The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-21 00:00:00

WEDNESD.&Y,

The Synod met again on Wednesday morning, at ten
o'clock. There were present, shortly after the commence-
ment of the proceedings, the greater part of the seventy-three
ministers, and twenty elders composing the roll of Synod,
as well as a considerable number of ladies and gentlemen
belonging to the Prebyterian Church.

HOME MISSIONS.
After the transaction of some less important business, the
Moderator (the Rev. Alexander Murdoch) called on the
gentlemen from the different presbyteries to read their reports
on the home missions.
The Rev. JAMES CHALMERS BURNS, of the London
Presbytery, gave a report of the progress of the home mis-
sion in London, which showed that five new stations had
been formed, and expressed a hope that these would speedily
become new and flourishing churches.
The Rev. HuGn CAMPBELL, of Manchester, gave the
report of the Lancashire Presbytery. He said that in Wigan
a most excellent missionary had been appointed to the congre-
gation there.' His own conviction was, that in a few months
they should find it to be their duty to ordain that missionary,
arid appoint another missionary in the place. Next year
they hoped to have a new church erected in Bolton. In
Liverpool, it was the intention to establish a mission in a
very populous part of the town, in which a great number of
presbyterians resided, and with the intention, he believed, of
having a church there at no very distant period.
The Rev. Dr. P4TERSON, of Sunderland, (Newcastle-on-
Tyne Presbytery,) said that a very efficient home missionary
had been introduced into Newcastle-on-Tyne, from whose
labours much good was expected to result.
The Rev. PETER SAWERS, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, said
that the greater part of the population of that town, many of
whom had formerly been.presbyterians, seemed to have sunk
down into utter appathy and neglect of religion. Out of a
population of 116,000, there were 92,000
who never entered
a house of God. The missionary now at work was confined
to a single locality of the town, in order that a clearer idea
might be formed of the good which resulted from his labours.
The Rev. Mr. Murat°, of Manchester, said that they had
been cheered by the statements of what was being done in
London and other places; burble report from Newcastle-on-
Tyne was more deeply and painfully interesting. He felt
convinced that there had been some great neglect towards it
in the christian world. Belfast and Newcastle-on-Tyne were
originally almost all presbyterians, and they had grown uppers
passu ; but the religious condition of the two places was
widely different. At one period, say thirty or forty years
ago, they had a strong hold in Newcastle-on-Tyne, and he
therefore thought it was their duty to do something for its
spiritual welfare.

The MODERATOR, vacating his seat, read the report of the
Berwick Presbytery on home missions, which stated that
until they had a missionary of their own, they had determined
to aid the Presbytery of Newcastle-on-Tyne, the claims of
which place they considered vastly more urgent than their
own.

The Rev. W. GRARAa(, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, who had
been resident there for five years, expressed his belief that
the gloomy state of the town had been much exaggerated.
He said that his congregation, which, when he went there,
assembled in an old chapel, that would only contain 100 per-
sons, had built a chapel capable of containing between 300
and 500 persons, and it was well filled every Sabbath.
The Rev. Mr. SAWERS said that the statistics presented
by him had been given by three different religious bodies,
and that their results all concurred within a few hundreds.
The same statements had been made in the newspapers, and
had never been contradicted.

The Rev. JAMES HAMILTON, of London, after some ob-
servations on the relative number of persons that might be
expected to attend church on Sunday, said that they might
very properly go on the supposition that the bulk of the la-
bouring population, in all our large towns, was virtually
heathen. If they expected to see their congregations thrive,
and Christianity progress in this land, they must set out on
a new principle. They must not think only of the scattered
members of the Church of Scotland. If Presbyterianism
was good for Scotland, it was good for England. If it had
once such a hold on England that the great bulk of the peo-
ple belonged to it ; if the bulk of their standard works in di-
vinity were the production of Englishmen, why should they
not see again what England had seen ? But to accomplish
this, they must give up their pulpit etiquette, and go out
into the lanes and hedges: they must look to the labouring

population, and to the lower portions of the population, so
low that other denominations overlooked them. He believed
that a blessing would rest on such an aggressive movement,
and that the result would be the gathering of many souls into
the fold of the good shepherd. It was only in such ways
that presbyterian principles and their presbyterian church
could make head in this land.

