Northern Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-20 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES.-LIVERPOOLI FRIDAA, NOVEMBER 20 1 1857. REV. JOHN ITACNAUGHT IN REPLY TO REV. J. IL GLAZ.EBROOK. TO THE EDITOR OF THE Rournmuz TIMES. Sir,—Notwithcsbain g toy letter, which you published on Monday, the 16th inst., Mr% Gla2ebrook prints, in this morning's Coyricl-, a coutinuation of his Loaner epistle, without any reply to my queries, ar.d, I regret to say, without any modification of the epithets I then deplored. It is probable that Mr. G. may have had no time to answer my questions yet, and may not have been able to prevent the appearance of his second letter. lam willing to hope this has been the case, and I, accordingly, proceed to analyse his second letter as if it were a part or continuation of the first : REV. J. K, GLAZERROOK'S ARGUMENT. REV. J. MACNAUGHT'S REPLY. TO TIT& EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL COURIER. Sir,—l was endeavouring in my last to show how very Mr. Glszebrook, it may be remembered, went so far as to ilietingnished a position the inspiration of the Ap os tles infer that inspiration made the Apostles infallible. He holds in the Christian dispensation as represented in the has not, as yet, reconciled this inference with the fact 3 Gospels altd the Acts. that (Acts 5) the Apostle Paul knew no!! that a cer tain man was the High Pries' ; " ant (Gal ii, 11, &c.) the Apostle Paul " withstood the Apostle Peter to the face, because h 3 was to be blamed." Had our Lord continued on earth, and then begun his Mr. Glszebrook here returns to the argument from personal reign, which is expected by some, He would have our Lord's promises of the Comforter. I have realised the idea which characterises the Romish Church, already referred him to Mac naug 7it On Inspiration, of our having upon earth an infallible Ruler and Teacher. Bcok 2, charter 7, for an answer to this pan of To him the Christian world could always have appealed, his argument in general. A few words may suffice in order to explain any difficulties arising in their own with reference to this portion of his argument in minds, or raised by objecting philosophers, infidels, and p ar ti cu l ar. He sets out wilt the fact, tha - Jesus was selfeekficient teachers. There advantages, however great an infallible guide to his followers. He urges that they would have been, to be derived from our Lord's Jesus taught that the presence of the Comforter would be personal :presence in the 'world were to be more than better for the disciples than Jesus' own infallible guidance. 'compensated 'by the outpouring of the Spirit. John xvi, One would expect the conclusion of such an argument 7: "Nevertheless," said our Lord, to his sorrowing to be, that the presence cf the C mforter, being better " I tell you the truth. It is expedient (sumphorei) than infallibility itself, was something de7erent from enclius tst, it is better)' or you that Igo away ; for if Igo infalZibility. But to be thus logical would not lead to mot away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I the point Mr. Glszebrook desires to reach; awl, therefore, elepart,=l will send Him unto you." An lin the 13th - verse logical c)nsistency must ba thrown away ; and we are 'it is premised that " the Spirit of Truth shall guide taught to believe, on peril of being called 4 ‘ blasphemers," ihodegeiei, dux erit-i:fineris, will lead the way, or show that one infinite quantity or attribute, viz., the infallibility .you the way) into a!1 the truth." The definite article of our Saviour, is both greater tian and identical should be carefully marked in this expression, because with another infinia quantify or attribute, viz., the it plainly limits the teaching of the Spirit to a particular infallibilityof the Holy Spirit. Before quitting this 'class of truths. It is owing to this tact not being noticed part of Mr. G's letter I beg to draw his attention and kept in view, that the Unitarian school of objecors to the fact that, in the portion of my book re -to the infallibility of Scripture fall into doctrinal error and ferred to, I have fully recognised the force of " the blasphemy. This, however, is said by the way. To go definite article," and the propriety ef always writing about on with the point undre. consideration. Now, if the result " the Spirit of the Truth," i e the Spirit of Christ's rove of this outpouring of the Spirit be only to suffer the lation. It will be remembered by you, Sir, and some of Apostles to continue, Baccording to Mr. Macnaught, your readers, that one of the many groundless charges, • "fallible though inspired," we can perceive, with reverence which have been brought against me, was, that I denied be it said, neither force nor truth in our Lord's solemn the personality of the Holy Spirit, because, forsooth, I asseveraion, that it was expedient for him to go away, in paid attention to this simple matter of scholarship on order to send down the Spirit. His infallible teaching which Mr. Glazebrook most properly insists. However, was, according to Mr. Macnaught, to be displaced by this accurate criticism leads Mr. Glazebrook to make a "fallible, though inspired" Apostles, who " had the statement which is so momentous in its bearing on our treasures of the Gospel in earthen vessels," that is, whose controversy, that I must notice it particularly. " The • erring and blind understandings were to be permitted to teaching of the Spirit!' in Scripture, writes Mr. • hinder the outpouring of infallible truth upon the Church. G., is plainly limited to a particular class of truths." I had supposed that Mr. Glazebrook taught that all Scripture was inspired and infallible. This statement appears to intimate that, is Mr. G's belief, inspiration and infallibility are limited to particular parts of the Bible. If this be so, will Mr. G. be so good as to tell us at once, by way of simplifying matters, which part of the Bible he holds to be inspired, and which part not inspired ? What . portion may be infallible, and what fallible ? The Bible is thus, according to Mr. Macnaught, not, I respectfully suggest that it is not " thus," that is, not in in the Bishop of Chester's words, " God's own voice speak- the way described by Mr. Glazebrook, that I have argued lug to fallen man in the words of infallible truth." It against the infallibility of the able. I have adduced "contains," indeed, the message of God to fallen man, but facts which disprove the hypothesis of Scriptural infal it contains many errors; and it is, it teems, "to expect lihility, and I have shown that the reasons commonly that men shall bow down to our irrationalities " concerning alleged in support of the Bible's infallibility are not valid. "Incarnation, Trinity, Atonement," if we presume to argue This method