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.

Now we do not in the least question that all this, taken in connexion with the Internal excellence of The Volume, is very good evidence for the generality to rely on.  It is just as good as, or perhaps better than, they can get for any fact of history, or common knowledge, or daily life.  It is not demonstration—but it is sufficient, probable evidence—such as men take and act upon in every other matter, without thinking it a hardship, or unsafe.  And we affirm that this is just the kind and amount of evidence which any man in this country may have either for the Apostolic Sacraments, or the Apostolic Ministry of the Church.  He knows that his Church is the Church of his forefathers; and that they were baptized in it by her Ministers, before meeting-houses were thought of; that the learned and the good have abounded in it, as all allow; and that even those who depart from it, generally retain some similar outward forms both of Sacraments and Ministry, though (consciously and candidly) they own them to be then without any necessary grace in them.  So that he regards his Church as a FACT borne witness to on all hands; a sure and stable REALITY.  Over and above all which, there is an Internal evidence also of Catholic Truth, which the humble and obedient surely possess at length. (John vii. 17.)  For the Catholic Church teaches that the Baptismal grace of Regeneration, if watered by prayer and holy teaching, will at length expand into a certainty of persuasion of Her sacred institutes, (Prov. iv. 18; 2 Tim. i. 12.) which heresy will labour vainly to destroy.  A blessed feeling, akin to the indestructible reverence of a child for its Mother, from whose lips the first words of prayer were learned, and the first peaceful hopes of heaven.

But, going beyond this case, take that of a man who can enter with sufficient care into the literary evidences of the truth of the Bible.  If skilled in its languages, he will go at once to the printed editions of the originals.  Then he must inquire, from what manuscripts the received text was printed?  And he will find it stated, that that of the New Testament, for instance, is one of about the year eleven or twelve hundred.  And for that fact he has to rely on the critical skill of certain scholars and editors, some of whom saw the manuscript, and thought it to be of that age.  But next comes the question: where are the ORIGINAL manuscripts?  And it then appears that they are lost.  Then where are the copies first taken? or even soon taken, from the manuscripts? and it seems that these are lost too.  How then is he to prove that the manuscript from which our New Testament is translated is a faithful copy of what was written nearly eighteen hundred years before, and so unfortunately lost?  He has thereupon a laborious task before him.  He must trace, for instance, the various quotations in the writings of the Fathers of the Church; and then compare them with some early translations.  In connexion with which, he might observe the reverence with which Holy Scripture is always treated in the primitive writings; and that the exact names of all the Sacred Treatises are preserved alike, in various places.  And by pursuing these and kindred methods, he will at length arrive at a strong probable conclusion as to the genuineness and authenticity of the Holy Volume: a conclusion continually accumulating in power and becoming at last morally irresistible, and practically equivalent to a demonstration.  He sees, in fact, that there are certain phenomena which can be explained by one hypothesis, and one only, and that therefore that one must be admitted.  The actual state of Christian literature can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of some such Divine treatises as our New Testament at the close of the first century.

So far back indeed as any genuine general records of past events exist, we may boast that our Apostolical records exist.  So that during these latter, which may be called the literary ages of the world, we may trace the existing record of the Succession in our principal dioceses for many centuries.  But this is not the kind of evidence which we could speak of, as so abundantly satisfactory; nor could we esteem it so, even if it reached to the Apostles’ days, and were cleared of all those doubts of its genuineness, which we before alluded to. (page 47.)  It would not be satisfactory, for this simple, though little thought of reason, namely, That a Succession of Bishops in one See, is not and cannot ordinarily be, a succession of one and the same Apostolical line.  So that if, for example, we should produce a list of every Archbishop of Canterbury to the very first, who was consecrated by a French Bishop, and should then add the name of every one that had preceded that French Bishop in his see, up to the Apostles’ days, still we should not have proved the existence of any One line of Apostolical descent.  No single line of Succession confined to a single Church is possible.  Every newly ordained Bishop in every See comes of a new line; and that a threefold line, as we shall presently notice.  In addition to which, it should be borne in mind, that the Succession was transmitted in many lines, even from the beginning.  Endeavour to examine these points more in detail.

