How will young people respond to a pope with an austere image who was once dubbed “God’s rottweiler”? Feelings have been running high about style. Even while Benedict plans to celebrate the prefaces and canons in Latin, organizers have approved a rap theme song for his visit: a hip-hop version of “Hearts Cry” by a Catholic trio named Ooberfuse. “We wanted to break some of the stereotypes,” a member of the band told the press.
A somewhat strange theme in public discourse has been whether Benedict can turn the tide of secularism. Some traditionalists nurse the idea that the Vatican only temporarily conceded the British Isles to a flawed Protestant version of faith and has been biding its time to launch a fresh mission. They see the Personal Ordinariate for dissident Anglicans as marking the beginning of a comeback.
Benedict will go softly softly on this and will likely not invoke Augustine of Canterbury as a motif for Roman Catholic mission in the U.K. Contrary to the popular view, Augustine did not bring Christianity to these shores. He found a Christian queen in Kent, and a Celtic church that could boast of being represented at the Council of Nicea. The future is not about the domination of one tradition, but understanding and cooperation among the enormous variety of Christians in Britain today.
[blockquote]Contrary to the popular view, Augustine did not bring Christianity to these shores. He found a Christian queen in Kent, and a Celtic church that could boast of being represented at the Council of Nicea.[/blockquote]
Yes, Augustine did find a (Frankish) Christian queen in Kent, who had her (probably Frankish or Gallo-Roman) chaplain with her. But there is no extant evidence of a Christian community outside St Bertha’s household remaining in the kingdom of Cantware, later Kent. The native British Church, which had produced such saints as Ninian, Patrick, and David, had nevertheless failed to evangelize the invading Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, for which some later Christian English (Anglo-Saxon) writers would take them to task. (Their failure is perhaps understandable, given the native Romanized Britons were either overwhelmed and subsumed or driven into the mountains and valleys of what would come to be called Wales and Cumberland or to the tors and rocky coasts of what could come to be called Cornwall.)
As for boasting a presence at Nicaea? Hardly. There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. There were perhaps three British bishops present at the Council of Arelate (Arles) in 314, and Athanasius would later note that bishops in Britain had agreed to the decrees of the Council of Sardica ([i]c[/i]. 343) that exonerated Athanasius and ratified the doctrinal decrees of Nicaea. But there were no British bishops present at the first Council of Nicaea, so far as we are able to know.
As John Martin correctly notes, there is ample evidence that Christianity was established in Britain long before the Roman mission of St Augustine arrived in Kent at the end of the 6th century. Furthermore, Augustine’s mission was largely unsuccessful and the evangelisation of the anglo-saxons was completed by celtic missionaries or their proselytes.
The church was established in Britain at least by the third century and probably in the second century: Tertullian writes in 208 AD, “The regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms have received the religion of Christ.” (Def, Fidei, p.179). Origen also refers to Christians in Britain (Hom 6 Luc, 9). St Alban is now believed to have been martyred in 209AD north of London, for harbouring a christian priest and becoming a proselyte. Aaron and Julius were martyred near Caerleon.
Todd Granger states:
[blockquote] “There were perhaps three British bishops present at the Council of Arelate (Arles) in 314” [/blockquote]
No, not “perhaps”. Three bishops of the British church attended the Synod of Arles in 314 AD: Restitutus of London, Adelfius of Lincoln and an unnamed bishop of York (“Eborus” which the chronicler mistook for his name). This was more bishops than from the entirety of northern Gaul. This alone provides conclusive evidence that the British church was flourishing by the early 4th century. But there are many more references – here are a few of them:
Athanasius is clear in his Apologia Contra Arianos that bishops from Britain either attended the council of Sardica in 343 AD, or else ratified its decisions afterwards. Athanasius also writes to the emperor Jovian: “For know, most religious Augustus, that these things have been preached from time immemorial, and this faith the Fathers who met at Nicæa confessed; and to it have assented all the Churches in every quarter, both those in Spain, and Britain, and the Gauls, and all Italy…”
Hilary of Poitiers in 358 AD congratulates “bishops in the province of Britain” for remaining orthodox.
At least three British bishops attended the council of Ariminum in 360 AD, and probably more.
Chrysostom in his homily 28 on Corinthians writes of the church being established in the British Isles.
In short, the evidence for an established British church by the 4th century is overwhelming.
The barbarian invasions in the 5th century exterminated Christians from some parts of the country – as Bede points out, Augustine used a building in Canterbury that had been formerly used as a church in the 4th or 5th century.
