Conjectural, skillful in framing conjectures. —ED. Deceitful artifices. In the preface and in the conclusion to “Fiat Lux,” the author quotes largely from a speech by the Earl of Clarendon, who, having been appointed Lord Chancellor by Charles II. during his exiIe, at the Restoration accompanied him in his return to London, and at once entered upon the office of Speaker in the House of Lords. The speech was delivered on the adjournment of Parliament in September 1660. —\parED. The earliest author who is known to have written against Christianity, and among the ablest of its opponents. He is called by Origen an Epicurean, though some of his views have a greater affinity with Platonism. He flourished during the latter half of the second century.

His work against Christianity was entitled Lo>gov jAlhqh>v , his arguments assume the historical verity of revelation —ED. This numeration refers to the chapter in “Fiat Lux,” which Dr. Owen is relating. Owen most probably alludes to a weak enthusiast of the name of John Baptist Vanini. He was born at Taurosano, in the kingdom of Naples, in 1585. He published at Lyons, in 1615, a work entitled “Amphitheatrum aeternae Providentiae,” etc.; and in the following year another, entitled “De Admirandis Naturae, Reginae Demque mortalium Arcania.” He was accused of atheism, and his book was burnt by a decree of the Sorbonne. To judge from the title of the last work, and the common accounts of his views, he seems to have deified the powers of nature. He was prosecuted on a charge of atheism at Toulouse, and burnt in 1619, under circumstances of gross brutality, though there is some dispute whether the charge of atheism was well founded. At his trial, he picked up a straw and declared it to be sufficient evidence to him that God existed. He was at one time in England, and held disputations in support of popish tenets; for which offense he suffered imprisonment for forty-nine days. After the publication of his second work, he offered his services to the papal nuncio at Paris, to write in defense of the Council of Trent. Hence the edge of Owen’s sarcasm, — “That good Catholic.” —ED. ft7a It was sufficient for our author’s purpose to show that if, according to the statement in “Fiat Lux,” Britain was indebted, in the first instance, to Joseph of Arimathea for a knowledge of the gospel, it is not Rome, but Palestine, that is entitled on such a ground to urge any claim to supremacy over the British churches. Subsequent inquiry has proved that no such degree of certainty attaches to the tradition as Dr. Owen seems willing to concede to his opponent. The tradition is, that when the church at Jernsalem was dispersed by the persecution in which Stephen suffered martyrdom, Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, Martha, with her servant Marcella, a disciple of the name of Maximin, and Joseph of Arimathea, were placed on board of a vessel without sails, and that it was miraculously impelled and directed till it reached the haven of Marseilles in France. From Gaul Joseph is said to have been despatched by Philip on a minion to Britain, A.D. 63. He succeeded in converting many of its inhabitants to Christianity, obtained by royal grant land to the extent which could be included within twelve hides at Glastonbury, in Somersetshire, and built a wattled church, — the first erected for Christian worship in Britain. His staff, when stuck into the earth, took root, it is alleged, and grew into a species of thorn, which blossoms in winter, and still exists in the neighborhood — an enduring memorial of the first evangelist who brought the gospel into this island.

A famous abbey was afterwards erected, and, in virtue of its reputed antiquity, was held to prove the early origin of the British church; and precedence was therefore accorded to the English clergy over those of some other churches in the Council of Basle, A.D. 1434. The details of the legend on which this claim to high antiquity is founded are given by William of Malmesbury, who wrote in the twelfth century. It is repudiated and exposed as a monkish fiction by Bishop Stillingfleet, in his “Origines Britanulcae.” Mosheim attributes it to the eagerness with which different nations vie with each other in magnifying the antiquity of their respective churches: the Gauls confounding a bishop of the same name, who lived at Paris during the second century, with Dionysius the Areopagite; and the Germans affirming that Eucharius, Valerius, and Maternua of the third and fourth centuries, were contemporaries and companions of the apostle Peter; while the Britons, because the name was identical, would fain insist that the first Christian missionary who reached this country was Joseph of Arimathea.

