The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-04-08 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

therefore involving such topics, the real question at issue
is a mixed one. I dont allege that it is wholly comprised in
our duty towards God, without any regard to the feelings
infirmiti-s, or prejudices, the varying judgments and pre-
sent interests of our fellow-men; neither certainly is it
comprised in our duty, or supposed duty, towards our
neighbour, without any regard to the plain revelation and

permanent authority of Almighty God. Thus here as
elsewhere the law has two tables, and the consistent
Christian has two objects in view—first and chiefest,
fidelity to divine truth, and second anti subordinate, the
present convenience and future improvement of hu-
man society. These observations apply in all their force
to the subject now under our consideration. lam willing
to admit, that so far as the present convenience of human
society is concerned, the weight of argument seems to be
against us. I believe indeed that even on this ground,
a true and adequate view of the social character of the
Roman Catholic system, would prove it an unsafe and
therefore impolitic course to give it national encourage-
ment. But generally speaking, I am, I repeat, willing to
admit, that if we had nothing to take into our considera-
tion, but fair play between man and man as such ; if we
had no revelation from God, and no special duty towards
God and his revealed will; in that case we would all be
liberal, as it is called : we would delight to be liberal,
we should have no higher duty, no more constraining con-
sideration than how to please man. I do not wonder at
persons who take this view being enthusiasts on the side of
liberality—l mean persons who have no real practical regard
to God's authority, or who evade it by the plea that either
God has given us no revelation of his will, or if he has it is
practically useless, since it is bigotted presumption
in any man to pretend to understand its meaning. If I
could exclude God's authority out of the question, I
would join such persons—l would join them cordially
with all the unchecked desire of my heart to cultivate and
exercise kindness to all men. But if I believe the hrly
scriptures to be a revelation from Almighty God (the
question really turns upon this) ; if I believe that the
bible contains directions of infinite wisdom concerning
my highest duty, and announcements of infallible truth
concerning my eternal happiness; then I cannot yield to
the desires of my fallen heart, in defiance or neglect of
what is written in the bible. I cannot look upon my duty
towards my neighbour as my only or my highest duty;
neither can I limit that duty to a regard, however sincere,
for the temporal well-being of my neighbour. He pos-
sesses a soul as well as a body, and he has to live not only
in this world, but in the world to come. It must I think
in fairness be admitted that this makes an essential dif-
ference, and that what might be considered a sufficient
discharge of my duty towards my neighbour if he were
only a social creature intended only for this world, is not
and cannot be considered a sufficient discharge of that
duty towards an immortal creature, an heir of eternity.
Here then is the root of the reason, why we cannot join
the system of liberalism. It is not that we love our fel-
low creatures less, but that we love and fear God more.
By various arguments, amounting to moral demonstration
the most convincing, we are satisfied that the author of
Creation is the author of Christianity. Our whole mind
and soul and strength, and moral and intellectual being,
with all its powers and all its capacities, is penetrated with
a conviction of the truth of the holy scriptures : and that
the things which are bound and loosened in the declara-
tions of this book, taken in the simplest and most natural
meaning, will be bound and loosed in the unalterable
decisions of the living God, at the bar of eternal judg-
ment. We cannot therefore discuss such a subject
as the one now before us, as it was discussed in the
House of Commons on Thursday evening last, namely,
without any serious reference to the word or authority
of God. We might as well, and quite as wisely, discuss
an astronomical problem without reference to the centri-
fugal impetus, or the attraction of gravitation. We must
refer to the revelled will and wisdom of God, and if those
who have authority to act, will not condescend to accom-
pany us in that reference, but proceed upon their own
wisdom, and the precedent of their predecessors in office;
we, who have no authority, can do no more than respect-
fully and firmly witness our good confession, and then
quietly and prayerfully abide the issue. We may, how-
ever, say, that in refusing to meet us on scriptural and
christian ground, they do in effect confess that on that
ground they cannot meet us. That sacred ground is ours.
In the debate on Thursday evening no speaker amongst
our opponents on this question, dared to set a foot there.
Not so much as an attempt was made to shew that the
authority of the Almighty justified the step they were
advocating. It will not do to say that such a topic would
have been irrelevant, having no connexion with the sub-
ject of debate. On the contrary, so intimately connected
is religion with the subject, that the religious scruples of
those who object to the proposed measure, were again
and again referred to, and again and again thrown over,
without any attempt at a scriptural answer. It was clearly
known that the numerous petitions against the measure,
which by their simultaneous presentation attracted the
attention, and excited the merriment of the House, ori-
ginated in the religious objections of many thousands of
the people : still no answer. Surely we may truly say,
that whatever political principles, and whatever temporal
interests of the country may be represented, and fairly
