■iiilHIilMi 
 
 BR 
 
 794 
 
 .M37 
 
 1840 
 
 » 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 T?iiia(i)iL(!)Qiisai"^aEi]aaaQi?,^ i 
 
 i PRIIVCETOIV, Jl. J. ' 1 
 
 DO.VATIOX OF i 
 
 S A M LI K L A a N K W , 
 
 , or 'H HIl. A UK LHHli. PA. 
 
 1 Letter £j-J 
 No.... AJ ^ j 
 
 ' .^^<*55*>'^^*«=fes««*.«-a*.««^— i^^«^^--^^^:^— ^^^jj,;;__^_J 
 
 BR 794 .M37 1840 
 
 Mason, Henry Joseph Monck, 
 
 1778-1858. 
 Primitive Christianity in 
 
 Ireland 
 
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY IN IRELAND. 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 THOMAS MOORE, ESQ. 
 
 EXHIBITING HIS MISSTATEMENTS IN HIS HISTORY, RESPECTING THE 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY INTO IRELAND, AND THE 
 
 RELIGIOUS TENETS OF TUE EARLY IRISH CHRISTIANS. 
 
 HENRY J. MONCK MASON, LL.D. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 LONDON 
 J. HATCHARD AND SON, 
 
 187, PICCADILLY. 
 
 1840. 
 

 
 r-, -if 
 
 LETTER >r,^Hmf; 
 
 TO 
 
 THOMAS MOORE, ESQ. 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 You will perceive in the signature subscribed to 
 this letter the name of an old acquaintance. The 
 recollection of the character of the society in which 
 our intercourse occurred would induce me to avoid 
 any inimical or discordant conflict with you; while 
 my utter dislike to that mode of contest which has, 
 of late years, been too frequently adopted, and even 
 on theological subjects, would influence me to shun 
 cpntroversy altogether : nevertheless, I feel myself 
 obliged by the great motive of truth to declare, that 
 many of the assertions contained in your first volume 
 of the History of Ireland are not founded in facts; 
 and I am compelled, by the vast influence of those 
 assertions upon the best interests of my fellow-coun- 
 trymen — ^their eternal interests in connexion with 
 religion — to declare it faithfully, solemnly, and pub- 
 licly. I shall, therefore, without further preface, 
 endeavour to prove the two following allegations : — 
 
First, That the account which you have given of 
 the first introduction of Christianity into Ireland is 
 erroneous : 
 
 Secondly, That the opinion you have advocated, 
 of the doctrines inculcated by the first missionaries, 
 teachers, and saints in that country, is, with scarcely 
 a single exception, mistaken. 
 
 The question between us is, my dear sir, one of the 
 very highest importance, and not by any means one 
 of merely antiquarian research : it is, both directly 
 and indirectly, of great magnitude in its influences — 
 directly, as it is that of religion in Ireland ; indirectly, 
 because that the name of religion is, in that country, 
 unhappily interwoven with every political question, 
 and with almost every circumstance of the present 
 day. You are perfectly well aware that authority 
 possesses a powerful sway over the minds of the 
 people of Ireland; despotic, when religion is the 
 occasion upon which it is exercised; irresistible, when, 
 robed in the revered vestments of antiquity, it speaks 
 her mandates ; and you have described this trait of 
 national character with equal eloquence and truth, 
 where, in your History, (p. 203) you advert to " that 
 "ready pliancy, that facility, in yielding to new im- 
 ** pulses and influences, which, in the Irish character, 
 " is so remarkably combined with a fond adherence 
 " to old usages and customs, and with that sort of 
 *' retrospective imagination which for ever yearns 
 " after the past." When, therefore, authority upon a 
 religious question comes dressed in that venerated 
 robe, adjusted with a skill so successful as yours, it 
 
is to be expected that it will operate with an enchant- 
 ment, which nothing but the touch of Ithuriel's spear 
 can possibly dispel — a fascination, against which no elo- 
 quence but that of unpretending truth can at all prevail. 
 
 The first point at issue between us, which is t'he 
 correctness of the account that you have given of 
 the first introduction of Christianity into Ireland, I 
 shall discuss with you but briefly ; and this for two 
 reasons — first, because that we have less of informa- 
 tion on that question; secondly, because the fact 
 is of itself less important to establish — it matters now 
 but little, comparatively, who were the first Christian 
 missionaries among the Irish, or whence they came ; 
 and the material point for us to determine is, the 
 character of the doctrines which they inculcated. 
 
 At the very entrance of this argument there is 
 obviously imposed upon me a considerable difficulty — 
 you have no where, I believe, asserted, and there- 
 fore I can scarcely assume it as laid down by you, 
 that St. Patrick was the very first person Avho intro- 
 duced Christianity into Ireland; while every where 
 you have laboured to produce the impression on the 
 mind that such was the fact. You speak of " the 
 " great epoch of the conversion of the Irish by St. 
 " Patrick" (p. 106); of the time when he '^introduced 
 "among them the Christian doctrine" (307); you 
 enter upon the subject of religion with an allusion 
 to the " origincd link formed with Rome, from her 
 " having appointed the first Irish missionaries" (237); 
 and, in relating the failure of Palladius in his mission, 
 you say, (210) "he was forced to fly from the 
 
4 
 
 " country, leaving behind him no other memorial of 
 " his labours than the adage, traditional among the 
 " Irish, that not to Palladius but to Patrick did God 
 *' grant the conversion of Ireland" — a sentence which 
 fixes this latter to be the original link to which you 
 allude. It is indeed impossible to rise from the 
 perusal of your work without having the impression 
 made upon the mind, that you exhibit this eminent 
 person as indeed " the first Irish missionary ;" and 
 many will be surprised at my thus wasting time in 
 endeavouring to prove such to have been your object; 
 while in fact you do not say so, but directly and 
 explicitly the reverse ; and indeed had you so asserted, 
 you would not have stated the truth. 
 
 The first witness whom I shall produce to prove 
 that St. Patrick was not the first Irish missionary 
 is, therefore, your own self; and I shall, as is but 
 just, present your own testimony, and in your own 
 words; where, in giving the account of his great 
 successes in Connaught, (p. 221,) you observe thus — 
 " It is supposed that to these western regions of 
 " Ireland the saint alludes, in his confession, where 
 '' he stated that he had visited remote districts where 
 " no missionary had been before ; — an assertion im- 
 " portant, as plainly implying that, in the more 
 " accessible parts of the country, Christianity had, 
 " before his time, been preached and practised,^' 
 
 The evidence of St. Patrick himself is, in the next 
 place — and you allow it — decidedly in my favour : his 
 words in the original are these — " Ubique pergebam 
 causa vestra, etiam usque ad exteras partes, ubi 
 
" nunquam aliquis pervenerat qui baptizaret, aut cle- 
 " ricos ordinaret, aut populum consunimaret" — "I went 
 " every where to promote your cause, even to remote 
 " districts where no one had ever arrived who could 
 " baptize, or ordain clergy, or complete" (perhaps 
 confirm) " the people" — a testimony which appears to 
 be stronger than that which is conveyed in your extract. 
 
 Upon the evidence of two witnesses such as these 
 I might be contented to rest my case. The first, you 
 at least must allow to be unimpeachable ; and against 
 the second you cannot object, as it is given upon 
 authority and documents which you yourself have 
 produced and relied on : but I have many more 
 witnesses in reserve, and some of them whose credit 
 shall also be confirmed by your introduction and 
 approval. 
 
 In your account of the first efforts of Pope Celestine 
 to relieve " the wants of the Irish, and to appoint 
 " a bishop for the superintendence of their infant 
 " church," (p. 209,) you relate, that " the person 
 " chosen for this mission to the Scots believing in 
 " Christ, (for so it is specified by the chronicler,*) 
 "was Palladius, a deacon of the Roman church".... 
 " and, whatever preachers of the faith, foreign or 
 " native, might have appeared previously in Ireland, 
 " it seems certain that, before this period, no 
 
 * Prosper Chron. Bass, et Antioch. Coss. It is scarcely 
 necessary to state, and quite unnecessary to prove, that, by the 
 Scots, the inhabitants of Ireland were, at that time, exclusively 
 meant. It is not only a truth relied on throughout your work, 
 but one that is denied by no one of any authority that has 
 examined the subject. Us. Prim. p. 754. 
 
6 
 
 " hierarchy had been there instituted ; but that in 
 *' Palladius the Irish Christians saw their first bishop." 
 Now, as this mission is confessedly " to the Scots* 
 believing i7i Christ,'^ it is manifest that there were 
 Christians in Ireland before it took place ; and this 
 is an admission very fully implied by you in this 
 passage. 
 
 I proceed now to a circumstance connected with 
 this last ; and, although it is not mentioned in your 
 History, yet I feel myself particularly bound in 
 candour to bring it forward ; because that, while it 
 shows what was really meant by the chronicler in 
 calling Palladius the first bishop of the Irish, and 
 proves also the existence of the Christian religion 
 at an earlier period than that of St. Patrick's arrival, 
 it gives some colour (although but a colour) to the 
 idea of the original litik with Rome. You know 
 well, and I think you should have mentioned it for 
 the consideration of others, that, in the opinion of 
 Usher, Lloyd, and many writers, the terms Primus 
 Episcopus, used by Prosper, do not signify ^^ first 
 bishop' in point of time, but Primate in point of 
 dignity.f There is an account, which neither Usher 
 or Lloyd felt themselves authorized to reject, that, 
 about the year 400, Kiaranus, Ailbeus, Declanus, 
 and Ibarus, all of them saints of the Irish nation, 
 
 * The Abbe INI'Geoghegan also draws this conclusion in his 
 History, p. 231. 
 
 f Usher's Primordiae, p. 800-99, and Lloyd, Bishop of 
 St. Asaph, of Ant. Cliurch Government, p. 84. It should 
 also be mentioned, that the word Primus does not appear in 
 the best copies of Prosper's Chronicle* Us. Prim. p. 799. 
 
were sent as it is said from Rome, where they had 
 for some time dwelt, and where they were ordained 
 bishops, into Ireland; that in this island they made 
 many conversions; and founded the sees of Ossory, 
 Ardmore, Emly, and Beckerin, (Beg-Erin, or 
 little Erin in Wexford). This was thirty-one years 
 before the alleged period of St. Patrick's mission ; 
 and it was over them that Palladius was, as it is 
 conjectured, appointed Primate, or first bishop, by the 
 Pope.* 
 
 I do not, however, dwell upon this account, espe- 
 cially as it is clear that you do not believe it to 
 be according to the truth ; for, in p. 227, you state 
 Ailbe, Declan, and Ibar to have been " all disciples 
 of St. Patrick ;" in which I entirely agree, for it 
 is quite impossible to reconcile the story of their 
 being active missionaries, and the founders of sees 
 in the year 400, with the record of their respective 
 deaths. I have consulted the Ulster Annals, and 
 find them to place that of Ibar in a.d. 500, and 
 that of Ailbe in 333 ; and the historians of Declan 
 and Kiaran are said to have fixed theirs at about 
 A.D. 530. (Pat. opusc. note, p. 106.) M'Geoghegan 
 states the birth of St. Kieran a.d. 352, and his death 
 A.D. 549. (p. 161 and 163.) I did not think right, 
 however, to pass by this account unnoticed ; if true, it 
 would tend to prove my side of the present argument, 
 although it would assist you in your original link; but, 
 being manifestly fabricated, and so very generally 
 
 * Usher Prim. p. 789, and Lloyd, p. 51. 
 
8 
 
 considered to be, it shews how soon the Roman 
 hagiographers, and other writers, were occupied in their 
 fictions respecting the origin of the Christian faith in 
 Ireland. 
 
 I return to your own admissions, and draw from 
 them a fifth head of proof. You have given us 
 Pelagius and Celestius, who propagated their false 
 opinions about the year of our Lord 400 ; you in- 
 troduce them to our notice thus (p. 206) — "But, 
 " though unfurnished with any direct evidence as 
 " to the religious state of the Irish in their own 
 " country, we have a proof how early they began 
 *' to distinguish themselves on the continent, as 
 " Christian writers and scholars, in the persons of 
 " Pelagius, the eminent heresiarch, and his able 
 "disciple Celestius." And you tell us (p. 209) that 
 it was the account given by St. German and Lupus 
 *' of the increasing 7iumber of Christians" in Ireland, 
 " as well as of the inroads already made upon them 
 *' by the Pelagian doctrines, that induced Pope 
 " Celestine to turn his attention to the wants of the 
 " Irish," and to send them Palladius, as already men- 
 tioned, to their " infant church." Now I must dwell 
 somewhat more at length upon this subject, as one 
 that is most important, when I have first applied this 
 admission to our present argument. We here have 
 acknowledged an " infant church," an " increasing 
 number of Christians," time even for heresies to 
 spring up, and " Christian writers and scholars," so 
 educated at home as to be enabled to " distinguish 
 " themselves on the continent," some time before St. 
 
Patrick is said to have first preached the gospel in 
 this land. Indeed, you present to us this argument 
 yourself, where, in speaking of Celestius, who was 
 doubtless our countryman, you inform us that, "while 
 " yet a youth, and before he had adopted the Pelagian 
 " doctrines," he, from the monastery of St. Martin of 
 Tours, and " a.d. 369, addressed to his parents in 
 " Ireland three letters, in the form, as we are told, 
 " of little books, and full of such piety," as Genna- 
 dius expresses it, " as to make them necessary to all 
 " who love God." (p. 207-8.) These letters, thus 
 written in the year 369, preceded the arrival of 
 St. Patrick by 62 years ; and I cannot avoid remarking 
 that, if your following observation be just, as it must 
 be allowed to be, that " the fact of Celestius thus 
 " sending letters to Ireland, with an implied per- 
 " suasion that they would be read, aifords one of 
 " those incidental proofs of the art of writing being 
 " then known to the Irish, which, combining with 
 " other evidence more direct, can leave but little 
 " upon the subject ;" we may reason in a manner 
 precisely similar, that they equally prove that their 
 subject matter, Christianity, was not unknown to those 
 to whom they were written ; and that the fact itself 
 " affords one of those incidental proofs" in favour of 
 " my argument, which, combining with other evidence 
 " more direct, can leave but little doubt upon the 
 " subject." 
 
 While making these acknowledgments here, you 
 have, nevertheless, sought to promote the great object 
 of your argument, which is to prove, that the orthodox 
 
10 
 
 faith of the ancient Irish church was received from 
 Rome, and agrees with her modern tenets ; and have 
 taken the opportunity of connecting a pestilent and 
 devastating heresy with the doctrines that were first 
 taught in Ireland, independently of that see, when 
 you allege this island to be the place of the birth and 
 early Christian education of the great Heresiarch 
 Pelagius.* But the authorities upon which you rest 
 your conclusion that he was a monk of Bangor, or 
 Banchor, near Carrickfergus, and not of Bangor in 
 Wales, are altogether insufficient to support it ; and 
 very far too weak to form a ground for an insinua- 
 tion so important as that just alluded to. You admit 
 that it is in general asserted that he was a "Briton ;" 
 (p. 206, ) and he is certainly so denominated by the 
 venerable Bede, (Eccl. Hist. lib. 1, c. 10;) and by 
 Prosper, in his Chronicle, who notices him thus — 
 " Pelagius Brito Dei gratiam impugnat." But that 
 which places the matter beyond a doubt, as to his not 
 having been a monk of the Irish Bangor, is the fact, 
 that that monastery was not in existence until a 
 long time after his death. Dr. O'Connor, on whose 
 authority you so often lely, informs us that it was 
 founded by St. Comgal, a.d. 539. If you doubt 
 him, look to the Ulster Annals, a.d. 518, where 
 
 * By the way, if Pelagius be connected at all with Irish 
 doctrines, it must be especially allowed to have been through 
 the countenance given to him by St. Patrick's successors, whose 
 New Testament, the famed Book of Armagh, contains the 
 arguments of Pelagius, or his prologues, to almost all the 
 Epistles. (Betham's Antiq. Res. p. 261, &c.) 
 
11 
 
 it is recorded thus — *' Comgallus, primus abbas 
 Bangorensisj in Hibernia natus." See also ad annos. 
 601 and 602. 
 
 We have now, by testimonies derived from your 
 own admissions, brought up the introduction of Chris- 
 tianity into Ireland, to a period preceding the year 
 of our Lord, 369. I shall, in the next place, inquire 
 of you, upon what principles of evidence do you put 
 aside the testimony of Tertullian, a writer of unques- 
 tionable authority as to facts, and whom you have 
 elsewhere relied on ? (p. 238.) He wrote about the 
 year 201 ; and, alluding to the progress of the Gospel, 
 he affirms thus — *' Britannorum inaccessa Romanis 
 loca, Christo vero subdita." (p. 206.) This important 
 sentence you present with the following neutralizing 
 comment : — " To what extent Christianity had spread 
 " in Ireland before the mission of St. Patrick, there 
 " are no very accurate means of judging. The boast" 
 — (why should it be called the boast?) — "of Tertul- 
 " lian, that in his time a knowledge of the Christian 
 " faith had reached those parts of the British isles, 
 " yet unapproached by the Romans, is supposed to 
 " imply as well Ireland as the northern regions of 
 " Britain" — and doubtless it must include Ireland, or 
 there would be no meaning in the plural Britanno- 
 rum — " nor are there wanting," you proceed to say, 
 " writers who, placing reliance on the assertion of 
 " Eusebius, that some of the Apostles preached the 
 "Gospel in the British isles, suppose St. James to 
 " have been the promulgator of the faith among the 
 " Irish." Now, my dear sir, I would not hesitate to 
 
12 
 
 refer to your own decision, to be made upon calmer 
 reflection, whether or not you are perfectly just in thus 
 confounding the clear testimony of a direct, impartial, 
 and unquestioned authority, such as is Tertullian, 
 upon a mere matter of fact, with second-hand and 
 wild deductions drawn from general declarations. 
 You could not possibly have thought that these two, 
 (to wit, original assertion of a fact, and conjectures 
 based upon the assertion of a fact,) possessed the same 
 character of credibility ; and you should not have 
 presented them thus coupled together to your readers. 
 Permit me, at all events,, to enroll this slighted evi- 
 dence of an ancient Father among' my proofs, until 
 something better than ridicule or contempt be brought 
 forward to invalidate it. 
 
 I must now pass on from the re-examination of your 
 witnesses, to the production of some new ones of my 
 own ; such indeed as you should have, in my opinion, 
 taken notice of also. It is surely the duty of an his- 
 torian to detail to his reader all the important facts 
 connected with his subject, and to withhold nothing 
 from him that may bear upon it, although it may not 
 favor the peculiar bias of his mind. I think, there- 
 fore, you are to blame in that, either when adverting 
 to the introduction of Christianity into Ireland, or in 
 discussing the question of the dependence of the Irish 
 on the Romish church, you have not transcribed into 
 your history any part of that which Bede has recorded, 
 respecting the arguments used at the celebrated 
 Synod of Whitby; but have contented yourself with 
 merely remarking, (p. 282,) " that, after speeches 
 
13 
 
 " and replies on both sides, of which Bede has pre- 
 " served the substance, the king" and the assembly at 
 " large agreed to give their decision in favor of Wil- 
 " fred." Permit me to supply the defect. You have 
 rightly informed your readers that, in the year 664, 
 this synod or council was assembled at Whitby, in 
 Yorkshire, for the purpose of discussing, before the 
 King Oswin, the question respecting the proper time 
 for celebrating the festival of Easter, and some other 
 points, in which the ancient Irish differed from the 
 Romish church. " The arguments," as you relate, 
 (p. 281-2, ) "were temperately and learnedly brought 
 "forward by St. Colman," (a monk of the Colum- 
 bian order, who had been sent thither to fill 
 the high office of bishop,) " with his Irish clergy, 
 " speaking in defence of the old observances of the 
 " country ; while Wilfred, a learned priest, who had 
 *' been recently to Rome, undertook to prove the 
 " truth and universality of the Roman method." In 
 his argument, St. Colman made use of the following 
 remarkable words : — " This Easter, which I use to 
 *' observe, I received from my elders, who sent me 
 " bishop hither ; which all our fathers, men beloved 
 " of God, are known to have celebrated after the 
 " same manner. It is the same which the blessed 
 " Evangelist St. John, the disciple specially beloved 
 " of the Lord, with all the churches that he did 
 " oversee, is read to have celebrated." And again : — 
 " Can it be believed that such men as our venerable 
 " father Columba, and his successors, would have 
 " thought or acted things contrary to the precepts 
 
14 
 
 "of the sacrod pages?" — (Bed. Ecc. Hist. Lib. I. 
 c. 25.) It is exceedingly remarkable, that neither in 
 the passages now quoted, nor in any part of the 
 account, is there any mention whatsoever made by the 
 Irish clergy of St. Patrick, or of their deference to 
 the see of Rome. You assert, in speaking of the 
 dispute about the mode of tonsure, which was " mixed 
 up throughout with the Paschal question," (p. 283-4,) 
 that, " on the part of the Irish, the real motive for 
 " clinging so fondly to their old custom was, that it 
 " had been introduced among them, with all their 
 " (H.her ecclesiastical ruleS and usages, by St. Patrick." 
 And again: — "When St. Patrick came on his mission 
 " to Ireland, he introduced the same method of 
 " Paschal computation — which was tJien* practised at 
 " Rome." — (p. 268.) Now, I think it quite suffi- 
 cient to refer to the history of this council for a proof 
 of your erroneous views upon the subject. What- 
 ever may have influenced the minds of the southern 
 Irish, ("Gentes Scotorum quae in australibus Hiber- 
 " nise insulae partibus morabantur." — Bede Ecc. Hist. 
 1. 3, c. 3,) " some of their greatest saints, the monks 
 " of the abbey of Hy, and many others among the 
 " northern Scots," (as the] Abbe M'Geoghegan ex- 
 presses himself,) rejected the proposed innovation ; 
 and, in their reasonings upon the subject, drew all 
 their arguments of authority and traditions, not from 
 St. Patrick or St. Peter, but solely from St. Columb- 
 
 * This method, which was not correct, was afterwards changed 
 at Rome ; but adhered to by the original churches of the British 
 isles, with somewhat of unreasonable pertinacity. 
 
15 
 
 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 venera- 
 ble 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. 
 
16 
 
 his history within sixty-seven years of the transac- 
 tion 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 to-nsure, ' 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. Ees. 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 vene- 
 ration in the minds of the Irish Christians, as is now supposed 
 to tave 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. Cokunbkille and his suc- 
 CLssors. 
 
17 
 
 rules, but that even Christianity itself, were intro- 
 duced by Christian Missionaries taught by St. 
 Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, the pupil of Polycarp of 
 Smyrna, the immediate disciple of St. John — the 
 truth of this tradition is very much confirmed by the 
 above mentioned argument of St. Colman, more 
 especially as it appears in the life of Wilfred, by 
 two of his biographers. One of these relates, that 
 St. Colman said thus: " We with the same confi- 
 " dence celebrate the same, as his disciples Poly- 
 " carpus 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 ; 
 <' Discipulo Eusebii Polycarpo dante Johannis," &c. 
 
 " We hold by our country's course," or usage, — and 
 not "frivolous writings — such as was given by Poly- 
 carp " 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, 
 " there is no doubt, are to be found in the records 
 " and transactions of that period." The fact of this 
 
 * c 
 
li 
 
 connexion you admit; of its traces you have no 
 doubt ; and I therefore cannot but advance it as one 
 <)f those " incidental proofs," in favour of my argu- 
 ment, 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. "Had 
 " such instances, however," you say, " been numerous 
 " enough even to prove more than a casual and occa- 
 " sional intercourse with those regions, it would not 
 " have served the purpose this reverend antiquary 
 " sought to gain ; 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 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 bears upon 
 the question, I shall subjoin, in a note, the opi- 
 nions of St. Irenaeus respecting the Romish church, 
 which will prove you to be somewhat under a mis- 
 take in respect to the latter part of your assertion.* 
 
 * He complains of it thus — " That the schismatics at Rome 
 « had corrupted the sincere law of the church, which led to 
 
19 
 
 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 Coelestius, 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 iEgypto pulsus ab 
 " Arianis, vitam monasticam, usque ad id tempus in 
 " occidente ignominiosam ; Scotis, Attacottis, aliis- 
 " que barbaris Romanum imperium vastantibus; S.S. 
 " Ambrosio et Martino opem ferentibus ; propalaret, 
 «ann. circ. 336." (O'Con. Proleg. I. p. 78.) Let 
 this passage be translated in what manner it may, it 
 affords me, if genuine, an authority for connecting 
 the Scots, or Irish, with Christianity, in the year 336. 
 
 •' 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 1 should suffer such things !'" — 
 Euseb. lib. v. c. 20 ; in Ledwich's Antiquities. 
 
20 
 
 It is a curious fact, and one of some importance on 
 this head, that the use of the Greek alphabet was 
 employed in the writing of one of the most ancient 
 books that we possess in Ireland — the book of 
 Armagh. Sir W. Betham has presented us with a 
 fac simile from it of the Pater Noster, written in 
 Greek capitals, (in Antiq. Res. 2d part;) I have 
 myself particularly observed the use of such letters 
 in this book ; for instance, in the word finitum^, in 
 the subscription to one of the Gospels, where the 
 Greek letter occurs, instead of f^ thus, (^iinitwfn. 
 This circumstance is the more extraordinary, as the 
 Irish f possesses the full force of ; had the 
 Greek % indeed been used instead of the ch or 
 the dotted c, which are now employed, rather 
 clumsily, (and in an inscription in the Book of 
 Armagh several times,) to express the power of 
 that letter, it would not have been so remarkable. 
 This circumstance cannot be accounted for by any 
 hypothesis short of a primitive intercourse between 
 the Irish Christians and the Greeks. In fine, on 
 this head I think the foregoing account of the 
 argument at Whitby is irresistible evidence ; espe- 
 cially when we connect it with the universally 
 acknowledged existence, at the earliest period in 
 Ireland, of all those peculiarities which especially 
 distinguished the eastern church. The following fact 
 must not be passed over unnoticed. It is recorded 
 in the Greek life of St. Chrysostom, which you will 
 find in Saville's edition of his works, (in T. viii. p. 321), 
 that "rti/es KXrjpiKOi tCjv WKeavcKWP pijatvv" — "certain 
 
21 
 
 " clergymen, who dwelt in the isles of the ocean," 
 repaired from the utmost borders of the habitable 
 world to Constantinople, between the years 842 and 
 847, when Methudius was Patriarch there, to inquire 
 ** of certain ecclesiastical traditions, and the perfect 
 " and exact computation of Easter." So tenacious 
 were these islanders, who were most probably Irish, of 
 their traditional customs ; and so lively, even at this 
 late period, their veneration for that church, from 
 which they confessedly received them. 
 
