The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-18 00:00:00

LECTURES ON Tilt CREED OF POPE rim

them to take the southern line as the other. In condusion,
he believed it was impossible to do better for the mutual
interests of the two boards than to submit the entire case to

a reference

Mr. Al.sToN thought they had better avoid reading the
corresponthnice. It had nothit.g to do with the substantial
merits of the question, whilst it might tend to raise feelings
of irritation on one side or the other. This meeting wanted
the two boards to act kindly towards each other. (Cries of
" Yes, yes.")

. ,
Mr. BA THBONE repeated that the reading of the corres-
pondence would occupy but a very short time.
Mr. ALSTON was convinced that it would excite un-
pleasant feelings and angry discussion.
Mr. RATnnoNE thought it would have no such result.
Mr. BOOTH BY said that unless Mr. Gill had received in-
structions troin his board since yesterday, he (Mr. Bootliby)
was enabled, fl ow direct communication with Al r. Houlds-
worth' to say that the board had not decided that under all
circumstances they would go to Hunt's Bank. If the Liver-
pool board would entertain the proposal of leasing the line,
that would remove all the grounds for jealousy and anger
that might be presumed to have arisen from the southern
junction, and this company might then entertain the subject of
unt's Bank Junction. If it should result in leasing the line,
it would be a fair thing to let the Leeds company do this ; and
though they might give a preference on engineering grounds
to the southern line, he should be sorry if the proprietors
recommended the directors on no account to go to Hunts-
bank. He thought, therefore, that it was injudicious upon
the part of Mr. Gill, to state that his board would not enter-
tain the subject of the southern line. They had not yet
decided upon the question of a reference, and if they agreed to
it it was possible that the refereee might recommend Hunt's
Bank; brit did Mr. Gill mean to say that his board had
predetermined that they would not entertain the proposal
for a reference? If so, there was an end to discussion.
Now if the two chairmen were to meet, they would agree
upon ulterior measures, end he felt confident that this
would lead to a proper understanding. In the mean time
the proprietors had better avoid the discussion of all sub-
jects which were calculated to irritate the feelings of either
one side or the other. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GILL said he had no idea of being interrogated in
such a manner as Mr. Boothby had interrogated him.
Mr. Boothby had no right whatever so to interrogate him.
Mr. BOOTHBY said he merely wished to know whether
Mr. Gill had any communication from his board later than
yesterday at noon, because he (Mr. Boothby) had then seen
Mr. Houldsworth ?

Mr. GILL repeated that he would not submit to be inter-
rogated by Mr. Boothby in any such manner. He had been
with his board till nine o'clock last night, but he was not to
be questioned about what had been done.
Mr. BOOTHBY.—I merely ask you whether there is a
decision on the part of your board, and a determination that
under no circumstances will they go the southward line.
Mr. GILL.—I never said so.
Mr. BOOTHRY.—Then I beg your pardon. I certainly
understood you to say so.

. -
Mr. GILL.—I said that the directors themselves had not
made such a decision, but that it was the proprietors who
had done so. It is the act of parliament that says so; but
I am not to be interrogated in this way.
Mr. IIARDMAN EARLS.—Did you not say that you had a
report in your pocket which was to be read at some meeting?
That would tell us perhaps.
Mr. GILL.—I have a report, but lam not going to read it,
Mr. Hardman Earle ; no, no.
The CHAIRMAN.—However, we are not going into that
question now.

Mr. GlLL.—When I came down here, I did not intend to
speak at this meeting ; but being the only organ of our board
here, I am bound not to allow this meeting to be deceived.
(Hear, hear.) lam not here to have my report dragged out
of my pocket by Mr. Hardman Earle, or any body else ; no,
no. (Laughter.)
Mr. HARDMAN EARLS.—I am sure I have not the least
wish to drag anything out of your pocket. (Renewed
laughter.)

