« ElőzőTovább »
him, did he deny that there ever was a good man in the Church of Rome, and he would be glad to have the question put to him; he would have no hesitation whatever in answering, that his opinion was, that there were good men in that Church-that many good men had gone to heaven out of the Romish Church, but they had never gone to heaven in consequence of any part of the system of Popery; (cheers ;) never, no one could ; if any one in that Church loved God, he was not indebted for that good state of heart to the system of Popery, he had become a Christian in spite of it; (cheers ;) yes, many went to heaven through that Church, or rather, as he ought to say, from that Church; he would be sorry for both his heart and his head, if he had not the charity to make that admission. He was not like the Romanist, he did not deny salvation to all who were out of his own creed. But he was no Liberal, in the modern and abused sense of that term. (A laugh. He used to call himself a Conservative, and had always acted as one, but what he was now he did not know, for those in whom he used to put faith, had deserted the principles which he loved, and which they had professed when wooing what they had betrayed, the confidence of the country. He believed that if any of the par, ties of the present day were to put their claims before himn and say, which did he choose ? he should not choose any of them, but would say that he was a Protestant. (Cheers.) He believed that much of the liberalism of the present day owed its origin, strange to say, to Rome itself; at all events, where it did not create it, it did all in its power to give it strength wherever it found it, even although it was reduced into perfect licentiousness, and such a state of public feeling has worked well for some, and furthered the cause of her intolerance and despotism. Liberalism may enthrone Rome, but Liberalism will never be enthroned with her. (Cheers.) The Act of 1829, he had considered a fault at the time, and he thought so still. He had been strongly opposed to the system of national education in Ireland, which gave a mutilated Bible into the hands of her youth,-he saw that it might be wrested to the purposes of the Papacy, and he believed that practically, in nine cases out of ten, it was neither more nor less than a system of teaching and spreading the erroneous doctrines, -the souldestroying tenets of the Church of Rome. England had never been more grossly insulted than in the recent endowment of the College of Maynooth. (Cheers.) Protestant England had never been more outraged by those who called themselves the representatives of the people. He hoped that every one who had heard the advice given them that day, respecting the conduct to be pursued at the approaching election, would follow it to the letter, and give their votes only to those who were true in their Protestant principles, and had the courage to express them; let them give their votes only to those who would support God's holy cause, if they wished England to prosper. If any Protestant dared then to vote wrong, to forget the paramount claims of Protestantism in the inferior claims of fiscal regulations and tem. porary civil questions, let him never again shew his face in that Hall, unless indeed it were to perform that penance which he would so richly deserve ; if any one then voted wrong, they would betray the best interests not only of their children but of their children's children; they would betray the best interests of their country for the bread that perisheth. Let such a man go home and burn the Book of Martyrs, lest the sight of it should fill him with deserved reproach and shame, and think of his inconsistency in complaining of the conduct of the Legislature, he having created the very agents of whom he complained. The next Parliament will settle the destinies of their empire for generations, and a more solemn and momentous responsibility never rested upon free-born Englishmen than will devolve upon them at the next election. (Cheers.) He trusted that the attention of all Christian men would be turned to the Charitable Trusts Bill. A more monstrous proposition had never been brought under the notice of the Legislature, for it would give powers to three Commissioners, who might take the oath in a non-natural sense, (cheers,) or who might be Romanists or Unitarians, to turn out all trustees of charities ; to appoint others to their minds, and in defiance of the well-known legal doctrine of Cypress, it enabled this irresponsible triumvirate, to do what, as Lord Cottenham said, the Legislature never claimed a right to attempt, to divert the trust funds to other purposes ; if it passed, but few years would elapse before all trust funds would be in danger of being wrested to the purposes of Romanism or of Infidelity. The Bills of Mr. Watson and the Lord Chancellor were almost beyond belief for their unblushing effrontery: they tampered directly with the Oath of Supremacy, and he trusted they would both be closely watched and strenuously resisted. If in this meeting fears be entertained, they are sympathized in by the Bishop of London, who declares that apprehensions may be reasonably entertained of the danger which will arise to the integrity and supremacy of the crown, for the supremacy of the Pope had never been given up. If it were not openly taught it was still maintained. The Bishop of Exeter had said, that if these bills
