A MONTHLY TEACHING LETTER
Letter
#14
This
is the fourteenth in a series of teaching letters. In my last teaching letter
(the thirteenth), I started a study on the Zerah branch of Judah with which a
whole lot of people are not familiar. Because this subject covers so much
territory, it was not possible to cover it in one lesson. For this reason, this
lesson will be a continuation of letter number thirteen. (If you don�t have
lesson #13, you will need it to go along with this one.) It was shown in the
last lesson, how the Zerah branch of Judah had kings of royalty long before the
House of David. It was discussed how the two royal branches of Judah (Pharez and
Zerah) were eventually merged together. That is another important story which I
will cover in the future. We learned the Zerah branch left Egypt before the main
body of Israelites went through the Red Sea, and became the famous Trojans of
history in Asia Minor. Approximately 400 years later, they eventually moved on
to Italy. Furthermore, we learned many of them, after some maneuvering, made
their way to Britain. We gained the knowledge of how the Britons and Romans, in
spite of being kinsmen, each country respectively developed different histories
in law, politics and religion. We acquired the important knowledge that Joseph
of Arimathaea established the first above ground church in history, and that the
Roman Catholic Universal Church�s claim of being the first church was, and
still is, entirely false. As a matter of fact, the entire Roman Catholic Church
system is a counterfeit church along with its �daughters.� We became aware,
the reason Rome invaded Britain under Claudius, was to destroy the British
church before it could get established. It was revealed, further, how Linus and
Claudia of Timothy 4:21 were converts of the British church. With this lesson,
we will continue with more interesting aspects related to this Zerah branch of
Judah theme.
Now
Continuing the Topic:
JUST
WHO IS THIS PATRIARCH, JUDAH? (Part 14)
To
get started with this second in a series on the Church of Britain, I will quote
from The Origin and Early History of
Christianity In Britain, by Andrew Gray, D.D., pages 36-37:
It
could scarcely be expected that a people so savage as the Britons, so devoted to
their superstitions, and so depressed by their fierce invaders, could speedily
be converted to the Christian Faith. The branch of the spiritual vine,
therefore, though planted so early in the soil of Britain, was, from the nature
of things, slow in its growth, and during the first century did not make a rapid
progress. By the middle of the second century, however, �She had sent out her
boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river�; for it is evident that,
by that time, a large number of the inhabitants, of all ranks, had abandoned
idolatry and had embraced the Christian Faith. We have already seen that the first
Church [building] ever built in Britain, and probably in
Christendom, was erected at Glastonbury in the first century. ...
For
further information that the establishment of the first church, other than that
of Jerusalem, was at Glastonbury in Britain, I will quote excerpts from Celt,
Druid and Culdee, by Isabel Hill Elder, pages 98-101:
Gildas, the British historian, writing in A.D. 542,
states: �We certainly know that Christ, the True Sun, afforded His light , the
knowledge of His precepts, to our Island in the last year of the reign of
Tiberias Caesar, A.D. 37.�
Sir
Henry Spelman states, �We have abundant evidence that this Britain of ours
received the Faith, and that from the disciples of Christ Himself soon after the
Crucifixion�, and Polydor Virgil observes that �Britain was of all the
kingdoms the first that received the Gospel.�
The
fact that Lucius established Christianity as the State religion excludes the
claim of the Latin Church to that eminence. That this early establishment
was acknowledged beyond the confines of Britain is well expressed by Sabellius,
A.D. 250. �Christianity was privately expressed elsewhere, but the first
nation that proclaimed it as their religion, and called itself Christian, after
the name of Christ, was Britain�; and Ebrard remarks, �The glory of Britain
consists not only in this, that she was the first country which in a national
capacity professed herself Christian, but that she made this confession
when the Roman Empire itself was pagan, and a cruel persecutor of Christianity.�
The
writer of Vale
Royal states,
�The Christian faith and baptism came into Chester in the reign of Lucius,
king of the Britons, probably from Cambria, circa A.D. 140.�
Missionaries
are said to have come from Glastonbury, only thirty miles distant, to instruct
the Druids of Amesbury in the Christain faith. When the Druids adopted and
preached Christianity, their universities were turned into Christian colleges
and the Druid priests became Christian ministers; the transition was to them a
natural one. ... �It would be difficult to conceive of Christianity being
preached to any people for the first time under more favourable conditions.
