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.