of my argument is, I submit, altogether on the "plea that all the theology of Scripture is intal- different from the process described by Mr. Glazebrook. lible." The Holy Spirit did, indeed, descend from Heaven, and Here, again, Mr. Glazebrook, no doubt unintentionally it was declared by our Lord to be highly expedient, and, quite misrepresents my argument by quoting only a part of count), necessary, that He should be specially sent down of one of my sentences. I ask, " If, in matters of sense in order to guide the Apostles unto "all the truth;" and and reason we concede the fed ibilify of Scripture, by what yet Mr. Macnaught is so grievously misled by his own argument can we maintain Scriptural infallibility in hypothesis that he dares to ask the blasphemous and matters super-sensual and super-rational?" Surely Mr. absurd question, "By what argument can we maintain Glazebrook will admit that, before a book can be believed Scriptural infallibility in matters super-sensual or super_ infallible in difficult subjects, it must make itself look as rational ?" So that the gift of the Spirit, which is SO if it were infallible in easy subjects. Unerring accuracy magnified in Scripture by the circumstances under which in all matters of simple, intelligible detail is, surely, not it was bestowed, and our Lord's declarations of its great too much to look for in a book which is said to be free value, is regarded by Mr. Macnaught as having been the from all error, in complicated, obscure, and most abstruse means of no infallible revelations to the Apostles, and points of metaphysical theology. Will Mr. Glazebrook through them to the Church, on matters which yet pecu- inform us by what credential, less than unerring accu liarly belong to a message from heaven, viz those which racy in ordinary and intelligible matters, a claim to are " super - sensual or super-natural." infallibility, in extraordinary and hardly intelligible matters, can be maintained ? and until we be satisfac torily instructed by Mr. G. on this subject, I continue to assert, that if, in simple matters. such as history, chro nology, and numeration, we find palpable errors in the Bible—if, in matters of science, such as geology, astronomy, &c., we find the Bible in manifest error—it is most illogical to infer that, in matters of the greatest obscurity, such as metcphysics and theology, the same Bible is infallible. The blasphemous doctrine thus is held by Mr. Mac- Again, in this his second letter, does Mr. Glazebrook naught—that the Spirit cf Truth has failed to accomplish endeavour to defame my character, by frequently re the special object of his mission, and though commissioned peating his charge of blasphemy against me. As far as to guide fallible man into " all the truth," has multiplied the logical force of this procedure is concerned, I will the difficulties in his path, and left him to find his way only ratniud Mr. Glazebrook that Paul was not, in truth, amongst the intricacies of error by the dim light of feeble a heretic, ai•hough (Acts xxiv, 14) he worshipped the and limited human reason. Mr. Macnaught has not God of his fathers after the way which his opponents reached this blasphemous conclusion with hesitation and " called heresy." Neither was my Master, in truth, a unwillingness, but with evident delight, as a proof of his blasphemer, although ()Sett. xxvi, 65) the Jewish high own superior sagacity, and as affording him an opportunity priest said, " Ile hath spoken blasphemy ; what further of attacking and rejecting what he calls the " irrational need have we of witnesses ? Behold, now ye have versions of the true doctrines concerning Incarnation, heard his blasphemies" So much for the logical weight Trinity, Atonement, &c." of Mr. Glazebrook's epithets. These epithets must, however, be reg tilled by Mr. Glszebrook and myself in another bearing than that of their logical unreality. In a social and moral point of view, it is a grave and most pernicious practice to bandy words that are so degrading and so envenomed as these. Surely, I shall not again be compelled to call on one holding Mr. Glazebrook's position to desist from, and to recall his grieviously unjust and discourteous phraseology. Hp.virg rejected the light from heaven, an important Once more I have the misfortune to be misunderstood by question arises, what are the real doctrines which Mr. Mr. Giczebrock. He will always find that I thankfully Macnaught hclds? wee the light of Heaven to recognise those facts. in scripture and in Nature, by which God is so mercifully teaching all men how He would have them to walk in the path of good works which He bath prepared for them. It is evidently necessary that he should make an open As far as this goes, I presume it is "necessary" for every declaration of his faith. Is ho an Unitarian? It is plain, clergyman to nuke an open declaration of his faith from the tenor and the evident objects of his letter, that every Sunday whoa he reads prayers. In reference to he thinks many " irrationalities" are taught in the Church " Unitarianism," which Mr. Glazebrook is so fond of to - which he professes to belong. mentioning, I always thought that all orthodox Chris tians held the Unity in Trinity, and wore, therefore, true and real Unitarians. Perhaps Mr Glazebrook will tell me if I am wrong? If he wishes to know whether I agree in matters of doctrine and philo sophy with the good man Socinus, Mr. G. had b e tt er specify any particular opi n i ons h e ld by Socinue, and ask what I think of them. Mr. Glaze ;rook seems to wonder at my thinking that "irrationalities" have been taught in the Church of England. lam surprised at Mr. G - .'s astonishment. I know not what has been going on in the .Church at Lower Darwen ; but, in other parts of the Church, men have been found irrational enough to maintain the doctrines of mesmerism and table-turning by satanic egeney. Some have taught extraordinary , notions about apo,tolical succession, baptismal regene radon, cor.substantiation, and millennurianism. S;, / ne have gone so far 85 to teach that a belief in witchcraft is not irreconcilable with infallibi'ity. These, and almost endless other extravagarcies, have been taught in the Church ; but I thank God, not one of them is taught by the Church in her liturgy or elsewhere. Does he still believe those 39 Articles which he once I regret the disrespectful and unfriendly tone of those «signed, and on condition of teaching, which he still holds inquiries. Ido believe the 39 articles ; and I doubt preferment in the Church, and receives her wages? I not but that, (like myself) every Calvinistic, every trow not. The Holy Spirit teaches in Scripture that we Arminian, every High Church, every Low Church, and /should have a conscience void of offence towards God and every Broad Church clergyman