diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 49006-0.txt | 3777 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 49006-0.zip | bin | 0 -> 88559 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 49006-h.zip | bin | 0 -> 95873 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 49006-h/49006-h.htm | 4997 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 49006.txt | 671 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 49006.zip | bin | 0 -> 12437 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 |
9 files changed, 9461 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/49006-0.txt b/49006-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5e538c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/49006-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3777 @@ +The Project Gutenberg eBook, On the apostolical succession, by William J. +Irons + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most +other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of +the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have +to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. + + + + +Title: On the apostolical succession + Parochial lectures, second series + + +Author: William J. Irons + + + +Release Date: May 20, 2015 [eBook #49006] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION*** + + +Transcribed from the 1847 Joseph Masters edition by David Price, email +ccx074@pglaf.org + + + + + + On the Apostolical Succession. + + + * * * * * + + PAROCHIAL LECTURES. + + (_SECOND SERIES_.) + + * * * * * + + BY + WILLIAM J. IRONS, B.D., + INCUMBENT OF THE HOLY TRINITY, BROMPTON, MIDDLESEX. + + * * * * * + + * * * * * + + * * * * * + + LONDON: + JOSEPH MASTERS, 33, ALDERSGATE STREET. + MDCCCXLVII. + + * * * * * + + TO + + EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, D.D. + + (LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE) + + CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, + + AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW + + IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD; + + THIS VOLUME + + (BY HIS PERMISSION) + + IS PRESENTED; WITH A DEEP FEELING + + OF THE AUTHOR’S OBLIGATION + + TO HIM + + FOR THE BLESSINGS OF HIS LEARNED INSTRUCTION, + + HIS CHRISTIAN EXAMPLE, + + AND HIS HONEST FRIENDSHIP. + + + + +PREFACE. + + +VERY little needs to be said to introduce these Lectures to the reader. +They were delivered in Advent last, at Saint Mary’s, Newington; and there +is the same reason for publishing, which there then was for writing and +preaching them. I desire to assist, as far as I am able, those who are +seeking to clear and define their thoughts, respecting the origin, +nature, and power of the Christian Ministry. I have aimed only at +plainness and fairness in the statement of the argument; and have adopted +that arrangement of the subject, in which, as far as I can judge, it +originally came before my own mind. + +In the Dedication of this Volume to the Regius Professor of Hebrew at +Oxford, I have acknowledged my great obligation to him for the +instruction which I hope I have derived from his writings—an +acknowledgment which, happily, I am so far from being singular in making, +that I suppose every one who has studied them, might make the same +statement. But it is right that I should say, that as I have not learned +a lesson by rote, but, from the first, thought patiently and freely for +myself, so the Public must not consider the Professor answerable for +every opinion which I may have expressed. And it may be well also to +add, that the general doctrine here set forth is not hastily taken up on +any man’s authority; but was maintained by the writer, both in private +and public, as many will bear witness, long before he had the happiness +and advantage of being acquainted with the works, or characters, of the +present leading Divines of the University of Oxford. + +_St. Peter’s_, _Walworth_, _Surrey_. + + + + +CONTENTS. + + PAGE + LECTURE I. + + THE DOCTRINE. +The Method of the Argument—Importance of a 1 +Ministry—Scriptural aspect of the subject—Apostolical +language concerning it—Compared with the Modern—What the +safe inference—The original Ministry possibly still +exists—And if so, what constitutes a Ministry—Scripture +Language—Compared with Popular and Modern notions—Theory of +the Inward Call—Erastian theory—The Common principle of all +such Theories—Illustrated—The Catholic DOCTRINE of the +Ministry—Compared with the Modern, and with Scripture—The +Continuance of the Ministry—DOCTRINE of the SUCCESSION +stated and explained—Reasons for the present Inquiry + LECTURE II. + + THE EVIDENCE. +Importance of not hastily prejudging—Argued from the 41 +parallel case of the Jewish Church—Necessity of considering +the Evidence for the SUCCESSION—Evidence of Scripture, how +far Important—Historical Evidence—Popular Difficulties—A +General reply.—On Evidence—Popular Notions—The expected +Evidence of the SUCCESSION—Illustrated by a parallel +case—Impossible—And even if attainable, not +satisfactory—What kind and amount of Evidence should be +looked for—Parallels of Evidence—For the Scriptures—The +Sacraments, and the Ministry of the Church—On what Evidence +the Common People must of necessity receive the Bible—And +the Apostolic Church—Literary Evidence of the Bible, +difficult—And of the SUCCESSION—Analysis of it, Theoretical +and Historical—Accumulation of the Evidence—Moral +Certainty—Conclusion + LECTURE III. + + THE OBJECTIONS. +Necessity of considering OBJECTIONS—Classification of 69 +them—(1.) As connected with the FACT of the Succession, +and its Consequences.—(2.) And the DOCTRINE, and its +Consequences. + +(1.) General Corruption—Idolatry—Schism—Infringement of +Private Judgment—Popery and Superstition. + +(2.) Judaistic Doctrine—Carnality—Technicality—Scriptural +Uncertainty—Exclusiveness—Uncharitableness—Unchurching +other Protestants—among whom may be seen many Evidences of +God’s Blessing and Religious Success—Explanation. + +Catholic Charity—Theoretical and Practical—Review + LECTURE IV. + + THE SUMMARY. +The Summary—Mistakes of the Ideality of 109 +Christianity—Erroneous popular Notions and +Arguments—Contrast of Rationalist and Catholic +theories—Comparison—And with Scripture—Analytical Review of +the Catholic Religion, illustrating the Doctrine of the +Ministry—Synthetical View of the same—Conclusion +NOTES 145 + + + + +I. +THE DOCTRINE. + + +FROM THE EPISTLE. {1}—“How, then, shall they call on HIM in Whom they +have not believed?—and, How shall they believe in Him of Whom they have +not heard?—and, How shall they hear without a preacher?—and, How shall +they preach except they be SENT?”—ROMANS x. 14. + +AT this season of preparation for the ADVENT, the Apostolical Ministry is +one of the subjects especially brought before us by the CHURCH, as +doubtless peculiarly calculated to fit our minds for the right reception +and reverent contemplation of our SAVIOUR’S first and second Coming. It +would be needless to enlarge on the suitability of the Epistle selected +for this Introductory Festival, opening and leading the way, as it does, +to those of the whole “glorious company of the Apostles.” We can +scarcely read the passage now quoted, without recognizing at once much of +its appropriateness. It contains a brief vindication both of the moral +necessity and the Divine authority of the Christian Ministry; and so +plainly, that, to some extent, all must perceive it. But it may be +highly profitable to us to draw out and examine with attention the +subject, which St. Paul thus lays before us in epitome only; concerning +which we know that there is much diversity of thinking among professing +Christians, and, consequently, great danger of wrong thinking. + +It is too much the practice of modern theologians to refer to the New +Testament, almost as if it were a book of aphorisms; and so, when a +quotation is made therefrom, it seems to be inquired, what meaning it +will _bear_; or what use can be _made_ of it; rather than, what meaning +it _must_ have had in such a connection; or what use _must_ have been +intended, under such circumstances. And hence has resulted this fatal +consequence, that the apostolic writings are commonly interpreted by +modern opinions, instead of modern opinions being tested by the apostolic +writings. There is but too painful evidence of this, in the manner in +which some men set about “proving” their peculiar system by the +Scriptures; evidently assuming from the first that their system is +_right_, and so (unconsciously, we trust,) sorting and arranging the +“best texts” to establish it. Surely an attempt to treat any other +ancient book as the Holy Scriptures are thus treated, would not be borne +with. Suppose, for example, any disciple of the schools of the modern +scepticism should attempt to show, from selected passages of some leading +treatise of ancient philosophy, that his own opinions precisely coincided +with those of the sage from whom he was quoting; it is evident that he +would hereby deceive no one but himself. On a reference to the treatise +in question, it would be at once apparent, that it was written by one who +held opinions widely different from the modern. Now since, among +Christians, there is an universal appeal to the Scriptures, would it not +be a rational method of testing the opinions of any of the various +classes among us, to inquire, whether it is likely that such writings +_would_ have proceeded from the pens of men holding such and such +opinions? Might we not thus arrive at as sure a conclusion, +notwithstanding all arguments from texts and passages, that some +nominally Christian opinions now received, were not the opinions of the +sacred writers—as that the opinions of Locke were not the opinions of the +ancient Epicureans, notwithstanding the coincidences that might be found? +And if it should be seen that any class of opinions exactly harmonizes +with the literal writings of the Apostles, so that we may imagine the men +who held them to have naturally written what the Apostles wrote; then, +should we not have a highly probable argument for the Scriptural +character of those opinions? Such an argument will in some degree +pervade these Lectures. + +Few, perhaps, will fail to perceive some wide difference between that +state of mind which is implied by our popular Christianity, and that +which is implied by the Apostolic Epistles. The complete unworldliness, +the quiet, elevated self-denial, the earnest humility, the obedience on +the one hand and authority on the other, which are the evident +characteristics of practical Christianity as it appears in the inspired +records, are strikingly different from all which we see now in our +popular religion; and may at times well suggest the fear that we may have +lost much of that faith which the first Christians possessed. And in no +particular is this difference more remarkably seen, than in the language +held respecting the MINISTRY of the CHURCH; which from its undeniable +importance deserves no light consideration. Of course it may be said, +that much of the difference of tone respecting the Ministry may be +ascribed to the “cessation of apostolic authority strictly so called.” +But however this be, which we pass for the present, it is apparent to +all, that there _is_ a difference: and so, men attempt to “account for +the fact,” rather than deny it. To account, for example, for the +“magnified importance” plainly attributed in Holy Scripture to the living +voice of an APOSTOLIC MINISTRY, above and beyond, and often without +reference to other means of Christian instruction. Not only the plea +just mentioned, but other similar ones are urged, as the “change of +circumstances,” the “alteration in the times,” and the like, to account +for the fact. How dangerous all such arguments and evasions are, to +those who seek a religion exactly, or as nearly as possible, such as the +first Christians had, needs scarcely to be urged on any thoughtful mind. +For after all these suppositions and reasonings, it will still remain +very possible that THE MINISTRY first Divinely set up in the CHURCH, was +_not_ intended essentially to change with the changing circumstances of +this world; very possible that this might have been given as one +permanent if not paramount means of grace for mankind, notwithstanding +the subsequent introduction of other means, however efficacious and +invaluable. And then, the actually existing ministry, its historical +continuity, its unconcealed pretensions, are facts not to be lightly set +aside when viewed in connection with this possibility only; even if it +were nothing more. How much of Apostolical grace is lost from the +ministry, it may be impossible to say; but so also it would be equally +impossible to say how much is retained. Hence, it must ever remain the +_safest_ course for a Christian man to adhere to an Apostolically +descended Ministry. Let us not pass too hastily from these thoughts; let +us follow them out, into minuter detail; in order to enter into the state +of mind apparently implied by language such as that in the passage, for +instance, which constitutes our text. + +Does it not here seem, by St. Paul’s way of putting his questions, +leaving them, as it were, to answer themselves in every Christian mind, +that they could in his esteem admit of only one answer? That they must +conduct people to the inevitable conclusion of the necessity of a LIVING +MINISTRY? Modern Christianity would easily find _other_ replies; and +does so practically. But is there no danger in such a course? No danger +in thus _assuming_ the sufficiency of what may be termed literary methods +of Christian instruction? nevertheless it is certain, that very often it +_is_ assumed. “How shall they believe in HIM of whom they have not +_heard_?” “By reading the Bible and judging for themselves,” would be +the reply of modern Christianity. “How shall they hear without a +preacher?” asks the Apostle. And modern believers might truly reply, “We +do not see the difficulty—Have we not our Bibles in our hands?” “How +shall they preach except they be SENT?” is the inquiry of St. Paul. And, +“surely every man who understands his Bible may teach it to another,” +might be the ready modern reply. To the Apostle’s mind, on the contrary, +such questions seemed to carry with them their own unavoidable answers, +establishing beyond controversy the necessity of an authoritative +publishing of the truth by living teachers, and those duly sent +(αποσταλωσι): nor does the SPIRIT of inspiration (to whom every future +change was known) here give any hint of the future change of this system +of teaching. + +But further: what St. Paul meant by being “sent,” or “apostolically +commissioned,” as well as the high importance which he attached to it, +may be gathered from the extreme anxiety with which, at the opening of +his Epistles to the Churches, he repeats, and dwells on, the fact of his +own apostolical character; which is so conspicuous, that the want of such +a preface has sometimes been urged as an argument against his authorship +of the Epistle to the Hebrews. {8} “Paul an APOSTLE of JESUS CHRIST;” +“Paul CALLED to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of GOD;” “Paul +an APOSTLE not of men, neither by man,” but “by the will of GOD.” Such +are the beginnings of his Epistles. Nor was such an anxiety at all +unnatural in him; because his apostolical character was not so regularly +derived as that of others, and had been greatly disputed in some +churches, and so needed constant vindication: of which the Apostle seemed +to be well aware. But, on modern principles, this self-vindicating +anxiety is quite unintelligible. It never could have been manifested by +St. Paul, if he had only thought, “that every man has a right to be a +Christian teacher, whether he has a mission or not, provided he is +persuaded of his own ability, and can persuade others of it too.” To one +unacquainted with this notion, there certainly would seem to be some +powerful difficulty (which others would not see) in this question, “How +shall they preach except they be SENT?” And therefore in the next +chapter to this which contains these questionings, St. Paul again glances +at this topic, and says, “Inasmuch as I am the Apostle (the SENT one) of +the Gentiles, I magnify mine OFFICE.” Now, as we have said, it is very +easy to reply to all this, that St. Paul’s circumstances were different, +and that that will account for the difference of his feelings and +language. For even granting this, is it either consistent with a +cautious reason, or a Christian humility, to assume in this way, that we +are right in differing from St. Paul, provided we can “account for the +difference?” Or, supposing that our altered times do account for the +difference (as in some sense they do), does it follow that they justify +it? Perhaps we may “account for” most of man’s transgressions against +GOD’S law, but does that _justify_ them? But let us keep to the case +before us. How can we be so sure, that if in the apostolic days the +common people had possessed Bibles, and were able to read them, and, in a +word, were outwardly circumstanced in all respects as we are, then St. +Paul’s principles, and St. Paul’s exhortations, would have been such as +ours now are? Have we any right to say, without proof, that St. Paul +assigned such an importance to the teaching of a living ministry, +_solely_ because Bibles were not plentiful? Might there not have been +other reasons? Consider: is it not very conceivable that there might +have been that in Christianity which could only be perfectly conveyed by +an institution such as the living ministry?—and which, therefore, without +that ministry, would not be attained, even though men possessed every +other means? Now, without saying that it is so, and not insisting on the +probability of it (arising from the analogy {10} of God’s past dealings +with mankind, and from the very nature of our social condition), it is +enough to affirm, that it is very _possible_, very conceivable, that an +apostolical ministry might have been made by GOD the perpetual channel of +a grace to man, which might be conveyed in no other way. And the +possibility of this ought for ever to restrain us from the rash +conclusion, that Christian blessings may be sufficiently attained by +private reading of the Bible.—If any are inclined to such a conclusion, +by the consideration that possibly the apostolic ministry had a +miraculous blessing which no ministry had after the Apostles’ age; so +that language well suited to the first generation of the Christian +ministers, may not be suitable now; it might be answer enough to point +out, that such a supposition remains to be substantiated, and that it +must be hazardous to take up with a theory which incurs the risk of +realizing _on principle_ only a defective Christianity. But more than +this may be briefly added, viz.: That as miraculous power was no +peculiarly apostolical prerogative (for all ranks of Christians had +possessed it), so neither can the want of it argue a deficiency in +apostolic grace and ministration; That the Apostles associated with +themselves Timotheus, Silvanus, Epaphroditus {11} and others, as +possessing the same MINISTRY with themselves, though no miraculous gift; +and, That if the same ministry be not to continue for ever in the church, +then it would follow that “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of +the world,” has not been literally fulfilled; That the words of Scripture +which relate to the Church’s Ministry, must not be understood by us as +they certainly were by the first Christians, and, consequently, the plain +sense of the Bible is not our guide, as it was theirs so far as they +possessed it. And so, finally, our Christianity may be proved at last to +come short of the standard of Scripture, and be fatally different in some +important points from that which was originally given to the world. + +Nothing which has now been said is intended to call in question the +reality of those blessings which GOD may and sometimes does bestow apart +from His appointed means, or by some only of those means apart from the +rest. But enough has surely been said to admonish men against that easy +and off-hand way of getting rid of those texts which imply high apostolic +power, by saying, that such passages only suit the primitive days and the +Apostles’ own ministry. On the other hand, we would not pretend to +decide how large an amount of favour may be vouchsafed to those who have +not the blessings of a true priesthood. Cornelius, we know, was a just +man, and largely acceptable unto GOD, before he saw St. Peter, or +received Christian baptism. Some, again, of the earliest disciples had +embraced the truth in some degree, before they had heard “whether there +was any HOLY GHOST,” or had been baptized in the name of JESUS. And when +the Philippian Church was deprived of the ministry of St. Paul, they were +still admonished to rely on GOD’S in-dwelling SPIRIT in the Church, and +“much more in the Apostle’s absence to work out _their own salvation_.” +GOD may dispense with His own appointed means, and may supply the lack of +them; but man cannot. But if it were right to compare, or contrast, one +of GOD’S given means of grace with another, it might perhaps appear that +none of them are _so_ essential as the Church’s MINISTRY, whereby all the +rest seem to have been instrumentally preserved. Much which we are too +apt think exclusively essential to the existence of Christian truth and +purity, had no being in the early Church. It is likely that all +essential means of edification would be given to the first generation of +believers; and, in fact, was not the most exalted Christian grace +possessed in the Church previous to the Christian Scriptures? Whoever +will reflect on these points, will at least be prepared seriously to +consider, what in primitive days was understood by the ministerial +mission to teach,—what the meaning of St. Paul was in such terms as he +applied to the ministers of CHRIST? (as that they were the “sent” +servants, “stewards of mysteries,” “ALLOWED of GOD and PUT IN TRUST with +the Gospel,”) and whether that may not be the true Christian meaning +still?—whether, notwithstanding the altered times, there may not be as +much meaning now as there ever was in the question, “How shall men preach +except they be SENT?” + +HERE it may be rejoined, that there are many who acknowledge the +necessity of a Ministry in the CHURCH, and who allow that it ought, in +all main particulars, to resemble that of the primitive Christians; nay, +who notoriously assign a very high value to such a ministry, as a +peculiar means of grace having a peculiar promise of blessing annexed to +it, and yet do not acquiesce in the Catholic doctrine concerning it. And +would it not be an unfairness to charge such with setting-aside the +apostolic ministry? or too little esteeming it? Doubtless, it might be. +But yet this rather anomalous circumstance, that men who are generally +supposed to be somewhat lax, at least, respecting the subject of an +authoritative ministry, should also be often thought to give undue +prominence to “the Sermon” of a minister, even beyond other means of +grace; this, I say, only renders it the more important that we should +understand clearly what men mean by a “ministry” in the Church,—what they +consider its real powers and chief functions,—and what its special grace +and blessing? For it can hardly be questioned, that many think that they +believe in a Christian ministry, when they are only believing in a +particular minister;—think that they are believing in a MINISTRY, when +they are only believing in eloquence. Many make free use of words, when +they would shrink from the ideas which they naturally convey; and ascribe +a degree of blessing to a ministry, which in strictness of speech they +would never think of seriously attributing to any such cause. And it +cannot serve the interests of truth to smooth over really different +opinions, by generalized expressions, just “for the sake of peace.” The +truth is, there is the greatest possible vagueness of belief, or rather +opinion, respecting the Christian Ministry, in our times and country +especially. There is, perhaps very generally, an indistinct impression, +that _something_ is required to make a man “a minister of the Gospel;” +but what it is, very few would be ready to say: and this may be well +looked on as a sort of instinctive testimony of the human mind to the +felt truth, “that it is not lawful for any man,” on the mere suggestion +of his own thoughts, to stand forth as a teacher of religion. Common +sense seems thus to make the inquiry, “How shall they preach except they +be SENT?” + +It is felt universally, that a teacher of religion should have some +credentials. The most illiterate, indeed, will often take the word of +any man of outwardly respectable appearance, who can manage, with the +mixture of a few Scripture phrases, to talk in an incomprehensible way, +and look upon him directly as a “minister.” The extent of this implicit +faith among some classes of sectaries is almost incredible to those who +have not personally witnessed it. But yet even these will clothe their +ministers with spiritual powers; and believe their ministrations to +convey a grace, and to possess a primitive and apostolical value, such as +those very “ministers,” if pressed, would formally disown. Hence many +persons of these sects are violently shocked, when we deny the validity +of their sacraments as the sure channels of God’s grace; little thinking +that their own ministers do not _suppose_ them to be so. And so also the +multitude of sects which flourished in this country during the time of +the Great Rebellion, owed much of their success to their unscrupulous +assertions of a “divine mission;” persuading the people that theirs was +the “discipline of CHRIST;” and alleging a “divine right” for every part +of it. And yet, notwithstanding this feeling planted in our very nature, +that a spiritual ministry must have a spiritual origin, it is astonishing +to see the facility with which almost any professed teacher is received. +Just as mere ignorance inclines the most illiterate, so the better +classes are induced, by indolence or habit, to receive almost any man as +a religious instructor. “How their minister _became_ a minister?” is a +question which seems hardly to have occurred to the majority of people. +If a man has only ability enough to obtain a congregation and a chapel, +and especially if he assumes the outward appearance and style of a +clergyman, and is thought a “respectable man,” nothing more is generally +inquired. But can this satisfy any one who thinks seriously? The Bible +describes the Christian Minister in a very solemn way, as the “Savour of +life or death” to souls—as being an earthly vessel possessed of a +“Heavenly TREASURE,” the weight whereof he was not sufficient to bear! +and so, to the first Minister of the Church it was said, “What _thou_ +shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;”—Whatever this mysterious +language implies, are we to take a man to be all this on his own bare +word? or on the ground of his personal talents or sincerity?—Or can the +people’s support of any man endow him with these awful prerogatives of a +Divine Ministry? Can a congregation, however numerous, give what they +themselves possess not? Holy Scripture classes together CHRIST’S own +MISSION from His FATHER; and the APOSTLES’ MISSION from CHRIST. Even the +SON of GOD “glorified not Himself” to be made an High Priest. HE began +not His ministry till He was divinely pointed out at His baptism, and +from that time JESUS began to “preach and to teach.” Even He confessed, +“As the FATHER hath SENT ME,” and, as “the FATHER hath given ME +commandment,” even “so I do.” And His blessed Apostle said, “GOD was in +CHRIST reconciling the world unto Himself, . . . and hath COMMITTED unto +us the ministry of reconciliation;” and when the same Apostle was “about +to be offered,” and the “time of his departure was at hand,” he said, +“This charge I COMMIT unto thee, son Timothy;” and further, “the same +COMMIT thou to faithful men,” who shall TEACH others also. Indeed every +Scripture precedent is against the notion so wholly inconsistent with the +idea of a “commission,” that a man may teach in the name of GOD, without +GOD’S authority so to do. Surely the words of Scripture mean something. +“Pastors,” “stewards of mysteries,” “overseers,” “embassadors,”—those “in +CHRIST’S stead,” those “speaking in the person of CHRIST,” those whom the +Churches were commanded to “obey” as “watchers for souls,” and +“accountable.”—Those who were received as “angels of GOD,” even “as JESUS +CHRIST;” “workers together with GOD,” “angels of the Churches,” “stars in +CHRIST’S right hand!” Are these the descriptions of an earthly dignity +wherewith a man of ability may clothe himself? Do they mean less than +they say?—or rather do they not powerfully point the question, “How shall +men preach except they be SENT?” + +But notwithstanding the vagueness of the popular creed, it is not to be +denied, that those who think attentively about religion and read their +Bible with care, and yet embrace sectarian views, have some way of +explaining all these, and similar expressions, so as to bring them, in +some degree, into conformity with their particular views. Doubtless some +sort of explanation would be _necessary_ to give a measure of consistency +to their systems. And into the examination of their manifold systems it +would be impossible now to enter. Nor is it necessary; it is enough to +point out the fundamental error, of having a system, and then +“explaining” texts down to that system. And this perhaps may be +sufficiently done by glancing chiefly at two classes of the most received +theories, with a view of showing that they alike proceed on a common +principle, and that (in consequence) instead of taking the words of +Scripture as they plainly stand, and accepting them as the Church does, +in their full natural meaning, they are obliged to “explain.” Such, +indeed, we have already said to be our running argument. “Would the +sectarians, or would Catholics, have been more likely to employ naturally +such and such words?” And more than this we can scarcely attempt on this +occasion. Indeed a formal confutation of many such systems as we are now +alluding to, would be almost impossible. There is something so +indeterminate about them, that there is no tangible point of attack. The +bare denial of an Apostolically descended Ministry is, frequently, all +that can be obtained from our opponents. And where we are not presented +with this sort of vacuity of belief, we still meet with nothing more than +some thin theory of a _possible_ ministration, whereby a straining +ingenuity attempts to harmonize its own opinions with the facts and +statements of Scripture; as if we were set to inquire—what _may_ be, or +_might be_ a system of religious teaching? and not rather, what was from +the beginning? + +One theory of a Christian ministry maintained, with more or less of +distinctness, by very many, is, that none are rightly “sent,” or +commissioned to teach CHRIST’S religion, unless they have what is termed +an “inward call.” Now, if they mean by this, that every minister of +CHRIST ought to be inwardly impressed with the importance of his calling, +no one will question it: but they must mean more than this, or their +meaning amounts to nothing. Their idea seems to be, that no man has a +right to become a “minister,” who has not some overpowering personal +conviction of his spiritual destination to the ministerial office, and +that this is a sufficient evidence of a true “call” to the office; and in +conformity with this notion they explain every text. Now if any one +imagines that he has such evidence of a call within him, it is useless to +reason with him. He is clearly beyond that. If he can so persuade +himself, he may also persuade himself that all Scripture is on his side; +or any thing else. Few, indeed, will be disposed to envy the venturous +self-confidence of one who could thus stand forth (with eternity before +him) and on his own sole authority profess, “I am an embassador for +CHRIST!”—“I am a ‘savour of eternal life and death!’” Not to dwell, too, +on the opening thus given to fanaticism of every kind, it is certain also +that a man’s personal conviction can be no evidence to others; and yet +others are interested in the matter. How far his apparent religious +success may be so, is another question, which had better be separately +examined, and which we shall hereafter consider. But, it is plain, as we +have said, and again insist, that a man’s personal conviction alone is no +sufficient proof for _others_ that he is “sent” to preach Christianity. +The Apostolic Epistles, every where, imply as St. Paul does in his +question to the Roman Church, that the being “sent” was a matter which +other men could judge of. It is certain, too, that the Apostles had +something _more_ at least than an “inward call.” They were, according to +the Scriptures, _outwardly_ called, from the very first, by CHRIST +Himself. And St. Paul, the only one who was not so, was outwardly +called, afterwards, by an express miracle. So that the Bible, and +Apostolic example, are alike against the notion of the sufficiency of an +inward call. And here it may be collaterally remarked, that, least of +all men, can the members of our Church admit this, at the best +inadequate, doctrine; for the 23rd Article is emphatically against it. +It reads thus:—“It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office +of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, +before he be lawfully called and SENT to execute the same. And those we +ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to +this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the +congregation, to call and send ministers into the LORD’S vineyard.” +Above all, therefore, the man who holds this doctrine of our Church will +see a force which the advocates of the inward call cannot understand in +St. Paul’s question, “How shall men preach except they be SENT?” + +But another notion concerning the Ministry, practically entertained to a +very wide extent is, That the Government of a country has the prerogative +of making Ministers of Religion. That this revolting opinion could +possibly prevail in a Christian land, is, perhaps, one of the most +fearful proofs which could be brought of Pagan ignorance, among nominal +believers. And yet, under various modifications, it prevails to an +extent scarcely credible. What but this is implied in the expression +which we often hear even educated people make use of, “that the State +makes Bishops?” What but this is implied in our quiet acquiescence in +the notion, that an act of the State may abolish some of our bishopricks? +What but this is the ordinary practical interpretation of the phrase, +“the Church as by law established?” which sometimes is even cast at us as +an acknowledgment that our Church’s origin is an Act of Parliament. Is +it not true, that many have no other idea of a clergyman, than that he +may be better educated, perhaps, than some other teachers, and so is +“patronized by the State?” And, is this the idea of a minister of CHRIST +which the Bible would give? Is it a doctrine of the first Christians, +that men, simply because they are governors, and happen to have civil +power, may clothe their fellow men with the awful prerogatives of a +Spiritual Mission? Is it a doctrine of the Church of England—when our +Article expressly denies to kings all spiritual authority—and when Queen +Elizabeth allowed the oath of supremacy to be taken, with an accompanying +declaration to that effect?—It is easy, of course, to construct a +theoretical argument to prove, “That the governor of a State is bound to +provide religious instruction for the people,”—but certainly such an +argument will not prove that the civil governor can give to any man a +spiritual AUTHORITY. It can only prove, that it is his duty to seek for +a rightly authorized and commissioned instructor, and give him the +_additional_ worldly advantage of a legal sanction and defence. It may +be, that governors should look for and _find_ a religious teacher for the +people—but they cannot _make_ one. Governors must be instructed and +saved by the same heavenly means as the people; and neither can +rightfully intermeddle with the administration of Divine things. On the +leprous forehead of King Uzziah we may read the presumption of those who +will so invade the sacred office. (2 Chron. xxvi. 19.) But it would be +impossible to draw out more minutely in this place {24} the arguments +either for or against the Erastian theory; and we are chiefly concerned +to show that it is wholly inconsistent with Scriptural and Primitive +doctrine, which taught, that men should “give unto Cæsar the things that +are Cæsar’s; but unto GOD alone the things which are GOD’S.” The +argument which we would, again and again urge, is, Whether the notion of +the State commissioning the religious instructor is in harmony with the +language of the New Testament? Does not the Christian mind at once +revolt from the thought, That a ruler of this world can commission any as +embassadors of the world’s SAVIOUR? That the government of any country +can by their state-licence empower a man to “bless in the name of the +LORD?”—to be a “steward” of Holy mysteries?—to absolve penitents,—and +“deliver to Satan” the ungodly? Such was the Minister of CHRIST +according to Primitive belief and Scriptural statement; acting “in the +person of CHRIST,” and marking with holy indignation any who refused to +“follow” in his steps. He “fed the flock of GOD,” took “the oversight of +them,” and “stirred up the gift that was within him” by the laying on of +hands. These are the very words of Scripture, and they, surely, never +would have been thought of, never could have been naturally used by the +inspired writers, if they had entertained the thought, that the State +could make a man a Christian Minister. + +And such a thought certainly was not entertained by the Christians of the +first 300 years, any more than by the Apostles; who were not even +countenanced by governors, but in things spiritual “resisted unto blood,” +and were charged with “turning the world upside down,” rather than submit +to men in aught that pertained unto GOD. Even as late as the fourth +century, the great president of the Nicene Council thus declared to the +Emperor the Christian doctrine: {26a} “GOD has put dominion into your +hands. To us He hath entrusted the government of the Church; and as a +traitor to you is a rebel to the GOD who ordained you, so be afraid on +your part, lest usurping ecclesiastical power you become guilty of a +great sin.” And again: “Meddle not with Church matters; far from +advising us about them, rather seek instruction from us.” “Remember that +you are a man.” “Fear the day of Judgment.” And nothing can be plainer +than the language addressed by St. Hilary to the Arian bishops. “O ye +bishops, I pray you, what suffrages did the Apostles make use of? Did +_they_ receive their dignity from the palace?” {26b} And, after all, +this is the unanswerable argument. St. Paul was not received as an +Apostle, _because_ he was allowed to preach to “Cæsar’s household.” St. +Luke was not admitted as a Minister simply because he was an educated +man. We do not find the enquiry in Scripture or antiquity, How shall men +preach except they be “respectable?” or, how shall they preach except +they be favoured by the State? or, how shall they preach except they have +literary distinctions? Necessary and useful as all these qualifications +may be, the distinctive question concerning the Ministry is, “How shall +men preach except they be SENT?” + +Now we before observed, that the popular notions, such as these just +considered, concerning the Christian Ministry, seem, with all their +variations, to be the result of a common principle. The principle, that +is, of reducing Christianity to a bare code, or system, of intelligible +precepts or dogmas. And the advocates of these various notions are +obliged, in some way, to lay out of consideration whatever they meet +with, in Scripture or elsewhere, which is inconsistent with this +principle. The further development of these remarks may serve more +clearly to elicit, and by contrast elucidate the Catholic doctrine of the +Ministry. + +The advocates, for example, of the “inward call,” seem generally to +regard CHRIST’S religion as a code of doctrines; while the maintainers of +a government call, i.e. the Erastians, regard it chiefly as a code of +morals. They both “simplify;” they both systematize; and their systems, +as such, proceed on very similar grounds. The former system would +naturally consider all things subsidiary to what is called “the +application” of the revealed doctrines to individuals. Whatever agency +seems calculated most powerfully to bring home the doctrine to the mind +of a man, that is the most desirable; and with a reference to this, and +_as so viewed_, every thing in Scripture is forthwith explained. Thus: +Are Christians commanded in Scripture to be ONE? This system interprets +it to mean, that they must have one general “doctrine.” Are we said to +be united to CHRIST as “members” to a body? This system calls it a +“metaphor,” designed only to inculcate charity and kindness. Are we said +to be saved by the “washing of water?” This system tells us to +understand it “spiritually:” for ‘that the water only represents the +SPIRIT.’ In a word, it simply regards Christianity as a divine mental +philosophy; and only values the visible Church as a useful means, in such +proportion as it effectually “applies” this to individuals. Of course +there are countless varieties of this species of religion, yet they agree +in this, that they all regard it as an abstract code of principle, and +whatever they find in the Bible beyond this, they bend to their system in +one way or another. Calvinists, Semi-calvinists, Arminians, and +Pelagians, all seem to believe in a kind of essence of Christianity, the +existence of which in an individual is to be tested by his possession of +a sort of religious sense, to which religious sense they indiscriminately +apply every expression of Scripture concerning the various states of the +true Christian. Accordingly the possessor of this sense is +“regenerated,” “elect,” “enlightened,” “renewed,” “born again”—and +whatever else they can “accommodate” in any verse of the Bible. A new +and intangible meaning is found for every term; every thing must be +sublimely doctrinal. The very precepts of Holiness are looked on as +“consequences,” which need not, therefore, be too formally insisted on. +The Sacraments of CHRIST are “elevated,” or extenuated, into “shadows,” +and “signs.” The Church itself is evaporated into an “invisible” +essence! + +The other system, that of the Moralist, is rather more difficult thus to +maintain and adapt to Scripture. Considering Christianity as a sort of +republication of the law of natural morality, with, perhaps, the +announcement of the necessity of repentance, and the assurance of +consequent forgiveness with the DEITY; all beyond this is regarded as +mere enthusiasm. The defenders of this system would allow the existence +of a Ministry to be exceedingly “useful,” and so come to think it the +duty of the State to support it. These, like the former class, would +maintain a visible Church, because it is “useful;” and so they themselves +will go to Church, they tell us, “for example’s sake.” These, if they +are a little educated, soon become Socinians, {30} and find it necessary +to attribute something much less than inspiration to the Bible, and so +avoid its plain testimony against their system; and then their course is +a very plain one. Those of the party who are more ignorant, are +generally found lulled in a complete religious torpor, from which it +seems almost impossible to wake them; for if disturbed they only shut +their eyes the closer, and more inflexibly, as if it were the duty of +“plain Christians,” and “sound old Churchmen,” to understand nothing. + +Now in contrast to these and all other simplifiers of the Catholic truth, +we neither would attempt on the one hand, to reduce the Bible to a code +of spiritual principles, nor on the other to reject spirituality +altogether as extravagance. Consequently we have no need to get rid of +any part of Scriptural truth, either by “explanations” or “criticisms.” +We see that Scripture does declare spiritual doctrines, and that it does +enforce practical morals. But we see much more than this in the Bible; +for we take it all literally, and plainly. We think that the +Scripturally recorded means, for applying the grace of CHRIST’S religion +are just as divine, and therefore, for aught we know, just as essential, +as either the doctrines or precepts of that religion. Neither those +doctrines nor precepts may be rightly received, except in connexion with, +and as parts of, the WHOLE Divine Revelation; and of this the means of +heavenly grace included in the Church, are an undoubted portion. Indeed +what may be called the DOCTRINE of the CHURCH, may be seen in a manner to +comprehend every other, so that even the truth of the Ministerial +Succession is but a part of that DOCTRINE. + +It is very easy to mystify a plain subject, and to represent that the +word CHURCH is of doubtful meaning; but let any reader of the Bible +answer this question:—When St. Paul wrote a letter to “the CHURCH of +Philippi,” was there any difficulty in deciding whom he meant to address? +It is plain that there existed in that city a number of families BAPTIZED +in the name of CHRIST; and that number was ruled over by certain +spiritual officers; and, as a whole, was called THE CHURCH. Wherever, +then, we find a similar body of men, we say, there is a Church. Now, we +believe that such bodies of men, so organized, and constituting, in the +aggregate, the Church Universal, or Catholic, must exist to the end of +the world; because, at the very time when CHRIST promised to set up such +an institution, He promised to it a perpetuity. “I will build My +CHURCH;” and the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” All this +we believe simply as it stands, putting no invisible meanings upon it. +Wherever, indeed, we meet with a spiritual truth, we receive it; but we +desire not to make or imagine one where it exists not, just to carry out +an hypothesis of our own. + +We know that the spiritual rulers of the CHURCH were made so at first by +CHRIST personally, and that all the members of the CHURCH were made so in +one way, namely, by Baptism. (Gal. iii. 27.) We think that to the CHURCH +alone the peculiar promises of the Gospel were made. (2 Peter i. 4.) We +believe that there was an awful power lodged in the CHURCH, and exercised +from the beginning, through her Rulers, a power which, for example, could +exclude unworthy members from Communion, and that those so excluded were +cut off from the CHURCH’S peculiar blessing. (Matt, xviii. 18.) We think +that how much soever Excommunication might now be called a “form,” it was +no mere form in the Apostles’ days. (1 Cor. v. 5; Gal. v. 12; 1 Tim. i. +20, and v. 20.) We look with reverence therefore on the powers of the +CHURCH, in her Ministers. We dare not hastily pronounce any thing to be +“a mere matter of discipline” or “only a form,” because we feel that we +are ignorant of the mysterious ways of GOD: and none can determine the +limit which separates Divine Doctrine and Discipline. In fine, we look +upon the CHURCH herself as One Eternal SACRAMENT: the One great outward +and visible Institute, set up by CHRIST, conveying to its members His +invisible grace, through many consecrated channels. + +The permanent continuance of this One CHURCH on earth we see to have +been, in point of fact, connected, from the beginning, with One permanent +Ministry or Priesthood, with which, at the first, CHRIST the great High +Priest promised to be virtually present “to the end of the world.” So +that, as it was promised that the CHURCH should never be prevailed +against; so also that Ministry which was essential to it, should never +cease. To the CHURCH we know the New Testament was addressed: and by the +CHURCH (with all other means of grace) it was preserved. By the CHURCH’S +instrumentality we, individually, are brought to that Font where the +“stewards of GOD’S mysteries” received us to the mystic body of the +faithful. By the CHURCH we really are taught in the truth; for +notwithstanding every boast of independent thinking, the CHURCH is +practically to us, what it was to the first Christians, “the pillar and +ground of truth.” (1 Tim. iii. 15.) From the CHURCH’S voice we learn +even the lessons of Holy Scripture. And not only the transmitted Wisdom, +but the transmitted Grace of Christ is thus ours; for the CHURCH is the +“fulness of Him that filleth all in all!” (Eph. i. 23.)—On our head the +CHURCH directs that holy hands be laid. In the CHURCH we obtain that +grace, whereby we go on “from strength to strength:” and in our partaking +of the mysterious Sacrifice which “showeth forth the LORD’S death,” glory +is given “unto GOD in the CHURCH, by CHRIST JESUS, throughout all ages.” +Nay we doubt not, that even “unto the principalities and powers in +heavenly places there is made known by the CHURCH the manifold wisdom of +GOD!” + +This is the Catholic faith. We trust in GOD—we rely on His word, and His +appointments; as being anxious to recognise His presence among us, as +really and truly as the Holy Apostles did, when their LORD stood visibly +before them and said, “Lo! I AM WITH YOU always!” And it may safely be +left to any man to judge, how far these thoughts and feelings are in +harmony with the literal word of GOD. Every one may see that _we_ have +nothing there to explain away—nothing to “account for.” It is such as we +might have written ourselves, so far as the sentiments are concerned, to +the full extent that those sentiments may be apprehended. How simple and +natural to us sounds the injunction, “Obey them that have the Rule over +you, for they watch for your souls!” and how awkward, to say the least, +when spoken of self-sent teachers, or those whom the people have +commissioned and “called.”—Believing that the CHURCH is the perpetual +depositary of those awful gifts, which CHRIST gave to men when He +“ascended up on high,” knowing that He gave some Apostles, “some +prophets, some pastors, and teachers,” for the perfecting of the saints, +“till we all come in the Unity of the faith, . . . unto the measure of +the stature of the fulness of CHRIST”—Not doubting that these, CHRIST’S +gifts, have remained and ever shall remain in His CHURCH; with what +thoughts must we regard the CHURCH’S Ministry! How can _we_ feel the +thrilling solemnity of St. Paul’s exclamation, after he had absolved the +Corinthian penitent, “SUCH TRUST have we through CHRIST to +GOD-ward!”—“SUCH TRUST!”—words may not describe it—“SUCH TRUST!”—“not +that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, +but our sufficiency is of GOD, WHO also hath MADE US Ministers of the New +Testament!” What depth of meaning to us is there in such language as, +“Feed the flock of GOD over whom the HOLY GHOST HATH MADE you overseers!” +We feel that we are using it in the Apostle’s divine sense—yes, the very +same solemn sense! All systematizers are obliged to put some lower +diluted meaning upon it! And not on this alone, but on every similar +text of the Sacred Word! Which of them can say, in the same sense as the +Apostles did, of the Ministers of CHRIST, that they are “Workers together +with GOD?”—Let any man revolve in his mind all those words so copiously +quoted already, concerning the unearthly responsibilities of those who +have to “save themselves, and them that hear them.” Let a man deeply +think of his SAVIOUR’S words, “I give unto you the keys of the kingdom of +heaven,” “He that heareth you heareth Me,” and he will feel it strange +mockery, to apply such language to a minister self-authorized, or +commissioned by civil governors; and he will come to feel, as the +believers in an Apostolic Ministry feel, the power of the question; “How +shall men preach except they be SENT?” + +Having now thus far explained the nature of the Catholic Doctrine of the +Ministry; not attempting to prove it by theoretical arguments, but simply +to contrast it with other doctrines, and compare it with Scripture; it +remains for us, next to consider the means whereby this Ministry hath +been continued in the Church; and for this purpose we must state the +Doctrine of the SUCCESSION. The Evidences of the doctrine, and the +Objections urged against it, we must reserve to the following lectures. + +It is affirmed, that before the Apostles quitted the field of their +earthly labours, they appointed “Successors;” and “laying their hands” on +them, transmitted all the Apostolical power which they had received from +CHRIST. It is not supposed that the gift of Apostolical Ordination +contained necessarily any such grace, as is ordinarily understood by the +term miraculous; though many who were ordained at first, might of course +have possessed likewise such miraculous gifts, as were very common to all +classes of believers in the early Church. It is also on record, that the +ordained Successors of the Apostles, before _they_ also died, bequeathed +their power and authority to others, by the same ceremony of “laying on +of hands.” And it is not denied by any, that the same practice has +universally prevailed from that time to the present. These Apostolical +Successors throughout the whole Church, were deemed the centres of Unity, +and sources of Sacramental grace to their respective communities, +dioceses, or Churches. They were looked upon as Chief Embassadors of +CHRIST—Vicegerents of the SAVIOUR of mankind—all, in a word, which St. +Peter and St. Paul claimed to be:—Divinely “SENT.” (1 Tim. i. 12, ii. 7.) +They were at first called by various names,—Apostles, Superintendents, +Angels, and Bishops; but eventually this latter designation prevailed. +From these Bishops every other officer of the Church derived his power, +and “without the Bishop,” to use the words of St. Ignatius, the +contemporary of the Apostles, it was not lawful to do any thing in the +Church. Finally, for more than a thousand years there was no Church in +all the world which was not so governed by Apostolically descended +Bishops. + +Such is an outline of the Doctrine of the Succession. A minuter +consideration of its details will necessarily follow on, when we +investigate the EVIDENCE, in our next lecture. The solemn consequences +of the Doctrine itself, are such as may well dispose us to approach the +examination with all seriousness of soul. For on the one hand, if we +reject the Succession, it follows, that we have not left on earth any +real Ministry of CHRIST; while if we admit it, we admit it with all its +exclusive claims. Hard things may be said of the choice of such a +subject, and the revival of such an inquiry, but the overwhelming +importance of it will be a sufficient vindication to every reflecting +mind seeking for truth. The time is come when questions like these may +not be suffered to remain undecided. When Romanism has advanced so +rapidly among us, making boast of its exclusive Apostolic claims, dare we +be silent? If we will care not to show our people our Divine claims on +their spiritual allegiance, can we wonder that they revolt to Rome? +Might we not expect the very “stones to cry out against us?” In truth, +in very truth, we have been silent too long! And the meagre Christianity +now prevalent on all hands, gives fatal evidence against us. Christians +seem to have forgotten that they are already the members of an Eternal +community!—Well may we ask, Are these the elect of GOD?—His chosen +heritage?—with the unseen wall of fire around them, and an uncared-for +glory in the midst? Yes, Christians seem almost wholly to have forgotten +their endowment of manifold gifts—almost forgotten the “taste of the good +word of GOD, and the Powers of the world to come,” (Heb. vi. 4.) so that +it may appear well nigh impossible to “renew them again to repentance!” +But shall the Churches venture thus to await, without an effort, the +Second Coming of the LORD?—GOD forbid! “Whoso hath an ear to hear, let +him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches”—“REMEMBER from whence +thou art fallen! and repent! and do the FIRST works; or else I will come +unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, +except thou REPENT!” + + + + +II. +THE EVIDENCE. + + +FROM THE GOSPEL. {41}—“It is written, MY house shall be called the house +of Prayer.”