It is followed in some dozen years after by another event, which, though the notice of it from another source is short enough, yet had evidently a very important influence upon the church. We have already seen that a fraternity of Cele De are mentioned in connection with the Church of Armagh as early as the year 921, when we are told by the Irish Annalists that in that year Armagh was pillaged, on the Saturday before St. Martin’s day, which was the 10th of November, by Gofirth, grandson of Ivar, and his army, who spared the houses of prayer with their people of God, the Cele De, and their sick, and the whole church town, except some houses which were burnt through neglect; but two of the annalists add in the same year that ‘Maenach Cele De, or the Culdee, came across the sea from the west, that is, from Ireland, to establish the ordinances of Erinn.’[614] We have thus the decrees of 908, followed by a Cele De, or Culdee, coming over from Ireland and establishing laws, which can only mean those rules which regulated the community of the Cele De at the time in Ireland, who had now been for a century under the canonical rule; and at this period we must date the establishment in Scotland of the form of canonical life which we find the Culdees in Scotland afterwards exhibiting.
We get a glimpse into the state of the church in this reign too in the Life of St. Cadroë. Having been fully instructed at Armagh, he returned to Beanus, his uncle, and ‘scatters the seeds of wisdom throughout the whole of Scotland; for, though the Scots have had many teachers, they have not had many fathers. He here trained them in the knowledge of the arts, whence, because he instructed many with his lips, he had no associates; for, from the time of his arrival, none of the wise men had crossed the sea, but still remained in Ireland. The old man rejoiced to possess the youth, and had not his equal in anything which he tried.’ In the meanwhile time passed on, and, as usual, he received a divine warning that he was to leave his native country and go on a foreign mission. There flowed near his residence a large river, close to which, as it happened, was the trunk of a certain tree. Thither he went at night, and removing his garments entered the stream in the extreme rigour of cold, and, holding by the tree, that he might not be carried off by the current, he recited Psalms, from the 118th to the 123d Psalm. He then entered upon his pilgrimage, and as grief filled the whole region, and the population assembled, the king of the country, called Constantin, endeavoured to retain him. In his journey Cadroë, desiring to pray, entered the monastery of St. Bridget, when the people coming from different parts completely fill the noble and rustic church. All begged him not to quit the country, and after some discussion a certain abbot, called Maelodarius, came with the king and persuaded them to let him go, and he departed to the land of the Cumbrians.[615] We need not follow him any farther. As Cadroë was born about the year 900, his return from Armagh was either coincident with or soon after the arrival of the Culdee in 920, as is implied in his statement that he was the last of the instructors who had come from Ireland. The large river was no doubt the river Earn; and we may thus identify Beanus with the St. Bean to whom the church of Kinkell in Strathearne, on the north bank of the Earn, was dedicated. He commenced his foreign mission about the year 940. The monastery where he entered the Church of St. Bridget can have been no other than that of Abernethy, and Maelodarius, or Maelodhar, was no doubt its abbot. The first notice of the Cele De at Armagh, as we have seen, occurs in the same year in which Maenach the Cele De came to Scotland, and during the tenure of the abbacy by Maelbrigde, the instructor of Cadroë; and he too probably was connected with the mission which brought the Cele De to Scotland, and with the establishment of its rule. Constantin, who so strenuously urged his not leaving the country, makes a fitting termination to his own reign when, according to the Pictish Chronicle, worn out with age, he assumed the pilgrim’s staff, and served the Lord, and resigned the throne to Malcolm, son of Donald. This is echoed by St. Berchan when he says—
By the house of the apostle St. Andrews is meant, and here, according to the testimony of the same chroniclers who reported the grant in favour of the church by King Giric, he becomes abbot of the Keledei, or Culdees.[616]
Whether Cellach the bishop was alive at this time we do not know, but his successor was certainly Fothad, son of Bran. He appears in the Chartulary of St. Andrews as having made an arrangement with the Keledei of Lochleven, by which they gave the island of Lochlevyne to the bishop of St. Andrews, who, in return, undertook to provide them with food and clothing. This grant is said to have been made by ‘Ronan, monk and abbot, a man of admirable sanctity, who first conveyed the place, by a precaria, to the bishop Fothath, son of Bren, who then and since was celebrated throughout all Scotland, and was of a commendable life. The bishop gave his benediction to all who should observe that convention and the friendship established between the bishop and the Keledei; and, on the other hand, gave his malediction to all bishops who should infringe or revoke that convention.’