INTRODUCTION
The main purpose of this Introduction is to give an account of a
movement which changed the whole face of the Irish Church, and to the
advancement of which St. Malachy devoted his life. In default of a
better word we may call the movement a Reformation, though it might
perhaps be more accurately described as an ecclesiastical revolution.
Without some knowledge of its aims and progress it is impossible to
assign to Malachy his true place in the history of his native country.
That such a movement actually took place in the twelfth century is
beyond doubt. From about the year 1200 on it is certain that the
organization of the Church of Ireland was similar to that of the other
Churches of western Christendom. The country was divided into dioceses;
and each diocese had a bishop as its ruler, and a Cathedral Church in
which the bishop's stool was placed. The Cathedral Church, moreover, had
a chapter of clergy, regular or secular, who performed important
functions in the diocese. But up to the end of the eleventh century all
these things were unknown among the Irish. The constitution of the
Church was then of an entirely different type, one that had no exact
parallel elsewhere. The passage from the older to the newer organization
must have taken place in the twelfth century. During that century,
therefore, there was a Reformation in the Irish Church, however little
we may know of its causes or its process. But this Reformation was no
mere re-modelling of the hierarchy. It can be shown that it imposed on
the members of the Church a new standard of sexual morality; if we
believe contemporary writers, it restored to their proper place such
rites as Confession, Confirmation and Matrimony; it substituted for the
offices of divine service previously in use those of the Roman Church;
it introduced the custom of paying tithes; it established in Ireland the
monastic orders of Latin ChristendomSee Life, §§ 6 (end), 7, 16, 17, 39 with notes, and
Additional Note A.; and it may have produced
changes in other directions.E.g. in the doctrine of the Eucharist and of Baptism. See
Life, § 57, and Lanfranc's letter to Donnell in Ussher, 495; P.L.
cl. 532. But I propose to confine myself to the
change in the constitution of the Church, which was its most striking
feature. The subject, even thus narrowed, will give us more than can be
satisfactorily treated in a few pages.
First, I must emphasize the assertion made a moment ago that the
constitution of the Irish Church in the eleventh century was sui
generis. Let us begin by reminding ourselves what it was from the sixth
to the eighth century. It was then essentially monastic in character.
The rulers of the Church were the abbots of the monasteries, commonly
known as the coarbs or successors of their founders. These abbots were
sometimes bishops; but whether they were bishops or of lower rank in the
ministry, their authority was inherent in their office of coarb. At this
period bishops were numerous—more numerous than in later medieval or
modern times; and certain functions were reserved for bishops, for
example, ordination. No ecclesiastic, of whatever status, could perform
such functions, unless he was of the episcopal order. But no bishop, as
such, had jurisdiction. The bishops were often subordinate officers in
monasteries, reverenced because of their office, but executing their
special functions at the command of the abbots. Sometimes a bishop was
attached to a single tribe. Sometimes a group of bishops—often seven in
number—dwelt together in one place. But in no case, I repeat, had they
jurisdiction. Thus ecclesiastical authority was vested in the abbots.
The episcopate was bestowed on certain individuals as a personal
distinction. Thus the bishops, if they were not also abbots, had only
such influence on the affairs of the Church as their sanctity, or their
learning, might give them.
It may surprise some that so anomalous a system of government should
have persisted as late as the eleventh century, in other words for a
period of over 500 years. But we must take account of the Danish—or as
we should rather call it, the Norse—invasion of Ireland. Danish ships
first appeared off the Irish coasts about the year 800. From that time
for two centuries Ireland was to a large extent cut off from intercourse
with the rest of Europe. The aim of the northern hordes, as it seems,
was not mere pillage, but the extinction of Christianity. Ecclesiastical
institutions were everywhere attacked, and often destroyed. And these
institutions were centres of scholarship. Heretofore Ireland had been
the special home of learning, and had attracted to itself large numbers
of foreign students. But in those disastrous centuries its culture was
reduced to the lowest point. In such circumstances it was not possible
that the organization of the Church should be developed or strengthened.
The Danish domination of the country must have tended to stereotype the
old hierarchical system. It might, indeed, suffer from deterioration: it
probably did. But it could not be assimilated to the system which then
prevailed on the Continent. We should expect that the constitution of
the Church in the eleventh century, whatever abuses may have crept into
its administration, would in principle be identical with that of the
pre-Danish period.
There can in fact be no doubt that it was. We have in our hands writings
of Lanfranc, Anselm, St. Bernard and Giraldus Cambrensis which picture
the state of the Irish Church at that time. They speak of it in terms
which are by no means complimentary. But when they come to details we
discover that the irregularities in its hierarchical arrangement which
shocked them most went back to the days of St. Columba. Quotations
cannot be given here. But the reader will probably find in the Life
printed below, and the authorities referred to in the notes, sufficient
proof that the constitution of the Irish Church in 1100 was in the main
a following, though perhaps a corrupt following, of that of the sixth
century.See p. 46, note 1, and Additional Note B.
There was indeed one abuse in the Irish Church of the tenth and eleventh
centuries of which few traces are found before the Danish invasion. We
learn from St. Bernard that the abbots of Armagh were the
representatives of a single family, and held office, as of right, by
hereditary succession.Life, § 19. There is reason to believe that this evil
custom was not peculiar to Armagh.R. King, Memoir Introductory to the Early History of the
Primacy of Armagh, 1854, p. 22. According to St. Bernard, it was
the gravest departure from Catholic tradition of which the Irish Church
was guilty, and the parent of many evils. We shall hear more of it in
the sequel. For the moment it is sufficient to note that it existed.
I.—The Beginnings of the Movement
But before the eleventh century ended forces were at work in Ireland
which prepared the way for the introduction of a new order. They were
set free by the conversion of the Norsemen to Christianity, and by their
final defeat at the battle of Clontarf. The date of the conversion
cannot be fixed: it was probably a gradual process. And we do not know
from what source the Danes derived their Christianity. The victory of
Clontarf was won on Good Friday, 1014.
Now a study of the Annals reveals the fact that in the seventh and
eighth centuries there was a goodly, and on the whole an increasing,
body of scholars in Ireland. Under the Norse domination, as we might
expect, the number was greatly diminished. But already in the tenth
century there was a notable increase: in the eleventh century the number
was doubled. In the tenth century, moreover, and still more in the
eleventh, scholars began to congregate at special centres, which became
permanent homes of learning, the most prominent of these schools being
at Armagh and Clonmacnoise. And during the same period we find frequent
mention of an official, unknown before the arrival of the Norsemen, who
is styled fer légind or professor. Between 925 and 1000 the obits of
twenty-three professors are recorded; in the eleventh century of more
than fifty. In the greater number of cases the fer légind is
associated with one of those seats of learning which is known to have
been most prolific of scholars.
Thus it appears that gradually, as the onslaughts of the Danes became
less frequent, Irish men of learning tended more and more to become
teachers rather than mere students, and to gravitate towards a few great
centres of study. The climax of this movement towards organization and
the eminence of special places was reached about the middle of the
eleventh century (1030-1063), when mention is made of thirty-three
persons who held the office of fer légind, and when the principal
schools seem to have been those of Clonmacnoise, Armagh, Kildare and
Kells.See Lawlor, Psalter and Martyrology of Ricemarch, vol.
i., pp. ix-xii.
The Reformation of the twelfth century, like that of the sixteenth, was
prepared for by a revival of learning.
But further, the defeat of the Danes removed the barrier which had
hindered communication between Ireland and the rest of Europe. Students
once more came to Ireland from other lands to pursue their studies. The
most remarkable of these was perhaps Sulien, the future bishop of St.
David's. Sulien the Wise was born shortly before the date of the battle
of Clontarf in the district of Cardigan. In early youth he displayed
much aptitude for learning, and in middle life, about 1058, "stirred by
the example of the fathers," he paid a visit to the Irish schools in
order to perfect his studies. He spent thirteen years in that country,
and then established a famous school at Llanbadarn Fawr in Wales. In the
library of Trinity College, Dublin, there is a precious relic of the
work of this school. It is a beautiful manuscript of St. Jerome's Latin
version of the Psalter according to the Hebrew, once the property of
Bishop Bedell.MS. A. 4. 20. The manuscript was written by a member of the school,
a Welshman named Ithael. It is adorned with excellent illuminations by
John, one of Sulien's sons, and was presented to Ricemarch, another son
of Sulien. A valuable copy of the Hieronymian Martyrology prefixed to it
gives sundry indications that it was transcribed from an Irish
exemplar. At the end of the volume are some verses composed by
Ricemarch, and perhaps written there by his own hand. They display
considerable Biblical and patristic learning. Another relic of the
school is a copy of St. Augustine's De Trinitate in Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge.MS. 199. It was written and illuminated by John, and
contains excellent Latin verses from his pen. In the British Museum
there is also a poem of Ricemarch describing the horrors of the Norman
invasion of Wales.Cotton MS. Faustina, C. 1, f. 66. And finally we have a Life of St. David, by the
same author. It relates many incidents culled from the lives of Irish
saints who had in one way or another been brought into contact with
David; all of them reminiscent of Sulien's studies in the Irish
Schools.Lawlor, op. cit., pp. xii.-xvii.
I have dwelt on these things because they illustrate in a striking way
the revival of Irish learning in the eleventh century. But just at the
time when Sulien, and doubtless many other foreigners, were coming to
Ireland to study, Irish scholars were beginning to renew their ancient
habit of travelling to other countries. By way of example I may mention
two, both of whom were known by the same name, Marianus Scotus. One of
these, a native of the north of Ireland, whose real name was Muiredach
Mac Robartaich, founded the monastery of St. Peter at Ratisbon about
1070; and he was succeeded there by six abbots of north Irish birth. He
wrote a commentary on the Pauline Epistles, which is still preserved in
the Imperial Library at Vienna. The other, Mael Brigte by name, left
Ireland in 1056, and after some wanderings established himself at Mainz
in 1069. He compiled a chronicle, which is of considerable value.Lanigan, vol. iii. p. 446; vol. iv. pp. 2-8; Reeves, On
Marianus Scotus, extracted from the Natural History Review and
Quarterly Journal of Science, July, 1860. B. MacCarthy, The Codex
Palatino-Vaticanus, No. 830, 1892, pp. 4 ff.
Hereafter I shall have to mention other Irish men of travel; and it will
be seen that from some of them, who returned home, came the main impulse
to the reform of the Irish Church.
The battle of Clontarf broke the power of the Danes in Ireland; but it
did not secure their departure from the country. Those that remained
were mainly settled in the four cities of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford and
Limerick. In due time these four Danish colonies adopted the Christian
Faith, and before long they became organized churches, each presided
over by a bishop. In Dublin this took place a quarter of a century after
the battle of Clontarf, the first bishop being Dunan, in whose
episcopate the Danish king, Sitric, founded the Cathedral of the Holy
Trinity about 1040. Of the early ecclesiastical history of Wexford
practically nothing is known; but the first bishop of Waterford was
consecrated in 1096,Below, p. 18, note 6. and the first bishop of Limerick eight or ten
years later.See below, p. 47, note 3. These were the first churches in Ireland ruled by
bishops who were not abbots; and it seems that each of the bishops had a
defined diocese. The dioceses of Dublin, Waterford, and perhaps Wexford,
were very small, extending only a little way, if at all, beyond the
walls of the Cathedral city. The diocese of Limerick, on the other hand,
was extensive; rather larger than the present diocese of the same name.
But whether large or small each of these dioceses presented to the eyes
of the Irish a model of Church government similar to that in vogue on
the Continent, and utterly different from that to which they were
accustomed.
This might prove a potent factor in the Reformation, once a tendency
developed among the Irish to bring their ecclesiastical machinery into
conformity with that of the rest of the world. But it is manifest that
by itself it would not induce them to re-model their hierarchy. It was
not to be expected that they would cast aside the tradition of
centuries, moved merely by a desire to imitate their late enemies. If,
as is commonly held, the Danish dioceses, without exception, held
themselves aloof from, or were hostile to, Irish Christianity, such a
result could hardly have been attained, at any rate until the coming of
the Anglo-Normans. These later invaders would doubtless have forced
diocesan episcopacy on the Irish Church. But that it was established in
Ireland before the country came, even in part, under English rule, is
certain. So we must ask the question: What was the connecting link which
bound the Church of the Danish colonists to that of Celtic Ireland? By
way of answer I point to the remarkable fact, often overlooked, that all
the earliest bishops of the Danish dioceses were of Irish birth. Why
Danish Christians should have elected Irishmen as their bishops I do not
attempt to explain. But the evidence for the fact is clear.
The first two bishops of Dublin, Dunan and Patrick (Gilla Pátraic), had
unmistakably Irish names. So too had their immediate successors Donough
O'Hanley and his nephew Samuel O'Hanley; and of these two the latter is
stated by the English chronicler Eadmerp. 73. to have been "natione
Hibernensis." The next bishop, Gregory—the first archbishop of
Dublin—was likewise "natione Hibernensis" according to the continuator
of Florence of Worcester.Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. J. R. H. Weaver,
1908, p. 16. He was followed by St.
Laurence O'Toole,
of whose nationality it is unnecessary to give proof.
Malchus, the earliest bishop of Waterford, was an Irishman;p. 18, note 6. so also
was Gilbert, the first bishop of Limerick. And when Gilbert resigned his
see, after an episcopate of thirty-five years, he was succeeded by
Patrick, whose name tells its own tale.p. 47, note 3, p. 73, note 1. I can name only three
bishops of Danish sees who were apparently of Danish extraction; and
they all lived at a time when the Reformation was far advanced. They are
Erolbh (Erulf?), bishop of Limerick, who died in 1151, and Tostius of
Waterford and Turgesius of Limerick, who were in office in 1152.
A.F.M. 1151, and Annals of Clonenagh quoted in Keating, iii. 317.
Most of the Irish rulers of Danish dioceses whom I have mentioned were
men of travel. Patrick of Dublin, to whose learning Lanfranc bears
testimony, "was nourished in monastic institutions from his
boyhood,"Ussher, 491. and certainly not, in an Irish religious house. Donough
O'Hanley, before his consecration, was a monk of Canterbury; Samuel
O'Hanley was a monk of St. Albans;Ware, Bishops, ed. Harris, p. 309; Eadmer, p. 73. Malchus was called to Waterford
from Walkelin's monastery at Winchester;Ussher, 518; and below, Life, § 8. Gilbert of Limerick had
visited Normandy,See p. 47, note 3. and at a later date we find him assisting at the
consecration of a bishop in Westminster Abbey.1115. Eadmer, p. 236. Gougaud (p. 358) infers from this
passage that Limerick was at that time a suffragan see of Canterbury.
But this seems impossible in view of Gilbert's share in the proceedings
of the Synod of Rathbreasail five years earlier. Eadmer is not a very
good witness in such matters, and his language is hardly decisive for
two reasons. (1) It is not clear that he includes Gilbert among the
suffragans who co-operated in the consecration: "Huic consecrationi
interfuerunt et cooperatores extiterunt suffraganei ecclesiae
Cantuariensis, episcopi videlicet hi, Willelmus Wintoniensis, Robertus
Lincoliensis, Rogerus Serberiensis, Johannes Bathoniensis, Urbanus
Glamorgatensis, Gislebertus Lumniensis de Hibernia." (2) The word
"suffragan" is often used as meaning merely an assistant bishop. Thus in
the fifteenth century several bishops of Dromore were "suffragans" of
the archbishop of York; but Dromore was certainly not regarded as one of
his suffragan sees. Such men had had
training which familiarized them with Roman methods of Church
Government. They were well fitted to organize and rule their dioceses.
And if they desired to imbue the Celtic Church with the principles which
they had learnt, and on which they acted, their nationality gave them a
ground of appeal which no Dane could have had. It is of course not to be
assumed that all of them were so disposed. The Danish Christians of
Dublin not only stood aside from the Celtic Church; for reasons which
will appear later they were inimical to it, and it to them. Their
bishops, with the possible exception of the first, made profession of
canonical obedience to the English Primates. Not only so: they gloried
in their subjection to Canterbury. "We have always been willing subjects
of your predecessors," wrote the burgesses and clergy of Dublin to
Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, when the see was vacant in 1121. And
then, after a reference to the great jealousy of Cellach of Armagh
against them, they proceed to declare, "We will not obey his command,
but desire to be always under your rule. Therefore we beseech you to
promote Gregory to the episcopate if you wish to retain any longer the
parish which we have kept for you so long."Ussher, 532. It was clearly
impossible that this diocese could directly influence the Irish in the
direction of reform. But no such obstacle barred the path of the first
bishops of Limerick and Waterford. Gilbert owed no allegiance to
Canterbury; Malchus was consecrated at Canterbury, but he soon escaped
his profession of obedience to Anselm.See p. xxxvi.
Both became leaders of the
romanizing movement in Ireland.
But the influence of the Danish dioceses on the Irish Church was not
limited to the personal action of their bishops. Indirectly all of them,
including Dublin, had a share in promoting the Reformation. Archbishop
Lanfranc, as early as 1072, claimed that his primacy included Ireland as
well as England.Ussher, 567; Beati Lanfranci Opera, ed. J. A. Giles,
Oxon., 1844, vol. i. p. 24. The claim, curiously enough, was based on Bede's
History, in which there is not a single word which supports it. But
the arrival two years later of Patrick, elect of Dublin, seeking
consecration at his hands, gave him his opportunity to enforce it. When
Patrick returned to take possession of his see he carried with him two
letters from Lanfranc. One was addressed to Gothric, the Manx prince who
for the moment was king of Dublin. Lanfranc, with tactful exaggeration,
dubs him "glorious king of Ireland," and tells him that in consecrating
Patrick he had followed the custom of his predecessors in the chair of
St. Augustine. The other letter was more important. It was directed to
Turlough O'Brien, grandson of Brian Boroimhe, who is also styled,
inconsistently, and not altogether truly, "magnificent king of Ireland":
he was doubtless king of Ireland in hope, but in fact he never extended
his sway beyond the southern half of the island. Turlough's attention is
called to the irregularities of the Irish Church. He is urged to call a
council of bishops and religious men for the extirpation of those evil
customs, and to be present at it in person. This letter evidently
produced an impression, and not only on Turlough O'Brien. For a few
years later Lanfranc wrote another letter, this time to a bishop named
Donnell and others, who had sought his advice on a difficult question
concerning the sacrament of baptism.See Ussher, 490-497; P.L. cl. 532, 535, 536. This
Donnell was probably Donnell O'Heney (Ua hEnna), a Munster bishop who
died in 1098 (A. U.).
Anselm followed in the footsteps of Lanfranc. Not long after his
consecration (1093) he wrote to Donnell, Donough O'Hanley and the rest
of the bishops of Ireland, begging the aid of their prayers, and urging
them to consult him in all cases of difficulty. Almost immediately
afterwards came the election of Malchus, bishop of Waterford, in 1096.
Among those who signed the petition for his consecration were Bishop
Donnell, Samuel O'Hanley, whom Anselm had consecrated for Dublin earlier
in the same year, and O'Dunan, bishop of Meath (Idunan episcopus
Midiae), whose name we shall do well to remember. But most notable of
all were Murtough O'Brien, son of Turlough, then the strongest of Irish
kings, soon to be ardrí, and his brother Dermot O'Brien.Ussher, 515-519. The letter to Donnell is also in P.L.
clix. 262. It is
clear that Lanfranc had won the O'Briens to the Romanizing side; and
Anselm was determined to hold them fast. Within the next few years there
was a fairly regular correspondence between him and Murtough, of which
some letters have been preserved.Ussher, 520-527; P.L. clix. 173, 178, 243. The relation between the two men
was evidently most friendly. And the archbishop fully exploited his
opportunity. Again and again he reminded the king of his duty to repress
abuses, the most important of which in his eyes were lax sexual
morality, and the consecration of bishops by single bishops, without
fixed sees or defined dioceses.
So Lanfranc and Anselm schooled the O'Briens in the principles of Rome.
And from one point of view their efforts were completely successful. The
O'Briens became staunch friends of the Reform movement in Ireland. But
from another point of view they failed. We must remember that their aim
was not only to purify the Irish Church, but to bring it into subjection
to Canterbury. That they did not succeed in doing. The Reformation,
which they taught the O'Briens to support, meant, in the end, a
repudiation of the pretensions of the English primates.
I have mentioned among those who were concerned in the election of
Malchus of Waterford, O'Dunan, bishop of Meath. He is unquestionably
Máel Muire Ua Dunáin, whom the annalists describe as "learned bishop of
the Goidhil, and head of the clergy of Ireland, and steward of the
almsdeeds of the world," and who died on Christmas Eve, 1117, at the age
of seventy-six. He is mentioned in a charter in the Book of Kells, the
date of which is apparently about 1100, as Senior of Leath Chuinn
(i.e. the north of Ireland).Miscellany of Irish Archælogical Society, vol. i.
(1846), p. 136. He was fifty-five when Malchus was
elected, and had probably already attained the eminence throughout
Ireland which is attested by the high-flown phrases of the Annals. That
he was then bishop of Meath in the modern sense is impossible; the title
at that period would mean no more than that he was a bishop who lived
within the borders of the Kingdom of Meath. But the Annals of
Tigernach tell us that he died at Clonard, from which it may perhaps be
inferred that his see was at that place. His importance for us just now
is that he is the only adherent of the Reform movement whom we have yet
discovered in the north of Ireland.
II.—The First Stage
Before proceeding further in our investigation of the origin and course
of the Reformation, it may be well to recall how far we have already
advanced. We started from the fact that a Reformation of the Irish
Church was actually accomplished in the twelfth century, and we
proceeded to look for the causes which may have brought it about. We
have found that the first of these was the revival of learning
consequent on the cessation of the ravages of the Norsemen. We have
noted also the restoration at the same period of communication between
Ireland and the rest of Europe—the coming of students to the Irish
schools, and the wanderings of Irish scholars in other lands. We have
seen that the establishment of the Danish dioceses gave to the Irish a
model of diocesan episcopacy, and that among the Irish-born bishops of
those dioceses there were men capable of leading a Reform movement. And
we have learned that Lanfranc and Anselm, through their relation with
the Danish dioceses, found means to induce the more conspicuous civil
and religious leaders of the Celtic population to undertake the work of
reconstituting the Church. Finally, we have been able to name some
persons who might be expected to take a prominent place in the early
stages of the Reformation. They are Gilbert of Limerick, Malchus of
Waterford, O'Dunan of Meath, and the princes of the O'Brien family. The
best proof that we have rightly conceived the origin of the movement
will come before us when we study the share which these persons
severally had in promoting it.
We must now trace, as far as it can be done, the first steps in the
process by which, under the influences which I have indicated, the
Church of Ireland passed from its older to its later hierarchical
system.
The earliest attempt to give concrete form to the principles of the
Reformers seems to have been made in the Kingdom of Meath, about the
year 1100. But the primary evidence for the fact is of much later date.
There are extant some constitutions of Simon Rochfort, bishop of Meath,
put forth at a synod of his diocese held at the monastery of SS. Peter
and Paul at Newtown, near Trim, in 1216. The first of them recites an
ordinance of the papal legate, Cardinal John Paparo, at the Council of
Kells in 1152, which is of great importance.
Paparo ordered that as the bishops of the weaker sees died off,
arch-priests, or, as we call them, rural deans, should succeed to their
place, and take charge of the clergy and people within their
borders.Wilkins, Concilia, i. 547. In the form in which Rochfort
quotes it the ordinance applies to the whole of Ireland. But we have no
evidence of the transformation of dioceses into deaneries outside Meath;
and it is quite probable that a synod held in Meath would have in view,
in such a decree, only the conditions which prevailed in that district.
The inference which this enactment suggests is that the weaker sees to
which it refers were the centres of small dioceses, which Paparo desired
to be converted into rural deaneries. In accordance with the ordinance
of Paparo, Rochfort's synod enjoined that rural deans should be placed
in the five sees of Trim, Kells, Slane, Skreen and Dunshaughlin, each of
whom should supervise the churches in his own deanery. These, with
Clonard, which had long been the see of Rochfort's diocese, are six of
the twelve rural deaneries into which the present diocese of Meath is
divided.The deanery of Dunshaughlin is now named Ratoath. The
deanery of Kells has been divided into Upper and Lower Kells. I conclude that they, and probably the remaining six,
coincided more or less closely with dioceses ruled by bishops in the
first half of the twelfth century.The cogency of this argument is enhanced when we observe
that there is strong independent evidence for the existence in the
twelfth century of one of the six dioceses—the diocese of Kells. (a)
Up to the latter part of the sixteenth century (1583) there was an
archdeacon of Kells, as well as an archdeacon of Meath; the jurisdiction
of an archdeacon (at any rate in Ireland) seems to have been always
originally co-extensive with a diocese. The first known archdeacon of
Kells was Adam Petit who was in office in 1230 (R.T.A. 279; C.M.A.
i. 101); but it is unlikely that he had no predecessors. (b) Among the
prelates who greeted Henry II. at Dublin in 1171 was Thaddaeus, bishop
of Kells (Benedict of Peterborough (R. S.), i. 26). (c) In the time of
Innocent III. (1198-1216) the question was raised in the papal curia
whether the bishop of Kells was subject to the archbishop of Armagh or
the archbishop of Tuam (Theiner, p. 2). (d) The bishop of Kells is
mentioned in a document of the year 1202 (Cal. of Docts. Ireland, i.
168). (e) A contemporary note records the suppression of the
bishopric: "When a Cistercian monk ... had been elected and consecrated
bishop of Kells by the common consent of the clergy and people, and had
been confirmed by the Pope, the impudent bishop of Meath cast him out
with violence and dared to [add] his bishopric to his own" (C.M.A. ii.
22). This statement implies that the dispossessed bishop ruled over a
diocese. Moreover, when we remember that the see was certainly
suppressed before Rochfort's Synod of 1216, that Rochfort was the first
person who assumed the title "bishop of Meath" in the modern sense, and
that a bishop of Kells died in 1211 (A.L.C.), we need not hesitate to
conclude that the "impudent bishop" was Rochfort himself, and that the
suppression was accomplished about 1213.
Let us now call to our aid a much earlier witness. The annalists inform
us that in the year 1111 there was an assembly at Usnagh in Meath. It
decreed that "the parishesI.e. dioceses. This synod is mentioned in A.T., A.I.
and the Annals of Boyle. Particulars of its Acts and of the persons
present at it are given in C.S. and D.A.I. C.S. has "parish" in
the singular. But this does not seem to yield good sense; for the whole
extent of the kingdom of Meath could scarcely have been called a
"parish" in the twelfth century. I therefore read "parishes." The
singular may have been substituted for the plural at a later time, when
the kingdom (or the greater part of it) included only the dioceses of
Meath and Clonmacnoise, and their earlier history was forgotten. Cp. the
unhistorical statement of St. Bernard about Down and Connor in Life, §
31. D.A.I. have an anomalous form (faircheadh), which may have come
from either the singular (fairche) or the plural (faircheadha) in
the exemplar, but more probably from the latter. of Meath" should be equally divided
between the bishops of Clonmacnoise and Clonard. We may infer that
Clonmacnoise and Clonard, two of the present rural deaneries, were then
dioceses. It is not likely that the dioceses of Meath would have been
formed into two groups, each to constitute the diocese of a bishop who
had already no diocese of his own. But however that may be, we have here
proof that before 1111 Meath had been parted into a number of small
dioceses ruled by bishops.
If the question be asked, By whose authority or influence this division
of Meath into dioceses was made? I can suggest no one more likely than
Máel Muire Ua Dunáin, the "bishop of Meath" to whom reference has
already been made.p. xxiv. f. He was a Meath man, and probably bishop of
Clonard: he was an ecclesiastic of great repute, especially in the
north; and he was a devoted adherent of the Reform movement. His action,
if indeed it was his, was premature and ill-advised. As we shall see,
his work had to be slowly undone. But it is remarkable, as the first
attempt known to us to establish diocesan episcopacy among the Irish. I
shall have more to say about it hereafter; but now I must follow the
main stream of events.
Gilbert,See p. 47, note 3. the first bishop of Limerick, as has already been noted,
was an Irishman. Indeed, we may venture to describe him as one of the
most remarkable Irishmen of his time, in spite of the fact that the
Annals pass him by in almost complete silence. He was at any rate a
staunch supporter, or, as we should rather say, the leader of the
Reformation movement in its earliest course. In a letter written in 1107
Anselm exhorted him, in virtue of their mutual friendship, to make good
use of his episcopal office by correcting that which was amiss, and
planting and sowing good customs, calling to aid him in the work his
king (Murtough O'Brien), the other Irish bishops, and all whom he could
persuade.Ussher, 513. That, assuredly, Gilbert was forward to do.
No sooner had he taken possession of his see than he began to organize a
diocese. Its boundaries seem to have been fixed with care. It was
exactly co-extensive with the modern diocese of Limerick, except on the
north, where it stretched across the Shannon and included part of the
present diocese of Killaloe.A small portion of the present diocese of Limerick lies
north of the Shannon. Moreover he made the Church of St. Mary
his Cathedral Church; indeed it is not unlikely that he built it to
serve that purpose.
A few years later he was appointed Legate of the Holy See. It is
manifest that his new office gave him a unique opportunity of moulding
the fortunes of the Irish Church. In Ireland Gilbert was now virtually
the chief prelate and head of the Church. He was the representative and
embodiment of the authority of the Holy See. The whole Romanizing party
would naturally circle round him as their leader, and many waverers
would be attracted to the new movement in the Irish Church, by the claim
which he could make to speak in the name of the head of the Church
Catholic.
It was after he became legate, and no doubt in virtue of his legatine
commission, that he issued a treatise which may be regarded as the
programme of the Reformation. It is entitled De Statu Ecclesiae. Of
this a fragment, including its earlier chapters, is still in our
hands.Ussher, 501 ff.; P.L. clix. 995.
Before giving a slight summary of its contents I must mention that it is
addressed "to the bishops and presbyters of the whole of Ireland," and
that Gilbert declares that he wrote it at the urgent request of many of
them. In this statement there may lurk an element of exaggeration. But
behind it there lies at least so much truth as this. A considerable body
of the clergy had approached the newly made legate, and requested his
instruction regarding the proper constitution of the Church—for such is
the subject of his tract; and that implies that the Romanizing movement
was no longer in its infancy. There were many bishops and presbyters who
had become dissatisfied with the old Irish method of Church government.
They desired to bring it into conformity with that of the Roman Church.
But they were in some uncertainty as to the nature of the changes that
should be made, and so they asked Gilbert to give them authoritative
counsel.
In reply to their petition, with the aid of an elaborate diagram, he
sketched as follows the organization of a properly ordered Church.
The bishops, he tells us, and others of higher rank in the ministry
belong to the general Church, as distinct from particular churches. The
priest is the highest officer in a particular church. It is the primary
duty of every priest to serve and obey his bishop with all humility. For
by the bishops particular churches are ruled. To each bishop are subject
all the churches within his jurisdiction. And this applies as well to
monastic establishments as to parishes. The head of each parish is a
priest, the head of each monastery is an abbot, who is himself a priest.
The bishop has a pontifical church, in which is his see (sedes), and
of which he is the head. From it he governs the inferior churches. A
bishop can perform all the offices of a priest, but he has seven
functions peculiar to himself: to confirm, to bless, to absolve, to hold
synods, to dedicate churches and altars, to consecrate the ornaments of
churches, to ordain abbots and abbesses and the secular clergy.
Gilbert's diagram represented the bishop as ruling two churches; but he
explains that this is to be interpreted figuratively. A bishop may have
as many as a thousand churches within his jurisdiction: he must have at
least ten.
A bishop is himself subject to authority. His immediate superior is the
archbishop. An archbishop has a sphere of immediate jurisdiction, like
any other bishop, but he also rules a number of subject bishops. Of
these there must be at least three; but an archbishop is not permitted
to have more than twenty subject bishops—an important point, as we
shall see. Above the archbishop is the primate. It is the special
privilege of the primate to ordain and crown the king. He too has his
sphere of immediate jurisdiction, and he must have at least one subject
archbishop, but not more than six.
Primates and archbishops must be consecrated at Rome by the Pope, or at
least must receive the pallSee p. 65, note 1. from him. Without the pall they are not
raised above their fellow-bishops.
Finally, the primates are subject to the Pope, and the Pope to Christ.
The higher members of the hierarchy have their analogues in the civil
order. The Pope corresponds to the emperor, the primate to the king, an
archbishop to a duke, a bishop to an earl, a priest to a knight. But all
these are merely grades of the order of priests. There are but seven
orders of the ministry—priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes,
exorcists, readers and door-keepers. Of the laity Gilbert says little.
They are of two classes; husbandmen and soldiers. Their duties are to
attend church, to pay first-fruits, tithes and oblations, to avoid evil
and do good, and to obey their pastors.
There is nothing original in all this; and some parts of it must have
been very puzzling to stay-at-home Irishmen. For example, what were they
to make of Gilbert's comparison of primates, archbishops, bishops and
priests to kings, dukes, earls and knights? They knew as little of dukes
and earls in the civil order as they did of primates and archbishops in
the ecclesiastical; and they had far more kings than suited Gilbert's
scheme. But the tract is important, both as a summary of the teaching
which Gilbert had no doubt been inculcating far and wide for years, and
as a permanent record, for future use, of the aims of the Reformers.
However unintelligible the treatise may have been in parts, it brought
out with startling clearness one or two essential points. First the
Church must be ruled by bishops. Even the monasteries are subject to
them. How amazing such a statement must have sounded to men who had
inherited the tradition, many centuries old, that the abbots of
monasteries were the true ecclesiastical rulers, bishops their
subordinate officials.
Moreover, bishoprics and dioceses could not be set up at random. The
number of bishops and by consequence the size of dioceses must be
carefully considered. The puny bishoprics of Meath, for example, could
form no part of a scheme such as Gilbert adumbrated.
It was manifest that if his guidance were to be followed, no mere
modification of existing arrangements would suffice. The old hierarchy
must be torn up by the roots, and a new hierarchy planted in its place.
We shall meet Gilbert again in the course of our story. But we may now
turn aside from him to make the acquaintance of a new actor in the
drama of the Reformation. Like O'Dunan he was a Northern.
Cellach was born in 1080. He was an Armagh man, sprung from the family
which for centuries past had provided abbots for the monastery of that
city, the grandson of a former abbot. He first appears on the scene in
1105, when on the death of Abbot Donnell he became coarb of Patrick and
abbot of Armagh. He was elected, we may assume, in the customary way. He
was then under twenty-six years of age, and was apparently still a
layman. But his subsequent action shows that he was already a convinced
disciple of the new movement. Doubtless he had fallen under the spell of
Gilbert of Limerick. Six weeks after his election he abandoned the
tradition of a century and a half, and received holy orders. But in
other respects he trod in the footsteps of his predecessors. In the
following year he went on a circuit of the Cenél Eoghain, and "took away
his full demand: namely, a cow for every six, or an in-calf heifer for
every three, or a half ounce of silver for every four, besides many
donations also." Next he proceeded to Munster, with similar results. But
his circuit of Munster is important for other reasons. There he had
opportunities of intercourse with his Munster friends, Gilbert of
Limerick and Malchus of Waterford. And with that circuit we may connect
two incidents of the highest significance. In 1106, apparently in the
latter part of the year, Caincomrac Ua Baigill, bishop of Armagh, died.
The news of his death probably reached Cellach while he was in the
south. Certainly in Munster Cellach was consecrated bishop. It is
impossible not to connect the latter event with the former. He was
consecrated to fill the vacancy created by the death of O'Boyle. Thus he
was now bishop of Armagh as well as coarb of Patrick. In his own person
he united the two lines of coarbial and episcopal succession, which had
parted asunder in 957, when the first of a series of lay coarbs had been
elected, and the first of the six contemporary bishops had been
consecrated.See Additional Note B, pp. 164, 166. The events of
Cellach's life are gathered from A. U. This was a great gain for the Reformers. The old
anomaly of a ruler of the Church who was not a bishop had, so far as
Armagh was concerned, disappeared for the time. And Armagh was the
principal ecclesiastical centre in Ireland. Cellach might now call
himself archbishop of Armagh, though he had not fulfilled the condition
laid down by Gilbert, that an archbishop must receive the pall at the
hands of the Pope. The title was actually accorded to him by so rigid a
papalist as St. Bernard.Life, § 19.
But there was more to come. In the year 1101 there had been held at
Cashel a great assembly of the clergy and people of Ireland. Bishop
O'Dunan, whom we already know, was at their head. To it came also
Murtough O'Brien, who earlier in the year, after an expedition in force
through Connaught and Ulster, had entered Tara as ardrí of
Ireland.See MacCarthy's Note in A. U. 1101. In the presence of the assembly he surrendered Cashel, the
royal city of the kings of Munster, to the Church, as an offering to God
and St. Patrick.A.F.M., Keating, iii. 297. Keating seems to confuse the
events of 1101 with those of 1106. When we consider the persons who were concerned in
this transaction we find good ground for the suspicion that the gift was
intended in some way to benefit the movement for reform. Now St. Bernard
informs us that Cellach created a second archiepiscopal see in Ireland
in subordination to Armagh.Life, § 33. After his manner he does not tell us
where it was situated. It is certain, however, that it was at Cashel,
which was the seat of an archbishop in 1110.See p. 18, note 6. It was probably
surrendered for this very purpose by O'Brien. And if it be asked when
Cellach erected it into an archbishopric the answer is scarcely
doubtful. Only once, so far as we know, did Cellach enter Munster before
1110. It was on the occasion of his circuit. In the year of the circuit,
therefore, 1106, the archbishopric of Cashel was founded. In that same
year, or shortly afterwards, Malchus of Waterford was translated to the
new see, and became its first archbishop. There is no evidence that a
new bishop was consecrated for Waterford in succession to Malchus: this
indeed is unlikely. But it should be noted that by his acceptance of an
archbishopric subject to Armagh, Malchus was released from the
profession of obedience which he had made to Anselm ten years earlier.
He was now a bishop of the Church of Ireland, with undivided allegiance.
The reason for the creation of a second archbishopric is not difficult
to guess. By this time the plans of the Reformers must have been in some
degree matured: before long, as we shall see, they were set forth in
minute detail. Already Cellach was archbishop of Armagh. His suffragan
sees, indeed, apart from those formed by O'Dunan, if their bishops
acknowledged themselves as his suffragans, were in nubibus. But
suffragan sees he must have, according to the theory of Gilbert, each
with a diocese attached to it. They must be at least three in number,
but not more than twenty. Now it was a foregone conclusion that if the
Reformers had their way there would be more than twenty dioceses in
Ireland. Hence, by Gilbert's rule, there must be a second archbishop.
Moreover, by making the archbishopric of Cashel subject to Armagh,
Cellach secured for himself and his successors a title yet more imposing
than that of archbishop. He was now Primate of Ireland; for it sufficed,
if Gilbert spoke truly, that a primate should have one subject
archbishop. As coarb of Patrick Cellach's authority ranged over the
whole country; as primate his sway would be no less extensive. He
actually claimed the title, if not then, at least a few years later.See next page.
We may now for a while leave Gilbert and Cellach and Malchus and
O'Dunan. With Gilbert as legate, and Cellach and Malchus as archbishops;
with dioceses already formed at Limerick and Waterford and in Meath,
probably also at Armagh and Cashel and Wexford; with the great extension
of the movement, and its spread from Munster to Meath and Ulster, all
was ready for the meeting of the Synod whose ordinances should give
definite shape to the policy to be pursued in the future.
III.—The Synod of Rathbreasail
Geoffrey Keating quotes from the lost Annals of Clonenagh an account
of a national Synod or Council held at Rathbreasail in the year
1110.Keating, iii. 299 ff. The date is there misprinted 1100. The existing Annals record that a national Council met at
Fiadh meic Oengusa in 1111. With the exception of the Annals of
Inisfallen, none of them mention Rathbreasail; but the Inisfallen
annalist tells us that it is another name for Fiadh meic Oengusa.I formerly disputed this identification, on the ground
that the archbishop of Cashel who was present at Fiadh meic Oengusa was
O'Dunan (G. T. Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Church, ed. 6, 1907, p.
372). I am now convinced that he was archbishop of Cashel. I was not
then aware that all MSS. of Keating date the Synod of Rathbreasail in
1110. I
shall assume therefore that there were not two national Synods in
successive years, but one; and, following the Annals of Clonenagh, I
shall call it the Synod of Rathbreasail, and date it in 1110.
The Synod of Rathbreasail marks the beginning of the second stage of the
Reformation movement. It was convened by the papal legate; its purpose
was the Romanizing of the Irish Church, and, in particular, the
establishment in it of diocesan episcopacy. Fortunately Keating's
excerpts from its Acts give us ample information concerning the canons
which dealt with this matter.
The annalists, as I have said, describe the council as a national
assembly. But we can hardly claim so much for it. It is much more
probable that it was in reality a meeting of the Reforming party. The
first signature appended to its canons was that of Gilbert, who presided
as legate of the Holy See. He was followed by Cellach, "coarb of Patrick
and Primate of Ireland," and Malchus, "archbishop of Cashel," whom we
have known as bishop of Waterford. The signatures of many bishops
followed, but they have not been preserved. We know, however, that
Bishop O'Dunan was present, as was also Murtough O'Brien, king of
Ireland. These were all leaders of the Reforming party; and it is
evident that they guided the deliberations of the Council. Moreover
there were no representatives of the provinces of Connaught and
Leinster, in which as yet, it appears, the Reform movement had not
established itself. That is made clear by notes appended to canons which
specially concerned those provinces. One of them begins thus: "If the
Connaught clergy agree to this ... we desire it, and if they do not"—in
that case they may do as they please, with certain limitations. The
clergy of Leinster are accorded a similar liberty. It is obvious that if
among the members of the Council there had been men who could speak with
authority for the provinces mentioned such notes need not, and
therefore could not, have been written. The Council represented Munster,
Ulster and Meath. It was national, not because it could speak for all
Ireland, but because it made laws for all Ireland.
I must now give an account of those laws, so far as they relate to the
organization of the Church. I follow the Annals of Clonenagh, as
reported by Keating: but in two or three places I have been obliged to
amend his text.On p. 298 read no (or) for is (and) before Dun dá
Leathghlas; and on p. 306 chathar for chuigear ar fhichid (i.e.
twenty-four for twenty-five). On p. 306 a portion of the note on the
Leinster diocese has evidently dropped out, which should be restored to
bring it into conformity with the corresponding passage on p. 302.
The fathers began by appealing to English precedent. "Just as twelve
bishops were fixed under Canterbury in the south of England, and twelve
bishops in the north under the city of York," so it was ordained that
there should be twelve bishops in the south of Ireland, and twelve in
the north. The constitution of the Irish Church was henceforth, it would
seem, to be a copy of that of the English Church. But, as it happens,
neither in 1110 nor in any other year of its history, had the Church of
England twelve sees under Canterbury and twelve under York. How then can
we explain the statement of the Synod? The answer is simple. BedeH.E. i. 29.
preserves a letter of Pope Gregory the Great, written in 601, in which
St. Augustine of Canterbury was directed to consecrate twelve bishops as
his own suffragans. He was also ordered to consecrate a bishop for York,
who, if his mission proved successful, was likewise to consecrate twelve
suffragans, and to be promoted to the dignity of a metropolitan. It is
clear that the Synod found its precedent in this letter, not observing
that Pope Gregory's ordinance was never carried into effect. But they
made another mistake. For Gregory intended that there should be twelve
bishops in the north of England, and twelve in the south, exclusive of
the archbishops, twenty-six in all; while it is evident that the Council
of Rathbreasail intended that there should be twelve bishops in the
north of Ireland, and twelve in the south, including the archbishops,
twenty-four in all. Some one whose lead the Synod followed—probably the
papal legate—had read his Bede with little care. But that is not
surprising. Lanfranc had misread Bede, when on his authority he claimed
to be Primate of Ireland; why should not Gilbert have gone astray in
like fashion? The point to be noticed and emphasized is that the first
act of the Synod was to fix the number of the Irish sees, on the curious
principle that what the wisdom of Pope Gregory held to be good for
England would suit Ireland also.
Apparently the next step in the procedure was to determine the
distribution of the dioceses among the provinces, and to fix the see of
each prospective diocese. Ireland was divided into two portions by a
line running, approximately, from Dublin to Galway. The part to the
north of that line was known as Leath Chuinn, the part to the south as
Leath Mogha. In Leath Chuinn were the provinces of Ulster and Connaught
and the kingdom of Meath; in Leath Mogha were the provinces of Munster
and Leinster. The Synod decreed that there should be five sees in
Ulster, five in Connaught, and two in Meath, making twelve bishoprics
for Leath Chuinn; there were to be seven in Munster and five in
Leinster—twelve bishoprics for Leath Mogha. The names of all these sees
were given in the Acts of the Synod.
Finally the Synod defined the boundaries of the dioceses to which the
sees severally belonged. It is not my purpose to give a minute
description of these boundaries. That would involve an excursus on Irish
topography, which would be, to say the least, out of place. It will
suffice to indicate roughly those of the five dioceses of Ulster. To the
west was what was called the "parish" (fairche)I.e. diocese. of Derry or
Raphoe. It was nearly identical with our diocese of Raphoe. The only
important difference is that it included Inishowen, the district between
Lough Swilly and Lough Foyle, which now belongs to the diocese of Derry.
Next to the parish of Derry or Raphoe the Synod placed the parish of
Ardstraw.The parish (using the word in its modern sense) in which
is Newtown Stewart, co. Derry. Ardstraw never became the see, and the diocese was
subsequently known as "of Derry." It extended eastward to the
Carntougher Mountains, and coincides pretty closely with the present
diocese. It subsequently gained Inishowen from its western neighbour,
and the strip between the Carntougher Mountains and the Bann from its
eastern neighbour. But otherwise it remains much as the Synod of
Rathbreasail determined. Next to it was to be the parish of Connor or
Down. When the portion of it to the west of the Bann was transferred to
Derry, it coincided almost exactly with the modern Down, Connor and
Dromore. On the other hand the parish of Armagh seems originally to have
included the modern county of Monaghan: it has shrunk to little more
than half its size. The parish of Clogher, at first very small, has
extended east and west, and is three times as large as it was intended
to be. On the whole the work of the Synod has stood well the test of
many centuries of history.
