It seems alike congruous to human nature, and consistent with every Divine dispensation to say, that man is more effectually influenced by the personal instrumentality of his fellow man, than by any other means. Statesmen and politicians seem to have seen this; and in every age have acted upon it; and have thought it necessary to give their sanction and support to a priesthood, even for the attainment of worldly ends. The lower classes of the community also, bear unequivocal testimony to the same truth—the suitability of the living Priesthood as the effective means of influencing human nature. Even among those classes of our own people, who affect to make light of the authority of the Ministry, it is remarkable how much that authority is felt after all; and how much even the systematic rejecters of the established Priesthood, are accustomed to impute high power and efficacy to the ministrations, and often to the very persons, of their own self-sent ministers. Books have their use—but Man directly influences man, in a more vital way.

And more than this. Some men naturally influence their fellows more than others: and some men Divinely; that is by Divine appointment. It is true, for instance, that by the very necessity of our social nature and condition, we affect one another in a very important degree; and that it is even a duty sometimes to exert our moral influence on our brethren. And the degree in which we are able to accomplish this, will be variously determined. But beyond the natural influence which we thus exercise, there is an instituted influence, as much a matter of fact as the former. Keeping to the religious view of this question only, I would thus further explain:

It is evident that in every age, one man may be a blessing to another, by personally instructing him to the best of his power: or by praying for him, to Almighty God. Every good man may possess this power of mediately blessing his fellow men; but some men more than others.—A Howard may thus bless very “effectually.” And, generally, the “effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” But some there have been in every age, who, according to the Divine testimony, have had POWER to give authoritative blessing. (1 Sam. iii. 19.) Some have been from time to time appointed and endowed by the Deity, “to bless, and to curse, in the name of the Lord.” (1 Chron. xxiii. 13.) Generally this was the assigned function of the Priesthood, and was declared to pertain to them “for ever.” But “from the beginning it was so;” Job blessed his three friends, (Job xlii. 8.) and Noah his sons, (Gen. ix.) and before the Levitical priesthood was set up, Melchisedec “blessed Abraham.” Isaac “blessed Jacob and could not reverse it” though he heartily wished to do so: and Joseph, again, blessed his two sons, officially, and contrary to his own intention. (Gen. xlviii. 9.) Balaam, we see, also, was sent for to “curse” Israel, and he “blessed them altogether,” though he wished not to do it: (Num. xxii. 11.) so that it was no peculiar privilege of the Jewish nation or their ancestors to be able to impart an authoritative blessing. (Matt. xxiii. 3.) And we find the same to hold in the Christian dispensation. (Acts x. 41.) Being reviled “we bless,” said the Apostle. Say “Peace be to this house,” was our Lord’s direction to His Ministers; “and if the Son of peace be there, YOUR PEACE shall rest upon it.” So that at the end of his epistles St. Paul sends his Apostolic blessing “under his own hand.” And “without all contradiction (he argues) the less is blessed of the better.” (Heb. vii. 7. Deut. xxi. 5; xxvii. 14.) All men can pray for blessing, but some can “bless.” So, every man can read “the Absolution,” but “God hath given POWER and commandment to His MINISTERS, to declare and PRONOUNCE it.” (So St. James says, “If any man (not, if any poor man, only, as some seem to take it) be sick, let him call for the Priests of the Church.”)—And this depends not on the goodness of the MAN. A Judas was an Apostle.

Let any one follow out in his own mind these hints; and he will see nothing either unphilosophical or unscriptural in expecting in these days also the blessings of an instituted Priesthood. God’s plan ever is, to use men as instruments of good to men. Revelation has ever recognized such an institute as the living Ministry. All infidelity is an attempt at “codification.”

II.