—Matt. xxi. 13. + +THESE words may serve to suggest some profitable reflections, preparatory +to our entering on the subject of the present lecture. They are the +words of an inspired prophecy, applied directly by our blessed LORD +Himself to the then existing temple of the Jews. If we read them as they +stand in the Old Testament, among other glorious predictions concerning +the sanctuary of the LORD GOD of Israel, we are naturally inclined to +expect some more illustrious fulfilment of them, than seems to have been +ever vouchsafed to the “house of Prayer” at Jerusalem. The words of +Isaiah (and the evangelist St. Mark has more exactly quoted them) are, +“MY house shall be called an house of Prayer, _for all people_;” a +prophecy apparently equivalent, or nearly so, in magnitude to that of +holy David, “_all nations_ whom Thou hast made shall COME and worship +before Thee, O LORD, and shall glorify Thy name!” And it is very evident +that this was never realized in the fullest extent, with respect to the +Jewish Temple. Must we say then that the prophecy did not refer at all +to the literal temple in Judea? None, perhaps, would venture so to +affirm, seeing that our LORD Himself refers it to that temple. Thus much +however we are bound to conclude, that this example shows us, how little +we are able to decide beforehand what amount, or kind of fulfilment, a +Divine prediction may have. And the fact, that our LORD spoke of the +temple, such it was then, as GOD’S house, may serve also to check any +over-hasty accusations of total apostasy, in consequence of extreme +degeneracy among His people. It may be useful here to premise this, +because it is not unusual to prejudice all enquiry, concerning the +Catholic doctrine of the Ministry of the Christian Temple, by a +precipitate and comprehensive assertion of its inconsistency with the +spirituality and dignity of the Divine designs; an assertion generally +supported by unmeasured charges of a corruption fatally destructive of +the Divine sanction, of the Sacred character of any institute. Granting +that the present state of the Apostolically descended Ministry in the +Church Universal, is very far from what _we_ should have anticipated, +from some of the statements of Scripture, it would not follow, it seems, +that those statements are frustrated, but only that we had misinterpreted +them. It would not follow, that the Ministry is not truly CHRIST’S, but +only that it needs His purifying. Our LORD came to His temple of old, of +which such “glorious things” had been spoken, and He found it a “den of +thieves,” but still claimed it as His own, in the glowing words of the +prophecy, “MY house shall be called the house of Prayer.” It was not the +glorious pile that Solomon had reared—it was not that which the returned +children of the captivity had built; and its Priesthood stood not forth +conspicuous for holiness. The beautiful courts of that temple had been +restored and rebuilt by the crime-stained Herod; and they had been +horribly polluted by violence and outrage. The sanguinary story of the +“forty and six years” when that structure was building, is truly a lesson +full of melancholy warning! and when at last CHRIST came to the holy +mount, He found there a temple, well nigh built in blood and served by +murderers; and yet He began to “purge it,” and said of it, MY HOUSE! “MY +HOUSE shall be called the house of Prayer!” + +But do we say this to justify aught in the present condition of the +Church Catholic? GOD forbid! for though we trust it is not so deeply +fallen as was the Jewish Church, “our enemies themselves being judges,” +yet we would not hide from ourselves our real state. But we bring +forward these words of our LORD, and the reflections that have thus +arisen out of them, in order to induce men to look calmly and fairly at +the Evidence for our Christian Ministry, not hastily prejudging the +question, in consequence of apparent moral and spiritual difficulties, +(of which they may be making a wrong estimate and use,) but simply +postponing, for a while, the objections which may be raised, and +separately and honestly looking at the proof and certainty of the FACT of +APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Should it be asked, Why we attach such +importance to an institution, which, even if real, seems to have +accomplished so little? we reply, That we pretend not to be able to +estimate the workings or the results of GOD’S plans. It is enough for us +that they _are_ GOD’S. And all we desire is, to ascertain the fact. But +we have something further, on which our faith may repose. There are +prophecies concerning GOD’S Church, (and perhaps our text is one,) which +seem as yet to have had but little fulfilment. Haply that is to be done +to the Church at the second Advent, which the purging of the temple, at +the first Advent, only prefigured. It appears but little likely that +that brief significative act of CHRIST, from which nothing seemed to +follow, was the whole fulfilment of the illustrious prophecy of Malachi +concerning the LORD’S “Coming suddenly to His Temple” to purify it. It +requires no proof that _we_ need such purifying. Is the main impression +now formed of the Christian temple—that it is a “house of Prayer?” It is +written, “From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, My +name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall +be offered in My name, and a pure Offering.” {45} Hath this been yet +accomplished? That which is written shall surely come to pass:—and on +this our faith relies. And though there be no signs of a present +fulfilment—though we may be told that “thieves and robbers” have made +lawless entrance, and that very little betokens a Divine presence—a +consecrated Priesthood or a “pure Offering” among us, our faith is +unmoved. A cleansing must come:—for “it is written, MY house SHALL BE +called the house of PRAYER.” + +In our last Lecture we attempted to show, that not a regularly Succeeding +Ministry, but rather a self-commissioned one, is the really incredible +thing; and we endeavoured to give an outline of the Catholic doctrine of +the Succession. In proceeding now to consider the Evidence of that +Succession, we shall not dwell on those traces of the doctrine and the +fact which we think are to be found in the New Testament: for several +reasons. In the first place, this has been so often and so fully done, +{46} that it would be a superfluous labour. And then there is a felt +unsatisfactoriness in all such arguments. Scripture was not written +critically, and its terms were not precisely fixed; so that several of +the sects may and do build up plausible theories from passages of +Scripture. And again, what we have already shown, amounts perhaps to all +that is of any real value in any such arguments: viz. that the Catholic +doctrine is not only in perfect _harmony_ with every part of Scripture, +but admits of a full and literal interpretation of all its strongest and +most solemn language on this subject, in a manner which no sectarian +doctrine can pretend to. So far as Scripture then is concerned, we feel +no difficulty; and we now attempt no argument. Our object is a very +distinct one. Any man who reads the New Testament, may see that it +contains a “doctrine of laying on of hands.” (Acts xiii. 3, 4; 1 Tim. v. +22; Heb. vi. 2.) Some may even perceive that the appointed and usual +means of transmitting Ministerial authority, was this “Laying on of +hands,” and that none had power to use this means save the Apostles and +those whom they authorized. (1 Tim. v. 22; 2 Tim. i. 6; Tit. i. 5.) Many +a man may go so far as to admit the fact, that no Ministry was received +in the Christian Church for a thousand years, and more, {47} except that +which was commissioned through the Apostles and their reputed Successors, +the Bishops. And yet any such may still feel difficulty in the +question—something almost amounting to a deficiency, at least, of clear +Evidence. He may fairly be harassed by doubts such as these: “How am I +to know after all, that all these bishops from age to age were truly +ordained by a true Apostolic predecessor? Is it not both possible, and +probable, that in some places, for example, a powerful man might have +usurped authority in a Church, and made himself a Bishop?—Or a learned +man, in ‘dark times,’ have imposed on the ignorant? And if so, would not +all his Ministerial acts be worthless? And might not one such break in +the chain, at some early period, have invalidated all subsequent +Ordinations? Are there then any positive proofs that such has not been +the case? Where are the documents? What is the EVIDENCE of the facts, +on which an intelligent man may rely?” {48} All which questions are +perfectly fair, and deserve to be honestly entertained. And to these +(rather as connected with the fact than the doctrine) we address +ourselves. + +Perhaps, indeed, there is a brief answer to them all, which may at once +satisfy many, better than a more tedious proof: namely, that if the +“doctrine of laying on of hands,” and the transmitted Ministry, be +received as contained in Scripture, and taught ever by the Church, so the +very same Holy Volume contains also the promise that CHRIST would be with +His Ministers to the end of time; and He would therefore of course +preserve to them all that was in the least degree essential. The +faithfulness of CHRIST Himself would thus be a mighty proof to the +humblest Christian, that all that Scripture inculcated as necessary to +the Ministry, would truly be preserved in the Christian Church, as much +as it formerly was in the Jewish. And he might also have this additional +proof of the fact, that no one (not even infidels) would attempt to +disprove it. But we will now endeavour to go a little more narrowly into +the question, because it is frequently a stumbling block to many. + +Let a man begin by analysing his own thoughts, and satisfy himself—first +of all, what _kind_ and _amount_ of evidence he requires of the fact, +that every Bishop of an Apostolic line was duly ordained by the “laying +on of hands?” Does he expect to see the very documents written at the +time,—and the seal and sign manual of those who were present?—or, would +that suffice? Perhaps many may be disposed to think that such evidence +must be satisfactory to the most incredulous. But pause, and consider: +how should we know for certain that each separate document was quite +authentic? How could we be quite sure that none were forged by some +crafty monk during those mysterious times, which some people, (as if +excusing their own want of light on the matter,) speak of as “dark ages?” +Or, suppose any one, or two, or three of the documents were destroyed by +all-corroding time? or had become illegible? What then? Surely such +evidence would be thought very unsafe to rely on. Most persons would +look with great suspicion on such an array of unknown manuscripts, and +look about for something more satisfactory and possible. And perhaps, +then, it might not be amiss to inquire what kind, or amount of evidence +it would be reasonable to look for? + +Will it not be reckoned enough, if it should appear, that we have as good +evidence of the Succession of the Ministry from the first, as we have of +the reality of the institution of the Sacraments? or of the authenticity +of Holy Scripture? This methinks will be enough at least for Christian +men in general, though it may not be satisfactory to every disputer; and +if we will attentively look into it we may certainly find the evidence to +be quite as strong as this. The very same objections might be brought +against the Apostolic Scriptures, the Apostolic Sacraments, and the +Apostolic Ministry. We have the same kind of moral certainty of them +all: and perhaps it might even be argued, that the highest degree of such +certainty, if a difference could be admitted, pertains to the +latter.—Thus much, at least, must be apparent on a very little +reflection, that the kind and amount of evidence which some persons +expect to have given them, of the Apostolic Succession, is impossible in +the very nature of things, and exactly similar to the evidence which +uneducated people, when they first begin to inquire, expect to find for +the authenticity of the Bible, and which infidels craftily demand for all +Revelation, well knowing that it cannot, in the nature of things, be had. +For, in the first place, we can none of us have the same kind of +certainty concerning any fact transacted in our absence, as of what is +done in our presence; much less of any thing which happened in a distant +place, a foreign country, or before we were born. And still less if it +be removed farther back; as before our fathers or great-grandfathers were +born. Whoever, therefore, undertakes to believe no farther than he +personally sees and knows, must suspend his faith in all history, and +even in the daily conversations and transactions of those around him. +And if any man is in this humour, we will not argue with him about it. +It is plain that these notions of strict personal evidence for every +thing must be abated, if we would exercise our common sense. + +Let us take the case of a man who begins to examine the claims of the +Bible to be received as the Word of GOD. Suppose him to be not very +learned; he is able at least to see that _his_ Bible is like other +people’s: and they, many of them being educated persons, believe it to be +GOD’S Word. This is something. And then it is the Authorized Version, +sanctioned by the Church and the State. And this is something more. And +he sees that even those who abuse the Church, are either very bad men, or +if they are sincere, well-meaning sort of people, and set up a new +Religion for themselves, they are obliged, after all, to make use of the +Church’s Bible, and generally the Church’s own Translation. He therefore +has even so far tolerable ground for thinking that the Book which he has +received as the Word of GOD is truly such. + +Now we do not in the least question that all this, taken in connexion +with the Internal excellence of The Volume, is very good evidence for the +generality to rely on. It is just as good as, or perhaps better than, +they can get for any fact of history, or common knowledge, or daily life. +It is not demonstration—but it is sufficient, probable evidence—such as +men take and act upon in every other matter, without thinking it a +hardship, or unsafe. And we affirm that this is just the kind and amount +of evidence which any man in this country may have either for the +Apostolic Sacraments, or the Apostolic Ministry of the Church. He knows +that his Church is the Church of his forefathers; and that they were +baptized in it by her Ministers, before meeting-houses were thought of; +that the learned and the good have abounded in it, as all allow; and that +even those who depart from it, generally retain some similar outward +forms both of Sacraments and Ministry, though (consciously and candidly) +they own them to be then without any necessary grace in them. So that he +regards his Church as a FACT borne witness to on all hands; a sure and +stable REALITY. Over and above all which, there is an Internal evidence +also of Catholic Truth, which the humble and obedient surely possess at +length. (John vii. 17.) For the Catholic Church teaches that the +Baptismal grace of Regeneration, if watered by prayer and holy teaching, +will at length expand into a certainty of persuasion of Her sacred +institutes, (Prov. iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12.) which heresy will labour vainly +to destroy. A blessed feeling, akin to the indestructible reverence of a +child for its Mother, from whose lips the first words of prayer were +learned, and the first peaceful hopes of heaven. + +But, going beyond this case, take that of a man who can enter with +sufficient care into the literary evidences of the truth of the Bible. +If skilled in its languages, he will go at once to the printed editions +of the originals. Then he must inquire, from what manuscripts the +received text was printed? And he will find it stated, that that of the +New Testament, for instance, is one of about the year eleven or twelve +hundred. And for that fact he has to rely on the critical skill of +certain scholars and editors, some of whom saw the manuscript, and +thought it to be of that age. But next comes the question: where are the +ORIGINAL manuscripts? And it then appears that they are _lost_. Then +where are the copies first taken? or even _soon_ taken, from the +manuscripts? and it seems that these are _lost_ too. How then is he to +prove that the manuscript from which our New Testament is translated is a +faithful copy of what was written nearly eighteen hundred years before, +and so unfortunately lost? He has thereupon a laborious task before him. +He must trace, for instance, the various quotations in the writings of +the Fathers of the Church; and then compare them with some early +translations. In connexion with which, he might observe the reverence +with which Holy Scripture is always treated in the primitive writings; +and that the exact names of all the Sacred Treatises are preserved alike, +in various places. And by pursuing these and kindred methods, he will at +length arrive at a strong probable conclusion as to the genuineness and +authenticity of the Holy Volume: a conclusion continually accumulating in +power and becoming at last morally irresistible, and practically +equivalent to a demonstration. He sees, in fact, that there are certain +phenomena which can be explained by one hypothesis, and one only, and +that therefore that one must be admitted. The actual state of Christian +literature can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of +some such Divine treatises as our New Testament at the close of the first +century. + +Now all this examination of evidence, satisfactory as it is in the +result, is very far from being that easy and off-hand way of “proving the +truth of the Scriptures” which untaught people vaguely imagine to be +possible and even necessary. A similar series of remarks might be made +on the verification of the Sacraments of the Church, as being the same as +those originally instituted by our LORD, and ever practised by His +people. But, passing now to our immediate subject, it will not be +difficult to see that the Apostolicity of the Ministry, if fairly +examined with equal patience, admits of the SAME kind of proof, as either +the SACRAMENTS or the SCRIPTURES of the Church. Indeed there scarcely +seems a possibility of any traditive truth being supported by stronger +evidence than we have for the fact of the Succession; so that if this be +not true, it appears impossible to say what proof we could ever have to +substantiate any such fact. + +So far back indeed as any genuine general records of past events exist, +we may boast that our Apostolical records exist. So that during these +latter, which may be called the literary ages of the world, we may trace +the existing record of the Succession in our principal dioceses for many +centuries. But this is not the kind of evidence which we could speak of, +as so abundantly satisfactory; nor could we esteem it so, even if it +reached to the Apostles’ days, and were cleared of all those doubts of +its genuineness, which we before alluded to. (page 47.) It would not be +satisfactory, for this simple, though little thought of reason, namely, +That a Succession of Bishops in one See, is not and cannot ordinarily be, +a succession of one and the same Apostolical line. So that if, for +example, we should produce a list of every Archbishop of Canterbury to +the very first, who was consecrated by a French Bishop, and should then +add the name of every one that had preceded that French Bishop in his +see, up to the Apostles’ days, still we should not have proved the +existence of any One line of Apostolical descent. No single line of +Succession confined to a single Church is possible. Every newly ordained +Bishop in every See comes of a new line; and that a threefold line, as we +shall presently notice. In addition to which, it should be borne in +mind, that the Succession was transmitted in many lines, even from the +beginning. Endeavour to examine these points more in detail. + +We learn from Eusebius, that the Apostles selected various parts of the +world as the separate fields of their labour. And wherever there was an +Apostle, there was one who had the power (which he did not neglect to +use) of transmitting the grace of the Ministry of CHRIST; consequently +there must have been several lines of Ministerial Succession from the +first. Probably every Apostle ordained some, as “overseers,” +“presidents,” of Churches; and so became an originator, not of one, but +of several, lines of Apostolical grace. If each of the Twelve had +ordained but one, there would still have been twelve such lines +Apostolical: but since the indefatigable Apostles doubtless did much more +than this, there must have been many Ministerial lines, from the very +first. We are putting ourselves therefore in a very false position when, +in arguing with Romanists, we allow them tacitly to assume, as they seem +to do, that there was but one line of Apostolic Ministration transmitted +from the beginning. But this error will be more apparent by examining +farther. + +Let us endeavour to look at the case both historically and practically, +that so we may see not only its past, but also its present bearings. In +so doing we may be led to understand its principle more clearly. When, +at any time, a Bishopric might become vacant in the Church, and a new +Bishop was to be consecrated thereto by the “laying on of hands,” by whom +was this solemn rite to be performed? Take, for example, a Bishop of +Antioch. He dies, and a new one is to be consecrated.—Who is to do +it?—Several, probably, unite in “laying hands on him” with prayer and +fasting. (Acts xiii. 3.) Suppose one of them to be the Bishop of +Alexandria; then the next question must be—Who consecrated _him_? and +those who were his coadjutors at Antioch? And it might take us to as +many different Churches to decide this point, as there were Bishops at +that consecration. By the laws and practice of the Church, {58} it is +necessary for three Bishops, if possible, to be present and unite in the +Consecration of every new Bishop. Now suppose another of the three, in +the case just given, to have been a Bishop of Rome; then to trace the +Apostolical Succession we must proceed to ask, who consecrated that +Bishop of Rome?—Not the previous Bishop of Rome; for he, probably and +almost invariably, would be dead before his Successor was appointed. +Then, of course it must needs be some foreign Bishop, assisted by _two_ +others from different parts of Christendom. And then the question would +widen still farther, as each of _their_ ordinations would have to be +examined. And so the inquiry would have to proceed, widening from Bishop +to Bishop, and from Church to Church, till we might arrive, if possible, +at the first Apostolic consecration of at least _one_ of the long line, +through which the manifold grace had flowed. Except in the case of the +translation of a Bishop from one See to another (a practice unsanctioned +by primitive antiquity) it would never happen that the _same_ line of +Succession would be at all continued in any one Church, even during two +succeeding Episcopates. And, even in that case, it would be mingled with +the Succession of the two other Bishops, who had joined in the new +consecration. Hence a Succession of Bishops in any one Church is _not_ a +Succession of the same spiritual line of descent. Nay, if we had no more +to allege than the line of the Bishops of a particular Church, even +though we could enumerate them quite up to the Apostles, we should not +have proved a valid Succession. But rather the reverse; because it must +have been very possible that some one, or more, of the line might have +died suddenly, before the ordaining of the Successor; in which case the +Succession would be lost, unless some _other_ Church were applied to. It +is plain that no particular Church, whether in Constantinople, +Canterbury, or Rome, can pretend to possess an exclusive line of +Apostolic grace. It is plain that no Church can be strictly said to +“derive its orders” from another. And it only evinces a want of +thinking, for any man to say, for example, “that such and such a Church +derives its orders from the Church of Rome.” Every one must have +observed the false position in which English Churchmen have allowed +themselves to be put, by overlooking this simple point. They have thus +admitted, practically, that the Church of Rome had a private line of +Apostolical Succession, of which she could impart to others!—forgetting +that the Bishop of Rome himself is necessarily indebted to the Bishops of +three other Churches for _his own_ consecration. {60} The Succession is +and must be CATHOLIC, coming through all the Bishops of the Holy Church +throughout all the world. And in this lies our security. Just as our +persuasion of the genuineness of the Scriptures arose, not from our +seeing the originals, or the earliest copies, but from the united +testimony and criticism of Christian men; so our conviction of the +validity and necessity of the Succeeding Ministry results from a like +Catholicity of testimony. Here too, as with the Scriptures, we have +unquestioned phenomena, (the whole history of the Catholic world,) which +can only be explained by admitting the _fact_. The Church of Rome has no +more preserved our Orders, than she has our Bibles. And in this fact +lies our chief security, that no particular Church, in Rome or elsewhere, +has the Succession in its keeping, so as to be able either to keep it, or +fatally corrupt it; for it is CATHOLIC. + +And further: That very intricacy of the interwoven Catholic line, which +renders it so impracticable a thing to trace the individual private +Succession of any Bishop upwards to the Apostles, gives it an amassed +mightiness, and hitherto uncalculated strength, when tracked downwards +from the beginning. The twelve Apostles began it, by ordaining the first +Bishops; and when in the very next generation the practice became +established, of three Bishops assisting at every fresh consecration, it +was at once morally impossible to pervert, or intercept the grace +Apostolical. In the very next generation any three Bishops who came to a +fresh Ordination, would each bring a three-fold Succession, so as to +convey the Grace which had flowed through nine different Churches. The +difficulty of failure would thence be still further augmented in the next +generation, and the next. And what would be even at so early a stage, a +moral impossibility, would needs go on accumulating from age to age. So +that if at any time by any possibility, the Church’s vigilance was +defeated, and one of the ordaining Bishops was of doubtful Apostolicity, +there were two more united with him, and so preserving the grace of the +institute. {62a} This was in accordance with the very first of the +extant Apostolical Canons, {62b} which enacts, “Let a Bishop be ordained +by two or by three Bishops” (and the larger number was almost invariably +required). The strictness with which this was kept up, is borne witness +to alike by Fathers, {63a} and Councils, and Historians, from the very +beginning. And if this were not unequivocally and universally the case, +(as it certainly is, so as to make quotation and reference seem like +affectation,) it would be easy to bring abundant and overbearing evidence +of another kind. For the watchful care and pains of all the Churches in +the matter of Ordinations is just as notorious, as that Christianity +existed and prevailed in the world. The very faults of the early +Christians, no less than their virtues, contributed to secure the +Succession. Far indeed from lethargy were those times. Abounding +heresies, mutual jealousy, and religious zeal, all combined to augment +the Church’s watchfulness. And, above all, the vigilantly sustained +Discipline, by which the whole community was so interwoven, that the +greatest and smallest affairs of Christian concern were alike +communicated to the whole body. Not only would any new ordination be +known in each of the three Churches from which the ordaining Bishops +came; but it was very presently notified also to the Metropolitans {63b} +by Episcopal letters. And beyond this, the election of a Bishop was a +matter well known, and publicly canvassed. It was not a thing which +(like the Canon of Scripture) might have been for a time kept to +themselves, by the learned. No, the common people knew perfectly of the +transaction. An infraction of an Apostolic rule, even in a minor point, +was clamorously echoed from Church to Church, so that it was rarely +ventured on; much less would it be suffered in any important thing. Even +evil men in their day were obliged to conform to the outward rules of the +faithful; or they found an universal outcry against them. The State had +then nothing to do with the matter; and the people (such was their temper +and disposition) would have thought of owning a heathen for a Bishop, as +soon as a man not duly ordained. Nay, there was even a holy emulation +among the Churches; in consideration of which we might in a qualified +sense, admit an additional kind of sacredness and certainty, so to speak, +in the Succession of those Episcopates, which were noted for peculiar +carefulness; as in the Ante-Nicene times that of Alexandria appears to +have been. + +So was it from the first.—And in every subsequent generation of +Christians, as we thus see, the intricacy of the Succession, and +consequently the difficulty of breaking it, would be more and more +intensely augmented; as if indeed utterly defying the unfaithfulness or +fraud of man to set it aside. Whatever else has at any time been charged +against the Catholic Church, it has never been said, that she failed in +duly Ordaining her Bishops; and even if this could be shown, still a +failure in one part would not touch the rest. {65a} To break up the +Succession of the Apostolic Ministry nothing less, indeed, seems to be +required than a self-destroying conspiracy of the Church Universal. + +We possess then all the Evidences of this illustrious fact, which human +testimony can furnish, or human industry bring together. Universal +witnesses to support it; and not one against +it.—Scriptures,—Canons,—Councils,—Fathers,—and Churches,—the learned and +the common people—all evidencing one thing; and even heretics and +infidels not denying it as fact;—a fact too, which they are forced to see +has gathered and still shall gather fresh mightiness, as centuries roll +on! {65b} For on the heads of the present Bishops of the Church +Universal, there rests the concentrated grace of all the Apostles. And +this One Institute—the MINISTRY of CHRIST now stands, {66} as at first +Divinely set up, an abiding monument of the truth, that HE who determined +by the “weakness” and “foolishness” of preaching to save them that +believe, has manifested that the “foolishness of God is wiser than men, +and the weakness of God stronger than men.”—The things which man in all +his wisdom contrived, eighteen hundred years ago, are departed like +shadows. What GOD ordained remains, and shall “till the consummation of +the world.” + +Would that the thought of this stupendous grace might ever dwell with +each Bishop of the Church Universal, that those words of promise which +are the charter of the perpetuity, and the power which Christ hath given +might accompany them, as if ever and anon spoken by a heavenly voice,—to +elevate, console, and awe their inmost spirit,—“Lo, I AM WITH YOU!”—Nay, +what thoughts of glory and majesty may well possess us all! when, putting +aside the thankless debates, and presumptuous questionings of men, there +rises before our mind’s eye the august vision of the “whole family in +heaven and earth;” existing as for ever ONE to The Omniscient EYE, yet +mysteriously passing through the long and varying successions of time, +age after age; ministered unto throughout, by ONE succeeding Priesthood, +{67} ever subsisting “after the power of an endless life,” and so holding +together all the members of the eternal family, the living and the dead, +in mystic fellowship and communion, even reaching to a “fellowship with +the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ!” Seems it not too great a +thought for mind of man to take in, in all its sublime fulness?—And has +it not some holy influence, forcing from us the exclamation of felt +unworthiness—‘Alas! for what we _are_,—and what we _should_ be?’—It is as +if (with earth’s pollutions yet unwashed from our spirits) we were borne +upwards in vision even “to heaven-gate,” and bidden by the Angel of an +Apocalypse to look in, and see, though from far, the eternal wonders, +behold the forms of distant glory, and feel, though but for a moment, the +thrilling air of heaven’s own Holiness. + + + + +III. +THE OBJECTIONS. + + +FROM THE EPISTLE. {69}—“Now the GOD of patience and consolation grant you +to be likeminded one towards another, according to CHRIST JESUS. That ye +may with One mind and One mouth glorify GOD.”—Rom. xv. 5. + +OUR object in the present Lecture will, I trust, be the same as that of +the Apostle’s prayer in these words . . . + +To confirm the truth of a doctrine, it cannot be supposed necessary to +answer all objections and difficulties which ingenuity might raise, for +in that case, perhaps, no doctrine would ever be established at all. But +when any particular truth has been reasonably set forth and defended, it +is a kind of farther recommendation of it with the many to show, that it +is not in reality surrounded by such serious difficulties as might, at +first sight, be supposed. Of course it is not right in any man to +suspend his belief of a proved truth, simply because it seems to be +attended by some difficulties; still we must deal with human nature as we +find it; and the majority do not appear to have that bold and honest mind +which will maintain right principles in defiance of all obstacles. +Neither have they that lofty faith in GOD which will trust Him in the +face of seeming improbabilities. Therefore, surely, it is a Christian +thing to endeavour, now as far as we are able, to remove such +difficulties as obstruct the faith of some, concerning the Ministry of +the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: only premising that our +object here is not to prove the truth, but to facilitate its reception. +The truth of the APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, being confirmed by foregone +proof, cannot, however, be affected by the measure of our success in +clearing up difficulties. + +It would be a very vain waste of time to attempt to answer many light and +frivolous objections; for so far as they are really stumbling blocks to +any, they will soon be removed when the doctrine itself is at all +understood. Necessarily there will seem to arise from time to time +numberless minor points which, however, any man whose judgment is worth +convincing would soon be able to explain for himself. In such proportion +as a man apprehends the truth, or, if I may so express it, perceives the +spirit and scope of the Catholic Religion, he will come to see, at a +glance, the answer which, on Catholic principles, would be given to such +and such difficulties. This is the Divine reward of an abiding humble +faith. + +The common and most influential Objections may admit of a two-fold +classification; according as they arise from certain supposed +difficulties in the Fact, and in its consequences—or in the Doctrine, and +its consequences. And we will at once proceed to consider, first, some +difficulties thought to be historically and practically connected with +the Fact of the Succession, and its consequences. + +The Objection which requires, perhaps, the least trouble and information +to make, (and from its indistinctness is rather difficult to grapple +with,) and which, therefore, is more frequently employed than any other, +is founded on a charge of general and fatal Corruption of Christianity in +the middle ages. Granting, it is said, the fact, that there was an +unbroken Succession of Bishops in the Church Catholic from the beginning, +still the gross and palpable corruption which so extensively pervaded the +Church for ages, was quite sufficient to rob the Succession of all +spiritual value. Now this wide and gratuitous assertion might fairly be +met by asking the objector—how he comes to know this?—How he comes to be +so sure that personal human corruption would wholly obstruct the +super-human grace of a Divine institution? How he arrives at such a +certainty that the grace of GOD is not mightier than the sin of man? How +he _can_ be so sure that “where sin abounded,” grace did not “much more +abound?” At the best, his objection rests on an unproved assumption in +principle—an assumption too, directly at variance with our experience of +GOD’S past dealings with man; as the history of the Jewish people bears +witness. It would be difficult, as we remarked in our last Lecture, to +find any parallel in the history of the Christian Church to the godless +impieties of the Jewish, during four hundred years previous to CHRIST’S +coming, and yet the anointing oil of the Priesthood was not +inefficacious, nor even the Prophetical gifts withdrawn, up to the time +of the Advent. Even CHRIST’S persecutor Caiaphas “_prophesied_, being +High Priest that year.” It is, therefore, quite unsatisfactory, at the +least, to take for granted in this way, that general Corruption would +have totally destroyed the grace of Apostolic Succession. The utmost +that can, with any show of fairness, be pretended is, that it _might_ +have done so: and even this ought surely to be proved and not barely +assumed as it here is. And even supposing that this were proved, then +there would be one thing more to be shown, namely, that the amount of +corruption in the Church had really, in point of fact, reached that +height, which would overwhelm the grace of Her instituted Ministry. And +how this could be certainly proved, even if true, it seems hard to say. +In the nature of things, it would ever remain a point uncertain to man, +and known to GOD alone. Our objectors, therefore, must assume this point +too. And without, perhaps, being much justified in their assumption by +the facts of history. For while a lofty moral sense is recognized among +men, and so long as humility and self-devotion to GOD, and disinterested, +even though untaught, zeal, are reckoned Christian virtues,—so long, in +spite of party misrepresentations, will the great body of our Christian +forefathers, lay and clerical, in the middle ages bear honourable +comparison with us their overweening children. There is more of the +spirit of pride than the spirit of CHRIST—more of party vanity than of +Catholic generosity—more of historical ignorance than of philosophical +wisdom, in these self-congratulatory comparisons between our meagre +conflicting, though (if you will) enlightened, “systems” of Religion and +the One high-minded faith, and chivalrous piety, and unsystematized +benevolence of our less instructed ancestors.—At all events, the vague +objections drawn from these intangible charges of general corruption, +very plainly rest on two unproved assumptions—one of the principle and +one of the fact. And this, perhaps, is all that is necessary to be +shown. For is not the Succession itself a fact of sufficient magnitude +to make us pause before we say, it is WORTH NOTHING? This undeniable +fact which we allege; this Succession of CHRIST’S Apostolic Ministry; +this, GOD’S sustained marvel of eighteen hundred years, is assailed by +man’s bare assertion, ‘that it has been SUSTAINED FOR NOTHING.’ + +But from among these general charges of Corruption, there sometimes is +one singled out, as of a magnitude too great to be doubtful, and to the +believer in Revelation too malignant to be of questionable effect: the +charge, I mean, of Idolatry. If there were nothing else, it is said, to +impede the spiritual grace of the Succession, the Idolatry prevalent in +the Churches of the Roman Communion would be amply sufficient. And in +proof of this, the case of the Jewish Church is confidently quoted, and +the fierce denunciations uttered and executed against GOD’S favoured +people for this especial sin, beyond all others. Now here too we seem to +have some unproved assumptions; as well as some false reasoning from the +analogy of the Jewish people. First of all there is the assumption which +we have previously noticed, namely, that there _is_ an amount of personal +human sin which _fatally_ cuts off, or obstructs, the instituted channels +of Divine grace; which has never yet been proved. Then there is the +assumption that idolatry is the specific sin whose guilt would have this +effect. And this may possibly be true—when the first assumption is made +good—but as yet, this has not been proved. And then there is the third +assumption, that the Church in the middle ages was so fully and +universally guilty of this sin of idolatry, as to cut off the virtue of +the Apostolic Succession for ever. And I need hardly say that this has +not been proved, for it must in any case remain a doubtful point—beyond +our power to settle for certain. And yet how unheedingly these three +assumptions are made use of in the arguments so resolutely and +thanklessly urged from the parallel circumstances of the Jews. In the +first place it is assumed that the grace of the Jewish institutions was +so cut off as to be _lost_ on account of idolatry, in the times before +CHRIST; which cannot be shown. (Rom. xi. 29.) For even if it be shown +that that Divine grace was quite suspended during a season of idolatry, +it would still be certain, that when the Idolatry was repented of and +forsaken, the grace reflowed through the accustomed channels of the +Mosaic Institutes. And in spite of all past idolatries, it had not been +wholly cut off even at the time of the Coming of CHRIST. In the next +place there is a false assumption concerning the sin of idolatry itself; +which seems to have been so severely visited as it was, because it was +the specifically forbidden sin, the protesting against which was one +great special object of the national existence of the Jews amidst a +godless world. It was not, surely, that GOD abhorred idol worship more +than murder, or uncleanness, or injustice; but it was, that “in Judah was +GOD to be known”—the one GOD—the forgotten GOD—amidst Gentile polytheism, +until the Coming of The Great Mediator. Every Divine interference with +that nation seemed to bear this as its reason, “That all the earth may +know that there is a GOD in Israel.”—“The LORD, He is the GOD! The LORD +He is the GOD!” (Joshua iv. 24; 1 Kings viii. 42, 43; Psalm lx. +throughout, &c.) Idolatry in that nation had a heinousness beyond all +other sin. And great as the guilt of idolatry must ever be, yet it can +hardly be called in the _same_ sense, the specific design of the +existence of the Christian Church, to protest against that sin beyond all +others. And until this can be made good, the strict parallel cannot be +established. In the third place, there is a further assumption of an +actual analogy of sinfulness in this particular, between the Jewish and +Christian Churches, which is not borne out by facts. Jewish idolatry +implied a voluntary and intentional abandonment of the worship of +JEHOVAH. Now this can in no wise be affirmed of the worst idolatry of +the Romish Hierarchy. No one will say that the Churches in communion +with Rome, ever intended to abandon the worship of GOD, for the sake of +Angels and Saints. It may be safely and truly said, that their reverence +paid to images, and their invocations of saints and angels, are of an +idolatrous nature, and calculated to lead, and have led, to idolatry in +the common people; but it would be unreasonable and untrue to say, that +the sin of the Church of Rome in this matter was the _same_ sin as that +of the Jews when they deliberately abandoned the worship of GOD. And, +therefore, we cannot argue from the one to the other. + +If we thus look into this objection fairly, we must see how very little +it amounts to. It depends throughout on unproved assumptions. And so +far as we may take the analogy in the case of the Jewish Church, it tells +directly against the objection. For there cannot be shown more, at most, +than a suspension of the grace of the Mosaic Institutes. And if even +Jewish idolatry, when repented of, was no impediment to the reflux of the +Divine blessing, so it might be in the Christian Church, even if it could +be proved universally guilty of the very sin of the Jews—which it cannot +be. In different ages, and at different places, some Churches, in +communion with Rome, have paid a highly sinful honour to Saints and their +images. The amount of such honour has varied greatly in degree, being +more or less sinful, at different times and places; yet at the worst, it +was never universal, in any essentially idolatrous degree. And even if +it had been, there would only (if the analogy were ever so strictly borne +out) be a suspension of still latent Apostolic grace, which any branches +of the Church might, on repentance, again enjoy. Far be it from us +indeed to palliate the sin, or the danger, of the idolatrous practices of +the present Church of Rome, but let a legitimate and not a superficial +estimate thereof be made. Instead of being misled by words, let us look +to principles. We are bound to protest against all which draws off the +heart from the true GOD and only SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST; and therefore +against Idolatry in all its forms. The Churches throughout the world, in +communion with that of Rome, have conformed to the practices of the +ungodly world in one way; but so have we in another. And as the +heathenish conformities and superstitions of Romanists are condemned by +St. Paul, when he forbids Christians even to “eat of things offered to +idols;” so the infidel coldness and individual selfishness of many +Protestants are equally condemned, when we are bidden to flee from +covetousness, “which is idolatry.” Whether, with some, we make idols of +a particular Church and the Saints,—or with others, make idols of Private +Judgment and Mammon, we are alike guilty. Let there be no rude, +impatient haste in judging of any Christians. So long as GOD bears with +us, we may well bear with one another. Idolatry, worse than the Romish, +was sanctioned by some of the Churches of Asia. But still they were +addressed as “Churches.” That very sanction of actual heathen idolatry, +which the Churches had been warned against, they were guilty of allowing. +Of both Pergamos and Thyatira it is said in sharp rebuke, that they +permitted some among them “to eat of things offered to idols,” which +almost amounted to an admission of those heathen gods. And yet, as +CHURCHES still, they are warned to “repent and do the FIRST works,” lest +GOD should be provoked to “remove their candlestick out of his place.” +So it was not removed as yet.—While the Church Catholic endures +perpetually, GOD cuts off from time to time its irrecoverably corrupt +branches. But it is for GOD, not us, to do it. And with this, let us +dismiss the Objection concerning Idolatry. + +One further Objection which we shall notice, as connected with the Fact +of the Succession, is that which is urged, though in very different +senses, against our own Church in particular, by Romanists on the one +hand, and Sectarians on the other; both anxious to deny us the possession +of that grace of Apostolical Ministry, which the former desire to +monopolize, and the latter to set at nought altogether. ‘If (say they +with somewhat of _ambiguity_ of expression) the Succession is in the +Church CATHOLIC, they who are in a state of Schism, cannot be considered +to possess it.’ Now if we were to admit this position exactly as they +state it, they would then have to prove us Schismatics, with respect to +the CHURCH CATHOLIC, before they could, on this ground, invalidate our +Succession. But, in truth, the objection ought to be a little more +carefully looked into. The sin of Schism admits of various degrees. Of +course, if it be clearly made out that any part of the Church is (not +partly torn only, but) totally severed from the Body Catholic, it +follows, that that part has not that Sacramental grace which the Church +alone possesses. But it is certain that in its fullest sense, even +Romanists, acknowledging, as they do, Lay-baptism, could not thus cut off +as _totally_ Schismatic, all who are not of their communion;—all the +Churches of the East, and of the farthest West—The American, the Scotch, +and our own. And the Sectarians cannot, for very shame, deny us a place +in the Universal Church. That very liberality which they need for their +own sakes will afford us some shelter too. And as to the special charge +of heinous Schism urged against us in the particular matter of our +Reformation; if we admit it, as fully, as any party can afford to urge +it, it could not go the length of invalidating our Orders Apostolical. +The Church Catholic anathematized us not; but only the Bishop of Rome, +who had not any right or power so to do, {81a} but was himself +Schismatical and Anti-christian in attempting it; as St. Irenæus might +have taught him. The Church Catholic we would have been content to be +judged by. {81b} We appealed to a General Council, and after wearisome +denial and delay, and artifice, they offered us the mockery of Trent. +About a hundred and fifty years after our Reformation, we were recognized +as a Church by the Greek Church: {82a} though the attempt to unite us +with them in one Communion unhappily failed. At the time of our +Reformation, notwithstanding much temptation, much carelessness, and much +sin, our Apostolical Succession seemed marvellously guarded, as by a +heavenly hand. The documents are as plain, the facts as sure, as +history, invidiously sifted, can make them; so that the candid Romanist +and the learned Jesuit cannot deny them. Let any one examine it for +himself. Any man, who will deal fairly with facts, will be obliged to +own that there have been greater confusions and Schisms {82b} in the see +of Rome itself, than in the see of Canterbury.—But they who go the length +of affirming a cessation of Apostolic grace in any particular Church or +branch of a Church on the ground of total Schism, from the whole body of +CHRIST, must excuse us if we ask them for proof of their assertion; and +tell them, that until it is proved, we must treat it as a pure (though a +very convenient) assumption. + +Those further historical and practical Objections which might be urged +against the Apostolical Succession, either in the Church Universal, or in +our own particular branch of it, would be such as attempt to throw some +degree of doubt on the fact itself; {83} and they have already been +answered by anticipation in the last Lecture, in which we mainly dwelt on +the EVIDENCE of the fact. To notice them here in any greater detail, +would therefore be only to repeat needlessly what has been already said. +But closely connected with the Objections thus briefly considered to the +facts of the Succession, there are generally supposed to be certain fatal +CONSEQUENCES, which it may be well just to glance at. “Popery,” and its +fearful train of practical evils, an infringement of liberty of +conscience, and spiritual slavery, are apprehended as the sure result, if +the Apostolical line be admitted to be preserved. But is it thus? Are +any of us anxious for a “liberty” which is confessedly synonymous with a +freedom from obedience to GOD’S own laws and appointments? Or can we not +admit the right of any man to “liberty of conscience,” without insisting +that such a liberty will suffice to guide him into all truth? Doubtless +every man has a right to move on unshackled towards the “heavenly city,” +but shall he therefore dispense with the only effectual guide? Granting +him the fullest “freedom,” may he not yet miss his way?—Whoever will take +the pains to think of it, will see that this Apostolical doctrine of the +Succession, is no other kind of restraint upon liberty of conscience, +than any other Apostolical doctrine. It may certainly be said that if a +man be not blessed with the blessings of the Church Apostolical, he is in +a perilous condition; but it is difficult to see how this affects liberty +of conscience, any more than the assertion, “He that believeth not shall +be condemned.” So that such an Objection is only that of the infidel, in +a slightly modified shape, when he complains of the “hardship of not +providing for the case of the conscientious unbeliever.” + +And as to the fear of Popery; that seems a still more strange Objection. +Surely the very reverse is the more correct reasoning. If it be a fact +capable of proof, and which was believed by all Christians for 1500 +years, That there was a true Succession of Ministers from the +Apostles—are we not taking the very surest ground against Romanists, when +we show, that we possess just such a descended Ministry, in no degree +dependent on communion with _their_ Church, or any other single Church? +If we could _not_ show such a Ministry, then the man, who from +examination found out the truth of the necessity of an Apostolic Church, +might be obliged indeed to resort to the communion of Rome. So that by +asserting our true Apostolical claims, we are so far from giving place to +Rome, that we are striking the only effectual blow at her supremacy—we +are so far from forcing a man to join the Papacy, that we are offering +him his only refuge from its spiritual tyranny. And as to all such +half-infidel objections as, ‘that there would be nothing to check the +onward advance of corruption and error,’ and the like, if it were thus +taken to be unlawful to sin against, or set aside, the Apostolical +Succession, in any case; it would be quite enough to reply, that we ought +to be content to trust GOD for the success of His own appointed +institutions. But there are facts, sufficiently strong to enable us to +speak much more explicitly on this head. Among those who threw off the +Roman yoke in the sixteenth century, we see, that the Non-episcopal +communities of the Continent have gone down into worse than Roman +Corruption, “even denying THE LORD that bought them;” from which depth of +doctrinal corruption our Episcopal Church has been graciously preserved. +Not, indeed, that it is right to depend too much on this kind of +evidence, popular as it may be. It is better for the Christian to +exercise a habit of unenquiring confidence in his Heavenly Father, +trusting Him for the “consequences” of His Own appointments, disregarding +the sophistries, and fears, and oppositions of the world. + +Passing, now, from this class of Practical Objections, let us consider +some of those which are supposed to lie against the DOCTRINE of the +Succession. They are, indeed, so peculiarly unchristian, so faithless in +their principles, and so indefinite in their shape, that it will not be +so easy a task to deal with them; but we must briefly attempt it. + +One of the commonest and most comprehensive of these objections, is that +which is advanced against the whole Doctrine of an Authoritative Ministry +in the Church, though more especially against the notion of a Descended +Priesthood; viz. That it is a going back to “beggarly elements,” a +perpetuation of Judaism in the Church. They who urge this, do not +scruple to deny all similarity of office between the Christian and the +Jewish Priesthood, and they represent it as essentially Anti-christian in +any man in these days to pretend to the Priestly office. “If,” say they, +“it be even granted that a separate order of Ministers is sanctioned by +the Gospel, still it is both arrogant and unscriptural to pretend to +institute any sort of parallel between the Christian and the Jewish +Ministries.” It is strange that any man can speak so thoughtlessly, who +has had the advantage of reading even an English Testament. Not only is +the principle of the necessity of a proper Ministry assumed throughout +the Christian Scriptures, but the very analogy which is now denied +between the Christian and the Jewish ministries is _throughout_ assumed, +and sometimes expressly insisted on, and drawn out. If it were so +dangerous and Anti-christian an error to pretend to a Priesthood in the +Church, at all resembling that of the Temple, surely the Apostles would +have been especially anxious to avoid using any expressions which should +seem to imply any such thing. St. Paul’s language, if not to be taken +simply as he employed it—that is, if it were not literally _true_—was +calculated much to mislead. It could not have been safe, when the early +Church had so strong a tendency to Judaize, to make use of what may be +called “priestly terms” and allusions. And yet this is done continually +in the New Testament, and even as a “matter of course.” Observe, for +instance, that sentence of St. Paul, specially concerning the ancient +Priesthood, but so widely expressed as to convey a general principle, +assumed as known to be equally true now as of old—“No man taketh this +honour to himself, but he that is called of GOD as was Aaron.” (Heb. v. +1, 4). So the Holy Baptist at the beginning of the Gospel puts forth +this as an Evangelical principle, concerning any Divine Ministry, not +excepting Christ’s Own; “A man can _take unto himself_ nothing” [margin]. +(John iii. 27, &c.) St. Paul likewise calls CHRIST Himself “the Apostle +and High-priest,” linking the two ideas together—joining the Apostolical +and the Priestly offices—but saying that even HE “glorified not Himself +to be made an High-priest.” {88} The FATHER “sent” Him; and “as His +FATHER sent HIM, so He sent His Apostles.” And what, again, might we not +fairly conclude from such an allusion as the following, even if there +were nothing more clear? “WE have an _altar_ whereof they have no right +to eat which serve the tabernacle;” (Heb. xiii. 10.) which occurs +immediately after the injunction concerning the Ministry, “remember THEM” +(v. 7). And in the verses immediately following, we find a similar +injunction, and similar sacrificial allusions; (v. 11, 15–17.) Must we +not think that the Apostle recognized _some_ analogy between the Jewish +and the Christian Ministries? {89} But we have, in addition to such +manifold allusions, some passages much more direct and indisputable. In +writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul places the Eucharistic Table of the +LORD in a position precisely parallel with that of the Jewish Altar, and +founds his whole argument on it; (1 Cor. x. 13, &c.) and places together +on the same footing the Ministries of the Temple and of the Church, (ch. +ix. 13.) His argument for the right of the Christian Minister to a +temporal maintenance is wholly derived from the analogy of the Jewish +Priesthood; this would, then, be no argument, if there were no analogy. +His words are, “Do ye not know that they which Minister about holy +things, live of the things of the altar? _even so hath_ THE LORD +_ordained_, that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.” +Evidently the former Ministry is assumed to be the pattern of the +_latter_. But in another place, it is still more fully carried out. The +Apostle shows the Corinthians, that the analogy between the two +Ministries was such as to raise the Christian Ministry immeasurably +superior to the Jewish, both in privilege and power. What Jewish Priest +could ever use such exalted language as St. Paul had employed concerning +the punishment of sin? (1 Cor. v. 5.) or its pardon? (2 Cor. ii. 10, 11, +15.) And so he declared his Ministry to be much superior to that of +Moses himself. (2 Cor. iii. 7.) “If the Ministration of condemnation +(the Jewish Ministry) be glory, how much more doth the Ministration of +righteousness (the Christian) _exceed_ in glory? For even that which was +made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of that _which +excelleth_; for if that which was done away was glorious, _much more_ +that which remaineth is glorious.” Moses, he further shows, had a +“veiled,” we an “unveiled” Ministry. “WE all with unveiled face, +beholding as in a glass, the glory of the Lord.” (v. 18.) “We preach not +_ourselves_,” indeed, he adds, “but CHRIST JESUS the LORD, AND Ourselves +your servants for JESUS’ sake; _for_ GOD . . . hath shined in OUR hearts, +to give the light of the knowledge of His glory.” (ch. iv. 6; see also +ch. v. 19, 20.)—The promises of abiding grace, “enduring” mercy, and +perpetual blessing to the ancient Israel, are commonly enough thought to +await fulfilment in the Church: so also, shall not the ancient promises +of an everlasting Priesthood, which were not fulfilled to the Jews, be +amply fulfilled in the CHURCH?—The ONE Priesthood of CHRIST “continueth +ever” manifested in HIS Church according to HIS will; “not after the law +of a carnal commandment, _but_ (_απαραβατον_) _after the power of an +endless life_.” + +Perhaps it may be thought needless to dwell longer on this objection to +the doctrine of the proper Ministry of the Church. The other objections, +however, which are commonly urged, are of so similar a character as to be +partly answered already, by what has been said. It may be useful, +nevertheless, to bestow a few more remarks on them. Some who scarcely +like to object to the Doctrine of the Ministry in open terms, are given +to speak of the “SUCCESSION” as a “carnal” doctrine, though without +clearly showing us any other doctrine to supply its place. It would be +well for those who lightly adopt such language, if they would weigh its +_meaning_, before they make such use of it. If by calling the Succession +a “carnal” doctrine, they mean that the doctrine is very different from, +and perhaps inconsistent with all that _they_ take to be “spiritual,” +there is nothing very fearful in the charge. Only it is scarcely +consistent with Christian humility to adopt from Scripture a term of +opprobrium, in order to make of it a private use of our own. Such +objectors may be reminded that there were some in the Church of Corinth, +who took themselves to be “spiritual” enough to dispute the APOSTLE’S +directions in some Church matters. And St. Paul replied simply by +asserting his Ministerial authority, however “carnal” that might be +thought. His words are, “If any think himself to be a prophet, or +_spiritual_, let him acknowledge that the things that I write are the +commandments of the LORD.” (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) At all events the charge of +“carnality” ought to be a little explained, that we may know what meaning +to affix to it. In what sense, for instance, the “Doctrine of laying on +of hands,” can be called carnal, and not also the doctrine of “Baptism by +water?” + +But there are those who somewhat modify this objection, and say, that our +doctrine is too “technical” to be worthy of a Divine Revelation. That is +to say, it is unworthy of the spirituality and dignity of CHRIST’S +religion to be thus necessarily allied to outward and sensible forms. +But surely this is as pure an _assumption_, as all the _other_ objections +which have been considered. At least, it remains to be _proved_; and so +far as the analogy of GOD’S previous dealing with mankind may guide us, +we should be inclined perhaps to a very different conclusion. What, for +instance, could be more “technical” than the Scriptural account of the +sin of Adam? The moral aspect of the offence is _not_ dwelt on; it is +simply presented to us as a disobedience of a set injunction, a failure +in formal allegiance.—What, again, could be more “technical” than the +acceptable sacrifice of Abel?—Or the trial of Abraham’s faith?—And might +we not point in a similar way to the whole system established by GOD +among the Jews?—Or let the more Spiritual institute of “Prophecy” be +considered. There was much in it that would now be thought very +“technical.” The prophet Balaam, {93a} though an unholy man, had power +to “bless and curse;” there was a potency in his word. And then we read +of the “_schools_ of the prophets.” And the Spirit of Prophecy seemed +poured out in so technical and systematic a way, that there were certain +places, and hours, and modes, {93b} in which the Spirit was in active +energy, in such wise that strangers who came near were affected by it. +So we read, that king Saul and his messengers, when they came to the +company of prophets at Ramah, all began likewise to prophesy; (1 Sam. +xix. 23.) just as Saul himself had done on another occasion, previous to +his anointing (ch. x. 10). Or, to come to a later period, how +“technical” does the Ministry of the Baptist appear throughout! And yet +our Lord submitted to his “technical” Baptism, saying, “_Thus_ it +becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” And surely we might make the +same kind of remarks on the whole life of our LORD Himself. Look at the +formal Genealogies at the beginning.