 In following up this latter argument, a new one pre- 
 sents itself, in favor of an early entrance of the Gospel 
 into Ireland, from the testimony of St. Chrysostom 
 — a Greek father, who wrote about the year 400 ; and 
 who, in three several passages of his works, refers to 
 the existence of Christianity in the British Isles; 
 one of these you have yourself relied on (p. 237, 
 note,) as an authority for the ancient reception in 
 Ireland of a peculiar Roman Catholic doctrine. In 
 his Tract, " Quod Christus sit Deus," written circ. 
 A. D. 388, (Ed. Sav. T. vi. p. 635,) he says, as 
 thus rendered into Latin, " Britannicae insulae, virtu- 
 *' tem verbi senserunt ; sunt enim etiam illic fundatae 
 " ecclesiae, et erecta altaria," — " for there also," 
 within the British isles, " are churches established, 
 *' and altars erected." Again, in his 28th sermon on 
 the 2d epistle to the Cor. 12. (iii. 696.) " In quam- 
 " cunque Ecclesiam ingressus fueris, sive apud Mauros, 
 " sive apud ipsas Britannicas insulas, &c." " Into what- 
 *' soever church you should enter, whether among the 
 *' Moors, or in those British islesy &c." The third 
 
22 
 
 instance I shall enlarge on in another place; it is where 
 he says, " although thou shouldst go to the ocean, and 
 " those British isles, &c. thou shouldst hear all 
 " men, every where, discoursing matters out of the 
 " Scriptures." Tom. viii. p. Ill, 
 
 I shall briefly allude to some glimmerings of light 
 which our native annals, or other documents, have 
 cast upon the subject now before us. In writing of 
 Cormac, king of Ireland, about the year of our Lord 
 254, you mention, (p. 132) that "by some writers it 
 " is alleged, that he was converted to Christianity seven 
 "years before his death'; being, it is added, the third 
 " person in Ireland who professed that faith before the 
 " coming of St. Patrick." Allusions are made, in a 
 poem supposed to have been written about the year 
 220, by Olioll Olura, king of Munster, which de- 
 monstrate that the writer was at least acquainted with 
 the existence of the Christian religion ; and, for that 
 reason, Mr. O'Reilly, the secretary of the Iberno- 
 Celtic Society, concludes, but somewhat too hastily, 
 in a note to the Transactions of that body, that the 
 poem must be of a later date. 
 
 These slight gleamings shew nothing perhaps sepa- 
 rately, and indeed they are but individual in- 
 stances; but I trust that I have now produced 
 abundance of " other evidence more direct," which 
 will fully bear me out in my first assertion, " that 
 " the account which you have given of the first intro- 
 " duction of Christianity into Ireland is erroneous ;" 
 and that it was not only known, but established 
 there, long previously to the year 431. 
 
23 
 
 There is still a strong matter of presumptive evi- 
 dence in reserve, to be collected from the certainty of 
 the preaching of the Gospel in Great Britain, long 
 before it was visited by St. Austin ; and the great im- 
 probability that, while the intercourse between that 
 country and Ireland was confessedly quite continual, 
 no spring of missionary zeal should have existed, to 
 press it into a pagan land within sight even of its 
 shores. Whether Tertullian was right or wrong in the 
 fact, his expressions, as descriptive of the Evange- 
 lical Spirit, is no boast ; and it is almost incredible, 
 that its zeal should have lain frozen for centuries on a 
 coast but 18 miles distant ; within view of the fire 
 tower, and of the burning hecatombs to Moloch ; and 
 have left it to an emissary from Rome, in the year 
 431, to raise the first outcry against such abomi- 
 nations. This is very unlike the history of that 
 religion which, even in the lifetime of the first 
 Apostle of the Gentiles, was already preached in all 
 the Roman world ; and becomes absolutely incredible, 
 when we consider the persecutions which, for the first 
 three centuries, pressed its preachers continually west- 
 ward. The fact — which appears from your own admis- 
 sion, and which Bede has distinctly asserted — that, 
 before the arrival of Saint Austin, the British and Irish 
 churches agreed in several points both of discipline 
 and of doctrine, in which they differed diametrically 
 from the church of Rome, and to which they obsti- 
 nately adhered in contempt of her authority, demon- 
 strates still further the truth, of an early mutual 
 connexion, under circumstances quite independent of 
 the interference of that See. 
 
24 
 
 I shall now proceed to demonstrate, in the second 
 place, that the opinion you have advocated of the 
 doctrines inculcated by the first missionaries, saints, 
 and teachers in that country is, with scarcely a single 
 exception, mistaken. 
 
 I shall in this part of our discussion be much more 
 diffuse ; for, as has already been stated, it is a matter 
 of very little comparative importance whether it was 
 from Rome or from Greece, from the disciples of St. 
 Peter or St. John, that Ireland received the first 
 truths of the gospel, if it appear that its primitive 
 saints, and among them the acknowledged mission- 
 aries of Rome, " on most of the leading points of 
 " Christian doctrine, professed the opinions at present 
 " entertained by Protestants." This is the allegation 
 of Archbishop Usher, of which you declare that 
 " rarely has there been hazarded an assertion so little 
 *' grounded on fact.'' (p. 237.) Now, sir, in taking 
 up the gauntlet for this wise and learned man, " the 
 " admirable Usher," as you justly style him, I shall 
 endeavour to prove these observations of yours to be 
 peculiarly applicable to your own argument ; and, 
 selecting the period of nearly two centuries from the 
 alleged arrival of St. Patrick in Ireland, or from the 
 year 431 to a.d. 600,* I shall shew that, within that 
 
 • The year 600 is a most proper period to fix on, as it was 
 about this time that St. Austin was sent on his mission to the 
 English by Pope Gregory the First, and submission to the see 
 of Rome was especially and urgently claimed from the British 
 Christians. But it is particularly suitable upon another and a 
 national account, which I shall explain from Usher's Primordia, 
 913, as quoted and relied on by the Abbe M'Geoghegan, (Hist. 
 
25 
 
 time, none of the particular tenets of the church of 
 Rome that are mentioned in your book, and against 
 which the reformed church at present protests, were 
 holden by the early Irish Christians. In doing so, I 
 shall transcribe all that you have put forth in text or 
 note, in your short four pages, upon each separate 
 head, in order that I may do the greater justice to 
 your argument. I shall then refute the substance, in 
 the order in which you have advanced it ; and still 
 further endeavour, if possible, to fix the date of the 
 entrance of each particular doctrine into the creed of 
 the Irish Roman Catholic church ; and to demonstrate, 
 that they are all of them condemned by or contrary 
 to the Scriptures, and therefore could none of them 
 
 D'Irlande, V. 1, p. 321). " Usserius," he says, " apres un 
 "ancient MS. autentique, distingue trois differentes classes de 
 "saints dans I'lrlande, qui correspondent aut cinquieme et 
 " sixieme siecles." These differed from the rest of Christendom 
 in their liturgy, &c. mass, modes of tonsure, and time of cele- 
 brating Easter; and of them it is quaintly said — " Primus ordo 
 " sanctissimus, secundus ordo sanctior, tertius sanctus ; primus 
 " sicut sol ardescit, secundus sicut luna, tertius sicut 
 " stellfE," &c. "the first order was most holy, the second 
 " holier, the third holy ; the first glows as the sun, the second 
 *• as the moon, the third as the stars." The first continued from 
 St. Patrick, a.d. 431, during four reigns, to a.e. 515, or, as you 
 make it, a.d. 542 ; the second during four more, to a.d. 558 ; 
 the third for other four, to about the year 600. I will there- 
 fore extend n)y period of pure doctrine to that date j al- 
 though, upon the authority of this very document, approved of 
 by M'Geoghegan, and acquiesced in to some extent by your- 
 self, (p. 241.) I might have perhaps more properly limited it 
 to A.D. 542, or at the latest 558. It must not be omitted 
 that it affords, at the very setting out, decided proofs of a rapid 
 degeneracy in the Irish church ; I refer the reader to the ori- 
 ginal, in order that he may see this fully exhibited. 
 
26 
 
 have been maintained by the very primitive teachers 
 of Christianity, the apostles and evangelists. They 
 are like the rust that covered the shield of Scriblerus, 
 which, although it could not have been so antiquated 
 as that which it encrusted, yet gave to it, in the eyes 
 of many an antiquarian, its only value; while common 
 sense could not but discover that, while it proved its 
 antiquity, it was only by presenting the melancholy 
 proofs of corruption. 
 
 But, previously to entering upon the argument, I 
 feel it to be quite necessary to make some prefatory 
 observations, respecting the manner in which you have 
 treated the subject, and the grounds upon which your 
 opinions are founded — the documents to which you 
 refer, and on which you rely. 
 
 With respect to the first, it is essential to point it out, 
 lest your reader should be deluded into false impres- 
 sions, through the effect of your apparent indiflference to 
 the importance of the subject. Is a question which 
 deeply influences the prejudices of our destitute and 
 ignorant people, in regard to their best interests in this 
 world, and their entire concerns in an eternal one, deser- 
 ving of serious consideration, or not ? If it be, why have 
 you so much neglected the proper duty of an historian, 
 as to give it so very small a proportion of yours ? 
 Again — is all " the learning of the admirable Usher" 
 worthy of only four pages' notice in your book, toge- 
 ther with this small meed of extorted praise ? Or is 
 the subject beneath the dignity of history to descend 
 to ? Are your facts so manifest, so indisputable, so 
 conceded, that they need only to be stated that they 
 
27 
 
 may be received ? or are your arguments so over- 
 whelming, or your own authority so preponderating, 
 that conviction and concession must necessarily follow 
 in your wake ? I confess that it does not strike me 
 so ; on the contrary, your conduct as an historian 
 does appear to be most reprehensible, whether it be 
 viewed with reference to the manner in which you 
 have exhibited and disposed of the reasoning of others, 
 or attempted, ex cathedra, to impose your own opinion 
 upon the public ; and I perceive much in it of that 
 modern method of brushing away all that is venerable, 
 with bustling and bold assertion ; of throwing into a 
 lumber corner, sober history, as an obselete ephemeris; 
 and of establishing preconceived system upon the light 
 proof of unsifted report : this, my dear sir, may very 
 well answer a political and momentary purpose, but 
 can never assist in accomplishing a literary or durable 
 object. 
 
 With respect to the documents which you refer to, 
 1 object, in the first place, to your manner of quoting 
 them. It is necessary, in my own defence, to state, 
 that in this you greatly embarrass those who dissent 
 from you ; and too often, like the ink-fish, compel 
 them to contend with you in darkened waters. For 
 instance, you make no special reference to the writings 
 where Rome is styled, the " Head of Cities." — 
 (I select this only for example) — you do not refer 
 to the books, or pages of books, where we shall find 
 your ancient canons, and other proofs; nor to that 
 part of the lives of St. Brendan, St. Bridget, or of 
 other works, from which you have borrowed certain 
 
28 
 
 passages. This, besides giving your opponent some 
 trouble, and putting difficulties in his way, which in 
 this case I trust I have surmounted, compels him to the 
 proof of a negative ; and, unless he have perused all 
 the authors to which you allude, and made the fullest 
 possible research — in one place among the eight folio 
 volumes of Chrysostom's difficult Greek — he never can 
 with confidence either deny your conclusions, or answer 
 them ; or be assured that they are those precisely to 
 which you meant to advert. This is obviously a great 
 disadvantage to me, and a very unforensic mode of 
 arguing on your part ; and I feel myself compelled to 
 add, that many of your quotations bear with them 
 internal evidence, that you have frequently taken 
 them at second hand, and without consulting the 
 original documents referred to. 
 
 I object also very much to the authorities upon 
 which you do rely ; you have endeavoured to fix a 
 false credit upon certain which are of little or no 
 value ; and have, as we have already seen, attempted 
 to cast others of the first stamp entirely into the 
 shade, or to disparage them altogether. Thus it is 
 that while, with very inadequate salvos (p. '233, 236), 
 you have set forward with too high a character, and 
 amply quoted, .the dark biography of your bigoted 
 monks, or the twilight glimmerings of our more 
 enlightened annalists, you have often entirely ex- 
 cluded, or very cautiously admitted, the light that 
 beamed from the collected learning of Usher, or 
 that would illustrate the subject from the dim but 
 steady lamp of tlie venerable Bede. You have 
 
29 
 
 embodied into history many of the vague accounts 
 given of your hero St. Patrick, so as, with consum- 
 mate ingenuity, to present us with a picture only 
 short of the miraculous,* but well set off with the 
 marvellous, and adorned with " circumstances," as 
 you express it, (p. 218) "full of what may be called 
 the poesy of real life ;" while you have disembodied 
 from history many of the dull prose facts of the 
 most intelligent, and most accredited, of the early 
 writers of the Roman Catholic Church in these 
 islands. 
 
 But I shall, notwithstanding, take up the gauntlet 
 that you have thrown down ; and shall even contend 
 against you with none but Roman Catholic writers 
 or authorities, and not state a fact singly from 
 any Protestant witness whom you have not yourself 
 produced. With respect to St. Patrick and his 
 works, it is necessary still further to remark, that I 
 have considered the arguments on both sides, con- 
 tending for and denying the existence of this saint, 
 in his character of apostle of Ireland, and have 
 inquired into the genuineness of his Opuscula ; and 
 I think the weight of argument to be in favour of 
 the affirmative side, so far as to establish him as a 
 
 * I am more pleased with the open avowal of M'Geoghegan, 
 and other Roman Catholic writers, of the miracles wrought 
 by St. Patrick, rejecting, indeed, the absurdity of modern 
 legends — the words of the Abbe are as follows (Hist. D'lr- 
 lande, y. i. p. 237) : — " Cependant on ne doit pas douter 
 " qu'il n'en ai fait plusieurs bien veritables. II a fallu que 
 « Dieu lui ait donne ce pouvoir, pour convertir un peuple 
 "idolatre." 1 shall make some observations on this point, 
 towards the end of this letter. 
 
30 
 
 great and holy man, a chief, but not the first, 
 missionary to this island; to stamp with doubt 
 his letter to Coroticus, and to believe his con- 
 fession, as " authentic writings from his hand ;" and 
 to give credit to some of the canons of such of his 
 synods as you refer to as authentic also. (p. 223.) 
 Among other reasons for my agreeing with you in 
 thinking that the confession is genuine, is the great 
 purity of the Christian doctrine that pervades it ; 
 the holy breath of prayer that forms its atmos- 
 phere, and the frequent reference to the sole 
 authority of Scripture that is to be found in it. It 
 is also certain that the version of the Bible thus 
 so often appealed to is peculiar, and common to the 
 copies that have been found in Ireland ; it is in Latin, 
 and differs somewhat from that of Jerome, agreeing 
 rather with the rendering of the Greek* Septuagint, 
 
 * I must take this opportunity of explaining myself upon 
 one point, that I may avoid the appearance either of con- 
 tradiction, or of credulity. If I quote from the ancient account 
 given of the three orders of saints, from the canons of early 
 synods, or from any other documents relied on hy Roman 
 Catholic writers, I am not to be considered as admitting them 
 to be genuine, but merely as using the weapons of my adver- 
 saries in that style of logical reasoning well known as an 
 argumentum ad kominem. Thus, if I show, from the context 
 of the Book of Armagh, that a canon quoted from it does not 
 justify your conclusions, I am not, therefore, to be supposed 
 to set up that Book as authority. As for the works edited by 
 Sir James Ware, under the title of "Opuscula S. Patricii," I 
 have, upon maturer acquaintance, learned to consider the far 
 greater part of them to be spurious or corrupted, always 
 excepting the confession. The same experience in research 
 increases my conviction, that the great missionary Patrick was 
 not an emissary of the see of Rome ; and that his having been 
 so is the gratuitous assumption of Romanists of later ages. 
 
31 
 
 than with it, in places where these versions differ from 
 each other. 
 
 The first tenet you mention is perhaps the most 
 material of any, although it is not a point of doctrine, 
 because it is connected with the great authority which 
 influences all. — You introduce it thus : " We find in 
 " a caiion of one of the earliest synods held in Ireland, 
 " a clear acknowledgment of the supremacy of the 
 " Roman See. Nor was this recognition confined 
 " merely to words ; as, on the very first serious 
 " occasion of controversy which presented itself, the 
 " dispute relative to the time of celebrating Easter, it 
 *' was resolved, conformably to the words of this canon, 
 " that the question should be referred to the Head of 
 " Cities ; and, a deputation being accordingly des- 
 " patched to Rome for the purpose, the Roman 
 " practice on this point was ascertained and adopted." 
 Now that a certain degree of honour, but very far 
 indeed short of supremacy, was given to the See of 
 Rome, and was in some manner acknowledged by the 
 church that was promoted by St. Patrick in Ireland, 
 cannot be doubted ; and it necessarily followed from 
 the connexion which is allowed to have been formed 
 with it by that saint — so far you have truth on your 
 side — but, on this small stock you had no right to 
 graft the allegations with which the above sentence 
 abounds. In refutation of them I am prepared to 
 shew, first, that there is no genuine canon of an 
 ancient Irish synod, acknowledging the supremacy of 
 Rome ; and none at all that contains words denomi- 
 nating her the " Head of Cities" — Secondly, that, 
 
32 
 
 " on the very first serious occasion of controversy that 
 " presented itself," which was not that respecting Easter, 
 the question was not referred hy the Irish Christians 
 to Rome ; but on the contrary, her interference in it 
 was entirely slighted by them — Thirdly, that in " the 
 " dispute relative to the time of celebrating Easter," 
 the facts were very different indeed from what you 
 have represented them to be — Fourthly, that nothing 
 like the supremacy now acknowledged by the Roman 
 Catholics was attributed to Rome, by the Irish 
 Church, for two centuries after the arrival of St. 
 Patrick — nor, fifthly, could such a claim have existed, 
 or been made, until above a century after his decease. 
 There is no genuine canon of an ancient Irish 
 synod, acknowledging the supremacy of Rome ; and 
 none at all containing the words, " the Head of 
 Cities," as referring to her. That to which I presume 
 you allude, is taken from an ancient book of the 
 church of Armagh, and will be found quoted by 
 Archbishop Usher, in his Religion of the Ancient 
 Irish, p. 87. It is not among those whose " authen- 
 " ticity has been by high and critical authority 
 *' admitted ;" but manifestly one of those which you 
 say are " pronounced to be of a much later date,'* 
 p. 223; and therefore it has been excluded by 
 Spelman and Wilkins, from their collections, and 
 from the canons edited among St. Patrick's Opuscula, 
 by Sir James Ware. It does indeed contain internal 
 proofs of its much later origin, for it speaks of a 
 reference, for judgment in the first instance, " ad 
 *'cathedram Archiepiscopi Hiberniensiura, i. e. Pa- 
 
33 
 
 " tricii ;" "to the chair of the Archbishop of the Irish, i.e. 
 "Patrick;" while the fact is undoubted, and thus stated 
 in your own words (p. 224), that "it was not till 
 " the beginning of the eighth century that the title of 
 ** Archbishop was known in Ireland." 
 
 The words of this canon, making mention of the See 
 of Rome, are as follows — it decrees, of any cause 
 which cannot readily be determined by the prelate of 
 Armagh, " ad sedem Apostolicam decrevimus esse 
 " mittendam, id est ad Petri Apostoli cathedram, 
 " auctoritatem Romse urbis habentem ;" — " we decree 
 " that it shall be sent to the Apostolic See, that is, 
 " to the chair of the Apostle Peter, having the 
 " authority of the city of Rome." Whosoever 
 desires to see this decree, with its retinue of 
 apocryphal matter, will find it transcribed from 
 the Book of Armagh into Sir William Betham's 
 Antiquarian Researches, p. 415-6 ; and I am confi- 
 dent that you will no longer rely on it, when you 
 learn, that the document in which it appears in the 
 above-mentioned book, repeats the very story of St. 
 Brigid's acquaintance with St. Patrick, which you 
 have stated to be impossible in fact. It asserts that, 
 " between St. Patrick, and Brigid, and St. Columba, 
 " a friendship of love took place, so great that they 
 " had but one heart and design." You have fixed 
 the death of St. Patrick to the year 465, (p. 226) 
 and the birth of St. Columbkille to 521 (p. 242 ;) 
 and you tell us, very truly (p. 258), that Brigid 
 " was a child of twelve years old when St. Patrick 
 
34 
 
 " died ;" and " died herself A. D. 525, four years 
 ** after the birth of St. Columbkille" — as for the 
 friendship of the former for the latter of these saints 
 it must have been posthumous indeed — so much for 
 the credibility of this precious record.* 
 
 I have made some inquiry respecting the epithet, 
 " Head of Cities ; " and the first occasion on which I 
 find it applied by the Irish to Rome, is in the letter 
 of Cummianus, which you mention in your 271st 
 page, and to which I shall hereafter refer (see 
 Sylloge, p. 34.) — It was written about the year 633. 
 I find the same epithet' in the letter of St. Adamna- 
 nus, in the same collection (p. 43), which bears 
 date A. D. 700; both of these years were more 
 than two centuries after the first arrival of St. 
 Patrick ; and the canon above quoted, if at all 
 genuine, must have been of still later date. 
 
 But, secondly, " the first serious occasion of con- 
 troversy" was not that concerning Easter ; nor was 
 its decision referred by the Irish Christians to Rome : 
 the contrary was the fact, and your own book shall 
 prove it. The date of the paschal dispute was A. D. 
 633, or thereabouts — (see your Hist. p. 272.) We 
 shall turn now to the 264th page.^ "It is supposed," 
 you say, " to have been during his stay at Milan, 
 " that Columbanus addressed that spirited letter to 
 
 * I must be excused if I hesitate to give any further opinion 
 here respecting the Book of Armagh, not having had an oppor- 
 tunity to examine its contents and their handwriting, since I 
 have had reason to suspect that it contains much apocryphal 
 matter. 
 
35 
 
 " Boniface IV. respecting the question of the three 
 *' chapters," Now, this letter, and this discussion, must 
 have preceded the paschal controversy by some 
 years ; for you inform us that St. Columbanus died 
 "on the 21st of November, A.D. 615." That this 
 question, the nature of which I need not detail, was 
 a serious one, you have sufficiently proved, where 
 you represent it to have engaged the attention of 
 princes, in a manner that " awakened the alarm of 
 the Roman court," and formed a subject for " the 
 " decision of the fifth general council held in the 
 " year 553 :" it indeed agitated the entire Christian 
 world, and was therefore a serious, as well as a pre- 
 vious, occasion. Your comment on this letter is as 
 follows : — " Setting aside the consideration of the 
 " saint's orthodoxy on this point, his letter cannot 
 " but be allowed the praise of unshrinking manliness 
 " and vigour. Addressing Boniface himself in no 
 " very complaisant terms, he speaks of his prede- 
 " cessor, Pope Vigilius, with bitter, and in some 
 " respects deserved, reproach; declaring that pope to 
 " have been the prime mover of all the scandal that 
 " had occuiTed." But this, you say, is " compatible" 
 with " the most profound and implicit reverence 
 " towards the papacy." What — to abuse two succes- 
 sive popes, and in this manner, and upon a question 
 of orthodoxy ! I leave this to the reader to determine. 
 At all events, you are surely under the obliga- 
 tion of proving that ^'profound and implicit reverence" 
 by some overt act, and not merely to imagine it first, 
 and then to make conclusions from it. Yet it may 
 
36 
 
 be said, and with far more propriety, that, after all, 
 St. Columbanus was only an individual, and not the 
 Irish church ; but that he spoke the sentiments of 
 that church is quite indisputable from the testimony 
 of Cardinal Baronius, with which you must have 
 been acquainted, for it has been quoted by Archbishop 
 Usher (p. 69), in his work which you refute. The 
 cardinal informs us that " all the bishops that were 
 " in Ireland^ with most earnest study, rose up jointly 
 '•''for the defence of the three chapters. And, when 
 " they perceived that the church of Rome did both 
 ** receive the condemnation of the three chapters, and 
 " strengthen the fifth synod with her consent, they 
 " departed from her, and clave to the rest of the 
 " schismatics — animated with that vain confidence, 
 " that they did stand for the Catholic faith, while 
 " they defended those things that were concluded 
 " in the council of Chalcedon ;" against which the 
 decree of the fifth synod was opposed. Whether or 
 not the Irish deserved the name of schismatics I shall 
 not now inquire ; the entire transaction demonstrates, 
 that any connexion our early church might have had 
 previously with Rome was quite voluntary and in- 
 dependent ; and that, so far from acknowledging her 
 supremacy, " on the very first serious occasion of 
 " controversy which presented itself," the Irish bishops 
 decidedly and unanimously opposed and rejected her 
 authority. The date of this occurrence in Baronius' 
 annals is 566, sixty-seven years before that which you 
 call the first occasion, and which I now come to — the 
 reference to the "Head of Cities" on the controversy 
 respecting Easter. 
 
37 
 
 This matter divides itself into two distinct histories, 
 the relation of which will demonstrate, that you had 
 no right whatsoever to assert, that for the decision of 
 the question, " a deputation was despatched to Rome" 
 by the Irish church. That deputation, of which you 
 have given an account in your 271st page, was sent 
 so late as the year 633 ; and, as Bede expressly in- 
 forms us, (lib. 3, c. 3, Ec. Hist.) and you have allowed, 
 by the inhabitants of the southern part of the island 
 — " Gentes Scotorura quse in Australibus Hibernicse 
 "insulae partibus morabantur." We have already 
 seen that the Abbe M'Geoghegan has stated, that the 
 Roman mode of celebrating Easter was not conformed 
 to by " some of their greatest saints, viz. St. Colum- 
 " banus, St. Columba, St. Aidan, St. Finian, St. 
 <' Colman, the monks of the Abbey of Hy, and many 
 " others among the northern Scots," or Irish — the re- 
 ference, therefore, made to Rome was not by the 
 native Irish church. But even in the manner in 
 which the story of that deputation is told by Cum- 
 mianus, in his letter, although he confers upon Rome 
 the respectful title of the "Head of Cities," it appears 
 manifest, that she was not then considered as pos- 
 sessing, solely and exclusively, the supreme authority 
 in ecclesiastical matters. He does, indeed, as you 
 have mentioned, (p. 272,) enforce " the great argu- 
 " ment derived from the unity of the church ;" but 
 he also relies, as you have not thought fit to mention, 
 on "the canonical decree of the fourfold apostolic 
 " SEE, to wit, of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and 
 " Alexandria." " Statutum canonicum quaternce sedis 
 
38 
 
 " Apostolicce, Romanse, viz. Hierosolymitaiise, An- 
 " tiochenae, Alexandrinae." So that it appears, even 
 after our limit of time, A.D. 600, that, in whatever 
 degree of estimation the Head of Cities might have 
 been possibly holden, she was not considered, even 
 by her best friends in Ireland, as solely supreme in 
 matters of ecclesiastical controversy. 
 
 But there is another portion of this subject which 
 remains to be considered. The greatest of the Irish 
 saints, and the northern part of the island, united with 
 the monks of lona, in adhering, quite in opposition to 
 Rome, to the ancient mode of celebrating Easter. 
 This fact you acknowledge, (p. 273,) although 
 not so fully as it is to be implied from Bede. The 
 account of the Synod of Whitby, as related by that 
 historian, has been given before; the arguments made 
 use of by the Irish clergy at that meeting were, the 
 practice of St. Columbkille and his successors, tradi- 
 tionally continued from St. John the Apostle ; not a 
 single word of St. Patrick, or St. Peter. I have 
 remarked upon this most striking fact before, in con- 
 nection with our consideration of the former of those 
 saints, as the first great missionary from Rome ; I 
 shall urge it here again, as it bears upon the supre- 
 macy of St. Peter — and strange to say, so far from this 
 being referred to by the Irish church, it is not even 
 mentioned by them in the argument. The matter, in- 
 deed, was brought into discussion, in consequence of 
 letters from Pope Honorius I. and the clergy of 
 Rome, addressed to the people of Ireland; but 
 these were couched in terms which were far 
 
39 
 
 from implying an assumed superiority ;* the decision 
 was left to, and made by the King ; and Wilfred, 
 the Romish agent, instead of demurring to the 
 jurisdiction, argued, apparently for the first time — 
 (certainly Oswin and his people were not previously 
 convinced of it) — for the authority of St. Peter. All 
 this is very unlike the interference of an acknowledged 
 supremacy; and unquestionably it was quite the reverse 
 of acknowledged by the Irish bishop and clergy ; for 
 St. Colman was so discontented with the decision, that 
 " he resigned this see of Lindisfarne, and returned to 
 " his home in Ireland, taking along with hira all the 
 " Irish monks." p. 282. 
 