There was hardly a feature in their national character in which it would not
find a cord answering and vibrating to its touch.� ... �There was no violent
divorce between the new teaching and that of their own Druids, nor were they
called upon so much to reverse their ancient faith as to lay it down for a
fuller and more perfect revelation.�
For
another reference on the Roman�s hatred for the British Christians and Druids,
we are going to turn to The Drama of the
Lost Disciples, by George F. Jowett, pages 59-60:
Those who have been indoctrinated by the false stories
describing the Druidic religion may pause in consternation. The malevolent
infamy heaped upon the Druidic priesthood, their religion, with the practice of
human sacrifice, is just as untruthful, vicious and vile as the other
distortions stigmatizing the ancient Britons. On close examination it will be
found that those who uttered the vindictive maledictions stand out in Roman
history as the dictators of the Roman Triumvirate. Their bestial hatred for
everything that was British and Christian deliberately promoted the insidious
propaganda to defame the people they could neither coerce nor subdue. In our own
time, among others, none other than the eminent archaeologist Sir Flanders
Petrie, on examination of the ground around and under the altar at Stonehenge,
completely exploded the infamous accusations. He found only the fossilized bones
of sheep and goats which more firmly established the affinity with the
patriarchal faith of the East. In each case the sacrificial burnt offerings were
as stated in the biblical record. ...
The Roman persecutors, despising Druidic opposition,
intensified their malignancy with the British conversion to Christianity. The
Emperors Augustus, Tiberius and the Claudian and Diocletian decrees made
acceptance of Druidic and Christian faith a capital offence, punishable by death.
Some have claimed that this persecution by Rome drove both religions together to
form the solid phalanx of Christianity. This is far from being the case. It has
been already pointed out how the ancient Kymry were bonded in the ancient
patriarchal faith even before they arrived in Britain. Organized by Hu Gadarn
(Hugh the Mighty) the faith took on the name of Druid, a word some claim derive
from the Keltic word �Dreus�, meaning �an oak�, arising out of the
custom of worshipping in the open within the famous oak groves of the island. A
more likely derivation is from �Druthin� � a �Servant of
Truth�, The motto of the Druids was �The Truth against the World.� A
casual study of the Triads emphasized the old Hebrew faith with positive
clarification. The British Mother Church continued to teach the immortality of
the soul, the omniscience of One God and the coming of the Messiah. They were
aware of the prophesied vicarious atonement. ... At that period in history Britain was the only free country in
the world. Gaul had received its baptism of Roman persecution long before the
Caesars turned their attention upon the British. It was the constant aid
given the Gaulish brethren by the warriors of Britain which brought about the
invasion of the Isles. The first attack, led by Julius Caesar, 55 B.C., was
purely a punitive expedition against the Britons for thwarting his arms in Gaul.
Contrary to general opinion that Caesar�s attack was a conquest, it was
[actually] a dismal failure. Within two weeks his forces were routed and pulled
back into Gaul.
It was not until the reign of Hadrian, A.D. 120, that
Britain was incorporated (by treaty � not conquest)
within the Roman dominions, as described by Spartians in �Vita Hadriani. By this
treaty the Britons retained their kings, lands, laws and rights, accepting a
Roman nucleus of the army for the defence of the realm.
EDICT
OF EMPEROR CLAUDIUS, A.D. 43 �TO EXTERMINATE CHRISTIAN BRITAIN�
For
this part of the story, I will quote from The
Drama of the Lost Disciples, by George F. Jowett, pages 89-90:
In
the year A.D. 42 Claudius Emperor of the Romans, issued the fateful decree to
destroy Christian Britain, man, woman and child, and its great institutions and
burn its libraries. To this purpose Claudius equipped the largest army and most
efficient army ever sent by Rome to conquer a foe and led by its most able
generals.
In
this edict, Claudius proclaimed in the Roman Senate that acceptance of the
Druidic or Christian faith was a capital offence, punishable by death by the
sword, the torture chamber, or to be cast to the devouring lions in the arena of
the Colosseum. It is interesting to note that this ruling also included �any
person descended from David.� This meant the Jew, making no exceptions as to
whether he be a converted Jew or one holding to the orthodox Judean faith. This
indeed was a paradox. While the converted Jew embraced Gentile followers of
�The Way� as a brethren, regardless of race, and died with them with equal
courage, the orthodox Jew perishing in the arena by the side of the Christian,
never relented in his bitter hatred. With his dying breath he spat on the
Christian in malevolent scorn. ...
