Camden in direct contradiction to Dr. Ledwich Mosheim states that Augustin received episcopal ordination from the primate of Arles, and was archbishop of Canterbury.* Camden (after Bede,) says the words Archiepiscopus Dorovernensis," were on his tomb. But Polydore Virgil asserts that the archiepiscopal dignity was known in England, long before the days of Augustine. He tells us that that missionary influenced Gregory to change the archiepiscopal see from London, where it had remained since the first establishment of Christianity in the island, to Dorovernia, that is, to Canterbury. So also Geoffry of Monmouth says, that a change was effected in the chief sees of the kingdom, and that the dignity of London adorned Dorovernia.‡ And the same writer, probably relying on the authority of Gildas, states, that in lieu of the Heathen Flamens and Archflamens, Christian bishops and archbishops were originally established in Britain.§ The number of these prelates is thus expressed by the poet who assumed the name of Gildas : Assignant urbes viginti octoque sacratis Præsulibus totidem; sed submittunt tribus illos Archipræsulibus, pars subjacet Eboracensi Cum sibi submissis populis, pars Londoniensi Eccl. Hist. vol. 2, p. 97, Maclaine's translation: + Polyd. Vir. Ang. Hist. 1. 4. Galf, Monemuth, Hist. Brit. lib. 7, cap. 3, edit. Heidelberg. lib 4, fol, 52. edit. Paris. an. 1517. § Ibid. 1. 2. cap. 1, edit. Ascensian, vel 1. 4, cap. 19, edit, Heidelberg. Usser, Brit, Eccl. Ant. p. 32. Testimony of Cambrensis, Hume, William of Malmsbury The Belgic Chronicle of John of Leyden, corroborates these statements, to which effect it quotes the words of Martinus Polonus.* But passing by these matters of more remote antiquity, as in some degree uncertain, and liable to objections; it is beyond all doubt, that Giraldus Cambrensis and William of Malmsbury coincide with the venerable Bede, in assigning archiepiscopal honours to Augustine and his successors.t Hume says, that "Augustine was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, was endowed by Gregory with authority over all the British churches, and received the pall, a badge of ecclesiastical honour, from Rome;" and Henry styles his successors, Laurentius, (who died in 619,) Mellitus, (who died about 625) and Justus, (who died in 633) archbishops of Canterbury.§ What shall we say now of Dr. Ledwich's bold assertion, that the title of Archbishop was unknown in England before the year 673? Shall we maintain with that learned antiquary, that, on this point, all Saint Patrick's biographers, ancient and modern, "discover their ignorance of ecclesiastical history?" Or shall we John a Leid. lib. 2. cap. 1. + Girald. dialog. de eccles. Menevens. distinct. 2. Guil. Malm. de gestis Pontif. lib. 1, p. 208, 209, edit, Francofurt. Hist. of England, vol: 1, p. 36. § Hist. Brit. vol 2, 126, 127. and Henry, in direct opposition to Dr. Ledwich. merely conclude that their accuser, or rather defamer, has involved himself in unaccountable and inexplicable error; that he is bold in assertion-impotent in proof. If the reader wish for more accurate information relative to the establishment of the archiepiscopal degree, than that with which Dr. Ledwich has favoured the public, in the above quotation, he will find it in the first volume of Maclaine's Mosheim, page 349. Dr. Ledwich deduces another proof of Saint Patrick's nonentity from his alleged residence amongst the canons of the Lateran. This he deems devoid of truth. For, says he, "Onuphrius assures us, from the archives of that church, that Pope Gelasius, was the first who placed canons there, and he was raised to the pontificate, A. D. 492, one year before the death of Saint Patrick." This argument rests, in the first instance, on the authority of Onuphrius, a modern commentator, on a modern author, Platina, and in the second, on the equivocal meaning of a word. Dr. Milner observes, that for several ages after the death of Saint Patrick, the secular clergy were denominated Canonici, because they adopted the canons as their rule of life, in contradistinction to the Monachi, &c. who professed to follow the rule of Saint Benedict, or some other monastic rule.+ • Ant. p: 65, 2d edit. + See Concil. Bern. A. D. 755, Can: 2. Concil. Aquisgran. cap. 115. See Van, Espin, tom. 1, de Canonicis. Milner's Inquiry, p. 114. Strange anachronism of Dr. Ledwich. Again, he objects to the account given of Saint Patrick's reception of the pall, and of the legateship of Ireland, conferred on him by Pope Hilary. (Page 65.) There were no legates a latere, he says, until the year 787, and palls were not bestowed, in Ireland, before the year 1152. These are, truly frivolous objections; they can neither tend to prove nor disprove the existence of Saint Patrick. Suppose it were even conceded to Dr. Ledwich, that Jocelyn, a British writer of the twelfth century, a mere compiler of our Saint's history from the works of other men, had been mistaken in his opinion on the subject of the pall, said by him to have been presented to Saint Patrick, will that circumstance demonstrate the nonentity of our Irish apostle? Let us try how this species of reasoning would operate in similar cases. Dr. Ledwich has very gravely stated, in a very elaborate disquisition, that Alexander the Great was refused permission to enter as a candidate for victory, in the Olympic games, because, as was alleged, he was not a Greek. In support of this most marvellous assertion, he quotes, in due and solemn form, a passage in the historical works of Herodotus, who died many years before the Macedonian hero was born. Here is a mistake ten times greater than that committed by Jocelyn, if he committed any; for every schoolboy knows that about the time of Alexander's nativity, the racehorse of his father Philip was victorious in the Olympic games. Misquotations by Dr. Ledwich. Shall we, therefore, conclude that Alexander the Great was an imaginary being, a phantom hero; or, that Herodotus was gifted with second-sight, and that future scenes were pictured by the hand of Anticipation, on the mirror of his mind? No; we can only infer that our antiquary quotes at random, and seems utterly regardless of that accuracy and that critical research which ought to characterize men of letters.* Again, Dr. Ledwich refers to Ware's Bishops, page 58, to prove that palls were not bestowed, in Ireland, before the year 1152. Now, there is no such assertion in that page; but we shall not dwell on this inaccuracy, since palls were originally no necessary adjunct to either primatial or archiepiscopal rights, which existed in full perfection without such symbolic honors. For ample proof of this, we refer the reader to the Jus Primatiale Armacanum of Primate Mac Mahon, by whom the authorities which elucidate this point are given in copious detail. However, in the page of Ware cited • See Anthologia Hibernica, vol. 1, p. 114. The curious passage in Anth. Hib. to which we have above alluded runs thus" When Iphitus restored the Olympic Games, 884 years before Christ, it was determined that none should assemble or contend in them that was not a Greek. About 400 years after this era, Alexander the Great appeared at those games, as a competitor, and was refused admission into the lists, because, as was alleged, they were designed not for Ba arians, bnt Grecians." In support of this absurd assertion relative to the Macedonian hero, Dr. Ledwich quotes Herodotus Terpsichore, c. 22. † Bus Prim. Armacan, c. 231, 232, 233, 234 ad 244, 372, 375. |