The early Church in England

[Andreas Moran]

I'm not sure this is the right place but I couldn't find an area for Church history.

Anyway, on my pictures, I've posted a photo of an early fourth century mosaic from a Roman villa in Dorset. This is said to be the earliest mosaic of Christ. The mosaic shows two pomegranates. This symbolism suggests to me some overlap between the pagan and Christian symbolism. The pomegranate features in the Greek myth about Persephone who ended up having to spend a third of the year in Hades. Her mother was Demeter, goddess of fruits and the corn harvest. The symbolism of the myth isn't subtle: Persephone is the seed of corn that spends a third of the year in the ground. Then she rises from the ground to meet her mother and there is 'fruit of the earth' for man and beast. The pomegranate is a kind of shorthand symbolism of this and represents resurrection in Christian symbolism. It also symbolises chastity. It is a common feature in western art, e.g in Botticelli's 'Madonna of the Magnificat' in the Uffizi, Florence. There is a striking parallel with Christ's saying, 'Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it dies, it bringeth forth much fruit' (John 12:24). England seems certainly to be one of the oldest of all centres of the Christian faith but this imagery interested me.

[Olga]

The face in the mosaic has a very strong resemblance to bas-reliefs and statues of Emperor Constantine, so IMHO, it is he who is represented here, not Christ. There is also no halo aroung his head. In the earliest (pre-4thC) days, Christ was indeed often represented in cryptic ways, including in the form of figures of classical antiquity, but a halo was usually present.

The XP motif behind his head likely represents Constantine's defence of the Christian faith as emperor, or, an allusion to the divine right of rule.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I would query whether the subject of the mosaic in Andreas' gallery (http://www.monachos.net/forum/album.php?albumid=29&pictureid=495) is really of Constantine. Firstly, if the supposed date of the mosaic (early 3rd century) is accurate, this would clearly prohibit him as its subject matter; but I'm not certain of this dating. But setting aside that question, the image itself invites many reasons to prefer an interpretation as being of Christ, over Constantine:

Firstly, the strong facial features, and indeed the basic pattern of the face, closely reflects other second- and third-century images known to be early representations of Christ. For example, the fresco of Christ the Good Shepherd in the catacomb of Priscilla (http://research.yale.edu/divdl/images/eikon/ei0349s.jpg) (3rd century); or the fresco of Christ the Good Shepherd of a slightly later date (http://www.cts.edu/ImageLibrary/Images/June_2000/Shepherd.jpg).
The lack of a halo is common to most of the third-century examples of images of Christ (see both examples above), as this does not yet appear to have become a standard motif of Christian visual representation at that time. We certainly do see it relatively soon thereafter (see a mosaic of Christ the Good Shepherd at Ravenna (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs002/Images/Christian/goodshep.jpg), 5th century, which uses the common Roman facial appearance, similar to the early frescos, but includes a halo and alters the overall composition).
The presence and location of the 'Chi-Ro' cross in the mosaic image seems to me highly significant. Were this an image of Constantine, and the cross a symbol of divine rule or even a reference to his vision at Milvian Bridge, I would expect it to be present either in an emblematic way (e.g. on a banner [i.e. one of Constantine's military banners, where he was known to have them emblazened], a throne, etc.); or to his side / above him, symbolic of his vision. But the presence of what was specifically a symbol of Jesus Christ (see, for example, the inscriptions of St Sebastian's catacombs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pario/140895761/) in Rome) seems to make a more direct connection to Christ himself, given that the 'Chi-Ro' was generally used to identify Christ ('IC XC' / 'Ho On' not the common iconographic identifier until later). Further, the location of the cross behind the figure's head, finding its midpoint / centre in the face itself, seems a strong visual indication of identity, rather than association. Further, I don't know of early images of Constantine that superimposed a cross in this way (see, for example, the relief of the emperor on the Arch of Constantine (http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/smr04/101910/Slide8.43.jpg); though this structure is from the earliest period of his Christian days).
The location of the mosaic is in a Roman villa. We know of other such houses that included specifically Christian images, including paintings of Christ; e.g. the frescos of the miracles of Christ in the Roman house at Dura Europos (http://www.arthistory.upenn.edu/smr04/101910/Slide9.13.jpg), 3rd century. If the Mosaic Andreas has shown is indeed 3rd century, it could not possibly be Constantine; but even if it were 4th century, it would not stand out as unusual, in form or location, as a Christian image of Christ.
Just a few thoughts.

