ARTICLE II.-IS SCHISM A NECESSITY?

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE RIGHT REVEREND a. C. COXE, D.D., BISHOP IN WESTERN NEW YORK.

My dear Sir:

I cannot plead, in apology for addressing you thus publicly, that I am moved to it by the reading of your recent volume entitled Apollos, or the Way of God. It is my misfortune, and I feel it seriously, that I have not yet had the opportunity of reading the book, for I doubt not that it throws light on the subject on which I would speak to you, and answers in advance many of the questions which I wish to put. But as a matter of fact, I had already begun to put my thoughts and questions into the form of a letter to you, when I saw the announcement of your book. And my reason for this use of your name was that I knew you, through both public and private acquaintance, as the man who more than any other in the Episcopal Church in America cherishes an intelligent conviction of "High Church" principles, in conjunction with a warm love for all Christian believers, a "continual sorrow of heart" over the schisms by which they are divided from each other and miserably weakened in their work "for the whole estate of Christ's Church militant."

What is the subject upon my mind you have already conjectured. According to the direction from which it is viewed, it might be stated either as the restoration of the Episcopal Church to the communion of the Church Catholic; or, (in an aspect more obvious from your own point of view) as the facilitating of the communion of Christians generally with the Protestant Episcopal Church. But instead of attempting to define or discuss the subject in a general way, I beg your attention to it in the most practical form, as illustrated in a very needless and useless schism lately effected in the little community of American Christians residing at Geneva. There is nothing unprecedented or even unusual in the facts of this case. I mention them simply in order to bring the subject fairly into view.

There has long existed among the American Christians at Geneva the desire for a church where they could unite in common worship. Of late, this desire has taken the form of a practical resolution. The movers in the enterprise were of various denominations; but so cordial was the good-will that the majority deferred to the preferences of the Episcopalians among them, and an Episcopal minister was invited to organize the congregation according to the forms of that denomination. This invitation having been declined, they proceeded at a later period, with the same fraternal spirit, to organize a church independently of any question of sect. The preferences of the Episcopalian brethren were still consulted in the order of public worship adopted. A convenient place of worship was engaged; the services of a diligent, earnest, and able pastor were secured and his support pledged; regular services were begun; and plans were at once laid for building an American churchedifice.

These arrangements had been completed only a few weeks, when a zealous Episcopal minister, who was residing at the time in Italy as a missionary for the promotion of Christian union, hastened to Geneva, got out his posters announcing a separate series of services, organized a separate congregation, started his opposition building subscription, and seems now in a fair way, unless some good influence should interfere, to accomplish a permanent schism in the little population of American Christians in Geneva.

The most mischievous results of this schism were not obvious when it was first effected. It was during the brief season of sunimer travel, when, for a few weeks, Geneva is full of Ameri cans passing to and fro, or sojourning for a short time. Accordingly, both services were well attended and well supported for the time. To be sure, as a matter of taste, it was not pleas ant to see the less honorable features of American church-life so distinctly protruded before the observation of people abroad; -the "running" of rival churches on the principle that "competition is the life of business ;"-the rival show-bills displayed in public places side by side, the new one quite eclipsing the old in dimensions, with an air of "no-connection-with-theshop-over-the-way ;"-the business-like cards in circulation at

hotels and boarding houses;—the gentle bragging and "touting" on the part of the friends of the respective enterprises, mingled with faint praises, almost fading into civil disparagements, of the rival undertaking-all this is sufficiently astonishing to the European mind, which is just now very earnestly intent in studying the American method of conducting religious institutions; and it is not gratifying to the pride or the conscience of all Americans.

