The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-12-14 00:00:00

WARRINGTON PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION. Oa Tuesday morning last, the anniversary of the War rington Protestant Association was held, at eleven o'clock, at the large room of the Lion Hotei, Warrington. The meeting was numerously and highly respectably attended, there being a number of the first families in the neighbour hood present, and a large proportion of ladies. On the plat form we noticed Trafford Trafford, Esq., the Hon. and Rev. Horace Powys, Rev. Joseph Jones, Rev. Gibson, Rev. - .IIIOF. eenre, isev. JIIIIIC3 iuuu, ...cr. a . • Alder, Rev. Richard Greenall, Rev. Power, Rev. James Wright, Rev. Dr. O'Sullivan, Rev. Thomas Nolan, Rev. Thos. Whittington, Rev. Daniel Hyman, Rev. Chas. Thos. Quirk, Rev. John Jones, Rev. C. S. Bush, Rev. Mr. Mali may, Rev. John Edwards, Thomas Parr, Esq., R. Brook, Esq. Thos. Withington, Esq., Thos. Greenall, Esq., Wm. Hall, Esq., John Clare, Esq., John Greenall, Esq., Gilbert Greenall, Esq., Dr. Kendrick, James Stanton, Esq., &c. At the appointed hour of meeting, on the motion of John Clare, Esq., TRAFFORD TRAFFORD, Esq. was nominated to fill the chair. The CHAIRMAN, in opening the meeting, said he conceived they could not do better, acting, as they considered, in the cause of God and in the cause of that profession of faith which they all held, than to commence their proceedings with prayer. He therefore called on Mr. Wright to offer up a prayer. The Rev. JAMES WRIGHT then opened the proceedings with an appropriate prayer. The CHAIRMAN then rose and said,—My Protestant bre thren, we are called and assembled here to-day for the pur pose of considering the vast and alarming increase of Po pery in this kingdom. We are called together to consider what are the grounds upon which that extension of that par ticular profession of faith is taking place; and at the same time we have to consider of the best means, in case we shall find that any hostility is intended towards the Church of England, of our defence. After the solemn calling upon God in the way in which we have prefaced this meeting, it would ill become us to do anything without the pale or bounds of charity. Whatever is said or doue this day, I will under take to say will be done for the defence of our Protestant faith, and not with any hostile feelings, beyond what is a defence, towards those of a different profession of faith.— (Hear.) But, gentlemen, let us consider the means that have been adopted in order to extend Popery. In the first place, there are none in this room who, I dare say, are so unobservant of the times as not so be aware that immense sums are expended in the Capital of Popery, fur the purpose of educating persons to act as emissaries in this kingdom; and, after that education is completed, for the sending of them forth for the very purpose of the subversion of the Es tablished Church in this country. (Hear.) There are few, if any, that are not aware of the denunciations that have been made by the priesthood of the sister kingdom, against our profession of faith, and a declaration not to rest satisfied until they shall have subverted the Church, and applied its revenues to their own purposes, and established Popery in the ascendency in this country. Such then we have to contend with. Let us then consider what are the means best adapted to counteract these designs. As I stated before, it is not our intention to act without charity to wards them; but still, if we are to take up the shield of defence, it may prove possibly that we take up the spear ; and if wounds are given, let them who provoke the contest bear the danger. (Applause.) But, gentlemen, in this our day it is most fortunate, nay, I hope it is not presumptuous in me to say, that providentially there are men of great powers of mind—of great intellectual acquirements, of unbounded eloquence, and of unblemished character—raised up on our behalf (hear); and whatever they may say, will carry a weight with it which cannot be given to our versaries, who have assumed the garb even, in some instances, of another Protestant profession of faith, different from our own, in or der, I suppose, as they have not hesitated to state, to carry their schemes, by establishing themselves as ministers. By the assistance of editors of newspapers and the press, they seek to alienate the affections of the common people of the country from the church. It then becomes us to counteract their designs in every way we fairly and consistently can, without any malicious motives being attributed to us, or any hostility beyond that necessary for our self defence. These are the grounds that have assembled us together this day, and these are the sentiments which I believe will animate those who will have to address you. I shall now have to introduce to you, in the first place, Mr. Nolan, who will propose the first resolution. Afterwards I shall have the honour to intro duce to your notice Dr. O'Sullivan—(loud applause)—whom I am sure it is only necessary to name in order to insure him a patient attention to his all-powerful eloquence. (Hear.) I am confident when you depart from hence, the impression on your minds will be such as will not be transient, but will be such as will induce you to exert yourselves, as far as your powers will enable you, in supporting . our Protestant esta blishment, and, in doing that, rendering a service which I am sure will be acceptable to G. (Hear, hear.) The Rev. Mr. WRIGHT begged, before the business of the meeting was commenced, to say a few words. In the month of August last, a dissenting minister of the name of Nolan, visited Warrington and other towns, for the purpose of giving lectures on the subject of education in Ireland, In the cha pel of Warrington, in August last, he made a statement re specting the Protestant gentry of Ireland, exceedingly dero gatory to their character, and which, if true, would tend to sink the Protestant gentry of Ireland in the estimation of every man of common sense. A gentleman present took down the remarks which he made, and subsequently wrote to Mr. Nolan, to beg he would either substantiate his statements, or publicly retract them. Mr. Crisp was the gentleman who had written, and he had addressed to him no less than three letters relative thereto; but to that day no answer had been returned. He had had neither the honesty to substantiate the charge, nor the honesty to retract his statements if they were false. He therefore begged, before he began the busi ness of the meeting, that the Chairman would have the kind ness to call on Mr. Crisp to read those statements which had been made by Mr. Nolan, and the letters which he had ad dressed to him. (Hear.) Mr. CRISP said, that bearing that a lecture was to be deli vered against Popery at the Chapel, he had attended, and was glad to hear that dissenters were beginning to arrive at the truth. Mr. Nolan bad commenced his lecture thus : PORTIONS OF A LECTURE, DELIVERED BY MU. NOLAN, A DIS SENTING MINISTER, AT STEPNEY CHAPEL, WARRINGTON. " How little has ever been done for the spiritual welfare of Ireland—statesmen look to her commerce—politicians snake use of her to suit their purposes—but how few, even of the religious, attend to her spiritual wants. " While Ireland is said to be a grand field for the experi ment of the voluntary system, there are scarcely any of the advocates of that system who carry out their views. But the most that has been done for her in the voluntary way, has been done by those whose very principle is against it, 'The Church of England ;'—but we must see that all the efforts hitherto made are of a party kind, and in one way or another to serve party or political purposes. What influence has O'Connell, is the question asked by every religious person ; but what influence has Jesus Christ, is kept in the back ground. The population of Ireland is eight millions, of which one and and a half millions are Protestants, and the six and a half millions Roman Catholics. You hear of the O'Sulli. vans, M`Ghees, and some gentlemen of my own name, who tell you the state of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, but they Bever mention the state of the one and a half million of Pro testants—there is much to be done amongst them. " The Church of England is divided into four parties or sects in Ireland : " ' First,—What you call the orthodox : the high church party. " Second,—The heterodox, as not attending at any place of worship. Si Third,—What are called the evangelical—and these are the most bigoted sect to be found. " Fourtb,—The really evangelical, and these are a very small portion, but truly devoted to the spiritual wants of the people.' " The Protestant religion is a persecuting religion; and it is unreasonable to suppose when you punish men for what they think right, to convince them that they are wrong. It is of no use to tell them that theirs was the first religion that persecuted; they will not look back. In Sligo, the Protest ant magistrates actually tried to burn a meeting house be cause the minister preached against adultery. This is a fine specimen of your Protestants in Ireland. If you can con vince the people, well; but if not, you have no right to abuse them—they have as much right to think as you. There is much talk of the murder of Protestant clergymen, but I never knew of an instance of a quiet peaeeable Protestant, who had taken no part in politics, being murdered. Our society (the Irish Evangelical Society) has been established for twenty two years, and not one of our ministers or missionaries has been murdered. Here then, not one martyr in twenty-two years." I endeavoured the next day to get an interview with this gentleman, but not being able, I wrote to him as follows: " Stanley-street, Warrington, 4th August, 1838. " SIR,—As a member of the Church of England, and one feeling a deep interest in the spiritual welfare of the Irish people, I felt considerably hurt by many of the remarks made by you at the lecture yestedav evening, a few of which I will instance. You admitted fairly, that nearly all that had hitherto been done for the spiritual well-being of the Irish people, had been done by the Church of England; but You followed it up by a very bold assertion, (and I cannot think a very charitable one,) that all was for party or political purposes. Can you, sir, with the operations of the Irish Society, the Hibernian Society, Kildare-place Society, Irish Sunday School Society, and various other societies before you, really declare nothing has been done except from party feeling. The efforts and exertions of the Irish Society must be so cheering to every true christian, and would well merit the approbation of every public speaker feeling an interest in Ireland's spiritual good. You also made free remarks upon what you call the harsh expressions constantly made use of at the Reformation and other Societies. It cannot fairly be doubted that these societies have done much good to the Irish people, and they have acknowledged it. It may sound well to say, the prejudices of the people should not be offended, and that care should be taken that no harsh expressions are used. But, sir, a faithful minister of the Gospel must, in the honest discharge of his sacred duty, say much to offend the feelings of a sinful congregation ; and, in like manner, a faithful Protestant, preaching before a Roman Catholic body, must of necessity say much to wound their feelings. The Irish people are, I know, sir, an intelligent people, as von stated, and as such, meetings for fair discussion are likely to be of great use to them. It has been my good fortune to reside in a parish, near London, where the Inde pendent minister bad a higher opinion of the Irish clergy than is entertained I find in Warrington. For during the time of their distress, from their just dues being withheld from them, the Rev. Joseph Irons preached a sermon for them, and headed his posting bill thus :---` A sermon will be preached for those persecuted servants of God, the Irish clergy.' by the Rev. Joseph Irons.'—Here, sir, was a display of christian charity. Your statement of the Protestant magistrates, who tried to burn the meeting house, because the minister preached against adultery, I must see authenticated before I can believe, and should be glad if you would supply me with their names, that I may institute inquiry. Ido firmly believe, sir, with the majority of religious persons with whom I have conversed, both churchmen and dissenters, that the Irish clergy, as a body, are as truly devoted servants of Christ as can be found. The few lines which I have penned are not dictated by any had feelings, as I trust you will be lieve ; but as I failed in an opportunity of seeing you, which I endeavoured to do, 1 did feel, that, in justice to those whose labours and exertions in the holy conse I think you slighted, I might fairly thus address voti.