{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_62228/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_62228","id":"gutenberg_62228","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62228","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Episcopacy -- Controversial literature","Schism"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1864 John Henry and James Parker edition by David\nPrice, email ccx074@pglaf.org, using scans made available by the British\nLibrary.\n\n                        [Picture: Pamphlet cover]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 EXTRACTS\n                                   FROM\n                     \u201cSIKES ON PAROCHIAL COMMUNION,\u201d\n                               RELATING TO\n                               EPISCOPACY,\n                                   AND\n                            THE SIN OF SCHISM.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                            OXFORD and LONDON:\n                       JOHN HENRY AND JAMES PARKER.\n                                  1864.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                  TO THE\n                   RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD\n                             THESE PAGES ARE,\n                        WITH HIS KIND PERMISSION,\n                    VERY RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY HIS\n                      OBLIGED AND OBEDIENT SERVANT,\n                              THE COMPILER.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nHAVING, through the kindness of a friend, had the opportunity of reading\na book which appears as scarce as it is valuable, \u201cSikes on Parochial\nCommunion,\u201d it has seemed to me desirable to make a few extracts from it,\nin order that a work which has evidently been the product of much thought\nand deep study, may not be wholly lost to those persons who value sound\nreasoning and clear expositions of Scripture truths, but who may not (as\nit has been long out of print) have the privilege of reading the book\nitself, which would of course be far more interesting and instructive,\nand which also, towards the latter part, treats ably on the duties of the\npeople to their spiritual pastors, and the error of those who are \u201cgiven\nto change,\u201d and fond of the excitement afforded by fresh ministry.\n\n\n\n\nExtracts from \u201cSikes on Parochial Communion.\u201d\n\n\nIF the sacred character and divine authority of the Christian priesthood\nwere correctly understood, it would greatly conduce to the prevention of\nthose many divisions which at present distract the Church of Christ.  It\nis at present much to be feared that there are few who feel any\nobligation to submit, upon a right ground.  It is necessary therefore, in\nthe first place, to lay the foundation firm by establishing the\nprinciples of ecclesiastical obedience, and by a brief recurrence to the\nnature and constitution of the Church.\n\nWe see the bishops each in his diocese claiming jurisdiction over every\nChristian residing within them, and calling upon them to obey and submit\nthemselves to them in all spiritual matters.  How is this claim made out\nand proved?  Let this be the question at present under discussion.\n\n\u201cMy kingdom,\u201d says our Lord, \u201cis not of this world.\u201d  But although Church\nauthority is purely spiritual, and not _of_ this world\u2014not derived _from_\nthis world,\u2014yet it was ordained to be exercised in it, for the purpose of\nbringing lost sinners to the favour of Almighty God, through our Redeemer\nJesus Christ.\n\nEvery bishop receives his commission, and with it his spiritual\nauthority, immediately from those bishops who consecrated him, as they\nderived their powers and privileges from their predecessors in a direct\nline from the Apostles and our Lord.  The Lord bequeathed His authority\nto His Apostles and their successors, to the end of the world: \u201cAs My\nFather hath sent Me, so send I you.  And when He had said this, He\nbreathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.\u201d  He left with\nthem His commission and His Spirit for their natural life, entailing them\nupon that succession of men upon whom they should lay their hands\naccording to His directions.\n\nThis title, however, to Christ\u2019s authority is often disputed, and will be\ndisputed, doubtless, to the end of time, for reasons too obvious to\nmention.  But we have not always the worse opinion of a title merely\nbecause it has been called in question.  On the contrary, examination and\ncontroversy often produce such facts and arguments as greatly strengthen\nthat which was strong before; and, in truth, this in some degree has been\nthe case with the episcopal title, the evidence for which is so clear,\nthat we may safely affirm that there never was, nor ever can be, a title\nmore clear and valid; and it has providentially happened that, in the\nseveral Churches of the Christian world, authentic documents have been\npreserved to prove the regular descent of the episcopate from the very\nApostles down to those persons at present occupying the episcopal chair.\n\nWhat potentate of this world can shew for his kingly authority such a\ntitle as this? what nobleman for his dignity? who can pretend to such a\ntitle for the best estate in the world?  