The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-11-14 00:00:00

Nov. 14, 1843

CORRESPONDENCE.

O pr,„
EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
''lll
he enclosed reply to two letters which lately_
s eu in the Liverpool Mail, charging the ministers of
rbwsc?leli church here with breaking their ordination
that • 0., having been refused insertion at the office of
may japer unless I would pay for it as. an advertisement,
TdegreQuest you to give it publicity in your columns on
isoi..' "ay next, as a simple act of justice to the parties
Immediately on

I ana, Sir

Yours respectfully,
JOHN GARDNER

B,IT THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL
,patstby he Public of Liverpool owe you and your
.wor-
iottis_ .Pondent, " Presbyter." a deep debt of gratitude
e.f._inimitable simplicity with which you have disposed
tee Sco
to tch Church question, and for the extremely de-
et„aild charitable wayq in which' you have, of late. been
kk„—"g With
eel op the ministers among us who have, "in a
Nil a t excitement"—according to an authority anon-
littZ...h.!rge space in the public eye of Liverpool at pre-
p carried away by free church principles. Re-
tvra,s l• the letter of " Presbyter," in your paper of Sa-
Itqlri last, You make the remark that it sets the case in
!litediPte,r light in a few words; and you therefore recom-
ktrest`9 the attention of such of your readers as take an
~aaerl.? the subject. In this calm and philosophical
le ,",°° " subject is set at rest," and " a service is
mOiseskle public," by the publication of the sage con-
l'yetta: which—by a process of strict, logical reason-
14‘ild boa Your correspondent have arrived.
fikl:tare _" then, sir, is this grave subject set at rest ? and
io.. eeitain ministers proved to have broken their or-
-1141 vows ?
" Presbyter" quotes correctly the for-
-111141014d by each minister when ordained ; and then,
e°l3rinciples, proceeds to reason upon the same.
!Irk; r, I admit the force of the reasoning, on his own
Illieeout I deny the applicability either of the premises
Zorti rncflusion to the point at issue. The ministers to
k_kres‘c.erence is here made, and, of course, made with
;dissncdip
n,',lneritions, hold the doctrines, worship, govern-
ltcihnheeuy, as these existed when they accepted
ti ty `us of the rcshtill hold these as they exist in the
rtbilk strati
Yter"e butnot easilye
ry
ecotmnporewhoernddsed, oversight,
does presently"
Ittkitesent establishment" in the formula ; and so he
Ztc:nee to the grave and solid conclusion, that the
d Church in Scotland now is the same, in all
as she has ever been ; and would have us believe
*Pective of all changes which have taken place,
._
Must adhere to her. Suppose, for the sake of
~.' the Established Church in Scotland to become
L t40%.0 srto be overrun by heresy of any name, ministers
uch principles of reasoning, still adhere to her,
ti'leutts the Church was in a state of comparative
cit!at Y bad sworn to uphold her. I most explicitly
k,
.the present Establishment in Scotland is the
Zlisitt!_nas ever been ; and this on the authority, not
131-bli`:°se noble men who have renounced her commu-
Nt On the authority of the leading moderates in the
kr.stablishment. But as lam not called upon to
Lite oPegativ.e, I leave to " Presbyter" and you, the
17.41 iit.shewing that the Established Church in Scot-
Iktee i° connexion with the state, and as a church, is
h n doctrine, worship, government, and discipline
IZtreills ever been. No minister in the Presbyterian
h:t England, holding Free Church principles has
ord: •
te44 .rition vows, but, o.n the contrary, the
o,themPliolding these in all their integrity, and prov-
tZeli anporld his sincerity in so doing by suffering re-
lin'. But there is another grievous fallacy in
k611..t the
Presbyter." He seeks to identify the mi-
e Presbyterian Church in England with the
71eltet,ta ~.°f the Church in Scotland. This is quite in-
n...-Lviinisters ordained by Presbyteries in England
ordained not for the Established Church in
Otieeevut for the Presbyterian Church in England,
kilitice4.„,isng
°tlvvith the Church of Scotland—a con-
only in sending friendly deputations,
°l,lty be dissolved at any given moment with-
-44,44t England
to eithtr, party. The Presbyterian
ill •tngland is a separate, independent church,
Ltpet,:ideed the Westminster standards, but free from
On the part of the Established Church in Scot-
yttiel-41klisters of the Presbyterian Church in England
liNilati„ll,te only to their own presbytery and synod, and
L. the least degree so to any church courts in Scot-
%esentence of deposition may be, and has been,
kj°lttet.ll9y the, Presbyterian Church in England, on
Itkuelng a licentiate of the Church of Scotland ;
Ne4l4o:4ch sentence is reported to the presbytery
pel the minister has received his license to preach
tece,,,.terhs' and to the General Assembly, such sentence
1.011.44 ("411Y confirmed by either court, but is simply
tetiittproG :t their own guidance as to the deposed person,
cof that the Established Church claims no juris-
le,lllB kingdom. Ministers of the Presbyterian
Itutiteir talgland are at full liberty, as are all men, to
Itlit'ilien°Wt.n views as to the principles adopted, and
thiletrlibe'237 any separate church ; and they are also at
~;!Ey to act, publicly and privately, in con-
Altt""hh own views, so long as they do
the° the hurt or prejudice of the church in
klikleel.are ministers. In conjunction with their
tiae,6ll°llB, they are also at perfect liberty to make
Nth° °' any object which they may deem a righteous
Vet,o4t consulting trustees, or any other parties ;
rtle the in these, and in all other matters, they are
ittll4tai, higher ecclesiastical courts, before which,
Vtepe"Yrnously, in the pages of a newspaper, how
i4;ttetl,elable, they should be accused and tried. The
trtabitf yeanjUStlY calumniated in this, and a preceding
ny columns, would had they been ministers of
itilej 'shed church in Scotland,' have seceded along
koobtiogr, brethren—at least I may say so for myself—
J;ligttelluarB,_they most undoubtedly are, ministers of
myself—
,.
~,cn, they are not called upon to secede from
in'unrch, as there exist no grounds to warrant
Yitar SO doing. It is publicly and privately asserted
ott teqybouirnd to leave the, churches which we at pre:
We • most unhesitatingly say that we are not.
AL11113" ,at Present, bond fide ministers of the established
Veth.rinei Pacotland, we would not be called to account at
th P es held by us, so long as we had not
1/ tlerin ,
ced of demission or act of separation. Look
timeB°° g cases of Bennie and Glover, of Edinburgh
? efo ,of Currie—the former of whom, immedi:
vire the disruption, declared that the established
ti"Td in the light of the Court of Session and
Y'd °t Lords, was a " moral nuisance, and as such
\ktalb,BwePt from the face of the earth." All these,
te',„°,the.rs, remain quietly in possession of their
‘orseQn stipends, and have never, so far as we have
l'ith en, been called to an account. In consistency
4_ the
,T,ltti vet k_ Procedure of the establishment. we would
hogs called upon by the church courts to resign
!it even •
h ere we in Scotland. Ido not seak a
i,,!teeea at we should feel bound to do in sucph GirtL op oi as a testimony for the truth. 'Then, as to the
the hPir?Perty, which is held "in terrorem" over our
election truth is this, that, while in the event of
11,4 „e"on of a minister, the point may be raised of
not being a licentiate of the church established
iSttt:t°st of the trust deeds requiring a licentiate of
ttiehlioed church,) yet, as to the present incum-
&teihti Point can neither in law nor in justice be
Ntlkitet that all of them are licentiates of the church
Roby ~,and have done nothing either here or else-
litilliett",oich their status can be in the slightest de-
u... I hold it then to be at once most unjust
h, lit;a,3_,to charge ministers with " trifling with the
aiet";lPles of morality, and as having no claim to
8. '
tlp,„ Of 1, It not unfrequently happens, Sir, that in a
gapp
011ot aecia ,Y unconsciousness, we judge others by
)10tit ru, but whether it be so in the present case
kktioZ: P„aol.kn. ow, and desire to know, nothing of
Ile, thing, however, I would press upon his
tv111.41:
.inopratarks of morality.. Let him then know
Ity in principle is love to God in the
.1, oft Practice, it is love to man, flowing from
qty wutemitCtem cutain it is, the letter of Presbyter is
I.teteich th• of the essence of all morality—the
tit in' ink
ititer, titers etla no evil. Before he ventures so to
, let him lay his hand upon his heart, and
';,4ltetif4en 1111.1" ounce the sentence. He maybe one
og the ° delight in " injunctions," and may be
Iktwit thei,. Pleasure of seeing a few more hurrying
Oij, all 0,1 career of mischief; but I would remind
W'cited Thersi, of an injunction given by one of old,
‘'ilietcarest: law of his day, and given in precisely
‘Otid etas t"orices. Take heed to yourselves what ye
\Litit„
it the itching these men. " Refrain from these
alone ; for if this counsel or this work
ttelltrthr,.; curve to nought ; but if it be of God, ye
"tkl,,, "iv It, lest, haply, ye be found even to fight

