Eusebius affirms, that the Gospel was preached in Britain by some of the Apostles. Other ancient historians expressly say this of St. Paul. In the before-mentioned Discourse I have endeavoured to prove, that we are indebted to St. Paul for the first preaching of the Gospel in Britain; and founded this proof on Eusebius's and Jerome's testimony, that St. Paul was sent prisoner to Rome in the second year of Nero, that is, in the year 56. The family of Caractacus, who were sent as hostages with him in the year 51*, were still at Rome; for we are informed by an ancient British record †, that Caractacus's father accompanied his son, as an hostage, and returned to Britain after staying at Rome seven years, that is, till the year 58, and brought with him the knowledge of the Christian faith. This fa mily, I conclude that St. Paul either accompanied in their return to Britain, or followed, after he had visited Spain.

The practicability of St. Paul's journey to Britain, within the period mentioned by

*Tacitus Annal. L. XII.

+ Myvyrian Archæology, Vol. II. p. 63. Triad 35. The passage is translated in Williams's Dissertation on the Pelagiun heresy, p. 14. and in the Appendix to Roberts's Collectanea Cambrica, p. 295.

Gildas, depends, in a considerable degree, on the year of his first going to Rome; and that, again, on the recall of Felix from the government of Judea. To St. Paul's first journey to Rome different dates are assigned by different writers: the

* Imperii sui (Neronis) anno secundo Festum Judææ procuratorem fecit. Chronicon Ivonis apud Corpus Francica Historia Veteris, p. 28. Hanovia 1614.

+ Simson says secundo Neronis anno, though he dates it A. D. LVII.

Of these dates, the two last which are adopted by our very learned Chronologists, are most at variance with the testimony of Gildas. For if St. Paul had gone to Rome so late as the year 60, (as he staid there two. years according to St. Luke) he would not have reached Britain till after the defeat of Boadicea, and would have found the country under all the horrors of devastation and oppression, and in a state very unfavourable to the reception of the Gospel, especially by the mission of a Roman citizen. The first of these dates (2d of Nero) not only accords with Gildas's testimony, and with the residence of Caractacus's family, and other favourable contingencies, at Rome,—but has the authority of Eusebius and Jerome, and the concurrence of Stillingfleet and many other learned writers-and (which is of great consequence in adjusting the chronology of St.

*The great diversity of dates assigned to the same events in St. Paul's ministry, (his first visit to Rome, his return, and his death,) seems to have been occasioned in no small degree by the omission of so material a portion of that Ministry, as the Apostle's journey to the West.

Before the defeat of Boadicea the Britons had destroyed seventy or eighty thousand Romans. At least as many Britons perished in the victory which followed; and hostilities were on both sides carried on for some years, with unusual cruelties.

+ Acts xxi. 39.

Paul's ministry,) it affords sufficient time for St. Paul's various journies and labours in the West and East before his return to Rome.

power

3. But still the date of St. Paul's first journey to Rome depends on the time of Felix's recall. The ascertaining of one would decide the other. It is very improbable that Felix should continue in the government of Judea after his brother, Pallas, had been removed from the administration of affairs at Rome, which was in the 2d year of Nero. How dependent Felix was on his brother's is evident from Tacitus. "At non frater ejus (Pallantis) cognomento Felix pari moderatione agebat, jampridem Judææ impositus, et cuncta malefacta sibi impune ratus, tanta potentia' subnixo." (Annal. L. XII.) And that he was then recalled is attested by Eusebius in his Chronicon, and by Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers. But an expression of Josephus respecting the pardon of Felix, has induced the very learned author of Annales Paulini to place his recall four years later. Josephus says that Felix would have been punished for his delinquencies, if Nero had not pardoned him at the intercession of Pallas. But Pallas was removed from the administration of government in the 2d year of Nero, and therefore,

it may be supposed, must, at that time, have lost all influence with the Emperor; and that he could not have recovered it till after the death of Agrippina. Post Agrippinæ cædem nulla Pallantis apud Neronem offensio me-Quidni igitur sexto Neronis anno jam exeunte, tanta Pallas apud eum gratia floreret, ut fratrem suum, quem Nero ipse Procuratorem fecerat, a paucis Judæis accusatum liberaret. (Annales, p. 17, 18.)

moratur.

The recall of Felix would have been almost a necessary consequence of Pallas's disgrace, if he was not recalled before. But how should Pallas in disgrace obtain the pardon of his brother? To this we may reply, that if Pallas had lost his influence with Nero, Agrippina had not yet lost her power, and therefore could easily have secured the parden of her favourite's brother, Even three years after this, Nero wrs alienis jussis obnorius, (as Poppæa told him to irritate his pride) and non modo imperii, sed libertatis etiam indigebat. This was, no doubt, the language of artifice and exaggeration; but it shows the power of Agrippina; which is further evident from the expression of Tacitus on the occasion: cunctis cupientibus infringi matris potentiam. Felix's pardon, therefore, did not require so remote a cause, as the re