The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-14 00:00:00

LAST OP. THE COURSE OF LECTURES ON' THE'

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, FRIDAY.—ExPARTE BARBA'
v. ARNAITI.D.—Mr. . Erie moved for a rule to show cause
why a mandamus should not issue, commanding Mr. Arnauld,
the collector of the customs at Liverpool, to deliver to the
applicant, free of duty, a quantity of foreign wheat which
he claimed underthe following circumstances :—The legis-
lature had agreed to a bill to regulate the importation of
foreign corn, and to impose a new scale of duties upon such
corn. That act (5 Vic. sess. 2, v. 14), received the royal
assent on Friday, the 29th of April, and under its provisions
former corn laws were repealed and new directions made
as to the taking of averages. These were to be certified on
the Thursdays in each week. Between the date of Friday,
the 29th of April, and the following Thursday, no certificates
showing the amount of duty to be levied upon the importa-
tion of foreign corn could be made out. A cargo of foreign
wheat arrived at Liverpool for the applicant in the interval
between these two days ; and as the new statute had repealed
all the old acts on the very day of its passing, and as no
authorised certificate could be issued tillthe following Thurs-
day, he claimed to have his wheat delivered to him duty-free.
The collector of customs, however, refused to deliver it, on
the general ground that the legislature never intended corn
to enter duty-free in this manner, and this application had,
therefore, become necessary to decide the question. This
particular course of applying for a mandamus would not
have been resorted to, but that it appeared that the decision
of this court on a former occasion, that an action would lie
against a collector of customs for a breach of the revenue
laws, was now about to be questioned in the Court of Com-
mon Pleas, or by writ of error ; and, therefore, the applicant
came to this court for a mandamus, that his rights might not
be prejudiced merely on account of the delay. The court
said that oftourse his rights would not now be prejudiced
by delay, but at present the rule need not be granted. Rule
refused accordingly.
UNFOUNDED CHARGE.—At the police-court, on Friday,
a respectable young female, named Hannah Farraday,
daughter of a publican, was placed at the bar, charged with
having feloniously possessed herself of a £1 note, the pro-
perty of a man named William Rafferty. The complainant,
a big forward fellow, said that he and some of his compa-
nions had, on the previous day, gone into Mr. Farraday's
public-house, in Waterloo-road, and had each something to
drink. A dispute arose as to the payment for the glasses
they had drunk, and it was finally agreed that each should
pay for his own. The prisoner asked him for payment of
his, and (as he alleged) he pulled out and gave her a 30s.
country note, with which a£l note was wrapped up. She
gave him the change out of the 30s. note, and kept the other,
requiring also to be paid for what she would have to give for
exchanging the note for coin. Ile then said lie would get
the note passed without paying anything, and gave her halt-
a-crown, when the 30s. note was returned, but not the other,
and she gave him the change out of the half-crown. He then
had her taken into custody. The prisoner told a straight-
forward and very different story. 'Thinking he was going
without paying, she demanded her money, and he tossed
down the 30s. note in a passion, but no other. She imme-
diately returned it on his giving her half-a-crown, and for
which she gave him the ful change. He then accused her
of stealing a£l note; but she declared there was no such
note with the other, nor had she seen it, and she herself,
smarting under the accusation, sent for the police, as there
was no male in the house to take her part, and she submitted
her drawers and her person to be searched by the officer, who
found nothing. An officer stated that the complainant had
admitted to him that he had changed the £1 note before !
Mr. Rushton said he believed the complainant had no £1
note with him, and that the prisoner, a respectable young
woman, had been most wrongfully given into custody. He
reminded the complainant tha that was not the first occasion
on which he had preferred false charges against innocent in-
dividuals, and warned him to be cautious how he repeated
to
such conduct. With respect the
imputation whatever
prisoner, she
on
wouldlr
e
leave the court without any
character. The complainant was very urgent to defend I'm
self, but Mr. Rushton ordered aim out of court. Theil .-pri-
soner was then discharged.
Mr. C. R. DUNCAN.—This gentleman, who is a son of the
late Capt. Duncan, R.N., of Holyhead, was—it will be in
the remembrance of
,many of our readers—for several voy-
ages first officer of The Liverpool" transatlantic steam-
ship, of this port (now "The Great Liverpool," one of the
Mediterranean mail-ships) ; afterwards first officer of the
ill-fated " President" steam-ship (both of them commanded
by Lieut. Fayrer; R.N., now of '"rhe Forth," West Indian
mail-ship) ; and subsequently
.1 first officer of one of the
Halifax and Boston line of mai ships ; and his friends in
this quarter will be glad to learn_ that
oh_e has been appointed
acted, since'
to the command of ofewohfiethhe Wheesthladdiaelsrooyal mail ships
" The Solway," .3.