is prepaed—each in Isis towards man. Does the light of nature, Mr. Macnaught's own gramnaticat and scrlpeural sense of Ike words— rule of faith and practice, teach him, in The ?natter to to declare his " unfeigned assent, and consent to all and which we now refer, the same honest doctrine? Ii not, everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer." his standard of honour and honesty is infinitel 7 lower than If Mr. Gl , ..zabook rhoul,i ask me whether I think it that of the Spirit, with all the fallibility which js supposed a wise or hily thing t o reta i n t h e Ac e o f Uniformitg, to belong to its teaching in the Sc..riptuLefi' • and so keep up the pretence of an unreal unani mity among the clergy, I should be quite prepared to tel. him or any one else, that I think the Act of Uni formity unwise, inasmuch as it aims at a unanimity which id impossible, and unholy, inasmuch as it tends to make men pretend that they exceedingly admire every word of a book, in which every man feels there are SOITJ3 things he would like altered. Ho wever , a ll h this notwit standinz, I find myself—of my own choice, and much to my loss in a pecuniary point of view—a teacher in the national established church of England. I admire and lova the great christian breadth liberality, and power, which are conspicuous elements in her constitution. ,She sends 112 C, in the name of Christ, to make the unt,vodlY devout, and to m a k e th e unrighteous just. She b ends me to strengthen th e weak, to comfort the ailEcte.'d, and, by the help of God, to make all men as like to ‘Ohrist as possible. I feel quite honest, and perfectly honorable in trying , to the best of my power, to carry out L'his behest of the church and of her Lord. I have a goc d conscience towards God and man. I hope Mr. Glazeln •ook has as brotherly and generous sentiments towards me, A 9 I hare towards him, and all who differ from me ;honestly. Ocr, 28, 1857.—1 send you a few more rer Aar k s . have not concluded the topic of " the impoytinit position the outpouring of the Spirit holds in the Scriptures," and I may write again—l shall (D.V.) come, soon to this inspiration. In the meantime, I quote from Dr. M'Bride, on the Articles, p. 160, these words, " Upon the 'whole, we con clude that the measure of insr a siration varied with the dignity of the subjects and the exigencies of the writers-- that for the main, they pure aed their own method and manner, but on some important ()cessions had the very words suggested to them, and we.lre never so left to them. selves as not to have the Holy Spirit presiding over them, and keeping them from. error." So that, you see, the Bible is properly said to be inspired, 'because some of it has been actually dictated by the Holy Spirit, and the rest actually approved, and therefore adopted by the Spirit as his own teaching. And, therefore, it is true, in fact, that in St Paul's words, 2 Tim., iii. 16 —" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." I intend, too, to show from the conclusion of this very text what is the declared object of inspiration, and in what respect, and on what points, we are to look for infallibility. The effects of inspiration and the only object of it, evidently was, from this text, that the Scripture should be profitable for doctrine, for "reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Now, it is not declared to be the object of inspiration to protect the Scriptures from all the errors of manuscripts, nor from the difficulties arising from an imperfect knowlege of antiquities, nor from scholastic errors, which human learning is sufficient to remove. These are difficulties which have accumulated by the necessary operation of time, and they did not exist in the time of the Apostles. You have no right to oppose a mere inference of human purely Mr. Glazebrook is not prepared to argue that reason to the express declaration of Scripture—that it is " profitable for doctrine," &c., is a synonym for profitable fur doctrine, &c. " infallible." Except on this supposition, of what avail is this oft-repeated argument ? You will see, then, there are no texts out of the pale of As he has touched this enormous subject, perhaps Mr. inspiration, as not having been approved by the Spirit ;at G. will oblige us with information as to what edition of least, none for the genuineness of which the concurrent the Bible is uniformly founded only on " the concurrent authority of manuscripts can be given. authority of the manuscripts ?" Mr. Macnaught, then, and others of the Unitarian If Mr. Glazebrook will do me the justice to read School, have fallen into their grievous error and sin by not Afacnaught on Inspiration, Book 3, he will, .apparently taking care to ascertain the scriptural idea of inspiration. be surprised to learn how much attention I have given to this very topic, " The Scriptural idea of Inspiration." The declared intention is to make us wise unto salvation ; The early part of this paragraph is only reeetition, in in this view they declare " all the truth," and, therefore, new words, of what has been said before in this very no error, i e., are infallible. It is no declared object to letter. As to Scripture being an " infallible directory protect the Scriptures from all the usual conditions of for the sinner," I reply, true, if Mr. G. uses the word ancient writings. They have, however, in fact, been so far infallible, incorrectly, as a synonym for " unfailing." preserved, that, notwithstanding their antiquity, they are No sinner, who goes honestly to the Bible for direction, still an infallible directory to the sinner for doctrine will fail to be directed aright to the God of mercy, who (2 Tim., iii. 16,) for reproof, correction, and instruction in sent Jesus to be our Saviour. On the other hand, if by righteousness. They are " the Word of God," and in an infallible directory" Mr. G. means an unerring despite of those blind guides whose confused minds con- directory, then I ask for proof, and remind him of fac s found things that differ, we appeal to them with confidence, in contradiction. Mr. Glazebrook and I are not at not as the word of fallible men ; and, in quoting the issue as to the Bible containing, and so being " the weeds of this sacred and infallible oracle, we say, " Thus word or oracles of God" but I maintain that they are saith the Lord."