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

mirable results of the connection between church and state
in this country ; and asked if it was not wise in the clergy to
take security against their own infirmity ? But, in obtaining a
provision !rom the state, let it be the church's anxious care
to ordain, independent of interference, all the ministers who
should be required. This was an ecclesiastical and inalienable
function. Let the church ordain none but what were in
every sensefitted.to fill the sacred office, and when she haddone
this, she might then not only allow, but be obliged to any
layman, who gave pecuniary support to any of her ministers.
It would be well if all patronage were in the crown, as ordi-
nation was in the bishop. If interference with ordination
were claimed by the crown, the church must resist the
claim, and stand aloof from any alliance with the state ra-
ther than submit. In that case the independence of the state
was always in jeopardy. If the patronage, as well as the
ordination of the kingdom, were in the hands of the bishops
supremacy would be a temptation to the church, and the in-
dependence of the state would be endangered. But a portion of
patronage might be in the bishops without risk, but no portion,
however small, of interference with ordination could be given
to the crown without the immediate violation of a funda-
mental principle. The measure of patronage which it might
be safe to intrust to the bishops it would be impossible to
define, but suppose the clergy to appoint their own bishops,
and the bishops to be faithful in their functions, there would
be no risk if the entire patronage of the kingdom were vested
in the civil power. The right to choose bishops, might be
given up by the church without their losing any of their ec-
clesiastical functions, but as a compensation for this sur-
render, the church might fairly claim a measure of patronage.
The reverend lecturer here referred to the present state of
the church of Scotland, which (as we understood him) in-
duced collision upon the slightest obstacle between the
regulating parties. It was very necessary, he said, that there
should be a well-regulated and well-defined code on either
side, in the connection of church and state ; if this were not
the case, the one might become intolerant, and the other
tyrannical, from caprice, ambition, or avarice. But it was
charged against us by dissenters that the state fixed our
creed. Our creed was not fixed by the state, but by the
Bible. (Cheers.) Again, they said we could not change
any article of our creed. It was our glory that our creed
was unchangeable (cheers); it was the ancient, the true, the
Divine creed, which no man could change, which no Chris-
tian man ever desired to change. (Cheers.) Thus, the only
terms of union, at once effectual in themselves and scriptu-
ral in their application, excluded any and every society call-
ing itself a Christian church, but refusing to pledge itself to
a written standard. The dissenters, therefore, who rejected
the primitive formula, and the Rotnanists who added to it
tradition, written and un-written, stood equally excluded
from safe union with any government that wished to main-
tain liberty on earth. And when we considered the necessity
which the nature of the case imposed (as he thought he had
fairly shown) for some union as a guard against the workings
of priestly avarice and ambition, we had cause to give God
humble and hearty thanks for our liberty-protecting esta-
blished church. (Cheers.)

REV. HUGH 111`NEILE'S FOURTH LECTURE.
(From the Morning Herald of yesterday)
A very numerous and most respectable auditory attended
on yesterday at the Hanover-square Rooms, to hear the
fourth lecture of the Rev. Hugh M'Neile upon the irresisti-
ble claims of the Established Church to the zealous en-
couragement of the rulers of this country : and all present
testified, by their deportment throughout the day, their sense
of the importance of the subject, and their admiration ofthe
able and lucid manner in which the rev. lecturer put forward
his views, and the convincing, but temperate, arguments by
which he enforced them.
