Page images
PDF
EPUB

have been a Christian is by far the most natural. If now we turn to the south of Ireland, we find a tradition at least as old as the eighth century, and referred to in many poems and Irish MSS., which makes the inhabitants about Cape Clear (Inis Clera, or "Island of the Clergy,") to have been those Irish who first embraced the gospel of Christ. (Rer. Hibern. Scriptor., vol. ii., p. 97.) If, therefore, the least reliance is to be placed on these authorities, it would appear that, both in the north and in the south of the island, Christianity had obtained an early footing among the Irish people. The same conclusion may

be deduced from the records of other churches in which the names of eminent early Irish Christians occur.

But though it is admitted by Mr. M. (p. 209,) that anterior to the mission of Palladius there was an "increasing number of Christians" in Ireland, and though he is most anxious to impress on his readers the idea that the Irish were early distinguished as Christian scholars, and were so identified with the rest of Christendom in the middle of the fourth century as to be generally affected by a heresy which at that time more or less infested every Christian country, yet he considers it to be "certain" that Ireland then presented the solitary instance of a church without a bishop. "It seems certain that before this period no hierarchy had been there instituted, but that in Palladius the Irish Christians saw their first bishop."

The note on this passage is—" Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatus a Papa Celestino Palladius primus episcopus mittitur."-Prosper. Chron. Bass, et Antioch, Coss.

"that

Now in the first instance it is to be noted, that in order to make it "certain" that "primus" in this passage is intended to mean in Palladius the Irish Christians saw their first bishop," Mr. M., in common with other Romanists, will be under the necessity of impugning the authority of the lives of some saints, though on other occasions (see p. 236) he may find it convenient to call in the assistance of documents not a particle more trustworthy than those he must reject. It is by such a dire alternative alone that he can place "Ailbe, the pious Declan, and Ibar, all memorable as primitive fathers of the Irish church," (p. 227,) among "the disciples of St. Patrick." Some such consciousness as this, it may be presumed, moved Mr. M. to introduce these "illustrious" names, without a single hint that they have been considered to be the episcopal predecessors of Palladius on somewhat better authority than Mr. M. would make them the "disciples" of the Romish apostle. It is possible, however, that Mr. M. may have been misled by Dr. Lanigan, who on some occasions is a great authority with him. The latter gentleman goes so far as to affirm (Eccl. Hist., vol. i., p. 22,) that such lives of the worthies of whom we are writing as make them "bishops in Ireland before the arrival of St. Patrick," abound" with anachronisms and contradictions, whilst the old Irish annals are in direct opposition to them." That all writings which contain matter likely to interfere with the claims of the Romish St. Patrick should be in direct opposition to the "old Irish annals" need not be surprising when we take into consideration the fact that, if the annals themselves are to be believed, all the ancient

records of Ireland were collected and expurgated by command of St. Patrick. ("Annals of the Four Masters," Ann. 438, ed. Dr. O'Conor.) It would be more than one could expect that an apostle possessed of half the worldly wisdom which seems to have been the inheritance of Mr. M.'s St. Patrick, should undertake the purgation of the "old Irish annals," and leave those exact portions of the histories unpurified which would have proved himself to be an impostor! Yet it does so happen, by some accident or other, that the Dublin copy of the Annals of Inisfallen, as edited by Dr. O'Conor, so far agrees with those lives of the saints quoted or referred to by Usher, as to make Kieran, and Declan, and Ailbe, and Ibar, all "bishops in Ireland before the arrival of St. Patrick." And, what is remarkable, neither these annals, nor those of Abbye Boyle, so much as mention the name of Palladius. I will only add that, judging from some peculiarities connected with that quotation from Giraldus Cambrensis, to which attention has been already directed, I have some suspicion that Mr. M. may have known that "St. Ibar," at least, has been regarded as "one of the four bishops who propagated the gospel in Ireland before St. Patrick." (See O'Flaherty's "Sketch, &c. of the Islands of Aran," in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. xiv., pp. 115, 127.)*

