REPLY ΤΟ THE REV. THOMAS LE MESURIER, RECTOR OF NEWNTON LONGVILLE. Alter rixatur de lanâ sæpe caprinâ, WITH the preceding pages I had flattered myself that the controversy was closed: a recent publication has convinced me of my mistake.* From the county of Bucks, from his watch-tower of Newnton Longville, the Rev. Thomas Le Mesurier has sounded the alarm. His orthodoxy has been taught to tremble for the safety of the Established Church; and an imperious duty has compelled him to warn his brethren against the delusive sophistry of a work, "which, from its lively and enter * See a pamphlet with the multifarious title of "A reply to certain observations of the Right Reverend Dr. Milner, including some notice of the transactions of 1791, and 1793; of Dr. Troy's pastoral charge; of the Pope's rescript; of the Remarks upon the Bishop of Durham's charge; of the acts of the council of Constance; Mr. Sydney Smith's sermon, and other matters." Farrago libelli! taining stile, he fears is likely to become popular. What pleasing tales the vanity of an author may have whispered in the ear of the rector of Newnton Longville, is not for me to divine. His, undoubtedly, is a name well-known among the amateurs of the art of wrangling. He has measured weapons with the Edinburgh reviewers, and the Monthly reviewers; with Dr. Lawrence, Dr. Milner, and Dr. Troy; and his numerous scars, the evidences of many a well-fought battle, bear an honourable testimony, if not to his success, at least to his courage. If then he be dissatisfied with the services of those, who have already undertaken the defence of the Bishop's charge; † if he think himself better qualified to meet the Remarker in the field of controversy, he has certainly a right to make the experiment. It will be for the church, in whose cause he professes to fight, to appreciate his merits, and to reward his success, or lament his temerity. Mr. Le Mesurier appears to have studied controversial tactics in the classic pages of Homer. Like the heroes of that poet, he does not rush inconsiderately to the conflict, but arrests his impetuosity to inquire into the parentage and character of his opponent. It will be uncourteous in me to refuse so small a satisfaction. Be it then known to him that the Remarker is no "false brother of the Established Church," even though he may display "a familiarity with Greek epigrams and Greek proverbs." Neither is he joined in communion with "the Socinian Aikin;" though it be his opinion, that of all the sects which have sprung from that prolific parent the reformation, the Socinians have the fairest claim to the name of Protestants. 66 * Ibid, p. 208. † See two publications entitled, a Protestant's Reply, and a Letter to the author of the Remarks, by a clergyman of the diocese of Durham. If Mr. Le Mesurier will honour the last page of the Remarks with a second perusal, he will learn that its author had directed his attack, not against the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Established Church, but against the doctrine of the Bishop respecting the practices of the Catholics. In p. 173, he also accuses the Remarker of ridiculing the doctrine of the Trinity, because Gregory XIII. ba Nor of the Edinburgh and Monthly reviewers does he know much more, than that they have often taught him to laugh at the expense of the rector of Newnton Longville. The Remarker is a Catholic, not one, "whose religious sentiments sit very loose upon him," but a Catholic from conviction, who, though he has never taken the oath or creed of Pious IV. believes all the religious tenets of his church with as much sincerity, to say the least, as Mr. Le Mesurier does the thirty-nine articles to which he has subscribed; and who esteems it his pride and happiness to belong, not to any modern sect, but to that great society of christians, which derives its descent in a direct and uninterrupted succession from the apostles. With this explanation I trust he will be satisfied. The subject which Mr. Le Mesurier has selected for the first trial of his strength with the author of the Remarks, is an accusation which the Bishop has frequently brought against the Church of Rome; that by its corruptions it had been the parent of French infidelity, and of course was chargeable with all the horrors of the French revolution. To this indictment the Remarker, in the name of his church, pleaded not guilty. From the speculations of the Bishop he appealed to the evidence of history. He moved for a writ to enquire who was the true parent of the child. He contended that, in reality, modern atheism was the offspring, not of popery, but of Protestantism: that the French were only the scholars of the English infidels : and that these were indebted for their superior illumination to the intrepidity with which they pushed, to their full extent, the fundamental principles of the reformation.