The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-05-23 00:00:00

sion to secure for themselves and their children the privileges
which the Church undoubtedly intended that they should
enjoy. In doing so, they do not plead the obligations of law
on the consciences of the Church's ministers, but merely
their own intrinsic appreciation of these privileges. They
have not asked that the Church's ministers be compelled to
afford them, but only that they be not obstructed in the
attempt voluntarily to provide an avenue through which to
obtain them for themselves. These privileges are so patent
an the surface of the Prayer-book, that they have long been
used to esteem them as rights, and though they have forborne
to complain of their being w►thheld, they are unable to con-
ceive any condition of things in which they could be prohi-
bited. They have, therefore, no inducement to keep Lack
any particulars of the scheme in which they are now engaged.
On the contrary, they desire to offer the most ample explana-
tion of their whole design. They lay it before your lordship
with a most earnest appeal for your encouragement and
counsel.. Confessing what they need, and fearing that there
is some objection to their own mode of supplying it, they
venture to ask your lordship how best they may supply it.
Avowing their willingness to contribute towards the fuller
acquisition of the spiritual advantages which the Church has
provided for her children, they humbly plead for your lord-
sh►p's fatherly countenance and direction. In this spirit
they are ready to adopt, wherever practicable, any suggestion
or modification of their scheme which your lordship may
take the trouble to propose; but they feel that they cannot
renounce a work undertaken solely to secure fbr the populous
district of a labouring community, the benefits of Church
influence, and the Church's system in constant and active
operation, without a further appeal, that it may be put within
their power to obviate any remaining objections to its execu-
tion.—On behalf of the Committee, I have the honour to be,
my lord, your lordship's most obedient, humble servant,

DANIEL RADFORD.
To the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Chester, 28th ApTil, 1854.
SIR.—On my return from London, yesterday evening, I
found your letter of the 25th instant,* and lose no time in
replying to it. _

I trust you will do me the justice to believe that my delay
in answerinz your former letter of the 12th instant has not
arisen front any failure of respect. The troth is, that a con-
tinual pressure of official duties, during the interval, in-
volving a necessity for several journies, has entirely occupied
my time.

You mention in your letter of the 12th, that the Rev. Cecil
Wray has withdrawn from the committee, which has con-
sequently been re-organised; and that the committee feel
most acutely the sacrifice which he has thus made in deference
to his view of the relation in which he stands towards his
Diocesan.

I myself cannot but feel some pain at this announcement,
and at the form in which it is made. For Vam not aware of
any relation in which Mr. Wray stands to, me that should
have made such a step necessary. I am not aw ire of any re-
lation in which he stands to me except that of all the other
clergy of the diocese to the Bishop; nor am r conscious of
any but the same kind feelings personally towards him that
it is my duty and happiness to entertain for all my brethren.
When I expressed to him a request, that the- project for
building the new church should be brought before-me through
the Incumbent of the parish in which it was intended to be
built, I did so, not with any reference to the relation in
which Mr. Wray stood to me, but with reference to the rela--
tion in which lie stood to the parish of Walton-on-the-Hill.
If it had' been any other member of the committee•who had
applied to me, my request itr that point would have-been the
same.

You also describe in your letter "the general aspect" in
which your scheme presents itSetf :—that "a number of lay-
men have long felt the want of an opportunity both for them-
selves and for others who are uhahle to express their-wants
in more than words, of worship more frequent, and more in
accordance with the order and spirit of the Church of Eng-
land, than this town (Liverpool) at present affords." r beg
leave respectfully to offer one or tworemarks upon this state-
ment.

