An ecclesiastical history of Ireland, from the first introduction of Christianity among the Irish, to the beginning of the thirteenth century , Compiled from the works of the most esteemed authors ... who have written and published on matters connected with the Irish church; and from Irish annals an online

. (page 13 of 45)
Online LibraryUnknownAn ecclesiastical history of Ireland, from the first introduction of Christianity among the Irish, to the beginning of the thirteenth century , Compiled from the works of the most esteemed authors ... who have written and published on matters connected with the Irish church; and from Irish annals an → online text (page 13 of 45)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

tive or the monastery De BeatHudiney he says, [ib. at Meat k) that
it was founded by Murchard O'Melaghlin, prince of Mealh, but
that the Cistercian Chronologists differ as to the time, some hav-
ing A. 1146, others 1148, and others again 1151. Treating of
Baltinglass, or De Vale salutis, {ib. at Wiclclovo) founded by
Dermot Mac Morrogh, king of Leinster, he mentions that some
assign it to 1118, others to 1151 ; and with regard to BoyJe hc
relates {ib. at Roscommon) that, before the Cistercians removed
to it, they were first settled in 1148, under an abbot Petei*
O'Morda^ at a place called Grcllechdiney whence they went to
Dromconaid with their second abbot Edar. O'Maccain, thence
with his successor Maurice O'Dubhai to Buinfinny, and finally
to Boyle in 1161, or, as others say, 1151. I pass by what he
has about these monasteries in the Coenob. Cist ere. For lie af-
terwards changed several of the positions stated in tl^at tract.

(88) Hai'ris has {Monaster.) a Cistercian abbey at Athlonc,
under the name of St. Peter and St. Benedict, which he assigns
to A. 1 150. He took this date from Ware's Coenob. Cisterc. ; but
Ware himself who makes mention of this abbey again {Antiq.cap.
26. at Roscommon) and says, that it was called De Innocentia^
marks no date for it, nor does Archdall at Athlone^ Roscommon.
It may be said, that Slirowl or Shrule, alias De Benedidione
Deiy might have been one of the five alluded to by St. Bernard,
if it be true that it was founded in 11 50. Yet Ware observes, {ib.
at Longford) that some assign it to 1 152. Prob-bly Mary's Abbey
of Dublin was become Cistercian at the time of St. Bernard's
writing ; but it was not derived from Mellifont. (Compare with

(89) Sejs Chap. xxvi. §. 15. Ware was right [Bishops at
Lismore) in assigning Christian's accession to about 1 1 50 ; I think
it was in that very }'car. 1 have remarked above ( S^ot. 78.) on


the mistake of those, who have made him bishop of Down. Ano-
ther still grosser mistake is that of some writers quoted and refuted
by Colgan, {AA, SS. at 18 Mart, where he treats of Christian)
who have said that he was archbishop of Armagh, as if he could be
80 while Gelasius held that see. This, like the other mistake, was
derived from his having been the next Apostolic legate after St.
Malachy, whence it was inferred that he succeeded the saint also
as bishop, or even archbishop.
(90) See Chap. xxvi. §. 9.

§. XIV. According to some accounts it would seem,
that Christian, soon after he became bishop of Lis-
more, went to Rome. For it has been said, that he
came to Ireland in company with Cardinal Paparo.
(91) Yet it is odd that, had he gone to Rome,
something more would not have been mentioned
about it. (92) Perhaps he went to Scotland there
to meet the Cardinal and conduct him to Ireland.
For Paparo being sent with the palliums by Pope
Eugene III. first came to P^ngland, but was refused
a passport for the continuance of his journey by king
Stephen, unless he would take his oath, that he
would not in his progress do any thing prejudicial to
the interestsof the English kingdom. The Cardinal,
feeling indignant at this proposal returned to Rome,
where Stephen^s conduct on this occasion excited
much displeasure. Afterwards he set out again
taking the route of Scotland, and was honourably
received by the king David about Michaelmas. (93)
Thence he went to Ireland, where he arrived in the
latter part of the year 1151. (94) He remained
seven days with Gelasius at Armagh, who, soon after
it seems, went to Coanaught, apparently for the
purpose of consulting with the king Turlogh O'Con-
nor, and forwarding the business of the approaching
synod, (9^) which, being convoked, met at Kells
(96) on the 9th of March, A. D. 1152. (97) It
was presided by Cardinal Paparo, as the Pope's
legate, to whom some add as also presiding, Christian,


