of the kingdom of Christ, formulated in the modern theory of the Church as Societas perfecta. He ends his remarks on the counter-Reformation by expressing a hope that the formal and official theory of the Roman Curia, involving as it does 'the condemnation as abnormal and monstrous of all the dearly bought liberties upon which what is best in modern civilization has been built,' may not be a final result. We can only say, in reference to the very impressive sections which close Dr. Robertson's seventh lecture, that they have a most important bearing upon the projects of reunion which have lately been put forward by distinguished sons of the English Church. To our mind they prove conclusively that in all essential points the attitude of the Roman Church towards 'the rights of conscience, rights of self-government, the freedom of learning and science, the enlarged moral aim of society and the State,' has not been modified to any appreciable extent. It seems strange that the incapacity of the Church of Rome for change should actually be put forward as a valid ground for the renewal by English Churchmen of efforts at rapprochement.?

3

The concluding lecture is mainly devoted to a summary of results. With regard to the Reformation, Dr. Robertson notices that it contributed little or nothing to the conception of the Kingdom of God. The idea of an invisible Church, by whomsoever originated, is little more than a revival of the Augustinian idea of the communio sanctorum. What the Reformers did,' says Dr. Fairbairn, was simply to develop Augustine's position into logical consistency by conceiving the Church through its ultimate constitutive factor, the will of God. So construed, it became the society of the elect, or company of the predestinated, or simply the Church invisible, while the visible was the mixed body who lived in outward profession. But this only showed that the inheritance of Augustine was divided: the Catholics succeeded to his polity, the Reformers to his theology. The anti-Donatist was the father of the visible Church, but the anti-Pelagian the father

1 R. D. p. 347.

* Cp. Spencer Jones, England and the Holy See, pp. 31 foll.
› Christ in Modern Theology, p. 543.

of the invisible.' The Reformed conception of the Church is, in fact, closely bound up with a predestinarian doctrine which is derived from Augustine. This is more evidently the case, however, with Calvin than with Luther, who emphasizes the invisibility of the Church mainly in opposition to the theory that a visible society postulates a visible head. Regarded as a visible body, the Church has certain external marks, namely the due preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments. As Dr. Robertson points out, the definition of the Church in the Augsburg Confession has passed into the English Articles, and is open to the obvious criticism that it is too vague to be satisfactory.

A brief survey is given of the system of Ritschl. Dr. Robertson holds that, in spite of some defective elements, the Ritschlian idea of the Church in its relation to the Kingdom of God is somewhat closely akin to that of Augustine. Ritschl conceives of the Church as 'the Kingdom of God in the making in so far as she is, by her priesthood, faith and life,' progressively realizing the character of an 'ideal moral brotherhood.' But we must pass on at once to gather up the results of Dr. Robertson's elaborate inquiry. What does he conceive to be, on the whole, the teaching of Christian experience in regard to the nature of the Kingdom of God and its relationship to the Church?

He insists, in the first place, that no conception of the Kingdom can be adequate which fails to take account both of the eschatological and the personal element in our Lord's teaching. The Kingdom of God must be sought in the reign of God, which the second Advent is destined to inaugurate. None the less does it imply the actual and present life in human hearts and consciences of Christ Himself. 'The kingdom of God is within you.' But a merely individualistic theory of the kingdom conflicts with the 'irrepressible Christian instinct' that seeks in this world some visible and corporate embodiment of it. The eternal and perfect kingdom of God demands its earthly counterpart in the society of Christ's people on earth.' And here experience yields at least negative results. 'The verdict of history has condemned 1 R. D. p. 358. 2 R. D. p. 365.

1

the attempt to realize the earthly kingdom of Christ in the form of a Church whose organization is omnipotent in the affairs of the world.' History has condemned the attempt in so far as it has shown that 'the system inevitably collides with indispensable moral ideals, and that it falls short of the full grandeur and height of the Christianity of the New Testament.' Of the alternatives so admirably stated by Dr. Robertson, 'righteousness by means of government and government by means of righteousness,' the first is the rudimentary method, indispensable in 'the infancy of civilization'; the latter implies the maturity of character that comes with advancing moral experience. The former is, in fact, the Jewish ideal, the latter the essentially Christian ideal. The Roman Catholic conception of the Church corresponds to the former, 'the latter is the real and fundamental idea of Augustine; it is that of St. Paul and of Christ Himself.' 2

