3. S. Columbanus, however, according to Dean Murray, asserts "that the sword of Peter signifies not temporal power or spiritual jurisdiction, but a true confession of faith in a synod." From this passage it results (1) That the Roman Pontiff wields "the sword of Peter." (2) That it belongs to him to cut off schism from the Church with that spiritual sword. (3) That the opportune means of cutting off the schism of which S. Columbanus speaks was to synodically proclaim the faith of Peter, and then anathematize all who would not receive that faith. For which reason he had already lamented that the Pope, who was endowed with full authority, had not, on the first appearance of the schism, solemnly proclaimed his faith, and then condemned and excommunicated whosoever should even dare to slander the presiding see of the orthodox faith.

4. But at all events, says Dean Murray, S. Columbanus explicitly lays down" that the chair of Peter is capable of being defiled by doctrinal error, and that it is possible for the Catholic faith not to be held in the Apostolic See."

There is no such statement made by S. Columbanus. He speaks indeed of the mist of suspicion having gathered round the See of Peter, and of the Pope's being ranked among the patrons of heretics, but he takes good care to let the Holy Father and the readers of his letter know that such were not his own sentiments, but merely the sentiments of the schismatics who, like many nowadays, were maligners of Rome, and against whom S. Columbanus exhorts Pope Boniface to unsheath his spiritual sword. Hence, in one place he says that he had written this letter in order to arouse the Pontiff "against those men who blaspheme such as are thine, and clamour against them as the receivers of heretics." Subsequently he adds, "See that the mist of suspicion be drawn aside from the chair of S. Peter, for the reception of heretics is, I hear, imputed to you; but God forbid that I should believe it; it never has occurred, and never will occur to the end of time." And in concluding his letter he again exhorts the Pope to use courageously the spiritual sword, "that my glorying for you may not be in vain, and that your assailants may be confounded and not we; for, as befits disciples in regard to their Master, I declared in your name that the Roman Church admits to its communion none who impugn the Catholic faith." And the whole letter is evidently that of a zealous and plain-speaking man, anxious to exhort him with whom the spiritual authority lay to use it promptly and decisively in defence of the Faith. We are glad that this letter of S. Columbanus has been referred to by Dean Murray and others, since it serves to bring out in bolder relief the teaching of the early Irish Church regarding Rome, and to present that great Irish Saint as an illustrious champion of the prerogatives of the Holy See.

Claudius Clemens, an Irishman who was appointed to the See of Auxerre, and was famed especially for his Gospel Commentaries, is referred to by Archbishop Ussher as insinuating something not unlike Protestant tenets, and it may therefore be well to refer especially to him.

Ussher thus writes :-"The famous passage in Scripture (Matt. xvi. 18) where the Romanists lay the main foundation of the Papacy, Claudius explains in this manner-Upon this rock I will build my Church; that is to say upon the Lord and Saviour, who granted to His faithful friend, lover, and confessor the participation of His own name, that from Petra (the rock) he should be called Peter."

We shall not readily pardon the Protestant Primate for implying that these words of Claudius are in opposition to the teaching and doctrine of the Catholic Church, for Catholics concur with Protestants that Christ is the true rock on which the Church of God is built; Catholics, however, also maintain that S. Peter was divinely made a sharer and participator in our Blessed Redeemer's privilege, and this is precisely what Claudius here asserts when he declares that our Saviour granted to Peter "the participation of His own name."

There is another passage in Claudius's "Commentary" which is carefully passed over in silence by Ussher, but which serves to render clearer the words under consideration. He is commenting on the list of the Apostles, and he says-"The first was Simon, who is called Peter; the name, therefore, which in Latin is Petrus and in Syriac Cepha, is derived from the rock-without doubt from that rock of which S. Paul speaks, and the rock was Christ'; for as Christ, the true light, granted to the Apostles that they might be called the light of the world, so, too, to Simon, who believed in the rock Christ, was the name of Peter given; to the meaning of which name Christ alludes in another place saying, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Thus does Claudius again repeat the Catholic doctrine, and employ moreover the very illustration of it used by Catholic theologians at the present day. Christ grants to Peter a participation of His own Headship of the Church; precisely as He who was the true light of the universe granted to all the Apostles a participation of this prerogative, so that they, too, are styled "the light of the world."

2. Ussher continues: "Yet does this same Claudius* acknowledge that S. Peter received a kind of primacy for founding the Church, in reference to which he terms him the Prince of the Church, and the prince or chief of the Apostles, but he adds

It is doubtful whether the Claudius here referred to was the Irish Claudius.

:

S. Paul also was chosen in the same manner to have the primacy in founding the Churches of the Gentiles." Claudius referring to S. Paul says, "He only names Peter, and compares him with himself because on Peter was conferred the primacy for the foundation of the Church and in like manner he himself was chosen to hold the primacy in founding the Churches of the Gentiles." The natural conclusion from which is that to S. Peter was granted the universal primacy, comprising the whole Christian world, whilst to S. Paul a primacy, too, was granted, which, however, was limited to the Churches of the Gentiles. Could we wish for a clearer statement of Catholic doctrine?

3. Ussher writes: "It is also observed by Claudius that, as when our Saviour propounded the question generally to all the apostles, Peter answered as one for all; and therefore, however the power of loosing and binding might seem to be given by the Lord to Peter, yet, without doubt, it is to be known that it was given to the rest of the apostles also, as Himself witnesses, who, appearing to them after the triumph of His passion and resurrection, breathed on them and said to them all, 'Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye remit,' &c." We may well understand that it was but little to Ussher's purpose to add the words which immediately follow those just cited by him, and in which Claudius declares that by the Redeemer's words was granted, not only to Peter and the other apostles, but to all bishops and priests to the end of time, the power of remitting sins. But what excuse could the archbishop plead for omitting two other passages-one of which immediately precedes, the other follows in the same page, the text now cited, and which alone afford a key to understand the commentary given by Claudius in regard to the dignity of S. Peter? The first passage, then, which Ussher omits is as follows: "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The word key, then, does not here refer to anything material formed by the hand of man, but it indicates the judiciary power. He who with a zeal greater than the rest acknowledged Christ, was deservedly in a special manner endowed with the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Thus, according to Claudius, all the apostles indeed received the judicatory power from Christ; but in a special manner, and præ cæteris, the power of the keys was granted to Peter.