The Rev. JAMES LAIDLAW, of Beweastle, read the repor
of the presbytery of Northumberland.

The statements and reports were adopted as those of the
respective presbyteries.

LADY NEWLEY'S CHARITY

The Rev. J. C. BURNS read the report of the Synod com-
mittee on Lady Hewley's •Charity. The committee con-
sisted of the Presbytery of London, who received instructions
to watch the suit, and to raise funds for any proceedings they
might think necessary to undertake. They accordingly
raised £llO ss. and engaged counsel to appear on behalf of
the English Presbyterian Synod. The hearing of the case
came on before the Vice-Chancellor, in the month of Febru-
ary. The interests of themselves and of their brethren in the
north were ably represented. A strong opinion was expressed
in favour of their claim, both as respected the administration
and enjoyment of the trust. A decision had not yet been
given, but it was confidently expected that it would be
speedily given, and that it would be favourable to them, and
conformable to their claim. In case there should be an ap-
peal to the House of Lords, it would be for the Synod to in-
struct the committee as to what should be done. The money
raised by the committee was found sufficient for the emer-
gency.

- As it appeared, from questions put by the Rev. Dr,
Brown, that the London Presbytery had never met as a sub
committee for the special purpose of reporting on the charity
it was decided that the report should be remitted to the con.
vener, in order that the committee might meet and report
formally.

ds It'oo rseummon them to attend in
OLD SCHOOLS AND cptiourtn.fcrouransthis committee,
and It
thev a was sconvenertated th
was
st hocrrdeewr
ea
the vestry of Rodney-street Church at five o'clock it► the

the hands of the Unitarians,
1.11
evening.
this property.
The Rev. J. HAMILTON stated that Mr. Matthews had
discovered the will of Dr. Williams, by which a very large
property and library, now
had been left for Presbyterian purposes. A suit was about
Graham.
suggested that a standing law com-
mittee should be appointed.
The Rev. Mr. HAMILTON thought the suggestion a good
toTbielecommenced
Rev Dr.
Bfßooriy the
s recovery of
one, and observed that the committee might attend to legis-
lative Education Bill of Sir James
proceedings—such. for instance, as the Factory and

UNION or PROTESTANT EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS.
The Clerk of the Court read an overture, that the Synod
should,io
i n of i
a s
,ro
tes
taas possible, take measures for joining in
an union n t Evangelical Christians, of different
denominations, for the protection of themselves against their
common enemies.

The Rev. Mr. GRANT. moved the adoption of the overtnle.
He said that the Dissenters of England, under which deno-
mination the Presbyterians of this country would of course
be included, were, instead of being an united body, like
diAjechr membrce, and often, instead of helping, interfered
with and hindered each other. They were frequently taunted
by the Puaeyites and Romanists with their diversions. A
boast had recently been made that two-thirds of the Church

thitil4.4 wic4 wt;4 44iiyirt
that they halti that tiers wua no salvation ft; the Ne
Church. Th;-, anxiety aid zealousness or this class (the
Puseyites) to wake converts was notorious, its well as the
amount of success which had attended their efforts. Perhaps
the bill just alluded to (that of Sir James Graham) was OW
result of a scheme ou their part. They were (milting efforts
to secure that the rising generation should be trained up in
their own sentiments, and if so, there was no doubt that they
would by and bye extend their regards to grown-up persons.
Ail Dissenters, therefore, should be like a strong, united,
and fortified city, in order that they might oppose t heir
enemii-s. It was contemplated that this union might em-
brace Independents, Baptists, Lady Huntingdon's Connex-
ion, the Calvinistic Methodists, the United Church of Eng-
land and Ireland, and perhaps the General Assembly of
Ireland, and should a division take place in the Church of
Scotland, then, perhaps, the seceding body also.
The Rue. ALEXANDER MUNRO, chief clerk of the court,
read a letter from the Congregational Union of England and
Wales, held in Liverpool last year, suggesting to the Synod
the desirablenes of such a union as that proposed in the
overture. The jotter was signed, en behalf of the Congrega-
tional Union, by the Rev. Dr. Leifchild, the Rev. Algernon
Wells, &c., and contained the resolution passed by that body.
The communication was laid before the meeting.
The Rev. Mr. HAMILTON said that he did not know ex-
actly
the extent to which the overture went. It was a very
simple thing for them. as individuals, to meet other indi-
viduals, or bodies, and say that, as members of different
churches, they were agreed on some certain point or points ;
but it was a more serious and difficult matter, and calling for
anxious deliberation, before any ecclesiastical body could
make such a movement. He wished to know whether Mr.
Grant designed that the Synod should take any steps towards
an ecclesiastical identification with other bodies, or whether,
for instance, they, in their synodical capacity, were to de-
clare that the Congregational Union was essentially one with
them.