who was likewise Apostolic legate. (98) Several
bishops did not attend at this synod ; and one of the
reasons of their absence seems to have been, that
many of the Irish were displeased at pailiiims being
intended for the sees of Dublin and Tuam, whereas
they thought that none should be granted except to
Armagh and Cashel, which was already an arch-
bishopric. And it is observed, that the clergy of
Armagh and Down particularly insisted on tliis point.
(99) The names of the prelates, who, besides
Paparo who was only a Cardinal priest of the title of
St. Laurence in Damaso, were actually present, are
thus given : '* Christian O^Conairche, bishop of 1 Js-
more and the Pope's legate in Ireland ; Gelasius
comorban (successor) of St. Patrick, and primate of
Ireland ; Domnald O'Lonargain, archbishop of
Munster (Cashel) ; Grenius, or Gregory f alias
Greri) bishop of Dublin ; Gilla na-noemh, or
Nehemias Laigneach, bishop of Glendaloch ; Dun-
gal O'Coellaidhe, bishop of Leighlin ; Fostius, bishop
of Portlargy, or Waterford ; Domnald O'Fogarty,
Vicar general of the bishop of Ossory ; Finn Mac-
Kienan, bishop of Kildare ; Gilda-An choimdhe
0*Hardmaoil, vicar of the bishop of Emly ; Gilla-
Aidus O'Maighin, bishop of Cork ; Mac-ronan,
comorban of St. Brendan, that is, bishop of Clon-
fert ; Brendan, bishop of Kerry ; Torgest, bishop
of Limerick ; Murchertac 0*Moeluidhir, bishop of
Clonmacnois ; Moeliosa O'Connachtain, bishop of
East Connaught (Roscommon); Huaruadhanic, or
O'lluadan, bishop of Lugnia (Achonry) ; Mac-
crath O'Morain, bishop of Conmacne of Hi-Briun ;
Muredach 0*Cobhtaich, bishop of Kinel Eogain ;
Moelpatrick O'Banain, bishop of the Dalaradians
(Connor) ; and Moeliosa Mac-Clerich-corr, bishop of
the Ulidians (Down)." (100) There were present
also many abbots and priors, besides a multitude of
inferior clergy. (101)


(91) Ware in his treatise on the Archbishops of Cashel, pub-
lished in 1626, many years before his general work on the Bishop*
of Ireland, quotes (at Donahis O'Lonargan) an anonymous WTitei-
of those times, who says at A. 1152, that Cardinal John Paparo
came to Ireland together with Christian, bishop of Lismore, and
legate of all Ireland. But he has omitted this quotation in the ge-
neral work, probably thinking that it was not well founded. Fleuri'*
however, refers to it, {Hist. Eccl. L,69. §. 62.), and makes Pa-
paro and Christian come together to Ireland.

(92) In the Annals of Mary's abbey it is said, that Paparo
came to Ireland with Christian, but, unless the copy, which I have
seen among Harris' MSS., be incorrect, under a palpably wrong
date, viz, A. II ^S. Colgan, although he quotes (Lj/eo/^Ge/a^m,
cap, 17.) from Ware the passage of the anonymous writer, yet in
the very same chapter says, that there is no account of any one
after St. Malachy having gone from Ireland to Rome for the pur-
pose of procuring the palliums; wlience we may conclude, that he
knew nothing about a journey of Christian to Rome ; for, if he did,
he would naturally have mentioned it as connected with the affair
of the palliums. And in the Acts of C/mstian at 18 March he
has not a word about his having travelled to Rome.

(93) See Fleury, loc. cit. and Pagi (Critica, S^c. at ^.1151)
from John of Hagustald's Continuation of the History of Simon
of Durham.