The honor of having been the first to introduce the Christian faith into our island has also been claimed for James the son of Zebedee, who was killed by Herod, Acts 12:2; and for Aristobulus, to whom, with his household, a salutation is addressed by Paul, Romans 16:10. On the ground of some statements which occur in the martyrological calendar of the Greek church, Bishop Taylor and Dr. Cave are inclined to believe that Simon Zelotes must have been in Britain. “But at last,” it is said, “having come to Britain, and enlightened many by the word of the gospel, being crucified and put to death by the unbelievers, he lies buried there.” — Menologia Graeca ad diem 10 Maii. According to the Roman martyrology, however, he suffered martyrdom in Persia, No definite conclusion seems likely to emerge from the sifting of authorities so vague and contradictory, unless it be the utter uncertainty of all such traditions.

Simon Metaphrastes, a writer of the tenth century, would have us to believe that Peter visited Britain. Baronius, perhaps from the wish, so natural to a Romanist, that every tradition tending to enhance the reputation of Peter, and to prove his connection with the western church, should, be found true, extends credit to the story of Metaphrastes. It is accompanied, however, with details grossly, inconsistent with authentic history, and is not supported by the testimony of any previous writer.

There is, however, some amount of historical evidence, which, if not conclusive, is at least entitled to respectful consideration, in favor of the notion that the Christian church was first planted in Britain by the apostle Paul. Four anthorities are generally cited in order to justify this opinion, — Clemeus Romanus, Ensebius, Jerome, and Theodoret.

CLEMENS (“Epist. ad Corinth.,” epist, 1 cap. 5) speaks of Paul as “having preached the gospel in the east and the west, having come to the bounds of the west, — ejpi< to< te>rma th~v du>sewv , — and having testified before the rulers;” and immediately adds, “Thus he departed out of the world,” etc. The question as to the precise import of this statement very much hinges on the interpretation to be stayed to the Greek words which we have just quoted. Dr. Davidson (see his “Introduction to the New Testament,’’ vol. 2 p. 98) sifts them very carefully, and doubts if they can be held to imply more than that Paul had reached Rome; while Neander founds upon them in proof that he must have visited Spain. In relation to the Corinthians, Rome might be the west intended by Clement; and had a region more to the west than Rome been intended by him, it is probable be would have spoken of Paul as having gone, not having come , to the “bounds of the west.”

Moreover, the statement of the apostolic father, in its scope and continuity, appears to identify the place where Paul bore his testimony before the rulers, and departed from this world, with “the boundary of the west,” to which, by the preceding clause, he is represented as having come. These reasonings are of great weight in favor of the view which Dr. Davidson adopts; but the strength of the phrase, to< te>rma th~v du>sewv , is hardly exhausted if we understand it to embrace a longitude not more distant from Corinth than Italy; and the intercourse of eastern nations with Spain was by no means so scanty and limited that the Corinthians, on perusing the letter of Clement, would naturally think of Rome as the extreme verge of the western world. The use of ejlqw>n , may be explalned in relation to the point from which the apostle might have been viewed by Clement as commencing his journey. EUSEBIUS simply informs us, in his “Evangelical Demonstration” (lib. 3 cap. 7), that some of the apostolic body had crossed the seas ejpi< tanav brettanikasouv , — “to what are called the British islands.” However valuable this testimony may be in proof of the early introduction of Christianity into Britain, it sheds no light on the question whether Paul was the founder of the British church JEROME, too, commenting on Amos 5, employs language far too indefinite to supply us with evidence on the point: “St Paul having been in Spain, went from one ocean to another.” Then follows a comparison of Paul’s labors to the Sun of Righteousness, “of whom it is said, that ‘his going forth is from the end of the earth, and his circuit unto the ends of it.’“ THEODORE gives the most distinct testimony which can be quoted from ancient writers on this subject: “St Paul,” says he, after mentioning Spain, “preached salvation to the islands that lie in the ocean.” — Vol, 4 Serm. 9. He makes a similar statement in his exposition of Timothy 4:17: “St Paul, after his release at Rome, went to Spain, and thence carried the light of the gospel to other nations.”

