Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:08:13.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gladstone and German Liberal Catholicism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Peter C. Erb
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the subject of German Liberal Catholicism is raised alongside Gladstone's name, one is initially directed to the Munich historian and theologian, Ignaz von Döllinger (1799–1890). Few biographies of Gladstone omit a description of his first meeting with the German historian on September 30, 1845. The initial contact between the two men was certainly significant in Gladstone's career, but what is often not related is the full context of that meeting. Too often the incident is framed by their later meeting and correspondence, the Vaticanism controversies, and Döllinger's own opposition to the declaration of papal infallibility. At the end of his career, Gladstone himself interpreted their relationship in light of their later association, writing: ‘Nothing ever so much made me anglican versus Roman as reading in Döllinger over forty years ago the history of the fourth century and Athanasius contra mundum.’

Type
Research Article
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , May 1997 , pp. 450 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 John, Morley, The Life of William Ewan Gladstone (3 vols.: Toronto: George N. Morang & Company, 1903), 1: 318–20.Google Scholar Note as well Philip, Magnus, Gladstone: A Biography (London: John Murray. 1954), 71–74,Google Scholar Feuchtwanger, E. J., Gladstone (New York: St. Martins, 1975), 53,Google Scholar Richard, Shannon, Gladstone (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1982), 181–82;Google Scholar Matthew, H. C. G., Gladstone 1809–1874 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)Google Scholar devotes attention only to the later association, 183, 246–47. On Döllinger see Heinrich, Fries und Georg, Schwaiger (hrsg.). Katholische Theologen Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert (3 Bde.; München; KÖsel, 1975) 3: 9–43.Google Scholar A shortened version of this paper was delivered at the History Faculty, University of Oxford, 6 May, 1996. Part of the research for the paper was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.

2 The two men met again in 1874. See Morley, 2:513–515 and see as well 3:421–23, 467.

3 Morley, 1:318.

4 Morley, 1:319. Note, in particular, Lathbury, D.C., Correspondence on Church and Religion of William Ewart Gladstone (2 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1910), 2: 383–91.Google Scholar

5 Gladstone took up reading Döllinger after meeting him. On Oct. 3, he began the German historian's Der Protestantismus in Bayern und die Kniebeugung: Sendschreiben (1843), a gift from Döllinger, which he finished sporadically in four further readings, Oct. 5–18 (GD 3:486–90), appears to have skimmed a Döllinger history on Oct. 10 (GD 3:488), and read Döllinger's Irrthum, Zweifel, und Wahrheit (Regensburg: G. J. Manz, 1845) on Oct. 12 Google Scholar (GD 3:488).

6 Gladstone's memory was not always as perfect as is sometimes suggested; on its faultiness see Michael, Bentley, ‘Gladstone's Heir,’ English Historical Reivew 107 (1992), 901–25.Google Scholar

7 Gladstone began reading Görres on Sept. 14, and finished it on Sept. 17 (GD 3:649). His annotated copy, Görres, J., Anthanasius (Vierte Ausgabe; Regensburg: G. Joseph Manz, 1838)Google Scholar is preservd in St. Deiniol's Library, Hawarden, 1 44/12. It was not until Oct. 25, 1856 that Gladstone took up Döllinger's specifically historical work (Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte [2 Bde.; 2 Aufl.; G. Joseph Manz, 1843]) in which his treatment of the fourth century and Athanasius is brief and sketchy (Lehrbuch, 1:75–86; see GD 3: 579–89. Gladstone completed the second volume on Dec. 20).

