SEDUCTION OF THE FEELINGS AND IMAGINATION. 69 the claims of the entire Community. It was urged-can a spring rise above the is not the most flattering to them to be level of its source? how can an individual urged to say continually, not only in appoint another to an ecclesiastical office words, but by their conduct," We preach higher than he himself holds? How innot ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, deed, it might have been added-can and us, your Servant, for Jesus' sake;" any individual, whether Bishop or not, to be taught that they are merely the appoint another to any office,-high or Functionaries of the particular Church of low-unless authorized by the Commuwhich they are members, that it is in nity to do so? For an individual to prethat capacity only that they derive their tend to create another a King, or a station and power from Christ, by virtue Magistrate of any other description, or of the sanction given by Him to Christian the humblest civil Functionary,-even Communities; that their authority there- though he were himself a King,-without fore comes direct from the society so lawful authority from the Community to constituted, in whose name and behalf make such appointment, would be regarded they act, as its representatives, just to as a most extravagant and absurd assumpthat extent to which it has empowered tion. On the other hand a Community, and and directed them to act. These views consequently those acting under its sancdo indeed leave them a most awfully im- tion, may appoint a man to an office portant and dignified office, as Servants higher than is possessed by any of the in "the House of God,"-(the " Temple individuals who perform that act; as is of the Holy Ghost,"). -as Stewards (i. e. the case, for instance, in the election of a dispensers; oixoróμos) of divine truth to member of Parliament. And in the case his People, and as Messengers from of the supposed shipwrecked emigrants Christ, (so far as they "set forth his true above adverted to, no reasonable man and lively word, and duly administer his could doubt their right to elect one of Holy Sacraments,") as having been ap- their number as their King. But in the pointed conformably to his will. But case of ecclesiastical Communities, many although their title is thus placed on the persons are found to advocate that fancisecure basis of a clear divine sanction ful and groundless system which goes to given, once for all, to every regularly-ap- deprive these of all the rights which pointed Minister of any Christian Com- Christ's sanction of such a Community munity constituted on Gospel principles, confers. For, according to this system, instead of being made to depend on a the sacramental virtue of Holy Orders, long chain, the soundness of many of which is indispensable for all the Chriswhose links cannot be ascertained, yet tian Ordinances and means of Grace, is this last is a system more flattering to inherent indefeasibly in each individual, human weakness; inasmuch as it repre- who has derived it, in no degree from sents the Priesthood as comparatively any particular Community, but solely independent of each particular Church, from the Bishop whose hands were laid and derives their Church's authority rather on him; who derived his power to adfrom them than theirs from it. And minister this sacrament, altogether from accordingly so strong is the prejudice in the minds of many persons in favour of this system, that to rest the claims of a Christian Ministry on the basis of the divinely sanctioned institution of a Christian Church, would appear to them to be making the Ministry altogether a human ordinance, though in truth, its claim to be a divine Ordinance rests on that very sanction: so completely do they lose sight of the whole character of a Church, and of a Community. I remember seeing a censure passed on some one who had presumed to appoint another as a Bishop; not on the ground (which would have been a very just one) of his having no authority from any Church to make the tinue. All the Disciples who constituted the appointment, but on the ground of his not being himself a Bishop for how-it Consecration by another Bishop-not necessarily a member of the same particular Church, but obtaining his power again from another; and so on, up to the apostolic times. On this system the Church is made a sort of appendage to the Priesthood; not the Ministry, to the Church.* A People separated from their founds the Church with the Clergy (see note to * That pernicious popular error, which con 33,) as if the Spiritual Community consisted only of its Officers, is partly kept up perhaps by men's neglecting to notice one peculiarity belonging to Christ's kingdom, at its first establishment: viz., that it did, then, consist of Ministers only; though it was by no means designed so to con infant Church were those destined to be employed in various offices therein: so that an inattentive Ministers by some incurable disagreement to be a Bishop, in respect of Episcopal as to Christian doctrine, even supposing functions; and has no more right to these last to have occasioned it by an ordain, or to perform any other act, in utter apostacy from Gospel truth,—would the capacity of a Bishop, than a Layman be left (supposing they could not obtain would have: that is, till the same or other ministers qualified by the same some other Christian Church shall think kind of transmission of sacramental vir- proper to receive him in that capacity.