New-York tribune., 1875-12-11
BRITISH UNBELIEF.
MATTHEW ARNOLD'S REMARKABLE BOOB

THoUGHT-HE DIsCREDrTs THE CHRISTIAN PLAN
OF REDRMPTION-HE CLAIMS TO DE CoSsEKFA-
TIVE AND RELIGIOUS.
IFROM IRE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE rRiBUNE
LONDON, Nov. 25.-It is barely five years since
Mr. Matthew Arnold published his first book on All
ecclesiastical a theological subject, st faui anu
Professionalism" an essay on Puritanlsln ana 'he
Church of England. He had long before that won
distinguished place in literature In turning Ills
attention TO religious matters. he early manifested
something of the same quality which he had SHOWN
i'm other pursuits; the same acuteness ana dellcacy
in criticism, and a certain independence OF anthor
lty which threatened tO'lead him far If applied
with equal fearlessness in n new field. In 1873
appeared Literature and Dogma" which It's author
described AZ an essay toward better apprehension
of the Bible, and which its reviewers. some OF them
angrily denounced as anti Christian and anti-re-
lgious. The spirit of that book is one OF profound
devotion 10 the Bible but this devotion is shown III
a way so different from the orthodox way that the
outcrv against 1t could surprise nobody who has had
any experieuce in polemics. Mr.. AInods own ac-
count of il shows why il was attacked. IL
was written he said later "to restore the use on
the Bible to those and they increasing num-
ber) whom the popular theology, with its proof fro
miracles and the learned theology, with ITS PROOF
from metaphysics, SO dissatisfy and repel that
they are tempted to throw aside tne
Bible altogether" He now rephblishes, under tue
title God and the Bible" series OF articles "hch
have appeared in The Contemporary RcricT as sur
vcv of the objections to Literature and Dogma,
with a Preface which Is new These articles, though
first issucd rs an answer to criticisms previous
book are Just as much a substantive book as tn"t
was Their real purpose is to fortlfy the ground
taken up IN the former. And the purpose Oh the
Preface may be said to be TO dehne Mt AfhoIds
present position with reference 10 the church ana
the popular theology. The position OF such q man
is matter of concern to everybody who cares iOi
the question he discusses. His attitude, his opln-
ions his latest declarations, are necessary 70 De
known before Judgment can be arrived at on 'he
actual condition OF those questions. He is man
who cannot be left out of account, and-to put IL Oh
no higher ground-what he says is news" and as
such, whether we like it OF not, belongs to the
sphere of journalism.
Mr.. Arnold. it NAV he said, has a habit Of putting
more than is usual into Prefaces He has never gone
further than in this one. quoted above his own ac-
count of the object of " Literature and Dogina."
His own account Of the object of God and the
BbeD is given here with equal franI<ness Botn
works have altogether for their objects " to
show the truth and necessity of Christianity ana
its power and charm foFthe heart, mind, and imagn-
alton of man. even though the preternatural, which
is now its popular sanction, should have To De
given up.D The latter half of this sentence
indicates clearly enough why it is that ortho-
doxy will not recognize Mr.. Arnold as an
ally in advancing the purpose stated III
the first half. There is besides that, freedom of
tone in Mr. Arnods handling Of what are called sa-
cred subjects well calculated to shock many worthy
people passage not from the Preface but Irom
the Introduction will show what mean; and show
il all the better because what Mr. ArnOlds enemies
call leyity is here employed not against them but
against men less orthodox than himself lie Will
tolerate no reform built mere dissent nor tainted
with vulgarity. The party Of what he calls pollt-
ca dissent" is hateful to him, and this IS ms account
of the religion and the God particular set 81 men
whom he dislikeS desire according to him, to SET up
The God Of this religion of the future Will he stiil
tn.uifed and nOnnatura man indeed, but by no means
thA ma gniiird and nOnnatula man Ot our rellsOh a
noS current. He may be best conceived, perhaps as
kind of tribal God O the birmingham League. Nol Dy
anV means a Dteu des BonHeS GeaS like the God OF
Bfranger God who iayOrs garrcts, grsctes ayety ana
champagne, but DieU dcS qudGe Lt1ertes the Hoc o
Free Trade Free Church, Free Labor and Free Land,
with new programme therefore ana WIN M bllIIIHilh
for his earthly headquarters instead OF Shlohor Jcru'3
eIn with the old turn still preserved i0r cOhhahd
in- To hcw Agag in pieces and with much even oi the
Ceilings and Mr. Chamberlain dancing before the ark
ant Mr. Dale aud Nj. George Dawson, in the Brniin;-
4
this j. possible, and perhaps not improbable.
This seems to many people irTeverent but il is
certain that Mr.. Arnold does not mean it as irrey
erent. nor mean to offend by il the people Except
the members of the Birmingham Leaguel to whom it
gives oilense. THIS play of humor is not only nat
ural to him-t is ilTepressible None the less is ii
the cause of some part of the acrimony with which
the mention of his name is now received in some
quarters. 1t is from such quarters that the ques-
tiou comes Why NEEDLE with religion at all I, and
MFR. Arnolds answer will not tend To sOOtbe their
susceptibilities. 1.-TWO things" he says in his
Preface, "about the Christian religion must surely
be clear to anybody with eyes IN his head. One
is that men cannot do without it; the other, that
they cannot do with it as ii is" The attempt to do
without 1t in France has produced a revival of
superstition and a clerical reaction. The attempt TO
do without it in England has produced Moody and
Sankey. As to science, Mr.. Arnold believes thai
there is no conflict between science and religion
or as J0ubert says, thai physics and religion have
absolutely nothing to do with each Other-an opinion
supported by the authority of Prof. Tyndall III the
powerful and brilliant preface to his forthcoming
volume. printed in this months FOrtaighHy Rerier.
Those for whom Mr.. Arnold mostly writes will,
however readily agree with him that cannot do
without Christianity in some shape. What they
will seek TO know is what reforms in IT he proposes;
how il is to he dealt with so that the world not
being able to get on with it as ii is, may neyerhe
less get on with it, What Mr.. Arnold proposes Is,
briefly stated. to eliminate all that is legendary, un
scientific, and to use his own word, impossible Or
rather. not to eliminate all this but to take it hence
forth in its true sensethat is in its iiguratiye sense
and not any longer in its literal sense a
tlon of facts actually happening. The first thing
ne dismisses is the story of Adams fall
sooner later. : experience wtdens We must
see that the story is not re must inevitably come
to sav TO ourselves: II II all legend! II never really
haprcned any of W II is no more real history than Tho
Peruvian account OF Nance Capac aud Mama Ocoo. TIE
children of thr sun. For little while. even for a
generation perhaps, man may, after he has begun
Ia doubt the storys truth, still keep himself In the belief
ofit by taking holy water rendering himself stupu
tPascars phrasel but the time comes when he cannot
The story of salyaton by Christ goes wiLh the