The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-02-21 00:00:00

Magisterial Rearm. London : Crockford.

A letter to Lord Palmerston, by Sir George
Stephen, detailing the inconveniences and injustice
to which the poor are sometimes exposed, through
the present system of jurisprudence as administered
by unpaid magistrates ; the object being to re-
commend the appointment of stipendiary magis-
trates. We may give credit to the author for his
intentions, but we by no means agree with him as
to his conclusions, and we should be sorry to see
the change of magisterial duties from country
gentlemen of station, character, and a stake in the
country, to briefless barristers, who may have ob-
tained such appointments from servility to the
minister of the day.

" The Church not a Roman Catholic Body."

LECTURE,
BY THE REV. J. B. LOWE; M.A.,

LAST NIGHT

" THE Church not a Roman Catholic Body," was the
title of an interesting lecture delivered by the Rev. J.
B. Lowe, M.A., in answer to lectures recently delivered
in Liverpool, by the Rev. W. H. Anderdon, a Pervert
to the Church of Rome, in which the latter gentle-
man undertook to show that " there is a Church,
but that the Church is not a Protestant body." The
lecture of the Rev. J. B. Lowe was delivered last
night, in the Concert-hall, the chair being occupied by the
Rev. W. F. Taylor, M.A. On the platform were—The
Rev. Dr. M'lsteile, Rev. S. Minton, Rev. G. F.Mathews,
Rev. G. L. Ireland, Rev. J. Bardsley, Rev. P. Gell, Rev.
J. Marland, and Mr. John Parsonage, President of the
Working Men's Reformation Mr. Thomas Worrall, special
missionary, Mr. John Williams, &c., &e. The body of
the hall was filled to overflowing.
The Rev. W. F. Taylor, on taking the chair, was
received with loud and enthusiastic applause ; and when
the Rev. Dr. .M'Neile made his appearance, he was hailed
with tremendous cheers.
The CHAIRMAN called on the Rev. S. Minton to
open the meeting with prayer; that rev. gentleman
complied.

The CIIAIRMAS then proceeded to explain the causes
which had led the Rev. J. B. Lowe to come forward on
the present occasion. He next proceeded to read a letter
addressed to the Rev. Mr. Anderdon, by Mr. Bennett,
honorary secretary to the Working Men's Branch of the
Reformation Society, informing him that Mr. Lowe in-
tended to controvert the positions assumed by him in his
recent lectures, and inviting him to attend. If, said the
reverend Chairman, we have not the Rev. Mr. Anderdon,
we have at least one valiant champion of the Pro-
testant Church here, and I for one should be most
happy to see Dr. M'Neile and Dr. Wiseman
pitted against each other on this platform. (Loud
cheers.) Before proceeding with the business of the
evening, he would take the opportunity of saying that, as
Protestants, they would have occasion to meet and express
their disapprobation of a new bill which Lord John Rus-
sell had just introduced into Parliament, for the purpose
of altering the oaths taken by members entering Parlia-
ment. By the new law, if passed, it was intended to do
away with the oath of supremacy, and, by a Jesuitical
contrivance, managed to acknowledge the sovereignty of
our Queen de facto, that they could not deny, but,
leaving out any declaration of the legality•of her title.
(Expressions of disapprobation.) They would, he could
assure them, within a few days, have an opportunity of
expressing their determirration to oppose such a bill
(Applause.) Without taking up more of the time of the
meeting, he would call on his friend, the Rev. J. B. Lowe.
The Rev. J. B. LOWE, on rising, was received with
cheers, some little confusion being apparent from the over-
crowding of the house. _ _

The Rev. Dr. IWINTEILE addressed a few words to the
audience, requesting them to use every means for mutual
accommodation, and to secure silence.
The Rev. LECTURER then went on as follows : _ _