—Is it not a strangely “technical” +appointment, that a grace so divine as that which redeemed mankind must +needs flow through the line of David? And be recorded so scrupulously, +as though each link of the chain were important?—And in all that CHRIST +did, is there not much that might by some be called “technicality?” His +conformity to the Jewish ritual: His temptation, His replies to the Jews, +His difficulties, questions, and dark sayings, and many of His miracles, +might surely by many be so esteemed. {94} And then again, His Church and +Sacraments: and His injunctions to the Apostles; as that, to “begin at +Jerusalem” in their preaching, which they technically obeyed to the +letter. (Acts xiii. 46.) But enough is plain, surely, from all this to +show us that the technical nature of an institution _may_ be no objection +whatever to the Divine sanction of it. At all events, the contrary is an +assumption requiring proof. Nay, further; if it be true, that man’s +sight cannot at present endure the light of unveiled truth, then it may +be that some sort of technical expression of truth might even be expected +in a Divine revelation. GOD manifests Himself “in part,” and “in part” +He shrouds Himself from us still. + +But after all that has been said, there will be some who will rejoin: If +this doctrine were of so great an importance, why is there not some much +plainer statement about it in Scripture—something, that is, which might +put it beyond doubt? It might be worth considering in reply to this, +whether such a question does not arise from a complete misapprehension of +the nature and design of the Inspired Volume? But, in any case, it is +evident that the Socinian, or even the Infidel might easily ask the very +same thing. The Scripture testimony to the doctrine of the TRINITY, +plain as we think it, is evidently not _so_ plain as to prevent doubts +and differences of opinion. Can that be a valid objection against the +doctrine of the Succession, which is none whatever against the TRINITY? +The Arians of the fourth age would gladly have accepted of any thing in +“Scripture-terms,” and pleaded hard for leaving the truth of the TRINITY +in a (so called) “Scriptural” vagueness of expression. But the Catholic +Church determined otherwise. And Her interpretation of those Scriptures +which contain the Apostolical Succession, is quite as uniform and +unequivocal as of those which contain the truth of the HOLY TRINITY. + +Here, while leaving this class of objections also, (raised, like the +former, on pure assumptions) we must not omit to remind any who are +trying by the aid of such objections to rid themselves of the Catholic +truth, that there is, at best, a fearful uncertainty in the course which +they are so pursuing—an uncertainty which seems not to have one solid +advantage of any kind to recommend it.—But now before terminating our +remarks on the manifold objections of men to this truth of GOD, it is +important perhaps to make reference to some of the supposed, and the real +Consequences of admitting this Apostolical Doctrine. In speaking of +these, perhaps, our opponents manifest less knowledge and more +unfairness, than with respect to any other of the topics in debate. The +utmost pains are often taken to make out, on the ground of our +“exclusiveness,” a case of bigotry, superstition, and intolerance. So +that there is the more occasion to direct attention to these, which, +imaginary as they are, form, nevertheless, the most cogent objections in +the popular mind. + +In the first place, whoever puts forth any statement concerning any +subject, as the _truth_, necessarily implies that a different statement +would be false; and therefore liable to all the consequences of the +falsehood. Whatever is put forth as TRUTH, is necessarily _exclusive_. +And is the Catholic doctrine more chargeable with “exclusiveness,” on +this ground, than the doctrine of any party, or even individual?—When any +man says that he thinks himself _right_ in any matter, he virtually says +that those who differ from him are _wrong_. And as to the future +consequences of being wrong; it will scarcely be denied, that the +Sectarians are generally far more reckless in pronouncing judgments on +that matter than _we_. + +The popular shape in which this objection is most successfully brought +forward is, That the doctrine of the Succession “unchurches” all the +Protestant communities of Christendom, which are not Episcopal. This is +exaggerated and represented as the very acme of intolerance, and +equivalent to a judgment on our part that they must all necessarily +perish everlastingly. It is melancholy to see the art with which this +misrepresentation is brought forward to check any half-formed conviction +of the truth, such as arises from a candid review of the unanswerable +Evidence. It only shows us that there are some minds which it is +hopeless to attempt to convince. + +Let us, however, look at the objection rapidly, first, in an historical, +and then in a theoretical light. Doubtless, if the Apostolic Succession +be admitted, it follows that there can be no certainty of valid +Sacraments apart from it. And those communities cannot be pronounced to +be true Churches, which have no Succession. Now, upon this it is argued, +that there is an inconsistency between us and our early Reformers: for, +that _they_ did not pronounce the Continental Protestants to be +“unchurched,” which our principles oblige us to do; and that therefore we +are more “Popish” and bigoted than they.—How far this is the real state +of the case, they best can judge who are best acquainted with the +writings of our Reformers. As to _their_ principles, they are certainly +not so doubtful as to be only arrived at by a silent deduction from their +actions. Take, for instance, Archbishop Cranmer. His opinions, even in +his later years, after he had well looked into the matter, and had passed +through some change of sentiments, are left on record in his Sermons. +{98} In speaking of the necessary and exclusive Succession of the +Ministry, he goes to the utmost extent of the Catholic Doctrine. But it +may be said, generally, that the necessity of Apostolic Ordination was +not a debated point at the Reformation. And those, abroad, who +eventually departed from the Succession, did it with so much reluctance, +and with such ample admission of their regret, {99a} that it could only +be regarded as a temporary affliction of the Church. When Rome was +exerting all her strength against the Reformed, it surely would have been +deemed an uncalled for severity, had the English Church been forward to +condemn the Continental brethren; especially as they did not defend the +_principle_ of separation from the Episcopacy; but just the reverse. It +was surely enough that our Reformers asserted their own principles, (as +they plainly did {99b}) without proceeding formally to condemn their +“less happy” {99c} brethren abroad. Add to all which, the fact, that +that generation of Protestants had, all of them, been baptized in the +Catholic Church; and most of their Ministers _had_ received Episcopal +Ordination; so that even the next generation might receive valid Baptism. +It would be natural of course to pronounce a very careful judgment, if +any, concerning such persons. It might have been difficult to say that +such communities, however imperfect, were “not Churches.” This might +have fully accounted for the reserve of our Reformers, even had it been +greater than it was; more especially as the restoration of the lost +Succession might not only have been hoped for, but, at one time, even +expected. {100} But every one must surely perceive the difference of +_our_ position from that of our Reformers. We assert precisely the same +principles, and in their _own_ language. But _we_ have to act towards +men who on principle _reject_ the Succession; who are not _for certain_ +possessed of any Catholically Ordained Teachers, or so surely Baptized +people: and who are perpetuating this awfully _doubtful_ and Schismatical +state of things. If in our circumstances we were to imitate what is +thought the reserve of our Reformers, we might be fairly suspected as not +holding their _principles_. + +But the theoretical view of this objection is, perhaps, still more +important to be considered. Let any man examine, what this charge of our +unchurching so many other Protestants really amounts to, at the utmost. +To what extent of “uncharitableness” does our theory oblige us?—And, +first of all, how can we obviate the practical difficulty already alluded +to, which is urged with so much confidence, that unordained ministers of +many sects, have so large a measure of spiritual success?—It is +remarkable that they who urge this, do not see how _variously_ it is +often applied to support the most opposite and jarring sentiments. And +who can ever decide on the real value of any such appeals? We might +admit, safely, that good has, at times, been done by unordained teachers, +and yet, in that, admit nothing inconsistent with the exclusive Catholic +claims of the Ordained Ministry. It has often been argued that even the +Heathen Philosophy and the Mahometan Theism, were over-ruled as GOD’S +instruments of good, though evil in their nature: and the corruptest kind +of Christianity may be well admitted to be much better than either of +them. {101} We cannot indeed allow the distorted estimate, which human +vanity makes of its own good doings; but we will not question GOD’S +sovereignty over man’s sin, from which He often brings good. We think it +wrong not to “receive CHRIST” (Luke ix. 53.); and “follow the Apostles;” +but we would not “call down fire from heaven.” We think that it “shall +be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment” than for a wilful +rejecter, or non-receiver of the Apostles; but _we_ judge not. They are +in GOD’S hands. (Matt. x. 14.)—We have before said that we pronounce no +private judgment on others. + +And let it not be supposed that this is only a tacit way of avoiding a +difficulty, to which our principles fairly conduct us. If they be +honestly looked at, the Catholic principles have in them far more of real +charity than any others. There is a large sense, in which every Baptized +man is included in the Catholic Church, and may be, according to his +measure, partaker of Her privileges; though he may not trace the grace to +its true source, but may mistake the hand that blesses him. {102a} And +the wideness of the Catholic principle, as to the bestowal of Baptismal +grace, ought not to be lost sight of here. In the Church there seems to +have been recognized a sort of threefold validity of Baptism. The first, +{102b} as ordinarily received from a Minister of the Church; the second +{103a} pertaining to the grace of martyrdom, or “Baptism by blood;” and +the third {103b} even extending in cases of extreme necessity to +Christian Confession, and the _earnest desire_ of the Sacrament. +Doubtless, it is The All-seeing GOD alone who can decide on any +individual case. Yet it is easy to see how the Catholic doctrine does at +least open a wide door of charitable _hope_. {103c} How many even of +those who are outwardly Schismatical, may not be _wholly_ so, we can +never know here. How far the sincerity of some, or the circumstances of +others, may avail as excuses before GOD, HE only can decide. Still, +while our charity “hopeth all things,” we know that where there is +_doubt_ only, there may be danger; and charity itself would oblige us to +warn; for we think there _is_ this peril; and we warn those Churchmen of +their greater peril, who sanction Religious principles, or frequent even +doubtful assemblies, which the Church acknowledges not. They not only +endanger themselves, but by their example may fatally mislead the souls +of their brethren. But let us take the extremest case that can be +alleged, namely, that of persons wilfully guilty of total and deliberate +Schism from the Apostolic Church. When we deny to such all share in the +Church’s peculiar grace here, or glory hereafter, are we denying them +aught which they do not deny themselves? aught which they even wish to +claim? For instance—The Church has ever maintained that Baptism in the +Apostolic community conveys the most exalted and unearthly blessings, and +by consequence maintains, that the unbaptized possess them not. But is +it not a fact, that all such persons totally reject the notion of there +being any spiritual value in Baptism? Does our uncharitableness then +place them in a worse position than that which they voluntarily choose +for themselves, and resolutely defend? Surely we are rather taking a +high view of our own privileges and grace in CHRIST, than in any degree +depriving others of theirs. We leave them where they place themselves. +And it seems hard to call this a want of charity. It is impossible to +say that we are depriving of Sacraments those who do not even pretend to +them, except in form. It is strange and uncandid to say, that we +UN-church those, who (in our sense of the word) do not even pretend to be +Churches. + +This charge of want of charity generally proceeds, too, from those who +ought certainly to be the very last to bring it forward. They are our +commonest assailants who themselves so gloomily narrow the circle of +possible salvation, as to affirm that all shall inevitably perish, except +that exceedingly small number whom they esteem in their peculiar sense, +“spiritual,” and “converted.” We, on the contrary, whatever we think of +the Church’s Privileges, hold with St. Peter, that “in every nation he +that feareth GOD, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of HIM;” {105a} +and yet we are thought “uncharitable.” Far from condemning on so +tremendous a scale as they will venture to do, we pronounce no judgment +personally on any:—and yet they call us “uncharitable.” Doubtless we see +unspeakable danger in the very idea of differing or dissenting and +departing from the CHURCH {105b} as descended from the Apostles of +CHRIST; but methinks there is no bigotry in saying that.—“Now may the GOD +of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward +another, according to CHRIST JESUS!” + +And now, at the close of this review of the objections urged by vain man +against the firm, abiding truth of GOD, it seems impossible wholly to +repress the feeling which rises, on looking back on such melancholy +indications of mental perversity.—The view of a series of such objections +to such a Truth, accompanied as they are by a guilty host of unnamed +minor objections, taking shelter beneath them, is almost enough to +dishearten the Minister of CHRIST. It seems as if there were arranged +side by side all the elaborate tokens of a Father’s most tender care for +a reckless family; and of their thankless contempt for his love and +watchfulness. The very design of CHRIST’S Ascension was to give +“Apostles and prophets” to his people; {106} but now there are objections +to them all.—It were surely a revolting task to take by the hand the +young but corrupted heir of some princely domain, and lead him through +the stately halls of his fathers, and find him heartlessly sneering at +their massy and unbroken grandeur, and treating with a rude contempt the +mighty things and the noble of past times—“Objecting” to every thing! +Mocking the now useless towers and unneeded battlements—Objecting to them +as ‘contrivances of cowardice.’ Or pointing to the chapel, to the Cross, +or to some ancestral effigy of Prayer—“Objecting” to them as symbols of +decaying superstition! It would be miserable to witness such a wretched +lack of natural piety in the heart of a child.—But is there not some +parallel to it in what is seen among us, whensoever we “go about our +Spiritual Zion, telling the towers thereof; marking well Her bulwarks, +and considering Her palaces, to tell it to the generation following?” We +are scarcely listened to with patience by many: and some even scorn to +accompany us through our time-honoured courts. Too many modern +Christians, thankless, cold-hearted children of our Holy Church, come +very little short of realizing the picture we have drawn! They +carelessly tread our solemn aisles, and we bid them move reverently +“because of the angels.” {107} And they wonder at our “superstition” and +“weakness!” And “the fathers” (say they) were ignorant men, and their +works the cumbrous records of departed folly! And as to the Saints of +early days—there are decided objections to their views; objections to +their rules of sanctity; objections to their prayers and customs, and +heaven-ward observances; objections, in a word, to almost everything +received from the Holy Founders of our Faith, and loved by all our +Fathers! + +The long line of the “departed just,” like a still-continued choir of +angels of Bethlehem, seem to be ever silently heralding “peace on earth, +good will to men,” while men weary not of raising objections thereto; as +if deeming it a hardship to be blessed!—Such is the Church’s mysterious +history. An ALMIGHTY GOD ever “waiting to be gracious:” and man +rebelling against HIM ever!—GOD sending down His gifts of grace: Man +spurning the blessing!—GOD “bowing His heavens and coming down.” And man +“objecting” still!—“How long shall it be, O LORD, to the end of these +wonders!” + + + + +IV. +THE SUMMARY. + + +FROM THE EPISTLE. {109}—“All the building fitly framed together groweth +into an Holy Temple in the LORD.”—EPH. ii. 2. + +THE broad and essential distinction between the Catholic and the +Rationalist views of the Christian Ministry, seems necessarily to imply +distinct conceptions of the whole Christian Religion. This was briefly +alluded to in our first Lecture, but must now be more fully drawn out +(though, I fear, at the risk of some repetition) in order to show the +bearing of the respective doctrines of the Ministry on the general +Religious theory, and on the two classes of interpretation of Holy +Scripture. This is the more necessary, because no arguments, however +clear, will effectually touch the mind so long as a fundamentally +incorrect notion of their whole subject matter is inwardly cherished. So +long as one theory is exclusively and implicitly relied on, the arguments +which are built on another, essentially distinct, may be looked at as +difficult, and perhaps unanswerable; still they will not shake the +previous faith of the listener. The arguer is moving, so to speak, in a +parallel, or even a diverging line, in which his hearer sees, perhaps, no +exact flaw, but he is sensible that it touches him not. Thus many will +attend to a train of reasoning, see that it establishes its conclusions +inevitably, and yet not be morally affected by it—not convinced, not +really touched. Their minds fall back on some distinct and cherished +principle which they have previously been accustomed to admit, perhaps, +without questioning; having been ever taught it, and so relying on it as +a sort of “common sense” truth. This has been peculiarly the case in +Religious controversy.—A certain view of the general system is received, +and unless you can bring a man to think that this may be erroneous,—that +is, unless you can shake a man’s faith in himself, and persuade him to +call in question or examine even his fundamental notions—you have +advanced but little towards convincing him of the truth; notwithstanding +the logical accuracy of your reasonings. It is also to be feared that a +mistake as to the very ideality of the Christian Religion is not only +very possible, but very common. {111} It is not, therefore, with any +desire of mere systematizing that these two distinct theories of +Christianity are now drawn out; but with a firm persuasion that there is +a reality and a practical importance in the distinction. + +Doubtless there are many modifications of opinion among Christians; but +there are two bases on which they are very generally raised, and perhaps +almost necessarily so; a basis of mental Principles, or a basis of Divine +Institutions; a basis of intelligible “Doctrines,” or of Heavenly +Realities; of that which is abstract, or that which is concrete. And the +former of these may be (and I trust, without offence) described as the +Rationalized, or Sectarian,—the latter is the Catholic basis. The +former, at first sight, seems more philosophical and elevated and +popular—the latter, more positive, more real, and yet more humbling to +the pride of human intellect. + +It is with the latter, indeed, that we shall be especially concerned in +this Lecture; but we must so far dwell on the former, as may be necessary +for the sake of illustration and contrast. Instead however of formally +arguing against the former theory, and attempting to disprove its basis, +(which would draw us too far from our object,) let us rather endeavour to +develope the true Catholic conception of Christianity, and show its exact +coincidence with the literal Scriptures of Truth. An erring Christian +man may by observing this be more likely to suspect, at least, the +soundness of the opposite conception. There is a power in truth; and it +is often as useful to state it clearly as to argue for it. Many men do +not see even the apparent ground on which Church principles rest—they do +not enter into our theory, so as to understand what they themselves +dissent from. And on the other hand, many right-minded believers, from +want of sufficient clearness of views, adopt a mode of defence which +sanctions, or implies, Sectarian _principle_. How many Dissenters, for +example, oppose us, on the ground of our union with the State; or of our +having a written Liturgy; or written Sermons; or certain forms and +ceremonies; forgetting that these are not specific _Church_-questions; +that these might have been otherwise decided among us than they are, i.e. +that we might not have been allied to the State, nor have been accustomed +to a written Liturgy, nor written Sermons, and yet that our Churchmanship +might have been, in every principle, the same precisely.—And again, how +many Churchmen defend our general system just as if the Clergy were the +essential, that is, constituent body of the Church; or defend our +Episcopacy with confidence from insufficient texts; or defend our +Apostolicity on the ground of a Threefold order of Ministration being +traceable even to Apostolic times: little thinking how far such kinds of +defence are inaccurate, and even involve Sectarian principle. + +But to resume;—the popular idea {113} seems to be, that Christianity is a +complete Revelation of certain truths concerning GOD and a future state; +and the end to be aimed at, therefore, is the impressing men strongly +with those truths, “applying them” (as the phrase is) “to individuals.” +The Catholic conception is, that Christianity is a sustained Revelation, +or Manifestation of realities; and the great end to be attained is the +participation therein.—Thus the Sectarian (according as his sentiments +might be) would dwell much on the idea of CHRIST’S moral teaching, as +being “pure” and “useful;” or again, would look on His Mediation and +Atonement, just as “doctrine” to be believed. The Catholic would +endeavour to regard CHRIST in a less abstract, a more literally +Scriptural way, as The Mysterious Incarnation of Godhead (1 Tim. iii. +16); the now and Ever-existing link between us and DEITY (1 Tim. ii. +5.)—the medium whereby man is united unto GOD! And His mysterious +Atonement would be regarded as an awful REALITY ever “manifest” in the +Church! (Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 26.)—a REALITY to be partaken of, and +more than a bare ‘truth’ to be believed in. (1 Cor. x. 16, 17.) The +former would go no further than to think that the end to be attained is, +the formation of a certain character in individuals, by certain moral +means; and so the whole of the constitutions of Christianity—Scriptures, +Sacraments, Ministries, and Churches, are but the means of accomplishing +this end. The latter believes much more; namely, that the great end to +be attained is the mystical incorporation of an unseen, yet eternal +community, called even now, the “kingdom of heaven.” On the one system, +we are independent beings: on the other, we are “blessed with all +spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” On the one system, it +is metaphorically only that we are said to be “one body in CHRIST,” while +we really are, and shall only be dealt with, as separate individuals: on +the other, the very reverse is assumed; namely, that “we, being many, are +one body in CHRIST,” in a mystical and Divine sense. The question +is—which view is more conformable to Holy Scripture? + +Now, supposing the Sectarian idea to be fully adequate and right, is +there not something very unaccountable, to say the least, even in the +structure of the Christian system? Supposing (that is) that we were so +discerning, and could see so far into GOD’S designs, as to be able, for +instance, to say, that the “conversion,” (as it is called) or the moral +change of an individual as such, were the sole end, to be produced by +certain doctrines inwardly received; and that this is the whole of +Christianity:—Is not the institution of what must then seem so strange a +rite as ‘Baptism with water,’ quite unaccountable?—Of course it will be +easy to say, that such a rite may be taken as a “type and sign” of +spiritual truth; but is this cumbrous explanation satisfactory? Are not +mere types and signs out of place, “out of keeping,” so to speak, in a +system so purely abstract?—At all events, must not all allow, that the +existence of such an institution as Baptism (to name no other) is much +more in accordance with the CHURCH doctrine of mystical incorporation, +than with any other?—Much more suitable to a system which insists on a +hidden virtue infallibly conveyed by the ordinance of the SON of GOD, +than to a system which reckons it “not essential,” even if right at all? +A thoughtful man can hardly fail to perceive, that any such institutes as +those which are and ever have been common in all the Churches, are +incumbrances to what is now thought the “simplicity of the Gospel,”—are +at variance altogether with the modern spirit and principle. If the +bringing of certain doctrines to the consciences of individuals were the +sole or specific design, what a strangely inapplicable and unwieldy array +of means must the whole Church system be! And yet, a Church, and certain +institutions therein, are recognised in Scripture. And if so, then the +Scriptural means of Christian edification scarcely seem, in the popular +sense of the word, “simple;” but rather most elaborate.—By Divine +direction, we see a Society of men enrolled, a community essentially +distinct from every human one, and therefore exciting much jealousy. To +certain of the body a Power is given of receiving or cutting off members; +and spiritual consequences of incalculable magnitude seem annexed to the +privilege of membership. The powers and prerogatives possessed by these +rulers are expressed also in language, however obscure, yet, most solemn. +(2 Cor. xiii. 10.) Whatever that language may imply, (Matt, xviii. 18.; +1 Cor. v. 5.) it is certainly Scriptural. There are very weighty +expressions in the Bible, relative to the Christian Ministry; and the +Sectarian systems are so far from _needing_ them, that they all find them +to be “difficulties.” And it is equally certain that they mean +something. Now, without inquiring here what they do mean, we primarily +point out their evident incongruity with a theory which makes individuals +every thing, and the Church and Her powers nothing. We would point out +that they are quite needless, and even impediments to that brief system +which tells a man it is enough to “take his Bible and pray for the +personal assistance of the HOLY SPIRIT, and judge for himself.” It is +quite certain that had the New Testament contained not one word about a +Church, a “washing with water,” a “laying on of hands,” a partaking “of +ONE bread,” and the like; the systems of Rationalists might still be just +what they are. They who reduce Christianity to a code of principles, +would lose nothing, by the blotting out of every text containing any +trace of Christian Church authority from the Scriptures. And must not +any hypothesis of Christianity which is thus partial, be suspected as +possibly not commensurate with the Divine teaching of our Heavenly +Master? Let us not be mistaken as if we said, that there are not +“doctrines” to be believed, and “principles” to be inculcated in +Christianity; we only insist that such a statement does not contain a +complete idea of Christianity, and if taken alone, contains a positively +false, because inadequate idea. And it is necessary to see the extreme +danger of theorizing, where we ought simply to believe, lest our theory +should be more compact than complete, more simple than true. + +But let us attempt now still further to review the whole subject in an +analytical and practical way, apart from theories, though it be at the +risk of prolixity or tautology. Observe how the Catholic Religion +embraces simply and honestly the view of truth just as it is historically +presented in the Scriptures. At the beginning of the Gospel, the Baptist +announces “the kingdom of GOD” at hand. Soon The Great TEACHER +appears,—GOD and Man in One Person. HE preaches truths and corrects +errors;—but is that all? Does HE leave the truth to propagate itself? +Or is it simply a system of Divine Principles, which HE inculcates? Or, +has HE not to establish the “Kingdom of heaven?”—Yes, this Heavenly +Personage, this no common teacher or prophet, this SON of GOD, had to +found among men a celestial community. HE soon began to incorporate a +Visible society endowed with invisible powers. HE called twelve men, and +ordained them; declared that HE appointed unto them “a Kingdom even as +His FATHER had appointed unto HIM a Kingdom;” staid with them three +years; instructed them generally; “manifested Himself unto them otherwise +than unto the world;” gave them to see “mysteries of the kingdom of GOD;” +promised that they should “sit on twelve thrones” as Vicegerents in the +spiritual dominion; and ere HE left them, “breathed on them”—“gave them +the Holy Ghost,” accompanying it with most extraordinary words—told them +to “baptize, and teach whatsoever HE had commanded”—and promised to send +His SPIRIT to guide them, and in some exalted sense to be HIMSELF “with +them” (Matt, xxvii.) to the world’s end.—Acting literally on His +instructions, the Apostles no sooner received the SPIRIT promised, than +they proceeded to set up their spiritual kingdom: First setting forth the +truth, according to their Master’s example; then enrolling all who +received it as members of their new Society, by means of that literal +rite which had been Divinely commanded. And literally did the Apostles +accept the statement of their LORD, that HE had given to them “a +Kingdom.” Did any man receive their doctrine?—immediately he was +addressed in terms like unto the “follow Me” of CHRIST, “Arise and be +BAPTIZED”—“have fellowship with us”—“Be ye followers of us.” So +systematically at first did they keep “together,” “with one accord,” +until much people was “added unto them.” (Acts ii. 41–47.) So naturally +did they assume, {120} and the people allow, their heavenly rule, and +Power, that at the outset, as far as possible, every matter of +consequence to the new community was transacted by them, personally. Was +property sold for the poor?—“they brought the money and laid it at the +Apostles’ feet.” Were distributions made to the needy?—the Apostles +themselves did it, as matter of course; till finding it too burdensome, +at their own suggestion deputies were appointed for the work. Were new +converts added? or did any thing of consequence transpire in distant +parts? even in “matters of discipline,” and “outward forms and +ceremonies?”—it was “reported to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem.” +(Acts xv. 2.) And when, in time, Christian communities multiplied in +remoter regions, beyond the immediate personal inspection of the +Apostles, and their chief companions, subordinate Rulers were instituted; +while an Apostle having “the care of all the Churches,” travelled from +place to place as the organ of the Apostolic government; visiting again +and again the various Christian Societies; giving them the Apostolic +traditions (2 Thess. ii. 15.) and directions, “leaving them the decrees +for to keep.” (Acts xvi. 4.) So indefatigable were the Apostles in +carrying out the arrangements of their spiritual kingdom, and so +prominent a part of their teaching was this notion of spiritual +sovereignty and power, that even their enemies were struck by it, and +charged them with setting up another “king, one JESUS” (a charge which +would never be brought by unbelievers against the mere teachers of new +principles {121}). They taught everywhere, that a membership of their +spiritual “kingdom” was necessary to all who would enjoy its peculiar +privileges. (Acts ii. 41, 47; 1 John i. 3, 5; ii. 19.) And that +membership was attained in the One only way which CHRIST appointed, +namely, by Baptism. So that even a new Apostle, fresh called by CHRIST’S +voice from heaven, was not deemed a member, or in a state of spiritual +privilege with them—his “sins not washed away,”—till he was baptized. As +it was said to St. Paul himself, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away +thy sins.” (Acts xxii. 16.) All the baptized people, that is, the +Christians, or the “Church” of every place, were commanded to “meet +together” at stated times. And among those baptized communities, +marvellous gifts abounded, which were exercised in their assemblies in a +most wonderful manner. (1 Cor. xiv.) But the most gifted of these were +alike subjected to the Apostles. “If any man,” said St. Paul, “be +spiritual,” still let him submit.—All this, in point of fact, was the +manner in which the Apostles acted out the directions of their Master, in +establishing the “kingdom of heaven.” + +And then, mark in what manner the Apostles put forth, by degrees, their +latent spiritual powers. We saw that on the necessity arising, +assistants in some minor matters were appointed; but the _Apostles_ +suggested it. And these assistants (named Deacons) had thereupon the +full power of the Apostles, for executing a certain commission; but no +more. They were the servants of the Apostles and of the CHURCH; not +endowed with the full grace of Apostolicity, but with specific authority +to execute certain duties in the Apostles’ names. Had the Apostles found +it necessary to appoint other officers, doubtless they would have done +it; and so indeed they did, as necessity arose. They “appointed Elders +in every city,” (Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5.) still, by letters if not by +other means, retaining their own spiritual supremacy over all these +scattered communities; here and there, by degrees only, placing a +Spiritual Ruler, endowed with full Apostolic power—just as Timothy was +“sent” to Ephesus, and Titus “left in Crete,” (Tit. i. 4, 5.) to take the +oversight and charge of the Churches and their general teachers. Thus +from year to year, with more and more of regularity, arose the kingdom of +heaven on earth. + +It was indeed a mighty system rising throughout the world, and reduced by +slow degrees to regularity and form. But two points seem settled and +clear from the very first,—the necessity of Baptism to membership in the +Community, and the necessity of the Apostles’ sanction to _every_ thing +in the Community Universal. {123} And these two points being as clear +and undeniable as any can possibly be, they simplify and make plain many +of the supposed difficulties of that unformed state of things, which must +have presented itself first of all in the Christian societies. +Supposing, for instance, it were even made quite clear, that any +Christian man, at first, was permitted to administer Baptism (though +there really is no proof of this, but, on the contrary, a great deal +against it), yet, knowing, as we do for certain, the Supremacy of the +Apostles, we may be sure that no such thing would have been practised +without their temporary sanction. The same Apostles who gave Deacons a +portion of their power, to “minister to the necessities of saints,” might +if they thought fit have given to other Christians, permission to +Baptize, in their absence. And this might be more readily accorded to +those private Christians who had, as so many had, supernatural gifts. +But it took, and plainly must have taken, many years to reduce to uniform +order so far spread and rapidly-risen a system as that of the Christian +Church. It would take time to ascertain in remote parts the will of the +Apostles; and in the interim, doubtless, many confusions would naturally +arise, especially in those scarcely-formed Communities which perhaps had +no settled Elders or Deacons, much less Bishops. Since, then, the +principle is clear, that every Baptized man was held to be a subject of +the Apostles’ dominion, i.e. the “kingdom of heaven” or Church, it is +plain, that the validity of any act of a ministerial kind would be +derived from the Apostolical permission. And it is on this principle, +and this alone, that Lay-Baptism can be said to have had any Primitive +sanction. In so far as the Apostle, and afterwards the Bishop, might +allow it, it might have a _pro tanto_ validity; and so the Bishop was +deemed to complete Baptism by laying on his hands in Confirmation. (Acts +viii. 17) Such is the language of the early Fathers, not only with +respect to Baptism, but every other matter; as for instance, Marriage, +which could not be sanctified by Roman Registrars had such existed, but +was reckoned base and unchristian unless it had the Bishop’s sanction. + +From all this you perceive, that, strictly speaking, there is, in theory, +but One Order of Ministers necessary to CHRIST’S Church, and that Order, +as it consisted of Apostles at first, so it does now of those whom the +Apostles left as their Successors, just as CHRIST left Them. The +Apostles, it seems, thought fit not to delegate their full authority to +many, but only to here one and there one. They might have constituted a +plenary Successor of themselves in every congregation of the Baptized, +and have created no other Order of Ministers; but they did not so. In +that case every ordained man must have been a Bishop, and capable of +ordaining others. But the general Unity of their kingdom would have been +interfered with by such a subdivision into petty provinces. Doubtless +they were led by the SPIRIT of CHRIST, and His own pattern when among +them, to adopt another course; and they created officers with derived and +partial powers, to exercise them to a certain extent and no farther. +First, they allowed certain persons to Baptize; and then, very soon, they +farther permitted others to consecrate the Holy Eucharist and rule the +Congregation, and use, in their absence, the powers of binding and +loosing souls; of which latter we have on record one very solemn +instance: (1 Cor. iv. 5.) “In the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, when ye +are gathered together, _and my Spirit_—_with_ the Power of the LORD JESUS +CHRIST, deliver such an one unto Satan.” St. Paul thus commissioning +others in his absence to act in his name and CHRIST’S. But there was yet +one exercise of power which the Apostles reserved to themselves and those +of their Coadjutors who, by the voice of all Antiquity, became their +Successors in the Church, and that was the power of “laying on of hands.” +And thus was accomplished and set in order, by Divine Inspiration, that +Threefold Ministry, shadowed forth in CHRIST’S own lifetime, and which +has continued ever since. + +In the specific reservation of this Power of imparting the SPIRIT, which +the Apostles made to themselves, there is a sacred beauty and fitness, on +which, for a moment, we shall do well to meditate.—By retaining in the +possession of themselves, and a chosen few, the whole power of +spiritually Commissioning the Ministers of the Church, they effectually +provided for the Unity and subordination of their kingdom, and ensured +the reverent estimation of their unseen powers, as Vicars of a Heavenly +Master. And then this was still farther secured by the retention of the +power of Confirmation. For by this it came to pass that every member of +the Universal Church, every individual subject of the “kingdom of +heaven,” came necessarily into personal contact, so to speak, with him +who was the immediate representative of CHRIST. Thus was recognised, in +a degree, that intimate union with Apostles or Apostolical men, the +contemplation of which in its fulness raised in after days all the +eloquent aspirations of St. John Chrysostom. Thus immediately from the +hands of Apostles and their Successors every Christian man receives to +this hour the higher blessings of CHRIST.—There was a fatherly affection +in the appointment; as if the Holy Apostles were anxious, and their +Successors after them, to see with their own eyes each one of the +uncounted multitude of the great Catholic family. (Acts xx. 28.) + +It must not be thought, however, that the ceremony of “laying on of +hands” was in itself essential either to Confirmation or Ordination. +{128} For it is conceivable that any other ceremony might have been +adopted. The INTENTION constituted the act of conveyance of the grace of +CHRIST, not only in Confirmation, but in Ordination. Otherwise indeed +there would be no distinction between the two. So St. Matthias was +ordained “by lot;”—and the first Apostles themselves by CHRIST’S +“breathing on them.” Otherwise, also, Holy Orders, [if not Confirmation +too], would be a proper Sacrament, which it is not, because it was not by +CHRIST essentially tied to any form; although it is now virtually so to +us by Universal consecrated usage in the Church. In thus speaking of the +intention of the Apostles as constituting the validity and essence of the +Gift which they conferred, (which it plainly must have done, else all +distinctions would have been destroyed, and whenever they laid their +hands even on a Deacon, or Deaconess, or a child, full Apostolical grace +must have been given, whether they meant it or not; which is absurd,)—it +must not be misunderstood as though it were meant to support any Romish +Doctrine of Intention. It is just the reverse. For if Holy Orders [or +Confirmation] were a proper Sacrament, it would have a positive grace +specifically annexed to a positive _form_, superseding all intention on +the part of the agent. Neither, again, must it be taken to mean that the +intention of any particular Bishop is now necessary, to his official +action, to secure its validity, as the medium of grace. We are not +speaking of any thing personal and private, but of that which may be +gathered from the heaven-guided practice—the official and authoritative +intention—of the Founders of the CHURCH, in this matter, which has ever, +_in fact_, descended to the Bishops, and is not now a mutable thing. +Before the decease of the Apostles, “laying on of hands” had become the +recognised ceremony of Ordination and Confirmation; and so at length, the +Apostle St. Paul, in his later years (A.D. 64, or 65), speaks of the +DOCTRINE “of laying on of hands,” (Heb. vi. 2,) which by that time was a +known and admitted point of rudimental Christianity. + +Towards the close of the Apostolic career the Christian system universal +seemed to have become thus arranged with general uniformity of +discipline: so that after the destruction of Jerusalem, according to the +prophecy, “before that generation passed away,” the “SON of Man came in +His kingdom,” with more of fulness, completeness, and glory than +heretofore. While, in the early history of the Acts of the Apostles, we +see the elements of the Christian kingdom gradually assembled and +composed, neither reason nor history justify us in looking for the +complete system of the Apostles until towards the close of their career. +Even the extant Epistles to the Churches, seem to indicate various stages +in the development of the Christian System. (1 Thess. iii. 10, 11; 1 Cor. +xi. 34.) The Apostles imparted of their powers, for the edification of +the Body of CHRIST, just as necessity arose and Churches spread, and +miracles and gifts supernatural became less frequent. And when they left +the world, they left their perpetual power to appointed Successors, in +all the great departments of the Spiritual kingdom; bequeathing likewise +the promise of the great King of saints, “Lo I am with you always.”—And +so, at last, (to return to the metaphor of our text,) “All the building +was fitly framed together,” and grew “into an Holy Temple in the LORD.” + +Such is the clear historical view of Christianity, and the statement of +it is an analytical statement of the Catholic Religion from the +beginning. We do not find the facts of Scripture and History to be +“difficulties.”—But let us now, finally, endeavour to combine what has +been said, and briefly consider, in a more synthetical way, our whole +Christianity, as it lies before us both in the Gospels and Epistles. + +In the former, CHRIST is instructing His Apostles and witnessing to the +Jews. In the latter, the Apostles, “in the person of Christ” (2 Cor. ii. +10), “as though Christ did it by them” (2 Cor. v. 20.), are instructing +the CHURCHES, and through them witnessing to the world. The general +impression wrought on the mind by the Gospel narrative of CHRIST and His +followers, is that of an isolated company of men, having little in common +with those by whom they were surrounded, and among whom they moved, as +bent on some unearthly enterprise. And in like manner, the impression +left by the perusal of an Apostolic Epistle is, of a separated band, a +“peculiar people,” in the midst of a world “lying in wickedness.”—Looking +a little closer, we soon recognize a Purity of principle and a Divine +mystery alike unsearchable. CHRIST Himself in the Gospel speaks with a +heavenly emphasis of those who are endowed with a certain high character, +as “BLESSED;” telling us that “their’s is the Kingdom of heaven.” And +every Epistle opens with an exalted delineation of the like persons—the +“elect,” the “called,” the “sanctified,” the “BLESSED in CHRIST JESUS.” +They who were so addressed were deemed, in a lofty sense, already the +heirs of GOD and “joint-heirs with CHRIST,” having “received power to +become sons of GOD” (John i. 12.), and having been Baptismally “born of +GOD.” (1 John iii. 9.) Each had a Sacred character, yet not as an +individual, but as a member of a Sacred Body. Among them there were +distinctions, and yet there was an identity; “diversity of gifts,” but +Oneness of grace. They were “all members one of another,” but “all +members had not the same office;” they were “one,” they were “brethren” +in CHRIST (as He had commanded them to be); but some were to “rule,” and +some to “submit;” some to “overlook” and “watch,” and some to “obey.”—And +the idea of the Oneness of Christians, (and the mysterious nature of it,) +seems to pervade the whole New Testament, and is that which forces itself +upon our attention, open it wherever we may. Not only did CHRIST pray to +His FATHER for this, but He appointed a Mysterious ordinance, by which +His people were to become One Body: And another more mysterious still, by +which their Oneness might be Divinely sustained. “By ONE SPIRIT ye are +Baptized into ONE body;” and “know ye not that the SPIRIT of GOD dwelleth +in you?” said St. Paul; as if intimating somewhat which the Baptized +might apprehend, but which could not be spoken. And again, “I speak as +to wise men,” said the same holy Apostle to the Corinthian +Church—glancing only, as it were, at The Mystery of unutterable grace—“I +speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The Cup of blessing which WE +bless, is it not the COMMUNION of the BLOOD of CHRIST? The Bread which +WE break, is it not the COMMUNION of the BODY of CHRIST?” And then he +adds—passing from our Union with CHRIST to our Communion with all Saints +by means of the Most Holy Eucharist, “We are ONE body, . . . _for_ we are +all partakers of that ONE Bread!” And in the judgment of the same +Apostle, no language seemed too severe to condemn the willing violaters +of this Union. It was sacrilege to injure the least of the members; how +much more then to divide the Body? That the Baptized were “One with +CHRIST,”—that the Communicating believer was already, as it were, linked +with the verities of eternity,—were transcendent Mysteries; not bare +metaphors, but earthly forms of stating Heavenly Truths. And if every +member of CHRIST was thus sacredly looked on, so the more also was the +whole Body. “Ye are a chosen generation,” says St. Peter, “a royal +priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.”—Every Christian indeed was +a “Temple of the HOLY GHOST:” but as S. Clement of Alexandria saith, the +CHURCH is GOD’S great Temple—“builded together for an habitation of GOD +through the SPIRIT.” + +Here, then, is opened to us the great Catholic idea of the Christian +Revelation—That the mystical COMPANY of CHRIST’S people, as such, were +clothed with the heavenly Powers, and “blessed with the heavenly +blessings.”—It was in the temple “builded together” that the Divine glory +vouchsafed to dwell.—To the Church, the elect assembly, the promises had +been made. To the BODY, when in solemn meeting, the special and highest +grace of CHRIST had been granted; (and so at the appointed “gatherings +together” {134a} the Blessed Eucharist was usually celebrated.)—From the +beginning of the Gospel this had been indicated, so that even the +instituted Apostolate arose, as at CHRIST’S command, out of the CHURCH, +more as the Divine instrument of Her invisible power, than the possessor +of aught in itself. {134b} CHRIST’S words, “Thou art Peter,” were +instantly connected with the promise of building the CHURCH against which +“the gates of hell should not prevail.” The commission, “Whose soever +sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye +retain, they are retained,” was instantly followed by words conveying +this power of absolving and condemning, to the CHURCH, and not to the +_persons_ of the Apostles, {135} except as GOD’S instruments _in_ the +CHURCH; “_for_” it is directly added, “where two or three are _gathered +together_ in MY name, there am I.” In accordance with which declaration, +we see (in a passage before quoted) that an Apostolic condemnation of a +sinner was pronounced. “In the name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST, when ye +(i.e. the Church) are _gathered together_” (1 Cor. v. 4.) In like manner +we may trace how, from the first, the highest Authority, as well as +sacredness and favour, (Luke xxiv. 33.) was attributed to the “assembling +together” of Christians, which therefore they were urged “not to +forsake.” Thus when the door of faith was first “opened to the +Gentiles,” the Church was “_gathered together_”, (Acts xiv. 27.) and the +matter rehearsed. When the question of Judaizing arose, again “the +Apostles and Elders _came together_” (Acts xv. 6.) When the Apostle St. +Peter was to be miraculously delivered from prison, “there were many +_gathered together_ praying” for him. (Acts xii. 12.) The announcement +of the risen SAVIOUR had been made to the “eleven _gathered together_” +(Luke xxiv. 33.) And the blessings attendant on these united assemblings +was not to be disturbed by Jewish or Gentile jealousies. Since, they had +all been “quickened _together_, and raised up _together_, and made to sit +_together_ in heavenly places in CHRIST JESUS.” (Eph. ii. 5.) And so +Christians might be addressed as “heirs _together_ of the grace of life;” +(1 Pet. iii. 7.) exhorted to be “followers _together_” of the Apostles; +(Phil. iii. 17.) and admonished to “strive _together_” for the “faith of +the Gospel.” + +The majestic privileges of the Saints, in Union with CHRIST and Communion +with one another, if we contemplated them aright, would so overwhelm our +spirits, that we could not think of the “solemn assemblies” without +coveting to be there! Little as it is thought of, there is a special +awfulness in the “meeting together” of the members of this Heavenly, yet +earthly,—this Invisible, yet visible—Society; when GOD’S Eye is on every +one, when CHRIST, though unseen, is “in the midst,”—and the “hosts of +God” are encamping around! All Christians then constituting, in some +sacred and lofty sense, a “kingdom of Priests;” {137}—yet ministering +only through that Consecrated organ which CHRIST, the great High Priest, +appointed,—the Bishop, or his representative.—“GOD is very greatly to be +feared in the Council of the Saints! and to be had in reverence of all +that are round about HIM.”—Well might the ancient Fathers delight to +speak of the dignity of being a Christian! It is observable, however, +for our instruction and warning, even in this, that Tertullian, after he +embraced the Montanist heresy, carried out so erroneously the idea we +have been dwelling on, as to assign to any Christian, in cases of +necessity, the exercise of inherent Priestly functions. Such, even then, +was the perilous rashness of Private Judgment. For though the Priestly +functions are doubtless in the CHURCH, granted unto Her for Her +blessedness and perfection (1 Cor. iii. 22.); and though in our Solemn +Assemblies “all the people of the LORD are holy,” all the Baptized in +such wise sharers of the Priesthood, that they join in our ‘sacred +offerings;’ yet, we must beware of the “gainsaying of Core.” (Jude 11.) +The Catholic Church has ever held that Her Priesthood cannot be +effectually exercised otherwise than in conformity with the original +commands and ordinations of Christ. And from HIM alone the first +Ministers of the Church derived their appointment, (St. Paul speaking of +HIS as “the Ministry received OF THE LORD:” See also Col. iv. 17.), and +afterwards conveyed it to others, whom they had chosen, and on whom they +“laid their hands.” And thus St. Paul, while anxious to _vindicate and +prove to the Church_, as the constituent body, his right to the Ministry, +at the same time scruples not to claim and exercise its loftiest Powers +_as his own_, (2 Cor. xiii. 10) and commands the Church’s obedience. . . . +So mysteriously is “all the building fitly framed together, and +groweth into an Holy Temple in the LORD.” + +Here let us pause: Let any man recall, in thought, the Scripture language +concerning the CHURCH’S privileges, and the MINISTERIAL PREROGATIVES; let +him compare it with all that has now been said; then let his mind revert +to the notions of the Rationalist; and draw his own conclusion;—And +whatever his personal _belief_ may be, he will hardly fail to perceive, +that the system which is every where supposed throughout the New +Testament, differs from a mere code of principles to be “applied” to +individuals—differs _in kind_,—as widely as the mysterious and appointed +Sacrifice of Abel differs from the Rational devotion of Cain. + +MAY GOD give us grace to weigh these things; and “that not lightly, or +after the manner of dissemblers with HIM!” Some, who are not yet members +of the Church, may be wishing, perhaps, to put these thoughts far from +them, sustaining themselves with the belief, that they _have_ partaken of +Christian blessings apart from the Church; and similar reflections. We +only say to them, that self-deception on such a matter is but too easy! +And if that be true which we have now literally taken from GOD’S word, +then it is certain that they are, at the best, in a very deficient state, +and “come behind in many a good gift!” More than this might indeed be +said, without overstepping truth or charity: for those who have heard +these things, cannot afterwards be as though they had not. But let each +think of it for himself. Whatever may be said of those who are +unwittingly out of the “kingdom of heaven” below, unbaptized, or only +doubtfully baptized by some one who had only his _own_ authority to do +it; whatever be thought of the present amount of grace, or future reward +of such, if they go on according to their best, in the course they find +themselves in,—some of them haply verging on the very borders of our land +of promise,—far different is _their_ case who _might_ have known and +embraced the truth. To such we say, in CHRIST’S words, “Verily the +kingdom of GOD is come nigh unto you!” . . . The foolish virgins in the +parable _thought_ their lamps seemed to burn brightly, and emulated the +light of the heavenly-wise; but when the Bridegroom came, they were found +unsupplied with the needful oil, and went out in utter darkness! + +But let not those who are of the “household of faith” be self-confident! +“By the grace of GOD, we are what we are!” And let the consciousness of +our sinful neglect stir us up to pray for the fuller restoration of the +Church’s grace to us Her degenerate children. It is of little value to +believe in a Priesthood, without we _use_ it. May GOD forgive His +Priests and people for their joint forgetfulness of their many unearthly +privileges!—the very belief whereof seemed a short time since almost +dying away from very disuse! Of a truth, we of the English Church are +blessed beyond others, would we but apprehend our privileges! Brought +nigh, as we are, to our LORD CHRIST, with such abundant mercy and +undeserved! If we come short of plenary grace in HIM, what shall we dare +to plead in the Day of account? + +“What manner of persons ought we to be?” for we have “come unto the City +of the Living GOD, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company +of Angels; to the general Assembly and Church of the first-born enrolled +in heaven!—to GOD the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the perfected +just; and to JESUS the MEDIATOR of the New Testament, and to the blood of +sprinkling!”—Would that the feeling of CHRIST’S first disciples were +ours! “LORD, to whom else shall we go? THOU hast the words of eternal +life.” Would that we were more thankful to GOD for the present blessings +of His Church! Would that we used our Prayers, and tried them well, +before we talked of amending them; or understood our holy offices, +instead of seeking to shorten them!—Have we now, in this late century, to +seek out new faith—some new instructor or guide? GOD deliver us from +this blindness! May HE help His people to see what treasures of unknown +grace lie hidden in His Holy Church among us! “We have all and abound.” +Let us only “give diligence” thereto, that when CHRIST cometh, “we may be +found of Him in peace, without spot and blameless!” + +“LORD, I have loved the Habitation of THY House, and the place where +THINE honour dwelleth!”—So holy David could say from the very depths of +his soul: and shall we who are brought into a holier place, “the +Habitation of GOD through the SPIRIT,” be forbidden to give utterance to +as ardent a love—a devotion as deep and pure?— + +O HOLY CHURCH OF ENGLAND! Brightest and fairest province of the realm of +heaven on earth! What shining paths of truth and holiness are Thine!—And +they are thronged by all Thy many Saints, farther than eye can trace +through long past ages! What rivers of full grace flow through Thy +mighty channels! What living fountains send forth their waters, +refreshing evermore the weary and parched soul! Within Thy hallowed +walls Thy saintly children trod in the ancient days—(the “old times of +which our Fathers have told us”),—they whose monuments of goodness and +glory are around us—in whose prayers we pray to the ETERNAL FATHER of +all—in whose Psalms “we praise THEE O GOD, _we_ acknowledge THEE to be +THE LORD,” from age to age.—O HOLY CHURCH of the many wise and good! O +CHURCH of patient Martyrs and godly Confessors!—with whom we hold such +mystical Communion, such “fellowship one with another,” that the “blood +of CHRIST here cleanseth us!”