenty years together? and governed themselves by their own Con∣stitutions in opposition to the Popes express

command?) Notwithstanding, the Bishops persist in their resolution, and would hearken to no terms,* 1.67 unless Wilfrid would submit to their sentence, and oblige himself to run no more beyond Sea; which he refuses to do, and appeals again to Rome, upon which Wilfrid and all his adherents were solemn∣ly excommunicated. But it is observable, that where Wilfrid speaks the most in his own vindication, he insists on these things as his great merits: that he had been the great instrument of converting the Scots (and English following them) to the true Easter and the right Tonsure; and that he had brought the Monks under the Rule of S. Benedict; which no man had brought among them before. By which we see, that Wil∣frid (at least, in the Northern parts) was the first who brought in the Benedictin Or∣der. Which passage Ead••erus a Bene∣dictin Monk in the li••e of Wilfrid,* 1.68 tho••ght convenient to leave out, although he takes most of the rest out of Heddius; and so doth Fredegodus in the rumbling Verses of his life,* 1.69 published lately by the Benedictins of France: but William of Malmsbury hath the very same words in effect of Wilfrid,* 1.70 that ••e gloried that he had been the first who brought the Benedictin Order into those parts. It is a strange objection of Reyner against

this, that he would not boast of doing it there, unless it had been every where else in England before his time;* 1.71 for we have no men∣tion at all of this Rule here before his time; and he might think he had cause to glory to begin that Order in the North, and to give an example to others: and if our Histori∣ans say true, he brought it into the Mid∣land parts, for he had a great hand in the consecration of the Abby of Evesham, which Pope Constantin in his Bull,* 1.72 saith it was to be under the Benedictin Rule, quae mi∣nus in illis partibus adhuc habetur, which is yet very little known in those parts. So that the coming in of the Benedictin Or∣der into those parts of England is not a matter of so great obscurity as those Learn∣ed Persons supposed; and that some time after the death of Augustin and his Compa∣nions; but it hath been therefore thought so obscure, because only this Author, who was never yet printed, makes so express men∣tion of it; the Benedictins afterwards think∣ing it made for their honour to conceal it.

§. 6. The greatest difficulty seems to be about our Church of Canterbury, of which Mr. Selden saith,* 1.73 that it was alwayes sup∣posed to be of the Benedictin Order, from its first Foundation by Augustin, For, saith

he, since there were alwayes Monks there, and no other Order named, we have reason to believe them to have been Benedictins; for the name of Monk being set without ad∣dition of Family, he supposes in the Western parts to have implyed a Benedictin, as in the Eastern one of S. Basils Order. Sup∣posing this were granted of the latter times, after that the Benedictin Order prevailed in the times of Duns••an; when the Concordia Regularis Anglic•• Nationis was generally re∣ceived after the Expu••sion of the Canon••cal and Secular Clergy out of most Cathedrals; yet I can see no reason at all for it before, when there were so many different Rules of Monks both here and in Italy and France. All those who lived after the Monastick way, whether they lived by Rule, or only un••er the Government of a Superiour, had equally the name of Monks given to them. But of all sorts of Monks of that time, those whom Augustin brought with him, and were setled at Canterbury, seem to be the farthest from the Benedictin Ru••e; for any one that looks into that, will easily see that it was intended for illiterate persons, who were to imploy themselves in Work when the Office of the ••••oire was over; and for such who lived at a distance from Cities, and consequently were to have all conveniencies

within themselves, and all the Monks in their Course were to go through the Office of the Kitchin and such like: But those whom S. Gregory sent over with Augustin were Clergy-men, and to be constantly im∣ployed in preaching and other duties of their Function: and when Augustin sent to Gregory for directions (after he was made Bishop) how he should live among them; Gregory takes not the least notice of the Be∣nedictin Rule,* 1.74 which on such an occasion he would certainly have done, if they had been of that Order; but only tells him, he ought to live with his Clergie after the custom of the Primitive Church, which was to have all things in common. From which it is very plain, that he considered them as Clergy-men; who if they had been tyed to the Benedictin Rule, could have had very few hours of the day, either for study, or their other imployments. Only he adviseth them in the beginning of this Church to fol∣low the pattern of the Church of Hierusa∣lem, to live in a Community together: Much after the same way which S. Augustin had brought into reputation in Africa among his Clergie, and who from thence in latter times were called Canons Regular. And which is very observable to our purpose, Eugenius the fourth in a Bull in behalf of

the Canons of the Lateran Church,* 1.75 saith expresly, that St. Gregory commanded Au∣stin to establish this Order in the English Church. And these Canons (without the first community) continued in the Church of Canterbury, long after the Benedictin Monks were brought into it. For I find as low as Thomas Beckets time, that Alexan∣der the third writ to the Arch-bishop of Can∣terbury, to make good his promise to one whom he had admitted Canon of that Church,* 1.76 and promised him the first Prebend that feil; from whence the Gloss of the Canon Law deduceth, that a man may be instituted Canon of a Church, and yet expect the next vacancy, supposing that he receives some profits though but small the mean while. And Thomas Becket mentions the Pre∣bends of Canterbury that were vacant in one of his MS.* 1.77 Epistles to Henry 2. And that Monks and Canons have both continued in the same Church, is fully proved by Pennottus.* 1.78 If therefore I should grant, that the Benedictin Monks came early into that Church; yet that proves nothing as to the conversion of the Nation by them; for those were of the Clergie who were employ'd in that work; the Monks by the Benedictin Rule being so strictly tyed to the service of the Choire, as made them fit for ve∣ry

little besides. I shall not therefore dis∣spute with Mal••sbury or Mr. Selden,* 1.79 whe∣ther Alfric were the first who brought in the Monks; or whether they were not settled by Boniface in the time of Laurentius? but this I insist upon, that whereas by that con∣stitution of Boniface, the Clergie of that Church were required to associate to them a Company of Monks; in all probability it was intended for this purpose, that while the others were imployed in other duties of their Function, the Monks might be ready to attend the service of the Choire: and yet neither Boniface nor Gregory ever call them by the name of Benedictin Monks; or so much as once mention that Rule in all the affairs relating to the Saxon Church: which will seem very strange, considering its Novelty at that time, and what small reputation it was in, either in France, or Italy.* 1.80 And however Wilfrid, or Benedict Biscop might in some particular Monasteries introduce the Benedictin Rule; yet as that Learned Gentleman Sr. Iohn Marsham hath observed,* 1.81 there is no General Constitution prescribing it, before the Council of Win∣chester under Dunstan, A. D. 965. and then it was not the pure Benedictin Rule, but a Collection of antient Customs accommodated to that Rule; as will easily appear to any

that will compare the Rule and that Concor∣dia Regularis together; not as it was imperfectly published by Mr. Selden, but as it is extant entire in Reyners Appendix.* 1.82 Methinks so great a zealot, as Dunstan was for the Benedictin Order, should not have continued the old Customs together with that Rule, if he had been of Mr. Cressy's mind, in believing it to have been written by Divine Inspiration: nay, Wilfrid and Be∣nedict Biscop, were not for the pure Bene∣dictin Rule; for the former, some say, joyn∣ed the Gregorian Office with it, and the latter declares expresly,* 1.83 that he had gathered his Rule out of the Customes of seventeen Mo∣nasteries: which was a very vain and fruit∣less labour, if he had thought S. Benedict writ his Rule by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

