Spirit the subject of his Bampton Lectures, could find no other fulfilment than in the gift to the Church of the inspired Scriptures. Yet it appears from his other writings that he really believed in a present and powerful operation of the Spirit.

The party represented by Newman spoke more about the Spirit than the older divines, but this was still on the antiPuritan lines, and tended to confine spiritual operations to outward forms. Newman had described infants just baptised as souls 'bright as the cherubim, as flames of fire rising heavenwards in sacrifice to God.' Hare did not deny a regeneration in baptism, but experience had taught him that the brightness was only momentary, and so soon passed away that in the great majority of cases it was

Like the snowfall in the river

A moment white then gone for ever.

The error he wished to avoid was that which made the work of the Spirit'mechanical,' rather than dynamical, or as a principle of life abiding in the soul.

The year before the sermons on the Comforter, Hare preached before the same University a series of sermons on 'The Victory of Faith.' He set aside a common definition of faith, that it is an intellectual assent to propositions on the ground of testimony. We have been inundated with dissertations on the evidences of Christianity. It has been treated like any other historical fact. Witnesses were sifted and cross-examined, but without regard to the main witness, which is in the heart of the believer himself. The only witness on which a living faith in Christ could be established was left out of sight. The result was not to be wondered at, that the gospel melted away into a system of philosophical morality.

Newman had preached against justification by faith as held by the Reformers, but he proceeded on a misconception of the nature and powers of faith. Luther always insisted that faith was fiducia, trust. It does not belong to the province of reason, though it can always be justified to reason. It is not submission to a blind authority. The word of God finds an

This view of faith corresponded to the doctrine of the Spirit as a dynamical influence. The rational theology, which once prevailed in the Church of England, was the death of religious life. They who craved for the living gospel were fed with husks, and those who held a more vital faith were called fanatics, enthusiasts, but the doctrine they preached was not opposed to reason. The objects of faith are not beyond the reach of reason, but beyond the reach of sight.1

Hare was a great admirer of Luther. He wrote a vindication of him, answering charges made by Newman, Hallam, and Sir William Hamilton, charges which are the common stock of the enemies of Luther. The first was Antinomianism. St Paul had to vindicate himself from the same accusation, and so have many who have proclaimed those heights and depths of Christian truth which are in St Paul's Epistles. It does not seem possible for some persons to see that St Paul does not make void the law, but establishes the law. Passages from Luther are often quoted separated from the context, and it is generally forgotten that the good works which he strongly condemns are the ceremonial works prescribed by the Church. Newman's condemnation of Luther's doctrine of justification by faith, is founded on a misunderstanding of what is meant by faith. With Luther there was no true faith if not followed by good works, that is righteousness of life. Faith is trust in Christ, and cannot abide in those who live after the flesh. Where there is mortal sin, there is no peace, that is such faith as justifies.

The often quoted words of Luther where he says, 'Sin boldly, but still more boldly believe and rejoice in Christ,' are in a letter to Melanchthon. We have not the letter, and do not know the connection which would probably make the passage clear. A clue to it is found in the commentary on the Galatians, where something approaching to it is used to set forth the fulness of grace. The tone and temper of the age encouraged paradoxical expressions, which to us are startling and offensive.

Hare defined his position as distinct from that of the two dogmatic parties in the Church. The one he called. Bibliolaters and the other Ecclesiolaters. The first ascribed

mechanical inspiration to a book, the other much of the same thing to a church. It is the tendency of the carnal mind to attach itself to the letter, the form, the dregs instead of the free living spirit. The promise of Christ's presence was not confined to the clergy, but was to the faithful people in all countries and ages. In the same sermons referring to the Tractarian heresy, he said, 'You would join with me to purge our Church from the remains of the Judaizing superstition which would wrap the free spirit of the Gospel in swathing bands of forms and ceremonies.' The Church was not to be identified with Episcopacy. Hooker was commended for the cautious position which he advocated that Episcopacy was not contrary to Scripture. Christianity was altogether independent of forms of ecclesiastical government. 'In Christ Jesus neither Episcopacy availeth anything nor nonEpiscopacy but a new creature."2 Hare lamented that Baxter, 'one of the wisest and holiest of men the Spirit of God ever purified for the edification of His people,' was lost to the Church, and Wesley, who lifted up his voice to admonish us that the Temple of the Lord is an empty shell unless the Spirit of the Lord be dwelling in it.'3

