the account which he gives of himself in his celebrated Confession.

Dr. Ledwich proceeds to find fault with certain puerile stories recorded of St. Patrick by Joceline and other writers. But do not the classical Curtius and the judicious Livy relate many idle tales of the founders of the Macedonian and Roman empires? Are we, therefore, to say there never were such personages as Alexander the Great and Romulus?-Certainly not. What then are we to do?-Reason tells us to imitate the example of those illustrious scholars and hagiographers mentioned above, in lighting up the torch of criticism, when we examine the legends of antiquity, in order to discover which of them are to be rejected and which retained.

says,

Hitherto it appears that Dr. Ledwich has but been skirmishing: now, however, he is going to display his full force, as needs must be, against the united learning and criticism of past ages. "I shall now proceed," he "with stronger "evidence to prove our apostle an ideal personage*." He first argues, that if St. Patrick had received his mission and orders from archiepiscopal dignity, Pope Celestine, Cogitosus, Adamnan, Cummian, and Bede, would not have passed over these circumstances in silence.-To this I answer, that it is contrary to every rule of criticism and common sense, to oppose negative presumptions to positive testimony. The whole

• Antiq. p. 62.

collection of ancient writers, whose subject required them to treat of the conversion of Ireland, agree in the above-mentioned particulars; but Bede, for example, having undertaken to write the history of England's conversion, not that of Ireland, (which latter event preceded the former by a century and a half) he had no greater reason to speak of St. Patrick, than he had to speak of St. Remigius, the apostle of the French. The same observation applies in a great measure to the Irish writers, Cogitosus, Adamnan, and Cummian. We have seen above, that where Bede's subject did lead him to commemorate St. Patrick, namely, in his Martyrology, he has actually done it *.

The remainder of our sceptic's

stronger evi

"dence" is equally defective and trifling. He objects that Laurence, St. Austin's successór in the see of Canterbury, writing to the prelates of Ireland, complained that Dagan, one of their number, coming to pay him a visit, refused to eat with him, or to remain in the same house with him. Hence the sceptic concludes that St. Pa trick could not have been the apostle of the Irish, because, in this case, Laurence, who was the Pope's legate, would not have failed to reproach them with ingratitude to the Roman See. He goes on to argue that Dagan must have consider

• Vide 16 Kalendas Aprilis in Martyrol. Ven. Bedæ, item Rabani, Usuardi et Notkeri.

+ Vide Hist. Eccles, Bedæ, 1. xi. c. 4. p, 63,

ed Laurence as excommunicated, by refusing to eat with him, in as much as by the canons it was held unlawful to eat with an excommunicated person. The first part of this paralogism, I confess, I am unable to refute, because I cannot see in it the very semblance of an argument. To the second part I answer, that though it was held unlawful to eat with an excommunicated person, yet a man might refuse, in ancient as well as modern times, to eat with those who are not excommunicated, through pride, resentment, and a variety of other motives.

1

1

Dr. Ledwich goes on to quote the letter of St. Aldhehn to Geruntius, King of Cornwall, and the British clergy of his dominions, in which the saint testifies that the people of South Wales (Demetæ) carried their resentment against the English, though Christians, so far that they would not salute them, nor pray with them, nor drink out of any cup which they had used, unless it was previously washed, &c.* After this, the sceptic exclaims: "Words cannot convey a "stronger detestation of Popery, than this testi"mony of Aldhelm †.". The conclusion he would have us draw is, that the Irish being of the same religion with the Britons, could not be of the same religion with the English, in as much as the latter were avowedly.converts of Romay missionaries; and that therefore the Irish had

* Ep. 44. Inter. Epist. S. Bonifac.

† P. 69

not been converted by St. Patrick, who was one of that description. This is a hobbling sorites, being lame in all its joints. It is sufficient, however, for the present purpose, to observe that the ancient Britons or Welsh had other motives of animosity against the English Saxons than those of a religious nature: motives which every one who has travelled in Wales, knows they cherish down to the present times. Nevertheless, I do not deny that there were a few even religious differences, for a certain time, between the ancient Christians of these islands on the one hand, and the See Apostolic, with the English and the Christians of the whole world, on the other. We are distinctly informed what the subjects of these differences were, being merely points of discipline, and no way regarding faith. It is notorious that the chief of these related to the time of celebrating the festival of Easter, (a festival which regulated all the moveable feasts and fasts of the year) and to the above-mentioned pride and uncharitableness of the Welsh with respect to the English. We have the most clear and positive evidence possible for deciding upon this whole matter, in the conference which was held between St. Augustine of Canterbury and the British bishops on the confines of England and Wales. In this conference St. Austin told them that many of their practices (observe, Sir, there is no complaint on the subject of their faith) were contrary to those of the Universal Church; never

P.

theless, that if they would yield to him in the following three points, to keep Easter at the proper time, to observe the ceremonies of the Apostolic Church of Rome in baptism, and to join their labours with his in converting the English nation, he was willing to tolerate their particular practices in other respects*. This last condition required by St. Augustine demonstrates that it was a want of charity on the part of the Britons towards their former enemies the English, and not any diversity of religion, which caused the principal part of

the differences between them: for if these British bishops had differed from the Roman missionaries, either about the Eucharist or the Supremacy of the Roman See, or any other article of faith, would St. Augustine not only have allowed but even have required them to join with him in the evangelical work of converting the English, which work he had begun and was then carrying on with the greatest success? Here it is impossible to excuse Dr. Ledwich, who, it appears, has read Bede, from a deliberate imposition on his unlearned readers, especially when, referring to

* Dicebat autem eis (Augustinus Episcopus Britonum) quod in "multis quidem nostræ consuetudini, imo universalis ecclesiæ con"traria geritis: et tamen, si in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis, ut "Pascha suo tempore celebretis, ut ministerium baptisandi juxta morem Romanæ Sanctæ et Apostolicæ Ecclesiæ compleatis, ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum prædicetis verbum Domini, cætera quæ agitis, quamvis moribus nostris contraria æquanimiter cuncta "tolerabimus." Bed. Eccl. Hist. 1. ii. c. 2.

66