FOUNDATION OF ARMAGH AND ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANISATION
§ 1. _Visit to Rome (circa A.D. 441-3)_
It is possible that Patrick had intended in earlier years to visit Rome
long before he began his labours in Ireland. If he entertained such a
thought, it would seem that circumstances hindered him from realising
it.[137] But it would not have been unnatural if he continued to cherish
the idea of repairing to the centre of western Christendom; and we might
expect that when he had spent some years in the toils, afflictions,
and disappointments, the alternating hopes and fears, the successes
and defeats, incident to missionary work in a barbarous land, he would
have wished to receive some recognition of his work and sympathy with
his efforts from the head of the western churches. He might count upon
sympathy and encouragement; the interest which the Roman see was prepared
to take in the remote island had been shown by the sending of Palladius;
whether Patrick had ever himself received a message from the successor of
Celestine is unknown.
[Sidenote: RELICS]
In addition to the object of directing the attention of the Roman bishop
to the growth of the Church in Ireland—an object which would at that
time appeal strongly to Patrick or to any one else in his place—there
was another motive for visiting Rome, which, though subordinate, must
not be passed over. Patrick was the son of his age, and it would display
a complete ignorance of the spirit of the Church, in Gaul and elsewhere
at that time, if we failed to recognise the high importance which he
must have attributed to the relics of holy men, especially of the early
apostles, and the value which he would have set on acquiring such parcels
of matter for his new churches in Ireland. The religious estimation
of relics had become general in the fourth century. Such a learned
man as Gregory of Nyssa set great store by them. The subject might be
illustrated at great length, but it will be enough to remind the reader
of the excitement which was caused in the religious world in the year 386
A.D., when Ambrose of Milan discovered the tombs of St. Gervasius and
St. Protasius. The bishops of the west vied for shares in the remains.
In Gaul, three cities, Tours, Rouen, and Vienne, were fortunate enough
to receive scraps of linen or particles of blood-stained dust which had
touched the precious bodies. The estimation of relics in Gaul will be
best understood by reading the work of Victricius, Bishop of Rouen and
missionary of Belgica, “in praise of the saints.”[138] It is certain that
Patrick could not have helped sharing in this universal reverence for
relics, and could not have failed to deem it an object of high importance
to secure things of such value for his church. The hope of winning a
fragment of a cerement cloth or some grains of dust—_pulvisculum nescio
quod in modico vasculo pretioso linteamine circumdatum_[139]—would have
been no small inducement to visit Rome, the city of many martyrs.
Patrick had been eight years in Ireland when a greater than Celestine or
Xystus was elected to the see of Rome.[140] The pontificate of Leo the
Great marks an eminent station in the progress of the Roman bishops to
that commanding position which they were ultimately to occupy in Europe.
His path had been prepared by his forerunners, but it is he who induces
the Emperor to accord a formal and imperial sanction to the sovran
authority of the Roman see in the west,[141] and he plays a more leading
and decisive part than any of his predecessors in moulding Christian
theology by his famous Epistle on the occasion of the Council of
Chalcedon. That Leo should have taken as direct and energetic an interest
in the extension of the borders of Christendom as the less eminent
bishops before him is what we should expect.
[Sidenote: VISIT TO ROME]
It was in the year after his elevation that Patrick, according to the
conclusion to which our evidence points, betook himself to Rome.[142] No
step could have been more natural, and none could have been more politic.
It was equally wise whether he was assured of the goodwill of Leo or, as
is possible, had reason to believe that his work had been misrepresented.
To report the success of his labours to the head of the western churches,
of which Ireland was the youngest, to enlist his personal sympathy, to
gain his formal approbation, his moral support, and his advice, were
objects which would well repay a visit to Rome, and an absence of some
length from Ireland. It is indeed hardly too much to say that nothing was
more likely to further his success than an express approbation of his
work by the highest authority in Christendom.
But it is possible that he may have had a more particular motive, which
may explain why he chose just this time for his visit. Hitherto, active
in different parts of the island, he had established no central seat,
no primatial or “metropolitan” church for the chief bishop. Not long
after his return, he founded, as we shall see presently, the church of
Armagh, fixing his own see there, and establishing it as the primatial
church. This was a step of the highest importance in the progress of
ecclesiastical organisation, and it is not a very daring conjecture
to suppose that Patrick may have wished to consult the Roman bishop
concerning this design and obtain his approbation.
The result of the visit to Rome is briefly stated in words which are
probably a contemporary record, “he was approved in the Catholic faith.”
He may well have received practical advice from Leo—such advice as a
later pontiff gave to Augustine for the conversion of the English. But
Patrick bore back with him to Ireland visible and material proofs of
the goodwill of Rome. He received gifts which, to Christians of his
day, seemed the most precious of all gifts, relics not of any lesser
martyrs, but of the apostles Peter and Paul. They were gifts particularly
opportune for bestowing prestige upon the new church which he was about
to found, and where they were afterwards preserved.
§ 2. _Foundation of Armagh (A.D. 444)_
No act of Patrick had more decisive consequences for the ecclesiastical
history of the island than the foundation, soon after his return from
Rome, of the church and monastery of Ardd Mache, in the kingdom of Oriel.
