It provided that 'as due to the honour of St. Peter, the Roman bishop Julius shall be informed by letter, in order that, under the presidency of a presbyter sent by him, a new trial may be held by bishops of a neighbouring province' (cf. K. von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, Eng. tr., London, 1906, i. 226).

In the 5th cent., Augustine's much abused saying in a sermon (cxxxi. 10), 'Rome has spoken; the case is ended,' had reference to local African controversy, and does not contradict his reiterated adherence to Cyprian's position. For him, Councils as well as bishops were fallible, though venerable, and appeal might be taken as need arose. To give his words an ecumenical application is unhistorical. But the pontificate of Leo the Great enhanced the dignity and power of the Roman See in all eyes. In 445 the Emperor Valentinian gave supreme judicial and legislative power to it over the bishops of Italy and Gaul. Leo's Epistle to Flavian in 449 was the first doctrinal utterance of a pope to be accepted ecumenically; but it did not receive dogmatic force until it had been submitted to the Council of Chalcedon, and examined by the bishops therein assembled, and ratified by thema procedure whose necessity its author acknowledged. But Leo's successors quickly dissipated the authority which his powerful personality and successful enterprise had won. Vigilius in 546 pronounced orthodox the Three Chapters' of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas, which had been accused of Nestorianism; a year later he condemned them, though he had formally anathematized their accusers; later still he reversed his judgment a second time, only to be condemned himself by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, to whose decree he bowed in 554, saying, very sensibly, that it was no disgrace to perceive and recall a previous error. Even more serious was the fate of Honorius I., who in 638, in two public letters to Eastern patriarchs, had endorsed the Monothelite heresy, and after his death was solemnly condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council without any dissentient voice, in presence of the legates of his successor-a sentence which his own successors carried out, expunging his name from the liturgy.

Until the fabrication of the Isidorian decretals nothing more than an episcopal and patriarchal primacy was effectively claimed by the popes or conceded to them: that primacy no one in Church or State seriously disputed. The bishop of Rome could not summon Ecumenical Synods: he had to petition the Emperor to do so. It was not his right to preside over them in person or by legate. Rome was not their usual place of meeting. The Pope's signature was not required as a final formality to validate their decrees. His legislative, administrative, and judicial powers, i.e. his sovereign authority, did not extend beyond his own province; neither Africa nor the East acknowledged it. No counsellor and no arbiter enjoyed the same acceptance or the same influence; but as yet there was no Curia or sovereign Court, no tribute, no granting of sovereign dispensations from the obligations of ecclesiastical law. Of the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose, the power to excommunicate, Rome had no monopoly, either claimed or conceded. But there was a spirit at work which operated steadily in the direction of securing these things. The Sardican canons, the name, prerogative, and throne of Peter, the social influence and appellate counsel of Rome, were steadily turned to increasing account. As the Empire weakened, the papacy found its opportunity and became heir to its secular methods and spirit as well as to its dignity and power. The sixth canon of the First Nicene Council had recog

Italian Church, but had assigned similar rights to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch over their patriarchates; but the local Sardican canons were speedily confused with it in the West, and the resultant claims were advanced by Innocent I. as recognized by the Fathers' and the Synod. At the Council of Ephesus it was affirmed by the Roman legates that Peter lived and judged in the persons of his successors in the Roman throne. Leo I. reiterated the same plea. But the Council of Chalcedon, in its 28th canon, maintained that Rome owed its primacy to the decision of the Fathers in view of the political eminence of the city, and, in spite of Leo's opposition, it recognized Constantinople as a patriarchate of the highest rank, second only to Rome in precedence, and equal to Rome in rights. When Leo declined to recognize that canon, he did not base his action upon any complaint of injury to his own bishopric, or on the lack of his consent, but only on the injustice done to the older patriarchates of the East, especially those of Alexandria and Antioch-the one founded by Mark, Peter's disciple, the other by Peter himself before he went to Rome-and on the alteration of the Nicene canon. When dealing with other than Eastern bishops, he made much of the merit of St. Peter' as a ground of Roman dignity, and strengthened his disciplinary hold upon the West. But nothing demonstrates so clearly the long distance which the papacy had yet to travel, before it reached its final claims, as the rebuke of Gregory the Great addressed formally to the patriarch of Constantinople, who assumed the title of 'Ecumenical Bishop' (lib. v. ep. 18; lib. vii. ep. 33; cf. von Hase, op. cit. i. 225; Salmon, op. cit. p. 423).

