Such is an outline of the Doctrine of the Succession. A minuter consideration of its details will necessarily follow on, when we investigate the Evidence, in our next lecture. The solemn consequences of the Doctrine itself, are such as may well dispose us to approach the examination with all seriousness of soul. For on the one hand, if we reject the Succession, it follows, that we have not left on earth any real Ministry of Christ; while if we admit it, we admit it with all its exclusive claims. Hard things may be said of the choice of such a subject, and the revival of such an inquiry, but the overwhelming importance of it will be a sufficient vindication to every reflecting mind seeking for truth. The time is come when questions like these may not be suffered to remain undecided. When Romanism has advanced so rapidly among us, making boast of its exclusive Apostolic claims, dare we be silent? If we will care not to show our people our Divine claims on their spiritual allegiance, can we wonder that they revolt to Rome? Might we not expect the very “stones to cry out against us?” In truth, in very truth, we have been silent too long! And the meagre Christianity now prevalent on all hands, gives fatal evidence against us. Christians seem to have forgotten that they are already the members of an Eternal community!—Well may we ask, Are these the elect of God?—His chosen heritage?—with the unseen wall of fire around them, and an uncared-for glory in the midst? Yes, Christians seem almost wholly to have forgotten their endowment of manifold gifts—almost forgotten the “taste of the good word of God, and the Powers of the world to come,” (Heb. vi. 4.) so that it may appear well nigh impossible to “renew them again to repentance!” But shall the Churches venture thus to await, without an effort, the Second Coming of the Lord?—God forbid! “Whoso hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches”—“Remember from whence thou art fallen! and repent! and do the FIRST works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou REPENT!”
II.
THE EVIDENCE.
From the Gospel. [41]—“It is written, My house shall be called the house of Prayer.”—Matt. xxi. 13.
These words may serve to suggest some profitable reflections, preparatory to our entering on the subject of the present lecture. They are the words of an inspired prophecy, applied directly by our blessed Lord Himself to the then existing temple of the Jews. If we read them as they stand in the Old Testament, among other glorious predictions concerning the sanctuary of the Lord God of Israel, we are naturally inclined to expect some more illustrious fulfilment of them, than seems to have been ever vouchsafed to the “house of Prayer” at Jerusalem. The words of Isaiah (and the evangelist St. Mark has more exactly quoted them) are, “My house shall be called an house of Prayer, for all people;” a prophecy apparently equivalent, or nearly so, in magnitude to that of holy David, “all nations whom Thou hast made shall COME and worship before Thee, O Lord, and shall glorify Thy name!” And it is very evident that this was never realized in the fullest extent, with respect to the Jewish Temple. Must we say then that the prophecy did not refer at all to the literal temple in Judea? None, perhaps, would venture so to affirm, seeing that our Lord Himself refers it to that temple. Thus much however we are bound to conclude, that this example shows us, how little we are able to decide beforehand what amount, or kind of fulfilment, a Divine prediction may have. And the fact, that our Lord spoke of the temple, such it was then, as God’s house, may serve also to check any over-hasty accusations of total apostasy, in consequence of extreme degeneracy among His people. It may be useful here to premise this, because it is not unusual to prejudice all enquiry, concerning the Catholic doctrine of the Ministry of the Christian Temple, by a precipitate and comprehensive assertion of its inconsistency with the spirituality and dignity of the Divine designs; an assertion generally supported by unmeasured charges of a corruption fatally destructive of the Divine sanction, of the Sacred character of any institute. Granting that the present state of the Apostolically descended Ministry in the Church Universal, is very far from what we should have anticipated, from some of the statements of Scripture, it would not follow, it seems, that those statements are frustrated, but only that we had misinterpreted them. It would not follow, that the Ministry is not truly Christ’s, but only that it needs His purifying. Our Lord came to His temple of old, of which such “glorious things” had been spoken, and He found it a “den of thieves,” but still claimed it as His own, in the glowing words of the prophecy, “My house shall be called the house of Prayer.” It was not the glorious pile that Solomon had reared—it was not that which the returned children of the captivity had built; and its Priesthood stood not forth conspicuous for holiness. The beautiful courts of that temple had been restored and rebuilt by the crime-stained Herod; and they had been horribly polluted by violence and outrage. The sanguinary story of the “forty and six years” when that structure was building, is truly a lesson full of melancholy warning! and when at last Christ came to the holy mount, He found there a temple, well nigh built in blood and served by murderers; and yet He began to “purge it,” and said of it, My House! “My House shall be called the house of Prayer!”
