Transcribed from the 1864 John Henry and James Parker edition by David
Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org, using scans made available by the British
Library.

                        [Picture: Pamphlet cover]





                                 EXTRACTS
                                   FROM
                     “SIKES ON PAROCHIAL COMMUNION,”
                               RELATING TO
                               EPISCOPACY,
                                   AND
                            THE SIN OF SCHISM.


                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

                            OXFORD and LONDON:
                       JOHN HENRY AND JAMES PARKER.
                                  1864.

                                * * * * *

                                  TO THE
                   RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD
                             THESE PAGES ARE,
                        WITH HIS KIND PERMISSION,
                    VERY RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY HIS
                      OBLIGED AND OBEDIENT SERVANT,
                              THE COMPILER.




PREFACE.


HAVING, through the kindness of a friend, had the opportunity of reading
a book which appears as scarce as it is valuable, “Sikes on Parochial
Communion,” it has seemed to me desirable to make a few extracts from it,
in order that a work which has evidently been the product of much thought
and deep study, may not be wholly lost to those persons who value sound
reasoning and clear expositions of Scripture truths, but who may not (as
it has been long out of print) have the privilege of reading the book
itself, which would of course be far more interesting and instructive,
and which also, towards the latter part, treats ably on the duties of the
people to their spiritual pastors, and the error of those who are “given
to change,” and fond of the excitement afforded by fresh ministry.




Extracts from “Sikes on Parochial Communion.”


IF the sacred character and divine authority of the Christian priesthood
were correctly understood, it would greatly conduce to the prevention of
those many divisions which at present distract the Church of Christ.  It
is at present much to be feared that there are few who feel any
obligation to submit, upon a right ground.  It is necessary therefore, in
the first place, to lay the foundation firm by establishing the
principles of ecclesiastical obedience, and by a brief recurrence to the
nature and constitution of the Church.

We see the bishops each in his diocese claiming jurisdiction over every
Christian residing within them, and calling upon them to obey and submit
themselves to them in all spiritual matters.  How is this claim made out
and proved?  Let this be the question at present under discussion.

“My kingdom,” says our Lord, “is not of this world.”  But although Church
authority is purely spiritual, and not _of_ this world—not derived _from_
this world,—yet it was ordained to be exercised in it, for the purpose of
bringing lost sinners to the favour of Almighty God, through our Redeemer
Jesus Christ.

Every bishop receives his commission, and with it his spiritual
authority, immediately from those bishops who consecrated him, as they
derived their powers and privileges from their predecessors in a direct
line from the Apostles and our Lord.  The Lord bequeathed His authority
to His Apostles and their successors, to the end of the world: “As My
Father hath sent Me, so send I you.  And when He had said this, He
breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.”  He left with
them His commission and His Spirit for their natural life, entailing them
upon that succession of men upon whom they should lay their hands
according to His directions.

This title, however, to Christ’s authority is often disputed, and will be
disputed, doubtless, to the end of time, for reasons too obvious to
mention.  But we have not always the worse opinion of a title merely
because it has been called in question.  On the contrary, examination and
controversy often produce such facts and arguments as greatly strengthen
that which was strong before; and, in truth, this in some degree has been
the case with the episcopal title, the evidence for which is so clear,
that we may safely affirm that there never was, nor ever can be, a title
more clear and valid; and it has providentially happened that, in the
several Churches of the Christian world, authentic documents have been
preserved to prove the regular descent of the episcopate from the very
Apostles down to those persons at present occupying the episcopal chair.

What potentate of this world can shew for his kingly authority such a
title as this? what nobleman for his dignity? who can pretend to such a
title for the best estate in the world?  When our blessed Lord invested
the Apostles with full powers for the ministry, He sent them, as His
Father had sent Him.  Now the Father had sent the Son with power to send
others: so, therefore, did our Lord send His Apostles, and promised to be
with them to the end of the world, that is with His Church, which they
should erect and continue by a regular succession: this promise itself
necessarily including the notion of a Church.  Vain, then, is the
objection of those who pretend that the Apostles’ authority ended with
their natural lives, and that Christians since their days are left to
model the form of Church government as they please.

