ST. PATRICK AND THE EARLY BRITISH CHURCH.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2650, 6 July 1889, Page 6 (Supplement)

ST. PATRICK AND THE EARLY BRITISH CHURCH.

to thh uniTOn. Sir, —" Julius' " first letter was merely an essay culled from the writings of the Venerable Bede, giving a cursory view of the language, origin, writings and travels of some of the Fathers of the early Cbristain Church, and as the letter in question did not in any way establish the fact that St. Patrick received his episcopal dignity, or was connected with them in their missionary labours, I conceived the statements in question to be totally foreign to the argument in dispute. Permit me also to point out to your correspondent that in taking up the gauntlet thus thrown down to me in his first article in which he assails the rightful position of the R. C. Cliurch, I did not bargain for recriminations, but for clear logical facts, which, however, he seems either unable, or unwilling to give, and I am perfectly sure he is totally incapable of establishing St. Patrick's connection with the Eastern Church, The writings of tho Fathers do not contain a single allusion to St. Patrick or his missionary labour, while Irish Ecclesiastical History, the history of the Irish nation, as well as mostly all the Irish historians, together with one or two Scotch, give it as an undoubted fact that he received his ordination as a priest and bishop of the Western Church from the hands of Pope Celcstinc. These are matters of history which I do not think my friend will dispute, yet knowing this I refrained from bringing these authorities forward in support of my contention, on the same grounds on which I based my objection to the evidence of the Fathers of the early Chris tain Church, Laving out the Fathers of the Church as well as Irish ecclesiastical aud national history and likewise other histories that may have any bearing on the subject. Tho question next to bo determined is, was the Christian Church previous to aud at St. Patrick's time divided into two distiuct branches and known respectively as tho Eastern and Western Churches P "Julius" in his last article has given a reply in tho negative which is olio point iu my favour. Now, tho next issue to bo decided is, was the Bishop of Rome acknowledged during the first six ccnturies as the supremo spiritual ruler over the Christian Church or not? My reply has already been given in the affirmative and 1 have brought forward evidence to support it. Yet iu defiance of all tho recognised laws of truth, my opponent deliberately accuses me of making assertions without bringing forward a single proof to substantiate them. Now I unhesitatingly and unflinchingly assert that I have not uttered a single sentence that could not bo supported by tho most reliable testimony that my opponent himself will not dare call in question unless his prejudice prevents him from doing justice. I likewise affirm that my critic has contradicted my statements without bringing; any testimony to bear out his denial of my statements. In place of answering my letter in a straightforward manner, to my great surprise his article resolves itself into a iriade of accusations, the principal of which is that my arguments are more assumptions and that they have been placed before the readers of your journal without proof. Now, I intend to take all those sayings of his which If conceive to be of no earthly use in this discussion, giving a reply to each one as I go along. Taking, then, his first absurd statement regarding his claim to bo considered a member of the Holy Catholic Church in New Zealand, I shall leave that

out of tho question ; still I must know what that has to do with St. Patrick aud the early Christian Church. His second statement is that tho Church of Rome substitutes tho Pope for the Lord as the Head of the Body of tho Church. Now, with all duo respect to " Julius," I maybe permitted to point out that the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am proud of being a member, does no such thing, But we do recogniso him in right of his succession to the ch.iit of St. Peter as tho spiritual ruler over tho Roman Catholic Church, and I hare yet to know that it is more unscriptural to acknowledges tho Bishop of Romo a3 the head of

the Roman Catholic Church as it is for tho Anglican Church to call its head God's Lieutenant which titlo tho Church of England, to which my friend belongs, bestows on the temporal princo in tho 10th Sermon of the First Book of Homilies. And there I again ask "Julius" what has tho above statement to do with St. Patrick and tho early Christian Church ? In reply to tho charge that the Pope usurps tbo authority of ilim whom all Christian Churches recognise as Lord and Master. I bog leave to say that never since the foundation of Christianity has ho ever done so. I deny in loto tho applicability of " julius's " description to tho Pope. The Pope does not exalt himsalf above all that is called God to try to pass himself off as tho Most High. Every day in saying Mass ho bows before tho altar and publicly confesses that ho I has sinned in thought, word, and deed ; which confession of his own human sinfulness is incompatible with any attempt to usurp the authority of tho Lord—incompatible with the alleged exaltation of himself over all that is called God. And here again I put the question to my friend and ask him what connection is there between the usurpation of tho Pope over tho universe and St. Patrick and tho early Christian Church? "Julius' denies that St. Peter had any other supremacy than that of "Primus inter Pares," and ho also observes it is rather the work of St, Paul who did not build upon another man's foundation (Epistle Romans XV chapter, 20th verse) With reference to St. Peter's supremacy tho Soripturcs themselves give sufli'iient evidence, As for tho above isolated text of .St. Paul my esteemed critic to be consistent should

also quote what follows. St. Paul also say a to tlio (ISphosiaus iii, 20), 'Yo are built upon tho foundation of tho Apistles and Prophets, Jo.-ns himself being- tho chief corucr stone.' And St, John (Apoe. XXI, 14), .speaks of twelve foundations of the ho'ivenly eit.y, each iutoribed with the uame of uu Apostle,