It is indeed wonderful that it should have done so. For the method of
the Synod—fixing the number of the dioceses before their boundaries
were discussed—was unstatesmanlike. Always, and necessarily,
ecclesiastical divisions have coincided with civil divisions. We may
find the germ of the rule in the Acts of the Apostles.Ramsay, Paul the Traveller (1907), p. 173. If this was
inevitable in other lands it was even more inevitable in Ireland in
pre-Norman days. The Irish people was a collection of clans, having, it
is true, certain common institutions, but bound together by no sort of
national constitution, and often at war with each other. If
ecclesiastical divisions were to be permanent in Ireland, they must take
account of the tribal divisions of the country. The primary
ecclesiastical unit must be the territory of a tribe, just as it was the
primary civil unit.Some changes of phraseology might have been made here and
elsewhere if Professor MacNeill's Phases of Irish History (1919) had
come into my hands before this volume went to press. But they would not
have affected the argument. But to base the limits of dioceses, consistently
and in every case, on tribal boundaries was impossible when the number
of dioceses was arbitrarily fixed beforehand. It could not be that
exactly the same number of dioceses would suit Ulster as suited Leinster
and Connaught. In one province the tribes would be more or less
numerous, and more or less mutually antagonistic, than in another. By
reason of its method, therefore, the Synod was doomed to fall short of
complete success in its work.
We have instances in Ulster of the soundness of the principle that I
have stated. Take the diocese of Raphoe. It was designed to include
Inishowen. But from a tribal point of view Inishowen (Inis Eoghain)
belonged to the next diocese, which included the tribeland of Tír
Eoghain. Its inhabitants were of the same stock as the Cenél Eoghain,
and were known as the Cenél Eoghain of the Island. So the natural result
followed. Inishowen broke off from the diocese of Raphoe and became part
of the diocese of Derry. When this happened the diocese of Raphoe was
stabilized. It consisted of the land of a single tribe, the Cenél
Conaill; and so henceforth its limits were never altered.
We can easily understand, therefore, that the disregard of tribal
boundaries, forced on it in many cases by its method, was an element of
weakness in the Rathbreasail scheme. And yet it was natural that special
stress should be laid on the arbitrary limitation of sees which was its
main cause. Ireland was overrun with bishops. It is said that over fifty
of them attended the Synod of Rathbreasail; and they represented only
part of the country. But Gilbert had laid down the rule that an
archbishop could not have more than twenty suffragans. On this
principle, if all the existing bishops had been provided with dioceses,
or all the larger tribes had been given bishops, Ireland would have had
not two, but six or seven archbishops: and this would have been a
travesty of Catholic Church order, as it was then understood. It was
essential that the number should be ruthlessly cut down.
But the legislators of Rathbreasail did not entirely ignore tribal
boundaries. On the contrary, so far as the numerical basis of their
scheme permitted, they took them into account. And here we find that the
Synod was confronted with another difficulty. The territories of tribes
were fluctuating quantities. Hence, even if a diocese was the district
of a single tribe, with very definite boundaries, no one could be sure
that in the course of years its limits would not change. Again I take an
example from Ulster. The Synod selected the Carntougher Mountains as the
boundary between the dioceses of Derry and Connor. And wisely. For
between those mountains and the Bann there dwelt a sept—the Fir
Li—whose affinities were altogether with the people to the east of the
river. But only a few years after the Synod that territory was overrun
by the O'Kanes of the Roe Valley, and the Fir Li retreated across the
Bann, never to return. The result followed which might have been
expected. Their territory was transferred from Connor to Derry, and the
Bann to this day is the boundary of the two dioceses.See Irish Church Quarterly, vol. x. p. 234.
It may be well, before I pass to another subject, to call attention to
some special features of the Rathbreasail canons.
First, let us note the prominence which is given to Limerick, the
diocese of Gilbert, the president of the Synod. Usually a diocese is
somewhat vaguely defined by four places on its borders. But here no less
than thirteen are named. So full are the indications that a fairly exact
map of the diocese could be drawn. Further, in this diocese alone
mention is made of a Cathedral Church: "The Church of Mary in Limerick
is its principal church."Agus is é teampull Muire i Luimneach a príomheaglais. Note the present tense: "The Church of
Mary is"—not shall be—"its principal church." We remember that
Gilbert insisted in the De Statu Ecclesiae that a diocese should have
a "pontifical church." Again, the boundaries of this one diocese are
protected by a clause which has no parallel elsewhere: "Whosoever shall
go against these boundaries goes against the Lord, and against Peter the
Apostle, and St. Patrick and his coarb and the Christian Church." Who
but the legate of the Pope would have thus invoked St. Peter?
Surely this portion of the ordinances of the Synod must have been
penned by Gilbert himself. And the whole passage—by the minuteness of
its description of the diocese, by the strength of the terms in which it
is expressed, by the reference to the Cathedral Church as already
existing—suggests that the diocese was formed and organized before the
Synod met, as I have already assumed. We may even suspect that an
attempt had been made to invade it, which Gilbert stoutly resisted,
relying on his legatine authority.
In the list of dioceses there is an omission which demands explanation.
No mention whatever is made of Dublin, the oldest diocese in Ireland.
Not only so; the northern limit of the diocese of Glendalough is marked
by Lambay Island and Greenogue, which lies due west of it in the County
Meath. Thus the diocese of Glendalough, as contemplated by the
Synod—and, it may be added, as it was in fact forty years
laterWhen Cardinal Paparo came to Ireland in 1151 he found "a
see constituted at Dublin in the diocese of Glendalough."—Crede Mihi
(ed. Gilbert), p. 11.—included the whole of the actually existing diocese of
Dublin. The Danish Christians of Dublin and their Irish bishop are
treated as interlopers; they are absolutely ignored. It may be said that
this was due to the mutual hostility which divided the diocese of Dublin
from the native Church, and to the fact that the bishops of Dublin had
always been subject to Canterbury. But it is not enough to say this; for
the estrangement of Dublin from the Irish is the very thing that has to
be accounted for.
It had its root in the growing prosperity of the Danish city. The Irish
had no towns. Town life was introduced among them by the Norsemen. And
of their towns Dublin was always the chief. By this time it had become
so important that it had good right to be called the metropolis of the
country. And its citizens were thoroughly aware of this. As early as
1074 the burgesses of Dublin and their bishop, Patrick, claimed for it
that title.Ussher, 488 (P.L. cl. 534), 564. Now in all reason a metropolis should have a
metropolitan as its bishop; and no doubt the bishops of Dublin thought
themselves de facto, if not de jure, superior to the other bishops
of Ireland. In fact we find one of them playing the archbishop. We have
two interesting letters of Anselm, written apparently about 1100. One of
them is addressed to Malchus, bishop of Waterford, directing him to
rebuke Samuel O'Hanley, bishop of Dublin, for various irregularities, in
particular for having his cross carried before him like an archbishop;
the other is addressed to Samuel himself, and complains of the same
actions.Ibid. 528, 530; P.L. clix. 109, 216. These proceedings are not likely to have been brought to an
end by Anselm's letters; and we may assume that they were continued as
long as Samuel held the see of Dublin. It was but natural that Cellach
should strongly resent them, for they were disrespectful both to himself
and to the archbishop of Cashel. We are not surprised, therefore, to
find that on the death of Samuel in 1121, eleven years after
Rathbreasail, Cellach tried to get possession of the Church of
Dublin,See p. 20, note 3. most probably with the intention of bringing it under the
jurisdiction of the bishop of Glendalough. Nor are we surprised that the
men of Dublin at once replied by electing another bishop and bidding
Ralph of Canterbury to consecrate him if he desired to retain the
suffragan see which they had so long preserved for him.See p. xxii. We shall see
hereafter how the bishops of Dublin were at length induced to look with
favour on the Irish Church. Meanwhile we learn that they were not very
obedient suffragans of Canterbury; and we cease to wonder that they were
ignored in the Rathbreasail decrees.
Another feature of the canons of the Synod is worth noting. In several
instances the see of a diocese was not absolutely fixed. Two places were
named, and it was apparently left to the bishop of the future to select
that one of the two which he preferred to be his city. Thus we have a
diocese of Derry or Raphoe, a diocese of Connor or Down, another of
Wexford or Ferns, and so forth. The meaning of this is best seen by
taking a single example. To one of the dioceses of Munster was assigned
the area now occupied by the two dioceses of Waterford and Lismore. It
consisted of the original Danish diocese of Waterford, together with a
much more extensive non-Danish area. Alternative sees were named; it was
described as the parish of Lismore or Waterford. Now Lismore was the
most sacred spot in the enlarged diocese. It was the site of a monastery
founded by St. Mochuta. It was an ideal place for a bishop's see. But it
was doubtless ruled at the moment by an abbot, the coarb of Mochuta.
Unless he was prevailed on to accept episcopal orders, or was deprived
of his authority, a diocesan bishop could not be established there. On
the other hand, Waterford had no sacred traditions; but it was already
the see of a diocese. In default of Lismore it would be a convenient
place for the see. Between Lismore and Waterford the circumstances of
the future must decide. Ultimately, it appears, Malchus retired from the
archbishopric of Cashel, and became bishop of his older diocese, now so
much greater than it had been. He placed his stool, however, not at
Waterford but at Lismore.See p. 18, note 6. A similar,
but not always identical
course was followed in other such cases.
What the Synod of Rathbreasail actually accomplished was this. It gave
to Ireland a paper constitution of the approved Roman and Catholic type.
But by doing this it had not achieved the purpose of its existence. In
the years that followed, its enactments had to be carried into effect.
And here was the real crux. Before the Church came to be ruled by
diocesan bishops, the existing rulers—the coarbs of church
founders—must be dispossessed of their authority; the numerous bishops
of the old Irish type must be got rid of; the jurisdiction of the new
bishops must be fixed by common consent, or enforced without it; and
revenues must be provided for them. A mere synodal decree could not
accomplish all this. The diocesan system could become a fact throughout
the whole Church, and the last vestiges of the ancient constitution be
made to disappear, only after determined effort, and probably bitter
contention. And when all was done it would certainly be found that the
scheme of dioceses arranged at Rathbreasail had been largely departed
from.
I can best illustrate the nature of the difficulties which had to be
encountered, and the length of time which might be required to overcome
them, by giving a short outline of the history of the forming of the
dioceses of the kingdom of Meath.
In Meath, as we have seen, there were dioceses ruled by bishops before
Rathbreasail. But these dioceses were of small size. It may be doubted
whether most of them fulfilled the condition laid down by Gilbert, that
a bishop should have not less than ten churches within his jurisdiction.
They had therefore to be grouped under a smaller number of prelates.
What had to be accomplished in this case was not so much the clipping of
the wings of the abbots, as the extirpation of the more recently
appointed diocesan bishops. The Synod determined that the kingdom should
be divided into two dioceses, one in the west, the other in the east.
The western see was to be at Clonard, at the moment, as it seems, the
see of O'Dunan, and famed as the site of the great monastery of St.
Finnian, founded in the sixth century; the eastern see was to be at
Duleek, near Drogheda. Now a few months after the Synod of Rathbreasail
there was held at Usnagh a local synod of the men of Meath, at which the
king and many notable persons were present.See above, p. xxviii. This synod ordained that
the parishes of Meath should be equally divided between the bishops of
Clonmacnoise and Clonard. It will be observed that the principle of the
Rathbreasail decree was accepted, that there should be two, and only
two, dioceses in Meath. But the change made in the sees is significant.
The Synod of Rathbreasail intended that Clonard should be the see of the
western diocese, which would include Clonmacnoise. The Synod of Usnagh
demanded that Clonmacnoise, founded by one of the most noted of Irish
saints, St. Ciaran, should be one of the surviving sees, and that
Clonard should be the see, not of the western, but of the eastern half
of the kingdom. Thus the Synod of Rathbreasail was at once met with
strenuous and, as it proved, successful opposition in Meath.
And here I may mention another fact. A few years after the Synod we have
proof of the existence of a diocese in the north of the kingdom, which
has not hitherto been mentioned, and which is not named in the
Rathbreasail canons. We know it as the diocese of Kilmore.There was a bishop of Breifne (i.e. Kilmore) in 1136
(A.T.). It may
have been one of O'Dunan's dioceses, or it may have been founded later.
One thing is certain. The diocese formed the territory of a strong
tribe. Consequently it had in it the element of stability. It was never
suppressed: it exists to this day. So far as it was concerned the canons
of Rathbreasail were a dead letter from the beginning.
But let us return to Clonard. It was the business of its successive
bishops, in accordance with the decrees of Usnagh, to annex the small
neighbouring bishoprics of east Meath. They had considerable success. We
possess a list of churches granted by Eugenius, the last Irish bishop of
Clonard, to the monastery of St. Thomas the Martyr, Dublin.R.T.A. p. 269. They are
scattered over the three deaneries of Dunshaughlin, Skreen and Trim.
Thus Eugenius had absorbed into his diocese the bishoprics of those
three places. Another document tells us that this same Eugenius
consecrated the church of Duleek;Ibid. p. 259. which implies that the diocese of
Duleek was also suppressed. Thus by 1191, the year of Eugenius's
death—within eighty years of the Synod of Rathbreasail, and before the
Anglo-Normans had captured the ecclesiastical domination of Meath—the
diocese of Clonard had expanded to four times its original size. Its
bishop ruled the whole area of the modern county of Meath which lies
south of the Boyne and Blackwater.
Simon Rochfort, the first English bishop, stretched his arm further. We
have a charter of his, which may be dated before 1202, confirming to St.
Thomas's Abbey a number of churches in his diocese.Ibid. p. 241. It includes
most, if not all, of the churches granted by his predecessor, but adds
others. Among these are some in the deanery of Slane. The bishopric of
Slane had been absorbed.
The rapid extension of his diocese towards the north suggested to
Rochfort the desirability of having for his headquarters a more central
place than Clonard. So in 1202 he translated the see to Newtown, near
Trim,Cal. of Papal Letters, v. 75. For date see Cal. of
Documents, Ireland, i. 168. and began to call himself Bishop of Meath. Ten years later, as
we know, this "impudent bishop" captured the diocese of Kells.See p. xxviii, note 1. The
bishop of Meath (no longer of Clonard) from his see at Newtown had the
oversight of nearly the whole of the modern county. Within the confines
of his diocese were the seven older dioceses of Clonard, Dunshaughlin,
Skreen, Trim, Duleek, Slane and Kells. This was probably the whole of
the eastern diocese as designed by the Synod of Usnagh.
But the policy of annexation still went forward apace. Another document
enables us to measure the progress of half a century. It is a concordat
concerning metropolitical visitations, between the archbishop of Armagh
and Rochfort's third successor, Hugh de Tachmon. It is dated 9th April,
1265.R.T.A. p. 71. The tenor of the concordat does not concern us: it is
important for our purpose because it proves that in 1265 there were
eleven rural deaneries in the diocese of Meath. Four more petty dioceses
had been suppressed, Mullingar, Loxewdy, Ardnurcher and Fore. The
diocese was co-extensive with that of the present day, except that the
diocese of Clonmacnoise—as small in 1265 as it had been in 1100—was
not yet brought in.
Clonmacnoise preserved its independence three centuries longer. It was
incorporated with Meath in 1569. Thus at length the dream of the fathers
of Rathbreasail was fulfilled. There were two dioceses in the ancient
kingdom of Meath—Meath and Kilmore. But neither Duleek nor Clonard nor
Clonmacnoise was a see. From that day to this, in fact, the diocese of
Meath has had no see. And the boundary which parts Meath from Kilmore is
very different from the line which the fathers of Rathbreasail drew
between the dioceses of Clonard and Duleek, or that which the assembly
of Usnagh drew between Clonmacnoise and Clonard.
IV.—St. Malachy's Part in The Reformation
It is not possible, within the limits of this Introduction, to follow
the later stages of the Reformation movement in detail. In the present
section I confine myself to the part which St. Malachy played in its
development.
Malachy was born at Armagh in 1095. He was therefore a mere boy when the
Synod of Rathbreasail met. At the dawn of his manhood he became the
disciple of the recluse Imar O'Hagan. Imar was in sympathy with the aims
of the reformers, and it was probably through his influence that Malachy
became imbued with their principles. He soon attracted the notice of
Cellach, and was by him ordained deacon. He was advanced to the
priesthood about 1119. Shortly afterwards Cellach made the young priest
his vicar. For the next year or two it was Malachy's duty to administer
the diocese of Armagh; and he did so in the most effective—indeed
revolutionary—fashion. He evidently let no man despise his youth. His
purpose, as his biographer tells us, was "to root out barbarous rites,
to plant the rites of the Church." "He established in all the churches
the apostolic sanctions and the decrees of the holy fathers, and
especially the customs of the Holy Roman Church." He introduced the
Roman method of chanting the services of the canonical hours. "He
instituted anew Confession, Confirmation, the Marriage contract, of all
of which those over whom he was placed were either ignorant or
negligent." In a word, Malachy showed himself an ardent reformer.Life, §§ 4-7.
One wonders how, even with the assistance of Cellach and Imar, a young
man who had never left Armagh could have already become sufficiently
acquainted with the usages of other churches to carry out these sweeping
measures. Perhaps his zeal was not always according to knowledge. But he
soon became aware of his limitations, and determined to seek
instruction. With the consent of Cellach and Imar he betook himself to
Malchus, who had by this time retired from the archbishopric of Cashel
and was settled at Lismore. There Malachy spent three years. During that
period he doubtless increased his knowledge of Roman customs and
principles. But he did more. Cormac MacCarthy, son of the king of
Desmond, was then a refugee in the monastery of Malchus. Between Cormac
and Malachy there grew up a friendship, which proved in later years of
much advantage to the reforming cause.Life, §§ 8 f., and p. 21, note 1.
But at length Malachy's presence was urgently needed in the north, and
he was recalled by Cellach and Imar. What had happened was this. The
coarb of St. Comgall at Bangor, the principal religious site in the
north-east of Ireland, had lately died. Since he ended his days at
Lismore, it may be assumed that he was a friend of Malchus, and of the
movement with which he was identified. At any rate his successor, who
was Malachy's uncle, expressed his willingness to surrender his office
and the site of the monastery to his nephew.See Life, § 12, and p. 27, note 1. Here was an opportunity
to carry into effect one of the canons of Rathbreasail, which had
hitherto been a dead letter, by establishing the diocese of Connor.
Cellach, duly elected coarb of Patrick, and consecrated bishop, had no
doubt been able to organize the diocese of Armagh in accordance with the
Rathbreasail scheme. In like manner such a man as Malachy, enjoying the
prestige which belonged to the coarb of Comgall, if consecrated bishop,
would probably succeed in organizing the diocese of Connor. So in 1124
Malachy journeyed to Bangor, was installed as abbot, and was made bishop
by Cellach.See Life, § 16, and notes. He administered his diocese with the same vigour which
had already characterized his work at Armagh. But it is interesting to
observe how closely he conformed to the old Irish type of bishop, in
spite of his Roman proclivities. At heart he was far less bishop of
Connor than coarb of Comgall, abbot of Bangor. Indeed, in strictness, he
had no right to the title "bishop of Connor"; for Connor was not his
see. He made Bangor his headquarters.p. 33, note 1. Doubtless Malachy preferred
Bangor to the nominal see, because it was consecrated by centuries of
sacred memories, and because as yet he could not place the office of
bishop above that of abbot. He ruled his great newly formed diocese, or
as much of it as he succeeded in ruling, from its remotest corner on the
sea shore, as Aidan ruled Northumbria from Holy Island. There he lived
among his brethren, of whom he gathered a great company. There was no
provision for his mensa, for he was "a lover of poverty." He practised
austere asceticism. Yet he was an active missionary. He travelled
incessantly through the diocese, but always on foot, visiting the towns,
and roaming about the country parts, surrounded by his disciples. He
preached to the people whom he met on his way.Life, §§ 16, 17. Nothing could be
more unlike a medieval bishop of the ordinary kind. At every point we
are reminded of the labours of Aidan and Ceadd and Cedd as they are
described by Bede. But we may be sure that it was precisely because
Malachy was coarb of Bangor, because he lived according to the ancient
Irish ideal of sainthood, that he secured the obedience of the people of
his diocese.
In such work as I have mentioned Malachy was engaged from 1124 to 1127.
In the latter year he was driven out of Bangor by Conor O'Loughlin, king
of the north of Ireland, and a second time betook himself to Lismore.
There he again met Cormac MacCarthy, for that unfortunate prince was
once more taking sanctuary with Malchus. He had succeeded a little while
before to the throne of Desmond, but had been driven out by Turlough
O'Conor, who made his brother king in his stead. But after a few months,
persuaded by the entreaties of Malchus and Malachy, and aided by the
arms of Conor O'Brien, king of Thomond, a nephew of Murtough, Anselm's
correspondent, he made a successful attempt to regain his kingdom.See Life, § 9, and notes.
Then Malachy moved on to Iveragh in the County Kerry, and there, under
Cormac's patronage, he founded a new monastery for his community.Life, § 18.
Once again Cormac has friendly intercourse with Malachy, and another
O'Brien is on good terms with the reformers.
It was at Iveragh, two years later, that Malachy received news of the
death of Archbishop Cellach.Ibid. § 19. It was an announcement which must have
caused great anxiety to him and his friends. Who was to succeed to the
primacy?
The importance of the question will become manifest if we recall the
progress which had already been made at Armagh, and what still remained
to be done. When Cellach was elected abbot in 1105, and in the following
year was consecrated bishop, a great point had been gained. For the
first time for 150 years the church of Armagh had a bishop as its ruler.
We may suppose that Cellach soon organized the diocese, the limits of
which were fixed at Rathbreasail. But whatever Gilbert or Malchus might
hold as to the source of his authority, we cannot imagine that the
members of the Church in the diocese based their allegiance to him on
any other ground than the fact that he was their abbot and the coarb of
Patrick. That he was a bishop added nothing, in their view, to his
claims. Moreover Cellach belonged to the family which had long supplied
Armagh with abbots. The abuse of hereditary succession had not
disappeared with his appointment.See p. xv, and Additional Note B. If his successor was chosen in the
time-honoured way, a member of the coarbial family would certainly be
selected, and in all probability he would be a layman, who would not
accept episcopal orders. In a word, all that had been achieved by the
reformers at the most important ecclesiastical centre in Ireland would
be undone.
Cellach had foreseen this, and accordingly he determined to nominate
Malachy as his successor. "With the authority of Patrick" he laid upon
the nobles, and especially upon "the two kings of Munster," the
obligation of securing that his wish should be carried into effect. The
two kings who were thus charged with a difficult duty were Conor
O'Brien, king of Thomond, the principal representative of the O'Briens,
and Cormac MacCarthy, king of Desmond, Malachy's friend.
From Cellach's point of view the choice of a successor which he had made
was a wise one. Malachy was as zealous a reformer as himself. He was a
man of unusual ability and force of character. Besides, he was
possessed of a personal charm which might in time disarm opposition. He
was already a bishop; therefore, if he were once seated in the chair of
Patrick, the question whether the new coarb should be consecrated would
not arise. More important still, he was not of the coarbial stock; with
his entry into the see the scandal of hereditary succession would come
to an end.
But it was not to be expected that the appointment would be accepted
without strong protest; and at the moment there seemed little prospect
that the scheme of Cellach would attain fruition. There is no need to
enter into the details of the fierce struggle that ensued. It is dealt
with elsewhere.Life, §§ 20-31, with notes, and Additional Note C. Suffice it to say that by 1137, with the aid of
O'Brien and MacCarthy, and apparently with assistance also from Donough
O'Carroll, king of Oriel, he was undisputed coarb of Patrick and
archbishop of Armagh. The victory was won, and an immense stride had
been made in the Reformation movement.
But Malachy had no mind to spend the rest of his life at Armagh. Five
years before, as the condition of his entry into the fray, he had
stipulated that as soon as he had been accepted as archbishop he should
resign the see and return to his beloved Bangor. So in 1137 he nominated
and consecrated Gelasius as his successor in the primacy, and "returned
to his former parish, but not to Connor." Let me explain this
enigmatical statement. Malachy had had some years' experience of the
people of the diocese of Connor, whom St. Bernard gently describes as
"not men but beasts." He had doubtless discovered that the district
which it included could not be ruled by a single bishop. In fact it
consisted of two tribal territories, Dál Araide in the north, and Ulaid
in the south; and the two tribes which inhabited them were usually
engaged in mutual war. He decided that it should be divided into two
dioceses. He consecrated a bishop for Dál Araide, with his see at
Connor, and himself resumed the oversight of Ulaid, with his see at
Bangor.§§ 31, 32. Thus originated the present dioceses of Down and Connor. In
Malachy's time the boundary between them seems to have run west from
Larne. In the course of centuries it has shifted further south.
This division was a direct violation of the letter of the ordinance of
Rathbreasail; but it did not contravene its spirit. In the letter, which
ignored the civil divisions of the country, the ordinance could not be
obeyed. Malachy adopted a scheme which secured the permanent rule of
diocesan bishops in the district.
Malachy was now, and continued to be till his death, bishop of Down, or
more strictly of Bangor; in the current Irish phrase bishop of Ulaid.
But his activities already extended beyond his diocese. Within the next
two years he succeeded in establishing in actual fact another diocese
which till now had existed only on paper. It was that which the Synod of
Rathbreasail had called the diocese of Clogher, and which we know by the
same name; but which for sixty years or more bore the name of the
diocese of Oriel.
That we may understand his action let us return for a moment to the five
Ulster dioceses as planned at Rathbreasail. In four of them regard was
paid to tribal boundaries. The diocese of Raphoe corresponded to Tír
Conaill, Derry to Tír Eoghain, Armagh to Oriel, while Connor
comprehended the two territories of Dál Araide and Ulaid. The diocese of
Clogher was of necessity the remainder of the province. If it coincided
with a tribal district, that could only happen by chance. In fact it did
not. It was much smaller than the other dioceses. It embraced only the
present barony of Clogher in the county of Tyrone, and the portion of
Fermanagh lying between it and the Erne waterway. It had within it no
element of cohesion. It was most unlikely that it could ever constitute
an ecclesiastical unit, governed by a bishop.
Nevertheless an attempt seems to have been made to consolidate it as a
diocese a few years after Rathbreasail; as might have been expected,
without success. A bishop of Clogher, who apparently had no diocese,
died in 1135. He was succeeded by Christian O'Morgair, brother of
Malachy. He was probably nominated and consecrated by his brother, who
was then titular archbishop of Armagh. Now about this time Donough
O'Carroll, king of Oriel, joined the ranks of the reformers, as we may
suppose under the influence of Malachy. His kingdom included the little
diocese of Clogher; but the main part of it consisted of the present
counties of Monaghan and Louth. Accordingly a bold stroke of policy was
conceived and carried out. The diocese of Clogher was enlarged so as to
cover the greater part of O'Carroll's kingdom. For this purpose the
archbishop of Armagh surrendered a large part of his diocese—the whole
of Monaghan and Louth. Then Christian moved his see from Clogher to the
spot now occupied by the village of Louth. Thus there was constituted a
new diocese, which included the Rathbreasail diocese of Clogher, but was
four times its size, and had its see at Louth. It was known as the
diocese of Oriel. In all this we see plainly the hand of Malachy. Not
long after the removal of the see Christian died, and Malachy selected
and consecrated his successor, one Edan O'Kelly. O'Kelly had a long
episcopate, from 1139 to 1182; and with the help of O'Carroll he
organized his diocese, and gave it a cathedral at Louth with a chapter
of Augustinian canons.See Life, § 34 and notes. Once again Malachy was the maker of a
diocese; and once again, in the interest of stability, he transgressed
the letter of the Rathbreasail canons, while fulfilling their spirit. It
was not till after the coming of the Anglo-Normans that the see was
brought back to Clogher. Subsequently the county of Louth reverted to
Armagh, and the diocese extended to the west. About the year 1250 its
boundaries came to be what they now are.For a fuller account of the beginnings of the diocese of
Clogher see L.A.J. vol. iv. pp. 129-159. To the reasons there given
for believing that Christian transferred the see from Clogher to Louth
should be added the fact that in Tundale (p. 54) he is called
Lugdunensis episcopus.
In 1139, after settling the affairs of the diocese of Oriel, Malachy
left Ireland on an important mission. It will be remembered that Gilbert
had declared that no archbishop could exercise his functions till the
Pope had sent him the pall. That was the current doctrine of the age.
Now neither Cellach, nor Malachy, nor Gelasius, nor Malchus, nor his
successor at Cashel, had received that ornament. They had therefore, in
the strict sense, no right to the title of archbishop. Malachy resolved
to make request to the Pope in person for palls for the two Irish
metropolitans. So he set out from Bangor for Rome.Life, §§ 33, 34. Of his journey it
is unnecessary to say anything here.Ibid. §§ 35-41. The reader may be reminded, however,
that the two visits of Malachy to Clairvaux, in the course of this
journey, produced the friendship between him and St. Bernard, which had
its twofold issue in the composition of the important documents included
in this volume, and the introduction of the Cistercian Order into
Ireland.
At Rome Malachy was received by Pope Innocent II. with great honour. He
confirmed the erection of the metropolitan see of Cashel. But he
politely declined to grant the palls. They must be demanded, he said, by
a council of the bishops, clergy and magnates; and then they would be
given.
But if the Pope refused Malachy's request, he bestowed on him an office,
the securing of which we may conjecture to have been one of the purposes
of his visit to Rome, though St. Bernard does not say so. Gilbert, now
old and infirm, had resigned the see of Limerick, and with it his
legatine commission. Innocent made Malachy papal legate in his
stead.Life, § 38.
Thus Malachy returned to Ireland, still bishop of Down indeed, but
virtually chief prelate of the Irish Church. For the following eight
years he laboured with zeal and vigour. St. Bernard unfortunately gives
little information concerning the details of his administrative work as
legate. But he relates one incident which suggests that in this period
Malachy was instrumental in founding another diocese. He nominated and
consecrated the first known bishop of Cork,§ 51. not improbably with the
intention that he should unite in his own person the two offices of
coarb of Barre, founder of Cork, and diocesan bishop.
And in this connexion it is worth noticing that he was evidently on
friendly terms with Nehemiah, the first known bishop of the neighbouring
diocese of Cloyne.§ 47. If that diocese was also founded by him he once
again violated the letter of the Rathbreasail canons, for by them Cloyne
was included in the diocese of Emly.
In 1148 Malachy convened a synod at Inispatrick, an island opposite
Skerries, Co. Dublin. This synod demanded the palls in due form, and
sent Malachy to obtain them. But he got no further on his journey than
Clairvaux. There, after celebrating Mass on St. Luke's Day, he was taken
ill of a fever; and there a fortnight later he died in the arms of St.
Bernard, on All Souls' Day, 2nd November, 1148.Life, §§ 67-75.
Nevertheless the palls came. They were brought to Ireland by a legate
specially commissioned by Pope Eugenius III., John Paparo, cardinal
priest of St. Laurence. A synod was held at Kells to receive them in
March 1152,There was no unnecessary delay on the part of the Pope in
sending the palls. After the death of Malachy a deputation was sent from
Ireland to Rome to demand them. Paparo set out to confer them, and
reached England in 1150; but King Stephen would not allow him to proceed
to Ireland except on terms which he could not accept. (John of Hexham,
p. 326; Historia Pontificalis in M.G.H. xx. 539 f.) of which the joint presidents were Paparo, as legatus a
latere, and Christian, first abbot of Mellifont, and now bishop of
Lismore, who had lately succeeded Malachy as legatus natus.
Of this synod Keating gives a short account, abridged from the Annals
of Clonenagh,Vol. iii. p. 313 ff. from which he had also derived his knowledge of the
proceedings at Rathbreasail. He preserves a list of the bishops who
attended. It includes twenty-two names, if we count two vicars who
represented absent bishops. There were besides, as Keating informs us,
five bishops-elect. And there was certainly one bishop of a diocese who
was neither present nor represented, Edan O'Kelly, bishop of Oriel. So
it appears that in 1152 there were at least twenty-eight dioceses in
Ireland—a number considerably larger than was contemplated at
Rathbreasail. The increase in number is partly accounted for by the
presence of the bishop of the recently formed diocese of Kilmore, the
division of the diocese of Connor into Connor and Down, and, a most
striking addition, the inclusion of Gregory, bishop of Dublin, among the
assembled prelates. It is remarkable that the bishop of Kells is not
mentioned, though the synod was held in his own city. How was the bishop
of Dublin induced to throw in his lot with the Irish Church? We shall
see in a moment.
Much business was transacted at this Synod. But that which concerns us
most nearly is the giving of the palls. Cardinal Paparo brought the
Irish bishops more than they had asked for; more indeed than they
desired. He presented, not two palls but four, Dublin and Tuam, as well
as Armagh and Cashel, being recognized as archiepiscopal sees. This
excessive generosity caused much displeasure among the Irish bishops.
"For Ireland," says Keating, apparently paraphrasing the Annals of
Clonenagh, "thought it enough to have a pall in the church of Armagh
and a pall in Cashel; and particularly it was in spite of the church of
Armagh and the church of Down that the other palls were given." The
cause of this discontent is not far to seek. The chief gravamen no doubt
was that Dublin was included among the four. The constant friction which
had subsisted for many years between the diocese of Dublin and the Irish
Church sufficiently explains the indignation of the archbishop of
Armagh, aggravated by the fact that the creation of new archbishops
imposed a limit upon his authority. It also enables us to understand why
his displeasure was shared by the Irish generally. That a see whose
bishops had behaved so haughtily in the past should, at the very moment
of its entrance into the Irish Church, receive so signal an honour, long
denied to Armagh and Cashel, and that in the person of its bishop it
should be given jurisdiction over bishops whom till now it had treated
with contempt, could not but be regarded as unreasonable, or even
insulting. But on the other hand, recalling the early history of the
Church in Dublin, we can comprehend why, in spite of all this, special
favour was bestowed upon it. Dublin, as we have seen, was a not too
submissive suffragan of Canterbury. Its ambition was that its bishop
should have the status of a metropolitan. The opportunity had come for
gratifying its desire, and at the same time bringing it under the Irish
ecclesiastical régime. The pall at once separated it from Canterbury and
united it with Ireland. It was the price paid for its submission to the
Primacy of Armagh. Gregory therefore became archbishop of Dublin, and
had the right—which his predecessor had long before illegally
assumed—to have the cross carried before him. With the gift of the pall
Paparo bestowed upon him "the principal part of the bishopric of
Glendalough as his diocese," promising him the remainder on the death of
the bishop who then ruled it. All this was done, we are told, because it
was fitting that the place "in which from ancient time had been the
royal seat and head of Ireland," should be made a metropolitan see.See Letter of Pope Innocent III. to Henry of London, 6
Oct. 1216, in Crede Mihi (ed. Gilbert), p. 11.
There was at last one Church in Ireland, which embraced within it not
only the Celtic parts of the island, but all the Danish dioceses as
well. And the whole Church was ruled by the bishops. The Reformation may
not have been complete in every detail—there was indeed much left for
the Anglo-Normans to do—but the Synod of Kells had set the crown on the
work of the Irish reformers. And this consummation was mainly due to the
wisdom and the untiring zeal of St. Malachy of Armagh.
A few words more will suffice to complete this too lengthy
introduction. The Life of Malachy was certainly written before the
Synod of Kells met in March 1152; for Christian, who attended the Synod
as bishop of Lismore, is spoken of in the Life as abbot of
Mellifont.§§ 14, 52. Its earliest possible date is a couple of months after
Malachy's death. The ignorance displayed in § 69See p. 122, note 1. of the movements of
the Pope in 1148 is so inexplicable on the assumption of a later date
that it may be assigned to January 1149.Cp. R.I.A. xxxv. 258 ff. This conclusion is corroborated
by Tundale's Vision, which seems to have been written early in 1149 (see
Friedel and Meyer, La Vision de Tondale, 1907, pp. vi-xii; Rev.
Celt. xxviii. 411). The writer speaks of the Life of Malachy as
already written, and in course of transcription (Tundale, p. 5, 'cuius
uitam ... Bernhardus ... transscribit'). He may have derived his
erroneous statement (ibid.) that Pope Eugenius went to Rome in the
year of Malachy's death from St. Bernard: see p. 122, note 1. In the following
translation the text printed by de BackerAA.SS., Nov., xii. 1., 143-146. is used, with the
exception of a few sentences which have been emended. It does not differ
to any great extent from that of Mabillon.Sancti Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-vallensis Opera Omnia, ed.
J. Mabillon, 1839, vol. i. 2, cols. 1465-1524. Reprinted P.L. clxxxii.
1073-1118. Following de Backer I
have divided the text into chapters, in accordance with the MSS.; but
Mabillon's sections have been retained, as more convenient for
reference, the numbers of de Backer's sections being added within
brackets.
By way of illustration four letters of St. Bernard and his two sermons
on St. Malachy have been added. They are translated from Mabillon's
edition,Op. cit. i. 2, 2221-2231; i. 1, 341, 356, 357, 374;
reprinted in P.L. clxxxiii. 481-490; clxxxii. 545 f., 558 f., 579 f. with some corrections. The dates of these documents are
discussed below.See notes on pp. 131, 133 f., 137, 141, 157.
St. Bernard's numerous quotations from the Bible and other sources are
printed in italics, so far as I have recognized them. The scriptural
allusions are given as nearly as possible in the words of the Authorized
(in the Apocryphal books the Revised) Version, though at times they do
not agree with the Vulgate Latin. Where it has been found necessary to
depart from their renderings, the symbol "vg." follows the references in
the footnotes.
I desire to make grateful acknowledgement of help received from my
friends, of whom I must specially mention Dr. L. C. Purser, Senior
Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, Mr. R. I. Best, the Rev. J. E. L.
Oulton, the Rev. Dr. J. M. Harden and the Rev. Canon C. P. Price. My
wife assisted me in the preparation of the index.
St. Patrick's Day, 1920.
THE LIFE OF ST. MALACHY
PREFACE
1. It is indeed always worth while to portray the illustrious lives of
the saints, that they may serve as a mirror and an example, and give, as
it were, a relish to the life of men on earth. For by this means in some
sort they live among us, even after death,Ecclus. xlviii. 12 (vg.). and many of those
who are dead while they live1 Tim. v. 6. Cp. Rev. iii. 1. are challenged and recalled by them
to true life. But now especially is there need for it because holiness
is rare, and it is plain that our age is lacking in men. So greatly, in
truth, do we perceive that lack to have increased in our day that none
can doubt that we are smitten by that saying, Because iniquity shall
abound the love of many shall wax cold;Matt. xxiv. 12. and, as I suppose, he has
come or is at hand of whom it is written, Want shall go before his
face.Job xli. 22 (vg.). If I mistake not, Antichrist is he whom famine and sterility
of all good both precedes and accompanies. Whether therefore it is the
herald of one now present or the harbinger of one who shall come
immediately, the want is evident. I speak not of the crowd, I speak
not of the vile multitude of the children of this world:Luke xvi. 8. I would
have you lift up your eyes upon the very pillarsGal. ii. 9. of the Church.
Whom can you show me, even of the number of those who seem to be given
for a light to the Gentiles,Isa. xlix. 6. that in his lofty station is not
rather a smoking wick than a blazing lamp? And, says One, if the light
that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!Matt. vi. 23. Unless
perchance, which I do not believe, you will say that they shine who
suppose that gain is godliness;1 Tim. vi. 5. who in the Lord's inheritance
seek not the things which are the Lord's, but rather their own.Phil. ii. 21; 1 Cor. xiii. 5.
Why do I say their own? He would be perfect and holy, even while he
seeks his own and retains his own, who should restrain his heart and
hands from the things of others. But let him remember, who seems to
himself to have advanced perhaps thus far, that the same degree of
holiness is demanded even of a gentile.Cp. Matt. v. 47. Are not soldiers bidden
to be content with their wages that they may be saved?Luke iii. 14. But it is
a great thing for a doctor of the Church if he be as one of the
soldiers; or, if, in truth (as the prophet speaks to their reproach),
it be as with the people so with the priest.Isa. xxiv. 2; Hos. iv. 9 (inexact quotation). Hideous! Is it so
indeed? Is he rightly to be esteemed highest who, falling from the
highest rank can scarce cleave to the lowest, that he be not engulfed in
the abyss? Yet how rare is even such a man among the clergy! Whom,
likewise, do you give me who is content with necessaries, who despises
superfluities? Yet the law has been enjoined beforehand by the Apostles
on the successors of the Apostles, Having food and raiment, let us
be therewith content.1 Tim. vi. 8 (inexact quotation). Where is this rule? We see it in books, but
not in men. But you have [the saying] about the righteous man, that the
law of his God is in his heart,Ps. xxxvii. 31. not in a codex. Nor is that the
standard of perfection. The perfect man is ready to forgo even
necessaries. But that is beside the mark.Gratis. Would that some limit
were set on superfluous things! Would that our desires were not
infinite! But what? Perhaps you might find one who can achieve this. It
would indeed be difficult; but [if we find him] see what we have done.
We were seeking for a very good man, a deliverer of many; and lo, we
have labour to discover one who can save himself. The very good man
to-day is one who is not utterly bad.
2. Wherefore, since the godly man has ceasedPs. xii. 1. from the earth, it
seems to me that I do not employ myself to no purpose when I recall to
our midst, from among those who were redeemed from the earth,Rev. xiv. 3.
Bishop Malachy, a man truly holy, and a man, too, of our own time, of
singular wisdom and virtue. He was a burning and a shining light;John v. 35.
and it has not been quenched, but only removed. Who would with good
right be angry with me if I move it back again? Yes indeed, neither the
men of my own age, nor any succeeding generation should be wanting in
gratitude to me if by my pen I recall one whom the course of nature has
borne away; if I restore to the world one of whom the world was not
worthy;Heb. xi. 38. if I preserve for the memory of men one whose memory may
be blessedEcclus. xlv. 1. to all who shall deign to read; if while I rouse my
sleeping friend, the voice of the turtle be heard in our landCant. ii. 12. For the meaning compare Cant. lix. 3: The
voice of the turtle "is a sign that winter is past, proclaiming
nevertheless that the time of pruning has come.... The voice, more like
one who groans than one who sings, admonishes us of our pilgrimage."
After Eugenius III. had visited Clairvaux St. Bernard wrote, "The voice
of the turtle has been heard in our chapter. We had great joy and
delight." (Ep. 273.)
saying, Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.Matt. xxviii. 20.
Then again, he was buried among us;That is, at Clairvaux. See § 75. this duty is eminently ours.
Nay, is it not mine, inasmuch as that holy man included me among his
special friends, and in such regard that I may believe that I was second
to none in that respect of glory?Apparently a confused reference to 2 Cor. iii. 10; xi. 17
(vg.). Nor do I find that intercourse
with holiness so eminent misses its reward; I have already received the
first-fruits. He was near the end; nay, rather, near the beginning,
according to the saying, when a man hath finished then is he but at the
beginning.Ecclus. xviii. 7 (inexact quotation). I ran to him that the blessing of him that was ready
to die might come upon me.Job xxix. 13. Already he could not move his other
limbs; but, mighty to give blessing, he raised his hands upon my head
and blessed me.See § 73, end. I have inherited the blessing;1 Pet. iii. 9. how then can
I be silent about him? Finally, you enjoin me to undertake this task,
Abbot Congan,This abbot, to whom the Life is dedicated, belonged to
the Cistercian Order, as the words "reverend brother" imply. He may
therefore be identified with Congan, abbot of the Cistercian monastery
of the Suir, mentioned in § 64. That he was personally known to St.
Bernard is clear; and it is probable that he was one of the Irishmen who
by Malachy's desire were instructed at Clairvaux (§ 39). Thady Dowling
(Annals, s.a. 1147) identifies him with "Cogganus," abbot of
Killeshin, near Carlow, stating on the authority of Nicholas Maguire
that he wrote the gesta of Malachy and Bernard. Though this statement
is probably not accurate, it is possible that our Congan was abbot of
Killeshin before he became a Cistercian. my reverend brother and sweet friend, and with you
also (as you write from Ireland) all that Church of the saintsEcclus. xxxi. 11 (vg.).
to which you belong.Vestra illa omnis ecclesia sanctorum. We should perhaps
render, "the whole church of holy persons over which you preside,"
i.e. Congan's convent. Elsewhere in the Life, ecclesia is used for
a local community, such as the church of Armagh (§ 20, etc). But see
Serm. i. § 3. Vacandard understands the phrase to mean "the Cistercian
communities of Ireland" (R.Q.H. lii. 48). I obey with a will, the more so because you
ask not panegyric but narrative. I shall endeavour that it may be
chaste and clear, informing the devout, and not wearying the fastidious.
At any rate the truth of my narrative is assured, since it has been
communicated by you;Vobis (pl.); i.e. Congan and others in Ireland. and beyond doubt you assert nothing but things
of which you have most certain information.
Here ends the Prologue.
Here begins the life of Malachy the Bishop
CHAPTER I
The early life of Malachy. Having been admitted to Holy Orders he
associates with Malchus
1095.
1. Our Malachy, born in Ireland,Malachy was born in 1095, before November. See below, p.
130. n. 2. of a barbarous people, was brought
up there, and there received his education. But from the barbarism of
his birth he contracted no taint, any more than the fishes of the sea
from their native salt. But how delightful to reflect, that uncultured
barbarism should have produced for us so worthyUrbanum, citizen-like. a fellow-citizen
with the saints and member of the household of God.Eph. ii. 19. He who brings
honey out of the rock and oil out of the flinty rockDeut. xxxii. 13. Himself did
this. His parents,A.T. make the curious statement that "Mael Maedoc o
Mongair and his father Mughron" died in 1102. This is perhaps sufficient
evidence that Malachy's father was Mughron Ua Morgair, who according to
A.U. was ard fer légind (chief professor) at Armagh, and died at
Mungret, Co. Limerick, on October 5, 1102. Malachy was then only seven
or eight years of age. Thus we may account for the large part taken by
his mother in his early education. But a poem attributed to Malachy
(L.B. 88) calls his father Dermot. The form of the surname varies. It
is usually written Ua Morgair; but A.T., A.I. (Ua Mongain), L.B.
