[To TEE EDITOR OF TEE EFECTATOLI seems, from your note
to my letter which you kindly printed on January 22nd, that you regard the British Church as Galilean, and the Gallic= Church as "essentially Latin, though with some mixture of Asiatic ideas." This is a theory -concerning the Gallivan Church which I cannot remember to have met with before. It seems to be agreed that the British Church was Gallivan, so we need go no further with that part cf the question. There is a fairly convincing argument in Palmer's " Origines Liturgicaa," that the Galilean Church derived its Liturgy, &c., from Lyons, and Lyons from Ephesus. The 4` Dictionary of Christian Antiquities " (Vol. II., " Liturgy," pp. 1,029-30) supports the same theory, with additional details of -evidence. So does Mr. Warren (" Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church "), and so do other writers.
That it was Latin is a theory opposed to such evidence as I 'have teen. The extant fragments of its Liturgy are one witness. Pope Gregory's letter to Augustine is another. The proximity of Latin Churches and Latin influences, which seems a priori to indicate a possibility of connection with them, becomes an argument for the opposite view when we recall the forcible Latinising of the Galilean ritual by Charlemagne at the end of the eighth century, and the survival in Britain till about the 'same time of the Eastern reckoning of Easter, in spite of the Nicene settlement in. AD. 325.
The Latinising of the English ritual seems to have occupied centuries. Would it be unfair to describe the ecclesiastical history of England for eight centuries from A.D. 600 as the Latinising of an Asiatic Church, the resistance of the nation being -chronicled by such things as the fight over Investiture and the 'Statutes of Mortmain, Premunire, &O. 2—I am, Sir, &c., Xittg's Teignion Vicarage. PERCIVAL JACKSON.
Previous page
