The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-22 00:00:00

evidentl

Romanist laity, and occa-
sts and even members of the hierarchy,
example, as the late Dr. Murray, popish
in Dublin. Among the clerical members of

t number of t

party is a Mr. Ivors, who, being opposed to
led proceedings of Dr. Wiseman, and dis-
e falsehoods touching the state of religion
y, propagated by the Univers, the Paris
ultramontanes, obtained the insertion of
mm time to time, in the Ami de la Religion, the
he moderate party in France, in which the pro-
' "the English Cardinal" were severely criticised.
in the opinion of that " eminent" individual, the
ni of finding fault with what he does is a mortal
n the Ami de la Religion

ins wrath waxed wrG,
as scarlet as his hat and stockings.
`hat furnished to a French journal the means
? " His eminence" cast ab,
Jwn mind who it could be, and his suspicions ligh,
a a poor priest to whom he had given abundant oppor-
ties of tasting the } "

weir ap

Who was

aching his policy

ct pout in
.._kited

terness of the t:

e Papal hierarchy debases its tools. Father Boyle must
Shimei who ventured to impeach the wisdom of the
ighty governor of the Queen's subjects in spite of
nu. For had not he been cast out of his charge
tgton without a reason assigned, to make room for
strions pervert Frederick Oakley, the object of the

ardinal's most gracious favour ?
I out of the money which he h:

I laid out
st's house at Islington, from which he had
ly expelled, and Father Oakley installed in
Had not he had the daring to remonstrate

nst his arbitrary removal. from his charge, and against
unjust denial of his claim to compensation for money
of pocket ? Had not he been punished for his pre-
ption by being deprived of his faculties, in other

cashiered? --And-had not he been subjected to the
Won of kneeling at the cardinal's feet as a penitent,
pardon for the horrible sin of having ventured to
that Dr. Wiseman could do wrong, or act un-

In was made to the creel treatment
Reli-

• Boyle had received in tl
as an unhappy, or, rather, a happy illustra-
and tyranny imputed by the writer to

ie priui
inal arc

kibishop," who, thereupon, jumped to the
e must be the author of the obnoxious

I this point in his mind, the Cardinal, it
him down and indited a letter, which
Univers, and afterwards in the Tablet
Fie Standard, with the signature "N.
tan" attached to it, and which the legal
Boyle, and, it would seem, those of the
f, looked upon as constituting an unde-
ather Boyle having had enough of the
thought he would try what British law

Wiiem.

to procure justice fo]

Is he was, could not fail to prove
He took the desperate step of
)r libel. To establish his
, must, of course, prove the authorship of the libel.
.nis purpose he placed Father Ivors in the witness-
., the writer of the articles in the Ami de la Religion,
ho had seen a letter addressed to the Abbe Cognat, the
editor of the Ami de la Religion, by Dr. Wiseman himself,
which fixed him with the authorship. The evidence of
letter and its 'contents, however, were objected to by
,unsel for the Cardinal, as being only of a secondary
ruled that in the absence of the
uvula not be admitted. Several other at-
ts were made to bring the authorship home to Dr.
'nail, and among the witnesses called for this pur-
-ere the notorious W. R. F. Gawthorne,—for whom
Tenuity in trapping a Protestant Archbishop has
'd the questionable honour of being the Cardinal's
secretary ;—the no less famous Father Ignatius ;
not least, Father—we beg his pardon, Mr. Lucas,
Meath, and editor of the Tablet,—all of whom
're supposed to he, concerned in the transac-
mt of the controversy, and cognizant of the
libel complained of. But, as is ever

aim for an attack upon his

tterly gninous to him
idicting " His

,p of t

the ease

ainence" f

Meting

interests of

li casuists furnish the key,—the memories of
witnesses are subject to strange paroxysms in the
3-box,-and nothing could be elicited from any of
sufficiently definite to inculpate the Head of the
Hierarchy in England.

There was one chance, however, for the plaintiff. The
irdimal himself might be called and examined upon his
Lth. To this it was objected that by the law of England
) man is bound to criminate himself,—that although the
.Hon was in the form of a civil suit for damages, yet in
it was in the nature of a criminal proceeding,
therefore, Dr. Wiseman could not be examined.
uch with a view to combat this position, as to
he disloyalty of the Papal hierarchy, the counsel
)laintiff endeavoured to prevail upon the court to
the decision of this point until the Cardinal
ave been called as a witness and sworn, it being
wn that as a "prince of the Holy EomanChurch,"
i cannot condescend to appear and be sworn
1 one of the Queen's Courts, and that,
Lust have rendered himself liable to be

and that

)r. Nisi

mmitted
We are

PURITAN SCHOLARSHIP.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
SIRS 1 observe that "A Churchman of Liverpool" shirks

(wisely as I think) the question about " Communicatia

being the correct rendering of the word " Communion," in
the passage cited from Ist Cor., 10th chapter. At the risk
of appearing twice to slay the slain, I may just mention that
in the Latin version of the 28th Article, which is even of supe-
rior authority to the English version, the phrase in the latter,
" partaking of," which is a quotation of the passage of St.
Paul in question, is rendered by the very word excepted against
14 this learned Theban, viz., " Communicatio. "—Yours, &c.,
August 11,1854. ANGLO-CATHOLIC.

