• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Who introduced Catholicism to the Irish?

Discussion in 'Christian History' started by Lik3, Aug 13, 2016.

  1. Lik3

    Lik3 Newbie

    Who introduced Catholicism to the Irish and when? I noticed that much of, if not the majority of South Western Europe is Catholic but Ireland is not. Latin America and some areas of Asia and Africa were colonized by the predominately Catholic nations of Spain, France, Portugal, and many Italians immigrated or conquered most of the New World. How come Ireland and most of the other nations do so?

    I am not a proponent of colonization mind you, but I have noticed that except for the English and Dutch, the largest nations of colonization and immigration to other nations are Catholic nations, excluding Ireland. That is a trend I noticed. However, the Italians have not had slavery nor did they have any international impact or were colonizers. Why? As far as I know among Northern Europeans, much of Ireland is Catholic. How did that nation become partially Catholic and why didn't that nation become predominately Catholic or Protestant? Is that the only source of contention among the Irish? I noticed that the Catholics and Protestants have unkind names for one another. Why was England so nasty to the Irish and did religion play a role?
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Quid est Veritas?

    Quid est Veritas? In Memoriam to CS Lewis

    Christianity was introduced to the Irish traditional by St Patrick who was a Romano-Briton (basically Welsh) in the fifth century. Obviously at this stage all Western Christianity was of the Catholic variant.

    Thereafter Ireland became a society known for its many monasteries and in fact Irish missionaries helped convert Scotland and Northern England to Christianity and acted as one of the repositories of Knowledge that survived the Fall of the Roman Empire (although Ireland was never part of the Empire).

    This society was first ravaged by the Vikings in the ninth century and thereafter conquered piecemeal by the Normans/English from the twelth onward. Ireland was an appendage of the English crown from when Pope Adrian IV gave it to them.

    The English rule of Ireland was difficult with the English often only controlling a small area around Dublin called the Pale in the Middle Ages, but gradually they came to rule it all through Anglo-Norman Irish Aristocracy.

    With the Reformation, Ireland stood by Catholicism in spite of owing allegiance to the English crown which had become Protestant, but this made the English scared of Irish hordes being used to crush their Protestantism by pro-Catholic kings.
    This came to a head when Oliver Cromwell ruled England and the Irish revolted in favour of Charles II, resulting in a major English reconquest of Ireland. Thereafter Ireland was resettled by lowland Scots as a buffer against further revolts of the Native Irish and this is where the large Protestant population of Northern Ireland originated.

    Basically Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom, so British colonialism throughout the world is also Irish colonialism, with many immigrants, governors, settlers and Imperialists that built the British Empire being Irish.

    Strife erupted though over Irish Home Rule in the 19th century, with many Irish wanting to become a separate dominion, like Canada or Australia. Generally they split over sectarian lines after a while with Catholics for Home Rule and Protestants for staying in the UK.
    Sufficed to say, the conquest of Ireland by Cromwell and later Protestant wars to maintain their rule such as under William III, did not endear the Catholic Irish to their Protestant rulers or those Lowland Scot settlers or Irish that had converted to Protestantism.
    Protestantism was seen as the enemy of Irish independance.

    There was quite a lot of strife such as the Easter Uprising and so forth until Ireland became independant in 1922, but the majority Protestant part of Ireland decided to remain in the UK with the rest becoming the staunchly Catholic Irish Free State (later Republic).

    Irish attempts to force the Northern Irish enclave to join Ireland resulted in long years of strife with the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland continuing it on themselves after the Irish and British governments came to terms.
    This has resulted in a sad and terrible bloodletting between Catholic and Protestant Irish with intermittent British militarisation in Northern Ireland, but it seems to have settled down nowadays.
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2016
  3. JackRT

    JackRT Gargoyle at Oxford University Supporter

    I have read that Coptic monks from Egypt arrived in Ireland about a century before Padriac.
  4. Quid est Veritas?

    Quid est Veritas? In Memoriam to CS Lewis

    This is nonsense and has no historical validity that I am aware of.

    I have heard of this, but this is a theory favoured by High Church Anglicans who like to claim ancient Autonomy from Rome and base this on Irish Christianity arriving via Copts instead of a western Christian mission. There is no evidence this ever happened aside from a belief that Book of Kells designs look similar to certain Coptic Church architectural designs. This is highly subjective and unlikely to be the case and besides, even if true, it would not prove ante-Patrician Coptic influence.
    It makes no sense that Coptic monks would journey accross the known world to Ireland anyway, when Christian populations were already present in Gaul and Roman Britain.

    According to all our extent sources, Ireland was thoroughly Pagan before Patrick's arrival although its feasible other missionaries preceded him. His however, was likely the first really succesful effort.
  5. JackRT

    JackRT Gargoyle at Oxford University Supporter

    Certainly true.
  6. EastCoastRemnant

    EastCoastRemnant I Must Decrease That He May Increase Supporter

    Not according to theological historians... check out this referenced article from Truth on the Web...

    Patrick and the Early Celtic Church:
    Sunday-keeping Roman Catholics or Sabbath-observant Christians?

    Many have heard stories of the "Patron Saint" of Ireland: Patrick. But of these stories that abound, and the beliefs that are held concerning him, much is quite erroneous. Many think that Patrick (born ca. 360 CE) was Irish--he was not, but rather he was of Scottish/British origin.
    "The place of his birth was Bonnaven, which lay between the Scottish towns Dumbarton and Glasgow, and was then reckoned to the province of Britain. This village, in memory of Patricius, received the name of Kil-Patrick or Kirk-Patrick. His father, a deacon in the village church, gave him a careful education." (Dr. August Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. II, p.122. Boston: 1855).
    "Patrick himself writes in his Confession: 'I, Patrick, ...had Calpornius for my father, a deacon, a son of the late Potitus, the presbyter, who dwelt in the village of Banavan....I was captured. I was almost sixteen years of age...and taken to Ireland in captivity with many thousand men.'" (William Cathcart, D. D., The Ancient British and Irish Churches, p.127).
    "Patrick, a son of a Christian family in southern Scotland, was carried off to Ireland by pirates about 376 A. D. Here, in slavery, he gave his heart to God and, after six years of servitude, escaped, returning to his home in Scotland. But he could not forget the spiritual need of these poor heathen, and after ten years he returned to Ireland as a missionary of the Celtic church." (ibid, p. 70).

    Many also believe Patrick to be of the Roman Catholic system, yet in Patrick's own Confession which we read part of above, he claims that his father was a deacon and his grandfather a presbyter. While the Roman Catholic Church holds the doctrine of "sacerdotal celibacy," wherein members of its ministry are to remain unmarried and thus virgins, the ministry of the Celtic Churches held no such doctrine. This is one of many doctrinal distinctions between the two faith sytems. The claims that Patrick was a Roman Catholic are mere fabrications as we shall see clearly.
    "There is here a hiatus of unknown length in his life; a chasm, however, which his midiaeval biographers have filled up according to the liveliness of their fancy, or the supposed credulity of their readers. They wrote of his studying with St. Germain, and of his attending a monastery near the Mediterrenean, and finally of his going to Rome and receiving ordination from the pope. All these are mere inventions, and were not put forth till more than five hundred years after St. Patrick's death, and all of them are presented without a shadow of proof....In the establishment of his Church, St. Patrick in no instance ever appealed to any foreign Church [i.e., Rome, or anywhere else], pope or bishop. In his Epistle to Coroticus (sect. 1), he simply announces himself as bishop: 'I, Patrick, an unlearned man, to wit, a bishop constituted in Ireland: what I am I have received from God'...These well authenicated statements of St. Patrick concerning himself are wholly at variance with those of Probus and Joscelyn, who, for the first time, put forth their fabrications full five hundred years after his death. In regard to his studying with St. Germain at Tours, and of his going to Rome for ordination, all these stories were invented in the 10th or 12th century. Joscelyn, who wrote the fullest life of the saint, about A.D.1130, has, in one sense, really the praise or dispraise of bringing the Irish Church into that of Rome. The abbe, not being embarrassed with facts, dates, or contemporary history, wrote easily and readily, and presented a life of the Irish saint that exactly suited his times, in the beginning of the 12th century. He represented St. Patrick and the early Church of Ireland in the 5th century as exact models of his own in the 12th. This life of the saint was readily received and adopted as the only true one by the Roman Catholic Church, and it has ever been the 'storehouse' from which his numerous and papal biographers have drawn their materials. After the publication, and the general reception of this book, there was no hesitation in the full acknowledgment of all the Irish Christians, and of St. Patrick among them. Archbishop Usher, on the Religion of the Early Irish, asks (iv, 320): 'Who among them [the early Irish] was ever canonized before St. Malachias, or Malachy, was?' (A.D. 1150). St. Patrick himself seems never to have been sainted till all Ireland was sainted or canonized." (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. VII, pp.774,775; article: Patrick, St.)

