The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-10-03 00:00:00

TO THE REV. DR. COOKE, OF BELFAST.

REV. SIR,—At a meeting, called by your non-intru-
sionists, and held at the Amphitheatre here on July sth,
two questions were sent up to the chairman : one was,
" seeing non-intrusionists ask Englishmen to assist them
with money, are they (the non-intrusionists) friendly to
our Church of England ?" The other question was, in
substance, as follows :—" Is it contended by the non-in-
trusionists that the people shall have power to reject a
minister, merely because he may not be agreeable to their
feelings?" To neither of these questions did the chair-
man then vouchsafe a reply; nor were the three English
clergymen who were present apprised of this circumstance.
I do not interpret the chairman's motives for observing
this " reserve :" doubtless he saw it was better to act as
he did than to be more open on the point.
On the 14th instant, another meeting of the same body
was held at the same place, when (as it would appear) it
was felt necessary to make something like a reply to the
questions already alluded to. Not, however, expecting,
after so long silence on the part of the chairman, that any
notice would have been taken of them on this latter occa-
sion, I did not feel it worth my while to attend; and,
consequently, did not bear the replies that were made.
On being informed that they had been replied to, how-
ever, I hastily sought the fullest report of the meeting I
could obtain, and there found that the question had been
spoken to by the chairman, (the same gentleman who
served as chairman on the former occasion,) and also by
yourself; but must say that I found the answers made so
perfectly evasive of the pointrto which the questions were
evidently directed, that I feel I have no choice but to give
a plain and direct reply to your speeches, in doing which,
I feel that apology on my part would be mere pedantry,
as the circumstances of the case render silence a crime.
And it is perhaps necessary first to remark that I went
to the meeting of the sth July, expecting at least to hear
the case of the non-intrusionists fairly stated and honestly
(however feebly) argued ; but finding myself wholly dis-
appointed, and seeing, as I did plainly, that the speeches
made on the occasion were calculated to convey to the
minds of the audience an impression which I knew to be
false, I put the question—" Is it contended that the peo-
ple shall have the power to reject a minister, merely be-
cause he may not be agreeable to their feelings?" The
Rev. Dr. Cunningham and others sought to win the sym-
pathies of their English audience by complaining only of
the intrusion of ungodly ministers, as though the rejec-
tion of the ungodly by the people had been all for which
they contended. The other question, touching your
friendliness as a religious body to our established Church
of England, was induced by the unkindly expressions
which have, in other places, been uttered by your party
respecting her, as contrasted with your appeal for our
sympathy.
But now, Rev. Sir, to reply. The chairman of your last
meeting alleges, as his reason for omitting to answer the
questions when first put, that they were anonymous. To
this I beg to say, that bad he wished it, he could have
had the names of their authors viva voce—(here and then,
when first put. Further, if he omitted to notice them at
first because they were anonymous, as stated, why notice
them at all ? Were they less anonymous after two months'
keeping than they were when they were first made ?
Where is the consistency of sueh an excuse, for it deserves
no better name ?

To the question respecting the power of the people
with regard to the rejection of their ministers, you say
nothing in reply. You only state the qualifications of a
minister, but do not state who are to be the judges of
these qualifications, whether people or presbytery. The
chairman, whose words you approved, speaks to the fol-
lowing effect, viz. :—" In sending missionaries to the
heathen, we could not ask them what minister they would
have; but, when we send to a Christian congregation a
clergyman, and where we seek to form the pastoral tie
between the clergyman and his people, it is a very differ-
ent thing, and we do contend that we have no right to
intrude a clergyman on a Christian people without the
will of the people. (Applause.)" Now, sir, first—has it
not been a common topic among the non-intrusion party
that the " moderates" (those in the Church of Scotland
who have not seceded with you) have kept their parishes
in heathen darkness; and money is contributed and re-
ceived for the professed purpose of " evangelising the
Church of Scotland "! Now, such being the case, what
becomes of the distinction made between sending a mis-
sionary to the heathen, and placing a minister in the
unevangelised Church of Scotland? Are the former to
have it " lorded over them" (as non-intrusionists like to
speak), while the tender feelings of the latter must be
soothed ? A godless people would choose a godless priest ;
and what would be the end of such a state of things !
But, the fact is, although your party have endeavoured to
work upon the passions of Englishmen by talking largely
about the " rights of the people " to choose their own
ministers, they nevertheless wish to retain for themselves
the power of jndgingfor the people: and in so doing it is
but fair to state that .you are acting up to the " Book of
Discipline" of that church, which provides that " they
(the Christian people) should be compelled, by censure of
the counsell and church, to receive the person appointed
and approved by the judgement of the GODLY and
LEARNED."

Having thus, as 1 think, plainly proved what I stated
in the commencement of this letter, viz., that while yoar
party in appearance offer the people the power of reject-
ing a minister if they choose, they do i❑ fact wish to keep
that power from them ; and having, as I hope, made it
plain that on this ground you can claim no sympathy
from the multitude,

I proceed to reply to your answer to the second ques-
tion, viz., " Are non-intrusionists friendly to the Church
of England?"
? "
You reply, " We are friendly to every evangelical cler-
gyman and layman in the Church of England ; " and you
also appeal to your own personal conduct towards the
Church of England, as a proof of your own individual
friendship towards the said church. But let me observe,
rev. sir, that the question is one relative to two public
bodies (not individuals), and that therefore such an answer
is, in fact, no answer at all. It, however, affords still
more evidence that, as a body, the non-intrusionists are
not friendly to the Church of England ; for the candid
avowal of friendship, bad any existed, would, in such a
meeting, have been for the furtherance of your object,—
namely, the enlisting of our sympathy, and the securing
of our Eraslian cash. lam far indeed from delighting
in this discovery, but, sir, when we have enemies it is
well to know them. The term Church of England, be it
remembered, is not an ambiguous one. Our church is a
body constituted by certain written laws, and holding cer-.
tain written doctrines. Why, then, tell us that you are
friendly to this or that particular "clergyman," or "lay-
man" enjoying the inestimable privileges of her commu-
nion ? _ _

The answer, then, which you have made—namely, that
you are friendly to certain ministers or members in that
church—has, I fear, done as little towards sustaining the
argument of the man who made it, as it has towards an-
swering the purpose for which it was given.
Your appeal to your own individual conduct towards our
church is equally irrelevant, and for the same reasons : be-
sides, as you declare yourself an out-and-out non-intrusion-
ist," you must be judged of as such. For proof that the non-
intrusionists asabody are not friendly to the Church of Eng-
land, see the proceedings of their convocation in Edinburgh,
May 19 last, on which occasion the Rev. Mr. Denham
and Professor Killen, as a deputation from Ireland, took
every occasion in their speeches to revile our church,
the latter gentleman making some very plain remarks,
"shaking the foundationvof the English establishment."

`,"