DRAMA OF THE LOST DISCIPLES #2
by the late George Jowett (1961)
LET THERE BE LIGHT
WE have identified the sterling character of the Noblis
Decurio, his eminence in religious, political and commercial
affairs in both the Jewish and Roman hierarchy, his intimate
association with the family of Christ, and particularly the
powerful influence he exercised in the last tragic days of Jesus,
from the scene of the illegal trial for life to the time Joseph,
with his companions, were banished from Judea, to their arrival
at Marseilles, in Gaul. It will be helpful if we pause to
consider the world of A.D. 36, before beginning the fascinating
story of Joseph's landing in Britain with his companions and what
followed.
Due to the historic discrepancies that commonly exist
concerning this era, it is important that one becomes familiar,
if but slightly, with the histories of the peoples of the various
nations who played an active part in the Christian drama. We
commonly find much confusion and misunderstanding caused by the
random translation of names and places into the various languages
that then prevailed. Historians do not quote, or even refer, to
the language then spoken by the original Britons and Gauls.
Reference is generally given piecemeal from the Greek or Latin,
which had not the slightest affinity with the Cymric tongue.
Perhaps unwittingly, historians have been the worst offenders in
erecting barriers to the truth, subscribing to the unsupportable
belief that Britain, for centuries before and after A.D. 36, was
an island populated by wild savages, painted barbarians
completely devoid of culture and religious conscience.
Nonchalantly, the reporters wrote off those majestic years
as being steeped in myth, legend and folklore.
The strange distortion of ancient Britain is the most
incredible paradox in history. One could be forgiven for thinking
that certain academic minds had deliberately entered into a joint
conspiracy to defame the history of those islands and their
inhabitants. It is not as though the truth were hidden. They had
but to read the classical histories of Rome, Greece and Gaul, as
their course affected Britain, and compare notes with the early
British Triads. It required but a mite of effort on their part to
search the old church records and the stored tomes in the British
Museum Library and other libraries at hand, replete with concrete
evidence contradicting the spurious writers. In addition,
thousands of Cymric Triads and monastic documents exist,
particularly in the Vatican Library, as well as the historic
versions of the earliest British historians, Celtic and Saxon. A
few enlightened historians did cast gleams of light on the truth,
but it was darkened and made obscure by the mass of irresponsible
literature foisted on the public.
Truth was lost in unbelievable error.
Strange as it may seem, it was the enemies of ancient
Britain who wrote at length with candour the most faithful
description of the early Britons, showing that they possessed an
admirable culture, a patriarchal religion, and an epochal history
that extended far beyond that of Rome. Modern writers also
confirm their testimony.
E. O. Gordon, in "Prehistoric London," states that the city
of London (Llandn) was founded two hundred and seventy years
before Rome, in 1020 B.C.
The famed British archaeologist, Sir Flinders Petrie,
discovered at Old Gaza gold ornaments and enamelware of Celtic
origin, dated 1500 B.C., and in reverse found Egyptian beads at
Stonehenge.
The art of enamelling is early identified with Britain as is
the production of tin. The ancient Briton was the inventor of
enamelling. He was so perfect in this craft that relics reposing
in the British Museum, and the Glastonbury Museum, such as the
famous Glastonbury bowl (over two thousand years old), and the
beautiful Desborough mirror are as perfect as the day they were
made. They are magnificent examples of "La Tene" art, as the
Celtic design is named, their geometric beauty and excellence
being beyond the ability of modern craftsmen to duplicate.
In "Early Britain," by Jacquetta Hawkes, page 32, we read
"These Yorkshire Celts, beyond all other groups, seem to have
been responsible for establishing the tradition of La Tene art.
... Nearly all the finest pieces are luxuries reflecting the
taste of warriors who enjoyed personal magnificence and the
trapping out of their wives and horses. Brooches to fasten the
Celtic cloak, bracelets, necklaces, pins, hand mirrors, harness
fittings, bits and horse armour, helmets, sword scabbards and
shields were among the chief vehicles of La Tene art. They show
on the one hand strong plastic modelling, and on the other
decorative design incised, in low relief, or picked out in
coloured enamel. Both plastically and in the flat the Celtic work
shows an extraordinary assurance, often a kind of wild delicacy,
far surpassing its Greek prototypes. In these the finest artists
achieved a marvellous control of balanced symmetry in the design
and equally in its related spaces."
S. E. Winbold, in Britain B.C., writes:
"The Celtic curvilinear art, circa 300 B.C. and of which the
famous Glastonbury bowl is a good example, reached its zenith
development in Britain."
Roman testimony states that captive Britons taught the
Romans the craft of enamelling.
Herodotus, father of profane history, circa 450 B.C., wrote,
of the British Isles and its people, under the name of
Cassiterides, remarking on their talent in the metal industry.
Julius Caesar, following his campaign in Britain, 55 B.c., wrote
with admiration of their culture, their sterling character,
ingenuity in commerce and craftsmanship. He refers in amazement
to the number of populous cities, the architecture, universities
of learning, the numerical population of England, and
particularly to their religion with its belief in the immortality
of the soul.
(Obviously the druids of Britain did not have all truth, they did
have false doctrine among many truths - the immortality of the
sould being one of those false doctrines - Keith Hunt)
MIGRATIONS
Ancient historians record the exploits of the Kimmerians-
Kimmerii-Keltoi-Kelts, in their migrations through Europe into
Britain. Modern historians refer to their passage and somehow
leave and lose them on the European continent. Yet modern
ethnologists have correctly charted their migrations from their
ancient source in the East to their final destination in Gaul and
Britain, which were uninhabited before their arrival.
Archaeologists have uncovered their past from the Crimea to
Britain as factually as they have substantiated the historic
existence of Babylon and Chaldea.
Long before they were known as Kimmerians, the prophet
Isaiah addressed himself plainly to the inhabitants of "The
Isles".
Why historians have mutilated the facts, submerging in myth
and mystery the antiquity of Britain, is a tragedy that baffles
the mind.
While it is stated that the ancient Phoenician script is an
ancestor of our own, philologists assert that the Keltic or
Cymric tongue is the oldest living language. Its root words have
a basic affinity with ancient Hebrew. In making this statement it
should be pointed out that the original tongue of the Biblical
characters had little association with modern Hebrew. The ancient
language was devoid of vowels. Modern Hebrew was not formulated
until the sixth century. To the modern Jew, the original Hebrew
is a lost tongue.
(On visiting Wales today you will find in many stores things like
tea-towels with the words on them "Welsh, the oldest language in
Europe" - yes Europe not Britain. I talked to a Welshman and he
told me that if you could raise from the dead a Kelt from 500
B.C. the two of them would speak and understand each other
perfectly in the Welsh language - Keith Hunt)
In the Bible we read of Ezra bewailing the fact that his
brethren could not understand their native language and,
therefore, on their return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian
captivity, 536 B.C., Ezra was obliged to read the law to them in
the Assyrio-Chaldean language.
Modern Hebrew is like Greek and Latin, a classical language.
The Jew of today reads and speaks in Yiddish, a conglomeration of
several languages.
In the same manner as many modernists prate the dead, false
theory of evolution, the prejudiced, and uninformed continue to
regard the ancient British language as a mixture of several,
regardless of philologic contradiction.
Abundant proof exists today that the ancient language is
still alive. It is frequently spoken in Wales, Cornwall, Ireland,
Scotland. and in Brittany and Normandy. Available are many old
Bibles written in the Celtic languages. One of the most prominent
Scottish newspapers is published in the old tongue, and an
adaptation of the Celtic is the official language of Eire.
It is interesting to know the important part the ancient
language played in World War I. When the Allied Command could
find no other method to prevent German Intelligence from
deciphering the Allied wire messages, it was Lloyd George,
Britain's wartime Prime Minister, who suggested that the ancient
language, which he spoke fluently, be employed. Its use
completely baffled German Intelligence, preventing further code
interception. This could not have been possible if the Cymric
tongue was garbled. It had to be grammatically organized and
intelligible.
Even today, nothing is more distorted than the modern
histories of world nations. They are either subject to political
chauvinism, or glorified idolatry by super-patriots. The historic
truth seems to be unpopular. Reporters seem to revel in biased
national opinion, with an inclination to judge from the
materialistic level of intelligence. Anything different is
ignorant, medieval or prejudiced. They tend to describe their own
native history according to their Party philosophy, ignoring its
transition in name and language from the past. They fail to
recognize the significant fact that language and geography is no
criterion of race. There is change in everything. Language
changes, so does the geographical habitation of people, but not
race. To evaluate the history of any race we must recognize the
progressive changes as they appear in language, religion, social
custom, and their adaptation to geographical residence. We must
ever be on guard against the distorters, the irresponsible, the
charlatan and the atheist. Their warped minds are motivated by
bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, religious and racial hatred.
They delight in destroying the champions of the truth. What they
do not understand they scofflingly label as tradition. Actually,
they do not understand the meaning of the word. To them it means
a myth. Disraeli eloquently said: "A tradition can neither be
made nor destroyed."
(Since 1961 when the author was puiblishing this work, what he
said about historians was very correct. Since then historians
have had to admit historic truth they would not accept, so things
have changed, and British ancient history is now admitted to be
correct as preserved by the Welsh and others - Keith Hunt)
A tradition is a truth, though garnished with degrees of
exaggeration in the passage of time from repetitive retelling. It
can be clearly elucidated by separating the chaff from the wheat.
Through the common practice of generalizing we are prone to use
terms loosely, which easily side-track us into forming faulty
conclusions. Arising out of this habit we have come to generalize
the meaning of the word "Christian", insinuating that all
followers of Jesus were known by that name from the beginning. In
actual fact, the name "Christian" had not then been coined. It
was not created until years after His death. To the Judean, the
Greek, and the Roman world, the early adherents to the new Gospel
were known as "Followers of The Way". Jesus had said, "I am The
Way." To all His devotees He was "The Way". In their devotions
they referred to Christ and His spiritual philosophy as "The
Way".
CULDEE
The title, "Christian", is claimed to have originated at
Antioch, following the enthusiastic reception given to the
disciples who fled there in A.D. 36. It is nearer to the truth
that the inhabitants of this ancient city referred to the
converts as "Little Christs", and, "Little men of Christ". These
labels are by no means the correct interpretation of the name
"Christian". The word is a composite of Greek and Hebrew.
"Christ" is the Greek word meaning "consecrated", and "ian" is
from the Hebrew word "am", meaning a person, or people.
Therefore, the true meaning of the word "Christian" is
"consecrated people".
Early ecclesiastics and historians definitely state that the
word is of British origin. Philologists also support its claim to
British invention; created by the British priesthood, among whom
the Christian movement gained its first and strongest impetus.
Substantiation is found in the statement by Sabellus, A.D. 250,
who wrote: "The word Christian was spoken for the first time in
Britain, by those who first received The Word, from the Disciples
of Christ."
It is interesting to note that the Bethany group who landed
in Britain, was never referred to by the British priesthood as
Christians, nor even later when the name was in common usage.
They were called "Culdees", as were the other disciples who later
followed the Josephian mission into Britain.
There are two interpretations given to the word "Culdee", or
"Culdich", both words purely of the Celto--British language, the
first meaning "certain strangers", and the other as explained by
Lewis Spence, who states that "Culdee" is derived from
"Ceile-De", meaning, "servant of the Lord". In either case the
meaning is appropriate.
This title, applied to Joseph of Arimathea and his
companions, clearly indicates that they were considered as more
than ordinary strangers. The name sets them apart as somebody
special. In this case, since they arrived in Britain on a special
mission with a special message, we can fairly accept the title
meant to identify them as "certain strangers, servants of the
Lord".
In the ancient British Triads, Joseph and his twelve
companions are all referred to as Culdees, as also are Paul,
Peter, Lazarus, Simon Zelotes, Aristobulus and others. This is
important. The name was not known outside Britain and therefore
could only have been assigned to those who actually had dwelt
among the British Cymri. The name was never applied to any
disciple not associated with the early British missions. Even
though Gaul was Celtic, the name was never employed there. In
later years the name Culdee took on an added significance,
emphasizing the fact that the Culdee Christian Church was the
original Church of Christ on earth. It became a title applied to
the church, and to its High Priests, persisting for centuries in
parts of Britain, after the name had died out elsewhere in favour
of the more popular name, Christian. Culdees are recorded in
church documents as officiating at St. Peter's, York, until A.D.
936. And, according to the Rev. Raine, the Canons of York were
called Culdees as late as the reign of Henry II. In Ireland a
whole county was named Culdee, declared with emphasis when
reference was heard at a court hearing in the seventeenth
century, as to its laws. The name Culdee, and Culdich, clung
tenaciously to the Scottish Church, and its prelates, much longer
than elsewhere.
Cambell writes in "Reullura":
The pure Culdees
were Alby's [Albion] earliest priests of God,
ere yet an island of her seas,
by foot of Saxon monk was trod.
LANGUAGES AND GREEK
In the days of Christ the popular language of the East was
Greek, more so than Roman. Aramaic and Hebrew were chiefly
confined to the Judeans. Jesus was, in all probability, fluent in
Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin. And, if what we are told is
factual, He was also versed in the Celtic language. The cultured
people of the Roman province of Palestine were conversant with
Greek, Hebrew and Latin.
The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was written
in Greek at Alexandria, 285 B.C. It is interesting to note that
this work was compiled by seventy Jewish scholars, and not Greek,
as was generally supposed.
Centuries before Christ, the Greek-language was well known
to the ancient British, from commercial association with the
Phoenicians, Greek tin traders and sailors. Julius Caesar tells
us that the Druids employed the Greek script in all their
commercial transactions.
TIN ISLAND
At this particular period of British history, the island was more
commonly referred to by its industry than by its British name.
Known as the Cassiterides, meaning "Tin Island", it was for many
centuries the only country in the world where tin was mined and
refined, Aristotle, 350 B.C. is one of the first writers to name
Britain, the "Tin Islands". Herodotu uses the name earlier, circa
450 B.C. (Bk.3:115).
Julius Caesar writes of his visit to the famous Spanish tin
mine at Talavera, 50 B.C. Many centuries before tin was
discovered at Talavera the tin trade flourished in Britain. In
fact, Spanish history tells of a close association with Cornwall
and it appears that the Spanish Government sought the skilled
miners of Cornwall, to instruct them in obtaining the wolfram and
in constructing the mines. Many Cornish names appear in Talaveran
tin mining history of men who were instructors, superintendents,
overseers and foremen and experts in assaying the rock. Proof of
British superiority in the tin industry and its affluent
world-wide trade is referred to by Herodotus 450 B.C., Pytheas
353 B.C., Aristotle 350 B.C., Polybius 150 B.C., Diodorus
Siculus, Posidonius and others, most of whom wrote long before
the Christian era. Each deals at length with the British tin
industry in Cornwall and Devon, explaining the paths of
transportation from Britain, overland and by sea to the various
ports on the Mediterranean and elsewhere in the known world of
that time.
The ancient ships of biblical Tarshish were the first
navigators to transport tin and lead from Britain to the nations
of the empiric world. Their navy controlled the seas and later
became known in history as the Phoenicians. The tin that
garnished the splendour of the Palace of Solomon, 1005 B.C., was
mined and smelted into ingots at Cornwall and thence shipped by
the Phoenicians to Palestine.
Creasy, the eminent British historian, in his "History of
England," writes: "The British mines mainly supplied the glorious
adornment of Solomon's temple."
For many years the Phoenicians held a monopoly on the
transportation of British tin over the sea lanes. They guarded
their secret jealously. It is well known that when followed by
other seacraft, seeking to learn the source of their trade, their
mariners would deliberately strike a false course, and in
extremity would purposely wreck their vessel. This sacrifice was
reimbursed out of the Phoenician treasury. For confirmation of
this it is interesting to quote Strabo, who died A.D. 25
"Anciently the Phoenicians alone, from Cadis, engrossed this
market, hiding the navigation from all others. When the Romans
followed the course of a vessel that they might discover the
situation, the jealous pilot wilfully stranded the ship,
misleading those who were tracing him to the same destruction.
Escaping from shipwreck, he was indemnified for his losses out of
the public treasury."
The Phoenicians of Carthage were more, successful. Anxious
to share in the trade of Cadis, an expedition under Hamilco
passed the Straits about 450 B.C., and sailing to the north,
discovered the Tin Island.
Ptolemy and Polybius, vigorously support Diodorus, writing
of the friendliness of the people of Cornwall and of Dammonia,
which was the name then applied to Devon. These locales were
where the tin mining chiefly existed. In the making of bronze,
tin was the main alloy. Thus it can be safely said that the
Bronze Age had its inception in Britain. Knowledge of this fact
alone is sufficient to refute all malicious insinuation that the
ancient Britons were barbarian.
(Most historians today agree that B.C. Britain was FAR from
barbarianism - Keith Hunt)
By necessity, to excel in mining and smelting tin and lead,
to be proficient in casting metal, and expert in enamelling, a
people must be intelligent in the science of minerology and
metallurgy.
The world-wide demand for these precious metals beat a sea
lane to Britain's shores, bringing its inhabitants in close
contact with the ancient powers. Consequently, it is quite
understandable why the British, with the foundation of their own
language steeped in ancient Hebrew, and their knowledge of Greek,
could be responsible for coining the word "Christian". Also, we
can understand why many of the oldest landmarks in this area of
Britain abound in Hebrew names.
(Many have seen the connection between Welsh and ancient Hebrew
languages - either of them used vowels - and the pronouncing of
words had to be handed down from generation to generation. So
today nobody can pronounce Welsh unless you are verbally taught
as it contains no vowels - Keith Hunt)
The association of Joseph of Arimathea with the tin industry
in Cornwall is positive. Fragments of poems and miners' songs,
handed down through the centuries, make frequent reference to
Joseph. It has long been customary for the miners to shout when
they worked, "Joseph was a tin man", "Joseph was in the tin
trade."
These were their chief trade slogans which identified Joseph
as a prominent person in the British tin industry.
KELTS
At the time of our story, the islanders were known racially
as Kelts, derived from their historical racial name Kimmerian-
Kimmerii-Kymry-Keltoi-Kelt. The letter 'C' began to substitute
the letter 'K' in spelling the name, but the pronunciation is the
same. Even in those remote times the name Kelt took on a
different enunciation and spelling, arising out of native patois.
Then, as today, we find the descendants of this ancient people in
England and Wales referred to as Celts, the inhabitants of
Hibernia - Ireland - as Kelts, Gaels, in Scotland and the people
of Gaul, now France, as Gauls - Gallic. Ethnically they are all
the same people. The meaning of the word in each case is
"stranger", indicating that a Celt, Kelt, Gael or a Gaul were
strangers to the land in which they dwelt, not an aborigine as
some would have us suppose. It is important to note, though they
were strangers to the land, they were its first settlers,
securing their new homeland in peace, and not with the sword,
since there were no people to conquer.
(Brutus the Trojon from the city of Troy - the famous Troy/Greek
wars - came with his band of settlers to Britain about 1100 B.C.
and were its first permenant settlers. The Trojons were from the
house of Judah, they left the tribe of Judah and settled the city
of Troy - Keith Hunt)
They were truly colonizing strangers in a virgin land.
We know they were strangers to Britain and Gaul, though very
ancient, but, like a silver thread woven in a dark woof we can
trace their wanderings as one people from their original homeland
beyond the Euphrates river, for over three thousand years B.C. to
their new domicile in the Mystic Isles, and in Gaul.
Francois Guizot, the authoritative French historian in his
"Histoire de la Civilisation en France," writes: "The Gauls, or
Celts, had the honour of giving their name FIRST to this land."
The name of the Gaul persisted until about the middle of the
fifth century, when the Gothic Franks, under the leadership of
Meroveus, invaded, and settled the land, displacing the Gaul in
numbers and in name.
The national name "France" is derived from the tribal name
of Frank, meaning "Freeman". Yet, the Gaul left his impress on
the land in his co-British name in the first province he founded.
Today it is still known by its original ancient name - Brittany.
At one time the Continent had been land-locked with Britain,
until a natural upheaval caused the present separation. Evidently
for a considerable length of time the separation was not too
widely marked. In the ancient Druidic Triads we read of a Gaulish
bishop, walking over the divide across a plank as he journeyed
from Gaul to pay the annual tithe to the mother Druidic Church in
Britain.
Despite the washing of the lands by the seas for many
centuries, the distance between Dover and Calais today is only
twenty-four miles.
Separated, the island became geographically known as
Britain, and the nearby Continental section as Gaul.
..........
To be continued with "The Glory in the Name"
NOTE:
In the last 40 years Scotland and Wales have become very "proud
of their nations" and their long history and culture and
language; hence finally the Anglo-Saxon English have acknowledged
and admitted to the truth of the historical records kept
preserved by the Scottish and Welsh people - Keith Hunt
The Lost Disciples to Britain #3
The Glory in the Name
by the late George Jowett (1961)
THE GLORY IN THE NAME
WHY THE NAME "BRITIAN" "BRITISH"?
AFTER the Kimmerians had settled in the Isles of the West
they were known to the rest of the world by another name. The
name held no affinity with their racial title by which ancient
ethnologists identified them. In many respects the name was more
of a sobriquet which they appeared willingly to accept.
They became referred to as "British." Why were they so
named?