    "There is strong evidence that Patrick had no Roman commission in Ireland...As Patrick's churches in Ireland, like their brethren in Britain, repudiated the supremacy of the popes, all knowledge of the conversion of Ireland through his ministry must be suppressed [by Rome]....There is not a written word from one of them [i.e., popes] rejoicing over Patrick's additions to their church, showing clearly that he was not a Roman missionary....Prosper does not notice Patrick....He says nothing of the greatest success ever given to a missionary of Christ, apparently because he [Patrick] was not a Romanist....Bede never speaks of St. Patrick in his celebrated 'Ecclesiastical History.'...So completely buried was Patrick and his work by popes and other Roman Catholics, that in their epistles and larger publications, his name does not once occur in one of them until A. D. 634." (William Cathcart, D. D., The Ancient British and Irish Churches, pp.83-85)

    Due to the world of Patrick's day knowing the truth about him and the Celtic Church, Rome made no mention of, or claim to, Patrick until at least 200 years after his time. Bede did however make record in 431 A.D. of an attempt of a Roman Catholic missionary to bring the Celtic assemblies under the rule and doctrine of Rome:
    "Palladius was sent by Celestinus, the Roman pontiff, to the Scots [Irish] that believed in Christ." (Bede, Ecclesiastical History, p.22) But "he left because he did not receive respect in Ireland" (William Cathcart, D. D., The Ancient British and Irish Churches, p.72).

    Such disrespect would be unheard of if the Celtic assemblies had indeed been adherents of Rome's "gospel." Rome was looking to claim what the true Gospel already had when it entered the "Britians" (Britian, Ireland, Scotland) during the first century:
    "That the light of Christianity dawned upon these islands in the course of the first century, is a matter of historical certainty" (Richard Hart, B. A., Ecclesiastical Records, p. vii; Cambridge: 1846).

    "The Christianity which first reached France and England (i.e., Gaul and Britian) was of the school of the apostle John, who ruled the churches in Asia Minor, and therefore of a Greek, not Latin [i.e., Roman], type." (Gordon, World Healers, p.78)
    "A large number of this Keltic community (Lyons, A.D.177)--colonists from Asia Minor--who escaped, migrated to Ireland (Erin) and laid the foundations of the pre-Patrick church." (Thomas Yeates, East Indian Church History, p.226)

    Tertullian, ca 200 A.D., wrote "by this time, the varied races of the Gµtulians, and manifold confines of the Moors, all the limits of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons (inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ)...In all which places the name of Christ who is already come reigns." (Tertullian, Answer to the Jews, chap. vii.)

    Tertullian had included the Britons among the many nations which believed in Christ, and he speaks of these places as being "inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ." In other words, the Church there was not founded by, nor subject to, Rome.
    "He (Patrick) never mentions either Rome or the pope or hints that he was in any way connected with the ecclesiastical capital of Italy. He recognizes no other authority but that of the word of God. ...When Palladius arrived in the country, it was not to be expected that he would receive a very hearty welcome from the Irish apostle. If he was sent by [pope] Celestine to the native Christians to be their primate or archbishop, no wonder that stout-hearted Patrick refused to bow his neck to any such yoke of bondage." (Dr. Killen, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, vol.1, pp.12-15)
    "Patrick rejected the union of church and state. More than one hundred years had passed since the first world council at Nicaea had united the church with the empire. Patrick rejected this model. He followed the lesson taught in John's Gospel when Christ refused to be made a king. Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world' (John 18:36). Not only the Irish apostle but his famous successors, Columba in Scotland, and Columbanus on the Continent, ignored the supremacy of the papal pontiff. They never would have agreed to making the pope a king." (Truth Triumphant, pp.85,86)
    "Two centuries elapsed after Patrick's death before any writer attempted to connect Patrick's work with a papal commission. No pope ever mentioned him, neither is there anything in the ecclesiastical records of Rome concerning him. ...Patrick preached the Bible. He appealed to it as the sole authority for founding the Irish Church. He gave credit to no other worldly authority; he recited no creed. Several official creeds of the church at Rome had by that time been ratified and commanded, but Patrick mentions none. In his Confession he makes a brief statement of his beliefs, but he does not refer to any church council or creed as authority. The training centers he founded, which later grew into colleges and large universities, were all Bible schools. Famous students of these schools -- Columba, who brought Scotland to Christ, Aidan, who won pagan England to the gospel, and Columbanus with his successors, who brought Christianity to Germany, France, Switzerland, and Italy -- took the Bible as their only authority, and founded renowned Bible training centers for the Christian believers. ... Patrick, like his example, Jesus, put the words of Scripture above the teachings of men. He differed from the Papacy, which puts church tradition above the Bible. In his writings he nowhere appeals to the church at Rome for the authorization of his mission. Whenever he speaks in defense of his mission, he refers to God alone, and declares that he received his call direct from heaven." (Truth Triumphant, pp.82-84)

    Pope Gregory had sent delegates to the Christians Celts: "'Acknowledge the authority of the Bishop of Rome.' These are the first words of the Papacy to the ancient Christians of Britain. They meekly replied: 'The only submission we can render him is that which we owe to every Christian.'" (Merle D' Aubigne, History of the Reformation, Book XVII, chap. 2.) "'But as for further obedience, we know of none that he, whom you term the Pope, or Bishop of Bishops, can claim or demand." (Early British History, G. H. Whalley, Esq., M. P., p.17 London: 1860; see also Variation of Popery, Rev. Samuel Edger, D. D., pp. 180-183. New York: 1849)
    "The monks sent to England [in 596 A.D.] by Pope Gregory the Great soon came to see that the Celtic Church differed from theirs in many respects…Augustine himself [a Benedictine abbot]…held several conferences with the Christian Celts in order to accomplish the difficult task of their subjugation [submission] to Roman authority…The Celts permitted their priests to marry, the Romans forbade it. The Celts used a different mode of baptism [i.e., true baptism: immersion] from that of the Romans…The Celts held their own councils and enacted their own laws, independent of Rome. The Celts used a Latin Bible [i.e., the Itala] unlike the [Roman Catholic's Latin] Vulgate, and kept Saturday as a day of rest.” (A.C. Flick, The Rise of Medieval Church, p.236-327)

    "It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labor. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week." (James C. Moffatt, D. D.,The Church in Scotland, Philadelphia: 1882, p.140)

    "In this latter instance they seemed to have followed a custom of which we find traces in the early monastic church of Ireland by which they held Saturday to be the Sabbath on which they rested from all their labours." (W.T. Skene, Adamnan Life of St. Columba, 1874, p.96)

    As noted above, the Christianity which first reached France and Britian was of the school of the apostle John, who ruled the churches in Asia Minor. Colonists from Asia Minor laid the foundations of the pre-Patrick church. They brought with them the doctrine which they received of John, Paul, Philip, and the other apostles of the Lord, which included not only the observance of the seventh day Sabbath, but also the commemoration of Christ's death upon the 14th of Abib--Passover!
    "It is probable that the primitive Christians kept the Pasch on the 14th of Nisan as determined by the Jewish authorities, and regarded it as the anniversary of the crucifixion. ...The churches of the Roman province of Asia...followed the older custom, keeping the Pasch on the 14th of Nisan, whatever the day of the week." (James F. Kenney, The Sources for the Early History of Ireland, Vol.1, pp.211, 212; Columbia University Press, New York, 1929)
    "...they ignorantly refuse to observe our Easter [Pascha] on which Christ was sacrificed, arguing that it should be observed with the Hebrew Passover on the fourteenth of the moon." (Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, II, 19 wherein Bede quoted "Pope" John's words concerning the Celtic brethren)

    Other doctrines that Patrick, Columba, and the Celtic assemblies held included the observation of the other Festivals of the Eternal (Lev.23), the belief in the mortality of man and the hope of the resurrection (vs. immortality of the soul and going to heaven, hell, and/or purgatory); the distinction between clean and unclean animals; "improvised" prayers (from the heart, rather than merely from the lip with repetitions); that Christ Jesus is our only Mediator--as opposed to various "saints," Mary, angels, etc.; and that redemption and atonement comes through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ alone--separate from works and heeding commandments/doctrines of men (see The Celtic Church in Britian by Leslie Hardinge, as well as Truth Triumphant by B.G. Wilkinson, for documentation).
    "The Roman Catholics have proudly and exclusively claimed St. Patrick, and most Protestants have ignorantly or indifferently allowed their claim...But he was no Romanist. His life and evangelical Church of the 5th century ought to be better known." (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. VII, p.776; article: Patrick, St.)
    We hope you have been edified in knowing the truth about the real saint Patrick who kept the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
  7. JackRT

    JackRT Gargoyle at Oxford University Supporter

    That was a most interesting historical study. Thank you.
  8. Quid est Veritas?

    Quid est Veritas? In Memoriam to CS Lewis

    We don't actually know where Patrick's hometown is. This is one candidate, but there are equally good arguments for places in Cumbria, Wales and Devon.

    Clerical celibacy only became a Catholic requirement in the 11th century during the Gregorian reforms although strongly encouraged from the 4th, so this is no impediment.

    True that Patrick never reported these events, but this does not mean they didn't occur. The first instances of such claims are anyway from the 7th century during disputes over Easter, notably Cummian and Ultan of Ardbraccan and not the 12th, so there is a factual inaccuracy here.