'It is with tears that I say that a bishop, whose duty it is to guide others to humility, has himself departed from it. Paul was unwilling to suffer that any one should call himself after him or after Apollos. What art thou prepared to say to Christ, the Head of the universal Church, at the last day, when thou seekest to bring all members of the Church into subjection to thee by means of the title of the universal ruler? This haughty angels. name is a copying of Satan, who also exalted himself above all Far from Christian hearts be that blasphemous title, in which all priests have their honour taken away, while the one foolishly usurps it.'

Gregory did not hesitate to contrast his rival's pretensions with those of St. Peter, who, although first of the Apostles, did not place himself in a superior rank to his brethren-a piece of historic. ally sound pleading which was to prove subsequently embarrassing to the pope's successors.

The subsequent course of the papal development is matter of common knowledge. The decretal forgeries, beginning about the middle of the 9th cent., many of them motived by provincial, not primarily Roman, ambitions, assisted powerfully the extension of the papal primacy into an absolute monarchy combined doctrinal with disciplinary powers, required papal confirmation for the decrees of every Council, and elevated the bishop of Rome into the sovereign bishop, from whose hands all other bishops receive their authority in matters of faith as well as government and order. It was assumed that the extension of papal dignity and authority over bishops would liberate them from secular control and jurisdiction-a policy which survives at the present time in full vigour. But, in liberating the provincial bishops from one yoke, another yoke was imposed. Secular authority was avenged. The bishops found themselves in the grasp of a power once spiritual, now both secular and spiritual. The power from which they shrank in the dioceses laid its firm hand upon them in the Vatican. For a papacy which wielded temporal power as a spiritual prerogative it was impossible to exclude dogma from the sovereign function. The papacy accordingly assumed control of synods

greater and lesser; it alone could convene, accredit, and dissolve them. It assumed the appointment and institution of bishops; dealt with vacant sees; made subjects of princes and kings; and claimed the right to overrule Councils and the teaching of the Fathers. The theocratic achievements of Gregory VII. made it easy for the most extreme views of papal authority to impress the imagination of Christendom as a realizable ideal. He did not hesitate to claim personal sanctity as the successor of Peter, and to make the supernatural holiness of popes the foundation of their absolute power. In Peter' they had power to bind and foose on earth and in heaven.' They were subject to no man's judgment, but answerable alone to God. The forged decretals of Isidore and Gratian were eagerly employed by an age already prepared for them; and in good faith mediaval Schoolmen, like Aquinas, drew from them, and frequently from corrupted texts of conciliar decrees and writings of the great Fathers, materials which confirmed their confidence in papal autocracy. In the 13th cent. the rise of the great monastic Orders, under vows of obedience through their generals to the pope, and exempt from episcopal authority, increased yet further the exaltation of the papal dignity, while the Reunion Council of Florence, 1439, short-lived though its recognition of the Roman primacy proved, revealed the extent to which dignitaries of the Eastern Church were prepared to abate their claims and their rivalry, under pressure of that growing Muhammadan peril which was so soon to cripple them, and leave Rome without an effective rival in the ecclesiastical world. | Unfortunately, however, for the papal regime, access of temporal and spiritual authority brought with it no guarantee of a noble employment of its perilous privileges. Instead there ensued a swift deterioration of the papal personnel, and even more of the curial entourage. At length Christendom was amazed and shocked by the spectacle of rival popes, and disgusted and revolted by the gross luxury and unconcealed immorality of the Vatican. The secularization of the Roman bishopric was responsible for both scandals. Both combined to make the work of reformation not only an urgent and clamant need, but by their notoriety a thing possible for part at least of Europe. In an age of new learning and kindled imagination-an age which explored the Apostolic past as enthusiastically as it thought about the future-the papacy proved incapable of supporting its triple crown. The lofty theory of a working infallibility and a practical autocracy broke down abjectly before the Great Schism and the Great Scandal. With three claimants of the heritage of Hildebrand in power, the common sense and the reserved energies of Christendom asserted themselves in the Reforming Councils of Constance and Basel. Whatever popes in their majesty had asserted, their subject bishops, met in Council and supported by the conscience of the Christian world, dealt sternly with their rival overlords. The Church's necessity knew no refine ment of law. The Council pronounced deposition. The rivals, one after another, submitted. For a brief period the Council came to its own again as a supreme authority in the Church. In its 4th and 5th sessions the Council of Constance decreed that

'every lawfully convoked Ecumenical Council representing the Church derives its authority immediately from Christ, and every one, the Pope included, is subject to it in matters of faith, in the healing of schism, and the reformation of the

Church.'

