Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-23 00:00:00

of Coleridge's, one of the brighest ornaments and highest

vintowledged authorities With which an necomplishe4
Writer or speaker of the present day can hops to adorn
his utterance, or to confirm his argument.
Sir, if it shoal.! be relevant—that is, if Mr. G. should
again desecrate the great name of Coleridge by mentioning
it as he has done—l will bring forward a quotation from
that despised " opiam-eater," that shall put to the blush
the cheek of any ordinary writer who contende with it.
I will bring forward, from Coleridge, an encomium on the
hallowed page of Scripture that shall make even Mr.
Glazebrook's praise grow pale before the effalgence of its
genius. I will adduce an argument, from Coleridge, that
shall show the miserable lifelessness of the theory which
Mr. Glazebrook so vainly and so strangely strives to uphold.
Meanwhile I abstain, for COleridge was no witness of
mine ; and I do not wish, for I do not need, to make my
case stronger than it is with reference to the only two,
out of my nine and thirty paragraphs, which Mr. Glaze-
brook has yet ventured to deal with.
I next find Mr. G. engaged in the unenviable task of
cavilling at another dead man. In this case the
holy, blameless life of Dr. Arnold cannot b 3 im-
peached. Indeed, that saintly man was originally
quoted by Mr. Glazebrook. Dr. Arnold was strongly
opposed to Socinianism, and wrote some very sharp words
about that system of theologizing. Of coarse, as neither
Mr. G. nor I are Socinians, and as our controversy is not
about Socinianism, but about the Infallibility of the inspired
volume. Dr. Arnold's opinions, regarding Socinianisin, are
quite irrelevant. However, Mr. Glazebrook thought proper
to drag in Dr. Arnold, as if, for sooth, that great man were
on his side. I immediately showed, by a quotation, which
is printed on the title page of Afacnaught on Inspiration,
that Dr. Arnold compared the future and necessary dis-
covery of the Bible's fallibility to the already accomplished
"discovery of the falsehood of the doctrine of the Pope's
infallibility." I showed how Dr. Arnold had foretold that
views like ?nine would be opposed by "the fears and
clamours of the weak and bigoted." I showed how Dr
Arnold had foretold that views like mine would end in
the higher exalting, and more sure establishing of Christian
truth." This quotation of mine was really relevant. It bore
directly on the Bible's Fallibility. It showed Dr. Arnold
to be a witness, not against me, bat on my side. Thus did
one of Mr. Glazabrook's own witnesses, when allowed to
speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
most distinctly and emphatically testify in my favour.
Upon this, Mr. Glazebrook, like a skilful pleader, begins
to depreciate his own witness. Dr. Arnold is a good critic,
Mr. G. informs ns, but he is a bad theologian. How does
Mr. G prove this ? Some anonymous writer, in the
Christian Observer, said so; and " the late Rev. Edward
Bickersteth" said so ; Mr. Glazebrook says so ; and throe
three saying so are proof. Before Mr. Glazebrook's opinion
can carry much weight, he must be good enough to con-
vince your readers, sir, that he is not " amueing " .himself
by such "artifices" of wilful and defamatory misrepresen-
tation as it was my painful duty to show (in your paper of
the 16th) that he frequently practices and actually " con-
fesses" and "congratulates himself" on. As to the anony-
mous writer's testimony, he ruins his own credibility—if,
indeed, he bs correctly quoted in Mr. Glazebrook's printed
letter—by even hinting that Dr. Arnold was a man who
awoke " every morning with the impression that everything
was en open question." This calumny, together with the
fact of his associating " supercilious pedantry and intoxi-
cated vanity" with the name of the firm bat gentle, calm,
and philosophical Arnold, will strike this second detractor
from the list of those who ars trustworthy. As to the
late lamented Edward Bickersteth, he was a holy, zealone
intelligent, and most amiable Christian minister, whom no
one knew without loving. Bat what scholar, in his senses,
would dream of setting up Edward Bickersteth as a
judge of Arnold ? Arnold was a first-class Ox-
ford man, a fair critic, a theologian capable of pro-
ducing his sermons on prophecy and on the interpretation
of Scripture, a historian hardly second to Niebuhr or
Grote. Bickersteth, on the contrary, was a man who
laboured at first—if my memory serve me ; and, if not,
Mr. Glazebrook will doubdess correct me—as a pott-
office clerk. Subsequently he entered the ministry of the
English Church, with a less deficient education than was
to have been expected in his circumstances Ho was the
clever writer of a large number of popular works on the
Low Church aspect of Christianity. Peace be to his
hallowed bones and to his lovely memory : but he was no
more fit to be a Judge of scholarship or theological
accuracy—no more fit to be compared with Arnold " than
Ito Hercules." So much for the slight attempted to be
put on Dr. Arnold, Mr. Glazabrook's Own witness, when
at is unmistakably seen that Dr. Arnold condemns Mr.
Glazebrook's view of the Bible, and gives the weight of
his important approbation to the doctrine held by me.
The next witness claimed by Mr. Glazebrook, as on his
side, is the Bishop of Manchester. That right rev. prelate
is not known by me to have published his views on the
subject of Scriptural Fallibility, or the contrary. If he
has done so, perhaps Mr. Glazebrook will be so good as
to refer us to the beek and page ? When this shall have
been done by Mr. Glazebrook, we shall know what force
attaches to the testimony named.
As to the Bishop of Llandalf, I have already quoted as a
witness on my aide, one of his concessions, to the effect
that the term, " Word of God," does not, in the New Tes-
tament, mean the Bible. Any other argument of his
lordship's, which may be brougu forward, with relevancy
to our present controversy, I shall be quite prepared to
examine respectfully.
Dr. Hampden (the Bishop of Hereford) is named by
Mr. Glazebrook as in his favour. How far this statement
is correct, any reader may ascertain by reference to my
Doctrine of Inspiration, 2nd edit., p. 42. Among Dr.
Hampden's words are the following : —"lt would be
nothing strange or objectionable in a revelation, were we
to find embodied in its language much of the false ethical
philosophy which systems may have established." This
does not look as if the Bishopeof Hereford agreed eith
Mr. Glazebrook, or was far removed in opinion from my
views.