At the close of the fourth Lecture I have made some observations on the Intention of the Church Catholic, as constituting, in a measure, the essence of the validity of certain of Her Ordinances. It will be difficult to clear this statement from the possibility of misrepresentation, and even misapprehension: I would request that what I have said at p. 128, &c. may be re-read and considered. The Doctrine of Laying on of hands is recognized in Scripture; but there is no command of Christ concerning this, in the same way that there is a command concerning Baptism and the Eucharist. It seems an institute of the Apostles and the Primitive Church; and may perhaps be looked on as an instance of the early exercise of the Church’s inherent power and grace; for the institute certainly received the sanction of Scripture, before the close of the Sacred Canon. So that it would be impossible to say how dangerous it might not be, to depart from the Church’s Ordinance of Laying on of hands. I trust therefore that none will imagine, that what is here said can fairly be made to sanction the loose notion, that any part of the Church Catholic can now voluntarily originate and ordain a Ministry in a new way; and without imposition of hands. The uncertainty, not to say peril of presumption in any such case, will be quite sufficient to guard against the fatal folly of such a thought. How far the grace of the Apostolate is ordinarily now allied even to the very act of “laying on of hands,” it may be impossible to say; still it is important in many respects to observe, that the Laying on of hands is not so strictly of the nature of a proper sacrament, as that the divine grace is always necessarily allied to that form of ordination exclusively. There is advantage in considering that in theory it may not be so, though there could be no safety or certainty in deliberately acting on such a doubtfully understood theory.

Even the Roman Controversialists do not agree that the Laying on of hands is the specifically Sacramental act;—the outward form to which only of necessity the inward grace is allied. Though I cannot help thinking that it would much benefit their argument, if they were agreed on this point. The Doctrine which attributes the essence of Ordination to the uniform Intention of the Church Catholic may be, of course, very easily cavilled at; but still even the Romanist must, to a certain extent, rely on some such Doctrine, and such a Doctrine is that, perhaps, which alone will harmonize the conflicting Roman theories. In its very nature it is a Doctrine which admits not of strict definition. It rises simply out of the truth, that the gifts of Christ were to the Church, and not primarily or inherently in individuals, as such.

This theoretical conception of these ordinances will serve greatly to assist us in meeting a theoretical difficulty, not unfrequently brought against the Doctrine of the Succession. It is said: ‘Is it not very conceivable, after all that has been urged, that during the long course of ages, in some countries at least, some one break in the Apostolic chain might have occurred? Is it not a consequence, in that case, that all subsequent Ordinations would be very doubtful?’ To which we reply, ‘Point out the fact.’ We challenge you to find it; a bare supposition can have but little force as an argument. And then, supposing the fact to be discovered, That a certain Bishop had obtained his place in the Church by invalid means—what is the consequence? Could he perpetuate such an invalid Succession? Certainly not; for in Ordaining others, he would be associated with two other Bishops, whose valid grace would confer true Orders, notwithstanding the inefficacy of the third coadjutor in the Ordination. But, putting the case at the very worst, even if such an instance could be found, it would only affect the condition of the single Church over which the nominal Bishop presided; and that only so far as the particular functions of that Bishop were concerned; and it would be corrected at his death. And all this may be urged in reply even by Romanists. But we who deny Holy Orders to be a proper Sacrament of Christ, can add more than this. We suggest, that in the case of a Bishop obtaining his place in the Church by some invalid means, which the Church had mistaken for valid, the Church’s INTENTION might avail sufficiently, for the time being at least, to counteract the effects of man’s sin; and so give value even to the ministrations of the Church which had been so severely visited, as to have such a Bishop set over them. So we meet the theoretical difficulty by a theoretical answer.

III.

