let such men go. (Cheers.) There were some such left, but they were the minority, and they were better understood than they were some time ago, and the laity were against them. The Rev. Gentleman, after referring with satisfaction to the education movement at Cheltenham, and the strong energetic Evangelism which characterized the true members and ministers of the Church of England, observed, that in other denominations of Christians there was much sound Protestantism, and they would find among them, as, for example, among the Wesleyans, to which body he belonged, strong and powerful opposition, to the inroads of Popery. (Cheers.) He wondered if any one in Parliament thought Protestantism would be tamely surrendered. Such views as those he knew would be called intolerant, but if he had not a spark of religion about him, he would, as a Briton and a politician, oppose Popery. (Cheers.) They would not surrender their Protestantism, and of this they would give earnest proof at the next election. (Cheers.) He knew that it was no easy matter to get right-minded candidates. There were many men who did not like Parliamentary life, though well fitted to discharge its duties, and who were averse to being placed in a situation where they might be subjected to scoffings of such wits as Mr. Macaulay and his fraternity. (Hear.) But he did not doubt many. good men would be found to undertake the duty. Their Chairman had taken up his cross there, and had been able to bear it. (Cheers.) What they wanted were other men to take up their cross and to bear it as heroically as he had done. (Cheers.) For several years the Protestantism of this country had not been represented in Parliament (hear); and if they sent back the same men to another Parliament, let them not come forward next year to complain of it. (Cheers.)

ADMIRAL DUFF.-But a few hours arrived in town, and called upon to second the Resolution, I do so with great satisfaction, unwilling to allow any opportunity to escape of witnessing to the truth. I view with much pleasure the great assemblage present on this occasion, and am happy to learn that similar Meetings have taken place in several of our large towns. I would beg to advert to a circumstance already noticed by two previous speakers, the honest declaration made by my Lord Arundel, a Romanist, in his place in Parliament, that his Church and party would never be satisfied until they once more had gained the ascendancy in this realm, which, on being noticed by a Protestant Member, his Lordship (it is supposed schooled by a whisper from an Hon. Member) endeavoured to explain away, by saying that it was only by fair argument he meant Romanism should prevail. This, however, was not allowed to pass, for an Hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) immediately remarked that Popish priests did not permit their flocks the privilege of thinking or speaking on the subject of religion. I look upon this declaration of Lord Arundel's as one of the utmost importance, proceeding from such a quarter at such a crisis as the present, indeed, as a providential exposition of the sentiments of the Pope and his priests, one which has never yet escaped any of our opponents. His Lordship has torn the painted mask off the face of Popery, and exposed the horrid features hid behind. I trust that his Lordship will have the effect of opening the eyes of many to

the real nature and aims of the Popish party. One of the most marvellous circumstances in these marvellous times, is the disbelief of many of our senators, as well as others, in the machinations of Papists, and their unceasing attempts to destroy the Protestantism of the country, and with it, our civil and religious liberties. Such opinions can only be entertained by those who are ignorant of history, who build their opinions on the artful professions of priests and Jesuits incessantly and industriously circulated in every society and at every opportunity. The grand sentiment or opinion they wish to possess the public of is, that Popery has changed its character, that it is no longer the persecuting religion of former times, but entertains a kindly feeling to all; and, unfortunately, they find dupes in abundance to believe their falsehoods. Why, Sir, Popery cannot change; the Canons of Trent are the rule of the present as much as they were then, and the Popes in succession, from that period to the present, have, by their Encyclical Letters and other documentary evidence, authoritatively, declared this truth. The Pope cannot surrender his claim to infallibility. This is the corner-stone of the whole dupery. Those who entertain the opinion that Popery is changed, do so, then, not only without evidence, but contrary to all evidence. Have we not the evidence of history to prove the murderous extinction of Protestantism by Papists at the bidding of their chief in Italy, in Spain, in France, in Poland, in Germany,-in short, over the whole globe where they could exercise power; and, at the present, has not Popery shown the animus to be the same? The proceedings of the Pope's emissaries in Otaheite, in Madeira, and in Ireland, amply prove this. In short, my fellowcountrymen, let me persuade you to unite as one man in resisting Popery, and give your votes accordingly at the coming election, for, be assured, that the day of conflict is not far distant.