 I now come, in the 4th place, to a still further 
 proof, that the supremacy of Rome was not acknow- 
 ledged by the Irish church, even at the period I have 
 been last speaking of ; which, let it be remembered, 
 was so late as the year 633, and more than two 
 centuries after the alleged arrival of St. Patrick. The 
 venerable Bede is again our authority — in speaking 
 of Oswin, the king of Northumberland, already men- 
 tioned, he uses these remarkable words, — "Intellexerat 
 " enim veraciter Oswi, quamvis educatus a Scotis, 
 " quia Romana essetCatholica et Apostolica ecclesia." 
 " For Oswin truly understood, although he was 
 " educated by the Scots, how the Church of Rome 
 
 * The style of Honoriiis to the Irish clergy was exhorting 
 them — " exhortans" — that they would not continue to cele- 
 brate Easter, "contrary to paschal computations, and the 
 *' Synodal decrees of the Bishops of the whole world,'^ — IBede, 
 lib.' 2. c. 19. 
 
40 
 
 " was Catholic and Apostolic" — (lib. 3. c. 29.) un- 
 questionably implying, that a contrary opinion was 
 more likely to be imbibed from an Irish education. 
 But again, the same undoubted authority has preserved, 
 and presented us with a letter, written A.D. 609, 
 and directed from Laurentius, Mellitus, & Justus, who 
 had been sent from Rome to England to assist 
 Austin, " to the Scots that inhabit Ireland." In 
 this letter they write thus — " But knowing the Britons, 
 *' we thought that the Scots were better than they. 
 " But we have learned by Bishop Daganus coming 
 " into this island, and C^lurabanus, the abbot, coming 
 "^ into France, that these differ nothing from the Britons 
 " in their conversation. For Bishop Daganus, coming 
 " unto us, would not only not eat with us, but not 
 " so much as eat his meat in the house where we 
 " were." To this remarkable passage you have 
 referred in your 270th page ; but it is not so quoted 
 as to be applicable, with all its real bearings, to the 
 subject now in controversy between us. I would 
 make the following very material use of it here. It 
 declares that the British and Irish churches agreed with 
 each other in this matter ; the mode, therefore, in 
 which Austin's efforts to press upon the Britons the 
 supreme authority of the court of Rome were received 
 will, while it is instructive and interesting to detail, 
 demonstrate clearly what were the opinions on that 
 subject with which the Irish so fully sympathised. I 
 shall take the account from Stapleton's Translation of 
 Bede, printed at St. Omer's, A.D. 1622, lib. II. c. 2. 
 The British priests, assembled in a Synod, had 
 
41 
 
 acknowledged the preaching of Austin to be the true 
 way of righteousness ; " But yet, they said, that 
 " they could not alter and change their old customs 
 " and ordinances, without the consent of their clergy 
 " and people" — a remarkable circumstance, by the 
 way — " they desired, therefore, that they might 
 " have a second synod of a greater multitude." 
 Previously to this second meeting, it had been 
 agreed by the British bishops and clergy, to form 
 their opinions of Austin and his mission from his 
 demeanour towards them ; he was permitted to enter 
 first into the place where the synod were to meet, 
 and they, on entering, were thus to judge of him, 
 according to the following advice. " If, when ye 
 " approach near, he ariseth courteously to you, think 
 " ye he is the servant of Christ, and so hear ye him 
 " obediently ; but if he despise you, nor will vouch- 
 " safe to rise at your presence, which are the more 
 " in number, let him likewise be despised of you : 
 " and truly so did they. For it happened that, when 
 " they came thither, St. Austin was already there, 
 *' and sat in his chair ; which, when they saw, straight 
 " waxing wroth, thoy noted him of pride ; and there- 
 " fore endeavoured to overthwart and gainsay what- 
 " soever he proposed." He told them that, " if 
 *' they would agree with Home, in the time of 
 *' Easter, the ministerie of baptisme according to the 
 *' Roman church," &c. ; " all your other ceremo- 
 " nies, rites, fashions and customes, though they he 
 *' cordrary to ours, yet we will willingly suffer them." 
 But they answered, " that they would doe none of 
 
42 
 
 " the things requested, neither would they compte 
 " him for their archbishop ; saying with themselves — 
 " nay, if he would not so much as rise to us, truelie, 
 " the more we should now subjecte ourselves to him, 
 " the more would he hereafter despise us, and set us 
 " at naught." In consequence of this Austin departed, 
 denouncing against them the vengeance of heaven ; 
 which afterwards was, as Bede informs us, fully 
 wreaked on them by Edilfred, an English prince, when 
 " foule slaughter of this unfaithfull and naughty 
 " people took place." " It is reported," says the his- 
 torian, "That there were slaine in the warre, of them 
 *' which came to praie, about 2,200 men ; and only 
 " fiftie to have escaped by flight " — these were 
 the priests and others of the British church, who 
 thus resisted unto death the arrogant attempts 
 that were in this manner made, to impose upon them 
 the supremacy of Rome. I cannot resist copying 
 here a document, which can be found in the original 
 Welch language, among the Concilia of Wilkins, v. 1. 
 p. 26. It is styled in Latin " Responsio Abbatis 
 " Bangor ad Augustinum monachum, petentem subjec- 
 " tionem Ecclesise Romanae." " The answer of the 
 " Abbot of Bangor, to Austin the monk, seeking sub- 
 *' jection to the Church of Rome." " Be it known, 
 ** and without doubt unto you, that we all are, and 
 *' every one of us, obedient and servants to the church 
 " of God, and to the Pope of Rome, and to every 
 " true Christian and godly, to love every one in his 
 *' degree, in charity perfect ; and to help every one 
 ** of them by word and deed, to be the children 
 
43 
 
 " of God ; and other obedience than this I do not 
 " know due to him luhom you name to be Pope, nor 
 " to be the father of fathers, to be claimed and to be 
 " demanded ; and this obedience we are ready to 
 " give and to pay to him, and to every Christian 
 " continually. Besides, we are under the govermnent 
 " of the Bishop of Caerlion upon Usk, who is to 
 " oversee under God over us, to cause us to keep 
 " the way spiritual." Such weie the meek Christians 
 who were thus cruelly butchered, through the influ- 
 ence of a proud bigot — And who, after perusing these 
 documents, would not sympathise with Taliessin, 
 the ancient bard of the Britons, in his zealous strain, 
 written shortly after this period — there is no one, my 
 dear sir, who ought to respond to it more loudly and 
 more fervently than yourself — a warm proclaimer of 
 liberty in national song — 
 
 Wo be to that priest yborne, 
 
 That will not cleanly weed his corne, 
 
 And preach his charge among ; 
 Wo be to that shepheard, (I say,) 
 That will not watch his fold alway, 
 
 As to his office doth belong ; 
 Wo be to him that doth not keepe 
 From Romish wolves his sheepe, 
 
 With stafFe and weapon strong. * 
 
 I feel, therefore, that Archbishop Usher was fully 
 justified in alleging the independence of the ancient 
 
 * Chronicle of Wales, p. 264. 
 
u 
 
 Irish church ; and that his judgment on that subject was 
 founded on facts, established upon testimony in every 
 respect unexceptionable, and which could not be 
 mistaken. To this I must add, although I do not use it 
 as an argument, that similar is the impression made 
 by them upon the minds of our best modern writers of 
 Ecclesiastical History; for instanceMosheira,who writes 
 thus (Ecc. Hist. p. 2, c. 2.) — " The ancient Britons 
 " and Scots persisted long in the maintenance of their 
 " religious liberty ; and neither the threats, nor the 
 " promises, of the legates of Rome, could engage them 
 "to submit to the 'decrees and authority of the 
 "ambitious PontiflF; as appears manifestly from the 
 " testimony of Bede" — and Milner, who says, '* that 
 " attempts were made all this time, by the bishops of 
 " Rome, to induce the Irish to unite themselves to 
 " the English church" — meaning that of Austin— 
 " but in vain." He fixes the year 716 at the period 
 when " this people were reduced to the Romish 
 " communion." — See also Godwin de Prsesul. p. 14, 
 Spotiswood, and others. 
 
 There are some other facts in the history of the 
 Irish church, connected with its independence, which 
 I feel that it would be wrong to omit. You have 
 referred to a Latin poem of St. Secundinus (p. 227) ; 
 " of whose authenticity some able critics have seen 
 " no reason whatever to doubt" — he was nephew of 
 St. Patrick, and died A. D. 448. This poem * was 
 written in honour of the saint ; and he is spoken of 
 
 * Sec Patr. opuscula, p. 146. 
 
45 
 
 in it thus — " Constans in Dei timore, et fide immo- 
 *'bilis; super quern oeclificatur ut Petrum ecclesia." 
 — " He is constant in the fear of God, and steadfast 
 " in the faith ; upon whom the church is builded, as 
 " upon Peter." St. Patrick is called Papa or Pope, 
 a name common in these times to all bishops, by 
 Cummianus, in the letter so often alluded to. The 
 see of Armagh is also called the apostolic city in the 
 Book of Armagh ; and by Marianus Scotus, so late 
 as the year 1014. Much more upon this subject will 
 be found collected together in Usher's religion of 
 the ancient Irish, at the end of the 7th chapter, and 
 in his sylloge. One of the letters in that collection, 
 (p. 96), is an epistle addressed to Murchardach, 
 king of Ireland, by Anselm, Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, so late as the twelfth century; and in it this 
 expression occurs — " Item dicitur, Episcopos in terra 
 " vestra passim eligi." — " It is also said, that the 
 " bishops in your land are every where elected." 
 This remnant of independence continued thus long. 
 St. Bernard in his life of Malachy (c. 11.) in- 
 forms us, that this prelate was grieved, that Ire- 
 land had never yet received an archbishop's Pall 
 from Rome — " Usque adhuc pallio caruisse" — and 
 the first were sent over here A. D. 1151. We 
 are informed that the first archbishop of Armagh 
 that was appointed by papal provision was Egan 
 Mac Gillividir, in the year 1206; and this was 
 only on the opportunity that offered of deciding a 
 contested election — even so it would not have been 
 attempted, were not the dastardly John upon the 
 
46 
 
 British throne ; and, still further, it became necessary 
 to purchase the consent of that mean prince, by a 
 gift to him of 300 marks of silver, and 3 of gold. 
 See the account of this prelate in Harris' Ware. 
 
 Finally, no such claim as that of the supremacy 
 exercised by the present See of Rome could have 
 existed, or been put forward, until above a century 
 after the decease of St. Patrick, who " died on the 
 17th of March, 465," (p. 226) ; and for this plain 
 reason, that the pope had not himself assumed the title 
 of Catholic, or universal bishop until some years after : 
 upon this subject there can be no doubt. There are 
 extant letters written, A. D. 591, or thereabouts, by 
 the Pope Gregory 1. entitled the Great, condemning 
 John, Bishop of Constantinople, for assuming that 
 title— (See Greg.Epis. lib. iv. Epis. 76, 82, and 78) ; 
 in the latter of these, addressed to the Empress 
 Constantia, the prelate expresses himself in the fol- 
 lowing very remarkable terms : — 
 
 " Sed cum se, nova prsesumptione atque superbia, 
 idem frater meus universum episcojncyn appellet, — (ita 
 ut, sanctse memorise decessoris mei tempore, adscribi 
 se in synodo tali hoc superbo vocabulo faceret, 
 quamvis cuncta acta illius synodi, sede contradicente 
 Apostolica, soluta sint,) — triste raihi aliquid Serenis- 
 simus Dominus innuit, quod non eum corripuit, qui 
 superbit ; sed me magis ab intentione mea declinare 
 studuit, qui in hac causa, Evangeliorum et canonum 
 statuta, humilitatis atque rectitudinis virtute, defendo. 
 Triste autem valde est, ut patienter feratur, quatenus, 
 despectis omnibus, prsedictus frater et coepiscopus 
 
47 
 
 mens solus conetur appellari episcopus. Sed in hoc 
 ejus superbid quid aliud nisi propinqua jam Anti- 
 CHRISTI esse tempora designatur? Quia videlicet 
 imitatur qui, spretis in sociali guadio aiigelovum 
 legionibus, ad culmen conatus est singularitatis 
 erumpere dicens — super astra coeli exaltabo solium 
 meum, sedebo in monte testamenti, in lateribus 
 aquilonis, et ascendara super altitudinem nubium, et 
 ero similis Altissimo." 
 
 " But when tbis my same brother, with a novel 
 ** presumption and pride, calls himself ' Catholic 
 " Bishop,' — (so as to cause himself, in the time of my 
 " predecessor of holy memory, to be addressed in a 
 " synod by that proud name, although all the acts of 
 " that synod, the Apostolical See being against them, 
 " be dissolved,) — His Most Serene Highness," (the 
 Emperor,) " gave me some sorrow, in that he did not 
 ** conect him who had thus arrogated, but rather 
 " studiously tried to turn me the more from my 
 " intention — me, who in this cause defend the ordi- 
 " nances of the gospels and the canons, for the 
 *' sake of humility and rectitude. But it is a very 
 " lamentable thing, that he should patiently permit so 
 " far, that, in contempt of all others, this my brother 
 " Bxid fellow bishop should endeavour to be called sole 
 " bishop. But indeed what else is manifested in this 
 " his pride, but that the times of Antichrist are 
 " nigh at hand, even now ? Because, forsooth, he 
 " is imitated, who, scorning social bliss among legions 
 " of angels, strove to break forth to the height of 
 " singularity, saying, (Isaiah, xiv. 1 3,) — ' I will exalt 
 
48 
 
 " * my throne above the stars of Heaven — I will sit in 
 " ' the mountain of the covenant — in the sides of the 
 " ' North — I will ascend above the height of the 
 *' ' clouds — I will be like to the Most High.' " 
 
 At this very time, however, the title seems to have 
 been coveted by Gregory himself ; and we have 
 already seen how his claim to it was urged, by Austin 
 and his agents in Britain, very shortly afterwards ; but 
 it was not confirmed to the Pope, until the Emperor 
 Phocas conferred it upon him, A. D. 606. This is 
 a fact well known, and universally admitted ; at all 
 events it is quite manifest, that the superior authority 
 belonging to Catholic or universal Bishop, could not 
 have been claimed by Rome, or acknowledged, before 
 the year 591 — the date of the above-mentioned letters. 
 
 But, even if such honor should have been paid to 
 Rome as you contend, and that disputes had been 
 referred to her for decision, it would go no farther 
 than to prove a choice of that See, as arbiter ; and 
 such a choice might, at this early period, have been 
 with the utmost propriety made, considering the very 
 different spirit that animated the pontiffs of Rome, 
 during the first centuries of the Christian sera, and 
 even down to the pontificate of Gregory I. I shall 
 gladly here transcribe the candid confession of Arch- 
 bishop Usher, (Relig. &c. p. 87,) as being perfectly 
 in unison with my own sentiments on the point. 
 " This I will say, that, as it is most likely that St. 
 " Patrick had a special regard unto the church of 
 *' Rome, from whence he was sent for the conversion 
 " of the island ; so, if I myself had lived in his daies, 
 
49 
 
 " for the resolution of a doubtful question, I should 
 " as willingly have listened to the judgment of the 
 " church of Rome, as to the determination of any 
 " church in the whole world ; so reverend an esti- 
 " mation have I of the integretie of that church, as it 
 " stood in those good daies. But that St. Patrick 
 " was of opinion, that the church of Rome was sure 
 " ever afterwards to continue in that good estate, and 
 " that there was a perpetual privilege annexed unto 
 *' that See, that it should never erre in judgement ; 
 " or that the Pope's sentences were always to be held 
 " as infallible oracles ; that I will never believe : 
 " sure I am that my countrymen after him were of 
 '•'• farre other beleefe, who were so farre from sub- 
 " mitting themselves in this sort to whatsoever should 
 " proceed from the See of Rome, that they oftentimes 
 " stood out against it, when they had little cause so 
 " to doel* 
 
 The next subject that you mention is put forward 
 in the following words, — " That they," the Christians 
 of the primitive Irish church, " celebrated mass under 
 " the ancient traditional names of the holy mysteries 
 " of the eucharist, the sacrifice of salvation, the iramo- 
 " lation of the host, is admitted by Usher himself. 
 " But he might have found language still stronger 
 " employed by them, to express the mystery their 
 *' faith acknowledged in that rite." — To this is added 
 in a note,* — " Following the belief of the ancient 
 
 * In another note to the words " sacrifice of salvation," you 
 have thus observed, — ♦' The phrase used by St. Chrysostom, 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 " church, as to a real presence in the sacrament, they 
 *' adopted the language also by which this mystery 
 " was expressed ; and the phrase of ' making the body 
 " of Christ,' which occurs so frequently in the litur- 
 " gies of the primitive church, is found likewise in the 
 " writings of the first Irish Christians. Thus Adamnan, 
 
 " in speaking of the progress of the faith in the British isles, 
 ** implies in itself, that the belief held in those regions respecting 
 "the Eucharist was the very same which he himself enforced in 
 " his writings, and which the Catholic church maintains to the 
 " present day. '• They have erected churches," (says the saint, ) 
 *'and altars of sacrifice." ^ut it will not be expected that I 
 should here diverge into comments on this note ; for, besides 
 that it would lead me into a very extended and unnecessary di- 
 gression, to prove that, even were it here implied that the eucha- 
 rist of the British churches "was the very same which he him- 
 " self enforced by his writings," it by no means follows that it 
 is that " which the Catholic church maintains to the present 
 day," but very far different — all that is important on the subject 
 will be presented in commenting on your text. I shall, there- 
 fore, only observe, that I presume that the passage which you 
 hare quoted from St. Chrysostom, is one which we have already 
 noticed. The expressions which he there makes use of are 
 these — ««/ B^va-ixs^^ia, TiT^^yccffiv ; which, while it may be pro- 
 perly construed, "and they erected altars of sacrifice," by no 
 means implies any thing of doctrine respecting the Eucharist, 
 such as "the Catholic church maintains to the present day" — 
 nothing of transubstantiation, nothing of immolation — but 
 rather what is intended by the following verses ; in Psalm 
 50, verse 14 — "Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay 
 "thy vows unto the Most High;" or, in Psalm 116, 
 verses 15 and 17 — " I will take the cup 'of salvation — I will 
 *' offer to thee the sacrifice of salvation, and call upon the name 
 "of the Lord." Allow me also to remark, that I am much 
 surprised that, when you referred to St. Chrysostom for the 
 character of Christian doctrine in Ireland, you did not at once 
 perceive, that his evidence ought to have settled the question of 
 the introduction of Christianity into this country, and the 
 establishment of churches there, previously to his decease, 
 which took place A.D. 407. 
 
51 
 
 "in his life of St. Columba, tells us of that saint 
 " ordering the Bishop Cronan, ' Christi corpus ex 
 " more conficere/ Lib. 1. c. 44. In later Irish 
 " writers numerous passages to the same purport may 
 " be found ; but, confining myself to those only of the 
 " earlier period, I shall add but the following strong 
 *' testimony from Sedulius ; — 
 
 *' Corpus, sanguis, aqua ; tria vitae munera nostra; : 
 " Fonte renacentes, membris et sanguine Christi 
 " Vescimur, atque ideo templum Deitatis habemur : 
 *' Quod servare Deus nos annual immaculatum, 
 " Et facial tenues lanto Mansore capaces." 
 
 Car. Paschale Lib. iv. 
 
 Before I enter upon this important subject I must 
 observe, and it should be particularly noted, that it is 
 so intimately connected with a difference of meaning, 
 attached by different individuals to the same terms, 
 that it is quite necessary to inquire what signification 
 was in the mind of those whom we assert to agree 
 with others, before we can be at all certain of that 
 agreement being any thing more than the use of the 
 same terms. Thus the real presence of Christ in the 
 sacrament of the Lord's Supper is holden by most 
 churches ; but in one sense by the Roman Catholic, 
 and in another essentially different by the Protestant 
 so that it becomes necessary to inquire what Usher 
 intended to signify, when he used the words sacrifice, 
 mass, host, and others. 
 
 I must likewise, before entering into the argument, 
 again complain of the vague manner in which you 
 quote your authorities ; in a case where your assertions 
 
52 
 
 implicating a writer such as Usher, required surely 
 to be supported by a very particular reference, ere 
 they could be at all admitted by the intelligent part 
 of the public. Is it fair that we should be put upon 
 the examination of that learned man's volumin©us 
 works, or those eight volumes of St. Chrysostom, in 
 order that we might with safety affirm, that they have 
 no where spoken in the exact manner that you have 
 said ; and why have you not presented us with even 
 one of "the liturgies of the Primitive church," or a part 
 of one, by which we might try the truth of the allegation 
 you so confidently advance ? Here again I am forced 
 to the proof of a negative ; but here also I fear not 
 to allege, that Usher makes, in the spirit of its meaning, 
 no such admission as you attribute to him ; that no 
 liturgy of the primitive church in Ireland, within 
 two centuries of St. Patrick's arrival, makes use of 
 the phrase that you have quoted, nor do the writings 
 of its early teachers ; and that one, whose authority 
 upon this occasion you must acknowledge to be 
 decisive, takes the same view as the articles of the 
 Church of England of this great question — in fine, 
 that the present Roman Catholic tenets respecting it 
 are adverse, not only to ti.e opinions of Usher, and 
 the early Irish Christians, but to that of the primitive 
 church in general, and the Bible. 
 
 I presume that the following is the admission of 
 the arclibishop to which you allude — and let me 
 remark that he is writing of Adamnanus, A.D. 700 ; 
 and of what took place at the obsequies of Colum- 
 banus, A.D. 613 ; neither of which dates are entirely 
 
53 
 
 primitive — but I do not press this point — " In Adam- 
 " nanus," he says, (Relig. &c. p. 35.) '' tlie sacred 
 " rainisterie of the Eucharist and the solemnities of 
 " the Masse are taken for the same thing. So like- 
 " wise, in the relation of the passages that concerne 
 " the obsequies of Columbanus, wefinde, that Missam 
 " celebrare et Missam agere, is made to be the same 
 " with divina celebrare mysteria, et salutis hostiam, (or 
 " salutare sacrificium,) immolare — the saying of 
 " Masse, the same with the celebration of the 
 " divine mysteries, and the oblation of the healthful 
 " sacrifice ; for by that terrae was the administration 
 " of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper at that time 
 " usually designed." 
 
 Now the important matter for us here to determine 
 is, what meaning Usher affixed to these terms ; and, 
 had you thought fit to have laid before your readers 
 all that he has said in the place referred to, that sig- 
 nification would have appeared as clearly as light ; 
 for he particularly remarks, that he applied a very 
 different meaning to the terms thus employed by him, 
 from that affixed to them by modern Romayiists. 
 He proceeds, immediately after the sentences already 
 quoted, thus — "For, as in our beneficence, (Heb. 13. 
 " 16.) and communicating to the necessities of the 
 " poore, (which are sacrifices with which God 
 " is well pleased,) wee are taught to give both our 
 " selves and our almes first unto the Lord, and after to 
 " our brethren by the will of God ; so is it in this 
 " ministry of the blessed sacrament ; the service is 
 " first presented to God, (from which the sacrament 
 
54 
 
 " it selfe is called the Eucharist, because therein wee 
 " offer a speciall sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving 
 *' to God,) and then communicated unto the use of 
 " God's people. In the performance of which part 
 " of the service, both the minister was said to give^ 
 " and the communicant to receive the sacrifice ; 
 " as well as, in respect to the former part, they were 
 " said to offer the same unto the Lord. For they 
 " did not distinguish the sacrifice from the sacrament, 
 
 " AS THE ROMANISTS DO NOW-A-DAYS ; but USed 
 
 " the name of sacrifice .indifferently, both of that 
 " which was offered unto God, and of that which 
 " was given to, and received by the communicant. 
 " Therefore we read of offering the sacrifice unto 
 " God — of giving the sacrifice to man — and of 
 " receiving the sacrifice from the hands of that 
 " minister ; as in that sentence of the synod attributed 
 " unto St. Patrick, ' He who deserveth not to 
 " receive the sacrament in his life, how can it helpe 
 " him after his death ? Whereby it doth appear, 
 " that the sacrifice of the elder times was not like 
 " unto the new Masse of the Romanists.' " I 
 presume that it is now sufficiently manifest, that 
 archbishop Usher has not made any admission at all 
 consonant with the meaning that you have attributed 
 to him ; and certainly nothing couldi be farther from 
 his intention, or from that of the ancient Irish 
 Christians whom he quotes, or refers to, than the 
 coupling of the great modern mystery of transub- 
 stantiation, or the equally modern doctrine of the 
 actual sacrifice in the Mass of the body of Christ, 
 
55 
 
 with the " ancient traditional names of the holy 
 " mysteries of the Eucharist, the sacrifice of salvation, 
 ** and the immolation of the host." 
 
 With respect to the liturgies of the primitive 
 church — if you mean the Irish church, I have never 
 seen or heard of, nor do I know or believe that there 
 exist, any that contain the sentence which you say 
 " occurs so frequently " in them ; and if you intend 
 by them those ancient ones of the foreign Roman 
 Catholics, we have nothing to do with them here. 
 
 I proceed to the writings of the first Irish Christians. 
 I cannot prove a negative ; I can only challenge you, 
 and I do so with great confidence, to produce one 
 sentence from them, of an earlier date than our limit 
 of A.D. 600, in which " the phrase of making the 
 " body of Christ " occurs — you have given us no 
 instance ; for Adamnan was a writer of the year 700, 
 or thereabouts. But you say, that " In later Irish 
 " writers numerous passages to the same purport may 
 " may be found" — I fully admit this to be probable, 
 but they make nothing to our question. You conclude 
 with saying that, " confining yourself to those only 
 " of the earlier period," you will add the " strong 
 " testimony " of Sedulius ; then follow five verses 
 from the Carmen Paschale of that poet, in which 
 there is not one word of " the making of the body 
 " of Christ ;" and whether they be "to the same 
 " purport," or not, depends upon the opinion which he 
 had of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and 
 of the manner in which communicants feed upon His 
 body and blood. In order to explain the views of 
 
56 
 
 Sedulius upon this subject, it is to be regretted that 
 you did not let him also, as well as Usher, speak more 
 fully for himself, and that you withheld from us the 
 following verses, which occur in the same poem from 
 which you quoted the five former ones. (lib. 4.) 
 
 Denique Pontificium princeps, summusque sacerdos, 
 Quis nisi Christus adest ? gemini libarainis author ; 
 Ordine Melchisedech, cui dantur munera semper 
 QusB sua sunt, segetis fructus, et gaudia vitis. 
 