If these testimonies do not prove that to the great apostle of the Gentiles in particular we are indebted for the first publication of the gospel in our island, they show that, coeval with the very origin of ecclesiastical history, a belief existed that within the first century, and even in the days of the apostles, Britain had been favored, to some extent, with the light of divine revelation. If we discard, therefore, the tradition that the first evangelist in Britain was Joseph of Arimathea, to which Dr. Owen seems willing to attach some importance, it is only to fall back upon an account of the introduction of the Christian religion into our country that has more of the weight and dignity of genuine history, and which supplies an answer more conclusive and satisfactory to the reasoning of his opponent in “Fiat Lux.” The curious incident recorded by Tacitus (“Anual.” 13 cap. 32) has been regarded as proving that even in the reign of Claudius, A.D. 41 - 54, there might have been Christians in Britain. Pomponia Gretna, on the return of her husband from Britain, was accused of being tainted with a “foreign superstition;” and if this be the Christian religion, as is commonly supposed, her zeal as a primitive Christian, in diffusing the gospel, is not likely to have slumbered in Britain, where human degradation around her would serve so powerfully to evoke it into operation; and distance from Rome might lead her to avow her principles more freely than in a city where the martyrdom of Christians was no uncommon spectacle. Tertullian also affirms (“Adver. Jud.,” cap. 7.) that by his time those parts of Britain inaccessible to the arms of Rome had been penetrated by the gospel.

Mosheim (“De Rebus Christianis,” p. 205) alludes to this testimony in disparaging terms: “Rhetoricatur paullulum vir bonus.” If, however, there were no precise and definite facts to sustain his assertion, it is difficult to conceive how Tertullian could indulge in a statement so specific as that the gospel had entered countries which had checked the triumphant advance of the Roman legions, and so likely to offend the pride of the Roman, to provoke a denial and recoil upon its author if untrue. Gildas, writing in the sixth century, states that the sun of Christianity shone upon our island about the time when Boadicea revolted against the authority of Rome, A.D. 62; and seems to intimate that the Roman soldiers, of whom there were forty-eight thousand in Britain, and whom it was unlawful to accuse of Christianity, had been the means of diffusing a knowledge of the gospel. Mosheim, it may be added, in the work to which we have already referred, holds that the balance of probability is in favor of the view which ascribes the first publication of Christianity in our country to an apostle, or some companion of the apostles; and as the British churches were in the first century independent of the Roman see, had the same forms of worship, and observed Easter at the same time, with the churches of Gaul, which doubtless had an Asiatic origin, the evidence is very strong that the gospel reached us originally by a course exclusive of Rome. The “Origines” of Stillingfleet were published two years after the death of Owen; and the latter, accordingly, not having the advantage of the sifting discussion which the story about Joseph of Arimathea has since undergone, might the more readily commit himself to a profession of belief in its truth. His own language, however, “Either by him or some other evangelist,’’ is sufficiently guarded. The facts we have stated ehance the strength of the general argument; and the knowledge of them will adapt it to the present state of the controversy with Romanists, who are fond of urging the claims of the Roman see to supremacy, on the ground that Britain is indebted to it for its first acquaintance with Christianity. Besides the fact, that not till after the lapse of centuries, did popes arise to usurp an impious lordship over the church of Christ, all the history which can be summoned in adjudication of the dispute shows that the Christian religion, in its pure and primitive form, reached our island by a different channel —ED. Several learned authors, such as Usher, Stillingfleet, Hooker, and others, concur in thinking that some British prince of the name of Lucius must have rendered eminent service in diffusing the Christian faith in some part of Britain. In the attempt to determine one point only, — the year of his admission into the Christian church, — Usher has occasion to quote upwards of fifty Latin authorities; and though it appears that one of the two coins on which he partly relied as evidence that such a royal personage once held sway in southern Britain is now pronounced false and counterfeit, this amount of historic testimony cannot be summarily discarded. There is extreme difficulty in discriminating the actual truth of history from the copious growth of fiction which loads the monkish narratives, from which all information respecting Lucius must be drawn. That there was such a native prince in Britain, while Antoninus and Commedus were emperors, amounts almost to a certainty; and his dominions seem to have comprised the modern counties of Surrey, Sussex, Oxfordshire, and Gloucestershire. Baronius states that from an early period of his life he had shown an inclination to espouse and befriend the Christian cause, having already obtained a partial knowledge of it from its adherents in Britain Some account reaching him of the heroic constancy evinced by the martyrs at Vienne and Lyons amid their sufferings, and of conversions which had occurred among the nobility of Rome to the Christian faith, he could no longer refrain from a more careful inquiry into its principles and claims. He sent a deputation, consisting of two British Christians, to Eleutherius, at that time bishop of Rome, and deserving of respect for his personal integrity, although he had once given his sanction, — which indeed he afterwards revoked, — to the impious heresy of Montanus, who assumed to be the Paraclete promised by our Savior, alleging that the term denoted not the Holy Ghost, but an inspired teacher authorized to prescribe a fuller rule of life than Christ himself had given. The result may be given in the words of Baronius, who cannot be suspected of any leanings to a version of the story unfavorable to the pretensions of the Romiah church, and by whose account it appears, that whatever information Damianus and Fugatius (Duvianus and Faganus according to other authors) conveyed to the British prince, Christianity was already well known in the island before their arrival at his court: — “This pontiff sent into Britain Fugatius and Donatianus, otherwise named Damianus, that they might initiate in the sacred mysteries the king, and others who were imbued with the Christian religion, — a duty which they diligently fulfilled, — for long before (as Gildas the Wise testifies), the gospel of Christ had been carried thither. — Annal. Ecclesiastes 2 A.D. 188. —ED. The Saxon invasion sufficiently accounts for the degree of barbarism and heathenism into which the most of Britain had relapsed before Augustine, with a commission from Gregory the Great, visited it to engage in the work of converting its inhabitants to the Christian faith.