Mr. GiLL.—Very well; then don't ask me for it

The CHAIRMAN said the directors of this company were in
this position—that they could recommend a better junction
line in Manchester than that which they had the power to
make now. They were willing to submit their case to refer-
ence ; if they found the southern line, which they recom-
mended, was wrong, and that the Hunt's Bank junction was
the right one, their opinions must fall to the ground ; but
until that bad been ascertained they ought to endeavour to
see the gentlemen of the Leeds board, and endeavour to
bring them to see that what the Liverpool board recom-
mended was right. ( Year, hear, hear.)
Mr. BOOTElny.—And you are convinced that the south line
would be the best for them ?
The CHAlRMAN.—Certainly.

Mr. JoHN BARKER said the resolutions which the direc-
tors had prepared pledged the meeting to say that the south
line was the best. Now, it would render an adjustment with
the Leeds company much easier if the question were left
open.

The CHAIRMAN.—It is left open. (Ilear. hear.)
Mr. BARKER begged pardon if he had misunderstood the
resolutions, but he had not so apprehended them. He had
lived a long time in Manchester, and he knew the two lines
distinctly ; and though it would be presumptuous in him to
say the least in opposition to the engineers, yet he was fully
convinced that the amount to be laid out upon the south line
would be very much beyond what they had laid down in the
estimate contained in the report. No doubt if the Leeds
company were to send their engineers alory, the line they
would prove that the junction by Hunt's along
would cost
£lOO,OOO less than the south junction. However, as far as
expenditure went, it might be impartially presumed that there
would be little difference: between the two ; but passing, as
as the south junction would, over eight or ten of the largest
streets in Manchester, lie could not suppose it would be
agreed to by the commissioners and other public bodies.
Therefore, if the meeting were to decide that that should be
the line, they would be, in some degree, prejudging a question
which was to be settled in amicable discussion. He could
not support the proposition made to this meeting that it
would be best to support the south line ; but if any general
resolution could be come to by which the meeting would not
prejudge the question, but leaving it open for settlement by
impartial and disinterested individuals, it would be the more
desirable course. It had occurred that angry feelings had
arisen by injudicious remarks being made upon tile Hunt's
Bank junction not having been accomplished.
The CHAIRMAN repeated that the directors had no other
reason to assign for not going to Hunt's Bank than the
opinion which every one of them had, that the south line was
the best. It was upon that account they proposed a reference,
and, as he had said before, if they were wrong those in
authority would correct them; but that must be taken as
their reason for not going on with the Hunt's Bank junction.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BARKER.—I consider it particularly unfortunate that
several years should have been permitted to elapse without
bringing the matter to a settlement under the present act.
Mr. ALSTON.—DO not let us, at the same time we refer
this matter, declare that we think it ought to be decided in a
particular way.
Mr. EARLE said this was extraordinary doctrine. If any
two gentlemen disagreed upon any point, and they agreed to
let it go to a reference, did they not each of them endeavour
to make the best of their case? What were the directors of
this company doing but that? They had taken a great many
opinions in order to arrive at the best line, and they declared
their belief that the south line was the best. They were
certainly competent to give an opinion ; they had formed one,
and if the other party could not agree with them, the di-
rectors would leave the question to reference.
Mr. CREWDSON said the meeting might be competent to
form an opinion ; and it was in consequence of what had been
said from the chair that he wished it to be understood that
the resolutions were those of the directors and not of the

meeting

The -CH ARM AN said the resolutions were submitted by the
directors for the approval of the proprietors.
Mr. CREWDSON did not think it was good policy to make
a declaration in favour of the south line when the case had
to he referred.

Mr. RATHBONE argued that it must not be assumed that
this question was going to a reference. The directors were
willing to go to a reference, but there was another party to be
consulted, and they were, at that moment, told that that
party would not go to a reference. So Mr. Gill had said ;
he (Mr. Rathbone) hoped it might not be so, but suppose
the Liverpool directors should not get a reference were
that meeting to break up without expressing an opinion upon
a subject on which the directors bad taken so much pains,
and about which they had themselves a decided and an una-
nimous opinion ? The meeting must therefore consider the
position the directors would be in if the Leeds directors
refused the reference.

