borne in mind, that neither the one nor the other had the least right to say, "we, and we alone, are the church, and all those people who refuse to submit to us, are heathens and reprobates.'

But we must not overlook the last clause in Dr. Wiseman's argument. He says, "We stand upon our rights; as the successor to a dynasty claims the crown of his ancestors, or as any member of the aristocracy in this country holds the lands of his ancestors legally given to them, from whom he inherits them; whatever branches of the family may have separated from it, or accepted other claims or prospects, that cannot shake the right line of succession, of which he is the representative."

Now here the Dr. mixes up two arguments, one of which belongs to a later stage of our inquiry. When he talks of hereditary rights, of a crown-descending in succession, and the like, we must bear in mind that he is assuming that which will shortly come under discussion, namely, the claim of the alleged successors of Peter to rule over the whole Christian church. While this point remains open for future consideration, we cannot allow the whole matter in dispute to be taken for granted; or admit, without protest, the claim put in by Dr. Wiseman.

But with regard to the rest of the above statement, we may ask, How does Dr. W. contrive to apply his own supposed case to the matter now before us? He says, "Whatever branches of the family may have separated from it, or accepted other claims or prospects, that cannot shake the right line of succession, of which he is the representative." Now no one

wishes to shake "the right line of succession" of the pope, or to deny-for the purpose of this questionthat he sits in the chair founded by Peter. We Protestants set up no rival claim-no pretender to the popedom. We dispute not the succession, but we object to the assumption of an authority which Peter himself never thought of claiming. Dr. Wiseman misses his point. The question is not as to the pope's succession; but as to the attempted excommunication

66

by the see of Rome, of all who do not humbly submit to its dominion. Therefore, when Dr. W. says, "Whatever branches of the family may have separated from it, that cannot shake the right line of succession," we reply, No! nor does their separation from the elder branch (even if it be the elder) deprive them of their blood, or their natural rights. What separation" or other circumstance can entitle one branch of a family to set itself up as the whole family, and to declare all the rest ipso facto alienated and cut off? The elder branch of the royal family of France, for instance, may have a better title to the throne than that member who now occupies it; but how could the senior line acquire the right or the power to say to the younger, "You are for ever cut off and destroyed. You are no longer a part of the Bourbon family. We alone are the Bourbons, and the blood royal in future shall be held to run in our veins exclusively."

No! Dr. Wiseman's illustration is a most unfortunate one. The great Head of the church has, in every land and in every Christian community, some sincere followers; who constitute unitedly the invisible "Catholic church." The visible church Catholic, if such a body can be supposed to exist, must be formed of all existing churches "in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered." And even were Dr. Wiseman to succeed in establishing the right of the supposed successor of Peter to a primacy over all Christian churches, even that would not warrant an "anathema" on such bodies of Christians as were not convinced of the justness of his claim. "He that believeth on the Son of God hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation," saith the Scripture; and while this word remains true, it cannot be possible for any ruler of the visible church to cancel the promise of Christ, and to make submission to him, essential to salvation! Dr. Wiseman has no more right to say, "Ours is the Catholic church; and all who are not with us, are out of that church,―in other words, are heathens and

publicans," than any one member of a family, whether the elder or the younger, would have to cancel his father's will, and of his own sole pleasure, to disinherit all those of his brethren who refused to render him the most entire obedience.

After all, then, the subtle reasonings of Dr. Wiseman succeed no better than the blunt demands of Dr. Milner. The alleged "mark" of Catholicity, as borne by the Romish church, comes at last to nothing more than this, as Dr. Milner had in the first instance stated,--that "it consists of the most numerous body of Christians."

Externally, perhaps, and judging by outward show alone, this fact may be admitted, but between universality and a mere majority, or plurality, there is a wide distinction. And let the Romanist remember, too, that there is one very awkward consequence connected with the resting their case on this single circumstance. If the Romish church is to be declared the Catholic church, and Dr. Milner so argues, —on the ground of her having "the most numerous body" of adherents, then what are we to say of that period when she unquestionably had not so numerous a body as the rival church? The Greek church in its first strength unquestionably outnumbered the Italian section. Was, then, the eastern body, as "the most numerous," the Catholic church of that day? And if not-why not? Or was the Romish church then the Catholic church; though it numbered only a portion, and the smaller portion, of the great body of Christians?

These difficulties, and others which will naturally suggest themselves, must show, to any impartial inquirer, that the claim of Catholicity, or universality, as an attribute or "mark," exclusively belonging to the church of Rome, is utterly groundless and unsupported by fact.

126

VII. THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH.

APOSTOLICITY.

erroneous.

We now proceed to the fourth "mark," 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 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 showing 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 theirs 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."*

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 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 James as its pre

* Dr.Wiseman's Ninth Lecture, p. 320,