King Daire, through whose goodwill this community was established,
dwelled in the neighbourhood of the ancient fortress of Emain, which his
own ancestors had destroyed a hundred years agone, when they had come
from the south to wrest the land from the Ulidians and sack the palace
of its lords. The conquerors did not set up their own abode in the
stronghold of the old kings of Ulster; they burned the timber buildings
and left the place desolate, as it were under a curse. The ample earth
structures of this royal stronghold are still there, attesting that
Emain, famous in legend, was a place of historical importance in the days
when Ulster belonged to one of the elder peoples of the island.[143] Once
and again, long after the days of St. Patrick, the Picts from their home
in Dalaradia made vain attempts to recover their storied palace, but it
was not destined to become a place of human habitation again until, more
than a thousand years after its desolation, a house seems to have been
built there by an Ulster king “for the entertainment of the learned men
of Ireland.”
[Sidenote: KING DAIRE]
The abode of king Daire was somewhere in the neighbourhood. It seems
possible that he was the king of Oriel, though it may be held that he was
only king of one of the tribes which belonged to the Oriel kingdom.[144]
Daire was not ill disposed towards the foreign religion, and he was
persuaded to grant Patrick a site for a monastic foundation not far
from his own dwelling. Eastward from Emain, concealed from the eye by
two high ridges, rises the hill known as Ardd Mache, “the height of
Macha,” bearing the name, it is said, of some heroine of legend. At the
eastern foot of this hill, Daire apportioned a small tract of ground to
Patrick, and this was the beginning of what was to become the chief
ecclesiastical city of Ireland. The simple houses which were needed for a
small society of monks were built, and there is a record, which appears
to be ancient and credible, concerning these primitive buildings. A
circular space was marked out, one hundred and forty feet in diameter,
and enclosed by a rampart of earth. Within this _less_, as it was called,
were erected, doubtless of wood, a Great House to be the dwelling of the
monks, a kitchen, and a small oratory.[145] This record has an interest
beyond this particular monastery, as we may believe that it represents
the typical scheme of the monastic establishments of Patrick and his
companions.
[Sidenote: STORY OF DAIRE’S HORSE]
We know not how long Patrick and his household abode under the hill
of Macha, but this settlement was not to be final.[146] It seems that
the bishop ultimately won great influence over the king, who evidently
embraced the Christian faith; and then Daire resolved that the monastery
should be raised from its lowly place to a loftier and safer site. A
curious story, with the marks of antiquity about it, has come down,
showing how all this befell, and it would be difficult to say how much
is fable and what was the underlying fact. Patrick, so the tale relates,
had from the very first cast his eyes upon the hill of Macha. But Daire
refused to grant it, and gave him instead the land below. One day a
squire of the king drove a horse to feed in a field of grass which
belonged to the monastery. Patrick remonstrated, but the squire made no
answer, and when he returned to the field on the morrow, he found the
horse dead. He told his master that the Christian had killed the horse,
and Daire said to his men, Go and kill him. But as the men were on their
way to do his bidding, an illness unto death suddenly fell on Daire, and
his wife said, “It is the sake of the Christian. Let some one go quickly,
and let his blessing be brought to us, and thou shalt be well; and let
those who went to slay him be stopped.” Then two men went to Patrick and
told him that Daire was ill, and asked him for a remedy. Patrick gave him
some water which he had consecrated. With this water they first sprinkled
the dead horse, and it was restored to life; and then, returning to
Daire’s house, they found it no less potent in restoring their lord to
health.
[Sidenote: FOUNDATION OF ARMAGH]
Then Daire visited the monastery to pay respect to Patrick, and
offered him a large bronze vessel, imported from over seas. The bishop
acknowledged the gift by a simple “I thank thee,” in Latin. The king
looked for some more elaborate and impressive acknowledgment; he was
annoyed that the cauldron should be received with no greater sign of
satisfaction than a _gratzacham_, as the Latin phrase _gratias agamus_
sounded in rapid colloquial pronunciation. And on returning home he sent
his servants to bring back the bronze, as a thing which the Christian was
unable to appreciate. When they came back with the vessel, Daire asked
them what Patrick said, and they replied, “He said _gratzacham_.” “What,”
said Daire, “_gratzacham_ when it was given, _gratzacham_ when it was
taken away! It is a good word, and for his _gratzacham_ he shall have
his cauldron.” Then Daire went himself with the cauldron to Patrick, and
said, “Keep thy cauldron, for thou art a steadfast and unchangeful man.”
And he gave him, besides, the land which he had before desired.
Whatever may be thought of the anecdotes of the horse and the cauldron,
we may believe that Patrick won the respect of Daire as a man of firm
character, and that for this reason Daire was induced to promote him
to the higher site, granting him the land on the hill, with the usual
reservation of the rights of the tribe.[147] So it came about that
Patrick and his household went up from their home at the foot of the hill
and made another home on its summit. The new settlement was probably
constructed on the same plan, though the close may have been larger, to
suit the area of the hill-top.[148] The old settlement below was perhaps
devoted to the uses of a graveyard,[149] and in later days a cloister was
to arise there, known as the Temple of the Graveyard.