But still it may be said, there is the express testimony of Prosper. Not, however, of all the copies, for it has long since been intimated by Archbishop Usher that the Chronicon of Prosper, as given by Du Chesne (Hist. Script. Rer. Francar. Coetan., tom. i., p. 205; Paris, 1636,) reads, "Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatus a Papa Celestino Palladius episcopus mittitur," omitting " primus," on which the whole question hinges. It is true that the reading of Prosper, as given by Mr. M., is supported by the authority of Bede, Marianus Scotus, Sigebert, and one or two other old writers; so is the reading of Du Chesne corroborated by Hermannus Contractus, a chronicler as ancient as any of those mentioned, with the exception of Bede. (See the " Scriptores de Rebus Germanicis," edited by Pistorius, tom. i., p. 116, Frankfort, 1583), not to mention the Saxon Chronicles, edited by Gisborne. And, what is still more to the purpose, there is another chronicle which passes under the name of Prosper, quite different from the work quoted by Mr. M., but yet laying such claims to authenticity that learned men have decided it to be the genuine production of that father in preference to the other. The predicament, therefore, in which Mr. M.'s "certain" passage of history seems to stand is this: whilst it is directly opposed to documentary evidence immediately relating to the affairs of Ireland, it derives its sole authority from a quotation which, if authentic, may, on the most essential point, be variously read, that quotation, however, being found in a chronicle, the genuineness of which may, without the

It may not perhaps be generally known that Ruelius, in his Concilia Illustrata, vol. i., p. 1079, asserts that there were bishops and others from Ireland present at the first council of Arles. Ann. 314. I do not find on what authority his assertion rests, except it be on the name Hibernius, which occurs among others in a letter said to have been addressed by persons present at the council to Pope Sylvester.

slightest captiousness, be doubted. But as if by anticipation, to
render Mr. M.'s "certain" as uncertain as possible, Dr. Lingard seems
never to have dreamed of Palladius being sent to Ireland at all, but
takes it for granted that "ad Scotos" means the Christians of Scotland.
(Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 45, 2nd edit.)
C. E. G.

[Erratum in Letter ii.-Dele " even," last line but one.
e.]

MARTIN OF TOURS.

SIR, The dedication of days and temples to the founders of our faith was a great inconvenience in the times when the reformed church was contending against idolatry. We do not now feel the pressure of that inconvenience, and we feel a satisfaction in paying a reasonable degree of honour to the apostles and authentic martyrs. Our forefathers were in this particular obliged to retain more than, probably, they desired, and certainly more than we can now find satisfaction in."

When the Church of England, in obedience to various considerations, permitted the many obscure and some questionable names which fill our calendar to remain there, she conceded a minor and non-essential point, which she could not have insisted upon without causing the weaker brethren to be offended. But assuredly her founders never meant to pronounce that the historical existence and saintly graces of these people were articles of faith and conformity the controverting of which should be esteemed a violation of public decency. Besides the monstrosity of such a doctrine in itself, their not saying it entitles us to conclude they did not mean it. We must be careful how we permit any individual, in his own private zeal, to fasten upon us a 40th article, and one of so serious a nature. articles do not say so much for the calendar as they do for the apocrypha, but dismiss the subject altogether; while the liturgy honours none but primitive martyrs. If the calendar were any authority in such matters, Dr. Ledwich would have been absolutely estopped from disputing the history of the pretended Patrick, and I should be precluded from lending† my feeble aid to his views.

The

Without the Historia Sacra, Vita Martini, and Dialogues published by his bosom-friend and confederate, Sulpicius Severus, the history of Martin would be very scanty in its material, and quite obscure in its moral part. But, possessing them, we can be at no loss to judge what manner of man Martin was, and with what sort of tools he worked. These persons succeeded in inflaming to the highest point the credulous fanaticism of the Gaulish multitude; and Sulpicius Severus also

Such of your readers as desire it may see both these chronicles in Du Chesne, as above referred to, and in Labbe's Novar. MSS. Bibliotheca, tom. i., ed. Paris, 1657.

Which, however, I propose doing once more. And meanwhile, I beg leave to correct the more important of your printer's errata in my last, which arose perhaps from my bad writing. Dele the comma between Gallia and Belgica, for Aloryt read Alvryt, for Iris read Isis, for Boneud read Bonedd, for Trecassentis read Trecassensis.

succeeded in passing himself off upon Jerome (a ready recipient of such delusions) and upon Augustine, who were remote from the scene of his actions. But it is only justice towards the clergy and more enlightened part of the laity in Gaul to say, that they were not all dupes; and, by his own shewing, some were disposed to regard both him and his patron as charlatans and liars. The emperor Maximus was not the dupe of Martin, although he was obliged to offer incense to the popular idol. If your correspondent is disposed to drink at the source, he will find in Severus much melancholy information concerning the monk, whom our erring ancestors imagined to be a patron to the church which he serves, and its advocate with God.

When the rector of St. Martin's parish reads the narrative of his miraculous interview with the Emperor Valentinian, I think that, notwithstanding the disgust he will feel, the absurdity of it will force a smile from him. But when he comes to the story concerning Briccio of Tours, (Dial. 3, c. 15,) his honest and religious mind will resist all the titillations of levity in the strength of its indignation.

