THE MONTHLY REPOSITORY

AND

REVIEW.

NEW SERIES, No. XIX.

JULY, 1828.

DR. DRUMMOND'S LETTERS TO LORD MOUNTCASHELL.

To the Editor.

SIR,

Dublin, May 9, 1828. A NEW Society, calling itself a Reformation Society, has started up in Ireland. One of its fundamental rules is, that its members must profess belief in the doctrine of the Trinity. At one of its meetings, held at Fermoy on Thursday, January 24, 1828, the Earl of Mountcashell presided. The Southern Reporter informs us, that "on the following Tuesday, the last day of discussion, a military guard was introduced. Those who defended the Roman Catholic cause expressed discontent at this measure. The red coats were removed, and the debate recommenced amidst alarm and confusion, and in a short time the meeting dissolved." In consequence of this, the Protestant inhabitants of Fermoy presented an address to Lord Mountcashell, eulogizing his character and conduct. To this address Lord Mountcashell replied, and in his reply took occasion to introduce my name, to call me a Socinian, and class me with Infidels and Deists. I have therefore thought proper to remonstrate with his Lordship in some letters, the first of which accompanies this; and if you think it suited to the pages of the Monthly Repository, I will send the rest in monthly succession. W. H. DRUMMOND.

No. I.

MY LORD,

In your late address to the Protestant inhabitants of Fermoy, you have done me the honour to introduce my name. The notice of a nobleman of your Lordship's character might well gratify an individual of much higher consideration than he who now addresses you. But in me it has excited

other feelings than those of gratified pride; for you have placed my name in association with that of Infidel and Deist, and spoken of me in a manner which a regard for my own character forbids me to overlook. You have, therefore, authorized me to remonstrate with your Lordship, and to make a few observations on some parts of your address which do not seem to be

in strict accordance with those principles of liberality and candour which every nobleman and every Christian ought to cultivate. I shall endeavour to perform the task imposed on me with the respect due to your Lordship's rank, and still more to the virtues which adorn your character; but at the same time, with the higher respect which is due to the cause of truth and the interests of religion.

"

Those parts of your Lordship's address which appear to be most at variance with Christian truth and charity, I attribute to the prejudices of education, and with the Protestants of Fermoy cheerfully subscribe to the declaration, that "none can question the purity of your Lordship's motives." I read with unqualified pleasure, that your Lordship's exertions to ameliorate the state of the population have been indefatigable and useful.” With them I join in the hope that "a better order of things may shortly supersede the present degradation of the moral character, and that the human mind, being expanded, through the genial influence of scriptural education, will assert its independence, and place itself in that scale of DIGNITY which is characteristic of its nature."

You, my Lord, have approved these sentiments, and your approbation of them reflects a brighter lustre on your name than a riband and a star on their high-titled wearer. The land may be proud of the nobleman who approves the manly, Christian sentiments of the Protestant inhabitants of Fermoy. It may rejoice to hear them re-echoed in your Lordship's “pious wish," that "the great body of the people should become more happy, more comfortable, more moral, and better educated." Cheering and delightful sounds; independence of the mind-dignity of human naturethe people better educated, more moral and more happy! May the inhabitants of Fermoy, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, live to see these glorious visions realized! May the captive who groans in spiritual bondage be freed from his chains, and an age of servitude and darkness be followed by a millenium of liberty and light!

You seem to think, my Lord, that this "consummation, so devoutly to be wished," is to be effected by the "New Reformation Societies." Of those societies you approve, because at their meetings persons of all descriptions have an opportunity of hearing whatever can be said in favour of or against doctrines which are questioned, and it is written in the Bible, "Prove all things, and hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. v. 21.

This, my Lord, is excellent; and as you have sneeringly observed that I "cordially concur" in an argument of the Rev. Mr. Maguire's, so do I now as cordially concur with your Lordship; for it is the glorious privilege of one who knows and dares to use the right of private judgment, to assent to every truth he hears, and not to be deterred from its use or application by any prejudice of sect or party. Fas est et ab hoste doceri. There is no divine prohibition against our being instructed by a foe as well as by a friend. I wish, without venturing to hope, that I were regarded by your Lordship as the latter; but though I should not be so fortunate, may I not trust that on this principle, or from a generous feeling of reciprocity, you will listen to a word in season, though issuing from the mouth of an Unitarian Christian? It is only by free and unrestricted discussion that doubtful questions can be determined. Controversy, when conducted by the "law of kindness," is productive of much good in quickening the intellectual powers, in detecting latent error, in stimulating inquiry, and leading to right conclusions. The truth is struck out by the conflict of adverse opinions; and by hearing, as

your Lordship expresses it, "whatever can be said in favour of or against doctrines which are questioned," we only obey the precept of Scripture which you have so judiciously and correctly quoted.

