6
however, did not give us an idea of the first half of the twelfth century, nor of the eleventh century; but, unfortunately for himself, to gratify a low bigoted prejudice, carries us back to the fifth century. He there puts forward a statement impertinent, irrelevant to the subject on hands. But, unpardonable as it was in him to wander from his subject, I hope for indulgence, kind reader, in turning from the Irish Parliament, my aim. being to follow him in his wanderings, and review his statements. In page 11 of his pamphlet, he says, that “the Church of Ireland was a free and ancient Church, held its synods, that in one of these it was ordained, at—which St. Patrick presided, that priests should have wives”, and concludes as illogically, as clumsily, and inelegantly, that “by the practice of the ancient Church of Ireland, and, perhaps, of St. Patrick, we are assured the Scripture was not contradicted by the ancient Church in Ireland, and that the clergy were wisely married men”.
Truly the ancient Irish Church did not contradict the Scriptures, but, at the same time, acted quite oppositely to what he imagines. If Mr. Whiteside means a probability by “perhaps”, speaking of St. Patrick in reference to marriage, he says what is utterly false. There is not the slightest probability, not a shadow of proof, in favour of the insinuation. In the sixty-five lives written of him, there is the minutest, most detailed account of his birth, of his education, of his companions, of his staff, of his reliquary, of his long and chequered and glorious career, of his relatives,[1] of his death, but not a tittle to favour his insinuation, which no Irish scholar would seriously throw out fora moment. In the absence of all other proof, we might with the greatest certainty presume, that St. Patrick, if opposed to the celibacy of the clergy in sentiment or action, would never have received consecration, or a sanction as missionary from Rome. That the clergy were not married
- ↑ Trias Thaumat.—Primordia Eccles.
