exercised by the see of Rome over all other churches. We, therefore, were no rebels or deserters from the allegiance of Rome, for, at that period, she claimed none. Since then we have beard, indeed, of her increased and exaggerated pretensions; but they concerned us nothing. And are we to be unchristianized and excluded from the visible church, merely because Rome, which is no mother of ours, has chosen to demand homage from the whole Christian world, and we, owing her no such submission, have refused to pay it?'

• For

Of a similar character would be the remonstrance of a member of the Syrian church at Malabar. more than fifteen centuries,' he would say, 'have we preserved the Christian faith, which we never received from Rome, and which we are not willing to allow Rome to take away from us. The Portuguese, when they first came among us, and found more than a hundred Christian churches, said, "These churches belong to the pope." "Who is the pope?" we answered; we never heard of him." And was it to be endured that an Italian bishop, of whose name, even, we were wholly ignorant, and to whom we owed nothing of any kind, should send his demands of tribute and allegiance to us, who knew not even so much as his existence?'

Thus would all the easterns agree in declaring this assumption to be wholly unfounded; their faith and doctrine was Christian, they would say; their ordination and succession was apostolic; and they were no rebels to any lawful authority of the pope, for of such authority they had no knowledge. What is the answer to their case? It deeply concerns the present question,-for, if the Romish church be not,

indeed, the Catholic church, but only a section of it, -then it must clearly follow that in such promises as were just now quoted, she can claim no more than a mere participation.

"Lo, I am with you always," said the Saviour; but with whom did he then promise to be present? With his whole church; with the Catholic church; not with the church of Rome exclusively or especially; with his whole church on earth, the representatives of which were then present. But if that promise was not made to the bishop of Rome, or to any other section of the church, then what title has that bishop, or any other, to impose laws on his brethren?

Thus the Romish Rule of Faith is clearly open to two objections: First, it removes from its just supremacy, as the sole and sufficient guide, and the ultimate appeal,-God's message to man, as found in Holy Scripture; and hands us over from a definite and intelligible rule to one which constantly evades the grasp, and affords nothing tangible or satisfactory to the enquirer. And, secondly, because, when it refers us to the judgment of the church, the Catholic church, as the only true rule of faith, it refers us to that which can no where be found,-inasmuch as the several divisions of the Catholic church are scattered over the face of the whole earth, disunited and contending against each other, a state which is greatly caused by the unfounded pretensions of the church of Rome. We regret, then, this rule, both because it is dishonouring to God and his word, and because it refers to a 'Catholic church,'. which, partly owing to the divisions and dissensions caused by the claims of Rome, can no where, at least in our day, be discerned or consulted.

IV.

THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH.

UNITY.

WE have already denied the truth of the church of Rome's favourite assumption,-that she is "the Catholic church;" and have combated it on the general ground, that there are other churches in the world besides herself, and that she can shew no title to arrogate to herself an exclusive claim to that title. She returns, however, to the charge, and contends for her sole right to that title, inasmuch as she alone, she alleges, can properly answer to the ancient description, in being "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." This, then, will naturally become the next subject for consideration.

We will begin with Dr. Milner's statement. He says, 'The chief marks of the true church, which I shall here assign, are not only conformable to reason, scripture and tradition, but they are such as the church of England, and most other respectable denominations of Protestants, acknowledge and profess to believe in, no less than Catholics. They are contained in those creeds which you recite in your daily

prayers, and proclaim in your solemn worship. In fact, what do you say of the church you believe in, when you repeat the apostles' creed? You say, I believe in the holy catholic church. Again, how is this church more particularly described in the Nicene creed? You say, I believe in one catholic and apostolic church. Hence it evidently follows, that the church which you, no less than we, profess to believe in, is possessed of these four marks, unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity. It is agreed upon, then, that all we have to do, by way of discovering the true church, is to find out which of the rival churches or communions is peculiarly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.'1

Now here the learned doctor is rather hasty. He says, 'it is agreed upon,' but this is like many other of his assumptions. It has never been' agreed upon' by any Protestants, that Dr. Milner should set about finding, among certain territorial or national churches, whether the Roman, the Greek, the Armenian, or the English,-by divers visible signs or marks,' which of them is the true church.' This, we repeat, has never been agreed upon,' as Dr. Milner chooses to assert, but it is a mere fancy of his own. The catholic or universal church, in which Protestants believe, is not a visible but an invisible body-in fact, it is the body of which Christ is the head, and consists of all those, of every nation and from amongst all the visible churches, who have become, by regeneration, living branches of the true vine, and stones of the heavenly temple. But let us admit for a moment, for argument's sake, Dr. Milner's supposition,

1 Milrer's End af Controv s. p. 176.

that to find out the true church, it is only necessary to discover, which of the rival churches is peculiarly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and let us see how he contrives to establish a claim to superiority, on all these beads, in behalf of his own church.

UNITY is the first of these distinguishing features, and the Dr. begins by arguing that it can never be said to belong to the Protestants generally, or to the church of England in particular. He then proceeds to prove that it is a distinguishing characteristic of the church of Rome. He contends,

1. That unity is no feature of Protestantism, is sufficiently clear from the multitude of churches and sects which have sprung up among them. Bossuet wrote two considerable volumes on the Variations of Protestants.'

6

2. That the church of England is equally destitute of it, is shown from divers opposing views advocated by different parties in the church; the orthodox, the evangelical, the favourers of Arianism and Socinianism, as evidenced by many quotations brought from Blackburne, Balguy, Watson, Hoadley, and other celebrated preachers in the church.

6

3. That the church of Rome is strictly ONE,' is next shewn,' first,' says Dr. M., in her faith and terms of communion. The same creeds, namely, the Apostles' creed, the Nicene creed, the Athanasian creed, and the creed of Pope Pius IV. are everywhere recited and professed; the same articles of faith and morality are taught in all our catechisms; and the same rule of faith is admitted by all Catholics throughout the four quarters of the globe.' Se

Fad of Controversy n. 101.