Further
to seek to inflame the populace against Christian and Jew, the Romans were the
first to create the false slander that Christian and Jew alike practiced human
sacrifice in their religion. They knew better. They knew that the burnt
offerings of Judean and Druid were animals. chiefly sheep, goats and doves. ...
It
is apparent that the leaders of Rome were not aware of the difference between
the true Judeans of the Tribe of Judah and the Canaanite Jews descended from
Cain. Most are still making that same mistake today. You will notice here the
natural hatred of the �Jew� for the Christian as foretold in Genesis 3:15! I
believe the Romans lumped together the Zera-Judah Britons with the Jews, and it
was an assault by Rome to destroy the king-line of the House of David because
their pagan religion was in opposition to the newly revealed beliefs of Yahshua
being the Messiah. �The Way� (followers of the Nazarene) posed a threat to
the Roman leaders and their newly formed cult of emperors as gods. If you
don�t understand the history of the worship of Augustus Caesar, you cannot
understand the war that was shaping up between Britain and Rome. The religion of
the Nazarene posed to undermine the authority of the Roman state religion. This
was shaping up to be a religious war plain and simple, and it has continued down
to our present day. The sad part of the story is, the Roman and Briton were
kinsman, both of Zerah-Judah, although the House of David had merged with Zerah
in Britain, but not with Rome, so there might have been a motive on Rome�s
part to destroy the House of David-Pharez.
Now continuing from the book, The
Drama of the Lost Disciples, by George F. Jowett, pages 92-94:
The
overwhelming rise of Christianity in populous Britain and Gaul was viewed with
grave consternation at Rome. Britain was the seeding-ground where an
ever-flowing stream of neophytes were tutored and converted by Apostles and
disciples of Christ and sent out into other lands to teach the Gospel. This the
Romans declared had to be stopped. To them, as to all dictatorships, might alone
was right. Nevertheless, from past experience with British military ability they
had good reason to fear this stubborn valorous race, now inspired with the zeal
of Christ. Forewarned, Rome built the mightiest army in its history to enforce
the Claudian Edict to destroy Britain. ...
The
Romans, who had ground so many nations under their despotic heel, looked upon
all other nations with scorn as inferiors, labelling every enemy as barbarian,
no matter how magnificent their culture. The records attest to the indisputable
fact that the Romans of all people were the most barbarous and brutal in
history. ...
Britain
is the only nation in history ever attacked by the full might of another
powerful people in an effort to purge Christianity off the face of the earth.
Rome sent her very best against the British legions. As they failed to subdue
the British, Rome recalled many brilliant generals who had gained fame for the
double-headed eagle in other foreign conquest, as she determinedly sought to
wipe out [and recover from] one defeat after another to her armies.
From
the Claudian to the Diocletian persecution, extermination of Britain and all
that was Christian was a Roman obsession. How satanic it was can be estimated in
the brutal act which touched off the Diocletian campaign. The finest warrior
battalions in the Roman army were the famed Gaulish Legions. On the order of
Maximian co-ruler with Diocletian, the Christian Gaulish veterans were
slaughtered to a man in cold blood. His hatred of the Christian is stated to
have exceeded that of Diocletian and to satiate it he butchered his finest
soldiers.
The
martyrologies state that during the first two hundred years of Christianity over
six million Christians were entombed within the catacombs of Rome �
murdered. How many were buried within the other unexplored catacombs is
difficult to say. The total number would be appalling. It is claimed that if the
passages of the catacombs of Rome were measured end to end they would extend to
a length of 550 miles, from the city of Rome into the Swiss Alps. It seems
almost incredible that while only about one million Christians today walk the
streets of Rome, under their feet are over six million mutilated bodies which
had testified for Christ.
It
is possible some of you may not be familiar with the tenth persecution under
Diocletian, or any of the ten persecutions by Rome, inflicted upon the followers
of the Nazarene. You can read about the Diocletian persecution in, Fox�s
Book of Martyr�s, pages 24-33. If you don�t read any of the other Roman
persecutions in this book, I highly recommend you read this passage especially.
To get some idea of this, I am going to quote from The
Drama of the Lost Disciples, by George F. Jowett, pages 215-216:
The
infamous Diocletian held the reins at Rome, and on his orders began what is
often described as the worst persecution of the Christians in the year A.D. 290.
