LECT. XIX.] PRELATIC EXCLUSIVENESS IS SCHISM.

473

tices, are now pertinaciously advanced, and are also held forth as the just and necessary inferences from this elemental truththe apostolical succession; we are hence led to the conclusion that this doctrine is schismatical, and its upholders justly chargeable with the guilt of schism.

Besides, this doctrine, and these, its associated errors, are, by their abettors, enrolled among the articles of faith. They are declared to be "of the substance of the faith," and therefore, essential as terms of communion with the church of Christ. On the contrary, in unison with a large portion of the Church of England, and its most judicious divines, we believe that such doctrines never can be proved from scripture, and that they may not be held as terms of christian communion, and therefore that to enforce them as such, is schism.1

Still further, the advocates of this system anathematize and exclude from all covenanted mercy, those who cannot conscientiously receive their unscriptural and unsubstantiated dogmas as true, and much less as fundamentally necessary. Now, that this conduct is most plain and palpable schism, we will prove out of their own writers. "None of us," says Bishop Bull, in his Vindication of the Church of England," "do affirm that our church is the only true church; for that would be a schismatical assertion, like that of the Donatists of old, and the papists nowa-days, and the highest breach of charity, in damning all the christian world besides ourselves."

Such, also, is the opinion of Dr. Field, in his work on the

the church, and consequently out of heaven, all those, (how orthodox and serious soever they are otherwise,) who are not in prelatical communion; if no diocesan bishops, then no ministers, no sacraments, no church, no salvation, which is certainly the most schismatical notion that ever was broached in the christian world."

1) See Lects. ii. iii. and iv. and p. 56. Also Unity and Schism, pp. 25, 28, 29, by the author of Hours of Thought, Lond. 1838; Spiritual Despot. p. 426; Bp. Bull's Vind. of Ch. of Engl. pp. 105, 113, 114, 115, 149, 117, 167. See this fully shown in Burnet on 39 Art. Page's ed. p. 100; Note from Stillingfleet, and also pp. 486, 488, and in Chillingworth's Wks. vol. i. pp. 66, 108, 109, (3 vol. Eng. edit.)

"The spirit of schism, (Oxf. Tr. vol. i. p. 428,) in addition to its other inherent characters of sin,

implies the desire of establishing minor points as catholic or essential points, or the spirit of exclusiveness. Laud, however, claims equal power to legislate for the church with the apostles. See our Liturgy and Episcop. pp. 42, 46. Thus, also, the second council of Nice determined that the synod which decreed the propriety of image worship, to be schismatical, and not they who resisted that decree, and on these grounds, as expressed by Hales, (see in Iren. p. 120,) "First, because it is acknowledged by all, that it is unnecessary. Secondly, it is by most suspected. Thirdly, it is by many held utterly unlawful. Can, then, saith he, the enjoying of such a thing be aught else but abuse? or can the refusal of communion here be thought any other thing than duty?"

2) P. 66, Oxf. edit.

church. "Ye are to be charged with donatism, who deny all christian societies in the world to be where the pope's feet are not kissed, to pertain to the true church of God, and so cast into hell all the churches of Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, Græcia, Russia."

Hear, also, Bishop Sherlock in his Examination of the Notes of the Church. "For every church which professes the true catholic faith, and imposes only catholic terms of communion, and is ready, out of the principles of brotherly love and charity (that cement of catholic communion) to communicate with all churches, and to receive all churches to her communion upon these terms, is a truly catholic church."

Sir Peter King thus gives his judgment: "Whosoever imposed," says he,-after showing that conformity in rites and customs, or in points considered non-essential, was not required by the primitive churches,-"on particular churches the observance of the former of these two things, or on particular persons the belief of the latter, they were esteemed not as preservers and maintainers, but as violaters and breakers of the churches' unity and concord."

From all that has been adduced, it is therefore evident, that by the definitions of schism, given by prelatists themselves, this doctrine and its abettors must be adjudged to be schismatical.

But there is another view of schism from which this conclusion will as certainly follow. Schism has been recently defined by an American divine, to be "opposition to previously existing churches ;" and on this basis schism is charged upon the Ameri

can Roman catholic church. Now if the term schism is to be understood as meaning separ

1) B. iii. ch. xxviii. in Rutherford's Due Right, p. 82.

2) See exactly similar sentiments, in Bishop Morton's Grand Imposture, ch. xiv. p. 2; Challenge, p. 342, in ibid. See also the language of Mr. Hales, as quoted above.

See also Bishop Patrick, in his Christian Sacrifice, pp. 61, 70. Bp. Sherlock, in Notes of the Church Exam. pp. 13, 19, 29, 32. See also Harris's Union, pp. 99-102, Am. ed. 127, 226, and Chrysostom and Cyprian in ibid, pp. 64, 65. Also, Robert Hall's Wks. 8vo. ed. Engl. vol. ii. pp. 82, 85, 86, 88.

This charge is distinctly made against this system in an able review of the Tracts for the Times, in the Meth. Quart. Rev. (Jan. 1841, p. 76.) "The doctrine of a divinely

constituted church, and apostolic succession of clergy, on the contrary, is not only absurd, as we have already shown it to be, but it counteracts christian charity, engenders pride and bigotry. It has thrown the English church out of communion with protestant churches and has arrayed her on the side of the Romish church, under circumstances highly prejudicial to the principles of true christianity."

3) Notes of the Ch. Ex. p. 13, and see pp. 30, 32, 33.

4) See on the Primit. Church. 5) Rev. John Coleman in Faber's Diff. of Rom. pp. 277, 278, as edited by him. See also Perceval on Ap. Succ. pp. 66, 133, 142. Palmer on the Ch. vol. i. pp. 68, 70, 576.

LECT. XIX.] PRELACY BY ITS OWN SHOWING, SCHISMATICAL. 475

ation from some church already established, or which is the most ancient in any given place, irrespective of the causes of such separation, then, instead of being any brand of heresy or error, it will be found to apply equally to the most opposite communions. Thus, while presbytery will, on this ground, be schism in England, prelacy will be schism in Scotland, and both schism in France. Thus also in the New-England States certainly, and in other portions of this country probably, prelacy is schismatical, and presbytery alone catholic,1 since presbytery was in these places first established.

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."

2

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 manifestly 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.

2) New York, 1839, pp. 419, 420. 3) P. 420.

LECT. XIX.] PRELACY IN THIS COUNTRY SCHISMATICAL.

477

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.3 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.