, as first officer. Captain Dun-
she was
Dun-
can and spirited young man, during his
comparatively short career as a seaman, has saved the
lives of a considerable number of indioul vidu
dals, w
rho,
ished but for
his manly and generous exertions, w have pe in
" the briny deep." Conjointly with another gallant " vo-
lunteer." he saved a man from the Liverpool, who had fallene
overboard far from the land, in the Atlantic ocan, when t
was running high, and when the danger was most imminent.
In presence of the writer of this, he saved the lives of two
men belonging to "the President," in July twelve months,
in the dead of night, in Kingstown harbour. The gold
medal of the Shipwreck and Humane Society of this tow
was awarded to him for his gallantry on this occasion, and
on
a
silver snuff box was also subscribed for by the gentlemen
board, and presented to him. with a suitable inscription and.
device, shortly after the arrival of the vessel here. We f
assured, that not only our townsmen, but our countrymen
generally, will be gratified to learn that Mr. Duncan's
merits are now appreciated, and that he has obtained the
ommand of one of the finest (if difference there be) of the
splendid Liao of \Vat India Steam-rabiPs•

CREED OF POPE PIUS THE FOURTH.

The twelfth and last of the course of lectures on the twelve
novel articles of the creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, was de-
livered on Friday evening last, in the Music-hall, Bold-street,
by the Rev. Hugh M`Neile. Every part of the room was
crowded almost to suffocation. On the platform we observed
a great number of the principal clergy and gentry of the
town.

Mr. MIDDLETON Lavin.- been called to the chair, the pro-
ceedings commenced with the offering of prayer by the Rev.
J. IL Connor, minister of St. Simon's church.
Mr. M'NEILE then stepped forward, and the enthusiastic
cheering with which he was saluted having ceased, he spoke
nearly as follows :—Sir, I think it must be obvious to every
man of even common discernment, that there exists now iu
our community a disposition to quiescence, that, after being
kept in a state of agitation for many years under a govern-
ment who were not their own masters, and who therefore
were not to be trusted, the country is disposed now to enjoy
rest muter a strong and independent government. (Hear.)
Politically speaking, we rejoice that this is so, and partake
of this rest; but, sir, while this change has taken place in
the things that are seen, no change has taken place in the
relative importance of the things that are not seen. (Hear.)
And if we he asked why, while we acknowledge this disposi-
tion to quietness, we persevere in agitating the Roman Ca-
tholic
controversy, our answer is given in the language of an
apostle, " we having received the same spirit of faith, ac-
cording as 'it is written, I believed, and therefore have I
spoken ; we also believe, and therefore speak." (Hear.)
'We believe the Gospel, the Gospel of the grace of God, in
all its direct majesty and in all its exclusiveness, as the way
of human salvation. Sir, all that is distinguishing in Roman-
iSni is comparatively novel ; all that Romanism holds, or
professes to hold, of primitive Christianity is not distin-
guishing, for we hold it also. (Hear, hear, hear.)
In the course of lectures now to be concluded, attention
has been called to the peculiarities of Romanism, not as they
are described by interested or prejudiced opponents, but as
they are cautiously enumerated in the successive clauses of
the creed of Pope Pius the Fourth. It is not my intention
to attempt to retrace the steps of any of my predecessors in
this course, or to reiterate arguments already well and suffi-
ciently urged ; but to call attention at once to the distin-
guishing features of the last article in that creed, entrusted
to my care. In the printed list for this course, the article
in question is thus given :
" XII.—I, N. N., do at this present freely profess and
sincerely hold this true Catholic faith, without which no one
can be saved : and I promise most constantly to retain and
confess the same entire and inviolate, with God's assistance,
to the end of my life."
This is given as the last clause of the creed of Pope Pius
the Fourth ; but there is a mistake here. The article is
mutilated, and an important clause is suppressed. (Hear,
hear.) This is a very grave charge; but, wherever the fault
may be, this is the fact, that this article, so given in the
printed list circulated as our notice for these lectures, is not
correctly given. 1 repeat it is mutilated, and an important
clause suppressed. (Hear.) Whose fault is this? Ido not
think that any fault attaches to the gentleman or gentlemen
who prepared this list. They took the article as they found
it translated into English in both Roman Catholic and Pro-
testant writers; no fault, therefore, attaches to them. I
think some fault does undoubtedly attach to those Protestant
writers who have given the article in a mutilated form. At
the same time, there is some degree of excuse for them.