* To a genealogy so well corrobated by communicated the Trinitarii. But to be a polemic it is not necessary to be acquainted with ecclesiastical history: otherwise Mr. Le Mesurier must have known that the persons, who in that age were called Triaitarii, were those who rejected, not those who admitted, the doctrine of the Trinity. * In the very outset Mr. Le Mesurier gives a very favourable specimen of his abilities as an advocate. The Bishop had assigned as one of his reasons for ascribing infidelity to popery, that it was liable to dates and facts, Mr. Le Mesurier found himself compelled to yield a faint and reluctant assent; but for the concession he has amply consoled himself by the dis covery of an argument, which he trusts will still prove the Bishop's accusation to be perfectly correct. He tells us, that in England the writings of the infidels made no impression on the great body of the inhabitants; because the common people, having the word of God before their eyes, were not to be talked out of their religion. They only became mischievous, when they were translated into the languages of the countries in which the people were debarred all access to the truths of the gospel, and their minds revolted at the superstition and frauds of the Romish priests.* Here again we have speculation: let us try its accuracy by the most faithful of tests, its agreement with facts. In comparing the common people in England with the common people in France, does Mr. Le Mesurier take the latter as they were before, or as they were during the revolution? In the first supposition, he has assumed that which it will be incumbent on him to prove. I have no hesitation to assert that, before the revolution, the writings of the infidels had made but little impression on the mass of the common people in France. Their attachment to all the practices of their religion was equal, or rather it was far superior, to that which is manifested at the present day by the same class in England. Whoever has witnessed the crowds, which filled on a Sunday the parish churches in France, and the scanty attend the objections of thinking men: and the Remarker very naturally expressed his surprise that these thinking men did not, after discovering the errors of popery, discover also the truths of protestantism. Why did they prefer atheism to it? Oh! says Mr. Le Mesurier, thinking does not always imply thinking right (p. 196). Be it so. It will only follow that, in the Bishop's opinion, the thinking men, who have objections to popery, are those who do not think right. Pray! how did the Bishop think, when he objected to popery, that it was derogatory from the honour of God the Father, the mediatorship of God the Son, and the sanctifying influence of God the Holy Ghost? Is he also to be excluded from the number of thinking men, who think right? * Le Mesur. p. 107. ance which is generally given to them in this country, will acknowledge the truth of my assertion. The religion of the great body of the French people might be termed enthusiasm, in opposition to the indifference, the cold neglect, of the common people in this kingdom. If, on the other hand, Mr. Le Mesurier meant to compare the religious conduct of the English, at the present day, with that of the French during the revolution, the comparison was unfair. You must place each in a similar situation, before you can legitimately draw the inference. During the paroxysm of revolutionary phrenzy, it was not surprising if the infidels, who had assumed the powers of government, were able, under the influence of terror, and the seduction of liberty, to persecute the ministers, and suspend for a time the exercise of religion. For this temporary desertion of their creed, the great body of the people atoned by the alacrity with which they returned to the Catholic worship, at the first dawn of internal tranquillity. Their subsequent conduct has shewn that the doctrines of infidelity had never taken root in their hearts. If, for the sake of argument, England instead of France had been the theatre of the revolution, and the English clergy had displayed that determined opposition to the views of the demagogues, which distinguished the French clergy, does not Mr. Le Mesurier believe, that the established church also would have fallen, its dignities have been abolished, and its wealth confiscated? Yet could he justly have ascribed such a catastrophe to the infidelity of the common people? But, he will ask, were not the people in France "debarred all access to the truths of the gospels, and "were not their minds revolted at the superstitions " and frauds of the Romish priests?" The first part of the interrogation alludes, I conceive, to the wellknown objection respecting the scriptures in a vulgar tongue, which has been already noticed in several parts of this controversy. Here I shall only add, that in most, perhaps in all, the dioceses in France, the more advanced among the children were obliged, on every |