(l.c.), and the Yellow Book of Lecan (T.C.D. ms. H. 2. 16, p. 327 c),
have Ua Mongair. The form Ua Morgair is certainly right, for it appears
in the contemporary Book of Leinster (R.I.A. xxxv. 355-360); and Ua
Mongair obviously arose out of it through confusion of the similar
letters r and n. The name must have been unfamiliar, if it had not
died out, when the mistake was made. Therefore we may accept Colgan's
statement that the family was known as O'Dogherty in his day (Trias,
p. 299). If so, they had probably only resumed an earlier surname: for
according to MacFirbis (Royal Irish Academy ms. 23 P. 1, p. 698) Malachy
was of the same stock as St. Mael Brigte, son of Tornan. The latter, as
well as the O'Doghertys, were of the race of Conall Gulban (Adamnan,
Genealogy opp. p. 342). however, were great
both by descent and in
power, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.2 Sam. vii. 9.
Moreover his mother,It is interesting to note the emphasis laid by St.
Bernard on the influence of Malachy's mother on his life. How much he
himself owed to his mother Aleth is well known. See V.P. i. 1, 2, 9,
10. Malachy's mother was probably a member of the family of O'Hanratty.
See below, p. 27, n. 2. more noble in mind than in blood, took pains,
in the very beginning of his ways,Prov. viii. 22. to show to her child the
ways of life,Ps. xvi. 11. esteeming this knowledge of more value to him than
the empty knowledge of the learning of this world. For both, however, he
had aptitude in proportion to his age. In the schools he was taught
learning, at home the fear of the Lord,Ps. xxxiv. 11. and by daily progress he
duly responded to both teacher and mother.The description of Malachy's boyhood by St. Bernard may
be compared with that given of his own boyhood in V.P. i. 3. It was
written before the Life of Malachy. For indeed he was
endowed from the first with a good spirit,Neh. ix. 20; Ps. cxliii. 10. in virtue of which he
was a docile boy and very lovable, wonderfully gracious to all in all
things. But he was [now] drinking, instead of milk from the breast of a
mother, the waters of saving wisdom,Ecclus. xv. 2, 3 (vg.). and day by day he was
increasing in discretion. In discretion, shall I say, or in holiness? If
I say both, I shall not regret it, for I should say the truth.2 Cor. xii. 6. He
behaved as an old man, a boy in years without a boy's playfulness. And
when because of this he was regarded with reverence and astonishment by
all, he was not found on that account, as commonly happens, more
arrogant, but rather quiet and subdued in all meekness.Eph. iv. 2. Not
impatient of rule, not shunning discipline, not averse from reading,
not, therefore, eager for games—so especially dear to the heart of boys
of that age. And he advanced beyond all of his own ageGal. i. 14. in that
learning, at least, which suited his years. For in discipline of morals
and advance in virtues in a short time he even outshone all his
instructors.Ps. cxix. 99. His unction,1 John ii. 20. however, rather than his mother,
was his teacher. Urged by it he exercised himself not slothfully also in
divine things, to seek solitude, to anticipate vigils,Ps. lxxvii. 4 (vg.). to
meditate in the law,Ps. i. 2. to eat sparingly, to pray frequently, and
(because on account of his studies he had not leisure to frequent the
church, and from modesty would not) to lift up holy hands
everywhere1 Tim. ii. 8. to heaven; but only where it could be done
secretly—for already he was careful to avoid vainglory, that poison of
virtues.Virus uirtutum.
2. There is a hamlet near the city in which the boy studied,Armagh. See § 4.
whither his teacher was wont to go often, accompanied by him alone. When
they were going there both together, as he related afterwards, he would
step back, stop a moment,Cp. Virg. Aen. vi. 465. and standing behind his teacher, when
he was not aware of it, spread forth his hands toward heaven,1 Kings viii. 22, 54. and
quickly send forth a prayer, as if it were a dart; and, thus
dissembling, once more would follow the teacher. By such a pious trick
the boy often deceived him who was his companion as well as teacher. It
is not possible to mention all the qualities which adorned his earlier
years with the hue of a good natural disposition; we must hasten to
greater and more useful matters. One further incident, however, I
relate because, in my judgement, it yielded a sign, not only of good,
but also of great hope in the boy. Roused once on a time by the
reputation of a certain teacher, famous in the studies which are called
liberal, he went to him desiring to learn. For indeed he was now
grasping after the last opportunities of boyhood, and was longing
eagerly for such learning. But when he went into the house he saw the
man playing with an awl, and with rapid strokes making furrows in the
wall in some strange fashion. And shocked at the bare sight, because it
smacked of levity, the serious boy dashed away from him, and did not
care even to see him from that time forward. Thus, though an avid
student of letters, as a lover of virtue he esteemed them lightly in
comparison with that which was becoming. By such preliminary exercises
the boy was being prepared for the conflict which awaited him in more
advancedFortiori. age; and already in his own person he was challenging the
adversary. Such, then, was the boyhood of Malachy. Moreover he passed
through his adolescence with like simplicity and purity; except that as
years increased, there increased also for him wisdom and favour
with God and man.Luke ii. 40, 52.
3. From this time, that is, from his early adolescence, what was in the
manJohn ii. 25. began to appear more plainly, and it came to be seen that the
grace of God which was in him was not in vain.1 Cor. xv. 10. For the
industrious young man,1 Kings xi. 28. seeing how the world lieth in
wickedness,1 John v. 19. and considering what sort of spirit he had received,
said within himself, "It is not the spirit of this world.1 Cor. ii. 12. What
have the two in common?Cp. John ii. 4 (vg.). One has no communion with the other any
more than light with darkness.2 Cor. vi. 14. But my spirit
is of God, and I
know the things that are freely given me1 Cor. ii. 12. in it. From it I have
innocence of life till now, from it the ornament of continence, from it
hunger for righteousness,Cp. Matt. v. 6. from it also that glory of mine, by
so much more secure because it is more secret, the testimony of my
conscience.2 Cor. i. 12 (vg.). None of these is safe for me under the prince of this
world.John xiv. 30, etc. Then, I have this treasure in an earthen vessel.2 Cor. iv. 7. I
must take heed lest it should strike against something and be broken,
and the oil of gladnessPs. xlv. 7. which I carry be poured out. And in truth
it is most difficult not to strike against something amid the stones
and rocks of this crooked and winding way and life.Collect of Mass for Travellers. Must I thus
in a moment lose together all the blessings of goodness with which I
have been preventedPs. xxi. 3. from the beginning? Rather do I resign them,
and myself with them, to Him from whom they come. Yea, and I am His. I
lose my very soulMatt. x. 39. for a time that I may not lose it for ever.
And what I am and all that I have, where can they be as safe as in the
hand of their Author? Who so concerned to preserve, so powerful to hold,
so faithful to restore? He will preserve in safety. He will restore in
good time. Without hesitation I give myself to serve Him by His gifts. I
cannot lose aught of all that I spend on my labour of piety. Perchance I
may even hope for some greater boon. He who gives freely is wont to
repay with usury. So it is. He will even heap up and increase virtue in
my soul."Ps. cxxxviii. 3 (vg.).
So he thought—and did; knowing that apart from deeds the thoughts of
man are vanity.Ps. xciv. 11.
c. 1112.
4. (3) There was a man in the city of Armagh,His name was Imar (§ 5). He was no doubt Imar O'Hagan,
who founded the monastery of St. Paul and St. Peter at Armagh, and built
a stone church for it which was consecrated on October 21, 1126. It was
placed, either at its foundation or subsequently, under the rule of the
regular canons of St. Augustine. Imar died on pilgrimage at Rome in
1134, and is commemorated in Gorman on August 13, and in Usuard on
November 12. He was at this time evidently leading the life of an
anchoret. Reeves (Churches, p. 28) inferred from his Christian name
that he had some Danish blood in his veins. There is no certain
indication of Malachy's age when he became his disciple. But he had
reached adolescence (§ 3), and was old enough to choose his own teachers
(§ 2). In 1112 he was seventeen years of age. We shall see that he long
acknowledged Imar as his master: §§ 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16. where Malachy was
brought up—a holy man and of great austerity of life, a pitiless
castigator of his body,1 Cor. ix. 27 (vg.). who had a cell near the church.That is, apparently, the great stone church (daimliac
mór), on which Cellach put a shingle roof in 1125. According to Reeves
(Churches, pp. 14, 28) it was probably on the site of the present
Cathedral, from which the Abbey of St. Paul and St. Peter was distant
130 yards to the north. It was the principal church of Armagh till 1268.
For an account of the life of such recluses as Imar the reader may be
referred to B. MacCarthy, Codex Palatino-Vaticanus No. 830, p. 5 f. In
it he abode, serving God with fastings and prayers day and night.Luke ii. 37.
To this man Malachy betook himself to receive a ruleFormam. The word, as used by St. Bernard, seems to
include the two notions of rule and example. It would seem that Malachy
received some sort of monastic rule from Imar. Cp. § 7, "his monastery,"
and the reference to "the first day of his conversion" in § 43. Both
passages imply that he belonged to a religious order. So in § 5 he is
said to have been before the other disciples of Imar "in conversion." On
later occasions he was subject to Imar's "command" (§§ 14, 16). It is
not improbable that the disciples who gathered round Imar were the
nucleus of the community which he founded at Armagh (note 1). If so, the
inference is reasonable that Malachy became a regular canon of St.
Augustine. of life from
him, who had condemned himself while alive to such sepulture. And note
his humility. From his earliest age he had had God as his teacher—there
is no doubt of it—in the art of holiness; and behold, he became once
more the disciple of a man, himself a man meek and lowly in
heart.Matt. xi. 29. If we did not know it, by this one deed he himself gave us
proof of it. Let them read this who attempt to teach what they have not
learned, heaping to themselves disciples,Cp. 2 Tim. iv. 3. though they have never
been disciples, blind leaders of the blind.Matt. xv. 14. Malachy, taught of
God,Isa. liv. 13; John vi. 45. none the less sought a man to be his teacher, and that
carefully and wisely. By what better method, I ask, could he both give
and receive a proof of his progress? If the example of Malachy is for
them a very small thing,1 Cor. iv. 3. let them consider the action of Paul.
Did not he judge that his Gospel, though he had not received it of
man but from Christ,Gal. i. 11, 12. should be discussed with men, lest by
any means he was running or had run in vain?Gal. ii. 2. Where he was not
confident, neither am I. If any one be thus confidentPrinted text, hoc scit. I read sit with K (hec
sit), and two of de Backer's MSS. let him take
heed lest it be not so much confidence as rashness. But these matters
belong to another time.
5. Now, however, the rumour of what had happened went through the city,
and it was universally stirred by this new and unexpected event. All
were amazed, and wondered at his virtue, all the more because it was
unusual in a rude people. You would see that then thoughts were being
revealed out of the hearts of many.Luke ii. 35. The majority, considering the
act from a human standpoint, were lamenting and grieving that a youth
who was an object of love and delight to all had given himself up to
such severe labours. Others, suspecting lightness on account of his
age, doubted whether he would persevere, and feared a fall. Some,
accusing him of rashness, were in fact highly indignant with him because
he had undertaken a difficult task, beyond his age and strength, without
consulting them. But without counsel he did nothing; for he had counsel
from the prophet who says, It is good for a man that he bear the yoke
in his youth, and adds, He sitteth alone and keepeth silence because
he hath borne it upon him.Lam. iii. 27, 28 (inexact quotation). The youth sat at the feet of Imar (for
that was the man's name) and either learned obedienceHeb. v. 8. or showed
that he had learnt it. He sat as one that was at rest, as meek, as
humble. He sat and kept silence,The rule of silence was very strictly observed by the
Cistercians. This explains the stress laid by St. Bernard, here and
elsewhere, on Malachy's practice. Cp. the Preface of Philip of Clairvaux
to V.P. vi.: "In truth I have learned nothing that can more
effectively deserve the riches of the grace of the Lord than to sit and
be silent, and always to condescend to men of low estate." knowing, as the prophet says,
that silence is the ornament of righteousness.Isa. xxxii. 17 (vg.). He sat as one
that perseveres, he was silent as one that is modest, except that by
that silence of his he was speaking, with holy David, in the ears of
God: I am a youth and despised, yet do not I forget thy precepts.Ps. cxix. 141 (vg.).
And for a time he sat alone, because he had neither companion nor
example; for who before Malachy even thought of attempting the most
severe discipline inculcated by the man? It was held by all indeed to be
wonderful, but not imitable. Malachy showed that it was imitable by the
mere act of sitting and keeping silence. In a few days he had imitators
not a few, stirred by his example. So he who at first sat aloneLam. iii. 28.
and the only son of his father, became now one of many, from being the
only-begottenJohn i. 14, 18. became the firstborn among many brethren.Rom. viii. 29. And
as he was before them in conversion,The technical word for entry into a religious order. so was he more sublime than
they in conversation; and he who came before all, in the judgement of
all was eminent above all in virtue. And he seemed both to his
bishopCellach, archbishop of Armagh (§ 19), son of Aedh, and
grandson of Maelisa, who was abbot of Armagh 1064-1091. He was born
early in 1080. Of his childhood and youth we know nothing, for the
statement of Meredith Hanmer (Chron. of Ireland (1633), p. 101) that
he is said to have been "brought up at Oxford" is probably as inaccurate
as other assertions which he makes about him. Cellach was elected abbot
of Armagh in August, 1105, and in the following month (September 23) he
received Holy Orders. In 1106, while engaged on a visitation of Munster,
he was consecrated bishop. Thus he departed from the precedent set by
his eight predecessors, who were without orders (§ 19). He was one of
the leaders of the Romanizing party in Ireland, and attended the Synod
of Rathbreasail in 1110 (Keating, iii. 307). He died in his fiftieth
year, at Ardpatrick, in co. Limerick, on April 1, 1129, and was buried
on April 4 at Lismore. These facts are mainly gathered from the Annals.
For more about Cellach, see p. xxxiv. and to his teacher,Imar. See above p. 11, n. 1. worthy to be promoted to the degree
of deacon. And they constrained him.Luke xxiv. 29.—Malachy can hardly have been more, he was
probably less, than twenty-three years of age at this time. See p. 16,
n. 2.
6. (4) From this time onwards the LeviteI.e. deacon. of the Lord publicly
girded himself to every work of piety, but more especially to those
things in which there seemed some indignity. In fact it was his greatest
care to attend to the burial of the dead poor,It does not appear that deacons as such were specially
concerned with the burial of the dead. The present passage, indeed,
implies the contrary. Malachy was made deacon against his will; his care
for the dead poor is mentioned as a work of piety, voluntarily
superadded to the duties of his office. His sister (see below) would
have been unlikely to ask him to abandon a practice which he could not
decline. But there was ancient precedent for a deacon engaging in such
work, of which Malachy may have been aware. At Alexandria throughout the
persecution of Valerian, one of the deacons, Eusebius by name, not
without danger to himself, prepared for burial the bodies of "the
perfect and blessed martyrs" (Eus., H.E. vii. 11. 24). because that
savoured not less of humility than of humanity. Nor did temptation
fail to test our modern Tobit,Tobiae. The Greek of the Book of Tobit, followed by the
English versions, calls the father Tobit, and the son Tobias; the
Vulgate calls both Tobias. The text of chap. ii. is longer in the
Vulgate than in the Greek and English, and neither of the verses (Vulg.
12, 23) from which St. Bernard here borrows words is represented in the
latter. and, as in the old story, it came
from a woman,Tobit ii. 12 (vg.). or rather from the serpent through a woman.Cp. Gen. iii. 12 f. His
sister,She is mentioned again in § 11. abhorring the indignity (as it seemed to her) of his
office, said: "What are you doing, madman? Let the dead bury their
dead."Matt. viii. 22. And she attacked him daily with this reproach.Tobit ii. 23 (vg.). But
he answered the foolish woman according to her folly,Prov. xxvi. 5. "Wretched
woman, you preserve the sound of the pure word,Ps. xii. 6. but you are
ignorant of its force." So he maintained with devotion, and exercised
unweariedly the ministry which he had undertaken under compulsion. 1119(?)For
that reason also theyCellach and Imar. deemed that the office of the priesthood
should be conferred upon him. And this was done. But when he was
ordained priest he was about twenty-five years old.Malachy completed his twenty-fifth year in 1120. See p.
130, n. 2. For the date of his ordination to the priesthood see p. 16,
n. 2. And if in both
his ordinations the rule of the Canons seems to have been somewhat
disregarded—as indeed does seem to have been the case, for he received
the Levitical ministry before his twenty-fifth, and the dignity of the
priesthood before his thirtieth yearFor the canons of councils which regulated the minimum
age of deacons and priests reference may be made to the article "Orders,
Holy," by the late Dr. Edwin Hatch in the Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 1482 f. From a very early date they were
respectively twenty-five and thirty years, in accordance with the
statement of the text, though there were some exceptions in remote
places. The eighth-century Irish Canons, known as the Hibernensis,
prescribe the same minimum ages for the diaconate and presbyterate, and
add a clause, the gist of which seems to be that a bishop at the time of
his consecration must be thirty or forty years of age (Wasserschleben,
Irische Kanonesammlung, 1885, p. 8). As late as the year 1089, at the
Council of Melfi, presided over by Pope Urban II., it was decreed (can.
5, Mansi, xx. 723) that none should be admitted deacon under twenty-four
or twenty-five years of age, or priest under thirty. But at the Council
of Ravenna, 1315 (can. 2, ibid. xxv. 537), the ages were lowered to
twenty and twenty-five respectively.—it may well be
ascribed to
the zeal of the ordainer and the merits of him who was ordained.Cellach would hardly have understood the need for this
apology. It is more than probable that he was ignorant of the canons
referred to. He himself was ordained, apparently to the priesthood, in
1105, when he was under twenty-six, and consecrated bishop in 1106, when
he was under twenty-seven years of age. St. Bernard himself seems to
have been ordained priest when he was about twenty-five years old
(Vacandard, i. 67).
But for my part, I consider that such irregularity should neither be
condemned in the case of a saint, nor deliberately claimed by him who is
not a saint. 1120.Not content with this the bishop also committed to him his
own authorityIn other words he made him his vicar. This may well have
been in 1120; for the Annals record that in that year Cellach made a
visitation of Munster. It was quite natural that during a prolonged
absence from his see he should leave its administration in the hands of
one who had proved himself so capable as Malachy. And we shall see that
this date harmonizes with other chronological data. If, then, we place
the beginning of Malachy's vicariate in 1120, his ordination as priest,
which appears to have been not much earlier, may be dated in 1119, when
he was "about twenty-five years of age," i.e. probably soon after his
twenty-fourth birthday. His admission to the diaconate may be placed at
least a year earlier, i.e. in 1118. Indeed, if we could be sure that
in Ireland the normal interval between admission to the diaconate and to
the priesthood was at all as long as in other countries we might put it
further back. to sow the holy seedLuke viii. 5. in a nation which was
not holy,1 Pet. ii. 9. and to give to a people rude and living without
law,Rom. ii. 12. the law of life and of discipline. He received the command
with all alacrity, even as he was fervent in spirit,Rom. xii. 11. not
hoarding up his talents, but eager for profit from them.Cp. Matt. xxv. 24 ff. And
behold he began to root out with the hoe of the tongue, to destroy,
to scatter,Jer. i. 10 (vg.). day by day making the crooked straight and the rough
places plain.Isa. xl. 4. He rejoiced as a giant to run everywhere.Ps. xix. 5. You
might call him a consuming fire burning the briers of crimes.Cp. Isa. x. 17.
You might call him an axe or a mattock casting downPs. lxxiv. 6 (vg.). evil
plantings.Cp. Ignatius, Trall. 11. He extirpated barbaric rites, he planted those of the
Church. All out-worn superstitions (for not a few of them were
discovered) he abolished, and, wheresoever he found it, every sort of
malign influence sent by evil angels.Ps. lxxviii. 49 (vg.: inexact quotation).
7. In fine whatsoever came to his notice which was irregular or
unbecoming or perverse his eye did not spare;Ezek. v. 11, etc. but as the hail
scatters the untimely figs from the fig-trees,Cp. Rev. vi. 13. and as the wind
the dust from the face of the earth,Ps. i. 4 (vg.). so did he strive with all his
might to drive out before his face and destroy entirely such things from
his people. And in place of all these the most excellent legislator
delivered the heavenly laws. He made regulations full of righteousness,
full of moderation and integrity. Moreover in all churches he ordained
the apostolic sanctions and the decrees of the holy fathers, and
especially the customs of the holy Roman Church.Malachy acted in accordance with the aims of Gilbert,
bishop of Limerick, who about the year 1108, wrote these words (De Usu
Ecclesiastico, in Ussher, 500): "I have endeavoured to describe the
canonical custom in saying the hours and performing the office of the
whole ecclesiastical order ... to the end that the various and
schismatical orders, with which almost the whole of Ireland has been
deluded, may give place to the one Catholic and Roman office." Hence it is that
to this day there is chanting and psalmody in them at the canonical
hours after the fashion of the whole world. For there was no such thing
before, not even in the city.Armagh. He, however, had learnt singing in
his youth, and soon he introduced song into his monastery,This was probably the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul.
See p. 11, n. 5. J. de Backer's suggestion (AA.SS., Nov. ii. 1, p.
147), that "his monastery" was Bangor is negatived by the whole context,
which refers only to Armagh. while as
yet none in the city, nor in the whole bishopric, could or would sing.
Then Malachy instituted anewThe word "anew" (de nouo) seems to indicate St.
Bernard's belief that it was only in comparatively recent times that the
usages to which he refers had fallen into desuetude. the most wholesome usage of
Confession,It is interesting to observe that Confession is here not
ranked as a sacrament. the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Marriage
contract—of all of which they were either ignorant or negligent.For the statements in this section see Additional Note
A.
And let these serve as an example of the rest, for [here] and through
the whole course of the history we omit much for the sake of brevity.
8. (5). Since he had a desire and a very great zeal for the honouring of
the divine offices and the veneration of the sacraments, lest by chance
he might ordain or teach anything concerning these matters otherwise
than that which was in accordance with the rite of the universal Church,
it came into his mind to visit Bishop Malchus,Mael Isa Ua hAinmire, who is always called Malchus in
Latin documents, though a native of Ireland, had been a monk of
Winchester, as we are here told. He was elected first bishop of the
Danish colony of Waterford in 1096, and was consecrated by Anselm,
assisted by the bishops of Chichester and Rochester, at Canterbury on
December 28, having previously made his profession of obedience to the
archbishop as one of his suffragans (Eadmer, p. 76 f.; Ussher, pp. 518,
565). He signed the Acts of the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1110 as
archbishop of Cashel (Keating, iii. 307). He had probably been
translated to that see shortly after its foundation in 1106 (see below,
p. 65, n. 4). The Synod of Rathbreasail enlarged the Danish diocese of
Waterford by adding to it an extensive non-Danish area, which included
the ancient religious site of Lismore, on which St. Carthach or Mochuta
had founded a community in the early part of the seventh century
(Lanigan, ii. 353). The Synod decreed that the see of this diocese
should be either at Lismore or at Waterford, apparently giving
preference to the former (see p. xlvii). It would seem that after
organizing the diocese of Cashel Malchus retired to his former "parish,"
just as at a later date Malachy retired from Armagh to Down (§ 31),
placing his see at Lismore. There, at any rate, he was established when
Malachy visited him, and there he died in 1135 "after the 88th year of
his pilgrimage" (A.F.M.). An attempt has been made to distinguish Mael
Isa Ua hAinmire from the Malchus of the text (Lanigan, iv. 74), but
without success. It is interesting to observe that both A.F.M. and
A.T. style him bishop of Waterford in the record of his death.
that he might give
him fuller information on all points. He was an old man, full of
daysGen. xxxv. 29; 1 Chron. xxiii. 1; Job xlii. 16.—Malchus
was in his 75th year when Malachy visited him in 1121. See preceding
note, and p. 20, n. 3. and virtues, and the wisdom of God was in him.1 Kings iii. 28. He was
of Irish nationality, but had lived in England in the habit and rule of
a monk in the monastery of Winchester, from which he was promoted to be
bishop in Lismore,An error for Waterford. It is explained by, and confirms,
the suggestion that Malchus transferred the see to Lismore. a city of Munster, and one of the noblest of the
cities of that kingdom. There so great grace was bestowed upon him from
above that he was illustrious, not only for life and doctrine, but also
for signs. Of these I set down two as examples, that it may be known to
all what sort of preceptor Malachy had in the knowledge of holy things.
He healed a boy, who was troubled with a mental disorder, one of those
who are called lunatics, in the act of confirming him with the holy
unction. This was so well known and certain that he soon made him porter
of his house, and the boy lived in good health in that office till he
reached manhood. He restored hearing to one who was deaf; in which
miracle the deaf person acknowledged a wonderful fact, that when the
saint put his fingers into his ears on either side he perceived that
two things like little pigs came out of them. For these and other such
deeds, his fame increased and he won a great name; so that ScotsThroughout the Life, Scotia is used, in its later
sense, for the country now called Scotland; and here the Scots are
evidently its inhabitants. But traces of earlier usage remain in § 14,
"a Scotic (i.e. Irish) work," § 61 "We are Scots," and § 72 where
Ireland is called "further Scotland" (ulterior Scotia).
and Irish flowed together to him and he was reverenced by all as the one
father of all.
1121
When therefore Malachy, having received the blessing of Father Imar, and
having been sent by the bishop,Cellach. Note Imar's share in the matter, and cp. p. 11,
n. 1. came to him, after a prosperous
journey, he was kindly received by the old man; and he remained with him
for some years,Malachy must have been the archbishop's vicar for a
considerable time if the account of his labours in that capacity (§ 7)
is not grossly exaggerated. Hence, if his vicariate began in 1119 or
1120 his departure for Lismore can hardly have been earlier than 1121;
and as he spent "some years" there before he was raised to the
episcopate (1124; see § 16), it cannot have been later. Samuel O'Hanley,
bishop of Dublin, died on July 4, 1121, and Cellach at once made an
attempt, which proved unsuccessful, to take possession of the vacant
see. Samuel's successor, Gregory, was duly elected, and was consecrated
at Lambeth on October 2. (O.C.C. p. 31; A.U. 1121; John of
Worcester, ed. J. H. R. Weaver, 1908, p. 16; Ussher, 532). It may have
been in August or September, on the return of Cellach from Dublin, that
Malachy was released from his office and went to Lismore. in order that by staying so long he might draw
fuller draughts from his aged breast, knowing that which is written,
With the ancient is wisdom.Job xii. 12. But I suppose that another cause of
his long sojourn was that the great Foreseer of all things would have
His servant Malachy become known to all in a place to which so many
resorted, since he was to be useful to all. For he could not but be dear
to those who knew him. In fact one thing happened in that period, by
which in some measure he made manifest to men what had been known to
God as being in him.
1127
9. A conflict having taken place between the king of South
MunsterI read rex australis Mumoniae, for rex Mumoniae in
the printed text, restoring the word australis from two of de Backer's
MSS. The king is said in § 18 to have been Cormac, i.e. Cormac Mac
Carthy, son of Teague Mac Carthy, who succeeded his father as king of
Desmond (South Munster) in 1124. He was never king of the whole of
Munster. That he went to Lismore in 1121 is very probable. For the
Annals tell us that in that year Turlough O'Conor, king of Connaught,
invaded Desmond, and "arrived at the termon of Lismore" (A.I. say that
he destroyed Lismore, which can hardly be true). What more likely than
that one of the sons of Teague, the reigning monarch of Desmond, should
fly before that formidable warrior to the sanctuary of Mochuta? But St.
Bernard errs in supposing that he was then king of Desmond. On Cormac,
see also p. 43, n. 5.—which is the southern part of Ireland—and his
brother,Donough Mac Carthy. See next note. There is a brief
notice of him in Tundale, p. 42. and the brother being victorious, the king, driven from
his kingdom, sought refuge with Bishop Malchus.That the narrative of this and the following section is
historical, but that St. Bernard has misplaced it, is proved by the
following extract from A.T. under the year 1127: "A hosting by
Toirdelbach, king of Ireland [really of Connaught], till he reached
Corcach, he himself on land and his fleet at sea going round to Corcach,
ravaging Munster by sea and by land so that he drove Cormac mac meic
Carthaig into Lismore in pilgrimage. And Toirdelbach divided Munster
into two parts, the southern half [Desmond] to Donnchad mac meic
Carthaig; and the northern half [Thomond] to Conchobar o Briain....
Cormac mac meic Carthaig came from his pilgrimage, and made an alliance
with Conchobar o Briain and with all the men of Muma, save those of
Tuathmuma. Donnchad mac meic Carthaig came from them—for he was not in
the alliance—with 2000 men."
The other Annals have notices to the same effect. These events occurred
in 1127, three years after Malachy returned from his long stay at
Lismore, and was made bishop of Connor (§ 16). If he had the part which
is ascribed to him in the restoration of Cormac, he must therefore have
paid two visits to Lismore, which St. Bernard has confounded. That he
was in the south of Ireland for a considerable time prior to 1129 will
appear later (p. 40, n. 2).
It was not,
however, in order that with his help he should recover the kingdom; but
rather the devout prince gave place unto wrathRom. xii. 19. and made
a virtue
of necessity,Necessitatem in uirtutem conuertit. Apparently a
proverbial expression. Cp. Quintilian Declam. iv. 10: "Faciamus potius
de fine remedium, de necessitate solatium"; Jer. Adv. Rufin. iii. 2:
"Habeo gratiam quod facis de necessitate uirtutem"; Ep. 54. 6
(Hilberg): "Arripe, quaeso, occasionem et fac de necessitate uirtutem."
Chaucer's "To maken vertu of necessitee" is well known (Knightes Tale,
3042, Squieres Tale, 593, Troilus and Criseyde, iv. 1586). choosing to lead a private life. And when the bishop
was preparing to receive the king with due honour, he declined it,
saying that he preferred to be as one of those poor brothers who
consorted with him, to lay aside his royal state, and to be content with
the common poverty, rather to await the will of God than to get back his
kingdom by force; and that he would not for his earthly honour shed
man's blood,Gen. ix. 6. since it would cry unto God against him from the
ground.Gen. iv. 10. When he heard this the bishop rejoiced greatly, and with
admiration for his devotion satisfied his desire. Why more? The king is
given a poor house for his dwelling, Malachy for his teacher, bread with
salt and water for his food. Moreover for dainties, the presence of
Malachy, his life and doctrine, were sufficient for the king; so that he
might say to him, How sweet are thy words unto my taste, yea, sweeter
than honey to my mouth.Ps. cxix. 103. Besides, every night he watered his couch
with his tears,Ps. vi. 6 (vg.). and also with a daily bath of cold water he
quenched the burning lust for evil in his flesh. And the king prayed in
the words of another king, Look upon my affliction and my pain; and
forgive all my sins.Ps. xxiv. 18. And God did not turn away his prayer nor His
mercy from him.Ps. lxvi. 20. And his supplication was heard,Ecclus. li. 11. although
otherwise than he had desired. For he was troubled about his soul; but
God, the avenger of innocence, willing to show men that there is a
remainder for the man of peace,Ps. xxxvii. 37 (vg.). was preparing meanwhile
to
execute a judgement for the oppressed,Ps. cxlvi. 7. which was utterly beyond
his hope. And God stirred up the spirit of a neighbouring king:2 Chron. xxxvi. 22.—Conor O'Brien. See p. 21, n. 3. It
appears from the last sentence of the passage there quoted that Donough
MacCarthy, to whom Turlough O'Conor had given the kingdom of Desmond,
had driven out O'Brien from Thomond. This explains the anxiety of the
latter to make alliance with Cormac. His action was less disinterested
than St. Bernard represents it.
for Ireland is not one kingdom, but is divided into many. This king
therefore seeing what had been done, was filled with wrath; and
indignant, on the one hand, at the freedom of the raiders and the
insolence of the proud, and on the other, pitying the desolation of the
kingdom and the downfall of the king, he went down to the cell of the
poor man; urged him to return, but did not succeed in persuading him. He
was instant, nevertheless, pledged himself to help him, assured him that
he need not doubt the result, promised that God would be with him, whom
all his adversaries would not be able to resist.Luke xxi. 15. He laid before
him also the oppression of the poor and the devastation of his country;
yet he prevailed not.
10. But when to these arguments were added the command of the
bishopMalchus. and the advice of Malachy—the two men on whom he wholly
depended—at length, with difficulty, he consented. A king followed a
king, and according to the word of the king,Judas Maccabæus. as was the will in
heaven,1 Macc. iii. 60. the marauders were driven out with absolute ease, and the
man was led back to his own, with great rejoicing of his people, and was
restored to his kingdom. From that time the king loved and always
reverenced Malachy; so much the more because he had learned more fully
in the holy man the things that were worthy of reverence and affection.
For he could not be ignorant of the holiness of him with whom he had
enjoyed so much intimacy in his adversity. Therefore he honoured him the
more in his prosperity with constant acts of friendship, and faithful
services, and he heard him gladly, and when he heard him did many
things.Mark vi. 20. But enough of this. Nevertheless I suppose it was not
without purpose that the Lord so magnified him then before kings,Ps. cxix. 46.
but he was a chosen vessel unto Him, about to bear His name before
kings and princes.Acts ix. 15.
CHAPTER II
Malachy's pity for his deceased sister. He restores the Monastery of
Bangor. His first Miracles.
11. (6). Meanwhile Malachy's sister, whom we mentioned before,See § 6. Malachy's sister is here said to have died while
he was at Lismore; but whether during his earlier or later visit to that
place cannot be determined.
died: and we must not pass over the visions which he saw about her. For
the saint indeed abhorred her carnal life, and with such intensity that
he vowed he would never see her alive in the flesh. But now that her
flesh was destroyed his vow was also destroyed, and he began to see in
spirit her whom in the body he would not see. One night he heard in a
dream the voice of one saying to him that his sister was standing
outside in the court, and that for thirty entire days she had tasted
nothing; and when he awoke he soon understood the sort of food for want
of which she was pining away. And when he had diligently considered the
number of days which he had heard, he discovered that it went back to
the time when he had ceased to offer the living bread from heavenJohn vi. 51.
for her. Then, since he hated not the soul of his sister but her sin, he
began again the good practice which he had abandoned. And not in vain.
Not long after she was seen by him to have come to the threshold of the
church, but to be not yet able to enter; she appeared also in dark
raiment. And when he persevered, taking care that on no single day she
should be disappointed of the accustomed gift, he saw her a second time
in whitish raiment, admitted indeed within the church, but not allowed
to approach the altar. At last she was seen, a third time, gathered in
the company of the white-robed, and in bright clothing.Acts x. 30. You see,
reader, how much the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth.Jas. v. 16. Truly the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the
violent take it by force.Matt. xi. 12. Does not the prayer of Malachy seem to
you to have played the part as it were of a housebreaker to the heavenly
gates, when a sinful woman obtained by the weapons of a brother what was
denied to her own merits? This violence, good Jesus, Thou who
sufferest dost exercise, strong and merciful to save,Cp. Isa. lxiii. 1. showing
mercy and strength with thine arm,Luke i. 51. and preserving it in thy
sacrament for the saints which are in the earth,Ps. xvi. 3. unto the end of
the world.Matt. xxviii. 20. Truly this sacrament is strong to consume sins,Ps vii. 9 (vg.).
to defeat opposing powers, to bring into heaven those who are returning
from the earth.
12. (7). The Lord, indeed, was so preparing His beloved Malachy in the
district of Lismore for the glory of His name. But those who had sent
him,Cellach and Imar (§ 8). tolerating his absence no longer, recalled him by letters.
When he was restored to his people,That is to Armagh. But see p. 36, n. 5. now better instructed in all
that was necessary, behold a work prepared and kept by GodEph. ii. 10 (vg.). for
Malachy. A rich and powerful man, who held the place of Bangor and its
possessions, by inspiration of God immediately placed in his hand all
that he had and himself as well.This person was apparently the coarb of Comgall, the
founder of Bangor. It would seem that he had been but a short time in
office, for Oengus O'Gorman, coarb of Comgall, died at Lismore in 1123
(A.U.), probably during Malachy's sojourn there. It is not impossible
that the unnamed coarb, mentioned in the text, was Murtough O'Hanratty,
who died at Armagh in 1131 (A.F.M.). The statement that he gave
"himself" to Malachy seems to mean that he placed himself under his rule
in the new community. And he was his mother's
brother.If the identification suggested in the preceding note is
correct, Malachy's mother belonged to the family of O'Hanratty, which in
the eleventh and twelfth centuries held the chieftaincy of Ui Méith
Macha or Ui Méith Tíre, now the barony of Monaghan, in the county of the
same name. But kinship of spirit was of more value to Malachy than
kinship of the flesh. The actual place also of Bangor, from which he
received his name,Cognominabatur. This verb occurs seventeen times in the
Vulgate, and almost always indicates a new or alternative name. In the
present passage it certainly applies, not to Malachy's baptismal name,
but to its Latin equivalent, Malachias, which he probably assumed when
he became abbot of Bangor, or bishop of Down. The remark that he
received it from Bangor is to be explained thus. A legend, which has a
place in Jocelin's Life of St. Patrick (§ 98) and is therefore at
least as old as the twelfth century, relates that Patrick, viewing the
valley in which the monastery of Comgall was afterwards constructed,
perceived that it was "filled with a multitude of the heavenly host."
From this story, no doubt, came the name "Valley of Angels (Vallis
Angelorum)," by which it was known in the early seventeenth century,
and probably long before (Reeves, p. 199). If this name, or the legend
on which it was based, was known to Malachy it is quite conceivable that
on account of his connexion with Bangor, he adopted, as the Latin
alternative of Máel Máedóc, a name which is only the Hebrew for my
angel with a Latin termination. That St. Bernard was aware of the
significance of the name, and liked to dwell upon it, is clear from
Sermon ii. § 5. It may be added that the legend just mentioned is
connected with a folk-etymology of the word Bangor (Bennchor) which
explained it as "white choir." For the true etymology see Kuno Meyer,
"Zur Keltischen Wortkunde," § 66 (Preuss. Akad. Sitz., 1913). the princePrinceps. This word does not necessarily imply that the
donor of Bangor was a secular chieftain. St. Bernard is somewhat
arbitrary in his use of such titles; and princeps occurs very
frequently in A.U. up to the tenth century as an equivalent of
abbot. made over to him, that there he
might build, or rather rebuild, a monastery. For indeed there had been
formerly a very celebrated one under the first father, Comgall,Comgall, who was a Pict of Dál Araide (Adamnan, i. 49),
was born at Magheramorne, near Larne, co. Antrim (Reeves, p. 269),
between 516 and 520. He founded the monastery of Bangor when he was
about forty years old, probably in 559, and presided over it till his
death in 602 (A.U.). According to his Latin Life (§ 13, Plummer, ii.
7), so great a number of monks came to him there that there was not room
for them; "he therefore founded very many cells and many monasteries,
not only in the district of Ulaid, but throughout the other provinces of
Ireland." There were as many as 3000 monks under his rule. On the last
leaf of an ancient service book of the monastery, known as the
Antiphonary of Bangor (Facsimile edition by F. E. Warren, 1893, vol. ii.
p. 33), there is a hymn which gives a complete list of the
abbots—fifteen in number—from Comgall to Cronan († 691), in
whose period of office it was written. The site of St. Comgall's
monastery is beside the Rectory of the parish of Bangor, co. Down, about
half-a-mile from Bangor Bay, near the entrance to Belfast Lough.
which produced many thousands of monks, and was the head of many
monasteries. A truly holy place it was and prolific of saints, bringing
forth most abundant fruit to God,Rom. vii. 4. so that one of the sons of
that holy community, LugaidLuanus. This is probably Lugaid, or Molua, the founder
of Lismore in Scotland, who died in 592 (A.U.) and is commemorated on
June 25 (Oengus, Gorman). He was a Pict and of the same tribe as St.
Comgall, both being descended from Fiacha Araide (L.B. 15 c, e); and
in later times was the patron saint of the diocese of Argyll (Adamnan,
p. 371). He may be the Bishop Lugidus who ordained St. Comgall, and
afterwards restrained him from leaving Ireland (Plummer, i. p. lix.; ii.
pp. 6, 7). But there is no evidence, apart from the statement of St.
Bernard, that either this bishop or Lugaid of Lismore was a member of
the community at Bangor. There is a Life of Lugaid of Lismore in the
Breviary of Aberdeen (Prop. Sanct. pro temp, aest. ff. 5 v. 7;
summarized in Forbes, Kalendars of Scottish Saints, p. 410). His
principal foundation after Lismore was Rosemarkie in Ross. Mr. A. B.
Scott (Pictish Nation, 1918, p. 347 f.) mentions also Mortlach
(Banffshire) and Clova (Aberdeenshire); and Bishop Forbes (l.c.) adds
other sites with which his name is connected. by name, is said to have been the
founder—himself alone—of a hundred monasteries. I mention this in
order that the reader may infer from this one instance what an immense
number of others there were. In fine, to such an extent did its shoots
fill Ireland and ScotlandSt. Comgall himself is said to have been minded in his
earlier days to go on pilgrimage to "Britain," and to have been
dissuaded therefrom by Lugaid (Latin Life, § 13, Plummer, ii. 7). Seven
years after the foundation of Bangor he went to Britain to visit
"certain saints" (ibid. § 22, p. 11). It was probably on this occasion
that he spent some time on the island of Hinba (Eilean-na-naomh?) in the
company of SS. Columba, Canice and others (Adamnan, iii. 17). It was
somewhat later, apparently, that St. Columba went with some companions
on a mission to Brude, king of the Picts (ibid. ii. 35); and we need
not question the statement that Comgall and Canice were among those who
went with him, though there is reason to doubt that Comgall was the
leader of the band, as his Life implies (§ 51, p. 18), and though the
Life of St. Canice, which frequently refers to his visit, or visits,
to Scotland (§§ 17, 19, 21, 23, Plummer, i. 158), never mentions the
incident. It is probable, therefore, that the founder of Bangor took
part in the evangelization of Scotland; but the memory of very few
monasteries founded by him in that country, besides the community in the
island of Tiree (Life, § 22, p. 11; see Scott, op. cit. p. 239), has
been preserved to later ages. Mr. Scott credits members of the community
of Bangor with the foundation of Paisley, Kingarth and Applecross
(ibid. p. 337 ff.). See also previous note. that those verses of David seem to have
sung beforehand especially of these times, Thou visitest the earth and
blessest it; thou makest it very plenteous. The river of God is full of
water: thou preparest their corn, for so thou providest for the earth,
blessing its rivers, multiplying its shoots. With its drops of rain
shall it rejoice while it germinates;Ps. lxv. 9, 10 (vg., inexact quotation). and in like manner the
verses that follow. Nor was it only into the regions just mentioned, but
also into foreign lands that those swarms of saints poured forth as
though a flood had risen;Luke vi. 48. of whom one, St. Columbanus, came up to
our Gallican parts, and built the monastery of Luxovium, and was made
there a great people.Gen. xii. 2.—St. Columbanus was the greatest of the
Irish missionaries on the Continent of Europe. Born in Leinster,
according to Bruno Krusch (Ionae Vitae Sanctorum, p. 22) in 530, or as
others hold in 543, he entered the community of Bangor not long after
its foundation, and after spending "many cycles of years" there, he
sailed for France about 590. His principal monasteries were Luxeuil
(Luxovium) in the department of Haute Saône, and Bobbio in Lombardy. At
the latter place he died, November 23, 615. His Life was written by
Jonas, about 640. It was critically edited by Krusch in M.G.H.
(Script. rerum Merovingic., vol. iv. 1-152) and subsequently as a
separate volume (Ionae Vitae Sanctorum Columbani, Vedastis, Iohannis,
1905). The story of his labours has been told by G. T. Stokes in his
Celtic Church in Ireland, Lect. vii., and by many other modern
writers. See also the collection of documents in Patrick Fleming's
Collectanea (Lovanii, 1667). Luxeuil is about eighty miles from
Clairvaux, and less than seventy from St. Bernard's early home at Dijon.
Fifty years after the death of St. Columbanus it adopted the rule of St.
Benedict. It was a well-known establishment in St. Bernard's day, though
by that time its glory had declined. It was suppressed in 1789 (M.
Stokes, Three Months in the Forests of France, p. 67). So great a people was it, they
say, that
the choirs succeeding one another in turn, the solemnities of the divine
offices went on continuously, so that not a moment day or night was
empty of praises.The Acœmetae, founded about the middle of the fifth
century, were the first to practise the laus perennis, from which they
derived their name (Dict. of Christian Antiquities, s.v.). It was
adopted in the early years of the following century at the monastery of
St. Maurice in the Valois, from which it spread to many other religious
establishments (AA.SS., Nov., i. 548 ff.).
13. (8) Enough has been said about the ancient glory of the monastery of
Bangor. This, long ago destroyed by pirates,A.U. 823 (recte 824): "The plundering of Bangor in
the Ards by Foreigners [i.e. Norsemen], and the spoiling of its
oratory; and the relics of Comgall were shaken out of their shrine."
A.I. add, "and its learned men and bishops were slain with the
sword." Malachy eagerly
cherished on account of its remarkable and long-standing prestige, as
though he were about to replant a paradise,Gen. ii. 8. and because many
bodies of the saints slept there.Matt. xxvii. 52. For, not to speak of those which
were buried in peace,Ecclus. xliv. 14. it is said that nine hundred persons were
slain together in one day by pirates.This obviously exaggerated statement may refer to the
event mentioned in note 2, or to a later occasion (958), when "Tanaidhe,
son of Odhar, coarb of Bangor, was killed by Foreigners" (A.U.). Vast, indeed, were the
possessions of that place;"Even at the Dissolution [1539] it was found to be
possessed of the temporalities and spiritualities of thirty-four
townlands, together with the tithes of nine rectories or chapels"
(Reeves, p. 94). The lands included the entire parish of Bangor,
together with part of the adjoining parish of Holywood, and eight
outlying townlands (Archdall, ed. Moran, i. 235). but Malachy, content with the holy place
alone, resigned all the possessions and lands to another. For indeed
from the time when the monastery was destroyed there was always someone
to hold it with its possessions. For they were both appointed by
election and were even called abbots, preserving in name but not in fact
what had once been.This remark is interesting as showing that the title
"abbot of Bangor" was in use in the twelfth century. The last person to
whom it is given in the A.U. is Indrechtach, who died in 906. From
that time onwards "coarb of Comgall" (or in one instance, "coarb of
Bangor") is substituted for it. St. Bernard is supported by the Annals
when he asserts that so-called abbots were elected down to Malachy's
time. A.U. preserve the names of twenty abbots or coarbs between 824
and 1123. But St. Bernard leaves the impression that the religious
community of Bangor ceased to exist on its destruction by the Norse
pirates, and that subsequently the "abbots" merely held the lands that
had belonged to it, and exercised no spiritual discipline. There are
good reasons, however, for the contrary opinion. Thus Abbot Moengal, who
died in 871, was a "pilgrim." Abbot Moenach (died 921) was "the head of
the learning of the island of Ireland." Ceile, coarb of Comgall, went on
pilgrimage to Rome in 928, and died there in 929: he was a scribe and
anchoret, apostolic doctor of all Ireland, and (if C.S. can be
trusted) a bishop. Dubhinnsi, bishop of Bangor, died in 953. Finally,
Diarmait Ua Maeltelcha, coarb of Comgall, whom C.S. calls a bishop,
died in 1016. It was probably not till after that date, as Reeves (p.
