LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2980, 18 January 1917, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE CHURCH AND NATION BUILDING

Sir,—As I stated, I did not write on this subject in any spirit of controversy, but in justice to non-Roman Catholic countries who have done something for "liberty and progress," as havo those who obey Rome. As "C.F." in endeavouring to tilt with his visor down, concealing iiis identity, I tberefore raise my spear, and pass by. Yet I would like to bo allowed to point out to you, Mr. Editor, that somo people appear to think a church cannot bo national—that is, separate from Rome—and yet remain a part of the Catholic Church. England was originally free from any supremacy— sho has simply gone back to that freedom again since the Reformation. The Church of Britain sent bishops to tho Catholic councils of the fourth century, as being bishops of tho Catholic and Universal Church, at Aries, A.D. 314, and other places. AVhen Augustine landed in England in 597 he found our British Church had been driven back by the heathen Saxons to the West of England. Seven bishops of tho British Church met Augustine on the banks of the Severn. Dinooth, their spokesman, explained "that although they owed fraternal love to the Church of God, and the Bisbop of Rome, and, indeed, to all Christians, they owed no obedience to him whom ho (Augustine) called Pope. _ And they also could not submit to him, or liis representative, as they were already subject to their metropolitan Bishop of Caerlem-on-tlsk." In 1066 William the Norman accepted the Pope's aid to conquer tho Saxons of England. It was politic to do so; but after being crowned King of England, be refused to sacrifice tho independence which the Kings of England had always enjoyed, and pay homage to the Pope, saying: "Homage to thee I havo not chosen, nor do I choose to do; neither do I find that it was ever performed by my predecessors to thine." (Rev. C. A. Lane, lecturer. Church Defence Institution). The Church of England is not a separate Church, although independent of Rome, but a part of tho Cliurclr Universal, "continuing in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, in breaking of bread and in prayers" (Acts 2-42), and lias never made any act of separation or break of continuity. As in tho sixth century, the British Churcli held out the hand of friendship to Rome, but did not acknowledge any supremacy. So does the Church of England to-day. Tho I English Church was certainly under tho domination of Rome before the Reformation, but not willingly, as I have shown; and instances could be multiplied proviDg the irksomeness of the yoke.

Alsace and Lorraine are held under Germany, not willingly, and they, too. will yet be free. As soon as the printing press caused the Bible to bo circulated in the mother tongue, people saw by the Book that the bishops of the British Church had been right in holding out tlie hand of fellowship to Rome, but could see no authority for giving her supremacy.

The Council o[ Lardicer, A.D. 476, decreed that "no bishop should exercise authority in any province that had not been his from the beginning." England does not regard a decree that all churches agreed to, as a "scrap of paper." "Liberty and Progress" have attended England since the days of "Magna Chartn," which breathes an English spirit throughout; not Roman. lam sure that Stephen Langton, from tho depth of "his heart, meant that England should be free, in all respects. I thank you for space generously given to speak for England, and her share of giving "liberty and progress" to tho nations and to those under her flag, although she is a nonRoman Catholic country.—T am. etc., F. W. WHIBLEY. I The Vicarage, Ormondville.