§ 5 Ecclesiastical Organisation
FEATURES OF HIS WORK
St. Patrick has himself briefly described some of the features of his work, and his description bears out and supplements the general impression which we derive from the details recorded by tradition. In the first place, he indicates the double character of his work. On the one hand he created an ecclesiastical organisation, he chose and ordained clergy, for a people which had been recently turning to the Christian faith.170 On the other hand, he planted that faith in regions which were wholly heathen, in the extreme parts of the island, as he repeatedly insists.171 He spread his nets that a large multitude “might be caught for God,” and that there might be clergy everywhere to baptize and exhort a folk needing and craving their service.172 He says that he baptized thousands, and this need not be a figure of hyperbole,173 and ordained ministers of religion everywhere. The foundation of monastic communities is borne out by his incidental observation that young natives have become monks, and daughters of chieftains “virgins of Christ.”174 These maidens, he says, generally took their vows against the will of their fathers, and were ready to suffer persecution from their parents. He mentions especially a beautiful woman of noble birth whom he baptized. A few days after the ceremony she came to him and intimated that she had received a direct warning from God that she should become a “virgin of Christ.” It is not suggested that the opposition of the parents was due to heathen obduracy; it would rather appear that, in the cases which are here contemplated, the parents themselves had likewise embraced Christianity. But they had a natural repugnance to seeing their children withdrawn from the claims of the family and the world. The triumph on which Patrick in this passage complacently dwells is not the triumph of Christian doctrine but of the monastic ideal.
Patrick refers to perils through which he passed in the prosecution of his work. He says that divine aid “delivered me often from bondage and from twelve dangers by which my life was endangered.”175 He mentions one occasion on which he and his companions were seized, and his captors wished to slay him. His belongings were taken from him and he was kept in fetters for a fortnight, but then, through the intervention of influential friends, he was set free and his property restored.176
FEATURES OF HIS POLICY
Such experiences would probably have been more frequent if he had not resorted to a policy which stood him in good stead. He used to purchase the goodwill and protection of the kings by giving them presents.177 In the same way he provided for the security of the clergy in those districts which he most frequently visited, by paying large sums to the judges or brehons. It is easily conceived that their goodwill was of high importance for harmonising the new communities and their new ideal of life with the general conditions of society. Patrick claims to have distributed among the judges at least “the value of fifteen men.” All these expenses were defrayed from his own purse.178
Another feature in his policy, on which he prided himself, was plain dealing and sincerity towards the Irish. He never went back from his word, and never resorted to tricks, in order to win some advantage for “God and the Church.” He believed that by adhering strictly to this policy of straightforwardness he averted persecutions.179
While Patrick was assisted by many foreign fellow-workers, it was his aim to create a native clergy; and it was a matter of the utmost importance to find likely youths and educate them for ecclesiastical work. Our records do not omit to illustrate this side of his policy. Benignus, who afterwards succeeded him in Armagh, was said to have been adopted by him as a young boy soon after his coming to Ireland,180 and Sachall, who accompanied him to Rome, was another instance. A similar policy was contemplated by Pope Gregory the Great for England. We have a letter which he wrote to a presbyter, bidding him purchase in Gaul English boy slaves of seventeen or eighteen years, for the purpose of educating them in monasteries.181
MONASTIC FOUNDATIONS
The churches and cloisters which were founded by Patrick and his companions seem in most cases to have been established on land which was devoted to the purpose by chieftains or nobles from their own private property. But the interests of the tribe to which the proprietor belonged, and the interests of the proprietor’s descendants, had to be considered, and the consideration of these interests seems to have led to a peculiar system. We find that in some cases the proprietor did not make over all his rights to the ecclesiastical community which was founded on his estate, but retained, and transmitted to his descendants, a certain control over it, side by side with the control which the abbot, a spiritual head of the community, exercised. There were thus two lines of succession—the secular line, in which the descent was hereditary, and the ecclesiastical line, which was sometimes regularly connected by blood with the founder. This dual system kept the ecclesiastical community in close touch with the tribe, and it has been pointed out that the tendency ultimately was “to throw the ecclesiastical succession into the hands of the lay succession, and so to defeat the object of the founder by transferring the endowment to the laity.”182 Armagh and Trim are conspicuous instances of this dual succession.
