studied this report of the committee in repeated sessions, and took note:

'I. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.

'2. That in this ordination and those subsequent to it there are found in their fullness those Orthodox and indispensable visible and sensible elements of valid Episcopal Ordination—namely, the Laying-on of Hands and the Epiklesis of the All-Holy Spirit, and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal Ministry.

'3. That the Orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusion and have expressed themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Ordinations.

'4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy being regarded as required in the case of the union of the two Churches.

'5. That expressing this general mind of the Orthodox Church the most Holy Patriarchs at different periods, and other hierarchs of the East, when writing to the Archbishops of the Anglican Church, have been used to address them as "Most Reverend Brother in Christ", thus giving them a brotherly salutation.

'Our Holy Synod, therefore, came to an opinion accepting the validity of the Anglican priesthood, and has decided that its conclusion should be announced to the other Holy Orthodox Churches in order that occasion might be given them also to express their opinion, so that the mind of the Orthodox world on this important question might be

known.

'Accordingly, writing to your well-beloved . . . and informing you of the considerations which, in this question, prevail with us, we have no doubt that your... also having investigated this question with your Holy Synod, will be pleased to communicate the result of your consideration to us, to the end of a further improvement of our relations in regard to union with the Anglican Church: in the hope that the Heavenly Ruler of the Church will supply that which is lacking through His All-Power-Inspiring Grace,

7

and will guide all who believe in Him to a full knowledge of the truth and to full union, in order that there may be of them one flock under One Chief Shepherd-the true Shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be the glory for ever.-Amen.'

LECTURE VIII

NOTE 25. See p. 236

Newman on the Anglican Position. As early as 1837 Newman said, 'It still remains to be tried whether what is called Anglicanism, the religion of Andrewes, Laud, Hammond, Butler, and Wilson, is capable of being professed, acted on, and maintained on a large sphere of action and through a sufficient period, or whether it be a mere modification of Romanism or of popular Protestantism, according as we view it.' Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, p. 21 (Rivington, London, 1837). He then strongly supported the first view. When we remember the frequent accusation directed against the Tractarians that they appealed simply to Antiquity, it is worth noting that Newman in this work expressly repudiates any such notion. He says, 'The mere Protestant, indeed, and the Romanist may use Antiquity. . . . We, on the contrary, consider Antiquity and Catholicity to be the real guides, and the Church their organ organ' (p. 322). The whole passage is important.

NOTE 26. See p. 238

Newman on Transubstantiation. 'People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe; I did not believe the doctrine till I was a Catholic. I had no difficulty in believing it as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part of the original revelation. It is difficult, impossible to imagine, I grant-but how is it difficult to believe? Yet Macaulay thought it so difficult to believe, that he had need of a believer in it of talents as eminent as Sir Thomas More, before he could bring himself to conceive that the Catholics of an enlightened age could resist "the overwhelming force of the argument against it". "Sir Thomas More", he says, "is one of the choice specimens of wisdom and virtue; and the doctrine of transubstantiation is a kind of proof charge. A faith which stands that test, will stand any test." But for myself,

I cannot indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is; but I say, "Why should not it be? What's to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all;"-so much is this the case, that there is a rising school of philosophy now, which considers phenomena to constitute the whole of our knowledge in physics. The Catholic doctrine leaves phenomena alone. It does not say that the phenomena go; on the contrary, it says that they remain: nor does it say that the phenomena are in several places at once. It deals with what no one on earth knows anything about, the material substances themselves.' Apologia, pp. 374-375 (Longman, London, 1864).

NOTE 27. See p. 240

The Return to the traditional Dates of many Books of the New Testament. The most significant, not to say sensational, return to views which placed most of the books of the New Testament well within the first century of the Christian era, occurred in Professor Adolf Harnack's 'Chronologische Tabelle' at the end of the first part of volume ii of his Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius (Leipzig, 1897). Since that time the learned author has adopted even more conservative views, especially as to the date of the Acts of the Apostles.

The following extract from Professor Adolf Jülicher's Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 12 f. (Tübingen, 1906), illustrates the views now held by German' Liberal' theologians of the work of Baur and the older Tübingen school:

Ein grosser Teil der Tübingischen Thesen hat sich als unhaltbar erwiesen. Schon innerhalb der Schule, mit Entschiedenheit zuerst durch Hilgenfeld, wurde erkannt, dass von den Briefen mit paulinischer Etikette aus inneren Gründen I Th., Phl, und Phm. keinem anderen Verfasser zugesprochen werden können als Gal. und Cor., und dass eine Annäherungstendenz ihnen nur aufgedrängt wird. Dass schon äussere Zeugnisse uns hindern, eine grosse Zahl NTlicher Schriften so tief ins 2. Jhdt. herabzurücken, konnte auch auf die Dauer nicht geleugnet werden, was noch wichtiger ist, durch Holsten's Verdienst wird jetzt von den meisten Tübingern zugegeben, dass es nicht angeht, Petrus und die Urapostel überhaupt als die Vorkämpfer des radikalen Judaismus zu betrachten, dass vielmehr Petrus einen im Verhältnis zu den von Paulus

