Editing Hugh M'Neile (section)

== Preacher ==
{{Blockquote|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;We have before had occasion to allude to the extraordinary oratory of Dr. McNeill. He was eloquent beyond even Irish eloquence, Protestant even beyond Irish Protestantism. Several times he has been carried away into confessedly injudicious acts and words, which many would wish unsaid, undone …<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/ourbishopsandde00arnogoog#page/n323/mode/1up Arnold, (1875), p.307.]</ref>}}
There were several extraordinary aspects of his preaching, and of the pulpit from which he preached. Almost without exception, and entirely removed from the firmly established Anglican convention, M‘Neile never preached from notes; and always preached extemporaneously.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=TcNlAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA247 Grant, 1841, p.247.]</ref> His sermons routinely lasted 90 minutes;<ref>The contemporary standard was something like 25–30 minutes at most; and never more than 40 minutes, even on some extraordinary special occasion.</ref> and were never measured, structured appeals to reason – they were outright, impassioned histrionic performances intentionally directed at the emotions of his audience:
::"I shall never go to hear Mr. M‘Neile again", said a religious friend of ours, returning from St. Jude’s.
::"Why not?", we inquired.
::"Because", replied he, "if I '''''agree''''' with him, I must come away with feelings of ill-will against parties he has been assailing and who are quite as respectable and intelligent as himself; or, otherwise, I must come away with sentiments of anger towards himself for his intolerance, if I do '''''not''''' agree with him; and I do not choose to go to a place of worship with the liability of leaving it in such an unchristian-like state of mind in either case".<ref>"The Rev Hugh M‘Neile + Malignity x Agitation = Mischief", ''The Liverpool Mercury'', Vol.35, No.1766, (Friday, 14 March 1845), p.92, col.B.</ref>

=== M‘Neile's flawed hermeneutics ===
M‘Neile was well known for his flawed [[hermeneutics]]; viz., his inaccurate interpretation of Biblical texts. He was renowned for both his inaccurate [[exegesis]],<ref>''Exegesis'' ('drawing out'); an ''exegetical'' interpretation brings out the "real" meaning of a word or passage through an examination of the spiritual/literary heritage, and the textual, allegorical, historical, and cultural context of the word or passage by going beyond its literal meaning.</ref> and for his [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] projections of Biblical texts onto current events.<ref>''Eisegesis'' ("reading into"); an ''eisegetical'' interpretation involves the deliberate imposition of one’s idiosyncratic impression of the moment upon the word/passage entirely on its own and in complete isolation from the actual context of the chosen word or passage.</ref>

For example, in July 1846, Queen Victoria's husband, [[Albert, Prince Consort|Prince Albert]], visited Liverpool and, among other duties on 31 July 1846, he officially opened the [[Royal Albert Dock, Liverpool|Albert Dock]] and laid the foundation stone for one of M‘Neile's pet projects, the [[Liverpool Sailors' Home]].

Two days later, on 2 August 1846, M‘Neile preached a sermon, "Every eye shall see Him";<ref>Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him …".</ref> the text of which was immediately published.<ref>M'Neile, H., "Every Eye Shall See Him"; or Prince Albert's Visit to Liverpool used in Illustration of the Second Coming of Christ. A Sermon, preached in Saint Jude's Church, on the second day of August 1846, the Sunday next after the Prince's visit (the Sunday After Prince Albert Laying the Foundation Stone of the Liverpool Sailor's Home). By the Rev. Hugh M'Neile, M.A., Hon. Canon of Chester, and Incumbent of St. Jude's, Liverpool, J. Hatchard & Son, (London), 1846.</ref>

Within his sermon – regarded, overall, as a "most melancholy, wretched, and most degrading composition"<ref>"The Prince "In His Beauty", and the Parson (From ''Douglas Jerrola’s Weekly Newspaper'')", ''The Moreton Bay Courier'', Vol.1, No.41, (Saturday, 27 March 1847), p.4, col.C.; ''Hampshire Telegraph and Sussex Chronicle'', Saturday, 12 August 1846; and ''The Bengal Catholic Herald'', 17 October 1846.</ref> – M‘Neile moved to speak of "The Prince in all his beauty", mapping Prince Albert's laying of a foundation stone onto a text from Isaiah (33:17) "Thine eyes shall see the King in his beauty"<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=f9x5xPst2XUC&pg=PA292 "Church Parties", (1853), pp.292–293.]</ref>

