sional papers to the 'Deutsche Zeitschrift' of Berlin, with whose theological position he best agrees.

He is a decided friend of the Evangelical Union, and deplores the confessional and denominational quarrels which have broken out anew in Germany. He has grown old in the successful conflict against infidelity, and dislikes to see the war with the foreign enemy changed into an internal war of brothers. He is convinced, however, as I heard from his own mouth, that the now prevailing high church Lutheranism is merely on the surface, and has no roots in the heart of German Protestantism.

In his most recent productions, on the 'Spirit of the Lutheran Divines of Wittenberg in the Seventeenth Century,' 1852, and "The Academic Life of the Seventeenth Century, with special regant to the Protestant Theological Faculties of Germany,' in two parts, 1853 and 1854, he gives, mostly from manuscript sources, a very interesting and graphic, but by no means favourable picture of the palmy days of orthodox Lutheranism, for the instruction and warning of those contemporaries who would so zealously revive it as the best state of the Church, without considering that it was followed by the apostasy of Rationalism. What, in the name of common decency, shall we think, for instance, of such a redoubted and invincible champion of Lutheran orthodoxy and implacable enemy of Calvinists, Zwinglians, Synoretists, &c., as Abraham Calov, of Wittenberg, who, Tholuck tells us, piously buried not less than five wives and thirteen children, and yet in the seventy-second year of his age, four months after the death of his fifth wife, carried to the altar the daughter of his equally orthodox colleague, Quenstedt!

The works just mentioned are forerunners simply of an extensive History of Rationalism, in which the indefatigable and ever youthful author has been engaged for some years. This, when completed, will be a most valuable contribution to the history of German Protes tantism, if we are to judge from the extent of his preparations, and from the animated sketch of the same subject, which is found in the second volume of his Miscellaneous Essays.

Sermons on Public Worship.*

To two different classes of people it will be quite enough to say that these sermons are from the pen of Mr. Maurice and three other clergymen, who evidently sympathize with the spirit of his teaching. Of these two classes, the one, on becoming aware of this fact, will be anxious to read the volume in the light of those circumstances which

*The Worship of God and Fellowship among Men.' A series of sermons on Public Worship. Preached at Christ Church, St.Marylebone. Cambridge: Macmillan and Co. 1858.

suggested its publication; the other will whisper to themselves the ominous words, 'Neo-Platonism' and 'obscurity,'-and so dismiss the volume from their thoughts. At present we address ourselves to neither of these classes. The former do not need our counsel; the latter would hardly be the better for it. But there is a third class, who may not exactly know what to make of the popular outcry against Mr. Maurice, and who wish to come to some definite conclusion-at once just and charitable-about his teaching. It is possible that such may thank us for introducing to their notice a volume which will repay perusal, and which may at the same time lend them some help towards that definite conclusion at which they are anxious to arrive. We have referred to the word 'Neo-Platonism' as one which is somewhat commonly associated, in the mouth of his opponents, with the name of Mr. Maurice. Now to fight with epithets is the easiest, and at the same time the most cowardly, mode of controversial warfare. It is the trick of Laertes; a man feels conscious that he is hardly a match for his opponent, and so he poisons his foil. And, strange to say, this poison works. The reputation of many a man-sometimes the man himself has been killed by the use of such epithets. It is the part of wisdom to be on our guard against the delusion which lurks in calling names. To be deceived by such a vulgar sophism is beneath a man of thoughtfulness and truth. The mob, heaving and surging around the cross, see in the Crucified Man only the Nazarene;' for the Pharisees and chief priests have coined their epithets well. But the thoughtful centurion recognises the Son of God.

What matters it whether you call a man Nazarene, Neologian, or Neo-Platonist, if you cannot prove that he speaks falsehood? 'Flat Pantheism,' cried John Sterling once, in the heat of debate:-' It is mere Pantheism that!' And suppose it were Pot-theism,' coolly replied his opponent, if the thing is true.' A reply which in our view is very much to the point, as it most effectually recalls the mind of the debater to the real question at issue. This same word 'Pantheism' seems in our day to be quite a favourite poison for the theological weapon. To any one who has a tolerable acquaintance with the writings of Maurice and his friend Kingsley it must be a kind of controversial curiosity to know that the charge of Pantheism has been gravely preferred against both; for if there is one thing which more than another characterises the sermons written by the author of 'The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament,' and the novels written by the author of Phaethon,' it is the continual assertion that we are living under the rule of a Personal God, under the real guidance of a loving Father. The fact is, that the true Fatherhood of God, the real, personal interest which he takes in the welfare of each and all of his children,-is the very keystone of their theology. And if any one should reply to us that there are some dubious sentences in their works which are of Pantheistic import, we would ask the objector to apply his enlightened and somewhat microscopic criticism to St. Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill, or to the fourth chapter of St. John's first Epistle.