In his Edict, he ordered churches to be pulled down, the sacred scriptures to be
gathered together and burnt, along with other Christian literature on which they
lay their hands. Libraries, schools of learning and private homes were to be
destroyed. ...
The
Emperor Diocletian struck with sudden appalling savagery at the Christians. He
blamed them for the series of disasters over the years that had decimated the
Roman arms to such an extent that they were no longer able to defend their own
frontiers successfully, let alone conquer as formerly. Rome was on the decline;
her glory was fast waning. Diocletian sought to avert national disaster by
ordering the extermination of the Christians, their churches and other
possessions. The bestial cruelty lasted eighteen years. The persecution flamed
across Europe for several years before it struck the shores of Britain. Again
the Romans were frustrated by the incredible zeal of the martyrs who died with
prayer on their lips, or ringing exhortations. They saw the common people
destroyed, showing the same disdain for death as had their Christian forebears.
This infuriated Diocletian to more fiendish practices, in which he later was
aided by Maximian, who became co-ruler with him over the continental Roman
Empire. Brutal as was Diocletian, it is written by the Romans themselves that
Maximian was worse. His ferocity and atrocities are claimed to be beyond
description. He caused the finest Legions, exclusively composed of Gauls to be
butchered to the last man because they were Christian. He was blind with
maniacal (insane) hate.
For
more on Diocletian, and how his persecutions finally reached Britain, I will now
quote from Celt, Druid and Culdee, by
Isabel Hill Elder, pages 108-109:
Surprise
is sometimes expressed that there are so few records of the early British
Church. The savage edicts of Roman Emperors were directed not alone to the
destruction of individuals who confessed the Christian faith, but also to the
literature and records of the Church.
There
were ten �high power� persecutions of the Christians under these tyrants,
extending from A.D. 66 to A.D. 303; the last being that of Diocletian which
began in A.D. 290. Bede says: �The Diocletian persecution was carried out
incessantly for ten years, with the burning of Churches, outlawing of innocent
persons and the slaughter of martyrs. At length it reached Britain in the year
300, and many persons, with the constancy of martyrs, died in the confession of
the Faith.� The records of the Church had now to be written not with pen and
ink but in blood and the flames of martyrdom. In the edict of Diocletian the
Scriptures were to be carried away or destroyed, being regarded as books of
magic; in this he was following older methods of suppression. ...
After
the Diocletian persecution had died out, the churches in Britain were rebuilt,
and Christianity flourished to so great an extent that at the Council of Aries,
A.D. 314, the British Church was represented by three bishops and a presbyter,
and again at the Council of Sardica and Ardminium in the fourth century.
The reason, today, we are so unaware of the fact that the
British church was the true church established by Joseph of Arimathaea by the
direction of St. Philip, is because most all the records have been destroyed.
There have been enough records to survive, though, to establish beyond all doubt
that the church of Britain (not to be confused with the present day Anglican
Church of England) was the true church, before being Romanized,. For this reason
most everyone has assumed that the true church was the Roman Catholic Church,
which is entirely false. Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor her Protestant
daughters represent the true church established by our Messiah. There was a
church established at Rome, and Linus (the son of Caractacus) was appointed by
the Apostle Paul to be the First Bishop, and it was not related in any way to
the Roman Catholic Church, ever! It was called, Basilica Di Pudenziana (also the Palace of the British). There were
many incidents of burning and destroying church records at various times and
places. I will now quote passages from different books concerning this:
The Origin and Early
History of Christianity In Britain, by
Andrew Gray, D.D.:
Page
3. The very early history of the British Church has been involved in some
obscurity by the destruction of many of the ancient records; and yet
quite enough can be gathered from history of the remote times to serve our
purpose �
probably quite as much as can be obtained in support of any contemporaneous
event of secular history.
Page 47. The Emperor (Diocletian) commanded the Governor to
burn all Christian books, and to destroy their places of worship. Christians
who refused to deny their Lord were to be tortured and put to death. Amongst
those who suffered death were St. Alban of Verulam, Julius of Caerleon, Aaron of
Exeter, and Angulius of London.
Celt, Druid and
Culdee, by Isabel
Hill Elder:
Page
75. �The next promoter of letters was King Tuathalius, first century A.D., who
appointed a triennial reversion of all the antiquaries� books by a committee
of three kings or great lords, three Druids and three antiquaries. These were to
cause whatever was approved and found valuable in these books to be translated
into the Royal Book of Tara.
