ing countenance to sects is a single and simple rule. To punish their professors, according to their several errors, even were there no other objection, is one for which the state may assume functions wholly ecclesiastical, and for which it is not intrinsically fitted.”

senters, are to be excluded from all power and honours. A great hostile fleet is on the sea: but Nelson is not to command in the Channel if in the mystery of the Trinity he confounds the persons! An invading army has landed in Kent; but the Duke of Wellington is not to be at the head of our forces if he divides the substance! And, after all this, Mr. Gladstone tells us that it would be wrong to imprison a Jew, a Mussulman, or a Budhist, for a day; because really a government cannot understand these matters, and ought not to meddle with questions which belong to the Church. A singular theologian, indeed, this government!

Grotius from office for being a Semi-Pelagian, -so unlearned that it is incompetent to fine a Hindoo peasant a rupee for going on a pilgrimage to Juggernaut!

Mr. Gladstone, "are privileges which belong "To solicit and persuade one another," says

to us all; and the wiser and better man is bound to advise the less wise and good: but he is not only not bound, he is not allowed, speaking generally, to coerce him. It is untrue, then, that the same considerations which bind choice of the people, would therefore justify a government to submit a religion to the free their enforcing its adoption."

This is, in our opinion, quite true, but how does it agree with Mr. Gladstone's theory? What! The government incompetent to exercise even such a degree of supervision over religious opinion as is implied by the punishment of the most deadly heresy! The government incompetent to measure even the grossest deviations from the standard of truth! The government not intrinsically qualified to judge so learned that it is competent to exclude of the comparative enormity of any theological errors! The government so ignorant on these subjects, that it is compelled to leave, not merely subtle heresies,--discernible only by the eye of a Cyril or a Bucer,--but Socinianism, Deism, Mohammedanism, Idolatry, Atheism, unpunished! To whom does Mr. Gladstone assign the office of selecting a religion for the state, from among hundreds of religions, every one of which lays claim to truth? Even to this same government, which he now pronounces to be so unfit for theological investigations, that it cannot venture to condemn a man for worshipping a lump of stone with a score of heads and hands! We do not remember ever to have fallen in with a more extraordinary Granted. But it is true that all the same instance of inconsistency. When Mr. Glad- considerations which would justify a governstone wishes to prove that the government ment in propagating a religion by means of ought to establish and endow a religion, and to civil disabilities, would justify the propagating fence it with a test act,--government is to av of that religion by penal laws. To solicit! Is in the moral world. Those who would confine it solicitation to tell a Catholic duke, that he it to secular ends take a low view of its nature. must abjure his religion or walk out of the A religion must be attached to its agency; and House of Lords? To persuade! Is it perthis religion must be that of the conscience of suasion to tell a barrister of distinguished elothe governor, or none. It is for him to decide quence and learning, that he shall grow old in between Papists and Protestants, Jansenists his stuff gown while his pupils are seated above and Molinists, Arminians and Calvinists, him in ermine, because he cannot digest the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Sabellians damnatory clauses of the Athanasian creed? and Tritheists, Homoosians and Homoiousians, Would Mr. Gladstone think, that a religious Nestorians and Eutychians, Monothelites and system which he considers as false--SocinianMonophysites, Pædobaptists and Anabaptists. ism, for example--was submitted to his free It is for him to rejudge the Acts of Nice and choice, if it were submitted in these terms. Rimini, of Ephesus and Chalcedon, of Con- "If you obstinately adhere to the faith of the stantinople and St. John Lateran, of Trent and Nicene fathers, you shall not be burned in Dort. It is for him to arbitrate betweeen the Smithfield--you shall not be sent to Dorchester Greek and the Latin procession, and to deter-jail-you shall not even pay double land tax. mine whether that mysterious filioque shall or But you shall be shut out from all situations shall not have a place in the national creed. in which you might exercise your talents with When he has made up his mind, he is to tax honour to yourself and advantage to the counthe whole community, in order to pay people try. The House of Commons, the bench of to teach his opinion, whatever it may be. He magistracy, are not for such as you. You shall is to rely on his own judgment, though it may see younger men, your inferiors in station and be opposed to that of nine-tenths of the society. talents, rise to the highest dignities and attract He is to act on his own judgment, at the risk the gaze of nations, while you are doomed to of exciting the most formidable discontents. neglect and obscurity. If you have a son of He is to inflict, perhaps on a great majority the highest promise--a son such as other faof the population, what, whether Mr. Gladstone thers would contemplate with delight-the devemay choose to call it persecution or not, will lopement of his fine talents and of his generous always be felt as persecution by those who ambition shall be a torture to you. You shall suffer it. He is on account of differences, look on him as a being doomed to lead, as you often too slight for vulgar comprehension, to have led, the abject life of a Roman, or a Neadeprive the state of the services of the ablest politan, in the midst of the great English people. men. He is to debase and enfeeble the com- All those high honours, so much more precious munity which he governs, from an empire into than the most costly gifts of despots, with a sect. In our own country, for example, mil-which a free country decorates its illustrious Jons of Catholics, millions of Protestant Dis-citizens, shall be to him, as they have been to

