THE IRISH CHURCH QUESTION.

GENTLEMEN,-In accordance with your remarks in your leading article of this day, I say the destruction of the Irish Church will not satisfy the agitators, nor will anything short of the total subjugation of all that is dear to us as a Protestant nation meet the rapacious demands of our adversaries. As an Englishman, for nearly twelve years resident in the sister isle, I unhesitatingly affirm that the Protestant Church in Ireland is not held by the Roman Catholic population generally in that dis-esteem which is represented. On the contrary, it is a well-known fact that, if a favour is wanted, it is the Protestant clergyman that is appealed to by the poor Romanist, and not the priest. The latter is feared; the former is loved. I would, if necessary, give abundant proof of this.

That the Irish Church requires reformation, and a more equitable distribution of its funds, I am quite ready to admit; but to destroy it, whilst it is almost entirely maintained by its own people, would be an act of most unjust and cruel sacrilege. As you have stated, such an act would alienate from the throne and the constitution generally a million and a half of most loyal and devoted subjects. A spirit of rancour and bitterness would be aroused, the issue of which it is impossible to foresee.

It is, gentlemen, a lamentable fact that, in their hostility to all Church establishments, our Nonconformist friends, in taking so active a part in the destruction of the Irish Church, are most unwittingly undermining their own religious, social, and constitutional interests. They may say we have nothing to fear from Rome; but let me tell them they have everything to fear from a system that boasts itself as being unchanged and unchangeable. What Rome, in her intolerance, bigotry, and destructiveness was, she still is, and will, give her the power, ever prove to be. She has had toleration, she seeks equality; then she will demand, and be satisfied with nothing short of, supremacy. Little do our Nonconformist friends know the thorough contempt in which Dissenters are held by Rome. It is now her policy to disguise that fact, merely making use both of Dissenters and Ritualists to do her work.

I have many friends, whom I highly regard and esteem, who conscientiously differ from those within the pale of an Establishment to which I am equally conscientiously attached, and in connexion with which I count it my highest privilege to minister. But I venture affectionately and ardently to warn and caution my Nonconformist friends in regard to the work to which they are lending themselves. The avowed object of that great partisan of Rome-the pervert, Dr. Manning-long has been the conversion of England. Now what does he mean by this? Nothing less than the uprooting of all our great Protestant interests— the destruction of our free constitution-the setting up, in the place of our loved Queen, him who is blasphemously called "My Lord God the Pope!" Shall this be? Will England, with all the dear-bought lessons she has been taught, as the page of history so clearly shows, submit to this? Shall we, as a free, Bible-loving nation, return to all the darkness, the degradation, the destructiveness of Papal days and Popish doings? God for ever forbid! And yet I know it to be a fact-I vouch for what I am about to say upon the ground of the very highest and most unquestionable authority-Dr. Manning has lately declared, "We have all we ask for, and we shall soon have all we want.”

In proof, gentlemen, that the mere doing away with the Irish Church

will not satisfy the clamorous demands of our assailants, I subjoin a verbatim copy of a letter I received through the post yesterday. You may take it for what it is worth :

Bristol.

REV. SIR, A debate is pending before the Fenian counsell of the Bristol district, the last efforts of the Irish down-trodden slave to brake his shackels and regain his freedom; urgent cases require desperate remedies. It was proposed in a certain part of Bristol, where the counsell met, by a certain minor centre, to organise a body called extermanist, to exert their power and influence to poison the resoviors of the towns and wells of the country, and likewise provisions, and so carry on the work of vengance to rid the country of their deadly foes, witch, if brought into execution, will be a gloryfication. I have since heard it was resolved, at the close of the debate, to convey the notes of the meeting to Dublin, for head quarters.

Be cautious.

I offer no comment upon the foregoing, except this, that if, when the Romish and Ritualistic party (which may be regarded as one and the same thing) are exulting over their recent triumph in the House of Commons, the abettors of their system are thus privately and stealthily conspiring against our own common well-being and security, where can there be greater proof of the truth of your theory, that what they ask, and what we fear they are upon the point of having-namely, the destruction of the Irish Church-will not satisfy?

I am, gentlemen, yours respectfully, St. Luke's, Bedminster, April 7, 1866.

D. A. DOUDNEY, D.D.

"PROVE ALL THINGS."

AMONGST the multiplied productions of our day that play fast and loose with the truth of God, it is pleasant to meet with something that is certain, special, and distinctive. The Rev. T. H. Gregg, curate of Cradley, has issued a brief review of a lecture delivered by the Rev. J. C. Ryle, entitled, "Evangelical Religion; what it is, and what it is not." view Mr. Ryle as the exponent of a party, and therefore this lecture is indicative of the opinions of modern evangelicals. Facts bear testimony also, as pulpit and press are unanimous in giving forth the same definition of evangelicalism that Mr. Ryle in his lecture maintains. Comments, therefore, upon it cannot be viewed as personal, for they are the opinions of a body that consider their newly-shaped creed their glory, if Mr. Ryle had never been born.