�The
third patron of literature was King Cormac, A.D. 266, who renewed the laws about
the antiquaries, and rebuilt and enlarged the academy of Tara for history, law
and military training. He was an indefatigable (untiring) distributor of
Justice, having written numerous laws still extant. ...
�The
O�Duvegans were hereditary bards; the O�Clerys and the O�Brodins were
hereditary antiquaries; the O�Shiels and the O�Canvans were hereditary
doctors; the Macglanchys were hereditary judges.�
�The
Druids did not at all times receive fair treatment from the Christians. Dudly
Forbes, in a letter to an Irish writer, states that in St. Patrick�s time
no fewer than one hundred and thirty volumes relating to the affairs of the
Druids were burnt in Ireland. What a deplorable extinction of arts and
inventions; what an unspeakable detriment to learning. What a dishonour upon
human understanding has the cowardly proceeding of the ignorant, or rather the
interested at all times occasioned.�
Page
108. Surprise is sometimes expressed that there are so few records of the early
British Church. The savage edicts of Roman Emperors were directed not alone to
the destruction of individuals who confessed the Christian faith, but also to
the literature and records of the Church.
The Drama of the
Lost Disciples, by
George F. Jowett:
Pages
138-139. The hallowed sanctity of �Our Lady�s Dowry� is descriptively
corroborated by the Saxon historian, William of Malmesbury, who wrote his
outstanding works in the twelfth century. He wrote two histories covering the
religious subject-matter related herein. His last work, De Antiquitate Glastoniae,
is most authentic. He was specially commissioned by the Abbot of Glastonbury to
write the complete history of the famous church from its beginning at Avalon and
was invited to live at the Abbey where he had full access to the world-famous
Glastonbury Library. Therein were contained all the original documents from
Druidic times, consequently he wrote his history with the benefit of first-hand
material, long before the great fire completely destroyed the Abbey and its
wonderful library, then considered one of the largest in the world.
Consequently, his historic literary work completed at the Abbey, under his
commission, is probably the most precious document of the British Christian
Church in existence.
Page
154. One should remember, however, that since the Claudian Edict for Christian
extermination, beginning A.D. 42, up to and including the Boadicean war of A.D.
60, the people and the land of Britain suffered a persecution at the hands of
the Romans for eighteen years which no other nation had experienced. Their
towns, religious institutions, libraries and seats of cultural learning had
been burnt to the ground with a barbaric insolence unequalled. The
defenceless had been massacred. Licentiousness, pillage and plunder of wealth,
crops and cattle had been conducted unabated in the vicious Roman pledge to
crush the Christian faith and spirit in Britain.
Page
215. The infamous Diocletian held the reins at Rome, and on his orders began
what is often described as the worst persecution of the Christians in the year
A.D. 290. In his Edict, he ordered churches to be pulled down, the sacred
scriptures to be gathered together and burnt, along with other Christian
literature and private homes were equally destroyed.
This
should give you some idea as to the deliberate and accidental destruction of
important historical and religious records that have happened over the many
years since the time when Joseph of Arimathaea was commissioned by Saint Philip
through the laying on of hands. You can see very clearly, from all of this
devastation of the written record, why so many have come to believe that the
history of the church emanates through Rome. Almost without exception, all
written church histories take that route. If you have come to identify the route
through the British church, you are one of the very few who know the real and
important truth! But if you want to become a member of the British Celtic church
today, I am sorry, it no longer exists in its early form, it was completely
Romanized until the Reformation and Protestantism, which has never since caused
it to attain its original character. With these circumstances, there is no
church today that has a continual descent from the original Apostles, I don�t
care what you call it! If you wanted to, you cannot start another one, I don�t
care how much you organize it. The descent of ordination was performed by the
laying on of hands from the original Apostles on downward, and I know of no one
today that has that kind of authority. If you find someone who can prove this
continual lineal authority from the original Apostles, please let me know. For
this, you can thank Rome. This is why it is important today to support the truth
rather than some organization which falsely claims descent from the
original Apostles, and is not teaching anything relative to the truth. I find
this kind of ordination spoken of in the book, The
Drama of the Lost Disciples, by George F. Jowett, page 64:
In
order to be properly ordained to an apostolic appointment it was necessary for
the consecration to be performed by the laying on of the hands by one of the
original Apostles.
