The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-16 00:00:00

THE BISHOP OP LONDON ON CBU.RCH

EXTENSION IN LONDON.

ADDRESS TO THE LAITY OF LONDON.
The Bishop of London has addressed the follow-
ing pastoral letter to the laity of the metropolitan
diocese :

" London-house, April, 1860.

" Dear Brethren,—l desire to bring under your
notice the claims of the London Diocesan Church
Building Society. lam aware that the very name
of church building is almost apt at the present time,
to excite a prejudice with many, since, in their im-
patience to find new ways of curing old evils, many
have begun to think that the old-established reme-
dies are useless. You are not to understand from
its name that this society confines itself to the erec-
tion of the material house of God, though this,
doubtless, is its main object. It might more ap-
propriately be designated a parochial extension
society. It strives in every way to extend and
strengthen our parochial system, and a little consi-
deration ought to convince us that without such
extension, of which the building of new churches is
a necessary and integral part, we cannot bring spi-
ritual privileges within the reach of the masses of
our people.
" The diocese of London contains, as nearly as can
be calculated, 2,500,000 inhabitants. It is divided
into 433 parishes or parochial districts, and these
are served by 855 clergy. Making full allowance
for that portion of our popilation which is connected
with some body of Christians other than the Estab-
lished Church, and considering the provision which
such bodies have made for the instruction and pas-
toral superintendence of their own members, I
maintain that there is still a vast amount of spiritual
destitution—that is to say, a vast amount of souls in
this metropolis beyond the reach of religious ordi-
nances, with no place supplied in which they may
worship God, and no efficient arrangements made
for their religious instruction in health and their
consolation in sickness or on the approach of death.
"An arithmetical calculation of the relative pro-
portions of churches, clergy, and people in the diocese
by no means gives an accurate view of the magnitude
of this evil. It is inseparable from the arrangements
of our ancient parochial system that there must be
among us great inequalities. Many parishes are
adequately, or more than adequately supplied, but
the superfluities of one district cannot by any ar-
rangement be made properly to minister to the de-
ficiencies ofanother. The clergy of country parishes
can be of no use to distant town populations, and
in London itself the districts which are inhabited
by the rich are many of them separated by miles
from those parishes with an overwhelming popula-
tion which have come to be inhabited almost exclu-
sively by the poor. Again, while there is compara-
tively no great difficulty in providing new churches
in what are considered the richer districts, where
the clergy are almost sure of a sufficient mainte-
nance, there is, on the other hand, no possibility,
without the greatest efforts, of procuring either
clinrches,or ,endowments, or elfigy "ifoi;vety oor
ikppp]egtially to the wants of such places
1 vourenow most, earnestly beg yeur_ Wenkion.
There are in this diocese three parisheswitirpcK
pulations exceeding 35,000, four with between
30,000 and 35,000, five with between 25,000 and
30,000, six with between 20,000 and 25,000, 16 with
between 15,000 and 20,000, and 32 with between

10,000 and 15,000. Now, whatever diversity of opi-
nion exists among us as to the desirableness of not
carrying the subdivision of old parishes too far,
there is, I believe, but one opinion that such parishes
as I have now mentioned ought to be subdivided.
The parochial principle is lost when we come to
such multitudes. They cannot meet together in one
house of God, nor be subjected to one efficient sys-
tem of pastoral superintendence or visitation.
Moreover, the subdivision of overgrown into ma-
nageable districts always leads to the multiplica-
tion of schools, and diffuses more widely the advan-
tages derived from district visiting, from. provident
societies, dispensaries, and all other subsidiary pa-
rochial arrangements which every active clergyman
strives to attach to the ministrations of his church.
" I am perfectly aware how much must be done,
by efforts of a directly missionary kind, before large
neglected parishes can be brought into such a state
as to be ready to receive the full benefits of parochial
subdivision. We rejoice at the efforts which are
being made in the present day to facilitate such
missionary work. The society for which I plead,
supplying missionary curates as a temporary expe-
dient to districts in process of formation, is not be-
hind other societies in recognising and endeavour-
ing to increase such agency. But temporary ex-
pedients, to be fully blessed, must be directed
towards some permanent organisation for which
they are preparatory, and to which they are expected
at last to give way. I feel myself therefore justi-
fied in pleading that no other effort, however im-
portant, ought to be allowed to interfere with our
great work of parochial extension. The poor of
London have a strong claim upon the rich to pro-
vide them with those blessings of regularly esta-
blished permanent religious ordinancs which all
who know the value of the
portion Gospelof
of
so much
prize. All who receive any income
from the rent of houses ln h
abited by the poor, or of
God'sin lel u houses are built, are
sight, to
wants do what t
they
can to provide for the spiritual their
especially bound,
tenants. All the rich, who derive from the labour
an
of the poor so large
pay b amountck of the enjoyments
of life, are bound tosome
o fth Pe or
poor.ti o n o
In thisthe
debt by attending to the soulsa
o tenant to
country the claim of the labourer
or door
have a church and schools theand
a clergyman placed within his
allowed by
his landlord "or employer. Ought we not to
der that the poor of London are, many of consi-
der si.
reacmhiinsistrations of
attracted from their country homes and toinduced
settle in the densely-populated districts of the
me-
tropolis by the presence of the rich, for whom they
labour, and whose dependents they are as truly,
while living unseen in their distant squalid homes
in narrow streets or neglected suburbs, as if they
were the inhabitants of pleasant cottages, cluster-
ing round their employer's park P 1 would sug-
gest that those who live ih districts well supplied.
with Church ordinances should pay a visit of per-
sonal inspection to the poor neglected parishes,
and consider with themselves what means can be
adopted to make one district and another which
is in need. At the office of the London Dio-
cesan Church Building Society all information
may be readily obtained upon the important sub-
ject of the present inadequate provision for supply-
ing the spiritual necessities of the metropolis, and
the-mode in which new works, to remedy the exist-
ing evil may most effectively be undertaken. I beg
to urge those who are not acquainted with the
society to read its papers and personally to consult
its officers, that they may understand how great and
pressing is its work. The sums contributed to
this society during the past year have been as
follows :

Landowners' subscriptions
Annual subscriptions
Donations

£2,330 0 0
288 14 6
693 2 0
976 5 5
584 1 5

Donations for specified objects ....
Collections in churches

£4,872 3 4

" This sum is, of caurse, a very inadequate ex-
pression of what is really doing among us, as many
noble examples are continually occurring of muni-
ficent donations to individual objects not contri-
buted through the Diocesan Society. But no amount
of separate private exertion can dispense with the
necessity for a central fund, The great majority of
the schemes of parochial extension set on foot by'
private munificence still require some addition from
a public source, Without the encouragement which