The French Benedictins who have lately undertaken to prove that the Benedictins converted England, do suppose, without reason, that since by the Constitution of Boniface it appears that there were Monks very early in the Church of Canterbury,* 1.84 they must be either Equitian or Benedictin Monks; we meddle not with Equitian Monks, which our learned Antiquaries up∣on good grounds say, they meet with no footsteps of in our Records: that was a par∣ticular

conceit of Baronius, and was quit∣ted by his defender Gallonius; but we say, that in Italy at that time, there were several institutions of Monks different from those of S. Equitius and S. Benedict. For every Person who affected that kind of Life, and was able to found a Monastery, gave such Rules to it, as he thought fit. Some were first instituted for devotion and labour, as it is plain the Benedictin Order was, by the Rule of it; others for devotion and study, as it is evident those of Cassiodore were,* 1.85 by the occasion of them, and the Counsel he gives them; others for those of the Clergy to live together after a Monastick way; of which sort Penottus shews there were many in Italy at that time, after the bringing over that Order from Africa by Gelasius Son of Valerius a Bishop of Africa,* 1.86 who had been one of S. Augustins Disciples. Now there being so many several wayes and de∣signs of a Monastick Life at that time, it can by no means be sufficient to prove the ancient Monks of Canterbury mentioned by Boniface to have been Benedictins, because they were not Equitians; and if we suppose them to have been Monks joyned to the Canonical Clergy at Canterbury for atten∣dance on the Choire, as the Benedictin Monks were to the Canons of the Lateran

Church after the destruction of the Mo∣nastery of Cassino; yet this is far enough from proving that Augustin or the Preach∣ing Monks were of that Order; which it is their design to prove. And themselves suggest that concerning the Council of Boni∣face when Mellitus was at Rome, which af∣fords us a good argument against them; viz.* 1.87 that when Mel••itus was sent to Rome, about the affairs of the English Church, they confess that a dispute was raised about the Benedictin Monks whether they were ca∣pable of Priesthood or no? But what likeli∣hood was there that should have been ever called in Question at Rome, if it had been a thing so notorious that Gregory and Augustin and his Companions were of that Order, and had born the office of Priesthood? Who durst have questioned it, after that S. Gre∣gory had declared it not only by his example, but by the Mission of Austin and his Bre∣thren hither to Preach and do all Priest∣ly offic••s? But the ground of the Question was not for the Monks bred up to Learning, as th••se of S. Gregories own Monastery were, out of which Austin and his Brethren came; but for those who were bred up only to devotion and Labour, as those of the Benedictin Order must be by their Rule; as to which it might very well bear a dispute,

since their time was to be otherwise em∣ployed; and all that Pope Boniface had to say was, that S. Benedict doth no where for∣bid it; but withall by his Rule he gives such directions that no man can observe them, as every one swears to do, and per∣form the necessary duties of the Priestly Office together. The testimony of Iohan∣nes Diaconus hath been long since answered by Gallonius,* 1.88 who hath shewed him to be a very incompetent witness in this matter. But they have not at all taken notice of the Testimony of Malmsbury, who saith, that the Benedictin Order came into England from the Abby of. Fleury;* 1.89 being brought hither by Oswald; who had been a Monk there, not long before the Council of Win∣chester; which first made any establishment of it here. I do not then deny, that this Order was introduced by a particular de∣votion of some persons in some few places before; to which the testimonies of Wil∣frid, Benedict Biscop, and Aldelmus refer; but the general reception of it was not be∣fore the times of Dunstan; and with what confusions and disorders, with what seve∣rities, and injustice to the Canonical and Secular Clergy it was then established, may be easily seen in our Histories. For Dunstan, Oswald, and Ethelwald set themselves

with all their power, (which was great by the Favour of King Edgar) to drive out the Canons out of the Cathedral Churches belonging to them, and to bring in the Monks in their Rooms: and other Bishops thought it a good way to preferment to fol∣low their example. And from hence for∣ward the Benedictin Monks kept the pos∣session not only of the greater Monasteries, but of several of the Cathedral Churches, con∣trary to the design of their Rule, if the Cistertian Abbots may be believed,* 1.90 who declare their Resolution to keep to the Be∣nedictin Rule, and therefore would wholly withdraw from Cities, and have nothing to do in Churches, that so they might live re∣tired, not upon the profits of Churches, but upon their own stock and industry, accord∣ing to the intention of their Rule. And that this Resolution of the Cistertians was most agreeable to the Benedictin Rule,* 1.91 is declared by the many Bulls of Popes which are extant for the confirmation of the Cistertian Order, or rather Reformation of the Benedictin, according to the first design and letter of their Rule.

§. 7. Thus far Mr. Cressy's resolution to stand to it, that Christianity was established in England by the Disciples of S. Benedict,

hath drawn me to the Discourse of the means and Persons by which England was converted; but it may be after all this he may find out a reserve to himself, viz. that he did not mean it of the first knowledge of Christianity, but of the firm settlement of it: But neither can this be his meaning, nor if it were, is it any truer than the former. It cannot be his meaning, for his words are, that the English Saxons were indeed converted by the Disciples of S. Benedict, by which it is plain he speaks of the first Conversion; but suppose he did not, the establishment or settlement of Christianity is no more owing to the Benedictins than the first Conversion of the Nation. For which we are to consider, that a sudden Apostasie soon happened to Paganism after the death of the first Princes who professed Christia∣nity. For Eadbald King of Kent,* 1.92 Son to Ethelbert revolted from it; but he soon repented his Apostasie and sent for Mellitus and Iustus out of France again; but the state of Christianity remained more despe∣rate in the Eastern parts after the death of Sebert, and the Apostasie of his Sons: and although some hopes appeared by the Con∣version of Erpenwald,* 1.93 yet his death hap∣pening soon after, things were as bad as ever,* 1.94 till the return of Sigebert out of

France, who brought Felix a Burgundian Priest with him, who was the great instru∣ment of restoring Christianity in those parts.* 1.95 Among the West Saxons Birinus was the first Preacher of Christianity, but he was so far from being a Benedictin, that Mr. Cressy himself confesseth,* 1.96 that he was not by profession a Monk. In the Nor∣thern parts, after the revolt of the Sons of Edwin, Christianity was wholly restored in the time of King Oswald by the Scottish Christians, among whom himself was Con∣verted and Baptized.* 1.97 Bede at large relates the coming of Aid••nus and his excellent piety, zeal, and charity; whose good ex∣ample many others followed, till by great diligence in preaching and an excellent con∣versation, they had settled Christianity much more firmly than ever: and from thence Christianity was conveyed into the Middle parts of England in the time of Peada by Finanus;* 1.98 who carried with him four P••iests, Cedda, and Adda, and Betti, and Diuma, whereof the last was a Scot, and the other English: this Diuma was made Bishop and consecrated by Finanus: after him succeeded Ceolla a Scot too: after him Trum••ere, consecrated by the Scots; after him Iaruman, after him Ceadda. At the same time,* 1.99 saith Bede, the East Saxons

recovered the Christian faith by the endea∣vours of King O••wi of Northumberland with their King Sigbert: who was likewise Baptized by Finanus, and he consecrated Cedda, to be their Bishop. By which we see that when Christianity was settled and established in England, how much more it was owing to the piety and care of the Scot∣tish Christians, than to the Roman Missio∣naries; for all the Northern parts, the Midland and East Saxons were throughly converted by them; the East Angles by Fe∣lix a Burgundian; the West Saxons by Bi∣rinus one sent from Rome, but no Monk; and only the parts of Kent by the Roman Monks, but not Benedictins. And hath not Mr. Cr. now very great reason to stand to this assertion, That the English Saxons were con∣verted to Christianity by Benedictin Monks?

