The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS,

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.

TlMES.—Unable any longer to keep silence, and im•
patient of the period which must intervene before the
meeting of Parliament shall deliver the Premier into
his hand, Mr. Roebuck has addressed to Lord John
Russell a letter on the part he has taken with reference
to the questions now in debate between this country and
the See of Rome. Every one must naturally be anxious
to see what such a man has to say on such a subject.
Mr. Disraeli has been beforehand with Mr. Roebuck in
seeking to give a political turn to the present discussion;
but Mr. Disraeli's letter took no hold on the public
mind, and is as completely a thing of the past as his
own Radical speeches. The object of Mr. Roebuck's
letter is to accuse Lord John Russell of in-
consistency and impolicy, of deserting the principles
of Catholic emancipation, and fomenting those
religious differences in 1850 which he has been
striving to allay ever since 1829. The prin-
ciple which Lord John Russell is supposed to have be-
trayed is in substance, that in an empire like ours any
attempt to degrade by law and by the imposition of civil
disabilities any one class of believers is not merely un-
just, but in the highest degree impolitic also, and that
the fixing on them badges of social inferiority because
of their faith would be an insult more galling still than
injury. We cordially assent to this proposition; so we
are sure does Lord John Russell; for he says in the
second paragraph of his letter that he not only promoted
emancipation, but he thought it right, nay, even de-
sirable, that the instruction of Roman Catholics should
be carried on through their own ecclesiastical system.
Thus does the very letter which is the object of Mr.
Roebuck's attack clearly lay down the very principle
which he contends is violated, and extends that principle
not only to the toleration of individuals but to a modi.
fled permission to develope their ecclesiastical polity.
Mr. Roebuck treats the present Papal aggression
as the necessary consequence of the Emancipation Act,
and taunts as shortsighted politicians those who did not
foresee it at the time. Of this startling proposition he
offers no proof at all. Whether it ought to have been
foreseen or no is now very bootless to inquire. That as
a matter of fact it was not foreseen is perfectly clear,
from the consideration that the people of England were
much more unfavourably disposed towards the Roman
Catholic religion in 1829 than they are now, inasmuch as
in 1829 there was a large party which opposed the ad-
mission of Roman Catholics to civil rights, while now
every one, with exceptions only numerous enough to
prove the rule, approves their exemption from civil dis-
abilities; that the people of England are now strongly
opposed to the establishment of a Roman Catholic
hierarchy; and that therefore, if they believed in 1829
that the establishment of the hierarchy was the necessary
consequence of the Emancipation Act, they would
never have allowed it to be passed is equally evident.
We have shown in former articles that, regarding the
Emancipation Act not merely as a law, but as a solemn
compact between the Roman Catholic minority and the
Protestant majority, the recent proceedings are in
violation of the letter and spirit of that compact, and
owe their impunity, not to the intention, but the over-
sight of the Legislature. We have looked in vain
through Mr. Roebuck's letter for any proof that the pre-
sent movement in this country tends in any way to the
infliction of degradation or the affixing badges of in-
feriority upon our Roman Catholic subjects. It is easy
for Mr. Roebuck, in the plenitude of his infallibility, to
apply to the immense majority of the citizens of the most
liberal country in the world, and of the party in Parlia-
ment with whom he generally acts, such epithets as
" blind, intolerant hate," " detestable intolerance," and so
forth; but it would have been more difficult, and also
more convincing, to have shown by argument how
the general desire to curb the claims of the Ro-
man Catholic Church, to prevent its organizing
an iniperium in imperio, and arrogating to itself powers
only conceded to her Majesty, reserving at the same
time to individual Roman Catholics pet feet civil right!,
is any violation of the principle of toleration with which
he sets out. Mr. Roebuck condescends to adopt the ar-
gument of Dr, Wiseman, that, as the Pope cannot give
himself territorial jurisdiction, there is no danger from
his assuming it. This conclusion, also, he has not con-
descended to prove. With seven millions of Roman Ca-
tholics in Ireland, headed by a hierarchy which sits in
judgment upon the statutes of the Imperial Parliament,
and repeals them at its pleasure under the direction of
the Pope—with a form of belief in Scotland whic'n holds
prelacy in little less aversion than Popery—with a
written declaration of 1,800 of the clergy of the Esta-
