Theological opinions of William Ewart Gladstone

Abstract

The reputation of Gladstone is in eclipse at present. That need be no cause for wonder. The tides of fame ebb and flow as they do in every phase of human affairs. At the beginning of the present century his name was a household word f not only in the United Kingdom but in many European capitals. The furore, which the publication of Morley's biography created, recalled the reception given to Macaulay's "History of England". In such circumstances it was inevitable that a reaction should develop, and a strong one at that, for Sir Isaac Hewton's dictum that action and reaction are equal applies to a much wider field than physical science. Less and less attention seems to be paid to Gladstone as the successive decades of the century, which follows that in which he flourished like a tree planted by rivers of water, come and go. But these things make no difference to his intrinsic greatness, since his title to everlasting remembrance rests on foundations which may fairly be described as unassailable. Thus he was four times Prime Minister, a record which has never been equalled, and is unlikely to be surpassed, especially in view of the extraordinary fact that he had passed his seventieth year before three of the occasions on which he was requested by Queen Victoria to form an administration. Lord Balfour said no more than the sober truth when he described Gladstone as "the greatest member of the greatest deliberative assembly that the world has seen."

While his pre-eminence as a statesman and Parliamentarian is his chief claim to an abiding place in the temple of fame , his versatility was also the delight and despair of his multitudinous admirers. He could have achieved outstanding distinction in half-a-dozen fields. Thus he was anxious as a young man to read for holy orders. Cardinal Manning, who began life as an Anglican, and who was Gladstone's friend and contemporary at Oxford, said of him that he was more fit to be a clergyman than himself. In deference to the wishes of his father, Sir John Gladstone, and in the loving wisdom of God Who sees the end from the beginning, he abandoned that ambition, but there can be no doubt at all that, if he had pursued it, he would have become in due season a mighty preacher and prince of the church. In that same connection Morley observes that he had the making of an evangelist "as irresistible as Wesley or as Whitefield". The same may be said of other fields including commerce and high finance. But when all has been said regarding what Gladstone might have been or become if he had elected to pursue some other path than that which he actually followed, there can be no doubt at all that he would never have succeeded in making such a vast contribution to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of the English people save as a statesman. For that reason his political activities which extended from December 13th, 1832, when he was elected M.P. for Newark until May 3rd, 1894, when he resigned the Premiership will always be of interest and importance to the historian for their own sake.

But the same cannot be said of his other labours despite the fact that he addressed himself to them with much the same aptitude and assiduity as he did to the business of legislation and administration. Their claims on the remembrance and interest of posterity are extrinsic rather than intrinsic. They have little permanent value, and any justification of their study lies in the light which they throw upon a unique figure. That is a strong expression but it is amply warranted as a comparison with his contemporary and rival, Lord Beaconsfield, will surely and soon reveal. D'Israeli was a very great man. It has been well said of him that he differed from Gladstone in everything but genius. Nevertheless when the two are compared, Gladstone surpasses D'Israeli as the sun the moon. In many great cities Including London and Edinburgh, the effigy of Gladstone may still be seen, lending dignity to the streets, while there are few, if any, similar monuments to D'Israeli. In view of that, everything connected with such a titanic personality is of interest, if not of importance. His Homeric studies, even although they won the approval of Sir Richard Jebb, will hardly repay consideration save as a sidelight on their author. They have been dismissed in some competent quarters as fanciful and the same may be said of other of his multifarious excursions into various spheres of life and learning. Likewise it is to be feared that his theological writings must be classed in the same category. Their worth has been variously appraised. Dr Dollinger, a contemporary leader of the Old Catholic Movement, and a dear personal friend, regarded Gladstone as the best theologian in England. Mr Herbert Paul, the author of an admirable brief biography, refers to him as an acute and learned theologian. Viscount Bryce was much nearer the mark in characterising him as an accomplished amateur.

