The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-15 00:00:00

THR CITY CR URCHES.

A meeting of the Fellows of Sion College, London-
wall, was held on Tuesday afternoon, for the purpose of
taking into consideration the proposed Church Building
Acts Amendment Bill. Between 30 and 40 of the clergy
attended. The Rev. Mr. Goode presided.
Dr. CROLY moved that a petition be presented to the
House of Commons against the bill. He said he could
not reconcile to his conscience the digging up of the
dead and the sale of burialgrounds for secular purposes.
It approached, as nearly as he could conceive, to the
crime of sacrilege. The sepulchre, in Scripture, was
always regarded as a perpetuity, and never to be dis-
turbed. When Abraham bought a sepulchre of the sons
of Heth, he insisted that it should be his in fee simple ;
and it was the greatest stigma on a king not to be buried
in the sepulchre of his fathers. The temple at Jerusalem
was a consecrated spot ; the final ruin of the nation was
sealed when the temple was desecrated. In 1786 the
great burialground, close to the Church of the Inocents,
in Paris, was desecrated ; everything was to be sacrificed
to public utility, and a cry was raised for making a mar-
ket-place of it. The dead bodies, the remnants of the
millions of 900 years, were carried to the quarries
under the city, and hurled there without decency.
What was the result ? The populace, first shocked,
became hardened. In little snore than two years
the Revolution began, aril the first act of the Re-
volutionists was to desecrate every tomb they could
find and to tear up the coffins of their Kings. The de-
cencies of burial were disregarded, and, in a few years
the nation was involved in the guilt of the denial of God,
of immortality, and of religion. The King and the Royal
family were '' buried with the burial of an ass," and
covered with lime to extingush every remnant of their
being. (Hear, bear.) He (Dr. Croly) thought it an in-
vidious thing to reckon the value of a church by the
number of the congregation. (Hear, hear.) Christ said,
that " where two or three were gathered together, He
t.
was in their midst." They must all come to a time
when hey would fail
; years would come upon them.
Was a man to be degraded because he grew old ? (Hear,
hear) We had no right to alienate property once con-
secrated to God. The clergy were consecrated men.
People would begin to ask whether they too could be
unconsecrated if it became profitable ? The proprietors
of cemeteries would plead the precedent of this bill when
it became profitable to build over the ground. It would
be said, " Why keep a useless cathedral like St. Paul's
on such valuable ground ?" The principle once intro-
duced would be progressive. (Hear.) Were the utili-
tarians to be allowed to disturb the bones ;of Milton in
Cripplegate, of Coverdale, at St. Magnus, of Gresham,
at St. Ethelburga's ? (Hear.) The bill was to apply
also to Bristol, Chester, Chichester, Exeter, Lincoln,
Norwich, and York—all places with noble monuments.
(Hear.) This was a crisis. If we began with desecra-
tion, the crime would enlarge. The church was in
danger. Sects were active. He implored the clergy
to consider well before consenting to an act of public
desecration.
Dr. M'Ceue said, that not being of a poetic turn of
mind he could not see the connexion between this bill
and the French Revolution. France, at the time re-
ferred to, was infidel, whereas Christianity now prevailed
in this country more than it had ever done since the
earliest ages of Christianity. (Hear.) The rev. gentle-
man had referred to the destruction of the temple ; but
it was destroyed by God himself when it had accom-
plished his purpose in "putting his name there," and it
was laid desolate for the very purpose of spreading
Christianity in the Gentile world, and that the great
truth might be established that not alone in Jerusalem,
but in every place, whosoever should call upon God in
truth should be accepted. (Hear.) This was really not
a question of principle, but of expediency. Churches had
been pulled down before, graveyards devoted to secular
purposes, and the bodies removed. The bones of Cover-
dale now reposed at St. Magnus because they had been
removed from a church pulled down to make room for
the Royal Exchange improvements. St. Michael's,
Crooked-lane, was taken down for the London-bridge ap.
preaches, and the statue of William IV. now stood on
the site. According to the census, church accom-
modation was wanted for thousands upon thousands
in Shoreditch, Whitechapel, St- George's-in-the-East,
and in other parts, and in the city of London district
there were 13,000 more sittings than were wanted. The
bishop must consent under this bill • so must the Church
Building Commissioners ; it must be deemed by them to
be "for the advantage of the interests of religion ;" sad.
six weeks' notice must be given for the parishioners to
make representations to the contrary, if they could.
The Church of England was not to stand stiff and petri-
fied, like a pillar of salt, but to "know the time of her
visitation," and prove herself a living organisation, able
to meet the spiritual wants of those committed to her
charge. (Hear, hear.) He moved, as an amendment,
the meeting approve the principle of the bill.
Mr. DAVIS maintained that when clergymen pleaded
for a church " where two or three could be gathered to-
gether," they ought to think of 20,000 or 30,000 or more,
with no church in which they could be gathered to-
gether, and of the responsibility of the London clergy
for these thousands. Were the interests of living souls
to be disregarded for the sake of keeping up a few ceno-
taps for the dead ?
A. very long discussion followed. The possibility of
old churchyards being being built over was the point
chiefly made, and the provisions for the removal of the
bodies received some consideration. There was a dif-
ference of opinion on the propriety of giving the vestry
a veto ; it was stated that in small parishes the church
glazier, the painter, the carpenter, and other tradesmen
employed would be able to prevent a really desirable
measure. It was urged that it was not proposed to
withdraw, but to transfer to a place where it would be
more useful, properly pledged to sacred purposes. Some
clergymen insisted that there was work enough for the
city clergy if they would reside and go into the courts
and alleys; but it was stated that many had no parson-
age-house, and had not income enough to take one where
property was so valuable, though they would have it if
this bill passed and two parishes were united. A city
clergyman, who was against the bill, assured the meet-
ing that on a Sunday morning lie had a congregation of
nearly 100, Another argued that, as the churches were
intended for daily service, on the week days the po-
pulation of the city was immense, the foundation of
the bill failed. Another suggested that 50 years hence
the population might come back to the city, and then
there would not be churches enough for them.
Eventually Dr. M'Caul's amendment was rejected by
18 votes against 15, and the motion of Dr. Croly carried
by 19 to 15.