MR. GLADSTONE ON DR. MACLEOD.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 201, 9 February 1877, Page 8

MR. GLADSTONE ON DR. MACLEOD.

++ Th» late Rev. Dr. Macleod was, indeed, a remarkable man. Born and trained in the narrow sect of Presbyterianisni, he rose superior to his class, both in habit of mind and nobility of character. He was, in his day, the light of Presbyterianism, whilst, as regards doctrine, he was far from being a Presbyterian. His cheerful, even playful disposition, no less than his convictions, placed him in contrast with the grim disciples of the most gloomy of all sects. He was made for truth ; but, although attracted, almost led captive by its power, he never could wholly dissociate himself from the gross absurdities of the confession, which, from the accident of his birth, was his spiritual inheritance. Nevertheless, he was not unworthy of the high praise -which the British ex-Premier so lavishly bestows. Next to the large-minded Chalmers, he was tlie greatest figure in the sect which claimed him. In many things he outshone this luminary. But let the great statesman speak : "He stands out, we think, as having supplied, after Dr. Chalmers, one of the most distinguished names in the history of Presbyterianism. In some rebpects much after Dr. Chalmers; in others, probably before him. He had not, as far as we see, the philosophic faculty of Chalmers, nor his intensity, nor his gorgeous gift of eloquence, nor his commanding passion, nor his absolute simplicity, nor his profound, and, to others, sometimes embarrassing humility. Chalmem, whose memory, at a period more than forty years back, is still fresh in the mind of the writer of these pages, was, indeed, a man greatly lifted out of the region of flesh and blood. He may be compared with those figures who, in Church history or legend, are represented as risen into the air under the influence of religious emotion. Macleod, on the other hand, had more shrewdness, .more knowledge of the world, and far greater elasticity and variety of mind. Chalmers was rather a man of one idea — at least, .one idea at a time; Macleod receptive on all hands and in all ways. Chalmers had a certain clumsiness, as of physical, so of mental gait ; Macleod was brisk, ready, mobile. Both were men devoted to God; eminently able, earnest, energetic, with great gifts of oratory and large organizing power. A church that had them not may well envy them to a church that had them. Nor do they stand alone. The Presbyterianism of Scotland, which has done but little for literature or for theology, has, notwithstanding, been adorned during the last fifty years by the names of many remarkable persons — men of high and pure character, with great gifts of government and construction, like Candlish ; of winning and moving oratory, like Guthrie ; and only a notable fertility in the production of such men could have enabled the National Establishment of this small country to endure the fearful drain which has

been brought upon it, since its establishment at the Revolution, by repeated catastrophes within its borders." We need not follow the learned Premier in his remarks on that Establishment which fails to interest us, but might' we not ask him how Dr. Macleod could be said to belong to it, abhorring as he did, its leading, distinctive doctrines ? The Kirk has always persisted^ its narrow view of redemption ; Macleod maintained that Christ died for all. The Kirk is fatalist and predestinarian ; Macleod preached that men will be judged according to their works. The Kirk repels the idea of an intermediate state, and declares it impious to pray for the dead ; Macleod believed that there is education beyond, the grave, founded on that passage of the New Testament, which says that our Lord " went to preach to the spirits in prison," and he prayed devoutly for departed souls. The Kirk's confession set up the strictest Sabbatarianism ; Macfeed ' demolished it. No wonder if his brother ministers repelled Him. He was as little in harmony with them as they were in sympathy with him. So complete was his isolation that he could write : " I felt, at first, so completely cut off from every Christian brother, that had a chimney sweep given me his sooty hand, and smiled upon me with his black face, I would have welcomed his salute and blessed him." Meanwhile, the people, whose abhorrence of true teaching is not so complete as that of their spiritual guides, loved Macleod ; " a'body (everybody) likes the Doctor," said a -working man ; and this was the universal sentiment. Would Mr. Gladstone explain to us, for it is to us an unfathomable phenomenon, how Macleod came to abhor Puseyism ? Perhaps he considered it a sham, whilst holding its distinctive doctrines. He was, even, more Catholic. In addition to what has just been stated, he wrote : " The living Church is more than the dead Bible, for, it is the Bible and something more. We ignore sixteen centuries almost." Was he sincere in his professed hatred of Puseyism ? Was his finely-toned mind capable of harboring diabolic hate ? Mr. Gladstone, perhaps, could reply, speaking from his own experience. He professes to hold all the doctrines of the Catholic Church and declares that her pastors derive their office in an unbroken line from the Apostles. Nevertheless, the ex-Premier hates " Popery" as he is pleased to term the Church, and is not ashamed to own his hatred. " Tantmne animus celestibus Irtsl" We are unwilling to ascribe Buch sentiments to so great a theologian, although he be himself the self -accusing witness. — ' C. Review.'