Hence wo learn that tho word ' foundation ' is used in three different senses, Christ is the foundation— the only foundation—in the sense of being King 1 , ransom, victim, supreme author and source of salvation. St, Potcr is the foundation of tho visible Church, as having been by Christ's appointment the governing centre of a visiblo unity. The Apostles, by Christ's appointmennt also, are styled our foundation, as having boon the original planters, through tho nations of that Church whereof St. Peter was given tho supremacy, and tho original preachers of that Church's faith. Here, however, I may be told by "Julius " that the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets is collectively mentioned without specifying the primacy of any Apostle in particular. Thorefore, tho Apostles all enjoy equal pastorship, or else tho chief pastorship of St. Peter would have boon expressly mentioned. To that, however, I reply that St. Paul does not alludo in this text to the subject of pastorship at all. For mark tho verso mentions prophets as well at Apostles, ar:d the prophets were all dead at the time. Now, a dead man cannot, bo a pastor ; so tliafc if we interpret, friend "Julius," wo iuvolvo St. Paul in tho absurdity of telling the Ephesians that the prophets who had quitted this world were equally pastors with the living Apostles, The text then which my friend has quoted has no connection whatever wilh tho subjects of pastorship or primacy. It simply implies that, wc arc members of that society or Church which tho Apostles founded and the prophets foretold and that our hopes are built on that atonement which the prophets had predicted and which the Apostles promulgated by preaching. So that tho abovo subject relating to St. Peter should have been left out of this discussion as it bears no relevance to St. Patrick's connection with either the Eastern or Western Churches no more than any of the subjects which I have here shown to be equally inadmisable to the point at issue. I think in these few instances I have afforded sufficientconfutation to the accusations made against me by your correspondent. I will now proceed to discuss a few more of liis statements. First then as to the charge that I have not brought proof to support my assertions, I beg respectfully to inform him that he will find my assertions respecting tho first portion of my previous essay in the following works : —Leopold von Ranke's History of the Popes, Artand dc Mentor's History of the Roman Pontiffs, R. W. Church's History of tho Middle Ages (late Dean of St. Paul's, London), Jonathan Duncan's History of the Russian Empire, and last but not the least, Edward Gibbon's History of the Roman Empire. Now, none of these authors can be accused of partiality in their writings for they are one and all Protestant authorities. Besides all these authors mentioned I can supply numerous others of the same bind besides a vast amount of Roman Catholic authorities had 1 the slightest inclination to be at all partial to my Church. I therefore thought it better to leave Catholic authors out of the question. There is one point in Gibbon's Roman Empire which I have not seen in any other history. It must bo remembered also that Gibbon's history of the Roman Empire was written from extracts of the earliest historians, and classical authors, besides from the Fathers, of whom numerous extracts may be taken, He says, "While the East, according to Eusebius, was involved in the shades of infernal darkness the auspicious rays of celestial light wanned and illuminated the West. The piety of Constantino was admitted as an unexceptional proof by tho Christians of the justice of his arms." So that according to the testimony of Eusebius as recounted by Gibbon, tho Eastern Church did not embrace the faith of Christianity until the conquest of Italy by Constantiue over Luuinius, produced a general edict of toleration, and allowed missionaries from Rome to preach the divine truths. (See the first book of the life of Constantino, by Eusebius). Speaking of the general Council he observes, taking his observations from the same source.

(Kusebius in vit. Constantino I, llleh., (53, 01, 85,00). The Catholic world has unanimously submitted to the infallible docrnrs of the general councils, presided over by the Bishops of Rome. "Julius " says I am in error wiHi regard to the year in which Michael Cerularius broke away from the Pope's supremacy. On that point I can assure my friend that the year 1055 is a misprint, for which I am not responsible, as in my original M.S.S. I wrote a.o. 1053, the same as my critic. It is very easy for "Julius," or any other prejudiced writer, to make the same observations anent the schism of the Greek Church. But most all the ablest of modern historians agree with that given by Rankc. I am told to go to a Greek Church as my censor has done, and I will find myself no better able to follow the service than I would in an Anglican Church. Now, this is too absurd to think fur a moment that " Julius " can bo really serious on this point, or does he thiuk that i:ono but himself has over entered a Greek Church, I assure my friend he is entirely mistaken, for not only have I been inside a Greek Church, but I am likewise bonie out in my statements by every one else that has over had the same experience. In order to confirm my opinion. I refer you to the following works " The Faiths of the World," written by a Protestant author; " The History of the. Russi-m Empire," by Jonailun Duncan. This latter author tells that the only difference between the Church oF Home and that of the Greek Chur--.li is that. I ho forms and ceremonies of the Creek Church arc of a moro imposing and kind than those of Rome. Spe.-ikiny of Yaldimir, tho Emperor of Russia, he .says the power of this barbarous prineo was such that Jews, Mahometans, Greeks and Latins compotod foe tho honour of his conversion. The victory was gained by the Eastern Church, which owed it to tho splendour of iti edifices and tho pomp of its ceremonials. At this cpoch tho schism of Photius had exploded ; but tho sehis. matical doctrines had not as yet entirely

