The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-22 00:00:00

- 4

810

-
action to all those creeds which the State pro-
fesses to think false, and to refuse it to the
only one she professes to believe true.
It may be said, of course, that the curtail-
ment of her liberty is the prise which the
Church pays for the enjoyment of State pro-
tection, and the security of her own endow-
ments. This may bo so, hut it does not lessen
the inconsistencyof the State. We know that
a protectorate is often. but another awe for_
tyranny. But the frequency of the imposture
does not diminish its turpitude. A husband
vows to cherish and protect his wife, and for
such protection the law has made her pay
pretty dearly. But whoever considered that
it was an extenuation of the husband's offence
that he had the law upon his side ?
In this case, however,. we maintain that the
State has not got the law upon its side. The
Royal supremacy, which this exemption is
supposed to impair, has never extended to the
interpretation of Scripture. The Crown can
forbid the promulgation of doctrines, or the
continuance of practices, which strike at its own
independence, or interfere with the allegiance of
its subjects. But here we maintain that its law-
ful power ceases. When the clergy differ about
the meaning of their own formularies, the civil
power endeavours to ascertain what has been
the usual law of the Church upon the subject—
on which side is the preponderance of prece-
dents—to find out, that is, what is the will of
the Church herself upon the point at issue.
But it has never dreamed of such a thing
as deciding upon doctrines ab initio, and
forcing them on the acceptance of the Church.
To interpret the words of a formulary, and to
change an article of faith, are two totally
different things. And the language of the
judges in determining ecclesiastical causes has
always been inconsistent with the claim of
any original doctrinal authority upon the part
of the Crown.
At the present day more especially, and with
the present constitution of the House of
Commons, it would seem to be an outrage
upon common justice that any such right
should be asserted. For let us suppose, what
is quite possible, though perhaps not pro-
bable, that at some future time the majority of
the House of Commons should be Dissenters.
If the authority now claimed for that assembly
be legal, it would be in their power to compel
the Church to celebrate divine service accord-
ing to any system they might choose. They
might forbid the use of the surplice, of kneel-
ing at the sacrament, of infant baptism, or any
other doctrine or practice of which they disap-
proved. Yet will anybody gravely maintain
that this is what was intended by the Act of

Supremacy ?
Yet it is this foolish and untenable opinion
in deference to which Ministers have been ill
advised enough to run counter to the existing
law of the land, and to recommend to her
Majesty the violation of her Coronation Oath.
Astonished at themselves apparently for
having committed au act of justice, and
frightened by those godless grumblers who
hate all religious sincerity because it is a
standing protest against themselves, the
Government has undone its work of Tuesday
last, and asserted its right of oppression in a
more offensive style than ever. A clergy-
man is not compelled to perform a ceremony
he condemns; but he is to surrender his
parish church for the performance of it by any
less scrupulous brother. Now this is only
the violation of conscience in another shape.
It is every man's duty to defend the rightful
privileges and possessions of his order, and
to hand them down unimpaired to his suc-
cessors. By the unquestioned law of the
land the custody of the Church is vested in the
parson, and no one—not even the church-
warden—has a right to enter it without his
consent, except dining the celebration of
divine service. If this law be deemed incon-
sistent with the public welfare, let the subject
be discussed in an open and manly way. If
finch be the will of the country, let the rights
of the Church be annulled. But this under-
hand work is disgraceful both to the people and
to Parliament. Why employ a thief to sneak
in at the window if entrance can be fairly
obtained at the door`?
But by far the most serious element in this
preciouarpicee of legislation is the direct