The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-09-20 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SIR,—In the report of the Catholic meeting, held in the
Queen's Theatre on Thursday evening last, your reporter
ascribes certain remarks which I made in reference to
" calumniators then present," to a disposition on my part to
assail " the representatives of the Protestant press."
Allow me to assure you, that the remarks in question had
reference to certain Catholic Marplots, whose names it is
unnecessary to specify. lam not, be assured, of that dicta-
torial class of politicians which would resent with harshness
the strictures of an avowed opponent. It is the unmasked
foe, not the open enemy, whom I despise, and I ever shall
despise.—l am, Sir, your obedient, humble servant,

E. C. GRIFFIN.
5. Surrey-street, Kent-square,
17th September, 1842.
[ln reply to the above we can only say that, whilst fully
crediting Mr. Griffin, we can readily excuse the conclusion
to which our reporter came upon hearing the remarks of that
gentleman. Romanism is not apt to split upon its humblest
members ; and we are convinced that even Mr. Griffin, much
as he may despise " the Marplots," masked or unmasked,
of whom he speaks, dare not denounce them " by name !"
Our columns are open if he likes to try the experiment.—

ROMISH CONTROVERSY.

TO THE REV. DR. BUTLER

SIR,—Yon have been so long accustomed to teach your
people to strike out God's second commandment from their
catechisms, that I ought not to be surprised at your disregard
of his ninth commandment in your practice. Yes, sir, the
man who is bold enough to teach men to bow down to images,
in defiance of the commands of his God, could not be very
scrupulous about bearing false witness against his neighbour.
I feel called upon thus publicly to rebuke your misstate-
ment that I had spoken from my pulpit, of your removal
fiss m a Romish chapel in Liverpool. I would deem such an
act a desecration of that holy place.
You were also much mistaken in my supposed exultation
at your departure from Liverpool. 1 look upon your con-
tinued residence there an advantage to Protestant truth.
The members of the true Catholic Church in Liverpool
have in you, sir, a proof that Romanism is afraid of the
light. You have shrunk from a controversy with a person
whom you describe as the most incompetent of the Protes-
tant clergy in Liverpool.

It is now fifteen months since I deprived you of that ex-
cuse, for you will remember that I offered to submit to be
publicly examined by you in the learned languages, in theo-
logy, and church history, PROVIDED YOU WOULD SUBMIT
TO A SIMILAR TEST FROM ME.

I well knew that the education of an Irish Romanist at
Maynooth would not enable him to undergo such a test of
his competency.
Having therefore set at rest this question, I rejoice to find
that you have again come forward with a challenge. I hope,
sir, it will not be followed by a second retreat on‘your part.
I find by the public prints that you declared, at the Queen's
Theatre, on Thursday last, that you were ready, "
siugle-
handed, to meet tour-and-twenty Protestant parsons in de-
fence of any truths of the Catholic religion."
Now, sir, as a Protestant parson, I accept that challenge,
and beg to submit again to your consideration the letter ad-
dressed to you by me in November last.
Your people have again an opportunity of seeing the sin-
curity of your professions; and also. what is of much
greater importance, an opportunity of seeing that a Roman
priest could not venture to meet a true Catholic priest in
the arena of fair and candid discussion.
I can most truly assure you, that I have no exultation at
your fall, and that had I the opportunity, I would gladly
show you that I have no other feelings towards you than
those which arise from the love of Christ.-1 remain, sir,
your obedient servant,

JOSEPH BAYLEE.

Parkfield, Birkenhead,
Sept. 19, 1842.

TO TOE REV. DR. BUTLER.

Stit,—A respectable Roman Catholic bookseller called on
a friend of mine, stating that you had declared to him your
readiness to meet me, and undertook to bring a written
message to me to that effect. He again called on my friend on
Monday last, and said that von had refused to write it, hut
that you commissioned him to say that you were willing,
upon certain conditions, to meet me.
I take this method of inquiring whether you really gave
that message. If so, my address is " Parkfield, Birkenhead,"
and a letter will at any time find me.
I beg again to repeat my readiness publicly to bring to the
test of God's holy Word the doctrines of Ronianism. You
have written two volumes professing to prove the " TRUTHS
OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION FROM SCRIPTURE ALONE."
I have carefully read those volumes, and I have already
publicly shewn, in four lectures, that you have eminently
failed in proving the peculiar doctrines of the- Romish
Church to have any foundation in Scripture.
I now again, sir, call upon you to meet me in the presence
of your people, and to bring to the test of Scripture the
following Ronaish doctrines :

