But we must proceed in our examination of his theory.Having, as he conceives, proved that is the duty of every Government to profess some religion or other, right or wrong, and to establish that religion, he then comes to the question what religion a Government ought to prefer; and he decides this question in favour of the form of Christianity established in England.The Church of England is, according to him, the pure Catholic Church of Christ, which possesses the apostolical succession of ministers, and within whose pale is to be found that unity which is essential to truth.For her decisions he claims a degree of reverence far beyond what she has ever, in any of her formularies, claimed for herself; far beyond what the moderate school of Bossuet demands for the Pope; and scarcely short of what that school would ascribe to Pope and General Council together.To separate from her communion is schism.To reject her traditions or interpretations of Scripture is sinful presumption.
Mr.Gladstone pronounces the right of private judgment, as it is generally understood throughout Protestant Europe, to be a monstrous abuse.He declares himself favourable, indeed, to the exercise of private judgment, after a fashion of his own.We have, according to him, a right to judge all the doctrines of the Church of England to be sound, but not to judge any of them to be unsound.He has no objection, he assures us, to active inquiry into religious questions.On the contrary, he thinks such inquiry highly desirable, as long as it does not lead to diversity of opinion; which is much the same thing as if he were to recommend the use of fire that will not burn down houses, or of brandy that will not make men drunk.He conceives it to be perfectly possible for mankind to exercise their intellects vigorously and freely on theological subjects, and yet to come to exactly the same conclusions with each other and with the Church of England.And for this opinion he gives, as far as we have been able to discover, no reason whatever, except that everybody who vigorously and freely exercises his understanding on Euclid's Theorems assents to them."The activity of private judgment," he truly observes, "and the unity and strength of conviction in mathematics vary directly as each other." On this unquestionable fact he constructs a somewhat questionable argument.Everybody who freely inquires agrees, he says, with Euclid.But the Church is as much in the right as Euclid.Why, then, should not every free inquirer agree with the Church? We could put many similar questions.Either the affirmative or the negative of the proposition that King Charles wrote the Icon Basilike is as true as that two sides of a triangle are greater than the third side.
Why, then, do Dr.Wordsworth and Mr.Hallam agree in thinking two sides of a triangle greater than the third side, and yet differ about the genuineness of the Icon Basilike? The state of the exact sciences proves, says Mr.Gladstone, that, as respects religion, "the association of these two ideas, activity of inquiry, and variety of conclusion, is a fallacious one." We might just as well turn the argument the other way, and infer from the variety of religious opinions that there must necessarily be hostile mathematical sects, some affirming, and some denying, that the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the squares of the sides.But we do not think either the one analogy or the other of the smallest value.Our way of ascertaining the tendency of free inquiry is simply to open our eyes and look at the world in which we live; and there we see that free inquiry on mathematical subjects produces unity, and that free inquiry on moral subjects produces discrepancy.There would undoubtedly be less discrepancy if inquiries were more diligent and candid.But discrepancy there will be among the most diligent and candid, as long as the constitution of the human mind, and the nature of moral evidence, continue unchanged.That we have not freedom and unity together is a very sad thing; and so it is that we have not wings.But we are just as likely to see the one defect removed as the other.It is not only in religion that this discrepancy is found.It is the same with all matters which depend on moral evidence, with judicial questions, for example, and with political questions.All the judges will work a sum in the rule of three on the same principle, and bring out the same conclusion.But it does not follow that, however honest and laborious they may be, they will all be of one mind on the Douglas case.So it is vain to hope that there may be a free constitution under which every representative will be unanimously elected, and every law unanimously passed; and it would be ridiculous for a statesman to stand wondering and bemoaning himself because people who agree in thinking that two and two make four cannot agree about the new poor law, or the administration of Canada.
There are two intelligible and consistent courses which may be followed with respect to the exercise of private judgment; the course of the Romanist, who interdicts private judgment because of its inevitable inconveniences; and the course of the Protestant, who permits private judgment in spite of its inevitable inconveniences.Both are more reasonable than Mr.
Gladstone, who would have private judgment without its inevitable inconveniences.The Romanist produces repose by means of stupefaction.The Protestant encourages activity, though he knows that where there is much activity there will be some aberration.
Mr.Gladstone wishes for the unity of the fifteenth century with the active and searching spirit of the sixteenth.He might as well wish to be in two places at once.