There can be no doubt of his profound interest in theological questions, if one hardly feels equal to accepting the opinion of his son-in-law, the Rev. Harry Drew, that he was a born theologian. He read widely on the subject. He endeavoured to keep in touch with new developments. His pen was often busy in the discussion of religious and theological Issues. He has been well and truly described as an impassioned theologian whose tenets were more distinguished by heat than light. But the truth was that he was so deeply interested in theology because he was, first and foremost, a man of God. Religion was the keynote of his life. "This was the ultimate secret of his power to go on with his incessant labours whether the skies were dark or bright" writes Professor Ramsay Muir. "This was the secret also, of the loyalty, almost approaching to adoration, which he inspired in thousands of simple folk. 'You do not know how those of us regard you'" Spurgeon wrote to him in 1882, 'who feel it a Joy to live when a premier believes in righteousness. We believe in no man's infallibility, but it is restful to be sure of one man's integrity'. Finally it was this which gave unity to his amazing pilgrimage of opinion, and which ballasted a noble ship that lacked the anchorage of fixed and clearly defined political theories." (Prime Ministers of the Nineteenth Century, p. 235) The more one studies Gladstone, the more one is disposed to endorse the truth of these words.

Gladstone's theology is thus the intellectual expression of his faith in God and in Jesus Christ, His Only Son. Out of the fulness of his heart he spoke and wrote on the things of God. It has been finely said by Professor John Baillie that theology is religion becoming self-conscious. That is undoubtedly the key to an understanding of Gladstone's studies in the queen of sciences. He loved God with all his mind as well as with all his heart. That could be demonstrated in many ways. One line of evidence need only be mentioned for more reasons than one. Gladstone, unlike D'lsraeli, had not been endowed with an original mind in the sense that he was an independent thinker. "All his life he had undergone 'influences'," writes Mr Francis Blrrell, "first that of Canning, then that of Peel, of Bright in the crucial sixties, and finally, and very powerfully, of Acton." (Gladstone, p.141). The same is true in his mental history with the difference that he was as loyal to the earliest captains of his soul in old age as he was when he left Oxford. He has told us that he owed his soul to four masters, next to the Four Gospels. These were Aristotle, Augustine, Dante, and Butler. It will be seen at once that all except Aristotle were Christian teachers. Only a man whose interests were steeped in religion could have made such a confession. We may apply to him the phrase of Tertullian in which he speaks of the anima naturaliter Christiana. In combination with his powerful intelligence, such a mentality made it inevitable that Gladstone should take to theology like a duck to water.

His emotional temperament helps to explain his piety, as well as his fondness for theological studies. It also throws a flood of light upon an aspect of these which, at the first glance, seems to be very perplexing. Morley describes it in an observation to the effect that in theology his opinions had no history. His views remained unaltered for more than fifty years. That is all the more remarkable in the light of two facts. On the one hand, he lived through a period when theological upheavals of such magnitude took place that they have been compared by Dr C.C.J. Webb with the Reformation. "The Times" in an editorial on Queen Victoria and her reign, observed that during that period the foundations of British Christianity were shaken to their foundations by the rise of Continental humanism and rationalism. But Gladstone cared for none of these things. He was secure on the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture. He was not ignorant of these revolutionary changes but his theology defied modification. He never ceased to be well pleased with it. The other fact is the changes in his own outlook on other questions. It has been observed that his religious and theological conservatism contrasted with his readiness to change in other directions. In churchmanship the fervent evangelical became a zealous sacerdotalist. In politics "the rising hope of the high and unbending Tories", as Macaulay called him, became the darling of the proletariat. But in theology he ended where he began.

While his emotional disposition may have contributed largely to this theological immobility, account must also be taken of his simplicity of mind. What he says of Homer in his admirable Primer is applicable to himself. "The simple and healthy realism of Homer indisposed him alike to physics and metaphysics" (p. 129). Gladstone had no interest in scientific research, and, as for metaphysics, Huxley remarked that he did not understand the meaning of the word. For example, he commends Christianity as "the least abstract of all religions" (Morley II. p. 308). Such a statement gives weight and substance to the judgment of the Rev. W. Tuckwell in estimating Gladstone's qualifications for theological discussion. "He could meet particular details, the swine-miracle, the Mosaic firmament, the cosmogonic succession, with dialectic but nescient dexterity; the main assault he left altogether unopposed, because, like his old friend Liddon, he had never been educated to understand it." ("Gladstone". Sir Wemyss Reid. p. 472) On the other hand, it is surely significant that a man of Gladstone's spiritual and intellectual stature remained loyal to the conservative and evangelical position in theology. It is surely possible to exaggerate his simplicity. Men do not gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles, and he could never have been what he was , or did what he did, if he had been nothing more than "radiantly simple", as Lord Kilbracken remarks, quoting Robert Louis Stevenson. (Reminiscences p. 123). Is it not written that it has seemed good in the Father's sight to hide the mystery of godliness from the wise and prudent, and to reveal it unto babes? (Matthew XI. 25-26)

