The Drama of the Lost Disciples

CHAPTER XII

THE ROYAL BRITISH FOUNDERS OF THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH AT ROME, A.D. 58

Following the famous trial and release of Caractacus, with the rest of the royal (P.111) Silurian family, we find them settled in the family residence at Rome, on the part of the Mons Sacer, called Scaurus.

Here the British King begins his seven-year parole in absolute freedom.

Caractacus alone is subject to parole. It was not required of any of the other royal captives. They were free to leave Rome had they so desired. Over a period of time, most of them returned to Britain. The first to leave, almost immediately following their par­don, were the two sons of Caractacus: his eldest and his youngest sons, Cyllinus and Cynon. Cyllinus returned to Britain, particularly to take over the reins of government, acting as regent during the absence of his father. Cynon entered the Silurian theological university. The home of the remainder was established in the palatial Roman residence known as the Palatium Britannicum - 'the Palace of the British', or, 'the British Palace'.

At that time it was unlikely that any one of them realized the dramatic part they were to play, under the instruction of St. Paul, in laying down the foundation of Christianity at Rome. They were well aware that the situation was fraught with danger. On it with characteristic British stubbornness, they turned their back. They cast the die and unflinchingly dedicated their lives to the Christian service. For this, they were to pay with their lives and with their fortunes.

It is an unhappy fact that, as the centuries sped by with their turmoils, these monumental events in our Christian history, with its stark, heart-breaking tragedies, in the main became forgotten. It seemed as Though a dark curtain shrouded their glory in somber shadows. Nevertheless, it is certain that St. Paul's fruitful work could never have been achieved among the Gentiles but for the sacrifices of these noble Britons. The old Greek and Roman Martyr­ ologies, preserved to the present, are most illuminating. Therein are recorded the happenings and dates, in many cases but briefly detailed, (P.112) but more than enough to give us the story of the pitiful endings of Those first great soldiers of Christ. Many of the disciples are completely lost to the record. Nowhere are their names and achievements found. The (P.112) silence of the grave enfolds them. Many of the tortured bodies never even found a grave.

The Vatican states that there are many thousands of ancient documents in the archives of the Vatican library that have never been read: therefore, it is with pleasure we read of the splendid effort of the Vatican, during the last two years, to microfilm every document, to study and better preserve them. Recently it was announced that copies of these microfilms would be distributed among the various Christian theological centers for cooperative study. In the U.S.A. the Knights of Columbus raised a large fund to purchase a special center to house these precious records. They are responsible for supplying the Vatican in the first place with the funds that enabled them to produce the first microfilms. It is to be hoped that copies will be as generously distributed among the various Protestant Theological Institutes of learning. Like the mass of ancient manuscripts recently found in the caves of the Dead Sea, it will take years and require the combined intelligence of all to complete this titanic task.

The famous British Museum Library in London, the largest in the world, and other great libraries, in Edinburgh, Belfast and Dublin, Marseilles, Rauen, Paris, and many others, apart from the vast accumulation of ancient Church records in England have been most generous in providing co-operation for research. Therein is contained a mass of informative material not possessed by the Vatican. An example is the famous Myvyrean Manuscript, a gigan­tic work exceeding one thousand volumes. It reaches into the dim centuries antedating the record of this story. It is written in the ancient Cymric language of the British and is housed in the British Museum, often referred to as the Bible Museum for the wealth of first-hand Biblical reference it contains. The Magdalen College, at Oxford University, is named for the famous Magdalen Manuscript it contains, written by the Archbishop of Mayence,1 A.D. 776-856. It brings to life the beautiful story of Mary Magdalene's wonderful work in the service of our Lord in Britain and particularly in Gaul, as told by one of the earliest bishops of the Christian faith.

Just as archaeology has proven the historic facts of the Old Testament, which formerly were regarded as fantasy, so has it with the study of the old tomes lifted the majestic story of the ancient1 Britons and the work of the Apostles in Britain, 

(1 Rabanus Maurus.)

out of the realm of legend, myth, and superstition into the light of reality. The most (P.113) important part of the founding of the Gentile Christian Church in Britain and Rome is available to us, and the facts regarding the First Church in Rome begin with the Royal Cymric family, domi­ciled in that city, under the instruction of St. Paul

Twenty years after the Crucifixion the trial and pardon of the British royal captives took place, in the year A.D. 52.

Peter first went to Rome twelve years after the death of Jesus, in the year A.D. 44, eight years after Joseph and his Bethany companions arrived in Britain, and two years after the Claudian campaign of persecution began against Christian Britain. Paul did not arrive at Rome until A.D. 56. This is the date given by St. Jerome, and considered the most authentic. This does not mean that there were no Christians in Rome before the two Apostles arrived, or even before the British Silurians came as captives. There were a number of them present and they are scripturally referred to as 'the Church'. This must not be taken too literally. It did not refer to a material institution; it was a spiritual body in Christ. The number of Christians then at Rome were unorganized, treading in fear. They met secretly in small groups at the homes of various converts to worship, Though most of them went underground. The Tiberian and Claudian ban that inflicted death on all who professed the Christian faith was still in effect.

The Bible refers to two Christian churches in Rome: the Jewish

Church of Circumcision and the Gentile Church of Non-circumcision presided over by Hermas Pastor; the first being composed of Jewish converts retaining the old practice of circumcision. This group met in secret at the house of Aquila and Priscilla, referred to in Romans 16: 5. The separation of the two converted groups was in the main the cause of the heated discussion on circumcision between St. Paul and the other Apostles. The Apostle to the Gentiles won the argument, making it plainly known that neither made any difference where salvation was concerned. The Jewish Church did not last. Gradually it became absorbed into the Gentile Christian Church, as proved by the fact that we later find many Jews functioning within the Gentile Church, a number of whom are mentioned as going to Britain with various missions.

At this time bands of converts met in grottoes, but mostly in the catacombs among the dead. The Roman law, perhaps with satirical cynicism, had sought fit to recognize these underground cemeteries with the decree of sanctuary. However, when Christian persecution was at its (P.114) worst, the Roman soldiery would waylay the worshippers on entering or leaving the catacombs. To avoid capture the Chris­tians made secret entrances and outlets.

Such were the conditions that prevailed in Rome at the time of our story, but unconsciously the tide had begun to tum against the Romans, with the marriage of Arviragus, the Christian King, to Venus Julia, daughter of the Emperor Claudius, A.D. 45. Venus, known as Venissa, in the British records, had been converted by Joseph after her arrival in Britain with her husband. Since his recall from Britain, Aulus Plautius had resided in Rome with his wife, Pomponia Graecina, the sister of Caractacus, and they are referred to as a Christian family. Plautius, with his position as a nobleman of great wealth, and Pomponia, with her brilliance and golden beauty and as a leader of Roman society, certainly would exert considerable influence. Now, the most important and by far the most extraordinary event was to take place which was eventually to swing the tide in favor of the Christian cause at Rome. Strange as it may seem, this incredible situation was created by the Emperor himself, the very man who had sworn by his Edict to exterminate Christianity. Probably it is the most astounding incident in Christian history, showing how God can use even His bitterest enemies to work out His divine purpose.

Following the pardon of Caractacus, a close relationship developed between the two former enemies and their households evolving into a startling climax. Claudius greatly admired the character and extraordinary beauty of Gladys, the daughter of Caractacus. It grew into a deep paternal affection with the result that Emperor Claudius adopted Gladys as his own daughter, a girl who was an exceptionally devout Christian!

Caractacus had two daughters, Eurgain, the eldest, and Gladys, the youngest child. Eurgain had been officially converted by Joseph, the Apostle of Britain, at the same time as her brother Linus. Eurgain was not only the first British woman to be converted to the faith, she is also recorded as being the first female Christian saint in Britain, the reward for her outstanding missionary work to which she devoted her life.1 Gladys, the younger, was born A,D. 36, therefore 

(1 St. Prydain, Genealogies of the Saints of Britain.)

she would be an infant when Joseph and his saintly entourage arrived in Britain, following the Judean exodus of the same year. Joseph baptized Gladys and later confirmed her into the faith with the laying on of hands. Both girls were profoundly spiritual, devoted to the Christian faith with all the zeal of a Mary (‘St. Prydain, Genealogies of the Saints of Britain.) Magdalene. Both (P.115) had been taken to Rome as hostages, with their father and all the other aforementioned members of the royal Silurian families, and had been party to all the unusual circum­stances. One wonders with what feelings did Eurgain witness the extraordinary adoption of her younger sister by Emperor Claudius. The next unusual event was Gladys' taking the name of her adopted parent.

Henceforth Gladys was known as Claudia.

The Emperor was well aware of the strong Christian convictions of Gladys, and what strikes one forcibly is the fact that the record states that the terms of her adoption did not require her to recant from her faith.

Gladys was not to remain long under the royal roof. The year after her adoption was to see a beautiful romance destined to culminate later in a heart-breaking tragedy. In her teens, Claudia was betrothed and married. In the year A.D. 53, she became the wife of Rufus Pudens Pudentius, an epochal event history could well mark as momentous.

Pudens, as he is most commonly referred to, was a Roman Senator and former personal aide-de-camp to Aulus Plautius. Pudens went to Britain with the Commander-in-Chief at the com­mencement of the Claudian campaign A.D. 42.1

(1 Morgan, St. Paul in Britain, pp. 103-107.)

What could be a stranger circumstance than that of the British

Pendragon Caractacus permits his favorite daughter to become adopted by the remorseless enemy who had brought about his defeat at Clune and see his sister and daughter married to the leaders he had opposed in the battle for nine long years, Plautius and Pudens.

Truly the Hand of God works in a mysterious way to perform His Will.

Claudia was seventeen years of age when she married Rufus Pudens. The nuptials did not take place at the Imperial Palace of her adopted father, as one might expect, but at the palace of her natural father, the Palatium Britannicum, a Christian household. It was a Christian marriage performed by the Christian Pastor, Hermas, which proves that Pudens was already a Christian convert. It is interesting to note that they continued to live at the Palatium Britannicum; interesting because Pudens was an extremely wealthy man, owning vast estates in Umbria, but he chose to live at the Palace of the British, where their four illustrious children were born. On the marriage of his daughter to Pudens, Caractacus bestowed the Palace as a bridal gift upon them, with all its spacious grounds. (Morgan, St. Paul in Britain, pp. 103-107.)

An idea can (P.116) be gained of the vast scope and opulence of the British Palace by referring to the domestic routine required to operate the household. The Roman Martyrology, referring to the Pudens, states that Rufus brought his servant staff from Umbria to manage the palatial home. It declares, 'There were two hundred males and the same number of females, all born on the hereditary estates of Pudens at Umbri.'

Adjoining the Palace of the British were two magnificent baths, the largest in Rome. They were named after the children of Claudia and Rufus Pudens, known as the Thermae Timotheus and the Thermae Novatianae. Later the Palace and all the spacious grounds of this great estate were deeded to the First Christian Church at Rome by Timotheus, the eldest son of the Pudens. He was destined to be the second last surviving member of this family and the second last to be martyred. It is recorded that these were the only properties owned by the Christian Church at Rome up to the time of the Emperor Constantine.

Pastor Hennas refers to this munificent home as 'arnplissimus Pudentes domus' the 'hospitium', or home of hospitality for Chris­tians from all parts of the world. It was more than this. For many years it was to be Sanctuary, in the true sense of the word, wherein no Roman soldier dare set foot to arrest any member or guest of the Pudens' household.

Such was the home in which the bridal pair began their marital life in the year A.D. 53.

Many students have puzzled over these extraordinary marriages. Some considered them political alliances. This can be ruled out on two scores. If they were political, the war would not have continued but, as history shows, the conflict of arms between Briton and Romans continued, with rare interludes, for over three hundred years. On the other hand, the Roman writers state that the 'British could not be coerced by force of arms or persuasion'. They, more than any other, affirm the unbending nature of the Briton where his hereditary rights were concerned, particularly his religion. Practically all armistices ended in Treaty Alliances, wherein the British kings retained their sovereignty, privileges and freedoms. If conflict had ended in true conquest these privileges would never have been recognized. The Romans imposed their full authority on all the nations they conquered. There must be a valid reason why it was never fully imposed on the British. History shows an un­ broken line of kingly successions which alone proves that they were never conquered. Even in the case of Caractacus we see that he retained his sovereignty, (P.117) his hereditary estates, and privileges, and this in spite of the fact that Arviragus conducted the war against the Romans without abatement.

Centuries later, when the church acquired political power, it strongly supported kingly succession in the blood strain. It was the very opposite in the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. The Pope made and broke kingdoms subject to the Roman Catholic faith. He alone approved or disapproved of royal marital alliances. The parties involved obeyed or were threatened with excommunication. In this manner, the Papal See controlled and expanded the Holy Roman Empire throughout Europe until the time of Martin Luther and the Reformation. The British never were subject to this interference. To do so was to incite immediate rebellion. British royal marriages and succession to the throne have ever been governed by the iron precepts of the British Christian faith. Even today the same law is still adamant, as shown in the circumstances that brought about the abdication of Edward VIII, and more recently in the public declaration of Princess Margaret in her rejection of any marriage that opposed or broke the law of the hereditary rights as declared and set forth in the Christian faith that rules the succession to the British throne.In the events of our story, we have positive proof that the British-Roman marriage alliances were truly an affair of the heart, as shown in each instance, the pagan becoming Christian.Strange as these marriages appear under extraordinary circumstances, Martial, particularly, extols them as romances, and his pen is lavish in describing the nuptials of Claudia and Pudens. Martial writes: 'The foreign Claudia marries my Rufus Pudens, she calls him Rufus her Holy husband.’1(1 Vol. 4. p. 18.)Undoubtedly the attachment between Claudia and Pudens began in Britain, Though one wonders how such a friendly social status could develop when Briton and Romans were engaged at war. No doubt Rufus Pudens Pudentius met Gladys for the first time during the truce period of A.D. 45, when his chief, Aulus Plautius, married the sister of Caractacus, the aunt of Gladys. Both girls, before assuming their Roman surname, were named Gladys - Princess. At this time the niece would only have been nine years old. It is stated that her extraordinary beauty, which was to make her world-renowned, even exceeding the fame of her illustrious aunt, was then evident. Pudens, then a young man, became attracted to Gladys despite the differences in their ages. Evidently, the attraction (‘Vol. 4, p. 18.) lingered and (P.118) prospered over the ensuing years. We know that Pudens did not accompany Plautius to Rome on his recall by the Emperor, A.D. 47. Today there exists positive proof in the Chich­ester Museum that Rufus remained in Britain, to the close of the Caradoc-Claudian campaign, A.D. 52.While in Britain, Pudens was stationed by Aulus Plautius in command at Regnum, the name for the Roman encampment at Chichester. In the year A.D. 1723 workers, while excavating some old foundations there, discovered a large stone tablet, which since has been known as the 'Chichester Stone'. Fortunately, the inscrip­tion it bore had been deeply carved and when restored by the firm of Horseley and Gale the Latin memorial could clearly be read. Translated the inscription is as follows :'The College of Engineers, and ministers of religion attached to it, by permission of Tiberius Claudius Cogidunus, the king, legate of Augustus in Britain, have dedicated at their own expense in honor of the divine family, this temple to Neptune and Minerva. The site was given by Pudens, son of Pudentinus.’This inscription contains a wealth of corroborating support of the presence of the husband of Claudia in Britain at a later date than A.D. 47, apart from other matters of historic interest. This pagan temple was erected about A.D. 50, two years before the close of the Claudian war and the return of Pudens to Rome, A.D. 52. This indicates that Pudens remained in Britain five years after his commander-in-chief had returned to Rome. It also shows that at the time Pudens made the gift of this site he was still a worshipper of the Roman pagan gods; therefore his conversion to Christianity did not take place until a later date. We can be certain that Pudens' recantation from the Roman pagan gods and declaration for Christ took place before his marriage to Claudia. It could not have been otherwise. Their marriage took place within the Palace of the Royal British. The (P.119) officiating minister was a Christian convert, a kinsmen of Pudens, who also made his home at the Palatium Britannicum. He was known to St. Paul and St. Peter as Pastor Hermas.1(1 Romans 16:14.)The other note of interest introduced in this inscription is the name and title 'Codigunus, the king'. He was not a Roman, Though he prefixes his name with Roman title - Tiberius Claudius. The rulers of the Roman Empire never employed the title 'King'. It was always Emperor - Caesar or Augustus. He was a British king but nowhere in the British Triads is his name mentioned. He was (‘Romans 16: 14.) an arch-traitor, one of the very few who defected to the Romans. It was he who treacherously betrayed Caractacus in the Claudian campaign. For this despicable act, he was honored by the Roman titles he appends to his own name. His family and estates were guaranteed Roman protection. To the British his name was anathema. He was branded by the most disgraceful name that could be applied to a Briton - 'bradwr', meaning 'traitor'. Accord­ing to Celtic law death was the penalty for this act and his name was forbidden to be spoken. His identity was completely erased from the historic record and the Bards assigned him to oblivion.While some Britons may have been indifferent Christians, then as now, their patriotism was ever beyond question. Then as now, it burned fiercely within them. No disgrace was so great as dis­loyalty. They never forgave, stripping the culprit of all honor and mention in their history. This intense patriotism, coupled with severe punishment for military disgrace, continued to be observed within the British Army up to World War I. Military disgrace was a public spectacle. To be 'drummed out' was the one thing every British soldier dreaded. Following conviction by court-martial, he was arraigned before his paraded regiment, then, one by one, the buttons were tom off his uniform by a common soldier in rank; his insignia ripped in shreds until he stood completely despoiled before all. Then his rifle or sword was broken. This done, he was ordered to depart. All the while the muffled drums throbbed out the tattoo of his disgrace. Officers and soldiers so disgraced were also sent to 'Coventry', an expression meaning that no one who knew him would ever speak to him. Their shame went so deep that they usually left Britain, migrating to some foreign country or to the Colonies, where they changed their (P.119) name in a futile effort to hide their stigma. But it is said that the ignominy was so deeply etched in their heart that none succeeded in living it down. Many have been known to have committed suicide after being 'drummed out'. Such a traitor was Cogidunus. Tacitus knew him and his pen shared the disdain of the British.1(1 Tacitus, Agricola, 14.)As previously stated, among the British hostages to Rome was Llyr Llediaith, the grandfather of Caractacus. He died shortly after his arrival at Rome. As a result of his death his son, 'the Blessed Bran', the Arch Druid Silurian monarch who had abdicated in favor of his son Caractacus, voluntarily offered himself as hostage to replace his father, Llyr, the King Lear of Shakespeare. Thus we see the necessary characters gradually assembling in Rome in pre- (‘Tacitus, Agricola, 14.) preparation (P.120) for (120) the role they were all to play in the world's greatest drama, under the direction of St. Paul.We now see residing at the Palatiurn Britannicum the High Priest Bran, King Caracatacus and the Queen, his wife; his daughter, Princess Eurgain and her husband, Salog, lord of Salisbury; her brother, the immortal Prince Linus, now a Christian priest; the Emperor's adopted daughter, Claudia, and her husband the Senator Pudens; his mother, Priscilla;1 Pastor Hermas, kinsman of (1 Morgan, St. Paul in Britain.)Pudens. Cyllinus and Cynon, the eldest and youngest sons of Caractacus had already returned to Britain. There were other members of the Pudens' Christian household dedicated to the faith but those mentioned are the important figures to remember. The talented sister of Caractacus, the ex-Princess Pomponia Graecina, and her influential husband Aulus Plautius, resided nearby. All were spiritually confirmed Christians except Caractacus and Bran, who were soon to experience the laying on of hands by St. Paul, climaxing their confirmation in the faith in the same manner as is performed by the Priesthood today in the Church of the Anglican Communion.The following five years, apparently, were years of tranquillity at the Palatium Britannicum.From the works of the Roman writers of that period, we read that the home of Pudens rapidly became the most fashionable and cultural center in Rome. Martial, the Roman epigrammatist, of Spanish birth, was a constant visitor who valued the scholarship of the Pudens so highly that (P.120) he freely submitted his works to them for their constructive criticism. In his works, which have been handed down to us, he delights in extolling Claudia's flaxen, blue­ eyed beauty, and her literary talent. He says, 'Since Claudia, wife of Pudens, comes from the blue-set Britons, how is it that she has so won the hearts of the Latin people?' He explains that for wit and humor, she had no equal, and her beauty and scholarship exceeded that of her august aunt, Pomponia. Claudia was a fluent linguist and, like her aunt, wrote many volumes of odes and poetry in Greek, Latin, and her native Cymric. For over a Thousand years her works were treasured in the great Glastonbury library but perished in the great fire, A.D. I184. Copies of her hymns, elegies, etc., were contained at Verulum as late as the 13th century. Her British ancestry was never forgotten. Affectionately she was named by the Roman populace, Claudia Britannica Pudentius. Of her, Martial wrote: (‘ Morgan, St. Paul in Britain.) 'Our Claudia, named (P.121) Rufina, sprung we know from blue-eyed Britons; yet behold, she vies in grace with all that Greece or Rome can show. As bred and born beneath their glowing skies.'Rufina was the feminine vernacular for her husband's first name, Rufus. It was a common custom to refer to a married woman personally by replacing her own first name with his. Names then were used rather indiscriminately, which tends to confuse us who retain throughout our lifetime our given name and family name. Consequently, it can be bewildering to read of the British Princess by so many names. Gladys-Claudia-Britannica, Rufina-Pudens, and Pudentius.The dark-haired Romans admired the golden-haired, blue-eyed, pink-complexioned women of Britain. Again Martial sings with praise: 'For mountains, bridges, rivers, churches and fair women, Britain is past compare.'Martial wrote a long poem describing the nuptials of Claudiaand Pudens. He wrote another on the birth of Claudia's daughter, Pudentiana.In the four years following her marriage Claudia, at the age of twenty-one, was the mother of three children. A fourth child was later born. Timotheus the eldest, and Novatus the youngest, were boys. Pudentiana and Praxedes, born in between, were girls. Names should never be forgotten. They should be written in red and spiked with nails of gold (P.121) on the walls in every Christian home. All were martyred.1(1 Roman Martyrologies.)These four children, added to the family list of names mentioned, residing at the Palace of the British, represent the chief assembly of personalities who officially and openly first declared for the Christian faith at Rome. Fearlessly and with zeal they defied the edicts that were to follow. They befriended and defended all followers of 'The Way', who sought their sanctuary. Their numbers were legion, apostles, disciples, priests, and neophytes.In Matthew I0: 11, Jesus said, 'Into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go hence.'Where was there a safer or more worthy home than the Palace of the British? The name it acquired, 'Home of the Apostles', shows it to have been the most popular meeting place of the Apostles among others.Claudia's first-born, Timotheus, was named after one of her'Roman Martyrologies. Favorite Apostles who (P.122) frequented her home, St. Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus. He was closely associated with St. John and St. Paul. To Timotheus, St. Paul refers to 'The beloved son in Christ'. All her children were baptized in Christ and brought up in the presence of apostles, disciples and converts. Cardinal Baronius wrote that Justin Martyr made his home with them.

 Chapter XII - Continued

Even Though St. Paul had his residence provided for him at Rome by the Christian following, the Scriptures state that he only resided two years in it during his ten years' association with the city. The common inference is that St. Paul first arrived at Rome in tli.e year A.D. 58 but, as before stated, St. Jerome placed his arrival at A.D. 56. He writes, 'St. Paul went to Rome in the second year of Nero.' Nero succeeded Claudius as Emperor.

St. Jerome held a unique place in the post-Christian era of the Catholic Church. By request of the Church, he wrote the first most important dissertations of the Christian record. His documentation of the early years of the faith stands unquestioned. A man of intense convictions, he was profoundly devout. Honest and sincere in his writings he was assiduous as to detail. Because of his tremendous knowledge of Christian history and his scholarly excellence, he was specially elected by the Church Fathers to produce the historic literary record; therefore (P.122) the date he sets for St. Paul's arrival at Rome can be accepted. Moreover, the date is supported by such eminent authorities as Bede, Ivo, Platina, Scaliger, Capellus, Cave, Stillingfl.eet, Alford, Godwin, Rapin, Bingham, Stanhope, Warner, and Trapp, to name a few. This being the date preferred, it allows eight years of contact with Rome in which St. Paul did not reside in his personal home. This fact supports the statements of the contemporary writers who state that St. Paul had his abode with the Pudens. There is a special and particular reason as to why he would prefer to reside with the Pudens at the British Palace, apart from its Christian environment.

Startling as it may be to the reader, facts will prove that living with the Pudens family was the mother of St. Paul and that Claudia Britannica was the sister-in-law of the Apostle to the Gentiles.

St. Paul, writing in his Epistles to Thoseat Rome prior to his coming, says, 'Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.'

Some have sought to suggest that the woman was St. Paul's spiritual mother. This is entirely out-ruled by the facts. A spiritual mother, or father, was one who had converted another. As we all know, Christ (P.123) had converted Paul on the road to Damascus, and Paul had not been to Rome since before the Judean persecution of Christ's followers, A.D. 33. Thus twenty-five years had elapsed before his arrival at Rome as an Apostle of Christ. By deduction, Pudens must have been in his late twenties when he married the seventeen-year-old British Princess, and at the time of St. Paul's salutation he must have been near his mid-thirties, which shows a long separation between 'his mother and mine'.

Pudens was born on the family estate at Umbri, a Roman state. His father was a Roman Senator, of a long illustrious ancestry. Paul, in describing his Roman citizenship, states that he was a Jew (Benjamite) by race; therefore his parents must have been Jewish Benjamites1 From this it is obvious that his mother was probably 

(1 Romans 11:1)

married a second time, and to a Roman of distinguished birth. Rufus Pudens was born of this marriage. His mother was not a Roman consort as Pudens inherited his father's estates as the legitimate son. If he had been an illegitimate son, born of a consort, the licentious pens of that time, ever ready to declare such an incident, would have (P.123) said so. On the contrary, Pudens senior and his family are written off in high esteem. Therefore all facts point to a legal marriage, with Rufus as legal offspring. If it had been otherwise, Paul would not have addressed his mother and Rufus with the affection he did.

At the time Pudens donated the ground in Britain for the erection

of the temple to Neptune and Minerva at Chichester, he was pagan, following his inherited family religion subject to the Roman gods. This does not prove that his Jewish mother was a pagan worshipper. Born in the Judean faith she may have remained neutral or indif­ferent. However, it is certain, between the year A.D. 50 and the nuptial year A.D. 53, that both mother and son must have been converted, for we find Priscilla, his mother, a member of the British household, directly following the marriage of Rufus Pudens to Claudia. On the other hand, Paul would not have sought associa­tion with his mother and Rufus if he knew they had remained pagan. His salutation proves that Paul knew beforehand that both were then confirmed Christians. He salutes Pudens, 'chosen in the Lord'. This is further supported by the Roman writers of that time who attest that 'all' of the Pudens household at the Palatium Britannicum were Christian.

From all this we realize that St. Paul and Rufus Pudens Pudentius 

were half-brothers, each having the same mother. In (‘ Romans 1 1 : 1) turn this made (P.124) the British Princess Gladys the Emperor Claudius's adopted daughter, now known as Claudia Britannica Rufina Pudens Pudentius, sister-in-law to the Apostle of the Gentiles!

Recognizing the facts we can well understand why the ancient writers affirmed that St. Paul, by preference, spent most of his time with the Pudens at the Palatium Britannicum while at Rome. This substantiatrs other important facts cited in the Roman Martyrolo­gies that, 'The children of Claudia were brought up at the knee of St. Paul.'

Many students of the Biblical history of St. Paul are commonly confused by the scriptural report which states that St. Paul spent but two years at his provided home out of the ten years he was associated with Rome. They are conscious of the eight-year gap and ask, 'Where was he?'

If they had sufficiently considered British and Roman history of that time they would have known and also known that when St. Paul was not residing with the Pudens at Rome, he was absent in Britain, Spain, Gaul, and elsewhere.

It is interesting to note (P.124) that St. Paul had other relatives in Rome whom he addressed in his salutations, notably Andronicus, Junea, and Herodian. They also became partakers of the Pudens' Christian hospitality. They had been converted long before St. Paul arrived in Rome. They are mentioned in Scripture as being members of the first Christian church in the Imperial City. We can well imagine what a wonderful occasion the arrival of St. Paul must have been at the Palatium Britannicum, A.D. 56, and the happy reunion between the mother and her two brothers, with Claudia, her children whom he loved so dearly, and other relatives and converts. From the swiftness of events that followed it is seen that St. Paul lost no time in putting into action his bold plan to erect at Rome, on an indestructible foundation, the first Christian Church among Gentiles above ground. This was the first need and was made possible by a bold act of the British royal family, Claudia, and Pudens, in donating their home, the Palace of the British, to be openly declared to be the established Christian Church in Rome. The sacrificial act is made more courageous in the fact that, a mad Emperor, then sat on the throne of the Caesars.

This was the birth of the first Church of Christ above ground at Rome.

Prior to the coming of St. Paul, the Palatium Britannicum for several years, dating from the marriage of Claudia and Pudens, had been the center for the Christian gathering to worship. Hermas conducted the (P.125) services. He was the first minister to the Christian flock in secret sessions. Now the challenge was openly declared. It was glory or the grave.

St. Paul planned his two greatest adventures in the home of the Pudens; the first, establishing the Church of Rome, which was, as we note, accomplished in part. The second was a notable con­tribution in Britain in which Bran, Caractacus, and Eurgain, his daughter, were to have the leading roles. When St. Paul came to Rome there remained three years of parole for Caractacus to complete. We are told St. Paul confirmed Bran and Caractacus shortly after he arrived at the home of the Pudens, but this is another story to be told in another chapter. Our attention now is still on the action at Rome. A Bishop had to be consecrated to lead the church to its destiny.

Whom would this great (P.125) and grave honor be conferred upon?

Linus, the son of Caractacus, (P.126) who had remained at Rome, had long before been baptized and confirmed by St. Joseph of Arirna­thea in Britain. He was a priestly instructor. It was Linus whom St. Paul chose and personally consecrated to be the First Bishop of the Christian Church in Rome. A Prince of the royal blood of Britain, he is the same Linus whom St. Paul addressed in his Epistles. This fact has never been disputed, Though seldom brought forth in the light of this reading. St. Peter affirms this fact. He says:

'The First Christian Church above ground in Rome was the Palace of the British. The First Christian Bishop was a Briton, Linus, son of a Royal King, personally appointed by St. Paul, A.D. 58.'

The church still stands and can be seen in what was once the palatial grounds of the Palatium Britannicum, a memorial to the Christianizing endeavors of St. Paul and the expatriate royal British family at Rome with Rufus Pudens. The church is recorded in Roman history under four different names: 1. Palatium Britan­nicum; 2. Titulus; 3. Hospitium Apostolorum; 4. Lastly, as St. Pudentiana, in honor and memory of the martyred daughter of Claudia Pudens, by which name it is known to this day.

Further corroboration is given to Linus, as the brother of the lovely Claudia and of his appointment to be the First Bishop of the Christian Church of Rome, and is provided in the following extract from The Apostolic Constitutions:

'Concerning Those Bishops who have been ordained in our lifetime, we make known to you that they are these; Of Antioch, Eudius, ordained (P.126) by me, Peter, Of the Church of Rome, Linus, brother of Claudia, was first ordained by Paul, and after Linus's death, Clemens, the second ordained by me, Peter.

In this statement, Peter himself declared that Linus is the brother of Claudia and the first Bishop of the Church at Rome. He further states that Paul performed the ordination and not him. In another statement herein given Peter affirms that Linus was a Briton, son of a royal king. In these statements the common belief that Peter founded the church at Rome and that the first church there was Roman Catholic in origin, is confounded by the words of St. Peter himself. 

The Roman Catholic Church was not founded until about three hundred and fifty years later. Clearly, Peter states that the first church was (P.126) established by Linus, through the ordination of St. Paul. He gives the correct year, A.D. 58.

Clemens Romanus, the second Bishop of Rome, appointed by Peter, affirms the relationship between Linus and Claudia, writing : 'Sanctissimus Linus, Frater Claudiae' (St. Linus, brother of Claudia).2

Clemenus Romanus knew them all intimately, not only as an intimate guest of the Pudens. He knew of Claudia in Britain, for he was St. Clement of the twelve companions of Joseph.3

Within twelve years after the martyrdom of Linus, he was consecrated as the second Bishop of the Church by Peter.4 St. Paul had already suffered his martyrdom. In his works, still extant, Clement tells us that St. Paul was in constant residence at the Palatium Britannicum and personally instructed Linus for his consecrated office. He further writes that the First Church of Rome was founded by the British royal family and that St. Paul personally preached in Britain. 5

lrenacus, A.D. 180, who was also personally acquainted with the first Church, wrote: 'The Apostles having founded and built up the church at Rome, committed the ministry of its supervision to Linus. This is the Linus mentioned by Paul in his Epistles to Timothy. 6

This saint was born in Asia and became a disciple of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Afterward, he became a presbyter of Lyons, in Gaul. From Lyons he was sent as a delegate to the Asiatic churches .