All the friends of that "independence of the human mind" which your Protestant eulogists of Fermoy extol, must rejoice to hear such a noble declaration from your Lordship. They would rejoice still more to hear, that your subsequent sentiments and conduct were in perfect unison with that declaration. But they cannot help perceiving a lamentable discrepancy; for, in the next paragraph but one, you contradict yourself, and so far from allowing all descriptions, or any description, of persons "an opportunity of hearing what could be said in favour of or against" only one doctrine which was questioned, you would not grant the questioners a single hearing. It appears that some gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion advanced certain arguments against a favourite tenet of the New Reformation Meeting at which you presided, and that those arguments being stubborn and difficult to be answered, it was judged expedient to put them down, not by superior force of argument, which would have been the legitimate way, but by absolute prohibition of their farther utterance. This was an ungenerous mode of depriving an opponent of victory when he could not be fairly combated. It reduced him to silence; but so far from carrying conviction to his understanding, it only fixed more deeply a belief of his antagonist's impotency, and a consciousness of his own strength.

But you objected to their line of argument, because "it is wicked and blasphemous to seek to extract poison out of God's mouth." In this sentiment also, the Unitarian, if he rightly understands it," cordially concurs;" though he objects to the expression as coarse, indelicate, containing a false metaphor, and bordering on the blasphemy which it condemns. It is wicked and blasphemous, my Lord, to pervert and torture the Scriptures for abstruse meanings which reason repudiates, while the plain and obvious sense is neglected or despised. But who is guilty of this impiety? The Unitarian, who adheres to the clear declaration of Scripture, that God is one; or the Athanasian, who sets up, as the standard of true faith, the unintelligible jargon of creeds composed in the dark ages, dooming us to perish everlastingly if we do not believe that He is three? The Unitarian, my Lord, extracts only honey, the honey dews of life, from the leaves and the flowers of holy writ. As for the poison which contaminates the affections and curdles all the milk of human kindness in the heart of man, seek for it where it is to be found abundant, even to overflowing, in the damnatory creeds and confessions of the orthodox hive!

You further object to the Roman Catholic adopting his line of argument, "because the Deist and Infidel laugh at his weakness and profit by his folly." What then? Has your Lordship, verily and indeed, so tender a regard for your Roman Catholic brethren, that it would grieve you to see the Deist and Infidel laughing at their weakness and profiting by their folly; or are you desirous that all the glory of victory, and all the "profit," whatever it may be, should belong to the New Reformation Society? It may be doubted whether the Roman Catholics will feel much obliged by your Lordship's compassionate regard for their weakness; and as for the Deist and Infidel, they do not seem to be giving themselves any concern about the matter. But if they do, why not answer the Deist and Infidel, and add them to the number of your proselytes? Deists and Infidels are human creatures. They are rational too, and if they require a reason for

the hope that is in the Christian, wherefore should they not be gratified? The gospel precept is to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of the " hope that is in him, with meekness and fear," 1 Pet. iii. 15; not to reply with a volley of invectives. Trust me, my Lord, the conversion of an Infidel or Deist to the belief in the saving truths of Christianity, would be an achievement worthy of more praise than any of the boasted conversions from one erring creed to another, of which the age is said to be so prolific. Were not most of the converts made by the apostles from among Deists and Infidels, publicans and idolaters?

In illustration of your argument respecting the conduct of Deists and Infidels, you affirm, that "a Socinian named Drummond has thus made a tool of the Rev. Mr. Maguire." This Reverend advocate of the Roman Catholic cause and his friends will not be much flattered by your Lordship's declaration, that I have made "a tool" of him. The Rev. Mr. Pope, his eloquent antagonist, could assure your Lordship that Mr. Maguire is not a man who can be made a tool of, even by hands of far superior strength to mine. I must, therefore, understand the expression in a complimentary sense, and thank your Lordship for entertaining so lofty an opinion of my powers as to suppose that I have been able to make a tool of one by whom the most vaunted champion in the arena of modern polemics has been "cloven down."

I am desirous, however, of knowing in what mode I have made a tool of the Rev. Mr. Maguire. What have I done more than avail myself of an argument which Mr. Maguire did not invent, but only revive,* in support either of Unitarianism or the infallible church? It has often been stated by the advocates of the latter, that without the aid of tradition and church authority it is impossible to prove the doctrine of the Trinity; for that not only reason and common sense, but the plainest and strongest declarations of holy writ, are in direct hostility to that doctrine. All Unitarians are fully persuaded of the truth of this statement, and rejoice that it is not only admitted, but confidently advanced by the most powerful supporters of the Roman Catholic faith. They know its strength, and wield it with a dexterity which no orthodox Protestant can withstand. It is prudent, therefore, to proscribe the use of such a weapon. But will they who wield it forego their advantage? Will they lay aside their artillery, their lightning, and their thunderbolts, to combat on equal terms an enemy that comes against them with staves and reeds ?