I. THE WORSHIP OF THE HOST.
Romanism teaches that the host is to be worshipped as
God.

Have we precept or example in the New Testament for
the worship of the host?
2 THE SACRIFICE OF THEM ASS FOR THE DEAD.
Romanism teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass is an
offering propitiatory for the sins of the dead.
Where is this taught in the New Testament ? Do we
read any where of Christ or his Apostles making an offering
for the dead ?
3 JUSTIFYING FAITH.

Romanisrn pronounces the man accursed who believes
that justifying faith is nothing else but a confidence in the
Divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake.
Where does Scripture pronounce that curse ? Did Christ
or his Apostles teach that it is a damnable heresy to trust
alone in God's mercy through Christ ?
4. ELECTION 7'o EVERLASTING LIFE.
Romanism pronounces the man accursed who believes
himself to be in the number of the elect.
Where is that curse pronounced in Scripture?
5. SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.
The Bishop of Rome claims supreme authority over the
whole Church, as the successor of St. Peter.
Where does Scripture teach us that St. Peter was ever
Bishop of Rome ; or that he conferred any prerogative upon
the Roman See?
V. IMPURITIES OF THE CONFESSIONAL.
Roinanism teaches that priests should ask females abomi-
nable and indecent questions, at confession; and that females
must not shrink from conversing in the most indelicate man-
ner with unmarried priests.
Where does Scripture teach auricular confession, or com-
mand Christian Ministers to pollute the female members of
their churches by filthy conversation?
I invite you, sir, to come forward and bring these doctrines
to the test of God's word. I have the authority of that word
for saying that, if you really believe them, and if you have
learned them from the Scriptures, you will not refuse to do
so. if you continue to hold back, it is not uncharitable to
say that to you are applicable the words of our Lord :
" EVERY ONE THAT DOETH EVIL HATETH THE LIGHT,
NEITHER COMETH TO THE LIGHT, LEST HIS DEEDS SHOULnD
BE REPROVED." If vou continue to hold back, you and
your brethren will find that Romanists in the light of Pro-
testant England, are a very different class of persons from
Romanists in an Italian parish. They will think. They
are reading my letters. Two thousand copies of my last
letter to you have been circulated amongst them.
This one will also be widely diffused ; and, by the blessing
of God, many of them will be induced to do what you refuse
to do. They will search the Scriptures, and find in them
that Catholic truth pronounces Romanism a heresy, denying
the true Gospel of Christ; and, by the blessed Saviour's
grace, they will hear his voice—" COME OUT OF HER,
MY PEOPLE, THAT YE BE NOT PARTAKERS OF HER
PLAGUES."
Excuse my plain speaking. I write in the presence and
the fear of God. He knows that I write with no unkind
feelings towards you or towards any man. I hate your
errors ; I love your person, and mourn over the ruin which
impends over your soul, when you shall have to answer at
the judgment seat of Christ for your false teaching.
I remain, Sir,
Your faithful servant in Christ,
JOSEPH BAYLEE.
Par; jield, Birkenhead, Nov. 18, 1842.

A pretented wit went one morning to the House of Rub,
hieres in order to read two tales of his own composition.
After having heard the first, and before the author could take
the second sheet out of his pocket, Rulhieres said to him,
" 1 like the other best."
Ex ENIPLARY RESIGNATION.—The fosterer answered with
you
a sigh. " Why," continued the ratcatcher,o
with
married, like myself, you couldn't be much more
an? Can miserable.t
you
Arrali ! what the plague has come over you
Yu ro
take things aisy, like me? Havn't I left
behind, and ve see T bear like a C__°hriatian."—Hector
an affectionate wife
0' Holloratt.