blished Church against the supremacy of the Queen in
spiritual matters—and with a number of eloquent and
influential geutlemen. who, like Mr. Roebuck, are un-
able or unwilling to distinguish between the most
reasonable resistance against rampant aggression and
the most virulent persecution of unoffending opinion—it
is impossible to say that any decided movement of the
Church of Rome against the Church of England is with-
out danger. That danger is, without doubt, diminished
by the very movement Mr. Roebuck deprecates; but till
that demonstration was made it was impossible to know
how far the laity had been infected by the taint which
prevails so widely among the clergy. The remainder of
Mr. Roebuck's letter is taken up with a glowing enume-
ration of the evils which the present agitation tends to
produce, the difficulties which will arise in Ireland, the
destruction of the charities of life, and the introduction of
a spirit of sectarian animosity. It is assumed, but not
proved, that these evils are traceable, so far as they exist,
to Lord John Russell's letter, and he receives castigation
accordingly, But it was not till the voice of the coun-
try had been distinctly heard that Lord John Russell's
letter appeared; and there have not been wanting those
who, instead of accusing him, like Mr. Roebuck, of rashly
inflaming public opinion, have censured him for lagging
behind it, and servilely following what he was unable to
lead. It appears to us that, so far from inflaming the
spirit against the Roman Catholics at whom the letter
was obviously, not principally, levelled, the assurance of
the sympathy of the Prime Minister, and the conse-
quent expectation of speedy redress for the insult, tended
to produce that moderate tone and tolerant spirit which,
in contradiction to Mr. Roebuck, wo assert to have
pervaded the immense majority of the resolutions and
addresses. But if evil must come from this movement,
why is it to be laid to the charge of those who have
openly and manfully resisted aggression rather
than of the aggressor himself? Are we to submit
to aggression in order to avoid the scandals which
may result from resistance? Is intolerance to have
her hands free, and toleration only to be tongue-tied?
Does the liberty to worship imply the liberty to conspire
against the worship of others? We know that Mr.
Roebuck advocates the propagation of liberal principles,
supported, if necessary, by force of arms—will he grant
the same right to religious conviction? and if so, where
will he draw the line between propagation and invasion?
Mr. Roebuck's letter appears to us to amount to this—
that since the Emancipation Act, all sects have been
placed on a perfect equality ; that therefore the Church
of England and the Queen her head have no right to
complain of any invasion, however barefaced and unpro-
voked, of their spiritual right and jurisdiction; that so
to complain would be likely to make the Roman Catho-
lics very angry and the Protestants not a little warm,
and is therefore hateful and detestable•, and that though
it be quite right to send 16 sail of the line to avenge the
wrongs of Don Pacifico, it is unstatosmanlike and un-
christian to utter a single word of protest against any
outrage, however gross, to our Crown and Constitution.
DAILY NEWS.—The trap which Dr. Pusey ima-
gined and gave his name to, and which was framed and
baited by his disciples, is now so very well known for
what it is, that as a trap at least it can no longer serve.
The veriest rat of the Establishment must be perfectly
aware what he is about in venturing in. And we doubt
that any more, save those who are already irrevocably
within the bars, will put themselves in the power of the
Romanising rat-catchers. The delight of these eccle-
siastical sportsmen at present is to hold up their cage to
the world, and show the great people they have caught.
Although they are not able to boast complete and bodily
capture of such portentous animals, for example, as the
Premier and the Bishop of London, they can at least
show how one left the fur of his coating, whilst the
other left his very tail in the closing trap, so narrow was
his escape. As to Lord John, he evidently did but
smell the bait, and thought it savouring with de-
vout unction; but scenting the Pope, his Lordship
made off in good time. His denunciation of the roguery
of the bait has much angered that ingenious rat-catcher,
Mr. Bennet. The Bishop of London, however, walked
all fours into the trap, and not only smelled the bait
but swallowed it; nay, recommended it strongly to all
his tribe,: until the great discovery was made, and the
inmates of the cage threatened to be let loose amongst
the people, who are very terriers on such an occasion.
His Grace made off more in fear than dignity, leaving,
as we stated, his consistency behind. And now the Rev.
Mr. Bennet has come forward and published at length
the history and success of his decoy of St. Barnabas.
And we must say that, on a careful. perusal, we see no
differences werth mentioning between the Church of Mtn.