i4itt I am, Sir, yours respectfully,
4/0,,, of the JOHN GARDNER,
webia Scotch Church, Birkenhead, Cheshire
ets, 1843.

1,0
Vlk\v MR. ALDERMAN EVANS.
I til ... -
Nt the e nehate in Council, on Thursday last, when
'§,,:titlt,,r-election of Robertson Gladstone, Esq. to
&4eit'pl'aopirthroeupgohrtt) proper (i fa I
make comparisonma
y believe a thes to
Pti:lio,f i:thtehtiotlrn9eman fsr:filling the office, and
,R,tiice°73fess it a very painful alternative for him
4.,Nuore-election of Mr. Gladstone, because,
:1 L" not mention names, the person who pro-
yttvittsi's)s; substituted
lbstituted for him was one who, in his
It) itrouciPinion, in all the requisites of a Mayor.
tAo: at
Itlersaubol yoeshsiosr ionfferiorr. i
Mr. G" l a dN's toowne Sir,wou 171 11l
Vettilvfia!a matter of doubt, at least, nosingwleeirne-
-1 e7O ten upon for that honour. There
„\ toleauemen, I believe, to be proposed by their'
Vel. NOOO4B, one of whom I well know you. were
til''ail t,i2t ; however, I am justified in coming to
N'lrte twoqat Your remark was intended for one of
' Vela k; gentlemen in question, it is now well
1 is 'Tames Lawrence and Mr. G. H. Law-
jtttot;4' ea
you to the denial that you were
1/41 t tou you would not support, the latter
tti1te414.1.." it. be, Sir, that the straight-forward,
000;14-Minded, and honest Eyre Evans would
444,i' Ali ..t.,? a gentleman so very far from being
ki-ti tl. 'tie civic chair? I think, Sir, it could
kat;!erefore I must come to the conclusion
ttee‘ewas intended for the former gentleman.
Nlitltgre onsider how far Mr. James Lawrence's
n,,e,,°.!lotetwisith your view of the case. I would ask
,").!ti o`,at gentleman ever since his first return
'iklitme hil'i '3, by his indefatigable attention to his
\I kaillyW-?, and that he can, afford to devote the
'ttktlitm.fro,'',,tuation he may be called upon to fill
1,;.'40-„"im• Has not he been chairman of two
'itt'enli Vot and arduous committees which are
-oro ,-n Council ? Committees, Sir, which a
- mind could have conducted in the same