the successful working of the factory and tenement-house laws.

86

A Great Canadian

The recent elections in the Dominion, the result of which was recently referred to in The Outlook, have placed in power as Premier the Hon. Wilfred Laurier, a FrenchCanadian of great ability and high personal character, whose portrait The Outlook prints this week. In 1887 Mr. Laurier was chosen leader of the Liberal party, and has since discharged the duties of his position with such fidelity, tact, and decision that the victory of his party is largely owing to him. He comes into control of the Government at a time when the influence of a statesman, who enjoys the confidence of French and English speaking Canadians alike, is especially welcome. During the past few years the discussion of political issues in the Dominion has deeply touched racial and religious prejudice, and a personality like that of the new Premier-at once courteous, conciliatory, and commanding-effectually aids the healing and cementing forces whose ascendancy is so desirable. He is the first French-Canadian who has filled this high office since Confederation, but all indications strengthen the hope that he will act in a spirit of devotion to the best ideals of British politics. His past record fully justifies this hope. He has often' declared his firm adherence to the school of British Liberalism, and has eloquently set forth, before more than one great audience, why it is that French-Canada is loyal to Great Britain and why it should continue to be because it was founded on clemency and justice close following the rigors of conquest.

Mr. Laurier was born in 1841 in the city of Quebec. He received his education at L'Assomption College, after which he studied law, and was admitted to the bar in 1865. As a member of the Quebec Legislature from 1871 to 1874 his abilities had only a provincial sphere; but on entering the Dominion Parliament his powers of argument and eloquence speedily gained him a high place. His first speech had widened his reputation from provincial to national, and in 1877 he was given a Cabinet position. He was but a short time in office, the Administration of which he was a member having been defeated in 1878. Working heartily with his party during the long period of opposition which then began, he soon stood so high in admiration and regard that he was looked upon as a probable successor to the leadership; and on the resignation of that position by the Hon. Edward Blake, in 1887, Mr. Laurier was chosen in his place.

As a statesman he cannot, of course, be judged by his administrative record, since the past eighteen years of his life have been passed in opposition; but during the last nine years he has had great difficulties to surmount, acute differences to reconcile, and, more especially, he has had to meet and overcome the presumptions which would naturally bar the way to leadership and popularity in the case of a public man whose native tongue is French, but who aspires to rule a community predominantly English in blood and speech. All this Mr. Laurier has done successfully; the influence he had with his immediate political associates has been increased by his enlarged acquaintance and prestige among the people. During the past few years his political activity has been great; he has addressed very many audiences, some of them in remote parts of the Dominion; and his public utterances have been supplemented by cordial personal intercourse with the people in the various provinces. His presence and manner are agreeable, and they are combined with great firmness of will and quickness

of decision. The aggressiveness, persistence, and sturdy independence which marked his course during the recent campaign showed the sterner elements of character which some of his opponents declared to be lacking in him. Mr. Laurier's political views, as above remarked, are those of the British Liberal school, as nearly as they can be applied to the political conditions of the Dominion. He is a thorough believer in progressive democracy, responsible government, a wide suffrage, the secret ballot, and all the other safeguards of civic life which have produced a wellregulated liberty in the parent State. He does not, as some of his critics have declared, believe that "free trade as they have it in England" is at present a practicable policy for Canada; he is in favor of a moderate revenue tariff, though it is altogether likely that he looks upon the English trade system as a desirable goal.

As a party leader and tactician, his political supporters admit that he has yet to make his first mistake. Many thought that his political career was ruined when the bishops of Quebec issued their mandate enjoining the Roman Catholics of that province to vote against him, on account of his position on the Manitoba school question. Because he favored the conciliation instead of the coercion of that province he was denounced as a traitor to his race and an enemy of the Church; but he remained firm, and the overwhelming majority of his own people declared their faith in him and their resentment of the attitude of the bishops. Through his manliness and courage a new and inspiring chapter in the history of French-Canada has been written. As an orator, unrivaled in the Dominion, and in some respects hardly surpassed on the continent, Mr. Laurier has the rare distinction of having won his laurels in a foreign tongue. As a member of the Quebec Legislature he always addressed the House in French, but since entering the federal arena his parliamentary speeches have generally been made in English. His style is simple, strong, and exquisitely graceful; and he rarely makes an important speech in which the noble elevation of sentiment does not add lustre to the force of argument. His dominant note is fervent patriotism, and his position and influence are a pledge that no sectional or racial jealousy will find the slightest encouragement in the policy of which he is the chief

exponent.

