diff options
Diffstat (limited to '49006-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 49006-0.txt | 3777 |
1 files changed, 3777 insertions, 0 deletions
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. + |