8 Victor, Conzemius (ed.), Ignaz von Döllinger. Lord Acton. Briefwechsel 1850–1890 (3 Bde.; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1963–1971), 1:ix.Google Scholar Note Döllinger's edition of Möhler's Gesammelte Schriften und Aufsätze. Hrsg. von Joh. Jos. Ign. Döllinger (2 Bde.; Regensburg: G. Joseph Manz, 1839–1940)

For biographical studies of Möhler, see my study and translation, Johann Adam Möhler: Unity in the Church (Washngton: Catholic University of America Press, 1996);Google Scholar Hervé Savon, Johann Adam Möhler: The Father of Modern Theology, trans. Charles McGrath (Glenn Rock, N.J.: Paulist Press), and Paul-Werner, Scheele, ‘Johann Adam Möhler’ in Heinrich, Fries and Georg, Schwaiger, eds. Katholische Theologen Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert, (3 vols; Munich: Kösel, 1975), 2: 70–98.Google Scholar A full bibliography of Möhler's work is available in Verzeichnis der gedruckten Arbeiten Johann Adam Möhler's (1796–1838) Aus dem Nachlass Stefan Lösch (*1966) Unter Mitarbeit von Jochen Köhler und Carola Zimmermann … herausgegeben von Rudolph Reinhardt. The bibliography is printed as an addendum to Georg, Schwaiger, ed., Kirche und Theologie im 19. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprect, 1975).Google Scholar

9 In the first case his concern was with his sister Helen, in the second with the serious illness of his daughter Agnes, and continuing concern with Helen's state (See Sept. 14– Oct. 22; GD 3: 649–663). Shortly after his 1845 discussions with Döllinger, Gladstone received word that Newman had converted and this event must have served as a sort of capstone in impressing on his mind the common themes in his reading and activities at the time, and serves as an additional link between the 1845 and 1847 periods. As soon as it was available he began to read Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (Nov. 28, 1845, GD 3:499), the argument of which he considered, as Newman himself did, related to the work of Möhler. (Note his annotation to Möhler's Neue Untersuchungen, 445 where his reference to development appears to be a direct reference to Newman, and cf. his annotation to Baur, 501. In fact neither Möhler nor Döllinger had a developed theory of development; See Acton to Döllinger, Dec. 17, 1868; Conzemius, 1:529.) In August, 1847, again while reading Möhler's work, Gladstone was concerned with the problem of development. See his reading of J. B. Mozley's ‘The Theory of Development’ (Aug. 13; GD 3;641).

10 Möhler's study went through a number of editions in his lifetime. See the critical edition Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze der Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihren öffentlichen Bekenntnisschriften, eingeleitet und kommentiert von Josef Rupert Geiselmann (Cologne und Ölten: Hegner, 1958) for details. Gladstone read Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze der Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihren öffentlichen Bekenntnisschriften (Sechste, unveränderte Auflage; Mainz und Wien: Florian Kupferberg und Karl Gerold, 1843); his annotated copy is preserved at St. Deiniol's Library, Hawarden, E 14/75A.

11 In 1834 Baur published his Der Gegensatz des Catholicismus und Protestantismus nach den Principien und Hauptdogmen der beiden Lehrbegriffe, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Herrn Dr. Möhlers Symbolik (Tübingen: Ludwig Friedrich Fues, 1834),Google Scholar which Möhler answered in his Neue Untersuchungen der Lehrgegensätze zwischen den Katholiken und Protestanten: Eine Vertheidigung meiner Symbolik gegen die Kritik des Herrn Professors Dr. Baur in Tübingen (Mainz and Vienna: Florian Kupferberg und Karl Gerold, 1834).Google Scholar Baur immediately printed an ‘Erwiderung auf Herrn Dr. Möhler's neueste Polemik gegen die protestanische Lehre und Kirche in der Schrift: Neue Untersuchungen …,’ Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 8 (1834): 127–248,Google Scholar and Möhler a secondenlarged edition of the Neue Untersuchungen the following year which Baur took up in a second edition of the Gegensatz in 1836. For a full discussion of the Möhler-Baur controversy, see Joseph, Fitzer, Moehler and Baur in Controversy, 1832–1838: Romantic Idealist Assessment of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (Tallahasee, Fla.: Amercian Academy of Religion, 1974).Google Scholar

Gladstone began reading Baur on Friday, Oct. 31, two days before he had completed reading Möhler. On Friday he read ‘Prefaces to Baur's reply’ (GD 3:494) which appear to be to Baur's Gegensatz, not his ‘Erwiderung’ (GD 3:494n2 is a confluence of the two Baur titles). Gladstone's annotated copy of the Gegensatz (1836 edition) is preserved in St. Deiniol's Library, Hawarden; it is to this, not Baur's three volume Die christliche Lehre von der Dreienigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (1841–3), Gladstone refers as his ‘Baur’ reading Nov. 2–Nov. 11 (GD 3: 494–95). He appears not to have completed the book since there are no annotations to the last 190 pages.