The charge of 'Neo-Platonism' is perhaps even more inexcusable; for it has been directly repudiated by Mr. Maurice himself, in one of his latest pamphlets. And Mr. Kingsley has been at some pains, in his lectures on 'Alexandria and its Schools' (pp. 100-105), to point out the great distinction-the 'vast gulf,' as he calls it which lay between the teaching of the early Christian philosophers (with whom he expresses his sympathy), and the doctrines of the Neo-Platonists. It is indeed provoking-and not a little amusing-to find that, in spite of such repudiation and explanation, men will still permit themselves to be frightened by the use of a formidable-looking epithet, which they would at once discover to be a mere scare-crow, had they only the courage to approach near enough to examine it.

Even in the

It is somewhat more difficult to deal with the charge of 'obscurity which is so frequently made in connexion with the theology and style of Mr. Maurice's writings; for the word 'obscurity' is of course a relative term. The intelligibility of any book is limited by two cir cumstances the subject of which it treats, and the capacity of the man who reads it. No one expects a book on the Differential Calculus' to be as universally intelligible as a leading article;' and that, in its turn, may contain many passages which seem obscure to one who understands perfectly every other corner of the newspaper. Mr. Maurice is, distinctively, a theologian and philosopher. We freely admit that his works are not cast in the popular mould. pulpit of Lincoln's-inn chapel, he is the professor lecturing to students, rather than the preacher speaking to the popular mi His sermons are finished productions,-rich with classical historical allusion,-leavened with a truly philosophical spirit, which it requires a cultivated mind to appreciate. We admit further thi there are a few phrases constantly recurring in his works, which it is somewhat hard to understand; yet of these we may remark generally, that they have their warrant in parallel phrases of Scripture. On the other hand, we remind our readers that mere clearness is a very precarious test of truth. The streamlet may be beautifully clear; but it is also shallow, and 'babbles on the pebbles,' as it flows along. The lake may be dark, but it is deep and still, and the moon is perfectly mirrored in its calm depths. Doubtless a man gives us a very clear explanation of geological phenomena, when he tells us that God created the fossils in the strata of the earth, just as we find them. Undoubtedly another man gives us a clear explanation of the death of infants, when he informs us that God treats every new-born child as guilty of the sin of Adam. Assuredly no one can charge a man with obscurity who tells us plainly that as Plato and Socrates never had the gospel preached to them-even by foreshadowing type-they must be in hell now, and must remain for ever in torment. Unques tionably, in this sense, Mr. Maurice is not so clear as Mr. Spurgeon and others.

We have always regarded the novels, but more especially the sermons, of Kingsley, as an adequate refutation of the charge of obscurity which is so often advanced against the theology of Maurice.

We confess, at once, that any, theology must be quite indefensible which, in its great distinctive features, does not appeal to the hearts and consciences of the most ordinary men. We have already admitted that the peculiar gifts of Mr. Maurice qualify him for excellence in the professor's chair rather than in the popular pulpit. But Mr. Kingsley, in his sermons, has shown how the theology which is now identified with the name of his friend, may, in its great leading features, be conveyed in the very simplest language, and applied with power to the hearts and lives of the very humblest men. Let our readers compare the 'Sermons for the Times' with Mr. Mursell's 'Lectures to the Working Classes.' We venture to say that they will find the former just as plain and simple as the latter, even if they may have some doubt as to whether they are equally fitted to elevate the hearts and lives of those who heard them.

The volume of sermons which has suggested these remarks is another instance of the fact which we are noticing, viz., that the spirit of Mr. Maurice's theology may be conveyed in the most simple and homely speech. This was to be expected from the circumstances which suggested their delivery. We quote a few sentences from the preface, which is itself a most characteristic production :

These sermons were not addressed specially to any class. They were, however, suggested by the recent effort to bring the members of the working-class to our churches. That effort will surely be attended with infinite blessings, if it leads us to think of the wants which are common to us all. It may produce mischief, if it nourishes the thought that our poorer brethren are in greater danger than we are of becoming heathens and godless, or that there is more than one way of delivering the rich, the poor, the whole land from that danger.

