Inapplicable quotations made by Dr. Ledwich.

Dr. Ledwich, in his efforts to prove that the principal events of our saint's life are absolutely false, remarks, "that he is said to have been a North-Briton, born at Kilpatrick, A. D. 372; his father was Calphurnius, a deacon, the son of Potitus, a priest, &c." He adds, "that Bede has declared, that the Southern Scots did not receive the faith, till 412, nor the Northern before 565, so that Calphurnius and Potitus were Christian priests, in Scotland, long before it was evangelized."*

The

This shadowy semblance of an argument vanishes at the first glance of rational inquiry. Kilpatrick was not deemed, in the year 372, a part of Scotland. inhabitants of that district were, at that period, neither Picts nor Scots, but Britons. The quotation, therefore, from Bede, relative to the Southern and the Northern Scots, is utterly inapplicable to the question. Kilpatrick was then within the precincts of BRITAIN, whose people had long before been converted to Christianity. The confusion introduced, by Dr. Ledwich, into the subject, by styling the inhabitants of this place Southern Scots, was necessary to give his argument some appearance of reason, and must, therefore, be viewed with pity. Our antiquary refers us to Ware's Bishops, by Harris, for proof, that Saint Patrick was born a North-Briton, i. e. as he chooses to explain it, a Southern Scot. Now

• Page 64, second edition.

He appeals to evidence which contradicts himself.

the very words of that author are these:" He was born in the extreme bounds of Britain, (in that part of it which is now comprehended within the limits of modern Scotland,) at a village called Banaven, &c."* It is almost impossible that Dr. Ledwich could have mistaken the meaning of this author to whom he so confidently refers; for, in the same page, it is distinctly stated, that "Dunbritton, near which Saint Patrick was born, though it be now a part of modern Scotland, yet, in his time, it was within the British territories." Ussher, also, decides that he was a Briton, born at Kirk-Patrick, or Kil-Patrick, between the castle of Dunbritton and the city of Glasgow, where the rampart which separated the barbarians from the Romans, terminated.+ Jocelyn says, that Dunbritton signified the fort of the Britons.

But, further, we know from Tertullian, that even in the second.century, the Gospel had reached those parts of Britain, where the Roman arms had never penetrated:‡ and it is stated by Xiphilin, out of Dio, that the old Britons occupied a portion of the country even on the north side of the Roman wall. "The Britons," says that author, "were divided into two sorts, the Mæatæ and the Caledonii. The former dwelled by the wall, and the latter beyond them."§

Ware's Bishops, by Harris, p. 5. + Prim. p. 812. + Tert. cent, Judæos, c. 7. $ Xiphilin in Sever. citante Stillingfleet, p, 52. Ant. Brit: church,

Christianity introduced into Britain at an early period.

These extra-provincial, or Albanian Britons, were, according to Joh. Fordon, quite distinct from the Picts and Scots. Indeed, from an ancient distich contained in the writings of that author, as well as in those of Joh. Major, it might be inferred that Christianity had been introduced into that country, at least as early as the year 203.+ Be this as it may, we have the authority of Eusebius, that some of the Apostles themselves had preached the Gospel in the British islęs.‡

After all, it is more probable, as shall be shewn hereafter, that Saint Patrick was born at Tours, where Saint Martin resided, than in any part of the British isles.

If Dr. Ledwich had been able to prove, satisfactorily, that Saint Patrick had never been born, he would, in all probability, have terminated the discussion, and triumphed in his victory. But he proceeds with vigour, and it may therefore be fairly inferred, that his arguments, heretofore, had not appeared conclusive, even to himself. Let us follow him in his winding course.

was

In page 65, he remarks that Saint Patrick " consecrated bishop by Amatus, or Pope Celestine, who granted him the dignity of Archbishop. Here all his

* Fordon, Scotichron. lib. 2, c. 31, 32, 33, 36, et sequent. Lib. 3, c. 36. ↑ Fordon, lib. 2, c. 35. apud Gale, p. 606. Major de Gest, Scot, lib. 1, c. 14g Euseb, demons, Evang. lib. 5, c. 7, p. 113.

Strange assertions made by Dr. Ledwich.

biographers, ancient and modern, discover their ignorance of ecclesiastical history. On the establishment of Christianity, to preserve to the bishop of the metropolis, his rank, the title of Archbishop was invented. At the Ephesine Council, in 431, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, and Celestine, bishop of Rome, were publickly honoured with this style. Before Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, enjoyed this title, in 673, it was unknown in Britain. &c."

1

The want of information displayed in this extraordinary passage, and the confidence with which it is uttered, are equally astonishing.

The title of Archbishop was unknown in Britain, says Dr. Ledwich, before the year 673. Now we have the express authority of Bede himself, that Augustine was consecrated archbishop of the English nation, by Ætherius, bishop of Arles, under the directions of Pope Gregory, in the year 597. That author, in his Eccl. History, writes thus :—*

Testimony of Bede, Polydore Virgil, Milton, and

genti ANGLORUM ordinatus est reversusque Britanniam misit continuo Romam Laurentium Presbyterum, &c. &c."*

We know, also, from the same authority, that his successor, Laurentius, was an archbishop. In his second book, cap. 4, under the year DCV, Bede expressly says, "Laurentius Archiepiscopi gradu potitus," Laurentius enjoyed the rank of Archbishop."

So also in book the second, cap. 17, he testifies that Paulinus received the metropolitan pall from Pope Honorius. Justus, also, who died in the year 633, and his successor, Honorius, were archbishops of Canterbury.+

Milton, (no favourer of bishops,) in his learned "History of England to the Norman conquest," (page 58,)§ plainly says, that "Austin, or Augustin, was exalted to Archiepiscopal authority, and dedicated a Christian church, in Canterbury, and, adjoining to it, built a seat for himself and his successors:" and, that Ethelbert, at his motion, built Saint Peter's, and enriched it with great endowments, to be a burial place, for the archbishops and kings of Kent.

See also c. 24, and Cressilis 1. 13, c. 5. + See also book 3, c. 25. Lib 11, c. 181 § See also to the same effect, Holland's Camden,

article Kent, p. 337, 338.