[617] Fothad remained bishop during the whole of the reign of Malcolm, who succeeded Constantin; but we are told that he was expelled by his successor, Indulph, who reigned from 954 to 962, and that he lived eight years afterwards. As his death is recorded in the year 963, this places his expulsion in the year 955. During the whole of this period the island of Iona was in the main cut off from any connection with Scotland, by the occupation of the Western Islands by the Norwegians, and its monastery had to fall back upon Ireland for such nominal connection with the Columban monasteries as could be kept up. One of the abbots of these monasteries was usually elected coärb of Columcille, and the abbacy of Iona became a dependent monastery under his rule. As we have seen, in the beginning of the century a descendant of Conall Gulban, Maelbrigde, son of Tornan, had been elected abbot of Armagh, and, as belonging to the tribe of the patron saint, became coärb of Columcille; but on his death in 927, Dubthach, son of Duban, who was also of the race of Conall Gulban, became coärb of Columcille. He was abbot of Raphoe, in Ireland, and as such was likewise coärb of Adamnan, and accordingly his death is recorded by the Ulster Annals in 938 as coärb of Columcille and Adamnan; but he is styled by the Four Masters ‘coärb of Columcille and Adamnan both in Erin and Alban.’[618] During his time, however, the actual government of the abbacy as a dependent monastery seems to have fallen to the Anchorite, or Deorad as he is termed in the Brehon Laws; for we find that an anchorite had been elected abbot, though he died before his right was confirmed, as in 937 the death is recorded of Angus, son of Murcertach, a learned man, anchorite and abbot-elect of Iona.[619] Dubtach’s successor was Robartach, who was likewise abbot of Raphoe, for his death is recorded in 954 as coärb of Columcille and of Adamnan; and during his time also we find an abbot of the dependent monastery in 947, when Caen-comhrac, abbot of Iona, dies.[620]
An attempt seems now to have been made to connect the monastery of Iona with the Scottish Church, for the next two coärbs of Columcille, Dubhduin and Dubhscuile, whose joint tenure of the coärbship extends from the year 954 to 964,[621] do not appear to have had any connection whatever with Iona; while Bower betrays the cause of the expulsion of Fothad, when he tells us that his successor Malisius was a disciple of the blessed St. Duthacus in Ireland, who had foretold of him that he would be the future bishop of the Scots.[622] He quotes as his authority a Life of St. Duthacus which does not now exist. This Duthacus can be no other than that Dubhthach who was coärb of Columcille both in Erinn and Alban from 927 to 938; and Indulph’s attempt was to bring Iona into connection with the Scottish Church by placing a disciple of his in St. Andrews as its bishop. The abbacy of Dunkeld, too, to which a Columban monastery would naturally look as its head in Scotland, seems now to have passed into the hands of laymen, and to have been held by a lay abbot; for we find Dunchad, abbot of Dunkeld, taking part in the war of succession between the kings Dubh and Cuilean, and being slain in the battle of Duncrub.[623] Malisius is said to have been eight years bishop, which is the exact time Fothad is said to have lived after his expulsion; and St. Andrews seems at this time to have drawn pilgrims from Ireland; for in 963 we find, in the Irish Annals, the death of Aedh, son of Maelmithidh, in pilgrimage at Cinnrimonadh or St. Andrews.[624] But when Indulph was succeeded by Dubh, in 962, he appears to have been restored in the last year of his life, as the first event mentioned by the Pictish Chronicle in the reign of Dubh is the death of Fothad the bishop, and in the year 963 the Annals of the Four Masters record his death as that of Fothadh, son of Bran, scribe and bishop of Inis Alban.[625]
The succeeding bishop was Maelbrigde, and during his time we find that Dubhscuile, who is simply styled coärb of Columcille and died in 964, was succeeded by Mughron, whose death is recorded in the Annals of Ulster in 980 as ‘coärb of Columcille in Erinn and in Alban,’[626] showing that Iona had once more fallen back upon the coärb of Columcille in Ireland. During the first two years of Mughron’s possession of the coärbship, the government of Iona as a dependent monastery seems to have again fallen to the Anchorite, who joined with it the title of bishop, but after his death, a new official makes his appearance—an Aircinnech of Iona, whose death is recorded in 978.[627] The name of Aircinnech first appears in the Irish Annals in the ninth century, when it is occasionally mentioned, but more frequently in the succeeding centuries. It was essentially a lay office, though we find it combined with the titles of bishop, of abbot and of priest. The duties of the office were to superintend the lands and farms of the church or monastery and their tenants, to collect the rents or other tributes paid by them, and perhaps also to distribute amongst the poor the alms or hospitality of the coärb and his ‘familia.’[628] When the functions of abbot were discharged by an anchorite, such an office became necessary for the management of the secular concerns of the monastery.