(94^) 4 Masters ap. Tr. Tk. jr. 306. It is unnecessary to quote
other authorities to prove, that this was the year of Cardinal Pa-
paro's arrival in Ireland. For nothing is more certain, as will be
80on seen, than that the synod of Kells was held in March, 1152.
Now, as he did not reach Ireland until a late period of the year,
his arrival must consequently be assigned to 1151, probably in
October, between which and the following March there was not
more than sufficient time for summoning the bishops to the coun-
cil, their travelling to attend at it, and other necessary prepara-
tions. The anonymous writer quoted by Ware (see Not. 91.)
places Paparo's arrival in 1152, and led him astray not only at
Donatus O'Lonargan^ but likewise in his general work on Bishops
at Gelasius of Armagh, Fleury also {loc. cit.) fell into the same
mistake. That writer confounded the year of the synod with that
of Paparo's arrival, as if the synod could have assembled a? soon


as the early part of March, 1 152, if he did not reach Ireland until
said year.

(95) Colgan {Life ofGelasius, cap. 18.) refers to the Irish an-
nals, meaning those of the 4 Masters, for Gelasius having gone to
Connaught in 1152; but Dr. O'Conor, who has before him the
rery original c6py of said annals, says, (Rer Hid. Sfc. 2 Proleg.
p. 156.) that it was in 1151. Besides, Colgan contradicts him-
•elf ; for he states, that in the same year the pious queen Dervor-
galla, wife of Turlogh O'Conor, died at Armagh. Now elsewhere
( Tr. Th. p. 306.) he assigns, from the 4 Masters, her death to
A. 1151.

(96) The anonymous writer, quoted by Ware, has Melly in-
stead of Kell or Kelts. Perhaps this is owing to a mistake of a
transcriber ; but hence seems to have proceeded the opinion of
those, who thought that Mellifont, which they supposed the same
as Mell, was the place where the council was lie Id. Ware speaks
doubtfully of this matter; yet he says, (Archbishops of Armagh
at Gelasius) that it is more generally agreed that Kells is the place.
Fleury, (loc. cit.) and Pagi {Critica ad A. 1152) following that
anonymous authority, have Mellifont. But it is clear from au-
thentic Irish documents, such as the Annals of Cluain-eidhneach,
(Clonenagh) written about the same time, that the council sat at
Kells, alias Kennanus, in the now county of Meath. Those an-
nals are quoted by Keating {Bo^'k 2. p. 104. Dublin ed.) and from
him by Colgan. [Tr. Th. p. 306. and A A. SS.p. 654^ and 775.)
Yet it may be, that after Cardinal Paparo's departure, some of the
bishops assembled again at Mellifont under the presidency of
Christian, who was then Apostolic legate. And thus perhaps we
may account for the singular statement of the Annals of Innis-
fallen at /^. U 52, that the synod was held at Droglieda, or, as
some have said, ad monasterium Pontanensey inasnmch as Melli-
font, being not far from Drogheda, might have been called its

(97) This is the year marked for the celebration of the council
of Kells not only in the Annals of Innisfallen, but likewise in those
of Mary's Abbey, Multifernan and others. (See Harris, Archbishops
of Armagh at Gelasius.) It is the date also of the 4 Masters ; and
accordingly Colgan was wrong {A . SS. p. 779.) in saying, that
they assign it to 1151. For, as obseiTcd by Dr. O'Couor, [loc.


ek. in Not. 95. above) they have 1152. The same year li ex-
pressly marked in the Annals of Cluain-eidhneach ; and, to confirm
it still more, they add that it was a bissextile, or leap year, such
as 1152 was. Usher seems to have thought, {Lid. Chron. ad Pr.)
that the synod, although he does not mention it, was held in 1151 ;
but, if he did, lis confounded the date of it with that of Paparo's
arrival in Ireland. The wretched translator of Keating, Dermod
O'Connor, makes him say, tliat the synod assembled in 1157, and
has greatly puzzled poor Hctixis, who set about proving {ib.) that
Keating was mistaken. But Keating was not to blame ; for in liis
genuine text, as quoted three times by Colgan, he has not 1157,
but 1152; and Harris himself remarks, that in a MS. English
translation of Keating's history in Marsh's library the year marked
is 1152. That the first day of sitting was the 9th of March is
clear from its being stated in the Annals of Cluain-eidhneach, that
it was the Dominica Laetare, or the fourth Sunday in Lent, wliich
in that year fell on the 9th not on the 8th, as Colgan says, of
March, whereas Easter Sunday was the 30th. Dr. O'Conoi
quotes (2 Prol. p. 159.) from the old book of Flannan Mac Eogan
a passage, in which it is said, that the synod began pridie Non.
Martii, that is, on the sixth of March. But how can this agree
with the assertion of its having begun on the Dominica Laetare ?
Of this more lower down.