—l beg to remain, sir, your respectful servant, JOSH. CRISP." To this 1 received no reply ; and after a month or six weeks I sent a copy of it, presuming the first conld not have been received, particularly requesting the names of the Pro testant magistrates whose conduct was so gross, and requesting . a reply. To this I received no answer, and on the 31st October, I wrote thus : " Latchford, 31st October, 1538. Ste,—Not having received any reply to two letters which I addressed to you, requesting your authority for certain state ments made by yourself, in a lecture professedly against popery, hut which was, more correctly speaking an attack against Protestantism, delivered at Warrington, 1 shall now 1.6 4 myself fully at liberty, and perfectly justified, in making any public use I may please of such statements, and of your unwillingness to reply to my request for your authorities. Such part of your audience at the lecture as I have consulted, fully agree with me in thinking that a public lecturer is bound to answer inquiries made of him respecting his public statements; and surely, as a christian and a gentleman, he should f ee l o bli ge d f or such an opportunity f proving his statements, or, if hastily and improperly made, of retracting them fully, fairly, and openly. I more particularly wanted the names of the Protestant magistrates who tried to fire the chapel (as you stated) because the minister preached against adultery, and the name of the preacher, and where situated : a 0 a minister of the gospel, I might have expected to receive have dorie s . (Cheers.) You will understand, Moreover, how my embarrassment is increased, when I state, that this is the first occasion of my taking part in the proceedings of a Protestant Association Meeting. The occasion is a great one, and the call upon von of corresponding importance for the sake of the cause. I could wish that it had fallen into less feeble hands, yet I am bold to cast myself upon your kind indulgence, being assured, that for the cause sake, you will tolerate the feebleness of the advocate. It is necessary to al lude to your feelings, my friends, upon the subject before us, because the cause is your own, and I refer to :nine also, be cause any impression which a speaker expects to make upon his audience, must more or less be proportionate to his own sincerity and earnestness in the cause he espouses. And, for myself, I can safely profess, that I know not whether I am mote deeply pressed by the insight of my own feelings, or by my conscious inability to give them utterance. All that is dear in the institutions of our country, both civil and religi ous, is in peril at the present. 'Tie to defend them from ag gression we are assembled to-day. You, Mr. Chairman, in your preface to this meeting, have most suitably alluded to the feeling of Christian charity, that ought to predominate in such a meeting as ours. We preach, as ministers of the gospel, charity from our pulpits, and unless we practice it in our lives, we are nothing but sounding brass or a tinkling symbal ; but what charity is that which we preach ? that which " rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." Ours is the gospel of peace—but our wisdom is pure first, be fore it is peaceable ; and we are not justified by the word of God in securing peace by any compromise of principle, or surrender of truth. Therefore, it is that we are constrained to assume the attitude of hostility to the system of the Romish Church, because we value truth more than an unhallowed peace without it. In this field of wide-spread controversy, I can expect only to touch upon some of the superficial topics; first, because I feel myself inadequate to the task of a snore minute examination; and again, the penetrating mind of my respected friend and superior, who is to follow me, will lay before you, with all his clearness of style, and perspe cuity of statement, (peculiar powers with which God has en dowed him,) the depths and dangers of the mystery of ini quity disclosed in the working of the Church of Rome. (Cheers.) The principle I lay down is, that danger is to be apprehended from the aggressions and the encroachments of the Church of Rome; and 1 would draw your attention briefly to the nature and extent of it. The first point any man ought to consider when threatened with danger, is the power of his assailants, and the intention with which he is likely to employ it. Now, for the power of the papacy, we go sufficiently far back to trace it from the time of Pope Hildebrand, Gregory VII. who succeeded to the Papal throne in the year 1073. He secured to himself the appoint ment to the preferments, or dignities in the Romish Church. By his oath imposed upon the bishops, they were reduced to a state of the most complete and abject vassalage to the Roman see. The priests were similarly subjected to the bishops, and by means of the confessional, the laity is en slaved to the priest; that by this chain, the members of the Church of Rome were thus inevitably rendered wholly sub servient to the will and wish of the Roman Pontiff, no mat ter what service soever he might think proper to impress upon them. (Cheers.) So much for the power, now for the manner in which this power was likely to be granted. The history of the past fully bears out the statement, that the power of Rome was in variably exercised for the advancement of Romish interests. This power is utterly incompatible with the genius of a free state such as England. (Cheers.) After the Reformation, Romish emissaries were detected, like Satan, assuming the garb of an angel of light, as counterfeiting the appearance of converts to the truth, with the intent of occasioning schisms in the church, by urging on the violence of the non conformists. In the gunpowder conspiracy, Garnet, the Jesuit, was discovered to have been privy to the entire plan, and to have recommended it on the ground of its advancing the interest of the Church of Rome. Popery is your enemy, and, let the aggression assume what appearance it may, the Roman pontiff will be found the prime mover of the mischief. 'Tis true we are not permitted to see the main spring at work ; we can see but the outward framework of the machinery; but we may be assured that the cause is the same, the certain, untiring, unremitting advancement of the papal power, working just like the force of gravity oa the earth's surface, permitting the winds to rage, the waves to roll, but yet controlling' every atom, and directing it in its proper course. (Cheers.) Here then we have the power of the Church of Rome, and with its objects in this country we cannot be unacquainted—that it is the subversion of our national church—and this must be counteracted. To meet this power by awakening the minds of our countrymen, is the ob ject and aim of the Protestant association. 'Tis the supine ness of Protestants which has thus augmented the power of the enemy; in fact our Protestant principles have so long been enjoyed, that they now seem practically forgotten. ft is the light of Gospel truth shining purely through our land, that has exalted England to her present position, unrivalled in the annals of civilized glory ; and if w e would maintain her in this position of national greatness, 'tis not by aban doning the principles that made her great at the first. A fter enlarging upon the blessings of a free Gospel, as the only preservative against popery, the Rev. Gentleman concluded a long speech, apologising to the meeting for having tres passed on them at so great a length, and saying that he now assumed his proper place, that of a disciple sitting at the feet of his rev. friend, who was ready to second the resolution which he had the honour to propose. (Cheers.) The resolution was as follows: "That the principles of the Church of Rome being un scriptural in their character, and unholy in their influence and operations, and being alike inimical to the interests of morality and domestic peace, as they are dangerous to those of national prosperity and greatness, this meeting protests against the encouragement given them of late, and pledges itself to use all lawful means to counteract their baneful tendency." Rev. Dr.O'S etv N.—The rev. gentleman commenced his address by complimenting the speaker who preceded him on the ability with which he had spoken. He said that he was for a time at a loss to understand how the urgency of his argu ments could be denied ; how it was possible to evade their force—to deny the truth of his representations as to the dan gers by which the Protestants were surrounded, or to resist the force of his exhortations. He felt, however, that so long as there was fear and selfishness in the human heart there must be objections to such high souled arguments as those of his friend, and to such exertions as they were now engaged in. I have thought—(continued the rev. gentleman)—of one species of objection which I should desire to produce be fore you; and which indeed may, to some extent, guide me in the course of my address. Of all the forms in which hos tility to the exertions of protestantisin has in late days dis guised itself, none have been found more convenient, or have been oftener assumed, than those which bear a character of charity and philosophical moderation. It is in a form of this kind Protestants, who are opposed to us, usually ex hibit their when, in their candour, they take the side of our enemies. They tell us that they, as well as we, could wish to see Roman Catholics renouncing doctrines which they would, in gentle language, venture to pronounce erro neous. Here their agreement with us ends. Their conde scension can no farthr go. They see that there are within the realm Roman Catholics in very great numbers ; that the majority of them appear very unwilling to make profession of the protestant faith. Why, then, exclaim these "gentle shepherds,"—why will you harass persons who have no de sire to be convinced, with exposures which they feet as a species of perscution, and why in the exhibition of their doc trinal and moral obliquities, will you stir up strife and ill blood throughout the empire. If you could bring over the Roman Catholic body to join a Protestant communion, we would ourselves countenance and second your exertions : as you have not succeeded in effecting this desirable conversion, you should discontinue your bootless labours and sit down with us in our quietness and indifference. It is evident that such persuasions have not had much weight with you, and if you therefore account them unworthy of serious atten tion, and demand of me a reason why I notice them, I owe you, and will endeavour to give you, an answer. It is briefly this. In the first place, you should be prepared to give an answer to those who may object against )our pro ceedings. In the second place, Ido not think that all who would influence others or who profess to be influenced them selves, by such considerations, are faithless and irreclaim able. I know it has been long the policy of Romanism to provide herself with Protestant advocates, whom she hires to betray their own church by defending her. I know that while she has provided her own children, lay and ecclesiastic, with instructions calculated to teach and cultivate principles of intolerance, treason, malice, and uncharitabl eness, she has prepared for the protestant eye, and often through the instrumentality of hired Protestant advocates, representa tions of her in which she would be seen as candid, charitable, loyal. I know that in order to obtain unsuspicious testi monies to her mildness and sincerity, she is willing to allow Protestants the freedom to charge her with speculative error. I know that having retained her hirelings for this purpose in days when she was not prosperous, she is not likely now to abandon a practice which she has found eminently successful. Judging, therefore, from the analogy of former times , I would expect to find among those who, Protestants them selves, discountenance Protestant exertion,—many who are the hired advocates of Rome; some who, Romanist in heart, put on a Protestant profession to render their enmity more formidable, and many who, because they have a desire to serve the interests of their party, would betray their religion and their church. But yet, although dissuasives to exertion such as I have described, savour much of a traitor's policy, I will not believe that all who use them, or yield to them, are traitors. Some err for want of knowledge, some for want of reflection—error culpable, but not unpardonable. All such may be reclaimed. All such will, at some time, listen to words of remonstrance. They deserve to have such words spoken to them in soberness and sincerity; and, therefore, I will detain you from the more pressing subject which should engage us, by notice of that argument in favour of inaction (which has been extracted, with perverse ingenuity, from the very difficulties which would seem to demand exertion,) and by an exposure of its unsoundness. But no—l will not be gin with the objection, and the answer to it. 1 will endea vour to set before you, first, a picture of Romanism as it exists, and then if time admit, will return to the objection. But I cannot disguise from you that I have a tedious tale to tell, and that my narrations, rendering more intense the chill influence of the day, may prove a severe trial of your patience. (Cries of "No, no.") I am not, however, so modest as not to think that there is some importance in what 1 have to say, and I venture to assure you that if my state ments can make their frozen way into your memories under this nipping frost, in the course of a few days when they begin to thaw, you will find them not unworthy of your attention. (Laughter and cheers.) 