Mr. Glazebrook refers to Tholuck's article on inspiration,
translated by a gentleman of my acquaintance, for the
sixth volume of Kitto's Journal of Sacred Literaturo I

should strongly recommend your readers, sir, to peruse
that article. With Mr. Nicholas' translation I am, oddly
enough, not acquainted, but I know the articlo in i$
original form, as it came from the pen of
Dr. Tholnck. Indeed, I have it now lying be-
fore me, and I am cot:Meat it will have
been well and fairly translated by Mr. Nicholas, and will,
consequently, show that my doctrine of Inspiration is, at
least, more like to the ancient opinions on that subject,
than, any "which has, so far, been advocated by Mr.
Glazabrook. How unfortunate Mr. G. is in the selection
of his witnesses ! All the witnesses in the world could
not help him much, for palpable facts—such as any in-
telligent man of common sense :can test—are against hint.
But, still, it is quite remarkable how Sepoes, like thdee I
slow last Friday, and good men and true, like these whom
Mr. G. now attempts to bring foward, all turn against Mr.
Glazebrook and yield their testimony, willingly or unwil-
linaly, in my favour.
Dr. Butler is quoted by Mr. Ghzsbroak as saying, He
knows absolu'ely nothing, who does not know that in
religion we are all children." Of cour-o we are. Who
ever doubted this ? Have I ever denied it ? Yet, surely,
Bishop Butler used these wor 3s to commend wise humility
and not to favour puerile weakness, for, otherwise, he would
have contradicted a greater than even Butler, seeing
that Paul write, "Be men in understanding." But is
Bishop Butler at all on Mr. Glazebrook's side ? Let this
fact answer the inquiry. In the Analogy, Butler sets
out with assuming that the human mind has Lire sdy been
competent to infer " that 'here is an intelligent Author
of Nature and Natural Governor of the world;' Hte

