F. D. MAURICE AND J. MACLEOD CAMPBELL. •
To TH3 EDITOR OF THZ " BPRCTATOR.")
SIR,—I am reading that profoundly interesting book "The Life of Maurice," and in common, I am sure, with all who are well acquainted with the writings of Maurice and those of his friend Mr. Campbell, cannot but share Colonel Maurice's consternation at Campbell's remark, quoted by Principal Shairp, of St. Andrew's, regarding Manrice's estimate of Sin. That anything so perversely untrue to fact as the assertion that Maurice under- valued men's "sense of guilt," or wished men to ignore it as an
irrelevance, should have fallen from so thoughtful a man and profound a theologian as the author of "Campbell on the Atonement," is certainly one of the curiosities of criticism. It is not too much to say that there is not a sermon or lecture that Maurice ever delivered that does not assert or imply—often with the most touching eloquence and earnestness —the precise opposite of. the doctrine attributed to him by Macleod Campbell.
That a single student of Maurice's writings should have thus mistaken his drift on a subject that Underlies all his theological teaching, is strange enough ; but, more strange still, it would appear, from what Colonel Maurice tells us, that Principal Shairp agreed with him, or, at least, was honestly surprised at any exception being taken to his report of Campbell's remark. Perhaps, however, some light may be thrown on this concurrence of view by an extract from Mr. Shairp's Reminiscences of Thomas Erskine,. of Linlathen, the dear and valued friend, it will be remembered, of both Maurice and Campbell. I quote from the "Letters of Thomas Erskine, of Linlathen (1840- 1870)," edition of 1877 (p. 364). Principal Shairp, in these Reminiscences, writes as follows :—
"Arising, perhaps, out of this tendency in Mr. Erskine to be absorbed in one great truth, which he made to overbear all other truths that opposed it, was his belief in the final restitution of all men. This seemed to him to be the only legitimate issue of the Gospel. The conviction that it was so, grew on him latterly, and he expressed it freely. He used to dwell much on those passages in St. Paul's Epistles which seemed to him to favour this cherished belief of his. In one thing, however, Mr. Erskine was altogether unlike most of those who hold the tenets of Universalism. No man I ever knew had a deeper feeling of the exceeding evil of sin, and of the Divine necessity that sin must always be misery. His univer- salistic views did not in any way relax his profound sense of God's abhorrence of sin."
This passage bears in no way upon Macleod Campbell's read- ing of the doctrine of Maurice; but it does throw some light, I conceive, upon Principal Shairp's concurrence with that inter- pretation. It is clear from the passage just quoted that Mr. Shairp supposes the natural and obvious inference from " Uni-
versalism " (though ErSkine is generously excepted from the rule), to be that those who hold that belief think lightly of sin. I cannot, of course, say what precise meaning Mr. Shairp attaches to the word "Universalism ;" but we know the one
single meaning Maurice and Erskine would have sanctioned in
it. They held that sin was so awful and terrible a thing, that for God to condemn a human being to be in a sinful state for ever, is contrary to all that we know of His nature and purposes. I am not here expressing any agreement or disagreement with this view. I only venture to protest against-the quiet assump- tion that earnest thinkers like Mr. Maurice had had their "sense of God's abhorrence of sin" relaxed, because they dared
to "trust the larger hope,"—that no man would be doomed by Ged to an eternity of that sin.—I am, Sir, tirc., ALFRED AINGER.
Previous page