[Sidenote: THE CHOICE OF ARMAGH]
Such, according to ancient tradition, was the founding of Armagh, which
rose to be the supreme ecclesiastical city in Ireland. Though we have
no record of Patrick’s own views, it is hardly possible to escape the
conclusion that he consciously and deliberately laid the foundations
of this pre-eminence. It is true that some of his successors in the
see supported and enhanced its claim to supremacy and domination by
misrepresentations and forgeries, just as in a larger sphere the
later bishops of Rome made use of fabricated documents and accepted
falsifications of history in order to establish their extravagant
pretensions. But as in the case of Rome, so in the case of Armagh,
misrepresentation of history could only avail to increase or confirm an
authority which was already acknowledged and to extend the limits of a
power which had been otherwise established. If the church of Armagh had
been originally on the same footing as any of the other churches which
were founded by Patrick, it is inconceivable that it could have acquired
the pre-eminence which it enjoyed in the seventh century merely by
means of the false assertion that the founder had made it supreme over
all his other churches. Now we know of no political circumstances or
historical events between the age of Patrick and the seventh century
which would have served to elevate the church of Armagh above the
churches of northern Ireland and invest it with an authority and prestige
which did not originally belong to it. The only tenable explanation of
the commanding position which Armagh occupied is that the tradition is
substantially true, and that Patrick made this foundation, near the
derelict palace of the ancient Ulster kings, his own special seat and
residence, from which he exercised, and intended that his successors
should exercise, in Ireland an authority similar to that which a
metropolitan bishop exercised in his province on the continent.[150] The
choice of Armagh may seem strange. It may be said that if his “province”
was conterminous with the whole island, the hill of Macha was hardly a
well-chosen spot as an ecclesiastical centre. We might expect him to have
sought a site somewhere in the kingdom of Meath, somewhere less distant
from the hill of Uisnech, which the islanders regarded as the navel of
their country. Trim, for instance, would seem to be a far more suitable
seat for a bishop whose duties of supervision extended to Desmond as
much as to Dalriada. There are two points here which may be taken into
consideration. If we confine our view to the sphere of Patrick’s own
missionary activity, namely, northern Ireland, Armagh was a sufficiently
convenient centre. Meath and Connaught and the kingdoms of Ulster,
the lands in which Patrick had himself chiefly worked, might seem to
require closer supervision, and it may have been a matter of policy not
to attempt to press his authority too strictly over the churches of the
south. We shall see presently that though he visited southern Ireland,
his work there was relatively slight. The evidence suggests that while
the whole island formed a single ecclesiastical province, in which
Patrick occupied the position of “metropolitan,” there was actually,
though not officially, a province within a province. He exerted a more
direct and minute control over the northern part of the island. But, in
any case, the position of an ecclesiastical metropolis cannot be entirely
determined by compasses; geographical convenience cannot be always
decisive. Here we come to a second consideration. The circumstance that
king Loigaire was not a Christian may have weighed with Patrick against
choosing a place in Meath. He may have thought it expedient to fix the
chief seat of ecclesiastical authority in the territory and near the
palace of a Christian king. If Daire was king of Oriel, his conversion
to Christianity, in contrast with the obduracy of Loigaire, will go far
to explain the choice of Armagh. It counted for much to have a secure
position near the gates of a powerful king, and his conversion would have
been the greatest single triumph that Patrick had yet achieved.
Our oldest records do not describe Patrick’s work in the kingdoms of
Ulster with the same details or at the same length as his work in
Connaught. But they indicate that he preached and founded churches in the
kingdoms of Ailech and Oriel, as well as in Ulidia; and there is reason
to believe that fuller records existed at an early period and were used
by one of the later biographers. It may be noted that he is said to have
consecrated the site of a church at Coleraine, and that a stone on which
he sat was shown at Dunseveric, on the shore of the northern sea. In the
land of the Condiri, who gave their name to the diocese of Connor, many
churches attributed their origin to him, for instance, Glenavy,[151] near
the banks of Lake Neagh, and Glore, the church of Glenarm.
§ 3. _In South Ireland_
While Patrick’s sphere of immediate activity seems to have been mainly
the northern half of the island, there is not much room for serious
doubts that he claimed to hold a position of ecclesiastical authority
over the southern provinces also. His own description of himself
not as bishop in a particular province, but as bishop in Ireland
generally,[152] is sufficient to make this clear; and there are not
wanting ancient records of his visits to Leinster and Munster. He is said
to have baptized the sons of Dunlang, king of Leinster, and Crimthann,
king of the Hy Ceinselaich; he is recorded to have visited the royal
palace at the hill of Cashel and baptized the sons of Natfraich, king of
Munster. It was remembered that he had passed through Ossory, and worked
in the regions of Muskerry. If, as is possible, Christianity had made
greater way in the southern kingdoms, he had less to do as a pioneer,
but the task of organisation must have devolved upon him here as in the
north. It is easy to understand why comparatively scanty traditions
should have been preserved of his work in the south. His special
association with the see of Armagh did not dispose the communities of
Munster and Leinster to remember a connexion which supported the claims
of that see to a superior jurisdiction.
