The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-05-20 00:00:00

May 20, ifig

CORRESPONDENCL

THE REV. J. B. LOWE AND DR. CAHILL.

The following further correspondence has taken PlO
between these gentlemen since our last :

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL C0UR1ER.....,,,
Stu,—On this morning two letters from the Rev..11r.47;;;
incumbent of St. Jude's have appeared in the LiverPOtquiS
dard, in reference to alecture delivered by me in St. ii..,500,
Catholic Church. I cannot really conceive how any CO
holding the station and the character of a gentleman,
pen such a palpable and unqualified falsehood.
I did not send a rep.), to his first letter, although he ats.erg
the contrary. I did not receive a second letter from Vie.
his publication conveys; and the doctrine which he Po "
as having been uttered by me is such a shameful fabrics
that one is at a loss to conceive what motive could haY!_:,,,t
duced a clergyman of station to make assertions whichylln
brand him before his fellow-citizens as uttering unpro 021;i"
untruth. In fact, I preached a doctrine precisely the
opposite of what lie has published in the Standard.
• fate.,
If he should send any communication to me in
mean no discourtesy by saying that I shall return his letter
unopened.—Your obedient servant,
D
St. Paul's-square, Liverpool, Tues. Wday, CAlll
May 131'.14, 13.9.

TO TIIE EDIT')RS OF THE LIVERPOOL MERCURY". of
GENTLEMEN,—Owing to absence from home, I lfe`rday,
until this moment seen a letter in the Courier of Y-ebi
bearing the signature of Dr. Cahill, and should feel oblig
jog
your kindly inserting the following remarks upon it, Pretti
that I feel a difficulty in believing that the letter reallY.Foniell
ingly
from Dr. Cahill, its tone and language contrast so str%e tO
with the charitable manner in which he was reported to
have expressed himself towards those who differed froin,o4
unless, indeed, he was in this respect, as much misunder Laval
as it appears he was in regard to his doctrinal statements,
that the expressions really used by the preacher were the
opposite of those attributed to him.
As regards the extraordinary charge of palpable and unClaitt
lified falsehood which the writer thinks it becoming to 111 re.
I have only to say, that the gentleman who waited at til
quest on Dr. Cahill did bring me a reply to the effect statedt
my letter, with an apology from the doctor for not sendin r:
written answer; and I am very unwilling to believe that
Cahill did not commit himself to writing for the convenr,:wr
of making this denial. lamat a loss, also, to understatiglq;
he could affirm that he did not receives second letter from di,
as I paid for a copy of the paper containing the letter, and he
rected it to be sent to him; which, moreover, it Ws. to be
must have received, as his letter to the Courier purport- .bit
an answer to it.* Where does my " publication" convey • a
the doctor received a second letter" from me, unleaS
being itself that very letter which he denies having recel..,, Vsof.
while he pens his observations on it? I will not take a,u,h
tage of this obvious inconsistency, to retort a charge which
better forgot. en than retorted.
And now, in regard to the doctrine which Dr. Cahill 015
,err
reported to have preached, I have only to say that no ferto
than three intelligent and respectable witnesses reporteo
me the statements which I referred to, but which he nom re.
to
pudiates. It is indeed extraordinary that he should bas
preached " precisely the very opposite" to that he was unclog'
stood to have said! How important that his hearers snot
be undeceived,—that they should be informed that Dr. u 8 at
did not preach that the Virgin Mary was not a sinner, but tblibe
she was I—that he did not affirm that she delivered Johnto
Baptist from original sin, but that he denied it in toto a
he really took pains to teach the people that the Virgin " ale
share in our redemption—that she was not a participator in
sufferings of the cross, &c., &c. bit
1 sincerely hope that all Dr. Cahill's hearers will read
Dr&
disclaimer, and understand that he was preaching sound '"-
testant doctrine
That he may always preach "precisely the very opposite °be
t°
what lie is understood to have preached, is a result much to is
wished for by all who value the preaching of " the truth 96
is in Jesus.' —yours,. &c.,
JOSIAH B. LOVV°S

Everton-road, May 15, 1851.
*[The newspapt.r (the Standard) was forwarded to Dr..^th 111
on Tuesday morning, by a special messenger,
written endorsement that it was from the Rev. J. .13.
—lie. L. S.]

