his subjects, embraced the Christian faith. Not many years after Edwin was slain in battle whilst fighting against Penda, the pagan king of Mercia. Paulinus, with the queen-dowager and her two sons had then to return to Kent, and Northumbria soon after relapsed into idolatry. After a little time, however, Oswald, nephew of King Edwin, regained the crown. He was a pious Christian, and his chief concern was to have his subjects reconverted to the faith of Christ. For this end he procured a pious missionary named Aidan, a monk of the celebrated monastery of Iona, or Hy. We need not remind our readers that this monastery was founded by our countryman, the famed Columba, or Columbkille, and we immediately shall see that the monks of the Columbian order were the most ardent supporters of the old cycle when the controversy took place in Ireland. Aidan and his companions soon converted the Northumbrians to the faith, and introduced among them the cycle of 84 years. Some of the Northumbrians, however, embraced the new cycle, and thus a diversity of practice arose among the Christians of that province. Oswi, brother of Oswald, who had become king of Northumbria on the death of the latter, resolved to put an end to this state of things, and commanded the disputants on either side to appear before him. Coleman, another monk of the monastery of Hy, who was then bishop, pleaded in favour of the old cycle, while two Saxon prelates spoke in favour of the new. Oswi, persuaded by the arguments of these prelates, declared that for the future he would adopt the cycle of 19 years, which was the cycle in use at Rome and everywhere throughout the Continent of Europe. After this conference, the new cycle was introduced into Northumbria. Bishop Coleman, seeing that his view would not be followed, resigned his see, and retired with his adherents to his monastery at Hy. In this manner was the controversy brought to an end in North Britain. With regard to the Britons of Wales, we have no account as to the exact time at which they embraced the new cycle. Although they would not receive it from S. Augustine, it is certain that it was afterwards introduced amongst them. The probability is, that this introduction was gradual. In the course of time their attention would naturally be called to the practice which prevailed amongst their neighbours throughout the rest of the island, and amongst all Christians throughout Europe, and thus they would be influenced to gradually adopt the general discipline of the church.

We have now only to notice the Paschal controversy as far as it regards Ireland. Though we have made this the subject of our paper, we need not dwell upon it long. The remarks,

VOL. XII.

31

which we have already made on the subject in general, will tend, to a great extent, to explain the special question that appertains to our own country. S. Patrick commenced his mission here in the early part of the fifth century. As we have already remarked, it was only in the middle of the following century that the cycle of 19 years was adopted by the churches on the continent. We see, therefore, that at the time S. Patrick set out for his mission, the cycle of 84 years was the only one in use throughout the whole Western Church. The saint brought it with him to Ireland, and the people revered it with that intense devotion with which they revered everything which they had received from the great apostle. Hence it is, that they retained the old cycle for many years after it had fallen into total disuse on the continent. It is said that in addition to the error regarding the cycle, they used celebrate Easter after the manner of the Roman Church before the Council of Nice, namely, on the first Sunday after the fourteenth day of the moon, and that they even went so far as to celebrate it on the fourteenth day itself, if that day happened to be Sunday. On no account, however, would they celebrate the festival on any day but a Sunday. The heads of the Irish Church were probably well aware of the changes that had taken place regarding this matter in the countries of the continent. It seems, however, that they looked on these changes as mere matters of discipline, which they themselves were by no means bound to adopt. They appear, in fact, to have viewed the old custom much in the same light in which the Asiatics regarded their own. The Asiatics considered the example of S. John a sufficient sanction for continuing to celebrate the festival on the fourteenth day of the month. In like manner, the Irish considered the name and authority of their own great Apostle a sufficient reason for continuing to celebrate it after the manner introduced by him. It is certain, at all events, that they did not readily adopt the change that had taken place in this matter in the other portions of the Western Church. Nevertheless, we do not hear that the subject attracted any attention until the beginning of the seventh century.

About the year 610, an Irish saint, named Dogan, being in Britain, had a controversy with Mellitus, apostle of the east Saxons, and some other Roman prelates on the question of the Pasch. Shortly afterwards the same prelates addressed a letter to the Irish clergy on the matter, and then at once the question was seriously taken up. Some of the Irish clergy held that for the sake of uniformity, the Roman method should be adopted; others recommended a compromise by not

celebrating the festival on the fourteenth day, even though it happened to be Sunday; while a very large party maintained that the old custom should in every respect be adhered to. These argued that the question was not one of faith or morals, but of discipline, in which one portion of the church might lawfully differ from another, and that there was no reason for making a change. No agreement could be come to, and the question lay in comparative abeyance for several years.

In the year 630, Pope Honorius I. sent to Ireland an admonitory letter on the subject, and immediately a synod was convened at Old Leighlin. It is said that the then bishop of Emly presided. There were also present many other distinguished Irish prelates, and amongst them Laserian, bishop of Leighlin, and Fintan Munnu, abbot of the monastery of Taghmon. These two prelates seem to have taken the chief part in the discussion, and they held opinions completely opposite. Laserian contended that the Roman method of celebrating Easter was now adopted over the rest of the Catholic Church, and that Ireland should not form an exception to the rule. Fintan Munnu argued in the manner we have mentioned above. The matter was one of mere discipline, and in matters of this kind there always have been, and there must be, diversities. If other nations thought proper to adopt the new system, that was their own business; but as far as Ireland was concerned, it was plainly her duty to retain the old. It was given to her by the great national apostle, it was consecrated by the usage of their ancestors, and there was now no valid reason for giving it up.