Let us endeavour to look at the case both historically and practically, that so we may see not only its past, but also its present bearings.  In so doing we may be led to understand its principle more clearly.  When, at any time, a Bishopric might become vacant in the Church, and a new Bishop was to be consecrated thereto by the “laying on of hands,” by whom was this solemn rite to be performed?  Take, for example, a Bishop of Antioch.  He dies, and a new one is to be consecrated.—Who is to do it?—Several, probably, unite in “laying hands on him” with prayer and fasting. (Acts xiii. 3.)  Suppose one of them to be the Bishop of Alexandria; then the next question must be—Who consecrated him? and those who were his coadjutors at Antioch?  And it might take us to as many different Churches to decide this point, as there were Bishops at that consecration.  By the laws and practice of the Church, [58] it is necessary for three Bishops, if possible, to be present and unite in the Consecration of every new Bishop.  Now suppose another of the three, in the case just given, to have been a Bishop of Rome; then to trace the Apostolical Succession we must proceed to ask, who consecrated that Bishop of Rome?—Not the previous Bishop of Rome; for he, probably and almost invariably, would be dead before his Successor was appointed.  Then, of course it must needs be some foreign Bishop, assisted by two others from different parts of Christendom.  And then the question would widen still farther, as each of their ordinations would have to be examined.  And so the inquiry would have to proceed, widening from Bishop to Bishop, and from Church to Church, till we might arrive, if possible, at the first Apostolic consecration of at least one of the long line, through which the manifold grace had flowed.  Except in the case of the translation of a Bishop from one See to another (a practice unsanctioned by primitive antiquity) it would never happen that the same line of Succession would be at all continued in any one Church, even during two succeeding Episcopates.  And, even in that case, it would be mingled with the Succession of the two other Bishops, who had joined in the new consecration.  Hence a Succession of Bishops in any one Church is not a Succession of the same spiritual line of descent.  Nay, if we had no more to allege than the line of the Bishops of a particular Church, even though we could enumerate them quite up to the Apostles, we should not have proved a valid Succession.  But rather the reverse; because it must have been very possible that some one, or more, of the line might have died suddenly, before the ordaining of the Successor; in which case the Succession would be lost, unless some other Church were applied to.  It is plain that no particular Church, whether in Constantinople, Canterbury, or Rome, can pretend to possess an exclusive line of Apostolic grace.  It is plain that no Church can be strictly said to “derive its orders” from another.  And it only evinces a want of thinking, for any man to say, for example, “that such and such a Church derives its orders from the Church of Rome.”  Every one must have observed the false position in which English Churchmen have allowed themselves to be put, by overlooking this simple point.  They have thus admitted, practically, that the Church of Rome had a private line of Apostolical Succession, of which she could impart to others!—forgetting that the Bishop of Rome himself is necessarily indebted to the Bishops of three other Churches for his own consecration. [60]  The Succession is and must be Catholic, coming through all the Bishops of the Holy Church throughout all the world.  And in this lies our security.  Just as our persuasion of the genuineness of the Scriptures arose, not from our seeing the originals, or the earliest copies, but from the united testimony and criticism of Christian men; so our conviction of the validity and necessity of the Succeeding Ministry results from a like Catholicity of testimony.  Here too, as with the Scriptures, we have unquestioned phenomena, (the whole history of the Catholic world,) which can only be explained by admitting the fact.  The Church of Rome has no more preserved our Orders, than she has our Bibles.  And in this fact lies our chief security, that no particular Church, in Rome or elsewhere, has the Succession in its keeping, so as to be able either to keep it, or fatally corrupt it; for it is Catholic.

