The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-01-23 00:00:00

client's claim against the defendant, he produced two let-
ters, written by Mr. Neilson to the plaintiff, which dis-
tinctly shewed that the money had been paid to Mrs.
Blaymire, and that she ought to have paid a certain por-
tion of it to the plaintiff. But as the defendant would
not admit that Mr. Neilson's letters were genuine, Mr.
Upton examined the defendant and proved from her that
a sum of £BO had been received by her, a part of which
his Honour thought plaintiff was entitled to, and in giving
his judgment he stated "that the defendant's conduct had
been most unkind and dishonest, and that she ought to
have at once paid over the plaintiff's son's share of the
money to him ; and, further, that as Mr. Upton had
shown that the defendant had not only been guilty of a
gross breach of trust, but had endeavoured to make away
with her property, he should make an order for immediate
execution against her goods, as well as commit her to
prison for 40 days.—Leeds Intelligencer.

CORRESPONDENCE

PURITANISM AND POPERY

A correspondent has forwarded to us a letter addressed

to the Rev. Cecil Wray on the subject of that reverend
gentleman's sermon preached on the sth of November,
wherein, with uncommon sagacity, he professes to have
discovered fifteen resemblances between Puritanism and
Popery. Our correspondent, after some pointed remarks
on the style of the sermon, and on the inuendo in one
part of it respecting the " Puritanism within the fold of
the Church of England," closes his letter as follows :
If the occasion admitted not of speaking out, neither
should it have admitted of the inuendo. Periphrasis in
the pulpit may be justified to save the use of a hackneyed
and offensive word : such a mode of speaking becomes
the dignity of the place. But insinuation never—never !
At all events the press might convey a clear intimation of
the persons meant, and your sermon has been published !
Am I incorrect in supposing that, by the epithet Puri-
tan, you intend to designate the clergy and laity " within
the fold," commonly, and for a wise and necessary dis-
tinction's sake, called Evangelical ? You cannot and do

not mean, in your resemblances, the Puritans of Eliza-
beth's reign ; nor yet the Presbyterians, Independents,
and Nonconformists of the Protectorate—more emphati-
cally the Puritans of history. And yet I allow there is
such a dextrous though confused commingling of the
past and the present in your resemblances, that one finds
it very difficult to ascertain what you do mean. But I
take it for granted, for I can do no other, that the Puri-
tans " within the fold " are even those persons whom I
have already suggested. If so, let us now look at your
fifteen resemblances, seriatim, as applicable to them.
First,—You say, " While Romanism asserts the infal-
libility of the Pope, Puritanism makes each man a Pope
to himself, by denying church authority and asserting the
right of unlimited private judgment."
In the first proposition I am perfectly agreed with you ;
Romanism does assert the infallibility of the Pope.
In the second I entirely disagree with you. When and
where, sir, and who, among the clergy and laity supposed,
denies church authority, so far as it is defined in the 20th
article ?—or where, by them, is the right of unlimited
private judgment asserted?—or where is individual infal-
libility maintained ?

It will not be an answer to these questions if you cull
a sentence or two from the writings of the Evangelical
clergy, which apparently support your assertion. You
must establish the parallel. The Pope is deemed infalli-
ble—that is a fact : substantiate the resemblance by
equally undeniable facts, or, need I say, it fails.
Secondly,—You say, "Romanism misquotes Scripture
for self-interest, and Puritanism does the like."
Here, again, we are thoroughly agreed in your first
proposition. Romanism does notoriously misquote Scrip-
ture. As you do not, perhaps I had better cite an in-
stance in confirmation : it will serve at least to guide you
to your parallel case. To support her invented sacrament
of " extreme unction," the Church of Rome quotes a
passage from St. James, which plainly refers to an ordi-
nance for the recovery of the sick, whereas her ordinance
is for the dying, and the dying only.
But can you shew me a like instance of misquotation
on the part of the clergy to whom you point in your epi-
thet Puritans ? Where for "self-interest" do they take
such a licence with the sacred records ? Where do they
thus make a pain of their hearers ? I must wait for your
reply.

Thirdly,—You say, "Romanism supersedes Scripture
by wresting it to an agreement with her modern decrees.
Puritanism supersedes Scripture by forcing it into an
accordance with the traditions of Calvin, Luther," &c.
Do you mean by " Calvin, Luther," &c., the unani-
mous consent of the Reforming Fathers, as Rome so
fondly pleads for the unanimous consent of the Ancient
Fathers ? But let that pass. Again we are agreed in
your first proposition. Romanism does " supersede
Scripture by wresting it to an agreement," &c. And to
shew to your and my readers what kind of a parallel you
artrready to establish, let me again quote an instance in
proof. Romanism decrees that " images and relics of
Christ and the saints are to be duly honoured and vene-
rated" (vide Concil. Trid.) ; and to give plausibility to
the decree, she suppresses (where she may) the second
commandment of the Decalogue, as in one of her books
of devotion now before me.