whole argument, then, p-oceeds upon the further assump-
tion, that the human mind can observe the dealings of
Nature's God : can compare these with the representations
of God's dealings, which are given by Cnristianty ; and
is competent to infer the credibility, and evon the pro-
bability of the Christian Revelation, from the resemblance
between the actual dealings of Nature's Gad and appare,.4
doctrines of Christianity. This vise capacity, 'the
profound Bishop Butler" ascribed to the human mini.
Let y readers, sir, judge with what fairness Mr. Glaze-
brook quotes an isolated phrase, to show th Lt Butler
thought meanly of human reason ! And, as to the
superiority of human reason o►er any Rule of Faith, yea
even over the Bible itself, Bishop Butler wrote thus, If
in Revelation there be found any passages, the seeming
meaning of which is contrary to natural Religion, we may
most certainly conclude such seeming meaning not to be
the real one." Thus, "natural religion," the dictate of human

reason, is to act as supreme earthly judge, and is to set
aside as erroneous the " seeming," or apparent, meaning
of " Revelation," or Scripture, which is the record of Revs-

lation. I trow Bishop Butler's testimony will not help
Mr. Giazebrook much.

My opponent, however, claim, A.rehbiehop Whiteley,

and Bishop Made, as amongst his upholders. I am glad to
see Mr. GI tzebreek ie now, at length, beginning to read my
book on Inspiration. I have given (pp. 38, 39, of the 2nd
edition) passages from Hinds and Whateley, in which they
teclare their sentiments on the matter of Scriptural
Fallibility. I have given for instance, the following quo-
tation from Whiteley, which, in this letter, may sufficiently
represent the view of Bishop Hinds as well. Wiladely
writes, "In matters unconnected with religion,
such as points of history, or natural philosophy, a writer
who professes (as the Apostles do) to be communicating a
divine revelation, imperted to him through the meaus of
miracles, may be as liable to error as other men, without
any disparagement to his pretensions ; but if we reject, as
false, any part of the religion which he professes himself
divinely sent to teach, we cannot consistently believe but
that his pretensions are either an imposture or a delusion,
and that he is wholly unworthy of credit." In my book I
give the whole of this passage, that which seems to mak:
against me, as wall as that which is so strongly in my
favour. It would, I submit, have been well if Mr. Glaze-
brook had done so toe. However he has thought proper
only to quote the latter portion of the passage and chooses
to omit the forno!r. So, then, the testimony of Archbishop
Whateley and Bishop Hin Is is, that, in all matters which
we can test by sense and reason, the Bible is fallible, but,
on matters of religion, which, it is supposed, we cannot
test by sense or reason, the Bible is to be regarded as
infallible Why? I ask. If the Bible must be acknowledged
to be fallible "in matters unconnected with religion," why
is one to believe the same Bible infallible as soon as it
touch., "any part" of religion ? Till Mr. Glazebrook
shall instruct us on this point, I beg most respectfully to
repeat the unanswered argument, on this very subject,
which I submitted to the Bishop of Chester last October.
If, in matters of sense and reason, we concede the fallibility
of Scripture, and then proceed, in matters which are pro-
nounced above sense and beyond reason, to maintain the
infallibility of Scripture, this course of argument is as
though we should see an object to be red as long as it is
in sight, and then should declare that, when it has passed
oat of sight, it is not red, but geese. Thus to argue is as
though we should say—" All we know of this man shows
him to be honest, but yet we are determined to pronounce
him dishonest in those things of which we know nothing
about him." Twat so, men urge, the Bible is felib'e, or
tinged with error, in all points which we can te.t, bat we
are determined to declare it infallible in those points
which we cannot test. The wondrous verdict is—We