It is not unusual with those who are more anxious to make difficulties than to understand the Catholic truth, to speak of the “vagueness of the rule of S. Vincent,” and the arduousness of the task imposed by the Doctors of the Via Media on all their scholars. That it is easy enough to construct a theoretical difficulty of this sort, no one will question. But it behoves every Christian to consider well, whether any “dilemmas of Churchmen” can be stated which might not (without any very great ingenuity) be turned into ‘Dilemmas of Christians.’ Doubtless it is a trial, (and God intended it to be so, 1 Cor. xi. 19.) to see so many diversities and divisions in the Church; yet candid judges will hardly decide, that English Churchmen have more difficulties of this kind than other men; or that we should be likely to escape similar “dilemmas” by forsaking the Church for any other community. And in spite of the ingenuity of men, common sense will generally understand the practical use and application of S. Vincent’s rule, “Quod semper,” &c. An instance of the ordinary manner of its practical employment, may be seen, to a certain extent, in Lecture II. p. 51, and will suggest at once to the minds of many, the way in which the English Churchman can and does proceed. Difficult as the theory of the Via Media, and the popular recognition of truth by S. Vincent’s test may in theory be made to seem; yet it is, I imagine, practically and as a matter of experience acted on, to a much wider extent, both in our own Church and the Roman, than is commonly noticed, or thought of. In illustration, the twenty-first chapter of St. Luke might be advantageously consulted. Our Lord there assumes (what in fact is daily seen) that heresies should arise. And He tells His people not to follow the “Lo here is Christ!” and “Lo there!” Of course it might always be easy to say—which is the Church?—and, which is the heresy?—The “Lo here!” But that is a difficulty which our Lord did not entertain. It has very little existence in fact and experience. Every man, generally speaking, knows whether he is in “the Church.” Though, of course, there is such a thing as a “strong delusion;” (2 Thess. ii. 11.) The whole of our Lord’s address in this chapter is one which the Catholic Church feels the power of. It is full of “difficulty,” and “uncertainty, and vagueness,” to Sectarians only, who have no test whereby they can be sure that they are not the very persons aimed at by our Lord, as following false and new teachers. It seems to me, that the Sectarian cannot act upon Christ’s directions in this chapter. Nay they must have, to him, all the vagueness and uncertainty which he charges on the Catholic rule. “Keep to the ancient Apostolic way; mind not novelties; ‘Go not after them.’ Keep to the ‘Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,’ in opposition to every ‘Lo here is Christ!’”

IV.

The holy Apostle St. Paul, good children, in the tenth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, writeth on this fashion: “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. But how shall they call on Him on Whom they believe not? How shall they believe on Him of Whom they have not heard? How shall they hear without a preacher? How shall they preach except they be Sent?” By the which words St. Paul doth evidently declare unto us two lessons.

The first is, that it is necessary to our salvation to have Preachers and Ministers of God’s most holy word, to instruct us in the true faith and knowledge.

The second is, that Preachers must not run to this high honour before they be called thereto, but they must be ordained and appointed to this office, and sent to us by God. For it is not possible to be saved, or to please God, without faith; and no man can truly believe in God by his own wit, (for of ourselves we know not what we should believe) but we must needs hear God’s word taught us by other.

Again, the Teachers, except they be called and Sent, cannot fruitfully teach. For the seed of God’s word doth never bring forth fruit, unless the Lord of the harvest do give increase, and by His Holy Spirit do work with the sower. But God doth not work with the preacher whom He hath not sent, as St. Paul saith . . . Wherefore, good children, to the intent you may steadfastly believe all things which God by His ministers doth teach and promise unto you, and so be saved by your faith, learn diligently I pray you, by what words our Lord Jesus Christ gave this commission and commandment to His ministers, and rehearse them here, word for word, that so you may print them in your memories, and recite them the better when you come home. The words of Christ be these:

“Our Lord Jesus breathed on His disciples and said, Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; and whose sins you reserve, they are reserved.”

. . . Now, good children, that you may the better understand these words of our Saviour Christ, you shall know that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He began to preach, He did call and choose His twelve Apostles; and afterward, besides those twelve, He sent forth threescore and ten disciples, and gave them authority to preach the Gospel. And after Christ’s ascension, the Apostles gave authority to other godly and holy men to minister God’s word, and chiefly in those places where there were Christian men already, which lacked preachers, and the Apostles themselves could no longer abide with them: for the Apostles did walk abroad into divers parts of the world, and did study to plant the Gospel in many places. Wherefore where they found godly men, and meet to preach God’s word, they laid they hands upon them, and gave them the Holy Ghost, as they themselves received of Christ the same Holy Ghost to execute this office.

