month as sufficient for the poor. I endeavoured to impress on each the privilege it should be considered to have an opportunity of contributing to so glorious an object. I farther stated that I should myself collect the pence, each month, or every other month, as circumstances would permit, which would have the good effect of bringing us more into contact with each other. I found many very ready to subscribe— several volunteered two-pence per month-others acceded to my request, though not so cheerfully-some declined. To those of a grade between the poor and my agricultural parishioners, consisting of the village carpenters, blacksmith, publican, &c., I proposed an annual half crown, to which they willingly acceded. The list stood thus:Subscribers of one penny per month, or one shilling at Christmas, including our own elder children and several domestics, 39; at twopence per month, 5; at two shillings and sixpence per annum, 7; at five shillings per annum, 4. Christmas, 1834, I paid into the society's treasurer's hands 27. 14s.; Christmas, 1835, 47. 10s. 9d., exclusive, of course, of regular subscriptions from my own house. Now, Sir, multiplying the sum by our 10,000 agricultural parishes, we should raise in this manner such a fund as to be enabled to rejoice (while we deprecate that miserable act of the legislature of this Christian land which rendered such exertion necessary) that God bringeth good out of evil. That such a plan might be pretty generally adopted, and with nearly the same success, I have no doubt; for though the parish in which I am placed is a highly respectable one, still, human nature is much the same everywhere. In the course of the last year (as might be expected) some half dozen of the monthly penny subscribers have withdrawn their names, but then others have joined our society, and I see no reason to fear but that, with a trifling fluctuation, I shall maintain my ground. I will allow it is rather a laborious way of assisting the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, and some of the poorer members smile, and say I fairly earn their subscription,-and moreover that they value my visit at more than the penny. Indeed, that which brings a clergyman into frequent contact with his people generally, must, primâ facie, in itself be good, when to this is added the chief object of the visit-viz., increasing the funds of so excellent a society; and lastly, the probability that it may induce the subscribers to value more highly, on their own account, the spiritual blessings they thus extend to others, and surely there is enough to excite exertion and repay labour. As a pledge that I shall be very happy to answer any queries which a brother clergyman, wishing to establish a similar society in his parish, may desire to put to me, I shall subscribe to this letter the name of your obedient humble servant,

FIENNES T. TROTMAN.

Dallington Vicarage, Northampton.

SOCIETY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL.

SIR,-I have read in the November number of the "British Magazine" a paper containing these words "I take for granted that every minis

ter of the Church of England is deeply interested in the prosperity of the venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts;" and, on this assumption, the writer proposes this questionHow can we, the parochial clergy, be most instrumental in increasing the efficiency of the society?

I am afraid, Sir, that "D." assumes too much. As one who is very anxious for the prosperity and efficiency of the society, I deeply regret to be obliged to say, that all the clergy of the Church of England are not zealous in its cause. I know a considerable number, although I much regret to be obliged to mention this fact, who are but cold whenever an occasion is suggested for promoting its interests and increasing its funds. Some, indeed, openly avow their indifference. What, you will ask, may be the reason of this backwardness? One reason I suspect to be, that at the meetings of the members of the society such persons do not experience the same excitement which they feel at the meetings of some other religious societies. Some men are apt, I think, to mistake animal heat for religious impressions, and will attend no meetings where they do not expect that this excitement will be produced. But this, if it be a reason, is not the only one why some clergymen hold back when they are requested to advocate the cause of the society. I will mention one, which I think to be well deserving the attention of the leading members of the society, and which has more than once been assigned, in my hearing, for not being forward to promote its prosperity, and that is the absence of onction from the reports. They are said to be "written on ice;" and it is added, that the grace of God is seldom acknowledged in them as being necessary for the success of the society's labours.* Now, this is a very grave charge, and, if well founded, should be corrected; and, as one of the incorporated members, I am glad of this opportunity of directing the attention of the society to it. I think there is some