§. 8. But it may be yet, Mr. Cressy thinks they were never true Christians till they had received the Roman customes: and that the honour of making them good Ca∣tholick Christians belonged to the Bene∣dictins, or at least to the Roman Missiona∣ries. For all that I can find, they were very good Christians in Mr. Cressy's esteem, but only in the Customes wherein they differed from the Roman Church.

For Mr. Cressy confesseth that the Scots, Picts,* 1.100 and Brittains in all matters of faith agreed with the Saxon, that is the Roman Church: but it is plain withall that the great zealot for the Church of R••me, Wilfrid, re∣fused to receive Orders among them and gives this as the reason of it, because the Apostolical See did not allow th•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 on with it; for speaking of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Scottish Bishops,* 1.101 he saith, 〈…〉〈…〉 Apo∣stolica sedes in communi•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 nec∣eos qui Schismat••cis consen••••••••: it seems then the Brittish and S••••••••••sh Churches stood excommunicated at that time by the Church of Rome; and therefore he desires to go into France, ut sine controversia Apo∣stolicae sedis, licet indignus, gradum Episco∣palem merear accipere; so that the Pope would neither allow their Churches nor their Ordinations. So William of Malmsbury saith,* 1.102 that he would neither be ordained by the Scottish Bishops, nor by any ordained by them, because the Apostolical See had re∣jected their Communion. But what was it I beseech Mr. Cressy, that unchurch∣ed the Brittish and Scottish Christians, and nulled their Ordinations, and made them deserve excommunication? Why, forsooth, they had not the right tonsure among them, and they did not keep Easter on the right

Sunday; these are all the material diffe∣rences Mr. Cressy will allow, for the causes of so much severity. But doth Mr. Cressy in good earnest think, that these are of weight enough to unchurch whole Nations, and null their Ordinations? Mr. Cressy hath very learnedly set forth the state of the Controversie about Tonsure; and he tells us, there were three several kinds of Ton∣sure; the first was called S. Peters,* 1.103 which was shaving the top of the head, leaving below toward the forehead and ears a circle or Diadem representing the Crown of Thorns which our Lord bore: the second was S. Pauls which was either a total shaving or at least close polling of the whole head: the third was called Simon Magus his Tonsure, by which only a half crown was formed on the lower part of the head before, from one ear to the other, all the rest of the h••ir being left at full length:* 1.104 Now saith Mr. Cressy, the present dispute was, whether S. Peters man∣ner of Tonsure in use at Rome was to be only received in Brittany? A very weighty Controversie I confess; and very fit for the Head of the Church to be so much con∣cerned in;* 1.105 for so Mr. C. tells us, that the Popes of this Age took care, that S. Peters Tonsure should be only received in Brittany. And was there not great reason for it, since

it was to be a mark of their slavery to the Roman See? Good Lord! that ever men should pretend to take care of Souls and excommunicate whole Churches for not ha∣ving the right fashion of shaving their heads! Could they ever believe that S. Pe∣ter and S. Paul were so concerned whether mens hair was cut in the form of a Crown, or all off? No, they say, that Circumcision is nothing and Uncircumcision is nothing; but it seems the fashion of shaving is a very great matter.

But I suppose the weight of the business lay in the keeping of Easter on a different Sunday from the Church of Rome: Mr. Cressy pretends to some skill in this matter, and undertakes to correct many mistakes of Protestants about it: and therefore to prevent any needless quarrels I will take the Controversie as Mr. Cr. himself states it, and then see what can be made of it against the Brittish and Scottish Churches and the English which followed their example. The errour of the Brittains saith he,* 1.106 (and consequently of the rest) consisted not as generally Protestant writers conceive, in conforming to the Asiatick manner of the Quartodecimani, who kept their Easter al∣wayes the same day 〈…〉〈…〉 whe∣ther it were Sunday or 〈…〉〈…〉 they made

their computation from the fourteenth of the Moon to the one and twenty, by which means it came to pass, that if the fourteenth of the Moon proved to be a Sunday, the Iews and Brittains once in seven years would observe their Paschal solemnity to∣gether; which was contrary to the Uni∣versal practice of the Church, and utterly forbidden by the first General Council of Nicea.* 1.107 And a little before, he saith, that to distinguish the Christian Pasch from the shadow of a Iewish observation, they or∣dained that it should be solemnized only on a Sunday, yet not that on which the four∣teenth day of the Moon fell, but the Sunday following, and therefore counted alwayes from the 15 to the 21, excluding the day of the Iewish Pasch; which, he saith, was to be celebrated exactly on the fourteenth day of the first Moon after the Vernal Aequi∣nox on what day of the week soever it fell. For Mr. Cressy's satisfaction, or rather for the vindication of the Brittish, and Scottish Churches and the English which followed them, I shall enquire into two things. 1. The true state of the Controversie. 2. Whether the Roman Emissaries either then had, or now have reason to charge them with contradicting the Universal

practice of the Church, or the decree of the Council of Nice?

§. 9. 1. For the state of the Contro∣versie; we must consider, what they were charged with by their enemies, and what they had to say for themselves. Bede, where he first mentions it, gives this ac∣count of it;* 1.108 that they did not keep the Sun∣day of Easter in its own time, for they reckoned from the fourteenth of the Moon to the twentieth: which computation, saith he, is contained in a Cycle of eighty four years:* 1.109 Stephanus Heddius saith, from the fourteenth to the two and twentieth; but that is a mistake.* 1.110 Pope Honorius charges them, with contradicting the practice of the Universal Church, and the decrees of general Councils. Pope Iohn who succeeded Seve∣rinus next after Honorius, charges them, with renewing an old heresie, and keeping Easter with the Iews; and all was, saith Bede, because they did not reckon the Easter Sunday from the fifteenth to the one and twentieth, according to what was approved in the Council of Nice.* 1.111 Those that came out of Kent and Gaul, saith Bede, charged the Scots that they kept the Easter Sunday contrary to the practice of the Universal

church: from this different practice, saith Bede, it sometimes happened, that two Easters were kept in a year, and that which was Easter day to the one was Palm-Sunday to the other: And after Naiton King of the Picts had embraced the then Roman custom of keeping Easter,* 1.112 to shew to all the people the change he had made, he removed the Cycle of eighty four years, and set up that of nineteen. So that the true state of the whole Controversie between them was no more but this, whether the old Roman Cycle of eighty four should continue, or the Alex∣andrian Cycle of nineteen be followed? But the Combatants on both sides talked like men that did not understand the mat∣ter they were so hot about: however Col∣man pleaded, for their adhering to the anci∣ent Tradition of their Church in this mat∣ter, and that they had no reason to hearken to any innovation by whomsoever introdu∣ced; for supposing the greatest inconveni∣ence that could happen, that they should ce∣lebrate Easter on the fourteenth together with the Iews, yet herein they had the ex∣ample of the Apostle S. John,* 1.113 and those who were inspired by the Holy Ghost; and we, (as Polycarp and others) are not ashamed to follow their example, and therefore we dare not and will not change our custom.