XB, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

I hadn't intended the pomegranate to become a golden apple! One commentator noted how similar the hairstyle of the mosaic is to that in sculptures of Constantine. And I suppose the dating to the early fourth century must be somewhat tentative.

But anyway, whilst the mosaic obviously indicates a Christian presence in Dorset at that time, how much further back can we take the existence of the Christian faith in England? Hippolytus, writing about 160AD in his 'On the Seventy Apostles', states that St Aristobulus was bishop in Britain. This must be a little earlier than the well-known mention of the faith in Britain by Tertullian and Origen but so far as I know, Hippolytus is the only classical source to place the arrival of the faith in Britain so early. Eusebius (in 'Demonstratio Evangelica') tantalisingly says it was 'the Apostles' who brought the faith to 'the Isles called Britannic Isles' but does not say which Apostles. Is there any historical source earlier than Hippolytus? St Gildas the Wise (writing about 540?), in his 'De Exidio et Conquestu Brittanniae', says, 'these islands received [he does not say from whom] the beams of light - that is, the holy precepts of Christ - the true Son, as we know [he does not say how], at the latter part of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.' It is usual to tie in this remarkable assertion with the saying of the sixth century monk Melkin (quoted though only in a work of a Glastonbury monk writing in the fourteenth century) that St Joseph of Arimathea brought the faith to Britain, specifically to Glastonbury. Gildas is certainly treated as a serious historian by Sir Frank Stenton. Various calendars accept St Aristobulus as bishop in Britain and commemorate him as such, and something of this is made by the Greek Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain. It is also accepted by St Nikolai Velimirovich in his 'Prologue of Ochrid'. The other Apostle usually mentioned in this context is St Simon Zelotes. The Menaion of the Greek Church commemorates him as having been martyred in Lincolnsire on 10 May 61AD, but there is another tradition which, while agreeing he was in Britain, was martyred in Edessa. But the coming of St Simon to Britain is mentioned by St Dorotheos of Tyre (in his 'Synopsis de Apostoli', c.300AD) and by St Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (+829).

[Paul Fowler]

I hadn't intended the pomegranate to become a golden apple! One commentator noted how similar the hairstyle of the mosaic is to that in sculptures of Constantine. And I suppose the dating to the early fourth century must be somewhat tentative.

But anyway, whilst the mosaic obviously indicates a Christian presence in Dorset at that time, how much further back can we take the existence of the Christian faith in England? Hippolytus, writing about 160AD in his 'On the Seventy Apostles', states that St Aristobulus was bishop in Britain. This must be a little earlier than the well-known mention of the faith in Britain by Tertullian and Origen but so far as I know, Hippolytus is the only classical source to place the arrival of the faith in Britain so early. Eusebius (in 'Demonstratio Evangelica') tantalisingly says it was 'the Apostles' who brought the faith to 'the Isles called Britannic Isles' but does not say which Apostles. Is there any historical source earlier than Hippolytus? St Gildas the Wise (writing about 540?), in his 'De Exidio et Conquestu Brittanniae', says, 'these islands received [he does not say from whom] the beams of light - that is, the holy precepts of Christ - the true Son, as we know [he does not say how], at the latter part of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.' It is usual to tie in this remarkable assertion with the saying of the sixth century monk Melkin (quoted though only in a work of a Glastonbury monk writing in the fourteenth century) that St Joseph of Arimathea brought the faith to Britain, specifically to Glastonbury. Gildas is certainly treated as a serious historian by Sir Frank Stenton. Various calendars accept St Aristobulus as bishop in Britain and commemorate him as such, and something of this is made by the Greek Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain. It is also accepted by St Nikolai Velimirovich in his 'Prologue of Ochrid'. The other Apostle usually mentioned in this context is St Simon Zelotes. The Menaion of the Greek Church commemorates him as having been martyred in Lincolnsire on 10 May 61AD, but there is another tradition which, while agreeing he was in Britain, was martyred in Edessa. But the coming of St Simon to Britain is mentioned by St Dorotheos of Tyre (in his 'Synopsis de Apostoli', c.300AD) and by St Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (+829).