12 Karl, Immanuel Nitzsch, Eine protestantische Beantwortung der Symbolik Dr. Möhler's. Abdruck aus den Theologischen Studien und Kritiken, nebst einem Anhange: Protestantische Theses (Hamburg: F. Perthes, 1835).Google Scholar Gladstone's copy is preserved in St. Deiniol's Library, Hawarden, E 20/15.

13 Johann, Adam Möhler, Neue Untersuchungen der Lehregegensätze zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten: Eine Vertheidigung meiner Symbolik gegen die Kritik des Herrn Professors Dr. Bar in Tübingen (Zweites vermehrte und verbesserte Ausgabe; Mainz und Wien: Florian Kupferberg und Karl Gerold, 1835).Google Scholar Gladstone's copy is preserved in St. Deiniol's Library, Hawarden, E 20/14.

14 Philip, Joseph von Brunner, Gebetbuch für aufgeklärte katholische Christen (18. verbesserte Aufl.: Heilbronn: Classische Buchhandkung, 1845).Google Scholar See Gladstone to Manning, Oct. 20, 1845 (British Library Add. Ms 44247, 273–74) and Mary Stanley to Gladstone Dec. 9, 1855 (BL Add. Ms 44384, 265–66).

15 See Matthew, H. C. G., The Gladstone Diaries (14 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968–1994), 14:Google Scholar v and John, Powell, ‘Small Marks and Instinctional Responses: A Study in the Uses of Gladstone's Marginalia’ Nineteenth Century Prose 19 (1992), 1–17.Google Scholar In some cases Gladstone's book annotations provide evidence of books he read but did not enter in his Diaries; of importance for this study, for example, is his annotation in his copy of Möhler's Symbolik, 57 to an extensive English Review article of October, 1844 on Möhler and the controversy surrounding him in Germany, (see below n33)

16 His annotations of the works of his friend, Henry Edward Manning, for example, have some interesting surprises: There are relatively few annotations on his copies of Manning's Charges, but the correspondence indicates that he read the former carefuly in draft form and therefore probably did not attend to them as closely when he received final printed copies. This is also likely the explanation for the annotations on Manning's 1842 Unity of the Church which was a presentation copy (St. Deiniol's Library, Hawarden, E 58/6) but bears the annotations of a later date. The final page reads: ‘Et tu Brute WEG 1856’ although there is no indication in the Diaries that he read the book at this time. He did note his work on the proofs (Feb. 27, 1842; GD 2:183) and consultations of the work on July 21, 1878 (GD 9:332) and Sept. 27, 1891 (GD 12:409). Likewise Manning's Sermons are scantily annotated although he used them for devotional reading and often read them to his wife, Catherine.

17 Johann, Adam Möhler, Die Einheit in der Kriche Oder das Prinzip des Katholizismus dargestellt im Geiste der Kirchenväter der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Tübingen: Heinrich Laupp, 1825).Google Scholar De l'unité de l'église; Ou, Du principe du Catholicisme d'après l'esprit des Pères des trois premiers siècles, trans. Ph[ilippe] Bernard (Tourai: Castemann, 1835).Google Scholar The translation was reprinted in Brussels by H. Remy in 1839 and again in the same year in Paris by Sagnier et Bray.

18 Athanasius der Grosze und die Kirche seiner Zeit, besonders im Kampfe mit dem Arianismus. (Mainz: Florian Kupferberg, 1827).Google Scholar There were four nineteenth-century translations into French andtwo into Italian (see Reinhardt, Verzeichniss, 40–42).

19 ‘Anselm, Erzbishof von Canterbury. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnisz des religiös-sittlichen, öffentlich-kirchlichen und wissenschaftlichen Lebens im elften und zwölften Jahrhundert,’ Theologische Quartalschrift 9 (1827): 435–97,Google Scholar 585–664 and 10 (1828): 62–130.

