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 more energy than precision.Nobody loves discrepancy for the sake of discrepancy.But a person who conscientiously believes that free inquiry is, on the whole, beneficial to the interests of truth, and that, from the imperfection of the human faculties, wherever there is much free inquiry there will be some discrepancy, may, without impropriety, consider such discrepancy, though in itself an evil, as a sign of good.That there are ten thousand thieves in London is a very melancholy fact.But, looked at in one point of view, it is a reason for exultation.For what other city could maintain ten thousand thieves? What must be the mass of wealth, where the fragments gleaned by lawless pilfering rise to so large an amount? St.Kilda would not support a single pickpocket.The quantity of theft is, to a certain extent, an index of the quantity of useful industry 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 a false conclusion.If there be any Protestants who hold notions so absurd, we abandon them to his censure.
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 rue; nor this, that truth and falsehood are both may both be true; 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.
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 the year 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 ordained hereditary witnesses of the truth, conveying 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."Mr.Gladstone's reasoning is not so clear as might be desired.We have among us, he says, ordained hereditary witnesses of the truth, and their voice is to us the voice of authority.
Undoubtedly, if they are witness of the truth, their voice is the voice of authority.But this is little more than saying that the truth is the truth.Nor is truth more true because it comes in an unbroken series from the Apostles.The Nicene faith is not more true in the mouth of the Archbishop of Canterbury, than in that of a Moderator of the General Assembly.If our respect for the authority of the Church is to be only consequent upon our conviction of the truth of her doctrines, we come at once to that monstrous abuse, the Protestant exercise of private judgment.But if Mr.Gladstone means that we ought to believe that the Church of England speaks the truth because she has the apostolical succession, 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 succession in 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 times, the truth was defended by Oxford against Rome.In this stage of our combat with Mr.Gladstone, we need few weapons except those which we find in the well-furnished and well-ordered armoury of Chillingworth.
