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 ofGod, 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 thetruth, necessarilyimplies that a different statement would be false; and therefore liable to all the consequences of the falsehood. Whatever is put forth asTruth, is necessarilyexclusive. 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 himselfrightin any matter, he virtually says that those who differ from him arewrong. 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 thanwe.
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, thattheydid 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 totheirprinciples, 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 Ordinationwas 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 theprincipleof 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 Ministershadreceived 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 ofourposition from that of our Reformers. We assert precisely the same principles, and in theirownlanguage. Butwehave to act towards men who on principlerejectthe Succession; who are notfor certainpossessed of any Catholically Ordained Teachers, or so surely Baptized people: and who are perpetuating this awfullydoubtfuland 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 theirprinciples.
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 withso 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 howvariouslyit 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 asGod’sinstruments 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 questionGod’ssovereignty over man’s sin, from which He often brings good. We think it wrong not to “receiveChrist” (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; butwejudge not. They are inGod’shands. (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 receivedfrom 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 theearnest desireof the Sacrament. Doubtless, it is The All-seeingGodalone 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 charitablehope.[103c]How many even of those who are outwardly Schismatical, may not bewhollyso, we can never know here. How far the sincerity of some, or the circumstances of others, may avail as excuses beforeGod,Heonly can decide. Still, while our charity “hopeth all things,” we know that where there isdoubtonly, there may be danger; and charity itself would oblige us to warn; for we think thereisthis 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 inChrist, 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 weUN-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 fearethGod, and worketh righteousness, is accepted ofHim;”[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 theChurch[105b]as descended from the Apostles ofChrist; but methinks there is no bigotry in saying that.—“Now may theGodof patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another, according toChrist Jesus!”
And now, at the close of this review of the objections urged by vain man against the firm, abiding truth ofGod, 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 ofChrist. 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 ofChrist’sAscension 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 thechapel, 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 everythingreceived 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. AnAlmighty Godever “waiting to be gracious:” and man rebelling againstHimever!—Godsending 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, OLord, to the end of these wonders!”
From the Epistle.[109]—“All the building fitly framed together groweth into an Holy Temple in theLord.”—Eph. ii. 2.
Thebroad 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 wholesubject 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 notonly 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 necessaryfor 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, Sectarianprinciple. 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 specificChurch-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 mighthave 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 concerningGodand 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 ofChrist’smoral 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 regardChristina 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 andDeity(1 Tim. ii. 5.)—the medium whereby man is united untoGod! And His mysterious Atonement would be regarded as an awfulREALITYever “manifest” in the Church! (Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 26.)—aREALITYto 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 inChrist,” 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 inChrist,” in a mystical and Divinesense. 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 intoGod’sdesigns, 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 theChurchdoctrine 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 theSonofGod, thanto 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 theBible, relative to the Christian Ministry; and the Sectarian systems are so far fromneedingthem, 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 theHoly 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 “ofONEbread,” 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 doesnot 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 ofGod” at hand. Soon The GreatTeacherappears,—Godand Man in One Person.Hepreaches truths and corrects errors;—but is that all? DoesHeleave the truth to propagate itself? Or is it simply a system of Divine Principles, whichHeinculcates? Or, hasHenot to establish the “Kingdom of heaven?”—Yes, this Heavenly Personage, this no common teacher or prophet, thisSonofGod, had to found among men a celestial community.Hesoon began to incorporate a Visible society endowed with invisible powers.Hecalled twelve men, and ordained them; declared thatHeappointed unto them “a Kingdom even as HisFatherhad appointed untoHima 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 ofGod;” promised that they should “sit on twelve thrones” as Vicegerents in the spiritual dominion; and ereHeleft them, “breathed on them”—“gave them the Holy Ghost,” accompanying it with most extraordinary words—told them to “baptize, and teach whatsoeverHehad commanded”—and promised to send HisSpiritto guide them, and in some exalted sense to beHimself“with them” (Matt, xxvii.) to the world’s end.—Acting literally on His instructions, the Apostles no sooner received theSpiritpromised, 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 theirLord, thatHehad given to them “a Kingdom.” Did any man receive their doctrine?—immediately he was addressed in terms like unto the “follow Me” ofChrist, “Arise and beBaptized”—“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, oneJesus” (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 whichChristappointed, namely, by Baptism. So that even a new Apostle, fresh called byChrist’svoice from heaven, was not deemed a member, or in a state of spiritual privilege withthem—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 theApostlessuggested 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 theChurch; 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 toeverything 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 itselffirst 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 theApostolical 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 apro tantovalidity; 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 toChrist’sChurch, and that Order, as it consisted of Apostles at first, so it does now of those whom the Apostles left as their Successors, just asChristleft 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 theirkingdom would have been interfered with by such a subdivision into petty provinces. Doubtless they were led by theSpiritofChrist, 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 ourLord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together,and my Spirit—withthe Power of theLord Jesus Christ, deliver such an one unto Satan.” St. Paul thus commissioning others in his absence to act in his name andChrist’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 inChrist’sown lifetime, and which has continued ever since.
In the specific reservation of this Power of impartingtheSpirit, 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 ofChrist. 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 ofChrist.—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. TheIntentionconstituted the act of conveyance of the grace ofChrist, 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 byChrist’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 byChristessentially 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 positiveform, 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 theChurch, 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 theDOCTRINE“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 “Sonof Man came in His kingdom,” with more of fulness, completeness, andglory 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 ofChrist, 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 theLord.”
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 brieflyconsider, in a more synthetical way, our whole Christianity, as it lies before us both in the Gospels and Epistles.
