was heathenish. Cyllin the king was a wise man and a Christian. "Let the name be given in infancy," was the royal command. We are British-enlightened British-we are SILURIANS. The Ioways may wait until the faculties of their best born are duly developed," and then call him "Obabumba," King of the Eagles, or "Nihamaha," Strong Wind. SILURIANS know better. Such a practice is uncatholic. The genealogy of Jestyn ap Gwrgan has said so. Hence, says Mr. Williams, "the alteration, we naturally presume, referred to BAPTISM," infant baptism. That is to say, that which requires, as is well known, the most elaborate proof to shew that it was undoubtedly a custom of the church in the first century, is, by the genealogy and Mr. Williams, proved, by a stroke of the pen, as exercised in Siluria by "royal enactment."

While reading this history, the writer has been often compelled to exclaim, What does Siluria not possess? When will this genealogy be published? What are the Welsh MSS. Society doing? Can they suffer so valuable a chronicle to remain long unknown save only to the favoured few?-a chronicle that explains all dark-points in history so very satisfactorily-a chronicle so thoroughly" catholic" that it records everything with a "catholic eye"-a chronicle, too, that tells us, as plain as anything can tell, how very uncatholic Giraldus Cambriensis was the pope annoying ruffian-who has for so many centuries deluded the world by his false description of the customs, manners, and civilization of our worthy ancestors, the hardy Welsh. What can it signify to us how he would represent them as living in the twelfth century, if we are told positively by a MS., just discovered in the nineteenth, that they lived so much better in the first.

It is, truly, a glorious thing—and, as the writer is a Welshman, he cannot conceal it-to think that our ancestors were not the painted, half-clad savages which they are represented to be by such limners as Cæsar, and Tacitus, and Dion Cassius, but that "they luxuriated in magnificence and splendour by copying the Romans in the erection of royal palaces"-that "godly men from Greece and Rome came to visit them"-as is the custom still; for example, Louis Philippe and the Emperor of Russia to our own beloved Queen Victoria-that "they founded choirs of saints"- -"the choir of Eurgain”—all in the first century-where, without doubt-though this part of the genealogy is not yet published-blooming cherubs, under the form of charity-boys, disguised in little white surplices, chanted the daily services, edified the royal palace of Siluria, and spread their weaning influence as effectually and as permanently throughout the wilds of the region of "the Chair," as their brother cherubs of St. George's, Windsor, do at the present day among the beer brewing, bacon-de vouring boors of Berkshire.

Again, we exclaim, What does Siluria not possess? When will this genealogy be made known to the world? Who can tell what it does not disclose? The resources of Siluria must have been immense in the arts and sciences, and in civilization! Brân, besides being a Christian, an emperor, and the father of Caradoc, was also an "inventor of the

roll for literary purposes," "a dresser of skins"-sheepskins—in fact, a royal skinner. A certain royal personage, living in a certain royal country, could do almost everything in nature and in art

from the feeding of bullocks on turnips and oilcake, to the copying of a Guido or a Raphael on canvas and on wood. But then he was a mere copyist — Brân was an inventor! Siluria, therefore, shall have the palm. "The men of Siluria," says a writer of the twelfth century, "were noted bowmen. They shot well, and they shot long." If they could not hit a mountain, they were sure of a molehill; therefore they always aimed high. He who goes to the river to slay a salmon may make sure of returning home with a minnow. And so it is with their posterity. They can't forget the skill with which their ancestors handled the long bow. Hence we find in the genealogy, this curiosity of literature of the nineteenth century, tales of a nature which are truly astounding. The writer has always considered Baron Munchausen a man of singular valour. Alone, with sword in hand, he would attack castles and sack towns. But what is to be said of the following feat :

:

"In the time of Eirchion, the son of Owain, the infidels slew many of the Christians, but Eirchion went against them, and killed many of them with no edged weapon, nothing but his bare hand, and therefore was he called Eirchion Vawdvilwr, (the thumb soldier.)"-p. 65.

In modern days, it is hardly possible to match this feat, if we except Captain Berkeley's gallant defence for the protection of the aristocratic hare and the noble pheasant, (see his pamphlet on the game laws.) And yet this episode of the thumb soldier is gravely quoted, and gravely commented on, in a grave history-so grave, indeed, that nothing can be graver than the progress of Christianity!

Who these "infidels" were Mr. Williams cannot exactly say. They may have been "Romans," or "natives, or marauders from the neighbouring countries." Of course they were not of Siluria—they were of any country but the country of The Chair. One thing, however, he is certain about, and very confidently founds it on this interesting little Silurian tale-" That a systematic attack was made upon the British Christians at this time [A.D. 121] is no mean evidence of their number and importance in the country."