* tue) totally and finally shut out from the pale of Christ's universal Church, and from his "covenanted mercies;" while the Ministers, on the contrary, though they might be prohibited by civil authority, or prevented by physical force, from exercising their functions within a particular district, would still, even though anti-christian in doctrine and in life, retain their office and dignity unimpaired, the sacramental virtue conferred on them by Ordination, and the consequent efficacy of their acts, undiminished. If indeed any Church should be so very unwise as to recognize as Clergymen persons ordained by a deprived Bishop, these would undoubtedly be Ministers of that Church; because that recognition would constitute them such; and a Christian Community has power (though in that case there would be a gross abuse of its power) to determine who shall be its Officers. But what I am contending against is, the notion of an inherent indefeasible sacramental virtue conveyed by the imposition of hands, and giving validity to the official acts, regular or irregular, of the persons possessing it. And this does seem to me a most pernicious as well as groundless tenet, tending to destroy the rightful authority of a Church, by unduly exalting the pretended privileges of its Functionaries. On the same principle which has been now set forth in respect of Bishops, the acts of a Presbyter or Deacon, or other § 39. And this is not merely an inference fairly deducible from the principles of the system. I have even met with persons who acknowledged that, if a Bishop, of our own Church for instance, who had been, for some crime, removed and degraded by regular process, should think proper afterwards to ordain men Priests or Deacons, though he and they would be legally punishable, still his Ordinations would be valid, and these men consequently (however morally Minister of any Church, cease to be valid, unfit) real Clergymen, capable of exer- as soon as ever the Christian Community cising the spiritual functions. This is to in which he was appointed, withdraws its recognize a fearful power, and that, sanction from his acts. If another Church placed in the very worst hands, of pro- think fit to receive him as a Minister, they ducing and keeping up schism with some- have an undoubted right to do so; and he thing of an apparent divine sanction to then becomes a Minister of that Church. give it strength.* For, on this principle, So he does also, when not expelled from a Bishop of some other Church-the the Society to which he originally belongRoman Catholic for instance, or the ed, supposing the Church to which he Greek-who should have been ejected transfers himself thinks fit to recognize væ from his Diocess, might take upon him Ordinations of the other; which they may to ordain men according to the rites of our Church, and we should be bound to recognize his ordinations as valid. I need hardly remark, that, according to the principles I have been endeavouring to maintain, a Bishop when removed from his Diocess, (whether for any crime, or otherwise) and not appointed to any other, though he may continue a member of the Episcopal Order, (unless regularly removed from it by competent authority,†) ceases altogether, ipso facto, do, or refuse to do, entirely at their own discretion. This is a point which every regulations, the powers of " binding" and of loosing" have, equally, the divine sanction, so, the power of any Christian Church to admit any one, either simply into the number of its Members, or into any particular Order or Office, the case shall be such as to call for his removal. implies a power to remove him from either, when * For a Bishop, it should be observed, does not, in becoming such, enter on a new Profession, (as he did on taking orders) but only on a new de scription of Office in his profession. A person may indeed, as I have said, continue to belong to a certain Order of Clergy, though with suspended functions; but the important point to be insisted on is, that no official acts have any validity but what is derived from the Community to which † For it is evident that as, in respect of Church in each case, the Officer belongs. reader is liable to confound together what our * See above, § 32. Church has a full right to determine according to its own judgment. And as for the individual himself who s regularly deprived by his Church, if, on becoming a Clergyman, he engaged as is required by, I believe, most existing Churches) that he would follow no other profession, of course he cannot absolve himself from that engagement; but must continue so far a Clergyman, though with suspended functions. Moreover a Church has a right, though I think such a regulation a very unwise one,-to recognize as valid the acts of a degraded Minister; (while subjecting him nevertheless to penalties for performing such acts) or of a Layman. Concerning several points of this class, -such as the validity of lay-baptism, or of baptism by heretics or schismatics, &c., questions have been often raised, which have been involved in much unnecessary perplexity, from its being common to mix up together what are in fact several distinct questions, though relating to the same subject. For instance, in respect of the validity of Lay-baptism, three important and perfectly distinct questions may be raised; no one of which is answered by the answering, either way, of the others: viz.. 1st. What has a Church the right to determine as to this point? 2dly. What is the wisest and best determination it can make? and, 3dly. What has this or that particular Church actually determined? Now persons who are agreed concerning the answer to one of these questions, may yet differ concerning the others; and vice verså.