(1 Not listed Bk. 1, ch.46.

2 Epistola ad Corinthios.

3 Clement in an English context Clemens in the Latin.

4 Apostolici Constitutiones, 1:46. (The interval of twelve years was filled by Cletus. He was not appointed by the Apostles; therefore Clement is described in the Apostolic Constitutions as the second.

5 ‘The extremity of the west’, Epistola, ch.5.

6 Irene Opera, 3:I.)

He succeeded (P.127) Photinus in the Bishopric and was martyred under the order of Severus.

Linus, the First Bishop of the First Christian Church at Rome was also its first martyr. Of this royal Christian family, Claudi was the only one to die a natural death. She saw her brother Linus murdered and, years later, her faithful husband Rufus Pudens Pudentius. He was martyred A.D. 96. Claudia Di’d the following year, A.D. 97, in Samruum. This beautiful, glorious woman was spared the agony of seeing her four noble children butchered for Christ. The beloved Pudentiana, immortalized in The Roman Martyrologies, and by Martial, was executed on the anniversary of the death of her father, A.D. 107, (P.127) during the third Roman Christian persecution. After her martyrdom, the name of the Palatium Britannicum was changed and consecrated by name to her memory. His brother Novatus was martyred during the fifth Roman persecution, A.D. 137, while his elder brother Timotheus was absent in Britain, baptizing his nephew, grandson of Arviragus, Kmg Lucius, at Winchester. Shortly after his return from Britain to Rome Timotheus, in his goth year, suffered martyrdom along with his fellow worker Marcus. Later that same year, in which The Martyrologies state, 'Rome was drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus', Praxedes, the youngest daughter of Claudia and Pudens and the last surviving member of the family, was also executed. Thus, by the year A.D. 140, all of this glorious family were interred by the  side of St. Paul, in the Via Ostiensis, their earthly mission m Christ finished.

Priscilla, the mother of St. Paul and Rufus Pudens, reposed in the underground cemetery nearby, named for her memory the Catacomb of St. Priscilla.

In the year A.D. 66, we are told that Claudia with her husband and children, rescued the murdered body of St. Paul and interred it in the private burial grounds on the Pudens estate, where they were all to rest together. It was truly a dangerous operation. Christian persecution was again at a fever-pitch. One may wonder why the name of others was not mentioned in claiming the body. In a way, It was a repetition similar to the circumstances in which Joseph claimed the body of Jesus. Pudens was a Senator and Claudia was still respected as the adopted daughter of the late Emperor Claudius. any things had happened to show they still had influence with the Imperial Senate. They used it to claim the mutilated remains of St. Paul. Others of the Christian clan, not having influence and being under the Caesarian ban, dared not make the (P.128) effort. At that time the eldest children of Claudia would only be twelve and thirteen years old respectively. The children being party to the act shows the great devotion they held for the Apostle, who was in all probability their uncle.

The last salutation St. Paul sent out from prison before his execution was to St. Timothy, requesting him to deliver his last fond farewell to the ones he loved dearest on earth, to his sister­ in-law, Claudia, and her husband; his half-brother, Pudens; to their children and to his nieces and nephews, whom he had taught with affection at his knee; the beloved (P.128) Linus, whom he had con­secrated and appointed First Bishop; to Eubulus, (P.128) cousin of Claudia 'and them which are of the household of Aristobulus'. In only ten years faithfully he carried out the mission to 'go to the Gentiles' as commissioned by his Saviour Jesus Christ. In Those years he had established the First Christian Church in Rome and undertaken another mission in Britain, to collaborate with the Josephian Mission at Avalon. In each case, his instruments in the divine work were the members of the British royal Silurian family. How short a time for such a stupendous, noble work. Now it was all over and left for posterity to carry on.

So suffered all Those who helped in founding the First Gentile Church at Rome, their glory sealed in Christ and the spot wherein they labored and were martyred steeped in their courageous British blood.

No disclaimer can challenge these historic events. In our own time, the Encyclopaedia Britannica names Linus as the First Bishop of Rome. The Vatican has never endorsed the facts herein and has kept alive the glorious story. Probably the most authentic record of this great drama is that which can still be seen and read on the wall of the ancient former Palace of the British, the sanctified church of St. Pudentiana. The memorial was carved on its walls following the execution of Praxedes in second century, the last surviving member of the original Christian band and the youngest daughter of Claudia and Pudens.

Inscribed in these few words is told the noble, tragic story : 'In this sacred and most ancient of churches, known as that of Pastor (Hennas), dedicated by Sanctus Pius Papa (St. Paul), formerly the house of Sanctus Pudens, the Senator, and the home of the holy apostles, repose the remains of three thousand blessed martyrs which Pudentiana and Praxedes, virgins of Christ, with their own hands interred.'

How many (P.129) tourists visiting the Imperial City of Rome take time out to go along the Mons Sacer Way to view this tragic memorial to their faith and humbly breathe a prayer of thanksgiving for the thousands who lie beneath, martyred for our sake?

Eyes fascinated by the splendor of the Vatican Palace and other sumptuous buildings, not one Christian stops to view this hallowed place that played such a majestic part in making the faith they profess theirs to enjoy. All the riches combined in the Vatican cannot equal one iota of the wealth of devotion and sacrifice made for us within these (P.129) time-weathered walls. Within its sacred precincts trod two of the greatest of Christ's Apostles, Peter and Paul; this was (129) the first Christian church in Rome to be established and the second church built above the ground to be created by the British and the Apostles of Christ. They represent the greatest gifts of the British to mankind and to posterity. Unlike the Josephian church erected at Glastonbury (Avalon), the church at Rome is drenched with the blood of martyrs. The valor of the British arms prevented the Roman or any other foreign invader from violating the Glastonbury sanctuary. This protection was denied, by understandable circumstances, to the church in Rome. They could only die. Theirs is the greatest treasure in blood and sacrifice the British race gave to the people of the world - their cross for Christ that preserved the Word that set men free and saved their souls. How little do modern Christians realize that it was the Royal House of Britain, united with the noble Pudens, that actually made it possible for St. Paul to accomplish his mission, fulfilling the destiny Jesus ordained for him in establishing the faith permanently among the Gentiles. How few know of Those gentlewomen, Claudia, Pudentiana, and Praxedes, who gave their all for Christ, their beauty, their talents, their fortunes, and their lives. What courage! No wonder the Romans proclaimed in awe: 'What women these British Christians have - what women !' Those gentle hands alone had laid at rest the staggering total of three thousand butchered martyrs within the precincts of their church, the old Palace of the British at Rome. How many more they secreted and buried within the underground catacombs is not known. As one ponders on this dreadful tragedy the soul is shocked.

Now only crumbling, uncared-for walls remain to remind us of its triumph and tragedy yet the modern Christian by-passes it without a look, without a twinge of gratitude or admiration, or a prayer, to be thrilled by the glamour of the Vatican and its cathedrals, basking in wealth and luxury, which had no part in the original (P.130) planting of the faith, or in establishing and preserving our democratic freedoms.

The inscription on the walls of St. Pudentiana sets the truth squarely before our eyes, with its incomparable drama. To this are added the words of Cardinal Baronius, who writes the following comment in his Annales Ecclesias : 1

'It is delivered to us by the firm tradition of our forefathers that the house Pudens was the first that entertained St. Peter at Rome, and that there the Christians assembling formed the Church, and that of all our churches the oldest is that which is called after the name Pudens.’

The eminent Jesuit Father, the Rev. Robert Parsons, in The Three Conversions of England, adds his testimony:2

(1 ad 19 Main.

2 Vol. 1, p. 16.)

'Claudia was the first hostess or harbourer both of St. Peter and St. Paul at the time of their coming to Rome.'

Who with an atom of intelligence dare deny the authenticity of this dramatic record in Christian history, against the ass of corroborative evidence, simply because their glory has been over­ shadowed by the ages, lost in antiquity to thoughtless minds? One can search in vain for the modem church Calendars of Martyrs for illustrious names. Once their names led that Calendar of Martyrs with red-letter dates. Of recent years their names have been omitted, giving precedence to others a thousand times less worthy of the honor. Yet we can still tum to the pages of the Martyrolo­gies of Rome, The Greek Menologies, and the Martyrologies of Ado, Usuard and Esquilinus, and therein read their glorious stories, noting the Natal Days of each, therein described.

They are as follows :

May 17. Natal Day of the Blessed Pudens, father of Praxedes and Pudentiana. He was clothed with Baptism by the Apostles, and watched and kept his robe pure and without wrinkle to the frown of a blameless life.

May 17. Natal Day of St. Pudentiana, the virgin, of the most illustrious descent, daughter of Pudens, and Disciple of the Holy Apostle St. Paul.

June 20. Natal Day of St. Novatus, son of the Blessed Prudens, brother of St. Timotheus the Elder and the Virgins of Christ, Pudentiana and Praxedes. All these were instructed in the faith by the Apostles. (1 ad 19 Maii. 'Vol. 1, p. 16.)

August 22. Natal Day (131) of St. Timotheus, son of St. Pudens, in the Via Oatiensis.

September 21. Natal Day of St. Praxedes, Virgin of Christ in

Rome.

November 26. Natal Day of St. Linus, first Bishop of Rome.

Such is the hallowed record of the illustrious royal British martyrs at Rome:

First to house and openly (P.131) protect the Apostles. First openly to teach the Christian faith in Rome. First to found the Christian Church at Rome.

First to suffer martyrdom for the Christian faith at Rome.

Therein lies the glory and the tragedy, the drama and the triumph of those born to the purple, who died in the purple for Christ; royal princes and princesses, born of a fearless race, con­verted in Britain by St. Joseph of Arimathea, the Apostle to the British, selected and ordained by St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to carry out His mission to the world and to be an unflickering light. Nobly the royal Silurians of Britain sealed their pledge to Christ with their lives; to the last unfalteringly proclaiming the deathless motto of their ancient Druidic ancestors - 'The Truth Against the World.'

It can truly be said that the first church at Rome was the British church, in the true meaning of the word British - 'Covenant People'.

Their Covenant in Christ was untarnished.

 CHAPTER XIII

DID THE VIRGIN MARY LIVE AND DIE IN BRITAIN?

In the (P.132) meantime what about Mary, the mother of Jesus?

Once again we are faced with drama as exciting as it is intriguing. Offhand, one feels tempted to ask the doubtful question, Is it true that the Virgin Mary finished her earthly travail in Britain? It seems almost incredible to give an affirmative answer. Circumstances, rather than evidence, would appear to be to the contrary. Yet when one stops to think one quickly realizes how little is generally known about her and how silent the scriptural record is concerning her existence following the Crucifixion of Jesus. One can easily be forgiven for thinking it is too wonderful to be true. Yet the information presented herein appears to provide sufficient evidence to discount any doubt. However, we are entitled to our own personal reservations. In this case, it could easily be one of those amazing examples in which truth is stranger than fiction.

Documentary testimony, by no means British, informs us with conviction that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was an occupant of the castaway boat that arrived at Marseilles with the others before mentioned. Other reports take up the story in Gaul, attesting to the fact that Mary was a member of the Josephian Mission that arrived in Britain A.D. 36. Testimony will be advanced by giving a special valid reaction for her being with Joseph, her uncle. Other writers take up the theme in Britain, referring to her presence at Avalon with Joseph, Mary Magdalene, the Bethany sisters, and others, as unconcernedly as thought it were a common matter of fact that should be well understood by all; her life, death, and final resting-place is described with a nonchalance that is breath-taking.

But, we ask, did not Jesus entrust His mother, with His dying breath, to the care of His beloved disciple, John?

Yes, He did.

The scriptural record tells that as Jesus hung on the Cross He tenderly committed His mother into John's safekeeping. John, accepting the charge led Mary away from the tragic scene before her Son expired.

Scripture states: 'From (P.133) that hour that disciple took her to his own.’ 1

(1 John 19:27, ‘eis ta idia’ (Lidia is possessive pronoun. The word ‘home’ is not on the text.)

As we ponder the text we can read in it a qualifying difference over what is commonly understood by general assumption. The point of importance in the text is the statement that John 'took her to his own'. Most critics have defined the text to imply that John took her as his own, thereby meaning he took Mary to his own home to remain there under his care.

This qualification does not stand up even under a casual study. At that time John, like all followers of 'The Way', was a hunted man. For many years to come, long after the death of Mary, he had no home. The intention, as stated in the text, seems quite plain. John took Mary 'to his own'. His own was the intimate disciples of Jesus, of whom Joseph was the protecting shield, and the Bethany sisters, whose home had been a common meeting place for Jesus and His disciples.

There is a world of difference between entrusting the care of a person 'to his own', and one requiring the care to be ever personal. The latter is restricted only to the individual. 'To his own' implies a broader meaning, which recorded events corroborate. If it did not it would indeed be strange that such an auspicious trust was not frequently mentioned by John in his writings during his extremely long lifetime. He died at the age of 101.

The facts are that at no time does John ever refer to Mary, nor even in his report of that first greater Easter morning. This omission of his trust is strange and the lack of reference to her by John could only mean one thing: the beloved Mary was not with him.

Jesus definitely entrusted His mother to the care of John but the request did not mean she was to be always in John's personal care as much as it meant that John would see her safely provided for. In this case, it seems quite reasonable to expect John to turn to Joseph of Arimathea for the necessary protection. We know how greatly his family responsibilities had increased from the time of the infamous trial. Since his lot was henceforth indubitably cast in with that of the apostles and disciples of Christ, there is every reason to believe that Joseph would continue his guardianship of the Nazarene family with a keen awareness. That all the faithful depended on the protection of Joseph while they remained at Jerusalem is well established. Therefore we can reasonably concur that John would entrust his charge to a safekeeping more secure none of the (P.134) faithful could guarantee their future with any degree than his own. In Those turbulent days, with persecution rampant, of assurance. At that time it is quite doubtful if John knew that his selected field of teaching at Ephesus would be less dangerous than the places in which other disciples were to labor.

It must be remembered that despite the hatred borne towards him by the Sanhedrin and possibly dissatisfaction in the local Roman Senate, Joseph remained in a position too powerful for either to contend with. Up to the time of his banishment from Judea, A.D. 36, he continued to retain his official status as a legis­lative member of the Sanhedrin, a Provincial Roman Senator, and Noblis Decurio. So important was this office considered within the Roman Empire that Cicero remarked ironically, it was easier to become a Senator of Rome than a Decurio in Pompeii.

Consequently, the intrepid Joseph could be the only choice.

There are several early documents that bear this out. One reads: 'St. John, while evangelizing Ephesus, made Joseph Paranymphos.'1 (Paranymphos means to be 'the Guardian’.)

(1 Magna Glastoniensis Tabula, at North Castle)

We read in pp. 42 and 71, the statement that St. John and St. Joseph were alone called 'Paranymphos' to the Blessed Virgin. The Cotton. MS. Titus also relates the same facts. British testimony is supplied by Capgrave.

From this we can safely judge that, in the first place, Joseph was the protector of all the faithful band, and later he was officially appointed by St. John to be the guardian of Mary, in which case the mother of Jesus could be ever in his custody and go wherever he went until the end, which the records affirm.

In the last account given of Mary in the New Testament, after the Ascension, we find her 'dwelling among the disciples in Jerusalem. This would indicate that Mary lived among the families of the faithful, moving from one to the other as safety required. Undoubtedly the watchful eyes of her uncle would know when a change should be made to safeguard her person. As we shall see in the stirring events that followed, Joseph, her Paranymphos, was faithful to the end when he personally laid her to rest, as he had formerly done with the tortured body of Jesus.

Capgrave, in Novo Legende Anglia, particularly informs us that John gave Mary into the trust of Joseph, under the peculiar title of being her 'brides man'; that he was present at her death, as were other apostles and disciples who came at her bidding to be by her side as Mary breathed her last. (‘Mag,ia Glastoniensis Tabula, at Naworth Castle.)

Many are (P.135) the places claimed for her resting place, particularly the one in more modem times by the Roman Catholic Church, at a spot near Jerusalem named the Chapel of the Dormiton. For many years the priests have pointed out to visitors a ledge, stating that was where Mary's Koimesis, falling asleep, took place. How­ ever, none of the places in the East have withstood the probe of investigation. None of the disciples mention her tomb. St. Jerome, recording the sacred places of the East during the fourth century, by a special commission of the Church at Rome, makes no reference to the resting place of Mary, Joseph, or many others, for no other reason than that he knew they were not interred in Judea, or in Rome.

We can be sure that Mary, of her own desire, would never have wished to be left all alone in the land that held for her nothing but danger and memories of the stark tragedy. The only happiness left to her on earth was in being associated with those who had been near and dear to her beloved Son. It is impossible to believe that Joseph, her uncle, and guardian, would have left her alone in Judea at the mercy of the hateful Sanhedrin. Equally so, it is impossible to believe that the Sanhedrin, when it expelled all the faithful from Judea in the exodus of A.D. 36, would have allowed Mary to remain. Thus it is only reasonable to believe that the bond of association that held Joseph with Mary and her family since the childhood of Jesus, would be a natural continuance. It gives strength to the documentary evidence which definitely states that Mary remained with Joseph and lived out her life among her dearest friends. Only among them would one expect to find her.

On the other hand, if Mary had wished for her remains to be taken back to Judea for burial, St. Jerome would have known and recorded the fact. He would never have overlooked the important memorial of one held in such affectionate memory, who years later was to become so glorified by the Roman Catholic Church, as to almost overshadow the glory of her Son, Jesus. The Virgin Mary was deified by the Roman Catholic Church in A.D. 600. She was never deified by the British Church. Christ alone, from the begin­ning and to date, is the only deity of the Church.

Further contradiction is given to the claim that Mary remained and died in Jerusalem, in the Glastonbury tradition of 'Our Lady's Dowry', bequeathed to her by Jesus Himself, the 'Dowry' being the little wattle temple Jesus built with His own hands at Avalon, wherein He communed with the Father, and which He dedicated to the affectionate memory of His mother. It was to this hallowed (P.136) spot that Joseph led Mary with his missionary band when they first embarked in Britain. When Joseph built the first church at Avalon he continued the dedication, as did St. David when he erected the first stone church, A.D. 540, over the hallowed wattle temple of Christ, which he had encased in lead for preservation. These points are important to know because the dedications of churches to the Virgin Mary began during the twelfth century, the memorial to Mary at Avalon being the only exception. It could only have been so for a very special reason, particularly since the British never officially deified Mary. It had to be for a specific record.

Actually, there is far more substantial evidence to support the Marion residence and demise in Britain than there is to prove Jesus once dwelt on the Sacred Isle, and this is in spite of the strength of opinion. Nevertheless, the antagonists of the Marion story base their denials on the premise that Jesus was never in Britain; in consequence, they claim He could not have erected the wattle temple for her 'dowry'. How the critics can claim intelligence in reasoning to this conclusion is not understandable. The fact is that neither the absence nor the presence of Jesus in Britain has a bearing on the subject. Mary's going to Britain with Joseph was a matter of valid circumstances. The atheistical mind jeers in its final challenge, 'Why should Jesus go to Britain? Why should He go to a barbarian country?' The bigotry of the critic is always the same. They never provide an answer to substantiate their challenge. Never once have they attempted to fill in the eighteen-year gap in the life of Jesus, from the age of twelve when He confounded the Pharisees in the Temple, to the age of thirty when He began His ministry. The destructive critic never assumes that what he does not know about could not have happened. Their minds are cluttered with intellectual weeds.

Let us dwell for a moment on those silent years of Jesus, and see if we can rationalize the circumstances of His life to fit into this unique relationship in Britain, 'twixt mother and Son.

Jesus is frequently referred to as the Carpenter of Nazareth. Being a carpenter, as the Bible infers He was, He must have served an apprenticeship, which likely began at an early age. Apprentice­ ships in Europe and Britain, well within the last one hundred years, often began at the age of fourteen. How long He worked plying His trade is unknown, but we can safely assume that, being aware of His destiny, He must have abandoned His trade early in order to prepare Himself for His great Mission. This being the case He would naturally (P.137) be attracted to the foremost centers of religious wisdom of His day. One may rightfully inquire why He did not study under the Rabbis of the Sanhedrin. Jesus provides the answer in the contemptuous manner in which He accused them of 'know­ing not the Law'.

The facts are readily conceived.

The Pharisees were a sect founded by Pharez, who created the School of Predestination. The Sadducees were founded by Sadoc, a disciple of Antigonus Scohaeus, known as the School of Infidels. These are the fanatics who ruled the Sanhedrin of Jesus's day­ Those whom Jesus called 'whited sepulchers', full of dead men's bones. He could find no wisdom among them. Where He could find wisdom there He would be certain to go.

The Rig-Vedas, the ancient religious books of India, was written 1 500 B.C. and the Druidic religion antedated that of India, circa I 800 B.C. The wise men of India record the visit of Jesus among them, stating that He dwelt in Nepal. They also make several references to Britain as a great centre of religious learning; there­ fore, on several scores, Jesus would know of the eminence of Druidic religious wisdom. He would know from His uncle Joseph, who frequently visited Britain on his tin-mining excursions. It was popular knowledge among the Greeks and Romans who heavily populated Judea. He would know from His association with the wise men of India and, if tradition is true, He would know from personal contact with Britain, made when His uncle Joseph took Him on his seafaring trips to that country. Eastern and Western traditions claim Jesus completed His studies in Britain. This could be possible. At that time the Druidic universities were the largest in the world, both in size and in attendance, with a listing of sixty large universities and an average attendance of over sixty thousand students. 1 This is 

(1 Gildas, Cottoning MS.; also Morgan, History of Britain, pp. 62-65)

affirmed by Greek and Roman testimony which states that the noble and wealthy of Rome and other nations sent their children to study law, science, and religion in Britain.

One can well pause to grasp the fact that ancient Britain then had acquired a stature with institutions of learning and attendance rivaling that of the U.S.A. today, in its principal universities. Consequently, one is not left in doubt as to why Jesus might have elected to have studied in Britain.

That Jesus had been absent from Judea for more than an ordinary length of time is proven by the tax incident related in Matthew 17: 24. The tax collector accosts Jesus and Peter on their (‘ Gildas, Cottonian MS.; also Morgan, History of Britain, pp. 62-65.) arrival at Capemaum, and (P.138) asks Peter if his Master has paid Hia tax, indicating Jesus to be a stranger subject to tax. Actually, Jesus did not need to pay taxes. Capemaum was His domicile, to which the family of Jesus had moved from Nazareth early in His life. Jesus put up no argument, advising Peter to pay the 'stranger' tax, thereby inferring He had been absent for so long that He could be regarded as a stranger. By this act, Jesus admits an absence of years from His homeland.

Tradition and written testimony assert that Jesus did abide in Britain, and whilst there created a Temple of loving testimony to His mother. This was 'Our Lady's Dowry', to which Joseph, the 'Paranymphos' -'Bridesman', led her and where she lived her life out in its sanctity. A wealth of ancient writers, ecclesiastical and secular, affirms it. For over a thousand years it was commonly spoken of as 'the church built not by human art'. St. Augustine, during his presence in Britain, was quite familiar with the facts and the existence at that time of this hallowed memorial. Of it, he writes with delight and at great length to Pope Gregory, in a letter still extant. He writes with devout acceptance, a part of which reads as follows, from Epistolae ad Gregorium Papam ;

'In the Western confines of Britain, there is a certain royal island of large extent, surrounded by water, abounding in all the beauties of nature and necessaries of life. In it the first Neophites of Catholic Law, God beforehand acquainting them, found a church constructed by no human art, but divinely constructed, or by the hands of Christ Himself, for the salvation of His people. The Almighty has made it manifest by many miracles and mysterious visitations that He continues to watch over it as sacred to Himself, and to Mary, the Mother of God.'

In this brief extract, St. Augustine assembles and declares all the salient facts. He identifies it as the 'royal island, Silurian, where the first disciples of Christ, declaring the Catholic law (Universal Law, not Roman) found a sacred Temple built by the hands of Jesus, and that it was held sacred to Himself and the memory of Mary. This alone is trenchant testimony and written nearly six hundred years after Joseph, Mary and the Bethany group arrived in Britain.

The hallowed sanctity of 'Our Lady's Dowry' is descriptively corroborated by the Saxon historian, William of Malmesbury, who wrote his outstanding works in the twelfth century. He wrote two histories covering the religious subject matter related herein. His last work, De Antiquitate Glastoniae, is (P.139) the most authentic. He was specially commissioned by the Abbot of Glastonbury to write the complete history of the famous church from its beginning at Avalon and was invited to live at the Abbey where he had full access to the world-famous Glastonbury Library. Therein were contained all the original documents from Druidic times, consequently, he wrote his history with the benefit of first-hand material, long before the great fire completely destroyed the Abbey and its wonderful library, then considered one of the largest in the world. Consequently, his historic literary work completed at the Abbey, under his commission, is probably the most precious document of the British Christian Church in existence. There are other outstanding works on this subject one can refer to with profit, such as De origine Ecclesiae Britannicae by Elvan of Avalon, an illustrious British scholar who had been educated in the School of Joseph of Arimathea at Avalon,

A.D. 180. He is referred to by the eminent Roman Catholic ecclesiastic Pitsaeus, and Cardinal Baronius. Relat. Hist. de rebus Anglicis Act, by Pitsaeus; Capgrave's De Sancto Joseph at Arama­ thia; The Magna Tabula of Glastonbury, at Haworth Castle; Hearne's John of Glastonbury; Bede's Ecclesiastical History; Gildas and Geoffrey of Monmouth, among many others, particularly Glastonbury, The Mother of Saints, by the Rev. L. Smithett Lewis; Hewin's Royal Saints of Britain; Rees' Welsh Saints, of our own times.

The most interesting reading in William of Malmesbury's great work as it concerns this story is where he recites the authentic, well-known story of St. David, A.n. 540, when he came to Glaston­ bury to rededicate the new church and his mind was changed by a dream. During the first night, St. David (P.139) slept at Glastonbury, the vision of Jesus appeared to him in a dream telling David that rededication was unnecessary, saying, 'He Himself had long before dedicated the church in honor of His mother and the sacrament ought not to be profaned by human repetition.' St. David obeyed and the original consecration to Mary stood.

 Chapter XIII - Continued

In order to perpetuate the historic beginnings of the church and that no mistake should be made at any future time as to its exact site, St. David, A.D. 546, erected a new stone addition to the old church, over the grave of Mary, and enclosed the original wattle church encased in lead. He caused a pillar to be erected on the site with a brass tablet bearing a record to the fact. At the time of the Dissolution, under the edict of Henry VIII, it was still standing. The edict robbed this ancient church, as well as many (P.140) others, of its ancient privileges, and later, during the Puritan desecrations, the historic Abbey fell into disrepair and decay. Fortunately, the brass tablet was recovered in an excellent state of preservation and, according to Archbishop Ussher, 1639, it was treasured in the possession of Sir D. Thornas Hugo at Wells. Later it came into the possession of Sir Henry Spelman, who describes it in his book Concilia. The tablet reads:'The first ground of God, the first ground of the saints in Britain, the rise and foundation of all religion in Britain and the burial place of the Saints.' Dean Armitage Robinson excavated the base of the original pillar in 1921. Thus the memorial erected by St. David is today preserved for all to see and to read.The Rev. Lionel Smithett Lewis, Vicar of Glastonbury, was indefatigable in his research to prove the validity of Jesus and His  Mary residing in Britain, and painstaking in disclosing the history of Glastonbury from its saintly beginnings at Avalon. In the spring of I953 he wrote to the writer stating that in the past few years, he had recovered much more authoritative information from rare old documents he had discovered concerning Jesus and Mary that would prove revelatory on the subject, his one wish then being that he would be privileged to publish this, his last and best work before he died. He stated, once and for all, that he would prove the validity of the old traditions with incontestable evidence. Unfortunately, he died suddenly, a week after writing to the writer, at the age of eighty-six. (P.140) However, his widow, co-helper and Curate, the Rev. Stacey, have carried out his last request. 1(1 This is now published under the title St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, by James Clarke, and is available from Covenant Books.)This redoubtable researcher for the truth points out the unique place of honor occupied by the Virgin Mary in the Roman Catholic Church from earliest times to date, and states :

'No one better than they (the Roman Catholic Church) know the facts of her (Mary's) life, and no one better than they espouse them. And over the ages, the holy ground at Glastonbury has been constantly referred to by them as "Our Lady's Dowry''. As such it has always been recognized by the Roman Catholic Sisterhood, who never ceased to pray daily for this hallowed spot at Glastonbury- Our Lady's Dowry.'This was the spotless legacy Jesus left to His mother Mary, the inheritance (P.141) bequeathed and built by His own hands and sanctified by his prayers. It was here that Joseph finally laid her to rest, A.D. 48, while the Claudian campaign was still raging in Britain, four years before the historic events began to happen at Rome at the Palatium Britannicum.From the earliest times, ecclesiastical and secular chronicles substantiate the story, long before the Roman Catholic Church was founded. It has been carried on through the ages and, apparently, more particularly by the Roman Catholic Church, to present times, as the Rev. Lewis relates above, not only in England but also in France. E. Hutton, in his Highways and Byways in Wiltshire, states that it is so referred to in Italy at Assisi. An old English lady, Mrs. Cottrell, of Penwerris, Cornwall, educated at a French convent in Alexandria conducted by nuns who were members of the old French nobility, was taught that St. Joseph of Arimathea took the Blessed Virgin with him to Britain and that she died there. Why would this story persist though the ages if it were not true? The fact that modem Roman Catholics continue to espouse it is rather amazing under present circumstances. Why should they declare the historic facts and daily pray for her resting place at Glastonbury as 'Our Lady's Dowry' and at the same time show pilgrims and sightseers the stone ledge in the Chapel of the Dormitron? Then, nearly nineteen hundred years after, they decided her death to have been a physical translation so celebrated by the Roman Catholics throughout the world in declaring 1954 as the Marion year. To Christians, other than Roman Catholics this intense glorification of the Virgin Mary seems strange. It is s great in the South American countries that this continent is commonly named 'The Land of Mary'.The Christian faith of the Celto-Anglo-Saxon Protestants remains firmly entrenched in its original fountain-head-Jesus Christ. The Virgin Mary is regarded as but an instrument in the Divine pur­pose. There is no passage in the Bible that shows that Jesus regarded His mother as Divine. On the occasion when His disciples told Him that His mother and brethren were present, He asks, 'Who is My mother', and gives the explanation. Naturally, He regarded her dearly, as proven by the dedication and heritage He bequeathed to her at Avalon and, consequently, any evidence brought forth to substantiate her life and death in Britain is of prime interest to all Christians.When printing was invented, the first book to come off the press was the Bible, and then Wynkyn De Warde printed the life story of St. Joseph. At (P.142) the same time Pynson printed two accounts of the Arimathean story, copying from old documents, one of which carried these interesting lines : ‘Now here how Joseph came into Englande; But at that tyme it was called Brytayne.Then XV yere with our lady, as I understand. Joseph wayted styli to serve hyr he was fayne.’

The intriguing feature of this verse is contained within the last two lines. The chronicler states that Joseph came to Britain, then clearly informs us that Mary was with him and that he cared for her for fifteen years. This !ength of time closely approximates the number of years Joseph was Mary's Paranymphos, or Bridesman, from A.D. 32 to A.D. 48. The old ecclesiastical records of Glaston­ bury, confirmed by many other ancient writers, state that the Virgin Mary departed this life in the year A.D. 48. Coinciding with this, the Abbey records officially declare that St. Mary's Chapel, erected by St. David, was built over her remains.

Melchinus, a native of Avalonia, known also as Maelgwyn, Celtic bard, historian, and philosopher, who lived circa A.D. 450, writes :

'Ye ealde chyrche was built over the grave of the Blessed Mary.'