And further: That very intricacy of the interwoven Catholic line, which renders it so impracticable a thing to trace the individual private Succession of any Bishop upwards to the Apostles, gives it an amassed mightiness, and hitherto uncalculated strength, when tracked downwards from the beginning.  The twelve Apostles began it, by ordaining the first Bishops; and when in the very next generation the practice became established, of three Bishops assisting at every fresh consecration, it was at once morally impossible to pervert, or intercept the grace Apostolical.  In the very next generation any three Bishops who came to a fresh Ordination, would each bring a three-fold Succession, so as to convey the Grace which had flowed through nine different Churches.  The difficulty of failure would thence be still further augmented in the next generation, and the next.  And what would be even at so early a stage, a moral impossibility, would needs go on accumulating from age to age.  So that if at any time by any possibility, the Church’s vigilance was defeated, and one of the ordaining Bishops was of doubtful Apostolicity, there were two more united with him, and so preserving the grace of the institute. [62a]  This was in accordance with the very first of the extant Apostolical Canons, [62b] which enacts, “Let a Bishop be ordained by two or by three Bishops” (and the larger number was almost invariably required).  The strictness with which this was kept up, is borne witness to alike by Fathers, [63a] and Councils, and Historians, from the very beginning.  And if this were not unequivocally and universally the case, (as it certainly is, so as to make quotation and reference seem like affectation,) it would be easy to bring abundant and overbearing evidence of another kind.  For the watchful care and pains of all the Churches in the matter of Ordinations is just as notorious, as that Christianity existed and prevailed in the world.  The very faults of the early Christians, no less than their virtues, contributed to secure the Succession.  Far indeed from lethargy were those times.  Abounding heresies, mutual jealousy, and religious zeal, all combined to augment the Church’s watchfulness.  And, above all, the vigilantly sustained Discipline, by which the whole community was so interwoven, that the greatest and smallest affairs of Christian concern were alike communicated to the whole body.  Not only would any new ordination be known in each of the three Churches from which the ordaining Bishops came; but it was very presently notified also to the Metropolitans [63b] by Episcopal letters.  And beyond this, the election of a Bishop was a matter well known, and publicly canvassed.  It was not a thing which (like the Canon of Scripture) might have been for a time kept to themselves, by the learned.  No, the common people knew perfectly of the transaction.  An infraction of an Apostolic rule, even in a minor point, was clamorously echoed from Church to Church, so that it was rarely ventured on; much less would it be suffered in any important thing.  Even evil men in their day were obliged to conform to the outward rules of the faithful; or they found an universal outcry against them.  The State had then nothing to do with the matter; and the people (such was their temper and disposition) would have thought of owning a heathen for a Bishop, as soon as a man not duly ordained.  Nay, there was even a holy emulation among the Churches; in consideration of which we might in a qualified sense, admit an additional kind of sacredness and certainty, so to speak, in the Succession of those Episcopates, which were noted for peculiar carefulness; as in the Ante-Nicene times that of Alexandria appears to have been.

So was it from the first.—And in every subsequent generation of Christians, as we thus see, the intricacy of the Succession, and consequently the difficulty of breaking it, would be more and more intensely augmented; as if indeed utterly defying the unfaithfulness or fraud of man to set it aside.  Whatever else has at any time been charged against the Catholic Church, it has never been said, that she failed in duly Ordaining her Bishops; and even if this could be shown, still a failure in one part would not touch the rest. [65a]  To break up the Succession of the Apostolic Ministry nothing less, indeed, seems to be required than a self-destroying conspiracy of the Church Universal.

We possess then all the Evidences of this illustrious fact, which human testimony can furnish, or human industry bring together.  Universal witnesses to support it; and not one against it.—Scriptures,—Canons,—Councils,—Fathers,—and Churches,—the learned and the common people—all evidencing one thing; and even heretics and infidels not denying it as fact;—a fact too, which they are forced to see has gathered and still shall gather fresh mightiness, as centuries roll on! [65b]  For on the heads of the present Bishops of the Church Universal, there rests the concentrated grace of all the Apostles.  And this One Institute—the Ministry of Christ now stands, [66] as at first Divinely set up, an abiding monument of the truth, that He who determined by the “weakness” and “foolishness” of preaching to save them that believe, has manifested that the “foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God stronger than men.”—The things which man in all his wisdom contrived, eighteen hundred years ago, are departed like shadows.  What God ordained remains, and shall “till the consummation of the world.”

