The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-03-20 00:00:00

LECTURES ON THE CHURCH OP ENGLAND.

The Rev. Il ups M`NErer delivered his third lecture
on Friday, at the Hanover-square Rooms. Among those
present we observed the Duke of Cambridge, Lord Kenyon,
the Bishop of Chester, Sir C. B. Vere, Sir H. Verney, Sir
P. Laurie, Mr. Pringle, M.P. &c.
The rev. lecturer, after slightly glancing at the subjects
he had already handled, said he would proceed to some fur-
ther particulars of the ecclesiastical instrumentality of our
church, with a view to point out their accordance with the
Word of God, and thereby commending them for the adop-
tion of sincerely Christian men, and urging their extension
over the increased population of our country. The Chris-
tian society, constituted as we had seen, supplied an instru-
mentality for the conversion to the faith of the Gospel, not
of the subject only, but of the sovereign also. God is no re-
specter of persons or rank. From reasons connected with
the pride of human intellect not many of the rich and
mighty received their testimony of the Gospel to the saving of
their souls. But though not many did so, some did, at the
very outset, in Ca ear's household, and, subsequently, it
reached their imperial master himself. No Sovereign so
reached and brought personally under Christian influence
could be blind to the efficiency of such an instrumentality,
or the responsibility devolving on himself as to the use he
should make of it on behalf of his people. Accordingly, when
the Christian society extended itself so as to reach the
throne, kings and princes availed themselves of the offices
and ordinances of the church, not only as regarded salvation,
but as instrumental for national civilisation, subordination,
and peace. The rulers of this world required such an in-
strumentality because their subjects are men—rational, im-
mortal creatures, who cannot be prevented from abusing their
liberty unless under instruction for eternity, and the minis-
ters of the Christian church required to be so employed,
because they were then enabled to enlarge the sphere of their
labours, carrying the name and truth of their Heavenly
Master into every nook of their earthly master's dominions.
It was as a means towards an end, and not for themselves,
that we valued our own national establishment in this respect.
But as to the practical details of our ecclesiastical instrumen-
tality, it should not be overlooked, as an excellence of our
national establishment, that she enjoins on all a diligent study
of the Holy Scriptures, and glancing at the checks and con-
ditions imposed by the papacy upon the reading of the Bible,
and which are practically a prohibition, be proceeded to re-
mark upon the growing importance attached to preach-
ing, as a part of Divine service. Preaching was, he said, an
admirable ordinance ; it was appointed by Christ himself ;
but admirable as it was, it could never supply the place of
prayer. In hearing a preacher we were not at liberty to di-
vest ourselves of intellectual watchfulness. The same must
apply to extemporaneous prayer. In listening to them, from
fallible men, we were bound to try and judge them before we
approved. How was the inward effect of prayer to be made
in a public congregation ? Our worship of God was a rea son-
sonable service, if conducted in the silence of our spirit.
There should be no interrupting words by any one. If con-
ducted by words, we could not throw our spirit inwardly into
it, unless those words mere previously approved by our rea-
son. (Cheers.) In this case we were no longer listeners,
but worshippers also ; everything about to be spoken being
known before hand. This we could not do if we were in ig-
norance or doubt of what was to be spoken. We must, then,
in our own defence, be reserved and cautious listeners. We
could not dare to be unsuspecting, impassioned worshippers.
(Cheers.) It had been argued that, without written forms,
the church might have sufficient security against the intro-
duction of error in the known piety and orthodoxy of our li-
turgy. For, granting the utmost that could be pleaded for the
piety of any man, and granting that he would not introduce a
single incorrect or even a single unworthy expression—which
was granting a great deal more than any pious minister would
take to himself—still those ministers the most spiritual would
acknowledge that they had their seasons of comparative
coldness for the sacred office; that they could not at all
times command such a flow of feeling and readiness of lan-
guage as to be able to lead the devotion of the congregation
with the desired solemnity. A complaint urged against our
liturgy is urged on the account of its tameness. It was alle-
ged that the church became formal. The character of God
being always the same, and the condition of his church
militant here on earth being substantially the same until the
second coming of Christ, the right worship of the church
demanded no deviation from sameness. If an assembled
congregation were to speak out in prayer, and each to say
something of his own impromptu, it would lead to distracting
commotions ; but if there were a written form which all
might use together, or alternately, according to known ar-
rangement, each would utter the feeling of all, and all of
each. By this simple process, we had a happy mixture of
liberty and order. This was peculiar to our church. (Cheers.)
