SECTION II.

DUBLIN SUBJECT TO THE ENGLISH PAPAL RULE.

WE have mentioned that the Danes of Dublin exchanged heathenism for Christianity, in its Roman form, about the year 948.

The Black Book of Christ Church has the following account of the origin of that edifice :"Sitricus, king of Dublin, son of Ableb, earl of Dublin, gave to the Blessed Trinity, and to Donate, first bishop of Dublin, a place on which to build a church of the Blessed Trinity, where the arches or vaults were founded, with the following lands, viz.: Beal-duleck, [now Baldoyle,] Rechen, Portrahern, with their villeins, cows, and corn he also contributed gold and silver enough wherewith to build the church and the whole court thereof." The arches or vaults" are thought to have been places which had been used for storing merchandise, though others conjecture that they were rather cells for devotion. Donate became bishop of Dublin in 1038, and died in 1074. The Church of the Holy Trinity, erected by him as above, afterwards became Christ Church Cathedral. He also built the Chapel of St. Michael, which, in course of time, was changed into a parish-church.

66

It is probable that the Danes of Dublin received their Christianity from England, by communication with ecclesiastics in that country. Indications of connection with Rome, through Canterbury, are not wanting in the case of Bishop Donate; but that connection becomes apparent in the case of Donate's successor, Patrick. Sir James Ware, in his "Bishops of Ireland," gives the letter which the king of Dublin sent with Patrick to Lanfranc, the English primate, requesting his consecration, as having been chosen by the clergy and citizens to be their bishop. Ware gives also the formal vow of canonical obedience which Patrick made tó Lanfranc and his successors. Ware furnishes likewise two letters which Patrick brought back with him from Lanfranc-one to Godfrid, king of Dublin, and the other to Tirdelvac, king of Ireland: both of them written in that complimentary, patronizing, admonitory, and hortatory strain, which dignified ecclesiastics of those days, as of our own, well knew how to employ for their purposes, in addressing secular lords. This Tirdelvac is the same king to whom, as Lanigan mentions, Pope Gregory VII., Hildebrand, sent a letter, "much in the style of several others which he wrote to several kings, princes, etc., for the purpose of claiming not only a spiritual, but likewise a temporal and political superiority over all the kingdoms and principalities of Europe. Having insinuated his claim over Ireland, he concludes with giving directions to Tirdelvac, etc., to refer to him whatever affairs the settling of which may require his assistance." Thus did the

pope's temporal power over nations and their rulers come in, as it were by stealth, behind his spiritual power. And as it was in the days of Hildebrand, so it is in those of Pio Nono.

Usher, in his "Religion of the Ancient Irish,” gives the following letter from Henry I. of England to his primate, ordering the consecration of a Dublin bishop, in 1121: "Henry, king of England, to Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, greeting. The king of Ireland hath intimated unto me by his writ, and the burgesses of Dublin, that they have chosen this Gregory for their bishop, and send him unto you to be consecrated. Wherefore, I wish you, that satisfying their requests, you perform his consecration without delay. Witness-Ranulph, our chancellor at Windsor." Usher writes that "all the burgesses of Dublin, likewise, and the whole assembly of the clergy, directed their joint letters to the archbishop of Canterbury at the same time: wherein, among other things, they write thus: 'Know you for verity that the bishops of Ireland have great indignation towards us, and that bishop most of all that dwelleth at Armagh, because we will not obey their ordination, but will always be

under your government.' Hence it appears what an opposition existed between the Irish and Romanist ecclesiastics of the country. The expression used by the Dublin burgesses and clergy is even stronger than Usher has rendered it: "maximum zelum erga nos"-"the greatest indignation towards us." The "indignation" was not less in the Romanists against the Irish.

There were essential ecclesiastical differences be-* tween the two. The Irish churches were selfgoverned-owning no subjection to the pope. They freely followed each its own mode of worship: none of them used the Roman. Each church had its bishop: so much so that Roman divines censured Ireland for its "paganism" in having as many bishops as churches. The Irish clergy were not bound to celibacy; for among rules given for their style of dress, one is that their wives should have their heads veiled whẹn they walk abroad. The Irish churches were charged by Romanists with not observing due order in ordaining bishops: in England, indeed, and on the Continent, the ministry of Irishordained clergy was often disallowed. The Roman laws with regard to matrimony, the use of chrism in baptism, and the observance of Easter, were not recognized by the Irish Christians. These differences gave rise to strong contentions when the parties came in contact elsewhere; and no doubt the bishops of Ireland looked upon the bishop of Dublin placing himself in the position of a suffragan to Canterbury, instead of being in fellowship with themselves, as the inhabitants of a besieged city would on a person who sought to open its gates to the foe.

The jurisdiction of the Dublin bishop did not extend beyond the city. Limerick and Waterford were each of them a bishop's see; and being, like Dublin, Danish settlements, their prelates were of the Roman order, and suffragans of Canterbury. Gregory, whose application for conse

cration we have mentioned, lived to see the long-cherished wishes of the pope and his English primate consummated, in all the Irish churches being placed as one under the sway of Rome.

Early in the twelfth century, one Gillebert, who, as Lanigan thinks, had been ordained among the Irish, was invited by the people of Limerick to become their bishop. This changed his ecclesiastical relation, and he became intimate with Anselm, the archbishop of Canterbury. He took a journey to the continent, and was enamored with the Roman worship, as there celebrated. It occurred to him how much more orderly and respectable the Irish clergy and ritual would be, were they brought into conformity with Rome. The pope eventually made him his legate for Ireland, and he wrote more than one treatise in furtherance of his favorite purpose. "It is prob

able," writes Lanigan, "that Gillebert was encouraged in his proceedings by Anselm, although it can scarcely be supposed that Anselm supplied him with his bad arguments." The same author adds, "Gillebert did not succeed, at least to any considerable degree, in setting aside the Irish offices." But the leaven spread. Malachi, bishop of Armagh, successor to the one alluded to in the Dublin letter which we have quoted above from Usher, entered into Gillebert's views, and went to Rome to solicit two "palls"-one for Armagh, and the other for Cashel-making them archbishoprics. The pope received him graciously, appointed him legate for Ireland instead of Gillebert, who had become infirm through