division; which shows us how, in fact, and not merely in imagination, the charity of God may find its reflex and expression in the charity of man, and the charity of man its substance as well as its fruition in the charity of God. What I have to do in this essay, then, is certainly not to bring forth arguments against those who may impugn this doctrine, but only to show how each portion of that name into which we are baptized answers to some apprehension and anticipation of human beings: how the setting up of one part of the name against another has been the cause of strife, unrighteousness, superstition; why, therefore, the acknowledgment of that name in its fulness and unity, is eternal life.'-pp. 409, 410.

The portion of these essays which has led to the author's exclusion from his professorship in King's College, occupies not more than ten pages in the first edition, and is introduced, apparently, as an after-thought, rather than as belonging to the 'deepest ground the student has been feeling after, and which, when he finds it, proves just as firm a footing for every child and beggar as for him.' For the right understanding of 'eternal death,' we must cite a few lines from a passage on 'eternal life' :-'It (Scripture) teaches us to think of the healthy activity of all our powers and perceptions, and their direction to the right object, as the living state, the torpor of these, or their concentration on themselves, as a state of death.' (pp. 423, 424.)

Referring to the attempts of Unitarians to explain away the words of Scripture which suggest the consideration of eternal death,'-to the number of the most wise, devout, excellent men living now or that have lived in our own church and among the dissenters, who have shrunk from them,'-to the infidelity into which multitudes in both the upper and the lower classes of society have been scared by these words of Scripture,—and to the apparent anxiety of divines,' good and earnest men, to get a much more formal and distinct assertion of everlasting punishment than the older confessions supply, the author proceeds to the fact that the English reformers, having introduced an article upon it into the forty-two which were originally drawn up for the use of the English church, omitted that article in the thirtynine. This fact he contrasts with the conduct of the Evangelical Alliance in framing an article which expressly canonizes the doctrine that appears to afflict the consciences of so many.' The question with him is not whether 'death' is 'eternal' in the same sense in which 'life' is 'eternal;' but what is meant by 'eternal' in both cases: whether death, as the punishment of sin, is everlasting. This Mr. Maurice, as we understand the first edition of his Essay, earnestly denies. He says that it is not protestantism, not Christianity, to affirm 'that the whole body of human creatures who have not yet apprehended Christ as their justifier, and God as their father, pass from hence into a state in which that appre

hension is impossible.' In such a judgment, he says, 'We and not Christ are judging. And our judgment proceeds on this principle, that there is no living relation between Him and the creatures whose nature He took, and for whom He died.'

'We do not want theories of universalism; they are as cold, hard, unsatisfactory, as all other theories. But we want that clear, broad assertion of the divine charity which the Bible makes, and which carries us immeasurably beyond all that we can ask or think. What dreams of ours can reach to the assertion of St. John, that death and hell themselves shall be cast into the lake of fire! I cannot fathom the meaning of such expressions. But they are written; I accept them, and give thanks for them. I feel there is an abyss of death into which

I may sink and be lost. Christ's Gospel reveals an abyss of love below that; I am content to be lost in that I know no more- -but I am sure there is a woe on us, if we do not preach this Gospel, if we do not proclaim the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit-the eternal charity. Whenever we do proclaim that name, I believe we invade the realm of night and eternal death, and open the kingdom of heaven.'— pp. 442, 443.

In a 'Note,' the author adverts to the Athanasian Creed. The purpose of the allusion is to show that he does not consider that creed as 'forcing him to pronounce judgment on any person,' or even tempting him to do so, but that, on the contrary, he feels that it condemns certain moral corruptions from which, he says,' many who are called heretics may be freer than I am;' and that he looks upon that creed as a witness that eternal life is the knowledge of God, and that eternal death is Atheism, the being without Him.' These opinions he had published eleven years ago in his Kingdom of Christ; or, Hints to a Quaker,' and he has not seen any cause to alter them.