    This is not strong evidence. Very few letters or written works survive from the late Roman period and early Mediaeval, hence it is called the Dark Ages. By this reasoning, Spain, North Africa or Sicily could be said not be converted by the Church as there is no record. This is a specious argument.

    Yes, I forgot about Palladius who was arguably an earlier missionary to the Irish, preceding Patrick in the same century. They were often conflated by later sources. Again though, Patrick's was likely more effective.

    No evidence of first century conversion whatsoever. You can't say that there is 'no evidence Patrick was of Rome' and then expect us to adopt this without any proof.
    Besides, the argument that they wouldn't show such disrespect is a fallacy. People ignored Boniface's mission to the Saxons for instance.

    Again, no evidence. There is far more evidence that they remained thoroughly pagan however.

    Tertullian does say this. However it was a Roman convention or rhetorical device to refer to Britain when referencing remoteness. It is similar how people might say from here to the South Pole or till Timbuktu and does not necessarily mean that this was so.
    It is however possible that a small christian community existed in Britain outside of Roman Rule, but this would refer to Brittania, so would be in Scotland north of the Roman province and not in Ireland, Roman Hibernia.

    Speculation from meagre evidence. Not very convincing, I would say.

    Mediaeval fights over jurisdiction does not prove a mission of Patrick separate from Western Christianity.

    Never heard of this. I will have to investigate the primary sources like the Life of St. Columba and get back to you.

    Again no evidence of such wide-ranging claims. Besides it makes no sense for Ireland to be proselytised at such an early date, since there were many intervening areas that only converted later.
    The distance was simply too great. Its different from India for instance that was routinely visited by Merchants in spite of its distance, as Ireland was a peripheral and unimportant island during that time.
    These are exactly the type of claims of an ancient independant Celtic church not derived from Western Christianity that I mentioned before, which simply has no evidence to back it up. It is however beloved by Nationalists, Reformation Apologists and strangly it seems the Seventh Day Adventists?. Weird.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  9. Quid est Veritas?

    Quid est Veritas? In Memoriam to CS Lewis

    @EastCoastRemnant I skimmed through Adiamnan's Life of St. Columba and the only Sabbath references I could find were:

    1: "ON another occasion, two men of low rank in life came to the saint, who was then in the Iouan island (Hy, now Iona). One of them, named Meldan, brought his son to the saint and asked him what kind of future he would enjoy. To whom the saint replied, "Is not this the Sabbath day? Thy son will die on the sixth day at the end of next week, and will be buried here on the eighth day, that is the Sabbath." Then the other man, named Glasderc, also took his son along with him, and venturing to make a similar inquiry, received the following answer from the saint, "Thy son Ernan will see his grandchildren, and be buried in old age in this island." All this was fully accomplished in its own time regarding the two boys, according to the words of the saint. "

    2: "Our patron, however, gave the name of a holy deposit to his own soul that had been intrusted to him by God; and after an interval of six days from that time, as shall be related further on, he departed to the Lord on the night of the Lord's day. In the end, then, of this same week, that is on the day of the Sabbath, the venerable man, and his pious attendant Diormit, went to bless the barn which was near at hand When the saint had entered in and blessed it, and two heaps of winnowed corn that were in it, he gave expression to his thanks in these words, saying, "I heartily congratulate my beloved monks, that this year also, if I am obliged to depart from you, you will have a sufficient supply for the year." On hearing this, Diormit his attendant began to feel sad, and said, "This year, at this time, father, thou very often vexest us, by so frequently making mention of thy leaving us." But the saint replied to him, "I have a little secret address to make to thee, and if thou wilt promise me faithfully not to reveal it to any one before my death, I shall be able to speak to thee with more freedom about my departure." When his attendant had on bended knees made the promise as the saint desired, the venerable man thus resumed his address: "This day in the Holy Scriptures is called the Sabbath, which means rest. And this day is indeed a Sabbath to me, for it is the last day of my present laborious life, and on it I rest after the fatigues of my labours; and this night at midnight, which commenceth the solemn Lord's Day, I shall, according to the sayings of Scripture, go the way of our fathers. For already my Lord Jesus Christ deigneth to invite me; and to Him, I say, in the middle of this night shall I depart, at His invitation. For so it hath been revealed to me by the Lord himself." The attendant hearing these sad words began to weep bitterly"

    The first seems to say that the child would be buried on the Sabbath which was the eighth day of that week, ie the First and therefore a Sunday. This does not fit your previous contention.

    The second part that mentions the Sabbath clearly refers to the Jewish conception of a Saturday Sabbath, but then refers to the following day as the solemn Lord's Day - thus showing deference to Sunday. They also did not celebrate a service on the Saturday, but left their church to bless a barn.

    I have to admit, it seems he uses Sabbath in two different senses - in one as a name for Sunday and equivalent to the Lord's day and in the other like the Jewish Sabbath and separate from the Lord's day.
    Perhaps in the first quotation it also refers to Saturday, but then the numbering of the days make no sense.

    Regardless, there is no evidence in the work of the Celtic Church celebrating a Saturday Sabbath and in fact the second quotation shows reverence for Sunday as the Lord's day.
    Acknowledging that the Biblical Sabbath fell mostly on the Saturday is not the same as keeping it as the Sabbath.
    Perhaps they merely kept it as a day of rest from work as your original quotations mention, but this is not the same as considering it a day of worship and this is clearly not evident from the Vitae Columba. I don't know from which sources your first quotation, the Church in Scotland by Moffatt, derived it.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  10. EastCoastRemnant

    EastCoastRemnant I Must Decrease That He May Increase Supporter

    If you're going to refute a referenced article, then please show your references... otherwise it's just your opinion against educated theologian and historians. Non catholic sources would be preferred but if that's all you've got, then please cite them.
  11. EastCoastRemnant

    EastCoastRemnant I Must Decrease That He May Increase Supporter

    Quoting from one source against the three in the article doesn't show anything.... even at that, you found evidence to confirm what the article stated. I would say that would make the claim of Sabbath keeping in the Isles as good a record as we have and would show the succession from apostolic times of Sabbath keeping in the Christian church.
  12. Quid est Veritas?

    Quid est Veritas? In Memoriam to CS Lewis

    Some of what I wrote is from years of study of the Roman and Post-Roman world, so I don't have those sources readily to hand.
    Other things I wrote is just common sense.

    For the rest:
    Adrian Goldsworthy: The decline of the West, 2009.
    Charles Thomas: Christianity in Roman Britain.
    TF O'Raihly: Christianity in fifth century Ireland, 1942.
    Eoin MacNeill: Royal Irish Academy Papers, 1926.
    JH Turner: An enquiry into the Birthplace of St. Patrick, Archaelogica Scotia 1890.
    Liam de Paor: St. Patrick world,1993.
    Peter Brown: The Rise of Western Christendom, 2003.
    Gibbon: The decline and fall of the Roman Empire, 18th century.
    Catholic Encyclopaedia.

    But the best sources are always those closer to their times and original.

    Tertullian: Adversus Judaeus. 200s AD
    Bede: Eccliasiastical History of the English. 8th century
    Adiomnan: Vitae Columba 9th century
    Gildas: The Woe of Britain 6th century
    Cummian: Letters 7th century.
    Ultan of Ardbraccan: Letters 7th century.
    You cited two sources for sabbath keeping. The first, History of the Church in Scotland by James Moffatt, I couldn't find, except those exact lines you quoted in various 7th day Adventist websites and Nationalist Irish ones.

    The second directly cited and in fact is a commentary upon, the Life of St. Columba.
    I therefore looked at the life of St. Columba to see if their was any validity to their claims, the original text cited being always the best source, and found only the two I quoted. These in fact show Sunday observance and not Saturday Sabbath keeping as I said in my previous post, but I can see how people can become confused by the language employed, as they seem to call Saturday the Sabbath as well.

    So I would say my source is more reliable than both of yours as your one source derived it from mine erroneously and mine is an actual text from the period and yours are merely historians writing centuries later and adding their own biases.

    Besides, Bede spent a lot of time on where Celtic and Continental Church usages differed, such as the dating of Easter and he never mentions Saturday Sabbath keeping. So if the most reliable historian of the period, with a special interest in such usages, never mentions it, the onus of proof lies very much with those who say it is so.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2016
  13. EastCoastRemnant

    EastCoastRemnant I Must Decrease That He May Increase Supporter

    Including Organized Seventh-day Baptist Churches and Prominent Authors and Defenders of the Bible Sabbath.