With respect to the frequency of divine worship, I beg to
remind you that there may be now daily service in every-
church in Liverpool. • I cannot for a moment entertain a
doubt thatthe clergy of the several churches would be wiling
to open them for daily service; provided they could rely on
the regular attendance of a reasonably numerous congrega-
tion ; and provided the liberality of that congregation would
supply the necessary stipend for the employment of an addi-
tional assistant curate. I mention this latter point, because
I am sure it will be generally acknowledged that the present
duties of the ministers of our church in Liverpool fully occupy
their time and tax their strength ; and that the small endow-
ments of the churches do not afford suffeient means to time
Incumbents for maintaining a more numerous body of as-
sistant curates than is now employed.
With respect to "worship more in accordance with the
order and spirit of the Church of England-than Liverpool at
present affords," I cannot conceal the pain with which I read
these words. Amongst many happinessrs connected with my
diocese, I have thoughtit one of the greatest, that there is in
the town of Liverpool a collective body of clergy, labouring in
the work of their ministry with zeal and fidelity, with
the confidence and affection of their flocks, and with a general
spirit of concord among themselves. I have myself been
present, from time to time, in several of the churches of
Liverpool ; and the service has always been performed with
the reverence becoming so sacred a duty, and' in accordance
with the order of the Church of England. ti cannot do the
clergy of Liverpool so much injustice as to suppose that it is
ever otherwise; and I therefore feel some uneasiness at the
suggestion of a scheme which expressly proposes as its object
something different from and beyond what the Churches of
Liverpool in this respect now afford.
None of us can be insensible to the painful excitements
which have been produced in many parts of the country by
introducing into the performance of Divine Service various
forms and ceremonies additional to those prescribed in the
Book of Common Proven'. Some of the Committee may pos-
sibly have been cognizanttof a correspondence which took
place, a considerable time since, between the minister of St.
Martin's Church, in Liverpool, and myself. If such should
be the case, I trust I may refer to it as an indication of sin-
cerity in the expression of my own opinions, but also of not
unkind consideration for the opinions and feelings of others.
I suggested a greater simplicity in the ministrations of that
church; not from attaching any exaggerated importance to
mere matters of form, but with the desire of allaying mis-
trusts and fears which prevailed, I do not say among the
members of the particular congregation, but among many
truly attached members of the Church of England in Liver-
pool. I am not aware that my suggestions produced any
effect. The forms of ministration remain, I believe, as they
were when I wrote to 4,1 r. Wray, and as they were before I
was the Bishop of the Diocese. But though I have not sought.
to press my interference in that case further, I certainly do
not feel disposed to give encouragement to a new project,
which so far as I am able to attach any meaning to its avowed
purpose, appears to be designed expressly for the systematic
exhibition of those very forms that occasioned the correspon-
denre above referred to.

These considerstionsy when joined with most important
objections on my pai ti in regard to the site and.endowment
of the proposed church, and with other points not necessary
to be touched now, induce me to withhold my consent from
the scheme. lam actuated by no feelings but those of per-
sonal respect for the members of the Committee and the body
of Subscribers. lain actuated by no motives. but a sincere
desire to preserve the peace of the Church. I seek to foster
no party spirit; but to promote moderation and mutual for-
bearance by the avo;dance of extremes. If the Committee do
but give me credit for these motives, it will in some degree
lessen the pain I feel in sending an answer not accordant
with their wishes.—l-remain, Sir, your faithful servant,
Daniel Radford, .Esq.
.1., CHESTER.

* This refers to a•brief letter asking whether the Committee
might be allowed to•bope for a reply to their letter of the 12th.

Liverpool, May 4, 1854.
MY LORD,—I, am directed most respectfully to acknow-
ledge your letter:of the 28th ult., and while giving expression
to the pain which its perusal has caused to the committee, to
thank your lordship for the greater explicitness with which
you have intimated the motives dictating your course on this
occasion._

In the first place, they would beg to remove an impression
which their notice of Mr. Wray's retirement from the com-
mittee would seem to have conveyed to your lordship's mind.
When they spoke of " his view of the relations in which he
stands towards his diocesan," their meaning was this, that
your lordship having manifested a very decided disposition to
oppose this-scheme, and also, as was- supposed, to question
the propriety of Mr. Wray's taking so principal a part in its
promotion, that gentleman found it to be the course most
consonant with his sense of canonical obedience, to withdraw
from a position which might throw him into collision with his
diocesan.

