cation of this rule or standard of schism, it may be argued, that as the protestant episcopal church in this country, is one of the most recent of all established ecclesiastical organizations, it is necessarily schismatical in every portion of the country, and ought by its own rule, to conform to the earlier, and by this mode of judgment, the more catholic communions. The prelacy, therefore, by its own showing, is in this country schismatical. This it unquestionably is in Scotland, and wherever else it has established its churches in the bosom of other denominations. And upon their principles, it is altogether impossible for prelatic churches to justify their continued separation from Rome. Mr. Palmer delivers the following as his conclusion from an examination into this very subject: "It is impossible that in the same place there can be several different churches, authorized by God and united to Christ. In the case of rival communions in a particular locality, it is possible that none of them may be christian; but one alone can be the church of Christ; and it is as impossible that there should be two particular churches in the same place, as two universal churches in the world." Again: "But what I contend for is, that in one locality there can be but one society, whose communion christians are bound to seek in preference to all others." We are sustained in this conclusion by the argument presented in "A Dictionary of the church," by the Reverend William Staunton, in reply to the charge of the Romish church. He there alleges that the mission of Austin the monk, and his coadjutors to England, “and their interference with the existing ecclesiastical jurisdiction," was "on their part an act of schisma trespass on the order, discipline and prerogatives of a church, to meddle with which they had no shadow of right, under the circumstances of the case." This he shows by supposing the case of a mission into the diocese of Rome, and concludes that "the introduction of Romanism into England was manifestly3 a schismatical intrusion." Mr. Thorndike, the oracle of the high-church, believed that At this period the members of the episcopal church in the northern states hardly constituted one thirtieth part of the population. See Hodge's Hist. Presb. Ch. pt. ii. p. 456. See also pp. 462, 464, 473, and Dr. Humphrey's Hist. of the Soc. &c. p. 217. See A Serious Address to the Members of the Episcopal Separation in New England, by Noah Hobart, A. M. Boston, 1748. Sprague Coll. vol. 412, and his Second Address, ibid, 1751, in ibid, vol. 419. That the Church of England was treated as schismatical, and as a dissenting body in New England, see Chandler's Life of Dr. Samuel Johnson, p. 39. 1) On the Ch. vol. i. p. 68. they were guilty of schism who separated from the church of Rome.1 Johnson, in his Unbloody Sacrifice, thus speaks:2 "When two several pastors assume to themselves the privilege of offering and consecrating the sacrament, not only in two distinct places, but in contradiction to each other, and by two several inconsistent claims, then it is evident that one of them acts by no commission; for if the true EUCHARIST can be had in two opposite assemblies, then CHRIST's flesh ceases to be one." Now what must be the unavoidable application of this rule of judgment, by every rational man. To take an illustration. There are in the city of Charleston, as is evident to all, several separate and independent communions. But, as we are here taught, there can be possibly but one true church among them all; and which is that one, is a question to be determined, first by the uninterrupted possession of the apostolic succession; and secondly, by the fact of priority of establishment. Now the Anglican, and therefore the Americo-Anglican church, acknowledges the succession of the Romish church to be apostolic and valid. Neither can they, while granting this position, deny her antiquity. The Romish church, then, presents herself before us with greater antiquity, with exclusive claims, and with an acknowledged succession. And since there can be but one true church in the same place; who, we ask, can hesitate-if constrained to decide upon these principles-to give his verdict in favor of the Romish and against the prelatic church? When, too, we bear in mind that the Romish and the Nicene churches differ chiefly, as it is alleged, in reference to ecclesiastical usages or political arrangements; and that the prelacy identifies itself, in all essential principles, with the Nicene church;-by what possible reasoning can prelatists avoid the condemnation of their own schismatic separation? "It will be impossible," says the author of Ancient Christianity,* "or it ought to be so, for the professors of church principles to make good much longer, their own position as ministers of a schismatic church. Denouncing the reformers, and admitting the Romish church to be only erring in some of its practices, these parties condemn themselves on both hands:-they are sawing the branch on which they sit." There is no escaping this condemnatory sentence against the in 1) Weights and Measures Rights of the Chr. Ch. p. 320. 2) Oxf. Tr. vol. iii. p. 157. 