PROTESTANT MAGAZINE. FEBRUARY 1, 1859. MAYNOOTH. POLICY and principle are alike against the Maynooth graut. The lessons taught by the pro-Maynooth policy of more than half a century are stern and terrible. They show how, having once taken a step in the downward course from Protestantism to Popery, statesmen, one after another, even when they have seen the error, have wanted the power, the inclination, or moral courage to retrieve it. From its first projection to this day, Maynooth College has been the creature of expediency. Through its entire career it has failed in producing the good which its advocates and founders predicted and expected would be produced by it; and not only so, but it has been productive of positive evils. Indeed, it is high time we abandoned a policy which has proved to be as injurious to the nation as it is dishonouring to the Almighty, who has given us wealth and power for other purposes than for the propagation of a religion which we know to be antiscriptural and dangerous to the souls of men. The Committee of the Protestant Association have adopted the following Resolutions expressive of their views, alike as to the nature of the grant, the guilt involved by its continuance, and the importance of getting rid of it. "1. That, by all who receive the written Word of God as the standard of faith and morals, the tenets of the Church of Rome, as defined and settled by the Council of Trent, must be regarded not only as anti-social, but as anti-scriptural and idolatrous. "2. That national participation in the guilt of supporting such a system is calculated to draw down Divine judgments upon the nation, and that therefore it is the duty of Protestants to persevere in petitioning against the grant to Maynooth College, until that grant be withdrawn. "3. That whatever may be done with regard to existing interests, no arrangement ought to be made which shall virtually perpetuate the endowment of Maynooth College, or be a compromise of sound Protestant principle." VOL. XXI., February, 1859. C New Series, No. 230. There is reason to believe that the sentiments above expressed are held by most of those who have taken a part in opposing the grant. Some time since Mr. Lord addressed the following letter to some well-known friends of Protestantism : "You have most likely seen the correspondence between Lord Derby and Sir Culling Eardley, as to giving 300,000l. down to Maynooth-a sum which, Sir Culling states, Lord John Russell considers fair. The Freeman's Journal' wants about 1,000,000l. Do you think we should agree to even the smallest of these sums ?-for even that would, at 5 per cent., equal a perpetual endowment of 15,000l. a-year. "I send a similar note to a dozen or so of leading men in different parts of the country, hoping I may have theirs and your opinion also here by next Wednesday morning, however briefly expressed. "Believe me sincerely yours, "J. LORD, Chairman." The following replies are published by permission. The Rev. Dr. Dill writes: : I have left Scotland for some time, but have by no means left behind my deep interest in the cause of Evangelical Protestantism. "I, therefore, hasten to comply with your request. Better than a year ago Sir C. Eardley did me the favour to ask my humble opinion on his proposition. I gave it with all Christian candour. I have had some time to consider the case more fully, and the more I consider it the stronger objection do I feel to the proposed measure. I regret to be obliged to say this in regard to any proposition emanating from such a high Christian source. I then ventured to say to Sir Culling, that I for one could not consent to any compromise with error or iniquity, least of all with what I believe to be such a colossal system of error and the Mystery of Iniquity.' "I would now venture to add, that I would consider the proposed measure as opposed to sound policy as to principle. If such a measure emanates from our very standard-bearers, I greatly dread its effects; and in any case I fear it will be turned to great account by our enemies, and be seized on by false friends, in and out of Parliament, as an excuse and opportunity to make such concessions (in order to get rid of the annual annoyance of the discussion of Maynooth) as will amount to a perpetual national endowment of the College,-thus putting it on a far more permanent footing than it ever was before, and so, under the name of getting rid of the evil, in reality saddling it upon the country more hopelessly than ever. Praying that our leaders may be preserved in 'the right way,' "I am, dear Sir, yours ever, The Rev. Charles Prest thus writes: "EDWARD M. DILL." "I have all along thought that the project for buying up the Maynooth endowment should not have originated with the Protestant party, and least of all with any who were prominent in opposing the grant; and that if it originated with the Papists, it should not have been hastily concurred in. I would rather leave things as they are, trusting to future developments, and assailed even with, for a time, ineffectual opposition, than agree to the settlement proposed, even on the basis of the lesser sum. "I wish that certain former consistent opponents of the Maynooth grant were now less active, or more discreet, and more like their former selves. They mean well, but I have no confidence in their judgments and altered opinions." Mr. Plumptre, whose name was so long associated with Parliamentary opposition, wrote: "My dear Sir,—It seems to me that the principle which has led us continually to protest against the payment of Protestant money for Popish purposes is unchanged and unchangeable. "I know not whether compounding with Rome for the payment of any sum of money, either three millions of pence or three millions of pounds, may not be taking the mark of the Beast upon our hands. I for one can only protest unhesitatingly against any treating with Rome. Give! give!' will still be the cry. "Concession will be found, as it has been again and again, to be the prolific mother of demand. "I remain, my dear Sir, very truly yours, "J. Lord, Esq." From Dublin the following was received:- "Dublin Protestant Association. "Committee-rooms, 81, Lower