The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-05-21 00:00:00

ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

We alluded in our last to a meeting held at Exeter Hall
on Friday week for the purpose of promoting the foreign
missions of the established Church of Scotland, and to
the eloquent and unanswerable speech of the Rev. Hugh
M'Neile on that occasion. We purpose now to give as
much of the Rev. gentleman's argumentative address as
we can find room for—were we to give the whole it would
occupy two pages of our paper. Mr. M'Neile in the
first place amidst loud marks of approbation vindicated
his consistency, as an episcopally ordained minister, in
taking part in the question, as it related to Church Es-
tablishments, and on the grounds of Protestant sympathy.
He then proceeded as follows :—" The resolution which
I have been requested to support is this That a na-
tional Protestant Church Establishment, with fixed creed
and ecclesiastical authority, and protected alike from the
dictation of the patron and the domination of the people,
is not only the greatest safety to the state and security
for civil freedom, but also, when blessed by the Spirit of
God, eminently calculated to deepen religion in men's
hearts at home, and to carry it to the Jew first, and also
to the Gentile abroad.' In defence of the advantages,
and even the necessity of the established church, we were
favoured but a short time since with the talented advocacy
of many of the most distinguished leaders of the present
secession. It were easy to multiply passages from the
writings of Dr. Chalmers, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Cunning-
ham, and others, strenuously supporting the principle of
ecclesiastical establishments, and pointing out, in very
decisive terms, the practical evils which would necessarily
arise from the absence of a well-defined alliance, between the
Church and state. True itis, i ndeed , thatin theirdescriptions
of such an alliance, they never failed to include, as an essen-
tial feature, what they called the spiritual independence or
liberty of the Church.—(hear.) And however rashly some
individuals may have expressed themselves more recently
on the general principle of a church establishment, it is
only fair to suppose that the more cautious and creditable
advocates of the secession justify their consistency by the
plea that in the present alliance between the Church of
Scotland and the civil power, the spiritual independence
of the church is not respected; but they now, as before,
advocate a Scriptural alliance; but that, painful as it is
to their feelings, and opposed as it is to their general
principles and preferences, still they must incur a separa-
tion with all its risks, rather than submit to an unscrip-
tural alliance. (Applause.) They maintain that there are
duties inculcated upon the Christian church by the Lord
Jesus Christ himself ; and that no human laws, no secular
tribunal, no civil magistrate, under plea of vested rights
of patrons, safety of the state, dignity of the crown, or
any other plea, should be allowed to supersede, or for one
moment or in the slightest particular to contravene those
sacred duties—(cheers)—that if any civil power attempted
to do so, it becomes a persecuting power ; and that the
members of the true Church of Christ should stand aloof
from all alliance with such a power in spiritual matters,
refuse its endowments, and cease to recognise its authority.
(Renewed cheering.) Nav, further, that if, under such
circumstances, ability and providential opportunity were
afforded to the members of the Christian church, they
should depose such a persecuting power, and erect in its
stead one that would practically acknowledge the authority
of Christ in his church. (Loud applause.) Now, my
lord, in all this they are, in my opinion, right, quite right.
We also hold these principles—(hear, hear) ;—and are
prepared to defend them. (Cheers.) To the exercise
of them we are indebted for an event in our history which
some, indeed, have lately ventured to deprecate as a re-
bellion, calling the church to humiliation and sorrow, but
which our church celebrates as a signal mercy from the
God of nations, and which the genuine sons of our church
as she is hail with grateful praise as our glorious revolution
and settlement of 1688. I say this now because I feel
it to be of real consequence that our seceding friends should
see that we are not incapable of understanding and appre-
ciating their position and principles ; that we are careful
to avoid exaggeration ; and that, in point of fact, the
question between us at present is not one involving these
high principles, but only the legitimate application of such
principles to particular circumstances. It is not whether
a casus belli for spiritual liberty can or cannot arise. We
assert that in times past it did arise. We are prepared to
meet it if, in our time, it should arise. (Cheers.) But
the question is, has such a case actually arisen at this