Would that the thought of this stupendous grace might ever dwell with each Bishop of the Church Universal, that those words of promise which are the charter of the perpetuity, and the power which Christ hath given might accompany them, as if ever and anon spoken by a heavenly voice,—to elevate, console, and awe their inmost spirit,—“Lo, I AM WITH YOU!”—Nay, what thoughts of glory and majesty may well possess us all! when, putting aside the thankless debates, and presumptuous questionings of men, there rises before our mind’s eye the august vision of the “whole family in heaven and earth;” existing as for ever One to The Omniscient Eye, yet mysteriously passing through the long and varying successions of time, age after age; ministered unto throughout, by One succeeding Priesthood, [67] ever subsisting “after the power of an endless life,” and so holding together all the members of the eternal family, the living and the dead, in mystic fellowship and communion, even reaching to a “fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ!”  Seems it not too great a thought for mind of man to take in, in all its sublime fulness?—And has it not some holy influence, forcing from us the exclamation of felt unworthiness—‘Alas! for what we are,—and what we should be?’—It is as if (with earth’s pollutions yet unwashed from our spirits) we were borne upwards in vision even “to heaven-gate,” and bidden by the Angel of an Apocalypse to look in, and see, though from far, the eternal wonders, behold the forms of distant glory, and feel, though but for a moment, the thrilling air of heaven’s own Holiness.

III.
THE OBJECTIONS.

From the Epistle. [69]—“Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one towards another, according to Christ Jesus.  That ye may with One mind and One mouth glorify God.”—Rom. xv. 5.

Our object in the present Lecture will, I trust, be the same as that of the Apostle’s prayer in these words . . .

To confirm the truth of a doctrine, it cannot be supposed necessary to answer all objections and difficulties which ingenuity might raise, for in that case, perhaps, no doctrine would ever be established at all.  But when any particular truth has been reasonably set forth and defended, it is a kind of farther recommendation of it with the many to show, that it is not in reality surrounded by such serious difficulties as might, at first sight, be supposed.  Of course it is not right in any man to suspend his belief of a proved truth, simply because it seems to be attended by some difficulties; still we must deal with human nature as we find it; and the majority do not appear to have that bold and honest mind which will maintain right principles in defiance of all obstacles.  Neither have they that lofty faith in God which will trust Him in the face of seeming improbabilities.  Therefore, surely, it is a Christian thing to endeavour, now as far as we are able, to remove such difficulties as obstruct the faith of some, concerning the Ministry of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: only premising that our object here is not to prove the truth, but to facilitate its reception.  The truth of the Apostolical Succession, being confirmed by foregone proof, cannot, however, be affected by the measure of our success in clearing up difficulties.

It would be a very vain waste of time to attempt to answer many light and frivolous objections; for so far as they are really stumbling blocks to any, they will soon be removed when the doctrine itself is at all understood.  Necessarily there will seem to arise from time to time numberless minor points which, however, any man whose judgment is worth convincing would soon be able to explain for himself.  In such proportion as a man apprehends the truth, or, if I may so express it, perceives the spirit and scope of the Catholic Religion, he will come to see, at a glance, the answer which, on Catholic principles, would be given to such and such difficulties.  This is the Divine reward of an abiding humble faith.