In other cases the connexion of the monastery with the tribe was secured, and the interests of the proprietor’s family were consulted by establishing a family right of inheritance to the abbacy. There was only a spiritual succession; the undivided authority lay with the abbot; but the abbots could be chosen only from the founder’s kin.183 Such a provision might be made conditionally or unconditionally. It might be provided that preference should be given to members of the founder’s family, if a person suitable for such a spiritual office could be found among them. The monastery of Drumlease in Leitrim, which was founded by one Fethfió, furnishes an instructive example.184 Fethfió laid down that the inheritance to Drumlease should not be confined unconditionally to his own family. His family should inherit the succession, if there were any member pious and good and conscientious. If not, the abbot should be chosen from the community or monks of Drumlease.
But in other cases the original proprietor seems to have alienated his land and placed it entirely in the hands of an ecclesiastical founder, who was either a member of another tribe or a foreigner. But the tribe within whose territory the land lay had a word to say. It seems to have been a general rule that the privilege of succession belonged to the founder’s tribe, but that if no suitable successor could be found in that tribe, the abbacy should pass to the tribe within whose territory the monastery stood.185
In our earliest records we find some ecclesiastical foundations expressly distinguished as “free,” which would seem to imply a release from restrictions and obligations which were usually imposed, and a greater measure of independence of the tribe.186 Thus in Sligo a large district was offered by its owners “to God and Patrick,” and we are told that the king, who seems to be acting as representative of the tribe, “made it free to God and Patrick.”187 But it is impossible to determine what were the limits of this immunity.
TRIBAL INFLUENCE
The Church in the Roman Empire has been described as an imperium in imperio, and the typical ecclesiastical community in Ireland may be described as a tribe within a tribe. The abbot, or, where the dual system prevailed, his lay coadjutor, exercised over the lay folk settled on the lands of the community a control similar to that which the tribal king exercised over the tribe. But though the community was thus constituted as an independent body and formed a sort of tribe itself, not subject to the king, it was nevertheless bound by certain obligations to the tribe within whose borders it lay. We have seen that the right of eventual succession to the abbacy was often reserved to the tribe. But in general the monastery was bound not only to furnish the religious services which the tribe required, but to rear and educate without cost the offspring of any tribesman who chose to devote his son to a religious life.188 The tribesman, on his part, was bound, when he had once consigned his child to the care of the monks, not to withdraw him, on pain of paying a forfeit.189 A monastery might welcome novices from other tribes, if their parents chose to pay the cost of their education; its attachment by a closer bond to what might be called its lay tribe was expressed in this right of the tribesmen to a free training for an ecclesiastical career.
It is also to be observed that the member of a religious house, though he belonged to a society which managed its affairs independently of the tribe, did not altogether cease to be a tribesman.190 If he was slain, the compensation was due not to the church but to his tribe. It is uncertain how far he continued to share any of the secular liabilities of his lay tribesmen. On his father’s death he inherited his portion of the family property, like any of his brethren; but we cannot say how far, in early times, the tribe permitted a monastic community to exercise rights over land thus inherited by one of its members. In later times the Church assumed possession, perhaps allowing the monk to hold his inheritance as a tenant, and furnishing him with stock.191 But this custom may not have been introduced until the Church had waxed in power and cupidity. It is uncertain, too, what claims the newborn monasteries ventured to press, in their early years, upon the liberality of those who had permitted their foundation. At a subsequent period they claimed192 not only first-fruits and tithes and the firstlings of animals, but also first-born sons, and when a man had ten sons, another as well as the eldest. We may doubt whether such claims, modelled on the law of Moses, and exceeding in audacity the claims of any other church, were often admitted193 or seriously pressed; but it is certain that rights of such a kind were not and could not have been sought by Patrick and his fellows.
