Colman, who had been a monk of the Irish monastery of Hy or Iona, abbot of the other Irish monastery of Lindisfarne, and bishop of the province of York; on the other, S. Wilfrid, who had been educated at Lindisfarne, but had subsequently learned the correct Paschal computation at Rome, and who was at this time abbot of Ripon; and his associate was Agilbert, a native of France, who had been educated in Ireland, and was at this time bishop of the West Saxons.

S. Colman's argument was simple; he found no fault with others; he wished merely to be allowed to follow the customary computation of those who had taught him. His opponents replied almost in the very words of S. Cummian's letter: "The Easter computation which we follow we have seen adopted by every one at Rome, where the blessed apostles Peter and Paul lived, taught, suffered, and were buried. We have seen it also in every part of Italy and France that we have traversed. It is observed at one and the same time in Africa, Asia, Egypt, and Greece, and, in short, throughout the whole Christian world, except by the Irish monks and their associates, the Picts and Britons." To Colman's argument from the sanctity of S. Columba and other saints who had followed the Irish computation, Wilfrid well replied that they were indeed holy men; and "I believe, had they been rightly informed on the subject, they, too, would have conformed to the universal usage." And, addressing Colman, he added, that the defenders of the Irish usage could plead that ignorance no longer. "You and your associates certainly commit sin if, after hearing the decrees of the Apostolic Sec-nay, of the Universal Church-and these confirmed by the Holy Scriptures, you disdain to follow them. For although your fathers were saints, yet in their small number in the very extremity of the world, they must not be preferred to the whole Church; and however holy and illustrious performer of miracles your Columba was, is he to be preferred to the most blessed prince of the apostles, to whom the Lord has said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven'?" This argument made a great impression on the English king, and turning to S. Colman, Öswin said, "Is it true that the Lord has thus spoken to Peter?" S. Colman replied in the affirmative. The king then asked, "Can you show that so great power was granted to your Colman?" The saint answered, That he could not." Whereupon Oswin continued: "Do you, on both sides, agree in this, that the cited words of the Divine Redeemer were specially addressed to S. Peter, and that to him the keys of heaven were given by our Lord?" The disputants replied, "We are all agreed in this." Well, then," concluded the king, "I will not oppose the heavenly gatekeeper," and decided in favour of Wilfrid's opinion.

This narrative is valuable in two respects:-1st. It is impossible that the disputants could have addressed each other merely in the terms in which they did if the Irish party had held religious doctrines similar to those of Protestants at present, or indeed if the religious opinions of both parties had not been identical; and, secondly, because, in the midst of their dispute, both parties were of one accord as to the prerogatives and supreme authority of S. Peter. The Protestant Dean of Armagh thus comments on the Whitby Conference:-"Colman, when he found his opinions rejected, resigned his See of Lindisfarne rather than submit to this decision of the king, thus furnishing us with a remarkable proof that the Irish bishops in the seventh century rejected the authority of the Pope." Singular reasoning this, for in truth there was no attempt to exercise the Pope's authority, but there was an exercise of the king's authority, which S. Colman, unlike the Anglican Church at present, did not admit to be decisive in a matter of ecclesiastical discipline.

A very ancient tract in the Irish language, "On Injury and Assaults to Ecclesiastics," is preserved in the Leabhar Breac,* forms part of the Brehon laws, and has been recently translated by Eugene Curry. In this curious tract occurs the following:"Which is the highest dignity on earth ?-The dignity of the Church. Which is the highest dignity in the Church?-The dignity of a bishop, and the highest of bishops is the bishop of S. Peter's Church, to whom the Roman kings are subject." After assigning the respective eric or fine for inflicting injury on the various grades of the ecclesiastical order, the tract thus continues:"Where is this doctrine found?—It is found in the treatise which Augustine wrote upon the decrees of the Church, and upon the dires (that is, the fine paid for injury in person or property to each degree) and the reparation to be made; and it is thus, according to the rule of the Church of Peter, the empress of the whole world."

The ancient writer of the Life of S. Furseus introduces the following words as addressed by that great saint to the central See of the Catholic world :-"O Rome! exalted above all cities by the triumphs of the Apostles, decked with the roses of martyrdom, decorated with the lilies of confessors, adorned with the palms of virgins, strengthened by all their merits, enriched with the remains of so many and so renowned saints, we hail thee! May thy sacred authority never, never cease, which has been illustrated by the dignity and wisdom of the holy fathers: that authority by which

* Which Petrie calls, "The oldest and best MS. relating to Church history now preserved (in Ireland), or which perhaps the Irish ever possessed."

the body of Christ, that is to say our blessed Mother the Church, maintains its undying consistency and vigour."

Gillibert was appointed to the See of Lumneach (now Limerick) about the year 1090, as Ussher thinks, and therefore towards seventy years before the English landed on the Irish shores. He, at the request of the clergy, drew up a letter on ecclesiastical orders, in which occurs the following:

The picture I have drawn showeth that all the Church's members are to be brought under one chief bishop, to wit, Christ and His Vicar, blessed Peter the Apostle, and the Pope presiding in his see to be governed by them. As Noah was placed to rule the Ark amidst the waves of the flood, just so does the Roman Pontiff rule the Church amid the billows of the world. . . . The position held in the Eastern Church by the patriarchs is that which belongs to archbishops in the West; and both patriarchs and archbishops are subject in the first degree to the Roman Pontiff. As the patriarchs, however, govern the Apostolic Sees, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, it is their privilege to ordain archbishops, and in a manner are likened to the Bishop of Rome. To Peter alone, however, was it said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Therefore the Pope alone is exalted in dignity above the whole Church, and he alone has the privilege of ordaining and judging all.