For
documentation on the ordination of Joseph of Arimathaea, I will again refer to the
Drama of the Lost Disciples, by George F. Jowett, page 64:
Philip,
one of the original Apostles, was certainly present. There is a wealth of
uncontroversial testimony asserting his commission in Gaul, all of which alike
states that he received and consecrated Joseph, preparatory to his embarkation
and appointment as the Apostle to Britain.
I
am sure someone reading this may take high exception to what I have just said
about the present day churches not having a direct succession from the original
Apostles, quoting to me Matthew 16:18 which says of the church:
�and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.� I agree that �the gates of hell� (Rome) has not
prevailed against Yahshua�s Church because of, and as a result of, the
Reformation. The Reformation, though, only served to form divisions and the
Protestants continued to maintain much of the Roman doctrine. As I said in
lesson #13: But the Reformation left us
with a conglomerate of fractionalized divisions and that is the reason we have
today so many denominations, each with its own doctrine. Mrs. Hill Elder
says in her book, Celt, Druid and Culdee,
pages:
158.
�The simple historical truth is, there was no break in the continuity of the
Church of Ireland at the Reformation, and every attempt to prove the contrary
has only resulted in confirmation of its unbroken descent from the ancient
Church of our native land.�
159.
From the Reformation onward the Protestant Church did not maintain the intense
zeal which her earlier supporters displayed; apathy crept in, and divisions
and sub-divisions occurred, weakening her cause throughout the land.
From
all of this we can see, while the Reformation was good in some aspects, in other
respects it had its bad points. Today, the true message is not coming from
either the Catholic or Protestant churches or televangelist. If you are
supporting any of these, you are throwing your money down a rat hole.
HOW
AND WHEN THE BRITISH CHURCH WAS FINALLY ROMANIZED
For
this information, I am going to quote from the book The Origin and Early History of Christianity In Britain, by Andrew
Gray, D.D., pages 87-91:
From
the days of St. Patrick to the conquest of Ireland by Henry II., in 1172, the
Irish Church enjoyed a complete autonomy, and was free from all foreign control.
It governed itself, knew no superior to its own Episcopate, and acknowledged no
more obedience to Rome than to any other diocese in Christendom. ... Through all
this period, when the Church of Rome had scarcely anything to do with Ireland,
Christianity flourished as it has never done since the Popes have had [anything]
to do with that island.
The question naturally arises �
How and when was Romanism introduced into Ireland? First, through the influence and connection of the Danes
with Ireland. The Danes, who invaded and pillaged Ireland, settled in Dublin,
Limerick, and Waterford. They afterwards became converted to Christianity; but
as they claimed affinity with the Normans they got their Bishops from [Romanized]
Canterbury. Lanfranc and Anselm were partisans of Rome, and were thus the
first to gain a foothold in Ireland for papal pretensions, near the
close of the eleventh century. The Bishop of Limerick was nominated by the Pope
as his legate in 1106, and in 1151 the Pope, for the first time, sent the pall
(cloth) as a present to the four Archbishops. All the while, however, there was
but one Church in Ireland, viz., the old Church of the land, but now becoming
more and more Romanized.
Then,
in 1156, Henry II., of England applied to the Pope, Nicholas Brakespear (the son
of a priest at St. Alban�s, and the only English Pope), known as Adrian IV.,
for permission to take possession of Ireland, and to make himself and his
successors, the kings of England, masters of it; in order, he said, to establish
religion �in
its purity� �
showing that the religion which was there already, was not, in his estimation,
all that it ought to be; in other words, it was not under the control of the
Bishop of Rome. The Pope granted Henry�s request, under the pretence that
�all islands� had been given to the Popes by the so-called �Donation of
Constantine,� and issued his bull accordingly. If it be asked why the Pope
sanctioned Henry�s invasion of Ireland, the answer is given in his own bull:
�To widen the bounds of the Church, and to extend her jurisdiction where she has none at present.� The
Pope exacted a further condition, that the English King should pay him �a
penny a year for every inhabited house in the island�, thus furnishing the
evidence that �Peter�s pence� had not hitherto been paid from the Church
in Ireland.
It
will be seen that the transaction, on the part of the Roman Pontiff at least,
was of the most deliberate and carefully calculated kind. It is a little
marvellous that Romanists of to-day in Ireland are so ill at ease under English
rule. ...
