Those further historical and practical Objections which might be urged against the Apostolical Succession, either in the Church Universal, or in our own particular branch of it, would be such as attempt to throw some degree of doubt on the fact itself; [83] and they have already been answered by anticipation in the last Lecture, in which we mainly dwelt on the Evidence of the fact. To notice them here in any greater detail, would therefore be only to repeat needlessly what has been already said. But closely connected with the Objections thus briefly considered to the facts of the Succession, there are generally supposed to be certain fatal CONSEQUENCES, which it may be well just to glance at. “Popery,” and its fearful train of practical evils, an infringement of liberty of conscience, and spiritual slavery, are apprehended as the sure result, if the Apostolical line be admitted to be preserved. But is it thus? Are any of us anxious for a “liberty” which is confessedly synonymous with a freedom from obedience to God’s own laws and appointments? Or can we not admit the right of any man to “liberty of conscience,” without insisting that such a liberty will suffice to guide him into all truth? Doubtless every man has a right to move on unshackled towards the “heavenly city,” but shall he therefore dispense with the only effectual guide? Granting him the fullest “freedom,” may he not yet miss his way?—Whoever will take the pains to think of it, will see that this Apostolical doctrine of the Succession, is no other kind of restraint upon liberty of conscience, than any other Apostolical doctrine. It may certainly be said that if a man be not blessed with the blessings of the Church Apostolical, he is in a perilous condition; but it is difficult to see how this affects liberty of conscience, any more than the assertion, “He that believeth not shall be condemned.” So that such an Objection is only that of the infidel, in a slightly modified shape, when he complains of the “hardship of not providing for the case of the conscientious unbeliever.”
And as to the fear of Popery; that seems a still more strange Objection. Surely the very reverse is the more correct reasoning. If it be a fact capable of proof, and which was believed by all Christians for 1500 years, That there was a true Succession of Ministers from the Apostles—are we not taking the very surest ground against Romanists, when we show, that we possess just such a descended Ministry, in no degree dependent on communion with their Church, or any other single Church? If we could not show such a Ministry, then the man, who from examination found out the truth of the necessity of an Apostolic Church, might be obliged indeed to resort to the communion of Rome. So that by asserting our true Apostolical claims, we are so far from giving place to Rome, that we are striking the only effectual blow at her supremacy—we are so far from forcing a man to join the Papacy, that we are offering him his only refuge from its spiritual tyranny. And as to all such half-infidel objections as, ‘that there would be nothing to check the onward advance of corruption and error,’ and the like, if it were thus taken to be unlawful to sin against, or set aside, the Apostolical Succession, in any case; it would be quite enough to reply, that we ought to be content to trust God for the success of His own appointed institutions. But there are facts, sufficiently strong to enable us to speak much more explicitly on this head. Among those who threw off the Roman yoke in the sixteenth century, we see, that the Non-episcopal communities of the Continent have gone down into worse than Roman Corruption, “even denying THE Lord that bought them;” from which depth of doctrinal corruption our Episcopal Church has been graciously preserved. Not, indeed, that it is right to depend too much on this kind of evidence, popular as it may be. It is better for the Christian to exercise a habit of unenquiring confidence in his Heavenly Father, trusting Him for the “consequences” of His Own appointments, disregarding the sophistries, and fears, and oppositions of the world.
Passing, now, from this class of Practical Objections, let us consider some of those which are supposed to lie against the Doctrine of the Succession. They are, indeed, so peculiarly unchristian, so faithless in their principles, and so indefinite in their shape, that it will not be so easy a task to deal with them; but we must briefly attempt it.