But the evidence we have indicates that the British church survived quite well in other parts of the country. Annales Cambriae refers to a British Synod held in Urbs Legionis (Chester) in 601. Bede at II.2 tells us that in about 602-604, Augustine met representatives of the British church on the border of anglo-saxon territory at “Augustine’s Oak”. These were only clergy of the British Provincium closest to Anglo-Saxon territory. He demanded that they recognise his ecclesiastical authority over the British church. They referred his approach to a more distant Synod (probably at Chester) which was attended by seven British bishops and “numerous learned men” where the claim to papal authority was firmly rebuffed.
As Todd Granger notes, Roman apologists did later criticise the Celtic church for allegedly failing to evangelise the Anglo-Saxons, however this was no more than spin. In fact, the evangelisation of Britain was almost entirely carried out by Celtic missionaries or their proselytes, such as Aidan, Cuthbert and Oswald. The process was largely completed in the seventh century and there is no indication that the Roman mission in Kent played any significant part in it.
(A response that will probably fail to be noticed because of its tardiness.)
History is not served by being presented in a partisan manner. Perhaps MichaelA misread what I wrote in my first comment: I am by no means disputing the existence of a Christian Church in Britain before the arrival of the Augustinian mission in 597. I recognize (and knew before) the truth of every fact that he presents. Perhaps a closer reading of my first comment would foster an understanding of just how modest are the claims I was making: 1) that there is no extant evidence for a living Christian presence – outside Queen Bertha’s household – in the kingdom of Cantware (Kent) in the late 6th century; and 2) that there is, [i]contra[/i] Martin’s claims, no evidence of British bishops at the first Council of Nicaea. MichaelA’s long response, true in its particulars, traduces nothing to disprove those two claims. That “the British church survived quite well in other parts of the country” I noted in my first comment – hence remarking on Wales, Cumberland, and Cornwall (all medieval English names given to regions that would have been known in the 5th century as Cambria/Cymry, Rheged, and Dumnonia/Dyfneint and Kerniu). Urbs Legionis (Chester), the site of Augustine’s unbrotherly demands for submission of the British bishops, is nigh on the modern Welsh border and the 7th century borders between the Anglo-Saxons and the native Britons (by that time known as the Cymbrogi, later Cymry).
I would be interested to know what late 5th and 6th century evidence MichaelA can produce that the Christian faith continued to thrive in those parts of Britain known as Angle-land, before the planting of the faith in southern Britain (southern England) by Augustine and his monks.
I would also be interested to know exactly what evidence leads MichaelA to the conclusion that “there is no indication that the Roman mission in Kent played any significant part” in the evangelisation of Britain. The claim that the evangelisation of Britain “was almost entirely carried out by Celtic missionaries or their proselytes, such as Aidan, Cuthbert and Oswald” is itself “no more than spin”. The mission in southern England was quite successful, resulting in the evangelisation of Kent and Essex early on, and eventually the evangelisation of Sussex and Wessex. (A letter written by Pope Gregory the Great to the Patriarch of Alexandria rejoiced that on Christmas Day, 597 – less than a year after the Augustinian mission landed off the coast of Kent – some 10,000 converts were baptized. Granting there may be some hyperbole, that still doesn’t seem insignificant in the annals of Christian mission.) The first mission to the north (resulting in the establishment of an episcopal see at Eboracum, later York) was from the south, and while this mission saw the conversion of the king, the royal family and the chief pagan priest of Northumbria, a pagan reaction destroyed most of the effects of the mission. Northumbria would thereafter be re-evangelized by Aidan and his disciples from Iona.
There is no question that the Irish mission resulted in the evangelisation of Northumbria. I would by no means demean or diminish the significance of the Irish mission in the conversion of the northern English. But the suggestion that the evangelisation of Britain was “almost entirely carried out by Celtic missionaries” is outrageous. It willfully fails to recognize the work done by the Augustinian mission and its successors in the southern Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and the Midlands, fails to recognize the foundation laid by Paulinus in Eboracum (without this foundation there would have been no Christian king in Northumbria to send his son and heir – Oswald – to Iona for formation), and replays a hoary Anglican trope that tries to avoid anything papal by grounding the Church of England solely in the Romano-British Church and the Irish Church to the denigration and ignoring of the Augustinian mission. History is a lot more complicated and fascinating than that.
(And I write that criticism as a High Church Anglican, not a Roman Catholic or an “papalist” Anglo-Catholic.)