20 The implications of this shift for Möhler's anthropology are described in Josef, Rupert Geiselmann, Die theologische Anthropologie Johann Adam Möhlers: Ihr geschichtlicher Wandel (Freiburg: Herder, 1955).Google Scholar

21 The piece printed as ‘Soliloquium’ was sent to the Archbishop of York who in turn sent it to the London newspapers requesting that they publish it in May of 1896. The ‘Postscript’ was added and dated by Gladstone, Château Thorenc, Cannes, March 26, 1897. See Gladstone, W. E., Later Gleanings, a New Series of Gleanings of Past Years (Freeport, N.Y.: Books for Libraries Press, 1972), 404–26.Google Scholar I am thankful to John Powell, Penn State University, Erie, PA, for this reference and for suggestions on the final draft of the paper.

22 Gladstone, W. E., ‘Universitas Hominium; or the Unity of History,’ North American Review 145 (December, 1887), 589–602.Google Scholar

23 Gladstone, W. E., ‘“Robert Elsmere” and the Battle of Belief,’ reprinted from the Nineteenth Century 23 (1888), 766ff.Google Scholar in Gladstone, W. E., Later Gleanings. A New Series of Gleanings of Past Years. Theological and Ecclesiastical (London: John Murray, 1898), 77–117.Google Scholar

24 Ibidem., 103. Cf. his reading of the Symbolik on Sept. 21, 1874 (GD 8:529) and again Sept. 1, 1878(GD 9:342).

25 Richard, Rothe, Die Anfänge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung: Ein Geschichtlicher Versuch. (Wittenberg: Zimmermann, 1837).Google Scholar Gladstone's annotated copy is preserved in St. Deiniol's Library, Hawarden, I 121/7. See, GD 2:632; Oct. 11, 1839. Rothe's Appendix, Ueber die Echtheit der Ignatischen Briefe, 713ff. is heavily annotated by Gladstone.

26 ‘I would not be opposed to the suggestion mat this book is an attempt to write a Protestant companion piece to Möhler's Unity in the Church. To that work I never return without joyous wonderment at its ever fresh—and on the whole, as deep as it is true—conception of the self-consciousness of the early Church. Perhaps this admission is not the only one which will bring the charge of catholicising against me. Such a statement does not intimidate me. There is no stronger apology for Protestantism than the acknowledgement, indeed the outright assertion, that in its past, according to its essence, Catholicism had its full historical reality and justification, and that in her Protestantism had its deep inner truth, high moral glory and power.’ (Rothe, ix) Note Gladstone's annotation to Nitzsch, 238 where the latter proposes that ‘The true Church must unite Catholic and Protestant’ and compare the passage with that of Möhler's Symbolik, 348, quoted below.

There is a close relationship between Rothe's and Gladstone's reading of Möhler. Like Möhler, Rothe emphasized the importance of the universality and visible unity of the Church as an organic living community, and this point Gladstone regularly notes (Rothe, 6, 15, 20, 22, 76, 77, 99ff., and passim). For both men visibility is a central matter; not surprisingly as a result Gladstone notes Rothe's comment that the State exists as ‘the specific form in which human life not only exists, but has a reality’ (Rothe, 14). ‘The State's goal embraces the totality of the moral goal’ (Rothe, 16); the Church is the religious community, the state the moral; as religious the church was from its beginning both ‘inner and at the same time essentially, external’—the individual can have a communal life only insofar as the Church has an external aspect. All this Gladstone duly notes as important (Rothe, 20), and it is this aspect of the Rothe programme which he continues to annotate throughout the book, reflecting as he was at the time on what would become his Church Principles and the fourth expanded version of his The State in its Relations to the Church. In both these works he made extensive use of Rothe. See his Church Principles considered in their Results (London: John Murray and Hatchard and Son, 1840),Google Scholar chapters 3, 5 and 7, and The State in it Relations to the Church (2 vols.; London: John Murray and Hatchard and Son, 1841), chapters 1 and 2.Google Scholar