pronounce ties Bible to Ic infallib!e. though all the evidence
(1. e. all the palpable facts) shows it to be fallible. Such
is the logical position of Drs. Whitely and Hinds. They
consider the Bible to be fallible in everything except
religion ; but there they, most illogically, stop short. I
am more consistent; for, being obliged to join them in
their concessions, Ige further, and say—lf the Bible
be fa'lib'e in ordinary matters, I see no reason
why it should be infallible in extraordinary ; and,
moreover, I see and have shown, in my book, fevers' in-
stances in which the extraordinary or religious statements
of the Bible are plainly and positively at fault.
Let Mr. Glazebrook show where these, my facts, are
misstated, or where this, my argument, is unsound. Let
him correct me, and he shell find me most ready to be
converted, for I had rather agree with men, if I could
honestly do so, and have their praise, than differ from
them, and suffer the bitterness of their lack of charity.
Of course, Sir, all that Mr. G. says about " Theitarialism,"
and about my being an " Infidel," and "given up to strong
delusion to believe a lie," &c., is simply nihil ad rem. I
shall no more notice it at present, but I hope he will yet
desist from such sad waste of time cud space, and such
pitiable display of uncharitableness.
One more witness Mt. Glazebrook long ago quoted
against me ; and Itim Mr. G. again produces. Mr. G-Isze.
brook has told us how " the immortal Chillingworth" has
said that he would believe anything which was "proposed
to him out of the Bible ;" for he would be sure that " God
load said" that which might bo so " proposed."
Sir, I have long had a great respect for Chillingworth ;
and, the moment I read Mr. Glezebrook's quotation, I
thought it strange that one of our greatest Protestant writers
against Papal infallibility should he opposed so strongly to
my denial of Scriptural Infallibility. I thought I remem-
bered that there was much in Chtllingworth which went
rather in support of my view than of Mr. Glezebrook's.
However, I had not Chillingworth's writings at hand, and
I abstained from referring to him memoriter. Now, I
have Chillingworth upon my table, and he shall say a few
sentences for himself. lam far from intimating that he
did not use the words quoted by Mr. Glazebrook. I know
the passage well. lam far from meaning that Chilling-
worth is clearly and entirely on my side, so that there are
no detailed passages of his which might be quoted fairly
against me. Let Mr. Glazebrook, however, help himself
with such arguments from the great magazine of Chilling.
worth, and I will examine them with the respect and at-
tention which is their author's due. Meantime, I submit
that Mr. Chillingworth and I are agreed in our main I
I principles, and, consequently, that much cf Mr. Chilling-
; worth's splendid writing is on my side in this controversy,
as may be gathered from the following passages :
First: What does Chillingworth mean by " proposing
anything to him out of the Bible ?" Doss he mean that
any man, or any body of men, have a right to expound
for one any text or texts, and that one is bound
to accept and submit to such, their exposition ?
Far, indeed, is this from being Chillingworth's meaning.
To men, advancing such a claim, he indignantly replies,
" What an impudence it is to pretend that your church is
infallibly directed concerning the true meaning of Scripture,
whereas there are thousands of places of Scripture which
you do not pretend certainly to understand, and about the
interpretation whereof your own doctors differ among
themselves !" Again, he writes, disclaiming, on behalf of
Protestants, any such authority to interpret : —" This pre-
sumptuous imposing of the senses of man upon the wards
of God—the special senses of men upon the general words
of God : this deifying of our own interpretations, and
tyrannous enforcing them upon others; this restraining
of the word of God from that laTude and generality, and
the understendings of men from that liberty, wherein
Carist and his Apostles left them, is, and hath been the