[Sidenote: IN LEINSTER]
In Leinster, Patrick had two fellow-workers who occupied a special
position. Auxilius and Iserninus, whom he had known at Auxerre, had been
sent to Ireland about six years after his own coming.[153] The origin of
Auxilius is unknown. His name is still commemorated by a church which he
founded, Killossy,[154] not far from Naas, one of the chief abodes of
the kings of Leinster. Iserninus was of Irish birth. His native name
was Fith. He was born in the neighbourhood of Clonmore,[155] on the
borders of Carlow and Wicklow. Here, in the land of his clan, he first
set up a church, but his ultimate establishment was at Aghade,[156] on
the Slaney. These regions formed part of a considerable kingdom which was
at this time ruled over by Endae Cennsalach, who seems to have founded
the political importance of his tribe, for the land came to be known by
the name of the Children of Cennsalach. This king did what lay in his
power to oppose the diffusion of the new faith, and Iserninus found it
prudent to withdraw beyond the borders of his kingdom. Perhaps he found
a refuge at Kilcullen,[157] close to Dún Aillinn, one of the strongholds
of the kings of Leinster. But Crimthann, the son and successor of Endae,
was converted and baptized by Patrick at his dwelling in Rathvilly,
on the banks of the Slaney, where earthworks still mark a seat of the
kings of the Children of Cennsalach. This case is similar to the case
of the sons of Amolngaid, and illustrates the general fact that while
the older generation was still, fervently or patiently, clinging to the
old beliefs, the younger generation was steadily turning to the new. The
conversion of Crimthann enabled Iserninus to return to his own land, and
he established himself at Aghade, a crossing-place on the Slaney, about
nine miles below Rathvilly.
Among the acts which are ascribed to Patrick in Leinster, the
consecration of Fíacc, the Fair, a pupil of the poet Dubthach, and
himself a poet, deserve mention.[158] The conversion of the poet into
the Christian bishop reminds us of the more illustrious contemporary
case of Sidonius Apollinaris. There seems no reason to doubt the truth
of this tradition, and perhaps the bell, the staff, the writing tablet,
and the cup and paten, which Patrick is said to have given to Fíacc,
were preserved at the church where his memory was specially cherished.
He was first settled at a church which was called after himself, Domnach
Féicc, the situation of which is not improbably supposed to have been
east of the Slaney, not far from Tallow.[159] But he afterwards became
bishop of Slébte, on the western bank of the Barrow, under the hills of
Margy,[160] and ended his days there. In the early middle ages Slébte was
a notable place on the ecclesiastical map, but the desolate site shows
no vestiges of its ancient importance. At the end of the seventh century
Slébte renewed the ties which bound it to Armagh in the days of Fíacc and
Patrick, and we possess a monument of this reconciliation in the earliest
biography of Patrick that has come down to us, written by a clerk of
Fíacc’s church.[161]
§ 4. _Church Discipline_
It is not clear whether Auxilius and Iserninus were already invested
with episcopal rank when they left Gaul, or were consecrated in Leinster
by Patrick.[162] But in any case, they seem, along with Secundinus, who
came with them from Gaul, to have held an exceptional position of weight
as counsellors and coadjutors. Coming, perhaps, from the episcopal city
where Patrick himself had been trained, they corroborated the Gallic
influence, we might say the influence of Auxerre, which presided at
the organisation of the Church in Ireland. It was natural that Patrick
should take special counsel with these men for laying down rules of
ecclesiastical discipline, and, on the occasion, perhaps, of one of
his visits to Leinster, a body of rules was drawn up in the form of a
circular letter, addressed by Patrick, Auxilius, and Iserninus to all the
clergy of Ireland.[163] The miscellaneous regulations are arranged in
a haphazard manner, and were evidently prompted by abuses or practical
difficulties which had come to the notice of the framers. Most of the
rules deal with the discipline of the clergy. They testify to such
irregularities as a bishop interfering in his neighbour’s diocese;
vagabond clerks going from place to place; churches founded without the
permission of the bishop. It is ordained that no cleric from Britain
shall minister in Ireland, unless he has brought a letter from his
superior. All the clergy, from the priest to the doorkeeper, are to wear
the complete Roman tonsure, and their wives are to veil their heads. A
monk and a consecrated virgin are not to drive from house to house in
the same car, or indulge in protracted conversations. Provision is made
for the stringent enforcement of sentences of excommunication. One of
the most important duties of Irish Christians at this period was the
redemption of Christian captives from slavery;[164] and this furnished an
opportunity for imposture and deception. It is provided that no one shall
privately and without permission make a collection for this purpose, and
that, if there be any surplus from a collection, it shall be placed on
the altar and kept for another’s need.
It is interesting to observe a prohibition of the acceptance of alms
from pagans. It points to the comprehensive religious view of some,
perhaps many, of the still unconverted—Loigaire himself may have been an
instance,—who, though not prepared to abandon their own cults, were ready
to pay some homage to the new deity whose reality and power they did not
question.