Without protest, the painfully elaborated doctrine and practice of papal infallibility and monarchy was cut down to modest proportions by a lawfully convoked Council, which appointed the new pope, Martin V., as well as deposed his preVOL. VII.-18

decessor or predecessors, and thus gave practical illustration of conciliar authority. The Council of Constance, indeed, decreed that Councils should meet every ten years. In 1431 the Council of Basel met, and, in spite of dissolution by Eugenius IV., who viewed with misgiving its energetic assertion of the principles of Constance, it persevered with its work and secured the withdrawal of the papal dissolution, the pope acknowledging that the Council had been justified in proceeding, promising to adhere to it with all zeal and devotion' as the holy Ecumenical Council,' and renouncing his claim as pope to the right to suspend or dissolve any Council. Reaction followed, intensified by the natural reluctance of the remnant of the Fathers of Basel to dissolve and to lay aside their power. The very name of Council became a by-word. The opportunity of the papacy returned. Reform had been accomplished neither by Council nor by pope; but the papacy had at least continuity, whereas the Council had none. In 1516, Leo X. issued the bull Pastor Eternus, with the approval of the Fathers of the fifth Lateran Synod, in which he asserted the authority of the pope over general Councils, including the right to convoke, transfer, and dissolve. In the Council of Trent the papal view was powerfully strengthened by the new Jesuit Order, itself built upon the absolutist theory of authority, and dedicated from the first with unquestioning devotion to the service of the mind and will of the sovereign Father. It would have been too much to expect that an Order whose conspicuous talent was prostrated in the cause of the needful counter-reformation before the papal throne would encourage independence either in faith or in morals on the part of the secular clergy. It was inevitable that in the absence of the Reformers, who had no faith in papal infallibility, the restorers of the residual Church should use every instrument in their power to strengthen its disciplinary unity and homogeneity. The lessons of recent centuries were still so freshly impressed upon all minds that a decisive victory was impossible in the Council for either side. National feeling asserted itself in the deliberations, and the bishops were too gravely exercised concerning the condition of the Church to be willing to abdicate their own responsibility. The influence of the Vatican was so strong as to give point to the wit of the French ambassador when he remarked that the Holy Spirit appeared to arrive every Friday from Rome in the mail-bag; but no decree of papal infallibility was then procurable. The Tridentine Catechism is content to affirm that the Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals, without defining the particular organ of that infallibility. But it was significant that the administration and interpretation of the decrees of the Council, with the completion of the ecclesiastical manuals other than the Catechism, were entrusted to the Vatican. In France, Bossuet's Declaration of 1682 represents the attitude of the Gallican clergy towards the papal prerogative. Its four propositions deny the pope's authority in secular affairs, assert its inferiority to that of Councils in accordance with the decrees and action of the Council of Constance, and subject it to the judg ment of the Church (see art. GALLICANISM, vol. vi. p. 161 f.). Not until the alarms and vicissitudes of Pius IX.'s troubled reign did the papal and Jesuit policy of the rigorous centralization of all ecclesiastical authority find its final opportunity. On the eve of the loss of the temporal power, the Vatican Council met to compensate a venerated pope for the withdrawal of a worldly crown by the bestowal of a spiritual (see art. COUNCILS AND SYNODS [Christian], vol. iv. p. 201). Ever since Pius IX., in his own exile from Rome, had turned

.

our

for help to the then proscribed Society of Jesus, his policy had been more and more closely identified with the principles for which that Order had worked and had suffered. His first great experiment in dogma-the proclamation of the Decree on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the bull Ineffabilis Deus, read before a Concourse of Cardinals and Bishops in St. Peter's, in Dec. 1854-acknowledged no other authority than that of our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul and own.' Though it was preceded by a formal epistolary consultation of the individual bishops throughout the Church, the Decree was uttered without conciliar assistance, and, with the long succession of dogmatic judgments which were gathered together to form the Syllabus of Errors, 1864, it signalized the practical advent of a consummated infallibility. Nothing was left for the Vatican Council of 1870 to do but to add the ceremonial form of a conciliar sanction, and to furnish the already operative principle with a definitive form of words. For good or for evil, the vision held out before the eyes of a long line of pontiffs seemed to be realized in accomplished fact. The work of Isidore and Gratian, of Loyola and Lainez, of Cajetan, Bellarmine, and Torquemada, appeared to have been justified. In faith as well as morals and discipline the pope was at last declared, in his own person, as the official teacher of the Christian world, supreme and infallible.

