a small society for the study of economical subjects in a Christian spirit, they turned to Moore, though not a specialist in the subject, for their president and guide. "Science students who wish to believe have lost their best friend," writes one. "I know," so says a very distinguished witness from across the line of ecclesiastical separation, “how the young men loved him, and how he had helped them to rise above their doubts, and take another and more hopeful view of life." But even stronger are two testimonics-one from one of the most experienced and veteran Churchmen in the University, judging with the independence of a senior; and the other from one of the most eminent of younger scientific writers. The former wrote to a friend :

"Among the men resident in Oxford when 1890 began I know no one who was in my eyes more valuable to the Church or to the University. He was, as it seemed, our Christian philosopher, commanding the respect of good intellects, and capable of entering into many lines of thought, social, political, and theological, and getting a hearing from many kinds of men."

And the latter speaks of

"The extraordinary combination of learning, intellect, kindness, and religion, where each was present in the highest degree. It appeared to me that a nature thus endowed in greatest measure with the greatest attributes of humanity was really, in respect of this combination, the most remarkable man I ever met."

Nor can we withhold the words of a man of

high official position in the University, who spoke of his as "the very best, purest, and most potent influence that I have known in any human friend or helper."

Character and intellectual influence had their share in creating such impressions. And in him the two were singularly alike. In both there was the mixture of strength with tenderness, of a grave and wistful earnestness with a "sweet vein of humour" never far below the surface; of perfect and even retiring modesty with unfaltering firmness. To describe character is almost as futile as to describe features. It must suffice to say that Oxford misses to-day not only one of its strongest minds, but one of its most loveable characters, reflected in a countenance marked by a singular and delicate charm of intellectual and spiritual distinction.

It should be easier to speak of his work, for he had a perfectly distinct and individual place in Oxford and in the Church. He was not an exceptionally learned theologian or original philosopher; but he was felt to be the person who could handle both philosophy and theology with the sureness and ease of an expert, and bring them into mutual contact and illumination. He was not a "scientific man," but he was recognized as the theologian who not only knew a good deal of science, but who saw

scientific fact as scientific men see it, and not with a mere outsider's interest; and therefore, here too, in the dealings of science with religion he could do a friend's justice to both sides, and could speak words to help their mutual intelligence, to disarm prejudice, and to reassure anxiety. This task, to which he was first almost accidentally turned, became perhaps the most special vocation of his life. He came to it partly through his eager love of botany and flowers, by which so many remember him. When he was on the Kentish coast two or three years ago, staying only some three weeks, he sent to the local paper when he left a list of the local flora prepared by his own collecting, and numbering about three hundred kinds. This love of botany gave him an insight into science through one familiar bit. A happy friendship with one of our ablest young biologists, Mr. E. B. Poulton, in the Keble Common Room, was a great help to him in this respect, and the request to read a paper at the Reading Church Congress on "Evolution" embarked him on the course of serious and responsible utterances on these matters, of which the Guardian became the chief channel, and which, as has been said, "lifted a heavy load from many hearts" which had been oppressed by the sound of conflict between God's books of revelation and nature.

But the significance of this piece of his work is not seen unless we realize that it was done so well

because it was done as part of a treatment of the whole speculative problem of religion and philosophy. Many readers of this notice will remember the start of admiration and pleasure with which in the short introduction to "Science and the Faith" they found the evolution teaching fitted into place and interpreted as part of a general and fruitful growth in thought (represented as a change from "mechanical" to "organic" or vital conceptions), and then firmly and quietly limited. In "The Christian Doctrine of God" ("Lux Mundi") Moore was able to set the same thoughts in a wider and more adequate context, to show that present difficulties run up into and illuminate fundamental questions about the Being of God and His relation to the World ("we owe to science," he said, "the rediscovery of the truth of God's immanence in nature"), to claim for Christian revelation a unique part in solving those questions, and to show that in so doing he was in touch with the best traditions of theology. In that essay (pronounced by a severe and unprejudiced judge to be one of the most brilliant he ever read upon such a subject) we realize the value of the large range and many kinds of work which in God's providence Moore had been led to follow up. The philosophical lecturer's familiarity with speculative issues, ¡the theologian's trained intelligence of the real depth of his creed, the ecclesiastical historian's interest

in the phases of alliance between Christian beliefs and the rest of human thought, are all there in full activity. But the power of it comes from the fact that all this material is passed through and fused by a mind which in an eminent degree was always itself, always keenly conscious of the issues of truth, and which with all its delight in dialectic, all its ingenuity and brightness, never treated any piece of knowledge, any subject of debate, without a thoroughness and sense of intellectual responsibility, due to the remembrance that it was part of a whole of truth which influences in every direction the whole of life. It may not be an unprofitable suggestion to any one who wishes to have a lesson in the way in which such a Christian thinker as Moore was realizes this oneness of truth in the departments which we necessarily, but yet shallowly, divide as spiritual, intellectual, etc., that he should read consecutively "The Christian Doctrine of God" and the "Holy Week Addresses." And, whatever the effect upon him, he will hardly regret the suggestion.

But what, we still need to ask, was the characteristic quality of his work-alas! that we must add, his distinctive bequest? We may offer for answer that it was the rare combination in him of the deductive and dogmatic mind with openness to every touch of new thought; a combination in