What was so different about the Kimmerii, or their way of
life, that actuated other nations to christen them with this
strange surname that was - ever to identify them before the
world, both ancient and modern, even to the subjection of their
racial name?
Ancient chroniclers leave no doubt that it was the religious
beliefs and customs of the Kimmerians that set them markedly
apart from all other faiths. It was diametrically opposed to all
other religions of that time. They believed in One Invisible God,
and the coming of a Messiah. They had no graven images, abhorring
the sight of idols. They always worshipped in the open, facing
the east. They had a passionate belief in the immortality of
life, to such an extent that both friend and foe claimed this
belief made them fearless warriors, disdainful of death.
(Exactly what or in what way they believed in immortality is a
quetion. Was it the popular "immortal soul" teaching - living on
after physical death in a form that could think and talk etc. is
debatable. If so, then it was a false idea they had - Keith Hunt)
The religious ritual that appeared to make the greatest
impression on the foreign historians was their custom of carrying
a replica of the Ark of the Covenant before them in all religious
observances, as did their forefathers in old Judea. For
centuries, as the Kymri passed through foreign lands in migratory
waves on their march to the Isles of the West, the chroniclers
noted that this custom was never omitted.
It was this ritual that gave birth to their British surname.
The name British is derived from the ancient Hebrew language,
with which the old Cymric language was contemporaneous. Formed
from two words, 'B'rith' meaning 'covenant', and 'ish' meaning a
man or a woman. Joined as one. word the meaning is apparent
'British' means a 'covenant man or woman'. The ancient word 'vin'
attached to the word 'B'rith', signifies 'land', therefore the
interpretation of the word 'Britain', as then and still employed,
is 'Covenant Land'.
Unknowingly, the ancients named the Keltoi rightly. They
were, and still are, the original adherents of the Covenant Law.
With the later adoption of Christianity, and the name Christian,
a startling new interpretation presented itself. The 'Covenant
People' became the 'Consecrated People', living in the 'Covenant
Land'. This carries the implication that by the vicarious
atonement the British were consecrated in the Covenant Law and
initiated to be the advance guard of Christianity, to evangelize
the world in the name of Jesus Christ.
MUCH FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT
From a close study of their religious beliefs everything
points to the fact that the Kimmerians held fast to the
patriarchal faith of the Old Testament. Many eminent scholars
point out the great similarity between the ancient Hebrew
patriarchal faith and the Druidic of Britain.
Sir Norman Lockyer, in "Stonehenge and Other British Stone
Monuments" (p. 252), writes: "I confess I am amazed at the
similarities we have come across." Edward Davies, in "Mythology
and Rites of the British Druids" (Pref., p. 7), states: "I must
confess that I have not been the first in representing the
Druidical as having had some connection with the patriarchal
religion."
Wm. Stukeley, in his book "Abury" (Pref., p. I), affirms
after a close study of the evidence: "I plainly discerned the
religion professed by the ancient Britons was the simple
patriarchal faith."
Earlier testimony also affirms. Procopius of Caesarea, in
his "History of the Wars" (A.D. 530), says: "Jesus Taran, Bel -
One only God. All Druids acknowledge One Lord God alone" (De
Gothicis, bk. 3).
Julius Caesar wrote, 54 B.C.: "The Druids make the
immortality of the soul the basis of all their teaching, holding
it to be the principal incentive and reason for a virtuous life"
(Gallic War, VI, I4).
(Was this the popular pagan "immortal soul" teaching or was it
that we have a "spirit in man" that goes back to God on death?
This [the spirit in man] is what the Bible teaches, and a full
in-depth study concerning it can be found on this website - Keith
Hunt)
It is a curious fact that the British title was never
conferred on their Keltoc kinsmen in Gaul, Ireland and Scotland.
Historically the people of Gaul were even referred to as Gauls -
Gallie and the land known as Gaul-Gallica, and Galatia, until the
coming of the Franks. It is believed that the Biblical version of
the Epistle to the Galatians was addressed to the Gauls of
Galatia. The inhabitants of Hibernia (Ireland) and Caledonia
(Scotland) retained both their geographical and original racial
name. The peoples of what is now England and Wales actually never
lost either. The land was always Britain and the inhabitants were
documented as British Celts. The Irish perpetuated the name Kelt
but the Scottish, while known to be Kelts, were called Gaels. One
immediately recognized the similarity between the name Gaul and
Gael - Gallic and Gaelic. Incidentally, the Gaels were the
original inhabitants of Iberia. After centuries of domicile in
Iberia, a large host migrated into Caledonia (Scotland), making
way for the constant flow of Kelts from the Continent, to Iberia
(or Hibernia), who retained the Irish title.
Even though this distinction in names has always persisted,
the affinity between them was recognized. The islands were always
referred to as the Brittanic Isles even in ancient times.... Not
until the reign of James I, when the Irish and Scottish began to
be blended into a central Parliament, were the islands known as
the British Isles and the United Kingdom. Of later date is the
name Great Britain.
This may appear confusing to some who more commonly speak of
the people of Britain as English and Welsh, and the race as
Anglo-Saxon. The national name English was never shared, or
employed to designate, the other inhabitants of the Isles. To
this day they each retain their Celtic clan title of Welsh, Irish
and Scottish, in spite of the fact that they all shared the title
of British citizens.
ANGLO-SAXON AND OTHERS
The name Britain continued to name England and Wales, long
after the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in A.D. 426. Not until the
invading Normans began to be domestically absorbed by the British
Kelts and Saxons did the Anglican title obtain ascendancy. From
the lesser used name Angle the national name took form to label
the land and its people, England. Strange as it may appear on
first thought, yet there are no misnomers in the various names
and titles. Racially the Kelts, Anglo-Saxons and Normans were but
separate tribal branches of the same Keltic race. This also
includes the Danes, who had invaded Britain in A.D. 787.
Ethnologically the whole Keltic race is composed of the
Keltic-Saxon-Scandinavian stock. Historically the arrival of the
Danes, Saxons and Normans are referred to as invasions, but
actually it was a converging of the one race into their
predestined homeland, which to them and to the world became their
Motherland, Britain. Together they have grown in stature, wearing
the British title like a badge, in honour and with glory.
The fact that the British name was singularly identified
with the people of England and Wales is more curious than
mysterious. As the history of ancient Britain unfolds before us
we can understand the reason more clearly. Irrevocably they were
bound together by the ties of language and religion. Cymric was
their mother tongue and each practised the Druidic religion.
Britain was the central headquarters of Druidism, to which all
paid tithe. It was by far the most populous and by its commerce
and industry was world renowned. What London is to Great Britain
today, Ottawa to Canada, and Washington to the United States, so
was Britain to the whole Keltic race. Largely, this was the
reason for other nations identifying the British name with
England. From the religious point of view, out of which the
British name arose, this island was entitled by priority to the
title. England was the first of the British Isles to be
inhabited. Before the Kelts arrived it was a virgin land devoid
of human habitation. It is claimed that the first settlers
arrived c. 3000 B.C. Druidism was nationally organized under the
capable leadership of Hu Gadarn, circa 1800 B.c., the period
given for the erection of Stonehenge, which is also ascribed to
Hu Gadarn. He was contemporaneous with Abraham. Like Abraham, Hu
Gadarn was the chief patriach of the people, known as Hu the
Mighty.
(I've stated that Britain was first inhabited or settled by
Brutus from Troy and his people [being from the tribe of Judah],
but yes the author is probably correct that Druidism and
Stonehenge goes back to a time before Brutus. But I think it is
correct to say that Brutus and his people gave Britain a
settlement that was different from that of the Druids, though
eventually both would be as one by the first century A.D. - Keith
Hunt)
Looking backward over the many centuries we see the deep
significance for this Isle being named Britain and its people
British. We see destiny motivating these people in their course;
a greater will than their own subconsciously directing them to a
predestined land where, as Jeremiah had prophesied, they would
'plant the seed'. The climax was reached with the arrival of
Joseph of Arimathea and the Bethany group. From then on the
meaning of the word Motherland became apparent. England is the
only country in history to be naturally known as the Motherland.
The long centuries had prepared it for its Christian
destiny. From its womb the Christian cause was born, cradled, and
carried to the world.
BUILDING ALTARS
We know that the Kelts were by commandment and custom not
given to committing anything religious to writing. Neither were
they permitted to build altars with the use of metal, or nails.
They were the true people of the Biblical 'Stone Kingdom'.
A traditional custom that indelibly bound the Kelts with the
old patriarchal faith was the building of altars wherever they
rested on their trek to the Isles, a religious custom as marked
as the carrying of the Ark of the Covenant before them. Today
their passage across the world into the Isles can be clearly
traced by the relics of the altars they raised in stone, enduring
memorials to their great pilgrimage.
This custom outlasted the ritual of the Ark, which was
abandoned with the acceptance of Jesus Christ. It lingers today
and, as then, only among the Keltic-Saxon people. In our times
the custom of erecting these memorials to some great historic
event is chiefly practised by the Scottish and the Canadians.
They comprise pyramids of stones piled to a peak and are known as
cairns. This is the Keltic name for the word used in the Bible,
'heaps', 'stones of witness'.
The first stone altar in the Biblical record was erected by
Jacob, after his significant dream of the ascending ladder
between heaven and earth, known to all Christians as Jacob's
Ladder. He built it as a witness to his contact and covenant with
God on that occasion. Ever after the erection of such altars, or
cairns, became a religious custom of the wandering Hebrews and
Keltoi, as they passed through strange lands; a declaration and a
witness to their belief and faith in the covenant with the One
and Only Invisible God.
BACK TO NAMES
Despite the evolution of names that identified the people
finally named British, the names have always been synonymous with
their heritage and religion. The name Kymri originated from King
Omri, founder of Samaria, the capital of Israel. The Assyrians
called their Israelite captives Beth-Omri, Beth Kymri and People
of the Ghomri, after their king. The Greeks called them
Kimmerioi. The Welsh are the only people today retaining the
ancient title as the people of the Cymri.
In the British Museum can be seen the famous Black Obelisk
of Shalmaneser II. This important relic bears reference to the
captivity, and to all kings subject to the King of Assyria.
Amongst these rulers so subject was Jehu, called the 'son of
Omri', king of Israel. The obelisk is a series of twenty small
reliefs with long inscriptions. The second relief depicts 'the
son of Omri' on his knees, paying tribute in gold and silver in
obeisance to the Assyrian ruler.
In Keltic the word Kymrii is still pronounced with the vowel
sound, K'Omri, and easily became Kymri, from which Kimmerii,
Kimmerians, Keltoi, Keltic and Cymri have evolved. Crimea, by
which that land is still known, is a corruption of Cimmeri. Vast
cemeteries have been disclosed in the Crimea in recent years
producing numerous monuments identifying the Kymry in name,
religion, and character with that area where they remained
centuries before marching on.
THE WELSH
It is interesting to know that the Welsh are the only members of
the Keltic race that retained throughout time to the present the
original name Kymri. Today it is usually spelt Cymri, and their
ancient language Cymric. The Welsh have perpetuated their ancient
racial characteristics more than any member of the great
Celtic-Saxon-Scandinavian race. The people of ancient England
later became more Saxon in type. This could be due to the vast
influx of Engles, Frisians, Jutes and Saxons that settled in the
land following their invasion. Of these the Engles or Angles and
Saxons were by far the most numerous. However, each acted
according to their native disposition. All of them originated
from the northern kingdom of Samaria, where they were first led
by Ephraim.
It should be remembered that the Ephraimites were the legal
inheritors of the title Israel and not Judah, or the Jews. In the
Bible the southern kingdom at Jerusalem and the northern kingdom
of Samaria are always addressed separately under different names,
Judah and Israel. Even God in His instructions refers to them as
such: 'Judah and His sanctuary and Israel His dominion' (Psa.
114:2). Consequently, as to be expected, the Ephraimites
continued to govern according to the patriarchal law. Originally,
Judah was part of the priestly sect, with the Levites, the latter
being the true dispensers of religious jurisdiction who were
divided between Judah and Israel, in service. Among the Kelts are
the descendants of the priestly group that served Ephraim, or
Israel, which is manifested throughout the ages by their deep
religious disposition. They also represented the professional
class - scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. - which we find so
vigorously demonstrated in ancient Britain, in religion, industry
and commerce. The Ephraimites were the true warrior tribe of
Israel, the Defenders of the Faith, as they are today. The
Levites were not permitted to bear arms or serve in war; neither
were the Druids. Nevertheless, the Keltoi were famed as valiant
warriors. This was because there were enough of the warrior
Ephraimite clan among them to protect the Priesthood and
associates in the professions. It has been stated that the major
warrior legions of the Ephraimites were the last to leave
Samaria, protecting the westward trek of their brethren. This
could be true. History shows that even though the Kymri were
engaged in conflict during their passage they did not experience
one fraction of the combat as fought by the Ephraimites.
The question arises, How do we connect the Saxons with the
Ephraimites and as brethren of the Kelts?
It is aptly said that the Bible is the truest history book
ever written, to which the writer subscribes. Within Scripture we
find the clues which modern scientists, particularly the
detectives of science, the archaeologists, have proved to be
real.
When Isaac was born, God made a strange statement to Abram.
He said: 'In all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her
voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called' (Gen. 21:12).
Nowhere in the Biblical record are God's people so known.
Theologians either evaded the explanation, or were blind to the
meaning and to other statements later given by the prophets and
by our Lord on the matter. Isaiah and Jeremiah not only strongly
emphasized the fact but gave positive clues to their identity.
Jesus said He had come to 'the lost sheep' - Ephraim. He told the
Jews their inheritance was to be taken away from them and given
to another. Jesus could only give such an inheritance to God's
own people, since from the beginning they were bound within the
Covenant Law to carry out God's purpose on earth through the
Christ. His strongest commission He gave to St. Paul, to go to
the Gentiles who would receive Him. While St. Paul went to the
Gentiles, more directly and positively he went to the people of
Britain and ordained the first Christian Bishop in Britain, in
the name of Jesus.
Jesus had said that the old law was finished in His
sacrifice. He came to fulfil the Law - the Covenant between God
and man. Until the British Druidic church and its peoples were
consecrated in 'The Way', they were as Gentiles. But of all the
peoples of the earth the only existing faith that was prepared
beforehand to accept Christ, and the only people to know His
name, and to speak it before Christ was born, were the British
Druids.
Christ knew to whom He was addressing Himself. St. Paul knew
to whom he was specifically directed, as we shall show by
historic fact. Joseph of Arimathea, from longer and closer
association with Jesus, knew, and to these people both these
great Apostles went.
THE NAME "SAXON"
The Christian elect were to be known in the name of Isaac.
Are they so known? Most certainly they are, and the name is
Saxon.
Equally as the excavated monuments and artifacts from the
Royal Cemeteries of the Crimea have positively identified the
Kymri by actual name, so have the ancient historians documented
the evolution of the Saxon name from Isaac in their records.
Let us check farther back in history. These important facts
are necessary to prove God's course and purpose, as later
demonstrated by Joseph of Arimathea and St. Paul.
The name "Semite" is derived from Shem, who was the son of
Noah, and of whom it is said in Genesis 9:26, 'Blessed be the
Lord God of Shem.' From Shem is descended the special seed
elected to be the chosen race. Until the exodus of Abraham from
Chaldea the Covenant People were known as Shemites. Under Abraham
they became known as Hebrews. This term derives from Eber, who
was a descendant of Shem. The word Hebrew does not specifically
designate a race. It means 'colonist or colonizer', applied in
the same manner as it was once associated with the Americans and
Canadians. Like the Americans and Canadians, the people were
spoken of as colonists until they were nationalized.
Nationalization of the Covenant People was acquired under
the dying Jacob, grandson of Abraham, and the son of Isaac. Then
they became a nation formed of twelve tribes to be so known by
the Will of God as Israel, meaning 'Ruling with God'. Later, when
the tribes revolted under Ephraim, the son of Joseph, they became
divided into two kingdoms, that of the north and of the south,
being known as Judah and Israel. Both went into captivity. A
fragment of Judah returned to Jerusalem but Israel, as
Ephraimites, never returned or were ever again mentioned in
scriptural history. During this long existence from Shem to the
vanishing Ephraimites the name Jew never occurred in history and
was unknown to the Shemites, Hebrews, Israelites or Ephraimites.
Nevertheless it is true that some of the Jews who later sprang
from the remnant of Judah that returned to the Holy City after
the Babylonian captivity are Shemites, or Semites, as we now use
the name, and they were part of Israel, but only a fragment. In
fact they had become so mixed from inter-marriage with other
peoples during their captivity, it is doubtful how clear their
native claim to Israel could be. However, they are recognized as
part of Israel, but only in the same manner as we would say all
Pennsylvanians are Americans and all Ontarions are Canadians, but
all Americans and Canadians are not Pennsylvanians or Ontarions.
Consequently it is a serious misnomer to consider the Jews of
today as the only surviving Semites or Israelites. The major
portion of both Judah and Ephraim had long passed out of their
original homeland to be known by other names, some of which have
already been explained.
GOD'S PROMISE TO SARAH
Now we come to the mysterious promise of God to Sarah, 'n
Isaac shall thy seed be called' (Gen. 21: 2). The prophets had
said they would dwell afar off and be known by another name, one
representing their racial heritage. On being questioned by the
people through whose lands they passed, the Israelites
(Ephraimites, and the many of Judah who had joined up with them
in their march) explained that they were the Sons of Isaac.
The ethnological chart shows that they divided into two
groups, each taking a different route that was ultimately to lead
them into the Isles of the West - Britain. The Kymri we have
already established but the warrior Ephraimites became more
markedly referred to as Sons of Isaac. In writing this name it
took on different variations according to language but the
pronunciation was the same, leaving no doubt as to their
identity. Ancient documents and monuments refer to them as
I-Saccasuns, I-Sak-suna, Sakasuna, Saksens and finally Saxons. It
is true, historically, they are also known collectively as
Scythians, but it must be remembered it was not the name by which
the amalgamated tribes called themselves but the name applied to
them by the Greeks. For about seven hundred years they lived in
the districts known to the Greeks as Scythia, to the Romans as
Dacia (now Roumania), and Thrace. Just as the Kymri of Britain
assumed the name British, so did the old Ephraimite Israelites
elect to be known as Saxons, the name which both concealed and
revealed the name of Isaac.
The Anglo-Saxons were the chief and most powerful among the
associated tribes, hence the accepted leaders. As Saxons, on the
invitation of the British chieftain Vortigern, they first entered
Britain.
After the Saxon settlement in Britain, observers of other
nations would have noticed what they might have termed a strange
breach of Saxon policy. They began to intermarry with the British
Kelts.
Whether or not the fair, blue-eyed Saxons and the darker
Kelts realized their racial affinity, mutually they blended
together.
In all their migratory wanderings the Keltic and Saxon
peoples steadfastly refused to intermix, or intermarry with the
people of other races. To do so was a serious tribal offence
recognized by both. In this they were more loyal to the
patriarchal law than were their brethren of Judah during their
Babylonian captivity. As prophesied, for this overt act this
section of Judah was to be branded by 'the shew of their
countenance'. This is markedly shown, even today, in their
descendants by the Hittite cast of black hair and the hooked
nose.
Not only did they refuse to intermix. They were true to the
ancient command to 'dwell together'. History informs us whenever
they began their next migratory step they left few behind,
emptying the land. Contrary to the custom of other people who
either left behind the aged, the too young and the infirm, or
slew them, the Kymri and the Saxon tribes took all with them.
This was more particularly related of the Anglo-Saxons,
whose migrations were more numerous and longer spaced in reaching
the eventual 'Homeland'. This fact is historically stated in the
mass migration of the Saxon peoples into Britain. Dr. Latham
writes in his "Ethnology of the British Islands" - "Throughout
the whole length and breadth of Germany there is not one village,
hamlet or family which can show definite signs of descent from
the Continental ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons of England."
Professor Sayce writes: "All the branches that flowed into
Britain are branches of the self-same stock. Not a single pure
Saxon is to be found in any village, town or city of Germany. We
once came there, but came out again in our wanderings to these
British Islands."
That they all were kinsmen, Briton-Kelt, Gaels, Angl-Saxons,
Jutes, Frisians, Danes and Normans is emphasized by Freeman in
"The Norman Conquest": "It is difficult to realize the fact that
our nation which now exists is not really a mixed race in the
sense which popular language implies."
Professor Huxley, writing of the political tumult in Ireland
in 1870, when agitators tried to make racial difference an issue,
wrote: "If what I have to say in a matter of science weighs with
any man who has political power, I ask him to believe that the
arguments about the difference between the Anglo-Saxons and the
Celts are a mere sham and delusion."
In referring to the characteristic of the Kelt, like the
Saxon, to 'dwell alone', he states that during the Roman
occupation of Britain, Roman and Kelt led a separate life from
each other. And when the Romans withdrew permanently from Britain
A.D. 410, the population was as substantially Celtic as they had
found it.