The short and unsatisfactory notices of the church given in the Pictish Chronicle show, in the reign of Cuilean, from 967 to 976, indications of some disturbance in the church of St. Andrews, the nature of which we can only guess at. We learn that a Marcan, son of Breodolaig, was slain in the church of St. Michael, which was one of the seven churches of St. Andrews; that Leot and Sluagadach go to Rome; that Bishop Maelbrigde died, and that Cellach, son of Ferdalaig, ruled in his stead;[629] and when Bower adds that he was the first who went to Rome for confirmation, and lived twenty-five years after his confirmation,[630] we can see that all these events were connected; but whether it was a violent attempt to seize the bishopric, which ended in the pretender being slain in the church, and whether Leot and Sluagadach went to Rome to obtain absolution for the slaughter, or whether it was a contested election on the death of Maelbrigde, and they went to obtain for Cellach the additional authority of the pope’s confirmation, we cannot tell. The reign of Kenneth, who succeeded Cuilean, was an important one both for the Scottish Church and for Iona. The important event for the former was the foundation of the church of Brechin, which appears to have taken place early in his reign, and to have been dedicated to the Holy Trinity. The short statement which the Pictish Chronicle gives us of this donation to the church conveys no further information regarding it than that Brechin was even then considered an important place.[631] We can only infer, from its subsequent history, that it was a monastery after the Irish model, in which form the Scottish foundations after the accession of Kenneth mac Alpin appear to have been made, with which was now combined a college of Cele De, and that it has left us, as a mark of its early connection with Ireland, the only other specimen of the round towers to be found in Scotland, besides that which had been erected at Abernethy. The churches, too, which afterwards formed the diocese of Brechin, were probably, even at this early period, possessions of the new foundation at Brechin. In the districts of Angus and Mearns the churches were shared between the dioceses of Brechin and St. Andrews, in a manner so irregular and unsystematic as to point to a mixed population in which some of the villages were still Pictish and others had now a Scottish colony. It seems to have been through the medium of the recovery of the old foundations, and the creation of new, that a Scottish population was spread over the country; and the object of King Kenneth in this foundation may have been to bring a Pictish population more under the direct influence of the Scots. The church of Brechin was founded during the time that Mughron was coärb of Columcille both in Erinn and Alban, when probably there was freer intercourse between the Scotch and Irish Churches; but his death, after he had held the coärbship for sixteen years, was followed by events fatal for Iona.
At this time the Western Isles, including the Isle of Man, were the subject of a constant struggle between the Danes and the Norwegians, for their acquisition by the former and their retention by the latter. The Danes of Limerick had, during the latter part of this century, acquired possession of the Isle of Man, and, as early as the year 973, we find Maccus, son of Aralt, who was at their head, called king of many islands;[632] but how far his sway over the Western Isles extended we do not know. Of the two pagan races who infested Ireland and the West of Scotland, the Danes were by far the more cruel and destructive in their attacks upon the monasteries, and appear to have been most dreaded. The last year of Mughron’s life had witnessed the arrival at Iona of one of the most powerful kings of the Danes of Dublin, Anlaf Cuaran, who in that year ‘went on a pilgrimage to Hi Coluimcille,’ where he died, ‘after penance and a good life;’[633] he was, however, closely connected with the Scottish royal family, having been son-in-law of King Constantin, and in close alliance with him, and had been baptized when king of the Northumbrians; but Mughron’s successor, Maelciarain ua Maigne, coärb of Columcille, ‘suffered red martyrdom from the Danes at Athcliath,’—that is, was slain by the Danes at Dublin in 986; and in the same year Iona is plundered by the Danes, on the eve of the nativity, and the abbot and fifteen of the clergy of the church were slain.[634] These were the Danes of Limerick, who were now under the rule of Gofraigh mac Aralt, the brother of Maccus, and who is termed by the Irish Annalists king of Innsigall, or the Western Isles. But he was encountered by Sigurd, earl of Orkney, and we find that in the following year a great slaughter was made of the Danes who had plundered Iona, and three hundred and sixty of them were slain; while two years later their king, Gofraigh, was himself killed in Dalriada, and the Isles once more passed into the undisturbed possession of the Norwegians, and were governed by the earls of Orkney.[635] The monastery which had been plundered was of course that stone monastery which had been built after the destruction of the wooden monastery by fire, and the small number of monks slain indicates that the greater part had taken refuge in the fort; but, like Blathmac, the abbot, whose name is not recorded, remained at his post, and tradition still points out a bay in the north end of the island, remarkable for its pure white sand, and called Traith ban na manach, or the White Bay of the Monks, as the scene where an abbot and fifteen monks were slain by the Danes. As this was the last time that Iona was plundered by the Danes, who not many years after were converted to Christianity, it is probably to this occasion that the tradition regarding the shrine of Saint Columba, given by Colgan on the authority of St. Berchan, may be referred. The story is this: ‘Manderus, son of the king of Denmark and leader of a fleet of Northmen, wasting the northern parts of Britain with fire and sword, came to Iona, where these satellites of Satan, mixing sacred things with profane, and pillaging everything which they met, excavated the ground in search of hidden treasure. Among others they found the sarcophagus, or shrine, in which was a true treasure, viz. the body of Saint Columba. They took the shrine on board, and on their way to Ireland opened it; but, finding nothing but the bones and ashes of a man, shut it again and threw it into the sea. It was cast by the waves upon the shore at Downpatrick, and the abbot, having found it, and being instructed by a divine revelation that it contained the relics of Saint Columba, placed it along with those of Saint Patrick and Saint Bridget.’[636] Certain it is that in the following century the shrine was believed to be at Downpatrick. In the old tract called the Amra Coluimcille we find the following statement:—‘In Dun’—that is Downpatrick—‘again, some say, the resurrection of Coluimcille will be, as the poet has said—
St. Berchan, writing in the end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century, repeats as a saying of Saint Columba—
And we find that in the year 1127 ‘the shrine of Coluimcille was carried off into captivity by the Galls of Atacliath’—or Danes of Dublin—‘and restored again to its house at the end of a month,’[639] which certainly implies that it was then in Ireland.
