The Press.
London, England, 1856-09-06 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

We would fain hope, therefore, that even
the most fervent enthusiasts may not just
now be indisposed to listen to our observa-
tions on this subject. What is the chief ob-
jection which this party entertain towards
the Conservatives ? That it takes no in-
terest in dootrines, will not take any trouble
to free the Cbareh from the shackles of State
control, and will see with indifference her
most ancient dogmas endangered If we are to
support a Ministry on Church principles,
they say, let us see that it will do something
for the Church Now wo 'nay observe, in
passing, that even were these charges true in
the sense in which they are uttered, they
would scarcely weaken the obligation of
Churchmen to supporta Conservative Ministry,
if the arguments adduced in our previous
article are worth a moment's consideiation.
But the fact is, that in spirit these statements
are totally false. Substitute "can not" for "will
not," and some of them will perhaps be correct.
Those who bring them forward shut their
eyes to the irreversible results of modern
legislation.
Churchmen should remember that ever
since the Reformation no theological tenets,
and no ecclesiastical practices, have borne
pushing beyond a certain point—that is,
because ever since that period there have
been two parties in the Church, each pulling
different ways, and so evenly balanced that
the triumph of one is certain to he only tem-
porary, and to be followed by a recoil propor-
tionate in violence to the success of the pre-
vious movement. The short-lived supremacy
of LAUD'S system was followed by the destruc
tion of the monarchy, and the suspension of
Church ordinances throughout the kingdom ;
and the predominance of ultra-Calvinism, in
the last generation, was as surely succeeded
by that antagonistic movement which, what-
ever good it may have done incidentally, has
robbed the Church of some of her brightest
ornaments. The question, then, for Church-
men to consider is this, whether they
will rest satisfied with a position which
the best Churchmen of a past age were
contented to occupy—such men as Bishop
BUTLER, Dr. RotrrEr, and Dr. Joarisos, who
lived nearer the time when men's minds
had been especially directed to such ques-
tions, and could, therefore, judge better
of the sacrifice which their principles de-
manded—or whether they will continue to
agitate for something beyond this, which, if
attained at all, could not last long, and would
probably lead to the total disruption of the
Church. " Oh," but we ere told, " this is rank
" indifference to religion—it is better to fight
"it out, and know the worst—a vital creed,
" though driven to caves and forests, is better
" than what we have now, however powerful
" and splendid." There would be truth in
this view of the subject, no doubt, could its
assertors show that the great men whose
names we have above quoted were deficient in
vital religion. But BUTLER'S " Charge to his
Clergy," and JOHNSON'S daily life, are suffi-
cient refutations of such a charge; while Dr.
ROUTH is especially described by NEWMAN
himself as having survived to meal to a faith-
less generation the theology of their fore-
fathers—we forget the exact words, but such
is the gist of his language We see nothing
in the present state of the religious world to
distinguish it so very favorably from the men
of the last century. Had religion then less
vitality, because it had less oAtentation 9
As good a position as the Church then occu-
pied may still, we believe, he secured to her
through the agency of the Conservative party ;
and once more we entreat the clergy to con-
sider whether the interests of religion and
patriotism do not alike call upon them to
accept this situation. For let us suppose the
decision of doctrinal questions transferred
from the present tribunals to Convocation. Is
the party which advocates that measure cer-
tain that its judgment would be in their own
favour? But, however this might be at the
present time, it is totally impossible to deny
that a majority of the clergy would never re-
main long fixed to one particular side. It
would continually fluctuate, now High Church,
now Low. The voice of the Church of Eng.
lan4 would be more uncertain than ever. The
majority of the moment would be perpetually

SATURDAY,

at war with deliberately expressed convictions
three hundred years old; and what it is fondly
hoped would add vigour to her action might
only result in bringing confusion to her creeds.
We cannot repeat too often, that it is impos-
sible the Conservatives can have any object
more at heart than the welfare of the whole
Church. Tories cling to traditions, and this
is one of their most aueient. If the Clergy
wish to retain the Church as ono of the insti-
tutions of the country, they must support the
Conservatives cordially and honestly. No
wise Churchman would wish to see a fresh
secession of non-jurors. They would not now
enjoy even the brief period of existence they
attained to in the last century. But if any
party in the Church were to push matters to
extremes, such would probably he the result.
For the sober theology and reverent practices
which have hitherto characterised the English
Church, the greatest security is to be found
under the Conservative banners

MISTAKES OF THE "MORNING
HERALD."

WHEN a controversy is in danger of turning
into mere logomachy it is time that it should
cease. Our remarks on the article of the
Morning Herald in last Monday's publication
shall be very brief
1. We may remind our readers that there is
only one substantial point in dispute between
the Herald and ourselves. It is simply as to
whether Maynooth was ever a test of Conserva-
tive Protestantism between 1835 and 1811.
Finding itself embarrassed by our question,
as to when it could produce an anti-Maynooth
speech from its own witness (Sir J. Cra
the Herald of last Monday says:—
We are now asked in which of those speeches did Sir
J. Graham assail Maynooth ? Why in none of them.
In none of those years was Maynooth under consideration.

What? Was there no Mr. PLUMPTRE
then playing the part of Mr. SPoorma ?
Did Mr. PLUMPTRE never take the sense
of the House of Commons on Maynooth
in those years ? Did the Member for St.
Albans (now Sir H. G. WARD) never taunt
Sir R. PEEL in the House of Commons with
hia support of Maynooth, and was there no
attempt made by the Liberals in those years
to sow dissensions between Conseivatives on
this identical question of Maynooth? Quota
tion was once defined by the late PAYNE
KNIGHT as " the last refuge of a dunce," and
we really dislike solving political disputes by
referring to Hansard, in whose involved pages
the Herald is evidently not deeply versed.
2. The Herald tries back on a second edition
of its former narrative of the Conservative po-
licy. A few days since it was stated to have
been exclusively " Protestantism." It has
since added, as we suggested, " Protection ;"
and we must further suggest to our contempo-
rary, that the Conservatives rallied against
" Reform of the House of Lords," " The Vote
by Ballot," " Triennial Parliaments," and vari-
ous electoral changes of a levelling character,
not connected with either " Protestantism" or
" Protection."
3. The Herald has thought it better to keep
silent about our bringing to its recollection the
important fact, that the lamented Lord GEORGE
BENTINCK was not only opposed to insulting
the Roman Catholics of Ireland, by revoking.
grants to them, over which time has cast the
shield of proscription, but that he was actnilly
in favour of endowing the Roman Catholic
priesthood, a project which we never recom-
mended.
So much for the absurdity of attempting to
make Maynooth the touchstone of the Conner-
, vatism of the British Empire !