Mr. M'NEILE reminded his hearers that in a former lec-
ture he had investigated the connection which should subsist
between the Scriptural exercise of ecclesiastical functions by
the church and the Scriptural possession of supreme autho-
rity by the civil power—a connection which a Christian mi-
nistry would always desire to preserve as a valuable assist-
ance to them in doing what God had commanded them—
namely, in spreading the knowledge of his holy name, and
remaining, where God had commanded them to remain, sub-
ject to the civil power. The safety of the ruler was, by the
mercy of God, identified with his duty • and that connection
with the Christian church which he had' shown to be the only
safety of the ruler, and the only source of national happiness,
he should now, from the Word of God, prove to be the
ruler's duty. The civil ruler was an impotent creature at
the disposal of his Creator—a responsible creature, whose
real happiness now and hereafter is inseparable from the
discharge of the duty attached to the station to which he is
advanced, and the opportunities by which he is surrounded
—a delegated creature, himself under authority, while others
are placed under him—one whose right to rule and whose
duty to obey are derived from the same source. If he re-
fuse to obey God, he arraigned his own charter, the only
plea, except that of brute force or accidental majority, by
which he could claim to rule over men. A Christian state
wielded the sword and the treasury, and the body of the
community were contented to be subject to it, not only for
wrath but also for conscience sake. A Christian church
taught by its bishops and preachers, and the body of the
church, consented to be subordinate ,o them. The combi-
nation of regal and sacerdotal supremacy remained for
Christ Jesus, when he exhibited himself as a priest upon
his throne; and for any bishop to add civil supremacy to his
priestly office was to proclaim himself an usurper and an
antichrist. (Applause.) Thus the executive of the state and
of the church were mutually helpful, and a mutual check, by
their mutual reference to one common standard which was
supreme over the whole—the Christian ruler appealing to the
Bible for the subordinate duties of the priesthood—a Chris-
tian priesthood appealing to the same Bible for the support-
ing and protecting duty of the Government ; and the neglect
of this standard involved its own retribution. If the executive
of the state ruled without reference to God's commands, the
community would be divided, some holding by the Divine
standard, which condemned this' departure, and some holding
with the compromisers, and endeavouring to lower the national..
standard, in order that their own apostacy might not be so
apparent. (Applause.) If the executive of the church ne-
glected the Divine commands, a corresponding division would
take place, some holding with the false teachers, and en-
deavouring to prevail upon the executive of the state to
be on their side, while others would revert to the unchanging
and infallible standard by which the proceedings of the exe-
cutive were condemned. The important question was, What
was the Scriptural duty of the civil ruler ? Dr. Wardlaw
had put and answered that question thus : " What is the ma-
gistrate's province with respect to religion ? His true and
legitimate province is to have no province at all ;" and yet
Dr. Wardlaw added, " As a man he is bound by the precepts
and the words of God—as a magistrate he is bound to perform
his official functions on christian principles, from christian
motives, and according to christian precepts •, but authority
in religion he has none." On this, he (Mr. M`Neile) asked,
how were the official functions of a magistrate to be separated
from his authority, and how was his official authority to be
separated from christianity ? There were duties appertaining
to all men, such as honesty, truth, temperance ; but there
was a second class of duties, to be distributed amongst us
according to our relations in life and our position in society.
In addition to the duties incumbent upon all men the civil
ruler had peculiar and official duties, for the discharge of
which he was responsible to God, and which were thus
defined by the Apostle Peter—" The punishment of evil-
doers anti the praise of them that do well." But if rulers
were uninformed and mistaken as to the true standard, they
might call evil good and good evil, and might make laws for
the punishment of the good and the praise of evil-doers.
No man could form a rational opinion or give a judicious
vote on any subject, without having a regulating standard to
judge it by ; and the will of the Almighty Creator and Pre-
server of all men was the only infallible standard. It' a
civil governor ruled as if he considered this world as all-im-
portant, and neglected the paramount necessity of training
fur eternity, he would pervert the minds of the people and
confound their ideas of right and wrong. Whatever a go-
vernment made its chief aim, it taught the people to regard
as the chief good. Thus, if a government made secular in-
struction the chief object of its attention and encourage-
ment, to the disparagement of religious instruction, it taught
the people to regard secular instruction as of paramount im-
portance, and all special religion as a matter of secondary
consideration. (Applause.) The mere will of man could
never make that right which God forbad, or that wrong which
God commanded. No legislature, by any uniformity of deci-
sion, could make it right to bow down to images, or wrong to
search the scriptures. Without the true standard, the legisla-
ture itself could not long retain hold of the respect of man.
