or militant professors: (quo, absque ullo impedimento ejus, propagabatur BELIGIO, comminata senatu nolente, a principe; morté [denunciata] de◄ latoribus militum ejusdem.)

"Soon after CHRISTIANITY reached, and warmed with its rays our frozen isle Britain, in the interval of time" between the foregoing events noticed by Gildas, namely, the defeat of Caractacus and the defeat of Boadicea, by the Romans: (interea, glaciali frigore rigenti insula-radios suos primum indulget, id est, sua præcepta, CHRISTUS.)

From another rather obscure and untranslated passage of Gildas, cited in the seven epochs, p. 14, note, we further learn, that "the precepts of CHRISTIANITY, though warmly received by the Britons at first, continued to be observed by some entirely, by others less so, until the times of Diocletian's persecution," which began A. D. 313, and was the first in which the Christians of Britain were molested for their religion, according to Usher, quoted, Seven Epochs, p. 13, note.

The other passage of the British Triads, partially referred to in the Seven Epochs, p. 9, 11, 13, is thus translated by Mr. Roberts, in the appendix to his Collectanea Cambrica, p. 293, (as communicated by a learned antiquarian friend).

Speaking of "the three blessed kings of Britain," it is observed of the two first:

"Saint Bran, the son of Lyr Llediartb, who first brought the know ledge of the Christian faith to the Cymri (Cambri, or Welsh) from Rome, where he had been seven years, as a hostage for his son Caradoc (Caraçtacus), whom the Britons had imprisoned, after he was betrayed by treachery into an ambush laid for him by Aregwidd Friddawg, (Cartismandup)."

"The next was Llierwig, or Lles, (Lucius) who established the first Christian church in Britain.”

The best comment on these British documents is furnished by the wellinformed Roman historian Tacitus, who tells us in his Annals, xii. 33-37, that Caractacus, king of the Silures, was defeated by Ostorius, the Roman proprætor in Britain, A. D. 50; and betrayed to the conquerors by Cartismandua, queen of the Brigantes, to whom he had Ald for refuge, and was carried captive to Rome, where he was released, with his wife and brothers, by the clemency of the Emperor Claudius, which he had implored in a pathetic speech. The necessary condition of giving sufficient security for his future allegiance, omitted by the Roman his

that he should be enrolled among the Roman gods-but the Senate rejected it ;-notwithstanding, Casar persisted in his opinion, and threatened punishment to the ac cusers of the Christians." See Hales's New Analysis, &c. Vol. II. p. 955, 956.

torian, is fortunately supplied by the British noticing Bran, the father of Caractacus, as the bostage then given. Bran was converted to the Christian faith during his stay at Rome, by some of the saints, Aquila and Priscilla, &c. or not unlikely by his own illustrious country woman, Pomponia Græcina;* and so returning to Britain, A. D. 57, he brought with him the knowledge of christianity. Tacitus also relates, Anual. xiv. 31-37, the defeat of Boadicea, by the Roman general Suetonius, A. D. 61.

So exactly do these several accounts harmonize, and explain each other throughout the ten years complete, between the defeats of Caractacus and Boadicea, (according to Gildas and Tacitus,) comprizes the period of St. Bran's residence at Rome, and his propagation of the Gospel afterwards in Britain; which he began to do in the year of his return home, (according to the Triad,) and spent three years therein, (according to Gildas,)

-Allerius, sic,

Altera poscit opem res, et conjurat amice.

HORAT.

These short and simple annals of the early British writers, thus explained more critically, seem to decide, beyond the reach of controversy, the question: "who first introduced the knowledge of Christianity into Britain?"-"Not Saint Paul, but Saint Bran,"-who evidently owed his exclusive appellation of "Saint" thereto. Nor is it to be imagined, that if either of "the prime apostles," (as Peter and Paul are stiled by Clemens,) had visited Britain in person, an occurrence so highly honourable to the country at large would have been omitted, or passed over in total silence, by Gildas, the Triads, or any others of the native ecclesastical writers, Bede, &c.? No, surely.

