Watchman's Teaching Letter #13 May 1999
This is the thirteenth in a series of teaching letters. In the last teaching letter (twelfth), I showed you the true meaning of Daniel 7:24-25. I brought much documentation concerning how Justinian subdued three nations, and how he codified and modified the former Roman laws. I further showed how the Roman church adopted Justinian’s laws and enforced them upon the laity for a prophesied period of 1,260 years. While most of the continent of Europe was suffering under the Justinian law codes, Britain was under an entirely different type of law. With this lesson, we will explore the kind of law Britain employed along with its origin. Also, with this lesson, we will be getting into areas few teachers wish to contemplate or talk about when they consider Judah. This lesson is going to fit hand in glove with lesson twelve. Again, I will remind you in advance, THIS LESSON HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH JUDAH!
Now Continuing the Topic:
JUST WHO IS THIS PATRIARCH, JUDAH? (Part 13)
With this lesson, we are going to get into the history of the Zerah branch of Judah (sometimes spelled Zara). Unless this history is learned, you will arrive at many false conclusions of Scripture. There are multitudes who don’t know this history, and as a natural result, many are under strange delusions on many passages of Scripture. Examples of these will be discussed later. To get a favorable beginning on this subject, I am going to quote from the book, Father Abraham’s Children, by Perry Edwards Powell, Ph. D., pages 98-101:
Let us put it in a different way, here is the beginning of royalty. What else does scepter mean? Judah led in the conquest of Canaan and received the first and choicest portion. David raised it to pre-eminence over the tribes and the nations. He is the first king of the Judah-Pharez line, and he did not appear for seven hundred years. Was there and is there an older line of royalty? The answer is, Yes. The Judah-Zerah was royal from the beginning. The two royalties are now merged and have been for centuries in the British royal house. And how long shall we have royalty? ‘Until Shiloh comes.’ [The future] Shiloh came to Bethlehem, the first Advent, and will come again [as Shiloh] at the end of time, the second Advent. Royalty is eternal. The throne of David is everlasting. There is no royalty in Europe but descends from Judah. And the Judah-Zerah royalty is, we repeat, seven hundred years older than Judah-Pharez because it began at once. You can read Genesis 38 to see how royalty began [but there is much more to talk about].
Another great event is recorded in Genesis 46:12, [if we dare mention it]. Here we can read the census of those of the family of Jacob who went with him into Egypt, eventually into Egyptian bondage though they did not know it at the time. Pharez took with him his two sons, (which did not include Shelah). Now Zerah went alone. No son accompanied him. We will see where the son later traveled. Here is the inference and the conclusion, The Trojan-Welsh by-passed the Egyptian captivity, and all other captivities and have never been in slavery to any man, in any land, at any time.
Zerah’s son Ethan, very wise, and indeed this line of Judah-Zerah is the only royal line termed wise, on the other hand led his people north, from Egypt where he was born, into what is now Asia Minor, and his son Mahol continued likewise. Mahol’s heir, Darda, reached the western shore, where on a commanding site, he founded the metropolis of Troy. The date is 1520 B.C. Here the city flourished for nearly four hundred years. Darda first saw the straits that separated Europe and Asia and gave them his name, Dardanelles. Darda also founded a fort here that is named after him. But the greatest honor is recorded in the Bible, Solomon was ‘wiser than all men; than ... Darda the son of Mahol.’ Thus great was the founder of Troy and the sire of the Trojan race whose children abide with us still. Troy fell because her sons had an eye for the refined and beautiful in woman (sic.). Her descendants have that exquisite eye still and are naturally very proud of the accomplishment. ...
When Troy fell she did so to arise on another shore in eternal and imperial splendor. I am not referring to Italy. That empire though long was ephemeral (short-lived). Italy is an interlude only. Aeneas, a member of the old royal family, attained the kingship, led the saddened Trojans around the Mediterranean Sea, as graphically described in the Aenead, and finally brought them to their new home on the Tiber in Italy. Including this Italian interlude, the Trojan period embraced 417 years.
