The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-02-06 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Srn,—Mr. Eyre Evans, defeated both in the Dock
Committee and the Council in his efforts to obstruct the
progress of dock extension, has, in a letter in the Albion
of this day, called on the "out-door influence of public
opinion."
independently of the anomaly of one of a small mino-
rity in a regularly constituted committee making this
appeal' to something like physical force, what right has
Mr. Alderman Evans to assume that he represents public
opinion? As an alderman he only represents the opinions
of a section of a party in the Town Council, now, fortu-
nately, nearly extinct, and in this capacity alone he has a
seat in the Dock Committee.

I do not understand from his letter that he appeals to
the opinion of the majority of the public. The late elec-
tion, when a most respectable Conservative was opposed
and defeated, merely because he was supposed to be
favoured by Mr. Evans, is an indication of the opinion of
the majority. It is only on a minority that he relies, and
that only to obstruct.
But does his appeal to out-door influence meet the sup-
port of those gentlemen who voted in the minority with
him in the Dock Committee ? Let Mr. Aikin and Mr.
Sandbach recollect that silence implies assent.—Your
obedient servant,

A DOCK RATE-PAYER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

SlR.—Can you inform me if there is, or ever has been,
an English translation of the Latin Decrees of the Council
of Trent? If not, is it not a point of great importance,
in the controversy between Roman Catholics and Pro-
testants, to have these decrees in an English dress, so
that all the world may know accurately what these de-
crees really are ? The Roman Catholics must be unwilling
to have them exposed to the public eye, else their priests
would long since have allowed them to wear an English
garb. Should no such English translation be in exist-
ence, it would certainly be a most lucrative task for any
good Latinist to undertake, as no doubt the sale would
be immense. J. M. V.

TO THE REVEREND THE MODERATOR OF
THE, PRESBYTERY OF LANCASHIRE.

Reverend Sir,—The disruption of the Church of Scot-
land is a painful event. Though caused by her faithful
contendings, and followed by much earnest striving, for
the supremacy of Christ our Lord in His own house, we
cannot but regret—yea, deplore—the event, as a visitation
of God's merciful providence, by which the evil passions
of men have been stirred—which has led to dissensions
and animosities unseemly in themselves and disastrous in
their results—which has rent asunder an institution for
ages considered the glory of the land. A disruption in the
Presbyterian Church in England, to which we belong,
would probably be as distressing in its effects. It surely,
therefore, behoves us to use our most strenuous efforts to
prevent it. Indeed, there cannot be a doubt that, unless
compelled by the actual requirements of duty or by the
stringent obligations of Christian expediency well ascer-
tained, we are not at liberty to sanction—far less to seek—
a separation of our happily united body, a dissolution of
our harmonious and generally beneficial union, an aban-
donment of our admired co-operative organization. Our
brethren in Scotland submitted to the disruption of their
church in the dictate of sheer necessity : it was an altera-
tion they felt that they could not avoid. In following out
the principles of our church, a like calamitous issue may
possibly arise; let us retard it, or rather strive to prevent
it, to the utmost—and then the guilt of schismatic proce-
dure, on whomsoever it may fall, shall not attach to us.
I am well persuaded that the reverend presbyters view
with dread the awful sin, and fondly trust that their pur-
pose to use means calculated to avert it from both parties
in the church (if parties unfortunately there be) may be
such as to mark that they, at least, have a Scriptural
judgment on the point. It perhaps is exceedingly pre-
sumptuous in me to say a word by way of advice or en-
couragement to my reverend father ; yet I trust my for-
wardness may be taken in good part, and if my views
coincide with your own, some very small incitement in
the right way may accrue.
It must be obvious that the Church of Christ on earth
is one body, and that in baptism we have all been admitted
to the communion of the whole number of saints, in such
a manner as that the congregation or individuals who are
in fellowship with one part of the universal church must
necessarily be in fellowship, or have the right to fellow-
ship, with every other part of the universal church. No
ecclesiastical synod can lawfully decree that the fellowship
of Christians may be restricted within narrower bounds
than those just described, which on the most ample pos-
sible—though ecclesiastical consolidation and mutual co-
operation may be fully restricted, to the Christians of
particular districts for instance, or even perhaps to a
certain section of these.