We have your Lordship's testimony, that " Liberty allows us to reason on religion." Why was this reasonable allowance not granted to the Roman Catholics who opposed the Reformers at Fermoy? Wherefore was a quarrel excited which had to be quelled by the introduction of an armed force? You say, you 66 regret that any thing disagreeable should have occurred at the meeting; it was improper to push the people out of the Court-house;

The Jesuit Maimbourg, in his History of Arianism, says, that Socinus maintained the word of God to be the only judge of controversy, and that, admitting this principle, no Protestant can reasonably condemn the Socinian. "Et certes, il'y a point de Protestant, qui agissant sur son principe, puisse raisonnablement condamner un Socinien, puis que celui-ci agit toujours contre lui, soit en attaquant, soit en se defendant, par l'Ecriture interprétée comme il lui plait, de la même manière que le Protestant agit contre nous, quand il nous attaque, ou qu'il se defend par la même Ecriture expliquée selon le sens qu'il trouve bon de lui donner." —Mainibourg, Histoire de L'Arianisme. Paris, 1682. 12mo. Vol. III. p. 374,

it was equally so to force the ladies out of the galleries; but it was worse to horsewhip (horsewhip, proh pudor!) those who were desirous to listen to the speakers."

Yes, my Lord, that such proceedings should have taken place in your Lordship's presence is deeply to be regretted, not only by you, but by every friend of peace and good order. Is it thus that Ireland is to be reformed? A generous and high-minded people are invited to come to a Reformation Society to see the religion of their fathers stretched upon the rack, and when they stand up in its defence, and meet their opponents with irrefutable argument, instead of being answered in the spirit of meekness and holy fear by men of God, who should not strive nor brawl; instead of being proclaimed victors by unanimous acclamation, they are confronted by an armed force, and the assembly is dismissed amidst the shrieks of women and the cracking of horsewhips! Pudet hæc opprobria dici.

Your Lordship objected to your opponents' mode of discussion, because they attempted to prove from the Holy Bible that Jesus Christ is not God." From what else should they attempt to prove that proposition? Its demonstration is written in the Bible in characters of light, and they would have justly incurred the imputation of fatuity, had they not adopted the very line of argument which they pursued. Their reasoning was legitimate, and if any satisfactory answer could be given, they should have been answered. You know, or ought to know, my Lord, that a numerous and most respectable denomination of Christians, respectable for their learning, their talents, and their virtues, are decidedly of opinion, that the supreme deity of Christ is nowhere taught in the sacred writings; that from beginning to end they teach the strict unity of the great Creator; and that the only basis of Tritheism is to be found in Heathen writers, in the creeds of theologians, and the decrees and councils of a church falsely deemed infallible. The supporters of Tritheism or Athanasianism are therefore reduced to the dilemma either of admitting the necessity of an infallible church, or surrendering their favourite orthodox tenet. You, my Lord, are of a creed badged with the name of orthodox; the Unitarian, of a creed which you are pleased to call heterodox, infidel, or Socinian. Who shall decide between you? If your Lordship says the Church, you grant the Roman Catholic all he asks; for among all claimants to decide in religious controversies, if any church be admitted, he will contend that none has any claim whatever that can be compared with the Church of Rome. He will plead her high antiquity, her right of primogeniture, her foundation on the rock Peter, the uninterrupted succession of her bishops, her great numbers, her catholicism or universality, her sublime mysteries, her decent ceremonies, her imposing ritual. He will tell you that his is the one only apostolic church, that "she cannot err in the delivery of faith and discipline of manners, seeing she is governed by the Holy Ghost; so it must needs be that all others, which falsely claim to themselves that name, and being also led by the spirit of the devil, are most dangerously out of the way, both in doctrine and practice." ""*

* The Church of Rome does not stand alone in claiming a right to decide in all disputed points. Bishop Sparrow, in his Preface to the Articles and Canons, &c., says, "If the sense of faith and holy Scripture is called in question, the Church (i. e. the Church of Englaud) may and must declare what that sense is she has received from Christ and his apostles, commanding, under penaltys and censures, all her children to receive that sense, and to profess it in such expressive words and form as may directly determine the doubt. And in controversys about doctrines, where