church that is now found existing upon earth. For the Romish, the Greek, the Oriental, the Anglican, churches are all separate in their ecclesiastical government, and hence they would all be inevitably excluded by this rule from the character of the true churches of Christ.

It will avail nothing to say, as does the Romish church, that having cast out schismatics and heretics, she is united with herself. For even were this true, which is most contrary to truth, as it regards either the Roman or the Anglican communions, in the bosom of which there are innumerable schisms-yet were this a fact, it is just as true of all other communions, which are also united with themselves. Nor will it sustain this exclusive assumption, for these churches, or either of them, to appropriate to themselves, the title and the privileges of the catholic church; for it were just as easy for any other denomination, which desired to imitate their presumptive arrogance, to make a similar claim, and thus all the sects in Christendom might, each in turn, become the catholic church.

As there may then be schism where there is true doctrine and a true church; so may there be great professed union, where there is neither true faith nor true charity, and where there is therefore real schism. But this, surely, is not the unity Christ enjoins, which is unity of faith, love and charity; and this all churches, which hold to what is essential, possess. The church of Christ is one, only in Christ, only by the appointment and determination of Christ, and only as governed and directed by Him. It is therefore necessarily and essentially one body, nor can men by any self-constructed lines or barriers divide THE

that the Jewish christians continued in the observance of their peculiar rites until after the time of Hadrian, when one part of them separated from the rest, and threw off the ceremonial law, which the others retained. See Vidal's Mosheim, vol. ii. pp. 193, 201.

When almost all the bishops were become arian, the people who adhered unto the orthodox faith, set up their private conventicles in opposition unto them, as for instance at Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and other places. And who will say these were schismatics, or out of the pale of the true church, though beyond the line of apostolical succession.

1) See Dr. Scott in Notes of the Ch. Ex. p. 203.

"If there were but one particular church," says Dr. Payne, (Notes of Ch. Ex. p. 154,) "upon the whole

earth, that did profess this true faith, that alone might be called the catholic church, because that alone had that catholic faith which did properly make and constitute the true church."

Tertullian says, (Ayton, p. 585, Tert. de Pœscript. Hæret cap. xx.) "And so Tertullian speaks to the same purpose, when he gives an account of the church's unity, as consisting-In her adhering to that doctrine which was first preached by the apostles, who, having first delivered it in Judea, and planted churches there, went abroad and delivered the same to other nations, and settled churches in cities, from whence other churches have the same doctrine propagated to them, which are therefore called apostolical churches, as the offspring of those which were founded by them. Therefore, so many and so great

CHURCH, though they may mark out the limits of their own branch of the church.1

Let us pursue this idea a little further. Schism, as has been shown, means division, or that which rends asunder a body previously united. But if that which is essential to the nature of the body is still retained by each party, then of course, neither ceases to retain the characteristic qualities of that body. But if one part is thrown off by the other, because it has ceased to possess the qualities necessary to the homogeneity of the body, and to its sound and healthy condition; then will that portion lose, while the other retains, the character of the body. And in this case, the whole fault of such a division will be justly imputable to the corrupted member.

But we may further suppose the body of the church to be divided on questions, which do not affect the essential being of the church, but only its well-being. Now in this case there must be criminality in one or both of the parties so dividing, but neither will cease to be true churches, since both retain what is of fundamental importance. That only can destroy the being of a church which separates it from Christ, and from the life-giving influences of his Holy Spirit; and this nothing short of apostacy from the truth can do. The apostle certainly addresses the church at Corinth as a church of God, in the very epistle in which he so severely rebukes its members for their schisms. He still regards them as a true church, and as one church—as one body and as one family. And although some of the members were in unnatural rebellion against the others, and were alienated in views and feelings from the rest, so that they could not act or worship together; yet did they not, on that account, cease to be one body, though divided, or one family, though disunited. The severance of the bonds of amity had not broken the inseparable bonds of spiritual consanguinity. They did not cease to be children of the same parents, and brethren and sisters of the same domestic circle, though now driven asunder by the force of

churches are all that one prime and apostolical church from whence all others come. And thus they are all prime and apostolical in regard to their unity, as long as there is that communication of that title of brotherhood and common work of peace and hospitality.'