I am here this night to reply to a lecture delivered here
last Monday evening, by the Rev. W. H. Anderdon,
formerly a clergyman of the Church of England, but now,
like a few others who prefer shadows to substance, and
forms to realities, a priest in the Church of Rome. In
the outset I wish openly to confess that I find the task of
replying to the gentleman a very difficult one indeed.
You will readily understand this, when I tell you that
there is nothing to reply to ! The lecture was, in this
respect, one of extraordinary ability ; the rev. lecturer was
reading for nearly two hours, and actually succeeded in
occupying so much paper in writing, and so much time in
reading, without using a single argimient. This sovereign
contempt for logic certainly gives him an advantage over
common men,. and reminds one of the philosophical dis-
putant, who, when warmly pressed in controversy, com-
pletely silenced his adversary by exclaiming, " Pooh ! what
of that ? that's all argument !" But what the lecture
wanted in reasoninc, is supplied in wit. The lecturer at
the outset promised that he would afford us amusement,
and in this, at least, we were not disappointed, for amusing
it certainly was ; and when I recall the witty part of his
lecture, you will cease to wonder that one so brilliant in
this important faculty should have been dissatisfied with
the mummeries and old wives' fables of England, and
chosen the enlightened and intellectual system of Rome.
Thus the lecturer favoured us with an amusing picture
of a Protestant worshipper—describing his feelings of
attachment to his Church and his value for Church mem-
bership, the rev lecturer said, with an inimitable sneer,
"He is one of ' the dearly beloved brethren.' " Now
when we remembered that he himself had so often read
these words to his former flock, it did, seem rather curious
that he should thus, by turning to ridicule, teach his
auditory to suppose that he had never used them in sin-
cerity. The lecturer, beyond all question, must have
derived his impressions of Protestant worship from his
own experience, and bearing this in mind, the remainder
of the picture may help us to understand the disclosure of
the announcement. " This Protestant," continued he—
and he appeared to retain a very vivid recollection of the
party, his "dearly beloved" brother—" This man con-
fesses himself a miserable sinner, and then goes home to
criticise the sermon !" We could easily understand the
sensitiveness of the lecturer on this point, and I assure
you he was not mistaken in his intention to afford us
some amusement.
There was another point, too, in his lecture in which,
though unconsciously, he rendered us the same service.
The extract which he read from the Unitarian Witness
to the excellency of Rome, concluded with the words
" a dominant priesthood and an obedient people." This
expression elicited loud shouts of applause from his
auditors. For this the lecturer appears to have been un-
prepared, for he was in a great hurry to offer an explana-
tion of that servile obedience, which he seemed ashamed of
openly confessing. " I must now add," he said, " a word
of explanation. The Catholic does not render a blind
obedience to his priest;, he obeys him because he knows
that his priest is well instructed, and, also, that if his
priest should teach him what is false he would be easily
brought to account for it." It was certainly remarkable
that a statement which the lecturer thought to require
this explanation should have been received with such un-
compromising assent before the explanation was offered.
It certainly appeared that the explanation was unneces-
sary—the applause came a little too promptly—it let out
the truth more plainly than was desired. The auditory
confessed their obedience to be of that very uninquiring
character which the lecturer was unwilling to avow. This
also was not without amusement to a looker-on. The
explanation itself, too, deserves attention. The Romanist
obeys his priest, because he knows that his priest may be
depended on ! But how can he be sure of this ? Oh ! if
his priest is wrong he is easily brought to account. This
I utterly deny ; but admitting it to be true, I ask, must
not the papist know his priest to be wrong before he- can
cause him to be thus brought to account ? must he not
know this ?—must he not, at least, suspect it ? and, if so,
I ask, on the one hand, where is the practical use of that
pretended infallibility ? and, on the other hand, I ask,
where is the necessity for it, if, after all, a papist may use
his own information independent of his priest ? Is not
this, after all, the right of private judgment ? Is not
this exactly the Protestant—the scriptural view of the
office of Christian ministers, " not as having, dominion
over your faith, but as helpers of your joy ?" The truth
of the matter is, the account of the Unitarian was correct,
and the auditors were not mistaken in approving it. But,
however this may be, it was not unsuggestive of amuse-
ment. In fact, there was so much of an amusing charac-
ter in the lecture that the lecturer thought it needed an
apology. He gave one accordingly, to this effect—" The
Catholic," he said, " has so many sacred things, that he
can afford to be merry on things not sacred;" i. e. he has
so many holy images, holy pictures, holy bones, and teeth,
and nails, and rags, that he can boa jovial fellow when
these are out of sight. This certainly is a miraculous
work accomplished by the sacred things—their only well
authenticated miracle which I have heard of as yet. These
things are so holy, they have such a power of exercising

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER.

a sacred influence on their worshipper, that they extract
all gravity from him when handling things not sacred !
Such was his apology for affording us amusement, and,
probably, you will agree with me that it was quite consistent
with the rest. I have now done with the amusement, and
wish I could come to hit arguments. I have a vulgar
prejudice in favour of argument, but I shall find it hard
to indulge it on the present occasion; and for this simple
reason—that there is nothing to answer. I listened
attentively to him for nearly two hours, but not a single
argument fell from his lips. I must, then, be content to
do the best I can without them ; and I shall divide my
observations under the following heads :—His assump-
tions—his assertions—his allusions.
1. The great assumption which ran through the whole
was this : that the Church of Rome and the Church of
Christ are one and the same. But this is the very point
that requires demonstration; if the lecturer had proved
this for us, there is not one of us' but would have joined
the Church of Rome at once. This is an old trick of
Popish advocates; they talk of the Church and quote
texts of scripture concerning the Church, and, then
assuming that they are to understand by these words
their own Church, they take all these passages to them-.
selves. Thus they represent those that reject their
novelties and inventions as rejecting the authority of
the Church, whereas no Christian can reject the Church,
while hundreds of millions of Christians agree in reject-
ing the Church of Rome. This assumption ran through
his whole performance ; thus, when in describing the
difference between the Protestant and the infidel, he said
that the one rejected the Word and the other rejected the
Church—what he should have said was, that the other
rejected the Church of Rome. Then, also, he quoted
the well-known texts, " Tell it to the Church, and if
he hear not the Church," &c. Again, " the Church of
God, which is the pillar and the ground of the truth."
But he never condescended to afford a shadow of reason
for supposing that by "the Church," in these passages is
meant the Church of Rome;" but this is the very ques-
tion in dispute between us. Let him justify, if he can,
this assumption • let him give us reason to believe that
the Church of Rome is the Church of Christ, and we will
undertake to seek refuge in the arms of his "warm-
hearted mother " to-morrow.
But why might not a priest of the Greek Church, or
the Abyssinian Church, or the Coptic Church, or the
Armenian Church, or any other Christian denomination do
the same ? Let us suppose the rev. lecturer addressing
himself to an audience at St. Petersburg, where the
claims of churchism are almost as exclusive as his own,
what end would he accomplish by quoting these texts
shout the Church ? They would understand them of the
Greek Church, and with, at least, as ranch reason as the
Church of Rome applies them to herself. If he were to
say, " hear the Church," the Greek priest would rejoin,
"I do hear her ; but you it is who reject her. You
are a sehismatie," he would say, " out off from the