members are members one of another. Sicut enim in uno corpore multa membra habemus, omnia autem membra non eundem actum habent: Ita unum corpus sumus in Christo, SINGULI AUTEM ALTER ALTERIUS MEMBRA, Rom. xii. 4, 5; and again, Sicut enim corpus unum est, et membra habet multa; omnia autem membra corporis cum sint multa, unum tamen corpus sunt, ita et Christus. . . . . . Vos autem estis corpus Christi, ET MEMBRA DE MEMBRO, 1 Cor. vii. 12, 27. It is by the intercommunion of member with member, each with each, and each with the whole, that the unity or solidarity of the whole is effected and maintained. He that is in communion with a member is in communion with the body; and consequently, he that withdraws or separates from the communion of the member withdraws or separates from the communion of the body. Therefore, the member separating from the communion of a member, without the authority of the body, is guilty of schism; for schism is the unauthorized separation from the body.

The separation of one member of the Church from the communion of another, without the authority of the Church, is schism. But the Church of England separated from the communion of the Church of Rome, without the authority of the Church. Therefore, the Church of England was guilty of schism. The Church of England, by confession of The Churchman, was not the Church, in the unity and integrity of the corporation, but only a member of it. Admit, what however we admit merely for the sake of the argument, that the Church of Rome was also only a particular Church, and therefore, only a member of the corporation. Yet, to separate from the communion of Rome, according to the principles we have established, was, still, to separate from the Church of Christ, unless the Church of Rome had separated herself, or been separated by a competent authority, from the Church of Christ. But the Church of Rome had not separated herself, nor been separated by a competent authority, from the Church of Christ. Therefore, the Church of

England, in separating from her communion, separated from the communion of the Church of Christ.

We prove the minor by plain historical facts. Prior to the Reformation, the whole Church of Christ, save condemned heretics and acknowledged schismatics, was in communion with the Church of Rome; and no act of the ecclesiastical corporation can be pleaded, cutting her off from the communion of the Catholic body. She possessed and exercised all the rights and immunities incident to an integral member of the Church of Christ.

But you say, that she had separated herself virtually, if not actually, from the Church of Christ, by having corrupted the word of God, and departed from the faith once delivered to saints. By her corruptions and heresies, she had ceased to be an integral portion of the Church of Christ. Therefore, to separate from her communion was not to separate from the Church of Christ.

Admitting the premises, we must of course concede the conclusion. But against these premises we allege, first, that the faith of the Roman Church, prior to the Reformation, was the faith of the whole Christian. world, with the exception of condemned heretics and schismatics, not to be counted. If Rome had departed from the faith, the whole Church, quoad Church, had departed from it and become heretical, and therefore had failed. But Christ has promised that his Church shall not fail, and given it assurance of exemption from error, in promising it the spirit of truth, which shall lead it into all truth, and to be with it himself all days unto the consummation of the world. But Christ is God, and it is impossible for God to promise and not to fulfil. Therefore, his promise made to the Church could not fail. But, if the promise of Christ could not fail, the Church could not lapse into heresy. Then the Church of Rome, since its faith was that of the whole Christian Church, had not lapsed into heresy, and therefore was not corrupt and heretical, as the argument presupposes.

But, secondly, admitting that the Church of Rome

had become corrupt and heretical, the fact needed to be known and judicially established by a competent tribunal, before any particular Church could have the legal right to withdraw from its communion. The only competent tribunal to take cognizance of the question, and to convict Rome of heresy, which alone could justify separation from her communion, was the ecclesiastical corporation in its unity and integrity, acting in its corporate capacity, and speaking through its official organs. Now the Church of England was not this ecclesiastical corporation, and therefore was not in herself alone competent to establish judicially the fact, that Rome was corrupt and heretical. But she established it by no authority but her own. She then did not establish it by a competent authority. Then she did not establish it at all. Then she had no right to assume it as established, and to make it the basis of her separation. To separate from the Roman communion, before that communion was convicted of heresy by a competent tribunal, was schism, according to the principles established, and which The Churchman cannot gainsay. But the Church of England did separate before that communion was convicted of heresy. Therefore, the separation was schism. We see no possible escape from this conclusion.

