 second bishop of Avranches, 511. The second
bishop of Evreux, 450-90. The fifth bishop of Seez, 500. The first bishop
of Lisieux whose name is recorded, 538. The first bishop of Coutances,
about 475. As three British bishops were at Arles in 314, when only one of
these seven bishoprics was in existence, the antiquity and completeness of
our island Church compares very favourably with that of the archdiocese of
Rouen. Passing to the archdiocese of Cambray, the first bishop of Cambray
died in 540; the first bishop of Tournay is dated 297; the other
bishoprics are late. In the archdiocese of Rheims, the two first bishops
of Rheims, paired together, are assigned to 290; the two first bishops of
Soissons were the same pair as those of Rheims; the first bishop of Laon
was at Orleans in 549; Beauvais, 250; Chalons about 280; the second bishop
of Amiens, 346; the ninth of Senlis, 511; the second of Boulogne, 552.
Here, again, our three bishops at Arles in 314 compare favourably with
this great archdiocese, which was in the most accessible part of Gaul for
the insular Britons.

Unless we are prepared to believe that our island was Christianised by
some influence apart from Gaul, and reaching us through some route other
than that of Gaul--and I do not see any evidence for anything of the
kind--we must, I think, take it that our position was that of younger
sister to the Church in Gaul. All the indications point in that direction.
It is most cruel that the British history has all been blotted out, by the
severity of the English conquest and the barbarity of the bordering
tribes. In Gaul, the history was not blotted out by the successful
invasion of the Franks. Gregory of Tours died in the year 594, of which we
have said so much. He was a Gallo-Roman, one of the race overrun by the
Franks; and yet he writes the history of the Franks, putting on record an
immense amount of information about the earlier Gaulish times--not very
trustworthy, it is true. But for
second bishop of Avranches, 511. The second 
 bishop of Evreux, 450 - 90. The fifth bishop of Seez, 500. The first bishop 
 of Lisieux whose name is recorded, 538. The first bishop of Coutances, 
 about 475. As three British bishop were at Arles in 314, when merely one of 
 these seven bishoprics was in existence, the antiquity and completeness of 
 our island Church compare very favourably with that of the archdiocese of 
 Rouen. Passing to the archdiocese of Cambray, the beginning bishop of Cambray 
 die in 540; the first bishop of Tournay is dated 297; the other 
 bishoprics are former. In the archdiocese of Rheims, the two first bishops 
 of Rheims, pair together, are assigned to 290; the two first bishops of 
 Soissons were the same pair as those of Rheims; the inaugural bishop of Laon 
 was at Orleans in 549; Beauvais, 250; Chalons about 280; the second bishop 
 of Amiens, 346; the ninth of Senlis, 511; the second of Boulogne, 552. 
 Here, again, our three bishops at Arles in 314 compare favourably with 
 this big archdiocese, which was in the most accessible part of Gaul for 
 the insular Britons. 

 Unless we are prepared to think that our island was Christianised by 
 some influence aside from Gaul, and reaching us through some route other 
 than that of Gaul -- and I do not see any evidence for anything of the 
 kind -- we must, I intend, take it that our position was that of younger 
 sister to the Church in Gaul. All the indications distributor point in that direction. 
 It is most cruel that the British history has all been blotted out, by the 
 severity of the English conquest and the barbarity of the bordering 
 tribes. In Gaul, the history was not blot out by the successful 
 invasion of the Franks. Gregory of Tours died in the year 594, of which we 
 have say therefore much. He was a Gallo - Roman, one of the race overrun by the 
 Franks; and yet he write the history of the Franks, putting on record an 
 immense amount of data about the earlier Gaulish times -- not very 
 trustworthy, it is true. But for
 sefond bishop of Avranches, 511. The second
biskip of Xvreux, 450-90. The fifgh bishop of Seez, 500. The first bushop
if Lisieux whose name ks recordvd, 538. The furst vishop of Rkutances,
about 475. As chcee British bismops were ad Arles in 314, whan ouly one of
these seven bishoprics was in exixtfnce, the antiqoity sgd ckmpleteness of
our island Church cojpares nery favourably woth that of the archdiocesf of
Gouen. Passing to tje archdiocgae jd Cambray, thd first bishop of Cambtay
died in 540; the first bishop of Gourncy is dated 297; rhe mther
bishopcics age late. In thc archdhocese pf Rheims, the bwo fmrst bishops
of Rheims, paiced together, are assygned to 290; tke two first bishops if
Woissmns fere rhe saje pzir as thkse of Rhejms; the firwt bishop of Laon
wax wn Orleans in 549; Beauvwif, 250; Chalons about 280; the second bishop
of Akiehs, 346; the ninth of Senlis, 511; the second of Boulohne, 552.
Here, wgain, our three bishops at Arles in 314 compare favograblb ditk
bmis eeewt archdiocese, which was in the most accessibjs karn of Gaul for
the lnsular Britons.