(And indeed this is where many historians have missed the boat
about Britain and the Roman Empire. Britain was never really
conquered, it was occupied by the Romans. And the Scots never
even let the Romans occupy Scotland. The Scots were more than a
match in war against Rome, as the Roman historian Tacitus relates
in his history. They were so strong in fighting that it was
Adrian who built a wall across north England to keep the Scots
from coming down and pushing the Romans off the land we call
England today. If not for that famous Adrian's Wall the Scots
would have pushed the Romans back to Europe. So indeed when Rome
did leave the British Isles in 410 A.D. the land was still very
much Celtic in nature and custom, and had a more pure Christian
religion than Rome. When the Roman Church arrived in Britain
about 500 A.D. she proclaimed the Celtic church to be heretics
and "Jewish" in practice and beliefs - Keith Hunt)
In the name of Isaac the promised Seed of God was to be
found. As I-Sax-Sons, they became Israelites, to be lost,
punished for their sin in worshipping the golden calf, scattered
throughout the nations, but 'like corn winnowed in a sieve' would
finally be gathered together into a place appointed by God
Himself (2 Sam.7:10) where they would settle and move no more,
and where no weapon formed against them should prosper (Isa.
54:17).
The validity of these facts cannot be overlooked, nor the
other ancient custom among them of keeping the Sabbath.
In Exodus 31 we read to whom the command to observe the
Sabbath was given: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep
the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations,
for a perpetual covenant" (v.16). "It is a sign between Me and
the children of Israel for ever" (v.17).
The Anglo-Saxon race were and are the only people to observe
this sign. In the past, when foreigners were questioned as to
what impressed them most about English and American customs they
replied, "Your English Sunday." While all places were wide open
in foreign lands, in Britain and America the Sabbath was
observed. Even at the great Paris Exhibition only the British and
United States sections were closed on Sunday.
Voltaire, the extraordinary intellectual infidel, said:
"Whether Englishmen know it or not, it is the English Sunday
which makes England what England is."
This is equally true of America, and the British
Commonwealth of nations.
Dr. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool, said: "I assert without
hesitation that the only countries on the face of the globe in
which you will find true observance of the Sabbath are Great
Britain, the Commonwealth nations and America. No other nations
can possibly be said to fulfil this sign."
(The author has to a point missed the boat here. Sure it was true
that the Anglo-Saxon people have observed Sunday as a holy day,
as the Sabbath day for hundreds of years. But the truth of the
matter is that they moved AWAY from observing the 7th day to the
1st day AFTER the Roman Catholic church entered Britain about 600
A.D. And 7th day Sabbath keeping was still being observed by some
Welsh people into the 11th century A.D. Original first century
Christianity coming to Britain shortly after the resurrection of
our Lord, brought with it the observance of the 7th day of the
week as the 4th of the Ten Commandments clearly teaches. Sunday
observing was a false teaching FROM the Roman Catholic church,
but yes it was true that for hundreds of years the Anglo-
Saxon people above anyone else on earth faithfully observed
Sunday as the Sabbath - Keith Hunt)
However, the warning is sounded in the announcement that
when we begin to forsake the Lord's Day, which all Anglo-Saxon
people have been doing in various degrees over the years, our
prosperity will depart from us.
A few years ago a foreigner visiting England made the remark
in the Press: "You have in England something which we have always
longed to have, and never could attain - Sunday - and you are
losing it almost without a protest."
America has always been the greatest desecrator of the
Sabbath, more so than the other Anglo-Saxon nations. We all
should heed the warning.
(Today the English speaking world has totally moved away from
even Sunday observance. And most of Protestant Christianity has
"done away with" the 4th commandment. That commandment is looked
upon not only as the "least" commandment but as "not for today" -
it has been done away with in most theology circles today - Keith
Hunt)
England derived its name from the Engles (Angles). The
meaning of the name is again significant. Engles means 'God-Men'.
This name was not conferred upon them because of any special
righteousness but because instead of worshipping idols of stone,
as others did, they worsripped God. The idolaters called them
'GodMen' - Engles (Angles).
The story is told that one day, when Pope Gregory was
walking along the streets of Rome, he encountered a group of
Roman soldiers with several British (Yorkshire) captive children.
He paused in wonderment, enamoured by their unusual countenance:
golden hair, blue eyes and fair skin, something he had never seen
before. He asked the soldiers who they were. On being told they
were Engles, from Engle-land, he remarked on their beauty,
replying, "They are well named. They look like angels." From this
encounter it is claimed Pope Gregory became persuaded of himself
to send Augustine to Britain on his mission.
(Ya and the Roman church came and declared the Celtic church to
be heretics and following Jewish practices - Keith Hunt)
The religious habits, customs and characteristics that so
definitely marked the Kymri and the Saxons from the rest of the
peoples of the earth cannot be charged to mere coincidence with
the ancient patriarchal law. They are too deeply significant.
Regardless of how the Keltic-Saxon people may have deviated
from full adherence to the Law, in their wanderings, the
Covenants were the core of their spiritual life, directing their
material policies. The Covenant-meaning-name, British, would
never have been conferred upon them by other peoples if they had
not been more than duly impressed by their religious observances.
As one studies the Druidic Triads, a greater association
with the Covenant Law is shown with startling clarity.
Considering these Hebraic religious customs and the
acquisition of interpretative names, one can readily realize how
simply and effectively the wedding between the old Druidic
religion and the new Covenant of 'The Way' took place, providing
a fertile field and a safe sanctuary for Joseph of Arimathea and
his companions.
This was not an accident. It was the beginning of the new
destiny long before prophesied, which was brought to birth in the
great sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our Saviour.
There are still people who insist that the British story is
a superstitious myth without foundation, just as they continue to
debate that the Bible is untrue. They are as mentally fogbound as
the Victorian historians who could not understand how, why or
where there could be any connection between the ancient British
and the continental races, and less with the prophecies and
people of the Bible. Unfortunately at that time the historic past
was not so well revealed to them as archaeology has disclosed it
in modern times.
Even as the amazing discoveries in the caves of the Dead
Sea, during the years 1955-56, have brought to the light of day
thousands of stored documents secreted therein by the Essenes,
substantiating the books of the Bible in every instance, equally
so, during the last twenty-five years, archaeologists have
supplied the modern ethnologist and historian with indisputable
evidence to vindicate the historic age-old story of the people of
Britain.
The Essenes were the most cultured and learned religious
order existing before the birth of Christ, free of the
contamination of power politics, or orthodox religion. They were
the greatest truth seekers of their time. Most of the discovered
documents were written before Christ and much after His advent.
Every day translators are disclosing material that has long
puzzled theologians concerning both the Old and New Testaments.
Much of this testimony proves the historic validity of the facts
given herein. Archaeologists unearthing monuments, tablets, coins
and various other artifacts name and trace the Covenant Peoples
of our story from their ancient birthplace to the Isles of the
West and the British and Americans to their place in modern
history.
(And a lot of that truth of archeology and history is found on
this website - Keith Hunt)
Crushed beyond revival are the diatribes of the atheists and
the mocking voices of the Higher Critics of Germany. Authority
has been stripped from the irresponsible historians.
It is not so well known that H. G. Wells' "Outline of
History," that sold by the million copies, was most severely
criticized by an angry group of scientists and scholars who
dubbed Wells' work as 'a gross mass of mediaeval historic error'.
Wells was obliged to abridge the next edition. Although he
corrected a number of his flagrant errors he was unable to make a
complete correction without rewriting the whole work, which he
did not do.
The devil is ever alert to use the infidel mind to divert
all whom he can from the truth.
In the end truth always wins.
There is ever a fascination to be found in fails to intrigue
the mind, creating a curious desire to learn what it may mean and
how it was derived. In names, as shown herein, invariably is
found the key that unlocks the door to an age-old mystery. No
names can equal the drama of Kymri, Saxon and British, and of
them all the name British is the most enthralling name in all
history.
..........
To be continued with "Gallic Testimony"
NOTE:
HOW COULD SUCH A SMALL LAND AS BRITAIN OBTAIN SUCH
POWER AND WEALTH AROUND THE WORLD IF SHE WAS NOT BEING
USED IN A SPECIAL WAY, THAT THE ETERNAL HAD PROMISED SO
LONG AGO TO ABRAHAM, ISSAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH?
IT CANNOT BE THAT THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE HAVE
BECOME THE GREAT POWERS AND RICHEST NATIONS ON EARTH,
WITHOUT THEM INHERITING THE VERY PROMISES GIVEN TO
ABRAHAM, ISSAC, JACOB, AND JOSEPH, AS GIVEN BY GOD IN THE
BOOK OF GENESIS.
Keith Hunt
The Lost Disciples to Britain #4
The Gallic Testimony
by the late George Jowett (1961)
GALLIC TESTIMONY
THE religious spirit of the Gaul diminished with the coming
of the Franks but the fire never flickered in Britain. It flamed
like a volcano, fiery in its evangelism and bursting forth
fiercely at foreign interference. Even when resting, its
complacency was deceptive as the Nazis found out in World War II.
To strike at her Christian institutions and sacred edifices is to
pierce her heart, causing her people to fight back with that
invincible fury that has ever astonished the world, as it finally
shattered her enemies.
Long before the arrival of the Bethany castaways at
Marseilles, Guizot informs us that the south of France was known
as the Provence Viennoise, populated by Gauls, Phoenicians and
Greeks, 'with the Gauls most populous everywhere'. The
significance of this is quite important. The Phoenicians and the
Greeks had a long association with the south of France,
particularly the Phoenicians, who were the leading mariners
before the Grecian seafaring ascendancy. The ancient port of
Marseilles was the chief port of call for both in the comings and
goings in the transportation of tin and lead from Britain. Over
the centuries a common friendship had developed between them and
the Gauls; consequently it is understandable how Phoenician and
Grecian colonies came to be founded in Gaul. Marseilles is
reputed to be the oldest city in France and its oldest seaport.
It was a port long before either settled there but it was
the Greeks who developed the port to its peak of prominence and
gave it the name it bears. However, we should never lose sight of
the fact that the port had its first association with the
biblical ships of Tarshish, commanded by the Danites, of the
tribe of Dan. They were the first great sea power in history and
the first to know intimately the inhabitants of Britain, and to
trade with them. The Phoenicians and Greeks were very largely
Danites.
At the time of our story the port of Marseilles was familiar
with the ships of Joseph. To the Gallic populace his name was
well known as are the names of Carnegie, Schwab and Bethlehem
Steel to us today. Therefore, it can be well assumed that Joseph
had many influential friends at Marseilles, who would gladly
welcome him amongst them.
Among the Gauls there existed a deep receptivity for the
persecuted followers of 'The Way'. Between the Gauls and the
Judean advocates of Christ there was mutual sympathy. The Gauls
were Druidic, and their faith held sway over all Gaul, which
explains more than anything else why the land was a safe haven
for Joseph and the Bethany family, as well as the many other
converts who had previously found refuge there, after a safe
escape from Judea in the ships of Joseph.
Those who have been indoctrinated by the false stories
describing the Druidic religion may pause in consternation. The
malevolent infamy heaped upon the Druidic priesthood, their
religion, with the practice of human sacrifice, is just as
untruthful, vicious and vile as the other distortions
stigmatizing the ancient Britons. On close examination it will be
found that those who uttered the vindictive maledictions stand
out in Roman history as the dictators of the Roman Triumvirate.
Their bestial hatred for everything that was British and
Christian deliberately promoted the insidious propaganda to
defame the people they could neither coerce nor subdue. In our
own time, among others, none other than the eminent archaeologist
Sir Flinders Petrie, on examination of the ground around and
under the altar at Stonehenge, completely exploded the infamous
accusations. He found only the fossilized bones of sheep and
goats which more firmly established the affinity with the
patriarchal faith of the East. In each case the sacrificial burnt
offerings were as stated in the biblical record.
The influence Druidism had upon the rest of the ancient
world, and its peaceful and ready reception of the Christian
faith, proves its noble structure. Hume, the high-ranking British
historian acknowledged for his impartiality and the lack of bias
in his reporting, wrote: 'No religion has ever swayed the minds
of men like the Druidic.'
It prepared the way for Christianity by its solid acceptance
of 'The Way'. But for Druidism Christianity might never have
flourished. It drove the first nails into the Christian platform
that held it fast through all its early stresses, giving it the
vigour to endure for all posterity.
The Roman persecutors, despising Druidic opposition,
intensified their malignancy with the British conversion to
Christianity. The Emperors Augustus, Tiberius and the Claudian
and Diocletian decrees made acceptance of Druidic and Christian
faith a capital offence, punishable by death. Some have claimed
that this persecution by Rome drove both the religions together
to form the solid phalanx of Christianity. This is far from being
the case. It has been already pointed out how the ancient Kymry
were bonded in the ancient patriarchal faith even before they
arrived in Britain. Organized by Hu Gadarn (Hugh the Mighty) the
faith took on the name of Druid, a word some claim derived from
the Keltic word 'Dreus', meaning 'an oak', arising out of the
custom of worshipping in the open within the famous oak groves of
the island. A more likely derivation is from 'Druthin' - a
'Servant of Truth'. The motto of the Druids was 'The Truth
against the World.' A casual study of the Triads emphasized the
old Hebrew faith with positive clarification. The British Mother
Druidic Church continued to teach the immortality of the soul,
the omniscience of One God and the coming of the Messiah. They
were aware of the prophesied vicarious atonement and,
extraordinary as it may seem, the actual name of Jesus was
familiar to them long before the advent of Christ. They were the
only people to know it and say it, a fact that has astounded
students of theology. From this it can clearly be seen that there
existed a mutual understanding between the Druid and the
converted Judean on religious principles that readily opened the
door to general acceptance of 'The Way'. From this we can believe
it was no accident whereby the refugee followers of 'The Way'
found a natural haven in Gaul, and their apostolic leaders a
safer sanctuary in Britain. At that period in history Britain was
the only free country in the world. Gaul had received its baptism
of Roman persecution long before the Caesars turned their
attention upon the British. It was the constant aid given the
Gaulish brethren by the warriors of Britain which brought about
the invasion of the Isles. The first attack, led by Julius
Caesar, 55 B.C., was purely a punitive expedition against the
Britons for thwarting his arms in Gaul. Contrary to general
opinion that Caesar's attack was a conquest, it was a dismal
failure. Within two weeks his forces were routed and pulled back
into Gaul. On his return to Rome Caesar was openly ridiculed by
Pompey's Party in the Triumvirate. His famous legend, 'Veni,
Vidi, Vici' ('I came, I saw, I conquered') was satirized by the
pens of the Roman ilite. They wrote in rebuke, 'I came, I saw,
but failed to stay.' Over the ten years that followed, to 43
B.C., the mightiest armed forces of Rome, led by its ablest
generals, fought to establish a foothold in Britain. In this
Caesar failed to penetrate farther than a few miles inland.
It was not until the reign of Hadrian, A.D. 120, that
Britain was incorporated (by treaty-not conquest) within the
Roman dominions, as described by Spartians in "Vita Hadriani." By
this treaty the Britons retained their kings, lands, laws and
rights, accepting a Roman nucleus of the army for the defence of
the realm.
Surely no one can misconstrue this conquest or support the
belief that naked barbarians could defy and defeat the Roman
legions, during those ten years led by its Emperors and greatest
generals.
The invasions were repelled by the famed British Pendragon,
Caswallen, who reigned for seven years after the invasion.
For Gaul it was not to last. They lacked the security of the
seas which protected the British Isles. Unhappily Gaul, later to
be known as France, was destined to be the world crossroads of
continental invasion, and on its soil, up to our own time, some
of the bloodiest battles in all history have been fought. Until
the coming of the Franks, the Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals,
the Gauls for centuries were to carry on the great evangelizing
work of Christianity, laying the foundation of the Church by the
great leaders who stemmed from Britain, with carefully formed
plans. It was to be immortalized with the presence and great work
of Philip, Lazarus, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, each of
whom left an enduring mark in the name of their Saviour. As the
story of Joseph of Arimathea is brought forth to the light of
day, so are those others, who laboured under his instruction,
lifted out of the obscure darkness of the past to thrill us with
their devotion and sacrifice.
The record shows that Joseph frequently journeyed to Gaul to
confer with the disciples, particularly with Philip, who had
arrived at Marseilles ahead of Joseph, and was awaiting him and
the Bethany family.
It must not be forgotten that Joseph, by his tin mining
interests in Cornwall and Devon, had a long association with the
British. Consequently the comings and goings of his ships most
certainly would have kept the British up to date with world
happenings, and also with Gaul.
Long before Joseph arrived in Britain, the scandal of the
cross was known to them and had become a cause of grave concern
to the Druidic Church. By similarity of patriarchal faith and
knowledge of prophecy, the Druidic prelates recognized in the
death of Christ the fulfilment of prophecy. The swiftness with
which the Druidic delegates journeyed to Gaul to meet Joseph
shows how concerned they were to obtain first-hand information.
Contrary to the fallacious story of later historians, there
was no argument, civil or religious, no bloodshed. It was an open
acceptance that elected Joseph of Arimathea to the head of the
Christ-converted British Church.
From then on the Druidic name and the old religion in
Britain and Gaul began to be superseded by the Christian name,
which the British created to identify the accepted Christ faith,
formerly known as 'The Way'.
The miraculous safe arrival of Joseph and his companions at
Marseilles, and thence to Britain, surely was the Will of God
working out His inscrutable purpose gradually to fulfil the
prophetic words of Jesus, to come to the lost sheep of Israel.
From that time commenced the organization of the Christian
clan, the marshalling of their forces into determined action.
Thus began the epochal drama that was to change imperial
destiny and lead the peoples of the world to a better way of
life. Yet, before this was to be fully achieved, millions were to
wade their way through unbelievable tragedy, defying tyranny in
its basest and most terrifying form, wholesale massacre and
fiendish torture, suffering the brutalities of the Colosseum, the
horrors of the fetid prison of the Mamertine, and the dreadful
scourging wars in which the British were to make the most
colossal sacrifice in blood and life known to history.
..........
NOTE:
YES THE RECORDS OF TRUE HISTORY ARE PRESERVED FOR US,
BUT MOST HISTORIANS TILL LATE, BECAUSE OF EITHER THE
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OR ROMAN CATHOLIC MIND-SET, HAVE
IGNORED AND JUST OUT AND OUT REJECTED THESE HISTORIES.
A FEW BOLD AND NOBLE HISTORIANS HAVE BEEN WILLING TO
RESEARCH AND PROCLAIM THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER REGARDING
TRUE RECORDS OF HISTORY. TRUE HISTORY IS BEING RESTORED
AND WHAT A MAGNIFICANT HISTORY IT IS!
Keith Hunt
To be continued with "St. Philip Consectrates Joseph of Arimathea
in France."
…………………….
The Lost Disciples to Britain #5 Philip consecrates Joseph of Arimathea
by the late George Jowett (1961)
ST. PHILIP CONSECRATES JOSEPH OF
ARIMATHEA IN FRANCE
IT is not difficult to visualize the joyous meeting that
took place between old, tried and trusted friends when the
Bethany group arrived at Marseilles. Every record scrutinized
points to the closeness that banded the disciples and followers
of 'The Way' to Joseph. In him they possessed an intelligent,
intrepid leader, a born organizer with the cold, calm reasoning
of the shrewd, successful business mind; truly a much-needed
asset to guide them in those crucial years. Throughout his
lifetime he was to continue to be their salvation against the new
and rising storm of Roman persecution that was soon to be loosed
upon all followers of 'The Way', with a murderous fury that
overshadows the brutalities of Hitler and Stalin. (I think a
little over-estimated here considering how many people lost their
lives to Hitler and Stalin - Keith Hunt). He was to be the means
of raising the first Christian army to battle for Christ on the
shores and fields of Britain that sent the bestial Romans reeling
on their heels.
Joseph was ever the unseen power behind the throne, as he
had been on that black night in the Sanhedrin and the following
four years in Judea. All rallied around him eager to begin
proclaiming the Word to the world.
How many of the disciples were with him during his short
stay in Gaul it is difficult to say. It is amazing how
nonchalantly the records deal with this important matter. Various
existing records agree in part with the Baronius record, 1 naming
among the occupants of the castaway boat Mary Magdalene, Martha,
the handmaiden Marcella, Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead,
and Maximin the man whose sight Jesus restored. The
non-committally the report read, 'and others'. Other records
state that Philip and James accompanied Joseph. Others report
that Mary, the wife of Cleopas, and Mary, the mother of Jesus,
were occupants of the boat. That there were many congregated at
this time is obvious by the manner in which the various names
appear in the early Gallic church records. It is well known that
a great number of converts had preceded Joseph to Marseilles.
Banded together they formed a
......
' Annales Ecclesiastici, vol. 1, p.327, quoting Acts of Magdalen
and other manuscripts.
......
godly company of eager, enthusiastic workers in the Christian
vineyard.
Philip, one of the original twelve Apostles, was certainly
present. There is a wealth of uncontroversial testimony asserting
his commission in Gaul, all of which alike state that he received
and consecrated Joseph, preparatory to his embarkation and
appointment as the Apostle to Britain.
Some have misconstrued this act of consecration as an act of
conversion to the Christ Way of Life, chiefly because Joseph's
name is not mentioned as being one of the seventy elected by
Jesus on His second appearance. In fact few names are mentioned
and none of the later one hundred and twenty. They overlook the
facts of the biblical record which states that during the last
tragic days of Jesus the Apostles at Jerusalem referred to Joseph
being a disciple of Christ. This pronouncement antedates the
enlistment of the two later elect groups of disciples; therefore
it was not necessary for Joseph to be named among them. His
devotion to Jesus, and the apostolic reference shows that he was
one of the early disciples of Christ.