The following letter is from the gentleman who III;
veyed Mr. Lowe's first letter to Dr. Cahill, and
think it. sufficiently settles the questions to which it
relates :

r y
" snt,—Will you permit me, through the medium or
o co.
paper, to contradict the statement made by the Rev. pr:. to
hill, in his letter to the Courier of Wednesday, in referenG';a
the challenge sent him by the Rev. J. B. Lowe and chile
that gentleman with 'palpable and unqualified falseitivr,
Dr. Cahill states, sir, `that he did not send a reply'
Lowe's lettr, and that he taught a rine precisely grid
site' to that stated by Mr. Lowe. Now,doc sirt, Dr. Cahill did
a reply (a verbal one), which he begged me to convey to „vie
Lowe, to the following effect—and stated that he would tlB,
sent a written reply by me' but, being engaged with a 0 .
man, he was sorry he could not then do so. He (Dr" —ol4'
declined a public (oral) controversy with Mr. Lowe, as it 'cnt
only cause ill-feeling and excitement; but would acce'did
written discussion through the press, provided each letter ,site
not exceed a column.' And as to the ' precisely oPP;:oe
doctrine' all I can say is that I furnLhed the Rev. J. d ort
with the statements which he ascribes to Dr. Cahill; it ,te,
referring to my notes, I find Dr. Cahill did make those sta
~003 e
mcnts ; and I know three gentlemen who are ready to 401
forward and corroborate those notes. And, moreover,
calledai-
on Dr. Cahill, on Saturday last, with Mr. Lowe s
e.red
lenge, he then repeated to me, at my request, what aPt
pia
to me to be substantially the same doctrine, disclaimin.,,ive§,
the expression ' full of divinity,' of which Mr. Lowe '('),l of
him the advantage. On the manner in which this champ to
Romanism has found it convenient and thought it becova7 to
deal with a straightforward and gentlemanlike challenge' n.
justify his own doctrines, the public will draw its own
elusions. I remain yours respectfully,
gl4.
"S. F. GARDJ.•—