The Rev. Mr. GRANT replied that it was not intended that
any of the bodies should compromise any of their peculiar
views. They might have annual, biennial, or triennial
meetings for the communication of information by the rep-
resentatives of the various bodies, and the adoption of
measures for the more successfully resisting the efforts that
were making to put an end to what was called schism in our
land.

The Rev. Mr. CAMPORLL did not think that the explana-
tion removed the difficulty. They could not force an unin
between different bodies. This must come in the good provi-
dence of God, and if they attempted, by artificial excitement
or human skill, to force on such an union, the result would
be greater disunion than now prevailed. He would leave
every member of the court to act as he liked ; let them indi-
vidually meet other bodies, and fraternise with them as far
as they could ; but let them not attempt, without any con-
ference or form of union laid down, to form an union between
different denominations. They acted in a corporate capacity ;
all their decisions were binding on every member of the
court ; whilst they had no such body on the other side to
meet them. De should oppose the overture.
The Rev. ROOT. WALLACE, of Birmingham, opposed the
overture. The Baptists held the doctrine of universal re-
demption, which their church considered unscriptural and
heterodox, and he could not consent to an union with them.
Other arguments of the same kind might be advanced.
The MouuttATou. said that the overture was not for an
union in doctrine, but for an union to resist their enemies.

Dr. &tows concurred in all that had been said by Mr.
Campbell and Air. Wallace. There was a want of de-
finiteness in the proposal of the congregational union, and
what there was of definiteness in it was objectionable.e
Ultimately, the synod declined to adopt the overture, and
appointed a committee to draw up a respectful reply to the
communications laid before them by their chief clerk, reci-
procating the general spirit of those communications.

111-CENTENARY OF 'WESTMINSTER DIVINES.
An overture was brought before the court, by the Rev.
Mr. Campbell, proposing that the Synod should take mea-
sures for the celebration of the bi-centenary of the Westmin-
ster Assembly of Divines, to be held on the Ist of July next.
The overture was adopted ; a committee was appointed ; and
representatives of the different presbyteries were nominated
to attend the meeting.

