The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-23 00:00:00

°nib

LONDON, SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1844.

In his late elaborate judgment in the case of the
Rev. WALTER BLUNT, Curate of Helston, who, it may
be remembered—among many other accusations which
were brought against him by one of the church-
wardens of the parish—was charged with having re-
fused to bury the corpse of a young man who had
bean baptised by a Dissenting minister in a colony
where no Church minister was to he found—in his
judgment in this case, the Bishop of EXETER, al-
luding to the particular charge we have just men-
tioned, observed :—" I now resolve these doubts by
saying that the office for the burial of the dead ought
not to be used for an adult who, having been bap-
tised in schism and having lived a schismatic, has
never been admitted into the Church." Now, in op-
position to this intolerant episcopal mandate, we
will quote the emphatic opinion delivered
by Sir JOHN NICHOL upwards of five-and-thirty
years ago, in the case of " KEMP against WsexEs,"
as we find it given by a correspondent in the Times
• .of yesterday :—" Why the rights and interests of the
church," says this enlightened Judge, " are to be
lti:cted by considering Dissenting baptisms as Chris-
tian baptisms, by allowing persons so baptised the
c ommo.n right of being buried according to the ordi-
dinary forms of the Church, and by a minister of the
Church to whose support they are bound to contri-
bute, has not been explained. If the law has not ex-
cluded them from this ordinary right of Christianity
and humanity, the ministers of the Church will not
urely be degraded by performing the office; on the
esntrsuy, the generality of the clergy will rejoice
that is this last office of Christian charity there is no
separation between the Church and their Protestant
Dissenting brethren." Sir JOHN NICHOL then goes
on to observe, under an evident impression that the
intimation is a necessary one :—" it is by a lenient
tnt3 liberal construction of the laws of disability and
.exclusion, and not by a captious and vexatious con-
st'xuction and application of them, that the true in-
terests and true dignity of the Church Establishment
are best supported." Here we find the Bishop and
the Judge directly at variance on the important sub- '
ject of the burial of Dissenters by ministers
of the Establishment. 'Tie former insists that
that funeral service of the Church ought not
to Cie read over such schismatics ; while
the latter maintains that the clergy ought to rejoice
that in this last office of Christian charity there is no
separation between Dissent and Orthodoxy. It is
cur:ous that the Bishop, from whom—when we take
into consideration his sacred calling—the greatest
amo.i.nt of charity an forbearance might be expected,
exhibits precisely the :east of these Christianq
uali.
ties, and adopts the ultra-intolerant view of the
question ; while the Judge, who, as a keen, practised
lawyer and man of the world, might be supposedpr tso..
be less encumbered with elevated and catholic m
sions, takes thsit view of the case which is most in ac-
cordance cordance with the beneficent and enlight(ned spirit
of Christianity ! We trust that the majority of our
readers will b:1 far more readily aposed to side with
qir JOHN Nicium than with the Bishop of EXETER,