anything which tends to prove that God Himself could perpetrate wickedness, or the visit of an angel warrant, to a Christian conscience, the sacrificial murder of a son1.

It is certain that nothing is more apt to be manifestly self-deceiving than the fancies of a man's own brain about himself or his own inspiration. If, then, we are challenged to believe in an Ordination which is merely supernatural on any evidence which could be produced from a man's inner consciousness, we should justly say that all the conditions are conspicuously wanting, which, in respect of such a claim as that, would make even evidence reasonably credible. And if his personal claims should seem to be vindicated by external corroborations, even to a miraculous sign made manifest in the heavens, it is at least an open question, on New Testament principles, whether the whole should not be treated far rather as an inscrutable delusion than as a veritable sign from God.

This thought will, I believe, be further fortified by the considerations which immediately follow. I pass then to the second of the three alternatives, the idea (which forms a large element in the unexpressed thought of many who do not give form to it) that the voice of God's designation to ministry is to be recognized in the act of the appointing Church, but without any limitation whatever in respect of such matters as ministerial succession or sacramental method. The whole is a matter of unfettered and indefinite discretion, on the part of the corporate Church, or some portion thereof. Here is a position which is felt to be eminently plausible. It sounds as if it loyally believed in the Church. It sounds as if it magnified

1 It was in reference to Abraham's obedience in the sacrifice of Isaac that this argument was made by Dr. Mozley an abiding possession of the Christian intellect. See Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, particularly the second Lecture. Perhaps I may be excused for mentioning that, some years ago, I had occasion to discuss (on the basis of this argument of Dr. Mozley's) the abstract proposition 'what God has once done God may at any time do,' in relation to the Levirate law, and the marriageableness of a sister-in-law. The proposition looks axiomatic--but only till it is examined.

the spiritual principle. It seems at first sight to withhold nothing but technicalities, involved and obscure, while conceding to the full everything that could possibly be asked upon the side of what is spiritual or real.

But let us distinguish a little further what, on this view, is held, and what is denied. It is admitted that there must be a sort of setting apart by the act of the Church: but it is not admitted that there are any special instruments in the Church through whom alone she is to act ministerially in setting apart, or any specific sacramental method according to which (through such instruments or otherwise) she is, in dutifulness, compelled to act. Observe then, in the form of this statement, what is really denied. It is a denial, not, as was supposed, of some insignificant or remote details; it is a denial of the ministerial principle itself. The very point of the ministerial principle is this, that whilst it is always the corporate Church which acts through its representative instruments, it is only through instruments, empowered to represent, that the corporate Church does act. To claim, in this case (upon which every possible act, ministerial or sacramental, depends), that the Church may act through any one, any how, is not merely to give up a certain musty ecclesiastical prejudice about the detail of ministerial succession; it is to make all ministry unmeaning everywhere.

It is certainly relevant to urge against such a view that it does not square with the analogy of the relation, in the human body, between the general corporate power and the organs specifically endowed, which was dwelt upon in the last chapter; and the analogy is not without weight, however little, as mere analogy, it can be conclusive. There is also against it a much more formidable weight of presumption from all that has been urged about the ministerial principle, and the sacramental relation between outward and inward in the principles of the theology of the Incarnation, and therefore in the experience of the Church of Christ. But after all it is mainly a question of history.

The true answer to it will lie in an examination of the methods of Ordination to ministry in Christ's Church from the day of Pentecost onwards; an examination which, for the present, it is necessary to defer. If the theory be true as theory, it is on the field of history that it must establish itself. It must show that the supposed necessity of episcopal laying on of hands came in, as an aftergrowth, upon an earlier simplicity. If it cannot make good its place in history during the early centuries of the Church, it is useless to ask us to accept it as theoretically true.

It is impossible at this point to enter seriously upon a discussion which belongs rather to another branch of the subject—the question as to methods of ordaining: but perhaps I may say at once (as this volume does not reach the further subject) that there does not seem to me to be a prima facie case in history for the theory that is before us. It is true that a discussion of methods would have to examine a few cases alleged to show (a) that the ordinary practice of laying on of hands was in some cases varied, at least in respect of its literal detail; and (b) that it was in some instances performed by non-episcopal presbyters1. But for the present purpose it is to be observed that such variations as these, even if they were established, would show indeed that an unexpected latitude had been, in rare cases, allowed in the sacramental administration of Ordination: but they would not tend at all to show that Ordination was regarded as otherwise than a sacramental act; or could be conveyed sacramentally except by instruments ministerially empowered to convey it. Even the claim of Tertullian that every layman is a priest in posse, and may so act in case of necessity (whatever its merits or demerits may be), would not carry us far towards supposing either that, necessity apart, every layman has the same right as a priest to minister in sacred things, or that the distinction which makes one man

1 They are alleged by Dr. Hatch, Bampton Lectures, pp. 133, 134; and discussed by Canon Gore, Appendices B and E of The Church and the Ministry.

'priest' or 'bishop,' and another not, is a distinction which can be conferred, apart from all sacramental method or representative spiritual authority, by the mere designation of lay Church members.

I return, then, to the traditional view as view as to the 'ministerial' transmission of ministry: and I conceive that it is a matter of some importance to emphasize this principle, in its abstract form, as principle, quite apart from, and prior to, any more particular questions, either as to degrees or distinctions of ministry, or as to methods in detail by which ministerial authority is conveyed. It is precisely this which appears to be done in the 23rd of our Articles, and done in exactly right order. The question as to the method of 'Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons' as represented by the Ordinal of the reign of King Edward VI., is not reached till the 36th Article. But long before any reference to the method of the Ordinal-which carries with it the threefold distinction of Order-the principle in the abstract form is correctly laid down. 'It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent (vocatus et missus) to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard.' It is possible that it may be contended-and if so, we need not be greatly concerned to deny that the phraseology of this Article may have been in part determined, not indeed by a desire expressly to endorse (which is not at all probable), but by a certain unwillingness to be explicit in condemning, under the then existing circumstances, the system of the Continental Protestants. But whether there be in the language any such side reference, or no, it is none the less clear that what results is a statement of principle in precise

H

accord with the proportion of truth. It is the principle in the abstract. Those only are duly commissioned who have received commission from such, before them, as were themselves commissioned to commission others.

He

Now while we have the principle before us just in this form, it is desirable to call attention, as emphatically as possible, to the exceeding strength with which it is insisted upon in the letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, written within the first century, which bears the name of St. Clement. It is of course to be understood that we have not yet come, either to distinctions of orders of ministry, or to the question of exact methods of ordaining; but that (whatever there may be to be said about these) ministerial office depends upon orderly transmission from those empowered to transmit the authority to ordain, that is upon a real apostolic succession, is maintained by St. Clement as strongly as it is possible for man to maintain it. The whole passage, from the 37th chapter to the 44th, absolutely depends upon it. appeals to the orderliness of an army, and the absolute necessity of military obedience, for order: 'All cannot be captains or generals, but all are arranged, from the emperor downwards, in a completely articulated hierarchical system. So it is with the body and its members, in the language of St. Paul to the Corinthians. And such must be the unity of the Body of Christ-based upon mutual submission, dependence, subordination. Self-assertion and pride are the characteristics of fools. There is order everywhere-order of place, times, persons-as the sacrifices of old had appointed places and times; and high priest, priests, levites, people, their distinct and co-ordinate offices. Everything, then, and every one in place and order. God sent forth Christ. Christ sent forth His Apostles. The Apostles, from their converts, constituted bishops and deacons. So Moses of old established a graduated hierarchy, and silenced the voice of