Here on the Tiber happened a very sad event, too sad to be recalled, and would not be except for its denouement (final outcome). Brutus was one day hunting with his father Silvius, when he spied the prey, as he thought, and let fly an arrow. On running up he was shocked and grieved to find that he had killed his own father! Some people then, as now, were censorious and Brutus departed from the new colony, from which later sprang Rome, and with his royal followers, went to Greece, rallied the enslaved Trojans, defeated King Pendrasus, thus erasing the defeat of Troy, and as victor exacted these terms; he must give his daughter Ignoge for wife, furnish a big fleet of ships fully provisioned, for his emigrant force of seven thousand men, and free permission for them to sail unmolested. ...
Brutus, now with an object and direction, steered west through the straits of Hercules, then northward along the east Atlantic main, across the English Channel to the present river Dart, and up its stream to Totnes where stepping on a large stone he landed on the great island which was ever to bear his name as a memorial among the proud nations of the world. This rock, more famous throughout the centuries than Plymouth Rock, is marked as Brutus Rock, and has been visited perennially by people of all nations, all ranks, and all ages. With his people he explored the whole island and he apportioned to each one according to Name= Priority=falsefalse/w:LsdExceptionw:LsdException Locked=61p class=wise, and indeed this line of Judah-Zerah is the only royal line termed wise, on the other hand led his people north, from Egypt where he was born, into what is now Asia Minor, and his son Mahol continued likewise. Mahol’s heir, Darda, reached the western shore, where on a commanding site, he founded the metropolis of Troy. The date is 1520 B.C. Here the city flourished for nearly four hundred years. Darda first saw the straits that separated Europe and Asia and gave them his name, Dardanelles. Darda also founded a fort here that is named after him. But the greatest honor is recorded in the Bible, Solomon was ‘wiser than all men; than ... Darda the son of Mahol.’ Thus great was the founder of Troy and the sire of the Trojan race whose children abide with us still. Troy fell because her sons had an eye for the refined and beautiful in woman (sic.). Her descendants have that exquisite eye still and are naturally very proud of the accomplishment. ... his rank and services. At last he decided the proper place for his capital, a choice bank of the Thames river, so named for a stream, Thyamis, in Epirus from which he first sailed, and there he built his metropolis, and according to the advice of the oracle, he named it Tri Novantum, New Troy. This name it bore for over eleven hundred years when King Lud at the beginning of the Christian era built her walls and renamed her Luddun, Lud’s wall, easily refined into London. London is also derived by some from Llandin, meaning ‘Sacred eminence.’ London dates from three hundred-fifty years before Rome. Why should Rome be called the Eternal City?
This background history sets the stage for the rest of the story of Judah-Zerah. When one considers over 3,500 years of history, only a fraction of that history can be conveyed in this series of teaching letters. It just simply cannot all be told in one letter. There isn’t enough space here to tell the entire story, but Judah-Zerah in Britain had the same Judah-Zerah family background as Rome, and I hope you noticed the account mentioned heretofore above, for this is going to play a very important part in this narrative. Although, Britain and Rome were Judah-Zerah kinsmen brothers, the roles they play in history are at opposite ends of the field in politics, law and religion. Judah-Zerah was not the only Israelite tribe to settle in Britain, but Judah-Zerah was far-and-away the most important. Because the above history is not very well known, it might be well to read it over several times to get familiar with it as you would with the Bible. To pick up more of the story, I will now quote from the book, Father Abraham’s Children, by Perry Edwards Powell, Ph. D., pages 102-103:
When Julius Caesar was planning the invasion of Great Britain in 55 B.C., he reveals to us the quandary that he was in and the relationship of the Roman and the Briton; ‘In truth we Romans and Britons have the same origin, since both are descended from the Trojan race. Our first father, after the destruction of Troy, was Aeneas; theirs Brutus, whose father was Silvius, the son of Ascanius, the son of Aeneas ... we must send them word ... for fear we should violate the ancient nobility of our father Priam, by shedding the blood of our kinsmen.’
Rome and Britain are at variance in their primitive history. Rome always emphasizes the story of Romulus and Remus who, bereft of their own mother, and cast into the flooded Tiber, were rescued by a she-wolf who took them to her den and played the mother act. A woodpecker also carried them dainties from her store. Thus their lives were preserved for the great benefit of humanity! This delectable bit from the far past is in our histories and schoolrooms as something to be remembered. It is enough to say that we have nothing so savory in the ancient past of old Britain. Perhaps that is the reason that our schools pass over the founding of the British Empire by Trojan-Welsh. But some time the whole story will be written and told.
