The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-03 00:00:00

THE SUN,

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.

GLOBE.—The style in which Mr. Glad.,tone (if
the Quarterly article on Ward's Ideal Church is cor-
rectly attributed to that Right Honourable ecclesias-
tical politician) sets aside, without argument, the
views of those who consider the existing Church as
having been founded by the Reformers of the six-
teenth century—receives an appropriate commentary
in the resolutions at the great meeting in Exeter. It
neither belongs to Mr. Gladstone, nor any other
ecclesiastical politician, by virtue of the mere idea
which he and other High-Churchmen entertain of
the original titles, and apostolic succession, of the
Church—(which idea he rather cooly assumes as the
one held by the " instructed members generally" of
that Church)—it does not belong to such statesmen,
to follow out the shadowy motives of polemics in
public action. Indeed, Mr. Gladstone has good
reason to know this. Robespierre told the Jacobin
Club he was obliged to comelo them for consola,ion,
and open his heart, afflicted by the want of civism
of the C.,nvention and Committees. In like manner
Mr. Gladstone rushes to the Reviews, from a Cabinet
dead to his Churchism. Mr. Gladstone would no
longer know himself, if it were not for the Tri-
mestrials. lie is like Dame Trot, pitifully shorn
of her nether integuments by the Pedlar (or
Peeler), whose name was Stout—and his last
chance of self-recognition is, that his " little
dogs" of the press still " wag their little
tails" in welcome to him. It must be infi-
finitely consolatory to Mr. Gladstone, as member
of a Government that is positively getting into a
scrape for the love of endowing Roman Catholicism,
to be still suffered to do the indignant in the' Quar-
terly at poor Mr. Ward, for " laying down in the
clearest terms, that the rival communion of the Papal
Church in England is not schismatical !!" Take
your choice, Mr. Gladstone. Either the " rival
communion" is not schismatical," or else your
Government—the Government graced with your all-
guaranteeing orthodoxy—is going out of its way to
encourage schism, and help it to endowments ! But,
alas! nusquam luta fides! While Mr. Gladstone, in
one article of the Quarterly, is predicating " schism"
of the " rival communion,"—Mr. Croker, in another
article of the same Quarterly, after intimating, in no
obscure terms, the policy of " a direct State provi-
sion for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland," pro-
ceeds to recommend to Lord Roden, and other such
pillars of Mr. Gladstone's exclusive churchism, the
extreme propriety of carrying out the Charitable Be-
quests Act- by endowing the rival Church themselves!
We should like to know what extra amount of italics
and CAPITALS, notes of interrogation ? exclamation!
dashes —, and all else pertaining to the well known
war-establishment of type of the Quarterly, would,
have been put in requisition, in the Melbourne era, it'
the following sentences had appeared in an organ
of Whig opinions :—" The Roman Catholics of
Ireland are rapidly growing in wealth and
weight, though not in proportion to the
growth of the poorer population. What, then, is
more proper than that the rich should be permitted,
if they plea§e, to take upon themselves, to the relief
of their poorer neighbours, a larger and more per-
manent share of the expenses of the due and decent
celebration of their own rites, and the respectability
of their pastor ?, But it is not the affluent Roman
Catholics only by whom this Act will be considered
an indulgence; we trust that we shall see that the
more considerable Protestant proprietors will come
forward to avail themselves of this privilege—
they will feel equally with the Roman Catholic
the charitable impulse of increasing the comfort
and independence of the priest, and of alle-
viating, if not of altogether saving, the burden
of his maintenance to a population too poor in
general to maintain itself." We have somewhat
strayed from the reference, with which we set out, to
the great meeting at Exeter. But the topics are
most intimately connected. The more we see the
Administration conceding to Roman Catholics—the
more firmly♦ we are called on, as Protestants, to make
good our own position. Mr. Gladstone's recipe
has been utterly discarded by the Government of
which he is a member—the recipe, namely, pro-
pounded by him in his 'Church and State'—of up-
holding " truth" as truth—and discountenancing rival
communions as schisms. It is now quite clear that
truth, as truth, finds no more preference with this
Administration than with those whom Mr. Glad-
stone and others denounced for their latitudina-'
rianism. It remains therefore with this Pro-
testant community to compel regard to their views
of truth,—and no way of doing this can be more
proper than that resolved by the Exeter meeting.
Indeed their diocesan has, in some sense, the merit
of having suggested the very course now adopted.
The Bishop of Exeter has admitted the pro-
bable inconvenience of many directions of the rubric.
But, instead of letting these quietly remain asleep, as
for some two centuries past, he suddenly inculcates
their disused observance--moved, in fact, by the new
zeal of the restless tail of his junior clergy. But he
has himself suggested that the same authority, which
imposed these ritual matters, may abolish them. To
that authority his laity appeal. They appeal to their
representative in the Church—to that authority
which—whatever may be held to make churches—can
alone make, and keep, any church a public and privi-
leged establishment. They petition the Sovereign
for the word " Forward !"—not for the mere sanc-
tion of the statu quo. The clerical movers cry "Back-
ward !"—the laity—" Forward !" God help the
right !