“_If,” says he, “the government be good, let it have its natural duties and powers at its command; but, if not good, let it be made so.... We follow, therefore, the true course in looking first for the true [Greek] or abstract conception of a government, of course with allowance for the evil and frailty that are in man, and then in examining whether there be comprised in that [Greek] a capacity and consequent duty on the part of a government to lay down any laws, or devote any means for the purposes of religion,--in short, to exercise a choice upon religion_.” Of course, Mr. Gladstone has a perfect 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 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 {139}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?