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.

Now all this examination of evidence, satisfactory as it is in the result, is very far from being that easy and off-hand way of “proving the truth of the Scriptures” which untaught people vaguely imagine to be possible and even necessary. A similar series of remarks might be made on the verification of the Sacraments of the Church, as being the same as those originally instituted by our Lord, and ever practised by His people. But, passing now to our immediate subject, it will not be difficult to see that the Apostolicity of the Ministry, if fairly examined with equal patience, admits of the SAME kind of proof, as either the Sacraments or the Scriptures of the Church. Indeed there scarcely seems a possibility of any traditive truth being supported by stronger evidence than we have for the fact of the Succession; so that if this be not true, it appears impossible to say what proof we could ever have to substantiate any such fact.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.

We learn from Eusebius, that the Apostles selected various parts of the world as the separate fields of their labour. And wherever there was an Apostle, there was one who had the power (which he did not neglect to use) of transmitting the grace of the Ministry of Christ; consequently there must have been several lines of Ministerial Succession from the first. Probably every Apostle ordained some, as “overseers,” “presidents,” of Churches; and so became an originator, not of one, but of several, lines of Apostolical grace. If each of the Twelve had ordained but one, there would still have been twelve such lines Apostolical: but since the indefatigable Apostles doubtless did much more than this, there must have been many Ministerial lines, from the very first. We are putting ourselves therefore in a very false position when, in arguing with Romanists, we allow them tacitly to assume, as they seem to do, that there was but one line of Apostolic Ministration transmitted from the beginning. But this error will be more apparent by examining farther.

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.