On the whole, then, we think there is sufficient ground for rejecting the testimony of the Welsh records on all historical points relating to events prior to the time of Gildas, who declares that there were no historical records extant amongst the Britons in his time, i. e. about the end of the sixth century.

The Welsh account of the introduction of Christianity into Britain has been adverted to above. Mr. Williams produces the following Triads in reference to the subject:

"The three holy families of the isle of Britain :

"The first, the family of Bran, the blessed, son of Llyr Llediaith: that Bran brought the faith in Christ first into this island from Rome, where he had been in prison through the treachery of Aregwedd Voeddawg, daughter of Avarwy, the son of Llud."-p. 53.

And shortly after, the following:

"The three sovereigns of the isle of Britain who conferred blessings:

"Bran the blessed, son of Llyr Llediaith, who first brought the faith in Christ to the nation of the Cymry, from Rome, where he had been seven years a hostage for his son Caradog, whom the Romans had taken captive, after he was betrayed by treachery, and an ambush laid for him by Aregwedd Voeddawg."-p. 54.

"The Genealogy of the Saints" is quoted to the same effect. Now, as we have seen, the father of Caractacus was not alive when he was captured by the Romans; and his father's name was Cunobelinus, not Bran; so that this story is altogether incredible. And there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the records on which it appears are as much as five hundred years old; while there is distinct evidence that they are all later than the time of Nennius-the end of the ninth century. So that the tradition as to Bran, and the introduction of Christianity by him, must be absolutely rejected as a mere fabrication. In fact, the broad features of the case are quite sufficient to demonstrate the utter incredibility of the whole notion. According to the Triads and other connected records, Christianity was the established religion in Britain during the lifetime of St. Paul! A succession of Christian monarchs from that period governed the whole of Britain! Instead of Constantine being the first Christian sovereign, the kings of Britain had been for centuries Christians before his time; and in ages when Christians elsewhere were suffering persecution, they were in Britain subject to sovereigns of their own faith, and, of course, free from persecution! Certainly were all this true, it would be by far the most extraordinary concatenation of events in history; but its plain and palpable

improbability in itself, and its contradiction to all authentic history, is quite sufficient to overthrow the credit of the whole.

66

66

It may here be observed, that the Welsh history of the introduction of Christianity into Britain is absolutely inconsistent with the account given by Venerable Bede, though the latter is, we think, quite as apocryphal as the former. The Welsh traditions represent King Bran as the first Christian sovereign, and the introducer of Christianity into Britain. They give us a succession of Christian princes after King Bran until King Lleirwg, who is supposed by Mr. Williams and other writers to be the same as King Lucius," who, according to Bede's story, wrote to Pope Eleutherius, requesting to receive baptism, and was, according to him, the founder of the Christian Church in Britain. If the Lleirwg," or Llever Mawr, of the Triads is meant to be the same as the "Lucius" of Bede, he holds very different positions in the two accounts. In the one he is born in a Christian land, his ancestors having for several generations been Christian kings. In the latter, he seeks baptism from Pope Eleutherius, and becomes the originator of British Christianity. The two stories are radically inconsistent. "Lucius cannot by any means be fitted into the position of "Lleirwg," nor can "Lleirwg" meet the description of "Lucius." The introduction of Christianity into Britain is directly and plainly ascribed to "Lucius" by Bede this is right in the teeth of the Welsh records, according to which "Lleirwg" (if that means "Lucius") had nothing whatever to do with the introduction of Christianity, which had taken place a hundred and twenty years before his time. Accordingly, the Welsh records are wholly silent as to any application from "Lleirwg" to Eleutherius, or as to his having received baptism from foreign missionaries. He is supposed to have been born in a Christian land, and to have founded the Archbishopric of Llandaf.

We must here cite a few passages from Mr. Williams's work as illustrative of the state of Britain, as described in the Welsh records, before the time of " Lleirwg," and in his time.

"It is affirmed in the genealogy of Jestyn ab Gwrgant, that Caradog, 'after he had been carried prisoner to Rome, returned to Wales.' Alfred likewise says, 'that Claudius sent him home again, and that, after many years, he died in peace, being a friend to the Romans.' His son Cyllin succeeded to his throne, and is described as a wise and gracious sovereign, deeply imbued, moreover, with the desire of extending the influence of the Church within his kingdom: hence he has been emphatically styled Cyllin Sant, or Cyllin the Saint. In his days, many of the Cymry were converted to the Christian faith, through the

teaching of the native clergy, and were also visited by several missionaries from Greece and Rome.

"A custom had hitherto prevailed among the Cymry, of deferring to impose names upon individuals until they arrived at years of maturity, when their faculties were duly developed, so as to suggest a suitable and appropriate appellation. This custom was authoritatively changed by Cyllin, who enacted that, in future, a person's name shall be given him in his infancy. The alteration, we naturally presume, referred to baptism; and the royal enactment is so far interesting, as it implies the exercise of state authority in matters ecclesiastical, and the wide and visible progress which Christianity had already made in the king's immediate dominions. Cyllin's life must have been extended to the second century. He left behind him two sons, Owain and Coel, the former of whom appears to have inherited his father's dominions. It would appear that he enjoyed a tranquil reign, and was on good terms with the Romans, whose magnificence and splendour he copied in the erection of a royal palace. He rendered many and great benefits to his Christian subjects in general, and particularly to the establishment founded by Eurgain [a college or monastery], which he is said to have endowed with wealth for the maintenance of twelve members.

"When Lleirwg (Lucius) ascended the throne, he became deeply impressed with the necessity of providing more amply for the Church, regulating its external affairs as bearing upon the state in a more defined and permanent manner, and more clearly distinguishing it from ancient Druidism. With this view, he applied to Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, A.D. 173-180, by means of Medwy and Elvan, native Christians, requesting to be furnished with the Roman and imperial laws, in which he doubtlessly expected to find certain ordinances respecting the Church. Eleutherius in reply sent him the following letter.