This Briccio was a priest of the Turonian church, who succeeded to the bishopric when Martin died. Martin himself had been raised to episcopacy, not indeed as afterwards were Germanus and Sidonius Apollinaris, by the instrumentality of direct mob violence, but by popular intimidation overpowering the will and judgment of his clergy. After his death, the mob of Tours, inflamed by calumnies which Martin and the Martinists had long before directed against him, and which Gregorius Turonensis (dissembling the quarter from whence they came) admits to have been utter calumnies, expelled Briccio, and by acclamation raised up first one and then another bishop in his place. It is probable that he was the person upon whom the choice of the clergy, had it been free, would have fallen, when Martin was consecrated. Without pretending here to analyze and comment upon the documents of Martin's life and machinations, I thought your reverend correspondent might find these remarks useful, in appreciating this particular passage of them. It is rather remarkable that St. Martin's successor is commemorated in our reformed calendar as St. Brice on the 13th November; and that may place my respected opponent in some difficulty. The calendar is necessary for the purpose of pointing out to us on what days we are to hold in remembrance St. Stephen, St. Jude, St. John Baptist, &c.; but for purposes such as the present, it is no more than an old almanac. That is the plain-spoken truth of the matter.

There can be no doubt that our indulgence is due to those historical characters whose penitence and amendment of life and manners is recorded in history, as well as their wickedness. But I am not aware of any grounds for supposing that Martin ever repented of his shocking career, or died otherwise than in the fullest perseverance. With respect to his follower, Severus, he was, indeed, overtaken by remorse in his old age, and condemned himself to a voluntary

The specific calumny, by means of which the insurrection was kindled, occurred after his consecration. The general imputations, to which it was adapted, and which Gregory negatives, were of earlier date, and the venom of Martin, Severus, &c.

taciturnity to expiate the sins of his tongue. It is true that his friends, the Martinists of Tours, gave out that the fault of his tongue had consisted in advocating Pelagianism, and nothing else. In so doing, he might have been honest. A darker stain, tainting his whole life and conversation, was to be obliterated by the aged penitence of Severus; and that it was so, we may well hope. But an honest and correct account of the contrition of Severus would have been the death-blow to Martinism, and could not be expected from Tours. The sound of his palinodia was stifled, and not suffered to come abroad.

Without presuming to judge, in the forbidden sense of that word, we are at liberty to condemn the wicked actions of the men we read of in history. And Martin stands before that ordinary tribunal of human opinion, with nothing to mitigate the censure it must pronounce upon him. Of your correspondent's allusions to myself, being irrelevant, and such as I think it is always more judicious to avoid, I say nothing at all. H.†

PLACE OF THE SERMON IN DIVINE WORSHIP.

[ocr errors]

MR. EDITOR,-A correspondent noticed in the last number of the "British Magazine" "wishes to ask Mr. Newman where those directions of our church are to be found authorizing the introduction of a lecture or sermon 'between the reading of Scripture and the prayers.' Perhaps it will answer your correspondent's purpose if Î, another nameless correspondent, state what my understanding is of the passage referred to.

Is not allusion made in it to the place of the sermon in the Communion Service, as assigned by the rubric? That service is a whole in itself, and to it the sermon belongs entirely. Now the sermon

• To crown all the enormous contents of his book, and obtain for it a more complete acceptance, he had not scrupled to assert that Martin, some time after his death, appeared to him in a glorified form, patted him kindly on the head, and exhibited the volume of his own life, which he carried in his hand! From whence the poor deluded Gauls had to infer, that the saints in heaven occupy themselves with reading their own lives. But of all the sentences contained in his works, the following is perhaps the most distressing to read :-" I have written nothing but what had been previous ascertained and proved by me; else would I rather be silent, than utter falsehoods." In the days of his repentant silence, these words must often have presented themselves to his afflicted conscience.

+ The editor hopes this correspondence may lead to a full investigation of the grounds for certain names being left in, and certain others struck out of, our calendar at the Reformation. It is a curious subject.

Can "H." prove that the friends of Severus stifled the real nature of his penitence, or misrepresented it? Is not asserting that they did so, assuming the whole matter in dispute, and even fixing infamy on Martin of Tours, by an arbitrary hypothesis that Severus had one motive for penitence, and that his friends were guilty of the infamy of assigning another, which they knew to be false? Where can we stop in history on this principle? Perhaps, instead of further controversy on this point, "H.," who is so well able, will give us a paper or two on the proper mode of writing history, the limits within which conjectures not founded on fact, especially as to men's character, are admissible, and the value to be attached to any history where those limits are transgressed.-ED.

« PreviousContinue »