Its true that most of my post was not really responsive to Todd Granger’s post, but then, much of his was not responsive to John Martin’s except in a general way. I don’t see this as a problem, in either case. As Todd notes, we are in fact in agreement on many things (and no doubt both of us are also in agreement with John Martin on most things).
Clearly, one area where we differ is that of the success and influence of the Roman mission to Canterbury.
[blockquote] 1. “that there is, contra Martin’s claims, no evidence of British bishops at the first Council of Nicaea.” [/blockquote]
I am not so sure of that. But I haven’t commented on it, as I have not had the opportunity to review the evidence. This claim has been made by sources as diverse as the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I want to find out why.
[blockquote] 2. “Urbs Legionis (Chester), the site of Augustine’s unbrotherly demands for submission of the British bishops, is nigh on the modern Welsh border and the 7th century borders between the Anglo-Saxons and the native Britons” [/blockquote]
This is incorrect. Augustine’s demands were not delivered at Chester. They were probably delivered at the same place as his initial meeting with the British, at Augustine’s Oak on the border of Wessex and Hwicce, i.e. East Gloucestershire. This indicates that a large contingent of seven British bishops and “numerous learned men” from Bangor-is-Y-Coed were able to travel outside “British” territory without fear.
[blockquote] 3. “I would be interested to know what late 5th and 6th century evidence
MichaelA can produce that the Christian faith continued to thrive in those
parts of Britain known as Angle-land, before the planting of the faith in
southern Britain (southern England) by Augustine and his monks.” [/blockquote]
Since I didn’t claim this, I don’t know why I have to produce evidence for it! The reference to “Angle-land” is also curious – is this meant to exclude the Saxon kingdoms?
Anyway, if this topic interests you, I suggest looking at some of the literature on archaeology of the early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Steve Bassett and Nancy Edwards a few years back published material indicating that British missionaries converted the Angles around Worcester to Christianity prior to the arrival of Augustine. Obviously Bede’s admission that the British contingents travelled a long way through the territory of the Middle Angles seemingly without fear is also relevant.
[blockquote] 4. “I would also be interested to know exactly what evidence leads MichaelA to the conclusion that “there is no indication that the Roman mission in Kent played any significant part” in the evangelisation of Britain. The claim
that the evangelisation of Britain “was almost entirely carried out by Celtic missionaries or their proselytes, such as Aidan, Cuthbert and Oswald” is itself “no more than spin”. The mission in southern England was quite successful, resulting in the evangelisation of Kent and Essex early on, and eventually the evangelisation of Sussex and Wessex.” [/blockquote]
This is incorrect. Even Bede (Roman apologist though he was) concedes that the Augustinian mission never established any lasting gains outside of Kent. They *briefly* established a presence among the East Saxons in London (when it came under the rule of Kent), but in 616 AD they were driven out and never returned. They also *briefly* established a presence in “Northumbria” (when the King of Diera married a Kentish priestess) but this also failed within a few years. Beyond that, they never attempted to evangelise anywhere, so far as we are aware. In fact, there are indications that their influence even in Kent declined after the death of Augustine (as the See of Rochester seems to have fallen into disuse for much of the 7th century, leaving only Canterbury).
As for other areas:
Sussex: The Augustinians never attempted to establish any presence here (even though it is adjacent to Kent). Bede at IV.13 tells us that it always remained pagan until converted by British missionaries from Mercia and Lindisfarne in 681 AD. Wilfrid of Northumbria (a Saxon trained at Lindisfarne) became its first bishop.
East Anglia: King Sibert was initially converted by a Burgundian (Felix) when he was in exile in Gaul. He brought Felix back to East Anglia in the 620s (Bede II.15). However, tellingly, Bede admits that when King Sibert wanted to spread Christianity in East Anglia, he invited an Irish Bishop, Fursa, to do it (Bede III.19). Fursa in turn left other British bishops to carry on his work in East Anglia. Sibert himself was baptised in Northumbria by the Irish bishop of Lindisfarne.
Mercia: Bede at III.21 tells us that the King of Mercia was converted through the ministry of Northumbrian Christians, and baptised at Lindisfarne by bishop Finan. Four priests of Lindisfarne returned with him to the Midlands. The first bishops of Mercia were all either ethnically British, or Englishmen ordained in Iona or Lindisfarne.
