and then it must be A. D. 64, when he was released'; and he could not have been much more than two years absent from Rome before he was confined there a second time. But Dr. Stillingfleet regards the usual chronology as erroneous; and the bishop of St. Da vid's has ably defended the theory of that Fearneď prelate, by shewing that what has given rise to the com mon computation of St. Paul's ministry, was a mistake respecting the duration of Felix's government of Judea. The bishop clears up the matter, by proving that Felix was dismissed from his government in the second year of Nero; and, therefore, St. Paul might have come to Rome in the latter end of the second, or the beginning of the third, year of Nero; that is, A. D. 56 or 57: so that his release would fall out in the year 59, if not in the latter end of the year 58. St. Pauf would thus have about eight years until his second im prisonment, for preaching in various countries; which space of time, it is supposed, he spent in Europe, and that he returned no more to the east. This is inferred from the apostle's words to the elders of the church of Ephesus, whom he met at Miletus; where he told them, in that solemn manner, "I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the Word of God, shall see my face no more."-Acts xx.

The apostle had long contemplated a journey into the western parts of Europe, as appears from what he said in writing to the Christians at Rome. He assures them, that his design was to visit them, (whom at that time he had not seen,) on his journey to Spain; and that he expected to be forwarded by some of them on his way to that country. As it was the glory of this apostle to

* See Stillingfleet's Origines Britannice, and the Bishop of St. Da vid's Letters to his Clergy.

preach Christ, where His name had not been published before; and as it would appear he had time for such a journey; it is concluded that he did actually visit Spain. That the apostle came from Spain, or from Gaul to Britain, rests upon the testimonies before recited, and the sense in which they have been taken. The hypothesis, according to which St. Paul came to Rome in the second year of Nero, takes away that improbability which otherwise would attach to the supposition. This accords with the computation of Eusebius and Jerome, both of whom say that St. Paul came to Rome in the second year of Nero, and that he suffered martyrdom in the fourteenth of that reign.

The importance of Britain is adduced as an argument for St. Paul's visiting it; for, besides the native inhabitants, the great number of Roman citizens and soldiers in the colonial and municipal towns must have been very considerable. In answer to the objection that we have no memorials among ancient writers of any particular churches planted by this apostle in Italy, Spain, or Gaul; it is replied, that we are not to judge of the planting of churches by the remaining annals and monuments, because, on the one hand, we are assured that their sound went out into all the earth; and, on the other hand, great care was taken in the several persecutions, especially that of Dioclesian, to burn all the monuments which concerned the Christian church.

I have endeavoured to lay before the Reader a summary of what learned men have advanced on the subject of St. Paul's preaching in the west of Europe, and particularly in Britain. The reasons stated are exceeding plausible; such as gave satisfaction to some very eminent persons. But, while it is admitted that the Gospel was preached here in the days of the apostles, there is some reason to doubt whether the circumstances of

the apostle Paul would permit him to undertake that great western journey.

As the Second Epistle to Timothy was written while St. Paul was the second time in prison at Rome, some mention of such a journey into new regions and countries would have been noticed. But there is a great probability that the apostle, after his first release, did return to visit the eastern churches. This was the opinion of Dr. Lardner; who totally denies the existence of this great western journey. He argues that, although it was the earnest wish of St. Paul to take a journey as far as Spain, he regards that more as his own private desire than a purpose formed from the Spirit of prophecy and Divine illumination. In the same manner the apostle mentions that he had been frustrated from visiting certain churches, agreeable to what he had purposed in his own mind.

The return of St. Paul to the East appears probable from several expressions in those epistles of his, which were written from Rome, and in particular from his desiring Philemon to prepare him a lodging. From such expressions it would appear that the apostle had abandoned his proposed journey into Spain.

With respect to the words of Clement, Lardner does not admit that they, by any means, prove what they have been adduced to establish: that, by the bounds of the west, we are to understand Italy as being in the west, and opposed to the countries of Asia. Clement speaks of St. Paul coming to the west, but not of his going, as if he travelled westward from Rome." If Clement," says the doctor," had thought of Spain or Britain, or any other places beyond that in which himself was, he would not have said, Ka λow, and having come, but ropevσausvos, or some other equivalent expres

sion, and having gone to the bounds of the west. L'Enfant, and Beausobre, in their general Preface to St. Paul's Epistles, say that the bounds of the west signify nothing but the west. It is an expression borrowed, they say, from the Scriptures, in which the borders of a country denote the country itself. In like manner, by those words, Clement intended Italy."

As I have adduced some arguments in favour of the hypothesis that St. Paul went as far as Spain, and even Britain, preaching the Gospel, after his first imprisonment at Rome, it was proper to state the objections to that hypothesis; objections which, to me, appear to have some weight in them. I should be disposed to coincide with the learned prelates, who maintain that the apostle Paul was the apostle of Britain, if the evidence on that side did not appear obscured with serious and weighty objections. But if St. Paul himself never was in Britain, we have no reason to believe that any other apostle visited this island. That the Gospel was preached here in the age of the apostles we admit, upon undeniable evidence, arising from various concurrent testimonies.; to strengthen which, we have something further to adduce in addition to what has been already advanced. While the apostle was at Rome, we may reasonably conclude that, when he did not find it practicable to undertake his western journey, he made provision for the extension of the Gospel into the western parts of Europe; and this may well account for what some of the ancients affirmed, that St. Paul travelled as far as the islands of the ocean to plant the Gospel.

* St. Paul, it is said, travelled εTI TEρμA TYS SUrews, to the boundary or verge of the west, and there suffered martyrdom.Now it was not in Spain or Britain, but at Rome, that St. Paul suffered.

II. The state of Britain, during the reigns of Claudius and of Nero, attracted the attention of the whole Roman empire; and the intercourse between the new province and the seat of government was daily increasing in importance. In that state of things St. Paul was brought to Rome a prisoner; famed, even before his coming, as an abettor of a new religion. As the apostle was permitted to live in his own apartments, although guarded as a captive, he received all who chose to resort to him for information and instruction; and here. by the purpose of Divine Providence, with respect to the spread of Christianity through the world, was promoted. In that great capital, persons of different ranks, employments, and offices, might be found; ambassadors, captive princes, merchants, and mechanics. Several of these would be prompted by curiosity to make inquiries respecting Paul, the principal teacher and propagator of the religion of Him that was condemned by Pilate to the cross. Among those who were men of note, not the least considerable was Caractacus, or Caradoc, the brave Silurian prince, who, with his family, was brought captive to Rome to grace the triumph of Claudius over the subjugated Britons. It was about A. D. 52, that this event happened; the British prince having been defeated by Ostorius Scapula, the commander of the Roman forces, and then infamously betrayed by Cartismandua, queen of the Brigantes, into the hands of the enemy. Our British hero, who had persevered in opposing the power of the Romans, for nine years fighting for the independence of his country, was made a spectacle to the citizens of Rome. When presented before the imperial tribunal, his spirit was unbroken; and he retained that heroic magnanimity