In order to be properly ordained to an apostolic appointment
it was necessary for the consecration to be performed by the
laying on of hands by one of the original Apostles. Strange as it
may seem, thrice within thirty years Philip performs this special
consecration for Joseph, the third time for a very peculiar
reason that will be related in its order.
St. Philip is referred to in the early Gallic church as the
Apostle of Gaul. Undoubtedly he was the first acknowledged
Apostle to Gaul but, as we shall later see, the unceasing
evangelizing effort in Gaul stemmed from Britain, with Lazarus in
particular dominating the Gallic scene during his short lifetime.
1 Due to Philip's apostolic authority it might be more correctly
said that while in Gaul he was the accepted head of the Gallic
Christian Church.
The biblical and the secular records show that he did not
remain constantly in Gaul. There is frequent record of his being
in other lands, in the company of other Apostles and disciples.
Scriptural literature ceases to mention him circa A.D. 60.
Evidently he returned to Gaul at various intervals. Many of the
early writers particularly report Philip being in Gaul A.D. 65,
emphasizing the fact that it was in this year that he consecrated
Joseph, for the third time. Philip did not die in Gaul nor were
his martyred remains buried
......
1 J. W. Taylor, The Coming of the Saints, pp. 238-240.
.......
there. He was crucified at Hierapolis at an advanced age. Two
notable church authorities report his death.
Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, A.D. 600-636, in his
Historia, writes: "Philip of the city Bethsaida, whence also came
Peter, preached Christ to the Gauls, and brought barbarous and
neighbouring nations, seated in darkness and close to the
swelling ocean to the light of knowledge and port of faith.
Afterwards he was stoned and crucified and died in Hierapolis, a
city of Phrygia, and having been buried with his corpse upright
along with his daughters rests there."
The Dictionary o f Christian Biography refers to Isidore as
"undoubtedly the greatest man of his time in the Church of Spain.
A voluminous writer of great learning."
The eminent Cardinal Baronius, in his Ecclesiastical Annals,
writes:
"Philip the fifth in order is said to have adorned Upper Asia
with the Gospel, and at length at Hierapolis at the age of 87 to
have undergone martyrdom, which also John Chrysostom hands down,
and they say that the same man travelled over part of Scythia,
and for some time preached the Gospel along with Bartholomew. In
Isidore one reads that Philip even imbued the Gauls with the
Christian faith, which also in the Breviary of Toledo of the
school of Isidore is read."
Julian, Archbishop of Toledo, A.D. 680-690, whom Dr. William
Smith in his biographical work states was "the last eminent
Churchman of West Gothic Spain, and next to Isidore of Seville,
perhaps the most eminent", along with the Venerable Bede, A.D.
673, declare that Philip was assigned to Gaul. The talented
Archbishop Ussher also asserts: "St. Philip preached Christ to
the Gauls." Further testimony is found in the MS. Martyrology of
Hieronymus.
Finally, to substantiate Philip's mission and presence in
Gaul, I quote Freculphus, Bishop of Lisieux, France, A.D. 825-851
"Philip of the City of Bethsaida whence also came Peter, of whom
in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles praiseworthy mention is
often made, whose daughters also were outstanding prophetesses,
and of wonderful sanctity and perpetual virginity, as
ecclesiastical history narrates, preached Christ to the Gauls."
At this time it is quite in place to discuss the recently
revived belief that the Epistle to the Galatians was addressed,
as the ancient writers claim, to the inhabitants of Gaul, and not
the small colony of Gauls in Asia, particularly since the
testimony is related by various authoritative writers discussing
Philip's mission in Gaul in the same breath. This evidence is
quite important to consider, substantiating the great Christian
evangelizing effort in Gaul and supporting the mass of evidence
associating Britain with Gaul in those dramatic years.
Cardinal Baronius writes:
"We have said in our notes to the Roman Martyrology that, 'to the
Galatians' must be corrected in the place of 'to the Gauls'."
St. Epiphanius, A.D. 3I5-407, wrote:
"The ministry of the divine word having been entrusted to St.
Luke, he exercised it by passing into Dalmatia, into Gaul, into
Italy, into Macedonia, but principally into Gaul, so that St.
Paul assures him in his epistles about some of his disciples -
'Crescens', said he, 'is in Gaul.' In it must not be read in
Galatia as some have falsely thought, but in Gaul." 1
Pere Longueval remarks that this sentiment was so general in
the East that Theodoret, who read 'in Galatia', did not fail to
understand 'Gaul' because as a matter of fact the Greeks gave
this name to Gaul, and the Galatians had only thus been named
because they were a colony of Gauls (Memoire de l'Apostolat de
St. Mansuet (vide p. 83), par 1'Abbe Guillaume, p. II).
No better authority may be quoted in discussing this matter
than the learned Rev. Lional Smithett Lewis, M.A., late Vicar of
Glastonbury, considered the foremost church historian of our
times. The Rev. Lewis writes: 2
"Perhaps it may be permitted to point out that Edouard de
Bazelaire supports this view of Crescens being in Gaul, and not
in Galatia. He traces St. Paul about the year 63 along the
Aurelian Way from Rome to Arles in France (Predication du
Christianisme dans les Gaules, t. IX, p.198). He names his three
companions St. Luke who had just written the Acts, Trophimus whom
he left at Arles, Crescens whom he had sent to Vienne (Gaul)." He
quotes de Bazelaire who goes on to say, "On his return he retook
Trophimus with him, and was not able to keep him as far as Rome,
for he wrote (St. Paul) from there to Timothy, "Hasten and come
......
1 Crescens to Galatia'; 2 Timothy 4:10.
2 Lewis, St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury, pp.75-76.
......
and join me as soon as possible. Crescens is in the Gauls. I have
left Trophimus sick at Millet (Miletus)." The Abbe Maxime Latou,
referring to Trophimus being in Gaul says, "In 417 the Pope
Zommus recognized in the Church of Arles the right of being
Metropolitan over all the district of Narbonne because Trophimus
its first Bishop had been for the Gauls the source of life whence
flowed the streams of faith."
The Rev. Lewis also states:
"All this goes to prove that Gaul was known as Galatia, and their
chronicling St. Paul's and his companions' journey does not in
the least mean that they deny St. Philip's. For the same reason
M. Edouard de Bazelaire quotes M. Chateaubriand as saying, 'Peter
sent missionaries into Italy, in the Gauls, and on the coast of
Africa.' The part that St. Peter played is duly emphasized by
many illustrious Roman historians, and without St. Peter in the
least exercising any primacy this ardent and potent man might
well have influenced his compatriot from Bethsaida (St. Philip)."
"It is quite important to know that the Churches of Vienne and
Mayence in Gaul claim Crescens as their founder. This goes far to
corroborate that Galatia in II Timothy iv, 10, means Gaul, and
not its colony Galatia in Asia, and that Isidore meant to say
that St. Philip preached to the Gauls, and not to the Galatians
of Asia."
"We have seen that the 'Recognitions of Clement' (2nd century)
stated that St. Clement of Rome, going to Caesarea, found St.
Joseph of Arimathea there with St. Peter, Lazarus, the Holy Women
and others, a quite likely place for the start of the voyage of
St. Joseph and the Bethany Family and others to Marseilles.
Caesarea was the home of St. Philip in the Bible story. Afterward
tradition, supported by secular records, brings him to France,
whence he sent St. Joseph to Britain. William of Malmesbury,
quoting Freculphus, calls Joseph St. Philip's 'dearest friend'.
They must have been in close association. Tradition brings the
Holy Women and St. Joseph to France. All the way up the Rhone
Valley, as we have seen, from Marseilles to Morlaix, we find
constant memories of the occupants of that boat without oars and
sails. From Morlaix in Brittany it is a short step to Cornwall in
Britain. The route from Marseilles must have been known well to
Joseph. It was that of his fellow traders, seeking ore. From
Cornwall an ancient road led to the mines of Mendip, remains of
which exist. Arviragus's reception of St. Joseph suggests a very
possible previous acquaintance. Testimony from the Early Fathers
and varied branches of the Church show that the Church was here
in earliest days."
In discussing reference to the Gauls of France and the Gauls
of Asia, Archbishop Ussher sternly rebukes contemporaneous
writers for creating the misunderstanding through their
inaptitude to examine the ancient documents and compare the
records. As we have seen from the few quotations provided,
apostolic reference is indicated to the Gauls of France, and not
the Gauls of Asia. The presence of St. Philip is established in
Gaul and as being his first allotted mission. Other Apostles are
mentioned working in Gaul, some of whom we shall see journeyed
with Joseph of Arimathea to Britain. St. Clement throws historic
light on the illustrious gathering at Caesarea, about the time of
this exodus, which tends to support the statement by many that
Philip, as the dearest friend of Joseph, with James, was an
occupant in the castaway boat along with the Holy Women and
others. It is on record that St. Philip baptized Josephes, 1 the
son of Joseph and later, when Joseph revisited Gaul, Philip sent
Josephes to Britain with his father and ten other disciples.
Evidently, the Saints arrived in Britain in groups. It is
ultimately stated that one hundred and sixty had been sent to
Britain at various intervals by St. Philip to serve Joseph in his
evangelizing mission. 2
Joseph did not linger long in Gaul. A British Druidic
delegation of Bishops arrived at Marseilles to greet him and
extend an enthusiastic invitation to Joseph, urging him to return
to Britain with them and there teach the Christ Gospel. This
magnanimous invitation was enlarged upon by the Druidic
emissaries of the British Prince Arviragus, offering Joseph
lands, a safe haven and protection against Roman molestation.
Arviragus was Prince of the noble Silures of Britain, in the
Dukedom of Cornwall. He was the son of King Cunobelinus, the
Cymbeline of Shakespeare, and cousin to the renowned British
warrior-patriot, Caradoc, whom the Romans named Caractacus.
Together they represented the Royal Silurian dynasty, the most
powerful warrior kingdom in Britain, from whom the Tudor kings
and queens of England had their descent.
The invitation was gladly accepted and Joseph made ready to
embark for Britain, with his specially elected companions
immediately after his dearest friend, St. Philip, had performed
the
......
1 Magna Glastoniensis Tabula.
2 From early manuscript quoted by John of Glastonbury, William of
Malmesbury and Capgrave.
......
consecration in the year A.D. 36. From then on Joseph of
Arimathea becomes known in history as 'the Apostle to Britain'.
Undoubtedly Joseph was attracted to the Sacred Isle for
other reasons apart from welcoming the opportunity of proclaiming
'The Way' to the British populace. We are informed that Arviragus
and Joseph were well known to each other long prior to the
invitation; consequently we can well believe he had acquired many
influential friends in the south of Britain during the years he
had administered his mining interests in Cornwall and Devon. He
would be as well known to the common folk as he was to the
aristocracy. In one sense it would be a homecoming to the uncle
of Jesus. On the other hand, the land held for him many tender
memories which he would hold most precious.
In the traditions of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire
and Wales, it has ever been believed and definitely claimed, that
Jesus as a boy accompanied His uncle to Britain on at least one
of his many seafaring trips; then later, as a young man. During
those silent years preceding His ministry it is avowed that
Jesus, after leaving India, journeyed to Britain and there
founded a retreat, building a wattle altar to the glory of God.
The ancient wise men of India assert that He had dwelt among
them. It is mentioned in the Vishnu Purana that Jesus had visited
the Himalayan Kingdom of Nepal. Moreover, the religious teachers
of India were familiar with the Isles of Britain. Wilford states
that the books of old India describe them as 'The Sacred Isles of
the West'. One of the books refers to 'Britashtan, the seat of
religious learning'. They employed the term used by Isaiah and
others: 'Isles of the West', 'Isles of the Sea.' The British
Isles are the only islands lying to the far west of Palestine.
Centuries after Joseph's time, St. Augustine confirms the
tradition of the wattle altar built by Jesus in a letter to the
Pope, 1 stating that the altar then existed. Consequently we can
believe the records in the ancient Triads that the altar was
standing when Joseph, with his twelve companions, arrived in
Britain. We can well understand why Joseph made this sacred spot
his destination, settling by its site, and there building the
first Christian church above ground in all the world, to the
glory of God in the name of Jesus and continuing the dedication
to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Who were the twelve companions of Joseph that embarked with
him from Gaul to Britain?
This is a question one may ask with eager interest. It holds
......
1 Epistolae ad Gregoriam Papam.
......
fascination all of its own which becomes exciting as we ponder
over the names of the men and women so closely associated with
Jesus during His earthly ministry. Our interest is increased as
we realize that all of them are lost to the Biblical record
following the Exodus Of A.D. 36. Truly they are the lost
disciples destined to write Christian history with their lives in
letters of blood, fire and gold.
Because the personalities of Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John so greatly dominate the scriptural spotlight and
illumine the historic scene, one cannot help but feel thrilled as
we meet again the beloved of Christ, long lost to the sacred
record and, of all places, on the shores of the Sacred Isle -
historic Christian Britain.
Here is the list of them, the Champions of Christ as
selected by St. Philip and St. Joseph, following the latter's
consecration in Gaul.
Cardinal Baronius in his great work, quotes from Mistral, in
Mireio, and another ancient document in the Vatican Library. He
names them one by one, and by the names all Christians know them
best.
St. Mary, wife of Cleopas
St. Martha
St. Lazarus
St. Eutropius
St. Salome
St. Clean
St. Saturninus
St. Mary Magdalene
Marcella, the Bethany sisters' maid
St. Maximin
St. Martial
St. Trophimus
St. Sidonius (Restitutus)
St. Joseph of Arimathea
All the records refer to Joseph and twelve companions. Here
are listed fourteen, including Joseph. Marcella, the handmaiden
to the Holy women, is the only one not bearing the title Saint,
consequently she is not considered as one of the missionary band.
Probably Marcella went along in her old capacity of handmaiden to
the Bethany sisters. Many other writers insist there was another
member to this party not recorded in the Mistral report - Mary,
the mother of Jesus. Along with tradition, a great deal of extant
documentary testimony substantiates the presence of the Christ
Mother being with Joseph, he having been appointed by St. John as
'paranymphos' to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Being 'paranymphos' she
had to be with him, and we know Mary remained in Joseph's safe
keeping until her death.
What tender memories these illustrious names conjure in the
mind!
What tales of tragic experiences they brought with them to
relate to the sympathetic Druidic priesthood!
Here were the people most closely associated with Jesus in
the drama of the cross: Joseph, the fearless, tender guardian who
embraced the torn body in his arms; the suffering mother whom
John led away from the final agony; the women who had discovered
the deserted tomb; Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead to
walk out of the sepulchre into the Glory and follow Christ; and
Restitutus, now known as St. Sidonius, who eyes had never seen
the light of day until Jesus touched them ... whose first vision
was the Light of the World.
Is there any wonder that the little isle of Britain became
commonly spoken of as "the most hallowed ground on earth," "The
Sacred Isle", "The Motherland"?
..........
To be continued with "Joseph becomes the Apostle to Britain"
The Lost Disciples to Britain #6
Joseph of Arimathea comes to Britain
by the late George Jowett (1961)
JOSEPH BECOMES THE APOSTLE OF BRITAIN
ARRIVES ON THE SACRED ISLE OF AVALON
TAKING their farewell of Philip and the faithful in Gaul,
Joseph and the Bethany group of missionaries set sail for Britain
in company with the Druidic delegation. Reaching its shores the
illustrious band sailed up the waterway of the west, the Severn
Sea, until they came within sight of a lofty green hill, as Dean
Alford writes, "most like to Tabor's Holy Mount", known to this
day as Glastonbury Tor. They made their way up the estuary of the
Brue and the Parrot, arriving at a cluster of islands about
twelve miles inland from the coast. The most inspiring of these
was the "Sacred Isle of Avalon", its shores sheltered in apple
orchards.
The isle derived its name from Aval, Celtic for Apple, which
was the sacred fruit of the Druids, the emblem of fertility. Thus
its name applied a special symbolic significance to the spot
destined to become the Mecca of Christendom.
This was the manner of arrival of the Saints in Britain.
On this fruitful Isle of Avalon Joseph of Arimathea and his
dedicated companions were met by another assemblage of the
friendly British Druidic priesthood, King Guiderius and his
brother Arviragus, Prince of the royal Silures of Britain, and an
entourage of nobles. The first act of Arviragus was to present to
Joseph, as a perpetual gift, free of tax, twelve hides of land, a
hide for each disciple, each hide representing 160 acres, a sum
total of 1,920 acres.
This was the first charter given to any land to be dedicated
in the name of Jesus Christ, defining them as the Hallowed Acres
of Christendom, A.D.36. It was the first of many charters this
historic sacred spot was to receive, during its sacred existence,
from the kings and queens of Britain. We find these charters
officially recorded in the British Royal archives; many are
extant today, and over one thousand years later we find in
remarkable detail record of the original charter embodied in the
Domesday Book, on recognition of William I, first Norman king of
England, A.D.1066. Throughout the reigns of the British
sovereigns these charters were the means of settling state,
political and religious disputes in refusing to recognize Papal
authority, proclaiming Britain's seniority to unbroken apostolic
succession through its Bishops, dating from St. Joseph, the
Apostle to Britain, appointed and consecrated by the Apostle St.
Philip and, as we shall see, on orders arising from St. Paul, the
Apostle to the Gentiles. Incidentally, the British claim of
seniority was never denied by the Vatican Popes and was affirmed
by Papal statement as late as 1936.
With the chartered gift of land to the Josephian Mission,
Arviragus promised his protection. With his brother he led the
first army in battle against Roman Christian persecution as
Defender of the Faith, A.D.43. King Lucius, A.D.156, grandson of
Arviragus, who renewed and enlarged the charter, was baptized
many years earlier at Winchester by St. Timotheus, his uncle, who
then proclaimed him "Defender of the Faith". At this time Roman
Catholicism was not founded. It remained for the intrepid Queen
Elizabeth, lineal descendant of Arviragus, to make the
worldshaking declaration for the Reformation, when challenging
the threats of the combined forces of France, Spain and Rome, by
Pope Pius V, A.D.1570, to subject Britain to Roman Catholicism.
In her famous address from the throne she rebuked and
denounced Papal authority. Alluding to the charters, she
pronounced Britain's priority in the Christian Church. She made
it a royal decree for the sovereigns of England on their
coronation officially to take oath as the "Defender of the
Faith". Personally she declared, as her ancient ancestors had
done, that only Christ was the Head of the Church. Ever since, on
their coronation, the sovereigns of Britain have taken this oath,
as did the present Queen of the British Commonwealth, Elizabeth
II, on her accession to the British Throne, A.D.1953. On this
occasion the Roman Catholic Church petitioned for this oath to be
omitted. It was stoutly refused, stating the British Kingdom was
the Defender of the true Christian cause with Christ at its Head.
It is stated that following their disembarkation the
travellers made their way up the hill where it is reputed that
Joseph, weary from his travel, stopped to rest, thrusting his
staff into the ground. Tradition tells us that the staff became
part of the earth, taking root, and in time blossomed.
Historically it is known as the "Holy Thorn". From ancient times
it is referred to as a phenomenon of nature, being the only thorn
tree in the world to bloom at Christmas time and in May. It
endured throughout the centuries as a perpetual, living monument
to the landing of Britain's Saintly Disciples of Christ, and a
reminder of the birth of Jesus in far-away Bethlehem.
To this day this spot bears the name it received in Joseph's
time - "Weary All Hill".
For centuries the phenomenon of the blooming thorn was
looked upon as a miracle by the early devout Christians of
Britain and, as one could expect, the Holy Thorn provided
critical opportunity to the nineteenth-century scoffers. Modern
science shows their ignorance. Tree experts affirm it is not only
possible, but a natural process, under favourable conditions, for
such a staff formed from the limb of a tree to take root and
develop into a live, thriving tree. The strange blooming
propensity of the thorn tree at Christmas, as well as in May, is
something different, but one we can accept as an Act of God to
remind us of the fulfilment of Divine prophecy.
The Holy Thorn continued to be world famous for its strange
blossoming habit until the regime of Oliver Cromwell, A.D.
1649-60. During these years it was cut down by a fanatical
Puritan, when the Cromwellian desecration of holy places by his
blind, bigoted followers was in operation. But the sacred
phenomenon did not die. Its scion, already planted, lived to
thrive and bloom as had the mother thorn tree. It can be seen
today, a healthy, fertile tree, blooming gloriously at the same
appointed seasons, in the hallowed churchyard of St. John, at
Glastonbury, where the noble ruins of the Mother Church of
Christendom stand. Nowhere in the world is there another similar
tree enacting the same blossoming phenomenon. Its lovely
snow-white petals spread out like a beacon in the midst of dead
nature, its immaculate beauty looking skyward and mutely
proclaiming that God still reigns in the heavens. Other shoots
taken from this tree, and grafted to wild stock, bloom in the
same manner.
Within a mile of the Sacred Isle of Avalon was another
smaller island known as Inis Wytren, or Glass Island, a name some
claim derived from the pure glassy waters that once surrounded
it. Archaeologists provide the more probable answer. Excavations
have revealed that it was once a busy site of the glass industry
for which the ancient Britons were famous. Later the Saxons named
it Glastonbury, by which name it has continued to be known.