During the three years that followed this plundering of the monastery, we find Dunnchadh Ua Robhacain coärb of Columcille and Adamnan, which implies that he was abbot of Raphoe; but, on his death in 989, we find that Dubdahthe, the abbot of Armagh, takes the coärbship of Columcille by the advice of the men of Erinn and Alban.[640] The monastery of Iona, however, appears soon after in an efficient state, as we find it governed by a local abbot whose death is recorded in 1005.[641] In the same year Malcolm the Second commenced his thirty years’ reign over Alban, now for the first time called Scotia. He is said, in a chronicle of the twelfth century, after the great battle of Carham in 1018, ‘to have on that day distributed many oblations to the churches as well as to the clergy.’[642] In Iona he appears for the time to have restored to the abbot the title of coärb of Columcille, for we find that in 1007 ‘Muredach mac Crican resigns the coärbship of Columcille for God’—that is, becomes a recluse; and Ferdomnach is elected to the coärbship by the advice of the men of Erinn at the fair of Taillten,[643] which implies that his coärbship was limited to Ireland; and we find that he was in fact abbot of Kells, as was his successor; while, on the other hand, the death of Flannobra, coärb of Iona, is recorded in 1025.[644] In the following year Maelruanaidh Ua Maeldoraigh, lord of Cinel Conall, that is, of the tribe of Conall Gulban, went over the sea on his pilgrimage.[645] The expression ‘over the sea’ implies that he went to Iona.
Cellach, the bishop of Alban, is said to have filled that office for twenty-five years, which brings his death towards the end of the tenth century. The first bishop to whom we can assign a fixed date after that is Alwynus, who is said to have been bishop three years, and whose death must have taken place in 1028, which places his election as bishop in the year 1025. Between Cellach and Alwyn we have two names given us by Bower and Wyntoun, those of Malmore and Malisius; but we know nothing beyond their names. During the tenure of one or other of them, the district of Lothian was ceded to Malcolm the Second by Eadulf Cudel after the battle of Carham in 1018, and the churches of Lothian naturally fell under the superintendence of the bishop of St. Andrews as sole bishop in Scotland. But not the least important event connected with Malcolm the Second was that he gave his eldest daughter in marriage to Crinan, lay abbot of Dunkeld, and by this marriage the hereditary lay abbots of Dunkeld gave to the Scottish throne a dynasty of kings who were destined to extinguish that ancient church, with its peculiar institutions, from which their ancestors had emerged.
We can readily trace this descent of Dunkeld from a high ecclesiastical position to a lay possession. We see it first as a Culdee church, founded shortly before the accession of the Scottish kings to the Pictish throne; then as a Scottish monastery, its abbot filling the high office of bishop of Fortrenn, the new kingdom acquired by the Scots. Then the bishopric passes to Abernethy, and the successor to the abbot who was first bishop, appears as ‘princeps,’ or superior, of Dunkeld, a term which leaves it doubtful whether he was a cleric or a layman. Then we find Duncan, abbot of Dunkeld, slain in battle while fighting for one of the kings in a war of succession—evidently a layman. Then we have Crinan, abbot of Dunkeld, marrying one of the daughters of the king, while the other is given to Sigurd, earl of Orkney. The possessions of Dunkeld were large and situated in the very heart of the kingdom, but Crinan appears to have held, along with them, those of the monastery of Dull, also secularised, which extended from Strathtay to the boundary between Atholl and Argyll. Between the two, a large tract of country was in his hands, and his following of men must have been very great. We find him under the name of ‘Hundi jarl’ in the Orkneyinga Saga fighting with the Norwegians along with other jarls, and in 1045 he is slain in battle in a great contest between the people of Alban. The character of these abbots as great lay lords seems plain enough, and their hereditary descent equally so; for the name of Crinan’s son being Duncan gives a strong presumption that he was himself the son or grandson of the former abbot whose name was Duncan; and we find that the abbacy of Dunkeld remained with his descendants. The abbey, too, seems, during his time, to have come to an end, for we are told that in 1027 Dunkeld was entirely destroyed by fire.[646]
This state of matters, however, was not peculiar to Scotland, or very different from what existed both in Ireland and in Wales at the time. In the early Monastic Church of Ireland celibacy was enforced, at least upon one class of the monks, for the saints of the second order ‘refused the services of women, separating them from the monasteries;’ but still there was a succession to the abbacy, the tribe or family in whom it was vested providing a fit person in orders to fill the office; but when the stringency of the monastic rule was broken in upon, under the influence of the secular clergy, marriage was gradually permitted or connived at, and at length became general, the rebound towards a secular state being great in proportion to the enforced strictness of the previous system. The natural consequence was that a direct descent from the ecclesiastical persons themselves came in place of the older system of succession, and the church offices became hereditary in their family. The next step in the downward process was that the abbots and superiors did not take orders, and became virtually laymen, providing a fit person to perform the ecclesiastical functions, but retaining the name and all the secular privileges and emoluments of the abbacy. The performance of the church services was either intrusted to a secular priest, who was called the ‘sacerdos,’ or sagart, or it fell to the Cele De, when there was such a body connected with the monastery, or to both combined.
