[37] "There is not a minister in all Christendom" (says Archbishop Whately, and he is an authority on this question), "who is able to trace up with any approach to certainty, his own spiritual pedigree. The sacramental virtue dependent on the imposition of hands, with a due observance of apostolical usages, by a bishop himself duly consecrated, after having been in like manner baptized into the church and ordained deacon and priest—this sacramental virtue, if a single link in the chain be faulty, must be utterly nullified ever after in respect to all the links hanging on that one. For, if a bishop has not been duly consecrated, or had not been previously rightly ordained, his ordinations are null, and so are the ministrations of those ordained by him, and their ordinations of others, and so on without end. The poisonous taint of informality, if it once creep in undetected, will spread the infection of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable extent.
"And who can undertake to pronounce that, during that long period usually designated as the dark ages, no such taint was ever introduced? Irregularities could not have been wholly excluded without a perpetual miracle; and that no such miraculous interference existed we have even historical proof. Amidst the numerous corruptions of doctrine and of practice, and gross superstitions that crept in during those ages, we find recorded descriptions not only of the profound ignorance and profligacy of life of many of the clergy, but also of the grossest irregularities in respect of discipline and form. We read of bishops consecrated when mere children—of men officiating who barely knew their letters—of prelates expelled and others put in their places by violence—of illiterate and profligate laymen, and habitual drunkards, admitted to holy orders; and, in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder, and reckless disregard of the decency which the apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable that any one, even moderately acquainted with history, can feel a certainty, or any approach to certainty, that, amidst all this confusion and corruption, every requisite form was, in every instance, strictly adhered to by men, many of them openly profane and secular, unrestrained by public opinion through the gross ignorance of the population among which they lived; and that no one not duly consecrated or ordained was admitted to sacred offices."
The inference which the Archbishop* draws from these historic statements is this: 'The ultimate consequence must be that any one who sincerely believes that his claim to the benefits of the gospel-covenant depends on his own minister's claim to the supposed sacramental virtue of true ordination, and this again on perfect apostolical succession as described, must be involved, in proportion as he reads, and inquires, and reflects, and reasons on the subject, in the most distressing doubt and perplexity."
* See Essays on the Kingdom of Christ, pp. 176-9.
[38] It is a somewhat ominous sign that neither Dr. Hook nor any of his brethren has been pleased to do this very easy thing, though they have often been challenged to do it, as essential to their priestly identity and the validity of their ministrations.
Transcriber's note:
Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as printed.
The illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up paragraphs, thus the page number of the illustration might not match the page number in the List of Illustrations.
Mismatched quotes are not fixed if it's not sufficiently clear where the missing quote should be placed.