represented in the House of Commons, the religion of
the country is not represented. The question before us
cannot be discussed in its true merits, without direct and
pointed reference to the scriptures; because it involves
principles concerningwhich there is no true standard upon
earth, except the word of God. The moral government
of God, in all its essential principles, is, like Himself,
perfect, and therefore unchangeable. The outward cir-
cumstances of the administration of his government may
vary in different ages and nations'; but the essential prin-
ciples on which the government itself is conducted, must
be eternally the same. For example—punishment for
transgressions is an essential principle of the divine go-
vernment. " Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the
Lord." The period and the mode of inflicting that
punishment are varying circumstances not affecting the
principle. In one instance it may please God in infinite
wisdom to inflict the punishment immediately upon the
transgression ; in another instance to delay the punish-
ment for years. In one instance to makethe punishment
visible in outward calamity ; in another instance, to make
it invisible in some secret distress. In the case of one in-
dividual to make the punishment to consist of temporal
degradation and shame ; in: the case of another to re-
serve the punishment through a long course of temporal
prosperity, and then to inflict everlasting misery. No
such variation as this, however, can take place in the case
of nations as such ; because no nation as such has any
eternal existence, and therefore the punishment of a na-
tion must consist of some temporal calamity. And this
is another principle of the divine government, indispen-
sable for the vindication of God's character as the provi-
dential ruler of this present world. This is largely il-
lustrated and corroborated by the facts recorded, and
comments made in holy scripture. In so referring to the
scriptures, we must not be excluded from the old Testa-
ment history by the common but untenable objection de-
rived from an alleged essential difference between the
Jewish and Christian dispensations. It is said that the
Jewish dispensation was one of visible temporal rewards
and punishments, one of miraculous interference on
the part of God when his kingdom was of this
world, and therein so characteristically different
from this, that no argument grounded upon a sup-
posed analogy between them can be sound and con-
clusive. Because in this dispensation no temporal ad-
vantage or prosperity is promised to the righteous, neither
any temporal punishment to the wicked, the Lord's king-
dom is not of this world, and no miraculous interference
on the part of God interrupts the natural course of events.
Under the Jewish dispensation it is alleged, there was no
mystery in providence, and, therefore, God, as a manifest
providential ruler, punished the wicked nations by na-
tional calamities ; but now the long-suffering of God has
made providence a mystery, and there is no vindication in
this world of the character of God, as a providential ruler.
It is the decision of the day of judgment that will vindi-
cate his character. Is this true, and will it bear the test
of scripture ? or are the facts f the case such, that no
such objection can fairly be made to our line of argument?
If the Jewish dispensation were one of visible miraculous
interference, so that there was no mystery in providence,
whence the complaint of the Psalmist,—" As for me, my
feet were almost gone, my steps had well nigh slipped.
For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prospe-
rity of the wicked." " They say, how doth God know ?
and is there knowledge in the Most High ? Behold, these
are the ungodly who prosper in the world ; they increase
in riches." " They spread abroad as a green bay tree."
" They come in no trouble like other men." And whence
the exhortation,—" Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently
for him : fret not thyself because of him who prospereth
in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked de-
vices to pass." Whence also that complaint of Solomon,
" Because sentence against an evil work is not executed
speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully
set in them to do evil." These passages express, as cha-
racteristic of the Jewish dispensation, the same long-
suffering forbearance in God, and the same mystery of
providence in the prosperity of the wicked, which we re-
cognize as characteristic of our own times. And, per
contra, if this one dispensation be so wholly divested of
temporal rewards and punishments, that the character of
God as a providential ruler remains in every case necessa-
rily involved in mystery until the day of judgment, whence
that promise of our Saviour—" Give, and it shall be
given unto you ; good measure, pressed down and
shaken together, and running over, shall men give
into your bosom. For with the same measure
that ye mete withal, it shall be measured to you again ?
And whence that exhortation of the Apostle, " Children,
obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honour
thy father and mother, which is the first commandment
with promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou
mayest live long on the earth." And whence the language
of the same Apostle to his friend Timothy, " Godliness is
profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that
now is, and of that which is to come." Here we have
expressed, as belonging to this our dispensation, that
visible temporal interference which we see was character.
istic of the Jewish. What is the result ? Why that both
dispensations have the same general characteristics. The
Jewish is not divested of the mystery of God's long
suffering forbearance. The Christian is not divested of
the miracle (as we speak) of God's visible interference.
Concerning both we may say, in the language of Saint
. .