The great ecclesiastical offices thus became hereditary in the persons of laymen in two ways; either by the usurpation of the benefice by the lay chieftains from whose tribe or family it had been supplied, or in the family of the abbot by whose direct descendants the office was filled, and who ceased after a time to take orders. It must be borne in mind that prior to 1139, though celibacy was enforced upon monks by their monastic rule, and upon the clergy generally as a matter of discipline, marriage, when it did take place, was not unlawful. It was not till the second great Council of Lateran, held in that year, declared all such marriages ipso facto null and void, that they became so; and the effect of this, where the benefice had become hereditary in a particular family, was, instead of restoring the former clerical character of its possessor, to stereotype their condition of laymen and to convert them into a purely lay family. The well-known passage in Giraldus Cambrensis’ Itinerary of Wales, in which, talking of the church of Llanpadarn Vawr, he says ‘that this church, like many others in Wales and Ireland, has a lay abbot; for a bad custom has prevailed amongst the clergy, of appointing the most powerful people of a parish stewards, or rather patrons, of their churches, who in process of time, from a desire of gain, have usurped the whole right, appropriating to their own use the possession of all the lands, leaving only to the clergy the altars with their tenths and oblations, and assigning even these to their sons and relations in the church. Such defenders, or rather destroyers, of the church have caused themselves to be called abbots, and presumed to attribute to themselves a title, as well as estates, to which they have no just claim,’[647] gives us an illustration of the first, and the equally well-known statement by St. Bernard, in his Life of St. Malachy, as to the state of Armagh when Celsus became coärb, or abbot, in 1105, affords an illustration of the second. He says, ‘A scandalous custom had been introduced by the diabolical ambition of certain of the nobles, that the holy see should be obtained by hereditary succession. For they allowed no one to be promoted to the bishopric unless such as were of their own tribe and family. Nor was it for any short period this execrable succession had continued, as nearly fifteen generations had already passed away in this villainy; and so firmly had this wicked and adulterous generation established their unholy right, or rather wrong, which deserved to be punished with any sort of death, that although, on some occasions, clergymen of their blood were not to be found among them, yet bishops they were never without. In fine, there had been already, before the time of Celsus, eight individuals who were married and without orders, yet literates.’[648] The church of Armagh was situated in the territories of a tribe descended from Colla-da-Chrioch, one of the founders of the Oirghialla, or Oriel race; and Dr. Reeves tells us that a descendant of Colla, named Sinach, founded a family, called from him the Clann Sinaich, and that to this family the enjoyment of the abbacy of Armagh, styled the coärbship of St. Patrick, became limited, so that for a space of about two centuries it never left it. He adds that ‘from the pedigrees of the Clann Sinaich, preserved in the Books of Lecan and of Mac Firbis, illustrated by the details and chronology of the Irish Annals, we are able to construct a genealogical table of the abbots of Armagh, which answers with wonderful exactness to the statements of St. Bernard.’[649] His account, too, of the state in which Malachy found the great monastery of Bangor when he resolved to restore it, shows that it also had fallen into the hands of a succession of lay abbots. After referring to its ancient glory, and to its destruction by the Danes, in which ninety of its inmates were slain in one day—which probably refers to the event recorded in the Ulster Annals in 823, when ‘Bennchair was plundered by the Gentiles, the oratory destroyed, and the relics of St. Comgall shaken from their shrine’—he adds, ‘Still, from the time when the monastery was destroyed, there were not wanting those who held it, with its possessions; for they were appointed by the usual mode of election, and called abbots, preserving in name, but not in reality, what once existed.’[650] It was then possessed by a rich layman who was St. Malachy’s uncle, and who retained the lands while Malachy refounded the church.
