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

WARRINGTON PROTESTANT

ASSOCIATION.

On 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.
Thos. Lowe, Rev. James Todd, Rev. P. Dale, Rev. E. T.
Alder, Rev. Richard Greenall, Rev. Power, Rev. James
Wright, Rev. Dr. O'Sullivan, Rev. Thomas Nolan, Rev.
Thos. Whittington, Rev. Daniel Hyman, Rev. Chas. 'rhos.
Quirk, Rev. John Jones, Rev. C. S. Bush, Rev. Mr. Mall.
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 done 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 to be aware that immense
sums are expended in the Capital of Popery, for 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 coinmon 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 God. (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 hearing that a lecture was to be deli-
vered against Popery at the Chapel, be had attended, and
was glad to bear that dissenters were beginning to arrive at
the truth. Mr. Nolan had commenced his lecture thus :
PORTIONS OF A LECTURE, DELIVERED BY Slit. 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
make 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
never 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.
" Third,—What are called the evangelical—and these are
the most bigoted sect to be found.
Fourth,--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 peaceable 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.
" Ste,—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 yesteday 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 vou
followed it up by a very bold assertion, (and 1 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
yon, 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 Homan Catholic
body, must of necessity say much to wound their feelings.
The Irish people are, I know, sir, an intelligent people, as
you 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 had 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 bad feelings, as I trust you will be-
lieve ; but as I failed in an opportunity of seeing you, which
I endeavoured to do, I did feel, that, in justice to those whose
labours and exertions in the holy conse I think you slighted,
I might fairly thus address you.—l beg to remain, sir, your
respectful servant, ‘'JOSH. CRISP."
To this I received no reply ; and after a mouth 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 w as so gross, and requesting
a reply. To this I received no answer, and on the 31st
October, I wrote thus :

" Latchford, 31st October, 1838.
SIR.—Not having received any reply to two letters which
addressed to you, requesting your authority for certain state-
ments made by yourself, in a lecture professedly agaihst
popery, but which was, more correctly speaking an attack
against Protestantism, delivered at Warrington, I shalt now
feel 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 1 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 feel obliged for such an opportunity of 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 sitvated
Si A nuaister of the gospel, I mic;bt lase expected to- receive

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, your!„,

" J: oRISP."

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 io the sentiments,
or acquaintance with the gentleman, who has so,-1 have u.o
term to apply to one who has acted as Mr. Nolan appears to
have done. (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 you of corresponding importance for
the sake of the cause. I could wish that it had fallen into less
feeble bands, yet 1 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 mine 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 be espouses. And, for
myself, I can safely profess, that I know not whether I am
more 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. 'Tis 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
Gud 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 more
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 Gud 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 slate 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 on 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. It
is the light of Gostiel truth shining purely through our land,
that has exalted England to her present position, unrivalled
in the annals of civilized glory; and if we would maintain
her in this position of national greatness, 'tis not by aban-
doning the principles that made her great at the first. After
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 be 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 ULLIVAN.—The rev. gentleman commenced his
address by complimenting the speaker who preceded him on
the ability with which he had spoken. He said that be was
for a time at a loss to understand how the urgency of his argu-
ments could he 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 1 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 farther 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 feel 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 your pro-
ceedings. In the second place, I do 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 defendiug 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 uncharitableness, 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 fur 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 Itoinanism 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 aria 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 Romanism 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 Ito-
monism 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 1564. 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 bot b, 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
lof Pins or his legates to procure from the Council an acknow-
ledgerant of the exorbitaot claims of the Papacy were uo-

successful. The assembled fathers, (as Dr. Phelan bas stated
on Roman Catholic authority) could not be brought to agree
that the Council of Florence, which conferred undue power
on the Popes, should be received as general, and the Council
of Constance, which had decided contrariwise, be regarded
only as provincial. The purpose of Pius could, however, be
effected by another contrivance. It was the enacting, that all
beneficed persons, and all persons to be beneficed in the
Church of Rome, should make a solemn profession of faith.
In this the Papal party succeeded. The Council enjoined
that a profession of faith should be made—the Pope arranged
the manner and form—hence the Creed of Pius IV. This
contrivance was worthy of the man and the cause. He first
enslaved the Council by providing, contrary to all precedent,
that his legates were to have the exclusive privilege of pro-
posing the matters which were to be determined. He may be
said to have, finally, overreached it, by turning one of its de-
crees to a purpose not contemplated, and preparing a symbol
of Christian faith, wherein dogmas upon which the Council
would not come to a decision are affirmed, not only as mat-
ters to be believed, but to be believed as of indepensable ne-
cessity—to be believed as essential to salvation ;asof no less
vital importance than the articles in the Apostle's Creed.
This is the Creed of Romanism. We have argued from it
the novelty of the Roman religion. We have said, that the
Creed of Pius is different, not alone from the Creed of the
Protestant Church, but from the Creed of all antiquity, and
have argued, that, therefore, the Church of Rome is new. She
boasts that God was, according to promise, ever with his
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 *he 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
1548, 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 iu 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 denominated 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 nut
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 not 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 fur 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 nut the faith of the
Apostolic Churches. We know that in matters of discipline
diversity of opinion and action is tolerated in the Church of
Rome until she has pronounced 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, quoit 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 faith." '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 per-
fect 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 artieleeof the 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 examine 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 gentleman read the passages to which he
alluded, interspersing occasional remarks, which called forth
the plaudits and, sometimes, the laughter of the auditory.]

ARTICLE 1, TRADITION.
Dr. Milner—quoting from Tertullian—in proof of the
Rornish 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
of the chord), to make use of them, so as to discern truth
Scripture,
are Catholics, the children
from falsehood? They must carefully observe the rule, laid
down at the beginning of this treatise, by the holy andlearned
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. DocTitirrE OF THE SEveN SACDAMEMTS INSTITUTED BY

OUR LORD.
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. Bona venture,
with Alexander Halensis, who taught that confirmation is no
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.

4. ORIGINAL SIN, &C,

Pelagians—“Cailestius and Pelagii.is—denied original sin
and the grace by which we are Christians."—Bossuet's Dis-
cour sur L'Histoire Universel.

And yet the Catholic creed was not enlarged by an article
on the subject.
5. TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c.
Johannes Scolus Erigena, 9th 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 church.

6. 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.