There were many protests at his equation of "the Saviour of the world" with a "colonel of hussars" and his implicit assertion that Albert held "title-deeds to… divinity" (Anon, 1847h). It was clear his "fearful irreverence" – implying that "an earthly prince" visiting Liverpool had some link to "the awful coming of the Prince of Heaven and Earth to Judgment" – was something that "must be [immediately] apparent to every reverent mind"; and, further, that a "piece of gross and rank blasphemy [was perpetrated] by making the third Person of the Holy Trinity a type of Prince Albert".<ref>"The Prince, etc."</ref><ref>"We were [shocked] on reading the title of Mr. M‘Neile's recently published sermon. We could scarcely believe our eyes when we saw such language as the following:— "Every eye shall see Him, or Prince Albert's visit to Liverpool, used in illustration of the second coming of Christ". Many excellent persons have pronounced this as something worse that astounding irreverence, and are of the opinion that it would be just as proper to make use of the [[George IV of the United Kingdom|Prince of Wales's]] visit to Liverpool, in 1806, as an illustration of the first coming of our Savior. We never met before, the equal of this perversion of all propriety. "To illustrate", be it remembered, is "to throw light upon"." ("Astounding Irreverence", ''Liverpool Mercury and Lancashire General Advertiser'', 14 August 1846, p. 394.)<br />
"[Its title] has been universally condemned; because no critic has yet been able to discover that the Prince's visit to Liverpool can in any way be regarded as a type of the Second Coming, or even, in the remotest degree, as an 'illustration' of that great mystery" ("Religious Gleanings (From ''The Bath Herald'')", ''The South Australian Register'', Vol.11, No.706, 17 February 1847), p.3, col.A.<br />
"The words "every eye shall see him" were applied to Prince Albert, and to those Liverpudlians who should stare at him. "From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step", and from the sublime to the blasphemous we fancy there is about the same distance. The Press, with one voice, protested against the selection of such a text on such an occasion, and the Prince himself was not flattered by it. Doubtless the doctor's loyal enthusiasm led him astray in this instance, as his Orange predilections have hurried him into opinions and observations, which, a few hours after he uttered them in the pulpit, he publicly retracted, and properly stigmatised as "atrocious"…" (Dix, 1852, p.95).</ref>

=== M‘Neile's immoderate preaching ===
Another extraordinary aspect was his propensity for "[being] carried away into confessedly injudicious acts and words, which many would wish unsaid,
undone" (Arnold, 1875, p.&nbsp;307). On 28 February 1847, he preached that the Irish Famine was an act of God's retribution, punishing the Irish for their collective sins and their tolerance of Roman Catholicism.<ref>The sermon was published privately by M‘Neile in 1847 and was widely distributed throughout his network of admirers. It also appeared later, as: [https://books.google.com/books?id=T_IEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA67 "The Famine a Rod of God; Its Provoking Cause – Its Merciful Design (A Sermon (on Micah 6:9) Preached in St. Jude’s Church, Liverpool, on Sunday 28th of February, 1847, during the Irish Famine)", pp.67–100 in ''Sermons by Eminent Living Divines of the Church of England, Contributed by the Authors, With an Introductory Charge on Preaching, by the Venerable Archdeacon Sinclair'', Richard Griffin and Company, (London),1856.]</ref>