Yet

This demand is the same in principle as another which is constantly made, that the ground of our Christian hope, the meritorious sufferings of our blessed Lord, should be not only the main subject of every discourse, but of almost every paragraph. An opposite practice is deemed to be "laying another foundation." surely this is not right, or just, or true, nor does it agree with St. Paul's preaching, either in theory or practice. He lays the foundation strong and sure, but he proceeds to build on it. He treats of all subjects on Christian principles, but does not deem it necessary in every sentence directly to refer to, and formally to recognise, the great verities which lie at the base of the gospel system. Surely, in all cases, the perpetual repetition of a formal and outward acknowledgment of particular truths seems to imply that they are not important enough, unless so repeated, to keep their hold on the heart, that they neither are, nor are felt to be, essential, the sole hinge on which the whole machine turns, the foundation, without which, the building crumbles into dust. As to the reports of societies, assuredly it must be desirable that they should express a deep and affectionate and fervent interest in the cause of Christ. But can it be believed that a society which exists for the propagation of the gospel of Christ Jesus can possibly look to any other source than the Divine blessing for success? Can they not protect themselves from such a charge except by constantly repeating that they do believe that, the disbelief of which would at once banish them from the pale of Christ's church? Is it possible that they should believe that it is their own arm which can win the victory, because they do not in every line say that God alone can prosper that which is undertaken in dutiful obedience to his commands, and in the desire to spread far and wide the knowledge of his scheme of salvation by Jesus Christ?―ED.

ground for the remark, though I do not consider it a valid reason for withholding my support. Some other missionary societies colour too highly, and a desire to avoid this error has probably caused ours to run into an opposite extreme; but surely it is not necessary for us, in seeking to steer clear of Scylla, to fall into Charybdis. In the hope that this letter may meet the eye of some influential member of the London committee, I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

A RURAL INCORPORATED MEMBER.

MY DEAR

ST. PATRICK.

--As your correspondent "H." has done me the honour to make some remarks on my inquiries relative to St. Patrick, it might be uncourteous if I did not take some notice of his observations. At the same time, I must entirely decline any lengthened controversy on the subject. I stated the result of my own investigations, not, I trust, in a dogmatical spirit, but with a view to leading others to similar inquiry, and I gave ample references to the sources from which I drew my information. If your correspondent "H." will take up the subject, and, after having thoroughly weighed the statements in the works I have referred to, will establish a series of conclusions on more tenable grounds than mine, and will bring out the truth, clear and well-defined and established, he will confer on no man a greater obligation than on myself. I will, therefore, at present only state a few brief reasons which prevent my being at all shaken in my opinions by anything which he has advanced. I am at present writing without my usual command of books, and therefore there are a few points which I can only allude to in the most cursory manner.

1. I cannot be much moved by his reference to Jerome. What* Jerome does say is simply that, when a young man, he saw in Gaul some Scots, (i. e., Irish,) whose nation were cannibals. How, therefore, Jerome's testimony proves that ships were uncommon to Ireland, I do not see, unless "H." would inform me how these Scots got to Gaul by land. But I need not trouble myself to answer "H." on this head, because in the second page of his letter he answers himself by allowing that "Ireland in the apostolic age and afterwards heard the gospel," which, I presume, was by the intervention of ships. I recommend to any one who doubts the intercourse with Ireland by ships, in early days, to study the fifth chapter of Stillingfleet's "Origines Ecclesiæ Anglicana," (I quote from memory,) and if they deny it still, to give the world the benefit of their answer to that writer.

In reference to the same point, I would just remark, that "H.” appears to me either not to have read, or to have read with great carelessness, the writing on which this controversy very much turns. He talks of St. Patrick's dream about a ship which should take him to Ireland, whereas, unless I have entirely mistaken the whole point of the confession, the ship which he was warned of by a dream was that

* Hieron. Advers. Joviniarium, p. 93, &c. Ed. Paris: 1579.

which took him from his first captivity in Ireland, (see the passage where this dream occurs,) and he says, "intermisi hominem," &c. "I left the man with whom (i. e., his master) I had lived so many years." As to the questions about the legions and Pharamond, they are minor points in my argument, only brought in to confirm other evidence, and I am not very solicitous about them. At a future season, however, if there should be need, I will enter into the consideration of this head.

2. As to the variety of stories about St. Patrick, how they prove that no such person ever existed, I am unable to perceive. Some of them, such as the Glastonbury story to which "H." alludes, are late and palpable forgeries, and most of the lives of the saint, as I have observed, are late in their composition. Indeed, this is one of my own strong points in leading me to my former conclusions. His variety of names (some of those which are quoted by "H." being only terms of endearment) appear to me beside the question, and to prove nothing, unless we grant that there was no such person as Daniel, because he was also called Belteshazzar, &c.