Bennet antlithe 'Church oot;;Faiber Newman. Boths za
tahcceo,flrZt:r:phitoc, 114;i. a:Fe
Bine
tlitotelitb,,leiss, tibrocell:LEAllt
is a
nattQhal ' Church: • Brat lila 'own • Cbtirch;; being 'net
.natiotial,, but universal, is infallible. On this
infalti-
bility,is founded, aceorsling to Mr. Benner,' the certainty
of the Efoly Scriptures., Our deductions from records,
.s from:-history, the internal. proofs in the Bible itself of
its own authenticity, are nothing. , We can only be-
lieve iu-the Bible because we, believed the Church to

be infallible; and we must believe the Church to he in.
fallible in order to give certainty to the Bible. Such is
the absurd, the vicious circle upon which Mr. Bennet
builds his church. This is not to be converted to Popery,
but to surpass and to transcend it. The creed of Roma❑
Catholics is reason end common sense compared with
this. Infallibility draws after it omnipotence. If know-
ledge be power, the perfection and the irrefragibility of
knowledge imply supreme power. Since the Church
possesses these, where is its organ, its chief ? Shall a
council be called of the universal Church? Mr. Bennet
knows that it would be a bear-garden. In despair of
any result from a council, shall all decision and authority
be referred to a supreme head, foreign and antagonistic
to all lay and domestic rule? Mr. Bennet durst nut say
this, but be points to it, and all his arguments lead to
that great conclusion—Popery. But for the present
this is not prudent to announce. For him the time of
absolutist restoration on matters of religion has
not come, and therefore Mr. Bennet recommends
anarchy. his desire is that every priest shall
do what be likes, preach what tenets, and practise
what ceremonies, he fancies. He will not admit the
Queen's supremacy, because it is the Prime Minister's
—nor the Prime Minister's, because it is after all the
people's supremacy. Queen, Parliament, Government,
and people skull have nothing to do with their religion.
Laymen shall net meddle with it. It is a sacerdotal
affair altogether, infallibility being confined to the priest-
hood. And as the people must not elect their priests,
nor the State be allowed to appoint them either, it follows
that religion is to be altogether a Levitical institution,
handed down in a tribe or corporation, self-electing and
salt' rearing, siered in their persons and infallible in their
judgments. If we couple this scheme of religious faith,
and church government, with the worship of the saints,
the adoration of the cross, the auricular confession, pe-
nance and absolution, all insisted on by the theologian of
Brompton, it makes up something considerably more
than Popery. It is rank Hindooistn, with its castes, its
rites, its Brahmins, and its pagodas. It is bringing
back society, not to the middle ages, as Catholicism
would do, but to the remotest ages of barbarism. We
can conceive no greater outrage to common sense than
the attempt to place a sect, which has such aims and
principles as these, by the side of the great Dissenting
denominations of this country, in order to claim kindred
and support. Every single characteristic that Dissent
objects to in the Church, sacerdotal supremacy with
repudiation of lay influence, and all the consequences of
these opinions and pretensions, are exaggerated by the
Puseyites. The Queen's supremacy, which the laymen
of the Established Church prize. as their safeguard
against sacerdotal tyranny and extravagance, is objected
to by Dissenters as insufficient. Dissent worships no
Pope, and believes in no infallible church ; for the Rev.
Mr. Bennet, therefore, to creep under the gaberdine of
the Rev. Baptist Noel, is but a piece of Jesuitry worthy
of his school. Into the great and important ques-
tion of whether there shall be a State Church
or no State Church we need not enter.
But of this we are confident, that in any
country where churches are divorced from 'and
unrecognised by the State, those churches with infallible
and dominant pretensions, with a hierarchy, with corpo-
rate property, advancing their influence as much by the
argument of wealth and power as by argument, must be
subjected to rigid restrictions, if not successfully com-
batted by education and by great worldly and industrial
activity. The idea of allowing such a Church as the
Anglican in England to separate from the State, and
constitute itself with all its property arid privileges into a
separate corporation, re-electing itself, disciplining and
rearing its sons in the creed and qualities requisite for
domination—this would be the establishing of a yoke so
much more intolerable than that of any State Church,
that it would infallibly lead at no distant day to an in-
surrection of the laity for the sure and set purpose of
getting rid of it; unless indeed the success of the Indian
jugglers of the Church had succeeded in prostrating the
people and reducing them to the state of the low castes of
inciia, condemned to labour and prohibited to think, and
bidden to save their souls with the mummery of unintel-
ligible orisons and fanatical asceticism.