Augustin," If no sin were punished here, no -Provicfetce.
would be believed : if every sin were punished here, no
judgment would be expected." What I contend for here
is, that there does not exist so wide a difference between
thel two dispensations, in their essential characteristics, as
that any objection can be grounded thereupon, against the
propriety of the parallel which we draw, or the force of
the instruction which we thence derive. The dealings of
Almighty God with the Jewish nation compose what is
commonly called sacred history, not that the events them-
selves are, in themselves, more sacred than others, for all
events, in all nations, are equally under ihe immediate and
sovereign management of God ; but they are sacred to us
abcyre all others, because they are accompanied with in-
spired comments, pointing out the true philosophy of the
history. God himself, by the ministry of la is holy Pro-
phets, called the attention of the Jews, and now calls the
attention of all men, to the moral of his dealings, to the

doctrines contained in the narrative, to the principles, the
everlasting unchanging principles of truth, involved in the
facts of the case. " Remember the former things of old,
for I am God, and there is none else !" The history of their
fathers, the former things or events passed, were worthy of
their remembrance and careful consideration ; because He
who had overruled the history of their fathers, was over-
ruling this history, and on the same principles. In the suc-
cessive histories of the world, only the human instruments
change. One generation of creatures follows after ano-
ther; but the great Divine Agent changeth not, and the
great principle of his government changeth not. lie is
eternally and essentially sovereign, and cannot for a mo-
ment be controlled ; eternally and essentially perfect, and
cannot for a moment alter. If controlled in anything,
he ceases to be sovereign ; if altered in anything. lie
ceases to be perfect—he ceases to be God. Remember
what he has done, consider it, that you may understand
what he is doing, and what he will do. He has stamped
a revealed certainty upon some of his purposes by pro-
phecy. A revealed certainty ! That is, a pledge of cer-
tainty communicated to his intelligent creatures. Essen-
tial certainty is i❑ his mind and purpose, independent of
and antecedent to all revelation. Revealed certainty is
in his word, declaring the end from the beginning,—not
only knowing it himself, but declaring it, that his crea-
tures also, who can trust his word, may know it, and
know that he knew it before—announcing from ancient
times the things that are not yet done, saying, " My
counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure ! " It
is in contrast with such views of the majesty-of the living
God, that the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures exhibits the
madness of image worship. The idols of Babylon, the
images of Bel and Nebo, are described as a burden for
the weary beasts, who dragged them on the carriages
heavy loaden. Instead of supporting their worshippers,
they themselves required to be supported, and carried
and set in their places, out of which they could not move.
The power and majesty of the God of Israel are contrast-
ed. By Him his worshippers had been supported from
the first, and " even to your old age." He says, "I am
he, and even to hoar hairs I will carry you. I have made
and I will bear ; even I will carry and will deliver you."
Then the men of Israel are appealed to, exhorted to con-
sider this, and shew themselves possessed of reason.
" Remember this and shew yourselves men :" give proof
that you are not stones or beasts of the field, or images, or
automata, or lunatics, but that you are men. It is to men, to
creatures of intellige ;ace, capable of the exercise of reason,
that God has addressed his law, and the high reason as-
signed therein against the use of images in worship, and
against every species of idolatry, is that God is jealous.
He is jealous of his own glory as the only appropriate ob-
ject of worship, saying, " I will not give my glory to an-
other, nor my praise to graven images." He will not
suffer images or relics to share with him the praise of
effecting cures, or forgiving sins, or administering conso-
lations among men. He is jealous of the happiness of his
creatures, which cannot be promoted by cultivating such
false dependances, as must terminate in disappointment.
It does not meet the full demands of his holy jealousy
that his creatures worship him, they must worship none
other but him. There is not only a propriety but also an
exclusiveness about his claim, which admits of no partici-
pation with another. This may be illustrated from
human things, both by contrast and comparison. By
contrast, it differs essentially from the social friendship
and ordinary businesses of men. You may make a second
friend, without any injury or offence to the first. You
may transact business with a third, fourth, or fifth neigh-
bour, without any unkindness or injustice towards the
first or second. Nay, in these, and such matters as these,
participation is right, for we are members one of another;
but in the relationship which each of us bears to God
there is an absolute and indivisible exclusiveness. By
comparison also, some of our human relationships seem
to illustrate the subject. Especially there are two, which
aid us in apprehending aright the exclusiveness of God's
claim upon our affection and service. These are loyalty
and conjugal fidelity. A truly loyal subject cannot in any
degree, or under any pretence whatever, divide his alle-
giance. He cannot feel or act towards any other sove-
reign as he does towards his own. Here, participation in
the slightest measure, is disloyalty ; because the sove-
reign's claim upon him is not only right in itself, but also
exclusive of all others. In like manner, a faithful and
true wife cannot, in any degree, or under any pretence
whatever, divide her affection or her attention. She can-
not feel or act towards any other as she does towards her
own husband. Here, participation in :he slightest mea-
sure is infidelity, because the husband's claim is not only
right, but exclusive. God spake these words and said—
" I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of
the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other God's before me. Thou
shalt not make to thee any graven image, or any
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that
is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
the earth : Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,
nor serve them : for I, the Lord thy God, am a jea-
lous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me ; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them
that love me and keep my commandments." In our
division of the commandments of God, these words com-
prise two, the first and second. In the division made in
the Roman Catholic Catechisms and Prayer Books, what
we call the second commandment is treated as an explana-
tion of the first, and under the plea that it is enough to
give the commandment itself, without its explanation.—
But whatever may be done in catechisms of man's com-
piling, these words were spoken by the living God, and
are found in his holy law in the Bible, in our Bible, and
in their Bible. In the Douay Bible they are thus trans-
lated :

" Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven image, nor the
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth
beneath, nor of these things that are in the waters under the
earth. Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them. lam the
Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me, and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that
love me and keep my commandments."

Look now into the glass of this holy law of God. The
human heart is like the human eye; while busy upon
objects all around, it cannot see itself without a glass.—
God sees and knows it in its inmost winding, and he has
set before us the faithful glass of his holy law, that we
may know ourselves. Every prohibition of God's law is

addressed to some propensity Of man's heart. God says,
" Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Here we

learn that a propensity of mail's heart is to multiply ob-
jects of worship. The original of the passage is remark-
able. " Thou shalt have no other Gods before my face."
The English word before is used in three different senses,
with reference to times it signifies prior to; with reference
to dignity it signifies in preference to or above • with
reference to place it signifies in presence of. The last
is the meaning here. Thou shalt have no other objects of
worship in Jehovah's presence. And if not in his presence,
then where can we have them ? Let Jeremiah answer,
" Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God
afar off ? Can any hide himself in secret places that 1 shall
not see him ? saith the Lord. Do not I fill Heaven
and earth saith the Lord ? " Again God says, as a dis-
tinct commandment in our views, as an explanation of the
fact, say the Romanists, but in either case it remains
true, that God says " Thou shalt not make to thyself
any graven image. ' Here we learn that a propensity of
the human heart is to have recourse to visible objects in
worship ; to attempt to affect the mind through the eye-
sight. Had this been suitable, had it been conducive to
true devotion; had it been profitable to men and accepta-
ble to God ; would these words have been spoken from
Mount Sinai ? If the use of visible objects in divine wor-
_

ship, as images, pictures, relics, crucfixres, heads, scapular,
agues dei, had been not only allowable, but commendable ;
is it reasonable to suppose, is it likely, is it possible, that
God would hare used such words as seem so plainly to
forbid them altogether. This argument is made stranger
still by a fact recorded in Scripture, compared with the
inspired comments upon it.
" All the people brake off their golden earrings that were in
their ears, and brought them to Aaron, and he received them at
their hand, and fashioned it with a graving-tool, afier he had
made it a molten calf; and they said, these by thy Gods, 0, Is-
rael, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And when
Aaron saw it he built an altar before it ; and Aaron made pro-
clamation, and said to-morrow is a feast to the Lord. And they
rose up early on the morrow, and offered bnrnt offerings, and
brought peace offerings, and the people sat down to eat and
drink, and rose up to pray."

