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

LINDON, MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1856.

The French Government disapproves of the
liberty of the Press in England ! It has sent
forth, as we have already stated, a cautious feeler,
a significant hint, as to the necessity for repres-
sive measures—the gagging of the Press in th(
United Kingdom—in order to prevent the possi-
bility of any comment that may be displeasing tf
the sensitive feelings, not merely of the EMPEROR.
but of those who may be striving to advance their
individual interests at the expense of the bes•
interests of the nation. The official organ speak,
of "calumnies, which are the more odious as the-)
are conzealed under an anonymous mask." Bu
we earnestly repudiate, on behalf of our brethren
of the Fourth Estate, the unfounded accusation.
It is easy to put forward charges couched in
general terms, to talk of "calumnies" which have
no existence save in the fertile imagination,
of the writer. But we demand that there shal,
be greater precision--that the bill of indictmen
shall specify the overt acts which justify an accu
saticn so stringent.

It must comply with this reasonable requisitioi.
before it can speak of the " deviations" of Englisi
journals, or " the dangers of a system which, by
destroying the confidence between the two Govern-
men ts, would tend to disunite two nations whose
alliance is the best guarantee of the peace of the
world." We deny, in the most positive ternms
consistent with courtesy, the accusation, and arr
ready to join issue with the Moniteur, and thos,
from whom it derives its inspiration, on the ques-
tion of fact. But even were there greaterfoundatiot.
for its assertion, we should still require to knos
the meaningof itsassertion that these " calumnies''
as they are so politely termed, are " concealed
under an anonymous mask, and can only be an-
swered by contempt."
Can it for a moment suppose that anythin,.,
deliberately adopted by any of the leading organ',
of public opinion, such as the Times or any of its
daily coadjutors, can be truly designated as
" anonymous i" We tell the Moniteur that
it knows little of England, and still leas of
English journalism,
that an article if it is not well aware
or paragraph in any one,
even the least of these so-called "anonymous "
sources, do not carry with them far greater weight
than the published opinions of very influential
pen.lons. When the Times admits a leadir:g
article into its columns, it confers on it the fat,
efeni of its prestige. It is no longer merely thQ
view of the writer—but of the Times. It has
adopted and made it its own, and thus affixed to
it an authority which few Cabinet Ministers could
confer. Should there be any qualification it is at
once ascertained. The writer gives his name and
address to the public, or privately to the Editor,
In either case the matter is closely sifted before
it obtains admission. Unless there is prima facie
evidence in its favour it will be unhesitatingly re-
jected, however exciting the topic or excellent the

composition ; and no wonder, when we con-
sider the stringent pains and penalties that attend
any deviation beyond the exceedingly narrow
limits within which the public journals are
confined.

It is not, then, with "contempt" only
that statements in the English Press are to be
" answered," to use the rather " Hibernian "
illustration of the Moniteur. " I'll tell you,"
said the Irish functionary celebrated by JOE
MILLER, " how I'll decide the point. I'll not
decide it at all !" " These calumnies," quoth the
Moniteur,_ " can only be answered by contempt !"
—a clear proof that they, or rather what the
Moniteur pleases to designate as such, are unan-
swerable, and cannot conveniently be specifically
replied to !
We have great pleasure in referring to an
article extracted from the Times into this day's
impression, in which our contemporary speaks
out boldly and unequivocally as becomes a leader
of the Fourth Estate. We unhesitatingly add
our humble endorsement to every opinion therein
stated. We respect our faithful Allies, but, as
we desire amelioration in our own system of Go-
vernment, we wish that they also should obtain
suitable reforms. We are not silent respecting
the shortcomings of our own Government. We
shall not abstain from noticing the matters that
are injurious to the best interests of La Belle
France that prevent her, conjointly with England,
from assuming that position which would insure
the progress of liberal opinions throughout the
globe. That privilege we shall never surrender,
and highly as we appreciate the value of the
French alliance, we know that it may be too
dearly purchased, if it could only be retained at
such a price.

With the theology of theological disputes we
have no concern. It is even less our business to
bandy arguments with Archbishops and Arch-
deacons on Divinity than with Judges on Law ;
and as we rarely do the latter, so we shall never
attempt the former. The general character of
any professional proceeding is, however, quite
another thing ; in that we have the same interest
as the hundreds who actually squeezed into the
Guildhall at Bath to hear the Proctors and Judges
of 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•
Lion 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
love of freedom did against the ecclesiastical su-
iremacy of the Popes. The popular conviction on
this point is roundly asserted in the 28th of the
Thirty-nine Articles, and the 29th article comple-
nents the 28th, by denying that the,wicked can,
n the Sacrament, partake of the Body and Blood
if CHRIST at all ; so clearly, in the judgment of
)ur Reformers, was it impossible that the sacred
dements should be more than elements. Till of
:ate years, we all of us, however unversed in
-heological subtilties, have taken for granted that,
is 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
.mnoluments to be sure in the Church of England ;
-hey had signed, in order to be entitled to those
,moluments, the Thirty-nine Articles of the
Church, yet they wanted to stand at the same
ime, spiritually, in the awfully grand posi-
ion (to his own flock) of a Romish priest, and
tlso in the comfortable position of the incumbent
)f an English benefice. It is this broad fact
,vhich disgusts the people with Tractarians. No
sue objects to there believing, if brought up in
:his country believe they can, that the Poi.% is
infallible and supreme, and that bread and wine
tre flesh and blood. They may believe the earth
-4 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 the
.ingentletnanly, the dishonest course of° try -
ng to run with the hare and to hunt with the
'rounds. We laymen instinctively feel that we
hould have as few dealings as possible with a
merchant who construed agreements as Trac-
arians construe religious articles, and we are apt
to imagine that honour and evasion in religion
have respectively the same moral character as in
secular affairs. Every honest Tractarian un-
loubtedly thinks the Articles erroneous; then let
aim renounce them and his emoluments together.
Ue has been admitted to our churches on the
ionourable understanding that he would not at-
empt to evade the Articles or to explain them
:way, but that he would act, teach, and preach in
he spirit of them. Here, then, is the real issue
between these gentlemen and the laity. Shall
they 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

