SPEECH,

&c.

THE REV. HUGH. M'NEILE, of Liverpool, was received with loud and repeated cheers.-I appear, said he, on this platform to-day, fully aware of the existence and strength of a widely-spread impression that anything wearing the aspect of political interference is unbecoming in a minister of religion. And I must say, that if the causes which have called Protestant Associations into being, and the objects which those Associations have in view, were mere matters of party politics, involving no more than differences of opinion amongst men, all equally interested in the continuance and prosperity of our national Christian institutions, I would not take a prominent part in such proceedings. But the case is far otherwise; the great question, which is now in practical debate throughout the empire is, not as to the best mode of conducting the details of British policy, but as to whether British institutions are to continue in existence. It is not as to the best mode of managing the internal economy of our "holy and beautiful house," but shall the walls of that house themselves be permitted to stand, and continue to afford us comfort and shelter? It is not, how shall the scriptural jewels in our Protestant casket be made most available to enrich the tens of thousands of our as yet uninstructed countrymen? but, shall the precious casket itself fall into the grasp of ruthless robbery? The office of a minister of the Gospel is set forth under various figures in the Word of God. Many would confine it to the single figure of shepherd; well do I know, Sir, the high and holy duties, and dearly do I love the affectionate sympathies, and tender cares, which devolve upon a pastor. But this is only one feature in the apostolical delineation of an ambassador of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is called to be a watchman as well as a shepherd. And why a watchman, if he be not to watch and to give warning-timely warning-when danger is approaching? Such I conceive to be the present state of our country --such the threatening dangers to all our Christian institutions, that it

is not the clergyman who joins in a movement of self-defence, but the clergyman who refuses to join, who owes an apology to his country. Dangers stand thick around us. All our institutions are based upon the Word of God, and I maintain that whatever tends to depreciate the Word of God in the estimation of the people endangers the whole of our institutions. But I think it wrong to ascribe all our dangers to the influence exerted by Roman Catholics. I think that there exist among ourselves evils as rife, as injurious, as any that result from the influence and exertions of the Roman Catholics. I do not now allude to the open attacks of infidelity;-that is an evil, but I think that, to most minds, it carries with it its own antidote. But the great idol of the day in which we live-the idol to which most are bowing their knee is the pursuit of useful knowledge. It is an adventurous thing; it is as much as a man's character for common sense is worth, to dare to say a word which might appear to reprobate the spread of useful knowledge. But I maintain that the mode in which this knowledge is pursued has the effect, first, to separate religion from all other inquiries, then to represent those inquiries as sufficient for human happiness, thus to make the Bible only secondary; and then, to exclude every statement of the Bible, which does not harmonise with the results which have been previously deduced from the principles of natural religion. I have recently received a letter from an officer in the British army, which contains some extracts from a popular work, concerning which he asks my opinion, which may tend to illustrate the sentiments I have advanced. The extracts are from Combe on the Constitution of Man. The first is as follows::- -"Human nature, and the external world, have both proceeded from the Creator, and it is impossible, in interpreting their constitution aright, to arrive at any conclusions at variance with correct interpretations of Scripture. It is argued by some theologians that the human faculties are no longer in the condition in which they were created, and that hence no sound philosophy can be deduced from studying their manifestations." This, he says, is "argued by some theologians;" honesty would have said, "It is stated plainly in the Bible." The Bible says, that "God made man upright,”

that "He beheld every thing which He had made, and lo! it was very good," and the Bible says, afterwards, "God saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This is the great, the prevailing delusion of the present day; what is really truth is stated to be the opinion of "certain theologians," when it is, in fact, the very language of the Bible. But how does the author meet the argument? "I respectfully reply, that man did not make the cerebral organs which he now possesses, nor bestow on them their functions. Both organs and functions are as assuredly the direct gifts of the Creator as is the eye, the ear, or the stomach. The science of optics is never questioned by any person who understands it, on the ground that the eye (on the structure, properties, and relations of which it depends) is not now in the condition in which it was created. Yet, to do this would be as reasonable as to deny the truth and authority of a philosophy of mind, derived from correct observations on the