1) See Sherlock in Notes of the Ch. pp. 32, 33, 34.

See also Oxf. Tr. vol. i. pp. 360, 368; Chillingworth's Wks. vol. i. pp. 108, 109; Schism, pp. 277, 278, 292, 467; see Augustine in ibid, p. 293;

Spiritual Despotism, p. 163, &c.; Hind's Rise and Progess of Christ. vol. ii. p. 165.

"There has been a time," says Dr. Claggett, (Notes of the Ch. p. 178,) "when it was so far from being a note of the catholic church to be united to the pope, that it was impossible so to be without separation from the catholic church."

See Cyprian and others, quoted in Potter on Ch. Govt. pp. 166, 167, 182, and 183.

party strife and internal discord. Guilty they no doubt were for being thus at variance. Guilty were they who first wandered from the path of obedienec to the parental law; and they, too, who associated with the disobedient brethren, in this contumelious defiance of the law of the christian family. But nevertheless, they were still children, and they are called upon by the apostle to return to the exercise of the filial and fraternal spirit. And just so is it at this moment with all the members of the great christian household. They have most evidently fallen out by the way, and are not found walking together in love and amity. And most surely there is a heavy responsibility resting upon them, who by their neglect of the divine law and charter of the church, or by the wanton assumption of undue authority over their brethren in the Lord, have led to the present alienations of the various members of the christian family. But still, wherever there is a church which is found holding to the head, even Christ, and to the truth as it is in Him;-there, is a true member of the CHURCH CATHOLIC, WHICH IS MADE UP OF ALL THE PARTICULAR CHURCHES IN WHATEVER PART OF THE WORLD THEY ARE FOUND.

Schism, then, is not separation, nor is that church schismatical that is independent in its organization and ecclesiastical regimen of some other, which is vain and arbitrary enough to claim jurisdiction over it. Separation may, in many cases, be duty, and the source, not of schism, but of greater unity. Union may, in such cases, be sinful, and the fountain whence the most bitter waters of schism may be found to flow. There is nothing in the word of God which makes such consolidated union necessary to christian unity, or which identifies such separate and independent organization with schism. The very contrary is there established. For, while the apostolic churches formed no actual secessions, they were yet schismatical; and while independent of one another, they dwelt together in the unity of the spirit, and the bonds of peace: and thus, as schism may be found where there is union in external form and polity, so may unity co-exist with separation and independence.

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO LECTURE SEVENTEENTH.

NOTE A.

THE NECESSARY TENDENCY OF PRELACY TO UNITY BOTH OF SPIRIT AND OF ECCLESIASTICAL ASSOCIATION.

As this adaptation of prelacy to secure union, in contrast with the undenied differences among other denominations, is now the theme of daily .exultation, as it has been during its entire schism-making course-we feel called upon to give here a few additional illustrations of this tendency.

And first, we will present a portion of a recent letter, published by Bishop McIlvaine, together with the introductory remarks of the editor of the Episcopal Recorder.

Bishop McIlvaine and the Churchman.-Our readers may be grieved, with ourselves, to see and know the necessity for such communications as the following from Bishop McIlvaine. We are sorry to have our paper occupied with evidences of such a state of things in our church as are given in these letters. The unholy and violent course which has been pursued by the Churchman, and we are bound to say sanctioned, because unrestrained and uncontradicted, by Bishop Onderdonk, has given pain and distress to many minds who are deeply concerned for the peace and welfare of the episcopal church. We do not feel at liberty to refuse Bishop McIlvaine the opportunity of self-defence in our columns, after he has been so unjustly assailed. But we feel called upon to do no more in connexion with these discussions than to express our solemn conviction of the destructive and guilty character and tendency of the course which has called for such a defence. The church will see, when ruptured and riven by the violence of this party, her peace destroyed, her truth overshadowed, her integrity_broken, what has been the purpose of these movements on their part. To us it will be then, as it is now, an abiding comfort that we labored for peace and truth, and the responsibility of the result may rest, where it belongs, on an ultra party, who, by a bold and arbitrary course of denunciation, of the men and the truth of God, have thrown a peaceful body into convulsions and schism.

