The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-12-31 00:00:00

FROM THE REV. HUGH M`NEILE TO MR.
ALDERMAN EARLE.

SlR,—One of the ." Irish extracts" introduced into the
Corporation Schools contained a note, which stated, that our
Lord, after his resurrection, appeared first to Peter. In a
sermon which I preached at the time, I objected to those
extracts, and mentioned this note among other things, chew-
ing that the statement in it was unscriptural, inasmuch as it
is written in St. Mark xvi. 9, that our Lord appeared first to
Mary Maydelene. For reasons best known to the gentlemen
themselves, my sermon was made the subject of debate, and
unmeasured condemeation, at a meeting of the Town Council.
At that meeting Mr. Blackburn defended the extracts, in-
clusive of the above-mentioned note. In this part of his
speech his words were, (or were reported to be,)

" Great stress was laid on another circumstance. There WWI
a note which said that Christ appeared ' first to Peter,' and
assigned as a reason for his appearing first to Peter, that he
might console that Apostle in his deep affliction,' for having
been tempted, and fallen, for his denial of our Lord. The
circumstances might be capable of a different construction ;
but they were told that the Lord appeared first to Mary Mag-
dalene."

The condemnation of the note in the extracts was in the very
words of Holy Scripture, but instead of-treating it accord-
ingly, yielding to it at once, and admitting the note to be
wrong, Mr. Blackburn endeavoured to parry it, introducing
it with the preface we are told, as if it had been merely an
objection of man, and continuing to defend the note, on the
supposition (for which he had no warrant whatever) that it
referred to the Apostles only, and not to other persons. This
appeared to me to betray a very serious, a very awful want of
reverence for the Holy Scripture, and a determination to up-
hold " the extracts," (then the symbol of a party question)
in opposition to the better judgment of the speaker. It was,
in my view of it. treating the language of St. Mark, as if
it had been the debateable language of a human contro-
versialist. Accordingly, at a meeting held soon after, where
I took the liberty of defending my serthon against the attack
in,the council, I brought forward, amongst other topics, Mr.
Blackburn's answer in defence of the extracts. My words,
after quoting the above-cited passage from Mr. Blackburn's
speech, were—

We are told! This is the way the holy evangelist, St

Mark, is treated. His says plainly such was the fact—Mr.
- Blackburn says, ' therwere -*vid, he soppeared 'first' to Mary
Magdalene.' Oh ! this is too serious to be got rid of by any
burst of popular feeling. It is an awful thing."

Mr. Blackburn fancied that in saying this, I intended to
accuse him of impeaching the veracity or authenticity of St.
Mark. Under this impression he wrote the very angry pas-
sage which you quote in your letter. It might have occurred
to him that he was combatting what I had never said or im-
plied. A little calm reflection might have suggested to him
that there would have been nothing extraordinary in a man
who denied the veracity or authenticity of St. Mark, troat-
ing his language lightly, and defending what was directly op-
posed to it ; but that the serious, the awful feature in the case
was, that a Christian man who had no doubt whatever of the
authenticity and inspiration of all the Scriptures, should be
so biassed by a party question as to endeavour to. evade a
plain passage of the Gospel, rather than abandon those un-
scriptural extracts to which his party had become pledged.
Mr. Blackburn attempted to justify the note, by saying,
" It is clear that the reference is to the fact, that our Lord
appeared to Peter before any of the apostles, not before any
other person." But the note makes no. such distinction,
and as it stands it conveys a falsehood to the mind of every
child who reads it—a falsehood tending to magnify Peter,
and pro Canto to foster Popish prejudice. Besides, it is no-
where said distinctly in Scripture that our Lord appeared to
Peter before any of the apostles. It may have been so, but
it cannot be proved to have been so.
Mr. Blackburn, however, apparently forgetful of the ex-
cellent maxim which he was at the moment writing, " that
the charity which thinketh no evil dictates that we should
put the best, and not the worst construction upon what is
said and done by others," impetuously ascribed to my words
a meaning which they do not convey. His explanation of
his own words, to. which I had objected, is this—" my real
intention was tci say, we are told—that is—reminded by Mr.
M`Neile, of the fact recorded by St. Mark, &c."
This alias for the commonplace we are told did not appear
to me to throw any discredit upon the justice of my com-
ment ; and, as it was combined with the use ofsuch language
as, in my opinion, even. a clearer case would not justify
among gentlemen, I determined to leave the pamphlet unno-
ticed. " Ifoinbast," " spurious affectation of delicacy,"
" tierce malignity," " vile unprincipled caluMny, knowing it
to be so," were charges from which, when advanced on such
grounds, I entertained no apprehension of injury to my cha-
racter. Such words were easily forgotten.
And now, I ask, where in all this is there any double deal-
ing ? or: any approach towards anything that could justify
you in so rash a charge? And yet this is the case upon'
which you fasten—the only case which now, after three years
and a half, you can adduce, on which to ground even the
semblance of defence for the accusation you have brought
against me. .