ilterest, and we are glad that the Arch-
`)ishop has decided against theological fraud and
chicanery, and enabled Englishmen to hope that
-cclesiastics as well as Commanders-in-Chief will at
last do their duty. The Tractarians who go to their
own place, whatever we may think of their intel-
lectual capacity or soundness, we respect for their
sense of honour ; but we have not only no re-
spect, but unavoidable contempt for the men who
;Ike the pay of on© Church and teach the doc-
trines of another ; for men who have signed a
Creed, and who then preaeh and print language,
meanly and shabbily chosen, to ova de the legal
consequences of contravening it, whit a the senti-
ments conveyed are what those who di rew up that
Creed would have rejected as what thi 7 intended
to condemn.

Of course, the Archdeacon has appclated. Ho-
nours and emoluments are sweet; on the sth of
Ddcember next we are to know what ours° the
appeal is to take. 'We suppose it wil iI be to the
Judicial Committee of Privy Counci I. What
that tribunal will do it is impo,sible to anticipate.
It may, as in the G.DRHAM case, decide that two
conflicting doctrines are equally the di Ictrine of
the Church of England, for its lawyers iaturally
are very timid of deci aions wnich depth a a man
of his living, and equ; illy so of giving a, triumph
to any party in the Cnurch. 11h9st pr obably,
however, they will nob; reverse the de)ei, sion
of the
highest Ecclesiastical Judge on a dog ztr inal pt. 'int-
Indeed, should they do so, in wb .at.
singe, ar

THE SUN; LON DUN,_ MONDAY EYEN I 14' Gi.;

position will it place the Church. The temporali-
ties are naturally a fitting subject for a lay judi-
oature, but while she is a Church, while she has
able divines and rulers appointed by the civil
power for her spiritual government, it will be in-
deed a prostration of the spiritual to the secular
power, if the latter assume to be thg best judge in
purely spiritual matters. We rather wonder that
these super-High Churchmen are not struck with
the voluntary degradation they incur, when they
appeal on questions of doctrine to a civil
Court. We should have expected to hear
quotations of such passages as " giving
holy things to dogs, and casting pearls
before swine." Not that we can see
anything very holy, or pearl-like in the
neasori evasions—to us they read, when com-
pared with the Articles, very much like the pleas
of the meanest pettifogging attorney.

The manliness as well as the correctness of Dr.
LUSIIINOTON'S remarks in delivering judguient are
quite refreshing from the seat of ecclesiastical jus-
tice ; while the contemptible pleas put in by Mr.
DENISON were such as to deprive him even of the
honours of martyrdom. To raise at the twelfth
hour the question whether the 29th Article—being
oae of those he had signed—was really one of the
Articles referred to by the Act ! Of that there
can be no doubt ; but even if there could, for a
man to plead for licence to contravene an article
to which he had put his name ! Ecclesiastics
really need to go into the counting-houses of the
pity to learn morality. The Judge's noble
assertion, however, of the duty of construing
plain documents by their own intelligible lan-
guage, instead of calling in the aid of volumes of
patristic learning, was, above all, important.
We trust that all Judges who may have
to do with this
.controversy will not fail
to use the same language. Nothing would
more effectually meet the Romanism of our
Tractarians than refusing to pit their subtle
Jesuitry against the plain common sense of the
Articles of the Church of England. On look-
ing at the whole affair we should say that
none have succeeded so completely in making the
chains and the mark of the chains on their
Church apparent, as the Tractarians. For the
second time now they have forced the Church,
on doctrinal questions, into the Law Courts. They
have laid bare the purely Parliamentary autho-
rity, not only of her property and hierarchical
constitution, but of her very Articles of faith
also. The final sanction given was that of an
Act of Parliament ; it is not permitted to inter-
pret the Articles by Scripture, but as the judge
showed only to accept the Articles unconditionally,,
as the interpretation of Scripture. By the grace
of an act of Parliament the Church of England is
what she is ; and, awful conclusion, what Parlia-
ment has done Parliament can undo. For this
view of the whole question the Church has to
thank her Tractarian sons. Dissenters will not
be slow to profit by it.