Mr.Gladstone seems to us to be, in many respects, exceedingly well qualified for philosophical investigation.His mind is of large grasp; nor is he deficient in dialectical skill.But he does not give his intellect fair play.There is no want of light, but a great want of what Bacon would have called dry light.
Whatever Mr.Gladstone sees is refracted and distorted by a false medium of passions and prejudices.His style bears a remarkable analogy to his mode of thinking, and indeed exercises great influence on his mode of thinking.His rhetoric, though often good of its kind, darkens and perplexes the logic which it should illustrate.Half his acuteness and diligence, with a barren imagination and a scanty vocabulary, would have saved him from almost all his mistakes.He has one gift most dangerous to a speculator, a vast command of a kind of language, grave and majestic, but of vague and uncertain import; of a kind of language which affects us much in the same way in which the lofty diction of the Chorus of Clouds affected the simple-hearted Athenian:
O ge ton phthegmatos os ieron, kai semnon, kai teratodes.
When propositions have been established, and nothing remains but to amplify and decorate them, this dim magnificence may be in place.But if it is admitted into a demonstration, it is very much worse than absolute nonsense; just as that transparent haze, through which the sailor sees capes and mountains of false sizes and in false bearings, is more dangerous than utter darkness.
Now, Mr.Gladstone is fond of employing the phraseology of which we speak in those parts of his works which require the utmost perspicuity and precision of which human language is capable; and in this way he deludes first himself, and then his readers.The foundations of his theory, which ought to be buttresses of adamant, are made out of the flimsy materials which are fit only for perorations.This fault is one which no subsequent care or industry can correct.The more strictly Mr.Gladstone reasons on his premises, the more absurd are the conclusions which he brings out; and, when at last his good sense and good nature recoil from the horrible practical inferences to which this theory leads, he is reduced sometimes to take refuge in arguments inconsistent with his fundamental doctrines, and sometimes to escape from the legitimate consequences of his false principles, under cover of equally false history.
It would be unjust not to say that this book, though not a good book, shows more talent than many good books.It abounds with eloquent and ingenious passages.It bears the signs of much patient thought.It is written throughout with excellent taste and excellent temper; nor does it, so far as we have observed, contain one expression unworthy of a gentleman, a scholar, or a Christian.But the doctrines which are put forth in it appear to us, after full and calm consideration, to be false, to be in the highest degree pernicious, and to be such as, if followed out in practice to their legitimate consequences, would inevitably produce the dissolution of society; and for this opinion we shall proceed to give our reasons with that freedom which the importance of the subject requires, and which Mr.Gladstone, both by precept and by example, invites us to use, but, we hope, without rudeness, and, we are sure, without malevolence.
Before we enter on an examination of this theory, we wish to guard ourselves against one misconception.It is possible that some persons who have read Mr.Gladstone's book carelessly, and others who have merely heard in conversation, or seen in a newspaper, that the member for Newark has written in defence of the Church of England against the supporters of the voluntary system, may imagine that we are writing in defence of the voluntary system, and that we desire the abolition of the Established Church.This is not the case.It would be as unjust to accuse us of attacking the Church, because we attack Mr.
Gladstone's doctrines, as it would be to accuse Locke of wishing for anarchy, because he refuted Filmer's patriarchal theory of government, or to accuse Blackstone of recommending the confiscation of ecclesiastical property, because he denied that the right of the rector to tithe was derived from the Levitical law.It is to be observed, that Mr.Gladstone rests his case on entirely new grounds, and does not differ more widely from us than from some of those who have hitherto been considered as the most illustrious champions of the Church.He is not content with the Ecclesiastical Polity, and rejoices that the latter part of that celebrated work "does not carry with it the weight of Hooker's plenary authority." He is not content with Bishop Warburton's Alliance of Church and State."The propositions of that work generally," he says, "are to be received with qualification"; and he agrees with Bolingbroke in thinking that Warburton's whole theory rests on a fiction.He is still less satisfied with Paley's defence of the Church, which he pronounces to be "tainted by the original vice of false ethical principles, and full of the seeds of evil." He conceives that Dr.Chalmers has taken a partial view of the subject, and "put forth much questionable matter." In truth, on almost every point on which we are opposed to Mr.Gladstone, we have on our side the authority of some divine, eminent as a defender of existing establishments.
Mr.Gladstone's whole theory rests on this great fundamental proposition, that the propagation of religious truth is one of the principal ends of government, as government.If Mr.Gladstone has not proved this proposition, his system vanishes at once.
