able to the writer) that a yet earlier form contained no explicit mention of the Holy Spirit, but only a petition (similar to 'quam oblationem' of the Roman Canon) that the sacrifice may become unto us the body and blood of Christ. There may be good reason for considering the theological language of, say, the Liturgy of St. James as a developed theological language, but there is none for considering that the use of some prayer to the same effect is an innovation of the fourth century, nor for supposing that the general order of the parts of the consecration-words of institution, anamnesis, invocation-is anything but the original and primitive order of the parts. The Roman Canon ought to weigh very little to the contrary, for (1) it can hardly be denied that there have been transpositions and interpolations in it of some kind, so that the order of the parts is already suspect'; (2) though the language of much of it is doubtless of a very early type, yet the same doubt which attaches to the age of the historical commemorations of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord in the Eastern liturgies, attaches with equal force to the Roman ' unde et memores'; (3) the wording of supplices te rogamus' suits just as well with the idea that it is a later substitution for the original invocation, strictly parallel to other substituted forms; and (4) if the actual prayer quam oblationem' was itself this original invocation, it may very well have been transferred to its present position at the same time that it was displaced from its original position by the prayer' supplices te.'

What is the general conclusion to be drawn from the above? It appears to be highly probable that at a very early date the traditional form of consecration of the Eucharist in all Christian rites was of the same general character as that now found in the Eastern liturgies, viz. words of institution, anamnesis, and prayer of invocation, but that the West (from a somewhat later period) began to depart from that traditional form. At the very least we cannot be certain that the Roman form of consecration has not been altered from an earlier form similar to the

Eastern forms. While there is no reason to doubt the primitive character of the Eastern order, there is no reason to depend on the Roman order. In any case we cannot think that the Roman supplices te' represents an earlier tradition than the Greek; nor that it is at all probable that the primitive position of the prayer of invocation (whatever was its original form) was before the words of institution. The earliest definite traditional form that we possess is that of the Eastern liturgies, and this form probably represents, with only unimportant changes in the wording but not in the meaning, the oecumenical tradition of the early ages.

W. C. BISHOP.

ART. VII. THE THEOLOGY OF THE KESWICK CONVENTION.

1. The Keswick Convention: Its Message, Its Method, and Its Men. Edited by CHARLES F. HARFORD, M.A., M.D. (London: Marshall Brothers, n. d. [1907].)

2-3. The Keswick Week, for 1905 and 1907. (London: Marshall Brothers.)

4. Unclaimed Privileges. By EVAN H. HOPKINS. (London: Marshall Brothers, 1900.)

5. Hymns of Consecration and Faith. Newly edited by MRS. EVAN HOPKINS. (London: Marshall Brothers, n. d.).

THE first of these books is an historical and descriptive account of the Convention held every summer at Keswick, written by some of the principal leaders and speakers in a series of twenty independent articles. Its editor is a son of the late Canon Harford-Battersby, formerly Vicar of Keswick, the founder of the Convention. The book contains papers by the Bishop of Durham, the Revs. H. W. Webb-Peploe, E. W. Moore, J. Elder Cumming, A. T. Pierson, Evan H. Hopkins, and Dr. Griffith Thomas, Messrs. A. Head, Eugene Stock, and other clergymen and laymen. The second and third are full reports, nearly all corrected by their respective speakers, of the addresses delivered at the

Conventions of 1905 and 1907. The fourth is a little book of ninety-two small pages, dealing with the topic which is the main subject and purpose of the Convention, and the last is the Convention hymn-book.

Between thirty and forty years ago, as we learn from Dr. Harford's book, frequent conferences were being held, both in this country and in America, to consider how Christian people might best attain to mastery over sin and to holiness of life. The further back we trace the converging lines of causation, the more complex they seem to become. It will be enough, therefore, to begin at this point, as more detailed historical enquiry would need an article to itself. Conferences at Mildmay, and in other parts of London, at Barnet, and at Perth, Dublin, Manchester, Nottingham, Leicester, Stroud and other places are mentioned, including several in the United States. One of the last is described as the prototype of that at Oxford' in 1874, which was the immediate cause of the first at Keswick in the following year. In 1873 several small gatherings were held in London. In 1874 Conferences met at several of the places mentioned, and from August 29 to September 7 there took place the Oxford Conference, or' Union Meeting for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness,' at which about a thousand people were present. This was due to the initiative of Sir Arthur Blackwood, who had been at the Convention in July of the same year at Broadlands Park, Romsey, the seat of the Rt. Hon. W. Cowper-Temple, afterwards Lord Mount Temple. The topic announced for discussion at Broadlands was:— 'The Scriptural possibilities of faith in the life of the Christian. in the daily walk, (a) as to maintained communion with God; and (b) as to victory over all known sin.' The Oxford Conference was followed by one in Brighton Pavilion, at which about eight thousand people were present. Canon Harford-Battersby was at Oxford and at Brighton, and received great spiritual help at the former meeting. Desiring to give his parishioners the same, he arranged at Brighton to hold in Keswick the Convention of July 1875, which was the first of the series held there every summer since.

