The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-11-01 00:00:00

those ag

ainst whom the hostility was directed ; and;

at the same time, we annexed the statement of a corres-
pondent who gave a different version of the origin of the

affair. In tl

that feeling of common justice which is consonant with

English notions of fair play, but we did not in any way
identify ourselves with either party, nor express any
opinion other than that conveyed in the stigma on the

transaction as bei

It is certainly a matter of deep and sincere regret that

the inefficiency of Church regulations in large towns,which
have little or none of the advantages of the parochial sys-
tem, should cause such an anomaly as a joint Incumbency
but it becomes a series evil, when two clergymen of such
totally opposite views as the Rev. HENRY CARPENTER and
the Rev. CYRUS MonnAIL should have the joint perform-
ance of sacred duties, as is the case at St. Michael's
Clinch, which was built and endowed by the Corporation
of Merpool for the promotion of the Christian religion,
but which seems to be made the means of promoting envy,
hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness. With re-
ference to the particular principles professed by each of
the incumbents of St. Michael's Church, we shall not offer
any opinion, as the pertinacity with which opposite views

on religious subjects are pushed to their extremes is more
productive of un-Christian hatred than even the hostility
which ought to exist between Christianity and Atheism.
Nor shall we venture to express any decided opinion on
the conduct of these gentlemen towards each other, from

the hope that, ere long, the qukstion, deprived of all the
extraneous matter with which it is overloaded by zealous,

but injudicious partisans, will be submitted to the judg-
ment of the Bisuor of the diocese, whose unaffected piety,
sound learning, judicious discretion, and Christian charity,

none will presume to question. There-are, however, some
salient points in this part of the question which are de-
serving of consideration, premising that in• all such dis-
putes it is rarely that either party is altogether free from
blame.

We can readily imagine that each party would feel
anxious to further his own views as far as possible—
an anxiety by no means reprehensible, if we give them
credit, as we ought to do, for sincerity. It would
appear, however, from the statement which. we pub-
lished last week, and also from the letter of Mr..JAcic-
sort, which we give below, the facts of which. have not
been disputed, that the opinions held by Mr. CAarinul
have received the most active expression. Not

content

with taking the opportunity afforded him by his ministra-
tions in the pulpit to advocate his own views, he has, also
endeavoured so to arrange for the services of the Church
that his colleague should not have the same opportunity—
a course which does not appear to have been adoptedliy
Mr. MORRALL, except so. far as providing an assistant for
himself in the same way that Mr. CARPENTER had done.
The latter is said to have proposed• to Mr. MonnALL to-

give up his share of duty, and this being declined, to
content himself with the afternoon service, leaving Mr..
CARPENTER and his assistant the• morning and evening
services. This arrangement being also declined, and Mr.
MonnALL insisting upon his legal right to the exercise of
his duties as joint incumbent, a course was taken which
cannot be too strongly condemned,. whatever may be the
object sought to be gained.

