pretensions of that church,—the conclusion may seem natural enough;-but in more than half the countries of the globe, the case would be different.

The Greek Christians might argue thus:-"Time was when Rome and Constantinople were sister patriarchates in the same Catholic and universal church. In the seventh and eighth centuries, each see was filled in turn by men of more ambition and selfwill than became their profession. Each alternately claimed the pre-eminence, while the other as firmly resisted the claim. Finally, the breach between these two sections of the general church became irreparable. The greater part of Christendom was divided between the two; the eastern patriarch taking his portion, the western his; since when the visible church has never once acted in concord and union, but each country or section has taken its own course; the greater part of Europe going with the bishop of Rome, and the Asiatic Christians, generally, with the patriarch of Constantinople. But, clearly, neither of these rulers had any right to exclude the other from his place in the visible church; or to say, that his followers constituted the Catholic church; and that all who are not subjects of his, were rebels to the great Head of the church."

The Armenian would reason in a similar manner. "Our church," he would say, "was formed at the beginning of the fourth century, when Rome advanced no pretensions to the dominion of the Christian church. At that period, at the council of Nice, no one thought. of such a thing as any dominion or rule 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 heard, 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."

Of a similar character would be the remonstrance of a member of the Syrian church at Malabar. "For 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?"

66

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 inquirer. 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 reject, 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.

76

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 show 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, Í 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

I

rival churches or communions is peculiarly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic."*

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, 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 heads, in behalf of his own church.

UNITY is the first of these distinguishing features, and the Doctor begins by arguing that it can never be said to belong to the Protestants. He then proceeds to prove that it is a distinguishing characteristic of the church of Rome.

That unity is no feature of Protestantism, he contends, 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."

To this we reply, that differences and contrarieties of opinion are no more peculiar to Protestantism than to Popery. It is true that Bossuet did exercise his skill in drawing together a great collection of individual

* Milner's End of Controversy, p. 176.