But the succession, it is said, has been interrupted, what then becomes
of the validity of the bishop’s authority, and consequently of the
authority of all his acts and ordinations?

To this it may be replied, that the instances which have been adduced for
this purpose are no evidence of an interrupted _succession_, but, at
most, are either interruptions in the _evidence_ of the succession (which
is quite a different thing), or mere cases of competition between persons
contending for and alternately possessing the same dignity, equally
qualified, as far as their spiritual descent is concerned, to transmit
the legitimate episcopal character.

Now to allege a mere interruption of this sort, is only to allege that
you know nothing of the succession during a certain period of time, which
you call an interruption; and such an interruption of _historical
evidence_ cannot invalidate the succession.  But since the succession is
found to recur at certain dates, and to be carried on without any proof,
nay, without any surmise, of a spurious descent during that time when we
are not able to name the persons, it may be legitimately assumed that all
was regular and right; for if there had been any important defect,
enemies enough would have been found to triumph in the discovery, and
those public records (the ornament and security of the Church) would,
long ere this, have been made the sport of infidels and schismatics.

Separatists may possibly urge an argument from their numbers with success
in an age unaccountably regardless of the advice of Job, “Enquire, I pray
thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their
fathers: for we are but of yesterday, and know nothing.”

But turn to the Sacred Scriptures, to the fathers, to the early
historians, even to those of modern date, and you find that the
anti-episcopalian cause comes not recommended either by numbers or
antiquity.  The first appointed Church with regular episcopacy was that
at Jerusalem, of which place St. James was constituted bishop.  This is
plainly and unanimously testified by the ancient fathers and historians
of the Church; the sacred history in a great measure, though not
directly, proves the same.

St. Paul, three years after his conversion, went up to Jerusalem to see
Peter, “but other Apostles saw he none,” says he, “but James the brother
of our Lord.”  St. Jerome says this was James the first Bishop of
Jerusalem.  This is mentioned for the notice of those who may have taken
up an opinion that bishops were appointed only when schisms began to shew
the necessity of the order, and degrade it almost to a human invention;
and if any further demonstration be required, we must have recourse to
the testimony of the primitive fathers, those eminent men who immediately
succeeded the Apostles; but in the writings of these holy men we find
such abundant proof for the Divine authority of bishops, that it is
difficult to know how to select, or where to end.  From the Apostles thus
descending to their successors, some of whom conversed with them and were
their disciples, we find that the succession of bishops and the
government of the Church by them still prevailed wherever the Gospel was
planted.

The writings of Ignatius are of all others the most direct and explicit
in establishing episcopacy, and in asserting the authority of bishops.
There is scarcely a page of his Epistles which contains not some
instructions upon these points.  To the Smyrneans he says, “Flee
divisions as the beginning of evils.  All of you follow your bishop as
Jesus Christ the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles, and
reverence the deacons as the command of God.  Let no man do anything of
what appertains to the Church without the bishops.”  Again, the venerable
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, “Let nothing be done without thy
approbation;” and to his people, “Give heed to your bishops, that God
also may hearken to you.”  The great evil of schism, the absolute duty of
unity and obedience to the bishop, were always the leading ideas in this
great man’s mind; and stronger testimony we cannot have (the Sacred
Scriptures alone excepted) to enforce the perpetual observance of these
duties.  And regarding the bishop sitting in Parliament, is there any law
of the Gospel to forbid it? and if he should haply gain the good opinion
and confidence of the prince of the land, does he not obtain a most
valuable opportunity of commending to his favour the best interests of
the Gospel of Christ?