In this case what was the object of their worship ? Taking
worship in its highest sense, and ultimate design, and de-
sire of the human mind, clearly the object of the worship
was the Lord God of Israel who had brought them out of
the land of Egypt. It was to Him, even to Jehovah, that
Aaron proclaimed a feast. If any man in the camp had
accused them of worshipping the calf, they would doubt-
less have denied it with indignation, and said, No ! we
only use the calf as a help to our senses, we do not wor-
ship it ; it is a wilful calumny against us to assert such
a thing. Did not our respected High Priest proclaim
a feast to Jehovah ? The true God is the object of our
worship, and why then accuse us of worshipping an
image ? Hear now what God himself said to it. `• The

Lord said to Moses, Go, get down again, for thy
people have corrupted themselves : they have turned

;Aide quickly out of the way which I commanded
them ; they have made a molten calf, and have
worshipped it." Hear also how the Apostle Paul
commented on this occurrence in the history of Israel,
and held it out as a warning to the Christian church
. . _ _

against idolatry. " Neither be ye idolaters, as were some
of them, as it is written, the people sat down to eat and
drink, and rose up to play." The Israelites, on the occa-
sion referred to, were keeping a feast to Jehovah, the God
of their fathers. They were singing his praises for their
deliverance by his power out of the bondage in which they
had been so long enslaved: All this was good, and yet
this very incident in their history is selected by the Apos-
tle, as supplying a warning against idolatry. And why ?
Because in their worship they made use of an image. The
question recurs,
is God a word to be practically supreme
or not ? And this is really the question at issue. For
although some parts of the Bible may be obscure, and
some parts so expressed as to be capable of various inter-
pretations ; yet the great and characteristic matters of
difference between Christianity and Romanism are so
clear and distinct, that to deny this distinctness is to make
the Bible practically useless—useless as an authority
against any crime whatever. For if it be not plain against
bowing down to graven images, e.g., it is not plain against
theft or adultery. And if it be plain against theft and
adultery, so that he who commits such things offends
Almighty God and incurs his righteous anger ; then it is
equally plain against bowing down to graven images, as
an offence incurring the anger of the Almighty. We be-
lieve it plain and decisive against all these ; simply and
explicitly so, in the shortest and most unequivocal form
of speech which a moral governor could address to rea-
sonable and responsible creatures. " Thou shalt not
steal." " Thou shalt not commit adultery." " Thou
shalt not bow down to them." And as we could not
(without wilful rebellion against God's authority) approve
of or co-operate in, the endowment of a college for in-
struction in theft or adultery, so neither can we approve
of, or co-operate in, the endowment of a college for
instruction in bowing down to images.

If Ireland contained six or seven millions of people
devotedly attached to their priesthood ; and if their priest-
hood avowed (and glorified in it as a part of their ancestral
faith) that one part of their education consisted in learning
to steal, and that one part of the official duty consisted
in teaching the congregations composing the millions how
to steal : and if application were made to the British Go-
vernment to conciliate the people by contributing to the
education of their Priesthood ; would such application be
complied wiih ? It will be answered, no. But I mug
take the liberty of asking, why not? The people
sincere in their attachment to and veneratim-
Priests. T' P-:--

