The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-11-10 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL
OPERATIVE PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION.

The annual meeting of the members and friends of the
Liverpool Operative Protestant Association was held on the

evening of Friday, in the Royal Amphitheatre. The whole
of the vast building was crowded to excess, and the utmost
enthusiasm pervaded the whole proceedings.
The Rev. Flunti I\I'NEILE took the chair shortly after
half-past six, and the business of the meeting commenced by
the Rev. Wm. HAMILTON supplicating the divine blessing.
The Rev. CHAIRMAN then addressed the meeting as fol-
lows :—Fellow townsmen, fellow christians, fellow protest-
ants—it is with the utmost satisfaction that I meet you upon
another anniversary, and that I find myself in a condition to
give you encouragement by the assurance that your work has
not been in vain. (Hear, hear.) Your visits to the dwel-
lings of our poor brethren, your expostulations with them
upon their neglect of divine worship, your invitations to them
to attend the services of the church, your lending, distribut-
ing and exchanging of tracts, these and other similar exer-
cises of Christian philanthropy have been productive of a
gradual and substantial improvement, and I rejoice to see
you here in vastly increased numbers, and I trust in vastly
increased zeal to persevere in your work and labour and pro-
ceedings of love. We have two valued testimonies of efficient

usefulness :—first the commendation of all the lovers of order,
stability, and permanence in the institutions of our country,
both religious and political ; secondly, the reproach and the
abuse of all the infidels, revolutionists, and levellers by whom
we are surrounded. (Hear, hear.) They call us bigots be-
cause we believe in God, and because we cannot treat his

sacred word as a thing to be made subservient to our own po-
litical or personal convenience. They call us corruptionists
because we value the protective wisdom of an hereditary
peerage, and thank God for the protection of the country,
maintained by his providence, in giving and in preserving to
us a House of Lords. (Loud cheers.) They call us despotic,
they call us enemies to the movement—of what they are
pleased to call the improvement of the country, because we
have such a respect for the true dignity of the prerogative of
the crown, we cannot stand tamely by and see that preroga-
tive degraded by an administration whose tenure of office is
not in the confidence of the country, but the good pleasure
of a popish demagogue. (Loud cheers.) My friends—some
four or five years ago, the movement mania, miscalled re-
form, was at its fever height ; but old England, the patient,
had a good constitution, (Applause and laughter.) The
crisis came : the crisis happily passed ; and symptoms of re•
turning health are manifesting themselves more and more in
every feature, and in every limb of the body politic. (Hear.)
To begin at home —I have to congratulate you on the result
of our municipal election. (Tremendous applause.) Though
some of the consequences may perhaps be attended with a
louder storm than any you can make,—(laughter)--if we may
judge by philosophical appearances, for the Mercury is very
low. (Tremendous cheers.) I was surprised to find scarcely
an allusion to the sth of November in that respectable print.

There was one allusion in a few lines, and I had the honour
to figure in one of those lines. (Cheers.) They say that the
usual sermons for the sth of November were preached yes-

terday in Manchester

" The usual ' Gunpowder Plot' sermons were preached
in Manchester, yesterday. The Rev. H. M'Neile, of this
town, occupied Mr. Stowell's pulpit, and delivered a dis-
course two hours long, in which he of course very clearly
demonstrated to the audience that the Catholics were only
watching their opportunity to hatch another gunpowder
plot."