Henry,
under various pretext, with the sanction and approval of the Pope, took his
armies to Ireland. The Irish chiefs, taken singly, soon submitted to him, and
paid him homage. The Bishops agreed to a ecclesiastical union with the Church
of England. Then Henry, to suit his own ends, handed over the Irish
Church to the Pope of Rome. By these unwarranted acts schism was
introduced, and Bishops and priests were appointed by order of the Pope. A
few of the Bishops still continued to assert an independent position, and
offered here and there a spasmodic resistance, but the independence of the
Celtic Church was gone. She had been betrayed by the King of England and
the Pope of Rome. Irish national independence, and Irish ecclesiastical
independence terminated practically together, and in both cases by fraud and
grasping usurpation. The fate was sealed when Gelasius, Archbishop of
Armagh, visited Dublin in 1172, and made his formal submission to King Henry II.
From this date to the Reformation the papacy held sway, and the history of
the 350 years which followed the Synod of
Cashel �
when the Irish Church agreed to an ecclesiastical union with the English �
is indeed a dreary one.
The Church of St. Patrick held out against a foreign usurper longer than any
other Church in Western Europe, and its final submission was largely secured
through the influence of the Church of England, which had to a great extent
yielded already. The usurped authority was rejected and thrown off in the year
1558 after only 400 years� subjection.
When
the work of the Reformation began in England it made itself felt in Ireland
also, and Protestants arrayed against Rome increased everywhere. In the reign of
Edward VI. (1551) a Synod of Irish Bishops adopted the English Liturgy instead
of the Latin Service Book. In 1558 the Church in Ireland united with the Church
in England in accepting the reforms proposed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth,
and in 1560-61 regular Synods of the Irish Bishops were held, and the Reformed
English Liturgy was fully accepted. ...
The Romanists went out of the Irish Church in 1558, and
formed a new sect, securing Bishops, as has been said, from Spain and from
Italy. Such is the origin of the present Italian-Spanish Mission in Ireland. ...
It follows, therefore, that the Old
Church is the Church of Ireland; the New Church is
the Church of Rome in Ireland, which, it will be seen, has no connection with
the old Church of the land � the Church of
St. Patrick � but it is a foreigner,
and alien, an exotic (stranger). ... Rome calls her schismatical, but history
shows that it is the Church of Rome that is in schism, in Ireland as well as in
England. She stole into the Irish Church in the days of Henry II. by means of
schism, and she went out of it at the Reformation and set up a schism in
opposition to it.
...Yet
in face of all her difficulties she still survives. �The gates of hell have
not prevailed against her.�
Another
short summary account of the Celtic Church is found in the book, St.
Joseph of Arimathea At Glastonbury, by Lionel Smithett Lewis, page 191 as
follows:
It
is very difficult to write a short account of the Celtic Church. But it must be
done. For nothing is more pathetic than that, in spite of the glorious
missionary zeal of the saints of that Church, the memory of it and of them has
been nearly forgotten, As mentioned in the text, this is mainly owing to
political events. The constant raids of the heathen Saxons, their demolition of
churches, monasteries, and manuscripts, coupled with the driving of the Britons
into mountains and morasses, and, after the Saxons were converted, the similar
raids by their still heathen kinsmen, the Danes, nearly wiped out the Christian
Church in this land, except in portions of Western England. And then gradually,
in spite of vehement Celtic resistance, by the 8th century the
overwhelming Continental influence of the Roman Church, tremendously reinforced
later by the Norman Conquest, and derived from the prestige of Imperial Rome�s
position as Mistress of the World, at last caused the memory of the Celtic
Church, and her courageous saints, to be nearly eclipsed.
Although
the gates of hell have not prevailed against her, she is badly scarred with
Roman doctrine. I believe it is safe to say: we no longer have the original
church which was established by the Apostles, or anything like it. It was only
to last approximately a thousand years (Revelation 20:6). If you are reading
this, and you are Irish or Scottish, we are talking about our ancestors � we
are talking about our church. Once learning the history of our church, you and I
should become quite disturbed whether we have a Roman Catholic or Protestant
background. We are in a position where we can�t go back, and neither
Catholicism nor Protestantism or any other cult is the answer. We have been
robbed of our heritage. If you are an Israelite, and you have come to the
knowledge of your identity, and you also know the identity of the serpent
�Jew� enemy, you have discovered the two most important pillars of truth
that can be assimilated. This subject of the British Celtic Church will be
continued in the next lesson.
HOME
