"Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed."—Galatians i. 8.
THIS day, though named from the Blessed Virgin, is one of the
greatest festivals of our Saviour. And, therefore, in former times the
Church of England reckoned it the beginning of her year; thereby
especially giving intimation, that she would have the whole year
dedicated to JESUS CHRIST. For this day, with which she began it, marks
the time of His gracious incarnation; upon which all that we have or
hope, both in Heaven and in earth, entirely depends. For, as St. Paul
argues concerning another link in the chain of GOD’S mysterious mercy,
If Christ were not truly made man, then He did not truly die for
our sins: if He did not, then was He not raised again: and "if Christ
be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins." Such was
the adorable will of GOD Almighty, in His counsels for redeeming lost
mankind. There was to be no communion between GOD and man, except
through the everlasting SON, Himself both GOD and man. This is the
foundation laid from the beginning, besides which no man can lay any
other. Men may think little of it, but the evil spirits know it well;
and accordingly, they have busied themselves from the beginning in
nothing so much as in perplexing the minds of the unwary with regard to
the incarnation of our LORD and SAVIOUR, and our communion with GOD
through him. Church history is little else than a record on the one
hand, of their unceasing endeavours to corrupt the Faith on these two
points; on the other of His watchful Providence, meeting and baffling
them, in every age, by ways of His own, prepared also from the
beginning, for their confusion, and our trial.
One of the very chiefest of these precautions was His appointing
persons in his Church to watch the treasure of Divine Truth, to try and
assay, by comparison with it, whatever doctrines from time to time
became current, and to give notice, with all authority, wherever they
found GOD’S mark wanting. To mention no other places; our Lord himself,
in the text which I considered on St. Matthias’ day, expresses himself
in this manner. "I ordained you, that you should go and bring forth
fruit, and that your fruit should remain." The Apostles were to take
precautions, not only that their ministry might be fruitful for the
time, but also that it might flourish and abound for ever. Those who
work under their commission, may in virtue of this promise expect more
abiding results from their labours, than any, however zealous, who may
venture to take this honour to themselves. Not to forfeit this
privilege, the holy Apostles instituted a regular custom, according to
which, in all future times the faithful might be warned against
heretical doctrines. When any new point arose, regarding which the
judgment of the Church was doubtful, reference was made to the chief
pastors or Bishops, solemnly assembled to consider the subject; and they
having thoroughly examined it, proclaimed an anathema, i. e. a sentence
of excommunication, against the teachers and maintainers of dangerous
error. For example; the very first controversy which arose in the Church
related to the question whether the whole law of Moses ought to be
observed as a condition of the Christian covenant. It was settled by the
Apostles’ meeting at Jerusalem, as you read in the fifteenth chapter of
the Acts. And, being settled, whoever contradicted it, whoever added
either Moses’ law or any thing else to the terms of salvation by Christ,
and thereby began to preach a new Gospel, other than that received at
first, you hear in the text what St. Paul says of him. "Though we or an
angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we
have preached unto you, let him be accursed:" let him be anathema, cut
off from the communion of Christian people; not allowed to pray, or
receive the sacrament, in the assemblies of Christian men. Let him be,
to those who obey CHRIST, as a heathen man and a Publican." Thus speaks
the Apostle of those who should be so presumptuous as to teach the
Jewish fable of the necessity of circumcision, after the decision of the
Holy Spirit by Apostolical Church had been published. For it was
published, with the utmost care, by letters and messengers sent to all
the Churches; and being so, could not be disobeyed without wilful
arrogancy and irreverence. Thus St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles
made known to the Church in all ages their right, and the right of the
Bishops, their successors, to mark out such heretics as might arise from
time to time, and put the faithful on their guard against them. And thus
quite down from the time of our LORD, the Apostolical succession of
pastors has continued, as a divinely-appointed guard, meant to secure
the integrity of Apostolical doctrine.
Let us, as on this day we are bound, consider more especially what we
owe to that holy succession, in respect of that on which, as Christians,
our all, as we cannot but know, depends: I mean the true doctrine
of the Incarnation of our LORD and SAVIOUR. It may be positively said,
that under Providence we owe our inheritance of this saving doctrine to
the chain of rightly-ordained Bishops, connecting our times with the
time of its first promulgation. This will be more clearly seen, if the
two following statements are considered; neither of which can be
reasonably doubted by any one who has looked much into Church history.