 Here it is said, as every Christian believer must 
 hold, that Christ, " the prince of pontiffs and great 
 "High Priest," is present in the sacrament; but whether 
 spiritually or corporeally in the mind of Sedulius 
 will appear from the sequel, where he calls our Lord 
 '* the author of the double libation ; of the order of 
 " Melchisedech ; to whom are always given gifts 
 «' which are his own — the fruit of the corn, and the 
 " delights of the vine." — Here surely there must 
 be a strange transubstantiating power operating 
 in the imagination, before we can discover either 
 truly really and substantially, the body and blood 
 of Christ ; or indeed in any way a sacrifice of Him, 
 whether bloody or unbloody ; but solely that offering 
 of " the sacrifice of thanksgiving," of which Usher 
 speaks ; and which was rendered by the devout 
 believers, in obedience to their dying Lord's command, 
 " Do this in remembrance of me.* 
 
 * The scFitiments of the Irish divines upon this subject con- 
 tinued to a late period unchanged by the innovations of the 
 
57 
 
 But I have promised to advance the authority upon 
 the subject of one, whose opinion you will acknow- 
 ledge to be decisive, at least where you are party to 
 a controversy — I must introduce him to the public? 
 although he is already well known to your readers. 
 In writing of John Scotus Erigena, in your 305th 
 page, where you mention his denial of the real 
 presence, you express yourself thus — " In stating, 
 " however, as he is said to have done, that the 
 " sacrament of the Eucharist is not the ' true body 
 " and true blood,' he might have had reference solely 
 " to the doctrine put forth then recently by Paschasius 
 " Radbert, who maintained that the body present in 
 " the Eucharist was the same carnal and palpable 
 " body which was born of the Virgin, which suffered 
 " on the cross, and rose from the dead ; whereas the 
 " belief of the Catholic churchy on this point of 
 " doctrine, has always been, that the body of 
 '* Christ is under the symbols, not corporeally, or 
 " carnally, but in a spiritual manner." And to this 
 you have added, in a note — " Thus explained, in 
 *' perfect consonance, as he says, with the doctrine 
 " of the council of Trent, by the celebrated missionary 
 
 modern Roman Catholics — Claudius, one of the founders of 
 the University of Paris, and an Irishman, expresses himself 
 thus, about the year 815 — " Because bread doth confirm 
 " the body, and wine doth work blood in the flesh, therefore 
 '• the one is mystically referred to the body of Christ, 
 " the other to his blood." — And Henry Crumpe, a monk 
 of Paltinglass, A. D, 1384, says—" The body of Christ in the 
 *' sacrament of the altar h only a lookivg-glass to the body of 
 *' Christ in heaven." (Ush. Rel. &c, p. 43.) 
 
58 
 
 " VeiTon : — ' Ergo corpus Christi, seu Christus, est 
 *' in syrabolis, spiritual! modo seu spiritualiter, et non 
 " corporali seu carnali, nee corporaliter seu car- 
 '' naliter.' Regula fid. Cath. c. 2. §. 11." 
 
 You are therefore, yourself, sir, in this sentence, 
 the authority by which we shall decide this point. 
 Believe me I do not mean merely to jest ; I think it 
 quite clear, either that you do not understand the 
 subject upon which you write, or are ignorant of 
 what Protestants assert in their protests concerning it. 
 You have stated what you allege to have alioays 
 been the belief of the Catholic church, and of course, 
 in your opinion, to have been that also of the early 
 Christian church, founded by St. Patrick in Ireland — 
 but far from denying the fact, that the early Irish 
 Christians did think thus of the Eucharist, it is my 
 great object to prove it. 
 
 We are therefore agreed in every thing but one, 
 and that is, that I think this doctrine to be exactly 
 that of the modern Protestant, while you consider 
 it to be precisely that of the now Roman Catholic 
 church. This part of the question, however, is easily 
 decided ; and a placing together of the several views, 
 will enable the simplest reader to form an imme- 
 diate judgment for himself. Concerning the doctrine 
 " of the real presence in the Eucharist" — 
 
 What has ''always been" in your judgment, 
 " the belief of the Catholic church " in Ireland. — 
 " That the body of Christ is, under the symbols, 
 " not corporeally, or carnally, but in a spiritual 
 " manner." p. 305. 
 
59 
 
 28th Article of the Church of England — " To 
 " such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, re- 
 " ceive the same, the bread which we break is a 
 " partaking of the body of Christ ; and likewise the 
 " cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of 
 " Christ." — The body of Christ is taken, and eaten in 
 " the supper, o^ly after an heavenly and spiritual 
 
 " MANNER." 
 
 " Ita definit Concilium Tridentinum, Sess. 13 
 " can 1." the Council of Trent thus decides — " Si 
 " quis negaverit in sanctissimae Eucharistae sacra- 
 " mento contineri, vere realiter et substantialiter, 
 " corpus et sanguinem, una cum anima et Divinitate 
 " Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac proinde totum 
 " Christum ; sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo, ut in 
 " signo, vel figura, aut virtute — anathema sit." 
 
 " If any one shall deny that there is contained 
 " in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, truly, 
 " really, and substantially, the body and 
 " BLOOD, together with the soul and divinity of our 
 " Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the entire Christ; 
 " but shall say that they are only in it as in a sign or 
 ^^ figure, or virtually — let him be accursed." 
 
 See Den's Theology, V. v. p. 278. Ed. Dub. 1832. 
 N. 20. De reali Christi preesentia," &c. 
 
 It is quite unnecessary to make any further comment 
 here ; but it surely does afford some proof of the folly of 
 this tenet, that it presents itself to a mind intelligent 
 as yours, in such a manner, that you cannot but couple 
 it with the idea of heresy. The doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation is indeed one, as Dean Swift says, " the 
 
60 
 
 " belief of whieh makes everything else unbelievable" — 
 one that alters the very character of miracle, which is 
 to testify to the senses, and thus to prepare the 
 mind by the divine operations exhibited to them, 
 for the reception in faith of divine truths which are 
 revealed, and which the exercise of reason merely 
 could never enable man to acquire. But this doctrine 
 commences with silencing the evidence of the senses 
 altogether ; nay further, commands us to believe against 
 their testimony — and what then is the matter of faith 
 thus forced upon the mind ? — a doctrine contra- 
 dictory to sense, repugnant to reason, and inconsistent 
 with the entire tenor of the revelation of God's 
 Word. 
 
 It remains now shortly to shew, that the doctrine 
 of the modern Roman Catholics on this subject is not 
 only contrary to Usher's, and to yours, and to that 
 of the primitive Irish Christians, but to that of the 
 early church in general, and to the Bible. 
 
 Of the doctrine of transubstantiation, as respects 
 other parts of Christendom, Erasmus (in 1 Cor. vii.) 
 says thus, '•' In synaxi Transubstantionera sero 
 " definivit Ecclesia ;" nor was it introduced into any 
 church, until the second council of Nice, A.D. 787. 
 
 There is a very remarkable testimony on this sub- 
 ject given by a Roman Pontiff, Gelasius, about the year 
 476 ; whose work "De duabus naturis contra Euty- 
 chium," is printed in Bib. Pat. Ludg, 1677, T. viii. p. 
 703. He there expresses himself thus — " Certe sacra- 
 '• mentum sumimus corporis etsanguinisChristi; divina 
 " res est, propter quod, et per eadem, divinie efficimur 
 
61 
 
 *' consortes naturae ; et tamen esse non desinit sub- 
 " stantia vel natura panis et vini" — though, by taking 
 the sacrament, " we are made to become partakers 
 " of the divine nature, yet, notwithstanding, it does 
 " not cease to he the substance or nature of bread and 
 " wine" — he adds " et certe imago et similitude cor- 
 " poris et sanguinis Christi, in actione mysteriorum 
 " celebrantur." 
 
 With respect to the record of highest antiquity 
 and authority, the Scriptures, transubstantiation is 
 allowed to be entirely without warrant from them ; 
 except so far as is implied from that construction of 
 the term is, in the sentence, " This is my body," 
 which makes it to have a literal signification — a con- 
 struction which would equally convert, " truly, really, 
 " and substantially," our blessed Lord into a door, 
 (John X. 7.) or a vine, (John xv. 1 .) ; the stars and 
 candlesticks of the book of Revelation, into angels 
 and churches ; the ears of corn and kine of Pharaoh's 
 dream into years ; the very cup in the passage before 
 us into the New Testament ; or any other emblem 
 which is mentioned in the Bible, according to the 
 idiom of its original languages, by the terms is or am, 
 into the thing itself which it is thus said to repre- 
 sent. The parable of the tares will present the best 
 example of the absurdity and ignorance of this ; 
 read our Saviour's exposition of its meaning, as you 
 will find it in St. Matthew — (c. xiii. v. 37, &c.)— " He 
 " that soweth the good seed is the Son of man ; the 
 " field is the world ; the good seed are the children 
 " of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of 
 " the wicked one ; the enemy that sowed them is the 
 
62 
 
 devil ; the harvest is the end of the world ; and the 
 " reapers are the angels."* 
 
 Transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the Mass 
 are totally at variance with Scripture ; being without 
 blood, the latter contradicts Heb. ix. 22 — " without 
 " shedding of blood is no remission ;" and also v. 
 12, &c. and 1 John i. 7; and both reject the follow- 
 ing important passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 (ix. 24, &c., X. 10, &c.) — "Christ is not entered 
 " into the holy places made with hands, which are 
 " the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now 
 " to appear in the presence of God for us : nor 
 " yet that he should offer himself often." And 
 again — " We are sanctified through the oifering of 
 " the bodi/ of Jesus Christ once for all. And 
 " every priest standeth daily ministering, and offer- 
 " ing oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never 
 " take away sins : but this Man, after he had offered 
 " one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right 
 " hand of God ; from henceforth expecting till his 
 " enemies be made his footstool. For, by one 
 
 • Strange to say, Fisher, Roman Catholic bishop of Ro- 
 chester, seems to consider the words of Scripture to be against 
 this doctrine, and that it can only be maintained on the autho- 
 rity of the Fathers. (Fisher de capt. Babil. c. 10.) " Dixi- 
 " mus majorem habendam esse fidem usui diuturno quern a 
 " primis ipsis patribus Ecclesia certo traditum confidit, quam 
 " nudis ipsis Evangelii verbis" — and again — " ejus certitudo" 
 — viz.: — "sacerdotem veram Christi carnem et sanguinem 
 " consecrare" — non tarn habeatur ex verbo Evangelii, quam 
 " ex patrum interpretatione." What would Pope Gelasius 
 or Erasmus have said to this? Or how is it to be reconciled 
 with all that has been urged, of the most strictly literal inter- 
 pretation being necessary to those who uphold the real and 
 corporeal presence. 
 
63 
 
 *' OFFERING, HE HATH PERFECTED FOR EVER them 
 
 that are sanctified" 
 
 The third head of doctrine you notice thus — " Tlie 
 " ancient practice of offering up jwayer^ for the 
 " dead,* and the belief of a middle state of existence 
 " after this life upon which that practice is founded, 
 " formed also parts of their creed ; though of the 
 " locality of the purgatorial fire their notions were, 
 " like those of the ancient fathers, vague and unde- 
 " fined. In an old life of St. Brendan, who lived in 
 " the sixth century, it is stated, the prayer of the 
 " living doth much profit the dead ; and among the 
 " canons of a very early Irish synod, there is one 
 " entitled ' Of Oblation for the Dead." Of the 
 *' frequent practice, indeed, of prayer and alms-giving 
 " for the relief of departed souls, there are to be 
 " found throughout the records of those times abun- 
 '* dant proofs. In a tract attributed to Cummian, 
 " who lived in the seventh century, and of whose 
 " talent and learning we shall hereafter have occasion 
 
 * You have here the following note, quoting from Ter- 
 tullian — " Oblationes pro defunctis annua die facimus." — Of 
 this passage I must remark, that as it relates to the practice of 
 the church out of Ireland, and one too condemned expressly 
 by a canon of an Irish synod, it proves nothing for the case 
 you are advocating ; I shall, therefore, dismiss it briefly with 
 two remarks — the first, that you have not quoted it fully ; it is 
 thus in the original — " Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis 
 " annua die facimus." The second is that, as is the case of St. 
 Chrysostom, since you have chosen to produce the testimony of 
 Tertullian to a matter of fact, you must allow me to claim 
 him to be a witness above exception, where I produce him to 
 prove the introduction of Christianity into Ireland previously 
 to the year 200. 
 
64. 
 
 " to speak, propitiatory masses for the dead are men- 
 " tioned." And in a note— "It is acknowledged by 
 " Usher, that Requiem masses were among the re- 
 *' ligious practices of the Irish Christians in those 
 " days ; but he denies that they were any thing more 
 " than ' an honorable commemoration of the dead, and 
 " a sacrifice of thanksgiving for their salvation.' It 
 " has been shewn clearly, however, that these masses 
 " were meant to be also, in the strongest sense of the 
 " word, propitiatory. In an old Irish missal, found at 
 " Bobbio, of which an account has been given in the 
 " Rev. Hibern. Script. (Ep. Nunc, cxxxviii.) there is 
 *' contained a mass for the dead, entitled, ' Pro De- 
 " functis ;' in which the following prayer, and others 
 " no less Catholic, are to be found : — ' Concede pro- 
 *' pitius, ut hsec sacra oblatio mortuis prosit ad veniam, 
 " et vivis proficiat ad salutem.' " 
 
 Upon this article I have much and most important 
 matter to produce ; but, previously, I must disencum- 
 ber it from a great deal that does not properly belong 
 to the question, as it is at issue between us ; and 
 disentangle it from some expressions which you call 
 admissions of Archbishop Usher, and with which you 
 have improperly interwoven it. 
 
 And, in the first place, we must get rid of the " Old 
 " life of St. Brendan, who lived in the sixth century;" 
 because that this life was not only written long after 
 the year 600, but is so replete with absurdities, that 
 it would be insulting to your understanding, and quite 
 lowering to our subject, to transcribe them. Its 
 authority is at once put aside by the just censure of 
 
65 
 
 Molanus, a learned RoiDanist, who declares, "that 
 " there be many apocryphal fooleries in it.'' 
 
 In the next place, we must disencumber ourselves 
 of the tract of St. Cummian ; principally because he 
 also is a late authority, having written it in the 
 seventh century ; and likewise, because you have 
 left us in doubt where to find that tract, in order to 
 examine its contents ; and have not quoted its 
 contents — besides all this, St. Cummianus, notwith- 
 standing his celebrated epistle to Segienus, and in 
 despite of " his talents and learning," which you so 
 frequently allude to, was capable of swallowing and 
 digesting many fooleries also — take the following 
 specimen from the above mentioned letter — (Syl. p. 
 34.) " Et nos, in reliquiis sanctorum martyrum, 
 " et Scripturis quas attulerunt, probavimus inesse 
 " virtutem Dei. Vidimus^ oculis nostris, puellam 
 " caecam omnino ad has reliquias oculos aperien- 
 " tem, et paralyticum ambulantem, et multa de- 
 " monia ejecta." " I myself saw a blind girl opening 
 " her eyes at the relics of holy martyrs !" &c. St. 
 Cummian, therefore, proves too much, except for the 
 disciples of Prince Hohenloe. 
 
 And we must also disencumber the argument of 
 the old Irish missal found at Bobbio ; you state 
 (p. 265) that that monastery was established there 
 by St. Columbanus, shortly before the year 615 ; and 
 in a note to the next page, you adduce the opinion 
 of O'Connor, that this missal had " been brought 
 " from Luxenil to Bobbio, by some followers of St. 
 " Columbanus," in the seventh century, it is there- 
 
66 
 
 fore too modern for us ; and its authority also cannot 
 properly be acquiesced in without some opportunity 
 afforded us of examining the original passages and 
 their contents. Add to this, that it is not a purely 
 Irish authority, and that its authenticity has been 
 matter of dispute. — See O'Connor Ep, Nunc. 
 
 It is necessary, likewise, that I should explain the 
 alleged admissions of Usher ; and as upon a former 
 occasion, to restore his evidence to its fulness. I 
 find that you have, with great injustice to his reason- 
 ing, withheld the most important portion of his 
 words, and some of them not even divided by a 
 comma from those which you have thouglit proper to 
 transcribe — they are as follows — " Whereby it 
 " appeareth that an honourable commemoration of 
 " the dead was herein intended, and a sacrifice of 
 *• thanksgiving for their salvation, rather than of pro- 
 " pitiation for their sinnes^^ — You should not only 
 have left this sentence entire ; but have also mentioned 
 the occasion of Usher's thus expressing himself, and 
 to which he refers by the word " Whereby." He 
 introduces the paragraph thus — (Rel. of Ant. Ir. 
 p. 27.) " And this is a thing very observable, in 
 *' the antienter lives of the Saints, (such I mean, as 
 *' have beene written before the time of Sathan's 
 " loosing, beyond which wee doe not now looke ;) 
 " that the prayers and oblations for the dead men- 
 *' tioned therein, are expressly noted to have been 
 " made for them whose soules were supposed at the 
 " same instant to have kested in hlisse.'' — The 
 very reverse of the requiem mass of modern days — 
 
67 
 
 he then adduces sotne examples, and concludes with 
 the words, " Whereby," &c., which you have chosen 
 thus to abridge — I refer to his 2Stli and 29th pages for 
 the rest of his argument, and shall return to the latter 
 part of this again. 
 
 And here it should be particularly stated, as ne- 
 cessary to the full understanding of this subject, 
 and for the reconciling of some of the apparent con- 
 tradictions wliicli involve it, that it has at all times 
 been the practice of the Christian church to put up 
 prayers — that the Lord would shortly accomplish the 
 number of his elect, and hasten the time when he 
 shall appear again in glory ; remove the curse from 
 off this earth ; and complete the happiness of his 
 redeemed. In these prayers the sainted dead are 
 interested as well as others ; for, until that period 
 arrive, their bodies shall lie mouldering in the grave ; 
 and that state of perfect bliss be deferred, whicli 
 consists in the reunion of the spirit, now in paradise, 
 with their glorified bodies ; according to that hope of 
 the believer, thus expressed by St. Paul, when he 
 speaks of " the earnest expectation of the creature," 
 that the " creature itself also shall be delivered from 
 " the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty 
 '■ of the children of God " — and " we ourselves, 
 " groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, 
 " to wit, the redemption of our body" — (Rom. 
 viii. 21.23.) — and also when he writes thus — (1 Cor. 
 XV. 31) — "Behold ! I shew you a mystery — We 
 " shall not all sleep, but we shall all be. changed, in 
 '^ a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last 
 
68 
 
 " trump — for tbe trumpet shall sound ; and the dead 
 " shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be 
 " changed. For this corruptible must put on incor- 
 " ruption, and this mortal put on immortality.'' 
 This it is which will form the consummation of God's 
 all-glorious work of redemption ; fully completing 
 the happiness of his people, and justifying his most 
 righteous ways : and in it, as I have said, departed 
 saints are clearly interested, and indeed, are particu- 
 larly exhibited as being so in the book of Revelation 
 (vi. 9.) — This consummation devoutly to be wished 
 is, therefore, a legitimate subject for prayer, and was 
 so in the primitive church ; and I am almost certain 
 that some such meaning will be found properly to 
 belong to the expressions of such writers as St. 
 Chrysostom and St. Augustine, that are quoted and 
 relied on as sanctioning prayer for the dead. I do find 
 the following sentence, for instance, used by the former 
 of these saints, in connection with the mention of 
 similar prayers, and as defining their object — " ut et 
 " illi et nos promissa consequemur bona" — " that 
 *' both they and we may obtain the good things 
 " promised ;" and if we look to that place which 
 you have quoted from Tertullian, (Ed. Par. 1641, 
 Lib, XV. 66) — we shall meet with a direction to 
 widows to make annual oblation for their husbands ; 
 and prayer that, among other things, they should 
 have " in prima resurrectione consortium" — "a par- 
 " taking together of the first resurrection.'' At all 
 events, it will be impossible to find in any one of 
 these fathers the slightest allusion to any thing 
 
69 
 
 like a purgatorial fire. When the doctrine of prayer 
 for the release of souls from the refining of a " pur- 
 " GATORIAL FIRE," Came to bc artfully ingrafted on 
 this stock, the entire grew wildly into error ; and 
 some Protestants, too hasty in their anxious zeal for 
 the purifying of the church from erroneous innova- 
 tion, have, in pruning the branches, come too near 
 to the root. For this reason it is that we hear so 
 little of this interesting subject, until very lately, in 
 our Protestant prayers ; save only in this beautiful 
 one of the burial service of the Church of England — 
 " Almighty God, with whom do live the spirits of 
 " them that depart hence in the Lord, and with 
 " whom the souls of the faithful, after they are 
 " delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy 
 " and felicity ; we give thee hearty thanks for that 
 " it hath pleased thee to deliver this our brother 
 " out of the miseries of this sinful world ; beseeching 
 " thee, that it may please thee, of thy gracious 
 " goodness, shortly to accomplish the number of 
 " thine elect, and to hasten thy kingdom ; that 
 " we, with all those who are departed in the true 
 " faith of thy holy name, may have our perfect con- 
 " summation and bliss, both in body and soul, in thy 
 " eternal and everlasting glory, through Jesus Christ, 
 " our Lord. Amen.'' 
 
 Connected with the subject of the " hearty thanks'* 
 here mentioned, are the oblations for the dead, of 
 which TertuUian speaks thus — " We make annual 
 " oblations for the dead, for their birth-days." These 
 are thus explained in the sermon of Chrysologus 
 on the martyrdom of Cyprian — " Do not think the 
 
70 
 
 " birth-day of saints to be one to the earth in the 
 *' flesh ; but from earth to heaven, from labour to 
 " repose, from temptations to rest, from tortures to 
 " delights, from the scorn of the world to the crown, 
 " and to glory." St. Chrysostom, in his 4th Horn, in 
 Heb. says also — " Do we not praise God and give 
 " thanks, for that he hath now crowned him that is 
 " departed." Such were these oblations for the dead. 
 
 I shall now proceed to demonstrate, that St. Patrick 
 and the early Irish Christians had no idea of any 
 thing like a purgatory, or a " purgatorial fire ;" and 
 that those doctrines are neither primitive nor scrip- 
 tural, in the way in which they are now taught in 
 the Roman Catholic church. 
 
 You are, of course, acquainted with the canons 
 attributed to the synods of St. Patrick, which are com- 
 mented on by yourself, (p. 225.) Now the words of this 
 canon thus quoted, whose title, which is all that you 
 have produced, appears to imply an acknowledgment 
 of " Oblation for the dead," seem most unequivocally 
 to oppose the doctrine as you explain it. The fact 
 will appear from the document itself, which I shall 
 transcribe in full. I find that this title is referred 
 to, independently of the canon itself, in O'Connor's 
 first index to his Rer. Hiber. Script., p. 258; 
 and I suspect that, finding it there apparently 
 suited to your system, you gave into the temptation, 
 and took it upon conjecture, as you probably did in 
 a similar manner the quotation from Tertullian, in 
 order to save further research. The canon is — 
 " Chapter xii. De oblatione pro defunctis." 
 
 " Audi Apostolum dicentem — ' Est autem pecca- 
 
71 
 
 " turn ad mortem, non pro illo dico ut roget qiiis ;' et 
 " Dominus — ' Nolite donare sanctum canibus' — Qui 
 " enim in vita sua sacrificium* non merebitur acci- 
 "pere, quomodo post mortem illi poterit adjuvare ?" 
 " Of oblation for the dead." 
 
 " Hear the apostle saying — ' there is a sin unto 
 " death, I do not say that one should pray for it ;' 
 " and our Lord — ' Give not that which is holy unto 
 " dogs' — for he who in his lifetime shall not deserve 
 " to receive the sacrifice, how can it assist him after 
 " death ?" 
 
 Now, Sir, had you studied this canon with atten- 
 tion, and not copied the conclusions drawn from it 
 by other prejudiced writers, you could not but have 
 perceived that it is negative of something ; and there- 
 fore it is most negligent, to say no more, to adduce it as 
 implying a custom practised and approved : and had 
 you also looked to the original Tertullian, you would 
 have seen its clear meaning to be, that none but 
 real believers could have any lot or part at their 
 death in that spiritual offering of thanksgiving, that 
 " oblatio pro defunctis pro natalitiis," which he men- 
 tions, and which is manifestly alluded to here. I 
 must not omit, that there is among the works attri- 
 buted to St. Patrick one upon the following subject : 
 • — " De tribus Habitaculis," and, in describing these, 
 he says — "There be three habitations under the 
 " power of Almighty God ; the first, the lowermost, 
 
 • The meaning of the words "receiving the sacrifice," as 
 used in these early days, has been ah-eady fully explained by 
 a passage from Usher, transcribed under the next preceding 
 head of doctrine. 
 
72 
 
 " and the middle : the highest whereof is called the 
 " kingdom of God, or the kingdom of the heavens ; 
 " the lowermost is termed hell ; the middle is named 
 " the present world." And again — " Either place 
 " is supplied from the middle one." There is no 
 mention of purgatory here, nor indeed in the entire 
 tract, although its peculiar topic be the future con- 
 dition of the soul ; and this silence on the subject, 
 while it distinctly proves that he does not inculcate 
 the doctrine, affords a strong implication that it was 
 never even heard of by the writer — there was 
 nothing before him to suggest the thought of it to his 
 mind ; for, were it otherwise, he could not possibly, 
 on such an occasion, have passed it by entirely 
 unnoticed. I should make a similar remark upon 
 another ancient canon, attributed to a synod of 
 St. Patrick, although not so with any certainty, 
 yet unquestionably of great antiquity. (See Us. 
 Rel. &c. p. 24.) It speaks thus of the soul — 
 " Neither can the archangel lead it to life, until 
 " the Lord have judged it ; nor the devil transport 
 " it to hell, until the Lord have condemned it." I 
 think that, had purgatory been a doctrine of those 
 times, it could not have passed entirely unnoticed 
 here. I would just add that St. Columbanus, in 
 spite of the missal of Bobbio, directs his disciples 
 thus (Syl. &c. p. 11):— 
 
 " Vive Deo fidens, Christi praecepta sequendo, 
 
 « Dummodo vita manet, dura tempora certa salutis." 
 
 " Live believing in God, following the precepts of 
 
" Christ, while life remains, ivhile the times for obtain- 
 *' ing salvation are certain ;" which seems to me to 
 exclude the idea of any such time after death, and 
 in a purgatorial state : while the later Sedulius says, 
 (in Rom. 7. and in 1 . Cor. 3 ; from Us. Rel. &c. p. 24—) 
 that, at the end of life, " either death or life suc- 
 " ceedeth ;" and " that, death is the gate by which 
 " we enter into the kingdom." 
 
 Claudius, whom I have mentioned before, has a 
 very strong passage upon this subject. I do not, 
 however, quote him on his own account, as you have 
 not thought proper to mention him in your history, 
 and, therefore, have not appeared to admit him as an 
 authority ; but because he merely refers to the words 
 of St. Jerome, one of the greatest and most ancient 
 fathers of the Roman Catholic church ; and will 
 therefore serve, fitly, to lead us from the considera- 
 tion of this doctrine as holden by the early Irish 
 Christians, to the views entertained of it by the rest of 
 Christendom. He shews us the utter vanity of prayers 
 for the releasing of souls out of purgatory, where he 
 tells us, that, " While we are in this present world 
 " we may assist each other by prayers, or by counsels; 
 " but when we shall come before the tribunal of 
 " Christ, neither Job, nor Daniel, nor Noah can 
 " intreat for any one, but every one shall bear his 
 " own burden." This sentence from St. Jerome is 
 remarkably similar to one upon the same subject, 
 which is used by St. Clement, third Pope of Rome, 
 in his Second Epistle written to the Corinthians, c. 3. 
 