1 begin then. What is liomanism ? Before I answer, let me notice a mis take of a two-fold nature, which has too long had cur rency amongst us. It was erroneously supposed that Ro manism was a religion. It was erroneously imagined that Romanism was old. She is not old. She is not a religion. She makes an alliance with religion just as she makes an alli ance with political liberals. So long and so far as it serves her purpose she can use both. When either or both has be come embarrasing she can forsake them, renouncing and condemning the creed, sending to the gibbet, or the dungeon, or the stake, the inserviceable politician.—(Cheers.) After some further remarks on the subject, the Rev. Dr. continued, —Romanism is the religion, or rather the system which takes as its profession of faith the creed promulgated by Pius IV., in the year 1.564. So recent is the origin of the existing Church of Rome. The creed which I have named, consists, as you are aware, of two portions, one, that which was professed as its Creed, and as the Creed of the Universal Church, by the Council of Trent, and one composed of Articles, which Pius elevated into equal authority, and pronounced equally necessary, with those on which the Lord Jesus had taught that salvation was dependent. The former portion is that which we call the Nicene (substantially the same with the Apostles) Creed, acknowledged as the Creed of the whole Christian world, from the early ages, to the year 1546—the latter portion is that with which Pius IV. overlaid the pro fession of Christian faith, (eighteen years after the Council of Trent had solomnly professed it,) in the year 1564. But, in both, this is an inadequate and an erroneous representation. The Council of Trent adopted no other Creed than that which it professed in its third session. We have no reason to state that the Nicene Creed was ever abandoned or overlaid even in the Church of Rome, until that day when Pius IV. issued his bull. " Injunctum nobis" in the November of 1564. The case may be thus, simply, stated. It appears that the efforts of Pius or his legates to procure from the Council an acknow ledgement of the exorbitant claims of the Papacy were un- your thanks for my inquiry after truth. At the meetings of our Reformation Society, and Protestant Societies, which you attempted to asperse, it is our habit to court the attend ance of reporters, in order that our statements may be fairly laid before the public.—Leaving you, sir, with the pleasant reflectipn of having made statements which you have not power to prove or openness to retract, I remain, yours, J. CRISP." The Rev. THOMAS NOLAN, curate of St. Peter's, Stock port, then rose. He said, Mr. Chairman, after the state ments just made, I fear my name is a bad recommendation in the sight of this meeting; but, I hope it is scarcely neces sary for me to disclaim any participation in the sentiments, or acquaintance with the gentleman, who has so,-1 have uo successful. The assembled fathers, (as Dr. Phelan has stated And the creed had no article on the veneration of relics. on Roman Catholic authority) could not be brought to agree 9 WORSHIP OF THE EVER VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD, AND with the Council of Florence, which conferred undue power OF IMAGES. on the Popes, should be received as general, and the Council Nestorius opposed one of the titles assigned to of Constance, which had decided contrariwise, be regarded the Virgin only as provincial. The purpose of Pius could, however, be Helvidus the other 6th „ effected by another contrivance. It was the enacting, that all Iconoclasts beneficed persons, and all persons to be beneficed in the And the Catholic creed did not become a refuge for the Church of Rome, should make a solemn profession of faith. condemned and persecuted opinions. In this the Papal party succeeded. he Council enjoined that a profession of faith should be made—the Pope arranged 10. DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. the manner and form—hence the Creed of Pius IV. This IValdenses.—" Seysselius at last exhorts the Waldenses to contrivance was worthy of the man and the cause. He first believe the doctrine of indulgences, because the universal enslaved the Council by providing, contrary to all precedent, Church believes it, and says, that they run no hazard in it, -thatlsiselegataa-warsaaa-- ha ve aka este of_pro- seeing _the yelielie Ye_ as_thr, lThurc s'_es e ittheate_a_they_ using the matters which were to be determined. He may he endanger their eternal salvation in condemnin g what the said to have, finally, overreached it, by turning one of its de- Church approves of."—Du Pin, vol. iii., p. 353. crees to a purpose not contemplated, and preparing a symbol But neither Waldenses nor their persecutors could prevail of Christian faith, wherein dogmas upon which the Council against the Catholic creed to accept the doctrine of indul would not come to a decision are affirmed, not only as mat- „„„. tern to be believed, but to be believed as of indepensable ne- 7, cessity—to be believed as essential to salvation ; as of no less It. RostE MOTHER AND MISTRESS OF CHURCHES. PETER VICAR. vital importance than the articles in the Apostle's Creed. Church of Antioch, 39; of Rome, 45.—Baronius—Scrip- This is the Creed of Romanism. We have argued from it lure—" Of Paul of Apollos of Cephas." the novelty of the Roman religion. We have said that the Creed of Pius is different, not alone from the Creed of the And mighty Rome could not write its name upon the creed Protestant Church, but from the Creed of all antiquity, and of the Catholic Church. have argued, that, therefore, the Church of Rome is new. She 12 . CANONS AND COUNCILS TO BE RECEIVED wurnour A boasts that God was. according to promise, ever with his DoL:BT. Church—that, accordingly, no error in the faith was possible. She argues, that, therefore, the reformation cannot be justi fied, because it could not have been required. We take her statements and the principle of her argument—we adopt her affirmation that the Church was not to err in the faith—we affirm that the Church must, therefore, always have professed a perfect, not inadequate, not incorrect symbol of faith--we assert that we, who have retained the faith of the ancient churches—who respect their symbols—who neither diminish nor add, are in communion with the churches from which we have not departed, and we affirm thatßome which has adopted a new creed, adding many articles to those of which the ancient creeds consisted, must be considered novel as her creed. To this, I understand, Romanists have at length made a de fence. We pressed the argument in various places—in various forms. At last Rome has replied. I have not seen the reply authenticated by its authors; I have seen enough to convince me, however, that it is the same with a defence adopted in the old times by Romanism, and not, I believe, found serviceable. The defence. I believe, is, that the ar ticles added to the creed were always essential to a Christian's belief, but were added by Pius IV., because in his time the denial of them rendered such a declaration of their import ance necessary. This is, I believe, in substance, the defence by which Romanism replies to our charge against her. We have said that her system is a novelty because her creed is new—framed in opposition to a decree of a council in early times, that of Ephesus, framed in condemnation, we might affirm, of the creed which the Council of Trent, in the year 1545, pronounced the sole foundation against which Hell should not have power to prevail. This was our charge. The reply is that, notwithstanding the profession of this creed, Romanism is not new, for she did no more than she had a right to do, in leaving articles indispensible to salvation out of her creed so long as they were universally acknowledged, and inserting them there when they became denied. A word or two on this defence may not be unseasonable. It professes to announce a principle, and to state a fact. The principle is, that the time for proposing a doctrine as an article of faith is when it has been "dangerously denied." The state ment of fact is. that the articles added by Pius IV. to the creed had not been so denied before his Pontificate. There will not, I imagine, be much difficulty in proving this state ment untrue, and in proving the principle also, with which it is associated, to be "dangerously" incorrect. Endeavour to imagine yourself in the condition of one to whom a mes sage of the most vital importance was entrusted, and which you undertook to deliver faithfully. The message consists of truths which you are commissioned to make known, and of a declaration which you are also to deliver, that those who re ceive and respect certain of them shall be benefitted much, that whosoever rejects them, shall suffer for the refusal, in describable affliction. In such a case—what would you do ? Would you make a clear enumeration of the truths on which so mighty consequences waited? Would you so distinguish them from the less momentous subjects of your commission, that all to whom you came could understand their paramount importance ? Or would you enumerate certain of the essential truths, declaring that, on the receiving or the rejecting of them, happiness or misery depended—and leave out of your enumeration others no less momentous, which you permitted to remain undistinguished in the mass of less important truths, until the ruin occasioned by their rejection had established a title for them to be placed in the rank from which you had excluded them ? "Go," said our Lord, "teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Again,—" He that believeth, and is baptised," said the same blessed Lord, "shall be saved—he that believeth not shall be condemned." Thus was a commission given to the Apostles —they were to teach truths which man could not reject without ruin to his eternal interests. They were to stamp these momentous truths with marks which should effectually distinguish them from doc trines of less vital importance. How does Romanism say that they exercised the solemn commission ? They framed, she affirms, the formulary which is denotnivated the Apostles creed, the formulary from which, she does not dispute, the earliest Christians learned the knowledge which is eternal life. This formulary was in the place of scripture until the books of the new testament were set in order, and when the scrip tural canon was completed, still the formulary of faith was had in honor, as containing a summary of those great saving truths of which the holy bible discourses. Why did it not contain the twelve dogmas with which Pius enlarged it? Had the Apostles received them in that solemn com mission, and knowing that belief in them was essential to salvation, had they disposed the momentous verities so as that they lost the prominence which had been assigned to them by the Lord, and sunk to a level with truths which were less distinguished because they were of minor importance. Let it not be said that the Apostle's creed could not have enu merated the articles added by Pius, because the subject as well as occasion of some of these articles belonged to times more recent than those of the primitive Christians. This would nut be satisfactory, because the future as well as the past has its place in the Apostle's creed. 'that the Lord shall come to judge the world is no less clearly professed in the creed than his death upon the cross for our sins—than his resurrection and ascension into heaven. Thus, the future is an object of the professions in our creed. Why then were the dogmas of Pius omitted ? Ought they to have been made known as truths essential to salvation ? If they ought, the !ejection of them by the Apostles is wholly inexplicable; — if they ought not—if they , were not necessary to salvation in the days when the first creed of Catholic Christians was pro mulgated, and are, as Pius declares, necessary now, the faith of Romanism, it is most evident, is not the faith of the Apostolic Churches. We know that in matters of discipline diversity of opinion anti action is tolerated in the Church of Rome until she has prouounced upon that which should be observed, but it is her profession and her boast that her doc trine of faith is one—derived immediately from God himself —delivered whole to the Apostles—not enduring change or diminution, incapable of receiving addition—professed at all times—in all Catholic churches by all Catholic Christians— "Quod semper, quod übique, quod ab omnibus." One ob servation more. 