Mr. BOOTH BY said the question being left open there was
not the slightest objection to the resolutions, as being the
opinion of the directors; because, although they were the
opinion of the directors after mature investigation, that
opinion might be changed. The resolutions did not bind
them to the southern line, but left them at liberty to
go to Hunt's Bank if they should think proper. He under-
stood that the resolutions did not bind the board to
commit themselves to the southern junction if upon further
discussion the Hunt's Bank junction should he preferred.
He had also to state that he was enabled to propose these reso-
lutions, because they did not confine the proprietors to that
which the circular from the directors issued a few days ago
did, in which they recommended the Hunt's Bank line to be
abandoned. In fine he thought the resolutions were nothing
more than the opinion of the directors upon the subject of
the reference, and not at all binding upon which line they
should take.
Mr. BOOTH (the secretary) begged as a proprietor to say
one or two words. In all cases of reference, what was the
occasion of the reference but that the two parties had different
opinions? A reference could not be commenced without
that condition ; and who were the parties in this case ?
They (the Liverpool Company), were the parties on one side,
the Leeds Company were the parties on the other
Mr. GILL.—But there are three other parties.
. Mr. BOOTH.—Very well; still the principle was the same,
and it was essential that this company should confirm the
views of the directors before 'they 'could go to a reference at
all. The proprietors must confirm the views of the direc-
tors before the directors could be competent to go to a
reference. (Hear, hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN observed that if the directors had power
to make the line which they recommended, that would be
another case.

Mr. BOOTH, in continuation, said it did not follow that,
because it was recommended, the best line should be made,
for various reasons of policy. The town of Manchester
might not approve of it, and various grounds might exist why
the best line should not be made ; it was upon that account the
question had been left open.
Mr. CLAY, at the request of the chairman, then read the

resolutions again.
Mr. BOOTHBY said, that in their report the directors had
stated their willingness to contribute to compensate the
Manchester and Leeds company for any expense they might
have laid out in their approach to Hunt's Bank.
Mr. GILL—It is not necessary to take up time by the dis-
cussion of that point.
aThe CHAIRMAN said the directors did not see how it was
competent for that meeting to entertain the subject.
Mr. Hominy alluded to it merely to ask whether there
ought not to be a resolution upon it. It was a ma n question,
because he thought this company were to be blamed for their
delay in bringing the question to a decision, and because by
that delay the other company had been led into expense. He
did not mean to go into the merits of the case now, but he
put it to the chair whether it was not a proper subject for a
resolution ?
Mr. SANDBACII, sen., said the Leeds directors had in-
curred the expense, whatever it was, by virtue of the authority
of their proprietors.
The CHAIRMAN said, that if the Leeds directors had bought
land at a disadvantage, it ought to go into the general ex-
penses of the concern. He would now put the resolutions.
Mr. JOHN BARKER—I object to the first resolution, be-
cause it pledges the meeting to a particular line. (No, no.)
Mr. GILL—And I cannot concur in it, because it calls the
South line the best.
The question was then put. Mr. John Barker and Mr.
Gill held up their hands against the first of the resolutions,
and all the rest were carried unanimously.
The usual thanks were then voted to the chairman, and
the meeting separated at half-past two o'clock, the proceed-
ings having occupied one hour and a half.

There is a storekeeper in New York who makes such pre-
cious high charges that you have to get on the counter to
receive the change.

Mr. Nasmyth, C.E., has discovered that the rails on rail-
roads never rust when traversed by waggons going always in
the same direction ; but when they serve for waggons going
in two directions, as in the case of a single line of rails, they
become rusted very soon.—Mining Journal.