With Rothe's adaptation of Hegelian structures and his notion of a kingdom rising above Church over time, Gladstone had little patience as his ‘ma's make clear (Rothe, 84–85), and he appears much more impresssed by Schleiermacher's positions in Church-State relations as decribed by Rothe (Rothe 123ff. on Schleiermacher is highly annotated by Gladstone), but the Rothe position does not seem to have troubled him overly and even within the sections in which the German author is pressing his development theory to its fullest, Gladstone appears at ease, noting as of particular significance passages which in the Rothe argument lead in a direction away from Gladstone's own, but, as excepted, from that argument may well serve the English politician's peculiar circumstances (Cf. Rothe, 100–135). As excerpts the passages directly support the first principles Gladstone saw enunciated in Rothe's work and which he understood as the central premises of Möhler's as well: the importance of an external form for the Church in the State, of the relationship between visibility and unity, and of the Church as the religious aspect of a ‘positive’ religion.

27 Interest in Anglicanism, particularly in Tractarianism, was also developing at Möhler's Tubingen. See, for example, the early reviews ‘Ansichten und Beobachtungen über Religion und Kirche in England. Von Karl Heinrich Sack … Berlin, 1819 …,’ 2 (1820): 105–17, and ‘Herbert Marshs … vergleichende Darstellung der protestantische-englischen und der römisch-katholischen Kirche … Aus dem Englischen übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen und Beylagen versehen, von Dr. Johann Christoph Schreiter … Sulzbach … 1821 …,’ in Theologische Quartalschrift 4 (1822): 60–81. Note, as well, Möhler's ‘Anselm, Erzbischof von Canterbury …,’ and later publications in the 1840s in Theologische Quartalschrifi: see ‘Vorträge über die in der päpstlichen Kapelle übliche der stillen Woche; von Dr. Nicolaus Wiseman … übersetzt durch Joseph Maria Axinger … 1840,’ Theologische Quartalschrift 22 (1840): 667ff.; ‘Reisen eines Irländers, um die wahre Religion zu suchen … von Thomas Moore … übersetzt von Mortiz Lieber … 1840,’ Theologische Quartalschrifi 23 (1841), 315–16. ‘Maria Ward's … Leben und Wirken…. 1840,’ Theologische Quartalschrift 23 (1841): 683–91; and ‘Irland's Zustände alter und neuer Zeit. Von Daniel O'Connel! … Aus dem Englischen von Dr. A. Willmann … 1843,’ Theologische Quartalschrifi 25 (1843): 667–778. Note especially [von Drey?], ‘Das Wesen der Puseyitischen Doctrin,’ Theologische Quartalschrifi 26 (1844): 417–57, which shows fair knowledge of the Oxford movement and of the English Church as a whole, emphasising renewed attention in the Church of England given to ‘catholic’ theology, apostolic succession, Eucharistie theology, kneeling at the reception of the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, the indwelling Christ, the reality of the communion of the Saints, a ‘middle way’ in prayers for the dead and purgatory, opposition to ultra-Protestant concern with the sermon, and a rejection of ultra-Protestant views of justification. The treatment of the Thirty-Nine Articles is dependent on Tract 90. Including a brief discussion of the Sibthorp conversion, the article closes: ‘But if the system [Puseyism] is to be complete and perfected, one cannot merely speak of individuals converting to the Catholic Church, but Protestantism itself is subsumed by Catholicism and the whole people become Catholic’ (457) With this compare Beiträge zur bessern Würdigung des Wesens und der Bedeutung des Puseyismus durch Uebertragung einiger der wichtigsten betreffenden englischer Schriften nebst einer Einleitung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1843), vol. 1 of which includes a translation of Pusey's letter to the Archbishop and vol. 2 a German version of his Sermon on the Eucharist and of Tract 90.

28 Acland to Newman, May 11, 1834, in Anne, Mozley, ed., Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman during His Life in the English Church, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1898), 1:40.Google Scholar Note Wiseman's reference to MÖhler's Symbolik in his Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church, Delivered at St. Mary's Moorfields. During the Lent of 1836 (2 vols.; London: Joseph Booker, 1836), 1:Google Scholar ix.