3. I will now only briefly remark on the two closing paragraphs of "H.'s" letter. Perhaps he will favour us with some reasons more cogent than a mere assertion for believing the confession and the epistle to Coroticus to be the forgery of some century from the seventh to the tenth, and especially shew us how far they are conceived in the spirit of that time. One strong argument for their genuineness appears their simplicity, and their utter unlikeness to any other account of the saint as dressed up by popish legends. Neander, if I remember rightly, has said, with much truth and acuteness, that the confession contains no miraculous events,-nothing which may not be "sehr gut psychologisch erklárt," which exactly meets the case. Until I have stronger grounds, then, for rejecting my former opinions, I cannot adopt the suggestion of "H.”

Lastly, as to Coroticus. to Coroticus. Notwithstanding the decisive tone adopted by "H.," I must say, that the clear impression on my mind is, that the person to whom the epistle is written is too strongly individualized and marked to allow of "H.'s" explanation. There is, indeed, a show of reason for adopting it, apparently like that adopted by Fluellen in his comparison of Macedon and Wales. There is a C, an R, a C, and a T in each of the words, and so far they tally well; but I think Coroticus must be taken as the proper name, and not the national appellation of an individual.

I can only, in conclusion, add again, that I mean to decline a controversy on the subject; but if " H.," with his extensive reading and his talent, will fairly set himself to the task, and produce anything really satisfactory on this great subject, he will confer a service on the world, and will much oblige, my dear -, yours truly,

THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE ON ST. PATRICK.

* N.B. I am quoting from memory only.

VOL, IX.-Feb. 1836.

Y

MOORE'S HISTORY OF IRELAND.

LETTER III.

SIR, Mr. Moore having, contrary to all history, endeavoured to fix the charge of Pelagianism upon the early Irish Christians, conducts us next to the mission of Palladius, whom Celestine is said to have "appointed bishop for the superintendence of" the "infant church" in Ireland. This, therefore, being an important event in the history of the Irish church, an examination somewhat in detail of the circumstances bearing upon that mission may not be altogether beside the purpose of these letters.

It is generally admitted, then, that Christianity was early planted in Ireland, though there may be no means left us of ascertaining by whom or at what exact period the gospel was first preached there. The fact that Ireland was never under the Roman dominion is of itself sufficient to account for the scanty notices which we possess of the early church of that country, because it was thus exempted from those persecutions for Christ's sake which afforded such large materials for the early history of other churches, and which brought to light the names and sufferings of martyrs and confessors, who else might have passed to their reward unnoticed in the records of men. Of this a striking example is afforded in the British church, the existence of which is far more certainly ascertained from the annals of the persecution under Domitian than by any notoriety it has derived from its acts during the two antecedent centuries. There are not wanting, however, intimations of the early existence of Christianity in Ireland. Thus Keating, in his "General History of Ireland," which professes to rest on the authority of certain ancient Irish records, asserts, that Cormac, King of Ulster, embraced Christianity about seven years before his death, which took place in the middle of the third century. "He was converted seven years before his death, during which time he refused to adore his false deities, and, instead of bowing to his idols, he did homage as a devout Christian to the true God; so that this prince was the third person who believed in the faith of Christ before the arrival of St. Patrick in Ireland." (Hist. of Ireland, p. 282.) Corroborative of this assertion, it may be added that the Annals of Tigernach throughout represent this king as being an object of dislike and persecution to the Druids; whilst, in the Dublin copy of the Annals of Inisfallen, edited by Dr. O'Conor, Cormac is expressly related to have repudiated idolatry. Dr. O'Conor indeed remarks (Rer. Hiber. Script., vol. ii., p. 53,) that though it is affirmed of Cormac that he abandoned his idols and worshipped the true God, yet that it does not follow that he embraced Christianity; and therefore suggests that he might have been one of a class of persons to be found in Gaul during the fifth century, who at the same time that they rejected the superstitions of Druidism, were in the habit of consulting persons who had a familiar spirit. It does not, however, appear obvious how occurrences usual in the fifth century and in a distant country can throw much light on what took place in Ireland two centuries earlier; so that of the two hypotheses that which assumes King Cormac to