(98) In the Annals of Cluain-eidhneach the Cardinal alone is
epoken of as president of the council, and Christian is mentioned
merely as having attended at it. But Keating himself says, that
Christian also presided, and so does Colgan, jiA. SS. p. 654-.
The anonymous writer, quoted by Ware, leaves out Paparo as
president, and states that it was Christian, who held the council
of Mell, as he calls it. (See above Not. 96.) And yet he suppose*
tliat Paparo was present. The Annals o£ Mary's abbey in like
manner make Christian alone president of the council. I suspect,
tliat this statement originated with the Cistercians, to whose order
Christian had belonged. But the Annals of Cluain-eidhneach are
more deserving of attention.

r99) Keating, as quoted by Colgan, {A A. SS. p. 654^ and 776.)
refers to the Annals of Cluain-eidhneacli for this account ; but his
miserable translator has perverted his text by making him say, that
k was not to the palliums for Dublin and Tuam, but to that for


Cashel, that the clergy of Armagh and Down objected. Keating's
statement is confirmed by the old book of Flannan Mac-Eogan (vp.
Dr. O'Conor, loc. a't.

(100) This list is quoted three times by Colgan from Keating's
original, as taken from the Annals of Cluain-eidhneach ; but
Keating's bungling translator has given us a different one, which is
no other than that published by Ware {Atit. cap. 16.) from an old
MS. except that he has spoiled some names mentioned by Ware.
In Ware's list Eda, or Aidan O'Hossin Cnot O'Heyn, as that
translator has) appears between O'Lonargain of Munster or Cashel,
and Gregory of Dublin, and is called archbishop of Connaught,
i. e. Tuam. But he is not in Keating's text, as Colgan expressly
remarks. Perhaps he was sick at the time ; for it cannot be sup-
posed, that he had any ecclesiastical objection to the synod, as
there was a pallium intended for him. The same pseudo-trans-
lator adds Greine to the name of Tuam^ not knowing that Tuam-
greine, now Tomgrany in the county of Clare, was quite different
from the archiepiscopal town of Tuam in the county of Galway.
He found Greine, or Greri, mentioned by Ware next after the
word Tuam ; but Ware's meaning is, that Greine or Greri was the
same person as Gregory of Dublin. Among other alterations of
Ware's words he has changed the name of O'lNIaigin, bishop of
Cork, into UHeyn •' and hence Harris (at Bishops of Cork)
says, that O'Maigin is called O'Heyn by Keating. He should
have said, bt/ his translator; for in Keating's original the name is
O'Maighin or Maiorin, as Harris might have easily found in the
various quotations from it by Colgan. Ware calls Domnald O'Fo-
garty bishop of Ossory, and, in like manner Gilda-An-choimde
bishop ofEmly. To the bishop of Kildare he gives the surname
not of MaC'Kienan but Mac-Tiarcain. He makes Mac-ronan
bishop of Kerry or Ardfert, instead of Clonfert, and then leaves
out Brendan, who was the real bishop of Kerry. This was owing
to his having found the name of Brendan occurring twice in this
order; " Mac-ronan, comorban of St, B^'cndan; Brendan, bishop
of Kerry. Now by the former Brendan was meant the great St.
Brendan, founder of the monastery of Clonfert, and by the latter
Brendan the then actual bishop of Kerry or Ardfert. Ware con-
founded them into one Brendan, and thus made Mac-ronan bishop
of Kerry ; a mistake, which he has also (^Bishops at ArdfeH), and