On the morning of 8 December 1850, when throwing "thunderbolts" at one of his favourite targets, the evils of the Roman Catholic confessional,<ref>M‘Neile’s issue was that, unlike the "general confession", that was part of every standard Anglican service, where each individual confessed silently and privately, direct to God, followed by a general "absolution" or "remission of sins" by the officiating cleric, the Roman Catholic practice was that of "auricular confession", audibly addressed directly to the ear of a priest. M‘Neile strongly criticized the conflation, within the "Romish Confessional", of spiritual sins and criminal acts. Perhaps, his last ever communication was on this topic: M‘Neile, H., "Confession in the Church of England (Letter to the Editor of ''The Times'')", ''The Times'', No.27966, (Thursday, 2 April 1874), p.4, col.F.</ref> M‘Neile made a series of outrageous statements of which, immediately after his sermon had been delivered, he denied any knowledge of ever having uttered;
and, for which he specifically apologized at the evening service, and withdrew without reservation, as the following newspaper account relates:

{{Quote box
 |title = The Anti-Popery Agitation – Dr. M‘Neile
 |quote =&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The frenzied vehemence of bigotry has reached its climax. At Liverpool, the Rev. Dr. M‘Neile, the notorious platform orator, uttered a sentence last Sunday morning, in the pulpit in St. Paul’s Church, Prince’s Park, which, we are sure, was never surpassed by the cruel ferocity of Popish intolerance, in the worst days of the Inquisition. To be sure, Dr. M‘Neile did not mean it,— he would shudder to be taken at his word; but why does he, a Christian minister, not bridle his tongue, unruly evil that it is? Here is the sentiment, at which '''[[Edmund Bonner|Bonner]]''' might have blushed, in the bloody reign of persecuting '''[[Mary I of England|Mary]]''':—<br />
::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"I would make it a capital offence to administer the confession in this country. Transportation [to the colonies] would not satisfy me; for that would merely transfer the evil from one part of the world to the other. '''''Capital punishment alone would satisfy me. Death alone would prevent the evil.''''' That is my solid conviction."
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No, thank '''God''', it is not your solemn conviction, Dr. M‘Neile nor is it the conviction of '''''any''''' English mind, however narrowed by sectarian jealousies, in this age of mild humanity! No bigot, no fanatic, now exists in England, who would, in deed and in fact, erect the gallows or the stake, for the punishment of an erring act of religious custom.<br />
Dr. M‘Neile, on the same Sunday evening, went into his reading desk, and pronounced before his congregation the following apology:—
::&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"In the excitement of an extemporaneous discourse delivered by me this morning, I used, I believe, a most atrocious expression. That expression I have already withdrawn in the sight of God; I have, I trust, made my peace with him; and I now beg to withdraw that expression in the sight of this congregation, and to make my peace with you. I will not repeat the expression which I have referred to; for those who heard it will sufficiently well remember it; whilst I will not grieve (or indict pain upon) those who did not hear it by repeating it."<ref>"The Anti-Popery Agitation – Dr. M‘Neile", ''The Manchester Examiner and Times'', No.221, (Saturday, 14 December 1850), p.4, col.D; note that a more detailed account of M‘Neile’s retraction, etc. is at: M‘Neile, H., "Dr. M‘Neile and the Confessional (Letter to the Editor of ''The Times'')", ''The Times'', No.20676, (Thursday, 19 December 1850), p.2, col.E.</ref>
 |source =
 |align = left
 |width =
 |border =
 |fontsize = 80%
 |bgcolor =
 |style =
 |title_bg =
 |title_fnt =
 |tstyle =
 |qalign =
 |qstyle =
 |quoted =
 |salign =
 |sstyle =}}

In 1851, these events were also presented as a classic example of "the dangers of extempore preaching" (Gilbert, 1851, p.&nbsp;10).