Und

schroff bekämpften judaistischen Agitatoren freieren, milderen, nur eben nicht prinzipiell klaren Standpunkt vertritt, dass auch hier in gewissem Sinne der Gegensatz das Spätere ist, eine relativ weitherzige Einheit das Ursprüngliche. Aber hierbei stossen wir auf die Hauptfehler der Geschichtskonstruktion Baur's. Er überschätzt die Bedeutung des Judaismus in der ältesten Christenheit, weil er mit dem Judentum jener Zeit nicht ausreichend bekannt ist, er übertreibt die antijüdischen Elemente in der Gedankenwelt des Paulus und isoliert diesen, als hätte er allein universalistische Tendenzen vertreten und heidenchristliche Gemeinden gegründet, er behält für die Persönlichkeit Jesu kaum einen Raum übrig. So einseitig paulozentrisch ist seine Auffassung von der Geschichte des Urchristentums orientiert, dass er diese eigentlich von den Anfängen bis tief ins 2. Jhdt. hinein von dem einzigen Interesse an dem durch Paulus angeregten Kampf beherrscht sein lässt, dem Kampf um die Fortdauer des Gesetzes und die Prärogative der Juden, während dieser Kampf doch nur ein geschichtebildender Faktor neben anderen gewesen ist, und zahllose Christen der ersten beiden Generationen nicht bloss kein Verständnis für diesen Streit gehabt, sondern nicht einmal etwas von ihm gewusst haben werden. Es sind ja nicht Gedanken und Grundsätze in erster Linie, von denen eine neue Religion lebt, sondern Stimmungen, Empfindungen, Hoffnungen sind das ausschlaggebende; Baur's Vorstellung von der Entwicklungsgeschichte der apostolischen und nachapostolischen Zeit ist eine zu sehr logisch korrekte und an Farbentönen arme, um wahrscheinlich zu heissen. Trotzdem bleibt es dabei, dass Baur eine neue Epoche der NTlichen Wissenschaft eröffnet hat, schon durch eine Menge von neuen und unangreifbaren Einsichten betreffend Fragen der Einleitung wie der Exegese und NTlichen Theologie, vornehmlich aber dadurch, dass er den Betrieb unsrer Wissenschaft auf eine höhere Stufe gehoben, die subjektivistische Vereinzelung in der Untersuchung beseitigt, die literarkritische Detailarbeit in den Dienst der Geschichte der Ideen genommen hat: seit Baur kann die Literaturgeschichte des NT's nicht mehr ausserhalb des Zusammenhangs mit der Gesamtgeschichte des Christentums, ja der Religion und überhaupt der Menschheit behandelt werden; er hat uns gelehrt, die Bücher des NT's wahrhaft geschichtlich, als Erzeugnisse des religiösen Geistes einer bestimmten Zeit und als Zeugnisse für denselben zu würdigen.'

NOTE 28. See p. 253

The 'Jesus of History'. The following words of Dr. T. B. Strong, Bishop of Ripon, are applicable to all forms of modern Rationalism except those which deny that our Lord had any existence.

'I do not quarrel with the attempt to disentangle the Jesus of History" from the existing records. But I think we have a right to ask that the figure which results should account for the existence of the Church and the development of its thought and practice. I venture to think that this condition is not fulfilled. There is one fact written large over the New Testament as a whole, which is that the new movement in religion, whatever it was, dated from the presence in the world of Jesus Christ. None of those to whom it fell to spread the movement were in the smallest doubt about this. St. Paul was not a man to accept dictation or to conceal his own part in the movement; but, though he tells us nothing new of the life of the Lord, there is no doubt that his whole mind and will are prostrate in abasement before the Lord. The same is true of the other New Testament writers: there is not the slightest vestige of a suggestion that any of them were acting in any other capacity than as servants of His. It is difficult to see how if Christ were merely a prophet of the Second Coming with an "interim ethic", if He were merely a preacher of righteousness and charity, with no message of Salvation, if He had succeeded after His death in convincing His followers of immortality, but did not rise from the graveit is difficult to see how His followers can have held and retained the opinion of Him which they express in their works.... You may study the Apocalypses and the mystery religions and the current philosophy, and show, probably quite truly, how various elements in the doctrine of the New Testament fit on to elements in pre-Christian and nonChristian thought; but this will not explain the figure of Christ-the impression He made upon His followers. What is called the "Jesus of History" will not, I think, displace the Jesus of the New Testament, of the New Testament as a whole and not merely of the Gospels.' The Gospel and the Creed, pp. 10 ff. (Oxford University Press, 1922).