ies .he Priests are sincere in their convictions of
the truth and propriety of their early education handed
down from their forefathers, and it is highly intolerant in
you to pronounce them wrong, and on the presumption
of k owing better than they do, to refuse to deal out to
them equal justice in the matter of temporal support.
If it be answered, the cases are not parallel, because theft
is an injury to their fellow subjects, and it is the pq.rt of
good Government to prevent such injury ; but bowing
down to graven images is only an offence to God, and
Government has nothing to do with God. This concedes
what I contend for. It proclaims its own ungodliness.
It refuses to sanction and support the teaching of theft,
not because God has forbidden it, but only because it is
injurious to society. Now, our high reason for opposing
the national adoption and endowment of lomanism is
grounded on the Word of God; and the question now in
rapid progress of decision in England is, shall the Word
of God retain real practical authority in the land, or shall
it not? It is thus that as christians we show good and
scriptural reasons for our own conduct in direct obedience
to the Word of our God. But as I have already said,
the subject is a mixed one, and I now proceed to show
cause for opposing the proposed measure, even on the
ground of the good of society. And here you will per-
ceive that it was not at random or without an aim, that I
selected theft for the illustration just offered. Because in
point of fact, theft is a part of the instruction given in
the College of Maynooth, theft on a small scale indeed, but
still theft, and making in number what it wants in weight. I
am wellaware that this will be loudly and vehemently, but
withal either ignorantly or falsely denied ; and I most free-
ly grant that it is,a charge so solemn and so fearful, that
to advance it without being able to prove it would be ab-
solutely unpardonable. I proceed to prove it. But first
let me ask, what would and ought to be considered a proof
of it ? Suppose a commission of education to issue from
our Parliament, and to proceed to Cambridge to institute
an inquiry. The Commissioners ask the Master of Tri-
nity College to say what are the class-books, which it is
imperative on the students to read. Ile gives the list, in-
cluding, among others, Locke on the Human Under-
standing, and Paley's Evidences of the Christian Reli-
gion. Would this be proof that the principles taught in
those books of Locke and Paley formed a part of the edu-
cation in Trinity College. Cambridge? Surely it would,
and the authorities of that college could not deny that they
were responsible for teaching, and might most justly and
truly be accused of teaching any thing and every thing in-
culcated in those books. It is a matter of fact then, that
the parliamentary commissioners of education went to
the College of Maynooth, and made inquiry concerning
the class-books which it is imperative on the students to
read. The list was given by the president, Dr. Crotty,
including, among others, Dr. Delahogue's Treatise on
Dogmatic Theology, and the Rev. Louis Badly on Moral
Theology. Is this a proof that the principles taught in
these books of Delahogue and Bailly forma part of the edu-
cation given in Maynooth College? Surely it is ; any'. the
authorities of that college cannot deny that they are
responsible for teaching, and may most justly and truly
be accused of teaching, anything and everything incul-
cated in these books. I open the books, and some mea-
sure of quotation is obviously necessary for my proof.
But here I must entreat your seriousness, because on for-
mer occasions I have witnessed with much regret, that
the grossness of the immorality exhibited in such quota-
tions, instead of producing a shudder in solemn silence,
has led to very unseemly, because unseasonable, laughter
and applause. My dear Sir, and my dear friends, let us
seek to be so impressed with the dreadful and dangerous
character of such teaching, as to be incapable of lightness
or levity or merriment, during its painful but indispensa-
ble exposure. The reverend gentlemnn here read se-
veral extracts, clearly establishing his statements.
Let husbands and masters, let the whole Chris-
tian community, especially let our leg:slators in
their high responsibilities, ponder seriously on this mode
of dealing with God's most holy law. Is it not palliation
of, nay actual instruction in, theft, provided only the
amount be small? And is not this in direct and flagrant
violation of the word and wisdom of Him who knew what
was in many, and said—" He that is unjust in a little, is
unjust also in much, and he that is faithful in a little, is
faithful also in much." Christianity estimates dishonesty
by the principle, not the quantity, and forbids the theft of
a penny, as imperatively as the theft of a pound, or a
thousand pounds. Romanism estimates dishonesty by
the quantity, not the principle; and while she de-
nounces the theft of a pound, on account of the injury
done to man, she palliates as venial—nay, almost defends
and justifies, the theft of the penny, although it is palpa-
ble disobedience to God, and although it tends to blunt
in the man the fine edge of a sense of right and wrong.
I might call attention to their mode of treating the seventh
commandment as well as the eighth ; but delicacy forbids
in such an assembly as this. But I must say that, to
my mind, the most extraordinary, the most unaccountable
moral phenomenon in the history of our fallen world, is
the fact that men and gentlemen, fathers and husbands,
consent and actually co-operate to expose their daughters
and their wives to the questionings of the confessional,
when they may read the instructions given to their priest-
hood preparatory to those questionings, and see the par-
ticulars—many of them suggestive of indecency—in which
those men are systematically taught to examine their
penitents, especially recently married females. (Hear.)
