character of the Eucharist. We are taught by our Church, in response to the Saviour's Sacrifice, first to desire God's fatherly goodness, "mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," and finally to "offer and present unto Him ourselves, our souls and bodies to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto Him." The sacrificial aspect of the Holy Communion is thus the key to its significance, first as communicating to us the benefits of the Sacrifice of Christ, and secondly as evoking from ourselves an answering sacrifice. Rightly understood, we prize that aspect as of supreme value, and we shall not allow ourselves to be diverted, by the errors and abuses with which it has been overlaid, from asserting and cherishing it.

III

THE TRUE AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH AND PRACTICE

"When He the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth."-John xvi., 13.

A question which seems of great practical

consequence at the present moment is that of the authority by which Christian men, and especially Christian ministers, ought to be guided in matters of faith and worship. It is the common impression of thoughtful observers, especially among men experienced in public affairs, that our Church, at the present moment, exhibits a painful aspect of anarchy; and if that be so, the reason probably is, not merely that there is an anarchical spirit abroad, but that there is no general agreement as to the true standard of authority. Men and women seem to be feeling after some such authority with a dim instinctive craving, and it is their very longing for it that, too often, renders them the victims of the first bold authoritative voice which asserts a claim over them. This constitutes, to a large extent, the strength of the Roman Catholic Church, and of that section of our own Church which so nearly approaches the Roman Church in character. In each case, the alleged authority is that of the Church. In the case of the Romanist, that authority is plain, visible and accessible. The Roman Church is now concentrated in the Pope, and every Bishop or Priest represents

and enforces his authority. For the section of our own Church to which I refer, there is no such visible and definite authority to be appealed to; but none the less, the word "Church," and the supposed authority of what is called "The Church," exercises an almost magical influence. Practices are introduced among us, and enforced as matters of moral obligation, on no other ground than that they have the alleged authority of the Church. Other practices, which have seemed to many good men not merely convenient and harmless, but highly conducive to the maintenance of spiritual life among large and laborious classes, are not only discouraged, but vehemently denounced, on no other ground than the alleged authority of the Church. Above all, a certain system of doctrine, and a certain tone and character of worship, are alleged to be "Catholic," or in a special sense characteristic of "The Catholic Church "; and those who do not adopt this system and these customs are treated as defaulters to a recognised ideal. This ideal of the Church, or of the Catholic Church, assumes an imposing shape in the imagination, and Societies are formed, and

religious newspapers conducted, with the definite object of making this ideal supreme in the English Church.

And yet, let me say at once, there exists no reality, and since early times there has existed none, for which this ideal authority can be claimed. For a period, indeed, which has been limited by the present Margaret Professor at Oxford-no harsh judge on such mattersto about four centuries after Christ, concluding with the year 451 A.D.,' there was a sufficient unity and continuity in the teaching, practice, and government of the Church to render it possible to recognise that that teaching, practice, and government had the marks of Catholicity. Such Catholicity may reasonably be pleaded for the allowance among us of teaching and practice which can be shown to have prevailed within the period in question; and accordingly our great apologist against the Roman Church, Bishop Jewel, was content to stake the cause of our Church on the issue that none of the doctrines and practices he denounced could be vindicated by the authority

1 See Dr. Sanday's Letter in the Report of the Fulham Conference, 1900, p, 40.

"of any old Catholic orator or father, or out of any old general council, or out of the Holy Scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitive Church... for the space of six hundred years after Christ." At the same time, it cannot for a moment be admitted that the rites and ceremonies then prevailing are, by reason of their Catholicity within that period, binding upon ourselves now. Some of the most conspicuous ceremonies then practised, alike at Baptism and at the Lord's Supper, are by general consent disused, and their reintroduction would never be suggested, even by those who are most urgent in asserting the authority of the Catholic church. Many of the early Canons are quite impracticable for enforcement among ourselves; and on some important doctrines, such as the Atonement and the Resurrection of the body, views were put forward, even by Fathers of high authority, which no English theologian of any school in the present day would support. The utmost that can be justly said, respecting doctrines and practices which prevailed at that period, is that there is, primâ facie, a presumption in favour of them. But even