The Objection which requires, perhaps, the least trouble and information to make, (and from its indistinctness is rather difficult to grapple with,) and which, therefore, is more frequently employed than any other, is founded on a charge of general and fatal Corruption of Christianity in the middle ages.  Granting, it is said, the fact, that there was an unbroken Succession of Bishops in the Church Catholic from the beginning, still the gross and palpable corruption which so extensively pervaded the Church for ages, was quite sufficient to rob the Succession of all spiritual value.  Now this wide and gratuitous assertion might fairly be met by asking the objector—how he comes to know this?—How he comes to be so sure that personal human corruption would wholly obstruct the super-human grace of a Divine institution?  How he arrives at such a certainty that the grace of God is not mightier than the sin of man?  How he can be so sure that “where sin abounded,” grace did not “much more abound?”  At the best, his objection rests on an unproved assumption in principle—an assumption too, directly at variance with our experience of God’s past dealings with man; as the history of the Jewish people bears witness.  It would be difficult, as we remarked in our last Lecture, to find any parallel in the history of the Christian Church to the godless impieties of the Jewish, during four hundred years previous to Christ’s coming, and yet the anointing oil of the Priesthood was not inefficacious, nor even the Prophetical gifts withdrawn, up to the time of the Advent.  Even Christ’s persecutor Caiaphas “prophesied, being High Priest that year.”  It is, therefore, quite unsatisfactory, at the least, to take for granted in this way, that general Corruption would have totally destroyed the grace of Apostolic Succession.  The utmost that can, with any show of fairness, be pretended is, that it might have done so: and even this ought surely to be proved and not barely assumed as it here is.  And even supposing that this were proved, then there would be one thing more to be shown, namely, that the amount of corruption in the Church had really, in point of fact, reached that height, which would overwhelm the grace of Her instituted Ministry.  And how this could be certainly proved, even if true, it seems hard to say.  In the nature of things, it would ever remain a point uncertain to man, and known to God alone.  Our objectors, therefore, must assume this point too.  And without, perhaps, being much justified in their assumption by the facts of history.  For while a lofty moral sense is recognized among men, and so long as humility and self-devotion to God, and disinterested, even though untaught, zeal, are reckoned Christian virtues,—so long, in spite of party misrepresentations, will the great body of our Christian forefathers, lay and clerical, in the middle ages bear honourable comparison with us their overweening children.  There is more of the spirit of pride than the spirit of Christ—more of party vanity than of Catholic generosity—more of historical ignorance than of philosophical wisdom, in these self-congratulatory comparisons between our meagre conflicting, though (if you will) enlightened, “systems” of Religion and the One high-minded faith, and chivalrous piety, and unsystematized benevolence of our less instructed ancestors.—At all events, the vague objections drawn from these intangible charges of general corruption, very plainly rest on two unproved assumptions—one of the principle and one of the fact.  And this, perhaps, is all that is necessary to be shown.  For is not the Succession itself a fact of sufficient magnitude to make us pause before we say, it is WORTH NOTHING?  This undeniable fact which we allege; this Succession of Christ’s Apostolic Ministry; this, God’s sustained marvel of eighteen hundred years, is assailed by man’s bare assertion, ‘that it has been SUSTAINED FOR NOTHING.’

