they were first planted. It is impossible to place any reliance on the accounts which are handed down to us by the Catholic clergy, whose statements are various and unsatisfactory. Cardinal Baronius and other writers of that school, who lose no opportunity of magnifying the apostle Peter, contend with great earnestness that he was the first to preach the Gospel and plant a church in Britain. For this opinion, however, they produce no tolerable evidence or authority. The only writer of any antiquity who says any thing of the matter is Metaphrastes, a writer of the tenth century, who tells us that "St. Peter spent twenty-three years at Rome, and in Britain, and other countries of the west; and, particularly, that he continued a long time in Britain, converted many nations, constituted many churches, in which having ordained bishops, presbyters, and deacons, he returned to Rome in the twelfth year of Nero."* It is sufficient say of this, that Baronius himself acknowledges the testimony to be of little weight or authority. It is abundantly evident from the New Testament that the apostle Peter received his mission to preach the Gospel among those of "the circumcision"—of which there were comparatively few in this nation in the apostles' days and that he spent his life in preaching in Judæa, Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, and such countries as abounded with Jews.

to

If any of the apostles visited the British isles to preach the Gospel here, which however is not absolutely certain, the probability is much in favour of the apostle Paul.+ We have al

Baronius Annal. tom. i. p. 537.

+ This question has been taken up and considered by two contemporary writers of great learning and well-earned celebrity—and the fact that they have arrived at perfectly opposite conclusions respecting it ought to prevent us from dogmatizing on either hypothesis. The first of these learned men is Dr. Burgess, now bishop of Salisbury, who, in an elaborate treatise on the " Origin and Independence of the British Church," published in 1815, 2nd edition, takes the affirmative side of the question, and contends that the apostle Paul preached the gospel in these islands, and established a form of church government in Britain, appointing Aristobulus, who is mentioned Rom. xvi. 10, to be the first bishop of Britain. To support this point hisl ordship adduces the authority of the Greek Menæa, and of Dorotheus, with a considerable number of vouchers, viz. Clemens Romanus, Eusebius, Jerome, Theodoret, &c. &c. On the contrary, the very learned Dr. William Hales (author of the Analysis of Chronology, &c.) has published “ An Essay on the Origin and Purity of the Primitive Church of the British Isles, and its Independence upon the Church of

TRAVELS OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

451

ready adverted to the testimony of Clemens Romanus, Jerome, and Theodoret, to this effect; and there are several particulars in the writings, the character, and the history of this apostle, which, when duly weighed, will be found to corroborate the supposition. Of his zeal in the cause of his divine master it is needless to speak; he flew like lightning from one country to another in the execution of his commission, and his great ambition was to carry the good news into countries where Christ was not at all, or but little, known, lest he should build upon another man's foundation, Rom. xv. 20. The evangelist Luke's account of his labours, contained in the Acts of the Apostles, closes with his release from confinement at Rome, in the year 58 or 59, when he was set at full liberty to go where he pleased. From this time to the period of his martyrdom, in the year 67, the last year of the reign of Nero, forms an interval of several years, concerning which the New Testament is silent, nor have we any very clear and explicit records to guide us in reference to it. Where, then, did this most active and zealous apostle spend these last years of his laborious life? We admit that no very satisfactory answer can be returned to this question. We find him taking a final leave of the churches in the east, among which he had been assured by divine revelation he should never return, Acts xx. 25. We find him projecting a journey into Spain, by way of Rome, to preach the gospel in that country, Rom. xv. 24-28. This shows us that the apostle had his attention at this time directed to the western provinces of the Roman empire, which presented him with a large uncultivated field, where the name of Christ was but little known; and if, after being released from his confinement at Rome, he carried into effect his purpose of visiting Spain, he would of course pass through Gaul, and in all human probability extend his journey into Britain, which was then become a large and flourishing province of the Roman empire. In fine, though it would be rash and unwarrantable to affirm positively that the apostle Paul preached the gospel in this country, it is certainly no presumption to

2

Rome," London, 1819, in which he combats the learned prelate's train of evidence, and arrives at a totally different conclusion; viz. that Paul did not preach the gospel in Britain.

"Who shall decide when doctors disagree?"

affirm that there is a high degree of probability attending it. The fact itself, indeed, is not one which need to trouble us much, since we know that we are indebted for this inestimable blessing, the light of the gospel, to that gracious Being from whom every good and perfect gift cometh down; and that to HIM, and not to the visible instruments of his providence, our debt of gratitude is mainly owing.