You admit, however, that "nice criticism may possibly
pronounce the expression double dealing' not to be strictly
applicable to the occasion." I ask no further concession,
but I do confidently hope that the experience of this occa-
sion will tend to a valuable ioevease of caution, n 4 'ivelLas
gravity and dignity, in your future speeches in the council.
You have misunderstood my use of the word clergyman.
I have learned as a C'hristian, independent of any special
profession, to fear God rather than men and were a lay-
man, I would rather endure the obloquy of society in its
most unmitigated severity, than risk a murder, perhaps two,
which is the mildest description I can give of duelling. No,
no ; in the use of the word clergyman, I appealed, not to my
feelings as to what'a layman might do, but :to your feelings
as to how a clergyman should be treated.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

HUGH M`N El LE'.
Roscommon-street, 30th December, 1839.

PORTRAIT OF A RADICAL.

(From a Correspondent.)

The Radical is a man who looks ever on the dark side of a
picture. He pries into blemishes, and spies out defects. If
he were placed in a cathedral, he would take out a microscope
to detect a fault. He is the Ass of Pausanias browsing
amongst vines. With him the maxim is, that " whatever is
is wrong,'" and that he himself is the only person who can
set it right. He is not afflicted with modesty, and avows
that he alone possesses the elixir of political life. He has
an unsated craving for notoriety, and pants for popular ap-
plause. He can see no virtue in an opponent, and thinks it
fair to blacken his reputation. -fie is liberal only in abusive
appellatives. He covers with abuse all things that men have
heretofore delighted to honour, as the harpies defiled the
food which they could not carry away. He exults in invec-
tive against the aristocracy, and says that he hates distinc-
tion of castes. He retails with delight eaves-droppings and
scandal which tend to lower the peerage, and parades with
acclamation any instance of profligacy which occurs amongst
its members. To his mind " the Hero of a hundred fights"
is no better than " a stunted corporal," if their politics hap-
pen to-disagree. He attributes the victory at Waterloo to
the physical courage of Englishmen, and in no respect to the
skill of the General. He is fond of saying that the Duke of
Wellington was taken by surprise, and that in the opinion
of competent judges he occupied a false position. He tells
you that the battle would not have been decisively won had
not the. Prussians come up.
When he speaks of the Church, he calls clergymen " par-
sons" and " black-coats." He calls Scriptural education
compulsory Religion, and is indignant at the hardship
whereby men are made virtuous in spite of themselves. He
hugely delighteth when it chances that a clergyman disgraces
'his calling, and gloats over the sin of an erring brother. He
thinks all bishops fat and plethoric. He asks what is the use
of bishops, and says that there were none in the primitive
days of Christianity. He does not ask the use of umbrellas,
on the ground that there were none in the primitive days of
Christianity. When Cte House of Lords is mentioned, he
sneers at the idea of an hereditary legislature, and trium-
phantly asks, " did you ever hear of an hereditary tailor ?"
He does not care to ask if men ever heard of an hereditary
king.

. His loyalty is of a qualified kind, and depends upon his
political sentiments of the Sovereign. It is like Slender's
loves, small at first, and grows less upon further acquaintance,
He is fond of talking. He loves to.hear himself talk.. Not
seldom he " gabbles like a thing most brutish." He says.
that he hates prejudice, and boasts of his liberality. He calls
all Tories " bloody." He has " small Latin and less Greek,"
and dislikes the Universities. The Radical is fond of asking
what the practical use of a King is, and thinks the acquisi-
tion of dead languages an absurdity.
He enquires whether they teach men to be doctors, or law-
yers, or merchants, or mechanics; can they construct rail.
roads, or build cotton-mills ?

To the Radical a grievance is a godsend and a blessing.
Like the eels, he thrives best in muddy waters. His exist-
ence seems to depend upon exciting the passions of the mul-
titude, as the life of Meleager did upon a fire-brand. He
talks big of the rights of man. He advances wild opinions,
and, like a mother, the uglier the child the more he fondles
it. He solemnly propounds pompous truisms, such as that
" all men are equal;" that " government ought to aim at the
greatest happiness of the greatest number;" that "the peo-
ple are the source of all power," and fancies himself a phi-
losopher. He has an odd mode of evincing his affection for
his countrymen, by applying to them hard names. He calls
them " slaves" and " hereditary bondsmen."
He thinks that the end justifies the, means, and calls a lie
the " postponement of truth to the purposes of the moment."
He is partial to figures of speech, and bath au especial
fondness for that called Synechdoche, which putteth the
part for the whole. He is one of the three tailors of Tooley-
street, who spoke of themselves as " We, the Commons of
England." His imagination is active and. luxuriant, and
can metamorphose himself into a nation, his garret into a
kingdom, and his goose-quill into the voice of a people. He
is ingenious in reading the minds of millions, and tells you
better than they can themselves' what they want. He insists
that all minds are engrossed with his own favourite schemes,
and boldly assumes that his own crotchets are the sentiments
of the nation.