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 necessary for 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, Sectarian principle. 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 specific Church-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 might have 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 concerning God and 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 of Christ’s moral 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 regard Christ in a 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 and Deity (1 Tim. ii. 5.)—the medium whereby man is united unto God! And His mysterious Atonement would be regarded as an awful REALITY ever “manifest” in the Church! (Gal. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xi. 26.)—a REALITY to 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 in Christ,” 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 in Christ,” in a mystical and Divine sense. 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 into God’s designs, 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 the Church doctrine 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 the Son of God, than to 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 the Bible, relative to the Christian Ministry; and the Sectarian systems are so far from needing them, 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 the Holy 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 “of ONE bread,” 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 does not 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 of God” at hand. Soon The Great Teacher appears,—God and Man in One Person. He preaches truths and corrects errors;—but is that all? Does He leave the truth to propagate itself? Or is it simply a system of Divine Principles, which He inculcates? Or, has He not to establish the “Kingdom of heaven?”—Yes, this Heavenly Personage, this no common teacher or prophet, this Son of God, had to found among men a celestial community. He soon began to incorporate a Visible society endowed with invisible powers. He called twelve men, and ordained them; declared that He appointed unto them “a Kingdom even as His Father had appointed unto Him a 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 of God;” promised that they should “sit on twelve thrones” as Vicegerents in the spiritual dominion; and ere He left them, “breathed on them”—“gave them the Holy Ghost,” accompanying it with most extraordinary words—told them to “baptize, and teach whatsoever He had commanded”—and promised to send His Spirit to guide them, and in some exalted sense to be Himself “with them” (Matt, xxvii.) to the world’s end.—Acting literally on His instructions, the Apostles no sooner received the Spirit promised, 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 their Lord, that He had given to them “a Kingdom.” Did any man receive their doctrine?—immediately he was addressed in terms like unto the “follow Me” of Christ, “Arise and be Baptized”—“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, one Jesus” (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 which Christ appointed, namely, by Baptism. So that even a new Apostle, fresh called by Christ’s voice from heaven, was not deemed a member, or in a state of spiritual privilege with them—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 the Apostles suggested 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 the Church; 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 to every thing 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 itself first 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 the Apostolical 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 a pro tanto validity; 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 to Christ’s Church, and that Order, as it consisted of Apostles at first, so it does now of those whom the Apostles left as their Successors, just as Christ left 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 their kingdom would have been interfered with by such a subdivision into petty provinces. Doubtless they were led by the Spirit of Christ, 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 our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my Spirit—with the Power of the Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such an one unto Satan.” St. Paul thus commissioning others in his absence to act in his name and Christ’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 in Christ’s own lifetime, and which has continued ever since.

In the specific reservation of this Power of imparting the Spirit, 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 of Christ. 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 of Christ.—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. The Intention constituted the act of conveyance of the grace of Christ, 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 by Christ’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 by Christ essentially 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 positive form, 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 the Church, 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 the DOCTRINE “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 “Son of Man came in His kingdom,” with more of fulness, completeness, and glory 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 of Christ, 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 the Lord.”