"The conveyance of this letter was entrusted to Dyvan and Fagan, both of British extraction, and both, most probably, descendants of some of the royal captives taken to Rome with Caradog. Dyvan, indeed, is ascertained to be the great grandson of Manawydaw, Bran's brother, and, therefore, a kinsman of Lleirwg. The selection of such persons was judicious, and well calculated to promote the design of the king.

"What Lleirwg by their aid accomplished, is briefly, though not very intelligibly, specified in the Triads. One says, that he made the first Church at Llandaf, which was the first in the isle of Britain, and bestowed the privilege of country and native judicial power and validity of oath, upon those who might be of the faith of Christ.' Another Triad, speaking of the three archbishoprics of the isle of Britain, states: 'The first was Llandaf, of the gift of Lleirwg, the son of Coel, the son of Cyllin, who first gave lands and civil privileges to such as first embraced the faith in Christ.'"-pp. 63-69.

Here we have a history of a succession of Christian monarchs of Britain previous to the time of Lleirwg, and the latter is by

the Triads represented merely as the author of certain endowments of Churches and regulations in ecclesiastical matters. But the majority of the Britons are represented to have been Christians, even in the time of his grandfather Cyllin. The book of Llandaf, from which Mr. Williams derives much of his statement about "Lucius," is of uncertain authority. Its date is not stated; nor is its account corroborated by any other ancient documents. As far as Mr. Williams details its contents, they are inconsistent with the account given by Venerable Bede, in his account of the object of the mission to Eleutherius, which Bede states to have been for the purpose of obtaining baptism; while the book of Llandaf represents it to have been with a view to obtain copies of the Roman laws.

And now to come to Bede's account of "King Lucius." In the prefatory epistle to King Ceolwulph, Bede states the sources from which his history is drawn; and with reference to the earlier portion, extending from the beginning to the period when the English received Christianity, he professes to have derived his information chiefly from former writers-A principio itaque voluminis hujus usque ad tempus quo gens Anglorum fidem Christi percepit, ex priorum maxime scriptis hinc inde collectis ea quæ promeremus didicimus. Thus it appears that Bede, like Gildas, refers to former writers as his authorities; and it is not to be supposed that he derived any of his historical knowledge of those ages from the traditions of the Britons, inasmuch as Gildas (whose work is quoted by Bede) himself derived nothing from British traditions or records. If Gildas, though a Briton, knew nothing of British traditions, still less could Bede. The Anglo-Saxons, of course, could have known nothing of the history of Britain previously to their own arrival, except from information derived from the Britons; and if there was any account whatever among them of the introduction of Christianity into Britain, it must have come from the Britons. But it is quite evident that there was no knowledge amongst the Britons of the period of the introduction of Christianity. Gildas supposes, indeed, that Christianity was introduced here in the Apostolic age; and such a supposition is very reasonable. But the fact of his making this statement proves that the Britons had, at that time, no tradition of the introduction of Christianity by the imaginary "King Lucius,' in the latter part of the second century.

And as the tradition about "King Lucius" was plainly not derived from British or domestic tradition, so it is pretty evident that it could not have been derived from foreign history or tradition. In the first place, no historian or writer, before the time of Bede, ever mentioned the fact. Gildas, Sulpicius Severus, Gregory

of Tours, Prosper, Orosius, Eusebius, Ruffinus, are all silent as to the alleged fact. The Christian apologists, who refer to the extent of Christianity as amongst its evidences, never mention so remarkable a fact as this mission-the first mission ever sent from a sovereign to a Christian bishop. Tertullian, who wrote shortly after the alleged event, and who spoke of British Christianity, never alluded to so unprecedented a circumstance. None of the Fathers referred to it. None of the bishops of Rome ever alluded to it, in all their manifold assertions of Papal power and jurisdiction. Innocent, Zosimus, and Leo, and Gregory the Great never spoke of it. In all the many epistles of Gregory the Great referring to the introduction of Christianity into Britain-in the correspondence with Augustine on the affairs of Britain-in the subsequent letters and decretals of the Popes-in the discussions between the AngloSaxon and the British Clergy with reference to Easter-there is throughout a total silence as to the fact of Britain having received its Christianity through Pope Eleutherius, or of any application having been made to Eleutherius by "King Lucius." So that in fine, no less than five hundred and fifty years elapsed from the date of the alleged conversion of Britain under "King Lucius," before any mention was made of it; for Bede wrote about A.D. 730; and this profound silence is altogether inexplicable on the supposition of the truth of the story; for there were many parties interested in making it public, and referring to it, if it had been true. And to say the least, the unsupported statement of one writer, five hundred years after an event, does not, in itself, afford any historical evidence. If it happened to be based on specified records or traditions, the case might be different; but here there is nothing of the kind.

We have seen that the story could not have been derived from British traditions or records, and that it was not derived from foreign writers or remains. Nor could it have been drawn from the records of the Church of the City of Rome; for there is not the slightest trace of any such records having been preserved. None of the epistles or acts of the early bishops of Rome have been preserved. The series of decretals begins in the latter part of the fourth century: all previous records have perished, if there ever were any; and the actions of the early bishops of Rome, and proceedings of their Church are only preserved in history-in the writings of Fathers, and in the councils. If there were any ancient records they probably perished in the persecution under Diocletian.

But, besides these difficulties, there are others specially affecting the state of Britain at that period.

its

It isextremely improbable that Christianity should not have made way to Britain before A.D. 180-the time of Eleutherius; when, VOL. XV.-NO. XXIX.-MARCH, 1851.

C