74 
 
 After quoting the same text from Ezek. xiv., 14. &c. 
 respecting Noah, Daniel and Job, he says — " Let us 
 " therefore repent, whilst we are yet upon the earth ; 
 " for as the potter, if he make a vessel, and it be 
 " turned amiss in his hands, or broken, again forms 
 " it anew ; but if he have gone so far as to throw it 
 '' into the furnace of fire, lie can no more bring any 
 " remedy of it ; so we, whilst we are in this world, 
 " should repent, with our whole heart, for what- 
 " soever we have done in the flesh, while we have 
 " yet the time of repentance ; that we may be saved 
 " by the Lord." There is no direct condemnation of 
 purgatorial fire most certainly here, because the good 
 pontiff, who lived about the year 100, had never 
 heard of it ; but the sentiments are entirely incon- 
 sistent with a belief in it, and substantially combat 
 its absurdities. Remember that these sentiments are 
 delivered by the head of that Church with which you 
 argue the ancient Irish to have agreed ; and they pvove, 
 decidedly, that, old as the doctrine of prayer for 
 the dead might be, and it must be old, for we find it 
 in the Maccabees, (lib. II. c. 12,) that of purgatory 
 is not by any means primitive. The former crept in 
 gradually into the early church abroad, but it was 
 not connected with the latter until of very late years. 
 Fisher, a Roman Catholic, and Bishop of Rochester, 
 (in confut. Luther. Art. 18,) confesses, that it was 
 never or seldom mentioned by the ancient fathers ;* 
 
 * I was very much surprised at these passages in Fisher's 
 work — " Nemo certe jam dubitat orthodoxus an purgatorium 
 " sit, de quo tamcn apud priscos illos nulla, vel quam raro, 
 
75 
 
 he likewise admits, that there is not one text of 
 Scripture that can force any man to believe in it — 
 and, indeed, it must be acknowledged, that there are 
 many which are of sufficient force to compel to the 
 contrary faith. I shall select but a very few strong- 
 ones — Look to the expressions of Abraham, in the 
 parable of Lazarus, Luke xvi, 22, 23, and 26 ; and 
 the passage in John v. 24, " He that heareth my 
 *' word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath 
 " everlasting life, and shall not come into condemna- 
 " tion, but IS passed from death unto life." Look 
 also to 1 Thess. iv. 14, and other places, for the state 
 of all men at Christ's coming to judge the world — 
 " them which deep in Jesus shall God bring with 
 " him," &c. And also to Rev. 14. 13.—" Blessed 
 " are the dead which die in the Lord from hence. 
 " forth ; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from 
 " their labours." But without seeking for texts con- 
 demning, in express terms, a doctrine which was not 
 at the time invented ; or for others, besides those 
 already quoted, implying tenets which are totally in- 
 consistent with it, I would refer to the entire tenor 
 of Scripture, to its full and free proclamation of 
 unpurchased and unmerited mercy, and especially to 
 
 " fiebat mentio ;" and the following — " Neque tarn necessaria 
 " fuit, sive purgaiorii, seu indulgentiarum fides, in prima 
 " ecclesia atque nunc est." " Faith in a purgatory or in 
 " indulgences was not so necessary in the primitive church, as 
 " it is now ;" and this because, as he tells us, there were 
 better men. But surely the suffering of one soul only in a 
 purgatorial fire would have induced the necessity of teaching 
 those doctrines, if they were true ; the real fact however is, 
 that they are thoroughly of human and modern invention. 
 
76 
 
 that great and comprehensive truth, wliich so plainly 
 declares it, and which quenches every spark of 
 purgatorial fire. — " The blood of Jesus Christ 
 " cleanseth from all sin." 1 John i. 7 ; and to the 
 last and emphatic declaration of our Saviour from 
 the cross, when he uttered the words — " It is finished." 
 
 It might appear proper, from its name, to notice 
 St. Patrick's purgatory in this place ; but it is obvious, 
 from its nature, that the consideration of it should be 
 reserved for the head of penance and of pilgrimages. 
 
 The next that you mention is a very important 
 doctrine indeed. " The habit," you say, " of 
 
 *' IXVOKING, AND PRAYING TO SAINTS was, it is 
 
 " evident, general among the ancient Irish Christians; 
 " and a life of St. Brigid, written according to Ware 
 " in the 7th century, concludes with the following 
 " words : — ' There are two holy virgins in heaven, 
 " who may undertake my protection, Mary and St. 
 *' Brigid, on whose patronage let each of us depend.' 
 " See Lannigan Eccl. Hist. v. iii. c. 20, note 107." 
 
 It appears to me, that one of the greatest evils 
 likely to arise from the publication of your senti- 
 ments on this subject, will follow from the confident 
 manlier in which you have treated it. The ])eople of 
 Ireland, while they are shrewd and inquisitive, are 
 equally credulous and confiding ; they are also, in 
 general, wherever they are not led completely blind- 
 folded, anxious upon this matter ; a.id they are far 
 from being ignorant of Archbishop Usher, and his 
 opinions concerning it. When, therefore, they meet 
 in their research with a history by one of your 
 
77 
 
 popular and influential character, as a national poet, 
 and a political supporter of their native predictions ; 
 and perceive how you put away all his assertions as 
 " little grounded in fact," with less than four pages 
 of allegations ; in which almost every important 
 doctrine of their religion is handled briefly, and dis- 
 missed with little argument, and rather " ex cathe- 
 " dra ;" they will naturally be inclined to conclude, 
 that there are stores of proof somewhere, too nu- 
 merous to produce in detail, and of which, therefore, 
 a specimen must suflSce. It is to be expected that 
 this thought will especially suggest itself to the 
 acute Irishman's mind, when he reads your very 
 jejune and insufficient paragraph upon this — the most 
 important doctrine of his creed — involving the great 
 accusations of idolatry itself, and of the direct breach 
 of one of the commandments of Jehovah, that are 
 brought against it. He will naturally reason thus 
 within his mind: — " It cannot be because that this 
 *' part of the subject is of little consequence, that 
 *' Mr. Moore has treated it so very lightly and so 
 " very briefly ; it cannot be that he despises the ar- 
 *'guments of Usher, and the Protestants, so fully 
 " and boldly brought forward ; and surely such a 
 " man cannot be indiff'erent to the truth itself ; it 
 " must be that the matter was so convincingly proved 
 " to him, that he thought it was quite unneces- 
 " sary to trouble us with arguments respecting it ; 
 "but that it would suffice to give us, who have 
 " neither opportunity or leisure for research, his 
 "own convictions on the subject." And he will 
 
78 
 
 most probably add, tbat *' indeed Mr. M. migbt as well 
 " have spared such a specimen as he has exhibited 
 " to us ; and left us to take the whole matter upon 
 " trust, in the manner we are so well used to with 
 " regard to questions of religion." 
 
 Permit me. however, to take a very different view 
 of the subject ; for in fact you have, in this the only 
 argument, selected the best that you had — and what 
 is that best ? the authority of a life of St. Brigid — a 
 work of the seventh century, and of course no fit evi- 
 dence in our cause — a work that, in the opinion of 
 many, will carry its own character and condemnation 
 in the sentence you ha,ve quoted. You have the follow- 
 ing passage of your history, (p. 257.) — " By one of 
 " those violations of chronology not unfrequently 
 " hazarded, for the purpose of bringing extraordinary 
 " personages together, an intimate friendship is sup- 
 " posed to have existed between her," (St. Brigid,) 
 " and St. Patrick ; and she is even said to have woven, 
 " at the Apostle's own request, the shroud in which 
 *' he was buried. But with this imagined intercourse 
 " between the two saints, the dates of their respec- 
 " tive lives are inconsistent ; and it is but just possible 
 " that Brigid might have seen the gi'eat apostle of 
 " her country, as she was a child of twelve years old 
 *' when he died !" I presume that you speak here 
 of the author on whom you above rely ; but, whether 
 or not, I will reject the evidence of so late a period, 
 and indeed I exclude all that I have read of St. 
 Brigid, from the character of unexceptionable evi- 
 dence—whosoever will examine that which is to be 
 
79 
 
 met with in the Floiilegium of Messingham, will find 
 that I am quite justified in doing so. 
 
 This leaves, therefore, your assertion altogether 
 destitute of proof ; but not so our side of the ques- 
 tion : and in support of it, I shall now once more 
 call on your own witnesses, St. Patrick, and the second 
 Sedulius. The 23d canon of the accredited synod of St. 
 Patrick, already mentioned, declares thus — " Non 
 " adjurandam esse creaturam aliam, nisi creatorem.'' — 
 "No creature is to be adjured" (or invoked) "but 
 " only the creator,'' and Sedulius, (in Rom. 1 and 2,) 
 says — " Adorare alium, praster Patrem, Filium, et 
 " Spiritum sanctum, impietatis crimen est" — " To 
 " pray to any other, beside the Father, Son, and 
 " Holy Ghost, is the crime of impiety." Whether, 
 therefore, it be evident that, " the habit of invoking 
 '^ and prayirig to saints " was authorised by the 
 ancient Irish church, or otherwise, I leave it to the 
 public to determine. 
 
 But there are some further testimonies on this sub- 
 ject. The allegation of an agreement between the 
 ancient British, or Welsh, and the Irish churches, 
 has already been established by proof ; from the 
 following description, therefore, of the horror ex- 
 pressed by the former against the practices of the 
 Romish Church, in the matter now before us, we 
 may assuredly conclude, what were the opinions that 
 were entertained by the early Irish Christians respect- 
 ing it. A very ancient MS., preserved in Ben. Col. 
 Cambridge, (cxlv. Art. 173) informs us thus — that the 
 Britons lived in tolerable peace with the Saxons, while 
 
80 
 
 these latter were lieatliens ; but, " after that, by the 
 " means of Austin, the Saxons became Christians, in 
 " such sort as Austin had taught them, the Bryttans 
 " wold not, after that, nether eate nor drynke wyth 
 " them ; because they corrupted, with superstition, 
 *' yraages, and ydolatrie, the true religion of Christ." 
 There is nothing that will better exhibit the truth 
 of the case, as it respects this " habit " of the 
 primitive saints of Ireland, than an examination of 
 the accredited works of St. Patrick ; they shew forth, 
 in a most striking manner, the man of continual 
 prayer— one hundred times a day — (a definite for an 
 indefinite number,) did he address himself to his 
 God — as he tells us in his confession (Opus. p. 6.) — 
 before the dawn, in the snow, and frost, and rain, he 
 ceased not, because his spirit burned within him ; yet, 
 throughout all these works, thus replete with accounts 
 of his prayers and intercessions, not one passage 
 does any where occur, in which the least mention is 
 made of invocation of the Virgin Mary, or of any 
 created saint or being whatsoever. One would sup- 
 pose, that in relating the dream which induced him to 
 visit the west of Ireland, and to act as an instructor to 
 its natives, an occasion would occur of noticing other 
 mediators than the Lord Jesus Christ, or intercessors 
 with him, had he ever imagined that there could be 
 any such ; but no — neither here, nor elsewhere, is 
 there the least allusion of the kind ; but he concludes 
 the relation thus — " Dominus advocatus noster pos- 
 " tulat pro nobis " — " the Lord our advocate prays 
 " for us " — while he ends his confession in these 
 
81 
 
 words — " Testificor, in veiitate, coram Deo et Sanctis 
 " angelis ejus," &c. " I witness, in truth, before 
 " God and his holy angels," &c. I consider this 
 silence to be much more than negative proof; for were 
 he like a good modern Romanist, he could not hare 
 so slighted by uniform silence the Virgin and the 
 saints ; and it is all the proof the subject can admit 
 of, for he could not be expected to have condemned, 
 in positive terms, a practice which had not as yet com- 
 menced its existence in Ireland. Conformably with 
 this is the following fact, which I give upon the autho- 
 rity of the learned Spelman.(Seehis Cone. v. i. p. 218.) 
 He tells us, that there was in his possession a Psalter, 
 written about the year 754, shortly before the second 
 council of Nice, which contains a prayer annexed to 
 each of the psalms, and of the sections of the 119th, 
 171 in all; yet not one of them is addressed to the 
 Virgin Mary, the apostles, or any of the saints — but 
 this document refers rather to the practice of the 
 church in general at the time, and not merely the 
 Irish portion of it. 
 
 It has been a matter of surprise to me, that when, 
 with so much decision and good sense, you have 
 rejected the gross doctrine of transubstantiation, you 
 could still give countenance to the far grosser one of 
 idolatry, which " the invoking and praying to saints" 
 undoubtedly is ; and I was still more surprised to 
 find the Protestant condemnation of it put forward 
 by you as heresy, where you are speaking, in your 
 296th page, of DungaVs work, written A.D. 827, 
 " in opposition," as you say, " to Claudius," bishop of 
 
82 
 
 Turin, " who reviving the heresy of Vigilantius 
 *' maintained, that saints ought not to he honoured, 
 " Tior any reverence paid to images ! The Irish 
 " Doctor," you add, " contends zealously for the an- 
 " cient Catholic practice!'' And so must I contend, 
 with equal zeal, for the yet more ancient Irish one 
 condemning it; declaring, with St. Paul, (Acts 
 xxiv. 14,) " But this I confess unto thee, that after 
 " the way which they call heresy, so worship I the 
 *' God of MY FATHERS, believing all things that are 
 " written in the law, and the prophets" — and for the 
 yet more ancient canon of that Law that was written 
 with the finger of Jehovah, although now it is obli- 
 terated from many of- the authentic documents of 
 your " ancient Catholic church" — " Thou shalt 
 
 " NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE 
 
 *' THOU SHALT NOT BOW DOWN THYSELF UNTO 
 
 " THEM.'' You say, Sir, of this Irish Doctor, that 
 instead of resorting to the aid of argument, on a point 
 solely to he decided hy " authority and tradition^' 
 " he appeals to the constant practice of the church 
 *' from the very earliest times." — Without delaying to 
 exhibit the manifest error that this passage contains, 
 I shall take up one part of it only connected with 
 our subject ; and close my argument upon the head 
 now under our consideration, by shewing, that the 
 practice of the early church out of Ireland, as well as 
 of that portion of it that existed in this island, was 
 not such as you have there declared it to be. 
 
 " Turn irascitur angelus," says St. Augustine, 
 (in Ps. 95) " quando ipsum colere volueris." — "An 
 
83 
 
 *' angel is offended, when you desire to worship him ;" 
 and so, of course, would St. Augustine, were you to 
 invoke him. We find the use of images condemned 
 by the unanimous decree of 338 bishops, assembled 
 in the general council at Constantinople, A.D. 754; 
 and it was not authorised until it was permitted by a 
 canon passed in the second council of Nice, A.D. 
 787. This latter canon continued still to be resisted 
 in England ; and was rejected by the council of 
 Frankfort, holden A.D. 794, at which our celebrated 
 countryman, Alcuinus, the friend and preceptor of 
 Charlemagne, was present. (See canon 2.) It is 
 entirely without allowance from Scripture, which, on 
 the contrary, abounds with awful passages denouncing 
 it. It is needless, however, to go beyond the second 
 commandment. With reference to the extravagant 
 honour now paid to the Virgin, there is a remarkable 
 passage in Luke xi. 27, where our Lord, in answer 
 to the premature instance of it there exhibited, by the 
 woman who exclaimed — " Blessed is the womb that 
 " bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked" — 
 checks her with prophetical caution thus — " Yea, 
 " rather blessed are they that hear the word of the 
 " Lord, and keep it." To conclude with one text, 
 which is as it were instar omnium, and which there- 
 fore prevents the necessity of adducing more; we find 
 it thus written in 1 Timothy ii. 5, " There is one 
 *' God, and one Mediator between God and man, the 
 " man Christ Jesus :" and that we need no intercessor 
 is plain from this, among many such passages in the 
 Bible, containing his invitations, his miracles, indeed 
 
8-1 
 
 all his history—" For we have not an high priest 
 " which cannot be touched with the feelings of our 
 " infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we 
 " are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly 
 " to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, 
 " and find grace to help in the time of need." Heb. 
 iv. 15 and 16. 
 
 The next subject that you bring forward is thus 
 introduced. — " The penitential discipline established 
 " in their monasteries was of the most severe descrip- 
 " tion. The weekly fast days observed by the whole 
 " Irish church were, according to the practice of the 
 " primitive times, Wednesdays and Fridays ; and the 
 " abstinence of the monks, and of the more pious 
 " among the laity, was carried to an extreme unknown 
 " in later days. The benefit of pilgrimages was also 
 " inculcated ; and we find mention occasionally, in 
 " the Annals, of princes dying in pilgrimage" — and 
 you add in a note — " See Tigernach, A.D. 610, and 
 " also 723. In the Annals of the Four Masters, 
 " A.D. 777, the pilgrimage of a son of the king of 
 " Connaught, to the island of Hyona, is recorded." 
 
 Mr. Locke says, that much of the difference of 
 opinion that exists between disputants would be 
 avoided, if they were to commence their arguments by 
 a definition of the terms which they employ. I am 
 sure that such a method would assist in arriving 
 sooner at the truth ; but I am not so certain that it 
 would always equally lead to the mutual agreement of 
 the adverse parties. In our case I fear that it would 
 not conduce to that end ; for while, vaguely using the 
 
85 
 
 terras penitential discipline and abstinence, you seem 
 to propose what is reasonable, when you bring these 
 words into contact with the doctrines and practices of 
 the modern Roman Catholic church, which I cannot 
 admit to be either scriptural in themselves, or autho- 
 rised by the teaching or example of our primitive saints, 
 your proposition becomes altogether inadmissible. 
 
 I do admit that penitential discipline, fasts, and 
 abstinence did exist, not only among the early Irish, 
 but among all the primitive Christians ; but I entirely 
 deny that they held I he sacrament of penance, or the 
 merit of these exercises, as taught in the modern Roman 
 Catholic church. But before I proceed I must, in the 
 first place, remark, that what you have here advanced 
 upon the first head of this subject, rests exclusively 
 upon assertion without argument. In the second place, 
 that, were that which you have alleged of weekly 
 fast days, &c, true to its full extent, it refers only 
 to usages commenced after the year 600, and are not 
 therefore to be brought forward as the practice of 
 the primitive times. And thirdly, this very extreme 
 of abstinence which you so much glory in, is the 
 precise point of great difference, which is mentioned 
 to have marked the growing degeneracy of the Irish 
 saints, where the three orders already alluded to are 
 spoken of. — The third and latest of these is called merely 
 holy, and is said to have shone but as stars ; having 
 fallen off from the characters of holiest and holier, 
 and gradually lessened in brilliancy from the splendor 
 of the sun and of the moon ; and they are at the 
 same time described, by their having been peculiarly 
 
86 
 
 ascetic ; and to have lived *' a peu pies a la maniere 
 " des moines de La Tiappe." — (M'Geoghegan, Hist. 
 D'Irelande, v. 1.321.) Whether or not this absti- 
 nence of theirs " was carried to an extreme unknown 
 " in later days," we shall soon have an opportunity 
 of better judging, as an offset of the Monks of 
 La Trappe has just been planted and cherished in 
 this ill-fated country. 
 
 But taking the rule of Columbanus, " the moral 
 " instructions written for his monks," (p. 267) to 
 which you have referred, I shall abstract from them 
 his directions on this subject ; and then your readers, 
 comparing them with the modern fastings of Roman- 
 ism, may perceive how far they differ from each other. 
 It ordains (c. 5.) not merely on Wednesdays and 
 Fridays, but on " every day to fast, and every day 
 " to eat ;" " because this is true discretion, that the 
 *' power of spiritual proficiency might be retained by 
 " abstinence." — Again, " Let the food of the monks be 
 " mean, flying satiety and excess of drink, that it 
 *' may both sustain, and not hurt them." — And once 
 more, c. S. — " It profiteth them little if they were 
 " virgins in body, and not virgins in mind." And 
 Claudius, whom I formerly brought forward as quoting 
 St. Jerome, may again be admitted to give testimony 
 here, as he gives it in the words of the celebrated 
 St. Augustine — " The children of wisdom," he says, 
 " understand, that neither in abstaining nor in eating 
 ** is there any virtue ; but in contentedness in bearing 
 " the want, and temperance of not corrupting a man's 
 " self by abundance." 
 
87 
 
 It is clear from these, that the use of fasting among 
 our ancestors was to prepare and humble the mind, 
 through the subjection of the desires of the body ; 
 and that it did not in the least degree partake of its 
 modern character in the Roman Catholic church, a 
 human merit, degrading by its mixture the great 
 work of atonement. But it was not indeed very long, 
 before the enormous abuse of this practice led to its 
 censure first, and then to its too great neglect among 
 holy men. The author of " The Life of St. Teresa" — 
 (See Florilegium, p. 393) — speaks of persons, " who, 
 " being assaulted with spiritual vices, which they 
 " neglect, afflict their body with abstinence ; thinking 
 " nothing of pride which expelled the angels from 
 " heaven," &c. — and Gildas says — (See Spelman's 
 Concilia, v. 1, p. 55.) — " The abstinence from bodily 
 " food without charity is useless ; they are, therefore, 
 *' the better men, who do not fast much, nor extrava- 
 " gantly abstain from the creatures of God, but care- 
 '" fully keep their heart within pure before God, from 
 " whence they know cometh the issues of life ; than 
 " they who eat no flesh, nor delight in secular food, 
 " nor are borne in carriages or by horses, and think 
 " themselves hereby to be as it were superior to 
 " others ; upon whom death hath entered through the 
 " windows of pride." This writer of the sixth cen- 
 tury seems to have well understood these words of 
 the prophet — " Is this such a fast, saith the Lord, as 
 " I have chosen, for a man to afflict his soul for a 
 " day ? — Is not this rather the fast I have chosen ? 
 
" Loose the bands of wickedness. — Is it not to deal 
 " thy bread to the hungry," &c., " and that thou 
 " hide not thyself from thine own flesh ?" — (Isaiah 
 Iviii. 4 and 5, Douay version.) 
 
 Your instances of pilgrimages shall not delay me 
 long — they are all of a date too late to shew the 
 practice to be primitive ; I could indeed add to them 
 many more of a similar character. I presume that 
 you have given us the earliest you can find, and 
 therefore it is not to be expected that I should 
 afford more ancient examples, especially as I believe 
 none such to exist. This is not a place in which to 
 shew forth the folly and the evil of these practices ; I 
 shall only say, that it had been better to have with- 
 held the approbation you have given to them, and 
 the encouragement you have afforded them, by 
 speaking of them as inducing benefit — benefit ! ! ! 
 Oh ! sir, had you ever read an account of the 
 wickedness and the idleness connected with a pilgri- 
 mage to Patrick's purgatory, you never could have 
 advocated " the benefit of pilgrimages " in Ireland ; 
 and had you inquired into the history of this place of 
 absurdity and abomination, you would have found a 
 Pope so impressed with a sense of both, as to endea- 
 vour to put a stop to the practice. You will find the 
 following fact recorded in the Ulster Annals — " A.D. 
 " 1497, the cave of St. Patrick's purgatory, in 
 " Lough Derg, was demolished in that year, on St. 
 " Patrick's day, by the Guardian of Donegal, and 
 " some persons in the Deanery of Lough Erne, 
 
89 
 
 *' deputed by the bishop, by authority of the Pope.*" 
 I think it right to state here, by the way, tliat this 
 place had no connection at all with St. Patrick, 
 although it bears his name, and is not even mentioned 
 by any of the early writers of his life, nor yet by 
 Jocelin, who flourished in the year 1183; the first 
 notice of it that occurs is by Henry, a monk of 
 Saltry, in the year 1153. I presume that you 
 believe this to be true, and that you do not rest any 
 thing upon the legends connected with this place; 
 but having been led to mention it, I thought it proper 
 to state these facts, in order to disconnect it the more 
 entirely from St. Patrick, and his far diflFerent 
 teachings and establishments. 
 
 Penitential discipline, as descriptive of what is 
 termed the sacrament of penance, will be better con- 
 sidered under the next head, which you notice thus — 
 " The practice of auricular confession, and their 
 " belief in the power of the priest to absolve from 
 " sin, is proved by the old penitential canons, and 
 " by innumerable passages in the lives of their 
 " saints.'' i\nd you remark, in a note — "On this point 
 " Usher acknowledges that they did, (no doubt,) 
 " both publicly and privately make confession of their 
 '* faults ;" (chap. 5,) and adds in proof of this fact 
 " what follows — ' One old penitential canon we find 
 " laid down in a synod held in this country about the 
 " year of our Lord 450, by St. Patrick, Auxilius, and 
 
 * I quote from " Richardson's Folly of Pilgrimages," p. 
 43, &c. ; this latter part of *' The Ulster Annals" has not 
 been given by O'Conor. 
 
90 
 
 " Isserninus, which is as followeth — « A Christian 
 " who hath killed a man, or committed fornication, 
 " or gone unto a soothsayer after the manner of the 
 " Gentiles, for every of those crimes shall do a year 
 " of penance ; when his year of penance is accom- 
 " plished he shall come with witnesses, and after- 
 " wards he shall be absolved by the priest.' Usher 
 " contends, however, for their having in so far 
 " differed from the belief of the present Catholics, 
 " that they did not attribute to the priest any more 
 " than a ministerial power in the remission of sins." 
 
 Whatever is important here may be examined in 
 connection with this notle, which contains the peni- 
 tential canon alluded to. Besides that we have had 
 enough of " The Lives of the Saints," they are of 
 no importance to us in this place, because of their 
 date ; and it is quite impossible to follow them up 
 with any research, on account of the very general 
 manner in which you have quoted them. 
 
 Your alleged acknowledgment by Usher requires, 
 as in other instances of his admissions brought forward 
 by ycu, to be set out at length, in order that its true 
 nature may fully appear. You have coupled his 
 admission with the old penitential canon, but you 
 have entirely withheld his opening out of the true 
 ancient meanings attached to confessions, to penances, 
 and to absolutions. I cannot better remedy this evil, 
 or correct this error or mis-statement, than by 
 transcribing, from the chapter which you have 
 referred to, the entire of what he has written upon 
 the subject ; observing only, that as it embodies a 
 
91 
 
 reference to our mutually acknowledged authorities, 
 I shall, by transcribing from him, give also what 
 they allege, and thus be saved the necessity of 
 intruding on your time by a separate reference to 
 each of them. 
 
 His words are these — "Upon special! occasions 
 *' they did, no doubt, both publicly and pri- 
 " VATELY make confession of their faults ; as well 
 " that they might receive counsailes and direction for 
 " their recovery, as that they might bee made par- 
 " takers of the benefit of the keys, for the quieting 
 " of their troubled consciences." I shall refer to 
 the original for some instances given in this place, in 
 order that I may not unnecessarily encumber this 
 extract — " Now the counsell," he thus proceeds, 
 " commonly given unto the penitent after confession 
 " was, that he should wipe away his sinnes by meet 
 " fruits of repentance — (Confessa dignis p^eniten- 
 " Ti^* fructil^us abstergerent' — Bed. Ec. Hist. lib. 
 " 4. c. 27,) which course, Bede observeth, to have 
 " been usually prescribed by our Cuthbert. For 
 " penances were then exacted, as testimonies of the sin- 
 " cerity of that inward repentance, which was 
 " necessarily required for obtaining remission of the 
 " sinne ; and so had reference to the taking away the 
 
 * I might well have questioned the propriety of the use of 
 the word penance as a translation of the word pcenitentia, in 
 every place in which it occurs throughout this argument ; and 
 it should be remembered that all the writers from whom we 
 quote wrote in Latin ; but I shall not encumber the discussion 
 with this worn-out matter, but acquiesce the rather in the 
 use of the term penance, as Usher has done so in his arguments. 
 