The Gap, and How to Fill It

Our recent suggestions, entitled "A Gap to Fill," have received an encouraging response in the right quarter. That the settlement of time-consuming controversy has now given the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church some leisure and opportunity to consider questions of applied Christianity, for some time now in abeyance, and that these deserve consideration, the "Interior" declares "is true." This grants everything for which we pleaded. Of the proper method of dealing with such questions we said nothing.

We find, however, that our neighbor, agreeing with us that the thing ought to be done, is concerned as to how it

should be done. Says the "Interior:" "How is the Church to deal with these questions? The trouble is that if we open our pulpits to all the problems of civil life we shall invite a swarm of specifics, panaceas, and what in not a very graceful phrase is called 'cranks,' which will bite us, and croak in our ears, to an extent that the situation of a Pharaoh would be enviable. All the principles involved in any or all of these questions are clearly included and defined, and with emphasis expressed, in the Gospel. It appears to us, therefore, that, having as clearly taught them, the Church should only be drawn into applying and enforcing them in emergencies. The straight fight which the Third Church made against the Garfield race company was an example. Abuses and wrongs occurring under any of the specified, or other, particulars may rightly bring a church or a group of churches into the field as active combatants, or rescuers, or reformers, or helpers in any way. But theoretic civics, or sociologies, and empirical exploitation of any kind in the pulpit, we cannot stand them. They would kill us all off."

To this we cordially agree, though with some reservation of judgment as to "theoretic civics," until this term is more clearly defined. The Bible, it seems, does not leave us unprovided with a working theory of Christian civics in what Dr. Mulford calls "The Republic of God." We certainly share the dread of faddists, which is above expressed. We demand that a soft heart should have the help of a hard head. In fact, it seems to us, as to the "Interior," that the sum of the Church's duty, in the treatment of questions to which a truly social Christianity must return a helpful answer, is this: To teach the principles involved in them as clearly as they are taught in the Gospel, and only in concrete cases of actual emergency to take part in a struggle to enforce them.

But it seems to us that the first half of this statement puts forward a duty which, though fundamental, is very imperfectly attended to. If this were properly done, the "gap" to which we pointed would not be long in filling. Surely the Church has not yet dealt with Phariseeism as Christ dealt with it, when so much "tainted money" is now thankfully received by her. Dr. Gladden says, in his book on "Ruling Ideas of the Present Age:" "Men who would certainly be in the penitentiary, if they had their deserts, are flattered and patted by the heads of great educational and religious institutions, and made to feel that they are regarded as the salt of the earth." Dr. Uhlhorn, the learned historian of the charities of the early Church, observes that we are still far behind the primitive evangelic ideas concerning such matters as "calling and property, work and wages."

It strikes us that there is a good deal of subsoil plowing yet to be done. The prevailing conceptions of Christianity, of Christian character, of personal salvation, of the Divine redemption of the world, show the same one-sided individualism which dominates in our economic system. Teaching the social principles involved and emphasized in the Gospel the thing which we agree with the "Interior" in urging—is the thing which the Church is not yet doing with any adequacy. Not that there are not noble exceptions to this neglect, but exceptions they are. The Bible abounds in deliverances which touch the social problems of to-day, but comparatively few seem to know it. "Don't let the study of social questions thrust the Bible aside," wrote a correspondent the other day, in ignorance that the Bible is a mine of instruction for the realization of a Divine society on earth.

For the end in view, we venture this further suggestion : The Church, which has been engrossed with questions of

creed-revision and theological soundness, would do well to give equally attentive consideration to some primary truths of Christian ethics, e.g. This world is the proper subject of redemption; the laws and institutions under which men live need Christianizing as much as the men who live under them. For this purpose political rights and property rights are, in a moral view, the rights of a trusteeship under God. However legalized, they have no moral basis except in the fulfilling of the trusteeship to which they are annexed. The prime question, in view of the world's opportunities, is, Whom and how many can I serve? not, Whom and how many can I get to serve me? These truths lie at the root of all our social problems. If there are any truths pertaining to human salvation which need more constant circulation now, we do not know what they are.

