The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-06 00:00:00

011031X1 (_l,k ;,=-=l,tit

LONDON, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1844.

Yesterday, at the Court of Common Council, in
the course of a discussion on the subject of a grant
for the erection of a new church in the parish of St.
Giles, some remarks were let drop on the subject of
the dissensions now prevailing in the metropolitan
see, which at the present moment are worthy of no-
tice. Sir PEIER LAURIE introduced the matter by
observing that, before the grant for the new church
was agreed to, the Court ought to know something as
to the spirit in which it was to be governed, adding, in
justification of his opinion, that at present the greatest
discord and disunion prevailed throughout the diocese
of London, and it was exceedingly difficult to find two
adjoining parishes in which the same discipline and the
same forms were observed, and yet each minister
could justify his conduct by the Charges of his Bishop.
Every man endowed with the slightest power of re-
flection must have farseen that such would be the re-
sult of the Bishop of LONDON'i famous Charge of
1841, wherein he said nothing positively—came to no
decision—but endeavoured to trim between High
Church and Low Church—to keep himself in favour
with both parties, and yet compromise himself with
neither. Doubtless his Lordship imagined that by
such a halting, jesuitical course of policy, he would
be conciliating the dissentients rather than widen-
ing the breach between them ; but, instead of this, he
has increased the confusion and discord in his dio-
cese, by enabling both his Tractarian and Anti-
Tractarian clergy to plead his authority for the
enforcement of their own peculiar views, tenets,
and observances. The consequence has been—as
Mr. Deputy CORNET observed —that Puseyism
,has greatly increased in the metropolis, and
owing to its . adoption in the Bethnal-green
churches, they are now attended by less than half the
congregations they are capable of accommodating!
While such has been the effect of the Bishop of LON..
DoN's Charge, we cannot augur much better things
from the Bishop of EXETER'S Pastoral Letter, which
in ore passage evinces an arbitrary, unyielding nature
that is resolved to carry matters with a high hand;
and in the next—apprehensive apparently that the
bow has been too tightly strung—relaxes somewhat
of its starch rigidness, and endeavours to practise the
conciliatory system. For instance, on the trouble-
some question of the Rubric, Doctor PIIILLFOTTS
is a strict Martinet. He will allow of no relaxa-
tion here. Its ordinances must be obeyed to
the letter, and woe be to the clergyman who hesi-

tates to enforce them, for on his head will surely
fall the thunders of his incensed diocesan ! One
would suppose that this was explicit and positive
enough, and that there could be no possibility of
misapprehending the Bishop's Rubrical directions;
and yet, in the very next passage, the Right Rev.
Prelate proceeds to hint at the inexpediency of being
too pertinacious in the enforcement of obsolete, anti-
quated usages—notwithstanding that many of such
usages are to be found recommended in the Rubric!
How are the Bishop's clergy to act, when such are
the inconclusive, inconsistent directions of their ec-
clesiastical superior ? If, in pursuance of his
...strict injunction, they follow up rigidly the ordi-
nances Itiid down in the Rubric, they cannot
otherisedo than revive certainobsolete
usages ; atki if they revive such usages, they
are_ plainly , told that they are acting in an inex-
pedient manner! The Bishop of LoNnoN's Charge
And the Bishl, of EX-F.1E11.5 Patt7ral Letter give