They found it so given in Roman Catholic books ; and, con-
scious of their own fidelity in transcribing documents, they
were willing, as all honest men always are, to give credit to
their opponents for the exercise of a similar conscientious-
ness. (Hear.) But what excuse shall be made for the Ro-
man Catholic writers who have thus printed their own creed
in a mutilated form ? (Hear, hear.) Mr. Charles Butler,
the most distinguished of modern Roman Catholic contro-
versialists in England, has given it thus in his " Book of
the Roman Catholic Church," as may be seen upon the Bth
page of that book. Messrs. Berrington and Kirk, two Roman
Catholic priests, who published a condensed controversial
manual entitled " The Faith of Catholics," have given it in
the same mutilated form, as may be seen on the 454th page
of their book. (Hear, hear.)
It becomes my duty now to supply the suppressed clause.
I have the original Latin in my hands, and I will read it
first in that language, and then give you a translation of it.
The suppressed clause is this :
" Atque a meis subditis vel ills, quorum cura ad me in
munere meo, spectabit, teneri, doceri et priedicari, quantum
in me erit, curaturum.
" Ego, idem, N. spondeo, voveo, ac juro : sic me Deus
adjuvet, et hsec sancta Dei Evaugelia."
The English of this is :
" And to take care, as far as in me lies, that it [that is,
the faith] shall be held, taught, and published, by my sub-
jects, or by those the care of whom shall appertain to me in
my office.
" This I, N., do promise vow and swear, so help me God,
and these holy Gospels of God."
We shall see that this is no unimportant clause; and we
shall see also too palpable, and, under the circumstances,
too tempting reasons for the suppression of it.
First, however, I call your attention to the former part of
the article, as given in the printed list :—" I, N. N., do at
this present freely profess and sincerely hold this true Ca-
tholic faith, without which no one can be saved." Now it
is not to libel this statement to say, that it declares that
there is no salvation for any man who does not hold all
the preceding articleS of this creed. (Hear, hear.) The
" true Catholic faith " referred to in the last article•
comprehends all the preCeding articles. The charge against
the statement is this, that it declares there is no salvation
for any man who does not hold all the preceding articles of
that creed; and this I venture to call the climax of Rome's
direct offence against God and man. To make the nature
of this offence clear to you, it will be necessary to make a
few important distinctions ; and first—this creed avowedly
makes ADDITIONS to what is alleged to be contained in
holy scripture. This it does by binding on its disciples in the
first article " apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions," and
in the eleventh article " all the sacred canons and general
councils." Omitting, therefore, for the present, the limita-
tion which it places upon the reception of scripture in the
second article refusing to receive it, unless " in accordance
with the unanimous consent of the fathers,"—that is, in
fact, refusing to receive it at all, for it is held in abeyance
until the unanimous consent can be found, an 4 unanimous
consent cannot be found—(cheers)—but omitting this for
the present, omitting also the erroneous interpretation of
many parts of Scripture which are dogmatically assumed in
the other articles of the creed, I consider simply now the ad-
ditions to Scripture avowedly here introduced, traditions,
canons, and councils. (Hear.) Concerning all these, it is
here declared, that without a belief of them, no man can be
saved.
Now that a belief in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ,
God and man, is indeed indispensable to salvation, is a great
truth, and it is no offence to say it. Our Saviour himself
said it ; his inspired apostles said it ; his orthodox church,
and we as a portion of it say th'e same when we read his
Gospel, and when we read the Athanasian Creed. The
Church of Rome in professedly retaining that creed, says
the same. Here, then, there is no controversy between us.
In declaring that the Gospel of God, as revealed in the word
of God, must be believed for salvation, we are but repeating
upon earth what God himself has declared from heaven ;
therefore, it is disingenuous in Roman Catholic controver-
sialists, as it is unreasonable and unfair in itself, to attempt
to put the declaration of the Athanasian Creed concerning
what is in Scripture upon a par with this declaration' in the
creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, concerning what is avowedly
not in Scripture. (Hear, hear.)
Another distinction must be made. Additions to Scrip-
ture are of a twofold character: first, things not forbidden
in the Scripture, and, consequently, in themselves indiffer-
ent ; and secondly, things forbidden, and consequently
unlawful. An example of the first may be supplied in the
wearing of a surplice, or the use of a liturgy ' • an example
of the second in bowing down to an image. (Hear.) The
first I call indifferent, for Scripture leaves them untouched ;
they are not forbidden. The second I have called things
unlawful, for Scripture forbids them. Now I call attention
to the first—things indifferent; and I ask you to consider
the use that may properly be made, and the use that ought
not to be made of additions to Scripture in things indifferent.