William of Mahnesbury wrote in his Acts of the Kings of the English (bk. 1, ch. 2):

'The church of which we are speaking (Glastonbury) from its antiquity called by the Angles, by way of distinction, "Ealde Chiche", that is the "Old Church" of wattle work at first, savored somewhat of heavenly sanctity even from its very foundation, and exhaled it over the whole country, claiming superior reverence, Though the structure was mean. Men of that province had no oath more frequent, or more sacred than to swear by the Old Church, fearing the swiftest vengeance on their perjury in this respect. In the meantime, it is clear that the depository of so many saints may be deservedly called a heavenly sanctuary upon the earth . . . who there more especially chose to await the day of resurrection under the protection of the Mother of God.'

In these words, the writer shows the deep veneration in which St. Mary's Church of Glastonbury was held by all, in the fact that they swore the most fervent oath by the Old Church just as we today, in court, (P.143) swear our oath on the Holy Bible. The plain meaning in the last passage is that the Blessed Mary was buried there.

From the time of her death and for centuries after we are constantly confronted with the desire of holy men and women, disciples, pilgrims, kings, and princes from all parts of the world who sought interment in the ancient cemetery at Glastonbury to, as phrased, 'await the day of resurrection under the protection of the Mother of God'.

The list of recorded names, still extant, buried at Glastonbury, is the most illustrious and unique, superior to any other cemetery in the world. This in itself is the greatest testimony to the sacred remains enclosed in that hallowed ground. This ground has always, from time immemorial, been called 'the holiest ground on earth'; 'the most hallowed spot in Christendom'; 'the burial place of the Saints'.

The mass of testimony supporting this historic incident appears to overwhelm any argument to the contrary. One finds it difficult to believe all this is but a prayerful tribute to a legend without substance. Where there is smoke there is always fire.

There are other historic facts to be considered to support this amazing record that can be seen to this day, as irrefutable evidence. One of the most unique monuments that remain from olden times is the ancient stone that silently stares down on the beholder from the standing outside wall of the Lady Chapel. It bears but two names, 'Jesus- Maria.' This time- and weather-worn tablet has puzzled scholars for centuries. Devoid of any other inscription it has ever been recognized as a significant marking, with a definite meaning.

It is commonly asked, 'Why was it put there?' 'What does it mean?'

It has all the hallmarks of a very ancient piece of masonry preserved from the original stone church and replaced in the second new stone church after the disastrous fire of A.D. 1184.

The late Rev. L. Smithett Lewis, (P.143) Vicar of Glastonbury, declared that the meaning of Thornoe's two noble names is no riddle. 

It 1 repre­sents the signature of Jesus, naming the Dowry

(1 St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, p. 59.)

He had provided for His mother Mary. Truly an amazing document in stone, reveal­ ing for all time and to all peoples the ancient title to this hallowed spot at Avalon.

Centuries before Avalon was renamed Glastonbury, by the Saxons, two (144) names that were frequently found documented in the writings of the old scribes, definitely referred to something of great importance. Usually, no explanation was given, indicating that titles and places were as commonly known to the people of those years as today. Confederation is known to Canadians and the Statue of Liberty to Americans. To the Priesthood and historians of those enthralling years, the two names employed designating the par­ticular place were 'Secretum Domini' and 'Domus Dei'. The first title means 'The Secret of Our Lord' and the second, 'The House, or Home of God'. The explanation given is that the little wattle Temple was the House, or Home of God, because therein He dwelt, and the Secret of the Lord was the Dowry and dedication of the same to His mother. In substance, the ancient stone registers the record and site of 'Our Lady's Dowry'.

This is not myth, legend, or unsupported tradition. The title is officially recorded in the ancient names in the famous Domesday Book, A.D. I 086, which reads as follows :

‘The Domun Dei, in the great monastery of Glastonbury, called The Secret of Our Lord. This Glastonbury Church possesses in its own Ville XII hides of land which has never paid tax.”1

Not only is this particular evidence officially recorded in the historic Domesday Book, it also corroborates the original deed of the twelve hides of land - 1,920 acres - and its tax-free grant as given to St. Joseph of Arimathea and his companions by the British Prince Arviragus of the royal Silurians when the Bethany group first landed in Britain.

It should be borne in mind that the date given above, A.D. 1086, is not the date on which the Domesday Book was first written. It represents the date on which the Norman King William had all the historic events recorded within the ancient book rechecked and brought up to date (P.144) to his reign as King of England. The original date and name of this great book is The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 2 

(1 ‘Domesday Survey Folio, p. 249b. 

2 Parts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle overlapThe period of the Domesday Book. The four manuscripts ending with the following dates: A- 1001, B-977, C-1066, and D-079. The later Laud MS. Ends in 1154.  Domesday Book could be a confusion of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.)

preserved in the British Museum. It was created by King Alfred the Great, A.D. 871, who commissioned monastic scholars to trans­ late into the Saxon tongue the ancient British history from documentary evidence. The British historians Capgrave and Kemble both wrote that Alfred was given great credit in history for creating laws, institutions (P.145), and reform. What he did was restore and enforce the ancient British practices of law, order, and religion in existence many centuries before his time. This is borne out by an old record which states that Alfred ordered the ancient laws of Dunwal to be codified into the Saxon tongue. Dunwal, or Dunwallon, was the greatest of early British kings and certainly the greatest lawmaker in British history.1  He is recorded as Dunwal, the Law Maker. He lived and reigned in 500 B.C.

(1 E. O. Gordon, Prehistoric London, pp. 101-104; Morgan, History of Britain, pp. 42-46.)

However, one cannot help but be impressed by the act of William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, hostile to the Saxons by his claim to priority to the British crown, in recognizing the validity of the record of this ancient church and causing the facts to remain perpetuated in the famous historic Domesday Book. Not only this, but he openly declared his respect for the sacred Abbey by endow­ing the church with another Charter, and his royal protection.

Over fifty years before this act of William, another foreign invader, the Danish King Canute, had journeyed to Glastonbury Abbey, 'with a great entourage', and knelt beside the tomb of the former British king, Edmund Ironside, whom he so greatly admired. The historic record is lavish in detail, telling us that the pilgrimage of the Danish king was conducted in splendor, and with 'peacock feathers'. He bestowed on the church munificent gifts and gave it to his enlarged Charter, A.D. 1032.

It is an astonishing fact to remember that, despite the bitter determination of the Roman Empire to persecute and uproot and destroy everything that was Druidic and Christian in Britain, despite the pillaging and (P.145) ravishing of monasteries, churches and libraries by Roman, Saxon, Dane and Norman, not once was the sanctity of the Abbey defiled. (P.145) Excepting the Romans, the leaders of the Saxons, Danes, and Normans held the old church in awed respect. Under pain of punishment, they forbade any of the soldiers to defile its sacred precincts or molest its occupants. Sad as it is to relate, what defilement this hallowed British institution was to suffer was done by its own countrymen and a royal descendant of the famed Christian warrior, Arviragus, none other than King Henry VIII. This despotic monarch not only stole all its precious possessions but robbed it of all its ancient privileges and brutally mur­dered the last Abbot.

Abbot Whiting was hung, his body quartered and his head stuck on the spike of the church gate, and his other parts stuck elsewhere, (P.146) a dire threat to all who dared challenge the king's despotic will. The Puritans performed the final desecration.

Strange as it may seem, when we consider the unbridled despoil­ing during the Dissolution, A.D. 1539-40, and the fanaticism of Cromwell's Puritans, A.D. 1653-58, the ancient tablet escaped mutilation.

No church in the world has been favored so many times by Royal Charters as Glastonbury Abbey. Each regal seal declared its sacred historic beginning, attesting to the worldwide reverence held for this sacred memorial to Christ, each a magnificent testi­monial to the great truth.

We know that this ancient tablet bearing those two's immortal names was hewn by the builders of the first stone church, replacing the one built by Joseph and his saintly companions.

Five years before Mary died she saw the shadow of the persecuting hand of Rome which cast its baleful maw over the Sacred Isle of Britain in the Claudian invasion of A.D. 43. This time the Bethany family viewed the rising tide of Roman oppression from behind the fearless barricade of British Christian faith and valour. She saw the British army led by its British Pendragons, Guiderius, Caractacus and Arviragus, meet the Roman challenge with the greatest Christian crusading spirit in history, one that has never since been repeated. She heard the clarion call of the British Arch Priests exhort the people to rise in the defense of righteousness. Like the Levites of old, the British Arch Priests, according to ancient Druidic custom, marched in the front ranks of the soldiery, without arms. On their white-shirted breasts, they wore the ancient sign of Aaron, the three golden rods, (P.146) and the insignia of the Trinity. Meeting the foe with their deathless slogan, 'The Truth against the world', they were, as even Julius Caesar had said of them a century before, 'careless of death’. 1

(1 ETacitus also, Agricola xi: ‘The Britons, however, not yet enfeebled by a long peace, are possessed of superior courage.’)

In all probability, Mary saw the Christian Mission rise at Avalon, like a fruitful tree, with converts pouring in in an ever-rising wave, and saw them, as well as members of the original Bethany band that came with Joseph to Britain, stem out into other lands to preach the Word, and in many cases die the death of martyrs. At Avalon, she would frequently meet the beloved in Christ as they convened with Joseph and his companions to plan their crusading campaigns to Christianize the Gentile world. What a glorious privilege was hers!

It is interesting (P.147) to know that this sacred burial spot that was to inter a multitude of holy men, kings, and martyrs, has been called the British Vale of Jehoshaphat. 1 To the Biblical people the Valley of 

(1 Lewis, St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, p. 44 (6th edition).)

Jehoshaphat was the valley of final judgment. What is more interesting is that Avalon was earlier known as Avilion. This Celtic word has the same word meaning as Jehoshaphat- 'The Isle of Departed Spirits.'

With all the mass of tradition and documentary evidence from Gaul, Brittany, Normandy, Spain, Italy, Constantinople, Rome and Britain, and the great number of name places associating Mary and Jesus with Britain, one feels in his heart it is not possible for it all to be only a beautiful legend without foundation.

How tenderly and lovingly the inspired British poet William Blake 1757-1827, asks the appealing question in his magnificent poem, 'Jerusalem', so popularly sung in Christian communities.

JERUSALEM

And did Those feet in ancient time 

Walk upon England's mountains green? 

And was the Holy Lamb of God

On England's pleasant pastures seen? 

And did the Countenance Divine 

Shine forth upon our clouded hills? 

And was Jerusalem builded here 

Among Thosedark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold! 

Bring me my arrows of desire!

Bring me my spear!

0 clouds unfold! 

Bring me my chariot of fire!

I will not cease from mental fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, 

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England's green and pleasant land.

William Blake was born in London in 1757, but was familiar with the stories associated with Glastonbury and steeped in its ancient history. He expressed his heartfelt prayers for this, 'the Holiest Ground on Earth', in his beautiful poem, which immedi­ately became adopted as a hymn, familiar to us all.1

(‘Lewis, St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, p. 44 (6th edition))

This hymn (P.148) was a great favorite of King George V. On special occasions of national significance he would ask for it to be played and sung. He was familiar with the historic story. The Royal Library contains many ancient treasures, including the extraordi­nary genealogical chart showing the British royal line to be in direct descent from ln the royal kings of ancient Israel.

 CHAPTER XIV

SIMON ZELOTES MARTYRED IN BRITAIN DURING THE BOADICEAN WAR

Following the (P.149) defeat of Caractacus at Clune, A.D. 52, and his exile at Rome, Arviragus speedily reorganized the Silurian forces, striking back at the Romans with a fury that exceeded any former combat. Ostorius Scapula was still in command of the Roman armies in Britain, but his forces had become greatly demoralized by the succession of defeats and the terrible savagery of the British onslaughts. In the year A.D. 53 Scapula suffered a staggering defeat at Caervelin, near Caerleon. Discouraged and broken in health from the years of harrowing warfare, he petitioned Nero to be relieved of his command and return to Rome. This was the year Nero had succeeded Claudius as Emperor of the Romans. Nero accepted Scapula's resignation and he was immedi­ately replaced by Aulus Didius, 1 also known as Didius Gallus. Didius founded the city of Cardiff, which is still known by the Welsh as Caer Dydd - 'The Castle of Didius'.

It is interesting to learn that one of the first acts of Didius on arriving in Britain was to depose Cartismandua, Queen of the Brigantes, whom they thoroughly distrusted. Her treacherous be­trayal of her cousin, Caractacus, had caused her to be held in disdainful contempt by both the Romans and the British. As it was, her own clan had expelled her for adultery. 2

Didius was impotent in dealing with Arviragus on the field of battle. He suffered repulse and defeat in rapid succession. After a brief command he was replaced by Veranius, A.D. 57. The latter had no better success, in fact worse. Arviragus drove the Roman forces behind the Plautian wall of fortresses and bottled up Veranius at Verulam. Matters in the field had become so bad for Roman arms that, in desperation, Nero ordered huge reinforce­ments to be rushed to Britain, under the superlative relieving com­mand of Suetonius Paulinus,3 then regarded as the ablest tactician in the Roman army. 

(1 Tacitus, Annals, 12:40.

2 Tacitus, Annals, 3:45.

3 Tacitus, Annals, 14:38-39.)

He took with him the Second Augusta Legions and the famous Ninth, Fourteenth and Twentieth Legions who carried the (150) victorious legend 'Vicesima, Valens, Victrix'. They were unequal to the occasion. Disaster (P.150) continued as the British drove the enemy before them, asking no quarter and giving none.

Tacitus bitterly expresses the feeling at Rome which required their most capable generals and finest legions to combat the 'bar­ barous' British. He writes :

'In Britain, after the captivity of Caradoc, the Romans were repeatedly defeated and put to rout by the single state of the Silures alone.'1

The clemency shown by the royal British captives at Rome by Emperor Claudius did not mollify the Silurians in the least. Men, women, and priests without discrimination took the field to avenge and arrest the continued tyrannical persecution of Roman savagery. Ruefully Tacitus observes: 'The race of the Silures are not to be changed by clemency or severity.'2

Mercilessly they fought pitched battles, stormed forts and Roman encampments, putting Roman settlements to the torch. The record reads: 'The plains and streets ran with Roman blood.'

The more the Romans were defeated the more excessive were their vicious depredations. The culminating climax came under orders from Suetonius Paulinus, to carry out a scorched-earth program, to destroy everything in their path, and particularly to exterminate the seats of Christian learning and all therein. This eventuated in the horrible Menai massacre.3 Entering the community 

(1 Tacitus, Annals, 12:38-39.

2 ibid., 2:24.

3 ibid., 14:29-31)

under the pretext of peace, with concealed arms, the Roman soldiery suddenly set upon the inhabitants. Thousands of unsus­pecting priests and priestesses and a multitude of people were treacherously butchered in cold blood, men, women, and children. The aged and the infants were alike hewn down without mercy.

According to Tacitus, this horrible campaign raged at its worst from A.D. 59 to 62.

In the year A.D. 60 the avaricious Roman Prefect, Catus Decianus, had broken the Claudian Treaty with the Iceni, on a false pretext fomented by Seneca, the Stoic philosopher, who at that time held great influence with Nero. Seneca, while renowned as a philosopher of sorts, was better known as the wealthiest man in Rome, who had obtained his vast fortune by trickery and promoting usurious loans. He had advanced the huge sum of ten million dollars to Prasutagus on the security of the public buildings of the Iceni. Prasutagus, the king, was also an extremely wealthy man. Tacitus (P.151) says his wealth was rated in Rome as being fantastic. However, the financial transaction was a private matter between Seneca, Prasutagus, and his family. Having no political involvement it was outside the authority of Decianus. Nevertheless, Seneca conspired with Decianus to act on the recent death of Prasutagus, completely disregarding the valid claims of the estate. The Roman Prefect needed no second invitation to satiate his greed from the pillage and plunder that would follow. This act of treachery was made more simple for Decianus by reason of an existing Peace Treaty made between Rome, the Iceni, and the Coraniaid. This political agreement permitted the Romans to enjoy freedom of travel and residence in the domain of these two British clans. This privilege provided an opportunity for Decianus to take the populace by surprise. He struck suddenly with violence, inciting his soldiers to unwarranted brutalities which appalled and drew severe censure from the Senate and Roman writers.

They sacked the British Palaces and public buildings of all treasure, stripping the Iceni nobles of their estates and personal wealth formerly guaranteed to them by the Claudian Pact. To add to the infamy of the act, licentiousness ran rampant.1  The two daughters of Queen Boadicea, widow of Prasutagus, were publicly raped and Boadicea was whipped. The Menai massacre, already referred to, followed closely on the heels of this bestiality. These combined monstrosities infuriated the British beyond restraint. 2 

(1 Tacitus, Annals, 14:31.

2 Tacitus, Annals, 14:31-35.)

Their anger swept the length and breadth of the Island with the frenzy of a vendetta. The Roman writers graphically reported that the Roman generals and soldiery alike were stunned by the avalanche of British reaction. In fright the Romans confined their forces within their own encampments.

Despite the fact that the Iceni and the Coraniaid were branded as traitors for deserting Caractacus during the Claudian campaign, these atrocities brought the British clans together in a solid phalanx. The British Queen Boadicea, inflamed by the personal indignities perpetrated upon her daughters and her people, rose in militant defiance to avenge the insults. Her warriors swarmed around her eager for the fray. She was to lead them into battle with a devas­tating offensive that has caused her name to flame throughout British history as the finest embodiment of Britannia.

To this day Britannia is displayed on the face of British coins in the form of a woman.

Boadicea, the British name meaning Victoria, was a cousin of

Claudius Pudens, thus (P.152) closely related to both Caractacus and Arviragus.

To Arviragus Boadicea sent Venusius, the Pendragon of the Iceni, in an urgent appeal, offering to place the combined forces of the Iceni and Coraniaid under his command. Whether he accepted or not is unstated, probably because the historic record is overshadowed by the brilliant stature of the valorous Queen. We do know that her own Pendragon, Venusius, led the two warrior tribes, but only as second-in-command. Boadicea was Commander­ in-Chief and led her warriors personally into battle. Boadicea was a born warrior chieftainess, undoubtedly the greatest warrior Queen in all history. She had acquired her name, Victoria, by her valor in former military campaigns. Boadicea had always despised the Romans, now she hated them with a chilling bitterness that hungered for vengeance. Historians tell us that in appearance she was a most dramatic, striking figure. The Roman writer, Dion Cassius, states :

'Boadicea ascended the general's tribunal; her stature exceeded the ordinary height of women; her appearance itself carried terror; her aspect was calm and collected, but her voice became deep and pitiless. Her hair falling in long golden tresses as low as her hips were collected around her forehead by a golden coronet; she wore a tartan dress fitting closely to the bosom, but below the waist expanding in loose folds as a gown; over it was a chlamys, or military cloak. In her hand she bore a spear. 1

(1 Xiphilinus Excerpta, p. 176.)

Such is the portrait of the majestic Boadicea, as she stood surrounded by the 120,000 warriors who had responded to her blazing call for vengeance. To them, she delivered an address as challenging and to be as immortal as the one given by her famous relative, Caractacus, before the Roman Senate. Dion Cassius records this address as follows :

'I appeal to thee a woman. I rule not, like Nitocris, over beasts of burden, as are the effeminate nations of the East, nor like Semiramis, over tradesmen and traffickers, nor like the man­ woman Nero, over slaves and eunuchs - such is the precious knowledge these foreigners introduce among us - but I rule over Britons, little versed in craft and diplomacy, but born and trained in the game of war, men who, in the cause of liberty stake down their lives, the lives of their wives and children, their lands and property. Queen (P.153) of such a race, I implore thine aid for freedom, for victory over enemies infamous for the wantonness of the wrongs they inflict, for their perversion of justice, for their con­ tempt of religion, for their insatiable greed; a people that revel in unmanly pleasures, whose affections are more to be dreaded and abhorred than their enmity. Never let a foreigner bear rule over me or these my countrymen; never let slavery reign on this island. Be Thou forever O goddess of manhood and victory, sovereign and Queen in Britain.'

Having exhorted her followers, the famous Boadicean war began in A.D. 60. Always in the fore, fiercely inspiring her warriors, Boadicea, with her two daughters riding beside her, led her armies from one devastating victory to another, the scythes on the wheels of her war chariot slashing deep into the enemy lines. Colchester was the first to fall. The Temple, fortified by Roman veterans, held out for two days; then disaster overtook them. The Ninth Legion, under Petilius Cerealis, was slaughtered at Coggeshall. Cerealis and a few horsemen were the only ones to escape. The Roman head­ quarters at Verulam was burnt to the ground and its defenders were cut to pieces. It seems as Though nothing could stop the furious on­slaughts of the British Queen. The Roman populace fled in terror on news of her armed approach. Tacitus states that one Roman Legion that dared to stand its ground was cut down to the last man.1 Her forces had by then swelled to the enormous number of 230,000, clearly

(1 Tacitus, Annals, 14:32.)

indicating that more than the two clans were supporting her punitive cause. It can be fairly assumed that the Silurians, under Arviragus, were participating in this concerted action since the field of battle had extended into their territory. We do know that the powerful Trinobantes, the warlike clan with whom Julius Caesar signed the Peace Pact of September 26th, 54 B.C., had cast in their lot with Boadicea.

Tacitus declared that the Silurian state alone had inflicted one defeat after another upon the Romans. Now with at least four of the most powerful warrior clans in Britain massed together under the one standard of baneful vengeance to the number of more than a quarter of a million, there is no need for wonder why the Romans were swept ruthlessly before them. Never before had the British been so deeply wounded and angered by the violation of their native privileges, their religious institutions, and personal dignity. The desecration charged them with superhuman determination to

(Tacitus, Annals, 14:32.)

avenge. Tacitus (P.154) reports that over 80,000 Roman soldiers perished in these sanguinary battles, and Catus Decianus, terrified by the violence of the conflict and the horrible carnage he witnessed, took flight, escaping into Gaul.

The greatest single carnage followed the attack on London. At that time it was a populous city, the trade center in Britain for international commerce. It was filled with Roman merchants and was protected by a powerful Roman garrison.

The assault and destruction of the city is one of the most appalling war records one can read. It was little short of a massacre and shows how intense the merciless British fury, steeped in a hatred so unnatural to the general British character. Some may consider the quarterless slaughter performed by the British in the Boadiccan campaign as unwarranted and diametrically opposed to Christian principles. One should remember, however, that since the Claudian Edict for Christian extermination, beginning A.D. 42, up to and including the Boadicean war of A.D. 60, the people and the land of Britain had suffered persecution at the hands of the Romans for eighteen years which no other nation had experienced. Their towns, religious institutions, libraries, and seats of cultural learning had been burnt to the ground with a barbaric insolence unequaled. The defenseless had been massacred. Licentiousness, pillage and plunder of wealth, crops, and cattle had been conducted unabated in the vicious Roman pledge to crush the Christian faith and spirit in Britain. People can stand only so much, then anger gets the better of them, often leading to what we may term an excess of violence. The British were only paying the Romans back in their own barbaric coin and unquestionably they saved Christi­anity for posterity with the sacrifice of their lives and property.Some historians claim that Suetonius Paulinus, Commander-in­ Chief of the Roman forces, terrified at the determined onslaught on London, fled the scene with a few of his troops. This is hardly conceivable. The chroniclers report that the battle for supremacy was waged savagely for several days, indicating that the British encountered organized military resistance. Paulinus probably made good his escape when he saw the battle was lost, leaving the destruction of (P.155) the city, its inhabitants, and such Legionnaires that remained to the sword of the pitiless British.

Chapter XIV = Continued

Tacitus states that 40,000 of the Roman defenders of London and its inhabitants were put to the sword and the city to the torch. Next, Boadicea leveled the important city of Verulam, now St. Albans, driving the enemy before her. Such of the inhabitants of Regnum and Rutupium (P.155) could flee before her armies arrived. It is said that the destruction of lives on both sides was so great that the burning towns and cities were quenched in blood. The British Amazon swept westward in an effort to intercept Paulinus. Dion reports many battles fought with the heavy balance of disaster borne upon the Romans. The climax to the victorious Boadicean war ended in a most unpredictable manner at Flintshire, A.D. 62, where the modern town of Newmarket stands. The contesting armies had met in a savage conflict that was fought from dawn to darkness, with the battle swaying in favor of one side and then the other. As dusk set in a section of the British army, led by Boadicea, was separated from the main body. Believing herself trapped and fearing capture (even though the record states the British forces had reorganized, preparatory to a final major assault), rather than fall into the hands of the despoilers and the rapine she knew would follow, the valorous Queen Boadicea, in a last gesture of defiance, committed suicide on the field of battle. As the tragic news swept through the ranks of both sides, it is recorded that Briton and Roman alike were stunned by the calamity of this extraordinary climax. Fighting immediately ceased with each side withdrawing into their own encampment with unbidden consent. The death of this great British queen settled like a pall over all. The woman who had terrified the Romans in life awed them in death. A great sadness descended upon her people. And the Romans, quick to seize an opportunity, took advantage of the situation to come to peace terms with the Iceni.Under the terms of this new Peace Pact, the Romans restored all the confiscated wealth of the royalty, the nobles and the people. The stolen estates were returned to the surviving members of the royal household and to the nobility with all their original privileges. The treacherous transaction of Seneca was canceled and a heavy indemnity was paid to the Iceni.How truly the (P.156) Roman historian wrote: 'Every peace with the British was a signature of defeat.'The Royal Boadicea, majestic in appearance, rich in eloquence, dauntless in war, endowed with the military genius which for two years had outmatched the ablest strategists of Rome, drove their Legions before her arms like sheep to the slaughter. The British heroine who preferred death rather than sacrifice her freedom, a warrior queen with no equal in the colorful pages of history, the avenger of womanly indignities, and a champion of the Christian faith. was now no more than a glorious memory.The Romans (P.156) wrote that her funeral obsequies were the most magnificent ever bestowed on a monarch. So lavish in pomp and assemblage they gazed in wonder on its splendor, awed and silenced in both shame and fear. Her unhappy death, Though spectacular, was an incomparable sacrifice for the preservation of the ancient British freedoms for which she stood.Boadicea's monumental record is immortalized and enshrined in the magnificent statue erected on Westminster Bridge to her memory. It is one of the finest statues to be seen anywhere in the world. Everyone who views it is impressed with its illustrious majesty. It is created exactly as the ancient Roman writer, Dion Cassius, described her. She stands erect, spear in one hand, and with the other hand holding in check the two rearing chargers, a coronet on her brow, with her long hair flowing to the breeze. Her two daughters are kneeling beside her on the floor of her war chariot. Her noble features proudly portray the cast of her fearless character. On the wheels of her chariot are shown the terrible scythes, which were a deadly, slashing war weapon peculiar to the British armaments, dreaded by the Romans.The sculptor who executed the statuary was truly inspired with the commission. It depicts Christian Britannia on the shores of England, defying the evil powers of the world.The scene of battle and its tragedy over the centuries are commemorated by place names known to this day as 'Cop Paulinus', 'Hill of Arrows', 'Hill of Carnage', 'Hollow of No Quarter', 'Hollow of Woe', 'Hollow of Execution', 'Field of the Tribunal', 'Knoll of the Mclee'. On the scene still exists a monolith called 'The Stone of Lamentation', described as the spot where the great Queen took her life. On the road to Caerwys was 'The Stone of the Grave of Boadicea', since moved to Downing.The conflict against the Romans did not cease with her death. The Roman peace made with the Iceni had no effect on other British clans. It is written that her tragic death did not abate the punitive spirit and campaigning determination of the Britons in the north and the west. Under the invincible leadership of Arviragus, Venusius, and the gallant new Pendragon, Galgacus,1  hostilities (from 157) vigorously continued against the Romans.(1 Tacitus, Agricola, 30-32, 14:32.)To all this calamity Joseph and his missionary co-workers were sorrowful spectators. But through it all they glimpsed triumph, strong in their faith that the Cause of Christ was safe for all time in the embattled Island realm. Greater sacrifice and heroism was'Tacitus, Agricola, 30-32.yet to be suffered for Christian welfare but the Flag of Christ was never to dip into any pagan power.In Pynson's metrical Li/e of St. Joseph, the following lines occur referring to the death of Mary, the Mother of Jesus:'So after Hyr Assumpcyn, the boke telleth playne; With Saynt Phylyp he went into France.Phylyp bad they go to Great Brytayn fortunate.'These lines inform us that after the death of Mary Joseph returned to Gaul with Philip, his clearest friend. The last line rather implies that Philip was fortunate in prevailing on Joseph to return to Britain. This would suggest that Joseph bowed in sorrow, was loath to part from the man who was so close to him that he could understand his grief. Knowing that work was the best antidote for sorrow, Philip urged his friend to return to his mission in Britain where he was so greatly needed. Not only was Philip fortunate in persuading Joseph; Britain was fortunate to receive him back.It will be noticed that the word 'them' is employed in the last line. Who were 'them'? The word is plural. The answer is provided in the Magna Tabula Glastoniae, cited by Bishop Ussher. Every time Joseph went to Gaul he returned with more missionary helpers.On this occasion, we are told that among them was his son Josephes, whom Philip had baptized. How long Josephes stayed in Britain with his father is not stated, but from various records it is quite evident that the son of Joseph journeyed as an emissary between Gaul and Britain. Facts show that Josephes returned to Gaul after arriving in Britain with his father at Philip's request. Joseph remained in Britain as the head of the missionary band at Avalon. In the year A.D. 60 Special mention is made of Joseph going to Gaul and returning to Britain with another band of recruits, among whom is particularly mentioned Simon Zelotes, one of the original twelve disciples of Christ. This is the second time it is specially mentioned that Philip consecrated Joseph and his band of co­ workers prior to embarking for Britain. Probably the inclusion of Simon Zelotes indicated an important missionary effort, hence the consecration. This was the second journey to Britain for Simon Zelotes and his last. According to Cardinal Baronius and Hip­ polytus, Simon's first arrival in Britain was in the year A.D. 44, during the Claudian war. Evidently his stay was short, as he returned to the continent.Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople,and Byzantine historian, A.D. 758-829, writes:'Simon born (P.158) in Cana of Galilee who for his fervent affection for his Master and great zeal that he showed by all means to the Gospel, was surnamed Zelotes, having received the Holy Ghost from above, traveled through Egypt, and Africa, then through Mauretania and all Lybia, preaching the Gospel. And the same doctrine he taught to the Occidental Sea, and the Isles called Britanniaen. 1In the Bible, Simon is often referred to as Simon the Canaanite, because he came from Cana. The Hebrew word for 'zealous' has a similar sound to that of the name of his hometown, being 'canna'. The Greek translation of the word is 'Zelotes', the name by which he is best known. His enthusiastic preaching of the Word earned him his zealous surname.Simon arrived in Britain during the first year of the Boadicean war, A.D. 60, when the whole Island was convulsed in a deep, burning anger against the Romans, which was never equaled before or after in the long years of conflict between the two nations. Tacitus states that from A.D. 59 to 62 the brutalities of war were at their worst. Atrocities occurred on both sides but the Romans carried their vicious perpetrations to such an extent that even Rome was shocked. Bearing this in mind we can readily understand that any Christian evangelizing outside the British shield would be fraught with imminent danger. At all times the disciples of Christ were oblivious to danger, but when the pressure became too severe invariably they fled the land until matters quietened down. In the year A.D. 44, a Claudian Edict expelled the Christian leaders from Rome. Many of them sought sanctuary in Britain. Among Those who fled to Britain from Rome was Peter. 2 This was the year Simon first went to Britain. He did not come from Rome but from Gaul, where he had been(1 See also Dorotheus, Synod de Apostol.2 Cornelius Lapide, Argumentum Epistle St. Pauli di Romanos ch. 16.)assisting Philip. Moreover, Simon was directly associated with the Arimathcan Mission of Avalon in both his missionary efforts in Britain. As we shall later see it made quite a difference to the British in their acceptance of him whether the missionary came from Rome or Jerusalem.Simon was (P.158) unusually bold and fearless, as his surname implies. In spite of the volcanic turmoil seething through Britain during the Boadicean war, Simon openly defied the barbaric Edict of Paulinus, and the most brutal Catis Decianus, to destroy anything and any­ one Christian. He decided to conduct his evangelizing campaign in the eastern part of the Island. This section of Britain was the mostsparsely (P.159) inhabited by the native Britons and consequently more. heavily populated by the Romans. It was far beyond the strong protective shield of the Silurian arms in the south and the powerful northern Yorkshire Celts. In this dangerous territory, Simon was definitely on his own. Undeterred, with infinite courage, he began preaching the Christian Gospel right in the heart of the Roman domain. His fiery sermons brought him speedily to the attention of Catus Decianus, but not before he had sown the seed of Christ in the hearts of Britons and many Romans who, despite the unremit­ ting hatred of Decianus for all that was Christian, held the secret of the truth locked in their hearts.The evangelizing mission of Simon was short-lived. He was finally arrested under the orders of Catus Decianus. As usual, his trial was a mockery. He was condemned to death and was crucified by the Romans at Caistor, Lincolnshire, and there buried, circa May 10th, A.D. 61.The day of the martyrdom of Simon Zelotes, the devoted disciple of Christ, is officially celebrated by the Eastern and western churches on May 10th and so recorded in the Greek Menology. Cardinal Baronius, in his Annales Ecclesiastici, gives the same date in describing the martyrdom and burial of Simon Zelotes in Britain.Of Simon Zelotes, Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, A.D. 300, writes in his work Synopsis de Apostol:'Simon Zelotes traversed all Mauretania, and the region of the Africans, preaching Christ. He was at last crucified, slain, and buried in Britain.'There are some who think because Simon Zelotes perished in Britain he must have been slain by the British. This could not be at all possible. Only the Romans practiced crucifixion. In the first place, this form of death was reserved as a gesture of contempt in executing their meanest criminals. During the Christian era, it was more viciously employed on the Christians in defiant mockery of all the Cross stood for to all Christians. To the British, and indeed to all Christians, crucifixion was a profanity of the Cross. The historic record leaves no doubt as to who crucified Simon Zelotes.Some also entertain the belief that Simon Zelotes was the first British Christian martyr. Of the elect, he was the second British martyr. Aristobulus, brother of Barnabas and father-in-law of Peter, was the first to be martyred in Britain. Aristobulus preceded Simon to his reward at what is now St. Albans by a couple of years. Therecord states (P.160) he was martyred 'in the second year of Nero'. This would be circa A.D. 59.Unknown to many, the remains of Simon Zelotes, with many more of the saintly elect, are buried in England, creating the saying uttered the world over, 'Britain, the most hallowed ground on earth.'The year before the Boadicean war and the two years of itsexistence, admitted by Rome to be marked with unparalleled horror, are the darkest, most bloodstained years in British history though Roman infamy. Yet they are epic years in British Christian annals, resplendent with noble sacrifice and heroic deeds, out­ matching the terror and stark tragedy those years contained. To this notable period, the martyrdom of Simon Zelotes added luster in his last devotional act in serving his Master, with Whom he first walked on the shores of Galilee.Nearby where this noble martyr perished was the ancestral home of Abraham Lincoln, the great American Christian President. His ancestors migrated from England in the first waves of English colonists to settle in Virginia. The church in which Lincoln worshipped was made an American sanctuary by patriotic, Christian­ minded American soldiers of World War II. They made various beautiful contributions to this ancient little church in Boston, Lincolnshire, to the (P.160) memory of the family, particularly to their illustrious American descendant.Eighteen hundred years after the martyrdom of Simon Zelotes, in the land of the Lincolns, in America, Abraham Lincoln became a martyr for his humane Christian principles, the same principles which Simon Zelotes taught, for which he was crucified and gave his all in the glorious service of his beloved Jesus.