3) We mean, of course, knowledged by the prelacy. For as ac ourselves, we altogether deny the possibility of establishing the fact of an uninterrupted prelatic succession. 4) Vol. i. p. 545. prelacy. Is this doctrine of apostolical succession true, and the consequent theory of schism binding? then are prelatic churches infallibly schismatic. Is this doctrine, on the other hand, and as we believe, untrue and unfounded, and all its unchristian and absurd inferences equally vain and sinful?-then is the prelacy still schismatic in its treatment of other christian communions, that is, nineteen twentieths of all the reformed churches throughout the world. By excommunicating these churches, prelatists excommunicate themselves,' and expose themselves to the enviable notoriety of proclaiming that they alone-A MERE MOIETY OF CHRISTENDOM-CONSTITUTE THE ONLY, TRUE, CATHOLIC, AND UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. Far different was the sentiment of the reformers. "We do not," say they, in the language of the Helvetic Confession, "by a wicked schism separate and break fellowship with the holy churches of Christ in Germany, France, England, or other nations of the christian world." Far different were the sentiments, also, of the English reformers, as has been already seen; and of her best and greatest divines. "But because I esteem them churches not completely formed, do I, therefore," says Archbishop Bramhall," "exclude them from all hopes and salvation? or esteem them aliens and strangers from the commonwealth of Israel? or account them formal schismatics? no such thing." But this doctrine, as is avowed, does thus unchurch nearly all the reformed communions; destroys their ministry; renders their ordinances inefficacious and worthless; and severs them, "as withered branches," from the church of Christ. It debars their ministers from the pulpits of the prelacy; it excludes even their dead bodies from burial within its sacred territory; and it withholds from them every token of christian recognition and ecclesiastical brotherhood.3 Thus does this schismatical theory burst asunder the bands of our common christianity, and perpetuate, and MAKE NECESSARY, BY CONNECTING THEM WITH THE OBLIGATION OF A SACRED PRINCIPLE, THE DISCORDS, DIVISIONS, AND ALIENATIONS, OF THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY. Nor has its influence been less baneful within the bosom of the prelacy itself. Schismatical towards all others, and involving themselves in certain criminality, this system has originated and perpetuated schisms and parties within their own commun 1) "St. Cyprian, Firmilian, and the Africans, did the like," says Dr. Claggett, (Notes of the Ch. p. 177,) "in opposition to Pope Stephen; Firmilian plainly telling them, that while he thought to excommunicate all them from himself, he had but excommunicated himself from them." 2) Vind. of Ch. of Engl. Oxf. Tr. vol. iii. p. 138. 3) To refuse communion with other churches is schism. See Palmer on the Ch. vol. i. pp. 17, 21, 52, 60. Bib. Repertory, 1832, p. 34. ion. Hostile confederacies are formed within this very church. "In the bitterness of their spirit they glory in their unholy endeavors to arm brother against brother, in the hope of waging worse than a civil war with the deadly weapons of theological hatred." The Anglican church is a house divided against itself. It is aptly represented in its motley elements, by the English language, made up, as it is, of the most discordant materials, gathered from every foreign dialect. Avowing, as the great end and aim of this doctrine, the preservation of unity, it prevents its growth. It also violates it, when formed; and thus is schism made the cure of schism. While, therefore, "the Church of England condemns schism in every way, its authors, its maintainers, and its conventicles," so that, as Mr. Palmer boasts, "the subverters of its laws, rules, and orders, are all subjected to excommunication, and regarded as wicked," she must add another anathema against that "schism within the church," which is equally contrary to the will of Christ, and of which, as the result of this very doctrine, she is notoriously guilty." 1) Hook's Call to Union, p. 17. 2) See the evidences given in Lect. xvii. 3) On the Ch. vol. i. p. 219. 4) Ibid, p. 416. 5) On the existence of such parties in the Church, besides what has been said in Lect. seventeen, see British Critic, Ap. 1839, pp. 396, 418, Oxf. Tracts, vol. i. pp. 242, and Newman's Lect. on Rom. pp. 10, 23, 40, 403, 404; Palmer on the Ch. vol. i. pp. 247, 252, 267, 369, 506; Lond. Chr. Obs. 1839, pref. p. 4, and 592; Hook's Call to Union, p. 44, note, 81, 106; Dr. Pusey's Letter, p. 79; Oxf. Tr. vol. iv. (Eng. ed.) pp. 31, 27, 81; Bethel on Bapt. Regeneration, p. 20; Bib. Repert. for 1833, pp. 336-338. See on the altitudinarian and latitudinarian parties in the Eng. Church, and how they pursued each with an unrelenting rage, which not only lasted through life, but was unappeased even by death, the Lond. Chr. Obs. 1839, pp. 80, 81, &c. Three divisions acknowledged in ibid, p. 83. As acknowledged by Mr. Lushington, see Eclectic Rev. Oct. 1838, p. 409. Edinb. Rev. April, 1839, p. 142, &c. The