Galled by the repeated incursions of the Scots and Picts on the north, when the Roman soldiery had been recalled from the island to protect the sinking empire against the threatened descent of the Hurts, the Britons invited the Saxons to assist them in repressing the encroachments of their warlike neighbors. The Saxons soon gained the ascendency; and the Britons, instead of being secured in the peaceable enjoyment of their territories, were driven to the west of the island, whilst their treacherous allies seized upon the largest portion of it. The arrival of the first Saxon army, at the invitation of Vortigern, was in the year 449. It was in the year 597 that the Roman abbot, Augustine, reached our island. In the interval, Christianity had been obliterated from Saxon England.

Augustine was soon able to report to Gregory considerable success in his mission, though the equivocal character of his proceedings may be understood from the fact, that, in his communications to Rome, he dwelt with especial pride and satisfaction on the baptism of ten thousand heathens in one Christmas-day. The vain-glory of the man did not altogether eacape the notice of Gregory, if we may judge from the earnest admonition to be humble which he tenders in one of his earliest letters to the missionary. Along with such good advices, he sent a copy of the holy Scriptures to our island, — a rare and precious gift in those days.

The ancient Britons, however, still had their own Christian church.

Neander states that “numerous clergy and monks” were connected with it. Augustine was anxious to secure their cooperation with him; and quits as anxious to obtain their recognition of his superiority as appointed by the see of Rome. The Britons, however, refused to own the supremacy of the pope. “We are all prepared,” said Deynock, an abbot of Bangor, “to hearken to the church of God, to the pope of Rome, and to every pious Christian, in such a way as to manifest to all, according to their several stations, perfect charity, and to uphold them both by word and deed. We know not what other obedience we can owe to him whom you call pope, or father of fathers.” A public conference between the representatives of the British and Romish churches had no effect in promoting the amalgamation at which Augustine aimed, and he died in 605 without effecting his object. The stand which the Britons made against the usurpation of the Roman see exerted a wide influence at the time. Neander ascribes to it the reaction which arose about this period, and continued for centuries afterwards, against the claims of the Romish hierarchy. The usages in which a difference existed between Rome and the earlier Christianity of the island, or the “Scotch church,” to employ the designation of Neander, — co called in virtue of the fact that its ministers and missionaries were chiefly educated in the institutions founded by Columba and his successors, — relate to the time of Easter, the form of tonsure, and the administration of baptism. The Britons, moreover, sturdily resisted the supremacy which the Roman see arrogated over the western church. A century elapsed before the arts of Rome prevailed, with the help of Saxon ascendency, in enforcing its ritual on the Christians of this island, and supplanting the more ancient forms which they had learned, directly or indirectly, from the east.

