The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-05-26 00:00:00

TRUTH rerws POPERY.

TO 7718 EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STAND4RD.

Stu,--I trust you will find it practicable, without any coin-
promise of your own opinions, to give insertion, in your spirited
journal, to a few remarks, elicited by a series of calumnious at-
tacks upon a reverend gentleman of this town, whose splendid
oratory sheds a lustre on the church to which he belongs, and
whose reasoning powers, exerted in vindication of the truth, have
confounded and maddened his adversaries. I allude to the ig-
norant and scurrilous critiques on the character of the Rev: 11.
M'Neill's ministry, to which the Liverpool Journal gave pub-
licity in two successive articles, and, in the latter instance, with
an accession of malignity which too plainly evinces the real
ground of the Writer's soreness and consequent enmity—Mr.
bl'Neill's unmitigated hostility to popery.
The spirit and temper of the Journal's remarks are such as to
render them unworthy of criticism, were it not that they em-
body insidious charges which may operate injuriously on, the
ill-informed. It is true, that the writer has pilfered so largely
from the O'Connel slang album that few person of any under-
standing would treat his pitiful rant otherwise than with ineff-
able scorn. But if it be likewise true that sundry individuals
frequenting St. Jude's Church have actually signified their ap•
probation of these attacks upon their faithful pastor, and thus
identified themselves with his popish antagonist, it becomes "an
imperative duty to prove to them, as will be done in the sequel,
with what little justice they can claim fraternity with any class
of protestants.

The Journal craftily insinuates that Mr. M`lfeill drersteps'the
prescriptive limits of his clerical duty in denouncing the here
sies of catholicism from the pulpit. Now, lam prepared to
assert and to prove the contrary. He would be guilty of a gross
' and unjustifiable dereliction of duty were he to cease declaiming,
in the strongest scriptural terms, against that disgusting corn,
pound of folly, fraud, cant, idolatry, and fanaticism—popery: It
will not do to mince the matter. Our forefathers; who wit-
nessed its exterminating persecution of bible Christianity—its
hellish avidity in endeavouring to smother the promulgation of
truth—its tortures, its fires and faggots—they acted otherwise.
They spoke out in terms which the fastidious ears of modern
audiences would scarcely tolerate. And yet these were the
fathers and founders of our church. Let it be remembered that
the characteristic features of popery are unalterable. Were it
otherwise, the vannted.infallihility of the Romish church would
be annihilated. We must, therefore, still use the same weapons
'in contending against her, without any relaxation of hostility.
It will not do to tickle or even to scratch the living abomination :
we must brirudish the tomahawk about her head.
I'am no varson, but I maintain that every consistent protestant
minister ought lo assume an aggressive attitude with reference
to the anti-christian tendency of popery. That is the very
spirit which pervades the articles, homilies, and rituals of the
established aura.

The writer in the Journal asserts that he has diligently
perused the O 9 articles of the church of England, and that he
has failed to recognise in them any sanction of Mr. M‘Neill's
condemnatory style of preaching. Let us see how this candid
statement will stand by the side of the following analysis, which
will, likewise, serve to show what silly ,beings they are who
fancy that our church countenances the nauseating liberalism of
the present day, an alarming example of Which is presented in
the community of feeling which etists between this popish
scribe and his pseudo-protestant correspondents.
The first article of the church of England distinctly asserts
the eoctrine of the trinity in unity. Is it inconsistent and super-
erogatory in Mr. McNeill to insist upon this fundamental
truth ? Can he do otherwise than preach down unitarianism
Not if he faithfully perform the sacred obligations of his sub-
scription oath.
The 2d article asserts the divinity of our Saviour, and main-

tains the doctrine of the atonement. Can a belief in this be
enforced without denouncing the God denying heresey of Su-

cinians?

The sth article acknowledges the divinity and personality of
the Holy Ghost. 'Does not Mr. M'Neill strenuously vindicate
this truth, and will any churchman presume to any that he should
not point out the fatal and damning error of those who deny it ?
The 6th article is expressly levelled against the Roman ca-
tholic notion relating to the rule offaith, and declares that the
apocryphal books are not canonical. Now, the papists ground
one of their leading doctrines on a passage in the apocryplia,
See 2d Mace. 42, et seq. Does this article not justify Mr,
M'Neill's opposition to popery ?
The 7th article is levelled against antinom:ans, to whom the
rev. gentleman is right in giving no quarter.
The Stb article approves of the Ath,anasian creed, which con-
demns Socinianism, &c., in terms fully as severe as any that
Mr. 11,1'Neill uses.

The 9th article is aimed against Pelagianism.
The 10th article maintains the doctrine of man's moral ina-
bility to the performance of any good -work. This is a truth
very repulsive to certain pharisaical hearers, but it must be
preached, the church inculcates it.
The 11th article explicitly maintains the doctrine of jtutfli-
cation: by fisith—the articutus stantis aut cadenlis ecclesire. Mr,
very properly gives due prominency to this truth, and
in the true spirit of Luther and the early reformers. lam not
surprised that the Journal hates the weapou which proved so
successful in prostrating popery.
But I must reserve my further remarks for a second dose,
which will, I ant afraid, be far more unpalatable.
In conclusion, I would suggest that to be &protestant without
protesting against popery is a solecism in terms.-Yaurs, &r.
C Yr,llto.