MONASTIC SYSTEM
This sketch of the conditions under which the new religious settlements were planted in Ireland is necessarily vague and slight, and is presented with the reserve which is due when the material for reconstruction is fragmentary and we have to argue back from circumstances which prevailed at a later period. But the evidence at least shows clearly that the organisation was conditioned and moulded by the nature of the secular society. On one hand there was a bond, of various degrees of intimacy, connecting the religious community with the tribe, in the midst of which it was established; and on the other hand, the community took upon itself the form and likeness of a tribe or clan, its members being regarded as the family or followers of its head.
There is no reason to suppose that all Patrick’s ecclesiastical foundations took the shape of monastic societies. Many of the churches which he founded were served, doubtless, by only one or two clerics, and furnished with only enough land to support them. But the monastic foundations were a leading feature of the organisation. They were to be centres for propagating Christianity and schools for educating the clergy. But they also served the religious needs of the immediate district. A staff of clergy was attached, and the abbot was frequently also a bishop. It is not difficult to conjecture the reason and purpose of this remarkable union of the monastic institution with general church organisation. It was probably due to the circumstance that there were no cities in Ireland; centres had to be created for ecclesiastical purposes, and it was almost a matter of course that these ecclesiastical towns should be constructed on the monastic principle. If towns had existed, they would have been the ecclesiastical centres, the seats of the bishops; the bishops would not have been abbots or attached to monasteries. The fact that the word civitas, “city,” was used to designate these double-sided communities illustrates the motive of this singular organisation.
DIOCESAN SYSTEM
But the peculiarity must not mislead us into the error of supposing that there was no diocesan organisation, or that the bishops whom Patrick ordained had not definite and distinct sees.194 It is inconceivable that in instituting bishops he should not have been guided by geographical considerations, or that in organising a clerical body he should not have submitted them to the jurisdiction of the bishops whom he ordained. The limits of the bishoprics would naturally have corresponded to the limits of tribal territories; this was not only the simplest scheme, but was also dictated by obvious political expedience. The anomalous state of things which presently arose, the multiplication of bishops without sees, was assuredly never anticipated by Patrick. It was due to the extravagant growth of monasticism. When new monasteries were founded, they determined to have bishops of their own, and to be quite independent of the bishops of the dioceses in which they were situated. This practice was not indeed confined to Ireland. There are several notable instances in Gaul.195 But whereas elsewhere it was the exception, in Ireland it seems to have become the rule. The desire of new foundations to be self-sufficient and completely independent of the diocesan bishop would not perhaps have been so strong if the diocesan bishop had not usually been associated with one of the older monasteries. But once the practice of bishops without sees was introduced, bishops multiplied like flies. A new and narrow conception of the episcopal office prevailed, and when it was recognised that bishops need not have sees, there was no reason to set a limit to their number. The order of bishop became a dignity to which any man of piety might aspire.
There is no evidence that Patrick consecrated bishops without sees, and perhaps it would not be rash to say that he never did so. It cannot be seriously doubted that he established a diocesan organisation, which, in the course of the subsequent development of religious institutions, largely broke down. The maintenance of the diocesan structure could not be secured without control from above, and unless we refuse to believe that Patrick attempted anything in the way of organisation, it is evident that he must have founded a superior archdiocesan or metropolitan jurisdiction. He exercised this higher authority himself, and it is difficult to doubt that he attached it to the see which he occupied, the see of Armagh. The position of this see has already engaged our attention. But the centrifugal tendencies which marked the secular society of Ireland made themselves felt no less acutely in the Church; the ecclesiastical communities were animated by the same impulse to independence as the tribes; and it was hard for the Bishop of Armagh, as for the King of Ireland, to exert effectual authority. The independent tribal spirit was not flexible or readily obedient to the distant control of a prelate who was a member of another tribe; there was no secular power able or willing to enforce submission to the higher jurisdiction. Thus it was a continual struggle for the bishops of Armagh to maintain the position which Patrick had bequeathed to them; and the rise within their province, during the sixth century, of new and powerful communities, owing them no obedience, and outstripping their church in zeal, learning, and reputation, conduced to the decline of their influence. It was not till the end of the seventh century that the church of Armagh began to succeed in re-establishing its power. In the meantime the interests of religion had perhaps not suffered through the absence of ecclesiastical unity. At no time were the churchmen of Ireland more conspicuous, and famous in other lands, for learning and piety than in the sixth and seventh centuries.