One of the commonest and most comprehensive of these objections, is that which is advanced against the whole Doctrine of an Authoritative Ministry in the Church, though more especially against the notion of a Descended Priesthood; viz. That it is a going back to “beggarly elements,” a perpetuation of Judaism in the Church. They who urge this, do not scruple to deny all similarity of office between the Christian and the Jewish Priesthood, and they represent it as essentially Anti-christian in any man in these days to pretend to the Priestly office. “If,” say they, “it be even granted that a separate order of Ministers is sanctioned by the Gospel, still it is both arrogant and unscriptural to pretend to institute any sort of parallel between the Christian and the Jewish Ministries.” It is strange that any man can speak so thoughtlessly, who has had the advantage of reading even an English Testament. Not only is the principle of the necessity of a proper Ministry assumed throughout the Christian Scriptures, but the very analogy which is now denied between the Christian and the Jewish ministries is throughout assumed, and sometimes expressly insisted on, and drawn out. If it were so dangerous and Anti-christian an error to pretend to a Priesthood in the Church, at all resembling that of the Temple, surely the Apostles would have been especially anxious to avoid using any expressions which should seem to imply any such thing. St. Paul’s language, if not to be taken simply as he employed it—that is, if it were not literally true—was calculated much to mislead. It could not have been safe, when the early Church had so strong a tendency to Judaize, to make use of what may be called “priestly terms” and allusions. And yet this is done continually in the New Testament, and even as a “matter of course.” Observe, for instance, that sentence of St. Paul, specially concerning the ancient Priesthood, but so widely expressed as to convey a general principle, assumed as known to be equally true now as of old—“No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.” (Heb. v. 1, 4). So the Holy Baptist at the beginning of the Gospel puts forth this as an Evangelical principle, concerning any Divine Ministry, not excepting Christ’s Own; “A man can take unto himself nothing” [margin]. (John iii. 27, &c.) St. Paul likewise calls Christ Himself “the Apostle and High-priest,” linking the two ideas together—joining the Apostolical and the Priestly offices—but saying that even He “glorified not Himself to be made an High-priest.” [88] The Father “sent” Him; and “as His Father sent Him, so He sent His Apostles.” And what, again, might we not fairly conclude from such an allusion as the following, even if there were nothing more clear? “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle;” (Heb. xiii. 10.) which occurs immediately after the injunction concerning the Ministry, “remember THEM” (v. 7). And in the verses immediately following, we find a similar injunction, and similar sacrificial allusions; (v. 11, 15–17.) Must we not think that the Apostle recognized some analogy between the Jewish and the Christian Ministries? [89] But we have, in addition to such manifold allusions, some passages much more direct and indisputable. In writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul places the Eucharistic Table of the Lord in a position precisely parallel with that of the Jewish Altar, and founds his whole argument on it; (1 Cor. x. 13, &c.) and places together on the same footing the Ministries of the Temple and of the Church, (ch. ix. 13.) His argument for the right of the Christian Minister to a temporal maintenance is wholly derived from the analogy of the Jewish Priesthood; this would, then, be no argument, if there were no analogy. His words are, “Do ye not know that they which Minister about holy things, live of the things of the altar? even so hath the Lord ordained, that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.” Evidently the former Ministry is assumed to be the pattern of the latter. But in another place, it is still more fully carried out. The Apostle shows the Corinthians, that the analogy between the two Ministries was such as to raise the Christian Ministry immeasurably superior to the Jewish, both in privilege and power. What Jewish Priest could ever use such exalted language as St. Paul had employed concerning the punishment of sin? (1 Cor. v. 5.) or its pardon? (2 Cor. ii. 10, 11, 15.) And so he declared his Ministry to be much superior to that of Moses himself. (2 Cor. iii. 7.) “If the Ministration of condemnation (the Jewish Ministry) be glory, how much more doth the Ministration of righteousness (the Christian) exceed in glory? For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of that which excelleth; for if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” Moses, he further shows, had a “veiled,” we an “unveiled” Ministry. “We all with unveiled face, beholding as in a glass, the glory of the Lord.” (v. 18.) “We preach not ourselves,” indeed, he adds, “but Christ Jesus the Lord, AND Ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake; for God . . . hath shined in Our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of His glory.” (ch. iv. 6; see also ch. v. 19, 20.)—The promises of abiding grace, “enduring” mercy, and perpetual blessing to the ancient Israel, are commonly enough thought to await fulfilment in the Church: so also, shall not the ancient promises of an everlasting Priesthood, which were not fulfilled to the Jews, be amply fulfilled in the Church?—The One Priesthood of Christ “continueth ever” manifested in His Church according to His will; “not after the law of a carnal commandment, but (απαραβατον) after the power of an endless life.”
Perhaps it may be thought needless to dwell longer on this objection to the doctrine of the proper Ministry of the Church. The other objections, however, which are commonly urged, are of so similar a character as to be partly answered already, by what has been said. It may be useful, nevertheless, to bestow a few more remarks on them. Some who scarcely like to object to the Doctrine of the Ministry in open terms, are given to speak of the “Succession” as a “carnal” doctrine, though without clearly showing us any other doctrine to supply its place. It would be well for those who lightly adopt such language, if they would weigh its meaning, before they make such use of it. If by calling the Succession a “carnal” doctrine, they mean that the doctrine is very different from, and perhaps inconsistent with all that they take to be “spiritual,” there is nothing very fearful in the charge. Only it is scarcely consistent with Christian humility to adopt from Scripture a term of opprobrium, in order to make of it a private use of our own. Such objectors may be reminded that there were some in the Church of Corinth, who took themselves to be “spiritual” enough to dispute the Apostle’s directions in some Church matters. And St. Paul replied simply by asserting his Ministerial authority, however “carnal” that might be thought. His words are, “If any think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) At all events the charge of “carnality” ought to be a little explained, that we may know what meaning to affix to it. In what sense, for instance, the “Doctrine of laying on of hands,” can be called carnal, and not also the doctrine of “Baptism by water?”