The 'Theological Essays' were published in May, 1853. In July, Dr. Jelf, Principal of King's College, wrote to Mr. Maurice, to say that his attention had been called by high authority to the conclusion of the last Essay, as denying the eternity of future punishment. Confessing that the Essay bears that interpretation, or at least seems to throw an atmosphere of doubt on the simple meaning of the word eternal, and to convey a general notion of ultimate salvation for all,' he expresses his anxiety to ascertain the writer's actual meaning. In reply to the principal, Mr. Maurice states that he had distinctly declared his belief in the doctrine of eternal punishment or death, in that sense which seems to be most consistent with the other uses of the word eternal in the New Testament; but not in the sense which is given to it, or seems to be given to it, in many popular discourses and theological treatises; that he repudiates that sense as inconsistent with the Gospel of Christ, with the distinction between time and eternity in which all Christians in some way agree, with the

spirit of our formularies, and with our Lord's own definition of eternal life.' In a letter to a private friend, which he sends to the Principal, Mr. Maurice had, two or three years before, revealed something of the processes of thought through which he had himself passed while endeavouring to arrive at truth. He refuses to 'dogmatise on the duration of future punishment,' because he cannot apply the idea of time to eternity. He refuses also to 'dogmatise on the other side.' He rejects the theory of universal restitution, 'which,' he says, 'in his early days he found so unsatisfactory.' Though he rejects the 'theory,' he believes in 'a restitution of all things, which God, who cannot lie, has promised since the world began.' 'I am obliged to believe that we are living in a restored order. I am sure that restored order will be carried out by the full triumph of God's loving will. How that should take place while any rebellious still remain in the universe, I cannot tell; though it is not for me to say that it is impossible. I do not want to say it. I wish to trust God absolutely, and not to trust in any conclusion of my own understanding at all.'( Grounds, &c., pp. 7, 8.)

In the course of his letters to Dr. Jelf, Mr. Maurice tells him that he dares not 'say that there is some place, or time, or mode in which the resistance of man to God should be effectual, and when the resources of His converting grace shall be exhausted.' "The articles of my church do not make that demand upon me.'

The sentences in the Bible about 'eternal punishment and eternal death,' he explains by the words in our Lord's Prayer. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' (John, xvii. 3.)

The entire controversy between the divinity professor and the principal turns on the two questions, whether the 'notion of duration' is excluded from the word 'eternal;' and whether the professor's last Essay does or does not 'convey a general notion of ultimate salvation for all.' Dr. Jelf analyzes the uses of the word aiwvios in the Greek Testament. From the seventy instances of its occurrence he concludes that 'There are at least fiftyseven passages where the sense of "duration" was required by the subject matter, either as relating to God himself and his glory, or to the happiness of the blessed, which, whatever else it includes, will be admitted by all Christians to include everlasting duration.' (Ib. p. 29.)

That a general notion of ultimate salvation for all' is conveyed in the last Essay, Dr. Jelf maintains, though Mr. Maurice's language, often distinguished for its eloquence and force, can hardly be called remarkable for its perspicuity. The Essay and your letters together, I do not hesitate to affirm, unquestionably hold out the hope that the punishment of wicked, unbelieving, and impenitent sinners, may, after all, not be everlasting. This

hope is set forth with more or less distinctness in more than one part of these writings. I should say, also, that you appear to look upon it as a special part of your mission to inculcate it whenever circumstances may seem to require it.' (Ib. p. 9.)

Passages of the Essay are then quoted from pp. 432, 438, 442, 443, 439, 441, which put it beyond doubt that the 'general notion' is really conveyed by the writer's words. These passages are interspersed with comments for elucidating and supporting the truth of the 'received' view of the subject, which Mr. Maurice repudiates. Dr. Jelf also combats 'the key of the whole system, the assured incompatibility of everlasting punishment with the infinite love of God,' and he contrasts this peremptory way of settling the mystery' with the 'golden words of Bishop Butler': Perhaps divine goodness, with which, if I mistake not, we make very free in our speculations, may not be a bare, single disposition to produce happiness; but a disposition to make the good, the faithful, the honest man happy.'