In all such questions it is so difficult to disconnect
opinions as to the parties to the quarrel with the nature
of the quarrel itself, that any commentary, however im-
partial, is believed te be biassed against the party whose
conduct is pronounced to be reprehensiible. We shall not,
however, be deterred, by the fear of such misconstruction,
from laying the chief blame upon those who may be
considered the adherents of Mr. CARPENTER. It has
not been shown that any active hostility has ema-
,,,,uo,_ the while the opponents of
Mr.I&ORRALL have adopted a kind of Lynch law which
would be unjustifiable in any case, but which, used on the
Lord's Day, in a place dedicated to prayer and' praise, and
in order to show difference of opinion on the sacred sub-
ject of religion, is positively without excuse or palliation..
It is utterly defenceless,. and if persisted in—as we'rnight
imply from the letter of the Churchwardens, which we
subjoin—would call for the interference of the Civil Ma-
gistrate, in order to preserve the common decencies of
public worship.
If such persons as demonstrated their intemperate zeal
against the preaching of Mr. MORIZALL would allow them-
selves onemoment for reflection, they must perceive the
folly and wickedness of which they have been guilty.
Attendance at Church is for the avowed purpose or the
public worship of the ALXIGHTY, to join in prayer and
praise, to listen to the glad tidings of salvation, and to
hear those truths enforced which preach "Peace on earth,
goodwill towards men ;" which teach " Faith, hope,
charity, and the greatest of these is charity ;" and which
enjoin the duty 'As much as lieth in you, live peaceably
with all men." Can there be any Christian charity,
can there be any religion, can there be any desire to
seek forgiveness of sins, " as we forgive them that trespass
against us," in men who go to Church with meekness
in their looks, prayer on their lips, and yet rancour in
their hearts. resolving to show by their unseemly con-
duct their hostility to the preacher whom they professedly
come to hear ? It were a mockery to believe that such
persons can be animated by any zeal for the purity of
the faith, except such zeal as animated the followers of
Lord GEORGE GORDON, in the no-Popery riots of 1780,
when a pretended regard for Protestantism was demon-
strated by the most demoniacal excesses. It is no new
feature in religious controversies for the most prominent
part to be taken by persons who have the least preten-
sions to real piety. In the present instance, however, we
are inclined to believe that the parties acted rather from
want of consideration than from any settled idea of the
enormity of their conduct, though from the letter of the
Churchwardens it would appear that stronger arguments
than mere reason are required to bring them to their

senses

The letter of Mr. CARPENTER, which we also subjoin,
denies the assertion that the Rev. JOSEPH BABDSLBY
always preached controversially in St. Michael's pulpit,
though he admits that three of his sermons might bear
that construction. It would have been better for his repu-
tation, as a teacher of the religion of Our SAVIOUR, if he
could have denied the imputation that he had stigmatised
his colleague by offensive epithets from the pulpit—
a mode of attack which does not appear to have been
retorted upon him. It would also have been better,
could he have repudiated the conduct which seems to
have been specially intended to secure to him the whole
incumbency. We might then have believed that the scene
was enacted in order to enable a certain class of the com-
munity to profit by the confusion. As it is, we are almost
compelled to the conclusion that Mr. CARPENTER jus-
tifies this scandalous conduct, which in common justice
ought to be prevented, and peace secured, by removing
those parties in the church who created the disturbance.
In thus expressing the strongest disapprobation of the
course pursued by the sympathisers with Mr. CARPENTER,
we do not in the slightest degree express any approval of
the opinions said to be professed by Mr. IVIORRALL. We
know nothing of his conduct as a minister, except as de-
tailed in the public press : we never heard him preach,
and were never inside St. Michael's Church. At the same
time, opposed to what are called Tracta-
r ever advocated the principles of the
an
views, we
are
and strongly
have
Church of England as explained in her Articles and
Formularies. We have, therefore, no sympathy what-
ever with the semi-Romish doctrines which Mr. Mon-
BALL is accused of teaching, but content ourselves
with reprobation of the mode in which the disap-
proval of his ministrations has been manifested, as a
scandal to religion and a libel on Christianity. The
question may be simply stated, and decided upon, without
such an appeal as that of which the Churchwardens have
openly, and Mr. CARPENTER tacitly, shown their approval.
Either Mr. MOBIZ ALL does, or does not, preach the doctrines
of thes ordination
to,and the courts of law are open for redress ; if
England, which
he does not, there is the Bishop
to
which he has sworn to uphold
by
h
he does, he has a fair right to be supported in the perfor-
mance of his duties, without being subject to a course of
appealCuChurch
of
persecution which a sense of Christian obligation could
have alone rendered endurable. It is to be hoped, how-
ever, that the question at issue will be submitted to a
properly-constituted tribunal, and the Church, which
teaches peace, be spared from an unseemly contest which
must grieve every mind possessing 'any regard for true

religion.
It will be observed by the letter of Mr, Jaczsox, that