But there are those who somewhat modify this objection, and say, that our doctrine is too “technical” to be worthy of a Divine Revelation. That is to say, it is unworthy of the spirituality and dignity of Christ’s religion to be thus necessarily allied to outward and sensible forms. But surely this is as pure an assumption, as all the other objections which have been considered. At least, it remains to be proved; and so far as the analogy of God’s previous dealing with mankind may guide us, we should be inclined perhaps to a very different conclusion. What, for instance, could be more “technical” than the Scriptural account of the sin of Adam? The moral aspect of the offence is not dwelt on; it is simply presented to us as a disobedience of a set injunction, a failure in formal allegiance.—What, again, could be more “technical” than the acceptable sacrifice of Abel?—Or the trial of Abraham’s faith?—And might we not point in a similar way to the whole system established by God among the Jews?—Or let the more Spiritual institute of “Prophecy” be considered. There was much in it that would now be thought very “technical.” The prophet Balaam, [93a] though an unholy man, had power to “bless and curse;” there was a potency in his word. And then we read of the “schools of the prophets.” And the Spirit of Prophecy seemed poured out in so technical and systematic a way, that there were certain places, and hours, and modes, [93b] in which the Spirit was in active energy, in such wise that strangers who came near were affected by it. So we read, that king Saul and his messengers, when they came to the company of prophets at Ramah, all began likewise to prophesy; (1 Sam. xix. 23.) just as Saul himself had done on another occasion, previous to his anointing (ch. x. 10). Or, to come to a later period, how “technical” does the Ministry of the Baptist appear throughout! And yet our Lord submitted to his “technical” Baptism, saying, “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” And surely we might make the same kind of remarks on the whole life of our Lord Himself. Look at the formal Genealogies at the beginning.—Is it not a strangely “technical” appointment, that a grace so divine as that which redeemed mankind must needs flow through the line of David? And be recorded so scrupulously, as though each link of the chain were important?—And in all that Christ did, is there not much that might by some be called “technicality?” His conformity to the Jewish ritual: His temptation, His replies to the Jews, His difficulties, questions, and dark sayings, and many of His miracles, might surely by many be so esteemed. [94] And then again, His Church and Sacraments: and His injunctions to the Apostles; as that, to “begin at Jerusalem” in their preaching, which they technically obeyed to the letter. (Acts xiii. 46.) But enough is plain, surely, from all this to show us that the technical nature of an institution may be no objection whatever to the Divine sanction of it. At all events, the contrary is an assumption requiring proof. Nay, further; if it be true, that man’s sight cannot at present endure the light of unveiled truth, then it may be that some sort of technical expression of truth might even be expected in a Divine revelation. God manifests Himself “in part,” and “in part” He shrouds Himself from us still.
But after all that has been said, there will be some who will rejoin: If this doctrine were of so great an importance, why is there not some much plainer statement about it in Scripture—something, that is, which might put it beyond doubt? It might be worth considering in reply to this, whether such a question does not arise from a complete misapprehension of the nature and design of the Inspired Volume? But, in any case, it is evident that the Socinian, or even the Infidel might easily ask the very same thing. The Scripture testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity, plain as we think it, is evidently not so plain as to prevent doubts and differences of opinion. Can that be a valid objection against the doctrine of the Succession, which is none whatever against the Trinity? The Arians of the fourth age would gladly have accepted of any thing in “Scripture-terms,” and pleaded hard for leaving the truth of the Trinity in a (so called) “Scriptural” vagueness of expression. But the Catholic Church determined otherwise. And Her interpretation of those Scriptures which contain the Apostolical Succession, is quite as uniform and unequivocal as of those which contain the truth of the Holy Trinity.
Here, while leaving this class of objections also, (raised, like the former, on pure assumptions) we must not omit to remind any who are trying by the aid of such objections to rid themselves of the Catholic truth, that there is, at best, a fearful uncertainty in the course which they are so pursuing—an uncertainty which seems not to have one solid advantage of any kind to recommend it.—But now before terminating our remarks on the manifold objections of men to this truth of God, it is important perhaps to make reference to some of the supposed, and the real Consequences of admitting this Apostolical Doctrine. In speaking of these, perhaps, our opponents manifest less knowledge and more unfairness, than with respect to any other of the topics in debate. The utmost pains are often taken to make out, on the ground of our “exclusiveness,” a case of bigotry, superstition, and intolerance. So that there is the more occasion to direct attention to these, which, imaginary as they are, form, nevertheless, the most cogent objections in the popular mind.
In the first place, whoever puts forth any statement concerning any subject, as the truth, necessarily implies that a different statement would be false; and therefore liable to all the consequences of the falsehood. Whatever is put forth as Truth, is necessarily exclusive. And is the Catholic doctrine more chargeable with “exclusiveness,” on this ground, than the doctrine of any party, or even individual?—When any man says that he thinks himself right in any matter, he virtually says that those who differ from him are wrong. And as to the future consequences of being wrong; it will scarcely be denied, that the Sectarians are generally far more reckless in pronouncing judgments on that matter than we.
The popular shape in which this objection is most successfully brought forward is, That the doctrine of the Succession “unchurches” all the Protestant communities of Christendom, which are not Episcopal. This is exaggerated and represented as the very acme of intolerance, and equivalent to a judgment on our part that they must all necessarily perish everlastingly. It is melancholy to see the art with which this misrepresentation is brought forward to check any half-formed conviction of the truth, such as arises from a candid review of the unanswerable Evidence. It only shows us that there are some minds which it is hopeless to attempt to convince.