fleet, who did not so understand Clement, the former interpreting το τέρμα της δύσεως, Spain, and the latter, Britain, Pearson says, Quis unquam dixit Romam fuisse terminos sive fines occidentis ?

P. 274. H. N. T. S. says,

says

μη οκνει.

وو

"if it can be

proved, that St. Paul did not visit Spain, it will be admitted to be even much less probable that he ever entered England [Britain]" And how does he prove it? He says, that "St. Athanasius, who is brought forward to prove that St. Paul preached in Spain, only that the Apostle was ready to go thither, It is almost incredible that any one should venture to appeal to a passage so contrary to his assertion, as the original, in this case is. The words of Athanasius are: (Vol. I. p. 737. ed. Commelin.) Mexg Tou Ιλλυρικου κηρυττει και μη οκνει μη δε εις την Ρώμην απελθειν, μη δε εις τας Σπάνιας αναβηναι, ἵνα όσον κοπια τοσουτον και του κόπου τον μεσθον μείζονα aоλaby, he preached as far as Illyricum; and did not hesitate even to return to Rome, and even to go to Spain, that, in proportion to the labour, he might receive the greater reward. If the whole passage had been quoted, the contradiction would have been too glaring to commit to paper: for if St. Paul was only ready to go to Spain, he was only ready to

iva

as says: Adveniente Timotheo, ex Italia fectus est in Hispaniam: quo iturum se verat in Epistola ad Romanos. (Annales ulini, p. 20.)

P. 274. He says, "Grotius, in his zeal prove, that it was agreeable to the wisdom Providence to give the widest circulation the best of doctrines, includes (besides ngland) America, and the inmost recesses the North, in his catalogue of the counes, which received the Gospel either by e means, or, at least, in the days of the postles. As there can be little doubt that ither America nor Ireland [Iceland] were Down to the ancients, we may venture to elude them at once; and perhaps we shall inclined to consider as equally fabulous d heroic, &c."-Without consulting the iginal it might be at once affirmed, that rotius can never have included America mong the countries, which "received the ospel either by the means, or in the days. the Apostles." But here are his words: Conveniebat divinæ providentia id efficere, t, quod optimum esset, pateret quam latisme, Id autem contigit Religioni Chrisanæ, quam ipsi videmus per Europam mnem, ne Septentrionis quidem recessibus xclusis, doceri; nec minus per Asiam omnem, G

return to Rome; and if the passage were a proof that he did not go to Spain, it would prove also, that he did not return to Rome. Mn oxves is did not hesitate, did not decline, did not fear to go. Μη οκνει μη δε μη δε is strongly expressive of St. Paul's zeal and labour and courage in undertaking these journies.

P. 273. He says, “it is very probabl

Poy

among the ince

that St. Paul was never in Spain.
Gelasius especially denies it." This
be infallible authority with some of H.
T. S.'s readers, but, I am sure, will not
with the majority; when it is opposed to
direct assertions of Athanasius, Chrysost
and Theodoret, and others,
cients *; and of Pearson among the mode
Chrysostom says, Και ουδε ενταυθα ἱστ
αλλα και εκείθεν εις Ισπανιαν εδραμε.
in S. Paulum, Tom. viii. p. 59.) Theod
εκείθεν δε εις Σπανίας απελθών, και το θείον
νοις προσενεγκων Ευαγγελιον, επανελθε.
lipp. I. 25.) Pearson following these

(In

* Notalis Alexander, a Popish writer, in his E Sæc. i. p. 557. says: "Etsi Gelasius profectione Pauli in Hispanias negasset, quid contra tanta testium, contra traditionem tot sanctorum Patrun

niis firmatam, probaret unius Pontificis ex pranis

scribentis authoritas ?"

tec m

rities says: Adveniente Timotheo, ex Italia profectus est in Hispaniam: quo iturum se dixerat in Epistola ad Romanos. (Annales Paulini, p. 20.)

P. 274. He says, Grotius, in his zeal to prove, that it was agreeable to the wisdom of Providence to give the widest circulation. to the best of doctrines, includes (besides England) America, and the inmost recesses of the North, in his catalogue of the countries, which received the Gospel either by the means, or, at least, in the days of the Apostles. As there can be little doubt that neither America nor Ireland [Iceland] were known to the ancients, we may venture to exclude them at once; and perhaps we shall be inclined to consider as equally fabulous and heroic, &c."-Without consulting the original it might be at once affirmed, that Grotius can never have included America among the countries, which "received the Gospel either by the means, or in the days of the Apostles." But here are his words: Conveniebat divinæ providentia id efficere, ut, quod optimum esset, pateret quam latissime, Id autem contigit Religioni Christianæ, quam ipsi videmus per Europam omnem, ne Septentrionis quidem recessibus exclusis, doceri; nec minus per Asiam omnem, G