you, objects, not of hope and virtuous_emula- | darkest ages would be a most happy event. It tion, but of hopeless, envious pining. Educate is not necessary that a man should be a Chrishim, if you wish him to feel his degradation. tian to wish for the propagation of Christianity Educate him, if you wish to stimulate his crav-in India. It is sufficient that he should be a ing for what he never must enjoy. Educate European not much below the ordinary Eurohim, if you would imitate the barbarity of that pean level of good sense and humanity. Competty Celtic tyrant who fed his prisoners onpared with the importance of the interests at salted food till they called eagerly for drink, stake, all those Scotch and Irish questions and then let down an empty cup into the dun- which occupy so large a portion of Mr. Gladgeon, and left them to die of thirst." Is this to so- stone's book sink into insignificance. In no licit, to persuade, to submit religion to the free part of the world, since the days of Theodosius, choice of man? Would a fine of a thousand has so large a heathen population been subject pounds-would imprisonment in Newgate for to a Christian government. In no part of the six months, under circumstances not disgrace- world is heathenism more cruel, more licenful-give Mr. Gladstone the pain which he tious, more fruitful of absurd rites and perniwould feel, if he were to be told that he was to cious laws. Surely, if it be the duty of be dealt with in the way in which he would government to use its power and its revenue himself deal with more than one-half of his in order to bring seven millions of Irish Cacountrymen? tholics over to the Protestant Church, it is a We are not at all surprised to find such in-fortiori the duty of the government to use its consistency even in a man of Mr. Gladstone's power and its revenue in order to make se talents. The truth is, that every man is, to aventy millions of idolaters Christians. If it be great extent. the creature of the age. It is to a sin to suffer John Howard or William Penn no purpose that he resists the influence which to hold any office in England, because they are the vast mass, in which he is but an atom, not in communion with the Established Church, must exercise on him. He may try to be a surely it must be a crying sin indeed to admit man of the tenth century: but he cannot to high situations men who bow down, in temWhether he will or no, he must be a man of ples covered with emblems of vice, to the the nineteenth century. He shares in the mo-hideous images of sensual or malevolent gods. tion of the moral as well as in that of the phy- But no. Orthodoxy, it seems, is more shocksical world. He can no more be as intoleranted by the priests of Rome than by the priests as he would have been in the days of the Tu- of Kalee. The plain red brick buildingdors, than he can stand in the evening exactly Adullam's Cave, or Ebenezer Chapel-where where he stood in the morning. The globe uneducated men hear a half educated man talk goes round from west to east; and he must go of the Christian law of love, and the Christian round with it. When he says that he is where hope of glory, is unworthy of the indulgence he was, he means only that he has moved at which is reserved for the shrine where the the same rate with all around him. When he Thug suspends a portion of the spoils of mursays that he has gone a good way to the west- dered travellers; and for the car which grinds ward, he means only that he has not gone to its way through the bones of self-immolated the eastward quite so rapidly as his neigh pilgrims. "It would be," says Mr. Gladstone, bours. Mr. Gladstone's book is, in this re- "an absurd exaggeration to maintain it as the spect, a very gratifying performance. It is the part of such a government as that of the Brimeasure of what a man can do to be left be-tish in India to bring home to the door of every hind by the world. It is the strenuous effort subject at once the ministrations of a new and of a very vigorous mind to keep as far in the totally unknown religion." The government rear of the general progress as possible. And ought indeed to desire to propagate Chrisyet, with the most intense exertion, Mr. Glad-tianity. But the extent to which they must stone cannot help being, on some important do so must be "limited by the degree in which points, greatly in advance of Locke himself; and with whatever admiration he may regard Laud, it is well for him, we can tell him, that he did not write in the days of that zealous primate, who would certainly have refuted the expositions of Scripture which we have quoted by one of the keenest arguments that can be addressed to human ears.

This is not the only instance in which Mr. Gladstone has shrunk in a very remarkable manner from the consequences of his own theory. If there be in the whole world a state to which this theory is applicable, that state is the British Empire in India. Even we, who detest paternal governments in general, shall admit that the duties of the governments of India are, to a considerable extent, paternal. There the superiority of the governors to the governed in moral science is unquestionable. The conversion of the whole people to the worst form that Christianity ever wore in the

the people are found willing to receive it." He proposes no such limitation in the case of Ireland. He would give the Irish a Protestant Church whether they like it or not. "We believe," says he, "that that which we place before them is, whether they know it or not, calculated to be beneficial to them; and that, if they know it not now, they will know it when it is presented to them fairly. Shall we, then, purchase their applause at the expense of their substantial, nay, their spiritual interests?"