† § 40. But to return to the consideration, generally, of the whole system of what is called "Catholic tradition," &c., which I have been censuring; it is calculated, as has been said, to produce at the first glance a striking and imposing effect, and to recommend itself strongly to the imagination and the feelings of some persons: but will not stand the test of a close examination. The advocates of these doctrines, accordingly, either from a consciousness of this, or else from indistinctness in their own conception, often set them forth with * It would be, I am convinced, very advantageous that this rule should be modified as regards Deacons. We might avail ourselves of the services of some very useful assistants, if we would admit to this subordinate office some who could not maintain themselves wholly, without resorting (as the Apostle Paul did) to some secular employment. † See Appendix, Note (O.) something of oracular obscurity and ambiguity, half concealed behind a veil, as it were, of mystery; as something of which the full import and complete proof were to be reserved for a chosen few. And when clear evidence is demanded of a sufficient foundation for the high pretensions put forth, and the implicit submission that is demanded, we are sometimes met by a rebuke of the "pride of human intellect," and of the presumptuous expectation of having every thing that we are to believe made perfectly level to our understanding, and satisfactorily explained. No one, it may be said, would believe in God, if he were to insist on first obtaining a clear and full comprehension of the nature and attributes of such a Being; an explanation.—such as no man of sense would think of giving, or of seeking,—of the divine attributes, brought down to the capacity of such a Being as Man. Nor would any one believe in the Christian Revelation, if he were to require, previously, to have a clear and full comprehension of the mysteries of the Incarnation, of the Redemption, of the Trinity, and of every thing else appertaining to the Gospel scheme. We must content ourselves, therefore, we are told, with faint, indistinct, and imperfect notions on religious subjects, unless we would incur deserved censure for want of faith. How often and how successfully the fallacy here sketched out has been employed, is really wonderful, considering how totally different and entirely unconneeted are the two things which are thus confounded together; the clear or indistinct notion of the subject matter itself,of the fact or proposition-that is before us; and, the clear or indistinct notion of the evidence of it,-of the reasons for believing it. A moment's reflection is sufficient for any one to perceive the difference between the two; and yet, in the loose language of careless or sophistical argument, they are continually confused together, and spoken of indiscriminately, as if they were the same thing. Every one, whether possessing Christian faith or not, believes firmly,-and must believe, and that, on the clearest evidence, in the existence of many things concerning which he has but a very imperfect knowledge, and can form but indistinct and confused ideas of their nature; while to believe in whatever is proposed to us without any clear proof that it is true, with an imperfect and indistinct apprehension of any reason for believing it,— is usually regarded as a mark of credulous weakness. And on the other hand, some description, narrative, or statement, may be, in itself, perfectly clear and intelligible, and yet may be very doubtful as to its truth, or may be wholly undeserving of credit. sense ever confounds together two things so dissimilar and unconnected as those I have been speaking of. But in what pertains to religion, the fallacy is, as I have said, often introduced. Yet Religion does not, in this respect, really differ from other subjects. For instance, there is, I suppose, no Our Saviour's character and his teaching one who seriously doubts the existence of were matter of wondering perplexity to all something which we call Soul—or Mind-around Him; even in a far greater degree be it Substance or Attribute, material or immaterial-and of the mutual connexion between it and the Body. Yet how very faint and imperfect a notion it is that we can form of it, and of many of its phenomena that are of daily occurrence! The partial suspension of mental and bodily functions during Sleep,-the effects of opium and other drugs, on both body and mind; the influence again exercised by volition, and by various mental emotions, on the muscles, and on other parts of the bodily frame, and many other of these phenomena, have exercised for ages the ingenuity of the ablest men to find even any approximation towards but an imperfect explanation of them. Yet the evidence on which we believe in the reality of these and of many other things no less dimly and partially understood, is perfect. On the other hand, the characters, transactions, &c., represented by dramatic writers, or described by historians, are often as clearly intelligible as it is possible for any thing to be; yet from the total want of evidence, or from the want of clear and decisive evidence, as to their reality, we regard them as either entire fictions, or mixtures of fable and truth, or as more or less likely to have actually existed.* The character and conduct of Lear, for instance, or Othello, of Hamlet, and Macbeth, are perfectly intelligible; though it is very doubtful how far the tales which suggested to Shakspeare the idea of most of his dramas had any foundation in fact, or were originally fictitious. Many, again, of the Orations recorded by the ancient Greek and Roman historians are as easily and plainly to be understood as any that are reported in our own times; but in what degree each of these is a faithful record of what was actually spoken, is a point on which we have, in some cases, a slight and imperfect evidence; and in others, none that deserves the name. § 41. In all subjects where religion is not concerned, no one of ordinary good than after the establishment of his Kingdom, on his personal ministry being completed; both because the Jews were full of the expectation of a totally different kind of Deliverer, and because great part of his discourses were not even designed to be fully intelligible, at the time, to his own disciples; but to be explained afterwards by the occurrence of the events He alluded to. Some of his followers, accordingly, "went back and walked no more with him," on the occasion of one of those discourses. But the Apostles, who adhered to Him, did so, neither from having any clearer notions concerning his revelations (for we often find it recorded that "they understood not this saying," &c.;) nor