But from among these general charges of Corruption, there sometimes is one singled out, as of a magnitude too great to be doubtful, and to the believer in Revelation too malignant to be of questionable effect: the charge, I mean, of Idolatry.  If there were nothing else, it is said, to impede the spiritual grace of the Succession, the Idolatry prevalent in the Churches of the Roman Communion would be amply sufficient.  And in proof of this, the case of the Jewish Church is confidently quoted, and the fierce denunciations uttered and executed against God’s favoured people for this especial sin, beyond all others.  Now here too we seem to have some unproved assumptions; as well as some false reasoning from the analogy of the Jewish people.  First of all there is the assumption which we have previously noticed, namely, that there is an amount of personal human sin which fatally cuts off, or obstructs, the instituted channels of Divine grace; which has never yet been proved.  Then there is the assumption that idolatry is the specific sin whose guilt would have this effect.  And this may possibly be true—when the first assumption is made good—but as yet, this has not been proved.  And then there is the third assumption, that the Church in the middle ages was so fully and universally guilty of this sin of idolatry, as to cut off the virtue of the Apostolic Succession for ever.  And I need hardly say that this has not been proved, for it must in any case remain a doubtful point—beyond our power to settle for certain.  And yet how unheedingly these three assumptions are made use of in the arguments so resolutely and thanklessly urged from the parallel circumstances of the Jews.  In the first place it is assumed that the grace of the Jewish institutions was so cut off as to be lost on account of idolatry, in the times before Christ; which cannot be shown. (Rom. xi. 29.)  For even if it be shown that that Divine grace was quite suspended during a season of idolatry, it would still be certain, that when the Idolatry was repented of and forsaken, the grace reflowed through the accustomed channels of the Mosaic Institutes.  And in spite of all past idolatries, it had not been wholly cut off even at the time of the Coming of Christ.  In the next place there is a false assumption concerning the sin of idolatry itself; which seems to have been so severely visited as it was, because it was the specifically forbidden sin, the protesting against which was one great special object of the national existence of the Jews amidst a godless world.  It was not, surely, that God abhorred idol worship more than murder, or uncleanness, or injustice; but it was, that “in Judah was God to be known”—the one God—the forgotten God—amidst Gentile polytheism, until the Coming of The Great Mediator.  Every Divine interference with that nation seemed to bear this as its reason, “That all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.”—“The Lord, He is the God!  The Lord He is the God!” (Joshua iv. 24; 1 Kings viii. 42, 43; Psalm lx. throughout, &c.)  Idolatry in that nation had a heinousness beyond all other sin.  And great as the guilt of idolatry must ever be, yet it can hardly be called in the same sense, the specific design of the existence of the Christian Church, to protest against that sin beyond all others.  And until this can be made good, the strict parallel cannot be established.  In the third place, there is a further assumption of an actual analogy of sinfulness in this particular, between the Jewish and Christian Churches, which is not borne out by facts.  Jewish idolatry implied a voluntary and intentional abandonment of the worship of Jehovah.  Now this can in no wise be affirmed of the worst idolatry of the Romish Hierarchy.  No one will say that the Churches in communion with Rome, ever intended to abandon the worship of God, for the sake of Angels and Saints.  It may be safely and truly said, that their reverence paid to images, and their invocations of saints and angels, are of an idolatrous nature, and calculated to lead, and have led, to idolatry in the common people; but it would be unreasonable and untrue to say, that the sin of the Church of Rome in this matter was the same sin as that of the Jews when they deliberately abandoned the worship of God.  And, therefore, we cannot argue from the one to the other.

If we thus look into this objection fairly, we must see how very little it amounts to.  It depends throughout on unproved assumptions.  And so far as we may take the analogy in the case of the Jewish Church, it tells directly against the objection.  For there cannot be shown more, at most, than a suspension of the grace of the Mosaic Institutes.  And if even Jewish idolatry, when repented of, was no impediment to the reflux of the Divine blessing, so it might be in the Christian Church, even if it could be proved universally guilty of the very sin of the Jews—which it cannot be.  In different ages, and at different places, some Churches, in communion with Rome, have paid a highly sinful honour to Saints and their images.  The amount of such honour has varied greatly in degree, being more or less sinful, at different times and places; yet at the worst, it was never universal, in any essentially idolatrous degree.  And even if it had been, there would only (if the analogy were ever so strictly borne out) be a suspension of still latent Apostolic grace, which any branches of the Church might, on repentance, again enjoy.  Far be it from us indeed to palliate the sin, or the danger, of the idolatrous practices of the present Church of Rome, but let a legitimate and not a superficial estimate thereof be made.  Instead of being misled by words, let us look to principles.  We are bound to protest against all which draws off the heart from the true God and only Saviour Jesus Christ; and therefore against Idolatry in all its forms.  The Churches throughout the world, in communion with that of Rome, have conformed to the practices of the ungodly world in one way; but so have we in another.  And as the heathenish conformities and superstitions of Romanists are condemned by St. Paul, when he forbids Christians even to “eat of things offered to idols;” so the infidel coldness and individual selfishness of many Protestants are equally condemned, when we are bidden to flee from covetousness, “which is idolatry.”  Whether, with some, we make idols of a particular Church and the Saints,—or with others, make idols of Private Judgment and Mammon, we are alike guilty.  Let there be no rude, impatient haste in judging of any Christians.  So long as God bears with us, we may well bear with one another.  Idolatry, worse than the Romish, was sanctioned by some of the Churches of Asia.  But still they were addressed as “Churches.”  That very sanction of actual heathen idolatry, which the Churches had been warned against, they were guilty of allowing.  Of both Pergamos and Thyatira it is said in sharp rebuke, that they permitted some among them “to eat of things offered to idols,” which almost amounted to an admission of those heathen gods.  And yet, as Churches still, they are warned to “repent and do the FIRST works,” lest God should be provoked to “remove their candlestick out of his place.”  So it was not removed as yet.—While the Church Catholic endures perpetually, God cuts off from time to time its irrecoverably corrupt branches.  But it is for God, not us, to do it.  And with this, let us dismiss the Objection concerning Idolatry.

