The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-25 00:00:00

Zin

icy'
01

LONDON:
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1840.

It
not worth our while to take notice of the
tisa
h ne pompousness and silly self-praise with which
t-e .illorninr> Post commenced a long article yester-
4eY' Partly insetted in The Sun, which appears to
directed against some remarks of ours. We
411 allow it unanswered to be very vapid about
the dignity of literature," of which it has no other
Nception than that all terms of condemnation
ttt to be on one side ; about " learning and its de-
itt'tl'c' which are never more outraged than when
it assumes that empty ignorant self-praise has in
j either learning or decency; and about "Whig Ra-
thtltlrnals, which will neither keep silence" (to save
th PM from mortification), nor preserve any;
hirig like correctness and decency of argument,"
en the business on hand is to expose hypocrisy,
hallciwness and humbug, under whatever solemn
throbes
they may attempt to palm themselves off on
; all such vapid and silly diatribes are
tie,/
Illot Y unworthy of notice, but not so the renewed
ations
from Mr. GLADSTONE in the Post,
k its defence of the demands of the Church.
it Iliits own dear, and not to be touched person,
v,4Ys, " e fulminate no new anathemas, we in-
''ot W
new shackles for the words or the actions
to men' All that is attempted is a presentation
014. ti" modern public of the principles of
tr, ,Btirt/1 antiquity, accompanied by arguments,
pri ‘lt'w that the practical working of those
the tleililes in our day would greatly contribute to
1)4 religio,
, and moral, and political, and social
happiness, and strength of the community."
e 4re tWO very distinct propositions—first, that
ao,i,
'Ol. the priesthood, invent no new shackles ;
hag ecc'r)(l, that to act on the principles of Chris-
4;''ticlulty would be extremely beneficial. The
Prit 's
defiled. What arc all the restrictions the
I,4.le'fliood insist on imposing on occupation and
14,11,',enlent on the sabbath ? New shackles. What
`ue4' denunciations against Catholics and Dis-
ba tets, and those who do not have their children
\VPhtized- -by the priesthood ? New anathemas.
the ad ar_. the imprisonments of men for not paying
prieue3 which the priesthood demand, and the
t.)44thood enforce, for Church-rates ? New restric-
thii the actions of men. What ate the new
r_ches they demand, for which the public mustis y
New power and new emoluments. What
e Bishop of
t_ What
are
the
pr:soe;zeosNcosionoreesttilllegssly zealous for
irieingthuep Bishop
ew fl art!) i new doctrines
of EXETER and his
. the old arms of intolerance for,
1,11
.10 secure the priesthood new and enlargedl
111'114m over the hearts and minds of men ?
day be consistent with the " dignity of literature"
44 " the decencies of learning" to pander to the
I:ll4,bition and avarice of a very selfish class of men ;
41:(1 we think it at least more consistent with justice,
alntire beneficial to the public, to denounce them
.itost mi3ecinly-
tian44 to the second proposition, the words " Chris-
Cl.antiquity ought to mean that period when
follwas on earth and the period immediately
(!li°r •waltg it. Amongst the principles of that
iat .
‘vaja„ antiquity were these—that no person
Boors I: could be constrained by the civil power to
iNi"IP with the Christians, nor was any man
pureted ill his civil rights, or his person, or his
A
pt,.'t, fur not following the teaching of either
tit
th or PAUL. The voluntary system
was
Wer., acted on amongst the Christians. There
Re
seers _ no rich Bishops and Archbishops, with
fleece
and
..tarving flocks. There were no over-
-11; vt
• 'Jut midi as the flocks approved of. The
forced aPpointments of the Apostles were not en-
To Y , or a conge d'elirc, but sanctioned by
hen6inntary obedience of the congregations.
t.(l
th
who had wealth gave it all
licoe'' tho„
Poor, and looked to the Loan for a recom-
lfiu Penes,
These principles of Christian antiquity,
a of being 'ta
40Wed taught and practised by thz en-
hamo Priesthood, are despised, scorned, and
,
Pled under
efoot.
Principles of Christian antiquity which they
rttta
-r'tl seek to follow, are those of the GREGO-
tht.p.abd the HILDEBRANDS, the principles of
ttittsY.,:when, by the aid of religion, it had
kti".ed the. topmost height of secular dominion,
~attwed tile power of the CXSARS in the
j "•r"ic the Carpenter's sou. Our priesthood turn

rdr.
ss 3'

F
11.1

r di!
is S.

...-•-•"..

)o,f,
f a.

Ida

di'

~;~

!r.t;

hack their longing gaze to a period subsequent
to the apostolic ages, and vehemently and wickedly
denounce the nation because they do not possess
as much power as the Romish priesthood in the
days of their splendour. They hunt up traditions—
they claim a power to interpret them—they deny, like
the Romish priests, that men can be saved except
through them—they demand a convocation to give
efrzct to their views—they hint at the resumption of
the estates which have at any time belonged to the
priesthood, and they and their deluded followers
labour to restore the Papacy, in substance and
spirit, under the forms of the Protestant Church of
England.

