Indians in Christianity. But these Indians appear to have been certain Jews, living in Arabia Felix. For Pantænus found among them, according to the testimony of Jerome, the Gospel of St. Matthew which they had received from their first teacher Bartholomew.

Lucius sought and obtained Christian teachers from Eleutherus the Roman pontiff, in this second century and during the reigr of Marcus Antoninus. But these ancient accounts are exposed to much doubt, and are rejected by the best informed persons.

4. From Gaul, it would seem, the Christian religion must have spread into Germany on the left of the Rhine, which was subject to the Romans, and also into Britain opposite to Gaul. Yet certain churches in Germany have been accustomed to deduce their origin from the companions and disciples of St. Peter and other apostles; and the Britons, following the account given by Bede would fain believe that their king of

3

1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. x. Jerome, De Scriptoribus Illustr. cap. xxxvi. [According to Eusebius, the zeal of Pantænus prompted him to undertake a voluntary mission among the Indians. But according to Jerome (De Scriptor. Illustr. cap. xxxvi. and ep. lxxxiii. Opp. tom. iv. par. ii. p. 656, ed. Bened.), he was sent out by Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, in consequence of a request made by the Indians for a Christian teacher. As it is well known that the Greek and Latin writers give the name of Indians to the Persians, Parthians, Medes, Arabians, Ethiopians, Libyans, and many other nation slittle known to them: the learned have inquired who were the Indians visited by Pantænus? Many think they were those we call the East Indians, inhabiting the country about the river Indus. Jerome so thought, for he represents him as sent to instruct the Brahmans. Valesius and Holstenius and others suppose they were the Abyssinians or Ethiopians, who are often called Indians and were near, and always had intercourse with, the Egyptians. See Basnage, Annal. polit. eccles. tome ii. p. 207; Valesius, Adnotat. ad Socratis Hist. Eccles. p. 13. Others incline to believe them Jews, resident in Yemen or Arabia Felix, a country often called India. That they were not strangers to Christianity is evident from their having Matthew's Gospel among them, and from their desiring some one to expound it to them. Their applying to the Bishop of Alexandria shows that Egypt was to them the most accessible Christian country; and their having the Gospel written in Hebrew, as Jerome testifies, is good proof that they were Jews; because no other people understood that language. Besides Bartholomew had formerly been among them, the field of whose labours has been supposed to be Arabia Felix. See Tillemont's life of Bartholomew, in his Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de l'Eglise, tome i. pages 1160, 1161. See Mosheim, De Reb. Christ, ante C. M. p. 206, 207.-Mur.

2 On the origin of those German churches mentioned by Tertullian and Irenæus as existing in this century, Ursinus, Bebelius, and others have written; and still better, Liron, Singularitès historiques et littéraires, tome iv. Paris, 1740, 8vo. The common and popular accounts of the first preachers of the Gospel in Germany, are learnedly impugned by Calmet, Histoire de Lorraine, tome i. Diss. sur les Eréques de Treves, pages 3, 4; Bolland, Acta Sanctorum, January, tom. ii. P 922; Hontheim, Diss. de æra episcopat. Trevirensis; in Historia Trevirensis, tom. i.

3 It is said St. Peter sent Eucherius, Valerius, and Maternus into Belgic Gaul; and that they planted the churches of Cologne, Treves, Tongres, Liege, and some others; and presided over them till their death. See Brower, Annales Trevirenses, lib. ii. p. 143, &c.; and Acta Sanctor. Antwerpien. 29th of January, p. 918. But Calmet, Bolland, and Houtheim (ubi supra), have proved satisfactorily that these pretended founders of the German churches did not live earlier than the third or fourth century, and were first represented as being legates of the apostles in the middle ages. See Mosheim. De Reb. Christ. &c. p. 212.-Mur.