pass, “ we must prepare ourselves for another religious war." But he (Mr. Prest) thought that by passing these bills we were preparing not for war but for shameful defeat. Would demolishing our fortifications, disbanding our army, manning our ships, and garrisoning our fortresses with the enemy be a preparation for war ? (Cheers.) But we are doing worse than this, and it is to be regretted that the last named Prelate did not begin the fight in earnest by pressing his Motion, that his questions should be submitted to the Judges, for in those venerable men the nation had more confidence than in law-makers. Nor should the startling observation of Lord Campbell be forgotten, that if these bills passed the Pope would have more power in this country than in any other European state. He had no hesitation in quoting, in that Meeting, the remarks of one, whose memory he revered, and whose name, he was persuaded, would meet with a cordial welcome, he meant John Wesley. (Cheers.) That great man said years since, “ That no Roman Catholic does, or can, give security for his allegiance or peaceable behaviour. I prove thus. (Let him answer it that can.). It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but by a public council, that no faith is to be kept with heretics. This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it was never openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxin of the Church of Rome. But so long as it is so, nothing can be more plain, than that the members of that church can give no reasonable security to any government of their allegiance or peaceable behaviour." “ You may say, Nay, but they will take the oath of allegiance ;' true, five hundred oaths; but the maxim no faith is to be kept with heretics,' sweeps them all away as a spider's web." These sentiments he (Mr. Prest) adopted. (Cheers.) He hoped that all present were ready to testify for the faith that was in them; if not, they would be traitors to their Saviour, traitors to all that was dear to their hearts, if they were not ready on all occasions to come forward, and, by all means in their power, raise their testimony against the mother of harlots—the Church of Rome.
The Motion was then put, and carried unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN said, the Factory Bill was under discussion in the House of Commons, and a vote might be of much use in rendering it safe. He was, therefore, anxious to be in his place, and, with their permission, would then take his leave. His friend, Sir Digby Mackworth, bad kindly consented to succeed him in the chair.
James BATEMAN, Esq., of Congleton, had been intrusted with the second Resolution, which he proposed with much pleasure, because he agreed in all it contained. It ran thus :--" That this Meeting desire to record their unanimous and determined protest against the Act passed last year
for the permanent endowment of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth. That such a measure is inconsistent with the principles of sound policy, and with the Protestant constitution of the country. And, whilst it is the bounden duty of good and faithful subjects to obey the powers that be, this Meeting feel it also to be their duty to protest against the endowment of what they believe to be alike opposed to Divine truth, and to the best interests of nations. That, regarding it as alike inconsistent and unscriptural, to protest against Popery as contrary to God's word, and, at the same time, to endow it, and train up missionaries for the purpose of teaching the errors and iniquities of that system, this Meeting feel called upon to adopt the following Petition to the Houses of Parliament, for the Repeal of the Act for the Endowment of Maynooth."— The Bill endowing Maynooth was both impolitic and impious, and had been the cause of God's wrath being poured out upon the land. In the May and June of last year, the Premier paid no attention to the prayers of his friends, and of those who had placed him in power. He passed that Bill, and in a few months, how changed was his position ! how had the mighty fallen! In January he appeared in the House of Commons, and attributed the breaking up of a strong Ministry, not to the desertion of friends, but to the mysterious visitation of Providence, which threatened the destruction of the food of the people of a neighbouring country. Although the Right Hon. Gentleman was at a loss to connect that visitation of Providence with the endowment of error in unhappy Ireland, those who were there present could be at none. They would all well remember the great metamorphosis which Sir R. Peel underwent in 1829, when from being an earnest advocate in the Protestant cause, he became an advocate for the emancipa
tion of the Roman Catholics. In a year after that event, he was driven from office. Again, when during the reign of his late Majesty, be held the reins of power with an unsteady hand, the providence of God was seen in the majority which hurled him from power; that majority was thirty-two-just the number of Roman Catholics who had gained admission into the House under his Bill of 1829. The people believing that the leaven of Popery must be pretty well taken out of him, again trusted him; but again he had violated his Protestant principles, and when he fell a third time, he would fall, like Lucifer, “to rise no inore."