It would be trifling with your time and patience to detail the legendary tales of the Catholic priesthood, respecting the persons by whose labours the first British Christians were converted, such as Aristobulus, mentioned by Paul in his epistle to the Romans-who, they tell us, was ordained a bishop by his sonin-law, St. Peter, and sent to preach the gospel in Britain, where he suffered martyrdom. Also Joseph of Arimathea, concerning whom they have the most marvellous tales to relate—of which, however, to gratify curiosity, I may give you a single specimen. William of Malmsbury has left us a History of the Antiquities of the Church of Glastonbury, in the introduction to which he has occasion to mention the dispersion of the apostles by the persecution in which Stephen suffered martyrdom-after which he thus proceeds: "St. Philip came into the country of the Franks, where he converted many to the faith; and, being desirous of propagating the knowledge of Christ still farther, he chose twelve of his disciples, and, having devoutly laid his right hand upon each of them, he sent them to preach the word of life in Britain, under the conduct of his dear friend Joseph of Arimathea, who buried the Lord. These missionaries, arriving in Britain in the year 63, preached the gospel with great zeal. The barbarous king of the country, however, and his subjects, rejected their new doctrine, and would not abandon their ancient superstition; but as Joseph and his companions had come from a very distant country, and behaved modestly, he granted them a certain island in the borders of his kingdom, called Inniswitrin, for their residence; and two other Pagan princes successively granted them twelve hides of land for their subsistence. These holy men, living in this wilderness, being admonished by the angel Gabriel to build a church to the honour of the blessed virgin, the mother of God, they were not disobedient to the divine command, but built a small chapel of wattles in a place

MONKISH LEGEND OF THE CHURCH OF GLASTONBURY.

453

pointed out to them; a humble structure indeed, but adorned with many virtues! For, as this was the first Christian church in these regions, the Son of God was pleased to do it the singular honour of dedicating it himself to the honour of his mother!"

Such is the account given us by this monkish writer of the origin of the church of Glastonbury, and you will admit that it partakes sufficiently of the marvellous; but it was far from satisfying the luxuriant fancies of the monks, who made almost as great a change in it, by their successive embellishments, as they did in their old church of wattles. The following short extract said to be taken from the archives of the church of Glastonbury' may suffice to convince you of this :

"There were six hundred men and women who were to come over into Britain with Joseph of Arimathea, who having all taken a vow of abstinence till they came to land, they all broke it except fifty, who came over the sea on the shirt of Josephus, the son of Joseph. But, the rest having repented of the breach of their vow, a ship was sent to bring them over, which had been built by king Solomon. There came over with them a duke of the Medes, called Nazianus, formerly baptized by Joseph in the city of Saram, with the king of it, called Mordraius, who valiantly killed a king of North Wales, who kept Joseph a prisoner," &c. &c.*

It is quite needless to waste our time in proving that these monstrous fictions were the pure inventions of the monks of Glastonbury, to promote the reputation and riches of their monastery. For nothing could equal the effrontery and impudence of the monks of the middle ages, in inventing and propagating such extravagant legends, if we except the credulity of the people in believing them.

In most of our histories of England, there is a famous story related of the conversion of one "Lucius, a king of Great Britain, and of his subjects, also, who, in or about the year 164, are said to have received baptism from a deputation sent by the Roman emperors, and Evaristus, then bishop of Rome." This story has been so gravely and circumstantially related, that it has obtained a general currency-yet never was there a story more evi

Stillingfleet's Orig. Brit. p. 13.

dently false, absurd, and contradictory, in almost every circumstance than this is! Who, I ask, was this Lucius? Some answer that he was king of all the British Isles-some say he was king of Britain generally—others, king of South Britain—and some, only a petty king of South Britain, they know not where ; and, if you ask when this famous conversion of a king and his subjects took place, you have no fewer than three and twenty different dates assigned for this event, by different writers.*

The original fabricator of this story appears to have been one Nennius, who, in the seventh century, wrote a history of Britain; but his account was a very short one, the particulars of which I have stated above; yet, short as it is, it contains two as manifest falsehoods and absurdities as can well be imagined. What, for instance, can be more absurd and false than to assert that there was a British monarch named Lucius, with many British kings under him, at a time when the whole country was subject to the Romans? Unless, indeed, it be still more absurd to affirm that Heathen emperors should send deputies to convert and baptize the kings and people of Britain! Yet on this slender foundation, laid by Nennius in manifest falsehood, subsequent writers gradually raised a magnificent structure, which was at length brought to perfection by the inventive and romantic genius of Jeffrey of Monmouth, who lived in the twelfth century. According to him, through the influence of this good king Lucius, the infant church of Britain was blessed with about eight and twenty bishops, besides a decent proportion of archbishops, all whose sees were endowed with lands and mansion-houses, and all manner of privileges suitable to their important and dignified stations!

The truth is, that this story is too ridiculous to dwell upon, or take any pains in refuting. If there be any truth whatever in it, the sum must be this; that, at some period of the second century, there was a petty prince in this country, in favour with the Romans, and by them indulged with some degree of authority, who embraced the Christian religion, and exerted himself in furthering its interests to the utmost of his power. This is credible; but I am far from saying that even this is true; for Gildas, the earliest of our historians, who was a Briton and

Usserii Eccles. Brit. cap. iii.