On Friday last the second of this course of lectures was
delivered at the Music-halt. Bold•street, by the Rev. Dr.
Tattershall. The subject of the lecture was the second
novelty in the creed of Pope Pius IV., and was thus an-
nounced in the syllabus of the course :
" 1 also admit the Holy Scripture, according to that sense
which our Holy Mother, the Church, has held and does
hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and in-
terpretation of the Scriptures : neither will I ever take and
interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers."

Considerable information was expected to be imparted, as
the subject is a very important one, and was likely to be ban-
dled with consummate ability by such an able divine. The
attendance was not very numerous, and we regret that we
cannot give the whole of the address.

The lecturer, after some remarks as to the novelty of the
essential features of popery and their opposition to Christi-
anity, proceeded to argue at some length in defence of the
principle, that an agreement with previously established
truth has a legitimate application in putting to the test the
truth of divine revelation itself, and in verifying and strength-
ening the force of other evidence in behalf of its claims to
be received as such. Much more, argued the learned doctor,
does this principle seem applicable to all cases in which the
truth of any doctrine or opinion held by men is the question
to be determined. He then proceeded nearly as follows :
If the principle of conformity to, or agreement with, an ori-
ginal standard be in evidence a test of truth when applied to
all subsequent communications professing to come from the
great author of revelation himself, how much more needful
is it that any statement of doctrine coming from the lips of
man, and claiming to be received as true, should be found in
the strictest agreement with the great standard of revelation
itself. Whatever is not so conformed is no part of divine
truth, and has no claim upon the credence or submission of
any man, and the same principle is applicable, although it is
true that our means for applying it are exceedingly imperfect,
to ascertain the correctness of any doctrine supposed to be
set forth in the writings of inspiration. It is beyond all
question a sound canon -4 interpretation, that inasmuch as
the words employed in any discourse, whether oral or writ-
ten, were intended to be signs to the hearer or reader of what
passed in the mind of the author, that author must be be-
lieved to have used such words. and in such sense as they
would be understood to bear, by the persons to whom they
were addressed ' • and therefore, the true meaning of an
author must be that in which he was understood by his pri-
mitive hearers and readers. Of course it is not intended to
be admitted here, that the meaning of an author is that which
is imagined to be such by each individual hearer ; this would
be either.to suppose those hearers individually incapable of
mistake, or to assign to the author a variety of meanings,
each admitted to be equally true, of the same words. But
speaking generally, and making allowance for the occurrence
of individual failures, that may safely be taken for the
meaning of an author, which was understood to be such by
those of his own time, those in particular for whom he wrote;
and more especially so, if it were the interest of those parties
to understand him correctly. This sense, therefore, if it
can be ascertained, may fairly be considered to be that of
the writer himself. And the same remark may be allowed
perhaps to hold true, according to a kind of graduated scale,
with respect to those who lived in the next, or in shortly
succeeding generations or ages of the world. They were in
a better position than others of ages following after a long
interval, for ascertaining the precise import of the produc-
tthioinsk hotfaatt lya uthor ; and in proportion as we have reason to
they possessed the opportunity to take advantage
of that position, to believe them diligent in so doing, aqd
also to regard them as having been under the influence of no
intellectual dulness or obliquity which would render them
liable to misunderstand or misapply the statements of their
author, as well as under the influence of no moral bias which
would dispose them to pervert or misrepresent such mean-
ing, we may venture to admit that such interpretations, ge-
nerally speaking, may be understood fairly to represent the
meaning of the author in question.
If, moreover, interpretations of this kini be found in con-
siderable numbers, and if there appear among them a general
consent as to the representation which they give of the mean-
ing of their author, such representation not only may, I
think, but must, as a matter of moral certainty, be allowed
to have a just claim to be regarded as the author's true
meaning, and anything substantially different must be re-
jected.

