The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-03-20 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

RAILWAY AFFAIRS.

*
The Ormskirk railway will be opened to the public on
the 26th inst.

GREAT NORTHERN.—A further extension of this com-
pany's line through Lincolnshire, from Lincoln to Gains-
borough, 16 miles, is ready for opening.
Mr Thompson is the •successful contractor for the
branch line and station to Tithebarn-street, for the Li-
verpool and Bury Railway Company, which is about to be
finished with all possible despatch.
Capt. Moorson, R.N., the deputy-chairman of the
Chester and Holyhead line, succeeds Mr. W. R. Collett
in the Presidency of that company. There was much
anxiety expressed to prevail on upon Mr. Glyn to accept
the vacant seat.

EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.-Mr. Waddington,
M.P., was appointed by the board, at their meeting on
Thursday last, chairman of the company, in the room of
Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Samuel Anderson the deputy-
chairman, in lieu of Mr. Waddington.
The traffic on the Chester and Holyhead Railway for
the week ended 11th March, 1849, was as follows :
Coaching traffic, £723 7s. Bd. ; parcels, £2l Bs. Id. ;
goods and cattle, £245 17s. 6d. ; steam-boats, £94 15s. sd.
Total, £lOB5 Bs. Bd.

THE LATE BARRICADES ON THE RAILS.—We are
happy to state that there has been no resumption of the
hostile proceedings batween the Lancashire and Yorkshire
and the East Lancashire Railway Companies, to which
we referred in our last, arising out of disputes as to the
right of the former company to collect the tickets from
the passengers of the latter, at the Clifton Junction, and
also as to the use of the hoist in the goods yard, in Irwell-
street, Salford. Arrangements have been entered into by
which the East Lancashire Company secure to the Lan-
cashire and Yorkshire full particulars reference to the
traffic, from all parts of their line, passing along the 41
miles of railway belonging to the latter company, and that
in the form desired by the Lancashire and Yorkshire
Company.

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL AND BISHOP TROWER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
SIR,—I have just seen your paper of Tuesday last, in
which occurs the following statement with regard to the
so-called excommunication of the Duke of Argyll.
" It appears that, in consequence of the tone taken by the
noble duke, in his recently-published essay on the subject of
the apostolical succession to the ministry, tne minister of the
chapel at which the noble duke had presented himself for the
Holy Communion on the preceding Christmas, consulted
Bishop Trower, &c."

Peimit me, as the minister above referred to, to say,
that this is untrue. At the time that I consulted the
bishop, I knew nothing about the duke's book, and even
to this hour have never read a line of it. My sole reason
for consulting the bishop was, that Cle duke is a Presby-
terian ; and methinks, if this fact were kept in mind, the
great majority of the public must needs give their verdict
in favour of the bishop. This I know, that all the Pres-
byterians here whom I have spoken to on the subject
do so. Those who are inclined to decide against him
will perhaps answer a simple question.. What would they
think of any member of the Church of England, who, in
Liverpool or elsewhere, should endeavour to intrude him-
self among any dissenting religious body at the Commu-
nion, contrary to the rules of that body ? And surely, as
we are subjected to all the disadvantages of dissenters
here in Scotland, it is but fair that we should enjoy the
privileges of such.

In conclusion, permit me to deny that the duke has
been excommunicated at all. He never was a member of
the church, and therefore never could be cast out of it.
I am sir, &c.,
K. MACKENZIE PUGHE,
Incumbent of Trinity (Episcopal) Church, Paisley.
Paisley, March 13th, 1849.

[Our readers have now had the statements of both par-
ties before them, and we have not the smallest objection
to leave them to draw their own conclusion.]