—To GOD be glory in Thee, O CHURCH of our +Land! throughout all ages, world without end! Amen. + + + + +NOTES. + + +No. I. + + +IT seems alike congruous to human nature, and consistent with every +Divine dispensation to say, that man is more effectually influenced by +the personal instrumentality of his fellow man, than by any other means. +Statesmen and politicians seem to have seen this; and in every age have +acted upon it; and have thought it necessary to give their sanction and +support to a priesthood, even for the attainment of worldly ends. The +lower classes of the community also, bear unequivocal testimony to the +same truth—the suitability of the living Priesthood as the effective +means of influencing human nature. Even among those classes of our own +people, who affect to make light of the authority of the Ministry, it is +remarkable how much that authority is _felt_ after all; and how much even +the systematic rejecters of the established Priesthood, are accustomed to +impute high power and efficacy to the ministrations, and often to the +very persons, of their own self-sent ministers. Books have their use—but +Man directly influences man, in a more vital way. + +And more than this. Some men _naturally_ influence their fellows more +than others: and some men _Divinely_; that is by Divine appointment. It +is true, for instance, that by the very necessity of our social nature +and condition, we affect one another in a very important degree; and that +it is even a duty sometimes to exert our moral influence on our brethren. +And the degree in which we are able to accomplish this, will be variously +determined. But beyond the natural influence which we thus exercise, +there is an instituted influence, as much a matter of _fact_ as the +former. Keeping to the religious view of this question only, I would +thus further explain: + +It is evident that in every age, one man may be a blessing to another, by +personally instructing him to the best of his power: or by praying for +him, to Almighty GOD. Every good man may possess this power of mediately +blessing his fellow men; but some men more than others.—A Howard may thus +bless very “effectually.” And, generally, the “effectual fervent prayer +of a righteous man availeth much.” But some there have been in every +age, who, according to the Divine testimony, have had POWER to give +authoritative blessing. (1 Sam. iii. 19.) Some have been from time to +time appointed and endowed by the DEITY, “to bless, and to curse, in the +name of the LORD.” (1 Chron. xxiii. 13.) Generally this was the assigned +function of the Priesthood, and was declared to pertain to them “for +ever.” But “from the beginning it was so;” Job blessed his three +friends, (Job xlii. 8.) and Noah his sons, (Gen. ix.) and before the +Levitical priesthood was set up, Melchisedec “blessed Abraham.” Isaac +“blessed Jacob and could not reverse it” though he heartily wished to do +so: and Joseph, again, blessed his two sons, _officially_, and contrary +to his own intention. (Gen. xlviii. 9.) Balaam, we see, also, was sent +for to “curse” Israel, and he “blessed them altogether,” though he wished +not to do it: (Num. xxii. 11.) so that it was no peculiar privilege of +the Jewish nation or their ancestors to be able to impart an +authoritative blessing. (Matt. xxiii. 3.) And we find the same to hold +in the Christian dispensation. (Acts x. 41.) Being reviled “we bless,” +said the Apostle. Say “PEACE be to this house,” was our LORD’S direction +to His Ministers; “and if the Son of peace be there, YOUR PEACE shall +rest upon it.” So that at the end of his epistles St. Paul _sends_ his +Apostolic blessing “under his own hand.” And “without all contradiction +(he argues) the less is blessed of the better.” (Heb. vii. 7. Deut. xxi. +5; xxvii. 14.) All men can pray for blessing, but _some_ can “bless.” +So, every man can _read_ “the Absolution,” but “GOD hath given POWER and +commandment to His MINISTERS, to declare and PRONOUNCE it.” (So St. +James says, “If any man (not, if any _poor_ man, only, as some seem to +take it) be sick, let him call for the Priests of the CHURCH.”)—And this +depends not on the goodness of the MAN. A Judas was an Apostle. + +Let any one follow out in his own mind these hints; and he will see +nothing either unphilosophical or unscriptural in expecting in these days +also the blessings of an instituted Priesthood. GOD’S plan ever is, to +use _men_ as instruments of good to men. Revelation has ever recognized +such an institute as the living Ministry. All infidelity is an attempt +at “codification.” + + + +II. + + +AT the close of the fourth Lecture I have made some observations on the +INTENTION of the Church Catholic, as constituting, in a measure, the +essence of the validity of certain of Her Ordinances. It will be +difficult to clear this statement from the possibility of +misrepresentation, and even misapprehension: I would request that what I +have said at p. 128, &c. may be re-read and considered. The Doctrine of +Laying on of hands is recognized in Scripture; but there is no command of +CHRIST concerning this, in the same way that there is a command +concerning Baptism and the Eucharist. It seems an institute of the +Apostles and the Primitive Church; and may perhaps be looked on as an +instance of the early exercise of the Church’s inherent power and grace; +for the institute certainly received the sanction of Scripture, before +the close of the Sacred Canon. So that it would be impossible to say how +dangerous it might not be, to depart from the Church’s Ordinance of +Laying on of hands. I trust therefore that none will imagine, that what +is here said can fairly be made to sanction the loose notion, that any +part of the Church Catholic can now voluntarily originate and ordain a +Ministry in a _new_ way; and without imposition of hands. The +uncertainty, not to say peril of presumption in any such case, will be +quite sufficient to guard against the fatal folly of such a thought. How +far the grace of the Apostolate is ordinarily now allied even to the very +_act_ of “laying on of hands,” it may be impossible to say; still it is +important in many respects to observe, that the Laying on of hands is not +so strictly of the nature of a proper sacrament, as that the divine grace +is always necessarily allied to that form of ordination exclusively. +There is advantage in considering that in _theory_ it may not be so, +though there could be no safety or certainty in deliberately _acting_ on +such a doubtfully understood theory. + +Even the Roman Controversialists do not agree that the Laying on of hands +is _the_ specifically Sacramental act;—the outward form to which only of +necessity the inward grace is allied. Though I cannot help thinking that +it would much benefit their argument, if they were agreed on this point. +The Doctrine which attributes the essence of Ordination to the uniform +Intention of the Church Catholic may be, of course, very easily cavilled +at; but still even the Romanist must, to a certain extent, rely on some +such Doctrine, and such a Doctrine is that, perhaps, which alone will +harmonize the conflicting Roman theories. In its very nature it is a +Doctrine which admits not of strict definition. It rises simply out of +the truth, that the gifts of CHRIST were to the CHURCH, and not primarily +or inherently in individuals, as such. + +This theoretical conception of these ordinances will serve greatly to +assist us in meeting a theoretical difficulty, not unfrequently brought +against the Doctrine of the Succession. It is said: ‘Is it not very +conceivable, after all that has been urged, that during the long course +of ages, in _some_ countries at least, some one break in the Apostolic +chain _might_ have occurred? Is it not a consequence, in that case, that +all subsequent Ordinations would be very doubtful?’ To which we reply, +‘Point out _the fact_.’ We challenge you to find it; a bare supposition +can have but little force as an argument. And then, supposing the fact +to be discovered, That a certain Bishop had obtained his place in the +Church by invalid means—what is the consequence? Could he perpetuate +such an invalid Succession? Certainly not; for in Ordaining others, he +would be associated with _two_ other Bishops, whose valid grace would +confer true Orders, notwithstanding the inefficacy of the third coadjutor +in the Ordination. But, putting the case at the very worst, even if such +an instance could be found, it would only affect the condition of the +single Church over which the nominal Bishop presided; and that only so +far as the particular functions of that Bishop were concerned; and it +would be corrected at his death. And all this may be urged in reply even +by Romanists. But we who deny Holy Orders to be a proper Sacrament of +CHRIST, can add more than this. We suggest, that in the case of a Bishop +obtaining his place in the Church by some invalid means, which the Church +had mistaken for valid, the Church’s INTENTION might avail sufficiently, +for the time being at least, to counteract the effects of man’s sin; and +so give value even to the ministrations of the Church which had been so +severely visited, as to have such a Bishop set over them. So we meet the +theoretical difficulty by a theoretical answer. + + + +III. + + +IT is not unusual with those who are more anxious to make difficulties +than to understand the Catholic truth, to speak of the “vagueness of the +rule of S. Vincent,” and the arduousness of the task imposed by the +Doctors of the _Via Media_ on all their scholars. That it is easy enough +to construct a theoretical difficulty of this sort, no one will question. +But it behoves every Christian to consider well, whether any “dilemmas of +Churchmen” can be stated which might not (without any very great +ingenuity) be turned into ‘Dilemmas of CHRISTIANS.’ Doubtless it is a +_trial_, (and GOD intended it to be so, 1 Cor. xi. 19.) to see so many +diversities and divisions in the Church; yet candid judges will hardly +decide, that English Churchmen have more difficulties of this kind than +other men; or that we should be likely to escape similar “dilemmas” by +forsaking the CHURCH for any other community. And in spite of the +ingenuity of men, common sense will generally understand the practical +use and application of S. Vincent’s rule, “Quod semper,” &c. An instance +of the ordinary manner of its practical employment, may be seen, to a +certain extent, in Lecture II. p. 51, and will suggest at once to the +minds of many, the way in which the English Churchman can and does +proceed. Difficult as the theory of the Via Media, and the popular +recognition of truth by S. Vincent’s test may in theory be made to seem; +yet it is, I imagine, practically and as a matter of experience acted on, +to a much wider extent, both in our own Church and the _Roman_, than is +commonly noticed, or thought of. In illustration, the twenty-first +chapter of St. Luke might be advantageously consulted. Our LORD there +assumes (what in fact is daily seen) that heresies should arise. And He +tells His people not to follow the “Lo here is CHRIST!” and “Lo there!” +Of course it might always be easy to say—which is THE CHURCH?—and, which +is the heresy?—The “Lo here!” But that is a difficulty which our LORD +did _not_ entertain. It has very little existence in fact and +experience. Every man, generally speaking, knows whether he is in “the +Church.” Though, of course, there is such a thing as a “strong +delusion;” (2 Thess. ii. 11.) The whole of our LORD’S address in this +chapter is one which the Catholic Church _feels_ the power of. It is +full of “_difficulty_,” and “uncertainty, and vagueness,” to Sectarians +only, who have no test whereby they can be sure that they are not the +very persons aimed at by our LORD, as following false and _new_ teachers. +It seems to me, that the Sectarian _cannot_ act upon CHRIST’S directions +in this chapter. Nay they _must_ have, to him, all the vagueness and +uncertainty which he charges on the Catholic rule. “Keep to the ancient +Apostolic way; mind not novelties; ‘Go not after them.’ Keep to the +‘Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,’ in opposition to every ‘Lo +here is Christ!’” + + + +IV. + + +THE holy Apostle St. Paul, good children, in the tenth chapter of his +Epistle to the Romans, writeth on this fashion: “Whosoever shall call +upon the name of the LORD, shall be saved. But how shall they call on +Him on Whom they believe not? How shall they believe on Him of Whom they +have not heard? How shall they hear without a preacher? How shall they +preach except they be Sent?” By the which words St. Paul doth evidently +declare unto us two lessons. + +The first is, that it is necessary to our salvation to have Preachers and +Ministers of GOD’S most holy word, to instruct us in the true faith and +knowledge. + +The second is, that Preachers must not run to this high honour before +they be called thereto, but they must be ordained and appointed to this +office, and sent to us by GOD. For it is not possible to be saved, or to +please GOD, without faith; and no man can truly believe in GOD by his own +wit, (for of ourselves we know not what we should believe) but we must +needs hear GOD’S word taught us by other. + +Again, the Teachers, except they be called and Sent, cannot fruitfully +teach. For the seed of GOD’S word doth never bring forth fruit, unless +the LORD of the harvest do give increase, and by His HOLY SPIRIT do work +with the sower. But GOD doth not work with the preacher whom He hath not +sent, as St. Paul saith . . . Wherefore, good children, to the intent you +may steadfastly believe all things which GOD by His ministers doth teach +and promise unto you, and so be saved by your faith, learn diligently I +pray you, by what words our LORD JESUS CHRIST gave this commission and +commandment to His ministers, and rehearse them here, word for word, that +so you may print them in your memories, and recite them the better when +you come home. The words of CHRIST be these: + +“Our LORD JESUS breathed on His disciples and said, Receive the HOLY +GHOST; whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; and whose sins +you reserve, they are reserved.” + +. . . Now, good children, that you may the better understand these words +of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, you shall know that our LORD JESUS CHRIST, when He +began to preach, He did call and choose His twelve Apostles; and +afterward, besides those twelve, He sent forth threescore and ten +disciples, and gave them authority to preach the Gospel. And after +CHRIST’S ascension, the Apostles gave authority to other godly and holy +men to minister GOD’S word, and chiefly in those places where there were +Christian men already, which lacked preachers, and the Apostles +themselves could no longer abide with them: for the Apostles did walk +abroad into divers parts of the world, and did study to plant the Gospel +in many places. Wherefore where they found godly men, and meet to preach +GOD’S word, they laid they hands upon them, and gave them the HOLY GHOST, +as they themselves received of CHRIST the same HOLY GHOST to execute this +office. + +And they that were so ordained, were indeed, and also were called the +ministers of GOD as the Apostles themselves were, as Paul saith unto +Timothy. And so the ministration of GOD’S word (which our LORD JESUS +CHRIST Himself did first institute) was derived from the Apostles, unto +other after them, by imposition of hands and giving the HOLY GHOST, from +the Apostles’ time to our days. And this was the consecration, orders, +and unction of the Apostles, whereby they, at the beginning, made Bishops +and Priests; and this shall continue in the Church, even to the world’s +end. + +Wherefore, good children, you shall give due reverence and honour to the +Ministers of the Church, and shall not meanly or lightly esteem them in +the execution of their office, but you shall take them for GOD’S +Ministers, and the Messengers of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. For CHRIST +Himself saith in the Gospel, “He that heareth you, heareth ME; and he +that despiseth you, despiseth ME.” Wherefore, good children, you shall +steadfastly believe all those things, which such Ministers shall speak +unto you from the mouth and by the commandment of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. +And whatsoever They do to you, as when They BAPTIZE you, when They give +you ABSOLUTION, and distribute to you the BODY and BLOOD of our LORD +JESUS CHRIST, these you shall so esteem as if CHRIST Himself, in His own +person, did speak and minister unto you. For CHRIST hath commanded His +ministers to do this unto you, and He Himself (although you see Him not +with your bodily eyes) is present with His ministers, and worketh by the +HOLY GHOST in the administration of His Sacraments. And on the other +side you shall take good heed and beware of false and privy preachers, +which privily creep into cities, and preach in corners, having none +authority, nor being called to this office. For CHRIST is not present +with such preachers, and therefore doth not the HOLY GHOST work by their +preaching; but their word is without fruit or profit, and they do great +hurt in commonwealths. For such as be not called of GOD, they, no doubt +of it, do err, and sow abroad heresy and naughty doctrine.—CRANMER’S +“Catechismus.” Edit. 1548. A _Sermon of the authority of the Keys_.—See +also _Jewel’s Apology_, pp. 28, &c. Ed. 1829. + + + +V. + + +THE arguments used in p. 87, 88, &c. respecting the Priesthood of CHRIST, +still manifesting the One Sacrifice of CHRIST in the Church, may serve +incidentally to illustrate the error of the Romanists respecting both the +Priesthood and the Sacrifice. St. Paul certainly implies that an +_analogy_ exists between the Ministers and their functions in the +respective Churches of the Jews and Christians. And in implying an +_analogy_, he evidently takes for granted that there is not an +_identity_. The Romanist seems to overlook this: his error is truly a +Judaizing error; and it seems to result from a virtual forgetfulness, +that the ONE great Sacrifice “once for all” _has been_ offered, and that +the Christian Priesthood has only continuously to “manifest” it. In +speaking of the “Priesthood” of the Church, and the Eucharistic +“Sacrifice,” we certainly imply that the Christian Presbyter has truly +holy functions to perform, in respect of the great atoning Sacrifice, +_analogous_ to those of the Jewish priest: but we must be careful not to +make them _identical_. St. Paul, in the epistle to the Hebrews, +evidently assumes the analogy, but his argument is wholly inconsistent +with the notion of identity. The Christian Priest cannot “sacrifice,” in +a Jewish sense of the word; but in a much better. So it may be truly +said, that he has to “offer” continually The Sacrifice once made by The +DIVINE HIGH PRIEST. (Gal. iii. 1.) But the term “offering,” among +primitive writers, is used _generally_; and does not exclusively refer to +the Consecrated Elements alone.—See note E. in the former series of +“Parochial Lectures,” on the Holy Catholic Church. There is some +historical light thrown on our own Church’s view of this subject by the +volume just published by the Principal of St. Alban’s Hall, Oxford, +comparing the two Liturgies of King Edward VI.—Oxford, 1838. + + * * * * * + + THE END. + + * * * * * + + * * * * * + + GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John’s Square, London. + + * * * * * + + _By the same Author_, + + I. + + ON THE WHOLE DOCTRINE + OF + FINAL CAUSES: + + A DISSERTATION, IN THREE PARTS.—pp. 222. + + _Price_ 7_s._ 6_d._ _cloth_. + + * * * * * + + II. + + ON THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH: + PAROCHIAL LECTURES. + + (FIRST SERIES.) + + _Price_ 4_s._ 6_d._ _cloth_. + + * * * * * + + III. + + ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH: + A SERMON + ON THE + PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD. + + _Price_ 1_s._ 6_d._ + + * * * * * + + RIVINGTONS, + + ST. PAUL’S CHURCH YARD, & WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. + + + + +FOOTNOTES. + + +{1} The Feast of St. Andrew. + +{8} Not _justly_ so; because in writing to his own people, there was not +perhaps the same necessity for vindicating his apostolate. + +{10} See Notes. No. I. + +{11} Philippians ii. 22. 25. + +{24} They who would wish to investigate this subject further, may find +it fully treated in Leslie’s “Case of the Regale and Pontificate.” + +{26a} See Newman’s History of the Arians, p. 347. + +{26b} Quoted by Leslie, from Bp. Burnet, p. 30. + +{30} It has been well remarked, that the consequence of allowing it to +be said “that we are a Parliamentary Church,” has been, that the higher +ranks among us are verging towards Deism, and the lower to Fanaticism. +The former, not believing that there can be much Divine in a religion +which they can shape and modify as they please in the Senate. And the +other, seeing nothing very “scriptural,” or heavenly, in a “State-made” +Creed. + +{41} The first week in Advent. + +{45} This prophecy seems taken by the ancient Fathers to refer to the +Holy Eucharist. + +{46} It may be sufficient perhaps to refer to “Hey’s Threefold +Ministry,” as a synopsis of the Scriptural view of the subject. + +{47} See Bishop Hall’s Episcopacy by Divine right. + +{48} See Notes, No. II. + +{58} Originating probably from a _literal_ interpretation of Matt, +xviii. 20. Just as the bowing at The Blessed Name seems derived, by +Catholic and pious practice taking _literally_ Philippians ii. 10. + +{60} And our false position is frequently increased by our tacitly +admitting the _popular_ antithesis between ourselves and the continental +Churches, which are taken _in a mass_—and called, all together, “The +Church of Rome!”—Thus we practically overlook the _fact_, That the Church +of Rome is one _particular_ Italian Church: and so increase our own +apparent difficulty. + +{62a} See Notes, No. II. + +{62b} Of the authenticity of the first fifty at least of the Apostolical +Canons, there can now be no doubt. They consist of those rules which had +grown up in the Church in the Apostles’ days, and the first hundred years +after them. They seem to have been composed very early indeed, but +gathered together about a hundred years after the death of St. John, +(probably, it is said, by Clement of Alexandria) and they are quoted as +_ancient_, about a hundred years later. + +{63a} See the Canons of Nice, and the earlier ones of Ancyra and +Neocesarea, in Routh’s edition of the Scriptor. Opus, and the Rel. Sacr. +vol. iii., and Tertullian adv. Hær. c. 36. + +{63b} Such was the extent of discipline indeed, that even common +Christians in passing temporarily to another Church, had to take letters +of communion from their Bishop. + +{65a} See Notes, No. II. + +{65b} “Per Successiones Episcoporum pervenientem (h. e. Ecclesiam) usque +ad nos, judicantes confundimus omnes eos qui quoquo modo . . . præter +quam oportet colligunt.”—S. Irenæus, in lib. iii. adversus Hæreses, c. 3. +In which may be seen the Evidence of the teaching of Polycarp, St. John’s +disciple. + +{66} “Quis enim _fidelis_ servus et prudens quem constituit Dominus ejus +super domum suam ut det cibos in tempore?”—Quod ad _Apostolos ceterosque +Episcopos et Doctores_ parabola ista pertineat manifestum est: maxime ex +eo quod apud Lucam (cap. xii.) Petrus interrogat dicens, “Ad nos +parabolam istam dicis? an ad omnes?”— . . . Ait Apostolus, (ad Cor. c. +iv.) “Ita nos existimet homo, ut ministros Christi et Dispensatores +Mysteriorum.”—Hîc jam quæritur inter dispensatores ut _fidelis_ quis +inveniatur, &c.—Origen. in Matth. Tractat. xxxi. + +{67} See the next Lecture, towards the close. + +{69} The second week in Advent. + +{81a} See the Nicene Canons. + +{81b} See Jewel’s Apology. + +{82a} And again, virtually, by the Gallicans. + +{82b} This is worthy of their consideration who are apt to be too +disheartened at the divisions in the English Church. When the Popedom +was a disputed matter for seventy years, what could the plain Catholic +laity have thought? It was impossible to avoid the anathema of one Pope +or the other, both pretending to infallibility. See Notes No. III. + +{83} Such, for instance, as those glanced at in p. 47, 48, and referred +to in Notes No. II. and III. + +{88} Connected with this part of the subject few books are so important +to be read as “Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice.” + +{89} See also, among others, that striking passage, Rom. xv. 15.## + +{93a} See Notes No. I. + +{93b} 1 Kings xxii. 24. + +{94} As, for instance, the cure of the blind man, by the clay. Or that +of the lepers. + +{98} Sermons on Baptism, Absolution, and the Eucharist. + +{99a} Bp. Hall’s Episcopacy by Divine Right, p. 6. + +{99b} See Jewel, and Hooker. Ed. Keble. And Notes, No. IV. + +{99c} “Non sumus _adeo felices_.” Words of the President of the Synod +of Dort. + +{100} Melanchthon Ep. Luthero, quoted by Bishop Hall. + +{101} A parallel case, to a certain extent, may be seen in Judges xvii. +5, 6, 13. &c. The priesthood of the LORD was associated partly with +idolatrous worship. Micah had graven images and teraphim, yet he, with a +Levite for a Priest, was partly blessed by GOD. It is not for us to say +how far GOD may bless those who are not strictly obeying Him; +nevertheless we must not calculate on this. Obedience is still a duty. + +{102a} That is; Many who have departed and joined the sects in sincerity +and ignorance, may be attributing to human causes that re-invigoration of +spiritual life, which is but the forgotten Baptismal grace of Christ, +mercifully “_in them_, springing up to everlasting life.” (John iv. 14; +John vii. 38, 39.) This may be also, one of GOD’S means of humbling and +reforming His too careless Church. + +{102b} John iii. 5.—The ordinary “entrance to the Kingdom.” + +{103a} Matt. xx. 22.; and perhaps 1 Cor. xv. 29. + +{103b} Rom. x. 10. (which conveys the principle); and Luke xxiii. 42. + +{103c} Our own Church recognizes this doctrine; speaking in her +Baptismal Office of the “great necessity of the Sacrament _where it may +be had_;” and in the Catechism of its “_general_ necessity.” CHRIST +affirmed generally the necessity of being “born of water,” as the +preliminary of “entrance to His kingdom,” yet He promised admission +thereto to the dying thief, who _confessed_ Him with a penitent heart. + +{105a} Acts x. 35. + +{105b} See, on this subject, and generally, on the danger of Schism, S. +Jerome’s Ep. 69, &c. And concerning the peril of departing from the +Bishops Catholic, see S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. ad Trall, et ad Phil. + +{106} Ephesians iv. 8–12. + +{107} 1 Cor. xi. 10. + +{109} The Feast of St. Thomas. + +{111} See the former series of “Parochial Lectures,” On The Holy +Catholic Church, Lecture IV. p. 113, &c. in which I have explained this +more fully. + +{113} See Lect. I. page 27. + +{120} Of course there were some that disputed even in their own days the +Power of the Apostles themselves.—See 2 Tim. iv. 10, 16; 3 John 10. The +Apostles shrank not from asserting their own “POWER which the Lord had +given them to edification”—“A Spirit of POWER and of love”—“Not that I +have not POWER,”—said St. Paul, (2 Thess. iii. 9.) + +{121} The manner in which modern sectarians sometimes profess to +recognise “only the kingship and headship of CHRIST,” affords a striking +proof of this; for no one misunderstands _them_, as some did the +Apostles, by supposing them to be establishing a temporal rule. The +Apostolic system evidently had that in it, which furnished some apparent +ground for such a mistake; and so also the Catholic Church is sometimes +charged with “interfering with the State.” + +{123} Apost. Can. 37. Ed. Coloniæ, 1538. + +{128} See the Homily of our Church, on the Common Prayer and Sacraments. +And Notes No. II. + +{134a} Called, therefore, “the συναξις” in the early Church. + +{134b} A similar principle seems hinted, John vii. 22. + +{135} This may perhaps throw some light on Tertullian’s meaning in a +passage quoted by Bishop Kaye, (p. 226.) The word “consessus” seems to +allude to the expression of our Lord, “where two or three are _gathered +together_;” indeed in the same connexion, he quotes this very text. And +I would suggest, that Tertullian’s argument in this place, however ill +expressed, may perhaps imply, and certainly requires no more than is +stated above, viz. that the Sacerdotal grace was primarily or essentially +in the CHURCH, and not originally in the _persons_ of any individuals as +such. + +{137} See Notes, No. V. + + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION*** + + +******* This file should be named 49006-0.txt or 49006-0.zip ******* + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/9/0/0/49006 + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United +States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive +specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this +eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given +away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks +not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the +trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country outside the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you + are located before using this ebook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The +Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the +mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its +volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous +locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt +Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to +date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and +official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + diff --git a/49006-0.zip b/49006-0.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b4ffbc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/49006-0.zip diff --git a/49006-h.zip b/49006-h.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..98fea16 --- /dev/null +++ b/49006-h.zip diff --git a/49006-h/49006-h.htm b/49006-h/49006-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..31bf39e --- /dev/null +++ b/49006-h/49006-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4997 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>On the apostolical succession, by William J. Irons</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;} + P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; } + .GutSmall { font-size: 0.7em; } + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4, H5 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + table { border-collapse: collapse; } +table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;} + td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;} + td p { margin: 0.2em; } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-weight: normal; + color: gray; + } + img { border: none; } + img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; } + p.gutindent { margin-left: 2em; } + div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; } + div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 100%; border-top: 1px solid;} + div.gapmediumline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + div.gapmediumdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; + margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid; } + div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%; + margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + .citation {vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + img.floatleft { float: left; + margin-right: 1em; + margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.floatright { float: right; + margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.clearcenter {display: block; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em} + --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg eBook, On the apostolical succession, by William J. +Irons + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most +other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of +the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have +to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. + + + + +Title: On the apostolical succession + Parochial lectures, second series + + +Author: William J. Irons + + + +Release Date: May 20, 2015 [eBook #49006] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION*** +</pre> +<p>Transcribed from the 1847 Joseph Masters edition by David +Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p> +<h1>On the Apostolical Succession.</h1> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">PAROCHIAL LECTURES.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span +class="GutSmall">(</span><span class="GutSmall"><i>SECOND +SERIES</i></span><span class="GutSmall">.)</span></p> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">BY</span><br +/> +WILLIAM J. IRONS, B.D.,<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">INCUMBENT OF THE HOLY TRINITY, BROMPTON, +MIDDLESEX.</span></p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">LONDON:<br /> +JOSEPH MASTERS, 33, ALDERSGATE STREET.<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">MDCCCXLVII.</span></p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><a name="pageiii"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. iii</span><span class="GutSmall">TO</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><b>EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, +D.D.</b></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">(LATE FELLOW +OF ORIEL COLLEGE)</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">CANON OF +CHRIST CHURCH,</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">AND REGIUS +PROFESSOR OF HEBREW</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">IN THE +UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD;</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center">THIS VOLUME</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">(BY HIS +PERMISSION)</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">IS +PRESENTED; WITH A DEEP FEELING</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">OF THE +AUTHOR’S OBLIGATION</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">TO +HIM</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">FOR THE +BLESSINGS OF HIS LEARNED INSTRUCTION,</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">HIS +CHRISTIAN EXAMPLE,</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">AND HIS +HONEST FRIENDSHIP.</span></p> +<h2><a name="pagev"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +v</span>PREFACE.</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">Very</span> little needs to be said to +introduce these Lectures to the reader. They were delivered +in Advent last, at Saint Mary’s, Newington; and there is +the same reason for publishing, which there then was for writing +and preaching them. I desire to assist, as far as I am +able, those who are seeking to clear and define their thoughts, +respecting the origin, nature, and power of the Christian +Ministry. I have aimed only at plainness and fairness in +the statement of the argument; and have adopted <a +name="pagevi"></a><span class="pagenum">p. vi</span>that +arrangement of the subject, in which, as far as I can judge, it +originally came before my own mind.</p> +<p>In the Dedication of this Volume to the Regius Professor of +Hebrew at Oxford, I have acknowledged my great obligation to him +for the instruction which I hope I have derived from his +writings—an acknowledgment which, happily, I am so far from +being singular in making, that I suppose every one who has +studied them, might make the same statement. But it is +right that I should say, that as I have not learned a lesson by +rote, but, from the first, thought patiently and freely for +myself, so the Public must not consider the Professor answerable +for every opinion which I may have expressed. And it may be +well also to add, that the general doctrine here set forth is <a +name="pagevii"></a><span class="pagenum">p. vii</span>not hastily +taken up on any man’s authority; but was maintained by the +writer, both in private and public, as many will bear witness, +long before he had the happiness and advantage of being +acquainted with the works, or characters, of the present leading +Divines of the University of Oxford.</p> +<p><i>St. Peter’s</i>, <i>Walworth</i>, <i>Surrey</i>.</p> +<h2><a name="pageix"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +ix</span>CONTENTS.</h2> +<table> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span +class="GutSmall">PAGE</span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p style="text-align: center">LECTURE I.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">THE +DOCTRINE</span>.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>The Method of the Argument—Importance of a +Ministry—Scriptural aspect of the subject—Apostolical +language concerning it—Compared with the Modern—What +the safe inference—The original Ministry possibly still +exists—And if so, what constitutes a +Ministry—Scripture Language—Compared with Popular and +Modern notions—Theory of the Inward Call—Erastian +theory—The Common principle of all such +Theories—Illustrated—The Catholic <span +class="smcap">Doctrine</span> of the Ministry—Compared with +the Modern, and with Scripture—The Continuance of the +Ministry—<span class="smcap">Doctrine</span> of the <span +class="smcap">Succession</span> stated and +explained—Reasons for the present Inquiry</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page1">1</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p style="text-align: center"><a +name="pagex"></a><span class="pagenum">p. x</span>LECTURE II.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">THE +EVIDENCE</span>.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Importance of not hastily prejudging—Argued from the +parallel case of the Jewish Church—Necessity of considering +the Evidence for the <span +class="smcap">Succession</span>—Evidence of Scripture, how +far Important—Historical Evidence—Popular +Difficulties—A General reply.—On +Evidence—Popular Notions—The expected Evidence of the +<span class="smcap">Succession</span>—Illustrated by a +parallel case—Impossible—And even if attainable, not +satisfactory—What kind and amount of Evidence should be +looked for—Parallels of Evidence—For the +Scriptures—The Sacraments, and the Ministry of the +Church—On what Evidence the Common People must of necessity +receive the Bible—And the Apostolic Church—Literary +Evidence of the Bible, difficult—And of the <span +class="smcap">Succession</span>—Analysis of it, Theoretical +and Historical—Accumulation of the Evidence—Moral +Certainty—Conclusion</p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page41">41</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p style="text-align: center">LECTURE III.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">THE +OBJECTIONS</span>.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Necessity of considering <span +class="smcap">Objections</span>—Classification of +them—(1.) As connected with the <span +class="smcap">Fact</span> of the Succession, and its +Consequences.—(2.) And the <span +class="smcap">Doctrine</span>, and its Consequences.</p> +<p>(1.) General +Corruption—Idolatry—Schism—Infringement of +Private Judgment—Popery and Superstition.</p> +<p>(2.) Judaistic +Doctrine—Carnality—Technicality—Scriptural +Uncertainty—Exclusiveness—Uncharitableness—Unchurching +other Protestants—among whom may be seen many Evidences of +God’s Blessing and Religious Success—Explanation.</p> +<p>Catholic Charity—Theoretical and +Practical—Review</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page69">69</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td colspan="2"><p style="text-align: center"><a +name="pagexi"></a><span class="pagenum">p. xi</span>LECTURE +IV.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">THE +SUMMARY</span>.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>The Summary—Mistakes of the Ideality of +Christianity—Erroneous popular Notions and +Arguments—Contrast of Rationalist and Catholic +theories—Comparison—And with +Scripture—Analytical Review of the Catholic Religion, +illustrating the Doctrine of the Ministry—Synthetical View +of the same—Conclusion</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page109">109</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Notes</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page145">145</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<h2><a name="page1"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 1</span>I.<br /> +THE DOCTRINE.</h2> +<p class="gutsumm"><span class="smcap">From the Epistle</span>. +<a name="citation1"></a><a href="#footnote1" +class="citation">[1]</a>—“How, then, shall they call +on <span class="smcap">Him</span> in Whom they have not +believed?—and, How shall they believe in Him of Whom they +have not heard?—and, How shall they hear without a +preacher?—and, How shall they preach except they be <span +class="GutSmall">SENT</span>?”—<span +class="smcap">Romans</span> x. 14.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">At</span> this season of preparation for +the <span class="smcap">Advent</span>, the Apostolical Ministry +is one of the subjects especially brought before us by the <span +class="smcap">Church</span>, as doubtless peculiarly calculated +to fit our minds for the right reception and reverent +contemplation of our <span class="smcap">Saviour’s</span> +first and second Coming. It would be needless to enlarge on +the suitability of the Epistle selected for this Introductory +Festival, opening and leading the way, as it does, to those of +the whole “glorious company of the <a +name="page2"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +2</span>Apostles.” We can scarcely read the passage +now quoted, without recognizing at once much of its +appropriateness. It contains a brief vindication both of +the moral necessity and the Divine authority of the Christian +Ministry; and so plainly, that, to some extent, all must perceive +it. But it may be highly profitable to us to draw out and +examine with attention the subject, which St. Paul thus lays +before us in epitome only; concerning which we know that there is +much diversity of thinking among professing Christians, and, +consequently, great danger of wrong thinking.</p> +<p>It is too much the practice of modern theologians to refer to +the New Testament, almost as if it were a book of aphorisms; and +so, when a quotation is made therefrom, it seems to be inquired, +what meaning it will <i>bear</i>; or what use can be <i>made</i> +of it; rather than, what meaning it <i>must</i> have had in such +a connection; or what use <i>must</i> have been intended, under +such circumstances. And hence has resulted this fatal +consequence, that the apostolic writings are commonly interpreted +by modern opinions, instead of modern opinions being tested by +the apostolic writings. There is but too painful evidence +of this, in the manner in which some men set about +“proving” <a name="page3"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 3</span>their peculiar system by the +Scriptures; evidently assuming from the first that their system +is <i>right</i>, and so (unconsciously, we trust,) sorting and +arranging the “best texts” to establish it. +Surely an attempt to treat any other ancient book as the Holy +Scriptures are thus treated, would not be borne with. +Suppose, for example, any disciple of the schools of the modern +scepticism should attempt to show, from selected passages of some +leading treatise of ancient philosophy, that his own opinions +precisely coincided with those of the sage from whom he was +quoting; it is evident that he would hereby deceive no one but +himself. On a reference to the treatise in question, it +would be at once apparent, that it was written by one who held +opinions widely different from the modern. Now since, among +Christians, there is an universal appeal to the Scriptures, would +it not be a rational method of testing the opinions of any of the +various classes among us, to inquire, whether it is likely that +such writings <i>would</i> have proceeded from the pens of men +holding such and such opinions? Might we not thus arrive at +as sure a conclusion, notwithstanding all arguments from texts +and passages, that some nominally Christian opinions now +received, were not the opinions of the sacred writers—as +that the opinions of Locke were not <a name="page4"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 4</span>the opinions of the ancient +Epicureans, notwithstanding the coincidences that might be +found? And if it should be seen that any class of opinions +exactly harmonizes with the literal writings of the Apostles, so +that we may imagine the men who held them to have naturally +written what the Apostles wrote; then, should we not have a +highly probable argument for the Scriptural character of those +opinions? Such an argument will in some degree pervade +these Lectures.</p> +<p>Few, perhaps, will fail to perceive some wide difference +between that state of mind which is implied by our popular +Christianity, and that which is implied by the Apostolic +Epistles. The complete unworldliness, the quiet, elevated +self-denial, the earnest humility, the obedience on the one hand +and authority on the other, which are the evident characteristics +of practical Christianity as it appears in the inspired records, +are strikingly different from all which we see now in our popular +religion; and may at times well suggest the fear that we may have +lost much of that faith which the first Christians +possessed. And in no particular is this difference more +remarkably seen, than in the language held respecting the <span +class="smcap">Ministry</span> of the <span +class="smcap">Church</span>; which from its undeniable importance +deserves no light consideration. <a name="page5"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 5</span>Of course it may be said, that much of +the difference of tone respecting the Ministry may be ascribed to +the “cessation of apostolic authority strictly so +called.” But however this be, which we pass for the +present, it is apparent to all, that there <i>is</i> a +difference: and so, men attempt to “account for the +fact,” rather than deny it. To account, for example, +for the “magnified importance” plainly attributed in +Holy Scripture to the living voice of an <span +class="smcap">Apostolic Ministry</span>, above and beyond, and +often without reference to other means of Christian +instruction. Not only the plea just mentioned, but other +similar ones are urged, as the “change of +circumstances,” the “alteration in the times,” +and the like, to account for the fact. How dangerous all +such arguments and evasions are, to those who seek a religion +exactly, or as nearly as possible, such as the first Christians +had, needs scarcely to be urged on any thoughtful mind. For +after all these suppositions and reasonings, it will still remain +very possible that <span class="smcap">The Ministry</span> first +Divinely set up in the <span class="smcap">Church</span>, was +<i>not</i> intended essentially to change with the changing +circumstances of this world; very possible that this might have +been given as one permanent if not paramount means of grace for +mankind, notwithstanding the subsequent introduction of other +means, however efficacious <a name="page6"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 6</span>and invaluable. And then, the +actually existing ministry, its historical continuity, its +unconcealed pretensions, are facts not to be lightly set aside +when viewed in connection with this possibility only; even if it +were nothing more. How much of Apostolical grace is lost +from the ministry, it may be impossible to say; but so also it +would be equally impossible to say how much is retained. +Hence, it must ever remain the <i>safest</i> course for a +Christian man to adhere to an Apostolically descended +Ministry. Let us not pass too hastily from these thoughts; +let us follow them out, into minuter detail; in order to enter +into the state of mind apparently implied by language such as +that in the passage, for instance, which constitutes our +text.</p> +<p>Does it not here seem, by St. Paul’s way of putting his +questions, leaving them, as it were, to answer themselves in +every Christian mind, that they could in his esteem admit of only +one answer? That they must conduct people to the inevitable +conclusion of the necessity of a <span class="smcap">Living +Ministry</span>? Modern Christianity would easily find +<i>other</i> replies; and does so practically. But is there +no danger in such a course? No danger in thus +<i>assuming</i> the sufficiency of what may be termed literary +methods of Christian instruction? <a name="page7"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 7</span>nevertheless it is certain, that very +often it <i>is</i> assumed. “How shall they believe +in <span class="smcap">Him</span> of whom they have not +<i>heard</i>?” “By reading the Bible and +judging for themselves,” would be the reply of modern +Christianity. “How shall they hear without a +preacher?” asks the Apostle. And modern believers +might truly reply, “We do not see the difficulty—Have +we not our Bibles in our hands?” “How shall +they preach except they be <span +class="GutSmall">SENT</span>?” is the inquiry of St. +Paul. And, “surely every man who understands his +Bible may teach it to another,” might be the ready modern +reply. To the Apostle’s mind, on the contrary, such +questions seemed to carry with them their own unavoidable +answers, establishing beyond controversy the necessity of an +authoritative publishing of the truth by living teachers, and +those duly sent +(αποσταλωσι): +nor does the <span class="smcap">Spirit</span> of inspiration (to +whom every future change was known) here give any hint of the +future change of this system of teaching.</p> +<p>But further: what St. Paul meant by being “sent,” +or “apostolically commissioned,” as well as the high +importance which he attached to it, may be gathered from the +extreme anxiety with which, at the opening of his Epistles to the +Churches, he repeats, and dwells on, the fact of <a +name="page8"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 8</span>his own +apostolical character; which is so conspicuous, that the want of +such a preface has sometimes been urged as an argument against +his authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. <a +name="citation8"></a><a href="#footnote8" +class="citation">[8]</a> “Paul an <span +class="smcap">Apostle</span> of <span class="smcap">Jesus +Christ</span>;” “Paul <span +class="GutSmall">CALLED</span> to be an Apostle, separated unto +the Gospel of <span class="smcap">God</span>;” “Paul +an <span class="smcap">Apostle</span> not of men, neither by +man,” but “by the will of <span +class="smcap">God</span>.” Such are the beginnings of +his Epistles. Nor was such an anxiety at all unnatural in +him; because his apostolical character was not so regularly +derived as that of others, and had been greatly disputed in some +churches, and so needed constant vindication: of which the +Apostle seemed to be well aware. But, on modern principles, +this self-vindicating anxiety is quite unintelligible. It +never could have been manifested by St. Paul, if he had only +thought, “that every man has a right to be a Christian +teacher, whether he has a mission or not, provided he is +persuaded of his own ability, and can persuade others of it +too.” To one unacquainted with this notion, there +certainly would seem to be some powerful difficulty (which others +would not see) in this question, “How shall they preach +except they be <a name="page9"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +9</span><span class="GutSmall">SENT</span>?” And +therefore in the next chapter to this which contains these +questionings, St. Paul again glances at this topic, and says, +“Inasmuch as I am the Apostle (the <span +class="GutSmall">SENT</span> one) of the Gentiles, I magnify mine +<span class="GutSmall">OFFICE</span>.” Now, as we +have said, it is very easy to reply to all this, that St. +Paul’s circumstances were different, and that that will +account for the difference of his feelings and language. +For even granting this, is it either consistent with a cautious +reason, or a Christian humility, to assume in this way, that we +are right in differing from St. Paul, provided we can +“account for the difference?” Or, supposing +that our altered times do account for the difference (as in some +sense they do), does it follow that they justify it? +Perhaps we may “account for” most of man’s +transgressions against <span class="smcap">God’s</span> +law, but does that <i>justify</i> them? But let us keep to +the case before us. How can we be so sure, that if in the +apostolic days the common people had possessed Bibles, and were +able to read them, and, in a word, were outwardly circumstanced +in all respects as we are, then St. Paul’s principles, and +St. Paul’s exhortations, would have been such as ours now +are? Have we any right to say, without proof, that St. Paul +assigned such an importance to the teaching of a living ministry, +<i>solely</i> because <a name="page10"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 10</span>Bibles were not plentiful? +Might there not have been other reasons? Consider: is it +not very conceivable that there might have been that in +Christianity which could only be perfectly conveyed by an +institution such as the living ministry?—and which, +therefore, without that ministry, would not be attained, even +though men possessed every other means? Now, without saying +that it is so, and not insisting on the probability of it +(arising from the analogy <a name="citation10"></a><a +href="#footnote10" class="citation">[10]</a> of God’s past +dealings with mankind, and from the very nature of our social +condition), it is enough to affirm, that it is very +<i>possible</i>, very conceivable, that an apostolical ministry +might have been made by <span class="smcap">God</span> the +perpetual channel of a grace to man, which might be conveyed in +no other way. And the possibility of this ought for ever to +restrain us from the rash conclusion, that Christian blessings +may be sufficiently attained by private reading of the +Bible.—If any are inclined to such a conclusion, by the +consideration that possibly the apostolic ministry had a +miraculous blessing which no ministry had after the +Apostles’ age; so that language well suited to the first +generation of the Christian ministers, may not be suitable now; +it might be <a name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +11</span>answer enough to point out, that such a supposition +remains to be substantiated, and that it must be hazardous to +take up with a theory which incurs the risk of realizing <i>on +principle</i> only a defective Christianity. But more than +this may be briefly added, viz.: That as miraculous power was no +peculiarly apostolical prerogative (for all ranks of Christians +had possessed it), so neither can the want of it argue a +deficiency in apostolic grace and ministration; That the Apostles +associated with themselves Timotheus, Silvanus, Epaphroditus <a +name="citation11"></a><a href="#footnote11" +class="citation">[11]</a> and others, as possessing the same +<span class="smcap">Ministry</span> with themselves, though no +miraculous gift; and, That if the same ministry be not to +continue for ever in the church, then it would follow that +“Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the +world,” has not been literally fulfilled; That the words of +Scripture which relate to the Church’s Ministry, must not +be understood by us as they certainly were by the first +Christians, and, consequently, the plain sense of the Bible is +not our guide, as it was theirs so far as they possessed +it. And so, finally, our Christianity may be proved at last +to come short of the standard of Scripture, and be fatally +different in some important points from that which was originally +given to the world.</p> +<p><a name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 12</span>Nothing +which has now been said is intended to call in question the +reality of those blessings which <span class="smcap">God</span> +may and sometimes does bestow apart from His appointed means, or +by some only of those means apart from the rest. But enough +has surely been said to admonish men against that easy and +off-hand way of getting rid of those texts which imply high +apostolic power, by saying, that such passages only suit the +primitive days and the Apostles’ own ministry. On the +other hand, we would not pretend to decide how large an amount of +favour may be vouchsafed to those who have not the blessings of a +true priesthood. Cornelius, we know, was a just man, and +largely acceptable unto <span class="smcap">God</span>, before he +saw St. Peter, or received Christian baptism. Some, again, +of the earliest disciples had embraced the truth in some degree, +before they had heard “whether there was any <span +class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span>,” or had been baptized in +the name of <span class="smcap">Jesus</span>. And when the +Philippian Church was deprived of the ministry of St. Paul, they +were still admonished to rely on <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> in-dwelling <span +class="smcap">Spirit</span> in the Church, and “much more +in the Apostle’s absence to work out <i>their own +salvation</i>.” <span class="smcap">God</span> may +dispense with His own appointed means, and may supply the lack of +them; but man cannot. But if it were right to compare, or +contrast, one of <span class="smcap">God’s</span> given +means of grace with another, it <a name="page13"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 13</span>might perhaps appear that none of +them are <i>so</i> essential as the Church’s <span +class="smcap">Ministry</span>, whereby all the rest seem to have +been instrumentally preserved. Much which we are too apt +think exclusively essential to the existence of Christian truth +and purity, had no being in the early Church. It is likely +that all essential means of edification would be given to the +first generation of believers; and, in fact, was not the most +exalted Christian grace possessed in the Church previous to the +Christian Scriptures? Whoever will reflect on these points, +will at least be prepared seriously to consider, what in +primitive days was understood by the ministerial mission to +teach,—what the meaning of St. Paul was in such terms as he +applied to the ministers of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>? +(as that they were the “sent” servants, +“stewards of mysteries,” “<span +class="GutSmall">ALLOWED</span> of <span class="smcap">God</span> +and <span class="GutSmall">PUT IN TRUST</span> with the +Gospel,”) and whether that may not be the true Christian +meaning still?—whether, notwithstanding the altered times, +there may not be as much meaning now as there ever was in the +question, “How shall men preach except they be <span +class="GutSmall">SENT</span>?”</p> +<p><span class="smcap">Here</span> it may be rejoined, that there +are many who acknowledge the necessity of a Ministry in the <span +class="smcap">Church</span>, and who allow that it ought, in all +main particulars, to resemble that of the primitive <a +name="page14"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 14</span>Christians; +nay, who notoriously assign a very high value to such a ministry, +as a peculiar means of grace having a peculiar promise of +blessing annexed to it, and yet do not acquiesce in the Catholic +doctrine concerning it. And would it not be an unfairness +to charge such with setting-aside the apostolic ministry? or too +little esteeming it? Doubtless, it might be. But yet +this rather anomalous circumstance, that men who are generally +supposed to be somewhat lax, at least, respecting the subject of +an authoritative ministry, should also be often thought to give +undue prominence to “the Sermon” of a minister, even +beyond other means of grace; this, I say, only renders it the +more important that we should understand clearly what men mean by +a “ministry” in the Church,—what they consider +its real powers and chief functions,—and what its special +grace and blessing? For it can hardly be questioned, that +many think that they believe in a Christian ministry, when they +are only believing in a particular minister;—think that +they are believing in a <span class="GutSmall">MINISTRY</span>, +when they are only believing in eloquence. Many make free +use of words, when they would shrink from the ideas which they +naturally convey; and ascribe a degree of blessing to a ministry, +which in strictness of speech they would never think of seriously +attributing to <a name="page15"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +15</span>any such cause. And it cannot serve the interests +of truth to smooth over really different opinions, by generalized +expressions, just “for the sake of peace.” The +truth is, there is the greatest possible vagueness of belief, or +rather opinion, respecting the Christian Ministry, in our times +and country especially. There is, perhaps very generally, +an indistinct impression, that <i>something</i> is required to +make a man “a minister of the Gospel;” but what it +is, very few would be ready to say: and this may be well looked +on as a sort of instinctive testimony of the human mind to the +felt truth, “that it is not lawful for any man,” on +the mere suggestion of his own thoughts, to stand forth as a +teacher of religion. Common sense seems thus to make the +inquiry, “How shall they preach except they be <span +class="GutSmall">SENT</span>?”