When our blessed Lord invested\nthe Apostles with full powers for the ministry, He sent them, as His\nFather had sent Him.  Now the Father had sent the Son with power to send\nothers: so, therefore, did our Lord send His Apostles, and promised to be\nwith them to the end of the world, that is with His Church, which they\nshould erect and continue by a regular succession: this promise itself\nnecessarily including the notion of a Church.  Vain, then, is the\nobjection of those who pretend that the Apostles\u2019 authority ended with\ntheir natural lives, and that Christians since their days are left to\nmodel the form of Church government as they please.\n\nBut the succession, it is said, has been interrupted, what then becomes\nof the validity of the bishop\u2019s authority, and consequently of the\nauthority of all his acts and ordinations?\n\nTo this it may be replied, that the instances which have been adduced for\nthis purpose are no evidence of an interrupted _succession_, but, at\nmost, are either interruptions in the _evidence_ of the succession (which\nis quite a different thing), or mere cases of competition between persons\ncontending for and alternately possessing the same dignity, equally\nqualified, as far as their spiritual descent is concerned, to transmit\nthe legitimate episcopal character.\n\nNow to allege a mere interruption of this sort, is only to allege that\nyou know nothing of the succession during a certain period of time, which\nyou call an interruption; and such an interruption of _historical\nevidence_ cannot invalidate the succession.  But since the succession is\nfound to recur at certain dates, and to be carried on without any proof,\nnay, without any surmise, of a spurious descent during that time when we\nare not able to name the persons, it may be legitimately assumed that all\nwas regular and right; for if there had been any important defect,\nenemies enough would have been found to triumph in the discovery, and\nthose public records (the ornament and security of the Church) would,\nlong ere this, have been made the sport of infidels and schismatics.\n\nSeparatists may possibly urge an argument from their numbers with success\nin an age unaccountably regardless of the advice of Job, \u201cEnquire, I pray\nthee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their\nfathers: for we are but of yesterday, and know nothing.\u201d\n\nBut turn to the Sacred Scriptures, to the fathers, to the early\nhistorians, even to those of modern date, and you find that the\nanti-episcopalian cause comes not recommended either by numbers or\nantiquity.  The first appointed Church with regular episcopacy was that\nat Jerusalem, of which place St. James was constituted bishop.  This is\nplainly and unanimously testified by the ancient fathers and historians\nof the Church; the sacred history in a great measure, though not\ndirectly, proves the same.\n\nSt. Paul, three years after his conversion, went up to Jerusalem to see\nPeter, \u201cbut other Apostles saw he none,\u201d says he, \u201cbut James the brother\nof our Lord.\u201d  St. Jerome says this was James the first Bishop of\nJerusalem.  This is mentioned for the notice of those who may have taken\nup an opinion that bishops were appointed only when schisms began to shew\nthe necessity of the order, and degrade it almost to a human invention;\nand if any further demonstration be required, we must have recourse to\nthe testimony of the primitive fathers, those eminent men who immediately\nsucceeded the Apostles; but in the writings of these holy men we find\nsuch abundant proof for the Divine authority of bishops, that it is\ndifficult to know how to select, or where to end.  From the Apostles thus\ndescending to their successors, some of whom conversed with them and were\ntheir disciples, we find that the succession of bishops and the\ngovernment of the Church by them still prevailed wherever the Gospel was\nplanted.\n\nThe writings of Ignatius are of all others the most direct and explicit\nin establishing episcopacy, and in asserting the authority of bishops.\nThere is scarcely a page of his Epistles which contains not some\ninstructions upon these points.  To the Smyrneans he says, \u201cFlee\ndivisions as the beginning of evils.  All of you follow your bishop as\nJesus Christ the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles, and\nreverence the deacons as the command of God.  Let no man do anything of\nwhat appertains to the Church without the bishops.\u201d  Again, the venerable\nPolycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, \u201cLet nothing be done without thy\napprobation;\u201d and to his people, \u201cGive heed to your bishops, that God\nalso may hearken to you.\u201d  The great evil of schism, the absolute duty of\nunity and obedience to the bishop, were always the leading ideas in this\ngreat man\u2019s mind; and stronger testimony we cannot have (the Sacred\nScriptures alone excepted) to enforce the perpetual observance of these\nduties.  And regarding the bishop sitting in Parliament, is there any law\nof the Gospel to forbid it? and if he should haply gain the good opinion\nand confidence of the prince of the land, does he not obtain a most\nvaluable opportunity of commending to his favour the best interests of\nthe Gospel of Christ?