Let us, however, look at the objection rapidly, first, in an historical, and then in a theoretical light. Doubtless, if the Apostolic Succession be admitted, it follows that there can be no certainty of valid Sacraments apart from it. And those communities cannot be pronounced to be true Churches, which have no Succession. Now, upon this it is argued, that there is an inconsistency between us and our early Reformers: for, that they did not pronounce the Continental Protestants to be “unchurched,” which our principles oblige us to do; and that therefore we are more “Popish” and bigoted than they.—How far this is the real state of the case, they best can judge who are best acquainted with the writings of our Reformers. As to their principles, they are certainly not so doubtful as to be only arrived at by a silent deduction from their actions. Take, for instance, Archbishop Cranmer. His opinions, even in his later years, after he had well looked into the matter, and had passed through some change of sentiments, are left on record in his Sermons. [98] In speaking of the necessary and exclusive Succession of the Ministry, he goes to the utmost extent of the Catholic Doctrine. But it may be said, generally, that the necessity of Apostolic Ordination was not a debated point at the Reformation. And those, abroad, who eventually departed from the Succession, did it with so much reluctance, and with such ample admission of their regret, [99a] that it could only be regarded as a temporary affliction of the Church. When Rome was exerting all her strength against the Reformed, it surely would have been deemed an uncalled for severity, had the English Church been forward to condemn the Continental brethren; especially as they did not defend the principle of separation from the Episcopacy; but just the reverse. It was surely enough that our Reformers asserted their own principles, (as they plainly did [99b]) without proceeding formally to condemn their “less happy” [99c] brethren abroad. Add to all which, the fact, that that generation of Protestants had, all of them, been baptized in the Catholic Church; and most of their Ministers had received Episcopal Ordination; so that even the next generation might receive valid Baptism. It would be natural of course to pronounce a very careful judgment, if any, concerning such persons. It might have been difficult to say that such communities, however imperfect, were “not Churches.” This might have fully accounted for the reserve of our Reformers, even had it been greater than it was; more especially as the restoration of the lost Succession might not only have been hoped for, but, at one time, even expected. [100] But every one must surely perceive the difference of our position from that of our Reformers. We assert precisely the same principles, and in their own language. But we have to act towards men who on principle reject the Succession; who are not for certain possessed of any Catholically Ordained Teachers, or so surely Baptized people: and who are perpetuating this awfully doubtful and Schismatical state of things. If in our circumstances we were to imitate what is thought the reserve of our Reformers, we might be fairly suspected as not holding their principles.
But the theoretical view of this objection is, perhaps, still more important to be considered. Let any man examine, what this charge of our unchurching so many other Protestants really amounts to, at the utmost. To what extent of “uncharitableness” does our theory oblige us?—And, first of all, how can we obviate the practical difficulty already alluded to, which is urged with so much confidence, that unordained ministers of many sects, have so large a measure of spiritual success?—It is remarkable that they who urge this, do not see how variously it is often applied to support the most opposite and jarring sentiments. And who can ever decide on the real value of any such appeals? We might admit, safely, that good has, at times, been done by unordained teachers, and yet, in that, admit nothing inconsistent with the exclusive Catholic claims of the Ordained Ministry. It has often been argued that even the Heathen Philosophy and the Mahometan Theism, were over-ruled as God’s instruments of good, though evil in their nature: and the corruptest kind of Christianity may be well admitted to be much better than either of them. [101] We cannot indeed allow the distorted estimate, which human vanity makes of its own good doings; but we will not question God’s sovereignty over man’s sin, from which He often brings good. We think it wrong not to “receive Christ” (Luke ix. 53.); and “follow the Apostles;” but we would not “call down fire from heaven.” We think that it “shall be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment” than for a wilful rejecter, or non-receiver of the Apostles; but we judge not. They are in God’s hands. (Matt. x. 14.)—We have before said that we pronounce no private judgment on others.
