Gladstone's Letters on Religion.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 3 August 1910, Page 4

Gladstone's Letters on Religion.

"Correspondence, oil CliurcJi nnd Religion oi' William Ewart Gladstone." Selected and arranged by D. C. Lathbury. In two volumes. Lord Motley in the introductory chapter of liis groat biography explained his reason, a. candid and adequate one, for omitting from bi.s pages a detailed history of Mr Gladstone as "theologian and Chiirchiiinn." ft is probably true that Lord Morloy's picture of his ibero is as true and sympathetic oil tho religious as on the .political side, tor it was characteristic of Mr Gladstone, with all his intellectual subtlety, to keep always open the oha.nnel between religious motive and ]x>litir-nl action; and it wns impossible for those who Jiad iutimate dealings with, him not to recognise that, in Lord Salisbury's phrase, ho was "a. <m>at Christian." Still, the detailed history which Lord Morley from Mm; outside, could not write, deserved to bo written; and no one could have been found better fitted to Undeftaka it, hot.h as an ardent sympathiser with the party view, and' a Well-in-formed student of the history of Church polities, than the sometime editor of the Guardian and the Pilot. I'Vom the point of view of modwn interest, as well a.s of fundamental importance, Mr Latlibury has done well to open his hook with the letters hearing on the general relation of CHURCH AND STATE. This was the topic of Mr Gladstone's fiivst book, and, it may lie truly said, of his last thoughts. Starting from the idea that the State has a conscience oapable of distinguishing between truth and error in religion, he argued that it must betlno duty of the State to support the true Church. But alongside of the passion for "truth" another passion was growing in Mr Gladstone's mind, tho love of ''liberty as an essential condition of o.veolle.nce in human things" ; and liberty in the State must imply the recognition of "the principle of the popular will." it is not too mucih to say that he regarded the main punpose of his ecclesiastical policy as the endeavour to perform this task as smoothly as r>ussiblo by surrendering nide.l\>nsible privileges and conciliating opposition. And lie thought this one of the main duties of the Episcopate. fio puts this view with a, refreshing directness to Bishop Wilberforce in a letter, dated October 1 18G2, the. occasion of which Mr Lathbury does net tell us, but in which he imagines Lord Pa liners ton saving in ward to THE mSHOP:"I will not dwell on the question which of the changes asked for he has opposed, but I will desiro you to tell me of which of these problems he has. a.s a leader of the clergy, publicly, and nt his own risk, promoted tho .volution." Mr Lathbury regards Mr Gladstone's view of the" relations of t\w Church to the State as the last word upon the subject; and so in the abstract it is and must be. Both libery and truth liavo to be .safeguarded. Put tho Ohuroh's ci Ilia nee with the State at the highest possible value, both on account of iis historical interest and its present influence; and there must still remain tho obligations not to endanger faith and to respect the popular conscience. But Mr Lathbury will forgive us for saying that the points which he, following Mr Gladstone, indicates as beyond the scope of conciliation, and therefore not unlikely iiooner or later, to provoke a conflict between the Church and the State, or the Church and Nonconformists, aro generally paints upon which the. Church itself speaks with an uncertain voice. Both Mr Gladstone and his editor regard the modern

RICH CHURCH I'ARTY na the mouthpiece of the Cluurdi, and consequently their list of credenda to bo jealously maintained embraces many more articles than the Creed. Tnl«>, for example, the two principles which at tho present moment have tho most dyn.ninitu in t.liem— the indissohibility' of the marriago bond and the apostolical succession in the Episcopate as tho source of a valid ministry. The first .seems likely to precipitate the demand for dis-establishment from within the Church, and tho second effectually prevents the Ceding of ancient sores which would at once put an end to the demand for disestablishment from the orthodox T)is-

aenters. Mut how far can tho plain of either of these principles to b< "true" be sustained? We need ; board of theologians to which sue! questions could be submitted. Modern Bishops, with iew exceptions have neither the time nor tho learning to give to them. There is one point connected witli Mr Gladstone's theory which re-

quires a special word of comment. Having discarded his original idea that the Church was tho soul of the State, and devoted all his oneirics to 'enabling tho Church to develop her own intrinsic means" in some independent fashion, so as to be ready tor disestablishment, ho would seem to have accepted tho view that the •State was, or was in tho way to become, purely secular. In '18-10 he writes to Manning, then ARCHDKACOX

of Cluchester, "Tho process which 1 am.now actively engaged iji carrying on is a process of lowering the religious tone of the State, let-tin «■ it down, demoralising it—i.e., stripping it is of ethical character, and assisting its transition into one which is mechanical." Ho speaks or this change in another passage of tho same date as "a process from tho Catholic, to the infidel idea of the State" ; and it will not be forgotten that as part of this process" he voted not only for tho full enfranchisement of tho Jews, but for the admission to tho House of Commons or Air Bradlaugh. People of logical minds arc sometimes at tho mercy a sorites, and pass oasily from calling tho State "catholic" to callnig it "infidel"; hii meanwhile Unpeople of England, heedless of sophisms, persist in calling their State Christian; and have bion known to refuse the infidel courses whiob