It is said that, after a second conference had been without avail in securing the adhesion of the British Christians to the Roman see, Augustine threatened vengeance on them for thus refusing submission to a foreign prelate. Ethelfrid, king of Northumberland, at the head of an army, marched upon Bangor, and put nearly twelve hundred monks to the sword. To this carnage Owen alludes, though there is some difficulty in ascertaining what share in the atrocity belongs to Augustine, beyond the threatening which he had uttered of some impending calamity on the Britons. The massacre is dated seven years attar his death —ED. The expression in full is “expeditie crudata” and is now commonly rendered crusade. —ED. The pretext for which a commission to sell indulgences was given to Tetzel was not a crusade against the Turks, but the completion of the church of St. Peter at Rome. As for the allegation that Luther took offense at the commission being given to a member of the Dominican order, in preference to the Augustinian friars, to whom he belonged, it has been proved, that, with a single unimportant exception, no Augustinian friar was ever employed in the sale of indulgences from 1450 to 1517, when Luther made the assault on indulgences, and that they can hardly, therefore, be supposed to have taken umbrage from the motives imputed to them; that the business of prosecuting the sale had been offered to the Franciscans, and spurned by them; that the bitterest opponents of Luther, — Cajetan, Hochstrat, Eraser, and even Tetzel, — never ascribe any such sinister motive to Luther; that Roman Catholic authors, such as De Prierio, Pallavicini, and Graveson, have confuted this charge against him; and that Cochlaeus, who originally mooted it, never ventured on the fabrication till Luther was in his grave, and has never been esteemed of any authority by popish writers of respectable character. See an able and conclusive note appended to “Villers’ Essay on the Spirit and Influence of the Reformation.” —ED. The Hebrew word “missach” signifies an offering, and the term “mass” has been derived from it by some Roman Catholic writers. The word in Latin is “miss” and it is more probable that it arose from the dismissal of the catechuraeos in the services of the ancient church, before the sacrament was dispensed. “Ite, missa est” were the usual words of the minister in dismissing them. —ED. Dr. Owen alludes to the Septuagint — a version of the Old Testament Scriptures in Greek, executed about 285 B.C. The testimony of Aristobulus, a Jew who lived at the beginning of the second century before Christ, and who gives the earliest notice of its origin, is as follows: — “The entire translation of all things in the Law was made in the time of the king surnamed Philadelphus, Demetrius Phalereus taking the principal charge of the work.” The New Testament Scriptures contain seventy-four quotations taken exactly from the Septuagint, forty-six in which the difference is extremely slight, and thirty-two in which the agreement holds in regard to meaning, while in regard to the words there is some discrepancy. These facts practically supply us with the warrant of inspiration for translating the Scriptures into the living and vernacular languages of the world. The inspired writers used and appealed to the Septuagint version; and the force of this consideration is not abated by the fact that there are eleven instances in which they seem intentionally to have renounced it. The exception sustains the general rule on which they proceeded. —ED. The principal Targums are those of Onkelos and Jonathan; the former lived about 60 B.C., the latter shortly before the birth of Christ. —ED. In the original edition it is printed “rain,” though in reprints of the work the word “reign” has been substituted, as seemingly more intelligible. Dr. Owen, however, is adopting in part an expreesion which seems to be a favorite with him, as it occurs more than once in his writings: — “One he must be thatched with another, or it will quickly rain through.” See vol. 8, p. 584. —ED. According to the Council of Trent (Catech. cap. 3 quaestio 32), the whole of Christ, his blood as well as his body, is contained under both species, — both the bread and the wine. This is the Romish doctrine of concomitance; and hence the notion that the laity, in receiving the bread as the body of Christ, do not need the wine, but receive his blood nevertheless as it is contained in the body. —ED. A word used in ancient times to denote the Lord’s supper. —ED. The last clause is literally quoted from “Fiat Lux,” but in such a way as to cause some misconception. It is there connected with the conduct of the Pagan who, “amongst other things of his great simplicity and ignorance,” is said to have laughed at the Christians for their worship of the objects to which reference is made in the rest of the quotation.

