In a world where the tenets of inherited Christianity were probably not understood by the vast majority of the laity and only imperfectly by many clerics and monks, the complicated dogmas dealing with the nature of Christ that arose in the fourth and fifth centuries must have been incomprehensible to all but a very few – learned writers such as Gildas in Britain, Cummian in Ireland, and Aldhelm and Bede in England who show close acquaintance with the history of dogma. However, there are various indications that the Insular world did not entirely escape the effects of the heresies that cropped up on the continent between the fourth and seventh centuries. Writers on both islands took special pains to insist upon their orthodoxy, particularly in matters relating to the Trinity and to the nature of Christ. Involvement in these disputes – however marginal they may seem at first glance – played a role in shaping official theology, but perhaps more importantly, in defining the activities and concerns that constituted Insular Christology and the literary and artistic images of Christ to be examined here.

Expressions of orthodoxy

From the beginnings of Insular Christianity, prominent ecclesiastics were eager to demonstrate their freedom from all taint of heresy and show their solidarity with the central teachings of the Roman Church. This is embodied in the form of a ‘profession of faith’ – a more or less detailed statement of ‘correct’ beliefs which is sometimes coupled with anathematisations of heresies. The defensive character of these professions always relates to the individual claimant, but in some cases, as we shall see, there is a clear awareness on the part of the professing person that he is defending the beliefs and practices of his region. Moreover, such professions do not occur in a vacuum. Two of the three earliest professions – those of Pelagius and Columbanus – were addressed to popes; a third – that of Patrick – was sent to unnamed authorities in Britain. In all three cases we have to do with some charge of heresy, divergent practice, or misconduct. As we noted in our Introduction, praise of orthodoxy and the assertion of one’s own orthodoxy are not synonymous with being orthodox.