Rev. HUGH M'NEILE, D.D.-Sir, I have been requested to move, "That at this crisis it is more especially the bounden duty of every elector to exercise the elective franchise as a solemn and sacred trust reposed in him, for the glory of God and the good of his country. That the more mature development of the designs of the Church of Rome renders it imperative upon Protestants to return those to Parliament who will oppose Popery, extend the cause of scriptural Christianity, and uphold the Protestant institutions of the country in Church and State."

This, Sir, is a practical Resolution, and I am glad of it; for I think the time for making speeches in this Hall upon this subject is past, and the time for action is fully come. Our adversaries laugh our speeches to scorn.

There have been statements made in this Hall,* and elsewhere in this kingdom, corroborated by documentary evidence, which cannot be gainsayed, proving in the face of England what the Church of Rome is, according to her own showing, considered both religiously

* These fearful statements are given at length in the "Letter Dedicatory to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty of the Laws of the Papacy, set up by the Romish Bishops in Ireland, in 1832, to Subvert the Authority of their Lawful Sovereign." By the Rev. R. J. M'Ghee. Just published by the Protestant Association, and earnestly recommended to the serious consideration of all classes of the com munity. VOL. IX.-June, 1847. New Series, No. 18.

N

and politically. The opponents of these statements have not dared to grapple with them; neither priest nor layman has attempted to answer them. It is in vain for them to say that the statements were too insignificant for their attention, because when, on one unhappy occasion, one of the makers of those statements was beguiled into a mistake, they showed that all eyes were fixed upon him; in that they fastened upon that blot; and in that they never reproached him anywhere else, they have allowed it to appear, as a positive proof, that they cannot answer what he alleged against them elsewhere.

And what then? What has been done? Sir, an opportunity offers now for action; and if the country do not support us, if nothing be really done,-I, for one, solemnly protest that I will not be a party to the hypocrisy that claps its hands here and does nothing afterwards. I fairly tell you, that if nothing be done, corresponding to the known convictions of Protestant men, after all that has been said, I will leave the issue to God, and leave you, as far as speaking is concerned, to your own devices. Now is the time to act, or never.

Sir, I saw two men, since I came into this Hall, who have suggested to me a dialogue, which I will imagine to have taken place yesterday, in a street of London, between two of the watchful and active brothers of the Society of Jesuits, who are at present in this country upon a special mission.

One said, "Will you go to-morrow to the Meeting of the Protestant Association?"

The other said, "Yes, I will. That Association is doing our work admirably. Its intolerant violence has enabled us to keep up the absurd delusion in the public mind, profitable to us, that the Catholics are an abused, misrepresented, and calumniated body."

"Well," said the other, "but have not some of the speakers of that Association brought forward some very awkward things about us? Have they not said very plain and pointed things, and hit us

very hard ?"

The answer was, "No doubt they have, because they have gone to our own documents; they have shown what we are pledged to do, if we had the power to do it. But who believes them? We of course deny what they say, and John Bull, who has no great love for the controversy, believes us rather than them, because we say the controversy is needless, and plead the meekness of injured innocence."

"I perceive," said Brother Melipotamus, "that it is so. Charity in religion, and liberality in politics, have become our watchwords, because we perceive that they are the idols of an ignorant and irreligious public. The people of England believe us, brother, because we say what we know they wish to believe; and as for those speakers of the Protestant Association, the curse of Laocoon is upon them. It is almost enough for them to say it, for the press to deny it, and the public to reject it. We have managed capitally."

"Well, I believe you are quite right: nothing could have succeeded better than our plan of commending moderation. Oh! how fond are all people of moderation ! Hence we are so moderate, so quiet, of such a good spirit, while they are so intolerant, that the public mind is turned against them, and with us. Now I have no doubt but that

to-morrow the same intolerance will be as rampant as ever; therefore, brother, let us go to the Meeting with our mouths shut, and our eyes and our ears open likewise."

And so, Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen are here.

Now, Sir, the first thing I wish to say to these gentlemen, and to this great assembly, is this, that we are sincere lovers of moderation, in everything except religion. Holy Scripture is our guide. It tells us, concerning everything in this world, to "let our moderation be known unto all men," because "the Lord is at hand:" it tells us, that they who possess the things of this world should be as though they possessed not, that they who "use this world" should be careful not to abuse it," because "the fashion of it passeth away." But in religion it tells us to be "always zealously affected;" it tells us, earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints;" it tells us to "love the Lord our God," not moderately, but "with all our hearts;" it tells us to love our neighbour, not moderately, but "as ourselves."