92 
 
 " guilt, and not of the temporall punishment 
 *' remaining after the forgivenesse of the guilt, which 
 " is the NEW FORMED use of penances invented 
 " by our later Romanists." He then produces the 
 example of the old penitential canon, in the words 
 which you have correctly and fully quoted, and pro- 
 ceeds thus : — " These Bishops did take order, (we 
 " see,) according to the discipline generally used in 
 '* those times, that the penance should first be per- 
 " formed, and when long and good proofe had bin 
 " given, by that means, of the truth of the parties re- 
 " pentance, they wished the priest to impart unto 
 " him the benefit of absolution ; whereas, hy the new 
 " device of sacramental penance^ the matter is now 
 " far more easily transacted : by virtue of the keyes 
 " the sinner is instantly of attrite made contrite, and 
 " thereupon, as soon as bee hath made his confession, 
 " he presently receiveth his absolution : after this 
 " some sorry penance is imposed, which, upon 
 " better consideration, may bee converted into pence, 
 " and so a quicke end is made of many a foule 
 " businesse. 
 
 " But for the right use of the keys, wee fully accord 
 " with Claudius : that the office of remitting and re- 
 " taining sinnes, which was given to the apostles, ' is 
 " now, in the bisliops and priests, committed unto 
 *' every church ; namely, that having taken know- 
 " ledge of the causes of such as have sinned, as many 
 " as they shall behold humble and truly penitent, 
 " those they may now with compassion absolve from 
 " the feare of everlasting death ; but such as they 
 
93 
 
 " (liscerne to persist in the sins which they have com- 
 " mitted, those they may declare to be bound over to 
 " everlasting punishments.' And, in thus absolving 
 " such as be truly penitent, we willingly yeeld, that 
 " the pastors of God's church doe remit sinnes after 
 " their manner, that is to say, ministerially and im- 
 " properly ; so that the priviledge of forgiving sinnes 
 " properly and absolutely, be still unto God alone. 
 *• Which is at large set out by the same Claudius ; 
 " when he expoundeth the historie of the man sicke 
 " of the palsey, that was cured by our Saviour in the 
 " 9th of St. Matthew. For, following Bede, upon 
 " that place he writeth thus — ' The scribes say true, 
 " that none can forgive sinnes but God alone ; who 
 " also forgiveth by them to w^hom hee hath given 
 " the power of forgiving.' " 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that in the setting forth of 
 this matter, which rests indeed chiefly in the proper 
 explanation of terms, you have not either done justice 
 to Usher, or to the subject itself. There is a vast 
 difference, surely, between penance as " a sacrament," 
 by which " we receive forgiveness of those sins com- 
 " mitted after baptism," (Catec. R. C. pa. 52 ;) and 
 by the performance of which " we satisfy God ;" and 
 between auricular or sacramental confession made to 
 the priest alone — all doctrines of the modern Romish 
 church — and the penitential discipline enjoined by the 
 old Irish canon ; the " coram omnibus qui ibidem 
 " erantpeccata sua confessus est" — " he confessed his 
 *' sins before all that were present," — mentioned in 
 Adamnan's Life of St. Columbkille, (lib. i. c. 16 ;) 
 
94 
 
 and the declaration of the sinner's absolution there 
 also recorded — " Rise up, son, and he comforted ; thy 
 " sins which thou hast committed are forgiven ; be- 
 " cause, as it is loritten^ a contrite and humbled heart 
 " God doth not despise." 
 
 Two unquestionable authorities still remain to 
 demonstrate, that not only the Roman Catholic use of 
 confession, but other doctrines upon which you have 
 not touched, were unknown to, or else quite neglected 
 by, the Irish church, even so late as the year 1140, 
 about which time St. Malachy was Archbishop of 
 Armagh — St. Bernard, in his life of that prelate, (c. 6.) 
 distinctly asserts this fact. The other is to be found 
 among the Letters of Alcuinus, (Ep. 71, edit. Quer- 
 citani.) This learned Irishman, and friend of Char- 
 lemagne, addressing the churches of the Scots — 
 (certainly some read it, of the Goths) — gives to both 
 clergy and laity great praise ; notwithstanding certain 
 customs which were practised by them, to wit, that 
 none of the laity were willing to make confession to 
 the priests — " Nerainem ex laicis velle confessionem 
 *' sacerdotibus dare." 
 
 But upon this subject, penance, as upon that of 
 pilgrimages, I have again to lament, that by the 
 stamp of approbation which you have thoughtlessly 
 put upon the practice of penances in Ireland, you con- 
 duce, as far as your influence lies, to do injury which it 
 is not in the power of your talents to repair. If, as 1 
 have said before, you had ever witnessed, if you had 
 ever read of, if you had reflected on, the degradations 
 of the human intellect, the perversions of the human 
 
95 
 
 feelings, the tortures of the human frame, exhibited 
 annually in the case of thousands, in their penances 
 performed at Lough Derg, Croagh Patrick, and nu- 
 merous other places every where in Ireland, you 
 would not, I trust, have chimed in with the continu- 
 ance of such follies and impieties ; but rather have 
 joined with the better disposed of the Roman Catholic 
 Church, to endeavour to banish them from the island 
 altogether. And, Sir, had you known — but you must 
 know it — had you, therefore, reflected on, or pro- 
 perly cared for, the perpetual and tyrannical bondage 
 in which the modern abuse of the wholesome ancient 
 doctrines of penitential discipline, confession, and 
 absolution, holds the bodies, and the souls, and the 
 purses of your poor, ignorant, fellow-countrymen, 
 you would have bent all your energies to rouse 
 them to break off their spiritual fetters, and not have 
 laboured thus to rivet them more firmly. 
 
 The doctrines here considered are so interwoven 
 with those of human merits and works, self-sacrifices, 
 and such like, that I feel^it would lead to endless 
 enlargement on the subject, were I to enter into a 
 full consideration of their antiquity, or their connection 
 with the precepts of the Bible. I shall, therefore, 
 refer but to two or three clear texts, which are quite 
 sufficient to settle all difference of opinion on these 
 points. It is thus declared of his people by the Lord, 
 (Heb. X. 17 and 18) — " Their sins and iniquities will 
 *' I remember no more. Now, where remission of sins 
 " is, there is no more offering for sin." And let the 
 Romanist ponder well what St. Peter himself has 
 
96 
 
 written for our consideration — " Ye know that ye 
 " were not redeemed witli corruptible tilings, as 
 " silver and gold, but with the precious blood of 
 " Christ, as of a lamb without blemish or without 
 " spot.*'— 1 Pet. i. 18 and 19. We find the follow- 
 ing striking passage, also, in the book of the Prophet 
 Micah, (vi. 6, &c.) — " Wherewith shall I come before 
 " the Lord, and bow myself before the high God ? 
 " Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with 
 *' calves of a year old ? Will the Lord be pleased 
 *' with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of 
 " rivers of oil ? Shall I give my first-born for my 
 " transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of 
 *' my soul ? He hath shewed thee oh man I what 
 " is good ; and what doth the Lord require of thee, 
 " but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk 
 " humbly with thy God ?" Of the doctrine of auri- 
 cular confession, I may add, that it was not com- 
 manded until the 21st canon of the Council of Lateran 
 ordained it, A.D. 1215. The previous practice will 
 appear from Lombard's Sentences, lib. iv. c. 17 ; T. 
 Aquinas on that passage, and Gratian, de poen. dist. 1. 
 c. 89. 
 
 The next subject presents to us no difficulty, and 
 suggests but a few remarks. The truth of Usher's 
 assertions is conceded, although very reluctantly, in 
 the following words — " The only point indeed, 
 " either of doctrine or discipline — and under this 
 " latter head alone the exception falls — in which the 
 " least difference of any moment can be detected, 
 " between the religion professed by the first Irish 
 
97 
 
 " Christians, and that of the Catholics of the present 
 " day, is with respect to the marriage of the clergy; 
 " which, as appears from the same sources of evi- 
 " dence that have afforded all the other proofs was, 
 " though certainly not approved of, yet permitted 
 " and practised. Besides a number of incidental 
 " proofs of this fact, the sixth canon of the 
 *' synod of St. Patrick enjoins that — the clerk's 
 " wife shall not walk out without having her 
 " head veiled." Your note here adds — " If the term 
 " clerk here be understood to comprise all the mem- 
 " bers of the clerical orders, the permission to marry 
 " extended also to priests ; but, it is thought by 
 " some, that the words of the canon apply only to 
 " the inferior ranks of the clergy. With respect to 
 " our English church, (says Dr. Milner,) at the end 
 " of the sixth century we gather from St. Gregory's 
 " permission for the clerks in minor orders to take 
 " wives, that this was unlawful for the clergy in holy 
 " orders ; namely, for bishops, priests, and deacons, 
 " agieably to a well-known rule of reasoning — 
 " ' Exceptio probat regulam ;' and we are justified in 
 " inferring the same with respect to the Irish clergy 
 " in St. Patrick's time. Inquiry into certain vulgar 
 " opinions, &c.. Letter 14." 
 
 I am afraid, my dear sir, that your readers will 
 imagine, from your method of concession in these 
 passages, if they be not convinced of it already, that 
 you are writing under the influence of much prejudice, 
 and altogether determined to support a system; as you 
 would otherwise have probably granted more fully 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 what you cannot deny, and have spared also those 
 sidewinds which bear indirectly upon your general 
 object. Insinuation indeed is no argument, it is well 
 if it be truth. The only point you say — Have you 
 forgotten Easter, and the tonsure, and the three chapters, 
 in your own history? (p. 283,) and, if you consider 
 these and others to be of a nature too trifling, although 
 they were far otherwise considered by the ancient 
 Irish themselves, on what possible authority do you 
 pronounce the marriage of the clergy to be " certainly 
 " not approved of," although " permitted and prac- 
 " tised ?" but principally, why do you neutralise the 
 whole concession by the observation — " it is thought 
 " by some that the words of the canon apply only 
 " to the inferior ranks of the clergy ?" and what is 
 the instance given of these some ? Dr. Milner — 
 who, writing of the English Church, conjectures, 
 from a pope's permission for clerks in minor orders 
 to take wives, that it was unlawful for bishops, 
 priests, and deacons to do so ; and then, upon this 
 conjecture, again conjectures that it was also so in 
 Ireland. This is really the elephant bearing the 
 world, and the tortoise the elephant ; but I proceed 
 to demonstrate that this fact was far otherwise. 
 
 And first. — The words of the canon itself declare 
 it, they are as follows — " Quicunque Clericus, ab 
 " HOSTiARio usque ad sacerdotem, sine tunica 
 " visus fuerit, &c. Et si non more Romano capilli 
 " ejus tonsi sint, et uxor ejus si non velato capite 
 " ambulaverit, pariter a laicis contemnentur, et ab 
 " Ecclesia separentur." " Whatsoever clerk, from 
 
99 
 
 " the door -keeper to the priest, shall he seen without 
 " his tunic, &c. ; and if his hair be not shorn after 
 " the Roman manner, and his wife shall walk out 
 " without having her head veiled, let them both be 
 " shunned by the laity, and separated from the 
 " Church." — I shall here first observe, that this canon 
 gives no authority for the translation into " the clerk,'" 
 with tlie article ; which cannot but convey at once to 
 the mind of the reader, perhaps almost unconsciously, 
 the idea of the inferior person usually known by the 
 name : in the next place, as the Roman mode of 
 tonsure is enjoined, the canon is certainly favourable 
 to the practices of that see ; and, therefore, this allow- 
 ance by it of marriage to the clergy, comes with the 
 greater power as a testimony : and, thirdly, that we 
 are not to infer — as Dr. Milner would perhaps here 
 also contend — from the silence of the canon respecting 
 the wives of those who are of the order of bishops, 
 and because that " exceptio probat regulam," that 
 they were not allowed to have wives, for I shall now 
 prove the contrary by undeniable truths. 
 
 It is a curious and convincing fact, that, even so 
 late as the 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries, in the 
 very see of Armagh, " the primacy passed to the 
 " chief of the sept, as a kind of inheritance, for 
 *' fifteen generations," (Bernard's Life of Malachy, 
 c. vii. and Harris Ware, p. 49 and 51.) — Thus 
 Amalgaid, who was primate in the year 1021, was 
 father to two bishops of that see. Celsus, bishop of 
 Armagh, who died A.D. 1129, was a married man, 
 (see a MS. T.C.D. C. I. 26,) where it is said, that his 
 
100 
 
 marriage was " more gentis suee ;" the eight primates 
 who preceded him were also married. — (Bernard, ub. 
 sup.) This custom of succeeding by inheritance 
 gave rise in our island to the species of property- 
 known by the names of Corbes, Herenachs, and 
 Termoners ; (see Usher's tract on these, Val. Col. i. p. 
 192,) and at length this abuse became so ofiFensive to 
 the pope, Innocent III., that he wrote letters to John 
 Sacernitanus, his legate in Ireland, A.D. 1104 — 
 *' Monens, inter coetera, ut eum in Hibernia abusum 
 " tollat, quo filii et nepotes patribus et avis in bene- 
 " ficiis succedebant" — (Vit. and gest. Pontif, Ciaconii, 
 Rom. 1601, p. 513)— "that he should abolish that 
 " bad usage in Ireland, by which sons and grandsons 
 " succeeded to the benefices of their fathers and 
 " grandfathers." " So constant," as you remark, 
 (p. 285,) " did the Irish remain to one line of 
 " descent, as well in their abbots as their kings." 
 
 So much. Sir, for the conjectures of Dr. Milner, 
 and the insinuations so diffidently hung upon them 
 by yourself. I cannot omit the interesting fact, that 
 St. Patrick was, by his own confession, and the ac- 
 counts of his contemporaries, the son of Calphurnius, 
 a deacon, and his grandfather Potitus was a priest. 
 The assertion is somewhere made, but not on any au- 
 thority, that they were neither of them ordained until 
 after their respective marriages ; however, as this is 
 possible, and cannot be disproved, I shall wave the 
 use of this powerful authority upon the subject. I 
 shall not imnecessarily enlarge upon this head, so as 
 to inquire into the practice of the rest of the Christian 
 
101 
 
 world. The celibacy of the clergy was confessedly 
 introduced of late years ; and certainly could not have 
 been within the contemplation of St. Paul, when he 
 wrote his epistles to Timothy and to Titus. — " A 
 ** bishop must then be blameless, the husband of one 
 " wife," &c. — (See 1st Tim. iii, 2 ; and also, v. 12, for 
 deacons ; and Tit. i. 6, for elders. ) 
 
 One point alone remains, and upon it you express 
 yourself thus : — " The evidence which Usher has ad- 
 '* duced to prove that communion in both kinds was 
 " permitted to the laity among the Irish, is by no 
 " means conclusive, or satisfactory — though it would 
 " certainly appear, from one of the canons of the pe- 
 " nitential of St. Columbanus, that, before the intro- 
 " duction of this rule, novices had been admitted to 
 *' the cup. It is to be remembered, however, that 
 " any difference of practice, in this respect, has always 
 " been considered as a mere point of discipline, and 
 " accordingly subject to such alteration, as the change 
 " of time and circumstances may require." You add, 
 in a note respecting Archbishop Usher — " He founds 
 " his conclusion chiefly on their use of such phrases 
 " as, * the communion of the Lord's body and blood,' 
 " whereas the Catholics of the present day, among 
 " whom the laity receive the sacrament under one 
 " kind only, use the very same language" — and there 
 is another note respecting the canon of St. Colum- 
 banus, which is in these words, " Col. in Poenit. as 
 " I find it thus cited by Cellier, ' Novi quia indocti, et 
 " quicunque tales fuerint, ad calicem non accedant.' " 
 
 I trust that it will not be thought that I also have 
 
102 
 
 my system to sustain, and tliat for that reason only 
 seem determined to find fault witli whatsoever you 
 have said upon every point. I feel conscious that it is 
 not for that reason that I do so ; and, if truth require 
 that I should present this very combative appearance, 
 the blame of it must rest with him who has given the 
 occasion. On this head I am bound, in order to jus- 
 tify the argument of Usher, in support of what was 
 the fact respecting communion of both kinds by 
 the laity, to add some further testimony to his ; and to 
 make some observations, especially on your conclud- 
 ing remarks. But, firsj;, I must point out an important 
 concession made by you here, as it relates to the 
 practice of our very first and holiest Christians — let 
 us remember that, at the earliest, the rule of St. Co- 
 lumbanus must be limited to the year 600 ; and, if 
 " before this rule, novices had been admitted to the 
 *' cup," which you acknowledge appears to have been 
 the case, the practice of excluding them could not 
 have been primitive, but must have been an innovation 
 on the usage of at least the holier and holiest orders. 
 
 Whether or not the evidence adduced by Usher on 
 this subject, be '' by no means conclusive or satisfac- 
 " tory," or whether it be chiefly the use of such 
 phrases as " the communion of the Lord's body and 
 *' blood," on which he forms his conclusion, and not 
 something more home to the point, will appear from 
 the following transcript of some of his words. I 
 shall confine myself to those which relate to Ireland. 
 " Cogitosus," he says, " writeth in the life of St. 
 *' Brigid, touching the place in the church of Kildare, 
 
103 
 
 " whereunto the Abbatesse, with her maidens and 
 " widowes used to resort, ' that they might enjoy the 
 " banquet of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, 
 " ut convivio corporis et sanguinis fruantur Jesu 
 " Christi ;) which was agreeable to the practice," 
 (Usher asserts,) " not only of the nunneries founded 
 " beyond the seas, according to the rule of Colum- 
 " banus, where the virgins ' received the body of the 
 " Lord, and sipped his blood, (as appeareth by that 
 " which lonas relateth of Domna, the life of Burgun- 
 " dofora,) — 'quaedam ex his nomine Domna, cum jam 
 " corpus Domini accepisset, ac sanguinem libasset' — 
 " but also of St. Brigid herselfe, who was the 
 " foundresse of the monasterie of Kildare — one of 
 " whose miracles is reported, even in the later legends, 
 " to have happened, when shee was about to drinke 
 " out of the chalice, at the time of her receiving of 
 " the eucharist; which they that list to looke after, 
 " may find in the collections of Capgrave, Surius, 
 " and such like." Again, are you justified in youv 
 note, in saying of Usher, that " he founds his conclu- 
 •' sion chiefly on their use of such phrases as the com- 
 " munion of the Lord's body and blood," and thus 
 presenting him as relying on the use merely of a 
 dubious phrase ? when the very sentence which I pre- 
 sume you refer to, which occurs in his Religion of 
 the Ancient Irish, p. 38, proceeds thus, quoting from 
 Bede's Life of St. Cuthbert : — 
 
 " PocuLA degustat vita, Christique supinum 
 " Sanguine munit iter — 
 
 " lest any man should thinke, that under the formes 
 
104^ 
 
 *' 0^ bread alone, he might be said to have been par- 
 " taker of the body and blood of the Lord, by way of 
 " concomitance.'' These, certainly, are not such 
 phrases as you would confine Usher to have used — 
 whether they be conclusive testimony or not, is 
 another question ; in my mind they exhibit the very 
 best evidence to rebut your assertions. 
 
 A very strong testimony of this continuing to be 
 the practice of the English and Irish churches, even 
 down to the year 1081, occurs in the Sylloge so often 
 referred to; we there find, (p. 73,) Lanfranc, Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, writing thus to an Irish 
 Bishop — " Credimus eriim generaliter omnes omni- 
 " BUS (Btatibus^ plurimum expedire, tarn viventes 
 " quam raorientes, Dominici corporis et sanguinis 
 " sese munire" — " For we believe in general, that it 
 " is most proper for all of every age, whether living 
 " or dying, to strengthen themselves with the body 
 " and blood of the Lord." The pope Gelasius, indeed, 
 about the year 476, declared, " that the Eucharist 
 " could not without sacrilege be received in one kind 
 " only;" (Apud Gratian de consecrat. dist. '2, c. 12) — 
 " quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi 
 " sacrilegio non potest provenire" — and the very 
 words of the council of Constance, whose ordinance 
 first, in the year 1415, forbade the cup to the people, 
 acknowledge the primitive custom to be such as I 
 contend for, (sess. 13) — they are as follows : " Licet 
 " in primitiva ecclesia hujusmodi sacramentum reel- 
 " peretur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, &c." — 
 " Although in the primitive chubch this sacrament 
 
105 
 
 *' was received by the faithful under both kinds ; yet, 
 " from henceforth, it shall be given in one kind only 
 " to the lay people." Now, to those at least who 
 hold the infallibility of general councils, this settles 
 the point; and I am inclined to think that you were 
 partly under the influence of some such irresistible 
 evidence, which almost persuaded you to acknowledge 
 that we are in the right, as your concluding paragraph 
 exhibits very much the air of the offer of a compro- 
 mise upon the subject. " It is to be remembered, 
 " however," you say, " that any difference of practice 
 " in this respect, has been always considered as a 
 " mere point of discipline ; and accordingly subject to 
 *' such alteration as the change of time and circum- 
 " stances may require." I am sorry thus to urge my 
 contest with you to the very last ; and to enter my 
 protest against this your greatest error of all — the 
 matter now under inquiry is by no means a " mere 
 " point of discipline," however it may appear so to 
 modern Roman Catholics ; but one of essential and 
 primary importance. To those who can persuade 
 themselves that the consecrated wafer contains, really 
 and substantially, the living body of Christ, warmed 
 by his living blood, it may in one point of view be of 
 little importance, whether or not they drink addi- 
 tionally of his blood from the chalice ; and it may be 
 considered as a matter of mere discipline their doing 
 or not doing so : but, to those who do not hold that 
 doctrine, the receiving of the sacrament of the wine 
 becomes essential to the due observance of the rite 
 commanded — it becomes, not a business of human 
 
106 
 
 arrangement according to changes of times and circum- 
 stances, but a duty of implicit and uncalculating obe- 
 dience to positive ordinance — to a command solemnly- 
 delivered thus to us in his last moments, by our dying 
 Lord — " And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and 
 " gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, for 
 " this is my blood of the New Testament, which is 
 " shed for many for the remission of sins ;" Mat. xxvi. 
 27, 28. It certainly does appear to me most 
 strange, that, while a strictly literal understanding of 
 the text " This is my body*' is insisted on, against the 
 general analogy of Scripture, the obligation of the 
 very next sentence is done away, by a process totally 
 at variance with literal construction ; and this for the 
 purpose of inducing positive disobedience ; and still 
 further, in direct contradiction to all that the Bible 
 inculcates, to wit — that " obedience is better than 
 " sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 
 
 I have in some other instances stated the period 
 at which the rust of modern Romanism began, out 
 of Ireland, to encrust the fair mirror in which we 
 now see reflected, although as in a glass darkly, the 
 pure and simple image of our only Redeemer, and 
 mediator Christ Jesus ; that which is now before us, 
 the denial of communion in both kinds, is one 
 of very modern invention, as is manifest from 
 the words of the canon of the council of Constance 
 already quoted. I do not know that it was ever 
 pretended to have been grounded on any warrant from 
 Scripture ; while, as we have seen, it directly contra- 
 dicts its most explicit injunctions. 
 
107 
 
 I have now, my dear Sir, gone through the four 
 pages, in which you have thought fit to represent thus 
 the argument of Archbishop Usher — " That rarely 
 *•' has there been hazarded an assertion so little 
 " grounded on fact" — whether justly or not, our 
 judges are now enabled to determine. But I have not 
 yet done with the subject, or your book. It is of the 
 highest importance yet to consider, whence the first 
 Irish Christians derived their knowledge of divine 
 things, and by what they regulated their principles 
 and their lives ; it is also of the greatest consequence 
 to ascertain, wliat were the great leading doctrines of 
 salvation which they preached. The points of which 
 we have been treating are details — I have only dwelt 
 on them, because you first noticed them ; and, there- 
 fore, I shall not now detain you, by entering into 
 an inquiry respecting extreme unction, indulgences, 
 the chrism in baptism, and many other peculiarities 
 of the Roman Catholic church, which you have 
 passed over — this is not the place for them, as my 
 letter is confined solely to the subjects which you have 
 primarily mentioned. But the two grand points now 
 alluded to — the great standard of faith, and the great 
 doctrine of justification — are not only the roots from 
 which the others spring, and therefore considerations 
 necessarily arising out of a comment on your history ; 
 but essentially bound up with the determination 
 of the principal and comprehensive question on which 
 we are at issue. 
 
 It is certainly the fact, that the great standard of faith 
 referred to by the early Irish Christians was the Bible 
 
108 
 
 itself. " It is written," appears to have been 
 most especially the rule of St. Patrick in his con- 
 fession, and even in the genuine canons of his 
 synods ; and a similar deference to the sole word of 
 God seems to have been the characteristic of these 
 early days, and to mark well the period when false 
 doctrine commenced to creep in, and the people 
 began " therefore to err, not knowing the Scriptures 
 " or the power of God ;'' and to follow those blind 
 leaders who, " teaching doctrines and commandments 
 " of men," made " void the word of God by their 
 " tradition." — (Mark vii. 7, and 13, Rhemish version.) 
 St. Patrick, as we are informed by Jocelin, his prin- 
 cipal biographer, (c. xii.) exercised himself much in 
 readingthe Scriptures — "abipsoprimaevopubertatis" — 
 " from the very earliest age of puberty ;" and Secun- 
 dinus, his nephew, to whose poem in his praise you 
 have already introduced us, thus says of him — 
 
 " Sacrum invenit thesaurum sacro in volumine." 
 
 " He found the sacred treasure in the Holy Volume ;" 
 and describes him as — 
 
 " Verus cultor, et insigni?, agri Evangelic! ; 
 " Cujus semina videntur Christi Evangelia." 
 
 " a true and eminent cultivator of the evangelical 
 " field, whose seeds appear to have been the gospels 
 " of Christ." The consequences of such a disci- 
 pline were, the pouring forth among the people of the 
 precepts of that gospel, which the saint himself 
 mentions to be the proper mode of bringing them 
 under the law to Christ ; (De abus. saec. — See his 
 
109 
 
 Opusc, p. 92,) and the performing of miracles, not 
 indeed in the way attributed to him in the monstrous 
 legends of latter days, but by the many conversions, 
 which, as purer tradition informs us, he was the 
 instrument in the Lord's hands of accomplishing in 
 the land. Such indeed is the character which your 
 own better taste and judgment attributes to him, 
 especially where you so graphically describe him (p. 
 219,) in his interesting interview with the daughters 
 of the Leinster Kirg. 
 
 The work of St. Patrick just alluded to contains a 
 paragraph on the modesty (pudicitia) of women, 
 (p. 77,) in which he expresses himself thus — "Bonis 
 " semper moribus delectatur et consentit, et assiduis 
 " scripturarum meditationibus, et eloquiis, animam 
 " vegetat." — " It always delights in and consents 
 " with good morals, and refreshes the soul by conti- 
 " nual meditations and discourses," or conversations, 
 " on the Scriptures." Thus he exhorts even females ; 
 and I must again especially observe that, neither here 
 nor elsewhere in his works, does he refer to any other 
 fountain of moral conduct. 
 