—Yours, &c., J. K. GLAzEZROOK. oracles of God written by men, who as they say of Lower Dar wen. themselves (Acts 14, 15,) were "of like passions with others," and consequently were not likely to ba infallible either in word or letter. I trust, sir, that I have now finished my part of this correspondence; and, in thanking you for the space you have afforded me, I will merely say that this controversy about the Bible's infallibility is just parallel to that which was waged, of yore, as to the infallibility of Aristotle and his interpreters, the Schoolmen. Until that battle was fought and won, science was stationary; for men did not observe facts, and generalise on them, but they quoted passages from A qu i nas , or some one else, and argued, with verbal nicety, about what must follow from such and such - a saying of the Schoolmen. Whilst that state of things lasted, errors were obstinately upheld and propagated. Men fought— yes, literally, fought most bloody and protracted wars—for their opinions. Ignorance is mother to jealousy, and anger, and hatred. Since the infallibility of scholastic texts has been abandoned, and since men have looked at the truths of nature, rather than at the assertions of great names in antiquity, science has grown and become ennobled, and her votaries have learned much of truth and not a little of mutual respect and forbearance for one another. So it will be when, as is rapidly coming to pass, the Dagen of Scriptural Infallibility has fallen before the God of Truth. Then facts in human nature will be noticed—the great fact of Christ's Divine Life will be intelligently studied and diligently imitated —we shall know more of religion, and do more of morality ; for we shall better love both man our broth er and God our father. It is for that day, and in that hope, that we should work content--if such be the will of God—only ourselves to sow, in order that those who come after us may reap.—Yours truly, Everton, November 18th, 1857. j 0112.7 MACNAITOETT. REV. J. K. GLAZEBROOK'S REPLY TO THE REV. JOHN MACNAUGHT. thus spoken of Unitarian criticism :—"As for the Unitarian interpretations of St. Paul and St. John, they are really such monstrosities of extravagance, that to any one used to the critical study of the ancient writers, they appear too bad to have been ever entertained in earnest. And thus, wherever Unitarianism has existed, together with any knowleege of criticism or philosophy, as in Germany, it has at once assumed that the Apostles were not infallible, and that they over-rated the dignity of Christ's person. So impossible is it to doubt what St. John meant in so many passages of his Gospel, and what Sr. Paul meant in so many passages of his Epistles." I object, then, to this Unitarian unfounded assumption, that the Apostles were not infallible, and I charge Mr. M. with making it for the similar purpose of getting rid of what he chooses to call "irrational versions of the true doctrines concerning incarnation, trinity, atonement, &5.." "So impos sible does he find it to doubt" that the grammatical meaning of Holy Scripture is against him, and, he asks, "why may nct it (the Bible) err in the apparent enumeration of an irrational version of some true doctrine ?—I have never objected to the right use of reason in matters of faith, (for this, alas, is not a Unitarian principle, in merely " deciding what is the rule of faith, and what is its meaning ?")—ln that case, it is the means of ascertaining the rule, it is not the supreme rule itself, according to Mr. M.'s words, con stituted by God to be superior to "every other rule of faith." The insinuation. that I entirely discard the use of reason is, therefore utterly false; and I do "teach some thing better." No. 3 —Mr. M. goes on : Mr. G.'s "proof of our possessing an infallible book is, that our Lord (John xvii. 17) ear, "Thy Word is Truth." Will Mr. G. explain to us what was meant by the "Word" of God in that utterance of our Saviour; and then Mr M. gives us an example of one of those " znontrosities of extrava gance " in criticism, which is so peculiar to the Unitarian school. —He dexterously and designedly omits the word "thy," and asks if the " Word " of God is never applied to anything but the Bible ? For example, (Ps. xxxiii. 6.) "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made." No w , this is either trifling with words, or an hallucination. If the expression, the " Word of God" be granted to mean both the written ,and the unwritten utterances of the Diety, doea this prove that it does not mean even those written utterances themseh TO TIIE EDITOR OP TIIE NORTHERN TIMES. Sir—l have numbered the paragraphs of Mr. Mac naught's reply to my first letter, in order to prevent con fusion, and they who take the trouble to read the cor respondence may easily do the same in their copies. I begin, then, with N o . 1, an d Id o not i nten d to notice any remarks of Mr. Macnaught except those that appear to be cardinal points. "As to censure, what is there to cen sure," says Mr. 111,, " in an English Christian man up holding, respectfully before the world, that which he believes to be the truth ? " Now, suppose Mr. M. to deny " respectfully before the world" the divinity of Christ, would there be nothing to censure in a professedly Cnristian man and minister thus violating the oaths which he took at his ordination ? So much, then, as to censure. "As to argument," says Mr. M., " I suspect that his Lordship is too learned and too acute to become the champion of alleged scriptural or any other infallibility." This sus picion, then, is to believed in preference to the plain declaration of the Bishop of Chester, in his speech at the Collegiate Institution, which does not appear to have been repudiated. The Bishop is reported to have "this message of pardon and restoration, in God's own voice, speaking to fallen man, through his blessed Son, in the words of In fallible Truth and Ete,-;gal Life." Has the Bishop, "like an humble, Christian man," thanked Mr. M. for contra dicting this opinion ? So far as we know, he appears, on the contrary, to have observed a very significant silence Very probably the Bishop thinks, with Dr. Faussett, in his lecture on the Thirty-nine Articles, 1841 :---.4. It is an irksome task to trace the mazes and unravel the entangled web of sophistical reasoning," and that in some cases all the law allows one to do, is to let men of "perverse minds alone " No. 2.