</p> +<p>It is felt universally, that a teacher of religion should have +some credentials. The most illiterate, indeed, will often +take the word of any man of outwardly respectable appearance, who +can manage, with the mixture of a few Scripture phrases, to talk +in an incomprehensible way, and look upon him directly as a +“minister.” The extent of this implicit faith +among some classes of sectaries is almost incredible to those who +have not personally witnessed it. But yet even these will +clothe their ministers with spiritual powers; <a +name="page16"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 16</span>and believe +their ministrations to convey a grace, and to possess a primitive +and apostolical value, such as those very +“ministers,” if pressed, would formally disown. +Hence many persons of these sects are violently shocked, when we +deny the validity of their sacraments as the sure channels of +God’s grace; little thinking that their own ministers do +not <i>suppose</i> them to be so. And so also the multitude +of sects which flourished in this country during the time of the +Great Rebellion, owed much of their success to their unscrupulous +assertions of a “divine mission;” persuading the +people that theirs was the “discipline of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>;” and alleging a “divine +right” for every part of it. And yet, notwithstanding +this feeling planted in our very nature, that a spiritual +ministry must have a spiritual origin, it is astonishing to see +the facility with which almost any professed teacher is +received. Just as mere ignorance inclines the most +illiterate, so the better classes are induced, by indolence or +habit, to receive almost any man as a religious instructor. +“How their minister <i>became</i> a minister?” is a +question which seems hardly to have occurred to the majority of +people. If a man has only ability enough to obtain a +congregation and a chapel, and especially if he assumes the +outward appearance and style of a clergyman, and is thought a <a +name="page17"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +17</span>“respectable man,” nothing more is generally +inquired. But can this satisfy any one who thinks +seriously? The Bible describes the Christian Minister in a +very solemn way, as the “Savour of life or death” to +souls—as being an earthly vessel possessed of a +“Heavenly <span class="GutSmall">TREASURE</span>,” +the weight whereof he was not sufficient to bear! and so, to the +first Minister of the Church it was said, “What <i>thou</i> +shalt bind on earth shall be bound in +heaven;”—Whatever this mysterious language implies, +are we to take a man to be all this on his own bare word? or on +the ground of his personal talents or sincerity?—Or can the +people’s support of any man endow him with these awful +prerogatives of a Divine Ministry? Can a congregation, +however numerous, give what they themselves possess not? +Holy Scripture classes together <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> own <span +class="smcap">Mission</span> from His <span +class="smcap">Father</span>; and the <span +class="smcap">Apostles’ Mission</span> from <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>. Even the <span +class="smcap">Son</span> of <span class="smcap">God</span> +“glorified not Himself” to be made an High +Priest. <span class="smcap">He</span> began not His +ministry till He was divinely pointed out at His baptism, and +from that time <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> began to +“preach and to teach.” Even He confessed, +“As the <span class="smcap">Father</span> hath <span +class="GutSmall">SENT ME</span>,” and, as “the <span +class="smcap">Father</span> hath given <span +class="smcap">Me</span> commandment,” even “so I +do.” And His blessed Apostle said, “<span +class="smcap">God</span> was in <span class="smcap">Christ</span> +reconciling the world unto Himself, . . . and hath <a +name="page18"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 18</span><span +class="GutSmall">COMMITTED</span> unto us the ministry of +reconciliation;” and when the same Apostle was “about +to be offered,” and the “time of his departure was at +hand,” he said, “This charge I <span +class="GutSmall">COMMIT</span> unto thee, son Timothy;” and +further, “the same <span class="GutSmall">COMMIT</span> +thou to faithful men,” who shall <span +class="GutSmall">TEACH</span> others also. Indeed every +Scripture precedent is against the notion so wholly inconsistent +with the idea of a “commission,” that a man may teach +in the name of <span class="smcap">God</span>, without <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> authority so to do. Surely +the words of Scripture mean something. +“Pastors,” “stewards of mysteries,” +“overseers,” “embassadors,”—those +“in <span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> stead,” +those “speaking in the person of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>,” those whom the Churches were +commanded to “obey” as “watchers for +souls,” and “accountable.”—Those who were +received as “angels of <span +class="smcap">God</span>,” even “as <span +class="smcap">Jesus Christ</span>;” “workers together +with <span class="smcap">God</span>,” “angels of the +Churches,” “stars in <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> right hand!” Are +these the descriptions of an earthly dignity wherewith a man of +ability may clothe himself? Do they mean less than they +say?—or rather do they not powerfully point the question, +“How shall men preach except they be <span +class="GutSmall">SENT</span>?”</p> +<p>But notwithstanding the vagueness of the popular creed, it is +not to be denied, that those <a name="page19"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 19</span>who think attentively about religion +and read their Bible with care, and yet embrace sectarian views, +have some way of explaining all these, and similar expressions, +so as to bring them, in some degree, into conformity with their +particular views. Doubtless some sort of explanation would +be <i>necessary</i> to give a measure of consistency to their +systems. And into the examination of their manifold systems +it would be impossible now to enter. Nor is it necessary; +it is enough to point out the fundamental error, of having a +system, and then “explaining” texts down to that +system. And this perhaps may be sufficiently done by +glancing chiefly at two classes of the most received theories, +with a view of showing that they alike proceed on a common +principle, and that (in consequence) instead of taking the words +of Scripture as they plainly stand, and accepting them as the +Church does, in their full natural meaning, they are obliged to +“explain.” Such, indeed, we have already said +to be our running argument. “Would the sectarians, or +would Catholics, have been more likely to employ naturally such +and such words?” And more than this we can scarcely +attempt on this occasion. Indeed a formal confutation of +many such systems as we are now alluding to, would be almost +impossible. There is something so indeterminate about them, +that <a name="page20"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 20</span>there +is no tangible point of attack. The bare denial of an +Apostolically descended Ministry is, frequently, all that can be +obtained from our opponents. And where we are not presented +with this sort of vacuity of belief, we still meet with nothing +more than some thin theory of a <i>possible</i> ministration, +whereby a straining ingenuity attempts to harmonize its own +opinions with the facts and statements of Scripture; as if we +were set to inquire—what <i>may</i> be, or <i>might be</i> +a system of religious teaching? and not rather, what was from the +beginning?</p> +<p>One theory of a Christian ministry maintained, with more or +less of distinctness, by very many, is, that none are rightly +“sent,” or commissioned to teach <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> religion, unless they have +what is termed an “inward call.” Now, if they +mean by this, that every minister of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> ought to be inwardly impressed with +the importance of his calling, no one will question it: but they +must mean more than this, or their meaning amounts to +nothing. Their idea seems to be, that no man has a right to +become a “minister,” who has not some overpowering +personal conviction of his spiritual destination to the +ministerial office, and that this is a sufficient evidence of a +true “call” to the office; and in conformity with <a +name="page21"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 21</span>this notion +they explain every text. Now if any one imagines that he +has such evidence of a call within him, it is useless to reason +with him. He is clearly beyond that. If he can so +persuade himself, he may also persuade himself that all Scripture +is on his side; or any thing else. Few, indeed, will be +disposed to envy the venturous self-confidence of one who could +thus stand forth (with eternity before him) and on his own sole +authority profess, “I am an embassador for <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>!”—“I am a +‘savour of eternal life and death!’” Not +to dwell, too, on the opening thus given to fanaticism of every +kind, it is certain also that a man’s personal conviction +can be no evidence to others; and yet others are interested in +the matter. How far his apparent religious success may be +so, is another question, which had better be separately examined, +and which we shall hereafter consider. But, it is plain, as +we have said, and again insist, that a man’s personal +conviction alone is no sufficient proof for <i>others</i> that he +is “sent” to preach Christianity. The Apostolic +Epistles, every where, imply as St. Paul does in his question to +the Roman Church, that the being “sent” was a matter +which other men could judge of. It is certain, too, that +the Apostles had something <i>more</i> at least than an +“inward call.” They were, according to the +Scriptures, <a name="page22"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +22</span><i>outwardly</i> called, from the very first, by <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> Himself. And St. Paul, the only +one who was not so, was outwardly called, afterwards, by an +express miracle. So that the Bible, and Apostolic example, +are alike against the notion of the sufficiency of an inward +call. And here it may be collaterally remarked, that, least +of all men, can the members of our Church admit this, at the best +inadequate, doctrine; for the 23rd Article is emphatically +against it. It reads thus:—“It is not lawful +for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or +ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he be +lawfully called and <span class="GutSmall">SENT</span> to execute +the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and +sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have +public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and +send ministers into the <span class="smcap">Lord’s</span> +vineyard.” Above all, therefore, the man who holds +this doctrine of our Church will see a force which the advocates +of the inward call cannot understand in St. Paul’s +question, “How shall men preach except they be <span +class="GutSmall">SENT</span>?”</p> +<p>But another notion concerning the Ministry, practically +entertained to a very wide extent is, That the Government of a +country has the <a name="page23"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +23</span>prerogative of making Ministers of Religion. That +this revolting opinion could possibly prevail in a Christian +land, is, perhaps, one of the most fearful proofs which could be +brought of Pagan ignorance, among nominal believers. And +yet, under various modifications, it prevails to an extent +scarcely credible. What but this is implied in the +expression which we often hear even educated people make use of, +“that the State makes Bishops?” What but this +is implied in our quiet acquiescence in the notion, that an act +of the State may abolish some of our bishopricks? What but +this is the ordinary practical interpretation of the phrase, +“the Church as by law established?” which sometimes +is even cast at us as an acknowledgment that our Church’s +origin is an Act of Parliament. Is it not true, that many +have no other idea of a clergyman, than that he may be better +educated, perhaps, than some other teachers, and so is +“patronized by the State?” And, is this the +idea of a minister of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> which the +Bible would give? Is it a doctrine of the first Christians, +that men, simply because they are governors, and happen to have +civil power, may clothe their fellow men with the awful +prerogatives of a Spiritual Mission? Is it a doctrine of +the Church of England—when our Article expressly denies to +kings all spiritual <a name="page24"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +24</span>authority—and when Queen Elizabeth allowed the +oath of supremacy to be taken, with an accompanying declaration +to that effect?—It is easy, of course, to construct a +theoretical argument to prove, “That the governor of a +State is bound to provide religious instruction for the +people,”—but certainly such an argument will not +prove that the civil governor can give to any man a spiritual +<span class="GutSmall">AUTHORITY</span>. It can only prove, +that it is his duty to seek for a rightly authorized and +commissioned instructor, and give him the <i>additional</i> +worldly advantage of a legal sanction and defence. It may +be, that governors should look for and <i>find</i> a religious +teacher for the people—but they cannot <i>make</i> +one. Governors must be instructed and saved by the same +heavenly means as the people; and neither can rightfully +intermeddle with the administration of Divine things. On +the leprous forehead of King Uzziah we may read the presumption +of those who will so invade the sacred office. (2 Chron. xxvi. +19.) But it would be impossible to draw out more minutely +in this place <a name="citation24"></a><a href="#footnote24" +class="citation">[24]</a> the arguments either for or against the +Erastian theory; and we are chiefly concerned to show that it is +wholly inconsistent with Scriptural and Primitive <a +name="page25"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 25</span>doctrine, +which taught, that men should “give unto Cæsar the +things that are Cæsar’s; but unto <span +class="smcap">God</span> alone the things which are <span +class="smcap">God’s</span>.” The argument which +we would, again and again urge, is, Whether the notion of the +State commissioning the religious instructor is in harmony with +the language of the New Testament? Does not the Christian +mind at once revolt from the thought, That a ruler of this world +can commission any as embassadors of the world’s <span +class="smcap">Saviour</span>? That the government of any +country can by their state-licence empower a man to “bless +in the name of the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>?”—to be a +“steward” of Holy mysteries?—to absolve +penitents,—and “deliver to Satan” the +ungodly? Such was the Minister of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> according to Primitive belief and +Scriptural statement; acting “in the person of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>,” and marking with holy +indignation any who refused to “follow” in his +steps. He “fed the flock of <span +class="smcap">God</span>,” took “the oversight of +them,” and “stirred up the gift that was within +him” by the laying on of hands. These are the very +words of Scripture, and they, surely, never would have been +thought of, never could have been naturally used by the inspired +writers, if they had entertained the thought, that the State +could make a man a Christian Minister.</p> +<p>And such a thought certainly was not entertained <a +name="page26"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 26</span>by the +Christians of the first 300 years, any more than by the Apostles; +who were not even countenanced by governors, but in things +spiritual “resisted unto blood,” and were charged +with “turning the world upside down,” rather than +submit to men in aught that pertained unto <span +class="smcap">God</span>. Even as late as the fourth +century, the great president of the Nicene Council thus declared +to the Emperor the Christian doctrine: <a +name="citation26a"></a><a href="#footnote26a" +class="citation">[26a]</a> “<span class="smcap">God</span> +has put dominion into your hands. To us He hath entrusted +the government of the Church; and as a traitor to you is a rebel +to the <span class="smcap">God</span> who ordained you, so be +afraid on your part, lest usurping ecclesiastical power you +become guilty of a great sin.” And again: +“Meddle not with Church matters; far from advising us about +them, rather seek instruction from us.” +“Remember that you are a man.” “Fear the +day of Judgment.” And nothing can be plainer than the +language addressed by St. Hilary to the Arian bishops. +“O ye bishops, I pray you, what suffrages did the Apostles +make use of? Did <i>they</i> receive their dignity from the +palace?” <a name="citation26b"></a><a href="#footnote26b" +class="citation">[26b]</a> And, after all, this is the +unanswerable argument. St. Paul was not received as an +Apostle, <i>because</i> he was allowed to preach to +“Cæsar’s household.” St. Luke was +<a name="page27"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 27</span>not +admitted as a Minister simply because he was an educated +man. We do not find the enquiry in Scripture or antiquity, +How shall men preach except they be “respectable?” +or, how shall they preach except they be favoured by the State? +or, how shall they preach except they have literary +distinctions? Necessary and useful as all these +qualifications may be, the distinctive question concerning the +Ministry is, “How shall men preach except they be <span +class="GutSmall">SENT</span>?”</p> +<p>Now we before observed, that the popular notions, such as +these just considered, concerning the Christian Ministry, seem, +with all their variations, to be the result of a common +principle. The principle, that is, of reducing Christianity +to a bare code, or system, of intelligible precepts or +dogmas. And the advocates of these various notions are +obliged, in some way, to lay out of consideration whatever they +meet with, in Scripture or elsewhere, which is inconsistent with +this principle. The further development of these remarks +may serve more clearly to elicit, and by contrast elucidate the +Catholic doctrine of the Ministry.</p> +<p>The advocates, for example, of the “inward call,” +seem generally to regard <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> religion <a +name="page28"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 28</span>as a code of +doctrines; while the maintainers of a government call, i.e. the +Erastians, regard it chiefly as a code of morals. They both +“simplify;” they both systematize; and their systems, +as such, proceed on very similar grounds. The former system +would naturally consider all things subsidiary to what is called +“the application” of the revealed doctrines to +individuals. Whatever agency seems calculated most +powerfully to bring home the doctrine to the mind of a man, that +is the most desirable; and with a reference to this, and <i>as so +viewed</i>, every thing in Scripture is forthwith +explained. Thus: Are Christians commanded in Scripture to +be <span class="GutSmall">ONE</span>? This system +interprets it to mean, that they must have one general +“doctrine.” Are we said to be united to <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> as “members” to a +body? This system calls it a “metaphor,” +designed only to inculcate charity and kindness. Are we +said to be saved by the “washing of water?” +This system tells us to understand it “spiritually:” +for ‘that the water only represents the <span +class="smcap">Spirit</span>.’ In a word, it simply +regards Christianity as a divine mental philosophy; and only +values the visible Church as a useful means, in such proportion +as it effectually “applies” this to +individuals. Of course there are countless varieties of +this species of religion, yet they agree in this, that they all +regard it as an <a name="page29"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +29</span>abstract code of principle, and whatever they find in +the Bible beyond this, they bend to their system in one way or +another. Calvinists, Semi-calvinists, Arminians, and +Pelagians, all seem to believe in a kind of essence of +Christianity, the existence of which in an individual is to be +tested by his possession of a sort of religious sense, to which +religious sense they indiscriminately apply every expression of +Scripture concerning the various states of the true +Christian. Accordingly the possessor of this sense is +“regenerated,” “elect,” +“enlightened,” “renewed,” “born +again”—and whatever else they can +“accommodate” in any verse of the Bible. A new +and intangible meaning is found for every term; every thing must +be sublimely doctrinal. The very precepts of Holiness are +looked on as “consequences,” which need not, +therefore, be too formally insisted on. The Sacraments of +<span class="smcap">Christ</span> are “elevated,” or +extenuated, into “shadows,” and +“signs.” The Church itself is evaporated into +an “invisible” essence!</p> +<p>The other system, that of the Moralist, is rather more +difficult thus to maintain and adapt to Scripture. +Considering Christianity as a sort of republication of the law of +natural morality, with, perhaps, the announcement of the +necessity of repentance, and the assurance of consequent +forgiveness <a name="page30"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +30</span>with the <span class="smcap">Deity</span>; all beyond +this is regarded as mere enthusiasm. The defenders of this +system would allow the existence of a Ministry to be exceedingly +“useful,” and so come to think it the duty of the +State to support it. These, like the former class, would +maintain a visible Church, because it is “useful;” +and so they themselves will go to Church, they tell us, +“for example’s sake.” These, if they are +a little educated, soon become Socinians, <a +name="citation30"></a><a href="#footnote30" +class="citation">[30]</a> and find it necessary to attribute +something much less than inspiration to the Bible, and so avoid +its plain testimony against their system; and then their course +is a very plain one. Those of the party who are more +ignorant, are generally found lulled in a complete religious +torpor, from which it seems almost impossible to wake them; for +if disturbed they only shut their eyes the closer, and more +inflexibly, as if it were the duty of “plain +Christians,” and “sound old Churchmen,” to +understand nothing.</p> +<p>Now in contrast to these and all other simplifiers of the +Catholic truth, we neither would attempt on the one hand, to +reduce the Bible to a code of <a name="page31"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 31</span>spiritual principles, nor on the +other to reject spirituality altogether as extravagance. +Consequently we have no need to get rid of any part of Scriptural +truth, either by “explanations” or +“criticisms.” We see that Scripture does +declare spiritual doctrines, and that it does enforce practical +morals. But we see much more than this in the Bible; for we +take it all literally, and plainly. We think that the +Scripturally recorded means, for applying the grace of <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> religion are just as divine, +and therefore, for aught we know, just as essential, as either +the doctrines or precepts of that religion. Neither those +doctrines nor precepts may be rightly received, except in +connexion with, and as parts of, the <span +class="GutSmall">WHOLE</span> Divine Revelation; and of this the +means of heavenly grace included in the Church, are an undoubted +portion. Indeed what may be called the <span +class="smcap">Doctrine</span> of the <span +class="smcap">Church</span>, may be seen in a manner to +comprehend every other, so that even the truth of the Ministerial +Succession is but a part of that <span +class="smcap">Doctrine</span>.</p> +<p>It is very easy to mystify a plain subject, and <a +name="page32"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 32</span>to represent +that the word <span class="smcap">Church</span> is of doubtful +meaning; but let any reader of the Bible answer this +question:—When St. Paul wrote a letter to “the <span +class="smcap">Church</span> of Philippi,” was there any +difficulty in deciding whom he meant to address? It is +plain that there existed in that city a number of families <span +class="GutSmall">BAPTIZED</span> in the name of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>; and that number was ruled over by +certain spiritual officers; and, as a whole, was called <span +class="smcap">the Church</span>. Wherever, then, we find a +similar body of men, we say, there is a Church. Now, we +believe that such bodies of men, so organized, and constituting, +in the aggregate, the Church Universal, or Catholic, must exist +to the end of the world; because, at the very time when <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> promised to set up such an +institution, He promised to it a perpetuity. “I will +build My <span class="smcap">Church</span>;” and the +“gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” +All this we believe simply as it stands, putting no invisible +meanings upon it. Wherever, indeed, we meet with a +spiritual truth, we receive it; but we desire not to make or +imagine one where it exists not, just to carry out an hypothesis +of our own.</p> +<p>We know that the spiritual rulers of the <span +class="smcap">Church</span> were made so at first by <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> personally, and that all the members +of the <span class="smcap">Church</span> were made so in one way, +namely, by Baptism. <a name="page33"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +33</span>(Gal. iii. 27.) We think that to the <span +class="smcap">Church</span> alone the peculiar promises of the +Gospel were made. (2 Peter i. 4.) We believe that there was +an awful power lodged in the <span class="smcap">Church</span>, +and exercised from the beginning, through her Rulers, a power +which, for example, could exclude unworthy members from +Communion, and that those so excluded were cut off from the <span +class="smcap">Church’s</span> peculiar blessing. (Matt, +xviii. 18.) We think that how much soever Excommunication +might now be called a “form,” it was no mere form in +the Apostles’ days. (1 Cor. v. 5; Gal. v. 12; 1 Tim. i. 20, +and v. 20.) We look with reverence therefore on the powers +of the <span class="smcap">Church</span>, in her Ministers. +We dare not hastily pronounce any thing to be “a mere +matter of discipline” or “only a form,” because +we feel that we are ignorant of the mysterious ways of <span +class="smcap">God</span>: and none can determine the limit which +separates Divine Doctrine and Discipline. In fine, we look +upon the <span class="smcap">Church</span> herself as One Eternal +<span class="smcap">Sacrament</span>: the One great outward and +visible Institute, set up by <span class="smcap">Christ</span>, +conveying to its members His invisible grace, through many +consecrated channels.</p> +<p>The permanent continuance of this One <span +class="smcap">Church</span> on earth we see to have been, in +point of fact, connected, from the beginning, with One permanent +<a name="page34"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 34</span>Ministry +or Priesthood, with which, at the first, <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> the great High Priest promised to be +virtually present “to the end of the world.” So +that, as it was promised that the <span +class="smcap">Church</span> should never be prevailed against; so +also that Ministry which was essential to it, should never +cease. To the <span class="smcap">Church</span> we know the +New Testament was addressed: and by the <span +class="smcap">Church</span> (with all other means of grace) it +was preserved. By the <span +class="smcap">Church’s</span> instrumentality we, +individually, are brought to that Font where the “stewards +of <span class="smcap">God’s</span> mysteries” +received us to the mystic body of the faithful. By the +<span class="smcap">Church</span> we really are taught in the +truth; for notwithstanding every boast of independent thinking, +the <span class="smcap">Church</span> is practically to us, what +it was to the first Christians, “the pillar and ground of +truth.” (1 Tim. iii. 15.) From the <span +class="smcap">Church’s</span> voice we learn even the +lessons of Holy Scripture. And not only the transmitted +Wisdom, but the transmitted Grace of Christ is thus ours; for the +<span class="smcap">Church</span> is the “fulness of Him +that filleth all in all!” (Eph. i. 23.)—On our head +the <span class="smcap">Church</span> directs that holy hands be +laid. In the <span class="smcap">Church</span> we obtain +that grace, whereby we go on “from strength to +strength:” and in our partaking of the mysterious Sacrifice +which “showeth forth the <span +class="smcap">Lord’s</span> death,” glory is given +“unto <span class="smcap">God</span> in the <a +name="page35"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 35</span><span +class="smcap">Church</span>, by <span class="smcap">Christ +Jesus</span>, throughout all ages.” Nay we doubt not, +that even “unto the principalities and powers in heavenly +places there is made known by the <span +class="smcap">Church</span> the manifold wisdom of <span +class="smcap">God</span>!”</p> +<p>This is the Catholic faith. We trust in <span +class="smcap">God</span>—we rely on His word, and His +appointments; as being anxious to recognise His presence among +us, as really and truly as the Holy Apostles did, when their +<span class="smcap">Lord</span> stood visibly before them and +said, “Lo! I <span class="GutSmall">AM WITH YOU</span> +always!” And it may safely be left to any man to +judge, how far these thoughts and feelings are in harmony with +the literal word of <span class="smcap">God</span>. Every +one may see that <i>we</i> have nothing there to explain +away—nothing to “account for.” It is such +as we might have written ourselves, so far as the sentiments are +concerned, to the full extent that those sentiments may be +apprehended. How simple and natural to us sounds the +injunction, “Obey them that have the Rule over you, for +they watch for your souls!” and how awkward, to say the +least, when spoken of self-sent teachers, or those whom the +people have commissioned and +“called.”—Believing that the <span +class="smcap">Church</span> is the perpetual depositary of those +awful gifts, which <span class="smcap">Christ</span> gave to men +when He “ascended up on high,” knowing <a +name="page36"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 36</span>that He gave +some Apostles, “some prophets, some pastors, and +teachers,” for the perfecting of the saints, “till we +all come in the Unity of the faith, . . . unto the measure of the +stature of the fulness of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>”—Not doubting that these, +<span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> gifts, have remained +and ever shall remain in His <span class="smcap">Church</span>; +with what thoughts must we regard the <span +class="smcap">Church’s</span> Ministry! How can +<i>we</i> feel the thrilling solemnity of St. Paul’s +exclamation, after he had absolved the Corinthian penitent, +“<span class="smcap">Such trust</span> have we through +<span class="smcap">Christ</span> to <span +class="smcap">God</span>-ward!”—“<span +class="smcap">Such trust</span>!”—words may not +describe it—“<span class="smcap">Such +trust</span>!”—“not that we are sufficient of +ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency +is of <span class="smcap">God</span>, <span +class="GutSmall">WHO</span> also hath <span class="GutSmall">MADE +US</span> Ministers of the New Testament!” What depth +of meaning to us is there in such language as, “Feed the +flock of <span class="smcap">God</span> over whom the <span +class="smcap">Holy Ghost hath made</span> you +overseers!” We feel that we are using it in the +Apostle’s divine sense—yes, the very same solemn +sense! All systematizers are obliged to put some lower +diluted meaning upon it! And not on this alone, but on +every similar text of the Sacred Word! Which of them can +say, in the same sense as the Apostles did, of the Ministers of +<span class="smcap">Christ</span>, that they are “Workers +together with <span class="smcap">God</span>?”—Let +any man revolve in his mind all those words so copiously quoted +already, concerning the <a name="page37"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 37</span>unearthly responsibilities of those +who have to “save themselves, and them that hear +them.” Let a man deeply think of his <span +class="smcap">Saviour’s</span> words, “I give unto +you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” “He that +heareth you heareth Me,” and he will feel it strange +mockery, to apply such language to a minister self-authorized, or +commissioned by civil governors; and he will come to feel, as the +believers in an Apostolic Ministry feel, the power of the +question; “How shall men preach except they be <span +class="GutSmall">SENT</span>?”</p> +<p>Having now thus far explained the nature of the Catholic +Doctrine of the Ministry; not attempting to prove it by +theoretical arguments, but simply to contrast it with other +doctrines, and compare it with Scripture; it remains for us, next +to consider the means whereby this Ministry hath been continued +in the Church; and for this purpose we must state the Doctrine of +the <span class="smcap">Succession</span>. The Evidences of +the doctrine, and the Objections urged against it, we must +reserve to the following lectures.</p> +<p>It is affirmed, that before the Apostles quitted the field of +their earthly labours, they appointed “Successors;” +and “laying their hands” on them, transmitted all the +Apostolical power which they <a name="page38"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 38</span>had received from <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>. It is not supposed that the +gift of Apostolical Ordination contained necessarily any such +grace, as is ordinarily understood by the term miraculous; though +many who were ordained at first, might of course have possessed +likewise such miraculous gifts, as were very common to all +classes of believers in the early Church. It is also on +record, that the ordained Successors of the Apostles, before +<i>they</i> also died, bequeathed their power and authority to +others, by the same ceremony of “laying on of +hands.” And it is not denied by any, that the same +practice has universally prevailed from that time to the +present. These Apostolical Successors throughout the whole +Church, were deemed the centres of Unity, and sources of +Sacramental grace to their respective communities, dioceses, or +Churches. They were looked upon as Chief Embassadors of +<span class="smcap">Christ</span>—Vicegerents of the <span +class="smcap">Saviour</span> of mankind—all, in a word, +which St. Peter and St. Paul claimed to be:—Divinely +“<span class="smcap">Sent</span>.” (1 Tim. i. 12, ii. +7.) They were at first called by various +names,—Apostles, Superintendents, Angels, and Bishops; but +eventually this latter designation prevailed. From these +Bishops every other officer of the Church derived his power, and +“without the Bishop,” to use the words of St. +Ignatius, the contemporary of the Apostles, it was not lawful to +do <a name="page39"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 39</span>any +thing in the Church. Finally, for more than a thousand +years there was no Church in all the world which was not so +governed by Apostolically descended Bishops.</p> +<p>Such is an outline of the Doctrine of the Succession. A +minuter consideration of its details will necessarily follow on, +when we investigate the <span class="smcap">Evidence</span>, in +our next lecture. The solemn consequences of the Doctrine +itself, are such as may well dispose us to approach the +examination with all seriousness of soul. For on the one +hand, if we reject the Succession, it follows, that we have not +left on earth any real Ministry of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>; while if we admit it, we admit it +with all its exclusive claims. Hard things may be said of +the choice of such a subject, and the revival of such an inquiry, +but the overwhelming importance of it will be a sufficient +vindication to every reflecting mind seeking for truth. The +time is come when questions like these may not be suffered to +remain undecided. When Romanism has advanced so rapidly +among us, making boast of its exclusive Apostolic claims, dare we +be silent? If we will care not to show our people our +Divine claims on their spiritual allegiance, can we wonder that +they revolt to Rome? Might we not expect the very +“stones to cry out against us?” In truth, <a +name="page40"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 40</span>in very +truth, we have been silent too long! And the meagre +Christianity now prevalent on all hands, gives fatal evidence +against us. Christians seem to have forgotten that they are +already the members of an Eternal community!—Well may we +ask, Are these the elect of <span +class="smcap">God</span>?—His chosen heritage?—with +the unseen wall of fire around them, and an uncared-for glory in +the midst? Yes, Christians seem almost wholly to have +forgotten their endowment of manifold gifts—almost +forgotten the “taste of the good word of <span +class="smcap">God</span>, and the Powers of the world to +come,” (Heb. vi. 4.) so that it may appear well nigh +impossible to “renew them again to repentance!” +But shall the Churches venture thus to await, without an effort, +the Second Coming of the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>?—<span class="smcap">God</span> +forbid! “Whoso hath an ear to hear, let him hear what +the Spirit saith unto the Churches”—“<span +class="smcap">Remember</span> from whence thou art fallen! and +repent! and do the <span class="GutSmall">FIRST</span> works; or +else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy +candlestick out of his place, except thou <span +class="GutSmall">REPENT</span>!”</p> +<h2><a name="page41"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 41</span>II.<br +/> +THE EVIDENCE.</h2> +<p class="gutsumm"><span class="smcap">From the Gospel</span>. <a +name="citation41"></a><a href="#footnote41" +class="citation">[41]</a>—“It is written, <span +class="smcap">My</span> house shall be called the house of +Prayer.”—Matt. xxi. 13.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">These</span> words may serve to suggest +some profitable reflections, preparatory to our entering on the +subject of the present lecture. They are the words of an +inspired prophecy, applied directly by our blessed <span +class="smcap">Lord</span> Himself to the then existing temple of +the Jews. If we read them as they stand in the Old +Testament, among other glorious predictions concerning the +sanctuary of the <span class="smcap">Lord</span> <span +class="smcap">God</span> of Israel, we are naturally inclined to +expect some more illustrious fulfilment of them, than seems to +have been ever vouchsafed to the “house of Prayer” at +Jerusalem. The words of Isaiah (and the evangelist St. Mark +has more exactly quoted them) are, “<span +class="smcap">My</span> house shall be called an house of Prayer, +<i>for all people</i>;” a prophecy apparently equivalent, +or nearly so, in magnitude to that of holy David, “<i>all +nations</i> whom Thou hast <a name="page42"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 42</span>made shall <span +class="GutSmall">COME</span> and worship before Thee, O <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>, and shall glorify Thy +name!” And it is very evident that this was never +realized in the fullest extent, with respect to the Jewish +Temple. Must we say then that the prophecy did not refer at +all to the literal temple in Judea? None, perhaps, would +venture so to affirm, seeing that our <span +class="smcap">Lord</span> Himself refers it to that temple. +Thus much however we are bound to conclude, that this example +shows us, how little we are able to decide beforehand what +amount, or kind of fulfilment, a Divine prediction may +have. And the fact, that our <span +class="smcap">Lord</span> spoke of the temple, such it was then, +as <span class="smcap">God’s</span> house, may serve also +to check any over-hasty accusations of total apostasy, in +consequence of extreme degeneracy among His people. It may +be useful here to premise this, because it is not unusual to +prejudice all enquiry, concerning the Catholic doctrine of the +Ministry of the Christian Temple, by a precipitate and +comprehensive assertion of its inconsistency with the +spirituality and dignity of the Divine designs; an assertion +generally supported by unmeasured charges of a corruption fatally +destructive of the Divine sanction, of the Sacred character of +any institute. Granting that the present state of the +Apostolically descended Ministry in the Church Universal, is very +far from what <i>we</i> should have <a name="page43"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 43</span>anticipated, from some of the +statements of Scripture, it would not follow, it seems, that +those statements are frustrated, but only that we had +misinterpreted them. It would not follow, that the Ministry +is not truly <span class="smcap">Christ’s</span>, but only +that it needs His purifying. Our <span +class="smcap">Lord</span> came to His temple of old, of which +such “glorious things” had been spoken, and He found +it a “den of thieves,” but still claimed it as His +own, in the glowing words of the prophecy, “<span +class="smcap">My</span> house shall be called the house of +Prayer.” It was not the glorious pile that Solomon +had reared—it was not that which the returned children of +the captivity had built; and its Priesthood stood not forth +conspicuous for holiness. The beautiful courts of that +temple had been restored and rebuilt by the crime-stained Herod; +and they had been horribly polluted by violence and +outrage. The sanguinary story of the “forty and six +years” when that structure was building, is truly a lesson +full of melancholy warning! and when at last <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> came to the holy mount, He found +there a temple, well nigh built in blood and served by murderers; +and yet He began to “purge it,” and said of it, <span +class="smcap">My House</span>! “<span +class="smcap">My House</span> shall be called the house of +Prayer!”</p> +<p>But do we say this to justify aught in the present <a +name="page44"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 44</span>condition of +the Church Catholic? <span class="smcap">God</span> forbid! +for though we trust it is not so deeply fallen as was the Jewish +Church, “our enemies themselves being judges,” yet we +would not hide from ourselves our real state. But we bring +forward these words of our <span class="smcap">Lord</span>, and +the reflections that have thus arisen out of them, in order to +induce men to look calmly and fairly at the Evidence for our +Christian Ministry, not hastily prejudging the question, in +consequence of apparent moral and spiritual difficulties, (of +which they may be making a wrong estimate and use,) but simply +postponing, for a while, the objections which may be raised, and +separately and honestly looking at the proof and certainty of the +<span class="GutSmall">FACT</span> of <span +class="smcap">Apostolical succession</span>. Should it be +asked, Why we attach such importance to an institution, which, +even if real, seems to have accomplished so little? we reply, +That we pretend not to be able to estimate the workings or the +results of <span class="smcap">God’s</span> plans. It +is enough for us that they <i>are</i> <span +class="smcap">God’s</span>. And all we desire is, to +ascertain the fact. But we have something further, on which +our faith may repose. There are prophecies concerning <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> Church, (and perhaps our text is +one,) which seem as yet to have had but little fulfilment. +Haply that is to be done to the Church at the second Advent, +which the purging of the temple, at the first Advent, only +prefigured. <a name="page45"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +45</span>It appears but little likely that that brief +significative act of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>, from +which nothing seemed to follow, was the whole fulfilment of the +illustrious prophecy of Malachi concerning the <span +class="smcap">Lord’s</span> “Coming suddenly to His +Temple” to purify it. It requires no proof that +<i>we</i> need such purifying. Is the main impression now +formed of the Christian temple—that it is a “house of +Prayer?” It is written, “From the rising of the +sun to the going down of the same, My name shall be great among +the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered in My +name, and a pure Offering.” <a name="citation45"></a><a +href="#footnote45" class="citation">[45]</a> Hath this been +yet accomplished? That which is written shall surely come +to pass:—and on this our faith relies. And though +there be no signs of a present fulfilment—though we may be +told that “thieves and robbers” have made lawless +entrance, and that very little betokens a Divine presence—a +consecrated Priesthood or a “pure Offering” among us, +our faith is unmoved. A cleansing must come:—for +“it is written, <span class="smcap">My</span> house <span +class="GutSmall">SHALL BE</span> called the house of <span +class="smcap">Prayer</span>.”</p> +<p>In our last Lecture we attempted to show, that not a regularly +Succeeding Ministry, but rather a self-commissioned one, is the +really incredible <a name="page46"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +46</span>thing; and we endeavoured to give an outline of the +Catholic doctrine of the Succession. In proceeding now to +consider the Evidence of that Succession, we shall not dwell on +those traces of the doctrine and the fact which we think are to +be found in the New Testament: for several reasons. In the +first place, this has been so often and so fully done, <a +name="citation46"></a><a href="#footnote46" +class="citation">[46]</a> that it would be a superfluous +labour. And then there is a felt unsatisfactoriness in all +such arguments. Scripture was not written critically, and +its terms were not precisely fixed; so that several of the sects +may and do build up plausible theories from passages of +Scripture. And again, what we have already shown, amounts +perhaps to all that is of any real value in any such arguments: +viz. that the Catholic doctrine is not only in perfect +<i>harmony</i> with every part of Scripture, but admits of a full +and literal interpretation of all its strongest and most solemn +language on this subject, in a manner which no sectarian doctrine +can pretend to. So far as Scripture then is concerned, we +feel no difficulty; and we now attempt no argument. Our +object is a very distinct one. Any man who reads the New +Testament, may see that it contains a “doctrine of <a +name="page47"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 47</span>laying on of +hands.” (Acts xiii. 3, 4; 1 Tim. v. 22; Heb. vi. 2.) +Some may even perceive that the appointed and usual means of +transmitting Ministerial authority, was this “Laying on of +hands,” and that none had power to use this means save the +Apostles and those whom they authorized. (1 Tim. v. 22; 2 Tim. i. +6; Tit. i. 5.) Many a man may go so far as to admit the +fact, that no Ministry was received in the Christian Church for a +thousand years, and more, <a name="citation47"></a><a +href="#footnote47" class="citation">[47]</a> except that which +was commissioned through the Apostles and their reputed +Successors, the Bishops. And yet any such may still feel +difficulty in the question—something almost amounting to a +deficiency, at least, of clear Evidence. He may fairly be +harassed by doubts such as these: “How am I to know after +all, that all these bishops from age to age were truly ordained +by a true Apostolic predecessor? Is it not both possible, +and probable, that in some places, for example, a powerful man +might have usurped authority in a Church, and made himself a +Bishop?—Or a learned man, in ‘dark times,’ have +imposed on the ignorant? And if so, would not all his +Ministerial acts be worthless? And might not one such break +in the chain, at some early period, have invalidated all +subsequent Ordinations? Are there then any positive <a +name="page48"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 48</span>proofs that +such has not been the case? Where are the documents? +What is the <span class="GutSmall">EVIDENCE</span> of the facts, +on which an intelligent man may rely?” <a +name="citation48"></a><a href="#footnote48" +class="citation">[48]</a> All which questions are perfectly +fair, and deserve to be honestly entertained. And to these +(rather as connected with the fact than the doctrine) we address +ourselves.</p> +<p>Perhaps, indeed, there is a brief answer to them all, which +may at once satisfy many, better than a more tedious proof: +namely, that if the “doctrine of laying on of hands,” +and the transmitted Ministry, be received as contained in +Scripture, and taught ever by the Church, so the very same Holy +Volume contains also the promise that <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> would be with His Ministers to the +end of time; and He would therefore of course preserve to them +all that was in the least degree essential. The +faithfulness of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> Himself would +thus be a mighty proof to the humblest Christian, that all that +Scripture inculcated as necessary to the Ministry, would truly be +preserved in the Christian Church, as much as it formerly was in +the Jewish. And he might also have this additional proof of +the fact, that no one (not even infidels) would attempt to <a +name="page49"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 49</span>disprove +it. But we will now endeavour to go a little more narrowly +into the question, because it is frequently a stumbling block to +many.</p> +<p>Let a man begin by analysing his own thoughts, and satisfy +himself—first of all, what <i>kind</i> and <i>amount</i> of +evidence he requires of the fact, that every Bishop of an +Apostolic line was duly ordained by the “laying on of +hands?” Does he expect to see the very documents +written at the time,—and the seal and sign manual of those +who were present?—or, would that suffice? Perhaps +many may be disposed to think that such evidence must be +satisfactory to the most incredulous. But pause, and +consider: how should we know for certain that each separate +document was quite authentic? How could we be quite sure +that none were forged by some crafty monk during those mysterious +times, which some people, (as if excusing their own want of light +on the matter,) speak of as “dark ages?” Or, +suppose any one, or two, or three of the documents were destroyed +by all-corroding time? or had become illegible? What +then? Surely such evidence would be thought very unsafe to +rely on. Most persons would look with great suspicion on +such an array of unknown manuscripts, and look about for +something more satisfactory and possible. And <a +name="page50"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 50</span>perhaps, +then, it might not be amiss to inquire what kind, or amount of +evidence it would be reasonable to look for?</p> +<p>Will it not be reckoned enough, if it should appear, that we +have as good evidence of the Succession of the Ministry from the +first, as we have of the reality of the institution of the +Sacraments? or of the authenticity of Holy Scripture? This +methinks will be enough at least for Christian men in general, +though it may not be satisfactory to every disputer; and if we +will attentively look into it we may certainly find the evidence +to be quite as strong as this. The very same objections +might be brought against the Apostolic Scriptures, the Apostolic +Sacraments, and the Apostolic Ministry. We have the same +kind of moral certainty of them all: and perhaps it might even be +argued, that the highest degree of such certainty, if a +difference could be admitted, pertains to the latter.—Thus +much, at least, must be apparent on a very little reflection, +that the kind and amount of evidence which some persons expect to +have given them, of the Apostolic Succession, is impossible in +the very nature of things, and exactly similar to the evidence +which uneducated people, when they first begin to inquire, expect +to find for the authenticity of the Bible, and <a +name="page51"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 51</span>which +infidels craftily demand for all Revelation, well knowing that it +cannot, in the nature of things, be had. For, in the first +place, we can none of us have the same kind of certainty +concerning any fact transacted in our absence, as of what is done +in our presence; much less of any thing which happened in a +distant place, a foreign country, or before we were born. +And still less if it be removed farther back; as before our +fathers or great-grandfathers were born. Whoever, +therefore, undertakes to believe no farther than he personally +sees and knows, must suspend his faith in all history, and even +in the daily conversations and transactions of those around +him. And if any man is in this humour, we will not argue +with him about it. It is plain that these notions of strict +personal evidence for every thing must be abated, if we would +exercise our common sense.</p> +<p>Let us take the case of a man who begins to examine the claims +of the Bible to be received as the Word of <span +class="smcap">God</span>. Suppose him to be not very +learned; he is able at least to see that <i>his</i> Bible is like +other people’s: and they, many of them being educated +persons, believe it to be <span class="smcap">God’s</span> +Word. This is something. And then it is the +Authorized Version, sanctioned by the Church <a +name="page52"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 52</span>and the +State. And this is something more. And he sees that +even those who abuse the Church, are either very bad men, or if +they are sincere, well-meaning sort of people, and set up a new +Religion for themselves, they are obliged, after all, to make use +of the Church’s Bible, and generally the Church’s own +Translation. He therefore has even so far tolerable ground +for thinking that the Book which he has received as the Word of +<span class="smcap">God</span> is truly such.</p> +<p>Now we do not in the least question that all this, taken in +connexion with the Internal excellence of The Volume, is very +good evidence for the generality to rely on. It is just as +good as, or perhaps better than, they can get for any fact of +history, or common knowledge, or daily life. It is not +demonstration—but it is sufficient, probable +evidence—such as men take and act upon in every other +matter, without thinking it a hardship, or unsafe. And we +affirm that this is just the kind and amount of evidence which +any man in this country may have either for the Apostolic +Sacraments, or the Apostolic Ministry of the Church. He +knows that his Church is the Church of his forefathers; and that +they were baptized in it by her Ministers, before meeting-houses +were thought of; that the learned and the good have abounded in +it, <a name="page53"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 53</span>as all +allow; and that even those who depart from it, generally retain +some similar outward forms both of Sacraments and Ministry, +though (consciously and candidly) they own them to be then +without any necessary grace in them. So that he regards his +Church as a <span class="GutSmall">FACT</span> borne witness to +on all hands; a sure and stable <span +class="GutSmall">REALITY</span>. Over and above all which, +there is an Internal evidence also of Catholic Truth, which the +humble and obedient surely possess at length. (John vii. +17.) For the Catholic Church teaches that the Baptismal +grace of Regeneration, if watered by prayer and holy teaching, +will at length expand into a certainty of persuasion of Her +sacred institutes, (Prov. iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12.) which heresy +will labour vainly to destroy. A blessed feeling, akin to +the indestructible reverence of a child for its Mother, from +whose lips the first words of prayer were learned, and the first +peaceful hopes of heaven.</p> +<p>But, going beyond this case, take that of a man who can enter +with sufficient care into the literary evidences of the truth of +the Bible. If skilled in its languages, he will go at once +to the printed editions of the originals. Then he must +inquire, from what manuscripts the received text was +printed? And he will find it stated, that that of the New +Testament, for instance, is one of about <a +name="page54"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 54</span>the year +eleven or twelve hundred. And for that fact he has to rely +on the critical skill of certain scholars and editors, some of +whom saw the manuscript, and thought it to be of that age. +But next comes the question: where are the <span +class="GutSmall">ORIGINAL</span> manuscripts? And it then +appears that they are <i>lost</i>. Then where are the +copies first taken? or even <i>soon</i> taken, from the +manuscripts? and it seems that these are <i>lost</i> too. +How then is he to prove that the manuscript from which our New +Testament is translated is a faithful copy of what was written +nearly eighteen hundred years before, and so unfortunately +lost? He has thereupon a laborious task before him. +He must trace, for instance, the various quotations in the +writings of the Fathers of the Church; and then compare them with +some early translations. In connexion with which, he might +observe the reverence with which Holy Scripture is always treated +in the primitive writings; and that the exact names of all the +Sacred Treatises are preserved alike, in various places. +And by pursuing these and kindred methods, he will at length +arrive at a strong probable conclusion as to the genuineness and +authenticity of the Holy Volume: a conclusion continually +accumulating in power and becoming at last morally irresistible, +and practically equivalent to a demonstration. He sees, in +fact, that <a name="page55"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +55</span>there are certain phenomena which can be explained by +one hypothesis, and one only, and that therefore that one must be +admitted. The actual state of Christian literature can only +be explained on the supposition of the existence of some such +Divine treatises as our New Testament at the close of the first +century.