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.

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

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

p. 3TO 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.

p. 5PREFACE.

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.

p. 6Extracts 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 p. 7Lord 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 p. 8they 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 p. 9their 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 p. 10most 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, p. 11and 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 p. 12from 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 p. 13was 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, p. 14were 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 p. 15subject 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 p. 16the 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.