—Mr. M. asks, " What are the principles of Uni tarianism to which Mr. G. objects? I object to the infidel dogma that human reason is the supreme, and Scripture the subordinate, rule of faith. I object to this presump tuous deification of human reason, and I object to the followit g deduction of Mr. Macnaught, as both infidel and !I - the. "And thus," he says, "it will appear that the fallible reason of man is declared by God to be superior to —because it is constituted the judge of —every other rule of faith " A declaration so utterly false as this cool i only he the result of ignorance, imbecility, or wilful, erversion It is dangerous to study in the Unitarian and Raionalistic school.; it is the school of pride and ignorant presumption, the very , synagcsu. of Satan. The late Dr. 4=41 t.fis The "Unitarian s chool is notorious for being able to extract "any given in,saning out of any give n wor d s, " and the above is a s p sc i men a this critical legerdemain. Mr. G. *,n, does mot " think' Ihwt the heavens were made by Mr. Macnanght says, "I make them (these assertions) I cannot unders;cand Mr. Glazebrook. What does he wish without having one earthly hope of gain by making them." me to try a' ad 1 9 aose It is evident, too, that he has at present expressed no intention whatever of losing by them,by sacrificing the ad vantages which he is enjoying, in consequence of having professed to believe the contrary. I Vim' of cause, mos t w illi ng to a bid e b y any d ec i s i ons He " invites the Bis hopll of Chester to correct or con firm" his assertions. Wi he be ruled by the decision of which my Diocesan may "rule "in the legitimate g exercise of his Episcopal authority. Is Mr. Glazebrook that bishop as to the propriety and honesty of his holdin his present preferment with his present sentiments ? commissioned by the Bishop of Chester to act on his Lordship's behalf, and to ask me more than that ? These sentences surpass my power of grammatical analysis ; and, I simply, cannot understand them. Dr. M'Bride is a venerable man of learning and piety, for whose opinion I have great respect : but if he makes a statement which I know to be contrary to the facts of any case, I must regard his judgment as erroneous, I can- not " see" that the Bible is infallible simply because Dr. M'Bride says it is so. The Inspiration of all Scripture has never been questioned by me. Mr. Glazebrook it is who speaks of "the Spirit's teaching being limited to particular classes of truth." I believe that all Scripture was given by inspiration of God : but I do not believe that inspiration implies infallibility. So then, after all, Mr. Glazebrook is of opinion, that "the e f fect of inspiration, and the only object of it evidently was, that Scripture should be profitable for doctrine " (i.e. for teaching), " for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." This is precisely my view of inspiration; and, because the raanifest errors of the Bible forbid my believing it infallible, and because a book may be most profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, without being infallible, therefore, I deny the infallibility of the Bible, and I deny that there is any necessity for believ ing it to be infallible. Unless Mr. Glazebrook can show that a book, in order to be useful, must be infallible, I most respectfully submit that he has, logically, conceded all for which I argue. Neither is it declared to be object of inspiration to protect the Scriptures from errors of any sort ; but that object is only to make them generally instructive and useful in the furnishing a man of God for all good works. However, Mr. Glazebrook here proceeds to make a very important admission. Either from manuscripts, or from ignorance of antiquities, or from scholastic reasons, Mr. Glazebrook acknowleAges that errors have crept into the Bible—" difficulties," he tells us, "have accumu lated" there. If this be true, we have no infallible Bible now, at all events ; and this admission will not increase the probability of such an attribute having ever been attached to the sacred writings, Most of these difficulties, which rationalists and The nnsatisfaetoriness of such explanations is shown, infidels rejoice to reiterate, have been satisfactorily among other illustrations, by the vast number explained by learned men, and this fact entitles us to of different hypotheses which are put forth, from believe that the rest will yield to learned investigation. time to time, in order to remove some old and invincible We have no right to argue from their existence that the difficulty. See, for instance, the vain ingenuity with object of inspiration is not gained. They are but the which Buckland, Pye Smith, Hugh Miller, and a host of vapours that rest at the foot of the Mount of God, which others, have triad, by various and mutually destructive lifts its head above them to Heaven, methods, to get rid of the insuperable contradiction between Genesis and Geology. As to the object of inspiration not being gained, Mr. Glazebrook himself tells us the only oly'ect of inspiration was to make the Bible a useful book of religious instruction ; and that that object has been most gloriously attained, the whole history of the last 2,000 years doth most triumphantly establish. The Unitarian asks, in the words of Macnanght, " The Again this taunting of some parties whom Mr. Glazebrook Bible errs in the narrative of Stephen's speech, and why calls " Unitarians !" Mr. G. is so averse to Monotheism may it not err in the apparent enunciation of an irrational that one feels almost disposed to enquire whether he is version of some true doctrine" (he Trinity for example ?) a Tritheist, or a Polytheist, or what number of Gods No, we reply, that error is only apparent ; mere human he worships. It would be more to Mr. Glazebrook's learning can explain it, and has explained it, as it has done purpose if he would tell us how the Bible can be other greater difficulties. infallible, and yet contradict itself, as it does when Acts vii. 16 is compared with Genesis xxxiii. 19, and Genesis 50. 13. the Bible "—but he does thir: f t that Mr. M.'s mode of criticism, would make the B4ble into almost anything in meaning. But, Mr. M. favours us with another specimen of critical skill, when bre says, " we read (John 1. 1) 'ln the beginning was the "Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was clod P—would Mr. G. have us believe the Bible was in the begi nn i ng w i t h, an d was G o d?" Now we begin to discover why the word "thy " was omitted—it serves the uncandid purpose of enabling Mr. M. to confoilnd things that differ—" Thy Word" and " The Word " sze two very different expressions. For myself, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, " The Word" spoken of, (John i. L) was Jehovah mani fest in the flesh. Will Mr. M. be equally explicit on this point ? or does he inculde such a notion among the irrational versions concerning " the atonement, &c," The reserve which may be concealed under the "eteetra," is somewhat suspicious, when that convenient generlization proceeds from the Rationalistic and Unitarian school. Is the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity on Unity, one which Mr. M.'s reason rejects as irrational? The orthodox of Mr. M. en this point, the truth of which rests on revelation, is evidently in great peril, for he says in his letter, "Many of us feel it to be totally impossible to believe that there is any kind of infallibility in the Srcred Volume." I must defer prerceeding with this subject to another time. J. GLAZEBROOK. Lower Darwen. THE RATEPAYERS OF TOXTETH PARK, AND THE GUARDIANS THE PROPOSED NEW WORKHOUSE, Yesterday