1. In ancient times the system of Apostolical, i.e. of episcopal
anathemas, was the Church’s main safeguard against the
misinterpretations of Scripture, which from time to time threatened to
deprive her children of their faith in GOD the SON, made man for our
salvation.
2. Wheresoever in modern times the Apostolical succession has been
given up, there the true doctrine of our LORD’S incarnation has been
often corrupted, always in jeopardy.
These propositions are of course too large to be fully made out in
the narrow limits of a sermon. But a few instances of each will show
what is meant, and will serve to draw serious minds to reverential
thought on the whole subject.
I. Even during the Apostolic age, there were many, who under pretence
of purer doctrine, refused to confess "JESUS CHRIST come in the flesh."
This we know from the later books of the New Testament; especially from
the writings of St. John. And by the records of the two next generations
we learn that the corruptions were of two kinds, apparently opposite.
Some, out of pretended reverence for our LORD’S Divine nature, refused
to own Him, made very man for us. They would have it, that His blessed
body was no more than a dream or vision, and all that He did here, a
scene as it were enacted by the will of the Almighty to make an
impression on our minds. Others, on the contrary, denied His divine
being, pretending, no doubt, extraordinary reverence towards GOD the
Father Almighty, they would not hear the Gospel doctrine that he who is
One with the FATHER, had vouchsafed to become one of us. They would have
it that the crucified Jesus was either a mere human saint, or at best a
sort of good angel. Against both these blasphemous errors St. John
himself had given warning, pronouncing as it were the Church’s anathema
beforehand. "There are many deceivers entered into the world, who
confess not JESUS CHRIST come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
anti-Christ. . . . Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the
doctrine of CHRIST, hath not GOD. He that abideth in the doctrine
CHRIST, he hath both the FATHER AND THE SON. If there come any unto you,
and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither
bid him GOD speed. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his
evil deeds." However, in the next generation after St. John, this evil
leaven was still found working in the Church, and the false teachers of
both sorts still had the boldness to please Scripture, which somehow
they contrived to wrest and pervert in their own way. How were they to
be answered? How was it to be made manifest that their interpretation of
Scripture was wrong? It was done by appealing to that interpretation,
which had the warrant of the Apostles themselves. How was that
interpretation known? By its preservation in the several Churches which
had been founded by the Apostles,—Rome, Corinth, Jerusalem, and the
rest. How had the right interpretation of Scripture been preserved in
each of those places? By the succession of Bishops, each in turn handing
over to the Bishop that followed him what he had himself learned of his
predecessors. The defenders of Evangelical truth reasoned as follows:—
"The tradition of the Apostles, made known in all the world, may be
clearly discerned in every Church, by those who are willing to behold
things as they are; nay, and we are able to enumerate those whom the
Apostles ordained to be Bishops in the several Churches, along with
their successors, even down to our time, none of whom ever taught or
imagined any such doctrine as the heretics, in their frenzy, maintain.
If such interpretations had been known to the Apostles, in the manner of
hidden mysteries, reserved to be taught apart to the most perfect,
surely, of all others, they to whom the Churches themselves were
committed would have had these mysteries committed to them also. For it
was the Apostles’ wish to have their successors, and those entrusted to
bear sway in their stead, complete and unblameable in every thing; whose
correct demeanour was sure to be the Church’s blessing; their fall, her
extreme calamity. It were too long, however, at present to enumerate the
chains of Bishops in all the Churches. Look at one of the greatest and
ancientest, well known to all, the Church founded and established at
Rome, by two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. What tradition she
received from the Apostles, and what faith, to be preached to all men,
we are able to ascertain; the same having come down to us by the
unbroken series and succession of her Bishops. And thus we confound all
those who in any way draw wrong conclusions, through self-complacency,
or vain glory, or blindness of heart and evil prejudice. For to this
Church of Rome, because of the eminent dignity" (of that city), "it
cannot be but that other Churches resort, I mean believers, from every
quarter; and in the same Church, among those so resorting, the tradition
of the Apostles has been preserved entire." Thus speaks the holy Bishop
and martyr IrenÊus, who lived within twenty years of St. John himself;
and, to make good his words, he proceeds to reckon up the Bishops of
Rome, from the first, appointed by the two great Apostles, to the time
of his writings—twelve in number. "By this order and succession," says
IrenÊus, "the tradition inherited by the Church from the Apostles, and
the substance of their preaching, has come down safe to our times."
