Britannia, Evangelization of

BRITANNIA, EVANGELIZATION OF. – The southern part (south of the 55th parallel) of present-day England and Scotland began to be called B. when the Britons settled there.

I. THE BRETONS

They were Celts, tall in stature, with light eyes and reddish hair, and belonged to that branch of the Aryan stock which, from the valleys of the Danube, the Elbe, and the Rhine, during the last millennium before Christ, had come to settle in Gaul known as Celtic Gaul, whence it sent offshoots into Upper Italy, Spain, and the great islands of the North Sea. In these islands the Celts arrived in two waves: the first, that of the Gaels and Goidels, reached them between the 10th and 4th centuries before Christ. They were driven northward into Scotland (Caledonia) and Ireland (Hibernia) by the second wave, that of the Bretons (perhaps from brython = tattoo), who between the 4th and 2nd centuries B.C. settled in the southern part of the British island. Related to the Celts of Gaul, the Bretons helped them in their struggle against the Romans. Julius Caesar took this as a pretext to invade the island and conquer its southern part (55 B.C.). The occupation was secured and extended by the emperors of the Julian and Flavian houses. Hadrian erected, for the protection of Roman B., against the attacks of the Caledonians of barbarian B., the celebrated wall. Antoninus added another farther north. Under Diocletian, Roman B. was divided into four provinces. Theodosius added a fifth. Rome succeeded in unifying, pacifying, and reconciling those proud and warlike peoples to its rule, but could not assimilate them. Although, by reason of their serious and meditative nature and thanks to the civilizing work of Rome, the Bretons were receptive to Christian preaching, they nevertheless presented an obstacle through their rigid racial particularism, which fragmented them into autonomous and hostile clans, and through their naturalistic religion, sustained by the powerful organization of the Druids.

II. CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

We do not know when or how Christianity entered B. The reports collected by Eusebius, Theodoret, and other ancient ecclesiastical writers of the arrival on the island of St. Paul or St. Peter, Simon Zelotes, St. James, Aristobulus, and St. John do not merit attention. The legend of the preaching of Joseph of Arimathea, who is said to have brought there a few drops of Christ’s blood, found somewhat greater favor; from this legend the later one of the Holy Grail (sanguis realis) subsequently developed. Some believed that they could establish the presence of Christianity in B. as early as the first century on the grounds that Pomponia Graecina, wife of the proconsul Plautus, commander of the Roman legions stationed on the island, and Claudia, wife of the senator Pudens and born in B., were probably Christians. Even if this were certain, it would imply no more than the presence of some Christians among the Romans who occupied and governed the island, but not yet among the Britons. Bede (Hist. eccl., I, 4) draws from the Lib. Pontif. (I, p. cII) the report that a British king named Lucius, toward the end of the second century, requested missionaries from Pope Eleutherius (175–89). This too is a legend, since at that time there was no independent king in Roman B.; and, had there been one, he would not have borne the Roman name Lucius. In any event, toward the end of that century Christianity had already set foot on the island. The first missionaries had come from Gaul. They were perhaps Christians who had escaped the persecution of 177. Tertullian (Adv. Iudaeos, 8) includes B. among the countries that, although inaccessible to the Romans, had nevertheless been subjected to Christ. The African rhetorician is probably carried away by his customary enthusiasm. The same does not seem to apply, however, to Origen, who less than fifty years later, on three separate occasions in his writings, alludes to the evangelization of B. (Homil. IV in Ezech.; PG 13, 695; Homil. VI in Lucam: ibid., 1813 ff.; Commentarior. Series, in Mt.: ibid., 1655). By the end of the third century, several Christian communities already existed. This may be inferred from the martyrdom of St. Alban (v.) at Verulamium and of Aaron and Julius at Caerleon (Legionum Urbs), as well as from the presence at the Council of Arles (314) of the three British bishops Restitutus of London, Eborius of York, and Adelphius of Lincoln, together with a priest and the deacon Arminius, perhaps representing a fourth church; thus, at that Council, representatives of the four provinces of Roman B. would have been present.

III. ASPECT OF THE ANCIENT BRITISH CHURCH

Did the four Churches represented at Arles constitute the entire British hierarchy, which depended solely upon the bishop of York, or were they the metropolises of four ecclesiastical provinces, in which numerous episcopal sees were grouped? The sources are scarce, and nothing certain can be said. At the Council of Rimini in 359 the British bishops, like those of Gaul, refused, with the exception of three, the subsidies offered by the emperor Constantius (Sulpicius Severus, Chronicon, II, 41). F. Cabrol (L'Angleterre chrétienne, p. 26) infers the presence at that Council of at least 8 or 10 British bishops. The supposition is not entirely certain; what is certain, however, is that the ancient British Church felt Catholic unity keenly: its episcopate condemned Donatism at the Council of Arles; at Sardica (343) it subscribed to the rehabilitation of Athanasius; in 347 it rejected the formula of Sirmium and, after some hesitation, finally accepted the Nicene faith and in 363, by a letter to Athanasius, definitively adhered to the ὁμοσόσιος. In all the controversies of the fourth century the episcopate across the Channel followed the developments of the Gallican episcopate. The influence of the Gallican Church upon the British Church, both in doctrine and in liturgy, is undeniable. Towards the end of the fourth century Vitricius of Rouen, a friend of s. Martin of Tours, was asked by the British bishops to settle certain controversies that had arisen among them. In the following century s. Germanus of Auxerre visited the island twice (429–31 and 447) to combat there the heresy of the Briton Pelagius, supported by the two bishops Severinus and Fastidius. It is futile to attempt to prove the Eastern origin of the British Church and its original independence from Rome. Irrefutable testimonies guarantee its close connection with the Roman see: the use of the Vetus latina and, after the sixth century, of the Vulgate; the acceptance of the Roman Easter cycle (314); the ordination of Bishop Palladius by Celestine I (431); the acceptance of Roman doctrine in the great controversies of the fourth century, etc. It is one thing to admit the Roman ca-

racter of the ancient British Church and another to say that, until 410, it was constituted solely by Roman elements. The following demonstrate the spread of Christianity among the Celtic population properly so called: 1) the names of the few British martyrs and bishops known to us; 2) the fact that the 130 Christian inscriptions preserved for us (though dating from after the fourth century) have been found in various places and not only where Roman influence was most strongly felt; 3) the existence of numerous churches (cf. Gildas, De excidio et conquestu Britanniae, 24: PL 69, 346), etc. Zimmer (The Celtic Church, 1902, pp. 57 ff.) proved that around 400 the majority of the Britons were Christian. Otherwise, it would be difficult to understand how that Church did not disappear when the Roman administration ceased (410).