constitution and relation of the mental faculties and organs."-How does Mr. Combe know that these organs and functions are now in the condition in which they were created? The whole creation has suffered by man's sin. How can Mr. Combe, or any other philosopher, determine that man's organ of vision, when in primeval perfection, was incompetent to gaze with pleasure on the great fountain of natural light? The probability is fairly on the other side. Now, the facts of the case supply us with a valuable illustration. The eye is qualified to receive 'delightful impressions from the objects of creation seen in reflected light, and we cordially cultivate the science of optics. But there is a point at which the eye fails-the direct approach to the meridian sun. So it is with reason, the moral eye of man. It is qualified to examine the external creation, and to deduce arguments from observations on creatures, but when it approaches God it fails, and must veil its highest efforts before the incomprehensible splendour of that bright light. If any process could take place upon the organs of the natural eye, enabling it to delight in a direct look at the sun, such process would resemble true spiritual conversion, and then the individual would be able to gaze on the source of holy light and love, which is God himself. But Mr. Combe proceeds :-"If two sound interpretations of the Divine will, as recorded in creation and in Scripture, can by possibility contradict each other, we can have no confidence in the moral Governor of the world. As then all real philosophy, and all true religion, must harmonize, there will be a manifest advantage in cultivating each by itself, till its full dimension, limits, and application, shall be brought clearly to light." So far this author. He seems, all along, to take it for granted that he can correctly deduce a philosophy of morals from the constitution of the human organs and faculties. No interpretation of Scripture, therefore, which contradicts his deduction will be admitted to be a sound one; and so the Bible is degraded into a mere handmaid to his philosophy. The object seems plainly to be to make the Bible secondary; he first sets up the philosophical deduction, and then rejects any interpretation of the Bible, which does not harmonize with his natural philosophy. Against all this we argue for a plain, literal interpretation of the Bible, and maintain that no deduction of philosophy which contradicts this can be admitted as sound. These men speak with respect to the Bible; but, at the same time, they exalt natural philosophy to such a height as to degrade the supremacy of the Bible, which, if it be not first, is nothing, worse than nothing. It is this, I firmly believe, which has led to such callousness of public feeling, that although flagrant perjury be exhibited in high places, there appears, even among good men, an incapacity to shudder. I admit that this may not be so exciting a topic as some which might have been selected; but, I believe, that it lies at the root of all the evils which we now so much dread. Till confidence of heart in God's Word shall be paramount in the minds of the community at large, we are not in a condition profitably to maintain our ground as Protestant Christians. The Protestantism of many who bear the name lies more in negatives than in any positive precise theology. The same principle has infected many of our religionists.

The trumpet does not give a certain sound. This doctrine is too narrow; that is too lax; and the other is too sectarian. Mammon says this; but it is too Arminian! ́ Anti-Mammon says that; but it is too Calvinistic! The truth lies somewhere between, and it does not belong to essentials to determine precisely where! Professor Pusey says this; but he is too Popish: Mr. Noel says that; but he is too liberal. The truth lies somewhere between, but it does not belong to essentials to determine where! But is this the language of men who call themselves Protestants? Is anything essential? and if so, what is it? Are we indeed so open to the satirical lash of the poet :

"Fallible man, the church-bred youth replies,

Is found still fallible, however wise;

And differing judgments serve but to declare,

That truth lies somewhere, if we knew but where."