And let it not be supposed that this is only a tacit way of avoiding a difficulty, to which our principles fairly conduct us. If they be honestly looked at, the Catholic principles have in them far more of real charity than any others. There is a large sense, in which every Baptized man is included in the Catholic Church, and may be, according to his measure, partaker of Her privileges; though he may not trace the grace to its true source, but may mistake the hand that blesses him. [102a] And the wideness of the Catholic principle, as to the bestowal of Baptismal grace, ought not to be lost sight of here. In the Church there seems to have been recognized a sort of threefold validity of Baptism. The first, [102b] as ordinarily received from a Minister of the Church; the second [103a] pertaining to the grace of martyrdom, or “Baptism by blood;” and the third [103b] even extending in cases of extreme necessity to Christian Confession, and the earnest desire of the Sacrament. Doubtless, it is The All-seeing God alone who can decide on any individual case. Yet it is easy to see how the Catholic doctrine does at least open a wide door of charitable hope. [103c] How many even of those who are outwardly Schismatical, may not be wholly so, we can never know here. How far the sincerity of some, or the circumstances of others, may avail as excuses before God, He only can decide. Still, while our charity “hopeth all things,” we know that where there is doubt only, there may be danger; and charity itself would oblige us to warn; for we think there is this peril; and we warn those Churchmen of their greater peril, who sanction Religious principles, or frequent even doubtful assemblies, which the Church acknowledges not. They not only endanger themselves, but by their example may fatally mislead the souls of their brethren. But let us take the extremest case that can be alleged, namely, that of persons wilfully guilty of total and deliberate Schism from the Apostolic Church. When we deny to such all share in the Church’s peculiar grace here, or glory hereafter, are we denying them aught which they do not deny themselves? aught which they even wish to claim? For instance—The Church has ever maintained that Baptism in the Apostolic community conveys the most exalted and unearthly blessings, and by consequence maintains, that the unbaptized possess them not. But is it not a fact, that all such persons totally reject the notion of there being any spiritual value in Baptism? Does our uncharitableness then place them in a worse position than that which they voluntarily choose for themselves, and resolutely defend? Surely we are rather taking a high view of our own privileges and grace in Christ, than in any degree depriving others of theirs. We leave them where they place themselves. And it seems hard to call this a want of charity. It is impossible to say that we are depriving of Sacraments those who do not even pretend to them, except in form. It is strange and uncandid to say, that we UN-church those, who (in our sense of the word) do not even pretend to be Churches.
This charge of want of charity generally proceeds, too, from those who ought certainly to be the very last to bring it forward. They are our commonest assailants who themselves so gloomily narrow the circle of possible salvation, as to affirm that all shall inevitably perish, except that exceedingly small number whom they esteem in their peculiar sense, “spiritual,” and “converted.” We, on the contrary, whatever we think of the Church’s Privileges, hold with St. Peter, that “in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of Him;” [105a] and yet we are thought “uncharitable.” Far from condemning on so tremendous a scale as they will venture to do, we pronounce no judgment personally on any:—and yet they call us “uncharitable.” Doubtless we see unspeakable danger in the very idea of differing or dissenting and departing from the Church [105b] as descended from the Apostles of Christ; but methinks there is no bigotry in saying that.—“Now may the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another, according to Christ Jesus!”
