6

owes no subjection to the Greek patriarch. 3. That, therefore, the Greeks could not afterwards erect themselves into an independent church,' having been independent from the very first; nor could they 'throw off an allegiance' which they had never known; still less could the Romish bishops of the ninth century, who assumed the title of universal bishop,' be said to remain in the same position' as Gregory, who declared that any one pretending to that title was a forerunner of antichrist.' All the colouring, therefore, with which Dr. W. aims to tinge this transaction must be washed away: and then we come to the plain matter of fact, that the ecclesiastical heads of the eastern and western churches, after long contentions for superiority, at last irrevocably quarrelled, and divided the visible church. But then it must be borne in mind, that neither the one nor the other had the least right to say, we, and we alone, are the church, and all those people who refuse to submit to us, are heathens and reprobates.'

But we must not overlook the last clause in Dr. Wiseman's argument. He says, 'We stand upon our rights; as the successor to a dynasty claims the crown of his ancestors, or as any member of the aristocracy in this country holds the lands of his ancestors legally given to them, from whom he inherits them; whatever branches of the family may have separated from it, or accepted other claims or prospects, that cannot shake the right line of succession, of which he is the representative.'

Now here the Dr. mixes up two arguments, one of which belongs to a later stage of our inquiry. When he talks of hereditary rights, of a crown descending

in succession, and the like, we must bear in mind that he is assuming that which will shortly come under discussion, namely, the claim of the alleged saccessors of St. Peter to rule over the whole Christian church. While this point remains open for fature consideration, we cannot allow the whole matter in dispute to be taken for granted; or admit, without protest, the claim put in by Dr. Wiseman.

But with regard to the rest of the above statement, we may ask, How does Dr. W. contrive to apply his own supposed case to the matter now before us? He says, 'Whatever branches of the family may have separated from it, or accepted other claims or prospects, that cannot shake the right line of succession, of which he is the representative.'

Now no one wishes to shake the right line of succession' of the pope, or to deny that he sits in the chair founded by St. Peter. We Protestants set up no rival claim—no pretender to the popedom. We dispute not the succession, but we object to the assumption of an authority which neither St. Peter himself, nor Linus, the bishop appointed by St. Peter, ever thought of claiming. Dr. Wiseman misses his point. The question is not as to the pope's succession; but as to the attempted excommunication, by the see of Rome, of all who do not humbly submit to its dominion. Therefore, when Dr. W. says, 'Whatever branches of the family may have separated from it, that cannot shake the right line of succession,'-we reply, No! nor does their separation from the elder branch (even if it be the elder) deprive them of their blood, or their natural rights. What separation' or other circumstance can entitle one branch of a family to set itself up as the whole family, and to de

clare all the rest ipso facto alienated and cut off? The elder branch of the royal family of France, for instance, may have a better title to the throne than that member who now occupies it; but how could the senior line acquire the right or the power to say to the younger, You are for ever cut off and destroyed. You are no longer a part of the Bourbon family. We alone are the Bourbons, and the blood royal in future shall be held to run in our veins exclusively.'

No! Dr. Wiseman's illustration is a most unfortunate one. The great Head of the church has, in every land and in every Christian community, some sincere followers; who constitute unitedly the invisible "Catholic church." The visible church Catholic, if such a body can be supposed to exist, must be formed of all existing churches in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered.' And even were Dr. Wiseman to succeed in establishing the right of the supposed successor of St. Peter to a primacy over all Christian churches, even that would not warrant an'anathema' on such bodies of Christians as were not convinced of the justice of his claim. "He that believeth on the Son of God hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation," saith the scripture and while this word remains true, it cannot be possible for any ruler of the visible church to cancel the promise of Christ, and to make submission to him, essential to salvation! Dr. Wiseman has no more right to say, 'Ours is the Catholic church; and all who are not with us, are out of that church,-in other words, are heathens and publicans,' than any one member of a family, whether the elder or the younger, would have to cancel his father's will, and of his own

sole pleasure, to disinherit all those of his brethren who refused to render him the most entire obedience.

After all, then, the subtle reasonings of Dr. Wiseman succeed no better than the blunt demands of Dr. Milner. The alleged 'mark' of Catholicity, as borne by the Romish church, comes at last to nothing more than this, as Dr. Milner had in the first instance stated, that it consists of the most numerous body of Christians.'

Externally, perhaps, and judging by outward shew alone, this fact may be admitted, but between universality and a mere majority, there is a wide distinction. And let the Romanists remember, too, that there is one very awkward consequence connected with the resting their case on this single circumstance. If the Romish church is to be declared to be the Catholic church,-and Dr. Milner so argues,—on the ground of her having the most numerous body' of adherents,--then what are we to say of that period when she unquestionably had not so numerous a body as the rival church? The Greek church in its first strength unquestionably outnumbered the Italian section. Was, then, the eastern body, as the most numerous,'-the Catholic church of that day? And if not,—why not? Or was the Romish church then the Catholic church; though it numbered only a portion, and the smaller portion, of the great body of Christians?

These difficulties, and others which will naturally suggest themselves, must shew, to any impartial inquirer, that the claim of Catholicity, or universality, as an attribute or 'mark,' exclusively belonging to the church of Rome, is utterly groundless and upsupported by fact.

VII.

THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH.

APOSTOLICITY.

WE now proceed to the fourth 'mark,' alleged by the Romish writers to belong to the true church, -namely, 'APOSTOLICITY.' But we find that the moment the question is opened, a dispute commences touching the meaning of the term! Dr. Wiseman shall speak for himself in this matter. He says,― 'Once more, who are Apostolical? Is it meant by this term, that the doctrines taught in the church are those of the apostles? Most assuredly not. That the apostolic doctrines will be taught in the church of Christ is certain; but that the teaching of true doctrines is the definition of apostolicity, is manifestly erroneous. For apostolicity of doctrine is identical with truth in doctrine; and the discovery of one is the discovery of the other. One cannot be a means for finding out the other. It, consequently, must consist in some outward mark, which may lead to the discovery of where the apostolic doctrines are. It is in the Apostolic Succession that this principle resides, -in having the line of descent distinctly traced from