In a church growing up in a heathen land, it seems to have been found
inexpedient and impracticable to enforce long periods of penitence for
transgressions which were regarded more lightly in Ireland than in
the Roman Empire. Accordingly we find that only a year of penance is
imposed on those who commit manslaughter or fornication or consult a
soothsayer,[165] and only half a year for an act of theft.
[Sidenote: APPEAL TO ROME]
The provisions contained in this circular letter cannot represent
all the rules which Patrick, with his coadjutors, must have made for
ecclesiastical order in Ireland. A number of other canons were ascribed
to him, and though we cannot be sure that they are all authentic, it
cannot be proved that they are all of later origin.[166] One of them, not
the least important, is a provision which, without any express evidence,
we might surmise that Patrick would have ordained. It required no special
discernment to foresee that in a young church difficult questions would
inevitably arise which might lead to grave controversy and dissension.
How were such to be decided? Could they safely be left to local councils,
with no higher court of appeal? The obvious resource was to follow the
common practice of other western churches and request the Bishop of Rome
to lay down a ruling. For Patrick, as for his contemporaries, this was
simply a matter of course. To consult the Roman see, and obtain a ruling
in the form of a decretal, was the universally recognised means in the
western provinces of securing unity and uniformity in the Church. The
position which the Roman see occupied, by common consent, in the days
of Patrick has been sufficiently explained in a previous chapter;[167]
and if this position is rightly understood, it becomes evident that,
when Ireland entered into the ecclesiastical confederation of the west,
it was merely a direct and inevitable consequence that, for the church
in Ireland, just as for the churches in Gaul or in Spain, the Roman see
was both a court of appeal, and also the one authority to which recourse
could be had, whenever recourse to an authority beyond Ireland itself
seemed desirable. This was so axiomatic that, if we are told that Patrick
expressly prescribed resort to Rome in case of necessity, the only thing
which might surprise us is that he should have thought it needful to
formulate it at all. But in a new church, unfamiliar with the traditions
of the older churches within the Empire, it was clearly desirable to
define and enact some things which were observed in Gaul and Spain and
Italy without express definition or enactment. We are therefore fully
entitled to accept as authentic the canon which lays down, “If any
questions (of difficulty) arise in this island, let them be referred to
the apostolic seat.”[168] Not to have recognised the Roman see as the
source of authoritative responses would have been almost equivalent to a
repudiation of the unity of the Church.
That Patrick should have prescribed to Irish monks the form of tonsure
which was usual in western monasteries was a matter of course. It was
more significant that he introduced, as seems to be the case, the Paschal
reckoning which was at that time approved by Rome. It would appear that
an older system for the determination of Easter was in use among the
Christian communities which existed in Ireland before his coming. He
brought with him a table of Easter days based on the system then accepted
at Rome, so that in the celebration of this feast the new province might
be in harmony with western Christendom.[169]
Though we have no direct testimony as to the liturgy which Patrick
introduced, we cannot doubt that it was the Gallican. The Gallican
liturgy, which differs from the Roman by its oriental character,
prevailed in Ireland and Britain up to the end of the seventh century;
and we are entitled to conjecture, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that Patrick, trained at Auxerre, introduced the usage to
which he was accustomed in that church.
§ 5. _Ecclesiastical Organisation_
[Sidenote: FEATURES OF HIS WORK]
St. Patrick has himself briefly described some of the features of
his work, and his description bears out and supplements the general
impression which we derive from the details recorded by tradition. In the
first place, he indicates the double character of his work. On the one
hand he created an ecclesiastical organisation, he chose and ordained
clergy, for a people which had been recently turning to the Christian
faith.[170] On the other hand, he planted that faith in regions which
were wholly heathen, in the extreme parts of the island, as he repeatedly
insists.[171] He spread his nets that a large multitude “might be caught
for God,” and that there might be clergy everywhere to baptize and
exhort a folk needing and craving their service.[172] He says that he
baptized thousands, and this need not be a figure of hyperbole,[173] and
ordained ministers of religion everywhere. The foundation of monastic
communities is borne out by his incidental observation that young natives
have become monks, and daughters of chieftains “virgins of Christ.”[174]
These maidens, he says, generally took their vows against the will of
their fathers, and were ready to suffer persecution from their parents.
He mentions especially a beautiful woman of noble birth whom he baptized.
A few days after the ceremony she came to him and intimated that she had
received a direct warning from God that she should become a “virgin of
Christ.” It is not suggested that the opposition of the parents was due
to heathen obduracy; it would rather appear that, in the cases which
are here contemplated, the parents themselves had likewise embraced
Christianity. But they had a natural repugnance to seeing their children
withdrawn from the claims of the family and the world. The triumph on
which Patrick in this passage complacently dwells is not the triumph of
Christian doctrine but of the monastic ideal.