These truths have inevitable corollaries, of which we need say nothing now-corollaries which apply in all directions of social reform. They will suggest themselves to whoever intelligently moves on in these lines. In these lines only can we look for that needed renewal of a right spirit, whose instinct may be trusted, under the tuition of experience, to deal with details and emergencies. Some mistakes will be made. To err is human. But a faithful Church has no option but to go forward on these lines. As to emergencies, and the demand they make upon the Church for a struggle to enforce Christian principles, all that we will add to what the "Interior" has said is, that judgments may differ as to what constitutes an emergency. When, as in more than one recent case, men of flagrantly blemished moral character have been proposed or nominated for high office, it might seem that the defiance thus given to the Christian conscience constitutes more of an emergency than would appear from the lack of protest. In degree as men are imbued with the social principles of Christ their eyes will be opened to see emergencies where once they saw none.

The Commonwealth

The Commonwealth is truly a common wealth, as the industry which makes it possible is truly a common industry. Every man is dependent on his fellow-the highest on the lowest no less than the lowest on the highest. Under Individualism, no less truly than under Socialism, the workers constitute an industrial army; the organization is as real and as complete under the one system as under the other. It is true that some men are overpaid and some underpaid, and sometimes those who contribute to the illth of the community are paid most of all. But all honest and honorable employments contribute something to the general welfare, and no employment is honest or honorable which does not so contribute.

Naked we came into the world, and we are housed, clothed, and fed only as by our industry we provide the necessaries of life, or by the industry of others they are provided for us. Nature does not give us something for nothing. When we ask her for bread, she bids us earn it. Our heavenly Father feeds us, not as the mother feeds the little birds, by putting the food into our open mouths, but by putting brains into our heads and muscles into our bodies, and bidding us get food for ourselves. He puts Adam into the garden to dress and to keep it, and what man gets from his garden depends on the fidelity with which he discharges the trust reposed in him. The raw material must be won by force or blandishment from the reluctant earth; it must be converted from raw material into finished produce; it must be carried from the place

where it has been created to the community in which it is needed, and in that community it must be brought to the individuals who need it, or brought where they can come and find it. Thus agriculture, manufactures, transportation are essential to life.

:

But more than these are essential. The body must be kept in order and put in order when it becomes deranged: there must be physicians. The members of this commonwealth must understand their right relations to each other, and these must be studied, understood, maintained there must be lawyers. The intellectual and esthetic life of man asserts itself and its needs: there must be authors, teachers, musicians, artists. Reverence must be cultivated, love developed, and the moral principles of life elucidated and applied, and the spiritual brotherhood of men expressed in acts both of charity and worship: there must be priests and prophets of the religious life. And these latter-the ministry to mind and spirit-are more necessary under Individualism than under Socialism, because the fraternity is voluntary not compulsory, and the higher relationships are left dependent on the good will of man to his fellow men. They are a part of the spirit, not of the machinery, of life. Finally, there must be homes, where workers will be rested and refreshed for to-morrow's labor, and children will be reared to continue in future generations the tasks began by them. Here wives and mothers will be ministering to life at its very source and fountain, and preparing for the ages after they themselves have gone to their rest. Thus regarded, Society is seen to be as truly an organism under Democracy as under Monarchy, under a free brotherhood as under State Socialism. Every man is the servant of his fellow men, and he is greatest who serves most.