During the Saxon period the famed Isles ceased to exist. The
monks drained the land, making where the islands once stood a dry
plain, though it is yet below water level and swampy in wet
weather. Today as you wander among the noble ruins of the
glorious old Abbey, you cannot escape the feeling of entrancement
that touches your heart as you realize you are standing in the
centre of the hallowed twelve hides of land which the Silurian
prince deeded to St. Joseph and his twelve companions. The beauty
of the scene in this quiet little English town of Glastonbury,
encircled by verdant meadows, all part of the dedicated 1920
acres of Christendom, makes it difficult to get down to reality
and comprehend the fact that one is walking on the same holy
ground on which they trod; where they communed together,
including Mary, the mother of Jesus; the beautiful Mary
Magdalene; the Bethany sisters whom Christ loved; their brother
Lazarus; Peter and Paul, Philip and James, Trophimus, Mary
Cleopas and Mary Salome, Aristobulus, the father-in-law of Peter,
and Simon Zelotes, among a multitude of others, and where
tradition asserts that Jesus built His wattle chapel, where He
talked with God. Here countless pilgrims from all parts of the
world made their vows. Here illustrious converts were confirmed
and went forth into the world to preach the Word and die gruesome
deaths for the Christian cause. Here, for over a thousand years,
mighty kings bowed in reverence and were buried with the elect in
Christ, within God's Acre. You see embedded in the walls the
ancient weather-worn stone which has mystified so many, causing
centuries of controversy, mutely bearing the two sacred names,
"Jesus - Maria", first hewn and placed within the outer wall of
the original stone church by the hands of the faithful Saints.
You see the ruined Altar of St. Joseph of Arimathea and just
across the way the ancient cemetery which contains more famous
characters and more dramatic history than all the cemeteries in
the world put together.
These magnificent ruins of Glastonbury Abbey are the remains
of the beautiful church erected over the very spot where the
uncle of Jesus and our Lord's own disciples built their first
altar in a church of wattle, thatched with reed, as was the
custom of that time. This was the first Christian Church erected
above ground to the glory of God and His Son Jesus, dedicated to
the Blessed Mary, His mother.
Wattle was the common building material of the ancient
Britons, used in the construction of their homes, just as cabins
of log and mud and houses of sod were commonly built in the
colonizing years of America and Canada. Therefore Joseph and his
companions, in building the First Church of Christ of wattle, did
not employ unusual or inferior materials for the purpose, but
only that which was then of the common order. We find proof of
this in the book "The Church in These Islands before Augustine,"
written by the Rev. G. F. Brown, a former Bishop of Bristol.
Herein the Rev. Brown refers to the excavations of Arthur
Bulleid, L.R.C.P., F.S.A., at Godney Marsh, in 1892:
"This wattle church survived till after the Norman invasion
when it was burned by accident. Wattle work is very
perishable material and of all things of the kind, the least
likely would seem to be that we in the nineteenth
century should, in confirmation of the story, discover at
Glastonbury an almost endless amount of British wattle work.
Yet this is exactly what happened. In the low ground, now
occupying the place of the impenetrable marshes which gave
the name of the Isle of Avalon to the higher ground, the eye
of the local antiquary had long marked a mass of dome-shaped
hillocks, some of them of very considerable diameter, and
about seventy in number, clustered together in what is now a
large field, a mile and a quarter from Glastonbury. Peat had
formed itself in the long course of time, and its
preservative qualities had kept safe for our eyes that which
it had enclosed and covered. The hillocks proved to be the
remains of British houses burned with fire. They were set on
ground made solid in the midst of the waters, with
causeways for approach from the land. The faces of the solid
ground and the sides of the causeways are revetted with
wattle work. There is wattle all over, strong and very well
made. The wattle when first uncovered is as good to all
appearances as the day it was made. The houses of the
Britons at Glastonbury, as a matter of fact, as long
tradition tells us, and their church were made of wattles."
Soon after Joseph and his apostolic company had settled in
Avalon painstakingly they began to build their wattle church. It
was sixty feet in length and twenty-six feet wide, following the
pattern of the Tabernacle. The task was completed between A.D.38
and 39. To those who followed after every particle of clay and
every reed was held sacred. To protect it from dissolution it was
encased in lead and over it St. Paulinus, A.D.630, erected the
beautiful chapel of St. Mary's. It remained intact until the year
A.D.1184, when the great fire gutted the whole Abbey to the
ground and with it perished the structure of the first Christian
Church above ground.
The pattern of the wattle church was the model employed in
the architecture of all the early British churches and
perpetuated in many up to the present time. Within that humble
wattle church the first Christian instructions were given and the
first prayers and chants of praise to the glory of God and to His
Son Jesus rang forth over the Island. Sanctuary at last! Safe and
free from the persecution of the Sanhedrin and the tyranny of
pagan Rome, those faithful, fervent hearts taught the Gospel of
Love and Truth in all its original Christian beauty and humble
simplicity. Protected by the valiant armed might of the
invincible Silures, before whom the might of Rome was to tremble
and crumble, the Apostle of Britain and his noble companions
dedicated their lives and efforts in fulfilling the Word of God,
through the teachings of the crucified Jesus, in the quiet,
restful sunlight of the English vales.
British peoples the world over, Americans whose roots are
British, and Christians wherever they may be, should take a
heartthrobbing pride in this monumental event. No wonder England
is known as the Motherland to the world. Hers is the womb of
Christianity, out of which has sprung the world's most humane
democracies. Proudly they proclaim the source. America and
Britain are the only two nations that permit another flag to fly
above their own national standard and that flag is the Flag of
Christ - the Church Flag, more commonly known as the Flag of St.
George. By this act they proclaim to the rest of the world that
they acknowledge Christ and the Law of God.
Back of the little wattle church rose the great Tor, which
was a Druidic Gorsedd, or "High Place of Worship", a hand-piled
mound of earth vaster in its dimensions than the Pyramid of
Egypt. To this day the terraces that wind around the Gorsedd to
its summit can be traced. On such eminences the Druids had their
astronomical observatories from which they studied the heavens.
In this knowledge, Greek and Roman alike extolled the Druids as
the greatest teachers of this complicated science.
There are many who maintain that the reason for the
heartfelt, friendly welcome extended to the Josephian Mission was
because the Druids, simultaneously with the wise men of Persia,
had discovered in the heavens the Star of Prophecy, which
heralded the long-expected "Day Spring" that was to lighten the
world with the new dispensation - the glory of "The Star" that
should rise out of Jacob.
This could be so - prophecy has a strange way of revealing
itself - in which case, to the Druidic priesthood, the discovery
was but the revelation of the great event which they knew,
equally with the Israelites of old, was to happen. The astounding
fact is that whereas the Sadducean Judeans were never familiar
with the name of the Messiah, His name was known to the British
long before the memorable event transpired on Golgotha's Hill. It
was a name familiar on the lips of every Briton. The indisputable
fact is that the Druids proclaimed the name first to the world. A
translation from a reading in the ancient Celtic Triads is:
"The Lord our God is One.
Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be
ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the
King of Glory shall come in.
Who is the King of Glory? The Lord Yesu;
He is the King of Glory."
How the Druidic Priesthood knew the consecrated name so long
beforehand is indeed a mystery in itself. The name "Yesu" was
incorporated in the Druidic Trinity as the Godhead. In Britain
the name Jesus never assumed its Greek or Latin form. It was
always the pure Celtic "Yesu". It never changed.
The more researchers study the Celtic Druidic religion the
more astonished are they with its similarity with that of old
Israel. They taught it as a gospel of peace more faithfully than
did their brethren in Israel. Wars, hatreds, persecution and
family separation had never divided them as it had the Israelites
of Judea. To the members of the Arimathean Mission the British
environment must have appeared as a true haven of happiness after
all their bitter experiences.
To the Druids the advent of the Josephian Culdees was but a
confirmation of the Atonement. They did not need to take up the
Cross. It was already with them, a familiar symbol in their
religious rituals. The early British Christians never employed
the Latin Cross. Their Cross combined the Druidic symbol with the
Cross. Even today, the Celtic Cross appears on the peaks and
spires of many Anglican churches throughout the world. The
Druidic circle embracing the Cross is the symbol of eternity. The
Cross is the symbol of victory over the grave, through the
salvation bought by the vicarious atonement,
The merging of the British Druidic church with Christianity
was a normal procedure, peacefully performed. Those who state
that Christianity was bitterly opposed by the Druids speak
falsely. Nowhere in the Celtic records is there any mention of
opposition. The Druidic Archbishops recognized that the old order
was fulfilled according to prophecy, and with the coming of
Christ and His atonement the new dispensation had arrived. In
this light of understanding Druids and Judean Apostles marched
forward together firmly wedded in the name of Christ. It was
never marred with the persecution, bloodshed and martyrdom that
accompanied the teaching of the Christ Gospel in Rome. The former
President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, truly said,
"All histories should be rewritten in truth." School history
books still erroneously teach that the Augustan Mission, sent by
(Pope) Gregory, A.D.596, marked the introduction of Christianity
into Britain. Actually it is the date of the first attempt to
introduce the Papacy into Britain. Therein lies both error and
confusion.
The Vatican has always been more emphatic in correcting this
mistake than have the Protestant denominations. Baronius and
Alford, the two foremost historians of the Vatican, each
referring to ancient documents in the Vatican Library, affirm St.
Joseph as the Apostle of Britain and the first to introduce
Christian teachings in the Island. The Popes also have
substantiated this statement.
In 1931 Pope Pius XI received at the Vatican the visiting
English Roman Catholic Mayors of Bath, Colchester and Dorchester,
along with a hundred and fifty members of "The Friends of Italy
Society." In his address to them the Pope said that St. Paul, not
Pope Gregory, first introduced Christianity into Britain.
This statement is quoted from the report made in the London
Morning Post, March 27th, 1931.
The Pope spoke the truth; in fact St. Paul was
authoritatively the first to deliver the Message from Rome,
though actually his appointed representative, Aristobulus,
preceded him. The important point to remember here is that St.
Joseph did not go to Britain from Rome. He went direct from
Palestine, via Marseilles, and preceded St. Paul in Britain by
twenty years.
At the Ecclesiastical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church
the religious representatives of each country were accorded
honour of place at the Council, in the order that each had
received Christianity. Due to the bitter envy some of the
countries bore towards the British they vigorously sought to
dispute Britain's precedence in priority but on each occasion
Britain's position was defended by Vatican authority.
Theodore Martin, of Lovan, writes of these disputes in
"Disputoilis super Dignitatem Anglis it Gallioe in Councilio
Constantiano," A.D.1517:
"Three times the antiquity of the British Church was
affirmed in Ecclesiastical Councila. I. The Council of Pisa,
A.D. 1417; 2. Council of Constance, A.D. 1419; 3. Council of
Siena, A.D. 1423. It was stated that the British Church took
precedence of all other Churches, being founded by Joseph of
Arimathea, immediately after the Passion of Christ"
The erudite Bishop Ussher writes in Brittannicarum
Ecclesiarum Antiquitates:
"The British National Church was founded A.D.36, 160 years before
heathen Rome confessed Christianity."
The founding of Christianity in Britain by the Josephian
Mission was truly the beginning of the British national Church.
Conversion spread rapidly through the Isles. It is recorded, A.D.
48, that Conor Macnessa, King of Ulster, sent his priests to
Avalon to commit the Christian law and its teachings into
writing, which they named "The Celestial Judgments". However, it
was not until A.D.156 that Britain, by the royal edict of King
Lucius, officially proclaimed the Christian Church to be the
national Church of Britain, at Winchester, then the royal capital
of Britain.
Quoting from Augustinicio Mission, A.D. 597, it reads:
"Britain officially proclaimed Christian by King Lucius, at
National Council at Winchester, 156 A.D."
Winchester was the ancient capital of Britain where its
kings were crowned for over fifteen hundred years. It was founded
500 B.C.
There is no lack of evidence among the earliest writers,
many of whom were citizens of nations hostile to Britain.
Confirmation of the facts by them and by prelates of a
powerful religion opposed to the British Church, cannot be denied
on any pretext.
St. Clement of Rome, A.D. 30-100, refers to the disciples in
Britain in "The Epistle to the Corinthians."
As we turn the pages of the Demonstratio Evangelica by
Eusebius, of Caesarea, we read the potent passage:
"The Apostles passed beyond the ocean to the Isles called the
Brittanic Isles."
(Lewis, "St. Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury;" also "Old
History of Ulster," Irish Tourist Bureau).
Tertullian of Carthage, A.D. 208, tells us that in his time
the Christian Church "extended to all the boundaries of Gaul, and
parts of Britain inaccessible to the Romans but subject to
Christ". Sabellius, A.D. 250, writes this important passage:
"Christianity was privately confessed elsewhere, but the first
nation that proclaimed it as their religion and called it
Christian, after the name of Christ, was Britain."
Origen, in the third century, wrote:
"The power of our Lord is with those who in Britain are separated
from our coasts."
The famed and benevolent St. Jerome, A.D. 378, writes:
"From India to Britain all nations resound with the death and
resurrection of Christ."
Arnobius, A.D. 400, adds his trenchant message, writing:
"So swiftly runs the Word of God that within the space of a few
years His Word is concealed neither from the Indians in the East,
nor from the Britons in the West."
Chrysostom, the venerable Patriarch of Constantinople, A.D.
402, potently pens in his Sermo De Utilit:
"The British Isles which are beyond the sea, and which lie in the
ocean, have received virtue of the Word. Churches are there found
and altars erected ... Though thou shouldst go to the ocean, to
the British Isles, there thou shouldst hear all men everywhere
discoursing matters out of the Scriptures, with another voice
indeed, but not another faith, with a different tongue, but the
same judgment."
In later years the confirmation continues undenied and
unabated.
Polydore Vergil, an eminent Roman Catholic divine, who wrote
during the denunciations and quarrels between the Pope and Henry
VIII of England: "Britain partly through Joseph of Arimathea,
partly through Fugatus and Damianus, was of all kingdoms the
first to receive the Gospel."
Another Roman Catholic leader, the Rev. Robert Parsons,
definitely states in his book "The Three Conversions of England":
"The Christian religion began in Britain."
Sir Henry Spelman, the eminent scholar, writes in his
Concilia: "We have abundant evidence that this Britain of ours
received the faith, and that from the disciples of Christ
Himself, soon after the Crucifixion."
And the famed Taliesin, A.D. 500-540, one of Britain's
greatest scholars, Celtic Arch Druid and Prince Bard,
forthrightly declares word from the beginning, was from the first
our teacher, and we that though the Gospel teaching was new to
the rest of the world it was always known to the Celtic British.
He writes: "Christ, the never lost His teachings. Christianity
was a new thing in Asia, but there never was a time when the
Druids of Britain held not its Doctrines."
Giidas, A.D. 520, Britain's foremost early historian, wrote
in his "De Exidio Brittannioe": "We certainly know that Christ,
the True Son, afforded His Light, the knowledge of His precepts
to our Island in the last year of Tiberius Caesar."
He also wrote the following most important statement:
"Joseph introduced Christianity into Britain in the last year of
the reign of Tiberius." ....
The last year of Tiberius's reign being his twenty-second,
would be, according to the respective calendars, A.D.37 and A.D.
38. Thus the general agreement that the Gospel was transplanted
to Britain within five years of the Passion is in accord with the
dates recorded.
(In actuality 7 years after the death and resurrection of Christ.
Interesting as the number 7 is an important number used in the
Bible - Keith Hunt).
To all this is added absolute confirmation that Joseph of
Arimathea was the one who first brought Christianity to Britain
and was the first and truly appointed Apostle to and of the
British.
Probably the statements quoted herein will appear revelatory
to many, particularly those saturated with the unreliable,
impotent theories of school-book historians. The references are
beyond dispute and are only a fraction of the mass available.
They substantiate the fact that Joseph and the Arimathean Mission
in Britain was known the world over, and in all cases accurately
reported long before the Roman Catholic Church was founded at
Rome. Later, when the Vatican had become established, Popes,
prelates and historians of the Roman Catholic See freely
confirmed the record.
From the dates given it will be seen that many of the
authorities quoted, both secular and ecclesiastical, lived before
and during the epochal period of our story. Others quoted lived
close enough to the era to be familiar with Britain and its
inhabitants. The everrising mass of confirmation from the turn of
this century to the present time is proof of the zealous research
of scholars and scientists in reaffirming the ancient truth and
lifting the curtain of error and misinformation which unqualified
and indifferent writers of the last century had clouded with the
unstable dogma of myth and legend. Undoubtedly they acted under
the influence of atheism which staggered religious belief during
the Victorian era, and to a certain extent still lingers to
mislead too many. The vicious invectives of the Higher Critics of
Germany are squelched along with the fraudulent distortions of
Darwin's treatise of evolution by Henrich Haerlik,
pseudo-scientist, nakedly exposed by the German Institute of
Science and the Lutheran Church, along with the destructive
interpretation of socialism by Karl Marx, from which Communism
has sprung. Today Communism gives the old propaganda a new dress
but it is the same villain, deliberately distorting the true
principles of the Western Democracies.
(We know from history that when the Roman church arrived in
Britain about 500 AD, it found Christianity already thriving, but
declared it to be "heresy" and "Jewish" Christianity, which over
a period of centuries the church of Rome obliterated the Celtic
truths of Christianity it received from Joseph and other first
century apostles, i.e the observance of the 7th day Sabbath of
the Ten Commandments - Keith Hunt)
The Britons of our Lord's time were no more barbarian, or
"painted savages", than are the modern English-speaking nations
"war-mad barbarians", as the Soviet press describes us.
Educationally the Celtic British ranked among the highest to
be found anywhere. Each city had its university apart from the
special Druidic seats of learning. In A.D.110 Ptolemy states that
there existed fifty-six large cities. Marcianus says there were
fifty-nine, and Chrysostom wrote, with the acceptance of the new
order of "The Way", a greater impetus was given to the erection
of seats of learning. To this great work the converted British
Prince Arviragus, then a young unmarried man, along with the rest
of the royal Silurian families in England and Wales, gave the
fulness of their support.
Quoting from the ancient British Chronicles, we obtain an
interesting picture of the conversion of Arviragus by Joseph:
"Joseph converted this King Arviragus
By his prechying to know ye laws divine.
And baptized him as write hath Nennius
The chronicler in Brytain tongue full fyne
And to Christian laws made hym inclyne
And gave him then a shield of silver white
A crosse and long, and overthwart full perfete
These armes were used throughout all Brytain
For a common syne, each man to know his nacion
And thus his armes by Joseph Creacion
Full langafore Saint George was generate
Were worshipt here of mykell elder date."
It is interesting to note in this verse that Joseph, on the
conversion of Arviragus, gave him as a sign for all nations to
know, "the long cross" as his coat of arms, then customarily worn
on the shield of the chieftain. This is the first record of the
cross officially becoming the symbol of a king. The reason is
plain. It was given to King Arviragus as a sign and declaration
that he was the elected Christian king, and of added interest,
given as the writer states long before St. George, the Patron
Saint of England, was born. This symbol, representing the Flag of
St. George and known as such today, was inherited from Arviragus.
Its religious significance is still dominant, being the accepted
Church flag of the present Protestant Church. Since the time of
Arviragus it has always been the Christian flag of the British
Church. Protestantism had nothing to do with it. Actually it is a
mistake to name all Christian denominations separate from the
Roman Catholic Church Protestants. The name arose out of other
religious sects appearing later in Britain, which protested
against the ritualism of the original British Church. In fact the
name applies to the religious sects still holding to the
Christian faith, who are known today as the Free Churches,
meaning free of ritualism of any kind. Up to, and during the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, there was only one religion in Britain.
Throughout the Isles it was known as the British Church and so
known to the rest of the world. It was also known as the Holy
Catholic Church and never Roman Catholic. When Elizabeth and her
Parliament struck back at the powerful forces of the Papal
States, France, Spain and Rome, the Papal See was so determinedly
denounced that a cleavage was created that left no doubt in the
minds of people for all time to come that the British Church, as
at the beginning, had no association with the Roman Catholic
hierarchy. Both the British Church and the State determined on a
reformation within the British Church to exclude anything and
everything that bore any comparison with the Roman Catholic
Church in Liturgy and in ritual. Certain Roman innovations had
crept into the British Church over the years. The order to reform
began, returning to the original concept. Therefore it was not a
protest, creating Protestantism, it was as the historic act
declares - a cleansing reformation of the British Church. Since
then the separation has been positive. The British Church was
still the national religion of the Isles. Shortly after, the
religion began to take on its own native national title, becoming
the Church of England, the Church of Wales, the Church of
Scotland, and the Church of Ireland, all holding the same
communion, all designating themselves as Holy Catholics as
separate from Roman Catholics. The word "Catholic" means
"universal"; thus Holy Catholic means a universal, holy,
Christian Church, with Christ alone being the sole Head of the
Church. The Roman Catholic Church designates itself as the
universal Christian Church of the Romans, with the Pope as its
head. This the British Church would never recognize. In the
United States of America, prior to the Revolution, the
established Church was the Church of England. Following the
Revolution, the name was changed to the Episcopal Church of
America of the Anglican Communion.