The Irish Annals afford us several illustrations of the hereditary succession, not only in abbacies, but in other offices at this time. Thus, in the monastery of Lusk, in the list of abbots between the years 731 and 927, we find that the second and third abbots were brothers, and sons of the first abbot named in it; that the fourth abbot and the prior were brothers; that the son of the second abbot was ‘economus,’ or house-steward; that the fifth abbot was son of the third; that the eighth abbot was son of the sixth; and that the tenth abbot and the bishop of Duleek and Lusk were brothers, and sons of the eighth abbot.[651] Again, in the monastery of Gleann Uissean, near Carlow, we find between 874 and 1016 the names of eight abbots and one Aircinnech, or Erenagh. Of these, the second and third are brothers, and sons of the first; the fourth and fifth are brothers, and sons of the third; the sixth was foster-son to the second, while his son was Aircinnech, or Erenagh; the seventh abbot was son of the fourth, and the eighth, grandson of the second. Here the whole are direct descendants of the abbot who died in 874.[652] Then we find also that the office of ‘economus’ or house-steward of Armagh was hereditary from 779, when the death of Cearnach, son of Suibhne, who was bishop of Armagh, is recorded, when he is called ‘economus’ of Armagh. He is succeeded by three sons, one after another. His grandson by the third son is bishop and anchorite of Lann Leire. Another grandson is abbot of Lann Leire. The son of the latter is abbot of Lann Leire and ‘economus’ of Armagh, whose son again is abbot of Lann Leire.[653] But perhaps the most instructive example is connected with the celebrated monastery of Clonmacnois. Torbach, abbot or primate of Armagh in 812, was the son of one abbot of Louth, and the father of another abbot of the same place; and from him descended a family who filled many offices connected with Clonmacnois, and among them we shall find that even the Anchorites married and were succeeded by sons. This family were called the Cinel Torbaigh. Their connection with Clonmacnois began with his son Aedhagan, who died on his pilgrimage at Clonmacnois in 834; and his son was Eoghan, the anchorite, who died in 845. Eoghan’s son Luchairen, scribe and anchorite at Clonmacnois, died in 863; and in 893 his son Egertach, the Aircinnech or Erenagh of Eaglais-beg, or the little church at Clonmacnois, died. In 947 the son of the latter, Aenagan, Erenagh of the little church, and bishop and pure virgin—that is, unmarried—died; and in 953 his brother Dunadhach, bishop of Clonmacnois; whose son Dunchadh, Ferleighinn, or lector of Clonmacnois, and its anchorite, afterwards head of its rule and history, died in 1005. He was father of Joseph, who was anmchara, soul-friend or confessor of Clonmacnois. Joseph’s son was Conn na-mbocht, or of the poor, who appears in the Annals of the Four Masters in 1031 as ‘Head of the Cele De and Anchorite of Clonmacnois,’ the first that invited a party of the poor of Cluain at Iseal Chiarain, and who presented twenty cows of his own to it. Of this it was said—
And Conn was father of Maolchiarain, coärb of Ciaran, or abbot of Clonmacnois.[654] It is unnecessary to follow this further, but it is obvious how prevalent at this time in Ireland was the marriage of the clergy of all classes and the perpetuation of their ecclesiastical offices in the lines of their own descendants, and that it had even broken down the asceticism of the Anchorite and the canonical rule of the Cele De in this respect. In Scotland we find that the territory of the old monasteries was called Abdaine, or Abbacy, a word represented in Latin by ‘abbatia’ or ‘abthania,’ and had to a great extent passed into the hands of laymen who often retained for several generations the name of abbot.[655] The territory termed the Abthania of Dull, which was of great extent and included the modern parishes of Dull and Fortingall, seems to have been in the hands of Crinan, the lay abbot of Dunkeld, and, along with the possessions of the latter abbacy must have placed him on a par as to power and position with the great Mormaers of Alban.
During the reigns of his son Duncan, and of the usurper Macbeth, we find that Maelduin, called by Bower son of Gillandris, was bishop. He appears as Maldunus, bishop of St. Andrews, granting the church of Markinch with all its land to God, St. Servanus and the Keledei of the island of Lochleven;[656] and his death is thus recorded in 1055 by Tighernac, who was his contemporary: ‘Maelduin, son of Gillaodran, bishop of Alban, the giver of orders to the Gael of the clergy, died in Christ.’[657] Wyntoun tells us he was bishop twenty-seven years, which places the commencement of his episcopate in 1028.
