natural; but to violate the consistencies of morality without any charter from nature is a gratuitous injury to the cause of virtue, to which cause we are persuaded Lord Byron is no intentional enemy, and of which we trust he will one day be, what he is so well qualified to become, the devoted and accomplished champion.

ART. XXVII.-1.Christ, and not St.Peter, the Rock of the Christian Church, and St. Paul the Founder of the Church in Britain. A Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of St. David's. By the Right Reverend Thomas Burgess, D.D. F.R.S. and F.A.S. Bishop of St. David's. 1812.

2. A second Letter from the Bishop of St. David's to the Clergy of his Diocese on the Independence of the ancient British Church on any Foreign Jurisdiction; with a Postscript on the Testimony of Clemens Romanus. 1812.

THE

HE principal object of the pamphlets before us is to disprove the general claims, grounded by the advocates of papal supremacy on our Saviour's speech to St. Peter, and their particular pretensions with respect to the church in this island; in which the right reverend author labours to prove that St. Paul founded a church even before the foundation of the church in Rome. A few years ago, we might have been inclined to rank these enquiries amongst those exercises of learned sagacity with which the world, as it is, has little to do. But the times are greatly altered in this respect. The dormant claims of popery have risen with renewed vigour from the long slumber, which some mistook for death. No one, who has paid any attention to the recent proceedings and publications of the Romanists, to the assertions and anticipations of Mr. Butler, or the sublimer visions which seem to float in the prophetic eye of Dr. Dromgoole, will deem it a nugatory task to prosecute enquiries like those which have engaged the attention of this excellent bishop.

The bishop first discusses the text, which has always been the corner-stone of papal usurpation, and shews that the rock, on which Christ declared that he would build his church, was not the person of St. Peter, but that apostle's recent confession of his Messiahship. It requires but little knowledge of the nature of religious controversy to be aware of the necessity of disputing over and over again the same ground, which has been the scene of repeated victories. The tide does not more pertinaciously re

turn to the sands it had left bare, than a beaten disputant to the ground from which he has been driven for a time; and for one piece of ground, which has been actually won, and preserved by lasting boundaries, twenty may be shewn that are still subject to the inroads, from which they have from time to time been rescued. Were it not for the stubbornness of the principle of vitality in error, the futile claims grounded on this text, which have been so often and so completely disproved, and against which, as is proved in the second of these letters, a host of fathers may be quoted, could scarcely still deserve a refutation.

The difference of termination in the words "Petrus" and Petra," as used in the different members of the sentence, when duly considered, unlocks the sense of the passage. Upon which distinction the bishop reasons as follows.

"That St. Peter was not the rock, on which Christ said he would build his church, is, I think, evident from the change of terms in the words of our Saviour. Thou art Petrus (Peter), and on this petra (rock) I will build my church.' If our Saviour had meant that St. Peter should be the rock, on which he would build his church, the same term might have been repeated: Thou art Petrus, and on this petrus I will build my church. For petrus, like its corresponding Syriac term, sometimes signifies a rock as well as a stone. But the word is changed; and therefore we may conclude, that the second term was not meant to convey the same mean, ing as the first. It has a relative meaning, no doubt. Simon was with great propriety called Petrus for his confession of that doctrine, on which Christ was to build his church. Thou art Peter, and I have so called you, because on the doctrine, which you have now confessed, I will build my church, as on a rock." (Page 5, 6.) The bishop next demonstrates, that

"St. Paul, and not St. Peter, was the first founder of the church of Rome. The church of Rome," says he, "was established as a christian society, during St. Paul's first visit, by the communica tion of the spiritual gift, which he estimates. It is evident that no other of the Apostles had any share in this first establishment, but St. Paul, whatever may be said of St. Peter's episcopacy of 25 years. For the epistle to the Romans appears to have been written not long before the Apostle's first visit. And at that time his language to them certainly implies that no other Apostle had been there before him. Yea, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation.'"' (Page 9.)

Again,

"That the words of our Saviour were not meant to convey any supremacy to St. Peter is evident not only from St. Paul's not ac knowledging such supremacy in his communication with his Roman

converts, but also from the first steps, which were taken by the Apostles in the establishment of the Christian Church. The first Christian Church was not at Rome, but at Jerusalem; the president of the first Christian Council was not St. Peter, but St. James; and the first Christian Bishop was St. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem." (Page 10.)

We now come to an interesting dissertation, the object of which is to prove, that "St. Paul was not only the founder of the church of Rome, but also of the church of Britain." On the necessity and use of investigating this point let our author be heard.

"Of St. Paul's journey to Britain, a point of great importance in the history of the Gospel, and of the Protestant Church, we fortunately possess as substantial evidence as any historical fact can require. But though Usher and Stilling fleet have collected the most unquestionable authorities for it, it seems not to have acquired, generally, that degree of historical credit to which it is entitled. It deserves therefore, on many accounts, to he brought more home to us as a part of our national history." (Page 11.)

