stand, he does not give a single authority for his ipse dixit, though his assertion stands opposed to Bede, to Prosper, and to Augustine, who all possessed better opportunities for information on such a subject than Vossius. With respect to Mr. M.'s other "learned" writer, Garnier, it is odd enough that he is so far from admitting Pelagius to have been "a native of Ireland," that he expressly decides that question to be a matter of uncertainty. After giving the opinions of Augustine and others on that point, he concludes" id unum certo constat, ex transmarinis Britannis Albinum hunc canem, ut loquitur Hieronymus, Scotorum pulsibus prægravatum, advectum fuisse." (Garnier, Dissert. i., de primis Auctor. et Defens. Hæres. Pelag., cap. 4.) Furthermore, instead of allowing Pelagius to have been an Irish monk, Garnier does not admit him to have been a monk at all in Mr. M.'s sense of that word. And, to complete the story, the monastery of "Banchor near Carrickfergus," to which Mr. M., in his zeal for the honour and glory of "ould Ireland," will have Pelagius to have been attached, had no existence, except in the imagination of the poet, until more than a century after Pelagius' death. Mr. M., therefore, ought in fairness to have told us all this. As, also, he lays such stress on the authority of Garnier, he should have stated that this author is of opinion that Celestius was a native of Rome, or at least, of Campania, and not of Ireland; and that he was born about the year 370, exactly one year after he had, according to Mr. M., written three edifying letters to his parents from the monastery of Tours, A.D. 369, that monastery being not then founded. It may be further noted that the expression "de monasterio," which Mr. M. gives from Gennadius' account of Celestinus (not " Celestius," as Mr. M. has it), most naturally indicates, not the place from whence the letters in question were written, as Mr. M. interprets it, but the subject of them. Whether or not the letters afford an incidental proof of the art of writing being then known to the Irish, (Moore, p. 208,) will, of course, depend upon the fact of their having been written by Celestius at all; and if written by him, it must then be determined whether or not the native country of his parents was Ireland.

Your readers may, perhaps, be tempted to think that such history as this might as well have been left to find its level among other like papistical records; but on looking a little farther into the matter, they may see a probable reason why Mr. M. has indulged in all this questionable disquisition. Mr. M., as a strenuous advocate for the opinion that all the orthodoxy of the ancient church of Ireland was derived from Rome, must have some interest in identifying Pelagius and Celestius with his native country: for though it may be impossible to demonstrate that the gospel of Christ was unknown in Ireland before the mission of Palladius, yet if it can be shewn that both Pelagius and Celestius were Irishmen (all the rest of their history being unmentioned), there would be great natural plausibility in the supposition that the doctrines of these heretics would certainly be propagated by them in the land of their nativity. Hence Mr. M. writes

* Tertullian, in like manner, wrote a Treatise," De Pallio.”

"From some phrases of St. Jerome in one of his abusive attacks on Pelagius, importing that the heresy professed by the latter was common to others of his countrymen, it has been fairly concluded, that the opinions in question were not confined to these two Irishmen, but, on the contrary, had been spread to some extent among that people. It is, indeed, probable, that whatever Christians Ireland could boast at this period, were mostly followers of the tenets of their two celebrated countrymen; and the fact that Pelagianism had, at some early period, found its way into this country is proved by a letter from the Roman clergy to those of Ireland, in the year 640, wherein, adverting to some indications of a growth of heresy at that time, they pronounce it to be a revival of the old Pelagian virus." (Moore, pp. 208, 209.)

As we are not specifically referred to that " abusive attack" upon Pelagius in which "some phrases" import that the doctrines of the heretic were professed by " others of his countrymen," we have no means of judging how "fairly" it has been concluded from Jerome that Pelagianism " had even spread to some extent among the [Irish] people." On that head, therefore, Mr. M. must not complain if his assertion be taken only as an assertion; each individual taking, at the same time, the liberty of balancing probabilities for himself. It may, on the other hand, be asserted that, according to Garnier, there is no historical reason for concluding that either Pelagius or Celestius visited the British Islands after they had adopted their heretical notions; so that the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of the Irish Christians could in no way be affected by the personal influence of "these two Irishmen." Let us proceed, therefore, to examine the proof afforded by the letter of the Roman to the Irish clergy," that Pelagianism had, at some early period, found its way into" Ireland. This proof is supposed to be contained in the expression, " et hoc quoque cognovimus, quod virus Pelagianæ hereseos apud vos denuo reviviscit." (p. 209, note.) If, however, this passage be taken with the context, the "Pelagian virus" is alluded to only in such a manner as to lead to the conclusion that the heresy, which had been utterly exploded elsewhere, had begun to make its appearance in Ireland. Let your readers judge: " et hoc quoque......denuo reviviscit; quod omnino hortamur, ut a vestris mentibus hujusmodi venenatum superstitionis facinus auferatur. Nam qualiter ipsa quoque execranda heresis damnata est, latere vos non debet; quia non solum per istos ducentos annos abolita est, sed et quotidie à nobis perpetuo anathemate sepulta damnatur; et hortamur, ne quorum arina combusta sunt, apud vos eorum cineres suscitentur." (Bede, lib. ii., c. 19; Usher. Vet. Epist. Hibern. Sylloge, Ep. ix.) But even supposing Mr. M.'s interpretation of this passage to be the true one, it should be borne in mind that the Roman clergy received their information from persons who, according to Mr. M. (p. 270) had, in this very letter, wilfully misrepresented the practice of the Irish Christians; why, therefore, are these false informants here stealthily produced as trustworthy witnesses in a matter of doctrine? Most persons who had not a cause to serve would, in Mr. M.'s circumstances, have naturally taken the side of

I find Dr. Lanigan (Eccl. Hist., vol. ii., p. 15, second edit.) takes the same view of this letter. He observes, also, that "there is not, in any Irish document, the least allusion to any Pelagian sect formerly existing in Ireland.”

charity; and, having given the accused party the benefit of that doubt with which the testimony of a witness convicted of falsehood is to be received, would altogether have acquitted the ancient Irish of this charge of heresy. Had Mr. M. any misgivings on this point when he forgot to throw out the least hint as to where the letter he here quotes is to be seen? If this question should seem to convey any unjust suspicions, Mr. M. will, doubtless, bear in mind that he belongs to a communion which has of late acquired an unhappy notoriety for equivocations and mental reservations, if for nothing worse. Mr. M. may be assured, also, that such suspicions are not likely to be allayed by the unhesitating and somewhat crafty manner in which he has introduced Pope Celestine as the party who sent German and Lupus on a mission to England " for the express purpose of freeing" this country "from the infection of" the Pelagian" heresy" (p. 209). Roundly to assert, indeed, as undoubted matter of fact, that which is questioned or denied, may secure to Mr. M. the credit of being an unscrupulous partisan; but it will not gain him the reputation even of a well-informed, and conscientious historian. C. E. G.

THE OCTOBER FESTIVAL.

MY DEAR SIR,-It may be proper for me to trouble you with a few lines, in answer to your correspondent "Luther."

Your correspondent censures me for not having "condescended to inform him what law of the Church was broken by either those who preached against popery on the 4th of October, or those who submitted to public consideration reasons that would render that an appropriate subject for their sermon on that day." Now, as I neither asserted nor insinuated, of those who so preached, or of those who so submitted their reasons, that they broke, in so doing, any law of the Church, your correspondent has, in this instance, to use his own (not very elegant) expression, "built up a house of cards for me," and to him I will leave the triumph and delight of knocking it down. What I stated was, that the appointment of a festival by mere presbyters was contrary to the principles of the universal church of Christ, and I gave my authority for the statement by referring to an apostolical father, who affirms that nothing is to be done without the decision of the bishop. This principle your correspondent ridicules. Of course I cannot answer a sneer; but when he thinks to expose the absurdity of this principle by asking, whether the bishop chose the subject of my sermon last Sunday, I beg to reply, that the bishop, so far, chooses the subject of all my sermons; that he knows that, as a conscientious clergyman, in obedience to the canon of 1571, I shall not " sume to deliver anything from the pulpit, as of moment, to be religiously observed and believed by the people, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and collected out of the same doctrine by the catholic fathers and bishops of the ancient Church." Within these limits he has, by the fact of instituting me to my living, given me permission to use my own dis

cretion. When I intend, in my preaching, to violate these rules, I shall honestly give notice to his lordship; and he, I trust, will suspend me. I hope your worthy correspondent will not take offence if I suggest to him a subject for his next Sunday's discourse, and for his own serious consideration, by quoting the following passage from Bishop Hurd:

"In all moral matters, something-nay, much-must be left to the fairness and honesty of the mind. Without this principle, the plainest rule of life may be evaded or abused; and with it even that hard saying of loving our enemies, which is near akin to this of meekness," (the subject of his lordship's discourse,) "is easily understood, and may be readily applied."

Your correspondent proceeds to affirm that no festival was appointed. Except by public authority, no festival can be appointed, so as to expose to the penalties of the law those who refuse to observe it. What we complained of was, that presbyters should appoint it in their own parishes without having received any commands to that effect from their bishops; so that appointed and observed are, in this case, so far as the clergy are concerned, synonymous terms. Does your correspondent mean to say that no festival was observed? If he does, I have only to regret that, by my combat with a shadow, I disturbed his serenity. He is, however, mistaken, if he supposes that, if a festival had been observed, no special service could have been used, because no special service was appointed by authority. In the present lax state of our discipline, unauthorized hymns are frequently introduced into our churches, and unauthorized prayers offered before and after sermon. These might have been rendered special; but "Luther" says there was no such festival as that of which we dreamed, and, therefore, all controversy on this head shall cease between us. But if ever an attempt is made to get up a festival of the sort, though your correspondent ridicules us for referring to primitive practice, he may thank me for pointing out to him a source from which he may form his principle of conduct. He professes respect for the canons of 1603; and from what the 72nd canon decrees with respect to fasts, he may understand what the church intends as to festivals. canon runs thus:-

The

"No minister or ministers shall, without licence and direction of the bishop of the diocese first obtained and had under his hand and seal, appoint or keep any solemn fasts, either publicly or in any private houses, other than such as by law are, or by public authority shall be, appointed; nor shall be wittingly present at any of them, under pain of suspension for the first fault, of excommunication for the second, and of deposition from the ministry for the third."

Let your correspondent bear in mind the rule I have quoted from Bishop Hurd while he reads this canon; and if, I repeat, at some future period, an attempt is made to keep an unauthorized feast, he will probably be found on our side, although I cannot hope that "in main principles" he will ever agree with us.

Your correspondent is rather severe upon me because I said that it was proposed" to celebrate the publication of Bishop Coverdale's Bible as the first translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar tongue." It appears that, in making this statement, I misrepresented him,-unin

tentionally, of course, since I know not who he is. The newspapers certainly endeavoured to impress the public mind with the notion that, before the publication of Bishop Coverdale's Bible, the Church of England, like the modern Church of Rome, had withheld the Scriptures from the people; and I addressed myself to contradict this assertion, by shewing that, until within 150 years of the Reformation, this had not been the case; and that the principle was not even then acknowledged by the Church, although it may have been acted upon by individual presbyters, who, nevertheless, were sometimes censured by their superiors, as in the case of Archbishop Thursby.* Your correspondent's wrath, however, is excited, because I made the statement as given above, and he pronounces my error to be "really too bad." "Luther" tells us that "the day was" (not observed) "but remarked, as the tricentenary of the completion of the first PRINTED version of the whole Scriptures in the English tongue." The word PRINTED is in capital letters, and, therefore, on this word, I presume, he thinks the whole weight of the affair rests. Had I thought so, I certainly should not have troubled you with the concluding part of my former letter. I do not for a moment doubt that it was this circumstance which rendered the day remarkable to your correspondent, "Luther;" and if he had kept a festival, it would have been to celebrate that event. But whether this was the event "remarked' by all who "remarked" the day, I may fairly be permitted to doubt, since I have before me one of the many hundred medals which were distributed in Birmingham and its neighbourhood on the 4th of October, on which the inscription is as follows:-"To commemorate that glorious event, the publication of the first English Bible." Here, certainly, we have nothing about PRINTED; but we have a statement very similar to that which I am censured for having attributed to our opponent's statement, calculated to make the erroneous impression I deprecated, and which fully justified me in laying open what your correspondent (not very courteous in his expressions) calls my "mare's nest. But still I will, in all humility, and to save further trouble, admit that I was in error; but then I must take the liberty of appealing to Mr. Horne, whom your correspondent considers as "the prime mover in the affair," to prove that if I was wrong, "Luther" was not right. Mr. Horne first moved in the affair by the publication of a little tract, not compiled with his usual skill, of which the title is—" A Protestant Memorial for the Commemoration, on the 4th of October, 1835, of the Third Centenary of the Reformation, and of the Publication of the first entire Protestant English Version of the Bible." Mr. Horne clearly lays the stress upon Protestant, and not upon printed. If, then, my unintentional alteration of the terms used by the founder of the imaginary feast was "too bad," the alteration made by your correspondent, "Luther" was much worse. His alteration was simply made for the not very charitable purpose of making his adversary appear ridiculous; whereas, if I had adopted the terms used by

By an error of the press, copied by "Luther," he was called in my letter "Thurby."