'The Church of Rome receives the formulary which is termed the Athanasian creed. That formulary was adopted by the whole Christian church in the seventh or eighth century. It proceeds one step further than the earlier formularies, adding the caution with which our Lord directed that the recommendation of his doctrines of faith should be enforced—a caution which it is the fashion of modern times to call " the damnatory clause." This solemn formulary de clares the necessity of holding the Catholic faith. It proceeds then, " But the Catholic faith is this," and having completed the summary terminates by the expression, "This is the Ca tholic fait What is the Catholic faith ?" Is it not the whole Catholic faith ? This evidently is the natural meaning of the terms. if it were the whole faith, the creed of Pius is a novelty, because it adds to that which was complete and pet feet before. if it were not the whole faith, the Lord, ac cording to the judgment of Romanism, forsook his church, because in the early, and through the middle, ages, a doc trine was professed as the Catholic faith which was imperfect and inadequate. Let Romanism choose which alternative she will adopt. In either case she is proved to be in error. (Loud cheers.) But there is more to be said. Romanism is just as erroneous in her statement of fact as she is shown to be in the principle of her argument. It is altogether untrue that the articles of time creed of Pius were not impugned before the day in which he intruded them in the Catholic symbol of faith. I shall, with your permission, sir, submit a proof of this to the meeting. (Cheers.) A little before I left home to enjoy the privilege which I am now exercising, I thought it well to exalt - 61m the articles of the Romish creed, and to satisfy myself that I could prove, on the authority of Roman Catholics, that they had been impugned before Pius admit ted them into the creed. I have not selected, perhaps, most judiciously—most pertinently—but, as a beginning on the subject. pray accept my quotations. (Loud cheers.) — [Here the reverend gentteman read the passages to which he alluded, interspersing occasional remarks, which called forth the plaudits and, sometimes, the laughter of the auditory.] ARTICLE I, TRADITION. Dr. Milner—quoting from Tertullian—in proof of the Romish doctrine of tradition, "They pretend that they ought not to argue upon any other ground than the written documents of taith."—Letter 10th on the True Rule of Faith. Thus Romanism admits that there were men in old time who rejected her doctrine respecting tradition, yet no profes sion of it was made in the Catholic creed. 2, SCRIPTURE. Milner, quoting from Vincentius Lennensis, "Do the heretics then appeal to the Scriptures? Cer tainly they do, and with the utmost confidence, &c." and " If then Satan and his disciples, the heretics, are capable of thus perverting Holy Scripture, how ate Catholics, the children of the church, to make use of them, so as to discern truth from falsehood? They must carefully observe the rule, laid down at the beginning of this treatise, by the holy and learned men I referred to. They are to interpret the divine text ac cording to the tradition of the Catholic Church." Thus Romanism admits that her doctrine respecting Scrip ture was denied, and yet no place was assigned to it in the Catholic creed. 3. DOCTRINE OF THE SEVEN SACRAMEMTS INSTITUTED BY OUR I.OltD. Du Pin, Cent. 16, C. 3, Vol. 3, p. 445, writing of the Coun cil of Trent, "Some demanded, that it should be declared to be of faith that Jesus Christ instituted seven sacraments, because the Lutherans maintained that he instituted none but baptism and the eucharist. Others said they need go no farther than the Council of Florence, because of the different opinions of several great men, and they quoted the master of the sen• tences, (Peter Lombard, of the 12th century,) who held that extreme unction came from St. James and "St. Bonaventure, with Alexander Haleusis, who taught that confirmation is DO older than the apostles, to whom the same father and other divines also attributed the justification of the sacrament of penance." The doctrine of the seven sacraments denied by learned doctors in the church, and yet not rendered worthy of a place in the church. Augustine said that former councils could be amended by later.—Gregory NazianLen would shun them because un profitable.—This on the authority of De la Hugue, De Ecclesia, pp. 170-172. " Ireland renounced communion with Items, when she admitted the second council of Coustantinople."—Authority, Baronins, a Cardinal. And yet, not a word about councils in the creed of the Ca tholic Church. I am done, and I thank you: you have endured your opera tion patiently and well. (Much laughter, and cheers.) — Will you pardon me when 1 tell you, that you might have been spared the infliction, and that I make this confession the preface to a further trespass upon you? (Cheers.) 1 might have relied upon a solitary statement, to the effect that Luther had opposed many articles of the creed of Pius the Fourth—that Leo the Tenth had condemned in his writings such instances of opposition in a bull issued in the year 1520 —that at the Diet of Augshurgh, held in the year 1530, the Confession of Augsburgh was presented, the Confession of Strasburgh and that of Zuinglius also, and that in each of these confessions articles of the creed of Pius were impugned —that white the opinions of the Reformers were in circula tion through the world, the following pontiffs occupied the Papal chair: Leo X, Adrian VI, Clement VII, Paul 111, Julius 111, Marcellus 11. Paul IV, and Pius IV ;—and that, while according to the doctrines of the Church of Rome every one of these pontiffs had a right to frame a creed con . demnatory of the Reformers, no pope ventured on such an enterprise until the day of Pius IV.; and that thus the tacit testimony of seven popes was given in opposition to the doc trine set up by the modern Church of Rome. I might have relied on a briefer, but a more direct testimony—that of the Council of Trent. That council met, while the opinions of heretics were in process of dissemination through the world. It framed or professed a creed which was "to confound heretics." It devoted an entire session—the third of its pro ceedings—to this important work. What was the creed which it professed? The Nicene—that which we repeat in our communion service. What were the terms in which it introduced the creed? They were to this effect:— 4. ORIGINAL SIN, &c. Pelagians—"Ccelestius and Pelagius denied original sin and the grace by which we are Christians."—Bossuet's Dis cour sur L'Histoire Universe!. And yet the Catholic creed was not enlarged by an article on the subject. 5. TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c. Johannes Scolus Erigena, Oth century. Berenger, 11th century. - - • And vet transubstantiation, although I have some notion that the Lateran Council attempted the intrusion, could not keep its place in the creed of the Catholic chui ch. G. COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. It is enough to name John Huss. And the tyranny to which that martyr owed his crown, and the impious daring which seized upon the martyr's death and the people's murmurs as an occasion for pronouncing perjury a duty, if its victims were heretics and its purpose was to serve the church, could not intrude into the Catholic creed the pro fession, which implies that to mutilate the sacrament of the precious blood -shedding was to improve Christ's institution of it. 7. THE PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. Aerius believed the prayers and oblations of the church, made for the dead, to be useless.—Bossuet's Discourse on Universal History. And yet that "only sure foundation," as the Council of Trent declared the Catholic creed to be, did not contain the article which Pius added respecting prayers for the dead. 8. WORSHIP OF RULtCS• Vigilantius "opposed the worship of the relics of holy mar tyrs, and termed those who received them Cinerarios et Idolatras' who venerated the bones of dead men; and the miracles wrought at them, he affirmed to be the deceits of evil spirits, deciaring that they were altogether useless, be cause signs should be exhibited, not for the faithful, but for unbelievers," &c.—Bar. Epis., An. 406. "The Pope alone Vicar of God. "The Pope alone above law. "The Pope greater than any council. " The Pope can depose Princes. "The Pope can canonise saints. "The Pope can take away the inconvenience of illegiti mate birth. The Corpus also declares that he does not bear the place of mere man, and Charles Butler admits that he is called in it " Our Lord God the Pope." " ECCLESIASTICS. "Statutes of laws, contrary to the liberty of the church, do not bind without consent of the church. recetv , oss--s?,-ga.inft - a clergyman, although he may accuse him. "Clergy not to be brought before a secular tribunal, nor condemned by secular judges, unless deposed. " He who imprisons a clergyman, or who abets the wrong, excommunicated. "HERETICS. " Receivers of them excommunicated. "Princes should be vigilant to extirpate heresies. " Heretics, unless they repent, to be delivered to the secu !al- arm, or, if having abjured, they relapse. "Their goods confiscated to the church, children disin herited. Heretics may be proceeded against on suspicion alone. " He that will not extirpate, to be excommunicated. "Their favourers if they do not satisfy within a year, infa , mous. "All bound to them, in any way, are released from obliga ion. " He is to be held a heretic who will not clear himself by VM "AN OATH. "To the prejudice of the church, is not to be kept, but is itself rather a perjury. "MURDER OR MASSACRE, "Perpetrated through zeal for the church, is not to be accounted homicide." Co:stn. TaEn.—SEss. 3. " Following the example of the Fathers, who were won in the more solemn councils ( sacratioribus conciliis) to oppose this shield against all heresies, at the beginning of their proceedings, by which alone they have sometimes drawn heretics to the faith, have conquered heresies and confirmed the faithful. Wherefore, the symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church adopts, as that principle in which all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree—the sure and only foundation, against which the gates of hell never shall prevail, in the words in which it is recited in all churches, the council decrees shall be repealed." Thus, on the evidence of Romanism herself, it appears that her arguments to establish the claims she advances to anti quity are unfounded, and that she is, manifestly, new. Her origin cannot be traced higher than the date of the creed of Pius IV. But the structure of Humanism was not then completed : the foundation was laid—the superstructure was not erected for some years after. The creed shows traces of imperfection. Priests swear in it to obey the canon law, but the canon law was not then framed. They swear in it to receive the interpretation the Church shall affix to the Bible, but no interpretation of the Bible in the vulgar tongue gave token of the nature of the power which the Church thought fit to exercise. It was necessary, therefore, that a canon law should be framed, and an interpretation of the Bible offered to the public, in order to understand what was, as it has been termed, the mind of the Church, in both particulars. — After some further observations in this strain, and after much cheering, the reverend gentleman proceeded.