.a.
IHE REV. BAPTIST NOEL'S " ESSAY ON THE
UNION OF THE CHURCH AND STATE."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
SIR,---I read the other day, with great satisfaction, the
strictures that appeared in the Record newspaper on the
Rev. B. Noel's " Essay on the Union of the Church and
State," and consider thew both able and just. Nearly
all the arguments brought forward in that work have been
before the public for the last twenty or thirty years.
Many of the most eminent Dissenters have not only
stated the same objections, but stated them with more
ability, and a greater shew of reason. These arguments
have been refuted again and again, and, in my opinion,
most satisfactorily. It is not, therefore, his line of argu-
ment I protest against, but the spirit of uncharitableness
which pervades the whole work. I grieve to see Mr.
Noel's intention to inflict a wound, however powerless
his shaft may be.
That abuses exist in the Established Church, as well as
in Dissent, I do not deny ; and I believe every Christian
man laments over them, and desires their removal. But
are w., on the one hand, to uproot the whole fabric of
the Establishment, because certain abuses have crept
into it ; or destroy the whole system of Dissent, because
it comes not up to our standard of perfection ?
It is not my design in this letter to combat the argu-
ments which Mr. Noel brings forward against the con-
nection between the Church and State—a connection not
only approved, but defended, by the late Dr. Chalmers,
of the Free Church of Scotland, compared with whom
Mr. Noel is but a dwarf in theology, and by the great
fathers of Dissent, Dr. Owen, Howe, Henry, and others.
This I consider has been already done by others ably_
-- _c I'll • • .

ana in tne spirit of Christian love. But I desireio point
out two cardinal defects in Mr. Noel's work, which may
be included under the two following heads :
I. A want of common candour ; and
11. A want of strict and faithful adherence to truth.
These are grave charges to be brought against a minis-
ter of the Gospel, but these I am prepared to substan-
tiate, premising only, that if a merchant, or a member of
any community, had acted the same part in the commer-
cial world that Mr. Noel has acted in the religious, his
standing in society, in point of integrity, would be con-
sidered very questionable.
Mr. Noel has been a minister of the Church of England
for upwards of twenty-two years, during which time he
has preached with no ordinary effect, administered the
sacraments of the Church, and observed her rites and
ceremonies. How long he has been a convert to the
views published in his Essay does not appear, but it can
be proved that be has held them for some time past,
perhaps in a more modified degree for the last fifteen or
eighteen years. Now I ask a simple question :—Has Mr.
Noel, during this time, evinced the same anxiety, and
laboured with the same diligence, to reform and purify
the Church of which he was a minister, as he has done in
this Essay to abuse and betray her ? Where is the proof
that he has ?
Mr. Noel condemns the Articles of the Church as
sanctioning " errors." How could he in conscience
subscribe to them at first, on his admission into holy
orders, or connive at them afterwards ? Mr. Noel con-
demns the Prayer Book as containing "unscriptural
doctrines." Where was his common honesty, when he
used the formularies of that book up to the time of his
secession ?Mr. Noel finds fault with the baptismal ser-
vice as embodying " false doctrine," and yet he used
that very service in his public ministrations. Mr. Noel
alleges that the minister is obliged by law to administer
to an ungodly man the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.
How has Mr. Noel sulm.itted to this law for so many
years ? Was the tenderness of his conscience in abeyance
all this time ? Further, Mr. Noel objects to the Burial
Service, and infers from it that the Church of England
makes no distinction after death between the righteous
and the wicked. How could Mr. Noel use this service,
with his previous knowledge of its unscriptural character ?
Did Mr. Noel exercise such spiritual discernment as to
bury only believers in the Lord, and entirely exclude the
interring of others, of whose salvation he entertained
doubts and misgivings ?
Now let these few remarks be duly weighed and pon-
dered, and I appeal to any honest man whether Mr. Noel
has not been guilty of great disingenuousness, amounting,
as I verily believe, to dishonesty of action ? He has been
eating the bread of the Church, as a familiar friend ; and
at the same time, in heart and in purpose, lifting up his
heel against her. I would ask, whether a.man of the
world in the pursuit of business, or a member of any
corporate body, acting with such duplicity, would not be
considered a marked 'Character, and whether he would not
be black-balled out of every well-organized society ?
It is not enough to say in reply, that Mr. N. remained
in the Church as long as be possibly could. The question
is, did he not remain much longer than he ought in con-
science to have done ? And was it not his intention to
have remained till next summer as a minister in the
Church, had not the Bishop of London interposod his
authority ?