</p> +<p>Now all this examination of evidence, satisfactory as it is in +the result, is very far from being that easy and off-hand way of +“proving the truth of the Scriptures” which untaught +people vaguely imagine to be possible and even necessary. A +similar series of remarks might be made on the verification of +the Sacraments of the Church, as being the same as those +originally instituted by our <span class="smcap">Lord</span>, and +ever practised by His people. But, passing now to our +immediate subject, it will not be difficult to see that the +Apostolicity of the Ministry, if fairly examined with equal +patience, admits of the <span class="GutSmall">SAME</span> kind +of proof, as either the <span class="smcap">Sacraments</span> or +the <span class="smcap">Scriptures</span> of the Church. +Indeed there scarcely seems a possibility of any traditive truth +being supported by stronger evidence than we have for the fact of +the Succession; so that if this be not true, it appears +impossible to say what proof we could ever have to substantiate +any such fact.</p> +<p><a name="page56"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 56</span>So far +back indeed as any genuine general records of past events exist, +we may boast that our Apostolical records exist. So that +during these latter, which may be called the literary ages of the +world, we may trace the existing record of the Succession in our +principal dioceses for many centuries. But this is not the +kind of evidence which we could speak of, as so abundantly +satisfactory; nor could we esteem it so, even if it reached to +the Apostles’ days, and were cleared of all those doubts of +its genuineness, which we before alluded to. (page <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page47">47</a></span>.) It +would not be satisfactory, for this simple, though little thought +of reason, namely, That a Succession of Bishops in one See, is +not and cannot ordinarily be, a succession of one and the same +Apostolical line. So that if, for example, we should +produce a list of every Archbishop of Canterbury to the very +first, who was consecrated by a French Bishop, and should then +add the name of every one that had preceded that French Bishop in +his see, up to the Apostles’ days, still we should not have +proved the existence of any One line of Apostolical +descent. No single line of Succession confined to a single +Church is possible. Every newly ordained Bishop in every +See comes of a new line; and that a threefold line, as we shall +presently notice. In addition to which, it should be borne +in mind, that the Succession was <a name="page57"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 57</span>transmitted in many lines, even from +the beginning. Endeavour to examine these points more in +detail.</p> +<p>We learn from Eusebius, that the Apostles selected various +parts of the world as the separate fields of their labour. +And wherever there was an Apostle, there was one who had the +power (which he did not neglect to use) of transmitting the grace +of the Ministry of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>; +consequently there must have been several lines of Ministerial +Succession from the first. Probably every Apostle ordained +some, as “overseers,” “presidents,” of +Churches; and so became an originator, not of one, but of +several, lines of Apostolical grace. If each of the Twelve +had ordained but one, there would still have been twelve such +lines Apostolical: but since the indefatigable Apostles doubtless +did much more than this, there must have been many Ministerial +lines, from the very first. We are putting ourselves +therefore in a very false position when, in arguing with +Romanists, we allow them tacitly to assume, as they seem to do, +that there was but one line of Apostolic Ministration transmitted +from the beginning. But this error will be more apparent by +examining farther.</p> +<p>Let us endeavour to look at the case both <a +name="page58"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 58</span>historically +and practically, that so we may see not only its past, but also +its present bearings. In so doing we may be led to +understand its principle more clearly. When, at any time, a +Bishopric might become vacant in the Church, and a new Bishop was +to be consecrated thereto by the “laying on of +hands,” by whom was this solemn rite to be performed? +Take, for example, a Bishop of Antioch. He dies, and a new +one is to be consecrated.—Who is to do it?—Several, +probably, unite in “laying hands on him” with prayer +and fasting. (Acts xiii. 3.) Suppose one of them to be the +Bishop of Alexandria; then the next question must be—Who +consecrated <i>him</i>? and those who were his coadjutors at +Antioch? And it might take us to as many different Churches +to decide this point, as there were Bishops at that +consecration. By the laws and practice of the Church, <a +name="citation58"></a><a href="#footnote58" +class="citation">[58]</a> it is necessary for three Bishops, if +possible, to be present and unite in the Consecration of every +new Bishop. Now suppose another of the three, in the case +just given, to have been a Bishop of Rome; then to trace the +Apostolical Succession we must proceed to ask, who consecrated <a +name="page59"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 59</span>that Bishop +of Rome?—Not the previous Bishop of Rome; for he, probably +and almost invariably, would be dead before his Successor was +appointed. Then, of course it must needs be some foreign +Bishop, assisted by <i>two</i> others from different parts of +Christendom. And then the question would widen still +farther, as each of <i>their</i> ordinations would have to be +examined. And so the inquiry would have to proceed, +widening from Bishop to Bishop, and from Church to Church, till +we might arrive, if possible, at the first Apostolic consecration +of at least <i>one</i> of the long line, through which the +manifold grace had flowed. Except in the case of the +translation of a Bishop from one See to another (a practice +unsanctioned by primitive antiquity) it would never happen that +the <i>same</i> line of Succession would be at all continued in +any one Church, even during two succeeding Episcopates. +And, even in that case, it would be mingled with the Succession +of the two other Bishops, who had joined in the new +consecration. Hence a Succession of Bishops in any one +Church is <i>not</i> a Succession of the same spiritual line of +descent. Nay, if we had no more to allege than the line of +the Bishops of a particular Church, even though we could +enumerate them quite up to the Apostles, we should not have +proved <a name="page60"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 60</span>a +valid Succession. But rather the reverse; because it must +have been very possible that some one, or more, of the line might +have died suddenly, before the ordaining of the Successor; in +which case the Succession would be lost, unless some <i>other</i> +Church were applied to. It is plain that no particular +Church, whether in Constantinople, Canterbury, or Rome, can +pretend to possess an exclusive line of Apostolic grace. It +is plain that no Church can be strictly said to “derive its +orders” from another. And it only evinces a want of +thinking, for any man to say, for example, “that such and +such a Church derives its orders from the Church of +Rome.” Every one must have observed the false +position in which English Churchmen have allowed themselves to be +put, by overlooking this simple point. They have thus +admitted, practically, that the Church of Rome had a private line +of Apostolical Succession, of which she could impart to +others!—forgetting that the Bishop of Rome himself is +necessarily indebted to the Bishops of three other Churches for +<i>his own</i> consecration. <a name="citation60"></a><a +href="#footnote60" class="citation">[60]</a> The Succession +is and <a name="page61"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +61</span>must be <span class="smcap">Catholic</span>, coming +through all the Bishops of the Holy Church throughout all the +world. And in this lies our security. Just as our +persuasion of the genuineness of the Scriptures arose, not from +our seeing the originals, or the earliest copies, but from the +united testimony and criticism of Christian men; so our +conviction of the validity and necessity of the Succeeding +Ministry results from a like Catholicity of testimony. Here +too, as with the Scriptures, we have unquestioned phenomena, (the +whole history of the Catholic world,) which can only be explained +by admitting the <i>fact</i>. The Church of Rome has no +more preserved our Orders, than she has our Bibles. And in +this fact lies our chief security, that no particular Church, in +Rome or elsewhere, has the Succession in its keeping, so as to be +able either to keep it, or fatally corrupt it; for it is <span +class="smcap">Catholic</span>.</p> +<p>And further: That very intricacy of the interwoven Catholic +line, which renders it so impracticable a thing to trace the +individual private Succession of any Bishop upwards to the +Apostles, gives it an amassed mightiness, and hitherto +uncalculated strength, when tracked downwards from the +beginning. The twelve Apostles began it, by ordaining the +first Bishops; and when in the very next generation the practice +became <a name="page62"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +62</span>established, of three Bishops assisting at every fresh +consecration, it was at once morally impossible to pervert, or +intercept the grace Apostolical. In the very next +generation any three Bishops who came to a fresh Ordination, +would each bring a three-fold Succession, so as to convey the +Grace which had flowed through nine different Churches. The +difficulty of failure would thence be still further augmented in +the next generation, and the next. And what would be even +at so early a stage, a moral impossibility, would needs go on +accumulating from age to age. So that if at any time by any +possibility, the Church’s vigilance was defeated, and one +of the ordaining Bishops was of doubtful Apostolicity, there were +two more united with him, and so preserving the grace of the +institute. <a name="citation62a"></a><a href="#footnote62a" +class="citation">[62a]</a> This was in accordance with the +very first of the extant Apostolical Canons, <a +name="citation62b"></a><a href="#footnote62b" +class="citation">[62b]</a> which enacts, “Let a Bishop be +ordained by two or by three Bishops” (and the larger number +was almost invariably required). The strictness with which +<a name="page63"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 63</span>this was +kept up, is borne witness to alike by Fathers, <a +name="citation63a"></a><a href="#footnote63a" +class="citation">[63a]</a> and Councils, and Historians, from the +very beginning. And if this were not unequivocally and +universally the case, (as it certainly is, so as to make +quotation and reference seem like affectation,) it would be easy +to bring abundant and overbearing evidence of another kind. +For the watchful care and pains of all the Churches in the matter +of Ordinations is just as notorious, as that Christianity existed +and prevailed in the world. The very faults of the early +Christians, no less than their virtues, contributed to secure the +Succession. Far indeed from lethargy were those +times. Abounding heresies, mutual jealousy, and religious +zeal, all combined to augment the Church’s +watchfulness. And, above all, the vigilantly sustained +Discipline, by which the whole community was so interwoven, that +the greatest and smallest affairs of Christian concern were alike +communicated to the whole body. Not only would any new +ordination be known in each of the three Churches from which the +ordaining Bishops came; but it was very presently notified also +to the Metropolitans <a name="citation63b"></a><a +href="#footnote63b" class="citation">[63b]</a> by Episcopal +letters. <a name="page64"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +64</span>And beyond this, the election of a Bishop was a matter +well known, and publicly canvassed. It was not a thing +which (like the Canon of Scripture) might have been for a time +kept to themselves, by the learned. No, the common people +knew perfectly of the transaction. An infraction of an +Apostolic rule, even in a minor point, was clamorously echoed +from Church to Church, so that it was rarely ventured on; much +less would it be suffered in any important thing. Even evil +men in their day were obliged to conform to the outward rules of +the faithful; or they found an universal outcry against +them. The State had then nothing to do with the matter; and +the people (such was their temper and disposition) would have +thought of owning a heathen for a Bishop, as soon as a man not +duly ordained. Nay, there was even a holy emulation among +the Churches; in consideration of which we might in a qualified +sense, admit an additional kind of sacredness and certainty, so +to speak, in the Succession of those Episcopates, which were +noted for peculiar carefulness; as in the Ante-Nicene times that +of Alexandria appears to have been.</p> +<p>So was it from the first.—And in every subsequent <a +name="page65"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 65</span>generation of +Christians, as we thus see, the intricacy of the Succession, and +consequently the difficulty of breaking it, would be more and +more intensely augmented; as if indeed utterly defying the +unfaithfulness or fraud of man to set it aside. Whatever +else has at any time been charged against the Catholic Church, it +has never been said, that she failed in duly Ordaining her +Bishops; and even if this could be shown, still a failure in one +part would not touch the rest. <a name="citation65a"></a><a +href="#footnote65a" class="citation">[65a]</a> To break up +the Succession of the Apostolic Ministry nothing less, indeed, +seems to be required than a self-destroying conspiracy of the +Church Universal.</p> +<p>We possess then all the Evidences of this illustrious fact, +which human testimony can furnish, or human industry bring +together. Universal witnesses to support it; and not one +against +it.—Scriptures,—Canons,—Councils,—Fathers,—and +Churches,—the learned and the common people—all +evidencing one thing; and even heretics and infidels not denying +it as fact;—a fact too, which they are forced to see has +gathered and still shall gather fresh mightiness, as centuries +roll on! <a name="citation65b"></a><a href="#footnote65b" +class="citation">[65b]</a> For on the heads of the present +<a name="page66"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 66</span>Bishops of +the Church Universal, there rests the concentrated grace of all +the Apostles. And this One Institute—the <span +class="smcap">Ministry</span> of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> now stands, <a +name="citation66"></a><a href="#footnote66" +class="citation">[66]</a> as at first Divinely set up, an abiding +monument of the truth, that <span class="smcap">He</span> who +determined by the “weakness” and +“foolishness” of preaching to save them that believe, +has manifested that the “foolishness of God is wiser than +men, and the weakness of God stronger than men.”—The +things which man in all his wisdom contrived, eighteen hundred +years ago, are departed like shadows. What <span +class="smcap">God</span> ordained remains, and shall “till +the consummation of the world.”</p> +<p>Would that the thought of this stupendous <a +name="page67"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 67</span>grace might +ever dwell with each Bishop of the Church Universal, that those +words of promise which are the charter of the perpetuity, and the +power which Christ hath given might accompany them, as if ever +and anon spoken by a heavenly voice,—to elevate, console, +and awe their inmost spirit,—“Lo, I <span +class="GutSmall">AM WITH YOU</span>!”—Nay, what +thoughts of glory and majesty may well possess us all! when, +putting aside the thankless debates, and presumptuous +questionings of men, there rises before our mind’s eye the +august vision of the “whole family in heaven and +earth;” existing as for ever <span class="smcap">One</span> +to The Omniscient <span class="smcap">Eye</span>, yet +mysteriously passing through the long and varying successions of +time, age after age; ministered unto throughout, by <span +class="smcap">One</span> succeeding Priesthood, <a +name="citation67"></a><a href="#footnote67" +class="citation">[67]</a> ever subsisting “after the power +of an endless life,” and so holding together all the +members of the eternal family, the living and the dead, in mystic +fellowship and communion, even reaching to a “fellowship +with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ!” +Seems it not too great a thought for mind of man to take in, in +all its sublime fulness?—And has it not some holy +influence, forcing from us the exclamation of felt +unworthiness—‘Alas! for what we <i>are</i>,—and +what we <i>should</i> be?’—It is <a +name="page68"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 68</span>as if (with +earth’s pollutions yet unwashed from our spirits) we were +borne upwards in vision even “to heaven-gate,” and +bidden by the Angel of an Apocalypse to look in, and see, though +from far, the eternal wonders, behold the forms of distant glory, +and feel, though but for a moment, the thrilling air of +heaven’s own Holiness.</p> +<h2><a name="page69"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +69</span>III.<br /> +THE OBJECTIONS.</h2> +<p class="gutsumm"><span class="smcap">From the Epistle</span>. +<a name="citation69"></a><a href="#footnote69" +class="citation">[69]</a>—“Now the <span +class="smcap">God</span> of patience and consolation grant you to +be likeminded one towards another, according to <span +class="smcap">Christ Jesus</span>. That ye may with One +mind and One mouth glorify <span +class="smcap">God</span>.”—Rom. xv. 5.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">Our</span> object in the present Lecture +will, I trust, be the same as that of the Apostle’s prayer +in these words . . .</p> +<p>To confirm the truth of a doctrine, it cannot be supposed +necessary to answer all objections and difficulties which +ingenuity might raise, for in that case, perhaps, no doctrine +would ever be established at all. But when any particular +truth has been reasonably set forth and defended, it is a kind of +farther recommendation of it with the many to <a +name="page70"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 70</span>show, that it +is not in reality surrounded by such serious difficulties as +might, at first sight, be supposed. Of course it is not +right in any man to suspend his belief of a proved truth, simply +because it seems to be attended by some difficulties; still we +must deal with human nature as we find it; and the majority do +not appear to have that bold and honest mind which will maintain +right principles in defiance of all obstacles. Neither have +they that lofty faith in <span class="smcap">God</span> which +will trust Him in the face of seeming improbabilities. +Therefore, surely, it is a Christian thing to endeavour, now as +far as we are able, to remove such difficulties as obstruct the +faith of some, concerning the Ministry of the One Holy Catholic +and Apostolic Church: only premising that our object here is not +to prove the truth, but to facilitate its reception. The +truth of the <span class="smcap">Apostolical Succession</span>, +being confirmed by foregone proof, cannot, however, be affected +by the measure of our success in clearing up difficulties.</p> +<p>It would be a very vain waste of time to attempt to answer +many light and frivolous objections; for so far as they are +really stumbling blocks to any, they will soon be removed when +the doctrine itself is at all understood. Necessarily there +will seem to arise from time to time <a name="page71"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 71</span>numberless minor points which, +however, any man whose judgment is worth convincing would soon be +able to explain for himself. In such proportion as a man +apprehends the truth, or, if I may so express it, perceives the +spirit and scope of the Catholic Religion, he will come to see, +at a glance, the answer which, on Catholic principles, would be +given to such and such difficulties. This is the Divine +reward of an abiding humble faith.</p> +<p>The common and most influential Objections may admit of a +two-fold classification; according as they arise from certain +supposed difficulties in the Fact, and in its +consequences—or in the Doctrine, and its +consequences. And we will at once proceed to consider, +first, some difficulties thought to be historically and +practically connected with the Fact of the Succession, and its +consequences.</p> +<p>The Objection which requires, perhaps, the least trouble and +information to make, (and from its indistinctness is rather +difficult to grapple with,) and which, therefore, is more +frequently employed than any other, is founded on a charge of +general and fatal Corruption of Christianity in the middle +ages. Granting, it is said, the fact, that there was an +unbroken Succession of Bishops in the Church Catholic from the +beginning, still the gross <a name="page72"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 72</span>and palpable corruption which so +extensively pervaded the Church for ages, was quite sufficient to +rob the Succession of all spiritual value. Now this wide +and gratuitous assertion might fairly be met by asking the +objector—how he comes to know this?—How he comes to +be so sure that personal human corruption would wholly obstruct +the super-human grace of a Divine institution? How he +arrives at such a certainty that the grace of <span +class="smcap">God</span> is not mightier than the sin of +man? How he <i>can</i> be so sure that “where sin +abounded,” grace did not “much more +abound?” At the best, his objection rests on an +unproved assumption in principle—an assumption too, +directly at variance with our experience of <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> past dealings with man; as the +history of the Jewish people bears witness. It would be +difficult, as we remarked in our last Lecture, to find any +parallel in the history of the Christian Church to the godless +impieties of the Jewish, during four hundred years previous to +<span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> coming, and yet the +anointing oil of the Priesthood was not inefficacious, nor even +the Prophetical gifts withdrawn, up to the time of the +Advent. Even <span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> +persecutor Caiaphas “<i>prophesied</i>, being High Priest +that year.” It is, therefore, quite unsatisfactory, +at the least, to take for granted in this way, that general +Corruption would have totally destroyed the grace of Apostolic <a +name="page73"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +73</span>Succession. The utmost that can, with any show of +fairness, be pretended is, that it <i>might</i> have done so: and +even this ought surely to be proved and not barely assumed as it +here is. And even supposing that this were proved, then +there would be one thing more to be shown, namely, that the +amount of corruption in the Church had really, in point of fact, +reached that height, which would overwhelm the grace of Her +instituted Ministry. And how this could be certainly +proved, even if true, it seems hard to say. In the nature +of things, it would ever remain a point uncertain to man, and +known to <span class="smcap">God</span> alone. Our +objectors, therefore, must assume this point too. And +without, perhaps, being much justified in their assumption by the +facts of history. For while a lofty moral sense is +recognized among men, and so long as humility and self-devotion +to <span class="smcap">God</span>, and disinterested, even though +untaught, zeal, are reckoned Christian virtues,—so long, in +spite of party misrepresentations, will the great body of our +Christian forefathers, lay and clerical, in the middle ages bear +honourable comparison with us their overweening children. +There is more of the spirit of pride than the spirit of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>—more of party vanity than of +Catholic generosity—more of historical ignorance than of +philosophical wisdom, in these self-congratulatory comparisons +between our <a name="page74"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +74</span>meagre conflicting, though (if you will) enlightened, +“systems” of Religion and the One high-minded faith, +and chivalrous piety, and unsystematized benevolence of our less +instructed ancestors.—At all events, the vague objections +drawn from these intangible charges of general corruption, very +plainly rest on two unproved assumptions—one of the +principle and one of the fact. And this, perhaps, is all +that is necessary to be shown. For is not the Succession +itself a fact of sufficient magnitude to make us pause before we +say, it is <span class="GutSmall">WORTH NOTHING</span>? +This undeniable fact which we allege; this Succession of <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> Apostolic Ministry; this, +<span class="smcap">God’s</span> sustained marvel of +eighteen hundred years, is assailed by man’s bare +assertion, ‘that it has been <span +class="GutSmall">SUSTAINED FOR NOTHING</span>.’</p> +<p>But from among these general charges of Corruption, there +sometimes is one singled out, as of a magnitude too great to be +doubtful, and to the believer in Revelation too malignant to be +of questionable effect: the charge, I mean, of Idolatry. If +there were nothing else, it is said, to impede the spiritual +grace of the Succession, the Idolatry prevalent in the Churches +of the Roman Communion would be amply sufficient. And in +proof of this, the case of the Jewish Church is confidently +quoted, and the fierce denunciations uttered and <a +name="page75"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 75</span>executed +against <span class="smcap">God’s</span> favoured people +for this especial sin, beyond all others. Now here too we +seem to have some unproved assumptions; as well as some false +reasoning from the analogy of the Jewish people. First of +all there is the assumption which we have previously noticed, +namely, that there <i>is</i> an amount of personal human sin +which <i>fatally</i> cuts off, or obstructs, the instituted +channels of Divine grace; which has never yet been proved. +Then there is the assumption that idolatry is the specific sin +whose guilt would have this effect. And this may possibly +be true—when the first assumption is made good—but as +yet, this has not been proved. And then there is the third +assumption, that the Church in the middle ages was so fully and +universally guilty of this sin of idolatry, as to cut off the +virtue of the Apostolic Succession for ever. And I need +hardly say that this has not been proved, for it must in any case +remain a doubtful point—beyond our power to settle for +certain. And yet how unheedingly these three assumptions +are made use of in the arguments so resolutely and thanklessly +urged from the parallel circumstances of the Jews. In the +first place it is assumed that the grace of the Jewish +institutions was so cut off as to be <i>lost</i> on account of +idolatry, in the times before <span class="smcap">Christ</span>; +which cannot be shown. (Rom. xi. 29.) <a +name="page76"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 76</span>For even if +it be shown that that Divine grace was quite suspended during a +season of idolatry, it would still be certain, that when the +Idolatry was repented of and forsaken, the grace reflowed through +the accustomed channels of the Mosaic Institutes. And in +spite of all past idolatries, it had not been wholly cut off even +at the time of the Coming of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>. In the next place there is a +false assumption concerning the sin of idolatry itself; which +seems to have been so severely visited as it was, because it was +the specifically forbidden sin, the protesting against which was +one great special object of the national existence of the Jews +amidst a godless world. It was not, surely, that <span +class="smcap">God</span> abhorred idol worship more than murder, +or uncleanness, or injustice; but it was, that “in Judah +was <span class="smcap">God</span> to be known”—the +one <span class="smcap">God</span>—the forgotten <span +class="smcap">God</span>—amidst Gentile polytheism, until +the Coming of The Great Mediator. Every Divine interference +with that nation seemed to bear this as its reason, “That +all the earth may know that there is a <span +class="smcap">God</span> in Israel.”—“The <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>, He is the <span +class="smcap">God</span>! The <span +class="smcap">Lord</span> He is the <span +class="smcap">God</span>!” (Joshua iv. 24; 1 Kings viii. +42, 43; Psalm lx. throughout, &c.) Idolatry in that +nation had a heinousness beyond all other sin. And great as +the guilt of idolatry must ever be, yet it can hardly be called +in the <i>same</i> sense, the specific design of <a +name="page77"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 77</span>the existence +of the Christian Church, to protest against that sin beyond all +others. And until this can be made good, the strict +parallel cannot be established. In the third place, there +is a further assumption of an actual analogy of sinfulness in +this particular, between the Jewish and Christian Churches, which +is not borne out by facts. Jewish idolatry implied a +voluntary and intentional abandonment of the worship of <span +class="smcap">Jehovah</span>. Now this can in no wise be +affirmed of the worst idolatry of the Romish Hierarchy. No +one will say that the Churches in communion with Rome, ever +intended to abandon the worship of <span +class="smcap">God</span>, for the sake of Angels and +Saints. It may be safely and truly said, that their +reverence paid to images, and their invocations of saints and +angels, are of an idolatrous nature, and calculated to lead, and +have led, to idolatry in the common people; but it would be +unreasonable and untrue to say, that the sin of the Church of +Rome in this matter was the <i>same</i> sin as that of the Jews +when they deliberately abandoned the worship of <span +class="smcap">God</span>. And, therefore, we cannot argue +from the one to the other.</p> +<p>If we thus look into this objection fairly, we must see how +very little it amounts to. It depends throughout on +unproved assumptions. And so far <a name="page78"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 78</span>as we may take the analogy in the +case of the Jewish Church, it tells directly against the +objection. For there cannot be shown more, at most, than a +suspension of the grace of the Mosaic Institutes. And if +even Jewish idolatry, when repented of, was no impediment to the +reflux of the Divine blessing, so it might be in the Christian +Church, even if it could be proved universally guilty of the very +sin of the Jews—which it cannot be. In different +ages, and at different places, some Churches, in communion with +Rome, have paid a highly sinful honour to Saints and their +images. The amount of such honour has varied greatly in +degree, being more or less sinful, at different times and places; +yet at the worst, it was never universal, in any essentially +idolatrous degree. And even if it had been, there would +only (if the analogy were ever so strictly borne out) be a +suspension of still latent Apostolic grace, which any branches of +the Church might, on repentance, again enjoy. Far be it +from us indeed to palliate the sin, or the danger, of the +idolatrous practices of the present Church of Rome, but let a +legitimate and not a superficial estimate thereof be made. +Instead of being misled by words, let us look to +principles. We are bound to protest against all which draws +off the heart from the true <span class="smcap">God</span> and +only <span class="smcap">Saviour Jesus Christ</span>; and +therefore against Idolatry in <a name="page79"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 79</span>all its forms. The Churches +throughout the world, in communion with that of Rome, have +conformed to the practices of the ungodly world in one way; but +so have we in another. And as the heathenish conformities +and superstitions of Romanists are condemned by St. Paul, when he +forbids Christians even to “eat of things offered to +idols;” so the infidel coldness and individual selfishness +of many Protestants are equally condemned, when we are bidden to +flee from covetousness, “which is idolatry.” +Whether, with some, we make idols of a particular Church and the +Saints,—or with others, make idols of Private Judgment and +Mammon, we are alike guilty. Let there be no rude, +impatient haste in judging of any Christians. So long as +<span class="smcap">God</span> bears with us, we may well bear +with one another. Idolatry, worse than the Romish, was +sanctioned by some of the Churches of Asia. But still they +were addressed as “Churches.” That very +sanction of actual heathen idolatry, which the Churches had been +warned against, they were guilty of allowing. Of both +Pergamos and Thyatira it is said in sharp rebuke, that they +permitted some among them “to eat of things offered to +idols,” which almost amounted to an admission of those +heathen gods. And yet, as <span +class="smcap">Churches</span> still, they are warned to +“repent and do the <span class="GutSmall">FIRST</span> +works,” lest <span class="smcap">God</span> should be +provoked <a name="page80"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +80</span>to “remove their candlestick out of his +place.” So it was not removed as yet.—While the +Church Catholic endures perpetually, <span +class="smcap">God</span> cuts off from time to time its +irrecoverably corrupt branches. But it is for <span +class="smcap">God</span>, not us, to do it. And with this, +let us dismiss the Objection concerning Idolatry.</p> +<p>One further Objection which we shall notice, as connected with +the Fact of the Succession, is that which is urged, though in +very different senses, against our own Church in particular, by +Romanists on the one hand, and Sectarians on the other; both +anxious to deny us the possession of that grace of Apostolical +Ministry, which the former desire to monopolize, and the latter +to set at nought altogether. ‘If (say they with +somewhat of <i>ambiguity</i> of expression) the Succession is in +the Church <span class="smcap">Catholic</span>, they who are in a +state of Schism, cannot be considered to possess it.’ +Now if we were to admit this position exactly as they state it, +they would then have to prove us Schismatics, with respect to the +<span class="smcap">Church Catholic</span>, before they could, on +this ground, invalidate our Succession. But, in truth, the +objection ought to be a little more carefully looked into. +The sin of Schism admits of various degrees. Of course, if +it be clearly made out that any part of the Church is (not partly +torn only, but) totally severed <a name="page81"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 81</span>from the Body Catholic, it follows, +that that part has not that Sacramental grace which the Church +alone possesses. But it is certain that in its fullest +sense, even Romanists, acknowledging, as they do, Lay-baptism, +could not thus cut off as <i>totally</i> Schismatic, all who are +not of their communion;—all the Churches of the East, and +of the farthest West—The American, the Scotch, and our +own. And the Sectarians cannot, for very shame, deny us a +place in the Universal Church. That very liberality which +they need for their own sakes will afford us some shelter +too. And as to the special charge of heinous Schism urged +against us in the particular matter of our Reformation; if we +admit it, as fully, as any party can afford to urge it, it could +not go the length of invalidating our Orders Apostolical. +The Church Catholic anathematized us not; but only the Bishop of +Rome, who had not any right or power so to do, <a +name="citation81a"></a><a href="#footnote81a" +class="citation">[81a]</a> but was himself Schismatical and +Anti-christian in attempting it; as St. Irenæus might have +taught him. The Church Catholic we would have been content +to be judged by. <a name="citation81b"></a><a href="#footnote81b" +class="citation">[81b]</a> We appealed to a General +Council, and after wearisome denial and delay, and artifice, they +offered us the mockery of Trent. About a hundred and fifty +years after <a name="page82"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +82</span>our Reformation, we were recognized as a Church by the +Greek Church: <a name="citation82a"></a><a href="#footnote82a" +class="citation">[82a]</a> though the attempt to unite us with +them in one Communion unhappily failed. At the time of our +Reformation, notwithstanding much temptation, much carelessness, +and much sin, our Apostolical Succession seemed marvellously +guarded, as by a heavenly hand. The documents are as plain, +the facts as sure, as history, invidiously sifted, can make them; +so that the candid Romanist and the learned Jesuit cannot deny +them. Let any one examine it for himself. Any man, +who will deal fairly with facts, will be obliged to own that +there have been greater confusions and Schisms <a +name="citation82b"></a><a href="#footnote82b" +class="citation">[82b]</a> in the see of Rome itself, than in the +see of Canterbury.—But they who go the length of affirming +a cessation of Apostolic grace in any particular Church or branch +of a Church on the ground of total Schism, from the whole body of +<span class="smcap">Christ</span>, must excuse us if we ask them +for proof of their assertion; and tell them, that until it is +proved, we must treat it as a pure (though a very convenient) +assumption.</p> +<p><a name="page83"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 83</span>Those +further historical and practical Objections which might be urged +against the Apostolical Succession, either in the Church +Universal, or in our own particular branch of it, would be such +as attempt to throw some degree of doubt on the fact itself; <a +name="citation83"></a><a href="#footnote83" +class="citation">[83]</a> and they have already been answered by +anticipation in the last Lecture, in which we mainly dwelt on the +<span class="smcap">Evidence</span> of the fact. To notice +them here in any greater detail, would therefore be only to +repeat needlessly what has been already said. But closely +connected with the Objections thus briefly considered to the +facts of the Succession, there are generally supposed to be +certain fatal <span class="GutSmall">CONSEQUENCES</span>, which +it may be well just to glance at. “Popery,” and +its fearful train of practical evils, an infringement of liberty +of conscience, and spiritual slavery, are apprehended as the sure +result, if the Apostolical line be admitted to be +preserved. But is it thus? Are any of us anxious for +a “liberty” which is confessedly synonymous with a +freedom from obedience to <span class="smcap">God’s</span> +own laws and appointments? Or can we not admit the right of +any man to “liberty of conscience,” without insisting +that such a liberty will suffice to guide him into all +truth? Doubtless <a name="page84"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 84</span>every man has a right to move on +unshackled towards the “heavenly city,” but shall he +therefore dispense with the only effectual guide? Granting +him the fullest “freedom,” may he not yet miss his +way?—Whoever will take the pains to think of it, will see +that this Apostolical doctrine of the Succession, is no other +kind of restraint upon liberty of conscience, than any other +Apostolical doctrine. It may certainly be said that if a +man be not blessed with the blessings of the Church Apostolical, +he is in a perilous condition; but it is difficult to see how +this affects liberty of conscience, any more than the assertion, +“He that believeth not shall be condemned.” So +that such an Objection is only that of the infidel, in a slightly +modified shape, when he complains of the “hardship of not +providing for the case of the conscientious +unbeliever.”</p> +<p>And as to the fear of Popery; that seems a still more strange +Objection. Surely the very reverse is the more correct +reasoning. If it be a fact capable of proof, and which was +believed by all Christians for 1500 years, That there was a true +Succession of Ministers from the Apostles—are we not taking +the very surest ground against Romanists, when we show, that we +possess just such a descended <a name="page85"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 85</span>Ministry, in no degree dependent on +communion with <i>their</i> Church, or any other single +Church? If we could <i>not</i> show such a Ministry, then +the man, who from examination found out the truth of the +necessity of an Apostolic Church, might be obliged indeed to +resort to the communion of Rome. So that by asserting our +true Apostolical claims, we are so far from giving place to Rome, +that we are striking the only effectual blow at her +supremacy—we are so far from forcing a man to join the +Papacy, that we are offering him his only refuge from its +spiritual tyranny. And as to all such half-infidel +objections as, ‘that there would be nothing to check the +onward advance of corruption and error,’ and the like, if +it were thus taken to be unlawful to sin against, or set aside, +the Apostolical Succession, in any case; it would be quite enough +to reply, that we ought to be content to trust <span +class="smcap">God</span> for the success of His own appointed +institutions. But there are facts, sufficiently strong to +enable us to speak much more explicitly on this head. Among +those who threw off the Roman yoke in the sixteenth century, we +see, that the Non-episcopal communities of the Continent have +gone down into worse than Roman Corruption, “even denying +<span class="GutSmall">THE</span> <span class="smcap">Lord</span> +that bought them;” from which depth of doctrinal corruption +our Episcopal Church has been graciously preserved. <a +name="page86"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 86</span>Not, indeed, +that it is right to depend too much on this kind of evidence, +popular as it may be. It is better for the Christian to +exercise a habit of unenquiring confidence in his Heavenly +Father, trusting Him for the “consequences” of His +Own appointments, disregarding the sophistries, and fears, and +oppositions of the world.</p> +<p>Passing, now, from this class of Practical Objections, let us +consider some of those which are supposed to lie against the +<span class="smcap">Doctrine</span> of the Succession. They +are, indeed, so peculiarly unchristian, so faithless in their +principles, and so indefinite in their shape, that it will not be +so easy a task to deal with them; but we must briefly attempt +it.</p> +<p>One of the commonest and most comprehensive of these +objections, is that which is advanced against the whole Doctrine +of an Authoritative Ministry in the Church, though more +especially against the notion of a Descended Priesthood; +viz. That it is a going back to “beggarly +elements,” a perpetuation of Judaism in the Church. +They who urge this, do not scruple to deny all similarity of +office between the Christian and the Jewish Priesthood, and they +represent it as essentially Anti-christian in any man in these +days <a name="page87"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 87</span>to +pretend to the Priestly office. “If,” say they, +“it be even granted that a separate order of Ministers is +sanctioned by the Gospel, still it is both arrogant and +unscriptural to pretend to institute any sort of parallel between +the Christian and the Jewish Ministries.” It is +strange that any man can speak so thoughtlessly, who has had the +advantage of reading even an English Testament. Not only is +the principle of the necessity of a proper Ministry assumed +throughout the Christian Scriptures, but the very analogy which +is now denied between the Christian and the Jewish ministries is +<i>throughout</i> assumed, and sometimes expressly insisted on, +and drawn out. If it were so dangerous and Anti-christian +an error to pretend to a Priesthood in the Church, at all +resembling that of the Temple, surely the Apostles would have +been especially anxious to avoid using any expressions which +should seem to imply any such thing. St. Paul’s +language, if not to be taken simply as he employed it—that +is, if it were not literally <i>true</i>—was calculated +much to mislead. It could not have been safe, when the +early Church had so strong a tendency to Judaize, to make use of +what may be called “priestly terms” and +allusions. And yet this is done continually in the New +Testament, and even as a “matter of course.” +Observe, for instance, that sentence of St. Paul, <a +name="page88"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 88</span>specially +concerning the ancient Priesthood, but so widely expressed as to +convey a general principle, assumed as known to be equally true +now as of old—“No man taketh this honour to himself, +but he that is called of <span class="smcap">God</span> as was +Aaron.” (Heb. v. 1, 4). So the Holy Baptist at the +beginning of the Gospel puts forth this as an Evangelical +principle, concerning any Divine Ministry, not excepting +Christ’s Own; “A man can <i>take unto himself</i> +nothing” [margin]. (John iii. 27, &c.) St. Paul +likewise calls <span class="smcap">Christ</span> Himself +“the Apostle and High-priest,” linking the two ideas +together—joining the Apostolical and the Priestly +offices—but saying that even <span class="smcap">He</span> +“glorified not Himself to be made an High-priest.” <a +name="citation88"></a><a href="#footnote88" +class="citation">[88]</a> The <span +class="smcap">Father</span> “sent” Him; and “as +His <span class="smcap">Father</span> sent <span +class="smcap">Him</span>, so He sent His Apostles.” +And what, again, might we not fairly conclude from such an +allusion as the following, even if there were nothing more +clear? “<span class="smcap">We</span> have an +<i>altar</i> whereof they have no right to eat which serve the +tabernacle;” (Heb. xiii. 10.) which occurs immediately +after the injunction concerning the Ministry, “remember +<span class="GutSmall">THEM</span>” (v. 7). And in +the verses immediately following, we find a similar injunction, +and similar sacrificial allusions; (v. 11, 15–17.) +Must we not think that the <a name="page89"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 89</span>Apostle recognized <i>some</i> +analogy between the Jewish and the Christian Ministries? <a +name="citation89"></a><a href="#footnote89" +class="citation">[89]</a> But we have, in addition to such +manifold allusions, some passages much more direct and +indisputable. In writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul +places the Eucharistic Table of the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span> in a position precisely parallel with +that of the Jewish Altar, and founds his whole argument on it; (1 +Cor. x. 13, &c.) and places together on the same footing the +Ministries of the Temple and of the Church, (ch. ix. 13.) +His argument for the right of the Christian Minister to a +temporal maintenance is wholly derived from the analogy of the +Jewish Priesthood; this would, then, be no argument, if there +were no analogy. His words are, “Do ye not know that +they which Minister about holy things, live of the things of the +altar? <i>even so hath</i> <span class="smcap">the Lord</span> +<i>ordained</i>, that they that preach the Gospel should live of +the Gospel.” Evidently the former Ministry is assumed +to be the pattern of the <i>latter</i>. But in another +place, it is still more fully carried out. The Apostle +shows the Corinthians, that the analogy between the two +Ministries was such as to raise the Christian Ministry +immeasurably superior to the Jewish, both in privilege and +power. What Jewish Priest could ever use <a +name="page90"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 90</span>such exalted +language as St. Paul had employed concerning the punishment of +sin? (1 Cor. v. 5.) or its pardon? (2 Cor. ii. 10, 11, 15.) +And so he declared his Ministry to be much superior to that of +Moses himself. (2 Cor. iii. 7.) “If the Ministration +of condemnation (the Jewish Ministry) be glory, how much more +doth the Ministration of righteousness (the Christian) +<i>exceed</i> in glory? For even that which was made +glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of that <i>which +excelleth</i>; for if that which was done away was glorious, +<i>much more</i> that which remaineth is glorious.” +Moses, he further shows, had a “veiled,” we an +“unveiled” Ministry. “<span +class="smcap">We</span> all with unveiled face, beholding as in a +glass, the glory of the Lord.” (v. 18.) “We +preach not <i>ourselves</i>,” indeed, he adds, “but +<span class="smcap">Christ Jesus</span> the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>, <span class="GutSmall">AND</span> +Ourselves your servants for <span +class="smcap">Jesus</span>’ sake; <i>for</i> <span +class="smcap">God</span> . . . hath shined in <span +class="smcap">Our</span> hearts, to give the light of the +knowledge of His glory.” (ch. iv. 6; see also ch. v. 19, +20.)—The promises of abiding grace, “enduring” +mercy, and perpetual blessing to the ancient Israel, are commonly +enough thought to await fulfilment in the Church: so also, shall +not the ancient promises of an everlasting Priesthood, which were +not fulfilled to the Jews, be amply fulfilled in the <span +class="smcap">Church</span>?—The <span +class="smcap">One</span> Priesthood of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> “continueth ever” +manifested in <span class="smcap">His</span> <a +name="page91"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 91</span>Church +according to <span class="smcap">His</span> will; “not +after the law of a carnal commandment, <i>but</i> +(<i>απαραβατον</i>) +<i>after the power of an endless life</i>.”</p> +<p>Perhaps it may be thought needless to dwell longer on this +objection to the doctrine of the proper Ministry of the +Church. The other objections, however, which are commonly +urged, are of so similar a character as to be partly answered +already, by what has been said. It may be useful, +nevertheless, to bestow a few more remarks on them. Some +who scarcely like to object to the Doctrine of the Ministry in +open terms, are given to speak of the “<span +class="smcap">Succession</span>” as a “carnal” +doctrine, though without clearly showing us any other doctrine to +supply its place. It would be well for those who lightly +adopt such language, if they would weigh its <i>meaning</i>, +before they make such use of it. If by calling the +Succession a “carnal” doctrine, they mean that the +doctrine is very different from, and perhaps inconsistent with +all that <i>they</i> take to be “spiritual,” there is +nothing very fearful in the charge. Only it is scarcely +consistent with Christian humility to adopt from Scripture a term +of opprobrium, in order to make of it a private use of our +own. Such objectors may be reminded that there were some in +the Church of Corinth, who took themselves to be +“spiritual” enough to dispute the <a +name="page92"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 92</span><span +class="smcap">Apostle’s</span> directions in some Church +matters. And St. Paul replied simply by asserting his +Ministerial authority, however “carnal” that might be +thought. His words are, “If any think himself to be a +prophet, or <i>spiritual</i>, let him acknowledge that the things +that I write are the commandments of the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>.” (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) At all +events the charge of “carnality” ought to be a little +explained, that we may know what meaning to affix to it. In +what sense, for instance, the “Doctrine of laying on of +hands,” can be called carnal, and not also the doctrine of +“Baptism by water?”</p> +<p>But there are those who somewhat modify this objection, and +say, that our doctrine is too “technical” to be +worthy of a Divine Revelation. That is to say, it is +unworthy of the spirituality and dignity of <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> religion to be thus +necessarily allied to outward and sensible forms. But +surely this is as pure an <i>assumption</i>, as all the +<i>other</i> objections which have been considered. At +least, it remains to be <i>proved</i>; and so far as the analogy +of <span class="smcap">God’s</span> previous dealing with +mankind may guide us, we should be inclined perhaps to a very +different conclusion. What, for instance, could be more +“technical” than the Scriptural account of the sin of +Adam? The moral aspect of the offence is <i>not</i> dwelt +on; it is simply <a name="page93"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +93</span>presented to us as a disobedience of a set injunction, a +failure in formal allegiance.—What, again, could be more +“technical” than the acceptable sacrifice of +Abel?—Or the trial of Abraham’s faith?—And +might we not point in a similar way to the whole system +established by <span class="smcap">God</span> among the +Jews?—Or let the more Spiritual institute of +“Prophecy” be considered. There was much in it +that would now be thought very “technical.” The +prophet Balaam, <a name="citation93a"></a><a href="#footnote93a" +class="citation">[93a]</a> though an unholy man, had power to +“bless and curse;” there was a potency in his +word. And then we read of the “<i>schools</i> of the +prophets.” And the Spirit of Prophecy seemed poured +out in so technical and systematic a way, that there were certain +places, and hours, and modes, <a name="citation93b"></a><a +href="#footnote93b" class="citation">[93b]</a> in which the +Spirit was in active energy, in such wise that strangers who came +near were affected by it. So we read, that king Saul and +his messengers, when they came to the company of prophets at +Ramah, all began likewise to prophesy; (1 Sam. xix. 23.) just as +Saul himself had done on another occasion, previous to his +anointing (ch. x. 10). Or, to come to a later period, how +“technical” does the Ministry of the Baptist appear +throughout! And yet our Lord submitted to his +“technical” Baptism, saying, <a +name="page94"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +94</span>“<i>Thus</i> it becometh us to fulfil all +righteousness.” And surely we might make the same +kind of remarks on the whole life of our <span +class="smcap">Lord</span> Himself. Look at the formal +Genealogies at the beginning.—Is it not a strangely +“technical” appointment, that a grace so divine as +that which redeemed mankind must needs flow through the line of +David? And be recorded so scrupulously, as though each link +of the chain were important?—And in all that <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> did, is there not much that might by +some be called “technicality?” His conformity +to the Jewish ritual: His temptation, His replies to the Jews, +His difficulties, questions, and dark sayings, and many of His +miracles, might surely by many be so esteemed. <a +name="citation94"></a><a href="#footnote94" +class="citation">[94]</a> And then again, His Church and +Sacraments: and His injunctions to the Apostles; as that, to +“begin at Jerusalem” in their preaching, which they +technically obeyed to the letter. (Acts xiii. 46.) But +enough is plain, surely, from all this to show us that the +technical nature of an institution <i>may</i> be no objection +whatever to the Divine sanction of it. At all events, the +contrary is an assumption requiring proof. Nay, further; if +it be true, that man’s sight cannot at present endure the +light of unveiled truth, then it may be that some sort of +technical expression <a name="page95"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 95</span>of truth might even be expected in a +Divine revelation. <span class="smcap">God</span> manifests +Himself “in part,” and “in part” He +shrouds Himself from us still.</p> +<p>But after all that has been said, there will be some who will +rejoin: If this doctrine were of so great an importance, why is +there not some much plainer statement about it in +Scripture—something, that is, which might put it beyond +doubt? It might be worth considering in reply to this, +whether such a question does not arise from a complete +misapprehension of the nature and design of the Inspired +Volume? But, in any case, it is evident that the Socinian, +or even the Infidel might easily ask the very same thing. +The Scripture testimony to the doctrine of the <span +class="smcap">Trinity</span>, plain as we think it, is evidently +not <i>so</i> plain as to prevent doubts and differences of +opinion. Can that be a valid objection against the doctrine +of the Succession, which is none whatever against the <span +class="smcap">Trinity</span>? The Arians of the fourth age +would gladly have accepted of any thing in +“Scripture-terms,” and pleaded hard for leaving the +truth of the <span class="smcap">Trinity</span> in a (so called) +“Scriptural” vagueness of expression. But the +Catholic Church determined otherwise. And Her +interpretation of those Scriptures which contain the Apostolical +Succession, is quite as uniform and unequivocal as <a +name="page96"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 96</span>of those +which contain the truth of the <span class="smcap">Holy +Trinity</span>.</p> +<p>Here, while leaving this class of objections also, (raised, +like the former, on pure assumptions) we must not omit to remind +any who are trying by the aid of such objections to rid +themselves of the Catholic truth, that there is, at best, a +fearful uncertainty in the course which they are so +pursuing—an uncertainty which seems not to have one solid +advantage of any kind to recommend it.—But now before +terminating our remarks on the manifold objections of men to this +truth of <span class="smcap">God</span>, it is important perhaps +to make reference to some of the supposed, and the real +Consequences of admitting this Apostolical Doctrine. In +speaking of these, perhaps, our opponents manifest less knowledge +and more unfairness, than with respect to any other of the topics +in debate. The utmost pains are often taken to make out, on +the ground of our “exclusiveness,” a case of bigotry, +superstition, and intolerance. So that there is the more +occasion to direct attention to these, which, imaginary as they +are, form, nevertheless, the most cogent objections in the +popular mind.</p> +<p>In the first place, whoever puts forth any statement +concerning any subject, as the <i>truth</i>, necessarily <a +name="page97"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 97</span>implies that +a different statement would be false; and therefore liable to all +the consequences of the falsehood. Whatever is put forth as +<span class="smcap">Truth</span>, is necessarily +<i>exclusive</i>. And is the Catholic doctrine more +chargeable with “exclusiveness,” on this ground, than +the doctrine of any party, or even individual?—When any man +says that he thinks himself <i>right</i> in any matter, he +virtually says that those who differ from him are +<i>wrong</i>. And as to the future consequences of being +wrong; it will scarcely be denied, that the Sectarians are +generally far more reckless in pronouncing judgments on that +matter than <i>we</i>.</p> +<p>The popular shape in which this objection is most successfully +brought forward is, That the doctrine of the Succession +“unchurches” all the Protestant communities of +Christendom, which are not Episcopal. This is exaggerated +and represented as the very acme of intolerance, and equivalent +to a judgment on our part that they must all necessarily perish +everlastingly. It is melancholy to see the art with which +this misrepresentation is brought forward to check any +half-formed conviction of the truth, such as arises from a candid +review of the unanswerable Evidence. It only shows us that +there are some minds which it is hopeless to attempt to +convince.