For thirty-three years this Convention has met annually

among the hills and lakes of Cumberland, assembling from all parts of this country and from many others. Many of its leaders are able and eminent men to whose opinions we are bound to listen with respect. It was founded and is chiefly maintained by Churchpeople, but many others are to be seen both on platform and on floor. The two great tents in which the meetings are held bear, inside and out, a large motto, All one in Christ Jesus.' This union of various forms of Christianity is characteristic of Keswick; and while on the one hand it is a source of strength, on the other, as we shall try to shew, it is perhaps a greater source of weakness, because of the limitations it imposes. The same characteristic of the Convention is seen to some extent also in the two volumes of addresses. There are diversities of opinion, though not very many appear, and there are differences of exposition and exegesis; but all are intended to promote one object and to urge one doctrine, which is so characteristic of the Convention that the particular aspect of it put forward there is called by many people the Keswick Teaching.' It is by this that Keswick claims to be judged, and it is this, therefore, that we propose to discuss, in itself and in the way in which Keswick presents it to us in relation to the first principles of Christ.' We shall add a few brief criticisms and indicate certain omissions which seem to us to be serious, but with these exceptions we shall confine our thoughts to this central doctrine, alike for the sake of unity of treatment, in regard to exigency of space, and in deference to the claim made by the Bishop of Durham on p. 67 of Dr. Harford's book, 'Many great topics of the spiritual life are handled at every Keswick Convention. But not all of them are distinctive of its special message, as I understand it; and not all who take the teacher's or witness' part there are agreed on all these other topics. Those aspects of the Biblical doctrine of Holiness on which essential agreement is sure, and is general there, can alone be rightly called Keswick Teaching. And I think that those aspects can all be summed up under the one short phrase "Holiness by Faith." Dr. Moule goes on to say, (1) that this doctrine is no substitute

for Justification by Faith, but presupposes it; (2) that it does not contradict the inviolable claims of discipline and diligence or discredit the call to watch, to pray, to keep under the body and bring it into subjection,' to explore and ponder the Scriptures, to use public worship, and in particular the Holy Communion of the Lord's Body and Blood,' and Church fellowship; (3) that behind and within all these the inmost action of the soul, in the matter of Holiness, is Faith. Further, he lays stress on the present possibilities of this life of faith.' Keswick, he tells us, has been preserved 'from ever formulating, as its authentic message, a dream of "sinlessness". . . deeply at variance' with its true spirit; but it has always said that the believer is to expect victory, not defeat, and 'to expect to be, in an ever truer completeness, "a vessel sanctified, and meet for the Master's use." In explaining the expression, Holiness by Faith,' Dr. Moule defines holiness as, 'the state of character, and of life, conditioned by surrender to the Will of God, and by a conformity to that Will resulting from the surrender.' Faith is Reliance . . . Trust reposed upon Another the attitude of quiet confidence in Him.' Such, in brief, is the Keswick Teaching' in its best and highest form. It is the life of the obedience of faith-of quiet confidence which is the means, and only means, of the indwelling of Christ in the heart (Eph. iii. 14-19), which is no more obtained by self-discipline and effort than justification is obtained by good works.

To complete the definition of the doctrine of the Convention a particular aspect of it must be noted which is vitally associated with it wherever Keswick is known. This is the possibility of entering suddenly, if we may so speak (the word is used by Dr. Moule in almost exactly this connexion), on this life of faith. 'Have you got the blessing?' was a question often asked in the early days of the Convention. This aspect is especially urged by the Rev. Evan H. Hopkins, who describes the whole doctrine as 'the main purpose of our Convention,' and expounds it very clearly in an address on 'Sanctification, both Immediate and Progressive,' delivered in 1905 and published in