Thus wrote IrenÊus, living in Gaul. And in like manner, not long
after him, Tertullian, writing against the same heretics in Africa, and
defending that doctrine of our LORD’S true Incarnation, which is the
very life of the world:— "The heretics," says he, "themselves plead
Scripture. How are we to know whether their’s is the true sense or our’s?
The natural way is to look and see whether either of the two can be
traced back to the time of the Apostles. What CHRIST revealed to them
they preached; what they preached, must be known by the testimony of
those Churches which they themselves founded. If there be any heresies
claiming Apostolical antiquity, let them give account of the first
beginning of their Churches; let them unfold the roll of their Bishops,
so continued by succession from the beginning, as that their first
Bishop shall have received ordination from some Apostle or disciples of
the Apostles; such a disciple, I mean, as went out from them. For thus
do the Churches which are truly Apostolical make out, as it were, their
genealogical tables: the Church of Smyrna vouching as her first Prelate
Polycarp, there established by St. John; the Church of Rome, Clement, in
like manner, ordained by St. Peter; and the other Churches no less have
each some person to name, fixed by the Apostles, as Bishops, in each
respectively; through whom each derives the seed of Apostolical
communion." Now, as Tertullian goes on to argue, "this unbroken
connexion with the Apostles was a strong pledge of their inheriting
sound Apostolical doctrine, too, except it could be proved their
doctrine had varied at any time. For, as the Apostles must have agreed
with each other in their teaching, so neither could Apostolical men have
put forth doctrines contrary to the Apostles; except that they were such
as had revolted from the Apostles, and might be detected by the
diversity of their doctrine." And this would hold in each following age,
till some actual variation took place. And if it held in respect of any
one Church, how much more in respect of the combined evidence of the
independent Churches in all parts of the world, each producing their
several lines of succession, terminating in several Apostles or
Apostolical men, and each agreeing (for all material points) in the same
traditionary doctrine and the interpretation of the Scriptures! For
instance, when on some occasion, as the same Tertullian relates, the
Churches of Rome and Africa "interchanged the watchword," or, as we
might say, "compared notes;" what an encouragement and confirmation must
it not have proved to both, to find themselves mutually agreed, without
previous concert, in their views of Scripture truth, and of the system
established by the Apostles.
By such arguments in the first age were the enemies of Christ’s
Incarnation put to silence. It is plain, so far, how well the Episcopal
succession answered the purpose assigned to it by our LORD, of providing
that the fruit of Apostolical teaching should remain; and how vigorously
the Church’s anathema, first pronounced by St. John, was followed up, to
the confusion of those who "abode not in the doctrine of CHRIST."
Still more remarkable to the same purpose are the examples of the
following age. There, too, we find the Apostolical succession the main
out-work of Apostolical doctrine; the truth of CHRIST’S Incarnation
defended, not as in the former age by single writers appealing to the
long lines of Bishops who had taught it, but by the Bishops of the
Church themselves, synodically met to pass sentence on the questionable
teaching of some of their colleagues. Being so met, they represented not
simply the judgment of the contemporary Churches, but also that of each
former generation of Christians, on the great mystery in dispute. Each
Bishop taking part in a synodical decision on those cardinal points of
the faith, was understood as avouching, besides his own opinion, the
traditionary interpretation likewise which his Church had inherited from
her first founder. A very little thought will show how greatly this adds
to the support furnished by such meetings to orthodox and saving truth.
A convention of learned theologians agreeing in their views of
Scripture, would, no doubt, carry great authority. A council of Bishops,
in the third century, was such a convention, and a great deal more: it
was a collection of harmonious independent testimonies to the way
in which the writers of Scripture had originally intended their writings
to be understood.
The advantage of so meeting and comparing their respective
traditions, was particularly evident in those cases in which any member
of their own sacred order had countenanced, or seemed to countenance,
heretical opinions. For instances of the kind occur in the age now under
consideration; the one displaying in a peculiar way the scrupulous
watchfulness of the early Church: the other, her uncompromising
firmness;—both in vindication of the pure Gospel of GOD manifest in the
flesh.