a large and highly influential meeting of the ratepayers of the extra-parochial place of Toxteth-park, was held at the public offices, 24, Park-place, for the purpose of receiving the reply of the Board of Guardians to the memorial of the inhabitants in Vestry assembled on the 30th day of October last, relative to the erection of the proposed extensive Workhouse, and for considering and determining what farther measures should be adopted with reference to the said new Workhouse. Amongst those present, we observed—Xessrs. M. Greg son, T. Avison, H. S. Alpass. Joseph Wilson, W. Mount field, J. Boult, A Higginson. A. Pickup, J. Moss, J. Massey, T. Rodgers, P. A. Houlgrave, M. A. John's, W. W. Day, T. Williams, J. Layward, J. Turner, H. H. Ogden, J. Wilson, A Grinrod, H. Leyland, J. D. Carter, R. Fidler, W. Baynes, T. Ryan, J. Roberts. D. Craig, J. B. Hughes, H. Horsfall, R. James, J. Wood, Thomas Lloyd, the Rev. J. Robberds, &c. Mr. M. Gregson was unanimously called upon to preside. The notice convening the meeting having been read, The Chairman briefly stated the objects for which the meeting had been called, and recapitulated what had been done at the last meat ng, when it was agreed that a memorial should be sent to the Board of Guardians, and, in compliance with that request, he had for warded the following : TO THE CHAIRMAN AND BOARD OF GUARDIANS OF THZ TOWNSHIP OF TOXTETH PARA. The Meatorial of the Ratepayers of Toxteth Park, in Vestry assernb'ed, on Friday, the 30th day of October, 1857, Respectfally Sheweth,—That your memorialsts having seen, by the report of the proceedings of your board, the weekly meeting, held on the first day of October inst., that it is proposed to erect a Workhouse for the poor of the township, to accommodate 1,000 inmates, and having also seen in the same report, that the number of inmates in the Workhouse chargeable t) Toxtoth Park at that time was 361 only, and the number of patients in the hospital forty, being a total of 401., are deeply impressed with the opinion that it is inexpedient and unnecessary to erect a Workhouse of the extent proposed. That your memorialists are of opinion that a Workhouse for the accommodation of 500 inmates!, and a hospital for 100 patients will be amply sufficient, and will meet all the requirements of the tomnship for many years to come. That your memorialists are confirmed in the above opinion by the following statements, received from a number of Unions, similarly situated to this township, with regard to locality and population, chewing that in no c ise is there a Workhouse of greater extent than that which your memorialists consider necessary, viz : Workhoate Population Accoramolation. Inmata. lose Cease'. 205 63,870 376 215 64,248 500 .. 119,199 950 553 89,156 350 56,073 • • 450 350 70,000 Unioa. Burnley North Shields .. ... Ashton-under-Lyne . • Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Prescot Sunderland . 462,546 Average 471 77,091 tied many other unions showing the same result ; the latter Workhouse is quite new and capable of being extended to accommodate 600. The population of Toxteth Park at the last census, was 61,326. That the number of inmates in the Workhouse for the West Derby Union, (contai deg a population at the 1 ast census of 153,243) since June 1848, to March 1857, has not exceeded an average of 635, the lowest number at the end of any quarter being 494, and the highest number being 735, and since the erection of the hospital, in 1850, the average number of inmates thereof has not exceeded 64 for the whole Union. That the difference in the cost of a Workhouse of the extent proposed by your board, and the co,t of a Work house and hospital such as your memorialists herein suggest, would impose for many years a serious and unneccessary tax upon your memorialists in addition to the present heavy local and other rates and taxes, and which many of your memorialists find it difficult to bear. Your memorialists therefore do most earnestly and respectfully request that you will be pleased to reconsider the question of workhouse accommodation, for the reason herein set forth. On behalf of the said vestry, (Signed) M. GREGSON, Chairman. In reply to that, he said he had received the following Sir,—l beg to send you herewith an extract from the minutes of ties proceedings of the Board at their weekly meeting, held yesterday.—l am, sir, your obedient servant, W. CLEAVER, Clerk to the Union. M. Gregson, Esq. A statement, signed by M. Gregson, Esq., as Chairmen of a Vestry Meeting of the ratepayers of Toxteth Park, held on the 30:h ult., praying the guardians to rec ons id er the question of th e ex t en t o f workhouse accommodation to be provided for the township, having been read, it was resolved--" That a respectful reply be made to the memorialists, that the guardians have given the most mature censide ation to the subject, and are firmly of opinion that they would not be justified in providing workhouse accommodation for a less number than 800, the provision for which they have instructed their architect to make." The CHAIRMAN : That is the reply he had received frost the guardians. From that it appeared that they only proposed to erect a workhouse fur 800, but from a remark that was made by the Chairman of the B'silding Committee it appeared that the architect had received instructions for a workhouse for 800, but that would be capable of accommodaticg 1,000. There appeared, therefere, that there was aortae discrepancy in the two statements. It is now, however, for you to consider whether that reply is satisfactory. (Cries of " no.") If it is satisfactory, then there is an end of the matter ; but if it was not satisfactory, then it would be for the vestry to decide what steps should be taken in the matter. He was quite sure that they must all feel much distressed at being at variance with the guardians, because ha did think, as a body, they did that which they thought was for the best interests of the township ; still, he did think that it would only have been right that they should have listened to a memorial from the ratepayers assembled in vestry, and endeavoured to meet their wishes as far as they could. (Hear, hear.) With these few remarks he would leave the matter in the hands of the vestry, and he hoped that those gentlemen who addressed the meeting would confine themselves to speaking on the subject of building a new workhouse, and would not introduce any extra nious matter. (Rear, hear.) Mr John Moss then came forward and proposed the following resolution •—" That this vestry views with regret ttie answer of the Board of Guardians, declining to accede to the memorial of the ratepayers in vestry, assembled on the 30th ult." In doing so, ho said, that having only recently returned to Liverpool, after an absence of some years, he could