The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-07-18 00:00:00

CORRESPONDENCE.

TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING OF
THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND,
Held at the Amphitheatre, on Wednesday, the sth inst.

SIR,—I feel that I have, as an Episcopalian, a measure I
of right to seek correct information, from those who have
made it their business to appeal to the sympathies of
Englishmen, respecting the real nature of the question
between the Established Church of Scotland and those
who dissented from her on a late occasion.
In the course of the speeches of Dr. Cunningham and
Mr. Guthrie, high representations were made of the evil
of lia-vt!o
unwilling pe(4? ; rig,
thieves and ungodly ministers forced upon an
it was said, could be done accord-
the legal authorities. The latter gentleman (71z.,
in; to the existing laws of that 6',:nrch, !,51 interpreted by
Vlr•
Guthrie) gave a very skilfully-framed account of the in-
trusion of a thief upon the people of a parish, without,
indeed, attempting to vindicate the legality of the decision
of the court that convicted him, and degraded him from
office. From these statements, and indeed from the whole
tenor of the speeches of the above-named gentlemen, I
could have supposed that all for which you contended was
that the people ought to have power to reject un,;odly
men when appointed as their ministers. If this were the
sole aim of your party, it would appear at least plausible,
and might win our cordial and favourable consideration
as members of a scriptural church " holding the head" :
and I could fearlessly appeal to the vast multitude assem-
bled on the occasion, if this was not the impression pro-
duced on their minds.

I accordingly sent up to you, sir, a question to the foi-
lowing effect :—" Is it contended (by the non-intrusion
party) that the people should have power to reject any
minister, on the ground of immorality or heresy ? Or is
^ontended that this power of rejection should operate
is any minister, though he may be strictly moral in
,rthodox in doctrine, merely because he may not
ie'sfeelings I"

towar,

life, and

suit the peop.
This question was accompanied by another, equally in
it is remembered that your appeal
place, I think, wile.:
was for support as wet as sympathy from your English
:
Are the non-intru-
audience. It was to this .affectcj:nvened, not so
sion party friendly to the I.4bltablished Church of Eng-
land?"
Now, knowing that the meeting was
much for the purpose of securing a heartn; from the
Presbyterians of our town, as for that of securing the
sympathy and (what will always follow as a consequence
of true sympathy) the support of Episcopalians and others
of Liverpool, it might have been expected that, in com-
mon candour, in honest fairness to the mixed multitude
who were present, you would have answered these two
very plain and very important inquiries. But NO, not a
word of reply. It seemed rather to accord better with
your design to avoid making an open and impartial state-
ment of the case as it is; for though I patiently waited
till the close of the meeting, not a syllable was uttered
either by yourself or by any of the speakers that bore the
slightest reference to either of the questions. For the
reason of this conduct, I must confess I am not greatly
at a loss.

With regard to the first question,—though Dr. C. most
distinctly, and more than once, stated that the people
should have power to reject, it was not stated at all whe-
ther this power of rejection should extend to all the mi-
nisters indiscriminately whether good or bad, or whether
it was to be potent only towards the bad.

It is plain; if such a power were vested in the people at
all, how far it would extend ultimately ; but the speakers
on the occasion seemed carefully to avoid stating the case
fully and impartially, and confined themselves to the ob-
jectionable intrusion of ministers disqualified either from
immorality or false doctrine, and then allowed us to draw
the inference that these, and these only, were the men
the people were to have the power of rejecting.
But, sir, the case is notoriously different; and you know
it. And a plain English answer to the question I now
allude to, would have enlightened English heads, and
would have kept English support in its right place.
The people are not, according to your party, to submit to
the appointment of any minister of the Church of Scot-
land as their pastor (unless approved by themselves),
though he may have been fully approved by the Presby-
tery, and though he may be a man of true piety and sound
doctrine. If, with all his excellencies, such a minister
fail to meet their particular views, or suit their particular
feelings, he is to be liable to rejection by the people over
whom be has been placed, and must seek a church else-
where.

But Dr. C. and Mr. Guthrie instanced only the bad;
and you refrained from taking notice of the question,
which, if answered candidly and honestly, would have
brought out the truth, and would have enabled every at-
tentive person to form clear notions of the real nature of
the case. As it was, the bad only were complained of,
but all were alike aimed at.

. With regard to the other question, which was not mine,
I will only remark that it is quite natural that you should
avoid an avowal of dislike towards the Church of England,
as you were doubtless shrewd enough to calculate that
such an avowal would have at once blasted all hope of
succour in England ; and it was equally difficult for you
to profess friendship towards her, without being in danger
of at once damaging your interests with the dissenters,
and stepping beyond the boundaries of truth.

I cannot refrain from remarking, in conclusion, upon
the ill-dissembled dislike which was manifested by the
various speakers towards the Church of England, so
plainly evidenced in the occasional, but very intelligible
observations about " holding the head." This, you may
satisfy yourself by saying, was said in reference to the
Church of Scotland, who, you say, does not hold the
head, because she acknowledges the right of the state to
act in matters of religion. It was spoken with reference
to other parties also, I do not hesitate to say; and the
many professions of kind feeling on the part of the
speakers towards those that " loved the Lord Jesus,
holding the head," only led me to the unavoidable con-
clusion that you had not the same kind feeling of fellow-
ship towards those who acknowledge (as the church you
spurn does) the right of the state to take part in religious
affairs. I felt, therefore, that I, as a member of the
Church of England, was not a sharer in your sympathy ;
though !felt, at the same time, that you had yet to prove
that Christ's being the governor of the world put away
the necessity for earthly rulers—that his being the shep-
herd of his people made it unnecessary that they should
have pastors—in short, that because Christ was indeed
the head of his church, no temporal head was needful or
allowable. _

I remain, sir, very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
Liverpool, July 10, 1843. W. T.