recorded by a rightful execution. Thus we have brought out no fresh fountain in the wilderness; but merely cleared away the sand from the wells of Isaac, which the Philistines have stopped up. Nor am I pleasant jester nor courtly wit, as is the case with many prelates of the age, who make a craft and science of CHRIST's simple truth, who have brought the din and bustle of the courts of law into the holy place, and the publicity of the shows into our secret discipline, till, at length, there are two exhibitions (so to say) of Christian doctrine, as different from each other as public spectacle is from privacy-ridicule from reverence-the theatre from the habitation of the Spirit. Ye are witnessess, and God also, (as the apostle says,) that I have no part in this; yea, rather am open to the charge of bluntness and rusticity than servility, so as, at times, even to deal harshly with my eager advocates, when they appear to me to act inconsiderately. This was evident in the course of your late determination respecting me, when your enthusiasm ran so high as to force me, in spite of my protestations, upon this sacred seat of archiepiscopal, or, shall I say, kingly power. Ye forced me upon it, I say, with an impropriety; and so angry was I with some of the more forward among you, that they have gone over to the other side, and hate him whom they loved. For I am resolved to look to your profit rather than my own popularity....... What, then, is the source of this popularity? It, as it seems you demand it of me, I will tell you. The chief reason is, that you brought me to this city. You naturally make much of your own judgment, and set off to the best advantage your own bargain. Every one sets much by his own, whether lands, or children, or opinions; and feels a spontaneous indulgence towards his own work. Next, men cannot help respecting one who is free from forwardness, violence, and theatrical display; and, on the contrary, retiring and unassuming, and solitary and simple in the crowd of men,-in a word, who has what the schools call high views; by which I do not mean any artificial and secular wisdom, but pure and spiritual principles. I do not hide in order to be sought out; to be thought worthy of higher honour, (as persons who first shew a little, and then quickly hide again their beauty of person,) but to evidence, by a quiet deportment, that, in truth, I do not desire the post of dignity and pre-eminence. In the third place, you sympathize in my sufferings from external and internal enemies. Accordingly you are indignant, and distressed, and perplexed how to aid me in my persecutions; and, therefore, have nothing left but to feel compassion for me. And compassion towards an object we respect is a strong bond of affection. Such is the secret of your attachment to me........ As to the attacks which are made upon me, I feel they are from jealousy, and so dismiss them. But, since I know that some of yourselves are pained, I will say a few words about them. Truly, was it some low and human motive-ambition, e.g., of this chair-which led me hither at the first, with my grey head, and wrinkled brow, and my limbs shrivelled by age and sickness, and which now sustains me amid these insults against me, surely I should blush to see heaven and earth, as the ancients word it; I should blush to look upon this venerable chair, and this sacred meeting-this holy congregation, which I have recently raised, which was opposed by so fierce an array of the evil powers, as even to be broken up before it was well joined in one, and done to death ere it was born, and which now again is slowly moulding after Christ's pattern. Nay, I should feel shame at my own toils and troubles, and this coarse garb of mine, and the solitary retirement of my past life, and my poverty of means, and my frugal fare, which has been like the raven's.........But, it seems, this is incredible to most men. Be it so; but what is that to me, who am desirous principally, or solely, that it should be true?...... Though it is not believed by the many, it is by Almighty God. Yea rather it is clearly made manifest to Him who knows all things before they arise, who fashions each heart, and enters into all its secret stirrings and motives....... But enough on this subject, or perhaps too much. Now, O my flock, I address myself to you. Be to me my glory and joy, and crown of boasting, as the apostle says. Be ye my answer to those who criticise me, for ye are my work and deed; and "deeds are stronger than words," as it is said............O ye citizens of a great city, the greatest save one alone, if not the greatest, be chief in your obedience also, lest your greatness be but a disgrace; for surely it is a disgrace to be so interested in the races of the circus, and the theatre, and the course, and the hunt, as to make these diversions the business of your life, so that the first among cities becomes but the city of idlers and triflers. O may you put away all these things, and become the city of God! May you be graven on the palms of his hands, and, at length, be presented with us to the Great Guardian of all cities, in glorious triumph, through Jesus Christ, &c. Let this suffice by way of contrasting the orthodox with the heretical spirit in the days of Gregory Nazianzen; and, in closing the subject, let us reflect, with thankfulness, that, many and painful as are the religious contests and divisions of the present day, the topics of dispute which engage the public mind are not of that solemn theological character which marked the Arian controversy, and made it a question of miserable perplexity to serious men whether (as Gregory implies in a foregoing extract) to speak or be silent. ONE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. DEAR MR. EDITOR,-I wish you would give your readers a hint on the impropriety of applying the title of catholic to Romanists of the present day. There are two passages in your May Number which induce me to call your attention to this point,-one is in the paper of your correspondent Miroveoλoyos, where he says, (p. 581,) that Oriel College, Oxford, was founded "at a time when the catholic church was the only form of religion avowed either in Oxford or elsewhere in the king's dominions." It is easy to see, however, that the writer of this sentence knew well what the catholic church is, and therefore I do not adduce his use of the term as an example of the abuse I wish to call your attention to, but merely as having led to my writing you this letter in consequence of a conversation with a friend who misunderstood his meaning. But in another page of your Magazine, (p. 602,) your correspondent "R. W. B." does, I think, fall into the error in question, when he distinguishes the schools he speaks of into the schools of the church; 2. of the catholics; 3. of the dissenters. Now really, Sir, this does sound somewhat odd, and perhaps the following observations may open the eyes of some of your liberal readers (not meaning by any means to include your friend, "R. W. B.," under that "denomination,") to the evil of such a concession, for such the Roman catholics always consider it. In the present day the words papist and popery are regarded as offensive; and one is compelled to look out for some other which will not hurt the feelings of such as adhere to the communion of the Pope. Romanist is a term which, though not quite regarded as a nickname, is, nevertheless, not altogether palatable; but let us hear what a leading member of the sect has proposed to substitute for it. Mr. Butler, writing to Dr. Southey, in his tenth letter, says : "The title which you give to the chapter of your work which I have now to consider, is, View of the Papal System.' The words popery, papal, and papist, being particularly offensive to Roman catholics, in the sense in which these words are generally used by our adversaries, I have altered it by substituting the word Roman catholic' for 'papal.' In the oath which the legislature has prescribed to us, we are styled Roman catholics.' On this account it has always been a rule with me to denote, in my publications, the religious denomination of Christians to which I belong by the appellation of Roman catholics."+ Well, then, let this be their appellation; we have no great objection to it for the sect to which Mr. Butler belonged is, doubtless, the Roman church,—a true church, and a part of the catholic church, and therefore is fairly enough described by the title of Roman catholic; but after having made him this concession-after having been told that he always made it a rule in his publications to call his own denomination Roman catholics, one certainly did not expect, in the very next sen * Query-What is this objectionable sense?-i. e., what do protestants mean by the word papist more than they mean by the word Roman catholic, which should render the former so peculiarly objectionable? Is Mr. B. ashamed of the doctrine of papal supremacy implied in the former term? + Book of the Roman Catholic Church, p. 99. tence, to find Mr. Butler turn short upon us with the following argu ment: 66 "But is it not entitled to this honourable appellation ?"-[i. e., to the honourable appellation of Roman catholic, if we look to what precedes; but a different appellation, as we shall see, is meant by what follows.] Speaking of the Arians, St. Augustine observes, that they called their's the catholic church, and wished others so to call it. But,' continues this great man, if any stranger comes into their cities and inquires of them for a catholic church, to which churches do they themselves point? Certainly not to their own.' May I not ask, whether, if a stranger were to inquire, even from a prelate of your church, where the catholics assembled for divine worship, he would point to his own cathedral, or to any of his parochial churches? Would he not point to the place of worship in which those whom the laws terms Roman catholics, are used to assemble? Would not the same answer be given if the inquiry was made of any protestant in any other condition of life? Would not this be the case all over the world? And does it not incontrovertibly shew the universal feelings of persons of every creed, that mine is the church catholic,―the church universally diffused ?" Here, then, we see the use which Romanists make of our politeness; they first cry out against the appellation of papist as hurtful to their feelings we apologize, and ask what name they would have us call them. Roman catholic is proposed as a name sanctioned by the law of the land, and we assent to it as a proper enough term; but no sooner have we done so than the word Roman is lopped off, and our concession is ascribed to "a universal feeling," a kind of instinct or moral sense pervading every breast, and giving its testimony, like the still small voice of conscience, to the catholicity of the church of Rome. It is not my purpose to answer Mr. Butler's argument, if argument it can be called; I merely wish to point out the dishonest use that is made of our conceding to Romanists the title of catholic, with a view to shew your readers that the danger of the concession is not altogether imaginary. I remember once, in a conversation I had with a very ignorant Roman catholic old woman, using an argument in jest, which is exactly similar to Mr. Butler's, and may serve as a retort upon it. I had no intention of urging it upon her seriously; but I afterwards found that it had a considerable effect upon her mind, and that she had actually consulted the priest upon the difficulty. She was talking of the authority of the church,-" Nonsense," said I, "what business have you to talk of the church? Does not everybody know that protestants go to church, and that your people always go to chapel?" Now, if there be any Roman catholic who thinks that there is anything more than a quibble in Mr. Butler's reasoning, let him point out the fallacy of my argument, (for I admit that it is a sophism,) and he will find a fallacy of exactly the same kind in the argument of his champion. Another very common use which Roman catholic disputants make of this concession, is frequently met with in conversation, and has often seriously shaken the minds of protestants, at least