i
rtaly,trthigsg;lS eftali:y4ptgps Att7 atitlitt
God's prpoyioenoe they Oen enjoy' 0414ining the prin-
ciples for which that church had been led to contend, and
the position in which she was now placed in consequence of
her contending for those principles, in the hope and with the
expectation that those principles, based as they were on
the word of God and the ancient constructions of the
church, and in substance the same as their forefathers
laid down their lives for, would generally meet with cor-
dial acceptance from Scotchmen and Presbyterians, and
make them feel that in the present position in which they
were called on to declare their concurrence in those prin-
ciples, and give their aid, countenance, and assistance to
those who had been contending for them. He regretted ex-
ceedingly that one or two of his esteemed friends, who were
expected to be present, were not there, and that he had con-
sequently, instead of having only a portion of the subject to
deal with, to take up the whole of it, and thus make a larger
demand upon their patience, He presumed he might take it
for granted that a large portion of the audience were not very
familiar with the controversy in which the Church of Scot-
land had been recently engaged, and that they still needed to
have this subject brought in a plain and simple way before
them. He presumed he might take it for granted that they
had all heard something of the disputes in which the church
had been involved, and thought many of them had heatd a
great deal of what had been said and written against them—
against those men who had been taking an active part in this
important controversy. The periodical press and conversa-
tion teemed with misrepresentations of their character and
conduct. He presumed he might also take it for granted
what the lending charges against them were, that they were
very seditious and rebellious men, who would not obey the
law of the land, and who were set in opposition to that
law, and who had declared that no decision of the courts
of law, nor acts of parliament, would bind them, and
that they would pay no attention to them whatever.
Another notion :was, that they were a set of turbulent agita-
tors, who were turning the world upside down, and keeping
the country in commotion, in order to enforce views of their
own, and ',,et a large share of power into their own hands.
He wished to remove the prejudices thus occasioned, by ad-
verting to the circumstance that there were the identical
charges which in every age end every country bad been
brought against all men who were labouring for the promo-
tion of what they conceived to be truth, and for the advance-
ment of the kingdom of God and of his Christ, and that there
were charges which had been brought against our Lord and
Master himself, and his inspired'Apostles. This coincidence
in the representation given of their conduct was singularly
alike, and, though of course no proof that they (the speaker
and his associates) were right, was yet sufficient, he hoped,
to secure for them a fair and impartial hearing. Having re-
ferred at length to the passages in which Jesus Christ was
represented by his enemies as one who forbade the people to
pay tribute to Caesar, "saying that he himself was Christ a
King," and that they had found him " stiring up the nation,
teaching all the way from Galilee to this place," he briefly
dwelt upon the unbounded nature of the accusations, and
then showed that precisely the same process was pur-
sued with respect to the Apostles. Now, the head
and front of their offending was just that they said,
as Paul and Silas had said, that there was no other
king than Jesus; and they had asserted no principles
and adopted no course of proceedure, which they did not
think that they could prove to be a legitimate and logical re-
sult of those very principles; and for that reason, and that
only, was the accusation commonly adduced against them
that was adduced against the apostles, when they were repre-
sented as men that were turning the world upside down, and
doing contrary to the decrees] of Caesar. They had always
been willing to render to the civil powers all the submission
to which they were legally entitled. It had been stated that
no controversy was to be allowed at that meeting; but he
was not sure that they could explain and illustrate those
principles without something like controversy. They were
in the position that a large number of ministers of the Church
of Scotland had resolved, within a very brief period, to re-
nounce their connection with that establishment, to abandon
all the privileges and emoluments they enjoyed as ministers
of the established church, in a thorough belief that while
they retained their present convictions as to the duties of the
civil rulers, they could not honestly remain in that position,
consistently with the principles for which they had resolved to
contend. This was an important decision, and one likely to
exercise an important influence on the Christian world ; and
it had not been come to without care and deliberation, and
strong and stringent grounds. He must remind the meeting
of the leading outlines of the controversy in which, for the
last few years, the Church had been engaged. This was the
origin of it all, that in 1834 the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland adopted a solemn resolution that they
would never again intrude a minister on a reclaiming congre-
gation; that was to say, whatever man might be appointed
by a patron, and whateuer qualification he might have for the
ministry, or other office, that in the event of the congrega-
tion coming forward and decidedly declaring that they would
not have that man for their minister, that man should not be
settled amongst them. (Cheers.) They thought that reso-
lution was a right one —a resolution which they could fully
defend. It was first of all demanded by consistency. Dur-
ing the reign of the moderate party violent settlements were
common things. No regard was bad to the popular voice;
that was entirely trampled under foot ; and on several occa-
sions ministers were settled by the moderate party at the
point of the bayonet. The evangelical party had always op-
posed this, as contrary to Scripture and the doctrines of the
Church. They were then a small party. At length they
came to have the ascendancy in the Church courts, and then,
in accordance with the principles they had always professed,
they declared that principle to which he had referred, and took
means to have it carried into effect. They thought they could