In the human hive are some drones-idle, useless, goodfor-naughts. Whether they be idle rich or idle poor, they are equally good-for-naughts. He who tramps the road in soleless shoes, and he who rides by in coach-andfour, are equally vagabonds, if the spirit and intent is the same-idle pleasure-seeking-though one is called a tramp and the other a tourist. Tramping and traveling are equally legitimate for a summer rest, and equally illegitimate for a life employment. In truth, one may well have pity for the idle poor, but can only have contempt for the idle rich. The idle poor man has had a hard time in life; he has, perhaps, been led to think that the world owes him a living; he has seen his fellows about him working hard and getting little; he has, perhaps, had the same experience himself; possibly the little work he had has. been taken from him, he cannot tell how or why; he has become discouraged; he thinks he has proved that for him industry does not pay; to beg is easier than to work, and the work that he can do is honored by society scarcely more and rewarded rather less than beggary. palliate the offence when such a one sinks into idleness; but there is no such excuse for the idle son of the rich man. He has been born in surroundings which declare to him the profitableness of labor; he has had the advantages of a good education; he possesses wealth, which is itself a power in the industrial world; if he does not need to labor in order to earn his daily bread, Society has great need of his labor in industries which do not produce bread. If such a man is idle-and many such idlers there are-for him there is no excuse; for such idleness there is no palliation. He richly deserves the contempt of all honorable

men.

We may

In the Commonwealth every man is dependent upon his fellow men; every vocation which contributes to the common welfare is honorable; every life which draws something from the common stock and adds nothing to it is

She was a girl of about eighteen, the principal wage-earner in a family of five. She came with a letter of introduction from a city missionary. The story was not uncommon, that of a girl overworked from the moment her strength could be used to benefit her family-first as nurse to the children who followed her quickly into the world; then as a wage-earner, her contribution to the family income enabling the younger children to remain in school longer than she did. There was no idea of martyrdom when she did this, nor when she told of it. It is the common story of the older children in every workingman's family, where there is an appreciation of the value of education. The father died; then the children must all become wageearners at the earliest moment. The oldest child, this girl, became the chief burden-bearer. This last spring she was ill for the first time in her life. "I went to the doctor," she said. He gave me a prescription, and I got the medicine when I could. I didn't seem to get better. Every day it was harder and harder for me to work At last I could not work. I sent my sister in my place. The doctor said I must go in the country. I made arrangements to go, and somehow the boss heard of it, and he laid my sister off. I suppose he thought I was making believe. I did not know what to do. Mamma said, 'Go; we'll get along somehow.' I knew they wouldn't. I went to the doctor and got a note from him, saying I was too sick to work. I sent my brother over to the boss with it, and the boss said my sister could go back. I went to the country and stayed two weeks, and thought I could go back to work. I cannot. I cannot get my breath, and I'm dizzy, and so tired." The tears kept back overflowed, and the girl looked like a child grieved by the puzzle of living. It was such a strange thing-the need of work, the work, and the inability to do it, and yet not a pain; able to walk around and to eat, and yet not able to work. It was all such a tangle. "The doctor says I must have rest. Medicine is no good. I am just tired," and a smile formed about her mouth. It was so ridiculous-too tired to work! How was this case to be met? Every place in Cherry Vale and Elmcote was promised for August if the money came in to meet the expenses. Santa Clara needs so much money that a margin must be kept for that. How could this girl be helped? She must be. Friday morning a letter come from a reader of The Outlook offering a room in her country house for the month of August to a workinggirl. The Outlook Vacation Fund will pay the traveling expenses, and the girl will spend the month of August in the quiet, of a beautiful country home.

The pressure on this fund was never so great. The spirit in which the money is given to The Outlook has been felt, and hundreds who have shrunk, and do shrink, from receiving aid, come to the WorkingGirls' Vacation Society to benefit from this Fund. It is given to recreate life; to increase wage-earning power; to enlarge experience. The daintiness and privacy of the rooms have made it possible for many to use the houses who could not live under other surroundings.

T

HERE are some voices which are impersonal, speaking, as it were, out of the darkness, giving no hint of time or place, and gaining nothing in power or directness by a study of their environment. Such was Thomas à Kempis, whose message comes with equal force to every age. Something of this quality was in Maurice, imparting to his thought a certain enduring appeal, as if he belonged to no particular time or country, or had received no special influence from his surroundings. And yet no man ever lived more deeply in the heart of his generation, and his teaching contains a profound response to the immediate needs of the hour.