—Pius having converted Humanism into a political system, of which be was the absolute head, appears to have directed his attention to the fabrication or pronfulgation of a code of laws confirmable to the principles which he had embodied in his creed. Valuable service had been rendered to the Papacy by the " Decretum Gratiani," compiled in the Ilth or 12th cen tury, and which proved very instrumental to the establishing and extending Papal power in the two centuries following. In the sixteenth century a work of a similar character, but greater extent, was undertaken. The enterprise was designed in the pontificate of Pius IV. It was brought to its comple tion in that of Gregory XIII., in the year 1580, when it was given to the world as containing the text of the canon law of Romanism, under the name "Corpus Juris Canonici." Who were the Pope's concerned in the preparation of this charac teristic work ? Whose were the productions from which they ordained that it should be compiled? The Corpus Jut is Ca nonici authenticated by Gregory XIII., consists of the fol lowing works:—the Decretum Gratiani, the work of a Bene dictine monk of the 12th century;—the Decretals, a work authenticated by Gregory IX., prepared under his direction by Raymund, a Dominican (this compilation was published in 1230);—the Sextus Decretalium, promulgated in 1298, by Pope BonifaceV I I I.;—the Clementine Constitutions, and the Extravagantes Johannis, both edited by Pope John XXII., —and souse few other decretals from different Popes, in a tract termed Extravagantes Communes. This latter tract, consisting of little snore than rinetv pages, in a work con taining about two thousand five hurnired, and being composed of writings from several Popes, principally, however, from those whose epistles constitute the other pails of the work. it would be unnecessarily tedious to examine. The monster John XII. left two letters. One of them is a mere letter of form, the other contains an excommunication. This latter is found in the Extravagances. We may return, therefore, to the question . —from whose works has Romanism selected the canon law, by which the consciences of her members shall be guided? From the works of Gratian, from wotks authen treated by Gregory IX., Boniface VIII., and John XXII. A word or two on each of these individuals, or his works, may not be sinks. The Decretum Gratiani abounded iii errors. Spurious decretals were cited in it as authentic. Many of its quotations were unfaithful, and many . of its re ferences erroneous. But its author was a Benedictine monk, of the same order with Hildebrand, and, as was naturally to be expected. according in opinion with that able and ambi tious Pontiff, he compiled a work by which the pretensions of the Popes were much favoured. Therefore, it was not unbecoming in Popes to apply themselves to the correction of some of his errors, and to make his work a part of their canon law. The second treatise on the canon law of Huma nism is the Decretalias of Gregory IX. His was a name not unknown in history. His distinctions were derived from his contest with the Emperor Frederic 11. That prince is said to have made a vow that he would carry arms into tife Holy Land. Because he postponed his vow, Gregory ex communicated him. Because, when he had engaged in the crusade, he made peace without the Pope's approval, the same Gregory excommunicated him anew, pronounced him deposed from his throne, declared his subjects released from their allegiance, and offered his crown and dominion to the King of France, for his brother, the Count D'Artois. This enterprising Gregory is one of the select lawgivers of Roma nism. The Liber Sextus Decretalium is the third treatise in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Its promulgator was Boniface VIII. This is the Pope who frightened his predecessor by alarming his conscience into renouncing the Papacy, and who then, when he had had himself elected into his place, in order, perhaps, to prevent him from being con scientiously frightened back again, imprisoned him for life. For the patience with which the deposed Pontiff endured the sufferings and affronts of incarceration, as well as for his other merits, the prisoner Celestine has been canon ised, but it was not because his invasion of the chair of St. Peter, and his incarceration of a meek pontiff, added a saint to the calendar, that his successor's laws were adopted by Romanism. Ile added other merits. He too, became embroiled, by his own seeking, in political contests. His struggle with France, his excommunication of Philip le Bal, and an attempt to place this kingdom under an interdict; his exorbitant, and it would be surely not too much to say blasphemous pretensions, and the remorseless determination with which he laboured to enforce them ; his life and death, in short, are too well known to justify me in detaining you further with his story. It is sufficient to say he left memori als behind him in his collection of Decretals. They were re jected and prohibited in France, at least, no doubt, because of his character, but they were brought forward into promi nence by the popes of modern time s, an d are acknowledged as part of their law. The Clementine Constitutions, and the Extravagantes Johannis, a fourth treatise of the canon law, are both authenticated byJohn X's 11. It is sufficient tosay of him, that he acted in the spirit of his associates, excommu nicating and pronouncing deposed the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, and exciting treacherous and bloody war between sovereigns. He was himself strongly accused of heresy; but he was pure from the heresy of moderation. His pre tensions to universal temporal dominion, seconded as they were by bold endeavours, made ample amends for his spiri tual delinquencies, and John XXII ranks among the law givers of the Church of Rome. We may turn now to the editors of this remarkable production. They constituted the triumviral succession of Pius IV., Pius V., and Gregory XIII. The first enslaved, and we may add, baffled and de ceived, (what Rome pretends to call) an oecumenical coun cil. It is unnecessary to speak of his other distinctions. The second endeavoured to o ppress religion by cruelty and violence,—to kindle up the flames of cruel war—to infuse into the hearts of loyal subjects, perfidy and treason. The third added to such labours the other distinctions which assigns to him a peculiar character. His intellectual claims to be remembered, may be judged of from his correction of the calendar. His moral and religious performances are more memorable. He offered up a solemn thanksgiving to God for the Bartholomew massacre. He eulogised the monarch with whom that dreadful slaughter had been planned, for treacherous assurances of love and peace with which he deluded brave and loyal subjects, until the ar rangements were completed for their slaughter. He order ed that Hildebrand should be venerated and invoked as a saint reigning with Christ in heaven. But he has acquired a name in the history of your country. Pius V. had excom municated your illustrious Queen Elizabeth, and commanded her subjects to withdraw from her their sworn allegiance. Roman Catholics in England felt the command burden some. The court of the sovereign was powerful and august. The counsellors of the queen were tnen of wisdom—the throne was girded round by champions of lion heart, and the sceptre was swayed by a hand worthy to sustain the weight of empire. Rebellion was without hope, and the papacy must, therefore, mitigate the sharpness of its commands, so long as the vigilance and valour with which the throne of England was guarded, forbade all attempts at their execu tion. Gregory XIII. showed that he could accommodate himself to the adverse circumstances of the case. He ex plained the bull of his predecessor Campion' and his associ ates were enabled to enter England, with a bull which taught Roman Catholics, that the excommunication of Pius V., though fatal to the heretics, who were its especial o bjects , was not, and was not to become, binding on Roman Catholics, until it could be safely executed,—until, in short, the time in which, openly or covertly, schemes of rebellion could be prosecuted with hope of success. This leads me, naturally, to the other boon made to Eng land, and the other proviSion for his church during the reign of this enterprising Pontiff. I mean the Rhemish Testa ment. The character of this work was given, not incorrectly, by Mr. O'Connell, when he described it as teaching that it was lawful to put heretics to death for their religion; and that faith might innocently be broken with them. The de sign of the work is set forth in the Du blin News, edited at its first appearance, by Mr. O'Connell, Dr. Wyseman, and Mr. Quin, which states that it was intended to promote the success of the Spanish Armada,—that is, to excite disaffec tion throughout England. In this interpretation of scripture, it may be said that the system of modern Romanism had its completion. There was now a creed,—a law,—a Testament,—all conformable to each other. The character of the doctrines recommended in them, you may understand even from the brief extracts which 1 offer you from the text of Romish law—the Corpus Juris Canonia. Such are the pretensions and morals of Romanism as taught in that law, which, according to the Canonist's defini tion, "directs the actions of Christians to the end of ever lasting blessedness;" and set forth in a book, which, in the Moral Theology, compiled by order of Cardinal Camus, it is recommended that " all ecclesiastics should have, and study, as the copious fountain whence, with full security, and with out much labour, they can draw forth the doctrine necessary for their own salvation and that of others." The rev. gentleman here entered into a detail explanation of his noticing the characters of the Popes who were authors and editors of the canon law, by showing the pernicious effect of 'such examples on the ecclesiastics of their church, and then proceeded to the following effect :-1 have adduced for you, in support of statements to which I desired your assent, testimony offered by Mr. O'Connell and Dr. Milner; but. I beg you to understand that I do not require you to be lieve that either of these gentlemen should be reputed a wit ness of unblemished veracity. (Much laughter.) I adduce them as my witnesses, simply because Irish Romanism re putes them her representatives. By the way, there is a curious coincidence of qualification in the honours by which these gentlemen became respectively suited for their offices. The one is set forth as their representative and champion by the ecclesiastical section of Humanism in Ireland. " Read. Milner—Protestants of England read Milner's End of Con troversy," cries Dr. Murray—pay and support O'Connell— the representative of all Ireland," cry out the political section (including, indeed, bishops, priests, and people) of Irish Romanism. Thus are the two representatives proclaimed. Now for their qualifications. Dr. Milner was expelled from a society of Roman Catholic gentlemen in England, as a liar and a slanderer; he was excluded from a meeting of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics of his own rank in England, as a liar and a slanderer, and for his performances in such cha racters, was reprimanded by the Pope. (Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) Mr. O'Connell, I need not tell you how his conduct has been regarded by individual gentlemen in Eng land, nor is it to my purpose to do so. But that gentleman is a member of the British parliament, and in that assembly be was accused of crimes of the same character, with those of the learned bishop; and in that assembly the charges against him was established—and in that assembly he was condemn ed to receive the reprimand which wanton calumnies merited. (Loud cheers.) It is strange enough, at least suf ficiently remarkable, that Irish Romanism shall have chosen as its representatives, two individuals, whose practices were so peculiarly distinguishing; and it is well worthy of atten tion, that English gentry, Roman Catholic as well as Pro testant, shall have been called on by circumstances to pro nounce an opinion so very extraordinary, and we would have thought, so little gratifying, on Irish Romanism, as it ap peared in the forms of its two representatives. (Much cheering.) But I must pause—my purpose is answered, —which was, to satisfy you that I am not a voucher for the fidelity of those two witnesses, but chose thorn simply because Humanism having chosen them for herself, could not except to them. She thinks them, however damaged they may be, good enough to serve her purposes against the Protestants, and the Protestants, accordingly, may serve their purposes by returning upon the hands of Romanism her damaged wares and witnesses. (Hear, hear, laughter and cheering.) I return from my digression to the proper subject upon which I should address you—the constitution and character of Romanism. It would be too much to expect that, if my statements are new to you, their importance should, all at once be understood; but I have no doubt, if you reg ard them with attention, they will not seem to you trivial. What, I repeat my question, is Romanism ? It is a system which aspires to universal dominion over the minds and bodies of men, and which, in order to compass its ends, would blot out the hand-writing of the law and the Gospel—would obliterate all trace of the charities and humanities inscribed upon the hearts of men, and would substitute principles, favourable to its ambitious designs and feelings, which should receive with ready reverence and submission its most un righteous commandments. It is a system which ex cludes the Bible from its proper place and office, which would intrude a human being whom it terms the vicar of the Lord into the power and place of the Saviour of the world, and which would adopt, and entertain among the agencies by which its ends are to be served, perjury, murder, treason, and would, when time and circumstance