The clause, therefore, is quite irrelevant, and might have been omitted. —ED. Pers. 2:75. The import of the quotation in the original is, that with an unblemished character, a man may approach the temples, and make peace with no more costly offering than a handful of flour. Owen intimates that if all the statements were true, which he has supposed the Papist to make, small reason for quarrel would be left between Protestant and Papist. —ED. Ela is an old term for the highest note in the scale of music. See Bailey’s Dict. —ED. The “Provincial Letters” by Blaise Pascal were published in this country in 1657, according to the profession on the title-page, “Faithfully rendered into English.” The first of these celebrated productions appeared 13th January 1656; the last bears chute 24th March 1657. It illustrates the extent of their influence, and how rapidly their fame had spread, when the same year in which the series closed should have produced a translation of them into English. The language of Owen shows that he must have seen them in this form, for the title of the volume differs from the French title prefixed to the Letters, and runs in the following terms: “Les Provinciales; or, the Mysterie of Jesuitisme Discovered in certain Letters, written upon occasion of the present differences at Sorboune between the Jansenists and the Molinists, from January 1656 to March 1657, S. N.” —ED. See pp. 13, 14 of the present volume. In 1582, an English New Testament was printed at Rheims, for the use of the Roman Catholics in Britain, when, from the multiplication of Protestant versions, it was impossible any longer to withhold the Scriptures from the common people. It is a servile translation from the Vulgate. The annotations, to which Dr. Owen refers, are most objectionable. On the words, Luke 14:23, “Compel them to come in,” a note is appended plainly vindicating persecution. “St Augustine,” it is said, “referreth this compelling to the penal laws, which Catholic princes do justly use against heretics and schismatics;” and at the close it is added, “Such are invited as the church of God hath power over, because they promised in baptism, and therefore are to be revoked not only by gentle means, but by just punishment also.” The marginal title to the note is, “Heretics may by penal laws be compelled to the Catholic faith.” Expressions occur in the notes referred to above, to the following effect: — “The reward of heaven is the recompense of justice;” “Good works be meritorious, and the very cause of salvation.” —ED. See footnote 7a ( ft7a ) See pp. 28, 29, of the present volume. This translation is accommodated from the original terms of the canon.

To give the full meaning, the Greek quotation should be completed by the addition of the following words: wJv ekei>nhn megalu>nesqai pra>gmasi . —ED. An abbreviation for Unde De Piano Legi Possint, — “From which they can be plainly read.” Siglarium Romanum. —ED. An epithet, lhstriko>v , plundering or piratical, —-applied to characterize a council whose acts, according to Gibbon, are “a curious monument of superstition and ignorance, of falsehood and folly.” — Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 49:—ED. Johannes Damascenus flourished during the first half of the eighth century, and died at the monastery of St. Saba in A.D. 756. He wrote extensively on philosophical and religious questions, and his works, exclusive of manuscripts still extant, fill two folio volumes. On account of his oratorical powers, he was named Chrysorrhoas; but, according to Bayle, he called himself Mansour, “the redeemed,” while his opponents termed him Manser, “the bastard.” —ED. The allusion must be to the disputes at this time prevailing between the Jansenists and Jesuita —ED. In December 1662, Charles II., with the ulterior view of abetting the Papists, and asserting, at the same time, the royal prerogative entitled “the dispensing power,” issued a declaration, in which, says Burnet, “the king expressed his aversion to all severities on the account of religion, but more particularly to all sanguinary laws, and gave hopes both to Papists and Nonconformists that he would find out such ways for tempering the severities of the laws, that all his subjects would be easy under them.” — “History of His Own Times,” 1 194. Probably it is to this declaration our author refers. —ED. Aquino, anciently Aquinum, is a city, now decayed, within the kingdom of Naples. Our author invariably gives the word a French termination, and there seemed no necessity to change it into the modern form. —ED. Didaskali>av , ex editione Oxoniensi, A.D. 1715. —ED. Hor. ad Pisones, 146. It may be useful to the general reader if we indicate briefly the present state of the controversy in regard to Peter’s residence in Rome. The opinions in regard to connection with it may be reduced under three divisions. Some ascribe to him a lengthened residence in Rome, during which he acted not merely as bishop of the church in that city, but exercised a species of primacy over the rest of the apostles. This view, which the church of Rome generally is disposed to uphold, is exhibited by the following writers: — Barenius, in his “Annales,” A.D. 44-46, 56, 69; Bellarmine, “De Romans Pontif.,” lib. 2; and Cortesius, “De Romano itinere gestisque Principis Apostolorum.”

There are authorities, again, who deny that Peter ever was at Rome. It would appear that the Waldenses held this view, and that they have been followed in it by Matthew Flacius, Claude Salmasius, Fred.

Spanheim (“De Ficta Profectione Petri Apostoli in Urbem Romam,” 1679), Eichhorn (in his “Introduction to the New Testament”), De Wette (in his “Introduction to the New Testament”), and Baur (in a work entitled “Der Apestel Paulus”).

