« PreviousContinue »
Dr. Hussey, in his pastoral letter, published in 1797, expresses himself in a stronger language; and, indeed, it is difficult for a loyal subject to read that publication without feeling, that, especially at the time of its appearance, it could not tend to produce loyalty, or even submission to the Government of the country, in the minds of those to whom it was addressed. Whilst such impressions, so excited, are rankling in the minds of men, very little regard can be paid to addresses of the nature to which your Lordship refers me. They are given to the winds, as long as the priests of the See of Rome shall think fit to hold up to their flocks, that all who do not yield obedience to that See are guilty of rebellion against it; are not to be considered as members of the Church of Christ; and therefore are not in the eyes of the vulgar at least) to be considered as Christians. I am fully persuaded, that those who listen to their doctrines will never bear Christian charity towards those who are so represented; and will never be loyal and dutiful subjects of a King, thus held out to them as himself a rebel. --In fine, my Lord, those who clamour for liberty of conscience, (which in truth they have,) must be taught to allow liberty of conscience to others; and those who desire complete participation must treat those with whom they desire to participate as brothers. Until, therefore, the priests of the Romish persuasion shall think it their duty to preach, honestly and conscientiously, the great doctrine of universal charity in Christ; until they shall, in all their instructions to those under their care, represent, honestly and conscientiously, all who sincerely believe in Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, to be brethren in Christ, however mistaken they may suppose any of them to be in certain points of faith; until they shall teach their flocks that desiring liberty to think for themselves, they ought also to permit others to think for themselves, and not to murder them, because they differ in religious opinions; peace never can be established in the land: and the loyal addresses of Dr. Troy and Dr. Coppinger will, as I have before said, be given to the winds. They can have no effect; they may indeed reach the eyes or thie cars, but never will enter the hearts of those to whom they are addressed. There are parts of your letter to which I will not advert, because I cannot without pain, or without giving painu. I have the honour to be, &c. &c &c.
REDESDALE. To the Right Ilon. the Eurl of Fingall, &c. &c. &c.
ANSWER BY THE EARL OF FINGALL.
Aug. 27, 1803.
I feel indeed much concern that any part of the letter I had the honour of addressing to your Lordship should have given you pain. You need not, I hope, my Lord, any assurance that nothing could be more foreign to my intentions. This I took the liberty of requesting Mr. Wickham, whom I had the honour of seeing this morning, to do me the favour of mentioning to your Lordship on the earliest occasion. I merely stated to your Lordship what my own feelings were, and what I have always found to be the opinion of the Catholics. I do not apprehend, that, in expressing any further wish of the Catholic body, which it is impossible should not be entertained, I hinted at any discontents; on the contrary, I did assure, and do now assure your Lordship, we are ready to make every sacrifice, encounter every danger, for the defence of the King and Constitution, and for the preservation of the peace. Those who are most affected by any remaining restrictions, it is well known, have never excited clamour or tumult, but have always been foremost in opposing them. I cannot attempt to vindicate all those who have at different times addressed the Catholics; but the late exhortations, I must beg leave to say, are intended and calculated to inspire sentiments of loyalty, obedience, and Christian charity: and they will, I trust, have that effect. Such have been the instructions I have constantly heard given by the Catholic Clergy to their flocks. Nothing to excite illwill or dislike to any person, on account of his religious belief, but the most perfect brotherly love and affection to all. Your Lordship will, I hope, allow me to repeat my regret that any thing I have written should have given you pain, or me reason to feel it, which I should, in a very high degree indeed, if I was conscious of having intentionally advanced any thing that would appear improper or unreasonable to your Lordship. I have the honour to be, &c.
FINGALL. To the Right Han. Lord Redesdale, &c. &c.
REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.
REVIEW OF OVERTON AND DAUBENY.
(Concluded from Page 106.)
ding chapters of both these works, we may fairly presume, that we have, by this time, enabled our readers, not only to form a competent idea of the merits of each, but to pass a judgment respecting the principal questions, which are agitated in them. We shall, therefore, think it right to be more brief in our account of what remains.
