Diligat ipsa senem quondam : sed ut illa marito, These have been thus translated by a modern hand: From sky-blue Britons, while we Claudia trace; Him, spite of years, may she still lovely deem. Lib. iv. ep. 13. The reader who closely inspects the Latin will probably be of opinion that Claudia, though descended (edita) from Britons who had stained their skins blue with the woad of their country, yet was not herself so ornamented.-Why has she the bosom of the Latian people? asks the poet; whence it should seem that the Latian country (or Italy) had some share in her :-the Italian mothers, he proceeds to say, might believe her to be Roman, as the Athenian might think her their own; this reference to the opinion of mothers agrees well with her being called puella, a girl, as yet a child: and it may be thought also to include her fluency of speaking the languages of Italy and Greece. So Juvenal says of the Roman Girls, Moreover, the compliment of wishing her in after-life the privileges attached at Rome to the parent of three children, the jus trium liberorum, confirms the notion of her being in some sense Roman; as these privileges were at this time, rarely or not without special favour, conferred on others than natives. Unless, therefore, we are mistaken, this commendation of Claudia was composed when she was quite young, and apparently implies her birth in the imperial city. Let us see whether it may agree with a daughter of Caractacus. We know that the British prince was carried to Rome, with all his family, and that he met with a favourable hearing, and in fact applause from the Emperor Claudius-is it too much to suppose that after his arrival at Rome he had a daughter born to him, which out of compliment to Claudius, he called Claudia? Placing her birth in A. D. 51, or 52, she would be about fourteen years of age in A. D. 65, or 66, the date of St. Paul's Epistle; and, if there be any truth in the tradition that St. Peter-much rather St. Paul-had lodged with his family [vide the article PUDENS, in the Dictionary], we see sufficient reason for the special remembrance to Timothy, of such members of it as were now at Rome. And this synchronizes with Martial's compliment: for supposing he wrote any time after A. D. 60, or while Claudia was under thirteen or fourteen years of age, he might, nevertheless, live thirty or forty years afterwards, to the time of Trajan, A. D. 97; and we know not when he died. It should appear that St. Paul's Claudia was not married at the time of his sending her salutation; for, in that case, he would most likely have placed her with her husband, as he always does Aquila and Priscilla; but, supposing her marriage with Pudens when she was about twenty years old, A. D. 71, or 72, it would afford occasion to Martial's second Epigram; and we know that he was in Rome at the time, and long after. In that poem he calls Claudia peregrina, of foreign descent: he compliments the union as that of the most valuable spice, cinnamon, to that of the most exquisite fragrance, spikenard; as that of the tender vine to the stronger elm; not more does the lotos love water, or the myrtle the shore. May Venus ever confer her binding yoke on such well-paired couples !-Hitherto all is compliment; yet in the wishes of the latter verses may be discerned a kind of double entendre, insinuating that Pudens was rather juventutus [from 25, to 35,] than adolescens [under 25]. May she love the senem―(this term certainly was not elicited in the poet's mind, by the youth of her consort; and so may her husband love her; then happen what may, he will not see her an old woman.—that is, possibly, in every stage of life she will continue [much the younger. This agrees with the order of the apostle's words, which appear to follow the relative seniority of the parties; Eubulus the eldest, then Pudens, then Linus, born in Britain, we presume for the present, lastly Claudia, born in Rome, and consequently the youngest of this truly noble and dignified family. As Martial was poor, though distinguished by honours, he probably was well acquainted with the bounty of these princely patrons. If these considerations be consistent with probability, with chronology, and with themselves, we must dismiss the notion of Claudia being the mother of Linus: but she might be his sister. And the character of that eminent Christian-properly the first bishop of Rome-will now come to be considered. It is notorious that Christian believers were divided from the very first into Jew and Gentile; and that, in spite of all the efforts made by the apostles, the distinction continued, so long, at least, as the Jewish nation remained a public body. It is no less notorious that, notwithstanding all the arguments of St. Paul, the Corinthian church was a prey to party spirit, long after his time, as appears from the epistle of Clement intended to check that disposition. We may say the same of the Roman Christians; where some-the native Jews, no doubt-assumed a superiority over their (Gentile) brethren, which these could ill brook; and with which the condition of the Jews, at Rome, appeared to be absolutely inconsistent. Evidence of this might easily be adduced from the contemptuous remarks of heathen writers. This diversity with the consideration of convenience, in so large a city, contributed to the formation of more than one worshipping society; and, might we be allowed to conclude that one of these societies was composed principally of Jewish believers, and another of Gentiles, it would contribute much to the explanation of difficulties which now render the early history of the Church at Rome extremely obscure and embarrassing. The catalogues of the Bishops of Rome place, LINUS after Peter-with this agree Irenæus, Eusebius, and Jerom; then follows Anancletus, and then Clement : while Optatus, Rufinus, Augustine, and other Latin writers, place Clement immediately after Linus, and Anancletus after Clement. The Apostolic