Objection:—Discrepancies between modern and ancient Church
Testimony of educated, reflecting Person
Writings of Fathers
Anglican theory not new
History of Arianism
Anglican Divines on ancient Heresies
History of Doctrinal Definitions
Conclusion1
1.
Feeling, my dear brethren, I should be encroaching on your patience, if I extended this course of Lectures beyond the length which it is now reaching, I have been obliged, in order to give a character of completeness to the whole, to omit the discussion of subjects which I would fain have introduced, and to anticipate others which I would rather have viewed in another connection. This must be my apology, if in their number and selection I shall in any respect disappoint those who have formed their expectations of what I was to do in these Lectures, upon the profession contained in their general title. I have done what my limits allowed me: if I have not done more, it is not, I assure you, from having nothing to say,—for there are many questions upon which I have been anxious to enter,—but because I could neither expect you, my brethren, to give me more of your time, nor could command my own.
As, then, I have already considered certain popular objections which are made respectively to the Sanctity, Unity, and Catholicity of the Church, now let me, as far as I can do it in a single Lecture, direct your attention to a difficulty felt, not indeed by the world at large, but by many of you in particular, in admitting her Apostolical pretensions.
I say, “a difficulty not felt by the world at large;” for the world at large has no such view of any contrariety between the Catholic Church of today and the Catholic Church of fifteen hundred years ago, as to be disposed on that account to deny our Apostolical claims; rather, it is the fashion of the mass of Protestants, whenever they think on the subject, to accuse the Church of the Fathers of what they call Popish superstition and intolerance; and some have even gone so far as to say, that in these respects that early Church was more Popish than the Papists themselves. But when, leaving this first look of the subject, and the broad outline, and the general impression, we come to inspect matters more narrowly, and compare them exactly, point by point, together, certainly it is not difficult to find various instances of discrepancy, apparent or real, important or trivial, between the modern and the ancient Church; and though no candid person who has fairly examined the state of the case can doubt, that, if we differ from the Fathers in some things, Protestants differ from them in all, and if we vary from them in accidentals, Protestants contradict them in essentials, still, since attack is much easier and pleasanter than defence, it has been the way with certain disputants, especially with the Anglican school, instead of accounting for their own serious departure in so many respects from the primitive doctrine and ritual, to call upon us to show why we differ at all from our first Fathers, though partially and intelligibly, in matters of discipline and in the tone of our opinions. Thus it is that Jewel tries to throw dust in the eyes of the world and does his best to make an attack upon the Papacy and its claims pass for an Apology for the Church of England; and more writers have followed his example than it is worth while, or indeed possible, to enumerate. And they have been answered again and again; and the so-called novelties of modern Catholicism have been explained, if not so as to silence all opponents (which could not be expected), yet at the very lowest so far as this (which is all that is incumbent on us in controversy), so far as to show that we have a case in our favour. I say, even though we have not done enough for our proof, we have done enough for our argument, as the world will allow; for on our assailants, not on us, lies the “onus probandi,” and they have done nothing till they have actually made their charges good, and destroyed the very tenableness of our position and even the mere probability of our representations. However, into the consideration, whether of these objections or of their answers, I shall not be expected to enter; and especially, because each would form a separate subject in itself, and furnish matter for a separate Lecture. How, for instance, would it be possible in the course of an hour, and with such an exercise of attention as might fairly be exacted of you, to embrace subjects as distinct from each other as the primitive faith concerning the Blessed Virgin, and the Apostolic See, and the Holy Eucharist, and the worship of images? You would not expect such an effort of me, nor promise it for yourselves; and the less so, because, as you know, my profession all along has been to confine myself, as far as I can, to general considerations, and to appeal, in proof of what I assert, rather to common sense and truths before our eyes than to theology and history.