of his mental grasp he is like Butler, but in literary accomplishments he bears the mark of the better modern culture, and is greatly Butler's superior. In the early years of his student life, when under Newman's influence, especially his literary influence, his style was much more rhetorical than in later years. But as Newman's influence in this and other respects declined, his style acquired that mental sobriety and solidity, and that increasing lucidity and forcefulness, which so strongly characterize it as an expository style. He had nothing of Newman's brilliancy, productiveness, and facility in turning off work. He was slow, but he was strong in the movement of his thought. He felt his way into the interior of his subject, and he needed time. He went at his work deliberately and with mental poise, and with the tenacity of a true Englishman. He felt within him the movings of power, and with self-reliant, steadfast purpose to make it felt he bided his time. He was not anxious for intellectual domination, as Newman apparently was. He had less of the passion of the advocate. He was willing to let the truth do its own work, when once he had interpreted it and laid bare its moral demands. But he had a But he had a passion for mastering intellectual obstacles. He liked to clear away difficulties that gather about an important problem. He loved the truth because it is truth. He liked indeed the agitation of conflict and liked to carry his point. But he coveted still more the joy of communication and the feeling of strength that comes from conscious mental and moral alliance with the truth. Difficulties only stimulated his purpose. It is said of him that in his early student days he struggled with defective power of expression. He

had a hesitating manner of speaking. There was a struggle of mind with the intractable barrier of language; and he himself expressed gratification that he had failed to enter Rugby, where Dr. Arnold's exacting standard of classical expression would have kept him at a disadvantage. His thought was larger than his vocabulary. His mental activity was ahead of his linguistic. It is said of him that "no man ever started with a less promising outfit of fluency and facility of language, or of the power of readily disentangling and ordering his thought." The issue left no trace of this behind. No one would imagine such a struggle. His speech bears no such scars of battle. He was bent upon the realization of clear, comprehensive, orderly thought, and he was exacting with himself. He was intent upon getting at the heart of all subjects investigated, and this slowness in clearing up a subject and his deliberation and fastidiousness with respect to his diction embarrassed him. But it also rallied him, and it evoked all that was in him. The result was a mastery of thought and an exactness and clearness and strength of speech that are more than an offset for the difficulties he encountered; and one can hardly fail to see that this patient, selfpoised mental habit saved him from one-sidedness and kept the balance of his judgment and made him the safer guide. We see here the immense value of thorough mental training. If Mozley had produced with greater facility, it might have proved, as in the case of Newman it did prove, not a "fatal," but an unfriendly facility. It was here upon this inner battle-ground that he won his mental and moral victories, and the rest followed in due order. Perhaps no preacher of his day showed what

would seem to the ordinary hearer or reader an easier handling of the main thought of the discourse.

II

THE APOLOGETIC AND ETHICAL PREACHER

What can a man like Canon Mozley, a lifelong student, a trained theologian, associating chiefly with scholars, a university teacher and preacher and an Oxford man at that, living largely in the realm of abstract thought, and during most of his life remote from the people, what can such a man do for the untrained hearer or reader? What especially can he do for men who must preach to the uninstructed and untrained socalled common people? Let us see. In discussing some of the salient qualities of Mozley's preaching its helpfulness will perhaps appear.

1. The apologetic note will be recognized at once, even by the most uninstructed reader. It is true that the interest of the advocate is not particularly apparent. It is the ethical rather than the apologetic interest that seems to predominate. But in the background there always lurks the defender of the truth. To him Christianity is truth that has been placed as a sacred deposit in the hands of the church, and it is the preacher's vocation to defend it against attack and to combat the opposing error. His attitude was therefore the necessity of his conception of Christianity and of the church, and this must always be the High churchman's position. Mozley's writings are in general of the apologetic sort. His bent was in that line, his training followed his bent,

Y

pose. In one of his sermons, entitled "The Educating Power of Strong Impressions," there is a very interesting discussion of the educative influence of one mind over another. It is not impossible that he may have had in mind Newman's influence over others, himself included. At any rate, in reading his words, one naturally thinks of his own experiences in connection with Newman. The point he makes is that although subjec tion to such an influence makes a child of a man, yet it is necessary to the development of his manhood, One "may be so much under the influence of an extraordinary and superior being, that it may prevent him, for the time, from finding out his own power," Yet all this may be necessary to one's personal development, "It is only the common truth, and a very familiar truth, of education." Such an one is all the while "collecting the maturity and vigor of a man," This was eminently true of Mozley, It was a wonderfully stimulating atmosphere in which he was placed, and the large and long result was seen in the virility of his intellectual and moral manhood. He was of a controversial turn of mind, and very early disclosed his readiness for discussion or debate, It was the product, not only of a combative temperament, but of his intellectual inquisitiveness, his positiveness of conviction, and interest in and devotion to the truth. One can easily conceive of him as exhibiting in private discussion the mental pugnacity and tenacity of the typical Englishman, but it is interesting to observe that, although, like Canon Liddon, he seems to have an antagonist in mind and is always defending some cherished interest, there is yet in his public 1 # Occasional and Parochial Sermons,” XXI,

discussions and in many of his theological essays an almost entire absence of the polemic temper and method. He gripped his subjects by the roots and his mental movement was strong. It was necessary for him to get at the bottom of things. He always struck for the centre. He must master his subject. This was his life habit. He was, therefore, relatively slow in his movement and developed somewhat late into the maturity of his powers. One can easily imagine the powerful influence Dr. Arnold would have had for so slow but responsive a nature. It is certain that Mozley always had the highest admiration for Arnold, Broad churchman though Arnold was. But he failed to enter Rugby as a student because Arnold had fixed the age limit for entrance at fifteen, which young Mozley had already passed. It is interesting to conjecture what Arnold at that time of intense intellectual activity might have done with such strong timber. It is conceivable that Newman might have found him a formidable antagonist. But as for Mozley, he seems always to have regarded his rejection at Rugby as special good fortune, since he made better head in his studies alone and thus developed his own individuality to better advantage. His brother expresses the opinion that Arnold's exacting standard might have embarrassed one of his slow habit of mind, and that the two men were too much alike in their intellectual independence and fiery and pugnacious temper to get on together. Whatever may be the truth of this, it is clear enough that the two following years of private study were fruitful years.

In 1830, three years before Newman began the Anglican agitation, and three years after he had taken St.