\n\nThere is a generation who are fond of recommending the poverty and the\nlowly circumstances of our Lord and His Apostles to the imitation of the\nclergy, and are constantly reminding them of the zeal and\ndisinterestedness of the first ministers of the Gospel.  All good men\nmust undoubtedly reverence such examples as these, but it must be\nobserved that from the days of the Apostles the Gospel never was\ndestitute of human aid.  Those times, so frequently pressed upon the\nrecollection of Churchmen, were remarkable for the liberality of the\nlaity; men sold their possessions, and laid the price at the Apostles\u2019\nfeet for their disposal.\n\nWhen the clergy, then, are reminded of the virtues of the Apostles, is it\nnot their duty to press upon such friends the virtues of those who were\nthe Apostles\u2019 hearers?  Such munificence as that of selling states and\npossessions, and placing the price of them in the hands of the Christian\nminister, might render superfluous any other support.\n\nWe are told that heresies (that is, divisions and sects) must need come,\nand _why_?  That \u201cthey which are approved may be made manifest.\u201d {11a}\nThey are permitted as the trial of our faith and proof of our orthodoxy.\nSchism is a carnal sin, {11b} and must not be countenanced, but avoided.\nIt must be treated and resisted just as the determined Christian would\ntreat and resist any other carnal sin.\n\nIt is unnecessary to enlarge, with proofs and testimonies, upon the guilt\nof schism.  It is our business to discover what is the true nature of the\noffence, and what its guilt.  This is demonstrated from the Sacred\nScriptures and from the Church Universal.  We come with the Sacred\nScriptures in our hands, supported by the holy fathers and a host of\nprimitive writers.  We define the sin from the mouth of the Lord and from\nthe pen of the Apostles, and we have the universal agreement of the whole\nChristian Church for fifteen hundred years together.\n\nIt will be useful to trace the history of schism from early times.  The\nvery first generation of mankind furnishes an example, and describes the\ncase with several of those circumstances which ever since have generally\nattended it.  When Cain fled from his father after the murder of Abel, he\nwent out from \u201cthe presence of the Lord.\u201d  He went out from some place\nwhere God was present in an especial manner, that is, the place of divine\nworship, which was doubtless with Adam, and thus forsook the stated\npublic communion of those persons with whom the covenant of mercy was\nmade, in the promise of the Blessed Messiah.  From this time he and his\ndescendants became a separate people from the true Church, which\ncontinued in the line of Seth, for in Seth\u2019s time they were called the\npeople or Church of God\u2014in contradistinction to the schismatical party of\nCain.  To this account of Cain\u2019s first schism we may add the testimony of\nSt. Jude, who, in speaking of teachers of false doctrine and men who\ndespise government, joins together those who perished in the gainsaying\nof Corah, and says of them in ver. 19, \u201cThese be they who separate\nthemselves.\u201d  The cause of this separation of Cain may be traced from the\ncircumstances of the worship of the two brothers: for schisms are not\nmade for their own sake: there is generally something corrupt in their\norigin.\n\nNow Abel offered for his sacrifice the firstlings of his flock: a bloody\nsacrifice, a lamb slaughtered for the purpose.  We have reason to suppose\nthat this service was by _divine appointment instituted_ immediately\nafter the Fall to prefigure the one grand sacrifice of the Messiah.  But\nCain\u2019s sacrifice was not of this sort, therefore unto Cain and his\nsacrifice the Lord had not respect.  Cain was a tiller of the ground, and\nbrought an offering of the first of the ground, which, simply considered,\nappears as much an act of piety as the sacrifice of Abel.  But state the\ncase, that God had positively directed and required the sacrifice of\nblood, and it is seen at once that Cain\u2019s offering, although of the best\nthat he had, was an act of disobedience; whilst Abel\u2019s sacrifice was a\npious observance of the divine institution, for it is written, \u201cBehold,\nto obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.\u201d\nIn short, may we not consider this man\u2019s service as mere will-worship?\nHe probably adopted his own invention, instead of the stated worship of\nGod, and the result was that which was to be expected.  Note likewise how\nhe bears the displeasure of his Creator; we see no submission, no humble\ncontrition, no attempt to serve his Creator in a more acceptable manner,\n\u201che was very wroth, and his countenance fell;\u201d and soon after we read\nthat he put to death the righteous Abel.  Those who at this day \u201cseparate\nthemselves\u201d too hastily pass by the history of Cain, considering him\nperhaps only as a murderer, or as generally a profane person, but St.\nJude appears to consider him as a schismatic, a false teacher, a despiser\nof government; for when he is guarding us against persons of this\ndescription he tells us \u201cthey have gone in the way of Cain.