Gladstone.To what extent does the Church of England allow of the right of private judgment? What degree of authority does she claim for herself in virtue of the apostolical succession of her ministers? Mr.Gladstone, a very able and a very honest man, takes a view of this matter widely differing from the view taken by others whom he will admit to be as able and as honest as himself.People who altogether dissent from him on this subject eat the bread of the Church, preach in her pulpits, dispense her sacraments, confer her orders, and carry on that apostolical succession, the nature and importance of which, according to him, they do not comprehend.Is this unity? Is this truth?
It will be observed that we are not putting cases of dishonest men who, for the sake of lucre, falsely pretend to believe in the doctrines of an establishment.We are putting cases of men as upright as ever lived, differing on theological questions of the highest importance and avowing that difference, are yet priests and prelates of the same church.We therefore say, that on some points which Mr.Gladstone himself thinks of vital importance, the Church has either not spoken at all, or, what is for all practical purposes the same thing, has not spoken in language to be understood even by honest and sagacious divines.The religion of the Church of England is so far from exhibiting that unity of doctrine which Mr.Gladstone represents as her distinguishing glory, that it is, in fact, a bundle of religious systems without number.It comprises the religious system of Bishop Tomline, and the religious system of John Newton, and all the religious systems which lie between them.It comprises the religious system of Mr.Newman, and the religious system of the Archbishop of Dublin, and all the religious systems which lie between them.All these different opinions are held, avowed, preached, printed, within the pale of the Church, by men of unquestioned integrity and understanding.
Do we make this diversity a topic of reproach to the Church of England? Far from it.We would oppose with all our power every attempt to narrow her basis? Would to God that, a hundred and fifty years ago, a good king and a good primate had possessed the power as well as the will to widen it! It was a noble enterprise, worthy of William and of Tillotson.But what becomes of all Mr.Gladstone's eloquent exhortations to unity? Is it not mere mockery to attach so much importance to unity in form and name, where there is so little in substance, to shudder at the thought of two Churches in alliance with one State, and to endure with patience the spectacle of a hundred sects battling within one Church? And is it not clear that Mr.Gladstone is bound, on all his own principles, to abandon the defence of a Church in which unity is not found? Is it not clear that he is bound to divide the House of Commons against every grant of money which may be proposed for the clergy of the Established Church in the colonies? He objects to the vote for Maynooth, because it is monstrous to pay one man to teach truth, and another to denounce that truth as falsehood.But it is a mere chance whether any sum which he votes for the English Church in any colony will go to the maintenance of an Arminian or a Calvinist, of a man like Mr.
Froude, or of a man like Dr.Arnold.It is a mere chance, therefore, whether it will go to support a teacher of truth, or one who will denounce that truth as falsehood.
This argument seems to us at once to dispose of all that part of Mr.Gladstone's book which respects grants of public money to dissenting bodies.All such grants he condemns.But surely, if it be wrong to give the money of the public for the support of those who teach any false doctrine, it is wrong to give that money for the support of the ministers of the Established Church.For it is quite certain that, whether Calvin or Arminius be in the right, whether Laud or Burnet be in the right, a great deal of false doctrine is taught by the ministers of the Established Church.If it be said that the points on which the clergy of the Church of England differ ought to be passed over, for the sake of the many important points on which they agree, why may not the same argument be maintained with respect to the other sects which hold, in common with the Church of England, the fundamental doctrines of Christianity? The principle that a ruler is bound in conscience to propagate religious truth, and to propagate no religious doctrine which is untrue, is abandoned as soon as it is admitted that a gentleman of Mr.Gladstone's opinions may lawfully vote the public money to a chaplain whose opinions are those of Paley or of Simeon.The whole question then becomes one of degree.Of course no individual and no government can justifiably propagate error for the sake of propagating error.
But both individuals and governments must work with such machinery as they have; and no human machinery is to be found which will impart truth without some alloy of error.We have shown irrefragably, as we think, that the Church of England does not afford such a machinery.The question then is this; with what degree of imperfection in our machinery must we put up? And to this question we do not see how any general answer can be given.
We must be guided by circumstances.It would, for example, be very criminal in a Protestant to contribute to the sending of Jesuit missionaries among a Protestant population.But we do not conceive that a Protestant would be to blame for giving assistance to Jesuit missionaries who might be engaged in converting the Siamese to Christianity.That tares are mixed with the wheat is matter of regret; but it is better that wheat and tares should grow together than that the promise of the year should be blighted.