parties into which the English Ch. is divided, are enumerated under three classes, in the Lond. Chr. Obs. Feb. 1841, pp. 76, 77. Four clauses of interpretations of the 39th Art. and of subscription to them, are given by Overton, p. 18, &c. Lond. Chr. Obs. 1802, p. 27. The schismatical tendency and practical influence of this doctrine is argued by Baxter, in his True and Only Way of Concord, Lond. 1680, pt. iii. ch. ix. against Dodwell. See also Baxter's Treatise of Episcopacy, Lond. 1681, pt. ii. ch. viii. says "This document, however," the Edinburgh Witness, Sept. 19, 1840, "contains an insinuation against the church of Scotland, which its prudent authors did not choose to convert into an assertion. The insinuation is, that presbyterianism does not promote unity and order in religion.' From the mouth of papists, this would have come with a better grace, for it is their old argument against all protestant churches. In the mouth of a renegade presbyterian, a love of 'order and unity' sometimes means a love of despotism, sometimes nothing more than a just terror of ecclesiastical discipline. 'Order and unity' forsooth! Who broke in upon the order and unity of the church of Scotland, but the very ancestors of the men who now complain; the old Jacobites of Scotland, at whose instigation Queen Anne's perfidious was hurried through, and by whom, to a great extent, it is still act This system is, then, schismatical. It requires the belief of tenets and practices, which we must regard to be erroneous and unscriptural, and this is schism. It makes terms of communion with Christ's church, which he never enjoyed; and this is schism. It anathematizes and excludes from covenanted mercy all who cannot conscientiously embrace it, and this is schism. It overthrows the unity of the church in its faith, in its charity, in its spiritual cognation and alliance, in its mystical incorporation as one body; in its peaceable concord and confederacy; in the concurrent harmony and co-operation of its ministers, and this is schism. Tried by the standard of those definitions which have been given of it by prelatical divines, it is found to be schism. And, measured by their reasonings upon the subject, it is declared to be schismatic. Described by the testimony of their own writers, it is schismatical.1 Estimated by its fruits, it is : defended? That act alone introduced all the disorder and disunion into the presbyterian family of Scotland. Abolish it, and perfect peace will soon be restored. Meantime, we utterly deny that 'these objects have ever been amply secured' in the Church of England. Much as we respect many of the excellent men in that church, it is impossible not to see, that so far from unity, 'it contains Arminians and Socinians, Pelagians and Puseyites, amongst the clergy and that whilst the church of Scotland has deposed a Campbell, an Irving, and many more, the Church of England either has not the power or the will to restore 'order' amongst her refractory children. Popery is rioting untouched in the halls of Oxford. Let us lay aside our bigotry, and learn to speak with candor; let us rather imitate what is good in our neighbor churches, than deal in notoriously silly and unfounded assertions, with the effect of misleading the ignorant.' " "And who does not know," says Dr. Mitchell, (Letters to Bishop Skinner, Lond. 1809, p. 21,) "that when christians were a small body in comparison of the infidels around them everywhere; when they were all alike exposed to persecution for their common faith, and when the apostles were set over them, with at least episcopal authority, there were schisms and heresies, that is, divisions and sects among them? Episcopacy the guard of unity! Did not that form of ecclesiastical polity prevail universally, before the first of the oecumenical councils was convened? What made it necessary to convene those great assemblies, which, by the way, generally aggravated the disorders which they were called to cure? Was it not heresies and schisms, which episcopacy could neither prevent nor suppress? Nay, is it not well known, that contests among ambitious churchmen about dignified stations in the hierarchy, gave rise to heresies and schisms, and sometimes to massacres, and to whatever was most suited to bring disgrace on the clerical character and the christian name?" 1) This doctrine is schismatical because it is thus plainly opposed to the true unity of the catholic church. It makes others beside those points, which even Bingham, with all his hierarchical prejudices, shows to have been anciently regarded as alone necessary to the well-being of the church,-fundamental and essential to its very being. (See Bingham's Antiq. b. xvi. ch. i.) It is thus schismatic, because it makes essential to a true church, and to true membership in that church, the belief of dogmas which are not contained in those creeds, in which, as the same author testifies, the church had always collected or summed up those fundamental articles, the profession of which was ever esteemed both necessary on the one hand, and sufficient on the other, to admit and to keep men in the unity of the church. (See authorities in ibid, vol. vi. p. 4, &c.) |