The divinity of our day is about as definite as the address of the old woman's letter: "To my son in the East or West Indies." It is a corrupt and crafty admixture of truth and error, concealing where it cannot overthrow, and neutralizing the doctrines that cannot be removed. It is customary now to speak of the doctrines of grace as your views, or, as you see things, or, as the opinions of Mr. So-and-so. Those who hold free-grace truths as typed out in Old Testament ceremonials, or plainly stated in the new, are regarded by modern evangelicals as "ultras," "hypers," "bigots," "extreme men," 99 66 narrow minded," very different to the large-hearted, world-saving, general redemptionists of the day, whose religion might be termed creatureism, being based upon free-will and human ability, with just as much truth as errors added, neutralize.

In the fifth century, when popery began to take a form visibly, Ar

minianism took its rise doctrinally; the Welsh monk Pelagius delivered to the world his five points. They were resolutely opposed by St. Augustine, and put down by the council of Carthage; but they fell in with the natural mind of man, and became the creed of the Church of Rome. After the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the doctrines of Pelagius turned up in the Protestant churches through Jas. Arminius, a Dutchman, in the following order :

I. That God has not fixed the future state of mankind by an absolute decree, but determined to bestow salvation on those whom He foresaw would persevere unto the end.

II. That Christ by His death made an atonement for the sins of mankind in general, and every man in particular, and His death hath thus put man in a capacity of being justified and pardoned, on condition of faith and repentance.

III. That mankind are not totally depraved; and that depravity does not come upon them by virtue of Adam's fall, but only natural evil and death.

IV. That divine grace is given by God in regeneration; nevertheless, this grace is offered to all, and may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the perverse will of the impenitent.

V. That they who are united to Christ are thereby furnished with abundant strength to triumph over the temptations of Satan, but that, nevertheless, they may fall from grace grossly and finally.

We wot had Arminius lived in our day, he would have found a goodly number ripe and ready for unreserved subscription to his articles. But of the sixteenth century it may be said, "There were giants in those days." Christian Churches sent up their deputies to protest against these errors, viewing them as the modified doctrines of Rome; and the synod of Dort, without ambiguity, gave forth as the decision of the Churches the five following points :

I. Predestination to life.

II. Total depravity.
III. Effectual vocation.
IV. Particular redemption.

V. Final perseverance.

This was followed up by our own Westminster assembly of divines in 1643, when Arminianism was authoritatively condemned as heretical, and catechisms and articles given to the Churches as the true interpretation of Scripture in strict accordance with the decision of the synod of Dort, or what is popularly stigmatized in our day, as ultra Calvinism. These were the orthodox doctrines preached at the Reformation, and maintained by the reformed Churches as the established creed, and which found their way into the Church of Rome under a term of Jansenism, from Bishop Jansen, who, through the writings of St. Augustine, was enlightened in the truths of the Gospel, which, then, and at this day, divide the Church of Rome into two opposing parties. Now we approach Mr. Ryle's definition of modern evangelicalism, which he calls, his five points:

I. The absolute supremacy evangelical religion assigns to Holy Scripture.

II. The depth and prominence it assigns to the doctrine of human

sinfulness.

III. The paramount importance it attaches to the work and offices of our Lord Jesus Christ.

IV. The high place which it assigns to the inward work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man.

V. The importance which it attaches to the outward and visible work of the Holy Spirit in the life of man.

We now resign our subject into Mr. Gregg's hands, from whose little pamphlet* we give the following extracts:

66

Mr. Ryle's Evangelical religion" is altogether "wanting" in the very first foundation-truth of the Gospel as revealed in Holy Scripture, and as taught in the Thirty-nine Articles, which "contain the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's word." The very leading feature in Gospel-religion is from his tract absent altogether! He says, "I have pointed out what I conscientiously believe are the five distinctive marks by which members of the Evangelical body may be discerned." He speaks of these as "the five points I have named." Why, I ask, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, leave the "old paths," and depart from the "good ways" of the Reformers? Why, in this day of new-fashioned religions, give up the old-fashioned "five points," the truths contained in which have been so well known and so deepy loved in all ages by the Church of Christ? Surely such a step cannot have been taken without a reason; but, as to what the reason is, though I may conjecture, yet, lest I should attribute wrong motives, I leave my readers to form their own opinions.