Professor Maurice even more than Hare was the disciple of Coleridge and Erskine. His theology is often misunderstood, but sometimes light comes upon it with the help of Erskine. In relation to the Tractarian theology it may be said to reject the authority of the Church while attaching great importance to the Church. In relation to the Evangelical party, it may be said to lean more to the internal authority of the Bible than the external, though shrinking from the conclusions of the Bible critics. It saw in Christianity

2 Ibid.

1 Sermon on, 'Lo, I am with you always,' etc. 3 It is interesting to find in Hare's Charges that he advocated many of the changes for which the Tractarian movement has had the credit. He was one of the first to denounce the square pews, to abolish baptismal fees, and fees for bringing the dead into the Church. He also advocated the performance of baptism during the public service. He lamented that the Church had left the manufacturing districts to the Nonconformists, and now that activity had begun to appear it was in connection with Romanising tendencies which astonished him as much as would have done the restoration of the worship of

an unfolding of truth to the soul endowed with capacity to perceive it. It used the Evangelical phraseology, though it often presented what is reckoned the orthodox doctrine in an inverted form. Christianity was found to be what man needs. It was not elaborated out of the human consciousness, but it was adapted to man's condition.

Maurice was the son of a Unitarian minister whose children all left the community in which they were born. He had been baptised by his father who used the formula 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' At the age of twenty-six, not satisfied that baptism by a Unitarian was valid for admission into the Christian Church, he was rebaptised, being led to this, he believed, by the Spirit of God. At Oxford he came partially under the influence of the Tractarians, though never at one with them. His first publication was an anonymous pamphlet called 'Subscription no Bondage' It was a defence of the practice of requiring subscription for matriculation at the University.2 The Articles were regarded not as a test of faith but as a help to education. They were the terms or principles on which the teacher agreed to teach and the learner to be taught. They were not, as some supposed, a test of conformity to the Church of England. They are imposed on those who are already communicants. It was objected that if not a test of membership there is no reason for their being imposed at the University. They are confessions of faith like other confessions, and were intended to be such by the compilers. The answer is that the compilers of these Articles approved and ratified other Confessions, that is the Creeds. The subject matter is the same, but the object is different. Bacon's Novum Organum is of the same kind as the Articles. In each there is a set of dictatorial propositions to warn students against certain alleged superstitions. It is shown from Anthony à Wood that the Articles were primarily intended as instruments of education. They were adopted by the University not to exclude Papists' but to root out Popery

1 By Rusticus, 1835.

2 The title was 'The Practical Advantages offered by the Thirty-Nine Articles as Guides in all Branches of Academical

The

as a heretical pravity from the minds of the people. Articles are imposed on the clergy, not the laity, because there is a stipulation between the clergy and the State as to what the clergy are to teach. This was a result of the Reformation which stirred the national life by its separation from the Roman supremacy. The writer afterwards testified his willingness to sign any petition from either clergymen or laymen for the entire abolition of subscription to Articles of Religion.1

The first work of any importance which Maurice wrote was on the Kingdom of Christ,' or principles, ordinances, and constitution of the Catholic Church, in letters addressed to a member of the Society of Friends. This was a defence of the visible Church, and might have been written by a strong Churchman against the shortcomings of those who had lost the idea of the Church as a visible community. It was assumed that the Quakers had no idea of a Church except as the invisible body of believers, or a particular body assembled in one place. The Quakers through neglect of the sacraments have borne but a feeble ineffective witness to the existence of the spiritual kingdom. In opposition to this it was maintained that God had established a real kingdom in the world. This kingdom was based on principles which cannot be undermined by the inconsistency of those who belong to it. Being based on permanent principles, it must be a permanent institution. It does not seem that this book was ever noticed by any member of the Society of Friends, and the reason probably is that none of them ever understood it as addressed to them.

For Maurice's theology, we must go first to the Theological Essays.' They were addressed to Unitarians. In the Dedication to Tennyson, it was intimated that the theology of the Essays was one which corresponded to the deepest thoughts and feelings of human beings, and this was found to be the theology of the Creeds, the Articles of which most offend Unitarians.' They object to the character of God as set forth in orthodox theology, and set over against it the fact that God is love. The Essays are to show that according to