Patrick refers to perils through which he passed in the prosecution of
his work. He says that divine aid “delivered me often from bondage and
from twelve dangers by which my life was endangered.”[175] He mentions
one occasion on which he and his companions were seized, and his captors
wished to slay him. His belongings were taken from him and he was kept
in fetters for a fortnight, but then, through the intervention of
influential friends, he was set free and his property restored.[176]
[Sidenote: FEATURES OF HIS POLICY]
Such experiences would probably have been more frequent if he had not
resorted to a policy which stood him in good stead. He used to purchase
the goodwill and protection of the kings by giving them presents.[177]
In the same way he provided for the security of the clergy in those
districts which he most frequently visited, by paying large sums to the
judges or brehons. It is easily conceived that their goodwill was of
high importance for harmonising the new communities and their new ideal
of life with the general conditions of society. Patrick claims to have
distributed among the judges at least “the value of fifteen men.” All
these expenses were defrayed from his own purse.[178]
Another feature in his policy, on which he prided himself, was plain
dealing and sincerity towards the Irish. He never went back from his
word, and never resorted to tricks, in order to win some advantage for
“God and the Church.” He believed that by adhering strictly to this
policy of straightforwardness he averted persecutions.[179]
While Patrick was assisted by many foreign fellow-workers, it was his aim
to create a native clergy; and it was a matter of the utmost importance
to find likely youths and educate them for ecclesiastical work. Our
records do not omit to illustrate this side of his policy. Benignus, who
afterwards succeeded him in Armagh, was said to have been adopted by
him as a young boy soon after his coming to Ireland,[180] and Sachall,
who accompanied him to Rome, was another instance. A similar policy was
contemplated by Pope Gregory the Great for England. We have a letter
which he wrote to a presbyter, bidding him purchase in Gaul English boy
slaves of seventeen or eighteen years, for the purpose of educating them
in monasteries.[181]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MONASTIC FOUNDATIONS]
The churches and cloisters which were founded by Patrick and his
companions seem in most cases to have been established on land which
was devoted to the purpose by chieftains or nobles from their own
private property. But the interests of the tribe to which the proprietor
belonged, and the interests of the proprietor’s descendants, had to be
considered, and the consideration of these interests seems to have led
to a peculiar system. We find that in some cases the proprietor did
not make over all his rights to the ecclesiastical community which was
founded on his estate, but retained, and transmitted to his descendants,
a certain control over it, side by side with the control which the abbot,
a spiritual head of the community, exercised. There were thus two lines
of succession—the secular line, in which the descent was hereditary, and
the ecclesiastical line, which was sometimes regularly connected by blood
with the founder. This dual system kept the ecclesiastical community
in close touch with the tribe, and it has been pointed out that the
tendency ultimately was “to throw the ecclesiastical succession into the
hands of the lay succession, and so to defeat the object of the founder
by transferring the endowment to the laity.”[182] Armagh and Trim are
conspicuous instances of this dual succession.
In other cases the connexion of the monastery with the tribe was
secured, and the interests of the proprietor’s family were consulted
by establishing a family right of inheritance to the abbacy. There was
only a spiritual succession; the undivided authority lay with the abbot;
but the abbots could be chosen only from the founder’s kin.[183] Such a
provision might be made conditionally or unconditionally. It might be
provided that preference should be given to members of the founder’s
family, if a person suitable for such a spiritual office could be found
among them. The monastery of Drumlease in Leitrim, which was founded by
one Fethfió, furnishes an instructive example.[184] Fethfió laid down
that the inheritance to Drumlease should not be confined unconditionally
to his own family. His family should inherit the succession, if there
were any member pious and good and conscientious. If not, the abbot
should be chosen from the community or monks of Drumlease.
But in other cases the original proprietor seems to have alienated his
land and placed it entirely in the hands of an ecclesiastical founder,
who was either a member of another tribe or a foreigner. But the tribe
within whose territory the land lay had a word to say. It seems to have
been a general rule that the privilege of succession belonged to the
founder’s tribe, but that if no suitable successor could be found in that
tribe, the abbacy should pass to the tribe within whose territory the
monastery stood.[185]
In our earliest records we find some ecclesiastical foundations expressly
distinguished as “free,” which would seem to imply a release from
restrictions and obligations which were usually imposed, and a greater
measure of independence of the tribe.[186] Thus in Sligo a large district
was offered by its owners “to God and Patrick,” and we are told that the
king, who seems to be acting as representative of the tribe, “made it
free to God and Patrick.”[187] But it is impossible to determine what
were the limits of this immunity.
[Sidenote: TRIBAL INFLUENCE]
The Church in the Roman Empire has been described as an _imperium in
imperio_, and the typical ecclesiastical community in Ireland may be
described as a tribe within a tribe. The abbot, or, where the dual system
prevailed, his lay coadjutor, exercised over the lay folk settled on the
lands of the community a control similar to that which the tribal king
exercised over the tribe. But though the community was thus constituted
as an independent body and formed a sort of tribe itself, not subject to
the king, it was nevertheless bound by certain obligations to the tribe
within whose borders it lay. We have seen that the right of eventual
succession to the abbacy was often reserved to the tribe. But in general
the monastery was bound not only to furnish the religious services which
the tribe required, but to rear and educate without cost the offspring
of any tribesman who chose to devote his son to a religious life.[188]
The tribesman, on his part, was bound, when he had once consigned his
child to the care of the monks, not to withdraw him, on pain of paying
a forfeit.[189] A monastery might welcome novices from other tribes, if
their parents chose to pay the cost of their education; its attachment by
a closer bond to what might be called its lay tribe was expressed in this
right of the tribesmen to a free training for an ecclesiastical career.