Brutus reigned praiseworthily for twenty-four years. Then Britain was divided as today. Locrin, the eldest son, received the choicest portion, England, for fifteen hundred years called Loegria; Camber inherited the western division called after his name Cambria, now Wales; and Albanact the rest or northern portion drew, then and even now spoken of as Albany, or Albania, now Scotland. Locrin was the over-king. The great work of Brutus is with us today. Lord Chief Justice Cope of England affirms; ‘The original laws of the land were composed of such elements that Brutus first selected from the ancient Greek and Trojan institutions.’ And in the same strain writes Lord Chancellor Fortescu, ‘So the kingdom of Britain had its origin from Brutus of the Trojans, who attended him from Greece and Italy and wove a mixed government, compounded of the regal and the democratic’
The Roman writers and travellers after much experience admit that Britons (Cymry) had laws that excelled their own, and were highly skilled in agriculture. ‘The extraordinary similarity that exist between many of our early laws’, says Yeatman, ‘and those of the Israelites might raise an inference that they were copied from them after the introduction of Christianity, but positive evidence exists of their pre-existence.’ The common law is identical in principal with what was known as the Law of the Lord as given in the books of Exodus.’ The British system of law is superior to any other European system although several countries were more benefitted (?) by Rome.
From all of this we can see, while most of the continent of Europe struggled under Roman law which was later codified by Justinian, Britain was thriving on laws based on the laws of Yahweh. For more on British law, I am going to quote from, Celt, Druid and Culdee, by Isabel Hill Elder, pages 25, 49, and 77:
Page 25- Another point on which Britain differs from other countries is that she has ever maintained the Common Law which holds a person under trial innocent until proven guilty, whereas the Continental nations maintain the Civil Law [of Justinian] which holds him guilty until proven innocent.
Page 49- That the Britons adopted anything they thought good from the Romans is perfectly true; they did not, however, abandon any of their old essential laws and customs and still less their religion. But it is untrue to say that the Britons had no previous civilization of their own as it is to pretend that Roman laws and customs permanently established themselves in Britain and remained after the legions were withdrawn. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the ancestors of the British, centuries before the Romans gained a footing in these islands, were a polished and intellectual people, skilled in arms as well as in learning, with a system of jurisprudence of their own superior, even to the laws of Rome.
Page 77- Cusack says that the whole system of government and legislation was patriarchal — indicative of an Eastern origin — and that in the Brehon laws, said to be the oldest code of laws in Europe, there are evidences which look very like a trace of Jewish (Judah-Zerah) tradition.
Another writer affirms that the Brehon Code in parts is a re-publication of the Mosaic law which declared that the first-born of every creature, including the first-born of man, was to be presented to the Lord (Exod. 13:2; Num. 18:15).
In this connection it is interesting to note that the Welsh call the Irish Iddew and the country Iddewan or Jewsland.
Camden gives a quotation from Postellius’ lecture on Pomponius Mela, a first-century writer: ‘Ireland was called Jurin, quasi Jewsland, because in the distant past the Jews [Judahites of] (Israel), who were great soothsayers, knew that the future empire of the world would come to these parts.
The Psalter of Cashel says: ‘The Tuatha de Danaan ruled in Ireland for about two centuries and were highly skilled in architecture and other arts from their long residence in Greece.’
Sir Henry Maine observed: ‘We who are able here to examine coolly the ancient Irish law in an authentic form see that it is a very remarkable body of archaic law, unusually pure from its origin.’
We should be beginning to get a pretty well rounded out picture in our minds of the great difference between Justinian’s law codes and Britain’s law codes. For a little more history on this, I am going to return to the book, Father Abraham’s Children, by Perry Edwards Powell, Ph. D., pages 104-105:
In the course of chronology, for I am following the royal line in its descent and great achievements, we come to the great law-giver, which is a rarity among the people of the world. His name is Dyvnwal Moelmud or in Latin Dunwallo Malmutius and he is often referred to by the historian who is acquainted with the history of Britain before the advent of the Anglo-Saxon. He reduced the whole island of Great Britain to his sway as his ancestor Brutus had done and during his long reign of forty years gave them a distinguished code of laws named for him the Malmutian Laws. He is buried in Trinovantum, now London. Shakespeare has enshrined his glory thus:
... Malmutius made our laws;
Who was the first of Britain which did put
His brow within a golden crown, and called
Himself a king.