The terms of the Decree and of some portions of its setting, in Manning's rendering, are as follows (Petri Privilegium: Three Pastoral Letters to the Clergy of the Diocese, p. 214 ff.; they occur in the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, chs. iii. and iv.):

'We teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the servation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of

pre

Catholic truth, from which no man can deviate without loss of

faith and of salvation. ... Wherefore they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judg ments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council as to an

authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

Moreover, that the supreme power of teaching is also included in the apostolic primacy, which the Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, possesses over the whole Church, this Holy See has always held, the perpetual practice of the Church confirms, and Ecumenical Councils also have declared, especially those in which the East with the West met in the union of faith and charity.

...

To satisfy this pastoral duty our predecessors ever made unwearied efforts that the salutary doctrine of Christ might be propagated among all the nations of the earth, and with equal care watched that it might be preserved genuine and pure where it had been received. Therefore the Bishops of the whole world, now singly, now assembled in synod, following the long-estab lished custom of Churches, and the form of the ancient rule, sent word to this Apostolic See of those dangers especially which sprang up in matters of faith, that there the losses of faith might be most effectually repaired, where the faith cannot fail. And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and circumstances, sometimes assembling Ecumenical Councils, or asking for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Providence supplied, defined as to be held those things which with the help of God they had recognised as conformable with the Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles. And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed, their apostolic doctrine; knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from alt blemish of error, according to the Divine promise of the Lord our Saviour made to the Prince of His disciples: I have prayed

for thee, that thy faith fail not: and, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren.

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith, was conferred

by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the heavenly doctrine; that, the occasion of schism being removed, poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its founda. tion, might stand firm against the gates of hell. the apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only. begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme

But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of

pastoral office.

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church; by the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions from the consent of the Church.

of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not

But if any one-which may God avert-presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema.'

It is not necessary to enter into a detailed discussion of the somewhat painful features of the process through which this definition came to light, and of the policy which issued in this long-desired result. Nothing would be easier for a future Council more representative of ecumenical Christianity than on technical grounds to pronounce the Vatican Council no true and Ecumenical Council, e.g. because of its lack of freedom and autonomy in debate, in conference, and in final vote, or because of papal interference and dictation, or because of its lack of voluntary unanimity. The result is not a Decree of a Council, but a Decree of the pope, with the approval or submission of the Council. The papal correspondence with the bishops of the Church had tested their attitude beforehand, and confronted each as an individual with the prospective displeasure of the Vatican as an inevitable consequence of dissent from the policy of their venerable Head. Eminent theologians, like Döllinger and Newman, known to be hostile, were not officially invited to attend. Eminent prelates of the same mind who had to be invited ex officio were harassed throughout the proceedings by papal remonstrances. The proceedings Lord Acton's account in the North British Review, were anything but reassuring to contemplate (cf. liii. [1871], art. The Vatican Council'). But, while it is true that learning and ecclesiastical statecraft were in irreconcilable opposition, the opponents of the dogma were in an impossible position from the first. For 'Decrees' are essentially matters of statecraft, not of learning, science, or philosophy, and are proverbially fashioned with reference to expediency and opportunism, not with reference to truth. The ground on which alone they dared or desired to fight the issue out was that the Decree, though true, would be untimely. They were Inopportunists, whose intense feeling in debate and in controversy threw grave doubt upon the genuineness of their faith in the doctrine itself. Probably the failure both of pope and of Council to trust the divine illumination and guidance in serious and free deliberation and conference was never more distressingly displayed. For purposes of dogma, for ex cathedra utterance, the majority were entitled to brush aside questions of mere timeliness. They knew their own mind; they knew the mind of their beloved and compassionated pope; they were smarting under an acute sense of injustice and humiliation inflicted upon him and upon the Church by the times; they

.