I protest that judging by the principles to which these teach
ers are pledged, we are bound to say that that little paragraph
contains sound doctrine. I know well, my friends, that the
ready charge against us for all our proceedings—a charge
ready to be repeated for the proceedings of this evening—is
bigotry, misrepresentation, and calumny. We are perpe-
tually accused of ascribing to Roman Catholics sentiments
which they do not entertain. I want to put you in posses-
sion of who is in the fault, if that be the case. I will endea-
vour to do so by asking you, first of all, what you would
think of any person (a dissenter for instance) who should
bring a charge against a clergyman of the Established Church,
that he held the principles of the 39 articles ? Could you
call him a misrepresenter ? No. If he took some ob-
noxious book, written by one of the members, and charged
all the clergy with holding some of the principles in that
book, that would be a calumny ; but if he took the articles
to which we are sworn and pledged, and charged us with
holding the sentiments in those articles, he would not be
misrepresenting us ; he could not be called a calumniator of
us or our church. Suppose he took one of those articles
concerning justification, wherein we are told by our church,
gathering it from the word of God, that justification by faith
is a welcome doctrine, and full of comfort, as is more largely
set forth in the homily on justification ; and suppose that the
dissenter was to say that the clergymen were bound to these
articles and the homily, would it be bigotry and calumny, or
bearing false witness against the clergy of the Established
Church, to say that they were bound to the doctrines con-
tained in that homily ? Now, what do we do ? We take not
an old-fashioned book, not an old chronicle of the middle ages,
which has been laid by on musty shelves. We take the creed
of Pope Pius the Fourth, consisting of 12 articles, which has
been added to the Nicene creed. Every one of them is as
firmly pledged to that creed as we are to or articles. It is
difficult to know in the present time what will not be denied.
I should not wonder if we have it denied that the priests of
the Romish Church are sworn to the creed of Pius the
Fourth, though it is notorious that they are pledged in the
same manner that we are pledged to our articles. I wish
to put this in as simple a way as I can, for your conviction,
because I do not want to carry you away by talk. I want
to convince your understandings. You may observe that the
Roman Catholics deny that they are answerable for the doc-
trines we impute to them : but did you ever hear any of them
deny that their priests held the creed of Pope Pius Fourth?
I never saw a denial of that, and if in these days of denial it
has not been denied, I think it may be safely concluded that
they cannot deny it. That point is carried ; they do sub-
scribe to the creed. Now, one of the articles of that creed
ties upon them certain other things that fasten on them cer-
tain councils in the way that our articles fasten on us our
homilies. One of the articles of that creed fastens on them
all that has been declared, decreed, and defined by all the
sacred and general councils, and the holy canons of the
church. It is a tremendous oath to take, for it would re-
quire a whole life-time to read through the books that they
are sworn to. It is no figure of speech,—it would require a
moderate life-time to read with attention so as to understand
all it contains. But these articles particularly bind them to
.bey Ll.lO 1101 y
council of Treat." v Now, I ask is it bigotry, is it misrepre-
sentation, is it false witness, to ascribe to the Romish priests
sentiments contained in these canons, in their councils, so
long as they swear to that creed ? (No, no.) They say, yes ;
they say this is misrepresentation, and yet they go on swearing
to the creed. lam very anxious to put you clearly and
fairly in possession of how the matter stands, because they
are constantly saying that we misrepresent them, and I want
you to be able to say, when they tell you that in the streets
and houses—l want you to be able to say, when they deny
that charge, why do your priests swear to that creed
still ? They say these are old-fashioned things of the
middle ages. (A voice called out "We do not say so,"
which was followed by cries of " Turn him out.")
If any person objects to what I say, let them alone and leave
them to me. If the person who said that they did not dis-
claim this opinion,—if he be a Roman Catholic, let us re-
ceive him in Christian love, and endeavour to bring him to
the truth, and don't raise a shout when he had the honesty
to give utterance to his opinions. (Here the individual again
interrupted the meeting, giving signs at the same time that
he was intoxicated.) It is perfectly obvious, from what we
have now heard, that it is not a conscientious objector we
have to deal with, but one who has so far forgotten his duty
to God, to man, and to himself, as to drink too much ardent
liquor. Be quiet while some who are near him will, as quietly
and calmly as possible, and as becomes those who are sorry
for him, remove him. I proceed with this argument. It is
not misrepresentation to charge on the Roman Catholics of
the present day,—and here I especially mean the priests, be-
cause I do not make the charge indiscriminately on the peo-
ple, for the people are kept in such ignorance that they do
not know what the priests are about,—but it is no misrepre-
sentation to charge on the priesthood that they still hold