Bishop McIlvaine to the Editor of the Churchman:

I ask no other answer to your charge of "almost heresy," than that those who read what you have written, will also read what I have written. But why, then, am I so pained and mortified? Is it because such treatment and such opposition from you were unexpected? Alas, Dr. Seabury, I have known you too long and too well, not to know just how such truth, even what, in my view, is no other than "the glorious gospel of the blessed God," would be relished by you. I knew you would utterly despise, detest, and ridicule it, just as you have done. And I have no idea that you have expressed all you feel with regard to it. Your hatred of such truth is, I have no doubt, even much greater than you have expressed. I say it feelingly and solemnly, for I know the awfulness of such a state of mind. And if I supposed you would deny it, were it not that I suppose you wish to be con

sidered as in that state of mind, I would not thus lay it to your charge. But as long as I thus understand the views and tastes which you avow, let me tell you seriously, not in the spirit of severity, that until there shall be reason to suppose that God has wrought a great, and what I should call a very blessed change, in your views and tastes and sympathies; when I shall publish any thing distinctive concerning the great matters of the gospel, especially, as to what a poor sinner must do to be saved, I shall feel much more confident that I speak "the truth as it is in Jesus," if I find you loathing it, as you do my charge, than if I shall find you praising it.

You recently published in your paper of November 7th, a most abusive and abominable attack upon me, headed, "Oxford Tracts, Charity Exemplified." You charged me with having refused to receive a person as a candidate for orders, "because he had declined joining a teetotal society, and attending services where the liturgy was dishonored." When I requested you to state the grounds on which you published such statements, (which, by the way, had not one least approach to truth,) you declined printing my letter and answering its request for your grounds of charge, "out of respect" (you wrote me) "to my office, and regard to the honor of the church, and because you did not want to be brought into such conflict with your superior," as you foresaw would be the consequence. My dear sir, if your respect to my office, and to your "superior," and to the honor of the church, be so great, how great then must be your hatred of the truth contained in my charge, when it so masters that respect and so casts it behind your back, and makes you treat your "superior" as you have done in the article now under consideration!

But let us ask again, why does your treatment so pain and mortify me? I answer, because of the painful consideration that the Churchman is so widely regarded as representing the clergy of the diocese of New York, and especially because it is "the official organ of the Bishop of New York," and is under his avowed "general direction and supervision," and therefore, where it calls my charge "almost heretical," it is the Bishop of New York whom the Bishop of Ohio must consider as thus speaking; and when it ridicules the writing of the Bishop of Ohio as "mere romance,' "not even founded on fact," and as the work of a writer "incompetent," and as containing "a perversion of historical truth," it is not merely Dr. Seabury who is responsible, but it is his endorser, and patron and director and supervisor, his protector in these things; it is the Bishop of New York; who is just so much the more responsible for these expressions and charges, as his influence in giving them weight is greater; and so will he be held by the church as well as by myself.

But here I must say, that I would not have spoken in this letter touching the responsibility under which I hold the Bishop of New York for the conduct of the Churchman towards me, were it not that I have faithfully and respectfully and kindly tried in vain by a private correspondence to obtain from that bishop some satisfaction, at least some expression of regret for the abominable attack upon my official proceedings, in the case of the candidate above referred to. My first letter he answered by declining to be considered as responsible, in the way I held him to be, for such things in the Churchman; while not a word has he said, to indicate that, in the article complained of, he does not entirely concur. My second letter is, to this day, unanswered, though it was written nearly two months ago. However you may have meant it, when you placed me in company with Whitfield, Wesley, Newton, Scott, and Simeon, I by no means decline the honor. However I may differ from any of them in some things, I love and honor the whole group, and especially Newton, Scott, and Simeon, as noble "soldiers of Jesus Christ," and God forbid that I should not feel honored by such ridicule as places me at their side.

Then, as to the charge, which you so much reprobate as “almost heretical," I trust the considerate reader will not accuse me of egotism, in introducing the following extract from a letter lately received from my honored friend, the Rev. G. S. Faber; especially as his authority has been so much spoken of lately in recommendation of his work on Election, and as you, sir, have said, in your notice of my book, that "Faber would not thus have conducted the argument." Thus he writes: "I ought before to have acknowledged your kind remembrance of me, in the shape of your very excellent,