Just three reigns later came one who achieved even greater fame and longer service and she was a woman, the queen of Guytelin of Guithelin Batrus. Her name is Queen Martia, the author of the famed Martian Laws which centuries later by only making the necessary changes for time and place were adopted by Alfred the Great and are the basis for the present English laws. Then what shall be the praises of Queen Martia? Why is not she equally famous?
It is evident, from all we have investigated thus far, the laws of Rome under Justinian and the ancient laws of Britain were and are as different as day is from night. Not only are the laws of these two different, but the religions of the two are 180 ° apart. I really don’t like to use the term “religion” unless it refers to paganism, and for Rome the term religion fits quite well. Obviously the destinies of Rome are about to collide, and it’s a big subject.
To get started with this phase of the study, I am going to quote again from the book, Father Abraham’s Children, by Perry Edwards Powell, Ph. D., pages 140-142:
Now we come to the missionary movement of Joseph of Arimathea, who was appointed by Philip the apostle. After the passion of his Nephew, persecution fell heavily upon the infant church. The Jew and the Roman were bitter persecutors but he knew where there was no persecution, but protection. However, he was seized, and since the Jew could not kill [under the Law directly], he and Lazarus and Mary and Martha his sisters, Mary Magdalene, Marcella, Maximin, and others, all objects of especial Jewish hostility, were ‘exposed to the sea in a vessel without sail or oars.’ They drifted to Marseilles, southern Gaul, where they arrived in a famished condition. The Arimathean knew the territory and friendly traders, and was aided on his way, the destination of which was now Britain. Here they eventually arrived and came to rest in Ynis Avalon, Glastonbury, where he rested and soon began his labors for his Nephew. The year was 37 A.D. On his tomb is the epitaph: Ad Britannos veni post Christum sepelivi — Docui — Quievi. ‘I came to the Britons after I had buried the Christ. I taught. I have entered on my rest.’
When he began, St. Paul was still in Arabia preparing for his mission. Joseph preached in Britain from 37-76 A.D. King Arviragus decreed the perpetual exemption from taxation of the twelve ploughs or hides of land on which this first mission stood. Thus Britain has the second congregation and the first Christian church building in the world. The mother church of Christianity was Jerusalem and it met in the ‘upper room.’ And the [pagan] church at Rome was not yet organized. ...
The first apostle to visit the island was Simon Zelotes after he had preached the gospel across Africa, Spain, and into Britain where he was crucified by the Romans. Coming at about the same time was Aristobulus, the brother of Barnabus, the father of Peter’s wife, and the first Bishop of Britain. He was sent by Paul. Arwystli, Wales, commemorates him.
I am sure there are many who have never heard this particular story of Joseph of Arimathea, and fewer yet understand its importance. For more insight on Joseph of Arimathea, I will quote, The Traditions of Glastonbury, by E. Raymond Capt M.A., page 22:
Several ancient manuscripts indicate that after the Passion of Christ, Joseph of Arimathea was commissioned by St. Philip, the Apostle, to take the Gospel to Britain. One such manuscript is the ‘Victory of Aurelius Ambrosius’ by Gildas Albanicus. It asserts plainly that Britain received the Gospel in the time of Emperor Tiberius, and that Joseph was sent, with others (after the dispersion of the Disciples) to Britain by St. Philip. There, Joseph was to lay the foundation of the Christian religion. The author gives the date ‘about the year of Our Lord 63’ and adds that Joseph stayed in Britain the rest of his life.
Another manuscript, ‘De Antiquities of Glastonbury’ (1908), contains this entry in the opening chapter: ‘St. Philip ... coming into the country of the Franks to preach ... converted to the Faith, and baptized them. Working to spread Christ’s word, he chose twelve from among his disciples, and sent them into Britain. Their leader, it was said, was St. Philip’s dearest friend, Joseph of Arimathea, who buried the Lord.’ (Translated from ‘De Antiquite Glastonbiensis Ecclesia’ 1240)
We can see from this, that outside of a few at Jerusalem, the Gospel was first preached in Britain. This brings up one of the most misunderstood, one of the most misrepresented, and one of the most misquoted passages of Scripture in the Bible. Almost everyone misunderstands it, or has a twisted conception of its meaning. This Scripture is Romans 1:16 which reads, KJV:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
It’s not talking about the Canaanite “Jews” here, it’s speaking of the Judahites in Britain, and they got the Gospel message first just as it says! It should say: To the Tribe of Judah in Jerusalem and in Britain first, and also the Greek, and they were all Israelites, and nothing but Israelites! It was through Judah in Britain that the Gospel message was sent to all the other Israelite tribes. The few of Judah at Jerusalem, at this time, is hardly worth mentioning.
Up to this point, we understand that Britain was populated mostly by Zerah-Judah; we understand that Britain had a different code of laws than Rome; and we understand that Britain was the first nation to receive the Gospel. As a matter of fact, the church of Rome was never recognized by our Redeemer except as being a whore. The Roman Catholic Universal Church was never the true church for even one day; she was never the true church for one hour; she was never the true church for one minute; she was never the true church for one second or a division thereof. Britain was the true church, and Rome was the counterfeit church. If you can trace your theology through Rome, you are a part of the whore system. Because of the two theologies, there would be an ongoing war between Britain and Rome, until after approximately a thousand years the true church established in Britain would be completely subdued by the Roman religious system up to the Reformation. But the Reformation left us with a conglomerate of fractionalized divisions and that is the reason we have today so many denominations, each with its own doctrine. The thousand year reign of the true Church lasted from about 37 A.D. until about 1172 A.D., when the last remaining Church in Ireland came under the domination of Rome. This was the Church Millennium as spoken of in Revelation 20:6. If you are looking for a future millennium, it is already past and Satan (the “Jews”) have been loosed out of his prison (the ghettos) to deceive the nations (called the United Nations), Revelation 20:7. The idea of a future millennium is a Canaanite “Jewish” doctrine! If the millennium is future, then the prophesied attack (Revelation 20:7-8) of Gog and Magog on the United States is one thousand years plus in the future, while Russia and China pose a threat to us at this very hour! If the Gog and Magog attack is that far in the future, let’s forget about Russia and China for the time being!?!?!? We will now investigate the fighting between Rome and Britain during these early years.
THE TRUE CHURCH, BRITAIN vs. THE FALSE CHURCH, ROME
To get started on the history of the fight between Rome and Britain, I am again going to quote from the book, Father Abraham’s Children, by Perry Edwards Powell, Ph. D., pages 105-107:
At the dawn of the Christian era the dark shadow on the horizon was Rome. What would be her attitude? Really the Cymry provoked the attack according to both Caesar and the Druidic Triads. In the day of Caesar the Roman proconsul, Lucius Valerius Praeconinus, was routed by the ‘second silver host’ of the Cymry at Tolosa, Aquitania, and the consul, Lucius Manilius, lost all his commissariat (food supply) and in addition was ingloriously compelled to retreat.
When this stunning news reached Julius Caesar he turned on the Veneti of Vendaeans, whose navy had been used by the Cymry or Britons and who enjoyed a flourishing trade with great Britian. This led to the first invasion of the Island of 5 August 55 B.C. This Campaign got only seven miles into the island, lost one battle, and had the camp attacked by the victorious islanders, a thing unheard of before this time. Caesar was baffled and decamped determined to return the following year with a mightier force. He wrote later, ‘The legionary soldiers were not a fit match for such an enemy.’
The second campaign came the next year and lasted from 10 May to 26 September 54 B.C., and got as far as seventy miles from shore when Caesar was compelled to make peace at Gwerddlan or St. Albans on account of the bad news from the continent as well as the triumphant resistance of the Cymry. He was royally feasted in London by King Cassibelaunus where Latin prevailed. Caesar left to reconquer Gaul and to subdue the Roman Empire for his family. He never returned. His enemies at Rome taunted him in the words of Lucan:
‘With pride he sought the Britons, and when found,
Dreaded their force, and fled the hostile ground.’
Now appears the second war of British Independence and it was longer and more stubborn. Rome at this time had consolidated her empire everywhere, in Asia, in Africa, and in all Europe. Her boundaries were entirely free of any invading foe. Her whole military force was at her command anywhere she desired. Her population was at this time 120,000,000 people of Caucasian or semi-Caucasian blood. The Caesars were sitting securely upon the throne. Everything was propitious for an easy conquest and a glorious victory. Caligula played the buffoon and we pass him by.
But we must give serious consideration to Emperor Claudius. He acts the part of a very capable leader. Rome had the benefit, sorry to say, of treason on the part of some Reguli of the Britons. Under the emperor were the greatest generals, Plautius, Vespasian, later Emperor, his son, Titus who during one battle rescued his father from death, also later an emperor, and Cneius Geta. All were proven by being successful in other campaigns against other peoples.
On the defensive side was Guiderius, who fell early, but a very efficient general. Immediately Caradoc, the Latin (Caractacus), a graduate of the Silurian college at Caerleon-on-Usk, now Wales, King of the Silures, was unanimously elected Pendragon of all Britain. The Cymry stubbornly held off the Roman legions so accustomed to victory. Appeals for help reached Emperor Claudius in the imperial city and he left for the imperiled front with the second and fourteenth legions, their auxiliaries, and a cohort of elephants which were designed to break the charges of the Briton chariot with its scythe attached axle. Claudius negotiated a treaty a part of which was the marriage of his daughter Genuissa to King Arviragus, and he received a triumph at home. Nevertheless the war continued. In order to see the severity of the fighting in seven years there were about thirty-five battles. Treachery and heroism appeared.
You will notice it is a bit hard to follow names here. For instance, let’s take the name of Caradoc. As long as he was not king, his name was Caradoc, but once he took the throne, he was called “King Arviragus” (being the same person as Caradoc). When he went to Rome, they Latinized his name to Caractacus (still being the same person), so whether he is called Caradoc, King Arviragus or Caractacus, it is the same person (see Celt, Druid and Culdee by Isabel Hill Elder, page 38, paragraph 4). Caractacus is the next person I am going to talk about, and for that I will quote from, The Origin and Early History of Christianity In Britain, by Andrew Gray, D.D., pages 14-16:
From those valuable historical documents, the Welsh Triads — written originally in the British dialect — it appears that Caràdoc (Caractacus) was betrayed and delivered up to the Roman Commander by Arègwedd, about A.D. 51, and taken to Rome. Brân (Bernnus) his father, Llyn (Linus) his son, Eurgan a daughter, and Gladys (Claudia) a second daughter, were all taken to Rome likewise, and there detained seven years as hostages of Caractacus.
Tacitus furnishes an account of the battle which terminated the career of Caràdoc in field. Caràdoc seeing that the Romans were victorious, and that his own wife and daughter had fallen into the hands of the conquerors, took refuge himself, at her repeated solicitations, at Caer Evroc (York), with Arègwedd, Queen of the Brigantes, and grand-niece of the infamous traitor in the Julian war, Mandubratius of Avarwy. Here by her orders, — with hereditary treachery, he was seized while asleep in her palace, loaded with fetters, and delivered to Ostorius Scapula. On receiving intelligence of the event, Claudius ordered him and all the captive family to be sent to Rome. The approach and arrival of Caràdoc at Rome are finely described by the ancient historians — ‘Roma catenatum tremuit spectare Britannum’ — Rome trembled when she saw the Briton, though fast in chains.
The Senate was convened and the trial of Caràdoc began. With an unaltered countenance, the hero of forty battles, great in arms, greater in chains, took his position before the Emperor and defended himself in the following utterances:
‘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 director 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 Caràdoc? Where [is] 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.’
Such an address as this, worthy a king, a soldier, and a freeman, had never before been delivered in the Roman Senate. Tacitus thought it worthy to be reported and immortalized by his pen. The preservation of Caràdoc forms a solitary exception in the long catalogue of victims to the policy then in vogue; nor can it be accounted for, considering the inflexibility of Roman military usage, in any other way than by an immediate and supernatural intervention of providence, which was leading by the hand, to the very place of the British king at Rome, the great Apostle of the Gentiles (Israelite nations). The family of Aulus Plautius — a lieutenant in the army of Claudius — was already connected with that of Caràdoc, he having married Gladys (‘Pomponia Geæcina’), the sister of Caràdoc. Besides, an engagement existed between Gladys (Claudia), the daughter of Caràdoc, and Rufus Pudens Pudentinus, a young Roman Senator of large possessions. But their united influence would not have sufficed to alter a fixed law of the Roman state in favor of an enemy who had tasked its uttermost powers and resources for so many years.
