The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-11-28 00:00:00

THE CHURCH AND THE STATE

WE resume our notice of the Rev. W. F. TAYLOR'S valuable
pamphlet, reiterating our hope that it will receive the
careful consideration of every man, whether Churchman
or Dissenter, who can appreciate the blessings of Christian
instruction, and who deems an inquiry into the best means
of imparting it to be worthy of attentive study.

In the second part of his work, Mr. TAYLOR takes up the
Anti-State Church theory, which he proceeds to discuss.
He says, that the advocates of this theory, or the Volun-
taries, hold that the functions of a State apply solely to
the temporal well-being of the people, and State Laws
apply only to offenders against the right of property and
persons, to which he adds : _ _

But provided they keep their evil deeds to themselves,
it would appear that they' ay do what they like with
impunity—multiply beer-houses to increase the drunken-
ness of the land—turn whole streets into houses of ill-
fame, as is the case in Liverpool—and profane the Sabbath
by open desecration. For if the Anti-State Church party
really disapprove of these things, or think they call for
state legislation, why not display the same activity in
accomplishing so desirable an object as they do in their
endeavours to put down that against which they profess
to have conscientious objections—Church Rates ? Why
do they, by silence, acquiesce in the one, whilst they
spare no sacrifice, either of time or money, to put down
the other ?

Having further commented on this absurd inconsistency,
he proceeds to argue on the reasons assumed by the
Voluntaries for their peculiar views. The first of these is,
that they deem it inconsistent with civil and religious
liberty, holding that State influence is unlawful, and upon
this he says :

•But first we observe, that according to this view the
religious character of our Constitution is at once over-
thrown. At present, Christianity is part and parcel
of the British Constitution, and settled at the glorious
Revolution of 1688. Yea, we may go futher back, and
say that the noble edifice of the Constitution had its
foundations laid in the soil of the State Church principle
—they are founded upon the Rock of the Church, the
stately temple has been erected and matured, the growth
of ages, by a firm adherence to this principle ; throughout
successive centuries it has advanced from its first begin-
nings, until it has attained to its present colossal
magnitude.

Reasoning, then, upon the consequences which would
flow from the success of the Anti-State Church party,

he continues,—

Nor let it'be imagined that the Church alone would be
overthrown ; the throne would quickly follow, and the
same day which witnesses the disestablishment of the one,
will witness the destruction of the other. Those men
thus incur a fearful responsibility who are now busy
labouring to sever the Church from the State. Not that
in the long run the Church would have anything to fear,
—she conquered the State, and forced it to a national
recognition of her claims, when the State was hostile in
ages past,—and what she did before she would do again.
But meanwhile serious calamities would befall the country,
throne and sceptre levelled in the dust, and the govern-
ment placed in the hands of wicked and ungodly men !
and to avert these would we now raise the note of alarm.
Of course, if the Anti-State-Church party have their
views carried out, there could be no national recognition
of the Sabbath day. The laws, which at present secure at
least a certain measure of outward respect for the Lord's
Day, and enable the people of God to worship Him in
tranquillity, should all be repealed, as being a matter with
which the State has no concern ; —it is religious; and to
enact that the first day of the week be kept sacred is a
preference for the Christian above the Jewish faith,
which regards the seventh day rather as the Sabbath.
All these laws which forbid traffic, close public-houses,
shut up offices, suppress theatres, &c., &c., must be at
once swept from the statute-book, as involving the princi-
ple of State Religion, and attempting to force the people
(as they express it) to be religious.
I need hardly point out the melancholy results which
would flow from such a view being adopted in the Legisla-
ture. The beer-houses and public-houses open all day,
even during the hours of Divine worship ; the theatres
and casinos spreading forth their attractions at night ;
public bands patrolling the streets; organs at every
corner ; the shops all open, tailors, shoemakers butchers,
and bakers. In a word, all public recognition of the
Sabbath removed, every vestage of it would be soon
obliterated from society; and as a consequence, vice and
profanity, licentiousness, profligacy, and drunkenness,
would abound, insomuch that we might reasonably expect
some dread calamity and judgment would descend upon
us, to consume us as in a moment; perhaps fire and brim-
stone rained down upon us as on the guilty cities of the
Plain. At all events, as the moral stench arising from
the country would be intolerable, even to a God of infinite
patience, he would allow things to take their own course,
withdraw His restraining grace, give the nation up to the
uncontrolled fury of its own hellish passions, and let loose
the demon of civil war to riot in scenes of carnage and
bloodshed, and an awful retribution would be experienced
in the fearful scenes of the French Revolution, repeated in
the once favoured land of Britain.