With respect to the correspondence on the services of St.
Martin's Clifirch, to which your lordship alludes, as probably
within the cognizance of some of the committee, they desire
to say that your conjecture is correct, and that they feel it
necessary to recal to your memory what was then pressed
upon your attention—viz., that there are not introduced into
the services of that church any forms or ceremonies addi-
tional to those prescribed in theßook of Common Prayer, hut
that are in every particular accordant therewith. They
may, however, also say, what has, been notoriously known to
the principal subscribers, that in matters of ornament, and
purely indifferent though not prohibited, it was not the inten-
tion of the promoters that anything should appear in the pro,
posed church, which could needlessly offend innocent though
ignorant and mistaken prejudices, and that they were fully
disposed to listen to any suggestion which your lordship
might make prior to its consecration. But having, they hope,
thus reassured your lordship
justice on matters of detail, the com-
mittee must, in to the subscribers and themselves, be
allowed to make one or two remarks on certain points of your
letter, which appear to cast upon them a suspicion which, they
submit, questions not only their loyalty to the Church of
England, but the sincerity of the professions already specially
proffered to your lordship.
It is, therefore, with concern and astonishment that the
committee have been compelled to perceive in your lordship's
letter an assumption that this project is designed expressly
for the systematic exhibition of forms and ceremonies addi-
tional to those prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer,
when they must remind you that at the opening of this nego-
tiation, as at the promulgation of the scheme, their deliberate
engagement was, that it was for the faithful observance of all
the offices of the Prayer-book, the rigid restrictionto the forms
and ceremonies sanctioned by the church, and the providing
of an opportunity for partaking in no more than all the privi-
leges which shepresents to our acceptance. When they speak
of their desire for worship more in accordance with the order
and spirit of the Church of England than this town at present
affords, they use, for the sake of brevity, a general phrase,
including not only that choral celebration which the Prayer-
Book sanctions, and where it can be procured, and surround-
'ing circumstances are suited to its adoption. recommends as
a more excellent way, but that whole system bound up as its
characteristics, with more frequent communions, a definite
round of commemorative observances, and in short the whole
ritual, which a mere weekly prayer and monthly eucharist
very inadequately present. My lord, if " daily prayer, weekly
communion, and the celebration of all the offices of the
Church of England, without omission or curtailment," be a
peculiarity, it is not the fault of the promoters of this under-
taking, neither can they think it the part of the laity to teach
their duty of observing the order of the Prayer-book to the
church's priests. Whether it would be expedient for those in
authority to enforce the general observance of daily prayer on
the clergy is a question they are not prepared to argue, but
certainly that existing churches " may" have daily service,
and do not, is no reason for the prohibition of churches to be
built, of which it may he said that they not only may have it,
but do. Nor is it incumbent on them to inquire whether the
number of clergy is adequate to the general maintenance of
this practice, although they cannot but recollect that each
church is, in most cases, provided with two ; that the perfor-
mance of this duty would usually occupy but one hour in the
day ; that it appears to be that special function which claims
the first attention of a clergyman ; that it insures his daily
presence in his district, and that, in the central spot sur-
rounded by those associations which moat invest him with
the pastoral character, and render him easy of access to the
poor and the diffident ; and that his church and parish would
appear to be as much the ordinary business resort of the
priest as the counting-house is of the merchant.
Nor yet, my lord, will they. inquire whether it is more natu-
ral that the revival of any spiritual appliance should be waited
for to originate among the laity, or be impressed upon the
laity by the clergy; nor is it necessary to tell your lordship
that, at many places, congregations do avail themselves of
opportunities of daily worship; that one hundred and forty
years ago London was distinguished by the daily opening of
seventy-five houses of prayer; that at this Church of St. Mar-
tin's to which your lordship has referred, there are several
instances to be met with of persons who leave their shops,
and regularly travel three miles, very frequently in the week,
to enjoy a privilege which their own district churches deny to
them, and which, if afforded, they would gladly partake of
daily ; and that the plea against daily prayer, of the people's
unwillingness, might, in their opinion, be as effectually urged,
for instance, in a place where communions had decreased to
a quarterly celebration, a not imaginary case, against t heir
increase, or, in the great majority of our town churches,
against providing kneeling accommodation, seeing that their
worshippers have become so habituated to the practice of
sitting in prayer, that they would not avail themselves of the
privilege. Such considerations directed against this plea
would be manifestly useless, until the clergy have proved their
right to its use, by evincing a desire for daily worship them-
selves, and inviting their people to its observance.
My lord,.they must be excused entering into the discussion
of this point, because, moreover, its satisfactory disposal
would leave untouched he equally important question of more
frequent communion, which would require no increased
ministerial assistance; and secondly, because the current
want of frequency of services is notoriously the result of a
system which disparages its expedience. They must again
beg to place the matter on its solid footing of principle, the
principle, namely, of adherence tQ the brayer principle, They