re quired, recommend them to useful votaries as of the essence of true religion. Such is Romanism, not my description, hut as you see it in its own recorded principles—such as I have detailed to you, from its authorised and authoritative volumes. And this is the religion from which, we are told, it is impossible to withdraw Roinanists, against which it is in expedient and wrong to warn Protestants. Roman Catho lics will not be won from their creed, cry out our Protestant adversaries, therefore you shculd be silent on the irritating topics of leornish errors. This is the prophecy and the pre cept by which we are to he turned away from what we deem a plain duty—ought we respect them? is the prediction creditable to Roman Catholics? Is the accompanying precept worthy of Protestants? Imagine the production true. The Roman Catholics cannot be persuaded to renounce or change a system against which charges of intolerance and perfidy shall have been established—a system in defence of which no one of its rulers can venture to lift up his voice in presence of an accuser--a system convicted on the testimony of its most honoured witnesses, and by the silence of its selected representatives. Let it be supposed, that from such a sys tem Roman Catholics cannot be withdrawn—that they can not be influenced to make a change in it—what would then be the duty of Protestants cognizant of the character of the Church of Rome, and of the dispositions of its steadfast and unscrupulous adherents? Remember, I am here supposing the charges against Romanism to be all proved—proved on evidence which cannot, consistently, be contradicted or ques tioned. Remember, that against the slightest falsehood or exaggeration, I would most sternly protest—and that, I trust, there will ever be found, those enemies who do the duty of friends, watching with jealousy, all our proceedings, quicken ing into more anxious vigilance our natural and most neces sary caution, by their eagerness to expose the most trival inaccuracy of which they can convict us. Remember, that I am supposing all our charges against the Church of Rome to be established on evidence clear and convincing as their momentus nature demanded. What, I ask the question — if the prophecy of our Protestant adversaries be true—if, no matter what may be the magnitude of its crimes—the foul ness of its principles, and the exorbitancy of its pretensions— Roman Catholics will never be influenced to renounce or to reform their church—what then becomes an upright Pro testant's duty? Is it to be silent? To become partaker in the iniquity by conniving at it—and to hope that, by leaving a treacherous and intolerant system free to work its will, you may propitiate it so that it shall work little harm? Or is it his duty to ring out an alarm over a slumbering land, to bid Protestants arouse them, and be on their guard—to tell them that there are men amongst them not to be won by a sense of justice, or touched by mercy, or troubled by shame, not to be influenced by any power, to withdraw from a system which teaches and recommends the foulest doctrines, and the foulest practices—to tell them that those who knowingly countenance such a religion roust resemble it—must be, in a word, base, perfidious, intolerant, and that English men, if they would save their country or themselves, must awake to unmask the foulest of all conspiracies, and must stand up and prepare to meet the rudest shock their country has yet experienced. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) But is the prophecy founded in wisdom or truth? Nothing is easier than to deliver predictions when the seer closes his eves upon the indications which ought to guide him, and is fortified against the contradictions by which time may reply to his promises; and yet, by seine strange inconsistency or anomaly in our nature, , no statements appear to exercise a more extensive influence over society than those which are supported by confident predictions. I do not wonder that so severe a punishment was decreed in the OldTestamentagainst the false prophets. Those who have once made prophecy a profession, find their work so easy and their gulls so numer ous, that no sense of shame, uo inconvenience from detection and exposure, could abridge their profitable vocation so long as lite was left them to practice it. Note well the men who tell you that Roman Catholics will adhere to their church, in spite of all the lights and the voices which shew its iniquities and warn to depart from it, and if Your memory fail you not, I venture to pronounce that you will find among them the pro phesyers of smooth things of a decidedly opposite character, in time past. Befdre the eventful year 1829, they who now describe the Roman Catholics as a rock of granite, repre sented them as a rope or a ball of sand; they adopted the beau tiful delusion that they were kept together, not by internal cohesion, but by external compression, and you were told that you bad only to remove the repulsive securities by which your religion and your church were guarded, in order to have Ro man Catholics in numbers renouncing their errors with their prejudices, and united with you in worship. The prophecy was adapted to the time. It served its purpose. It world not suit the present exigency, and, accordingly, it is not merely suffered to pass into oblivion ; but it is, as it were, required to give place to a prediction of a directly opposite character. Both prophecies may have been spoken in a spirit of sincerity. Prophets of 1829 were perhaps too sanguine. Prophets in 1828 may carry the i r incredulity to excess. Both, however, may be perfectly honest. But where you fled that the con tradicting. predictions have been uttered and are upheld by the same individuals, you are justified in suspecting .fraud. They who allured you by the bland promises of the emanci pation days, and would now dishearten you by predictions that the hopes they encouraged you to entertain are chemeri cal, and must end in disappointment, are not men to be trusted. They seek to make you their dupes, or they are weak enough to have yielded themselves dupes to the kna very of others. But is there truth in the prediction? I am not - disposed to think so harshly of our Roman Catholic bre thren as to believe it. I am persuaded, that numbers, great numbers, of Roman Catholics are ignorant of the character of their religion. They know not what they do when they support it. It is the art of Rornanism to hide its iniquities from those who would scorn them. With the providence, but not in the spirit of Macbeth, it says to its honourable vo tary, "be ignorant," Until the day has conic for putting its base theories into practice, it derives much advantage from the membership of individuals whose conduct is such as to grace their bad cause, and whose principles it leaves un vitiated, in order that their conduct may thus serve as a decent cover. But this artifice residers Romanism the more danger ous, and while I would ever protest against having my words interpreted as if they were designed to expose individuals whom I had not named, I would also fearlessly insist upon the truth of the gravest charges which could be urged against the Roman Church, and on the necessity of being prepared to withstand it. There is no country in Europe, sir, except Great Britain, which has not taken measures to resist the encroach ments of the Papal power. Roman Catholic Bishops must be approved by the sovereign. Correspondence with the Pope must be open to the inspection of the sovereign—the doc trine taught in religious seminaries—seminaries for educa ting the priesthood, must be such as is satisfactory to the sovereign. Papal edicts cannot be published, unless at the pleasure of the sovereign. Secrets of confession may not be kept if they compromise the safety of the sovereign, or protect the perpetrator of a capital crime from punishment. Such are some of the securities adopted in other countries. They are not provided for England, yet, where is the country in which they are more needful. You have a representative government,—you have trial by jury. These are your most boasted institutions, and you admit among your represent-a; the worst faction by which this country, as well as Ireland, is wronged and endangered. Whatever the vices of that fac tion may be, it is consistent. It watches carefully its own interests, and while it strives to use, as its instrument, every party or individual weak or wicked enough to lend it support, it never barters for the desired assistance the interests of its own cause. Let the politicians, or the philosophers, or the elegant votaries of fashion, whom our rude Irish factions offend, name an instance in which one of those factions was found rejoicing in the glories of England, or s.rrowing over her disasters, or postponing any one of its own objects to seeure advantage to your country, or to avert evil from her. Let them name the instance in which that faction afforded the slightest accommodation, incompatible with its own purpo..., to a liritish_minister. or even to Britain her self, in some pressing necessity. Let them name the in stance in which it has neglected to advance the interests of Romanism, or refused the opportunity to persecute Protestants--to damage Protestantism, and shake all English interests. Or let them name an instance in which the other party did not, to the utmost of its power, pro mote, even to the sacrifice of its own feelings and interests, the cause. of Protestantism and England. (Loud cheers.) If they name no such instances on the one side or the other, let them henceforth be silent on the subject of Irish faith. Faction here, among yourselves, has made Popery the arbi trator of your country's fortunes—England may in the divine mercy be preserved—but the factions which have laid her down at the feet of Rome have done their part to effect her' abasement and ruin—they have taken the enemy into the divided house and given him the dangerous authority for which they had been contending with one another. We have one hope of them. They have done this evil ignorantly. They knew not the nature of the power they thus raised up above them. They know not that it must, of necessity, be the implacable enemy of their religion. We have a better hope—the hope which lights the path of duty—the trust that faithful men have never been forsaken. Let us resolve each and all of us to preserve this trust by a patient continuance in well doing—learning for ourselves and assisting to make known to others the truths which are of essential moment, and believing that He who has hitherto protected this peat country in its perils and distresses will deliver it again from an evil more formidable than any it has yet encountered. Let us be true to our cause—acquainted with our duties — and governed in our endeavour to discharge them by the principles which should influence Christian men—and we m4y safely leave the great issue with Him who ordereth all things well, and has never been far off from the heart which trusted in him. I would conclude, thanking you for your attention and offering this parting remembrance. Romanisni has gained much by ignorance and may gain more. In past days she profited by ignorance of everything except what she wished to have taught. If you neglect your duty, she may now profit more by a voluntary and therefore more culpable ignorance of what she teaches. (Long continued applause.) The CHAIRMAN announced that there would be another meeting at six o'clock in the; evening, and the meeting then . broke up at three o'clock. tires, men pledged to extirpate, should they ever have the power, your religion ; and you invest with the solemn privi leges of a juror—privileges which you concede, from a per suasion that an oath is an effectual bond—individuals who cannot be bound by any abjuration, but who, if they take an oath to do impartial justice, are under an obligation to break it, if the perjury can serve their church, and to think that the keeping the oath, under such circumstances, would be the sin to be avoided. There was a time when England, too, had her securities—when she maintained, politically and morally, a protest against popery—when her laws excluded Romanists from offices and trusts for which they were dis qualified if they were true to the religion they professed; and when the practise of her church, regulated by Canon, made -peov isionfer—inat rue ting thesiseople---s,t—sssaeasstalalso opportunities, (and at least four times in each year,) on the ground on which the usurped authority of the foreign Poten tate was repudiated in England. It is unnecessary to dilate now on the discontinuance of this practise, required by, I believe, our first Canon. Romanism stooped to the necessi ties of the season; she put on a disguise of meekness; she spoke smoothly, and in gentle accents; she contrived dis claimers to lull Protestant vigilance asleep, and soon ren dered it painful to a Protestant