unanswerably defend their conduct. They said that no patron,
nor no presbytery, had a right to thrust a minister on a re-
claiming congregation, on a body of Christian men who had
souls to save, consciences to exercise, faculties which they
were bound to employ, and who were the parties mainly in-
terested in the formation of the pastoral relation. They held
that this was Popish tyranny, lording it over the heritage of
God, an interference with the discharge of duties which
Christ had given to the members of his church. It was the
duty of each man to say whether he would enter into pastoral
relations with an individual; and as that was the duty of a
single man, it was the duty of a body of men—of a congre-
gational union. They must form an opinion of the man, for
the sake of their own consciences; and for the discharge of
this office they must have the right of private judgment, of
making up their minds, calmly and deliberately, whether this
was a man under whose pastoral care they could rightly place
themselves, and with whom they could cordially enter into
this important and interesting relaiton. The substance of
the whole matter, so far as concerned the expediency, and
its bearing on religion, had been expressed in a single word
by one of the old worthies, Dr. Witherspoon. He said that
"a minister will do a people little good if they don't like
him, and no good at all if they won't come and hear him."
(Laughter and applause.) And the truth of this position
had been fully tested by the violent settlements which took
place in the course of the last century. Parish churches had
been dissolved, the people having been driven from them by
having thrust upon them a man to whom they could not
confide the care of their souls. And then they (the speaker
and his friends) had proved, again and again, that this prin-
ciple was clearly contained in the constitutional standards of
the Church of Scotland—the first and second Books of Dis-
cipline. There the principle of non-intrusion was laid down,
and, as they had said long ago, the only ground that could
in consistency have been taken up by the moderate party in
the church would have been to have met the motion for
non-intrusion by a motion for the repeal of that part of the
second Book of Discipline in which this principle was clearly
and distinctly asserted. This they had not ventured to do,
and there it stood yet. The reverend gentleman then referred
to some of the authorities on which the evangelical party
based their opinions on this subject. He contended that this
was the practice.of the apostolical and primitive churches.
Clements said that the apostles always settled a minister
with the consent of the whole church. That this was
the doctrine and practice of the primitive church was
admitted by many who did not approve of the princi-
ple itself. He quoted, to this effect, the testimony of
several distinguished authorities of the Church of England—
Bishop Bilson, Dr. Field, and the venerable Hooker. The
testimony of the latter might be considered as the testimony
of one who, if not opposed to the principle, was very willing
to find an excuse for its non-observance. Hooker, after
announcing the principle, went on to say that it was, in
effect, carried out in the Church of England, inasmuch as,
where a minister was nominated by a patron, the people
might be considered to have delegated the power of choosing
the patron. (Laughter.) Hooker, however, was not here
so satisfactory in his reasoning as he
.generally was, or he
would not be entitled to the estimation in which he was held.
The same principle was distinctly laid down by the whole
body of reformers. It was no objection to this principle to
say that it interfered with the right of patronage. A mere
argument from existing law and practice was no proof de jure
that the thing was wrong. Even although it overturned
patronage from the foundation, that would prove nothing.
It must prove it to be illegal, and attended with some diffi-
culty in the enforcement; but it was no proof whatever that
the thing was wrong and inexpedient. They contended that
the principle of non-intrusion, acted on properly by the
courts, was not inconsistent with patronage, or with anything
that by the law of Scotland patrons had a right to. This
would not however, affect the question whether it was a good
rule or not. By the statutes of the land, the Church was en-
titled to put order to all matters ecclesiastical, according to
the discipline of the kirk, it being a matter of unquestionable
certainty that at the time this principle of non-intrusion was
in constant and vigorous operation. His objection to it was
that it did not give to the people all the power they ought to
have,—that it did not exclude patronage altogether. The
virtual consent of three parties was required before a minis-
ter could be settled,—that of the patron, the presbytery, and
the people,—and he said that the people and the presbytery
ought alone to have anything to do with it. (Cheers.) The
one singla object of the veto law was to secure that in all
time coming this principle of non-intrusion should be acted
on. It brought out this principle from the neglect with
which it had been involved by the moderate party. By pas-
sing the veto act, the Assembly pledged itself never to intrude
a minister again on a congregation. That pledge had been
honestly redeemed, and hence all their difficulties. The
celebrated Strathbogie case, of which the audience must
have heard much, resolved itself into this, that as the
Church could not honestly and consistently intrude a
minister herself, so she was equally bound, in honesty
and consistency, to see that her servants should not intrude
ministers—that none subject to her controul should act
contrary to the feelings and principles of christian con-
gregations. In the Auchterardar case, the church refused
to intrude Mr. Young on a reclaiming congregation ; in
the case of Marnoch, she would not intrude Mr. Edwards
on a reclaiming parish ; and in the Strathbogie case, she
would not consent to let the presbytery intrude a minister
on the reclaiming parish. If she had been willing to settle
those men, her present difficulties would have been re-
moved, and her danger averted; and even now she might
escape from them, if she would just consent to the in-
trusion of those men, and reverse the proceedure required
in consequence of that determination. The question o
Archtarardar was brought into the civil courts by the pre.
sentee. Of course he was actuated by the beat of motives