CHAPTER XV

THE GLORIOUS CAVALCADE

Human nature can (P.161) be very perverse on occasion, being completely oblivious to experience and sound judgment. It

is surprising to hear of people with intelligence so easily victimized by suave tongues and extravagant claims deliberately conceived to misinform and misguide. This human weakness might possibly indicate that people are more prone to accept fiction than truth. Perhaps this is what has given rise to the old slogan that 'truth is stranger than fiction'. To such an extent does this condition exist that truth becomes a matter of serious education in constant conflict to disprove the untruthful who are ever seeking to prove their spurious claims.

Christians are so indoctrinated with the scriptural apostolic records, rightfully, that they would never dream of arguing the point that the Apostles preached Christ in Jerusalem, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Asia, but to mention that they taught in Britain is to tax their credulity. To state that Christianity was brought first to Britain is almost to have them inquire as to the state of one's mental health. The average person is so well inoculated with the belief that Christianity was first established by the Roman Catholic Church in Rome and that Britain first received the faith though St. Augustine, A.D. 597, that they take it for granted.

Incredulity is quickly dissipated when one asks, What happened to Christian teaching during the centuries that followed the death of Christ, to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in the fourth century? This church was not founded until years after the death of Constantine the Great. Then there is the period that followed to the time when Augustine arrived in Britain.

One has but to turn the pages of the Bible and ask what became of most of the original Apostles, on whose lives Scripture is silent. Where did the unrecorded ones go and where did they die? What of the seventy elect and the following one hundred and twenty elected in Christ and the many that followed, stemming from the teachings of the original Christian multitude?

The Biblical travel record of the elect is but briefly given. They all had to be somewhere and achievement certainly followed the sowing of the seed, otherwise where did the Roman Catholic Church obtain (P.162) the substance to found its own organization? It is only in recent years that the Roman Catholic Church began to scoff at the British record and its claim to priority, but they are 'hoist upon their own petard'. For nineteen hundred years the Roman Catholic Church was the stoutest champion of British priority. It is futile at this later date for them to dispute priority and apostolic succession. The mass of documentary evidence sup­ plied by their greatest ecclesiastics and historians, and even the Popes, substantiates the facts, refuting all modern challenges. For fifteen hundred years the Popes and the ecclesiastical councils sustained British priority whenever it was challenged. For more than six hundred years after the founding of Avalon by Joseph, until the time of the famous Oaks conference, and the equally famed Whitby Council, when the first official cleavage took place between the two churches, the British and the Roman church existed as sister churches, with Britain accepted as the elder sister, for approximately three hundred years. The British church steadfastly refused to recognize the recently instituted authority of the Pope, A.D. 6ro, flatly denying the worship of Mary or the use of the term 'Mother of God', proclaimed by the Roman church A.D. 431, at the Council of Ephesus, or the doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory the Great about the year A.D. 593, they shared the same communion. The Mass had not as then been developed. It was not introduced into the Roman church as an obligatory attendance until the eleventh century. The British church still retained its primitive interpretation of the Christ faith, vehe­mently declaring in the two councils mentioned that only Christ was the Head of the church and the only means of intercession between man and God, and with no recourse to Purgatory. Though the worship of images and material concepts were being introduced into the church though Roman influence, it still retained a great deal of the original primitive simplicity of worship.

The first six hundred years following the Passion of Christ can truly be called the Golden Age of Christianity, in spite of the fact that these centuries were saturated in drama, romance, tragedy and sacrifice.

The brief glimpse we have taken of the perilous wars and of the violence of the persecutions that swept the sea-girt Isle leaves us in no doubt as to the invincible courage and unbendable determination of the Christian elect in carrying out the work of our Lord, regardless of consequences. In World War II we were daily thrilled with the heroic exploits of the patriots of the oppressed nations who comprised (P.163) the Underground. Comparing this record with that of the Apostolic Crusaders of the Cross of that glorious era, the Christian heart must be thrilled though and though as we realize that theirs was no underground operation. Surrounded by evil foes and forces they walked openly into the midst of their enemies, declaring the Word with resonant voices to friend and foe alike, and only too often paying the supreme price, but fearlessly. The record tells us of an endless flow of men and women pouring into Avalon to be converted and baptized, then remaining for instruc­ tion to go forth preaching the Word in hostile territory and replac­ ing the glorious ones who had fallen.

Some idea of how great was the multitude of converts who remained for instruction can be gleaned from the record which states that from Gaul alone Philip sent a total of a hundred and sixty disciples to assist Joseph and his companions.' That there were others that came from other sources we know, apart from the mission that formed the second church in Britain, sent by St. Paul into Wales. Their fiery zeal was kept aflame by the frequent arrival of others of the Lord's original Apostles, who stayed awhile before setting forth into other lands. Not all of the Bethany band that arrived at Avalon stayed on with Joseph. Some of the most illus­ trious of his companions he sent back into different parts of Gaul to assist Philip in founding churches, as others qualified to take over their place on the Isle of Avalon.

The first man to be sent back to Gaul by Joseph was Lazarus, but not before the man whom Jesus had raised from the dead had left his timeless imprint on Britain in the work he wrote outlining his rules for living the Clu-istian life. In Celtic MSS. they are known as The Triads of Lazarus. No better memorial could he have left to prove his identity with Britain. Nowhere else are his laws recorded and nowhere else but in Britain was the word 'Triad' employed, not even in Gaul. The word is Celtic for Law. The Triads of Lazarus are still preserved in the ancient Celtic records of Britain.

He went direct to Marseilles, where he had first arrived at Gaul in the drifting boat with Joseph, and their other companions.

Roger of Hovedon, writing of Marseilles, remarks :

'Marseilles is an episcopal city under the domination of the King of Aragon. Here are the relics of St. Lazarus, the brother of St. Mary Magdalene and Martha, who held the Bishopric for seven years.’

(' Capgrave, De Santo Joseph ad Aramathea, quoting

Ancient manuscript and the Book of the Holy Grail)

The ancient (P.164) church records at Lyons confirm the same facts: 'Lazarus returned to Gaul from Britain to Marseilles, taking with him Mary Magdalene and Martha. He was the first appointed Bishop. He died there seven years later.'

It is further stated that Lazarus was Bishop of Cyprus before he made the voyage to Britain. This would indicate he was teaching at Cyprus, before the exodus from Judea, A.D. 36, and having returned to Judea became a member of the Bethany group who occupied the oarless boat on that fateful voyage. He was the first Bishop of Marseilles and built the first church on the site where the present cathedral stands.1  In the few years he lived to teach at Marseilles he 

(1 AJ. Burr, Remarkable Biblical Characters. See The Coming of the Saints, by J.W. Taylor, p. 239, for the inscription in the Church of St. Victor.)

founded other churches. His zealous preaching and kindly disposition left a deep impression in Gaul, to such an extent that he is better remembered in France than is Philip, regardless of the latter's long sojourn in Gaul. In many quarters he is regarded as the Apostle of Gaul and his relics are greatly treasured to this day. At Marseilles, Lyons, Aix, St. Maximin, La Sainte Baume, and other places there still remain numerous monuments, liturgies, relics, and traditions to his immortal memory. He was the first of the original Bethany band associated with Joseph to die. As the records state, he died a natural death seven years after returning to Mar­seilles. His stay in Britain is reported to have been short, which would place the date of his death between A.D. 44 and 45.

An interesting report was published in the London Morning Post, on May 28th, 1923, marking the date of the annual pilgrimage of the French gypsies to St. Maries de la Mer at the mouth of the Rhone. Their tradition maintains that the barque of Lazarus came ashore there with three holy women who remained. From time immemorial to present times the French gypsies make their annual pilgrimage to this sacred spot to venerate the relics of Marie Salome, Marie Jacobs and in particular their black servant, Sara. Mary Salome was another member of the original Josephian band who had been sent forth to preach the Word, known in the British record as St. Salome. Her two other women companions were probably among the unrecorded converts who went to aid St. Salome on her mission. Evidently, as the name suggests, Marie Jacob was also a Judean refugee who had drifted to Gaul and Britain. Mention of the black Sara is quite interesting. At odd intervals her name crops up, and in each case shows she was held in special esteem. We note that while the French gypsies made their annual pilgrimage to the spot 'J. Burr, Remarkable Biblical Characters. See The Coming of the Saints by to venerate (P.165) the memory of the three women

missionaries Sara the black maid, IS the one to whom they paid special consideration.

As will be seen by the record it is stated that Mary Magdalene and Martha went with Lazarus from Britain to Marseilles to begin their missionary work in Gaul. 1 There is an interesting statement made by 

(1 The identity of Magdalene with Mary of Bethany is a subject of controversy, but the French Church regards them as one.)

one of the early Bishops of Mayence said, referring to the many arriving in Gaul from Britain, that each went forth to specially appointed places in Gaul, where they taught and founded churches. Under the direction of St. Philip, each followed out their particular assignment in the service of our Lord. Conse­quentJy we can understand why Mary Magdalene and Martha did not remain at Marseilles with Lazarus. Martha, the practically minded head of the Bethany household, which had been the favorite resting place of Jesus and point of assembly for His disciples at Bethany during His Mission, was directed to Aries. With her went the faithful handmaid, Marcella. Martha did not remain long there. Trophimus was sent to Gaul by Joseph and, under the direction of Philip, replaced Martha at Arles. He was consecrated as the first Bishop of Aries and there performed an outstanding service. He was energetic, practical, and an intelligent organizer. His Christianizing endeavors embraced a large area that formed the district of Narbonne. He became the first Metropolitan of the Narbonne, with Aries as his Bishopric. For centuries it continued to be a prominent stronghold of the Christian faith in Gaul.

Martha and Marcella moved to Tarascon where they settled, spending the rest of their lives preaching, teaching, and administer­ ing. They both died a natural death, Martha being the first of the two to pass on her everlasting reward. The record states 'Marcella was with Martha at her death.' A few years late; Marcell , the faithful handmaiden of the glorious Bethany sisters, and their brother Lazarus, entered into her well-deserved rest. She, too, had waited on the Lord in the pleasant Bethany home in Judea. She had seen the miracle performed on Lazarus and watched the Crucifixion. Her devotion to her mistresses had carried her with them to Gaul, thence to Britain, and back again to Gaul where she helped Martha to plant the Cross of Christ and nurture it with their love.

The early records show Maximin, Eutropius, Trophimus and Parmena leaving Britain for Gaul, joining with Thosealready mentioned. Parmena is not listed among the original companions

of Joseph (P.166) at Avalon. The other three are named among the twelve companions. As we have seen, Trophimus joined Martha at Aries, where she later left for Tarascon. Maximin is described as joining Mary Magdalene at Aix where both spent their life. Both died a natural death. Maxirnin was the first Bishop of Aix, and there are found numerous memorials and relics of Maximin, particularly of Mary Magdalene. The area is saturated with her memory. Mary's classic beauty and her rich voice, extolled in reverence and pleasure by all who knew her, endeared her so deeply to the hearts of the people among whom she labored that she was adored as a Saint before she died. Her undying devotion to her Lord throbbed though her teachings of the Word. The most hardened soul melted to her preaching, and she converted, as we are told, 'multitudes to the faith'. The ancient documents resound with her glory.

One, if not the most outstanding document treating of her life, was written by the famed Maurus Rabanus, Archbishop of Mayence, 1 

(1Millinz.)

A.D. 776-856, Life of Mary Magdalene. This precious MS. is owned by Oxford University, where it is preserved and treasured in the College Library bearing her name, the Magdalen College Library. There are many manuscripts older than the Rabanus MSS., some written about the same time, but none as illuminating. In his Prologue the eminent Archbishop states that his information was written 'according to the accounts that our fathers have left us in their writings'.

In his work he supports all the earlier records of the gathering in Gaul, the Josephian entourage arriving in Britain, confirming the date. He tells of many of Joseph's companions returning to Gaul to preach and teach. He writes :

'Therefore the chief, St. Maximus, the blessed Parmenas the archdeacon Trophimus and Eutropius, bishops, and the rest of

the leaders of his Christian warfare, together with the God­ renowned Mary Magdalene and her sister, the most blessed Martha, departed by way of the sea. hey came near to the city of Marseilles, in the Vienoise province of the Gauls, where the river Rhone is received by the sea. There, having called upon God, the great King of all the world, they parted, each company going to the province where the Holy Spirit had directed them, presently preaching everywhere, "the Lord with them", and confirmed the Word with signs following.'

Eutropius was the first Bishop of Aquitaine. Here we have (P.167) eight of the original Josephian band that arrived in Britain back in Gaul, after receiving their final instructions from Joseph, who consecrated them before they left the sacred Isle of Avalon.

Some are inclined to think that Marie Jacob, one of the three venerated women to whom the French gypsies paid reverence at St. Maries de la Mer, was none other than the Mary Cleopas, recorded in the British Bethany band. It is quite possible. We note in the Biblical records that names are changed and interchanged. Mary was the wife of the Roman whom Jesus converted. Since there is no record of him, following the exodus, he probably had died, in which case it was not uncommon for a woman to revert to her ancestral family name. Being a Judean and a near relative of the Virgin Mary, her claim could be of the family branch of Jacob, and so be known as Mary Jacob. 1f this is the case, this would make nine of the original Bethany band sent forth by Joseph to preach and found missions and churches in Gaul.

The Gaulish and Celtic chronicles affirm that most of the ancient

French Bishoprics were founded by the companions of Joseph, other Culdees, and former neophytes, all stemming from the sacred sanctuary at Avalon. Sidonis, Satuminus and Cleon are reported as teaching in Gaul on various occasions, supporting other mission­ aries and returning to Britain. Joseph also contributed in like manner and his name is well associated with the founding of the church at Morlaix and Limoges.

It is stated that St. Martial, of the elect twelve, was the only one who never left Avalon to go abroad. He remained thoughout his lifetime converting and teaching neophytes, as the right hand of Joseph. 1 In the same report it is interesting to note the statement 

(1Old French Continue refers to Eutrope et Martial, Sidonie avec Joseph.)

that with Martial there remained at Avalon his parents, Marcellus and Elizabeth, and also St. Zacchaeus. The mention of the latter three names proves the illustrious assemblage of faithful Judeans finally domiciled in Britain, aiding Joseph at Avalon in his great work while great battles between Britons and Romans were being fought around them. From time to time we find other Judeans, many relatives of the twelve disciples of Jesus, arriving at the sacred stronghold in Britain, bending their efforts in the evangelizing mission.

Parmena, who accompanied Maximin, Eutropius, and Trophimus into Gaul from Britain, was a disciple of Joseph. He was appointed the first Bishop of Avignon. Drennalus was also a disciple of Joseph.

He first went (P.168) to Gaul in company with Joseph to found the church at Morlaix. This done, Joseph appointed Drennalus to Treguier, where he remained after being installed as the first Bishop of Treguier.

The British crusaders in Christ were not limited to Gaul. They journeyed into other lands founding missions and erecting churches. Three of Avalon's missionaries were responsible for founding the three great mother churches in Gaul, Helvetia (Switzerland), and Lotharingia.

The illustrious Beatus, who founded the church in Helvetia, received his baptism and education at Avalon. He was the wealthy son of a prominent British noble, his pre-baptismal name being

Suetonius. It is of interest to note that Beatus was baptized at Avalon by St. Barnabas, the brother of Aristobulus, sent in advance by St. Paul to Britain to represent the Apostle to the Gentiles. In the scriptural record, he is referred to as Joses the Levite who changed his name to Barnabas, meaning 'Son of Consolation', the same Barnabas who, together with St. Paul, founded the church at Antioch, A.D. 43 (Acts 11: 22). Barnabas combined with St. Paul, Joseph and his brother in expanding the church in Britain, particu­larly in Wales. His stays were short but effective. It was on one of these excursions into Britain after his brother Aristobulus 1 was martyred, 

(1St. Ado, Archbishop of Vienne, Adonis Martyrologic, March 17.)

that he baptized the noble Beatus who, on finishing his novitiate, was consecrated a Bishop. He selected Helvetia as his missionary field. Before he left Britain he disposed of all his wealth and used it to ransom prisoners of war on the continent, making his headquarters at Under Seven (Unterseen) on Lake Thun. Beatus introduced Christianity into Switzerland, erecting hospitals and churches, and building a band of devoted missionaries who continued his great work throughout the centuries. It was in the humble dwelling he first built on his arrival in Helvetia that he spent his last days. He died in his cell, A.D. 96. This ancient cell is preserved and can be seen today on the shore of Lake Thun. The Venerable Bede and Cardinal Alford mention his noble missionary work in their writings, and he is commemorated in the Roman Martyrolo­gies.

Another extraordinary (P.168) British zealot who graduated from Avalon was Mansuetus. He went to Glastonbury (Avalon) from Hibema (Ireland) where he was born, a member of the Celtic aristocracy. His evangelistic career was profoundly notable. He had journeyed to Avalon three years before the Claudian campaign began and, St. Ado, Archbishop of Vienne, Adonis Martyrologia, March 17 according (P.169) to Arnold Minnannus, Mansuetus was converted and baptized by Joseph, A.D.40. At Avalon he became closely associated with the intrepid St. Clement, also forming a great friendship with St. Peter, when he sought sanctuary in Britain, A.D. 44. Only death was to break these endearing connections. Later he was sent to Rome with St. Clement on his first mission. On the request of St. Philip he went to Gaul where he founded the great Lotharingian Church, frequently referred to as the Mother Church of Gaul. Cardinal Alford, in Regia Fides Britannica, writes that Mansuetus was consecrated the first Bishop of the Lotharingians A.D. 49, with his See at Toul. He also founded the church at Lorraine. His missionary zeal was indefatigable. He traveled far and wide meet­ in a great number of the original Apostles and disciples of 'Christ, with whom he labored. Probably for this reason, he is referred to as 'the friend of all the disciples, and their pupil', and a disciple of  - Peter’. Mansuetus had mingled with the royal Silurian families while at Avalon, therefore it is but natural to know he was a constant visitor at the Palace of the British at Rome after Claudia had married Pudens. He was a friend of Linus the first Bishop of Rome, and brother of Claudia. After the death of St. Clement, Mansuetus became the third official Bishop of the British Church at Rome. Thus we have three disciples of Avalon, instructed by St. Joseph, to become, in succession, Bishops of Rome. Man­ extended his preaching into Illyria, where he was martyred A.D. 110, thirty years before the last member of the royal family of Claudia Pudens was slain. This record is reported in Mersaeus De Sanctis Germaniae and confirmed by L'Abbe Guillaume. 1(1L’Abbé Guillaume, L’ Apostolat de S. Manouel, p. 38)The Natal Day of Mansuetus is given in the Gallican Martyrolo­gies on September 3.The eminent St. Clement, in the British Bethany record named St. Clemens, was another outstanding British missionary, stemming from Avalon, and the friend of Mansuetus, already referred to, with whom he was associated in the early evangelizing of Illyria. He perished long before Mansuetus received his martyrdom. St. Clement succeeded Linus as the second Bishop of Rome. In this document, there is a curious record of succession which states: 'Clemens became Bishop twelve years after Linus.'

Iltigius, in De Patribus Apostolicis, quotes St. Peter as saying: 'Concerning the Bishops who have been ordained in our life­ time, we make known to you that they are these. Of Antioch Eudoins, ordained by me, Peter. Of (P.169) the Church of Rome, Linus,’ son of Claudia, (P.170) was first ordained by Paul, and after Linus’s death, Clemens the second, ordained by me, Peter. 1In every case but one the records of succession as given above have all agreed that Clement was the second Bishop. The one exception states that Cletus succeeded Linus and agrees that Clement followed twelve years after Linus was martyred, as the third Bishop of Rome. While the twelve-year gap is commonly sustained, all other references place Linus, Clement, and Mansuetus as first, second, and third, and with no mention of Cletus. My conclusion in the case is that Cletus, functioning in the British church at Rome, along with the children of Claudia Pudens, was not in an official capacity due to the grave Christian disturb­ ance at that time. The three related were officially appointed by apostolic consecration. After Clement was lodged in Rome he became known as Clemens Romanus and is the one referred to by St. Paul in his Epistle.2 All records state he was ordained by St. Peter.The life and works of St. Clement are referred to in the Oxford edition of Junius in Son of Claudia, and by Iltigius.Another noble Briton, born to the Silurian purple, was Marcellus. He received his conversion and baptism at Avalon, a number of years after Joseph had passed on to his eternal rest, by the hands of Those who followed. He also went to Gaul, and there founded the church at Tongres, being its first Bishop. He later founded the princely archbishopric at Treves, over which he ruled. For centuries this diocese dominated the Gallican church. Some records confuse this Marcellus as being the teacher of Linus before the latter went to Rome as one of the royal captives with his father Caractacus. This is a mistake, as the date is far too late. Linus was taught at Avalon by Marcellus, the father of Martial of the original Beth ny band. Marsseus and Pantalin both state that Marcellus the Bnton was martyred A.D. 166. The Tungrensian Chronicles confirm this fact.The Gallic records state that for centuries the Archbishops of Treves and Rheims were all Britons supplied by the mother church at Glastonbury-Avalon.

St. Cadval, another famed British missionary, going out from Glastonbury, founded the church of Tarentum, Italy, A.D. 170. The cathedral at Taranto is dedicated to him and his achievements are reported in the Vatican Catologue of Saints. 3(1 Apostolic Constitutions, 146.2 Philippians 4:3.3 Morons de Ecclesia Tarentina.)It is impossible (P.171) to catalog the list of devoted British disciples and missionaries who went out of Avalon to preach the Gospel in other lands. Their names are legion, many of them laying down their lives in the final sacrifice, to be buried in unknown graves in foreign lands. During the golden Christian era, centuries after the Roma Catholic Church was established, the British missionaries comprised the bulk of the Christian army of crusaders. They, more than any others, established the Christian faith on its firm founda­tion, and against the deadliest opposition and persecution on record. Their fiery zeal flamed across the known world like an unquench­able fire. As one fell a hundred more were ready to step into the martyr's footsteps proclaiming the faith with a challenging insistence.Despite the fierce conflicts that raged throughout Britain against Roman tyranny, Avalon was ever a safe sanctuary for the apostle or neophyte. To this hallowed haven, many of our Lord's original disciples came: Lazarus, Barnabas, Zaccheus, James, Luke, Simon, Paul, and Peter, of whom we have positive records, leaving only three not definitely chronicled,

 Chapter XV - Continued

Matthew, Mark, and John, Though It is recorded that at the death of Mary, all the living original band were present at her request. Their names were unmentioned in the record but we know Stephen and James, the brother of John, couldn't be present. Judas Iscariot had been banned for his betrayal of his Master and had committed suicide. Stephen was the first martyr, being stoned to death at Jerusalem, A.D. 33. James, brother of John, both sons of Zebedee, was beheaded A.D. 44, 1 by order of Herod Agrippa. It is ironic to believe that the executioner of James was probably Herod, King of the Chalcis, the father of Paul's companion and co-worker, Aristobulus. 2(1 Acts 12:1.2 Prof. W. H. S. Hewin in Royal Saints of Britain, p. 29.)Of James the Just, (P.171) the brother of Jesus, Flavius Dexter, quoting the ecclesiastical Benedictine historian, Cressy, in his Church History of Brittany, states: 'In the one and fortieth year of Christ (A.D. 41) St. James, returning out of Spain visited Gaule and Britain.’ 

Other records confirm this date of his first visit to Britain and some records claim he was present at the death of Mary at Avalon, A.D. 48. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, calling together the first Apostolic Church there. This is the first Council of the Appointed on record. The next Council was called by Constantine the Great, three hundred years later. James was closely associated 'Apostolic Constitutions, I: 46. Moronus de Ecclesia Tarentina. Philippians 4: 3. with Paul, preaching to the Gentiles. While the record and (P.171) his memorial (P.172) tablet state he worked mostly among the Greeks, he is given credit for founding the Spanish Church. 1 One can notes note his great interest in working among the Gentiles by reading the Acts of the Apostles. Acts 15:14 it tells how Paul meets James, the brother of Jesus, to whom he speaks of the great wor God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. The text rn Acts 15: 14 is of curious interest. James tells his brethren that Simeon had said, 'God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name', and so had declared the prophets.

James was stoned to death at Jerusalem by the Jews nearby whereas Stephen met the same fate, A.D. 62, four years before Paul suffered martyrdom. 2

(1 Sant Iago, Patron Saint of Spain.

2 Josephus, Antiquities, xx 9:1.)

Of St. Luke, Professor (P.172) Smith in Dictionary of Christian Biography says that St. Luke taught in Gaul, Dalmatia, Italy, and Macedonia, principally in Gaul, and that he made frequent trips to Britain, visiting the sainted company at Avalon. The Rev. Morgan, in his marvelous work. The Saints in Britain gives a remarkably detailed insight into the travels and work of the apostles and disciples as they came in contact with Britain and labored there.

Barnabas was to meet his death in Cyprus, where he was stoned to death. He was buried by St. Mark, his young kinsman, outside the city. The record says that, as he laid Barnabas in his grave, Mark placed on his breast a copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew.

Each life is a part of the indestructible chain of 'The Way', welded link by link by the unswerving devotion and fearless sacri­ fices of the apostles, the disciples, and the countless followers of Christ. Forged on the anvil of persecution (P.172) and purged in the crucible of Christian blood, this golden chain links us with the marvelous past with the assurance that God still reigns in the heavens and Christ is ever the bond between our Father and His earthly children.

It is strange to note the (P.172) passage in Martyrs of the Colosseum, by the Roman Catholic priest, A. J. O'Reilly, wherein he states that St. Ignatius is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as being the first Christian martyr, A.D. 107. St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John, who consecrated him the third Bishop of Antioch. It is he who is supposed to have been the child Jesus took on His knee when He made the reference to become as little children, related in Matthew 18:3. St. Ignatius was martyred on the order of Trajan, cast to the wild beasts in the Colosseum and devoured

The claim made (P.173) by the Rev. O'Reilly is incongruous. Nowhere does the Roman Catholic Church support the statement. What about all the other Christians murdered in the Colosseum? What about the martyrdom of all the Apostles and disciples recorded herein and those not recorded? What of the martyrdom of Pudens and his children? What of Peter and Paul, whom the Roman Catholic Church claim to be the foundation of their church? They, too, were brutally martyred. What of the early martyrs cataloged in The Vatican Catalogue of Saints, The Roman Martyrologies, the Ecclesiastical Annals of Cardinal Baronius, Regia Fides by Cardinal Alford, and many others? The records herein of Those who died for the faith are all supported by the official documenta­tion of the Roman Catholic Church and its top-ranking authorities. It shows how in some cases the Reverend Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church are as innocent of the historic record as many of the Protestant ministry.

Such ignorance reminds one of the recent polls taken of the students in American universities, asking them to name the Fathers of the Revolution and other outstanding historic events in American life that one would expect to be commonly known. The answers were an appalling record of ignorance. Only too plainly it teaches us how easily Those raised in the indulgent security of a prosperous age forget their national heritage to such an extent as to rate it almost meaningless.

It would seem only when the glory has departed from them do people remember, when it is too late. To remember is to appreciate and stoke the fires of loyalty.

Little known, or little remembered, as the related incidents in this book may be, probably the knowledge that St. Peter labored in Britain with the Josephian-Jerusalem Mission as Avalon is less known.

There is an interesting and curious record chronicled by Cardinal Baronius, who writes : 'Rufus the Senator received St. Peter into his house on Viminalis Hill, in the year A.D. 44.'

One is apt to confuse the name with that of Rufus the Senator who, nine years later, on his return from Britain to Rome, married Claudia, the adopted daughter of Emperor Claudius, the natural child of Caractacus. The latter went to Britain with his commander at the beginning of the Claudian campaign, A.D. 43, and remained there until A.D. 52. Therefore, he was absent in Britain when St. Peter visited his parental home A.D. 44. As w have seen, after (P.174) his marriage to Claudia he forsook his parental home on Viminalis Hill, and also his estates in Umbria, to live at the Palace of the British. He also became a Senator, but in this record, it is obvious that St. Peter visited the father of the younger Rufus. This is curious, as we recall that, while in Britain, Rufus the younger donated the land at Chichester for the pagan temple, evidence that he was not then converted. Under these circum­stances one can reasonably ask why Peter went to the parental house on Viminalis Hill.

The answer is obvious. The royal British family, not having then been taken into captivity, were not resident in Rome. Peter would go at least to visit the home of a friend, while Rufus Pudens may have been an indifferent supporter of the Roman pagan religion, as indicated by his second marriage. Priscilla, the wife of Rufus, would be known to Peter as the mother of Paul and sympathetic to his visit. We know later she is recorded as a Christian in the household of her son at the Palatium Britannicum. It is an interest­ing record, more so since it was in that year Peter first arrived in Rome. It was also the year of the banishment decree when all Jews in Rome were forced to flee to escape the Claudian persecu­tion administered to them as well as to the Christians.

Peter fled directly to Britain. This is affirmed by Cornelius a Lapide in his work Argumentum Epistolae St. Pauli ad Romanos, in which he answers the question as to why St. Paul does not salute St. Peter in his Epistle to the Romaru, He replies: 'Peter, banished with the rest of the Jews from Rome, by the edict of Claudius, was absent in Britain.'

Peter, acting as a free-lance missionary, stemming from Avalon,

preached in Britain during the Caradoc-Claudian war. While in Britain he became well acquainted with the members of the two branches of the Royal Silurian House of Arviragus and Caractacus. He knew the children of Caractacus years before they went into Roman captivity. Years after, when the British family became well-established in Rome, he was naturally attracted to the home of the Pudens at the Palatium Britannicum. The visits of both Peter and Paul, with the family of the Pudens, are referred to in Scripture. Other ancient records state that the children of Claudia and Rufus Pudens were raised at the knees of Peter and Paul and other disciples, particularly naming St. Paul, for reasons stated in a former chapter.