CATHOLIC CHURCHMEN have endeavour! to force upon them. No bettor instance can bo given than the persistant refusal of the main body of Englishmen to assent to tho "logical" proposal in regard to elementary education that the htate shall pay for notliing but secular teaching and leave religious teaching to bo provided by tho voluiu tary efforts of the several denominations. Mr Lathbury tells us that Had Alt Gladstone been able to bring the Cabinet to his own point of view m 18/0 he would probably have carried out tho complete separation of religious and secular instructiona simple way out of theiliffioiiltv." Mr Lathbury adds that "this solution encmuitererd and gave way to. the rooted hostility of Forster.'" It is worth remembering, when wo are tempted to push Catholic premisses to logical conclusions, that it was not '\°?l r Gladstone, the Churchma.n, but to Mr Forster, the Nonconformist, that we owe the opportunity thatstill remains to us of providing a religious education under the superintending control of the State, to which every child, whether of Churchman or of Dissenter, shall have access. Two of the most interesting chapters of Mr Lathbury's book contain a sketch of Mr Gladstone's relations with tho OXFORD MOVEMENT and its loaders. ..Bred, like New- * in tho straitest sect of the •Evangelicals, it was only in 1840 when he was 31, that he passed under the influence of the Tractarian

ideas, through his friendship with Mr James Hope (afterwards HopeScott). Mr Lathbury will not allow that he ever became distinctively Tractarian, but ho certainly adopted their leading principles, and on occasions of crisis acted with tho party. What tho ultimate verdict of history will be upon Newman's character wo cannot forecast; for some time to come ho will havo ardent defenders and as .ardent qrities; but as a possible indication, of the direction which that verdict may take, one or two of tho numerous judgments scattered through tlmso letters of Mr Gladstone are worth quotiing. After tho publication of (Dean Church's "Life and Ldbtc-rs" he writes to Mrs Church :— Ho speaks so humbly of himself in conjunction with CARDINAL NEWMAN. Doubtluss the genius of Newman has given him a throne which is all his own. But surely tho Dean was much the weightier and the wiser man. Six years later, when Newman himself passed away and critics were busy with censure, and panegyric, bo wrote his general impression to Lord Acton and R. If. Hut ton. From his letter to Hutloii, winch is much tho fuller, n few sentences may bo taken, boaningon tho point in question :— I think the matter on tvhieli I venLuro most distinctly to differ with you is with regard to tho storm after Tract 00. I need not say I have a pretty distinct recollection of it. . . Tiwt 90 opened a joint in ftWm sin's armour; it showed that in his wonderful genius there was a distinct flaw---a strong sophistical element. . . . . Will you think it, the height of ignorant audacity (as you fairly may) if 1 say that, while Newman has done an incomparable and immeasurable work for the Church of England, he never was an instructed ' lOngli.sh Churohnip.n? He never placed tho English Church upon its historical ground. 1 doubt if ho was even tolerably acquainted with tlm history of tho I.oth coni.-ury in England. Ho was trained (.as I was) in (he Evangelical school nf private judgment. .. . The Romans, I take it.

wero aware of the want of bone and substance in his controversial I!km>logy. This at any rato is clearthey did not look'on .him. but on Palmer (whoso book on the Church they have never answered) ns their mil anl agonist. It is impossible even in n lengthy review, to touch upon more than a few of Mio many intorosing subject raised in hose, letters. The sections upon ''Tho CONTROVERSY WITH RO.MK" and "The Controversy with Unbelief" must bo wholly passed by. Mr Gladstone had. neither tho time nor tho learning to write anything upon tboso topics of ponnanont value to scholarship, and tho obiter dicta scattered through his letters, which reveal tho insight of tho man of good judgment and wid;> experience," are generally of mono value, as they are of more interest than his forma! arguments. Of the criticisms on bonks the most interesting is that on "fteeo Homo," which Sir Frederic Rogers endeavoured to persnado him was l»y Nowinaii. His commonfc is ;is follows:— "I hold firmly to my opinion that the 'lu'co Home' cannot ho by Dr Newman. I i)h>aso myself with thinking that in tin's busy'age, (|iiick at sapping and dissolving, hut commonly not masculine enough in thought to construct, the author of this volume may have been .sont among us as a builder, and may perform a great 'work for truth and for mankind." The letter also contains a sentence or two of panegyric on Newman's style. "It is a transporting stylo. I find myself constantly disposed to cry aloud and vent myself in that way .as I read. It is like tho very highest music, and seems sometimes in beauty to go beyond the linm.ir." London T'-r.es.