154) assures us, that the monastery began to decline. And though many urged him not to alienate the
possessions, but to retain the whole together for himself, this lover of
poverty did not consent, but caused one to be elected, according to
custom, to hold them; the place, as we have said, being retained for
Malachy and his followers. And perhaps, as afterwards appeared,See §§ 61, 62. he
would have been wiser to have kept it all; only he looked more to
humility than to peace.
14. So, then, by the command of Father Imar, taking with him about ten
brethren, he came to the place and began to build. And there, one day,
when he himself was cutting with an axe, by chance one of the workmen,
while he was brandishing the axe in the air, carelessly got into the
place at which the blow was aimed, and it fell on his spine with as much
force as Malachy could strike. He fell, and all ran to him supposing
that he had received a death-wound or was dead. And indeed his tunic was
rent from the top to the bottom,Matt. xxvii. 51. but the man himself was found
unhurt, the skin so very slightly grazed that scarcely a trace appeared
on the surface. The man whom the axe had laid low, stood unharmed while
the bystanders beheld him with amazement. Hence they became more eager,
and were found readier for the work. And this was the beginning of the
miraclesJohn ii. 11. of Malachy. Moreover the oratory was finished in a few
days, made of smoothed planks indeed, but closely and strongly fastened
together—a Scotic work,"Scotic" is obviously to be understood here in its
earlier meaning as equivalent to "Irish." From this departure from his
ordinary usage (see p. 20, note 1) we may infer that St. Bernard is
quoting the words of his authority. The habit of constructing churches
of wood prevailed in early times among the Celtic and Saxon tribes in
the British Isles, the introduction of stone building for such purposes
being due to Roman influence (Plummer, Bede, ii. 101). The older
custom lingered longer in Ireland than elsewhere; and by the time of
Bede it had come to be regarded as characteristically Irish, though
wooden churches must still have been numerous in England (Bede, H.E.,
iii. 25). In a document of much later date, the Life of the Irish Saint
Monenna (quoted in Adamnan, p. 177 f.), we read of "a church constructed
of smoothed planks according to the custom of the Scottish races"; and
the writer adds that "the Scots are not in the habit of building walls,
or causing them to be built." Petrie (pp. 138-151) maintained that stone
churches were not unusual in early Ireland; but he admits (pp. 341-344)
that one type of church—the oratory (in Irish dairtheach, i.e.
house of oak)—was very rarely constructed of stone. The only two
passages which he cites (p. 345) as mentioning stone oratories (he says
he might have produced others) are not to his purpose. The first is a
notice in A.U. 788, of a man being killed at the door of a "stone
oratory": but another, and apparently better, reading substitutes
lapide for lapidei, thus altering the entry to a statement that the
man was killed "by a stone at the door of the oratory." The second is
Colgan's rendering (Trias, p. 162) of a sentence in Trip. iii. 74,
p. 232, in which there is in reality no mention of any ecclesiastical
edifice. So far as I am aware, there is no indisputable reference in
Irish literature to a stone oratory earlier than the one mentioned
below, § 61. not devoid of beauty.Cp. the quatrain of Rummun on an oratory which was in
course of construction at Rathen (Otia Merseiana, ii. 79):
"O my Lord! what shall I do
About these great materials?
When will these ten hundred planks
Be a structure of compact beauty?"
At that time and place a certain man was sick, and the devil stood by
him and suggested in plain speech that he should never heed the
admonitions of Malachy, but if he should enter his house, he should
attack and kill him with a knife. And when this became known, those who
ministered to him, the sick man himself informing them, brought word to
Malachy and warned him. But he, seizing his accustomed weapons of
prayer, boldly attacked his enemy, and put to flight both disease and
demon. But the man's name was Malchus.John xviii. 10. He is brother according
to the flesh of our Christian, abbot of Mellifont.For Christian and Mellifont Abbey, see § 39. This Malchus
is mentioned again in § 52. For both are
still alive, now brothers yet more, in spirit.This is not a mere conventional phrase. In a passionate
outburst of grief St. Bernard says of his brother Gerard, who had
recently died, "He was my brother by blood, yet more my brother in
religion" (Cant. xxvi. 4). For when he was
delivered, immediately he was not ungrateful, but in the same place,
having turnedConversus. Cp. p. 14, note 1. The meaning is that after
his recovery Malchus entered the community of Bangor. to the Lord,Acts ix. 35. he changed both his habit and his
mind. And the brethren knew that the evil one was envious of their
prosperity; and they were edified and made more careful henceforth.
15. (9). At the same place he healed a cleric, named Michael, who was
suffering from dysentery and despaired of, by sending him something from
his table. A second time, when the same person was smitten with a very
grave disorder, he cured him both in body and mind. And from that moment
he clave to God2 Kings xviii. 6. and to Malachy His servant, fearing lest a worse
thing should come unto him,John v. 14. if once more he should be found
ungrateful for so great a benefit and miracle. And at present, as we
have heard, he presides over a monastery in the parts of Scotland; and
this was the latest of all Malachy's foundations.The abbey founded by Malachy at Soulseat. See § 68. Through such
deeds of Malachy both his reputation and his community increased daily,
and his name became great both within and without the monastery, though
not greater than the fact. For indeed he dweltDemorabatur, literally, lingered, or tarried. The
fact seems to be that Bangor was Malachy's headquarters for the rest of
his life, except the ten years which intervened between his expulsion
from it (§ 18), and his resignation of the see of Armagh (§ 31). See p.
33, note 1. St. Bernard was apparently puzzled by the fact that Malachy
continued to live at Bangor after his consecration, instead of going to
the see-city; and he makes a not very satisfactory apology for it. there even after he
was made bishop, for the place was near the city.The city is evidently Connor; but it is not near Bangor.
The two places are twenty-five miles apart, and Belfast Lough lies
between them. In Malachy's day they were in different tribal
territories.
CHAPTER III
St. Malachy becomes Bishop of Connor; he builds the Monastery of
Iveragh.
16. (10). At that time an episcopal see was vacant,Connor: see below. It is clear that after Malachy's
consecration it was the see of a diocese which included Bangor (§ 15)
and Down, the present Downpatrick (§ 31). The inference is highly
probable that it included the whole district which constituted the
"parish [i.e. diocese] of Connor," according to the decree of the
Synod of Rathbreasail in 1110 (Keating, iii. 303: see above p. xli),
that is to say, roughly, the present united dioceses of Down, Connor and
Dromore. It would seem that Malachy was its first bishop. and had long
been vacant, because Malachy would not assent: for they had elected him
to it.Here, again, St. Bernard implies that a long period
elapsed between Malachy's return from Lismore and his consecration; for
the reason given in § 12 for his recall is inconsistent with the
supposition that he had already been elected to a bishopric which
Cellach and Imar wished him to accept. They desired to have him with
them at Armagh. He must have been "elected" either while he was at
Armagh or after he went to Bangor. But they persisted, and at length he yielded when their
entreaties were enforced by the command of his teacher,Imar. together
with that of the metropolitan.Cellach. See § 19, where Cellach and his predecessors are
called metropolitans. It was when he was just entering the
thirtieth year of his age,Tricesimo ferme aetatis suae anno. A.F.M. record
under the year 1124 that "Mael Maedoc Ua Morgair sat in the bishopric of
Connor." This agrees with the date of his consecration as given here.
See p. 128, note 1. He was consecrated bishop by Cellach (§ 19).
We have seen (p. 20, note 3) that Malachy probably went to Lismore late
in 1121. He spent several years there, and, according to St. Bernard,
another long period at Armagh and Bangor before his consecration in
1124. This must be pronounced impossible. The most probable solution of
the chronological difficulty is that through ignorance of Irish
ecclesiastical affairs St. Bernard misunderstood the information
supplied to him, and thus separated Malachy's tenure of the abbacy of
Bangor from his episcopate, though the two were in reality conterminous.
For the significance of Malachy's recall to the North, see Introduction,
p. liii. f.; and for a fuller discussion, R.I.A., xxxv. 250-254.
that he was consecrated bishop and
brought to Connor; for that was the name of the city through ignorance
of Irish ecclesiastical affairs St. Bernard misunderstood the
information supplied to him, and thus separated Malachy's tenure of the
abbacy of Bangor from his episcopate, though the two were in reality
conterminous. For the significance of Malachy's recall to the North, see
Introduction, p. liii. f.; and for a fuller discussion, R.I.A., xxxv.
250-254..
1124
But when he began to administer his office, the man of God understood
that he had been sent not to men but to beasts. Never before had he
known the like, in whatever depth of barbarism; never had he found men
so shameless in regard of morals, so dead in regard of rites, so impious
in regard of faith, so barbarous in regard of laws, so stubborn in
regard of discipline, so unclean in regard of life. They were Christians
in name, in fact pagans.Cp. Giraldus, Top. iii. 19: "It is wonderful that this
nation should remain to this day so ignorant of the rudiments of
Christianity. For it is a most filthy race, a race sunk in vice, a race
more ignorant than all other nations of the rudiments of the faith." There was no giving of tithes or
first-fruits; no entry into lawful marriages, no making of confessions:
nowhere could be found any who would either seek penance or impose it.
Ministers of the altar were exceeding few. But indeed what need was
there of more when even the few were almost in idleness and ease among
the laity? There was no fruit which they could bring forth from their
offices among a people so vile. For in the churches there was not heard
the voice either of preacher or singer.For the statements in the preceding sentences, see
Additional Note A. What was the athlete of
the LordSt. Aug., De Civ. Dei, xiv. 9. 2. Cp. Ignatius, Pol.
2; Hero 1. It may be noted that most of the MSS. of the Latin version
of the Ignatian Epistles are Burgundian, and that among them is a
Clairvaux MS. of the 12th century. Lightfoot, Ign. and Pol., i. 119. to do? He must either yield with shame or with danger
fight. But he who recognized that he was a shepherd and not a
hireling, elected to stand rather than to flee, prepared to give his
life for the sheep if need be.John x. 11-13. And although all were wolves and
there were no sheep, the intrepid shepherd stood in the midst of the
wolves, rich in all means by which he might make sheep out of
wolvesCompare St. Bernard's words to Pope Eugenius III. about
his Roman subjects (De Cons., iv. 6): "I know where thou dwellest,
unbelievers and subverters are with thee. They are wolves, not sheep; of
such, however, thou art shepherd. Consideration is good, if by it thou
mayest perhaps discover means, if it can be done, to convert them, lest
they subvert thee. Why do we doubt that they can be turned again into
sheep, who were once sheep and could be turned into wolves?"—admonishing in public, arguing in secret, weeping with one
and another; accosting men now roughly, now gently, according as he saw
it to be expedient for each. And in cases where these expedients failed
he offered for them a broken and a contrite heart.Ps. li. 17. How often did
he spend entire nights in vigil, holding out his hands in prayer! And
when they would not come to the church he went to meet the unwilling
ones in the streets and in the broad ways, and going round about the
city, he eagerly soughtCant. iii. 2; cp. Ps. lix. 6, 14; Luke xiv. 21. whom he might gain for Christ.
17. (11). But further afield also, none the less, he very frequently
traversed country parts and towns with that holy band of disciples, who
never left his side. He went and bestowed even on the unthankfulLuke vi. 35.
their portion of the heavenly meat.Luke xii. 42. Nor did he ride on a horse,
but went afoot, in this also proving himself an apostolic man. Good
Jesus, how great things thy warrior suffered for Thy name's
sakeActs ix. 16. from crime-stained children.Isa. i. 4 (vg.). How great things he
endured for Thee from those very men to whom, and on whose behalf, he
spoke good things. Who can worthily express with how great vexations he
was harassed, with what insults he was assailed, with what unrighteous
acts provoked,Cp. 2 Pet. ii. 7 f. how often he was faint with hunger, how often
afflicted with cold and nakedness?2 Cor xi. 27. Yet with them that hated
peace he was a peacemaker,Ps. cxx. 6, 7 (vg.). instant, nevertheless, in season, out
of season.2 Tim. iv. 2. Being defamed he intreated;1 Cor. iv. 13. when he was dealt
with unrighteously he defended himself with the shield of patience and
overcame evil with good.Rom. xii. 21. Why should he not overcome? He
continued knocking,Acts xii. 16. and according to the promise, at length,
sometimes, to him that knocked it was opened.Matt. vii. 8; Luke xi. 10. How could that not
follow which the TruthJohn xiv. 6. had declared beforehand should follow?
The right hand of the Lord brought mighty things to pass,Ps. cxviii. 15, 16. because
the mouth of the Lord spokeIsa. i. 20. the truth. Hardness vanished,
barbarity ceased; the rebellious houseEzek. ii. 5, etc. began gradually to be
appeased, gradually to admit reproof, to receive discipline.Lev. xxvi. 23 (vg.).
Barbarous laws disappear, Roman laws are introduced; everywhere the
ecclesiastical customs are received, their opposites are rejected;
churchesBasilicae. are rebuilt, a clergy is appointed in them; the
solemnities of the sacraments are duly celebrated; confessions are made;
congregationsPlebes. come to the church; the celebration of marriage
graces those who live together.See Additional Note A. In fine, all things are so changed
for the better that to-day the word which the Lord speaks by the prophet
is applicable to that nation; those who before were not my people are
now my people.1 Pet. ii. 10, combined with Hos. ii. 24.
1127
18. (12). It happened after some years that the cityThe city was Bangor, though St. Bernard may have taken it
to be Connor. The word city (civitas), which he no doubt found in his
authority, might be applied, like its Irish equivalent, cathair, to
either place: but to St. Bernard it would naturally suggest an episcopal
see. Connor was within the suzerainty of the king of the northern part
of Ireland, Bangor was outside it. See next note. was destroyed
by the king of the northern part of Ireland;Conor O'Loughlin, who is called king of the north of
Ireland in the Annals (s.a. 1136). He succeeded his father Donnell as
king of Ailech (Grenan Ely, co. Donegal, the residence of the kings of
the northern Ui Neill) in 1121, and the next year he invaded the
northern part of Ulaid, the district in which Bangor is situated. He
invaded Magh Cobha (Iveagh, co. Down) and Bregha (Meath), with the help
of the Dal Araide (the district round Connor, co. Antrim) in 1128. He
finally subdued Ulaid in 1130, and "plundered the country as far as the
east of Ard [i.e. the baronies of the Ards, in which lies Bangor],
both lay and ecclesiastical property." He was murdered on May 25, 1136
(A.U., A.L.C.). It has been supposed that the expedition of 1130 was
the occasion of the destruction of Bangor mentioned in the text. But St.
Bernard places it, and the consequent departure of Malachy to the south,
before the death of Cellach in 1129 (§ 19), and we have found reason to
believe that Malachy was at Lismore in 1127 (p. 21, n. 3). Though no
raid by Conor in that year is referred to in the Annals, that fact
cannot be regarded as proof that none took place. for out of the north
all evil breaks forth.Jer. i. 14. And perhaps that evil was good for those
who used it well. For who knows that God did not wish to destroy by such
a scourge the ancient evils of His people? By a necessity so dire
Malachy was compelled, and he retired with a crowd of his disciples. Nor
was his retirement spent in idleness. It gave opportunity for building
the monastery of Iveragh,Ibracense. That this monastery was in Iveragh, a barony
in the county of Kerry, north of the estuary of the Kenmare River, and
in Cormac Mac Carthy's kingdom of Desmond, was apparently first
suggested by Lanigan (iv. 92). The identification is almost certainly
correct. It is more difficult to determine the part of the barony in
which the monastery was situated. O'Hanlon suggested Church Island, near
Cahirciveen, where there are some ecclesiastical remains, traditionally
known half a century ago as "the monastery" (R.I.A. xv. 107). But
these appear to be of much earlier date than the twelfth century. More
plausible is the conjecture of the Rev. Denis O'Donoghue, that the site
is on another Church Island, in Lough Currane, near Waterville. On it
are the ruins of a church which, in the opinion of Mr. P. J. Lynch, was
built in the twelfth century (J.R.S.A.I. xxx. 159 f.). Malachy seems
to have spent some time at Lismore before going to Iveragh. Malachy going there with his
brothers,
in number one hundred and twenty.This sentence seems to imply that Malachy brought with
him the Bangor community, or the greater part of it, and made a new home
for it in Iveragh. If so the inference is obvious that up to 1127
Malachy resided at Bangor, and was still abbot. There King Cormac met him. He it
was who at a former time driven out of his kingdom, under the care of
Malachy by the mercy of God received consolation;See §§ 9, 10. and that place
was in his kingdom. The king rejoiced to see Malachy, placing at the
disposal of him and those who were with him himself and all that he
had—as one who was neither ungrateful nor unmindful of a benefit. Many
beasts were immediately brought for the use of the brothers; much gold
and silver was also supplied, with regal munificence, for the expense of
the buildings. He himself also was coming in and going out with
them,Acts ix. 28 (inexact quotation). busy and ready to serve—in attire a king, but in mind a
disciple of Malachy. And the Lord blessed that place for Malachy's
sake,Gen. xxx. 27. and in a short time he was made great in goods, possessions
and persons. And there, as it were beginning anew, the burden of law and
discipline which he laid on others he bore with greater zeal himself,
their bishop and teacher. Himself, in the order of his course,Luke i. 8.
did duty as cook, himself served the brothers while they sat at
meat.Cp. Luke xii. 37; xxii. 27. Among the brothers who succeeded one another
in singing or
reading in church he did not suffer himself to be passed over, but
strenuously fulfilled the office in his place as one of them. He not
only shared but took the lead in [the life] of holy poverty, being
especially zealous for it more abundantly than they all.Cp. 1 Cor. xv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 23.
CHAPTER IV.
Being made Archbishop of Armagh, he suffers many troubles. Peace being
made, from being Archbishop of Armagh he becomes Bishop of Down.
1129
19. (12). MeanwhileThat is, while Malachy was in Iveragh. it happened that Archbishop CellachCellach is here mentioned by name for the first time. See
p. 14, n. 2. fell
sick: he it was who ordained Malachy deacon, presbyter and bishop: and
knowing that he was dying he made a sort of testamentHarris (Ware's Works, ii., "Writers," p. 69) identifies
this testament with the Testamentum ad ecclesias, a tract attributed
to Cellach, which is apparently no longer extant. But it may be doubted
whether the testament mentioned in the text was committed to writing. to the effect
that Malachy ought to succeed him,The designation by a coarb of his successor seems to have
been unusual. But in 1124 Malachy had in this way been appointed abbot
of Bangor (§ 12); and in 1134 Murtough designated Niall as his successor
in the abbacy of Armagh (§ 22). because none seemed worthier to
be bishop of the first see. This he gave in charge to those who were
present, this he commanded to the absent, this to the two kings of
MunsterConor O'Brien, king of Thomond, and Cormac Mac Carthy,
king of Desmond. See § 9, and p. 21, notes 1-3. Murtough O'Brien, king
of Munster, fell into ill-health in 1114, and his brother Dermot
attempted, evidently with some success, to seize the throne. Dermot died
in 1118 and Murtough early in the following year. Turlough O'Conor, the
powerful king of Connaught, promptly invaded Munster, and divided it
into two vassal kingdoms, Thomond and Desmond. The former he gave to the
sons of Dermot, of whom Conor was one, the latter to Teague Mac Carthy.
Apparently Conor O'Brien soon established himself as sole king of
Thomond, and Cormac Mac Carthy became king of Desmond on the death of
his father, Teague, in 1124. We have seen that both of them were deposed
in 1127, and quickly restored (§ 9 f.: see p. 21, n. 3; p. 23, n. 2).
From that time Conor and Cormac were allies. Cormac married Conor's
niece (A.T. 1138). Together in 1133 they invaded Connaught (A.F.M.),
and the next year they made another successful expedition through
Connaught into Ulster (then ruled by Conor O'Loughlin; see p. 40, n. 2),
in the course of which they burned the church of Rathluraigh, now
Maghera, co. Derry, near the border of the diocese of Armagh (D.A.I.).
This expedition must be referred to hereafter (p. 51, n. 2). But Conor
evidently aspired to be ardrí of Ireland, and he found it desirable to
remove a possible rival. Accordingly Cormac was murdered by his
father-in-law, Conor's brother, in 1138, and Conor became king of all
Munster. He was now the most powerful prince in Ireland; but he died,
after a lingering illness (Tundale, p. 42), in 1142, without attaining
his ambition.
It is clear from the present passage that Conor O'Brien followed in the
footsteps of his predecessors in the same family as a supporter of the
new movement in the Irish Church. Cormac, as we know, was the friend and
disciple of Malachy: his devotion to the Church is witnessed to by the
beautiful edifice built by him at Cashel, still known as "Cormac's
Chapel," which was consecrated in 1134; and by his title of
"Bishop-King," which has been the subject of so much discussion. See
Petrie, pp. 283-307; and for the crozier found in Cormac's supposed
tomb, G. Coffey, Guide to the Celtic Antiquities of the Christian
Period in the National Museum, Dublin, p. 64. But it must be added that
the contemporary Vision of Tundale, which apparently emanated from
Cormac's kingdom of Desmond, while bearing emphatic testimony to his
generosity to "Christ's poor and pilgrims," charges him with heinous
crimes strangely inconsistent with St. Bernard's sketch of his character
(Tundale, p. 44 f.).
and to the magnates of the land he specially enjoined by
the authority of St. Patrick.It seems that the successor (coarb) of the founder of a
church was supposed to speak with his authority. Cp. the Epistle of
Cummian in Ussher, p. 442. For from reverence and honour for
him, as the apostle of that nation, who had converted the whole country
to the faith, that see where he presided in life and rests in deathCp. § 65. It is generally believed that St. Patrick was
buried at Downpatrick (see Reeves, p. 223 ff.); but Olden contended (not
convincingly) that the statement made here by St. Bernard is correct
(R.I.A. xviii, 655 ff.), while Bury (Life of St. Patrick, p. 211)
has "little hesitation in deciding that the obscure grave was at Saul."
has been held in so great veneration by all from the beginning, that not
merely bishops and priests, and those who are of the clergy, but also
all kings and princes are subject to the metropolitanThis word cannot have been in St. Bernard's document, for
it is unknown in early Irish ecclesiastical terminology, and in Irish
hierarchical arrangements it would have no meaning. The context proves
that the persons to whom it is here applied are the abbots of Armagh, of
whom Cellach was one. It probably represents a Latin rendering of "coarb
(successor) of Patrick," a title commonly given to the abbots of this
period. The document portrayed the coarbs as rulers of the church of
Armagh. St. Bernard would naturally infer that they were bishops. When
he found that their authority extended beyond Armagh he would no less
naturally style them archbishops or metropolitans. Cp. Serm. i, § 6,
where the story of §§ 19-31 is briefly summarized. in all
obedience, and he himself alone presides over all. But a very evil
custom had developed, by the devilish ambition of certain powerful
persons, that the holy seeArmagh. should be held by hereditary succession.
For they suffered none to be bishops but those who were of their own
tribe and family. And for no short time had the execrable succession
lasted, for fifteen generations (as I may call them)Quasi generationibus quindecim. The "quasi-generations"
are apparently the periods of office of successive coarbs. St. Bernard
seems to have written "fifteen" in mistake for "twelve." See Additional
Note B, p. 165. had already
passed in this wickedness. And to such a point had an evil and
adulterousAdulterous, because it took possession of the church,
which should have been married to true bishops. Cp. § 20, "the adultery
of the church," Malachy "being joined to another spouse;" § 21,
Malachy's "former spouse," and the vision of Cellach's wife. generationMatt. xii. 39; xvi. 4. established for itself this distorted
right, rather this unrighteousness worthy of punishment by any sort of
death, that although at times clerics failed of that blood, yet bishops
never. In a word there had been already eight before Cellach, married
men, and without orders, albeit men of letters.On the statements in these sentences, see Additional Note
B. Hence, throughout
the whole of Ireland, all that subversion of ecclesiastical discipline,
that weakening of censure, that abandonment of religion of which we
have spoken already; hence everywhere that substitution of raging
barbarism for Christian meekness—yea, a sort of paganism brought in
under the name of Christianity. For—a thing unheard of from the very
beginning of the Christian faith—bishops were transferred and
multiplied, without order or reason, at the will of the metropolitan, so
that one bishopric was not content with one bishop, but nearly every
single church had its bishop.That bishops were numerous in Ireland at this period is
indubitable. Fifty attended the Synod of Fiadh meic Oengusa (A.U.
1111), and probably all of them came from the provinces of Ulster and
Munster (above, p. xxxviii). But this cannot have been due to the
irregularities at Armagh of which St. Bernard complains. There were many
bishops in Ireland in its earliest Christian period. See Reeves,
123-136; Todd, 27 ff. No wonder; for how could the members
of so diseased a head be sound?
1132
20. Cellach, greatly grieving for these and other like evils of his
people—for he was a good and devout man—took all care to have Malachy
as his successor, because he believed that by him this evilly rooted
succession might be torn up,Malachy was not of the Clann Sinaich, to which at this
period the coarbs of Patrick belonged. See p. 6, n. 5, and Additional
Note B, p. 165. since he was dear to all, and one whom
all were zealous to imitate, and the Lord was with him.1 Sam. iii. 19, etc. Nor was
he deceived of his hope; for when he died Malachy was put into
occupation in his room. But not soon nor easily. For behold there is one
of the evil seed to seize the place—Murtough by name.Cellach died on April 1, 1129, and was buried at Lismore
on April 4. On April 5, the day after his funeral, Murtough was
appointed coarb (A.U.). For five
years, relying on the secular power,He was probably supported by Conor O'Loughlin, who was
king of Oriel, the district in which Armagh was situated (A.F.M.
1136). On him see p. 40, n. 2. The "five years" are the period from
Murtough's election to his death, September 17, 1134 (A.F.M.)—nearly
five years and a half. this man
fastened himself
upon the church, not a bishop but a tyrant. For the wishes of the devout
had rather supported the claim of Malachy. At last they urged him to
undertake the burden according to the ordinance of Cellach. But he, who
shunned every high office as nothing else than his downfall,Geoffrey, St. Bernard's secretary, recalls a saying of
his about "one of the saints," which actually appears in the first
antiphon at Mattins in the office of St. Malachy, and which Geoffrey
applies to St. Bernard himself: "Blessed is he who loved the law, but
did not desire the chair [of dignity]." (V.P. iii. 8).
thought that he had found good ground of excuse, because at that time it
was impossible that he should have a peaceful entry. All were eager for
so holy a work and pressed him; especially the two bishops, MalchusOn Malchus see p. 18, n. 6. He was now about eighty-five
years of age.
and Gilbert,Gillebertus (as St. Bernard writes the name) is a
latinized form of the Irish Gilla espuig (servant of the bishop),
which is anglicized Gillespie. With that Irish name he subscribed the
Acts of the Synod of Rathbreasail (Keating, iii. 306); and we may
therefore affirm with confidence that he was an Irishman. Gilbert was a
friend of the famous thinker and ecclesiastical statesman, Anselm, who
was archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. The two men met each
other for the first time at Rouen, probably in 1087, when Anselm was
called thither to the deathbed of William the Conqueror. Twenty years
later, Gilbert, then bishop of Limerick, wrote a letter of
congratulation to Anselm on his victory over Henry I. in the controversy
concerning investiture (August 1107). In his reply Anselm intimates that
the long interval had not blurred his recollection of their former
companionship, from which we may infer that Gilbert's personality had
made a considerable impression upon him. Anselm also states that he had
learned (probably from the superscription of his friend's letter) that
he was now a bishop. It would seem, therefore, that Gilbert had been
consecrated recently, and not, like the contemporary bishops of Danish
sees in Ireland, by the English Primate (see the letters in Ussher, 511,
512). He probably became bishop of Limerick about 1105. Shortly after
his correspondence with Anselm, and perhaps by his influence, he was
appointed papal legate for Ireland, the first, as St. Bernard tells us,
who had held that office. He was legate when in 1108 or 1109 he wrote
his tract De Statu Ecclesiæ (see above, p. xxx. ff.); and in 1110, as
legate, he presided over the Synod of Rathbreasail. In 1139 or 1140,
being old and infirm, he resigned his legatine commission and his see (§
38 and p. 73, note 1). He died in 1145. Gilbert was evidently a strong
man, who had much influence on the affairs of the Irish Church. It is
therefore surprising that the only reference to him in the native Annals
is the notice of his death in the Chronicon Scotorum. of whom
the former was the elderSenior. This is almost a technical word for the head of
a religious community. Malchus is called ard senóir Gaoidheal (high
senior of the Irish) in A.F.M. 1135. of Lismore
mentioned above, the second he who is said to have been the first to
exercise the office of legate of the Apostolic See throughout the whole
of Ireland. These, when three years had now passed in this presumption
of Murtough and dissimulation of Malachy,His dissimulation was his disregard of the divine call in
the vision described in § 21. tolerating no longer the
adultery of the church and the dishonour of Christ, called together the
bishops and princes of the land,Cp. A.F.M. 1132: "Mael Maedoc Ua Morgair sat in the
coarbate of Patrick by the request of the clerics of Ireland." and came, in one spirit, to
Malachy, prepared to use force. But he refused at first; pleading the
difficulty of the project, the numbers, strength and ambition of that
noble stock, urging that it was a great venture for him, a poor man and
of no account, to oppose himself to men so many, so great, of such sort,
so deeply rooted, who now for well-nigh two hundred years had held as
by hereditary right the sanctuary of God,Ps. lxxxiii. 12 (vg.).—See Additional Note B, p. 165. and now also had taken
possession of it before him; that they could not be rooted out, not even
at the cost of human life; that it was not to his advantage that man's
blood should be shedGen. ix. 6. on his account; and lastly, that he was
joined to another spouseThe diocese of Connor. whom it was not lawful for him to put
away.Matt. xix. 2; Mark x. 2.
21. (14). But when they persisted eagerly in the contrary opinion, and
cried out that the word had come forth from the Lord,Ezek. xxxiii. 30. and
moreover ordered him with all authority to undertake the burden, and
threatened him with an anathema, he said, "You are leading me to death,
but I obey in the hope of martyrdom; yet on this condition, that if, as
you expect, the enterprise has good success, and God frees his
heritage from those that are destroying it,Jer. l. 11. all being then at
length completed, and the churchThe church of Armagh. at peace, it may be lawful for me
to return to my former spouse and friend, poverty,The "spouse" is primarily the diocese of Connor. His
voluntary poverty is especially associated with his episcopate there in
Serm. i. § 6. from which I am
carried off, and to put in my place there another, if then one is found
fit for it." Note, reader, the courage of the man and the purity of his
purpose who, for Christ's name, neither sought honour nor dreaded death.
What could be purer or what braver than this purpose, that after
exposing himself to peril and labour he should yield to another the
fruit—peace and security itself in the place of authority? And this he
does, retaining for himself according to agreement a free return to
poverty when peace and freedom are restored to the church. When they
gave the pledge, at length he assented to their will; or rather to the
will of God, who, he remembered, had long foreshown to him this
occurrence, at the fulfilment of which he was now grieved. For indeed
when Cellach was already ailing there appeared to Malachy—far away and
ignorant [of Cellach's condition]—a woman of great stature and reverend
mien. When he inquired who she was, the answer was given that she was
the wife of Cellach.It can hardly be doubted that this means the diocese of
Armagh (cp. p. 45, n. 4). Both § 19 and the title "son of purity"
(A.U. 1129) imply that Cellach was not married. And she gave him a pastoral staff which she
held in her hand, and then disappeared. A few days later, Cellach, when
he was dying, sent his staff to Malachy, indicating that he should
succeed him: and when he saw it he recognized that it was the same which
he had seen [in vision]. It was the remembrance of this vision which
specially put Malachy in fear, lest if he still refused he might seem to
resist the Divine will, which he had ignored long enough.Rom. ix. 19. But
he did not enter the city as long as that intruder lived, lest by such
act it should happen that any one of those should die to whom he came
rather to minister life. Thus for two years (for so long the other
survived), living outside the town, he strenuously performed the
episcopal office throughout the whole province.That Malachy was in 1132 recognized by many as coarb of
Patrick is confirmed by the Annals (see p. 48, n. 3). But that he
exercised his episcopal office "throughout the entire province" is
inconsistent with the fact that in 1133 Murtough "made a visitation of
Tír Eoghain [counties of Derry and Tyrone] and received his tribute of
cows and imparted his blessing" (A.F.M.).
1134, Sept. 17
22. (15). When that person, then, had been removed by sudden death,September 17, 1134 (A.F.M.). Sudden death is not
suggested by the Annals.
again one Niall [Nigellus] (in truth nigerrimus, very black)St. Bernard puns on the Latin name by which he represents
Niall. It is a diminutive of niger, black.
quickly took possession of the see. And in appointing him as his
successor, Murtough, while he was still alive, made provision for his
life:Josh. ix. 24 (vg.). he was going forth to be damned, but in the person of Niall
he would go on adding to the works of damnation.The meaning of this somewhat difficult sentence is made
clear by the reference to the Gibeonites (Josh. ix). By their stratagem
they "made provision for their lives," that is, that they should
continue to live instead of being exterminated with the rest of the
Canaanites. In like manner Murtough provided that he should, as it were,
live on and pursue his evil course, in the person of Niall. For he also was
of the damned race, a relative of Murtough.He was Murtough's cousin, and Cellach's brother. See the
table, Additional Note B, p. 164. But the kingThat the king was either Conor O'Brien or Cormac Mac
Carthy is highly probable. To them Cellach had confided the duty of
seeing that Malachy should be his successor (§ 19), and in this very
year they reached the border of the diocese of Armagh (p. 43, n. 5). See
p. 53, n. 5. and
the bishops and faithful of the land nevertheless came together that
they might bring in Malachy. And lo, there was an assembly of the
wickedPs. xxii. 16. to oppose them.The narrative of this and the next section is illustrated
by the Annals under the year 1134. A.F.M., after recording the obit of
Murtough, proceed: "Niall, son of Aedh, was installed in the coarbate of
Patrick. A change of abbots in Armagh, i.e. Mael Maedoc Ua Morgair in
place of Niall." In A.T. we have the statement, "Mael Maedog o Mongair
ascended Patrick's chair. The Cinel Eoghain of Tulach Óg conspired
against Mael Maedoc, and a flash of lightning consumed twelve men of
them on the spot where they conspired against him." Thus it seems that
the conspirators came from the place now known as Tullaghoge, in the
county of Tyrone, then, as now, in the diocese of Armagh. It was the
district inhabited by the sept of the O'Hagans, and in it was the lía
na rígh, the inauguration chair of the O'Neills, kings of Ulster. The
confirmation which St. Bernard's story receives from A.T. is the more
important, because the two narratives are so far different that they
must have come from independent sources. A certain man of the sons of Belial,
ready for mischief, mighty in iniquity,Ps. lii. 1 (vg.). who knew the place
where they had decided to come together,Cp. John xviii. 2 (vg.). gathered many with him
and secretly seized a neighbouring high hill opposite to it, intending,
when they were engaged with other things, suddenly to rush upon them
unawares and murder the innocent.Ps. x. 8. For they had agreed to butcher
the king also with the bishop, that there might be none to avenge the
righteous blood.Matt. xxiii. 35, combined with Rev. vi. 10; xix. 2. The plan became known to Malachy, and he entered
the church, which was close by, and lifted up his hands in prayer to
the Lord. Lo, there came clouds and darkness,Ps. xcvii. 2. yea also dark
waters and thick clouds of the skiesPs. xviii. 11. changed the day into
night,Amos v. 8 (vg.). lightnings and thunderingsRev. iv. 5. and an horrible spirit
of tempestsPs. xi. 6, horribilis spiritus procellarum: apparently
a conflation of the vg. with another rendering. A.V. has an horrible
tempest. presaged the last day, and all the elements
threatened speedy death.Virg., Aen. i. 91.
23. But that you may know, reader, that it was the prayer of Malachy
that roused the elements, the tempest fell upon those who sought his
life,Exod. iv. 19; Matt. ii. 20, etc. the dark whirlwindJob iii. 6 (vg.). enveloped only those who had made
ready the works of darkness.Rom. xiii. 12. Finally, he who was the leader of so
great wickedness was struck by a thunderbolt and perished with three
others, companions in death as they had been partners in crime; and the
next day their bodies were found half-burnt and putrid, clinging to the
branches of trees, each where the windSpiritus. Cp. the "spirit of tempests" in § 22 (end). had lifted him up and cast
him down.Ps. cii. 10. Three others also were found half dead; the rest were
all scattered in every direction. But, as for those who were with
Malachy, though they were close to the place, the storm touched them
not at all, neither troubled them.Song of Three Children, 27. In that fact we find fresh
proof of the truth of that saying, The prayer of the righteous pierceth
the heavens.Ecclus. xxxv. 16 (inexact quotation). It is also a new example of the ancient miracle, by
which in former times, when all Egypt was in darkness, Israel alone
remained in light, as the Scripture says, Wheresoever Israel was there
was light.Exod. x. 23 (inexact quotation). In this connexion occurs to me also what holy Elijah
did, at one time bringing clouds and rain from the ends of the
earth,2 Kings xviii. 41 ff.; Jas. v. 18. at another, calling down fire from heaven on the
revilers.2 Kings i. 9-12. And now in like manner God is glorified inJohn xiii. 31. His
servant Malachy.
24. (16). In the thirty-eighth year of his age,This date is incorrect. The entry into the city of Armagh
cannot have taken place before October 1134, when Malachy was in his
fortieth (possibly thirty-ninth) year. His entry into the province (§
21) was probably made in his thirty-eighth year. This was no doubt the
cause of St. Bernard's error; for one of his documents may, like
A.F.M. (p. 48, n. 3), have used words which seemed to imply that he
entered Armagh on that earlier occasion. the usurper having
been driven out, the poor man, Malachy, entered Armagh, pontiff and
metropolitan of all Ireland. But when the king and the others who had
brought him in returned home,If "the king" was Cormac Mac Carthy (p. 51, n. 2), the
statement that he returned home shortly after Malachy obtained
possession of the see, is confirmed by A.F.M. For they record, under
1134, the consecration of Cormac's Chapel on the rock of Cashel. he remained in the hand of
God;Wisd. iii. 1. and there remained for him without fightings, within
fears.2 Cor. vii. 5. For, lo, the viperous brood, raging and crying out that it
was disinherited, aroused itself in full strength, within and without,
against the Lord and against His Anointed.Ps. ii. 2; Acts iv. 26. Moreover, Niall,
seeing that flight was inevitable,The flight of Niall seems clearly to imply that he was in
the city of Armagh. The natural inference is that "having been driven
out" he was afterwards reinstated. This may have happened while Malachy
was absent on a visitation of Munster, mentioned in A.F.M., but
apparently unknown to St. Bernard. The statement of the latter, that
Malachy "remained" in Armagh, ignores it. See further, Additional Note
C, p. 168 f. took with him certain insignia
of that see, to wit, the copy of the Gospels, which had belonged to
blessed Patrick,The Book of Armagh, now in the Library of Trinity
College, Dublin. The manuscript was written at Armagh early in the ninth
century by a scribe named Ferdomnach; but at an early date it came to be
supposed that it was the work of St. Patrick himself. From this belief,
perhaps, arose the name by which it was known for many centuries, and
which can be traced back to the year 936—the Canon of Patrick. It is
strange that it should be called here a "copy of the Gospels"; for in
addition to the complete text of the New Testament it contains two lives
of St. Patrick, his Confession and other historical documents. But the
word Gospel was very loosely used in Ireland (see R.I.A. xxxiii. 327
f.). Misled by this description, de Backer (n. ad loc.) identifies the
book mentioned by St. Bernard with the so-called "Gospels of St.
Patrick," found in the shrine known as the Domnach Airgid, about 1830,
which have no connexion with Armagh or St. Patrick (R.I.A. Trans.
xviii., "Antiquities," pp. 14 ff.; xxx. 303 ff.; R.I.A. xxxiv. 108
ff.). For further information about the Book of Armagh the reader may
consult Gwynn, especially pp. ci.-cxvi. and the staff covered with gold and
adorned with
most costly gems, which they call "the staff of Jesus," because the Lord
himself (as report affirms) held it in His hands and fashioned it;The staff of Jesus was a wooden crozier (Giraldus, Top.
iii. 34), richly adorned. The story of its presentation by Christ to St.
Patrick is found in the tenth-century Trip. (p. 30), no doubt taken
from an earlier source. The staff was much older than the Book of
Armagh; for we find that it was "profaned" in 789, and it was then
apparently regarded as the principal relic of St. Patrick (A.U. 788).
It seems that there was a still more ancient tradition, that St. Patrick
gave it to St. Mac Cairthinn (R.I.A. xxxiv. 114), from which it may be
inferred that it once belonged to the church of Clogher. It was removed
from Armagh to Dublin in 1180, and deposited in Christ Church. It was
burnt in 1538 (A.L.C.). Apparently St. Bernard is the only authority
for the statement that it was "fashioned" by Christ. It appears that the
staff of Jesus, in the twelfth century, was regarded as a much more
important relic than the Book of Armagh, and was more closely
associated with the person and office of the coarb of Patrick. It is
frequently mentioned in such a way as to suggest that it was one of the
insignia of his authority (A.U. 1015, 1073, 1101, 1113, 1157, 1166,
1167; A.F.M. 1135, 1139, 1143, 1148, 1152). Similar references to the
Book of Armagh do not occur till near the close of the twelfth
century, immediately after the removal of the staff from Armagh (A.U.
1179, 1196; Gwynn, p. civ.). A very full account of the later history of
the staff may be read in O.C.C. pp. viii-xx.
which are deemed of the highest honour and sanctity in that nation. They
are, in fact, very well known and celebrated among the tribes, and so
revered by all, that he who is once seen to have them is held by the
foolish and unwise peopleDeut. xxxii. 6. to be their bishop. That man—a
vagabondGyrovagus. The word is commonly used of a monk who
leaves his proper monastery, and wanders about from one cell to another
(see, e.g., St. Bernard, Ep. 68, § 4), or to a priest who deserts
his parish (Du Cange, s.v.). and another Satan—went to and fro in the land and
walked up and down in it,Job i. 6, 7; ii. 2. bearing round the holy insignia; and,
displaying them everywhere, he was for their sake everywhere received,
by them winning the minds of all to himself, and withdrawing as many as
he could from Malachy. These things did he.
25. But there was a certain prince, of the more powerful of the
unrighteous race,King (Primacy of Armagh, p. 97) thought that this was
Conor O'Loughlin. But he could hardly be described as "of the
unrighteous race," or as a "prince," which would indicate a petty
chieftain. Probably the conspirator was a local magnate. whom the king before he left the city, had
compelled to swear that he would maintain peace with the bishop, taking
from him, moreover, many hostages. Notwithstanding this, when the king
left he entered the city, and took counsel with his kinsmen and
friends how they might take the holy man by subtlety and kill him;
but they feared the people;Matt. xxvi. 4, combined with Luke xxii. 2. and having conspired to slay
MalachyCp. Acts xxiii. 12 f. they fixed a place and day, and a traitor gave them a
sign.Matt. xxvi. 48. On that very day, when the prelate was now celebrating the
solemnity of Vespers in the church with the whole of the clergy and a
multitude of the people, that worthless man sent him a message in words
of peace with subtlety,1 Macc. i. 30. asking him that he would deign to come
down to him, so that he might make peace. The bystanders answered that
he should rather come to the bishop, and that the church was a more
suitable place for establishing peace; for they foresaw guile. The
messengers replied that this was not safe for the prince; that he
feared for his head, and that he did not trust himself to the crowds
who, some days before, had nearly killed him for the bishop's sake. As
they were contending in this way, these saying that he should go, those
that he should not go, the bishop, desiring peace and not afraid to die,
said, "Brethren, let me imitate my Master.Cp. 1 Cor. xi. 1. I am a Christian to no
purpose if I do not follow Christ.Matt. x. 38, etc. Perhaps by humility I shall
bend the tyrant; if not, yet I shall conquer by rendering, a shepherd to
a sheep, a priest to a layman, that duty which he owed to me. You also,
as far as in me lies, I shall edify not a little by such an example. For
what if I should chance to be killed? I refuse not to die,Acts xxv. 11. in
order that from me you may have an example of life. It behoves a bishop,
as the prince of bishops says, not to be lord over the clergy, but to
become an example to the flock1 Pet. v. 3 (vg., inexact quotation).—no other exampleFormam. The word occurs in the verse just quoted, and
in the context of that which follows (Phil. ii. 7). truly than
that which we have received from Him who humbled himself and became
obedient unto death.Phil. ii. 8. Who will give me [the opportunity] to leave
this [example] to [my] sons, sealed with my blood? Try, at any rate,
whether your priest has worthily learnt from Christ not to fear death
for Christ." And he arose and went his way, all weeping, and praying
that he would not so greatly desire to die for Christ that he should
leave desolate so great a flock of Christ.
