an Israelite; the other two were Cyndav, and Arwystli Hên, both of them probably Gentiles. What their Roman names were it is now impossible to say. They are supposed to have been all preachers, and are said to have been instrumental (the former especially) in turning great numbers of the Britons from the error of their ways, and persuading them to believe in Christ. Their names are the more remarkable as they were, if not the first, yet doubtless among the very first Christian preachers that ever set foot in this island.-Brán introduced them and the Gospel here. Of her As Brán and Caradoc (otherwise Brennus and Caractacus) were Silurian princes [that is, Welsh] we may safely conclude that Christianity made its way into Wales as early as into any part of this kingdom. When Brán returned to his native land, some of his family, it is thought, staid behind and settled at Rome. Of these Claudia, mentioned with Pudens and Linus (2. Tim. iv. 21.), is deemed to have been one, and supposed to be the same with Claudia, the wife of Pudens, mentioned by Martial the poet, who speaks of her as a British lady of extraordinary virtue, wit, and beauty. [Epig. lib. iv. 13; lib. xi. 54.] It has been objected, that Martial, living in the reign of Trajan, cannot be supposed to speak of Paul's Claudia, who flourished in the reigns of Claudius and Nero. But though he lived in Trajan's reign, he lived also and resided at Rome in the reign of Vespasian, if not in that of Nero, and the epigram [he mentions her in two epigrams, one before, the other after her marriage] in which he mentions Claudia, might be written in his younger years, when she was in her prime. Some have thought her to be the daughter of Caractacus: it is likely that she was of his kindred. Her Roman name, Claudia, is no objection, as one of Caractacus's sons is known to have borne the name of Octavius [which is also a Roman name; and, no doubt, was independent of his British name; such double names were common; but these are moreover complimentary to the Imperial family]. And besides these Royal captives, Pomponia Græcina, the wife of Aulus Plautius, Claudius's lieutenant, and the first Roman governor here, has also been thought a Briton and a Christian, consequently one of the earliest British Christians. Tacitus says, "Pomponia Græcina, insignis fæmina, Plautio (qui ovans se de Britannis retulit) nupta, ac Superstitionis externa rea, mariti judicio permissa. Isque prisco instituto, propinquis coram, de capite famáque conjugis cognovit : et insontem nuntiavit. Pomponia Græcina, an illustrious lady, married to Plautius, who was honoured with an ovation (or lesser triumph), for his victories in Britain, was accused of having embraced a strange foreign superstition; and her trial for that crime was committed to her husband. He, according to ancient law and custom, convened her whole family and relations; and having in their presence, tried her for her life and fame, pronounced her innocent of any thing immoral. Pomponia lived [to a great age] many years after this trial, but always led a gloomy melancholy kind of life.' Annal. lib. xiii. c. 32.-On this it has been remarked that Tacitus, no doubt, deemed the lives of the primitive Christians gloomy and melancholy; and had he been called on to describe them he would, in all probability, have represented their religion as a vile foreign superstition, and the sobriety and severity of their lives (abstaining from pagan rites and excesses) as a continual solitude and intolerable austerity. "It was the way," says Bishop Stillingfleet, "of the men of that time, such as Suetonius and Pliny, as well as Tacitus, to speak of Christianity as a barbarous and wicked superstition (as appears by their writings), being forbidden by their laws, which they made the only rule of their religion."-Orig. Britannicæ, p. 44. This trial of Pomponia happened, it seems, while Nero and Calpurnius Piso were consuls [A. D. 57.], after the apostle Paul's coming to Rome the first time; and therefore she may, not unreasonably, be supposed one of his converts. It appears that there were other persons of distinction among the apostle's friends then at Rome; for instance, those of Cæsar's household, among whom might be some of the British captives. It does not appear by the Triades that the whole of Caractacus's family embraced Christianity at Rome, or even that he himself did so but a son and a daughter of his are mentioned, as well as his father, as very eminent Christians. The name of the son was Cyllin [can this be Linus?-Cy-LLIN: LIN-US; Vide LINUS, in the Dictionary], and that of the daughter was Eigen; both classed among the British saints. That son is said to be the grandfather of Lleurwg, commonly called King Lucius, who greatly exerted himself at a later period, to promote Christianity in Britain, or at least in Siluria [Wales], the country of his ancestors, and where he himself also reigned by the favour or permission of the Romans. Even the famous King Arthur appears to be a descendant of this illustrious family.Eigen, the above-mentioned daughter of Caractacus, is said to have been married to a British chieftain, who was lord of Caer Sarllog, the present Old Sarum. It seems doubtful whether Caractacus himself ever returned to his native country. The rest of the family that staid behind might be chiefly females; and Claudia, who has been said to be one of his daughters, has been mentioned by some as the wife of Pudens, a Roman senator, and the mother of Linus; whom the apostle Paul mentions together. It has been alleged by those who appear to have paid the most attention to, and to be best acquainted with, this part of the British history, that the Druids very generally, or at least great numbers of them, embraced Christianity on its first promulgation in this island; and, in consequence, that the Christianity of