One further Objection which we shall notice, as connected with the Fact of the Succession, is that which is urged, though in very different senses, against our own Church in particular, by Romanists on the one hand, and Sectarians on the other; both anxious to deny us the possession of that grace of Apostolical Ministry, which the former desire to monopolize, and the latter to set at nought altogether.  ‘If (say they with somewhat of ambiguity of expression) the Succession is in the Church Catholic, they who are in a state of Schism, cannot be considered to possess it.’  Now if we were to admit this position exactly as they state it, they would then have to prove us Schismatics, with respect to the Church Catholic, before they could, on this ground, invalidate our Succession.  But, in truth, the objection ought to be a little more carefully looked into.  The sin of Schism admits of various degrees.  Of course, if it be clearly made out that any part of the Church is (not partly torn only, but) totally severed from the Body Catholic, it follows, that that part has not that Sacramental grace which the Church alone possesses.  But it is certain that in its fullest sense, even Romanists, acknowledging, as they do, Lay-baptism, could not thus cut off as totally Schismatic, all who are not of their communion;—all the Churches of the East, and of the farthest West—The American, the Scotch, and our own.  And the Sectarians cannot, for very shame, deny us a place in the Universal Church.  That very liberality which they need for their own sakes will afford us some shelter too.  And as to the special charge of heinous Schism urged against us in the particular matter of our Reformation; if we admit it, as fully, as any party can afford to urge it, it could not go the length of invalidating our Orders Apostolical.  The Church Catholic anathematized us not; but only the Bishop of Rome, who had not any right or power so to do, [81a] but was himself Schismatical and Anti-christian in attempting it; as St. Irenæus might have taught him.  The Church Catholic we would have been content to be judged by. [81b]  We appealed to a General Council, and after wearisome denial and delay, and artifice, they offered us the mockery of Trent.  About a hundred and fifty years after our Reformation, we were recognized as a Church by the Greek Church: [82a] though the attempt to unite us with them in one Communion unhappily failed.  At the time of our Reformation, notwithstanding much temptation, much carelessness, and much sin, our Apostolical Succession seemed marvellously guarded, as by a heavenly hand.  The documents are as plain, the facts as sure, as history, invidiously sifted, can make them; so that the candid Romanist and the learned Jesuit cannot deny them.  Let any one examine it for himself.  Any man, who will deal fairly with facts, will be obliged to own that there have been greater confusions and Schisms [82b] in the see of Rome itself, than in the see of Canterbury.—But they who go the length of affirming a cessation of Apostolic grace in any particular Church or branch of a Church on the ground of total Schism, from the whole body of Christ, must excuse us if we ask them for proof of their assertion; and tell them, that until it is proved, we must treat it as a pure (though a very convenient) assumption.

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.

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.