The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-10-31 00:00:00

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1854•

yet
claim to interfere in its management than in that If
tneighbouring Jewish Synagogue or 'Unitarian Che,;ict s
he existing law gives every householder in the oul;lirclii
wstarden. Hence, if there be a
voice in its vestry and a vote in the election of its chi tbit
yle of worship adopted by its founders, a snlail *Tr
of Churchmen may avail themselves of the aid of the i.t.
the resjo
conformist or Infidel inhabitants, nit so &wiling'
itzdt the congregation, may remove the crosses frosie if it
and the chanting from the services ; ato
were notg for the police, they would no doubt IL.kr" doira
complete the description of the Psalmist, and doubt
the carved work thereof with axes and hannliters'
The error of all these schemes arises from es—n'v
ting the National Church as a religious sect, hi iti
popular agitation ri7icey
way distinguishable from Dissenters than bi lost
numerical majority. This is a fallacy dhe
bout
dangerous kind, and cannot be acted upon t,013,
serious detriment to the truest interests of .
aatl
The Church is the most important of our rule
institutions ; the very foundation of sovereign d
the tie which binds society, and the ulailltenaeced
which is an especial duty of the whole peePle 745
nation. The duty of the Church is the rerSs,
instruction of the people, while the rights °f
senters are only based on that principle of of
does not Os, ;
which, giving freedom to differ,
from the moral and legal obligation of ulaiLtitahllilttv
the means of instruction. It is as much au°
provide for "the necessaries of divine serTiee' fore
it is for the sustentation of the fabric, and
any attempt to absolve from the payment efirod
rates for their full purposes, is virtua4
directly holding out a premium' to infidelitY'oei
ought to be sufficient for Nonconformists th,,at, bot
are no longer amenable for differences of fait'o.
we firmly believe that no really-conscientieus deci
senter would object to the small payment detl3o
of him for the:support of that Church whicilni
own test of faith, even by the extent
departure from its doctrines, and which has ;00'
been to him the firmest bulwark for the Pre
tion of his religious liberty.
The writer proceeds to argue on the 92scer6
presented by parish vestries, which he 5t5d3,11
designed as lay Synods of the Church, but 1".-pa
at
the admission of men of all creeds, or no 6%04,
all, and the transaction of purely secular 13°5;600
had had its religious and its financial fu of
blended in inextricable confusion, to the ijjjilf
both. He says : .can

"It is universally felt that no religious funct,i°,lsos
properly intrusted to parish vestries as nor ro."fbe
And this conviction furnishes one of the strollg,''h t
for altering the law of church mte. .yet.
r"eilgl3'o,,lle
result of this state of things upon the national lute vov,
renders the Church of England absolutely, destinin ost
lay organisation whatever. Nay, one might 61De kl 9
she has no members at all, except her clerg,;
only act of membership permitted to her laitYepross'ipst
attendance on Divine Service. How great toe tftbere:ioi
ties of ood thus thrown away. We learn frnecilt.'oo
`Religious Census' (which certainly cannot btbreP,W
partiality in favour of the Church) that half 0f
of the nation is to be found within her Pale'd•here,oi°e:
same authority points out the vigorous efforts "foriu.-6.4
in the last twenty years, she has striven to at 011 e
negligence, by supplying the rapidly-increllp,, of
with pastoral ministration and means of v,„'°,4lo:tea
same tale is told by the Reports of the 1-,9',150`150,,
Council on Education, where we find the sch`:roai ;e1
by members of the Church so far more nuol'" kof
those of all other denominations put together•oevote
so much has been done by the random I,l°r eel g
volunteers, what might not be achieved if all tbezetbelot
atoms were blended into one body, and °Alla `(tb#
the legalised manifestation of a commoni w 1 I .I,ble, •
is more easy, when there is so much energy ac
to organise and direct it." • stri'i°l
He proposes to retain the present l'eotlieli
purely secular purposes:; and to constitute lect2°o
to be composed only of Churchmen, for the e eeel'
of Churchwardens, and other business 0' its v-
siastical character, and which should in suchor
k Synod of the Church. In favour of

he says : noc"11
"All this might be effected with very little intio"o,
and would follow spontaneously from the cloctl°l
genuine church vestry, invested with religious,,,ecl
But a parochial synod, when once thus fscwie,
sham to a reality, would no doubt develope 01;
and lead to further organisation. It would iveDeP
to remain isolated, but would seek for practiC7,oplOW,
union with its sister assemblies in neighbour;;clso,io
system
Itoetrmki s
oit
nf wowtomducil
difficult
etbehuelteasptarisy'o l teshorfilade farj„:
rudimental a( ecclesiastical n
sgTtiypocualne
convention elected by the parochial.
and entrusted with the duties
n geharg e a VI? tof
Of ofice;i,
rth
assemblies in the Episcopalian Church
It would be far better to render
Vestrymen elective, making ChurchropF pt' in
dispensable qualification. We might tilievilig le
pate some practical benefit, without i'lucrifer
those Utopian prospects in which the ticet4'
have referred to seems to revel, when be spirit 3t
parish vestries co-operating to forward °lee 001:ed,
functions of the clergy. We have g°ll
;g ,pott
length into this question, because it, `..;,,.59"
must shortly occupy the attention of ,Pi oaf
and we trust that, in any decision
fade
1
arrived at, no undue concession will 10,131
prejudices of party.