S. Malachy, Bishop of Down, repaired to Rome in 1139, and obtained from Pope Innocent II., by whom he was most honourably received, a conditional promise of the pallium for the four Archbishops of Armagh, Cashel, Dublin, and Tuam, and in 1152 was held the Synod of Kells, at which Cardinal Paparo, the legate of the Pope, distributed the palliums brought by him from Rome to those four archbishops.

We will proceed now to a few extracts from the canons of the Irish Church in regard to Rome. In the part of the ancient Book of Armagh, which is copied from that written by S. Patrick's own hand, occurs the following, which we give in the translation of Ussher:

Whenever any cause that is very difficult and unknown unto all the judges of the Scottish nations shall arise, it is rightly to be referred to the See of the Archbishop of the Irish (that is to say, S. Patrick) and to the examination of the prelate thereof. But if there, by him and his wise men, a cause of this nature cannot easily be made up, we have decreed it shall be sent to the See Apostolic, that is to say, to the Chair of the Apostle Peter, who hath the authority of the city of Rome.

On which Ussher remarks:

It is most likely that S. Patrick had a special regard for the Church of Rome, from whence he was sent for the conversion of the island; so as, if I myself had lived in his days, for the resolution of a doubtful question, I

would 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 estimation have I of the integrity of that Church as it stood in those days.

But this was not an inclination of feeling or a recommendation, it was a decree, by which S. Patrick commanded all doubtful controversies to be referred to the See of Rome, and not to be referred there for advice, to enable the archbishop in Ireland to decide, with the aid of such advice as Ussher suggests, but to be sent there as to one who hath authority to decide. The genuineness of this canon is clear. Its being found in the Book of Armagh brings us back well nigh to the time of S. Patrick himself, that ancient MS. having been transcribed in the year 807, and then the original of this canon was believed to have been written by S. Patrick himself. It was acted upon by the bishops of Leinster and Munster at the Synod of Magh-lene, in 630, to which we have before referred, on the testimony of S. Cummian, who was present at it, and is thus referred to in a collection of canons for the use of the Irish Church, made about the year 700:-"S. Patrick defines, should any grave controversies arise in this island, they shall be referred to the Apostolic See."

And this is therein confirmed by reference to the decrees of Rome:"The Roman canons decree that when the more difficult questions arise, they are to be referred to the head city.” And again:-"The Roman Synod enacts, if in any province controversies arise which cannot be arranged amongst the contending parties, let the matter be referred to the chief See."

On these canons Dr. Murray, being unable to impugn their authority, remarks:-"Now, supposing for one moment that this canon and decree were genuine, were they ever acted upon before the twelfth century? The ancient Irish Church on no occasion ever appealed to the Bishop of Rome."

If this had been so it would only prove that they had not any occasion to appeal, since it is clear that their canons laid down the mode and order of appeal to the Court of Rome in case occasion should arise. But the fact is not as asserted by Dr. Murray. It does indeed happen that in the domestic annals of the Irish Church we meet with few matters of controversy which they were unable to determine in their own synods, or which required the intervention of the Roman Sec. Human nature was probably as lively and erratic then as since, but there would seem to have been a strong reverence for their own bishops, earned, we may believe, by the purity and earnest labours of their lives, and the feeling due to the Irish bishops themselves was probably intensified by regard for the memory of S. Patrick, which was extended to his successors.

The deputies sent from the synod of Magh-lene, in 630, as

before mentioned, returned from Rome with the tidings that the Irish usage as to the time of celebrating Easter was not in accordance with what they found practised at Rome, and thus was set at rest for ever in the southern division of Ireland the question of the Paschal solemnity. (Moran, 156.)

A few years after the Easter question had been thus happily settled in the south of Ireland, the bishops of the north endeavoured to establish a like harmony in Ulster. They also met, and they also decided to ask for the decision of Rome on the subject, and a letter to that effect was addressed to Pope Severinus in 640. Unfortunately the Pope had died ere that letter reached its destination. The Roman clergy indeed replied, but they misconceived the usage which prevailed in Ireland, and directed their reply against that which did not exist there. This epistle to the Pope proceeded, as we learn from the names of those to whom the reply was addressed, from Thomian, Archbishop of Armagh; Columban, Bishop of Clonard; Cronan, Bishop and Abbot of Nendrum; Dimma, Bishop of Connor; Baithan, Bishop of Tegh-Baithan; Cronan, Abbot of Maghbile in Down; Ernian, Abbot of Torey Island; Laistran, Abbot of Ard-mac-Nasca, on the banks of the present Belfast Lough; Scallan, Abbot of Bangor; and Segienus, Abbot of Hy; and S. Saran O'Critain, a Doctor of the ancient Church of Ireland.

These names are of great importance, as proving that the petition to Rome for some decision regarding the Paschal computation was addressed to the Vicar of Christ by all the great monasteries as well as the chief bishops who adhered to the northern or Columban tradition. As a matter of discipline they clung to the practice of their fathers, and when that peculiar discipline gave scandal to their brethren, and was looked upon with suspicion by neighbouring Churches, they turned their eyes to the Common Father of all, to seek from him instruction and guidance.

The perfect communion between Ireland and Rome is also proved by the fact that Irish bishops assisted at councils of the Roman Church. Thus in 721, when Pope Gregory II. convened a council in Rome to anathematize the Iconoclast Emperor Leo, the Isaurian, amongst the names attached to the synodical decrees we find that of "Sedulius, an Irishman, Bishop in Britain." A few centuries later the third council of Lateran was held in Rome, when the Albigensian heretics were condemned, and many disciplinary laws were enacted for the Church. Several Irish bishops took part in this council.

Another fact which proves how strong was the attachment of the old Irish to Rome, is the number of pilgrimages to Rome which were then undertaken, not only by ecclesiastics, but by noblemen and even kings. This is a fact which it would be too tedious to