again, from being satisfied to believe without any clear proof of his high pretensions; but because they "believed, and were sure that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God," on such evidence as He had Himself appealed to: "the works that I do in my father's name, they bear witness of me." Dim, and indistinct, and imperfect as were still their notions (as, to a great degree, ours must be also) concerning "the Son of God," it was no indistinct or imperfect evidence on which they believed that He was so. 66 A converse case is that of the sever! false Christs who afterwards arose. am come," says our Lord, "in my Father's name," (with such manifestations of divine power as testified his coming from God) "and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name," (viz. requiring acceptance on his own bare word, without any miraculous credentials) "him ye will receive." * Their teaching, their pretensions, and promises, were as clearly intelligible to the greater part of the Jews-because falling in with the pre vailing belief and expectations,—as those of Jesus had been (even to his own disciples) obscure, perplexing, or unintelligible. Accordingly, vast multitudes fol * See Sermon, on the "Name Emmanuel;" See Rhetoric, part i. c. 2, § 2. "On the and also Cruden's Concordance on the word plausible and the historically probable." Name." lowed these preter ders, without requiring ing, "Thus saith the Lord; when the any clear and sufficient evidence of the Lord hath not spoken," are no more truth of their pretensions: and they follow-exempt from the guilt of enticing to ed them to their own and their Country's idolatry, than the worshippers of Baal. The more disposed any one is to sub ruin. The very history of our own religion, missive veneration, the greater the importtherefore, supplies us here with an illus-ance of guarding him against misdirected tration of the distinction I have been veneration;-against false piety; against speaking of. On the one side we have a reverencing as divine, what in reality is revelation, itself dimly and partially understood, and doubtful, in great part, as to its meaning, but with clear evidence that it really came from God: on the other, a pretended revelation, containing, to those it was proposed to, no doubts or difficulties as to its sense and its design, but supported by no evidence that could satisfy an unprejudiced mind, bent on the attainment of truth. § 42. However plausible then the system I have been objecting to may appear to any one, however imposing and mysteriously sublime, however gratifying and consolatory to the feelings-let him not therefore neglect to inquire for the proofs by which its high pretensions are to be sustained; but rather examine with the more care the foundation on which so vast a superstructure is made to rest. Let no one be deterred from this by fierce denunciations against the presumptuousness of all inquiry, and all use of private judgment in religious matters; and by eulogies on the virtue of faith; remembering that the "faith" thus recommended is precisely that want of faith for which those Jews just mentioned were so severely condemned. They refused to listen to good evidence, and assented to that which was worthless. And let no one allow himself to be persuaded that he is evincing an humble piety, acceptable to the "jealous God," in hastily giving credence to the pretensions to divine authority put forth in behalf of uninspired men, (not producing the miraculous "Signs of an Apostle") by those who are for blending "Tradition with Scripture," and "following the dictates of inspiration wherever found, whether in Scripture or Antiquity;" and who pronounce according to their own arbitrary choice, what are, and what are not, the general Councils whose "deliberations were overruled by the Holy Spirit, and their decrees consequently authoritative." "If any of these entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go after other Gods, thou shalt not hearken unto him." And those who speak in the name of Jehovah, say human. And the more awfully important any question is, the greater is the call for a rigid investigation of what may be urged on both sides; that the decision may be made on sound, rational, and scriptural grounds, and not according to the dictates of excited feelings and imagination. And in these times especially, and in respect of this subject, men need to be warned against a mistake which at all times is not uncommon;—that of allowing themselves to be misled by names and professions, which are often-apparently by designed choice,-the most opposite to the things really intended. Thus, for instance, the term "Apostolical" is perpetually in the mouths of some who the most completely set at nought the principles which the Apostles have laid down for our guidance in the inspired writings; and who virtually nullify these by blending with them the traditious of uninspired men. Noue more loudly censure the "pride of human intellect," and inculcate "pious humility," than those who are guilty of the profane presumption of exalting fallible Man to a level with God's inspired messengers, and of deciding how far they shall impart, or 66 reserve," the truths which God has revealed. The evils of " schism" again, are especially dwelt on by some who maintain principles the tendency of which has been shown to be to generate and perpetuate schism. To satisfy and "settle men's minds," is the profession of some whose principles lead (as has been above remarked) in proportion as each man has the most tender conscience, and the greatest anxiety about religious truth, to perplex and torment him with incurable doubts and scruples. "Churchprinciples" is a favourite phrase with some who are, in fact, lowering the just dignity and impairing the divinely-conferred rights of a Church. And none more loudly profess devoted and submissive admiration for the Anglican Church, than many of those who are emphatically * See Appendix, Note (P.) |