not be expected to be posted up in parochial matters, but he could assure them that he took a deep interest iu such affairs and had done so ever since he was a member of the Select Vestry. From what he had seen in the newspapers, however, he said that the Guardians bad been guilty of acts of great extravagance, and, as he thought, were about to incur an outlay that was perfectly unnecessary. lie advised them to be very cautious in commencing building., and in doing so, he spoke from his experience in Liverpool, for there the first contract for the workhouse at Brownlow-hill was £40,000, but in the end, and it was not yet completed, it had cost £l2O 000 ; although he was anxious to co all he could in providing for future generations, as it was the duty of all to try and leave the world better than he found it, still he thought it would be perfectly absurd to attempt to erect such a workhouse as was contemplated, and which could not be required for many generations to come. He suggested that such a house should b 3 built as would provide accommodation for the present time and for a few yearn beyond it, and that it should be so built as to be able, from time to time, .to Add to its extent as it was required. (Hear, hear.) He did not wish to say an) spectful of the guardians of Toxteth Park, ae d them were his most intimate friends, not be guilty of a bad action ; but it did some that in committees they did that as a body I' would not do individually. That might be tle the guardians, and he certainly thought amenable to such a charge, for a majority hi their duty to further political considerations call of private friendskip. (Hear, hear.) rfe say, in conclusion, that he should streneously with his vote and with his voice, the erect large workhouse, as he considered it would b( ridiculous. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Amos; seconded the adoption of the and said that he perfectly agreed in the rem been made with regard to the guardians, foi that what they had done, was done with motives, although it was a mistaken motive. The question before the meeting was a could be viewed from two points. The or point, which was one reat iortance ; 1 which was of still more importancein a mora l e ' He thought it was altog e th er a m istaken v't build a larger workhouse than was absolute l y (Hear, hear.) The question was. whether to build a workhouse in 1857 and 1858, that quired for the year 1900. That appeared to point, and if he was wrong his friend Mr. set him right. Would it not, he asked, ha' dered absurd and ridiculous of the persons workhouse in Hanover-street, in the Year, provided accommodation, such as they now e l low hill. The people would th en have th_ ee °l proposers of such a scheme we re mad, Ol e ; by this proposal they we re go i ng i n the ea rn (Hear, hear.) Looking at the question in B , ile _ of view, was it right that th e y should at„, increased, at the present ti me , f or wilt' ,I4ri required for the next twenty y ears , ( cr ies ' to larly as great efforts were being made the purpose of decreasi ng p auper i sm . ha y s tid in the Scriptures th a t th ey wou ld & N IL'• 1 with them, but still, the treat ment o f theta different Then there was the moral Poi nt ° did not think it was desirable that they the large workhouses, that they might aPPIY t test in all its regidity. He was aware "'- great difference of opinion on that point economists. He did not agree with it, bees he st' in some caeca, it was cruel and unmereiful' i e and had a tendency to do away with the incleee possessed by all men, and to increase parr hear.) He did hope that the Board of again take the matter into their serious . . 0 , only provide a workhouse that was aPP ii ii , present time. He concl u d e d b y secon ding t Mr. /tepees, one of the Board of Gnardiet' s ; the motion was put, he wished to address a tions to the Vestry, for the purpose of ' reasons the Guardians had come to the - had done, as to the size of the workhouse. doing so he wished to be allowed to exPlai n na e discrepancy in the numbers 800, and 1, allusion had been made by the chairing' state most positively, that the Guardian' tended building a workhouse capable of 1 more than 800 paupers, but when they psiu Chorley, they found that the Poor-law measuring as to the number the house we holding, measured the beer and coal oe llar ee - t other place, and by s o d o i ng i n the PreL e would explain the mistak e t h at h a d ar isen 1 """ They must bear in mind what accommodati on in the present workhouse. The number at time in the workhouse was 400, and that `" e s when the poor-rates are a t th e l o west. ( e e - , no," and laughter.) H e sa id su ch was t he he called upon them to apply to the relics' see if such was not the fact, and they would, greatest distress prevailed i n the months 0 ' February. A RATEPAYER —Have there ever been 4 0 ° house. (Cries of " No, no ") 0:1 Mr. Amass expressed a hope that he shoa l and that persons hal not attended at that - prejudice, but were anxious to hear bo th then to form a judgment. (Hear, hear.) to the building abo u t t o be erec ted, it was t h" ee of the Guardians to p rov id e f or a class of „ had not hitherto been provided for be p, lunatics, who were a very heavy charge on bo e He meant harmless lunatics, such as they send to an asylum, at a very heavy exPel; class they required acco mmo d a ti o n far 1 ge e number being about GO. It h a d never bee e , ti o da, workhouse should be les s th an to acco mo ra'Thetto that there was only a diffeeence of i ' d iteoes t , guardians and the ratepayers, and the al e woo' that would be entailed upon the ratepay er d ' the first year, one penny in the panne , ",, e e a would decrease, therefore he hoped, for ti- eee rts sideration, that the guardians would be e tti „rj e ta' views. He then replied to the statai ne : e ed • Avieon, with regard to the workhouse te s4. 