Gildas, a bilious, crusty old Briton, writing in the fifth century, was as likely to know as much, if not more, of what happened in the first and second centuries, as the manufacturers of the Chair MSS. did, writing in the seventeenth and eighteenth. But Gildas says in his Hist. p. 17, Stev. Ed., "that there was no persecution in Britain until that of Dioclesian"-the churches had rest. So says the Archdeacon Geoffrey, lib. v. cap. 5, Paris ed. 1517. So says tradition in general. And, it may be added, so say ancient British documents, if we except the erratic oracles of the Chair. And here it was the Chair committed the grand mistake, when her patentees, "infidels, conjurors, and we know not what," as they were, essayed to manufacture history. They never for one moment considered that the same events had been already and differently recorded by chroniclers who lived some centuries before themselves. Hence have they left a loop

hole for future inquirers to detect their falsehoods, for which we cannot but feel thankful. They had no regard to Gildas. They had no reverence for Geoffrey, though they followed his footsteps in the art of invention. Griffith ab Arthur, as they called him, they utterly threw aside, and even the Triads-that consecrated ground wherein lies are so easily sown-unless their soil was Siluria, were to them a dead letter. The genealogy is to supersede everything. Jestyn ab Gwrgan, the traitor and the robber, is to be in future the fountainhead from whence the main-springs of Christianity are to run pure and unsullied.

II. "When Lleirwg (Lucius) ascended the throne, [that is, a wicker-work arm-chair in Siluria,] 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. [What next?] With this view, he applied to Eleutherius, bishop of Rome, A.D. 173-189, by means of Medwy and Elwan, native Christians, requesting to be furnished with the Roman and imperial laws, in which he doubtlessly expected to find certain ordinances respecting the church."—pp. 66, 67.

Let the reader observe the manner in which this story of Lucius is introduced. There is not a word said respecting the application for baptism, which Mr. Williams cannot but know is at all times given as the ground-the primary ground-of Lucius sending to Eleutherius at all. Baptism is assumed, because "Cyllin, the king," and Lucius' grandfather, had ruled by "royal enactment"-that it should take place in infancy," and, consequently, Christianity had been in Siluria generations before; and that the reason of his sending an embassy to Rome was because he felt "deeply impressed with the necessity of providing more amply for the church."

In treating of these dark times, Mr. Williams dots his matters down with as much confidence and as amusing a degree of certainty as if he were merely writing a history of the church in India, and had no further trouble in arranging his materials than a resolute, hard, earnest perusal of parliamentary reports and missionary documents. But the man who expects to triumph over the darkness that hangs around the early British church so easily as this, will find, after due examination, that it is a mist that cannot be readily penetrated by the keen glance even of "a catholic eye." Hence is it, that so many have stumbled on this questio vexata of King Lucius. Some, indeed, have gone so far-for instance, Mosheim-as to say "that the traditions about King Lucius are extremely doubtful, and are indeed rejected by such as have learning sufficient to weigh the credibility of ancient narrations." This, however, is an argument of the most sweeping kind, and cannot for one moment be entertained. That such a man existed cannot be questioned; local circumstances prove it beyond a doubt; though he was a chieftain of a very different nature to that in which he is generally represented, for glory's sake, by papistical writers, or indeed even by Mr. Williams. As a Welshman, Mr. W. ought to know that it was impossible for him to have been even nominal king

of Britain; and this, too, he himself shews by a singular inconsistency, which he does not seem to be aware of. But the object here is not to ascertain the extent of Lucius' kingdom, nor yet his own existence, which is already granted, but to shew the manner in which his conversion was brought about-who were the instruments of it—the truth, at least the probable truth, of the mission to Rome, and the application to Eleutherius for baptism into the church; and consequently the natural inference, that this (the close of the second century) was the FIRST INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY INTO WESTERN BRITAIN.

The writer is well aware that he is now treading on delicate ground, and it is possible that he may be giving offence to some parties hostile to Rome, yet credit must be given where it is due. The opinion arrived at is neither hasty nor yet without careful examination. All the writer asks, is a patient and an unprejudiced hearing. Then let the verdict be given accordingly.

1. Venerable Bede, in his Epitome to his History, says: "cui (h. e. Eleutherius) literas Britanniæ Lucius mittens, ut Christianus efficeretur petiit et impetravit."

2. Nennius, Hist. Brit. sect. 22, Ed. Stev. "Lucius Britannicus rex cum omnibus regulis totius Britannicæ gentis baptismum suscepit."