That is a very good summary of the known information about the coming of the Faith to Britain. Sadly after this some people move on to speculation and have developed some 'interesting' ideas-eg British Israelism.

I go though Caistor in Lincolnshire-where St Simon Zealotes was martyred-on business occasionally, and have stopped there but the dedication of the local church is not to St Simon. The nearest Orthodox Parish (in Louth) do have members from the town but as far as I am aware do not yet hold a service of any kind there.

I am always puzzled by Gildas' remark and despite my first paragraph, wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the matter?

In XC

Rdr Paul

[Andreas Moran]

Yes, I would dismiss the notions of British Israelism. But even if the arrival of St Joseph of Arimathea is conjectural, the basis for St Aristobulus seems sound enough. It certainly would mean that the Church here in England started in Apostolic times. It would last in that early form until the 5th century. For 100 years thereafter, the faith was driven westwards and the pagan invaders established themselves in central, eastern and southern England (Essex means East Saxons).

[Paul Fowler]

Yes, I would dismiss the notions of British Israelism. But even if the arrival of St Joseph of Arimathea is conjectural, the basis for St Aristobulus seems sound enough. It certainly would mean that the Church here in England started in Apostolic times. It would last in that early form until the 5th century. For 100 years thereafter, the faith was driven westwards and the pagan invaders established themselves in central, eastern and southern England (Essex means East Saxons).

Thank you Andreas, I must confess I had never considered that Gildas may have been refering to Aristobulus. Is there any evidence of the organisation of the pre-Augustinian Church in England? I am aware that in the West, the indications are of a monastic based form of Church government, and I wonder if that was reflected in the British Church that existed before the Saxon invasion?

[Andreas Moran]

Thank you Andreas, I must confess I had never considered that Gildas may have been refering to Aristobulus.

It is Hippolytus who says that St Paul made Aristobulus bishop in Britain. Possibly Gildas had this in mind but he is neglectful (from our point of view) about names and dates.


Is there any evidence of the organisation of the pre-Augustinian Church in England? I am aware that in the West, the indications are of a monastic based form of Church government, and I wonder if that was reflected in the British Church that existed before the Saxon invasion?

For the years between 410 and 597, there is some historical evidence from St Gildas and from Procopius of Caesaria (writing about 560). (Procopius says that England was very well populated and consisted of Britons, Angles and Frisians.) There is also all the evidence we have from the lives of the saints of this period. England from the mid-5th to the mid-6th century was prosperous and enjoyed some breaks in between invasions by Jutes, Angles and Saxons. But we know more of the Church in these years in the west country (Somerset to Cornwall), Wales, Ireland and Scotland than England itself. Thus in Cornwall, we have many saints such as St Petroc, St Austell and St Samson; in Wales we have David, Deiniol of Bangor and Teilo of Llandaff amongst others; in Scotland we have Ninian and Columba; in Ireland, Patrick, Kevin and many others. It is somewhat misleading to speak of the Celtic Church since that gives a false impression of unity. Certainly the Churches in these parts of the British Isles were homogeneous in faith but there was no pyramidal hierarchy. The roles of abbot and bishop tended to be combined in one man, especially in Ireland where there was no parish system (though in England, princesses tended to be abbessses of double monasteries). The Church was certainly monastery-based everywhere and so, yes, this does describe the organisation of the Church before 597. There were also close links with Gaul and Brittany (which had been mostly colonised by Britons from England). Thus St German of Auxerre was involved in quelling the Pelagian heresy, and both St Gildas and St Samosn retired from the west country to Brittany. Bede is, regrettably, brief about this period, but then he did support the Roman tendency. The Celtic Church did survive until Whitby (664) and for some time thereafter in Ireland, but England itself quickly adopted the Roman ways.