The Post proceeds to charge those with " igno-
rant irreverence," who prefer experience, even in
matte's of faith, to antiquity ; and it enforces its
views by a quotation from Mr. GL AD-
STONE'S J book, in which it is said that his
object, and the object of his school, is, to bring
back that which our forefathers once had"—" to ex-
plore an old way, not to survey for a new one ;"
and the two gentlemen together, the Editor and
Author, combine to assert that, in matters of faith,
we are to refer everything to antiquity, and not to
consult experience. With all deference to them,
pompously as they write, and thoroughly satisfied
as they are with their conclusions, they have not,
we must assert, sounded the depths of the question.
What is meant by experience? The combined,
recorded, transmitted, and possessed knowledge of
all mankind. That general term embraces and in_
eludes the knowledge of antiquity in matters of
faith, as far as it is handed down to us,
and our own knowledge. It signifies all the fruit of
all the faculties of the human race at all times. It
is not opposed to what Mr. GLADSTONE and the
Post call matters of faith in antiquity, any more
than the general numeral one thousand is opposed
to the lesser numeral five. No man in his senses
would discard the knowledge of antiquity, but every
man in his senses, we believe, will say, or ought to
say, that the knowledge which was possessed at any
antecedent period (and the more remote the more
absurd becomes the assertion we controvert) ought
not to reign paramount over all the knowledge sub-
sequently acquired.
The persons from whom we derive our knowledge
of antiquity were fallible men like of rselves.
What was faith to them is knowledge to us. The
means through which it has descended to us are
also of a very fallible nature. The language in
which it was first recorded is vague and indefinite ;
and it has been transmitted to us subject to all the
errors of miscopying, mistranslation, and being
misunderstood. Moreover, much of this faith to the
first recipients, and knowledge to all their successors,
was not written at the time, but was handed down
for many generations by tradition. Before it could
be written a new language had to be created, for
written language is totally different from spoken lan-
guage. The question then is, not whether this small
portion of human knowledge, originally possessed
by a very few persons in a remote corner of the
globe, shall be taken for what it is worth, but whe-
ther that alone shall, in the most important of all
human concerns, be assumed as an all-sufficient
guide for this present generation. Mr. GLAD-
STONE and the Post verbally contend that it ought,
and that society ought to reject modern experience,
ought to explore and hunt out only this little
bit of human knowledge, and when it is found
ought to tie down all its faculties to it.
We say nominally, because, in fact, these gen-
tlemen do not act as absurdly as they write. They
are not content with that antique knowledge for a
guide. They seek other helps in morals and in
politics. They go to profane books to learn what
the sacred books mean. They employ all the art
of modern criticism to clear up doubtful passages.
They join in framing codes of morals and of lrws
for society not known to antiquity. They are far
from resting satisfied with the light which they de-
rive, even in matters of faith, from this little bit of
knowledge. When Mr. GLADSTONE and the
Post, therefore, place faith in opposition to experi-
ence, it is clear that they do not know what they write
about. Let us, in conclusion, add, that we are firmly
convinced, notwithstanding Mr. GLADSTONE'S
rhodomontade about the " doctrine which the uni-
versal Church (what does it mean ?) has ever
drawn from Scripture," that his wish to regulate
modern society by his little bit of knowledge,
can only lead to infinite disorder and infinite misery.
But this is Mr. GLADSTONE'S new nostrum for

the future government of society ; on this he
grounds his hope of its regeneration ; and for en-
tertaining such a hope we beg leave to say that he
and his abettors are far more foolish visionaries than
ST. SIMON or Mr. OWEN and their followers.

In the article which we have copied from the
Herald, relative to the affairs of the East, lan-

guage and sentiments are ascribed to Lord PAL-
MERSTON which cannot possibly be true. Lord
PA LMERSTON, it Says, " states that it is the de-
termination of the Conference to hold no terms with
MEHEMET A Li." Now the Conference are at
this moment communicating with MEHEMET ALI,
and, so far from holding no terms with him, are
actually, accoi ding to the Herald itself, ordering
Admiral STOPFORD to propose all ultimatum to
him. The Herald contradicts itself.

We place on this account no reliance on its as.
sertion that Lord PA LmERsTON has threatened
the PACH A " if he delay a day in making his sub-
mission, ...the Great Powers will support his de-
cheance at the Porte, and that instant measures
will be taken to dispossess him of Egypt." Such an
arrogant project on the part of Lord PA L mERsToN,
couched in such arrogant language, is wholly
inconceivable. He must know that the people of
England, much as the Morning Chronicle has
laboured to excite a prejudice against MEHEMET
ALI, and beget a quarrel with him, will not coun-
tenance such a course of conduct, and he has too
much good sense to adopt it. The Noble Lord is
singularly unfortunate. He is misrepresented by
both friends and enemies. The language used by
the Morning Chronicle, supposed to be with his
approbation, which we are sure it is not, is full of
fire and fury, and emboldens the Herald to
charge him with a design which seems shadowed
out by the Morning Chronicle. We have, in-
deed, positive authority, as well as internal evi-
dence, for asserting that the Herald has done Lord
PALMERSTON a great injustice.
It is admitted by the Herald that the note was
intended to remove disquietudes in the French Mi-
nistry, and the Noble Lord begins by expressing re-
gret on perceiving that his note of the 2d of No-
vember has been misunderstood. In the teeth of
such a declaration, however, the note goes on, ac-
Cording to the Herald, to insult France more than
she has ever been insulted yet by the Conference,
by declaring that—
The Conference must take care that France does not
create any preponderance or influence for herself, by
being suffered to take part in the settlement of the
question.
So that if France were willing to act with the
Allies she is studiously to be excluded. Who can
believe such an assertion, when it has been the de-
sire of the Conference all along to have the co •ope-
ration of France in bringing the matter to a suc-
cessful conclusion ? In fact, at this very time the
good offices of France have been solicited and pro-
mised, in order to influence the PACHA to withdraw
from Syria. The pretended revelations of the

Herald are a tissue of absurdities, of which the
concoctor has not seen the bearings.
The strangest of all the assertions, however, is