</p> +<p><a name="page98"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 98</span>Let us, +however, look at the objection rapidly, first, in an historical, +and then in a theoretical light. Doubtless, if the +Apostolic Succession be admitted, it follows that there can be no +certainty of valid Sacraments apart from it. And those +communities cannot be pronounced to be true Churches, which have +no Succession. Now, upon this it is argued, that there is +an inconsistency between us and our early Reformers: for, that +<i>they</i> did not pronounce the Continental Protestants to be +“unchurched,” which our principles oblige us to do; +and that therefore we are more “Popish” and bigoted +than they.—How far this is the real state of the case, they +best can judge who are best acquainted with the writings of our +Reformers. As to <i>their</i> principles, they are +certainly not so doubtful as to be only arrived at by a silent +deduction from their actions. Take, for instance, +Archbishop Cranmer. His opinions, even in his later years, +after he had well looked into the matter, and had passed through +some change of sentiments, are left on record in his Sermons. <a +name="citation98"></a><a href="#footnote98" +class="citation">[98]</a> In speaking of the necessary and +exclusive Succession of the Ministry, he goes to the utmost +extent of the Catholic Doctrine. But it may be said, +generally, that the necessity of Apostolic Ordination <a +name="page99"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 99</span>was not a +debated point at the Reformation. And those, abroad, who +eventually departed from the Succession, did it with so much +reluctance, and with such ample admission of their regret, <a +name="citation99a"></a><a href="#footnote99a" +class="citation">[99a]</a> that it could only be regarded as a +temporary affliction of the Church. When Rome was exerting +all her strength against the Reformed, it surely would have been +deemed an uncalled for severity, had the English Church been +forward to condemn the Continental brethren; especially as they +did not defend the <i>principle</i> of separation from the +Episcopacy; but just the reverse. It was surely enough that +our Reformers asserted their own principles, (as they plainly did +<a name="citation99b"></a><a href="#footnote99b" +class="citation">[99b]</a>) without proceeding formally to +condemn their “less happy” <a +name="citation99c"></a><a href="#footnote99c" +class="citation">[99c]</a> brethren abroad. Add to all +which, the fact, that that generation of Protestants had, all of +them, been baptized in the Catholic Church; and most of their +Ministers <i>had</i> received Episcopal Ordination; so that even +the next generation might receive valid Baptism. It would +be natural of course to pronounce a very careful judgment, if +any, concerning such persons. It might have been difficult +to say that such communities, however imperfect, were <a +name="page100"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 100</span>“not +Churches.” This might have fully accounted for the +reserve of our Reformers, even had it been greater than it was; +more especially as the restoration of the lost Succession might +not only have been hoped for, but, at one time, even expected. <a +name="citation100"></a><a href="#footnote100" +class="citation">[100]</a> But every one must surely +perceive the difference of <i>our</i> position from that of our +Reformers. We assert precisely the same principles, and in +their <i>own</i> language. But <i>we</i> have to act +towards men who on principle <i>reject</i> the Succession; who +are not <i>for certain</i> possessed of any Catholically Ordained +Teachers, or so surely Baptized people: and who are perpetuating +this awfully <i>doubtful</i> and Schismatical state of +things. If in our circumstances we were to imitate what is +thought the reserve of our Reformers, we might be fairly +suspected as not holding their <i>principles</i>.</p> +<p>But the theoretical view of this objection is, perhaps, still +more important to be considered. Let any man examine, what +this charge of our unchurching so many other Protestants really +amounts to, at the utmost. To what extent of +“uncharitableness” does our theory oblige +us?—And, first of all, how can we obviate the practical +difficulty already alluded to, which is urged with <a +name="page101"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 101</span>so much +confidence, that unordained ministers of many sects, have so +large a measure of spiritual success?—It is remarkable that +they who urge this, do not see how <i>variously</i> it is often +applied to support the most opposite and jarring +sentiments. And who can ever decide on the real value of +any such appeals? We might admit, safely, that good has, at +times, been done by unordained teachers, and yet, in that, admit +nothing inconsistent with the exclusive Catholic claims of the +Ordained Ministry. It has often been argued that even the +Heathen Philosophy and the Mahometan Theism, were over-ruled as +<span class="smcap">God’s</span> instruments of good, +though evil in their nature: and the corruptest kind of +Christianity may be well admitted to be much better than either +of them. <a name="citation101"></a><a href="#footnote101" +class="citation">[101]</a> We cannot indeed allow the +distorted estimate, which human vanity makes of its own good +doings; but we will not question <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> sovereignty over man’s +sin, from which He often brings good. We think it wrong not +to “receive <span class="smcap">Christ</span>” (Luke +ix. 53.); and “follow the Apostles;” but we would not +<a name="page102"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +102</span>“call down fire from heaven.” We +think that it “shall be more tolerable for Sodom in the day +of judgment” than for a wilful rejecter, or non-receiver of +the Apostles; but <i>we</i> judge not. They are in <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> hands. (Matt. x. 14.)—We +have before said that we pronounce no private judgment on +others.</p> +<p>And let it not be supposed that this is only a tacit way of +avoiding a difficulty, to which our principles fairly conduct +us. If they be honestly looked at, the Catholic principles +have in them far more of real charity than any others. +There is a large sense, in which every Baptized man is included +in the Catholic Church, and may be, according to his measure, +partaker of Her privileges; though he may not trace the grace to +its true source, but may mistake the hand that blesses him. <a +name="citation102a"></a><a href="#footnote102a" +class="citation">[102a]</a> And the wideness of the +Catholic principle, as to the bestowal of Baptismal grace, ought +not to be lost sight of here. In the Church there seems to +have been recognized a sort of threefold validity of +Baptism. The first, <a name="citation102b"></a><a +href="#footnote102b" class="citation">[102b]</a> as ordinarily +received <a name="page103"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +103</span>from a Minister of the Church; the second <a +name="citation103a"></a><a href="#footnote103a" +class="citation">[103a]</a> pertaining to the grace of martyrdom, +or “Baptism by blood;” and the third <a +name="citation103b"></a><a href="#footnote103b" +class="citation">[103b]</a> even extending in cases of extreme +necessity to Christian Confession, and the <i>earnest desire</i> +of the Sacrament. Doubtless, it is The All-seeing <span +class="smcap">God</span> alone who can decide on any individual +case. Yet it is easy to see how the Catholic doctrine does +at least open a wide door of charitable <i>hope</i>. <a +name="citation103c"></a><a href="#footnote103c" +class="citation">[103c]</a> How many even of those who are +outwardly Schismatical, may not be <i>wholly</i> so, we can never +know here. How far the sincerity of some, or the +circumstances of others, may avail as excuses before <span +class="smcap">God</span>, <span class="smcap">He</span> only can +decide. Still, while our charity “hopeth all +things,” we know that where there is <i>doubt</i> only, +there may be danger; and charity itself would oblige us to warn; +for we think there <i>is</i> this peril; and we warn those +Churchmen of their greater peril, who sanction Religious +principles, or frequent even doubtful assemblies, which the +Church acknowledges not. They not only endanger themselves, +<a name="page104"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 104</span>but by +their example may fatally mislead the souls of their +brethren. But let us take the extremest case that can be +alleged, namely, that of persons wilfully guilty of total and +deliberate Schism from the Apostolic Church. When we deny +to such all share in the Church’s peculiar grace here, or +glory hereafter, are we denying them aught which they do not deny +themselves? aught which they even wish to claim? For +instance—The Church has ever maintained that Baptism in the +Apostolic community conveys the most exalted and unearthly +blessings, and by consequence maintains, that the unbaptized +possess them not. But is it not a fact, that all such +persons totally reject the notion of there being any spiritual +value in Baptism? Does our uncharitableness then place them +in a worse position than that which they voluntarily choose for +themselves, and resolutely defend? Surely we are rather +taking a high view of our own privileges and grace in <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>, than in any degree depriving others +of theirs. We leave them where they place themselves. +And it seems hard to call this a want of charity. It is +impossible to say that we are depriving of Sacraments those who +do not even pretend to them, except in form. It is strange +and uncandid to say, that we <span +class="GutSmall">UN</span>-church those, who (in our sense of the +word) do not even pretend to be Churches.</p> +<p><a name="page105"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 105</span>This +charge of want of charity generally proceeds, too, from those who +ought certainly to be the very last to bring it forward. +They are our commonest assailants who themselves so gloomily +narrow the circle of possible salvation, as to affirm that all +shall inevitably perish, except that exceedingly small number +whom they esteem in their peculiar sense, +“spiritual,” and “converted.” We, +on the contrary, whatever we think of the Church’s +Privileges, hold with St. Peter, that “in every nation he +that feareth <span class="smcap">God</span>, and worketh +righteousness, is accepted of <span +class="smcap">Him</span>;” <a name="citation105a"></a><a +href="#footnote105a" class="citation">[105a]</a> and yet we are +thought “uncharitable.” Far from condemning on +so tremendous a scale as they will venture to do, we pronounce no +judgment personally on any:—and yet they call us +“uncharitable.” Doubtless we see unspeakable +danger in the very idea of differing or dissenting and departing +from the <span class="smcap">Church</span> <a +name="citation105b"></a><a href="#footnote105b" +class="citation">[105b]</a> as descended from the Apostles of +<span class="smcap">Christ</span>; but methinks there is no +bigotry in saying that.—“Now may the <span +class="smcap">God</span> of patience and consolation grant you to +be like-minded one toward another, according to <span +class="smcap">Christ Jesus</span>!”</p> +<p><a name="page106"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 106</span>And +now, at the close of this review of the objections urged by vain +man against the firm, abiding truth of <span +class="smcap">God</span>, it seems impossible wholly to repress +the feeling which rises, on looking back on such melancholy +indications of mental perversity.—The view of a series of +such objections to such a Truth, accompanied as they are by a +guilty host of unnamed minor objections, taking shelter beneath +them, is almost enough to dishearten the Minister of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>. It seems as if there were +arranged side by side all the elaborate tokens of a +Father’s most tender care for a reckless family; and of +their thankless contempt for his love and watchfulness. The +very design of <span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> +Ascension was to give “Apostles and prophets” to his +people; <a name="citation106"></a><a href="#footnote106" +class="citation">[106]</a> but now there are objections to them +all.—It were surely a revolting task to take by the hand +the young but corrupted heir of some princely domain, and lead +him through the stately halls of his fathers, and find him +heartlessly sneering at their massy and unbroken grandeur, and +treating with a rude contempt the mighty things and the noble of +past times—“Objecting” to every thing! +Mocking the now useless towers and unneeded +battlements—Objecting to them as ‘contrivances of +cowardice.’ Or pointing to the <a +name="page107"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 107</span>chapel, to +the Cross, or to some ancestral effigy of +Prayer—“Objecting” to them as symbols of +decaying superstition! It would be miserable to witness +such a wretched lack of natural piety in the heart of a +child.—But is there not some parallel to it in what is seen +among us, whensoever we “go about our Spiritual Zion, +telling the towers thereof; marking well Her bulwarks, and +considering Her palaces, to tell it to the generation +following?” We are scarcely listened to with patience +by many: and some even scorn to accompany us through our +time-honoured courts. Too many modern Christians, +thankless, cold-hearted children of our Holy Church, come very +little short of realizing the picture we have drawn! They +carelessly tread our solemn aisles, and we bid them move +reverently “because of the angels.” <a +name="citation107"></a><a href="#footnote107" +class="citation">[107]</a> And they wonder at our +“superstition” and “weakness!” And +“the fathers” (say they) were ignorant men, and their +works the cumbrous records of departed folly! And as to the +Saints of early days—there are decided objections to their +views; objections to their rules of sanctity; objections to their +prayers and customs, and heaven-ward observances; objections, in +a word, to almost everything <a name="page108"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 108</span>received from the Holy Founders of +our Faith, and loved by all our Fathers!</p> +<p>The long line of the “departed just,” like a +still-continued choir of angels of Bethlehem, seem to be ever +silently heralding “peace on earth, good will to +men,” while men weary not of raising objections thereto; as +if deeming it a hardship to be blessed!—Such is the +Church’s mysterious history. An <span +class="smcap">Almighty God</span> ever “waiting to be +gracious:” and man rebelling against <span +class="smcap">Him</span> ever!—<span +class="smcap">God</span> sending down His gifts of grace: Man +spurning the blessing!—<span class="smcap">God</span> +“bowing His heavens and coming down.” And man +“objecting” still!—“How long shall it be, +O <span class="smcap">Lord</span>, to the end of these +wonders!”</p> +<h2><a name="page109"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +109</span>IV.<br /> +THE SUMMARY.</h2> +<p class="gutsumm"><span class="smcap">From the Epistle</span>. +<a name="citation109"></a><a href="#footnote109" +class="citation">[109]</a>—“All the building fitly +framed together groweth into an Holy Temple in the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>.”—<span +class="smcap">Eph</span>. ii. 2.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> broad and essential distinction +between the Catholic and the Rationalist views of the Christian +Ministry, seems necessarily to imply distinct conceptions of the +whole Christian Religion. This was briefly alluded to in +our first Lecture, but must now be more fully drawn out (though, +I fear, at the risk of some repetition) in order to show the +bearing of the respective doctrines of the Ministry on the +general Religious theory, and on the two classes of +interpretation of Holy Scripture. This is the more +necessary, because no arguments, however clear, will effectually +touch the mind so long as a fundamentally incorrect notion of +their whole <a name="page110"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +110</span>subject matter is inwardly cherished. So long as +one theory is exclusively and implicitly relied on, the arguments +which are built on another, essentially distinct, may be looked +at as difficult, and perhaps unanswerable; still they will not +shake the previous faith of the listener. The arguer is +moving, so to speak, in a parallel, or even a diverging line, in +which his hearer sees, perhaps, no exact flaw, but he is sensible +that it touches him not. Thus many will attend to a train +of reasoning, see that it establishes its conclusions inevitably, +and yet not be morally affected by it—not convinced, not +really touched. Their minds fall back on some distinct and +cherished principle which they have previously been accustomed to +admit, perhaps, without questioning; having been ever taught it, +and so relying on it as a sort of “common sense” +truth. This has been peculiarly the case in Religious +controversy.—A certain view of the general system is +received, and unless you can bring a man to think that this may +be erroneous,—that is, unless you can shake a man’s +faith in himself, and persuade him to call in question or examine +even his fundamental notions—you have advanced but little +towards convincing him of the truth; notwithstanding the logical +accuracy of your reasonings. It is also to be feared that a +mistake as to the very ideality of the Christian Religion is not +<a name="page111"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 111</span>only +very possible, but very common. <a name="citation111"></a><a +href="#footnote111" class="citation">[111]</a> It is not, +therefore, with any desire of mere systematizing that these two +distinct theories of Christianity are now drawn out; but with a +firm persuasion that there is a reality and a practical +importance in the distinction.</p> +<p>Doubtless there are many modifications of opinion among +Christians; but there are two bases on which they are very +generally raised, and perhaps almost necessarily so; a basis of +mental Principles, or a basis of Divine Institutions; a basis of +intelligible “Doctrines,” or of Heavenly Realities; +of that which is abstract, or that which is concrete. And +the former of these may be (and I trust, without offence) +described as the Rationalized, or Sectarian,—the latter is +the Catholic basis. The former, at first sight, seems more +philosophical and elevated and popular—the latter, more +positive, more real, and yet more humbling to the pride of human +intellect.</p> +<p>It is with the latter, indeed, that we shall be especially +concerned in this Lecture; but we must so far dwell on the +former, as may be necessary <a name="page112"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 112</span>for the sake of illustration and +contrast. Instead however of formally arguing against the +former theory, and attempting to disprove its basis, (which would +draw us too far from our object,) let us rather endeavour to +develope the true Catholic conception of Christianity, and show +its exact coincidence with the literal Scriptures of Truth. +An erring Christian man may by observing this be more likely to +suspect, at least, the soundness of the opposite +conception. There is a power in truth; and it is often as +useful to state it clearly as to argue for it. Many men do +not see even the apparent ground on which Church principles +rest—they do not enter into our theory, so as to understand +what they themselves dissent from. And on the other hand, +many right-minded believers, from want of sufficient clearness of +views, adopt a mode of defence which sanctions, or implies, +Sectarian <i>principle</i>. How many Dissenters, for +example, oppose us, on the ground of our union with the State; or +of our having a written Liturgy; or written Sermons; or certain +forms and ceremonies; forgetting that these are not specific +<i>Church</i>-questions; that these might have been otherwise +decided among us than they are, i.e. that we might not have been +allied to the State, nor have been accustomed to a written +Liturgy, nor written Sermons, and yet that our Churchmanship +might <a name="page113"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +113</span>have been, in every principle, the same +precisely.—And again, how many Churchmen defend our general +system just as if the Clergy were the essential, that is, +constituent body of the Church; or defend our Episcopacy with +confidence from insufficient texts; or defend our Apostolicity on +the ground of a Threefold order of Ministration being traceable +even to Apostolic times: little thinking how far such kinds of +defence are inaccurate, and even involve Sectarian principle.</p> +<p>But to resume;—the popular idea <a +name="citation113"></a><a href="#footnote113" +class="citation">[113]</a> seems to be, that Christianity is a +complete Revelation of certain truths concerning <span +class="smcap">God</span> and a future state; and the end to be +aimed at, therefore, is the impressing men strongly with those +truths, “applying them” (as the phrase is) “to +individuals.” The Catholic conception is, that +Christianity is a sustained Revelation, or Manifestation of +realities; and the great end to be attained is the participation +therein.—Thus the Sectarian (according as his sentiments +might be) would dwell much on the idea of <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> moral teaching, as being +“pure” and “useful;” or again, would look +on His Mediation and Atonement, just as “doctrine” to +be believed. The Catholic would endeavour to regard <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> in <a name="page114"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 114</span>a less abstract, a more literally +Scriptural way, as The Mysterious Incarnation of Godhead (1 Tim. +iii. 16); the now and Ever-existing link between us and <span +class="smcap">Deity</span> (1 Tim. ii. 5.)—the medium +whereby man is united unto <span class="smcap">God</span>! +And His mysterious Atonement would be regarded as an awful <span +class="GutSmall">REALITY</span> ever “manifest” in +the Church! (Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 26.)—a <span +class="GutSmall">REALITY</span> to be partaken of, and more than +a bare ‘truth’ to be believed in. (1 Cor. x. 16, +17.) The former would go no further than to think that the +end to be attained is, the formation of a certain character in +individuals, by certain moral means; and so the whole of the +constitutions of Christianity—Scriptures, Sacraments, +Ministries, and Churches, are but the means of accomplishing this +end. The latter believes much more; namely, that the great +end to be attained is the mystical incorporation of an unseen, +yet eternal community, called even now, the “kingdom of +heaven.” On the one system, we are independent +beings: on the other, we are “blessed with all spiritual +blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” On the one +system, it is metaphorically only that we are said to be +“one body in <span class="smcap">Christ</span>,” +while we really are, and shall only be dealt with, as separate +individuals: on the other, the very reverse is assumed; namely, +that “we, being many, are one body in <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>,” in a mystical and Divine <a +name="page115"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +115</span>sense. The question is—which view is more +conformable to Holy Scripture?</p> +<p>Now, supposing the Sectarian idea to be fully adequate and +right, is there not something very unaccountable, to say the +least, even in the structure of the Christian system? +Supposing (that is) that we were so discerning, and could see so +far into <span class="smcap">God’s</span> designs, as to be +able, for instance, to say, that the “conversion,” +(as it is called) or the moral change of an individual as such, +were the sole end, to be produced by certain doctrines inwardly +received; and that this is the whole of Christianity:—Is +not the institution of what must then seem so strange a rite as +‘Baptism with water,’ quite unaccountable?—Of +course it will be easy to say, that such a rite may be taken as a +“type and sign” of spiritual truth; but is this +cumbrous explanation satisfactory? Are not mere types and +signs out of place, “out of keeping,” so to speak, in +a system so purely abstract?—At all events, must not all +allow, that the existence of such an institution as Baptism (to +name no other) is much more in accordance with the <span +class="smcap">Church</span> doctrine of mystical incorporation, +than with any other?—Much more suitable to a system which +insists on a hidden virtue infallibly conveyed by the ordinance +of the <span class="smcap">Son</span> of <span +class="smcap">God</span>, than <a name="page116"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 116</span>to a system which reckons it +“not essential,” even if right at all? A +thoughtful man can hardly fail to perceive, that any such +institutes as those which are and ever have been common in all +the Churches, are incumbrances to what is now thought the +“simplicity of the Gospel,”—are at variance +altogether with the modern spirit and principle. If the +bringing of certain doctrines to the consciences of individuals +were the sole or specific design, what a strangely inapplicable +and unwieldy array of means must the whole Church system +be! And yet, a Church, and certain institutions therein, +are recognised in Scripture. And if so, then the Scriptural +means of Christian edification scarcely seem, in the popular +sense of the word, “simple;” but rather most +elaborate.—By Divine direction, we see a Society of men +enrolled, a community essentially distinct from every human one, +and therefore exciting much jealousy. To certain of the +body a Power is given of receiving or cutting off members; and +spiritual consequences of incalculable magnitude seem annexed to +the privilege of membership. The powers and prerogatives +possessed by these rulers are expressed also in language, however +obscure, yet, most solemn. (2 Cor. xiii. 10.) Whatever that +language may imply, (Matt, xviii. 18.; 1 Cor. v. 5.) it is +certainly Scriptural. There are very weighty expressions in +the <a name="page117"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +117</span>Bible, relative to the Christian Ministry; and the +Sectarian systems are so far from <i>needing</i> them, that they +all find them to be “difficulties.” And it is +equally certain that they mean something. Now, without +inquiring here what they do mean, we primarily point out their +evident incongruity with a theory which makes individuals every +thing, and the Church and Her powers nothing. We would +point out that they are quite needless, and even impediments to +that brief system which tells a man it is enough to “take +his Bible and pray for the personal assistance of the <span +class="smcap">Holy Spirit</span>, and judge for +himself.” It is quite certain that had the New +Testament contained not one word about a Church, a “washing +with water,” a “laying on of hands,” a +partaking “of <span class="GutSmall">ONE</span> +bread,” and the like; the systems of Rationalists might +still be just what they are. They who reduce Christianity +to a code of principles, would lose nothing, by the blotting out +of every text containing any trace of Christian Church authority +from the Scriptures. And must not any hypothesis of +Christianity which is thus partial, be suspected as possibly not +commensurate with the Divine teaching of our Heavenly +Master? Let us not be mistaken as if we said, that there +are not “doctrines” to be believed, and +“principles” to be inculcated in Christianity; we +only insist that such a statement does <a +name="page118"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 118</span>not contain +a complete idea of Christianity, and if taken alone, contains a +positively false, because inadequate idea. And it is +necessary to see the extreme danger of theorizing, where we ought +simply to believe, lest our theory should be more compact than +complete, more simple than true.</p> +<p>But let us attempt now still further to review the whole +subject in an analytical and practical way, apart from theories, +though it be at the risk of prolixity or tautology. Observe +how the Catholic Religion embraces simply and honestly the view +of truth just as it is historically presented in the +Scriptures. At the beginning of the Gospel, the Baptist +announces “the kingdom of <span +class="smcap">God</span>” at hand. Soon The Great +<span class="smcap">Teacher</span> appears,—<span +class="smcap">God</span> and Man in One Person. <span +class="smcap">He</span> preaches truths and corrects +errors;—but is that all? Does <span +class="smcap">He</span> leave the truth to propagate +itself? Or is it simply a system of Divine Principles, +which <span class="smcap">He</span> inculcates? Or, has +<span class="smcap">He</span> not to establish the “Kingdom +of heaven?”—Yes, this Heavenly Personage, this no +common teacher or prophet, this <span class="smcap">Son</span> of +<span class="smcap">God</span>, had to found among men a +celestial community. <span class="smcap">He</span> soon +began to incorporate a Visible society endowed with invisible +powers. <span class="smcap">He</span> called twelve men, +and ordained them; declared that <span class="smcap">He</span> +appointed unto them “a Kingdom even as His <a +name="page119"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 119</span><span +class="smcap">Father</span> had appointed unto <span +class="smcap">Him</span> a Kingdom;” staid with them three +years; instructed them generally; “manifested Himself unto +them otherwise than unto the world;” gave them to see +“mysteries of the kingdom of <span +class="smcap">God</span>;” promised that they should +“sit on twelve thrones” as Vicegerents in the +spiritual dominion; and ere <span class="smcap">He</span> left +them, “breathed on them”—“gave them the +Holy Ghost,” accompanying it with most extraordinary +words—told them to “baptize, and teach whatsoever +<span class="smcap">He</span> had commanded”—and +promised to send His <span class="smcap">Spirit</span> to guide +them, and in some exalted sense to be <span +class="smcap">Himself</span> “with them” (Matt, +xxvii.) to the world’s end.—Acting literally on His +instructions, the Apostles no sooner received the <span +class="smcap">Spirit</span> promised, than they proceeded to set +up their spiritual kingdom: First setting forth the truth, +according to their Master’s example; then enrolling all who +received it as members of their new Society, by means of that +literal rite which had been Divinely commanded. And +literally did the Apostles accept the statement of their <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>, that <span class="smcap">He</span> had +given to them “a Kingdom.” Did any man receive +their doctrine?—immediately he was addressed in terms like +unto the “follow Me” of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>, “Arise and be <span +class="smcap">Baptized</span>”—“have fellowship +with us”—“Be ye followers of us.” +So systematically at first did they keep “together,” +“with one accord,” <a name="page120"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 120</span>until much people was “added +unto them.” (Acts ii. 41–47.) So naturally did +they assume, <a name="citation120"></a><a href="#footnote120" +class="citation">[120]</a> and the people allow, their heavenly +rule, and Power, that at the outset, as far as possible, every +matter of consequence to the new community was transacted by +them, personally. Was property sold for the +poor?—“they brought the money and laid it at the +Apostles’ feet.” Were distributions made to the +needy?—the Apostles themselves did it, as matter of course; +till finding it too burdensome, at their own suggestion deputies +were appointed for the work. Were new converts added? or +did any thing of consequence transpire in distant parts? even in +“matters of discipline,” and “outward forms and +ceremonies?”—it was “reported to the Apostles +and Elders at Jerusalem.” (Acts xv. 2.) And when, in +time, Christian communities multiplied in remoter regions, beyond +the immediate personal inspection of the Apostles, and their +chief companions, subordinate Rulers were instituted; while an +Apostle having “the care of all the Churches,” +travelled from place to place as the organ of the Apostolic +government; <a name="page121"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +121</span>visiting again and again the various Christian +Societies; giving them the Apostolic traditions (2 Thess. ii. +15.) and directions, “leaving them the decrees for to +keep.” (Acts xvi. 4.) So indefatigable were the +Apostles in carrying out the arrangements of their spiritual +kingdom, and so prominent a part of their teaching was this +notion of spiritual sovereignty and power, that even their +enemies were struck by it, and charged them with setting up +another “king, one <span class="smcap">Jesus</span>” +(a charge which would never be brought by unbelievers against the +mere teachers of new principles <a name="citation121"></a><a +href="#footnote121" class="citation">[121]</a>). They +taught everywhere, that a membership of their spiritual +“kingdom” was necessary to all who would enjoy its +peculiar privileges. (Acts ii. 41, 47; 1 John i. 3, 5; ii. +19.) And that membership was attained in the One only way +which <span class="smcap">Christ</span> appointed, namely, by +Baptism. So that even a new Apostle, fresh called by <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> voice from heaven, was not +deemed a member, or in a state of spiritual privilege with <a +name="page122"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +122</span>them—his “sins not washed +away,”—till he was baptized. As it was said to +St. Paul himself, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away +thy sins.” (Acts xxii. 16.) All the baptized people, +that is, the Christians, or the “Church” of every +place, were commanded to “meet together” at stated +times. And among those baptized communities, marvellous +gifts abounded, which were exercised in their assemblies in a +most wonderful manner. (1 Cor. xiv.) But the most gifted of +these were alike subjected to the Apostles. “If any +man,” said St. Paul, “be spiritual,” still let +him submit.—All this, in point of fact, was the manner in +which the Apostles acted out the directions of their Master, in +establishing the “kingdom of heaven.”</p> +<p>And then, mark in what manner the Apostles put forth, by +degrees, their latent spiritual powers. We saw that on the +necessity arising, assistants in some minor matters were +appointed; but the <i>Apostles</i> suggested it. And these +assistants (named Deacons) had thereupon the full power of the +Apostles, for executing a certain commission; but no more. +They were the servants of the Apostles and of the <span +class="smcap">Church</span>; not endowed with the full grace of +Apostolicity, but with specific authority to execute certain +duties in the Apostles’ names. <a +name="page123"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 123</span>Had the +Apostles found it necessary to appoint other officers, doubtless +they would have done it; and so indeed they did, as necessity +arose. They “appointed Elders in every city,” +(Acts xiv. 23; Tit. i. 5.) still, by letters if not by other +means, retaining their own spiritual supremacy over all these +scattered communities; here and there, by degrees only, placing a +Spiritual Ruler, endowed with full Apostolic power—just as +Timothy was “sent” to Ephesus, and Titus “left +in Crete,” (Tit. i. 4, 5.) to take the oversight and charge +of the Churches and their general teachers. Thus from year +to year, with more and more of regularity, arose the kingdom of +heaven on earth.</p> +<p>It was indeed a mighty system rising throughout the world, and +reduced by slow degrees to regularity and form. But two +points seem settled and clear from the very first,—the +necessity of Baptism to membership in the Community, and the +necessity of the Apostles’ sanction to <i>every</i> thing +in the Community Universal. <a name="citation123"></a><a +href="#footnote123" class="citation">[123]</a> And these +two points being as clear and undeniable as any can possibly be, +they simplify and make plain many of the supposed difficulties of +that unformed state of things, which must have presented itself +<a name="page124"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 124</span>first of +all in the Christian societies. Supposing, for instance, it +were even made quite clear, that any Christian man, at first, was +permitted to administer Baptism (though there really is no proof +of this, but, on the contrary, a great deal against it), yet, +knowing, as we do for certain, the Supremacy of the Apostles, we +may be sure that no such thing would have been practised without +their temporary sanction. The same Apostles who gave +Deacons a portion of their power, to “minister to the +necessities of saints,” might if they thought fit have +given to other Christians, permission to Baptize, in their +absence. And this might be more readily accorded to those +private Christians who had, as so many had, supernatural +gifts. But it took, and plainly must have taken, many years +to reduce to uniform order so far spread and rapidly-risen a +system as that of the Christian Church. It would take time +to ascertain in remote parts the will of the Apostles; and in the +interim, doubtless, many confusions would naturally arise, +especially in those scarcely-formed Communities which perhaps had +no settled Elders or Deacons, much less Bishops. Since, +then, the principle is clear, that every Baptized man was held to +be a subject of the Apostles’ dominion, i.e. the +“kingdom of heaven” or Church, it is plain, that the +validity of any act of a ministerial kind would be derived from +the <a name="page125"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +125</span>Apostolical permission. And it is on this +principle, and this alone, that Lay-Baptism can be said to have +had any Primitive sanction. In so far as the Apostle, and +afterwards the Bishop, might allow it, it might have a <i>pro +tanto</i> validity; and so the Bishop was deemed to complete +Baptism by laying on his hands in Confirmation. (Acts viii. +17) Such is the language of the early Fathers, not only +with respect to Baptism, but every other matter; as for instance, +Marriage, which could not be sanctified by Roman Registrars had +such existed, but was reckoned base and unchristian unless it had +the Bishop’s sanction.</p> +<p>From all this you perceive, that, strictly speaking, there is, +in theory, but One Order of Ministers necessary to <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> Church, and that Order, as it +consisted of Apostles at first, so it does now of those whom the +Apostles left as their Successors, just as <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> left Them. The Apostles, it +seems, thought fit not to delegate their full authority to many, +but only to here one and there one. They might have +constituted a plenary Successor of themselves in every +congregation of the Baptized, and have created no other Order of +Ministers; but they did not so. In that case every ordained +man must have been a Bishop, and capable of ordaining +others. But the general Unity of their <a +name="page126"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 126</span>kingdom +would have been interfered with by such a subdivision into petty +provinces. Doubtless they were led by the <span +class="smcap">Spirit</span> of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>, +and His own pattern when among them, to adopt another course; and +they created officers with derived and partial powers, to +exercise them to a certain extent and no farther. First, +they allowed certain persons to Baptize; and then, very soon, +they farther permitted others to consecrate the Holy Eucharist +and rule the Congregation, and use, in their absence, the powers +of binding and loosing souls; of which latter we have on record +one very solemn instance: (1 Cor. iv. 5.) “In the name of +our <span class="smcap">Lord Jesus Christ</span>, when ye are +gathered together, <i>and my Spirit</i>—<i>with</i> the +Power of the <span class="smcap">Lord Jesus Christ</span>, +deliver such an one unto Satan.” St. Paul thus +commissioning others in his absence to act in his name and <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span>. But there was yet one +exercise of power which the Apostles reserved to themselves and +those of their Coadjutors who, by the voice of all Antiquity, +became their Successors in the Church, and that was the power of +“laying on of hands.” And thus was accomplished +and set in order, by Divine Inspiration, that Threefold Ministry, +shadowed forth in <span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> own +lifetime, and which has continued ever since.</p> +<p>In the specific reservation of this Power of imparting <a +name="page127"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 127</span>the <span +class="smcap">Spirit</span>, which the Apostles made to +themselves, there is a sacred beauty and fitness, on which, for a +moment, we shall do well to meditate.—By retaining in the +possession of themselves, and a chosen few, the whole power of +spiritually Commissioning the Ministers of the Church, they +effectually provided for the Unity and subordination of their +kingdom, and ensured the reverent estimation of their unseen +powers, as Vicars of a Heavenly Master. And then this was +still farther secured by the retention of the power of +Confirmation. For by this it came to pass that every member +of the Universal Church, every individual subject of the +“kingdom of heaven,” came necessarily into personal +contact, so to speak, with him who was the immediate +representative of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>. Thus +was recognised, in a degree, that intimate union with Apostles or +Apostolical men, the contemplation of which in its fulness raised +in after days all the eloquent aspirations of St. John +Chrysostom. Thus immediately from the hands of Apostles and +their Successors every Christian man receives to this hour the +higher blessings of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>.—There was a fatherly affection +in the appointment; as if the Holy Apostles were anxious, and +their Successors after them, to see with their own eyes each one +of the uncounted multitude of the great Catholic family. (Acts +xx. 28.)</p> +<p><a name="page128"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 128</span>It +must not be thought, however, that the ceremony of “laying +on of hands” was in itself essential either to Confirmation +or Ordination. <a name="citation128"></a><a href="#footnote128" +class="citation">[128]</a> For it is conceivable that any +other ceremony might have been adopted. The <span +class="smcap">Intention</span> constituted the act of conveyance +of the grace of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>, not only in +Confirmation, but in Ordination. Otherwise indeed there +would be no distinction between the two. So St. Matthias +was ordained “by lot;”—and the first Apostles +themselves by <span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> +“breathing on them.” Otherwise, also, Holy +Orders, [if not Confirmation too], would be a proper Sacrament, +which it is not, because it was not by <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> essentially tied to any form; +although it is now virtually so to us by Universal consecrated +usage in the Church. In thus speaking of the intention of +the Apostles as constituting the validity and essence of the Gift +which they conferred, (which it plainly must have done, else all +distinctions would have been destroyed, and whenever they laid +their hands even on a Deacon, or Deaconess, or a child, full +Apostolical grace must have been given, whether they meant it or +not; which is absurd,)—it must not be misunderstood as +though it were meant to support any Romish Doctrine of +Intention. It is just the reverse. For if Holy Orders +[or Confirmation] <a name="page129"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +129</span>were a proper Sacrament, it would have a positive grace +specifically annexed to a positive <i>form</i>, superseding all +intention on the part of the agent. Neither, again, must it +be taken to mean that the intention of any particular Bishop is +now necessary, to his official action, to secure its validity, as +the medium of grace. We are not speaking of any thing +personal and private, but of that which may be gathered from the +heaven-guided practice—the official and authoritative +intention—of the Founders of the <span +class="smcap">Church</span>, in this matter, which has ever, +<i>in fact</i>, descended to the Bishops, and is not now a +mutable thing. Before the decease of the Apostles, +“laying on of hands” had become the recognised +ceremony of Ordination and Confirmation; and so at length, the +Apostle St. Paul, in his later years (<span +class="GutSmall">A.D.</span> 64, or 65), speaks of the <span +class="GutSmall">DOCTRINE</span> “of laying on of +hands,” (Heb. vi. 2,) which by that time was a known and +admitted point of rudimental Christianity.</p> +<p>Towards the close of the Apostolic career the Christian system +universal seemed to have become thus arranged with general +uniformity of discipline: so that after the destruction of +Jerusalem, according to the prophecy, “before that +generation passed away,” the “<span +class="smcap">Son</span> of Man came in His kingdom,” with +more of fulness, completeness, and <a name="page130"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 130</span>glory than heretofore. While, +in the early history of the Acts of the Apostles, we see the +elements of the Christian kingdom gradually assembled and +composed, neither reason nor history justify us in looking for +the complete system of the Apostles until towards the close of +their career. Even the extant Epistles to the Churches, +seem to indicate various stages in the development of the +Christian System. (1 Thess. iii. 10, 11; 1 Cor. xi. 34.) +The Apostles imparted of their powers, for the edification of the +Body of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>, just as necessity +arose and Churches spread, and miracles and gifts supernatural +became less frequent. And when they left the world, they +left their perpetual power to appointed Successors, in all the +great departments of the Spiritual kingdom; bequeathing likewise +the promise of the great King of saints, “Lo I am with you +always.”—And so, at last, (to return to the metaphor +of our text,) “All the building was fitly framed +together,” and grew “into an Holy Temple in the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>.”</p> +<p>Such is the clear historical view of Christianity, and the +statement of it is an analytical statement of the Catholic +Religion from the beginning. We do not find the facts of +Scripture and History to be “difficulties.”—But +let us now, finally, endeavour to combine what has been said, and +briefly <a name="page131"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +131</span>consider, in a more synthetical way, our whole +Christianity, as it lies before us both in the Gospels and +Epistles.</p> +<p>In the former, <span class="smcap">Christ</span> is +instructing His Apostles and witnessing to the Jews. In the +latter, the Apostles, “in the person of Christ” (2 +Cor. ii. 10), “as though Christ did it by them” (2 +Cor. v. 20.), are instructing the <span +class="smcap">Churches</span>, and through them witnessing to the +world. The general impression wrought on the mind by the +Gospel narrative of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> and His +followers, is that of an isolated company of men, having little +in common with those by whom they were surrounded, and among whom +they moved, as bent on some unearthly enterprise. And in +like manner, the impression left by the perusal of an Apostolic +Epistle is, of a separated band, a “peculiar people,” +in the midst of a world “lying in +wickedness.”—Looking a little closer, we soon +recognize a Purity of principle and a Divine mystery alike +unsearchable. <span class="smcap">Christ</span> Himself in +the Gospel speaks with a heavenly emphasis of those who are +endowed with a certain high character, as “<span +class="GutSmall">BLESSED</span>;” telling us that +“their’s is the Kingdom of heaven.” And +every Epistle opens with an exalted delineation of the like +persons—the “elect,” the “called,” +the “sanctified,” the “<span +class="GutSmall">BLESSED</span> in <a name="page132"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 132</span><span class="smcap">Christ +Jesus</span>.” They who were so addressed were +deemed, in a lofty sense, already the heirs of <span +class="smcap">God</span> and “joint-heirs with <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>,” having “received power +to become sons of <span class="smcap">God</span>” (John i. +12.), and having been Baptismally “born of <span +class="smcap">God</span>.” (1 John iii. 9.) Each had +a Sacred character, yet not as an individual, but as a member of +a Sacred Body. Among them there were distinctions, and yet +there was an identity; “diversity of gifts,” but +Oneness of grace. They were “all members one of +another,” but “all members had not the same +office;” they were “one,” they were +“brethren” in <span class="smcap">Christ</span> (as +He had commanded them to be); but some were to +“rule,” and some to “submit;” some to +“overlook” and “watch,” and some to +“obey.”—And the idea of the Oneness of +Christians, (and the mysterious nature of it,) seems to pervade +the whole New Testament, and is that which forces itself upon our +attention, open it wherever we may. Not only did <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> pray to His <span +class="smcap">Father</span> for this, but He appointed a +Mysterious ordinance, by which His people were to become One +Body: And another more mysterious still, by which their Oneness +might be Divinely sustained. “By <span +class="GutSmall">ONE</span> <span class="smcap">Spirit</span> ye +are Baptized into <span class="GutSmall">ONE</span> body;” +and “know ye not that the <span class="smcap">Spirit</span> +of <span class="smcap">God</span> dwelleth in you?” said +St. Paul; as if intimating somewhat which the Baptized might +apprehend, but which could not <a name="page133"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 133</span>be spoken. And again, “I +speak as to wise men,” said the same holy Apostle to the +Corinthian Church—glancing only, as it were, at The Mystery +of unutterable grace—“I speak as to wise men; judge +ye what I say. The Cup of blessing which <span +class="GutSmall">WE</span> bless, is it not the <span +class="GutSmall">COMMUNION</span> of the <span +class="GutSmall">BLOOD</span> of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>? The Bread which <span +class="GutSmall">WE</span> break, is it not the <span +class="GutSmall">COMMUNION</span> of the <span +class="GutSmall">BODY</span> of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>?” And then he +adds—passing from our Union with <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> to our Communion with all Saints by +means of the Most Holy Eucharist, “We are <span +class="GutSmall">ONE</span> body, . . . <i>for</i> we are all +partakers of that <span class="GutSmall">ONE</span> +Bread!” And in the judgment of the same Apostle, no +language seemed too severe to condemn the willing violaters of +this Union. It was sacrilege to injure the least of the +members; how much more then to divide the Body? That the +Baptized were “One with <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>,”—that the Communicating +believer was already, as it were, linked with the verities of +eternity,—were transcendent Mysteries; not bare metaphors, +but earthly forms of stating Heavenly Truths. And if every +member of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> was thus sacredly +looked on, so the more also was the whole Body. “Ye +are a chosen generation,” says St. Peter, “a royal +priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.”—Every +Christian indeed was a “Temple of the <span +class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span>:” but as S. Clement of +Alexandria saith, the <span class="smcap">Church</span> is <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> great <a +name="page134"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +134</span>Temple—“builded together for an habitation +of <span class="smcap">God</span> through the <span +class="smcap">Spirit</span>.”</p> +<p>Here, then, is opened to us the great Catholic idea of the +Christian Revelation—That the mystical <span +class="smcap">Company</span> of <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> people, as such, were clothed +with the heavenly Powers, and “blessed with the heavenly +blessings.”—It was in the temple “builded +together” that the Divine glory vouchsafed to +dwell.—To the Church, the elect assembly, the promises had +been made. To the <span class="smcap">Body</span>, when in +solemn meeting, the special and highest grace of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> had been granted; (and so at the +appointed “gatherings together” <a +name="citation134a"></a><a href="#footnote134a" +class="citation">[134a]</a> the Blessed Eucharist was usually +celebrated.)—From the beginning of the Gospel this had been +indicated, so that even the instituted Apostolate arose, as at +<span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> command, out of the +<span class="smcap">Church</span>, more as the Divine instrument +of Her invisible power, than the possessor of aught in itself. <a +name="citation134b"></a><a href="#footnote134b" +class="citation">[134b]</a> <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> words, “Thou art +Peter,” were instantly connected with the promise of +building the <span class="smcap">Church</span> against which +“the gates of hell should not prevail.” The +commission, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted +unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain, they are +retained,” was instantly followed by words <a +name="page135"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 135</span>conveying +this power of absolving and condemning, to the <span +class="smcap">Church</span>, and not to the <i>persons</i> of the +Apostles, <a name="citation135"></a><a href="#footnote135" +class="citation">[135]</a> except as <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> instruments <i>in</i> the <span +class="smcap">Church</span>; “<i>for</i>” it is +directly added, “where two or three are <i>gathered +together</i> in <span class="smcap">My</span> name, there am +I.” In accordance with which declaration, we see (in +a passage before quoted) that an Apostolic condemnation of a +sinner was pronounced. “In the name of the <span +class="smcap">Lord Jesus Christ</span>, when ye (i.e. the Church) +are <i>gathered together</i>” (1 Cor. v. 4.) In like +manner we may trace how, from the first, the highest Authority, +as well as sacredness and favour, (Luke xxiv. 33.) was attributed +to the “assembling together” of Christians, which +therefore they were urged “not to forsake.” +Thus when the door of faith was first “opened to the +Gentiles,” the Church was “<i>gathered +together</i>”, (Acts xiv. 27.) and the matter +rehearsed. When the question of Judaizing arose, again +“the Apostles <a name="page136"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 136</span>and Elders <i>came +together</i>” (Acts xv. 6.) When the Apostle St. +Peter was to be miraculously delivered from prison, “there +were many <i>gathered together</i> praying” for him. (Acts +xii. 12.) The announcement of the risen <span +class="smcap">Saviour</span> had been made to the “eleven +<i>gathered together</i>” (Luke xxiv. 33.) And the +blessings attendant on these united assemblings was not to be +disturbed by Jewish or Gentile jealousies. Since, they had +all been “quickened <i>together</i>, and raised up +<i>together</i>, and made to sit <i>together</i> in heavenly +places in <span class="smcap">Christ Jesus</span>.” (Eph. +ii. 5.) And so Christians might be addressed as +“heirs <i>together</i> of the grace of life;” (1 Pet. +iii. 7.) exhorted to be “followers <i>together</i>” +of the Apostles; (Phil. iii. 17.) and admonished to “strive +<i>together</i>” for the “faith of the +Gospel.”</p> +<p>The majestic privileges of the Saints, in Union with <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> and Communion with one another, if we +contemplated them aright, would so overwhelm our spirits, that we +could not think of the “solemn assemblies” without +coveting to be there! Little as it is thought of, there is +a special awfulness in the “meeting together” of the +members of this Heavenly, yet earthly,—this Invisible, yet +visible—Society; when <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> Eye is on every one, when <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>, though unseen, is “in the +midst,”—and the “hosts of God” are +encamping <a name="page137"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +137</span>around! All Christians then constituting, in some +sacred and lofty sense, a “kingdom of Priests;” <a +name="citation137"></a><a href="#footnote137" +class="citation">[137]</a>—yet ministering only through +that Consecrated organ which <span class="smcap">Christ</span>, +the great High Priest, appointed,—the Bishop, or his +representative.—“<span class="smcap">God</span> is +very greatly to be feared in the Council of the Saints! and to be +had in reverence of all that are round about <span +class="smcap">Him</span>.”—Well might the ancient +Fathers delight to speak of the dignity of being a +Christian! It is observable, however, for our instruction +and warning, even in this, that Tertullian, after he embraced the +Montanist heresy, carried out so erroneously the idea we have +been dwelling on, as to assign to any Christian, in cases of +necessity, the exercise of inherent Priestly functions. +Such, even then, was the perilous rashness of Private +Judgment. For though the Priestly functions are doubtless +in the <span class="smcap">Church</span>, granted unto Her for +Her blessedness and perfection (1 Cor. iii. 22.); and though in +our Solemn Assemblies “all the people of the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span> are holy,” all the Baptized in +such wise sharers of the Priesthood, that they join in our +‘sacred offerings;’ yet, we must beware of the +“gainsaying of Core.” (Jude 11.) The Catholic +Church has ever held that Her Priesthood cannot be effectually +exercised otherwise <a name="page138"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 138</span>than in conformity with the original +commands and ordinations of Christ. And from <span +class="smcap">Him</span> alone the first Ministers of the Church +derived their appointment, (St. Paul speaking of <span +class="GutSmall">HIS</span> as “the Ministry received <span +class="smcap">of the Lord</span>:” See also Col. iv. 17.), +and afterwards conveyed it to others, whom they had chosen, and +on whom they “laid their hands.” And thus St. +Paul, while anxious to <i>vindicate and prove to the Church</i>, +as the constituent body, his right to the Ministry, at the same +time scruples not to claim and exercise its loftiest Powers <i>as +his own</i>, (2 Cor. xiii. 10) and commands the Church’s +obedience. . . . So mysteriously is “all the building +fitly framed together, and groweth into an Holy Temple in the +<span class="smcap">Lord</span>.”