St. Paul. There were resident at Rome between the years 51 and 58 some British hostages from the family of Caractacus, and two illustrious Ladies, Pomponia Græcina, and Claudia Rufina, who were natives of Britain, and converts to Christianity *.

Dr. Hales's second reason for doubting the accounts of St. Paul's journey to Britain, is, that the interval between his first and second visit to Rome seems to have been too short to afford time for a visit to Syria, and afterwards to Spain and Britain. The space of one year assigned by him to this interval is obviously much too short even for the western journies alone; but that is an argument against the system, which contracts this interval within such narrow limits as to exclude the western journies, rather than against the journies themselves. If we admit the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, that St. Paul was sent prisoner to Rome in the 2d year of Nero, and suffered martyrdom in the 14th year, the space between A. D. 58 or 59, the year of his release, and the time of his return, will

A. D. 67 or 68,

*Concerning these British Ladies and their conversion

to Christianity, see Antiquitates Britannica, p. 2,3. Stillingfleet's Orig. Brit. p. 43, 44. Musgravii Commentarius ad Veterem Inscriptionem, p. 71. Carte's Hist. of Eng. Vol. I. p. 194.

be sufficient for the Apostle's various labours in the West and East.

To this interval Godeau allows eight years. Baronius, Massutius, Simson, and Stillingfleet, somewhat more; the Historia Ecclesiastica Magdebur gica, ten years.

Dr. Hales's third objection to the western travels of St. Paul, is, that "there is no notice taken of these travels in St.Paul's second Epistle to Timothy, but only of his eastern." It will be a sufficient answer to this negative objection, to observe, that St. Peter, in his Epistles, takes no notice of his western travels, yet our learned Chronologist thinks it " highly probable" that St.

Peter travelled to Britain, on the singlea uthority of a writer of the tenth Century. In proof of St. Paul's travels to the West and Britain we have a continued series of testimonies from the first century to the sixth, but we hear nothing of St. Peter's western labours (except from Popes Innocent and Galasius, who claimed the Primacy,) till four Centuries after the latest testimonies for St. Paul, which are quoted in the following pages. The tenth Century was an age of forgery and interpolation, and of such ignorance and devotion to the Roman apostolical chair, that we cannot be surprised, that, in any narrative of that day, the me

rits of St. Paul should be transferred to St. Peter.

Dr. Hales's fourth reason is stated thus: "An ancient Greek * writer of the travels

of St. Peter and St. Paul, observes that St. PETER spent some days in Britain, and enlightened many by the word of grace; and having established Churches, &c." If this writer were ever so ancient, and the account which he gives of St. Peter ever so true, it would not disprove what others assert of St. Paul. But this writer is far from being an ancient writer, compared with the time of the fact, which he is brought to attest. A writer of the tenth Century is entitled to not credit, if he is contradicted, or not supported, by the authority of more ancient writers.

Of the authority of this writer Bishop Stillingfleet gives the following judgment. "Some writers of our Church History have endeavoured to prove St. Peter to have preached the Gospel in Britain; but their proofs are very slight and inconsiderable, and depend chiefly on the authority of

* See the passages quoted by Junius in his notes on Clemens's Epistle; and in Le Clerc's edition of Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici, Vol. I. p. 150, n. 8. and referred to by Cave in his life of St. Paul, p. 81.

Simeon Metaphrastes, or other legendary writers, or some monkish visions, or some domestic testimonies of his pretended successours, or some late partial advocates, such as Eysengrenius, who professes to follow Metaphrastes. All which together are not worth mentioning in comparison with the authors on the other side." If to this Protestant judgment we add the opinions of two Roman Catholic writers, one pronouncing Metaphrastes to be of "no authority in these matters;" and the other calling him "a treacherous authority," we shall not be disposed to allow him any credit either in support of St. Peter's journey to Britain or against St. Paul's.

6. The testimonies of the first six Centuries which either expressly record St. Paul's journey to the West and to Britain, or afford such evidence of the propagation of Christianity in Spain and Britain, as coincides with these testimonies, I will give in as few words as possible.

(1.) The first and most important is the

* Origenes Britannicæ, p. 45. See also Godwin de Præsul, p. 3, 4, and Cave in his Life of St. Peter, p. 34.

+ Baronius, A. D. 44. n. 38.

Linguard, Anglo-Saxon Church, Vol. I. p. 3

testimony of Clemens Romanus, "the intimate friend and fellow-labourer of St. Paul." He says, that St. Paul, in preaching the Gospel, went to the utmost bounds of the West, επι το τερμα της δύσεως. This is not a rhetorical expression as Dr. Hales supposes, but the usual designation of Britain. Catullus calls Britain, ultima Britannia, and ultima occidentis insula. The west included Spain, Gaul, and Britain. Theodoret speaks of the inhabitants of Spain, Gaul, and Britain, as dwelling in the utmost bounds of the West, τας της έσπέρας εσχατίας. The connection between Britain, and the West, will be seen in other passages quoted by Bishop Stillingfleet *; and in the following of Nicephorus: προς ἑσπεριον ωκεανον εισβαλων και τας Βρετανικας νησους ευαγγελισαμενος*. The utmost bounds of the West, then, is not rhetorical language, in itself, for it is a common appellation of Britain; nor as applied to St. Paul, for it was said of others of the Apostles.

(2.) In the second Century (A. D. 179.) Irenæus speaks of Christianity as propagated to the utmost bounds of the earth, ἕως περατων Tns yns, by the Apostles, and their disciples;

* Origenes Britan. p. 38.

+ Hist. L. II. C. 40. apud Usher. Antiq. Eccles. Britan. p. 740.