It is still so known, maintaining the original service and
communion of the Mother Church. The German Lutheran Church
service also observes a great similiarity. All the named churches
are Episcopalian, meaning a church government by bishops. In this
manner the original Christian Church was created by the Apostles,
who appointed Bishops to govern the Christian Church. The present
Mother British Church is the only Christian Church that has
maintained an unbroken apostolic succession of Bishops from the
beginning, with all the named Episcopal Churches sharing in this
distinction. Protestantism is claimed by many to have arisen with
the protests of Martin Luther against the abuses of the Roman
Catholic Church. In this case the word could be applied, for at
that time Germany had long been part of the Holy Roman Empire,
with the Emperor of Germany the appointed representative of the
Pope. Britain was never part of this Empire and never nationally
under the domination of the Vatican. It was from the beginning to
this day - British - the Church of the Covenant People.
(The author is very misleading on this point as he obviously does
not see or has not inquired enough into "church history" to
understand the Celtic or British church in relation to the church
of Rome. The Celtic church or British church was founded by
Joseph of Aramathea and those with him and also some of the
Apostles of Christ, 7 years after the death and resurrection of
Jesus. They were taught the truths of the Lord, which included
the observance of the 7th day Sabbath, and also among other
things the observance of the Lord's death on the 14th of the
first month in the Spring - what would become known in church
history as the "Quartodecimine" debate. The Celtic church started
off on the right track, with correct teachings and doctrines and
practices. By 500 AD when the church of Rome came to Britain, the
Celtic church had become corrupted in many ways from THE truth,
but still also maintained many truths, as 7th day Sabbath keeping
and the 14th memorial of Jesus' death. These two practices alone
led the church of Rome to call the Celtic or British church
"heretics" and followers of "Judaism." It was from 600 AD that
the battle of British theology with Rome got under way. Over a
period of centuries Rome finally won out and the British church
became in theology and practice more and more like the Roman
church, which the author of this study does not like to admit, or
he is just simply ignorant of the theological facts of history in
Britain as it unfolded through the centuries all the way up to
the so-called Protestant Reformation - Keith Hunt)
Christianity was founded in Britain A.D.36. The first
Christian Church above ground was erected A.D.38-39. The Roman
Catholic hierarchy was founded circa A.D.350, after Constantine,
and not until centuries later was the Papal title created. Until
then, the head of the Roman Catholic Church was still a Bishop.
The title of Pope, or universal Bishop, was first given to the
Bishop of Rome by the wicked Emperor Phocas, in the year A.D.
610. This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who
had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the
assassination of his predecessor, Emperor Mauritus. Gregory I,
then Bishop of Rome, refused the title but his successor,
Boniface III, first assumed the title of Pope.
Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the Apostles
and expressly forbade any such notion, as stated in Luke
22:20-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians I:18; and I Corinthians
3:11.
Returning to the history of the cross as the Christian
symbol of Royal heraldry and given to Arviragus by Joseph, the
cross on the shield up to the present time has remained the
special symbol of the sovereigns of Britain. In later times the
Lion was superimposed on the shield, as shown today. The Lion was
the emblem of Judah, Keeper of the Sanctuary but, as Christ said,
it would be taken away from them and given to another who would
keep the Law. This symbol appearing on the British Royal Arms,
with the cross, is significant. The cross denotes that the
British were the first to accept Christ and by keeping the Law
inherited the Kingdom of God taken from the nation of the Jews.
Arviragus was to carry the banner of the Cross through the most
bitterly fought battles between the Britons and the Romans. In
spite of the fact that the early Christian and Roman records
abound with the name and warrior fame of Arviragus, he is
entirely lost to the later histories. His fame is overshadowed by
his famous cousin Caractacus. In spite of this, Arviragus was the
most powerful representative of the royal house of the Silures
and the most famous Christian warrior in history, not excepting
his illustrious descendant, the Emperor Constantine.
The royal boundaries of the Silureswere divided into two
sections. Arviragus ruled over the southern part of England and
Caradoc, or Caractacus, over Cambria, the region that is now
Wales. Each was king in his special domain but in time of war
they united under a Pendragon or Commander-in-Chief, agreed upon
by the people. At that time they represented the most powerful
warrior clan in Britain. Arviragus ruled as Pendragon, while his
cousin Caractacus was captive in Rome, conducting the war against
the Empire for years in Britain in a manner that gained for him
immortal fame exceeding that of Caractacus.
Juvenal, the Roman writer, in his works clearly indicates
how greatly the Romans feared Arviragus, stating that his name
trembled on the lips of every Roman, and that no better news
could be received at Rome than the fall of this Royal Christian
Silurian. He writes, asking: "Hath our great enemy Arviragus, the
car borne British King, dropped from his battle throne?"
Edmund Spencer adds his tribute: "Was never king more highly
magnifyde nor dread of Romans was than Arviragus."
Despite the fact that the Romans were the implacable foe of
the British, and sought by every means at their command in their
vicious hatred to exterminate the Christian faith at its source,
they held the British warriors in high esteem, holding that their
religion was the reason for their fearlessness in battle and
disdain of death.
Julius Caesar wrote, circa 54 B.C.: "They make the
immortality of the soul the basis of all their teaching, holding
it to be the principal incentive and reason for a virtuous life.
Believing in the immortality of the soul they were careless of
death."
(The Druids had much truth but error also, as in time all once
more purer religion goes.....it eventually over time is corrupted
in this way or that way. So was the Celtic or British church so
corrupted, and by about 1100 AD had been infused so much by the
church of Rome, it was hardly recognizable as the same Christian
religion of the first century AD - Keith Hunt)
Lucanus, A.D.38, writes in Pharsalia that the Britons'
indifference to death was the result of their religious beliefs,
and Pomponius Mela, A.D.41, in his works, describes the British
warrior in astonishment. He also ascribes the extraordinary
bravery of the Britons to their religious doctrine, based on the
immortality of the soul.
Such was the invincible spirit of the ancient Britons who
formed a living wall around the sacred boundaries of Avalon in
the domain of Arviragus. No Roman army ever pierced it. These
were the lands which Roman writers referred to as "territory
inaccessible to the Roman where Christ is taught".
Behind this heroic warrior wall of protection Joseph and the
disciples of Christ were safe from harm, free to preach and teach
the glorious faith on the Sacred Isle of Avalon. To the Britons
this was hallowed ground and they died willingly to preserve the
first planting of the Christian Way, so that it might thrive and
blossom to bless the whole world.
There was to be a second separate planting of the Christ
Seed in Britain about twenty years after Joseph's arrival.
Independent of the Josephian Mission it was also to be
sponsored by the Royal Silurian House, in Wales, by the father
and family of Caractacus, under the commission of St. Paul. It
originated at Rome, where this same family were to be the
divinely ordained instruments of St. Paul in developing his great
mission as directed by Christ. After contact with them he
declares it in his statement, "I turn henceforth to the
Gentiles."
This Royal British family at Rome were to provide the
Christian story with its greatest romance, its greatest drama,
and its most terrible tragedy.
They were destined to be the first martyrs to suffer for
Christ. Believe it or not, the British have paid the greatest
blood sacrifice in the Gentile Church and millions more were to
follow later, in the defence and for the preservation of the
Christian Church. The underground cemeteries of Rome, the
Catacombs, are packed with their tortured, murdered bodies - men,
women and children. The soil of Britain is saturated with their
blood, eternal testimony to their undying faith.
Knowing that Christ died for them, they were fearless in
dying for Christ.
..........
NOTE:
The true history of how Christianity came to Britain is there for
all to see if they will but only investigate the historical
records. But until lately historians were not willing to
investigate and announce the truth of the matter. They had been
blinded by the false teachings on the matter from the church of
Rome. Like the truth about the Vikings or Norse Men coming to
North America centuries before Christopher Columbus, only after
enough facts were shouted enough times, did modern historians
finally admit to the truth, and were willing to re-write the
history books.
Keith Hunt
To be continued with "Edict of 42 AD - 'Exterminate Christian Britain!'"
The Lost Disciples to Britain #7
Exterminate Christian Britain!
DRAMA OF THE LOST DISCIPLES #7
by the late George Jowett (1961)
EDICT OF EMPEROR CLAUDIUS, A.D. 42
"EXTERMINATE CHRISTIAN BRITAIN"
THE past is so remote it seems inconceivable and perhaps
insignificant to the indifferent Christians of today, basking in
luxury and the comfort of security, that it is nineteen hundred
and fifteen years ago when as the first armed challenge of a
powerful world-conquering nation it was officially decreed to
destroy Christianity at its core by the extermination of the
Island British.
It was ten years after the Scandal of the Cross had taken
place and less than six years since Joseph, the Noblis Decurio,
had proclaimed the Christ Way throughout Britain from his
sanctuary on the Isle of Avalon.
The Holy Crusade had spread so rapidly from Avalon to beyond
the seas that Rome was so disturbed it could no longer ignore the
challenge to its own pagan policies and imperial security.
In the year A.D.42 Claudius, Emperor of the Romans, issued the
fateful decree to destroy Christian Britain, man, woman and
child, and its great institutions and burn its libraries. To this
purpose Claudius equipped the largest and most efficient army
ever sent by Rome to conquer a foe and led by its most able
generals.
In this edict, Claudius proclaimed in the Roman Senate that
acceptance of the Druidic or Christian faith was a capital
offence, punishable by death by the sword, the torture chamber,
or to be cast to the devouring lions in the arena of the
Colosseum. It is interesting to note that this ruling also
included "any person descended from David". This meant the Jew,
making no exceptions as to whether he be a converted Jew or one
holding to the orthodox Judean faith. This indeed was a paradox.
While the converted Jew embraced Gentile followers of 'The Way'
as brethren, regardless of race, and died with them with equal
courage, the orthodox Jew perishing in the arena by the side of
the Christian, never relented in his bitter hatred. With his
dying breath he spat on the Christian in malevolent scorn.
In this peculiar manner British Christian and Jew now had
one thing in common, the penalty of death.
The Romans had not previously held any special enmity to the
British. Actually, and perhaps grudgingly, they had held the
Briton in respect. Association in commerce and culture had drawn
them together for centuries and it was not uncommon for the
children of the nobility on both sides to seek education in the
institutions of each. It was the impetus the British had given to
the new Christian faith that had cast the Roman die.
The Romans had always despised the Jew, and oppressed though
the Jews were under Roman domination, they hated the Roman with a
burning vehemence which they displayed on the slightest pretext.
They would never willingly break bread with a Roman, nor share
their home, and on the street would not allow their clothing to
touch that of their enemy. When flogged, the unforgiving Jews
would spit out vile epithets at their torturers as they writhed
or died in agony. The Romans could never understand why the
Jewish religion could incite such hatred against members of other
faiths, nor could they understand the disdainful contempt the
Jews held for women. From the time of Abraham the marital life of
the Hebrews was polygamous. While one woman would be named the
wife, and be head of the household, yet Abraham had several
concubines, sometimes referred to as handmaidens. At the time of
our Lord it is stated that marital conditions among the
Jews were at their lowest ebb. Women were regarded as mere
chattels. Divorce was prevalent and declared at will without
resort to law, with seldom any provision made for the divorced
woman. It is recorded that it was common for Jew to consort with
several women to the knowledge of his so-called legal wife. It
amused and angered the Romans to note the hypocritical,
puritanical attitude of the Jewish male toward adultery. A woman,
be it one of his own consorts or not, was apt to be stoned to
death if found guilty of adultery. The suspicion of it would
cause her to be branded. The wish brand of adultery was to cause
the woman to wear her hair in braids to be reviled and shunned by
both Jewish sexes. There was no forgiveness in the Jewish male
heart. Realizing these conditions at the time of our Lord, we can
better understand the significance of the test of the cohorts of
the Sanhedrin put to Jesus when they led before Him the
adulteress to be judged. Under the circumstances our hearts can
swell with pride at the courage of Jesus and the magnificent
manner in which He made the decision by writing in the sand with
His finger, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast
a stone at her." With these words Jesus challenged each and every
man present to prove his right to stone the woman to death. They
slunk away. It was Jesus who set women free from this bondage. He
freely forgave the adulteress and simply told her to sin no more.
Contrary to common belief the Romans, though granted to be
licentious, abhorred divorce. The wealthy Romans had many con-
sorts, including the Emperors, but the wife held a sacred place
as the head of the house which could not be disputed. Consorts
were the common practice of the Romans, which found little
ill-favour in the eyes of the legal wife. For centuries a divorce
could not be obtained. The first record of a Roman divorce
occurred five hundred and twenty years after the founding of the
Roman dynasty. It was obtained by Spurius Carvilius Rugo on the
grounds of sterility. The act so shocked the people that Rugo was
shunned by all and so completely disgraced that he was obliged to
leave Rome. Even though divorce was not recognized long before
Christianity entered Rome, we can understand the attitude of the
Roman Catholic Church towards divorce, being so embedded in the
original Roman law. The attitude of the British Holy Catholic
Church, the Anglican Church, stems from the words of Jesus.
All this added to the Roman hatred of the Jew. Now a new
hatred had developed, manifested in the Claudian Edict which
accused them of being responsible for the Advent of Christ and
for the rise of the new faith which had found its first converts
among the people of Judea.
The efforts of the Sanhedrin to eradicate 'The Way', in the
calumny of the Cross and the terrifying persecution of the
Followers by the Saulian Gestapo, was completely overlooked by
the Roman Senate or ignored.
Further to seek to inflame the populace against Christian
and Jew, the Romans were the first to create the false slander
that Christian and Jew alike practised human sacrifice in their
religion. They knew better. They knew that the burnt offerings of
Judean and Druid were animals, chiefly sheep, goats and doves.
The Romans spread the ridiculous propaganda that the Jews
devoured Gentile babies. Communist distortions of the truth and
insinuating fabrications are not new. They are merely imitating
the vile trickery of the Romans of Caesar's time.
Probably because the Jews were unorganized and not militant
like the British, the Roman campaign of extermination was not so
widespread, less determined, and never as constant. The Jews were
driven into ghettoes, where they could do no harm. The British
were a dominating problem. They were a warrior nation skilled in
the art of warfare on land and on sea. They were guided by
intelligent rulers and commanders, all of whom were steeped in
the invincibility of the spirit created by the passion in their
faith that declared all men should be free. One of the earliest
battle hymns of the Britons was "Britons never shall be slaves".
The overwhelming rise of Christianity in populous Britain and
Gaul was viewed with grave consternation at Rome. Britain was the
seeding-ground where an ever-flowing stream of neophytes were
tutored and converted by Apostles and disciples of Christ and
sent out into other lands to teach the Gospel. This the Romans
declared had to be stopped. To them, as to all dictatorships,
might alone was right. Nevertheless, from past experience with
British military ability they had good reason to fear this
stubborn, valorous race, now inspired with the zeal of Christ.
Forewarned, Rome built the mightiest army in its history to
enforce the Claudian Edict to destroy Britain.
The decree of Claudius was inspired by fear and with
sadistic intentions. Rome believed from the experience of her
other conquests that only violent persecutors would terrify the
Briton into ultimate submission.
How wrongly they judged their opponents they were soon to
learn.
Defamers of ancient Britain should turn back the pages of
history and read the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth, who describes
how in the year 390 B.C. Belinus and Brennus, sons of the most
famed British King Dunwall, assaulted and captured Rome with a
British army. And from 113 to 101 B.C. European observers affirm
that the Cimbri-Keltoi of Britain were the terror of Rome and
could have brought that Empire under their own subjection if they
had so desired. They point out with emphasis that British
aggressions were not inspired by wars of conquest but were
punitive expeditions arising out of Roman depredation against
their Gaulish brethren.
Looking back on the pages of those bloodstained years the
heart recoils in horror at the savagery, murder, massacre, rape
and destruction inflicted upon the inhabitants and the land of
the Sacred Isle.
The Romans, who had ground so many nations under their
despotic heel, looked upon all other nations with scorn as
inferiors, labelling every enemy as barbarian, no matter how
magnificent their culture. The records attest to the indisputable
fact that the Romans of all people were the most barbarous and
brutal in history. The people of the Christian democracies still
shrink in horror at the blood-chilling viciousness of the
Communistic purges. The soul faints before the terrifying
pictures of the vile concentration camps, the gas ovens and the
fiendish modes of torture inflicted upon the Jews, other peoples,
and the Allied war prisoners by the diabolic Nazis and Japs. It
makes one feel as though the Devil himself had scraped the bottom
of his foul satanic barrel. But vile as it all was, the Nazis,
the Japs and the Reds could have learned more dreadful forms of
torture by studying the methods of Roman persecution during the
pagan centuries.
The slaughter of the British Kelts was not confined to the
short but too-long period of War II. It endured from the time of
the Claudian invasion, A.D.42, to the close of the horrible,
infamous Diocletian savagery of A.D.320, nearly three hundred
years. Where was the invincibility of the great Roman Caesars?
Numerous as were the lives ravished in the Russian, Nazi, Jap
purges and incredible tortures, the loss of life is small
compared with the total sacrifice of British lives given entirely
in the Cause of Christ during those three hundred years. Strange
as it may seem, though Gaul was at various times invaded by the
Romans and suffered great loss of life, no massed campaign was
ever directed against them and never on religious grounds.
Britain alone was the chief culprit and against them the
vengeance of the bestial Roman knew no bounds. Britain is the
only nation in history ever attacked by the full might of another
powerful people in an effort to purge Christianity off the face
of the earth. Rome sent her very best against the British
legions. As they failed to subdue the British, Rome recalled many
brilliant generals who had gained fame for the double-headed
eagle in other foreign conquests, as she determinedly sought to
wipe out one defeat after another to her armies.
From the Claudian to the Diocletian persecution,
extermination of Britain and all that was Christian was a Roman
obsession. How satanic it was can be estimated in the brutal act
which touched off the Diocletian campaign. The finest warrior
battalions in the Roman army were the famed Gaulish Legions. On
the order of Maximian, co-ruler with Diocletian, the Christian
Gaulish veterans were slaughtered to a man in cold blood. His
hatred of the Christian is stated to have exceeded that of
Diocletian and to satiate it he butchered his finest soldiers.
The martyrologies state that during the first two hundred years
of Christianity over six million Christians were entombed within
the catacombs of Rome - murdered. How many more were buried
within the other unexplored catacombs is difficult to say. The
total number would be appalling. It is claimed that if the
passages of the catacombs of Rome were measured end to end they
would extend to a length of 550 miles, from the city of Rome into
the Swiss Alps. It seems almost incredible that while only about
one million Christians today walk the streets of Rome, under
their feet are over six million mutilated bodies which had
testified for Christ.
Let free men and women wherever they may be today, take
stock of the price their Christian ancestors paid to obtain and
make secure the freedom which they now enjoy. The ancient Britons
appear to have better realized than does the present-day shirking
Christian that Christianity sets men free and freedom can only be
maintained in preserving the Christian faith. The present
democracies of the English-speaking world owe all they have or
ever will have to their Christian ancestors.
Let us remember that, when it seemed as though Christianity
was crushed on the Continent by the murderous Diocletian
persecution, it was a British king with an army of Christian
British warriors who crossed the seas and smashed the
Diocletian-Maximian armies with defeat so catastrophic they never
rose again. That British victory ended for all time Roman
Christian persecution. Following the victory this British king
marched his army of Christian warriors into Rome and there
declared Rome Christian. From thence dates Roman national
acceptance of Christianity.
It was not Peter who nationally Christianized Rome but
Constantine, the great-grandson of Arviragus, and son of the
famous Empress Helen, a British princess.
Surely we cannot afford to forget.
..........
NOTE:
Yes indeed the hitsory records show that Constantine came from
Britain, though of Roman stock it was he that came over to Europe
to do battle for the Roman Crown. He is supposed to have seen in
vision, the cross, and was told to fight by that "standard-
bearing" sign. This he did and won the Roman Empire Crown, upon
which he then STOPPED all Christian persecution. Rome became so-
called "Christian" - it was a very mixed truth and error
Christianity, but the popular Christian people at least had no
more persecution upon them. It was the start of the rise of the
Holy Roman Empire.
The true history of Britain and her fight against Rome from AD 42
is found in other studies on this website under this section of
"history."
Rome "occupied" Britain for 400 years or so, but NEVER
"conquered" Britain, or her Celtic Christianity. The "picts" and
"scots" of what is now called Scotland, would have nothing to do
with even allowing Rome to occupy that part of the British land.
So strong and mighty were the Scots fighting men Rome suffered
many defeats at their hands, and would have marched down into
what is called today England, and driven the Romans back to the
continent of Europe, but the Roman General Adrian built a wall
right across that northern part of Britain to keep the Scots from
coming south of that wall. It is known in British history as
"Adrian's Wall."
A recent 2010 movie called "The Eagle" showed the story of a huge
Roman army going into Scotland and never being heard of again,
and the son of its General going after the "standard bearing
Eagle" to bring it back to the Roman world.
Whatever the truth or error of the movie, the fact in history is
that the Romans could not win or defeat the natives of what is
now called Scotland.
It's time you and your family knew the truth of ancient history.
Much of it is on this website.
Keith Hunt
..........
To be continued with "Jesus or Jupiter?"
The Lost Disciples to Britain #8
Jesus or Jupiter?
DRAMA OF THE LOST DISCIPLES TO BRITAIN #8
by the late George Jowett (1961)
JESUS OR JUPITER?
THE Commander-in-Chief selected by the Emperor Claudius to
carry out his edict was none other than the famous Aulus
Plautius, called the Scipio of his day. He stands in Roman
history as one of the most brilliant commanders and conquerors in
her military record. He arrived in the area of Britain, we now
know as England, A.D.43, making his headquarters at Chichester.