The reverend gentleman then referred to " our anniversary
of facts" of the Sacred Scriptures. Scripture facts were,
he said, the foundation of sound doctrine, and which, in the
language of Bacon, were " the first pressure of the grape,"
and were found to be most nutritious to the Lord's family.
It was valuable to have these facts laid before the church in
the language of the Holy Scriptures. Scripture facts were
the rectifiers of theological theories ; and it was the happi-
ness of our church not to be left to the mercy of an indivi-
dual, but to have a Scripture hedge around our vineyard,
whatever might he the judgment and ability of her own local
vine-dresser. (Cheers.) The reverend gentleman then
quoted the language of some of the most eminent of the dis-
senters of (Owen and Matthew Henry) in which they declar
ed their adherence to the purely doctrinal portion of the
Church of England, the first regretting (as we understood
the quotation, being somewhat inconveniently placed behind
the lecturer), that some had departed from the church who
had not given testimony of such adherence. But their com-
paratively unwise children seemed to imagine that the legiti-
mate exercise of private judgment demanded the suppression
of every human formula ; and now in some of their con-
grations most celebrated we looked for biblical exposition,
but we beheld Socinian infidelity. (Immense cheering.)
We waited for the sweet sound of the saints' ever-
lasting rest, and harkened to the gingling of a liberalised
philosophy. (Loud Cheers.) He must now advert to mat-
ter of a very different complexion in our ecclesiastical instru-
mentality, the submission of the church to the civil ruler. It
was difficult to imagine anything more clear than this. The
language of the Apostle was, " Let each soul be subject to
the higher powers. The powers that be are ordained of God."
He might add to this the language of St. Peter, " Be subject
to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." The right
interpretation of this involved the question of what was
commonly called the union between church and state. There
must be some union, or relation, or alliance, or compact—
call it what you would—between the clergy of the chinch and
the government of the country. If there were no such union
designed, there would be one wrought out of necessity. The
question was not, should there be a union, but of what de-
scription should the union be. The clergy of the christian
church had certain duties prescribed by God himself, which
they must perform ; they had no choice. If the duties were
not performed, they ceased to be a church altogether. What
were those duties ? It was the scriptural duty of the clergy
to preach the faith once delivered to the saints ; to administer
the sacraments which were ordained by Christ himself ; and
to determine who are and who are not to be admitted to
those sacraments ; to fill up their own bodies, to appoint
their own successors, and to urge on all the members of the
church from the word of God himself, the christian duty of
supporting its ministers. The clergy were but men, and
must not be estimated by the exception, but by the rule of
our common nature. It was no libel on them to say that
unchecked power was dangerous in their hands. Appealing
to the strongest affections of the human heart, and repre-
senting the sacraments of the church, perhaps, as absolutely
necessary to salvation and themselves as the only persons
by whom these sacraments should be admitted, it was beyond
all question that, unless subjected to some regulating re-
striction from without, they must in process of time obtain
extravagant power and enormous wealth. The temptation
would become such as no class of men could be expected to
withstand. The priesthood, so aggrandised, would consoli-
date its own power by the appointment of a chief, or centre
of union. Was not this the easy, the natural, the inevitable
consequence of things ? In point of fact, was not this history ?
(Cheers.) He would appeal to history. The rev. gentle-
man then referred to Hallam to show the vast power and
wealth obtained by the Church of Rome in the middle ages,
and to " Blackstone on the Statute of Mortmain," quoting
the latter at some length, in order to show the avarice of the
church. " Not content with ample provision, she had,"
said Blackstone, " endeavoured to grasp the whole wealth of
the country, and if the Legislature had not withstood them,
they would probably have been masters of every foot of
ground in the kingdom." Beyond this we had the acknow-
ledgment of our opponents themselves on this point. The
rev. lecturer then quoted Dr. Wardlaw, relative to the state
of the church at the time of Constantine, which was such
as not to require any state endowment, but at the same
time, a state enactment for the restraint of the clergy was
rendered imperative, if civil liberty was to remain on the
earth. (Cheers.) Some such enactment was indispensibly
necessary from the civil ruler. He could not expatriate the
church ; and his only refuge from the thraldom of ecclesias-
tical tyranny lay in some such regulating alliance with the
clergy as would secure to them a certain safe and manage.
