ancients, which some have vainly attempted to call in question.7 § 3. On what particular countries, both within the Roman empire and beyond it, the light of heavenly truth first shone in this century, the scantiness of ancient records will not allow us to state with precision. There are unexceptionable witnesses, who declare, that in nearly all the East, and among the Germans, Spaniards, Celts, Britons, and other nations, Christ was now worshipped as God. But if any inquire, which of these nations received Christianity in this century, and which in the preceding? it is not in my power to answer. - Pantanus, master | of the school in Alexandria, is said to have instructed the Indians in Christianity. But these Indians appear to have 7 See Walt. Moyle, de Legione fulminatrice; a Latin translation of which, with notes, I have annexed to my Syntagma Diss. ad sanctiores disciplinas pertinent, p. 652, 661. See also an additional passage, in Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryphone, p. 341. s Irenæus, adv. Hares. 1. i. c. 10, Tertullian, adv. Judæos, cap. 7. [The testimony of the former, is this: "Neither do those churches, which are established among the Germans, believe or teach otherwise; nor do those among the Hiberii, or among the Celts; nor those in the East; nor those in Egypt; nor those in Libya; nor those established in the central parts of the world."-The language of Tertullian is rhetorical, and the statement, undoubtedly, somewhat too strong. He says: "In whom, but the Christ now come, have all nations believed? For, in whom do all other nations (but yours, the Jews,) confide? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and inhabitants of Pontus and Asia and Pamphylia; the dwellers in Egypt, and inhabitants of the region beyond Cyrene, Romans and strangers; and in Jerusalem both Jews and proselytes; so that the various tribes of the Getuli and the numerous hordes of the Mauri; all the Spanish clans, and the different nations of Gauls, and the regions of the Britons inaccessible to the Romans but subject to Christ, and of the Sarmatians, and the Dacians, and Germans, and Scythians, and many unexplored nations and countries and islands unknown to us, and which we cannot enumerate: in all which places, the name of the Christ who has already come, now reigns." Tr.] Eusebius, Hist. Eccles, 1. v. c. 10. Jerome, de Scriptoribus Illustr. c. 36. [According to Eusebius, the zeal of Pantænus prompted him to undertake a voluntary issue among the Indians. But according to Jerome, (de Scriptoribus Illustr. c. 36, and epist. 83, Opp. tom. iv. pt. ii. p. 656, ed. Bened.) he was sent out by Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria, in consequence of a request made by the Indians for a Christian teacher. Perhaps Pantaænus first spontaneously travelled among the nearer Arabians ; and, upon the request of the people here, called Indians, for a teacher, Demetrius directed him to visit that people. - 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 nations, to them little known, the learned have inquired who were the Indians visited by Pantanus? 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. Hen. Valesius and Lu. Holstenius and others suppose they were the Abyssinians or Ethiopians, who were often called Indians, and were near, and always had intercourse with the Egyptians. See S. Basnage, Annal. polit. eccles. tom. ii. p. 207. Valesius, Adnotat. ad Socratis Hist. Eccles. p. 13. Others inclined to believe them Jews, resident in Yemen or Arabia Felix, a country often called India. That they were not strangers to Chris 1 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. § 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 over against Gaul. Yet certain churches in Germany have been accustomed to deduce their origin from the companions and disciples of St. Peter and other apostles2; and the Britons, following Bede, would fain believe, that their king Lucius sought and obtained Christian teachers from Eleutherus the Roman pontiff, in this century, and during the reign of Marcus Antoninus. But these ancient accounts are exposed to much doubt, and are rejected by the best-informed persons. tianity, 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, tom. i. p. 1160, 1161. See Mosheim, de Rebus Christ. ante C. M. p. 206, 207. Tr.] On the origin of those German churches, mentioned by Tertullian and Irenæus, as existing in this century, Jo. Hen. Ursinus, Bebelius, and others have written; and still better, Gabriel Liron, Singularitèz historiques et littéraires, tom. iv. Paris, 1740, 8vo.-The common and popular accounts of the first preachers of the Gospel in Germany, are learnedly impugned by Aug. Calmet, Histoire de Lorraine, tom. i. Diss. sur les Evêques de Treves, p. 3, 4. Bolland, Acta Sanctorum, January, tom. ii. p. 922. Jo. Nic. de Hontheim, Diss. de ara episcopat. Trevirensis; in Historia Trevirensis, tom. i. [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 Christo. Brower, Annales Trevirenses, 1. ii. p. 143, &c., and Acta Sanctor. Antwerpiensia, 29th of January, p. 918.-But Calmet, Bolland, and Hontheim, (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 Rebus Christ. &c. p. 212. Tr.] 3 See Ja. Ussher, Antiquitates Ecclesiar. Britannicar. cap. i. p. 7. Francis Godwin, de Conversione Britann. cap. i. p. 7. Rapin de Thoyras, History of England, vol. i. [Wil. Burton, Adnotat. ad Clementis Rom. epist. ad Corinth. in Patribus Apostol. tom. ii. p. 470. Edw. Stillingfleet, de Antiquitate Ecclesiar. Britann. cap. i. Fred. Spanheim, Historia Eccles. major. sæcul. ii. p. 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 Zelotes, another apostle, to Aristobulus, (mentioned Rom. xvi. 10,) to St. Peter, &c. by some few legendary writers, who are cited by Ussher, Ecclesiar. Britann. Primordia, cap. i.—But rejecting these accounts, William of 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 § 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 first 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 bishop.* 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, ch. ii. p. 12-30.) Since the reformation this story has been given up by most of the English clergy. But, as Eusebius (Demonstrat. Evang. 1. iii. c. 5.) and Theodoret (Græcar. Curatio Affectionum, 1. 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 ènì Tò Tépua Tis duoews, to 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, ch. iv. p. 44, &c.)- On all these traditions. Dr. 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, bp. 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 believe was made to the bp. 