except by a continual reference to their | tify their acts done in that capacity by the source, and the supply of the Divine grace. offices of religion; inasmuch as the acts The powers, therefore, that dwell in indi- cannot otherwise be acceptable to God, or viduals acting as a government, as well as any thing but sinful and punishable in those that dwell in individuals acting for themselves. And whenever we turn our themselves, can only be secured for right face away from God in our conduct, we are uses by applying to them a religion." living atheistically. In fulfilment, then, of his obligations as an individual, the statesman must be a worshipping man. But his acts are public-the powers and instruments with which he works are public-acting under and by the authority of the law, he moves at his word ten thousand subject arms; and because such energies are thus essentially public, and wholly out of the range of mere individual agency, they must be sanctified not only by the private personal prayers and piety of those who fill public situations, but also by

66

Here are propositions of vast and indefinite extent, conveyed in language which has a certain obscure dignity and sanctity, attractive, we doubt not, to many minds. But the moment that we examine these propositions closely, the moment that we bring them to the test by running over but a very few of the particulars which are included in them, we find them to be false and ex-public acts of the men composing the public travagant. body. They must offer prayer and praise in The doctrine which must their public and collective character-in surely command universal assent" is that character wherein they constitute the this, that every association of human organ of the nation, and wield its collective beings which exercises any power what-force. Wherever there is a reasoning agency there is a moral duty and responsibility inever, that is to say, every association volved in it. The governors are reasoning of human beings, is bound, as such agents for the nation, in their conjoint acts And therefore there must be association, to profess a religion. Ima- as such. attached to this agency, as that without gine the effect which would follow if which none of our responsibilities can be this principle were really in force dur- met, a religion. And this religion must be that of the conscience of the governor, or ing four-and-twenty hours. Take one none." instance out of a million. A stagecoach company has power over its horses. This power is the property of God. It is used according to the will of God when it is used with mercy. But the principle of mercy can never be truly or permanently entertained in the human breast without continual reference to God. The powers, therefore, that dwell in individuals, acting as a stage-coach company, can only be secured for right uses by applying to them a religion. Every stage-coach company ought, therefore, in its collective capacity, to profess some one faith, to have its articles, and its public worship, and its tests. That this conclusion, and an infinite number of other conclusions equally strange, follow of necessity from Mr. Gladstone's principle, is as certain as it is that two and two make four. And, if the legitimate conclusions be so absurd, there must.

Here again we find propositions of vast sweep, and of sound so orthodox and solemn that many good people, we doubt not, have been greatly edified by it.

But let us examine the words

closely; and it will immediately become plain that, if these principles be once admitted, there is an end of all society. No combination can be formed for any purpose of mutual help, for trade, for public works, for the relief of the sick or the poor, for the promotion of art or science, unless the members of the combination agree in their combination at random, the London theological opinions. Take any such and Birmingham Railway Company for example, and observe to what coninevitably lead. sequences Mr. Gladstone's arguments "Why should the Directors of the Railway Company, in their collective capacity, profess a religion? First, because the direction is composed of individual men appointed to act in a definite moral capacity, bound to look carefully to the pro"Why, then, we now come to ask, should perty, the limbs, and the lives of their the governing body in a state profess a reli- fellow-creatures, bound to act diligion? First, because it is composed of individual men; and they, being appointed to gently for their constituents, bound to act in a definite moral capacity, must sanc-govern their servants with humanity

be something unsound in the principle. We will quote another passage of the

same sort:

and justice, bound to fulfil with fidelity | afford in their manner of dealing with cor

porations. If, then, a nation have unity of
will, have pervading sympathies, have capa-
bility of reward and suffering contingent
upon its acts, shall we deny its responsa-
bility; its need of a religion to meet that
responsibility?
A nation then
having a personality, lies under the obli-
gation, like the individuals composing its
governing body, of sanctifying the acts of
that personality by the offices of religion,
and thus we have a new and imperative
ground for the existence of a state religion."

