It is, however, habitually true of this sacrament, though not so of the other, that it is A means (not THE means) whereby the inward and spiritual grace signified is received by the faithful.
But if the same precision were used in a review of our Liturgy and Catechism, as was exercised in the framing of our Articles, we might avoid asserting anywhere, as well as in the latter, that the sacraments are means of the grace signified, without the loss of anything essential; and so we should be saved from predicating that in the definition of a thing, which is proved not to be universally true of it. We might be saved from seeming to affirm that we are made children of God spiritually by formal baptism, when in fact it is only formally that we are thereby made so; or by baptism are regenerate. That sacraments are signs and seals to the faithful of the inward and spiritual grace signified is universally true, and therefore proper in a definition of them: that they are means thereof, or pledges, [30] is not universally true, and therefore improper in a definition, though true in part. And our conflicts upon the subject will never be put an end to until our church clearly expresses herself agreeably to the distinction and separability between things spiritual and things formal. [31a]
It does not appear that any of the principal Protestant Confessions of faith affirm the sacraments to be means of the special grace signified by them, except the Augsburg, which is the Lutheran. And if it is generally to this that the English articles are to be traced, the difference of the latter from the former upon this particular point can scarcely be otherwise than purposely intended. [31b]
When our Anglo-catholic brethren seem as if they would “not oppose anything existing,” [a/][31b] or touch so much as an iota of our Anglican Confession in verbal alterations, and yet hesitate not deliberately to sharpen their weapons, and at a few gashes to embowel it of its vitals; (I allude to the ninetieth Tract;) if they describe our church as “teaching with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies,” and as “incomplete in her formal doctrine and discipline,” and would totally change her Protestant character by introductions from the Roman Breviary and Missal;—with all this havoc of change before us, it is a small matter to desire merely a clearer distinction between formal and spiritual things, or any other sanatory touch of like character, which would fulfil the work of the Reformation, instead of thoroughly undoing it, [32a] as they design to do.
In such a process we should be casting off the last frontlet of our ancient grave-clothes, and putting a crown of pure gold upon our head. Rome would have done with us for ever, and we with Rome; and our separated brethren of other communions would see the way opening for re-union to an unlimited extent.
g. The essentials of the OFFICE and WORK of the ministry, as propounded on either side, constitute another very material ground of difference. [32b]
We are, I suppose, agreed that the first essential of the OFFICE is, that we be clearly called to it, and effectually sustained in it, by the Holy Ghost. But when we come to the outward and visible proofs of this call and this supporting power, then we differ. The Anglo-catholics consider it essential to be ordained by bishops receiving their appointment in regular succession from the apostles; as that, without which no benefit of sacraments or other ministrations can be imparted, nor, in fact, any church exist. The Anglo-protestants, on the other hand, attach not the same importance to the apostolical succession of bishops; and will say with Melancthon, “When bishops do not teach the truth, an ordinary succession avails nothing to the church;” [33a] and they hold that the appointment of a bishop by presbyters among themselves is valid. They consider the laying on of the hands of a bishop and others of the presbytery, to be the most scriptural Ordination of presbyters, and best for their own church; [33b] yet not so essential to the being of a church but that Ordination without a bishop may be valid, and is so in other churches, and has scriptural succession in its Presbytery.
By the former, it is assumed, that the Holy Ghost is given in ordination to all who are thus ordained, for the custody of the good deposit, the fundamentals of doctrine and practice, and all other parts of their office; and that through these ministers alone the people can derive sacramental grace; and if this ordination once be given, it is of itself the grand, essential, and sufficient proof of a true minister, and of the abiding of the Holy Ghost, with him continually.