3. Liber Laudavensis, supposed to have been compiled about the beginning of the twelfth century: "Hic (Eleutherius) accepit epistolam a Lucio Brit. Reg. ut Christianus efficeretur per ejus mandatum."

4. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Paris edition, 1517, fol. 33: "Coillo successit filius ejus Lucius qui ad fidem Christianam anhelans ad summam pontificem mittit, ut ab eo baptisma sacrum recipiat una cum suis subditis."

5. So also Platina, in Vit. Eleuth., and Nauclerus, in Chronograph, and Philip Bergomensis, and Hector Boethius, all of them mention baptism, directly or indirectly, and leave no doubt in our minds as to the mission to Rome being connected with his first conversion to Christianity, and in no instance, as far as the writer's observation goes, do they assume, as Mr. Williams does, that he was a Christian long before. It is very true-and a sa testimony on the side of Mr. Williams it is here mentioned-the Magdeburg Centuriators, cent. ii. fol. 6, give the following as a reason for the mission: "Accersiti sunt plures Doctores; qui eas scintillas, quas antea habuerunt, sursus accenderent." These words, then, imply, as far as they go, that Christianity was here before. But their single testimony can never be expected to outweigh the united voice of antiquity, especially when their wellknown inaccuracy in other matters is thrown into the scale. Besides, we think we can prove, by a fair deduction, that Christianity was not in Siluria before the time of Lucius—as also how it came there-and by what means. And it was to shew how much our proof agreed with the general voice of tradition that the quotations above were adduced, not that any assistance was expected from them further than a confirmation of the following inquiry.

The motives that induced Lucius to embrace Christianity, and to send to Rome, are differently assigned by different writers. Some, for instance Alford, as also Baronius, attribute it to Lucius' admiration

of the constancy and firmness of the martyrs under the general persecution. But how was Lucius, living in a remote and obscure corner of Britain, to know much of what was passing on in the other parts of the empire? and most assuredly not sufficient to discriminate as to the merits or demerits of the cause of the persecution. And that he could not have been an eye-witness of it in his own dominions is certain, since Gildas assures us of the fact that there was no persecution in Britain till the time of Dioclesian. Our own Usher acknowledges that he could not find what induced Lucius to send to Rome, and so leaves the question undecided. Let us see, however, whether the following inquiry will not unravel at least some of the mystery, if not guide us to the probable truth of that story, which has been so exaggerated by different writers as to have become at once the wonder as well as the ridicule of Christendom.

The Legio Secunda Augusta entered Britain under the command of Vespasian in the reign of Claudius, (see Tacitus in Hist., lib. iii. cap. 44.) Whether it was employed by Ostorius in his battle with Caractacus, A.D. 51, or afterwards by Suetonius in his reduction of Mona, it is difficult to say; but we know for a fact that it was ordered to join the expedition against Boadicea, and that it did not arrive in time to take a share in the engagement that took place in consequence of the negligence of its commander, Panius Posthumus, (Tacit. Annal. lib. xiv. 37.) It is probable, however, that it acted under Julius Frontinus in the year 76. In the time of Hadrian they were in Cumberland, and, says Sir R. Hoare, they had probably their share in the work of Hadrian's Vallum, A.D. 120.

Several inscriptions found in Scotland prove that in the time of Antonine they were employed in the building of the wall from the mouth of the Esk to that of the Tweed. Antonine died A.D. 160. At what time they reached Caerleon-on-Usk it is difficult to ascertain, but it is certain that they were here in the time of Severus, from the following inscription found at Caerleon : " Pro salute Augustorum nostrorum Severi et Antonini et Getæ Cæsaris, Publius Saltienus Publii filius Macia [Tribu] Thalamus Hadrianus Præfectus legionis secundæ Augusta Caio Vampeiano et Luciliano [consulibus.]" It would appear that this was written about 210.

The probability, however, is, that they took up their station at Caerleon previous to the reign of Severus, especially if one considers the turbulent spirit of the Silurians, (the main cause of their being stationed here at all,) and their presence in the north not being wanted, as the rabid incursions of the Picts had been effectually stopped by the two great walls. On their way from the north they left in Westmoreland the following inscription: "Caius Varronius...essus legionis Vicesimæ Valentis victricis ... Elius Lucanus Tribunus Legionis secundæ Augusta C."

However, it is pretty clear from the account here given, and the inscriptions, that at all events their station could not have been taken up at Caerleon before the time of Antonine, however soon it might have been after. And also, it is clear that they were here at the time of Severus, who assumed the purple at the close of the second century. There is, VOL. XXVII.-March, 1845.

U