The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-27 00:00:00

THEATRE ROYAL, DRURY-LANE,

Lessee, Kr. E. T. Smith
TEI,I EVENING

N 0 li M A.

ROYAL PEINCEIrS'h I Ea' 811,1,

Ceder the Management of Mr. CIIABLES
TEAS EVENING,
A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM.

To conclude with

PIZ ARRO.

THEATRE ROYAL, VAYMARKET.
Under the Management of Mr. Blackstone.

EVEN I SG ,

WILD OATS.
Followed Ly
The Spanish Dancers.
After which,
THE LITTLE TREASURE.

To conclude with

THE GALICIAN FETE.

LYCEUM TITEATRE ROYAL,
Lessee, Mr. Charles Dillon.
Seventh and Last Week of Belohegor, which, notwithstanding the
ni.,htly crowded state of the Theatre, must be withdrawn for the
pro +tic,ion of promise f nove ties. The King's Musketeers every
evening.

THIS EVENING,
ItELPHEGOR.

Belphegor, Mr. Chas. Dillon : vadeline, Mrs. Chas. Dillon.

Followed by
THE KING'S MUSKETEERS,
D'Artagnon, Mr. Chas. Dillon; Const Ince. Miss Woolgar.

To conclude with
The BALLET from the BuriPsque of the " Winter's Tale."

ROYAL THEtTRE ADELPIII

Proprietor and Manager, air. B. Wet ster.

Directress, Madame Celesta
THIS PIVENING.
IRELAND AS IT IS.
Followed by
DOMESTIC ECONOMY.
LUCIFER MA.TCHES; OR, THE YANKEE ----!

composition ; and n 3 wonder, when we con-
sider the stringent pai ng and ',penalties that attend
any deviation beyond tit( 3 exceedingly narrow
i limits within which ti" ,e public journals are
To conclnde with
A BALLET DIVERTI3;EAENT. confined.

It is not, then, , with "contempt" only
that statements in t ) English Press are to be
" answered," to use the rather " Hibernian "
illustration of the M oniteur. " I'll tell you,"
Eaid the Irish film' tionary celebrated by JOE
MILLER, " how I'll decide the point. I'll not
decide it at all !" These calumnies," quoth the
Moniteur, "can onl: ybe answered by contempt !"
—a clear prod tk at they, or rather what the
Monifeur pleases designate as such, are unan-
swerable, and ca- al lot conveniently be specifically
replied to !

We have gr€ at pleasure in referring to an
article extracted . from the Times into this day's
impression, in. -which our contemporary speaks
out boldly an cl utnequivocally as becomes a leader
of the Four t h Estate. We unhesitatingly add
our bumble ( end orsement to every opinion therein
stated. We :respect our faithful Allies, but, as
we desire am e lioration in our own system of Go-
vernment, wt... 1 wish that they also should obtain
auitable refori Os. We are not silent retpecting
the shortcomi ags of our own Gavernment. We
shall not abstain from noticing the matters that
are injurious to the best interests of La Belle
France that pr event her, conjointly with England,
from assumin g that position which would insure
the progress ,of liberal opinions throughout the
globe. That privilege we shall never surrender,
and highly r s we appreciate the value of the
French allian Ice, we know that it may be too
dearly purch; mcl, if it oould only be retained at
such a price.

With the theology of theological disputes we
have no concern. It is even less our business to
handy :trg,uments with Archbishops and Arch

deacons 'nit Divinity than with Judges on Law ;
tnd as we rarely do the latter, so we shall never
attempt he former. The general character of
Any profs ssional proceeding is, however, quite
Another ; in that we have the same interest
is the h u ndreds who actually squeezed into the
Guildhall at Bath to hear the Proctors and Judges
,f the Court, and the hundreds who would have
Squeezed in if they could. In truth, a very old
English question was substantially under consi-
deration. It was, in fact, that of Popery or No
Popery. It was whether one of the distinguish-
ing dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church was a
dogma of the English Church or not. It was
quite true that the Romaniser had not expressed
himself in the language of the Council of Trent :
that would not have served his purpose ; but it
was true that he shaped his language as nearly as
he could to that which the. Vatican would hold
on the same subject, without, as he hoped, con-
travening in Words the Articles of Faith
to which he owed his emoluments. The
intention of our Reformers to deny the
doctrine of transubstantiation is as cer-
tain and as historically notorious as their inten •
tion to deny the supremacy of the Bishop of ROME.
It was always one of the testing points in the
examination of Protestants by Papists, and fre-
quently vice versa. The practical English intellect,
when once aroused, revolted as much against the
doctrinal imposture of transubstantiation as our
lave of freedom did against the ecclesiastical su-
premacy of the Popes. The popular conviction on
this point is roundly asserted in the 28th of the
Chirty-nine Articles, and the 29th article comple-