One thing is, however, to be carefully borne in mind, as a
truth collateral with the above admission, and essentially
interwoven with the principle upon which it rests. The
above canon of interpretation is based upon the supposition
that the author in question employed in his writings such
words as he knew or believed would be understood correctly
by his readers; that is, be must have used his words in the
senses which they ordinarily bore in the language in which
they were written ; he must have combined them together
also according to the methods or rules which were adopted
ordinarily by other writers or speakers in that language; in
other words, lie must have written according to the ordinary
grammatical construction of the language in question.
Such meanings of words have descended to our own day,
and such grammatical construction has come down to us also,
and is known to us by means of so large a number of authors,
that any collusive representation of a word, or a phrase, or
a construction, would be an impossibility. Hence, there-
fore, among the most important of all the interpretations of
any ancient author, is the lexicon and the grammar of the
language itself in which he wrote. The literal and gramma-
tical construction, therefore, of any passage must contain
(whatever be the case with any other interpretation) the
real meaning of the writer, and no interpretation of any
author whatever can be entitled to the smallest credit which
is not in perfect harmony with this.
And if it were replied to this, that the sense of an author
may in all probability be gathered better from ancient inter-
preters than from the writings of the author himself,—in
consequence of our great distance from the period in which
he flourished, and from the fact, which must be admitted to be
true, that our knowledge of neither the meaning of the words
nor the construction of the language in which he wrote is per-
fect, and that many peculiarities belonging to both the one and
the other have been lost in the lapse of ages,—l must beg to
answer that the remark is of little or very trifling force. So
far as our distance of time is concerned we are almost as dis-
tant from the interpreters whom it would be important to
notice in the controversy with which we are concerned as
from the authors themselves. And as to the languages in
which they wrote, if our knowledge of them do not enable us
to understand the Greek originals of the Apostles, so neither
would it enable us to understand the Greek interpreters, and
of however superior a character the interpretation would be
which they might furnish, it is one from which we are, from
the very nature of the case, altogether shut out. It is one
which, from the circumstances in which we are placed, we
are totally unable to attain.
It would appear, therefore, with reference to the sacred
Scriptures, as well as to any other ancient writings—though
I must be permitted here to pause, and to enter the most
solemn protest against any statement which would represent
the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, as works
obscure or difficult to be understood : I n-ust declare my
solemn conviction that they are as plain and easy to be un-
derstood, and present as few anomalies of construction or
stumbling blocks likely to occasion mistakes to the honest
and diligent inquirer as any other ancient writings whatever;
and that in this respect they are abundantly easier and supe-
rior to the writings of their interpreters, abundantly easier
to be understood than the fathers themselves ;—yet it would
appear that the sense in which the Scriptures were understood
by the earliest Christian writers, those, at least, concerning
whom no reason appears to make us suspect that they were
under the influence of any motive or prejudice which would
have a tendency to warp their judgment, or to blind their
understanding, was, in all probability, the true sense, and
that for the purpose of studying the sense of difficult pas-
sages, the safest mode of proceeding would be to consult
these ancient writers as well as critically to examine the
authors themselves, and it may fairly be presumed that when
the two are not at variance with each other, the sense so
arrived at may be received as the true one.
But this aid of interpretation, which is highly valuable
when applied in the manner now explained, when employed
to assist, and not to supersede, the exercise of individual
judgment, when used as a means of inquiry and conviction,
not of suppressing inquiry, and therefore rendering convic-
tion impossible, the Church of Rome has, with the usual
craft, sought to pervert from its proper use, and to turn to
her own account ; and she has endeavoured to effect this ob-
ject by first associating it with a fiction which she represents
as a reality, and erects into an infallible standard of truth ;
and thus by converting the whole, strange to say, into an
article of faith. It has first assumed the existence of a per-
fect unanimity of opinion among the early Christian writers,
or, at all events, among those who would be admitted to have
been Catholic or orthodox, It has then assumed that this
unanimity of consent must infallibly unbody the true sense
of sacred Scripture, from which it will not allow either ques-
tion or appeal; and it has thus presented it to maintain the
cause of truth and promote the glory of our Redeemer.
The learned Dr. then quoted the terms of an article in the
creed of Pope Pius the IV. asserting the principle that it is
" the province of the church to judge of the true sense of
the scriptures." Though this principle were admitted, it
would not follow that the prerogative would belong to the
Church of Rome. To the Church Universal it might belong,
but to the Church of Rome as governed by her Pontiffs it
does not, it never did belong. The Church of Rome is not,
and never was catholic, nor could it be said with truth that
the catholic church has ever sat in council since the fourth
century. The only meaning of such an admission, if in-
tended to have any practical application, would be, that it
belongs to every branch of Christ's catholic church, which
has a separate and scriptural jurisdiction of its own, to pro-
nounce an authoritative opinion concerning the meaning of
scripture. The lecturer then proceeded to shew that in one
sense this principle must be true—that asserted in our own
articles, that " the church has power to decree rites
and ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith."
He then at considerable length noticed the necessity for
this principle, and in conclusion confuted in the most
masterly manner the' figment of the Church of Rome,
that her votaries are-.never to receive the scriptures except
according to the unanimous consent of the fathers, whilst
the same church acknowledges, that with reference to the
communion in both kinds there are various interpretations
of the holy fathers and doctors. The fathers were then ap-
pealed to, and the lecturer demonstrated that on no one point
are they unanimous. This unanimous consent, then, said
the doctor, is a nonentity •, it has no existence—the Church
of Rome herself acknowledges it to be so, and that in one of
her solemn authoritative decrees ; and in professing to frame
her creed and the faith of her people, according to it she is
guilty of a solemn imposture, and of a heartless, cruel, and
wanton trifling with the souls of men, whom she teaches thus
to lean on a broken reed.