minister to discharge his duty, and rendered many a Protestant congregation unwil ling to witness the discharge of it. As Romanism appeared to renounce, tacitly, its pernicious opinions,. Protestants began to give her credit for a real renunciation, and the in tellectual and moral protest against her lapsed into disuse. If the preacher spoke of Popery, it was as a superstitious and unscriptural system, and controversy became, in process of time, so indiscriminatingly charitable, that power departed from it. But this is a subject on which it is not necessary now to dwell. It remains to observe, that when the discontinu ance of the moral protest against Popery had bad its effect upon the public mind, the abandonment of the political fol lowed. Romanism is now free to develope her plans, and is encouraged to expose her principles. And what in conse quence becomes our duty? To take up, in such form and manner as the times permit and pure religion sanctions, the protest which is yet in our power,—to resume the moral, as the political is lost, and to compensate by increased vigilance and exertion on the part of individuals, the want of protec tion in the state, until at last the whole people are made ac quainted with the nature of Popery, and it is constrained to accommodate itself to a state of things in which it must fear that its iniquities cannot continue hidden. I am quite ready to admit that all do not participate in our fears. To some it is mat ter of amazement that papal Rome had ever attained an ascendancy over the kingdoms of the world, and they have boldly affirmed that it cannot again effect the triumph it won in the dark or middle ages. It seems to me a view of modern philosophy—l mean the philosophy of politics—to be occu pied in proving that that which is was so to be, and in finding out reasons why it must continue so, or at least experience no further change than may be admitted within the range of a very limited vision. Popery has had its day—superstition has been dispersed, light has come into the world, and the rivalry of steam and the press will prove too much for Ro manism. Do the reasoners who thus make up their minds from a review of one side of the question, give Romanism no credit for power to see, as well as they see, the altered condi bon of human affairs, and for power also to adapt herself to the new necessities ? Such seems to be the reasoning which has a charm for the liberal politicians of modern times. They see plainly enough what they mean to do themselves — they desire popery no further than that she shall lend theist her aid in accomplishing the objects which they have at heart. They believe that there is no such prevalence of bigotry and superstition as should render the religion which they are assisting a little because they think it serves them much, formidable to them and to their cause, and they forget that there are other passions of the human heart' which expose equally to danger, which equally bring into subjec tion, and to which popery can address itself with facilities for obtaining success not less 'effectual than those by which she yoked superstition to toil in her service. They- forget that Humanism has found the vices of the human heart no less profitable than its weaknesses ; and that by kindling up animosity between states and parties, by misrepresenting sovereigns to their subjects—by exasperating princes against their people—and stirring up strife where there should have been neighbourhood, she has been enabled to pursue a career of aggrandisement, borne on triumphantly by the malevo lent passions of those whom she pretended to favour, and whom she degraded, almost as lowly as they deserved, to be her slaves. How is it she has now gained dominion in Eng land ? What power had she in her own strength ? What, in comparison with the illustrious of this land,—what was her wisdom hut very foolishness ? And yet she has seen and had discernment enough to understand—and has laughed her scornful laugh to see—wisdom, and eloquence, and exalted character gracing and recommending a patriot cause, and has seen all vain to shake the influence, empire rather, which she has acquired over the fortunes of this sorely smitten country. How did she gain this authority ? Party—faction—silly strifes and prejudices, separating Englishman from Englishman, dividing people into parties, and detaching them from the true love of country. This has given Popery power, by this she maintains her power, and England, which in the paliniest days of papal Rome, and the darkest season of superstition, never yielded without a struggle and a protest, to the en croachments of the haughty Pontiff with all his attributes of sovereignty around him, now submits to hold her place among nations—the place to which she has been reduced, her flag affronted—her commerce endangered—her coasts undefended —ocean torn from her sway, because faction has placed her at the foot of a paltry section of Romanistn which lies per jured itself into the power of trampling on her—(loud and long cheers). Who can say what mighty works may be wrought by that ambitious power, while she can order Pro testant England as one of her dependencies? What human foresight can anticipate all the evil deeds which may be done while that influence continues? or what sagacity can trace out the consequences likely to follow from the deeds which have been done already ? Where is the man—go seek him among the most daring and the darkest vaticinators of past days or present—who could have hazarded a predic tion, but ten years since, that within so short a space of time the destinies of England were, humanly speaking, to be wielded by a government which should bold its tenure of office at the pleasure of the church of Rome, and as the con dition of its occupancy should have consented to strike a heavy blow at Protestantism? Where is now the man, bold est in conjecture, most sagacious, farthest seeing, who could venture to predict the consequences of that postponement of the assembly of your representatives, by which you have been all so surprised and confoucded. A ministry holding its place at the pleasure of Romanistn, at its own pleasure, post pones under circumstances of almost unequalled interest and anxiety, the meeting of your houses of parliament; and at a time when, we might think, it would be most desirous of legislative assistance and cooperation, takes to itself the whole burden and responsibility of government. Who can tell what this interval may bring forth ? How was the Eman cipation extorted ? It is well known that when Lord Mel bourne was Chief Secretary in Ireland, his indulgence towards the assemblies in which Romanisua exhibited and arrayed its physical strength, was productive of mighty consequences. 'l'he magistrates, it is said, were instructed to keep watch over the vast assemblies of the people, but were prohibited from dispersing them if they did not break out into violence. The result might have been expected. Meeting after meet ing took place—hundreds of thousands came together, until at last the whole physical force of Roinanisin in Ireland was organised, and when Mr. Lamb and his government had passed away, the mischief they had wrought did not depart with them; and the mightiest man in all the world, rather than encounter the horrors of a civil war, conceded the healing measure'—the relief bill. Thus was emancipation won, Who can say what may not be won, by the misgovern rrient which England may have to experience while her le gislature is dispersed ? • Who can say what she may suffer from the consequences of acts of misgovernment by which she has been smitten already? And while Popery profits by the imprudence and treachery from which England suf fers—when she is to be seen, steadily advancing, with a ra pidity which ten years ago it would be thought madness to anticipate—could we think the man honest if we thought him wise, who should expect us to believe, that we may feel quite at our ease, and believe it impossible that Romanism ever can gain power, although we see her exercising power little less than absolute over this Protestant country ? This has English faction done, and with this result from party contentions here among you, is it not too much to hear how flippantly your wise and dainty politicians, of all shades of opinion, say " Fie upon the factions of Ireland !" You shall see the accomplished man of fashion, and the writer who provides for him the regulating opinion—you shall see the one in his haunt of fashion, the other in the retired ele gance of his study, inveighing each, with as much energy and effort as good breeding tolerates, against the crimes and contentions of Ireland.—[Here the rev. speaker gave a pic ture of the state of crime in Ireland, and alluded to a state ment shown him by a gentleman who had collected from public journals the reports of crime—commented on the in effacy of the measures adopted by the Irish government to prevent or to punish outrage—and expatiated on the too great indifference with which such recitals are received in Eng land, as the ordinary result of Irish faction. He then pro ceeded thus:l—Factions of Ireland!! Ireland has suffered sorely—may suffer more—from faction. She has seen bad men exalted, and many a good man delivered over to a vio lent and cruel death. Her name has become a by-word and a scorn, and faction has wrought in her and against her all this woe;—but. compared with the factious spirit which holds the mighty energies of this sorely-endangered land in dis persion, or arrays them in hostility—compared with this, the factions of Ireland are wise and honourable. They have the merit of being consistent. Their objects are adequate avid distinct—although not such as to afford an excuse for crime, yet vast enough to call out high energies and to move strong passions. One party has at heart to exterminate Protes tantism from Ireland—to break asunder the connection which binds that country to you—and to recover properties to which it pretends the occupiers have no sufficient title. The other party would keep the lands their fathers boUght or won—would maintain the religion which they believe to be scriptural and true—and, because they have been trained in loyal attachment to every thing British, would guard the integrity of their beloved British connection. Oh ! blame them not for this. Their ancestors were English,•and fathers not degenerate have transmitted to them au English spirit. Blame them not:—their mothers have taught them, even from their tender infancy, while the mother's hand could guide and govern, and her caresses were a rich reward, to love and venerate the excellent glories of Britain; they have taught them how this was a good land and a godly, favoured by the Almighty with his choicest gifts—a pure religion—a righteous law; how that on earth no sovereign was more honoured than theirs, the ruler of England; how none of mankind were nobler than the British peers; and how the lowliest but of the humblest peasant was secure in the eye of the British law, equally with the baronial court and the royal palace; how that England was the land where maintenance of true religion was reconciled with the toleration of free born thought; and how God had honoured her, snaking the boundless ocean an appendage to her sovereignty, and strengthening her so that in every land upon which the sun looked down, it beheld proud monuments of her fame. Oh ! blame them not :—their mothers have taught theist to love this good laud—have taught them how it was from Eng land the everlasting Gospel went forth to speak to all nations in their own tongues the wonderful works of God; how it was from England liberty called aloud to the manacled African, and that as lie cast his fetters away, and bounded aloft its the buoyant energies of recovered freedom, in his thanksgiving to God he invoked a blessing on Britain; and they have told them how, when the gloom of oppres sion covered the earth, and the people sat in darkness, the first sound and sight of hope that startled the moral midnight, was the thunder of the British artillery, and the gleam of the British sabre; and that, at the inspiring summons, the pros trate nations arose, and stood arrayed with England, to com bat for their rights and to conquer. In lessons of this kind their early years have been instructed, and they listened until they were brought to regard the name of a gentleman of England its a synonynse for taintless honour—until the name of a British merchant awoke, by spontaneous association, the thought of incorruptible integrity, and until words of most power to animate, words such as valour —justice—honour— worth—seemed deficient and unexciting until they became localized, as it were, by the appropriate epithet which assigned to them their proudest home, in association with t he name of Britain. Blame them not that they have been thus brought up—that they have been taught to temper and improve ar dent affection for the land which gave them birth with a ra tional and a strong attachment to the land which was the home of their fathers—and that the object their hearts desire for the soil where they were born—for the welfare of its inhabitants, their brothers—is to obtain for it and for them equality with England ; —not the base equality which would bring you down—which would divide with you the miseries which afflict their own country—would scatter over your fair land a por tion of the curses under which Ireland is blighted and wither ing—but that they might, by making their country acquainted with your principles, make her a partner in your prosperity, and cause her afflictions and her crimes to be remembered no more, by introducing in their place the social advantages of this good land, freedom, and faith, and peacefulness.