The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-02 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL PROTESTANT AND REFORMA-
TION SOCIETY.

Last evening, the half-yearly meeting of the above ex-
cellent and important society was held in the Concert-
hall, Lord Nelson-street, the Rev. Canon M'Neile, pa-
tron of the institution, in the chair. The spacious hall
in which the meeting was held was crowded, and the gal-
lery was graced by the presence of a great number of
ladies. Among the gpntlemen on the platform we no-
ticed—the Rev. Canon M'Neile, the Rev. H. Carpenter,
the Rev. W. Pollock, the Rev. J. R. Connor, the Rev.
D. Anderson, the Rev. G. Cuthbert, the Rev. T. Nolan,
the Rev. M'Call, the Rev. H. Jones, Dr. Batty, Mr.
Webster, Mr. Middleton, &c. &c.

On the Rev. Chairman making his appearance on the
platform, he was greeted with several rounds of enthusias-
tic applause. After the cheering had subsided, he rose
and said—Our national Protestantism possesses many ex-
cellent qualities, the highest of which is the liberty it se-
cures for the pure worship of God. (Hear.) You are
aware that upon all these occasions we commence our
meeting with that worship—prayer and praise. This
evening we commence by singing the first hymn upon the
paper that has been circulated in the room. It is called
" A Hymn for English Protestants."
The meeting then sang the hymn in congregational
style, with admirable effect. The tune was " the old
hundredth," and at its conclusion a fervent end appropri-
ate prayer was offered by the Rev. J. Cuthbert.
The CHAIRMAN then addressed the meeting as follows:
—Fellow Christians and Brother Protestants,—l have
come among you upon another half-yearly meeting, for
the purpose of performing what I conceive to be an im-
portant duty ; and that is, to communicate to you such
scriptural instruction as seems to me specially seasonable
at the present time. There never was a period in which
you were more imperatively called unon to enter into a
personal and intelligent examination of the foundations of
your Christian faith than the present time. Touching our
national Protestantism, we have enjoyed a long period of
authority which is now giving place to a period of
argument. Among the authoritative restrictions under
which we have hitherto been protected, one has been
a statute which rendered it penal for any one to main-
tain, or assert, the supremacy of the Pope in this
country. Whether it was right to have such a statute or
not is not the immediate question. As a matter of fact,
such a statute did exist since the reign of Henry the
Eighth ; so that if a Romanist asserted the supremacy of
the Pope in England, instead of taking the trouble to
argue against the assertion, you might have prosecuted
him under the statute for an offence against the laws of
the realm. It is now proposed to repeal that statute ;
so that: in the event of such an assertion being ad-
vanced, there is no longer any appeal to the law ; our
only appeal is to argument. This is what I meant
when I said, that we had had a period of authority,
which is now giving way to a period of argument.
The statute id question, which rendered it an offence to
assert the supremacy of the Pope in England, did, as it
were, close the question from argument; it rendered
argument needless, because it presented a legal hindrance
in the way of even the assertion. We can quite under-
stand that members of the Church of Rome have felt this
statute to be a serious restriction ; and if it had applied
simply to their liberty with regard to their own religion ;
if it had hindered them from a conscientious recognition
of the Pope as the head of their own Church ; it would,
I freely confess, in the present state of our law, since other
concessions have been made—it would be unfair, if their
religion be tolerated in England, that this part of it should
not be tolerated like every other part. I do not offer any
opinion upon the abstract question as to whether it should
be tolerated or not. We believe it to be utterly opposed,
radically opposed, to the revealed will of God. Still you
are aware that it is tolerated, and that latterly many
ccncessions have been made to it ; and it is fair, and quite
in harmony with those concessions, that the part of this
statute which hindered the Romanist from asserting the
supremacy of the Pope in his own church and over him-
self, should be removed;. and, if this were all that it is
proposed to remove, we should have no fresh cause to
complain. Romanists assert the supremacy of the Pope,
not only over their own consciences as members of the
church of Rome, but over all the world beside. They assert
his supremacy over kings and states, and over all baptized
persons, so that he has a right, according to their assertions,
to coerce baptized heretics into the faith. The repeal of
the statute in question will open a wide field for them to
assert that the Pope is and ought to be supreme in Eng-
land. Here is a fresh question then. We have not
hitherto been called upon to argue this question, and why
so? It is worthy of your consideration for a moment.
We have been arguing the questions of transubstantiation,
of purgatory, of penance, and of various other views which
they hold, and which we believe to be utterly opposed to
the word of God. And why is it that we have not been
called upon to argue this question of the supremacy of
the Pope in England ? As I said before, the reason
simply was that the statute book closed it. Suppose a
statute to be passed which rendered it penal to agitate the
question of the repeal of the Union in Ireland. That
would close the subject. Instead of being called on to
argue the question with Mr. O'Connell, or with any of
those who agree with him, of the repeal of the Union, he
could be prosecuted for agitating it as for an offence
against the law. (Hear, hear.) I say this by way of illus-
tration to show you how the matter stands. It was an
offence against the law to assert the supremacy of the
Pope in England; but if the bill brought by the present
Lord Chancellor of England into the House of Lords,
during the present session of I'arliament, passes into a law,
it will no longer be an offence in a Romanist to assert the
supremacy of the Pope in England. Therefore, it behoves
you, the Protestants of England, to have an answer, for the
time of argument is come. It is somewhat singular that
as this period of argument advances, an indisposition to
enter into the argument appears to advance also amongst
many Englishmen. There are not a few called Pro-
testants who maintain a painful, a morbid, disinclination,
to the argument. Yet they have no protection now but
in argument. The shield of the statute is removed, and
where is the protection? (Hear, hear.) These are briefly
the grounds upon which I hold myself to be in my proper
place as aminister of the reformed church established in this
country, when explaining in this simple mode, and endea-
vouring to make myself intelligible to all of you—explain-
ing the prevent state of things—that you may apprehend
the reason for the instruction that is to follow. I proceed
to give you instruction upon this su!iject. That you may
know what answer to give to those who assert the supre-
macy of the pope in England, you ought to know the na-
ture of the assertion itself, not as it may be now glossed,
but as it is really made by the most distinguished canon-
ists of that church. I will therefore state it to you in the
language of the celebrated Dr. Barrow, in his " Treatise
of the Pope's Supremacy." He says :
"They ascribe to the Pope an universal, absolute, and bound-
less empire o':er all persons indifferently, and in all matters;
conferred and settled on him by divine, immutable sanction
so that all men, of whatever degree, are obi geLl in conscience
to believe whatever he doth authoritatively dictate, and to obey
whatever lie cloth prescribe. So that if princes themselves do
refuse obedience to his will, he nrly excommunicate them,
cashier them, depose them, extirpate ti,em. If he chargeth us
to hold no communion with our prince, to renounce our alle-
giance to him, to abandon, oppose, and persecute him, even to
death, we may without scruple, we must in duty obey. If he
doth interdict whole nations from the exercise of God's worship
and service, they must comply therein. So that, according to
their conceits, he is in effect Sovereign Lord of all the world;
and superior, even in temporal or civil matters, unto all kings
and princes." . . . . .