29 [William, George Ward,] ‘Arnold's Sermons,’ British Critic 30 (1841): 298–364. 311.Google Scholar

30 Über das Verhältnis, in welchen nach dem Koran Jesus Christus zu Mohammed und das Evangelium zu Islam steht. Mit besonderer Berüchsichtigungen der künftigen Schicksale des letzteren gegenüber dem Christenthum,’ Theologische Quartalschrift 12 (1830): 3–81,Google Scholar appeared finally in English as On the Relation of Islam to the Gospel, trans. Menge, J. P. (Calcutta: Ostell and Lepage, British Library, 1847).Google Scholar

31 Möhler, J. A., The Life of St. Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury; A Contribution to the Knowledge of the Moral, Ecclesiastical, and Literary Life of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, trans, Henry, Rymer (London: T. Jones, 1842).Google Scholar Rymer translated the piece as a student of St. Edmund's College in Cambridge, inspired to the task by John Francis Maguire (1815–1872) who was a professor there at the time. From 1836 on Maguire had been in contact with Döllinger and had translated the latter's preface to Die Lehre von der Euchariste in den ersten Jahrhunderten, Historisch-theologische Abhandlungen (Mainz, 1826). See Lösch Verzeichniss, 61.

32 John, Adam Möhler, Symbolism; Or, Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants, as Evidenced by Their Symbolic Writings, 2 vols., trans. James, Burton Robertson (London: Charles Dolman, 1843).Google Scholar The English translation was reprinted five times in the nineteenth century. There were four printings of a translation in French, six in Italian, one in Dutch, one in Swedish, and one in Polish.

33 ‘Romanism and Protestantism in Germany,’ The English Review 2 (1844): 1–35,Google Scholar which reviewed thesixth edition of the Symbolik, the Neue Untersuchungen, and critiques of Möhler by Baur and Nitzsch.

34 John, Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine: The Edition of 1845, ed. Cameron, J. M. (Harmondsworth: Penquin, 1974), 90.Google Scholar Note as well Newman's reference to Möhler on ‘development,’ later in his life in the same general way in his Theological Commonplace Book. (Birmingham Oratory Archives, p. 27).

35 George, Stanley Faber, Letters on Tractarian Secession to Popery: With Remarks on Dr. Newman's Principle of Development, Dr. Möhler's Symbolism … (London: W. H. Dalton, 1846), 142–94.Google Scholar On Aug. 12, 1847, in the context of reading Möhler, Gladstone was also reviewing Newman's Development. Much study remains to be done on the links between Möhler and the English-speaking world. A good overview of the literature is available in Franklin, R. W., Nineteenth-Century Churches: The History of a New Catholicism in Württemberg, England, and France, (Garland, 1987), 25ff.Google Scholar but Owen, Chadwick, From Bossuet to Newman: The Idea of Doctrinal Development (Cambridge University Press, 1957), 114ff.,Google Scholar and Henry, Tristram, ‘J. A. Moehler et J. H. Newman; La pensée allemande et la renaissance catholique en Angleterre,’ Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques 27 (1938): 184–204,Google Scholar still remain important.

36 Gladstone's cross-references to other studies are a good indication of the care he devoted to the Möhler volumes. In his annotations to the Symbolik there are nine references to other passages internal to the work and some 25 to other works, many specified by page numbers (according to editions in Gladstone's possession) as in the case of Baur, (11, 30, entered while reading Baur later), Tridentine decrees (31), Bellarmine (28), Juvenal, Satire 15 in opposition to Calvin (83), Bossuet (192), Luther (216), Augustine (351, 373). Often references are not specifically noted, but because of the topic under discussion can be easily ascertained, as for example in a number of references to the Elizabethan Book of Homilies (130, 150) Canons of the Church of England (425), Augustine ‘on the Church’ (351), and his own work (‘cf. WEG’, 83). Note as well, for example, his annotations to the Neue Untersuchungen, 3 where he refers to specific sections in Nitzsch, and his annotations to Baur, 109 where he indicates Möhler's revision as a result of an earlier Baur comment.