The middle opinion, — which rejects the traditions about Peter having been the founder of the church at Rome, and having presided as bishop over it for the space of twenty-five years, but admits the fact that he visited it shortly before his death, and suffered martyrdom in it, — has been entertained even by some Roman Catholic authors, such as Hug (in his “Introduction to the New Testament”). Several Protestant writers have yielded this modified credence to the old tradition: — Salom. Van Til (“De Petro Romae Martyre, non Pontifice,” 1710), Barrow (in his “Treatise on the Pope’s Supremacy”), Credner (“Introduction,” 1:628), Gieseler (“Ecclesiastes Hist.,” 1:78), Olshausen (“Introduction to e Epistle to the Romans”), Guerike (“ Introduction”), and Wieseler ( “On the Chronology of the Gospel and the Apostolic Age”). A translation of Wieseler’s discussion of this question appeared in vol. 5 of Dr. Kitto’s “Journal of Sacred Literature,” and we refer to it as containing in detail several facts and references at which we can only hint in the compass of a note.

The substance of the ancient testimony may be briefly given: —\parCLEMENS ROMANUS (Epist. 1 cap. 5) affirms that Peter suffered martyrdom, but does not specify the place; and it is only by inference we learn from Clemens that the martyrdom of the apostle took place at Rome. In thePRA EDICATIO PAULI, the conclusion of a work entitled “Praedicatio Petri,” and referred, on good evidence, to the beginning of the second century, it was affirmed that Peter and Paul, “having come to an arrangement as to the method of conducting their labors, at last , as if then for the first time became acquainted in the City” (Rome).

That such a statement was contained in the “Praedicatio” appears from a treatise, “De Rebaptismate” printed commonly among the works of Cyprian. The author of the treatise, however, alludes to the tradition of such a meeting between Paul and Peter as among “quaedam alia hujusoemodi absurde ac turpiter confecta” in the “Praedicatio.” The testimonies of three writers have been preserved by Eusebius (“Hist.

Eccles.,” 2 15 and 25): —PAPIAS, who is represented as affirming that Peter composed his first Epistle at Rome;DIONYSIUS ofCORINTH (A.D. 170), who makes Peter and Paul to have preached in Italy together, and to have suffered martyrdom about the same time; and\parCAIUS ROMANUS (A.D. 200), who declares that the graves of these two apostles were pointed out at the Vatican and on the Ostian road. IGNATIUS (“Epist. ad Rom.,” cap. 4.) merely says, “I do not, like Peter and Paul, give you directions;” which words are understood to imply that Peter and Paul, in the belief of Ignatius, had at one time instructed and governed the church at Rome.IRENAEUS (“Adv. Hacr.,” 3:1) speaks of Peter and Paul preached and founded the church in Rome.”\parTERTULLIAN (“De Prae. Haer.,” cap. 36.) specifies the nature of their death at Rome: — “Ubi Petrus passioni Dominicae achequatur, ubi Paulus Johannis (Baptistae) exitu coronatur.” These quotations and references embody the amount of information conveyed to us by the original and ancient testimony, on which succeeding writers have relied in affirming that Peter visited Rome, and suffered there. Arnobius (“Adv. Gentes,” lib. 2.) and Cyril of Jerusalem (“De Haerea,” cap. 15.) also concur in stating that Peter was in Rome; but these authors belong to the fourth century.