Fredegodus makes Colman add further,* 1.114 that they had not only constant tradition for it, but that it was left in charge by S. John and his Disciples that if the Sunday fell on the fourteenth, they should keep their Easter on that day: and so much Heddius saith too, Patres nostri & antecessores eorum ma∣nifeste Spiritu Sancto inspirati ut erat Co∣lumcille 14 Luna die Dominicâ Pascha cele∣brandum sanxerunt.* 1.115 Eadmerus makes the command to come from S. Iohn himself in those Churches which were under his care; which practice, saith Colman, hath been de∣livered down to us by an uninterrupted succession of holy and prudent men, and hath been inviolably observ'd hitherto, and there∣fore ought to be so still. What could those of the Church of Rome desire more, than they bring for this practice? Nay, I. S. would have told them, the Popes infallibility was not to be compared to that of Oral Tradi∣tion: what certainty, would he say, could they have had of any thing if they rejected such evidence as this? But it seems this kind of Tradition was not valued so much then, no nor any thing else when it opposes their interests. It was not this or that day, was, in truth, the occasion of the dispute, but the poor Brittish and Scottish Christians must submit to the present Roman Church,

and do as they would have them.* 1.116 Beda saith expresly, that they did not comply with the Iews as to the day of the Week; but ig∣norantly and by following uncertain Cycles they mistook in the certain Sunday; being men of very great devotion and goodness, and learning only what was contained in the Writings of the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles; but, be that as it would, no favour was to be shewed them without pre∣sent complyance; and for this purpose Wil∣frid was an excellent instrument. Who begins, in Bede, his answer to Colman by saying,* 1.117 the Easter we observe, we saw ob∣served at Rome by all persons where Peter and Paul lived, and taught, and suffered, and were buried; the same, saith he, is observed in Italy, and Gaul, in Africa, A∣sia, Egypt and Greece, and all the World over, except these obstinate Brittains and Picts. Very confidently said! how truly will be seen afterwards. However he confesses, that S. Johns practice was agreeable to theirs: but S. Peter when he Preached at Rome (there is the Emphasis of it) ap∣pointed otherwise, that it should be kept on the Sunday that did fall between the fifteenth and one and twentieth. It seems S. Peter and S. Iohn differed as much about Easter, as S. Peter and S. Paul did about Tonsure.

And this, saith he, all the Churches of Asia after S. Johns death and his successours ob∣served (it seems his Authority vanished at his death) and the whole Church, which was not first decreed but confirmed by the Council of Nice. What prodigious igno∣rance and confidence is here joyned toge∣ther! as will appear presently. Colman asked him, what he thought of Anatolius a man much commended in Ecclesiastical histo∣ry, who declared that the Sunday was to be taken from the fourteenth to the twentieth. Wilfrid tells him, they did not understand him (no more than himself); and as to their Ancestors he was willing to think charitably of them, and hoped that the keeping Easter on a wrong day would not damn them, as long as they had no better information. But, saith he, for You and Your Companions, if you refuse to obey the Decrees of the Apostolical See, yea of the Universal Church, confirmed by Scripture, without all doubt you sin in it. For, saith he, our Lord hath said, Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, &c. This I confess is home to the business;* 1.118 although the Saxon Homilies with no less than malignant in∣gratitude understood the Rock of Christ himself and the faith which Peter confes∣sed; but however Wilfrid made such a

noise with S. Peters Keyes; that the good King Oswi verily believing that he kept Heaven∣gates told them all plainly, that for his part he would follow S. Peter, for fear he should shut Heaven-gates against him when he came thither: and we may be sure the peo∣ple could not but be mightily moved with this: by which means Wilfrid prevailed and Colman was forced to retire from his Bishop∣rick. Steph. Heddius adds only farther,* 1.119 that Wilfrid insisted on this, that the Nicene Fathers had appointed the Cycle of nineteen, by which they could never keep Easter on the fourteenth, and that an Anathema was pro∣nounced against those who should keep it otherwise. Thus far we have an account of the State of the Controversie, from the par∣ties engaged in it.

§. 10. 2. Let us now see what reason there was for charging the Brittish and Scot∣tish Christians with opposing the practice of the Universal Church, and the Decrees of the Council of Nice in reckoning the Easter Sunday from the fourteenth to the twenti∣eth, and not (as the Roman Missionaries would have them) from the fifteenth to the one and twentieth. I shall therefore now shew,* 1.120 that if they were guilty of an error or heresie in so doing, (so Petavius calls

it insignis error, imo haeresis Scotorum) not only the Apostles and their Disciples, but the Roman Church it self was guilty of as great. The great ignorance which Wilfrid and the rest of the zealots for the Roman customs betrayed, lay in this, that what they saw practised in their time at Rome, they supposed to have been alwayes observed there, and that it came from a command of S. Peter, that the day of Easter should be observed as it was then in the Roman Church; whereas there was nothing like any Aposto∣lical Precept for it, and the Church of Rome it self had but lately embraced the Alexandrian Cycle, which Wilfrid would with so much Authority have inforced upon the poor Scottish Christians. In the beginning of Christianity nothing was looked on with greater indifferency than the anniversary day of the Christian Pasch; thence came so different customs among several Churches; the Churches of Asia, properly so called, Sy∣ria, Mesopotamia and Cilicia,* 1.121 observed it on what day of the Week soever it fell; as any one that knows any thing of Eccle∣siastical History understands: For as S. Chry∣sostom saith,* 1.122 they did not believe that any one should be called to account that he ob∣served the Pasch in this or that moneth: For they had neither the leisure nor the cu∣riosity