37 Note in particular the Baur annotations, 490, and Nitzsch, 235.

38 The edition of the Neue Untersuchungen was particularly poorly proofed. See 23, 25, 45, 76, 101, 157, 169, 191 (where he discovers a questionable umlaut), 217, 294, 299, etc.

39 These central doctrines distinguished the two communities on the continent from at least 1524. See, in particular, Luther's comment to Erasmus on this ‘iugulum’ in Martin, Luther, On the Bondage of the Will, trans, by Packer, J. I. and Johnston, O. R. (London: James Clarke, 157), 319.Google Scholar

40 Symbolik, 124; note as well his comment on Möhler's discussion of Calvin's doctrine of the sarcaments: ‘NB This does not apply to England.’ (Symbolik, 274).

41 Symbolik, 130; Scotus Sentences 4, dist. 1.

42 For details see my Pietists, Protestants, and Mysticism: The Use of Late Medieval Spiritual Texts in the Work of Gottfried Arnold (1666–1714) (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1989), 59–60 and notes, 239–40.Google Scholar

43 At Symbolik, 238, however, Gladstone supports the Protestant reading by questioning Möhler’s comment that ‘true living faith, not only goes along with the moral law, it is one with it’.

44 Symbolik, 199: ‘In this sense there can be no discussion of any merit before God…’

45 BL Add. Ms 44247, 324ff. and Pitts Theology Library, Atlanta, Ga., MS 4509mg and following Pitts 4509ff.

46 See NU, 113 where he notes his reservations regarding a Möhler comment and writes: ‘this does injustice to nature’ and cf. NU, 153.

47 Other than penance the only sacramental matters which Gladstone notes are in Möhler's section of the Real Presence (sect. 34) which he marks heavily, noting, in particular, where Lutheran and Reformed confessions could be seen as supporting the doctrine (Symbolik, 324, 327).

48 This section is quoted more fully in the 1844 English Review article, 23. Compare: ‘If the divine—the living Christ and his spirit—constitute undoubtedly that which is infallible, and eternally inerrable in the Church; so also the human is unfallible and inerrable in the same way, because the divine without the human has no existence for us: yet the human is not inerrable in itself, but only as the organ, and as the manifestation of the divine.’ (Symbolik, 333).

49 The first three lengthy paragraphs of the section are quoted extensively in the 1844 English Review article, 24–26.

50 On the correspondence between Manning and Gladstone, see my forthcoming edition and Perry, Butler, Gladstone: Church, State and Tractarianism. A Study of His Religious Ideas and Attitudes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

51 Only a few months earlier Manning had published his fourth volume of sermons in which his theology of the Church shows striking parallels to that of Möhler's Unity. Compare Manning's position as described in James Pereiro's essay ‘The Mystical Body of Christ: Manning's Ecclesiology in his late Anglican Period’ in Alan McClelland, V. (ed.) By Whose Authority: Newman, Manning and the Magisterium (Bath: Downside Abbey, 1996), 168–88.Google Scholar

52 Pitts Theology Library, MS 500905mg.

53 Cf. above, n.33.

54 At the same time Manning was writing to Gladstone on Möhler, both were corresponding with a mutual High Church friend, Robert Isaac Wilberforce (1802–1857), who was also much impressed by the German author's early work.

55 National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, MS 3675, 98–101.

56 BL Add. Ms 44248, 99–101; Morley transcript; Lathbury, 355–56 (merged with BL Add. Ms 44248, 102–5); Purcell 1: 570–72.

57 ‘Universitas Hominium or the Unity of History,’ 601. See above n29.

58 See Walter, Kasper, Die Lehre von der Tradition in der Romanischen Schule (Freiburg: Herder, 1962),Google Scholar passim. Note as well Perrone's suggestion to Newman that the latter read Möhler (Lynch, T., ‘The Newman-Perrone Paper in Development, Gregorianum 16 [1935], 402–47; 405).Google Scholar