fessio, if a work of St. Patrick, must have undergone considerable revision, a revision which, under the circumstances, was natural and justifiable.
Turning next to internal evidence, if the piece be regarded as a personal confession of sins, and not one drawn up for the use of converts, there are several points which are inconsistent with St. Patrick's genuine writings. Though he was fully aware from our Lord's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount that sins of uncleanness may be committed by evil thoughts as well as by evil actions, it is difficult to suppose that St. Patrick could have been guilty of such transgressions as this Confession would lead us to conclude. He denies explicitly in his genuine Confession (see pp. 68, 69) that he ever received gifts, while in this newly-found Confession he confesses himself guilty of that sin.
Whatever St. Patrick's early career may have been, and, according to his own statements, prior to his captivity he did not live a holy life (see pp. 47, 50, 58, 61), it is hard to imagine he could have had opportunity to transgress in the way of gluttony and riotous living as described in this writing.
After careful consideration of the composition, we must therefore view it, not as designed to be a record of the author's own personal frailties, but rather as a touchstone by which his converts might examine into their individual lives.
Two points, however, in this newly-discovered Confession are in favour of its belonging to the age of St. Patrick—namely, the reference to sinning by divinations (compare stanza 6 of the Irish hymn), and to sinning by partaking of polluted food. The story of St. Patrick's being tempted to eat honey offered in sacrifice to idols, as told in the genuine Confession at p. 54, may illustrate the latter.