Constitutions (placed by Lardner, in the fourth century) assert that Linus was appointed by St. Paul, and Clement by St. Peter. This supports our notion of more than one society of Christian believers, in the imperial city, at the same time; and it may be thought likely that the compiler of this work was not without competent information on this subject: he should not be deceived on what concerns the see of Rome. Epiphanius conjectures that Clement declined the exercise of the episcopal office during the life of Linus, who superintended the church from A. D. 65 to A. D. 77, twelve years. The reader will judge between this conjecture and that of two concurrent communities and officers, appertaining to different nations. But, all agree that Linus certainly was bishop of Rome:-if he were a Britonif his family were Christian, and—if Brán, his grandfather, were the sovereign of the Silures, under whose protection Aristobulus, a disciple of St. Paul, brought Christianity into Britain, then the intimate connection between Britain and Rome, which we know existed, was nothing more than natural; and when we read, that several of the British princes, after the time of Julius Cæsar, and especially after the expedition of Claudius, and the favour shewn to Caractacus and his family, were educated at Rome (either in whole, or in part), the difficulties which some have found in the intercourse between the countries entirely disappear. The British writers inform us, that Coel, son of Meurig, received his education in Rome, and had "been familiarized to the Roman customs and manners." This coincides exactly with what Tacitus relates of the policy of Agricola; and was, indeed, one of the principal advantages derived from the custom of sending chiefs, or sons of chiefs, as hostages to the seat of empire. Lles (or Lucius), son of Coel, succeeded his father, and was of the same disposition. He continued in amity with the Roman government; and paid his stipulated tribute, although, say the British historians, he was sufficiently powerful to have withheld it. To king Lucius the Introduction of Christianity has been attributed; the error was venial in those who had not access to the documents which have guided our opinion; and it is the less to be wondered at, because this king certainly did endeavour the settlement of Christianity in his dominions, on principles of greater permanency than it had hitherto enjoyed. For we are not to suppose that Druidism gave way instantly—that the example, the power, or the influence of the king, was able to establish it generally, or to persuade his chiefs, or his subjects, at large, to exchange their ancient institutions and practices for this new system. It is, nevertheless, credible that in the course of about seventy years the profession of Christianity had made a great progress, and that it was prevailing among the nation, insomuch that Lucius might design to replace the Druidical priesthood by Christian instructors; he might even begin to assign Druidical lands to the support of Christian teachers, or Druidical temples and sacra to Christian worship. He might partially execute what he did not live entirely to accomplish; whence we easily explain the assertions of later ages, which ascribe to his actions what was properly due to his intentions only. The connection between Rome and Britain was so close, at this time, that we find nothing marvellous in the story reported by Nennius of this king's sending to Rome for Christian teachers, whether as a reinforcement to those of his native Britons, or wishing to obtain and compare the maxims of different ecclesiastics, before he determined on that definitive arrangement in behalf of Christianity, which there is every reason to believe he contemplated. He died at Gloucester, A. D. 136. This is the most candid acceptation of the tale of the conversion of king Lucius by priests sent from Rome. It is, perhaps, not so much a direct monkish imposition as a perverted misapplication of an historical fact. Lucius was not king of the entire island; though the complimentary title "Sovereign of Britain," was continued in the family of Caractacus: his authority beyond his peculiar limits was merely that of reputation and influence. Christianity, however, continued to spread: it was occasionally subject to persecution, and occasionally it triumphed, as in the person of Helena, and of her son Constantine, who became the VOL. IV. 2 N first Christian emperor. It is thought, that there were British clergy in the assembly at Nice; and it is certain that in a previous synod held at Arles, in France, the British church was represented by three British bishops, a Presbyter, and a Deacon. We may judge of the extent of the general conversion, from the situation of the sees of the bishops who signed: they were EBORIUS, Episcopus, de civitate Eboracensi Provincia Britannia. RESTITUTUS, Episcopus, de civitate Londinensi, Provincia supra scripta. EXINDE, Sacerdos Presbyter. ARMINIUS, Diaconus. ***It seems proper to notice here an inadvertence into which Mr. Richards has fallen in speaking of the trial of Pomponia Græcina (who might be a British lady)—if that trial took place A. D. 57. she could not be a convert of St. Paul (personally), whose first visit to Rome was A. D. 60. Thus we have seen that to the extent of the prophecies of the Old Testament, either the records of the New Testament expressly affirm, or very credible testimony leads us to believe, that the Gospel quickly communicated its salutary influence: and so far the investigation of biblical geography demonstrates the authority of the Bible itself, by the fulfilment of its prophecies, and the general establishment of its truth. If it be asked, whether the parts thus favoured have not lost their first faith? we confess that the charge implied in the question is too true: nevertheless, they seem in general to have retained some tincture, at least, of the principles they had