Refutation of St. Patrick the Baptist Part 1

Recently I was exposed to another example of the Baptist penchant for rewriting Christian history (I’ve talked about the Trail of Blood previously). The name of the article/sermon was “St. Patrick A Baptist!” by Dr. L. K. Landis (http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/landis1.htm). As I dug a little bit into the subject, I discovered that Landis was not the first to try to Protestantize St. Patrick. In fact, he quotes from Henry C. Vedder who declares that the Catholic theft of St. Patrick was among the worst of their crimes. This statement came from is from Vedder’s A Short History of the Baptists dated 1907.

In 1952, John Summerfield Wimbish delivered a sermon entitled St. Patrick was a Baptist to the congregation at Calvary Baptist Church in New York City (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/patrick.htm). W. A. Jarrel goes so far as to assert that scholars have “have succeeded in stripping his history of much of the Romish fables.” (http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0197.htm)

Since Landis is seems to be the stand out among the group, I would like to deal with his work.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the fact that much of what Landis has to say is based on the notoriously weak evidence of argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). The problem with this kind of argument is one of the least effective arguments that can be adduced; it is insufficient grounds for believing something simply because there can be found no evidence to the contrary.

Let’s look at Landis’ use of argumentum ex silencio:

In relation to infant baptism, Landis states, “in all of Patrick's writings he does not mention one single incident when he baptized an infant.”

In relation to baptism by immersion, we read, “in all of his writings there is not one shred of evidence that the Irish preacher knew anything of sprinkling. All of the records of his baptisms tell of immersion.”

On the subject of church relations, Landis says, “There is not any evidence whatsoever that even remotely suggests that the famed Irish preacher acknowledged any man to be of superior authority, power or position than he.”

In addition, Landis tells us in relation to Patrick made “No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communion.”

None of these arguments will hold water because they are trying to positively prove something that is not denied by the Saint but is merely unmentioned by him. The fact that we have only two certainly genuine writings (“The Confession of St. Patrick” at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/patrick/confession.txt and his “Letter To Coroticus” at http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1166.htm) by him highlights the paucity of material that we have.

The majority of Landis’ arguments are from silence and he, thus, establishes nothing but the absence of certain things in Patrick’s writing. If we are to buy into the fable that Patrick was actually a Baptist, we will have to have some positive evidence to prove it. Otherwise, we cannot reliably conclude that he was.

Actually, this kind of argument can be turned around and used against Landis very easily.

For example, Landis says, “He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality.” Notice the words of St. Patrick from "The Confession" (par. 4): “And he poured out his Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and pledge of immortality, which makes the believers and the obedient into sons of God and co-heirs of Christ who is revealed….” If he meant that they were eternally secure this would have been a great place to mention it. Since he does not mention it here or anywhere else, how can we accept that he believed it. According to Landis’ methodology, this “proves” that the Saint was NOT a believer in eternal security which means he was not a Baptist. (One might note that this passage connects eternal life not only with believing but also with obedience in a very non-Baptist style)

This specious kind of argumentation does nothing to help bolster the case for St. Patrick being Baptist. But then again, if I were trying to prove that point, I would want to avoid sound arguments and logic also.