There is plenty of evidence to show that Peter visited Britain and Gaul several times during his lifetime, his last visit to Britain taking place shortly (P.175) before his final arrest and crucifixion in Nero's circus in Rome.

In Gaul Peter became the Patron Saint of Chartres, by reason of hIS preference to preach in the famous Druidic rock temple known as The Grotte des Druides. This is considered to be the oldest Druidic site in Gaul, on which is built the oldest cathedral in France.

Of his visits in Britain, we have the corroboration of Eusebius Pamphilis, A.D. 306, whom Simon Metaphrastes quotes as saying: 'St. Peter to have been in Britain as well as in Rome.'

Further proof of Peter's sojourn in Britain was brought to the light of day in recent times when an ancient, time-worn monument was excavated at Whithorn.1 It is a rough-hewn stone standing 4 feet high by 15 inches wide. On the face of this tablet is an inscription that reads: 'Locvs Sancti Petri Apvstoli' (The Place of St. Peter the Apostle).

The eminent Dean Stanley, writing in his works of the beloved Apostle, claims that the vision that came to St. Peter, foretold his doom: 'Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hast shewed me' (2 Peter 1 : 14), appeared to St. Peter on his last visit to Britain, on the very spot where once stood the old British church of Lambedr (St. Peter's), where stands the present Abbey of St. Peter, Westminster. Shortly afterwards Peter returned to Rome, where he was later executed.

The first dedicated to Peter was founded by King Lucius, the Bnasfi King, who was the first by royal decree to proclaim Christianity the national faith of Britain at (P.175) Winchester A.D. 156.

The church was (P.175) erected A.D. 179, to the affectionate memory of St. Peter, in commemoration of his evangelizing labors in Britain. It is still known as 'St. Peter's of Cornhill bears the legend on its age-worn walls relating the historic fact and dates by the order of King Lucius, the descendant of Arviragus, preserved to this day for all to see and read.

During his lifetime Peter was the Apostle who suffered most for his Master. One can believe how his heart must have ached with remorse whenever he recalled the tragic scene in the Garden the shocking betrayal by Judas and the realization of his Master’s prophetic words that before the cock crowed he would have denied Him thrice. In his heart, he had never denied his Lord. He loved Jesus too dearly. We can only believe that in the panic of the fear­ ridden events, the weakness of the flesh momentarily (P.175) prevailed. We fellow (P.176) humans, possessing the same seeds of frailty, can understand and better admire and love Peter as he rose above all storm and persecution, spiritually and physically triumphant, vindicating his verbal lapse of loyalty.

The anguish he endured as a spectator at the infamous midnight trial in the Sanhedrin must have been soul-wracking and the dis appearance of the body of Christ from the tomb must have stunned him as he looked in on its emptiness. How gloriously he redeemed his character!

As he took leave of the sceptered Isle of Britain to return to Rome to climax the last chapter of his splendid life, emotion must have touched him as he said his final farewells to the beloved Joseph and the remaining old Bethany comrades at Avalon. He feared not what might occur to him in the remaining time. He weighed the glory of his reward in soon being with the One he adored and his life magnified.

In the long period of incarceration that followed his arrest at Rome, he was to suffer dreadfully.

Maliciously condemned, Peter was cast into the horrible, fetid prison of the Mamertine. There, for nine months, in absolute darkness, he endured monstrous torture manacled to a post. Never before or since has there been a dungeon of equal horror. Historians write of it as being the most fearsome on the brutal agenda of mankind. Over three thousand years old, it is probably the oldest torture chamber extant, the oldest remaining monument of bestiality of ancient Rome, a bleak testimony to its barbaric in­ (P.176) humanity, steeped (P.176) in Christian tragedy and the agony of Thousands of its murdered victims. It can be seen to this day, with the dungeon and the pillar to which Peter was bound in chains.

This dreaded place is known by two names. In classical history, it is referred to as Gemonium or the Tullian Keep. In later secular history it is best known as the Mamertine. At this time it is not out of place to pause in our story to describe this awesome pit, if only to provide us who live so securely today with a slight reminder of what the soldiers of Christ suffered for our sake, so we may be

quickened the better to appreciate the substance of our Christian heritage.

The Mamertine is described as a deep cell cut out of the solid rock at the foot of the capitol, consisting of two chambers, one over the other. The only entrance is through an aperture in the ceiling. The lower chamber was the death cell. The light never entered and it was never cleaned. The awful stench and filth generated a poison fatal to the (P.177) inmates of the dungeon, the most awful ever known. Even as early as 50 B.C. the historian Sallust describes it in the following words:

'In the prison called the Tullian, there is a place about ten feet deep. It is surrounded on the sides by walls and is closed above by a vaulted roof of stone. The appearance of it from the filth, the darkness and the smell is terrific.'

No one can realize what its horrors must have been a hundred years later when Peter was imprisoned in its noisome depths.

In this vile subterranean rock, the famed Jugurtha was starved and went stark raving mad. Vereingitorix, the valorous Druidic Gaulish chieftain, was murdered by the order of Julius Caesar.

It is said that the number of Christians that perished within this diabolic cell is beyond computation - such is the glory of Rome.

One can re-read the denouncing words of the noble Queen Boadicea, with profit. She branded them for what they were. These people of the Roman purple, who scorned all their enemies as barbarians, were the greatest and most cruel barbarians of all time.

How Peter managed to survive Those nine long dreadful months is beyond human imagination. During his entire incarceration, he was manacled in an upright position, chained to the column, unable to lay down to rest. Yet, his magnificent spirit remained undaunted. It flamed with the immortal fervor of his noble soul proclaiming the Glory of God, though His Son, Jesus Christ. History tells (P.177) us the amazing fact that in spite of all the suffering Peter was sub­ jected to, he converted his gaolers, Processus, Martinianus, and forty-seven others.

It is a strange and curious circumstance that the chair, or throne of Pius IX, at the Vatican Council, was erected directly over the altar of Processus and Marinianus.

Peter, the Rock, as he predicted, met his death at Rome by the hands of the murderous Romans, who crucified him, according to their fiendish manner. He refused to die in the same position as our Lord, declaring he was unworthy. Peter demanded to be cruci­fied in the reverse position, with his head hanging downward. Ironically enough, this wish was gratified by the taunting Romans in Nero's circus A.D. 67.

Such was the timbre and mettle of the valiant, glorious cavalcade of saints who permeated the hallowed Isle of Britain, with their presence and their devotion to Christ.

Amid the tragedy of wars and persecutions in which the bloodiest battles for Christendom were fought on British (P.177) soil, repelling the hated Romans, (P.178) the carnival of blood and death in the Roman arenas reached abnormal proportions. The popular sport of the Roman pagans was the torture, mutilation, and destruction of the Christians. They screamed with moronic delight as the famished lions tore and mangled the kneeling, praying Christians, old and young, women, children, and babies in arms. They made wagers on the staying ability of the British warrior in his fight to the death. As one Roman Gladiator was slain another took his place until, overcome with fatigue from continuous combat, the British Christian warrior was finally butchered. Roman writers reporting these carnivals of murder wrote that the courage of the Briton was indomitable. With their dying breath and last mite of strength, they would hurl them­ selves upon their foe in a last superhuman effort to avenge. They stated that it was not an uncommon sight for Briton and Roman to die together, impaled on each other's weapons.

The teachers of the faith, the elderly, the women, and the children, met their end serenely with quiet prayer on their lips, proudly defiant. It is said that the mothers would push their children forward to die first so that they following were sure life was extinct and their children spared the agony of being dragged around the arena by the mauling animals. The courage of the women awed the (P.178) Romans, causing them to whisper, 'What women these Chris­tian Britons have. What women!'

The sadistic (P.178) Roman could never understand or analyze the cold, remorseless courage of the Christian British with its silent, savage ferocity. It made their craven hearts quaver. Not understanding immortality, they could not understand a faith that made its believers 'fearlessly indifferent to death', as Julius Caesar wrote.

The valor of the British evoked Roman admiration and at the same time increased their fears which forbade them to offer one mite of mercy. The pitiless nature of the Romans against the Briton was born out of cowardly fear more than anything else.

In Christianity the Roman Caesars began to see the handwriting on the wall, proclaiming their imperial doom, and it was the Britons that sealed it by their faith.

Following the death and interment of Mary, the mother of Jesus, at Avalon, it became a passionate desire of the disciples, holy men, pilgrims, kings, and other notables to be interred within 'the hallowed acres of Glastonbury' (Avalon) where, with Mary and the other apostles and disciples, it is recorded that they : 'Especially choose to await the day of resurrection.'

There are many records still in existence reporting the claim that many of the (P.179) martyred were brought to Britain to be buried in the sanctified haven at Avalon and elsewhere in Britain.

The heroic Constantius, of Lyons, who saved the city of Clermont, in Auvergne, from Euric, the Goth, A.D. 473-492, tells in his work Life of St. Germanus, how he took the relics of all the Apostles and martyrs from Gaul, to place in a special tomb at St. Albans in Britain.

This record is of particular interest, supplying the one link missing in earlier records and confirming to a point much later records.

The earlier records are cited by Maelgwyn of Avalon, who

writes: 'Joseph of Arimathea, the noble decurion, received his everlasting rest with his eleven associates in the Isle of Avalon.'

Here, as can be seen, is one missing. Twelve companions arrived in Britain and thirteen if we count Marcella, the handmaid of Martha, as reported by Cardinal Baronius. Which one is missing? It is thought to have been Lazarus, who was the first of the illus­trious band to (P.179) die.

The later records (P.179) say that all of them were interred in Britain, which would indicate that the missing one was among the relics of those whom Constantius returned to Britain from Gaul, where Lazarus had died at Marseilles.

But what of Peter and Paul?

Did they remain buried at Rome, in the grave where the loving hands of Claudia, Pudens, and their children had placed them?

We do know that the martyred Pudens family were never dis­turbed from their final resting place beneath the floors of the first Christian Church at Rome, which before was the famed Palace of the British.

Of Peter and Paul, there is confusion, mystery, and deliberate misinformation concerning the place where their bodies found their last resting place.

The Martyrologies inform us that the Pudens, after retrieving the body of Paul, interred it on their estate on the Via Ostiensa road. We know from the historic records of Emperor Constan­tine, the first Christian Emperor of Rome, that he, knowing where the mutilated body of Paul lay, caused it to be excavated. He had it placed in a stone coffin, and over the spot built a church, still known as St. Paul's without the walls, meaning the church and his body are outside the city walls of Rome. The original church perished and a larger one was built on the site. Fire destroyed this in 1823. In the present church was built after the fire, but still bearing its ancient (P.180) name, a Benedictine priest is ever on guard before a grille on the floor of the High Altar. On occasion, for the benefit of special visitors, the priest moves the grille, lowering a light through the floor into a cell beneath, revealing to the eyes a crude slab stone on the floor bearing the name 'Pauli'. But there is no stone casket to be seen.

What happened to it and to the body?

The positive answer is found in a document written by Pope Vitalian to the British King Oswy, A.D. 656. The latter is still in existence. Probably to the astonishment of many, the letter states that Pope Vitalian permitted the remains of the bodies of St. Paul and St. Peter, with the remains of the martyrs St. Lawrence, St. John, St. Gregory, and St. Pancras, to be removed from Rome to England and re-interred in the great church at Canterbury. This historic record is beyond refutation.

From St. Pancras, (P.180) one of the large railroad terminals in London is named St. Pancras Station. At one time on this site, there stood a cross erected to the memory of St. Pancras who preached on that same spot.

The full facts concerning this amazing incident are related by the Venerable Bede, A.D. 673-735, in his Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. 1 Learned British historian Bede was held in high 

(1 Book 3, ch. 29.)

esteem by both the British and the Roman Catholic Church. While he was a sincere advocate of the novel papal faith, introduced by St. Augustine, A.D. 596, he was dogged in his support of the British church and to its claim of priority in establishing the Christian faith first in Britain, a fact not disputed by St. Augustine nor by Pope Gregory at Rome. Bede is recorded as the 'Father of English learning', being the first to translate the New Testament into English. All Christians are familiar with the beautiful story of Bede translating the last chapter to his scribe as he lay dying in his barren cell, expiring within a few minutes after concluding the last verse in the Gospel of St. John, reciting the 'Gloria'.

Regardless of the preservation of the letter sent from Pope Vitalian to King Oswy, Bede, being a man of devout character and erudition would never make a false report on such an important matter as the transfer of Those saintly bodies from the care of the Roman Catholic hierarchy at Rome to England if it were not so. His stature in the Augustinian church is noted in the record that the Venerable Bede is a canonized saint in the Roman Catholic Calendar.

The common (P.181) belief was, and still is among the Roman Catholic laity, that the body of St. Paul rests beneath th_e gh altar in e cathedral at Rome, erected to his honor; but It is well known in the high places in both Christian churches that for many centuries only his empty stone sarcophagus remains in the vault.

Professor Kinnaman the learned American scholar and archaeologist, in recent Tim Hasan his book Diggers for Facts, this reference to St. Paul's life work, writing:

'The real earthly remains of the Apostle to the Gentiles sleep in the soil of England beyond the reach of the arm of the Roman law.'

What of the tablet seen in the vault at St. Paul's without-the­ walls? Is it the lid of the stone coffin, supplied and inscribed by order of Constantine? The stone sarcophagus is in St. Paul’s Cathedral at Rome, but his body rests with St. Peter and the many other saints in England, described by (P.181) historians as 'the most hallowed ground on earth'.

 CHAPTER XVl

ST. PAUL'S MISSION IN BRITAIN 182

Since the (P.182) beginning of time when the peoples of the earth amalgamated into kingdoms, the pages of history are filled with the spectacular conquests of ambitious kings and mighty Caesars who, by military subjection, built mighty empires to their name. Backed by powerful, organized armies, with the wealth and resources of the nation behind them, the conquerors slaughtered and trampled underfoot the peoples of other nations whose only offense was to defend their land and homes.

Even as history extols their despotic fame it writes their pitiful obituary, exemplifying the words Jesus spoke in rebuke to Peter when he had slashed the ear off an offending servant's head with his sword: 'All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.’1

(1 Matt. 26:52.)

History books are the graveyard of military dynasties which rose and fell by the sword to satiate the ambitious greed of so many murderous conquerors. Such is the record of the Empire, Thousands of years before Christ, and in the two thousand years that have followed.

In comparison, imagination is staggered as we contemplate the achievements of that handful of apostles and disciples who first stood for Christ.

Penniless, suffering poverty, incarcerated, tortured, exiled, and without a weapon in their hands, each stood alone in the midst of imperial hostility as they conquered the world for Christ, a conquest that has endured and thrived for two thousand years. Empires have come and gone with the flag of Christ waving over their dust as majestically as the day it was unfurled when the British armies, led by Guiderius and Arviragus, defeated the Romans in the first battle of the Claudian campaign, A.D. 43.

Thus are the words of Jesus vindicated. Yet, in spite of the glaring truth, a major portion of the world today, more than ever, believes the sword is mightier than the Word. We see it as the Communistic regime seeking to bring the rest of the world under their tyrannical heel of slavery. Despite their faults and frequent backsliding for two thousand years, it has been the Christian Anglo­ Saxon world that has stood against the evils of material despotism and won. Often alone and overwhelmingly (P.183) outnumbered, they have fought for the freedom of man's spirit wherever it was challenged. God has said, 'Ye are My people. Ye shall not perish from the face of the earth.' In the same breath, God warns us that we shall be scourged with rods for our backsliding, meaning that we shall pay a price for our waywardness. We shall be punished with Pearl Harbor and Dunkirk. Then He says, when we are on the verge of disaster He will 'put hooks in their jaws and turn them back’ so that we may triumph. 

What a bitter price we unnecessarily will pay.

Read carefully the reports written by our great commanders in battle who could report no other explanation for victory, when all seemed lost, but a miracle.

The Third World War is bound to come. Win we shall, but at

a price. We have asked for it. The punishment can be minimized if we but open our ears and hearts to the Word of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; if we will but listen to the words of the apostles and disciples of our Lord, as our forefathers did in ancient Britain, and gird ourselves with the strength of divine promise, as they did.

St. Paul labored among the Gentiles to fulfill the promise which James said Simeon had declared, that God would take a people out of the Gentiles for His name, who would keep His Word, His Laws, and the Sabbath.

Are we those people? Scientists, scholars, and ecclesiastics think so. St. Paul certainly believed so. His founding of the first Christian church in Rome and implementing the British royal converts was his triumph, to be culminated in his special mission to Britain by other members of this same royal family of Christians. Before he had gone to Rome he had sent his representative to Britain, in Aristo­bulus the father-in-law of St. Peter. He was one of the original seventy elected by Christ and was the brother of Barnabas. It was

his wife on whom Jesus wrought the miracle as recorded in St. Matthew's Gospel. In his epistles, St. Paul sends his greeting 'to the household of Aristobulus'. It is stated that Aristobulus was in Britain before St. Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans.

Aristobulus was ostensibly Pau!'s forerunner in Britain, sent by the Apostle to the Gentiles to prepare the way for his own particular mission, which was to follow later, and to be separated from the Josephian Mission. In the preparatory stages, Aristobulus was associated with Joseph but never attached to the mission at Avalon. He labored in the part of Britain now known as Wales. In Those far-off centuries the whole island, (P.184) now divided into England, Scotland, and Wales, was covered by one name - Britain. The brother of Barnabas was exclusively connected with the most southern branch of the royal Silurians, the family of Caractacus, in Wales. Previous to the coming of Aristobulus to Wales, the father and grandfather of Caractacus had already planted the Christian seed in their own particular domain. As we have seen, when Joseph and his companions arrived in Britain, A.D. 36, Bran, the father of Caractacus, had abdicated his throne in favor of his son in order to assume his office as Arch-Druid of the Silures. His seat was at Trevnan, where Caractacus was born, in the parish of Llan-Ilid, Glamorganshire. Llyr Llediath, father of Bran, the King Lear of Shakespeare, founded the first Christian church in Wales at Llandaff, after his conversion and baptism by Joseph. On the nerging of the Druidic with the Christian faith all the members of the Bran-Caradoc dynasty were converted by Joseph.

The Princess Eurgain, eldest daughter of Caractacus, was the first to be baptized, and immediately following the order was her grandfather, the Arch Druid Bran, her great-grandfather Llyr Llediath, then her brother Linus, who later became the first Bishop of Rome and then her husband Salog, Lord of Salisbury, all at the hands of St. Joseph.

Her father Caractacus, and his son Cyllinus, who became regent in his father's stead during the latter's captivity at Rome, and Cynon the youngest son, were baptized in Rome by the hands of St. Paul.

Of Cyllinus, it is interesting to note that during his reign he is given credit for introducing into Britain the christening of infants with Christian names. Prior to this, the British followed the old Hebrew method of naming a person by one name only, and adding the word 'ab', meaning 'of', or 'son of. Tracing the lineage of a person under the old Hebrew principle was a difficult matter.

Support for the credit given to Cyllinus is evidenced in the following extract from the family genealogy as given by his descendant, Jestyn ap Gwrgant, Prince of Glamorgan, in the eleventh century :

'Cyllin ab Caradoc, a wise and just king, In his days many of the Cymry embraced the faith in Christ through the teachings of the saints of Cor-Eurgain, and many godly men from the countries of Greece and Rome were in Cambria. HE FIRST OF THE CYMRY GAVE INFANTS NAMES; for before, names were not given except to adults, and then from (P.185) something characteristic in their bodies, minds or manners.'

The quotation in capitals is by the author to draw attention to the historic fact. Incidentally, Cyllin and Caradoc are the true Celtic names of father and son. Caractacus and Cyllinus are the Roman versions.

All the children of Cyllinus were baptized in the faith. In later years he also abdicated his throne, in favor of his younger brother, Cynon. Like his grandfather, Bran, he took up the Cross, becoming a priest in the Christian faith. In the British Celtic Annals, he is registered as St. Cyllinus.

Llyr Llediaith, the grandfather of Caractacus, was among the group of royal captives taken to Rome, A.D. 52. Shortly after the famous trial of the British Pendragon before Emperor Claudius in the Roman Senate, Llyr died at Rome. His son Bran, being an Arch Priest, was not subject to the surrender but, voluntarily, on hearing of his father's death, offered himself as a hostage in place of the deceased Llyr. After the parole of his son, Caractacus, he remained with the Silurian family, dwelling at the Palace of the British in Rome. With the exception of the sons of Caractacus, who had returned to Britain to take over the reins of government, they were all residing in the Empire City when Paul arrived, A.D. 56. Then followed two years of instruction under St. Paul of the royal group who were to establish his mission in Britain. Aristobulus had journeyed to Rome from Britain to meet Paul and plan the evangelizing commission. From years of former service with Paul, Aristobulus was well acquainted with Paul's intentions. He knew he was to be an important factor in this great work among the selected Gentiles and his previous experience in Britain had given the aged disciple a good insight of the groundwork, most of which he personally had laid, with the aid of Llyr, Bran, and Joseph. Nevertheless, Paul's mission was designed to be distinctly separate from the Avalon Mission. Perhaps herein lay the weakness, for Paul's mission to Gentile Rome was not to endure.

While the royal house of Caractacus sponsored the mission, it was Eurgain, the eldest daughter of Caractacus, who actually was the chief sponsor, endowing the mission with munificent gifts and lands. 1

(1 St. Prydain’s Genealogy, which refers to Eurgain as the first female saint of Britain.)

In the year A.D. 58, the Paulian mission was ready to leave Rome to begin their work in Britain, in the territorial section known as Cambria, the ancient name of the Caradoc domain now known as Wales.

Only Caractacus was (P.186) subject to the seven-year parole, the rest of the British royal hostages were free to leave at any time they wished. The record states that Bran, after being consecrated by St. Paul at Rome, left one year before his son Caradoc, whose parole did not expire until the following year, A.D. 59. With Bran went Aristobulus, who had been consecrated the first Bishop of Britain by St. Paul, his sons Manaw, Brennus, Ilid, and Cyndaw as sup­ porting missionaries. The last two named were Judeans. With them was Eurgain and her husband Salog, Lord of Caer Salog, or old

Sarum, Salisbury. He is described as being a Roman patrician who had man-ied the daughter of Caractacus prior to the disaster at Clune, A.D. 52. Again we see a mingling of the Roman aristocracy with the royal British.

They arrived at Llan-ilid (meaning 'consecrated enclosure'),

Glamorganshire, erecting a church as a memorial.

Eurgain is recorded as the Patroness of the Paulian Mission at Llan-ilid, and for that reason, it became more commonly known as the Cor-Eurgain Mission. There she founded the first Cor, or choir, and from that time onward it was considered the finest choir in the world. This magnificent tradition has been continued over the centuries in unbroken sequence by the Welsh, being the basis of the world-famous Eisteddfod held every year by the Druidical Order of Wales when they congregate in Druidic costume and ceremony to renew the glorious past with the present. There the famous choirs can be heard singing by the descendants of those courageous noble Christians. In the annual choir contests held throughout the world, the Welsh Eisteddfod has never lost pride of place.

Once yearly, the famous Welsh choir visits the United States and Canada where, in a series of recitals, their magnificent voices delight and thrill all who hear them. Yet how little is it known by the audiences that this wonderful choir is a distinct link with St. Paul's mission to Britain nearly two thousand years ago.

Aristobulus was installed as the first Bishop at Llan-ilid, with Bran remaining as chief High Priest of Siluria at Llandaff.

In the Cymric language, Aristobulus is known as Arwystli-Hen

and Arwystli-Senex. Hen is Celtic for aged, just as Senex is the Roman term. 1

(1 ‘Triads. Myroyrian Arch., vol. 2)

Unfortunately, the (P.187) aged Aristobulus was to meet with a tragic end within a year of his return to Britain with his loyal companion. Unlike the Paulian Mission, which had come direct from Rome, the Josephian Mission had come direct from Jerusalem. It had no contact with Rome. Joseph also had the advantage of being well-known to the British for his former interests in the tin mining of Cornwall and Devon. He was so well received by them that he was considered one of them. On the other hand, the inveterate hatred of the British for Rome, and anything associated with it, persisted with an unrelenting detestation. Anything tinged with the Roman stigma was cause for grave suspicion. The Blessed Bran, writing in his journals, said they were hard put to induce the British to accept anyone or anything that came from Rome. It was only their love for the devout Bran and the lovely Eurgain, and their proud loyalty to Caractacus, that made them willing to meet halfway the Roman religious delegates. Aristobulus was well respected by the Silurians; he had come to them from Jerusalem, though Spain, and was known to be loved by Joseph and the Avalon band.

Aristobulus in his preaching zeal journeyed far beyond the territory of the Silurian shield into the lands of the British Ordo­ vices, whose hatred for the Romans was bitter and black. This blinded them to the facts, and he was unknown to them. Aware of the many ruses the Romans had instigated against the Britons in order to trick them into submission, they allied the presence of the aged elder brother of Barnabas to some form of Roman political treachery, in which religion played a hypocritical part in the scheme. They rose and slew him, given as the year A.D. 58 or A.D. 59, according to present reckoning.1

(1 Alford. Ruia Fides, p 41.)

Aristobulus was the first British bishop and the only one martyred by them. St. Alban, however, was regarded by Rome as the first British martyr at what was ancient Verulamium, still to be seen thanks to archaeological restoration. A church existed in Alban's time and, after his martyrdom, Offa, king of the Mercians, founded the Monastery of St. Albans, to his memory, in A.D. 793, Roman bricks from ancient Verulamium being used in its structure. The pre-Roman Belgae foundations, and the early Christian witness, instituted continuous worship in this spot.

Centuries later the Romish church criticized the British for their great lack of martyrs as compared to their own record. The leaders of the British church informed them that the disciples of the British church lived to preach and teach the Gospel and not die for it

unnecessarily for (P.188) their life had to be the only sacrifice, that they would gladly give. We know they gave it abundantly, but at the hands of the enemy and not by the hands of their own countrymen except in this one tragic circumstance. It was well known that the priests of the Romish church viewed martyrdom as a notable worthwhile gesture to such an extent they became fanatic. Man; deliberately sought martyrdom before they had achieved anything worthwhile.

There is another popular claimant to the honor of Being- the first Christian martyr in Britain identified with the church if St. Alban. It is a Christianized Roman soldier, named Alban, during the Diocletian persecution in Britain two hundred and fifty years later, who aided a hunted British priest to escape by wearing his robe, drawing pursuit to himself. On being recognized, the Roman officer ordered a soldier standing nearby to execute the culprit. The soldier refused, admitting that he, too, was a Christian, with the result that both soldiers were immediately beheaded. Tradition claims they were buried together on the spot where they were killed and a church erected on the site was named St. Albans.

Alban was the first Christian Roman soldier martyred in Britain by the Romans but by no means the first Christian martyr in Britain. Al authentic records, including The Genealogies of the Saints in Britain, name Aristobulus as the first of our Lord's disciples martyred in Britain, with Simon Zelotes being a second martyr shortly after. 1

(1 Dorotheus, Cyod de Apostol.

The first church erected on the site of St. Albans was built, as stated earlier, by the remorseful Ordovices to the memory of Aristobulus. Following the death of the Roman soldier Alban and his companion two hundred and fifty years later, the old church was reconstructed, enlarged, and renamed St. Albans by which it is known to this day.'

Of the aged, beloved friend of St. Paul and father-in-law of St. Peter, Aristobulus, there exists an abundance of authentic records from which the following are quotations from the original.

Cardinal Alford, who ranks second only to the erudite Cardinal Baronius as an authoritative historian of the Vatican, was one of the very few British ecclesiastics to achieve a high position in the Roman Catholic Church. He was a native-born Briton whose original name was Griffiths. He changed his name to Alford on joining the Jesuit Order. In fact, one can look in vain for the name of a British Pope during the years when the two churches were

somewhat in (P.189) agreement. None would accept the office, definitely refuting any mortal claim to being Christ's appointed Head of the Church. Only He was the Headstone.

Alford writes :

'It is perfectly certain that before St. Paul had come to Rome, Aristobulus was absent in Britain.'

In the Martyrologies of the Greek Church, we read:

'Aristobulus was one of the seventy disciples and a follower of St. Paul the Apostle, along with whom he preached the Gospel to the whole world, and ministered to them. He was chosen by St. Paul to be the missionary bishop to the land of Britain. He was there martyred after he had built churches and ordained deacons and priests on the island.'

Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, writes A.D. 303 :

'Aristobulus who is mentioned by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans, was made Bishop in Britain.'

Haleca, Bishop of Augusta, adds :

'The memory of many martyrs is celebrated by the Britons, especially that of St. Aristobulus, one of the seventy disciples.'

In the Adonis Martyrologia we read:

'March 15. Natal day of Aristobulus, Bishop of Britain, brother of St. Barnabas the Apostle, by whom he was ordained Bishop. He was sent to Britain where, after preaching the truth of Christ and forming a church, he received martyrdom.'

The reference in the above to the ordination of Aristobulus as Bishop by his younger brother Barnabas, was a much earlier appointment and did not apply to Britain. Following this ordination he first went into Britain, with Barnabas, as an exploratory agent of St. Paul. The consecration conferred on Aristobulus at Rome a Bishop of Britain, came much later, A.D. 58.’

Some may surmise that St. Paul's appointment of the aged disciple was in conflict with St. Joseph's office and mission. This is not so. Joseph is never referred to as Bishop of Britain. His title is more outstanding than the Apostle of Britain. His mission preceded the Paulian Mission under Aristobulus by twenty-two years. The year following the demise of Aristobulus, St. Philip reconsecrated Joseph as Chief Priest in Britain, A.D. 60.

The title, Bishop of Britain, was not again conferred on any missionary who followed after Aristobulus.

Of his coming (P.190) to Britain, the British Achau, or Genealogies of the Saints, has this to say :

Of his coming ot Britain, the British Achau, or Genealogies of the Saints, has this to say:

‘There came with Bran the Blessed from Rome to Britain, Arwstli Hen (Senex-old) Ilid. Cyndaw, men of Israel, and Maw, or Manaw, son of Arwystll.’

The Greek Menology also gives March 15 as the day of the martyrdom of Aristobulus.

Thus is established in brief form the positive evidence that Aristobulus actually labored and was slain in Britain corroborat­ing the contention that St. Paul did establish a working Christian mission in Britain.

The year of the death of the Bishop of Britain was the same year that saw the end of the parole of Caractacus at Rome, A.D. 59. He said his farewell to his beloved youngest daughter Gladys now Claudia Pudens, and to her noble husband Rufus and their four children. The parting with his eldest son Linu; now the first Bishop of Rome, must have been sad, for war was still raging in Britain, with his cousin, the valorous Arviragus, carrying the assault against the greatest commanders in Roman military history. The rest of his family had all returned to Britain. The famed Palace of the British at Rome would no longer house him. He had given it as a dowry to is daughter at her marriage to Rufus Pudens, along wIth its magnificent estate and baths. There is no record that he ever returned to Rome. That was hardly possible. He had taken an oath never to lift arms against the Romans as long as he lived. This oath.h kept, but he was still a dominant figure in British authority and It is understandable that any visits he may have wished to make to Rome may have been misconstrued by either side. The mad Nero had succeeded the Emperor Claudius in the Roman hierarchy, and Christian persecution was blazing with renewed malice.

On his return to his native land, he built a castle at Aber Gweryd, now St. Donat's Major, in Glamorganshire. Unlike his father his grandfather, or his children, he did not take any religious vows or office. It appears he aided his sons in governing his people and strongly supported the Christian movement without jeopardizing his oath. He ended his days peaceably, dying a natural death. This noble Briton, who had shaken Imperial foundations was laid to rest by his wife, his father Bran, and grandfather Llyr., in the Cor of Ilid in Siluria, where (P.191) later were to be gathered Cyllinus, Cynon, Eurgain, and Salog, all heroes in Christ, all of whom died a natural death in the light and joy of their Lord.