 Of St. Columbkille we are thus informed by his 
 biographer Adamnanus, (lib. 1, c. 1,) that he was 
 one — " Qui etiam a puero deditus Christiano tyro- 
 " cinio et sapientiae studiis." — " Who even from his 
 " boyhood was given to a Christian education and 
 " the studies of wisdom." And he is said to have con- 
 founded gainsayers, and taught his disciples to sup- 
 port their doctrines, by putting forward the testimo- 
 
110 
 
 nies of the Sacred Scriptures— " prolatis Sacr.e Scrip- 
 " turae testimoniis." No wonder then that a churcli 
 built upon two such pillars as these should be, for a 
 period at least, " a shining light;" nor was it unfitly 
 compared by the ancient annalists to the celestial 
 luminaries. — See Revel, c. 1. 
 
 That in these early days the Scriptures were 
 common in the vulgar tongue, is positively asserted 
 by St. Chrysostom, who must have written the 
 following words before the year 407, at which time 
 he died — " Although thou shouldest go to the 
 " ocean, and those British isles," &c. " thou shouldest 
 " hear all men every where discoursing matters out 
 " of the Scriptures, with another voice, indeed, but 
 " not with another faith," (De util. Scrip.'Ed. Sav. 
 V. viii. p. 11 1,) and it is further evidenced by 
 this still more decisive assertion of Bede, (lib. i. 
 c. 1,) — " This island," (Britain,) " at this present, 
 " with five sundry languages, to the number of the 
 " five books of Moses, doth study and set forth 
 " the knowledge of the perfect truth — that is, with 
 " the language of the English, the Britons, the 
 " Scots" (or Irish,) "the Picts, and the Latins, which 
 " by the study of the Scriptures is made common 
 " to all the rest." 
 
 It will be interesting to see a few more instances 
 of the habits, in this respect, of our early saints. 
 
 The account given us of St. Columbanus, by his 
 biographer Jonas, is very similar to what we are told 
 of St. Patrick — " So within his breast were laid up 
 
Ill 
 
 " the treasures of the Holy Scriptures, that, within 
 " the compass of his youthful years," (intra adoles- 
 centise aetatem,) " he composed an elegant exposition 
 "of the whole book of Psalms;" and this saint 
 wrote thus to Hunualdus, (Syl. p. 11,) " Sint tibi 
 " divitise divinae dogmata legis.' — " Let the divine 
 " precepts of the law be your treasure." St. 
 Kilian, also, and St. Fursa, are said to have 
 applied themselves, " from the time of their very 
 ^^ childhood,'' to the study of the Scriptures. (Bede, 
 lib. iii. 19.) 
 
 But Bede is still further our authority for several 
 more interesting facts ; he tells us (lib. iv. c. 23, 
 Stapleton's translation,) of St. Hilda, Abbess of 
 Lindisfarne, that i" such religious men as lived under 
 " government, she made them to bestow their time in 
 " the reading of the Scriptures ;" and again he shews 
 us, in the example of Agilbert, a native even of 
 France, that so great was the character of Ireland 
 as a place where " the studying the Scriptures" was 
 especially cultivated, that this stranger went thither, 
 and remained there some time, for that sole purpose — 
 *' tunc legendarum gratia scripturarum in Hibernia, 
 " non parvo tempore demoratus." This fact you 
 have referred to in your note to p. 282. He likewise 
 informs us, that British princes were sent hither for 
 the same reason, and that one named Altfrid became 
 thus most learned in the Scriptures — " Successit 
 " Egfrido in regnum" Northumbriae " Altfrid, vir in 
 " Scripturis doctissimus," Bed. iv. 26, and in his 
 
112 
 
 poem of the Life of St. Cutlibert, he writes of this 
 monarch thus — 
 
 *' Scottorum qui tunc versatus incola terris, 
 " Coelestem intento spirabat corde sophiam ; 
 ** Nam patriae fines et dulcia liquerat arva, 
 " Sedulus ut Domini mysteria discerit exul." 
 
 Again he relates of St. Aidan, the principal of St. 
 Columbkille's successors, that " all such as went with 
 " him, whether clergy or laity^ were obliged to exer- 
 " cise themselves either in reading the Scriptures, or in 
 " the learning of the Psalms ;" and also, that " the 
 " people flocked anxiously on the Lord's day, to St. 
 " Aidan, and St. Finan, and St. Colman, to the 
 " churches and monasteries, not for the feeding of 
 " their bodies, but for the hearing of the word of 
 " God." (Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 3 and 26.) 
 
 This, therefore, is the secret why this island was 
 called " Sanctorum patria," the country of saints ; 
 why so many notices occur, as Camden observes, in 
 ancient writers, of persons being sent hither for 
 education — " amandatus est ad disciplinam in 
 " Hibernia, (p. 52, of your history,) and that Erin is 
 thus mentioned in the ancient rude poetry of the day, 
 " Ivit ad Hibernos sophia mirabile claros." Ion as, a 
 Roman Catholic writer, the biographer of Colum- 
 banus, bears testimony at once to the independence 
 of her inhabitants of all authority, and to their 
 enjoyment of the great source of Christian doctrine, 
 and also the influence of that doctrine upon their faith 
 where he says, "Gens, quanquam absque reliquarum 
 
113 
 
 " gentium legibus, tamen in Christiani vigore dog- 
 " mate florens, omnium vicinarum gentium fide prse- 
 " pollens." — " A nation which, although without 
 " the laws of other nations, yet so flourishing in the 
 " vigour of Christian doctrine, that it exceeds the 
 " faith of all the neighbouring nations." (Vit. Colum. 
 c. 1.) While Bede, another steadfast adherent to 
 the Roman see, testifies of them thus, (lib. iii. 4,) 
 that " they observed only those works of piety and 
 " chastity which they could learn in the prophetical, 
 •' evangelical, and apostolical writings.''* This also 
 is the secret why, considering her foreign aspect, 
 ancient Erin was the island of missions ; from which 
 first emanated those crowds of sainted teachers, from 
 whom " savage clans and roving barbarians received 
 " the benefits of knowledge, and the blessings of 
 " religion " — and the greater part of Britain her first 
 hearing of the blessed truths of the Gospel. f 
 
 * This venerable historian seems to think that he could not 
 better recommend a holy person, than by saying, as he does 
 of St. Adamnanus, that " he was a good man, and wise, and most 
 •' nobly" (noblissime) " instructed in the knowledge of the 
 ♦' Scriptures ;" and it is remarkable that while he manifestly 
 condemns the independence of the Irish Christians, he bears 
 this candid and generous testimony to their character, where 
 speaking of St. Aidan, he says, that " although he could not 
 " keep Easter contrary to the manner of them that sent him, 
 " yet he was careful diligently to perform the works of faith, 
 *' and godliness, and love, according to the manner used by 
 " all holy men. Wherefore he was justly beloved of all, even 
 " those who differed from him with respect to Easter; and he 
 " was not only held in reverence by those of meaner rank, but 
 " also by the bishops themselves, Honorius of Canterbury, 
 ♦' and Felix of the East Angles." 
 
 f It is pleasing to find a foreigner, M. Rapin, doino- justice 
 to this fair claim of Ireland, which will be probably ridiculed 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 It is interesting to reflect on the primitive and 
 scriptural mode by which these two great apostles of 
 Ireland, St. Patrick and St. Columbkille, prepared 
 themselves for, and accomplished, their great task. 
 It had been early thus enjoined by Jehovah to the 
 Jews — " These words which I command thee this 
 " day, shall be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach 
 " them diligently to the children." — (Deut. vi. 6, 7,) 
 David had declared in the Psalms, (I shall give the 
 passage in the Roman Catholic Latin, and Rhemisli 
 versions,) " Testimonium Domini fidele, sapientiam 
 " praestans parvulis" — " The testimony of the Lord 
 " is faithful, giving wisdom to little ones ;" (Ps. xix. 
 8,) and St. Paul had exhorted Timothy, to continue 
 in the things which he had learned, knowing of 
 whom he had learned them, to wit, his mother and 
 grandmother — " and because from thy infancy thou 
 *' hast known the Holy Scriptures." Such was the 
 first truly Catholic doctrine ; and according to it 
 these holy men were themselves exercised, and disci- 
 plined their disciples. It is a matter of modern 
 corruption and Satanic innovation, that the Bible has 
 been made to be a sealed book to any ; and if the 
 doctrine of justification be an article by which we 
 may try a standing or a falling church, another test 
 may surely be said to exist in the extent of the per- 
 
 by some of her own sons at home. " It is surprisingly 
 strange,'' he says, (Hist, of Eng. Fol. Lond. 1732, p. 80,) 
 " that the conversion of the English should be attributed to 
 " Austin ; rather than to Aidan, to Finan, to Colman, to Cedd, 
 " to Dimna, and the other Scottish" (or Irish) " monks, who 
 *' undoubtedly laboured much more abundantly than he." 
 
115 
 
 mi 
 
 lission given for the perusal of the Scriptures, in 
 which that doctrine is revealed. In the primitive 
 Christian Church of Ireland the Bible was read, as 
 we have seen, by all, in their vulgar tongue ; the 
 laity, the common people, the women, the very 
 children, were encouraged, nay ordained, to engage 
 in this hallowed occupation; and therefore was her 
 church orthodox and flourishing at home, and press- 
 ing to spread its blessings abroad. But when the 
 light was extinguished by the Danes, and the 
 churches and colleges destroyed, and the Bible itself 
 immured in a foreign language, darkness covered the 
 land, and gross darkness the peojile ; until that word, 
 which is " the Religion of Protestants," and which at 
 the first commanded the light to shine out of dark- 
 ness, broke the clouds, and gave the promise of a 
 better day — and oh! never may the compromising spirit 
 of expediency prevail to shade its effulgence with an 
 attenuating veil. The spiritual eyes of faith can well 
 bear the full brilliancy of the glory of God revealed 
 in Jesus Christ, while mounting " up with wings, as 
 " eagles ;" (Is. x. 31,) nor is it at all requisite to reduce 
 that glory to the twilight ray or reflected beam, by 
 which celestial objects must be accommodated to 
 mere corporeal vision. 
 
 I shall now present a very short summary of the 
 doctrines of the early Christians of Ireland, connected 
 solely with that fundamental and most essential one — 
 the mode of a sinner's justification before God. These 
 can only be collected from various parts of the re- 
 mains of these teachers, as I am not aware that there 
 
116 
 
 is existing any regular discourse of any of them on 
 the subject. According to my plan, I shall confine 
 myself to the opinions of those whom you have 
 stamped in your history with the impress of authority ; 
 although, by doing so, I am obliged to forego the 
 very valuable testimony of Claudius, the most diffuse 
 and explicit Irish writer upon the subject. 
 
 You consider the Epistle of St. Patrick to Coroticus, 
 and his confession to be genuine, (p. ^23) ; and he writes 
 in them thus — " I was," he says, " as a stone which 
 " lies in the deep mire ; and he who is mighty came, 
 " and took me out of it in his mercy; and he indeed 
 " raised me up, and placed me on the top of the wall" — 
 (opusc. p. 5,) " but what shall I say, or what shall I 
 " promise unto my Lord ? because I see nothing that 
 " he has not bestowed on me." — (p. 21 .) And again — 
 " I am greatly A debtor to God, who has vouch- 
 " safed to me so much grace, that so .many people 
 " should be born again unto God, through me" — 
 (opusc. 14.) once more — " Behold, I now commend 
 *' my soul to my most faithful God, whose ambas- 
 " sador I am, in my great un worthiness" — " in ignobili- 
 " tate mea ;" (p. 21 and 28,) " Non sum dignus Deo 
 " neque hominibus subvenire" — " I am unworthy to 
 " assist either God or man." Add to this, that all the 
 genuine works of St. Patrick are but comments on 
 the following text, which he thus himself most forcibly 
 proposes — " These are not my words, but those of 
 " God, and the apostles, and the prophets, that have 
 '• never lied. He who believeth shall be saved ; but 
 " he that believeth not shall be damned." (opus. p. 30.) 
 
117 
 
 I shall now proceed to Sedulius, and shew how 
 this doctrine was opened out by the Irish divines, 
 even so late as the year 818. " All mankind stood 
 " condemned in the apostatical root, (of Adam), with 
 " so just and divine a judgment, that even were 
 " none of them freed from thence, no man could 
 " rightly blame the justice of God ; and such as 
 " were freed must have been so freed, that from 
 " the many that were not freed but left in their 
 " most just condemnation, it might be manifested 
 " what the whole lump had deserved. That also 
 " the due judgment of God had condemned even 
 " those that are justified, unless mercy had relieved 
 " them from that which was due ; that every mouth of 
 " those who gloried in their merits^ might be stopped, 
 " and he that glorieth should glory in the Lord." 
 (in Rom. ix.) — " God hath so ordered it, that he will 
 " be gracious to mankind ; if they do believe that 
 " they are to be freed by the blood of Christ" — (in 
 Rom. 3,) " and the patriarchs and the prophets were 
 " not justified by the works of the law, but by faith" — 
 (in Gal. 2.) And lastly — " This faith when it hath 
 " been justified, sticks in the soil of the soul, like a 
 " root that hath received a shower ; that, when it hath 
 " begun to be cultivated by the law of God, bougl)s 
 " may rise up again on it, which may bear the fruit 
 " of works. Therefore the root of righteousness 
 *' doth not grow out of ivorks, but the fruit of works 
 ^^ from the root of righteousness — namely, from that 
 " root of righteousness, which God doth accept 
 " for righteousness without works" — (in Rom. iv.) 
 
118 
 
 This will serve as a specimen, and must suffice for 
 the present ; whosoever requires more of doctrine in 
 this strain, will find it in the 2d chapter of Usher's 
 Religion of the ancient Irish ; in the volumes there 
 referred to ; and also in the works of the Irish Chris- 
 tians who wrote previously to the year 600, whose 
 authority you have established by your approbation. 
 I shall however, before I proceed to compare with 
 these the doctrines of modern lloman Catholics and 
 of Protestants, and also the declarations of Scripture, 
 quote very shortly two remarkable passages from two 
 Popes ; the first of them St. Clement* the 3d bishop of 
 Rome, who lived in the first century; and the second. 
 Gains, or Caius, who died A.D. 296. The former 
 says — " We are not justified by ourselves, neither by 
 " our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or the 
 '' works that we have have done in holiness of heart ; 
 " but by ihat faith by which Almighty God hath 
 " justified all men from the beginning." Gaius, says 
 that " the righteousness of the saints avails nothing 
 " to OUT pardon or justification." \ 
 
 * See his Ep. to the Cor. c. 32, edited by Rev. Mr. Cheval- 
 lier. I have quoted St. Clement before, from his 2d epistle 
 to the Corinthians; and I have found by Mr. ( hevallier's work, 
 that there are doubts of the genuineness of this latter. I was 
 not aware of this until after the sheet was printed off; but it is 
 not a matter of much consequence to the main point of our 
 argument — the tenets of the early Irish Christians. 
 
 t" Acceperunt justi, non dederunt, coronas. De fortitudine 
 " fidelium exempla nata sunt patiently, non dona justitiae. 
 " Singulares quippe in singulis morles fuerunt, nee alterius 
 " quisquam debitum suo fine pei solvit; cum Filius hominis, 
 " unus solus Dominus Jesus Christus, qui vere erat agnus 
 " immaculatus, extiterit ; in quo omnescrucifixi, omues mortui, 
 " omnes sepulti, omnes etiam sunt suscitati." — Bin. Cone. 
 T. 1. p. 220. 
 
119 
 
 These will fitly lead me, in historical order, to a 
 short exhibition of the doctrines of the modern 
 Roman Catholic church, on the great points of justi- 
 fication by faith, and the merit of works, in which it 
 principally differs from those of the more ancient 
 one of St. Patrick, and that also of the modern 
 reformers. The council of Trent declares, (Trid. 
 Sess. 6, can. II, &c.) — "If any one say that men 
 *' are justified either by the sole imputed righteous- 
 " ness of Christ, or the sole remission of sins, exclu- 
 " sive of the grace and charity which should be shed 
 *' in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and remain in 
 " them ; or likewise that the grace, by vjhich we be 
 *^ justified, is the mere favor of God — Let him 
 " be anathema." And again — " If any one shall say, 
 " that the good works of a justified man are so the 
 " gifts of God, that they are not also the good 
 " merits of the justified man himself; or that the 
 " justified man himself, by good works which, through 
 " the grace of God and the merit of Christ, are done 
 " by him, does not truly merit an increase of grace, 
 " eternal life, and if he depart in grace, the possession 
 " of eternal life, and also an increase of glory — let 
 " him be accursed."— Vid. Can. 9, 11, 24, 30, 32. 
 
 I shall present the account of the immense value 
 of these works in the eyes of the Roman Catholic 
 church — (and valuable indeed they must be to co-ope- 
 rate with the blood of Christ) — from Dens' Theo- 
 logy, Vol. vi. p. 417. In answer to a question, what 
 is an indulgence ? we are there told, that it is 
 the remission of sins — " per applicationem satisfac- 
 
120 
 
 *' tionum quae in thesauro Ecclesise continentur." 
 And, in answer to the next inquiry, respecting this 
 treasury of the church, it is said, that " est cumulus 
 " bonorum spiritualium perrnanentiura in acceptatione 
 " diviria, et quorum dispositio Ecclesise est concre- 
 " dita." The next question brings us directly to 
 our point — from whence does the hoard of this, the 
 church's treasury, arise ? — " Ex quibus thesaurus ille 
 " coalescit ?" — The answer is ; first, from the " super- 
 *' abundant satisfaction of Christ" — " Deinde ex super- 
 " effluentibus Beatse Mariae Virginis, et reliquorum 
 " sanctorum, satisfactjonibus." — " Then from the 
 " OVERFLOWING satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin 
 *' Mary, and all the other saints !" This document 
 then declares that " Beata Virgo Maria nullum un- 
 " quam contraxit poense dobitum " — " that slie never 
 became liable to penalty " in other words, had no sin 
 that requires a saviour ; and goes on to assert — 
 " Sic apostoli, martyres, anachoritae, aliique sancti et 
 " sanctse innumerabiles, plus passi sunt quam exige- 
 " bant eorum peccata, secundum modum quem Deus 
 *' servat in pcenis exigentibus." — " So the apostles, 
 *' martyrs, anchorites, and other innumerable saints, 
 " male and female, suffered more than their sins re- 
 " quired, according to the mode which God observes in 
 " exacting penalties." — Such is the doctrine of modern 
 Romanism ; but whether it be consistent with that 
 which the Blessed Virgin says of herself — " My spirit 
 *' hath rejoiced in God my saviour " — Luke i. 47. 
 I shall leave to others to determine ; and content 
 myself with exhibiting its more modern practical 
 
121 
 
 effects, on the religious opinions of even the superior 
 classes of Romanists in Ireland, by one striking and 
 public instance. There is in the city of Cork a 
 monument erected to ihe memory of a Roman 
 Catholic gentleman, on which is inscribed the 
 following epitaph — " Sacred to the memory of the 
 " benevolent Edward Molloy," &c. " he employed 
 " the wealth of this world only to secure the riches 
 " of the next ; and, leaving a balance of merit on the 
 " book of life, lie made heaven debtor to mercy" I ! 1 
 The date is 1818. 
 
 The articles of the church of England declare a 
 doctrine essentially different from all this — and first, 
 with reference to the last-mentioned subject, it lays 
 down, that '' Works of supererogation cannot be 
 " taught without arrogancy and impiety ; for by them 
 " men do declare, that they do not only render unto 
 " God as much as they are bound to do, but that 
 " they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is 
 " required ; whereas Christ saith plainly — when ye 
 " have done all that are commanded to you, say, we 
 " are unprofitable servants."' — Art. 14. Other doc- 
 trines of the same declare thus — " Original sin 
 " standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the 
 " Pelagians do vainly talk)" — so that we see, whatever 
 the very first church in Ireland might according to 
 your insinuations have thought of this sect, her present 
 Protestants are not Pelagian — " but it is the fault and 
 " corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally 
 " is engendered of the offspring of Adam ; whereby 
 " man is very far gone from original righteousness, 
 
122 
 
 " and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the 
 " flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit ; and, 
 " therefore, in every person born into this world, it 
 " deserveth God's wrath and damnation " — Art. 9. 
 Man " cannot turn and prepare himself by his own 
 " natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling 
 " upon God." — Art. 10. " We are accounted righteous 
 " before God, only for the merit of our Lord and 
 " Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith ; and not for our own 
 "works or deservings" — (Art. 11.) — and "Albeit 
 *' that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and 
 " follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, 
 " and endure the severity of God's judgment ; yet are 
 " they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and 
 " do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith ; 
 " insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as 
 " evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit." — 
 Art. 12. 
 
 It will be quite sufficient, as no one portion of 
 Holy Scripture can contradict another, to present 
 here, from St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, (c. ii. 
 v. ] to 10 incl.) a passage, which affords us perhaps 
 the best and most condensed parallel to the summary 
 of ancient doctrine that is before us — he is addressing 
 the Ephesian converts to the Christian faith. " And 
 ' ' you hath he quichened, who were dead in trespasses 
 " and sins ; wherein in time past ye walked, according 
 " to the course of this world, according to the prince 
 " of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh 
 " in the children of disobedience : among whom also 
 " we ALL had our conversation in times past in the 
 
123 
 
 " lusts of our flesh; fulfilling the desires of the flesh 
 " and of the mind ; and were by nature the children 
 " of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in 
 *' mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even 
 " when we ivere dead in sins, hath quickened us 
 " together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved); and 
 " hath raised us up together, and made us sit together 
 " in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; that, in the ages 
 " to come, he might shew the exceeding riches of his 
 '• grace, in his kind ness toward us through Christ 
 " Jesus — for by grace are ye saved through faith ; 
 " and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 
 " NOT OF works, lest any man should boast. For 
 " we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, 
 " UNTO GOOD WORKS, wMch God hutli before ordained 
 " that we should walk in them.'' 
 
 From all this it is now sufficiently clear, that in 
 the two grand fundamental questions — the great 
 standard of doctrine, and the point of doctrine most 
 essential to salvation — we have the written word 
 first, the opinions of the primitive bishops of Rome 
 next, and lastly, the doctrines of the early Irish 
 Christians, directly and irreconcilably opposed to 
 modern Romanism ; and we have the tenets of the 
 reformers, or restorers, or Protestants, or call them 
 what you will, perfectly agreeing with the three 
 first. We see, therefore, that their religion is no 
 novelty, but simply the old sterling and valuable 
 coin rubbed clear of its rust, and restored to its original 
 brightness ; enabling us to distinguish the counterfeit, 
 
124 
 
 and thus to render unto God the things that are 
 God's. 
 
 There is one very important conclusion indeed, 
 which follows quite logically from all that has pre- 
 ceded — and it follows from it equally if any one 
 of Archbishop Usher's main assertions be found to 
 be true — it is this, that the early Irish Christians 
 could not have been Romanists. Doctor Murray, 
 Roman Catholic archbishop of Dublin, has, in a 
 recent controversy, afforded us the major proposition 
 of this syllogism in the following terms: — "He who 
 " denies one article c^f faith proposed as such by the 
 " Catholic Church, tears up the foundation on which 
 " the whole system rests, pronounces it to have fallen 
 " from the privilege of inerrability, and to have 
 '' ceased to be the pillar and ground of truth." — 
 And again — " The man who would prefer his own 
 " private judgment to the decision of the entire 
 " church, and would reject, as untrue, that which, it 
 " declares to have been revealed, would deny its infal- 
 " libility and protest against its doctrines ; or, in 
 " other words, he would by the very fact become a 
 " Protestant." But the early Irissh Christians did, 
 as we must admit, at the least deny some one article — 
 did prefer their " own private judgment to the de- 
 cision of the " entire church." Ergo, they were 
 " ProtestanC 
 
 I have now, I trust, vindicated Archbishop Usher 
 from the charge of groundless assertion, that you have 
 advanced against him ; and rescued an important fact 
 from the mistake in which you have sought to involve 
 
125 
 
 it. And I would request of the public, before they 
 form their final decision upon the question, to weigh 
 well the evidence ; and to remember, that I have 
 relied on none but the confessions afforded by your 
 History, or the authorities first produced and approved 
 by yourself. It is then to be hoped that they will 
 come to the conclusion to which I have been compel- 
 led to arrive — that, trained in the fields of fancy, you 
 afibrd a striking example, in choosing- this novel 
 walk of historian, of " that facility in yielding to 
 " new impulses and influences, which, in the Irish 
 " character, is found so remarkably combined with a 
 " fond adherence to old usages and customs ; and with 
 " that sort of retrospective imagination^ which for 
 " ever yearns after the past" (p. 203) ; and that that 
 imagination has rather inclined you to give us, for 
 historical fact, a little too much " of what may be 
 " called the poesy of real life." And yet, where that 
 natural bias of your mind has not been indulged, 
 and where your other early prejudices have no oppor- 
 tunity of swaying, I would not wish to deprive your 
 history of that place of classical record, in which it 
 has appeared ; a place of which it is by no means un- 
 deserving, were almost all that you have written 
 upon the solemn subject of religion blotted from its 
 page. Upon that one subject, however — I must repeat 
 it, and I think that I am imperatively called upon, by 
 your great influence even in politics, and your 
 merited popularity as a national poet, to urge it 
 forcibly — you are utterly incompetent to inform, 
 or to instruct ; and this for the following reasons. 
 