And now, at the close of this review of the objections urged by vain man against the firm, abiding truth of God, it seems impossible wholly to repress the feeling which rises, on looking back on such melancholy indications of mental perversity.—The view of a series of such objections to such a Truth, accompanied as they are by a guilty host of unnamed minor objections, taking shelter beneath them, is almost enough to dishearten the Minister of Christ. It seems as if there were arranged side by side all the elaborate tokens of a Father’s most tender care for a reckless family; and of their thankless contempt for his love and watchfulness. The very design of Christ’s Ascension was to give “Apostles and prophets” to his people; [106] but now there are objections to them all.—It were surely a revolting task to take by the hand the young but corrupted heir of some princely domain, and lead him through the stately halls of his fathers, and find him heartlessly sneering at their massy and unbroken grandeur, and treating with a rude contempt the mighty things and the noble of past times—“Objecting” to every thing! Mocking the now useless towers and unneeded battlements—Objecting to them as ‘contrivances of cowardice.’ Or pointing to the chapel, to the Cross, or to some ancestral effigy of Prayer—“Objecting” to them as symbols of decaying superstition! It would be miserable to witness such a wretched lack of natural piety in the heart of a child.—But is there not some parallel to it in what is seen among us, whensoever we “go about our Spiritual Zion, telling the towers thereof; marking well Her bulwarks, and considering Her palaces, to tell it to the generation following?” We are scarcely listened to with patience by many: and some even scorn to accompany us through our time-honoured courts. Too many modern Christians, thankless, cold-hearted children of our Holy Church, come very little short of realizing the picture we have drawn! They carelessly tread our solemn aisles, and we bid them move reverently “because of the angels.” [107] And they wonder at our “superstition” and “weakness!” And “the fathers” (say they) were ignorant men, and their works the cumbrous records of departed folly! And as to the Saints of early days—there are decided objections to their views; objections to their rules of sanctity; objections to their prayers and customs, and heaven-ward observances; objections, in a word, to almost everything received from the Holy Founders of our Faith, and loved by all our Fathers!
The long line of the “departed just,” like a still-continued choir of angels of Bethlehem, seem to be ever silently heralding “peace on earth, good will to men,” while men weary not of raising objections thereto; as if deeming it a hardship to be blessed!—Such is the Church’s mysterious history. An Almighty God ever “waiting to be gracious:” and man rebelling against Him ever!—God sending down His gifts of grace: Man spurning the blessing!—God “bowing His heavens and coming down.” And man “objecting” still!—“How long shall it be, O Lord, to the end of these wonders!”
IV.
THE SUMMARY.
From the Epistle. [109]—“All the building fitly framed together groweth into an Holy Temple in the Lord.”—Eph. ii. 2.
The broad and essential distinction between the Catholic and the Rationalist views of the Christian Ministry, seems necessarily to imply distinct conceptions of the whole Christian Religion. This was briefly alluded to in our first Lecture, but must now be more fully drawn out (though, I fear, at the risk of some repetition) in order to show the bearing of the respective doctrines of the Ministry on the general Religious theory, and on the two classes of interpretation of Holy Scripture. This is the more necessary, because no arguments, however clear, will effectually touch the mind so long as a fundamentally incorrect notion of their whole subject matter is inwardly cherished. So long as one theory is exclusively and implicitly relied on, the arguments which are built on another, essentially distinct, may be looked at as difficult, and perhaps unanswerable; still they will not shake the previous faith of the listener. The arguer is moving, so to speak, in a parallel, or even a diverging line, in which his hearer sees, perhaps, no exact flaw, but he is sensible that it touches him not. Thus many will attend to a train of reasoning, see that it establishes its conclusions inevitably, and yet not be morally affected by it—not convinced, not really touched. Their minds fall back on some distinct and cherished principle which they have previously been accustomed to admit, perhaps, without questioning; having been ever taught it, and so relying on it as a sort of “common sense” truth. This has been peculiarly the case in Religious controversy.—A certain view of the general system is received, and unless you can bring a man to think that this may be erroneous,—that is, unless you can shake a man’s faith in himself, and persuade him to call in question or examine even his fundamental notions—you have advanced but little towards convincing him of the truth; notwithstanding the logical accuracy of your reasonings. It is also to be feared that a mistake as to the very ideality of the Christian Religion is not only very possible, but very common. [111] It is not, therefore, with any desire of mere systematizing that these two distinct theories of Christianity are now drawn out; but with a firm persuasion that there is a reality and a practical importance in the distinction.
Doubtless there are many modifications of opinion among Christians; but there are two bases on which they are very generally raised, and perhaps almost necessarily so; a basis of mental Principles, or a basis of Divine Institutions; a basis of intelligible “Doctrines,” or of Heavenly Realities; of that which is abstract, or that which is concrete. And the former of these may be (and I trust, without offence) described as the Rationalized, or Sectarian,—the latter is the Catholic basis. The former, at first sight, seems more philosophical and elevated and popular—the latter, more positive, more real, and yet more humbling to the pride of human intellect.