Dr. Ledwich's argument inconclusive.

us a much stronger, (nay, a conclusive) proof that such a person really existed, which is the chief point at issue. The matters, however, discussed by these writers, did not naturally lead them to treat of the clerical degrees which had been conferred on Saint Patrick. Bede's work was written on the ecclesiastical history of the English, not of the Irish nation. Ireland was then no integral part of the British territories; nor was her church comprehended in that of England. Bede, therefore, had no occasion to speak of the episcopal honours of Saint Patrick. In his Martyrology, he has distinctly mentioned our saint, for he was led to speak of him by the nature of the subject discussed in that work.

A similar observation may be made relative to Adamnan. If that writer, in treating of other matters, were, in reality, silent with regard to the episcopal degrees of Saint Patrick, how would such omission prove that he had never been a bishop? The reverend' Samuel Burdy, in his biographical account of Philip Skelton, does not, I believe, inform us, whether John Wesley, the friend of that divine, had ever received deaeon's or priest's orders. Shall we, therefore, conclude that the founder of Methodism was never ordained? The same reasoning is applicable to the silence of Cumian and Cogitosus, as well as of Adamnan and Bede, on the episcopal honours granted to Saint Patrick.

Various Martyrologies speak of Saint Patrick.

But, how really stands the case? Why truly, Adamnan states explicitly that Saint Patrick was a bishop. He speaks of him in the following terms: "Nam quidam proselytus Brito, homo sanctus, sancti Patricii Episcopi discipulus, Manctaneus nomine," &c.* And Cumian styles him, "the first apostle of Ireland," and compares him, when in the act of granting a benediction, to the Patriarch Jacob.t

I have already said that Ussher speaks of Adamnan's life of Columba, in terms of respect. He even quotes the very passage which is alluded to above, as the undoubted production of that author,‡ and, in page 363, he tells us that great confidence may be reposed in Adamnan, especially in matters relating to Columba.

It is needless to recite the various other authors who have treated of Saint Patrick, before the ninth century. Above sixty lives of our Irish apostle, had been written prior to that compiled, in the twelfth century, by Jocelyn, who, however, made particular use of only four, contemporaries of the saint himself, viz. Luman, Mæl, Benignus, and Patrick, Junior.

We find Saint Patrick's name in the Martyrology of Bede, in the Roman, in those of Usuard, Rhabanus and

• Vita Columbæ secunda præf, + Tria Thaum. p. 325.

Brit. Eccl. Ant; p. 445.

Dr. Ledwich allows Saint Patrick an occasional existence.

Notker, in the Chronicle of Sigebert, in the Saxon Chronicle, in that of Addo, in the works of Saint Bernard, those of Eric of Auxerre, Giraldus Cambrensis, William of Malmesbury, Marianus Scotus and a great number of other ancient writers, from the eighth till the twelfth century.*

In more modern times, Mosheim styles Saint Patrick "the apostle of the Irish"-"the founder of the archbishoprick of Armagh."+ Fleury, Cave, Nicholson, Tillemont, Ussher, Camden, Ware, Bollandus, Baronius, Spelman, Bale, Stillingfleet, Harris, &c. all coincide in their belief of his existence. Dr. Ledwich alone disclaims our revered saint.

Yet our antiquary seems willing to confer on Saint Patrick, an occasional existence, and even to admit that he had performed the functions of a real human being, provided his actions tend to prove the truth of any position which he is peculiarly anxious to maintain. When this object is effected, he annihilates him with the most perfect sang froid. Thus, when he wishes to shew that wooden edifices were in use, at an early period, in Ireland, our saint ceases to be a nonentity, and becomes a real and active personage. after," says Dr. Ledwich, "Saint Patrick erected the

"The

year

• Milner's Inquiry, p. 94

+ Maclaine's Mosh, p. 9, vot, 2,

The various accounts of Saint Patrick's birth

church of Saul, in the county of Down. It was called Sgibol Phadruig, or Patrick's Barn,* &c. Does the learned doctor believe that Saint Patrick really built this church? If he does, why then has he ventured to affirm, that "it is absolutely asserting meridional light to be nocturnal darkness, to maintain the existence, mission, or primacy of Saint Patrick?" But, if he does not believe that he founded the building, then the passage is a mere waste of words-Vox et preterea nihil.

Two more of the doctor's annihilating arguments are drawn from the absurd miracles related of the Irish apostle, by his biographers, and from the various and discordant accounts, given by them, of the place of his nativity.t

Now, if we were to argue thus, "The histories of Greece and Rome and of the lives of the Grecian and Roman warriors, are filled with accounts of prodigies and miracles, therefore, those states and these warriors never existed," Dr. Ledwich himself would smile at the conclusion. It is uncertain whether Dr. Jonathan Swift was born at Leicester, in England, or in Hoey's-court, in Dublin. Seven cities contended about the nativity of Homer, and the question is yet undecided. Shall we, therefore, infer that Swift had never been born, and that

Ant. 2d edit. p. 79, 140.

† Page 62, 64, 2d edit,

furnish no proof of his nonentity.

Homer was an imaginary bard? St. Bernard, in his life of Malachy Morgair, asserts that various miracles were wrought by that pious prelate, of whom he was the intimate friend and biographer. If Dr. Ledwich were consistent with himself, he would deny the existence of Primate Malachy, on account of those preternatural events blended with the history of his life. Nay, he is bound to reject the history of St. Bernard himself, as a mere fable, notwithstanding the great mass of his literary works which have descended to the present age: for to him, also, various miracles are attributed by his biographer. St. Columba, too, must vanish into thin air, if his entity or nonentity is to be tried by this new criterion, this singular historic canon, enacted by Dr. Ledwich. Yet our antiquary has written much concerning the acts of Columba and Malachy, and he has quoted the works of St. Bernard, most liberally. This rule, then, seems to be a kind of accommodating ex post facto law, adapted only to a single case, and a particular person. If, by its means, St. Patrick shall be deprived of his merited fame, Dr. Ledwich is willing to exercise his dispensing power, in favour of less obnoxious saints.

Ancient history is every where interspersed with tales of fabulous miracles. It is the business of the judicious critic, to separate the absurdly marvellous and the impossible, from that which is consonant to nature and to truth; to reject the one, and to retain the other.