The authority of Scripture in this question comes in to determine when it is most likely that Peter arrived at Rome; and this point is fully discussed by our author. According to the “Chronicon” of Eusebius, he reached it about A.D. 42, and was put to death about twenty-five years afterwards, or A.D. 67. But, by a reference to Acts 15, Galatians 2:1,9,11, it will be found that Peter was at Jerusalem and Antioch, and had been chiefly laboring among the Circumcision, up to A.D. 54; facts which make it impossible that he could have been residing constantly at Rome, and very improbable that up to that period he ever had seen Rome at all. There is, farther, no allusion to Peter in the Epistle to the Romans, A.D. 58; and this circumstance is the more remarkable, when the conclusion of it is filled with affectionate salutations to several members of the Roman church. Paul is understood to have been brought to Rome about the spring of A.D. 61; and while Luke records no interview with Peter, he also uses language as if, almost for the first time, the gospel had been unfolded to the Jews in Rome through the instrumentality of Paul, Acts 28:17-31. If Peter was at Rome during the imprisonment of Paul, how are we to account for the absence of any allusion to him in all the epistles written by Paul at Rome — the Epistles to the Colossians, Philippians, Philemon, and Timothy? In the Second Epistle to Timothy, — the last which Paul wrote, — there is nothing which indicates the presence of Peter at Rome; or, if he were at Rome, he must have been in the number of those who deserted Paul in his extremity, 2 Timothy 4:16; an inference, however, which must be rejected on other grounds than the discredit it reflects on one who, according to the Romish church, was the first of the popes. By the Second Epistle to Timothy we are brought to A.D. 63; and if he suffered in A.D. 67, this allows but four years for his residence in Rome. Ancient tradition makes the martyrdom of Paul and Peter simultaneous, and the date of Paul’s martyrdom varies, according to different authorities, from A.D. 64 to A.D. 68. If the former date be assumed as correct, the time during which Peter was in Rome fell short of a year; if the latter be correct, he might have been there for four or five years. But it cannot be ascertained when he reached Rome; and the length of the interval between his arrival in it and his martyrdom involves a question for the determination of which no materials in the shape of authentic history remain to us. —ED. See p. 42 of the present volume. [ IX. We are come at length unto the pope, ] God of silence; commonly represented with his finger on his mouth, as if hushing to silence, and saying “St.” —ED. Catasceuastical and anasceuastical are old logical terms, equivalent to constructive and destructive; and the clause means, “arguments in support of the one, and in refutation of the other.” —ED. See pages 86, 87 of this volume. The common form of the name is Paul Sarpi. The History of the Council of Trent by the learned doctor was published under the assumed name of Pietro Soave Polano; an anagram of his real name, Paolo Sarpi Veneto, — Paul Sarpi of Venice. —ED. On page 98 of this volume the reader will find a note, [ ] in which the leading facts in regard to Lucius are mentioned. Our author, of course, had a perfect right to devolve the burden of proof upon his opponent, and to insist upon historical evidence of the correspondence between the British prince and Eleutherius. He does not venture upon an unqualified denial of all the tradition, contenting himself with indicating his “suspicion,” on various weighty grounds, that the story had much of the fabulous about it, That no author worthy of credit, before the days of Bede, should have recorded this alleged second conversion of our island to the Christian faith; and that among all the Latin authors — by one reckoning twenty-six, and by another fifty in number — who subsequently, up to the time of Usher, have endorsed the story, there should be a discrepancy in regard to the chronology of the events in question, so great as to cover nearly a century between the earliest and latest dates assigned; are the main difficulties which impede our unhesitating reception of the narrative, even when carefully sifted and stripped of the accessories with which monkish fiction has invested it.

Among Protestant authors, however, who have investigated the subject, a decided impression seems to prevail that some degree of credit is due to the substance of the ancient tradition. This view has been held by some, who reject as spurious the epistle of Eleutherius to which Dr. Owen takes just exception, on several other grounds besides those which are urged in the text above. The epistle speaks as if all Britain were under the sway of Lucius, whereas but a small part of it was subject to him; and several expressions in it betray a strong trace of English law and Norman idiom, indicative of a far later origin than is claimed for it. The external evidence is equally decisive. The epistle is found in no author for a thousand years after tale age of Eleutherius; it is not known under whose auspices it first came to light; and the learned antiquarian Spelman pronounced the only manusript copy of it extant, and preserved first in the archives of the London Guild, and latterly in the Cotton library, to be in his day not more than two centuries old. The main facts of the story, however, are not dependent upon the authenticity of this document, nor is their credibility seriously shaken by the argument that the existence of a native king in any part of Britain, at the time referred to, cannot be reconciled with the fact that the island was then but a province of the Rennin empire.

Tacitus speaks of Prasutagus and Cogidunus as British kings, retaining some shadow of royal state and dignity, while subject, nevertheless, to the imperial yoke, plies another analogy. The strength of our author’s reply to the Romish plea, which he is engaged in rebutting, lies in the fact that Britain in those days must have received Christianity, not Romanism, from Eleutherius; while, oven according to the tenor of the tradition itself, in every form in which it has been preserved, Christianity previously existed in the island. It is safe enough to conclude, with an old writer, that the tradition about Lucius contains “multa falsa, alia incerta, nonnulla etiam vera vel saltem probabilia!”