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 shew 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, I 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 rival churches or communions is peculiarly one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.' 1

6

6

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,

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

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 be 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 Dr. begins by arguing that it can never be said to belong to the Protestants generally, or to the church of England in particular. He then proceeds to prove that it is a distinguishing characteristic of the church of Rome. He contends,

1. That unity is no feature of Protestantism, 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.'

2. That the church of England is equally destitute of it, is shown from divers opposing views advocated by different parties in the church ;-the orthodox, the evangelical, the favourers of Arianism and Socinianism, as evidenced by many quotations brought from Blackburne, Balguy, Watson, Hoadley, and other celebrated preachers in the church.

3. That the church of Rome is strictly ONE,' is next shewn,-' first,' says Dr. M., in her faith and terms of communion. The same creeds, namely, the Apostles' creed, the Nicene creed, the Athanasian creed, and the creed of Pope Pius IV. are everywhere recited and professed; the same articles of faith and morality are taught in all our catechisms; and the same rule of faith is admitted by all Catholics throughout the four quarters of the globe.'1 Se

1 End of Controversy, p. 191.

9

condly,' she is also uniform in whatever is essential in her Liturgy.' 'So that,' continues Dr. M., 'when Catholics landing at one of the neighbouring ports. from India, Canada, or Brazil, come to my chapel, I find them capable of joining with me in every essential part of the divine service.' And, lastly, she possesses a regular, uniform, ecclesiastical constitution and government, and a due subordination; so that each single Catholic is subject to his pastor, each pastor submits to his bishop; and each bishop acknowledges the supremacy of the successor of St. Peter.'

6

1

Such, then, are the doctor's positions with regard to the first point, and it may be as well if we discuss and settle this, before we proceed to the others. We will take up his statements seriatim, and assert,—

1. 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 errors and contradictions; but he never made out half such a case against the Protestants, as Mr. Edgar has since done against the church of Rome, in his Variations of Popery. The only fair and honest way of judging of this question, is not by raking up the words of this or that man, or the follies of some little sect or faction, but by taking a just and large view of the main features of each party.

Now on the side of Protestantism it is to be observed, that at the period of the Reformation, the various nations which threw off the yoke of Rome, all felt the necessity of some public document, or con

1 Milner's End of Controversy, p. 194.

fession of faith, and all, acting independently, and without combination, consent, or collusion, proceeded to compose such declaration. Twelve Confessions, namely, the Augustan, Tetrapolitan, Polish, Saxon, Bohemian, Wittembergian, Palatine, Helvetian, French, Dutch, English, and Scottish, appeared within a few years. These were composed by clergy scattered all over Europe, and they represented the views embraced by all the Protestant nations of Europe. And instead of presenting, as Dr. Milner would have us believe, a chaos of contradiction and confusion, ‘the harmony is truly surprising, and constitutes an extraordinary event in the history of man. The annals of religion and philosophy supply no other example of such unity, agreement, and consistency.

All these comprehensive abridgments showed, in varied diction, an astonishing unity in the main, on all doctrinal questions, though they might differ in discipline, form, and ceremony.'1 What trifling, then, is it, to turn away from this extraordinary proof of essential unity of doctrine, as shown in public documents, and to aim at proving contrariety by a reference to the errors and follies of individual writers.

But does the same unity mark the church of Rome? By no means. How does Dr. Milner attempt to prove it? By her creeds. Well, but the church of England holds and constantly uses the three ancient creeds, as well as the church of Rome, and yet Dr. Milner will not allow the church of England to possess unity of doctrine. And the fourth, the modern creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, which constitutes the main difference between Rome and England, as far as creeds 1 Edgar's Variations of Popery, p. 32.

G