only fountain of all the schisms of the church. Take away
these walls and all will quickly be one : take away this
persecuting, burning, cursing, damning of men, for not
subscribing to the words of men as the words of God;
require of Christians only to believe Christ, and to call no
man master bat him only ; let those leave claiming infalli-
bility that have no title to it ; and let them that in their
words disclaim it, disclaim is likewise in their actions : taken
away tyranny, which is the devil's instrument to support
errors, and superstitions, and impieties—l say, take awe),
tyranny, and restore Christians to their just and I'4l
liberty of captivating their understanding to scripture only ;
and, as rivers, when they have a free passage, run all to
to the ocean, to it may well bo hoped, by God's blessing,
that
i universfd liberty, thus moderated. 1121 y quickly reduce
Christendom to truth on ;1 unity." Aeainst one who op•
pored the right of priv.ife judgement in the 'interpretation
of Scripture, Chillingworth maintained that it was wise
arid proper for any Christian to say, " These and these
reasons I have to show th tt this or that is tree dont ine,
or that this or that is the meaning of such a scripture.
Reason beine a public and certain thing, and exposed to
all men's trial and examination." Thee, then, sir, we see
what " the immortal Chillingworth" meant when he said as
quo:ed b e Mr. Glazebrook, h Propose to me anything out
of this Book (the Bible) and I will subscribe it with heni
and heart,' &c. Mr. Chillingworth, that is to say, would
listen to any text which might be "proposed," or quoted
to him. He would not submit to that text any sense,
which might be arbitrarily attached to it by other men ; but
he would judge of its possible meanings according to the
best private judgement of his Human Reason, and
then Mr. Chillingworth would accept what he felt
convinced was the truo meaning of the text. That truth
he would regard as one of the sayings which God spoke to
him. What lees than this would any pious man think of
any maxim which he felt to be true and important ? So
inueli for the quotation made by Mr. Glazebrook from Mr.
Chillingworth. Mr. Chillingworth, be it remembered, is
not my witness: but, as Mr. Glazebrook has brought him
forward, and actually made him repo ;t the Fame testimony
on two different occasions (viz., in Mr. G.'s letters
published Dec. 4, and Dec. 18), I shall presently use my
right of cross-questioning my opponent's witneer.
Before proceeding to do this, however, I must direct the
reader's attention to Mg Glazebrook's own mode of inter-
pretit g any text of Scripture. Mr. Glazebrook tells us
that, in order "to ascertain the mind of the Spirit"
which terms, when put into plain English, mean, as I
believe, in order to find out the true meaning of a text—
Mr. Glazebro k proceeds " by attending to the scope of
the argument, the grammatical construe ion of the pa sage
under consideration, to the context and to parallel pas-
sages, and we thus guard ourselves against the thousand
arbitrary meanings which a mere rationalist wou'd
impose," &3 With reference to this passage, I put it
to your readers, sir, whether Man is not a reasoning or
rational being? And, if out Creator bath made us rational
beings, why should men mock and sneer at those who
humbly and thankfully use God's gift of reason or
rationality I moat respectfully submit, that for any
man to be otherwise than a Rationalist or user of Reason
is for him to degrade hie humanity by being irrational.
But let us lock at the case of Mr. Glazebrook. He
professes to interpret Scripture "by attending to the scope
of the argument." Will Mr. Glazebrook tell us how.
except by Human Reason, he can do this? or, How,
except by Human Reason, he can attend to the "gram-
matical construction of the passage under consideration ?"
or, How, except by Human Reason, can Mr Glazebrook
attend "to the context and parallel passages t'' Should
Mr. Glazebrook answer, as I hope he can, that he prays
for the apirit's aid, still I ask Mr, Glazebrook, What

