so late a period can have no weight at all, and may be set aside at once. a Dismissing therefore all thought of these works as historical evidence, let us see if we are enabled to find any which is entitled to more credit. A book, commonly called "the Book of Armagh," has long been known to Irish antiquaries, but has never been thoroughly searched into and weighed, till Sir W.Betham published, in 1827, that part of it which relates to St. Patrick.* Sir W. Betham supposes this book to have been written in the seventh century; and as an entry, which can be identified with about the date of A.D. 1006, is in an evidently more modern hand than the rest of the book, this MS. must be allowed a very ancient date. Besides other matters, it contains life of St. Patrick, in Latin, some collections of Tirechan, and others concerning this saint, as well the notes of Aidus.+ This is somewhat better than the lives mentioned above, but the book is a sadly confused jumble of events, and, in fact, Aidus fairly confesses (p. 403, and p. xliii. Append.,) that the difficulties and suspicions which attach to the accounts of St. Patrick render it almost impossible to arrive at the truth concerning him. The life of St. Patrick is rather less filled with miraculous events than most of those published by Colgan, but the accounts which this part of the "Book of Armagh," as well as the collections of Tirechan, present to us, are full of the most inextricable confusions. We are therefore driven one step farther to seek for evidence, and happily another portion of the "Book of Armagh" furnishes us with a document of great value— the Confession of St. Patrick, or his letter to the Irish. Before we speak of this, it will be well just to advert to the incidental evidence of other writers and historians. It is a remarkable fact that no writer of any authority, for at least three centuries after the time of St. Patrick, even so much as mentions his name, if we except a bare mention of him in a martyrology, attributed, but probably without foundation, to Bede. He is never mentioned in the passages of Bede which relate to the early ecclesiastical affairs of Ireland, nor is he mentioned in the letters of Pope Gregory to the Irish clergy, about the very beginning of the seventh century.§ We are not, perhaps, justified in drawing from this silence of ancient writers the same conclusion which Dr. Ledwich has done, that no such person as St. "Irish Antiquarian Researches," vol. i. part ii. Tirechan was Bishop of Meath, it is said, in the seventh century, and Aidus was Bishop of Slepten, now Sletty, in the Queen's County, at the end of the seventh century. Tirechan says (Betham, p. 349, and Appendix, p. xviii. and xxv.) that he received his information from Ultan, the Bishop of Connor. Betham, p. 403; Append. p. xliii. Bede was born about A.D. 672, and died about 735. The facts of his history which touch more particularly on these points, are book i. chap. 13, where the mission of Palladius is expressly mentioned, and stated to have been "to the Irish who believed in Christ" (ad Scottos in Christum credentes). He calls him the first bishop, but says not a word of St. Patrick. Then, in book iii. chap. 3, 4, 5, 25, 26, 27, the question of the Irish faith is constantly agitated, as we shall see below. The epistles of Pope Gregory may be found in Usher-" Syntagma Epistolarum Hibernicarum." They are the two first in that volume. Patrick ever existed, or that there is nothing at all to be relied on concerning him, which seems to be nearly the opinion of Ryves,* given in a little book now become extremely scarce. The fact is, that internal evidence is very much in favour of the Confession of Patrick and of the Epistle to Coroticus; and the" Book of Armagh" has happily supplied us with a copy of the former in a state much purer than those which have been published from other MSS. The "Book of Armagh" is also evidence of its having existed in early times, and the text of this copy is, as we have seen, probably nearly as old as the seventh century, or even more ancient. The style of this document is rude, but it contains (with, perhaps, one slight exception†) no allusion to later corruptions of the church; it makes no attempt to magnify this saint unduly, but, on the contrary, it is written in a spirit of humble piety, and earnest love for the missionary cause. The writer professes constantly to be urged by a kind of angelic vision, which, appearing to him in his sleep, leaves a deep impression on his heart that he must be the instrument for converting Ireland, whither he had been carried captive in his youth. The epistle to Coroticus (probably a Caradoc) is not included in the book, but its style and spirit so much resemble those of the Confession, that there is reason to believe they both came from the same hand. It is a letter of remonstrance to a certain prince, named Coroticus, and probably dwelling in Wales, who had made a predatory expedition into Ireland, and carrying away Christians captives, had sold them to heathen Scots (Irish) and Picts. In these letters there is not one single word of any mission from the see of Rome, not one word of any connection with that church, and, as far any marks are afforded by which to judge of their date, it seems that they ought to be placed earlier than the year A.D. 430. For example, the epistle to Coroticus alludes to the countrymen of Coroticus as Roman citizens, whereas the last Roman legion left England A.D. 404 (A.D. 426 according to