to examine the Cycles then in use by the rules of Astronomy; but took them as they found them among the Iews without com∣paring them with the heavenly Bodies. Now there were two things observed by the Iews for finding out the dayes of Passeover, viz. the beginning and ending of the first month; and the fourteenth day of the Moon, on the evening of which they were to begin their Passeover; and these two were observed by all Christians in the beginning of the Chri∣stian Church till towards the end of the se∣cond Century, according to the Iewish cy∣cle, which was of eighty four years, as Epiphanius tells us;* 1.123 which although it were not exact according to the motions of the Heavens, yet that was not thought a suf∣ficient ground for the alteration of it. Yea, Epiphanius mentions an Apostolical Consti∣tution (quite different from what is now extant in the Book that goes under the name of Apostolical Constitutions) wherein Chri∣stians are commanded not to trouble them∣selves with calculations,* 1.124 but that they should keep the Feast at the same time with the Brethren that came out of the circumcision, although they were mistaken (in their cal∣culations): not with those that remain in the circumcision, but with those that came out of it, saith Epiphanius, which he under∣stands

of the Bishops of Ierusalem, fifteen of which continued to A. D. 136. till towards the end of the Empire of Hadrian, at which time Marcus was the first Bishop that was made of the Gentiles.* 1.125 Petavius knows not what to make of this constitution, for by it, he supposes the Christians were ob∣liged to keep Easter with the Iews on the fourteenth day; for he takes it for granted, that the Bishops of Hierusalem did so: as he confesses some of the Apostles did; but the Learned Primat of Armagh, thinks Petavius mistaken in this, because although they did then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Iewish computation, yet he supposes that they did keep Easter not with the Iews on what day of the Week soever it fell,* 1.126 but on the Sunday in honour of our Saviours resurrections And it can∣not be denyed, that Narcissus Bishop of Hi∣erusalem and Theophilus of Caesarea, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, do in their Synodical Epistle declare, that they agreed with the Church of Alexandria, viz. in keeping it on the Lords day, and that this had been the constant practice of the Church of Hierusalem. And it is plain Epiphanius understood it so, or else it was to no pur∣pose to distinguish in this matter, those who remained in the circumcision, and those which came out of it. But notwithstanding

these Churches and the Western did observe the Lords day for the Paschal feast, yet in the way of reckoning it, they did observe the Iewish computation, both as to the Age of the Moon and the Vernal Aequinox. For although Constantin in his Letter doth upbraid the Iews, that they kept their Pasch, before the Aequinox (which was then rightly fixed on March 21.) yet we are to understand it of the Astronomical Aequi∣nox, and not of that which was in popular use among them, which might anticipate the other about three dayes, (because ac∣cording to their beginning the month Nisan from March 5. the fourteenth of the Moon might fall on the eighteenth day, and so their Passeover be kept three dayes before the Ae∣quinox at the time of the Nicene Council.) For, as Clavi••s observes,* 1.127 God doth not tye his Church to the subtleties of Astronomical Calculations, but to the common judgement of sense, in which the Aequinox hath the la∣titude of four dayes with us, and as many more in those more Southern parts. The like liberty was used in the Christian Church before the Nicene Council: for in the Council of Caesarea, they do allow the celebration of Easter before the Aequinox, which they then supposed to be March 25. and yet they reckon three dayes before that

among those on which the Paschal Sunday might fall, as appears by the Epistle of one Philippus, about the Council of Caesarea, ex∣tant in the Works of Bede;* 1.128 wherein, he saith, that after the Resurrection or Ascen∣sion of our Saviour, the Apostles being dis∣persed abroad, and employed in preaching the Gospel, could appoint nothing concerning the Paschal Feast; but did observe it on the fourteenth of the Moon what day soever it fell upon. (Thus far sure the Brittish and Scottish Christians were no Hereticks in do∣ing as the Apostles did) But after, saith he, the Apostles were gone, the Christian Chur∣ches observed different customs, both as to Paschal Fast and Feast; upon which by the direction of Pope Victor a Council was called at Caesarea for setling the way of keeping Easter; where after they have fixed the Ae∣quinox on the eighth of the 5. Kal. of April, they determined that the three dayes before should be taken within the Paschal limits; (so that the Sunday for Easter might be reckoned on any day from the 11. Kal. of April to the 11. Kal. of May, viz. from the two and twentieth of March to the one and twentieth of April inclusive; and withal they add, that it should not be law∣ful for any to exceed these limits. And yet afterwards these limits were so far ex∣ceeded,

that the Latin Church in Leo's time made the Cycle of the Paschal Sundayes to consist of thirty three dayes; and the Alex∣andrian Cycle took in two dayes more, viz. the twenty fourth and twenty fifth of April, because they found the former limits too strait, unless they were understood of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as they called it, i. e. that the anniversary day of our Saviours passion should alwayes fall between the two and twentieth of March and one and twentieth of April.

§. 11. The first person who published a Paschal Canon was Hippolytus Bishop of Porto, A. D. 222. above an hundred years before the Council of Nice, which was found A. D. 1551. and set forth by Scaliger with Notes upon it, in which Canon he makes the nearest Paschal Sunday to be the sixteenth of the Moon which is March 20. be∣ginning the Lunar Month March 5. which is one day before the Nicene Aequinox, and five before that of Caesarea: and in which he reckons the Paschal Sundayes not from the fifteenth to the one and twentieth, but from the sixteenth to the two and twentieth. By which we may easily see, what reason Wilfrid had to make the then practice of the Roman Church to have been the Universal practice of the Christian Church: for the

two fundamentals of the Rule then in use were, that the Paschal Sunday should be reckoned from the fifteenth to the one and twentieth, and that it should never be be∣fore the Aequinox. The first we meet with who laid down this Rule about the Aequi∣nox, was Dionysius of Alexandria,* 1.129 who sat there from A. D. 247. to A. D. 264. where∣in he was followed by Anatolius Bishop of Laodicea, who would by no means have the Paschal Sunday observed before the Aequi∣nox, which he following Sosigenes supposed to be March 25. but made the first Easter day to be March 27. But that which is most observable in him to our purpose, is, that he reckoned neither as the Latins from the sixteenth to the two and twentieth, nor as the Alexandrians from the fifteenth to the one and twentieth, but from the four∣teenth to the twentieth,* 1.130 just as the Brittish and Scottish Chruches did, as appears by the second, fifth and eighteenth of his Cycle pub∣lished out of MSS. by Aegidius Bucherius with learned Annotations, and so makes no scruple at all of that, which Wilfrid and Bede made such a great matter of, viz. of keeping Easter day upon the fourteenth, and therein complying with those notable He∣reticks called the Quartodecimani. But Anatolius, in the Preface to his Canon, was so

far from supposing an universal consent of the Church in his time, that he complains of very different and contrary Cycles that were then in Use, some following Hippolytus his Cycle of sixteen; others the Iewish Cycle of eighty four; others a Cycle of twenty five; others of thirty; and he mentions the endea∣vours of Isidore, Hierom, Clement and Ori∣gen, all of Aegypt, to compose this matter. But notwithstanding all the care used to settle this Controversie, the breaches of the Church continued about it; and if we believe Hen. Valesius,* 1.131 the inhabitants of Syria and Mesopotamia had espoused the ce∣lebrating Easter on the fourteenth day, not long before the Council of Nice.