dogma has no difficulty in exposing this danger, and in espousing the legitimate cause of the threatened State. But in the statesman for once he forgot or sank the churchman, and his argument is open to the retort that the Church has the same need for autonomy, the same right to legislate for itself with sovereign authority, as the State. By all the principles which fence about the jurisdiction of the Crown, the tiara may equally be guarded by its cassocked defenders. With no consistency can civil power reproach ecclesiastical power for copying its own methods and invoking the same instruments of order. The churchman is subject to no temptation whose counterpart the statesman has not to encounter; his fault is the greater because the King of his allegiance sanctioned no coercive discipline, deprecated precedence and titular dignity, and authorized no legislative apparatus to pass laws for human faith and conscience. Short of the complete renunciation of the life-long tradition and policy of Rome, it is difficult to see how the Roman Catholic Church could have laid aside the manifestly unworkable and unmanageable instrument of world-wide Councils either for the determination of doctrine or for the exercise of discipline, without vesting in the papacy the right and duty of using all proper means of consultation, learning, and prayer to ascertain the will of God by His Spirit for the instruction and edification of the flock entrusted to its charge. There is no need to vindicate this faith in divine providence by appealing, with an old-time Jesuit professor and theologian of Mainz, to OT Scripture and urging that a thoroughly ignorant Pope may very well be infallible, for God has before now pointed out the right path by the mouth of a speaking ass.' Trusting the Church, trusting the Episcopate, and trusting the 'assisted' head of the Church on earth are co-ordinate duties for the Roman Catholic mind. They rest on the same order of faith in the Holy Spirit which animates every individual Christian, and they are subject to the same order of limitations. But it will not fail to impress the reflective student of history as a singular fact that in the cycle of its progress the Church which condemns private or personal judgment in things of faith should now anathematize those who distrust the personal or individual judgment of popes apart from the consent of the Church.' Even Rome cannot evade the awkward circumstance that, after all, our acceptance of the pope as in any character and capacity infallible depends in the last resort upon an exercise of individual conscience and private judgment. How otherwise,' wrote Mivart to Cardinal Vaughan in 1900, could we know that authority had spoken at all, or what it had said?' Before the soul has any right to fling itself into arms extended to receive it in its quest of truth and peace, it must first convince itself that the arms are everlasting and that the proffered bosom is divine. If even popes have justified the withdrawal of their pledges by reason of their having been extorted under fear, is the individual faith which is yielded on pain of spiritual anathema to be accounted any whit more valid? Most readers of the history and proceedings of the Vatican Council, and, for that matter, of the Tridentine Council also, will rise from their occupation with a profound sense of the soundness of the papal conviction that ecumenical Councils are not to be trusted any longer, if they ever were, that the spirit guiding them is not infallibly holy, that they are subject to a multitude of infirmities inherent in their nature. But it is not every reader who will be guided by these histories to the further conclusion that the Sacred Breath which has been

༔

withdrawn from the Chamber of Council is now both assured and restricted to the apartments of the Vatican.

5. Infallibility of Jesus Christ and His Spirit.— It was indicated above that, while Scripture has been authoritative for all types of Christian faith, the infallibility it possesses for them resides, even within the Gospels, in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible is for Christianity the record of a Life and its setting.

(1) Objectively, Jesus Christ is the authority which lends it its unique impressiveness. His life, His teaching, His character, His person, and His attested influence upon the world around Him constitute a fact of history to which the human heart and mind go back again and again, to test it and anon to bow before it. System follows system of doctrine, mode succeeds mode of piety and devotion, but Jesus Christ, learned from history and tried by experience, remains the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Other foundation can no man lay. Back to Him, down to Him, up to Him, are the watchwords of reviving faith. Age after age rediscovers Him behind the veil of tradition and convention and religious pedantry. To enjoy His sanction or authority is the highest boast of any Christian usage, ordinance, or teaching. Amid all their differences of sectarian opinion and sectarian life, Christians are at one in acknowledging His historical life to be their ideal and their example, not only an incarnation of the divine, but at the same time a complete embodi ment of human excellence. Though there is no agreement in the Christian world as to the details of His teaching, there is in progress a steady approach towards a common understanding and exegesis of His words. No year passes without bringing some new light upon the record of that holy and sublime life, and, instead of taking Him further from us into the past, time seems but to define His character and genius and message more sharply. Faults have been found in His character by hardy critics. He has been adjudged too stern, too gentle, too visionary, too ascetic, or not ascetic enough. Scholarship has recast traditional notions of the meaning of His words and of the composition of the Gospels. To some extent the halo and the Fact which it encircles and illumines have been distinguished. The mind of the Master and its interpretation by His disciples stand out with a new distinctness. But, in spite of all, the Figure and the Countenance form a Presence which decomposes but to recompose, and without wincing abides the unsparing scrutiny of every passing generation. Philosophy, history, science, poetry, art, and devotion show no signs of faltering in their interest in Him. Their acknowledgment of His greatness and all-sufficient perfection has not grown fainter. There is no sign that Christendom has discerned an example more appealing, a message more arresting, an authority more commanding, an ideal more exacting, a goodness, truth, and beauty more satisfying to the soul. (2) Subjectively, Jesus Christ and His Spirit experienced in the soul have proved the unfailing authority before which Christian people without compulsion and without humiliation are content and glad to kneel. To contemplate Him from without is sooner or later to admit Him within, and to admit Him within is to surrender to His influence and guidance without a murmur. Christ and His indwelling Spirit are for Christian experience the source of power from above, yet from within. Something more than a memory, however tender, however sacred, possesses the believer. A Power demonstrates a Presence. Faith says from age to age: 'He is not dead: He is risen.' History has not enclosed Him within a niche. Experience