Following the death of Aristobulus, Princess Eurgain became the chief influence in the Paulian Mission. The famous Solo MS. states that Eurgain founded twelve colleges of Christian Druids for Culdee initiates at Gaer Urgan or Cor Eurgain. These colleges she endowed bountifully, developing them to the highest estate in theological learning. The greatness of Cor-Eurgain endured for centuries after her death, the only great memorial to endure to the testimony of St. Paul's Mission in Britain. From here many of the greatest teachers and most able missionaries flowed out in a constant stream, into the tenth century. Her love for music and excellent talent created the first Christian choirs. Eurgain was as talented as her younger sister, Claudia, and her famed aunt, Pomponia, writing hymns and anthems that rang throughout the land in chants of praise and glory. Her attention to the education of the young in the many schools she provided is a noble record. The beautiful Princess Eurgain devoted her entire wealth and life in the service of Christ. The records state that she was the most beloved woman in Britain. Eurgain was the first female convert in Britain and the first Christian female saint. Her illustrious life is chronicled in the Genealogy of the Saints in Britain, a beautiful woman, a noble princess, and a shining star in the diadem of Christ.

On the death of Aristobulus, Ilid, 'a man of Israel', who had gone with Bran and Aristobulus to Cambria, took charge until Paul arrived. Prior to his membership in the Paulian Mission little is known of him except he was a Judean convert out of Rome. In the Cymric Triads, he is shown as a very capable, energetic leader. His devout, efficient administration endeared him to the Silures. He spent many years of his life in Cambria, espousing the original plan St. Paul had conceived with the aged Bran and Aristobulus. Financed by the royal Silurian family, and by the personal efforts of Princess Eurgain and her brother, the abdicated Cyllinus, there was built a magnificent church and university and many new schools in Cambria. The Lolo MS. says, 'He afterward went to Glastonbury, where he died and was buried, and Ina, king of that country, raised a large church over his grave.' King Ina's church at Glastonbury Abbey, built A.D. 700, was excavated in recent years. By neglect, it has since been covered. It is interesting to note that he is numbered first on the long list of Cambrian saints, listed in the Genealogy of the Saints in Britain.

In some of the ancient (P.192) records, Ilid is claimed to have been a son of the Decurian Joseph of Arimathea, the Apostle of the British. The loss of his aged friend was a grievous blow to St. Paul. He had sent his salutations to his friends at Rome, including ‘the household of Aristobulus'.

It is claimed that Paul landed at what is now a suburb of the great naval port of Portsmouth, known over the ages and to present time as 'Paul's Grove'. From there he evidently made his way into Cambria, where it is claimed he founded the famous Abbey of Bangor. The doctrine and administration of the Abbey were known as Pauli Regula - 'The Rule of Paul'. Over each of its four gates was inscribed his motto: 'If a man will not work, neither let him eat.' All the Abbots that followed considered themselves as the direct successors of Paul.1 

(1 Morgan, St. Paul in Britain, p. 177.)

Each was specially elected and was usually of royal descent. It later developed into a monastery and is named by St. Hilary and St. Benedict as the 'Mother of Monasteries'. Its educational curriculum was of the highest order, attracting thou­sands of scholars. Its membership is stated by Bede to have risen to two Thousand one hundred. Its twentieth Abbot was the famous Pelagius who fought so strenuously against the novel papal teach­ings. They described his defense of the ancient British simple faith as the Pelagian Heresy.

It is doubtful if Paul stayed long enough in Britain to see the famous Abbey of Bangor completed. He knew his time was short and he sought to make the best use of it in his fervent evangelizing mission, chief of which was his special attention to his British Mission. While there he left his impression in writing his rule for a godly Christian life, recorded in Ancient British Triads as 'The Triads of Paul the Apostle'. Nowhere else are they recorded and nowhere else is the term 'Triads' employed outside Britain, which favors acceptance of their Pauline origin. They are as follows:

There are three (P.193) sorts of men: The man of God, who renders good for evil; the man of men, who renders good for good and evil for evil; and the man of the devil, who renders evil for good. 'Three kinds of men are the delights of God: The meek; the lovers of peace; the lovers of mercy.

'There are three marks of the children of God: Gentle deportment; a pure conscience; patient suffering of injuries.

'There are three (P.101) chief duties demanded by God: Justice to every man; love; humility.

‘In three places will be found the most of God: Where He is mostly sought; where He is mostly loved; where there is least of self.

'There are three things following faith in God: A conscience at peace; union with heaven; what is necessary for life.

'Three ways a Christian punishes an enemy: By forgiving him; by not divulging his wickedness; by doing him all the good in his power.

'The three chief considerations of a Christian: Lest he should

displease God; lest he should be a stumbling block to man; lest his love to all that is good should wax cold.

'The three luxuries of a Christian feast: What God has pre• pared; what can be obtained with justice to all; what love to all may venture to use.

'Three persons have the claims and privileges of brothers and sisters: The widow; the orphan; the stranger

The preservation of the Triads of Paul the Apostle is due to the Cor of Ilid, of which Ilid, the 'man of Israel', was the chief architect and chief priest.

In Merton College, Oxford, there is an ancient MS. which purports to contain a series of letters between St. Paul and Seneca. In them are several allusions to St. Paul's residence in Siluria. It is known as the Paulian MS.

Bishop Burgess writes :

'Of Paul's journey to Britain, we have as satisfactory proof as any historical question can demand.'

A casual study of the life and works of St. Paul, after his arrival at Rome, shows blank periods which Scripture does not explain. They total silence of six years. The general opinion, supported by the secular records, is that those years were spent in Gaul, and principally in Britain. We know he returned to Rome from Cambria, A.D. 61, and was imprisoned there. Again he returned to Britain and Gaul. Edouard de Bazelaire traces the path of Paul's travel, circa A.D. 62, along the Aurelian Way from Rome to Aries, in Gaul. With him was Trophimus, one of the original Josephian bands, previously referred to, and Crescens, whom he sent to Vienne, where he found the church at Mayence, being the first Bishop there. Scriptural records support this in which Paul refers to the sickness of one of his disciples whom he was obliged to leave in Gaul.

The Rev. (P.194) R. W. Morgan writes:

'There are six years of St. Paul's life to be accounted for, between his liberation from his first imprisonment and his martyrdom at Aquae Salviae in the Ostian Road, near Rome. Part certainly, the greater åpart perhaps, of this period was spent in Britain, in Siluria or Cambria, beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire; and hence the silence of the Greek and Latin writers upon it.1

(1 Morgan, St. Paul in Britain, p. 175.)

1 Acts 9:25. In Wales, as in Gaul, the memory of Paul's work among them is almost entirely lost. The only enduring memorials to Paul's presence in Britain, of note, are to be found in England.

Llandin - London is referred to as the 'Areopagus' of Britain, arising out of the instance that St. Paul preached from the summit of Ludgate Hill. The famous St. Paul's Cathedral is erected on the site, and the ancient St. Paul's Cross may well mark the spot where St. Paul stood as he preached the Gospel to the British.

This, and much more, is confirmed in the Long Lost Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (The Sonnini MS.).

The presence and preachings of St. Paul in London became so deeply associated with that city that he was made the Patron Saint of London, and his emblem, the sword of martyrdom, is incorpor­ated in the coat of arms of this great metropolis.

A common question often arises in discussions of the ability of the Apostles to preach understandably to people of different tongues. In what language did St. Paul address the British? Did be speak the Celtic tongue or Latin? It is an interesting but difficult question to answer.

Philologists have pointed out the great similarity of the ancient Celtic language with the ancient Hebrew, in which case it would not have been difficult for Paul to have preached to the British in the Cymric language. We know that the ancient British on a large scale were familiar with Greek, which was as common an inter­ national language of Those days as English is today. Paul wrote all his epistles in Greek, and for a long time after the apostolic age Greek was the language of the Church of Rome. Among the educated, Latin was well known. Caractacus addressed the Roman Senate at his famous trial in Latin; therefore neither side would experience any difficulty in speaking or hearing.

Moreover, it was the common practice of Christians from the beginning to read the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue. It had ever 1 Corinthians 14:9, the (P.195) Word of God forbids praying and preaching in an unknown tongue. Paul emphasized this in the canon he laid down for the Corinthian Church. He says :

'If I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me I had rather in the church speak five words with my understanding ... than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.'

It was not till the reign of Charlemagne that Latin became the language of church services. Latin as the language of prayer and worship was also imposed by Pope Gregory I in the year A.D. 600.

The British church ever opposed this practice and was the first to demand its abolition, and the first to print and preach the Bible in their own language.

Bishop Ussher, in his Historia Dogmatica, writes:

'No two causes contributed so much to the declension of Christianity and the progress of Mohammedanism, as the suppression by the Church of Rome of the vernacular scriptures, and her adoption of image worship.'

Worship of images and relics was first introduced in the Roman Church Council by Pope Hadrian I, A.D. 788. In the Bible, this is called idolatry and is severely condemned (Exodus 20 : 4, 5; Deut. 27: 15; Psa.115).

Probably the place where Paul is most commemorated is Malta, where he was shipwrecked. At Valletta stands the beautiful church of St. Paul Shipwrecked, erected to his memory and rescue from the sea.

It is certain that, if it had not been for the vigorous support of the Paulian Mission in Cambria by Princess Eurgain and her relatives, his efforts would have completely failed. We cannot help but feel regret that so little was perpetuated, even during the activity of the Cor Eurgain, to his memory and those faithful workers who issued through Rome. It can be well said that the success of his mission during its existence and presence in Cambria was due to the magnificent efforts of the Caradoc Silurian family and had a profound influence in the promotion of Christianity in Wales. Following the death of Paul the Cambrian church renewed its close ties with Avalon. The deep affection Eurgain and her relatives (P.196) held for Joseph who first converted and baptized many of them always remained. Among the common people, their allegiance never deviated from Joseph or the Mother Church at Avalon. They could not or would not accept that which came from Rome. In this alone is found the answer. Yet they could not and did not fail to recognize the deep affection Paul held for the children of Caractacus and the children of Claudia. It was too evident. His love for Linus was unbounded. We see this preserved in an unusual relic in the Vatican Museum. It is in the form of a glass medallion depicting a contemporary portrait of the heads of Linus and Paul, proclaiming their undying friendship and close association during Those drama-packed years.

Paul fulfilled the mission of his Saviour, Jesus Christ, to go 'far hence unto the Gentiles, the merit of which has throbbed and thrived for two thousand years, and will continue to live firm in, the hope of the great promise, till He shall come again.

Eloquently St. Clement sums up the magnitude of the achievements of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Being one of the original Bethany bands that dwelt at Avalon with Joseph, he knew St. Paul intimately and long before he followed in the office of his beloved friend Linus, as Bishop of Rome. He writes :

'To leave the examples of antiquity, and to come to the most recent, let us take the noble examples of our own times. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostle, Peter, though unjust odium, underwent not one or two, but many sufferings; and having undergone his martyrdom, he went to the place of glory to which he was entitled. Paul, also, having seven times worn chains, and been hunted and stoned, received the prize of such endurance. For he was the herald of the Gospel in the West as well as in the East and enjoyed the illustrious reputation of the faith in teaching the whole world to be righteous. And after he had been in the extremity of the West, he suffered martyrdom before the sovereigns of mankind; and thus delivered from this world, he went to his holy place, the most brilliant example of steadfastness that we possess.'

'Extremity of the West' was the term used to indicate Britain. Capellus, in History of the Apostles, writes:

'I know scarcely of one author from the time of the Fathers downward who does not maintain that St. Paul, after his libera­tion, preached in every country of the West, in Europe, Britain included.'

Theodoret, fourth (P.197) century, writes: 'St. Paul brought salvation to the Isles in the ocean.'

Ventanius, sixth century, Patriarch of Jerusalem, speaks very definitely of St. Paul's visit and work in Britain, as does Irenaeus,

A.D. 125-189; Tertullian, A.D. 122-166; Origen, A.D. 185-254;

Mello, A.D. 256; Eusebius, A.D. 315; Athanasius, A.D. 353; and many other chroniclers of church history.

If further confirmation is needed it is supplied in the records of the Roman, Eastern, Gallic, and Spanish churches, all of which attest to the fact that St. Paul evangelized in Gaul and Britain.

 CHAPTER XVII

GOOD KING LUCIUS NATIONALIZES THE FAITH

By the year A.D. 140 all (P.198) the original apostles, disciples, and all Those who had been associated with them had passed on into their eternal rest; the last being the noble children of the glorious Claudia and Rufus Pudens. St. John had outlived all the original three groups elected by Jesus. He lived to the remarkable old age of 101 years. 1 Joseph, the Apostle of the British, had died A.D. 82, at Avalon. 2 A few of them had lived to

(1 Irenaeus speaks of him as still living in A.D. 98, and Jerome dates his death as sixty-eight years after the Crucifixion.

2 July 27, A.D. 82, according to Cressy.)

see the fulfillment of the command to go to all corners of the world and preach the Gospel and had seen the Christian platform on which each had labored firmly established. Their lives were the nails that held it fast. It seems almost impossible to believe that this handful of men and women could have achieved such a formidable conquest in so short

a time.

Undoubtedly (198) it is the greatest and most enduring world conquest in the history of time. Unarmed, these gentle, valorous champions of goodwill conquered the evil forces of the mightiest armies of the ancient world, their only weapon was the promise of Christ.

Within sixty-six years after the Incarnation prominent Christian centers were strongly entrenched in many foreign lands. In the foregoing chapters we have seen, like the roots of a bay tree, bow the endless flow of Christian workers streaming out of Britain into Gaul, Rome, Germany, Switzerland, and other countries, evangeliz­ng and building sturdy Bishoprics in numerous cities of importance. Apart from Those listed can be added Jerusalem Samaria Caesarea Lydda, Antioch, Damascus, Antioch of Pisidia, Iconiu'm, Lystra’, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Thyatira, Pergamos, Philadelphia, Caesarea in Cappadocia, Laodicea, Colosse, Galatia, Athens, Corinth, Thessalonia, Berae, Philippi, Cyprus, Crete, Alexandria, Rome, Malta, and Spain. Britain and Gaul have been discussed.

In comparison, the missionary progress made by the Christian world in the last one hundred years is minute. In spite of the vast sums of money provided and expended, under far more favorable conditions, the impress made by our churches and missionaries in

India, China, Japan, (P.199) Africa and elsewhere are not heartening. Since the middle of the last century ungodliness and atheism have developed alarmingly within the Christian nations. The Gallup polls claim that the majority of the Christian world believes in God and worship, but the empty churches and pitiable financial support given to them hardly substantiate the claim. The difference between the teachers and the people of the Christian golden era and the present luxurious Christian era is that our ancestors gave heart service. Today it appears to be purely lip service. Virtually the Lord's Day is lost and is nothing more than a Roman holiday. As the wings of death swept the spirits of the glorious cavalcade to their well-earned reward, other disciples stemmed from the many Christian centers in an ever-growing army to take their place, preaching the Word with fiery tongues. The missionary band that flowed from Britain still provided the greatest number in the field. Avalon was still the citadel of the Christian faith. For the churches laboring in other foreign fields, particularly Rome, the task was filled with grave personal danger. They lacked the invincible pro­tection of the British warriors; they stood alone and were to continue to do so for more than one hundred and fifty years before a British army, led by its royal warrior chieftain, was to smash the Gates of Rome and crush pagan opposition forever.

In Britain, there had long been peace between Roman and British armies. Recognizing the futility of the strife and the decimation of her Legions from the war in Britain, Rome found her military defense so weakened that she was hard put to defend her own frontiers. Tacitus states that from A.D. 43 to A.D. 86 sixty major battles had been fought on British soil. From A.D. 86 to A.D. I 18 only one Roman name appears in British history, Neratius Marcellus. The great Roman commander, Agricola, who had experienced the mettle of British valor on many a battlefield, was more broad­ minded than any of his predecessors. 1 He was convinced that the Britons were oblivious to 

(1 For his character, Tacitus, Agricola, ch. 4.)

persecution and war. Like Julius Caesar, he realized that defeat or privation had the adverse effect of dis­couragement on this warrior nation, inspired by the fire of the Cross. He effected a more humane policy by inaugurating a treaty that held no chains. Wisely he incorporated the British as allies of the Roman Empire, recognizing all their native freedoms and kingly prerogatives. In A.D. 120 Emperor Hadrian enlarged the treaty, which merely permitted the Romans to hold certain military bases in Britain. The peace treaties of Agricola and Hadrian created the long (P.200) peace between Rome and

Britain that lasted up to the Diocletian persecution, circa A.D. 300.

In the year A.D. 137 St. Timotheus, son of Claudia Pudens, had journeyed from Rome to baptize his nephew King Lucius at Winton (Winchester), at the same time consecrating him, Defender of the Faith, as legal, royal successor to his ancestor, Arviragus, upon whom Joseph had conferred the original honor. This began a new wave of evangelism in Britain which, it is said, had somewhat waned since the death of Joseph. To a certain extent this can be understood: rarely do we find the successor of a strong, vigorous founding leader equally as dominant; nevertheless, as one reads the long list of teachers that continued to pour from Avalon and Cor Eurgain, filling new Bishoprics at home and abroad, there appeared to be little flickering of the light.

However, there is no doubt that the enthusiastic religious zeal that Lucius now supplied infused a vigor more akin to the energy that inspired the founders of the Josephian Mission at Avalon and the Pauline Mission in Cambria, particularly knowing that he was a direct descendant of the royal Silurian kingdoms of Cornwall and Cambria.

According to his genealogy, Lucius was son of Coel, son of St. Cyllinus, son of Caractacus, son of Bran, son of Llyr. By inter­ marriage he was also directly descended from Arviragus, of the Cornish-Devon Silures. This made Lucius the great-grandson of both Caractacus and Arviragus, truly a majestic heritage.

It is strange how the Roman names of the early British kings cling to the pages of the English history books, in preference to their original Celtic names. Because of this, the writer finds himself obliged to concur in order to avoid any confusion in the reader's mind in referring to historic data.

His native name was Lleurug Mawr. Because of his exemplary religious life and his outstanding achievements in church and state, he was termed in Celtic Lleuver Mawr, meaning the 'Great Light'. However, the name by which he is best known is the Latin interpretation, Lucius. The Romans Latinized his name to Lucius from the Latin 'Lux', which carries the same implication as the Celtic to the Romans, the 'Great Luminary'.

It is interesting to note that Lucius made his royal seat at Caer Winton, romanized to Winchester, as it is still known. The city was founded by the brilliant British king, Dunwal Molmutius, renowned in British history as one of 'the Three Wise British Kings', the Great Numa, or Law-maker. He made Winchester (P.201) his royal capital, in 500 B.C., instead of the older capital London. It was also known as the 'White City', due to the white chalk walls with which he surrounded the city. Even after, when London was re-established as the royal capital of Britain, Winchester continued to be known as the 'Royal City'. The city was founded on an ancient Druidic Gorsedd site. Some of the stones are still preserved in the old public buildings. Many great British kings made royal Winchester their capital. William the Conqueror refused to consider his first corona­tion valid until crowned a second time at Winchester, 'to justify his rightful claim to the British throne, where all true British kings had been crowned'.

The most notable event in the meritorious reign of King Lucius was performed in the year A.D. 156 when, at the National Council at Winchester, he established Christianity as the National Faith of Britain.

By this act, he solemnly declared to the world that Britain was officially a Christian nation by Act of Parliament. This Act is described in the British Triads as follows:

'King Lucius was the first in the Isle of Britain who bestowed the privilege of country and nation and judgment and validity of oath upon Those who should be of the faith of Christ.'

In so few words is described as one of the most momentous events in Christian history, officially establishing Lucius as the first Christian king by a national act of the Council. His great grandsires, Caractacus and Arviragus, were Christian kings in person but they had not proclaimed it by a national order in Council over the realm. The time then was not propitious. Their era was the period of acceptance, conversion, organization, and the vanquishment of their mortal enemy, the Romans, in defense of the faith; years of preparation by the diligence of the apostles, their disciples, and Those that followed after. The great British Edict was joyously welcomed by Christians in other lands. Sabellius, A.D. 250, shows this national establishment was acknowledged elsewhere beyond the confines of Britain. He writes :

'Christianity was privately confessed elsewhere, but the first nation that proclaimed it as their religion, and called itself Christian, after the name of Christ, was Britain.'

Genebrand declares :

'The glory of Britain consists not only in this, that she was the first country which in a national capacity publicly professed herself (P.2002 Christian, but that she made this confession when the Roman Empire itself was pagan and a cruel persecutor of Christianity.'

This statement by Genebrand is important, proving the invalidity of the claim by the Roman Catholic Church, centuries later, that this epochal act of legislature was brought about by the Pope Eleutherius of Rome. In striving to justify their claim, Romish writers of the seventh century sought to confuse the dates. The ironical fact is that no allusion was made to this claim by the church at Rome until after the Italian-Augustinian Mission in Britain, A.D. 597, over four hundred and forty years after the Act had been declared. Why the centuries of silence if it were true?

The flat rejection by the British Bishops on their first meeting with St. Augustine, who sought to coerce the British church into the novel Papal system, so angered him and his Romish retinue that he began to institute a rejection of all British priority to her native claims in being the first to accept and establish the Christ faith. They had said :

'We have nothing to do with Rome. We know nothing of the Bishop of Rome in his new character of the Pope. We are the British Church, the Archbishop of which is accountable to God alone, having no superior on earth.'

Blackstone, the great English jurist, wrote :

'The ancient British Church was a stranger to the Bishop of Rome, and all his pretended authorities.'

Sir Francis Bacon, writing in Government of England, says : 'The Britons told Augustine they would not be subject to him, nor let him pervert the ancient laws of their Church. This was their resolution, and they were as good as their word, for they maintained the liberty of their Church five hundred years after this time, and were the last of all the Churches of Europe that gave up their power to the Roman Beast, and in the person of Henry VIII, that came of their blood by Owen Tudor, the first that took that power away again.'

A number of writers in modern times have supported many of the statements made by Augustine and his followers, taking for granted what they read from the Romish writings. They could not bother to check the record.

Actually, the spiteful Augustine and his cohorts outsmarted themselves. Gregory I, who (P.203) commissioned Augustine to go to Britain, was not officially Pope. The slovenly historians dishonored him. The title of Pope, or universal Bishop, was first given by Emperor Phocas, A.D. 610. He created the office to demote and spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor, Emperor Mauritius. Phocas first offered the title to Gregory I, who was then Bishop of Rome. Gregory refused the office. It was accepted by his successor, Boniface III. He was the first to assume this false title.

One has but to read Luke 22: 24-26; Ephesians 1 : 22, 23; Colossians 1: 18; and I Corinthians 3: 11 to see that Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the Apostles and expressly forbade any nation to do so.

In later years it became a habit with many Roman Catholic writers to refer to all the former Bishops of Rome as Pope, even to Linus and Paul. The Apostles of Christ never heard the term and Peter and Paul in making their elections specifically nominate the elected as Bishops only. As Bishops, they were all known in Rome until the inauguration of the Papacy, A.D. 610, and in Britain even during the alliance with Rome the heads of the British church were never anything but Bishops, and they alone inherited apostolic succession in an unbroken line from the original Apostles of Christ.

In their efforts to sway the minds of the people Augustine, and a few who followed later, sought to debase the facts and confuse the dates, in a futile effort to convince those not allied with the Roman Catholic hierarchy that all Christianizing eminence was created by them. Due to the record of the correspondence issued between King Lucius and Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, the spurious claim was made that Lucius pleaded with the Bishop to send his representatives to Britain to convert him and nationally proclaim Britain Christian.

All British and Roman records attest to the fact that Lucius was confirmed and baptized in the faith by his uncle, St. Timotheus, as stated before. He was baptized in the famous Chalice Well, at the foot of the Tor at Avalon, on May 28, A.D. 137. In the year A.D. 167, he commemorated the event by building St. Michael's on the summit of the Tor, which was the largest Druidic Gorsedd in Britain. This memorial was destroyed in the earthquake that shook Glastonbury, A.D. 1275. The present St. Michael's was erected on the same site. It is a most imposing monument. It can be seen for miles before one enters the ancient town of Glastonbury. Standing on its (P.204) high eminence it reaches into the sky like a giant finger, proclaiming to all who see it the monumental events of the auspicious life of King Lucius. 1

(1 Vide Capgrave, John of Teignmouth, Book of Tello, and William of Malmesbury.)

In the year A.D. I 70 Lucius founded the majestic church at Winchester, now known as Winchester Cathedral, and familiar to Thousands of Canadian soldiers in World War II garrisoned at Winchester as the Battle Abbey of the British Empire. Therein repose its greatest warriors and therein is preserved the elaborate casket of the grandfather of Alfred the Great. Also, the Round Table of King Arthur's fame is preserved in the County Hall.

Twenty-seven years after Lucius had nationalized Britain in the Christian faith he sent his two emissaries, Medwy and Elfan, to Rome to obtain the permission of Bishop Eleutherius for the return to Britain of some of the British missionaries aiding Eleutherius in his evangelizing work within the Roman Empire, in order that he, Lucius, could better carry out his expansive Christian program in Britain.

Gildas, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Bede, Urban, John of Teig­ mouth, and Capgrave, referred to 'as the most learned of English Augustinians whom the soil of England ever produced', support the date of return of the emissaries of King Lucius from visiting Bishop Eleutherius at Rome, as that given in the British annals, A.D. r 83, over a century and a half before the Roman Catholic Church was founded. Cardinal Baronius not only denounces the Augustinian claim but in detail recites the whole record from the year A.D. 36 onward.

Bishop Eleutherius, in his letter to King Lucius, A.D. 183, plainly shows that he is aware that Lucius possessed all the necessary knowledge of the Christian teachings beforehand and needed no advice from him, and that he had no part in the nationalizing of Britain in the Faith, or in converting or baptizing the British king, otherwise, he would have referred to the matter that had occurred twenty-seven years previous to his letter. By this, he shows how unjustified the claim of the Church of Rome, let alone the Roman Catholic Church, was not yet dreamed of. John Foxe, the talented author of Acts and Monuments, reproduces the controver­sial letter as Eleutherius wrote it to King Lucius :

'The Roman laws and the Emperors we may ever reprove, but the law of God we may not. Ye have received of late though God's mercy in the realm of Britain the Law and Faith of Christ.

Ye have (P.205) within you within the realm of both the parties of the Scriptures. Out of them, by God's grace, with the council of your realm, take ye a law that can, though God's sufferance, rule your kingdom of Britain. For ye be God's Vicar in your kingdom, according to the saying of the Psalm, "0 God, give Thy Judgment to the King."'

Medwy and Elfan returned to Britain with Dyfan and Fagan, both British teachers who had first received their schooling at Avalon.

Elian, Dyfan, and Fagan were appointed Bishops in Britain. Elfan succeeded Thcanus, the first Bishop of London, who died in A.D. 185. The Welsh authorities state that he presided over a congregation of Christian Culdees at Glastonbury (Avalon), before he was sent to Rome with Medwy. Pitsaeus, the Roman Catholic Canon, in his Relationes Historicae de Rebus Anglicis, says that Elfan, known as Elvanus of Avalon, was brought up at Glastonbury and was educated in the school of St. Joseph of Arimathea and that he wrote· an informative work concerning the origin of the British church. On being elected as the second Bishop of London, Elfan was the first prelate to occupy the new church erected by King Lucius in memory of St. Peter, a church which has remained famous throughout the centuries of Christian history as St. Peter's of Cornhill, London.

Medwy was made a Doctor of Theology by the king.

It seemed that the three newly-appointed Bishops shared Lucius's deep affection for Avalon and sought to restore it to its original conception, as first founded by St. Joseph with his twelve companions. 1 From Winchester they journeyed to the Sacred Isle of 

(1 Lewis, Glastonbury, Her Saints, pp. 10-11.)

Avalon, of which Geoffrey of Monmouth writes as follows:

'There, God leading them, they found an old church built, as 'twas said, by the hands of Christ's Disciples, and prepared by God Himself for the salvation of souls, which Church the Heavenly Builder Himself showed to be consecrated by many miraculous deeds, and many Mysteries of healing. And they afterward pondered the Heavenly message that the Lord had specially chosen this spot before all the rest of Britain as the place where His Mother's name might be invoked. They also found the whole story in ancient writings, how the Holy Apostles were scattered thoughout the world. St. Philip came to France with a host of Disciples and sent twelve of them to Britain to (P.206) preach, and there, taught

by revelation, they constructed the said chapel which the Son of God afterward dedicated to the honor of His Mother; and that to these same twelve were given twelve portions of land for their sustenance. Moreover, they found a written record of their doings, and on that account, they loved this spot above all others, and they also, in memory of the first twelve, chose twelve of their own, and made them live on the island with the approval of King Lucius. These twelve thereafter abode there in diverse spots as anchorites - in the same spots, indeed, which the first twelve inhabited. Yet they used to meet together continuously in the Old Church in order to celebrate Divine worship more devoutly, just as the kings long ago granted the said island with its surroundings to the twelve former Disciples of Christ, so the said Phagan (Fagan) and Deruvian (Dyfan) obtained it from King Lucius for these twelve companions and for others to follow thereafter. And thus, many succeeding these, but always twelve in numbers, abode in the said island during many years up to the coming of St. Patrick, the Apostle of the Irish.'

In this manner, at Avalon, the beautiful past was renewed by Fagan and Dyfan, following in the steps of the Noblis Decurio and his twelve saintly companions, and the many others of the illustrious company of Christ.

Returning to the famous letter of Eleutherius to Lucius we note the remarkable statement naming Lucius 'Vicar of God'. This is the first time that title was ever bestowed on a king and that a British king and by the Bishop of Rome. By this act the church at Rome declai·ed Lucius to be the head of the church and not they. However, Lucius did not accept or use this honorable title. He recognized the admonition of the Bishops of the British church and of all Christian Britons injured in the faith, that Christ alone was the Head of the Church and the true representative of the Father. Instead, Lucius was named, 'the most religious King', a title which every British ruler since who has sat on the British Throne has held.1

(1 ALewis, Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, 6th edition, pp. 14-15.)

Lucius also established the three famous Archbishoprics at London, York, and Caerlon on Usk. In the year A.D. 179, he built the historic St. Peter on Cornhill. This church is often referred to as the first Christian church erected in London, of which Elian was installed as the first Bishop. During the ensuing centuries, this church was enlarged but was destroyed in the Great Fire of

London which almost (P.207) completely leveled the ancient city. The tablet telling the history of this great church, embedded in the original walls, survived the Great Fire and has since been preserved over the mantel of the fireplace in the vestry. It bears the following inscription :

'Bee it known to all men that the year of our Lord God 179, Lucius, the first Christian King of the land, then called Britaine, founded the first church in London, that is to say, the church of St. Peter upon Cornhill. And he founded there an Archbishops See and made the church the metropolitan and chief church of the kingdom; and so endured the space of 400 years unto the coming of St. Austin the Apostle of England, the which was sent into the land by St. Gregoire, the doctor of the church in the time of King Ethelbert. And then was the Arch­ bishops See and Pall removed from the aforesaid church of St. Peter upon Cornell into Dorobernia that now is called Canterbury and there it remaineth to this day. And Millet a monke which came into this land with St. Austin, Bee was made Bishop of London and his See was made in St. Paul's church. And this Lucius king was the first founder of St. Peter's church upon Cornehill. And Bee reigned in this land after Brute 1245 years. And in the year of our Lord God 124, Lucius was crowned king, and the years of his reign were 77 years.'

Among other wonderful churches, King Lucius founded were the church at Llandaff and the church at Cardiff, known today as St. Mellors, which is still referred to as Lucius's Church. He also founded the beautiful church of St. Mary de Lode in the city of Gloucester, where he was interred. In a later year, A.n. 679, this church was enlarged and beautified by the Christian king of the British Mercians, Wolphen.

It is commonly stated that Emperor Constantine was the first to have the coin of the realm stamped with the sign of the Cross. The statement is an error. King Lucius, the ancestor of Constantine, was the first to mint his coins displaying the sign of the Cross on one side and on the other side his name 'Luc'. In the collection in the British Museum exist two coins depicting the reign of King Lucius, bearing the motifs as stated. Of interest is the fact that Arviragus, maternal ancestor of Lucius, was so bitterly opposed to all that was Roman that he made acceptance, or circulation of Roman coins among the British, a capital offense. This refusal to accept Roman coinage by the British lingered well into the reign of Lucius. From (P.208) Claudius, whom Arviragus first opposed on the field of battle, to the reign of Emperor Hadrian, no coins of inter­vening Roman Emperors are to be found in Britain. From Hadrian onwards, complete series of Roman coins are found. An examination of the coinage exhibit in the British Museum substantiates these facts and the notable omission. The coins of Arviragus are con­sidered to be the most magnificent minted. An eminent numismatic expert made the remark :

'Wherever a coin of the British King Arviragus is shown in any coin collection, it stands out as a gem.'