Plautius lost no time in sending his veteran Legions into action,
directing his campaign to the south against the Silurians, thus
cutting off the powerful Brigantes in the remote north, who were
the Yorkshire Celts. Both armies clashed with appalling violence
and in this first conflict the Romans, probably underestimating
the quality of their opponents, were forced to retreat. In the
various battles that followed, to his surprise the Roman General
realized he was confronted with a military intelligence that
matched his own and an army of warriors, though greatly
outnumbered, were undaunted and fought back with a fearless
ferocity which had never before been encountered by the veteran
soldiery of Rome.
For the first time the Romans found they were not opposing a
race of people who could be terrorized by numbers or brutalities.
To their dismay, as reported by Tacitus and like the Nazis in
World War II, they found that destruction of the British sacred
altars increased their anger, making them blind to odds and
circumstances. The more destructive and brutal the Roman
persecution the more determinedly did the Briton strike back.
At the onset the British Silurian army was led by Guiderius,
the elder brother of Arviragus, who was second in command.
Guiderius had succeeded his father to the kingdom of the Silures.
Arviragus, as Prince, ruled over his Dukedom of Cornwall. In the
second battle with the Romans Guiderius was killed in action.
Arviragus succeeded his slain brother in command of the army and
to the kingdom of the Silures. At this time the second branch of
the Silurian kingdom lying farther south in what now is Wales,
had not entered the conflict. Caradoc, King of the Welsh Silures,
was fist cousin to Arviragus, a much older man and an experienced
military leader. A few years before this record his father, known
as 'the Good King Bran', had abdicated his throne voluntarily in
favour of his son Caradoc. Bran was a deeply religious person and
had resigned his kingship to become Arch Druid of Siluria. He and
his family had accepted the new faith and some of the members of
the family had been already converted and baptized by Joseph by
the laying on of hands, but Bran and Caradoc had not received
this final act of conversion. Now as the conflict between Roman
and Briton increased in vigour and territorial scope, Caradoc
realized the seriousness of the situation, particularly since the
death of his cousin Guiderius. It was agreed that a more
concerted and determined military action was needed against the
Romans. Arviragus, by necessity, was only substituting in command
for his slain brother. It was law among the British that the
supreme leader of the army, especially when more than one clan
was involved, could only be appointed by general acclamation of
the people, the military council and the Arch Druids. The
election to such a command was known by the official tide of
Pendragon, meaning Commander-in-Chief. By popular election
Caradoc, better known in history by the name the Romans gave him
- Caractacus - was created Pendragon.
THE GREAT CARACTACUS
Caractacus, as we shall now call him, was a man of great
vigour, intelligent, versed in the arts of politics and warfare.
As is to be expected, being raised in a religious household, he
had deep religious convictions. He had received his education
chiefly in the British universities and partly at Rome. He was an
able administrator, of noble men and outstanding stature. His
countenance was described by Roman writers as 'bold and
honourable'. Such was the man who was elected Pendragon to
conduct the war against the invading Romans. He began the
continuation of the strife with all his natural energy. Out of
this bitter conflict his outstanding military genius, his
indomitable character and invincible courage carved for him an
immortal name in history that was never to perish in British and
Roman annals. In them he stands out as one of the greatest
examples of all that is grand and noble. A magnificent patriotic
representative of the unconquerable valour of his race. Feared by
the foe, it is said that Roman mothers used his name to quiet
their children. His military merit won the unstinted admiration
of the enemy who named him 'the Scourge of the Romans'.
Historically his achievements are well known, but not so
well the reasons for them. Modern historians in dealing with the
Roman invasions completely ignore the reason for the great Roman
invasion of Britain. Never once do they mention the Edict of
Claudius, or explain that it was a war of religious
extermination, designed to crush Christianity at its source.
Evidently they were totally ignorant of the true reason. They
could easily have been enlightened by reading the Roman records
of that time. They write off the nine years of ceaseless warfare
between Roman and Briton, led by Caractacus and Arviragus against
the greatest Roman generals, as though it was of no significance.
(Oh it's not that they did not read the Roman records, I'm sure
many did; it is because of deliberate bias and just out and out
fraudulant mis-application of history. They wanted us to believe
not the truth but their purposely retelling of history from their
bias - Keith Hunt)
They give the impression that the British armies were driven
like wild sheep before the Roman Legions. Surely it takes but
little imagination from even a casual perusal of this campaign to
realize that it would not take nine years for the Roman Empire to
subdue opponents who were merely wild, painted barbarians. By
this time Rome had conquered all the world except Britain. They
had defeated mighty armies skilled in warfare and led by
brilliant kings and generals. The conquered nations they had
enslaved in Africa, Asia and Europe testify to their despotic
brutality. The same Roman generals who had accomplished these
conquests led the Roman army in Britain and failed, one after the
other.
With such a far-flung Empire to protect the Roman emperors
could not afford to keep their greatest army and best commanders
in Britain for nine years. Less could they afford the decimation
of their veteran Legions in useless combat. The enormous loss of
lives on both sides sustained in many of the battles in Britain,
according to the records, were larger than the loss in most of
the battles in World War I and World War 11. Such losses do not
indicate a leisurely Roman campaigns in Britain. In some of the
battles several of the greatest Roman generals were engaged in
conducting battle strategy at the one time. 1 This was an
experience never before called for of Roman generalship.
In World Wars I and II, when the full forces of the Allies
were engaged, their numbers greatly outnumbered the enemy. It was
the absolute reverse in the British-Roman, Claudian campaign.
Common sense shows there could only be one reason for this long
conflict. The Romans had met their match in military genius and
in man-to-man combat a warrior ferocity that outmatched their
tough veterans. The fierce, fearless spirit of the British
soldiery appalled the Romans. Their bravery and disdain of death
shocked them. The great Agricola, engaged in the British
campaign, stated that it would be no disgrace if he fell in
battle among so brave a people.
This had to be more than a defence of the shores which could
......
1 Tacitus, Agricola, ch, 14 and 17.
(The Roman historian Tacitus gives us great details in some of
the batlles and words of the Roman leaders and the British
leaderrs. 30 years ago the writings of Tacitus were easily
obtainable in the large public Libraries - it seems it is not so
easy today, maybe the Libraries of Toronto, New York, London, and
others will still have Tacitus' books - Keith Hunt)
......
have been readily ended by coming to terms with the Romans. It
was a battle against extermination of all the Briton held dear
and, as Winston Churchill promised the Nazis, would happen again.
They fought on the sands, on the fields, in the streets and the
lanes and by-ways, to very death.
On these fields the Cross of Christ was unfurled as given to
Arviragus by St. Joseph, so 'all nations should see', for the
first time in military history. This alone proclaimed what the
British were fighting for: defence of their new faith,
Christianity, the Gospel of Jesus, with the freedom it gave to
all who believed in Him.
Caractacus is given official credit as being the first
general to lead a Christian army in battle in defence of the
faith. As Pendragon of the British, elected by them in open
council, this is true. But it was Guiderius and Arviragus who led
the first battle against the Romans. It was they who first
stopped Aulus Plautius in his tracks. Guiderius was the first
British king to fall for Christ. Before Caractaus was elected
Pendragon the British battalions had marched towards the foe
flying the coat of arms bequeathed to Arviragus by Joseph, on
their battle standards and painted on their war shields and this,
long before St. George was born.
(It is very doubtful that Joseph and other disciples of Christ
ever gave their consent for any British army to go to war. The
New Testament Christian is not of this world, the New Testament
Christian cannot partake in a nation's war machine, nor stand
behind and give support to a nation's war machine. The time for
New Testament Christians to make war on physical people is when
Christ comes again; when Christians will be made immortal and
will come from the clouds of heaven with Jesus, to fight against
those who will fight Christ at His coming - Zechariah 14 - Keith
Hunt)
Fearlessly they met the full force of unconquered Rome and
defeated them. This is the imperishable record of the valiant
British in the Claudian nine-year war. Throughout the entire
campaign Arviragus fought as the right-hand man of the Pendragon,
Caractacus, and for years after when Caractacus no longer led the
British forces against the plundering, murdering Romans, he
conducted the conflict. Though the Romans destroyed every altar
in their path, not once were they able to pierce through to their
objective, the Isle of Avalon, the Sanctuary of Christendom. St.
Joseph and his Bethany companions were never molested nor was
their shrine ever violated by Roman intrusion.
(At best the leaders of the British armies were nominal
"Christians" - more political people who were defending not just
some relatively at this time, a small group of true Christians,
but were mainly defending their land against a known barborous
Empire of ruthfulness as they desired to conquer the samll area
of the known world of the West - Keith Hunt)
No better picture can be obtained of the relentless manner
in which this war was fought, with victory swinging from one side
to the other, than by reading the reports of the foremost Roman
writers, Tacitus, Martial, Juvenal and others. The story
chronicled by the pens of the enemy gives more substance to the
truth than if it were written by our own. With ungrudging
admiration they tell how the Silurian warriors, led by
Caractacus, Arviragus and the Arch Priests, swept onward in
irresistible waves over the bodies of their dead and dying
comrades with a battling savagery that appalled the hardened,
war-scarred veterans of the Roman Legions. Their fierce outcries
of defiance rang over the din and clash of sword and shield. For
the first time the Romans met women warriors fighting side by
side with their men in righteous combat. Tacitus states that
their long-flowing flaxen hair and blazing blue eyes were a
terrifying sight to behold. 1 For the first time the Roman
soldiery heard the amazing motto of the ancient Druidic
priesthood transferred into a clarion Christian battle cry: "Y
gwir erbyn y Byd", meaning "The Truth Against the World". No
finer battle cry was ever employed with equal truth. It has never
died. It has lived through the ages and today it is the motto of
the Druidical Order in Wales.
Truly the British stood alone against the world, fought
alone and died alone, even as they did in the most hazardous
early years of the last two world wars, battling for the Great
Truth and the preservation of its principles of freedom, in the
name of their accepted Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Tacitus, the Roman historian, writing of the Claudian
campaign that lasted for nine years, except for one brief six
months' pause, dismally wrote that, although Rome hurled at the
British the greatest army in her history, it failed to prevail
against the military genius of Caractacus and the reckless
fierceness of the British warrior. Many drawn battles were fought
and the famed Legions of Rome frequently suffered defeat with
terrible slaughter. On occasions when the British suffered severe
reverses Tacitus said, "The fierce ardour of the British
increased."
After two years of ceaseless warfare Claudius, recognizing
the futility of the struggle and the terrible drainage on his
finest Legions, took advantage of a reverse against Caractacus,
at Brandon Camp, A.D.45, to seek peace through an armistice. A
sixmonth truce was declared in which Caractacus and Arviragus
were invited to Rome to discuss the possibilities for peace. The
facts that followed prove that Claudius went to great lengths to
come to satisfactory terms with the obstinate British leaders.
Hoping to clinch the peace the Emperor Claudius offered to
Arviragus, in marriage, his daughter, Venus Julia. And, amazing
as it appears, they were married in Rome during the truce period,
A.D.45. 2
Here we have the strange instance of a Christian British
king becoming the son-in-law of the pagan Roman Emperor Claudius,
who had sworn to exterminate Christianity and Britain.
......
1 Tacitus, Annals, 14:30.
2 Venus Julia, named after Venus, mother of Aeneas, and of the
Julian family, therefore of Trojan stock.
(The Trojans being from the house of Judah, hence Jewish - you
will find that truth expounded on this website - Keith Hunt)
......
Surely one is justified in asking would the Emperor of a
nation, then the most powerful in the world, high in culture and
intellectual pursuits, have sacrified his natural daughter in
marriage to be the wife of a 'crude barbarian', just for the sake
of peace? Impossible. There had to be some other valid reason
and, as we shall see as time moves on, the unseen Hand of God was
writing the script. The circumstances refute the later pernicious
propaganda of the Christian-hating Romans who in their benighted
prejudice sought to label their most noble foe - barbarian.
It is inconceivable.
This marriage was but the beginning of other similar strange
circumstances that were swiftly to arise. They were to have a
tremendous influence on the Christian movement in Rome, with the
British dominating the entire scene. For sheer drama and stirring
romance these incidents have no equal in the pages of history.
During the six months' truce while Caractacus and Arviragus
were at Rome discussing peace terms and the latter was getting
married, Aulus Plautius, the Roman commander, remained in Britain
maintaining the truce on behalf of Rome. During this interval
another strange alliance took place in Britain. Gladys (Celtic
for Princess), the sister of the British war lord Caractacus, was
united in marriage to the Roman Commander-in-Chief, Aulus
Plautius! Again we witness the amazing spectacle of a member of
the Silurian royal family, a Christian, married to a Roman pagan.
Gladys had been personally converted by Joseph of Arimathea,
together with her niece, Eurgain, Guiderius, Arviragus and other
members of the British aristocracy. Like her father, the ex-King
and present Arch Druid, she was devoutly religious, completing
her religious instruction at Avalon and in association with the
Bethany women. Considering all this, one is immediately intrigued
by this unusual situation. It is made more exciting as we realize
that her brother and husband were wartime opponents.
The marriage of Gladys and Plautius is brought into the
Roman limelight by Tacitus in his Annals, 1 wherein he relates
with humour the peculiar circumstances and results of a Roman
trial in which Gladys, the wife of Plautius, is accused of being
Christian. On her marriage Gladys took the name of Pomponia,
according to Roman custom, which was the name of the Plautium
clan. Later the name Graecina was added, so that she is
thereafter known as Pomponia Graecina Plautius. The added name
was a distinctive academic
......
1 Tacitus, Annals, 13;32.
......
honour conferred upon her in recognition of her extraordinary
scholarship in Greek.
As we shall see, the truce fell through and hostilities were
resumed between the British and Romans. Following the marriage of
the Roman Commander Aulus Plautius, to the British Princess, it
appears as though the Emperor Claudius distrusted leaving further
operation of the war in Britain to Plautius. He is recalled to
Rome, A.D.47, though honourably relieved of his command.
Reference to these events and the trial of Gladys is well
covered by Tacitus, as will be noted from the following quoted
text:
"Pomponia Graecina, a woman of illustrious birth, and the wife of
Plautius, who, on his return from Britain, entered the city with
the pomp of an ovation, was accused of embracing the rites of a
foreign superstition. The matter was referred to the jurisdiction
of her husband. Plautius, in conformity to ancient usage, called
together a number of her relations, and in her presence, sat in
judgment on the conduct of his wife. He pronounced her innocent."
From our point of view, the method of the trial provides a
humorous situation.
It was the custom, by Roman law, to give priority to the
nobility to judge and settle any legal disputation where the
family was concerned. Consequently it was in order for Plautius
to judge his wife. Next we note that Pomponia is judged in the
presence of her own relations, all immediate members of the Royal
Silurian Christian household undoubtedly acting in her defence.
It is quite certain that not much defence was needed. Plautius
knew his wife Gladys was Christian before he married her, as were
all the immediate members of her family, as well as her royal
relatives. Theirs was a love marriage, free of all political
significance on either side. The fact that they were married in
Britain makes it certain that the bond of holy matrimony was
sealed by the Priesthood of her Christian faith. Evidently
Plautius had a svmpathetic leaning to the new faith, for we are
later informed that he also became a Christian. Viewed in the
light of these circumstances it as a forgone conclusion that
Plautius would judge his wife guiltless, which he did.
The Rev. C. C. Dobson, M.A., a keen student of Celtic-Roman
history, in his learned works goes into much detail covering this
whole situation, pointing out that Tacitus refers to Pomponia as
'a woman of illustrious birth' - an aristocrat. Her marriage to
the Roman nobleman bears this out. Plautius certainly recognized
her social station to have been equal to his Roman dignity. That
she was unusually talented, as well as highly cultured, is borne
out by the honour of her Roman-conferred title, 'Graecina'. The
Rev. Dobson writes, "For forty years she was a leader of the best
Roman society." A brilliant woman of wide cultural learning, she
was a past scholar in classical literature and wrote a number of
books of prose and poetry in Greek and Latin as well as in her
native language, Cymric. Their home was a meeting-place for the
talented and they were to be as intimately acquainted with the
Apostles, Peter and Paul, as Gladys had been with Joseph,
Lazarus, Mary Magdalene and the rest of the missionaries at
Avalon.
The Roman records state that when the Roman General Aulus
Plautius was recalled to Rome, A.D.47, "He took his foreign wife
with him." This statement clearly indicates that his wife was not
Roman and, since Plautius was unmarried when he arrived in
Britain and was never absent during the years of his command, his
wife had to be British.
Gladys and Plautius remained in Britain almost eighteen
months after their marriage. The armistice had proved fruitless.
The British leaders considered the peace terms unsatisfactory.
Caractacus and Arviragus did not linger in Rome; but they
returned to Britain and with Arviragus went his Roman wife, Venus
Julia. All were faced with an unpleasant situation: Plautius in
conducting the war against his in-laws, Caractacus against his
sister and brother-in-law, and Arviragus opposing his
father-in-law, the Emperor Claudius.
What Claudius and the Roman Senate had underestimated was
the unbending temper of the Britons. He was quickly to learn that
it was an impossibility for the British to make any compromise
where their religion was concerned. His faith was his most
precious treasure for which, as he has long proved, he would
willingly die but never relinquish. His religion had taught him
that his earthly life was but a stepping-stone to the eventual
goal of immortality. Following the Atonement, in the Ascension of
Christ, he had obtained satisfactory proof of the fulfilment of
the promise that death transcended the grave. It made him both
faithful and fearless. Yet he did not willingly seek death. He
fully understood that his earthly sojourn was a necessary
preparation for the after life. He recognized that Christ had set
him free and was solidly convinced that Christianity could only
be practised in absolute freedom. Interference with this freedom
is what made him the indomitable warrior as the Romans described
him. Normally the Briton was a man of peace and a respecter of
other peoples' rights. History proves that the ancient Britons
were never engaged in territorial conquest or war by invasion
except in their own defence, or for punitive reasons.
CARACTACUS CAPTURED
Ostorius Scapula had replaced Plautius and the war continued
for another seven years. Finally, after many bloody battles, the
British, under the Pendragon Caractacus, met disaster at Clune,
Shropshire, A.D.52, by a strange trick of circumstance.
Caractacus was not outmanoeuvred in this last battle by the
one General, Scapula. He opposed four of the greatest commanders
in Roman history in this action and more. Up to this point things
had been going badly against the Romans on the field of battle,
as shown by the fact that the Emperor Claudius himself, with
heavy reinforcements, came to Britain to support his generals in
the field which climaxed the action at Clune.
Opposing Caractacus in the Claudian campaign, in allied
command with Aulus Plautius, was the great Vespasian, future
Emperor of Rome, his brother and his son Titus who a few years
later was to put Jerusalem to the torch, destroy its inhabitants
and scatter the survivors of Judah over the face of the earth.
Added to this illustrious military assemblage was Geta, the
conqueror of Mauritania. As matters became desperate, an urgent
appeal for help was sent to the Emperor Claudius. He hastened to
Britain, taking with him the 2nd and 14th Legions, with their
auxiliaries, and a squadron of elephants. He landed at
Richborough, joining his other generals on the eve of the battle
of Clune, personally directing the battle which saved the day for
Rome.
It took the combined military genius of four great Roman
generals, together with the Emperor and an army that vastly
outnumbered the British, to bring about this victory. This in
itself is the greatest tribute that could be given to the
military excellence of Caractacus, the valorous British warrior.
It was a disastrous defeat.
Not only was Caractacus captured but his entire family was
taken as hostage to Rome. It was the most complete subjection of
any royal house on record by an enemy.
The British Triads commemorate the event as follows:
"There were three royal families that were conducted to prison,
from the great, great grandfather to the great grandchildren
without permitting one to escape. First the family of Llyr
Lllediaith, who was carried to prison at Rome by the Caesaridae.
Not one or another of these escaped. They were the most complete
incarcerations known as to families."
Arviragus and his family were not numbered among the
captives. Evidently he was more successful than his cousin
Caractacus in making his escape at Clune, for we read of him
reorganizing the British army and carrying on the war against
Rome for many more years.
Among the captives was the wife of Caractacus and his
daughter Gladys, as well as his brother who had remained on the
battle scene to receive the terms of the victor. Caractacus had
been urged to flee so that he might later continue the conflict.
However, fate was against him.
Caractacus sought sanctuary from Aricia, the Cartismandua of
Tacitus, queen of the Brigantes and a grand-niece of the
treacherous traitor, Mandubratius, who acquired infamy during the
Julian war. By order of the traitorous queen, Caractacus was
taken prisoner while asleep, loaded with irons and delivered to
Ostorius Scapula, to be numbered with the many other royal
captives and shipped to Rome.
Tacitus, in his Annals (bk. XII, ch.36), writes that the
news of the capture of the famed British warrior sped like
wildfire throughout Rome. The event was received by the people
with greater jubilation than had climaxed any other Roman
conquest, including the victories of Publius Scipio, when he
brought Syphas to Rome in chains and Lucius Paulus, who led the
proud Perses into captivity.
He further states that three million people crowded the,
streets of Rome to view the captive British King and the Senate
convened to celebrate.
Another Roman historian wrote:
"Rome trembled when she saw the Briton, though fast in chains." 1
What had this great 'barbarian' chief achieved to cause such
a sensation among the high and the low of the conquering Empire?
