The Feast of St. Andrew. Not justly so; because in writing to his own people, there was not perhaps the same necessity for vindicating his apostolate. See Notes. No. I. Philippians ii. 22. 25. They who would wish to investigate this subject further, may find it fully treated in Leslie’s “Case of the Regale and Pontificate.” See Newman’s History of the Arians, p. 347. Quoted by Leslie, from Bp. Burnet, p. 30. It has been well remarked, that the consequence of allowing it to be said “that we are a Parliamentary Church,” has been, that the higher ranks among us are verging towards Deism, and the lower to Fanaticism. The former, not believing that there can be much Divine in a religion which they can shape and modify as they please in the Senate. And the other, seeing nothing very “scriptural,” or heavenly, in a “State-made” Creed. The first week in Advent. This prophecy seems taken by the ancient Fathers to refer to the Holy Eucharist. It may be sufficient perhaps to refer to “Hey’s Threefold Ministry,” as a synopsis of the Scriptural view of the subject. See Bishop Hall’s Episcopacy by Divine right. See Notes, No. II. Originating probably from a literal interpretation of Matt, xviii. 20. Just as the bowing at The Blessed Name seems derived, by Catholic and pious practice taking literally Philippians ii. 10. And our false position is frequently increased by our tacitly admitting the popular antithesis between ourselves and the continental Churches, which are taken in a mass—and called, all together, “The Church of Rome!”—Thus we practically overlook the fact, That the Church of Rome is one particular Italian Church: and so increase our own apparent difficulty. See Notes, No. II. Of the authenticity of the first fifty at least of the Apostolical Canons, there can now be no doubt. They consist of those rules which had grown up in the Church in the Apostles’ days, and the first hundred years after them. They seem to have been composed very early indeed, but gathered together about a hundred years after the death of St. John, (probably, it is said, by Clement of Alexandria) and they are quoted as ancient, about a hundred years later. See the Canons of Nice, and the earlier ones of Ancyra and Neocesarea, in Routh’s edition of the Scriptor. Opus, and the Rel. Sacr. vol. iii., and Tertullian adv. HÆr. c. 36. Such was the extent of discipline indeed, that even common Christians in passing temporarily to another Church, had to take letters of communion from their Bishop. See Notes, No. II. “Per Successiones Episcoporum pervenientem (h. e. Ecclesiam) usque ad nos, judicantes confundimus omnes eos qui quoquo modo . . . prÆter quam oportet colligunt.”—S. IrenÆus, in lib. iii. adversus HÆreses, c. 3. In which may be seen the Evidence of the teaching of Polycarp, St. John’s disciple. “Quis enim fidelis servus et prudens quem constituit Dominus ejus super domum suam ut det cibos in tempore?”—Quod ad Apostolos ceterosque Episcopos et Doctores parabola ista pertineat manifestum est: maxime ex eo quod apud Lucam (cap. xii.) Petrus interrogat dicens, “Ad nos parabolam istam dicis? an ad omnes?”— . . . Ait Apostolus, (ad Cor. c. iv.) “Ita nos existimet homo, ut ministros Christi et Dispensatores Mysteriorum.”—HÎc jam quÆritur inter dispensatores ut fidelis quis inveniatur, &c.—Origen. in Matth. Tractat. xxxi. See the next Lecture, towards the close. The second week in Advent. See the Nicene Canons. See Jewel’s Apology. And again, virtually, by the Gallicans. This is worthy of their consideration who are apt to be too disheartened at the divisions in the English Church. When the Popedom was a disputed matter for seventy years, what could the plain Catholic laity have thought? It was impossible to avoid the anathema of one Pope or the other, both pretending to infallibility. See Notes No. III. Such, for instance, as those glanced at in p. 47, 48, and referred to in Notes No. II. and III. Connected with this part of the subject few books are so important to be read as “Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice.” See also, among others, that striking passage, Rom. xv. 15.## See Notes No. I. 1 Kings xxii. 24. As, for instance, the cure of the blind man, by the clay. Or that of the lepers. Sermons on Baptism, Absolution, and the Eucharist. Bp. Hall’s Episcopacy by Divine Right, p. 6. See Jewel, and Hooker. Ed. Keble. And Notes, No. IV. “Non sumus adeo felices.” Words of the President of the Synod of Dort. Melanchthon Ep. Luthero, quoted by Bishop Hall. A parallel case, to a certain extent, may be seen in Judges xvii. 5, 6, 13. &c. The priesthood of the Lord was associated partly with idolatrous worship. Micah had graven images and teraphim, yet he, with a Levite for a Priest, was partly blessed by God. It is not for us to say how far God may bless those who are not strictly obeying Him; nevertheless we must not calculate on this. Obedience is still a duty. That is; Many who have departed and joined the sects in sincerity and ignorance, may be attributing to human causes that re-invigoration of spiritual life, which is but the forgotten Baptismal grace of Christ, mercifully “in them, springing up to everlasting life.” (John iv. 14; John vii. 38, 39.) This may be also, one of God’s means of humbling and reforming His too careless Church. John iii. 5.—The ordinary “entrance to the Kingdom.” Matt. xx. 22.; and perhaps 1 Cor. xv. 29. Rom. x. 10. (which conveys the principle); and Luke xxiii. 42. Our own Church recognizes this doctrine; speaking in her Baptismal Office of the “great necessity of the Sacrament where it may be had;” and in the Catechism of its “general necessity.” Christ affirmed generally the necessity of being “born of water,” as the preliminary of “entrance to His kingdom,” yet He promised admission thereto to the dying thief, who confessed Him with a penitent heart. Acts x. 35. See, on this subject, and generally, on the danger of Schism, S. Jerome’s Ep. 69, &c. And concerning the peril of departing from the Bishops Catholic, see S. Ignatius ad Smyrn. ad Trall, et ad Phil. Ephesians iv. 8–12. 1 Cor. xi. 10. The Feast of St. Thomas. See the former series of “Parochial Lectures,” On The Holy Catholic Church, Lecture IV. p. 113, &c. in which I have explained this more fully. See Lect. I. page 27. Of course there were some that disputed even in their own days the Power of the Apostles themselves.—See 2 Tim. iv. 10, 16; 3 John 10. The Apostles shrank not from asserting their own “POWER which the Lord had given them to edification”—“A Spirit of POWER and of love”—“Not that I have not POWER,”—said St. Paul, (2 Thess. iii. 9.) The manner in which modern sectarians sometimes profess to recognise “only the kingship and headship of Christ,” affords a striking proof of this; for no one misunderstands them, as some did the Apostles, by supposing them to be establishing a temporal rule. The Apostolic system evidently had that in it, which furnished some apparent ground for such a mistake; and so also the Catholic Church is sometimes charged with “interfering with the State.” Apost. Can. 37. Ed. ColoniÆ, 1538. See the Homily of our Church, on the Common Prayer and Sacraments. And Notes No. II. Called, therefore, “the s??a???” in the early Church. A similar principle seems hinted, John vii. 22. This may perhaps throw some light on Tertullian’s meaning in a passage quoted by Bishop Kaye, (p. 226.) The word “consessus” seems to allude to the expression of our Lord, “where two or three are gathered together;” indeed in the same connexion, he quotes this very text. And I would suggest, that Tertullian’s argument in this place, however ill expressed, may perhaps imply, and certainly requires no more than is stated above, viz. that the Sacerdotal grace was primarily or essentially in the Church, and not originally in the persons of any individuals as such. See Notes, No. V.