Now, it is true that we hold, that an evil minister, incurring even deposition by our discipline, does not necessarily prevent the communications of divine grace to the souls of men in the ministration of the word and sacraments. But we hold also that he is to be deposed, and that there is something vastly contrary to the true system of things in his being where he is; though God has acted with inscrutable wisdom in having suffered it. But unless ministers continually prove by all the “fruits of the Spirit,” that the Spirit of God is with them, their ordination does nothing for them in our esteem, but load them with extraordinary sin and guilt. It is expected, that they be “not of the world;” though it is not by monasteries that they are to go out of it; but by keeping themselves unspotted from the sins and vanities and pomps of it; while their light shines before men in doing good in it, for the glory of their heavenly Father. Their love of souls dictates zeal and labour and self-denial and holy co-operation. They weep and pray and wrestle with God for blessings on their unworthy ministrations; they reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine; they humble the proud to penitence without penance; they comfort the feeble-minded, and heal the broken-hearted, without the unhallowed domination of confessionals, or absolutions other than declarative or merely ecclesiastical; [35] and they are conscious of maintaining, (without forced explanations,) an honest consistency, in doctrine and practice, with the plain meaning of their own articles and of Holy Scripture. These and all other fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, long-suffering gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance;—these are their essential proofs of office; without which the form of Ordination would be nothing but a heavy grief to them. It always has been, moreover, and I believe it ever would be, did circumstances lead to it, the blessedness and glory of these men to die as martyrs for their faith. The love of Christ would constrain them to do it joyfully. Few indeed are the clear instances of any other kind of religious persecutions unto death; while the thousands upon thousands of those who have been the usual martyrs for Christ, have been, not of the Anglo-catholic, but of the Evangelical faith. The Reformers are granted to us: the Huguenots, the Waldenses, the Lollards and Hussites, the Paulicians, the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, &c., have all been of the same confession of faith and the same character. But, alas! if the likeness of the Anglo-catholic creed and practices to Popery be considered, how near are the professors of that creed most fearfully coming to the character of the accusers of the brethren, the persecutors of the saints, the very crucifiers of the Lord of Glory! With whom then is the Holy Ghost to be supposed to be?
So, with respect to the essentials of ministerial WORK, they say that “the Church,” i.e. the Clergy, and her sacraments, are the ordained and visible means of conveying to the soul what is supernatural and unseen. [37] “The sacraments, not preaching, are the sources of divine grace.” We do not disparage the sacraments; but we say that in holy Scripture preaching has the pre-eminence; preaching the Gospel of Christ, “the everlasting Gospel,” “the Gospel of salvation,” “the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.” And I am anxious that we should all feel this, understand it well, and study to be “able ministers of the New Testament.” The Anglo-catholic doctrine of the wonderful importance of sacramental grace and of the mysterious dignity and power of the priesthood in connexion with it, is a comparative nullifying of the great commission of Christ, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.” Christ also sent the apostle Paul, “not” with a commission, “to baptize,” though he did baptize; “but to preach the Gospel.” And his triumphant argument for preaching, as the grand mean of grace, and faith, and salvation, will never be overcome. “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 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? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” [38a] Of regeneration itself as produced by the special instrumentality of the word, we have already heard: and so also the remission of sins; for “be it known unto you,” says St. Paul to the people of Antioch in Pisidia, “that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” [38b] The Acts of the Apostles, in fact, are full of it. By the foolishness of preaching it has always pleased God to save them that believe, incomparably more than by any other means. And forasmuch as the ministers and stewards of God’s mysteries “cannot,” (as our Ordination Service speaks,) “by any other means compass the doing of so weighty a work, pertaining to the salvation of man, but with doctrine and exhortation taken out of the Holy Scriptures, and with a life agreeable to the same,” the assiduous study and preaching of the Holy Scriptures have been the main subject of the charge given to them, from the days of Timothy to the present. With ministering “the Holy Sacraments” they have been most solemnly intrusted; but with preaching the word CHIEFLY: and to this has the “success” of their ministry been consigned. [39a] This is that which, (as Anglo-catholic teachers affirm,) “to say the least, Scripture has never much recommended;” an assertion very much to be blamed, as very untrue. [39b]