« PreviousContinue »
coming bitterness of such an adversary." To which lanientation, as far as it respects the Bishop, we most cordially say, Amen, as we do also to the “ firm belief” which we meet with a feiv pages afterwards, “ that he will eventually find linsself ju an error respecting the nature of some of his present connections," and in the " fervent hope, that he may see the things which belong unto his peace and to the security of the Church, of which, by liis mildness and tolerance he is certainly an omament, whether, by liis opinions lie be a bulwark or not, be!ore it be too late."
We low come to that part of the letter directly levelled at Mr. Forby, and as its writer has admitted that the speeches are « indefensible," and that the positions and arguments advanced against them are sound and good, the manner of conducting the attack is evidently the only point which he baş himself left open to reprehension, and to this point it is that he directs all his hostility, pouring forth upon Mr. F. and his production every term of opprobrium that can be named, and endeavouring, by it continual contrast of the stile of address with the public station and amiable private virtues of the Bishop, to make Mr. F. an object of general reprobation.
We proceed to Mr. Glover's reply, which commences with a position to which we cordially subscribe, addressing Mr. F.
“ As a public remonstrance from a clergyman to his diocesan you will fully agree with me in the reason I had to look for some strong and imperious ground to be established by it, upon which not merely its expediency but its paramount necessity should rest, because without this it not only loses its value, but it becomes, to use your own emphatic language, an act of arrogance, irreverence, and indecorum; it tends to the subversion of that discipline which forms so fair a feature of our Church Establishment, it contributes to throw down the walls of our Sion, and to let in the beasts from the forest, and the wild boar from the wood; to revel in her vineyard,
Io nostros fabricata est Machina muros.'' Of course he does not see this so
paramount necessity," and therefore pronouncing Mr. F.'s scepticism as to the authenticily of the speeches" a flimsy subterfuge," and his distinction between the duly attested and unaccredited judginent of his diocesan, a vain conceit, he pleases himself with the idea that he has made short work with Mr. F. in a point upon which it is evidently very near his heart to seniain invulnerable, and declares him “selfconvicted of a breach of that respectful forbearance,' which he siy strongly impresses upon liis readers in the very front of liis publication.
" This distant skirmishing about outposts,” as Mr. Glover designates it, continues through eleven pages, in which the sanie sort of contrast between the personal amiabilities of the Bishop, and the “unlappy moods" of Mr. Forby, which formed the substance of the former pamphlet, is shifted into every variety of shape to excite odium against the man, and thus to lessen the influence which his reasonings have deservedly acquired on public opinion. At page 12, however, Mr. Glover first obliging the world with the interestiug intelligence that he “ thinks and acts with the Bishop both in this and other important parts of his Lordship's public conduct," and therefore is in some sort identified with his Lordship in the animadversions made upon him, and of course in all the compliments which he receives, disclaims all intention of further bush-fighting in the defence either of his Lordship or himself, that he may “ pass on to discussions of greater moment, and defend the conduct of the Church Missionary and Bible Societies against Mr. F.'s aspersions," and
particularly refute that monstrous position of his that Christi'unity was not intended for savage mun."
The testimony of* Lardner, which Mr. F. takes as the basis of his arguunent, is quickly dispatched; “ Lardner, I should think, never intended” “ All that Lardner could have meant". “ Lardner would not have slighted,” reverse, to Mr. Glever's satisfaction, the plain import of his words, though they are the words of a scholar remarkable for his accuracy and his researches and express a conclusion deliberately drawn at the close of as laborious an investigation as the “ state of gentilism" ever underwent.