"99, Brunswick road, May 16, 1851.'
In the Journal of Saturday appeared another ler/
abusive letter from Dr. Cahill, to which'it is quite tone•
cessary to give any further publicity. We subjoin a NO'
perate and Christian-like reply thereto, from the Reif"
J. B. Lowe.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STA.
Everton-road, 19th May.-lBsie.his
Dear Sir,—l had some faint hope that Dr. Cahill sYrn.„o-
scurrilous letter to the Courier under the influence of orreiber
tary excitement, and that if he favoured us with any enough
correspondence he might have had candour and decency _ bad
to have withdrawn the unseemly expressions which
,n 7 The
used, and venture a little upon the real ground of debta,%,.t Of
(so called) immaculate conception which formed the souP'-
miatpthia.laa)dpkt i
es tt o
his oration. ~110
I grieve, however, for his sake, and for the sake of litia!
may take him as a sample of a Christian minister, to nai.,etea
lie has inserted in that respectable and honourably,coinT of-
paper, the Journal, of Saturday last, another effusion To !lig
lingsgate, and fearful misrepresent ition, quite equal iines,
former creditable essay. He is much mistaken if he irTteivg;
that his specimens " of logic" and " theology " (1) wii'dia.
me to follow his example, and render " railing for o'oo'.
I sincerey forgive the poor man, and heartily desire his W „i, 1,1
But I must make a few remarks, with your permission, "efin'
letter, and I shall do so with as much forbearanceas then
of the case admits.
i re3.s'is
The doctor is evidently very sore, and perhaps he hail *pot ,
to be so, at not being permitted to continue his osten'one.,
invitations to Protestants, to hear his learned orations
,s 0 tlit
lested; and I am anxious to make allowance for hint;', ail%
score. He is vexed, too, at having been represented 'list IA
preached (as be says) "precisely the very oppcsite" theg.to
did. Well, perhaps, lie may have been benefit ted by e01;1i;
what lie was understood by many to say, and may takeht.te tst
the future to speak more plainly. At all events he oug7i TOP c
glad to have an opportunity of setting himself right, an_iteen.,
have done so, quite as efreclually,'(to say the least,):,:etriboo
getting, so angry and abusive. Apia, he ought to reriie hag
that the questions which I proposed to him (and which ea..,
found it convenient to leave unanswered) had referenceeful.
any of those statements in which there was a jeossibilitY wen, 0,
apprehension, but to tie very subj ct of the serLlte C 240
about which there could be no mistake—the immaGut pa n,
ception—and he is much mistaken if he imagines than onisr;',,
conceal his headlong retreat from either oral or writleilifecti, 000
versy, on this subject, behind the dust of persona 40'
which he has raised. The people will answer there
6 Bt
for themselves if he does not help them. , arig er 1
But Dr. Cahill, being himself so courteous, is very sW co
my want of courtesy, in not waiting for his written actedaf
to
I fancy I might have waited long enough if I had not „i
writing, why did he not venture
him, and Tuesdalrne a
ing, when my challenge was deliveredldaccused him of roMial"'th
shrewdly suspect that if i had
indignantlyD dWI 0
should have been charge. eg t
written reply, I
(Olt he
his verbal message. If he lai r&intdbeedt
wtoeeeno
Saturdaymit hitaraS'O;rai
that I insinuate..q.e dr,
used the words ' for the convenience of making a fa'rae .'",
wretpartesheendtiindesianym,tophra.ve Cahillsaid 4‘amp_rremcissely the very oPP _ that __
Mal," and lie says this with the view of fastening ea,„ flit
two-fold charge of knavery anti falsehood. In replY werait:
he
ef
anayne:y,mersousrucehp, insinuation can be found in it, I vil atafis
assertion, I have only to refer to my letter, and hereby P. 1.0 tem
-morrow. The fact is there is no such instaui-0 €s'
them suit his purpose better. After this "s*PriFti,-cliglii
plies e d
actually there
wasmi s q u( Io
at
eneil mgrieved
words,to haveinr:Aneer et!
honesty and true religion, he proceeds to express his !_,shao ~
tion at my penning, what he is pleased to desginate, faZes ctle
on the Lord's Day 1 ! Iliad yet to learn that lies were ~ to ''..i,
gable on Saturday than they are on Sunday ! According to P!iit
Doctor's theology, which we know ascribes indulgences ions,
vileged times and places, I should have suppose2Lo h&j,
have thought the reverse. "I fear the Church of it',Ve off-
very slender support in the severity of his logic, Or 1" Of
doxy of his theology." ~eo
As for the personalities which concludehis epistle, 111;4'0
to say that it is the first time in my recollection that.att Ito§
man has so far forgotten his patriotism as to ell, ow pid
imagination that an opponent whom he depicts in suc are 0a
colours was a fellow-countryman. Let those Nfl'..°ot.
_..,0
countrymen settle scores with him on this accO.„ gi 5i
greater part of his auditors here are natives of th.,001,0e.
isle," let them tell him what they think of him as ar,'Ac, ',lO
But poor Dr. Cahill is evidently frightened out of 711 at
ology, patriotism, and all. He has met with a hlrelit'e 000
wonder he is alarmed. Well, if the doctor is nervouNapaor
not to come near the haunts of such wild beasts. 1 tile C`;6111
to look sharp, as there are many such on this side of to P., its,
nel. He is going, lam told, on a controversial tour 10_14,
and Manchester, and, if I am not much mistaken' . PANO
danger of meeting with some of them in those quarter!, Tes
cannot occupy my time or your space further with "" aa,
eccentricities.
of 13;310
I shall, please God, give the people the opportunitY_4ol be
ing the truth on the subjects on which he has been IN-tosf, is
and trust that all puerile and irrelevant personalitnor
forgotten, when considering the important question
truth."—l remain, yours &c.,

JOSIAH ).01VS'

10,1117:
TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL .10;
SlR,—Learning of the opening of the Zool°g`97o °lf
dens on the Sunday from advertisement, under cu.dio
arrangement,"—which must prove another uttles°.
for the allurement of the giddy, gay, and the
profane the Sabbath-day,—may I beg of you t°41,01110:1
sertion to a note protesting against this new arrir'devq'd.
which it is hoped you will, as your paper is partlYreligto
to the maintaining, promoting, and defending of J.o*
—Yours faithfully,
Liverpool, 19th May, 1851.

EXTRAORDINARY DESPATCH• gfl•

TO THE EDITOR 017 THE LIVERPOOL S' -4:ho ceid
Sia,—As you mentioned a week or two back•rtoolc,,ls
rity with which the Washington discharged an" .tool,t-
her cargo at Mobile, it may perhaps somewbsttgrefreg
your readers to learn that on her arrival here JO'
despatch was used. She had on board 2320 gobde cote
almost unparalleled short space
which is by far the heaviest of all cotton. BPtheill,otl3°.
menced discharging on the 10th. and finished VI, hourcjg
aTllntleoNs: Washington—(not—is noted for "Cals
and punctual passages, and CaptainWilkie's 81,:1,gt°11lie
consigned to the firm of Messrs-.. Glen en" By
worked by them, anti lumped by Messrs. J. OP/
think, sir, you will allow neither party' lost arli
she must have been well worked by both.
OdfanyinetTeeh: ww,o,
Api