In reply to Mr. Maurice's argument, from the absence of any dogmatic statement respecting future punishments in the Thirtynine Articles, Dr. Jelf remarks that in the same compendium there is no formal assertion of other fundamental tenets; but that they, as well as the doctrine of the everlasting punishment of the wicked, are 'virtually in the Thirty-nine Articles, inasmuch as the eighth unreservedly accepts the three creeds.' This long letter ends with some grave observations on the practical consequences of Mr. Maurice's teaching on this subject, in the direction of scepticism, immorality, and delusive hope; and on the reverend doctor's own duty as Principal of King's College, Beseeching the Professor to prove to him, if possible, that he has mistaken his meaning, he concludes by saying,-If this, my last appeal, should prove ineffectual, the ultimate decision must pass into other hands than mine.'

The pamphlet on 'The Word Eternal' is in the form of a letter to Dr. Jelf. In this letter Mr. Maurice replies, at length, to that of the Principal in his Grounds.' His main positions, briefly expressed, are, that the Athanasian Creed contains no explanation of the words 'everlasting' and 'eternal,' which are to be understood as meaning there what they mean in Scripture;— that he understands everlasting' as the synonym of eternal,' the former being measured by the latter, not the latter by the former; that several passages making mention of eternal life in the First Epistle of John, i. 2, 3, which Dr. Jelf has set down as referring to the future life of the blessed, actually refer to the present; that 'eternal' describes the quality, not the duration of life;-that as the possession of righteousness, love, truth, constitute eternal blessedness, so wickedness, impenitence, and

unbelief constitute eternal damnation and misery ;-that his doctrine is not opposed to Bishop Butler's, but built upon it;—that he is not a disciple of Origen;-that Origen was not condemned before the fourth century, and is not now condemned 'by our own church;'-that the everlasting torments are not brought home in our sermons to the consciences of particular evil doers -that the gospel proclaims a present emancipation from a present accursed and damnable state;-that he had not resigned his professorship before he published his Essays, because he believed he was doing what it was right for him to do as a Clergyman of the English Church, and, consequently, as a Professor of Divinity in King's College;-that he cannot resign now, because every professor in the college is interested in knowing whether the council demands that he shall assent to certain conclusions of the Principal concerning our formularies, and not to the formularies themselves,' while every clergyman, and tens of thousands of laymen, crave for satisfaction on these points.' In the event of his dismission by the council, he demands from them, as English gentlemen, that they will declare distinctly to the world the grounds on which they dismiss him. And he demands, further, that they shall authorize the publication of this correspondence.

To the second edition of this letter Mr. Maurice prefixes one, dated four days after, which he addressed to the Council of King's College, demurring to the competency of that body as arbiters of the theology of the English Church, and calling on them, if they pronounce theological sentence on him at all, to declare what article of our faith condemns his teaching. After reading this letter, the council decided that they did not think it necessary to enter further into the subject, and declared the two chairs held by me in the college to be vacant.'

In the preface to the second edition of his Essays, Mr. Maurice reiterates his opinion, that our formularies are the best protection we have against all exclusiveness and cruelty of private judgments.' Though it is in the first edition that the judgment of Dr. Jelf and the Council of King's College was based, we observe that in the second edition some passages are altered, and some erased, to remedy alleged obscurity and unnecessary offence, while some are expanded, with a view to further explanation. The Essay on Eternal Life and Death has been re-written, and, instead of eleven pages, extends to thirty-eight.

Our best sympathies are ever with earnest speakers or writers, who aspire to raise men out of the region of mere forms of thought, and traditionary phraseology-which becomes in time a substitute for thinking-to the living principles of truth in their practical power. We believe there is a simple truth in the gospel of God easily apprehended by the humble trusting mind,