Lles, or Lucius, the third British king in succession from Caractacus, flourished in the second century. His contemporary, Eleutherius, bishop of Rome, A. D. 177, in a letter of congratulation to him for establishing the church in Britain, styled him, "the vicar of Christ, in his own kingdom, whose duty it was to preserve his subjects and the church in one faith and law in Christ." Thus candidly acknowledging the independence of this prince upon the see of Rome, and the sameness of both churches at that time. And this title was handed down to the ensuing British and

This furnishes an additional incidental confirmation of the correcter date of the epistle to the Romans, A. D. 58, from the faith of the Roman saints, then spoken of throughout the whole world: the account of Pomponia's trial, the year before, then having reached the Apostle in Syria, eastward, and Britain westward. Seet he foregoing atticle, p. 27, note.

Saxon kings, until the times of the Norman conquest; evincing the usurpation of it afterwards, exclusively, by the ambitious pontiffs who succeeded this primitive bishop. See several instances of its application, adduced in The Rights of the Church attested by historical Documents, p. 29, 31, 37, 38, one of those valuable and seasonable tracts published, in 1813, by that intelligent and spirited Protestant bookseller, J. J. Stockdale, whose meritorious exertions in upholding the established CHURCH and STATE, fully entitle him to the cordial thanks and support of both.

It is the glory of Britain that Constantine the Great, who put an end to Diocletian's persecution of the church, and established christianity throughout the Roman empire, A. D. 323, was born in Britain: his mother, the empress Helena, so renowned for her piety and munificence, was a native of Britain; and Constantine, after the death of his father Constantius at York, was first proclaimed emperor by the army in Britain. Under this illustrious prince, the British church enjoyed peculiar protection and privileges. Three British bishops were present at the council of Arles, A. D. 314, held by Constantine against the Donatists; they probably attended the first general council of Nice, A. D. 325, against the Arians; and at the council of Ariminium, or Rimini, A. D. 359, against the Arians, the British bishops nobly refused the maintenance offered to them by the reigning emperor Constantius, wishing to uphold the independence of their church. See the Seven Epochs, p. 15, 20, 21, and Tyrrell's History of England, p. 90.

Ireland, by the early writers, Orosius, Isidore, Bede, Joscelin, Prosper, &c. was stiled Scotia Major, as distinguished from Scotland, which was called Scotia Minor. See the authorities adduced, Second Letter, &c. p. 13, note.-How soon christianity was planted in Ireland we may collect from the mission of the monk Palladius, by Celestine, bishop of Rome, A. D. 422, to the Irish Scoti, near a century before their emigration to Scotland. This mission preceded by upwards of a century and a half the mision of Austin the abbot, by Gregory the Great, A. D. 599, to Britain. Both, however, were equally ineffectual to attach the Irish and British churches to the see of Rome. The Britons not only rejected the supremacy of the Pope and the authority of his legate Austin, and the doctrines and usages of his church, but they would hold no communication with the Saxons, their neighbours, after they were converted

*

* See Hammond's explanation of the Abbot of Bangor's answer to Austin, published by Sir H. Spelman; Second Letter, &c. Appendix, p. 31; and Hales's New Analysis ̧ &c. Vol. I. p. 174, Vol. II. p. 545-548.

from Paganism to Popery by Austin, "because they corrupted with superstition and images, and idolatry, the true worship of CHRIST;" as alleged in the old chronicle cited by Bishop Davis of St. David's, in his letter to Archbishop Parker, A. D. 1565, of which a curious extract is given in the First Letter, p. 46, note. And so great was the aversion of the Irish to Austin and his missionaries, that Daganus, an Irish bishop, who came over to Britain in order to confer with them, "not only declined eating with them, but would not even eat in the same lodging;" as we learn from the report of one of the number, Laurentius, who afterwards succeeded Austin in the see of Canterbury, cited by Bede :-Scottos -nihil discrepare a Brittonibus in eorum conversatione, didicimus: nam Daganus episcopus, ad nos veniens, non solum cibum nobiscum, sed nec in eodem hospitio quo vescebamur, sumere voluit. Second Letter, p. 15, 16.