We suspect that many of our readers may have hitherto ranked the notion of St. Paul's having been personally the founder of the British church with the tales of St. George, and the legends of Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, and will therefore give them a short abstract of the arguments here adduced in favour of this supposition. Gildas, who wrote in the earlier part of the sixth century, says that Christianity was introduced into Britain. before the defeat of the British forces under Boadicea, A.D. 61, and between that event and some others which did not long precede it. Tertullian in his book against the Jews, written A.D. -209, positively affirms, that those parts of Britain, into which the Roman arms had never penetrated, were become subject to Christ. Several of the fathers, and among the rest Eusebius, Theodoret, Irenæus, and St. Jerome, assert that the Gospel was preached in Britain by some of the Apostles. The bishop proves by a reference to Eusebius and St. Jerome, that St. Paul was sent prisoner to Rome in the second year of Nero, that is A.D. 56; at which time the family of Caractacus, who had been carried thither in 51, were still in that capital. They returned to Britain in 58, and our author supposes St. Paul either to have accompanied or followed them. Besides this family, there were at that time two illustrious natives of Britain, resident at Rome, who were converts to Christianity; these were Pomponía Græcina, and Claudia Rufina; the former of whom was the wife of Aulus Plautius, the first governor of the Roman province in Britain. Various dates are assigned by different writers to St.

VOL. V. NO. X.

L L

Paul's first visit to Rome; but by far the most numerous and respectable authorities are in favour of the date, which supports the bishop's hypothesis. That part of the argument, which turns upon the influence of the disgrace of Pallas, in producing the recall of his brother Felix from the government of Judea, is perhaps too much a matter of conjecture to be the ground of any thing like satisfactory conviction. The politics of such a court as Nero's were too intricate to admit of being made the basis of such broad and simple conclusions. The date of this recall, however, bears so strongly on that of St. Paul's coming to Rome, that the bishop takes considerable pains to overturn the arguments, which would fix it at a later period than the second of Nero; and so contract the space between his two imprisonments at Rome as not to afford an interval long enough to admit of intermediate journeys to Spain and Britain, and to the East. Supposing this date to be established, the objection of want of ume for the expedition into Britain is overruled; for if St. Paul went a prisoner to Rome in the year 56, was released in the year 58, and returned to Rome A.D. 67 or 68, sufficient room is given for the Apostle's western and eastern journeys.

Let us now see what testimonies can be brought forward, which go directly to establish the point in question. We know, from the fifteenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, that St. Paul had it in contemplation to visit Spain. Clemens Romanus, his intimate friend and fellow-labourer, expressly asserts, that he went preaching righteousness, ἔπι το τέρμα της Δύσεως, to the utmost bounds of the west. St. Jerome says, that after his imprisonment, having been in Spain, he went from ocean to ocean, and preached the Gospel in the western parts; in which expression, as is evident from a passage in his letter to Marcella, he included Britain. Theodoret mentions the Britons amongst the nations converted by the Apostles; and says, that St. Paul after his release from imprisonment went to Spain, and from thence carried the light of the Gospel to other nations. He also observes, that St. Paul brought salvation to the islands that lie in the ocean; and Venantius Fortunatus is quoted to the same effect. When to these ancient testimonies are added those of such modern names as Parker, Camden, Usher, Stillingfleet, we must say. that the cause of St. Peter makes but a poor figure in the hands of Simeon Metaphrastes, and Eysengrenius; who are the only authors quoted in favour of his having personally evangelized our island. But though we certainly, with Stillingfleet, think it probable that St. Paul "had leisure and opportunity, encouragement and invitation, and was most likely of all the Apostles" to have made a journey into Britain; we do not say that we can

quite adopt the strong language of the bishop of St. David's on the subject. "Such strength of ancient and modern authorities ought, if I may judge by my own convictions, to put the subject of St. Paul's preaching the Gospel in Britain beyond all controversy or doubt."

The inference which the right reverend author draws from the several points he has laboured to establish is, that when the popish writers say, that "the Protestants have dispossessed the Roman Catholics of their inheritance, and fatten in their seats," the assertion is made in utter ignorance of the history of the British church.

"The British church was never theirs but by usurpation. For though our Saxon ancestors were converted to Christianity by popish missionaries, yet at that very period, the British church maintaining herself in the unconquered parts of the island, had subsisted from the days of her first founder, St. Paul, and distinguished herself not only by her opposition to the heresy of Pelagius, but to the corruptions of popery." (Page 46.)

7

The passage which follows deserves notice, both for the sentiments which it breathes, and the language in which they are conveyed.

"But it is contended, that the concession of the popish claims is necessary to the safety and prosperity of the empire. The advocates of the Roman Catholics, I am persuaded, do them great injustice in thus circumscribing their patriotic services. Are the blessings. of the British constitution confined to the highest honours of the country? Has the duty of a British subject any connection with the power of obtaining them? Are not the blessings of the British constitution, in an especial manner, the privileges of the middle and lower orders of society? Is not the protection, which the laws afford them against the power of the oppressor, peculiarly valuable to them in rendering every man's own house or cottage his castle? Protection and obedience are the reciprocal bonds of a just government. The protection and liberty which every British subject enjoys are privileges more than equivalent to any services, which the laws require of him, or which his voluntary patriotism can contribute. What are honours compared with the rights of personal liberty? Honours are often liberally conferred by a Nero, a Catharine, or a Napoleon; but personal liberty is the inestimable privilege of a free constitution. There are at this time in the French armies many general officers, who have risen from the ranks; but will a Hollander or a Swiss, to whom such honours are open, say that such a contingency is any compensation for the lost liberties of their country? What did the word COUNTRY say, when it vibrated on the feelings of a Swiss? It said every thing that was dear to a child, a parent, a husband, a friend, a freeman. It spoke of all the dulce & decorum, which made a Decius devote himself for his country; it