they have no right to the succession which rests on her line.'

The consequently' will not, we apprehend, be quite so apparent to an impartial reader as it is to Dr. Wiseman. Let us see how matters stand in our own case. Augustine, sent by Gregory, and ordained by him to the see of Canterbury, had apostolical succession; this will not be questioned. But Augustine was taught by Gregory himself, that any one who assumed the title of Universal Bishop, was to be looked upon as the forerunner of Antichrist.' Suppose, then, Augustine could have lived long enough to see the days when another Roman bishop did actually assume this title. Either, on the one hand, he must have abjured the doctrine of Gregory, and have acknowledged a supremacy which his former bishop had declared to be Antichristian ;—or else, retaining his first position, he would have been excommunicated and cut off, and then, according to Dr. W., he would have ceased to belong to the Apostolical line!

Can the

But how perfectly absurd is all this! sentence of an angry pontiff destroy an historical fact? If so, how many of the popes themselves were cast out of the Apostolical line; for during centuries the pontiffs of Avignon, of Rome, and of Perpignan, were constantly occupied in thundering out anathemas and excommunications against each other.

The truth, however, is, that the whole hypothesis of Dr. Wiseman is utterly untenable. The Apostolicity, which is indeed a mark of a true church, relates not to the mere succession, but to the doctrines set forth. Such was the view of the Apostles themselves. They ordained and sent forth divers, who

afterwards fell into error.

Among their own number among their followers a

there was a Judas; and Demas, a Diotrephes, an Hymeneus, and a Philetus. Never, therefore, do the Apostles instruct us to receive every one upon whom Apostolic hands bave been laid, irrespective of all regard to his life and doctrine. On the contrary, their injunctions always are, to "try the spirits, whether they are of God." St. John adds, "If there come any unto you, and bring not THIS DOCTRINE, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." But St. Paul goes still further, and subjects even the Apostles themselves to the same test. "But though WE, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached, let him be accursed." (Galatians ì. 8.) Words cannot go beyond the strength or explicitness of this injunction. Apostles themselves might err; St. Peter had already erred; (Gal. ii. 14.) but the unerring test to which even they themselves desired to be brought, was the Apostolic doctrine,' which they knew to be already recorded in the sacred books by God's own inspiration, and in which no particle or taint of error could possibly be found.

Dr. Wiseman, and all the writers of his church, dislike this view of the question, and cling to the notion, that Apostolicity concerns succession and nothing else. But were we even to give way to them on this point, they would find it impossible to proceed upon their own hypothesis. Let us try it in a single instance.

Regular succession from the days of the Apostles, according to Dr. Wiseman, makes a church an Apostolic church. Take, then, the case of Antioch. Here were the disciples first called Christians. This

city possessed a regular church and bishop, at least twenty years before either were found in Rome. It is called by Chrysostom, 'The Mother of the Faith.' And in the fifth century, Innocent, bishop of Rome, addresses the patriarch of Antioch, as our schoolfellow of the Apostolic see.'

How, then, is Dr. Wiseman to deny succession,—if that be the only test, to the church of Antioch? And if granted to Antioch, it must flow from her to many other churches in the east, her legitimate daughters. Thus the notion of succession, and that alone, being the only test, evidently fails; unless Dr. Wiseman is prepared to admit that there are other Apostolic churches in the world besides the church of Rome; the which, however, he will hardly do.

We must come back, then, to the only practicable and reasonable plan; and must seek to discover an apostolical church by its apostolical doctrine. So reasoneth Gregory Nazienzen, who, in his eulogy on Athanasius, says,' He was elevated to the chair of Mark, not less the successor of his piety than of his seat. In point of time very distant from him, but in piety, which indeed is properly called succession, directly after him. For he that holdeth the same doctrine is of the same chair; but he who is an enemy to the doctrine is an enemy to the chair.'1

Nothing, however, will ever induce the Romanists willingly to abide this test. And for their reluctance they have two very natural and sufficient reasons.

1. The first is, that in submitting the doctrines of their church to the test of the apostolic records, they would, in fact, be virtually surrendering the whole

1 21st Orat. In Laudibus Athanas.

question of the rule of faith. For, if the inquirer be permitted to use his own reasoning faculties in discovering from scripture, whether or not the doctrines of the Romish church are, as they profess to be, apostolic,-by what means shall he afterwards be brought to surrender the use of these faculties in the still greater matter of his own salvation? If you admit that he is able to understand scripture,—to judge of its meaning,-and to try the church by its rules, you have, in fact, let in a principle, which, if once admitted, can never again be excluded. Hence it is, as we may easily perceive, that the church of Rome will never willingly concede this point,—that the apostolicity of her doctrine is to be judged of by the inquirer, by a reference to the writings of the apostles themselves.

The

2. The remaining reason is still more cogent. church of Rome will never come to this test, because she well knows that she could not abide it for a single instant. Even at the very first step,-of a willingness to be judged by the divine records, she is utterly opposed to the views and principles of the apostles. Their injunctions were, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." Rome, on the other hand, to use Dr. Wiseman's own words, demands ‘absolute, unconditional submission to the teaching of the church,' and declares that any man who goes to the Bible to search for doctrines, is a Protestant already, and has given up Romanism, by the very act of beginning to read the Bible for himself!1 And she herein acts at least consistently. She knows that all the errors which she maintains, and against

1 Wiseman's First Lect. p. 17, 19.

which we protest, have no support whatever in God's word, and that, consequently, he who opens that word, in order to ascertain their truth or falsehood, is already lost to her, and gained to Protestantism. Wisely, therefore, after this world's wisdom, does she direct her main effort to induce him to 'shut up the book that is leading him astray;'1 knowing that if this cannot be done, there is little hope of her retaining her hold upon his mind. A full and faithful investigation of her doctrines, in the light of God's word, is what she will never consent unto. She denies, therefore, that apostolicity has any reference to doctrine; because she knows well enough that her doctrines are not apostolic.

Let us look, however, a little further into Dr. Wiseman's argument, and see if there be any remaining validity in it. 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.'

Now any one who will steadily consider this passage for a few moments, will see that it is a mere shew of an argument,-an external imitation of a

1 Wiseman's First Lect. p. 19.