The second passage which is omitted by Ussher is still more important; for, after stating that to all the apostles-nay, and to all bishops and priests-was given the power of binding and loosing, Claudius adds: "But blessed Peter, who had acknowledged Christ in the fulness of faith, and loved Him with a true love, received in a special manner the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the princedom of judiciary authority, that thus all the faithful throughout the universe might understand that whosoever in any manner sepa

rates himself from the unity of his faith and communion, such a one can neither be absolved from the bonds of sin nor enter the portals of the kingdom of heaven." Why did Ussher omit this passage? If he was desirous of illustrating the opinion of Claudius, surely this in the clearest manner presents his opinion to us; but probably the Protestant primate feared to let his readers see how explicitly our Irish commentator, as far back as the year 800, asserted the dignity and prerogatives of S. Peter, and how he expressly declared that the power and privileges granted to the Church by the Divine Redeemer, were all centred in that chosen apostle; and perhaps, too, he feared that some of his readers might meditate on the concluding words of Claudius, that whosoever, throughout the whole world, is not united with Peter in the bonds. of communion and faith, can neither obtain the remission of his sins nor enter into the enjoyment of the heavenly kingdom. Claudius was, indeed, a curious witness to bring forward in favour of early Irish Protestantism. As the prophet of old, when brought to curse, pronounced blessings on the people of Israel, so do all early Irish writers who are cited by Protestants, invariably, when their full text is examined, proclaim the Catholic teaching of the early Irish Church.

Among the letters of early Irish writers published by Ussher in his "Sylloges Epistolarum," is one written in 634 on the Paschal question by another S. Cummian, who led the penitential life of a hermit, and at one period of his life ruled the famous monastery of Durrow, and who, by the way, enriched his monastery with relics of S. Peter and S. Paul. In this letter he speaks with all reverence of S. Columbkille and other saints who had followed the Irish computation as to the time of observing Easter, but he declares himself compelled, by the practice of the Universal Church, to abandon that ancient system and conform to the new computation. He states the time and study he had himself devoted to the subject, refers to various authorities, but adopts that of S. Jerome. "An old authority," says Jerome, "rises up against me. In the meanwhile

I cry out, Whosoever is joined to the chair of S. Peter, with him I shall be." A chief point of S. Cummian's argument is the necessity of maintaining inviolable the unity of the Church. "I turn me," he says, "to the words of the Bishop of Rome, Pope Gregory, whose authority is acknowledged in common by us, and who is gifted with the appellation of the golden-mouth, and who, though writing last of all the Fathers, is deservedly preferred to all; and I find him, writing on the passage of Job, Gold hath a place wherein it is melted, that the gold is the great body of the saints, the place of melting is the unity of the Church, the fire is the suffering of martyrdom, and he who is tried by fire out of the unity of the Church may be melted, indeed, but cannot be cleansed." VOL. XIII.—NO. xxv. [New Series.]

с

After studying for a year the various matters connected with the Paschal controversy, he resolved" to interrogate his fathers that they might declare to him, and his elders that they might narrate to him." Those whom he interrogated were the neighbouring Bishops of Emly, Clonmacnois, Mungret, and Clonfertmolva; and these bishops having met together in Maghlene, some being personally present, others sending their legates to represent them, they decreed and said, 'Our predecessors, as we know from meet witnesses, of whom some are still living, others now sleep in peace, enacted that we should humbly and without scruple receive whatever things were better and more to be esteemed, when they were sanctioned by the source of our baptism and faith, and brought to us from the successors of the Lord's Apostles.' Afterwards they in common set forth to us, as the custom is, a mandate upon this matter, to keep Easter the coming year along with the whole Church."

After this, in accordance with the commandment, "If a difference arise between cause and cause, and if judgment shall vary between leprosy and leprosy, they shall go up to the place where the Lord hath chosen (Deut. xvii. 8), and with the synodical decree that when causes were of great moment, they should be referred to the head of cities (which we see was the maxim or decision of S. Patrick himself), "our seniors judged it proper to send wise and humble men, as children to their mother; and by God's will some of them, having had a prosperous journey, reached Rome in safety, and returned to us the third year, and saw that all things were done precisely as had been told to us, and they were the more convinced of these things, seeing them, than if they merely heard of them; for, abiding together with Greek and Oriental and Scythian and Egyptian, they found all celebrating together in S. Peter's Church at Easter; and before the Holy of Holies they attested to us, saying, throughout the whole earth, Easter is, as we know, thus kept. And in the relics and the Scriptures which they brought with them, we found that there was the blessing of God; for with our own eyes we saw a young girl who was blind restored to her sight at these relics, and we saw a paralytic walk, and many spirits cast out."

This testimony gives us a clear insight into the theological teaching of Ireland at this early period. The unity of the Church was the great central point of the whole theological system: this unity was preserved by clinging to Rome and remaining inseparably attached to her doctrines and practices, and if controversy arose, the last appeal was to the successors of S. Peter at Rome.

The well-known discussion at Whitby between the supporters of the Irish and Roman Paschal computation, may also be noticed, because a detailed account of it has reached us. Summoned by Oswin, king of Northumberland, in 664, on the one side appeared S.