The world into which he entered seemed to be losing its hold on God. Among his more eminent contemporaries, Carlyle complained that God was doing nothing; Mill regarded the divine existence as an open question, and Darwin appeared to have lost his religious faculty. It was a world interested in reform, whose watchwords were liberalism and progress, whose programme called for the removal of ancient abuses, under which were included religion and the Church. In the place of these relics of a bygone age, science was offered and the religion of humanity, as if adequate substitutes. Agitations were rife for the improvement of social conditions; but the leaders, for the most part, had ceased to look to God for aid or inspirationit was time at last that men should help themselves. The laboring men, with their grievances, turned away from the Church and the means of grace as if they were empty mockeries. The higher walks of thought and culture were invaded with religious doubt, a mood in which men would fain believe but could not. The negation had gone deeper than in the eighteenth century, when men professed, at least, to believe in natural religion, and when on this ground Bishop Butler had met them with his Analogy. Now natural religion was called in question; it had become the issue whether God existed or the soul of man was immortal. Efforts were not wanting to meet the situation-proposed reconstructions of the Church after antique models which had once been useful, or the presentation of the claims of the Roman Church as somehow strangely adapted to the requirements of the hour.

These were the problems of the age to which Maurice appealed with the conviction that "no man," as he had said of Coleridge, "will ever be of much use to his generation who does not apply himself mainly to the questions which are agitating those who belong to it." It was the burden of his message that God was manifesting himself in the contemporary world of human thought and activity. "The knowledge of God," he wrote, "I regarded as the key to all other knowledge, as that which connected knowledge with life." And again, "The only way to consider philosophy is in connection with the life of the world, and not as a set of merely intellectual speculations and systems." The light of the world was first revealed in life, and life was the light of men.

The preparation of Maurice for his mission as a theologian began in his early years, as a child in the household. His father was a Unitarian minister, with a simple, genial creed whose principal tenet was the fatherhood of God; his mother was a Calvinist, thinking of God as absolute sovereign will without whose decree of election salvation was impossible, and for herself doubting if her name were enrolled among the elect. Maurice was forced by his filial love and respect, no less than by his sympathetic nature, but also by his spiritual insight, to live in the creed

1 Previous articles in this series have been: "What is a Prophet?" by Lyman Abbott (The Outlook for December 14, 1895): The Apostle Paul," by the Rev. George Matheson, D.D. (December 21, 1895); "Clement of Alexandria," by the Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D. (January 4, 1896); "St. Augustine," by the Rev. A. C. McGiffert, D.D. (February 8); "Wycliffe," by Dean Fremantle (March 14); " Martin Luther," by Adolf Harnack (March 28); "John Wesley," by Dean Farrar (April 25); "Jonathan Edwards," by the Rev. A. M. Fairbairn, D.D. (May 30), and "Horace Bushnell," by the Rev. T. T. Munger, D.D. (August 1).

of both his parents, and was thus early called to mediate between religious attitudes that seemed to neutralize each other.

His method of solving the difficulty was a simple one. He insisted that both creeds should be understood as expressing realities or existing relationships, not merely analogies of human reasoning or notions of the mind which it was pleased to entertain. When thus interpreted, the reconciliation followed the absolute Sovereign of the universe, whose will was inflexible, was at the same time the Infinite Father whose love was the inmost essence of his being. If no one could escape from the control of absolute and sovereign Will, so also no one could be excluded from the love of the eternal Father. The range of fatherhood was co-extensive with the energy of the divine will. It expanded before the vision till it included not only the Church but the whole secular world as well. Maurice admitted no distinction between a special and a common grace, for such a distinction was incompatible with the idea of fatherhood. Preterition or reprobation, as defined in the language of the schools, were not fit expressions for describing the economy of the divine will, which was also a father's love. Everywhere it was the same God, call him the infinite Father or the sovereign Will, who condemned the evil and inspired the good. The loving providence or the infinite purpose of existence must therefore be revealed in every sphere of human life, in the Church and in religion, but also in philosophy and literature, in art and science, in politics and in the social order.

