piece of reasoning,—without any reality or solidity about it. < Apostolicity of doctrine is identical with truth in doctrine;' and one cannot be a means for finding out the other.' This looks like an argument, when in reality it is none, but merely an adroit play upon words.

We believe that there is, and always will be, an apostolical church upon earth. How, then, shall it be known? We say, by its holding the true or apostolic doctrine. Dr. Wiseman says that this cannot be its distinguishing mark, because the true doctrine and the apostolic doctrine are one and the same, and therefore the one cannot be a means of finding out the other. This is a sort of shadow, which it is almost impossible to lay hold of;-it has no body or reality about it. It is ، words, and nothing else.'

It is asked, How shall the apostolic church be discerned? The answer is, By the possession of the true doctrine, or the apostolic doctrine, whichever term is preferred. To say that the true doctrine' and the apostolic doctrine' are the same, is nothing but what is admitted. Use whichever term is preferred, the argument remains the same.

And this kind of mark or test is quite preferable to that of an alleged descent or succession; inasmuch as a mark of the true church ought to be something generally discernible. Now it is easy for any one to possess himself of a copy of God's word, and to compare the doctrines of his church with the doctrines of the apostles: but it is not at all easy, nor even possible, for one man out of a thousand to satisfy himself that Gregory XVI, now said to be living at Rome, is verily and truly the lineal successor, by

a regular series of ordinations, of Linus, the first bishop of that see. True, he may receive this fact, if he chooses, on the assurances of others; but what shall be said, then, of a mark' of the true church which is not discernible, but is obliged to be taken upon trust?

This external mark' hypothesis, then, will not bear the least examination. There is no external mark. Gregory the XVI. possesses no insignia or credentials bearing the visible impress of heaven: he has no other proof to offer, of his succession from Linus, than the mere assertions of himself and a number of other interested persons. For many years together, in a former age (A.D. 1378-1417) there were two or three popes at the same time; each claiming to be the successor of the apostles; and while all this was going on, there were divers patriarchs in the east, at Constantinople, Antioch, &c., all of whom had far clearer proofs of their descent from the apostles, than any of the rival popes. How, then, could it have been possible, in the midst of all this confusion, to discern THE Apostolic Church by the mere fact of continued succession? Nothing can be clearer than the absurdity of such an attempt.

Thus, then, have we been forced to deny the claims of Rome, to be admitted to be "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." To no one of these four characteristics can she establish any valid title. Yet there is such a church, though Rome be unable to substantiate her claim. There is such a church, but it is not local; nor governed by any human conclave; nor united by any visible or political system. It is "the church of the first-born, which are written in heaven;" it is the church that is "redeemed unto God,

out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” It is the church which Christ will, at the consummation of all things, present unto His Father, in the glory of his own righteousness, "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." To this church it behoves every man to see that he belongs; but nothing can be more absurd or unreasonable, than to attempt to identify this chosen, redeemed, and sanctified community, with those disturbing, demoralizing, and defiling conspiracies of priests and Jesuits, which at present carry on a remorseless warfare against the peace and happiness of mankind, under the banner of the Roman see.

VIII.

THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.

WE are now to enter upon a question, upon which, as upon a hinge, the present controversy will be found greatly to turn. We have seen that up to this point the church of Rome has failed to make good its ground. Its Rule of Faith, the Church,' resolves itself either into a vague nonentity, entirely unavailable; or else is identical with the infallibility of every individual priest. Its claim to Catholicity,' or the possession of the whole or universal church, seems very much to resemble the assumption of the Chinese, that theirs is the Celestial Empire;' the only proof of which is, that they choose to call it so. While, in arrogating to itself the qualities of Unity, Apostolicity, and Holiness, we discern nothing more than a great display of pride, self-conceit, and contempt of others; since, assuredly, other churches can exhibit greater harmony; a more implicit submission to the apostolic decisions; and fruits of holiness, quite as pure and as abundant, as are to be found in the church of Rome. But we are now to enquire what can be said

in proof of the allegation, that Christ gave to Peter, and to all his successors in the see of Rome, a seat of authority, a delegation of power, for the regulation and government of the Christian church, in all succeeding ages. For it is sufficiently clear, that if this point can be satisfactorily made out, it will be difficult for any body of Christians throwing off this yoke, and refusing submission to the supremacy of Peter's successors, to clear itself from the guilt of schism. If the right of the bishop of Rome to a paramount authority over the whole body of Christians throughout the world can be established, then their state, who cast off a yoke imposed by Christ himself, must assuredly be a doubtful, if not a perilous one. But if, on the other hand, no such power was delegated to Peter, still less to his successors, by the Redeemer himself,-then is the Papal authority, as now attempted to be exercised, a gross and unscriptural usurpation, and one marking him who assumes it, with a leading characteristic of Antichrist.

We shall probably gain the most satisfactory and complete view of the whole question, if we follow out the train of reasoning indicated in Dr. Wiseman's eighth lecture. It is not easy to find a more condensed or a more plausible statement, of the argument in favour of the Papal authority, than is furnished in that lecture. But it may tend to simplify the present discussion, if we take up the points in the following order: enquiring, 1. Was Peter elevated by his Lord to a supreme authority over his brethren the apostles, and by consequence, over the whole church? 2. Was there any intimation given that such supremacy was to be continued after his death, in any line of succession? and, 3. What are the