faculty, except Human .Reason, does he ask the .--liattatil
illumine and to aid in order that he may be "peoi
against the 1,000 arbitrary meanings ?" And, if 11
yl
Human Reason that Mr. Glazebrook is thus able
what is the true meaning of Scripture, then to /It 00
has Mr. G:azebrook been so long trying to argue Igr.joil
original assertion, that human reason "is decl trea "1,00
be superior to—because it is constituted the judge of
.60
other role of faith ?" If M. G. does really thus 1701
ally interpret Scripture, as he, no doubt, honestly Proffy
to do, then I submit that he is himself a specitoendoo
highest work of God, a Rat%oxalist, or user of tS
Reason. Whether, however, Mr. G-. does, indeed, in
Scripture as rationally as he thinks and says he &cot
reference to its " scope," its " construction," its " c°l3byti
and its " parallel passsges"—any of your reador°, 01.11
be able to judge by seeing how, in the past aoti c°,o'd t?,
part of this controversy, Mr. G. has interloevforl
famous text, " Thy word is truth ?" So totiell„,
G.'s own practics, and the concessions it in]ro°';',oll
now I proceed, in coneusion, sir, to ask a few 1:001
tions from Mr. Glezebrcok's own witness "the

St
t D 4;1
V II
kS,ejide,
Vat

,°4lll

Übe,'
‘4l GI [
the
4EhTE
4,s
the it,
14,„,tibegi
ti,ll be we

Chillingworth." 0.
Mr. Giazebrook declares me an "infidel,' PO
phemer," a " Judas," &c., because, forsooth, tofil..hrist,
that we have a rule of faith in the religion L.
llt
generally set forth in Scripture, I deny the •01
the Bible What eays Mr, Chillingworth?
should believe Christian religion wholly and en," .040"
live according to it, sack a man, though he should /10,1
or not believe the Scriptures to be a rule of fait" 'egg,
to be the word of God ; my opinion is, that he'is,
the entire condition of the new covenant, whie'uil Is 6/
we believe the matter of the Gospel, and not that f
tamed in these or these books, So that the bo,_oks:
tare are not so much the objects of our 10'1'001
instruments of conveying it to our uticlear4say
Again, Mr. Chillingworth writes that, even I`terr„
shoutd doubt the canonicity of any parts of Seriloss'
did Luther and Chemnitz, and Melito, and St. ,st 00
and St. Gregory of Nazianzum—still " I have Heal
to damn any man that shall doubt of them or
now, having the example of saints in heaven, An-a l'
justify or excuse such doubling or denial." es
once more, Mr. Chillingly„" O )rth writes, " ThougsS
unreasonable, yet God requires not anything bm' „" tor,
they pretend that heavenly things cannot be Fro"
purpose but by the mid-day light ; but God will u.
if we receive any degree of light which makes 14 A
works of darkness and walk as children of 14, r „
large-heartei and liberal, and charitable i 5
v„.;100
Chillingworth. I wish, sir, many of us might °TO
"inintortar example, both of wisdom and
If Mr. Glazsbrook would imbibe a little of Chl"%cl,
spirit, he would desist froth his lamentable, s"
unsuccessful, attempts to defame me. 111
Sir, I have already stated that I regard Soll p
the rule of faith subject to the judgment o`l.oo
Reason. It is, I suppose, against this my °P!nd- ,;
Mr. Glszebrook has quoted that passage of Chalitor
which we examined above. We saw that Mr. Ci'l'
when fairly interpreted on Chillingwoqh's ozvni"
carried no weight against me. But, still, es Xtink
put Chillingworth into the witness box, I shall ;1111,
question or two about the Rule of Faith ali•don
Reason. For example, let Mr. Chillingwortbl4
whether Scripture be the Rule of Faith on a"„ 1„, "IA
subjects? "Of all," he answers, " those 011,.1,11
wherein the Scripture itself is the subject of ID",
which cannot be determined but by natural 're 0011 a
Only principle, beside Scripture, which is e°,l4
Christians." " Scripture is a perfect Rule of ."-er:P„i
ranch as a writing can be a rule." Mr. Chilling°;sl,i
often spoken—as I do, too,—of Scripture ss_„,b,elCT
word of God," Let him say what he melt
" Scripture is the Word of God, so much of it ado '0
contains all things ncceseary" to Salvation thely
according to Mr. Chillingworth, it is implied ths'slo:o
parts of the Bible which are not necessary t°2 as
and parts of the Bible which he does not ergs''
Word of Cod." And, moreover, there are 8° 411
highest questions in religion of which Seriptureu"
the Rule and Reason alone must be our fgli"„-i#!
surely, surpasses anything which I have said i°lo
Yet it comes from Mr. Glazebrook's own lei'
_lll-09
he has not badly designated as " the imrillift'
worth." tgp
Mr. Chillingworth has written a good deal eh° tis

"rt, and
13 t A 1
411aPProvo

IT S
C A
kl? ?
R And
o
, Will, in

4' BRE A

7
It

Iv
40R rt
57,

t m
tttit
ktii, RE W
tus'' ALBU
tr".lP,i PI
etteii
eiebrate
Etialt 6d.
;tn
frod
03,
kiliier P 8 AL
te
.413
%II
1/41,1t7: tad 5
fr,oni

57 i
\____

Li If R

41CD PL]