MANSLA:IJG TITER, AT

On Tuesday last an inquest was held
at the house of Mr. Priest, the Griffin, a,
the body of Brian Lerner, an Irish lab(
- 7:—
occurred under the circumstances relate t _oky.
evidence, which was adduced before the coroner an :
: William Larner stated,—The deceased was my brother.
We both came over to England to get work in the harvest ;
but I came before my brother. We were returning home
last Sunday morning, and went into a public-house a little on
the other side Warrington, kept by the prisoner, Joseph An-
drews, now present. Besides mvself and my brother there
were six othors. We called for a quart of ale, and drank it
amongst us. By some means or other the jug and glass were
broken---1 believe by Patrick M'Cue.' There was some
quarrelling took place amongst ourselves about paying for
them. The glass was paid for, and before we could pay for
the jug the police came in. He struck Michael M'Cue more
than once. My brother also got up. and the police struck
him with his staff somewhere about the head ; and then the
prisoner (the landlord) took up the kitchen poker, and
struck the deceased on the top of the bead with it, and
knocked him down. My brother begged that the landlord
would not kill him. This took place some time after 12
o'clock. My brother lay a short time on the form where he
fell, and then he got up, and I went out with him. I turned
back into the house for the sickles, and the police followed
me out, and again struck my brother between the shoulders
with his staff, and also kicked his breech. We then walked
through Warrington, and when we got over the Sankey
Canal deceased asked me to let him rest, as he was killed by
the poker. J let him rest, and smoked a pipe whilst he slept.
Blood came out of his mouth and nose as he rested. I let
him remain abeut half an hour, and then wished him to go
on, but at that time he could neither stand nor speak. I
therefore took him on my back and carried him to a building
near Bold Heath, where I placed him upon some straw. He
never spoke afterwards, but lingered until about 11 o'clock,
when he died. The hat now produced is the one which my
brother wore. It is cut at the top, and is much marked in-
side with blood. lam quite certain that the prisoner is the
person who struck my brother with the poker.
The above evidence was corroborated in every particular
up to the time that deceased and his brother left Warrington
by two of the other Irishmen who were present.
There were two persons besides the policeman produced as
witnesses on behalf of the prisoner, and who were in the
house at the time.
Thomas Makin stated that he helped the policeman to get
the Irishmen out, as there was a row amongst them. That
he never saw the landlord in the room, and never saw him
strike any one. " I did not see any one knocked down. I
had a poker in my hand, but I never struck any one with it."
Thomas G bson was in the house when the row began.
Saw the Irishmen laying on the policeman with their sticks,
and he was defending himself with his staff. "The landlord
left the kitchen before I did, but I do not know where he
went to. I never saw any one with a poker::
The third witness on the pant of the landlord was George
Kaye, police constable 103, who stated—l was fetched by
Joseph Andrew's daughter, on Sunday. Found the Irish-
men lighting with their sticks in the tap room. Asked them
to desist. One of them stepped forward and struck me on
my hat. Others struck me before I could get my truncheon
out. I then struck at them. I did not see any other per-
son strike at them. I never saw Joseph Andrews (prisoner)
in the room. When the scuffle was over I saw one of the
Irishmen sitting in the corner on a form. He got up, and
took my hand, and said he did not blame me, as it was all
their own fault. One of them gave me sixpence for the
broken jug. One had a bloody head. I never kicked or
struck any one outside the door. After the men were gone
" I heard Thomas Makin [the first witness called for the
prisoner] say that he hit one on the head with a poker, and
he fell, and then he hit another on the shins, who also fell.
This he said of his own accord, in the presence of William
Gerard, Thomas Dibson, and others. 1 never saw any one
with a poker at all."
Mr. Blundell, surgeon, of St. Helen's, made a post neon-
tem examination, and proved. the nature and extent of the
injury received by the deceased ; that the wound on his head
was sufficient to cause death; and that it was his (Mr. B.'s)
opinion that if deceased had had immediate medical aid he
could not have recovered.

After hearing the evidence, of which the above contains
the principal part, the gentleme❑ composing the jury were
locked up for three hours, when they returned a verdict of
manslaughter against Joseph Andrews, who was consequently
committed to take his trial for the offence.
The prisoner is the landlord of the Dog and Partridge pub-
lic-house, at Poulton, near Warrington.

`~@
';~,~
a
1

'll
mot:
("7-7
:
bror-.4111:.; :T. X
atd3
)otigerkwl )-‘ ‘•fil Cr
ed in fbC