many important contracts. They must, therefore, sanctify their acts by the offices of religion, or these acts will be sinful and punishable in themselves. In fulfilment, then, of his obligations as an individual, the Director of the London and Birmingham Railway Company must be a worshipping man. But his acts are public. He acts for a body. He moves at his word ten A new ground we have here, certhousand subject arms. And because tainly, but whether very imperative these energies are out of the range of may be doubted. Is it not perfectly his mere individual agency, they must clear, that this argument applies with be sanctified by public acts of devo- exactly as much force to every combition. The Railway Directors must nation of human beings for a common offer prayer and praise in their public purpose, as to governments? Is there and collective character, in that cha- any such combination in the world, racter wherewith they constitute the whether technically a corporation or organ of the Company, and wield its not, which has not this collective percollected power. Wherever there is sonality, from which Mr. Gladstone reasoning agency, there is moral re- deduces such extraordinary consesponsibility. The Directors are rea- quences? Look at banks, insurance soning agents for the Company. And offices, dock companies, canal comtherefore there must be attached to panies, gas companies, hospitals, disthis agency, as that without which pensaries, associations for the relief of none of our responsibilities can be the poor, associations for apprehendmet, a religion. And this religion ing malefactors, associations of medimust be that of the conscience of the cal pupils for procuring subjects, assoDirector himself, or none. There must ciations of country gentlemen for keepbe public worship and a test. No Jew, ing fox-hounds, book societies, benefit no Socinian, no Presbyterian, no Catho- societies, clubs of all ranks, from those lic, no Quaker, must be permitted to which have lined Pall-Mall and St. be the organ of the Company, and to James's Street with their palaces, down wield its collected force?" Would Mr. to the Free-and-easy which meets in Gladstone really defend this proposi- the shabby parlour of a village inn. tion? We are sure that he would not: Is there a single one of these combinabut we are sure that to this propositions to which Mr. Gladstone's argution, and to innumerable similar pro- ment will not apply as well as to the positions, his reasoning inevitably State? In all these combinations, in leads.

Again,

"National will and agency are indisputably one, binding either a dissentient minority or the subject body, in a manner that nothing but the recognition of the doctrine of national personality can justify. National honour and good faith are words in every one's mouth. How do they less imply a personality in nations than the duty towards God, for which we now contend? They are strictly and essentially distinct from the honour and good faith of the individuals composing the nation. France is a person to us, and we to her. A wilful injury done to her is a moral act, and a moral act quite distinct from the acts of all the individuals composing the nation. Upon broad facts like these we may rest, without resorting to the more technical proof which the laws

the Bank of England, for example, or in the Athenæum club, the will and agency of the society are one, and bind the dissentient minority. The Bank and the Athenæum have a good faith and a justice different from the good faith and justice of the individual members. The Bank is a person to those who deposit bullion with it. The Athenæum is a person to the butcher and the wine-merchant. If the Athenæum keeps money at the Bank, the two societies are as much persons to each other as England and France. Either society may pay its debts honestly; either may try to defraud its

creditors; either may increase in pros- | member of a stage-coach company, he perity; either may fall into difficulties. would, in that capacity, remember If, then, they have this unity of will; if they are capable of doing and suffering good and evil, can we, to use Mr. Gladstone's words, "deny their responsibility, or their need of a religion to meet that responsibility?" Joint-stock banks, therefore, and clubs, "having a personality, lie under the necessity of sanctifying that personality by the offices of religion;" and thus we have "a new and imperative ground" for requiring all the directors and clerks of joint-stock banks, and all the members of clubs, to qualify by taking the sacrament.

that "a righteous man regardeth the life of his beast." But it does not follow that every association of men must, therefore, as such association, profess a religion. It is evident that many great and useful objects can be attained in this world only by co-operation. It is equally evident that there cannot be efficient co-operation, if men proceed on the principle that they must not cooperate for one object unless they agree about other objects. Nothing seems to us more beautiful or admirable in our social system than the facility with which thousands of people, who perhaps agree only on a single point, can combine their energies for the purpose of carrying that single point. We see daily instances of this. Two men, one of them obstinately prejudiced against missions, the other president of a missionary society, sit together at the board of a hospital, and heartily concur in measures for the health and comfort of