But now that the summer torrent of travel has run by, the mischiefs of this schism become more apparent. The congregations are dwindled to a few meagre dozens a-piece, each comforting itself in its scantiness with the probability that the other is still smaller. Contributions and subscriptions decline -the zeal of some to give for strife's sake being balanced by the disgust of others at the wanton waste, and worse than waste, of money required for sustaining the schism. Of course, the temptation (however successfully it may have been, thus far, resisted) to the ill feelings commonly attendant upon schism, is increased. And if this is so now, what will it be when the tug of building begins?—when the monuments which are to perpetuate this scandal, and hold it continually in public view, begin to rise painfully from their foundations?--when each party begins to feel in its pocket the inconvenience of the existence of the other party?—when over every stranger of uncertain allegiance and large means there arises a contention as over the body of Moses, and the fancy-fairs and pious lotteries begin to flourish, to the glory of God and the edification of the Church? It will be alleged that this state of things is compelled, in the circumstances, as the inexorable result of the conscientious principles of the dominant party in the Episcopal Church. If this is so, there is nothing more to be said in the hope of accommodation. We cannot ask for a sacrifice of principle. We must respect, how much soever we may lament it, a schism for conscience' sake, in which there is no schismatic spirit, and must make up our minds to the suspension of all religious intercourse and common worship between Protestant Episcopalians and the rest of the Church Catholic, imputing it to their principles and not to themselves, and viewing it as the reduction of those principles ad absurdum.

But is such non-intercourse necessarily a matter of principle? Is there no possible modus vivendi according to which the American Episcopalians in one of these transatlantic colonies may without sin join in common worship with their fellowChristians of the same country and language? It seems to me that the inquiry has never been thoroughly and candidly made, unless, peradventure, it has been made in your recent volume entitled "Apollos." The attempts at solving it seem to me to have been made with no adequate understanding of the dif ferences involved, or else with no respect for them. Permit me to say for myself, in apology for this new Eirenikon, that I have no disrespect even for the exclusivism of High Church Episcopalians. I regard it as the only effective practical protest extant against the prevailing "evangelical" heresy that the normal state of the Church universal is schism; that sects are a good thing, so that the more sects you can have (within reasonable limits) the better; and that the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, consists properly of a series of stren uously competing denominations, maintaining diplomatic relations and exchange of pulpits; "sinking their differences" in a Tract Society that agrees to be mum on all controverted points; and meeting occasionally in an "Alliance." So long as this continues to be the highest prevalent conception of Christian fellowship, we need the protest of High Churchism, in its most uncompromising form, in favor of the organic unity of the Christian Church. I would not have that protest made one whit less effective. I do not believe that a protest against schism is less effective for not being made in a schismatic spirit. I do not believe that the usefulness or the dignity of the Epis copal Church (as represented in its dominant party) would be in the least impaired by its asserting its principles courteously and affectionately towards other Christians, with some expression of regret when difference of principle seems to involve the necessity of separation; and by its doing its best to free itself from the reproach of being the most pushing, elbowing, scrambling, and unscrupulous of all the sects. I believe that its best mission, that of asserting the necessity of appointed forms of permanent Christian fellowship, can be fulfilled in such wise as not to offend the spirit of Christian fellowship. I have often

found much of the poetry and theory of Christian communion among Episcopalians, and often a great deal more of the practical spirit among non-Episcopalians. The former have so worthy a desire for fellowship with the Church of the Fourth Century that they are ready, for the sake of it, to live in practical isolation from the actual Church of the Nineteenth Century. They are so earnestly (though hitherto vainly) desirous to open some special relations of communion with Old Catholics, or Greeks, or Armenians, three or four thousand miles away, that they tear themselves asunder with alacrity from their own fellow-countrymen and fellow-Protestants.

The things which hinder Episcopalians from common worship with their fellow-Christians generally, may be summed up under three heads: 1. Conditions of Communion. 2. Ritual. 3. Authority of the Ministry.

1. In respect to the conditions of communion, the only thing of the nature of a principle that need be waived by Episcopalians is waived already, in their actual practice. I refer to that expressed in the rubric at the end of the Confirmationservice, to the effect that "there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed." The effect of this rubric, if followed, would be to make the Episcopal Church a closecommunion corporation, like the American Baptists. By a happy inconsistency, which shows how easy it is to find a way through a rule, if there is only a will, this rubric is commonly, not to say generally, set aside whenever it is found to work inconveniently. On the other hand, the pernicious use of formularies of dogma as a ritual for receiving candidates for the Lord's Supper, which has spread from the Congregationalists into so many of the Evangelical communions of America, is practically abandoned by them whenever occasion requires.

2. The subject of ritual might seem to be one of great difficulty. If Episcopalians can not agree about it among themselves, how can they hope to agree with the rest of the Church? But I believe that practically there is no serious difficulty about it. There was once a difference of principle between the parties. That was when it was held by all Puritan churches