3

To a

So far Dr. Robertson carries his readers with him; nor can there be any question that he is correct in representing the New Testament ideal of moral and spiritual regeneration as resulting from 'free fellowship' in a community. false individualism, not government, but brotherhood, is the true antithesis.' The ideal aim of the Church as the mediatorial instrument through which the Kingdom of God is extended, is to recover and intensify 'her original sense of brotherhood.' But here at once perplexing questions arise. The Church as a unitas fratrum possesses moral and spiritual authority; she requires system and organization. The very fact that she needs such organization may imply a state of imperfection, but the need is there. What, then, is the seat, and what are the limits, of the Church's authority? What is the type of organization that is either essential to corporate well-being or most effective as an instrument of spiritual discipline? It is at this point that Dr. Robertson's guidance fails us, and we are left with the impression that, while the Church on earth is the means and instrument by which the Kingdom of God is extended, it is useless to rely on the experience of history in seeking to determine the form of 2 R. D. p. 281; cp. p. 368.

1 R. D. p. 367.

3 R. D. p. 370.

VOL. LIV.-NO. CVIII.

R. D. p. 371.

Ꮓ

organization or the system by which the Church's work may be most effectually accomplished. We cannot, indeed, be surprised that when schemes of reunion, some of them singularly crude and short-sighted, are in the air, even a writer of Dr. Robertson's eminence should hesitate to touch upon some of the burning questions involved in the very idea of reunion. It is quite possible to recognize, as Dean Church does in his sermon on 'The Episcopate in Christian History,' that Episcopacy has contributed greatly to the keeping up 'the continuity and identity of the Christian society': the idea that 'from first to last it is one'; but, as we have been lately reminded, the absolute necessity of episcopal regimen has been raised even by learned and devout representatives of Anglo-Catholicism.2

On the whole, the germ-thought which strikes us as most likely to be fruitful in Dr. Robertson's lectures is the suggestion that the kingdom of God is conceived of in the Gospels as 'life.' If the unity of the Church be, as Cyril of Alexandria teaches in a memorable passage, a unity of inward life, a life flowing from Christ Himself, it seems to follow that the sacramental system and the ministry of the Church are essential to its diffusion and maintenance. If a unity is to be hoped for 'wh ch shall include all that is lasting and healthy in the diversities of to-day,'' some theory of the Christian ministry must be framed which, while recognizing the due diversity of gifts and operations in our divided Christendom, must do justice to the truth that eternal life is a gift from above, and that, as in the case of the natural life, there must be conditions which safeguard, or which hinder, its transmission. In a word, we must recognize the fact that the teaching of the New Testament connects the idea of unity with the idea of an organized and divinely commissioned ministry, and represents such ministry as a gift from God. The question is, What are the safeguards and conditions of this gift, and by what marks may it be recognized?

1 See Pascal and other Sermons, Serm. iv.

* E.g. Bishop Andrewes. See his letters to Peter du Moulin. R. D. p. 68; cp. pp. 92 foll.

R. D. p. 349.

• In Ioann. lib. xi. c. II.

6 Eph. iv.; 1 Cor. xii.

ART. V. THE EARLY YEARS OF THE
REIGN OF ELIZABETH.

1. History of the Church of England from the Abolition of the Roman Jurisdiction. By R. W. DIXON, D.D. Vols. V. and VI. Elizabeth, 1558-1570. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902.)

2. The Elizabethan Clergy and the Settlement of Religion, 1558-1564. By HENRY GEE, B.D., F.S.A. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898.)

3. The Elizabethan Prayer Book and Ornaments. By HENRY GEE, D.D., F.S.A. (London: Macmillan, 1902.)

THE most crucial period of the history of the English Church, the early years of Elizabeth, have waited long for a historian. An annalist and compiler they had of the best sort in Strype, a cursory treatment by Heylyn, Burnet, Collier, and others; but for well nigh two hundred years little has been done to clear up the difficulties, or even to make use of such new evidence as recent efforts have made available-State Papers, Privy Council Acts, &c. It is a matter of great thankfulness that Dr. Dixon was spared to carry his work down to the year 1570. At one period, after the issue of his Marian volume, those who knew him best would hardly have dared to hope for anything of the sort; but God granted him a further term of activity and work, with the result that his labours are crowned by the issue under Dr. Gee's very competent editorship of the fifth and sixth volumes. They cover the most important era, and the earliest years have had the fullest advantage of Dr. Dixon's final correction. If the treatment of the later years of the period 1567-1570 lacks the same completeness and ripeness, it is a consolation to reflect that they are years of less crucial importance; and in spite of this the two new volumes form a fine crown and coping to the monumentum aere perennius which Dr. Dixon has erected to the glory of the English Church.

The debt which is owed to Dr. Gee by all students of