brought before them. The British bishops failed to give him sight. Then Augustine prayed, that by giving corporal sight to this man, Almighty God might give them spiritual light. The blind man saw, and the Britons acknowledged that truth was on the side of Augustine, but that they could not give up their ancient customs without the consent of their people. They asked, however, to meet Augustine a second time for this purpose. Accordingly, seven bishops, with their most learned men, met him near the same place. On their way they consulted a learned and pious hermit whether they ought to give up their traditions at the call of Augustine. "If he is a holy man," said the hermit, "follow him." But how can we know? Well, if, on your approach, he rises to do you honour, know him to be meek and humble; if, on the contrary, he sit still, then he is proud and is not from God, and not to be listened to." It happened that St. Augustine remained sitting, and they would not listen to him. They charged him with pride and arrogance, and refused to listen to his solicitations. Does this prove that they did not acknowledge the authority of Rome? Surely not. The whole thing hinged on the foolish advice of the hermit. Had Augustine risen to do them honour, the British bishops would have taken him for their Archbishop, and yielded everything to him. Provost Macandrew says that when they refused to receive him as their Archbishop, Augustine doomed them to destruction, and left them. He did no such thing. If he had read Bede, he would have seen that what he says is, "The man of God foretold them, that if they would not receive their brethren in peace, they would receive war from their enemies-and that if they would not preach the way of life to the Saxons, they would suffer death at their hands"-which prophecy, Bede continues, was fulfilled. If, therefore, they refused to submit to St. Augustine, it was not because they regarded him as belonging to another Church, but because they listened to the advice of the hermit, who left the matter to be decided by his accidental rising or sitting. If they refused to preach to the Saxons, it was because they looked upon them as the invaders of their country, and enemies of their race. We cannot, indeed, say much for their intelligence or Christian charity, which is the worst we can say against them. But to suppose

that

they knew nothing of the claims of Rome, and refused to submit to her authority, is preposterous, the more so when we take into account the fact well authenticated that the ancient Britons received the faith direct from Rome. Bede, lib i., civ. Lucius, King of the Britons, sent a letter to the holy man, Eleutherius, who at that time ruled the Pontifical See, entreating him to instruct him and his people in the Christian religion. This was about the year 173. The Pope acceded to the wish of the King. Let us now turn to the neighbouring or Scottish Church, and we will find ourselves on similar ground. The inconvenience of keeping Easter at different periods, according to different computations, reached a climax in the household of Oswy, King of Northumbria. He had been instructed by the Scots, and married a Saxon princess, Eanfleada, who had received baptism at the hands of the Roman missionaries. The consequence was that, while the King was celebrating the joyous festival of Easter, after the Lentan fast, his queen and her household were only beginning the sorrowful devotions of Holy Week. She was a week behind. The confusion was intolerable, and the King determined to put an end to it-resolved to hear both sides of the question, and for this purpose summoned Colman on the part of the Scots, and Wilfrid as the supporter of the new system, to lay before him the reasons for their practices. This conference at Whitby can hardly be called a council, although it is sometimes designated as such. While Colman was a bishop, Wilfrid was only a priest. He did not appear in any sense as the delegate of the Pope. There could not, in the nature of this case, be a demand on his part of submission. It was merely the act of Colman, in giving his

a king wishing to settle a family dispute. reasons for the Scottish custom, appealed to the authority of St. John the Evangelist and the practice of their Fathers, and especially St. Columba. Wilfrid replied, the Pasch which we celebrate at Rome is held also in Italy, in France, in Africa, Asia, and Greece, and over the whole world, with the exception of these two islands in the extremity of the ocean. As for the authority of St. John, he reminded them that many of the Jewish observances were tolerated in the infancy of the Church, on account of the weaknesses of the Jewish converts. Thus, he said, St. Paul