able prerogative, in lieu of that indefinite power of aggran-
disement which they consented to sacrifice. We claimed such
an alliance in behalf of the civil government for the security
of its liberties ; and, on behalf of the clergy of the church visi-
ble, not for their temporal aggrandisement, as was ignorantly
supposed but for their salutary restraint; in order that the
temporal supremacy which would be at their option might
not be allowed to tempt them into tyranny. (Cheers.) It
evinced but a sorry knowledge of human nature to object
that a recurrence of ecclesiastical usurpation could take
place in the present advanced intelligence of the people. On
this question human nature was unaltered, and by any
human process was unalterable. Conscience had been
likened to a legitimate but dethroned monarch, the rightful-
ness of whose claim was, not disputed, though the power to
enforce it was gone. The love of sin was the successful
usurper, the fear of punishment was the lingering witness
for the lawful sovereign. But the multitude could never
be divested of paroxysms of conscience, and therefore in-
fidelity could never be popular. For a similar reason, on
the other side, vital Christianity could never be popular.
It would enter into no truce with the usurper—it would
allow no indulgence to sin. The system, to be popular,
must yield where sin reigned and conscience slumbered,
and it must oscillate in parallels with human nature, from
the Carnival to the Lent, from the rebel to the penance.
(
refined.
eCo
rohi
nl (Cheers.) rsi descendt.s)
y Th
e principles,s, This
o would b
s grossnessit
presente couldwap argument
puuhrmi
thels
en tnwgtwirotoahsssbt,
refinementl e
s arid,e d n o multitude.twoitnh without
the
al-
tering l
ee.
externals of society, which varied with the varying circum-
stances of climes, of character and knowledge, but with the
unchanged and unchanging principles of our common nature.
(Cheers.) Let the regulating connection between the clergy
and.government be dissolved—let all the statutes (the statute
of Mortmain included) be repealed, and then guard ourselves
if we could—(cheers)—against the preponderating power of
a pliant, popular theology, in the hands of a priesthood who
would be tempted, by their multiplied opportunities, to make
merchandise of our souls and slaves of our—(The cheering
by which the sense of the passage was anticipated, prevented
our hearing the conclusion of it.) After pointing out the
impossibility of any such aggression on the part of the dis-
senters—an advantage derived to them from the shelter of our
establishment, he proceeded to observe, that if it were asked
why do not Popish priests influence the mass, and work dan-
ger to the state, the answer was, they did, and would, and
must, unless restrained by law. (Loud cheers.) This ac-
counted for the zeal of Romanism in agitating in favour of
the voluntary system. The established church interposed
the only hindrance to its career, no longer sufficient in Ire-
land. Whether it were still in England sufficient, judge ye,
to keep them back from such an acquisition of power as
would endanger the independence of government. (Cheers.)
Legislative restraints were indispensable,
not for the pur-
pose of propagating Christianity, as had been ignorantly as-
serted, and superciliously and vauntingly said, but for the
purpose of guarding civil liberty against the systematic en-
croachments of clerical power (cheers) ; of a power that
admitted of no rival, and the language of whose assump-
tion was identical with those of Jehovah—" I AM, arid
there is none beside me"—a remarkable fact. Legislative
restraint was for self-defence, not for the propagation of
truth. In vain was the attempt to conciliate and attach—
attachment to true liberty, civil and reigious, and attach-
ment to the Popish system, were incompatible. (Cheers.)
Thishim
was from
no tyranny
law
Nothing could attach a Romanist in degree
constitution of Great Britain, which any to the free
did
f m of
not in a
theeould court
doby of
f
correspond-
ingaßnoymddeie.rgecrtCehedeerteacy by )h
process—it could be done only by means of
the Gospel and the grace of God. Ireland wasthemainem-
barrassment of English statesmen. It was not by pe oa 1
statutes—neither was it by Papal encouragement—(immense
cheers)—neither was it by infidel compromise that Ireland
could be dealt with—No ; but by reform preachers, by mis-
sionary bishops, and deacons, carrying to the ears of the peo-
ple, in their own tongue, the glad tidings, full and free. The
reverend gentleman then spoke at great length upon the ad.