as a priori. That this (like every conceivable method) is liable to abuse, I have no doubt whatever. I should admit also that the abuse of it is the besetting sin of whatever is artificial or narrow in ecclesiastical professionalism; and therefore that it is in this direction that the temper which is before all things orthodox and dutiful is most characteristically liable, when not perfectly balanced, to be betrayed into mistake. Nevertheless, I must still plead that the reading of history in which great vital facts, like the Incarnate Life, or the nature and meaning of the Church of Christ, are contained, does and must always so essentially depend upon the fundamental convictions of the reader, that for the adequate interpretation of the written history correct mental presuppositions and principles are as indispensable as is a scholarly fidelity to the letter of the text. Spiritual narrative, as well as spiritual philosophy, is for the seeing eye and for the hearing ear; which means that something else is needed. for discernment of their truth than the merely intellectual impartiality of the secular scholar or historian. I do not really need to plead for reading in the light of mental presupposition; for I am convinced that it is impossible to read otherwise: but inasmuch as the whole effect of the reading will depend upon the quality of the presuppositions, whether they be true or whether they be false, I do plead that, instead of being covered up and ignored, or denied, these should themselves be most carefully measured and informed. To read with wholly erroneous presuppositions is (unless they be abandoned) necessarily to end in a

perverse conclusion; whilst so to ignore the place of the presuppositions as to affect to read with none at all—even if all perversity be avoided—is almost to ensure an element, at least, of accident or of paradox in the result.

6

To return, however, to the contents of the following pages. I should like to say that the question of the relation in general between 'inward' and outward,' in this world of body and soul, which I have tried explicitly to raise in the second chapter, appears to me to be the fundamental question of the book. I may have been quite unsuccessful in the attempt to throw any useful light upon this relation; but if so, I would only say the more emphatically, that inasmuch as it is this which certainly, if not obviously, lies at the root of an immense amount of apparent discrepancy of thought upon all sacramental or quasi-sacramental subjects, it is exactly this which in a very special and urgent sense stands in need of true and wise treatment. Perhaps there could hardly be a greater boon than a treatment of this subject which should be philosophically and theologically adequate.

The first part of this volume deals with what appears to be an excessive depreciation of the outward, upon the Protestant side. the Protestant side. The later part deals rather with the counter-tendency, with which Romanism has more and more identified itself, to overstate the outward. The one seems to me so to subordinate, as really to sacrifice, the outward to the inward. The other more and more merges inward in outward. But if outward can have no reality save as outward of an inward, it is no

less true that inward can have no expression, and therefore in this world at least cannot realise itself after all, save in and through outward. The truth is, in this respect, delicately balanced: and neither the one nor the other strikes the balance of truth.

What I have been led to say upon the subject was primarily the outcome of an attempt to criticize such imperfect conceptions as are to be found perhaps at their best in Bishop Lightfoot's essay. But I could not but feel that the principles which had been gradually emerging out of this attempt to criticize an exaggeration upon the side of protestantism, were themselves the very principles upon which to determine the controversies which have more lately developed themselves upon the opposite side. The clue was ready at hand by which to discern between what was true and what was merely formal or distorted in theories as to the reality of Christian priesthood. And certainly anything like insight into the reality of Christian priesthood seemed to carry with itself the real refutation of all Roman attempts to invalidate the priesthood of the Anglican Church. Such attempts have been kaleidoscopic and shifting enough. But below all such surface variations, the true issue, I am convinced, will ultimately turn upon no superficial logic or technical details, but upon the profounder discernment of the answer to the question, 'What does Christian priesthood really mean?'

The main thought of the second (which is the most cardinal) portion of the essay on Priesthood (ch. vii) is of course not new. Striking expression was given to it, some years ago, by the Rev. J. R.

Illingworth. It is worked upon in considerable detail by Dr Milligan. But neither of these writers was using it exactly as the key to the true interpretation of Priesthood. Indeed, it is rather, perhaps, a matter of surprise that there have not been more endeavours than there have to expound the doctrine of priesthood, as a whole, upon what may be called the distinctively Anglican hypothesis, which is also, I believe, the inclusive and balanced truth. Meanwhile, if the exposition of this seventh chapter should commend itself, on its own grounds, to any of those who may read it, I should certainly venture to suggest that (as the Appendix has endeavoured to show) this is also the true standpoint from which to view the various controversies that have been raised both about Anglican priesthood, and about the true basis and standing of Anglicanism.

There is only this further to add: that it is certainly not in any blindness as to their immense inadequacy, in manifold directions, that I have nevertheless convinced myself that I do right, under existing circumstances, in commending these pages to the judgement of the Church; not certainly without abundant cause for misgiving, yet in hope that (with whatever qualifications or corrections) the real effort of their thought will be found to be according to the proportion of the faith,''the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints,'' the faith which is in Christ Jesus'.'

CHRIST CHURCH,

Feast of St Michael and All Angels 1897.

1 Rom. xii. 6; Jude 3; 1 Tim. iii. 13.

d

CONTENTS

PAGE

2

3

CHAPTER I.

THE NATURE OF CHURCH UNITY.

Conceptions of Church ministry are found to be dependent upon conceptions of Church Unity

Is the 'unity' of the Creed a gradual result of secular uniting, or a dominant and necessary principle of religion?

Different ideas or forms of unity-unity of accidental circumstances-unity developing into a practical ideal-unity as a philosophical conception-unity as a theological verity. These are not really antithetical, but combined in the Church: and no one of them is untrue except so far as it is used to deny the truth of the others.

Dr. Hatch's Bampton Lectures. Their apparent effort so to press the lower as to discredit the higher conceptions of unity. Arguments from Hebrews x. 25, Jude 18, Hermas, Barnabas, and Ignatius

What is the real outcome of the passages?

Note upon The Christian Ecclesia' by the Rev. Dr. Hort, late Margaret Professor in the University of Cambridge

CHAPTER II.

THE RELATION BETWEEN INWARD AND OUTWARD.

Is, then, the unity only 'spiritual'? Relation between spirit and body. The apostolic Church corporate and organizedwitness of excommunication-St. Paul's struggle for corporate unity.

It is in proportion to failure that the inner idea and its outward expression are discordant or antithetical. The Church