7 it was only applied to cases of necessity, and the ll 'e n be the most merciful test of all to the poor. he said that he was not prepared to move aa d but he did hope, after the explanation he, the guardians would have the support of and The resolution was then p u t f rom chair, an" adopted, amidst the applause of the meetiog. „ 0 Resolved— , That as the course adopted by t r ': in Vestry assembled, o f memora li s i n g the i" reconsider the excessive workhouse contemplated by them has proved - ra 1 memorial be now se n t t o th e P oor Law Bo a ', e ta 1 the chairma n on b e h a lf o f t h e V e stry, °- 1 memorial to the Guardians and their answe r ete praying that the conse n t o f the Poor withheld from the plans of the Guardians ,/ enquiry into the subject by a commissioner; o f other course be adopted for the attainment id of this Vestry, as the Poor Law Board slaV ete lie said, that it appeared to him, that the " t e a°. " shirking" (laughter) from the 1,000 to the 1.. reiterated the stateme n t h e h a d ma de at 10 . sf r AS contending that the proposed workhouse enc ase large, and that it would enta il a great e e 'r ve tepayers, and that it wou ld b e wr ong to y I ' 3 o or lunatics, who were at a ll t i mes dangen te esa approve of a fever h o spit a l b e i ng i n a wer Mr. FIDLER, briefly seconded the moti °l3 '. en Mr. ALPASS denied a n asser ti on that Winer° t e the fact, that the Guardians had sent % e l ores workhouse, for the purpos e o f p r omoting this large workhouse. diens :W age e shy lat Mr. LLOYD sugee s ted th a t the gear eeri e at instructed to erect a hou s e th a t would eeee re ale' :/ , present wants, and add t o it occas i o nally es 0 0 h e After a few words from Mr. Joseri e resolution was unanimously adopted. coo') A vote of thanks to the chairman business. TOXTEIII BOARD OF GrLABDII4'I49. O g fpr g : The usual weekly meeting of the Guarrilliooqfierg. yesterday, at the Office, G- or g e nr oset io r" ° fall, E4q., in the ch lir. The other' Guardil O A ' Messrs. Robinson, Mercer, Grindrod, a n- oli c°ic o llt—'°f Board proceeded to the disposal of th aa h f' .° obi out-door relief Drafts to the amount of -t' lv tlo' el/ relief were granted. at.- to i t) Mr. GOUGH, of the West Derby Bose, rel/_,`"6lP,re number of persons in the Workhouse ch a :: 30: 11 - 5 1O e Park, was 370 for the week, and of t ile tinvElis e ; hospital. The Board th en di s p o sed of the r - 0 to ,1 1 10 1 ,4 It was expected that something in referean sou'air templated erection of the new Workb 0050 ,10 e, been mentioned, but such did not tag Board adjourned. f ot• n olagla„,• - At LEWIS &co lIPANY'S, it, -- „ t to •" a BOAS are CLOTHED from the Ages of ------ SHIPPING DISASTERS ON THE EAS T be starniolltel C°P ... 5 - week was again rather a disastrous ilia t i.) t 7i t i e 133 b i !, 1 ; 1 :r, the eastern con'. The brig Andriette, Pith tita 4 3 0- ,, D. - obak, from Sundswall tor London, pr' 0 07 deals, gnunded on the Cross Sand and 00 0 I°s - t o 013 5 1 - O b‘ a at tle tide . fl -• ' " sails, &c., f •the heavy whieb " f r tV flif , from and "ug, however, she was or''' j ata , " r ill , , schooner' Belmont into , linw Ham es t master, s i t n e ra, very of 1 n d d i 'far i b e °l : 3 lc 6:s 4: reufj o e : for Middlee , orough, with coal., al ,, a e . ! r a ot W ere i j. i i lded 41t and soon afterwards fo nde - t G iy zlie schooaer Ebentz u er, orfedMaldon, and we il e st°el :e and from Yarmouth. The bri Mercury, CaPt4s-ltrycl‘ otioo the' from Sunderland for Logedon, with coal 6 ' d to o b Lti tlit Barber Sand, and the crew were obl i g e Cf Ar". JP her. They were, however, safely landed at Gl e3 a bliill e The following, we believe, wvs eriginalli P a New York paper : • As I and my wife, at the windoWraoonnxeer StaGd watching a ma,' wt h a , 0 A cart came no with a " broth of . bV i . ~, Who was driving a stout little df ri jj,lte, ~,o,'' To o my wife thin I spLlie, by IY , 'Y ° 4 t CO O" " There's a re!aVon of yours in tba,e oied, To which she replied as the d0015.Y . B ,`: " Ali ! yes, a reia.ion by Marriage. - 4 AT BOYS' CLOTHING MADE WITH G REAT TA-t c'') PANT'S, .Ranelasll 11 le ret $1 N;t e kr R k`t sZi 'l ,P , T: ' 61% P ASt S ) L t i el li ste t No t , t li :(ii'• 4 D 41 14 ( Y i t th e :tye, 411t1511 :?t e o r z , ; k, PA CR 14, k t l . l. Koltt and Nti. t , w 4 0140 _. I, itklll l: 44 +l t i ° 47 l' f i 4 44 II 5 4tti s 44 ;ii 4 'to 41 1/44 7tapig_.t 4Roi ----7artity :in nds, end id orastialeo ', 1 ,.. ' ' Zl;Lrj body which vt,i (IR la ht be the calf) W. IG bought the/ , 414,1, ity had n ; , "k' • 7ations and a t ' '''' r.) Se woul d 6 iously o ppose , 'eill I: 59 , erection 010 0 1 1 2R ,' uld be wo otr o 8. 11 a , ~ of the ref, A O ' I e remarks tuv,, `1 4I 4,.. 29, for he beP ' —=:.( w i t h the b e X!, >tive. (Sear, P''' " a a simple one, he one, afo ice • and tile:: , moral point as ~ (t ken view tog° ' O 4E - 1111.0 s 4olutely nag tre7l ether they It, Iox that might r ' (( ed to h 0 W , A Mr , Ai wa A , ! ~A, Id, haire bee0;11, TirlP vont; vrho VP' E ) year 1771,,,,,t° , 17 , nor ha lo tt's ,e thought IP, the 10°4, wo e di,' " 14, in a donne,' :', ', t4, vi t 21d have the ot lir4 9t whet would 0 :, Ilt!l,t, piers, Is o ne f '50,1 .., Cr, 4 1 , 1-1 e ov 01"' i t . ar,9l, V lie to Lit "t;tall gc., ivrayshave tee • . , La. tilid ere reight be ;' h4),/e mint of ieif," AN.743,. they ehoUld ~ '4lcetoo c ply the for i FO f ; NJ thitt tiler° ; : ',01,01t amonet" kw{ 19 f i )000Sen. w;o:v l'elLtrs' ; filhef'f' 11 ' Lts_llol44;elirc" iadepeildellt l': -.7 d,ach. superistit. " 94 s ten ' inslse°ll6:P:tilihcisailliji-302;41,0,861:1;, : 't"'',7eliseaCir;(l'nw'4,r.l::l Olio's, OM '' e ra a, ress a feOfhig' ~ iti... s of so t •., 41.? ;.rev. he esolato- : kt By' [vase. fi ll, :.. ‘, haiiree :plain the ' , 1107 tigs, d 1,000, t / 1,, ~, tilidtll',, doom. # wheer the, ardiens tid., '' /(,'lljti eh, of acoo°7o i'rhT,', e paid t heir ii ',Y ',,,ea ,(1)111 r Board bj ' , t ;'Erc , ne was 6 04 k I cellari, / 04, , 1, order present , 1.! 1 0, er ( en abontst.,' . 1 I ,sth . lationlOP'' '', I" ' n at. , k2l 'rk h' 'or at 0 8 : kteq.9sto:-' that too th at ,I k,11833.6 hi'esl (Crieg2:6 ;.tl,l4rgeis w( ras the V ; ,11 racier 'elieviog 070 ' ttoiLerKi on'ti, otild 0404 ' l e et, for . fis oflso , p eet, '- ' 1 2\ theNt c 400 ill 0 •r, 9th 46rig, 5, 8h0111(1.agbe till qtliftb.%'tin St 010010 i el: at Pr r.)b°tllvfs'''l3l.ll,:tee' " Iliclatiirsaithie:fu, was the Oro o,_ i • r ,s al iof pill e 64 I N i t 1 o : r, e alitia , I 4tul„ on the t 41,, A ' ' 4 0 1 . .. efl'teri !ley OA UP" ‘:\bckerlir, thc For . \8.,.. tor e 1 00, ---Ireet. 100, 0.10 LE --- .Ari esid t ; 4t /3Y ).. , 11 t Th. 02160w1t43 1 " iildree 100 betifOen `4, K-rOge rditiooll 01 te,!°t,isistb irs WOUld be Qlnz.l46tiellit frt. Act each yr 444 i 444. i. rah a staeb. ' ht ,„.4.,,4i,, apportsd i° , fo, 1,,,,Z4473 int Ode l'i l' tile t'lli Nr, nistlarlwandsseggobiociflori:l,l', ~I. LI, a 8 Sp 61‘1",d,' . ' I`o-- •-..„ :he roue' , *-- bre`kalls, Ind Olt° 4 1,11:th 2' 'g• Ice I:l.*elF°' 11°' ry the Oa, Ntt:IPT'; , Goof :. ' ; ildin, , sce000.;; 1\ Po, 0n5f1'...;,3 b ~) 2145 to Ara, .lea 41101; 3 r bod-, 4- r • a, de eat to, „, "%Ole in rer thtir, iliy.,, a f ., vor Pfivii: 1 14,1‘r!..:t..1 uk 5 129tiltbri; , i4lilder: r; Or., 0 ~, tl . lt Of l'''' 1, ‘ ,Qlll.`o S NO til ij) e k 94' b '''., 'lltirClibt° til° 4110411,?tiL t , 80. 08,60 ~t & t at foroor i'lleji 07 Iv ;'1 to ran i , os 0, t)s , St io ° %pogo e rr o.°Tig - .0 ho , v,. ous , \ fe PJO ' ti.oia?e a 5 , o or ,\', N lies a t , :110450, ~z,t,:. , n Ae t i 2I to.- t., \\,....„1......_-----!:', D3OO OPi saparo tio 0 1, 1, he cras tip Ass _ 01(10 14' kit4,?E es oho tile Itill ii. pte , goa 22 0 4,. 014 eh , , 'ilger,