The first is the case of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, one of the
most famous Prelates of his time. The heresy of Sabellius had sprung up
in his province, which, under pretence of magnifying our blessed LORD,
confounded His Person with that of the Almighty FATHER, and so in fact
denied the whole economy of Salvation: maintaining that the FATHER
himself was incarnate; that He appeared on earth as the SON, and
suffered on the cross for us. Refuting these, the holy Bishop had argued
from those expressions of Scripture which represent our LORD in his
human nature, as the work or creature of GOD the FATHER. "The Incarnate
SON," said he, "is not the same with the FATHER, as the tree is not the
same with the husbandman, nor the ship with the builder." Expression
surely justifiable enough, since what they affirm is found almost word
for word in our LORD’S own discourses. "I am the true Vine, and
my Father is the Husbandman." However, the expressions were
misunderstood, although from St. Dionysius’ own report it should seem
that he had carefully guarded them by the context; it was generally
reported that he had used language derogatory of the Divine honour of
our LORD. A synod met a t Rome to examine the matter, on behalf of which
the then Bishop of Rome, also named Dionysius, wrote to the Bishop of
Alexandria, requesting an explanation; which he gave to the full
satisfaction of the whole Church; summing up his doctrine in these
remarkable words: "Of the names used by me to express the Divine
Persons, there is none which can be separated or divided from the other
to which it is related. Thus, suppose I speak of the FATHER; before I
add the term ‘SON,’ I have implied His existence, by using the term
‘FATHER.’ I add the term SON; though I had not mentioned the FATHER,
assuredly the idea of Him would have been comprised in that of the SON:
I join to these the ‘HOLY GHOST,’ but at the same time I annex the
thought of the fountain from whom and the channel by whom
He proceeds;" calling him, as it seems, the SPIRIT of the FATHER and the
SON. "Thus, on the one hand, we do as it were expand the UNITY, without
division, into a TRINITY of Persons; on the other hand, we gather the
TRINITY, without diminution, into an UNITY of substance." This noble
confession of a perfect faith we owe to the friendly remonstrance of the
assembled Bishops; and surely the advantage is great, of such a standing
guard, in enabling the Church not only to recognize and repel her
enemies, but also to know for certain those friends about whom otherwise
she might stand in doubt. If, when the excellent Bishop Taylor published
his ‘Liberty of Prophesying,’ there had been a council of primitive
Bishops at hand, to warn him authoritatively of the evil consequences
which heretics would afterwards draw from some of his positions, the
Church would, in all probability, have been a gainer in two ways: first,
what he had there put incautiously would have been corrected, and the
sting taken out: and next, we might so much the more unreservedly use
his authority on other points.
But to proceed with the third century:—Very soon after this friendly
debate with Dionysius, both he, and the Bishops who had remonstrated
with him, and indeed the great body of the Orthodox Prelacy, were called
on to maintain the truth of our LORD’S incarnation in another case, in
which all remonstrance had failed. This was the case of Paul of Samosata,
himself also Bishop and Pastor of one of the most renowned sees,
Antioch; the only Church which at that time could compare in dignity
with Rome and Alexandria. To expose the errors of so high a functionary,
to call him to account, and finally, he continuing obstinate, to depose
him, was the work of no mean authority; especially as he had the support
of a strong political party, and used many arts which in all times have
been found popular and effective. It appears by the report of the synod
of Bishops assembled to inquire into his cause, that he delighted to
resemble men of much secular business; to have people pressing on him;
to be reading letters and dictating answers as he went along the public
street. Again, in his preaching, he constantly aimed at making a show of
ingenuity, and producing a splendid effect for the time. His action was
violent and showy, and he encouraged in the very Church, the rude
expressions of applause, shaking of handkerchiefs, and the like, which
were practised in the theatres. The fathers, and their interpretations
of Scripture, he took all opportunities of disparaging, praising himself
at their expense, more like one lecturing, or telling fortunes for hire,
than like a genuine Christian Bishop. It is clear at once, what view
such a person would be likely to take of the high and mysterious
doctrines of our religion. It is no matter of surprise to find him
maintaining, in opposition to our LORD’S own words, that CHRIST was from
beneath, and not from above; that he was merely a human Prophet, not the
SON of GOD come down from Heaven; that the wisdom of the Almighty dwelt
in Him as it had dwelt in former Prophets, only in more abundant
measure. In short, he held the same doctrine as those who now call
themselves Unitarians. And there is good reason to think, that he was
favoured and protected by the ruling power in the state. Zenobia, who at
that time exercised imperial sway in Syria with the title of Queen of
the East, was strongly addicted to a kind of deistical Judaism, the same
in substance with his Unitarian opinions. These few particulars may give
some idea of the peril in which the orthodox faith and true Church lay
then at Antioch. But even under the most untoward circumstances, the