cents the 28th, by denying that the wicked can,
,n the Sacrament, partake of the Body and Blood
•f CHRIST at all ; so clearly, in the judgment of

'lir Reformers, was it impossible that the sacred
lements should be more than elements. Till of
ate years, we all of us, however unversed in
heological subtilties, have taken for granted that,
us Protestants, we were in direct antagonism to
Catholics on this point.
For the last twenty years, however, a well-
known and active clerical party has fallen in love
with the cast-off beauties of Popery ; they held
lmoluments to be sure in the Church of England ;

hey had signed, in order to be entitled to those
emoluments, the Thirty-nine Articles of the
church, yet they wanted to stand at the same
ime, spiritually, in the awfully grand psi-
ion (to 'his own flock) of a Romish priest, and
Iso in the comfortable position of the incumbent
,f an English benefice. It is this broad fact
vhich disgusts the people with Tractarians. No
,ne objects to there believing, if brought up in
his country believe they can, that the POPE is
ofallible and supreme, and that bread and wine
ire flesh and blood. They may believe the earth
-o be flat, and the sun to move round it, if they
Ike, according to the brilliant scientific teaching
f Popery. The thing objected to is th 3
ingentlernanly, the dishonest course of try -
ng to run with the hare and to hunt with the
iounds. Wo laymen instinctively feel that we
,hould have as few dealings as possible with
nerchaut who construed agreements as Trac-
arians construe religious articles, and we are apt
imagine that honour and evasion in religion
:lave respectively the same moral character as in
•ecular affairs. Every honest Tractarian un-
loubtedly thinks the Articles erroneous ; then let
iim renounce them and his emoluments together.
He has been admitted to our churches on the
aonourable understanding that he would not at-
tempt to evade the Articles or to explain them
sway, but that ho would act, teach, and preach in
he spirit of them. Here, then, is the real issue
hetween these gentlemen and the laity. Shall
;hey be allowed, as Archdeacon DENISON has
just attempted to do, to drive a coach and
six through the Articles or not ? That is
-,he point in which alone the public feels any
nterest, and we are glad that the Arch-
oishop has decided against theological fraud and
,hicanery, and enabled Englishmen to hope that
.cclesiastics as well as Commanders-in-Chief will at
ast do their duty. The Tractarians who go to their
,Nra place, whatever we may think of their intel-
ectual capacity or soundness, we respect for their
sense of honour ; but we have not only no re-
. pect, but unavoidable contempt for the men who
ake the pay of One Church and teach the doc-
trines of another ; for men who have signed a
Creed, and who then preach and print language,
meanly and shabbily chosen, to evade the legal
consequences of contravening it, while the senti-
ments convoyed aro what those who drew up that
Creed would have rejected as what they intended
o condemn.

Of course, the Archdeacon has appealed. Ho-
!lours and emoluments are sweet; on the sth of
Dacember next we are to know what course the
appeal is to take. We suppose it will be to tha
Judicial Committee of Privy Council. What
Shat tribunal will do it is impossible to anticipate.
It may, as in the GORHAM case, decide that two
conflicting doctrines aro equally the doctrine of
the Church of England, for its lawyers naturally
are very timid of decisions w.dch deprive a man
of his living, and equally so of giving a triumph
to any party in the Church. Most probably,
however, they will not reverse the decision of the
highest Ecclesiastical Judge on a doctrinal point.
Indeed, should they do so, in what a singular