    J. Lee Gamble and Charles H. Greene


    It may not be uninteresting or unimportant to note that the earliest known inhabitants of these isles were not so rude and uncivilized as is sometimes supposed. That the Britons were of Asiatic origin seems to be supported by the testimony of Theophilus, bishop of. Antioch, (A. D. 160), and by the similarity between Druidism and the rites of Baal and Ashtoreth worship as practised in the East. Certain traditions indicate that Britain may have been settled by a Trojan colony some time after the fall of Troy, and took its name from the leader of that colony. There is evidence that the British Isles were known in the time of King Solomon, and that before their conquest by Julius Caesar they were as civilized as the Greeks who fought about Troy. The Britons were versed in poetry and music, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, philosophy, psychology, geography, rhetoric, metallurgy, agriculture, navigation, and a form of writing, now all but lost, by which their sacred mysteries were preserved from generation to generation. The island was divided into a number of petty kingdoms which were always at war with one another, except in case of great common danger, or when one kingdom developed unusual strength ; then an arch-king, called "Pendragon", ruled over them all while the danger lasted, or while his strength endured. This was the condition of England when Julius Caesar discovered the islands, B.C. 55.

    George Smith shows that their religion "bore some resemblance to that professed by the Hebrew Patriarchs before the giving of the law ;" that they had "clear and correct views of the divine unity, nature, and attributes:" that they "seemed to have fully believed, and clearly taught, the doctrines of a divine superintending Providence;" and that in many other

    points they approached, in doctrine and worship, the standards of the Old Testament Scriptures. (Smith's "Religion of Ancient Britain;" pp. 35-54.)

    Hence, to say the least, they were not in a condition unfavorable to the reception of Christianity.


    That Christianity was established in Britain between the years A.D. 51 and A.D. 61, either by the Apostle Paul himself or by converts made by him during his Roman imprisonment, is the testimony of many credible historians. Gildas the earliest British writer of history, born A. D. 520, says of the introduction of Christianity into the islands: "Meanwhile these islands, stiff with cold and frost, and in a distant region of the world, remote from the visible sun, received the beams of light, that is, the holy precepts of Christ - who is the true Sun, and who shows to the whole world his splendor, nor only from the temporal firmament, but from the height of heaven, which surpasses everything temporal - at the latter part, as we know, of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, by whom his religion was propagated without impediment." Comparing this with the previous passage, the events mentioned appear to be limited by the 'meanwhile' to a period between the defeat of Boadicea, A.D. 61, on the one hand, and on the other to events not far distant - such as the defeat of Caractacus, A.D. 51. Therefore the testimony of Gildas is to the effect that the gospel was preached in Britain before the year 61. (Yeowell, p. 22.)


    Irenaeus, A.D. 78, says that the church in his time was spread throughout the World; and especially mentions the churches in Germany, Spain, Gaul, and Britain. He adds: "There is no difference of faith or tradition in any of these countries."

    Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea. A.D. 325-340, in showing that the Apostles who first preached the gospel to the world could be no imposters or deceivers, names many countries in which they labored, and then adds particularly, that "some passed over the ocean to those which are called the British Isles."

    Chrysostom, A.D. 398, mentions "The Britannic Isles" as having felt the power of the Word, and says: "To whatever quarter you turn - to the Indians or Moors or Britons, even to the remotest bounds of the West, you will find this doctrine.

    Theodoret, A.D. 423-460. especially enumerates the Britons as one of the nations converted by the Apostles.


    The credit of introducing Christianity into this region has been claimed not only for Paul, but also for Peter, Philip, John, Simon Zelotes, and Joseph of Arimathea; but the most of the church fathers, and other authorities, favor the mission of St. Paul.

    Clement of Rome A.D. 96, says: "St Paul preached in the East and West leaving behind him an illustrious record of his faith, having taught the whole world righteousness, and in having traveled even to the utmost bounds of the West."

    Jerome, A.D. 392, says : "St. Paul, having been in Spain, went from one ocean to another." "His diligence in preaching extended as far as the earth itself." "After his imprisonment he preached in the western parts."

    Venantius Fortunatus, A.D. 560, says: "St. Paul passed over the ocean to the Island of Britain, and to Thule, the extremity of the earth." (Ireland)

    Many similar testimonies might be given to the early planting of Christianity in Britain, and that this was done by the Apostle Paul between his first and second imprisonments.


    In addition to the authority of the historians of the nine first centuries, the interested reader may find the subject ably discussed and defended in the learned works of Archbishops Parker and Ussher ; Bishops Stillingfleet, Lloyd and Burgess; Camden, Cave, Gibson, Godwin, Nelson, Rapin, Roberts, Rowland, Soames, and others.

    Bishop Stillingfleet, in his "Antiquities of the British Church," spoken of as the most complete and learned work on the subject, containing a full account of the early ecclesiastical history of Britain from the first introduction of Christianity to the conversion of the Saxons, while rejecting many of the traditions respecting the British church, yet believes in the visit of St. Paul to this country. (Yeowell, p. viii.) With this view agree the authors named above.

    Dr. Hales, however, author of "Primitive British Church" (1819), differs from the other learned antiquarians, ancient and modern, as to Paul's preaching in Britain; and the introduction of Christianity into this island he refers to Bran, father of Caractacus, during the apostolic age. There is neither need nor time to introduce here this interesting story. Nor can we more than simply refer to the Welsh "Triads" and "Genealogy of the Saints," the earliest historical writings relating to the Britons, both testifying to the preaching of the gospel and the founding of the Christian church in the British Isles early in the first century, either by Paul or by converts to Christianity made by him in his Roman Prison.

    George Smith, after summing up the evidence, given in part in the preceding lines, says: "We can not avoid saying that many accounts, supported by a much less amount of evidence, are generally regarded as Portion of undoubted history." (Religion of Ancient Briton, pp 130, 131.)

    We need not doubt, therefore, that Christianity was planted in the British Isles centuries before the advent of Augustine,(A.D. 596), the first papal missionary to these islands, sent out by Pope Gregory the Great.


    There are many reasons for believing that the British Church was a Sabbath-keeping church from the first, and for several succeeding centuries; in fact, the Sabbath-keepers have continued in unbroken succession from the first introduction of Christianity down to the present day.

    1. The first proposition is certainly true, if the church was founded by the Apostle Paul or his immediate converts.

    2. Many church fathers testify that Sunday had not displaced the Sabbath as late at least as Socrates, the church historian who wrote about the close of the fifth century that, with the exception of Rome and Alexandria, "all the churches throughout the whole world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath-day." (Socrates: "History of the Church," p.289. London. 1880.)

    3. In the biography of Augustine who came from Rome

    A.D. 596, to convert the heathen Saxons, we are told that he found the people of Britain in the most grievous and intolerable heresies, "being given to Judaizing, but ignorant of the holy sacraments and festivals of the church." That is to say, they kept the Bible Sabbath and were ignorant of the Roman

    "Sunday-festival." (Mrs. Tarmar Davis : "History of Sabbatarian Churches," p. 108. Phila 1851.)

    Watson, (Annals, p. 136), says: "Rome through Augustine did more mischief in one year toward the subverting of the Christian church and See of Britain than had the Saxon pagan done one hundred and fifty years before."

    4. The Easter controversy indicates the hold which the Sabbath had upon the British Christians. If we remember that Christianity came to Britain from the Eastern church rather than from the Western, it will help us to understand this discussion.

    Dr. Schaff says: "The observance of the Sabbath gradually ceased in the West. Yet the Eastern church to this day marks the seventh day of the week, excepting the Easter Sabbath, by omitting fasting and by standing in prayer:" (Church History, p. 37. 1859.)

    Gibbon (1854, vol. 1. Pp. 515 - 517), writes: "As for the observance of Easter, others in other parts of Asia vary in the month, but hold it on Saturday."

    John Price, in "The Ancient British Church," (pp. 90, 94. Note), says: "The original difference (about Easter)was that the Western church, followed herein by the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch and Alexandria, observed Good Friday either on the 14th of the month Nisan, if it fell on Friday, or, if not, on the next Friday; and Easter on the following Sunday. The Eastern church did not do that way." and then he adds, "There is, however, an unfair insinuation that the British Christians were Judaic in their observance of Easter day, in a letter of Pope elect, John (A.D. 634), to the Scoti; and in Aldhelm's Epistle to Geruntius." This "insinuation," far from being unfair, is rather the more a true statement of the Sabbath observance of the Celtic church, which even celebrated its Easter or resurrection festival on the day which the Scriptures point out as the one on which the Saviour rose from the grave, (which was "late on the Sabbath." Matt. 28:1-4).

    Peter Heylyn, in speaking of the early church in Britain observing its Easter on some other day than Sunday, says: "Which they certainly had not done had the Lord's day obtained amongst them that esteem which generally it had found in the Western church."

    The British-Celtic church observed Easter on the seventh day of the week until A.D. 664, when Rome triumphed in the controversy through the action of Oswald, king of Northumberland, whom the Catholics convinced of their succession from St. Peter, "the gate- keeper of heaven." Oswald thought he had better be on good terms with Peter, else he might not get inside the golden gate! Thus Sunday began to be hallowed in Northumberland.

    Colman the Culdee, rather than submit to this decision, took his monks and retired to Iona and then to Ireland. (O'Halleron's "Hist. of Ireland," p . 195.)

    Yet after all their plans to establish Sunday as the Sabbath, it appears that Christians generally, and in England and Scotland particularly, kept the seventh-day Sabbath until the 13th century. ("The Sabbath-day: Remember to keep it holy," p. 6: William Stillman. 1843.)

