nishing of a whited sepulchre, from which the living spirit of true christianity has fled for ever. Neither is this unity to be looked for in any universal subjection to the dominion of any earthly head, or of any ecclesiastical polity; which would be, on the one hand slavery, and on the other, despotism. The mere fact, then, of variety in rites, or forms,—or of separateness and independence, as it regards ecclesiastical regimen,— no more establishes the absence of christian unity, than the variety in human forms, or human societies, proves the existence of different orders of human beings, or disproves the certainty of one common and universal parentage one universal humanity. So likewise schism, as it is described in the word of God, has reference to this christian unity in faith, hope, and charity. As it is there developed, it existed only in a single church;-and it was manifested while as yet no separation among the members of that church had taken place. The Corinthian schism consisted not in insubordination to any prelatic hierarchy, but in the indulgence of uncharitable and bitter feelings, among the members of that church, one toward another. Whatever, therefore, would disturb the harmoney of christian communion; -whatever would alienate the minds of one portion of the christian family from any, or every other;-whatever would tend to elevate and dignify one sect or denomination above the rest, as the special favorites of Heaven, or the entailed possessors of Heaven's peculiar grace;-whatever would exalt unessential points into essential articles of faith, and thus impose burdens on the consciences of men ;-whatever would, in this way, erect new terms of christian communion;-whatever, in short, would necessitate opposition, and resistance, and separation, on the part of those who preferred the faith and order of the gospel, to the wisdom, or policy, or traditions of men;-that does the word of God also teach us to regard as schismatical. This was that evil reprobated by the apostle Paul, and which, like an intestine feud, was wasting the energies of the Corinthian church. This was the evil so earnestly rebuked, in these same Corinthians, by the apostolic father Clement, in his epistles to them. The schism of which later fathers so bombastically treat, and whose criminality they make so deep, as to be actually inexpiable; that is, resistance to the authority of ecclesiastical rulers, or rejection of the assumed dominion of a hierarchical order;-concerning this schism-as it is calledthe scriptures are silent. They know it not. It is a fiction of later times. It is an evident consequence of premises, which had been laid down, in the gradual introduction of the prelatic system. It is the fatal germ of that spirit of priestcraft, which has wormed its way into the church;-corroded its vitals ;— and carried blight and mildew, to its fairest and most flourishing branches. It is, then, of transcendent importance, that correct views of a doctrine which has been employed as the fulcrum for supporting every engine of oppression, should be well established; that a timely resistance may be given to any efforts for the re-establishment of a spiritual despotism, to which our children may be bound in unescapable bondage. Two questions, therefore, arise from this discussion: first, are we schismatics? and, secondly, are the abettors of this prelatic theory of apostolical succession schismatical? The first question we answer in the negative; and the second in the affirmative. The charge of schism does not, we affirm, lie against us. It does attach itself, so far forth as it is carried out, to the advocates of this prelatic system. That we are schismatical, prelatists constantly declare, in language the most severe, bigoted, and illiberal. Nor are such uncharitable and absurd pretensions to an exclusive possession of all the privileges and blessings of the church of Christ, confined to foreign divines; they are adopted by many in this country, and are daily becoming more current. In addition to the evidence of this fact already produced, we may add, that Dr. Chapman has issued a volume containing twenty-seven "Sermons to Presbyterians of all Sects;" "the object of which," as he defines it in his preface, "is to show the obligation of all believers in christianity, to renounce the way of schism, and attach themselves to the apostolic church of Christ."2 as 1) Hartford, 1836, p. 384. 2) The terms schism, dissent, sect, and their correllates, are freely and dogmatically set forth as they were by the great ancestor of this high church party, Archbishop Laud, who, in his Letter to Bishop Hall, (see in Ayton's Const. of Prim. Ch. app. p. 2,) thus writes; "Since they challenged the presbyterian faction to be Christ's kingdom, as yourself expresseth it, we must not use any mincing terms, but unmask them. Nor shall I ever give way to hamper ourselves for fear of speaking plain truth, though it be against Amsterdam and Ge Messenger, for February, 1839, makes the following statement: "Episcopalians generally hold, that the doctrine of a minister, of three orders, deriving its ministry by succession, from the divine head of the church, IS A VITAL TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL. (See p. 384.) " "Again, in the same work for May, 1839, p. 80, in an article headed Oxford Tracts, No. I. it is declared: "For ourselves, we have read four volumes, save those parts which contain Professor Pusey's Treatise on Baptism; and of these alone we can pretend to speak. What the separate publications of their authors may contain, or what errors there may be in Froude's Remains, we are of course unable to say; but the general principles found in these portions we have examined, appear to us to be sound." Again, in an elaborate article in the N. Y. Review, for July, 1839, on Seeing, then, that this crime, involving, as is alleged, such fearful criminality, is thus publicly laid to our charge; and the effort is now being made to fasten it upon us,-like the mark the Oxford Tracts, known to be written by a clergyman of Charleston, the same sentiments are more explicitly advanced. "It next becomes an important question to determine who has authority to administer them, i. e. the ordinances? From whom is this authority derived? And how can any one be assured, that he is not intruding himself, uncalled, and without the divine approbation, into the sacred office? If the Holy Ghost be communicated in these ordinances of religion, who has power over the gift? Such, then, being the sense of the Tracts, and we may add of the whole church, for though she does not in express terms condemn the various sects around her, yet SHE ALLOWS NONE TO BE MINISTERS WHO ARE NOT EPISCOPALLY ORDAINED, and tells us only that Christ has promised to be with the ministers of THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION to the end of the world, thus TACITLY DISOWNING ALL OTHERS,-they cannot acknowledge ANY ECCLESIASTICAL CONFRATERNITY with the dissenting parties, because these divisions are unable to make out their genealogy, or trace their origin. According to their own principles, indeed, they are many of them excluded from all claim to recognition, as having an authorized ministry," &c. "But their posterity soon departed from these rules; for in many cases, the minister was appointed by the congregation alone; again, they went of their own accord; sometimes they received a pretended ordination from those who had no authority to confer it; and altogether their proceedings have been so confused and irregular, that none of them can with certainty claim even authority of presbyterian orders. For, though they have for the most part ceased from these wild and irregular proceedings, yet as the stream can never rise higher than the fountain, so they are just where their forefathers were. They may have what are called pious exercises of the mind, but so had the dairyman's daughter. They may be learned; so was Sir Matthew Hale; eloquent, but not more so than Pitt or Burke. They may be labor ing to do good, so did William Wilberforce. But as these were not ministers of God, invested with power to baptize and dispense THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST TO THE PEOPLE, no more are those, of whom we have spoken. There is not any more of bigotry or uncharitableness in DENYING THIS RIGHT TO THE ONE CLASS, THAN THERE IS IN DENYING IT TO THE OTHER. This is the sense of the Tracts on the Apostolic Succession; and in this they are supported by the wisest and best minds of the English Church." See ibid, for May, 1841. Dr. How represents Dr. Miller as "separating from that divinely instituted ministry, (the prelacy,) which, from the apostolic age, has tren considered an essential ingredient of the church of Christ, and thus plunging into the sin of schism." Vind. p. 130. The Rev. James Wetmore, in his vindication of the professors of the Church of England in Connecticut, published in Boston, in 1747, at a time, too, when, in comparison with the other part of the population, they constituted but a handful, writes thus: (Hodge's Hist. pt. ii. pp. 466, 474.) "In reference to the charge of schism, which had been brought against the episcopal proselytes in Connecticut, he says, 'If the congregations, the forsaking of which is called schism, be themselves founded in schism, and unjustifiable separation from the communion of the Ch. of England; or in their present constitution, must necessarily be esteemed abettors and approvers of schism, disorders, usurpation, contempt of the chief authority Christ has left in his church, or any such like crimes, then such congregations, whatever they may call themselves, and whatever show they may make of piety and devotion in their own ways, ought to be esteemed in respect of the mystical body of Christ, only as excrescences or tumors in the body natural, or perhaps as fungosities in an ulcerated tumor, the eating away which by whatever means, tends not to the hurt, but to the soundness and health of the body.' of "The claims and conduct of these upon the murderous Cain-that wherever we are found we may bear the undeniable evidence of our heaven-daring offence; it is surely important, reasonable and proper, that we should vindicate ourselves, and our protestant brethren, from such ungenerous and unchristian policy. Let it then be observed, that the mere fact that presbyterians have been charged with the