We have given the above extract at greater length, from
the vivid pictitre which the author draws of the calamities
which may reasonably be inferred as the result of a move-
ment which many misguided men have taken up in
ignorance of its tendency. He, however, pursues the
subject further, commenting on the authority of the New
Testament, and the bearing of those particular passages
which the Voluntaries have relied upon in defence of their
opinions. The next point, which he takes up, is the
objection that a nation should not, as such, establish
a religion, or render any support to the cause of the Gos-
pel. Upon this he remarks :

Nations, however, as such, in their corporate capacity,
are judged on earth; rewarded or punished, as the case
may be, with national prosperity or happiness, or with
national disaster and overthrow. This is a truth of which
we have many instances, not only in sacred history but
profane, as well ancient as modern

When David numbered the people, the nation suffered
the awful visitation of a fearful pestilence.
When Josiah, Hezekiah, or Jehoshaphat, sought the
Lord, and honoured His word and worship, temporal
prosperity flowed in upon them in abundance.
This conclusion is justified by the history of modern
Europe, by the history of our own nation. Spain, once
the first of nations, is now never mentioned in the affairs
of Europe. England,: once a remote, unknown, insignifi-
cant Island, now takes the lead in the affairs of Europe—
the World.

England, after a lengthened struggle against Antichrist,
succeeded in vindicating the cause of Gospel truth and
Gospel liberty. She received the Lamp of Light with
gratitude to the Author of all good, and she enshrined it
in the golden candlestick of the National Church.
But more particularly—look at the several reigns of the
English monarchs, and we find that according as they
favoured Catholic and Apostolic truth, or Papal and Anti-
christian error, the nation rose or fell in influence, pros-
perity, and power. Thus the reigns of Mary, of bloody
memory, Charles 1., Charles 11., and James 11., were
distinguished for national disaster and misery ; the
nation was never free from either civil war, revolution,
dissension, or poverty. Whilst the reigns of Edward the
pious, Elizabeth the good, William 111. of immortal
memory, Anne, the Georges, especially the third of that
name, were distinguished by national greatness, prestige,
power, wealth, happiness ; yea, even the usurpation of
Cromwell, as we have seen, was thaws characterized.
Wherefore the difference ? Answer : the monarchs in the
first list were either pro-papist or thoroirghly papistical—
' those of the second were champions of Protestant and
Scriptural truth.

In the second place he refers to the writings and opinions
of the earliest and ablest dissenters, who, so far from being
inimical to the Church, desired to see it in the greatest
possible efficiency. To the second objection, that a person
should not be taxed to support what he does wt want, and
that, consequently, a dissenter should not be called upon
to support the Church, he replies:—

Why should I pay for the support of the British
Museum or National Gallery, neither of which I may
ever enter ? Why to support National Schools., to which
I shall never send any of my children? Why magistrates
aad judges, and courts of law, when I never have gone to
lsw and never intend? Why for the erection of a bridge
in some distant part of the country, which I may never
cross ; or a road, on which I may never walk ?
All these things are for the publie good, or are con-
ceived so to be, and therefore all are bound to contribute
towards their maintenance. The community must be
legislated for as a whole, for the general advantage ; and
each must bear his contingent of the public expense, for
if not directly, at least indirectly, all reeeive advantage
from them.