His successor was Tuthald, who is said by Bower to have held the bishopric for four years only, and during his episcopate he grants the church of Scoonie to the same Culdees.[658] This brings us to the year 1059 when Fothad became bishop, two years after Malcolm, surnamed Ceannmor or Great Head, had, by the defeat and death of Macbeth, recovered for his family the kingdom of Scotia; and Fothad’s tenure of the bishopric lasted throughout the whole of his reign. Probably the most important act he performed, and one that exercised a most powerful influence on his church, was the marriage of King Malcolm to the Saxon Princess Margaret, which took place in the spring of 1069. Wyntoun tells us—
There is perhaps no more beautiful character recorded in history than that of Margaret. For purity of motives, for an earnest desire to benefit the people among whom her lot was cast, for a deep sense of religion and great personal piety, for the unselfish performance of whatever duty lay before her, and for entire self-abnegation, she is unsurpassed, and the chroniclers of the time all bear testimony to her exalted character. Ordericus Vitalis says of her, in few words, ‘This distinguished princess, descended from a long line of kings, was still more eminent for her great worth and the sanctity of her life;’[660] and the Saxon Chronicle considers that her marriage took place by divine appointment, for ‘the prescient Creator knew beforehand what He would have done by her; for she was to increase the praise of God in the land, and direct the king from the erroneous path, and incline him, together with his people, to a better way, and suppress the evil habits which the nation had previously cultivated, as she afterwards did;’ and the Chronicle sums it up by saying that she ‘performed many useful deeds in the land to the glory of God, and also in royal qualities bore herself well, as to her was natural.’[661] It was not unnatural that her religion, though unquestionably pure and genuine, and the all-pervading motive of her actions, should yet be identified with the church in which this feature of her character had been developed, and that the rites and customs of that church formed the standard to which she brought everything as the only rule of right; and thus much that appeared strange to her in the customs of the church of her adopted land could only present itself to her mind as erroneous and as evil practices which required to be corrected. Unfortunately the life of Queen Margaret which has come down to us, and which has been attributed to Turgot, her confessor, while it enters into details as to her private life which amply bear out her personal character as a religious, pious and devoted woman, is extremely meagre and unsatisfactory in describing her relations with the native church.[662] It tells us that in the place where her nuptials were celebrated, that is, in Dunfermline, she erected a noble church, which she dedicated to the Holy Trinity; and she decorated it with many ornaments, among which not a few of her gifts, which were designed for the most holy service of the altar, consisted of vases of solid and pure gold. She also introduced the crucifix into the church, having presented one to this church richly ornamented with gold and silver intermixed with precious stones; and similar crucifixes she left to other churches, ‘as marks of her piety and devotion, of which the church of St. Andrews affords an instance, where a beautiful crucifix which she there erected is still to be seen.’[663] Her attention, however, appears to have been soon directed towards the state of the Scottish Church generally, in which she naturally found many practices, peculiar to the old Celtic Church, which differed from those she was accustomed to see in the church in which she had been reared. Estimated by the standard of that church, they appeared to her ‘to be contrary to the rules of the true faith as well as to the sacred customs of the universal church,’ and she sought, by frequent councils, to have them rectified. Her biographer tells us that ‘at the principal council thus held she, with a few of her own ecclesiastics, contended for three days with the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, against the supporters of these strange customs; while her royal husband, who was equally well acquainted with the Anglic language and with his native Gaelic, acted as interpreter.’[664]
Margaret began by pointing out that they who agreed with the Catholic Church in worshipping one God, in one faith, should not differ in regard to certain new and strange practices. And she, first of all, ‘explained they did not rightly observe the forty days’ fast, inasmuch as they did not commence the fast, with holy church everywhere, on Ash Wednesday, but on Monday in the following week. To which they replied, that what they observed was a six weeks’ fast, on the authority of the Gospels which narrate the fast of Christ. The queen answers that they differed widely in this from the Gospel: for it is read thus, that our Lord fasted forty days, which it is obvious you do not; for, if the six Sundays during the six weeks are deducted from the fast, there only remain thirty-six days for you to observe the fast. It is necessary, therefore, to add four days to the time at which you commence the fast, if you would follow the Lord’s example by fasting forty days; otherwise you alone repudiate the authority of our Lord and the tradition of the entire holy church. Convinced by this clear exposition of the truth, they thenceforward commenced the solemn period of the Lenten fast at the same time with the holy church everywhere.’ Here the whole point is whether, as the Catholic Church at this time never fasted on the Lord’s day, the Sundays should be counted in computing the forty days’ fast of Lent, or not. That the forty days’ fast of our Saviour was a continuous fast, is obvious, and in this the Scottish Church followed the recognised practice of the earlier church. The queen then urged another point, and ‘required them to explain why they refrained from partaking of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ on Easter day, according to the custom of the holy and apostolic church.’ To this they replied, ‘The apostle tells us, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself;” and, as we feel that we are sinners, we are afraid to partake of that sacrament, lest we eat and drink judgment to ourselves.’ ‘What then,’ said the queen, ‘shall all who are sinners refuse to partake of that holy mystery? No one in that case ought to partake, for no one is free from the stain of sin, not even the infant who has lived but a single day upon earth. But, if no one ought to partake, why does the Gospel proclaim the saying of our Lord, “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you”? But the saying of the apostle, which you quote, must evidently, according to the judgment of the Fathers, be otherwise understood; for he does not esteem all sinners to be unworthy to partake of the sacrament of salvation. For when he said, “He eateth and drinketh judgment to himself,” he added, “not discerning the Lord’s body,” that is, not distinguishing it in faith from ordinary food, he eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. So he who without confession and penitence, with the stains of his trespasses, presumes to approach these sacred mysteries, he, I say, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself. But we, who having, many days before, made confession of our sins, are chastened with penance, worn with fasts, and washed from the stains of our sins with alms and tears, on the day of the Lord’s resurrection, approaching his table in Catholic faith, partake of the flesh and blood of the immaculate Lamb Jesus Christ, not to judgment but to the remission of our sins, and to the salutary preparation for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness.’ Having nothing to oppose to these propositions, they afterwards observed the rules of the church in the reception of this life-giving mystery. Besides this, there were certain of the Scots who, in different parts of the country, were wont to celebrate masses in I know not what barbarous rite, contrary to the custom of the whole church, which the queen—full of godly zeal—resolved to suppress and abolish, so that henceforth no one in the whole nation of the Scots should be found to presume to do such a thing. They were wont also to neglect the due observance of the Lord’s day, prosecuting their worldly labours on that as on other days, which she likewise showed, by both argument and authority, was unlawful. ‘Let us keep,’ she said, ‘the Lord’s day in reverence, on account of the resurrection of our Lord from the dead on that day, and let us do no servile work on that day on which, as we know, we were redeemed from the slavery of the devil. The blessed Pope Gregory lays this down, saying that “we must cease from earthly labour on the Lord’s day, and continue instant in prayer, so that, if aught has been done amiss during the six days, it may be expiated by our prayers on the day of our Lord’s resurrection.” Being unable to oppose anything to these weighty arguments of the queen, they ever after observed the due reverence of the Lord’s days, no one being allowed to carry burdens, or to compel others to do so, on these days.’
It cannot certainly be said to be very consistent with modern theories to find the Roman Church reproving the so-called pure Culdean Church for celebrating the eucharist without communicating, and for desecrating the Sabbath. It is obvious, however, from the mode in which these two points are stated, that there was no neglect in the native church in celebrating the eucharist; but that, while in the Catholic Church the people were accustomed to communicate on the great festivals, and especially that of Easter, the Scots celebrated on that day without communicating; and that in some parts of Scotland the eucharist was celebrated in a manner contrary to the custom of the church. It is not explained in what this peculiarity consisted, but it was something done after a barbarous manner, so that it was impossible to tell how it was celebrated, and it was entirely suppressed. This is hardly applicable to the mere introduction of some peculiar forms or ceremonies, and the most probable explanation of these expressions is that in the remote and mountainous districts the service was performed in the native language and not in Latin, as was the custom of the universal church. Her next point was that they did not duly reverence the Lord’s day, but in this latter instance they seem to have followed a custom of which we find traces in the early Monastic Church of Ireland, by which they held Saturday to be the Sabbath on which they rested from all their labours, and on Sunday, on the Lord’s day, they celebrated the resurrection by the service in church. Thus Adamnan tells us that St. Columba, on the last Saturday of his life, said to his attendant Diormit, ‘This day, in the holy Scriptures, is called the Sabbath, which means rest, and this day is indeed a Sabbath to me, for it is the last day of my present laborious life, and on it I rest after the fatigues of my labours; and this night at midnight, which commenceth the solemn Lord’s day, I shall, according to the sayings of Scripture, go the way of our fathers.’[665] There was no want of veneration for the Sunday, though they held that Saturday was properly the Sabbath on which they abstained from work.
The last point, one which also savoured somewhat of Judaism, was that it was not unusual for a man to marry his stepmother or his deceased brother’s wife; but Giraldus Cambrensis accuses the Irish church of the very same custom—that in some parts of Ireland men married the widows of their brothers;[666] and it does not appear in either case that this was a custom sanctioned by the church. ‘Many other practices which were contrary to the rule of faith and the observances of the church she persuaded the council to condemn and to drive out of the borders of her kingdom.’[667] It seems, however, strange that more important questions than these were not touched upon. There is nothing said about the marriage of the clergy, about high offices in the church being filled by laymen, about the appropriation of the benefices by the laity, and their being made hereditary in their families. But possibly she was restrained by the knowledge that the royal house into which she had married owed its origin to the lay abbots of one of the principal monasteries, and was largely endowed with the possessions of the church; and if in the Council her eye lighted upon her young son Ethelred, who, even in boyhood, was lay abbot of Dunkeld, her utterances on that subject could hardly be otherwise than checked.