This, I verily believe, is the core of the disease which has palsied our Protestantism, that we cannot close our hands firmly upon truth. Awake from this, or you are for ever lost! Set yourselves resolutely against this error! Let this false philosophy be fully exposed! Show what is the nature and evidence of Revelation, and what is the true province of reason. Examine the evidence for the truth of the Scripture, but dare not to judge of the announcements of Scripture. Learn to distinguish between the origin of the Book which you can reasonably examine, and the contents of the Book which transcend all created reason. If you do not this, you will fail in your duty; you will allow the foe to gather strength, and when he comes upon you, you will be unable to resist him. Protestantism, assailed and wounded, will make its appeal to you, and you will be ready to say, The truth lies somewhere between us and Popery, but it is not essential to determine precisely where. Having thus delivered my own soul by giving you this warning, I will now proceed to call your more immediate attention to the particular objects of the Protestant Association. It is an evil to be lamented that Popery has so long passed under the name of religion. There is a general sympathy in the minds of Protestants with all that is connected, with religious liberty-a sympathy which we would be sorry to attempt to disturb or weaken. But the Roman Catholic system is not religion-it is a system so called, but it is used entirely to promote political views, and to gain temporal advantages. It is a system acting by turns upon the hopes and fears of its votaries, leaving no means untried by which it may gain its ends, and everywhere spreading its baneful and malicious influence. It can shift and adapt itself to every passing circumstance. The Romish system has an iron creed, on the Procrustes' bed of which she can at any time impale her victims, adjusting its proportions to their various statures. This is the case with Popery at home; but abroad, seeking to enlarge her territory, she has no creed. If a sturdy Presbyterian be at the head of the democratic party, from whom she can expect nothing but hard words and hard blows, then she will fly the democrats, and strive to insinuate herself at the foot of the throne. But if a Liberal be in power, one who has no religion himself, and, therefore, supposes that no one else has any, then Popery throws off the mask of religion, and

is at once a Liberal. No! Popery is not religion! Look at her abroad, and she is seen in her true colours, with the stiletto and the cup of death. Then we are alarmed-then we are roused. But when, as among us, she disguises herself, and boasts of charity and liberality, our danger is extreme, And let no one say that this is an Irish question merely. It has ceased to be even chiefly an Irish question, except that the well-being of England is inseparable from her union with Ireland, and that union is inseparable from the protection and preservation of Protestantism in Ireland; but it is a British question-it is the question of national Protestantism. Popery is struggling, as she always has done, to gain ascendancy. She claims supremacy and sovereignty in everything. She interprets that passage most literally" All things are yours." I am here reminded of a touching incident in a narrative concerning the late Dr. Phelan. When he was a student, preparing for the Romish Church, a priest whose immediate charge he was, took him one day to an eminence, from which he beheld the fruitful hills and fertile valleys of Ireland; and while the beauteous landscape stretched itself before his eyes, and his youthful mind glowed with ardour, the artful priest said, "All this is yours!" Nothing more was said, but the idea intended was insinuated, and for the moment, said Phelan, I was a rebel. The idea insinuated was, that all he beheld would have been his-would have been the property of his Church-but for British, for Protestant, usurpation. He was a rebel only for a moment. But all have not minds like Phelan's. Few who have been trained for the service of that Church can say that they were rebels, but for a moment. Few who have been educated at Maynooth, but have felt the spirit of habitual and determined rebellion. I know it will be said that the students, when they enter the College of Maynooth, have to take an oath that they are not connected with any rebellious society. But, the fact is, that such oath is withheld from the student till after he has been three months in the College. Time is thus allowed him, that he may learn how to deal with conscience and with oaths, and how to manage mental reservation. I will read you an extract in proof of what I have asserted, taken from the Parliamentary Inquiry, which was instituted as to the College of Maynooth. The Rev. Michael Montague was asked

"Can you state whether the provisions of the statute, which requires the oath of allegiance to be taken by the professors and students of the house are strictly complied with ?-That statute is complied with by the professors who come from the Continent, in a short time after their appointment, and by the students at the next quarter sessions after coming from College. They generally arrive in September, and comply with that statute at the quarter session held in Maynooth in the beginning of the following January. They cannot comply with it sooner without considerable inconvenience."

"They take the oath at the ensuing quarter sessions ?—It is possible, that some may not take the oath at the next quarter sessions. The sessions are held during the Christmas vacation; and some of the