But what differences soever happened be∣fore the Council of Nice, was not an uni∣form practice setled by the decree of it, and all Churches obliged to reckon the Paschal Sunday from the fifteenth to the twenty first, and consequently the Brittish and Scottish Churches were guilty of opposing the Uni∣versal practice of the Church at least after the Council of Nice? This is all the pre∣tence that I know can be left in this mat∣ter; but neither was this decreed in the Council of Nice; nor if it were, was it universally observed after it. A Synodical Epistle was sent out after the ending of the

Council, which I suppose was the same with that of Constantin;* 1.132 wherein all Christians are disswaded from complyance with the Iews, and earnestly exhorted to an agree∣ment upon one day, and the lesser part to submit to the practice of the greater: but no limits are set, no Cycle established by the decree of the Council. For although Dionysius Exiguus who brought in the A∣lexandrian Cycle into the Latin Church, would have it believed,* 1.133 that herein he fol∣lowed the Nicene Fathers; yet Aegidius Bucherius a learned Iesuit, hath fully prov∣ed, that no Cycle or certain Rule was at all ap∣pointed by the Council of Nice:* 1.134 although soon after he confesses the Cycle of 19. was found out, (as he probably thinks, by Eusebius of Caesarea) and afterwards perfected by The∣ophilus of Alexandria, in the time of Theo∣dosius the elder. But if the Alexandrian Cycle had been determined in the Council of Nice,* 1.135 how comes it to be omitted in the Kalendarium Romanum published by Her∣wart, which he saith, was set forth the very year of the Nicene Council A. D. 325. wherein though there are Dominical Let∣ters, yet there are no Golden Numbers: (but if he were mistaken in the time, and it came forth in the Reign of Constantius, the argument will still hold). And if

there were so universal a consent in the practice of the Church after, how came it to pass that S. Cyrill of Alexandria in his Paschal Epistle saith,* 1.136 there was so much confusion in the account of Easter, in the Church, the Camp, and the Palace? how came Theodosius to send so earnestly to The∣ophilus of Alexandria, about it? But above all, whence came such mighty differences between the Eastern and Western Churches about Easter, long after the Council of Nice? of which a full account is given by the two learned Jesuits,* 1.137 Petavius and Bucherius: which latter hath at large proved that the Latin Church did still proceed according to the Iewish cycle of eighty four, and not according to the Alexandrian of nineteen, and that they reckoned not from fifteen to twenty one, but from sixteen to twenty two: from whence arose those hot contests about the right Easter between the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria; especially in the time of Leo in the years 444. and 455. And Paschasinus in his Epistle to Leo about the former Easter, mentions the Romana Suppu∣tatio,* 1.138 as distinct from that of Alexandria, and as the occasion of the Dispute. In A. D. 455. there were eight dayes difference between the Easter at Rome and at Alex∣andria, which caused great disputes, as may

be seen in the Letters of Leo to Martianus and Eudocia;* 1.139 and the answer of Proterius Bishop of Alexandria; of which Prosper in his Chronicon saith,* 1.140 that although the La∣tin Church did submit for peace sake, yet that it was in the right, and such an ex∣ample ought not to be followed: and the same Prosper* 1.141 doth often mention the Cycle of eighty four, as that which the Latin Church did make use of at that time. But this be∣ing found too short and insufficient, Victo∣rius was imployed to frame a new Paschal Canon fitted to the use of the Latin Church; which was first printed by Bucherius; * 1.142 wherein, although he differed from the old Latin calculation in the beginning of the Lunar month, yet he proceeded still in the old way of reckoning from sixteen to twen∣ty two. Victorius writ his Paschal Canon A. D. 457. to Hilarus Arch-deacon of Rome who succeeded Leo; and it appears that the occasion of writing it, was from the diffe∣rence between the Alexandrian and Roman Church in the computation of Easter; So Hilarus confesses in his Epistle to Victo∣rius: * 1.143 and Victorius shews wherein the dif∣ference lay, viz. in three things: the Alexan∣drians began their Paschal month from March 8. and reckoned it to April 5. inclu∣sive; the Roman Church from March 5. in∣clusive

to April 3. exclusive. The Alex∣andrians reckoned the fourteenth Moon from March 21. to April 18. the Romans from March 18. to April 15. inclusive. The Alexandrians reckoned the Paschal Sunday from the fifteenth inclusive to the one and twentieth. The Roman Church from the sixteenth to the two and twentieth. Now Victorius thought by his Canon to accom∣modate the difference between the two Churches embracing the Alexandrian Cy∣cle of nineteen, as more certain than the old Latin one of eighty four, but agree∣ing with the Latins in reckoning from six∣teen to two and twenty; and yet according to his Canon, the Easter sometimes differed eight days from that kept at Alexandria: * 1.144 and sometimes it fell a month later than it did according to the former Latin computa∣tion. But this Canon of Victorius gave no satisfaction either to the Eastern or Western Church; all the Eastern Church followed the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Church of Milan in the West, from the time of S. Ambrose as appears by his Epistle to the Bishops of Aemilia:* 1.145 Victor Bishop of Capua writ against Victorius his Canon, A. D. 550. upon a new controversie risen in the Church about Easter day; but this was twenty five years after Dionysius Exiguus had brought

the Alexandrian Canon into the use of the Roman Church, which was A. D. 525. After which time it did by degrees prevail in the Western parts; but was never fully received in France till it was setled there by the Au∣thority of Charles the Great.

§. 12. This is the short and true account of the Paschal controversie, which made so much noise, and gave so great disturbance to the Christian Church; let us now bring it home to the case of the Brittish and Scot∣tish Churches, and see what reason Wilfrid then, and the Roman Missionaries since, have had to condemn them. Was it that they opposed the universal practice of the Chri∣stian Church in not reckoning from fifteen to twenty one? but we see the Roman Church it self had but lately embraced that way of computation; having before made use of the same Cycle the Britains did, of eighty four, and reckon'd from sixteen to twenty two. Was it, that according to their way different Easters would be kept the same year? but, why should this be worse with the Britains and Scots, than with the Eastern and Western Churches, which differed some∣times a month in their Easter; as, besides, what hath been mentioned already, appears by the antient Laterculus Paschalis first pub∣lished

by Bucherius, in which he shews, that within the compass of it, viz. an hun∣dred years, the Easter of the Latins was kept a month sooner than the Alexandrians, viz. A. D. 322, 349, 406.* 1.146 And A. D. 387. a threefold Easter was kept, some March 21. others April 25. others April 18. as appears by S. Ambrose's Epistle written on that occa∣sion. Again A. D. 577.* 1.147 a threefold Easter was kept, some keeping it the eighteenth of April, as those which followed Victorius, others the twenty fifth of April, viz. those which followed the Alexandrian Canon; and others again, even in Gaul, as Greg.* 1.148 Tu∣ronensis saith on the 12. Kal. of April, March 21. the very day of the Vernal Ae∣quinox: So he tells us, they did in comply∣ance with the Spaniards, who it seems thought it no heresie so to do, even after the decree of the Council of Nice. But I suppose the main fault of the Brittish and Scottish Churches was, that at some times it would so happen that they might keep their Easter-day on the fourteenth of the Moon, and so comply with the Iews. Was this it in truth which unchurched them all, and rendred their Ordinations null? The Apostles I am sure did far more in complyance with the Iews than this came to, as to matter of Cir∣cumcision and other things, and even in this