others). It also speaks of the Franks and Gauls in a manner scarcely consistent with the fact that the Frank kingdom had been then established in Gaul, which took place in A.D. 420, under Pharamond. There are also some other indications of antiquity in these documents, though none, it must be confessed, which serve very accurately to define their date. See "Regiminis Anglicani in Hibernia defensio adversus Analecten," &c. Auctore Thomas Ryves, J. C., Regis Advocato. London 1624, pp. 43–53 of the 2nd book, and Ledwich's " Antiquities of Ireland," p. 67. + It is possible the mention of St. Patrick's often praying an hundred times in a day, and as many in the night, may be an interpolation of a later date. This is published in the " Acta Sanctorum Martii," vol. 2, (at the xvii. March,) in Latin, and a translation is given in Sir W. Betham, p. 323*. It appears to have been in some degree interpolated; and the copy of the Confessio in the "Acta Sanctorum" bears very decided marks of interpolation for specific purposes. Thus the paragraph in sec. 18, ("Acta Sanct.") about his baptizing una Scotta benedicta nobilis pulcherrima, &c., seems to have been added, to give colour to the legend of St. Brigit, &c. Not a word of it is found in the copy preserved in the Book of Armagh; but, even in the Book of Armagh, there is one sentence (Filii Scottorum et filia Regulorum Monachi et Virgines Christi esse videntur,) which is doubtless an interpolation. Betham, p. 431, & App. liv. We are now prepared to deliberate as to the course which we will take. The whole evidence, of any authentic nature, has been pointed out. The question is, whether 1. We will attempt, as Usher, Sir James Ware, the Bollandists, and others, have done, to dove-tail together the various accounts we have, and make a consistent story as well as we can; or, 2. Whether we will wholly reject the whole account of St. Patrick, and believe that his very existence is a fable, as Ledwich has done; or 3. Whether we shall believe, with Sir W. Betham, that the real St. Patrick, the author of the Confession and the Epistle to Coroticus, lived long before the time of Pope Celestine, and that many of the stories which we read about St. Patrick really belong to Palladius, or some other Roman missionary, to whom the name of Patrick was given.† Nothing satisfactory, especially if the Confession and the letter to Coroticus are genuine, can be elicited from the first mode of proceeding, for the lives are of a late date, destitute of authority, full of falsehood, and contradictory to the genuine works of the saint. The second position also, on the same supposition, is removed at once, and nothing remains for the inquirer after truth, but either to follow the opinion of Sir W. Betham, or attempt a new explanation on nearly the same principle. Sir W. Betham has shewn that there are many curious coincidences to induce us to believe, that as Palladius was probably sent to bring Ireland into communion with the Roman see, the struggles which he maintained with the more primitive Christians of Ireland were represented in later ages of Roman corruption as contests of St. Patrick with heathens, which is much in accordance with the spirit of popery towards those whom it calls heretics. But this much is certain, that these very memoirs in the Book of Armagh indicate that there were Christians in Ireland before that time, and that they objected in some instances to the usages of the Roman missionary, whether Palladius or St. Patrick. The writer of this little tract, while he acknowledges the superior qualifications of Sir W. Betham to judge upon the subject, is inclined to think that, although there may have been some such systematic and deliberate falsification as Sir W. B. suspects, yet the confused nature of the traditions about St. Patrick will go a long way towards explaining the conduct of Roman catholic writers, in attributing all these traditions to their own missionary, and identifying him with St. Patrick. The story of the mission of St. Patrick, as a Roman catholic sent from Rome, is, at all events, utterly untenable, and ought never, after the publication of these re * See Usher; "Antiquitates Ecclesiarum Britannicarum," &c.; Sir James Ware's Works, by Harris, vol. 1; the " Acta Sanctorum," (on the xviith March,) &c. + It appears from a passage in the Book of Armagh, (Betham, p. 388, and Append. p. xxxvi.) that Palladius also bore the name of Patrick :-" Palladius episcopus primo mittitur qui alio nomine Patricius.' See Betham, p. 291-302. searches of Sir W. Betham, to find its way into any authentic history. The missionary St. Patrick, who converted Ireland, if we will take his own testimony, had no connexion with Rome, and does not appear to have held any of the doctrines in which that church differs from the church of England. It may now be proper merely to mention the account this author gives of himself in this invaluable document. He was born at Bonavem Taberniæ; was the son of Calpornius, a deacon, who was also the son of Potitus, a priest.