The learned doctor then appropriately concluded. The
next lecture will be delivered this evening, by the Rev. J.
Lyons, of Bolton.

We understand that the Queen, accompanied by his Royal
Highness Prince Albert, will honour the Lord Primate with
a visit, at Lambeth Palace, on Saturday next.
The prime minister has now four garters at his disposal,
caused by the deaths of the Earl of Westmorland, the Duke
of Cleveland, the Marquis of Hertford, and the Duke of
Norfolk. So many vacancies at the same time are scarcely
upon record.

HER MAJESTY'S SLIPPERS.—The Queen wore at the
levee a splendid diamond bracelet, containing a portrait of
the King of Prussia. The diamonds in her Majesty's head,
stomacher, and train were also unusually brilliant. Her
Majesty wore a very beautiful pair of satin slippers, embroid-
ered by thq. Duchess of Kent, and made open at the heels in
the eastern style. The Queen's feet are so remarkably small
that no lady has yet been found who could wear the mignon
slippers of Queen Victoria.

ACCIDENT ON THE GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD.—OD
Tuesday morning, at about a quarter past twelve o'clock in
the forenoon, an extraordinary accident occurred on the
Great Western Railroad, about four miles from the terminus
at Cirencester. While the down train from London, which
started thence at eight o'clock in the morning, was proceed-
ing at a rapid pace towards its destination, the engine, fol-
lowed by the tender and two of the luggage trucks, suddenly
whirled out of the direct line, and were instantly precipitated
down a steep of from 90 to 100 feet in depth. Happily for
the passengers, the chain which connected other trucks to
those which followed the engine and tender, snapped, and
left them, together with the carriages attached, in safety on
the bank. The engine, with its (as it turned out) fortunate
conductor) was hurled down the declivity, and, when near
the bottom, became clogged in the soil. The tender followed
with its occupant, who most singularly escaped without a
scratch. Higher up on the slope the two trucks became
fixed, so that they could not follow the power which broke
away from them. All this, as may be imagined, was the
work of a few seconds, and the passengers were shortly con-
veyed unhurt to the terminus by another engine.