point, if Ecclesiastical History may be cre∣dited, and yet I hope their Ordinations were good, and the Churches Orthodox which they planted. Methinks, it might have been called complyance with the Apostles as well with as the Iews? and will indeed complyance with an Apostolical practice un∣church whole Nations? it must be surely only with the Church of Rome that it can do so. And yet did not the Church of Rome it self comply with the Iews in the use of their Cycle, and in the beginning of their Lunar Month on the fifth, and not on the eighth of March as the Alexandrians? And why should one sort of complyance un∣church people, and not another? If every complyance doth it, farewell to the Church of Rome it self and her Ordinations, even after the Nicene Council. But, what if af∣ter all this, the Church of Rome after the embracing the Alexandrian Cycle, did com∣ply more with the Iews than the Brittish Churches did in keeping their Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon: for by that Canon they were to keep it on the fifteenth, and that was the great Festival day among the Iews, for on the evening of the fourteenth they did eat their bitter herbs, but the next day was the solemn Festival: and I would ••ain understand whether it were not a great∣er

complyance with the Iews to feast the same day they did, than to keep that for a Festival, on which they eat their bitter herbs, and began the Passeover only on the evening? Besides, they who kept it on the fifteenth, must celebrate the memory of Christs passion before the fourteenth, which certainly was as great an incongruity as could happen by keeping it on the four∣teenth. But supposing it were a complyance with the Iews; it is plain it was not a stu∣died and designed complyance with them; for they kept their Easter on the Lords day in opposition to them; only it happened once in seven years, saith Mr. Cressy, that the fourteenth of the Moon and Easter met, and then they kept it with the Iews; If this were it which unchurched them; how hard was it for such Britains and Scots to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven! Or rather, how hard is it for such who can Unchurch whole Nations of Christians on such pittiful accounts as these? S. Paul would have said, I will keep no Easter while the world stands, rather than destroy whole Churches of such for whom Christ dyed. But what do we meddle with S. Paul; they are only the U∣surpers of S. Peter's Chair, that dare so ea∣sily, in their own opinion, send whole Chur∣ches to Hell; viz. for doing no more in ef∣fect,

than themselvs had done not long before. Nay, to conclude all, it is very probably supposed by two learned Persons,* 1.149 that what the Brittish and Scottish Churches, at that time accounted the fourteenth of the Moon, was in truth the sixteenth, (whether by the correction of Sulpitius Severus, as Bishop Usser supposes,* 1.150 or the shortness of the Cycle, as Bucherius; is no matter at all). And I hope all persons shall not be presently sent to Hell, that do mistake in the Computation of Easter, according to the Judgement of the Roman Church; for then God have mer∣cy on all those that do not follow the Grego∣rian Accompt. And I think the difference as great and a weighty now, as it was in the famous Dispute between Wilfrid and Col∣man: But if notwithstanding this diffe∣rence the Brittish and Scottish Christians were very good Christians, and so many English Churches were planted by them, Mr. Cressy must harden his forehead in standing to it, that the English Saxons were converted by Benedictin Monks.

Notes

• * 1.1

  P. 15.
• * 1.2

  P. 17.
• * 1.3

  P 35.
• * 1.4

  Ani••ad∣ver. p. 29.
• * 1.5

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Apol•• sect. 35.
• * 1.6

  Matth. Westmo••a••t. A. D. 490.
• * 1.7

  Wi••••iel. Mal••sbu∣rie. de ge••tis Reg. Angl. l. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.8

  H••nrie. Hunti••gdon. Histor. l. 2.
• * 1.9

  Ca••de•• in Cumberland. p. 630 & 648.
• * 1.10

  Bed•• l. 2. c. 20.
• * 1.11

  L. 4. c. 26.
• * 1.12

  L. 5. c. 24.
• * 1.13

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.14

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.15

  〈…〉〈…〉 7.
• * 1.16

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.17

  Bolland. Feb. 24. vit. S. Ethelbert. Com••ent. praev. s. 1. n. 8.
• * 1.18

  Biblioth••c. Floriac. histor. vit S. Gildae c. 8.
• * 1.19

  Church hi••t. l. 12. c. 10. n. 3. L. 11. c. 3. n. 4.
• * 1.20

  Bolland. 29 Ian. praef. s. 2. Acta San∣ctorum Or∣di••is S.
• * 1.21

  Bened. s. 1. p. 138.
• * 1.22

  Malms. hist. Angl. l. 1. c. 2.
• * 1.23

  Ch••rch hist. l. 11. c. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
• * 1.24

  Bed. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 22.
• * 1.25

  Bolland. vit. E••helb. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 supra.
• * 1.26

  Church hist. l. 11. c. 14. ••. 3.
• * 1.27

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Eccles. a••l A. D. 561. n. 1. ••••d. hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 25.
• * 1.28

  Greg. Tu∣ro•• l. 4. c. 26. L. 9. c. 26.
• * 1.29

  Ch••oni. W. Thorn. c. 2. ••. 2.
• * 1.30

  Mal••sbur. de gestis Reg Angl. l. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.31

  Beda histor. Eccles. l. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.32

  Church hist. l. 12. c. 16. L. 13. c. 1. Ioh. Brom∣〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.33

  Gregor. ••p. l. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 58.
• * 1.34

  Ep. 59.
• * 1.35

  Church hist▪ l. 13. c. 1. n. 7.
• * 1.36

  Greg. E••. l. 9. ••p. 59.
• * 1.37

  v. Mez••r••y ad A. D. 570.
• * 1.38

  〈…〉〈…〉. Tom. 2. p. 19.
• * 1.39

  〈…〉〈…〉. s. 1.
• * 1.40

  Baron. An∣nal. ad A. D. 5••1. n 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
• * 1.41

  Apolog••ti••t. cus li••••••r Antonii Gallonii advers.
• * 1.42

  Const. Bel∣lottum. Rom. 1604. Spondan. ad
• * 1.43

  A. D. 581. n. 5.
• * 1.44

  Ioh. Ma∣billon pr••e∣fat. ad Act•••• Sanctorum Ordin. Be∣nedict. s. 7.
• * 1.45

  〈…〉〈…〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. A. D. 1626. S. 2. p. 7.
• * 1.46

  S. 3. p. 9.
• * 1.47

  Trithem. de viris illu∣stribus or∣din S. Be∣nedict. l. 3. c. 279.
• * 1.48

  〈…〉〈…〉 ••. e. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 193
• * 1.49

  T••ith. l. 3. c. 84.
• * 1.50

  Ba••ra••is, p. ••61.
• * 1.51

  Bro••gh••o••s 〈◊〉〈◊〉, c. 13, 14, 18, 23, 24, 25, &c.
• * 1.52

  c. 30.
• * 1.53

  Epi••t. Apol. sect. 35.
• * 1.54

  Vit. S••••il∣fri••. c. 2. 3. MS. ••n Bio∣••oth Co••∣ton. B••d. Hist. l. 4. c. 2.
• * 1.55