=== M‘Neile's "Satanic Agency and Mesmerism" sermon ===
[[File:James Braid — Satanic Agency and Mesmerism Reviewed (1842) — Title Page.tif|thumb|200px|Braid's ''Satanic Agency and Mesmerism Reviewed'' (1842)]]
On the evening of Sunday, 10 April 1842, M‘Neile preached against [[Mesmerism]] for more than ninety minutes to a capacity congregation.<ref>His text was 2 Thessalonians ii. 9,10: "''Even him'', whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."</ref><ref>See Yeates (2013), pp.273–308.</ref> He began, speaking of "latter days" – following which, Christ would return to Earth, and peace would reign for 1,000 years – and how, as the [[Second Coming|second advent]] neared, "satanic agency amongst men" would become ever more obvious; and, then, moving into a confusing admixture of [[philippic]] (against [[James Braid (surgeon)|James Braid]] and [[Charles Lafontaine]]), and [[polemic]] (against [[animal magnetism]]), where he concluded that all mesmeric phenomena were due to "satanic agency".<ref>In particular, he attacked Braid as a man, a scientist, a philosopher, and a medical professional. He claimed that Braid and Lafontaine were one and the same kind. He also threatened Braid’s professional and social position by associating him with Satan; and, in the most ill informed way, condemned Braid’s important therapeutic work as having no clinical efficacy whatsoever.</ref> The sermon was reported on at some length in the ''Liverpool Standard'', two days later.<ref>"The Rev. Hugh M‘Neile on Mesmerism", ''The Liverpool Standard'', No.970, (Tuesday, 12 April 1842), p.3, col.G: the corrected text of the article is at Yeates (2013), pp.591–598.</ref> Once Braid became fully aware of the newspaper reports of the conglomeration of matters that were reportedly raised in M‘Neile's sermon, and the misrepresentations and outright errors of fact that it allegedly contained, as well as the vicious nature of the insults, and the implicit and explicit threats which were levelled against Braid's own personal, spiritual, and professional well-being by M‘Neile, he sent a detailed private letter to M‘Neile accompanied by a newspaper account of a lecture he had delivered on the preceding Wednesday evening (13 April) at Macclesfield,<ref>"Neurohypnology: Mr. Braid’s Lecture at Macclesfield", ''The Macclesfield Courier & Herald, Congleton Gazette, Stockport Express, and Cheshire Advertiser'', No.1781, (Saturday, 16 April 1842), p.3, col.A: the corrected text of the article is at Yeates (2013), pp.599–620.</ref> and a cordial invitation (plus a free admission ticket) for M‘Neile to attend Braid's Liverpool lecture, on Thursday, 21 April.

Yet, despite Braid's courtesy, in raising his deeply felt concerns directly to M‘Neile, in private correspondence, M‘Neile did not acknowledge Braid's letter nor did he attend Braid's lecture. Further, in the face of all the evidence Braid had presented, and seemingly, ''without the slightest correction of its original contents'', M‘Neile allowed the entire text of his original sermon, as it had been transcribed by a stenographer (more than 7,500 words), to be published on Wednesday, 4 May 1842.<ref>M‘Neile, H., "Satanic Agency and Mesmerism; A Sermon Preached at St Jude's Church, Liverpool, by the Rev. Hugh M'Neile, M.A., on the Evening of Sunday, 10 April 1842", ''The Penny Pulpit: A Collection of Accurately-Reported Sermons by the Most Eminent Ministers of Various Denominations'', Nos.599–600, (1842), pp.141–152: the corrected text of the publication is at Yeates (2013), pp.621–670.</ref> It was this 'most ungentlemanly' act of M‘Neile towards Braid, that forced Braid to publish his own response as a pamphlet; which he did on Saturday, 4 June 1842;<ref>Braid, J., Satanic Agency and Mesmerism Reviewed, In A Letter to the Reverend H. Mc. Neile, A.M., of Liverpool, in Reply to a Sermon Preached by Him in St. Jude’s Church, Liverpool, on Sunday, 10 April 1842, by James Braid, Surgeon, Manchester, Simms and Dinham; Galt and Anderson, (Manchester), 1842: the corrected text of the publication is at Yeates (2013), pp.671–700.</ref> a pamphlet which, in Crabtree's opinion is "a work of the greatest significance in the history of hypnotism, and of utmost rarity" (1988, p.&nbsp;121).

Aside from the newspaper reports of the M'Neile's actual sermon, there were at least twelve published responses to the published version of the sermon and its contents.<ref>The texts of the responses are at Yeates (2013), pp.701–739.</ref>