The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-05-13 00:00:00

members.—Ultimately the subject was referred back without a
division.

Mr. BrotiAm then moved that so much of the proceedings
of the Finance Committee as related to the Dock Trust Bill be
referred back. He made a long speech, in which he attacked
Mr. Bramley-Moore for the course that he had pursued on the
subject, and protested against the Council voting itself incapa-
ble of managing the trust committed to their care. He recom-
mended the Council to leave the bill now before parliament to
the chapter of accidents—trust to an approaching dissolution
of parliament, by which they might obtain a Government less
squeezable than the Whigs—and leave the American Chamber
of Commerce to carry their bill as they pleased ; if unsuccess-
ful, to pay their own costs.—The motion being seconded, Mr.
PARKER, in very energetic terms, repudiated Mr. Bigham's
imputation that those who voted for the suspension of further
opposition to the Dock Bill now before parliament were betray-
ing their trust; and, in a very spirited style, castigated Mr.
Bighorn for the assertions he had made. He also, in a telling
and sarcastic manner, alluded to the power which Mr. Bighorn
and his party would have in London. either in the Corn nons
or the Lords, should they go up to oppose the bill. He thought
it desirable that the solicitor of the American Chamber of
Commerce should be associated with the Dock Committee in
coming through the measure.—Mr. LITTLEDALE explained
why Mr. Duncan was associated with the Dock Solicitor in the
matter, and showed that double expense would be avoided by
the arrangement.--Mr. BRAMLEY-MOORE addressed the Coun-
cil with reference to the course he had pursued in the matter,
denied the imputations cast upon him by Mr. Bighorn and
some other members of the Council, and showed, in a very
plain and unanswerable manner, that their only course was to
abide by their former decisions, or else they might get a worse
bill, and at a greater cost.—The Council divided, when there
appeared—For Mr. Bigham's amendment, 21; against it, 31.
After a Fire Police rate of id. in the pound had been passed,
the proceedings of the Dock Committee were being read, when
so many members left that at last there was no Council. and
the MAYOR declared the meeting. adjourned,—Mr. BRAMLEY-
MOORE exclaiming, " Mr. Mayor, this is the way in which
they discuss the brightest gem in the diadem of the Corpora-
tion."

CORRESPONDENCE.

LETTERS FROM THE REV. J. B. LOWE, IN-
CUMBENT OF ST. JUDE'S, TO THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC LECTURER, DR. CAHILL.

The following letters, which have been placed in our
hands, sufficiently explain themselves :

Everton-road, 10th May, 1851

REV. SlR,—The statements which you made yesterday
evening, respecting the Virgin Mary, have .been reported
to me ; and I address you for the purpose of asking whether
you have any objections to bring those statements to the
the test of scripture in public controversy ? To prevent
misunderstanding, I had better plainly—although with no
uncourteous feeling—tell you that I believe, and undertake
to prove, that the principles which are reported to have
been enunciated, are blasphemous in the extreme ; and,
the honour which you ascribe to the Virgin, is as grossly
idolatrous as any worship practised amongst the Heathen.—
I remain, ray. sir, your obedient servant,

JOSIAH B. LOWE.

Rev. Dr. Cahill

10, Egerton-road, 11th May, 1851.

DEAR SlR,—The gentleman who kindly took my note
of yesterday to you was unable to bring me your reply
until a late hour last night, and, as I have to leave home
to-morrow morning, I am constrained to address you on
the Lord's Day. He has informed me that you object
to (oral) controversy as only calculated to create excite-
ment ; in this you may possibly be correct, and, at all
events, you have a perfect right to your opinion. My
friend tells me that he suggested, as an alternative, a
public correspondence, to which you acceded. This I
had not contemplated ; but I have no great objection to it
if conducted with becoming gravity and due regard to
brevity. _ _

When I asked you whether you were willing to justify
your statement in public controversy, I referred particu-
larly to your assertions that the Virgin Mary was con-
ceived without sin, and therefore was not a sinner !—that
she had a share in the work of our salvation--that her
blood was shed upon the cross—that she shared in the
atonement then made by virtue of participation in our
Redeemer's sufferings—that she, by her presence, deli-
vered John the Baptist from original sin, while yet in his
mother's womb,—and that, consequently, he was born
without sin. You were also reported to have said that
she was " full of grace, that is of divinity ;" this last
expression, however, I understand you repudiate, and I
only mention it to shew how liable even the teachers
of an " infallible" church are to be misunderstood, and
consequently how highly important it is that all hearers
should be infallible, if they are dependent upon their
teachers for salvation.

Such statements as those which I have quoted above
were, what I characterised as, in my opinion, " blas-
phemous in the extreme," and which I, in all kindly
personal feeling, invite you to justify from Scripture. I
would be obliged, farther, by your telling me whether it
is now necessary to salvation that we should believe in
this immaculate conception ? also, if it be a matter of so
much consequence, how it came to pass that your " infal-
lible" church should have left it undecided for so many
centuries ? and how could she have been acceptably wor-
shipped—(alas ! that she should be worshipped at all by
those calling themselves Christians)—when but a dispa-
raging opinion was entertained of her by so many—the
vast majority of her worshippers ? Again, allow me to
ask you, are " the fathers" unanimous in maintaining
this doctrine? If they are, how is it that your church
has not hitherto taught it as an article of faith, and so
many of your teachers have denied it ? If they are not,
how can you venture to teach it now—you who have made
a solemn oath never to interpret Scripture except accord-
ing to that unanimous consent ?

Hoping for the favour of a reply at your earliest conve-
nience, and begging you to accept my thanks for the
politeness with which you received my friend, who called
upon you, _

rreniain, reverend and dear sir, faithfully yours,
JOSIAH B. LOWE

Rev.- Dr. Cahill,

[Mr. Lowe deserves, and will no doubt receive, the
warm thanks of the Protestant people of Liverpool, for
his readiness and faithfulness in exposing the extraordi-
nary statements put forth by this boasted champion of
Rome.]