these obnoxious sentiments, that they are still bound by the
doctrines laid down in this council. If they be, it is not il-
liberal to say of them that they want but an opportunity to
devise some treason, and execute a scheme of as fearful and,
if possible, more fearful import than the Gunpowder plot.
(Cheers.) Because the principal mandates of this council
are these, that the Bishop of Rome is vicar on earth, that he
is king of kings and lord of lords ; that all sovereigns are sub-
ject to him, and any one who will not submit to him, and at
his bidding eject from his dominions all heretics, is to be put
under the bann of excommunication for a year, and if at the
end of the year he will not submit to the pontiff, his subjects
are declared absolved from their allegiance, and he is to be
deposed from the throne. These were the sentiments level-
led at James the First with the Gunpowder plot, and these
are the principles still sworn to by the Romish priesthood.
Therefore, I say that acting by such principles, they do want
but an opportunity to devise and enact any fearful crime that
would give ascendancy to their vile system all over the world.
And in saying this I do but ascribe to them honest consciences
with their own principles. Ido not ascribe to them hypocri-
sy, I ascribe sincerity. Supposing them sincerely to hold
the principles to which their priests are sworn, they would
really think they were doing God service when they were cut-
ting off heretics by hundreds and thousands, provided they
could thereby place in ascendancy their own church over the
world. Ido not say this is what all Roman catholics would
do ; I do not mean to say that any one would commit such a
crime against a protestant neighbour, but I say that the
principles to which their priests are still sworn, involve these
crimes ; that they are held ready for use when opportunity
I say that the Roman system is political ; it is not
nseierrveels. y
a false religion, t is a political tyranny ; and when it
can have its own way, it is political despotism. When it
cannot have its own way it is a political conspiracy—conspi-
racy using weapons varying with the fitness of the case. In
Spain popery is a political domination ; in Ireland popery is
a political conspiracy using occasional outbreaks and rebel-
' lion ; in England popery is a political conspiracy using also
lies and hypocrisy, speaking soft things, and denying to you
that that they impose penances on their dupes. (Cheers.)
These are the modes in which the system works. I do not
mean to say that it uses every day all the weapons in its ar-
moury ; but I recollect what Archbishop Tillotson says—
" that these principles of intolerance are like Goliahs, kept
behind, but are ready for use when time serves." Look at our
own history. If the Romish system was only a false theology
all that would be required to meet it would be sending teach-
ers of the gospel to meet and repel popery. This won't do,
however ; this is only a part of the system. It is not merely
a false theology, but it is a political conspiracy. What is to
repel the political part of it ? Argument is not sufficient. I
can imagine a case very well of sound theological argument
going on, and the Romish dogmas being refuted over and over
again, and the Romish aspirants after power gaining power
in one place after another, and smiling very complacently at
the political combatants. What cares she though f disprove her
doctrine of transubstantiation? What cares she although I
could prove that purgatory had no foundation in Scripture?
What cares she although I proved the wickedness of her tam-
pering with the consciences and the pockets of the dupes ?
What, although she is shown this again and again, if she
gains political power? At this very moment in England,
what do they care although we show that they have a false
religion, if they still get into the treasury, the cabinet, and
all the places of power, for if they get political power they
know well how to get converts? (Applause.) Yesterday
we were celebrating two great national events, one that took
place in 1605, and the other in 1688. I want to apply what
lam saying to the latter argument. If all that had been in
Romatosm had been their false theology, the bishops that
went to the tower rather than submit to the domination of
James 11., would have well answered the false theology of
Rome. This was a useful period, and it was well done in
those days—the false theology of Rome was well refuted.
But what about her political conspiracy ? The whole bishops
did their part, the clergy did their part, and the publishers of
tracts did their part ; but there was another part to be done,
and there was a man called over to do it—William of
Orange. (Reiterated cheering.) This leads to our answer
to the liberal scribes of these days. I have a London news-
paper open in my hands, and there is a long article in it in
reprobation of the proceedings in London on the sth Nov.
There is also an attack upon two gentlemen who were at a
meeting in Exeter Hall on the 4th November—the Rev. Dr.
O'Sullivan and the Rev. Hugh Stowell. And not because
th.:re was any one else there, but because I suppose that the
imagination of the writer could not be restrained from taking
a flight across the kingdom and associating with some one
more honest, I am brought forward—as if I had been agi-
tating in Exeter Hall, instead of being quietly at Liverpool—
in a name, too, that I thought had long since gone off in gas
in favour of Lord Lovelace—that woman Jezebel. It is a
very unkind cut for a ruinisterialist to force the notice of