185,1

11118 T

c
ikt„,n2_l7, f!
ee ha
T tl
His w

Reason and S'Cripture. Let U 4 850-- if hewiiteliporl
he thinks of their relative positions—which i° 611004
the other ? —" To speak properly (as men should ir?
they write about controversies in religion) the S'':1:110
not a judge of controversies, but a rule only, 5° nollj
rule, for Christians to judge them by. .Every,
judge for himself with the judgment of discreu°",'lk
choose ; and the rule whereby he is to guide „5
he be a natural man, is "reason." Again' ran
truly and properly, the Scripture is note judge Oross
but only a sufficient rule to judge by," eze• , oastMr. Glazebrook's "immortal Chillingworth,'
over again decide against Mr. G , and In *toor
Chillingworth is of opinion that Human Reason
the supreme judgs, and that Scripture ee'tjeli
speaking, be "only the rule." This is just 01°100
by asserting in the second paragraph of my first ob
Mr. G. will hearken to Chillingworth, and relff'
evidence I have laid before you, sir, he will, °II
this point at once and for ever. littl6/.
Another word, and I have done. It is not lb tof
one that, from the midst of the one ciao ation °tired",
lingworth, with 'which Mr. Glazebrook has fer)° 01
omitted these important and charitable wordo.:,,loV
wrote Chillingworth, "think no man the vfol•-forir;
the worse Christian, I will love no man the I,effiiiioB
ing in opinion from me." Well said, Mr, u'',ltisle"
Sir, I commend this broad and benevolent E° hits,
Mr. Glazebrook and your readers ; and, Wishivgloligt,
them, and you, a merry and a wise Christin..,,,°'‘
12',0179
yours truly, J oux 2.
Everton, December 22, 1857.

bill' A I,
-Dpued

(/ 0

cj b
111141ki :01 ;11 cg:
14
th'
feel
favou

CDR B

NE

ATE

31,

begtj
The Shipowners' Towing C,)mpany, which
IPr",
for
operation twenty years, is to be wound up. oco
The " austeie Gu'zot'." memoirs are ann"„10!,scoll
15th of Janne!y in six volumes. He was wool'
wi3ded, and wh ,t Carlyle in his rude jarg"
„,fi re. do
The !limes city article says, the bills hay°
- . _firm

