VII.

THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH.

APOSTOLICITY.

WE now proceed to the fourthmark,' 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

the present holder of the apostolical see, through those who preceded him, to the blessed Peter, who first sat therein. This is what was meant of old by the Apostolic church; and this is the sense in which the fathers applied it. I satisfied you, in my last discourse, how Eusebius, Optatus, Irenæus, and others, proved their faith to be the true one, by shewing that they were in communion with the church of Rome, and could trace their pedigree, through it, from the apostles. Thus, therefore, did they understand Apostolicity to be given as an outward mark, in the continued and unaltered succession from the time of the apostles. Here, again, although the matter is manifest, I do not wish to take the question as one of fact, but to establish it on principle. We are the only church which claims this succession; others do not; at least, the only way they can, is by proving their episcopal line back to the time they separated from us, and then claim as their's that succession which forms the chain of our uninterrupted hierarchy. Such a course is at once oblique, and necessarily goes not to the root. They wish to be engrafted on us, rather than pretend to any root in the earth itself. Yet the Catholic church considers them as separatists from it, and consequently, they have no right to the succession which rests on her line.'1

Now our first remark here must be, that this passage contains some of the boldest perversions and misrepresentations of historic fact that ever were crowded into a single argument.

'Apostolicity' is said to consist in the continued and unaltered succession, from the time of the apostles.' And then it is immediately added, 'We are 1 Dr. Wiseman's Ninth Lecture, p. 320.

the only church which claims this succession; others do not; at least, the only way they can, is by proving their episcopal line back to the time they separated from us,' &c.

Now this is really too indecent, especially in a man like Dr. Wiseman, who cannot plead entire ignorance of all ecclesiastical history.

He speaks of Rome as though she were the mother and root of all the churches, and as though it followed necessarily that every other church must trace their succession from her. But what is the fact?

The church of Jerusalem was constituted on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 29, and we find from scripture (Acts xv. 22.) that it acted and ruled, as head and mother of all the churches, with St. James as its president, long before the gospel was even so much as known at Rome.

The church of Antioch was formed about the year A.D. 40, by Paul and Barnabas, and enjoyed full Christian privileges and a regular government, long before any church of Rome was heard of.

The churches of Asia, especially that of Ephesus, were visited and set in order by St. Paul, many years before he was carried to Rome as a prisoner. The same may be said of Corinth, Philippi, and other exiles in Greece, Macedonia.

The church of Alexandria is stated by Eusebius to have been founded by St. Mark.

Here, then, are some eight or ten important churches, most of which, if not all, were founded ten, twenty, or even thirty years before the least trace of any body of Christians could be discovered at Rome. There is no doubt that St. Peter and St. Paul suffered martyrdom at Rome about the year, A.D. 64,

having shortly before constituted the Christian church in that city, and appointed Linus its first bishop.

With these facts before us, what are we to say to such an assertion as Dr. Wiseman's,-that' we, (Rome) are the only church that claims this succession; others do not; at least, the only way they can, is by proving their episcopal line back to the time they separated from us,' &c. Was there ever a more flagrant outrage on the truth of history?

But the fact that most of the great eastern churches were in existence long before the church of Rome, is only a part of the case. Most of these churches sent out missions, from whose labours there arose various churches in the oriental regions, some of which remain until this day, having enjoyed an uninterrupted succession of bishops for sixteen or seventeen centuries, without the least contact with Rome.

At the present moment we find, the Greek church, with its sixty or seventy millions of disciples, and ruled by bishops, none of whom would condescend to trace their succession to the see of Rome:-the Armenian church, reckoning some millions, and also holding itself entirely aloof from Rome: the Nestorians, also very numerous, and who take their orders from Constantinople and Antioch, and not from Rome: the Syrian churches of Malabar, who, until the arrival of the Portuguese on their coasts, had never even heard of the pope, but derived their orders from Antioch besides which ought to be added, the Copts, the Jacobites, and other eastern bodies, none of whom know or care any thing as to the Italian hierarchy. Again, therefore, we ask, How could Dr. Wiseman venture such an assertion, as that Rome is the only church which claims Apostolic

succession; or, at least, that such others as may do so, claim it only through her line, and by virtue of her ordination?

But we may be told that we have said nothing of the western churches,-nothing of our own church, which must either trace its succession through Rome, or abandon the claim altogether. We will therefore at once proceed to deal with this question.

It is not true that Christianity in England was solely derived from Rome. When Gregory sent missionaries to Britain at the close of the sixth century, those missionaries found many Christians already existing, who, from their adherence to the eastern mode of celebrating Easter, obviously were not of Romish origin.

But, passing over that point, let us look at Gregory's missionaries, and the succession derived from them. Gregory, it must be remembered, abjured all claim to the title or office of universal bishop: Gregory did not preach transubstantiation, or the celibacy of the clergy, or the worship of images, or any of the various later corruptions of the Romish church: Gregory, therefore, re-established an episcopal line in Britain, without connecting with it any of these corruptions.

Was it in the power, then, of Hildebrand or any other of the tyrants who afterwards occupied the Papal chair, to force all these corruptions upon the English church, or, on their disobedience, to cancel the orders of the English clergy? If this is alleged, let us see by what mandate of the great Head of the church it is enforced.

But Dr. Wiseman says, 'The Catholic church consider them as separatists from it, and, consequently,