To use arts of terror or persuasion for the purpose of inducing men of one class or another to care for their souls, would be natural and reasonable if we were not entrusted with a message from God, that he cares more for their souls and bodies than they or we care for them. If that message is committed to us, surely it is our business to deliver it; to set forth the signs and tokens, which God has given, that it is a true message, and that he will make it effectual; to expect more from his revelation of himself than from any brilliancy of speech or wisdom that the most skilful or powerful preacher has attained.'

These are right manful words, somewhat at variance with the spirit of that preaching which is most popular' in our day. The preachers of the sermons before us have a strong conviction that communion with God is the highest blessedness of man. They remember the two commandments on which 'hang all the law and the prophets.' They feel that worship of God and fellowship with men constitute together the sum of religion. And as the spirit of sonship towards God cannot exist apart from the spirit of brotherhood towards man, they believe that the end of all preaching, of all the services and ordinances of the Church, must be to bring men to the true exercise of this spirit of sonship. And so we have before us a series of sermons expository of this belief. They are only six in number; and the following is the order in which they stand:-I. Preaching, a Call to Worship. II. Common Prayer, the Method of Worship. III. Baptism, an Admission to the Privilege of Worship. IV. The Lord's Supper, the most sacred

Bond of Worship. V. The Sabbath Day, the Refreshment of Worship. VI. The Bible, a Revelation of the Beginning and End of Worship. Of these six sermons, the first and last are from the pen of Mr. Maurice. He seems to us, in writing them, to have studied simplicity of language. And he has been successful. These two sermons remind us of the plainness and homeliness of Kingsley. They are intelligible throughout to the most ordinary mind. Yet they are always dignified. Mr. Maurice does not imagine (as some preachers do) that he can make the gospel plainer, or recommend it more strongly to the hearts and consciences of any class of hearers, by adopting a vulgar tone, and telling them that Tom Styles and Billy Ruffin are as welcome to come to Christ as Lord Mutanhed or Sir Diggory Doolittle!' His clearnes is of a somewhat different order from this. Here is a specimen of i He is speaking of St. Paul's simple preaching of the gospel to the Jews and Greeks of his time:

'He could not, as I said before, prove his words to be true. If you are in a fog, and the sun breaks out upon your path, the cleverest man in the world cannot prove that it is the sun. But the sun proves it; the buildings about you prove it; the faces that you look upon prove it. The Jews and Greeks who believed St. Paul had testimonies of the same kind that they were not believing a lie. They had been in a fog; everything in heaven and earth had been dark to them. As the light shone upon their hearts, all the universe became lighted up. They were still in the old places; they had the old persons near them; yet all had become new. The works they were doing, birth, sorrow, death, all became changed, when they confessed Christ who was born of the Virgin; Christ who had been the heir of sorrow; Christ who had died. They found that not sorrow nor death, but separation from the righteous and true God, was the misery of his creatures. They found that Christ had made them one with him, and that sorrow, death, and the sense of their own sins, all drew them to him as their everlasting refuge and home.'-(Pp. 12, 13.)

Such words as these are not the less true and powerful because they appeal to something deeper in a man than his power of appreciating a joke or vulgar antithesis. Mr. Maurice never forgets that he is speaking on the most sacred and profound of all subjects, and that God is himself educating the hearts of his hearers. Speaking of the work of the preacher, in our own day, he says:—

'His work is a very great and terrible one; he ought to devote to it all the powers and knowledge that God has given him. And yet he should think as St. Paul thought, who brought so much greater powers and so much wider know. ledge to his service, that the best preaching is only a simple testimony of what God is; that by itself it is mere foolishness; that it becomes mighty because God takes it as his instrument to save men from ignorance and hatred of him. Holding it to be God's work, not his, the preacher casts down his weak, silly sentences without fear, yea, with undoubting confidence, believing that if he speaks truly, the truth will make itself manifest hereafter, if not now; that if he speaks lies, the lies will be scattered, as all lies must be and shall be at last. He cannot give the least heed to those who tell him that what he is speaking is too deep, too hard for poor folks to take in who have had no schooling. He knows in his inmost soul that it is too deep, too hard for him, till he is brought to feel himself on the level of the most foolish. He knows it is too hard for him, till his conceit is brought down, till he confesses himself a sinner like all other sinners before God. He knows that God is educating other people as he has educated him, by making