in the indispensableness of episcopacy to ordination; and of right ordination to the visible church *.

* We go further:-We esteem it our duty to offer a warning to those latitudinarians in principle, according to whom the visible church is composed of an heterogeneous mass of believers in Christ, whose discrepancy, as to the right preaching of the word and administration of the satraments, is a matter of utter insignificance: nor less to all thoughtless, rambling worshippers, who, from no solid motives of conviction, no imperious call of conscience, but through caprice, idle vanity, itching ears, self-conceit, or trivial o jections to minor ordinances, depart from the communion of our establishment: to both these classes we would address a solemn and solicitous caution, against rashly and wilfully incurring the guilt of schism, and the punishment, whatever it may be, attached to a wanton disturbance of the Catholic church, while holding the faith in the unity of the Spirit and in the bond of peace. Nor let them think lightly of such an error in principle or in conduct. It has been usual to define heresy to be a separation from the church in point of doctrine; and schism, a separation owing to disagreement in external things. Thus external things being accounted non-essentials, it has been artfully inferred, that the schism which rests upon them, must needs be trifling and immaterial. Now, first, whether schism and heresy be identical, or whether schism be something less heinous than heresy; to affirm schism to be a trifling matter, is hasty and daring in the extreme. The argument may, in the outset, be turned against the proposers of it; for if external things be indeed non-essentials, so much the more reprehensible is he, who wantonly, on account of non-essentials, divides the unity of the Catholic church. And this retorted argument is the more deserving of being insisted on, since, in the only passage wherein the word Schism occurs in the Sacred Oracles (1 Cor. xii. 25), it is compared to the violent divellication of an eye, an ear, a hand, or a foot, from

IV. On the Origin and Constitution of the primitive Church: and on episcopal, as right and lawful, Ordination.

the human body. When, therefore, it is pleaded that schism is a separation only respecting externals, let us recollect that even such a schism is in this passage deprecated; and that although the very lowest sense of the word Schism be received, the rash amputator incurs an awful responsibility. Charity is, to say the least, very materially endangered by each deviation, however slight, from uniformity: and since St. Paul has de clared the greatest principle to be charity, that man must surely be deemed no light offender, who, with inconsiderate levity, disturbs a branch of religion, which is superior to faith and hope *. But what if this definition of schism be incorrect and imperfect? what if there be no scriptural foundation for the distinction pretended betwixt externals and essentials ; betwixt schism and heresy? what if heresy be the principle of separation, and schism the state or condition of being se parated? The situation of the schismatic will appear, in this view, to be infinitely more alarming than before; for it will be recollected that St. Paul, in enumerating the works of the flesh, conjoins heresies with adultery, idolatry, and mur

The unity of the Christian church will as certainly lead to a Catholic spirit of goodwill and universal fellowship, as the division of it leads to the opposite disposition."-Daubeny's Guide, p. 335. "An external, visible unity of the church, promotes internal unity, and the edification of the body of Christ."-Nicholson's Letters, 1810, p. 29.

There appear to have been divisions in the primitive church, among some who did not desert her communion, but contended for the preference of Paul or Apollos. Even these divisions were styled by St. Paul, the signs of a carnal mind (1 Cor. iii. 3, 4). But there were schisms moreover from the church; as of those who crept into houses, and gathered private churches. Of these St. John speaks (1 John, ii. 18, 19), pronouncing them antichrists, and affirming that they went out from them. St. Chrysostom, on Ephes. iv. p. 362, observes, that nothing can provoke God more than to divide his church, &c.

To the question, what is right and lawful ordination, all denominations of Christians agree in

ders; and that some heresies are pronounced by St. Peter to be damnable, or worthy of condemnation. (Gal. v. 20; and 2 Peter, ii. 1.)

Potter on Church Gov.-Hooker's Eccles. Pol.-Daubeny's Vindic.-Steevens's Essay on the Church.-Daubeny's Guide. -Skinner's Primitive Truth.-Mesurier's Bampton Lectures. -Burgess's First Lessons, and First Principles.-Mant's Sermons. Barwick on the Church; and Nares's Charge, 1813.St.John. Welshman.-Why are You a Churchman ?— Whitby's Preface to Titus.

From the foregoing definition of schism we may infer the error of those, who extend the basis of the visible Catholic church of Christ, by supposing it to comprehend Christians of all denominations, assembled under, no matter what teacher, or what authority. Schism supposes a body; for it signifies an amputated limb: but if all were the body, there could be no severed member, no schism. Such a notion carries with it a fair show of liberality: but since the Bible makes mention of both schism and heresy, the burthen lies upon the latitudinarians in principle, to show, if all denominations constitute a church, who are the heretics and schismatics? or, if they cannot, let them forbear, in modesty, to launch forth the charge of illiberality, on those who confine the definition of the body, the visible church, to the aggregate of assemblies in which the word is preached and the sacraments are distributed, by ministers lawfully, that is, as we are about to show, episcopally ordained t.

+ When the church is termed, metaphorically, the ark, we allude to the ark of the covenant, rather than the ark of Noah. It was for touching the former that Uzzah was struck dead: and Korah, Dathan, and Abiram are analogous to schismatics. The ark of Noah resembles that menagerie of Christian professors, which spurious liberality denominates the church: but here there can be no schism.

replying, That which is conformable to the constitution of the primitive church. If, therefore, that constitution can be shown to be episcopal, the exclusive lawfulness of episcopal ordination will be demonstrated.

We read in St. Matthew's Gospel, xvi. 18, that the Christian church was founded by our Saviour, and built on the rock of his declared divinity; or, more properly, on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephes. ii. 20). That Christ ordained the Apostles to preach and baptize, which is only a different method of stating that the church was built on the foundation of the Apostles, we learn from those passages wherein their commission is recorded.

When a fact is certain, disputes about a name are idle; and therefore, if the three orders and offices of bishops, priests, and deacons, as of persons appointed by the Apostles to govern the church, and to administer its ordinances, were distinct in the days of the Apostles, to object that their several titles were not distinct, seems a trifling and contemptible cavil *.

Now bishops, who were denominated apostles by St. Paul, received from St. John the name of angels; a word signifying messengers. In the book of Revelations (ii. 20, and ii. 14), the angels

* See Whitby on 1 Tim. iii. 1; and Pref, to Titus.

of some Asiatic churches are rebuked for a violation of their episcopal power; and (Rev. ii. 2), the bishop of Ephesus is commended. This angel of Ephesus could not be a single presbyter, for St. Paul had sent for several presbyters from Ephesus, to meet him in his visitation at Miletus; whereas this individual is termed THE Angel. If this were well understood and weighed, the argument would be greatly simplified. Let the question relate to the OFFICES, not to the NAMES. The real fact is, that the Apostles were the first bishops; and that in the New Testament the names of bishop and presbyter are sometimes promiscuously employed to denote the second order of the ministry. On the frequent transposableness of these two names in the New Testament, rest the arguments and the mistakes of many dissenters. The government of the church passed, when the Apostles died, into the hands of their immediate successors; and then, that is, after the first century, the NAMES were appropriated as they now stand; for the bishops were no longer Apostles, or men immediately sent forth by Christ *. No change, however, took place in the offices; these continued precisely the same as at the beginning. A governor is of the first order, whether he is called an angel, an apostle, or a bishop. A

This explanation accords with the statement of Ambrose. Vid. Salmas. de Primatu, 40.