But " Puritanism supersedes," &c. ? Indeed ! when ?
how ? where ? Methinks the Puritans to whom you
allude are generally thought by some to pay too little
respect to the writings and traditions (where are they ?)
of " Calvin, Luther," &c., or any other Rabbis, and by
some also accused of following too slavishly Holy Scrip-
. At least I think your reviewer would say so. But
!maps you lu ve your proofs at hand, so I had better
ait until you produce them.

Indeed, until I have something more than your mere
" ipse dixit," I feel that I must suspend any attempt
fully to refute your resemblances. The giosts you have
conjured up are like ghosts too airy and unpalpable to
battle with, but when you have clothed them with shape
and tangibility, I will try -what can be done to lay them.
In all your assertions, I do not, I cannot believe, that you
had any intention wilfully to impose upon the credulous;
but I do charitably think that you " resemble" too much
the bewildered peasant, whose distempered fancy trans-
forms the overhanging tree seen in the gathering shadows
of night, into some terrible ancestral ghost • and whose
innocent delusion nought but inspection under the glo-
rious light of morning can dispel.
Lest my remarks should from their extent be excluded
from that paper to which I send them, I must now lay
down my pen. I would willingly append my real signa-
ture to this letter, if I thought it would be of any benefit
to the cause of truth so to do. But I am an humble in-
dividual, and my name would add no weight to my
thoughts. I only speak because other and abler defenders
of the right are silent. If any expression I have used
savour too much of sevrity, I can only say that I have not
" set down aught in malice," though I must add, I may
have written under an indignant feeling.
I am, Reverend Sir, yours, &c.,
CHRISTIANOS.

SIGNAL LAMPS FOR VESSELS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

SlR,—The condensed report of the proceedings at the
Polytechnic Society, in your paper of Tuesday last, gave
me credit for what I did not deserve ; and I therefore feel
it a duty I owe to Mr. Miller, of London, the patentee
and maker of the signal lamps for ships and steamers, to
request that you will insert the following paragraph,
which was omitted in your report of my lecture :
" Capt. Evans has been fortunate in obtaining the
assistance of Mr. G. H. Miller, of London, lamp-manu-
facturer, whose scientific arrangements in the construc-
tion and adaptation of the lamp have been mainly instru-
mental in bringing it (the plan) to a successful issue."
I am, sir, yours, most respectfully,
_ JAS. ALEX. FORREST.
_

Liverpool, 18th January, 1849.
-.4...--

REMARKS ON THE REV. D. JAMES'S SPEECH

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD,

Sin.,—Allow me to make a few remarks on Mr. James's
lecture, which appeared in your paper of last week. It
supports a theory which I believe quite untenable, and
calculated to injure the Established Church when proved
to be so. Doubtless it is satisfactory to answer the Ro-
manist's question, " Where was your church before
Luther ?" by asserting its existence centuries before ;
and the Dissenter's question, " Have we not as good a
right to leave you as you had to leave Rome ?" by main-
taining that we never did leave Rome, but that she over-
laid us : still a sterner question supervenes for ourselves,
viz., Are we warranted in giving these answers ? I an-
swer, Certainly not. And first, suppose the fact substan-
tiated of the existence of an ancient British Church, it
would still remain to prove that such church was purer in
doctrine than the Rome of those times ; since, if it were
not, I presume that Mr. James would not care to be its
champion. Now this proof cannot be collected : nay,
the scanty evidence of history, as I will mention, leads to
a contrary conclusion. When, then, the Romanist puts
his question, " Where was your church before Luther or
Henry VIII. ? " the conclusiveness or weakness of the
answer depends on the sense in which we understand the
term church. If, with the Tractarians, we allow our
opponent's Sense, viz., a visible episcopal corporation, or
add thereto our own essential of a true church, teaching
the pure word of God, we must grant that no such
church existed. The only visible system for centuries
had been the Roman Catholic. and England was as com-
pletely a Romish country as France or Spain. Whenever
high churchmen, as Mr. Palmer and Dodsworth, have
tried to uphold our present national church on " Catho-
lic" ground, the attempt has signally failed. But a
Protestant's answer to the above question is plain : " My
church, as an external constitution, did not exist before
Henry VIII. ; but the doctrine which she teaches, and
the holiness which she illustrates, have been manifested
by God's true and faithful people, isolated as they might
be, even in the darkest ages. And while essential Chris-
tianity is analytically separable from a visible constitu-
tion, and may, by God's help, exist for a time without it,
still the soil of an outward communion, scriptural and
apostolic as is our present church, is more adapted to
spiritual growth than those wherein superstition reigns,
as in Rome, or lawlessness, as in Dissent generally. Thus
my religion existed long before either Luther or Henry,
and my church was then created to enshrine it, whose
model is also scriptural." Beyond this let us not be
careful to answer adversaries. When we are, and join
issue with the Papist that pretensions to antiquity like
his own are necessary to support our church claims, the
question becomes one of history, and, if defeated on it,
what refuge have we ? And, alas what is our chance of
victory ? With regard to Britain, for the three first cen-
turies, ecclesiastical history is all but silent. The sup-
posed apostolic journeys and conversions yvere never heard
of until the eighth century, at which period, as has been
remarked, the endeavours of Christian churches to esta-
blish precedeuey of origin resembled those of the old