But, further, the relationship of God to the world, since it was an actual or real relationship and not a notion begotten by the mind, must still exist apart from and despite its latency to the consciousness. The energizing of the divine will was not dependent upon human acknowledg ment nor limited in its activity by human recognition. The fatherhood of God, embracing in its scope every child of man, was the latent reality which gave significance to baptism or invested with a deeper meaning the process of conversion. If there were danger that the doctrine of the divine fatherhood might be misinterpreted to sanction laxity or indulgence, yet, when conjoined in organic unity with sovereign will, the love of God became the supreme principle of moral law; righteousness was seen as the inmost essence of the loving purpose which has gone forth into creation; the fatherhood which demanded righteousness in the children could grant no relaxation, but must seek and surely find its accomplishment through manifold agencies in life, through chastisement or the bitter agony of experience whether in this world or in another. If the moral purpose of God does not always appear in direct manifestation, yet indirectly it never fails to be revealed in the confusion and misery which await the infringement of the moral law. The existence of evil was the one subject upon which Maurice refused to speculate. But while he did not inquire why sin should have entered the world, he dwelt upon the experience that condemned it—how the Bible, the Church, society, and each individual conscience bore witness to its ravages. He recognized also that the

normal order of the world and the constitution of man were visibly at war with evil, and since the divine love was revealed in the constitution of things and was also identical with sovereign will, evil must at last be overcome and banished from the universe.

It fell to the lot of Maurice to come into close personal contact with almost every variety of religious thought in England; and, by virtue of that mysterious element in his personality which made him from his childhood a mediator in religious differences, he learned to live, as it were, in the divergent forms of the common household of faith, to feed upon the truth they held, so that he could interpret their mission from within their fold. In this way he ac

cepted the doctrine of the "inner light" as held by the Quakers, while clinging also to the necessity of sacraments and outward form as revealed in the spiritual life of organic historic Christendom. He was thrown among the Irvingites and listened to their urgent cry for the living Spirit who once wrought by signs and wonders in the Apostolic age.

But he could not believe that the Spirit's action was shut up to any one form of manifestation or that it had ever been withdrawn from the Church. The Holy Spirit appeared to him as the actually existing bond of every unity, whether domestic or social or ecclesiastical, a spirit which united men by bringing them into the fellowship of the Father and the Son; which spake by the prophets, but also in the conscience and higher reason of every man; who inspired the writers of the sacred books, but a Spirit also without whose constant presence and inspiration no man could think or perform those things that are good. Through his connection with the evangelical churches Maurice learned to identify the gospel of Christ with the proclamation of a message of deliverance from sin and guilt. He remained at heart an Evangelical all his days, but he also widened the range of Christ's redemptive work, till it included all other deliverances, from every form of oppression and tyranny, whether ecclesiastical, political, or social. In all this Maurice may appear as the pioneer in some method unknown before. But one is also impressed with that unbroken chain of spiritual influence by which the generations are bound together, handing on to those who follow the truth which has been received, waiting only till God shall provide the medium, the fitting soil in which the living seed at last shall germinate, take root, and spring upward and bring forth fruit an hundred fold.

In his intellectual development Maurice had the unusual advantage of taking the full course of study at Oxford first, and then at Cambridge. He caught the spirit, the subtle quality of each of the great universities which have stood throughout their history for differing ideals and tendencies in English thought. Cambridge has been the congenial home of spiritual largeness and freedom. There Puritanism found its stronghold in the sixteenth century, to be followed by the liberal school in the English Church of Cudworth, More, and Whichcote. It was at Cambridge that the Evangelical School was nourished, and to Cambridge belongs the honor of ranking Coleridge among its pupils. Oxford, on the other hand, which in the Middle Ages was more closely identified with the scholastic philosophy, has given birth to two great conservative movements, the Anglican revival under Laud in the seventeenth century, and again under Newman and Pusey, of which the tendency in both cases was to idealize or deify the existing institution as against the disintegrating forces of change or revolution. Maurice felt the historical appeal, the sense of historical continuity which Oxford cherishes, but the influence of Cambridge was the stronger. He imbibed there what may be called the spirit of Platonic realism, according to which the eternal idea or pattern of human things is always larger than its embodiment in any human institution and forever calls men to rise to its fuller appreciation. However visionary or impracticable the idea may seem, its deepest ground is invoked in the eternal will. Thus Maurice was led to insist upon the ideal constitution of the Church in Christ its head, as the actual reality, and not a mere spiritual aspiration which could rest in the background of thought. His conception of the Church, which brought him. into conflict with what may be called an Aristotelian realism, divinizing the existing order as if change or improvement were but sacrilege, was throughout his life one of the ruling ideas of Maurice's theology. He preached it to the workingmen, he traced its presence in history, he urged it as the basis of Christian unity, he would have it carried to the heathen world as the solvent of its dark confusion-the brotherhood of human souls, a divine-human fellowship which Christ was the head and leader, the Holy Spirit the bond of inward unity, the fatherhood of God its eternal ground in the infinite and sovereign will.