In making a preliminary survey of the material which is available for a survey of Gladstone's theology, it is necessary to draw a distinction between his writings on ecclesiastical and theological fields. The former exceed the latter in bulk. That is only what might be expected since "England's greatest citizen was also her greatest Churchman." His earliest books dealt with ecclesiastical problems, and to the end of his life he was ever busy with papers on church questions and politics. But these must be carefully distinguished from his theological essays. That distinction is not always observed by the authors of articles and books dealing with his life and work. In the hands of some writers, theology becomes a term capable of such wide application as to be positively misleading. Thus a discussion of Gladstone's theology may contain no reference to his studies on Bishop Butler. The explanation usually is a significant one. Such papers are the work of men who make no pretensions to be trained theologians, a detail which is surely illuminative.

Gladstone himself was always careful to distinguish theological and ecclesiastical topics. He defined theology as the science of religion. In the eighth volume of his collected essays, felicitously described as "Gleanings of Past Years," he defines the contents as ecclesiastical and theological, and it is easy to classify the contents in two groups with these headings. It may be that, in the case of such a loose thinker as Gladstone, the attempt to enforce such a differentiation must result in the impoverishment of a study like this. Indeed there are three phases of his thinking which are inseparable.

One is his religious experience* That will repay study, and ample materials survive for the purpose. Again, there is his church- manship, and that too would require a large volume to Itself. Thirdly, mention must be made of his contributions to theological study in the narrower sense of the word. The three tend to flow together, a veritable threefold cord not to be quickly broken.

There is room for an estimate of Gladstone from the triple standpoint. Wide qualifications and research would be required for such an enterprise since, as Lord Rosebery facetiously observed, Gladstone's biography can only be adequately undertaken by a limited liability company. Our present concern Is solely with his theological opinions, a subject of sufficient magnitude to warrant separate treatment.

Information with regard to his convictions on such matters, for no other word will do in this connection, as we shall soon have occasion to see, can be gathered from a variety of sources. Indeed materials are not yet complete for a thorough survey of the subject. His vast correspondence has not yet been explored to the uttermost, although selections of his letters have been published. It is, however, unlikely that, when this vast mass of written matter has been carefully examined, much new light will be thrown on his piety or theology, apart from some happy turn of phrase, or some illuminating sentence. It is almost certain that all his cherished belief's have been expressed in a form which has made them readily accessible* As it is, there is a certain amount of repetition in his publications on theological questions. These comprise but few books, and consist consist mainly of essays, contributed to secular journals with the exception of several articles in "Good Words", a popular religious monthly in the latter part of last century* These details are likewise noteworthy in forming a preliminary estimate of the value attaching to his theological effusions. He was essentially a lay theologian. The earliest book which Macaulay has immortalized by his famous review, was first issued in 1838, the year after Queen Victoria's accession. This was the work on the relations of church and state, entitled, "The State in its Relations with the Church". It was followed in 1840 by a second on a closely connected subject, "Church Principles considered in their Results". Neither of these volumes can be considered as theological in the strict sense of the term. They may be more correctly classified as ecclesiastical, although some reference to them must be made since they contain material relevant to a consideration of his theology in the proper sense of the term. At the end of his life which almost coincided with that of the great Queen whom he served so long and so loyally, he published an edition of Bishop Butler's Works (1896), and in the same year a volume of essays, entitled "Studies Subsidiary to the Works of Bishop Butler". In 1892 there appeared a small book containing popular papers on Biblical subjects which first saw the light in "Good Words". In addition there are many articles and essays on religious, and ecclesiastical subjects which furnish varying quotas of information, while the enormous literature, which has gathered round him like the satellites of some vast planet, yields endless bits and pieces which bear more or less directly on our subject.