The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-11-21 00:00:00

THE CHURCH AND THE STATE.*

A PAMPIILET, under this title, by the Rev. W._ F.
TAYLOR, Incumbent of St. John's Church, Liverpool, has
just been published, and, though its title may be considered
unpromising by those who deem the theme a hackneyed
one, so much force and freshness have been brought to
bear on this important subject, that we cannot too strongly
recommend its general and attentive perusal. It has
sometimes been made a charge against the administration
of the Church revenues, that there are too many prizes in
the form of richly-paid sinecures, while too many of the
working clergy are miserably underpaid; and some have
gone so far as to recommend an equal distribution. Where,
however, the talents of the clergy can be devoted, as in
the present instance, to the promotion of the Church's
work, by means of literary efforts, it argues strongly for
the maintenance of some, at least, of preferments simply
pecuniary, in order that there may be learned leisure for

the purpose.
Mr. TAYLOR commences by denying the claim, too often
set up, to Church property being considered public pro-
perty, so far as concerns the right of Parliament to deal
with it for any other purpose than that for which it has
been especially devoted. He contends that the Church's
claim is based on an uninterrupted possession from a re-
mote antiquity ; that it was the free gift of pious men,
grateful for the inestimable blessings which had been
brought to them—kings, princes, barons, feudal chief-
tains, and even the poorer classes, vieing with each
other in enriching the treasury of the Lord; and on
this he says :

Compared with claims like these, what nobleman or cor-
poration could enter the lists ? Their property, at best,
originated in the free gift of some king on his favourite
followers—but how often obtained by the basest means—
by spoliation, plunder, fraud, and deceit. If the property-
of the Church be of uncertain tenure, what is the tenure of
Lord John Russell, or any other nobleman ? If the Par-
liament may interfere with the one, and appropriate it to
other purposes, it can much more justly interfere with the
other. If the property of the Church be given to the
Sectaries or Secular Educationists, why may not the
property of Lord John Russell be given to John Bright,
the Manchester idol, or Richard Cobden ?
He proceeds to point out the great advantages from the
possession of this property by the Church, the enjoyment
of which is open to competition, as there is not a poor
man's son in the land who may not, by piety, talent, and
learning, attain one day to the highest ecclesiastical dig-
nity. Addressing himself then to the immediate question
of the union between Church and State, he argues that,
as it is the highest function of Government to promote
virtue, and spread abroad the knowledge of God's Will, it
should seek to elevate, by moral means, the masses of the
people, and, considering man as he really is, possessed of
an immortal soul, educate him for time and for eternity.
Such a course of legislation, he contends, would eventuate

in the temporal prosperity of the people, would annihilate
crime, and indefinitely lessen poverty ; and, as a proof of
the correctness of his reasoning, he contrasts England
with Spain and Italy, and the north with the south of
Ireland.

Upon these premises, he argues that the Government
should, by legal provision, endeavour to promote the
Christian education of the people, the erection of schools,
the building of churches, and the endowment of ministers;
that, as the Church possesses property, all the Govern-
ment has to do is to supplement its deficiencies, and, so
far from impeding, ought to stimulate and encourage
private exertion. The reasons for this view he states to
be, firstly, " Because preventive legislation is better than
coercive or penal," in proof of which he instances the
diminution of crime since punishments have been of a
milder form. Secondly, he says, " Humanity justifies
our view." A third reason is, " The effectual prevention of
crime," the moral principle within the mind being far
more efficacious than the terrors of penal law. A fourth
reason is, " The good of society at large ; " and a fifth,
"Economy." On this subject he asks, whether, as it is
lawful to pay out of the public taxes for police, magistrates,
judges, gaols, &c., it is not equally lawful to build schools,
erect, churches, salary teachers, and endow preachers of
the Gospel. Is it quite right to pay police to apprehend
criminals, but quite wrong to pay parsons to prevent them
becoming so ? Is it perfectly justifiable to erect scaffolds
and buy halters to hang men, but quite unjustifiable to
buy Bibles and Prayer-Books to humanise and Christianise
them? Crime, he adds, is an expensive article, and he
asks attention to the following figures :
In the year 1853 the costs of the courts of justice, their
maintenance, the salaries of the several functionaries, from
the ermined judge on the judicial bench to the crier of the
court with his white wand of office, amounted to no less a
sum than £645,000 !
In the same year the expense for police and public pro-
secutions amounted to X 900,000! whilst, for the correction
or punishment of criminals, the sum paid was £587,000,
making a grand total of £2,102,000 !
To this, he argues, should be added the expense of pau-
pers, amounting to nearly Ave millions ; and he contrasts
these enormous totals with the miserable pittance of
£260,000, annually voted for education in England, and
£160,000 in Ireland, a total of only £420,000, from which,
small as it is, a serious deduction must be made, as at
least £lBO,OOO goes to propagate Romish idolatry, either
through the National System in Ireland, or the Romanist
Poor School Committee in England. And he asserts that
more crime is originated by the £lBO,OOO granted for
Romish education, than is prevented by the £240,000 that
is granted for education in scriptural truth. There is
also the alarming fact that, taking the whole sum voted
for the prevention of crime, it requires fourteen times
the amount to punish it or remedy the evil consequences
proceeding from it ; so that, viewed simply in the light of
mere political economy, the question is deserving of the
most serious attention of our legislators.

