she has scarcely any sincere adherents left. France is reckoned to have thirty millions of Roman Catholics, and yet you scarcely ever see a man in her churches; and so entirely has Romanism worn itself out in that kingdom, that a late orator in the Chamber of Deputies at Paris, admitted the obvious 'want of something to fill up the vacuum caused by the disappearance of Christianity?'

Thus it is evidently impossible to admit, for a single instant, the closing assumption of Dr. Milner. He says, in claiming for the Italian church the title of Catholic, Does not this effulgent mark of the true religion so incontestably belong to us, that the rule of Cyril and Augustine is as good and certain now, as it was in their times?'

We answer, No! for the following reasons:

1. Because the whole face of the Christian world has been entirely changed since the days in which Cyril and Augustine wrote. The faith professed throughout this universal church was the simple and scriptural creed now received by all Protestants. Unity had not been destroyed by the assumptions and demands of the Roman bishops, nor had the main errors of Popery,-transubstantiation, the mass, the celibacy of the clergy, or the worship of images, then taken root. The scriptures were honoured and obeyed; and with internal unity, a form of government handed down by the apostles, and general purity of doctrine in fundamental points, it was natural that Cyril and Augustine should enjoin strict adherence to the Catholic church, and avoidance of all schisms and divisions. In their days, there was one Catholic, or Christian church, spread over many parts of the world, but holding one

doctrine, adhering to one creed, and deciding all questions by its assemblies or councils.

Now, however, all is changed. We have the Greek churches, which are as ancient as that of Rome. We have also various bodies of equal antiquity; as the Syrian churches, the Maronites, and others. And we have also the inhabitants of eight or ten kingdoms besides, who were formerly attached to Rome, but who have thrown off her yoke, and have protested against her corruptions. And after all these changes, what can be more evident, more undeniable, than this; that the advice of Cyril and Augustine, to cling fast to the Catholic, the universal church, can no longer apply. Let any man possessed of common sense, and not already embarked in this controversy, say,-whether there is any one Catholic or universal church visibly discernible at the present moment? And still more, whether it is possible, without the greatest violence to reason, and the plain meaning of the words, to declare, that the Romish church is the universal church, and that, consequently, the greater part of Christendom is out of the pale of Christian communion? But,

2. We answer, NO!-because this change in the state of Christendom, this distraction and disunion of the Christian world, has been produced mainly and almost solely by the misconduct of Rome herself.

The Christian church, which was one and united in the days of Cyril and Augustine, has been split into various communions, chiefly by the intolerable assumptions and unscriptural pretensions of the Romish see.

Had Rome, in the seventh and eighth centuries, maintained Gregory's position, that no one prelate

had a right to the title of universal bishop, she might have succeeded in preserving the unity of the church. But she soon began to oppose the claims of the patriarch of Constantinople by advancing still higher claims herself; and the end of this controversy was, the first great division of the visible church into two leading sections.

Again, having now only the west remaining to her, Rome soon made her yoke so heavy, that half of Europe cast it off. In the ninth century, she had broken off all connexion with the larger half of the Christian world. In the fifteenth, she quarrelled with half of that section which remained with her. And yet, after all these secessions,-secessions, too, caused by her own inadmissible pretensions, she coolly anathematizes the seceders, and declares that those who abide by her, and those only, constitute the Christian or catholic church!

But this position is evidently untenable, except, indeed, she can show that with her, and with her alone, is the truth of Christianity to be found. If Christianity exists in other communions, as we must fain hope it does, then it must be impossible to maintain the claim of the Romish church to be, exclusively and solely, the catholic or universal church. Historically, as we have already shown, she is not so; geographically or statistically, it is equally clear she is not so; and consequently it can only be by the clearest proof, that the truth is with her, and with her alone,—that her right to the title can be established.

III.

ON THE RULE OF FAITH.

THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH EXAMINED.

We have seen, then, that the attempt to impose the decisions of the church of Rome upon mankind, as the decisions of the Catholic or Universal church, is wholly unwarranted by the facts of the case. Let us now try to get a little closer to her pretensions, and to see what weight attaches to her claims, when considered on their own intrinsic merits.

We shall nowhere find a more artful and effective statement of the case, as against the Protestant rule of faith, and in favour of the Romish, than in Dr. Wiseman's Lectures. He thus states the argument :

'The authority of history, or of ecclesiastical tradition, independently of the divine force, allowed it by the Catholic, can prove no more than the genuineness or truth of the scripture narrative; but to be available as a proof of inspiration, must carry us directly to the attestation of the only witnesses capable of certifying the circumstance. It may be true, that the church, or body of Christians, in succeeding

times, believed the books of the New Testament to be inspired. But if that church and its traditions are not infallible, that belief goes no farther than a mere human or historical testimony; it can verify, therefore, no more than such testimony ever can; that is, outward and visible facts, such as the publication, and consequently the legitimacy of a work. The only way in which it can attest the interior acts which accompanied its compilation, is, by preserving the assurances of those who, besides God, could alone be witnesses to them. Now, ecclesiastical history has not preserved to us this important testimony; for no where have we the record of any of these writers having asserted his own inspiration. And thus, by rejecting tradition as an authority, is the only basis for the inspiration of scripture cut away.'

'Hitherto, then, my brethren, of what have I been treating? Why of nothing more than the preliminaries requisite to commence the study of the Protestant rule of faith. I have merely shown that the obstacles and difficulties to receiving the Bible, as the word of God, are numerous and complicated; and yet, if it is the duty of every Protestant to believe all that he professes, because he has sought and discovered it in the word of God; if, consequently, it is his duty to be satisfied only on his own evidence, as the divines of his church have stated; if, to attain this conviction, it is necessary for him to go through a long and painful course of learned disquisitions; and if, after all these have been encountered, he cannot come to a satisfactory demonstration of the most important point of inspiration, I ask you, can the rule, in the approach to which you must pass through such a labyrinth of difficulties, be that which