St. Thomas’s Hospital | London | August 15th. 1851.
My dear Dr. Tyndall,
You will readily believe that the intimate conversation we had on the board the steam-boat on the Orwell,1 has not been forgotten by me. Indeed I have ever since purposed renewing the subject with you; but I was loath to commence writing, unless I had leisure quietly to sit down and consider the matter: and thus it has been deferred until now.
Need I tell you, my friend, my reasons for so doing? It is my custom to study the diversified aspects, under which the all-important questions of religion2 present themselves to different inquiring earnest minds, and there are some peculiarities in your case, which I have never met with before, and which I do not precisely understand. If our intercourse should lead to a modification of any of my views so as to bring them nearer to truth, or if it should clear up any of those doubts with which your mind is oppressed, I believe we shall both rejoice, and esteem it very well worth the trouble of writing.
Our experience, you think, is similar; we evidently sympathize in our aspirations; and yet our belief is very different. Your earnest desire to know what is true, your wish to follow whatever is good, your readiness to converse about personal religion even with one who holds such widely different views from yourself, and your fellow-feeling with him in spite of them, – all tend to make me conclude that you must really have experienced that great change3 which we observe not unfrequently in men of all sorts, and which the Bible calls ‘being born again’, ‘new creation’, ‘newness of life’, ‘conversion’. Now this, wherever it exists, is a radical change affecting the motives and the will: it can certainly be produced only ab-extra,4 and is ascribed by such as have felt it to the divine Spirit: no doubt it may take place in persons without much real knowledge, nay in spite of much error. Yet this change (as far as my observation and reading goes) usually takes a definite form, and is brought about by a full perception of certain truths. The poor soul feels (what he merely confessed before) that spiritual things are realities, that he has grievously sinned, and has given the Almighty just cause to be offended; moreover he feels incapable of leaving off sin, nor can he think of God with any complacency. This he feels more or less intensely as the case may be; and in all probability he tries various ineffectual means of obtaining peace of conscience. Then he finds that in the Bible God is represented as not really desirous of the death of the sinner, but that on the contrary He has in the person of Jesus Christ found a way, in which He can be at once just and a justifier. That the holy law having been magnified by the death of Christ as the sinner’s surety, an atonement is already made, and pardon is already procured. The poor soul having been rendered willing to receive gratuitous forgiveness, believes this declaration, accepts salvation, and is happy. Now he seeks to obey the law, because he loves the Lawgiver, and acting from motives of gratitude and affection (aided too by a certain divine influence) he succeeds, more or less completely, in overcoming the evil, and following the good. But my friend, how far do you believe in this atonement – and in the statements of the Bible?
In respect to a revelation from God, I suppose you will agree5 with me that we want it attested by miracles or some sort of superhuman proof; and that when we have found such an accredited revelation our highest wisdom is to put faith in its statements, merely employing our reason to ascertain the exact meaning of the divine declaration. Reason may very well decide where our faith is to be placed, but it cannot decide as to what is the subject matter of revealed truth. The conflicting and unsatisfactory theories of the Hegelian school of theologians might prove this to us, even if it were not almost self-evident a priori.
I have little doubt that the community of sentiments there is between you and me will lead you to second this attempt on my part to reopen to one another the feelings of our souls on these all-important topics. I therefore subscribe myself,
My dear Dr. Tyndall, | Yours most sincerely | J. H. Gladstone.
I take it for granted you are at Queen’s College6 now. I have neither space nor time to add anything scientific7
RI MS JT/1/TYP/1/400–401
LT Transcript Only
the steam-boat on the Orwell: the River Orwell runs through Ipswich. Tyndall and Gladstone spoke during an excursion organised as part of the Ipswich BAAS meeting.
all-important questions of religion: this letter and the subsequent correspondence illustrates how seriously Victorians treated matters of religion.
that great change: Gladstone, who held an evangelical form of Christian belief, alludes here to conversion or being ‘born again’. His letter outlines the central doctrines of evangelical theology.
ab-extra: from outside or from without.
I suppose you will agree: this is one of the many points at which Tyndall disagreed with Gladstone. Tyndall used conventional religious language but invested it with very different, Carlylean meanings. Gladstone, and others, were often slow to recognise the extent of the differences.
Queen’s College: Gladstone misremembered the name of Queenwood College.
I take it … scientific: postscript written on the envelope.
Please cite as “Tyndall0511,” in Ɛpsilon: The John Tyndall Collection accessed on 29 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/tyndall/letters/Tyndall0511