\u201d  The Apostle\njoins the way of Cain with \u201cthe error of Balaam and the gainsaying of\nCorah.\u201d  Now the error of Balaam was the seducing the people from the\nestablished worship of God, and leading them to separation and idolatry;\nand the gainsaying of Corah was the formal rebellion of some inferior\nministers of the Church, with their adherents, against their superior,\nthe high priest.\n\nWe must suppose that the criminality adverted to in these three examples\nin some point coincided; accordingly, the guilt which appears to be\ncommon to the three instances is that of separation from the divinely\ninstituted form of worship.  We read in the sequel, that after this\nseparation of Cain his posterity were called \u201cthe sons of men,\u201d and the\nposterity of Seth, who continued in the true Church, were called \u201cthe\nsons of God,\u201d probably because one party espoused the religion of men,\nthe other adopted the religion of God.\n\nWhen Corah and his adherents first began their complaint, it was upon the\nground of religion and the Church.  Even in things sacred some spirits\ncan brook no superiors; and all supremacy, though originating in the\nAlmighty Himself, is charged with tyranny and presumption.  \u201cYe take too\nmuch upon you\u201d has generally been alleged against the ministers of God by\nmen who can pretend that _all_ the congregation are holy, that all are\nequally qualified for the priesthood.  Corah was for equality; he could\nnot submit to his lawful superiors.  He tells them that they are not\nbetter than other people; \u201cAll the congregation were holy, every one of\nthem.\u201d  What was the gainsaying of Corah in which St. Jude declares that\nthose who separate themselves perish?  Did he gainsay any doctrine, or\nany part of the divine service?  No.  It was the discipline and\ngovernment of God\u2019s Church that he gainsayed.  Corah\u2019s schism consisted\nin disobedience to the Head of the Church, and for this offence he and\nhis party went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them.\n\nSt. Augustine judges that scarcely any crime is so great as schism.\nVincentius considers schism as the mother of all heresies.  \u201cWho,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cever supported any heresy before he had withdrawn from the Catholic\nChurch, and had neglected the consent of antiquity?\u201d\n\nAnd Jerome, on the other hand, observes that there never yet was any\nschism that did not invent some false doctrine in order to justify its\nseparation from the Church.  It were easy to bring so large a body of\nquotations from the early Christians upon this subject as must doubtless\nsurprise those who have been kept in ignorance of the great cloud of\nwitnesses against them.  Enough, however, is before us to shew that the\nfirst and most eminent disciples of Christ and His Apostles steadily\nmaintained the discipline as well as the faith once delivered to them.\nHeresies and schisms were permitted for the probation of their faith, but\nthey uniformly repelled them with learning, vigour, and zeal, in no case\nkeeping back the truth upon any pretence whatever.  To believe in the\nHoly Catholic Church is the ninth article of what is called the Apostolic\nCreed.\n\nThat this Church is Apostolic is professed in the Nicene Creed.  Our\nLord\u2019s charge to the Apostles was this:\u2014\u201cGo ye, and make disciples in all\nnations.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that\nbelieveth not shall be damned.\u201d  That it is necessary to believe in the\ndoctrine of a Church is therefore hardly disputable; but it is further\nnecessary that we believe this article, not in some loose and general\nacceptation, but in that alone which was intended by the founder.  The\nCatholic Church is defined by our Articles to be a congregation of\nfaithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the\nSacraments be _duly_ administered _according to Christ\u2019s ordinance_.  By\nCanon 55 it is considered as the whole congregation of Christian people,\nconsisting of apostolical governors and such as hold communion with them\nin the Word and Sacraments according to Christ\u2019s institution.\n\nThe Church can be built upon only one foundation, namely, that of the\nApostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone,\nin whom all the building is fitly framed together.  It has only one\nfaith, viz. the faith once delivered to the saints.  But those who will\nnot endure sound doctrine will heap to _themselves_ teachers.  And then\nwhat can be expected but that which the Apostle declares will follow:\nfirst, \u201cthat such men shall turn away their ears from the truth;\u201d and\nthen, that \u201cthey shall be turned unto fables;\u201d that is, they shall fall\ninto false doctrines and the most absurd opinions.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n              Printed by Messrs. Parker, Cornmarket, Oxford.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{11a}  1 Cor. xi. 19.\n\n{11b}  1 Cor. iii. 3; Gal. v. 20.","title":"Extracts from \"Sikes on Parochial Communion\": relating to Episcopacy, and the sin of Schism","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":3316}