These names just mentioned should be familiar to you as they are mentioned in II Timothy 4:21. I am sure that millions of people, over the years, have read this passage and had no idea who the people mentioned were, or that they had a direct connection with the first permanently organized church, the British Church. Let’s read it again with a new light on it:
Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.
This not only proves that Paul had a direct connection with the church in Britain, but proves that Paul was a genuine apostle of Yahshua. It proves that his calling was true. There is a doctrine going around that Paul was not genuine, but an impostor and a deceiver. I will give you a short history of this “Anti-Paulism” which was published in pamphlet form by Destiny Publishers, Merrimac, Mass. I will only quote the first three paragraphs:
There is a movement on foot to discredit the writings of the Apostle Paul in the Bible, declaring they are a perversion of the truth. The conclusion is that Paul’s Epistles should be expunged from the New Testament.
This is the objective of a book entitled Who Was Paul of Tarsus? by Isabel Upton Van Etten. In this book, a premise is established, based upon “ifs”, “surmises” and “assumptions” which enable the author to conclude that Paul was in opposition to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and was completely out of step with the teachings of the disciples of Jesus.
It is a faithful axiom that, once a premise is established and accepted, the deductions drawn naturally follow. After reading this little book, we are reminded of another book, also by a women author, whose name was Mary Baker Eddy [founder of so-called Christian Science]. She also established a premise and won the acceptance of a substantial following in support of her conclusions. We pose the question: Will many succumb to the propaganda that Paul was subversive and that his writings are unacceptable and should be deleted from the New Testament?
Obviously, Isabel Upton Van Etten overlooked II Timothy 4:21 (above), and II Peter 3:15 where Peter said in his epistle, our beloved brother Paul. I presume, because of this remark, might we have to delete all of Peter’s Epistles also? Either Paul was a “chosen vessel”, or he was not a “chosen vessel”, and we might advisedly tread very lightly in condemning his commissioned ministry to be unfit, as Paul commissioned Linus, first Bishop of Rome.
In the yearbook of DESTINY magazine (a monthly publication), June, 1946 published by Destiny Publishers, Haverhill, Massachusetts, there is an article, Druidism in Britain, by Rev. L. G. A. Roberts, pages 203-208. On page 207 of this article, we find the following information under the subtitle, “Christianity in the Isles”:
It was in A.D. 52 that the conflict took place between the Romans and British under Caractacus, who so nearly held back the Roman legions from conquering Britain, but he was cruelly betrayed by Cartismandua and taken prisoner to Rome. With him, as hostages, Bran, his father, his three sons, and daughters, were also taken captive. The struggles of this brave people for their liberty filled the streets of Rome with their daring prowess, and about A.D. 59 St. Paul was himself a prisoner at Rome, but in his own hired house. Whilst here he met with Pudens and Linus and Claudia, and evidently also Eubulus, i.e., Aristobulus. Timothy was also with St. Paul, and in the 2d Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, written a few years after (chap. 4:21), he says, ‘Eubulus greeteth thee and Pudens and Linus and Claudia.’ Every one of these we find intimately connected with Britain. The prefix Eu in Eubulus being of the same meaning in Greek and arestos, the two names (Rom. 16:10; II Tim. 4:21), Aristobulus and Eubulus, have been considered to mean the same person. Of this man we read in the “Greek Menologies” that St. Paul ordained him as a bishop to the country of the Britons. Another account says that this man died at Glastonbury in A.D. 99.
Because this is a big subject and covers a lot of territory, it will be necessary to run it in a series of lessons. At the moment, I am not sure just how many lessons it will take to complete it as it needs to be covered. However long that is, I will continue this subject. At this point, I have only set the stage for some very important things that followed in the British church and how, after time, the Roman religious system completely subdued them.