The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-07-30 00:00:00

THE VOLUNTARY SYSTEM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
SIR,—In my last letter, which you were so good as to
insert in your highly respectable paper, I intimated an in-
tention of noticing more particularly some of the errors and
misstatements in Dr. Wardlaw's Lectures, so. soon as I
should have an opportunity of reading them. I have now
had that opportunity, and proceed to notice. In the doc-
tor's first lecture, page 17, he gives a very unfair and in-
correct statement of the argument between our government
and the endowed churches. He says, " The state, in con-
tracting to supply the funds, has of course a right to fix the
creed, and forms of worship, &c." This would imply that
government maintained the right of at any time altering the
creed, &c. of the churches ; but this is far from being the
fact. Government has never claimed such a right. The
simple contract between the parties is this : government says
to a church, " You have published your creed, mode of wor-
ship, &c. ; educate men who will teach these principles, and
we shall make provision for their maintenance ; but should
these men at any time depart from your published principles,
they shall no longer be entitled to provision from the state."
Will the doctor point out a single instance in which our go-
vernment has altered any article in the creed of either the
Episcopal or the Presbyterian churches ? It is true govern-
ment still retains the right of withdrawing its support, just
as it retains the right of depriving any person of his pro-
perty. I may ask again, will voluntaries never meet the
question fairly, and not for ever confound the support given
to Gospel ministers with the Gospel principles ? The doc-
tor's flourish about the Scriptures being the only standard
in all such matters, is quite correct ; but for what purpose
does he dwell so much on it, if it is not to insinuate that his
opponents do not make the Scriptures their standard in the
matter ? On the 73d page of his second lecture, he lays
down the three following positions :-Ist. " That in the New
Testament there is no recognition of the power of civil rulers
in matters of religion." To this I would reply, that if Paul,
in the 9th chap. of Ist Corinthians, was correct in saying
that the law respecting the support of Gospel ministers was
made "for us," it will effectually overturn this position ;
for that law was given to the rulers, and they were bound to
put it in force, and see that it was obeyed. (See Nehemiah,
xiii. 10, 11.) Would Nehemiah have blamed the rulers for
not doing a matter which it was not their duty to do ? His
second position is, that " in the New Testament the mainte-
nance and progress of the churches' interests are with all
clearness and explicitness authoritatively committed to the
church itself." This position he attempts to prove from the
9th chap. of Ist Corinthians ; but is it not a little extraordi-
nary that, in the passage he quotes, he keeps out of view
altogether what the Apostle says, that this law was made for
us ; of course binding on Christians ? The doctor also quotes
Gal. iv. 6, and Ist Thess. v. 12, 13. These passages of
Scripture enforce the duty of Christians to support ministers
of the Gospel, and this none of his opponents deny. Does
the doctor really think, that because the precept is enforced
on the church, that therefore all of them are exonerated from
the duty of obeying it ? Indeed, I see he avows as much,
when he says, " The voluntary support of the Gospel by the
church itself is as much an ordinance of Christ as the Lord's
Supper is." Is the doctor prepared to follow out this prin-
ciple, viz., that all the precepts and ordinances which the
Apostles enforced on the church were binding only on
the church ? If so, he will exonerate every unbeliever
from the duty of obeying almost every moral and religious
precept. In the doctor's third lecture, page 100, he lays
down three positions ; Ist, That the Jewish establishment
was one which, from its very nature, cannot be imitated ; it
is indeed very true, that it cannot be imitated in every par-
ticular, but it is equally true, that many things relating both
to the Jewish church and Jewish governors are imitable, and
are followed up by the Christian church and Christian
governments ; for instance, the very law which the doctor is
opposing was given to the Jews, and if Paul is right was to
continue to the Christians. The principles by which the
Jewish rulers were to be governed, were written and com-
mitted to them, and the principles by which Christian rulers
should be governed, are in like manner committed to them ;
in both cases God rules by the instrumentality of men. And
as relates to the Jewish and Christan churches, they are
quite similar in all their doctrines, and also in the mode of
admission to membership ; submission to the rite of circum-
cision, admitted a member to the Jewish church ; as the rite
of baptism does now to the Christain ; the fact is, the Chris-
tian church is just an extension and continuance of the
Jewish, what was formerly confined to Jerusalem, and the
Jewish church is now extended to all the world ; of course,
all types and figures ceased when the great antitype suffered.