66

Sir, moderation in worldly things is not very difficult to a real Christian, because his chief and lively interest is elsewhere; therefore in worldly things he can afford to be moderate, "not seeking his own." For a similar reason, moderation in religion is not very difficult to a worldly man; his lively interest is elsewhere; he cares nothing in reality for his own soul, or his neighbour's soul; he cares nothing for the glory of God; and moderation in religion costs him nothing.

But, Sir, it will be asked, "Are not these gentlemen, to whom I have alluded, very determined in their purpose? and how, then, can they be moderate?" That depends upon another question, What is their purpose? Their purpose is, the supremacy of their system. I cannot, and will not call it, as a whole, a Church, because it is a system aiming at civil, as well as ecclesiastical, supremacy. Their purpose is, the supremacy of their system. That must be pursued and obtained, per fas aut nefas; and in order to attain it, they will be anything; they will adopt any creed, or no creed, or every creed, and they will be zealous, or indifferent, or moderate, just as it suits the case.

I can fancy one of those gentlemen whispering to the other, "Hush, now, this sort of speaking would damage us, if the gentlemen of the press were faithful. But, brother, do not tell,-they are on our side; we have noticed it. They give the best version possible of any mistake, any violence, any trip, any false step that is made, but not so with respect to a real telling statement on the public mind,— anything that would be at all calculated to awaken the dormant heresy of the nation."

Now, Sir, the next thing that I would wish to say to these gentlemen, and to this great assembly, is this,-that we are sincere lovers of religious liberty. We truly detest bigotry. "What! you detest bigotry? Did our ears serve us right?" Yes, and your minds too; and reluctant as some may be to receive the statement, it is true; we are the real friends of religious liberty; we detest the notion that a man should be coerced for his creed. I will indulge the gentlemen with a little of their own sort of Latin; we agree entirely with an

ancient writer,* who says, Religio cogi non potest; verbis non verberibus res agenda est, ut sit voluntas ;" the English of which is, Religion cannot be forced; the thing is to be done by words, not by blows, that it may be free." The same writer says, "Defendenda est religio, non occidendo, sed moriendo, non sævitia, sed patientia ;" "Religion is to be defended, not by killing for it, but by dying for it -not by cruelty, but by patience." This is our creed with regard to religious liberty, and therefore we are in antagonism to Rome.

There never was a more expert harlequinade practised upon the deceived eyes of juveniles, at a Christmas entertainment, than has been practised upon the grave eyes of John Bull, when they have represented us as bigots, and Popery as liberal. Romanism, Sir, as a system, (as you know very well,) is pledged to aim at, and if possible to obtain, both civil and ecclesiastical supremacy; and not only so, but having attained them, she is equally pledged to tolerate no heretics. Individuals in authority among them who do not come up to this mark, are themselves coerced. The system is more powerful than the individuals; and a bishop, who had some relentings in his bosom, and seemed unwilling to cleanse his diocese from heretical pravity, must be superseded, and another sent into his place. Another, "Qui vult et qui possit hæriticam confundere pravitatem."

Now why should this be proved again? It has been proved, and I challenge any gentleman of the press, or of the periodical literature of the country, or any of those who hear, or may read what I am now saying, to grapple with the demonstrations made on this platform, published by my Reverend friend Mr. M'Ghee, and laid up, labelled in their order, in the libraries of both Universities. They cannot do it. And yet, in the face of all this, what is going on now?

Sir, such a system as Romanism must be looked upon in the light of a great conspiracy in this country. Where it is dominant it is an intolerant tyranny, as in Spain and Madeira; and where it is aspiring, as in England, it is an elaborate sedition. On this ground we feel called upon to resist it. I do not mean to say on this ground alone; but on this ground alone we ask public resistance, or national resistance of it. As a false religion we resist it only by argument; as a conspiracy and a sedition we ask our rulers to help us to resist it. We believe that theologically considered it is utterly opposed to Scripture; so we reason, so we write, so we preach, so we speak: "Verbis non verberibus." But in its political, in its social aspect, we want help; for however excellent a thing preaching may be, as regards theological truth, preaching is not a defence against sedition-preaching is no adequate defence against conspiracy.

But are these meek gentlemen conspirators? Why, Sir, that depends upon what you mean by a conspiracy. If men bind themselves together by a compact, which they conceal from the public, to obtain an end which they are afraid to avow, lest an avowal should cause a recoil which would defeat their object, what is this but a conspiracy? An open avowal of the project would defeat itself, because, notwithstanding the damages which have been sustained by our British Constitution, it has still some strongholds, and an attempt

* Lactantius.