The sixth reason which he gives is " The spiritual
interests of the people ;" and upon this he says :
The government of a country has a fearful responsibility.
It has powers and influences, and means of doing good or
evil, such as belong to no other station or relation of life.
As is the government, such are the people. If the one set
up the golden image in the plains of Dura,—the people,
accustomed to bow to authority, and, in fact, unable to
resist, will quickly bow down before it. On the other
hand, if the rulers of a nation publicly honour God, en-
shrine Truth in the national acts, and embody it in
legislative enactments, the people will render homage to it.
He proceeds to argue that where the State neglects its
obvious duty, the ALMIGITTY suffers that State to be
harassed by a vicious and evil-disposed people ; and he
adds:

It is thus we read the present condition of Ireland, and
many ofour own manufacturing towns. The State has allowed
men to grow up either in Popish error or infidelity ; and it
now is punished by a disloyal and rebellious population in
one place, and an immoral and therefore expensive popula-
tion in the other.

The seventh reason adduced is " Scriptural authority ;"
and he argues from the Old Testament history the perfect
compatibility of the legislative and priestly functions. It
may be replied that the ancient Jews were under a special
economy : but 4r. TAYLOR very justly argues, that, if in
any doubt whether we might have a national profession of
religion, what better authority could we have than the
method adopted and approved of by Gon Himself, in the
only nation He chose to himself. In further proof of his
position he says :

We point to the pious examples of Hezekiah, Jehosha-
phat, Josiah, and David, Ezra and Nehemiah, and say
these are our model princes. They established or reformed
the public worship of God; they sent abroad teachers and
preachers, priests and levites, to proclaim the laws of God,
and they did so armed with all the power of the civil
authority. God especially Commanded these acts ; and in
reference to Jehoshaphat it is said, that " the fear of the
Lord fell on all the kingdoms of the lands round about, so
that they made no war against Jehoshaphat ;" 2 Chron.
xvii. 10. It would be tedious to refer to these in detail,
but we strongly recommend our readers to peruse at length
the histories of the individuals we have mentioned, if they
would know what we conceive to be the proper legislation
for a Christian Government.
There is one instance, however, in the Old Testament,
so remarkable, that it deserves specaal notice. I allude to
the case of Artaxerxes, of whom we read that "he made a
decree to all his treasurers which were beyond the river,
that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of
the God of Heaven, should require of them, it should be done
qn..aihr that whatsoever was commanded by the God of

Heaven, should be done diligently, for
of Heaven. And to Ezra, the priest, he corn

louse of the God

after the ,wisdom of God wh

he should.

* The Church and the State; the Claims of the One, the
Obligations of the Other. An Apology for Christian LW:'
tion. By the Ret. W. F. Taylor, M.A., Incumbent
John's, Liver Pool. _London •
Edw. Howell.

f3eeleys

d Co.—Liverpool