</p> +<p>Here let us pause: Let any man recall, in thought, the +Scripture language concerning the <span +class="smcap">Church’s</span> privileges, and the <span +class="smcap">Ministerial Prerogatives</span>; let him compare it +with all that has now been said; then let his mind revert to the +notions of the Rationalist; and draw his own +conclusion;—And whatever his personal <i>belief</i> may be, +he will hardly fail to perceive, that the system which is every +where supposed throughout the New Testament, differs from a mere +code of principles to be “applied” to +individuals—differs <a name="page139"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 139</span><i>in kind</i>,—as widely as +the mysterious and appointed Sacrifice of Abel differs from the +Rational devotion of Cain.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">May God</span> give us grace to weigh +these things; and “that not lightly, or after the manner of +dissemblers with <span class="smcap">Him</span>!” +Some, who are not yet members of the Church, may be wishing, +perhaps, to put these thoughts far from them, sustaining +themselves with the belief, that they <i>have</i> partaken of +Christian blessings apart from the Church; and similar +reflections. We only say to them, that self-deception on +such a matter is but too easy! And if that be true which we +have now literally taken from <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> word, then it is certain that +they are, at the best, in a very deficient state, and “come +behind in many a good gift!” More than this might +indeed be said, without overstepping truth or charity: for those +who have heard these things, cannot afterwards be as though they +had not. But let each think of it for himself. +Whatever may be said of those who are unwittingly out of the +“kingdom of heaven” below, unbaptized, or only +doubtfully baptized by some one who had only his <i>own</i> +authority to do it; whatever be thought of the present amount of +grace, or future reward of such, if they go on according to their +best, in the course they find themselves in,—<a +name="page140"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 140</span>some of +them haply verging on the very borders of our land of +promise,—far different is <i>their</i> case who +<i>might</i> have known and embraced the truth. To such we +say, in <span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> words, +“Verily the kingdom of <span class="smcap">God</span> is +come nigh unto you!” . . . The foolish virgins in the +parable <i>thought</i> their lamps seemed to burn brightly, and +emulated the light of the heavenly-wise; but when the Bridegroom +came, they were found unsupplied with the needful oil, and went +out in utter darkness!</p> +<p>But let not those who are of the “household of +faith” be self-confident! “By the grace of +<span class="smcap">God</span>, we are what we are!” +And let the consciousness of our sinful neglect stir us up to +pray for the fuller restoration of the Church’s grace to us +Her degenerate children. It is of little value to believe +in a Priesthood, without we <i>use</i> it. May <span +class="smcap">God</span> forgive His Priests and people for their +joint forgetfulness of their many unearthly privileges!—the +very belief whereof seemed a short time since almost dying away +from very disuse! Of a truth, we of the English Church are +blessed beyond others, would we but apprehend our +privileges! Brought nigh, as we are, to our <span +class="smcap">Lord Christ</span>, with such abundant mercy and +undeserved! If we come short of plenary grace in <span +class="smcap">Him</span>, what shall we dare to plead in the Day +of account?</p> +<p><a name="page141"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +141</span>“What manner of persons ought we to be?” +for we have “come unto the City of the Living <span +class="smcap">God</span>, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an +innumerable company of Angels; to the general Assembly and Church +of the first-born enrolled in heaven!—to <span +class="smcap">God</span> the Judge of all, and to the spirits of +the perfected just; and to <span class="smcap">Jesus</span> the +<span class="smcap">Mediator</span> of the New Testament, and to +the blood of sprinkling!”—Would that the feeling of +<span class="smcap">Christ’s</span> first disciples were +ours! “<span class="smcap">Lord</span>, to whom else +shall we go? <span class="smcap">Thou</span> hast the words +of eternal life.” Would that we were more thankful to +<span class="smcap">God</span> for the present blessings of His +Church! Would that we used our Prayers, and tried them +well, before we talked of amending them; or understood our holy +offices, instead of seeking to shorten them!—Have we now, +in this late century, to seek out new faith—some new +instructor or guide? <span class="smcap">God</span> deliver +us from this blindness! May <span class="smcap">He</span> +help His people to see what treasures of unknown grace lie hidden +in His Holy Church among us! “We have all and +abound.” Let us only “give diligence” +thereto, that when <span class="smcap">Christ</span> cometh, +“we may be found of Him in peace, without spot and +blameless!”</p> +<p>“<span class="smcap">Lord</span>, I have loved the +Habitation of <span class="smcap">Thy</span> House, and the place +where <span class="GutSmall">THINE</span> honour +dwelleth!”—So holy David could say from the very <a +name="page142"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 142</span>depths of +his soul: and shall we who are brought into a holier place, +“the Habitation of <span class="smcap">God</span> through +the <span class="smcap">Spirit</span>,” be forbidden to +give utterance to as ardent a love—a devotion as deep and +pure?—</p> +<p><span class="smcap">O holy Church of England</span>! +Brightest and fairest province of the realm of heaven on +earth! What shining paths of truth and holiness are +Thine!—And they are thronged by all Thy many Saints, +farther than eye can trace through long past ages! What +rivers of full grace flow through Thy mighty channels! What +living fountains send forth their waters, refreshing evermore the +weary and parched soul! Within Thy hallowed walls Thy +saintly children trod in the ancient days—(the “old +times of which our Fathers have told us”),—they whose +monuments of goodness and glory are around us—in whose +prayers we pray to the <span class="smcap">Eternal Father</span> +of all—in whose Psalms “we praise <span +class="smcap">Thee O God</span>, <i>we</i> acknowledge <span +class="smcap">Thee</span> to be <span class="smcap">the +Lord</span>,” from age to age.—<span class="smcap">O +Holy Church</span> of the many wise and good! O <span +class="smcap">Church</span> of patient Martyrs and godly +Confessors!—with whom we hold such mystical Communion, such +“fellowship one with another,” that the “blood +of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> here cleanseth +us!”—To <span class="smcap">God</span> be glory in +Thee, <span class="smcap">O Church</span> of our Land! throughout +all ages, world without end! Amen.</p> +<h2><a name="page145"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +145</span>NOTES.</h2> +<h3>No. I.</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">It</span> seems alike congruous to human +nature, and consistent with every Divine dispensation to say, +that man is more effectually influenced by the personal +instrumentality of his fellow man, than by any other means. +Statesmen and politicians seem to have seen this; and in every +age have acted upon it; and have thought it necessary to give +their sanction and support to a priesthood, even for the +attainment of worldly ends. The lower classes of the +community also, bear unequivocal testimony to the same +truth—the suitability of the living Priesthood as the +effective means of influencing human nature. Even among +those classes of our own people, who affect to make light of the +authority of the Ministry, it is remarkable how much that +authority is <i>felt</i> after all; and how much even the +systematic rejecters of the established Priesthood, are +accustomed to impute high power and efficacy to the +ministrations, and often to the very persons, of their own +self-sent ministers. Books have their use—but Man +directly influences man, in a more vital way.</p> +<p>And more than this. Some men <i>naturally</i> influence +their fellows more than others: and some men <i>Divinely</i>; +that is by Divine appointment. It is true, for instance, +that by the very necessity of our social nature and condition, we +affect one another in a very important degree; and that it is +even a duty sometimes to exert our moral influence on our <a +name="page146"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +146</span>brethren. And the degree in which we are able to +accomplish this, will be variously determined. But beyond +the natural influence which we thus exercise, there is an +instituted influence, as much a matter of <i>fact</i> as the +former. Keeping to the religious view of this question +only, I would thus further explain:</p> +<p>It is evident that in every age, one man may be a blessing to +another, by personally instructing him to the best of his power: +or by praying for him, to Almighty <span +class="smcap">God</span>. Every good man may possess this +power of mediately blessing his fellow men; but some men more +than others.—A Howard may thus bless very +“effectually.” And, generally, the +“effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth +much.” But some there have been in every age, who, +according to the Divine testimony, have had <span +class="GutSmall">POWER</span> to give authoritative blessing. (1 +Sam. iii. 19.) Some have been from time to time appointed +and endowed by the <span class="smcap">Deity</span>, “to +bless, and to curse, in the name of the <span +class="smcap">Lord</span>.” (1 Chron. xxiii. 13.) +Generally this was the assigned function of the Priesthood, and +was declared to pertain to them “for ever.” But +“from the beginning it was so;” Job blessed his three +friends, (Job xlii. 8.) and Noah his sons, (Gen. ix.) and before +the Levitical priesthood was set up, Melchisedec “blessed +Abraham.” Isaac “blessed Jacob and could not +reverse it” though he heartily wished to do so: and Joseph, +again, blessed his two sons, <i>officially</i>, and contrary to +his own intention. (Gen. xlviii. 9.) Balaam, we see, also, +was sent for to “curse” Israel, and he “blessed +them altogether,” though he wished not to do it: (Num. +xxii. 11.) so that it was no peculiar privilege of the Jewish +nation or their ancestors to be able to impart an authoritative +blessing. (Matt. xxiii. 3.) And we find the same to hold in +the Christian dispensation. (Acts x. 41.) Being reviled +“we bless,” said the Apostle. Say “<span +class="smcap">Peace</span> be to this house,” was our <span +class="smcap">Lord’s</span> direction to His Ministers; +“and if the Son of peace be there, <span +class="GutSmall">YOUR PEACE</span> shall rest upon +it.” So that at the end of his epistles St. Paul +<i>sends</i> his <a name="page147"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +147</span>Apostolic blessing “under his own +hand.” And “without all contradiction (he +argues) the less is blessed of the better.” (Heb. vii. +7. Deut. xxi. 5; xxvii. 14.) All men can pray for +blessing, but <i>some</i> can “bless.” So, +every man can <i>read</i> “the Absolution,” but +“<span class="smcap">God</span> hath given <span +class="GutSmall">POWER</span> and commandment to His <span +class="GutSmall">MINISTERS</span>, to declare and <span +class="GutSmall">PRONOUNCE</span> it.” (So St. James +says, “If any man (not, if any <i>poor</i> man, only, as +some seem to take it) be sick, let him call for the Priests of +the <span class="smcap">Church</span>.”)—And this +depends not on the goodness of the <span +class="GutSmall">MAN</span>. A Judas was an Apostle.</p> +<p>Let any one follow out in his own mind these hints; and he +will see nothing either unphilosophical or unscriptural in +expecting in these days also the blessings of an instituted +Priesthood. <span class="smcap">God’s</span> plan +ever is, to use <i>men</i> as instruments of good to men. +Revelation has ever recognized such an institute as the living +Ministry. All infidelity is an attempt at +“codification.”</p> +<h3>II.</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">At</span> the close of the fourth Lecture +I have made some observations on the <span +class="smcap">Intention</span> of the Church Catholic, as +constituting, in a measure, the essence of the validity of +certain of Her Ordinances. It will be difficult to clear +this statement from the possibility of misrepresentation, and +even misapprehension: I would request that what I have said at p. +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page128">128</a></span>, +&c. may be re-read and considered. The Doctrine of +Laying on of hands is recognized in Scripture; but there is no +command of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> concerning this, in +the same way that there is a command concerning Baptism and the +Eucharist. It seems an institute of the Apostles and the +Primitive Church; and may perhaps be looked on as an instance of +the early exercise of the Church’s inherent power and +grace; for the institute certainly received the sanction of +Scripture, before the close of the Sacred Canon. So that it +would be impossible to say <a name="page148"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 148</span>how dangerous it might not be, to +depart from the Church’s Ordinance of Laying on of +hands. I trust therefore that none will imagine, that what +is here said can fairly be made to sanction the loose notion, +that any part of the Church Catholic can now voluntarily +originate and ordain a Ministry in a <i>new</i> way; and without +imposition of hands. The uncertainty, not to say peril of +presumption in any such case, will be quite sufficient to guard +against the fatal folly of such a thought. How far the +grace of the Apostolate is ordinarily now allied even to the very +<i>act</i> of “laying on of hands,” it may be +impossible to say; still it is important in many respects to +observe, that the Laying on of hands is not so strictly of the +nature of a proper sacrament, as that the divine grace is always +necessarily allied to that form of ordination exclusively. +There is advantage in considering that in <i>theory</i> it may +not be so, though there could be no safety or certainty in +deliberately <i>acting</i> on such a doubtfully understood +theory.</p> +<p>Even the Roman Controversialists do not agree that the Laying +on of hands is <i>the</i> specifically Sacramental act;—the +outward form to which only of necessity the inward grace is +allied. Though I cannot help thinking that it would much +benefit their argument, if they were agreed on this point. +The Doctrine which attributes the essence of Ordination to the +uniform Intention of the Church Catholic may be, of course, very +easily cavilled at; but still even the Romanist must, to a +certain extent, rely on some such Doctrine, and such a Doctrine +is that, perhaps, which alone will harmonize the conflicting +Roman theories. In its very nature it is a Doctrine which +admits not of strict definition. It rises simply out of the +truth, that the gifts of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> were +to the <span class="smcap">Church</span>, and not primarily or +inherently in individuals, as such.</p> +<p>This theoretical conception of these ordinances will serve +greatly to assist us in meeting a theoretical difficulty, not +unfrequently brought against the Doctrine of the +Succession. It is said: ‘Is it not very conceivable, +after all that has been urged, that during the long course of +ages, in <i>some</i> countries <a name="page149"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 149</span>at least, some one break in the +Apostolic chain <i>might</i> have occurred? Is it not a +consequence, in that case, that all subsequent Ordinations would +be very doubtful?’ To which we reply, ‘Point +out <i>the fact</i>.’ We challenge you to find it; a +bare supposition can have but little force as an argument. +And then, supposing the fact to be discovered, That a certain +Bishop had obtained his place in the Church by invalid +means—what is the consequence? Could he perpetuate +such an invalid Succession? Certainly not; for in Ordaining +others, he would be associated with <i>two</i> other Bishops, +whose valid grace would confer true Orders, notwithstanding the +inefficacy of the third coadjutor in the Ordination. But, +putting the case at the very worst, even if such an instance +could be found, it would only affect the condition of the single +Church over which the nominal Bishop presided; and that only so +far as the particular functions of that Bishop were concerned; +and it would be corrected at his death. And all this may be +urged in reply even by Romanists. But we who deny Holy +Orders to be a proper Sacrament of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>, can add more than this. We +suggest, that in the case of a Bishop obtaining his place in the +Church by some invalid means, which the Church had mistaken for +valid, the Church’s <span class="GutSmall">INTENTION</span> +might avail sufficiently, for the time being at least, to +counteract the effects of man’s sin; and so give value even +to the ministrations of the Church which had been so severely +visited, as to have such a Bishop set over them. So we meet +the theoretical difficulty by a theoretical answer.</p> +<h3>III.</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">It</span> is not unusual with those who +are more anxious to make difficulties than to understand the +Catholic truth, to speak of the “vagueness of the rule of +S. Vincent,” and the arduousness of the task imposed by the +Doctors of the <i>Via Media</i> on all their scholars. That +it is easy enough to construct a theoretical <a +name="page150"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 150</span>difficulty +of this sort, no one will question. But it behoves every +Christian to consider well, whether any “dilemmas of +Churchmen” can be stated which might not (without any very +great ingenuity) be turned into ‘Dilemmas of <span +class="smcap">Christians</span>.’ Doubtless it is a +<i>trial</i>, (and <span class="smcap">God</span> intended it to +be so, 1 Cor. xi. 19.) to see so many diversities and divisions +in the Church; yet candid judges will hardly decide, that English +Churchmen have more difficulties of this kind than other men; or +that we should be likely to escape similar “dilemmas” +by forsaking the <span class="smcap">Church</span> for any other +community. And in spite of the ingenuity of men, common +sense will generally understand the practical use and application +of S. Vincent’s rule, “Quod semper,” +&c. An instance of the ordinary manner of its practical +employment, may be seen, to a certain extent, in Lecture II. p. +<span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page51">51</a></span>, and +will suggest at once to the minds of many, the way in which the +English Churchman can and does proceed. Difficult as the +theory of the Via Media, and the popular recognition of truth by +S. Vincent’s test may in theory be made to seem; yet it is, +I imagine, practically and as a matter of experience acted on, to +a much wider extent, both in our own Church and the <i>Roman</i>, +than is commonly noticed, or thought of. In illustration, +the twenty-first chapter of St. Luke might be advantageously +consulted. Our <span class="smcap">Lord</span> there +assumes (what in fact is daily seen) that heresies should +arise. And He tells His people not to follow the “Lo +here is <span class="smcap">Christ</span>!” and “Lo +there!” Of course it might always be easy to +say—which is <span class="smcap">the +Church</span>?—and, which is the heresy?—The +“Lo here!” But that is a difficulty which our +<span class="smcap">Lord</span> did <i>not</i> entertain. +It has very little existence in fact and experience. Every +man, generally speaking, knows whether he is in “the +Church.” Though, of course, there is such a thing as +a “strong delusion;” (2 Thess. ii. 11.) The +whole of our <span class="smcap">Lord’s</span> address in +this chapter is one which the Catholic Church <i>feels</i> the +power of. It is full of “<i>difficulty</i>,” +and “uncertainty, and vagueness,” to Sectarians only, +who have no test whereby they can be sure that they are not the +very persons aimed at by our <span class="smcap">Lord</span>, <a +name="page151"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 151</span>as +following false and <i>new</i> teachers. It seems to me, +that the Sectarian <i>cannot</i> act upon <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> directions in this +chapter. Nay they <i>must</i> have, to him, all the +vagueness and uncertainty which he charges on the Catholic +rule. “Keep to the ancient Apostolic way; mind not +novelties; ‘Go not after them.’ Keep to the +‘Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,’ in +opposition to every ‘Lo here is Christ!’”</p> +<h3>IV.</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> holy Apostle St. Paul, good +children, in the tenth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, +writeth on this fashion: “Whosoever shall call upon the +name of the <span class="smcap">Lord</span>, shall be +saved. But how shall they call on Him on Whom they believe +not? How shall they believe on Him of Whom they have not +heard? How shall they hear without a preacher? How +shall they preach except they be Sent?” By the which +words St. Paul doth evidently declare unto us two lessons.</p> +<p>The first is, that it is necessary to our salvation to have +Preachers and Ministers of <span class="smcap">God’s</span> +most holy word, to instruct us in the true faith and +knowledge.</p> +<p>The second is, that Preachers must not run to this high honour +before they be called thereto, but they must be ordained and +appointed to this office, and sent to us by <span +class="smcap">God</span>. For it is not possible to be +saved, or to please <span class="smcap">God</span>, without +faith; and no man can truly believe in <span +class="smcap">God</span> by his own wit, (for of ourselves we +know not what we should believe) but we must needs hear <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> word taught us by other.</p> +<p>Again, the Teachers, except they be called and Sent, cannot +fruitfully teach. For the seed of <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> word doth never bring forth +fruit, unless the <span class="smcap">Lord</span> of the harvest +do give increase, and by His <span class="smcap">Holy +Spirit</span> do work with the sower. But <span +class="smcap">God</span> doth not work with the preacher whom He +hath not sent, as St. Paul saith . . . <a +name="page152"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 152</span>Wherefore, +good children, to the intent you may steadfastly believe all +things which <span class="smcap">God</span> by His ministers doth +teach and promise unto you, and so be saved by your faith, learn +diligently I pray you, by what words our <span class="smcap">Lord +Jesus Christ</span> gave this commission and commandment to His +ministers, and rehearse them here, word for word, that so you may +print them in your memories, and recite them the better when you +come home. The words of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> +be these:</p> +<p>“Our <span class="smcap">Lord Jesus</span> breathed on +His disciples and said, Receive the <span class="smcap">Holy +Ghost</span>; whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; +and whose sins you reserve, they are reserved.”</p> +<p>. . . Now, good children, that you may the better understand +these words of our <span class="smcap">Saviour Christ</span>, you +shall know that our <span class="smcap">Lord Jesus Christ</span>, +when He began to preach, He did call and choose His twelve +Apostles; and afterward, besides those twelve, He sent forth +threescore and ten disciples, and gave them authority to preach +the Gospel. And after <span +class="smcap">Christ’s</span> ascension, the Apostles gave +authority to other godly and holy men to minister <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> word, and chiefly in those +places where there were Christian men already, which lacked +preachers, and the Apostles themselves could no longer abide with +them: for the Apostles did walk abroad into divers parts of the +world, and did study to plant the Gospel in many places. +Wherefore where they found godly men, and meet to preach <span +class="smcap">God’s</span> word, they laid they hands upon +them, and gave them the <span class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span>, as +they themselves received of <span class="smcap">Christ</span> the +same <span class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span> to execute this +office.</p> +<p>And they that were so ordained, were indeed, and also were +called the ministers of <span class="smcap">God</span> as the +Apostles themselves were, as Paul saith unto Timothy. And +so the ministration of <span class="smcap">God’s</span> +word (which our <span class="smcap">Lord Jesus Christ</span> +Himself did first institute) was derived from the Apostles, unto +other after them, by imposition of hands and giving the <span +class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span>, from the Apostles’ time to +our days. And this was the consecration, orders, and +unction of the Apostles, whereby they, at the beginning, <a +name="page153"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 153</span>made +Bishops and Priests; and this shall continue in the Church, even +to the world’s end.</p> +<p>Wherefore, good children, you shall give due reverence and +honour to the Ministers of the Church, and shall not meanly or +lightly esteem them in the execution of their office, but you +shall take them for <span class="smcap">God’s</span> +Ministers, and the Messengers of our <span class="smcap">Lord +Jesus Christ</span>. For <span class="smcap">Christ</span> +Himself saith in the Gospel, “He that heareth you, heareth +<span class="smcap">Me</span>; and he that despiseth you, +despiseth <span class="smcap">Me</span>.” Wherefore, +good children, you shall steadfastly believe all those things, +which such Ministers shall speak unto you from the mouth and by +the commandment of our <span class="smcap">Lord Jesus +Christ</span>. And whatsoever They do to you, as when They +<span class="GutSmall">BAPTIZE</span> you, when They give you +<span class="GutSmall">ABSOLUTION</span>, and distribute to you +the <span class="GutSmall">BODY</span> and <span +class="GutSmall">BLOOD</span> of our <span class="smcap">Lord +Jesus Christ</span>, these you shall so esteem as if <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> Himself, in His own person, did speak +and minister unto you. For <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> hath commanded His ministers to do +this unto you, and He Himself (although you see Him not with your +bodily eyes) is present with His ministers, and worketh by the +<span class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span> in the administration of +His Sacraments. And on the other side you shall take good +heed and beware of false and privy preachers, which privily creep +into cities, and preach in corners, having none authority, nor +being called to this office. For <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> is not present with such preachers, +and therefore doth not the <span class="smcap">Holy Ghost</span> +work by their preaching; but their word is without fruit or +profit, and they do great hurt in commonwealths. For such +as be not called of <span class="smcap">God</span>, they, no +doubt of it, do err, and sow abroad heresy and naughty +doctrine.—<span class="smcap">Cranmer’s</span> +“Catechismus.” Edit. 1548. A <i>Sermon of +the authority of the Keys</i>.—See also <i>Jewel’s +Apology</i>, pp. 28, &c. Ed. 1829.</p> +<h3>V.</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> arguments used in p. <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page87">87</a></span>, <span +class="indexpageno"><a href="#page88">88</a></span>, &c. +respecting the Priesthood of <span class="smcap">Christ</span>, +still manifesting the One Sacrifice of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span> <a name="page154"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 154</span>in the Church, may serve +incidentally to illustrate the error of the Romanists respecting +both the Priesthood and the Sacrifice. St. Paul certainly +implies that an <i>analogy</i> exists between the Ministers and +their functions in the respective Churches of the Jews and +Christians. And in implying an <i>analogy</i>, he evidently +takes for granted that there is not an <i>identity</i>. The +Romanist seems to overlook this: his error is truly a Judaizing +error; and it seems to result from a virtual forgetfulness, that +the <span class="GutSmall">ONE</span> great Sacrifice “once +for all” <i>has been</i> offered, and that the Christian +Priesthood has only continuously to “manifest” +it. In speaking of the “Priesthood” of the +Church, and the Eucharistic “Sacrifice,” we certainly +imply that the Christian Presbyter has truly holy functions to +perform, in respect of the great atoning Sacrifice, +<i>analogous</i> to those of the Jewish priest: but we must be +careful not to make them <i>identical</i>. St. Paul, in the +epistle to the Hebrews, evidently assumes the analogy, but his +argument is wholly inconsistent with the notion of +identity. The Christian Priest cannot +“sacrifice,” in a Jewish sense of the word; but in a +much better. So it may be truly said, that he has to +“offer” continually The Sacrifice once made by The +<span class="smcap">Divine High Priest</span>. (Gal. iii. +1.) But the term “offering,” among primitive +writers, is used <i>generally</i>; and does not exclusively refer +to the Consecrated Elements alone.—See note E. in the +former series of “Parochial Lectures,” on the Holy +Catholic Church. There is some historical light thrown on +our own Church’s view of this subject by the volume just +published by the Principal of St. Alban’s Hall, Oxford, +comparing the two Liturgies of King Edward VI.—Oxford, +1838.</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">THE +END.</span></p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">Gilbert</span> +& <span class="smcap">Rivington</span>, Printers, St. +John’s Square, London.</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><a name="page155"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 155</span><i>By the same Author</i>,</p> +<p style="text-align: center">I.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">ON THE WHOLE DOCTRINE<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">OF</span><br /> +FINAL CAUSES:</p> +<p style="text-align: center">A DISSERTATION, IN THREE +PARTS.—pp. 222.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><i>Price</i> 7<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i> +<i>cloth</i>.</p> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">II.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">ON THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH:<br /> +PAROCHIAL LECTURES.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">(FIRST +SERIES.)</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><i>Price</i> 4<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i> +<i>cloth</i>.</p> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">III.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH:<br +/> +A SERMON<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">ON THE</span><br /> +PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><i>Price</i> 1<i>s.</i> +6<i>d.</i></p> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">RIVINGTONS,</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">ST. +PAUL’S CHURCH YARD, & WATERLOO PLACE, PALL +MALL.</span></p> +<h2>FOOTNOTES.</h2> +<p><a name="footnote1"></a><a href="#citation1" +class="footnote">[1]</a> The Feast of St. Andrew.</p> +<p><a name="footnote8"></a><a href="#citation8" +class="footnote">[8]</a> Not <i>justly</i> so; because in +writing to his own people, there was not perhaps the same +necessity for vindicating his apostolate.</p> +<p><a name="footnote10"></a><a href="#citation10" +class="footnote">[10]</a> See Notes. No. I.</p> +<p><a name="footnote11"></a><a href="#citation11" +class="footnote">[11]</a> Philippians ii. 22. 25.</p> +<p><a name="footnote24"></a><a href="#citation24" +class="footnote">[24]</a> They who would wish to +investigate this subject further, may find it fully treated in +Leslie’s “Case of the Regale and +Pontificate.”</p> +<p><a name="footnote26a"></a><a href="#citation26a" +class="footnote">[26a]</a> See Newman’s History of +the Arians, p. 347.</p> +<p><a name="footnote26b"></a><a href="#citation26b" +class="footnote">[26b]</a> Quoted by Leslie, from Bp. +Burnet, p. 30.</p> +<p><a name="footnote30"></a><a href="#citation30" +class="footnote">[30]</a> It has been well remarked, that +the consequence of allowing it to be said “that we are a +Parliamentary Church,” has been, that the higher ranks +among us are verging towards Deism, and the lower to +Fanaticism. The former, not believing that there can be +much Divine in a religion which they can shape and modify as they +please in the Senate. And the other, seeing nothing very +“scriptural,” or heavenly, in a +“State-made” Creed.</p> +<p><a name="footnote41"></a><a href="#citation41" +class="footnote">[41]</a> The first week in Advent.</p> +<p><a name="footnote45"></a><a href="#citation45" +class="footnote">[45]</a> This prophecy seems taken by the +ancient Fathers to refer to the Holy Eucharist.</p> +<p><a name="footnote46"></a><a href="#citation46" +class="footnote">[46]</a> It may be sufficient perhaps to +refer to “Hey’s Threefold Ministry,” as a +synopsis of the Scriptural view of the subject.</p> +<p><a name="footnote47"></a><a href="#citation47" +class="footnote">[47]</a> See Bishop Hall’s +Episcopacy by Divine right.</p> +<p><a name="footnote48"></a><a href="#citation48" +class="footnote">[48]</a> See Notes, No. II.</p> +<p><a name="footnote58"></a><a href="#citation58" +class="footnote">[58]</a> Originating probably from a +<i>literal</i> interpretation of Matt, xviii. 20. Just as +the bowing at The Blessed Name seems derived, by Catholic and +pious practice taking <i>literally</i> Philippians ii. 10.</p> +<p><a name="footnote60"></a><a href="#citation60" +class="footnote">[60]</a> And our false position is +frequently increased by our tacitly admitting the <i>popular</i> +antithesis between ourselves and the continental Churches, which +are taken <i>in a mass</i>—and called, all together, +“The Church of Rome!”—Thus we practically +overlook the <i>fact</i>, That the Church of Rome is one +<i>particular</i> Italian Church: and so increase our own +apparent difficulty.</p> +<p><a name="footnote62a"></a><a href="#citation62a" +class="footnote">[62a]</a> See Notes, No. II.</p> +<p><a name="footnote62b"></a><a href="#citation62b" +class="footnote">[62b]</a> Of the authenticity of the first +fifty at least of the Apostolical Canons, there can now be no +doubt. They consist of those rules which had grown up in +the Church in the Apostles’ days, and the first hundred +years after them. They seem to have been composed very +early indeed, but gathered together about a hundred years after +the death of St. John, (probably, it is said, by Clement of +Alexandria) and they are quoted as <i>ancient</i>, about a +hundred years later.</p> +<p><a name="footnote63a"></a><a href="#citation63a" +class="footnote">[63a]</a> See the Canons of Nice, and the +earlier ones of Ancyra and Neocesarea, in Routh’s edition +of the Scriptor. Opus, and the Rel. Sacr. vol. iii., and +Tertullian adv. Hær. c. 36.</p> +<p><a name="footnote63b"></a><a href="#citation63b" +class="footnote">[63b]</a> Such was the extent of +discipline indeed, that even common Christians in passing +temporarily to another Church, had to take letters of communion +from their Bishop.</p> +<p><a name="footnote65a"></a><a href="#citation65a" +class="footnote">[65a]</a> See Notes, No. II.</p> +<p><a name="footnote65b"></a><a href="#citation65b" +class="footnote">[65b]</a> “Per Successiones +Episcoporum pervenientem (h. e. Ecclesiam) usque ad nos, +judicantes confundimus omnes eos qui quoquo modo . . . +præter quam oportet colligunt.”—S. +Irenæus, in lib. iii. adversus Hæreses, c. 3. +In which may be seen the Evidence of the teaching of Polycarp, +St. John’s disciple.</p> +<p><a name="footnote66"></a><a href="#citation66" +class="footnote">[66]</a> “Quis enim <i>fidelis</i> +servus et prudens quem constituit Dominus ejus super domum suam +ut det cibos in tempore?”—Quod ad <i>Apostolos +ceterosque Episcopos et Doctores</i> parabola ista pertineat +manifestum est: maxime ex eo quod apud Lucam (cap. xii.) +Petrus interrogat dicens, “Ad nos parabolam istam dicis? an +ad omnes?”— . . . Ait Apostolus, (ad Cor. c. +iv.) “Ita nos existimet homo, ut ministros Christi et +Dispensatores Mysteriorum.”—Hîc jam +quæritur inter dispensatores ut <i>fidelis</i> quis +inveniatur, &c.—Origen. in Matth. Tractat. xxxi.</p> +<p><a name="footnote67"></a><a href="#citation67" +class="footnote">[67]</a> See the next Lecture, towards the +close.</p> +<p><a name="footnote69"></a><a href="#citation69" +class="footnote">[69]</a> The second week in Advent.</p> +<p><a name="footnote81a"></a><a href="#citation81a" +class="footnote">[81a]</a> See the Nicene Canons.</p> +<p><a name="footnote81b"></a><a href="#citation81b" +class="footnote">[81b]</a> See Jewel’s Apology.</p> +<p><a name="footnote82a"></a><a href="#citation82a" +class="footnote">[82a]</a> And again, virtually, by the +Gallicans.</p> +<p><a name="footnote82b"></a><a href="#citation82b" +class="footnote">[82b]</a> This is worthy of their +consideration who are apt to be too disheartened at the divisions +in the English Church. When the Popedom was a disputed +matter for seventy years, what could the plain Catholic laity +have thought? It was impossible to avoid the anathema of +one Pope or the other, both pretending to infallibility. +See Notes No. III.</p> +<p><a name="footnote83"></a><a href="#citation83" +class="footnote">[83]</a> Such, for instance, as those +glanced at in p. <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page47">47</a></span>, <span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page48">48</a></span>, and referred to in Notes No. II. +and III.</p> +<p><a name="footnote88"></a><a href="#citation88" +class="footnote">[88]</a> Connected with this part of the +subject few books are so important to be read as +“Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice.”</p> +<p><a name="footnote89"></a><a href="#citation89" +class="footnote">[89]</a> See also, among others, that +striking passage, Rom. xv. 15.##</p> +<p><a name="footnote93a"></a><a href="#citation93a" +class="footnote">[93a]</a> See Notes No. I.</p> +<p><a name="footnote93b"></a><a href="#citation93b" +class="footnote">[93b]</a> 1 Kings xxii. 24.</p> +<p><a name="footnote94"></a><a href="#citation94" +class="footnote">[94]</a> As, for instance, the cure of the +blind man, by the clay. Or that of the lepers.</p> +<p><a name="footnote98"></a><a href="#citation98" +class="footnote">[98]</a> Sermons on Baptism, Absolution, +and the Eucharist.</p> +<p><a name="footnote99a"></a><a href="#citation99a" +class="footnote">[99a]</a> Bp. Hall’s Episcopacy by +Divine Right, p. 6.</p> +<p><a name="footnote99b"></a><a href="#citation99b" +class="footnote">[99b]</a> See Jewel, and Hooker. +Ed. Keble. And Notes, No. IV.</p> +<p><a name="footnote99c"></a><a href="#citation99c" +class="footnote">[99c]</a> “Non sumus <i>adeo +felices</i>.” Words of the President of the Synod of +Dort.</p> +<p><a name="footnote100"></a><a href="#citation100" +class="footnote">[100]</a> Melanchthon Ep. Luthero, quoted +by Bishop Hall.</p> +<p><a name="footnote101"></a><a href="#citation101" +class="footnote">[101]</a> A parallel case, to a certain +extent, may be seen in Judges xvii. 5, 6, 13. &c. The +priesthood of the <span class="smcap">Lord</span> was associated +partly with idolatrous worship. Micah had graven images and +teraphim, yet he, with a Levite for a Priest, was partly blessed +by <span class="smcap">God</span>. It is not for us to say +how far <span class="smcap">God</span> may bless those who are +not strictly obeying Him; nevertheless we must not calculate on +this. Obedience is still a duty.</p> +<p><a name="footnote102a"></a><a href="#citation102a" +class="footnote">[102a]</a> That is; Many who have departed +and joined the sects in sincerity and ignorance, may be +attributing to human causes that re-invigoration of spiritual +life, which is but the forgotten Baptismal grace of Christ, +mercifully “<i>in them</i>, springing up to everlasting +life.” (John iv. 14; John vii. 38, 39.) This may be +also, one of <span class="smcap">God’s</span> means of +humbling and reforming His too careless Church.</p> +<p><a name="footnote102b"></a><a href="#citation102b" +class="footnote">[102b]</a> John iii. 5.—The ordinary +“entrance to the Kingdom.”</p> +<p><a name="footnote103a"></a><a href="#citation103a" +class="footnote">[103a]</a> Matt. xx. 22.; and perhaps 1 +Cor. xv. 29.</p> +<p><a name="footnote103b"></a><a href="#citation103b" +class="footnote">[103b]</a> Rom. x. 10. (which conveys the +principle); and Luke xxiii. 42.</p> +<p><a name="footnote103c"></a><a href="#citation103c" +class="footnote">[103c]</a> Our own Church recognizes this +doctrine; speaking in her Baptismal Office of the “great +necessity of the Sacrament <i>where it may be had</i>;” and +in the Catechism of its “<i>general</i> +necessity.” <span class="smcap">Christ</span> +affirmed generally the necessity of being “born of +water,” as the preliminary of “entrance to His +kingdom,” yet He promised admission thereto to the dying +thief, who <i>confessed</i> Him with a penitent heart.</p> +<p><a name="footnote105a"></a><a href="#citation105a" +class="footnote">[105a]</a> Acts x. 35.</p> +<p><a name="footnote105b"></a><a href="#citation105b" +class="footnote">[105b]</a> See, on this subject, and +generally, on the danger of Schism, S. Jerome’s Ep. 69, +&c. And concerning the peril of departing from the +Bishops Catholic, see S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. ad Trall, et ad +Phil.</p> +<p><a name="footnote106"></a><a href="#citation106" +class="footnote">[106]</a> Ephesians iv. 8–12.</p> +<p><a name="footnote107"></a><a href="#citation107" +class="footnote">[107]</a> 1 Cor. xi. 10.</p> +<p><a name="footnote109"></a><a href="#citation109" +class="footnote">[109]</a> The Feast of St. Thomas.</p> +<p><a name="footnote111"></a><a href="#citation111" +class="footnote">[111]</a> See the former series of +“Parochial Lectures,” On The Holy Catholic Church, +Lecture IV. p. 113, &c. in which I have explained this more +fully.</p> +<p><a name="footnote113"></a><a href="#citation113" +class="footnote">[113]</a> See Lect. I. page 27.</p> +<p><a name="footnote120"></a><a href="#citation120" +class="footnote">[120]</a> Of course there were some that +disputed even in their own days the Power of the Apostles +themselves.—See 2 Tim. iv. 10, 16; 3 John 10. The +Apostles shrank not from asserting their own “<span +class="GutSmall">POWER</span> which the Lord had given them to +edification”—“A Spirit of <span +class="GutSmall">POWER</span> and of love”—“Not +that I have not <span +class="GutSmall">POWER</span>,”—said St. Paul, (2 +Thess. iii. 9.)</p> +<p><a name="footnote121"></a><a href="#citation121" +class="footnote">[121]</a> The manner in which modern +sectarians sometimes profess to recognise “only the +kingship and headship of <span +class="smcap">Christ</span>,” affords a striking proof of +this; for no one misunderstands <i>them</i>, as some did the +Apostles, by supposing them to be establishing a temporal +rule. The Apostolic system evidently had that in it, which +furnished some apparent ground for such a mistake; and so also +the Catholic Church is sometimes charged with “interfering +with the State.”</p> +<p><a name="footnote123"></a><a href="#citation123" +class="footnote">[123]</a> Apost. Can. 37. Ed. +Coloniæ, 1538.</p> +<p><a name="footnote128"></a><a href="#citation128" +class="footnote">[128]</a> See the Homily of our Church, on +the Common Prayer and Sacraments. And Notes No. II.</p> +<p><a name="footnote134a"></a><a href="#citation134a" +class="footnote">[134a]</a> Called, therefore, “the +συναξις” in the early +Church.</p> +<p><a name="footnote134b"></a><a href="#citation134b" +class="footnote">[134b]</a> A similar principle seems +hinted, John vii. 22.</p> +<p><a name="footnote135"></a><a href="#citation135" +class="footnote">[135]</a> This may perhaps throw some +light on Tertullian’s meaning in a passage quoted by Bishop +Kaye, (p. 226.) The word “consessus” seems to +allude to the expression of our Lord, “where two or three +are <i>gathered together</i>;” indeed in the same +connexion, he quotes this very text. And I would suggest, +that Tertullian’s argument in this place, however ill +expressed, may perhaps imply, and certainly requires no more than +is stated above, viz. that the Sacerdotal grace was primarily or +essentially in the <span class="smcap">Church</span>, and not +originally in the <i>persons</i> of any individuals as such.</p> +<p><a name="footnote137"></a><a href="#citation137" +class="footnote">[137]</a> See Notes, No. V.</p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 49006-h.htm or 49006-h.zip****** + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/9/0/0/49006 + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United +States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive +specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this +eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given +away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks +not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the +trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country outside the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you + are located before using this ebook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The +Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the +mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its +volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous +locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt +Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to +date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and +official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +</pre></body> +</html> diff --git a/49006.txt b/49006.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5c26ed2 --- /dev/null +++ b/49006.txt @@ -0,0 +1,671 @@ +The Project Gutenberg eBook, On the apostolical succession, by William J. +Irons + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most +other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of +the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have +to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. + + + + +Title: On the apostolical succession + Parochial lectures, second series + + +Author: William J. Irons + + + +Release Date: May 20, 2015 [eBook #49006] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION*** + + +credit + + + +Transcribed from the 1847 Joseph Masters edition by David Price, email +ccx074@pglaf.org + + + + + + On the Apostolical Succession. + + + * * * * * + + PAROCHIAL LECTURES. + + (_SECOND SERIES_.) + + * * * * * + + BY + WILLIAM J. IRONS, B.D., + INCUMBENT OF THE HOLY TRINITY, BROMPTON, MIDDLESEX. + + * * * * * + + * * * * * + + * * * * * + + LONDON: + JOSEPH MASTERS, 33, ALDERSGATE STREET. + MDCCCXLVII. + + * * * * * + + TO + + EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, D.D. + + (LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE) + + CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, + + AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW + + IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD; + + THIS VOLUME + + (BY HIS PERMISSION) + + IS PRESENTED; WITH A DEEP FEELING + + OF THE AUTHOR'S OBLIGATION + + TO HIM + + FOR THE BLESSINGS OF HIS LEARNED INSTRUCTION, + + HIS CHRISTIAN EXAMPLE, + + AND HIS HONEST FRIENDSHIP. + + + + +PREFACE. + + +VERY little needs to be said to introduce these Lectures to the reader. +They were delivered in Advent last, at Saint Mary's, Newington; and there +is the same reason for publishing, which there then was for writing and +preaching them. I desire to assist, as far as I am able, those who are +seeking to clear and define their thoughts, respecting the origin, +nature, and power of the Christian Ministry. I have aimed only at +plainness and fairness in the statement of the argument; and have adopted +that arrangement of the subject, in which, as far as I can judge, it +originally came before my own mind. + +In the Dedication of this Volume to the Regius Professor of Hebrew at +Oxford, I have acknowledged my great obligation to him for the +instruction which I hope I have derived from his writings--an +acknowledgment which, happily, I am so far from being singular in making, +that I suppose every one who has studied them, might make the same +statement. But it is right that I should say, that as I have not learned +a lesson by rote, but, from the first, thought patiently and freely for +myself, so the Public must not consider the Professor answerable for +every opinion which I may have expressed. And it may be well also to +add, that the general doctrine here set forth is not hastily taken up on +any man's authority; but was maintained by the writer, both in private +and public, as many will bear witness, long before he had the happiness +and advantage of being acquainted with the works, or characters, of the +present leading Divines of the University of Oxford. + +_St. Peter's_, _Walworth_, _Surrey_. + + + + +CONTENTS. + + PAGE + LECTURE I. + + THE DOCTRINE. +The Method of the Argument--Importance of a 1 +Ministry--Scriptural aspect of the subject--Apostolical +language concerning it--Compared with the Modern--What the +safe inference--The original Ministry possibly still +exists--And if so, what constitutes a Ministry--Scripture +Language--Compared with Popular and Modern notions--Theory +of the Inward Call--Erastian theory--The Common principle +of all such Theories--Illustrated--The Catholic DOCTRINE of +the Ministry--Compared with the Modern, and with +Scripture--The Continuance of the Ministry--DOCTRINE of the +SUCCESSION stated and explained--Reasons for the present +Inquiry + LECTURE II. + + THE EVIDENCE. +Importance of not hastily prejudging--Argued from the 41 +parallel case of the Jewish Church--Necessity of +considering the Evidence for the SUCCESSION--Evidence of +Scripture, how far Important--Historical Evidence--Popular +Difficulties--A General reply.--On Evidence--Popular +Notions--The expected Evidence of the +SUCCESSION--Illustrated by a parallel case--Impossible--And +even if attainable, not satisfactory--What kind and amount +of Evidence should be looked for--Parallels of +Evidence--For the Scriptures--The Sacraments, and the +Ministry of the Church--On what Evidence the Common People +must of necessity receive the Bible--And the Apostolic +Church--Literary Evidence of the Bible, difficult--And of +the SUCCESSION--Analysis of it, Theoretical and +Historical--Accumulation of the Evidence--Moral +Certainty--Conclusion + LECTURE III. + + THE OBJECTIONS. +Necessity of considering OBJECTIONS--Classification of 69 +them--(1.) As connected with the FACT of the Succession, +and its Consequences.--(2.) And the DOCTRINE, and its +Consequences. + +(1.) General Corruption--Idolatry--Schism--Infringement of +Private Judgment--Popery and Superstition. + +(2.) Judaistic +Doctrine--Carnality--Technicality--Scriptural +Uncertainty--Exclusiveness--Uncharitableness--Unchurching +other Protestants--among whom may be seen many Evidences of +God's Blessing and Religious Success--Explanation. + +Catholic Charity--Theoretical and Practical--Review + LECTURE IV. + + THE SUMMARY. +The Summary--Mistakes of the Ideality of 109 +Christianity--Erroneous popular Notions and +Arguments--Contrast of Rationalist and Catholic +theories--Comparison--And with Scripture--Analytical Review +of the Catholic Religion, illustrating the Doctrine of the +Ministry--Synthetical View of the same--Conclusion +NOTES 145 + +I. +THE DOCTRINE. + + +FROM THE EPISTLE. {1}--"How, then, shall they call on HIM in Whom they +have not believed?--and, How shall they believe in Him of Whom they have +not heard?--and, How shall they hear without a preacher?--and, How shall +they preach except they be SENT?"--ROMANS x. 14. + +AT this season of preparation for the ADVENT, the Apostolical Ministry is +one of the subjects especially brought before us by the CHURCH, as +doubtless peculiarly calculated to fit our minds for the right reception +and reverent contemplation of our SAVIOUR'S first and second Coming. It +would be needless to enlarge on the suitability of the Epistle selected +for this Introductory Festival, opening and leading the way, as it does, +to those of the whole "glorious company of the Apostles." We can +scarcely read the passage now quoted, without recognizing at once much of +its appropriateness. It contains a brief vindication both of the moral +necessity and the Divine authority of the Christian Ministry; and so +plainly, that, to some extent, all must perceive it. But it may be +highly profitable to us to draw out and examine with attention the +subject, which St. Paul thus lays before us in epitome only; concerning +which we know that there is much diversity of thinking among professing +Christians, and, consequently, great danger of wrong thinking. + +It is too much the practice of modern theologians to refer to the New +Testament, almost as if it were a book of aphorisms; and so, when a +quotation is made therefrom, it seems to be inquired, what meaning it +will _bear_; or what use can be _made_ of it; rather than, what meaning +it _must_ have had in such a connection; or what use _must_ have been +intended, under such circumstances. And hence has resulted this fatal +consequence, that the apostolic writings are commonly interpreted by +modern opinions, instead of modern opinions being tested by the apostolic +writings. There is but too painful evidence of this, in the manner in +which some men set about "proving" their peculiar system by the +Scriptures; evidently assuming from the first that their system is +_right_, and so (unconsciously, we trust,) sorting and arranging the +"best texts" to establish it. Surely an attempt to treat any other +ancient book as the Holy Scriptures are thus treated, would not be borne +with. Suppose, for example, any disciple of the schools of the modern +scepticism should attempt to show, from selected passages of some leading +treatise of ancient philosophy, that his own opinions precisely coincided +with those of the sage from whom he was quoting; it is evident that he +would hereby deceive no one but himself. On a reference to the treatise +in question, it would be at once apparent, that it was written by one who +held opinions widely different from the modern. Now since, among +Christians, there is an universal appeal to the Scriptures, would it not +be a rational method of testing the opinions of any of the various +classes among us, to inquire, whether it is likely that such writings +_would_ have proceeded from the pens of men holding such and such +opinions? Might we not thus arrive at as sure a conclusion, +notwithstanding all arguments from texts and passages, that some +nominally Christian opinions now received, were not the opinions of the +sacred writers--as that the opinions of Locke were not the opinions of +the ancient Epicureans, notwithstanding the coincidences that might be +found? And if it should be seen that any class of opinions exactly +harmonizes with the literal writings of the Apostles, so that we may +imagine the men who held them to have naturally written what the Apostles +wrote; then, should we not have a highly probable argument for the +Scriptural character of those opinions? Such an argument will in some +degree pervade these Lectures. + +Few, perhaps, will fail to perceive some wide difference between that +state of mind which is implied by our popular Christianity, and that +which is implied by the Apostolic Epistles. The complete unworldliness, +the quiet, elevated self-denial, the earnest humility, the obedience on +the one hand and authority on the other, which are the evident +characteristics of practical Christianity as it appears in the inspired +records, are strikingly different from all which we see now in our +popular religion; and may at times well suggest the fear that we may have +lost much of that faith which the first Christians possessed. And in no +particular is this difference more remarkably seen, than in the language +held respecting the MINISTRY of the CHURCH; which from its undeniable +importance deserves no light consideration. Of course it may be said, +that much of the difference of tone respecting the Ministry may be +ascribed to the "cessation of apostolic authority strictly so called." +But however this be, which we pass for the present, it is apparent to +all, that there _is_ a difference: and so, men attempt to "account for +the fact," rather than deny it. To account, for example, for the +"magnified importance" plainly attributed in Holy Scripture to the living +voice of an APOSTOLIC MINISTRY, above and beyond, and often without +reference to other means of Christian instruction. Not only the plea +just mentioned, but other similar ones are urged, as the "change of +circumstances," the "alteration in the times," and the like, to account +for the fact. How dangerous all such arguments and evasions are, to +those who seek a religion exactly, or as nearly as possible, such as the +first Christians had, needs scarcely to be urged on any thoughtful mind. +For after all these suppositions and reasonings, it will still remain +very possible that THE MINISTRY first Divinely set up in the CHURCH, was +_not_ intended essentially to change with the changing circumstances of +this world; very possible that this might have been given as one +permanent if not paramount means of grace for mankind, notwithstanding +the subsequent introduction of other means, however efficacious and +invaluable. And then, the actually existing ministry, its historical +continuity, its unconcealed pretensions, are facts not to be lightly set +aside when viewed in connection with this possibility only; even if it +were nothing more. How much of Apostolical grace is lost from the +ministry, it may be impossible to say; but so also it would be equally +impossible to say how much is retained. Hence, it must ever remain the +_safest_ course for a Christian man to adhere to an Apostolically +descended Ministry. Let us not pass too hastily from these thoughts; let +us follow them out, into minuter detail; in order to enter into the state +of mind apparently implied by language such as that in the passage, for +instance, which constitutes our text. + + + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION*** + + +******* This file should be named 49006.txt or 49006.zip ******* + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/9/0/0/49006 + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United +States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive +specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this +eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given +away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks +not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the +trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country outside the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you + are located before using this ebook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The +Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the +mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its +volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous +locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt +Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to +date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and +official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + diff --git a/49006.zip b/49006.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..18e5449 --- /dev/null +++ b/49006.zip diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8e5f9bc --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #49006 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49006) |