186 



MISS ELEANOR H. HULL, ON THE 



That there were bishops from Britain at IsTicsea in 325 cannot 

 be tested by actual observation on account of the incoherent 

 condition of the records of that important Council ; but at the 

 Council of Sardica in 347 we have the testimony of St. 

 Athanasius that they were present and joined him against the 

 Arians. Thirty-three bishops from the Galliae (i.e., the Eoman 

 province of Gaul and Britain) were present. 



At the Council of Kimini (359), one of those numerous 

 Councils at which the Mcsean Creed underwent alteration after 

 its acceptance at Nictea, it is stated that four hundred Bishops 

 of the Western Church were assembled. The Emperor, in 

 courteous consideration of the immense journeys which many of 

 these Bishops had been forced to take to attend the Council, and of 

 the great expenses entailed in taking these frequent official 

 flights across Europe, ordered that all should be entertained at 

 his own expense. There is a pleasant sense of independence in 

 the reply of the Bishops from Aquitania, Gaul and Britain. 

 They said that they " deemed it unbecoming to be entertained 

 out of the Imperial bounty and preferred to live at their own 

 expense " ; three only, through special circumstances of poverty, 

 accepting the offer of the Emperor. 



I will not further multiply proofs of the widespread and firm 

 hold of Christianity in Britain in the fourth and fifth centuries. 

 Origen, Chrysostom and Jerome attest it and the Councils of 

 Gaul, at nearly all of which Bishops from Britain were present, 

 prove it. The baptism of Maximus in 381, before his assault 

 upon the Empire, show that to be a Christian was accounted in 

 Britain, and in the Eoman army, a mark of distinction and an 

 omen of success ; the rise and spread of Pelagianism in this 

 country early in the fifth century shows an advanced condition 

 of tlieological speculation. Xeither in their interest in the 

 Arian controversy, nor in the originating of controversies among 

 themselves, does this section of the Church show itself behind 

 the general course of ecclesiastical thought. To them, as well as, 

 or more than others, does Hilary of Poitiers appeal when an 

 attempt has to be made afresh to still the persistency of the 

 Arian adherents in the middle of the fourth century. They 

 responded to tlie appeal ; for the orthodoxy of the Church in 

 Britain up to the time of Pelagius was not only unquestioned, 

 but was commented upon witli special favour ))v a series of th(^ 

 chief Fathers of the Cliurch. 



Now the point to which I wish to dii-ect attention is tliat 

 during all these three or more centuries of Churcli development, 

 native Britain, so far as we know, has in it little or no part. The 