REV. W. POLLOCK'S " PRIZE OF WAR ! "

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
Stte,—ln replying to Mr. Pollock's last letter, a few words
will suffice. In what I have to say, I shall endeavour to avoid
both his verbosity and his want of temper. In one point he
is right', and I was wrong. I now see that Mr. Wray did
charge the Puritan party, as well as Dissenters, with a belief
that the Book of Common Prayer contains a large amount of
covert Popery. My error arose from reading the passage in
question hastily: and I have now only to add—first, that no
impartial person would suppose that Mr. W. intended his
charge to apply to every individual of the party without ex-
ception; and, secondly, that it is notoriously true of many of
them, the proof being their own public declarations.

And now with regard to my assertion, that the prospectus
was published in extenso in the Mail. lam guiltless of any
intentional misstatement ; for I was utterly ignorant that two
editions of it existed. The one given in the Mail I had never
read, and the only one in my own possession agreed verbatim
with that first published by Mr. Pollock as "a prize of war."
However, I have now carefully compared the two, and I
really can find no essential difference between them—not
more than between two editions of a book intended by its
author or editor to be one and the same. No Puritan would
be better pleased with the one than with the other. I still
affirm, therefore, that all Mr. Pollock's talk about its being
" a prize of war" was mere rhodomontade. He asserts,
" Mr. Pugbe must have known of the private letter when he
said on July 13th that it was neither written nor printed for
circulation among the Puritan party.' " This seems to be an

admission on my part that it was never intended to meet
their eye; but, had he finished the quotation, my meaning
would have been apparent. I have not my letter by me, but
what I added was to this effect:—" But among those from
whom assistance or sympathy might be expected; but that
Mr. W. ever expected that it would not fall into the hands of
the Puritans, I' utterly deny." I have said already that I
knew but of one letter or prospectus, and I may remind him
that at the date which he gives as that of what he calls the
private letter, I was residing in Scotland, and was wholly un-
connected with Liverpool. However, this same private letter
(or prospectus, as I have called it,) is the only one with which
I have been acquainted ; and, as a further proof that it was
never intended or expected to be kept'private, I may inform
him that myself and others have, daring the last year and a-
half, forwarded many hundreds of copies by post to clergy-
men and laymen of whose sentiments we knew nothing, and
this at Mr. Wray's request. So much for Mr. Pollock's

" stunning blow."

As for the prospectus itself, its statements are strictly true
in both editions—true, i.e., of the Puritans as a party, though
no one would ever suppose that the writer intended every
assertion to apply to each individual of the party.
Whether Mr. Pollock was guilty of a mere " trivial mis-
take,

' or of something far more grave, when he misrepre-
sented what I said touching the sacrament of matrimony, I
leave your readers to judge.—l am, Sir, yours, &c.,

K. MACKENZIE PUGHE

Winslow, Bucks, Aug. 18,1854.

ODIUM THEOLOGICUM

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD..
SIR,—If the evil of controversy cannot be altogether
avoided, it might be conducted with better temper and more
charity than Mr. Pollock displays in his strange and angry
criticisms upon my " Appeal on behalf of the Proposed New
Church in Liverpool." Instead of giving me any credit for a
conscientious desire to vindicate the Prayer Book, and benefit
the people by affording them the inestimable blessings of fre-
quent prayer and praise, he is evidently anxious to put the
worst possible construction upon my motives, to discover no-
thing but disingenuousness in my conduct, nothing but a
deep and secret plot against the Clergy of Liverpool and their
religious peculiarities. In his eagerness to do this, he is be-
trayed into the use of language not very much to his own
credit, nor likely to promote the interests of his party. He
calls me a " clandestine slanderer" of my brethren ; the
"Appeal" itself is said to be " steeped in bitterness," and two

editions of it are displayed in parallel columns in last Ties-
day's paper, to prove that the author had "one language for
the public generally, and another for those of his own sect, to
whom he ventured to unbosom himself."

A very plain and simple statement of the facts of the case
is all that is necessary to answer these elaborate charges.
Mr. Pollock has been pleased to impute motives which I now
emphatically disavow ; and, as he has given evidence in his
letter to Mr. Pughe that the word of a gentleman is not held
sacred by him, I can only address my disclaimer of such
motives to the public. I beg, therefore, to state that Mr.
Pollock is altogether under a mistake in supposing that I
ever published, or intended to publish, two appeals (or pros-
pectuses), having one language for my friends and another
for the public generally ; nor was I careful to conceal what I
was sure must sooner or later be seen by those for whom it
was not primarily intended. I wrote and printed only one
paper of this kind which was circulated among friends and
others at a distance, with an accompanying prospectus of
proposed Church Services, &c. These, in a subsequent edi-
tion, fOr convenience and to save expense, were combined,
with such alterations and corrections as were thought proper,
omitting some expressions which had been pointed out to me
as likely to give offence.