126 
 
 You are in the first place not dispassionate and 
 unprejudiced, when you treat of it. This fact is 
 evidenced by your history, and put beyond a doubt 
 by your other publications. I had once hoped that 
 your mind had soared above your prejudices, from a 
 redeeming note that occurs in your memoirs of 
 Captain Rock, appended to the following words — 
 " Our own priests not suffering us to read the Bible." p. 
 187. '* The arguments," you there say, "of the Roman 
 " Catholic clergy against the use of the Bible as a 
 *' class-book are well-founded ; bul the length to which 
 " some of them carry ,their objections to a free and 
 " general perusal of the Scriptures, is inconsistent 
 ** with the spirit as well of civil, as of religious, 
 *' liberty." — But these expectations have now vanished, 
 and left me to wonder at, and to lament, the fettering 
 power of superstitious shackles upon the mind nursed 
 in Romanism, so great, that the united forces of 
 exalted talents, the best education, and the most 
 brilliant society, are not of strength sufficient to 
 break them. The evil consequences of this to the 
 historian are numerous and great ; in your instance 
 it has especially led to the following — it has brought 
 you to grossly corrupted sources of information. 
 You remind me forcibly of that passage in Jeremiah — 
 " My people have committed two evils; they have 
 " forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters ; and 
 " hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can 
 " hold no water." — (ii. 13.) In like manner you 
 have most unaccountably and inexcusably neglected, 
 you have scarcely if at all noticed, the evidence of 
 
127 
 
 the Record of Eternal Truth ; which, even allowing 
 your traditions and your legends to be admissible 
 evidence at all, is doubtless the very best that can be 
 adduced on every disputed question of religion ; and 
 most manifestly so in one of antiquity of doctrine, 
 being as it is the most ancient — the very source and 
 origin of all. I was indeed greatly surprised at that 
 passage in your history, where in speaking of a con- 
 troversy between Dungal and Claudius of Turin, who 
 asserted that " saints ought not to be honoured or 
 " any reverence paid to images," you allege it to be 
 a " point solely to be decided by authority and tra- 
 " dition — the constant practice of the church from 
 " the very earliest times," p. 296. You do not say, 
 even on that obvious occasion, one word of the 
 sacred Scriptures, as authority, either in the way of 
 precept, or of precedent. And, again, where speaking 
 of communion in both kinds, you style it to be " a 
 *' mere point of discipline," (p. 240,) without meeting 
 our allegation, that it is one of positive command ; 
 or deigning to notice the testimony of the Word of 
 God, even in reference to your own most confined 
 view of the practice. These instances will suffice to 
 shew how you have forsaken the fountain head, 
 your history exhibits it fully ; as it also does the other 
 point, that you have " hewn out cisterns, that hold 
 " no water." Their character is thus given by your- 
 self, (p, 233,) — " It is to be recollected, however, 
 " that through all this picture the hands of ecclesiastics 
 " have chiefly guided the pencil ; and, though there 
 " can be no doubt, that the change effected in the 
 
1-28 
 
 " minds and hearts of the people was to a great 
 " extent as real, as it is wonderful, it was yet by no 
 " means either so deep, or so general, as on the 
 " face of these monkish annals it appears." You 
 have proved to us (p. 237) the falsehood of the 
 legend, it can scarcely be called " The Life, of St. 
 " Brigid ;" by exhibiting " one of those violations 
 *' of chronology not unfrequently hazarded for 
 " the purpose of bringing extraordinary j)ersonages 
 " together ;" and which I have already exposed. 
 You have admitted (p. 236,) that, " in citing for 
 " historical purposes, , * The Lives of Saints,' of 
 " whatever age or country, considerable caution 
 " ought, of course, to be observed :" yet from the 
 muddy waters of these dark annalists, and these 
 still darker credulous and false biographers, you 
 have drawn your chief supply. That " Life of St. 
 " Brigid " you have made, with astonishing indif- 
 ference, to be your only ground for " the invoking 
 " and praying to saints ;" and from the lives of 
 other saints you have cited amply, with much 
 more credulity than " caution," in support both of 
 history, and of superstitions. You have indeed 
 quoted, in condemnation of " writers, who in the 
 " pride of fancied wisdom assert a contempt for this 
 " species of evidence," the opinions of Gibbon, 
 of Montesquieu, and Sir James Mackintosh ; and I 
 will say that I go as far as they do in these opinions. 
 I do think, with the first of these writers, that " the 
 " ancient legendaries deserve some regard ;" with 
 Montesquieu, that " on ne laisse pas den tirer de 
 
129 
 
 " grandes lumieres sur les moeurs, et les usages de 
 " ces temps la :" and especially with Sir James, 
 that " the vast collections of ' the Lives of the 
 " Saints ' often throw light on public events, and 
 "open glimpses into the habits of men in those 
 •* times ; nor are they wanting in sources of interest, 
 " though lioetical and morale rather than his- 
 " TORICAL." (p. 236, note.) But remember that 
 Gibbon adds, as his foundation for his " some 
 " regard," these words — " as they are obliged to con- 
 " nect their fables with the real history of their 
 " own times ;" that Montesquieu commences with 
 reproaching them that they were " un peu trop 
 " credules ;" and that Mackintosh excludes their tes- 
 timony from the character of historical, altogether. 
 I consider them, indeed, in the light of spiritual 
 romances ; and, as we can catch many glimpses of 
 the customs of the times they treat of from the 
 fables of chivalry, while none but a Don Quixote 
 would depend on them for facts ; so these legendary 
 biographers may give us some insight into the 
 manners of the cloisters, by the very stories which 
 it will require the faith of a spiritual Quixote to 
 believe. I cannot therefore attribute the incautious 
 partiality that you have evinced to them, to any 
 thing but the prejudice of your mind. It is exceed- 
 ingly to be lamented how much such influence inter- 
 feres, to mar and impede every research into the 
 very interesting antiquities, whether religious or 
 otherwise, of our country ; nor is Dr. Ledvvich the 
 only person that is liable to this imputation — he was 
 
 K 
 
]30 
 
 a bold sceptic in Irish antiquities, it is true ; but he 
 was often an honest and daring advocate for the 
 truth ; and was, I believe, rightly jealous of its evi- 
 dences. Let us take the instance of Adamnan's life 
 of St. Columbkille ; " a work," as you say, " of which 
 " a fastidious Scotch critic," (Pinkerton,) has pro- 
 nounced, that " it is the most complete piece of such 
 " biography that all Europe can boast of, not only at 
 " so early a period, but even through the whole 
 "middle ages;" (p. 286,) but of which Ledwich 
 fearlessly asserts, " it is a heap of credulity and super- 
 " stition." (p. 89.) Perhaps indeed Pinkerton meant 
 to insinuate the same, in the equivocal sentence that 
 you have transcribed from him ; but of this I am 
 certain, and the fact can be easily ascertained by 
 any one who will take the trouble of looking at the 
 work, (he will find it in the florilegium of Messing- 
 ham,) that the declaration of Ledwich concerning it 
 is quite according to the truth. I differ much in most 
 points from this antiquarian, but I trust that he is 
 right where, laying aside that character, he appears in 
 his more appropriate one of a Protestant clergyman, 
 and declares, that it is not possible " that the Roman 
 " Catholics of Ireland will be longer amused with 
 " fictitious legends, or pay their adoration to ideal 
 " personages. The night of ignorance and supersti- 
 '' tion is passed, and with it the rustic and undis- 
 " cerning piety of dark ages. A scriptural, rational, 
 " and manly religion, is alone calculated for their 
 " present improvements in science and manners." 
 I feel it necessary, as the merit of St. Adamnan's work 
 
131 
 
 is so magnified by you, to bring forward something^ 
 from it that will justify my opinion of it; and I shall 
 do so the more readily, because that I can with much 
 propriety say, ^' ex uno disce omnes ;" for if this, the 
 *' most complete piece," be thus filled with credulity 
 and superstition, the banes of true history, how must 
 they abound in those which are less complete. From 
 the second book — of miracles — to which it is entirely 
 confined, I shall present the headings of a very few 
 chapters as specimens — " C. i. Quomodo S. Columba 
 " aquam in vinum convertit, et arborem pomorum ex 
 " amara reddit dulcem" — " c. ii. Quomodo seges, in 
 *' Junio seminata, in principio Augusti metitur." — 
 Not to fatigue the reader I shall select but two more — 
 " c. xii. Quomodo S. Columba belluae marinse im- 
 " perat, et puerum mortuum suscitat ;" and " c. xiv. 
 " Quomodo S. Columba contra tempestatem, a Magis 
 " excifatam, secure navigat." It is to be observed 
 that all the headings in this book are similar, and 
 scarcely any thing but such fables occur in the work.* 
 
 * I know that it will be thought by some, that the working 
 of miracles did not cease with the apostolic age, but that the 
 power was vouchsafed to the first preachers of the Gospel 
 among the heathen ; and such a privilege the Abbe Mc Geo- 
 ghegan claims, as we have seen, for St. Patrick ; and such also, 
 by a parity of reason, may be said to have belonged to St. Co- 
 lumbkille, as the apostle of the Picts. But it might be expected 
 that, if the sainted missionary was possessed of any miraculous 
 gift, as an apostle, it should have been in the first instance, 
 and according to scriptural analogy, of the gift of tongues ; and 
 yet we are expressly told the contrary by Adamnan him- 
 self. I quote from a note that is appended to your 245th 
 page, where he informs us — that the holy man preached 
 to the Picts, through an interpreter. 
 
132 
 
 I must here repeat the fact, although I am not 
 willing to attribute its occurrence to a prejudice in your 
 mind against him and his doctrines, of the omission of 
 Claudius from your account of eminent writers : he was 
 among the most eminent, and was supposed to have 
 been one of the founders of the University of Paris ; 
 he flourished about the same time as Claudius of Turin, 
 that is, A.D. 815. Archbishop Usher has quoted 
 very amply from his works ; and they afforded him 
 the most decided evidence of the purity of the 
 doctrine of the Irish church, in the days in which he 
 flourished. This should, liave entitled him to notice, 
 and his arguments to a candid hearing ; yet, strange 
 to say, his name occurs no where in your work : and 
 your silence respecting him has deprived our cause, 
 as it is now advocated by me upon the principle of 
 resting on the evidence only of such witnesses as you 
 have produced or approved, of a testimony the most 
 unequivocal and unexceptionable, to the difference 
 between the doctrine of modern Romanists and the 
 early Irish divines, even so late as the year 815. 
 In fine, I must recapitulate by declaring my decided 
 opinion, that, because of your predilection in favour 
 of Romanism, and the too great development and acti- 
 vity of your organ of ideality, you are incapacitated 
 from being the unprejudiced and dispassionate historian 
 of the Religion of the ancient Irish. 
 
 But you are further unfitted for that office by 
 your indifference on the subject — although, as to 
 the most material of all, being connected with the 
 eternal happiness of mankind, you should have given 
 
133 
 
 it ample space and full consideration in your work ; 
 especially as it influences almost every concern in 
 Ireland, and greatly occupies the minds of thousands 
 of its inhabitants. Yet you have thought fit to dismiss 
 it in a jejune and apparently supercilious manner; and 
 have turned quite round on your heel from " the ad- 
 mirable Usher" — not because you despised his learning, 
 for this you are compelled to admit — what reason 
 then had you for it, and for your slight notice of the 
 entire question in less than four pages, but your 
 apparent indifference towards it ? This feeling, or 
 want of feeling rather, you have also manifested in 
 your vague and careless mode of reference to your 
 authorities, of which I have so often complained. 
 In fine, had you thought the subject to have been at 
 all deserving of your notice, as it really is, you could 
 not have discussed its doctrines so lightly as you 
 have done. 
 
 Another circumstance incapacitates you from being 
 the historian of matter so important, your utter un- 
 acquaintance with the native language, and the 
 original documents of Ireland. It would, I feel, be 
 unreasonable to require a great knowledge of the first ; 
 but at least a smattering of it is surely necessary, if it 
 were only sufficient to enable the historian, in some 
 degi-ee, to check the information which he often re- 
 ceives through suspicious channels ; and to save his 
 work from such a jumble* of letters as you have 
 
 * In the note to p. 53 the proper sentence, " do rinnedur san 
 " fos ar an mogh gceadna," is presented thus, *' dor innediir — 
 " san fos aran moghgceadna. " 
 
 K 3 
 
134 
 
 presented us with, when you have ventured to quote 
 the Irish lantruage in your hook — a little less, however, 
 of the preceding disqualification, indifference, would 
 have enahled you to have avoided this. But, passing 
 by this unfashionable requisite, in which ignorance 
 may be venial ; it is by no means so in the case of 
 original documents, written in the Latin tongue, with 
 the very existence of which you are utterly unac- 
 quainted ; I shall give one remarkable example. In 
 p. 252 you assert, that " In the Annals of the Four 
 " Masters, for the year 1006, we find mention of a 
 " splendid copy of the four Gospels, said to have been 
 " written by St. Columba's own hand, and preserved 
 " at Kells, in a cover richly ornamented with gold. 
 " In the time of Usher this precious MS. was still 
 " numbered among the treasures of Kells." Adding 
 in a note — " This Kells MS. is supposed to have 
 " been the same now preserved in the Library of 
 " T. C. Dublin, on the margin of which are the 
 " following words, written by O'Flaherty in the year 
 " 1677: ' Liber autem hie scriptus est manu ipsius 
 " B. Columbse.' " What a strange confusion have 
 we here given as information to the public, which had 
 been entirely avoided by a very little deeper research ; 
 and by what one would have reasonably expected 
 from the historian of Ireland — a visit to the great 
 repository of our University. You would by these 
 means have discovered, that this noble relic, most 
 justly styled " totius Europoe facile principem," was in 
 Usher's time, not in Kells, but in his own possession ; 
 that it passed from his hands into those ultimately of 
 
135 
 
 Dublin College ; that not it, but the Book of Durrovv, 
 is that which is inscribed as you have mentioned by 
 O'Flaherty ; and that the Book of Kells stands, and has 
 stood for much more than a century, in its place in 
 the depository of MSS. in the Library of that college ; 
 and has been for perhaps eighty years entered most 
 legibly into the catalogue* of these MSS. which has 
 always lain quite accessible upon the table. Now, 
 there is no excuse whatever for your neglect in not 
 looking farther into this matter than you have done ; 
 the hint that was given you, and which is mentioned in 
 your note, you should have followed up ; you are 
 sufficiently alive to the great value of the document 
 itself, and how it was appreciated ; you should, 
 therefore, have searched for and examined it, at least 
 before you ventured upon that page of error on the 
 
 * This catalogue has been enlarged, or rather has been em- 
 bodied in one of this most extensive and interesting collection 
 which I was engaged to form, and which is now deposited in 
 the MS. room of the library. The Book of Kells is in the 
 press A, 1. 5, the Book of Durrow in A. 4. 5, where they have 
 both lain for upwards of a century. While compiling this 
 catalogue I have sat with Dr. O'Connor in the Library; I 
 have frequently conversed, and have since corresponded with 
 him, on Irish subjects ; and I never suspected the extraordinary 
 fact, that he was entirely ignorant of the existence of the Book 
 of Kells, although it was displayed in the same press with that of 
 Durrow, of which he has given good facsimiles in his Rer. Hib. 
 Scrip, and of which, as well as of the Book of Kells, he has 
 written so much. I think it no excuse to you, that you had 
 such a leader in your ignorance, for it is manifest that you 
 made no research whatever ; and since the Doctor wrote, and 
 before you commenced your history, the Book of Kells has 
 been put forward to notice in a new binding, and with an 
 inscription, which makes it impossible that it should escape 
 unnoticed now. 
 
136 
 
 subject of our ancient books, your S09tb. You should 
 indeed not only have known of these books, and seen 
 thera, but have collated, or caused to be collated, some 
 of their peculiar versions ; exhibiting as they do 
 variances from St. Jerome's Latin translation, although 
 written in that language themselves, and thus affording 
 a collateral proof of the independent character of the 
 early Irish church ; and not, when you are so very 
 vulnerable on this head yourself, have put forward 
 the " zealous and amiable scholar," as you style him — 
 Dr. O'Conor — as one who " on most points connected 
 *' with that theme," his 90untry's antiquities, " adopts 
 " as proved what has only been boldly asserted ;" so as 
 to " render him, with all his real candour and learning, 
 ** not always a trustworthy witness." You should at 
 least have taken some more fortunate opportunity* 
 than this for making the observation ; from the injury 
 of which I am the more anxious to rescuef the memory 
 
 * I lie qui deridet, caudam trahit. 
 
 t You take much pains in that passage to sink the authority 
 of O'Conor, by bearing down upon him with the weight of that 
 o£ Mr. Astle ; but, however, the fact is, that they are giving 
 opinions which are perfectly reconcileable with each other. The 
 MS. of the four Gospels to which " Dr. O'Conor triumphantly 
 " refers," is written in the Latin language ; and the assertion of 
 Mr. Astle is, " that the oldest Irish MS." or MS. in the Irish 
 tongue, " which has been discovered, is the Psalter of Cashel, 
 " written in the tenth century." 
 
 It must here be observed, that Mr. Astle is not authority on 
 this subject — besides that he did not understand Irish, he writes 
 from tlie accounts of others, citing only Ware. He does not seem 
 even to have seen the Irish MS. of which he speaks ; but had he, 
 for example, examined tlie copies of Brehon laws deposited in 
 the Library of T.C.D. he must have formed a different judg- 
 ment. Had he also seen the Books of Kells and Dunow, he 
 
137 
 
 of this most learned and honest and lahorious anti- 
 quarian, becau<«e that I know that, on account of his 
 faithfulness in his accounts given, in his letters 
 of Columbanus, of the real history of tlie ancient 
 Irish church, he was prevented from officiating 
 in Dublin, as a priest of the Roman Catholic* com- 
 munion ; and although he never quitted it, was every 
 where aspersed by his brethren, and is in no very good 
 odour with any Romanist. As a specimen also of 
 what you should not have neglected, in the seeking 
 for and examining our ancient books, I shall mention 
 our famed book of Armagh ; wliich is accessible, and 
 which we have often had occasion to notice ; you 
 should, either of yourself or through others, have 
 become better acquainted with it, containing as it 
 does a remarkable life of St. Patrick, and various 
 readings of the New Testament. Finally, in this and 
 other such instances of neglect, you have failed in 
 your duty as an historian. 
 
 But, still more than the circumstances which I 
 have already mentioned, you are precluded from being 
 the proper historian of the religion of Ireland, by your 
 not having yourself very clear ideas upon that inte- 
 
 must also have given an opinion of their greater antiquity. Dr. 
 O'Conor was more competent than he to determine upon 
 books that were merely Irish ; and I feel myself justified, upon 
 his testimony and that of other skilful judges, to assert, that 
 with respect to them IVIr. Astle was mistaken in his judgment. 
 * See his correspondence with Dr. Troy, upon the subject, 
 in the letters of Columbanus, No. VII. What this really 
 liberal Romanist says of Archbishop Usher, and his arguments, 
 in No. III. p. 50, of these letters, demonstrates at once his 
 candour and good sense. 
 
138 
 
 resting subject. Without entering into a controversial 
 consideration of certain passages in other parts of your 
 history ; or dwelling again upon your naming that 
 doctrine a heresy^ which " maintained, that saints 
 " ought not to be honoured, nor any reverence paid to 
 " IMAGES ;" or referring to errors which a Roman 
 Catholic will hold to be not such ; I must repeat and 
 urge the instance of your argument in page 305, re- 
 specting the real presence. You there represent the 
 pure and spiritual doctrine of the Protestant church, 
 as being your own, and claim it for the ancient Irish 
 also ; while it is clear from the entire tenor of your 
 argument, that you nevertheless suppose it not to be 
 the Protestant, but the modern Roman Catholic tenet 
 on that subject. 
 
 With your manner of treating other subjects I have 
 no business here — save only to give deserved credit to 
 your industry and to your talents ; and to make 
 one short and necessary comment respecting your 
 politics as a writer, upon a point inseparable from the 
 subject before us. I must introduce it by observing, 
 that I do not condemn your nationality, but would 
 only wish that you had exhibited it with a more truly 
 national feeling ; and not, when whatever of severity 
 or impolicy had formerly marked the English domi- 
 nancy had vanished away, have agitated the settling 
 minds of the people, roused with your martial music 
 the slumbering rancour of the Irish against the 
 Saxon name, and fanned the dying embers of national 
 and religious jealousy to a devastating flame. But you 
 have yet an opportunity, when you are entering upon 
 
139 
 
 the later centuries of your history, to take off a portion 
 of the combustible material from the raging fire ; by 
 assuring the poor Irishman of the fact — that it is not 
 to the Saxon invasion that he is to attribute the estab- 
 lishment of Protestantism in this island ; that with the 
 British conqu<!st first came a full acquiescence in a 
 subjection to the see of Rome ; and that, although you 
 will still perhaps continue to deny that the Roman 
 Catholic was an innovation on the primitive church 
 in Ireland, it was not until about the period of Henry 
 the Seconds invasion, that the Pope sent over his 
 palls, and his legates, or assumed any thing like the 
 authority which he has since laid claim to. At this 
 period, Adrian IV. and Alexander III. committed, by 
 bulls, this " barbarous nation," as they pleased to 
 call it, into the King's hands ; with a full commission 
 to subdue it — to spill the blood of its inhabitants, 
 under the pretence of spreading the gospel of peace ; 
 and on the condition of transmitting to Rome the tax 
 of Peter's pence, for the promoting of His religion, 
 whose kingdom is not of this world. Tell them the 
 following fact ; and if you tell it in poesy, I am sure 
 it will be much better than the chronicler's, that — 
 
 The King Henry then conquered all Ireland, 
 
 By Papall dome — 
 
 For errour which agayn the spiritualtee 
 
 1'hey held full long — (Hardyng's Chron. c. 132.) 
 
 and, disuniting Protestantism from the hated name of 
 Saxon, let simple truth have fair play. 
 
 With the department of theology, however, you 
 should not interfere, until you have given your mind 
 
140 
 
 to a calm consideration of that most solemn subject. 
 Oh that your muse, with whose national eloquence 
 I have often sympathised, were yet inspired to 
 breathe forth the praises of Jehovah ! Then, in- 
 deed, instead of regretting that you made Christianity 
 in Ireland your subject, I should watch, more 
 anxiously than I ever did for a promised number of 
 your melodies, to hail some new effusion of your 
 eminently poetic talent. Oh, my dear sir, reflect — do 
 but reflect — how responsible you are for the use of 
 that important — that influential gift. How rapidly is 
 the time — the moment, for its enjoyment here, passing — 
 fleeting away ! How very soon w^e shall both of us 
 stand before the judgment seat of our Redeemer — now 
 inviting in mercy, but then retributing injustice — and 
 give an account of the improvement or abuse of the 
 talents committed to our charge. With real desire 
 that you as well as I may be instructed in all truth, 
 and that we may be enabled to abide in it unto life 
 eternal — 
 
 I am your"s, faithfully, 
 
 HENRY J. MONCK MASON. 
 
 Diihlni; tTiiitid by J. S. f (.Ll>.s, 5, f-acli. lor's-Walk. 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Since this letter was completed, I have been in- 
 duced to make some inquiry respecting one part of it, 
 which, from my deficiency of information at the 
 time, I thought proper to confine to the place of a 
 mere note, but which I have now found not only a 
 fit subject for a place in the letter itself, but deserv- 
 ing of the most particular attention. It exhibits as 
 striking an instance of dishonest misquotation as I have 
 ever met with — but in using these terms, I do not 
 mean to apply the degrading epithet to your motives, 
 for I know that you took the passage from O'Connor, 
 without putting yourself to further trouble ; nor do I 
 apply them to that learned and honest man, who I 
 am willing to believe took it, also rather lazily, from 
 some previous writer: but I lay the charge boldly at 
 the door of some previous advocate of your cause. 
 I stated in the note to p. 63, that you have mis- 
 quoted the words of Tertullian, who says, " Obla- 
 tiones pro defunctis pro natalitiis annua die faci- 
 mus," as if he had merely said, " Oblationes pro de- 
 functis annua die facimus." The first sentence 
 signifies, " We make oblations for the deceased for 
 their birth-days annually ;" the second, " We make 
 oblations for the deceased annually." 1 did observe 
 the term "defunctis" instead of "mortuis;" and suspect 
 that of "pro natalitiis" to be highly material, and I have 
 
 L 
 
142 
 
 since found that it is indeed so ; as it gives an entire 
 change to the custom referred to, in all its character 
 and circumstances ; and alludes to one of the most 
 beautiful parts of the history of primitive persecution 
 and martyrdom. In the Rev. Mr. Chevallier's 
 Epistles of Clement, &c. just published, (p. 164-, 
 note,) you will find the whole matter opened 
 out. — The following is an extract — " These anni- 
 versaries of the days on which the martyrs suffered, 
 were called their birth-days, on which they were 
 freed from trials of mortality, and born as it 
 were into the joys and happiness of heaven — Thus 
 Tertullian de Coron. Militis, c. 3, says — ^Oblationes 
 pro defimctis pro natalitiis annua die facimus'' — 
 (the very sentence you have relied on.) He then 
 proceeds to give some instances of allusions to this 
 custom, made by St. Cyprian, and adds the following : 
 " After Cyprian himself had suffered for the faith, 
 we find Peter Chrysologus, in his Sermon on the 
 Martyrdom of Cyprian, using the like expressions : 
 * Natalem sanctorum cum audistis, fratres, nolite 
 putare ilium dici quo nascuntur in terrara do came ; 
 sed de terra in ccelum, de labore ad requiem, de ten- 
 tationibus ad quietem, de cruciatibus ad delicias — non 
 fluxasj sed fortes et stabiles et seternas — de mundanis 
 risibus ad coronam et gloriam — Tales natales dies 
 martyrum celebrantur," — "Do not think the birth-day 
 of saints to be one to the earth in the flesh ; but from 
 earth into heaven, from labour to repose, from temp- 
 tations to rest, from tortures to delights — not fleeting, 
 but strong, steady, and eternal— from the sconi of 
 
143 
 
 th© world to the crown and to glory." " The 
 manner,'* he proceeds, " of celebrating the memories 
 of the maityrs and confessors in the primitive Church 
 was this — On the anniversary day the people assembled, 
 sometimes at the tombs where the martyrs had been 
 buried. They then publicly praised God for those 
 who had glorified him by their suflFerings and death, 
 recited the history of their martyrdom, and heard a 
 sermon preached in commemoration of their patience 
 and Christian virtues. They offered up fervent prayers 
 to God, and celebrated the Eucharist in commemo- 
 ration of Christ's passion, and gave alms to the poor. 
 They kept also a public festival provided by general 
 contribution, to which the poorer brethren were 
 freely admitted." 
 
 The occasion of this note is a passage in the mar- 
 tyrdom of Polycarp, which is highly interesting, and 
 which I shall transcribe for you from the Latin of 
 Eus. Ecc. Hist. lib. iv. c. 15 — " Concedat Deus 
 natalem ejus martyrii diem cum hilar itate et g audio 
 celebrare ; turn in memoriam eorum qui glorioso 
 certamini perfuncti sunt, turn ad posteros hujusmodi 
 exemplo erudiendos et confirmandos" — " May God 
 grant to us to celebrate the birth-day oi his martyrdom 
 with cheerfulness and joy ; as well in memory of those 
 who have accomplished the glorious conflict, as for 
 teaching and confirming their followers by such an 
 example." Here tlien we find that this pure hallowed 
 primitive oblation was the most spiritual sacrifice of 
 thanksgiving possible, offered for men — deceased 
 certainly, but — undoubtedly gone to glory, and not 
 
144 
 
 to purgatorial fire, (Rev. xx. 4, vi,9, &c.) — for one here, 
 for instance, who even from the hurning of this world's 
 fires was miraculously preserved ; and it reminds us 
 of that striking and difficult passage of 1 Cor. xv. 
 29 — " Why are they baptized for the dead," and its 
 context — by exhibiting a most powerful motive to the 
 Christian believer in the resurrection, to be faithful 
 even unto death. 
 
 I hope, my dear sir, you will take a hint from this 
 failure; and attend, in the next volumes of your history, 
 to what experience has taught me to be indispensable — 
 I mean to consult your originals, when you quote 
 authorities upon any occasion of importance. 
 
 I shall take this opportunity of transcribing one 
 more passage from the martyrdom of Polycarp, and 
 give it in the English of Mr. Chevallier ; it demon- 
 strates an early abhorrence of any thing like the 
 present honor paid by the Romanists to martyrs. It 
 was suggested by the Jews to the governor, to pre- 
 vent the Christians from taking the body of Polycarp, 
 lest they should begin to worship this Polycarp — " not 
 considering," says the writer, " that it is impossible 
 for us either ever to forsake Christ, who suffered 
 for the salvation of all such as shall be saved 
 throughout the whole world, (the righteous for the 
 ungodly) ; or to worship any other. For him 
 indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore ; but 
 for the martyrs we worthily lore them, as the disci- 
 ples and imitators of our Lord, on account of their 
 exceeding great love towards their Master and 
 King." 
 
lilllffllll{llfl»{fll!B{!liim^^^ffll! 
 
 BW5327.M39 
 
 Primitive Christianity in Ireland : a 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 ' 'lllllllillllllllllHI 
 
 iiiiiiiiiiiniiniiiiii 
 
 1 1012 00035 3518