Itseems 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 isfeltafter 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 mennaturallyinfluence their fellows more than others: and some menDivinely; 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 ourbrethren. 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 offactas 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 AlmightyGod. 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 hadPOWERto give authoritative blessing. (1 Sam. iii. 19.) Some have been from time to time appointed and endowed by theDeity, “to bless, and to curse, in the name of theLord.” (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 “Peacebe to this house,” was ourLord’sdirection to His Ministers; “and if the Son of peace be there,YOUR PEACEshall rest upon it.” So that at the end of his epistles St. PaulsendshisApostolic 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, butsomecan “bless.” So, every man canread“the Absolution,” but “Godhath givenPOWERand commandment to HisMINISTERS, to declare andPRONOUNCEit.” (So St. James says, “If any man (not, if anypoorman, only, as some seem to take it) be sick, let him call for the Priests of theChurch.”)—And this depends not on the goodness of theMAN. 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’splan ever is, to usemenas instruments of good to men. Revelation has ever recognized such an institute as the living Ministry. All infidelity is an attempt at “codification.”
Atthe close of the fourth Lecture I have made some observations on theIntentionof 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 ofChristconcerning 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 sayhow 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 anewway; 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 veryactof “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 intheoryit may not be so, though there could be no safety or certainty in deliberatelyactingon such a doubtfully understood theory.
Even the Roman Controversialists do not agree that the Laying on of hands isthespecifically 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 ofChristwere to theChurch, 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, insomecountriesat least, some one break in the Apostolic chainmighthave occurred? Is it not a consequence, in that case, that all subsequent Ordinations would be very doubtful?’ To which we reply, ‘Point outthe 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 withtwoother 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 ofChrist, 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’sINTENTIONmight 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.
Itis 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 theVia Mediaon all their scholars. That it is easy enough to construct a theoreticaldifficulty 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 ofChristians.’ Doubtless it is atrial, (andGodintended 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 theChurchfor 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 theRoman, than is commonly noticed, or thought of. In illustration, the twenty-first chapter of St. Luke might be advantageously consulted. OurLordthere assumes (what in fact is daily seen) that heresies should arise. And He tells His people not to follow the “Lo here isChrist!” and “Lo there!” Of course it might always be easy to say—which isthe Church?—and, which is the heresy?—The “Lo here!” But that is a difficulty which ourLorddidnotentertain. 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 ourLord’saddress in this chapter is one which the Catholic Churchfeelsthe 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 ourLord,as following false andnewteachers. It seems to me, that the Sectariancannotact uponChrist’sdirections in this chapter. Nay theymusthave, 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!’”
Theholy 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 theLord, 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 ofGod’smost 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 byGod. For it is not possible to be saved, or to pleaseGod, without faith; and no man can truly believe inGodby his own wit, (for of ourselves we know not what we should believe) but we must needs hearGod’sword taught us by other.
Again, the Teachers, except they be called and Sent, cannot fruitfully teach. For the seed ofGod’sword doth never bring forth fruit, unless theLordof the harvest do give increase, and by HisHoly Spiritdo work with the sower. ButGoddoth 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 whichGodby His ministers doth teach and promise unto you, and so be saved by your faith, learn diligently I pray you, by what words ourLord Jesus Christgave 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 ofChristbe these:
“OurLord Jesusbreathed on His disciples and said, Receive theHoly 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 ourSaviour Christ, you shall know that ourLord 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 afterChrist’sascension, the Apostles gave authority to other godly and holy men to ministerGod’sword, 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 preachGod’sword, they laid they hands upon them, and gave them theHoly Ghost, as they themselves received ofChristthe sameHoly Ghostto execute this office.
And they that were so ordained, were indeed, and also were called the ministers ofGodas the Apostles themselves were, as Paul saith unto Timothy. And so the ministration ofGod’sword (which ourLord Jesus ChristHimself did first institute) was derived from the Apostles, unto other after them, by imposition of hands and giving theHoly 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 forGod’sMinisters, and the Messengers of ourLord Jesus Christ. ForChristHimself saith in the Gospel, “He that heareth you, hearethMe; and he that despiseth you, despisethMe.” 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 ourLord Jesus Christ. And whatsoever They do to you, as when TheyBAPTIZEyou, when They give youABSOLUTION, and distribute to you theBODYandBLOODof ourLord Jesus Christ, these you shall so esteem as ifChristHimself, in His own person, did speak and minister unto you. ForChristhath 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 theHoly Ghostin 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. ForChristis not present with such preachers, and therefore doth not theHoly Ghostwork by their preaching; but their word is without fruit or profit, and they do great hurt in commonwealths. For such as be not called ofGod, they, no doubt of it, do err, and sow abroad heresy and naughty doctrine.—Cranmer’s“Catechismus.” Edit. 1548. ASermon of the authority of the Keys.—See alsoJewel’s Apology, pp. 28, &c. Ed. 1829.
Thearguments used in p.87,88, &c. respecting the Priesthood ofChrist, still manifesting the One Sacrifice ofChristin the Church, may serve incidentally to illustrate the error of the Romanists respecting both the Priesthood and the Sacrifice. St. Paul certainly implies that ananalogyexists between the Ministers and their functions in the respective Churches of the Jews and Christians. And in implying ananalogy, he evidently takes for granted that there is not anidentity. The Romanist seems to overlook this: his error is truly a Judaizing error; and it seems to result from a virtual forgetfulness, that theONEgreat Sacrifice “once for all”has beenoffered, 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,analogousto those of the Jewish priest: but we must be careful not to make themidentical. 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 TheDivine High Priest. (Gal. iii. 1.) But the term “offering,” among primitive writers, is usedgenerally; 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 DOCTRINEOFFINAL CAUSES:
A DISSERTATION, IN THREE PARTS.—pp. 222.
Price7s.6d.cloth.
II.
ON THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH:PAROCHIAL LECTURES.
(FIRST SERIES.)
Price4s.6d.cloth.
III.
ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH:A SERMONON THEPARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD.
Price1s.6d.
RIVINGTONS,
ST. PAUL’S CHURCH YARD, & WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL.
[1]The Feast of St. Andrew.
[8]Notjustlyso; 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 aliteralinterpretation of Matt, xviii. 20. Just as the bowing at The Blessed Name seems derived, by Catholic and pious practice takingliterallyPhilippians ii. 10.
[60]And our false position is frequently increased by our tacitly admitting thepopularantithesis between ourselves and the continental Churches, which are takenin a mass—and called, all together, “The Church of Rome!”—Thus we practically overlook thefact, That the Church of Rome is oneparticularItalian 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 asancient, 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 enimfidelisservus et prudens quem constituit Dominus ejus super domum suam ut det cibos in tempore?”—Quod adApostolos ceterosque Episcopos et Doctoresparabola 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 utfidelisquis 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 sumusadeo 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 theLordwas associated partly with idolatrous worship. Micah had graven images and teraphim, yet he, with a Levite for a Priest, was partly blessed byGod. It is not for us to say how farGodmay 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 ofGod’smeans 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 Sacramentwhere it may be had;” and in the Catechism of its “generalnecessity.”Christaffirmed 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, whoconfessedHim 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 “POWERwhich the Lord had given them to edification”—“A Spirit ofPOWERand of love”—“Not that I have notPOWER,”—said St. Paul, (2 Thess. iii. 9.)
[121]The manner in which modern sectarians sometimes profess to recognise “only the kingship and headship ofChrist,” affords a striking proof of this; for no one misunderstandsthem, 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 aregathered 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 theChurch, and not originally in thepersonsof any individuals as such.
[137]See Notes, No. V.