Mr. Glover now enters upon a consideration of Mr. F's position in two points of view, viz." As resting on opinion, and as sanctioned by experience," and having, in the specious form of questions, insinuated that Mr. Forby has advanced the unqualified assertion, contrary to the express declaration of our Liturgy, that the Almighty wills that no endeavours shall be used to convert the Heathen, and that Mr. F. interprets our Saviour's commission to Iris Apostles as limiting the preaching the Gospel “ to every civilized creature," Mr. G proceeds to state the grounds by which his own opinion is supported, and alleges confidence in the divine assistance to a work having such an object in view, (i. e. to the pilgrim good intent)--the greater congeniality of truth ihan falsehood to the mind of man, (manifested, we venture to surmise, in his " changing the truth into a lie.)" And the better results tban payt experience furnish, to be reasonably hoped" from Missions under the better auspices of the Missionary Society," (the very contested point gratuitously assumed)-as "the grounds:
and sanctions as far as opinion is concerned of his conduct im supporting Missions in uncivilized countries.”
The remainder of Mr. Glover's Reply is cast in the same mould as its introductory pages, and is little else than bush-fighting resumed upon the subject of the speech delivered at the Bible Society Meeting.
We now return to Mr. Forby, who, properly alive to his reputation in the world, feels it his duty to repel attacks which “ vilify his character, defame his principles, misrepresent his meaning, distort his language, and call him by unseemly names." Of his anonymous correspondent, however, he deems it unbecoming him to take any notice, and he very truly states that what Mr. Glover is pleased to entitle his Reply certainly deserves
But taught by the daily exhibited routine of Bible Society manoeuvres that that gentleman“ if he were not exposed, would certainly use à la mode de Dealtry, &c. his claim to victory," he judiciously considers that “ a few leisure hours will not be niisemployed in such short notices of his slight cavils” as will “ deprive himn of that pretence." : Mr. F. sets out with observing that the most effectual way prove Mr. G.'s Title a misnomer would be briefly to re-state the substance of his own argument, and compare it with what Mr. G. has advanced ; but heariily disposed to say not one word more than is necessary to his purpose, he shall merely meet Mr. G. on a few points, on which he has attempted to be either argumentative or facetious. But the defence of his literary reputation is of very inferior moment in his mind to the clearing himself from the charge of disrespect to his diocesan.
« Before I come (he says) to these particulars, I must speak upon another part of my subject, which (whatever Mr. G. may think or say) lies much nearer to my heart. In every page of the Reply I am treated as the harsh, malignant, rancorous, and scurrilous calumniator of the Bishop. I will re-assert, and ratify what I have said personally of that good man: for a good man I do most unfeigaedly believe him to be.
is I have 'expressed my conviction of his 'invariable benevolence of intention. I have borne my testimony to his character of uncorruptedness and sincerity in the cause of religion'--that he e is believed to do whatsoever he does in that cause, heartily as to the Lord and not unto men ;' and that in every things he is actuated by the charity that thinketh no evil. I have declared, that for his private virtues I entertain an unfeigned esteem ;' and that the little particular intercourse I have had with his Lordship, has excited no other personal and private feelings, than those of esteem and respect. All this I believed and I felt when I wrote it, and I believe and I feel it now.” P. 6.
Having recapitulated his testimony to the private virtues of the Bishop, and thus shewn how much he had it at heart to qualify his remonstrance with the strongest demonstrations of personal respect, Mr. Forby's sensibility under the aspersions cast upon Dim constrains him to enter further upon his own vindication; and first renewing the asseveration of his belief, strongest probability," that the “ words and sentiments” animadverted upon were not verbatim the Bishop's, but either“ wholly supposititious, or at least greatly misrepresented,” he challenges the production of any passage in which his “ censure" is not "aimed” solely and precisely at the words, and in which his “ strokes of sarcasm” certainly severe, are not so "guardedly” inflicted as to “ ward them off” from his Lordship.