This chapter is on the subject of good works, and is divided by Mr. Overton into three sections, and by Mr. Daubeny into two. Mr. O's. design in it is to show, that he and his friends are teachers of a more strict morality thán is insisted upon by the generality of the regular clergy; and that it is this circumstance which has given offence to their brethren. A most probable, truly, as well as most charitable conclusion! If it had been alleged against the Calvinistic ministers of the Church of England, that, in holding their peculiar dactrines, they desagned to depreciate good works, and to draw off their hearers from the performance of them, Mr. O. would have been eager in repelling the accusation as ground}ess and unjust; yet he can deliberately bring the same accusation against the great body of the clergy, and pursue it through 80 pages of his work. “ The whole chapter," as Mr. D. observes, “when taken together, contains no more than the unqualified eulogy pronounced by Mr. 0. on himself and his friends, as ministers of the Church, contrasted with the indiscriminate condemnation, which he has thought proper to pass on those against whom be has taken up his pen.” It is, in fact, for the most part, a declamatory accusation, founded in error, and applied in uncharitableness. From a few insulated passages, taken from the writings of his opponents, and perverted froin their intended meaning, a conclusion is drawn for the whole body of the clergy, who are represented as bringing the two tables of the decalogue into a shameful state of degradation. “ Not only a want of decency, of candour, veracity, and Christian charity, is laid to their charge; but they stand condemned, in a body, of still
higher crimes; of vindicating and even pleading for the violation of the laws of the land, the laws of the Church, the admonitions of their ordinary, their own solemn oath, and every motive that can bind the conscience, or influ« ence the conduct of an honest man; together with possessing unconstitutional principles, destructive of order and government.” We have already remarked upon the inconsistency, which is so apparent in Mr. O's. charging the same persons, whom he blames for making good works a condition of justification and salvation, with being too lax in enforcing the sanctions of morality. For our parts, we cannot conceive, that the practice of lity can be by any means so effectually enforced, as by shewing that it is the indispensable condition of our sal. vation; nor can we conceive, that any thing can so loosen the obligations of morality, as to persuade men that their state hereafter is not entirely dependent on their behavia our here.
In his reply to the second section of this chapter, Mr. D. enters into a long, perhaps somewhat too long, defence of his “ Letter to Mrs. H. More,” in which he had objected to her stating, that “the duties, which grow out of the doctrines of Christianity, are to be considered as the natural and necessary effect of faith.” Mr. D. very fully and satisfactorily defends his meaning in that letter ; but admits, that he made á verbal mistake in using the words
true faith,” when by true faith he did not mean the “ true and lively faith” referred to in our 19th Article, but merely a true belief in, and firm reliance on, the promises of God in Christ.' Though this dispute between Mr. D. and Mrs. More may seem a dispute about words only, we should have thought it right to enter more fully into the merits of it, if our limits had permitted. To Mr. O. we may say, that, if Mrs. More's position be admitted, as he strenuously 'contends it ought to be, his own position in opposition to the generally received one) that faith is the sole condition of justification and consequent salvation, 'must be considered as a mere verbal dispute, which, by a due attention to the meaning of words, inight easily have been avoided.
It is contended, that faith alone is the condition of justification. But if it be true, as is further contended, that faith necessarily produces good works, where is the consistens cy, and indeed the meaning, of denying, that good works are a condition of justification? For, in the sense in which faith is affirmed to be the condition of justificas tion, it evidently comprehends good works; consequently, when faith and good works are considered separately, and as distinct from each other, good works must be a condition of justification, as well as faith. But though we consider this dispute as a verbal one, we do not think it of trivial importance. Incorrectness of language, if permitted to pass unnoticed, often leads to errors of opinion, and sometimes to dangerous errors. Mr. D. therefore was, we think, fully justified in remarking on Mrs. More's position, which we are sorry to see her re-iterating, that “the duties of Christianity are the natural and necessary productions of the doctrines of it,” as an incorrectness of language, “ tending to confound the established operations of nature with the ordinary dispensations of divine grace, and thereby to lead to a conclusion unfavourable to the christian cause.”
In this chapter, to which Mr. Daubeny has no correspondent one, Mr. 0. states the reason of his adherence to what he calls, the genuine doctrines of the Church of England; i.e. to her doctrines as understood by himself and his party. He then enters on a general apology for her doctrines as so understood, which, of course, being principally an apology for Calvinism, is little more than a repetition of what he had said before. class," he observes, “ of the difficult doctrines of our Articles, is supposed to arise from their inclination to Calvinism. But it will be hard to prove that even this aflords any proper ground of objection to these forms."
Does it not seem inore safe, and more becoming, in a contest between the sovereignty of God and the pow. ers of man, to make the abatement on man's
than on God's? Whatever difficulties our ignorance may occasion in the particular application of thein; whatever absurdities a partial, a perverted, or an over-extended view of the subject may present, the fundamental principles on which the Calvinistic system rests, are incontrovertible.". This, we suppose, is intended
as a cover for what is elsewhere called moderate Calvinism. In answer to it we beg leave to observe, as we may with truth, that the fundamental principles of Calvinisin, far from being