The man who wrought most powerfully upon Maurice after leaving the university was Coleridge, "the Master," as he has been called, "of those who know." Maurice did

not come into personal contact with him, but the study of his life and his writings reconciled him to the Church of England, of which he became a minister, and, above all, taught him the significance of the doctrine of the Trinity. It was no longer an arithmetical puzzle as it had seemed to the typical mind of the last century, but the comprehensive formula of the Christian faith, which contained the reconciliation of the contradictions of speculative thought about the divine existence as well as the satisfaction of the deeper needs of the spiritual life. In the light of God as one and yet triune, the fellowships and relationships of earth were disclosed as having their ground and justification in the eternal fellowship which existed in the bosom of God. In this conviction the Christian Church had resisted the pressure of the imperial will in the ancient days of its alliance with the Roman Empire-that the Son of God who had assumed humanity in the body of this flesh was one and co-equal with the Father. And again in the strength of this conviction, the barbarism which overcame the Empire had in turn been overcome. It had also been the watchword of Christianity in the struggle with Islam when the seemingly difficult and complex idea of God had triumphed over a seeming simplicity, which was, after all, but an empty abstraction. But its historical interest and significance paled before its spiritual and moral appeal to the individual soul, or to social reformers rejecting the Church and disowning God. For the deep-seated and widespread skepticism of the age was assuming that God existed apart from human life, indifferent to human suffering, enforcing obligations and calling for sacrifices with which in Deity there could be no sympathy, for they were alien to the divine nature. But, in the name of God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, human relationships and duties and obligations of self-sacrifice were taken up, as it were, into God and glorified by his inmost essential life. The divine became the prototype of the human; eternal fatherhood and sonship were the pattern from which the human relationship was derived, and not an analogy inferred from the human family. Sacrifice and suffering entered as an integral factor into the divine life, before it proceeded forth from God as the moral law of the universe. In the incarnation of God in Christ and in the atoning sacrifice on the cross was illustrated the identification of divine with human interests.

So great was the importance which Maurice attached to the doctrine of the triune name that in his book on 66 The Religions of the World " he applied it as the test by which they were to be measured and judged. Confucianism and Mohammedanism could not rise to the truth of the fatherhood of God because they lacked the knowledge of the Son, through whom alone fatherhood could be fully revealed. Brahminism abounded in incarnations of the divine, but they ended in themselves because the knowledge was wanting of the Eternal Father. Buddhism dreamed of an infinite Spirit in which all men shared, but because it did not know the Father and the Son its doctrine of the Spirit was void, as its highest goal was also reduced to Nirvana.

The ample learning which Maurice needed in order to illustrate and enforce the truth which he discerned, he had the opportunity to gain during the years from 1840 to 1853, when he held the professorship of history and litera ture in King's College in London. His books bear witness, and more particularly his "History of Philosophy" and his "Social Morality," to the thoroughness and depth of his acquaintance with systems of thought, or his insight into men and motives, or his power of interpreting literature and life. In these works we may read his appeal to the educated mind of his age. He does not offer new arguments for the divine existence, or endeavor to overcome skepticism by dialectics, but rather makes manifest how God is revealed in all the higher forms of human thought and expression. All history resolved itself before his eyes into a spiritual drama. The world everywhere appeared to him as bearing witness to God, as if it were fed with the life of God and shone with the light of God. But Maurice does not appear in his books or elsewhere in his work as if engaged or preoccupied with the anxious,