ia which^he has been followed by Harris. He adds two bishops
not mentioned by Keating or Colgan, viz. Ethru O'Miadachain,
bishop of Clonard, and Tuathal O'Connachtaigh, bishop of Hua-
mbriuin, which he explains by Enaghdune, now Annadown. The
Conmacne, of which Mac-crath O'Morain was bishop, he explains
by Ardagh ; for, one of the districts, called by that name, was in
the now county of Longford. But he is not right in making INIure-
dach O'Cobtaich bishop of Derry at the time of the council of
Kells ; for, in the first place Kinel-Eogain, of which he is called
bishop, was the territory now called Tyrone, which did not com-
prize the district about Derry ; and we find among the signatures
to the foundation charter of the Cistercian abbey of Newry his
name under the title of bishop of Tir-eoghaln. Secondly, Ware
himself {Bishops at Derry) does not make him bishop of Derry
until after Flathbert O'Brolcan, who became bishop of that see in
1158, and lived for some years after. As to the particular name
of Muredach's see in Tyrone, It was not Clogher, whose bishop
was then Edan O'KIlledy, and who, by the bye, did not attend
at the synod. Besides, the bishops of Clogher used to be styled
bishops of Ergall or Oriel. I have no doubt, that it was the an-
cient see of Ardsrath or Ardstraw in Tyrone, othenvise called
Rathlure. (See Chap. xii. §. 3 and ib. Not. 35.) Keating makes
mention of it, under the name of Ardsrath, as existing at the time
of the synod of Rathbreasil; {Chap.xxv. ^.13.) but, when treat-
ing of the council of Kells, he calls it Rathlure.

In the old book of Flannan Mac-Eogan there Is another list of
the prelates assembled at Kells, which has been published by
Dr. O'Conor, 2 Prol. p. 159. In it we find Aed O'Ossin of
Tuam. The bishop of Kildare is called Mac-Tiarcain. Gilla
Aeda O'Maigin of Cork is omitted. Domnald OTogarty is called
bishop of Ossory, Torgeslus of Limerick is omitted ; but in his
stead Gilla An-chomdhe O'Hardmaoil appears as bishop of that
see. This is evidently a mistake ; for he belonged to Emly, ei-
ther as bishop or vicar. Likewise Mac-Ronan of Clonfert is
omitted. In this list are the bishops of Clonard and Hua-mbriuin,
as mentioned by Ware.

(101) The abbots and priors are mentioned by Keating from
the Annals of Clualn-eldneach ; and the 4 Masters, according to
Dr. O'Conor, (2 Prol. p. 156.) say, that 3000 clergymen were


present at tlie synod. The anonymous writer ap. Ware adds
kmgs, dukes., and other distinguished laymen.

§. XV. The council being assembled, Cardinal
Paparo distributed the four palliums for Armagh,
Cashel, Dublin, and Tuam. (102) He then de-
clared, as it 'vvas right to do, the archbishop of Ar-
magh primate over the others. (103) A decree was
issued against simony, a crime which was in those
times but too prevalent throughout the Christian
world. (iOl^) Usury also was condemned ; and the
Cardinal ordered, in virtue of apostolical authority,
that tithes should be paid. (105) On this point he
was very badly obeyed ; for it is certain, that tithes
were, if at all, very little exacted in Ireland until
after the establishment of the English power. Suf-
fragan sees were fixed for the four metropolitans, and
are thus reckoned ; 1. Under Armagh were placed
Connor, Down, Louth or Clogher, Clonard, Kells,
Ardagh, Raphoe, Rathlure or Ardstraw, Duleek,
Derry. 2. Under Cashel are named Killaloe, Li-
merick, Iniscathy, Kilfenora, Emly, Roscrea, Wa-
terford, Lismorc, Cloyn, Cork, Ross, Ardfert. 3.
Under Dublin only five sees, Glendaloch, Ferns,
Ossory, Leighlin, Kildare. 4. Under Tuam are
mentioned Mayo, Killalla, Roscommon, Clonfert,
Achonry, Clonmacnois, Kilmacduagh. (106) These
were the only regulations, of which I find any au-
thentic account, (107) enacted in this synod, the
whole being relative to discipline and morality. No
decrees were issued as to points of faith or doctrine ;
for there was no question concerning such subjects.
(108) The synod being terminated, Cardinal Pa-
paro immediately set out on his return to Rome, and
crossed the sea on the ^4th of March. (109) Hence
we find that the synod did not sit for many days, as
it had commenced on the 9th of said month. (110)

In the course of the same year 1L5'2 one of the
bishops, who liad assisted at the synod, Dungal


O'Coellaidhe, or O'Cellaie, of Leighlin, died ; (111)
as did also Fergal O'Fercliubuis, a professor of theo-
logy at Armagh. (112) To the preceding year is
assigned the death of a bishop of Killala, Maelfo-
gamair, probably the only one of that see, whose
name occurs after that of the founder St. Muredach.