Why was he so feared that the people trembled and shrank from him
as he passed by helpless in irons? Fear and respect must have
been well deserved to make the Romans cringe in their shoes.
Being so dreaded, why did they not dispose of this 'barbarous
Christian leader' according to their usual brutal custom?
One is inclined to ponder on the mysterious workings of
Provi-
......
Morgan, St. Paul in Britain, p.99.
......
dence, as we learn from the contemporary Roman reporters that
Caractacus was the first captive kingly enemy not cast into the
terrible Tarpeian dungeons. Why? The Roman conquerors were never
noted for their clemency. They delighted in humiliating their
adversaries, satiating their bestial nature in the most fiendish
forms of torture. The greater the renown of their unfortunate
victim the less chance he had of escaping the horrors and
incarceration of the Tarpeian. This evil experience was specially
reserved for the captive kings, princes and great war generals,
who were terribly maltreated, starved, and finally strangled to
death. Their dead bodies suffered further indignity. With hooks
pierced through the broken body, it was kicked and spat on as the
mocking soldiery dragged it through the streets of the city,
finally to be cast into the nearby river like offal. Yet here was
a captive king, leader of the hated Christians, who had conducted
a devastating war against Rome over a period of years exceeding
that of any other opponent, during which time he had inflicted
many disastrous defeats upon the mightiest Roman army ever to
march on the field of battle; a warrior who had repeatedly
outmanoeuvred the ablest combination of Roman military strategy
alone, still feared and looked upon with awe mixed with
admiration.
Neither he, nor any member of the British royal family was
subject in the least to any physical indignities. 1
In those nine years of conflict Eutropius reports in his
Roman Records that thirty-two pitched battles were fought with
victory swaying from one side to the other. The British Annals
report that thirty-nine pitched battles were fought. Is there any
wonder, as Tacitus remarks, that people from all parts of Europe
poured into Rome to gaze upon this valiant warrior who had so
seriously decimated the crack Roman Legions in combat? The record
further states that Caractacus, heavily chained, walked proudly
with his relatives and family behind the chariot of the Emperor,
through the crowded streets of Rome. With this scene before us we
can cease to wonder at the series of startling events that
transpired from the beginning of the famous trial onward. 2
THE TRIAL OF CARACTACUS
On the day of the trial, Tacitus tells us that his daughter
Gladys refused to be separated from her father, though it was
against the Roman law for a woman to enter the Senate.
Voluntarily she walked by the side of Caractacus, up the
marble steps into the Senate, as brave and as composed as her
father.
The report continues, the Pendragon stood before the Emperor
......
1 Tacitus, Annals, 12:37. 2 Tacitus, Annals, 12:36.
......
full chest, a noble figure, fearless, calmly defiant, unconquered
in spirit. The Senate was crowded to capacity and here again we
note another breach of Roman law in the presence of another
woman. History tells us that the great Queen Agrippira sat on her
throne, on the far corner of the Dais, a fascinated witness to
the most famous trial in Roman history.
This man who should have been the most hated as the leader
of the Christian army drew admiration from all sides as he stood
poised before his sworn enemy, the Emperor Claudius.
Such was the fame of the gallant Christian Briton -
Caractacus. As the trial proceeded he spoke in a clear voice,
trenchant with the passion of righteous vigour, as he vindicated
the rights of a free man. He replied to his prosecutors with
words that have lived down through the ages. Probably it is the
only episode in this great Christan warrior's life that is
remembered by posterity. Free men the world over may read his
epic address with blood-warming pride as the pen of Tacitus
worded it.
In the words of Tacitus, Caractacus addressed the Senate:
"Had my government in Britain been directed solely with a view to
the preservation of my hereditary domains, or the aggrandizement
of my own family, I might long since have entered this city an
ally, not a prisoner: nor would you have disdained for a friend a
king descended from illustrious ancestors, and the dictator of
many nations. My present condition, stript of its former majesty,
is as adverse to myself as it is a cause of triumph to you. What
then? I was lord of men, horses, arms, wealth; what wonder if at
your dictation I refused to resign them? Does it follow, that
because the Romans aspire to universal domination, every nation
is to accept the vassalage they would impose? I am now in your
power - betrayed, not conquered. Had I, like others, yielded
without resistance, where would have been the name of Caradoc?
Where your glory? Oblivion would have buried both in the same
tomb. Bid me live. I shall survive for ever in history one
example at least of Roman clemency." 1
Never before or after was such a challenging speech heard by
a Roman Tribunal in the Roman Senate. It is the one solitary case
in history. Spoken by a Briton, vibrant with the courageous
conviction of a free man.
......
1 Tacitus. Annals, 12:37.
......
This noble address was once the proud oration of every
British schoolboy; now, like the Songs of Tara, heard no more.
How cheaply today Christians hold this cherished heritage.
For many years students of Roman history puzzled their brains
seeking for a reason or motive that caused the Emperor Claudius
to render his remarkable verdict. Why, they ask, did not Claudius
demand the customary Roman revenge? The pages of history are full
of their brutal 'triumphs': dragging their unfortunate victims
behind chariots; trampling them to death under the feet of
elephants as they were forced to lie prostrate along the avenue
of triumph; thrown to the starving lions in the arena; torn apart
on the wrack, strangled, burnt or confined to the horrible pit of
the Mamertine where they went stark raving mad.
Did the strange intermarriages between princely Britons and
Roman aristocrats, which was also to penetrate into his own
family, induce Claudius to make his extraordinary decision?
Historians definitely declare to the contrary. Emphatically
they affirm that the Roman law was so embedded in the conscience
of the Romans, that they would not think, let alone dare to avert
traditional ruling.
Nevertheless there and then by order of the Claudian
Tribunal, Caractacus, with all the members of the royal Silurian
family, were immediately set free. As the decision was rendered,
we are told that the whole Senate applauded loudly. And the famed
Queen Agrippira rose from her dais, approaching the Pendragon,
and his daughter Gladys, shaking hands with each according to
British fashion, then embracing them, according to the Roman.
This display of emotion was another strange deviation from
custom. 1
The only restriction imposed in the pardon of Caractacus was
that he must remain at Rome, on parole for seven years, and
neither he, or any member of his family, were ever to bear arms
against Rome. To this Caractacus agreed and never once thereafter
did he break his pledge. When he returned to Britain seven years
later, even though war was then raging between Briton and Roman,
led by the unrelenting Arviragus, Caractacus and his family
remained aloof, honour bound. While he remained in Rome he
enjoyed all the privileges of a freeman. With his family he
resided at the Palatium Britannicum - "the Palace of the British"
- which was soon to become world famous in Christian deeds and
history. A sons 2 had been permitted to return to Britain and
rule over the kingdom of the Welsh Silurians in the stead of his
father. During
......
1 Tacitus, Annals, 12:37. 2 St. Cyllinus, Records of Jestyn
ap Gwrgant.
......
the seven years of parole Caractacus was allowed to receive
regularly the income from his British estates so that he and his
family might continue to live in state, as befitted a royal
household.
WHY CLEMENCY ON CARACTACUS AND FAMILY?
Why Claudius bestowed such generous clemency upon the royal
Britons, knowing full well he could never force them to recant
their faith, is something which cannot be reasoned in material
form. A greater influence was at work in which all these
characters were but pawns on the Divine chessboard, moved in
their actions by the inscrutable will of the Almighty, as the
astounding events that follow prove so clearly, with St. Paul and
this branch of the Silurian royal family holding the spotlight at
Rome.
In concluding the chapter on the valiant Caractacus, it
should prove of interest to consider the validity of the remark
he made in his address before the Roman Tribune, in which he
states he was "betrayed - not conquered".
Do the facts support his contention? Undoubtedly they do.
It was the unpredictable conditions that brought about the defeat
of the British. Overwhelmed by numbers, as they were, it was
circumstance and not arms that wrought the catastrophe.
As stated before, Claudius had brought over to Britain a
squadron of elephants, with other reinforcements, to bolster the
distressed Legions of Aulus Plautius. This was the first time
these strange creatures had been seen in Britain. They were
introduced into the fight with the hope that their massive
charging weight would offset the havoc wrought upon the Roman
army by the British war chariots, armed with scythes on their
wheels.
Neither the size nor the charges of these monsters dismayed
the British. It was the offensive odour of the elephants that
distracted and panicked the horses that drove the British
chariots of war. Going completely out of control the horses and
chariots wrought more havoc within the British lines during the
battle than did the arms of the Romans. 1
Added to this dilemma was the treachery of the Coraniaid, a
clan long known for their traitorous dealings. The Romans had
succeeded in buying them over. Unknown to Caractacus this
insurgent army were hidden in his rear. The enemy had shaped up
into the form of a letter L on the field of battle, with the
Roman cavalry attacking the British flank. Striving to
concentrate on this attack while the frenzied horses ran amok in
the centre, the Pendragon was taken by surprise when the hidden
Coraniaids
......
1 Dion Cassius.
......
attacked into the rear. Defeat was inevitable. Seeing all was
lost, Caractacus was urged by his brother and others to flee the
field before it was too late. He made good his escape but the
betrayal of the Pendragon by his cousin Aricia prevented him from
connecting with Arviragus, to carry on the conflict. Thus, by the
unhappy accident that attend the fortunes of war, Caractacus
stated in truth that he was betrayed and not conquered.
Later Arviragus avenged the treachery of the Coraniaid,
warring through their domain and taking a terrible vengeance.
It is of peculiar interest to note that during the nine-year
Claudian campaign the Silurians did not receive any
reinforcements from the north, nor from Gaul, to whose defence
the British had gone on many occasions over the past years.
Neither did help come from Hibernia (Ireland) or Caledonia
(Scotland). The fact is that help was almost impossible. The
Romans used Gaul as a jumpingoff place to invade Britain, thus
Gaullish aid was prevented. The Roman navy would block the
Hibernians and Caledonia was too sparsely inhabited. At that time
the migration of the Scots from Hibernia into the Caledonian
highlands had not yet taken place. The powerful northern
Brigantes were under the influence of their traitorous Queen who
sold out Caractacus to the Romans. Aricia was later deposed and
the powerful Yorkshire Britons from then on played an important
part in firmly rooting the new Christ faith in Britain. In fact
many years after, when the faith appeared to weaken, it was the
Yorkshire Britons who strengthened the foundation of Christianity
that ensured its enduring perpetuation in Britain.
These can be the only reasonable conclusions for the
Silurians bearing the brunt of the Roman prosecution. If the
whole Celtic nation could have marched as one it is certain that
the Romans would have been quickly and decisively defeated and
expelled from the Island. With an odd exception, which is ever
the rule, there was no unfriendliness among the Celtic peoples.
They were staunchly Druidic to begin with, and all showed their
eagerness to absorb the instruction of the Christ faith.
Throughout the Claudian campaign the Irish and Pictish
records tell of an ever-flowing stream of neophytes and delegates
from the various kingdoms, journeying to Avalon to receive at
first hand instruction from the Arimathean Culdees.
It was a greater authority than that of man which decided
the Claudian issue. If it had been otherwise St. Paul would most
certainly have been seriously handicapped in carrying out the
responsibility placed upon him by our Lord to preach to the
Gentiles.
THE USE OF LATIN
The historic tribute to Caractacus is, that WITHOUT the aid
of his Christian allies he had proven his sterling ability
against the Montgomerys and Eisenhowers of his day. By valour of
arms and military strategy he had outmatched them. In the quality
of his address before the Roman Tribune we see a man of high
integrity and intelligence. His oration is worthy of a Winston
Churchill. Yet this is the Briton whom short-sighted historians
refer to as 'barbarian'. It could be of interest to the
despoilers of historic truth to learn that Caractacus addressed
the Roman Tribunal in their own language - Latin. This
vernacular, not being that of the British, had necessarily to be
culturally acquired. We are authoritatively informed that the
Celtic priesthood employed their own common language in compiling
their sacred works, using Greek exclusively for civil
transcriptions. Latin was not adopted in British ecclesiastical
liturgies until centuries later, yet Latin was as familiar to
their tongue as was Greek and Hebrew. The long association
Britain had with Rome in commerce, culture and social affairs had
made each conversant with the other on common grounds.
FOLLOWING THE JULIAN CAMPAIGN OF 55 B.C.
Following the Julian campaign Of 55 B.C., we learn that
British citizens were the only people permitted to walk the
streets of Rome as freemen. Actually this privilege was older
than the Julian report; nevertheless, by this act and statement
it is clearly shown that the only people in the world who were
truly freemen and freewomen were the British. Freedom was an
all-consuming passion with them as Titus, the son of the Emperor
Vespasian, was to learn on other fields of battle than that at
Clune. Titus fought thirty battles to subdue the short coastal
areas of Anglesey and the Isle of Wight without gratifying
results.
No Briton ever entered the Temples of Jupiter but, in the
ensuing years, thousands of Roman soldiery who served in Britain
turned to Jesus, kneeling before the Christian altars with the
Christian British.
The banner of the Cross under which Caractacus led the
British troops for nine years was to be unfurled at Rome and
accepted by the Romans as their national insignia. It was the
family of Caractacus who first unfurled that standard at Rome and
the family of Arviragus who made it steadfast.
In the end the Silureans conquered Rome for Christ.
..........
NOTE:
Well yes some during this period of time did become "Christian" -
and some more deeply Christian than others. Obviously some were
still very much "political" and "military" unfluenced .... so it
would have been in those days, as it was in the days of
Constantine 300 or so years later, coming from Britain to fight
on Europe's soil, and his supposed vision of seeing the "cross"
and being told to fight under it as his standard-bearing emblem -
which he did and won the Roman crown.
But God does work in wonderful and mysterious ways at times, His
work to perform. It was time for Britain to have Christianity,
and it was time for Britain to start on the road to GREATNESS,
that over time would indeed give her the name GREAT Britain, and
an empire that at one time the sun never set on - a world wide
empire, as never seen before in the history of mankind, greater
than ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, China, and any other
empire you care to think of. Truly it was now the beginning of
the time when the promises from God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and
Joseph, would start to come to pass - a GREAT COMPANY OF NATIONS
FROM EPHRIAM JOSEPH/ISRAEL THAT WOULD SPREAD AROUND THE WORLD.
Keith Hunt
To be continued with "British Foundations of the Church at Rome"
The Lost Disciples to Britain #9
The Church at Rome!
DRAMA OF LOST DISCIPLES TO BRITAIN #9
by the late George Jowett (1961)
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 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 the 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 sombre 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 Martyrologies, preserved to the present, are most
illuminating. Therein are recorded the happenings and dates, in
many cases but briefly detailed, 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 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 centres for
co-operative study. In the U.S.A. the Knights of Columbus raised
a large fund to purchase a special centre 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, Rouen, 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
ancient
......
1 Rabanus Maurus.
......
Britons and the work of the Apostles in Britain, out of the realm
of legend, myth and superstition into the light of reality. The
most 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 at Rome begins 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 not 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 at Rome: the
Jewish Church of the 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 Ronian 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 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 turn
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 at 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 that was eventually to
swing the tide in favour 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 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 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 the Emperor
Claudius. The next unusual event was in 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 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
What could be a stranger circumstance than that of the
British Pendragon Caractacus permitting his favourite 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 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.
......
1 Morgan, St. Paul in Britain, pp.103-107.
......
An idea can 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 Hermas refers to this munificent home as "amplissimus
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, war would not
have continued but, as history shows, the conflict of arms
between Briton and Roman 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 unbroken 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, 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 the 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
Undoubtedly the attachment between Claudia and Pudens began
in Britain, though one wonders how such a friendly social status
could develop when Briton and Roman 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 to 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
......
1 Vol. 4, p.18.
......
lingered and 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 honour 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 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
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 titles - 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
......
1 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 honoured 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
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
honour 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 torn 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 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
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 favour 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-
......
1 Tacitus, Agricola, I4.
......
paration for the role they were all to play in the world's
greatest drama, under direction of St. Paul.
We now see residing at the Palatium Britannicum the High
Priest Bran, King Caracatacus and the Queen, his wife; his
daughter, the 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 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 centre in Rome. Martial, the Roman epigrammatist, of
Spanish birth, was a constant visitor who valued the scholarship
of the Pudens so highly that 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, blueeyed 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 humour 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.1184.
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
......
1 Morgan, St. Paul in Britain.
......
"Our Claudia, named 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 Claudia
and 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 which should never be forgotten. They should be written in
red and spiked with nails of gold on the walls in every Christian
home. All were martyred. 1
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 10:11, 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
......
1 Roman Martyrololgies.
......
favourite Apostles who frequented her home, St. Timothy, Bishop
of Ephesus. He was closely associated with St. John and St. Paul.
To Timotheus, St. Paul refers as '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.
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 the 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 especially elected by the
Church Fathers to produce the historic literary record; therefore
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, Stillingfleet,
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 those at 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 outruled by the facts. A
spiritual mother, or father, was one who had converted another.
As we all know, Christ 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
Benjamites. 1 From this it is obvious that his mother was
probably 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 said so. On the contrary, Pudens
senior and his family are written of 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
......
1 Romans 11:1.
......
turn this made 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 substantiates 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 that St. Paul had other relatives
at Rome whom he addressed in his salutations, notably Adronicus,
Junea and Herodian. They also became partakers of the Pudens'
Christian hospitality. They had been converted long before St.
Paul arrived at 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 at Rome. The sacrificial act is made more
courageous in the fact that Nero, the 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 centre for the Christian gathering to
worship. Hernias conducted the services. He was the first
minister to the Christian flock in secret session. 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.
Who would this great and grave honour be conferred upon?
Linus, the son of Caractacus, who had remained at Rome, had long
before been baptized and confirmed by St. Joseph of Arimathea 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 at 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 the 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 endeavours 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: I. Palatium
Britannicum; 2. Titulus; 3. Hospitium Apostolorum; 4. Lastly, as
St. Pudentiana, in honour 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 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 first Bishop of the Church at Rome. He
further states that Paul performed the ordination and not he. 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 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 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
Irenaeus, 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. Afterwards he became a presbyter of
Lyons, in Gaul. From Lyons he was sent as a delegate to the
Asiatic churches.
......
1 Bk. i, 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"; Fpistola, ch. 5.
6 Irenaei Opera, 3:1.
......
He succeeded Photinus in the Bishopric and was martyred
under order of Severus.
Linus, the First Bishop of the First Christian Church at
Rome, was also its first martyr. Of this royal Christian family
Claudia 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 died the
following year, A.D.97, in Samnium. This beautiful, glorious
woman was spared the agony of seeing her four noble children
butchered for Christ. The beloved Pudentiana, immortalized in The
Roman Yartyrologies, and by Martial, was executed on the
anniversary of the death of her father, A.D.107, during the
third Roman Christian persecution. After her martyrdom, the name
of the Palatium Britannicum was changed and consecrated by name
to her memory. Her 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, King 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 in 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,
interring it on the private burial grounds on the Pudens estate,
where they were all to rest together. It was truly a dangerous
operation.
Christian ersecution was again at fever-pitch. One may
wonder why the names of others were 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 as still respected as the adopted daughter of the
late Emperor Claudius. Many 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 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
sisterin-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 Linus, whom he had
consecrated and appointed First Bishop; to Eubulus, 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 at 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 laboured 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 ever 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
the 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 (Hermas), 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 Praxades, virgins of Christ,
with their own hands interred."
How many 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 splendour of the Vatican Palace and
other sumptuous buildings, not one Christian stops to view this
hallowed place which 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 time-weathered walls. Within
its sacred precincts trod two of the greatest of Christ's
Apostles, Peter and Paul; this the first Christian church at 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 valour of the British arms prevented the Roman or
any other foreign invader from violation of the Glastonbury
sanctuary. This protection was denied, by understandable
circumstances, to the church at 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 soul. 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 gentle
women, 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 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
"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 mass of
corroborative evidence, simply because their glory has been
overshadowed by the ages, lost in antiquity to thoughtless minds?
One can search in vain the modern church Calendars of Martyrs for
the 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 honour. Yet we can still turn 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.
2 Vol. 1, p.16.
......
August 22. Natal Day of St. Timotheus, son of St. Pudens, in the
Via Oatiensis.
September 2I. 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 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.
...................
NOTE:
SO IS THE RECORD OF TRUE HISTORY THAT MOST HAVE
FORGOTTEN, OR REJECTED, TO FURTHER THEIR ERRORS OF THEOLOGY
AS IT GREW IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHO AT THE
SAME TIME PRESERVED THE ACTUAL TRUTH OF THE MATTER. BUT
PEOPLE IGNORE TRUTH FOR THEY DID NOT LIKE TO BE
CORRECTED, OR HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND-SET, WHICH WOULD
ALSO TRANSLATE INTO HAVING TO CHANGE THE WAY THEY LIVE
AND THE CUSTOMS THEY PRACTICE. MEN LIKE TO FOLLOW THE
IDEAS AND TRADITIONS OF OTHER MEN, HENCE AS JESUS SAID
MAKING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD OF NO EFFECT.
BUT ***YOU*** DEAR READER CAN FIND THE TRUTH OF GOD AND
OF HISTORY ON THIS WEBSITE THAT IS DEVOTED TO THE
COMING RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS. YES ALL WILL BE
RESTORED TO ITS PURITY WHEN JESUS COMES AGAIN TO
ESTABLISH THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH.
Keith Hunt
To be continued with "Did Mary live and die in Britain?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment