2nd s. VII. June 4. '59.] 



NOTES* AND QUERIES. 



459 



aware that this space is generally filled up by the 

 travels alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles ; to 

 Crete, Mncedonia, Miletus, &c. (The belief that 

 S. Paul did not return to Ephesus is no reason 

 for doubting his visit to the places I have men- 

 tioned, and to others.) 



But, if I were left to bare conjecture, Britain 

 is about the last place to which 1 should send S. 

 Paul. That province was in a mo«t disturbed 

 state. Italy had less intercourse with Britain 

 than with any other province of the empire ; 

 while every part of the Mediterranean coast 

 might be visited with the greatest ease. Why 

 should we suppose that the heathen world which 

 lay so directly in his way was neglected by S. 

 Paul in comparison with Britain ? It is to be 

 observed that (Gildas and the Triad being dis- 

 posed of) no date can be assigned for the intro- 

 duction of Christianity into this island, which 

 materially weakens Mr, Lee's argument. 



Eusebius's statement, that some of the apostles 

 visited Britain, is to be received with considerable 

 suspicion ; for there is hardly any blessing, reli- 

 gious, civil, or natural, which the writers of Con- 

 stantine's age did not heap upon the happy island 

 where he became emperor. 



On the whole, then, the case stands thus : An 

 event, of no intrinsic y)robability, supposed to 

 take place in the apostolic age, is first mentioned 

 by a versifier of the sixth century, who also sends 

 S. Paul to " ultima Thule." This is endorsed by 

 Sophronius, living in the East at a time when 

 Britain had again become mythical (Gibbon, ch. 

 xxxviii.). I think I have some reason for think- 

 ing S. Paul's visit to this country not even pro- 

 bable. 



When I spoke of "historians of our day," I 

 did not regard myself as contemporary with the 

 learned of the sixteenth, seventeenth, or eigh- 

 teenth centuries, but referred to those of the nine- 

 teenth, such as Burton, Milman, Hinds, Blunt, 

 Waddington, J. C. Robertson, Henry Browne, 

 Tate, Alford, Conybeare and Howson, Lappen- 

 berg, Neander, Gieseler, Hase, Winer. All these, 

 either expressly or tacitly, reject the tradition of 

 a visit of S. Paul to this island. The list is by 

 no means complete, but I cite those whom I have 

 the means of consulting. Dr. Cardwell's lecture 

 I have not seen : nor are older authorities want- 

 ing on my side the question ; such as Bull, Fuller, 

 Mosheim, Fleury, and Calmet. I might say, the 

 whole of the ecclesiastical historians of the Conti- 

 nent ; for the notion of S. Paul's having visited 

 Britain is peculiar to British writers. 



In conclusion, let me say that a question like 

 this can never be decided by accumulating second- 

 hand authorities. Every quotation which really 

 bears upon the subject has been before the world 

 in well-known books for the last two centuries at 

 least : the question is, what is the value of the 



testimony we have ? Have the quotations been 

 fairly used ? Learning can do no more : what is 

 wanted is criticism. S. C. 



To establish a probability that St. Paul preached 

 in Britain, Mr. A. T. Lee has adduced various 

 authorities; but they do not even establish the pro- 

 bability for which he contends. 



First. St. Clement's expression r/p^a r^y hv- 

 ffws^ the boundary of the West, would apply to 

 Spain or Gaul as well as to Britain. He may 

 have meant Spain ; for several of the Fathers 

 testify that St. Paul did preach in Spain. But it 

 is far more likely that, after all, he meant Rome. 

 He writes from Rome ; he is describing what had 

 recently happened at Rome, and goes on to say 

 that St. Paul came to the buwidary of the West, 

 and iras martyred under governors : eKdav irphs rh 

 Tfpua rrjs Smews, Koi /iiaprvp-Zicras virb twv ijyov/xevcoy. 

 He was writing to the Corinthians, and might 

 well designate Rome as the boundary of the West; 

 of that land of Italy which they regarded as the 

 principal country of the West. Theodoret says : 

 'kxplKovTo 8e TToAAoi, ras rfj? ecTwepas otKowres iffxarias, 

 ^TTOvoi re Kol Bperravol, Kai TaXural, o'l rh fj.eaou rovrcov 

 KaTexovrts. There came also many inhabitants of 

 the extreme West, Spaniards, and Britons, and 

 Gauls, vjho have the middle between the others. 

 (Theod. Relig. Hist. c. 26., edit, llallae, p. 1272.) 

 But this proves nothing for Britain alone ; it evi- 

 dently includes all thiee countries in the desig- 

 nation of the extreme West. ■ 



But, secondly, Mr. Lee undertakes to bring 

 " distinct evidence," that some of the apostles at 

 least preached in the British Isles, St. Irenajus, 

 he says, speaks of Christianity as propagated to 

 the utmost bounds of the earth by the apostles, and 

 particularly specifies "the churches planted in 

 Spain and the Celtick nations;" adding that in 

 the latter were included the people of Germany, 

 Gaul, and Britain. Now what does St. Irenaeus 

 really say ? Simply what follows : 'H fxfv yap 'Ek- 

 K\r](Tia, Kaiirep kuO' oXrjs Trjs o'lKovfieyrts etas irepdrwv 

 TTjs 77JS, Steffnapf^eyr] irapa. Se twv 'AiroarSAwv, Ka\ twv 

 eKeivwv fxadrjrwv, k. t. A. For the Church planted 

 throughout the world to the ends of the earth, both 

 by the apostles and their disciples, SfC. (Ado, Hceres. 

 lib. i. c. 2.). And in the next chapter, showing 

 that none of the converted nations held a dif- 

 ferent faith, he enumerates among others the 

 Spaniards and the Celts : oine iv toIs ^IS-rjpiais, oCre 

 eV KeXrois : neither among the Iberians nor among 

 the Celts. Mb. Lee observes that these included 

 the people of Germany, Gaul, and Britain. But 

 what then ? How does this prove that any of the 

 apostles preached in Britain ? St. Irenaeus speaks 

 of the apostles and their disciples. Mr. Lee omits 

 the latter, and then claims ''distinct evidence" for 

 some apostle having preached in Britain ! Nor is 

 anything like " distinct evidence " furnished by 