(102) Such is the order, in which the four sees are mentioned
by Hoveden at A. 1151, who calls them J r marc, Casscl, Dive-
li7ie, Connath. In the Annals of Cluain-eidneach in Keating's
original text they are placed thus ; Dublin, Cashel, Tuam, and
Armagh. The author did not attend to the rank of precedency.
From his having accidentally mentioned Dublin first some per-
sons derived a foolish argument as if to show, that its see was
made the primatial one of Ireland. That autlior could not have
thought so ; for he tells us immediately after, that the archbishop
of Armagh was declared the primate. In all the lists of the pre-
lates, who attended at the. synod, Gregory of Dublin is named
after not only Gelasius of Armagh, but likewise Domnald of
Cashel. (See more in Jus. Prim. Armac. $.17. scqq.) Hove-
den, giving an account of the Irish sees, as they existed at the
time of the arrival of Henry II. and reckoning them according to
the order of rank, has first Armagli, subjoining its suffragan
sees ; then Cashel with its suffragans ; next Dublin, cSrc ; and
this was undoubtedly the order of dignity and precedency of our
ai'chbishops until Dublin became the civil metropolis of Ireland.

(103) The words of the Annals of Cluain-eidncach are, as fol-
lows ; " Insuper Ardmachnnum archiepiscopum in primatcm super
alios, ut decuity ordinavit." The iit decuit refers to the ancient
right of primacy annexed to Armagh since the time of St. Pa-

(104) It is laughable to hear the mighty Ledwich saying,
(A?itiq.p.4<4t5.) that the simoniacal traffic was more advantiigc-
ously carried on Ireland by those lords, who had embraced the
Romish, as he calls them, tenets and party, because they Ibund
more purchasers than in their own sept, ^^1lerc did the gre^it
antiquary find this piece of intelligence? The simony con-
demned by the council of Kells was not, at least in general,

L 2


sucli as tliat understood by Ledwich, vh, the selling of bishoprics
and abbies by great Lords, of which scarcely an instance can be
found in our history, but the bad practice complained of by Lan-
franc of Canterbury, who, to use the Doctor's phraseology, was of
the Romish party, and followed by some bishops in taking money
for conferring holy orders. See Chap. xxiv. ^.12.

(105) Annals of Cluain-eidneach ap, Keating. Ledwich does
not grumble at Paparo's proposing the payment of tithes, and
talks of the divine right of them, &c. They were dear to his
heart : Cicero pro domo sua,

(106) It is thus the sees are reckoned by Keating {Book 2. p.
104-.) with whom Ware agrees {Antiq. cap. 16.) as to the names,
although differently spelled, which he took from the Census Ca-
merales of Cencius styled Camerarius, who was afterwards Pope
Honorius IIL It is odd, that Derry is named among the sees,
that existed at the time of the council of Kells ; for we read in
the Life of Gelasius, that it was not a regular see until the year
1158, as Ware himself has at Bishops of Derry. And, what is
equally strange, Keating reckons it among the bishoprics fixed by
the synod of Rathbreasil. But I greatly doubt, whether the suf-
fragan sees enumerated by Cencius, were exactly the same as
those fixed by the synod of Kells ; for Cencius wrote many years
after the synod. On the other hand Keating's list was, 1 believe,
taken from that of Cencius, and thence the name of Derry might
have crept into his account of the synod of Rathbreasil. The
sees of Clogher and Louth were united, and probably for many
years prior to the synod, the last bishop of Louth alone, whom
we meet with, having been Moenach O'Ciordubhain, who died in
1045. {A A. SS.p. 736.) In later times the town of Louth and
other parts of that ancient diocese were annexed to Armagh, as
Ware observes loc. cit. Elphin is not named in these lists, which
Ware wondered at [Bishops at Elphin) and therefore thought it
highly probable, that it was already united with the see of Roscom-
mon. This is certainly very probable, and I should think it certain,
did not Ware himself supply us [ib.) with a difficulty founded on his
mentioning a bishop of Elphin, Flanachan O'Dubhai, who, he says,
died in 1 168 ; and after whom he places in that see Moeliosa O'Con-
nachtain, who assisted at the council of Kells under the title of

Online LibraryUnknownAn ecclesiastical history of Ireland, from the first introduction of Christianity among the Irish, to the beginning of the thirteenth century , Compiled from the works of the most esteemed authors ... who have written and published on matters connected with the Irish church; and from Irish annals an → online text (page 13 of 45)