But do we say this to justify aught in the present condition of the Church Catholic? God forbid! for though we trust it is not so deeply fallen as was the Jewish Church, “our enemies themselves being judges,” yet we would not hide from ourselves our real state. But we bring forward these words of our Lord, and the reflections that have thus arisen out of them, in order to induce men to look calmly and fairly at the Evidence for our Christian Ministry, not hastily prejudging the question, in consequence of apparent moral and spiritual difficulties, (of which they may be making a wrong estimate and use,) but simply postponing, for a while, the objections which may be raised, and separately and honestly looking at the proof and certainty of the FACT of Apostolical succession. Should it be asked, Why we attach such importance to an institution, which, even if real, seems to have accomplished so little? we reply, That we pretend not to be able to estimate the workings or the results of God’s plans. It is enough for us that they are God’s. And all we desire is, to ascertain the fact. But we have something further, on which our faith may repose. There are prophecies concerning God’s Church, (and perhaps our text is one,) which seem as yet to have had but little fulfilment. Haply that is to be done to the Church at the second Advent, which the purging of the temple, at the first Advent, only prefigured. It appears but little likely that that brief significative act of Christ, from which nothing seemed to follow, was the whole fulfilment of the illustrious prophecy of Malachi concerning the Lord’s “Coming suddenly to His Temple” to purify it. It requires no proof that we need such purifying. Is the main impression now formed of the Christian temple—that it is a “house of Prayer?” It is written, “From the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, My name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered in My name, and a pure Offering.” [45] Hath this been yet accomplished? That which is written shall surely come to pass:—and on this our faith relies. And though there be no signs of a present fulfilment—though we may be told that “thieves and robbers” have made lawless entrance, and that very little betokens a Divine presence—a consecrated Priesthood or a “pure Offering” among us, our faith is unmoved. A cleansing must come:—for “it is written, My house SHALL BE called the house of Prayer.”
In our last Lecture we attempted to show, that not a regularly Succeeding Ministry, but rather a self-commissioned one, is the really incredible thing; and we endeavoured to give an outline of the Catholic doctrine of the Succession. In proceeding now to consider the Evidence of that Succession, we shall not dwell on those traces of the doctrine and the fact which we think are to be found in the New Testament: for several reasons. In the first place, this has been so often and so fully done, [46] that it would be a superfluous labour. And then there is a felt unsatisfactoriness in all such arguments. Scripture was not written critically, and its terms were not precisely fixed; so that several of the sects may and do build up plausible theories from passages of Scripture. And again, what we have already shown, amounts perhaps to all that is of any real value in any such arguments: viz. that the Catholic doctrine is not only in perfect harmony with every part of Scripture, but admits of a full and literal interpretation of all its strongest and most solemn language on this subject, in a manner which no sectarian doctrine can pretend to. So far as Scripture then is concerned, we feel no difficulty; and we now attempt no argument. Our object is a very distinct one. Any man who reads the New Testament, may see that it contains a “doctrine of laying on of hands.” (Acts xiii. 3, 4; 1 Tim. v. 22; Heb. vi. 2.) Some may even perceive that the appointed and usual means of transmitting Ministerial authority, was this “Laying on of hands,” and that none had power to use this means save the Apostles and those whom they authorized. (1 Tim. v. 22; 2 Tim. i. 6; Tit. i. 5.) Many a man may go so far as to admit the fact, that no Ministry was received in the Christian Church for a thousand years, and more, [47] except that which was commissioned through the Apostles and their reputed Successors, the Bishops. And yet any such may still feel difficulty in the question—something almost amounting to a deficiency, at least, of clear Evidence. He may fairly be harassed by doubts such as these: “How am I to know after all, that all these bishops from age to age were truly ordained by a true Apostolic predecessor? Is it not both possible, and probable, that in some places, for example, a powerful man might have usurped authority in a Church, and made himself a Bishop?—Or a learned man, in ‘dark times,’ have imposed on the ignorant? And if so, would not all his Ministerial acts be worthless? And might not one such break in the chain, at some early period, have invalidated all subsequent Ordinations? Are there then any positive proofs that such has not been the case? Where are the documents? What is the EVIDENCE of the facts, on which an intelligent man may rely?” [48] All which questions are perfectly fair, and deserve to be honestly entertained. And to these (rather as connected with the fact than the doctrine) we address ourselves.
