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

` ~
~~a ~~
~. ~~~~ ~,~ ~~~~~s

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 PETER 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-
fLction must have forseen that such would be the re-
sult of the Bishop of LONDON'S 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; bat, 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 halt' 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 one 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 PIIILLPOTTS
ii 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
Ire7ges are to be found recommended in the Rubric !
are the Bishop's clergy to act, when such are
thnconelusive, inconsistent directions of their ec-
clesiastical superior ? strict in If, in pursuance of his
junction, the follow up rigidly the ordi-
nances laid down they
ttreevltubric, they cannot
do otherwise than
usages ; and if they revive
such usage obsolete
are plainly told that they are acting
iangett% ithn
pedient manner! The Bishop of LONDON'S -
Charge
and the Bishop of EXETER'S Pastoral Letter give us