penetrated tho Greek Church, and the patriarch, by whom tho first metropolitan of Russia was consecrated, recognised tho spiritual supremacy of tho Bishop of llomo, so that the Russians converted to Christianity were at first united to and iu communion with tho Latin Church. (See First Epoch, Page 51 ) I think I have given sufficient testimony on this head and now I return to tho the next point, tho Eucharist. Now on this point "Julius'' has not answered my challenge, for I stated distinctly that ecclesiastical history does not furnish any evidence against its use. My friend has made a very serious mistake by confounding tho Council of Latoran hold in the Basilica of St. John Latcran, that is tho fourth council under that name and prosided over by Pope Innocent 111., A.D. 1215, aud not the Council of Constauce which was not hold till the year 1414, or two centuries later, a vast deal of difference between tho two Councils, two ccDturies, makes when we havo to strictly adhere to the truth. Again, there is | another great mistake which entirely upsets his theory that Pope Innocent was the first Pope to celebrate mass. "Julius" says that Bishop Paschasius was the first to hint about tho doctrine of transubstantiation, A.D. S.'sl. Now, as a matter of fact, as well as hi-tory, there was only ono monk of that name, I beliovo, in the whole catalogue of tho Church of Rome, aud ho was tho Bishop that acted as tho Pope's Legate at the Council oFChalcedou A.D. 431. The confusion of my friend arises from the fact of tho two names being somewhat similar. Tho following is about the substance of tho whole case. At tho Second Council of Niccca presided over by Pope Adrian I, hold in tho Church of St. Sophia, Paschaso Radbort of Corby wrote a book on tho subject of Transubstantiation, aud submitted it to tho Count il of Nieiua for , approval. It did not add anything to it. It was simply a defence of tho Mass as thou performed (the mimo as in

uso at the present timo both in tho Greek and Latin Churches) and which some of the Eastern Churches known as tho Monothelites under their leaders, Cyrus, ' Sorgitis, and l'yrrhus, began to impugn. For this and oilier heresies they were excommunicated by tho Council ofKicieca. The work or writings of I'nsehase Kadt'eit was approved of by the council. From that time up to the present no ohanjrc has ever been established either in the Greek or Latin forms of tho worship of the Mass. Allow me to ob-erve that none of the statements which I have here defended has any application to the disputed point at is.Mi". For tho benefit of my respected friend I will again review tho question. First there is tho confession of St. Patrick himself who is entirely silent as to whom he received his ordination from. Secondly, fbere is the testimony of tho Fathers of the Church equally as silent on that point, and more so, for his name is not mentioned in their writings at all. St. Patrick and the Christian Fathers boinst silent it stands to reason that their testimony must be inad-mi.-sable when wo require clear facts to prove his connection between either tho Eastern or Western Churches. On the other hand there is the testimony «f Irish ecclesiastical history. The history of the Celtic Church by Skvn-j !HK I a U J,.;..], aro agreed that St. Patrick received his ordination at the hands of Pope Celestine. These testimonies, however, being partial they aro _ equally inadmissablo with Sr. Patrick s confossion and the writings of the Christian Father?, Now, having established the fact of the unity of the Christian Churches from the first to the sixth century, at least, there is only one other point to establish, and that is, was the Bishop cf Rome acknowledged as supreme spiritual ruler over those Christian Churches or not ? My answer has already been given in the affirmative, and I have brought proofs to support it. But I should like to enquire of "Julius," what was his reasons tor wishing to drag the whole doctrines of my Church into the question for ? Could not the point iu dispute be determined without all this waste of time and paper by simply keeping to the one subject in place of wandering away from it 'i Had I intended to keep on at the rate at which my censor wishes rr.c to go, this argument would draw - out to a most interminable length, that there is no knowing on which side tho question could bo decided. I have no doubt that the Editor and the public in general arc about sick of the subject. With this essay I close my argument, unless our kind and courteous Editor allows us to exhaust both his own patience and that of the readers of his widely circulated and popular journal.—l am, yours etc.,

Ju.viu.s Hibersjcus, Cambridge.