For any church in any country to add to the general princi-
ples laid down in Scripture, special regulations and special
ceremonies of her own, for her own management and her
own order, and to declare that compliance with these regu-
lations is indispensable towards participation in her commu-
nion—this is no offence at all. This is no more than any
voluntary society among men has a right to do, holding out
special advantages and prescribing special conditions ; and
this any particular church has a right to do. This the church
at Jerusalem did, the church at Alexandria, and the church at
Antioch, and this the Church of England does. To the general
principles contained in Scripture, she adds, of things indiffe-
rent, a variety of regulations for her own order, and her
own management, and she requires compliance with them all
as indispensable to communion with her. These need not
be always and in every church the same. The 34th article
of our church says, " At all times they have been diverse,
and may be changed according to the diversities of countries,
times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained
against God's word." And again " Every particular or na-
tional church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish
ceremonies or rites of the church ordained only by man's
authority , so that all things be done to edifying." This is
the use which may properly be made of additions to Scripture
in things indifferent. (Hear.) But now, mark, if any church
in any country pronounces that compliance with such things is
indispensable, not only towards communion with her but also
towards salvation with God, then she is guilty of an awful
offence, for then she presumes to elevate her private and
local regulations into a parallelism of authority with the word
of God. (Hear, hear, hear.) Of this offence the Church of
England would be guilty if she declared that a faith, com-
prising her articles, her catechism, her homilies, was neces-
sary to salvation ; and of this offence the Church of Rome is
guilty when she says, in this creed, that a faith comprising
her traditions, her canons, her councils, is necessary not only
to communion with her, but to salvation with God. (Hear.)
Thus, even if we were to grant, which we cannot do, but if we
were to grant, that the preceding articles of this creed contain
nothing opposed to Scripture but only additions in things in-
different, and that, as such, they might fairly be required by
the Church of Rome for communion with herself; yet even
then to pronounce, as she has pronounced, and required all
her disciples to pronounce upon oath in this creed, that they
are indispensable to salvation with God, is a daring offence.
Even supposing it were things indifferent, observe, her de-
claration, even so, would be a daring offence against the ma-
jesty of God's written word. (Cheers.)
But this is not all. Now, look at the other species of
additions to Scripture which are unlawful. For any church
in any country to add to the general principles of Holy Scrip-
ture special regulations of her own, for her own management
and her own order, involving things unlawful—that is, things
forbidden by the divine word, and for that church to require
compliance with them as indispensable towards her own com-
munion, this would be a grievous offence. It would resemble
the guilt of an illegal society among men, holding out special
supposed advantages but prescribing conditions condemned
by the law of the land. No loyal and true subject of the
realm, properly instructed in the laws of his country, and in
the requirements of such society, could become a member of
such society. (cheers.) This is what the Church of Rome
has done—enacting as indispensable towards communion
with herself what the King of Heaven has forbidden and
condemned—as the use of images in worship for instance, and
no loyal and true subject of the kingdom of heaven, properly
instructed in the laws of his God and in the requirements of
that church, can belong to that society. (Loud cheers.)
One step more. Concerning unlawful things, enacted in
verbatim hostility and daring defiance to the law of God,
the Church of Rome declares, not only that they are indis-
pensable towards communion with her, but indispensable
towards salvation with that God whom she is thus outraging.
Engaged in systematic rebellion against the great Sovereign,
she denounces the everlasting, anger of the Sovereign against
all who have not joined her rebellion. (Cheers.) This is
what I have ventured to call the climax of Rome's direct
offence against God and man. (Hear.)
To see this offence in its true light, and see the full extent
of its heinousness, we must look in contrast to the majesty
and exclusiveness of inspiration. (Hear, hear.) " All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God;" and is, therefore,
immeasurably separated from every tradition and every com-
position of man, however excellent, however wise. (Heat,
hear, hear.athne,
y and,ah o
hear.) Scripture is not the word of prophets, and
patriarchs, and apostles; it is the word which God spake by
the i mouth of those holy men. Those men were not left to
a luni
um u
t he re!:
.r e ,
They
ef
ya fallible
the voice
choice i ine r selecting
voices
of theth the
words
infallible thinker and speaker • they were " the pens of the
rs
se
ready writer." True it is, indeed, that they were not ma-
s e thatan d H pense worksare ; bwuitt
with each
hw
accordingor k s with
cchreinateuseir creatures
e dicerssame
senses,n
to the constitution of its nature. True it is that the sacred
writers exercised the abilities of their own minds and judg-