revealing of God, there must be a revealer. This re- vcaler must be able to manifest forth what is in God, who is the Father iniiversal, and to do this by such means that man may thereby know him as his Father. A mediator between God and man is essential to the satisfying and fulfilling of human wants. Only one who was himself God could adequately unfold the Eternal. And he must do this by manifestation of the divine in and through the human, other\vise man could not apprehend the revelation; the light would continue shining in darkness without being comprehended of the latter. . , . The Father has shown us what he is by an actual man like oiu-selves, who told us that he came forth from the Father, and that he knew him, ... He could reveal God to men because, having been ever with the Father, he had also been near to all men from their beginning, as the Light lightening every man coming into the world. lie was the Eoot, and because he was the Root, he was also the Head of humanity. He could redeem humanity, and he alone could, because it was his own; because he was in some way already one with it; be- cause in its deepest roots the human personality was bound to him. He did not, therefore, first become a Re- deemer when he came to oiu: earth in human form. He could redeem in time, because he had been the Deliverer before his incarnation — because it was his nature to be so." So far so well. There is, however, one great as- pect of the work and mission of Christ which Mr. INIau- rice ignored, that brought the charge of heterodoxy to his door. The necessity of vindicating the authority of a broken law, the obligation from which even God him- self could not escape of only pardoning when justice had been satisfied, and which, therefore, magnified and made honorable the law that man had disowned and the au- thority he had despised, are altogether tossed aside by Mr. Jlaurice. According to him, it is the sin, and not alone, if at all, the penalty of the sin of the world that Christ takes away. The penalty is and must always be borne by those against whom it is di- rected, and cannot be endured by any at second hand. Need we wonder that this view of the atonement ex- posed jNIr. Maurice to much obloquy ? " He transforms the atonement," says the writer already quoted, " into a mere means of reconciling man to God by a process of education. The subjective influence of the sacrifice of Christ — its effects, that is, upon the souls of men, ethi- cally and spiritually — was alone emphasized by him. And whatever benefits may have been wrought by bringing this aspect of the atonement into prominence, obviously it is not the whole scriptural doctrine of sac- rifice, as unfolded in the work in which he seeks to de- duce that from the Scriptures." Fundamentally defec- tive in this one great doctrine of Christianity, there are yet others in which his influence was mauily pernicious, "Grateful to him as we are for the power with which he vindicated that great truth on ^vhich Christianity rests — the incarnation of our Lord — is it not evident that he was apt to resolve this, and with it the whole work of Christ, into the fulfilment of a merely naturalistic or- der? ... He clung to the indefinite, afraid of losing hold of the reality by putting thoughts in the place of things — opinions, theories, and speculations about the real, for true contact with and genuine apprehension (or laying hold and grasping) of it. He would not let go his hold upon reality, which somehow was brought near by being revealed to man; but he was satisfied with the somehoiv." And yet, while there are some points like those mentioned on which we must differ from the teachings of IMr. Jlaurice, we must concede that, in face of a rationalism which menaces the foun- dations of Christianity, Mr. Maurice might well be counted, even by the most orthodox, "a champion of revelation." We do not so much refer to his influence upon those who, accepting his theological teaching in its entirety, may be called his disciples, as to the far more diffused influence exercised by him upon the gen- eral religious thought of England. The very corner-
MAURICE
912
MAURITIUS
stone of this influence lies in his vivid and unfailing ap- prehensiim of the revelation of God in Christ as a pres- ent reality, exactly fitted to accomplish all that the world needs.
Mr.lVIaurice held for many years the professorship of divinity in King's College. The peculiar views advo- cated in his Theological Essays deprived him of this jiosition, and he was thereafter confined to the oilice of chaplain to Lincoln's Inn. In 18G0 the queen, in addi- tion, appointed him incumbent of the district church of Vere Street, Marylebonc, and in 1866 he was hon- ored with a call to the chair of moral philosophy at Cambridge. He died at his residence in London, April 1, 1872, the object of universal admiration. " By not a few he was 'worshipped on this side idolatry,' while by a large number of outsiders he was regarded with atfectionate veneration. These feelings culminated at his death in a display of feeling such as it is given to few to call forth. The unanimity of the testimony borne to his character and work by the many journals, secular and religious, that chronicled his decease, was an index of the general sentiment. It was felt ever\'where that England had lost a veritable hero in the battle for truth, and tlie Church a liright ornament and exemplar of the practical graces of the Christian life."