definite proofs of its influence. They ask that its influence should have been exerted as they wish to see it exerted in the questions of the present day. Consequently some set to work to show that the work of the Church was continuous and was always advancing on its own lines amidst various untoward conditions. Others denounce the organisation of the Church in the past as hopelessly corrupt, because it did not produce the results which they demand from it at present.
If ecclesiastical history is to be studied historically all such preconceived opinions must be dismissed. The Church and the world must be studied together, in their mutual relations. All forms in which the ideas of Christianity clothed themselves must be regarded as equally important. The question about them all is the same, what influence did they exercise on man's civilisation? The Church must always be regarded as a factor in the history of man's development. It did not always work for the same ends: it was affected by the society around it: its zeal, its purity wavered at different times. I think that even in its worst times it did not cease to uphold a standard of Christian principles, and keep alive whatever purity of heart remained. When I say that ecclesiastical history must be studied in the same way as secular history, I do not mean that the student must lay aside the belief in a Divine purpose accomplishing itself by human means. All history alike teaches that. For this very reason greater care is necessary to discover the truth. The more the study is approached with a spirit of reverence and seriousness, the less danger there ought to be of partial judgments