26. (17). But as for him, setting his whole hope in the Lord,Ps. lxxviii. 7. he
went with all speed accompanied only by three disciples who were ready
to die with him.Acts xxi. 13; John xi. 16. When he crossed the thresholdCp. Apuleius, Metamorph. xi. 23. of the house
and suddenly came into the midst of the armed men—himself protected by
the shield of faithEph. vi. 16.—the countenances of them all fell,Gen. iv. 6.
for dread fell upon them,Exod. xv. 16. so that the bishop could say, Mine
enemies which trouble me became weak and fell.Ps. xxvii. 2 (vg.). This word is
true.John iv. 37. You might see the victim standing, the slaughterers
surrounding him on all sides, with weapons in their hands; and there was
none to sacrifice him. You might suppose their arms were benumbed; for
there was none to stretch out a hand. For even that one also, who seemed
to be the head of the evil, rose up, not to assail him but to show him
reverence. Where is the sign, O man, which you had given for the death
of the pontiff? This is a sign rather of honour than death; this
postpones, it does not hasten death. Wonderful result! They offer peace
who had prepared slaughter. He cannot refuse it who had sought it at the
risk of life. Therefore peace was made—a peace so firm that from that
day the priest found his foe not merely appeased, but obedient,
devoted.While accepting the facts here narrated, so far as they
were capable of being observed, one cannot ignore the probability that
they were misinterpreted. It is quite possible that the offer of peace
was made in good faith, and that Malachy and his friends were unduly
suspicious when they "foresaw guile." The prince may have surrounded
himself with armed men as a mere matter of prudence. When they heard this, all the faithful rejoiced, not only
because the innocent blood was saved in that day,Susanna, 62. but because by
the merits of Malachy the souls of many wrongdoers escaped to salvation.
And fear took hold on all that were round about when they heard how God
had laid low, with sudden power, those two of His enemies who seemed
most ferocious and powerful in their generation:Luke xvi. 8. I refer to him
with whom we are now concerned, and the other of whom I spoke
above.§ 23. For in a wonderful manner He took them both—one terribly
punished in the body,Mulctatum in corpore. the other mercifully changed in
heartMutatum in corde.—in the devices that they had imagined.Ps. x. 2.
1135, July(?)
27. These matters so accomplished, the bishop now began to dispose and
order in the city all things pertaining to his ministry with entire
freedom, but not without constant risk of his life. For though there was
no one now who would harm him openly, yet the bishop had no place that
was safe from plotters, and no time when he could be at ease; and armed
men were appointed to guard him day and night, though he rather trusted
in the Lord.Jer. xvii. 7, etc. But his purpose was to take action against the
schismatic already mentioned, forasmuch as he was seducing many by means
of the insignia which he carried about, persuading all that he ought to
be bishop, and so stirring up the congregationsPlebes. against Malachy and
the unity of the church.That is, the church of Armagh. And thus he did; and without difficulty in
a short time he so hedged up all his waysHos. ii. 6. through the grace
given unto him by the Lord,Rom. xii. 3; xv. 15, etc. and which he had toward all, that that
evil one was compelled to surrender, to return the insignia,This statement can hardly be regarded as accurate. Flann
Ua Sinaich, keeper of the staff of Jesus, having died, Malachy purchased
it on July 7, 1135; or, in other words, as we may suppose, bribed the
new keeper to hand it over to him (A.F.M.). Niall himself may have
subsequently surrendered the Book of Armagh. and
henceforth to be quiet in all subjection.1 Tim. ii. 11. Thus Malachy, albeit
through many perils and labours, prospered day by day and was
strengthened, abounding more and more in hope and the power of the
Holy Ghost.Rom. xv. 13 (vg.).—The success of Malachy in
establishing peace in the latter years of his rule at Armagh may be
attributed in part to the influence of a prince who is not mentioned in
the text. Donough O'Carroll first appears in the Annals as chieftain of
the men of Fearnmaigh (now represented by the barony of Farney, co.
Monaghan), whom he led in an expedition against Fingal (the district
north of Dublin) in 1133. He seems to have succeeded to the kingdom or
lordship of Oriel (which included the present counties of Armagh,
Monaghan and Louth) on the death of Conor O'Loughlin (May 1136); for in
1138, "with the Oirgialla," he took part in an invasion of Meath. His
career was prosperous till 1152, when he assaulted the coarb of Patrick
(Gelasius). In consequence he was attacked by the Cenél Eoghain, and
expelled from Oriel. In 1155 he was imprisoned by Tighernan O'Rorke in
Lough Sheelan, for six weeks; but he escaped and recovered his kingdom,
and was present at the consecration of the Church of Mellifont Abbey in
1157. He was murdered in 1168. For his support of Malachy see Additional
Note C, p. 170.
28. (18). And God swept away, not only those who did evil to Malachy,
but also those who disparaged him. A certain man, for example, who was
in favour with the princes and magnates, and even with the king
himself,This is obviously not the king mentioned in §§ 22, 24,
25. The reference may be to Conor O'Loughlin, who was king of Oriel till
he was murdered in May 1136 (p. 40, note 2), or his successor, Donough
O'Carroll. because he was a flatterer and garrulous and mighty in
tongue,Ecclus. xxi. 7. befriended Malachy's opponents in all things, and
impudently maintained their contention. On the other hand, when the
saint was present, he withstood him to the face,Gal. ii. 11. and when he was
absent he disparaged him. Moreover he accosted him rudely everywhere,
and especially when he knew that he was engaged in the more frequented
assemblies. But he was soon visited with a suitable reward of his
impudent tongue. The evil-speaking tongue swelled, and became putrid
and worms swarmed from itExod. xvi. 20 (vg., inexact quotation). and filled the whole blasphemous mouth.
He vomited them forth incessantly for well-nigh seven days, and at
length with them spued out his wretched soul.
29. Once when Malachy was speaking before the people and exhorting
them, a certain unhappy woman dared to interrupt his discourse with evil
cries, showing no respect to the priest and the Spirit which
spake.Acts vi. 10 (vg.). Now she was of the impious race; and having breath in her
nostrilsIsa. ii. 22; cf. Job xxvii. 3; Wisd. ii. 2.—The words
might be rendered "a spirit (spiritus) in her nostrils." The meaning
is not clear. In the biblical passages in which the phrase occurs it
indicates mortality. On the other hand, by the previous sentence St.
Bernard suggests that, in contrast to Malachy, the woman spoke under the
influence of an evil spirit. she vomited out blasphemies and insults against the
saint, saying that he was a hypocrite, and an invader of the inheritance
of another, and even reproaching him for his baldness. But he, modest
and gentle as he was, answered her nothing;Mark xiv. 61. but the Lord
answered for him. The woman became insane by the judgement of the Lord,
and crying out many times that she was being suffocated by Malachy, at
length by a horrible death she expiated the sin of blasphemy. So this
wretched woman, taking up against Malachy the reproach that had been
made against Elisha,2 Kings ii. 23. found to her cost that he was indeed another
Elisha.
30. Further, because on account of a certain pestilence which arose in
the city, he had solemnly led out a multitude of the clergy and people
with the memorial of the saints,Memoria sanctorum. Probably a reliquary. A reliquary
preserved at Clogher in 1300 was known as the membra, which, according
to one explanation, was the equivalent of memoriale scrinium, memorial
shrine. See L.A.J. iv. 245. Cp. Oengus, p. 345 (s.v. Memrae);
Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, vol. i. p. 91. neither is this to be passed over,
that when Malachy prayed the pestilence immediately ceased.
Thenceforward there was none to murmur against him, for those who were
of the seed of CanaanSusanna, 56. said, Let us flee from the face of Malachy,
for the Lord fighteth for him.Exod. xiv. 25. But it was too late, for the
wrath of the Lord, coming everywhere upon them, pursued them even unto
destruction.Deut. vii. 2 (vg.). How, in a few days, is their memorial perished with
resounding noise;Ps. ix. 6 (vg.). how are they brought into desolation, they are
consumed in a moment, they are punished for their iniquity.Ps. lxxiii. 19. A
great miracle to-day is the extinction of that generation, so quickly
wrought, especially for those who knew their pride and power.See Additional Note B, p. 166. And
many other signs trulyJohn xx. 30. were there by which God glorified His name
and strengthened His servant amidst labours and dangers. Who can
worthily recount them? Yet we do not omit them all, though we have not
ability to describe all. But that the sequence of the narrative may not
be interrupted we reserve to the end some that we propose to mention.
1137
31. (19). So then Malachy, when within three yearsThis date is vague. But the period of three years must be
reckoned from the death of Murtough (September 17, 1134), or from the
subsequent ejection of Niall. Since stress is laid on the shortness,
rather than the length of the period, we may therefore conclude that
peace was established not long before October 1137, or, at any rate,
after the beginning of that year. And as St. Bernard believed that the
inauguration of Gelasius "immediately" followed the resignation of
Malachy, we may gather that both these events took place in 1137.
A.F.M. date Malachy's resignation in 1136; but the chronology of St.
Bernard is to be preferred. See Additional Note C, pp. 168, 169. a reward was
rendered to the proudPs. xciv. 2. and liberty restored to the church,
barbarism driven out and the customs of the Christian religion
everywhere instituted anew, seeing that all things were at peace, began
to think also of his own peace. And mindful of his design he appointed
in his own place Gelasius,Gelasius—in Irish Gilla meic Liag, the servant of the
son of the poet—was born about 1087. His father was apparently the poet
of a Tyrone sept, named Dermot (O'Hanlon, Saints, iii. 965). About
1121 he was appointed abbot of Derry, and held that office till he
became archbishop of Armagh in 1137. He had a long episcopate and seems
to have been a vigorous prelate. His age and infirmity (says Giraldus)
prevented him from attending the Synod of Cashel in 1172. But he
subsequently visited Henry II. in Dublin. Thither he brought the white
cow, whose milk was his only food (Giraldus, Expug. i. 35). He died
March 27, 1174, in his eighty-seventh year. For a Life of Gelasius, see
Colgan, A.S.H. p. 772. a good man, and worthy of so great an
honour, the clergy and people tacitly assenting, or rather supporting
him because of the agreement.See § 21. For apart from that it seemed
altogether cruel. And when he had been consecrated and earnestly
commended to the kings and princes, Malachy himself, renowned for
miracles and triumphs, returned to his parish;I.e. diocese. but not to Connor.
Hear the cause, which is worth relating. It is said that that diocese in
ancient times had two episcopal sees, and that there were two
bishoprics; an arrangement which seemed to Malachy preferable to the
existing one. Hence those bishoprics which ambition had welded into
one,The two episcopal sees are evidently Connor and Down. But
in early time there were many more sees than two in that district (see
Reeves, p. 138), and there is no evidence that any one of them was the
seat of a diocesan bishop. But, even if it were so, St. Bernard's
statement that the two supposed dioceses were "welded into one" by some
ambitious prelate prior to Malachy is unhistorical. A bishop of Connor
and a bishop of Down both died in 1117, just seven years before Malachy
became bishop of the diocese which included these two places; and there
is no trace of a bishop in either of them in the interval. The fact
seems to be that the diocese of Connor or Down was constituted for the
first time at the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1110. It remained on paper
until Malachy was appointed its first bishop. For the probable reason of
Malachy's division of the diocese, see p. lvii. f. Malachy divided again into two, yielding one part to another
bishop and retaining the other for himself. And for this reason he did
not come to Connor, because he had already ordained a bishop in it;This cannot be the true reason for Malachy's choice of
Down rather than Connor. If he had wished to go to Connor on his
retirement from Armagh he could have consecrated a bishop for Down. It
is more probable that his preference was due to his love for Bangor,
where he resided during his first episcopate, and where he probably
resided also when he was bishop of Down. But, however that may be,
Bangor was necessarily under his jurisdiction as bishop of Down; his
connexion with it would have been severed if he had assumed the
oversight of the new diocese of Connor.
but he betook himself to Down, separating the parishes as in the days
of old.Isa. li. 9; Amos ix. 11. O pure heart! O dove-like eye!Cp. Cant. i. 15; iv. i.; v. 12.—St. Bernard himself is
said to have had "dove-like eyes" (V.P. v. 12); and the meaning of the
phrase is explained thus: "In his eyes there shone a certain angelic
purity and a dove-like simplicity (single-mindedness)" (ibid. iii.
1). He handed over to the
new bishop the place which seemed better organized, which was held to be
more important, the place in which he himself had sat. Where are they
that fight about boundaries, carrying on perpetual hostilities against
one another for a single village? I know not if there is any class of
men whom that ancient prophecy touches more than those: They have
ripped up the women with child of Gilead that they might enlarge their
border.Amos i. 13. But this at another place.Cp. § 44, p. 83.
32. When Malachy was made bishop of Down, immediately according to his
custom he was at pains to take to himself from his sons, for his
comfort, a convent of regular clerics.It has been commonly assumed that the house of this
convent—which obviously consisted of Augustinian canons (the only order
of regular clerics recognized at this period by the Roman Church: see
Conc. Lat. 1139, can. 9, Mansi xxi. 528)—was in Downpatrick. It has
accordingly been identified with a monastery which in the Terrier of
1615 is described as "the monastery of the Irish, hard by the
Cathedral," and called "the church of the channons" (Reeves, 43, 231).
But it is not stated in the text to have been in Down. It seems more
likely to have been the monastery of Bangor, which was destroyed in 1127
(§ 18), and must have been reconstituted about this time. There is no
indication in the Life that Malachy resided in Down, while there are
several hints that Bangor was his headquarters and that he was abbot of
the community there as long as he lived. (See p. 33, n. 1.) In other
words Bangor was, in fact if not in name, the see of the diocese of
Ulaid, or Down. For this curious anomaly we have a parallel in the
diocese of Tír Eoghain, the see of which for a long period was at
Maghera, the bishop, the while, being often styled bishop of Derry
(Irish Church Quarterly, x. 225 ff.); and for the bishop of a diocese
serving as abbot of his cathedral chapter of regular canons we may point
to Carlisle (Trans. of Scottish Ecclesiological Society, iii. 267
ff.), Louth (L.A.J. iv. 143 ff.) and Christ Church, Dublin (ibid.
145). That the canons of Bangor were at an early period the bishop's
chapter we have independent evidence. For in 1244 the Pope gave
judgement in a cause which had been pending for some time between the
prior and monks of Down and the abbot and canons of Bangor, each of whom
claimed that their church was cathedral (Theiner, p. 42). This claim on
behalf of Bangor is easily explained if it was reckoned as the bishop's
see in the time of Malachy. And lo, again he girds
himself, as though a new recruit of Christ, for the spiritual conflict;
again he puts on the weapons that are mighty through God,2 Cor. x. 4. the
humility of holy poverty, the rigour of monastic discipline, the
quietness of contemplation, continuance in prayer. But all these things
for a long time he was able to maintain rather in will than in deed. For
all men came to him; not only obscure persons, but also nobles and
magnates, hastened to commit themselves to his wisdom and holiness for
instruction and correction. And he himself meanwhile went about; he
went out to sow his seed,Luke viii. 5. disposing and decreeing with all
authority concerning ecclesiastical affairs, like one of the Apostles.
And none said unto him, By what authority doest thou these
things?Matt. xxi. 23; Mark xi. 28. inasmuch as all saw the miracles and wonders which he
did,Acts viii. 6; John ii. 23. and because where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty.2 Cor. iii. 17.
CHAPTER V
The Roman Pilgrimage: the Miracles which were wrought in it.
1139
33. (20). It seemed to him, however, that one could not go on doing
these things with sufficient security without the authority of the
Apostolic See; and for that reason he determined to set out for Rome,
and most of all because the metropolitan see still lacked, and from the
beginning had lacked, the use of the pall, which is the fullness of
honour.The pall is a sort of collar, made of lamb's wool, which
every metropolitan is required to obtain from the Pope, and without
which he cannot exercise his functions. From the end of the eleventh
century it has been described in papal bulls as the symbol of "the
fullness of the pontifical office" (Catholic Encyclopedia, xi. 428).
For the date of Malachy's decision to go to Rome, see p. 72, n. 3. And it seemed good in his eyes1 Sam. xiv. 36, 40 (vg.). that the church for
which he had laboured so muchArmagh. should acquire, by his zeal and
labour, that privilege which hitherto it had not had. There was also
another metropolitan see, which Cellach had constituted anew, though
subject to the first see and to its archbishop as primate.Cashel, the seat of the kings of Munster. It was
certainly the see of an archbishop in 1110, when Malchus subscribed the
Acts of Rathbreasail as archbishop of Cashel. For the date of its
foundation see p. xxxv. f. For it
also Malachy no less desired the pall, and that the prerogative which it
had attained by the gift of Cellach should be confirmed by the authority
of the Apostolic See. When his purpose became known it displeased both
the brothers and the magnates and people of the country; because all
judged that they could not endure so long an absence of the loving
father of them all, and because they feared he might die.
1139, June 12
34. It happened meanwhile that his brother, Christian by name,
died,Christian, bishop of Clogher, was probably appointed
bishop of that diocese in succession to Cinaeth Ua Baigill, who died in
1135 (A.T.). He seems to have transferred the see of the diocese to
Louth, a large part of the diocese of Armagh (in which Louth was
situated) being placed under his jurisdiction. This arrangement was no
doubt made by Malachy with the support of Donough O'Carroll. See the
document quoted in Additional Note C, p. 170, L.A.J. iv. 133 ff. and
above, p. lix. Christian is commemorated in the contemporary Martyrology
of Gorman on June 12. The year of his death is stated (A.F.M.) to have
been 1138. St. Bernard obviously supposed it to have taken place in 1139
(p. 70, n. 2), and he appears to be right. For the work described in §
32 demands a longer period than can be allowed for it on the supposition
that he divulged his scheme of visiting Rome before June 12, 1138.
Moreover by that time he cannot have known that the papal schism had
come to an end; for the Anti-pope did not submit till May 29. Cp. p. 72,
n. 3, and R.I.A. xxxv. 245 ff. For another notice of Christian, see p.
89, n. 1. a good man, full of grace and power.Acts vi. 8 (vg.), combined with Acts xi. 24. He was a bishop
second to Malachy in reputation, but in holiness of life and zeal for
righteousness perhaps his equal. His departure made all the more afraid,
and rendered a parting from Malachy more grievous. They said, in fact,
that they would in no wise assent to the pilgrimage of their only
protector, since the whole land would be made desolateJer. xii. 11. if in
one moment it was bereaved of two such pillars.Gal. ii. 9. Therefore all,
with one voice, opposed him, and would have used force but that he
threatened them with divine vengeance. They refused to desist, however,
till the will of God on this matter should be asked by the casting of a
lot. He forbade it: nevertheless they cast the lot, but thrice it was
found to give an answer in favour of Malachy. For they were not content
with one trial, so eager were they to retain him. Yielding at length
they let him go, but not without lamentation and weeping and great
mourning.Matt. ii. 18. But that he should leave nothing imperfect he began to
take measures by which he might raise up the seed of his dead
brother.Deut. xxv. 5 (vg.). And three of his disciples having been summoned to him
he deliberated anxiously which should seem more worthy, or, in other
words, more useful, for this work. 1140, JanuaryAnd when he had scrutinized them one
by one, he said, "Do you, Edan" (that was the name of one of them),
"undertake the burden."Edan O'Kelly was bishop of Louth till his death in 1182
(A.L.C.). He organized the diocese of Oriel, with its see at
Louth—corresponding to the present diocese of Clogher—by the help of
Donough O'Carroll. In conjunction with him he founded the monastery of
SS. Peter and Paul for Augustinian canons at Knock, by Louth,
consecrated by Malachy in 1148 (A.F.M.; L.A.J. iv. 239, and document
quoted, p. 170). Close to it he also founded the Augustinian monastery
of St. Mary, the church of which was the cathedral church of the
diocese. On the early history of this diocese see L.A.J. iv. 129 ff. And when he hesitated and wept, he
proceeded, "Do not fear; for you have been designated to me by the Lord;
for just now I saw in anticipation the gold ring with which you are to
be espoused on your finger."This simple story was much developed in later times. Thus
in a medieval register of Clogher we read that when Edan had anointed
Christian on his deathbed "Malachy saw the ring which Christian wore
leap to Edan's finger, and therefore he consecrated him bishop"
(L.A.J. iv. 239). He assented, and when he had been
consecrated Malachy set out on his journey.
35. And when he had left ScotlandNo particulars are given of the passage through Scotland.
But Malachy probably sailed from Bangor to Cairngarroch (§ 40, p. 78, n.
4), and travelled thence by the shortest route through Carlisle to York.
The kingdom of Scotland then extended southwards to the river Ribble at
Gisburn (§ 69) and eastwards to the Tees (William of Newburgh, in
Chron. of Stephen (R.S.), i. 70). For a full discussion of his
journeys, the results of which are here assumed, see R.I.A. xxxv.
238-243. and reached
York, a priest,
named Sycarus,This probably represents the Saxon name Sighere. Jocelin,
who tells this story (Vita S. Waltheni in AA.SS., Aug., i. 255),
says that Sycarus (or as the MSS. of his tract call him, Figarus) was a
priest de Neubato (v.l. Neuvelt). i.e., I suppose, of Newbald, a
parish near Market Weighton, and about twenty-three miles from York. steadfastly beholding himActs xiv. 9. recognized him. For
though he had not seen his face before, because he had the spirit of
prophecyRev. xix. 10. he had received a revelation concerning him long ago. And
now without hesitation he pointed him out with his finger to those who
stood round him, saying, "This is he of whom I had said that from
Ireland there shall comeJohn i. 30. a holy bishop who knoweth the thoughts
of man."Ps. xciv. 11. So the lamp could not be hid under a bushel, for the
Holy Spirit who lighted itMatt. v. 15; Mark iv. 21; Luke xi. 33. brought it forth by the mouth of
Sycarus. For also many secret things concerning the affairs of him and
his companions were told him by Sycarus, all of which he acknowledged to
be or to have been. But when the companions of Malachy went on to
inquire about their return, Sycarus immediately replied—and the event
afterwards proved the truth of the sayingGen. xli. 13 (vg.).—that evidently very few
of their number would return with the bishop. When they heard that they
imagined that he apprehended death: but God fulfilled it in another way;
for on his way back from the City he left some with us, and some in
other places, to learn the rule of life;Cp. § 39. and so, according to the
word of Sycarus,2 Kings vi. 18, etc. he returned to his own country with very few
companions. So much concerning Sycarus.
36. In the same city of York he was visited by a man of noble rank
according to the standard of the world, WaltheofPrinted text, Wallenus, obviously an error for
Walleuus (Wallevus), which is the reading of A. The name occurs also
in the form Waldeve. St. Waltheof was the younger son of Simon de St.
Liz, earl of Northampton, by his wife Matilda, daughter of Waltheof,
earl of Northumberland. After Simon's death Matilda married David,
afterwards (1124) king of Scots. That Waltheof was the stepson of David
I. is a fact not unimportant for readers of the Life of St. Malachy.
After living for some time in Scotland Waltheof retired to the
Augustinian priory of St. Oswald, Nostal. Subsequently, but at what date
seems to be unknown, he was appointed prior of Kirkham. But, desirous of
a more austere life, he resigned the priory, and entered a Cistercian
house at Wardon, Bedfordshire. From it he soon migrated to Rievaulx in
Yorkshire, and took the vows of the Order. On the deposition of Richard,
first abbot of Melrose, he was elected as his successor in 1148. He died
August 3, 1159. (Life by Jocelin in AA.SS., Aug, i. 248). His visit to
Malachy proves that the fame of the latter had come to his
ears—probably through the Scots who knew him at Lismore (§ 8). It
indicates also that Malachy stayed at York long enough to allow the news
of his arrival to be sent to Kirkham. by name, then
prior of the regular brothers at Kirkham,The ruins of Kirkham Abbey remain in the parish of
Weston, about sixteen miles north-east of York. This house of
Augustinian canons was founded in 1121 by Walter Espec and his wife
Adeline. The first prior was William, rector of Garton, uncle of Espec.
Dugdale (vol. vi. 1. pp. 207-209), overlooking Waltheof, mentions no
other before 1190. but now a monk, and
father of the monks at Melrose, a monastery of our Order,The first Cistercian monastery in Scotland, founded in
1136 by David I. It was a daughter of Rievaulx, from which, as we have
seen, Waltheof was called to be its abbot. Its church of St. Mary was
consecrated July 28, 1146. It is on the bank of the Tweed, not far from
Old Melrose, the site of a community founded in the seventh century, of
which St. Cuthbert was a member. See James A. Wade, History of
Melrose. who
devoutly commended himself with humility to Malachy's prayers. And when
he noticed that the bishop had many companions and few horses—for
besides ministersDeacons. and other clerks he had with him five presbyters,
and only three horses—he offered him his own, on which he rode, saying
that he regretted only one thing, that it was a pack-horseRuncinus, the Old English rouncy (Chaucer, Prol.
390). From this incident the inference is clear that during the whole
journey to Rome and back most of Malachy's companions were always on
foot, and that the party went at a walking pace. and a
rough animal to ride. And he added, "I would have given it more
willingly if it had been better; but, if you think it worth while, take
it with you, such as it is." "And I," replied the bishop, "accept it the
more willingly the more valueless you proclaim it, because nothing can
be of no value to me which so precious a will offers;" and, turning to
his companions, "Saddle this horse for me, for it is suitable for me,
and will suffice for a long time." This done, he mounts. And at first he
considered it rough, as it was, but afterwards, by a wonderful change,
he found that it suited him well and ambled pleasantly. And that there
might not fall on the ground any part of the word which he had
spoken,1 Sam. iii. 19. Cp. Matt. x. 29. till the ninth year, the year in which he died,An important date. Since Malachy died on November 2,
1148, he must have reached York not earlier than November 1139. For
reasons for putting the visit somewhat later see R.I.A., xxxv. 247 f. it did
not fail him, and became an excellent and very valuable palfrey.
And—that which made the miracle more evident to those that saw—from
being nearly black it began to grow white, and after no long time"Within a few days," says Jocelin in his version of the
story! See AA.SS. l.c.
there was scarcely a whiter horse to be found than it.
1140, March
37. (21). To me also it was granted to see the man on that journey,After leaving York Malachy no doubt followed
approximately the line of the Roman road known as Erming Street to
London and Canterbury. Thanks to the preservation of the Itinerary of
Archbishop Sigeric on his journey from Rome to Canterbury in 990
(Stubbs, Memorials of St. Dunstan (R.S.), pp. 391-395), to our
knowledge of the routes of travellers contemporary with Malachy, and to
the rare mention in the Life of places through which he passed, we can
follow him almost step by step from Canterbury to Rome and back. He
probably sailed from Dover, and landed on the French coast at or near
Wissant. Thence he went by Arras, Rheims, Châlons-sur-Marne,
Bar-sur-Aube, Lausanne, Martigny, and over the Great St. Bernard to
Ivrea. Then he followed the beaten tract through Vercelli, Pavia,
Piacenza, Pontremoli, Lucca and Viterbo to Rome. On the whole journey,
from Bangor to Rome and back, the company traversed about 3000 miles on
land, besides crossing the sea four times. Allowing for stoppages at
Rome, Clairvaux and elsewhere, and for a weekly rest on Sunday, Malachy
must have been absent from Ireland about nine months. For details see
R.I.A. xxxv. 238 ff. The marginal dates are based on that
investigation, and are to be regarded merely as approximations.
and by the sight of him and by his word I was refreshed, and I
rejoiced as in all riches;Ps. cxix. 14. and I, in turn, though a sinner, found
grace in his sightGen. xxxiii. 10, etc. then, and from that time up to his death, as I
said in the Preface.Pref. § 2. He also, deigning to turn aside to
Clairvaux,Malachy probably "turned aside" from the main road at
Bar-sur-Aube, from which Clairvaux is distant eight miles. A few words
may be said about this famous monastery and its first abbot. Bernard,
the son of a nobleman named Tescelin and his saintly wife Aleth, whose
memory exercised a powerful influence on the lives of her children, was
born at Fontaines, a mile or two from Dijon, in 1090. In Oct. 1111 he
persuaded his brothers and many of his friends to embrace the religious
life. Early in the following year the whole band, thirty in number,
entered the austere and now declining community which had been
established in 1098 at Citeaux, twelve miles from Dijon. Their arrival
was the beginning of the prosperity of the great Cistercian Order. In
1115 Bernard was sent out, with some brothers, by the abbot, Stephen
Harding, to found a daughter house on the river Aube, in a valley which
had once been known, from its desolation, as the Valley of Wormwood.
After incredible hardships a monastery was built, and the place was so
transformed by the labours of the monks that henceforth it deserved its
newer name of Clara Vallis, or Clairvaux. The community rapidly
increased in numbers; and in 1133, in spite of the opposition of the
abbot when the proposal was first made, the building of a large
monastery on a different site was begun. It was probably far advanced
when Malachy arrived in 1140 (Vacandard, i. 413, 423). It was just
completed when he came again in 1148 (see p. 143, n. 5). St. Bernard
died on August 20, 1153. At this time he was the most powerful
ecclesiastic in Europe, not excepting his nominee Pope Innocent II. (see
p. 72, n. 3). Doubtless the main purpose of Malachy's visit to Clairvaux
was to secure St. Bernard's support of the petition which he was about
to present to the Pope. For further information about St. Bernard the
reader may consult V.P., Vacandard, J. Cotter Morison, The Life and
Times of St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (1868), and Richard S. Storrs,
Bernard of Clairvaux, the Times, the Man, and his Work (1892). when he saw the brothers was
deeply moved; and they
were not a little edified by his presence and his speech. So accepting
the place and us, and gathering us into his inmost heart, he bade us
farewell and departed. And crossing the Alps he came to Ivrea,Yporia. Its ancient name was Eporedia. From it there
are two routes across the Alps, by the Great St. Bernard and the Little
St. Bernard respectively. a
city of Italy, where he immediately healed the little son of his host
who was sick and ready to die.Luke vii. 2.
1140, May
38. Pope Innocent II., of happy memory, was then in the Apostolic
See.On the death of Pope Honorius II. (February 14, 1130) two
Popes were elected by different groups of cardinals, Innocent II. and
Anacletus II. St. Bernard espoused the cause of the former, and by his
untiring efforts almost all the sovereigns of Europe were enlisted on
his side (see Vacandard, chaps. x.-xiii., xviii.; Storrs, pp. 523-540;
Morison, pp. 149-165, 209-213). But the schism lasted for eight years.
At length Anacletus died (January 7, 1138), and the surrender of his
successor, Victor IV., on May 29, 1138 (Ep. 317), left Innocent in
undisputed occupation of the papal chair. The news of the pacification
was not announced in Scotland till the end of September (Richard of
Hexham, 170). It probably reached Ireland a little later. It must have
been after he was assured of the end of the schism that Malachy proposed
his journey to Rome, i.e. at the end of 1138 or in 1139. He received him courteously, and displayed kindly pity for him
on account of his long pilgrimage. And Malachy in the first place asked
with many tears for that which he had fixed most deeply in his heart,
that he might be allowed to live and die at Clairvaux, with the
permission and blessing of the chief Pontiff. He sought this, not
forgetful of the purpose for which he had come, but influenced by the
longing for Clairvaux which he had brought with him.Quo uenerat. But he did not
obtain his request, because the apostolic man decided that he should be
employed to more profitable advantage. He was not, however, wholly
disappointed of his heart's desire,Ps. xxi. 2. since it was granted him if
not to live, at least to die there. He spent a whole month in the City,
visiting the holy places and resorting to them for prayer. During that
time the chief Pontiff made frequent and careful inquiry of him and
those who were with him concerning the affairs of their country, the
morals of the people, the state of the churches, and the great things
that God had wrought by him in the land. And when he was already
preparing to return home the Pope committed his own authority to him,
appointing him legate throughout the whole of Ireland. For Bishop
Gilbert, who, as we have mentioned above, was then legate, had intimated
to him that by reason of age and infirmity of body he could no longer
discharge the duties of the office.Luke xvi. 2 (vg.).—For Gilbert see p. 47, n. 3. Patrick,
successor of Gilbert in the see of Limerick, was consecrated by
Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, who was himself consecrated on
January 8, 1139 (W. Stubbs, Reg. Sac. Angl., p. 45). His profession of
obedience (Ussher, p. 565) appears in the roll of professions at
Canterbury immediately before that of Uhtred of Llandaff, who was
consecrated in 1140 (Stubbs, l.c.). If we assume that Gilbert resigned
his see and his legatine commission at the same time, this gives 1139-40
as the date of Malachy's journey, in agreement with the hint of St.
Bernard in § 36. It is possible that Gilbert's resignation of his office
as legate was sent to Rome by Malachy. After this Malachy prayed that
the constitution of the new metropolisCashel. See p. 65, note 4. should be confirmed, and
that palls should be given him for both sees. The privilege of
confirmation he soon received; "but regarding the palls," said the chief
Pontiff, "more formal action must be taken. You must call together the
bishops and clerks and the magnates of the land and hold a general
council; and so with the assent and common desire of all ye shall demand
the pall by persons of honest repute, and it shall be given you." Then
he took his mitre from his own head, and placed it on Malachy's
head,Fleming in 1623 saw a mitre of Malachy at Clairvaux,
which was supposed to have been the one placed on his head by Innocent
at Orbiers, ten leagues away, his wooden drinking cup was preserved: it
was in a leathern case, adorned with Irish interlacings (Irish
Ecclesiastical Record, vii. 63). and more, he gave him the stole
and maniple which he was
accustomed to use in the offering; and saluting him with the kiss of
peace he dismissed him, strengthened with the apostolic blessing and
authority.
1140, July-August
39. And returning by Clairvaux he bestowed on us a second
benediction.Cp. 2 Cor. i. 15. And sighing deeply that it was not allowed him to
remain as he longed to do, he said, "Meanwhile I pray you to keep these
men for me, that they may learn from you what they may afterwards teach
us." And he added, "They will be to us for a seed, and in this seed
shall the nations be blessed,Gen. xxii. 18; xxvi. 4. even those nations which from
ancient days have heard the name of monk, but have not seen a
monk."Compare the passage concerning a brother who had been
sent from Clairvaux to Sweden in 1143, and had founded a daughter
monastery there: "The lord [St. Bernard] sent to his faithful servant
learned and discreet persons from the parts of Germany and England, by
whom the discipline of monastic religion founded in that kingdom
increased and bore worthy fruit among peoples who had indeed heard the
name of monk, but had never before seen a monk" (V.P. vii. 54). It was
literally true that no monastic communities had previously existed in
Sweden (C. H. Robinson, Conversion of Europe, p. 482 f. Cp. Vacandard,
ii. 416). But the passage before us cannot be construed as an assertion
that Ireland was in like case; for in § 12 mention is made of the
"monks" of Bangor in the time of Congall. St. Bernard (or Malachy, if
the words are really his) must be taken to mean simply that the
so-called monks of the decadent contemporary Church of Ireland were not
monks in the true sense of the word. (Cp. Lett. iii. § 2). There is
nothing to be said for the explanation suggested by Lanigan (iv. 114)
that the "nations" are nations other than the Irish, who had no monks.
For where were those nations to whom the Irish might send colonies of
monks? The fact is that the Latin word for "nations" (gentes) may
quite well mean here what it certainly means in § 42, the Irish tribes. And leaving four of his most intimate companionsHe left others in other Cistercian houses (§ 35). he
departed: and they, when they were proved and found worthy, were made
monks. After a time, when the saint was now in his own country, he sent
others,Cp. Letter i. § 1. and they were dealt with in like manner. And when they had
been instructed for some time and had applied their hearts unto1142
wisdom,Ps. xc. 12. the holy brother Christian,Gilla Críst Ua Condoirche was probably a native of the
district of Bangor (§ 14). He seems to have been one of the four who
were left by Malachy at Clairvaux; and, as is here stated, he was the
first abbot of Mellifont. He seems, however, to have proved not well
suited for the office, for he was sent back to Clairvaux for further
instruction (Letter iii. § 3). Some of the Clairvaux brothers (if not
all of them) refused to remain in Ireland, and it is perhaps hinted that
the cause of their return was dissatisfaction with his administration
(ib. § 2). About 1150 he was promoted to the bishopric of Lismore, and
at the Synod of Kells in 1152 he appeared as papal legate (Keating, iii.
317). He was present at the consecration of the church of Mellifont
Abbey in 1157 (A.U.) As legate he also presided at the Synod of Cashel
in 1172 (Giraldus, Expug. i. 34). He died in 1186 (A.L.C.). Felix,
bishop of Lismore, attended the Lateran Council of 1179 (Mansi, xxii.
217). Christian must therefore have resigned his see before that date. who was one of
themselves, was given to them to be their father, and we sent them out,
adding from our own a sufficient number for an abbey.Mellifont Abbey, the ruins of which still remain in a
secluded valley, beside the stream known as the Mattock, about two miles
from the Boyne, and five miles west of Drogheda. Some time after Malachy
returned to Ireland he wrote to St. Bernard, asking him to send two of
the four brothers who had been left at Clairvaux to select a site for
the abbey. This request was declined (Lett. i. § 1), and the
site—doubtless the gift of Donough O'Carroll (see the document quoted
p. 170)—was apparently chosen by Malachy himself. In 1142 (C.M.A. ii.
262, Clyn's Annals, Annals of Boyle), the four brothers, together
with a contingent of monks from Clairvaux, arrived, and the monastery
was founded, with Christian as its first abbot (Lett. ii.). Considerable
progress was made with the buildings, and endowments poured in. But
after a while it became necessary to send Christian back to France for
further instruction, and the Clairvaux monks went with him, never to
return. In due time Christian resumed his office as abbot, and with him
came one Robert, to assist him in the work of building and organization
(Lett. iii). The Abbey Church was not consecrated till 1157, nine years
after Malachy's death (A.U.). Mellifont remained the principal
Cistercian house in Ireland up to the Reformation. After the dissolution
(1539) it was granted, with its possessions, to Sir Edward Moore,
ancestor of the earls of Drogheda. The only portions of the monastery
which remain in a fair state of preservation are the Chapter House and
the Lavabo. The latter belongs to the original building. Excavations
made about twenty years ago revealed the ground plan of the entire
monastery, most of which was of later date than Malachy. Traces were
discovered of the foundation of the eastern portion of the original
church, about forty feet west of the east wall of the structure which
later took its place. It had six chapels at the east end, four of which
were apsidal (71st Report of Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland,
p. 11).
And this
abbey conceived and bare five daughters,1 Sam. ii. 21.—The five daughters were apparently
Bective (de Beatitudine) founded in 1147, Boyle, 1147-8, Monasternenagh,
1148, Baltinglas (de Valle Salutis), 1148, and Inislounaght (Janauschek,
Origines Cistercienses, Vindoboniæ, 1877, pp. 70, 92, 113). The
last-named seems to have been in existence in 1148 (see § 64), and it
may have been an off-shoot of Mellifont, though at an early date it was
subject to Monasternenagh (ibid. 131). Gougaud (Les Chrétientés
Celtiques, 1911, p. 364) gives Shrule (de Benedictione Dei) the fifth
place; but it appears to have been founded (1150?) after the Life was
written (Janauschek, p. 114). and the seed being
thus multipliedCp. Gen. xxii. 17; xxvi. 4. the number of monks increases from day to day
according to the desire and prophecy of Malachy. Now let us return to
the order of the narrative.
40. (22). Malachy having set out from us had a prosperous journey
through Scotland. And he found King David,David I. of Scotland, son of Malcolm Canmore and St.
Margaret, the sister of Edgar the Atheling. He was born in 1084. His
sister Matilda was the wife of Henry I. of England; and thus he was
uncle of Matilda, the empress, for whom he fought against Stephen,
though Stephen's wife, Queen Matilda, was also his niece. In 1113 David
married Matilda, the widow of Simon de St. Liz, earl of Northampton (cp.
p. 69, n. 1). He succeeded Alexander I. in 1124 and died in 1153. As the
founder of several Scottish dioceses and as having introduced the
Cistercian Order into his kingdom he had much in common with St.
Malachy. who is still alive
to-day, in one of his castles;This is probably an error. There is no record that David
I. had any castles in Galloway; and the chronicles seem to show that at
this period his principal residences were at Roxburgh and Carlisle. The
narrative suggests that the castle referred to was in the immediate
neighbourhood of Cruggleton (p. 78, n. 1), and it was probably the
predecessor of that of which the scanty ruins—believed to be of
thirteenth-century date—remain on the coast not far from the village.
They are on a peninsula of such natural strength that we may suppose it
was in very early times the site of a fortress (Fourth Report of
Commission on Ancient Monuments in Scotland, vol. i. p. 144). Possibly,
as has been suggested, David was there as the guest of Fergus, lord of
Galloway (1124-1161), to whom, subsequently to the Battle of the
Standard (August 22, 1138), and probably not long before this visit of
Malachy, he had been reconciled after a long estrangement (Agnew,
Hereditary Sheriffs of Galloway, 1893. vol. i. p. 58).
and his son was sick nigh unto
death.Phil. ii. 27 (inexact quotation). And when Malachy entered the king's house he was honourably
received by him and prevailed upon by humble entreaty that he would
heal his son.2 John iv. 47. He sprinkled the youth with water which he had
blessed, and fastening his eyes upon him said,Acts iii. 4. "Trust me, my son;
you shall not die this time." He said this, and on the next day,
according to his word, there followed the cure, and after the cure the
joy of the father and the shouting and noise of the whole exulting
family. The rumour went forthLuke vii. 17. to all, for what happened in the
royal house and to the king's son could not be hid.Mark vii. 24. And lo,
everywhere there resounded thanksgiving and the voice of praise,Isa. li. 3 (vg.).
both for the salvation of their lord, and for the novelty of the
miracle. This is Henry;The only son of David: "a man gentle and pious, a man of
sweet nature and of pure heart, and worthy in all things to be born of
such a father" (Ailred of Rievaulx, in A. O. Anderson, Scottish Annals
from English Chroniclers, p. 156). He died before his father, in May or
June 1152 (John of Hexham). Two of his sons became kings of Scots,
Malcolm IV. and William I. for he still lives, the only son of his
father, a brave and prudent knight, taking after his father as they say,
in following after righteousnessRom. ix. 30, etc. and love of the truth. And both
loved Malachy, as long as he lived, because he had recalled him from
death. They asked him to remain some days; but he, shunning renown, was
impatient of delay, and in the morning went on his way.
As he passed, therefore, through the village called Cruggleton,Crugeldum. Cruggleton is on the west coast of Wigtown
Bay, in the parish of Sorby, Wigtownshire. In passing through this
village Malachy made a détour, probably in order to visit King David,
which considerably lengthened his journey. a
dumb girl met him. While he prayed the string of her tongue was loosed
and she spake plain.Mark vii. 35.
Then he entered the village which they call St. Michael's Church,The parish church of Mochrum, Wigtownshire, as Sir
Herbert Maxwell informs me, was anciently dedicated to St. Michael. Thus
the village called St. Michael's Church is undoubtedly Kirk Mochrum,
which clusters round the church, and through which every traveller from
Cruggleton to Cairngarroch (see next note) must pass. It is twelve miles
from Cruggleton.
and before all the people cured a woman who was brought to him, mad and
bound with cords; and when he had sent her away restored he went on.
But when he came to Portus Lapasperi,Lapasperi is obviously the gen. of Lapasper, a
corruption of Lapis asper (rough stone). This seems to be a Latin
rendering of Cairngarroch (= Carn garbh), a name which occurs three
times on the shores of Wigtownshire. One of the places so called, on the
west coast of Luce Bay, may be set aside. The other two are seven or
eight miles apart, within sight of the Bangor coast, and nearly
equidistant from it; one in the parish of Stoneykirk, the other (now
known as Rough Cairn) in the parish of Geswalt. The late Sir Andrew
Agnew (op. cit. p. 59) regarded the latter as the place referred to in
the text on grounds which do not seem conclusive. Cairngarroch in
Stoneykirk is to be preferred for two reasons: it is more easily
approached from inland than its rival; and it has impressed its name on
the actual coast-line, which the other has not done; "Cairngarroch Bay"
is equivalent to Port Cairn garbh, and that to the Portus Lapasperi
of the text. This identification was first proposed by O'Hanlon (p. 81);
and its probability is increased now that the position of St. Michael's
Church has been fixed (see preceding note). But one of his arguments in
favour of it, based on the name of the parish, is fallacious; for
"Stoneykirk" has nothing to do with stones: it is a late corruption of
Steiniekirk = St. Stephen's Church. he waited there for a passage
some days; but the time of delay did not pass idly. In the interval an
oratory is constructed of twigs woven into a hedge, he both giving
directions and himself working. When it was finished he surrounded it
with a wall, and blessed the enclosed space for a cemetery. The merits
of him who blessed, the miracles, which are said to be wrought there
frequently to this day, sufficiently declare.
41. Hence it came that they were in the habit of carrying thither from
the neighbouring places those that were infirm and diseased, and
many were healed.Mark i. 32, 34. A woman paralysed in all her limbs, brought
thither on a waggon, returned home on foot, having waited only one night
in the holy place, not in vain, for the mercy of the Lord.For the passage here omitted see Appendix, p. 171.
Let these incidents—a few out of many—suffice with reference to that
place; for now we must proceed with what remains.
CHAPTER VI
St. Malachy's Apostolic Labours, Praises and Miracles.
1140, October
42. (23). Malachy embarked in a ship, and after a prosperous voyage
landed at his monastery of Bangor,Of which, it appears from this and other passages (see p.
33, n. 1), he was still abbot. so that his first sons might
receive the first benefit.2 Cor. i. 15. In what state of mind do you suppose
they were when they received their father—and such a father—in good
health from so long a journey? No wonder if their whole heart gave
itself over to joy at his return, when swift rumour soon brought
incredible gladness even to the tribesGentibus. outside round about them. In
fine, from the cities and castles and hamlets they ran to meet him, and
wherever he turned he was received with the joy of the whole
land.Ps. xlviii. 2. But honour is not to his taste. He exercises his office as
legate; many assemblies are held in many places, so that no region, or
part of a region, may be defrauded of the fruit and advantage of his
legation. He sows beside all waters;Isa. xxxii. 20. there is not one who can
escape from his sedulous care. Neither sex, nor age, nor condition, nor
[religious] profession is held in account.Cp. Serm. ii. § 3. Perhaps here, as in that passage, we
should read person (persona) for profession (professio). Everywhere the saving
seed is scattered, everywhere the heavenly trumpet sounds. He scours
every place, everywhere he breaks in, with the sword of his tongue
unsheathed to execute vengeance upon the nations and punishments upon
the peoples.Ps. cxlix. 6, 7. The terror of him is on them that do evil.Ps. xxxiv. 16; 1 Pet. iii. 12. He
cries unto the unrighteous, deal not unrighteously, and to the wicked,
lift not up the horn.Ps. lxxv. 4 (vg.). Religion is planted everywhere, is
propagated, is tended. His eyes are upon them,Ps. xxxiv. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 12. his care is for
their necessities. In councils, which are everywhere held, the ancient
traditions are revived, which, though their excellence was undisputed,
had fallen into disuse by the negligence of the priests. And not only
are the old restored, new customs are also devised; and whatsoever
things he promulgated are accepted as though issued from heaven, are
held fast, are committed to writing for a memorial to posterity. Why
should we not believe those things were sent from heaven which so many
heavenly miracles confirm? And that I may make what has been said
credible, let me touch on some of these miracles in a few words. For who
can enumerate all? Though I confess I had rather dwell on those things
which can be imitated than on those which can only excite wonder.