Upon the important fact of absolute verbal identity we have already stated our persuasion to be the same as Mr. Forby's; and after the liberties taken by Mr. Glover with words and meanings, which Mr. F. has exposed, we confess ourselves equally unable with him to allow Mr. Go's. loose indefinite expressions to the contrary to shake our conviction. Indeed that conviction has been strengthened by what it is impossible to consider in any other light than as more flagrant liberties recently taken with his Lordship's name. For it cannot be, that his Lordship has held up to the scorn and obloquy of a mixed mul. titude of factious Churchmen, and dissenters of all denominations, a member of his own Venerable Bench *: neither can it be, that he has so condescended as to address a letter to such a man as Mr. Hayt; much less that in that letter, avowedly intended by its writer for publication, he lias traduced that part of the legislature of the kingdom, indeed all persons indiscriminately," either in or out of parliament," who have withstood the aggressions of the Irish Romanists, as actuated by.“ narrow, prejudiced, and selfish views," as justifying their opposition, in one instance by the use of " every possible chicane;" in another, by “poorly quibbling."and in a third, by what“ a man of common sense can hardly give them credit for saying in sincerity;" and in this spirit and by these means, "exciting the discontent and outraging the feelings of more than four millions of the inferior ranks of Catholics; taking pains to wound the honest pride of the independent gentlemen' of that persuasion, and treating “the Peers” in a manner“ resembling that in which an Algerine Corsair treats his Christian prisoners, unfeelingly adding mockery to injustice." These, we repeat it, cannot be the genuine productions of an English Bishop: they only call forth therefore a more confident reference to Mr. F.'s apposite citation, “ Ciceronem ita scripsisse vix ipsi quidem Ciceroni
* See Norfolk Chronicle, Sept. 23d, 1815.
affirmanti YOL. IV. DECEMBER, 1815.
zrely miatt » be either is literary
affirmanti crediderim;" whilst they shew by two additional preg: nant instances, that it was no vain conceit on which his apprebensions were founded, that the “ open” and the covert ene. mies of our Church," and " its misjudging friends, who aim at ivnovation inconipatible with the character of the times and the tempers of men, are closing round the Bishop on every side, and endeavouring to forward their own schemes, by practising upon that liberality and charity unsuspicious of all evil, which he does, but they do not possess.
It is sufficient for Mr. Forby to rest his vindication upon the ground which he took when he made his reinonstrancé, viz." his real and strong persuasion that the speeches were not his Lord ship’s, and this ground we are persuaded he has made goud; but had be quitted it, and in deference to his opponents yielded the point of authenticity, still we conccise that the distinction between the speeches in question and the “ Allocutio Episcopi," so clearly Jaid down in the outset of his former pamphlet, would have rendered his vindication easy, nay that it is furnished by his opponents themselves : for Mr. Glover has most certainly supplied "the strong and imperious ground of remonstrance” which he calls for, when he states in two passages, a few pages distant from each other, that some of the Clergy may have been particularly pointed at, in speeches which made too deep. and lasting an impression to be hastily forgotten, though this concession is coupled with an attempt, in our apprehension both captivus and abortive, to except Mr. F. upon his own testimony, from the number: and the anonymous respondent has removed every restraint which delicacy might imposé, by declaring, as he does, that the Bishop « is to be considered merely as the popular orator" on that occasion, and if so, most certainly not as the Diocesau.
The duty to himself discharged, Mr. F.'s attention is now turned to Mr. G. to “ meet him according to engayement, as the champion of the two Societies,' on some of his attempts to be argumentative or facetious; and here an exposure very little creditable to Mr. G. takes place : for in one instance it appears, that in citing from Mr. F. he leaves out or changes what does not suit his purpose; in another that he gives Mr. F.'s words correctly, but slides from his meaning; in another that he composes his sentence of words and phrases most of which Mr. F. had used, but which have been taken from their respective contexts, and strung together with other words into a period serving his purpose; in another that with his usual dexterity he gives Mr. F.'s words a twist from the text to which lie did, to one to which he did not apply them; and in another, that adducing Mr. F.'s authorities he omits the words to which he obviously did, and quotes those to which he obviously did not refer: and the result of Mr. F.'s rejoinder is, “ that full conviction is af