And why does Mr. Gladstone allow to the Hindoo a privilege which he denies to the Irishman? Why does he reserve his greatest liberality for the most monstrous errors? Why does he pay most respect to the opinion of the least enlightened people? Why does he with hold the right to exercise paternal authority from that one government which is fitter to ex ercise paternal authority than any government

that ever existed in the world? We will give which his system would produce if tried in the reason in his own words.

"

a small num

India, but that he did not like to say so lest he "In British India," he says, should lay himself open to the charge of sacriber of persons advanced to a higher grade of held in the utmost abhorrence by all his school. ficing principle to expediency, a word which is civilization, exercise the powers of government over an immensely greater number of Accordingly he caught at the notion of a treaty less cultivated persons, not by coercion, but a notion which must, we think, have origiunder free stipulation with the governed. has imperfectly understood. There is one exnated in some rhetorical expression which he Now, the rights of a government, in circum-cellent way of avoiding the drawing of a false stances thus peculiar, obviously depend neither upon the unrestricted theory of paternal principles, nor upon any primordial or fictitious contract of indefinite powers, but upon an express and known treaty, matter of posi-neral rule is laid down and obstinately maintive agreement, not of natural ordinance."

conclusion from a false major, and that is by having a false minor. Inaccurate history is an And thus it is in the present case. A bad geadmirable corrective of unreasonable theory.

tained, wherever the consequences are not too monstrous for human bigotry. But when they become so horrible that even Christchurch shrinks-that even Oriel stands aghast-the rule is evaded by means of a fictitious contract. One imaginary obligation is set up against another. Mr. Gladstone first preaches to governments the duty of undertaking an enterprise just as rational as the Crusades-and then dispenses them from it on the ground of a treaty which is just as authentic as the donation of Constantine to Pope Sylvester. His system resembles nothing so much as a forged bond with a forged release endorsed on the back of it.

Where Mr. Gladstone has seen this treaty we cannot guess; for, though he calls it a "known treaty," we will stake our credit that it is quite unknown both at Calcutta and Madras, both in Leadenhall Street and Cannon Row-that it is not to be found in any of the enormous folios of papers relating to India which fill the book-cases of members of Parliament that it has utterly escaped the researches of all the historians of our Eastern empire-that, in the long and interesting debates of 1813 on the admission of missionaries to India, debates of which the most valuable part has been excellently preserved by the care of the speakers, no allusion to this imWith more show of reason he rests the portant instrument is to be found. The truth claims of the Scotch Church on a contract. is, that this treaty is a nonentity. It is by co- He considers that contract, however, as most ercion, it is by the sword, and not by free sti- unjustifiable, and speaks of the setting up of pulation with the governed, that England rules the Kirk as a disgraceful blot on the reign of India; nor is England bound by any contract William the Third. Surely it would be amuswhatever not to deal with Bengal as she deals ing, if it were not melancholy, to see a man with Ireland. She may set up a Bishop of of virtue and abilities unsatiséed with the caPatna and a Dean of Hoogley-she may grant lamities which one church, constituted on false away the public revenue for the maintenance principles, has brought upon the empire, and of prebendaries of Benares and canons of repining that Scotland is not in the same state Moorshedabad-she may divide the country with Ireland-that no Scottish agitator is raisinto parishes, and place a rector with a stipending rent and putting county members in and in every one of them, without infringing any positive agreement. If there be such a treaty, Mr. Gladstone can have no difficulty in making known its date, its terms, and, above all, the precise extent of the territory within which we have sinfully bound ourselves to be guilty of practical atheism. The last point is of great importance. For as the provinces of our Indian empire were acquired at different times, and in very different ways, no single treaty, indeed no ten treaties, will justify the system pursued by our government there.

The plain state of the case is this: No man in his senses would dream of applying Mr. Gladstone's theory to India, because, if so applied, it would inevitably destroy our empire, and, with our empire, the best chance of spreading Christianity among the natives. This Mr. Gladstone felt. In some way or other his theory was to be saved, and the monstrous consequences avoided. Of intentional misrepresentation we are quite sure that he is incapable. But we cannot acquit him of that unconscious disingenuousness from which the most upright man, when strongly attached to an opinion, is seldom wholly free. We believe that he recoiled from the ruinous consequences

out-that no Presbyterian association is dividing supreme power with the government-that no meetings of precursors and repealers are covering the side of the Calton Hill-that twenty-five thousand troops are not required to maintain order on the north of the Tweed-that the anniversary of the battle of Bothwell Bridge is not regularly celebrated by insult, riot, and murder. We could hardly find a stronger argument against Mr. Gladstone's system than that which Scotland furnishes. The policy which has been followed in that country has been directly opposed to the policy which he recom mends. And the consequence is that Scotland, having been one of the rudest, one of the poorest, one of the most turbulent countries in Eu rope, has become one of the most highly civilized, one of the most flourishing, one of the most tranquil. The atrocities which were of common occurrence while an unpopularchurch was dominant are unknown. In spite of a mutual aversion as bitter as ever separated one people from another, the two kingdoms which compose our island have been indissolubly joined together. Of the ancient national feeling there remains just enough to be ornamental and useful; just enough to inspire the poet and

