The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
PROS THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The style in which Mr. Gladstone (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 come to them for consolation,
and open his heart, afflicted by the want of civism
of the Convention 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-
rnestrials. He is like Dame Trot, pitifully shorn
'of her nether integuments by the Pedlar (or
Peeler), whose name was Stout—and his last
chance ot' 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 3,1 r. Gladstone, as member
of a Government that is positively getting into a
scrape for the love of endowing Roman Catholicism,
to be still sufferesi to do the indignant in the Quar-
terly at poor Mr. Ward, for " laying down in the
clearest terms, that the rival communien 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-
zmarantring orthodoxy—is going out of its way to
encourae;e schism, and help it to endowments I But,
alas! nuwivant. tutu fries! While Mr. Gladstone, in
cite arti-,e of -Ile Quarterly, is predicating " schism"
of the c• rival .communion, '—Mr. Croker, in another
article of the same Quarterly, after intimating, in no
obseure term.sa, the policy of " a direct State provi-
sion for the R omen Catholic clergy of Ireland," pro•
needs to recon amend to Lord Roden, and other such
pillars of Mr. Gladstone's exclusive churchism, the
extreme propr ioty of carrying out the Charitable Be-
quests Act by endowing the rival Church themselves!
We should to know what extra amount of italics
and e a mates, notes of interrogation? exclamation!
dashes —, an I, all else pertaining to the well-known
war-reitalelishe eent of type of the Quarterly, would,
have been put :he requisition, in the Melbourne era, if
the following sentences had appeared in an organ
of Vr nig opini Dns : --"The Roman Catholics of
Ireland are r apidly growing in wealth and
weight, thougi i not in proportion to the
growth of the poorer population. What, then, is
inure pe:per tha a that the rich should be permitted,
it please, tes take upon themselves, to the relief
I poorer • neighbours, a larger and more per- ,
seatieet share of the expenses of the due and decent
celilarreeen of tt eir own rites, and the respectability
ot their pastor ? But it is not the affluent Roman
Catholics only 1 whom this Act will be considered
an indulgence; we trust that we shall see that the
snore consider -I 'le Protestant proprietors will come
forward to avail themselves of this privilege—
they will feel equally with the Roman Catholic
the charitable irn,eulse of increasing the comfort
and it.dependence 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 iteelf.' We have somewhat
strayed from the reference, with which we set out, to
the great meeting at Exeter. But the topics are
most intimately cornected. The more w e see the
Administration conceding to Roman Catholics—the
more firmly we are ealied on, as Protestants. to make
good our owm. 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
communiens as schisms. It is now quite clear that
zruth, as truth, finds no more preference with this
-Administration than with those whom Mr. Glad-
atone and others denounced for their latitudina-
eianism. It remains therefore with this Pro-
testant eremmunity to compel regard to their views
Hof truth,—and no way of doing this can he 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-
Amble inconvenience of many directions of the rubric.
:But, instead of letting these quietly remain asleep, as
Jilr 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 tame authority, which
inoposed these ritual matters, may abolish them. To
:but authority his laity appeal. They appeal to their
:representative in the Church—to that authority
-which—whatever may be held to make churches—eau
alone make, and keep, any church a public and privi-
eged establishment. They petition the Sovereign
son the word " Forward !"—not for tho mere sane-
lion of the starri quo. The clerical movers cry "Back-
ward !"—the laity—" Forward I" God help the
right !