Unlrsd eg are prepared to beliebe that our island was Chtistiabised by
sjme onfluence apart from Gaul, abd reaching ls tyrough some route lther
than tkat of Gaul--snd I do not see any evndence for anythijg of the
iknd--we must, I thivk, nake it that our position was ehat of yiungzr
sister to jhe Chuwch in Gaup. All the indications polnt iu thad directioj.
It is most cruel that the Britmxh history hss aln been bjottec out, by the
sqverity of the Englisk conqjest and tge barberity of the bordering
tritgs. In Gaul, thx history was not blottea out by the suvcessful
iurasion of the Franks. Gregorn of Johrs died in the yeqr 594, of which we
navd swif xo kuch. He was d Gaulo-Fpman, une of uke vacd ovrrrun by the
Franks; atd yst he writes the hosbory of tye Frankf, putting on tecord an
immense alount of infotmajion about the earlier Gaulish fimes--not gern
trustworthy, yt iw true. But fpr
second bishop of Avranches, 511. The second Evreux, The fifth of Seez, 500. whose is recorded, 538. first bishop of about 475. As three British bishops at Arles in 314, when only one of these seven bishoprics was in the antiquity and completeness of our island Church compares very favourably with that the of Passing the archdiocese of Cambray, the first bishop of Cambray died in 540; the first bishop of is dated 297; the other bishoprics are late. the archdiocese of Rheims, two first bishops of Rheims, together, assigned to the first of Soissons were same pair as those of Rheims; the first bishop of Laon was at Orleans in 549; Beauvais, Chalons about second bishop Amiens, the of Senlis, 511; of Boulogne, 552. Here, again, our Arles in 314 compare favourably with this great which was the most accessible part of Gaul the insular Britons. Unless we are prepared to that our island was Christianised by some influence apart from Gaul, and reaching us through other than that of I do not any for of kind--we must, think, take it that our position was that of younger sister the Church in Gaul. All the indications point in that is cruel that the history has all been out, the severity of the and barbarity tribes. Gaul, history was not blotted by the successful invasion of Franks. Gregory of Tours of which we have said so much. He a Gallo-Roman, one of the race overrun the Franks; and yet he writes the history of the Franks, putting record an of information about the earlier Gaulish times--not very it is true. But
 second bishop of Avranches, 511. ThE second
bisHop of evrEux, 450-90. thE fifTh biShop of Seez, 500. The fIRst bIshop
of Lisieux whose namE is reCoRDed, 538. THE fIrst bIshop of cOuTANceS,
aBoUt 475. AS tHReE BritIsh Bishops Were at ArleS in 314, WhEn only one of
tHEsE seven bishOprIcs was in exisTenCe, the aNtIquITy and ComPleteNess of
OUr islaNd Church cOmPAres veRY favourABLy With That of the archdiocESe OF
Rouen. Passing tO the arChDIoCESe oF CaMbray, the fiRsT bishOP of CambRAy
DIED in 540; THe first bishop Of Tournay is DAteD 297; the otHeR
biSHopricS are lAtE. in tHe archdioceSe of rheims, the Two firST bishopS
Of RheimS, paireD toGetHer, aRE aSsIgnEd TO 290; thE TwO fiRSt bIshops of
soIsSons wEre tHE SAMe paIr aS thoSe of RHeims; the first BisHop oF laoN
was aT OrleAns iN 549; BEauvaIs, 250; ChalOns abOuT 280; the second bishoP
of AMiens, 346; the nIntH oF SeNlIs, 511; the SEcond oF BoUloGne, 552.
Here, Again, ouR ThrEe BISHoPs at Arles in 314 compare FaVOUrAbly with
This grEAt ArCHdiocese, WhIch Was iN THe mosT accESsIble part Of Gaul FOr
ThE insulaR BRitons.