imbibed; and, though greatly debased by error, or discouraged by oppression, yet the faith of Jesus Christ, even in countries remote from its origin, is professed, is retained, in spite of a thousand disadvantages, and notwithstanding a thousand oppositions, secular or religious, national or local. May the happy time soon come, when no doubt shall remain whether the most distant nations have or have not been favoured with the Gospel; but evident and notorious fact shall justify an appeal in proof of that felicity: and the whole earth shall acknowledge that "the Lord is One, and his name One, from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same." No. DCIX. EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY FROM NON-CHRISTIANS. DR. CHALMERS, in his work "on the Evidence and Authority of the Christian Revelation," seems to be at some loss for testimonies to the miracles and character of Jesus Christ, as borne by those who were not converts to his doctrine. He describes the Infidel as demanding farther Evidence from witnesses not implicated in the transactions. "In his conception," he says, "the Jews and the Christians stand opposed to each other. In the belief of the latter, he sees nothing but a party or an interested testimony; and in the unbelief of the former, he sees a whole people persevering in their ancient faith, and resisting the new faith, on the ground of its insufficient Evidences. He forgets all the while, that the testimony of a great many of these Christians is, in fact, the testimony of Jews... He is aware of what they are at present, Christians, and defenders of Christianity; but he has lost sight of their original situation, and is totally unmindful of this circumstance, that in their transition from Judaism to Christianity they have given him the very Evidence he is in quest of. "The silence of Heathen and Jewish writers of that period, about the miracles of Christianity, has been much insisted on by the enemies of our religion; and has even excited something like a painful suspicion in the breasts of those who are attached to its cause. .. But let us try the effect of that Testimony which our antagonists demand. Tacitus has actually attested the existence of Jesus Christ; the reality of such a personage; his public execution under the administration of Pontius Pilate; the temporary check which this gave to the progress of his religion; its revival a short time after his death; its progress over the land of Judea, and to Rome itself, the metropolis of the empire;-all this we have in a Roman historian; and, in opposition to all established reasoning on these subjects, it is by some more firmly confided in upon his testimony, than upon the numerous and concurring testimonies of nearer and contemporary writers. . . . . A direct testimony to the miracles of the New Testament from the mouth of a heathen is not to be expected, We cannot satisfy this demand of the infidel." When he composed these passages, the worthy writer could not be aware that Providence had placed within our power a much closer approximation towards an answer to the demands of the infidel, than those on which he has argued. Tacitus, a heathen by descent, by custom, by law, is certainly good authority for what he asserts in reference to a sect, the progress of which bade fair to overturn both law and custom, and to annul the prejudices and the privileges inherited by descent. But Tacitus reposed on the established order of things in his country; he was not active in behalf of a rival sect; he was quiescent; he suffered nothing; nor was he a party to any transaction recorded in the Gospel history; nor resident in the country where the principal facts occurred; nor had he built his hopes and expectations on a different, a contemporary, and (at one time) a truly flattering, and even a miraculous basis. Tacitus had not been thus persuaded, elevated, and encouraged and eventually disappointed. Such, however, was really the case of the disciples of John the Baptist: they pleaded a Divine interposition in favour of their Master; they pleaded the priority of his office-the sanctity of his character-the popularity of his doctrine— the veneration in which he was held by the people, at large, independent of those who became his disciples;-yet all these, with every other most promising appearance they saw annihilated at a stroke, and had the additional mortification of witnessing the progress of a rival institution, taking the place of their own, and completely triumphing where theirs had absolutely and hopelessly failed. What exception can lie against the testimony of such witnesses ? When we express our surprise that the Jews have not transmitted accounts of the wonders performed in their country, by a person so notorious as Jesus was, when we impute their silence to their national and characteristic obstinacy, we overlook the consideration of the competition between their law, their temple, their priesthood, and Christ. While any hopes remained of reinstating their law, and rebuilding their temple, the most determined silence was their most effectual policy; for they well knew that, could their wishes be realized, and could the predictions of their antagonist on this point be defeated, the Evidence of Christianity would be proportionately weakened; and this direct and evident reduction of a part would have all the effect of an absolute and conclusive confutation. Nor was it till after despair had taken the place of hope that they made up their minds to the collecting the fragments of their laws and customs for the purpose of recording them ;—and now, it was too late to think of directing the current of the public mind in any other direction than that which it had already taken. They were scattered, too, on the face of the earth: not so the Samaritans, whom they hated; not so the disciples of John, who still frequented the venerated banks of the Jordan; for centuries after the Jewish nation was |