    In the further study of this subject we will consider the various geographical divisions of these islands:

    1. IRELAND

    We believe the Sabbath was observed here because:

    1. Ussher says that the church in this island was established "statim post passionem Christi" - soon after the passion of Christ; and therefore before Sunday was thought of.

    2. The constant enmity between Ireland and ancient Rome prevented any kind of friendly intercourse. The doctrine of Christ came not from thence here, but from the churches in Asia. (O'Halleron's "Hist. of Ireland," pp 146-174.)

    3. O'Halleron further says in this connection (p 172), "In the Present reign (Dermond, A.D. 528), and for nearly a century preceding it, Christianity was in the most flourishing condition in Ireland. They received it from Asiatics. These last, in many instances, adhered more closely to the Jewish customs than did the Roman Christians."

    4. There is ample evidence that St. Patrick, "the Apostle of Ireland," never had any connection whatever with Rome, and that he was a Sabbath-keeper. The establishment of the Sabbath-keeping community on the island of Iona, under the headship of St. Columba, was manifestly the result of Patrick's preaching. Like begets like.

    5. Celtic Ireland was neither Papal nor inclined to submit to the papacy, until Henry II. rivetted the Roman yoke upon them. (Froude's "England in Ireland," p. 17; O'Halleron's "Hist. of Ireland," p. 19.) In A.D. 1155 Pope Adrian gave Ireland to King Henry to bring into the Romish fold.

    A small remnant of Sabbath-keepers has persisted in Ireland until this time; a church or society being found there as late as 1840.


    Prof. Moffat, ("Church in Scotland," p. 140), says: "It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early in Ireland as well as in Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labour. They obeyed the commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week." This is an important concession from a Princeton professor of church history.

    The same author, speaking of the Culdees of Columba's time, and of the Scottish church of Queen Margaret's time, says: "Christianity was still taught in Scotland by the church of which Columba had planted the seeds in Iona, for the Culdees had substantially maintained the succession." (Moffat, p. 128.)

    We know that Columba was a Sabbath-keeper to the day of his death. We also know that at the time to which Moffat refers the Sabbath was observed by a majority of the Scottish church; for we are told that Queen Margaret, in trying to harmonize the Scottish church with the rest of Europe, found "her next point of complaint against them was that they did not reverence the Lord's day, but that they held Saturday to be the Sabbath." (Skene's "Celtic Scotland" vol 2, pp 348,349.) To this fact of history the Encyclopaedia Britannica bears testimony. (Article: St. Margaret. vol. 15 p. 544.)

    It seems therefore unquestionably established that Scotland kept the Bible Sabbath from the very first on down to as late, at least, as 1069-1093. And it was not until as late as A.D. 1203 "that Scotland bowed the neck to Rome and relinquished the faith of her fathers, - and with it the Sabbath.

    This end was accomplished through the impious ruse of the mysterious roll commanding Sunday observance under severest penalties, said to have fallen from heaven upon the altar of a saint in Jerusalem. (See Lewis' "Sabbath and Sunday" pp 197-202.) And yet for all this, as late as A.D. 1557, we find Sunday classed with "other festival days" of the church; for a meeting of barons and nobles was held in Scotland that year, when it was thought expedient "that in all parishes of this realm the Book of Common Prayer be read on Sunday and other festival days publicly," &c.

    In Frank Leslie's "Popular Monthly" for Nov., 1897, is an article on "Fisher Folks of Scotland," in which it is said that among the fishermen of Scotland of the present time "Sunday is strictly kept as a day of rest; no boats go out after Saturday morning." The writer thinks this is because they fear they might be kept out on the water over Sunday. But is it not rather a remnant of the old Sabbath-keeping principles and practices of Scotland?

    3. WALES

    There is much evidence that the Sabbath prevailed in Wales universally until A.D. 1115, when the first Roman Bishop was seated at St. David's. The old Welsh Sabbath-keeping churches did not even then altogether bow the knee to Rome, but fled to their hiding places "where the ordinances of the gospel to this day have been administered in their primitive mode without being adulterated by the corrupt church of Rome." (J. Davis' Baptist History, Ch. I.)

    Vavasor Powell, (1617-1671), was one of several commonly called "first reformers of the Baptists in Wales," who were successful in quickly gathering many followers at Caerleon and its vicinity. Joshua Toulmin says of Powell: "His sentiments were those of a Sabbatarian Baptist." (Neal's "History of the Puritans," 2, 274.) Thomas Armitage, (Baptist History," pp600, 601), states that Powell and his churches were not in the Baptist Association. Toulmin's statement furnishes the reason. This writer also says he gathered "above twenty distinct societies consisting of from two hundred to five hundred members."

    Dr. Lewis in "Sabbath and Sunday," p. 159, says there is no trace of Sunday legislation in Wales before its union with England in A.D. 1282. All this is convincing evidence of the ancient and continued Sabbath-keeping principles of the Welsh people. They were Sabbath-keeping Baptists.

    4. ENGLAND

    The history of the Sabbath in England proper leaves no doubt that the seventh day was originally observed, and for centuries, and that in this part of the Island, as in other parts, the banner of Sabbath truth has never been without brave defenders.


    What has been said in general about Ireland and Scotland is equally true of England. The Christians of Britain were of the same character as those of Scotland, at least before the coming of Augustine. Lanrentius, Melitus and Justus, when making to Augustine their report of the Christians of Great Britain, said they "had found by conversation with them that the Scots do not differ from the Britains." (Venerable Bede, II. 4, p. 118.)

    Since the church in Scotland was a Sabbath-keeping church, and the Britons of the southern part of the island were not different from them, [Later correction - (i.e. the Scotch people). The Scotch people here referred to were the people now called Irish. This does not weaken the force of the statement however as will be observed by the quotation from Moffat on page 27 of this book.Refer to subheading - 2. Scotland] it follows that they also observed the Seventh-day as the Sabbath. (Moffat, p. 140, as already shown, testifies that Scotland kept the Sabbath as late as the eleventh century.)


    England was always different from Rome and not dependent upon it. James Yeowell, ("Chronicles," p. 109), in speaking of exemptions from the Roman patriarchate and others, mentions certain ancient MSS. in the Bodleian Library, and then says :-"In which MSS. neither England, Scotland, nor Ireland is reckoned as depending on the Roman patriarchate: altho it is as certain there was a complete and absolute Church settled in this island long before these MSS. were (or can be supposed to have been) drawn up, as that there was one at Rome itself."

    That the British Church was different from that of Rome we may learn from the fact that when the Roman missionary to the heathen Saxons inquired of the Pope how he was to behave toward the Bishops of France and Britain, the Pontiff, answered him:- "We give thee no authority over the Bishops of France, for we ought not to deprive the Bishop of Arles of the authority which he hath received from us. But all the Bishops of Britain we commit to thee." (Lloyd's "Church Gov't," p. 80.)

    And in "Burgess Tracts," pp 253, 254, we have this:- "It appears that these northern churches were shut out from her (Rome's) communion, and were called the schismatics of Britain andIreland for no other reason than that they would not receive Rome's attentions, nor submit to the authority by which they were imposed." They certainly would not have been called "schismatics" if they had been in doctrine and faith like the Church of Rome.

    Burgess further says :- "In our country the authority of the Pope was unknown during the six first centuries - was not acknowledged by the Saxon princes, tho submitted to by some of the sovereigns subsequent to the conquest, and was not admitted by those who were nearest in succession to the Saxon kings."

    It is apparent that the Anglo Saxons in their early settlement of Great "Britain" were many of them Seventh-day Baptists. (See Winebrenner's "History of all Religious Denominations," p. 96: ed. 1853)

    As Rome was in the observance of Sunday at this time Britain was "schismatic" in that she still held to the doctrine of the early Church, both as to the Sabbath and other things.

    Bede (book 3, chapt. 4.), says of Columba and his disciples, that, "having no one to bring them the Synodal decrees, by reason of their being so far away from the rest of the world they therefore practised only such works of piety as they could learn from the prophetical, evangelical and apostolical writings."

    What further or better testimony is needed to prove that the British Church for at least six centuries kept the Sabbath of Jehovah, and practised Scriptural baptism? Happy the Church universal if she had followed such "apostolic succession."


    In all Saxon laws, beginning with A.D. 688, Sunday is spoken of as a "festival;" and not the least reference is made to any divine law or sacredness.

    In A.D. 878 Alfred had a Sunday law under the head:- "Of working on a 'festival.'"

    King Edward, A.D. 959-975, enacted:- "Let the festivals of every Sunday be kept," etc.

    In A.D. 1017 - 1035 Canute, King of Denmark, became King of all England: his Sunday law reads, "let every Sunday's festival be held from noon of Saturday till noon of Monday."

    Henry VI., A.D. 1448:- "All manner of fairs and markets in the said principal feasts, and Sundays, and Good Fridays, shall clearly cease," etc.