the Britons, in time, took a tincture of Druidism. This will not appear at all strange or extraordinary, when we consider how much the religion of the Jewish Christians was tinctured with Judaism, and that of the Platonic converts with Platonism: the case was probably similar with converts from most, if not from all other sects. The apostles, while they lived, laboured to guard against this; but when they were gone, the difficulty of counteracting it would doubtless become much greater. To this source may perhaps be traced most of the religious differences, errors, and squabbles among the Christians of the first ages, if not also of later times. The following paragraph is from Bishop Burgess's "Seven Epochs of the Ancient British Church," p. 7. "That St. Paul did go to Britain, we may collect from the testimony of Clemens Romanus, Theodoret and Jerom, who relate, that after his imprisonment he preached the Gospel in the western parts; that he brought Salvation to the islands that lie in the ocean [Niceph. Hist. Ì. i. c. 1.]; and that in preaching the Gospel he went to the utmost bounds of the West. What was meant by the west, and the islands that lie in the ocean, we may judge from Plutarch [Life of Cæsar], Eusebius, and Nicephorus [Eusebius, Vit. Constant. 1. i. c. 25, 41. lib ii. c. 28.], who call the British ocean the western; and again from Nicephorus, who says, that one of the Apostles went to the extreme countries of the ocean, and to the British isles [Hist. 1. i. c. 2.], but especially from the words of Catullus, who calls Britain the utmost island of the west and from Theodoret, who describes the Britons as inhabiting the utmost parts of the west. [Theod. vol. iii. Hist. Relig. p. 881.] When Clement, therefore, says that St. Paul went to the utmost bounds of the West; we do not conjecture, but are sure that he meant Britain, not only because Britain was so designated, but because St. Paul could not have gone to the utmost bounds of the west without going to Britain. It is almost unnecessary, therefore, to appeal to the express testimony of Venantius Fortunatus and Sophronius, for the apostle's journey to Britain. Venantius Fort. 1. iii. de Vita S. Martini; Sophronius de Natali Apost. quoted by Godwin (de Præsul.), who says, Sophronius Patriarcha Hierosolymitanus disertis verbis asserit Britanniam nostram eum invisisse. (p. 8. ed. 1616.)" There is a force in the expressions of Clemens Romanus (1 Epist. Cor. cap. 5.), that is seldom justly appreciated, inasmuch as he repeats his assertion: his words are "Paul received the reward of his patience-He preached both in the East and in the West; and having taught the whole world righteousness, and for that end travelled to the utmost bounds of the West. . . . he suffered martyrdom." Had not the writer been well assured of his facts, he would have been contented with his first assertion—" he preached in the west;" whereas he greatly strengthens this assertion by repetition and addition, "He travelled inì rò тépμа тñç dvσews, to the utmost bounds of the West," a mode of expression rising greatly in energy above the former; and evidently intended to mark out to the reader a determinate, specific, and well-known proposition as the object of the phrase. The later writers may be dispensed with, after this unequivocal testimony; the more powerful because incidental. In our humble judgment the resemblance between the British name Arwystli, and the Greek Aristobulus (Rom. xvi. 10.) deserves more consideration than it has hitherto received. It is certain that the formation of this name [from the Greek] is according to the analogy of the ancient British language: it is certain also, that the apostle does not salute Aristobulus himself, personally, and directly; but those related to him. It is not absolutely clear that Aristobulus was a Christian, any more than Narcissus, mentioned in the same manner, in the following verse, who is by some thought to have been the emperor's freed man, and dead some time before the date of this epistle. We may, however, observe a difference, if we attend closely to the purport of the phrase used: the apostle salutes so many (restrictively) of those attached to Narcissus as were in the Lord, therefore, some were not in the Lord: but he uses no such restriction concerning Aristobulus's family, but salutes them, generally: therefore, they were all in the Lord: and the probability may pass for nothing less than certainty, that where all the family was Christian the head of the family was so, especially and primarily. The expression employed by the apostle implies farther, that Aristobulus was not at Rome when this epistle was composed, or when it was expected to reach that capital: and if, as is customary, we date this epistle A. D. 58. or 59. it reduces within narrow limits the question whether Aristobulus accompanied Brán to Britain. If Brán were sent to Rome A. D. 52. and kept there seven years, we are brought to A. D. 59. for the time of his release. It was very late in 58. or early in 59. when St. Paul sent off his Epistle to the Romans:-it appears by the breaks in the last chapter, that he laid it aside and resumed it several times, and that he retained it to the moment of his [or its] departure from Corinth, where it was written. If then, St. Paul had, at this time, intelligence of the intention of Aristobulus to quit Rome for Britain, or of his having actually done so, very lately, his mode of expression is accounted for correctly and completely. It would be truly interesting could we state this matter circumstantially, to find that Aristobulus quitted Rome, in A. D. 58. leaving part of his family behind him; that part of the family of Caractacus, remaining at Rome, were joined by St. Paul on his first arrival in that city, A. D. 60. and that they are mentioned by him when writing to Timothy, during his second residence in Rome, and at (nearly) the close of his life, in A. D. 65. Nothing forbids this arrangement.