a more easy victory.1 In another general meeting, the chief teachers of Pelagianism—probably the same persons who had been expelled from Gaul, in conformity with an edict of the Emperor Valentinian-were condemned to banishment from Britain, and delivered into the custody of Germanus on his departure from the island. His companion in this mission was Severus of Treves, the disciple of his former colleague.2

The history of this mission is not calculated to impress the reader with a very high notion of the acquirements of the British clergy; but there is

' Constant. Vit. Germ. ii. 1-4. Erric, Vit. St. Germ. 1. iv. Ussher is positive that the second visit of St. Germanus occurred at a much later period than is stated by Erric and Beda. Brit. Eccles. Antiq. c. xii. p. 435.

2 Omnium sententia pravitatis auctores, expulsi ab insula, sacerdotibus adducuntur ad Mediterranea deferendi. Const. Vit. Germ. 1. xi. c. 3, 4. On these missions of Germanus and his companions a huge mass of fable was afterwards raised by the collectors of Welsh traditions. With them Wales is the favourite spot visited by the Gallic prelates: there they reform the state of the church, introduce the division into parishes, establish two choirs of saints, or colleges of monks, at Llancarvan and Caerworgan (now Lantwit), educate, by themselves. or their disciples, the chief of the Welsh saints, depose kings, appoint bishops, and work miracles of the most ridiculous description. Of all these things, Constantius, the original historian, knew nothing. He seems to have been ignorant that the missionaries ever visited Wales. According to his narrative they proceeded from the coast to Verulam (or St. Alban's), and, after the general meeting of the neighbouring British tribes, returned home. If but a small part of what has been attributed to St. Germanus were true, his memory must still have been held in veneration in Wales at the time when Gildas wrote. Gildas has not even mentioned him. On Gildas, see note (B.)

another transaction connected with it which seems to impeach their zeal in the cause of religion. While Germanus and Lupus were still in the country, an army was collected to defend a pass, through which it was expected that a numerous body of Saxon marauders would attempt to penetrate. The Gallic prelates hastened to the camp about the middle of Lent, spent the intermediate time in catechising and instructing the people, and on Easter eve administered the sacrament of baptism in a temporary church, which had been formed of branches for the occasion. It was found that the baptized on that night amounted to the majority of the whole force;1 whence we may reasonably conclude that, though the British hierarchy had existed above two hundred years, yet one-half of the population were still either idolaters, worshipping the gods of their fathers, or men who hesitated to be admitted into the Christian church that they might with less restraint indulge in criminal gratification.

This brief and imperfect notice is the sum of all that is known respecting the history of the British church during the first five centuries: a knowledge derived not from national and authentic documents, for no such documents are in existence,2 but from

'Maxima exercitus multitudo undam lavacri salutaris expetiit......recens de lavacro pars major exercitus. Const. 1. Î, c. 28. Beda, i. c. 20. The site of their baptism and subsequent victory is placed by Ussher at Maesgarmon (or German's field), in the parish of Mold in Flintshire. The name may answer, but not the locality; for it is very improbable that Germanus ever travelled as far as the north of Wales, or that the Saxon adventurers should land on the western instead of the eastern or southern coast of Britain.

2

Quippe quæ, si qua fuerint, aut ignibus hostium

isolated passages scattered here and there in the pages of foreign historians. The case is the same with regard to its hierarchy and discipline, and its doctrine and worship. They are subjects on which we can learn nothing from direct evidence: though from the presence of British bishops in foreign synods, and from the occasional remarks of foreign writers, we may conclude, that the British church, as long as the island remained under the dominion of Rome, was in catholic communion with the other western churches. But from the moment that the emperors withdrew their forces from Britain, we are left in utter darkness. Continental writers seem to have forgotten the existence of a British church; and it is not till after the lapse of a hundred years that we meet with the work and epistle of Gildas, de Excidio Britanniæ. Gildas was a Briton; he wrote about the year 550, the darkest period of British history, and describes matters with which, being a contemporary, he must have been perfectly conversant. Unfortunately his object led him to declamaexusta, aut civium exilii classe longius deportata, non compareant. Hist. Gild. § 4, p. 13. Such was the complaint of Gildas as early as in the sixth century. We have, indeed, a work of the fifth century, which has been supposed to be of British origin; but is of no historical interest, being a treatise De vita Christiana et viduitate servanda. By Gennadius, of Marseilles, the author is said to have been Fastidius, a Briton according to one MS., a bishop of the Britons according to another (Fabric. Biblioth. Gennad. c. lvi.). Gennadius wrote about the year 490 and the probability is, that the Fastidius whom he mentions, came not from this island, but was one of the Armorican Britons. His work was published at Rome, by Holstein, in 1663,and may also be found in the appendix to the sixth volume of the Benedictine edition of the works of St. Augustine.

:

tion rather than narrative-to prove, or attempt to prove, that the evils which his countrymen suffered were sent in punishment of the immorality of the people. Yet two things may be collected from his pages: first, that the state of public morals among the Britons, owing probably to habits of incessant warfare, frequently against the Saxons, and still more frequently among themselves, was such as would have been disgraceful to a heathen people. Both laity and clergy come successively under the lash of the writer. As samples of the laity, he exhibits to us the portraits of five British princes, living at the time, whom he dignifies with the titles of kings, and describes as monsters of depravity; charging them in detail with injustice and rapine, licentiousness and debauchery, perjury and murder.1 Of the clergy he speaks in more general terms, but with equal severity. They are the ministers of Christ in name but not in conduct; they are called pastors but are in reality wolves; they are unable to correct the vices of the people because they indulge in the same vices themselves. They are defiled with simony, are unchaste, arrogant, luxurious.2 There is, it must be owned, an appearance of bitterness in his zeal, a tone of exaggeration in his style, which should put us on our guard: yet no one who reads him can doubt that the picture which he has drawn is in general correct; otherwise he would have defeated his own purpose, which was to hold up his countrymen to themselves, and to shame and scare them by the faithful representation of their own wickedness.

1 See note (B.)

2 Gild. 37, 72.

2. It is also clear from Gildas, that the Britons still professed the religion of their Christian ancestors. Religion was not, indeed, the subject which he undertook to discuss; yet he could not describe the manners of his countrymen, especially of the clergy, without occasional allusions to their doctrine and worship; on which account the following attempt has been made to glean, from expressions scattered accidentally through his pages, some information respecting their religious belief and the manners of their clergy. That information must of necessity be very imperfect, and confined to few particulars; yet, as far as it goes, it is authentic, and deserving of attention.

It appears then, 1st, that the Britons believed in the oneness of the Godhead, and the trinity of the persons; in the divine and human nature of Christ, in the redemption of mankind through his death, and in the endless duration of the bliss of heaven and of the pains of hell.

2nd. That their hierarchy consisted of bishops, priests, and other ministers; that a particular service was employed at their ordination; that the hands of the bishops and priests were anointed and blessed; that they were looked upon as successors of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and bearer of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; that they sate in his seat, and inherited his power of binding and loosing; and that it was their duty to teach the people, and to offer sacrifice, to stretch out their hands at the most holy sacrifices of Christ.

3rd. That the Britons had monasteries, inhabited by monks under their abbot; that the monks made