4 See Ussher, Eccl. Britannicar. Prinordia, cap. i. p. 7; Godwin, De Conversione Britann. cap. i. p. 7; Rapin, History of England, vol. i.; [Burton, Adnotat. ad Clementis Rom. epist. ad Corinth. in Patribus Apos. tom. ii. p. 470; Stillingfleet, Antiquit, of the Eng. Church, cap. i.; Spanheim, Historia Eccles major, sæcul. ii. pages 603, 604. The first publication of the Gospel in Britain has been attributed to James, the son of Zebedee, whom Herod put to death (Acts xii. 1); to Simon Rom. xvi. 10); to St. Peter, &c. by some few legendary writers who are cited by Ussher, Eccl. Britann. Primordia, cap. i. But, rejecting these accounts, William Malmesbury, and after him many other monks, maintained that Joseph of Arimathea, with twelve others, were sent from Gaul by St. Philip, into Britain, A.D. 63; that they were successful in planting Christianity, spent their lives in England, had twelve hides of land assigned them by the king at Glastonbury, where they first built a church of hurdles, and afterwards established a monastery. By maintaining the truth of this story, the English clergy obtained the precedence of some others, in several councils of the fifteenth century, and particularly that of Basil, A.D. 1434. (Ussher's Primordia, cap. ii. pag. 12-30.) Since the Reformation, this story has been given up by most of the English clergy. But as Eusebius (Demonstrat Evang. lib. iii. cap. v.) and Theodoret (Græcar. Curatio Affectionum, lib. ix) name the Britons among others, to whom the apostles themselves preached the Gospel, some have maintained that St. Paul must have visited that country, and they urge that Clemens Rom. says, that this apostle travelled ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα της δύσεως, το the utmost bounds of the west. They also urge that among the many thousand Romans who passed over into Britain in the reign of Claudius and his successors, there were doubtless some Christians, who would spread the knowledge of Christ there. But the principal reliance has been on the reported application of King Lucius to Pope Eleutherus for Christian teachers, about A.D. 150, or rather 176. (Ussher, Primordia, cap. iv. p. 44, &c.) On all these traditions Mosheim passes the following judgment: Whether any apostle or any companion of an apostle, ever visited Britain, cannot be determined; yet the balance of probability rather inclines towards the affirmative. The story of Joseph of Arimathea might arise from the arrival of some Christian teacher from Gaul, in the second century. whose name was Joseph. As the Gauls, from Dionysius, Bishop of Paris, in the second century, made Dionysius the Areopagite to be their apostle; and the Germans made Maternus, Eucherius, and Valerius, who lived in the third and fourth centuries, to be preachers of the first century, and attendants on St. Peter; so the British monks, I have no doubt, made a certain Joseph from Gaul in the second century, to be Joseph of Arimathea. As to Lucius, I agree with the best British writers in supposing him to be the restorer and second father of the English churches, and not their original founder. That he was a king, is not probable; because Britain was then a Roman province. He might be a nobleman, and governor of a district. His name is Roman. His application I can never be lieve was made to the Bishop of Rome. It is much more probable, he sent to Gaul for Christian teachers. The independence of the ancient British churches on the see of Rome, and their observing the same rites with the Gallic churches, which were planted by Asiatics, and particularly in regard to the time of Easter, show that they received the Gospel from Gaul, and not from Rome. See Mosheim, De Reb, Christ. &c. p. 213, &c.-Mur. [This subject has been subsequently investigated, but with no new results-first by Dr. Hales, in his Essay on the Origin and Purity of the Primitive Church in the British Isles. Lond. 1819, 8vo; next by Thackeray, in his Researches into the Eccles. and Po lit. State of Anc. Britain under the Rom. Emperors.

Zelotes, another apostle; to Aristobulus (mentioned

5. Transalpine Gaul which is now called France, perhaps received some knowledge of the Gospel before this century, either from the apostles or from their friends and disciples. But unequivocal proofs of the existence of churches in this part of Europe irst occur in the present century. For in it Pothinus, a man of distinguished piety and devotedness to Christ, in company with Irenæus and other holy men, proceeded from Asia to Gaul, and there instructed the people with such success, that he gathered churches of Christians at Lyons and Vienne, of which Pothinus himself was the first president or bishop.'

6. This rapid propagation of Christianity is ascribed by the writers of the second century almost exclusively to the efficient will of God, to the energy of Divine truth, and to the miracles wrought by Christians. Yet human counsels and pious efforts ought not to be wholly overlooked. Much was un doubtedly effected by the activity of pious men, who recommended and communicated to the people around them the writings of Christ's ambassadors, which were already collected into one volume. All people indeed were not acquainted with the language in which these divine books were composed; but this obstacle was early re moved by the labours of translators. the language of the Romans was extensively used, many Latin translations, as we are informed by Augustine, were made at an Peter de Marca, Epistola de Evangelii in Gallia early period. Of these, that which is called initiis, published among his dissertations, and also by the Italic Version 3 was preferred to all Valesins, subjoined to Eusebii Historia Eccl.; Launoi, Opuscula, in his Opp. tom. ii. Histoire Litte aire de others. The Latin version was followed by la France, tome i. p. 223.; Liron, Singularites his-a Syriac, an Egyptian, an Ethiopic, and

Lond. 1843, 2 vols. 8vo; and still more recently by
Smith, in his Religion of Ancient Britain. Lond. post
Of Paul's presumed visit to Britain, see

Svo, 1844.

Burton's Lect, on Ecc. Hist. &c. i. 284-6.-R.

toriques et littéraires, the whole fourth volume. Paris,

1740, 8vo, and others. [The most eminent French writers have disputed about the origin of their churches. Three different opinions have been advanced. The first is that of Launoi (ubi supra), whom many writers of eminence at this day follow. It is, that if we except the Asiatic colonists of Lyons and Vienne among A.D. 150, the first propagation of Christianity among the Transalpine Gauls, was by missionaries from Rome about A.D. 250. This hypothesis is founded chiefly on the testimony of three ancient writers; viz. Sulpicius Severus, Historia Sacra, lib. ii. cap. xxxii. where, speaking of the persecution at Lyons and Vienne under Marcus Antoninus (A.D. 177), he says: These were the first martyrs among the Gauls; for the Divine religion was

whom there were Christian churches formed about

not received till late beyond the Alps. The next testimony is that of the author of the Acts of Saturninus, Bishop of Toulouse, who suffered under Decius. The author is supposed to have written in the beginning of

the fourth century. He says: Scattered churches of a few Christians arose in some cities of Gaul in the third century. See Ruinart, Acta Martyr. sincera, p. 130. The third testimony is that of Gregory of Tours, the father of French history (in the Historia Francor. lib. i. cap. xxvii. and De Gloria Confessorum, cap. xxx ed. Ruinart, p. 399.) He says: Under Decius (A.D. 248251), seven missionaries were sent from Rome to preach in Gaul Now these seven missionaries are the very persons who are said to have been sent thither by St. Paul and St. Peter; viz. Trophimus Bishop of Arles, Stremonius Bishop of Clermont, Martial Bishop of Limoges, Paul Bishop of Narbonne, Saturninus Bishop of Toulouse, Gratian Bishop of Tours, and Dionysius Bishop of Paris. The second opinion is that of the strenuous advocates for the apostolic origin of the Gallic churches, Peter de Marca (ubi supra), Natalis Alexander (Hist. Eccl. Sæcul. i. diss. xvi. xvii. vol. iii. pages 356-420, ed. Paris, 1741, 4to), and others. They consider St. Paul and St. Peter as the fathers of their church. Paul. they suppose, travelled over nearly all France in his journey to Spain; and also sent St. Luke and Crescens into that country. For the last they allege, 2 Tim. iv. 10, "Crescens to Galatia;" or rather to Gaul, according to Epiphanius and others, who, for Tatariar, would read Taλíov. St. Peter, they conceive, sent Trophimus, his disciple, into Gaul. St. Philip, they also suppose, laboured in Gaul. And the seven bishops above-mentioned, they say, were sent by the apostles from Rome. Very few at this day embrace the opinion entire. The third opinion takes a middle course between the first and the second, and is that which is maintained by Liron, Dissertation sur l'establiment de la religion Chrétienne dans les Gauls; in the fourth volume of his Singularitès historiques,

As

some others. But the precise dates of these several translations cannot be ascertained.

7. Those who wrote apologies for the Christians, and thus met the calumnies and slanders by which they were unjustly assailed, removed some obstacles to the progress of Christ's religion, and in this way contributed not a little to the enlargement of the church. For very many were pre vented from embracing Christianity, solely by those detestable calumnies with which ungodly men aspersed it. Another support to the Christian cause was furnished by the writers against the heretics. For

&c. It admits what Launoi, Sirmond, and Tillemont
have fully proved, that Dionysius, the first Bishop of
Paris, was not Dionysius, the Areopagite mentioned
Acts xvii. 34, but a man who lived in the third century.
It also gives up the story of St. Philip, and of most of
the pretended apostolic missionaries to Gaul. But it
maintains the probability of Paul's travelling over Gaul
on his way to Spain; and of his sending Luke and Cre-
scens to that country; and affirms that in the second
century, there were many flourishing churches in Gaul,
besides those of Lyons and Vienne. See Mosheim, De
Reb. Christ. ante C. M. p. 208, &c.; Tillemont. Memoi-
res pour servir à l'hist. de l'Egl. vol. iv. p. 983.- Mur.
2 Augustine, De Doct. Christ. lib. ii. cap. xi. xv.
3 See Carpzov, Critica Sacra, V. T. p. 663, [and the
Introductions to the New Test. by Michaelis, Horne,
and others.- Mur.

Basnage, Hist. del Eglise, livr. ix. chap. i. tome i. 450. 5 Nothing more injurious can be conceived than the terms of contempt, indignation, and reproach, which the heathens employed in expressing their hatred against the Christians, who were called by them atheists, be cause they derided the heathen polytheism; magicians, because they wrought miracles; self-murderers, because they suffered martyrdom cheerfully for the truth; haters of the light, because, to avoid the fury of the persecu tions raised against them, they were forced, at first, to hold their religious assemblies in the night; with a multitude of other ignominious epithets employed by Tacitus, Suetonius, Celsus, &c. See Bingham, Orig. Eccl. book i. chap. ii. p. 5.-Macl. [See on this su ject, Turner's Calumnies on the Primitive Chris accounted for.-R.

the doctrines of these sects were so absurd to perish with thirst. But the reality of or so abominable, and the morals of some this miracle is a subject of controversy of them so disgraceful and impious, as to among the learned; and those who think induce many to stand aloof from Christia- that the Christian soldiers erred, in regardnity. But when they learned from the ing that sudden and unexpected shower by books against the heretics, that the true which the Roman army was saved as a mifollowers of Christ held these perverse men raculous interposition, are supported not in abhorrence, their feelings towards them only by very respectable authorities, but by were changed. arguments of no little weight.2

8. It is easier to conceive than to express 10. It is certain that the Roman army, how much the miraculous powers and the when reduced to the greatest straits, was extraordinary Divine gifts which the Chris-relieved by a sudden fall of rain; and that tians exercised on various occasions, contributed to extend the limits of the church. The gift of foreign tongues appears to have gradually ceased, as soon as many nations became enlightened with the truth, and numerous churches of Christians were everywhere established; for it became less necessary than it was at first. But the other gifts, with which God favoured the rising church of Christ, were, as we learn from numerous testimonies of the ancients, still everywhere distributed.'

9. I wish we were fully authorized to place among the miracles what many ancient writers have recorded concerning a certain legion of Christian soldiers in the army of Marcus Antoninus, in his war against the Marcomanni (A.D. 174), which by its supplications procured a shower of rain when the Roman troops were ready

1 Collections of these testimonies have been made, by Pfanner, De Donis miraculosis; and by Spencer, in his Nota ad Origenem contra Celsum, pag. 5, 6; but the most copious is by Mamachius, Orig. et Antiq. Christiana, tom. i. p 363, &c. [The principal testimonies of the second and third centuries, are Justin Martyr, Apol. ii. cap. vi.; Dial. cum Tryph. cap xxxix. and lxxxii; Irenæus, lib. ii. cap. xxxi. and lib. v. cap. vi.; and in Euseb. H. E. lib. v. cap. vii.; Tertullian, Apolog. cap. xxiii. xxvii. xxxii. xxxvii; Ad Scap. cap. ii; Origen, contra Cels. lib i. p. 7; and lib. vii p. 334, ed. Spencer, Dionys. Alex. in Euseb. H. E. lib. vi. cap. xl.; Minutius Felix, Octar. p. 361, ed. Paris, 1605; Cyprian, De Idol. Vanit. p. 14. Ad Demetriam, p. 191, ed. Brem. See Mosheim, De Reb, Christ, ante C.M. p. 221. Very candid remarks on this subject may also be found in Schroeckh, Kirchenges. vol. iv. p. 380, &c; and in Jortin's Remarks on Ecc. Hist. vol i. p. 247. Mur. [The question regarding the existence and extent of miraculous powers in the early ages of the church was discussed in the last century, with great keenness, in consequence of the publication, in 1749, of Middleton's Free inquiry into the miraculous powers of the Christian Church He limited their exercise to the apostles, and repudiated the alleged miracles of the second and third centuries, but on grounds which appeared designed to convey a covert attack on the Scripture miracles. Answers appeared, by Church, Brooke, Dodwell, and others, who maintained extreme opinions in favour of the protracted continuance of these powers. Bishop Kaye, a most competent and judicious critic, has recently given this opinion on the question:-"I may be allowed to state the conclusion to which I myself have been led, by a comparison of the statements in the book of Acts with the writings of the fathers of the second century. My conclusion then is, that the power of working miracles was not extended beyond the disciples, upon whom the apostles waferred it by the imposition of their hands."—Kaye s Jillian, p. 98.-R.

