ce and
inquiry can only be temporary and transitional, and must be followed by
positive decision on the part of those qualified to decide. It cannot be
held that every man is competent to form opinions in social and
political questions; it cannot be maintained that intellects of weak
capacity can judge obscure and complex questions, and that all opinions
are equally valuable. All society is based on faith in the opinion of
others and in reciprocal confidence. Continual discussion of the
foundations of society must render it impossible to lay sure foundations
firm, and the disorder produced by free opinions on all points by all
people is seen in the fierce and feeble sectarianism of Protestantism.
What are the limits of free inquiry we shall see later; meantime, we may
note that fine motto of the Catholic Church: "In necessary things,
unity; in doubtful things, liberty; and in all things, charity."

The second dogma of the metaphysical polity is equality, and, like the
other dogma, it must be considered the temporary expression of a
temporary need. It is indeed a corollary of the dogma of liberty of
conscience; for to assume liberty of conscience without equality of
intelligence would be to stultify the assumption. Having achieved its
purpose, it also became an obstacle in the path of progress. Equality
sufficient to permit a man to use his faculties aright is allowed by
all; but men cannot be made equal physically, and much less can they be
made equal intellectually and morally.

The dogma of liberty of conscience and equality resulted naturally in a
third dogma, the sovereignty of the people. This also was provisionally
useful, in that it permitted a series of political experiments; but it
is in essence revolutionary, condemning the superior to be ruled by the
inferior. A fourth dogma, the dogma of national independence, has also
been serviceable in separating the nations in preparation for a new
union.

The metaphysical polity fails utterly in constructive capacity. During
the first French revolution it successfully destroyed the old social
system; but its attempts to reorganise society were retrogressive.
Instead of Catholicism it proposed polytheism; and in the name of virtue
and simplicity it condemned industry and art. Even science was condemned
as aristocracy of knowledge. Nor can these blunders be considered
accidental; they were inherent in the polity. It is evident that a
polity that admits on the one hand