  Bed. Histor. Abbat••n wirem••th, &c.
• * 1.56

  Bed. Hist. Eccles l 5. ••. 20.
• * 1.57

  Vit W••••frid. c. 5.
• * 1.58

  C. 7.
• * 1.59

  C. 10.
• * 1.60

  C. 12.
• * 1.61

  C. 14.
• * 1.62

  C. 29.
• * 1.63

  C. 31.
• * 1.64

  C. 41.
• * 1.65

  C. 42.
• * 1.66

  C. 43.
• * 1.67

  C. 44.
• * 1.68

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. vit. Wilfrid. MS. in Bib∣lioth. Cot∣to••.
• * 1.69

  V. Se••ul. 3. B••n••dict. p. 221.
• * 1.70

  Malm••bur. de g••stis Po••tif. Angl. l. 3.
• * 1.71

  Reyner. A•• ostolat. Ben••dict. tr. 1. sect. 1. S••ct. 8.
• * 1.72

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. l. sect. 11. p. 39. Mo••astic. A••glican. Tom. 1. p. 144.
• * 1.73

  Selden. Not. in Eadm••r. p. 215.
• * 1.74

  Bed. Hist. l. 1. c. 27.
• * 1.75

  Pe••••ot de Canon. l. 2. c. 14.
• * 1.76

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 l. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5. de P••••b. c. relat.
• * 1.77

  Codex. Epi∣stol MS. l. 1. ••p. 62.
• * 1.78

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hi••••••••. T••i∣〈◊〉〈◊〉. ••. C••••••••. R••g. l. 1. c. 61.
• * 1.79

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. de••g••st. Po••is. l. 1.
• * 1.80

  P 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad S. c 1. Bene∣dict. p. 43.
• * 1.81

  Propulae. ad Monast. Anglican.
• * 1.82

  R••y••••••. Ap∣pend. part. 3. p. 77.
• * 1.83

  P••••••••••. Be∣n••d. n. 89.
• * 1.84

  Praefat. Be∣ned. ad sec. 1. s. 8.
• * 1.85

  Cassiod. Di∣via. ••ect. p••••••at. &c. 32.
• * 1.86

  Pennot. de Canonic. Regular. l 2 c. 14, 15, &c.
• * 1.87

  I•••• p••••t. 7. c. 22.
• * 1.88

  Gall••n. R••∣spo••s. ad Mo••••••h. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p 108. 109. 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.89

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.90

  Exord. Coenob. Cist. c. 15. i•• Biblioth. Cisterc. To. 1.
• * 1.91

  Regula, Constitut. & Privi∣legia Ordin. Cistert à Chrysost. Heariquez.
• * 1.92

  Bed. l 2. c. 6.
• * 1.93

  L. 2. C. 15.
• * 1.94

  L. 3. c. 18.
• * 1.95

  L. 3. c. 7.
• * 1.96

  Church h••st. l. 15. c. 4. n. 9. Bed. l. 3. c. 1.
• * 1.97

  C. 3.
• * 1.98

  L. 3. c. 21.
• * 1.99

  L. 3. C. 22.
• * 1.100

  Church hist. l. 16. c. 18. n. 12.
• * 1.101

  Steph. He••d. vit. S. ••il∣••rid. C. 12.
• * 1.102

  Mamlsb••r. de gestis Pontif. Angl. l. 3.
• * 1.103

  Church hist. l. 16 c. 18. n. 2, 3, &c.
• * 1.104

  N. 6.
• * 1.105

  N. 7.
• * 1.106

  Church hist. l. 13. c. 18. n. 11.
• * 1.107

  ••. 10.
• * 1.108

  Bed. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.109

  Vit. S. Wil∣frid. c. 10.
• * 1.110

  Bed. l. 2. c. 19.
• * 1.111

  L. 3. C. 25.
• * 1.112

  L. 5. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.113

  Steph. H••d. vit. Wilfrid. c. 10.
• * 1.114

  Fredeg••d. vit. Wilfrid. p. 176.
• * 1.115

  Eadmer. vit. Wilfrid. n. 15.
• * 1.116

  Bed. hist. l. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.117

  L. 3. c. 2••.
• * 1.118

  V. Whe••o. not. in. Bed. l. 3. c. 25.
• * 1.119

  St••ph. H••dd. vit. W••lfr. c. 10.
• * 1.120

  P••tav. ani∣••••••vers ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 51. Epiphan.
• * 1.121

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Synod. & ad Africa••. ••p.
• * 1.122

  Chrysost. To••. 6. p. 382.
• * 1.123

  Epiphan. haer. ••1.
• * 1.124

  Epiphan. h••••r. 70.
• * 1.125

  Petav. ani∣mad. in hae∣res. 70.
• * 1.126

  Uss••r. Pro∣legom ad Epist. Ignat. c. 9.
• * 1.127

  Clav. Ca∣l••nd••r. Gre∣gor. c. 4. sect. 7.
• * 1.128

  B••d. oper. To••. 2. sab tit. de V••••nali Aequino∣••tio.
• * 1.129

  Eus••b. l. 7. c. 20.
• * 1.130

  Aegyd. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de doctr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 464.
• * 1.131

  Vales. not. in Euseb. l. 5. c. 23.
• * 1.132

  E••s••b. vit. Constant. l. 3 c. 18, 19.
• * 1.133

  Dio••ys. Exigui ••p. prima in ••ppend. Bucherii. p. 485.
• * 1.134

  Bucher. Commentar in Victorii Canon. Pa••ch. c. 3 c. 6.
• * 1.135

  V. E•• seb. vit. Const. l. 4. c. 34.
• * 1.136

  Cyrill. Epist. in Append. Bucherii p. 482.
• * 1.137

  Petav. Doctr. T••m. l. 2. c. 63. p. 531. Bu••h. doctr. T••m••. c. 4, 5, 6.
• * 1.138

  Paschas••i Ep. Leon. 1. inter Ep. Leon. 63.
• * 1.139

  Leo Ep. 64, 65.
• * 1.140

  Prosper. Chro••. A. 455.
• * 1.141

  Prosper. Chronic. A▪ D. 46, 1••0, 214, 298, 382.
• * 1.142

  V. Bucher. Comm••nt. in Victorii Ca••o••. Pas∣chal. p. 9••.
• * 1.143

  Victor. Prolog. ad Ca••. n. 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.144

  Bucher. Com. mentar. c. 8, 9.
• * 1.145

  Ambros. ep. 83.
• * 1.146

  Bucher. Comment. p. 264.
• * 1.147

  V. Labb. Chronolog. Te••hnic. ad A. 387. & ad A. 577.
• * 1.148

  Greg. Turon. l. 5. c. 1••.
• * 1.149

  Aegid. B••∣cher. Com∣ment••••. in Pas•• b. Ca∣non. p. 190.
• * 1.150

  Usser. de Pri••o•• d. Eccles. Bri∣tan. p. 934.