Will The Churchman plead the authority of the word of God, written and unwritten? But no particular Church or member of the Universal Church is the ultimate judge of what the word of God teaches. Before he can plead the word of God in his justification, he must adduce a decision of the Universal Church, in its highest judicial capacity, declaring, that, by the word of God, the doctrines of the Church of Rome are heretical. But no such decision was adduced, no such decision can be adduced. Therefore he cannot appeal to the word of God, for such appeal would be a mere begging of the question.

Will he go further, and contend that a national council is competent to declare authoritatively the word of God, and to determine what is or is not heresy ;

and say, that the national council of England condemned Rome as heretical, and therefore the Church of England was not guilty of schism in separating from the Roman communion? We have too much confidence in his principles as a sound Churchman to believe that he will take this ground; but if he should, we reply,

1. That it contradicts the acknowledged principles of the Church, according to which it is only a universal council that is competent to declare what is or is not heresy; and a national council, when it goes beyond matters of local discipline, is of no authority, unless its decisions are accepted or assented to by the Universal Church. But, waiving this, we deny,

2. That the Church of England proceeded by the authority of even a national council. First, no council, provincial, national, or œcumenical, is really a council, unless convened by legal warrant from the chief pastor of the Church. The Church is an independent polity in itself, and in no sense dependent on the civil government. The authority of the council is not derived from the emperor or prince by whose permission or edict it is assembled, but from the official head of the ecclesiastical corporation. The consent or warrant of the prince is essential only so far as concerns the peaceable assembling of the council, and so far as the council. may deliberate on matters purely temporal. Now in England, at the time of the Reformation, no legal council was called, for none was called by the consent or warrant of the authority competent to convoke a council. But waiving this, in point of fact, the condemnation of Rome was not pronounced by a council, nor was the separation authorized by a council, but by act of parliament. There may have been a convocation, but every body knows that there was no free council. The whole matter was begun, carried on, and completed, by the authority of the king and parliament, an authority unknown to the ecclesiastical corporation. Bishop Jewell, in his Apology of the Church of England, says,

"Neither have we done that we have done altogether without bishops, or without a council. The matter hath been treated in open parliament, with long consultation, and before a notable synod and convocation."

On which the editor of the edition before us, the present Protestant Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Maryland, remarks, ·

"Jewell's cause would have been no worse, if it had wanted this plea. The best friends of the Church of England have ever been ready to acknowledge, that it would have been happy, had parliament possessed a far less conspicuous share in its reformation. The measure was one of necessity; for although the great body of the people, and the principal nobility, were friendly to the reformation, yet a large majority of the clergy retained their attachment to the distinguishing dogmas of popery, and were strenuous in their opposition to the measures which were taken for their suppression. Left to themselves, they would, in all probability, have quietly relapsed into submission to the yoke of Rome. LAY INFLUENCE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE providence of God (!) to effect the puriFICATION OF HIS CHURCH."*

Here the great and important fact is admitted. The separation was not by authority of the Church of England, quoad Church; for, if left to herself, she would have continued in the communion of Rome. The separation was effected by lay influence, an influence, as such, not recognized in the Church of God, which vests the authority, not in the laity, but in the pastors and teachers. The simple fact is, a portion of the laity of England, wielding the civil authority, aided by a few of the clergy, against the wishes and convictions. of the Church of England, violently separated her from the communion of Rome. Let it not, then, be said, that it was done by a free council deliberately convicting Rome of heresy, and therefore forbidding communion with her. No council ever met in England during the sixteenth century, that would, if free, have passed any condemnation on the Church of Rome. By what

* Apology of the Church of England. By John Jewell, Bishop of Salisbury. New-York: 1831. pp. 192, 193.