ST. PATRICK AND THE EARLY BRITISH CHURCH.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 2635, 1 June 1889, Page 2 (Supplement)

ST. PATRICK AND THE EARLY BRITISH CHURCH.

I TO TUB ETHI'OK, s Sik,— Iu the discussion of the present i question, unusual care is necessary to • preseryeequanimity of temper, calmness of i reasoning, and freedom from exaggeration. To the latter, however, I am forced i to admit, I have been found guilty of, ou '._ one or two points, thanks to the superior : advantage which your correspondent i "Julius" possesses over me in havin» authorities to refer to he has succeeded in convicting me of one or two gross misstatements. 1 am at present forced by circumstances to bow to that judgement which enables him to point out my delinquinoies. I trust, however, my courteous critic will kindly accord me the justice of believing it was unintentional and that it simply proceeded from a slight defection of memory which, had I given a little more thought and attention to the subject I should not have laid myself open to the censure of your correspondent, by committing such a blunder as to proclaim St Alban, the first Euglish prqtomartyr, as Bishop of Hereford. But, Mr Editor, as the rebuke was as well merited, as it was kindly given I submit to the justice of his decision, stipulating that my courteous critic will administer the same literary eastigation in the same spirit in which he delivered the former, but I trust with a somewhat lighter hand, in tho event of my being again guilty of any future mistakes in the course of this discussion. I think I could convict "Julius" of a few discrepancies in his statements, were it not that I consider them to be of little interest, as they do not aft'oct the question iu dispute. "Julius' not content with convicting me of one or two most glaing e>a.'gerations, also seeks to ca*t a don 1 ion the whole of my statements in proof of which he brings forward evidence totally at variance with fa-sts na they are likewise irrevolant to tho question at issue. Had I intended to ' fill the columns of your journal with a ' list of all the fathers of the early • Christian Church together with their < sayings and doings I could very easilv ; havo done so. But as I conceived the ( testimony of tho Fathers to be inadmis- ' sible on the poiuts in dispute, I refrained { from quoting all those whom '' Juliu*" has '• named, merely bringing one or two to ' thow that the Church of Hoibs held all (

tho Christian Churches of Ireland, Britiai and France under her ecclesiastical rule n . and that tho jurisdiction of the Roinar Pontiff was acknowledged, but that th< in several 'Churches of Ireland, Knsiland, ■d aud France were free in their eeclesiatica y a government. In the first place the Fasten t 0 and Western Chu-ches wero at the tim< jg "Julius " refers to, a.d. 177, amalgamate is into one Christian Church, and under th< a Bupremo head acknowledging as theii in superior, the Pontiff of Rome, and con ,e tiuued in that state without the unitj a being severed down to the ninth century, ■jt It was in the reign of St. Eloutherins, ]e the Pontiff of Rome, A.D., 170, that he , n sent at the request of King Suoius, St a Fugatino, and St. Damianm into Britain ,g to preach the gospel to tho British nation. le They are, I believe, tho first Christian 3 . missionaries that wo have any authentic j record of who wore sent by tho Roman f fc Bishop into Britain. St. Irenceus was the j, first in France of whom we have authentic j j account. Ranke, in his history of the ,1 Popes, tells us that the cause of the j r Schism between the Eastern and Western H Churches was mainly through tho tyranny n of the Emperor Charles the Great, who c j deposed the rightful Patriarch of y Constantinople, and allowed an iimj. bitious layman to usurp the See. c i Photius, however, was again deposed and ,f excommunicated by Nicholas I, on the L 8 «ppeal of Ignatiui, the rightful Patriarch „ of Constantinople. But the complete ; 3 separation of tho Eastern and Western „ Churches did not take place till a.d. 1055 ° by Michael Cerularius. So yon see, my c friend, that alter a union of nearly ten centuries the separation of the Eastern „ aad Western Churches which was partly {J- begun from the highlauded assertion of , an upstart layman provoked by wanton ' n insolence of imperial despotism and ended IV by the Patriarch Michael Cerularius enIj tirely breaking away from the Pope's ir supremancy and establishing what is now g called the Greek' Church. "Julius "must , here observe that the Schism of the Greek ft Church was not on any point of doctrine ( j or against the supremacy of the Pope of Rome, but simply through the tyranny of y b an imperial despot on the ono 'hand and o the ambition of ono who though not even a priest in Holy Orders sought to estabn lish a second chair of St. Peter by making j himself Pope of the Eastern' Church. Now in answer to "Julius" that the British, 2 Irish, and Gallic Churches wero of 0 Eastern origin, and that tho Roman Pontiff never had any jurisdiction over them it is entirely opposed to all the preconceived notions of truth. Pope Gregory t tho Great not only claimed jurisdiction, but repeatedly exercised it on many ooea- ' sions. Let it suflice here to mention what we read iu tho instructions given to St. • Augustine wiien he sout him to Britain in which instructions ho says, " We give [ you no jurisdiction over the Bishops of ' Gaul, but wo commit to your care all the Bishops of Britain." (See History Veucrableßede I, 27.) In the second century j Sixtus the first issued the ru'e that on a j Bishop going back to his diocese from ; ; Rome to his own flock without the '■ ! Apostolic declaration that ho was 1 | recognised by the Romau Pontiff (*r j a Lillcra J'ommtii) his diocesans were [ ! bound not to regard him as their legitij | mate pastor. It is a notable fact, and I think it is more-favourable to my side ' ] of the question, that in all the General | j Councils which have been held, from the 1 j first to the ninth centuries, the Bishop of ; Rome has. in all such Councils, exercised his supremacy over all other bishops assembled, as witness the decision given ! by Pope Leo, the First, called the Great, i when at the Council of Chalccdon, in the | year 451, Dioscorus, Archbishop of I Alexandra, was deposed in obedience to | the Pope, because tho Patriach of j Alexandra dared to hold a Council I without his authority. And it must likewise be observed that this Council of Chalcedon was notably an Eastern Council. Some GOO bishops attended it J from the East and only two were from i the West, Bishop Paschasinus and the

priest Boniface (the Pope's Legates). Yet in their synodical letter tho Council I not only confirmed, all the decisions of i tho Roman Pontiff, but likewise aeknow- : ledged him as the successor of St. Peter in tho most unmistakeable language. It j is a somewhat curious contention which J "Julius" makes when he brings forward | the evidene:: of certain of the Christain Fathers in support of his view of the question. He asserts that because tho earliest-known inscriptions in France were in the Greek language that the writers thereof must of necessity have been of Eastern origion, and consequently strengthens his position in this discussion. Now, such an argument I conceive to be most untenable. That some of the Fathers of the Church were of Greek origion is admitted, that they likewise wrote iii the Greek tongue is quite natural, as it was tkeir native language and consequently it was more familiar to ' them than any other language. Rut that it strengthens tho position of your correspondent in this controversary T unhesitatingly deny, unless my opponent can show mo unreliable evidence of there having been two distinct branches of the Christian Church at the time referred to by him. If he cannot do so his contention is utterly worthless. "Julius" himself must admit that in the time of the early Christian Fathers of the Church the whole Christian world was united into one bond of Christian union and that this united Clnistian Church was tho one Holy and Apostolic Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. I take it for granted ho admits this. Now tho testimony of the Fathers establishes the fact that they acknowledged the supremacy of tho Roman Pontiff and oboyed all the mandates issued to them from tho chair of St. Peter, and also oven in their writings giving unmistakeable expression to their opinion with respect to the Roman Pontiff's claim to the supremacy of tho Catholic Church as tho successors of St. Peter. That some of the earliest inscriptions found in France may have been written in the Greek tonguo I do not for a moment dispute. Hut what I do most decidedly dispute is that the early Christian Fathers of the Church ever claimed any other or ever acknowledged any other Christian I community except that which claimed ] i the successors of St. Peter as the head of ) the Church. We know that some of the Fathers wrote iu Greek in preference to , any other, simply because it was their ,

own liatiouul language. Wo know also that others ugain wrote in Latin, some in Arabic and Syriac according' to their nationality as tho language cirrus more glibly to thoir pen than that of any other. Yet it is none the less true that though of Eastern origin they held their eccleslasti r oal dignities under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Again, "Julius' 1 tells us that the Holy Catholic Churoh has in all historical times held fast the three creeds, none of which in the original version insert the word Roman in the designation of tho One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Chqrch of the Lord Jesus Christ. Decidedly not, my friend, for at the time anil long- after those Liturgies were written the whole Christian world as it then existed (that is before the Greek Schism) was known only as the One, Holy, and Apostolic' Catholic Church, ami it must also ho observed that the Pontiff of Rome was acknowledged as the supreme ruler over that One, Holy, and Apostolic Catholic Church, and we are likewise aware that Protestantism, as it exists in its present form, did not in anyway foriu part ot that One, Holy, and Apostolic C itholic Ohui'ch, as my ostoemcd oppo« nout pretends it did. Ho then goes on to assert that it is somewhat surprising that Roman advocates, in arguiDg with eduB ited men, should altogether ignore the existence of tho great Eastern 'Orthodox Church. Now this is a most unfounded jhayge to make against tJjo adherents of :ho Ghurcl) in oQpimunion "\yith that of ft">mc. So far from ignoring tljo existmcc of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Bishops of Rome have been striving for senturies to bring together again the inity of tho ancient faith, und no iducated Catholic has, as far as I am iware of, ever in anyway attempted o ignore the] claims of the Greek Jimroh to tho same ancient position as

i that claimed by the Church of Romo. , with the single exception of die Roman i Bishop's claim to the supremaney of S. B PetcrVt chair. I have shown, however i that "Julini" ii entirely wrong in • asserting that the Orthodox Greek Church • never, at any time, acknowledged the 0 supremacy of Rome by pointing out i that it did so from the first to the ninth 3 centuries. I will now point, out that the '" Greek Church is decidedly in communion • with the Roman Catholio Church, with J very little difference hotween them. I • can go into a Greek Orthodox Church. > and although I may not know all of the 3 Greek language, yet I could follow the • service throughout without knowimr i whether it was the Latin or Greek Church ■ I was in. With few exceptions it coini oides with the formularies of the Church > of Romo. As to the Eucharist tho Greeks i admit ths real presence of Christ, tho : transubstantiation of tho element*, tho 5 propitiatory sacrifice and (although this J is denied by Protestants) the adoration of ! tho Host. "Julius" ne x t informs us 1 that ho possesses copies of ancient Liturgies, and although they prove the > eomraou inheritance of the Catholic Church in the Holy Eucharist, they also ■ prove that tho Roman Mass is not • identical with tho Ancient Apostolic 1 Liturgies. To bo briof, ho claimß that 1 tho office of tho Church of England is 1 more in accord with the Liturgies of the ! Fathers than that most ancient Church \ under which those very Christian Fathers ' hold their Apostolic dignities. Yet, at the same time, it must be noted he allows ■ that the Greek Church, whose formu--1 I'iries are, Kith few exceptions, ; the same as the Roman Citholio is in accord with those ancient Liturgies, but denies that the Roman Catholics are so, substituting: the Ensrlish Church in its place. Were I inclined to carry this discussion to greater length by quoting' passages from some of ■ tho.-io ancient Liturgies I think that I could soon convince the public of the absurdity of "Julius"'contention. Hein-I

forms us, however, that he did not write Ins previous Jotter as an attack upon the Hotnnn brcthern, but in vindication of tiae Christianity a pieco of gratuitous iniormation whiuh I conceive to bo superfluous as true Christianity was not assailed but defended, and ho clenches his remarks by saying that the Liturgy and Euoharistic worahip was undoubtedly universal, bub it was not tho Romish which strictly means that it was tho Protestant or English Church Office, to whicK iny friend "Julius" has the honour to belong. A few questions on this point I would kindly ask ray opponent to answer. If as "Julius" so gravely assures ustlio Mass as practised in tho Church of Rome be a novelty and an innovation ho is honestly bound to tell me who was the first I'opo, Bishop or Priest that eelebrat d mass? Who were tho zealous and orthodox pastors of the true Christian Church that resisted this novelty? By what name were the first abettors of the mass distinguished (for the most inconsiderable sect never wanted a name, far less would the abettors of the Mass that spread so extensively have lacked a discriminating designation r) What nations were the first toreceivuit? What councils were called to coudomnit? What orthodox Fathers roso in defenco of "Julius'" true Church _of England Olfioo and said, 'Hero is sin absurd and monstrous novely that such and such innovating heretics are now introducing ; they prituiul that Christ's body is really in the Eucharist, and olfored in a sacrifice they have newly invented called the Mass"? Whore, I ask my esteemed critic, does ecclesiastical history furnish evidence as these against the Mass? Nowhere. And can •• Julius," or any other educated Protestant, for a moment think that such