Perhaps, indeed, there is a brief answer to them all, which may at once satisfy many, better than a more tedious proof: namely, that if the “doctrine of laying on of hands,” and the transmitted Ministry, be received as contained in Scripture, and taught ever by the Church, so the very same Holy Volume contains also the promise that Christ would be with His Ministers to the end of time; and He would therefore of course preserve to them all that was in the least degree essential. The faithfulness of Christ Himself would thus be a mighty proof to the humblest Christian, that all that Scripture inculcated as necessary to the Ministry, would truly be preserved in the Christian Church, as much as it formerly was in the Jewish. And he might also have this additional proof of the fact, that no one (not even infidels) would attempt to disprove it. But we will now endeavour to go a little more narrowly into the question, because it is frequently a stumbling block to many.
Let a man begin by analysing his own thoughts, and satisfy himself—first of all, what kind and amount of evidence he requires of the fact, that every Bishop of an Apostolic line was duly ordained by the “laying on of hands?” Does he expect to see the very documents written at the time,—and the seal and sign manual of those who were present?—or, would that suffice? Perhaps many may be disposed to think that such evidence must be satisfactory to the most incredulous. But pause, and consider: how should we know for certain that each separate document was quite authentic? How could we be quite sure that none were forged by some crafty monk during those mysterious times, which some people, (as if excusing their own want of light on the matter,) speak of as “dark ages?” Or, suppose any one, or two, or three of the documents were destroyed by all-corroding time? or had become illegible? What then? Surely such evidence would be thought very unsafe to rely on. Most persons would look with great suspicion on such an array of unknown manuscripts, and look about for something more satisfactory and possible. And perhaps, then, it might not be amiss to inquire what kind, or amount of evidence it would be reasonable to look for?
Will it not be reckoned enough, if it should appear, that we have as good evidence of the Succession of the Ministry from the first, as we have of the reality of the institution of the Sacraments? or of the authenticity of Holy Scripture? This methinks will be enough at least for Christian men in general, though it may not be satisfactory to every disputer; and if we will attentively look into it we may certainly find the evidence to be quite as strong as this. The very same objections might be brought against the Apostolic Scriptures, the Apostolic Sacraments, and the Apostolic Ministry. We have the same kind of moral certainty of them all: and perhaps it might even be argued, that the highest degree of such certainty, if a difference could be admitted, pertains to the latter.—Thus much, at least, must be apparent on a very little reflection, that the kind and amount of evidence which some persons expect to have given them, of the Apostolic Succession, is impossible in the very nature of things, and exactly similar to the evidence which uneducated people, when they first begin to inquire, expect to find for the authenticity of the Bible, and which infidels craftily demand for all Revelation, well knowing that it cannot, in the nature of things, be had. For, in the first place, we can none of us have the same kind of certainty concerning any fact transacted in our absence, as of what is done in our presence; much less of any thing which happened in a distant place, a foreign country, or before we were born. And still less if it be removed farther back; as before our fathers or great-grandfathers were born. Whoever, therefore, undertakes to believe no farther than he personally sees and knows, must suspend his faith in all history, and even in the daily conversations and transactions of those around him. And if any man is in this humour, we will not argue with him about it. It is plain that these notions of strict personal evidence for every thing must be abated, if we would exercise our common sense.
Let us take the case of a man who begins to examine the claims of the Bible to be received as the Word of God. Suppose him to be not very learned; he is able at least to see that his Bible is like other people’s: and they, many of them being educated persons, believe it to be God’s Word. This is something. And then it is the Authorized Version, sanctioned by the Church and the State. And this is something more. And he sees that even those who abuse the Church, are either very bad men, or if they are sincere, well-meaning sort of people, and set up a new Religion for themselves, they are obliged, after all, to make use of the Church’s Bible, and generally the Church’s own Translation. He therefore has even so far tolerable ground for thinking that the Book which he has received as the Word of God is truly such.