this shower was regarded, both by the pagans and the Christians as extraordinary and miraculous: the latter ascribed the unexpected favour to Christ's being moved by the prayers of his disciples; while the former attributed it to Jupiter, or Mercury, or to the power of magic. It is equally certain, I think, that many Christians were then serving in the Roman army. And who can doubt that these, on such an occasion, implored the compassion of their God and Saviour? Further, as the Christians of those times looked upon all extraordinary events as miracles, and ascribed every unusual and peculiar advantage enjoyed by the Romans to the prayers of Christians, it is not strange, that the preservation of the

2 The arguments on the two sides of the question may joined to his Egyptiaca. He defends the reality of the miracle; and Dan. Laroque, Diss. de Legione fulminat. subjoined to the Adversaria Sacra of his father Matthew Laroque, opposes the idea of a miracle; but best of all in the controversy concerning the miracle of the thundering legion, between Peter King [rather the Rev Richard King of Topsham-Mur.] and Walter Moyle, which I have translated into Latin and published with notes, in my Syntagma Dissertationum ad disciplinas sanctiores pertinentium. See also Jablonski, Spicilegium de Legione fulminatrice; in the Miscellan. Lipsiens. tom. viii. p. 417, [and in his Opuscula, vol. iv. p. 3, &c.-R.] where, in particular, the reasons are investigated which led the Christians improperly to class this rain among the miracles. [See also Mosheim, De Reb. Christ. &c. p. 249, &c. The most important among the ancient accounts of this matter are, on the side of the pagans, Dion Cassius, Historia Romana, lib. lxxi. cap. viii.; Julius Capitolinus, Vita Marc. Antonin. cap. xxiv.; Elius Lampridius, Heliogabali vita, cap. ix.; Claudian, Consulat. vi. Honorii v.: and on the side of the Christians, Tertullian, Apologet. cap. v. Ad Scapulam, cap. iv.; Eusebius, Hist Eccles. lib. v. cap. v. and Chronicon, pages 82-215; Xiphilinus, on Dion Cassius, lib. lxxi. cap. ix. x.-Mur. [Against the existence of any miracle in this case, see Bishop Kaye's Tertullian, &c. p. 106; Burton's Lect. on Ecc. Hist. vol. ii. p. 166; and Milman's Hist. of Christ. vol. ii. p. 190, &c. with the Note in p. 175, in which he says: "The miracle of the thundering legion, after having suffered deadly wounds from former assailants, was finally transfixed by the critical spear of Moyle." Little did he think that soon after, a learned Fellow of Oxford would rush into the field to break a lance in defence of this slaughtered miracle. The well-known Mr. Newman, when in his state of transition between the churches of England and Rome, published in 1842, an Essay on the Miracles recorded in Ecclesiastical History, in which he not only defends in general the miracles of the Nicene Church, but spe cially that of the thundering legion, together with seve ral others which had long been rejected by every critic competent to apply the simplest rules of evidence.-.

be seen in Witsius, Diss. de Legione fulminatrice, sub

Roman emperor and his army should be placed among the miracles which God wrought in answer to the prayers of Christians. But as all wise men are now agreed the pagan priests, or the populace under that no event is to be accounted a miracle, if it can be adequately accounted for on natural principles, or in the common and ordinary course of Divine Providence; and as this rain may be easily thus acccanted for, it is obvious what judgment ought to be formed respecting it.