A CRITICISM ON THE REV. S. J. NEILL'S LECTURE.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4793, 20 May 1884, Page 2

A CRITICISM ON THE REV. S. J. NEILL'S LECTURE.

(To the Editor of the Evening Star.) \ ■' Sib,—Connected with the name, bat not with the reality, of relifiior, how many practice? there are that graie upon the minds of right-ihinking people, but none more so than the prevalent practice of calling nicknames. Go, listen to this reverend preacher, or to tbat, wLen he is ensconced in his fool's castle—his pulpit,—hsCen only for a quarter of an hour to Lim, and two impresdor.s earn jt fail to arrest your attention,—one, that the rererend prcober Rssumes himself, for the time bus!g f> to be the chief luminary upon the earth in religious knowledge and affairs, which is in the eyes of everyone but himself a ludi« orous mistake; and the ctber, that this came lrminary is sadly deficient ia good ffianneim, not to say reason or oLarity. There a_e other s'aiking impressions, of couvse, but it is u'jnecassar j to dilata upon them,—arerybody capable of judging is too long, and too often, pam:uHy impressed by them. Jnst consider the following titbit, a typical specimen, extracted from the lecture upon the " Great religions of the world," a mighty theme, delivered lately by a lceal clergrmea ia cae of iLo local

churches, and since published in the local press:—" Salvntionism is more enslaving than wag even Bomanism in Us worst form, or at least quite as mvc Ta." Whether Salvationist is enslaving or not is yet s matter of opinion, and the general run of people are tolerant and fair minded enough to let it hare a fair trial to see what good or harm it might do before they feel justified in saying that it is enslaving. So far it has enslaved nobody; and no, one can with truth.say that it has. Will tha reverend lecturer give an instance P If he cannot, why did he say, and afterwards publish, what I must describe—if I may be riandid with him—as an untruth Plt will require some far stronger power than " Sal rat ion ism " or " Boiranism " to enslave anyone now-a-days, notwithstanding anything he may say to the contrary. His strictures upon General Booth call for a few remarks. ' General Booth is despotic, tyrannical, and what not, thinks and says the rev. lecturer; and,. besides, it iB too late for his starting of. a new religion. But, pray, , had not General Booth as much right to start Salvationism as John Knox had- to start Presbyterianism ? Precisely the same; ,and which of the two is or was the more despotic, the more stern and cruel, or the more meek and humble is a ques* tibn I think that must be decided not in favor of John Knox. -If he compared General Booth and Salvationist!! with John |ttiox and Presbyterianism, he would; make a much more appropriate comparison than he did, and he would ~ find no ground" or right for the latter^, that did not -exist for the former. Where is one P By " Romanism " he meant, of course, the Catholic religion,,which,he. says, is quite >s enslaving as Salvalionism7/ Now Romanism is not the name of the Catholic religion; why then*did he not not call it by its proper wellknown name P Would it if he did be at variance with the etiquette of the pulpit?' I suppose it would, and it is not unlikely he even stretc'ied a point in not calling it Popery, which, r.s « njekname, wocld serve t*e purpose somewhat belier. How appropriate it. was to compare the most ancient, most influential and famous religion in the world with Salvationism! To compare the religion profes'pd, but not founded, by St. Augustine, Alfred the Great, Pasct .1, Bo«*uet, and Newman with a religion slarf ?d almost yesterday. Yet this is done in the tit-bit I have.quoted. It is quite untrue I' sides f o sty that the , Catholic religion enslaved orepsjavesany. one. Its long world-wide history shows the direct contrary to be the truth; for it was the Catholic Chu'ch, chiefly, that abolished slavery throughout Europe, a fact which all learncu historians and scholars-admit, sometimes even reluctantly admit. In the United Sf ?.lcs of America; true to her unchanging character, she always advocated thai abolition of slavery, while some Proicslant denominations, notably, their clergy, were on the oppo- ' site side, and defended slavery on biblical or other grounds. No, informed prson on deny tbat the Catholic Chriroh is the greatest emanoipafor irom slavery on earth. She always was end ever will be an emancipator, and m her long, history not a solitary instance chn be shown to ' the contrary—not one. ■ Imagine, then, a lecturer, wiio is not; diffident to lecture on the "Grer.t religions of the world," making assertions concerning her con* trary to these well known facts. Is it not strange to find speakers when in their pulpits making statements of this kind P Yet, is there one who Will read what I am writing who is not only too well aware of this absurd, ridiculous, custom P I. have trespasuci f oo much upon yeur space, but you and your readers will, however, agree with me that a pulpit is about the mo3t objectionable pla:3 in the world to utter nick-names; and, more aver, that clergymen ought 'o try to be gentlemen, evea though their minds or opinions may be sometimes warped by prejudica,ignorance» or any other came, in which respects, be it remembered, the lecturer adverts 1 toil far less objectionable than the average clergyman. It is lo be hoped, .however, that the foregoing candid criticism will not in any way deter him from following up the series of lectures he has begun.— I am, &c, • Nosci Tiipiotc.