The truth is, that Mr. Gladstone has fallen into an error very common among men of less talents than his own. It is not unusual for a person who is eager to prove a particular proposition to assume a major of huge extent, which includes that particular proposition, without ever reflecting that it includes a great deal more. The fatal facility with which Mr. Gladstone multiplies the patients. Two men, one of whom expressions stately and sonorous, but of indeterminate meaning, eminently qualifies him to practise this sleight on himself and on his readers. He lays down broad general doctrines about power, when the only power of which he is thinking is the power of governments, and about conjoint action when the only conjoint action of which he is thinking is the conjoint action of citizens in a state. He first resolves on his conclusion. He then makes a It will hardly be denied that the secumajor of most comprehensive dimen-rity of the persons and property of men sions, and having satisfied himself that is a good object, and that the best way, it contains his conclusion, never trou- indeed the only way, of promoting that bles himself about what else it may contain: and as soon as we examine it we find that it contains an infinite number of conclusions, every one of which is a monstrous absurdity.

We

is a zealous supporter and the other a zealous opponent of the system pursued in Lancaster's schools, meet at the Mendicity Society, and act together with the utmost cordiality. The general rule we take to be undoubtedly this, that it is lawful and expedient for men to unite in an association for the promotion of a good object, though they may differ with respect to other objects of still higher importance.

object, is to combine men together in certain great corporations which are called States. These corporations are very variously, and, for the most part, very imperfectly organized. Many of them abound with frightful abuses. But it seems reasonable to believe that the worst that ever existed was, on the whole, preferable to complete anarchy.

It is perfectly true that it would be a very good thing if all the members of all the associations in the world were men of sound religious views. have no doubt that a good Christian will be under the guidance of Chris- Now, reasoning from analogy, we tian principles, in his conduct as direc- should say that these great corporations tor of a canal company or steward of would, like all other associations, be a charity dinner. If he were, to recur likely to attain their end most perfectly to a case which we have before put, a 'if that end were kept singly in view;

and that to refuse the services of those men. In the mean time, the Danes

who are admirably qualified to promote might listen to their Lutheran ministhat end, because they are not also qua- ters; and Capuchins might encourage lified to promote some other end, how- the Austrian squadrons, and pray to ever excellent, seems at first sight as the Virgin for a blessing on the arms unreasonable as it would be to provide of the Holy Roman Empire. The that nobody who was not a fellow of battle commences. These men of vathe Society of Antiquaries should be a rious religions all act like members of governor of the Eye Infirmary; or that one body. The Catholic and the Pronobody who was not a member of the testant general exert themselves to Society for promoting Christianity assist and to surpass each other. Beamong the Jews should be a trustee of fore sunset the Empire is saved: France the Literary Fund. has lost in a day the fruits of eighty It is impossible to name any col-years of intrigue and of victory; and lection of human beings to which Mr. the allies, after conquering together, Gladstone's reasonings would apply return thanks to God separately, each more strongly than to an army? after his own form of worship. Now, Where shall we find more complete is this practical atheism? Would any unity of action than in an army? man in his senses say, that, because Where else do so many human beings the allied army had unity of action implicitly obey one ruling mind? and a common interest, and because a What other mass is there which moves heavy responsibility lay on its Chiefs, so much like one man? Where is it was therefore imperatively necessary such tremendous power intrusted to that the Army should, as an Army, those who command ? Where is so have one established religion, that Euawful a responsibility laid upon them? gene should be deprived of his comIf Mr. Gladstone has made out, as he mand for being a Catholic, that all the conceives, an imperative necessity for Dutch and Austrian colonels should be a State Religion, much more has he broken for not subscribing the Thirtymade it out to be imperatively neces- nine Articles? Certainly not. The sary that every army should, in its most ignorant grenadier on the field of collective capacity, profess a religion. battle would have seen the absurdity of Is he prepared to adopt this conse- such a proposition. "I know," he quence? would have said, "that the Prince of Savoy goes to mass, and that our Corporal John cannot abide it; but what has the mass to do with the taking of the village of Blenheim? The Prince wants to beat the French, and so does Corporal John. If we stand by each other we shall most likely beat them. If we send all the Papists and Dutch away, Tallard will have every man of us." Mr. Gladstone himself, we imagine, would admit that our honest grenadier would have the best of the argument; and if so, what follows? Even this; that all Mr. Gladstone's general principles about power, and responsibility, and personality, and conjoint action, must be given up, and that, if his theory is to stand at all, it must stand on some other foundation.