    During the Puritan supremacy, A.D. 1640 - 1660, Sunday was called the "Lord's day," and the laws were strict and explicit; but previous to this date Sunday was simply a "festival day" without divine authority; and the "Book of Sports," by James I., in 1618, and by Charles I., in 1633, shows the way in which the day was regarded - held simply by expediency and by human authority only. (The above quotations are made from Dr. A.H. Lewis' "Sunday Legislation," 1902, pp 73-115.)


    Mr. George Molyneaux, a resident of Milford Haven, Wales, says :- "All the Christian Church were seventh-day observers during the early centuries. Sunday is from Rome and was but slowly pushed into the British Church." This is certainly a true statement; but while the Sabbath was being gradually crowded out of the Establishment, a new lamp was being lighted whose brightness was to shine with splendor, tho the bearers should change, until the time of Charles II. And then, changing again, it was to blaze up once more; and then, tho burning very low, the ancient light still shines with an ever steady clearness and brilliancy.

    The ancient Waldenses had now spread themselves over nearly all of Europe, and in the time of William the Conqueror (1070), and his son, William Rufus, it appears that the Waldenses and their disciples out of France, Germany, and Holland had their frequent recourse and did abound in England; and had, about A.D. 1080, generally corrupted all France, Italy, and England." (Crosby's History of the English Baptists, 2:43,44.)

    Toward the middle of the twelfth century a society of Waldenses made its appearance in England, coming originally from Gascoyne, where, "being numerous as the sands of the sea, they sorely infested France, Italy, Spain, and England." (Lewis: "Sabbath and Sunday," p. 211.)

    In the thirteenth century the Waldenses had spread abroad through twenty-two countries of Europe, Britain being one. (Benedict: p. 31.) There was not among them all perfect agreement in sentiments; yet that they were opposed to the pretensions and innovations of Rome, and that they clave only to the text of Scripture, is admitted by all. That they "despised the feast of Easter, and all the festivals of Christ and the Saints," is also generally admitted. (Benedict: 1813; 2: 412,413.)

    "Purchase's Pilgrimage," a sort of universal history published in London, England, in 1625, says that they "keep Saturday holy, nor esteem Saturday fasts lawful; but even on Easter they have solemn services on Saturday, eat flesh, and feast it bravely like the Jews." (Lewis: Sabbath and Sunday, pp. 216, 217.)

    By A.D. 1260 these people had increased to at least 800,000 - some say, Upwards of 3,000,000. So there was no lack of Sabbath light even in these early times. (Benedict: 1848, p. 31.) Having upheld the Sabbath truth for nearly three centuries, until A.D. 1315, the Waldenses seem to have been merged into the Lollards.


    The Lollards were followers of John Wyckliffe, and were the adherents of a religious movement which was widespread at the end of the fourteenth century and the beginning of the fifteenth, and which, to some extent, maintained itself on to the Reformation. (Brit. XIV. Article, "Lollards.") The first official use of the word appears in 1387, when the Bishop of Winchester issued a mandate against five of these "poor preachers," as they were called, to suppress them.

    The movement took its name from Walter Lollard, a German preacher, who in the reign ofEdward III., about the year A.D. 1350, came to England. He was called by Peter Perrin "A Waldensian Bard." Benedict, (History, p. 307), says he was "a man of great renown among the Protestants of that day in Germany; and was so eminent in England, that, as in

    France they were called Berengarians from Berengarius, and, Petrobrussians from Peter de Bruys, so also did the Waldensian Christians for many generations bear the name of this worthy man, being called Lollards."

    Benedict (History, p. 308), further says:- "They now abounded; more than half of the nation became Lollards; yea they covered all England. In 1389 they formed separate and distinct societies agreeable with Scripture. In these churches all the brethren were equal, each could preach, baptize, and break bread. They were united in opinion as one, and were called "Bible men," since they allowed no office not enjoined in the Word of God. Their hostility to the hierarchy, and their, numbers, aroused their enemies to adopt severe measures. In the year 1400 a law was passed sentencing Lollards to be burned to death. In Norfolk they abounded, and there they suffered severely. Still the "Bible men" increased, and became dangerous to the Church. They are said to have numbered 100,000." Henry VIII., while in conflict with the Pope, relieved and encouraged the Lollards in his kingdom; and this led their persecuted brethren from all parts of Europe to flock to England in great numbers, to enjoy religious liberty, and to strengthen the cause of true religion.

    That these people were immersion Baptists, and generally refused to baptize infants, is admitted even by their enemies. Benedict (p. 308), says of Walter Lollard:- "He was in sentiment the same as Peter de Bruys, who was the founder of the Petrobrussians of France." The Lollards were like the Petrobrussians, and these were Sabbath keepers.

    Dr. Allix ("Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Piedmont Church," p. 162), gives evidence of their Sabbath-keeping principles; he refers to a Romish priest who said he handled "five questions against the Petrobrussians which bare a great resemblance to the belief of the Cathari of Italy." That the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified by their Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of the twelfth century concerning three sorts of heretics - the Cathari, the Passagii, and the Arnoldistae; and says of this Romish writer: "He lays it down as one of their opinions that the law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and the Sabbath ought to take place."

    Bishop White, in speaking of Sabbath-keeping as opposed to the practices of the Church, says:- "It was thus condemned in the Nazarenes and in the Cerinthians, in the Ebionites and in the Hypsistarii. The ancient Synod of Laodicea made a decree against it; also Gregory the Great affirmed it was Judaical. In St. Bernard's time it was condemned in the Petrobrussians. The same hath then and ever since been condemned as Judaish and heretical." (Treatise on the Sabbath p. 8)

    Dr. Hessey says :- "The Lollards, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, entertained a strong antipathy to Saints' Days, and extended it even to the weekly Festival of the Resurrection" - Sunday. (Brompton Lectures p. 95)

    "Studies in English History," by Gardner and Spedding, (1881, p. 296), says: "The Lollards * * * Could not overlook the injunction contained in the Fourth Commandment * * * here were most positive words of Scripture * * * and the clear tendency of Lollard teaching was to carry out the Scripture command to the letter." The "Sabbath Memorial" for January, 1882, alsobears testimony to the same effect.

    With all this testimony before us we cannot doubt that the Lollards were Sabbath-keepers, observers of the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath which God himself enjoined at the beginning of creation, and which he has never repealed. It is clear also that as early, at least, as A.D. 1389 they were formed into regularly organized churches - "separate and distinct societies agreeable to Scripture." Thus the succession of Sabbath witnesses is maintained unbroken from the first century down to the Reformation.

    In A.D. 1530, one of the pastors of the Waldenses, George Morel, published the Memoirs of his church. He said there were then 800,000 professing the Waldensian faith. This can well be believed when one considers the host of martyrs that furnished; and that in 1315 there were 80,000 in Bohemia alone. (Benedict, p. 80. Wn. Jones' History of the Christian Church, p. 440.)


    About the time of Luther's Reformation, early in 1520, certain of the old evangelical Baptists of Germany were called "Anabaptists," because they rebaptised all who entered their communion. That they had a comparatively pure creed, and were faithful in their testimony against the corruption of the Romish Church, is admitted by all. That they were immersion Baptists, the very name indicates; and that they were observers of the seventh-day Sabbath will be presently shown.

    About the year 1565 they made their appearance in England, which had always been a cave of Adullam and a city of refuge to those who were persecuted for righteousness sake. These Anabaptists lasted as such for a little over one century, and then they were merged into some of the other evangelical churches. As further evidence that they flourished in England, the "Broadmead Records: Historical Introduction," p 53, states that "In 1568 the Dutch Anabaptists held private Conventicles in London, and perverted many."

    In 1525 certain fanatics of Munster, Germany, thought to set up the kingdom of Christ on earth, "taking heaven by storm." These people ran to wild extremes, and cast much discredit upon the cause of true religion. The true Anabaptists, however, had no lot nor part with these ranting visionaries, yet they were unfortunately classed with them; and this was used as a pretext for renewed persecution.

    Many, if not all, of the Anabaptists observed the seventh-day Sabbath. Dr Francis White (Treatise on the Seventh Day, p 132), says:- "They who maintain the Saturday Sabbath to be in force, comply with the Anabaptists."

    Russen (On Anabaptists, London, 1703, p. 79), speaking of heresies, says:- "Under this head I could conclude some of them under those of Anabaptists, who have been inclined to this personal reign of Christ, and have embraced the seventh-day Sabbath."

    In "Sabbath Redivivum," by Cawdrey and Palmer, London, 1562, it is said:- "It seems the Anabaptists, who usually cry down the Sabbath either as antichristian or ceremonial, began to see the necessity of a Sabbath; and will rather return to the old Sabbath with the Jews than have none at all."

    James Ockford, whose book on the Sabbath was "sharply confuted with fire," in 1642, was called an Anabaptist.

    Thus the Anabaptists, who were clearly Sabbath-keepers, took the torch from the Waldenses and Lollards, and carried it for about a century in England.

