quence, exist on this subject in the Romish communion. One party place infallibility in the church virtual or the Roman pontiff. A second faction seat inerrability in the church representative or a general council. A third class ascribe this prerogative to a union of the church virtual and representative, or, in other terms, to a general council headed by the Roman pontiff. A fourth division, rejecting the other systems, persist in attributing exemption from error only to the church collective or dispersed, embracing the whole body of professors, clergy and laity.''

These examples may suffice. It is enough to say, that turn where we will, and enquire into what doctrine we may, the church of Rome, under the name of union, presents a perfect Babel of opposing opinions.

2. But as Protestants in the mass are declared to possess no traces of the feature of unity, so is it also denied to the church of England. And why? She has all the points which Dr. Milner points out, as marking the possession of this characteristic by the church of Rome. She has all the ancient creeds, on the possession of which by the Romish church, Dr. Milner vaunts so loudly. She refuses only that of Pius IV. which is a modern invention. She has a liturgy, too, as ancient as that of Rome, but freed from the follies and idolatries of the missal; and that liturgy is the same in Calcutta, in Jamaica, at Newfoundland, in New South Wales. Just as Dr. Milner exults, that a Roman Catholic from Brazil can join in his service, just as truly can we say, that an Englishman going to Bombay, or a native Protestant from

1 Variations of Popery, p. 158.

Canada arriving in England, finds the service of the church the very same with that to which he has always been accustomed. We never thought of making this circumstance a ground for calling the church of England the Catholic church; but the excellence, such as it is, is as much her's as it is Rome's. And, equally with the Romish church, she has a wellconstructed system of episcopal government, as efficient for all good purposes, but not so convertible into a means of tyranny and persecution, as that of the hierarchy of Rome.

3. But, says Dr. Milner, you have orthodox and evangelical parties among you, and Dr. Blackburne says this, and Dr. Watson says that. Apply the

same method of reasoning to the Roman church. In having the ancient creeds, an ancient liturgy, and an episcopal government, she has nothing more than the church of England possesses. But in internal divisions, authoritatively acknowledged, and made manifest by inquisitions and anathemas, she far outdoes, or rather leaves altogether out of sight, any little differences which may have disturbed the harmony of the church of England. What have we like the animosity that existed between the seculars and the regulars; between the monks and friars; between one order and another; between the Jesuits and the Jansenists; between the Ultramontanists and their French adversaries. In fact, until these latter days, in which the power of Rome has too far diminished to permit the continuance of these dissensions, there never was a period to which the historian could point as free from ecclesiastical quarrels and agitations. And yet Dr. Milner very conveniently forgets all this,-boasts of the unity of

the Romish church,—and denies that any such virtue exists in the church of England, because, forsooth, Dr. B. has written a pamphlet against Dr. C.; or Mr. D. has spoken slightly of Dean W.! But this manifest injustice can never be allowed to pass. He must be content to treat the church of England and the church of Rome with some degree of consistency. Is an ecclesiastical community to be judged by its corporate and authorized acts and decisions, or by the errors and inconsistencies committed by its individual members? If the first, then we say that the public and authorized declarations and standards of the church of England exhibit a far greater degree of unity and consistency than the decrees of the church of Rome. And, if the conflicting opinions and follies of individuals are to be dragged into the controversy, then there would be no difficulty in shewing one pope to have anathematized another pope, and one bishop another, from the very days of the first Gregory down to the present hour.

Well has bishop Jewell, in his immòrtal Apology, replied to this objection:

' And whereas they say we are divided into divers sects, and that some of us have taken the name of Lutherans, and others of Zuinglians, and we could never yet agree among ourselves concerning the sum of our doctrines; what would they have said if they had lived in the times of the apostles and holy fathers? when one said, "I am of Paul, another, I am of Cephas; and another, I am of Apollos:" when St. Paul reprehended St. Peter: when, by reason of a quarrel, Paul and Barnabas separated one from the other, and went several ways. When, as Origen acquaints us, the Christians were divided into so

many factions, that they had no name common to them but that of Christian, and they agreed in nothing else but that name, and, as Socrates informs us, they were derided publicly in the theatres by the people for their dissensions and sects; and when, as Constantine the Great said, 'There were so many contentions and controversies in the church, that this very single calamity seemed to exceed the miseries of the former times' of persecution. When Theophilus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Ruffinus, and Jerome, all of them Christians, all fathers, and all Catholics, contested with each other with most bitter and implacable animosity; when, as Nazianzen saith, The members of the same body consumed one another.' When the eastern and western churches were divided from each other about leavened bread, and the time of keeping Easter-things of no mighty consequence. When in every council, which were then numerous, there was a new creed, and new and contrary decrees invented. What would these men have then said? to whom would they have applied themselves? from whom would they have fled? in what gospel would they have believed? whom would they have esteemed catholics, and whom heretics? Now there are only two names, Luther and Zuinglius; and what a noise is made about them! But because these two men could not agree about a certain point, shall we therefore think they are both in the wrong, that neither of them has the gospel, and that neither has preached well and truly?

'But who are they that so bitterly reflect on us for our dissensions? Do they, in the mean time, all agree among themselves? Have there never been any dissensions and controversies among them. Why

then do the Scotists and Thomists agree no better concerning the merit of congruity and that of condignity; concerning original sin in the Virgin Mary; and about a solemn and simple vow? Why do the canonists affirm that auricular confession is founded on human and positive laws; and the schoolmen, on the contrary, on divine institution? Why does Albertus Pighius differ from Cajetan; Thomas from Lombard; Scotus from Thomas; Occham from Scotus; Aliacensis from Occham; and the Nominals from the Realists? And that I may not mention the disagreements of the small brotherhoods and monks, some of which place their admired sanctity in eating of fish, others in living upon herbs; some in wearing of shoes, others in sandals; some in linen garments, and others in woollen; some in black, and some in white clothes; some shave their heads broad, and others narrow; some wear shoes, and others go barefoot; some are girded, and some go loose; besides these, they should remember that some of their divines say, that the body of Christ is naturally present in the sacrament, which is again denied by others. There also are some who say, that the body of Christ in the sacrament is torn and ground with our teeth, and again there are others who deny this; there are some who say, that the body in the sacrament hath quantity, others deny it; some say, Christ did consecrate by a certain divine power, others that he did it by his blessing; some, that he did it by conceiving the five words in his mind, others that it was by uttering them. There are some that say, that of these five words the demonstrative pronoun "this" shewed the wheaten bread, others say no; but it relates to a certain "vagum individuum" (a no