— And this is one of the factions—the Irish factions—by which your dilettanti politicians are mortally annoyed and offended. Oh ! that they would accept a lesson from it, or even, sir, that they would draw the proper lesson that may be learned from THE EVENING MEETING. In the evening at six o'clock, another meeting was held lit the large room of the Red Lion Hotel.—The platform was again crowded with the clergy and gentry of the town and neighbourhood, and the room was densely crowded with a highly respectable auditory. John Clare, Esq., was moved into the Chair, and called on the Rev. James Wright, to open the meeting with prayer. The CHAIRMAN then briefly opened the business of the meeting. It was with great satisfaction that he saw so numerous an assemblage. He stood there as the advacate of the Church of England, the poor man's Church, which was open to all, and which had been virulently attacked. He denounced the supineness of the government, in putting oft the meeting of Parliament for two months, when they ought in plain English, to have " taken the bull by the horns," and have met the difficulties which now threatened us. Through the mode in which that ministry had advocated Popery and discountenanced Protestantism, Popery bad made fearful strides. Not only in our Colonies had the Government with held support from the National Establishment and given a bounty for the advancement of Popery—not only in New foundland had Popery, under the fostering hands of Govern ment, advanced so much that the Papists outnumbered the Protestants, and Protestants ever snbjected to open insult on account of their creed,—not only in Canada, was the sup port, originally granted to the Church Establishment, with held from the Church, whilst large sums were given for the support of a Catholic Bishop and Catholic clergy, thus directly advancing Popery and discouraging Protestantism :—not only in the colony of New South Wales, were the funds origi nally granted for the support of the Church equally divided for support of all sects, whilst the Protestants numbered 10 to I of any other sect, and thus a bounty was given to advance Po pery and Sectarism—a bounty of 10 times the amount of that given for the advancement of Protestantism; but even at home was the saute destructive policy pursued. Popery had by every means been encouraged both in Ireland and in this country, the Government yielding to the mistaken feeling of liberalism of the day, till from twenty chapels, the whole amount of accommodation for Catholc woiship 40 years ago, that num ber had increased to between five and six hundred, and while temples of idolatery were thus increasing in the land, he would ask, did it not behove them to increase their strength and band together to stop the progress of this idolatry. He alluded to the support given to the Catholic Colleges, one of which, the college of Maynooth , cost this country 10,000 a year; and to the new system of education which was to foster Popery, and which cost this country no less than £70,000 a year- He concluded with calling on the Rev. Mr. N OLAN to propose the first resolution. He ad dressed the meeting at considerable length, advocating the advancement of Protestantism, and taking a comprehensive view of the insidious advancement of Popery. He alluded to the Popish system of national education which had been • introduced. If they would fill their churches, they roust fill their schools. Children must be taught Protestantism from childhood; they would then get thoroughly grounded in Pro testant principles, and they might defy all the efforts of Po pery. But let Popery insinuate itself into the schools, and let the children imbibe the poison of its doctrines in early youth, and the foundations of the noble structure of Protes tantism would be rapidly sapped. This was a part of the con cession in which we had been engaged for the last ten years, and he called on them earnestly to set their faces against any concession in this respect. Education unguided by religion raised man, under the evil promptings of his nature, from an ignorant being to a devil. He would rather have to do with an untutored savage than with .a well tutored infidel; he was not half so dangeruus, and was twice as noble. The education board in Ireland was not wanted ; the work of edu cation was going on before; there was a thirst for knowledge, and for the knowledge of the Bible, when this plan was devised to prevent the children of the poor from reading the Bible. The grant was taken from the Kildare place society which was doing so much good, and down came the education com missioners to cast the children of the poor into scriptural dark ness. The national system of education had been proved after eight years trial to be a mere engine of Popery. The priests had all the government of the schools, and the catholic chapel clerks were in many instances the school masters. There were those who valued that gospel which they enjoyed, and which was the bulwark of the land, and he was sure there was that spirit in England that, if that gospel were assailed, would stain it with its life's blood rather than transmit it maimed to posterity.—(Cheers.) The Rev. Dr. O'Sut Livara was received with loud cheery. He begged to defend Her Majesty's ministers from the at tack of his friend Mr. Nolan, that they had not given peace to Ireland. (A laugh.) He had no hesitation in saying that if Her Majesty's ministers had given peace to Ireland, they . would have been committing a ministerial suicide. They could not exist if Ireland were peaceable. If the law had its full effect in Ireland, and Ireland were peaceable, that major ity would not exist which uow governed this country. Every country in Europe, except England, had adopted protections against Popery, except our own. The Bishops of Rome must be appointed at the pleasure of the sovereigns of each coun try, and the intercourse between the Bishop and the Pope must be open to the inspection of the sovereigns and their ministers. The schools must have their system of educa tion made known to the sovereign, and even in the article of confession the secrets confided to the priests must be made public. There was one part of the subject of confession which he never dare enter upon. There was something so offensive to every good and virtuous feeling in the idea of the prepara tion by which priests were prepared for their duties, that he did not wish to allude to it. Thus much he must say, that no imagination of the most profligate of men could exaggerate the profligate abominations in which the minds of the Romish priesthood were trained in tofit them for the confessional: and it was at the knee of one whose mind had been thus filled with pollution, that the wives, and the daughters, and the sisters of Roman Catholics, poor men and rich men, must kneel, and must be schooled by this individulal, who calls himself the representative of God, in the profligacy in which he himself had graduated. But there was another part which was safe for discussion, They were sometimes told that the practice of the confessional was not politically injurious, and that it did not tend to encourage crime, or to prevent the com mission of it. But if it did not tend to prevent the disclosure of crime the Protestants said it was pre-eminently unjust. If an individual. were to come to him or to any of his rev. bre thren, and make them confidants of any secret by which they became conscious of the committal of any capital crime, the law would regard them as partners in the guilt, if they did not make the disclosure. But, if instead of coming to them the poor wretched sinner went to a Catholic Priest, and shoul , tell him even of the projected murder of the young Queen, the priest to whom this was communicated was forbidden by his allegiance to the Church of Rome, to discharge his duty to the Queen of England; he must permit the monarch to walk un consciously to her death, because it was in accordance with what he called his religion to let the murder be consumma ted, rather than make it known.—They were told in reply that no man would confess unless it were known that their confession would not be divulged. He denied that this was the case, and contended that men were frequently impelled by a sense of crimes to confess them. Romanism provided a salve for that prompting of conscience, and thus prevented many from delivering themselves up to public justice. The good which the confessional did was vaunted in frequently pro curing the restitution of stolen goods : these restitutions, how ever, were "few and far between," but were well contrived and directed, so as to win the regard of many persons of re pute in favour of the confessional, who said that but fQr the confessional, this restitution never would have been made. He denied that such was the case, and in proof of this, instanced the condition of one county in Ireland, in which there were 23 , 1 coroner's inquests in one year, and he believed he did not exaggerate when hesaid that at least three-fourths of those were held on bodies of men that had been violently and cruelly mur dered. Within the last year in that county there was not one cri minal brought to justice. How did Rotnanisin reconcile this with the utility of the confessional? Was it proved by re storing the £5 or £6 stolen by the way side, or shown in the concealment of one or two hundred murderers. lie noticed the system of subordination and the machinery of the church of Rome, by which the bishops were bound to the pope, and the priests to the bishops, and the laity to the priests, by con fession; and stated that it was customary for a delegate from the bishops to visit Rome every year, and state to the papal government there the progress of popery and its prospects. There it was customary for delegates from every country to meet together as subje c ts of the pope, and every particula r of the state of each country was known ; so that if needful, the delegates of Romanisin from other countries might be instructed to incite opposition and rebellion to this country when she was weak, and take other measures for overthrow ing the Protestant government. '['his was only to be battled against by keeping public attention fixed on the proceeding' s of that church, and the ministers of that church would then be obliged to be cautious in their conduct. He called on them to be consistent, and not to cry out against a system of religion which they were paying their money to support, by instructing men to teach it, and called on them to petition the legislature to cease the grant to Maynooth college, where popery was taught. It was the fault of the supineness of the people that popery had so progressed; if they aroused them selves their representatives would be imbued with their feel- Dg and parliament would be guided by . their will. .11 e was glad to hear of those dissenters who joined them hand to hand and shoulder to shoulder in opposition to the errors of popery. (A. laugh.) To he serious, it was a most dangerous thing to make common cause with popery„ and there never was a surer way by which Satan gained a secure hold of his victims, than by inflaming them with hostile passions. There were some persons who, in order to gratify their ange r against some of our institutions, would join any foe to under mine them. He alluded to the system of national education, and implored them to allow of no schoolmaster without the bible ; it was the bible and nothing but the bible which could cast the edifice of Itomanism into ruins. Looking at t he t church of Rome as the enemy of the bible, he thought it 13 0 too much to say that they pledged themselves to -resist all her encroachments; and if they did not resist her encroach; ments they might fear, as they ought, that the supremacy 01 her reign should be established. (Loud applause.) eh , The CHAIRMAN, after passing a high eulogiuin on f gentlemen who had addressed them, and proposing a show of hands in testimony of the thanks of the meeting to them , called on the meeting to close with singing a doxology' three cheers were given for the chairman, and the meeting broke up at nine o'clock.