The Protestant doctrine touching the right of private judgment-that doctrine, which is the common foundation of the Anglican, the Lutheran, and the Calvinistic Churches-that doctrine by which every sect of Dissenters vindicates its separation-we conceive not to be this, that opposite opinions may both be true; ncr this, that truth and falsehood are both equally good; nor yet this, that all speculative error is necessarily innocent:-but this, that there is on the face of the earth no visible body to whose decrees men are bound to submit their private judgment on points of faith.

it does not follow that, however honest and laborious they may be, they will 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;—that of the Romanist, who interdicts it because of its inevitable inconveniences; and that of the Protestant, who permits it in spite of its inevitable inconveniences. Both are more reasonable than Mr. Gladstone, who would have free private judgments 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 ated hereditary witnesses of the truth, conveying

once.

Is there always such a visible body? Was there such a visible body in the year 1500? If not, why are we to believe that there is such a body in the year 1839? If there was such a body in 1500, what was it? Was it the Church of Rome? And how can the Church of England be orthodox now if the Church of Rome was orthodox then?

"In England," says Mr. Gladstone, "the case was widely different from that of the Continent. Her reformation did not destroy, but successfully maintained, the unity and succession of the Church in her apostolical ministry. We have, therefore, still among us the ordain

it to us through an unbroken series from our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles. This is to us the ordinary voice of authority; of authority equally reasonable and equally true, whether we will hear, or whether we will forbear."

When Mr. Gladstone says that we "actually require discrepancy of opinion-require and demand error, falsehood, blindness, and plume ourselves on such discrepancy as attesting a freedom which is only valuable when used for unity in the truth," he expresses himself with Mr. Gladstone's reasoning is not so clear as more energy than precision. Nobody loves might be desired. We have among us, he discrepancy for the sake of discrepancy. But says, ordained hereditary witnesses of the a person who conscientiously believes that truth, and their voice is to us the voice of au free inquiry is, on the whole, beneficial to thority. Undoubtedly, if there are witnesses the interests of truth, and that, from the imper- of the truth, their voice is the voice of authofection of the human faculties, wherever there rity. But this is little more than saying that is much free inquiry there will be some dis- the truth is the truth. Nor is truth more true crepancy,-may, without impropriety, consider because it comes in an unbroken series from such discrepancy, though in itself an evil, as the apostles. The Nicene faith is not more a sign of good. That there are fifty thousand true in the mouth of the Archbishop of Canterthieves in London is a very melancholy fact. bury, than in that of a Moderator of the GeneBut, looked at in one point of view, it is a rea-ral Assembly. If our respect for the authority son for exultation. For what other city could of the Church is to be only consequent upon maintain fifty thousand thieves? What must our conviction of the truth of her doctrines, we be the mass of wealth where the fragments come at once to that monstrous abuse,-the gleaned by lawless pilfering rise to so large an Protestant exercise of private judgment. But amount? St. Kilda would not support a single | if Mr. Gladstone means that we ought to bepickpocket. The quantity of theft is, to a cer-lieve that the Church of England speaks the tain extent, an index of the quantity of useful truth, because she has the apostolical succesindustry and judicious speculation. And just as we may, from the great number of rogues in a town, infer that much honest gain is made there; so may we often, from the quantity of error in a community, draw a cheering inference as to the degree in which the public mind is turned to those inquiries which alone can lead to rational convictions of truth.

Mr. Gladstone seems to imagine that most Protestants think it possible for the same doctrine to be at once true and false; or that they think it immaterial whether, on a religious question, a man comes to a true or false conclusion. If there be any Protestants who hold notions so absurd, we abandon them to his cen

sure.

sion, we greatly doubt whether such a doctrine can be maintained. In the first place, what proof have we of the fact? We have, indeed, heard it said that Providence would certainly have interfered to preserve the apostolical suc cession of the true Church. But this is an argument fitted for understandings of a different kind from Mr. Gladstone's. He will hardly tell us that the Church of England is the true Church because she has the succession; and that she has the succession because she is the true Church.

What evidence, then, have we for the fact of the apostolical succession? And here we may easily defend the truth against Oxford with the same arguments with which, in old