In the former,Christis 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 theChurches, and through them witnessing to the world. The general impression wrought on the mind by the Gospel narrative ofChristand 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.ChristHimself 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 “BLESSEDinChrist Jesus.” They who were so addressed were deemed, in a lofty sense, already the heirs ofGodand “joint-heirs withChrist,” having “received power to become sons ofGod” (John i. 12.), and having been Baptismally “born ofGod.” (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” inChrist(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 didChristpray to HisFatherfor 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. “ByONESpiritye are Baptized intoONEbody;” and “know ye not that theSpiritofGoddwelleth in you?” said St. Paul; as if intimating somewhat which the Baptized might apprehend, but which could notbe 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 whichWEbless, is it not theCOMMUNIONof theBLOODofChrist? The Bread whichWEbreak, is it not theCOMMUNIONof theBODYofChrist?” And then he adds—passing from our Union withChristto our Communion with all Saints by means of the Most Holy Eucharist, “We areONEbody, . . .forwe are all partakers of thatONEBread!” 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 withChrist,”—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 ofChristwas 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 theHoly Ghost:” but as S. Clement of Alexandria saith, theChurchisGod’sgreatTemple—“builded together for an habitation ofGodthrough theSpirit.”
Here, then, is opened to us the great Catholic idea of the Christian Revelation—That the mysticalCompanyofChrist’speople, 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 theBody, when in solemn meeting, the special and highest grace ofChristhad 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 atChrist’scommand, out of theChurch, more as the Divine instrument of Her invisible power, than the possessor of aught in itself.[134b]Christ’swords, “Thou art Peter,” were instantly connected with the promise of building theChurchagainst 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 wordsconveying this power of absolving and condemning, to theChurch, and not to thepersonsof the Apostles,[135]except asGod’sinstrumentsintheChurch; “for” it is directly added, “where two or three aregathered togetherinMyname, 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 theLord Jesus Christ, when ye (i.e. the Church) aregathered 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 Apostlesand Elderscame together” (Acts xv. 6.) When the Apostle St. Peter was to be miraculously delivered from prison, “there were manygathered togetherpraying” for him. (Acts xii. 12.) The announcement of the risenSaviourhad been made to the “elevengathered 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 “quickenedtogether, and raised uptogether, and made to sittogetherin heavenly places inChrist Jesus.” (Eph. ii. 5.) And so Christians might be addressed as “heirstogetherof the grace of life;” (1 Pet. iii. 7.) exhorted to be “followerstogether” of the Apostles; (Phil. iii. 17.) and admonished to “strivetogether” for the “faith of the Gospel.”
The majestic privileges of the Saints, in Union withChristand 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; whenGod’sEye is on every one, whenChrist, though unseen, is “in the midst,”—and the “hosts of God” are encampingaround! All Christians then constituting, in some sacred and lofty sense, a “kingdom of Priests;”[137]—yet ministering only through that Consecrated organ whichChrist, the great High Priest, appointed,—the Bishop, or his representative.—“Godis very greatly to be feared in the Council of the Saints! and to be had in reverence of all that are round aboutHim.”—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 theChurch, granted unto Her for Her blessedness and perfection (1 Cor. iii. 22.); and though in our Solemn Assemblies “all the people of theLordare 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 otherwisethan in conformity with the original commands and ordinations of Christ. And fromHimalone the first Ministers of the Church derived their appointment, (St. Paul speaking ofHISas “the Ministry receivedof 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 tovindicate 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 Powersas 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 theLord.”
Here let us pause: Let any man recall, in thought, the Scripture language concerning theChurch’sprivileges, and theMinisterial 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 personalbeliefmay 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—differsin kind,—as widely as the mysterious and appointed Sacrifice of Abel differs from the Rational devotion of Cain.
May Godgive us grace to weigh these things; and “that not lightly, or after the manner of dissemblers withHim!” 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 theyhavepartaken 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 fromGod’sword, 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 hisownauthority 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 istheircase whomighthave known and embraced the truth. To such we say, inChrist’swords, “Verily the kingdom ofGodis come nigh unto you!” . . . The foolish virgins in the parablethoughttheir 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 ofGod, 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 weuseit. MayGodforgive 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 ourLord Christ, with such abundant mercy and undeserved! If we come short of plenary grace inHim, 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 LivingGod, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of Angels; to the general Assembly and Church of the first-born enrolled in heaven!—toGodthe Judge of all, and to the spirits of the perfected just; and toJesustheMediatorof the New Testament, and to the blood of sprinkling!”—Would that the feeling ofChrist’sfirst disciples were ours! “Lord, to whom else shall we go?Thouhast the words of eternal life.” Would that we were more thankful toGodfor 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?Goddeliver us from this blindness! MayHehelp 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 whenChristcometh, “we may be found of Him in peace, without spot and blameless!”
“Lord, I have loved the Habitation ofThyHouse, and the place whereTHINEhonour dwelleth!”—So holy David could say from the verydepths of his soul: and shall we who are brought into a holier place, “the Habitation ofGodthrough theSpirit,” 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 theEternal Fatherof all—in whose Psalms “we praiseThee O God,weacknowledgeTheeto bethe Lord,” from age to age.—O Holy Churchof the many wise and good! OChurchof patient Martyrs and godly Confessors!—with whom we hold such mystical Communion, such “fellowship one with another,” that the “blood ofChristhere cleanseth us!”—ToGodbe glory in Thee,O Churchof our Land! throughout all ages, world without end! Amen.