The Rev. W. M‘ILWAINe, of Belfast, seconded the Resolution. Had he been been called upon at an earlier period of the day, he intended to have addressed the Meeting at some length, but Mr. Stowell had stolen his speech. He would, therefore, only say, that if Englishmen felt aggrieved at and protested against the endowment of the great mass manufactory of Maynooth, how much must he feel at it, as an Irishman. In that College the students invariably put in a “not" when they took the oath of allegiance, and even when it came to the ears of the Dean, he did not reprove them. He was also informed that in place of the daily. prayer for the Queen “ Domine salvum fac Reginam," they were in the habit of saying, “Domine salvum whack Reginam.” (A laugh.)
The Resolution was then passed.
The Dean of Ardagh then moved:—“That the efforts made by the Roman Catholics to regain in this country their long-lost ascendancy; are a just ground for inquiry and alarm. That the danger with which the Institutions of the country seem to be threatened are greatly increased, because those who might have been regarded as their protectors have been lending their aid to destroy the bulwarks of the Constitution, which ought to have been upheld and strengthened. That the alteration proposed in the Mortmain Laws, the Act and Oath of Supremacy, and the protective provisions of 1829, as also the innovations proposed by the Charitable Trusts Bill, will expose this country more and more to the aggressions of the Church of Rome; and that, as every Roman Catholic nation of Europe has found it necessary to provide. laws and regulations to protect them from the interference of Rome, so is it, in a more especial manner, necessary that the enactments framed by the dear-bought wisdom of our ancestors, be not removed or altered till a full inquiry has taken place before Parliament, as to the real nature and tendency of the principles of the Church of Rome, and how far her principles and practices are compatible with the safety and prosperity of this Protestant country," and supported it in a speech, which we are sorry the limit of our periodical prevents us from giving.*
It was seconded by the Rev. E. Dalton, and passed unanimously.
Thanks were then voted to the Chairman; and they having been acknowledged, and praise given to God, the Meeting separated.
• We hope to have the privilege of publishing in our next Number, a corrected copy of the Rev. Dean's speech.
PROTECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST POPERY. The following remarks have recently appeared from the pen of a clerical friend, who has long laboured in the good cause :-.
There are some points which connect themselves with the contemplated advance of the interests of the Church of Rome in Ireland of no slight importance, but which, nevertheless, seem almost entirely to have escaped the notice of those who have spoken or written on the subject, or, at least, not to have been placed in the prominent position they deserve. If circumstances are now such, that the advocates of Rome can come forward and deny, with a chance of being believed by persons ignorant of her policy and of history, that the Church of Rome is actuated by the spirit which dictated her persecuting decrees—nay, further, can even venture to contend that some of her most persecuting decrees were never passed by the authorities whose names they bear if, in the present day, men can be found to advocate her interests, simply on the ground that they cannot believe that any Church does, or ever did, teach as a fundamental doctrine, that to persecute those who differed in matters of faith is a religious duty- to what is all this owing? It is owing to the fact that Protestant ascendancy has tied for 300 years the hands of Rome—that Protestant principles allow no such doctrines, and therefore sanction no such deeds! The mild rule of Protestantism has caused these things to seem as the fables of by-gone times; and, for this reason, Rome, who poured forth the blood of martyrs like water, can come forward and point to those very laws which fettered the spirit of persecution,-those very laws to which, under God, we owe the privilege of worshipping God according to our conscience-those safeguards of truth and liberty which the wisdom of our forefathers established—can point to these, and apply to them the term “ persecuting.” They call upon us to shew that the blessing, which God vouchsafed to the wisdom and piety of those firm champions of the truth, is no longer valued, and tell us, that we should cast to the winds the means by which that blessing was secured and preserved. Some have said that these laws should be removed from our statute book, because circumstances have rendered them inoperative. If such really be the case, why e'en let them stand they can hurt nobody. If they are not inoperative, or (as, no doubt, the advocates for their repeal forsee, or, at least, hope,) circumstances are about to arise which will call them into operation, then are they as necessary now as when they were first placed on the statute book. Strange to say, that the very argument if argument it may be called which is urged for the removal of our mild and protective restrictions, is the one brought forward as a reason for retaining the persecuting statutes of