East Saxons: These had remained pagan since they expelled the Augustinian bishop Melitus from London in 616 AD. Bede at III.22 writes that they were evangelised in about 653 AD by St Cedd, an Irish priest who was a missionary in Mercia. Cedd was recalled to Lindisfarne, consecrated bishop of the East Saxons by Finan and two other bishops, and sent out. Among the East Saxons Cedd “built churches in divers places, and ordained priests and deacons to assist him in the Word of faith and the ministry of baptism”. This was characteristic of the missionary practices of St Aidan which was directed at mass evangelism, rather than the Augustinian practice of converting only the ruling families.
West Saxons: Berinus (a Roman missionary unrelated to the Augustinian mission in Kent) baptised one of the West Saxon Kings, Cynegils, in about 640 AD. However, Oswald of Northumbria was Cynegils’ sponsor at the baptism, so there was clearly British involvement. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Oswald also sponsored the baptism of another West Saxon King at the same time, Cwichelm. Later, the West Saxons were partly absorbed by (Christian) Mercia, but they also expanded south west, absorbing the territory of British groups who were already Christian.
In summary, there is plenty of evidence (much of it from Roman apologist Bede) that the evangelisation of the Anglo-Saxons was mainly accomplished by British missionaries trained in Iona or Lindisfarne. There were also continental missionaries involved in a few places, such as Felix and Berinus. These came over directly from the continent without reference to Canterbury. There is virtually no evidence of the Augustinian mission engaging in any effective evangelism.
One of the reasons for this ineffectiveness emerges from the accounts: the Augustinians seem to have been very reluctant to ordain English priests. By contrast, numerous accounts testify to the willingness of the British St Aidan to ordain appropriate English converts. Aidan was highly influential: most of the evangelisation of the Anglo-Saxons was carried out in the mid-7th century by priests and bishops who trained at Lindisfarne while Aidan was there.
In summary (and apart from the two short-lived exceptions of East Saxons and Northumbria), the Augustinian mission was irrelevant outside of Kent until 668 when the energetic Theodore of Tarsus became bishop of Canterbury. By that time, the evangelisation of the Anglo-Saxons had been virtually completed, mainly by missionaries trained at Lindisfarne or Iona. Theodore began the process of creating a synodical government for all England, and his second synod of Hertford in 680 (where the British church united to condemn Monophysitism) represents a watershed – the first united British intervention in European church affairs since the Council of Ariminum in 360AD. But the British influence over all of England remained strong until a century later when the brunt of the Viking attacks fell on the centres of British learning. After that, Canterbury’s rise to central power in the English church was assured.
[Continued in next post]
My response to Todd Granger continued:
[blockquote] 5. “(A letter written by Pope Gregory the Great to the Patriarch of Alexandria rejoiced that on Christmas Day, 597 – less than a year after the Augustinian mission landed off the coast of Kent – some 10,000 converts were baptized. Granting there may be some hyperbole, that still doesn’t seem insignificant in the annals of Christian mission.)” [/blockquote]
Given the direct evidence we have from England, I think we can dismiss this as entirely wishful thinking on the pontiff’s part.
[blockquote] 6. “fails to recognize the foundation laid by Paulinus in Eboracum (without this foundation there would have been no Christian king in Northumbria to send his son and heir – Oswald – to Iona for formation),” [/blockquote]
This contains a number of errors.
Firstly, Oswald’s father did not send him “to Iona for formation”. Oswald was the son of Aethelfrith, the ruler of “Northumbria” prior to Edwin. Aethelfrith was killed in battle by Edwin who assumed the “Northumbrian” throne. Oswald fled to Dal Riata to avoid his father’s fate. Edwin then sought an alliance by marriage with a Christian princess from Kent and in the process invited Paulinus to Northumbria. As should be obvious, Paulinus never met Oswald or his father, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Oswald’s upbringing, even indirectly.
Secondly, the evidence indicates that Paulinus laid no foundation at all in Northumbria. He created no priests, nor did he engage in evangelism. He brought in one foreign deacon to assist him. He was sent packing when Edwin was killed. Even the first British priest that Oswald brought in from Dal Riata could make no headway, because there was no foundation. It was only when the extraordinarily holy and charismatic Aidan arrived from Iona that progress began to be made. A key difference was that Aidan made many priests among the English (Bede III.5), something Paulinus made no attempt to do.
I stand corrected in a multitude of particulars, having a fallible memory and no books to hand at the time of writing my comment.
That’s being said, I stand by my insistence that evidence be produced regarding the presence of British bishops at the Council of Nicaea. It is possible that there were British bishops there, but without evidence (and our evidence for exactly who was there is limited in any event) Martin should not have made the claim.
I agree.