On the morning of the thirteenth of August, in the year 1704, two great captains, equal in authority, united by close private and public ties, but of different creeds, prepared for a battle, on the event of which were staked the liberties of Europe. Marlborough had passed a part of the night in prayer, and before daybreak received the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. He then hastened to join Eugene, who had probably just confessed himself to a Popish priest. The generals consulted together, formed their plan in concert, and repaired each to his own post. Marlborough gave orders for public prayers. The English chaplains read the service at the head of the English regiments. The Calvinistic chaplains of the Dutch army, We have now, we conceive, shown with heads on which hand of Bishop that it may be proper to form men into had never been laid, poured forth their combinations for important purposes, supplications in front of their country-which combinations shall have unity

and common interests, and shall be under the direction of rulers intrusted with great power and lying under solemn responsibility, and yet that it may be highly improper that these combinations should, as such, profess any one system of religious belief, or perform any joint act of religious worship. How, then, is it proved that this may not be the case with some of those great combinations which we call States? We firmly believe that it is the case with some states. We firmly believe that there are communities in which it would be as absurd to mix up theology with government, as it would have been in the right wing of the allied army at Blenheim to commence a controversy with the left wing, in the middle of the battle, about purgatory and the worship of images.

It is the duty, Mr. Gladstone tells us, of the persons, be they who they may, who hold supreme power in the state, to employ that power in order to promote whatever they may deem to be theological truth. Now, surely, before he can call on us to admit this proposition, he is bound to prove that these persons are likely to do more good than harm by so employing their power. The first question is, whether a government, proposing to itself the propagation of religious truth as one of its principal ends, is more likely to lead the people right than to lead them wrong; Mr. Gladstone evades this question; and perhaps it was his wisest course to do so.

government would or would not be a good machinery for the propagation of religious truth is certainly a harmless, and may, for aught we know, be an edifying subject of inquiry. But it is very important that we should remember that there is not, and never has been, any such government in the world. There is no harm at all in inquiring what course a stone thrown into the air would take, if the law of gravitation did not operate. But the consequences would be unpleasant, if the inquirer, as soon as he had finished his calculation, were to begin to throw stones about in all directions, without considering that his conclusion rests on a false hypothesis, and that his projectiles, instead of flying away through infinite space, will speedily return in parabolas, and break the windows and heads of his neighbours.

It is very easy to say that governments are good, or if not good, ought to be made so. But what is meant by good government? And how are all the bad governments in the world to be made good? And of what value is a theory which is true only on a supposition in the highest degree extravagant?

We do not, however, admit that, if a government were, for all its temporal ends, as perfect as human frailty allows, such a government would, therefore, be necessarily qualified to propagate true religion. For we see that the fitness of governments to propagate true religion is by no means proportioned to their fitness for the temporal end of their institution. Look"If," says he, "the government be good, let it have its natural duties and powers at ing at individuals, we see that the its command; but, if not good, let it be princes under whose rule nations have made so. We follow, therefore, been most ably protected from foreign the true course in looking first for the true and domestic disturbance, and have idéa, or abstract conception of a government, of course with allowance for the evil and made the most rapid advances in civilifrailty that are in man, and then in exa-sation, have been by no means good mining whether there be comprised in that teachers of divinity. Take, for exidía a capacity and consequent duty on the part of a government to lay down any laws ample, the best French sovereign, or devote any means for the purposes of reli- Henry the Fourth, a king who region,-in short, to exercise a choice upon stored order, terminated a terrible civil religion." war, brought the finances into an exOf course, Mr Gladstone has a per-cellent condition, made his country fect right to argue any abstract question, provided that he will constantly bear in mind that it is only an abstract question that he is arguing. Whether a perfect

respected throughout Europe, and endeared himself to the great body of the people whom he ruled. Yet this man was twice a Huguenot, and twice a