The judicial bench would lose all reverence and authority,
and its decisions be arraigned with as much freedom as the
speculations of any private theorist. Let the opponents of
these doctrines fairly meet him on this high principle of the
combination of the universal duty to Gou, which all men
owed, with those relative duties which devolved upon each
in connection with his position in society, and tell him what
was the whole scriptural duty of a Christian king. But with
regard to the maintenance of an established church, he could
afford to descend from the high ground which it would be corn-
petent to him to assume and could allege that, even on the
ground of practical utility, the claims of the established
church were unanswerable. He alleged that the national
church produced more benefit than any other—nay, than
every other religious institution in the country. It con-
ferred more benefit upon the community than the army,
the navy, the courts of law, the magistracy, or the
police ; while their efforts were limited to the punish-
ment, or at most, to the prevention of crime, the church
prevented the great bulk of the community from giving the
magistrates any trouble at all; and one zealous minister
preaching the Gospel of truth, which touches the stoutest
heart, visiting the sick, and performing the offices of Christian
love and charity, prevented more crime than any hundred—
he might almost say thousand policemen. There would be
but little necessity for maintaining a large armed force, and
an organised and wide-spread police, if more pains were
taken to extend national Scriptural education. The dissenters
said that the Scriptures did not inculcate the establishment
of national institutions for religious purposes, but that it
ought to be left to the voluntary impulses of the people. No
conscientious churchman denied the efficacy of the voluntary
principle in the hearts of the truly converted. If they alone
were to be provided for, the voluntary principle might be
sufficient. But the church recognised the command to " bap-
tiseall nations"—" to spread a net to catch not only the
good fish but the bad," and demanded the outward means
not upon a congregational but a national scale; and that ex-
ceeded the reach of the voluntary principle. The ministers
of the church did not contend for the compulsion of man's
mind by his fellow man, but they asked for the extension of
those outward means which God himself had promised in
order that the whole population of the realm might, as far as
could be effected, by human instrumentality, be brought
within the range of the blessed. Political duty was inculcated
in the Scriptures. Our Saviour himself said, " Render to
Cwsar the things that are Caesar's." One of the Apostles said,
" Let every soul be subject to the higher powers ;" another,
" Submit thyself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
sake;" and again, " Honour the king." All these injunctions
were addressed to the subject, and none to the king, although
it was found that in other relations between man and man
the relative duties of each were equally enforced. If the ser-
vant was addressed, so was the master—if the child was ad-
dressed. so was the father—if the wife was addressed, so was
the husband ; but here no command was addressed to the
sovereign. How was this ? Was God so far a respecter of
persons that no corresponding duty was any where pointed
out as devolving upon the sovereign ? This was a difficulty
e
tohstfocethoexuuavoletr
aptftnmhr;
assw:oeieysoi
nuiht;nhtoetil
egcdrenrwxhsest:,
who
oe:theoeaafnrfatnlecti
the
taio:
rtmtemuheci
aovesde
explanation.
dNands
s.
rvet
oe,erotan:nvdeDidomytuai
hsvlapsedidaedeNrfin:
eine,
odwrtfi ,
the
aTtew todbeh,
Testament
the
fitholaakercmwe: refused uotnnbsfttdleoe:cnseiasoxoari
tntsel
rletfgiuhscrol:aelyyrf,
weeAwihrvhebioi
with-
out
would
completeh a ve
abeen d
stinct incumbentbookupon
t
beweletnTestament to have explained these
d
dt oe rnyt
instead
Abraham,
ofe 0 on ft
nDisovgid himself'a n
ft
0A thelosel asoouisotnotel
abbt
shoe eotmkoct
book,
irsui
would
ytucdledu otitg'e
supplementalnt
syoaos:
ctidulhceaapl
wetr
atee,orsillstouti
rei
swdoorbaeaioti
ffseoieuoskrlt,riot
ynoi
wovdt
he d
containedthese
the
his-
tory to
o
he
dhdrlreefecrfiiht
Jewishtnl
aetdepratdirections
eirroyalrdae,cot tahf
imme-
diate theo-
cracy, toes-
n
ing
account for the comparative silence of the latter chap-
ters.
superintendence of -Jehovah—the church having ra c y
re-
lation topcohoniemtteonradse7l God, and the state as King—that a union
of the temporal and the sacred characters was admissible.
But might not an example he imitable in some degree, al-
though not perfectly, and even although the inimitable were
the most important part ? It might as well be argued that
Israel,
because the obedience of Christ was spotless, meritorious,
Nazareth.
human nature, no m
atoning—unless theraenwoeoroeldanobuerytir
anotc; tthheuaDDivr.inwe and the
manktng
from
mm JehovahJesoa of oof
The rev. lecturer then proceeded to refute the doctrine. of the
winoucladtticuagt ooffff aa
CChhrriissttiiaana
and 17the 7th
voluntary, and he proved, from th
chap-
ters of Leviticus, that the offerings were compulsory
dissenters, that the offerings under the Jewish ritual were