The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-17 00:00:00

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER.

BURY'S LETTER.

The ultimatum of ecclesiastical authority upon the dis-
puted rubrical questions has at length appeared in the
shape of a letter " to the Clergy and Laity of his pro-
vince, by William, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury."
Assuredly his Grace has taken ample time for delibera•
Lion. No one can accuse him of precipitancy in coming
forward too soon to interpose the needful weight of his
Primacy between the hostile parties. But caution is
one of the characterics of old age—and indecision, per •
haps, is another. The tone of this production, which is
intended for a panacea for the sores of the Church, is
not marked by that positive condemnation of the offen-
sive innovations which we could have wished for, and
without which it will have but little effect. Emanating
from one so high in rank, and possessed of so much
power, it should have spoken unambiguously and point-
edly—not have left the matter pretty nearly where it
was before. If its purpose was to satisfy the people, the
Archbishop may be persuaded that he has erred widely
of his mark ; for although he does not encourage*nor
command the alterations in Divine service, yet the fact of
his allowing their continuance where they are actually in
use will induce persons to conclude that he does not totally
disapprove them. This has a bad aspect for the desired
end of peace and unity. After weighing the merits of the
two opinions on this subject, this is all that the Arch-
bishop can do to bring them to a final settlement—to let
things go on as they are. Surely if, as he says, "it
must also be granted that the intention of the Church is
not always clearly discoverable from the language of the
rubric, nor determinable with absolute certainty from the
records of early practiee,"—if it be so, we may well ask,
why tolerate any departure from the custom that has so
long existed among us, and which his predecessors and
other prelates, not less highly gifted, have so long sanc-
tioned, and the clergy and laity of so many generations
have uniformly adopted ?
We are ready to concede most fully the claim of
deference which the years and the station of Doctor
Howley demand, but wo cannot from that cause
deceive ourselves into the belief that the letter he
has issued will secure any eventual unanimity between
the contending parties. Mildness and humility are very
excellent qualifications in any Churchman, but there are
many other attributes essential to the formation of an
Archbishop's character, who, in an emergency like the
present, ought not to have written as if he had been
simply the unconsidered incumbent of Addington. Does
he really mean to say, Archbishop and Metropolitan
of all England as lie is, that " in the case of clsurches
where agitation prevails, and nothing has been definitely
settled, it is not possible to lay down any general rule
which may be applicable to all circumstances ?" Why
not ? What hinders him from insisting on the return
to old usages in such instances as these where summary
judgment is particularly called for, and where, indeed,
the violence of the existing strife imperatively requires
his interference ? Or. if he be ever so " unwilling to
pronounce a judgment," he might at least so strongly
recommend what we suggest, that nu clergymen
could evade his recommendation without vir-
tually resisting the Archbishop of Canterbury,
and so becoming deservedly obnoxious to uni-
versal censure—a position that few would covet.
Meanwhile, it is in vain for him to urge " mu-
tual forbearance," and to say that " a regard
for the spiritual interests of our brethren ought to put a
stop to contentions which, besides the offence against
charity, engage much time and ability which might be
infinitely better applied ;" or to entreat those to whom
ho writes, " to consider whether the peace of the Church
should be hazarded by prolonging an unprofitable con-
troversy." We beg his Grace to understand, what per-
haps has not yet penetrated within the precincts of Lam-