evidence would be wanting if the Mass as it is performed in the Church of Rome were really the novelty he pretends it to be ? If it be a novelty then your correspondent is hound to honestly answer all the questions I have here proposed as to its author origin and progress ; whereas I defy, nay I challenge, my opponent to give me a, satisfactory answer to any of them. The only possible inference according to my censor's system is that the whole Christian world must on some one night have gone to bed Orthodox Church of England Protestants, and got up next moruiug rank Papists, and moreover without retaining the slightest recollection of the change. To conclude, we know from irrefragable proof that tho Mass was the universal and uneensured worship of the Christian Church from the earliest era that Pagan persecution relaxed so far as to permit of its worship iii public. On the other hand we do not know that any orthodox Christian Church or Christian Father opposed it as an error or a novelty for not a line of testimony to that effect is extant. Now, he who determines against that which he knows, because there may be something which he knows not; he that can set by hypothetical possibility against acknowledged certainty is not to be admitted among reasonable beings. " Julius" again commits a very grave error in repudiating the claims of the Church of Rome to the exclusive right of Catholic or universal, and at the same time claiming that title for the Englith in common with others. The members of the Church to which your correspondent belongs, often, allege that the Catholic Church comprehends all sort of sects who profess belief in Christ. Now, I maintain either the great, Church in communion with the Pope is Catholic or it is not. If not, then there is no such thing as a Catholic Church. For, if tho name of Cntholip or uiiivcr-

sal be denied to a Church which hai existed in unbroken visibility from tin timeof the Apostles, and which is moreoi less diffused throughout every part o; tho globe where (he name of Christ, it known • if, to so ancient and widelj spread a Church the name of Cilholic Ix denied, then assuredly it would be preposterous to bestow that name on any merely loi-al and modern souiwty of which tho Church of England in the head, On the other hand if tho Church in cowmuniou with Rome be Catholic, then there cannot be any other Catholie Church except herself. Because a body of men breaking off from the Catholic I Church and_ establishing a rival institution of their own cannot justly assume to themsolves the name and privileges of the community they hare deserted and to which they stand opposed. I have been compelled in self-defence to take the arguments of my opponent seriatim in order to show tho fallacy of his arguments, arguments which are liable °ut times to cause aunjil itmmi illiquid. I trust, therefore, that "Julius" will keep to the simple queation in dispute which is : " Was St. Patrick and the early British I Church connected by ties with tho Church of Eomo in holding episcopal authority and performing his ministry under the sanction and jurisdiction of its sovereign Pontiff?" My answer is contained in this lettar, and ajl my opponent has to do is to answer the few' interrogations contained herein with the addition that he will bavo lo bring forward proof that tho Catholic Church from tho first to the fifth couturies were divided into two branches and known respectively as tho Eastern and Western Churches and that thev were each governed by different Popes. * Unless your correspondent can brinar forward

evidence iu favour of his side of the question, and confines his arguments to I the one in dispute, my answer to any further insinuations like those contained in his previous letter will bo omlil ijiu-ntin. I havo scon at present nothing in the arguments to alter my opinion respecting the conclusion which I arrived at in my previous letter, and unless "Julius" can combat the statements contained in this I beg most respectfully to reinajn in, the same delusive state until your correspondent can by clear, concise and logical reasoning, force me to alter thorn.—l am, &c, Justus Hiijkrsiuus. Cambridge, 24th May, 1SSI).