"Wnm— Latin Writings of St. Patrick. 227 



r should do alout my position . . » / did not qnichly recognise the grace 

 that ivas then in me (§ 46). 



This first opposition of the seniores Patrick acknowledges to have 

 been quite devoid of malice, and this proves that it was in fact distinct 

 in time from the attack of which he speaks in terms of great bitter- 

 ness. 



The question now arises, Was it from Britain or from Gaul that 

 Patrick started on his first missionary journey to Ireland? On the 

 one hand, it seems to have followed a visit to his family in Britain 

 (§§ 23, 37) ; and the scene of the attack made on Patrick in his 

 absence, namely, the occasion when his dearest friend took his part, 

 was almost certainly Britain ; for he says (§ 32), I was not present on 

 that occasion^ nor teas I in Britain. As we should say, " Nor was I even 

 in Britain." Tf we could accept the Bollandist reading illic for illos 

 necnon in § 37, the matter would be decided in favour of Britain, as 

 patriam et parentes occurs immediately before. 



On the other hand, Gaul was almost certainly the nurse of his 

 clerical studies. In § 43, when expressing his natural longing to 

 revisit his old haunts : — while the attraction to Britain is that it was 

 his fatherland, the home of his family, in Gaul he could visit his 

 brethren, and see the face of the Lord's , Saints. 



Another question of some importance is. Had Patrick been raised 

 to episcopal rank before he started on his first missionary journey to 

 Ireland ? or, to put the matter in a simpler form. Was the opposition 

 of the seniores, that is mentioned in Conf. § 26, opposition to his 

 being consecrated bishop, or an impeachment, on his return, of his 

 conduct as missionary bishop in Ireland ? The latter is the more 

 probable alternative, if we take the words, peccata mea contra 

 laboriosum episcopatum meum in their natural sense, i.e.^ that in the 

 judgment of the seniores^ Patrick's sins, past and present, more than 

 counterbalanced his work in Ireland, his lalorious episcopate. It 

 would be unnatural to suppose that Patrick would describe his past 

 m,inisterium in Ireland as a lahoriosus episcopatus, if he had been 

 merely a bishop designate. Moreover, Patrick does not say that on 

 this occasion his promotion was at stake. It was rather his 

 character. Dominus . . . mihi si(huenit in hac concnlcatio7ie quod in 

 lahem et in ohprohrium oion male deueni. Again, he contrasts the 

 conduct on this occasion of the man who liad been his dearest 

 friend, when he piihlichj disgraced him (§ 32), with his former friend- 

 liness when he had said, Zo, thou art to he raised to the ranh of bishop. 



We conclude then that Patrick was a bishop at all events when 



