The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-09-10 00:00:00

Committee of Privy Council, Lord Lyttleton; 'it seems,
was invited to the great Church meeting held a few weeks
since at St. Martin's Hall, but declined taking part in the
proceedings. His chief motive, be says, was founded
upon a fact which in his view has hardly been sufficiently
dwelt upon, though it has been adverted to by Dr. Putty,
Mr. kehle, Archdeacon Hare, and others, namely, that
there exists the most grievous amount of misunderstand-
ing about the meaning of certain theological terms irrc'olved
in the question in debate, in consequence of which many
persons suppose that they differ when in fact they _
substan-
tially agree. Rather than recommend a separation from

the Church, Lord Lyttleton recommends a reconciliation
between the two conflicting parties, but wishes it to be
understood that he implies nothing as 'to the exact time
and manner in which the Church is bound to act upon
the questions at issue—points on which his lordship
thinks somewhat rash statements have been made by emi-
nent men. His lordship repudiates for the present the
use of the terms " convocation" or " synod," as consti-
tuting meters of detail. He is rather anxious to ascer-
tain in the first instance whether the principle should be
adopted. With reference to a " synod' or'" convocation,"
his lordship says "it is probably the opinion of no one
that either of these bodies, understanding by them, as
relates to their main principle, entirely clerical bodies,
should eventually furnish the precise model of the Church
legisleture which we wish to establish. But especially
with regard to convocation, -it is a question to be argued
whether it, as already existing, should be called into prac-
tical operation with the intention that it should then be
reformed as may seem fit, or whether the attempt should
be made at once to constitute, with legally authorised
functions, such a body as we should wish to see perma-
nently established."
THE SECESSION OF LORD FEILDING.—The fact of the
perversion of Lord Feilding to the Roman apostacy is
confirmed by a letter of his own. Not only is the fact
established, but the reasons which have led to the change
are set forth. That the perversion is complete appears
from the fact of his calling our Church " the so-called
Church of England," and setting forth the Papacy as "the
centre of the unity" of the body of Christ. The reasons
for his secession are given in the following sentences :
" recent events have proved to me the entire absence (in
the Church of England) of a living definite authority in
matters of faith, without which creeds and formularies,
being liable to different interpretations, are mere dead
letters. Such a living, definite authority, conclusive and
infallible, as guided by the promised teaching of the Holy
Ghost, I find alone claimed and alone exercised in the
Church of Rome." "It is a pity," says the Record,
"that this young gentleman should write so inconsider-
ately. Surely he ought to know that the Greek Church,
equally with the Roman, absolutely claims the possession
of a living, definite authority, conclusive and infallible'
in matters of faith. That it receives as an article of faith,
that it derives and exercises this authority from ' the
Holy Ghost.' And that the two Churches, occupying
thus the same ground, which Lord Fending assumes to be
a constituent ingredient of the Church, exercise their high
authority, so derived, in excommunicating one another,
and regarding each the other as accursed ! The apostolic'
succession of each stands'on as satisfactory ground as a
thing of the kind can stand on. Here then we have two
'living, definite authorities, conclusive and infallible,'
each pronouncing the other to be heretical and accursed!"
A correspondent of the Times says, " I charge his lord-
ship with having ignorantly stated as true that which is not
true. Claimed in the church of Rome' must mean
either 'claimed by those in the church of Rome who have
authority to speak in the name of the whole church,'
which is the the same as 'claimed by the church of Rome,'
or claimed by those in the church of Rome who have not
such authority.' It would be absurd to suppose that Lord
Feilding meant to say that he had been led to secede by
an unauthorized claim of infallibility. He must have
meant that ' be found infallibility claimed by the Church
of Rome.' Having ' found' this, he can have no difficulty,
if he have written the truth, in clearing himself from the
charge of having stated an untruth by quoting the act of
the church of Rome which claims infallibility for his
living, definite authority,' which is,: of course, the Pope.
In order to give the most direct contradiction to Lord
Feilding's assertion of what he has found,' I assert that
the church of Rome has never claimed infallibility for the
Pope." The Herald says, " Let us suppose—what is very
probable—that Lord Feilding may have some difficulty in
theology perplexing him to-morrow; and then, practically,
where will his infallible teacher be found? Holy Scripture,
without such an infallible living expounder, he holds to be
a dead letter.' Has his new Church, then, given him
this infallible exposition in any tangible or practical
form ? She has not. Is he, then, to go straight to the
(alleged) occupant of St. Peter's chair for a resolution of
his doubts ? This, plainly, would be impossible, for no
one pontiff, or even a score, could undertake to hear and
answer all the donbts of all believers. Where, then, is the
living expounder? No where will Lord Feilding find
what he wants, save in the poor mortal, be he priest or
bishop, who may happen to be his adviser for the time
being. Practically, the infallibility of the Church is no-
thing more than the infallibility of the priest."