Bishops of the neighbouring sees assembled; and their interference, by
the blessing of GOD, was effectual in preserving their charge from
apostasy. It is worth observing how well their proceedings answer to the
line marked out in such cases by our LORD himself, in His charter of
Church censures. First, then send Paul a brotherly expostulation,
telling him his fault between them and him alone. The first sentence of
this letter is much to be noticed, not only for its calm and gentle
tone, but also, for its very distinct reference to the succession of
doctrine from the Apostles as a test of truth. "Health in CHRIST:—We
have just now, by discourse with each other, satisfied ourselves of our
mutual faith. Now that every one’s mind may be clearly disclosed, and
all disputed question more completely set a t rest, we have thought good
hereby to set forth in writing the faith which we have received from the
beginning, and hold fast, handed down as it is and safely guarded in the
Catholic and holy Church, preached even to this day, through succession
by the blessed Apostles, those who were even eye-witnesses and ministers
of the word; this faith we have decreed to set forth out of the Law and
the Prophets, and the New Testament." Then having gone though a large
body of Scripture evidence for the most High Godhead of our LORD and
SAVIOUR, they conclude:— "These things, a few out of very many, we have
set down, desiring to know whether you think and teach as we do, and
requesting you to signify to us your approbation or disapprobation of
what we have written." This epistle was followed up by various
conferences: but Paul yet refusing to be reclaimed, the Bishops of Syria
went to act upon the remaining part of our SAVIOUR’S enactment in such
cases: they assembled, to the number of seventy or eighty, and called on
him to "hear the Church:" which, when he refused, they formally deposed
him, and separated him from the body of Christian people, pronouncing on
him the following sentence:— "Him, thus setting himself against GOD, and
refusing to give way, we have been compelled to excommunicate, and his
room to set another as Bishop over this Catholic Church; by the
providence of GOD, as we believe." This they made known to the Bishops
of Rome and Alexandria, and all the world over, that they, acquiescing
in the sentence pronounced, might lose no time in writing to the new
Bishop of Antioch letters of communion and acknowledgment, as the manner
of the churches then was; directing their letter, "To the Bishops of
Rome and Alexandria, and all our fellow servants throughout the world,
whether Bishops, Priests, or Deacons, and to the whole Catholic Church
under Heaven." By the co-operation of those distant Bishops, the
sentence was finally and effectually confirmed: the Church of Antioch
delivered from her unfaithful shepherd, and the verity of our LORD’S
Divine Nature passed on, as a precious deposit, to other councils and
other times.
These few brief examples,—not, it will be observed, standing apart,
but taken as what they truly are, specimens of a great and general
system, continually in action throughout the Christian world;—these few
examples may serve to show how close a connexion naturally subsists
between sound doctrine and apostolical succession in the ministry. We
have seen that the one, in those primitive ages, was constantly appealed
to as no slight guarantee for the other. It could not well be otherwise,
as long as the successors of the Apostles did their duty, originally in
ordaining none but orthodox men, and afterwards in watching and
censuring (if need were) the most exalted even of their own colleagues,
on sufficient proof of defection on their part.
Two facts are quite indisputable: the first, that in those
ages the Bishops and Pastors were considered as the chosen apostolical
guardians of the truth faith; the other, that they really acted
as such. Does not the conclusion irresistably follow, that such
Providence intended them to be? And can any one, knowing these
circumstances, read the peculiarly significant promises at sundry times
addressed by our LORD to His Apostles, and not perceive in the Episcopal
succession the appropriate fulfilment of those promises? For instance, "
I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth
fruit, and that your fruit should remain." "I am with you always, even
unto the end of the world." "Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
We have then from Scripture, the consolation of believing, that as
long as we reverence and uphold the Apostolical ministry, we are in our
line and measure "labouring together" with GOD himself. We are so far
doing our humble part in that system which the all-wise Redeemer has
ordained to be the human, visible, secondary instrument of guarding and
propagating those truths, on which our communion with Him depends.
This will be seen yet more clearly, on proceeding to examine the
doctrinal results, such as they appear on the whole in those
Churches, which from error or necessity have parted with the Apostolical
succession. This must be attempted on some future occasion.
For the present, reverting to that ineffable mystery, from which on
this day especially all our devout thoughts should begin, and in which
they should end, I would only ask one question. What will be the
feelings of a Christian, particularly of a Christian pastor, should he
find hereafter that in slighting or discouraging Apostolical claims and
views, (be the temptation what it may) he has really been helping the
evil spirit to unsettle men’s faith in THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF
GOD?
OXFORD,
The Feast of the Purification.