43. (24). And in my judgement the first and greatest miracle that he
exhibited was himself.St. Bernard's secretary, Geoffrey, recalls this sentence
(V.P. iii. 1). He mentions the saint's many miracles and then
proceeds, "But, as he himself says, in commendation of St. Malachy, the
first and greatest miracle that he displayed was himself." About half of
the present section is embodied by Gerlatus in his description of the
character of Godscalcus (M.G.H., Scr. xvii. 700). For to say nothing of his inner man,Eph. iii. 16.
the beauty and strength and purity of which his habits and life
sufficiently attested, he so bore himself even outwardly in a uniform
and consistent manner, and that the most modest and becoming, that
absolutely nothing appeared in him which could offend the beholders.
And, indeed, he who offends not in word, the same is a perfect
man.Jas. iii. 2. But yet in Malachy,
who, though he observed with unusual
care, ever detected, I will not say an idle word,Matt. xii. 36. but an idle
nod? Who ever knew his hand or his foot to move without purpose? Yea,
what was there that was not edifying in his gait, his mien, his bearing,
his countenance? In fine, neither did sadness darken nor laughter turn
to levity the joyousness of his countenance.Cp. Serm. ii. § 4. Everything in him was
under discipline, everything a mark of virtue, a ruleCp. Consecratio in Ordering of Deacons (Gregorian
Sacramentary). of
perfection. Always he was grave, but not austere. Relaxing at times, but
never careless; neglecting nothing, though for a time ignoring many
things. Quiet often, but by no means at any time idle.Cp. Serm. ii. § 4. From the
first day of his conversion to the last of his life, he lived without
personal possessions.This statement must be accepted with some reserve.
Malachy must have had personal property while he was coarb of Patrick.
And accordingly Serm. i. § 6, connects his voluntary poverty with his
episcopate in Down, and above (§ 21) his departure from Armagh is
represented as a return to poverty. The context shows that St. Bernard
is here thinking of the period when he was legate. He had neither menservants nor
maidservants,Gen. xxxii. 5, etc. nor villages nor hamlets, nor in fact any revenues,
ecclesiastical or secular, even when he was a bishop. There was nothing
whatever ordained or assigned for his episcopal mensa, by which the
bishop might live; for he had not even a house of his own. But he was
almost always going about all the parishesI.e. dioceses. serving the Gospel,Cp. Rom. i. 9.
and living of the Gospel,1 Cor. ix. 14. as the Lord appointed for him when he
said, The labourer is worthy of his hire.Luke x. 7. Except that more
frequently, making the Gospel itself without charge,1 Cor. ix. 18; cp. Serm. ii. § 1. as a
result of the labours of himself and his companions, he brought with
him that by which he might sustain himself and those who laboured with
him in the work of the ministry.Phil. iv. 3 combined with Eph. iv 12; cp. Acts xx. 34. Further, if at times he had to
rest he did so in the holy places which he himself had scattered through
the whole of Ireland; but he conformed to the customs and observances of
those with whom it pleased him to tarry, content with the common life
and the common table. There was nought in his food, nought in his
clothing, by which Malachy could be distinguished from the rest of the
brethren; to such a degree, though he was greatest, did he humble
himself in all things.Matt. xviii. 4, combined with Ecclus. iii. 20.
44. Then, when he went out to preach, he was accompanied by others
on foot, and on foot went he himself, the bishop and legate. That was
the apostolic rule; and it is the more to be admired in Malachy
because it is too rare in others. The true successor of the Apostles
assuredly is he who does such things. But it is to be observed how he
divides the inheritance with his brothers,Luke xii. 13. equally descendants
of the Apostles. They lord it among the clergy;1 Pet. v. 3 (vg.). he, though he
was free from all men, made himself the servant of all.1 Cor. ix. 19. They
either do not preach the Gospel and yet eat, or preach the Gospel in
order that they may eat; Malachy, imitating Paul, eats that he may
preach the Gospel.Cp. De Dil. 17: "Paul did not preach the Gospel that he
might eat, but ate that he might preach the Gospel; for he loved not
food but the Gospel." The reference is of course to 1 Cor. ix. They suppose that arrogance and gain are
godliness;1 Tim. vi. 5. Malachy claims for himself by inheritance labour and
a load.Opus et onus. They believe themselves happy if they enlarge their
borders;Amos i. 13. Malachy glories in enlarging charity.Cp. 2 Cor. vi. 11. They gather
into barnsMatt. vi. 26. and fill the wine-jars, that they may load their
tables; Malachy collects [men] into deserts and solitudes that he may
fill the heavens. They, though they receive tithes and first-fruits
and oblations, besides customs and tributes by the gift of Cæsar and
countless other revenues, nevertheless take thought what they shall
eat or what they shall drink;Matt. vi. 25, 31. Malachy having nothing of such
things, yet makes many rich2 Cor. vi. 10. out of the store-house of faith. Of
their desire and anxiety there is no end; Malachy, desiring nothing,
knows not how to think about the morrow.Cp. Matt. vi. 34. They exact from the poor
that which they may give to the rich; Malachy implores the rich to
provide for the poor. They empty the purses of their subjects; he for
their sins heaps altarsSecret of Mass for Nativity of St. John Baptist, etc. with vows and peace-offerings.Exod. xxxii. 6, etc.
They build lofty palaces, raise up towers and ramparts to the
heavens.Cp. Gen. xi. 4. Malachy, not having where to lay his head,Matt. viii. 20; Luke ix. 58. does
the work of an evangelist.2 Tim. iv. 5. They ride on horsesJer. vi. 23, etc. with a
crowd of men, who eat bread for nought, and that not their
own;2 Thess. iii. 8, 12. Malachy, hedged round with a college of holy brothers, goes
about on foot, bearing the bread of angels,Ps. lxxviii. 25. with which to
satisfy the hungry souls.Ps. cvii. 9. They do not even know the
congregations;Plebes. he instructs them. They honour powerful men and
tyrants; he punishes them. O, apostolic man, whom so many and so
striking signs of his apostleship2 Cor. xii. 12 (vg.). ennoble! What wonder, then,
if he has wrought wondrous things when he himself is so wonderful? Yet
truly not he but God in him.Cp. 1 Cor. xv. 10. Moreover, it is said, Thou art the
God that doest wonders.Ps. lxxvii. 14.—The following narratives of Malachy's
miracles are not in chronological order. They are arranged according to
their character. Thus the first four (§§ 45, 46) are instances of his
power over demons.
45. (25). There was a woman in the city of ColeraineColeraine is said to have been founded by St. Patrick;
and it was certainly a religious establishment at least as early as the
sixth century (Adamnan, i. 50). One of its erenachs died in 1122
(A.F.M.). The word "city" implies that the community was still in
existence. who had a
demon. Malachy was called; he prayed for the possessed; he commanded the
invader and he went out. But his iniquity was not yet fully satisfied,
and he entered into an unhappy woman who happened to be standing by. And
Malachy said, "I did not release that woman from your grasp in order
that you might enter this one; go out of her also." He obeyed, but went
back to the former woman; and driven forth from her once more, he again
went into the second. So for some time he vexed them alternately,
fleeing to and fro. Then the saint, indignant that he was mocked by a
demon, summoned up his spirit, and shouted; and when he had made an
attack on the adversary with all the forces of faith, he drove the demon
away from both, no less vexed than those whom he had vexed. But do not
suppose, reader, that the delay which he caused the saint was due to his
own strength: it was permitted by the divine dispensation, evidently in
order that by this as well the power of the evil one as the victory of
Malachy might be made more manifest.
Hear now what he did elsewhere, but not by reason of his presence.
Assuredly what he had power to accomplish when absent, he could do also
when present.
46. In a district of the northern part of Ireland a sick man lay in his
house. His sickness was beyond doubt due to the evil influence of
demons. For one night he heard them talking; and one said to another,
"See that this wretched man does not touch the bed or bedding of that
hypocrite, and so escape from our hands." The man perceived that they
were speaking of Malachy, who, as he remembered, had not long before
passed a night in that house. And the bedding was still in its place;
and taking courage, with his utmost effort he began to crawl, weak in
body but strong in faith. And lo, in the air there was clamour and
shouting: "Stop him, stop him, hold him, hold him; we are losing our
prey." But, carried on by faith and the desire to escape, the more they
shouted the more he hastened to the remedy, straining with knees and
hands. And when he reached the couch, and went up on it, he rolled
himself in the bed-clothes, and heard the wailing of them that lamented,
"Alas, alas, we have betrayed ourselves, we have been deceived, he has
escaped."Compare the story of St. Gall listening to the
conversation of the demon of the mountain and the demon of the waters,
told in Stokes's Celtic Church in Ireland, p. 145, from the Life of
St. Gall in M.G.H., Scr. i. 7. And quicker than a word, there left him the terror of the
demons and the horror which he suffered, and with them all his sickness.
In the city of Lismore a man vexed by a demon was delivered by Malachy.
Also once, when he was passing through Leinster, an infant was brought
to him who had a demon, and he was brought back whole.
In the same region he ordered a mad woman,The first of three miracles of healing the insane. bound with cords, to be
loosed and to be bathed in water which he blessed. She washed and was
healed.
Another woman also in Saul,In Lecale, co. Down, near Downpatrick. There St. Patrick
made his first convert, and there he died. It is not easy to explain why
St. Bernard calls it a "region." See further, p. 113, n. 3. a region of Ulaid,Ulaid was a district which included the greater part of
the present county of Down, and the southern part of Antrim. who was tearing
her own limbs with her teeth, he cured by praying and touching her.
There was a madman, who predicted many things to come. His friends and
neighbours brought him to the man of God, bound strongly with cords,
because his very madness had made him strong to do hurt and exceeding
terrible. Malachy prayed, and immediately the sick man was healed and
released. This was done in a certain place, the name of which we omit
because it has a very barbarous sound, as also have many others.For a similar avowal by Jocelin, who wrote in the same
century as St. Bernard, and other illustrative passages, see Adamnan, p.
4.
At another time in the above-mentioned city of Lismore,See § 8, and above in this section. the parents
of a dumb girlThe first of three healings of dumb persons. brought her to him in the midst of the street as he
passed, asking him with much entreaty that he would deign to help her.
Malachy stood and prayed; and he touched her tongue with his finger
and spatMark vii. 33. upon her mouth, and sent her away speaking.
47. (26). Going out of a certain church he met a man with his wife, and
she could not speak. And when he was asked to have mercy on her, he
stood in the gate, the people surrounding him; and he gave a blessing
upon her, and bade her say the Lord's Prayer. She said it, and the
people blessed the Lord.
In a city called AntrimThe word "city" implies that there was a religious
community at Antrim. That this was the case is proved by the round tower
which still remains, and other evidence (Reeves, p. 63). But apparently
the Annals do not refer to any monastery or church at that place. See,
however, U.A. and A.F.M. at 1096 for a possible exception. a certain man lying on a bed, now deprived
for twelve days of the use of his tongue, at the bidding of the saint,
who visited him, recovered his speech and received the Eucharist; and so
fortified he breathed his last breath in a good confession.1 Tim. vi. 13. O,
fruitful olive tree in the house of God!Ps. lii. 8 (vg.). O, oil of
gladness,Ps. xlv. 7. giving both anointing and light! By the splendour of the
miracle he gave light to those who were whole, by the graciousness of
the favour he anointed the sick man, and obtained for him, soon about to
die, the saving power of confession and communion.Cp. Serm. ii. § 8.
One of the nobles came in to him, having somewhat to say to him;Luke vii. 40.
and while they were speaking, full of faithActs vi. 5. piously stole three
rushes from the couch on which Malachy sat, and took them with him: and
God wrought many things as a result of the pious theft, by that man's
faith and the sanctity of the prelate.
By chance he had come to a city called Cloyne.Printed text, Conuama, no MS. variants being recorded
in the margin: perhaps a misprint for Clonuama. Mabillon has
Duevania and K Duenuania. A seems to read Clueuuania. All these
variants point to Cluain uama (the meadow of the cave), the Irish name
for Cloyne, which is undoubtedly the place referred to (see next note).
The next two miracles are concerned with childbirth. The first of them
may have been related to St. Bernard by Marcus, the author of Tundale's
Vision (see Friedel and Meyer, La Vision de Tondale, p. iv., and above
p. lxv. n. 3). And when he was
sitting at table a nobleman of that city came in and humbly prayed him
for his wife, who was pregnant, and had passed the appointed time of
parturition, so that all wondered, and there was none who did not
believe that her life was in danger. With him also Nehemiah,Nehemiah Moriarty, who died in 1149 (A.F.M.), being
then, it is said, 95 years old (Tundale, p. 5). In Tundale (p. 53 f.) he
is one of four bishops who were with St. Patrick in Paradise, the others
being Cellach, Malachy and Christian O'Morgair. He is there (pp. 5, 54)
called bishop of Cloyne (Cluanensis). the
bishop of that city, who was sitting next to him, made request to
Malachy, and others also as many as were present reclining together.
Then he said, "I pity her, for she is a good and modest woman." And
offering the man a cup which he had blessed, he said, "Go, give her to
drink, and know that when she has taken the draught of blessingCp. 1 Cor. x. 16. she
will bring forth without delay, and without danger." It was done as he
commanded, and that very night there followed that which he promised.
He was sitting in a plain with the count of Ulaid, dealing with certain
matters, and a great multitudeLuke vi. 17. was about them. There came a woman
who had long been with child. She declared that contrary to all the laws
of nature she had already been pregnant for fifteen months and twenty
days. Malachy having pity for this new and unheard-of trouble, prayed,
and the woman was delivered. Those who were present rejoiced and
wondered. For all saw with what ease and rapidity she brought forth in
the same place, and the sad portent of birth denied was changed to a
happier marvel.
48. (27). There happened in the same place an event with a similar
miracle but a different issue. He saw a man who was reported to be
consorting publicly with his brother's concubine; and he was a knight, a
servant of the count. And publicly accosting the incestuous man he
displayed himself to him as another John, saying, It is not lawful for
thee to have thy brother's concubine.Mark vi. 18. But he, nevertheless, in
his turn displaying himself to Malachy as another Herod, not only did
not hearken to him, but even answered him haughtily, and before them all
swore that he would never put her away. Then Malachy, much agitated, for
he was vehemently zealous for righteousness, said, "Then God shall
separate you from her against your will." Paying little heed the man
went away at once in a rage. And meeting the woman not far from the
crowd which was in the place, he treated her evilly and with violence,
as though he wholly belonged to Satan to whom he had a little before
been delivered.1 Cor. v. 5; 1 Tim. i. 20. Nor was the crime hidden. The damsel who
accompanied the lady ran back to the house (for it was not far from the
place), and, breathless, announced the wickedness that had taken place.
At the word her brothers, who were at home, enraged at the dishonour
done to their sister, rushed thither with all haste and slew the enemy
of virtue, taken in the very place and actJohn viii. 4. of crime, piercing
him with many wounds. The assembly was not yet dismissed when, lo! his
armour-bearer proclaimed what had happened. And all wondered that the
sentence of Malachy had taken such speedy effect. When this word was
heard all evil-doers (for there were many in the land) feared and, being
terrified, purified themselves, washing their hands in the blood of the
ungodly.Ps. lviii. 10 (vg.).
49. (28). Dermot the count,Probably Dermot MacMurrough, who became king of Leinster
in 1126, and died in 1171. He was driven out of his kingdom in 1166, and
then invited the Anglo-Normans to come to his aid. The result was the
conquest of Ireland. His character merits the description which St.
Bernard gives of it. who had now for a long time lain on his
bed, he sprinkled with blessed water, and caused him to rise up without
delay, and so strong that he mounted his horse on the spot, surpassing
assuredly the hope of himself and of his friends—rebuking him severely
at the same time because he was a bad man serving his bellyRom. xvi. 18. and
his appetite immoderately.
In the town of Cashel a man came before him with his paralysed son,
asking that he should be healed.The first of three healings of paralysis. And Malachy, praying briefly,
said, "Go thy way; thy son shall be made whole."John iv. 50. He went, and on
the morrow he returned with his son, who was nevertheless by no means
whole. Then Malachy rose and standing over him prayed at greater length,
and he was made whole. And turning to the father he said, "Offer him to
God." The man assented, but did not keep his promise; and after some
years his son, now a young man, relapsed into the same state, no doubt
because of his father's disobedience and his violation of the pledge.
Another man came from a long distance, when Malachy was in the borders
of Munster, bringing to him his son, who was entirely deprived of the
use of his feet. When he inquired how this had happened to him, he said,
"As I suspect, by the malignity of demons"; adding, "It was they, if I
mistake not, who, when he was playing in a field, caused a sleep to
fall upon him,Gen. ii. 21. and when the child awoke he found himself so."
Saying this, he poured forth his petition with tears, and earnestly
sought help. Malachy pitying him prayed, bidding the sick boy in the
meantime to sleep there upon the ground. He slept, and he arose whole.
Because he had come from farMark viii. 3. he kept him some time in his
company, and he used to walk with him.
50. In the monastery of Bangor a certain poor man was maintained by the
alms of the brothers; and he received a small sum every day, for
performing some office in the mill. He had been lame for twelve years,
creeping on the ground with his hands, and dragging his dead feet after
him. Him Malachy found one day before his cell, sad and sorrowful, and
asked him the cause. And he said, "You see how for a long time I am
miserably troubled and the hand of the Lord is upon me;Acts xiii. 11, etc. and lo,
to increase my distress, men who ought to have had pity, rather laugh at
me and cast my wretchedness in my teeth." And when he heard him, moved
with compassion, he looked up to heaven,Mark vii. 34. at the same time raising
his hands. Having said a short prayer he entered his cell, and the other
rose up. And standing upon his feet he wondered if it was true,
suspecting that he was in a dream.Cp. Acts xii. 9. But he began to move with slow
steps, for he did not altogether believe that he could walk. At length,
as it were waking out of a deep sleep,Gen. xlv. 26 (vg.). he recognized the mercy of
the Lord upon him; he walked firmly, and returned to the mill leaping
and exulting and praising God. When those saw him who had before seen
and known him they were filled with wonder and amazement,Acts iii. 8-10.
supposing it to be a spirit.Mark vi. 49.
Malachy likewise healed a dropsical man by praying, who remained there
in the monastery and was appointed shepherd.
51. A city of Ireland called Cork was without a bishop. They proceeded
to an election; but the various parties did not agree, each, as is
usual, wishing to appoint their own bishop, not God's.This implies that the diocese of Cork had already been
founded. But we cannot be sure that St. Bernard is correct when he says
that the clergy and people met to elect a bishop, in view of his
inability elsewhere (§ 19) to distinguish bishops from abbots. It is at
least possible that there was strife between different septs concerning
the appointment of a coarb of Barre, founder of the church of Cork.
Malachy may have taken advantage of the strife to nominate a ruler who
belonged to no sept in the district and who would allow himself to be
consecrated bishop. The vacancy may have been made by the death of
Donnell Shalvey, erenach of Cork, in 1140 (A.F.M.). The word erenach
is sometimes used at this period where we might have expected to find
abbot (cp. A.F.M. 1137, quoted in Additional Note C, p. 167). Malachy
came to the place when he heard of the disagreement. Calling together
the clergy and people he took pains to unite the hearts and desires of
the opposing parties. And when they had been persuaded that the whole
business ought to be entrusted to him, on whom in a very special manner
lay the care of that as also of the other churches2 Cor. xi. 28. throughout
Ireland,Evidently Malachy was now papal legate. The date of the
incident is therefore not earlier than 1140. immediately he named to them, not any of the nobles of the
land,It would seem that it was taken for granted that one of
the leading men of a sept would be appointed, according to prevalent
custom, exemplified in the case of Armagh. This suggests that the vacant
office was that of abbot. There would be nothing surprising in the
selection of a "poor man," who was not a local magnate, as diocesan
bishop. but rather a certain poor man whom he knew to be holy and
learned; and he was a stranger.Luke xvii. 16, 18.—This was probably Gilla Aedha Ua
Muidhin, who attended the Synod of Kells in 1152 as bishop of Cork
(Keating, iii. 317), and died in 1172 (A.U.). Since he attained "a
good old age" there is no reason why he should not have been consecrated
as early as 1140 or 1141. He had been a monk of Errew in Lough Con, co.
Mayo (A.T. 1172), and was therefore "a stranger," i.e. not a native
of Munster. He is called a "poor man," no doubt, for the same reason as
Malachy himself (§ 24), because he had embraced the life of voluntary
poverty. He had a reputation for piety and learning, for the Annals
describe him as "full of the grace of God" (A.U.), and "the tower of
devotion and wisdom and virginity of Ireland" (A.T.). And if the
tradition is trustworthy that he was abbot of St. John the Evangelist at
Cork, founded by Cormac Mac Carthy "for pilgrims from Connaught" (see
the charter of Dermot Mac Carthy printed in Gibson's History of Cork,
ii. 348), and that it received its later name of Gill Abbey from him, we
can explain how he came to be near at hand when the election was taking
place. He was sought; and it was
announced that he was lying in bed, and so weak that he could in no
wise go out unless carried in the hands of those who ministered to him.
"Let him rise," said Malachy; "in the name of the Lord I command it;
obedience will save him." What was he to do? He wished to obey, but he
thought himself unfitted; for though it should be possible for him to
go, he dreaded to be a bishop. So with the will to be obedient twin
enemies were contending, the load of weakness and the fear of the
burden. But the first conquered, the hope of salvation being given him
as an aid. Therefore he made the attempt, he moved, tested his power,
discovered that he was stronger than usual. Faith increased along with
power, and again faith made stronger gave in its turn increase of power.
Now he was able to rise unassisted, now to walk somewhat better, now not
even to perceive weariness in walking; at length, to come to Malachy
without difficulty and quickly, unaided by man. He promoted him, and put
him into the chair, with the applause of clergy and people. This was
done without question, because neither did they dare to oppose the will
of Malachy in any way, seeing the sign which he had wrought; nor did he
hesitate to obey, being made surer, by so evident a proof, of the will
of God.
52. (29). A certain woman was diseased with an issue of blood;Matt. ix. 20.—In this and the next two sections we have
three miracles wrought on women; one at the point of death, another
dead, and the third spiritually dead.
and she was of noble birth and very dear to Malachy, though by reason of
the nobility rather of her character than of her descent. When she was
entirely failing, her strength no doubt being exhausted with her blood,
and was now near the end, she sent to the man of God, in order that—the
only thing that remained to be done—he might help her soul who should
see her no more in the body. When Malachy heard it he was troubled,
because she was a woman of virtue, and her life fruitful in work and
example. And perceiving that he could not reach her in time he called
Malchus, for he was young and active (he is that brother of Abbot
Christian whom we mentioned above),See § 14. and said, "Haste, take her
these three apples on which I have invoked the name of the Lord; I am
assured of this, that when she tastes these she shall not taste of
death before she sees us,Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27. though we shall follow somewhat more
slowly." Malchus hastened as he was commanded, and when he came he went
in to the dying woman, showing himself another servant of Elisha, except
that his work was more efficacious.See 2 Kings iv. 29 ff. He bade her take that which
Malachy had blessed and sent to her, and to taste it if by any means she
could. But she was so refreshed when she heard Malachy's name, that she
was able to obey, and indicated by a nod (for she could not speak) that
she wished to be raised up for a little while. She was raised up, she
tasted; she was strengthened by what she tasted, she spoke, and gave
thanks. And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon her,Gen. ii. 21. and
she rested most sweetly in it, having long ceased to enjoy the benefit
of sleep, or to partake of food. Meanwhile her blood was
staunchedLuke viii. 44. and awaking after a while she found herself whole,Cp. Mark v. 29.
but she was still weak from long fasting and loss of blood. If in any
degree the cure was not complete,Si quominus. The text seems to be corrupt. A friend
suggests the emendation sed quominus deficeret. on the following day the
wished-for presence and appearance of Malachy made it perfect.
53. (30). A nobleman lived in the neighbourhood of the monastery of
Bangor, whose wife was sick nigh unto death.Phil. ii. 27 (inexact quotation).—The story told in this
section was a favourite of St. Charles Borromeo (Alban Butler, Lives of
Saints, ed. Husenbeth, ii. 607). Malachy, being asked
to come down ere she died,John iv. 49. to anoint the sick woman with
oil,Cp. Mark vi. 13; Jas. v. 14. came down and went in to her; and when she saw him she
rejoiced greatly, animated by the hope of salvation. And when he was
preparing to anoint her, it seemed to all that it ought rather to be
postponed to the morning; for it was evening. Malachy assented, and when
he had given a blessing over the sick woman, he went out with those who
were with him. But shortly afterwards, suddenly there was a cry
made,Matt. xxv. 6. lamentation and great wailing through the whole house, for
it was reported that she had died. Malachy ran up when he heard the
tumult, and his disciples followed him. And coming to the bed, when he
had assured himself that she had breathed her last, he was greatly
troubled in mind, blaming himself that she had died without the grace of
the sacrament. And lifting up his hands to heaven he said, "I beseech
thee, Lord, I have done very foolishly. I, even I, have
sinned,1 Chron. xxi. 8, 17. who postponed, not she who desired it." Saying this he
protested in the hearing of all that he would not be comforted,Gen. xxxvii. 35.
that he would give no rest to his spirit,2 Cor. ii. 13; cp. Jer. xlv. 3. unless he should be
allowed to restore the grace which he had taken away. And standing over
her, all night he laboured in his groaning; and, instead of the holy
oil, flooding the dead woman with a great rain of tears,Ps. vi. 6 (vg.); Jer. xlv. 3. he
bestowed on her such a substitute for the unction as he could. Thus did
he; but to his companions he said, "Watch and pray."Matt. xxvi. 41, etc. So they in
psalms, he in tears, passed a night of vigil. And when the morning came
the Lord heard His saint, for the Spirit of the Lord was making
intercession for him, who maketh intercession for the saints with
groanings that cannot be uttered.Rom. viii. 26. Why more? She who had been dead
opened her eyes,Acts ix. 40. and, as those do who wake from a deep sleep,
rubbing her forehead and temples with her hands, she rose upon the bed,
and recognizing Malachy, devoutly saluted him with bowed head. And
mourning being turned into joy,John xvi. 20. amazement took hold of all, both
those who saw and those who heard. And Malachy also gave thanks and
blessed the Lord. And he anointed her, nevertheless, knowing that in
that sacrament sins are forgiven, and that the prayer of faith saves
the sick.Jas. v. 15. After this he went away, and she recovered, and after
living for some time in good health, that the glory of God should be
made manifest in her,John ix. 3. she accomplished the penance which Malachy
had enjoined upon her, and again fell asleepActs vii. 60. in a good
confession,1 Tim. vi. 13. and passed to the Lord.
54. (3). There was also a woman whom a spirit of anger and furyExod. xv. 8 (vg.).
dominated to such an extent that not only her neighbours and relatives
fled from her society, but even her own sons could scarcely endure to
live with her. Shouting, rancour and a mighty tempestPs. l. 3 (vg.). wherever
she was. Violent, fiery, hasty, terrible with tongue and hand,
intolerable to all, and hated. Her sons, grieving both for her and for
themselves, dragged her into the presence of Malachy, setting forth
their lamentable complaint with tears. But the holy man, pitying both
the sickness of the mother and the trouble of her sons, called her
aside, and made urgent inquiry whether she had ever confessed her sins.
She replied, "Never." "Confess," said he. She obeyed; and he enjoined
penance on her when she made confession, and prayed over her that
Almighty God might give her the spirit of meekness,1 Cor. iv. 21. and in the
name of the Lord Jesus bade her to be angry no more. Such meekness
followed that it was plain to all that it was nothing else than a
marvellous change effected by the right hand of the Most High.Ps. lxxvii. 10 (vg.). It
is said that she is still living to-day, and is so patient and gentle
that, though she used to exasperate all, now she cannot be exasperated
by any injuries or insults or afflictions. If it be allowed me, as the
Apostle says, to be fully persuaded in my own mind,Rom. xiv. 5. let each
accept it as he will; for me, I give it as my opinion that this miracle
should be regarded as superior to that of raising the dead woman,
mentioned above, inasmuch as there the outward, but here the inner
manEph. iii. 16; cp. 2 Cor. iv. 16. was restored to life. And now let us hasten to what remains.
55. A man who as regards the world was honourable, as regards God
devout, came to Malachy and complained to him concerning the barrenness
of his soul,Ps. xxxv. 12 (vg.). praying that he would obtain for him from Almighty
God the grace of tears. And Malachy, smiling because he was pleased that
there should be spiritual desire from a man of the world, laid his cheek
on the cheek of the other as though caressing him, and said, "Be it
done unto you as you have asked."Matt. viii. 13, combined with John xv. 7. From that time rivers of waters
ran down his eyesPs. cxix. 136. so great and so nearly incessant that the phrase
of Scripture might seem applicable to him: "A fountain of gardens, a
well of living waters."Cant. iv. 15.
There is an island of the sea in Ireland, from of old fruitful of
fishes;Here and in § 56 we have two miraculous draughts of
fish. and the sea there abounds in fish. By the sins of the
inhabitants, as it is believed, the wonted supply was taken away, and
she that had many children was waxed feeble,1 Sam. ii. 5. and her own great
usefulness utterly dwindled away. While the natives were grieving, and
the peoples taking ill the great loss, it was revealed to a certain
woman that a remedy might be effected by the prayers of Malachy; and
that became known to all, for she herself proclaimed it. By the will of
God it happened that Malachy arrived. For while he was going round and
filling the region with the Gospel, he turned aside thither that to them
also he might impart the same grace.Cp. Rom. i. 11. But the barbarous
people,Acts xxviii. 2. who cared more for the fishes,Cp. 1 Cor. ix. 9. demanded with all
vehemence that he would deign to regard rather the sterility of their
island. And when he answered that it was not for that he had come, but
that he desired to catch men rather than fish,Cp. Luke v. 10. yet seeing their
faithCp. Mark ii. 5; Luke v. 20. he kneeled down on the shore and prayedActs xxi. 5. to the Lord
that, though they were unworthy of it, he would not deny them the
benefit granted long before, since they sought it again with so great
faith. The prayer went up,Acts x. 4. there came up also a multitude of
fishes,Luke v. 6; John xxi. 6. and perhaps more fruitful than in ancient days; and the
people of the land continue to enjoy that abundance to this day. What
wonder if the prayer of a righteous man which penetrates the
heavens,Ecclus. xxxv. 21 (inexact quotation). penetrated the abysses,Cp. Ps. cvii. 26 (vg.). and called forth from the
depth of the sea so great supplies of fish?
56. There came, on one occasion, three bishops into the village of
Faughart,Faughart is a parish north of Dundalk. which they say was the birthplace of Brigit the
virgin;Apparently the only authority earlier than St. Bernard
which makes Faughart the birthplace of St. Brigit is her fourth Life
(i. 6, Trias, 547). and Malachy was a fourth. And the presbyter who had
received them with hospitality, said to him, "What shall I do, for I
have no fish?" And when he answered that he should seek them from the
fishermen, he said, "For the last two years no fish have been found in
the river;The Kilcurry River. and for that reason the fishermen also are all scattered
and have even abandoned their art." And Malachy replied "Command them to
let down the netsLuke v. 4. in the name of the Lord." It was done, and
twelve salmon were caught. They lowered them a second time, and catching
as many more they brought to the tables both an unlooked-for dish and an
unlooked-for miracle. And that it might be clear that this was granted
to the merits of Malachy, the same sterility nevertheless continued also
for the following two years.
CHAPTER VII
He does battle for the faith; he restores peace among those who were at
variance; he takes in hand to build a stone church.
57. (32). There was a certain clerk in Lismore whose life, as it is
said, was good, but his faith not so. He was a man of some knowledge in
his own eyes, and dared to say that in the Eucharist there is only a
sacrament and not the factRem. This may have been a follower of Berengarius, who
in his recantation in 1059 anathematized the heresy that the bread and
wine "after consecration are merely a sacrament and not the true Body
and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Mansi, xix. 900). of the sacrament, that is, mere
sanctification and not the truth of the Body. On this subject he was
often addressed by Malachy in secret, but in vain; and finally he was
called before a public assembly, the laity however being excluded, in
order that if it were possible, he should be healed and not put to
confusion.Compare St. Bernard's method with Abélard, V.P. iii.
13; and for his dealing with a brother who did not believe in
transubstantiation, ibid. vii. 8, 9. So in a gathering of clerics the man was given
opportunity to answer for his opinion. And when with all his powers of
ingenuity, in which he had no slight skill, he attempted to assert and
defend his error, Malachy disputing against him and convicting him, in
the judgement of all, he was worsted; and he retired, put to confusion
by the unanimity though not sentenced to punishment.I follow the printed text: de consensu confusus quidem
exiit, sed non correptus. But Mabillon, supported by A, has "he retired
from the assembly confounded, but not brought to the right opinion" (de
conuentu ... non correctus). K reads de conuentu ... non correptus.
But he said
that he was not overcome by reason, but crushed by the authority of the
bishop. "And you, Malachy," said he, "have put me to confusion this day
without good reason, speaking assuredly against the truth and contrary
to your own conscience." Malachy, sad for a man so hardened, but
grieving more for the injury that was done to the faith, and fearing
dangerous developments, called the church together,It would seem from this that Malachy was acting as
legate. The date is therefore after 1140. publicly
censured the erring one, publicly admonished him to repent, the bishops
and the whole clergy urging him to the same effect. When he did not
submit, they pronounced an anathema upon him as contumacious and
proclaimed him a heretic. But not aroused from sleep by this he said,
"You all favour the man, not the truth; I do not accept persons so that
I should forsake the truth."Prov. xxviii. 21 (vg.). To this word the saint made answer
with some heat, "The Lord make you confess the truth even of necessity;"
and when he replied "Amen" the assembly was dissolved. Burnt with such a
branding-iron he meditated flight, for he could not bear to be of ill
repute and dishonoured. And forthwith he departed, carrying his
belongings; when lo, seized with sudden weakness, he stood still, and
his strength failing he threw himself on the ground in the same spot,
panting and weary. A vagabond madman, arriving by chance at that place,
came upon the man and asked him what he did there. He replied that he
was suffering from great weakness and unable either to advance or to go
back. And the other said, "This weakness is nothing else than death
itself." But this he spake not of himself, butJohn xi. 51. God fitly rebuked
by means of a madman him who would not submit to the sane counsels of
men of understanding. And he said, "Return home, I will help you."
Finally with his guidance he went back into the city: he returned to his
right mind and to the mercy of the Lord. In the same hour the bishop was
summoned, the truth was acknowledged, error was renounced. He confessed
his guilt and was absolved. He asked for the viaticum, and
reconciliation was granted; and almost in the same moment his perfidy
was renounced by his mouth and dissolved by his death. So, to the wonder
of all, with all speed was fulfilled the word of Malachy, and with it
that of the Scripture which says, "Trouble gives understanding to the
hearing."Isa. xxviii. 19 (vg.).
58. (33). Between the peoples of certain regions there once arose
grievous discord.In §§ 58-62 we have three stories in which Malachy
appears as a peacemaker. Malachy was importuned to make peace between
them, and because he was hindered by other business he committed this
matter to one of the bishops. He made excuse and refused, saying that
Malachy, not he, had been sought for, that he would be despised, that he
was unwilling to take trouble to no purpose. "Go," said Malachy, "and
the Lord be with you."1 Sam. xvii. 37, combined with 1 Chron. xxii. 16. He replied, "I assent, but if they will not
hear me, know that I will appeal to your Fatherhood." Smiling, Malachy
said, "Be it so." Then the bishop, having called the parties together,
dictated terms of peace; they assented and were reconciled to one
another, security was given on both sides, and peace was established;
and so he dismissed them. But one party, seeing that their enemies had
become careless and were unprepared, because peace having been made they
suspected no harm, said among themselves, each man to his
neighbour,Gen. xi. 3 (vg.). "What are we minded to do? Victory
and vengeance on
our foes is in our grasp"; and they began to attack them. What was
happening became known to the bishop, and hastening up he charged their
chief with wickedness and guile, but he treated him with contempt. He
invoked the name of Malachy against him, and he paid no attention to it.
Laughing at the bishop he said, "Do you suppose that for you we ought to
let those go who did evil to us, whom God hath delivered into our
hands?"Judg. xvi. 24. And the bishop, remembering the conversation which he had
had with Malachy, weeping and wailing,Mark v. 38. turned his face towards
Malachy's monasteryThis expression indicates that Malachy had a special
relation to one monastery. It can hardly have been any other than
Bangor. and said, "Where art thou, man of God, where
art thou? Is not this, my father, what I told thee of? Alas, alas, I
came here that I might do good and not evil; and behold, through me all
are perishing, these in the body, those in the soul." Many things in
this manner said he as he mourned and lamented,Matt. xi. 17. and he urged
and addressed Malachy, as though he were present, against the wicked.
But meanwhile the impious men did not cease to attack those with whom
they had made peace, so as to destroy them; and behold there was a
lying spirit in the mouth of certain men to deceive them.1 Kings xxii. 22; 2 Chron. xviii. 21. And
these men met them in the way announcing that a raid had been made into
their lands by their adversaries, that all things were being consumed
with the edge of the sword,Josh. vi. 21; Judg. iv. 15, etc. and that their goods were being laid
waste, and their wives and children taken and led away. When they heard
this they returned in haste. The hindmost followed the first, not
knowing whither they wentHeb. xi. 8. or what had happened; for they had not
all heard the men who spoke. And when they came and found none of those
things which had been told them they were confounded, taken in their own
wickedness;Cp. Ps. x. 2. and they knew that they had been given up to the
spirit of error,1 John iv. 6. on account of the messenger of Malachy whom they
deceived and his name which they despised.Cp. Mal. i. 6. Further, the bishop,
when he heard that the traitors were foiled in the iniquity which they
had devised, returned with joy to Malachy and told him all things in
order which had happened to him.
59. Malachy, knowing that by such an event the peace was disturbed,
taking suitable opportunity was at pains in his own person to restore
peace once more between them, and to confirm it when restored by the
giving and receiving of security and an oath on both sides. But those
who before had suffered from the violation of peace, mindful of the
injury, and ignoring the agreement and the command of Malachy, took in
hand to make reprisals. And all coming together, they set out to take
their enemies unprepared and to return upon their own head the evil
which they had thought to do to them.Cp. Ps. vii. 16. And when they had very easily
forded a great river which lay between them, they were stopped by a
rivulet to which they came, not far from it. For indeed now it was not a
rivulet, but appeared clearly to be a huge river, denying passage in
every part of it to those who desired to cross it. All wondered that it
was now so great, knowing how small it had been before, and they said
among themselves, "What has caused this inundation? The air is clear,
there are no rains, and we do not remember that there have been any
lately; and even if there had been much rain, which of us remembers
that, to however great a flood it swelled, it ever before covered the
land, spreading over sown ground and meadow? This is the finger of
God,Exod. viii. 19. and the Lord is hedging up our ways,Hos. ii. 6. on account of
Malachy, His saint, whose covenant we have transgressedJosh. vii. 15, etc. and
disobeyed his commandment."In Serm. ii. § 2, where this story is again briefly told,
the miracle is more directly ascribed to Malachy, and the stream is said
to have swelled suddenly. So these also, without accomplishing
their purpose, returned to their own territory, likewise confounded. The
report was spread throughout all the region;Cp. Luke iv. 14, etc. and they blessed
God, who took the wise in their own craftiness,Job v. 13, combined with 1 Cor. iii. 19. and cutting off
the horns of the wicked,Ps. lxxv. 10. exalted the horn of His anointed.1 Sam. ii. 10.
60. One of the nobles hostile to the kingProbably Turlough O'Conor, who is said by the annalists
to have imprisoned illegally several persons of high position, viz. (1)
his own son Rory O'Conor, together with Donnell O'Flaherty and Cathal
O'Conor, in 1143, (2) Murrough Ua Maelsechlainn, king of Meath, in 1143,
and (3) Teague O'Brien, in 1148. Release was obtained, in the first
instance, in 1144 by the clergy of Ireland and the "coarb of Patrick,"
who fasted at Rathbrennan. The coarb may have been Malachy. In the
second instance, it was secured through the influence of certain
"sureties"; and in the third, "at the intercession of the bishops of
Ireland with the coarb of Patrick, Mael Maedoc Ua Morgair" (A.F.M.,
A.T.). The Annals, however, know nothing of the blinding of O'Conor.
The incident in the text is mentioned in Serm. ii. § 2. was reconciled by means
of Malachy. For he did not trust the king sufficiently to make peace
with him except by the mediation of Malachy, or of one for whom the king
had equal reverence. His distrust was not unfounded, as afterwards
appeared. For when he had become careless, and was no longer taking
precautions, the king captured him and put him in bonds, more truly
himself captured by ancient hate. His own friends demanded him by the
hand of the mediator;Gal iii. 19. for neither did they
expect anything but
his death. What should Malachy do? There was nothing to be done except
to recur to that one accustomed refuge of his. Gathering an exceeding
mighty army, a great crowd of his own disciples, he went to the king,
and demanded him who was bound; he was refused. But Malachy said, "You
act unrighteously against the Lord, and against me, and against
yourself, transgressing the covenant;Josh. vii. 15, etc. if you disregard it, yet
shall not I. A man has entrusted himself to my guarantee; if he should
die, I have betrayed him. I am guilty of his blood. Why has it seemed
good to you to make me a traitor, yourself a transgressor? Know that I
will eat nothing untilActs xxiii. 14. he is liberated; no, nor these
either."An example of the well-known Irish custom of "fasting on"
a person with a view to his discomfiture (cp. p. 106, n. 9). Having said this he entered the church. He called upon
Almighty God with anxious groanings, his own and those of his disciples,
that He would deign to deliver out of the hand of the transgressor and
cruel manPs. lxxi. 4 (inexact quotation). him who was unjustly sentenced. And that day and the
following night they persisted in fasting and prayer. Word was brought
to the king of that which was being done; and his heart was the more
hardenedExod. viii. 19. by that by which it ought to have been softened. The
carnal man took to flight, fearing lest if he remained near at hand he
might not be able to withstand the power of prayer; as though, forsooth,
if he was hidden it could not find him, nor would penetrate to a remote
place. Do you put bounds, wretched man, to the prayers of saints?Rev. v. 8.
Is prayer an arrow that has been shot, that you may flee from the face
of the bow?Isa. xxi. 15 (vg.). Whither wilt thou go from the Spirit
of God, who
carries it, or whither wilt thou flee from His presence?Ps. cxxxix. 7. At last
Malachy pursues the fugitive, he finds him who lies hidden. "You shall
be blind and not seeing,Acts xiii. 11. that you may see better, and may
understand that it is hard for you to kick against the pricks.Acts xxvi. 14.
Nay, perceive even now that sharp arrows of the mightyPs. cxx. 4. have come
to you, which, although they have rebounded from your heart, because it
is of stone, have not rebounded from your eyes. Would that even through
the windows of the eyes they might reach to the heart, and trouble give
understandingIsa. xxviii. 19. to blindness." It could be seen that Saul again
was led by the handActs ix. 8. and brought to Ananias, a wolf to a sheep,
that he might disgorge his prey. He disgorged it and received
sight,Acts ix. 18. for to such a degree was Malachy like a sheep, if, for
example, it were to take pity even on the wolf. Note carefully from
this, reader, with whom Malachy had his dwelling, what sort of princes
they were, what sort of peoples. How is it that he also was not a
brother to dragons, and a companion to owls?Job xxx. 29. And therefore the
Lord gave him power to tread upon serpents and scorpions,Luke x. 19 (quotation not exact). to
bind their kings with chains and their nobles with fetters of
iron.Ps. cxlix. Hear now what follows.
61. (34). He to whom Malachy had yielded the possessions of the
monastery of Bangor,See § 13. ungrateful for the benefit, from that time
forward behaved himself always most arrogantly against him and his
followers, hostile to them in all things, plotting everywhere, and
disparaging his deeds. But not without punishment. He had an only son,
who, imitating his father and daring himself to act in opposition to
Malachy, died the same year. And thus he died. It seemed good to
Malachy that a stone oratory should be erected at Bangor like those
which he had seen constructed in other regions.This remark proves that the building of the oratory was
begun after Malachy's return from France. The same conclusion follows
from the words "We are Scots, not Gauls," lower down. And when he began
to lay the foundations the natives wondered, because in that land no
such buildings were yet to be found.St. Bernard is speaking, not of stone churches in
general, as has sometimes been assumed, but of stone oratories, which
may have been unknown in "that land," i.e. the district about Bangor
(see p. 32, n. 3). The innovation would naturally cause dissatisfaction
among a conservative people. Indignation may also have been excited by
the unusual size of the building; for it was "a great oratory" (§ 63).