Notwithstanding this appeal, the majority of the council was in favour of the new system. One very powerful argument adduced in support of it was, that they had been directed by S. Patrick himself, to refer all such disputes to Rome. To prove this, a canon of the saint was produced, which declared " Si quae quaestiones in hac insula oriantur, ad Sedem Apostolicam referantur." To set the matter at rest, deputies were appointed to proceed to Rome, and lay the question before the Holy See. The Pope, as might be expected, decided in favour of the new cycle, and in addition the deputies observed that it was the cycle which was followed by every other nation in Christendom. They returned home and related these facts to the Irish prelates about the year 633. From that time the new cycle was received throughout the greater part of Ireland; throughout the whole of Munster, and the principal parts of Leinster and Connaught.

In this manner was the long disputed question settled in the south, in the west, and in Leinster, but the northern

dioceses still tenaciously clung to the old discipline. This long adherence to it in the north is chiefly to be ascribed to the great influence which the members of the Columbian order there possessed, and which they so long exerted for its preservation. We have already adverted to the devotion which these religious entertained for everything received from S. Patrick. This devotion, indeed, has ever been common to all the Catholics of Ireland with them, but it seems that at the time of which we speak, they felt it more intensely than the rest. Hence, when the change of the cycle was proposed to them, they at once declared against it. Even after the return of the deputies, who had been sent to Rome by the Synod of Old Leighlin, they still clung to the old system as much as ever. And they followed it not only at home, but wherever else they sojourned. We have already seen that the Irish monk Aidan, brought the Irish discipline into Northumbria. When it was resolved that the Roman method should be introduced there in its stead, Coleman, one of Aidan's successors in the see of Lindisfarne, retired thence to his monastery at Hy. These religious of the Columbian order were very numerous in the North of Ireland, where they were held in the highest estimation. This estimation for them was to be attributed partly to their venerated founder, and partly to their own acknowledged learning and sanctity. Now, when the rest of Ireland had set aside the old cycle, the members of the Columbian order used all their influence to have it retained in the north, and this influence succeeded in causing it to be preserved there for nearly another century. An archbishop of Armagh, named Thomian, seeing the conflict of opinion which the controversy created, directed another letter to Rome on the subject. This letter was addressed to Pope Severinus, but, as he died soon after his election, he never received it. However, his successor, John IV., and the other heads of the Roman Church, forwarded an answer to the prelates of the north. This letter arrived in Ireland, A.D. 640. Besides referring to other things, it exhorted them to adopt the new cycle without delay. Notwithstanding this document, the old practice of celebrating Easter was generally adhered to in the northern province of Ireland until the year 704. At that time the celebrated Adamum of Hy, acknowledged the Roman cycle, and by his influence caused it to be shortly afterwards acknowledged throughout the whole north of Ireland. The method of counting the cycle thus adopted, has ever since been persevered in as well in the north as in every other part of the country.

This brief explanation, which we have given of the nature

of the Paschal question and of the controversies about it in Ireland, leaves to us little more to say on the subject. The purport of our paper was to confute the assertion that the time for celebrating Easter was the same with the early Irish and with the early Christians of Asia Minor. We thought we could best do so by giving a short sketch of the whole subject, and after this we do not see the necessity of further argument. It is as clear as any historical fact can be, that the disciplines in Ireland and the east were totally different. The great point of diversity between them was that the easterns used always celebrate the festival on the fourteenth day of the month, no matter whether that day were Sunday or not, whilst the Irish used never celebrate it except on a Sunday. There was, therefore, an essential point of difference between the two disciplines, and this difference arose from the fact that the two peoples deliberately adopted different rules for regulating the time of the celebration. The easterns looked to the fourteenth day of the month as the proper day on which to celebrate the festival: the Irish looked to the Sunday on which their national apostle directed them to celebrate it. We see, therefore, that there is not the slightest foundation for the Protestant assertion, that the time of the celebration of the Pasch was the same with the early Irish and with the early Christians of the east.

The Paschal controversy, far from being an argument against the communion of the early Irish Church with the See of Rome, supplies a very strong argument in its favour. We have seen the resistance which the clergy and people of the country made herein in a mere matter of discipline, because they considered it in opposition to the discipline brought to them by S. Patrick. So attached were they to everything delivered to them by their beloved apostle, that they for a long time resisted the new cycle, which the rest of the church had adopted, and which reason must have taught them to be the more correct. What, then, would have been the opposition if anything contrary to his instructions in faith or morals had been introduced? In such an event the voice of reclamation would have been heard from one end to the other of the land; the new doctrine would have been denounced in the strongest terms and scouted with universal resent. But we have never heard of any such reclamation. The only words addressed by Ireland to Rome that have ever been heard of, are words of unshaken loyalty and love. No doctrines, therefore, have ever been imported thence which are not in perfect accord with those delivered to us by S. Patrick.

In concluding this paper, we shall briefly advert to the differ