Frivolous observations made by Dr. Ledwich.

by Dr. Ledwich is the following passage :-"When Gelasius was archbishop, John Paparo, cardinal priest, under the title of Cardinal St. Laurence, in Damaso, was, in 1152, sent legate into Ireland, by Pope Eugene III, and brought with him four palls, which, in a synod held in March, he distributed amongst four archbishops." &c. On this passage we may remark-1st, That it does not assert that palls had never before been brought to Ireland-2d, That it speaks of Gelasius as an archbishop prior to the arrival of the pope's nuntio.

And that there were archbishops in Ireland, long before Cardinal Paparo had arrived there with the four palls is clear from an epistle written A. D. 1085, by Pope Gregory VII. and addressed "to Terdelvach, (or Turlogh) the illustrious king of Ireland, and to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, peers, and all Christians inhabiting Ireland.”*

In page 63, Dr. Ledwich remarks that, in the year 630," the Roman clergy addressed an epistle (to be seen in Bede) to four Irish bishops and five presbyters on the Paschal festival. In this, (he adds,) Saint Patrick might be very properly and advantageously introduced, and his own as well as his successors' practice in the see of Armagh, but nothing to this purpose occurs in our ecclesiastical historian," &c.

• Usser. Syllog. veter. Hibern. p. 76.

Strange deductions from fragments of letters.

On this subject, it may be remarked: First, That Bede gives only a part of this letter, and that portion of it which is omitted and lost, may or may not have mentioned Saint Patrick. Second, The subject on which it was written, (the Paschal supper and the Pelagian heresy,) had no necessary connexion with our national saint. Third, Unless the time and manner of keeping Easter, in this country, had been different, in the days of Saint Patrick, from that in use in the year 639,* (when the letter appears really to have been written) a reference to the opinions and actions of that saint, would have injured, instead of served, the cause which the Roman clergy were advocating; and Dr. Ledwich, himself, maintains that, in the fifth century, the practice of the Irish church was not coincident with that of Rome.

We may remark, en passant, that, in this letter, precedence is given to the prelate Thomian, of Armagh, who is spoken of before the other bishops, Columbanus, Chromanus, Dimaus and Baithanus.

In the Antiquities, page 62, we find the following remark:-" About the year 604, Laurence, bishop of Canterbury, and two other prelates, writing to the bishops and abbots of Ireland, have these remarkable words:

When the Apostolic See sent us to these

Epist. Hibern. Syll. Usser. p. 22.

F

Strange deductions from fragments of letters.

western parts, to preach to Pagan nations, and we happened to come into the island of Britain, we much esteemed the holiness of the Britons and Irish, before we knew them, believing they proceeded according to the custom of the universal church; but we have been informed that the Scots do not differ in religious sentiments from the Britons, for Bishop Dagan coming to us, not only refused to eat with us, but even to take any repast in the same house.'" Dr. Ledwich calls upon the advocates of the existence of Saint Patrick, to "consider well this citation." He adds that the saint was then dead but one hundred years, and asks whether Bishop Laurence "would have neglected to upbraid them, (the Irish clergy,) with ingratitude to their apostle, and a dereliction of his doctrines." He infers, also, in page 63, from Dagan's refusing to eat with the Roman missioners, that they were under excommunication.

The reasoning adduced by our learned doctor, on this occasion, is equally absurd and disingenuous. He certainly had read all that remains of the letter in question, for he gives a translation, (an incorrect one indeed,) of its contents from the original Latin. He studiously refrains from informing his readers, that the remainder of the epistle is lost, and that, of course, no deduction can be made against the existence of Saint Patrick, from the omission of his name, in the small fragment which has reached the present age.*

Usser. Veter, Epist, Hibern. Syllog. p. 18, 19.

Erroneous conclusion drawn from Gillebert's letter.

But Laurence, says the Doctor, was excommunicated, for, "we we must know that a person whose company was thus rejected, was under excommunication, for so it is expressed in ancient Irish canons." For proof of this, he refers to the "works of Saint Patrick"!!! Now, either these writings and canons attributed to Saint Patrick existed at the period when Laurence indited his letter, or, they did not. If they did exist, the entity of our Irish apostle is proved by them, for they distinctly mention his name. If they did not exist, then how can it be shewn from them that Laurence was excommunicated?

Dr. Ledwich also expatiates, at some length, on a letter addressed to the Irish clergy, in the year 1090, by Gillebert, bishop of Limerick, the Pope's legate. "There are," says he, (page 126) "many things in this' epistle deserving notice. I shall only touch on a few. It is addressed to the dissident bishops and presbyters of Ireland, for it had been an insult to the Romish ecclesiastics, to have sent to them, as if novices, an elementary work. Throughout this long letter, there is not a tittle of Saint Patrick, his archiepiscopal or primatial see or right, or, the doctrine he delivered to the Irish church, &c. &c."

Now, if the reader will take the trouble of consulting the letter itself, he will find, in the first instance, that

Erroneous conclusion drawn from Gillebert's letter.

www

It

it is not addressed to the dissident bishops and presbyters of Ireland, but, simply, "Episcopis et Presbyteris totius Hiberniæ," to the bishops and presbyters of all Ireland." Secondly, he will be convinced that the mention of Saint Patrick would have been unnecessary, and altogether foreign from the matter discussed in Gillebert's epistle. The letter had been written at the request of the Irish clergy, and contained an elaborate disquisition on the canonical orders and dignitaries of the church. describes the powers and the duties of the priest, the deacon, the sub-deacon, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, &c. &c. in general terms, and lays down what Gillebert deemed to be the true scheme or state of the Catholic church. But whilst it scientifically explains and defines the nature of the various ranks in the church, it by no means gives the name of any individual who had possessed those ranks. The functions of the abbots, bishops, primates, &c. are, indeed, specified, but no individual bishop, abbot, or primate is named. It is idle to expect, in a disquisition of such a nature, any discussion on Saint Patrick.

But, thirdly, so closely does this letter adhere to the subject of which it treats, that there is but one individual, (Amelarius) mentioned in it, by name, from beginning to end. Even that individual is quoted, merely because he had himself written something on the matter in question.