be sure that the persons addressed would go to those works. But as criticisms of this kind may hinder students, and above all young students, from going to the fountain head, and, as in their judgment it is of quite unspeakable importance, to England's religion and England's thought, that such students should do this, they cannot and ought not to keep silence.

A casual expression in one of the ablest and most remarkable books published since his death on the subjects to which he was specially devoted, is a fair specimen of the tone which some of our foremost thinkers on such subjects have allowed themselves in speaking of him, and will serve as well as any to test the worth of such criticism, and the value of Mr. Maurice's teaching. In his "Literature and Dogma,” Mr. Arnold speaks of Maurice as "that pure and devout spirit of whom, however, the truth must at last be said, that in theology he passed his life beating the bush with deep emotion, and never starting the hare." The criticism is, it will be seen, limited to Mr. Maurice's theology; but, as he was always careful to remind his readers and hearers that he “felt as a theologian, thought as a theologian, and wrote as a theologian;" and, as in his last published work he again declares-"all other subjects are to my mind connected with theology, and subordinate

to it," the limitation is of no practical value. As a theologian, then, must he be judged; and if in his theology he is vague or timorous, or uses words in a non-natural sense, it is vain to defend him, and he would not have desired to be defended. Let us see, then, to what the criticism amounts, and what is the quarry which Mr. Maurice was in vain straining all his life to start, but which we presume Mr. Arnold supposes himself to have not only started but run down.

Mr. Arnold gathers into six words his purpose in this remarkable book; "the thing," he says, "is to recast religion." Recognizing the chaotic state of modern thought on the most momentous of all subjects, in the presence of the new forces of criticism and scientific discovery which are being brought to bear upon it, he asks, "is there a substratum, or verifiable basis," of truth which may be made plain to the humblest seeker, and upon which he may found himself and stand firmly " in the revolution which is befalling the religion in which he has been brought up?" It is not necessary to follow the masterly statement, exposition, and argument by which Mr. Arnold arrives at his conclusion that such a verifiable basis exists for himself, or to anticipate what that basis is; but let us note the positions of most value which he

successively seizes as he marches triumphantly towards his goal, and makes sure ground not only under his own feet, but under those of the ordinary Englishman, bewildered by this "revolution befalling the religion in which he has been brought up."

Mr. Arnold holds that the attempt to reduce Christianity to a philosophical system, a metaphysical conception, has brought our English people to the point of rejecting the Bible altogether; and that the "pseudoscience of dogmatic theology" which has resulted from that attempt must be destroyed if the Bible is to regain its power. The perplexed English student will get his first foothold here under Mr. Arnold's guidand will never again be troubled with the notion that a right knowledge of God depends on ability to reason accurately from terms such as "substance," "identity," "causation," "design," &c. For Mr. Arnold's readers the "metaphysical apparatus," as he calls it, will probably have fallen to pieces finally.

ance;

Neither will they require further proof that the revelation contained in the Bible is not dependent on, and cannot be made "solidary" with, the evidence of miracles, or of the fulfilment of prophecy, or even with the reports of Evangelists and Apostles as to the words and deeds of their Master.

More valuable still is Mr. Arnold's exposure of the false antithesis between "natural" and "revealed"

religion, which has been rate since Butler's time.

current in England, at any

The difference between the

two, he holds, is not one of kind, but only of degree; the real antithesis, to "natural" and "revealed " alike, being "invented," "artificial." "A system of theological notions about personality, essence, existence, consubstantiality, is artificial religion, and the proper opposite to 'revealed.'

Had these negative results been all that we get from Mr. Arnold's book, their value would have been very great, coming from such a quarter: but he not only clears the ground of large heaps of tangle and litter, but builds upon his clearance. Conduct or righteousness is three-fourths or more of life," and is "a simple and easy matter so far as knowledge is concerned; the whole difficulty lying, not in seeing true and verifying what righteousness is, but in caring for and attending to it." The religion of Israel, as we have it in the Old Testament, is the declaration or revelation for all time of what righteousness is, and that God is the author of it: the religion of the New Testament reveals to us the method and secret by which alone righteousness is possible for men, that is to say, the "method of Jesus," or

inwardness and sincerity; the "secret of Jesus," or "self-renunciation." Now, men will no longer accept as true what they cannot verify by experience; but, Mr. Arnold insists, thus much they have verified, thus much each man can verify for himself. "Try, and you will find it to be so," Mr. Arnold sums up; "try all the ways to righteousness you can think of, and you will find that no way brings you to it except the way of Jesus; but that this way does bring you to it. And, therefore, as we found we could say to the masses, Attempt to do without Israel's God, that makes for righteousness, and you will find out your mistake!' so we find we can now go on further, and say, 'Attempt to reach righteousness by any way except that of Jesus, and you will find out your mistake!' This is a thing that can prove itself if it is so; and it will prove itself, because it is so."

Of course it is not pretended for a moment that this is an exhaustive statement of the scope of "Literature and Dogma "-(there are a number of other points brought out with exquisite clearness and keenness, such as the historical method of the Bible revelation; the one strain that runs through it all showing that "whoever of nations or men is shipwrecked, is shipwrecked on conduct; " that the faith