But on the other hand, its ornate style cannot have contributed to the
opposition which the project aroused; for it commenced when the
foundations were being laid. Indeed, however "beautiful" it may have
been (§ 63), it was probably, like the churches of the Cistercians, of
simple design and devoid of ornament. See St. Bernard's Apologia ad
Guillelmum, § 28 ff. (P.L. clxxxii. 914 f.). The only relic of the
medieval monastery of Bangor is a rudely built wall, once pierced by a
door and a window, now built up. It seems to be later than the twelfth
century. About 120 yards to the south-west of it is "The Abbey Church,"
still used for worship. The main part of this structure dates from the
seventeenth century. But the core of the tower appears to be much
earlier, and may be on the site of St. Malachy's oratory. But that worthless fellow,
presumptuous and arrogant as he was, not only wondered but was
indignant. And from that indignation he conceived grief and brought
forth iniquity.Job xv. 35 (vg.); Ps. vii. 14 (vg.). And he became a talebearer among the
peoples,Lev. xix. 16. now disparaging secretly,Ps. ci. 5. now speaking evil
openly; drawing attention to Malachy's frivolity, shuddering at the
novelty, exaggerating the expense. With such poisonous words as these he
was urging and inducing many to put a stop to it: "Follow me, and what
ought not to be done by any but ourselves let us not permit to be done
against our will." Then with many whom he was able to persuade—himself
the first leader in speechActs xiv. 12. as well as the origin of the
evil—he went down to the place, and finding the man of God accosted
him: "Good sir, why have you thought good to introduce this novelty into
our regions? We are Scots, not Gauls. What is this frivolity? What need
was there for a work so superfluous, so proud? Where will you, a poor
and needy man,Ps. lxxiv. 21. find the means to finish it?Luke xiv. 28. Who will see it
finished? What sort of presumption is this, to begin, I say not what you
cannot finish, but what you cannot even see finished? Though indeed it
is the act of a maniac rather than of a presumptuous man to attempt what
is beyond his measure, what exceeds his strength, what baffles his
abilities. Cease, cease, desist from this madness. If not, we shall not
permit it, we shall not tolerate it." This he said, proclaiming what he
would do, but not considering what it was within his power to do. For
some of those on whom he counted and whom he had brought with him, when
they saw the manViro, i.e. Malachy. changed their minds and went no more with
him.Cp. John vi. 66.
62. And to him the holy man spoke quite freely: "Wretched man, the work
which you see begun, and on which you look askance, shall undoubtedly be
finished: many shall see it finished. But you, because you do not wish
it, will not see it;Quia non uis non uidebis. and that which you wish not shall be yours—to
die: take heed that you do not die in your sins."John viii. 21. So it happened:
he died, and the work was finished; but he saw it not, for, as we have
said already, he died the same year. Meanwhile the father, who soon
heard what the holy man had foretold concerning his son, and knew that
his word was quick and powerful,Heb. iv. 12. said, "He has slain my
son."1 Kings xvii. 18. And by the instigation
of the devil he burned with such
rage against him that he was not afraid, before the duke and magnates of
Ulaid, to accuse of falsehood and lying him who was most truthful and a
disciple and lover of the Truth; and he used violent language against
him, calling him an ape.Perhaps because he imitated the customs of the Gauls. And Malachy, who had been taught not to
render railing for railing,1 Pet. iii. 9. was dumb, and opened not his
mouthIsa. liii. 7. while the wicked was before him.Ps. xxxix. 1. But the Lord was not
forgetful of His word which He had spoken, Vengeance is mine, I will
repay.Rom. xii. 19. The same day when the man returned home he expiated the
rashness of his unbridled tongue, the avenger being the very one at
whose instigation he had let it loose. The demon seized him and cast him
into the fire, but he was soon pulled out by those that stood by; yet
with his body partly burnt, and deprived of reason. And while he was
raving Malachy was called, and when he came he found the accursed man,
his foaming mouth contorted, terrifying all things with horrible sounds
and movements, his whole body writhing, and scarcely to be kept in
restraint by many men. And when he prayed for his enemy the man of all
perfection was heard, but only in part. For in a moment, while the saint
was praying, he opened his eyes, and recovered his understanding. But
an evil spirit of the Lord1 Sam. xvi. 14; xix. 9 (vg.). was left to him to buffet him,2 Cor. xii. 7
that he might learn not to blaspheme.1 Tim. i. 20. We believe that he still
lives, and up to this time is expiating the great sin which he sinned
against the saint; but they say that at certain times he is a lunatic.
Further, the aforesaid possessions, since he could no longer hold them
by reason of his helplessness and uselessness, returned in peace to the
place to which they had belonged. Nor did Malachy refuse them, when the
prospect of peace was held out at length after so much trouble.
63. But now our narrative must return to the work of the building which
Malachy had undertaken. And though Malachy had not the means, I do not
say to finish it, but to do any part of it, yet his heart trusted in
the Lord.Susanna, 35. The Lord, in fact, provided that, though he set not his
hope on treasures of money,Ecclus. xxxi. 8 (vg.: with variant). money should not be lacking. For who
else caused a treasure to be stored in that place, and being stored, not
to be found till the time and work of Malachy? The servant of God found
in God's purse what was not in his own. Deservedly, indeed. For what
more just than that he who for God's sake possessed nothing should enter
into partnership with God, and that they should both have one
purse.Prov. i. 14. For the man who believes, the whole world is a treasury of
riches; and what is it but a kind of purse of God? Indeed He says, The
world is mine, and the fulness thereof.Ps. l. 12. Hence it was that when
many pieces of silver were found Malachy did not put them back in their
place, but took them out of their place; for he bade the whole gift of
God to be spent on the work of God.Malachy disposed of the treasure according to his will.
That fact, together with his relation to the brothers, revealed by the
next few sentences, makes it exceedingly probable that he was still
their abbot. He considered not his own
necessities nor those of his companions, but cast his thought upon
the Lord,Ps. lv. 23 (vg.). to whom he did not doubt that he ought to resort as
often as need required. And there is no doubt that that was the work of
God, because Malachy had foreseen it by God's revelation. He had first
consulted with the brothers concerning that work; and many on account
of their lack of means were unwilling to assent to it. Anxious therefore
and doubtful what he should do, he began to inquire earnestly in prayer
what was the will of God. And one day coming back from a journey,Bangor was apparently his headquarters.
when he drew near to the place he viewed it some way off; and lo, there
appeared a great oratory, of stone and very beautiful. And paying
careful attention to its position, form and construction, he took up the
work with confidence, having first however related the vision to a few
of the elder brothers. Indeed so carefully did he adhere to all his
attentive observations regarding place and manner and quality that when
the work was finished that which was made appeared closely similar to
that which he had seen, as if he also as well as Moses had heard the
saying, Look that thou make all things according to the pattern
shewed to thee in the mount.Heb. viii. 5. By the same kind of vision there was
shown to him before it was built, not only the oratory, but also the
whole monastery, which is situated at Saul.Jocelin, writing towards the end of the twelfth century,
declares that St. Patrick founded a monastery at Saul (Vita S.
Patricii, cap. 32). But, apparently, neither in the Annals nor in any
other authority earlier than Jocelin, is mention made of a monastery
there before St. Malachy's time. The text seems to imply that there were
no monastic buildings on the site when he founded (or re-founded) it.
Malachy placed in his new monastery a convent of regular canons of St.
Augustine (A.U. 1170); but it never became an important establishment,
though it was still in existence in the sixteenth century. See Reeves,
pp. 40, 220 ff.
64. (35). As he was passing through a certain city and a great multitude
was running together to him, by chance he saw a young man among the rest
eager to see him.This and the next story (§ 65) illustrate Malachy's power
of reading the hearts of men. He had climbed up on a stone, and standing on
tip-toes, with outstretched neck, contemplating him with eyes and mind,
showed himself to him as a kind of new Zacchaeus.Luke xix. 1-4. And it was not
hid from Malachy (for the Holy Spirit revealed it) that he had truly
come in the spirit and power of Zacchaeus.Luke i. 17. He took no notice,
however, at the time, and passed on in silence. But in the hospice that
night he told the brothers how he had seen him and what he had foreseen
concerning him. But on the third day behold he came with a certain
nobleman, his lord, who disclosed the wish and desire of the young man,
and asked that he would deign to receive him on his commendation, and
have him henceforth among his companions. And Malachy recognizing him
said, "There is no need that man should commend him whom already God
has commended."2 Cor. x. 18. And taking him by the hand he delivered him over
to our abbot ConganSee p. 4, n. 7. and he to the brothers. But that young
man—still living if I mistake not—the first lay conversus of the
monastery of the Suir,Suriensis monasterii. The monastery of Inislounaght,
close to the River Suir, a mile or two to the west of Clonmel, co.
Tipperary, is commonly known as De Surio. The present passage seems to
show that it was founded before 1148. For information about it see an
article by the late Dr. Bagwell, in J.R.S.A.I. xxxix. 267 f. and
Janauschek, Orig. Cist. p. 131. This incident must have been
considerably later than the foundation of Mellifont (see p. 75, n. 4).
It may therefore be dated between 1143 and 1147. has testimony from all that he lives a holy
life among the brothers, according to the Cistercian Order. And the
disciples recognized also in this incident that Malachy had the spirit
of prophecy,Rev. xix. 10. and not in this only, but in that which we shall add.
65. When he was offering the sacraments,This word is constantly used in the plural of the
Eucharist, each of the elements being regarded as a "sacrament." and the deacon had
approached him to do something belonging to his office, the priest
beholding him groaned because he had perceived that something was hidden
in him that was not meet. When the sacrifice was over, having been
probed privately concerning his conscience he confessed and denied
notJohn i. 20. that he had been mockedGen. xxxix. 17. in a dream that night. And
Malachy enjoined penance upon him and said, "It was your duty not to
have ministered to-day, but reverently to withdraw from sacred things
and to show respect to so great and divine mysteries, that purified by
this humiliation you might in future minister more worthily."
Likewise on another occasion,This story is suggested by the last because the incident
occurred during the celebration of Mass. when he was sacrificing and praying
at the hour of sacrifice with his accustomed sanctity and purity of
heart, the deacon standing by him, a dove was seen to enter through the
window in great glory. And with that glory the priest was completely
flooded, and the whole of the gloomy basilica became suffused with
light. But the dove, after flitting about for a while, at length settled
down on the cross before the face of the priest. The deacon was amazed;
and trembling on account of the novelty both of the light and of the
bird, for that is a rare bird in the land, fell upon his face, and
palpitating, scarcely dared to rise even when the necessity of his
office required it. After Mass Malachy spoke to him privately and bade
him, as he valued his life, on no account to divulge the mystery which
he had seen, as long as he himself was alive.
Once, when he was at Armagh with one of his fellow-bishops, he rose in
the night and began to go round the memorials of the saints, of which
there are many in the cemetery of St. Patrick,Evidently the cemetery in which, according to local
tradition, St. Patrick was buried (see § 19). It was probably the Ferta
Martair, the site of St. Patrick's earlier settlement at Armagh
(Reeves, Churches, p. 5; R.I.A. xviii. 660). It seems to be hinted
that St. Malachy received a revelation of the position of his grave. with prayer. And lo,
they saw one of the altars suddenly take fire. For both saw this great
vision, and both wondered. And Malachy, understanding that it was a sign
of the great merit of him, or those, whose bodies rested under that
altar, ran and plunged into the midst of the flames with outstretched
arms and embraced the sacred altar. What he did there, or what he
perceived, none knows; but that from that fire he went forth ablaze more
than his wont with heavenly fire, I suppose there is none of the
brothers who were with him then that does not know.
66. These things have been mentioned, a few out of many, but many for
this time. For these are not times of signs, as it is written, We see
not signs; there is no more any prophet.Ps. lxxiv. 9. Whence it appears
sufficiently how great in merits was my Malachy, who was so rich in
signs, rare as they now are. For in what kind of ancient miraclesSecret of Mass for Kings, etc.
was not Malachy conspicuous? If we consider well those few that have
been mentioned, he lacked not prophecy,A fresh classification of Malachy's miracles. For
prophecy see §§ 36, 48, 52, 57, 62, 64 f. nor revelation,§§ 11, 63, 64, 65. nor
vengeance upon the impious,§§ 22 f., 48, 57, 60, 62. nor the grace of healings,1 Cor. xii. 9 (vg.).—§§ 14, 15, 40, 45-47, 49-52, 60,
62. nor
transformation of minds,§§ 26, 54, 57, 61. nor lastly raising the dead.§ 53. By all
these things God was blessed who so loved and adorned him, who also
magnified him before kings,Ps. cxix. 46.—§§ 10, 40, 60. and gave him the crown of
glory.1 Pet. v. 4. That he was loved is proved in his merits, that he was
adorned, in his signs, that he was magnified, in his vengeance on
enemies, that he had glory, in recompense of rewards. You have in
Malachy, diligent reader, something to wonder at, you have also
something to imitate. Now carefully note what you may hope for as the
result of these things. For the end of these things is a precious
death.Rom. vi. 21, combined with Ps. cxvi. 15.
CHAPTER VIII
Departure from Ireland. Death and Burial at Clairvaux.
1148, May (?)
67. (30). Being asked once, in what place, if a choice were given him,
he would prefer to spend his last day—for on this subject the brothers
used to ask one another what place each would select for himself—he
hesitated, and made no reply. But when they insisted, he said, "If I
take my departure henceI.e. "If I die in Ireland." I shall do so nowhere more gladly than
whence I may rise together with our Apostle"In Armagh. See §§ 19, 65.—he referred to St.
Patrick; "but if it behoves me to make a pilgrimage, and if God so
permits, I have selected Clairvaux." When asked also about the time, [he
named in reply] the festival of all the dead.All Souls' Day, November 2. If it is regarded as
a mere wish, it was fulfilled, if as a prophecy, not a jot passed from
it.Matt. v. 18. As we have heard so have we seenPs. xlviii. 8. alike concerning place
and day. Let us relate briefly in what order and by what occasion it
came to pass. Malachy took it amiss that Ireland was still without a
pall; for he was zealous for the sacraments, and would not that his
nation should be wholly deprived of any one of them.Note that the pall is called a sacrament. And
remembering that it had been promised to him by Pope Innocent,See § 38. he
was the more sad that while he was still alive it had not been sent for.
And taking advantage of the fact that Pope EugeniusBernard Paganelli, a monk of Clairvaux, was sent to Rome
by St. Bernard at the request of Innocent II. and was appointed abbot of
the monastery of St. Anastasius. On the death of Lucius II. he was
elected Pope, February 15, 1144, and assumed the title of Eugenius III.
(H. K. Mann, Lives of the Popes, ix. 131 ff.) held the chief
rule and was reported to have gone at that time to France,Eugenius left Viterbo at the beginning of 1147. He was at
Lyons in March, and at Troyes on April 10 (Jaffé, p. 624 ff.; Mann, ix.
185). he
rejoiced that he had found opportunity for claiming it. He took for
granted that, the Pope being such a man as he was, and having been
promoted from such a religious profession—and the more because he had
been a special son of his own Clairvaux—he need not fear that he should
have any difficulty with him. Therefore the bishops were summoned; a
council assembled.In accordance with the instructions of Innocent II. (§
38): "A Synod was convened at Inis Patraic by Mael Maedoc, coarb of
Patrick, at which were present fifteen bishops and two hundred priests,
to establish rules and morals for all, both laity and clergy; and Mael
Maedoc Ua Morgair, by the advice of the Synod, went a second time to
Rome (sic) to confer with the comarb of Peter" (A.F.M. 1148).
Inispatrick is a small island off Skerries, co. Dublin. For the date see
R.A.I. xxxv. 249 f. In the same year Malachy had consecrated the
monastery of Knock (A.F.M. See p. 67, n. 3). Matters which were of immediate importance at
the time were discussed for three days, and on the fourth the scheme of
obtaining the pall was broached. Assent was given, but on condition that
it should be obtained by another. However, since the journey was a
comparatively short one, and on that account the pilgrimage seemed more
easy to be endured, none presumed to oppose his counsel and will. And
when the council was dissolved Malachy started on his way.St. Bernard seems to have thought that St. Malachy set
sail immediately after the Synod, and from a port not far from the place
where it met. But this is impossible, for one day's sail brought him to
Scotland (§ 68). He seems to have embarked at Bangor, which is about a
hundred miles north of Inispatrick. Such
brothers as had come together followed him to the shore; but not many,
for he doubtless restrained them. One of them, Catholicus by name, with
tearful voice and face, said to him, "Alas! you are going away; and in
how great, almost daily, trouble you leave me you are not ignorant, and
yet you do not, of your pity, give me help. If I deserve to suffer, what
sin have the brothers committed that they are scarcely allowed to have
any day or night free from the labour of caring for and guarding me?" By
these words and tears of his son (for he wept) the father's heart was
troubled,Cp. Lam. ii. 11. and he embraced him with caresses, and making the sign of
the cross on his breast said, "Be assured that you will have no such
suffering till I return." Now he was an epileptic, and fell often;
insomuch that at times he suffered not once but many times a day. He had
been a victim to this horrible disease for six years; but at the word of
Malachy he made a perfect recovery. From that hour he has suffered no
such thing; no such thing, as we believe, will he suffer henceforth, for
henceforth Malachy will not return.
68. When he was just about to embark there came unto him two of those
who clave unto himRuth i. 14. more closely, boldly desiring a certain thing
of him. And he said to them, "What would ye?"Matt. xx. 20, combined with Mark x. 35, 36. And they answered,
"We will not say, except you promise that you will give it." He pledged
himself. And they said, "We would have you certainly promise of your
condescension, that you will return in good health to Ireland." All the
others also insisted upon it. Then he deliberated for a while, repenting
at first that he had bound himself, and not finding any way of escape.
He was straitened on every side,Susanna, 22. while no way of safety presented
itself from both dangers—of forfeiting his wish and of breaking his
promise. It seemed at length that he should rather choose that which
influenced him more strongly at the moment, and leave the rest to higher
guidance. He assented, sadly it is true; but he was more unwilling that
they should be made sad; and pledging himself as they wished, he went on
board the ship. And when they had completed nearly half the voyage
suddenly a contrary wind drove the ship back and brought it to the land
of Ireland again. Leaving the ship he passed the night in the port
itself in one of his churches. And he joyfully gave thanks for the
resourcefulness of the divine providence, by which it came about that he
had now satisfied his promise. But in the morning, he went on board, and
the same day, after a prosperous crossing, came into Scotland. On the
third dayThat is, the first day after his landing in Scotland. he reached a place which is called Viride Stagnum;The Green Lake. It is now Soulseat, about eight miles
from Cairngarroch. At this place Fergus, lord of Galloway (p. 76, n. 4),
founded a famous monastery of Premonstratensian canons (Grub, Eccl.
Hist. of Scotland, i. 269), which must not be confused with Malachy's
more humble community.
which he had caused to be prepared that he might found an abbey there.
And leaving there some of his sons, our brothers, as a convent of monks
and abbotThe abbot was Michael, who had belonged to the community
at Bangor (§ 15). As this new community is called "a convent of monks"
we may infer that it was of the Cistercian Order. (for he had brought them with him for that purpose) he
bade them farewell and set out.
69. And as he passed on, King David met him, by whom he was received
with joy and was detained as his guest for some days.Note the leisureliness of the journey in its earlier
stages. Later on Malachy encountered difficulties, which no doubt
involved further delay (Serm. i. § 1). And having
done many things pleasing to God he resumed the journey that he had
begun. And passing through Scotland, at the very border of England he
went aside to the Church of Gisburn, where there dwell religious men
leading a canonical life,Gisburn is a village in the West Riding of Yorkshire on
the river Ribble, not far from the border of Lancashire. It is clear
that on this occasion Malachy followed the line of Watling Street, which
ran through Ribchester, on the Ribble, about fourteen miles from
Gisburn. His road probably passed within three miles of that place
between Settle and Chetburn. He seems to have avoided entering England
as long as possible—supposing no doubt, and with good reason, that he
was safer in the dominions of David than in those of Stephen. For
details of the journey see R.I.A. xxxv. 239 ff., 249. The monastery of
Gisburn, of which the ruins remain to the south of the parish church,
was founded for Augustinian canons, in 1129, by Robert de Brus (Dugdale,
vi. 1, 265 ff.). familiar to him of old for their
religious conversation and honourable character. At that place a woman
was brought to him, suffering from a disease horrible to see, which is
commonly called cancer; and he healed her. For when water which he
blessed was sprinkled on the sores she ceased to feel pain. On the next
day scarcely a sore was to be seen.
Departing thence he came to the sea, but was refused passage. The
reason, if I am not mistaken, was that some difference had arisen
between the chief pontiff and the king of England: for the king
suspected in that good man I know not what evil, if he should cross the
sea;Malachy was probably suspected (not without cause) of
being an emissary of the supporters of the Empress Matilda. He had just
spent some days with David I., and with him and his stepson Waltheof he
was on terms of intimate friendship (§§ 36, 40). King David invaded
England in the following year. for neither did he allow other bishops to cross.The reference is apparently to King Stephen's attempt to
prevent Theobald of Canterbury and other bishops from attending the
Council of Rheims in March 1148. But Malachy does not seem to have been
summoned to the Council, and he did not reach the Channel till long
after it was over (see next note). That
obstacle, though contrary to the will of Malachy, was not contrary to
the object of his wish. He grieved that the attainment of his desire
should be postponed, not knowing that by this it would be the rather
fulfilled. For if he had immediately passed over the sea he would have
been obliged to pass by Clairvaux in order to follow the chief Pontiff.
For by that time he had left it and was at or near Rome.Eugenius left Clairvaux on April 27, and Lausanne on May
20 (Jaffé, p. 634). At this rate he might have been expected to reach
Rome by the end of July. About that time, therefore, we may conjecture
that Malachy was on the coast of Kent. Actually, the Pope was not near
Rome till he reached Viterbo on November 30 (ibid. 636). St. Bernard,
therefore, when he wrote this passage, was ignorant of his movements for
a considerable time before Malachy's death. But now
through this delay it was brought about that he crossed later, and so,
as was fitting, he came to the place of his most holy death, and at the
hour of its approach.
1148, Oct. 13 or 14
70. (37). And he was received by us, though he came from the west, as
the true day-springOriens: literally, "east." from on high visiting us.Luke i. 78. O, how greatly
did that radiant sun fill our Clairvaux with added glory! How pleasant
was the festal day that dawned upon us at his coming! This was the day
which the Lord had made, we rejoiced and were glad in it.Ps. cxviii. 24. As for
me, with what rapid and bounding step, though trembling and weak,St. Bernard's life-long and ever-increasing frailty is
constantly alluded to by his biographers. It was largely due to his
extreme austerity. In this incident we have an example of the way in
which, on many occasions, the strength of his mind conquered the
weakness of his body (V. P. v. 4).
did I soon run to meet him! With what joy I kissed him! With what
joyful arms I embracedGen. xxix. 13. this grace sent to me from heaven! With
what eager face and mind, my father, I brought thee into my mother's
house and into the chamber of her that conceived me!Cant. iii. 4. What festive
days I spent with thee then, though few! But how did he in his turn
greet us? In truth our pilgrim showed himself cheerful and kindly to
all, to all incredibly gracious. How good and how pleasantPs. cxxxiii. 1. a part
he played among us as our guest, whom, forsooth, he had come from the
uttermost parts of the earth to see, not that he should hear, but
that he should show us, a Solomon! In fact we heard his
wisdom,Matt. xii. 42; Luke xi. 31. we had his presence, and we have it still.
1148, Oct. 18Already four
or five days of this our festival had passed, when lo, on the feast day
of Blessed Luke the Evangelist,October 18. Malachy had therefore reached Clairvaux on
October 13 or 14. In the interval he met St. Gilbert of Sempringham and
presented him with a pastoral staff (Dugdale, vi. 2, p. xii.). In France
Malachy travelled alone—having been parted from his companions in
England—and probably on horseback (§ 36). He may, therefore, have left
England about September 30, and traversed the 270 miles from Wissant to
Clairvaux by October 14. He apparently intended to start for Rome on St.
Luke's Day (Serm. i. § 1). when he had celebrated Mass in the
conventThat is, in the presence of the community. with that holy devotion of his, he was taken with a fever
and lay down in his bed: and all of us were [sick] with him. The end of
our mirth is sorrow,Prov. xiv. 13 (inexact quotation). but moderate sorrow, because for a time the
fever seemed to be slight. You should see the brothers running about,
eager to give, or to receive. To whom was it not sweet to see him? To
whom was it not sweeter to minister to him? Both were pleasant and both
salutary. It was an act of kindness to do him service, and it was repaid
also to each one of them, by the gift of grace. All assisted, all were
busied with much serving,Luke x. 40. searching for medicines, applying
poultices, urging him often to eat. But he said to them, "These things
are without avail, yet for love of you I do whatever you bid me." For he
knew that the time of his departure was at hand.Cp. 2 Tim. iv. 6, in which the phraseology of the vg.
differs entirely from that of the text.
71. And when the brothers who had come with himNot strictly accurate. Malachy reached Clairvaux before
his companions. See p. 123, n. 3. urged him more
boldly, saying that it behoved him not to despair of life, for that no
signs of death appeared in him,The physicians said the same (Serm. i. § 2). he said, "It behoves Malachy to
leave the body this year."This saying is quoted in a slightly different form in
Serm. i. § 2. And he added, "See, the day is drawing
near which, as you very well know, I have always desired to be the day
of my dissolution.2 Tim. iv. 6. I know whom I have believed and am
persuaded;2 Tim. i. 12. I shall not be disappointed of the rest of my
desire,Ps. lxxviii. 30 (vg.). since I already have part of it. He who by his mercy has
led me to the place which I sought, will not deny me the time for which
I wished no less. As regards this mean body, here is my rest;Ps. cxxxii. 14 (inexact quotation). as
regards my soul, the Lord will provide, who saveth them that put their
trust in Him.Ps. xvii. 7. And there is no small hope laid up for me at that
day2 Tim. iv. 8. in which so great benefits are bestowed by the living on the
dead."All Souls' Day. Not far away was that day when he spoke thus. Meanwhile he
ordered that he should be anointed with the sacred oil. When the convent
of brothers was going out that it might be done solemnly,For the Cistercian method of administering unction see
Usus antiquiores ordinis Cisterciensis, iii. 94 (P.L. clxvi. 1471). he would
not permit them to come up to him; he went down to them. For he was
lying in the balconySolario. of the upper house. He was anointed; and when
he had received the viaticum, he commended himself to the prayers of the
brothers, and the brothers to God,Cp. Letter iv. § 2, where it is added that he commended
the Irish brothers to the care of St. Bernard. and went back to bed. He went
down from the high balconySolio. on his feet, and again, as if that were
not enough, he went up on his feet; yet he said that death was at the
doors.Matt. xxiv. 33. Who should believe that this man was dying? Himself alone
and God could know it. His face did not seem to have become pallid or
wasted. His brow was not wrinkled, his eyes were not sunken, his
nostrils were not thin, his lips were not contracted, his teeth were not
brown, his neck was not gaunt and lean, his shoulders were not bowed,
the flesh on the rest of his body had not failed. Such was the grace of
his body, and such the glory of his countenance which was not to be
done away,2 Cor. iii. 7. even in death. As he appeared in life so was he also in
death, more like to one alive.
72. (38). Hitherto our story has run a rapid course; but now it stays
because Malachy has finished his course.Tim. iv. 7. He is still, and with
him we are still. Moreover, who would willingly hasten to [tell of]
death? Especially thy death, holy father, who could describe it? Who
would wish to hear the story? Yet we loved in life, in death we shall
not be divided.2 Sam. i. 23 (inaccurate quotation).—Contrast St.
Bernard's lament for his brother Gerard (Cant. xxvi. 4): "We loved in
life, how have we been divided in death? Most bitter separation!" Brothers, let us not forsake in death him with
whom we companied in life. From further ScotlandIreland. he ran hither to
death; let us also go and die with him.John xi. 16. I must, I must tell that
which of necessity I saw. The celebration, everywhere renowned, of All
SaintsNovember 1. For the translation of relics which took
place, apparently on that day, see Serm. i. § 2. comes, and according to the ancient saying, Music in
mourning is an unseasonable discourse.Ecclus. xxii. 6. We come, we sing, even
against our will. We weep while we sing and we sing while we weep.
Malachy, though he sings not, yet does not lament. For why should he
lament, who is drawing near to joy? For us who remain,1 Thess. iv. 17. mourning
remains. Malachy alone keeps festival. For what he cannot do with his
body he does with his mind, as it is written, The thought of man shall
confess to thee, and the residue of thought shall keep the day of
festival to thee.Ps. lxxvi. 10 (vg.). When the instrument of the body fails him, and
the organ of the mouth is silent, and the office of the voice ceases, it
remains that with songs in his heart he keeps festival. Why should not
the saint keep festival, who is being brought to the festival of the
saints?Sanctorum ... sollemnitatem. Not the Festival of All
Saints, for that had already come, but, as the next sentence shows, the
festival assembly of the saints in heaven. Compare Ps. lxxiv. 4, where
congregations represents solemnitatis in the Vulgate. He presents to them what will soon be due to himself. Yet
a little whileJohn xiv. 19, etc. and he will be one of them.
73. Towards the dusk of night, when now somehow the celebration of the
day had been finished by us, Malachy had drawn near, not to dusk but to
dawn. Was it not dawn to himCp. Cant. xxvi. 11, "For thee, brother, even at
midnight the day dawned." for whom the night is far spent and
the day is at hand?Rom. xiii. 12. So, the fever increasing, a burning sweat from
within him began to break out over his whole body, that, as it were
going through fire and through water, he might be brought into a
wealthy place.Ps. lxvi. 12. Now his life was despaired of, now each one
condemned his own judgement, now none doubted that Malachy's wordSee § 71.
was prevailing. We were called; we came. And lifting up his eyes on
those who stood round him, he said, "With desire I have desired to eat
this passover with you;Luke xxii. 51.—This saying is quoted in Serm. i. § 5. I
give thanks to the divine compassion,
I have not been disappointed of my desire."Ps. lxxviii. 30 (vg.). Do you see the man
free from care in death, and, not yet dead, already certain of life? No
wonder. Seeing that the night was come to which he had looked forward,
and that in it the day was dawning for him, so to speak triumphing over
the night, he seemed to scoff at the darkness and as it were to cry, "I
shall not say, surely the darkness shall cover me, because this
night shall be light about me in my pleasure."Ps. cxxxix. 11 (vg.).—Cp. Cant. xxvi. 11: "Already for
thee, my brother, even at midnight the day was dawning, and the night
was shining as the day; straightway that night was light about thee in
thy pleasure. I was summoned to that miracle, to see a man exulting in
death and mocking death." And tenderly
consoling us he said, "Take care of me; if it be allowed me I shall not
forget you. And it shall be allowed. I have believed in God,John xiv. 1. and
all things are possible to him that believeth.Mark ix. 23. I have loved God;
I have loved you, and charity never faileth."1 Cor. xiii. 8. And looking up to
heavenMark vii. 34. he said, "O God, keep them in Thy name;John xvii. 11. and not
these only but all them also who through my wordJohn xvii. 20. and
ministry have given themselves to thy service." Then, laying his hands
on each one severally and blessing all,Cp. Praef. 2. he bade them go to rest,
because his hour was not yet come.John vii. 30.
1148, November 2
74. We went. We returned about midnight, for at that hour it was
announced that the light shineth in darkness.John i. 5. The house filled,
the whole community was present, many abbots also who had assembled.
With psalms and hymns and spiritual songsEph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16. we followed our
friend as he returned to his own country.The meaning of the phrase is explained in De Cons. v.
2: "This will be a returning to our own country, when we leave the
country of our bodies and reach the realm of spirits—I mean our God,
the Mighty Spirit, the great abiding place of the spirits of the blest"
(Lewis's translation, slightly altered). Cp. Serm. ii., § 6. In the fifty-fourth
year of his age,A.F.M. say, "after the fifty-fourth year of his age."
St. Bernard appears to be right. For Malachy was made bishop of Connor
when he was just entering his thirtieth year (§ 16), i.e. about his
twenty-ninth birthday. A.F.M. give the date as 1124. But if he was
over fifty-four on November 2, 1148 (§ 75), his twenty-ninth birthday
would have been before November 1123. If he was under fifty-four on that
day it may have been in 1124. at the place and time which he had chosen
beforehand and predicted, Malachy, the bishop and legate of the holy
Apostolic See, taken up by the angels,Luke xvi. 22. as it were from our
hands, happily fell asleep in the Lord.Acts vii. 60 (vg.). And indeed he slept.
His placid face was the sign of a placid departure. And verily the
eyes of all were fixed upon him;Luke iv. 20. but none could perceive when
he departed. When dead he was thought to be alive, when alive, dead;
so true was it that there was no difference which might distinguish
death from life. The same vivacity of face, the same serenity, as
commonly appears in one who sleeps. You might say that death robbed
him of none of these things, but rather very greatly increased them.
He was not changed; but he changed us all. In wondrous fashion the
sorrow and groaning of all suddenly sank to rest, sadness was
changed into joy,Esth. xiii. 17 (vg.); xvi. 21 (vg.); cp. John xvi. 20,
etc. singing banished lamentation.Cp. Amos viii. 10. He is
borne forth, voices are borne to heaven, he is borne into the oratory
on the shoulders of the abbots. Faith has conquered,1 John v. 5. affection
triumphs, things assume their normal course. All things are carried
out in order, all proceed in the way of reason.
75. And in truth what reason is there to lament Malachy immoderately, as
though his death was not precious,Ps. cxvi. 15. as though it was not rather
sleep than death, as though it was not the port of death and the portal
of life?Cp. Serm. ii. § 8. Our friend Malachy sleepeth;John xi. 11. and I, must I mourn?
such mourning is based on custom, not on reason. If the Lord hath given
His beloved one sleep, and such sleep, in which there is an heritage
of the Lord, even children, and the reward, the fruit of the
womb,Ps. cxxvii. 2, 3 (vg.). which of these things seems to call for weeping? Must I weep
for him who has escaped from weeping? He rejoices, he triumphs, he has
been brought into the joy of his Lord,Matt. xxv. 21, 23. and I, must I lament for
him? I desire these things for myself, I do not grudge them to him.
Meanwhile the obsequies are prepared, the sacrifice is offered for
him,St. Bernard himself celebrated Mass, and by divine
inspiration, "when the sacrifice was finished, changed the order of the
prayer and introduced the collect for the commemoration of saints who
were bishops instead of that which was used for the commendation of the
dead," anticipating, as we may suppose, Malachy's canonization. He then
devoutly kissed his feet (V.P. iv. 21). all is performed according to custom with the greatest
devotion. There stood some way off a boy whose arm hung by his side
dead, rather burdensome to him than useful. When I discovered him I
signed to him to come near, and taking his withered hand I laid it on
the hand of the bishop, and it restored it to life. For in truth the
grace of healings1 Cor. xii. 9 (vg.). lived in the dead; and his hand was to the dead
hand what Elisha was to the dead man.2 Kings xiii. 21. The boy had come from
farMark viii. 3. and the hand which he brought hanging down, he carried back
whole to his own country. Now, all things having been duly accomplished
in the very oratory of Saint Mary, Mother of God, in which he was well
pleased,Matt. iii. 17.
Malachy is carried to his burialMalachy was buried on the north side of the Oratory,
vested in St. Bernard's habit. Five years later St. Bernard was buried
before the Altar of Saint Mary, clad in the habit in which Malachy died,
and which he had worn ever since his death when he celebrated Mass
(V.P. v. 15, 23, 24). For further particulars of St. Malachy's burial
and the disposal of his relics see R.Q.H. lii. 43 f. in the eleven
hundred and forty-eighth year from the Incarnation of the Lord, on the
fourth of the Nones of November.November 2. From this statement (see p. 128, n. 1) we may
infer that Malachy was born in 1095, before November. Thine, good Jesus, is the
deposit which has been committed to us,2 Tim. i. 12. Thine is the treasure
which is laid up with us.The biographers of St. Bernard give no detailed account
of any of Malachy's visits to Clairvaux. But one of them—Geoffrey, St.
Bernard's secretary—wrote a prayer for the Bright Valley, in which he
placed Malachy on a par with the great Cistercian, thereby revealing to
us the extraordinary impression which he made on the community (V.P.
v. 25). I owe the following translation of it to a friend: "Grant, O
Lord, thy never-failing bounty to the spiritual harvest of the Valley,
which thou didst deem worthy to illumine with two stars of such
surpassing brightness, so making it brighter in very truth even than in
name. Do thou guard the house wherein this twofold treasure is laid up
and guarded for thee. Be it also unto us according to thy word, that as
thy treasure is there so may thy heart be also; there too thy grace and
mercy: and may the favour of thy compassion for ever rest on all who are
gathered together in the self-same place in thy Name, which is above
every name, even as thou art over all, God blessed for ever.—Amen." We keep it2 Tim. i. 12. to be given back at the
time when Thou shalt see fit to recall it; only that he may not go forth
without his comrades, but that him whom we have had as our guest we may
have also as our leader, when we shall reign with Thee, and with him
also, for ever and ever.Rev. xxii. 5. Amen.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
A.—St. Bernard's Description of the State of the Irish Church.
Life, §§ 7, 16, 17.
In two passages of the Life serious charges are made against the Irish
Church of the early years of the twelfth century. These charges refer
primarily to the dioceses of Armagh and Connor; but it is probable that
those dioceses were typical of many other districts throughout the
country. If St. Bernard's statements are true of them, they may be
applied with little reserve to the greater part of Ireland. Indeed he
himself gives us more than a hint that the abuses which he condemns were
by no means confined to eastern Ulster (§ 19). It may be well,
therefore, to bring them together and to discuss them.
1. There was no such thing as chanting at the canonical hours. In the
whole bishopric of Armagh "there was none who could or would sing" (§
7). "In the churches [of Connor] there was not heard the voice either of
preacher or singer" (§ 16). We may suspect that there is some
exaggeration here; for if church song was absolutely unknown, how could
Malachy have "learnt singing in his youth" (§ 7)? But that St. Bernard's
remarks are substantially correct need not be questioned. He is not
speaking of the Irish Church as it was in its earlier period, but of its
state at the time when it had probably fallen to its lowest depth. His
assertion, therefore, is not disposed of by references to the chanting
at the funerals of Brian Boroimhe in 1014 and Maelsechlainn in 1022
(O'Hanlon, p. 34). Indeed in the notices of those events in A.F.M.
there is no express mention of ecclesiastical song.
2. At Armagh Confession was not practised (§ 7); in the diocese of
Connor "nowhere could be found any who would either seek penance or
impose it" (§ 16). It may be true that Confession had been much
neglected among some classes of the people: Malachy on one occasion met
a woman who had never confessed (§ 54), and the very fact that he put
the question to her "whether she had ever confessed her sins" suggests
that she was not singular in this respect. But it is remarkable that the
anmchara (soul-friend), or Confessor, is frequently mentioned in Irish
literature. The obits of several persons to whom that title is given are
recorded in the Annals in the twelfth century. And penance is often
alluded to in the obituary notices of distinguished persons, clerical
and lay. In his sweeping statement St. Bernard may have had in mind some
differences of method in penitential discipline between the Roman and
Irish Churches.
3. The sacrament of Confirmation was not celebrated, at any rate in
Armagh (§ 7). This rite has always been used in the Irish Church, though
possibly neglected locally at some periods. St. Patrick tells us that he
"confirmed in Christ" those whom he had "begotten to God" (Epistle, 2;
cp. Confession, 38, 51)—thus giving us one of the earliest instances
in literature of the application to the rite of its present familiar
name. But in his practice (Epistle, § 3), as in the Stowe Missal,
about a.d. 800 (ed. Sir G. F. Warner, vol. ii. p. 31), it seems to have
consisted of an anointing with chrism without laying on, or raising, of
hand, or a direct prayer for the Holy Spirit. According to the Stowe
Missal it was administered by a presbyter. It is improbable that St.
Bernard or his romanizing friends would recognize the rite so performed
as true Confirmation.
4. One of the things which was neglected at Armagh was "the marriage
contract" (§ 7). In the diocese of Connor there was "no entry into
lawful marriages" (§ 16). By the labours of Malachy this abuse
disappeared. In Armagh he "instituted anew" the marriage contract; in
Connor it came to pass that "the celebration of marriage" was revived (§
17). Putting these statements together we may conclude that St.
Bernard's meaning is that marriages had ceased to be celebrated in the
face of the Church, and that in consequence the vow of a life-long union
was often evaded. Now contemporary writers charge the Irish of this
period with loose sexual morality, especially in regard of arbitrary
divorce, matrimony within the prohibited degrees, exchange of wives, and
other breaches of the law of marriage. Such accusations are made, for
example, by Pope Gregory VII. (Haddan and Stubbs, Eccl. Docs. ii.
160), Lanfranc (Ussher, 490; P.L. cl. 535, 536), Anselm (Ussher 521,
523; P.L. clix. 173, 178) and Giraldus Cambrensis (Gest. ii. 14;
Top. iii. 19). Their evidence is the more worthy of credence because
the usages to which they refer were characteristic of the Irish at an
earlier period (Encycl. of Religion and Ethics, v. 456, 460), and
might be expected to recur in an age of spiritual decline. But both
Lanfranc and Anselm testify to the existence of marriage as an
institution among the Irish. The former speaks of the divorce of a wife
"lawfully joined to her husband," and the latter uses terms of similar
import. So also does St. Bernard himself. His praise of Malachy's mother
(Life, § 1) is inconceivable if she did not live in wedlock; and he
expressly states that eight "metropolitans" of Armagh were "married men"
(§ 19). But if there was nevertheless a revival among large sections of
the people of pagan ideas of marriage, which tolerated polygamy,
concubinage, incest and easy termination of unions, it can be understood
that marriage in the face of the Church, which included a vow absolutely
prohibitive of all these things, would be commonly avoided. Malachy's
anxiety to restore the marriage ceremony was no doubt due to a desire
to purge the nation of immoral customs of which St. Bernard makes no
express mention. But, however that may be, we have contemporary native
evidence that the rite of marriage had fallen into desuetude, and that
Malachy was successful in his effort to restore it. For in the document
quoted on p. 170, we are told that in a district which was part of the
diocese of Armagh when he was Cellach's vicar (L.A.J. iv. 37), and
under the rule of his patron, Donough O'Carroll, "marriage was assented
to."
5. "There was no giving of tithes or firstfruits," writes St. Bernard (§
16). He is speaking of the diocese of Connor. But there is no doubt that
the remark might have been made of other districts. There was no such
custom as the payment of tithes in Ireland before the twelfth century.
They are first mentioned by Gilbert of Limerick, about 1108, in his De
Statu Ecclesiae (Ussher, 507); and they were enjoined at the Synods of
Kells in 1152 (Keating, iii. 315) and Cashel in 1172 (Can. 3, Giraldus,
Expug., i. 35). From the document quoted above we learn that in Oriel,
under Donough O'Carroll, "tithes were received"—evidently a new impost.
6. "Ministers of the altar were exceeding few" in the diocese of Connor
(§ 16); and accordingly it is observed that Malachy provided his new
churches with clergy (§ 17). This is not proved, nor is it in any great
degree corroborated by the statement of A.F.M. (1148) that Malachy
"ordained bishops and priests and men of every order"; but the parallel
is perhaps worth noting.
7. The voice of the preacher was not heard in the churches (§ 16). This
statement cannot, so far as I know, be checked.
8. The same remark must be made about the statements that the people
would not come to church (§ 16), and that Malachy's exertions at length
induced them to do so (§ 17), though they are sufficiently probable.
9. That "churches were rebuilt" (§ 17) cannot be questioned. No doubt
the monasteries of Bangor and Saul would be counted among the number. We
have explicit and independent evidence of the fact. The foundation of
churches and re-edifying of monasteries were a conspicuous feature of
the reign of Donough O'Carroll (see p. 170). And A.F.M. (1148) lay
great stress on Malachy's activities in this direction. He "consecrated
many churches and cemeteries," and "founded churches and monasteries,
for by him was repaired every church in Ireland which had been consigned
to decay and neglect, and they had been neglected from time remote."
On the whole it appears that St. Bernard's strictures are at least not
without foundation in fact, in so far as they can be tested. But he can
scarcely be acquitted of some measure of exaggeration in the rhetorical
passages in which they occur.
B.—The Hereditary Succession of the Coarbs Of Patrick.
Life, §§ 19. 20, 30.
The assertions of St. Bernard in Life, § 19, concerning the coarbs of
Patrick are controlled by A.U. The ninth predecessor of Cellach,
Cathasach II. († 957) is described in them (s.a. 956) as
"coarb of Patrick, learned bishop of the Goidhil." None of the following
eight is said to have been a bishop, though all are called coarbs of
Patrick. Moreover Cellach himself was appointed abbot before he
"received holy orders," and the record of his ordination on St.
Adamnan's Day (September 23) 1105, several weeks after his
"institution," seems to indicate that it was unusual for the abbots to
be ordained. All this corroborates the statement that his eight
predecessors were "without orders." It is true, indeed, that according
to A.F.M. Amalgaid, one of the eight, anointed Maelsechlainn king of
Ireland, on his deathbed in 1022. But it does not follow from this that
he was a priest. In early times, as is well known, unction was
administered to the sick by laymen; and there appears to be no evidence
that this office was confined to the priesthood till well on in the
ninth century (Dict. of Christ. Antiquities, ii. 2004). It is at least
possible that the older usage lingered on in Ireland to a much later
date than on the Continent. But the statement of A.F.M. as to the
anointing of Maelsechlainn is not confirmed by the more reliable
authority of A.U.
That at least five of the eight were, as St. Bernard says, "married men"
is shown by the following table, compiled from A.U. and MacFirbis
(R.I.A., MS. 23 P. 1, p. 308). The persons whose names are printed in
italics were coarbs of Patrick.
This table also confirms the statement that the abbots all belonged to
the same family, and so obtained office by a sort of hereditary right.
St. Bernard gives no hint which would enable us to identify this family.
But the genealogy given by MacFirbis enumerates the ancestors of Cellach
in a direct line up to Fiachrach, son of Colla fo Crich, and is headed
"Genealogy of Ui Sinaich, i.e. the coarbs of Patrick." The Bodleian
MS., Rawl. B. 502, has the same genealogy, and entitles it
"Genealogy of Clann Sinaich." The family then from which the abbots of
Armagh were taken was the principal branch of that sept. From the
genealogy it appears that the sept was derived from Sinach, from whom
the fifth in descent was the Cellach whose name appears at the head of
foregoing table.
St. Bernard represents Malachy to have said in 1132, when he was induced
to oppose Murtough, that the system of hereditary succession had already
lasted nearly two centuries (§ 20). This statement is in accord with
known facts. The genealogical table gives sufficient evidence that it
began not earlier than the accession of Dubdalethe II. (965), and
continued to the accession of Murtough. If there is no evidence that the
three predecessors of Dubdalethe were of the Clann Sinaich, neither is
there anything to disprove it. But their immediate predecessor, Joseph,
was certainly not of that sept; for A.U. (ms. A, 935) tells us that he
was of the Clann Gairb-gaela, and the list of coarbs in the Book of
Leinster notes in addition that he came from Dalriada (R.I.A. xxxv.