time in Scotland ? To this I venture, in the face of all
that has been said and done, to answer No. My con-
viction is that the recent disruption, as it is called, in the
Scotch Church has been a misapplication, a practical mis-
application of great and sacred principles—(a cry of

" no," and " hear, hear,")—conscientiously made. Oh,
yes, the sacrifices endured are a full proof of sincerity ;
but sincerity is no proof of truth or sound reason. It is,
doubtless, the scriptural duty of the church, or rather,
to avoid ambiguity, it should be said of the executive of
the church, the clergy, to preach with all plainness and
earnestness the faith once delivered to the saints; to ad-
minister the ordinances which Christ himself has insti-
tuted ; to determine who are and who are not to be
admitted to those ordinances ; to fill up and add to their
own body as occasion requires • to appoint their own suc-
cessors; and to urge upon all thel members of the church
the Christian duty of using their influence, whatever it may
be, public or private, and of consecrating a portion of their
substance to the support and multiplication, as the people
multiply, of Christian ministers. For each of these plain
warrant of Scripture may, I think, be cited. But this is
not necessary. It is not denied that these are scriptural
duties of the clergy. 1 have enumerated them for clear-
ness' sake, in order to say that if the civil magistrate in-
terfered to prevent the performance of these duties, or any
of them, by the ministers of the Church, there would, I
think, immediately arise a crisis demanding resistance
against human authority for the preservation inviolate of
allegiance to divine. The ministers of the Church woo"
then occupy the position of the apostle whe-. 'ne said,
"We must obey God rather than ma.-
like this. --o. But has this
a, bear.) To allege that the clergy of the
been done by the governor,-'
m Scotland ? No, nothing
Scotch Church are coerced in the matter cf ordination by
the rights of the patrons, whose nominees they are at li-
her
o reject, is to make a mistake, losing sight of the
first, the important first step taken by the presbtery.
That first step is granting a licence `to preach.
hear.) In this there is no rn,
:Liner of interference with
the freedom of the Cl,•.rcti courts to exercise their lodg-
ment upon thf (Hear,-
qualifications of every candidate. Prac-
ticall'
'ails licence to preach amounts to what we call
deacon's orders in the Church of England; and in this
the presbyteries are entirely uncontrolled, because no man
who is not already a licentiate can be selected by a patron
as his nominee to a parish. In all these things, therefore,
the Church of Scotland is free. (Applause.)
M`NEttt then proceeded to that part of the argu-
ment which relates to the particular point of non-intrusion,
and in doing so he met the late arguments of Mr. Baptist
Noel. That gentleman had argued as follows :
By non-intrusion it is meant that no minister is to be
' forced upon a reluctant Christian congregation, but that
the assent of that Christian congregation is to be re-
ceived in the formation of the pastoral ;relation. The
relation should seem to be one of the simplest common
sense. When there is no relation so important as this,
which is to determine the welfare of a village, in which a
father sees so much of the happiness of his children in
both worlds depends, it does not seem reasonable that a
Christian people should be debarred the right of protest-
ing against the introduction of an unspiritual, unconverted
minister, I do not doubt that the world would sneer at
that statement. An unspiritual and unconverted minis-
ter they may not comprehend. But, when our Lord has
told us that many will at the last day claim to have
preached in his name, to whom he will say "I never knew
you ;" when St. Paul has told us that the ministers of
satan may assume the garb of the ministers of Christ ;
when our Lord has told his people that they must "beware
of false prophets," that come to them " in sheep's cloth-
ing ;" and when there is no doctrine more vital to the
happiness of mankind, more legible in the pages of in-
spiration than this, that " except a man be born again he
cannot see the kingdom of God ;"—I do say that a chris-
tian people have the right of protesting against the intro-
duction among them, to lead them and their families, of
a minister whose levity of life, whose whole character,
and all his ministrations, may prove to them that he is
unspiritual and unconverted. This principle is clearly
laid down in the Scriptures. It is laid down in all those pas-
sages, into which 1 shall not enter, which declare that
Christians must " take heed what they hear "—which say
to us that the sheep of Christ " know his voice, and
will not listen to the " voice of a stranger ;"—which tell
Christian men, if any man come to them and bring not
the doctrine of Christ, they must "not receive him to their
houses nor bid him God speed " as a minister for fear
they should be guilty of partaking of his evil deeds.