The doctor further says, that the Jewish church was a type
of the Christian ; this is certainly a most erroneous and gra-
tuitous assertion. In his 3rd lecture the doctor reasons in a
most extraordinary way indeed, his reasoning is this : that if
God had designed that rulers should support the church, he
would have given an example by setting up a Christian
government with the first Christian church. In no case was
there any necessity for such an example, but particularly as
Paul had most plainly taught that the law given to the Jews
was still in force. On the doctor's special pleading, for the
purpose of getting rid of the declaration in Isaiah, that
kings should be nursing fathers, and their queens nursing
mothers to the church, I need only remark, that his reason-
ing on this is founded on the erroneous princiele (which he
takes for granted), that a new law on the subject had been
given to the church. In his 4th lecture he makes a sad mis-
take, as to the power over, and duty of the government to-
wards children. Is not the doctor aware, that every child so
soon as born becomes a child of the state, and that the
authority of the state over every child is paramount to that
of its parents ; and hence any criminal act done against any
subject is understood to be done against the state, and the
transgressors sued in the name of the executive government.
On 186th page, the doctor quotes our Saviour's expression,
" render to Caesar the things that are Ctesar's, and to God
the things that are God's;" and thence he draws the conclusion
that only spiritual service should be rendered to God. Had
the doctor forgotten that God claims the silver and the gold
as his right, then should not the silver and the gold, by
whomsoever held, be used to promote his glory. In his 7th
lecture he proposes to prove that establishments corrupt the
church ; in proof of this he says, page 328th, " Our present
subject is contamination, and we have only to ask when was
there an establishment without secular authority ; and when
was there an instance in which that authority was exercised
without contamination ;" did the doctor really mean that
these assertions, or rather insinuations, were proof of his
proposition? Why did he not state the doctrines whichhad been
contaminated in either of the established churches. But this
he could not do, their doctrines remain the same as when first
endowed. In. his eighth lecture the Doctor writes thus—
" What ! the state pay for the church, and have no controul
over the doctrines taught ; pay and have nothing to say
to what it pays for, would this be fair play; has it ever
been so, is it so now ?---ought it to be so ever F To answer
this string of questions ; first, the state does pay for the
state, does pay for the church, and has no controul over its
doctrines, further than to see that the doctrines endowed be
continued in, and its power continues no farther than to
withdraw support ; this also answers his second question.
My answer to the other question is, it is fair play—it has
been, is so now, and it ought ever to be so. If government,
or any other holding patronage over the church, appoint to
livings improper characters, the greater fault of this rests on
the church. If it did its duty, improper characters would not
be ordained to teach in the church ; by this I am far from
wishing to prove that any patronage by government, or any
layman, is good ; on the contrary, I am convinced that all
appointments should rest exclusively with the church itself.,
It is no doubt a fact, which the Doctor has stated, that many
in every denomination are in advance of their standards, and
the very same spirit of advance is taking place in the politi-
cal world ; but it is yet to be proved whether such advances
in either, or both cases, may prove beneficial or otherwise ;
the aspect of both at present seems to warrant the opinion,
that the change will be greatly for the worse. The Doctor
goes on to say, that persecution is involved in the very prin-
ciple of establishments. When the Doctor wrote so, he
must have had in view the improper use, or rather abuse of
establishments, for the principle is a very simple one, and in-
volves no such consequences ; but to follow the Doctor
through all his erroneous principles, and illogical conclusions,
would require to write a large book. I shall, therefore, con-
clude with a few general observations. Voluntaries reason
thus : every person has the liberty of choosing his own phy-
sician, and why should he not have the like liberty of
choosing his own minister or teacher ? This at first sight
seems plausible, but the cases are quite dissimilar : there is
no moral crime involved in his choice of a physician, but for
a person to choose and follow a teacher of error, is surely a
crime of considerable magnitude ; every one is under the
strongest obligation of not only supporting the Gospel with
his property, but also to hear and obey its doctrines and pre-
cepts—" Cease, my son, to hear 'the instruction that causeth
to err from the words of knowledge."—Prov. 19. 27. Again :
the reasoning of voluntaries against government assistance to
the Gospel or true religion, is exactly similar to the reason-
ing of infidels against Christianity. Infidels never attack
the Christian religion, as it is taught in the Scriptures ; they
attack it in the errors of nominal professors. lii the like
manner do voluntaries act : they never attack the true prin-
ciple of establishments, as held by their opponents, viz., the
duty of government to support only the Gospel ; but they
bring forward and reason against establishments of corrupt
or false religion, and against the errors which had been prac-
tised in establishments, and from these they draw the con-
clusion that all establishments must be wrong. With just as
much reason might they conclude, that because some preach-
ers preach error, therefore all preaching must be improper.
