Extracts from "Sikes on Parochial Communion" / relating to Episcopacy, and the sin of Schism

by Thomas Sikes

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?”