This is indeed a legitimate consequence of his principles.But why stop here? Why not roast Dissenters at slow fires? All the general reasonings on which this theory rests evidently lead to sanguinary persecution.If the propagation of religious truth be a principal end of government, as government; if it be the duty of a government to employ for that end its constitutional Power;if the constitutional power of governments extends, as it most unquestionably does, to the making of laws for the burning of heretics; if burning be, as it most assuredly is, in many cases, a most effectual mode of suppressing opinions; why should we not burn? If the relation in which government ought to stand to the people be, as Mr.Gladstone tells us, a paternal relation, we are irresistibly led to the conclusion that persecution is justifiable.For the right of propagating opinions by punishment is one which belongs to parents as clearly as the right to give instruction.A boy is compelled to attend family worship: he is forbidden to read irreligious books: if he will not learn his catechism, he is sent to bed without his supper: if he plays truant at church-time a task is set him.If he should display the precocity of his talents by expressing impious opinions before his brothers and sisters, we should not much blame his father for cutting short the controversy with a horse-whip.All the reasons which lead us to think that parents are peculiarly fitted to conduct the education of their children, and that education is the principal end of a parental relation, lead us also to think that parents ought to be allowed to use punishment, if necessary, for the purpose of forcing children, who are incapable of judging for themselves, to receive religious instruction and to attend religious worship.Why, then, is this prerogative of punishment, so eminently paternal, to be withheld from a paternal government? It seems to us, also, to be the height of absurdity to employ civil disabilities for the propagation of an opinion, and then to shrink from employing other punishments for the same purpose.For nothing can be clearer than that, if you punish at all, you ought to punish enough.The pain caused by punishment is pure unmixed evil, and never ought to be inflicted, except for the sake of some good.It is mere foolish cruelty to provide penalties which torment the criminal without preventing the crime.Now it is possible, by sanguinary persecution unrelentingly inflicted, to suppress opinions.In this way the Albigenses were put down.In this way the Lollards were put down.In this way the fair promise of the Reformation was blighted in Italy and Spain.But we may safely defy Mr.Gladstone to point out a single instance in which the system which he recommends has succeeded.
And why should he be so tender-hearted? What reason can he give for hanging a murderer, and suffering a heresiarch to escape without even a pecuniary mulct? Is the heresiarch a less pernicious member of society than the murderer? Is not the loss of one soul a greater evil than the extinction of many lives? And the number of murders committed by the most profligate bravo that ever let out his poniard to hire in Italy, or by the most savage buccaneer that ever prowled on the Windward Station, is small indeed, when compared with the number of souls which have been caught in the snares of one dexterous heresiarch.If, then, the heresiarch causes infinitely greater evils than the murderer, why is he not as proper an object of penal legislation as the murderer? We can give a reason, a reason, short, simple, decisive, and consistent.We do not extenuate the evil which the heresiarch produces; but we say that it is not evil of that sort the sort against which it is the end of government to guard.But how Mr.Gladstone, who considers the evil which the heresiarch produces as evil of the sort against which it is the end of government to guard, can escape from the obvious consequence of his doctrine, we do not understand.The world is full of parallel cases.An orange-woman stops up the pavement with her wheelbarrow; and a policeman takes her into custody.A miser who has amassed a million suffers an old friend and benefactor to die in a workhouse, and cannot be questioned before any tribunal for his baseness and ingratitude.Is this because legislators think the orange-woman's conduct worse than the miser's? Not at all.It is because the stopping up of the pathway is one of the evils against which it is the business of the public authorities to protect society, and heartlessness is not one of those evils.It would be the height of folly to say that the miser ought, indeed, to be punished, but that he ought to be punished less severely than the orange-woman.
The heretical Constantius persecutes Athanasius; and why not?
Shall Caesar punish the robber who has taken one purse, and spare the wretch who has taught millions to rob the Creator of His honour, and to bestow it on the creature? The orthodox Theodosius persecutes the Arians, and with equal reason.Shall an insult offered to the Caesarean majesty be expiated by death; and shall there be no penalty for him who degrades to the rank of a creature the almighty, the infinite Creator? We have a short answer for both: "To Caesar the things which are Caesar's.Caesar is appointed for the punishment of robbers and rebels.He is not appointed for the purpose of either propagating or exterminating the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.""Not so," says Mr.Gladstone, "Caesar is bound in conscience to propagate whatever he thinks to be the truth as to this question.