himself had Timothy circumcised. But he pointed out that the Scottish mode of computing Easter was not even in accordance with that of St. John-that, as for the holy founder of Iona, he had no doubt he acted throughout in good faith, and that he felt convinced, if the proper cycle had been pointed out to him, he would have, according to his known piety, adopted it. He then appealed to the authority of St. Peter. Colman did not deny, but acknowledged the authority of Peter. The reasoning of Wilfrid was sufficient to convince the King that the new mode of reckoning Easter was better than the old. Provost Macandrew contends that the fact that Bishop Colman, who was a bishop, did not yield at once to Wilfrid-who was only a priest-is sufficient to convince him that the Scottish Church did not acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. All I can say is that, where he wishes to be convinced, it requires very little to bring about that consummation; and the only way he can dispose of Bede's account is to say that, Bede being a Roman Churchman, gives the best of it to Wilfrid! It is true that Colman did not yield to Wilfrid, but others did. Cedd, a Scottish bishop, who was present, gave up the Scottish mode, and introduced into his own see the new and better mode of computing Easter. Bede says that the greater number of those who were present followed his example, and that Colman returned to consult his brethren at home, and, it is said, shortly afterwards, he also saw his error. Certain it is that the Scottish Church became divided on this point, and as those who adhered to their local traditions were not called upon to retract under penalty of being cut off from Catholic unity, we cannot look upon them as schismatics. If they did refuse to yield to the Roman custom because they did not acknowledge the authority of Rome, then, all we can say is, that they would have become schismatics, and, indeed, by some they are regarded as such; but that does not prove that the Church as founded by St. Columba did not acknowledge Rome, or that he would not have adopted the new calendar if he had known it. The fact that the Conference at Whitby had no authoritative character is enough to show that the conduct of Colman in first consulting his brethren before giving his decision proves nothing against my position. The fact that it took a considerable time

before the Scots universally adopted the new system, only shows how difficult it is to overturn national prejudices and customs, and the wisdom of Rome is manifested in the moderation with which she moves in such circumstances, leaving matters to time and fuller knowledge when it is not a question of faith. But how arises the question, What was the cycle adopted by the Scots ? Whence came it? Who introduced it? One thing is clear, it did not come from the East. Colman was wrong when he relied on the authority of St. John. The Scots were not Quarto decimans. What will Provost Macandrew say when I tell him that this cycle actually came from Rome. An ancient table for the computation of Easter, which had long puzzled the antiquarians, has been shown by the Chevalier de Rossi to have been used in Rome during the fourth century. The computation is given down to the year 354, and it agrees exactly with the calendar used by the Scots in the seventh century. When the troubled times came the Western Isles were cut off from much intercourse with the Continent, and they were naturally ignorant of the corrected calculations which had been meantime adopted in Rome, and it is to this that Wilfrid referred when he said to Colman that "if any Catholic calculator had come among them they would have followed his admonitions." In the words of De Rossi it is only another argument for the bond of union between the Celtic and Roman Church. One word in conclusion. I pointed to a most interesting contemporary evidence of what the faith of the Celtic Church was, from the mouth of no less a person than Wilfrid himself, who stood up in a council at Rome and professed before the Pope and Bishops assembled that he and the Celts, the Britons, Picts, and Saxons were of the one true Catholic faith. And how does Provost Macandrew meet this? By saying, It is impossible now to say what Wilfrid meant by the true Catholic faith! "Risum teneatis amici." Impossible to know what a Catholic Bishop means by the true Catholic faith when he speaks before the Pope in Council! Oh, but he was a fugitive from his own Church! says the Provost, grasping at a straw. Well, what of that? He came to Rome to appeal against the encroachments of Archbishop Theodore, and his appeal was sustained, and he himself restored. But what has that to do with his profession

speak in the name of But what I said and

of faith? Oh, but he was not authorised to the Scottish Church. I never said he was. say is, that here is a piece of contemporary evidence on the part of a Roman Catholic Bishop, who lived among the Scots, who knew their faith-that it was the same faith which he himself held, and of which he there and then made open profession in the Council. I do not claim for this more than it is worth. It is only a piece of evidence, and the stronger because it is contemporary evidence, and that, too, on the part of a man who, if anyone would, would have been in opposition to the Scottish Church, declaring that he was not in opposition, but of the same true Catholic faith. I will only ask Provost Macandrew to give me one piece of contemporary evidence, no matter from whom, as clear and explicit to show that the Churches were not in Catholic unity. This he never can show, and I do not think there is much use in continuing the argument with one. who cannot see the difference between matters of faith and matters of discipline, and who convinces himself that when he sees a difference in matters of pure discipline, not involving one single principle of dogmatic faith, he can see two Churches and two faiths. ENEAS CHISHOLM.