There'is also in Mr. Noel's statements a want of strict
and faithful adherence to truth. In p. 542 of the second
edition of his Essay, I read these words :

-- •
" Of its 16,000 ministers, about 1568 do nothing, about 6681
limit their thoughts and labours to small parishes which con-
tain from 150 to 300 souls, while others in cities and towns
profess to take charge of 8000 or 9000 souls. And of the 12,923
working pastors of churches, I fear, from much inquiry and
from various symptoms, that about 10,000 are unconverted
men, who neither preach nor know the Gospel."
I defy Mr. Noel to prove this. Such a general asser-
tion, on so solemn a subject, will not, ought not to satisfy
the public mind. I challenge him to the proof, and until
he can prove it I shall consider him as the accuser of the
brethren, and the charge itself as an unparalleled outrage
on the principles, I say not of charity only, but of truth
itself.
T would offer Mr. Noel every facility to ascertain what
is the real state of the case; and for this end I propose
that he and I appoint two Christian men to accompany
us for the purpose of investigation, and that we travel
through England and Wales, and make a thorough in-
quiry into the conduct and doctrine of ministers and
take notes of what we see and hear. I say not this by
way of bravado ; the subject is too serious. I say it in
perfect sincerity ; and until this proposal be accepted, or
any other of like nature, I shall consider that Mr. Noel
has, in the plenitude of his heart, brought a railing accu-
sation against his brethren.
As to the charge that " 6681 clergymen limit their
thoughts and labours to small parishes, which contain
from 150 to 300 souls," I should have considered it too
puerile to notice, had it not been gravely stated in the
Essay. Mr. Noel must have matter of accusation against
the Church, whether he seeks it in the depth or in the
height above. Let Mr. N. himself inform us how he
ARP,III 42PurciacSanertinparigioT41;Will-he-Ca've
them to leave their parishes, and go to others more
thickly populated ? I hardly believe this, for Mr. N.
must know that the souls of the people of these parishes,
though fewer in number, are not the less precious. I
deem it an excellency, and not a blemish, in the Church
of England, that she extends her fostering care and soli-
citude to every parish in the kingdom, however small that
parish may be.
I reside in a parish, in which there are 16 cleymen,
who sustain the character of converted men, and evan
gelical preachers.
.Of the 15 clergymen in the adjoining
parish, I venture to affirm the same thing. and the same
also of the clergy of the two next parishes. I have tra-
velled through a great part of England and Wales, and
have made inquiries into this subject, and the result of
my observation is totally different to Mr. Noel's. It is
true I have seen many unworthy ministers in the Church,
as well as amongst the body of Dissenters, neither cor-
rect in morals nor orthodox in doctrine. But are we to
ascribe the existence of such evils to the union of the
Church with the State, and not rather to the negligence
of those whose province it is to see such abuses corrected.
If so, to what cause must we attribute the corruptions of
Dissent : not to the State, because with it and Dissent no
connction exists. Let Mr. Noel solve this problem. I
hesitate not to say, that while in my travels, I saw much
to make the heart sorrowful, I found far, far more to cheer
and gladden it. And were a comparison to be instituted
between the unworthy ministers of Christ's Gospel, and
the pious and zealous preachers thereof; it would be
much nearer the truth to say that, of the 12,923 working
pastors of churches, 10,000 were converted men, preach-
ing the Gospel of Christ, with greater or less success.
I admit that many of these 10,000 ministers do not
belong to the Bible Society, the Church Missionary
Society, nor to the Evangelical Alliance ; what then ! is it
to be inferred that a union with these Societies is a neces-
sary test of conversion ? Such men, exercising liberty of
conscience in non-essentials, for the most part support
and advocate other religious societies, more in accordance
with their views and feelings : and will Mr. Noel venture
to anathematize these and brand them as unconverted •
men ?

There is also throughout Mr. Noel's Essay a studied
suppression of truth. He magnifies the errors of the
Church, and passes by, with great carefulness, all its ex-