- -Farther, It appears by the Dictionary, article II. ARISTOBULUS, that the Greeks say, this preacher "was sent into England, where he laboured very much, made many converts, and at last died." As it is impossible that the Greeks should have known any thing about the British Triades; or, on the other hand, that the Triades should have known any thing about the Greeks, these witnesses appear to be not only very distant, but perfectly distinct and independent: their combined testimony therefore is the more corroborative, and the more striking. And it may now be asserted, with the utmost appearance of truth, that whoever were employed in introducing Christianity into Britain, Aristobulus was one of the earliest missionaries, and under the Royal protection of the Silurian Princes. We are enabled also by this statement to explain and to verify the words of Tertullian, which some have considered as a mere flourish of rhetoric, Brittanorum inaccessa Romanis loca, Christo vero subdita. Places in Britain, which were inaccessible to the Roman arms, might nevertheless be subdued to Christ, in Wales, where, amid the recesses and retreats furnished by the mountains, there were, no doubt, many who had fled after the capture of Caractacus, and who there continued to resist the Romans. In fact Ostorius, who had taken Caractacus captive, sunk under the fatigue of the succeeding war; Manlius Valens, with a legion of Romans, was attacked and defeated by the Britons, and the war continued with various success. Nero even entertained thoughts of withdrawing his army from Britain, says Suetonius. In A. D. 62. Petronius Turpillianus succeeded to the government of Britain; who, says Tacitus, gave the name of peace to his own inactivity, and, having composed former disturbances, attempted nothing farther." Is it impossible that this inactivity during three years, should be the result of the return of the principal Royal Britons to their homes?-Britain fell to the lot of Vespasian in A. D. 71. and to Agricola in A. D. 78. By this time, we may safely say with the Greeks, that Aristobulus had made many converts in Britain. We may also now attach a stronger sense to the expression of Theodoret, who reckons Gaul and Britain among the disciples of the tent-maker. For, say the Greeks, Aristobulus "was brother to Barnabas-was ordained by Barnabas, or by Paul, whom he followed in his travels :" so that the Britons, converted by Aristobulus, might with propriety be called the disciples of St. Paul, even if that apostle never set foot in our island. But it will be acknowledged, at the same time, that if St. Paul did follow Aristobulus, and confirm his converts in Britain, the comfort of his visit was greatly increased, and the necessity of his prolonged residence was greatly diminished, by the previous success of his disciple. Might he come during the peaceful government of Petronius Turpillianus ? : But we may adopt a chronology still more convenient for it appears that Ostorius arrived as governor in Britain A. D. 50. and immediately opened a winter campaign against the Britons. Allowing a proportionate time for the events of war, as urged by this active general, Caractacus might be sent prisoner to Rome in A. D. 51. instead of A. D. 52. which would give the following dates : Aulus Plautius governor in Britain Brán and Caradoc at Rome Brán liberated after seven years captivity A. D. 43 51 58 St. Paul writes to the Romans, at the end of 58, or early in 59. Aristobu- No. DCVIII. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. 63 65 or 66 THE reader has now seen the certainties and the uncertainties attending the history of the Introduction of Christianity into Britain. Among the certainties we may safely place the derivation of the Gospel from the apostle Paul, or his disciples :— among the uncertainties we may place the exact date, and the exact person. There yet, however, remain a few remarks, the introduction of which will need no apology to British readers. St. Paul writes to Timothy, A. D. 65, or 66.—"There salute thee Eubulus, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren." Why are these individuals distinguished from all the brethren?-and evidently with a marked superiority. Why is Claudia, a female, introduced so distinctly, when all the brethren are crowded together in a mass? This must have been occasioned either, by Timothy's more intimate knowledge of these persons, than of the brethren at large, which might easily be, since he had been in bonds at Rome; and was liberated A. D. 62.—or, they were eminent by station in the church, of which, however, we read nothing, at this time:-or, they were of superior rank in life; or, of some family, or connection, rendered conspicuous by events, or by descent, or by some other cause. They seem to form but one group; and their salutation, by the language used, is sent in common: one might almost fancy that they were in St. Paul's company, when he was closing his letter. Were they also prisoners with him or under the surveillance of the military police, as he was? To judge by their names they were not Hebrews by nation: Eubulus is clearly a Greek appellation: Pudens and Claudia are Latin names: Linus seems to be somewhat awkwardly referred to the Greek Avoç, nets. Without farther preface we proceed to a modest conjecture on the application of what has been deduced from the verses of Martial. That poet has two epigrams in praise of a British lady of the name of Claudia: the reader will not be displeased to find them here: Claudia cæruleis cum sit Rufina Britannis Edita, cur Latiæ pectora plebis habet? Quale decus formæ Romanam credere matres Dî bene, quod sancto peperit fæcunda marito Claudia, Rufe, meo nubit peregrina Pudenti, Lib. ii. ep. 54. |