in Ireland, where such weapons are very freely used in controversy. It is this: "You confess, in your creed, that except a man believe faithfully the catholic faith, he cannot be saved; you confess, also, your belief in the holy catholic church. Now, we have the catholic faith, we (as Mr. Butler says) are universally known as the catholic church; therefore, by your own shewing, you have cast yourself out of the pale of salvation;-you have separated from that church in which you nevertheless profess to believe as an article of your faith." I cannot, at this moment, refer to any writer who has seriously employed this argument, although I feel sure that I have seen it in print more than once, and I think it is, notwithstanding its sophistry, a better argument than that which Mr. Butler has ventured to publish.' And this leads me to notice another concession we make to our enemies in the title we consent to give ourselves. The appellations of established church and establishment, necessarily lead the thoughts to the question, "by whom established?" And thus we seem to admit all that our adversaries can wish when they represent us as a state engine, dependent altogether on the will of the civil magistrate. Besides this, the title is not even a true one; for the dissenters' religion is as much established as ours, in so far as it is under the protection of the laws, recognised by the legislature, and, in Ireland at least, paid by the state out of the public purse. Such an appellation, therefore, ought not to be used by any orthodox member of the catholic church in England and Ireland; and it is in its nature a schismatic term, degrading the church to a mere sect or denomination of Christians at best, and calculated, therefore, to mislead the ignorant and the wavering. I hope I shall also be excused if I add that I do not think the term protestant (notwithstanding all the talk we have heard about it since the revolution) can, in any proper sense, be applied to designate the church in these countries. At best it is but a negative term. "I cannot admit the word protestant," says a learned writer, "as a name whereby to distinguish my church or profession. I think that if I were asked what church are you of, or what religion do you profess, and I answered I am a protestant, this would be a very imperfect account of myself and of my faith; and all that could be gathered from such an answer would be, that I was of a negative religion, or, rather, of any, no matter which, provided it be not popery. Let us, in God's name, protest to the utmost against popery; but let not that name, (which is pretended to unite us,) by shuffling away all distinction, betray us into a schism from our best apostolic mother." "As to the general term protestant," says an eminent prelate, "I am not at all satisfied with it, and I have both reason and experience to warrant me in this dislike." I think, therefore, that we should call ourselves either the Reformed Episcopal Church in England, in contradistinction to protestant dissenters, or else the Reformed Catholic Church, in contradistinction to Romanists. I shall conclude in the words of a good churchman:-"I could wish that we did make use of See "Bowles's Letter to Whitbread. Address. London: 1810." London: 1807;" and "Le Mesurier's "True Churchman and Loyal Subject. Dedicated to the Clergy. Lond. 1710.” pp. 3, 9. "Bishop Lloyd's Reformed Catholic. London: 1679." the good old words, as well as stand up for the good old truth, and not give the Romanists the advantage to shelter their errors and ill practices under good old names, to whom they are unjustly applied. I know no reason why, whilst we maintain the catholic faith, we should not denominate ourselves catholic, or English catholics, and this would oblige the Romanists, for distinction's sake, to call their proselytes (English) Roman catholics, the absurdity whereof would, in a great measure, appear from the very terms." I am, Sir, your obedient servant, AN IRISH CATHOLIC PRIEST. JOHN WESLEY'S ATTACHMENT TO THE CHURCH. SIR,-You, as well as the editor of the "Standard," and some other friends of the church, are accustomed to speak very respectfully of the Wesleyan methodists, and so, in many respects, would I; but I cannot go along with you and them in asserting that they are fellowchurchmen. They, undoubtedly, have not that rancorous hatred of the church which is felt by many of the dissenting body. Remembering whence, as a body, they have sprung, and what their professions have always been, it would be strange and grossly inconsistent if they were to take part, in these evil days, with the old enemies of the church. Accordingly I find that they very generally refuse to sign the dissenters' declarations and petitions. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that they have most widely departed from the principles of their venerable founder. In proof of this, I send you herewith a copy of a letter written by Mr. Wesley, only about three years before his death, to one of his preachers, who had requested his advice on one or two points of discipline, especially as to how he was to proceed with one of the societies who had threatened to leave the connection, if they were not permitted to have the sacraments administered by their own preachers. The letter lies now before me, and shall, if you have any doubt about it, be sent to you for your inspection. It was thus (names being omitted):— , Deal tenderly with "London, Feb. 21st, 1787. "DEAR and I think he will be more useful than ever he was. On Monday, March 19th, I expect to set out from Bristol; March 24th, I am to be at Birmingham; and, April 2nd, at Manchester. Modern laziness has jumbled together the two distinct offices of preaching and administering the sacraments. But, be that as it may, I will rather lose twenty societies than separate from the church. "I am, dear "Your affectionate friend and brother, Thus resolved and consistent was this great and good man, (for such he was,) even to the end of his days, in his dutiful attachment * "Grascome's Answer to Huddlestone, 1703." VOL. VI. Sept. 1834. 2Q |