kille and St. John. This fact you fully allow in your history, p. 273, &c.* It follows, therefore, either that they derived not these usages from the former and the see of Rome; or that, allowing St. Patrick to have also used them, they considered him to be of far less account as an authority than St. Columbkille; while they refer to St. John, in a manner which proves that they looked upon him as their own and "chiefest Apostle." (2 Cor. xi. 5.) I shall return to the point, as connected with this important document; and shall only remark here, that many modern writers, relying upon the silence of Bede in this place and elsewhere respecting St. Patrick, have supposed the entire history of his apostleship to be a fable; but, although much of it is composed of, and all of it blended with, false legend, I think the great body of evidence is in its favor as a general truth; and I would make use of the material fact of the silence of Bede on the subject-of such a writer as the venerable Bede, one of the most accredited historians of the Roman Catholic church, and one who composed * You appear to be mistaken in your comment on this fact, where you say, "to the influence exercised over that part of the kingdom by the successors of St. Columba this perseverance " is in a great measure to be attributed." It was not to that alone, the successors of this saint were at this time established in the island of Hy, over which they doubtless had great authority, and which was the last place that acquiesced in the Roman method: but it was in the north of Ireland, if any where, that the influence of the successors of St. Patrick also especially prevailed; it was there they had then their apostolic city; and the north was the portion of the country in which St. Patrick chiefly laboured and lived, in which he spent his last most influential days, and where he died. The prejudice of the northerns is, therefore, to be traced up higher. his history within sixty-seven years of the transaction recorded-rather for the purpose of correcting your monopolizing enthusiasm, and that of others, respecting your favorite saint, than for an occasion of running into the opposite and sceptical system.* * But I have another reason for objecting to your having withheld this history from the consideration of your readers; you could scarcely have been ignorant how it has induced several persons to join in the opinion, not only that some of the peculiarities of the Irish church, such as its mode of celebrating Easter, and of tonsure, its offices, and its monastic * I am quite aware of the hypotheses respecting St. Patrick, put forth principally by Sir W. Betham, in his account of the Book of Armagh. (Irish Antiq. Res. p. 243.) He supposes a Patrick to have been the first Apostle of Ireland, at a very early period; (pages 287 and 315;) that there was a second of the name, and that he, "or the Roman Patrick and Palladius "were the same person;" that "the Pope saw the advantage “of giving a name to this missionary, which was cherished "and venerated by the people to whom he was sent ;" but that "Palladius, or any of his immediate successors, never "bore the name of Patrick, while they lived."-" This name "was given them in the seventh century," for the purpose aforesaid. One great foundation of this system is the silence of Bede; but, without at all entering into a discussion respecting it—which is unnecessary here, because Sir William and I both agree in our opinion of an early mission; and both of us reject much that is claimed for the Patrick of 431, upon the evidence of this silence.-I cannot but remark, that if it proves any thing, it shews that, at no period previous to the Synod of Whitby did any person exist, bearing the name of Patrick, and possessing such an extravagant degree of veneration in the minds of the Irish Christians, as is now supposed to have been connected with this cherished name; for if there had been such, his authority would surely have been adduced at the synod, as well as that of St. Columbkille and his suc cessors. in rules, but that even Christianity itself, were introduced by Christian Missionaries taught by St. Irenæus bishop of Lyons, the pupil of Polycarp of Smyrna, who received them from St. Ignatius, the immediate disciple of St. John-the truth of this tradition is somewhat confirmed by the above mentioned argument of St. Colman, more especially as it appears the life of Wilfred, by two of his biographers. One of these relates, that St. Colman said thus: "We with "the same confidence celebrate the same, as his disciples Polycarpus and others did; neither dare we, "for our parts, neither will we change this." The other, Fridegodus, comes still closer to the point in these lines, describing the words of Colman "Nos seriem patriam, non frivola scripta tenemus; "We hold by our country's course," or usage,-and not "frivolous writings-such as was given by Polycarp "the disciple of St. John." (See Us. Rel, of Ant Ir. p. 103. Ed. 1631.) It will be allowed that all this savours much in itself of an introduction of Christianity into Ireland through these holy men, while it leads me to another presumptive proof of the fact. In page 297 you write thus:- "One of the chief arguments, indeed, employed by Ledwich, in his attempt to show that the early church of Ireland was independent of the See of Rome, is founded on those traces of connexion, through Greek "and Asiatic missionaries, with the east, which, 66 66 с "there is no doubt, are to be found in the records " and transactions of that period." The fact of this connexion you admit; of its traces you have no doubt; and I therefore cannot but advance it as one of those "incidental proofs," in favour of my argument, which, combining with other evidence more direct, and especially coupled with the historical accounts of Bede, " can leave but little doubt upon the subject." The impression made by it upon your mind seems to have been of this character; and, finding it impossible to refute the truth of the assertion, you endeavour thus to parry its force. "Had such instances, however," you say, "been numerous enough even "to prove more than a casual and occasional inter66 course with those regions, it would not have served "the purpose this reverend antiquary sought to gain; 66 'as, at the time when Christianity was first introduced "into Ireland, the heads of the Greek church were "on the best terms with the See of Rome." You clearly thus abandon all opposition to the eastern connexion, although it is equally clear that equally clear that you do it with no very good grace; and the instances thus acknowledged, although they may not serve the purpose of Dr. Ledwich, are certainly quite sufficient for mine, in the present argument; which is to shew an introduction of Christianity into Ireland, previously to the mission of St. Patrick-with this admission I am quite contented. Although it is not material to the point now under discussion, yet, as it is important in its bearings upon the question in general, I shall subjoin, in a note, the opinions of St. Irenæus respecting the Romish church in the second century; which will prove you to be somewhat under a mistake in respect to the latter part of your assertion.* The history of this connexion is involved in the greatest obscurity; but, besides the evidence of the glimmerings which, as you assert, undoubtedly prove it, you might have given us some stronger lights from O'Connor's Prolegomena, than you have afforded us through him. He quotes the following passage from Gennadius, which, had you coupled with it that weaker one respecting Cœlestius, that you tell us has been "rather unaccountably brought forward," in proof of the "early introduction of monastic institutions into Ireland," this learned man would have appeared to have had something better to adduce in support of his position. Gennadius must have written, according to Baronius, before the year 493, and his words are as follows (de Scrip. ill. c. 44.): "Placuit nempe "altissimo, ut S. Athanasius, ex Ægypto pulsus ab 66 Arianis, vitam monasticam, usque ad id tempus in "occidente ignominiosam; Scotis, Attacottis, aliisque barbaris Romanum imperium vastantibus; S.S. * He complains of it thus-" That the schismatics at Rome "had corrupted the sincere law of the church, which led to "the greatest impieties. These opinions," he adds, "the Presbyters, who lived before our times, who were also dis'ciples of the apostles, did in no wise deliver. I, who saw "and heard the blessed Polycarp, am able to protest, in the "presence of God, that if that apostolic Presbyter had heard "of these things, he would have stopped his ears, and cried "out, according to his custom, Good God, for what times "hast thou reserved me, that I should suffer such things!'", Euseb. lib. v. c. 20; in Ledwich's Antiquities? |