At the time of our advertising in the local papers, I sent a
copy of this edition to the editor of the Mail for his own
inspection ; and upon his inquiring whether I desired it to be
published in that paper, I replied (to the best of my recollec-
tion) that he was at liberty to make what use of it he pleased,
though it had not been written for the Liverpool public. This
is the simple solution of Mr. Pollock's grievance, all which
might have been explained to him, if he had exercised a little
more patience, and had condescended to make a few inquiries.
Other copies might also have been found of the same docu-
ment slighlty differing from the two which he has printed,
for the type was kept standing for some time, and the date
was altered and verbal alterations male as each hundred or
two were struck off.

Unless Mr. Pollock had been obstinately bent upon making
out a bad case, he would have seen that the hypothesis by
which he explains the difference of the two documents
entirely fails him as regards the very paragraph which he
charges Mr. Pughe with misunderstanding. "The latter
prospectus (he says) is gentleness itself compared with the
former." And yet it is in the former, and not in the latter.
that the " gentlest" sentence occurs : it is in the first (the
"private letter"), and not in the second (for the Liverpool
public), that I employ words at least intended to be concilia-
tory, and say—" The above remarks are far from being made
in a spirit of resentment against those who are guilty of these
irregularities. It is charitably supposed that they are the
result not so much of wanton indifference to their ordination
vows," b-c.

Such is the apology which I offer for the Liverpool Clergy, in
writing a "private letter" to strangers. Had I intended to
write a gentler prospectus for the eyes of the Liverpool
public, should I have suppressed this paragraph? Mr. Pol-
lock must have seen this, bad he not been blinded by pre-
judice.

And now, having, I trust, cleared myself in the opinion of
all reasonable people from the charge of being a "clandestine
slanderer of my brethren," I would appeal to the common
sense of your readers, and ask whether the document in
question is rightly designated when it is said to be " steeped
in bitterness." It may be convenient for an opponent to
prefer such a charge against me, in order to draw away public
attention from the real objects which my friends have in
view. But what was to be gained by the exhibition of bitter-
ness on our part ? Bitterness in return, it appears, by the
law of worldly retaliation, it being presumed that we have
been the "first aggressors." But it is not by bandying
angry words that we hope to gain justice for the people, and
to vindicate the beauty of the Prayer-Book ; but by a plain
statement of facts, in as conciliatory a tone as we can adopt.
And these facts Mr. Pollock has not attempted to deny. I
repeat, there is no bitterness in this prospectus, but a few
unpalatable truths, which cannot be gainsaid, and are neces-
sarily unpalatable to those who resist wholesome reform.
Nor was there anything like an "attack" upon individuals,
nor the semblance of an "insult" offered to particular Clergy-
men. For the allusion to Ireland (which was omitted from
feelings of delicacy in the second and subsequent editions),
when there are so many Clergymen from the sister country
among us, cau hardly be called an offence, since it is evident
that the allusion had reference only to the style of public
worship in that island, where an indifference to ritual pro-
prieties is notorious.

But, according to Mr. Pollock, my pen is not only bitter,
but " STEEPED IN BITTERNESS !" This, were it true, would
have been impolitic in me, as well as a breach of good man-
ners ; for, having a great object in view, and important
principles to recommend, we desire not to offend, but to win
our opponents to adopt th 2. doctrines and practices which
they are now too hastily condemning. "Enemies" though
they are to these principles, we feel no bitterness against
them ; nay, we have hopes of shaming them at length to
adopt a more conciliatory tone, and to regret that they have
not been workers with us in justifying and putting in force
the Scriptural rules of public worship ; namely, in helping
us to "turn out of the temple the buyers and sellers" of
pews, as those who make merchandise of sacred ground ; to
treat the "poor man in vile raiment" as a brother, and not

give the best places in God's house to " the man with a gold
ring, in goodly apparel ;" and to permit people, as of old, to
" come together to break bread on the first day of the week,"
and, some at least, to be " daily in the temple" (Acts ii. 46),
before or after their daily converse with the world.
These are great principles of Christian worship, taught in
the Bible and authorised by the Church, upon which the
Clergy ought not to be found disputing, but agreeing. It is
grievous that those who may be said to have the monopoly
of the churches in Liverpool will neither carry out these
principles themselves, and binder those who desire to carry
them out. It is intolerable in this free country, that a num
ber of.
Mims !rho gotta to promote that gkriktiati Worship