The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1855-08-14 00:00:00

THE

Xtbtrpool tantiarti.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1855.

PARLIAMENT AND THE CHURCH.

As Churchmen, we cannot help contemplating the
approaching prorogation of Parliament with intense'
satisfaction. It brings with it a feeling of relief, of
reprieve from impending danger, which we can hardly
describe. We speak not with reference to the present
time merely, but generally. Year by year, as the
twelfth of August draws nigh, we feel that the dangers
which beset the Church, the various attacks with
which she is menaced, are about to be deferred. It is
sad that there should be cause for feelings of this land;
very sad that any Englishman, in his character as a
member of CHRIST'S holy Catholic Church, should have
cause to regard the great council of the nation with
feelings of alarm ; but who will pretend to deny that
there is abundant cause ? That council includes a
large proportion of the Church's bitterest foes, both
Papist and Protestant ; the former, indeed, bound by
oath not to seek her hurt—(an oath which all past ex-
perience shows possesses, with regard to those who
have taken it, no more strength than a thread of gos-
samer) ; the latter left totally without restraint, at
perfect liberty to attempt anything against her which
party feeling or hatred of church principles may dic-
tate. And here we may observe, by the way, that
frequently, when the propriety of altering the oath at
present taken by Roman Catholic members has been
under discussion, we have been struck by the incon-
sistency of requiring from them a special oath, framed
for the protection of the Church, and at the same time
of allowing all other Dissenters to take their seats
without being required to take any other oath than
that which is taken by the most devoted Churchman.
Experience, we say, has shown that such oaths as that
which is taken by Roman Catholic members are wholly
useless, and capable at any time of being evaded upon
any one of fifty different pretences ; and, consequently,
we have no wish to see them multiplied : but still, we
assert, that to require such an oath from Roman
Catholics and not from other Dissenters, who are fully
as hostile to the Church, fully as anxious to effect her
overthrow, is a gross inconsistency. Indeed, we might
well go a step further, and, assuming the utility of
such an oath, demand that it be required of all indis-
criminately ; for, undoubtedly, many of the Church's
worst enemies—some, no doubt, unintentionally so—
are to be found amongst those who profess to be her
friends. Friends after a fashion they may be, patron-
ising friends, who would fain manage all her affairs for
her ; but the Church needs children rather than
friends—children loving and obedient, and ever ready
to give their best assistance and counsel, yea, even
themselves if required, to promote her welfare.

But to return to the point from which we started :
Is not the history of the past session sufficient to jus-
tify our rejoicing at its approaching close ? In the
first place, the Church has escaped the tender mercies
of Sir W. CLAY. His bill, which was successful as
far as it went, and which would have robbed her of a
considerable portion of her revenues without providing
a shadow of compensation, besides inflicting other
grievous injuries—his bill, we say, has been stopped by
the approach of the twelfth of August. It may, and
probably will, either in the same or similar form, be
reintroduced next session; but, in the mean time, the
Church has a reprieve, and the time thus secured may
and ought to be turned to good account. The bill for
the legalisation of incest was another attack upon the
Chuich;indirect indeed; but far more dangerous than
that of Sir W. CLAY. This also was successful as far
as it went, though the majority in favour of the second
reading was so small that we never had any great fear
with regard to the result. However, the bill has been
withdrawn, and so, for some months to come, we are
relieved from all further anxiety on this score.
It is unnecessary to do more than refer to the
various education bills, Lord BLANDFORD'S bill for
upsetting our Cathedral establishments, the Carlisle
Canonry Bill, and various others, all more or less
affecting the temporal or spiritual interests of the
Church. The simple fact, that such bills are intro-
duced, and may at any time be passed, is enough to
make the Churchman thankful when the session of
Parliament draws to a close ; and it ought, we think,
to induce Churchmen generally to agitate for the
withdrawal of all church-questions from the jurisdic-
tion of Parliament, which, constituted as it now is.
is wholly unfit to deal with them, and never was in-
tended to do so. And this is a point upon which, if
they were true to their own professed principles, we
ought to have the advocacy of Dissenters on our side.
" Religious liberty" is one of their favourite cries.
Can they dare say that this is enjoyed by the Church P
Can they dare say that it is not enjoyed in infinitely
larger measure by any, and every, the most trumpery
sect, existing within the four seas ?

CHURCH OF ENGLAND LITURGICAL
REVISION SOCIETY.

WE. have, for some wile past, been aware of the
existence of a body calling itself the " Church of
England Liturgical Revision Society," but have for-
borne to notice its objects or proceedings, because our
knowledge of them was principally derived from
hearsay, and we were hindered by various circum-
stances from taking the steps necessary to procure
more certain informafion. Within the last month,
however, we have received several printed documents,
which enable us to speak with more certainty. Two
of these are issued by the Society itself, viz., a
" Declaration of Principles and Objects," and the
report of a " Conference on Liturgical Revision," held
in May last, Of two other papers which accompanied
these; and which have nothing about them to show
that the Society is responsible for them, one is a letter
upon the Catechism and Baptismal Service, by a JOHN
SMEDLEY, of Matlock ; while the other, which is
anonymous, bears the title of " Liturgical Reform."
As we have said, these two have nothing about them
by - which the Society can be made responsible for
them; but they are valuable, as showing the principles
which are professed, and the objects which are pur-
sued, by individual members of the Society. In the
-remarks which we feel it our duty to make upon this
(as we firmly believe it to be) most mischievous
Society, we would wish to avoid anything of a per-
sonal nature ; but, at the same time, with reference to
Liverpool, we cannot help saying that we both rejoice
and are grieved : we rejoice that no more than three
of the clergy of this town appear to be connected with
the Society ; we are grieved that so many as three
should be found among its ranks. Among the clergy
generally who have joined the Society, we recognise
the names of some who, on various occasions, have
publicly depraved the Book of Common Prayer, openly
maintaining that it contains such and such doctrines,
and that those doctrines are false and popish. A
clergyman, whose letter is printed by Mr. SMEDLEY,
writes to him as follows :—" I perfectly agree with
you have written" (i.e., in
you in every word
denouncing certain parts of the Catechism and Bap-
tismal Service). "It is what I have thought these
fifty years ; and am now, in my old age, so painfully
convinced of, that when I baptise a child, which is
very seldom, I omit the two passages you particularly
object to. As for the Catechism, it does not much
annoy me, for I never use it, though I grieve for
others that the answer you allude to is in it." A
second, concludes his letter as follows :—" Had I
written t 9 you before the GOBLEAM case, I should have
defended the [Baptismal] service ; but row I see it
is erroneous?' These two may be taken as types of a
class, of whom we cannot but conclude either that they
are wilfully dishonest, or else have a very low acid