327, 359). Thus the succession cannot have been established before the
death of Joseph (936). Hence it lasted for a period of between 167 and
196 years. A period of 167 years, or a period of 196 years, might be
described as "well-nigh two hundred years" (annos ferme ducentos),
though the latter suits St. Bernard's language better than the former.
But how can this be harmonized with the statement that "fifteen
quasi-generations had passed in this wickedness" (§ 19)? Obviously a
"quasi-generation" is not a generation of human life: apart from the
facts just mentioned, the very word quasi forbids the supposition.
Colgan (Trias, p. 301) suggested that the word indicates the period of
office of a coarb; and this is very probable. The figure of generations,
so applied, is in line with St. Bernard's conception of a bishop as "the
seed" of his predecessor (§ 34). But the first of a series of coarbs, of
which Murtough was the fifteenth, was Maelcoba, the second predecessor
of Joseph. So that, even on Colgan's hypothesis, St. Bernard's two
statements are irreconcilable. Yet it is difficult to believe that an
error so manifest was in his source. I suggest that he wrote "fifteen"
in error for "twelve": in other words his document had xii, and he
misread it xu. The confusion of u with ii is very common in
manuscripts. If this explanation is accepted, St. Bernard's authority
implied that the hereditary succession was upheld without interruption
from the death of Joseph to the accession of Murtough, which is
"well-nigh two hundred years."
This investigation may convince us that St. Bernard depended on an
excellent document for his knowledge of the history of Armagh. But he
certainly went astray in the interpretation of the document when he
styled the predecessors of Cellach metropolitans (see p. 45, n. 1). And
he goes further when he asserts that none were allowed to be bishops who
were not of their family (§ 19); thus leaving the impression that under
the rule of the eight lay abbots—that is, for a century and a
half—Armagh was deprived of episcopal ministrations. But this is wholly
unhistorical. The Ulster Annals mention six bishops of Armagh,
contemporary with the lay abbots. They seem to have followed one another
in regular succession, and there is no indication that any one of them
belonged to the Clann Sinaich. They were no doubt monastic bishops, such
as are found in the Irish Church from the sixth century onwards, who
exercised the functions of their order at the bidding of the abbots.
They were probably not referred to in St. Bernard's document; and if
they were, one who had been trained in an entirely different
ecclesiastical system would have been at a loss to understand their
position.
Thus we conclude that St. Bernard, in the passage which we are
considering, used good material with conscientious care, but that he was
misled by lack of knowledge of Irish ecclesiastical methods. This result
is important because it may apparently be applied to the whole of his
memoir of St. Malachy. His statements, as a rule, stand well the test of
comparison with the native records; and when he is at fault we can
usually explain his errors as misunderstandings, due to ignorance of
conditions of which he had no experience.
St. Bernard has been charged with gross exaggeration in another passage.
"A great miracle to-day," he writes (§ 30), "is the extinction of that
generation, so quickly wrought, especially for those who knew their
pride and power." It is an extravagant hyperbole to say that either the
O'Neills, or the great tribe of the Oirgialla, represented to this day
by the Maguires, the O'Hanlons and the MacMahons, was blotted out when
the Life of St. Malachy was written. So argued some in the time of
Colgan (Trias, p. 302). But they misrepresented St. Bernard. The word
"generation" obviously means in the sentence before us what it meant in
§ 19 ("adulterous generation")—not an extensive tribe, nor even the
Clann Sinaich as a whole, but the branch of that sept which provided
abbots for Armagh. The speedy extinction of a single family is not a
thing incredible. And it is worthy of remark that neither the Clann
Sinaich, nor any person described as ua Sinaich or mac Sinaich is
mentioned in the Annals after 1135 (see p. 58, n. 9).
For a more detailed treatment of the subjects discussed in this note
reference may be made to R.I.A. xxxv. 232-238, 340-353.
C.—Malachy's Contest with Niall.
Life, §§ 22-31.
The narrative of the series of events between the death of Murtough and
the consecration of Gelasius, both in St. Bernard's Life and in
A.F.M., is obscure, and our two main authorities contradict each other
in some particulars. In this note, I propose to attempt a reconstruction
of the story.
1. Among the native authorities A.F.M. stand alone in giving what
approximates to a full account of the struggle between the rival abbots.
A.T. record only three incidents; the Chronicon Scotorum also
records three incidents belonging to the year 1134, and then breaks off,
to be resumed in 1142; in A.U. and A.I. there are hiatus which cover
the whole period; the other Annals ignore the events with which we are
concerned. The information supplied by A.F.M. runs as follows:
1134.(1) Malachy O'Morgair made a visitation of Munster and obtained his
tribute.
(2) A chapel, which was erected by Cormac Mac Carthy, king of Cashel,
was consecrated by a synod of clergy assembled at that place.
(3) Murtough died 17 September.
(4) Niall was installed in the coarbate of Patrick.
(5) A change of abbots at Armagh, i.e. Malachy O'Morgair in place of
Niall.
(6) Malachy afterwards made a visitation of Munster and received his
tribute.
1135.(7) Flann Ua Sinaich, keeper of the Staff of Jesus, died after good
penance.
(8) Malachy O'Morgair purchased the Staff of Jesus, and took it from its
cave 7 July.
1136.(9) A visitation of Munster was made by Malachy O'Morgair, coarb of
Patrick.
(10) A change of abbots at Armagh, i.e. Niall in place of Malachy.
(11) Malachy O'Morgair resigned the coarbate of Patrick for the sake of
God.
1137.(12) A change of abbots at Armagh, i.e. the erenach (recte abbot) of
Derry in place of Niall.
1138.(13) Christian O'Morgair died.
A.T. record the second and fifth of the above events, and subjoin
to
the latter notice the passage quoted p. 51, n. 4. The Chronicon
Scotorum records, the second, third and fifth.
There is obvious confusion in the narrative of the Masters. They put the
death of Christian O'Morgair under 1138, which is a year too early (see
p. 66, n. 1), and they credit Malachy with having made three visitations
of Munster within three years, which he is very unlikely to have done.
But it is to be observed that the notices of the visitations are not
mere repetitions, for they differ from each other verbally. Thus we may
suspect that the Masters copied those entries from three different
sources, and that they refer to the same visitation, which, in at least
one of the sources, appeared under the wrong year. Now the consecutive
sentences 9, 10 are probably connected with each other: the absence of
Malachy in Munster would give his opponents opportunity to reinstate his
rival. In like manner entries 1, 2 (not consecutive) may be connected.
It would not be surprising if Malachy, even at some risk to the security
of his tenure of the abbacy at Armagh, took part in the consecration of
his patron's church at Cashel. And it may be added that he would not
improbably make this visit to the south the occasion of a circuit in
Munster. The visitation, on that hypothesis, must have taken place in
1134 or early in 1135. Again, the note of time in entry 6 implies that
it was made not very long after the appointment of Malachy, recorded in
the immediately preceding entry 5. Finally, entry 8 mentions an event
which must have greatly strengthened his hands. Having possessed himself
of the more important and revered of the abbatial insignia he was at
length more than a match for his antagonist. Probably, therefore, the
restoration of Niall (10) should be placed rather before than after it.
For these reasons we seem to be justified in placing the recorded
incidents in the following order. When Malachy secured possession of the
see (5) he remained long enough in Armagh to establish himself in the
abbacy. During this time may have occurred the abortive conspiracy
against him related in A.T., but not alluded to in A.F.M. He then
went to Cashel for the consecration of the Chapel (2), and held his
visitation of Munster (1, 6, 9). When he returned he found that Niall
had once more entered Armagh (10). By July 1135 the power of his rival
had considerably decreased, and Malachy got possession of the Staff of
Jesus (8). Finally he resigned his office (11) and Gelasius was
appointed to it (12). If this is a true account of the course of events,
one statement of the Annals needs correction. They tell us that Gelasius
succeeded Niall; on our hypothesis he succeeded Malachy. But that the
Masters should have substituted the former for the latter was to be
expected; for according to their previous (as I believe misplaced)
statement Niall, not Malachy, was in possession in the latter part of
1136.
2. We now turn to St. Bernard's narrative of these transactions.
Sections 22 and 23 present no difficulty. They are simply an
amplification, with differences in detail, of what we learn from A.T.
In the early part of § 24 it is stated that Malachy remained in Armagh
after the king, with whose aid he had "ascended the chair of Patrick,"
had returned home; and in the succeeding narrative it is implied that he
never left it till he went to Down. That is to say, the visitation of
Munster is ignored. This need cause no surprise. It is quite possible
that St. Bernard had never heard of it. Again, there is no explicit
mention of the reinstatement of Niall. But it seems to be implied in §
24 (see p. 53, n. 9). The whole story becomes more intelligible if we
assume that Niall was in possession for a short time, and then fled, but
continued to exercise his functions outside the city, as Malachy himself
had done in a previous period (§ 21). If we suppose that the visit to
Munster took place shortly after the episode of § 23 we can explain the
only difficulty in the narrative, the return of Niall after he had been
driven out. The latter part of § 24 seems to intimate a lessening of
opposition to Malachy's rule. The whole passage, §§ 24-27, with the
exception of the last two sentences of § 27, must relate to the period
before July 1135, inasmuch as Niall is represented as carrying about
with him the Staff of Jesus as well as the Book of Armagh.
Up to this point St. Bernard's narrative harmonizes admirably with the
story as it has been reconstructed above from the Annals. But we must
carry our comparison of the two accounts a little further. They agree in
giving 1137 as the date of the appointment of Gelasius as coarb of
Patrick; but while St. Bernard puts the resignation of Malachy in the
same year the Masters record it under 1136 (p. 61, n. 7). Now their
phrase (11), that he "resigned for the sake of God," in its present
context (10) can have only one meaning. Malachy, seeing that his contest
with Niall was hopeless, determined to retire rather than continue the
strife, and left Niall in possession. But apart from entry 10, which
seems to have been misplaced, the words have no such implication, and
are in harmony with the reason given by St. Bernard for Malachy's return
to his former diocese (§§ 20, 21). Since the dates of the Masters for
this period are already suspect we need not hesitate to follow St.
Bernard's guidance here. But we may go further. The annalists were
compelled, if they would be consistent, to suppose that there was a
considerable interval between the retirement of Malachy and the
accession of Gelasius. How was it possible that when Niall had finally
routed his formidable rival, who was in possession of the Staff of
Jesus, another should at once step in and, apparently without any
difficulty, deprive him of the fruits of his victory? The difficulty is
increased if we accept the statement of St. Bernard—not contradicted by
the Annals, and not easy to dispute—that Gelasius was nominated by
Malachy himself, and was therefore presumably favourable to his cause.
Thus we perceive that there was good reason that the annalists should
separate the two events as far as possible, by antedating Malachy's
resignation, and by connecting it rather with Niall's restoration than
with the appointment of Gelasius.
3. In weighing the respective claims of St. Bernard and the annalists to
credence in this part of Malachy's life it is well to remember that of
it St. Bernard may be assumed to have had full and first-hand
information. The main facts were probably communicated to him by
Malachy himself, though some particulars were no doubt added by other
Irish informants. It is true, we must also allow for bias on St.
Bernard's part in favour of his friend. Such bias in fact displays
itself in §§ 25, 26. But bias, apart from sheer dishonesty, could not
distort the whole narrative, as it certainly must have been distorted in
the Life, if the narrative of A.F.M. is to be accepted as it stands.
4. It is important to observe that in the earlier stages of Malachy's
conflict with Niall the lord of Oriel was Conor O'Loughlin, who was
apparently not friendly to the reformers of the Irish Church (cp. §§ 18,
20, p. 40, n. 2, and p. 46, n. 5). No doubt his defeat by O'Brien and
Mac Carthy in 1134 (p. 43, n. 5) made him a less ardent supporter of
Niall than he had been of Murtough; but it is not likely that he
entirely discouraged his attempts to seize the abbacy. The ultimate
success of Malachy was in fact probably due to O'Loughlin's murder at
the end of May 1136 and the rise to power of Donough O'Carroll (see p.
58, n. 11), his successor in the kingdom of Oriel. St. Bernard never
mentions O'Carroll by name, though he possibly alludes to him in one
passage (§ 28: see note there). But we may infer from other sources that
he was a zealous friend and helper of Malachy. The most important of
these is a contemporary document, part of which has been copied on a
blank page of a fourteenth-century Antiphonary of Armagh (T.C.D. ms. B.
1. 1.) opposite the first page of the Calendar. Unfortunately the scribe
laid down his pen at the end of a line and in the middle of a sentence.
The document was first published by Petrie (p. 389) with a translation.
As it is referred to several times in the notes to the Life it may be
well to print here, with a few slight alterations, Dr. Whitley Stokes'
revised rendering (Gorman, p. xx.).
"Kalend. Januar. v feria, lun. x. Anno Domini mclxx. A prayer for
Donnchad Ua Cerbhaill, supreme King of Oirgialla, by whom were made the
book of Cnoc na nApstal at Louth and the chief books of the order of the
year, and the chief books of the Mass. It is this illustrious king who
founded the entire monastery both [as to] stone and wood, and gave
territory and land to it for the prosperity of his soul in honour of
Paul and Peter. By him the church throughout the land of Oirgialla was
reformed, and a regular bishopric was made, and the church was placed
under the jurisdiction of the bishop. In his time tithes were received
and marriage was assented to, and churches were founded and temples and
bell-houses [round towers] were made, and monasteries of monks and
canons and nuns were re-edified, and nemheds were made. These are
especially the works which he performed for the prosperity [of his soul]
and reign in the land of Oirgialla, namely, the monastery of monks on
the banks of the Boyne [as to] stone and wood, implements and books, and
territory and land, in which there are one hundred monks and three
hundred conventuals, and the monastery of canons of Termann Feichin, and
the monastery of nuns, and the great church of Termann Feichin, and the
church of Lepadh Feichin, and the church of...."
O'Carroll, then, was an ardent supporter of Malachy. Is it likely that
after his long struggle to secure the Chair of Patrick, and when he was
in actual possession of it, Malachy should voluntarily surrender his
claim to Niall at the very moment when the new king of Oriel had come to
his aid? Yet, unless we are prepared to place his resignation before
June 1136, that is the assumption we must make if we adhere to the
statements of A.F.M.
5. There are other documents of high authority which must be taken into
account: the contemporary record of the succession of coarbs of Patrick
in the Book of Leinster, and the copy of a similar record in the Yellow
Book of Lecan. The former of these seems to have been written by a
partizan of Malachy, since it ignores Murtough. The latter assigns to
that abbot a rule of three years, in agreement with St. Bernard (§§ 20,
21). But neither of them so much as mentions Niall; and both make
Gelasius the successor of Malachy. Thus they contradict A.F.M. and
corroborate the narrative of St. Bernard. See R.I.A. xxxv. 355 f.
INDEX
Abélard, 101
Acœmetae, 30
Adeline, 69
Age for ordination, 15 f.
Agnew, Sir Andrew, 78
Aidan, St., liv
Ailech, 40
Aleth, mother of St. Bernard, 7, 71
Alexander I., King of Scots, 76
Alps, 72
passes of, when closed, 142
Alternative sees, xlvii, 19
Amalgaid, coarb of Patrick, 164, 165
Anacletus II., anti-pope, 72
Anastasius, St., monastery of, at Rome, 118
Anmchara, 161
Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, xv, xxii, xxiv, xxvi, xxxvi, 47, 162
letters of, xxiv, xxix, xlvi, 47
Antiphonary of Armagh, 170
—— of Bangor, 28
Antrim, 88
Applecross, 29
Arch-priests, xxvii
Ardnurcher, diocese of, li
Ardpatrick, 14
Ards, The, 40
Ardstraw, diocese of, xli
Argyll, diocese of, 28
Armagh, xvi, xvii, lvii, 8, 11, 26, 36
abbots of, 164:
see also Amalgaid, Cathasach, Donnell, Dubdalethe, Joseph, Mael Brigte, Maelcoba, Maelisa, Murtough, Niall
antiphonary of, 170
archbishops of: see Cellach, Gelasius, Malachy
bishops of, xxxiv, xxxv, 164, 166
Book of, 53 f., 58, 169
cemetery of St. Patrick at, 115
diocese of, xli, lvi, lviii, 161-163
insignia of abbots of, 53-5, 58, 168, 169
monastery of SS. Paul and Peter at, 11, 18
pestilence at, 60
Aube, river, 71
Augustine, St., archbishop of Canterbury, xxxix
Augustinian canons, lx, 11, 63, 64, 67, 69, 113, 121
Baltinglas, 76
Bangor, liii, liv, lv, lvii, lviii, lx, 26, 27, 36, 67, 80, 118
abbey church at, 109
abbots of, liv, 28, 31:
see also Tanaidhe
ancient glory of, 27-30, 74
antiphonary of, 28
called Vallis Angelorum, 27
community of, lv, 41
convent of regular clerics at, 63 f.
etymology of, 27
headquarters of St. Malachy, liv, lviii, 33, 35, 64, 113
monastery of, 28, 91 f., 96, 104, 163
canons of, formed the bishop's chapter, 64
destroyed, 30, 40
oratory of, 30, 32, 109-113
possessions of, 26, 30 f., 108, 111
remains of, 109
site of, 28
Bann, river, xli, xliv
Bar-sur-Aube, 71
Barre, St., lxi, 92
Barrenness of soul, 98
Beatitudine, De, 76
Bective, 76
Bede's History, xxiii, xxxix f.
Bedell, Bishop William, xvii
Benedictione Dei, De, 76
Berengarius, 101
Bernard, St., xv, xxxv, lx, lxii, lxv, 7, 16, 71, 72, 117
at St. Malachy's funeral, 129
bias of, 170
errors of, 19, 31, 35, 36 f., 40, 45, 46, 50, 53, 62, 63, 76, 92, 118, 122, 124, 165, 166, 169
frailty of, 122
kisses St. Malachy's feet, 129, 144
omissions of, 53, 87, 169, 170
used good materials, 166
Bernard, Great St., mountain, 71, 72
—— Little St., mountain, 72
Bishop of a diocese abbot of regular canons, 64
"Bishop-King," 44
Bishops in Ireland, number of, xliii, lxii, 46
status of, xiii f., xxxiii, 166
Bobbio, 29
Book of Armagh, 53 f., 58, 169
Book of Kells, xxv
Book of Leinster, 171
Borromeo, St. Charles, favourite story of, 96
Boyle, 76
Boyne river, 75, 170
Bregha, 40
Breifne, xlix
Brian Boroimhe, xxiii, 161
Brigit, St., 100
Brothers left at Clairvaux by St. Malachy, 4, 68, 74, 132
—— sent from Ireland to Clairvaux, 75, 131
—— sent from Clairvaux to Ireland, 75, 133, 135
Brude, king of the Picts, 29
Brus, Robert de, 121
Burial of the poor, 14
Cairngarroch, 67, 78
Canice, St., 29
Canon of Patrick, 54
Canonical hours, chanting of, 17 f., 37, 161
Canterbury, xxxix, 70
archbishops of: see Anselm, Augustine, Lanfranc, Ralph, Sigeric, Theobald
suffragans of, xxi, xxii, xxxvi, xlv, lxiv
Carlisle, 64, 67, 76
Carntougher mountains, xli, xliii
Carthach, St., 19
Cashel, 65, 91
archbishop of: see Malchus
archbishopric of, xxxv f., xlvii, lxi, lxiii, 65, 73
assembly at, xxxv
synod of, 62, 75, 163
Cathair, 40
Cathasach, abbot and bishop of Armagh, 164
Catholicus, a brother, 119
Ceadd, lv
Cedd, lv
Cellach, archbishop of Armagh, xxii, xxxiv-xxxvii, xxxviii, xlvi, lii, lv, lvi, lvii, lx, 14, 15, 16, 20, 26, 36, 40, 43, 45, 46, 49, 65, 89, 164
not married, 49
"wife" of, 49
will of, lvi, 43, 47
Cenél Conaill, xliii
Cenél Eoghain, xliii, 59
of the Island, xliii
Christian (Gilla Crist Ua Condoirche), abbot of Mellifont, bishop of Lismore, papal legate, lxii, lxv, 34, 75, 95, 134, 136
—— bishop of Clogher; see O'Morgair
Church of Ireland, constitution of, xiii-xv
Church Island, 40 f.
Churches founded, 170
Ciaran, St., xlix
Cistercian Order, lx, 4, 69, 71, 76, 114, 120, 136
churches of, 109
Citeaux, 71
"City," 35, 37, 40, 85, 88
Clairvaux, lx, lxii, 71, 73, 74, 75, 118
brothers left at, by St. Malachy, 4, 68, 74, 132
brothers of, return to, 75, 135, 136
brothers sent to, from Ireland, 75, 131
brothers sent from, to Ireland, 75, 133, 135
monks of, unwilling to leave it, 136
oratory at, 128, 129
St. Malachy's wish to die at, 72, 117, 121, 124, 128, 143
second monastery of, 71, 143
Clann Gairb-gaela, 165
—— Sinaich, 46, 165, 166
Clergy, dearth of, 37, 39, 163
Clogher, diocese of, lviii, lx
barony of, lix
bishops of: see O'Boyle, O'Morgair
church of, 54
Clonard, bishops of: see Eugenius, O'Dunan, Rochfort
diocese and see of, xxv, xxvii, xxix, xlix, l
Clonenagh, annals of, xxxvii f., lxii, lxiii
Clonmacnoise, xvi
diocese of, xxviii, xxix, xlix, li
Clontarf, battle of, xvi, xix
Clova, 28
Cloyne, 88
diocese of, lxi
Cluain uama, 88
Coarb, meaning of, xiii
authority of, derived from founder of his church, 44
Coarbs of Patrick, 106, 164-6:
see also Armagh, abbots, archbishops
married and without orders, 45, 164
Coleraine, 85
Columba, St., 29
Columbanus, St., 29
Comgall, St., 28, 29, 74
coarb of, 27: see also O'Gorman, O'Hanratty
relics of, 30
Communities founded by St. Malachy, 31, 75, 83, 113, 137
Conall Gulban, 7
Confession, 18, 37, 39, 88, 98, 161
Confessors, 161
Confirmation, 18, 19, 162
Congan, abbot of Inislounaght, 4, 114
Connaught, 44, 93
Connor, 35, 37, 40, 62, 63
diocese of, xli, lvii, lviii, lxii
Connor or Down, diocese of, xli, xliv, xlvii, liv, lvii, lviii, lxii, 36, 48, 49, 62 f., 161-3
division of, lvii f., 62 f.
see of, liv, 35
Conuama, 88
Conversion, 11, 82
Conversus, 34
Cork, 21, 92
abbey of St. John Evangelist at, 93
bishop of: see Ua Muidhin
diocese of, lxi, 92
election of bishop of, 92-4
Cormac: see Mac Carthy
Cormac's chapel, 44, 53, 167, 168
Cruggleton, 76 f., 78
Cuthbert, St., 69
Daimliac mór at Armagh, 11
Dairtheach, 32
Dál Araide, lvii f., 40
Dalriada, 165
Danes in Ireland, xiv f..
Danish colonies in Ireland, xix
—— dioceses, xxvi, lxiv
ruled by Irish bishops, xx, xxi
Dates discussed:
appointment of St. Malachy as vicar of Cellach, 16
birth of St. Malachy, 130
building of stone oratory at Bangor, 109
composition of Life of St. Malachy, lxv
condemnation of heretic at Lismore, 102
death of Christian O'Morgair, 66
departure of St. Malachy from England (1148), 123
election of bishop of Cork, 93
foundation of Inislounaght, 114
journeys of St. Malachy, 71, 73
letters of St. Bernard, 131, 133, 134, 137
ordination of St. Malachy, 16
proposal of St. Malachy to visit Rome, 72
resignation of Gilbert, bishop of Limerick, 73
resignation of see of Armagh by St. Malachy, 61, 169
St. Malachy's instruction under Imar, 11
St. Malachy's visits to Lismore, 20 f.
sermons of St. Bernard, 141, 152
visit of St. Malachy to York, 70
visitation of Munster by St. Malachy, 168
David I., king of Scots, 76 f., 120, 121
Dermot, the count: see Mac Murrough
—— father of Gelasius, 62
—— father of St. Malachy, 6
Derry, diocese of, xli, xliv, lviii
Erenach (abbot) of: see Gelasius
—— or Raphoe, diocese of, xli, xlvii
Desmond, 21, 43; see also Mac Carthy
De Statu Ecclesiae, xxx-xxxiii
Dijon, 30, 71
Dioceses of Scotland, 76
Domnach Airgid, 54
Donnell, abbot of Armagh, xxxiv
—— bishop, xxiii, xxiv
Dove enters church, 115
Dove-like eyes, 63
Dover, 70
Down, diocese of, xli, lviii, lxii
see of, lviii, 64
Downpatrick (Down), 36, 44, 62, 63
dispute between prior and monks of, and abbot and canons of Bangor, 64
monastery of Irish at, 63
Dromore, diocese of, xxii, xli
Dubdalethe, II., coarb of Patrick, 164, 165
Dublin, xix, xlvi
archbishopric of, lxiii f.
archbishops of: see Gregory, O'Toole
bishops of, xx, xxiii: see also Dunan, Gregory, O'Hanley, Patrick
burgesses of, xxii, xlvi
church of Holy Trinity (Christ Church) in, xix, 54, 64
diocese of xix, xlv
hostility of, to Irish Church, xxii, xlv f., lxiii f.
king of: see Gothric, Sitric
Duevania, 88
Duleek, xlix
diocese of, l
Dunan, bishop of Dublin, xix, xx
Dunshaughlin, diocese of, xxvii, l
Ecclesia, 4
Edgar the Atheling, 76
Emly, diocese of, lxi
Eporedia, 72
Erming Street, 70
Erne waterway, lix
Erolbh, bishop of Limerick, xxi
Errew, 93
Espec, Walter, 69
Eucharist called "sacraments," 114
heresy concerning, 101-3
Eugenius III., Pope, lxii, lxv, 3, 38, 117 f., 122
—— bishop of Clonard, l
Eusebius, a deacon, 14
Family of coarbs of Patrick, 165
extinction of, 61, 166
"Fasting on," 106, 107
Faughart, 100
Fearnmaigh (Farney), 59
Felix, bishop of Lismore, 75
Ferdomnach, 53
Fergus, lord of Galloway, 77, 120
Fer légind, xvi
Fermanagh, lix
Ferta martair, 115
Fiachrach, son of Colla fo Crich, 165
Fiadh meic Oengusa, council of, xxxvii, 46
Fingal, 59
Finnian, St., xlix
Fir Li, xliv
Fontaines, 71
Fore, diocese of, li
Forma, 11, 56
Four Masters, confusion of, 168
Gall, St., 86
Gelasius, archbishop of Armagh, lvii, lx, lxiii, 59, 62, 167, 168, 169, 171
"Generation," 45, 166
Gentes, 74, 80
Geoffrey, St. Bernard's secretary, 47, 81
prayer of, 130
Gerlatus, 81
Geswalt, 78
Gibeonites, 50
Gilbert, bishop of Limerick, papal legate, xxi, xxii, xxvi, xxix-xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, xliii, xliv f., xlviii, lvi, lx, lxi, 17, 47 f., 73, 163;
not a suffragan of Canterbury, xxi f., 47
——, St., of Sempringham, 123
Gill Abbey, Cork, 93
Giraldus Cambrensis, xv, 162
Gisburn, 67, 121
monastery of, 120 f.
Glendalough, bishop of, xlvi, lxiv
diocese of, xlv, lxiv
Godscalcus, 81
Gothric, king of Dublin, xxiii
Gougaud, Dom L., xxi, 76
Gregory, archbishop of Dublin, xx, xxii, lxiii, 20
—— I., Pope, xxxix, xl
—— VII., Pope, 162
Greenogue, xlv
Grenan Ely, 40
Gyrovagus, 55
Harding, Stephen, 71
Henry I., king of England, 47
—— II., king of England, 62
——, son of David I., king of Scots, 77
Hereditary succession of abbots, xv, lvi f., 45 f., 48, 148, 165
Heresy regarding the Eucharist, 101-103
Hinba, 29
Holy Island, liv
—— Trinity, church of: see Dublin
Honorius II., Pope, 72
Hook, simile of a, applied to Death of Christ, 145
Horse presented to St. Malachy, 69 f.
Humbert of Igny, 136
Ignatius, St., epistles of, 37
Igny, Humbert of, 136
Imar: see O'Hagan
Indrechtach, abbot of Bangor, 31
Inishowen, xli, xlii f.
Inislounaght, 76, 114
Inispatrick, synod of, lxi, 118
Innocent II., Pope, lx f., 71, 72 f., 117, 118
Irish Church, state of, described, 16-18, 37 f., 45 f., 161-3
Isaac, 133 f.
Ithael, xvii
Iveagh, 40
Iveragh, lv, 40, 43
site of S. Malachy's monastery in, 40 f.
Ivrea, 71, 72
John Evangelist, St., Abbey of, at Cork, 93
——, son of Sulien, xvii
manuscript written by, xviii
verses, of, xviii
Jonas, 30
Joseph, coarb of Patrick, 165 f.
Judas Maccabæus, 23
Kells, xvii
archdeacon of: see Petit
archdeaconry of, xxviii
bishop of, xxviii, lxiii
Book of, xxv
diocese of, xxvii, xxviii, li
synod of, xxvii, lxii-lxiv, 75, 93, 163
Kilcurry River, 100
Kildare, xvii
Killeshin, 4
Kilmore, diocese of, xlix, li, lxii
Kingarth, 29
Kirkham Abbey, 69
Kirk Mochrum, 78
Knock, monastery of SS. Paul and Peter at, 67, 118, 170
Krusch, Bruno, 30
Lambay Island, xlv
Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, xv, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxvi, 162;
letters of, xxiii
Lapasperi, Portus, 78 f.
Larne, lviii
Laurence, St.: see O'Toole
Learning in Ireland, xiv, xvi-xviii, xxvi
Leath Chuinn, xxv, xl
—— Mogha, xl
Lecan, Yellow Book of, 171
Leinster, xxxviii, xl, 86
Book of, 171
Lepadh Feichin, 170
Lía na rígh, 51
Limerick, bishops of: see Erolbh, Gilbert, Patrick, Turgesius
church of St. Mary in, xxx, xliv
diocese of, xix, xxi, xxx, xliv
Lismore, xlvii, liii, lv, 19, 36, 46, 69, 86, 87, 101
assemblies at, 101 f.
bishops of: see Christian, Felix, Malchus
—— or Waterford, diocese of, xlvii
—— in Scotland, 28
Llanbadarn Fawr, school of, xvii
London, 70
Louth, see of diocese of Oriel, lix, 66
county of, lix f.
diocese of, lix, 64
bishops of: see O'Kelly, O'Morgair
monastery of St. Mary at, 67
Loxewdy, diocese of, li
Lucius II., Pope, 118
Lugaid, 28, 29
Lugidus, 28
Luxeuil (Luxovium) 29 f.
Mabillon, J., lxv
Mac Cairthinn, St., 54
Mac Carthy, Cormac, king of Desmond, liii, lvi f., 43 f., 51, 53, 93, 167, 170
assists St. Malachy at Iveragh, lv, 40, 41
called Bishop-King, 44
character of, 22, 23 f., 44
crozier of, 44
expelled from kingdom and restored, lv, 21-4, 41, 43
Mac Carthy, Dermot, 93
Mac Carthy, Donough, lv, 21, 23
Mac Carthy, Teague, king of Desmond, 21, 43
Mac Firbis, 7, 164, 165
Mac Mahon, 166
Mac Murrough, Dermot, king of Leinster, 90
Mac Sinaich, 166
Mael Brigte (Marianus Scotus), xviii
—— ——, son of Tornan, coarb of Patrick, 7
Maelcoba, coarb of Patrick, 165
Maelisa, abbot of Armagh, 14
Maelsechlainn, king of Ireland, 161, 164
Magh Cobha, 40
Maghera, 44, 64
Magheramorne, 28
Mainz, xviii
Malachy, St., early life of, lii, 6-18
part taken by, in Reformation, lii-lxiv
vicar of Cellach, lii, 16-18, 20, 163
at Lismore, liii, lv, 18-26, 40, 86, 87, 101-, 3
bishop of Connor, liv, 36-9, 128
abbot of Bangor, 27, 41, 43, 80, 112
at Iveragh, lv, 40-2
archbishop of Armagh, lvi f., lix, 53-61
bishop of Down, lvii f., lxi, 62 f.., 82
journey of, to Rome, lx f., 64-80
at Clairvaux, lx, 70-2, 74, 122-, 30
at Rome, 72-4
papal legate, lxi, 73, 80 f., 93, 102, 132
last journey of, lxi f., 118-22, 142
death of, lxii, 4, 117, 122, 123-8, 139, 141, 143
burial of, 3, 128-30, 139, 142, 144
a canon of St. Augustine, 11
age of, 128
called an ape, 111
character of, 3, 7-10, 47, 81-4, 153-7
coarb of Patrick, 82, 106
compared to Ananias of Damascus, 108
to Elijah, 52, 151, 159
to Elisha, 60, 95, 129
to Moses, 159
to St. John Baptist, 89
consecrated bishop, 36, 43
conspiracy against, by men of Tullaghoge, 51, 57, 168
contest of, for the abbacy of Armagh, 46-61, 167-71
convent of regular clerics founded by, 63 f.
father of, 6
in Paradise, 89
last sayings of, 123, 124, 126, 127, 143, 147
letters of, to St. Bernard, 131, 135
made deacon, 14, 15, 16, 43
meaning of name of, 27, 157
miracles of, 32, 34, 52, 72, 77, 78, 79, 81, 85-108, 111, 116, 119, 121, 129, 154, 158, 171
monastery of, 18, 104
mother of, 7, 8, 27, 162
not allowed to cross channel, 121, 142
ordained priest, 15, 16, 43
parents of, 6
plot against, by a prince at Armagh, 55-7
reason of retirement of, from archbishopric, 169
rebuilds churches, 39, 163
reforms of, 17 f., 39, 58, 61, 81, 163
relics of, 73, 130
sister of, 14, 15, 25 f.
uncle of, 27
visions of, 25, 49, 113
voluntary poverty of, 49, 82, 149
where buried, 130
Malchus (Mael Isa Ua hAinmire), bishop of Waterford, archbishop of Cashel, xxi, xxii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxviii, xlvi, xlvii, liii, lv, lx, 18 f., 21, 23, 47 f., 65;
miracles of, 19 f.
——, brother of Christian, abbot of Mellifont, 33 f., 95
Malcolm IV., king of Scots, 77
—— Canmore, king of Scots, 76
Marcus, author of Tundale's Vision, 88
Margaret, St., 76
Marianus Scotus: see Mael Brigte, Muiredach.
Marriage, 18, 37, 39, 162, 170
Married abbots of Armagh, 45, 164
Mary, St., church of, at Clairvaux, 128, 129, 130
at Limerick, xxx, xliv
at Mellifont, 75 f.
at Melrose, 69
monastery of, at Louth, 67
Matilda, empress, 76, 121
——, wife of David I., 69, 76
——, wife of Henry I., 76
——, wife of Stephen, 76
Mattock, stream, 75
Maurice, St., in Valois, 30
Maxwell, Sir Herbert, 78
Meath, xl, 40
bishops of: see O'Dunan, Rochfort, Tachmon
deaneries of, xxvii, li
dioceses of, xxvii-xxix, xxxiii, xlviii-lii
Mellifont Abbey, 75, 170
choice of site of, 75, 132
consecration of church of, 59, 75
daughters of, 76
progress of, 75, 135
Melrose, 69
Membra (memrae), 60
Memoria Sanctorum, 60
"Metropolitan," 36, 45, 166
Michael, abbot at Soulseat, 34, 120
Michael's Church, St., 78
Mitre of St. Malachy, 73
Mochrum, 78
Mochuta, St., xlvii, 19
Molua, 28
Monaghan, county of, xli, lix
Monasteries rebuilt, 170
Monasternenagh, 76
Monenna, St., Life of, 32
Monk, nations which have not seen a, 74
Moore, Sir Edward, 75 f.
Moriarty, Nehemiah, bishop of Cloyne, lxi, 89
Mortlach, 28
Muiredach Mac Robartaigh (Marianus Scotus), xviii
Mullingar, diocese of, li
Mungret, 6
Munster, xl, 46, 91
visitations of, xxxiv, xxxvi, 14, 16, 53, 167, 168, 169
Murtough, coarb of Patrick, 43, 46, 50, 51, 164, 165 f., 167, 170
"Nations," 74
Nehemiah, bishop of Cloyne, lxi, 89
Nemheds, 170
Newbald, 68
Newtown,
near Trim, xxvii, li
synod at, xxvii, xxviii
Newtown Stewart, xli
Niall, coarb of Patrick, 43, 50, 53, 58, 167, 168, 170, 171
Nostal, priory of St. Oswald at, 69
O'Boyle, Caincomrac, bishop of Armagh, xxxiv
Cinaeth, bishop of Clogher, lix, 66
O'Brien, xxvi
Conor, king of Thomond, lv, lvi f., 21, 23, 43 f., 51, 170
Dermot, xxiv, 43
Murtough, king of Munster, xxiv, xxx, xxxv, xxxviii, lv, 43
Teague, 106
Turlough, xxiii, xxiv
O'Carroll, Donough, king of Oriel, lvii, lix, 58 f., 66, 67, 75, 163, 170 f.
O'Conor, Cathal, 106
Rory, 106
Turlough, king of Connaught, lv, 21, 23, 43, 106
O'Dunan, Mael Muire, "bishop of Meath," bishop of Clonard (?), xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxix, xxxv, xxxvii, xxxviii, xlix
O'Flaherty, Donnell, 106
O'Gormon, Oengus, coarb of Comgall, 27
O'Hagan, sept of, 51 f.
Imar, abbot of SS. Paul and Peter, Armagh, lii, liii, 11, 13, 15, 20, 26, 31, 33, 36
O'Hanley, Donough, bishop of Dublin, xx, xxi, xxiv
Samuel, bishop of Dublin, xx, xxi, xxiv, xlvi, 20
O'Hanlon, sept of, 166
Rev. J., 78
O'Hanratty, family of, 7, 27
Murtough, coarb of Comgall, 27
O'Heney, Donnell, xxiii, xxiv
Oirgialla, the, 59, 166
O'Kane, xliv
O'Kelly, Edan, bishop of Louth, lix f., lxii, 66
Old Melrose, 69
O'Loughlin, Conor, king of north of Ireland, lv, 40, 46, 55, 59, 170
Donnell, 40
O'Morgair, sometimes written O'Mongair, 6
family of, known as O'Dogherty, 7
Christian, bishop of Clogher and Louth, lix, 66, 67, 89, 167
Dermot, 6
Mughron, fer légind at Armagh, 6
See also Malachy, St.
O'Neills, 51, 166
Oratories, materials of, 32 f., 109
Oratory at Bangor, 30, 32, 109-113
at Cairngarroch, 79, 171
at Clairvaux, 128, 129
at Saul, 113
Oriel, lviii, 59, 163, 170
cathedral of, 67
diocese of, lviii-lx, 67, 170
kings of: see O'Carroll, O'Loughlin
see of, lix f.
O'Rorke, Tighernan, 59
Oswald, St., priory of, 69
O'Toole, St. Laurence, archbishop of Dublin, xxi
Paisley, 29
Pall, xxxii, lx f., lxii-lxiv, 65, 73, 117, 118
Papal schism, 66, 72
Paparo, John, cardinal priest of St. Laurence, xxvii, xlv, lxii-lxiv
"Parish," meaning of, xxviii
Pastoral staves, 44, 49, 50, 123
Patrick, St., 27, 89, 117, 148, 162
authority of coarbs of, 44
burial place of, 44, 115, 117
canon of, 54
coarbs of: see Armagh, abbots of, archbishops of
gospels of, 53, 54
Patrick, bishop of Dublin, xx, xxi, xxiii, xlvi
——, bishop of Limerick, xxi, 73
Paul and Peter, SS., monastery of, at Armagh, 11, 18
at Knock, 67, 118, 170
Penance, 37, 97, 98, 115, 161, 167
Peter, St., coarb of, 118
Petit, Adam, archdeacon of Kells, xxviii
Petrie on stone churches, 32
Philip of Clairvaux, 13
Pilgrims from Connaught, 93
"Poor man," 93
Popes: see Eugenius, Gregory, Honorius, Innocent, Lucius
Portus Lapasperi, 78 f.
Primate of Ireland, xxxvii f.
Princeps, 27
"Quasi-generations," 45, 65
Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, xxii, xlvi
Raphoe, diocese of, xli, xlii, lviii
Rathbreasail, synod of, xxxvii-lii, lvi, lviii, lix, 14, 18, 36, 47, 62, 65;
canons of, violated, lii, lviii, lx, lxi, lxii
Rathbrennan, 106
Rathluraigh, 44
Ratisbon, monastery of St. Peter at, xviii
Rebekah, 133 f.
Reformation of Irish Church, took place in twelfth century, xii
causes of, xvi-xx, xxvi
scope of, xiii
"Returning to his own country," 127
Rheims, council of, 121
Ribble, river, 67, 121
Ribchester, 121
Ricemarch, son of Sulien, life of St. David by, xviii
psalter of, xvii f.
verses of, xviii
Richard, abbot of Melrose, 69
Rievaulx, 69
Rivulet becomes a river, 105 f., 154
Robert, architect of Mellifont, 75, 136
Rochfort, Simon, bishop of Meath, xxvii, xxviii, l
Roe Valley, xliv
Rosemarkie, 28
Rouen, 47
"Rouncy," 69
Round Towers, 170
Route of St. Malachy's journeys, 67, 70, 121
Roxburgh, 76
Rufinus, 145
Rummun, 33
Runcinus, 69
Sacraments, 18, 25 f., 39, 96, 97, 101, 114, 117
"Sacraments" meaning the Eucharist, 114
St. Liz, Simon de, Earl of Northampton, 69, 76
Saul, 44, 87
monastery of, 113, 163
Scotia, 20
Scotic, 32
Scotland, 34, 67, 69, 72, 76, 120
boundaries of, 67
Scotland, Further, 125
Scots, 20, 69, 110
"Seed" of a bishop, 67, 165
Senior, xxv, 48
Sexual morality, xxiv, 162 f.
Shalvey, Donnell, erenach of Cork, 93
Sheelan, Lough, 59
Shrule, 76
Sigeric, archbishop of Canterbury, 70
Sighere, 68
Silence, rule of, 13
Sinach, 165
Singing, 17 f., 37, 125, 127, 143, 161
Sitric, king of Dublin, xix
Skerries, lxi, 118
Skreen, diocese of, xxvii, l
Sollemnitas, 126
Song, Church, 17 f., 37, 125, 127, 143, 161
Soulseat, monastery founded at, by St. Malachy, 34, 120
Premonstratensian monastery at, 120
Slane, diocese of, xxvii, l
Staff of Jesus, 53 f., 58, 167, 168, 169
keeper of, 58, 167
Staff sent by St. Malachy to St. Bernard, 131
Standard, Battle of the, 77
State of Continental Church described, 1-3
State of the Irish Church described, 16-18, 37 f., 45 f., 161-3
Stephen, king of England, lxii, 121, 142
Stone churches, 11, 32 f., 109
Stoneykirk, 78
Stowe Missal, 162
Students, in Irish schools, xiv, xvii f., xxvi
Suffragan, meaning of, xxii
Sulien the Wise, bishop of St. David's, xvii, xviii
Surio, De (Suir, monastery of the; Suriense monasterium), 4, 76, 114
Sweden, 74
Sycarus (Sighere), 68
Tachmon, Hugh de, bishop of Meath, li
Tanaidhe, coarb of Comgall, 30
Tees, River, 67
Termann Feichin, 170
Tescelin, father of St. Bernard, 71
Thaddaeus, bishop of Kells, xxviii
Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, 73, 121
Thomas, St., monastery of, in Dublin, l
Thomond, kingdom of, 43
Tír Conaill, lviii
Tiree, island of, 29
Tír Eoghain, lviii
diocese of, 64
visitation of, xxxiv, 50
Tithes, xxxiii, 37, 84, 163, 170
Tobit, 15
Tostius, bishop of Waterford, xxi
Translation of bodies to new cemetery at Clairvaux, 125, 143
Travellers from Ireland, xviii f., xxi, xxvi
Treasure found, 112
Tribal territories, xlii-xliv
Trim, diocese of, xxvii, l
Tuam, archbishopric of, lxiii
Tullaghoge, 51, 167 f., 169
Turgesius, bishop of Limerick, xxi
Ua Condoirche: see Christian
Ua hAinmire: see Malchus
Ua Maelsechlainn Murrough, king of Meath, 106
Ua Muidhin, Gilla Aedha, bishop of Cork, lxi, 93
Ua Sinaich, 166
Flann, 58, 167
Uhtred, bishop of Llandaff, 73
Ui Méith, 27
Ui Neill, 40
Ui Sinaich, 165
Ulaid, lviii, 28, 40, 87
count of, 89
diocese of, lviii, 64
duke and magnates of, 111
Ulster, xl f., xlii, lviii, 46
Unction of sick, 88, 96 f., 124
not confined to priests, 164
Usnagh, synod of, xxviii, xlix, l f.
Valerian, persecution of, 14
Valle Salutis, De, 76
Vallis Angelorum, 27
Victor IV., anti-pope, 72
Viride Stagnum, 120
Voice of the turtle, 3
Waltheof (Waldeve, Wallenus, Wallevus), St., abbot of Melrose, 69, 121
——, Earl of Northumberland, 69
Wardon, 69
Waterford, xix
bishops of: see Malchus, Tostius
diocese of, xix, xlvi
Watling Street, 121
Wexford, xix
——, diocese of, xix
—— or Ferns, diocese of, xlvii
William the Conqueror, 47
—— I., king of Scots, 77
——, prior of Kirkham, 69
Winchester, 18, 19
Wissant, 70, 123
Wooden churches, 32 f.
Wormwood, Valley of, 71
Yellow Book of Lecan, 171
York, xxii, xxxix, 67, 68, 70
Zacchaeus, 14