I am quite aware that such a statement will now be
charged with gross exaggeration. I feel assured that if a
simple Romanist, taking what his priest tells him for the
mind of the Church Catholic, were here present this
evening, and upon hearing this statement, he would feel
in his own mind thus—" No such thing; this is quite a
misrepresentation. The supremacy of the Pope is merely
over our consciences, as head of the church, and it is a
gross calumny to charge His Holiness with asserting his
supremacy over princes and governments—he asserts no
such thing—it is only a spiritual supremacy, not a tem-
poral." And such a man might be honest in the opinion
that what I have read is an exaggeration. 'Why so? be-
cause he is not told all that his church holds. (Hear.)
He is only told what it is convenient and politic now to
say in England; he is not told the whole truth. (Hear.)
In justification of the statement I have read from Dr.
Barrow, I will mention an instance or two of the exercise
of this prerogative by the Pope. (Hear, hear.) These
are mentioned by Dr. Barrow himself. The first is that
of Pope Sixtus the sth, in the year 1585, against Henry,
King of Navarre and Prince of Con& It begins thus :

"The authority given to St. Peter and his sue 'essors, by the
immense power of the Eternal King, excels all the powers of
earthly kings and princes—it passes uncontrollable sentence on
them all—and if it find any of them resisting God's ordinance,
it takes more sever:, vengeance of them, casting them down
from the thrones, though never so puissant, and tumbling them
down to the lowest parts of the earth, as the minister of aspi-
ring Lucifer." _ _ _

And then he proceeds to thunder against them—
•. we deprive them and their posterity for ever of the domin-
ions and kingdoms," and accordingly he depriveth those princes
of their kingdoms and dominions, absolveth their subjects
from the oaths of allegiance, and forbiddenh them to pay any
obedience to them. "By the authority of these presents, we do
absolve and set free all persons, as well jointly as severally, from
any such oath, and from all duty whatsoever in regard of do.
minion, fealty and obedience, and do charge and forbid all and
every of them, that they do not dare to obey them, or any of
their admonitions, laws, and commands."
The next comes nearer home. It is that of Pius the
sth against our own Queen Elizabeth. It opens in these

wordit:—
~. He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in

heaven and in earth, has committed the one holy Catholic and

Apostolic Church, out of which there is no salvation, to one
alone on earth, namely, to Peter, Prince of the Apostles, arid
to the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to be governed with
a plenitude of power : this one he hath constituted prince over
all nations, and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, destroy,
ruinate, plant, and build.' And in the same bull he declares
that he thereby deprives the Queen of her pretended right t
the kingdom, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege what-
soever; and all nobles, subjects, and peop:e of the
kingdom, and (I,:e have sworn to her, from their oath,
and all duty whatsoever, in regard of dominion, fidelity and
obedience.' "
1 need not add to these proofs that the power to
absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance, and the
power to depose princes was claimed by the Bishop of
Rome. This is an historical fact, and if any man say
now, "It was, but it is not," we ask, " What then be-
comes of the infallibility of the Church of Rome ?"
(Hear.) When the Pope claimed what I have read, was
he infallible ? If so, he cannot change without ceasing
to be infallible. Does he not make the same claim now ?
Is he infallible ? (Hear.) Does infallibility change its
opinion? Does infallibility become liberal to suit the
tim:s ? Was he infallible when Pius the sth was in the
chair, which they blasphemously call Peter's chair ? Is
he iafallible now ? They are taught to say he is—they
are taught to say that his claim now is not what it was
then. It is what it was then ; and I have a very simple
proof, which will be satisfactory to educated minds at
least, and ought to be satisfactory to you, when the re-
ferences are pointed out, that the claims I have read are
by no means obsolete. I hold in my hand a number of
the work by the celebrated Ranke called " The Popes of
Rome." A translation of that professor's book is now
soing forward in Scotland, and is sent forth to the public