    It may be asked, What became of the Sabbath-keeping Waldenses and Lollards? Benedict (History of Baptists, 1848, p. 79), in speaking of these people in connection with the Reformation, says:- "The multitudes who lay concealed in almost all parts of Europe hailed with joy the dawn of that day which should relieve them from the persecuting power

    of the despotic heads of the Roman Church. But soon the found themselves in their expectations mistaken, became entirely dissatisfied with some of the principles on which the Reformation was conducted, and so far as their voice could be heard they entered their decided protest against the Protestants, and believed - that the Reformation needed reforming. But at length these afflicted Waldenses were ready to submit to almost any condition for the sake of gaining new friends and protectors; and one company after another became associated by way of correspondence, as an incipient measure, and in the end were amalgamated with the Reformed or Protestant party. (Benedict, 1848, p. 83.)

    "The Baptist Cyclopedia" (1881), states the case thus:- "In 1530, according to Du Pin, the Waldenses united with the Reformers, and were persuaded to renounce certain peculiarities which heretofore they held, and to receive doctrines which till then had been foreign to their creed. This new arrangement harmonized the reformations of the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and probably removed Baptist doctrines from the valleys of the Piedmont. This ancient community is now Presbyterian, and had its delegate in the recent Pan-Presbyterian Council in Philadelphia,"

    However, in spite of this great defection, many remained faithful; and from Reformation times until the present day, the British Isles have not been without organized Seventh-Day Baptist Churches.


    Thus far we have endeavored to show, and think we have done so, that Christianity was planted in the islands of Great Britain in the apostolic age; that it was Sabbath-keeping in character; that for some six centuries, at least, the Sabbath prevailed in these islands, and that, on down to the Reformation, Sabbath advocates and adherents abounded in unbroken and persistent succession.

    We now come to the subject of organized Seventh-Day Baptist Churches.

    A.D. 1558.

    Chambers' Cyclopedia states that "many conscientious and independent thinkers in the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) advocated the seventh-day."

    A.D. 1552.

    The Sabbath Recorder of June 11, 1868, says:- "In 1552 many in England were known as Sabbatarians.

    A.D. 1545.

    Dr. Samuel Kohn, chief Rabbi of Budapest, Hungary, in a recent work (Sabbatarians in Transylvania, 1894, pp. 8,9) says:- In Bohemia Sabbatarians sprung up as early as 1530. Such Sabbatarians, or similar sects, we meet about 1545 among the Quakers in England. Several leaders and preachers of the Puritans have re-transferred the rest day from Sunday to Saturday; and the Christian Jews who arose in England and partly emigrated to Germany, and settled near Heidelberg, believed, indeed, in Jesus, but they also celebrated the Sabbath and regarded the Jewish laws in reference to meats and drinks."

    A.D. 1536

    Both Robert Cox and Dr. Hessey trace the origin of the Seventh-Day Baptists of England to the time of Erasmus (1466-1536), who wrote of Sabbatarians in Bohemia early in the Reformation. Descendants of the Waldenses in Bohemia and Holland formed material for Sabbath-keeping Churches, which appeared with the dawn of the Reformation. (Lewis: Sabbath and Sunday, pp. 317-320)

    A.D. 1389.

    We have already noted that Benedict (History of Baptists, p. 308), speaks of "separate and distinct societies" of Sabbath-keeping Lollards as early as A.D. 1389.

    From the multiplicity of testimony we cannot but be confident that there were organized Sabbath-keeping Churches much earlier than any definite date which can be fixed by historical documents. Existing records and accounts take us back no further than about 1617 A.D. From that date until the present we have learned more or less of something like thirty-two Seventh-Day Baptist Churches in England, Scotland and Ireland. But our information in many instances is very meagre; of very few do we know the exact date of organization; of many we simply know that they were in existence as early as a given date, or that they were alive as late as a certain time; of a few we have been unable so far to discover any date, altho the evidence of their existence at some time is quite clear.
  14. rockytopva

    rockytopva Love to pray! :) Supporter

  15. Quid est Veritas?

    Quid est Veritas? In Memoriam to CS Lewis

    Theophilus merely speculated from which sons of Noah various peoples were derived, deriving the Britons and most of Europe from Japhet.

    What similarity between Druidism and Baal worship? There is no citation, and this seems implausible based on my knowledge of the two religions. Baalim were associated with sacred spaces and tended to be worshipped in high places, while Druids gravitated more to wells and sacred groves for instance. If it is such broad similarity as both did sacrifices, then it is of course not very compelling.

    This refers to the Historia Brittonum's account of Brutus of Troy, grandson of Aeneas, founding Britain. This anonymous work was written in the 9th century and a commentary upon it was written by Nennius. It was one of the chief sources of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Brittaniae.

    The idea of a Brutus being responsible for Britain's name is derived from Isadore of Seville, who merely speculated it was named after a known Roman Consul of the 2nd century BC. The actual name is probably derived from a pre-Celtic name likely meaning either the White Isle or the Painted Isle.

    These works are medieaval prose histories and are fanciful works of fiction with very little grounding in history. Especcially its pre-Roman accounts are highly romantic fictions, mostly derived from archetypes like the Aenead. They cannot be considered history.

    Gildas does claim a date for the arrival in this epoch. There is however no verifiable proof to this effect in any of the source texts of the 1st or 2nd century nor Archaeological proof and Gildas essentially just says it was preached everywhere and therefore he assumes in Britain as well.

    Again the Roman tendency to mention Britain as an area to show to the furthest extent. This does not actually mean this is true, but may very well be so.

    This is just speculation and hyperbole by the Church Fathers and highly unlikely.

    Of course Christianity came to Britain before Augustine's mission as the Welsh, Picts, Irish and Scots were already mostly Christian by that stage.

    Unbroken succession of Sabbath keeping? No proof of this.

    No, this statement has never been proven.

    Again untrue.

    Contemporary citation for this statement is lacking in the sources. Don't know where they derived this from. Doesn't fit Bede's account again, which is our most reliable historian.

    True that the council of Whitby established continental Easter against some opposition. No evidence of Sabbath-keeping however before this nor source cited here for it.
    No proof is offered nor would I say exists for this statement nor does the citation reference any.

    Unlikely Ireland was so early converted and extrapolation that it therefore held Saturday Sabbath. The rest of the Roman world didn't, why would Ireland continue to do so?

    No evidence for any of these statements.

    Could not find Moffat's book to check his sources and Columba definitely was NOT a Saturday sabbath-keeper according to the Vitae Columba.

    Speculation and clearly assuming a point that still needs to be proven, ie Scottish Saturday Sabbath keeping.

    It just says 'much evidence' but nothing is cited to prove this.

    Assuming English Saturday Sabbath based on the fact that the Irish and Scots had this? That fact has not been shown and therefore it has also not been shown for England and in fact Bede goes to a great amount of time to list differences that existed.

    This does not prove this.

    Festivals was the term used for all religious festivals. In fact the term holiday is derived from holy day. This is assuming a fact based on terms which cannot in any way be shown to be valid, ie that a Festival was never of a religious nature.

    Some of these groups had Sabbatarian minorities, but not to the extent here presented which seems to conclude they all were.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
  16. SoldierOfTheKing

    SoldierOfTheKing Christian Spenglerian

    United States
    I'd say "because of" rather than "in spite of". Whatever the English were for, the Irish were against.
  17. EastCoastRemnant

    EastCoastRemnant I Must Decrease That He May Increase Supporter

    I apologize for some repeated quotations in this next list but I think it further proves that the observance of the Sabbath has been maintained from apostolic times despite what Mr. Quid est Veritas contends...

    Sabbath History

    1st Century AD. Jesus
    1. "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16
    2. Jesus: "...The sabbath was made for man…" Mark 2:27
    3. Paul: "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Acts 17:2-3
    4. Paul and Gentiles. "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. And the next Sabbath came almost the whole city together to hear the Word of God." Acts 13:42,44

    2nd Century. Early Christians
    "The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to that purpose." Dialogue on the Lord's Day, p.189. London: 1701. By Dr. T.H. Morer (Church of England).

    3rd and 4th Centuries. Orient and Most of the World
    1. "The ancient Christians were very careful in the observation of Saturday, or the seventh day. . .It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival. . . . Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assemblies on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath; Epiphanius says the same." Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol. II. Book XX, chap 3, Sec. 1 66.1137, 1138.
    2. Council of Laodicea. "From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors; yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it." Sunday a Sabbath, John Ley, p. 163. London: 1640.
    3. "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s Day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ." Catholic Church Council in Laodicea, 364AD, Canon 29.

    5th Century. Constantinople
    "The people of Constantinople and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria." Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book 7, chap. 19.

    6th Century. Rome
    "About 590, Pope Gregory, in a letter to the Roman people, denounced as the prophets of Antichrist those who maintained that work ought not to be done on the seventh day." James T. Ringgold, The Law of Sunday, p. 267.

    7th Century. Scotland and Ireland
    "It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labour. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week." Professor James C. Moffatt, D.D., Professor of Church History at Princeton, The Church in Scotland, p. 140.

    8th Century. India, China, Persia
    "Widespread and enduring was the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath among the believers of the Church of the East and the St. Thomas Christians of India, who never were connected with Rome. It also was maintained among those bodies which broke off from Rome after the Council of Chalcedon namely, the Abyssinians, the Jacobites, the Maronites, and Armenians." Schaff-Herzog, The New Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, art. Nestorians; also Realencyclopaedie fur Protestantische Theologie und Kirche, art Nestorianer.