There is a generation who are fond of recommending the poverty and the
lowly circumstances of our Lord and His Apostles to the imitation of the
clergy, and are constantly reminding them of the zeal and
disinterestedness of the first ministers of the Gospel.  All good men
must undoubtedly reverence such examples as these, but it must be
observed that from the days of the Apostles the Gospel never was
destitute of human aid.  Those times, so frequently pressed upon the
recollection of Churchmen, were remarkable for the liberality of the
laity; men sold their possessions, and laid the price at the Apostles’
feet for their disposal.

When the clergy, then, are reminded of the virtues of the Apostles, is it
not their duty to press upon such friends the virtues of those who were
the Apostles’ hearers?  Such munificence as that of selling states and
possessions, and placing the price of them in the hands of the Christian
minister, might render superfluous any other support.

We are told that heresies (that is, divisions and sects) must need come,
and _why_?  That “they which are approved may be made manifest.” {11a}
They are permitted as the trial of our faith and proof of our orthodoxy.
Schism is a carnal sin, {11b} and must not be countenanced, but avoided.
It must be treated and resisted just as the determined Christian would
treat and resist any other carnal sin.

It is unnecessary to enlarge, with proofs and testimonies, upon the guilt
of schism.  It is our business to discover what is the true nature of the
offence, and what its guilt.  This is demonstrated from the Sacred
Scriptures and from the Church Universal.  We come with the Sacred
Scriptures in our hands, supported by the holy fathers and a host of
primitive writers.  We define the sin from the mouth of the Lord and from
the pen of the Apostles, and we have the universal agreement of the whole
Christian Church for fifteen hundred years together.

It will be useful to trace the history of schism from early times.  The
very first generation of mankind furnishes an example, and describes the
case with several of those circumstances which ever since have generally
attended it.  When Cain fled from his father after the murder of Abel, he
went out from “the presence of the Lord.”  He went out from some place
where God was present in an especial manner, that is, the place of divine
worship, which was doubtless with Adam, and thus forsook the stated
public communion of those persons with whom the covenant of mercy was
made, in the promise of the Blessed Messiah.  From this time he and his
descendants became a separate people from the true Church, which
continued in the line of Seth, for in Seth’s time they were called the
people or Church of God—in contradistinction to the schismatical party of
Cain.  To this account of Cain’s first schism we may add the testimony of
St. Jude, who, in speaking of teachers of false doctrine and men who
despise government, joins together those who perished in the gainsaying
of Corah, and says of them in ver. 19, “These be they who separate
themselves.”  The cause of this separation of Cain may be traced from the
circumstances of the worship of the two brothers: for schisms are not
made for their own sake: there is generally something corrupt in their
origin.

Now Abel offered for his sacrifice the firstlings of his flock: a bloody
sacrifice, a lamb slaughtered for the purpose.  We have reason to suppose
that this service was by _divine appointment instituted_ immediately
after the Fall to prefigure the one grand sacrifice of the Messiah.  But
Cain’s sacrifice was not of this sort, therefore unto Cain and his
sacrifice the Lord had not respect.  Cain was a tiller of the ground, and
brought an offering of the first of the ground, which, simply considered,
appears as much an act of piety as the sacrifice of Abel.  But state the
case, that God had positively directed and required the sacrifice of
blood, and it is seen at once that Cain’s offering, although of the best
that he had, was an act of disobedience; whilst Abel’s sacrifice was a
pious observance of the divine institution, for it is written, “Behold,
to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”
In short, may we not consider this man’s service as mere will-worship?
He probably adopted his own invention, instead of the stated worship of
God, and the result was that which was to be expected.  Note likewise how
he bears the displeasure of his Creator; we see no submission, no humble
contrition, no attempt to serve his Creator in a more acceptable manner,
“he was very wroth, and his countenance fell;” and soon after we read
that he put to death the righteous Abel.  Those who at this day “separate
themselves” too hastily pass by the history of Cain, considering him
perhaps only as a murderer, or as generally a profane person, but St.
Jude appears to consider him as a schismatic, a false teacher, a despiser
of government; for when he is guarding us against persons of this
description he tells us “they have gone in the way of Cain.”  The Apostle
joins the way of Cain with “the error of Balaam and the gainsaying of
Corah.”  Now the error of Balaam was the seducing the people from the
established worship of God, and leading them to separation and idolatry;
and the gainsaying of Corah was the formal rebellion of some inferior
ministers of the Church, with their adherents, against their superior,
the high priest.