* He was taken prisoner at about sixteen years of age, and carried to Ireland, where he was a slave, and employed in feeding cattle for six years. A voice in a dream urged him to flight; he obeyed it, and found, as it had promised, a ship ready to sail, and convey him away from Ireland. After difficulties and wanderings, &c., all of which are alleviated by a constant sense of the presence of the Spirit of God with him, he was in Britain again with his parents, and the vision of a man named Victoricus calls him to Ireland as a missionary; on which he awakes in deep compunction of heart, and he becomes the converter, under Providence, of thousands in Ireland. These are nearly all the historical facts which this document presents to our view; but as St. Patrick was taken prisoner, according to his own account, with a great multitude of other Christians, (although not zealous ones,) it is likely that his companions in captivity and slavery may have assisted in pioneering a way for some reception of the gospel when he came to preach it. There is scarcely any thing to be gleaned from the epistle to Coroticus as to the life of the saint himself. Now if this were all that we had to ground our rejection of the Roman catholic fables about St. Patrick upon, it would be enough, and more than enough; but when we couple these facts with what we can prove from other sources, about the early condition of Christianity in Ireland, we have abundant proof that the primitive church of Ireland was free from those corruptions which popery has introduced into the pure religion of the gospel. I will conclude this paper by mentioning (though, of course, I can only refer the reader to other books for the proof) the points in which the ancient church of Ireland can be shewn to differ from that of modern Rome. (See, especially, Bede, book iii, as referred to above.) These proofs are to be found in the tract of Archbishop Usher, which, I am happy to say, has just been re-printed. It is entitled, "A Discourse of the Religion anciently professed by the Irish and British." (My edition is dated 1631.) 1. They seem to have admitted a more free use of scripture than the present race of Roman Catholics in Ireland are willing to allow. In estimating this, however, it is but fair to add, that the facility of multiplying copies, by printing, changes the complexion of this question. 2. Usher treats about predestination, &c.; but this it is not material to touch upon here. 3. Of purgatory, and prayer for the dead. Usher shews here that * See Sir W. Betham, p. 310*-319*. VOL. VIII.-Sept. 1835. 2 M there is much against purgatory in the faith of the ancient Irish church, and nothing for it but the account of a vision, seen by one Ferseus,* which, on just consideration, entirely differs from the Roman catholic notions of the matter. The offerings for the dead, as he shews, are merely offerings commemorative of those who were believed actually to be in bliss, and are not prayers of the living to assist in the salvation of the dead. + 4. The communion was administered in both kinds. The sacrament, also, was to this church a commemorative sacrifice, and consisted of an offering of the fruit of the corn and the vine; and transubstantiation was not held by them. 5. It is clear, from the Confession of St. Patrick, that in his day the marriage of priests was not forbidden; for he was the son of a deacon, and the grandson of a priest. + The other points, in which this church differed from modern Rome, need not be set down fully. I will only mention one or two more. It is a fact, which cannot be doubted, that in the days of Bede a great dispute existed between the Romish church and that of Ireland about the celebration of Easter, and that it was very long before the northern portion of the church of Ireland conformed in its usage to that of Rome. The southern had conformed previously. The matter was argued at Whitby (called by the Saxons, Strenschal) in Yorkshire, A.D. 661; and the Irish bishops would not give up their customs, which they professed to have received from the east, and through disciples of St. John. § Again, also, there is no trace of papal power in the disposal of dignities in the church till the twelfth century, when a pall was first received from Rome, and Peter-pence were first collected. || All these points amply confirm the conclusion, that the primitive church of Ireland was not derived from Rome, and was pure in its doctrines, from the corruptions of that see. Monasteries increased much in Ireland; and property being uncertain, the custom of im This is related in Bede, book iii. chap. 19. † Mr. Thomas Moore, in his History of Ireland, tells us on this subject, “ In an old Life of St. Brendan, who lived in the sixth century, it is stated, that the prayer of the living doth much profit the dead.”—Moore's Ireland, p. 238. Mr. Moore appears to have read Usher, and probably took the above quotation from him (p. 26); but with that peculiar happiness of quotation which he is well known to possess, he forgets to state, that this old life is not older than about the twelfth century, and is expressly excluded by Usher, as evidence, on that very account. He forgets, also, that very learned Romanists abuse this legend, as full of apocryphal fooleries' (Molanus in Usuard. Martyrologium, ap. Usher, ubi supra.) The unsuspecting reader would have thought the life written at least in the seventh century. T. Moore attempts to get over this fact, by supposing his father to take deacon's orders after he had been a decurio (as he appears, from the Epistle to Coroticus, to have been); but he says not a single word to explain the case of the priest Potitus! It must not be thought that they celebrated Easter, as the Quartadecimans did, on any day but Sunday. It was only a dispute as to the calculation of the moon, on which Easter depends, which made, in one instance, a difference of a month in the time of celebration. See Usher, as above, chap. xi. |