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 rights 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 Rebus Christ. &c. p. 213, &c. Tr.-The name Lucius may be merely a Latin form of a British word: but the application attributed to this prince is open to strong suspicion. It first appeared in the Customs of London, published under Henry VIII., and nothing is known of any authority to substantiate it. such as it is, little or nothing can be collected from it in favour of the Roman see, the very service into which it is generally pressed. Lucius might seem to have requested the pope to send him "a copy of the Roman and imperial laws, with a design to make them the rule of justice in the realm of Britain.” Collier's Ecclesiastical History, Lond. 1708, i. 14. Ed.] Yet Peter de Marca, Epistola de Evan § 6. This rapid propagation of Christianity is ascribed by the writers of the second century almost exclusively to the gelii in Gallia initiis, published among his dissertations, and also by Valesius, subjoined to Eusebii Historia Eccles. Jo. Launoi, Opuscula, in his Opp. tom. ii.— Histoire Littéraire de la France, tom. i. p. 223. Gabr. Liron, Singularitèz historiques 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 Jo. Launoi, (ubi supra,) who many writers of eminence at this day follow. It is, that if we except the Asiatic colonists of Lyons and Vienne, among whom there were Christian churches formed about 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. c. 32, where speaking of the persecution at Lyons and Vienne, under Marcus Antoninus, (A. D. 177,) he says: Ac tunc primum inter Gallias martyria visa; serius trans Alpes Dei religione susceptà; these were the first martyrs among the Gauls; for the divine religion was 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: Raras tertio sæculo in aliquibus Galliæ civitatibus ecclesias paucorum Christianorum devotione consurrexisse: scattering churches of a few Christians, arose in some cities of Gaul in the third century. See T. 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. 27, and de Gloria Confessorum, cap. 30, ed. Ruinart, p. 399.) He says, sub Decio septem viros ad prædicandum Româ in Galliam missos esse: under Decius, (A. D. 248-251,) 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 (Histor. Eccles. Sæcul. I. diss. 16, 17, vol. iii. p. 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 supposed 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 Taλarlar, would read Taliav. St. Peter, they suppose, 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. It rests principally on very suspicious testimony or conjectures, and on vulgar traditions. The third opinion takes a middle course, between the first and the second; and is that which is maintained by Gabr. Liron, Diss. sur l'Establissement de la religion Chrétienne dans les Gauls; in the fourth volume of his Singularitèz historiques, &c. Paris, 1740, 8vo. It admits that 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 Crescens to that country; and it affirms that in the second century, there were many flourishing churches in Gaul, besides those of Lyons and Vienne. Dr. Mosheim (De Rebus Christ, ante C. M. p. 208, &c.) thinks neither of these opinions is fully confirmed in all its parts. The second, he gives up wholly. The third, he conceives, lacks evidence. Particularly, Paul's journey to Spain, is itself questionable; and if admitted, there is no proof that he passed through Gaul. For St. Luke's mission to Gaul, there is no evidence 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 undoubtedly 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 removed by the labours of translators. As the language of the Romans was extensively used, many Latin translations, as we are informed by Augustine", were made at an early period. Of these, that which is called the Italic Version was preferred to all others. The Latin version was followed by a Syriac, an Egyptian, an Ethiopic, and some others. But the precise dates of these several translations cannot be ascertained." Decius; but it does not show when the Gospel was first preached in that country. On the whole, Dr. Mosheim thinks it probable, the Gospel was preached in Gaul before the second century, and possibly by Luke, or Crescens, or even by some apostle. But he thinks Christianity for a long time made very little progress in that country, and that probably the churches there had become almost extinct, when Pothinus and his companions from Asia planted themselves at Lyons and Vienne, about A. D. 150. Nearly the same opinion was embraced by Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de l'Eglise, tom. iv. p. 983. Tr.] § 7. Those who wrote apologies for the Christians, and thus / but the declaration of Epiphanius (Hares. 1. i. § 11,) who, to say the least, is not the best authority; and, besides, might possibly mean Cisalpine Gaul, lying between Dalmatia and Italy. The mission of Crescens to Gaul, mentioned by Epiphanius, in the same connexion, depends entirely on the contested reading of Γαλλίαν for Γαλατίαν, 2 Tim. iv. 10, and which, if admitted, might be understood of Cisalpine Gaul. If there were many flourishing churches in Gaul before Pothinus went there, (which perhaps was the case,) this will not prove them to have been planted by the apostles and their companions, which is the point contended for. As to the first opinion, namely that Pothinus and his companions first preached the Gospel in Gaul, it is not fully substantiated. Sulpicius Severus only affirms that it was late before the Gospel was preached there; and not, that it never was preached there till the times of Pothinus. testimony of the Acts of Saturninus only shows, that the progress of the Gospel in Gaul was so slow, that there were but few churches there in the third century; which might be true, even if the apostles had there erected one or two churches. The testimony of Gregory Turonensis fully disproves the apostolic age of the seven Gallic missionaries; and shows that the Christians in Gaul were few in number before the reign of The 5 Augustine, de Doctrina Christiana, lib. ii. cap. 11, and cap. 15. [Qui Scripturas ex Hebræa lingua in Græcam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique, primis fidei temporibus, in manus venit codex Græcus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguæ habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. — In ¦ ipsis autem interpretationibus, Itala cæteris præferatur: nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiæ. Ed.] ! See J. G. Carpzov, Critica Sacra V. T. p. 663, [and the Introductions to the New Test. by Michaëlis, Horne, and others. Tr.] 7 See Ja. Basnage, Histoire de l'Eglise, liv. ix. c. i. tom. i. p. 450. |