The reverend gentleman here concluded his reading, and
proceeded to say—And this, sir, is the seminary for the
endowment of which from the public treasury of England
the prime minister of the country has introduced a bill
into the House of Commons. (Hear.) He introduced
that bill in a speech of great clearness and under sys-
tematic arrangement. He said, "It has appeared to
us that we are at liberty to pursue one or other of three
courses with respect to the institution of Maynooth. It
is competent for us to continue without alteration the
present system, and the present amount of the parlia-
mentary grant. That is one course." "It is competent,"
he proceeded, " for us to discontinue the vote altogether,
to repudiate all connection with Maynooth." That was
another course ; and I am extremely glad to find the
right hon. baronet declare that the house were at liberty,
had they thought it right, to adopt any one of these
courses. (Hear.) I take him at his word. Either of
them is a repudiation of all notion of a compact. The
third course was, " to adopt in a friendly and liberal spirit
the institution provided for the education of the Roman
Catholic priesthood." He discussed these three, seriatim.
In discussing the first he sbewed, unanswerably, I think,
the impropriety of continuing the present grant ; he
argued, unanswerably, in my opinion, that as regards
principle it is as much violated by the grant of
£9OOO, as it will be by a larger grant, because principle
is not a matter of amount. This part of his argu-
ment, although strong to those wbo would advocate
the present grant, and reject any increase in it, has no
strength with those who altogether repudiate any grant
whatever. The right hon. baronet urged, however, the
impropriety of refusing to add to the grant by a very
striking exhibition of Maynooth statistics, in which he
brought the subject before the house in forma" pauperis.
He described how wretchedly:they were lodged, many of
them occupying the same room, and many the same brd,
and so he entreated for more money. It is, however,
upon the second branch of his speech that the most im-
portant part of the subject was brought forward ; and it is
on this I wish to offer a few observations. " I come
now," he said, " to the consideration of the second alter-
native. Shall we avow that our conscientious scruples
are so violated in the maintenance of this system, that we
will discontinue the connection with Maynooth ; that the
vote shall, after some temporary arrangements, be dis-
continued, and the burden of educating the priesthood
shall be thrown upon the people of Ireland ?" And to
persuade the house to reject this alternative, he proposes,
as the commencement of his argument, three questions.
" When did your connection with it arise ? Under whose
authority ?" And " How long has it been continued ?"
The right honourable baronet then shows that it arose in
the time of Mr. Pitt's ministry, in the reign of George
the Third, when the Duke of Portland was Secretary
of State for the Home Department, and Lord Fitz-
william Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. No higher
than these high names does the right bon. bart. go to
justify the continuance of the connection with Maynooth !
(Hear.) I hope that the people of England will require
some higher argument than this to justify its continuance.
(Cheers.) These are highly respected names; but the
subject ;involves a higher principle, as I have already
shewn ; and when the right hon. bart. divided the subject
into these three heads, inviting under the second, especial
attention to conscientious scruples with regard to this
connection with Maynooth, I certainly did expect to
find something like an effort to shew that religious scruples
did not stand in the way. But there was no attempt to
shew this. The fact that Mr. Pitt persuaded George the
Third to it, the fact that George the Third reluctantly
consented—the fact that Lord Fitzwilliam commended it
to the attention of the Irish Parliament as best he could
—these facts have nothing to do with the principle of the
measure. They are historical facts, but they do not
touch the point of conscientious scruples. The argument
propounded by the right hon. bart. was that of conscien-
tious scruples ; the argument advanced and defended goes
no higher than Mr. Pitt and George the Third. (Hear.)
Our consciences are not in allegiance to Mr. Pitt and
George the Third. We should be compelled, indeed, to
take such names for our authority if we had no higher
authority. If we had no bible, no law of God, Ido not
know how we could go higher than George the Third and
Mr. Pitt ; and what I complain of is that the right hon.
baronet did not go higher. (Hear, hear.) Ido complain
that after formally introducing conscientious scruples be-
fore the nation, the right hon. baronet made no allusion
to the word of God. (Hear, hear.) I do notthink the omis-
sion can be justified by the plea that parliament is no
place for introducing religious subjects ; conscientious
scruples ,are introduced, yet they are dealt with without
any appeal whatever to the foundations of religion as held
by the British people. Advancing in his argument, and
shewing the inconvenience which must inevitably be in-
curred if the grant be withheld, he asks " what a lesson
shall we teach to the landlords of Ireland. We shall be
teaching them not to grant any land for the erection of
Roman Catholic Chapels ;" and he referred to the city
companies also who hold estates in Ireland, and who have
given land for Roman Catholic Chapels. In what position
should we be with respect to Roman Catholic Chap-
lains, to prisons and workhouses in Ireland, and in the
colonies." So the right hon. baronet traces all the steps
that have been taken in that direction ; and upon the
strength of these pleas he calls on parliament to take
another ; yet the heading of the speech, under which all
this is given, invites us to consider conscientious scruples
to the grant I If there existed conscientious scruples,