The coins of Cunobelinus bear the inscription on one side of his name 'Cuno', and on the reverse side a galloping charger and the plume of three ostrich feathers.

The interesting part is that the coins of these three famed British kings were all minted at Colchester. Historians pay little attention to this ancient city. The focus is all on the great centers such as London, Winchester, York, Edinburgh, Canterbury, and others. Few are as steeped in the British tradition, where so many notable events had their beginnings, events that are milestones in the destiny of nations and, in particular, Christianity, as we shall see as we pursue our story. Colchester is a quiet little city today, but what a mass of startling history it contains for Those who have the energy to part the curtains of time and examine the records.

Of all the great disciples of Christ, King Lucius is in all proba­bility the least known. To the average person, his name has no meaning. All he did to solidify the Christian foundation is not even considered, let alone remembered. Historians bypass him as though he never existed, in spite of the wealth of information describing his life and achievements at hand. The talented Foxe, in his Acts and Monuments, wrote:

'The said Lucius after he had founded many churches, and given great riches and liberties to the same, deceased with great tranquillity in his own land, and was buried at Gloucester.'

King Lucius died December 3, in the year A.D. 201, after a long reign of seventy-seven years. The learned Alban Butler1 states that Lucius was buried first at St. Mary de Lode, the lovely church he founded at Gloucester, then later was reinterred in the other church he built, St. Peter's upon Cornhill, for which church he had a deep affection. Much later, his remains were again translated to Gloucester, cester, where (P.209) they were placed in

( ‘The Lives of the Saints (1756).)

the choir of the Franciscan church by the Earls of Berkley and Clifford, which church, the Church of the Grey Friars, was founded by these two famous families.

There is another record concerning the death of King Lucius, chronicled in the Roman Martyrologies, which states that Lucius abdicated his throne and with his sister, St. Emerita, traveled as a missionary through Bavaria, Rhoetia and Vindelicia, meeting a martyr's death near Curia in Germany. According to an old transcript recorded circa A.D. 685, Lucius, king of the British, and his sister Emerita, is buried in the crypt of the old cathedral at Chur (Coire), the capital of the Grisons Canton, Switzerland. Cressy the Benedictine, who wrote following the Reformation, quoting from these old chronicles, recites the above in his book Church History of Brittany. Students of the life of the illustrious King Lucius state that the Roman Martyrologies have the British king confused with the religious Bavarian King Lucius, who was martyred near Curia in Germany.

In A Guide to the Cathedral, compiled by the Rev. H. Haines in 1867 at Gloucester, he writes :

'King Lucius was baptized on May 28, A.D. 137, and died on December 3, 201. His feast has been kept on both these days, but the latter is now universal.

There exists a wealth of material extolling the exemplary life of Good King Lucius, among which are the writings of Bede, Nenni.us, Elian, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Cressy, William of Malmesbury, Ussher, who states he had consulted twenty-three works on Lucius: Rees, Baroni.us, Alford, The Book of Llandafj, Welsh Triads, The Mabinogion, Achau Saint Prydain, and many other reliable works, all of which pay noble tribute to this famed Christian monarch, who devoted his entire life as a disciple in Christ's service, to the benefit of the Christian world which has forgotten him.

The lasting benefits of the wonderful achievements of King Lucius on the realm endured for well over one hundred years after his death. The people and the land thrived in peace and prosperity.

The Venerable Bede, writing A.D. 740, sums up the picture in a few brief words, but in his characteristic eloquence:

'The Britons preserved the faith which they had nationally received under King Lucius uncorrupted and entire and con­tinued in peace and tranquillity until the time of Emperor Diocletian' (Bk. 1, ch. 4).

The savage (P.210) Diocletian persecution broke the peace and produced the conquering Constantine, known to history as the Emperor Constantine the Great, a direct descendant of Lucius, Arviragus, and Caractacus, a stalwart champion and disciple of the Christian faith.

The seed never perished, enduring from one generation to another. In times of peace, its strength coursed beneath calm waters, ever ready to crash to the surface in stormy conflict to defend the priceless heritage as circumstances demanded. In every case, it was a prince of royal blood who stalwartly and often heroically stood forth to meet the challenge of battle oppression. And in each case, the Defender of the Faith was a true lineal descendant of those valiant British kings and queens of so many centuries ago, even as is today Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth.

Publisher's Note.

Despite the agreement of authorities that King Lucius was baptized by his uncle, St. Timotheus, in the year A.D. 137, there seems uncertainty as to the place of baptism, Winchester, Glaston­bury and, by implication, Gloucester, being listed in this chapter. The Gloucester reference implies baptism there but could be a reference to that at Glastonbury, thus narrowing the field to two. The place, however, is not the important factor here; the fact of baptism is.

 CHAPTER XVIII

THE EMPEROR OF CHRISTENDOM CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.

The great peace which had settled over the Island, beginning with the Treaty of Agricola, A.D. 86, continued for a period

of two hundred years. During these two centuries, there was no mention of any British-Roman (P.211) conflict. Historians are silent, leaping the two-hundred-year gap as though nothing had occurred in the tight little island of Britain; then they take up the record in the year A.D. 287, to recite the usurping of the Roman Emperor's crown when Carausius a Menapian by birth, who was then the Admiral of the Roma fleet, landed in North Britain, marching to York where he had himself proclaimed Emperor.

Since the fall of London, under the arms of Queen Boadicea,

the city of York had become a popular resort for the Romans. From this ancient British city, first known as Caer Evroc, several Roman Emperors had functioned, probably deemed it a safe haven to rule from than the city of Rome, rife with Jealousy, intrigue and assassination. Several Roman Emperors are buried within the walls of this age-old citadel of the Brigantes.

It was at Caer Evroc - York, where Caractacus was betrayed and delivered to the enemy by his relative, Aricia, Queen of the Brigantes, and where she was denounced and dethroned by her own people. For centuries before Christ It had been the center of enameling craftsmen and the La Téne art.

Briefly, profane history tells us that Carausn reigned as Emperor from York for seven years and was then assassinated by Allectus, his minister, A.D. 294.. The assassin reigned for two years and then fell in battle against the forces of Constantius Chlorus, who succeeded Allectus as Emperor. He also ruled his Empire from York for ten years. With him began one of the most momentous chapters in Christian history, beginning in - a maelstrom of persecution and slaughter exceeding the brutal Menai bloodbath of the Christians by Suetonius Paulinus and the Boadicean atrocities under the malignant direction of Catus Decianus, A.D. 6o to A.D. 62. Actually the stupendous events that began to be enacted with the reign of the Emperor Constantius Chlorus had their start in the lovely city of Colchester, thirty-one years before Constantius assumed the Roman purple.

The old Celtic (P.212) name for Colchester is Camu]odunum, the city where Cunobelinus and his son Arviragus minted their excellent coinage. It was also the royal seat of King Coel.

King Coel reigned at Colchester, once the royal seat of Cunobelinus, his ancestor, endowing the churches with munificent gifts. The remains of King Coel's castle can still be seen at Lexdon, a suburb of Colchester.

In the year A.D. 265, a daughter was born to King Coel in his castle at Colchester who was to become world-renowned as Empress Helen of the Cross. Helen was the Graeco-Roman interpretation of the British name Elaine. As the Empress-Auguste Helena she is best known and so recorded in the brightest annals of Roman history. This beautiful, accomplished woman was a noble counter­ part of her famous predecessors, Princess St. Eurgain and the beloved Claudia (Gladys) Pudens. Raised in a Christian household and educated in its religious principles, her natural talents were developed to a high degree by the best scholars and administrators in the land. Steeped in the traditions of the faith, she espoused all that is Christian with intelligence and with courage. Helen possessed one attribute greater than either of her famous royal female pre­decessors, her capacity for political administration. While her regal husband and son stood out eminently in the art of diplomacy, all facts and records prove that her capacity in this direction played a prominent part in their imperial destiny. The Christianizing of the Roman Empire would undoubtedly have been delayed centuries but for her energy and devotional support.

As usual, profane history merely describes Helen in her role as Empress. No mention is given of her ancestry and brilliant heritage. To all Roman historical records, Empress Helena is made to appear as a Roman native, the wife of a Roman, and the mother of an illustrious Roman son, none of which is true. They were British to the core.

MelancThornn writes: 'Helen was unquestionably a British Princess' (Epistola, p. 189).

Even to many academic intellectuals, the statement that Empress Helen and her eminent son were Britons could appear startling. Yet none would deny that the first record of Constantius Chlorus 1 and Helen began in Britain. Before Constantius defeated Allectus at York (P.213) was the recognized Emperor of Britain, Spain, and Gaul. At that

(1 Chorus’ means ‘pale’ and could be a reference to descent from a blond family, his Darwinian ancestry being Trojan.)

time the boundaries of Gaul extended far into the European continent, embracing Belgium, Holland, and part of Germany. Treves (Trier) was long the capital of Belgium. With this record historians begin the Constantinian story, becoming more profuse following the proclamation of Constantius at York as Emperor of Rome. He was the first monarch to be legally recog­nized as Emperor over the fourfold domain by the populace of the four countries. Only he, and his extraordinary son, Constantine the Great, were ever to acquire imperial sway over this vast Empire, an amazing fact which historians have strangely over­ looked.

Six years before Constantius became world Emperor, at the request of his wife Helen he renewed and enlarged the Arch­ bishopric of York, A.D. 290. After that York became an outstanding royal and religious city in Britain. In the pre-Chnstian era, as Caer Evroc, it was one of the Druidic centers, continuing so under the Josephian Mission until King Lucius nominated London, York, and Caerlon on Usk as the three great Archbishoprics of Britain. Later, Caerlon on Usk was displaced for the city of Canterbury, which replaced London as the chief ecclesiastical seat. These three Arch­ bishoprics have remained throughout centuries until now the great Anglican religious centers, in the following order: Canterbury, London, and York.

Canterbury, with its Archbishop, is still recognized throughout the world as the head of the Protestant Anglican Communion. Its Bishops, wherever they may be, are the only ecclesiastics that have inherited and hold true, unbroken succession from the original Apostles, Paul, Peter, and Joseph the Apostle of the British.

Empress Helen is given credit for founding the first cathedral at Treves after the elevation of her husband to be Emperor of Rome. It became her favorite continental residence and because of her manifold gifts to the city, she was held in the highest esteem and made the patroness of Treves. The former British princess became titled 'Helen of the Cross', due to the claim that she found the cross of Christ buried near Jerusalem, A.D. 326. One of the greatest art treasures still in existence is the one entitled 'Helena' created by the renowned artist Cima da Congliane, 1 

(1 AGiovanni Batista da Conegliano.)

A.D.1459, showing the beautiful royal daughter of King Cod of Col­chester with the cross of Christ.

Due to her association with Treves, and that of her.Emperor Giovanni Batista da Conegliano. husband Constantius (P.214) and their noble son Constantine, this city had closer contact with the early British monarchs than any other on the continent. The present cathedral is built on the site of the palace her husband, Constantius Chlorus, built. Indeed, the basilica of the palace forms the actual walls of the cathedral. Her son, Constantine the Great, erected at Treves an imperial palace on the same pattern as that of his grandfather's castle at Colchester, the ruins of which can still be seen.

It is said that anyone who has seen the ruins of King Coel's castle in the suburbs of Colchester, and later viewed the ruins at Treves, is so intrigued with the similarity they bear that the picture of one is easily mistaken for that of the other.

Of further interest is the claim that the original castle now known as Edinburgh Castle was erected by Constantius for Queen Empress Helen, and that a great portion of the present walls were part of the walls of the original castle.

With the exception of the church dedicated to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, at Avalon, Glastonbury, the practice of making church dedications to women did not begin until about the twelfth century. However, we know that Cor Eurgain was erected and consecrated to the daughter of Caractacus during the lifetime of the Princess Eurgain and Joseph of Arimathea. It was chiefly a university of learning and choral training, with a chapel in its enclosure. To Helen is given the distinctive honor of being the first woman to have a church erected to her glory, several hundred years before the practice began in the twelfth century, and being proclaimed a Saint.

The church of St. Helen was built at Colchester, her birthplace. From ancient times to the present this city has, for its coat of arms, home to the symbol of Helen of the Cross. It is in the form of a cross with three crowns for its arms. Thus, in silent form, is the noble record perpetuated in the city in which she was born and also her son Constantine, the champion of Christendom.

With devout pride the descendants of British Christians in the British Commonwealth, America, and elsewhere may point to the fact that the only sainted female dedications made between the one to Mary at Avalon, and Those appearing a thousand years later, were to the royal ancestors of their own race, relatives to each other in the royal blood strain: first, the dedication of the church formed from the British Palace at Rome to Pudentiana, the daughter of Claudia and Rufus Pudens, following bis martyrdom; second, Cor Eurgain in Wales, dedicated to the Princess Eurgain, aunt of Pudentiana; and, (P.215) thirdly, to St. Helen at Colchester, daughter of King Coel, Queen Empress of Rome.

Strangely enough, some have stated that Helen was never Empress of Rome but a concubine of the Emperor, Constantius Chlorus. There are ever-twisted minds seeking to debase the noblest. However, written records, and they are legion, 1 confound them beyond the remotest question. Certainly, no person who was not a reigning king or queen would have coins struck with their n3:1:1e, declaring them as such. In the Vatican Museum and the British Museum can be seen coins struck with her name, proving that she was Empress by the title of Augusta. The coins read, 'Flavia Helena Augusta.'2 Sulpicius Severus says: 'Helen reigned as 

(1 Archbishop Ussher lists twenty authorities; ef. Morgan, St. Paul in Britain, pp. 164-165.

2 Lewis, Joseph of Arimathea, 6th edition, p. 91 (note).)

Empress with her son.’ Helen lived seventy-one years. She died A.D. 336. The later years of her life were spent working diligently for the faith at Constantinople, the city which her son founded, and for him named. Helen was assiduous in collecting and preserving relics of the early Apostles found in and around Jerusalem. Posterity can be eternally grateful to this gracious woman who contributed so abundantly of her fortune in searching for and restoring ancient manuscripts and documents as well as the personal effects of the Apostles.

Her husband, Emperor Constantius Chlorus, had died thirty years before her in A.D. 306 at the city of York, where he is buried. Prior to the ascent of Constantius to the throne of the Roman Empire, tragic storm clouds had gathered on the continent, particularly in Rome, where revolution and assassination had been disposing of one Emperor after the other. There was a confusing medley of predatory Romans who raised armies, laying claim to the throne of the Caesars. The infamous Diocletian held the reins at Rome and on his orders began what is often described as the worst persecution of the Christians in the year A.D. 290. In his Edict, he ordered churches to be pulled down, the sacred scriptures to be gathered together and burnt, along with other Christian literature on which they could lay their hands. libraries, schools of learning, and private homes were equally destroyed. Again the lions roared in the Colosseum. The prisons were filled and streets ran with the blood of martyrs. No Christian was spared, regardless of age or sex. Even the babes in the arms of Christian parents were cruelly destroyed. The Diocletian persecution is described as the tenth Christian persecution, beginning with the Claudian Edict, A.D. 42. Emperor Diocletian (P.216) struck with sudden appalling savagery at the Christians. He blamed them for the series of disasters over the years that had decimated the Roman arms to such an extent that they were no longer able to defend their own frontiers successfully, let alone conquer as formerly. Rome was on the decline; her glory was fast waning. Diocletian sought to avert national disaster by ordering the extermination of the Christians, their churches, and other possessions. This bestial cruelty lasted for eighteen years. The persecution flamed across Europe for several years before it struck the shores of Britain. Again the Romans were frustrated by the incredible zeal of the martyrs who died with prayer on their lips, or ringing exhortations. They saw the common people destroyed, showing the same disdain for death as their Christian forbears. This infuriated Diocletian to more fiendish practices, which he later was aided by Maximian, who became co-ruler with him over the continental Roman Empire. Brutal as was Diocletian, it is written by the Romans themselves that Maximian was worse. His ferocity and atrocities are claimed to be beyond description. He caused his finest Legions, exclusively composed of Gauls, to be butchered to the last man because they were Christian. He was blind with maniacal hate.The Diocletian persecution reached Britain, A.D. 300, where again the Romans sought to destroy Christianity at its source. The Emperor poured a huge army into Britain, while Maximian carried on his destructive course on the continent. Constantius Chlorus had already been proclaimed Emperor of Rome at York. The British kingdoms were better united. As one they responded to the battle call of Constantius. Previously the British had fought for years in deciding each Roman conflict, with victory swaying from one side to the other. Yet, within one year, Constantius terminated the Diocletian persecution in Britain, inflicting staggering defeats on the Roman arms, and driving them back to the continent, A.D. 302. However, before victory crowned the British armies, the Romans had inflicted great destruction, leveling churches, universities, and libraries, and sacking towns. The slaughter was terrific, totaling a list of British martyrs that far exceeded the total inflicted by all the former persecutions combined. It is stated that the loss of British lives was beyond computation, not so much on the field of battle as in the slaughter of the harmless, defenseless people and priest­hood.Gildas, the early British historian, informs us that the British church lost the following eminent prelates by martyrdom: Amphibalus, Bishop (P.217) of Llandaff; Alban of Verulam; Aaron and Julius, citizens and presbyters of Chester; Socrates, Bishop of York; Stephen, Bishop of London; Argulius, his successor; Nicholas, Bishop of Penrhyn (Glasgow); Melior, Bishop of Carlisle; and about ten thousand communicants in different grades of society. The Thousands of others who perished in Britain will never be known, any more than is known of the countless multitude of Christians who were slaughtered on the continent for the sake of the faith.

Following the expulsion of the Romans, we are told that Emperor Constantius and his Queen Empress diligently began to restore the destroyed churches. It was a titanic task, speaking highly for the Christian devotion of this royal family who poured their personal fortune into the restoration. During this process of rehabilitation Emperor Constantius Chlorus died at York, A.D. 306, and there he was laid to rest. Immediately, his son Constantine assumed the purple and at York declared himself Emperor of the Roman Empire. For the next six years, Constantine remained in Britain, building many new churches and institutions of learning after he had completed the restoration of those destroyed. During this time Diocletian, and particularly Maximian, continued their destruction of Christian lives on the continent.Peace restored in Britain, Constantine, the famed son of famous royal Christian parents, began to prepare to cross the seas to the continent where his dramatic destiny was to unfold. He massed a powerful army in Britain, composed wholly of British warriors. With them he sailed, landing in what today is Germany. The two armies clashed together on the banks of the Tiber where the British, under the generalship of Emperor Constantine, won an overwhelming victory. Maximian was completely routed and per­secution ended. Constantine, with his British warriors, marched victoriously onto Rome, where he met with an uproarious welcome. Amid great rejoicing, he ascended the Imperial throne, officially acclaimed by the Senate and the populace of Rome as Emperor.

By hereditary right, he was Emperor over Britain, Gaul, and Spain, succeeding his father's claim to power in Rome by virtue of conquest at York, which he confirmed by victory over Maximian on the banks of the Tiber.

This was the greatest territorial dominion over which one Roman Emperor reigned, alone and at peace. It was also the last time.His first act as Emperor of Rome was to declare Rome Christian, ending forever Christian persecution within the Empire, circa A.D. 312. Henceforth Rome began her history as a Christian nation. In nationalizing the (P.218) faith, Constantine had done for Rome what King Lucius had done for Britain one hundred and fifty years later. In the great Christianizing work that followed, the gracious Helen, his mother, stood by his side and, as Severus said, reigned with her son as Empress.As we sum up the picture one may well exclaim, 'What a paradox!'The first Christian church was founded in Rome by the British royal family! The same family under Arviragus is the first to be given the sign of the Cross for their emblem. In order, their descendants under Lucius nationalized the faith in Britain and planted the sign of the Cross for the first time on coinage; the grand-daughter of Lucius, Princess Helen of Colchester, preserved the faith in her homeland, her husband smashed the Diocletian persecution and, finally, her illustrious son, backed with a British army, conquering the city of Rome; Constantine, a Briton, nationalizing the faith in Rome. What irony of fate! The Romans who first set out to destroy Britain and Christianity are finally converted to the faith, nationalized in Christ by the same British, with a Briton reigning on the Imperial throne and British warriors defending the faith where, for three hundred years, persecution of the Christians had prevailed.

Chapter XVIII - Continued

History has no counterpart to this strange drama. The Divine pattern was now almost complete, and Constantine was to seal it.

Forgotten is this long train of disciples but the majesty of their great deeds lives with us in the Christian democracies sprung from them.

How many today realize that Constantine the Great was a Briton? Few, if any, except for the seekers of truth who have read the scrolls. Many think the fact is too fantastic to be true and discount it without searching. To them, the eminent Cardinal Baronius speaks :

'The man must be mad who, in the face of universal antiquity, refuses to believe that Constantine and his mother were Britons, born in Britain.'

Over twenty European authorities affirm this fact. The descent of Constantine is listed in The Panegyrics of the Emperors, and the genealogy of his illustrious lineage was given by his descendant, Constantine Palaeologus, wherein is provided in detail all the records and proof and circumstances of his wonderful career. Polydore Vergil, (P.219) in his History of England, exclaims: ‘Constantine born in Britain, of a British mother, proclaimed. Emperor in Britain, beyond doubt, made his natal soil a par­ticipator in his glory.'

Sozomen, in Ecclesiastical History, writes:

'The Great Constantine received his Christian education in Britain.'

And   says in his Brief Britannia :

'Christ showed to Constantine the Briton, the victory of the Cross for his scepter.'

The Emperor Maximus Magnus, with his victorious British army, overran the continent A.D. 387, then withdrew into Gaul, where they peopled Brittany, and sprang from the Great Constantine. Quoting from Hewin's Royal Saints of Britain, we read :

'The Emperor Maximus Magnus or Maxen Wledi was a Roman-Spaniard related to the Emperor Theodosius, and of the family of Constantine the Great, and of British royal descent on his mother's side.'

All records prove that Constantine was the heir and legal representative of the royal Christian dynasty of Britain, a true representa­tive of the royal church which he permanently established by Imperial Edict in the pagan city of Rome. He made land gifts to the church at Rome, whose only previous gifts were Those bequeathed to the church by the Caradoc-Pudens royal family: the Palace of the British and its estate, reminiscent in the church known as St. Pudentiana, the first church at Rome above ground.

The objects of Constantine the Great's life are clearly exemplified by him in one of his Edicts, wherein he says :

'We call God to witness, the Saviour of all men, that in assuming the government we are influenced solely by these two considerations: the uniting of the empire in one faith, and the restoration of peace to a world rent to pieces by the insanity of religious persecution.'

He bent all his efforts to this end. Two years after he was hailed Emperor at Rome he created and commanded the first Christian church council since the one recorded by St. James in the Acts of the Apostles. This important church council took place at Aries, A.D. 314. The second great council was held at Nicaea, A.D. 325.

Constantine (P.220) personally presided at this council, of which it is recorded, out of three hundred and eighteen Bishops present, only ten were Latin-speaking. The third great council was held at Constantinople, A.D. 337. It is known as the Council of Byzantium or Constantinople. Although the Bishop of Rome was present, it is interesting to note it was the Bishop of Constantinople who presided. At every council, the representative of each country took his seat in the order in which each land had received Christianity. At all times, at every convention that ever followed, the British Bishop retained the first seat. Nearly a thousand years later, when Italy and Spain challenged the priority of Britain, it was the Pope who vetoed the complaint by stating that Britain held priority of place by reason of her being the first nation to accept the faith of Christ.

For twenty years Constantine labored to extend the system of constitutional Christianity, long established in his native land. Like his mother, Queen Empress Helen, he had inherited the British sympathy for the Eastern church rather than the Romans. For them, British faith stemmed from Jerusalem, not Rome. For this reason, he, with his mother, set up his government at Constantinople and there transferred the Imperial Throne of the Caesars. It is stated that during his long reign, he only made two short visits to the Italian capital. Constantinople, York, and Colchester were his favorite places of residence. As Vergil wrote, 'he made his native soil a participator in his glory'.

There is documentary evidence in existence that reports that he restored lands and the ancient forest rights of the Diocese of London, together with the Gorsedd lands of his grandfather King Goel, son of Lucius, in the royal city of Camulodunum - Colchester, the city being in the Diocese of London. In this manner, he followed the practice of his regal predecessors, Arviragus to Lucius. In the British Triad III, he is recorded as being the first Emperor to extend royal patronage to all who assembled in the Faith. This fact is again mentioned in connection with the three Archbishoprics of the Isle of Britain.

There are some remarkable similarities between the practice and observance of Christianity which, as we have seen, was a flower planted and flourishing on Druidic soil, and the Israelitish 'church' or 'congregation in the wilderness'.

The Levites, in the old patriarchal system, were charged with the service of the Tabernacle and the Temple. They, being in charge of the Sanctuary, had no inheritance in the land as had all the other Tribes of (P.221) Israel. They were not paid for their services. It was provided for them out of the tithe. The tribe of Levi is known as the Priestly Tribe, but all Levites were not priests. Apart from performing the ecclesiastical functions of the Temple, they performed the functions of civil servants. As one modem writer puts it:

'The Levites include not only Those who waited about the altar; but the educational or teaching staff of the nation, as well as judicial officers represented by judges and magistrates. The administration of justice, or at least the whole legislative side of it, the provision for the poor, the system of national education, as well as the custody and transmission of the Scriptures, besides the conduct of sacrificial worship and the songs and services of the Temple, were in the hands of the Tribe of Levi.'

In addition, the Levites furnished the majority of the judges, clerks, registrars, censors, keepers of the records, geometricians, genealogists, and superintendents of weights and measures. The tithe represented the divine economic system, through the law of righteousness, including the principle of distributive justice.

The Druidic economic law was exactly the same and naturally continued in the merging of the Druidic with the Christian prin­ciples of the faith. For thousands of years, this practice was so embedded in the minds of the people it was normally carried on throughout the Golden Era of the church in Britain. The magnificent gifts of the British kings to the church were simply an enlargement of the tithe on their part to the glory of God for the advancement of the Christian faith.

The Queen Empress Helen and her son, Constantine the Great, were probably the greatest contributors of wealth to the Christian cause.

The Harvest Feast, better known today as Thanksgiving, was the time when the people brought to the church in early Druid and Christian times their gifts of the field. The decoration of churches with the products of the field is but a modem gesture of the age-old harvest tithing custom.

Following the Golden Era, circa A.D. 600, the tithe began to lose some of its original substance, chiefly caused by the Danish invasions and desecration of the holy places by the Norsemen. Again we see a British king stand forth to preserve an ancient godly law. In A.D. 854 King Ethelwulf, a Christian Saxon king, by order of a Royal Charter in Parliament, caused the state and the church to recognize (P.222) the tithe as a national institution. Quoting from this Royal Charter, which is in the British Museum, we read :

'The tenth part of the land of the Kingdom to God's praise and His own eternal welfare.'

This deed was written at Winchester and the Charter was placed on the Cathedral altar in the presence of St. Swithun and the assemblage of the Witan (Saxon Parliament), and consecrated to the service of Christ. Thus was the patriarchal law of Israel, and of the Druids, re-established.

The years of the reign of Constantine the Great and Empress Helen are the brightest pages in Roman history. Constantine freed the Christians forever from further persecution. The horrible pit of the Mamertine was closed. The blood-soaked arena of the Colosseum was dry and the great walls began to crumble into decay from disuse. It was an era of peace quietly maintained by Constantine's British Legions.

The apostolic claim to the heirship of Peter is inconceivable. Peter was never addressed as Bishop of Rome, let alone Pope, by St. Paul, or any of the Apostles or early Bishops of the church. Yet the impressive text which appears in gorgeous blue letters around the golden dome of St. Peter's deliberately seeks to proclaim the heirship to visitors to Rome, who see the text :

'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'

Linus and Clement, the first and second Bishops of Rome, knew Peter intimately, along with the apostolic throng. Quite obviously they were also unaware of the claim of Peter's supposed election. St. Paul, addressing the church at Rome in his Epistles, makes no reference to Peter as Bishop, or as having any direct association with the Gentile church. The crowning fact is that if St. Peter had been known as the 'Supreme Head of the Church and Vicar of Christ on Earth', the Council of Jerusalem, A.D. 46, which met to settle a heated dispute between Peter and Paul, ending in the latter's favor, never would have accepted St. James, brother of Jesus, and Apostolic Bishop of Jerusalem, as its presiding chairman. And certainly, Peter could not have been on trial if he were Pope.

Gore, in his Roman Catholic Claims, dispenses the claim, along with the present charge that no one belongs to the true church unless under the authority of the Bishop of Rome. The argument is worthless. The Papacy as we know it, and as William the Conqueror, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I knew it, is not in and of the Primitive Church (P.223) of Christ. It is devoid of all scriptural recognition. It evolved out of a combination of circumstance and pressure politics, based on a series of documents proven by all historians to be 'the Forged Decretals'.

Constantine, steeped in the heritage of the primitive faith in Britain, would be the last man to suggest, let alone endorse such a sacrilegious act. Gregory the Great, who sent Augustine to Britain, rejected the title of Pope, claiming to be no more than 'first among equals', which is the position today existing among all Bishops stemming from apostolic succession in the Anglican Communion.

The sons of Constantine preserved the Christian principles of their great parents. They were the founders of the Byzantine Empire but their august lives do not affect our story except in the case of one descendant. Oddly enough, he is best known as 'the Prince of the Sanctuary'. Professor Rhys says that Ambrosius Aurelianust 1 was the grandson of Constantine the Great. He was the 

(1 See also Prof. Hewing, Royal Saints of Britain, pp. 52-56.)

son of Jovin, who married a daughter of the Emperor and became King of the British Cotswolds. He was brother to Uther Pendragon, uncle of the romantically famed King Arthur. It is strange how these ancient religious responsibilities appear in Britain and are always within the office of the British royal family. The subject becomes more intriguing when we learn that the standard of this grandson of Constantine bore the sign of the lion. This takes us a long way back into Old Testament history.

When the dying Jacob nationalized the twelve tribes under the name of Israel, the two chief offices representing the power of the government and authority of the Temple were bestowed on two members of the twelve tribes of Israel. To Judah was given the Sanctuary- the Temple; and to Ephraim the Dominion - govern­ mental power. Judah thus became the Keeper of the Sanctuary and his son the Prince of the Sanctuary. His ensign was a lion, still known as of old as the Lion of Judah. The sign of the ten tribes under Ephraim was the bull. They were known historically as the 'Bull Tribe'. Their standard bore the insignia of a white bull. Finally, Thousands of years later we find these same insignia all appearing in Britain and are demonstrative of the same ancient royal religious authority. First, the bull sign of Ephraim, employed by the Druids; then the cross under Arviragus; now we have the lion as the emblem of the Prince of the Sanctuary, and today all these signs are combined on the royal standard of the British monarchs.

In all sincerity we may ask the profound question, Is it all a

coincidence, or is it (P.224) the working of divine destiny as proclaimed by the prophets?

Only time will tell the fullness of the hidden scroll.

Little is left to us today reminiscent of the life and great Christian achievements of Constantine the Great and his devout mother, Empress Helen. For nearly fourteen hundred years the Sword of Constantine was a treasured relic among the British Coronation regalia. As the king was crowned and the ring of the Church was placed on his finger, the Sword of Constantine was handed to him as a symbol of his heritage as the defender of the Christian faith. During the Cromwellian desecration of the churches, the fanatical Puritans seized, among many other treasures, the coronation crowns, jewels, and other regalia. Many precious jeweled ornaments were never returned. Some that were returned had been robbed of priceless stones.

For many years a worldwide search was made to recover the Sword of Constantine, with rich rewards offered, all to no avail.

The sword which Constantine drew from its scabbard to defeat Maximian on the Tiber and crush the Diocletian persecution once and for all is gone, but the character of its ideals lives and burns as strongly as ever in the hearts of true Christians. No longer is the sword needed in spite of its historical importance. We possess a more potent power, a power that has never failed us as long as we held fast and true, the unconquerable spirit of Christ, the same that inspired Constantine the Great, the same imperishable spirit that spake through the lips of Jesus to all who believed in Him: 'Lo I am with you always.'

What more could we need?

While few may remember or know of the incidents herein related of Constantine the Great and his family as associated with Britain, a memorial still exists.

In the churchyard of (P.224) the ancient parish church of St. Cuthbert, now in the city of York, stands near the main entrance a large stone cross on which is inscribed the following words :

'From this Parish Constantine, the Great was declared Em­peror, 306 A.D.