guilt of schism, is no proof that they have really deserved the imputation. For the same allegation was made by the Jews against our blessed Saviour; (Mark vii. 1, &c.,) and also against his apostles, and the first christians generally, who were denominated the sect of the Nazarenes, (Acts xxiv. 5.) Nor was the apostle Paul ashamed to acknowledge, that, after the way which was called heresy—that is, sect or schism-so he worshipped the God of his fathers, (Acts xxiv. 14.) On the contrary, this same apostle, on another occasion, openly declares, that, after the most straitest sects-or heresy or schism—of his religion, he lived a pharisee. (Acts xxvi. 5.) Neither is the fact, that as, compared with the Romish and other prelatic churches, we are in a minority, a reasonable or sufficient ground for imputing to us the guilt of schism. For if we will exclude from our consideration, as even the Anglican church must, the Romish church, which, since the Council of Trent, has AUTHORITATIVELY RENOUNCED THE CHARACTERISTIC DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL, AND BASED ITSELF UPON A NEW CREED, WHICH IS LITTLE MORE THAN AN ANATHEMA AND A CURSE, UPON ALL WHO MAINTAIN THE TRUTH As it is in Jesus; and also the Greek church, which is pledged to doctrines equally antichristian; and if we will direct our attention, especially, to the churches of the reformation, then will we be found associated in all essential principles of ecclesiastical polity, WITH AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE TRUEST AND PUREST CHURCHES OF CHRIST. Besides, if the mere fact of being in a minority, is to exclude us from the pale of christianity, then will the Anglican church be itself rejected by the Romish; true christians will be out-voted by the world; and christianity itself will be convicted of schism by the overwhelming masses of paganism. The true church of Christ is not to be sought by numbers, but by the purity of its faith. "For," to use the words of Bishop Sherlock, "if three parts in four, of all the churches in the world, were missionaries, in many cases greatly increased this irritation. They spoke of all the inhabitants of the town in which they lived, as their parishioners; as bound both by the law of God and the state to be in communion with the Ch. of England; as having no authorized ministers or valid ordinances; as belonging to churches which were mere excrescences or fungosities." very corrupt and degenerate in faith and worship, and were in one communion, this would be the most catholic communion, as catholic signifies the most general and universal; but yet the fourth part, which is sincere, would be the best and truest church, and the catholic church, as that signifies the communion of all orthodox and pure churches."1 So also Archbishop Bancroft, after stating "that that church," wherever it be, "which maintaineth, without error, the faith of Christ," &c., adds "from which church whosoever doth separate himself, he is to be reckoned a schismatic or a heretic."2 Neither will this conclusion, that we are schismatical, follow from the additional fact, that, as a christian denomination, we are ecclesiastically independent, and separate from other communions of the church catholic. This will be made, we trust, indubitably certain, in the discussion of the true succession. In order, then, to establish against us the charge of schism, one of two things must be made clear. Either that we have introduced into the church, and insisted on retaining, corruptions in doctrine, worship, or government; or that we have made essential, as a term of communion with the church catholic, that which Christ and his apostles never did make fundamental, or an article of the faith. It will not surely be pretended that we are bound to maintain and perpetuate corruptions, in doctrine or worship, for the sake of living in external, visible union, with any church, by which such corruptions are resolutely upheld. For, since the church is founded upon the truth, and receives its being from its divine institution; whenever that institution is set aside-and just so far as it is set aside the character of the church is destroyed; and they who still sacredly regard its welfare, and the authority of its divine Founder, must combine their energies for the support of His institutes, and for the overthrow of such innovations. The guilt, therefore, of that separation from visible and external communion, which such corruptions make necessary, on the part of all who would not be partakers in them, lies, evidently, on those who introduce, and not on those who resist, such corruptions. This is a position in which we are impregnably fortified, by the authority of the greatest names in the English church. We will only, at present, call young attention to the opinion of Bishop Sherlock.* "The plain state of the case," says Sherlock, "is this: All 1) Notes of the Church Examined, p. 56. 2) Serm. at Paul's Cross. 4) So also speak Laud and Dodwell; "The schism is theirs," says Archbishop Laud, "whose the fault of it is; and he makes the separation that gave the first just cause of it; not he that makes an actual separation upon a just cause first given." Laud against Fisher, § 21, |