Abbey-street, Dublin, Saturday. "My dear Mr. Lord,-In reply to your note, I enclose a Resolution spoken to at a great Meeting held last night in our Rotunda, 2,000 persons present. "Nothing would induce us to compromise this matter of Maynooth, and any such proposal as you allude to is a virtual compromise. "Justice seems to demand that 'living interests' should be regarded, and that those who now hold place and are in receipt of salaries, with the students at the moment on the rolls, should be considered; but, undoubtedly, no provision of even 17. beyond this should be made. "Fiat justitia ruat cœlum." "No compromise, and no surrender. "Standard-bearers must not faint. (Signed) "Yours truly, Hon. Secretary." "SAMUEL GEORGE POTTER, Clerk, The following is the Resolution referred to in the letter of Mr. Potter: "Resolved,―That notwithstanding the tendency there is to give up the agitation of questions involving public principle, after the apparent failures of their advocacy in the House of Commons, yet we must continue to bear testimony against the inconsistency of this nation in maintaining the endowment of Maynooth College. That we consider that endowment a great national sin, pledged as we are, as a nation to the denunciation of Romish error, and that its continuance is calculated to draw down upon this country judgments from heaven. And further, that we cannot, in order to settle this great controversy, give in our adhesion to any plan of accommodation which some Protestants seem inclined to accede to, unless upon terms which would keep the country clear of compromise, and from participating in the permanent endowment of this Institution with a grant of money to a larger amount than would reasonably cover vested interest, calculated in a mercantile way. But that, if Lord Derby's Government thought it expedient to entertain the question of paying off those vested interests, and withdrawing the annual grant, thus ending the irritation which it entails, we would gladly sanction the principle of adjustment as regards these living interests." Mr. Badenoch, writing on behalf of the Committee of the Scottish Reformation Society, says: "I am directed to send you the enclosed Excerpt Minute of our Committee's Meeting on Saturday, in reference to the Maynooth question now pending. "Excerpt from Minutes of Meeting of Acting Committee of the Scottish Reformation Society, held on 27th November, 1858. "Dr. Begg read a letter which he had received from the Protestant Association, of date 26th inst., in reference to the opinions expressed in the correspondence between Lord Derby and Sir Culling Eardley, on the settlement of the question of Maynooth, and this Committee take the opportunity of remonstrating in the strongest manner against such proposals, and hold, as they have always held, the opinion expressed in their Minutes of 20th May and 24th December, 1857viz., That the endowment or disendowment of the College of Maynooth should be considered and disposed of solely on principle; nor do they wish to get rid of the endowment on any other ground, than that to support, sustain, or propagate the principles of Romanism, as such, is a national sin, and therefore calculated to draw down the wrath of God upon the land; and that, therefore, this Committee deprecate all idea of compromise in this matter, object on various grounds to the proposal in question, and further resolve to continue to agitate as heretofore for the complete disendowment of the College."" THE BRITISH ARMY WORSHIPPING THE HOST. ANY participation in the guilt of idolatry involves grave responsibility. None should be tempted to it, for "lead us not into temptation" forms part of the prayer given us by Him who spake as never man spake. Nor should persons be driven to perform acts of idolatry; and they who attempt to compel British soldiers, whether officers or privates, to do homage to the Host, seem forgetful of what they owe to this Protestant nation and to the rights of conscience. Many years ago, Major Atchison, when at Malta, made a stand against saluting the Host. His case is well known: he was tried by a court-martial, and lost his commission. Within the last few days the public has been astonished to find that Popery has been busily at work, and privates and officers in our army may be called on to perform acts of homage to an idolatrous worship, than to do which many would rather lay down their commissions and their lives. The subjoined paragraph has attracted almost universal attention : "ENFORCED HOMAGE TO THE HOST.-The following garrison order has been the source of much bitterness :- All guards to turn out to the Archbishop of Malta, and all sentries to carry arms and present arms when the Host passes.' Captain Sheffield, of the 21st R.N.B.F., having refused to obey the above, has been ordered under arms, and will in all probability be tried by court-martial. It is a case of conscience with Captain Sheffield, who, it is reported, is ready to submit to any punishment rather than do homage to the Host. This presenting and carrying arms to the Host has long been a cause of complaint with the Protestant soldiers at Malta, particularly the Presbyterians, when Highland regiments have been stationed here. Some years ago General Atchison, while commanding a company of Artillery at Malta, was dismissed the service for refusing to salute the Host."Letter from Malta. The subject is too important to be lost sight of, and we see abundant reason to justify us in believing that it will not. THE ORDER MUST BE RESCINDED. It has been asked, why should our troops be called on to pay to a Popish ecclesiastic at Malta greater honours than are paid at home to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who takes precedence of the temporal Peerage? It seems outrageous that our troops should be required to present arms to the consecrated Host-the visible semblance of the idolatry of Papal Rome. A correspondent of the "Daily News" says: "We should like to see who at the present day will dare to punish any soldier of the British army-be he officer or private-for refusing to pay religious honours to a priest's bit of bread. It is time such nonsense was done with. We |