To apply these principles to the case of the Presbyterian
churches in England, we may form ourselves into a synod,
or rather into a congeries of churches represented in a
synod, for the purposes of government, co-operation, and
mutual assistance. In fact, this arrangement has long
been in existence ; but now—dreadful thought !—it is in
danger of being laid aside, and superseded by a new scheme,
whereby there should arise out of the one body now sub-
sisting two separate bodies—one sympathising chiefly with
the Established Church of Scotland, and another sym-
pathising chiefly with the Free Church of Scotland.
As none of our churches in England are subordinate
to the Church of Scotland, or to the Free Church, it is
simply a question of sympathy; that is, the separation
will take place not on account of any matter affecting the
conduct of the separating parties, but on account of men-
tal convictions, in circumstances where, apparently, the
conscience would not be harassed by opposition had the
bond of union been maintained.
It does not seem inconsistent with Presbyterian polity
that congregations whose ministers are licensed or ordained
by the Established Church, and other congregations whose
ministers are ordained by the Free Church or by the Irish
Presbyterians, should be embodied in one ecclesiastical
corporation. At present the system that does prevail is
exactly such. Why, then, not continue it? The friends
of the Free Church, comprising, I suppose, a decided ma-
jority of our number, do not object to the system now
prevailing, but to the name which the synod has assumed,
as recent events have rendered it less suitable. The name
is, " The Synod of the Presbyterian Church in England in
connexion with the Church of Scotland." The words in
italics might well be omitted. but as this might not please
the friends of the Established Church of that country,
perhaps the least objectionable designation would be •• The
Synod of the Presbyterian Churches in England, connected
with the Established Church of Scotland, the Free Church
of Scotland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and all
other bodies holding the Westminster standards."
I do not believe that to union on such principles and
under such a designation any of the Free Church or Irish
congregation would object, and I cannot see how any of
those who adhere to the Established Church can object.
It is unnecessary to dilate on the adaptation of such a
union to our actual circumstances, or on the extreme de-
sirableness of unity among us.
In conclusion, the Established Church of Scotland is
(whatever may be her distinctions) still a Church of Christ,
a dear sister. She holds the head, though unhappily her
views as to her relation to the State may not be such as
we conceive God's word to prescribe. Shall we disown
her whom Christ our Lord has not disowned? Shall we
not seek her welfare the more we see her to need our ad-
monitions ? Shall we refuse to unite with those Christians
who have prayed to God for direction, and yet feel it their
duty to abide by her? No, surely no; away with a self-
righteous spirit. We love them who love the Lord. Let
us ourselves take heed lest we fall. We may, in the eyes
of other churches, be liable to censure such as some of our
number would pronounce on that church. But to our own
Master we shall stand or fall. They are not our judges,
though we value them as counsellors. If they blame us
for infrequent celebration of the Lord's Supper, they may
be only acting faithfully; but dare they on that account
to refuse us the benefit of their fellowship? By no means.
We may be regarded as slothful, because we have no
rigorous missionary plans at work but is any church at
liberty to repudiate us for this negligence? Surely not.
Let us, then. learn to do unto others as we would that
others should do unto us, as we infer from Scripture that
othersought
In great humility, and with an earnest desire that the
to act towards us.
frankness of the above expressions may not be taken amiss,
but that the letter may, by God's blessing, conduce to the
glory of Christ and the welfare of his dear church, I am,
reverend sir, your obedient servant and faithful brother,
RAMULUS.

The subscription:; at the close of the recent Huntingdon
meeting, in oppint)n to the League, amounted to nearly
£1,0410.