If "Evangelical religion" mean, as Mr. Ryle says it does mean, "the Gospel-the whole Gospel-and nothing but the Gospel; . . . the truth -the whole truth-and nothing but the truth;-the terms-the whole terms-and nothing but the terms;" then the so-called "Evangelical religion" which he has described in his "five points" is not the Gospel in its purity; is not the Gospel in its fulness, as revealed in Holy Scripture, and as re-echoed in the Thirty-nine Articles of England's and Ireland's Established Church.

If there be, as Mr. Ryle admits: if there be, I repeat, a "plan of salvation," most assuredly that plan must have had an author. Who, then, is the author? You answer, God; and so Mr. Ryle admits, for he calls it "God's plan of salvation." But then I am a Trinitarian, and I ask which Person in the Trinity drew the plan? You perhaps reply, Tho Three; or, perhaps, the Father alone. Well, be it so. You must admit, at all events, that the Father had some part in the arrangement of the "plan." Let me now ask, what part in the matter of salvation is attributed to God the Father in the "Evangelical religion" contained in Mr. Ryle's "five points ?" The answer must be, No part whatever.

He speaks of the "blood of God the Son;" of the "grace of God the Holy Ghost;" but not one word about the sovereign work, or the " everlasting love," of God the Father! I can only say that upon such "Evangelical" religion as this "Ichabod" is indelibly marked. O England's 'Evangelicals," when such is your "religion," the marvel is that Popery, ere this, has not taken possession of the people, the churches, and the land. Since the eternal sovereignty of Jehovah finds no longer a place in the so-called "Evangelical religion," no more can I wonder that Romish practices follow where such Romish doctrine has led the way.

"Evangelicalism, or Evangelical Religion." By T. II. Gregg, M.A. Marlborough and Co., Paternoster Row. Price Fourpence.

The reader is strongly recommended to read "Five Sermons on the Five Points," by Rev. W. Parks, B.A. London: W. H. Collingridge, 117 to 120, Aldersgate Street, E.C. Price 2s.

This may be the "Evangelical religion" of many. This name may be the "Shibboleth" of a party. As in Ephesus was raised the cry, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," so now is raised the cry, "Great is the Evangelical Religion of the Evangelicals." I say, call it what you like, extol it as you please, such "Evangelical religion" as that described in Mr. Ryle's "five points" (deficient in the great foundationtruth of the Bible-Divine sovereignty) is a religion agreeable neither to Holy Scripture nor the Thirty-nine Articles, which "contain the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's word." But as I should be sorry to "make a man an offender for a word" (Isaiah xxix. 21), I again examine Mr. Ryle's tract. I say, though God the Father is not mentioned by name, yet perhaps His work is spoken of, or even alluded to. Is it so? No; not one word about it. Is there such a thing as the "everlasting Covenant?" Yes: in the Bible, but not in Mr. Ryle's "Evangelical religion: what it is."

Is there such a thing as election? Yes: in the Bible, and in the Articles, but not in Mr Ryle's "Evangelical religion."

Is there such a thing as predestination? Yes: in Holy Scripture, and the Thirty-nine Articles, but not in Mr. Ryle's "Evangelical religion." Not one word even to imply that such a doctrine has any place whatever in the creed or teaching of men who glory in a name the true interpretation of which is "agreeable to the Gospel."

He makes no mention of the work of the Father in the "plan of salvation"—no mention of the final preservation of the saints and no allusion whatsoever to the doctrines of predestination and election; all of which are plainly revealed in Holy Scripture, and written clear as a sunbeam in the Articles.

I know that Mr. Ryle's theory is more in accordance with man's preconceived notions than the old-fashioned "five points" which I have brought so prominently forward.

The eternal predestination by the Father, and His election of a definite number to salvation:-the fall of man-a state of spiritual death-a condition of want of power, as well as want of will:-the eternal redemption by the Son of the elect, and none beside:-the irresistible and effectual calling of these by the Holy Ghost:-and their final preservation to eternal glory-such are the views which "the natural heart most dislikes," and, judging by Holy Scripture and the Articles, such are the views which accord with "sound" and "true doctrine." Place the views which I have advanced side by side with Mr. Ryle's "five distinctive marks of Evangelical religion;" ask any "carnal' man to say which he prefers, and, if the Bible be of God, then most assuredly the old "five points" (and not Mr. Ryle's) are "the true doctrine" which "the natural heart most dislikes."

It has been very painful to my natural feelings to have written thus; but, when God's truth is in question, natural feelings must be flung to the winds. There is at the present day too much deceitful dealing with the word of God (2 Cor. ii. 17)-too much trimming and truckling-too much pandering to, and trying, at the expense of truth, to please all parties (Gal. i. 10)—too much paring and polishing of the cross of Christ. It won't do; the "offence" thereof is not yet ceased, and we must not be ashamed of Christ's Gospel, even though, for holding it forth unmistakably, we shall be reckoned (like the Apostles) "the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things" (1 Cor. iv. 13). X.