In conclusion, I may be permitted to address a few words to
voluntaries. My dear friends, for many, very many, amongst
you, I do esteem such, let me beseech you to pause and
examine more particularly your views of the system you hold.
You know that there is at least a possibility that your views
are incorrect; and you must be fully aware that the opposi-
tion you are giving to the support given by government to
the churches, is the principal cause of that unchristian spirit
of separation, I might say of animosity, which prevails among
christians ; surely then, to warrant the continuance of such
opposition, producing such evil effects, would require not
only a very positive and well-founded opinion that you are
not in error, but also that the principles you oppose are in-
deed opposed to the prosperity of the kingdom of God, in the
world. And now I would ask how can, or how does, the
system of our present establishments oppose or hinder the
spread and establishment of the gospel, or the cause of God
in the world ; surely there is a large enough field for the oc-
cupation of all that can be effected by you, and to labour in
that- field is undoubtedly your province ; and not by any
means to endeavour to prevent the labour of others who are
as zealously employed in both preaching the gospel, and in
every good work, as you yourselves are.
ALEX. M'CREERY.

THE REV. DR. BUCK AND THE REV. GEORGE
STOKES, B.C.L.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
your last publication I am called upon by a cler-
gyman, to inform the public more plainly and fully what I
meant by certain allusions in my former letter, addressed to
the Rev. George Stokes, of Grove-street, Bachelor of Civil
Law; in reply to a letter from him, addressed to me through
the Albion. You reiterate the request, therefore I consider
that compliance becomes my duty ; although the rev. gent.
who commenced it, may be displeased at the continuance of
this correspondence.
After the decease of the late Mr. \Vinstanley, who was
chaplain to the Borough Gaol, Mr. Stokes was engaged by
our liberal borough magistrates, (or rather by the visiting
magistrates) to officiate; there is no doubt he was.extremely
happy to comply, for I believe he stood in the situation of
beinc, a parson without a pulpit, therefore to obtain good pay
with the prospect of a pulpit, was extremely agreeable. There
were numerous applications for the vacant situation of chap-
lain to the gaol ; but I was informed, and from a quarter on
which I place the.utmost.reliance, that when the visiting ma-
gistrates met to consider and determine upon supplying the
vacancy, Mr. Stokes was recommended by a cc rtain unitar-
ian ; and not one of those present objected to his appoint-
ment. His claims were considered paramount ; lie had per-
formed what may be termed kootoo to the liberal party, by
attending the corporation schools, and sanctioning, by his
presence, the teaching of Popery, or, to use the phraseology
of Mr. Surgeon Blackburn, infusing the vertu' of a Popish
theology, into this Protestant community. No other can-
didate bad such a recommendatory claim ; for, to the credit
of the Protestant clergy, both churchmen and dissenters,
there were only two, who, in dereliction of their name, would
sanction what we as Protestants consider false and erroneous
doctrines. It was considered as fixed or settled that Mr.
Stokes should have the appointment ; and I believe that he
was informed of such determination—every thing but a writ-
ten pledge was given to him ; he may therefore be said to
have been extremely ill used upon that occasion, and deserves
our pity and commisseration. Mr. Stokes, however, would
wish the public to believe, that he is not offended at the
treatment which he received, and that he, good man, is per-
fectly acquiescent—that he indulges no exacerbated feelings
towards them : indeed he appears to carry patience and meek-
ness beyond the bounds of credibility, for he even attempts