Incontrovertible testimony to the astounding historic truth as stated by Cardinal Baronius, and to the glory of the great Christian achievement that stemmed from York, led by the great British Christian Constantine, and his British army that conquered Rome and proclaimed it Christian.

 CHAPTER XIX

THE MYSTERY OF THE CUP OF THE LAST SUPPER

We are still intrigued (P.225) by the mystery of the original Cup of the Last Supper, which we believe, from a study of the

traditions was preserved. What was its ultimate fate?

The answer may lie in the ancient British tradition which associates the original Cup with Joseph of Arimathea at Avalon. Of the three Apostles most closely attached to Jesus it is generally assumed that Peter, the Rock, would be the one most likely to have accepted the dangerous assignment for its safety. On the other hand, Peter's commission was filled with danger to himself. The Edicts of Tiberius and Claudius had made it a capital offense for any person to embrace the teachings of The Way and called for the destruction of anything pertaining to the Christian Cause. With the sword hanging over their heads, the Apostles would most cer­tainly have wished to place any sacred object where it would be safe. As the record proves, the church at Antioch could at best be but a temporary haven for the treasured relic. As we know, John had previously transferred the safekeeping of Mary to the guardianship of her uncle, Joseph. All inference is that he took her, along with his other companions, to Britain, where she died and was buried. In this case, it is logical to assume there would be no better haven for the Cup than in Joseph's possession at Avalon, presuming Peter was the temporary guardian. We know that Peter probably labored in Britain three or four years before he went to Rome, and within ten years after the arrival of the Bethany group on the Sacred Isle of Avalon. Under the dangerous circumstances, it is quite possible that Peter conveyed the original Cup with him to Britain, transferring it to the care of Joseph. The ancient British tradition has it that the sacred Cup was in Joseph's possession when he first arrived at Avalon, and when the first Christian persecution in Britain took place under the Claudian invasion, A.D. 42. After consulting with the elect Joseph secretly buried it so that it would be forever safe from the touch of profane hands. If there is any merit to this persistent age-old tradition the original Cup of the Last Supper was buried within the cloaking earth of Chalice Hill. It is quite significant that at the foot of the Tor where Joseph and his companions erected their wattle church is located a terraced garden (P.226) known as Chalice Hill. Therein is a wonderful well of water that still bears the name of Chalice Well. From the earliest Christian times, the hill and the well have been known by their particular name, with the well often referred to as the Holy Well. In the waters of this well King Lucius and countless other notable converts were baptized in the Christian faith. In this hill, Joseph is claimed to have burned the Cup, and the springs flowing out of the h1ll to form the well gave the name to both Chalice Hill and Chalice Well. While the well was always known as the Chalice Well, and the Holy Well, centuries later Anglo-Saxon monks named it Blood Spring on account of the reddish stains that marked where­ ever its waters washed. They evolved the superstitious belief that the stains were the blood of Christ arising out of the buried Cup in Chalice Hill. The waters were never known as the Blood Spring by the early British Church. To them and to date it has always been the Chalice Well.

In 1883 the well was cleaned of the broken masonry and debris that had clogged it for centuries and the water was analyzed, which proved it to be fed by mineral springs of iron content; consequently wherever the mineral deposits of iron dried there were left the reddish stain that gave the appearance of blood, giving rise to the old monkish legend.

It is interesting to note that there is another well of famed antiquity near Padstow, in Cornwall, which from ancient times has been known as Jesus's Well.

That the Cup was buried by Joseph in Chalice Hill was firmly believed for over a thousand years and was the theme of the search of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table for the Holy Grail. 

How strongly the belief that Joseph buried the Holy Cup has persisted over the ages to modem times is shown in the many poems, songs, and stories that abound. Tennyson immortalized the tradition of the Cup in the following verses he wrote: 

'The cup, the cup itself from which our Lord

drank at the last sad supper with His own; 

This from the blessed land of Amamat,

After the day of darkness, when the dead 

went wandering over Moriah - the good Saint 

Arimathea Joseph, journeying brought to Glastonbury.'

Well, might (P.227) we ask, If there is no substance to the story of the Cup of the Last Supper, as herein related, how is it that the two places of interest were named Chalice Hill and Chalice Well nearly two thousand years ago by the founders of the first Christian church above ground in Britain? A place is never named without reason. It is a label or an index to something plainly significant. Unlike some historic place names, these two have never been challenged as to veracity. They have endured and endeared to the human heart as a living testimony to a sacred event. Today, in this astounding age of scientific materialism, to all Christians the Holy Communion is a hallowed ceremony. Jesus asked that it be done in lasting remembrance of Him. From time immemorial the communicants of the British Church have held steadfast by this lovely act of remembrance. In present times all Christian denominations stemming from the Mother Church at Avalon, no matter in what part of the world they may be, are most loyal in keeping faith with their Redeemer in practicing the act of remembrance in devout reverence and in humility. Interesting as it may be to know and see the sacred Cup, it really does not matter; it is the signifi­cance of the memory that counts for the most and that lives fiercely in all true Christian hearts today, as it did nearly two thousand years ago.

CHAPTER XX

THE END OF THE GOLDEN TRAIL

Joseph, the Apostle of Britain, lived (P.228) within four years of witnessing the second expulsion of the persecuting Romans from the Sceptred Isle. During Those years the soil of Britain had become saturated with the blood of friend and foe in numerous battles and not once had the foot of the invader penetrated through the lines of the British warriors to set foot on the sacred Isle of Avalon, and none ever would. The desperate efforts of Imperial Rome to crush the power of the Word had succeeded in fanning the flame into an unquenchable fire that was then sweeping from Britain and Gaul into many other lands. The Christian spark Joseph had fostered was to be his enduring monument. The life of no Apostle, not even St. Paul, was more filled with high purpose, enterprise, and achievement than was the life of the uncle of Jesus; therefore, there is no regret in stating that Joseph was not privileged to live to see the two memorable Christian conquests that were to follow his demise.

In spite of the many sorrows that had shadowed his life, his personal triumphs in spreading the teachings of 'The Way' from Britain far outweighed the tragedies he had shared and witnessed. He had viewed the first Christian army raised which shattered the Claudian Legions in the first pitched battle in defense of the new faith and the death on the field of the first Christian king, replaced by the noble Arviragus. The mass war continued under the dual leadership of the Pendragon Caradoc and Arviragus, in which the Flag of the Cross was first flown. The non-compromising armistice was between the Roman Emperor and the two dauntless British leaders. The British defeat at Brandon and the treacherous betrayal of Caractacus into captivity with all his royal family, followed by the Roman pardon of the British king, and the strange alliances between the scions of Rome with the royal British prince and princesses were unusual. The slaughter of the defenseless and the atrocious Menai massacre was avenged in the triumph and tragedy of the Boadicean campaign. Through it all there was an ever­ flowing stream of converts aflame with the fire of the Gospel, spreading from Avalon into the land and camp of the enemy, valorously (229) defiant. The martyrdom of Aristobulus and Simon Zelotes in Britain must have wrung his heart, but the founding of the first Christian church at Rome and the mission of St. Paul in Wales with the royal British must have soared his stalwart heart.

Joseph lived to see all but (P.229) one of the original Apostles of Christ go to their immortal reward. The fate of most of them has been recited. James, brother of St. John, had been put to the sword by Herod, A.D. 64. And James, the brother of Jesus, was hurled from a pinnacle of the Temple to his death, A.D. 62. 1 On his monument 

(1 Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus.)

is written: 'He hath been a true witness both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ.' St. John outlived Joseph. Apparently, he was one of the very few apostles and disciples of Christ to die a natural death at the extreme age of 101 years.

Fifty years after Joseph had placed the body of Jesus in His tomb he laid down the scepter of his mortal life on July 27, A.D. 82. Loving hands and heart laid him to rest among the saintly company that had preceded him, close beside the grave of the Virgin Mary, near the little wattle church which he and his twelve companions had built over forty years before after setting foot on British soil.

Cressy, in Church History of Brittany, writes: 'Joseph was buried near the little wattle church he built.'

Across the stone lid of the sarcophagus on which his bones were later buried, under the initials of Joseph of Arimathea are inscribed these immortal words: 'Ad Brittanos veni post Ch tum Sepelivi. Docui. Quievi.' (To the Britons I came after I buried the Christ. I taught, I have entered my rest.)

In these few simple words are contained more tragedy, romance, and drama than in any other inscription ever written; words so characteristic of all the faithful Apostles of Christ, seeking no self­ justification, merely a simple record of duty performed.

Maelgwyn of Avalon, who wrote about A.D. 450, describes the place of burial in these words :

'Joseph of Arimathea, the noble decurion, received his ever­ lasting rest with his eleven associates in the Isle of Avalon. He lies in the southern angle of the bifurcated line of the Oratorium of the Adorable Virgin.'

. Long before the time of Maelgwyn, a magnificent Abbey had risen over the original site, enclosing the wattle church encased in lead for its preservation, and the relics of the sainted group. AU

the early (P.230) and later authorities refer to the same resting place of Joseph, as cited by Maelgwyn, and rarely do they fail to quote the inscription as it appeared on Joseph's tomb. Among the notable historians who make special reference to the inscription are John of Teignmouth, Leland, Hearne and Morgan.

Gildas the Wise, A.D. 425, who modem historians refer to as

the first British historian of reliable reportage, lived for quite a time at Glastonbury. He had access to all the records and original documents in the famous Abbey. His reference to the coming of Joseph to Britain, his life there, and his death were written from examination of the old records.

William of Mahnesbury is held in the highest esteem as an exacting, honest writer. His worthiness was so great that he was invited by the Abbot of Glastonbury to dwell among them and write a faithful history of the Abbey from a study of the ancient MSS. In A.D. 1121 he wrote his Antiquity of Glastonbury. In corroboration of his fine work he refers to the Eleutherian Mission at Glastonbury, A.D. 183, quoting from the record they had left. He writes:

'They also found the whole story in ancient writings how the holy apostles, having been scattered throughout the world, St. Philip the Apostle coming into France with a host of disciples, sent twelve of them into Britain to preach, and that - taught by revelation - constructed the said chapel which the Son of God afterward dedicated to the honor of His Mother. Their leader, it is said, was Phillip's dearest friend, Joseph of Arimathea, who buried our Lord.'

The learned Archbishop Ussher refers to William of Malmesbury as 'our chief historian'. Leland and others call him 'an elegant, learned, and faithful historian'. William dwelt twice at the famous Abbey in order to complete his splendid MSS. At that time, before the great fire, all the treasured records and manuscripts were in existence and at his disposal. He also confirms the time and place of Joseph's death and interment.

The original MSS. of William of Malmesbury's Antiquity of Glastonbury is in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. A translation from the original Latin was made from it by Thornas Heam in 1727. Hearn adds to the record the death of William of Malmesbury in 1142, details of the great fire which destroyed the Abbey in 1184, with a listing of all the Abbots to the time of the Dissolution in 1539.

Chapter XX - Continued

Archbishop (P.231) Ussher, church historian, writes in his carefully detailed work of 'St. Joseph's burial in the bifurcated line next to the comer of St. Mary's Chapel and of the silver and white cruets containing the sweat and blood of Christ buried with him. He recites the presentation by St. Joseph of the Flag of the Cross to Arviragus, 'for the insignia of the British race'. The Archbishop provides a copy of the license, copied from the royal archives in the Tower of London, given by Edward III in 1345, to one John Bloom of London, with the right to excavate the body of St. Joseph beneath the enclosure of the monastery, and his finding of the body exactly where all had stated it rested. The document was signed by King Edward on June 8, 1345. Ussher also quotes from the 'Record of the burial of St. Joseph and his companions', from The Great Register of the Monks of Glaston.William Goode, the Jesuit, born at Glastonbury and educated there during the reign of Henry VIII, confirms the old records, further stating 'There was in existence at Glastonia inscribed tablets to per­petuate St. Joseph's memory, chapels, crypts, crosses, arms, and the observance of the feast of St. Joseph for six days at the Kalends of August, as long as the Monks enjoyed most securely the King's charters.'He also reports seeing the brass plate on an overturned cross in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. He relates the arrival of Joseph with the Bethany group, the gifts of land to Joseph by King Arviragus, the silver cruets, the size of the wattle church, and the stone bearing the strange words 'Jesus-Maria', the arms of the abbey, the cross on the shield, and burial of Joseph at Glaston­bury.For over one thousand years annual pilgrimages were made to the tomb of St. Joseph by pilgrims from all parts of the Christian world in the month of August.The conversion of Britain by Joseph, and his establishment of the first Christian church above ground at Avalon, was not only the challenge of the British church in refuting the Papal claim to seniority as Christ's vice-regent on earth; it extended into the important matters of state when dealing with nations subject to Vatican control. British kings, queens, and ambassadors defied Papal interference, refusing to treat with him or his emissaries. They would cite the record that Britain held seniority as being the first Christian nation, and that church was ruled by its Bishops, with Christ (P.232) alone as the recognized Head of the Church. The kings and queens, by the terms of their Christian oath at the coronation, gave allegiance to God, through Jesus Christ, and not to man or a church founded on a usurped authority. Strangely enough, the Vatican never denied British priority even when seeking to make alliances or bring the British Church within t (P.232) the Roman Catholic fold. Royal and ambassadorial replies were pregnant with the Christian claim by Britain based on the life and death of Joseph in that country, St. Paul, and others of Christ's elect who had dwelt among them. When controversy and antagonism were at their height between the Vatican and Britain during the reigns of Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I, Sir Robert Wingfield, English Ambassador to Spain, personally compiled the records of the Council of Constance in a book, proving that at the four great church councils, British Bishops had been accorded seniority as head of the councils: Pisa 1409, Constance 1417, Sienna 1424 and Basie I 434, on the grounds that 'Joseph of Arimathea brought the faith to Britain immediately after the Passion of Christ'. Wingfield named the presiding British church dignitaries at Pisa: Robert Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury; Henry Chicele; and Thornas Chillenden, Prior of Christ Church, Canterbury; Hallam was the leader at Pisa and at Sienna. Others were Nicholas Bubwith, Bishop of Bath and Wells; the famed Cardinal Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester; and Nicholas Frame, Bishop of Glastonbury, who was chief delegate at Basle in 1434. This record was published at Louvain in 15 I 7, a copy of which is in the Royal Library, and another in Sir Henry Wooton's. It was republished in the reign of Elizabeth I and again under the Stuarts. The title of the work is 'A Brief Abstract of the Question of Precedency Between England and Spain', employed by Sir Henry Nevile at the commission of the French king in an effort to bring peace between England and Spain, in 1579.It is of special notice that no book could be published without a royal license. Charles I, provided another license for printing in 1642. This book was entitled Precedency of England in Respect to the Antiquity of Christian Religion Immediately after the Passion of Christ in this Realm. In I651 Oliver Cromwell gave a licence substantiating the same claim.In recent years Lord Queenborough discovered and purchased a copy of the 1642 edition, which he presented to the Royal Society of St. George.Throughout the ages to present times such has been the power of the story of Joseph of Arimathea that kings, queens, and people of Britain (P.233) have defended the sovereignty of the Christian faith against all usurpers and aggressors.What a triumphant history!Every time I visited Glastonbury and stood before the Altar of St. Joseph amid the ruins of this glorious Abbey, my mind became crowded with the circumstances and incidents in the life of the Apostle of Britain. I seemed to sense the spirit of the noble decurio and his wonderful companions and felt in my heart that the prophecy of Abraham, of Jacob, Isaiah, Jesus, and St. Paul, had been fulfilled to the people of 'the Isles', though the medium of the uncle of Jesus.Further reference to the tomb of St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury cannot be more fittingly presented than by reciting the words of the Rev. Lionel Smithett Lewis, former Vicar of Glastpnbury, who devoted most of the eighty-six years of his life to searching the age-old archives, examining ancient tomes, official documents, and yellowed manuscripts to substantiate the validity of the story of the life and death of St. Joseph and the Bethany family at Avalon, and in preserving the fascinating record of the most historic Christian church in the world. He writes :'The body of St. Joseph, whose burial at the wattle church of St. Mary was recorded by Maelgwyn of Avalon, writing about A.D. 450, lay undisturbed till the year 1345, when Edward III gave his license to John Bloom of London to dig for the body if the Abbot and monks permitted, and just as the discovery of the bones of King Arthur at Glastonbury in 1190 was recorded in far-away Essex by the monk Ralph de Coggeshall, so in a far-away monastery in 1367 we find a monk recording that ''the bodies of Joseph of Arimathea and his companions were found at Glastonbury''.'The remains of St. Joseph were put in a silver casket which could be raised at will from a stone sarcophagus, the base of a shrine to which the frequent pilgrimage was made. This stone altar tomb, the base of the shrine, like the Holy Thorn, survived the Reformation.'Holinshed, in his ''Chronicle'', A.D. 1577, speaks of St. Joseph's sepulcher as being still at Glastonbury, and the learned John Ray in his ''Itinerary'' records that on June 2, 1662, ''We saw Joseph of Arimathea's tomb and chapel at the end of the church''. As we have seen, the Holy Thorn was cut down in the Great Rebellion. 

The aftermath of the same period saw the altar tomb of St. Joseph (P.234) leave its shrine. During the Commonwealth, a Nonconformist divine was put in as incumbent of the Parish Church. In 1662 this interloper was turned out and a Church­-man was instituted. It was that very same year, in which by God's Providence John Ray came to Glastonbury and saw the tomb in the ruined chapel. Later in the year, tradition says, from fear of Puritanical fanaticism like that which destroyed the Holy Thorn, silently, hastily at night, the altar tomb was removed from the ruined shrine in St. Mary's Chapel at the Abbey, and placed in the churchyard of the Parish Church for protection outside of the East end of St. Mary's Chapel in that Church. There it remained until the autumn of 1928, when loving hands brought it reverently into the Church, and placed it in the ancient St. Katherine’s Chapel, the North Transept.'Moreover, there is a plinth inside to receive the silver arkwith the Saint's remains. A glass top was put on the tomb that all generations might see what was found.'As a matter of fact, it was the Rev. Lewis who accidentally rediscovered the stone sarcophagus of Joseph. One autumn day, while walking by the ancient cemetery, he saw a large stone object, evidently lifted by the frosts, protruding from out of the earth. On examination, it was recognized as being the stone sarcophagus of St. Joseph. Willing hands helped to excavate the stone, and as the Rev. Lewis says in his report, it was re-inshrined in St. Katherine's Chapel, where it can be seen today.It is indeed remarkable that it should be preserved undamaged from the rains, frost, and snow, after reposing for two hundred and sixty-six years in its hastily constructed grave, where it had been placed in the dead of night to protect it from the desecrating hands of the fanatical Puritans.Nearly nineteen hundred years have passed since the uncle of Jesus was laid to his everlasting rest at Glastonbury, yet as recent as thirty years ago this sacred relic that contained his remains is almost miraculously raised from its centuries-old grave by an act of nature, to remind us, by the Will of God, of the trenchant drama of 'The Way', and our long Christian inheritance, out of which the most powerful democracies in history founded their constitutions - the Commonwealth of the British nations, and the great republic of the United States of America.In many ancient histories describing the life of St. Joseph in Britain there is constant reference to the Holy Cruets. The story is that the two (P.235) cruets contained the blood and sweat of Jesus and were brought by Joseph to Britain and were buried with him in a niche carved into his stone coffin. The old records indicate that the two cruets were held in the highest reverence by the Abbey throughout its existence. They are assigned as part of the coat of arms of Joseph. The cruets are shown imposed on a shield, one on each side of a Thorny cross, with liquid droplets covering the rest of the space on the shield, symbolizing the blood and sweat of Jesus entering the cruets. They were the arms of the Abbey and appeared in one of the large stained-glass windows of the church. The cruets and the Arthurian cross are much in evidence in the church records. King Arthur adopted the Cross of St. George as his kingly badge which can still be seen carved in the stone over one of the standing doorways.The story of the search for the Holy Grail by the Knights of the Round Table carries a double meaning. It is generally believed that the search was for the Cup of the Last Supper, which Joseph is claimed to have concealed in Chalice Hill. On the other hand the word Grail in old English means 'elements', which some writers indicate meant the lost cruets, in a few instances named vials. The record hardly bears out this belief, as all the early writings centuries prior to the time of King Arthur clearly state that the cruets, or vials, were placed within the sarcophagus of Joseph at his death and buried with him. The word Grail is also employed to mean a container, a chalice or a cup, which might better indicate that the se ch of the Knights of King Arthur was directed to find the Cup, which seems to be the most popular opinion. Mention of the Cup is shrouded in silence following the record of its concealment, but the cruets persist so strongly though the ritual of the old church and as associated with Joseph, that there is no doubt that they repre­sented an important memorial to the Bethany mission, perpetuated in tradition and ritual during Those dramatic years.

In the report of Maelgwyn, reference is made to the fact that Joseph was buried with his eleven associates near to the Virgin Mary. Later records mention twelve associates and Leland 1 who held a (1 Notes made as King’s Antiquary.)license from Henry VIII to search the records of all the cathedrals abbeys and places of learning in 1534, checked the library of Glastonbury Abbey. He reports thirteen associates laid to rest with Joseph, exclusive of the Mother of Jesus, and many records state that all the associates of Joseph and many other martyrs and saints were finally gathered together by his side and that of the gentle Virgin.As we know, (P.236) there were twelve companions who came to Britain with Joseph on his first arrival. If we add Marcella, the maid of the Bethany sisters, and Mary, we have fourteen members in the Bethany group. 

Chapter XX - Continued

The last mention by Leland, the King's Antiquary, would indicate that all had been brought to Avalon, who had not died there, to be together as they had originally requested. We read of King Ina, A.D. 700, having a large number of martyrs reinterred at Avalon, and among them was the son of Joseph, who had labored at Cor Eurgain, and died at Glastonbury, over whom King Ina erected a church.Not many years ago the church of King Ina was excavated at Glastonbury, but from lack of funds to maintain it has since become covered over again.Roger of Hovedon, writing of the church at Marseilles, founded by Lazarus, states that after serving the church for seven years, he died there and that his relics are at Marseilles. However, relics do not necessarily mean the body. Relics were associated with personal belongings which were preserved and treasured by the church. It is quite likely that the body of Lazarus was later transferred to Glastonbury. King Oswy, A.D. 840, was very active in transporting the bodies of martyrs and disciples from abroad to be reburied either at Glastonbury or Canterbury. Leland writes:'The Isle of Avalon greedy of burials received thousands of sleepers among whom Joseph of Arimathea by name, entered his perpetual sleep. And he lies in a bifurcated line next the southern angle of the oratory by 13 inhabitants over the powerful adorable Virgin. Joseph had with him moreover in his sarcophagus, two white and silver cruets filled with the blood and sweat of Jesus. When his sarcophagus shall be opened it will be seen whole, and untouched in the future, and will be open to the whole world. From then neither water nor dew from heaven shall fail Those inhabiting this most noble island. For much time before the Day of Judgment, these things shall be open in Josaphat and declared to the living.'The statement by William of Malmesbury in Acts of the Kings, Book I, is also interesting and illuminating :'The Church of which we are speaking - from its antiquity called by the Angles by way of distinction "Balde Churche" that is "old Church" of wattle work at first, savored somewhat of heavenly sanctity even from its foundation, and exhaled it over the whole (P.237) country, claiming superior reverence Though the structure was mean. Hence, here arrived whole tribes of the lower orders, thronging every path; here assembled the opulent of their pomp; and it became the crowded residence of the religious and the literary… This church then is certainly the oldest I am acquainted with in England, and from this circum­stance derives its name. In it are preserved the mortal remains of many saints, some of whom we shall notice in our progress, nor is there any comer of the church destitute of the ashes of the holy. The very floor inlaid with polished stone, and the sides of the altar, and even the altar itself above and beneath, are laden with the multitude of relics. The antiquity and multitude of its saints have endued the place with so much sanctity that, at night, scarcely anyone presumes to keep vigil there, or during the day spit upon its floor; he who is conscious of pollution shudders through his whole frame. No one ever brought hawk or horses within the confines of the neighboring cemetery who did not depart injured either in them or in himself. It is sufficiently evident that the men of that province had no oath more frequent or more sacred than to swear by The Old Church, fearing the swiftest vengeance on their perjury in this respect.'In the meantime, it is clear that the repository of so many saints may be deservedly called a heavenly sanctuary on earth. There are number of documents, Though I abstain from mentioning them for fear of causing weariness, to prove how extremely venerable this place was held by the chief persons of the country, who there more especially chose to await the day of resurrection under the protection of the Mother of God.'It is impossible to enumerate herein even a partial number of the Thousands of illustrious names of kings, queens, apostles, disciples, saints, and martyrs buried within the great Abbey and in its cemetery, in addition to St. Joseph and his twelve consecrated members of the Bethany band, and of Mary the Mother of Jesus. The illustrious host buried therein gave to this site the title of the most hallowed ground on earth. In addition, it bears the name of the only royal cemetery dedicated in Christ.We may mention in passing that King Coel, father of the famed Empress Helen, mother of Emperor Constantine the Great, is buried in the old cemetery at Glastonbury.Queen Victoria had in her possession in the Royal Library a genealogical chart showing the kings and queens of Britain who were (P.238) descended in a direct line from the Shepherd King David. The genealogical chart prepared by the Rev. Milner is considered to be the greatest masterpiece in proving the same fact. Through Joseph of Arimathea, this strain was greatly strengthened. John of Glastonbury, historian, and genealogist, shows that the children of Joseph married into the royal British families. For this reason, King Arthur and the Tudor line claimed to be descended from Joseph. John of Glastonbury also asserts that the twelve Knights of the Round Table were descended from the line of Joseph, and their number of twelve was formed to perpetuate the existence of the original twelve companions who arrived in Britain with Joseph. The knights long ago passed into legend and folklore, but the famous Round Table is preserved today in Winchester County Hall, still wearing some of the green paint as decorated by Henry VIII when he entertained the French king. The original memories are still vivid of the chivalrous knights, the Quest for the Holy Grail, King Arthur, and the beautiful Queen Guinevere, descendants of the Noblis Decurio. The Thorn which Joseph planted on Weary All Hill grew to be a twin. The despoiler cut one down. The other part was saved because a splinter pierced the eye of the destroyer. He died from the wound. For thirty years it lived, long enough to see a new generation revolt against the hypocritical Puritans who had come to be hated for their desecrations and displace them. Fortunately, a number of Thorn trees had been budded from the surviving part of the original Holy Thorn, which botanists agree was a Levantine Thorn. Every Christmas the blossoms are gathered to decorate the altar of the Parish Church of St. John the Baptist, Glastonbury, keeping alive the significance of the ancient Josephian story.St. Ninian, a British missionary out of Avalon, educated in Rome, founded Candida Casa, Whithorn, Scotland, A.D. 397. He was a great scholar, having served under St. Martin at Marmontier. In his travels, he found St. Jerome's original translations of the New Testament, the Psalms, and the Mosaic Laws. These, with many other important religious writings in the old British-Celto language, he took with him to Candida Casa, along with a copy of the Vulgate. Later, St. Columbanus, the great Celtic missionary, who died A.D. 615, with his Celtic co-worker St. Gall, went to Italy, where he founded Bobbio. He took with him a large quantity of the treasured MSS. from Candida Casa and from other Celtic church libraries. Remaining today are about seven hundred MSS. in the original British-Celtic language, which can be seen in the famed church libraries at (P.239) Bobbio, Turin, and Milan. On the margins of many appear notes made by St. Columbanus, in the same language, as readable today as when first written. At Bobbio are many beautiful illuminated works from Candida Casa and MSS. of Irish Bangor. St. Gall left Bobbio to found the great monastery of St. Gall, Switzerland, and the monastery at Luxeuil in the Vosges, with their magnificent libraries containing numerous early British-Celtic manuscripts.The famed library of St. Gallen was taken to Switzerland by the Irish disciples of St. Gallus. Among them is the religio-historical Irish MS. written A.D. 612 by St. Gallus, with considerable seventh­ century Irish MSS. and other treasured ancient documents. In fact, one finds more of these antique Irish treasures on the continent than in Ireland.The chief data concerning the early Christian British missions are found in the British libraries, particularly in the Welsh Triads, the Psalter of Cashal, and Chronicum Regum Pictorum.How deeply rooted the lives and works of Joseph of Arimathea and the Bethany group in the early Christian workers is shown by the great wealth of documentation written by them during the six hundred years of the Golden Christian Era. The drama of the introduction of Christianity into Britain by Joseph was not confined to the British chroniclers. There are in existence many early works written by saints, scholars, and church dignitaries who labored on the continent during his lifetime and the years that followed. Some of the MSS. produced in Gaul and Britanny make startling reading. All tell the same story in different forms and the deep reverence in which Joseph was held by them is manifest in every word. The story never grew old. The first two books off the newly invented printing press, after the Bible, were on the Life of St. Joseph. The scholarly and historical works written of Joseph, the Apostle to the British, far outnumber the works written on the life of any one of the Apostles of Christ, St. Paul and Peter not excepted. Most of them were written by the best scholarly minds, historians, and church authorities of Thosecenturies. National disputes for over sixteen hundred years were settled on the validity of Joseph's existence in Britain with the Bethany Mission. Opposing nations recognized the validity of the claim. Disputists in the highest international church councils bowed to the belief, supported by the Popes and the Vatican into the twentieth century. Under such close scrutiny a myth, legend or tradition would have been disposed of in the first century A.D. Instead, the keenest intellectuals (P.240) over the centuries solidly propounded the historic fact that Joseph of Arimathea and the Bethany band did live, teach and die in Britain; that Joseph was the actual Apostle to the British, who founded the first Christian church above ground in Britain; that Britain was the first nation to accept the Christ Faith and from her shores stemmed the great army of missionaries that Christianized the world; and that the Covenant People are represented in Celto-Anglo-Saxondom.How significant that everything appears to fall in line with prophecy!The words of Isaiah as he addressed the people 'afar in the Isles of the West' become trenchant with positive meaning, as does the prophecy of Jeremiah. The prophets proclaimed that the Star of Jacob would spring from the line of David, the Shepherd King. Jesus, the Messiah, was descended from David, as also was His greatest banner-bearer, Joseph of Arimathea. Jesus, the Light of the World, directed His message to the 'lost sheep' whom He foretold would receive Him and His Word, and keep it. To Paul He gave His commission and the Apostle of the Gentiles went to the 'lost sheep of Israel', the Gentiles of the Isles. Joseph, the uncle of Jesus, went ahead under divine inspiration to prepare the way, converting and teaching the royal Gentiles, whom Paul established in Rome, to found the first Christian church by the uncircumcised. Joseph prepared the royal family in Britain, from whom Paul established his mission to Wales after Joseph had laid the foundation. It was foretold that the redeemed lost sheep would keep the faith. They proved it as no other nation did by making the greatest blood sacrifice in history as they smashed the would-be destroyers of 'The Way'. They produced the man who conquered Rome with the Cross - Constantine the Great, who nationalized Rome in the faith. One hundred and fifty years before him his ancestors, the kings of Britain, were the first to nationalize their nation in the name of Christ, take their coronation oath, and build their Parlia­mentary Constitution on the Christian platform. The sons and daughters of Manasseh founded Britain the great republic of America, a prophecy fulfilled by Britain and America, founding God’s Commonwealth on which the sun never sets.What a magnificent heritage and legacy the peoples of the Anglo-Saxon world possess and all because of one man who came to them in the beginning in the name of the Beloved One, as their Apostle. As such he remains today a successful instrument of divine guidance, Joseph of Arimathea, the Noblis Decurio, uncle of Jesus and guardian (P.241) of the Blessed Virgin, the Apostle of Christian Anglo­ Saxondom in God's Commonwealth.In striving toward the ultimate goal in His service, we can draw strength from the historic achievements of Joseph and his illustrious band, and the glorious company of the faithful who followed after making their supreme sacrifice, where necessary, in the name of Christ.We may bow our hearts in humble appreciation of all they did for our sake to make us free men and women in the righteousness of the teachings of 'The Way'. May we arise in strength to hold aloft against His enemies the banner of the Cross Joseph first gave to Arviragus, as a sign and symbol of our race, to unite all mankind in the brotherhood of love.The story of Joseph can never die. It is in the blood of our veins, immortalized. Joseph the Saint ended his glorious trail at Avalon, only to take up another more golden, in heaven.Anyone who doubts the veracity of this majestic story does so in the face of irrefutable evidence. As Sir Henry Spellman in Concillia truly writes: 'For anyone to longer doubt the historic authenticity of Glastonbury, and the Mission of Joseph, is ridiculous.'