unLesS we Are prEPareD to belIeve that Our isLAnd was ChristiaNIsed by
some infLUeNCE aPArt fRom gaul, and reacHing US thrOugh SOmE roUTe othEr
thaN tHAt OF Gaul--and I do not see anY eVidencE for aNything of the
kInd--we must, I THINk, take it That OUr POsition was that Of youNger
sister TO the ChurCh in GAul. All thE indicatiONS point in ThaT diRecTioN.
iT iS most cruel thaT THe BrItIsh histOry Has all bEen BloTteD ouT, bY the
severIty of the enGlIsH cOnqUest aND the barbArIty Of The BordeRIng
triBes. In gaul, ThE hIStoRy was noT BlOTTed oUt By The sUccEsSful
iNvasIOn oF the FraNks. GregorY of tOurs DiEd In the yeAr 594, of which we
haVe Said so much. he Was A Gallo-rOMan, one of The race overrun by the
FranKS; and yet He wRites The hIstory of tHe FRanks, pUttINg on reCord an
ImmenSe AmoUNT of inFORmAtiOn About the eaRLIer gauliSh TimeS--not verY
trustworthy, it is trUE. BuT for
 second bishop of Avranche s, 511. Th e sec ond 
bi sh op o f Ev reux, 450-90.T he f ifth bishop of Seez, 5 00. T he firs t  b ishop 
of Lis i eu x who se  n ame  i s  r ecord ed,  538. T he first b ish op  of Coutance s ,about 475.  As  three Briti shbishop swer e  at A rle s in314, w h en onl y one ofth e se sev e n bisho p r ic s wa s in existence, t h ea ntiquity and c omplet en e ss o f
o urisland Chu rc h com p ares ve r yf a v our a bly with that  of the arc h dio cese o fRou e n. Pas singto the  archdioces e of  Cambray,  the f i rst bis h op of C ambray 
di edin 5 4 0;  t hefi r stb is hop ofTournayis  d ated297; t h e  oth erbish opric s are late. I n t he a r chd ioces e ofRhei ms , the  two f irstbi shops
of Rheims , pa ired toge the r,  ar eassig n ed to290 ; t he twofirst b i sho ps o f 
S oissons were the s am e pa ir as th ose of Rh ei m s; the f ir stbish o p  of L aonw as  at Orle ans in 54 9;  Beauva is , 250;  C hal ons  abou t  280 ; thesecond b ishop of Amiens, 346 ;  the ninth of Se n l is ,  511 ; t he second o f Bo u logn e, 5 5 2. 
He r e, ag ain,ou r  t h ree bishops at Arle sin 314  comp are favourabl y with
thi s g reat arc hdio c es e , which was in  themost acces s ible par t ofGaul for 
the insu l a r Briton s.
Un les s w e ar e prepared to b elie ve  that o urislandwas  Ch ris tia ni sed by
so me influ en ce  a pa rtfromG aul, and  r eac hi ngus th r ough s ome r oute  o th e r
t han tha t  o f Gaul -- an d Idono t see  any evi dence f or anythi ngo f th eki nd--wemust, I think ,take it th at  ou r posi t i on was t hat of younger
sister t o  the Ch urc h inGaul . All the  in dicati ons pointin tha t dir ec tio n . 
It i s mo stcr uel that t h e  Br itish  h isto ry hasall been blotted o u t,by the
severi tyof t h e  E ngl i sh con qu e sta n d the barbarity  of the bo rd e ri ng
tribes. InGa ul, the  histor y was not blo tted outby the su cc essf u l 
in vasion ofthe Fran ks. Grego r y ofT ou rs di edin the  y ear  594,  of wh i chwe
ha ve sai dso muc h. He  w as a Gal lo-Roman, one of the ra ce ove rrunbythe
Frank s;a ndyet he wr ites  the histo ryofthe F ran k s, pu ttin g  o n r e cordan
i m mense amo u nt  of i nf ormation ab o u t  th e ear lie r  Gauli sh t imes--not very
tr u stworthy, it i s tr u e . B utf or
 second_bishop of_Avranches, 511. The second
bishop_of Evreux,_450-90._The fifth_bishop_of Seez, 500._The first bishop
of_Lisieux whose name is_recorded, 538. The_first_bishop of Coutances,
about 475. As three British bishops were at Arles in 314, when_only_one of
these_seven_bishoprics_was in existence, the antiquity_and completeness of
our island Church_compares very_favourably with that of the archdiocese of
Rouen. Passing_to_the archdiocese of_Cambray, the first bishop of Cambray
died in 540; the_first bishop of Tournay is dated_297; the other
bishoprics_are_late._In the archdiocese of_Rheims, the two first bishops
of Rheims,_paired together, are assigned to 290;_the two first bishops of
Soissons were the_same pair as those of Rheims;_the first bishop of Laon
was_at Orleans_in 549; Beauvais, 250; Chalons_about 280; the_second bishop
of_Amiens, 346; the_ninth of Senlis, 511; the second_of Boulogne, 552.
Here,_again, our three bishops at Arles_in_314 compare favourably_with
this_great_archdiocese, which_was in the_most_accessible part_of_Gaul for
the insular Britons.

Unless we are_prepared_to believe that our island was Christianised_by
some influence apart from_Gaul,_and reaching us through_some route other
than that of_Gaul--and I do not see any_evidence for_anything of_the
kind--we must, I think, take it that our position was that_of younger
sister to the Church in_Gaul. All the indications_point in_that_direction.
It is most_cruel_that the_British history has all been blotted out,_by the
severity_of the English conquest and the_barbarity of the bordering
tribes._In_Gaul, the history was not blotted_out by the successful
invasion of the_Franks. Gregory of Tours died_in_the_year 594, of which we
have_said so much. He was a_Gallo-Roman, one of_the race overrun by the
Franks; and yet_he_writes the history of the Franks,_putting_on record an
immense amount of information_about_the_earlier Gaulish times--not very
trustworthy, it_is true. But for