And they that were so ordained, were indeed, and also were called the ministers of God as the Apostles themselves were, as Paul saith unto Timothy. And so the ministration of God’s word (which our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did first institute) was derived from the Apostles, unto other after them, by imposition of hands and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles’ time to our days. And this was the consecration, orders, and unction of the Apostles, whereby they, at the beginning, made Bishops and Priests; and this shall continue in the Church, even to the world’s end.

Wherefore, good children, you shall give due reverence and honour to the Ministers of the Church, and shall not meanly or lightly esteem them in the execution of their office, but you shall take them for God’s Ministers, and the Messengers of our Lord Jesus Christ. For Christ Himself saith in the Gospel, “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.” Wherefore, good children, you shall steadfastly believe all those things, which such Ministers shall speak unto you from the mouth and by the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ. And whatsoever They do to you, as when They BAPTIZE you, when They give you ABSOLUTION, and distribute to you the BODY and BLOOD of our Lord Jesus Christ, these you shall so esteem as if Christ Himself, in His own person, did speak and minister unto you. For Christ hath commanded His ministers to do this unto you, and He Himself (although you see Him not with your bodily eyes) is present with His ministers, and worketh by the Holy Ghost in the administration of His Sacraments. And on the other side you shall take good heed and beware of false and privy preachers, which privily creep into cities, and preach in corners, having none authority, nor being called to this office. For Christ is not present with such preachers, and therefore doth not the Holy Ghost work by their preaching; but their word is without fruit or profit, and they do great hurt in commonwealths. For such as be not called of God, they, no doubt of it, do err, and sow abroad heresy and naughty doctrine.—Cranmer’s “Catechismus.” Edit. 1548. A Sermon of the authority of the Keys.—See also Jewel’s Apology, pp. 28, &c. Ed. 1829.

V.

The arguments used in p. 87, 88, &c. respecting the Priesthood of Christ, still manifesting the One Sacrifice of Christ in the Church, may serve incidentally to illustrate the error of the Romanists respecting both the Priesthood and the Sacrifice. St. Paul certainly implies that an analogy exists between the Ministers and their functions in the respective Churches of the Jews and Christians. And in implying an analogy, he evidently takes for granted that there is not an identity. The Romanist seems to overlook this: his error is truly a Judaizing error; and it seems to result from a virtual forgetfulness, that the ONE great Sacrifice “once for all” has been offered, and that the Christian Priesthood has only continuously to “manifest” it. In speaking of the “Priesthood” of the Church, and the Eucharistic “Sacrifice,” we certainly imply that the Christian Presbyter has truly holy functions to perform, in respect of the great atoning Sacrifice, analogous to those of the Jewish priest: but we must be careful not to make them identical. St. Paul, in the epistle to the Hebrews, evidently assumes the analogy, but his argument is wholly inconsistent with the notion of identity. The Christian Priest cannot “sacrifice,” in a Jewish sense of the word; but in a much better. So it may be truly said, that he has to “offer” continually The Sacrifice once made by The Divine High Priest. (Gal. iii. 1.) But the term “offering,” among primitive writers, is used generally; and does not exclusively refer to the Consecrated Elements alone.—See note E. in the former series of “Parochial Lectures,” on the Holy Catholic Church. There is some historical light thrown on our own Church’s view of this subject by the volume just published by the Principal of St. Alban’s Hall, Oxford, comparing the two Liturgies of King Edward VI.—Oxford, 1838.

THE END.

Gilbert & Rivington, Printers, St. John’s Square, London.

By the same Author,

I.

ON THE WHOLE DOCTRINE
OF
FINAL CAUSES:

A DISSERTATION, IN THREE PARTS.—pp. 222.

Price 7s. 6d. cloth.

II.

ON THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH:
PAROCHIAL LECTURES.

(FIRST SERIES.)

Price 4s. 6d. cloth.

III.

ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH:
A SERMON
ON THE
PARABLE OF THE UNJUST STEWARD.

Price 1s. 6d.

RIVINGTONS,

ST. PAUL’S CHURCH YARD, & WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL.