The All-sustaining God, who dwells on high,
Ruling all worlds by laws immutable!

And yet, (if unreproved such wish may flow,)

Would that the Power who clothed thy form with light,
And gave thee strength and motion, might vouchsafe

To endue thee now with vocal utterance,

That in articulate language thou mightst tell
The wondrous secrets of those thousand isles,
The heavenly Cyclades, 'midst which thy bark,
Successively revisiting their coasts,
Thrids its bold voyage everlastingly!
Say, are the dwellers in those lucid realms
Vassals of Time, like man? or does their will,
Ever at war with Reason, stand exposed
To the keen blasts of Mutability?

Across their sunny paths, beloved by Faith,
Does Doubt her shadow throw, and Sorrow walk
A veiled companion by the side of Joy?

Or may we hope that, as in the heaven of heavens
With singleness of heart the Angels serve
Their King and God, so those inhabitants
Of shining orbs his high commands obey,
In love, steadily active? Even as thou,
Comet, no lawless wanderer of the skies,

As once was deemed, nor to the nations bringing
Discord and death, but with unerring speed

Calmly fulfilling thine appointed course,

Though hidden from some, to others still revealed,

Cheerfully shinest on admiring worlds.

Lyra Apostolica.

Γνοῖεν δ', ὡς δὴ δηρὸν ἐγὼ πολέμοιο πέπαυμαι.

NO. XXXII.

1. THE RELIGION OF THE MAJORITY.

TRUTH! What is Truth! Shall Israel's king or state
Bow down, in Salem's costly shrine, to Him

Therein enthroned between the Cherubim,
Because the Lord is God? Nay, we but kneeled
Before the Ark, by yonder vail concealed,
Because that solemn Ark to consecrate

The people chose. Now, if that people's voice,
With altered tones, in idol hymns rejoice,

Lo! we obey the mandate. Raise the cry—

Oh Baal, hear us! To the host on high

Pour the drink-offering! Moloch's burning throne,
Or Egypt's monsters, Israel's state shall own,

If Israel's tribes such deities demand.

Truth! What is truth? Shall Levi dare to brand

As false the creed the Gentile deems divine,
Or point to miracle, or mystic sign

VOL. IX.-Jan. 1836.

F

E. T.

34

Wrought, as he dreams, to prove the truth of yore?
Perish the thought: we heed such dreams no more;
Let Levi, let his brethren, learn that now

Kings to their people's Gods—to them alone-will bow.

2.-NATIONAL PROPERTY.

HARK! Baal's praise resounds from countless choirs-
See! gladdening nations hail his festal day-

While round the Lord's high shrine, the Levites' fires,
Some seven poor thousands, with Elijah, stay.
Then say, can they require that scanty band,
Nay, can their puny sect presume to hold
The wealth by monarchs erst, with lavish hand,
Down on Moriah's favoured altars told?
What kings have given, kings again may claim.
Then onward! to the Temple! In the name
Of David's line, of Judah's kingly throne,
Tear down th' inlaying gold of Solomon.
Nor view, ye timid few, our course with fear-
We reverence, reared, the shrine we would not rear,
And take not all. With thankfulness receive
That portion of your own we deign to leave;
And let the many, from your surplus store,
Mould their own idols. We demand no more.
Speak ye of rights? What right, in reason's eye,
Outweighs the sanction of a nation's nod?
Who shall condemn a people? Who deny
That people's privilege to chuse their God?

3.-NATIONAL DEGRADATION.

GOD of our Israel! by our favoured sires

Once known, once honoured! And is this the creed
Hailed, in their children's councils, with the meed
Of godless acclamation; while the fires

Burn low on Thy dread altar, and around

Th' advancing Gentile treads the hallowed ground?
Yea, it is thus; and nerveless rulers hear,
Unhallowed triumph kindling in their eyes,

And catch fresh ardour from each maddening cheer
To urge the spoiler toward his glittering prize.
Yea, worst of all: not Bethel's priest alone,

Or Bel's adorer swells that plaudit's tone.

Thine own apostate worshipper, to Thee,
Mocking or self-deceived, who bends the knee,

Dares join the clamour; dares, though sworn to wait,
A faithful guard, before Thy vineyard's gate,
Tear down her fence, and bid the forest boar
Uproot Thy cherished vine on green Ierne's shore.

4.--PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH.

AND where is now the Tishbite? Where is he
Should wave his master's robe, and call on Thee,

The Lord God of Elijah? All is o'er.

And while the Gentile scorns Thine awful frown,
Th' apostate digs Thy hallowed altar down,
We see no sign, we hear no prophet more.
Nay, Bride of Heav'n! thou art not all bereft,
Though this world's prince against thy power rebels ;
By thrones, dominions, wealth, and honours left,
Within thee still the ETERNAL SPIRIT dwells,
Thy pledged possession. Seek nor seer nor sign,
True Temple of that Habitant Divine ;
Thy part is simple. Fearless still proclaim
The truth to men who loath her very name.
Proclaim that HE, to Paul in glory shewn,
E'en from that glory, calls thy wrongs His own.
And, if thy night be dark,—if tempests roll
Dread as the visions of thy boding soul,-
Still, in thy dimness, watch, and fast, and pray ;

And wait the Bridegroom's call ;—the burst of opening day.

CORRESPONDENCE.

The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions
of his Correspondents.

MOORE'S HISTORY OF IRELAND.

LETTER II.

HAVING in a former communication protested against the idea that papists in their missionary efforts among the heathen are regulated by the practice of the "early Christians," and having shewn also how far Mr. Moore is to be trusted in his use of old authors, or in his allusions to ancient customs, I proceed to give some further examples of his capabilities as an historian. In his account of Pelagius and Celestius, Mr. M. observes (pp. 206, 207)—

"That the latter was a Scot or native of Ireland is almost universally admitted; but of Pelagius, it is, in general, asserted that he was a Briton, and a monk of Bangor in Wales. There appears little doubt, however, that this statement is erroneous, and that the monastery to which he belonged was that of Bangor, or rather Banchor, near Carrickfergus. Two of the most learned, indeed, of all the writers respecting the heresy which bears his name, admit Pelagius, no less than his disciple, to have been a native of Ireland." Then follows, in a note,-" Garnier, in his Dissert. upon Pelagianism; and Vossius in his Histor. Pelag. The latter says, Pelagius professione monachus, natione non Gallus Brito, ut Danaus putavit; nec Anglo-Britannus, ut scripsit Balæus, sed Scotus.-Lib. i. cap. 3."

Now, further than as a matter of literary curiosity, it might be considered scarcely worth while to inquire whether or not Pelagius and Celestius were one or both of them Irishmen; yet it may not be altogether useless to shew that Mr. M. is one of the last persons one can look to for a decision of this question. It is true, as it happens, that Vossius does pronounce Pelagius to be " a Scot;" but, with the exception of a quotation from Jerome, which he seems to misunder

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.

66

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 arma 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."