    10th Century. Church of the East. Kurdistan
    "The Nestorians eat no pork and keep the Sabbath. They believe in neither auricular confession nor purgatory." Schaff-Herzog, The New Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, art. Nestorians.

    11th Century. Scotland
    They held that Saturday was properly the Sabbath on which they abstained from work. Celtic Scotland, Vol. 2, p. 350.

    12th Century. Wales
    "There is much evidence that the Sabbath prevailed in Wales universally until A.D. 1115, when the first Roman bishop was seated at St. David's. The old Welsh Sabbath-keeping churches did not even then altogether bow the knee to Rome, but fled to their hiding places." Lewis, Seventh Day Baptists in Europe and America, Vol. 1, p. 29.

    13th Century. Waldenses of France
    1. "The inquisitors. . . [declare] that the sign of a Vaudois, deemed worthy of death, was that he followed Christ and sought to obey the commandments of God." History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, H.C. Lea, Vol. 1.
    2. Revelation 12:17 & 14:12. "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.". . . "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."

    15th Century. Norway
    1. "We are informed that some people in different districts of the kingdom, have adopted and observed Saturdaykeeping. It is severely forbidden - in holy church canon - one and all to observe days excepting those which the holy Pope, archbishop, or the bishops command. Saturdaykeeping must under no circumstances be permitted hereafter further than the church canon commands. Therefore, we counsel all the friends of God throughout all Norway who want to be obedient towards the holy church to let this evil of Saturdaykeeping alone; and the rest we forbid under penalty of severe church punishment to keep Saturday holy." Catholic Provincial Council at Bergen. 1435 Dip. Norveg., 7, 397.
    2. Daniel 7:25, "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws."

    16th Century. Council of Trent
    1. "On the 18th of January, 1563, the Council of Trent ruled that Tradition is greater than Scripture, after a powerful speech by the Archbishop of Reggio, in which he said that the fact that the Church had changed the Fourth Commandment clearly proved that Tradition was greater than Scripture." H.J. Holtzman, Kanon und Tradition, 1859 edition, p. 263.
    2. Matthew 15:3, 6-9. Jesus replied "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?", " Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
    3. Holland and Germany: Babara of Thiers, who was executed in 1529, declared: "God has commanded us to rest on the seventh day." Martyrology of the Churches of Christ, commonly called Baptists, during the era of the Reformation, from the Dutch of T.J. Van Braght, London 1850, 1, pp. 113-4.
    4. Russia: "The accused [Sabbathkeepers] were summoned; they openly acknowledged the new faith, and defended the same. The most eminent of them, the secretary of state, Kuritzyn, Ivan Maximow, Kassian, archimandrite of the Jury Monastery of Novgorod, were condemned to death, and burned publicly in cages, at Moscow, Dec. 27, 1503."(Council, Moscow, 1503). H. Sternberf, Geschichte der Juden (Leipzig, 1873), pp. 1117-122.
    5. Sweden: "This zeal for Saturdaykeeping continued for a long time; even little things which might strengthen the practice of keeping Saturday were punished." Bishop Anjou, Svenska Kirkans Historia efter Motet i Upsala.
    6. Europe: About the year 1520 many of these Sabbathkeepers found shelter on the estate of Lord Leonhardt of Lichtensein, "as the princes of Lichtenstein held to the observance of the true Sabbath." History of the Sabbath, J.N. Andrews, p. 649, ed.
    7. India: "The famous Jesuit, Francis Xavier, called for the Inquisition, which was set up in Goa, India, in 1560, to check the 'Jewish wickedness' (Sabbathkeeping)." Adeney, The Greek and Eastern Churches, p. 527-528.
    8. Abyssinia: "It is not therefore, in imitation of the Jews, but in obedience to Christ and His holy apostles, that we observe that day." (Abyssinian legate at court of Lisbon, 1534). Geddes' Church History of Ethiopia, pp. 87-8.

    17th Century
    1. England: "Here in England are about nine or ten churches that keep the Sabbath, besides many scattered disciples, who have been eminently preserved." Stennet's letters, 1668 and 1670. Cox. Sab., 1, 268.
    2. Dr. Peter Chamberlain: Dr. Peter Chamberlain was physician to King James and Queen Katherine. The inscription on the monument over his grave says Dr. Chamberlain was "a Christian, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, being baptized about the year 1648, and keeping the seventh day for the Sabbath above thirty-two years."
    3. America: "Stephen Mumford, the first Sabbathkeeper in America came from London in 1664." History of the Seventh Day Baptist General Conference by Jas. Bailey, pp. 237-238.
    4. England: "It will surely be far safer to observe the seventh day, according to the express commandment of God, than on the authority of mere human conjecture to adopt the first." John Milton, Sab. Lit, 2, 46-54.

    18th Century
    1. Rumania (1760): "Joseph II's edict of tolerance did not apply to the Sabbatarians, some of whom again lost all of their possessions." Jahrgang 2, 254.
    2. Bohemia and Moravia: "The condition of the Sabbatarians [from 1635 to 1867] was dreadful. Their books and writings had to be delivered to the Karlsburg Consistory to become the spoil of flames." Adolf Dux, Aus Ungarn, pp. 2889-291. Leipzig, 18880.
    3. America: "But before Zinzendorf and the Moravians at Bethlehem thus began the observance of the Sabbath and prospered, there was a small body of German Sabbathkeepers in Pennsylvania." Rupp's History of Religious Denominations in the United States, pp. 109-123.

    19th Century to Present
    1. America: The Seventh-day Adventist movement was formed around 1844.
    2. Orient: "In many of the Oriental churches the Sabbath (Saturday) was still observed like Sunday, while in the West a large number, by way of opposition to Jewish institutions, held a fast on that day." George Park Fisher, History of the Christian Church, (New York: Scribner, 1900), 1 18; quoted in Bible Students' Source Book (Washington D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1962), 866
    3. China: "The Taipings when asked why they observed the seventh day Sabbath, replied that it was, first, because the Bible taught it, and second, because their ancestors observed it as a day of worship." A Critical History of the Sabbath and the Sunday.
    4. Sweden: "We will now endeavor to show that the sanctification of the Sabbath has its foundation and its origin in a law which God at creation itself established for the whole world, and as a consequence thereof is binding on all men in all ages." May 30, 1863, p. 169. Evangelisten (The Evangelist) Stockholm, May 30 to August 15, 1863 (organ of the Swedish Baptist Church).
    5. The following is a quote from a Catholic magazine, The Catholic Mirror: "The Catholic Church for over 1,000 years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day [of worship] from Saturday to Sunday. . . . In the Old Testament, reference is made 126 times to the Sabbath, and all these texts conspire harmoniously in voicing the will of God commanding the seventh day to be kept, because God Himself first kept it, making it obligatory on all as 'a perpetual covenant.' Nor can we imagine any one foolhardy enough to question the identity of Saturday with the Sabbath or seventh day, seeing that the people of Israel have been keeping Saturday from the giving of the law 2514 BC to the present . . . Examining the New Testament from cover to cover critically, we find the Sabbath referred to 61 times. We find, too, that the Savior invariably selected the Sabbath (Saturday) to teach in the synagogues and work miracles. The four Gospels refer to the Sabbath (Saturday) 51 times. . . . Hence the conclusion is inevitable . . . that of those who follow the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and the Seventh-day Adventists, have the exclusive weight of evidence on their side, whilst the biblical Protestant has not a word in self-defense for his substitution of Sunday for Saturday. . . . They have ignored and condemned their teacher, the Bible . . . and they have adopted a day [instituted and] kept by the Catholic Church." Official publication of Cardinal Gibbons and the Papacy in the United States, published in Baltimore, Maryland, September 1893.
    We gratefully acknowledge J.F. Coltheart, who personally consulted old manuscripts and the original sources of many of these quotations in the libraries and museums of Europe and also in Constantinople and the East.

  18. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    United States
    In Relationship
    I am shocked.
    Shocked I tell you.
    Here is my face so you can see how shocked I am::neutral:

  19. fat wee robin

    fat wee robin Newbie

    Be fore posting on this I consider that you should do a little bit of BASIC research on the
    recent from say history of Ireland even on the NET , as your questions are confusing, and before making all the assumptions that you make you should be at least aquainted with some basics of common history .
  20. fat wee robin

    fat wee robin Newbie

    Thoroughly 'pagan', with Jewish roots ,as Jeremiah was in Ireland around BC 600 ,and the assumption that all 'pagan 'things were ant-God is wrong . So that is why the 'Kings and druids of Ireland took to christianity like a 'duck to water is that how they lived in many ways was already 'biblical' .
    The Irish were a subjugated people and only a very few would have been 'loyal to the English crown ',in the same way peoples have been tyrannised by force and greed in other situations .The difference here was that the English pretended to be doing it in the name of Christianity (the theft of the Catholic churches and land and houses by the Anglicans ) but of course again God was blamed for wickedness by carried out by ruthless men from Cromwell onwards .