I shall conclude this article with the pious and animated wish of the present patriotic and primitive Bishop of St. David's, addressed to the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, p. 17.

"O for the warning voice of the Apocalypse [to the church of Ephe sus, for forsaking her first love,* Rev. ii. 4, 5,] to impress the sentimenis

"Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast not kept thy first love. Remember, therefore, from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works; or else I will come to thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent."

Alas! the Romish candlestick, in Great Britain, gives but a glimmering light, and a gloomier in Ireland !~still “corrupting with superstition, images, and idolatry, the true worship of CHRIST."

Most singularly remarkable was their mournful application of this awful apocalyptic prophecy to themselves, in the following note thereon, to be found in the earlier edi tions of the Rhemish New Testament, first published in 1582.

"Note, that the cause why GOD taketh away THE TRUTH from certain countries, and removeth their bishops or churches into captivity or desolation, is THE SIN OF THE PRELATES AND PEOPLE. And THIS is the cause, no doubt, that "CHRIST hath taken away our golden candlestick," that is, our church in England. God grant us "to remember our fall, to do penance, and the former works of charity," which our first bishops and church were notable and renowned for."

This honest and good confession, this contrite humiliation, and pious wish, strongly resembling Bishop Burgess's in the text,) was then freshly and feelingly extorted by their calamitous situations, and by the analogy of TRUTH. Why has this excellent and instructive note been suppressed, and omitted in all the later editions of that work, ever since Challoner's modernised edition with select notes, first published iu 1749, and still in such general eirculation among the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland? The seventh edition was published in Dublin, A. D. 1803, with the formal approbation of Doctor Troy, which is continued in the tenth, of A. D. 1810, the last

of the ancient British and Irish churches on the minds of their posterity, who are now members of that church which their ancestors so strongly condemned; that they might view all [any submission to a foreign jurisdiction in the same light which their ancestors did; and extricating themselves from the magic bonds of Popish supremacy and infallibility, might emancipate their minds from all impediments to the knowledge of THE TRUTH, and return to their ancient simplicity and independence!!" QUOD FAXIT DEUS!

INSPECTOR.

To the Editor of the Protestant Advocate.

SIR, The zealous and indefatigable Bishop of St. David's, ever attentive to his duty, and watchful over the interests of the church, has lately published "a brief Memorial on the Repeal of so much of the Statute 9 and 10 William III. as relates to Persons denying the Doctrine of the Trinity, &c." You, Mr. Editor, I dare say, are apprized of the mode in which that repeal was obtained, but as many of your readers may not be so well informed on the subject, I shall briefly state it. The bill for the repeal of that important statute of King William was presented to Parliament, but instead of being introduced at the beginning or middle of the session, when it might have had the chance of being debated in a full house, it was put off almost till the eve of the prorogation, when most of the members, concluding that no business of importance would be brought forward at so late a period, had retired into the country; and, what is still more remarkable, when the appointed guardians and consti

that we have seen. We strongly recommend to the Irish hierarchy, the restoration of this valuable note, in their next edition of the Rhemish Testament, to atone, in some measure, for the abundance of objectionable notes still remaining therein, and from their controversial nature, unwisely calculated to foment animosities, and widen the breach between the Romish and Protestant churches. See, especially, The Table of Controversies, or of controverted texts at the end, as it is correctly styled in English and Scotch editions; which in the Irish, is disguised, and softened down into a table of references. Some curious and reprehensible specimens both of notes and controverted texts, are selected in the interesting correspondence lately published by J. J. Stockdale, 1813, between some members of the Protestant and of the Roman Catholic Bible Societies in London, occasioned by the liberal and charitable offer of the former to pub lish at their own expenses, the Douay Bible and Rhemish Testament, without notes, for the gratuitous use of the Roman Catholic poor; but which was at length, ungraciously rejected by the Romish junto; setting up on their part, a rival edition, with its hostile notes; thereby indicating too plainly to be mistaken, "what manner of spirit they are of," if they were possessed of the power to exert it.