with ecclesiastical history, to be guarded against the fallacious arguments of some, and the overbearing presumption of others.

Let those, however, who would argue the points dispassionately, reflect on what they'read. They will then discover the futile arguments of false and partial reasoners, whose faculty for cavilling is, perhaps, better than their capacity for judging aright.

In the first place, it should be remembered, that the precise time when the Christian doctrine was first preached in England, has not with any degree of certainty been determined. But that it was introduced long before Austin's time, is sufficiently proved by numerous high authorities.

The learned Bishop Stillingfleet, Dr. Cave in his life of St. Paul, and Mr. Nelson upon his festival, who doubt not the preaching of this Christian disciple in Britain, about the year of our Lord 60, all agree in this particular; and of course draw their conclusions from good authority. But without insisting on this, the introduction of Christianity into the British dominions, may be traced to a still earlier date. Prior to the conversion of St. Paul, which took place in the year 35, Joseph of Arimathea, according to the history of those times, with his son John, a Bishop, and ten others, arrived in Britain from France; where he, together with two male and three female disciples, had been driven by the wind and waves about a year before; having all been put in an

NUMBER XXXIX.

ON VULGAR ERRORS.

Custom, the world's great idol, we adore,
And knowing this, we seek to know no more.

66

ERROR," it has been very justly observed, "is never so fatal in its effect as when inculcated by men of celebrity. Their authority gives it that external appearance of truth," says the same author, “without which, in some degree, it never becomes prevalent." When the public mind is thus influenced by assertions not altogether correct, it behoves the man of study and research, when he has discovered mistakes, to make known, for the benefit of society, the inaccuracy of such statements.

To refute errors, to do away prejudices, or to oppose a generally received opinion, is a bold undertaking. It requires confidence, as well as energy and diligence, in the individual who aspires to such a task; more particularly where public errors are sanctioned by the authority of a great name, or tolerated by custom. Many, who have the opportunity of diving into truths, are too

who was the first king that embraced Christianity, as early as the year 170, appointed three Archbishoprics, viz. London, York, and Chester. That of London, after nearly 500 years continuance, was transferred by Ethelbert to Canterbury, of which see AUSTIN was the first Archbishop, when the inroads of the Saxons had thrown over the face of the country the darkness of German superstition, and checked the progress of Christianity, which from being barely tolerated had been openly encouraged, till Vortigern, about the year 445, called the Saxons to his aid, particularly Hengist and Horsa, two brothers, by whose united endeavours Christianity was nearly extirpated. Many were made slaves. Those who escaped fled into Cornwall and Wales; and while the rest of the natives were fast relapsing into their ancient paganism, the Christians exercised their religion in its native purity, and continued deeply rooted in the Apostle's doctrines, till Austin was sent over with forty other missionaries, by Gregory the first, Bishop of Rome, not, as is frequently asserted, to convert the whole nation, but to restore Christianity among those who had been corrupted by the influence of Saxon superstition; the persecuted Church being at that time most cruelly oppressed and overpowered, though BERTHA, the Queen of Ethelbert, was at the very time a Christian.

These are statements of old historians, and of which any one of perseverance and research, may

convince himself. The indolent alone will suffer their understandings to be imposed on by arguments of partial, or misled individuals.

Austin, it is true, was sent over by the Pope to convert that part of the community which had relapsed into a state of paganism; but though he brought his converts to profess the faith, he was the first to teach them to outrage, the laws of Christianity; for in trying to bring the ancient British Church to a conformity with that of Rome, and finding a resistance on the part of the Bishops and Clergy, he persuaded his Christian converts to massacre them; which history informs us they did to the number of eleven or twelve hundred.

Now, had Austin been the first propagator of the Gospel in our Island, it is very clear he could not have met with either Bishops or Clergy to contend with. Neither could he have found a national Christian Church to bring under subjection to the Papal See.

It was not till towards the conclusion of the sixth century, about the year A. D. 596, it should be recollected, that Austin arrived in England; and two hundred and eighty two years before that period, in the year 314, three Bishops were sent from Britain to assist at the council at Arles !

Many will consider it of little consequence to know by whom Christianity was first introduced into this country-in what age Protestantism arose -the origin of a title-or the foundation on which

an order was instituted; others will affix to it an importance that may promote researches, to ascertain facts so essential for the pages of history: and a spirit of nationality, it is to be hoped, will, in this age of inquiry, animate the soul of some able scholar, to confute the palpable errors that have been handed down from one historian to another, with a careless indifference that is most astonishing in men of study and erudition.

With respect to the demand, "Shew us a Protestant before Luther?" and the question, "Were you not all Roman Catholics till Henry VIII. quarrelled with the Pope?" It will be found upon reflection, that we may answer the latter with an absolute negative. The first Christians who visited our shores, seminated the pure doctrines of the primitive Church; at which time, even the Romans themselves had not fallen into those errors, which the turbulent spirit and tyranny of some of their Bishops afterwards imposed upon them, as tenets not to be dispensed with.

One Church was not, in the first ages of Christianity, obliged to observe the rites of another. They might differ in trivial points without offending, so as they did not violate the great articles of faith established by the Apostles. And whosoever would impose particular observances on particular Churches, were considered as violators and breakers of the unanimity of the one great universal or holy Catholic Church.

And therefore have Bishops of Rome been