"Ittl, 0
120
oysi

11/§Der Part

,eeesrs. Ktingender.• Bro;., of Liverpool, a
with the American trade. Their liabilities er" red
be very large. viefOr
A few days ago Mr. Stevens, a stockbrolsericiplel',
charge of robbery against a person named oe
charge was dismissed by the Lord Mayon kis esitri
which Mr. Killby conceived to be attached to ac
ment in a police cell preyed upon his mill' o'
.11 be
committed suicide. svlAi
The operations for launching the Leviathariee Lts).4"l
resumed till next week. The hydraulic Oalrealorael
more than double that to which the ship ha 9 al 1149"
subjected. There are to be twelve addili°l3-ther,
rams. The ship continues even and fair °nod P-101
and ways. On Seturday. at high water, elle ,ito'
six inches of water under her keel. t tofnlerCtit.
A VICTIM OF SRPOY CRUELTY.—We regre-pc d it
h'
young lady, the daughter of a highly-relt;ecolatitol,;
men of Bristol, who married a gentleman c:tot re`o,°,,Je
the Indian service, about a year since, brie, The ';„'"f
not only wido.ved, but terribly mutilatea., • rf%, '".(
have cut her tongue cut, and inflic.ed other Ivusetl,,tlo,l,
meanchcly circumstance has created mach So 115 :tiPe 107
it has brought the horrors of the war 17:1;_,Irievoa:be*Ilitd:t
re lity, and not the least in the parish froal,"„o3 o'noy
welt forth, sn short a time since, in the bi°'',l
to the enjeym-nt as it was believed, of a le-
~,001, de
in lice —Bristol Mirror. toc- j:
THE RUSSIAN MERCHANT SERVICE IN Tilt Wag gl,llO,
On Tuesday a powerful iron screw.steron,e,;
from the building-yard of Messrs. CllarA"; is I,'A Oa/
teed Co ,of Low Walker, on the Tyne. 7-„e, 01"
ye
healers' measurement, is named the Onnalo-Stepealsild '0
property of the Russian Steam Navigation kSe pate
is built for the Company's trade in the vet of Are of
Sea of Azoff. In these localities the desngth a C fee
limited, and the Oudatoy, when laden wijirteell etotltite
1,100 tons dead weight, will only driiNg t.is ag t $ll Alf
water. It is intended to look to the aclt„,, t
power, and she is barque rigged, and
modern improvements ueed in first-class selp
fitte .40,01_ 004
country. Forty-six vessels have been 001'0 cd
course of building, in England, for thie vaelc oblQp
will trade with every port almost in that CO',ll
Levant, and will convey great quantiti°s ° Otto
from the Russian coal fields on the Don. 1,0 irtri,loo-or
ANOTHER DARING HIGHWAY ROBBERY, Wik At g
nOantnWededi‘evecsiidaeyi
at the works of Mr. Richard Barrow, ef britig°l tibia*
morning,Barl Vi,Wahboo about
sf° eutrir p°1;: tc:dy '
to his employment, when, at the railwaY
aim so: otp:.00
a mile from Chesterfield, ha was stopped and tb 01,10
men—one a tall man, with dark Whiskers' eaonlreP,,,r*
person of low stature. They demanded ,i; Darlooloa P
" W want that six sovereigns of yours' iced, °lel,lo
" I have no money." The fellow's Info, atealoptio
six sovereigns, which you have ea/clod eo ta: the itit
pee." Barlow assured them thetthhae
prceTiilloerra:otsee do:,;(411'
ksoTo-fkroesatill,::sol:42,
they would not believe him, and the
threw Barlow's slop over his face and
The taller man then knelt upon
whilst the other ripped open his clothee..,l lett a, tn), ij
them for money. They found none, etuserteueurosy ;
pockets tarne I inside out. ,Barlow Su op tbe ha.jOt
that he was unable to move, and he 1101 b,_,, apeAO
',l*
several hours before assistance cP.rne t . elan
needle*
conveyed home by three men. and a
who proamiced him in a kovorioue
•

:‘,....C.c1N:
lift,
o•7'Bll4eks
4,.
116'N lIIL
Sitio SToc
pith e
i 75,
6ta
IViP(1°4101;
!!llgil-Ls,
ilgl4l, 11.1t1
. •011,. ho A, a‘i
1( u-
uttikekAß
14OXIKs,
tl`.f (i HT .4
kik TMs,t'eqkh .
kit% /10 ti Ni;
rjl4ll 14q„ Bit
4,81411.
A UoD ' a
1 CoN„ an
4 Yett/ll
T°Y3 o.

12, J
KLO L 1

. „

ORR

t6c

0o

B
111
Optk,
t 411; GI
144(Inans at

BA;

° 0 T

tt 0 And
T
/I'o4
kbtLl:trl'n°°ll,'n
th(
qtto obta
rt accol

)140,_
vit, t
17

k the Doh
Abe 0 1
Lnd, if 3 0
is ego 0)o
t to wbssoo
gne egaillnoil
Aired bl
kid ge ofr
us fa'
1 til
nestly pr o, tY
)ecitneo
ser of
5 he d°65,,,;11.
its
c,eaderoo
; and CI 01
nterPreior
g,ll
ranch
I.oil
feW 10.„
the ll

/0., CHRISTMAS AND NEW
11G:,,1MA.8 and NEW YEAR'S CAKES.
Sc!., of the finest qua!ity and greatest variety,
t jOHN I.I.WHIRTER'S,
An AN D FANCY BISCUIT BAKER,
215, London-road.
V, ranch pleasure in directing public attention to his
111',„‘ell Buns, Shortbread, Pitcaithiy Bannocks, Blair
,4 Seed, Madeira, and Windsor Cakes, Ban Loaf, Mince
the excellence of which cannot be surpassed.
1L215, ?(TXoelfle-RuadDwrEdAeitPrfiClAS.STß EE T.