ST. PATRICK AND THE EARLY BRITISH CHURCH.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2660, 30 July 1889, Page 2

ST. PATRICK AND THE EARLY BRITISH CHURCH.

TO Tiff EDITOR, Silt,—May I crave your indulgence for a shorter letter than most of those on the above subject have been. After due consideration I have decided to withdraw from a discussion that can have no useful purpose or end with an adversary holding such peculiar views as to truthfulness and generosity as Junius Kibernicus. His last letter is not worthy of an answer, for he shows the weakness of his cause, by persistently shirking the real issue himself, and then untruthfully accusing me of doing so ; that this statement is just, is proved by his repeating in this letter, the false accusation of his previous one, that I had passed over the main point—; St. Patrick and wandered to other points in a wanton attack on his church. Now, any fairminded person reading our two fir.-1 letters will see that every one of those points, i.e. papal supremacy, identity of eastern and western ruleand custom, and the Latin Mass were introduced by "Junius" himself in his first letter and so I could not avoid them, his accusation is therefore untruthful. A generous antagonist would have seen that "Constance" was a slip for " L-iteran " as the date, the Pope, and the decision, were all given correctly ; [ am not 200 years wrong, as the facts I used were as I stated, save name of Council; the one of Constance was on my rough notes but 1 did not use it, hence my slip, for which I apologise. Nor am 1 in error as to Paschasius, whom I did not call a bishop, I spoke of Paschasius Kadbert, a monkanil abbot of Corbie, who is said by all authorities I can find to have written his treatise about 831 A. L>., or perhaps SlO A.D., the second Council of Nicea was held in 787 A. I). I can only in conclusion call " Junius'" attention to the fact that lie has carefully avoided the main question—historical evidence that St. Patrick had any connection whatever with the Roman Church, the . myths of comparatively modern writers excepted. As to the letter of Father Fox in your issue of to-day (.July 25th,) it simply proves most emphatically the untenableness of toe position of "Junius"and all those who claim St. Patrick as a specially Uotnan saint, for lie can only say that B.itler, a very modern and not universally believed writor, states that many authors (unnamed) say that thu same pope commissioned St. Patrick, 'lhis statement is valueless in the absence of contemporary evidence, and the existence of many undoubted facts proving the independence to customs, &c.. of the ancient British Church under St. Patrick. I was quite aware of the abortive attempt of St. Pilladius, but it is not the question under discussion. In conclusion, Sir, you may give my name and address to Father I 1 ox if he desires it since he has signed his letter, but on condition that lie respects my anonnnity with the public.—l remain, sir, yours respectfully. Juttcs.