CHANGES AFTER PATRICK
The difficulties and errors which have arisen as to the spirit and principles of Patrick’s ecclesiastical policy are due to the circumstance that after his death his work was partly undone, and the Irish Church developed on lines which were quite from the purpose of his design. The old Easter reckoning survived his reform and lasted till the seventh century.196 Irish monks abandoned the recognised mode of shaving the head which he had enjoined, and adopted the native tonsure of the pagan Druids.197 The central authority at Armagh could not maintain itself against the centrifugal spirit of the land or resist the love of local independence which operated in ecclesiastical exactly as in political affairs. Monasticism, an institution which appears to have been intensely attractive to the temper of the people, ran riot, we might say, at the expense of ecclesiastical organisation. Abbots became of more account than bishops. The political changes in Gaul and Italy, connected with the dismemberment of the Empire, tended to keep Ireland out of touch with the continental churches in the later part of the fifth and in the sixth century. The injunction to appeal to Rome, though no one would have thought of repudiating it, was a dead letter. Looking at Irish Christianity as it appears in the seventh century, when the movement set in to bring it into line with the rest of the western Church, students have been inclined to assume that Patrick inaugurated the peculiar features which were really alien to the spirit of his work. Whatever concessions and modifications he may have found it necessary or politic to make in view of the social conditions of Ireland, he certainly did not anticipate, far less intend, such a development as that which actually ensued.
But though his organisation partially collapsed, and though the Irish Christians did not live up to his ideal of the unitas ecclesiae, there was one feature of his policy which was never undone. He made Latin the ecclesiastical language of Ireland. The significance of this will claim our consideration when we come to examine his historical position. It was remembered in the traditions of his work that he used to write alphabets for youths who were chosen for a clerical career; it was the first step in teaching them Latin.
INTRODUCTION OF LATIN
Some knowledge of the Latin alphabet must have penetrated to Ireland at an earlier period. It must have been known in the scattered Christian communities, and it may have been known much more widely. It was not a new thing when Patrick arrived, but his work seems to have secured it a new position. Yet we cannot say exactly what happened. We cannot say whether the introduction of the Latin script originated a written Irish literature, or only displaced an older form of writing in which a literature already existed. In the mist which rests over the early history of Ireland this is one of the darkest points. It would be out of place to discuss the question here at large, but one or two considerations may be briefly noted. The mode of writing which the early Irish possessed—though how long before the fifth century we know not—and seem to have mainly used for engraving names on sepulchral monuments, is alphabetic. The characters, which are called ogams, consisting of strokes and points, were probably a native invention, since such inscriptions are found only in Ireland and in regions of the British islands which came within the range of Irish influence. But it will not be maintained that the alphabet itself was a native product, an independent discovery. It is simply the Latin alphabet,198 with the last three letters left out and two letters added.199 And a cipher representing the Latin alphabet can hardly fail to imply that when it was invented the Latin alphabet was in use. No positive evidence has yet been discovered to show that the Irish ever employed, besides their monumental script, a less cumbersome system of symbols, suitable for literature and the business of life, other than the Roman. A few statements which may be gathered from their own later traditions are not sufficiently clear or authentic to carry much weight. The absence of evidence, however, is not decisive. It is to be remembered that writing was in use among the Celtic Iberians of Spain and the Celts of Gaul before the Roman Conquest. The Iberians had their own script, and some of the Spanish peoples had a considerable literature.200 In Gaul, we are told by Caesar, the lore of the Druids was not written down, but Greek writing was used for public and private purposes.201 This means that the Gallic tongue was written in Greek characters, and some examples of such writing are preserved.202 These facts show at least that the art of writing might have reached Ireland at an early period. But there is no proof that it did. If any pre-Roman alphabet was ever used it has left no traces of its presence. But the Roman alphabet was introduced, perhaps much sooner than is generally supposed, after the Roman occupation of Britain. And from it some learned man in Ireland constructed the ogam cipher for sepulchral uses. The diffusion of Christianity tended, doubtless, to diffuse the use of writing, but Latin letters were a gift which the pagans of Ireland received from the Empire, independently of the gift of Christianity.