It is also to be observed that the member of a religious house, though
he belonged to a society which managed its affairs independently of
the tribe, did not altogether cease to be a tribesman.[190] If he was
slain, the compensation was due not to the church but to his tribe. It is
uncertain how far he continued to share any of the secular liabilities
of his lay tribesmen. On his father’s death he inherited his portion of
the family property, like any of his brethren; but we cannot say how far,
in early times, the tribe permitted a monastic community to exercise
rights over land thus inherited by one of its members. In later times
the Church assumed possession, perhaps allowing the monk to hold his
inheritance as a tenant, and furnishing him with stock.[191] But this
custom may not have been introduced until the Church had waxed in power
and cupidity. It is uncertain, too, what claims the newborn monasteries
ventured to press, in their early years, upon the liberality of those who
had permitted their foundation. At a subsequent period they claimed[192]
not only first-fruits and tithes and the firstlings of animals, but also
first-born sons, and when a man had ten sons, another as well as the
eldest. We may doubt whether such claims, modelled on the law of Moses,
and exceeding in audacity the claims of any other church, were often
admitted[193] or seriously pressed; but it is certain that rights of
such a kind were not and could not have been sought by Patrick and his
fellows.
[Sidenote: MONASTIC SYSTEM]
This sketch of the conditions under which the new religious settlements
were planted in Ireland is necessarily vague and slight, and is presented
with the reserve which is due when the material for reconstruction is
fragmentary and we have to argue back from circumstances which prevailed
at a later period. But the evidence at least shows clearly that the
organisation was conditioned and moulded by the nature of the secular
society. On one hand there was a bond, of various degrees of intimacy,
connecting the religious community with the tribe, in the midst of which
it was established; and on the other hand, the community took upon itself
the form and likeness of a tribe or clan, its members being regarded as
the family or followers of its head.
There is no reason to suppose that all Patrick’s ecclesiastical
foundations took the shape of monastic societies. Many of the churches
which he founded were served, doubtless, by only one or two clerics,
and furnished with only enough land to support them. But the monastic
foundations were a leading feature of the organisation. They were to
be centres for propagating Christianity and schools for educating the
clergy. But they also served the religious needs of the immediate
district. A staff of clergy was attached, and the abbot was frequently
also a bishop. It is not difficult to conjecture the reason and purpose
of this remarkable union of the monastic institution with general church
organisation. It was probably due to the circumstance that there were
no cities in Ireland; centres had to be created for ecclesiastical
purposes, and it was almost a matter of course that these ecclesiastical
towns should be constructed on the monastic principle. If towns had
existed, they would have been the ecclesiastical centres, the seats
of the bishops; the bishops would not have been abbots or attached to
monasteries. The fact that the word _civitas_, “city,” was used to
designate these double-sided communities illustrates the motive of this
singular organisation.
[Sidenote: DIOCESAN SYSTEM]
But the peculiarity must not mislead us into the error of supposing
that there was no diocesan organisation, or that the bishops whom
Patrick ordained had not definite and distinct sees.[194] It is
inconceivable that in instituting bishops he should not have been guided
by geographical considerations, or that in organising a clerical body
he should not have submitted them to the jurisdiction of the bishops
whom he ordained. The limits of the bishoprics would naturally have
corresponded to the limits of tribal territories; this was not only the
simplest scheme, but was also dictated by obvious political expedience.
The anomalous state of things which presently arose, the multiplication
of bishops without sees, was assuredly never anticipated by Patrick. It
was due to the extravagant growth of monasticism. When new monasteries
were founded, they determined to have bishops of their own, and to be
quite independent of the bishops of the dioceses in which they were
situated. This practice was not indeed confined to Ireland. There are
several notable instances in Gaul.[195] But whereas elsewhere it was the
exception, in Ireland it seems to have become the rule. The desire of
new foundations to be self-sufficient and completely independent of the
diocesan bishop would not perhaps have been so strong if the diocesan
bishop had not usually been associated with one of the older monasteries.
But once the practice of bishops without sees was introduced, bishops
multiplied like flies. A new and narrow conception of the episcopal
office prevailed, and when it was recognised that bishops need not have
sees, there was no reason to set a limit to their number. The order of
bishop became a dignity to which any man of piety might aspire.
There is no evidence that Patrick consecrated bishops without sees, and
perhaps it would not be rash to say that he never did so. It cannot be
seriously doubted that he established a diocesan organisation, which,
in the course of the subsequent development of religious institutions,
largely broke down. The maintenance of the diocesan structure could
not be secured without control from above, and unless we refuse to
believe that Patrick attempted anything in the way of organisation,
it is evident that he must have founded a superior archdiocesan or
metropolitan jurisdiction. He exercised this higher authority himself,
and it is difficult to doubt that he attached it to the see which he
occupied, the see of Armagh. The position of this see has already
engaged our attention. But the centrifugal tendencies which marked the
secular society of Ireland made themselves felt no less acutely in
the Church; the ecclesiastical communities were animated by the same
impulse to independence as the tribes; and it was hard for the Bishop of
Armagh, as for the King of Ireland, to exert effectual authority. The
independent tribal spirit was not flexible or readily obedient to the
distant control of a prelate who was a member of another tribe; there
was no secular power able or willing to enforce submission to the higher
jurisdiction. Thus it was a continual struggle for the bishops of Armagh
to maintain the position which Patrick had bequeathed to them; and the
rise within their province, during the sixth century, of new and powerful
communities, owing them no obedience, and outstripping their church
in zeal, learning, and reputation, conduced to the decline of their
influence. It was not till the end of the seventh century that the church
of Armagh began to succeed in re-establishing its power. In the meantime
the interests of religion had perhaps not suffered through the absence
of ecclesiastical unity. At no time were the churchmen of Ireland more
conspicuous, and famous in other lands, for learning and piety than in
the sixth and seventh centuries.