So far Mr. BAPTIST NOEL ; but Mr. M`NEILE suggests
the very opposite, and, not least, common probability :
It is here taken for granted that the people are Chris-
tian, and the ministers unspiritual, unconverted. But is
this always the case ? And what becomes of the conclu-
sion here hastily drawn, where the facts of the case are
precisely the reverse of those here supposed? The por-
tions of Scripture here referred to do not seem to me to
have any special application to the subject in hand. In
proof of this I would venture to turn this argument to the
other side by the insertion of other passages of Scripture
equally relevant, or, as I anticipate will be said of them,
irrelevant, Thus, by non-intrusion is meant that no
minister is to be forced upon a reluctant congregation,
but that the assent of that congregation is to be received
in the formation of the pastoral relation. This, as a prin-
ciple, would seem to be fraught with the greatest hazard,
to say the least of it. When there is no relation so im-
portant as this, which is, under God, to determine the
welfare of a village in both worlds, it does not seem
reasonable or safe that a worldly-minded, dissipated peo-
ple should be invested by law with the right of protesting
against the introduction of an enlightened scriptural
minister. Some may be disposed to sneer at this. A
worldly-minded people they may not comprehend. But when
our Lord has told us that faithful witnesses for him shall
be rejected, and their names cast out as evil; that they
shall be hated of all men for his name's sake ; when St.
Paul, anticipating the progress of this evil in the
Church, has told us that the time will come when they
will not endure sound doctrine, but shall heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears ; when our
Lord has plainly declared that because he told the
people the truth, therefore they do not believe him, and
that, as it was with the master, so it shall be with the ser-
vant; and when there is no truth more important to the
salvation of mankind, or more legible in the pages of in-
spiration, than this, that faith comes by hearing, and hear-
ing by the word of God ; and no duty more imperative
upon Christ's ambassadors than to tell the truth even to
reluctant people, whether they will hear, or whether they
will forbear, for they are a rebellious house—(applause)—
I do say that a worldly minded people ought not to have
the right of protesting against the introduction among
them (to lead them and their families) of a minister whose
piety of life, whose whole character and ministrations, may
prove to them a blessing from God. This principle is
clearly laid down in the Scriptures. (Hear, hear.) It is
laid down in all those passages which declare that faithful
ministers must persevere, " reproving, rebuking, exhort-
ing, with all long-suffering," whatever reception they may
meet with from the people ; and they are not to be afraid
of the people, either of their words or their looks, though
briers and thorns be the consequence of such fidelity, and
they dwell amonc, scorpions; though they be compelled
to say, " Am I become your enemy because I tell you the
truth ?" (Loud applause.) This principle is exemplified
in the ministry of prophets as well as apostles; prophets
to the Jews and prophets to the heathen. Had the Holy
Spirit in Jeremiah respected the non-intrusion principle,
and waited for a call from the men of Judah and Jerusa-
lem, the prophet would never have uttered among them
his faithful warnings of the approaching invasion by the
Chaldeans. (Cheers.) Had Jonah waited for a call from
the Ninevites, he had never preached repentance in that
great city. Ido not advance this as a proof that the peo-
ple should not choose their ministers. It will not bear so
much. But I think it as truly proves that they should
not, as that the passage I have read to you proves that
they should. (Renewed cheering.)
Mr. M'NEILE then proceeded with a very lengthened
and minute argument on the subject of ordination and
choice of pastors from Scripture and antiquity, in reply,
step by step, to Mr. BAPTIST NOEL. We confine our-
selves to the few following valuable general deductions
from the whole subject :
Leaving the safe guidance of the inspired history, and
advancing into the records of uninspired antiquity, I con-
fess I become comparatively less anxious, either about the
citations which may be made, or the conclusions which
may be drawn from them. (Hear, hear.) The writings
of the fathers supply abundant materials for ecclesiastical
as well as theological contention : and I think if
there be one lesson which they inculcate upon us all
more strongly than another, it is mutual forbearance.
(Cheers.) Even where God himself has spoken, and
spoken plainly, as ia matters of doctrine, men have never
been able to arrive at unity of interpretation. How, then,
can it be expected, and why should it be demanded, that
where God has not spoken, as in the details of church
government, men should come to uniformity of practice ?
Surely they who would enforce a uniformity which God has
not enjoined are the real disturbers of that unity which all
agree in commending as a theory, and which might be
enjoyed in happy practice if uniformity were not insisted
on (cheers). la every Christian nation, indeed, there
ought to be arrangements of order, made by authority,
and adopted for conscience sake. Such arrangements
should be made with due, i.e., supreme regard to the
Holy Scriptures, so that in nothing shall they oppose the
word of God. And being so made, to refuse compliance
with them on the grounds of personal preference, thereby
leading to divisions in the nation, is more culpable than
it is generally believed to be. But to require all nations
to have exactly the same arrangements is plainly to seek
a quarrel. To insist upon it, limiting true religion and
valid sacraments to it, is narrow-minded bigotry. To
enforce it, as Rome did, and would, if she could, is anti-
Christian tyranny (cheers.)