We must suppose that the criminality adverted to in these three examples
in some point coincided; accordingly, the guilt which appears to be
common to the three instances is that of separation from the divinely
instituted form of worship.  We read in the sequel, that after this
separation of Cain his posterity were called “the sons of men,” and the
posterity of Seth, who continued in the true Church, were called “the
sons of God,” probably because one party espoused the religion of men,
the other adopted the religion of God.

When Corah and his adherents first began their complaint, it was upon the
ground of religion and the Church.  Even in things sacred some spirits
can brook no superiors; and all supremacy, though originating in the
Almighty Himself, is charged with tyranny and presumption.  “Ye take too
much upon you” has generally been alleged against the ministers of God by
men who can pretend that _all_ the congregation are holy, that all are
equally qualified for the priesthood.  Corah was for equality; he could
not submit to his lawful superiors.  He tells them that they are not
better than other people; “All the congregation were holy, every one of
them.”  What was the gainsaying of Corah in which St. Jude declares that
those who separate themselves perish?  Did he gainsay any doctrine, or
any part of the divine service?  No.  It was the discipline and
government of God’s Church that he gainsayed.  Corah’s schism consisted
in disobedience to the Head of the Church, and for this offence he and
his party went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them.

St. Augustine judges that scarcely any crime is so great as schism.
Vincentius considers schism as the mother of all heresies.  “Who,” says
he, “ever supported any heresy before he had withdrawn from the Catholic
Church, and had neglected the consent of antiquity?”

And Jerome, on the other hand, observes that there never yet was any
schism that did not invent some false doctrine in order to justify its
separation from the Church.  It were easy to bring so large a body of
quotations from the early Christians upon this subject as must doubtless
surprise those who have been kept in ignorance of the great cloud of
witnesses against them.  Enough, however, is before us to shew that the
first and most eminent disciples of Christ and His Apostles steadily
maintained the discipline as well as the faith once delivered to them.
Heresies and schisms were permitted for the probation of their faith, but
they uniformly repelled them with learning, vigour, and zeal, in no case
keeping back the truth upon any pretence whatever.  To believe in the
Holy Catholic Church is the ninth article of what is called the Apostolic
Creed.

That this Church is Apostolic is professed in the Nicene Creed.  Our
Lord’s charge to the Apostles was this:—“Go ye, and make disciples in all
nations.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.”  That it is necessary to believe in the
doctrine of a Church is therefore hardly disputable; but it is further
necessary that we believe this article, not in some loose and general
acceptation, but in that alone which was intended by the founder.  The
Catholic Church is defined by our Articles to be a congregation of
faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the
Sacraments be _duly_ administered _according to Christ’s ordinance_.  By
Canon 55 it is considered as the whole congregation of Christian people,
consisting of apostolical governors and such as hold communion with them
in the Word and Sacraments according to Christ’s institution.

The Church can be built upon only one foundation, namely, that of the
Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone,
in whom all the building is fitly framed together.  It has only one
faith, viz. the faith once delivered to the saints.  But those who will
not endure sound doctrine will heap to _themselves_ teachers.  And then
what can be expected but that which the Apostle declares will follow:
first, “that such men shall turn away their ears from the truth;” and
then, that “they shall be turned unto fables;” that is, they shall fall
into false doctrines and the most absurd opinions.

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

              Printed by Messrs. Parker, Cornmarket, Oxford.




FOOTNOTES.


{11a}  1 Cor. xi. 19.

{11b}  1 Cor. iii. 3; Gal. v. 20.