[Sidenote: CHANGES AFTER PATRICK]
The difficulties and errors which have arisen as to the spirit and
principles of Patrick’s ecclesiastical policy are due to the circumstance
that after his death his work was partly undone, and the Irish Church
developed on lines which were quite from the purpose of his design. The
old Easter reckoning survived his reform and lasted till the seventh
century.[196] Irish monks abandoned the recognised mode of shaving the
head which he had enjoined, and adopted the native tonsure of the pagan
Druids.[197] The central authority at Armagh could not maintain itself
against the centrifugal spirit of the land or resist the love of local
independence which operated in ecclesiastical exactly as in political
affairs. Monasticism, an institution which appears to have been intensely
attractive to the temper of the people, ran riot, we might say, at the
expense of ecclesiastical organisation. Abbots became of more account
than bishops. The political changes in Gaul and Italy, connected with
the dismemberment of the Empire, tended to keep Ireland out of touch
with the continental churches in the later part of the fifth and in the
sixth century. The injunction to appeal to Rome, though no one would
have thought of repudiating it, was a dead letter. Looking at Irish
Christianity as it appears in the seventh century, when the movement set
in to bring it into line with the rest of the western Church, students
have been inclined to assume that Patrick inaugurated the peculiar
features which were really alien to the spirit of his work. Whatever
concessions and modifications he may have found it necessary or politic
to make in view of the social conditions of Ireland, he certainly did not
anticipate, far less intend, such a development as that which actually
ensued.
But though his organisation partially collapsed, and though the Irish
Christians did not live up to his ideal of the _unitas ecclesiae_, there
was one feature of his policy which was never undone. He made Latin the
ecclesiastical language of Ireland. The significance of this will claim
our consideration when we come to examine his historical position. It was
remembered in the traditions of his work that he used to write alphabets
for youths who were chosen for a clerical career; it was the first step
in teaching them Latin.
[Sidenote: INTRODUCTION OF LATIN]
Some knowledge of the Latin alphabet must have penetrated to Ireland at
an earlier period. It must have been known in the scattered Christian
communities, and it may have been known much more widely. It was not
a new thing when Patrick arrived, but his work seems to have secured
it a new position. Yet we cannot say exactly what happened. We cannot
say whether the introduction of the Latin script originated a written
Irish literature, or only displaced an older form of writing in which
a literature already existed. In the mist which rests over the early
history of Ireland this is one of the darkest points. It would be
out of place to discuss the question here at large, but one or two
considerations may be briefly noted. The mode of writing which the early
Irish possessed—though how long before the fifth century we know not—and
seem to have mainly used for engraving names on sepulchral monuments, is
alphabetic. The characters, which are called ogams, consisting of strokes
and points, were probably a native invention, since such inscriptions are
found only in Ireland and in regions of the British islands which came
within the range of Irish influence. But it will not be maintained that
the alphabet itself was a native product, an independent discovery. It is
simply the Latin alphabet,[198] with the last three letters left out and
two letters added.[199] And a cipher representing the Latin alphabet can
hardly fail to imply that when it was invented the Latin alphabet was in
use. No positive evidence has yet been discovered to show that the Irish
ever employed, besides their monumental script, a less cumbersome system
of symbols, suitable for literature and the business of life, other than
the Roman. A few statements which may be gathered from their own later
traditions are not sufficiently clear or authentic to carry much weight.
The absence of evidence, however, is not decisive. It is to be remembered
that writing was in use among the Celtic Iberians of Spain and the Celts
of Gaul before the Roman Conquest. The Iberians had their own script,
and some of the Spanish peoples had a considerable literature.[200] In
Gaul, we are told by Caesar, the lore of the Druids was not written down,
but Greek writing was used for public and private purposes.[201] This
means that the Gallic tongue was written in Greek characters, and some
examples of such writing are preserved.[202] These facts show at least
that the art of writing might have reached Ireland at an early period.
But there is no proof that it did. If any pre-Roman alphabet was ever
used it has left no traces of its presence. But the Roman alphabet was
introduced, perhaps much sooner than is generally supposed, after the
Roman occupation of Britain. And from it some learned man in Ireland
constructed the ogam cipher for sepulchral uses. The diffusion of
Christianity tended, doubtless, to diffuse the use of writing, but Latin
letters were a gift which the pagans of Ireland received from the Empire,
independently of the gift of Christianity.